Meet the Press NOW — May 12

If it's Friday. Overcrowding and under pressure. Apprehensions remain near record levels at the southern border as the Biden administration faces legal and political blowback trying to navigate the first hours of a major migrant policy change. Plus a new government warning about a potential default as top White House and congressional officials try to hammer out a deal behind the scenes before it's too late.

And Jordan Healing's family speaks out as the ex Marine accused of killing Nealing with a fatal chokehold aboard a New York City subway appears in court to face manslaughter charges. Welcome to be the press now. I'm Kristen Welker recording in Washington. We begin with breaking news at the southern border where a steady stream of migrants is attempting to seek asylum in the United States as the pandemic era policy known as Title 42 that previously barred nearly all asylum claims was lifted at midnight last night.

These migrants who made the journey across the Rio Grande last night were some of the first to try to enter the US Under a slate of revamped policies which are already facing political and legal pushback. Border Patrol reported that more than 10,000 migrants were apprehended yesterday alone. That puts apprehensions at near record levels. Government officials have been repeatedly warning that the system just doesn't have the capacity to process and shelter everyone.

Tragically this morning HHS confirmed the death of an unaccompanied minor 17 year old boy from Honduras in a refugee settlement shelter in Florida. Head of that news Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas spoke to NBC's Today about the chaos and overcrowding facing the border. There is a right way to do it that is lawful, safe and orderly. And there is a wrong way.

And the wrong way is in the hands of smugglers. We already have multiple lawful pathways available. Two individuals, I think if one asked any one of the 1.4 million people who were expelled, removed or returned last year, I don't think they would tell you that the border is open. Meanwhile, the administration is lashing out the federal judges ruling last night out of Florida blocking a DHS memo allowing the release of some migrants into the US Without a court date or without a way to track them.

White House press secretary Jean Pierre told reporters earlier today the move is, quote, sabotage. The way we see that is sabotage. It's pure and simple. That's how that reads to us.

The claims that CBP is allowing or encouraging mass release of migrants and it is just categorically false. That is not what's occurring. That is not what's happening now Further complicating the current administration's handling of the situation is its deployment of certain policies and tactics that essentially mirror those of the prior administration, which candidate Joe Biden lambasted as inhumane. A new lawsuit filed last night by the ACLU is seeking to halt some of the White House's policies limiting asylum claims, requiring some migrants traveling through Mexico to have tried to seek asylum in another country first.

The ACLU argues the process resembles Trump error policies that were blocked by the courts. The White House is pushing back, arguing they're trying to prevent dangerous and unlawful journeys into the US Joining me now is Julia Ainsley in El Paso and Guavanagas at the border in San Diego. Julia, let me start with you. What are you seeing today?

Well, you know what, Kristen, I would say that it's crowded, but it hasn't been purely chaotic, at least not in the way that we might have expected. In fact, I just came out of the shelter. This is the third I visited today, and right now they are full. They're worried they could get fuller, and then they were they would probably have to see some migrants sleeping on the streets.

But the city here has opened up additional bed space, and right now they're in communication shelters like this with Border Patrol. So they know about how many to expect. This particular shelter in the network of shelters took in over 100 migrants after they crossed late last night after the policy change, and they may expect more tonight. They've been told that actually Border Patrol is holding on to many migrants right now that have yet to be processed.

So they think in the coming days, as more of those people are processed, they may see a bigger flow coming here. What they're worried about is migrants having to sleep in the street. Just two weeks ago, there were over 800 people sleeping in the alley behind the shelter, Kristen? Julia, I have been there and I have seen that situation, and it is for so many there, a desperate and terrifying situation.

You and I have been talking throughout this week about preparation. In fact, the White House had two years to prepare for this. Now the president is saying that people should expect a chaotic situation, at least in the near term. Do officials, they're where you are, along the border, feel as though they are prepared for this moment and that they're getting the support that they need from the federal government?

That's a good question. I mean, locally, a lot of officials will say that they always want more help from the federal government. Some people also say, really, it should be the federal government's job to stand up shelters like These that it simply shouldn't be a matter of processing them and releasing them for border control because then it falls to the state. They do get reimbursement from FEMAC, $12 million for told was just paid to El Paso as a reimbursement for their past spending on immigration just earlier this week.

But it's always this push pull here and a lot of residents here have concerns about their taxpayer money going to take in the immigrants eventually going to other places in the country. They feel they're being overlooked here at the border. As far as border patrol officials, they say they're worried about the increase in processing time, that even if the numbers don't get significantly higher, it's just going to take so much longer to figure out where everyone goes and whether or not they have the right to stay in the United and then even the best laid plans like those asylum transit bans that are now in place and that the ACLU is suing to end. Even if they keep those, if the numbers get too big, they'll have to release because there won't be enough room for them in order to procy.

And Mexico has a limit to the number of migrants they'll take back into their country who are from other nationalities. Julia, let me follow up with you on that point. Look, we know that ACLU sued overnight because the Biden administration effectively said we want to make it tougher to seek asylum. How is DHS responding to this legal battle?

They've been predefined so far from what I can see. Well, yes, I think they're defiant and they think that they have an argument that their case is actually very different from what President Trump tried to do before he was blocked by the courts because they've opened up other legal pathways. They have an app where people can apply for appointments and they're opening up other processing centers. But a lot of the advocates don't see it that way and even some Democrats in Congress don't see it that way.

But what I've been told by DHS officials is that they fully expected these court challenges, both on the right and the left. This is what happens when the nation's eyes are on the border and on immigration. You try to make a change. Both sides get upset.

They expected the court challenges, but they ultimately say they think they'll prevail. And Julia, just finally, before I get to Quad for his reporting in San Diego, you have been tracking the border apprehension numbers every day this week. You've been tracking them for months, if not years, quite frankly. What are officials expecting?

What are you expecting now that Title 42 is lifted? Because notably, at least on two days of this week, the apprehension numbers exceeded what the administration was even bracing for. Yeah, that's right. They were predicting 10,000 once Title 42 lifted.

And we get the numbers usually about the previous day. So right now I can report that Yesterday before Title 42 lifted, they saw 10,000 crossing. Then the previous two days were 11,000 each. And so that means they were already at those high levels that were predicting that they would have one title 42 lifted.

So the question is how do they go up from here? And when I interviewed the Border Patrol chief rollers with other reporters earlier this week, he said it's when they get into 13 to 14,000 a day that simply they don't have enough detention space and they were going to perhaps have to start releasing more of them to make sure that they don't have a public health problem. So that's why those numbers are important. I always want everyone to remember there are people behind those numbers.

That's why we come here and that's why you spoke to the Imran here, Kristen. But the numbers matter because they tell us what the government can handle and when migrants may be released and have to start sleeping on the streets. And there's no doubt that you are in a community that is stretched to the limit. Julia Ainsley, thank you for your really extraordinary reporting around this issue.

We appreciate your joining us. Squad, let me turn to you. You are there in San Diego. What are you seeing in San Diego?

What are officials telling you about how prepared they feel for this moment? Kristen we started with a small camp that then grew into the hundreds after a few days. This began last week and now we have a second capital mile away with also a couple hundred individuals that have arrived. We're getting reports that east of San Diego in the Imperial County, Imperial Valley, that is, they're also receiving lots of migrants.

So you have surge of migrants right in different parts of the border. Now Border Patrol officials have said day after day that their facilities are at capacity. So they're taking in as many as they can every day. They'll come during the night or during the morning time, load some of them onto vans.

What we've seen today, Kristen, that has gotten our attention is a lot more families, a lot more children. As you can see from our camera that's pointed right through the wall. Some of the people that you're seeing have been waiting for day, others have been waiting for five days. It's hard to tell.

And under these conditions, a lot of them have been getting sick. Yesterday there was a young woman that fainted right over here. Border patrol had to lower her up to an SUV and take her away. And every day we've seen EMT vehicles arrive to try and help some of these migrants.

You were discussing with Julia these new policies. It's interesting to look at these individuals that have arrived at the border. Walkerson under the definition, the DHS explained what the new policy. They are coming to the border using an unlawful.

They're not using a legal pathway. Right. So that means they would not qualify for asylum after Title 42 has been lifted. So essentially, if the US government is going to follow this new policy, the thousands that are at the US border right now that have entered using something other than a legal pathway like these individuals, then they would not qualify to remain in the US While she get asylum.

That's our understanding. And of course, we were into one a few days ago and I spoke to individuals who said, I did cross into the U.S. i turned myself in. They didn't really ask me any questions.

They just loaded me up a van and they got returned back to Tijuana, back to Mexican. So we are seeing explosions with a lot of the individuals here. It's gonna be interesting to see how these processing centers move forward. Right.

Because you still have the thousands that have to get processed all on the US Mexico border now title for 200 lifted. And they are coming to places like this AB while they're not going to the ports of entry or using the CDP1 app. So essentially, how is the government going to move forward? We're processing these individuals that are using a pathway other than the legal options.

Right. And for those that are allowed to remain in the US Seek in asylum. We spoke to Catholic Charities here in San Diego and the CEO told us they are seeing larger numbers. They usually get between 300 to 600 or 700 a day on a busy day.

And this week they saw the first day when they saw the numbers drop. It went to 900,000. Yesterday they had 1200 individuals, migrants, asylum seekers, released into their custody. And not their custody, but into their care and the shelters.

Catholic Charities will then help these individuals get to an airport and communicate with the SQU to the place where they're eventually going to be as they continue that aside process. But one of the things I'd like to mention is that what we have seen in California is somewhat different from Texas. In California, there's more communication from I've been able to observe between the state, obviously, and federal authorities and even to the shelters in the shelters in San Diego. And this has allowed for coordination between federal authorities and the shelters are receiving the migrants.

It's a different approach that we see in California. I've been told by Catholic Journeys they do expect to receive more funds from the federal government and they're also receiving help from the state. So just a different structure to do with this migrant flow in state like California versus what we've seen in Texas. Person and you are putting a human face on the story.

And we should know for viewers your shot at various moments is breaking up because you are quite literally walking along the border to bring us your incredible reporting. Guadalas, thank you so much. So notable to hear that officials there in San Diego do feel as though they have somewhat consistent communication with the federal government. They'll stay on top of that.

Thank you for that, Guad. I'm joined now by Legal Heirs, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants Rights Project. Lee, thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate it.

Thanks for having me. So let's start off by talking about the lawsuit that you filed overnight against the Biden administration for its new asylum policies. What specifically does this lawsuit contend? What are you asking for?

So we will ultimately be asking for the policy to be vacated. We believe it's unlawful in the same way that the Trump administration asylum bands were lawful. I argued those cases under the Trump administration. We prevailed in those cases.

We believe that this is policy, the same court of legality. Now the Biden administration is striving to say, well, these policies are different because they have some legal pathways. We welcome additional legal pathways. But they can't be as a substitute for people reaching the border who are in desperate need of asylum, not being able to apply.

And moreover, as a factual matter, I think the administration would have to admit that the legal pathways are far too limited for the people who need them. And they're also geared effectively to more sophisticated immigrants using the app or finding a sponsor. So we do not think the policy is at all legal, and that's why we're in court. I want to step back for a second and hit a point.

A fundamental point that you have consistently made and that Julia made today, is that behind this there's a real human dimension. People do not want to come to the United States, drag their children and leave their homes unless they are really desperate and in danger. We have an obligation under the law to at least screen them. No one is saying that they can come in just because they're poor.

That's not a basis for asylum. But if they genuinely are in fear and have to make out their claim, they're entitled to asylum. We have not even given them a hearing. And this policy will turn most people back without even a genuine asylum hearing.

This should have been a moment for the United States to reset. We ended title 42 way too long. The ACLU was in court with our partners that we are now on Title 42. It finally has ended.

We should have stepped back and said the United States is now going to finally rejoin other nations in providing asylum. And just to be clear, another point that you wrote in the beginning so much this is about planning and the Biden administration not playing politics and waiting until the last minute. The United States clearly has the resources to do this and NGOs are begging the federal government to allow them into the process. And you saw in California works better than Texas.

Why aren't we using best practices? We can do this. We cannot have a system where we just don't even screen people for danger. And you're right.

And we will continue to debate how prepared or unprepared the administration was. But let me follow up with you on the legal argument you are making in the Biden administration. I would anticipate, as you said, will argue there are still pathways to seek asylum and will likely also argue that communities like El Paso are being stretched to their breaking point and that that in and of itself is also creating dangerous situations for these migrants. How do you answer that piece of the argument from the Biden administration who would argue that is why they had to toughen these asylum laws?

So I think you're raising two different points. One is a legal point and one is possible. And I want to get both of them. On the legal point, Congress could not have been clear.

We have to screen people for asylum whether or not they come to a court of entry. That's explicitly in the statute Congress has enacted. And the reason they've done that to follow international law is many people cannot find their way to a court of entry or use a legal pathway if it exists. Sometimes cartels are pushing places.

Sometimes they might be with a two year old child and they can't walk the 200 miles to Port of entry. So Congress was crystal clear in following international law, it doesn't matter how you get to the border. If you're in danger, you must be screened. Now, the question of whether El Paso is being scrapped, I mean, that goes to planning.

And I also don't think that it's going to remain the case. And so we cannot judge whether the United States, after all these years, is going to abandon having asylum system and be a refuge for people in danger by what's happening over a few weeks because of the lack of planning. We have to get the system under control. I agree that we need to deal with the humanitarian crisis on the ground, but we can do that.

But we can't say United States after World War II is going to scrap having an asylum policy. That is not a place we can be. Let me ask you, because we've heard the DHS secretary say that this all goes back to the fact that we have a broken immigration system. There's no debate about that.

Everyone agrees. And yet for decades, Congress has been unable to reach an agreement when it comes to immigration reform. How responsible do you hold Congress for this moment? And also, do you think there is any possibility, and I'm asking you to put a slightly different hat on right now for some measured reform in this moment, given the fact that this crisis is impacting, yes, border cities, but also cities all across the country, quite frankly.

Yeah. I mean, that's a great question. I am not sure, you know, right now it doesn't look hopeful to have comprehensive immigration reform. I see people playing politics that only want to do half of it and cut off asylum in the United States.

But I agree politics played a huge role. Having said that, the system may need reform and we would like to see reform, but there are laws in place to allow the administration to screen people quickly. They don't have to let people stay in the country a long time if they don't have even a credible asylum claim. They have enough resources.

They can't not do all these things and then say, well, we want the Congress to do it. I mean, they need to do what they need to do right now and then hope that Congress at some point reforms the system. But there are families and little children. You've been down there.

We've had clients forever. You just see these families, and it's heartbreaking because they are in real danger and you're just turning them around without even giving them a chance to make their case. And I fear that we so dehumanize these people that even are thinking, if President Trump is reelected, he said, I'll go back to family separation. I can tell you as a council on that case, there are still a thousand children.

Up to a thousand children from that first time we separated. When the tribal administration separated, families were still not five years later back with their parents. So I think all of this is to the point where we are just saying these people don't really matter. We have to send them back.

We have to have some perspective. There is no reason to believe that these are the people. These families are bringing in fentanyl or joining gangs. That's not what's going on.

All right, Legal errant. Thank you so much for your perspective and giving us new information about the lawsuit that the ACLU file over. And I really appreciate it. Good to talk to you.

Thank you for having me back Again. As we mentioned, migrants who chose to embark on often dangerous journey to the southern border are often fleeing oppression, violence and economic instability in their home countries. We're just talking about that with Lee. And that includes a mass migration of Cubans made by sea.

NBC's Ed Augustin has this new reporting from Havana. Last year, nearly a quarter of a million Cubans irregularly migrated to the US Numbers the State Department described as historic. The majority of them by crossing the U.S. mexico border, others by risking their lives at sea.

Last month, the US postponed released their latest numbers. They have dictated 6,537 Cubans since last October, the beginning of this fiscal year. This is already more than the total number of evictions for the entire 2022 fiscal year. All along this island's northern coast, there are homemade boats that have been used in fail attempts to make it to the United States, crossing the Florida Straits behind them.

And you know what? We just found one. Why are so many people willing to risk their lives at sea? The Biden administration responded this January by applying Title 42 to Cubans crossing the southern border and by expanding a new humanitarian program known as CNHB to include Cubans.

This is really the first time in one of the first programs that does not rely on family or friends. So actually there is a larger ability to participate in this program than ever before. So far, more than 16,000 Cuban nationals have successfully emulated the US under this program. Also, consular services had increased to deal with a huge backlog requests and the Cuban family reunification brawl program has been reinstated.

This is great news for Gabriel Ramos, who's Beyonce collector visa. After years of waiting, it means the world and to me, you know, able to, you know, reunite my family, my fiance, and hopefully, you know, get out there and do our life, have kids, have family. Despite all these programs, most Cubans just don't have the money or contacts in the US to migrate legally. And there's frustration over a lack of food, medicine and power outages continues to mount Analysts are waiting to see if the floodgates will open again now that Title 42 has been removed underscores just how far reaching the ripple effects really are.

And Ed Auguston joins me now from Havana. Ed, thank you for joining me. So break this down. What does it mean for Cubans who want to emigrate to the US now that Title 42 has been lifted?

What are you hearing? Well, it remains to be seen exactly how the Biden administration is going to implement policy towards Cubans. And the devil's in detail. But there's no doubt that the decision to lift title 42 is fantastic news for Cubans who are emigrated to the U.S.

fantastic news. Just stop by considering following. I'm 37 years old. I live in Havana.

It's very, very difficult for me to meet Cubans my age or younger who don't want to leave the country. That's how bad things are. And that's why last year, 2022, we saw historic numbers of Cubans migrating to the United States. Around about a quarter of a million Cubans successfully emigrated.

The Biden administration this January succeeded in plugging that migration. How did they manage to do it? By implementing Title 42. They applied Title 42 to Cubans for the first time and that allowed them to send Cubans that were irregularly crossing southern border back to Mexico.

It's very effective, over 80%. The amount of Cubans entering the US has dropped more than 80% since then. And so with Title 42 now gone, it seems that we're back to where we were beforehand. Lesbians want to leave and now Cubans can get back up to that border.

And there's something very important to note. Cubans are the only people in the world who can enter the US Irregularly and thanks to a couple of pieces of legislation, a year and a day later, get the green card. It's a massive hall factor. It is just staggering to hear you lay it out in that context and that you literally do not talk to anyone who doesn't want to leave and come to the U.S.

thank you so much, Ed Augustine, for your reporting and your analysis. We really appreciate it. Coming up, charged with manslaughter, the ex Marine who was filmed subduing a homeless subway performer with a fatal chokehold has surrendered to authorities on criminal charges. We're live in New York with the latest next decision 2024.

Governor Ron DeSantis clinches two high profile endorsements in Iowa as former President Trump ramps up the personal attacks on his likely Republican rival. We'll Delve into with our panel. You're watching the press now. Welcome back.

A former Marine has been charged with second degree manslaughter in the New York City subway death of Jordan Neely. Daniel Penning was arraigned in a Manhattan court after surrendering himself to police. Earlier today, Penny was seen on video putting Jordan Neely in a fatal chokehold on the subway. Earlier this month, the medical examiner's office ruled the manner of death a homicide.

Head of his remnant, Penny's lawyer said in a statement, quote, he risked his own life and safety for the good of his fellow passengers. The unfortunate result was the unintended and unforeseen death of Mr. Neely. Now, attorneys for the Neely family disputed that characterization at a press conference this morning.

Take a look. No one on that train. Ask Jordan, what's wrong? How can I help you?

He was choked to death. Instead, Daniel Penny chose, intentionally chose a technique to use that is designed to cut off air. That's what he chose. And he chose to continue to hold that chokehold minute after minute, second after second, until there was no life left in Jordan Neely.

That's a choice that he made and he did it intentionally. Joining me now when you work with the very latest is NBC's Rahim Ellis. Raheema, good to see you. Thank you so much for joining me with this developing story.

So just break this down. What do we know about the charges Mr. Petty is facing? What happens next?

Well, as you mentioned, the charge is second degree manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison. The district Attorney Bragg has not, not come out and publicly made a statement, but he's released information saying that this charge came as a result of a number of investigations, including conversations with witnesses on the train at that time, videos and photographs of what happened on that train, and he felt he had enough evidence in order to bring this charge. What happens next is that Daniel Penny's attorney, you can expect, as he has said, his client is not guilty of this charge, is going to be trying to mount a defense and they will be required to go back into this courtroom not too long from now, in fact, the middle of July, July 17, in order to respond to more actions in this court. So this is something that's going to go on for some time before we see any resolution to this question.

I think you're absolutely right. Just set the scene there. Have there been protests? What, what has the reaction been to this?

For most of the day, it has been very quiet here with this proceeding underway, which many of the family and all of Jordan Neely's family and many activists and demonstrators around the city called for they wanted Daniel Penny to be arrested and he was arrested this evening. There is a larger show of police here around the courthouse. There's a small contingent of demonstrators with signs because one of the things they're calling for is for the other people we're seeing in the video who were holding Jordan, kneeling down on the floor. Demonstrators are now saying those people should also be charged and arrested.

Kristen. All right. Raheem Ellis, thank you so much for joining us with a great reporting. Really appreciate it.

To see coming up next, can the White House and congressional staff hammer out a deal to avoid a catastrophic default? The latest on those debt ceiling talks next. You're WATCHING THE PRESS now. Welcome back.

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office out today is warning that unless Congress acts to raise the nation's borrowing limit, the US Risks a catastrophic default at some point in the first two weeks of June. The new report backs up recent warnings from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen that a default could happen as soon as June 1st. Amid these dire forecasts, President Biden and top congressional leaders postponed their meeting scheduled for today as their staff continues to talk behind the scenes. Join me now to bring us the very latest on these high stakes talks and drama is Ali Vitale, Capitol Hill correspondent and ally.

I know you've been going nonstop all week. You've been talking to your sources. So what do you make of the fact the meeting was canceled today? However, you and I've been talking to a lot of folks today.

That's actually a good thing, right? Where do these talks stand? Yeah, it really depends on who you talk to. And you're right, I've been talking to my sources.

I've been texting you a lot this week. And I think that's what it's going to be for the next few weeks until they hopefully get this done. Because again, the only thing that I ever want to agree on is that we should not default on our debt. Though there is according to some of the people that I've had conversations with here, at least in the House, freedom pocket side of this is there is at least an okayness with the idea that if they default, they're okay to blame it on President Biden.

Those are the dynamics within the House Republican Conference. But look, in terms of this meeting being canceled, I asked Speaker Kevin McCarthy yesterday if it was being canceled because the staff level talks were so productive or if it was being canceled because they weren't productive enough. He said it was because they weren't productive enough. But you and I have had conversations with other sources who say that there's been at least notional progress and that these conversations have been productive.

We also know that the conversation of the staff lover to continue throughout the weekend. They also met today. It's a pretty empty capital, but nevertheless, these meetings are continuing. Top staffers from the White House and for all these four, four congressional leaders are still huddled at the table and will be throughout the weekend trying to set their principal players up for the most success possible for that meeting early next week.

And Ali, we are learning just recently that there was actually an unreported phone call that we've now reported between President Biden and Speaker McCarthy. It happened on this Sunday before this past Tuesday's meeting. We know that the president also spoke with Democratic leader Schumer and Jeffries, talk about the significance of the conversation with McCarthy and the clearing to try to lay the groundwork at least for some measure of progress. Well, McCarthy has spent many weeks now trying to say that Biden has stonewalled him on negotiations that they met back in February and that was pretty much radio silence on the negotiations on the debt ceiling for over 90 after that.

Now, the White House would say that it's been clear in its position it asked Republicans to put his budget out. They didn't and the White House did. Nevertheless, that's the kind of posturing and you know, you and I always want to get inside these phone calls. Of course we're going to keep trying to do that.

But clearly it didn't let them be any more amicable in the room when they actually met last week. That's a problem. And hopefully what I've heard from sources, they hope that the mood can shift to much more productive the next time these guys all huddle together. Yeah, these next several days are going to be critical.

So hopefully you and I can get a little rest over the weekend before we enter a really busy marathon session. Thank you so much. Ali Vitali, good to see you. Happy Friday.

I appreciate it. After the break, warn the potential political fallout facing Congress in the White House amid intensifying debates over the debt ceiling and how to address the nation's broken immigration system. The panels next. You're watching the president now.

Welcome back. The postponement of today's debt ceiling meeting pushes President Biden and congressional leaders ever closer to the June 1 deadline, even as aides continue negotiations behind the scenes. The biggest obstacle to a deal may be the calendar House of Representatives only has eight days left in session this month and as it stands, Mr. Biden is set to attend the G7 summit in Japan next Friday.

Joining now is our panel, Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today Fashion Kerr, senior advisor for Senator Bernie Sanders and Michael Field, former RNC chairman and an NBC political analyst. Thanks to all of you for being here. Appreciate it. Susan, let me start with you.

Where are we with these talks that were supposed to be immune today? It's not happening. What do you mean? To my astonishment, I think they're going to make a deal and I usually find with predicting catastrophe meeting is a bad and I think it might be a good sign because I think maybe staff is getting closer to I think we have have an idea of what that deal would be.

It would be a little spending package that the White House would say was separate from the debt ceiling and Republicans would say it was part of raising the debt ceiling. But I've been surprised by the limited amount of posturing that we've seen at this point. He said the deadline is a problem. I think the deadline they face is an advantage because it is cut out some of the stuff we might have expected like weigh in on that.

I mean, Susan makes a great point, which is that rarely do big things get done here in Washington if there's not a lot. Susan spot on. I think the analysis hits to the core of the dynamics where everybody's going to walk away with a little bit of bragging rights about how this thing played out. The Freedom Caucus will largely preserve their interest because to Susan's point, that will be in a piece that they can claim, see we got these spending cuts as part of the deal.

Democrats will say we held the line and did not capitulate to this idea of, you know, increased spending connected to directly to the debt ceiling. So everybody will have something they can walk away with. The reality of the politics is what's driving this whole thing to Susan's point about the deadline, because nobody wants this thing to move into the fall as the presidential campaign kicks up and they certainly don't want to deal with it next March. So you get this done now everybody beats their chest as the summer begins to unfold.

People go back after their pina colada and everybody's happy. They come back to Washington in September. Presidential primaries are well underway, debates are starting, all that good stuff. And so the kids on the playground will be happy because this thing won't hold them up.

I'll play residential Senate then because I want a deal to happen. So I think it's possible, and I think you're both being very rational about the fact that there's a deal on the table that both sides could swallow. But however, you still need count the votes. And for McCarthy, you feel you're.

Correct me if I'm wrong, there's a danger of a deal that has a preponderance of a huge number of Democratic votes that carried over the line. And the question for me has always been, would Kevin Crusade speak to be comfortable if a deal that had 200 plus Democrats plus 50 Republicans, whatever it would take, then, yeah, we're there, not 50 Republicans. The question will be comfortable with a deal that cannot Democratic votes be over the finish line. Not a majority of the majority.

Not a majority of Republicans. And when you think. I think he's over it. He has said in the past that he believes in the majority of the majority theory of lies, the Haster Rule, as we used to call it.

But then maybe I'm being polite. Maybe I'm being. He needs that majority. I'm not saying maybe he doesn't.

Maybe he doesn't because maybe the combination of the deadline and the seriousness of raising his. What about that? And what about the Freedom Caucus? What about the far right?

It is the skeleton that's sort of hanging out that everyone doesn't want to look at. Yeah, you need a majority. Majority. Never understood why that rule, you know, orients Washington the way it does.

Because to put this in the context so people understand, we're saying there is a fraction of the Republic Party that doesn't see default as a bad thing. Donald Trump adequately advocated for. Right. And that's the problem.

Say default is not a bad thing until it is. And it is. When everybody, all those federal workers who are living in those districts that those congressmen are beating their chest as they get their paycheck, by the way, folks. And you don't are saying that, you know, this is the principle.

Well, principle me. Principle me. You know, education, money for my kids, education and food on my table. And that, I think, is the politics of this, to Susan's point, that will push that majority of the majority idea down a little bit more.

It won't be, you know, I'm thinking maybe 10, 15 at most, Democrats necessarily coming in. One thing I think we can agree on. It'll probably come down to the wire. Let me.

Since you raise the issue of Trump, let me pivot to the fact that he and his likely Republican challenger, Ron DeSantis, Michael, are going to be in Iowa Together this weekend, people are starting to lose faith that Desensitis is going to be a real challenger. But is it still early? How do you see he picked up two endorsements? We should say who did.

Oh, God bless him. So you're not sold? You don't know, but he's got two years. Imagine, imagine Ronnie Santis on that stage Wednesday night with Donald Trump, just the two of them, with a moderator.

How do you think that plays out for him? Well, okay, let me to your point. Let me read you this from Matt Continuity, who writes Trump's electoral record is not especially. Most voters do not like him, have voted against him, and more likely than not will vote against him again.

Nor has Trump's force field repelled attacks from his fellow Republicans. There haven't been attacks to repel. Trump is advancing toward the GO nomination and looks competitive against Biden for a simple reason. He faces no resistance.

If Republican challengers won't say why Donald Trump should deny the presidency, Democrats will. But I haven't heard of what. Yes, the president has gone after him, but selectively. In this last time we were talking about default, right?

Where is a Republican who says Donald Trump's being irresponsible? Of course we can't default. You can deal with that. Like, hey, he didn't even give you a stance, a clear stance.

You can hold him to account, to unwork. He stands on board. He says, negotiations, pick me up, I'm going to figure some stuff out that's a position and then you let him ride with that. It's crazy that a conservative party would just say, yeah, no, no, whatever he decides.

And yet they are when, if ever. And clearly calculation is particularly from potential challengers. We don't want to alienate the Trump base because they're thinking they need the Trump base in order to win the nomination. Do the gloves come off at the debate?

You know, some of the Republican hopefuls are challenging Trump, like Chris Sun Hampshire Ashes in the former governor of Arkansas. But they're not the candidates who matter. Really. The only challenger that matters at this moment is Ron Sanderson.

He's been very careful about not challenging. The problem is we don't have a Republican Party and we have a Trump Party. So you cannot risk really turning off Trump voters because they are with Trump. Even the ones who are concerned about it don't like his Reddit.

They're still with it. When D.A. bragg indicted Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis was one of the first ones to come to his defense. So if I'm Donald Trump, that's my first TV ad the day he announces and yet we didn't see it.

This is well, he has announced yet, to be fair, but we haven't seen that attack. Susan's your point about Kristen Nunu. He writes today in the Washington Post or he said the Washington Post of the town hall that you just brought up, Michael, quote, it was weak, it was defensive, it was bitter. It really was everything that America is not looking for in leadership.

And it just reiterated idea that he could not win in November. He could get the nomination, but he could not win in November. He didn't even look like he had his fastball anymore. He's like a shell of himself, as do Democrats or Republicans like Chris Nunu.

On the risk of underestimating Trump's abilities in general election. Oh, for sure we can underestimate his abilities, but I think none of those Republicans are talking about how you speak to Republican voters about his weaknesses. And we all know the Republican polls tell us that they don't see him as the most likable candidate in the field. That's because DeSantis would win just because they made an ill argument of Republican sciences.

We think that Donald Trump is weaker than Ron DeSantis, but no one can effectively convince Republican voters because that argument, that's not speaking to millions of Republican voters, which is what needs something needs to do that. Okay. Thank you so much. Great conversation, Susan Faz and Michael really appreciate it.

Happy Friday to all. Silicon My interview with executive director of UNICEF about the Sudan conflict and the Russia provide aid in a region gripped by violence. That's next. You're WATCHING THE PRESS now.

Welcome back. The UN Is out with some new dire warnings about a worsening humanitarian crisis in Sudan amid the ongoing conflict. The World Food Program now warns that an additional 2.25 million people in Sudan are expected to slip into hunger in the coming months as a result of the ongoing violence. Meanwhile, civilians in Sudan continue to flee their homes.

UNICEF estimates 82,000 children have fled to neighboring countries and an additional 368,000 are now internally displaced. Despite multiple ceasefire attempts, fighting between the two warring military factions has continued now for almost a month. Earlier this week, I spoke with UNICEF's executive director, Catherine Russell, here in studio after she returned from Africa. I began by asking about UNICEF staff that are still on the ground in Sudan and what they're telling her about the conditions on the ground and the ongoing violence.

Violence. I think the biggest challenge about Sudan is it was already a humanitarian challenge before this happened. We estimate that almost a Third of the country needed some humanitarian assistance before this conflict started, and that includes children who weren't in school. I think it was 7 million children not in school, children who were severely malnourished, who we were trying to deal with, children who didn't have access to water and sanitation.

Now we have this terrible conflict, which has been merciless on the population that lives there. And it's been incredibly challenging. I always say that, you know, war is. It's almost always whenever you have a war, a conflict, it's a war on children.

And I say that because children are very dependent on government services, right? They need education, they need water and sanitation. They need, in many cases, nutrition. And this conflict has completely destabilized everything that's been happening there.

What are the biggest challenges for your staff who are still there? Well, it's interesting. I was in Kenya last week, and I met with our staff, many of whom had come out of Sudan, and what they were describing was absolutely horrific. I mean, they were there.

They. In many cases, it happened so quickly. They were trapped in their apartments and their homes because there was. There's bombardments going on, and there's also street fighting happening.

There are these RSF forces who are pillaging all sorts of places, and they pillage one of our offices. And so people are hunkered down, but they have no electricity, no water, no food. They hear all of this, you know, these sort of attacks outside. There were reports of sexual violence, which is terrifying to everybody in the population, including the teens who were there.

So I think it was just really a terrifying situation. We have been able to get many of our international staff moved out of Khartoum, but, you know, everybody wants to get back and help as many children as they can. So that's really the dilemma for us. That's just extraordinary that people want to go back to help.

Can you help us to understand right now? Were you able to evacuate. Evacuate the staff who wanted to be evacuated? And do you have an evacuation plan for those who are still on the ground there?

We were able to get out all of our international staff to the port of Sudan, at least, and many of those have left the country. Our national staff is a little bit more complicated. Some of them don't want to leave. Some are moving within the country.

Some of them have left. So at this point, we feel pretty comfortable that we've been able to get people out. Now, honestly, we're trying to figure out how to get people back in from the port of Sudan into the country or back into the country from outside the country? Well, as you said at the top, Sudan relies on humanitarian aid.

To what extent has that been disrupted? And are neighboring countries able to access the areas to help, to provide the help that's needed? Help to restore, for example, things like electricity to give, food to help with running water? Yeah, we're pretty far away from that right now because it's a live conflict.

I mean, really, the challenge for the neighboring countries is that people are fleeing Sudan. You know, we were estimated about 700,000 people are on the move inside the country, which is one thing. And then about 150,000 so far have moved to neighboring countries. So Ethiopia, Chad, Central African Republicans, South Sudan.

So people are on the move because they're terrified and they're afraid of being killed in their homes. So it's very destabilizing in a region and an area that really cannot afford to be destabilized further. And I know that one of the areas that you've been focused on is the impact of climate change on Sudan, on crops, for example. How has that compounded this already very volatile situation?

You know, climate. It's so interesting because when I first started this job a little over a year ago, I wasn't really focused on climate. It wasn't something that I came in as an expert on. But as I travel, I see the impact of climate change on communities and essentially what's happening.

You know, I was just. When I was. I said I was in Kenya, and I was in eastern Kenya, where it's so dry and similar to what I saw in Ethiopia, what you see is that these populations are dependent on crops or on animals. And when these crops or animals get in water, they die.

What happens is the communities start again, start moving and moving to places where other people live. I visited a refugee spot in. In Kenya, where so many women and children had come from Somalia, where it was just. It's just dry.

Nothing. Nothing can live there, including people. And so they leave. And, you know, we see this all over that region.

It's really terrible. And the challenge of dealing with climate change for us is really thinking about how do we help communities adapt and become more resilient, because we know climate change is coming. We see it, and we know it's gonna get worse. Well, let me follow up with you on Somalia.

Since you raised that region as well. Previously, there had been dire warnings about what was happening in Somalia, and yet not enough to declare an actual famine. Where are we right now? Is the situation in Somalia a famine?

No, it's not. A famine is. That's actually a designation that someone makes. Right.

That somebody makes. But what I can say is it's incredibly dry. When I was in Kenya, they had five rainy seasons in a row that failed. Right.

And so they had just gotten a teeny bit rain, and the whole place was getting sort of greened up, which was amazing. But you can't count on that continuing. And so what happened, as I described earlier, is that these. Everything kind of, you know, depends on water, Right.

So when these communities are dry, they can't support the populations that live there. So whether it's Somalia, parts of Kenya, all over the Horn of Africa, it's so destabilizing for these families. And what happens, especially for children, is because children rely on, you know, some sort of services, on food. They need food.

They're very vulnerable to that. You know, we see high, high rates of severe malnutrition. And I honestly, you know, I've seen it. I've seen it in Ethiopia.

I've saw it in Kenya. Yeah. I mean, so many places. And to see it, Kristen, is like, you know, we call it wasting.

And it's because children actually waste away until there's nothing left of them. And if we can get to them, we can help them, but we can't always get to them. And so it's just a devastating, horrible thing to see. It is.

And so hard to hear about, too. And we thank you so much for bringing us that critical information and for the work that you have so much doing on the ground. We really appreciate it. Katherine Russell, thank you for your time.

And we will continue to shine a light on Savannah. And that does it for us this hour. It's here. The Fort is a big.

The Fort is a big deal, guys. Just wait. The Fort, It's a big deal event is on really now. 2026 Maverick XLT Hybrid all wheel drive for one 97 biweekly.

A 5.29% ABR for six months with 2995 down. That's like $99 a week. The Ford is a big deal event. Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford Cat.