Meet the Press NOW — May 12

You have a reason to care. You know someone you've lost someone, you've lived it. The darkest times are no match for what we can do together. Join us for the CAMH sunrise challenge from May 25th to 29th.

Canadians are waking up with the sun to raise funds for a future where everyone can access the mental health care they need, the moment they need it. Get up with the sun, show up for CAMH and rise up for mental health. Register today at SunriseChallenge CA. That's SunriseChallenge CA.

And welcome to BEAT the PRESS Now. I'm Aaron Gilchrist and that is the closing bell. On Wall street today. The market's rallying on the strength of what's becoming a familiar sight here in Washington is temporary rollback of President Trump's signature tariffs.

The Dow closed higher by more than 1,000 points, a gain of nearly 3. The S& P, the Nasdaq both up more than 3% today. But this rally comes after the US and China agreed to a joint 90 day reduction in tariffs. That's after both sides met this weekend in Switzerland.

Now the US said it would reduce tariffs on Chinese imports to 30%. That's from 145% as both countries try to negotiate a more substantial deal here. China will also lower its tariffs on U.S. goods to 10% from 125%.

President Trump called the announcement a total reset in negotiations even though recently he told reporters that he would not drop tariffs on China unless Beijing gave up something, quote, substantial. Joining me now with more on TODAY in the Markets is NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung. So, Brian, the markets are happy today. I think that's fair to say.

Is this more about the 90 day pause or what the 90 day pause tells the markets about how far President Trump is willing to go in this fight with China? Yeah, Aaron, I think what it tells us is that we are likely past the worst of it just in terms of the number on the tariff rate itself because, yes, you had that DE escalation of 145% tariff that we were levying on Chinese goods coming into this country that is now at an effective rate of 30%. But you also heard from the president earlier today telling reporters that he doesn't think even after the 90 days that there is no in the worst case scenario resolution that he would re raise it back up to 145%. He said he could go higher from here, but it would likely not go back to 145% because it is an effective embargo on trade between these two largest economies.

That's the reason why you had a Dow Jones end of the day up over 1100 points. I want to point out that if we zoom out, yes, there was certainly a point in time we were down as much as 11% on the Dow Jones industrial average for the year. But now effective for 2025, we are now only down about 3/10 of a percent. So essential now flat, even though despite we face all this volatility here.

But of course, the question is what happens in those 90 days? Can a deal actually get inked? Because this is not a deal today. It's just an agreement to lower those rates.

That's the question I was going to put to you. We have 90 days goes by here, right? Increased tariffs could be back in play at that point. What sense are you getting from the world right now?

Are businesses wary about that? Do we have a sense of how they will respond with these 90 days, how they're going to spend these 90 days on the markets? This could potentially deic business activity between the US And China. As we know, during the period of time where Chinese goods are facing 145% coming to the United States, you had companies that were canceling orders coming out of China.

That's a big reason why recent export data we saw at the end of last week showed that US imports from China had plummeted something like 21% while China's exports to other parts of the world's, specifically Southeast Asia, had surged. Now that these rates are now lowered to 30%, you can see that some companies might say, you know what, this is a rate by which we could continue to order even if we would have to raise some of those costs on consumers. Yet remember, 30% is still relatively substantial, all things considered. But again, nonetheless, the deicing of trade and perhaps allowing these lower rate to resume conversations and trade between two countries that has Wall street certainly excited.

So Brian, I want to play something for our viewers here. This is the President's economic advisor, Kevin Hassett, this morning on tv. Listen, is no country going to see a tariff rate of less than 10% in any of these deals? That'll be up to President Trump.

That'll get the President Trump. There are some products that perhaps have exclusions and so a lot of countries have a lot of those products. But in the end what we'll see how it does though. So 10% is the anchor tariff right now for Everybody.

So a 10% tariff on everybody we know would have shocked the market four months ago. Brian, are Investors and businesses sort of more okay with this idea. Now that 10% baseline compared to what else President Trump has proposed over the last several weeks. Well, I mean it shows how much oversimplifying has shifted.

Now you have companies that are saying 10% will take it even though 10% is still dramatically higher than where it was prior to this administration taking form and taking the Oklahoma on inauguration. Now I want to point out that the US General Commerce has spoken out since the de escalation of the compensation channel used with China where he imports so many electronics, clothing, those types of things. The US General Congress is still winning. Tariffs are still really high.

They said the following. While any agreement that reduces tariffs is good news, it's worth to note that even with this trend agreement, tariffs are much higher overall than where they were at the beginning of this year. They say that small businesses are still dealing with growing costs and disruptions. To your point, Aaron.

Yes. You have the 30% on China, the 10% on the rest of the world. This is still a very tariff global economy that we're facing. Again, can the administration negotiate with all those countries going forward?

Will have to see. All right, Brian. John Force in New York Day. Brian, thank you.

As we mentioned, rolling back tariffs on China this early in negotiations is another apparent 180 for President Trump. So here's some of what he told reporters recently on Air Force One and some of what he told our Kristen Welker during her recent exclusive interview on the press. Would you consider dropping the tariffs to get China to negotiate? No.

So you're not just, you're not dropping the tariffs against China to get them to negotiate. Table those tariffs are staying on. Would you lower them at some point? I'm going to lower them because otherwise you could never do business with them.

And they want to do business very much. Look, their economy is really doing badly. Their economy is collapsing. Now while telling today's news, the president said that tariffs could go back up if no deal is reached in the next 90 days.

He also suggested though there was a new limit on how high they could go and that the prior rate of 145% was too high. If a longer term deal is not reached with China at the end of these 90 days, can the American people expect those tariffs to go back up to 145%? No, but they would go up substantially higher. You know, 145 year old decoupling because nobody's going to buy.

But they can go. They got very high because of additional tariffs I applied during the course because of fentanyl and other things, but no, but they go substantially higher. I think he will have a deal, however. Now the president's softening on tariffs against China comes after those 145% tariffs threatened to turn US ports into ghost towns.

That sparked fears of supply chain disruptions and empty shelves in stores. It also comes after Fed Chair Jerome Powell bluntly warned last week that tariffs could lead to a toxic combination of lower employment and higher prices for the U.S. economy. NBC's Yamiche Alcindor is at the White House for us Today.

NBC senior policy reporter Shannon Paypce is on set with me here and my colleague Jacob Soborough is at the port of Long Beach, California, with a firsthand look at the impacts of President Trump's tariffs on global shipping there. Yamiche, I'll start with you here. Help us understand what went into this pause that we're seeing with tariffs. What do we know about what happened in Switzerland?

Well, we know that those meetings went over and had they went on for two days. There was long nights that they had to order dinner the first night because they were talking for so long. And the whole sides came out saying that they made progress and that things were constructive and friendly and that they essentially had an agreement at least for 90 days to pause most tariffs and trade barriers. So essentially, you know, that these meetings went well.

It's really interesting to me that of course, President Trump and President she had it directly had negotiations, were understanding that this is at least the way forward. And the president said coming forward in the next few days here that there are more talks. So essentially things are going well for now. Aaron.

So we know that President Trump recently said he would need some concessions from China in order to lower tariffs. What do you understand about that? What concessions did he actually get with his team in Switzerland? That's a really good question.

We know, of course, that China is slashing their 125% tariff for about 10% at the same way the president is saying that the US is going to go from about 145% to 30%. That being said, I think the details of what was given out and what was given, what the concessions were for each side, I think that's the sort of mystery here that we don't particularly know. I think hopefully it gets more important as we learn more about what happened in Switzerland, but also because these talks are continuing to happen. I know I'm talking to my sources, I know everyone talking to their sources, trying to figure out what else they're trying to hash out over these next nine days.

Aaron, we talked about some of the warnings that have been out there, right. We've had warnings from companies here in the United States, from market watchers. We had the Fed chair, Jerome Powell last week. Did these worries about rising prices and empty store shelves sort of help move the White House here?

Honestly, I think that these worries helped move both countries. And talking to the White House here, let's talk, let's remember that the US And China are the world's two biggest economies. And a long term fight between these two countries would really possibly experts, help me damage the global economy. Not just sort of prices here at home, not just prices in China, but all over the world.

So there was real, I think there was both of these countries really wanted to try to work something out. It was interesting that Chinese officials, after this meeting, there's a lot of worry about whether or not the US Was maybe saying that there was a deal and there wasn't a deal. But when the Chinese officials came out, they said, look, we don't want to trade war either, so let's try to work this out. That tells you that both of these countries were very motivated to get a deal done.

All right, thank you, Yamiche. Let's turn to Shannon Petty piece now. And Shannon, I want to talk about the big picture here because we know that's what you look at, what changed, what didn't change or has not changed since President Trump first put these tariffs, big tariffs in place back at the beginning of April. Well, effectively we're right back where we were before this Liberation Day, which of course the president had billed as this moment to liberate the US of unfair trade practices.

Essentially all the tariffs from them have been unwound. There's been a few added since then, like on auto imports and sectoral industry ones. But we're back to where we were when it just comes to the number on tariffs coming in with that flat 10% rate now in effect on all countries. That big chart we saw the Liberation Day, all those confusing tariffs, those are gone.

We're now about 10% for most countries with a few exceptions. But over this month period, even though we're maybe back to that point, a lot has changed for businesses and investors and companies for small businesses. This month has really roiled them. And this the past week was really the moment where things started to get real from a logistics and supply chain.

That was when the last of the goods that were on the water, when the terrorist effect had all cleared through the port. It takes A few weeks for those kids across the country and anything else coming in was going to get hit with the tariffs. So you mentioned those signs of empty ports of the supply chain, destruction, waiting for it. Last week was when that really started to become a reality because companies had halted those shipments, halt the production because they weren't going to pay those additional tariffs.

So I'm curious about your understanding of the end game here for the White House. Right. We had the President writing about big profits coming into the US Government by way of these tariffs they want to put in place. And now you talk about getting back to status quo.

What's the end game here? What are they really trying to make happen? Well, a lot of that messaging on even a political and policy side has sort of been undone, at least temporarily. We'll wait to see what happens.

But I mean, remember last week the President was talking about how children don't need so many dolls, they don't need all these toys. We don't need stuff from China. The Treasury Secretary spent weeks making the case that we didn't need cheap, we call them baubles from China, that there was a bigger mission here and that was bringing back companies and bringing back investment in manufacturing. The United States down to the 30% tariff and we'll see where it goes from there.

There's not that same incentive for US Companies to come back to the US For a toy maker to relocate its production here. So they lose that talking point. They also lose a talking point about the revenue they're going to generate from tariffs. Obviously, they still will be generating revenue from tariffs, but not at that same level that the administration had talked about really offsetting so many of the other cost cut, tax cuts and other spending priorities that they had.

We also know that these negotiations with China are not happening in a vacuum. Other countries, businesses, other places are watching and paying attention. What are they, what are they getting? What are they learning from what is happening between the US And China?

Well, and there's a few data points now too. There's obviously the UK last week where there was a deal, not necessarily a deal on paper like this deal. It's not clear what exactly the concessions were from the UK to get things like the tariffs on autos reduced. And there's also, remember Mexico and Canada have been through this too, where the tariffs were on again, then off, then on again, then off.

So there's a number of countries, Canada, Mexico, uk, China, where we've seen a repeating pattern of the countries essentially holding their ground, not offering major concessions and certainly Nothing in writing or in paper in an official trade agreement form yet being able to get substantial tariffs rolled back and really continue with the status quo. So I think other countries can look at that as well. Yeah, we'll all be watching that. Shanty peace for station.

Thank you. Jacob Sobroff is getting a look at the impact of the tariffs up close. Four stage. Aaron, I'm coming to you from the port of Long Beach.

As part of the largest port complex in the world, Los Angeles and Long beach combined have the most cargo volume of any port in the United States of America. This is quite literally one of the biggest economic engines for our nation. But for the last several weeks and particularly today, we're essentially at a standstill here at the port of Long Beach. The shipping vessels that were coming to cargo ships are so much fewer than number today that some of the port terminals have actually had to stand down because they don't need the workers to come in and unload the ship.

The question on everyone's mind here today is what is the impact of this 90 day pause? This a preliminary trade agreement announced between China and the United States. And the answer is it is too soon to understand the ramifications here. It takes weeks for those ships to come from China and make their way to the United States, sometimes as short as 10 days, but oftentimes over two weeks long.

They have to actually book those appointments for those ships to be able to come into the port here in Long beach. At the Port of Los Angeles, which is controlled by the city of Los Angeles, he put onto trucks, be put onto trains and move logistically throughout those centers throughout the country for people to buy those products. The prices did come in a limited amount during that heightened tariff situation will be much more costly and those costs will be passed on to the consumer. What happens now in these 90 days, people are worrying here.

Experts are saying there could be a backlog of ships trying to get in that 90 day pause because we don't know what's happening on the other side. Uncertainty is the name of the game. You can see it. You know, it's one thing to talk about, it's one thing to hear the experts, the leaders of the ports, politicians, but it's not a thing to be out here.

I've lived in Los Angeles almost my entire life. I've been to this port countless times. This is one of the quietest moments I've seen at the port of Long beach in all my reporting here over many years. And so I think at the end of the day what we're waiting for 90 days.

Will Ships come? If they will, there'll be enough logistical operations here in order to bring those ships in, unload those goods with reduced tariffs. Or we have a backlog like we saw during COVID a dozen ships stacked out into the Pacific Ocean. There's one ship coming in right now.

One ship coming in is a lot fewer than they're used to here, Aaron. And so we're keep an eye on it. And I know that people back in Washington as well. Aaron Jacob for us Sign California.

Coming up, finally, free Hamas releases the last living American hostage from Gaza as President Trump heads to the Middle east to meet with Arab leaders. Plus, the Trump administration says it's taking aim at the cost of prescription drugs, upping pressure on drug makers to slash prices here in the US you're watching Beat THE Press now. Well, after more than a year and a half in Hamas activity, Adon Alexander was released by Hamas and is now back in Israel. He's believed to be the last living American hostage in Gaza.

The 21 year old was handed over to the Red Cross in Khan Yunus and then transferred to the Israeli military. These pictures were just released of his emotional reunion with his family that says his mother and family members hug him for the first time in more than 19 months. President Trump celebrated his release while also noting that other American families continue to fight for the return of the bodies of their deceased loved ones still in the Gaza Strip. As you know, it ends up the only American citizen scaptured and held hostage by Hamas since October 7, 2023.

And he's coming home to his parents, which is really great news. Getting the bodies back. It's very important. That could be a thing having to do with religion.

It could be. I was amazed at the level of importance. It's the same as if the son or husband or whatever was alive. President Trump is now on his way to the Middle east, where he will stop in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, but not in Israel.

The President Trump is under scrutiny for what appears to be his focus on business deals over diplomacy. The Trump administration also confirmed it's preparing to accept a $400 million luxury jet from Boeing that's going to be coming from the royal family of Qatar for President Trump to use as Air Force One while he's in office and then to be donated to his presidential library. Joining me now is NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Kuby and Dennis Ross, former special envoy for Mideast peace and NBC News foreign affairs analyst. He's also out with a new book titled Statecraft 2.0.

What America needs to Lead in a Multipolar World. Courtney, I do start with you. You the President's gonna be stopping in Qatar, which we know is gifting the President with a luxury jet. Aside from the ethical issues that may exist here, what sort of security issues, what risk could this pose?

Yeah. And while the Trump administration is insisting that they will, they will follow all applicable laws if in fact they take this luxury jet, $400 million Boeing Jumbo Jet from the Qatari royal family. But the reality is, Aaron, there's a lot more here at stake than just the ethical issues. When you talk about actually getting this aircraft to essentially be a new Air Force One.

And one of the biggest is retrofitting it or making sure that it is able to have the communications capability necessary for an Air Force One. Now, that would mean basically stripping parts of the aircraft out to provide the secure communication that the President would always need. Remember, he needs to have 24 hour access to nuclear command control communications at the most secure level, no matter where he is, anytime, day or night. That includes while he's on an aircraft.

But it's not just the secure communications. The possibility of taking an aircraft from a foreign national, a foreign government that is even an all opens up the possibility that it could have listening devices or any kind of monitoring devices that would be embedded in an errand. We're not talking about big devices that would be sort of hidden in the lamp, the lampshades and things. We're talking about very small, very hard to detect, very sophisticated potential monitoring devices.

The rally is officials we spoke to about this, since this came out yesterday have said you would basically have to take that aircraft apart to ensure that there is nothing in there that can compromise communications of the President and his closest advisors. Aaron, every screw, every bolt would have to be examined to make sure that it's not something that's pin sized that could be used nefariously accordingly. We also obviously the President is going to Middle east, right? But notably, he is not stopping in Israel on this trip.

I know you have some reporting about tensions in this relationship between President Trump and the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. What more can you tell us about that? Yeah, Aaron, look, it's not that every President who goes to the Middle east doesn't automatically stop in Israel. But what's notable about the fact that the President is not going there on this trip is the fact that he came into office with the sense that he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had this very close relationship, these close ties, and that they were really aligned on some of the most important issues about the two nations share and specifically about the threat from Iran and specifically from Iran's nuclear capabilities and then also the war in Gaza.

Well, since January 20th, when President Trump was sworn in, things have changed a bit and their policies have really drifted apart, specifically on Gaza. We were told, according to a number of officials, that President Trump was frustrated when Prime Minister Netanyahu restarted a military offensive in Gaza several weeks ago, that it was counter to what President Trump had talked about, rebuilding Gaza. Also, we know that Prime Minister Netanyahu was frustrated last week when President Trump opened up the possibility that Iran could have some sort of a civilian and peaceful nuclear program. Aaron.

All right, Courtney, QE4 at the Pentagon. Courtney, thank you. Let's turn to Ambassador Ross now. Ambassador, we know President Trump's first foreign trip during his first term was also to the Middle east, as it is this time around.

What's top of mind for you with this particular trip this week? We know that things have changed significantly in that region in the last four or five years. Well, I find what's interesting is just as his first foreign trip in 2017 was to Saudi Arabia, so is the first foreign trip this time to Saudi Arabia. Then is now the priority was very much in the economic financial dimension.

It was very much focused on being able to announce major deals. Those major deals were both weapon systems and obviously projects that would be invested in. This time around, we will see something very similar. I think what it highlights is that the president, when he looks internationally, he thinks less about geopolitics and more about what are the economic gains to be won.

And you will see on this trip in Saudi Arabia, then Qatar and then the uae, I think announcements with very large dollar figures about what will be invested here, American companies that may invest there. This is very much reflecting, I think, a worldview that says the way this president thinks about our place in the world is how can we benefit economically, how can I bring investments here? How can I have American companies investing there? It is focused more on that and less on the security dimensions of foreign policy.

And I think we're seeing a replay of that. That's what this very much tells me as I look at this trip. Well, I do want to ask you a little bit about the security dimensions of this. As you know, there's a lot of geopolitical development in the Middle east as of late.

We have the ongoing Israel Hamas war. There's an apparent agreement between the US and the Houthis to stop attacks, talks between the US And Iran as well. What do you make of this tactic that the administration seems to be using, not seeming to consult with Israel on many of these big issues in that region? Well, it's a departure for sure.

Every administration, even ones that have been not necessarily characterized by really close relations with the Israelis, would still almost always coordinate with them, inform them and advance. A big move. Not always, but most of the time. Now recently we've seen Trump administration do a deal with Houthis that affected only American ships, no attacks on Israel, no Houthi commitments not to attack Israeli ships or what they define as anything connected Israel.

That's a very broad definition. A decision to negotiate with the Iranians that is announced in the presence of the prime minister without him knowing that was going to be the case decision. Now, it appears as part of the discussion with the Saudis to take modernization and development of a nuclear industry in Saudi Arabia, which was going to be part of a package in which the Saudis got that along with the events reading returns where they would use normalization with Israel. Now that's being extracted from that package and it's going to stand on its own without any reference to Israel.

So these are examples, along with negotiating directly with Hamas, something that no administration previously did, that this one did and the Israelis didn't know about it. So there's a, there's a pattern here of the president basically saying where I define there's something in our interest, I'm going to go ahead and do it. And I don't feel duty boundaries to have to somehow discuss it in advance with the Israelis or with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I think this is an interesting departure from what we've seen in the past.

I only have a few seconds left, but I want to ask you about over the weekend, we saw the U.S. iran held another round of talks. Which side you think has more leverage going into these talks? Do you think they're any closer to a deal?

Today the US And Iran, we have dramatically more leverage. The Iranians are vulnerable because the Israelis took out all their strategic air defense. So they're very vulnerable to attack on the inside. They have electricity shortages, even though they produce natural gas and oil.

They have profound water shortages. They are in desperate need of a deal. So we have the leverage. The question is, what can we get out of this?

I hope the objective is at the end of the day, Iran will be giving up its nuclear weapons option. They can sell nuclear power, but they can't preserve the option to be able to turn that into a weapon. All right. Ambassador Dennis Ross, we appreciate your time and expertise on this.

Thank you, sir. Welcome. And up next, Republicans on Capitol Hill at odds with each other over taxes and Medicaid as they unveil new plans on both major issues that are creating major conflicts. You're watching MEET THE press now.

It's here. The Ford is a big not yet. The Fort is a big deal. Oh, guys, just wait.

The Ford It's a big Deal event is on. Really? Now hurry to release the 2026 Maverick XLT Hybrid all wheel drive for one 97 biweekly at 5.29% ADR for six months with $29.95 down, that's like $99 a week. The Ford is a big deal event.

Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford Casual. And welcome back. Today, President Trump signed a sweeping executive order setting a 30 day deadline for drug makers to lower the cost of prescription medications. The order calls for HEALTH SECRETARY ROBERT KENNEDY jr.

To negotiate new price levels for prescription drugs. If a deal is not reached, the order states that Kennedy will move to impose a new rule capping US Drug prices at the lowest rates paid by other wealthy nations. Now, the federal government has some authority to shake prices of certain drugs that covers through programs like Medicare and Medicaid. But the real impact of this order is unclear at this point, especially for the millions of Americans who have private health insurance.

The president signed a similar order to cut drug costs in his first term, but failed to take it, failed to take effect after a federal judge blocked it. Joining me now is NBC News health and medical reporter Berkley Lovelace Jr. Who's been digging into this. And I read your piece on NBC news.com, it really helps explain what's going on here.

So the president said as March Day that prescription drug prices will drop, quote, almost immediately. How realistic is that idea? Yeah, so we did say that White House, they actually walked that back a little bit. They actually said we expect relief very soon and we expect the drug makers to come to the table very soon.

So not exactly immediate, but there are questions on whether or not Trump will be able to get this done and whether he has legal authority to do this right now, you'll recall the Biden administration negotiated drug prices under Medicare, but that was passed under Congress, not an executive order. And so this policy from Trump is much broader. So he's saying that it will not only go after Medicare, but also will go for drugs under Medicaid and private insurance as well. He even mentioned the weight loss drugs as a mic, saying that they'll target those as well.

But there's still a lot of questions whether or not he has the authority to go out after all these drugs under commercial markets as well. So I'm curious about the reaction to this. We know the president signed a less aggressive version of this executive order during his first term. There was pushback from the drug medication industry at that time.

How is the pharmaceutical industry responding this time around? How might they respond going forward? Yes, as you know, they did block Trump's original version of that plan as well. And so they're already pushing back now.

We're already getting responses. AstraZeneca responded today to U.S. pharma, the drug industry trade group also responded to us. They said we should instead focus on insurance companies and middlemen rather than pharmaceutical companies, which is a very common line of argument from them.

No lawsuits yet, but we should expect some more lawsuits to come. I want to play something for our viewers, something the president said earlier today. Watch this. The pharmaceutical companies make most of their money, most of their profits from America.

Basically, what we're doing is equalizing. There's a new word that I came up with, which I think is probably the best word. We're going to equalize. We're all going to pay the same.

So, Bertha, can you help us fact check some of what we just heard here from the president, this idea that Americans are paying more than folks in other countries or pharmaceutical companies are making more from Americans here. What exactly are the differences between what other wealthy nations are spending on medication versus us? Yeah, so that's actually true. So we do have the highest drug prices in the world.

We pay something like up to 10 times more than what other wealthy nations pay. A lot of that has to do with the fact that drug companies in the US have basically had free rein to charge whatever they want or whatever the market will bear. Other countries, otherworldly countries, they often negotiate their drug prices. And so I do find it interesting that the Trump administration has not been supporting the Biden Medicare drug pricing negotiations because they are able to there to negotiate prices under Medicare.

I think today on the White House call, they called the pricing negotiations inadequate and said that this policy instead would be much broader. But that policy was passed under Congress, so it is a viable avenue for them to target. So it's something that I'm watching as well to see whether or not they end up supporting that as well. As long as we know families are impacted by these costs of vacations so perfectly love legislation.

Thanks. Let's turn now to the ongoing clash over Medicaid that's happening on Capitol Hill. Yesterday, House Republicans released a key chunk of that massive bill that's in the works now to fund President Trump's agenda. The new legislation would slash Medicaid spending and expand restrictions on recipients.

The bill did not include potentially harsher cuts to the program. That's after the debate ignited Republican infighting. But the bill is still meeting some pushback from Democrats and even some Republican senators are balking at the idea of in a New York Times op ed, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley warned that many people in his state would lose health care and hospitals would close if his party went through with cuts to Medicaid. Joining me now from Capitol Hill is NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapoor.

Sahil, so help us understand what's in this newly released text of this agenda bill and what would it change about how Medicaid is handled? Hey, Aaron. Well, the bill has significant cuts and structural changes to Medicaid that House Republicans are planning to mark up and vote out of committee tomorrow. That's the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Specifically, there are limitations to Medicaid in the form of work requirements for able bodied adults under 65. They have to prove that they're working or trying to find work or doing community service to a significant degree to access any Medicaid benefits at all. There are eligibility, tougher eligibility, screenings verifications to make sure that people are citizens, people who are not citizens aren't getting Medicaid. Or also federal Medicaid funding cuts to states who allow coverage for undocumented people.

All in all, the bill does not include the most aggressive ideas that problems concerning that the most amount of money, including per capita caps on Medicaid spending, as well as reducing the federal burden on the Medicaid population, especially the Medicaid expansion population under ACA from what is currently 90%. The Congressional Budget Office nevertheless estimates that the entire healthcare section of this bill would include cuts and savings of $715 billion and rescind coverage for 8.6 million people in the United States. That is the part that Democrats are going to be focusing heavily on arguing that this bill goes too far and hurts too many people. You know, we also saw House Republicans unveil the text of a tax proposal today.

We know this text left out a decision on how much to lift the cap on state and local tax deductions. So what do we know about the battle there? That's, that's ongoing. Well, essentially the Ways and Means Committee, which is also applying to markup as tax bill tomorrow, is punting on one of the most difficult questions within the conference, which is what to do about the state local tax deduction, which Republicans capped at $10,000 during the first Trump presidency.

There are a whole slew of Republicans, at least a dozen of them in high cap states like New York and New Jersey, who insist on raising that cap because it hurt their constituents the most. What the Ways Means Committee is doing is essentially punting that question, putting in a number, a $30,000 limit that these Republicans have said is inadequate, at least many of them have said is inadequate. It's precisely the deal that they rejected. And one pro salt Republican told me, quote, we are not budging on this and the bill as written will not receive any of our votes, unquote.

In other words, there are at least four Republicans who are going to vote against this bill to reach the floor and four Republicans have not to scald this in an entire House passing. Let me ask you too, before I let you go. President Trump has been floating increasing the tax rate for the highest earners. We've heard him talk about that recently.

How is that being received by Republicans in Congress? Not well. They pretty much, in fact rejected President Trump's idea here. They also see it for what it is, which is a half baked flow.

Every time President Trump puts this out there, either quietly or frontally, he kind of hedges. He wants it back. He says, I'm not really committed to it. He worries that the Democrats for doing this.

So at the end of the day, the Republican Party is still essentially where it is on party orthodoxy, which is that they don't want to increase taxes on anyone, certainly not ask when earners. Aaron. All right. So the core for us on Hill today.

Thank you, sir. And after the break, law and disorder. The White House says it's weighing the suspension of due process for millions of people in the United States, sparking backlash and new concerns about constitutional crisis. The panel is up next.

You're watching me. The pressure now. Welcome back. Legal experts over the weekend were sounding alarm bells after White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller suggested that the Trump administration was, quote, looking at moving to unilaterally suspend the writ of habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants.

Habeas is a bedrock protection granting anyone detained in the US the right to have their case heard before a judge. Now, legal experts have asserted that the president does not have the ability to unilaterally suspend habeas Corpus and that that authority lies with Congress. Joining me now is notice politics reporter Reese Gorman emerged President Ashanti Golar and president and executive editor of the Daily Signal, Rob Louie, a lot of ground to cover here coming out of the weekend, guys. Let's start recent we can with this sort of float, I guess from Stephen Miller.

Does it feel like the White House is sort of testing the waters on this idea at this point? How much stock should we really put in into this idea suspending Hades? They're definitely, as we've seen throughout this administration, definitely stalkpoint, despite everything they're saying. But I mean, members of Congress, especially behind closed doors and private art, are saying that they do think that they are the ones that have the power to have suspend this.

Not necessarily that the president has a lot of authority. Let me see a lot of. They don't publicly say this. There's a handful of members who have publicly kind of disputed stuff.

The president says a lot behind closed doors. A lot more will say this, but people have to see me. Is this, are they actually going to do this? We don't really know.

We've seen the kind of float other things around that not really came to fruition, but we'll have to see. So Rob, I want to play some video from the weekend. This was Wyoming Senator John Barrasso saying to Kristen Welker talking about Miller's comments on this. Watch this.

Would you vote to suspend habeas corpus if this were brought before Congress? Ultimately, this power lies with Congress. Congress, the president said he's gonna follow the law. He was on with you last week.

He said he has great, great respect for the Supreme Court. He said he expects the attorney general to do the right thing. And I expected the president will. Can you just give me a yes on what you would do, though?

Would you support suspending hideous corpus? I don't believe this is going to come to Congress. What I believe is the president is going to follow the law. He has said it repeatedly.

So, Rob, what's your approach here? We wonder about red lines and whether this will be something that would be a red line for, for the Senate or whether it be a red line for Republican voters. Well, it's only happened four times in the United States history. And so I think that ultimately you're going to see.

Aaron, is this play out through the court system? It has to go through a court and the Supreme Court will probably ultimately decide. That's what ultimately this is about. There's a frustration in the Trump administration that district court judges are using their power to impose nationwide injunctions.

They believe the Trump administration that they've gone too far in their power and authority. I as recent indicated that they might be floating this to see what type of reaction they're getting from members of Congress. But historically, yes, Congress has played a role here and I don't think it'll ultimately reach the members of Congress to vote on this. We know that Congress has shocking has really been Democrats in Congress have been leaning into this, this concern about due process in this country as a result of the administration that's in place now.

Republican pushback on this has been saying that, you know, the people that we're talking about are criminals when it comes to immigrants that are that are not receiving due process. It seems in some cases. Is this something that now becomes a part of the case that Democrats try to make. What do you think they do with this idea of habeas now?

Well, forgotten about criminals. You put a criminal in the White House ever do criminal things. He's just been out there setting out and it is going to be important that we push back and we fight back. They are right now saying we're going after this certain group of people.

But what happens when you're done going after them? They're going to come for everybody else. And that's what Democrats are talking about. We all have to be concerned that we're not changing the Constitution, changing the laws just to benefit this particular moment because we know it's not a moment.

It's going to expand past this. Reese, the other obvious obviously big issue that's been out there is this idea of tariffs, right? Another day, another page turning in the tariff conversation. We saw President Trump talking about tariffs obviously today and over the weekend.

When you talk Republicans on Capitol Hill, what are you hearing from them? Do they know what the end game is for President Trump as it relates to these tariffs and the back and forth that we're seeing in a big way with China, obviously. Well, I mean if you keep talking to them, they're putting their name on this but they're like oh are they deal? They're going to be kind of celebrating everything that's going on.

We saw the China, how they did the 90 day pause there to continue negotiating. But I mean set back especially some of the more agriculture members of Congress. There are concerns some of these people have expressed these where they're like our constituents are going to feel some of these effects of tariffs. They also do love whenever they hear the kind of a new pause, a new deal kind of that Happens that pauses the tariffs for at least a little bit because their situations are more securing.

So I think that a lot of these more rural members of Congress that have a lot of farmers, a lot of agriculturals that depend on export, that they are kind of concerned about the tariffs and kind of the rising in prices that they're going to have to deal with. You know, Robbie heard President Trump say that this was at the end of last month. We said that he would, he would not lift tariffs on China unless there were some major concessions that the Chinese were going to make this point. The only thing we can see in terms of concessions from China is the idea that they're going to continue talking.

There are some who floated the idea that this is the president caving. How do you see it? Well, it's a cage out of heart of the deal. I mean, this is classic Trump.

I mean, he is a massive negotiator. He's done this for his entire life as a businessman. I think ultimately Republicans on Capitol Hill and the American people, I hope, would have the patience for him to carry out these negotiations, which aren't going to be resolved in a matter of days. It might take, frankly, years.

I mean, we're talking about resetting the United States economy in a way that benefits the American people for the long run. And so I do think that the president has already scored important wins. And we have to remember, Aaron, that China is an adversary of the United States here. And so there's a lot of things that we're not talking about in this context.

Them stealing all sorts of economic information from us and technology that frankly just those touched on a daily basis. And so there are big issues not only with China. There are, you know, a couple of dozen countries waiting to do trade agreements as well. I think we let that play out.

At the end of the day, I think we're going to have a better situation for the American voter. We're almost excited. I do want to ask you all about Medicaid, that we obviously have this new tax that came out over the weekend from Republicans. It does seem to make some cuts to make it.

I want to put up part of an op ed from Missouri Senator Josh Hawley. He said Congress cuts funding for Medicaid benefits Missouri workers and the children will lose their health care and hospitals will close. It's that simple. And that pattern will replicate in states across the country.

So, Rob, can House Republicans defend these cuts while you have members who are expressing concerns at this level? So Medicaid has grown both in size of enrollees and the cost pre Covid and post Covid and they're now nearly 80 million Americans on Medicaid. It's costing nearly a trillion dollars to fund that program. These are not sustainable for the future.

I think what you saw today in the text that they put out were some common sense reforms that the American people support. Most importantly, those who are able bodied and able to work should have a job if they're going to get Medicaid such as I think this represents a degree of fighting among Republicans. Is there an opportunity for Democrats here and what do they do? Absolutely.

We know 20% of the country is on Medicaid. So this is another example for them to show how Democrats are actually fighting for the American people. They're talking about having able people work. Well guess what, we're losing jobs due to Trump's actions.

Prices are up. All this is going to do is put more strain on our economic system. And we know the economy was the number issue for Americans. So as Democrats definitely speaking up and fighting back on this one as well, I apologize.

We just gotta glue right through this. But I appreciate you all being here. Reese, Rav Ashanti, thank you all. A silicon the White House welcomes dozens of white South Africans to Washington as refugees.

That's why the administration bars many other refugee groups from entering the U.S. and of course, even more. You're watching ME the press now. And welcome back.

A group of white South Africans arrived in the US Today on board a State Department chartered plane. That's after they were granted fast tracked refugee status by the Trump administration. Now the administration claims white Africans are facing persecution and racially motivated seizure of foreign land in their country, something the South African government denied. This comes a time when the administration has halted almost all other refugee admissions into the US including for people fleeing war or humanitarian crises.

President Trump defended the move while speaking at the White House earlier today. They happen to be white, but whether they're white or black makes no difference to me. But white farmers are being brutally killed and the land is being confiscated in South Africa. I don't care who they are.

I don't care about their race, their color. I don't care about their height, their weight. I don't care about anything. I just know that what's happening is terrible.

Joining me now is NBC News chief foreign affairs and chief Washington correspondent. Our dean here, Andrea Mitchell. Help us understand what's happening. Obviously this is something that's driven a lot of concerns here.

What message does this send to the rest of the world, really, when you have the Trump administration handling these refugees in this way when at the same time we have the State Department suspending the refugee. Well, in fact, the president on January 20, his first day in office, suspended the entire refugee resettlement program. And this included people from all over the world, but particularly right now, Sudan, where there is a genocide and people can lock it out. These are black Africans and people from Haiti, people from people of color from Latin America fleeing the violent gangs.

And on top of that, only today, as many as 14,000 Afghan refugees who are already in the US who went through a very time consuming. It sometimes takes years for them to get in from refugee camps after they let the fall of Afghanistan. And these include many people who work with our veterans and work with our military, with the CIA, with others. So they are tagged.

If they go back to the town Taliban, they will be killed. But the US Says that the Taliban is now okay. The women will have a complete change in their lives if they go back. And they're being told that they have to leave by July 12th because their temporary refugee status is being withdrawn.

That issue came from the government today. And this while the State Department sends a charter all the way to Johannesburg to bring these people in. The deputy Secretary of State, Chris Landau, went to greet them and welcome them. He's the top diplomat here because Secretary Rubio was on Air Force One on his way to the Middle east and they got this big celebration.

And these are the only white African descendants of apartheid, European colonials or those who participate in apartheid near of all ages, including children. South Africa says that the allegations about persecution of these people, the allegations are falsequery. The South Africans. What impact do you think the optics of this, what we're seeing now, could have on relations between the US and South Africa?

And this involves a reparations program, compensation, shall we say, for farmlands that were confiscated decades ago. So that there was that. South African government says that's not the same as, you know, torture, killings, warfare, genocide. And the message is terrible that if you are of color from Latin America or from sub Saharan Africa, you're excluded along with all other refugees, Afghanistan.

But if you are Afrikaner of Dutch or European, other European extraction. Come on in. Yeah, that is. That is the message it seems to be sending for so many people, perhaps for some folks, not surprisingly.

We appreciate you helping us understand a little better what's going on. Thank you. Thank you. And we thank you for joining us this afternoon.

We are back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now. But the news continues now with Hallie Jackson. It's here. The Ford is a big.

Not yet. The Ford is a big deal. Oh, guys, just wait. The Ford it's a big deal event is on.

Really? Now hurry up. At least a 2026 Maverick XLT Hybrid all wheel drive for 197Bi weekly at 5.7 ABR for 60 months with 2995 down. That's like $99 a week.

The Ford it's a big deal offense. Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford casual.