Meet the Press NOW — May 2

Hey Ontario. Come on down to BETMGM Casino and see what our newest exclusive the Price Is Right Fortune Pick has to offer. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show only at BetMGM.

Check out how we've reimagined three of the show's iconic games like Plinko, Cliffhanger and the Big Wheel into fun casino game features. Don't forget to download the BETMGM Casino app for exclusive access and excitement on the prices. Right Fortune Pick Pull up a seat and experience the prices Right Fortune Pick Only available at BetMGM Casino, BetMGM and GameSense. Remind you to play responsibly 19 a wager Ontario only.

Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531, 2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with High Gaming Ontario. Did you know that everyday activities like ASMR can actually be healthy for you?

Right now you're improving your heart health, boosting your brain activity and lowering your stress. Manulife wants you to see healthy living differently so you can live a longer, healthier life. Visit Manulife CA Health to learn more ways Manulife can help if It's Tuesday Countdown to economic disaster Washington grapples with a new warning from the Treasury Department as the president invites congressional leaders to the White House and stocks take a hit from new turmoil in the banking system, plus beefing up border security. The Biden administration moves to deploy 1500 members of the military to the southern border, with pandemic error, restrictions expiring and officials bracing for an even bigger migrant surgeon.

And the legal and political fight over transgender rights intensifies as Montana's first and only openly transgender lawmaker sues House Republicans after they barred her from the floor. Welcome to Meet the Press. Now. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, where it's been just one week since President Biden announced his reelection campaign, and already the White House now finds itself barreling towards two critical deadlines on two issues that could wreak havoc on the country and the president's political standing.

The first is the countdown to a potentially disastrous government default which could plunge the economy into a severe recession, two sources tell NBC news. House Speaker McCarthy accepted President Biden's invitation to the White House for a meeting of congressional leaders next Tuesday. It comes as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is now warning that a government Default could happen as early as June 1st if Congress doesn't act. Ahead of that meeting, all sides have dug in.

Republicans are demanding spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit. Democrats want a clean bill with no strings attached. And the White House insisted we'll negotiate party leadership doubling down on those demands. Today, our position remains the same.

Both parties should pass a clean bill to avoid default together before we hit the critical upcoming January, June 1st deadline. The President's position, the Democrats position, not negotiating, is not sustainable. And the other thing is not sustainable is our national debt. McCarthy's giving two choices, given his hard writing, how he's caged into them.

Either a plan that defaults on the debt or a plan that defaults on American families in a very, very severe way. The message to the President at this point is also pretty clear. You've got a choice between accepting a House bill or entering into a discussion, which the Speaker's been trying to have with the President for some time, for an agreement between the two of them. Now, this afternoon, White House Press Secretary J.

Pierre told reporters the President is open to a separate discussion on spending, but he will not negotiate on raising the debt ceiling. He's made it very clear in this meeting that they're going to have next week how it is Congress's constitutional duty to act that he is not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling being very clear. That is not going to change. Now.

We saw some jitters on Wall street today. The Dow closed down about 370 points on concerns about a default and new signs of turmoil in the banking system. And as the clock ticks down on a potential default, the White House is also facing a deadline next week at the southern border. That's on Title 42, that pandemic error policy that blocked hundreds of thousands of migrants from crossing the border expires on May 12.

Racing for a possible surge in migrant costings, the Department of Homeland Security has request. And the Pentagon has approved a surge of 1500 active duty military personnel to assist Border Patrol efforts. We will have much more on the move to southern border in just a moment, including the latest from the Pentagon. But first, we want to be in with MPs Mike Memley, who's outside the White House, and BBC's Ryan Nobles, who is on Capitol Hill following all of the drama surrounding the debt ceiling.

Mike, let me start with you. The President has invited the big four congressional leaders to discuss the debt. That meeting is going to happen next week. The President's top officials insist he is not going to negotiate he wants a clean debt limit bill.

So what is the White House saying about this position given that we're so close to the deadline? Well, Kristen, we've now seen in less than a week two major and unexpected developments that have really forced the White House to rethink its larger debt ceiling strategy. One we've been reporting about now for weeks. The first was the passage last week in the House of their debt limit increased.

One that was accompanied by some significant spending reductions. The White House strategy alone seemed to have been premised on this idea that just as it took Kevin McCarthy 15 torturous votes to become the House speaker, it would be very, very difficult for that very narrow House Republican majority to get together on any spending bill. Well, they did that last week. The other major change was the debt limit letter that we saw from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen yesterday.

White House Press Secretary Kareem John here acknowledging to me today in the briefing that yes, that was really a trigger for this sudden reversal of the White House view that there was no intent to invite Kevin McCarthy over for this kind of debt ceiling discussion. She said that that was a major factor leading the President to call not just McCarthy but the rest of the so called big four to invite them to the White House for this budget discussion. And it is important, Kristen, to emphasize that the White House is really emphasizing what hasn't changed, which is their view that the debt limit itself is non negotiable, that Congress has an obligation to pass a clean increase one without spending reductions just like they did throughout the the Trump administration. The President willing to have this separate larger discussion about budget and spending only if Republicans can produce a budget, which they still haven't done.

And so really they're still not able to get into the specifics about what are the contours of that discussion. Is it what maybe Kevin Car floated when he did come here more than 80 days ago now of a two year budget deal, something we haven't seen in quite a long time. The White House is really, still really digging in here and rethinking the whole strategy based on these changes. Yeah, that seems to be the word of the day or the words I should say of the day from the White House.

They are digging in. Ryan, let me go to you. Take us inside your conversations on Capitol Hill with leadership Republicans saying we are not going to raise the debt limit without some assurance that there will be spending cuts that go along with it. What is their position at this point and where are you seeing an offering to this?

You know, I think when all of us saw that letter from the Treasury Secretary yesterday. It came with a bit of alarm, especially because some of the prognosticators were predicting that perhaps this wasn't going to be something that the Congress would be forced to deal with until the end of July, maybe even early August. So this new kind of ramped up timeline for the first week of June really set into motion that meeting, as Mike reported on at the White House. But I have to tell you on Capitol Hill, it hasn't really changed the position of anyone.

We see both sides kind of doubling down on their previous stances as it relates to the debt ceiling. Republicans are very much convinced that they have no reason to raise the debt ceiling if there is not some sort of companion spending cut attached to it or at least a commitment to reduce spending in the future. And Democrats are also very insistent that they are not going to raise the debt ceiling as part of a budget negotiation, that they want to have these two conversations in separate negotiations. So I'm not exactly sure what this conversation is going to look like at the White House because there isn't a ton of movement on either side.

And Chris, and we haven't even got into the idea that even if a negotiation does emerge, a compromise, I should say, emerges from this meeting on May 9, that it could even pass. There's real questions as to whether or not House Republicans who feel they've already compromised in the bill that they passed would move or budget all from the previous stance that they had before. And there's also real questions about whether or not something other than clean debt ceiling could get 60 votes in the Senate. So in terms of an off ramp, I haven't found one yet, Kristen, but I'm telling you, I'm looking under every nook and cranny here at the Capitol to try and find.

I think we all are. We're running out of nooks and crannies to look under. Ryan, let me follow up with you very quickly because Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries has put forth this proposal effectively this Plan B, a workaround to the fact that Republicans will not support a clean debt limit, a so called discharge position. What is it and what would it mean if it passes through the House?

Would this be a potential solution? Yeah. So it's basically an arcane legislative trick that's rarely used that allows House members to kind of go around the traditional leadership mechanism in order to get something to the floor. But it would be really complicated.

It's really an example of how there are many members up here in Washington on Capitol Hill, they're very concerned that there isn't going to be a solution here and they're going to the break glass in case of emergency type of effort. And so the issue here with this charge petition would be that it would require at least five Republicans to break ranks with party leadership and with their fellow Republicans to vote for it. And then even if they were able to pull a bill out for this kind of legislative trick on the House side, it would still require 60 votes in the Senate. It would be the same process in the Senate.

And that bill couldn't be amended. If it was amended at all. It would come back to the House and get caught up in the same ways that it's already in. So this is not an impossibility, Kristen.

But if we get to the point where these congressional members need a discharge petition to solve this problem, well, we could be in very serious trouble. It's very unlikely that this is the way out of this mess. Mike, what is the White House saying about a discharge petition? Make sure I'm saying that clearly.

And where they see the off ramp is Ryan has rightfully said we're all looking under every single nook and cranny and right now we can't find an off ramp to this crisis. It's interesting, Chris, because today several different possibilities, the different mechanisms that could lead to an off ramp here, and she wouldn't really acknowledge or weigh in on any of them, simply saying broadly that it is up to Congress to find a solution. Now, what's interesting about that framing is there is this other possibility, the 14th Amendment option, to essentially say that the government doesn't need Congress to act here, that the federal government can do this on its own, the executive branch that is, and that's something that White House officials are treating very carefully. It's not necessarily something that is a serious option.

They don't want to put it prominently on the table because they want to keep the urgency with Congress to find a solution here. There's the possibility, of course, of legal challenges if they were to attempt to do this. But at this point, they're very low to take any option off the table because they want to be reassuring to markets but also pressuring, keeping the pressure on all side try to come together here. All right, Mike Manley, Ryan Noble, I think we are all in for a very busy month ahead.

Thank you both for starting us off today. Really appreciate it. And as we mentioned, the Biden administration is facing another looming deadline, the expiration of Title 42. That's of course, the COVID policy that allowed migrants to be quick expelled at the southern border.

Now the Pentagon announced today Defense Secretary Austin approved a request from DHS to deploy active duty troops to the border in anticipation of a surge of migrants. With Title 42 set to expire next week, the Pentagon says 1500 military personnel will be set to the border for 90 days to support the Border Patrol mission and to fill critical gaps. Joining now to discuss this from The Pentagon is NBC's Courtney Kuby. So Court, let's start with this.

Why are they deploying active duty versus National Guardsmen and when can we expect them to arrive? So there's already 2500 National Guard down there. The reason that this current deployment is active duty is probably just faster. They can move them down there much faster.

This Authorization is for 90 days. But the Pentagon secret agent today said the hope is that they may be able to replace them with other National Guard troops in those 90 days and the active duty won't be there that long. He also explained that something I think is really important for viewers to understand that's that's that these U.S. troops will not be down there in any kind of law enforcement capacity.

As you all know, Kristen, U.S. troops active duty cannot conduct any kind of law enforcement mission on the in the continental US it violates something called the Posit Comitatus Act. Because of that, National Guard are often used for more visa of law enforcement missions on a state duty. But regardless of that, the US Troops will go down there.

The idea is they will backfill some of the CBP and other border patrol agents who are down there so that they can go forward and do more of law enforcement mission while the US Troops do things that are slightly more administrative. So not any way they will not be interact interacting with migrants but they will be there to support. So court, you have to ask if you're sending active duty troops, they are presumably being sent from somewhere from other missions. Is that the case?

Are they being redirected from other missions? Do you have a sense of where those other locations are? We don't know that yet. So we know they're coming from army and Marine Corps but we haven't gotten any idea of which units they are yet.

And I will say officials here at the Pentagon say that it's not going to have any kind of impact on readiness these troops being re missions down to the border. But we don't particularly, we just don't know who they are yet. Yeah, we know that former President Trump took a similar action when he was president, what were the takeaways from that? Was it effective?

Yes. I mean, but keep in mind, so he sent at that time, he sent more than this is this is a smaller mission. And remember, there has been this enduring presence of National Guard troops. There's still 2500 of them who are there right now.

So, I mean, this is really a plus up of an existing mission for now. The real question that I keep asking is, okay, so we have the 2,500 additional 1500 going. That's 4,000 ultimately, what will be presumably all National Guard, potentially some reserve troops. How long is that mission going to continue and is there a chance that that could increase?

Because we really don't have a sense of when the expiration of Title 42 goes into effect. Will there be a need for more troops, National Guard troops on the border and for how long? I think it's a question people just don't know the answer to at this point. But there has been this continued presence of National Guard down there for years.

Kristen. Well, we know you will continue to watch the situation as we get closer to that May 11 deadline. Courtney QB, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Coming up, one of the House's top Democrats on spending issues joins me next as Congress faces dual deadlines tied to the debt limit and the border. Plus, no Hollywood ending. The nation's TV writers go on strike saying they face a, quote, existential crisis over working conditions in the streaming era. The latest fallout and where contract negotiations stand ahead.

You're watching me, the press. Now, did you know that everyday activities like ASMR can actually be healthy for you? Right now you're improving your heart health, boosting your brain activity and lowering your stress. Manulife wants you to see healthy living differently so you can live a longer, healthier life.

Visit Manulife Ca Health to learn more ways Manulife can help. Welcome back. We now know that Senate Minority Leader McConnell will attend the White House meeting next week with President Biden and Speaker McCarthy. But McConnell says there's no role for the Senate to play in the debt ceiling.

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader King Je is pushing forward with a plan B, laying the groundwork to potentially try to force through a clean debt ceiling bill that would bypass Speaker McCarthy, but only if a majority of the Republican controlled House agreed. From where I'm joined by Congressman Brendan Boyle, Democrat from Pennsylvania and the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. Thank you so much for being here, Congressman. Happy to be with you.

Let's start with Hakeem, Jeffrey's Plan B, the so called discharge petition. What do you make of this? Do you see this as a political stunt or could this actually be the solution to this problem? Well, it certainly is no stunt.

Back in January, we introduced a piece of legislation that could be used essentially break glass in case of emergency. Now, at the same time, I want to reiterate something I've also said for the last four months now, which is that a discharge petition is very difficult to successfully pull off. I've been in this role for nine years. I've seen it succeed exactly once, and I believe it has succeeded a total of twice in the 21st century.

So we should recognize that this is a low probability, but it is possible. So it's something you would support, but you're skeptical that it would actually be the offering up here, Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Just to be clear, there's no disagreement between Hakeem Jeffries, me and other House Democrats.

We want to make sure that we pay America's bills, period, end of story. Whether that's through a straight up piece of legislation that we can pass tomorrow, or if we have to resort to the discharge petition as essentially a last resort. The bottom line is, yeah, but you would need a handful of Republicans, about five Republicans, if our math is correct, to sign off on this discharge. Who would those five names be?

Have you identified them? Yeah, so they. The other time, the one time that I've seen the discharge petition to succeed, it was when Democrats win the minority. And we did get, I think, upwards of three dozen Republicans to join us to sign that discharge petition.

That's how something called the Export Import bank was reauthorized. So this time the math is actually much easier for us. We only need five. And I would.

So as you can tell, I'm not. I would point out, however, there are 18 House Republicans who like to call themselves moderates. They like to fancy themselves as moderates. I never see much evidence in their voting record that they're moderates.

Well, here's a chance for them to really put their money where their mouth is with their voting card where their mouth is. Join with House Democrats to ensure we don't suffer the first ever default in American history. We have voted to raise the debt ceiling 103 times since 1940. They should join with us so we can do the right thing.

Let me ask you about the White House's position. The President insists he is not going to negotiate over the debt limit, that he wants a clean bill to increase the debt limit, and then he'll talk to Republicans about the proposed spending cuts as a part of a separate process. But we are less than a month out from a potential default. Is it time for President Biden to negotiate with Republicans?

I have to say I think the media narrative on this is really off. The reality is we Democrats stand ready, willing and able to negotiate with Republicans about next year's spending and the years after that. We always do that. It's called the appropriations process.

But what we won't do is have a negotiation on the question as to whether or not America should pay its bills or we should suffer a global default, which would be a catastrophic event. There simply can be no negotiation over that. We have to do it, period. And yet, Congressman, if the nation defaults, won't there be political blame for everyone?

Won't there be pass on everyone's House? Effectively? This is exactly why something you should negotiate over. There will be plenty of blame to go around on any of us who are office holders or frankly within 50 miles of the nation's capital if we literally were to plummet the economy and indeed the worldwide economy into another great recession.

If you talk to former Trump Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin or former Obama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew or the current one, Janet Yellen, we're a conservative or liberal economist. They all agree we have to raise the debt ceiling, period. And I understand the Congress is on recess, but this meeting at the White House is not until next week. Where's the urgency?

Why not call lawmakers out this week? Yeah, just to be I mean, phones still work and emails still work and text messages still work, regardless of whether we are also unlike say appropriations bills, which are enormously complex pieces of legislation requiring thousands of pages in order to raise the debt ceiling, it literally just takes a one sentence bill. So we certainly do have time between now and June 1st. I wanted this back done in November and December and let a letter of House Democrats to do so.

So certainly I felt the urgency. But the good news is there still is time. Well, Republicans are proposing some $5 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. And I understand the president Democrats said there's no way you're going to back those cuts.

But the argument Republicans are putting forward is if we're not going to negotiate spending cuts now, when why not use the leverage of the debt limit to try to get some real cuts given that the country is in $31 trillion worth of debt? Congressman? Well, just to be clear, we House Democrats will negotiate over what next year's budget looks like. We always have to negotiate what next year budget looks like.

So there's not a question about whether or not such a negotiation will take place. It happens every year and it will happen this year. Now, in terms of the cuts the Republicans want, they would have devastating effects. Moody's analytics took a look at the bill that the House Republicans passed last week.

They projected this is not coming from Democrats. This is coming from A nonpartisan source. 800,000 job losses if their bill were to become law and a greater likelihood of us being plummeted into a recession. Those are the sorts of irresponsible cuts that House Democrats will never go along with Congress because we are running short on time here.

Are there potential areas of common ground? For example, some Republicans are pushing for work requirements for Medicaid coverage. Is that something you could get behind? Well, let's remind ourselves that literally under congressional Democrats leadership of President Biden, we have seen a $1.7 trillion reduction in our nation's deficit.

So we have been fiscally responsible. The other side likes to talk about it, and then they blow up the deficit with their huge tax cuts to the rich. That's not what we're going to do. Are there specific proposals that you've seen from Republicans that you think, hey, I could potentially find some common ground for Republicans on that?

I am someone who has demonstrated throughout my career that I certainly have the ability to compromise and take half a loaf instead of holding out for the whole loaf. But I will say there is very little to nothing in that piece of legislation that passed last week that I would be clamoring to support. Okay. Let me ask you just finally about this news that we are getting that the administration's going to send 1500 active duty service members to the US border in anticipation of that era policy Title 42 being lifted.

I'll just remind you that back in 2018, Adam Smith, who's the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee at the time, accused former President Trump of, quote, militarizing the border. He called it a political act. What makes this moment different, Congressman? Yeah.

So I have seen those public reports we have so far. I say we, I mean, members of Congress or at least those of us who are not on the committees of jurisdiction, we have not received any information or briefings on this matter that I'm aware of. So I will reserve judgment until we go back. The House goes back in the session next week, but I would urge the administration to come up to the Hill and brief us on their plan so we have a better idea of what Exactly.

The plan looks like what those troops we'd be doing at the border on its face. Would you support such a move to bolster the CBP officials are already down there to brace for a potential surge in migrants. Yeah. So we need, clearly we need more security.

I don't think there's really anyone who disagrees on that front. That's been an issue for the last two decades, ever since the first surge under George W. Bush in 2005, I believe. But what makes it difficult to answer this question in the abstract is without seeing what the projected surge looks like, what the troops will be doing, where they would be focused.

So again, I think it's more responsible to reserve judgment until I see what the actual plan is that will be in place. All right. Congressman Boyle, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

And up next, the very latest on the massive writers strike that shut down much of Hollywood right now. But first, in light of the strikes were highlighting a Hollywood woman on Meet the Press, Jane Fonda, a long time workers rights advocate and star of the 1980 film 9 to 5, joined the program in 1979 to discuss her political activism as she set out on a national advocacy tour ahead of the 1980 election. Take a listen to In California when Ms. Fonda was nominated to the arts council in the Senate rejected the nomination.

Ms. Fonda, you said that that was McCarthyism. Aren't you, however, trying to have it both ways? You use your art itself and the fame and money you get from art to advance political purposes.

But then when you're considered for public office affecting the arts, you say that it's wrong to consider your politics. Oh, considering my politics on the issues would be fine. I was welcome to go to political fight, but I was slandered on the floor of the Senate. My patriotism was questioned on the floor of the Senate without my being given a right to answer those charges.

They are very serious, slanderous charges and I think that that's maximum Cathyism. I have experience with cartheism in the past. For five years during the Nixon administration, it was very difficult for me to get work because of my political beliefs. Welcome back.

If you're a fan of late night talk shows, you may be a bit disappointed when you tune in tonight. Many of those shows will be dark as thousands of Hollywood writers go on strike. The Writers Guild of America's members are on the picket lines today arguing they're not being compensated properly by movie and TV studios in the streaming era. In a statement, the Guild writer writes, the company's Behavior has created a gig economy inside a union workforce.

And their immovable stance in this negotiation has betrayed a commitment to further devaluing the profession of writing. Comcast, the corporation that owns our parent company, NBC Universal, is one of the entertainment companies represented by the alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which bargains on behalf of the studios, television networks and streaming platforms. That association is defending its proposal, saying it offered, quote, generous increases in compensation for writers. Join me now, NBC's Marissa Pera, who is at a picket line in Burbank, California.

Marissa, what are you seeing there? Scene for us? Hey, Kristen, let me take you on a little walk here. So this is one of the locations that riders are taking to the picket lines here.

You can see their signs in hand. And we're taking a little journey here as I tell you what they're fighting for. The big bottom line here is, of course, more money, but there's a couple of reasons for that. We're going to weave in between here.

You might hear some horns honking. There is a lot of solidarity on this front. And so the main thing that they're saying is that with streaming, this new era of streaming is really impacted, not just the way we watch tv, not just the way we watch movies, but also how they are made. You can see these signs over here that say sag, aftra, union stand Together.

We talk about that solidarity. Actors, directors, other producers, other folks here that are involved in the production process standing solidarity because they too say the stream has completely impacted their quality of life. And so when we talk about quality of life, they say streaming involves fewer episodes and they get paid per episode. It's longer production time.

So many of the people, especially those who are just starting out in the industry, they're having a hard time affording rent, the basic necessities. But the other point that is so interesting here, Kristen, when we look at the sticking points, why those negotiations failed, one of the main ones was artificial intelligence. Writers were asking for some reassurance that their jobs wouldn't one day be taken over by robots and artificial intelligence, they're capable of doing that. We've seen the capabilities of chat GPT, and that is something that the studio, the alliance representative studios clearly was not willing to budge on it.

And I think it's also interesting, you know, the deadline was 11:59pm but those negotiations really broke down so much earlier than people were expecting. So clearly a lot of contention. When you look at the statements here, they're both pointing fingers at the other side, the studio alliance saying that they offered a comprehensive and generous package with an increase in pay. But the Writers Guild not only saying publicly but to their own members saying we were left with no other choice.

So, Kristen, when it comes to the impact, you're gonna first see a late night talk show. They're gonna be running reruns. They're outside of Warner Bros. Here, but they're at various stud picketing around the area.

Here in Hollywood, we saw some pitting in New York as well. Late night talk shows, soap operas, those will be the first impacts. But later on, depending on how long this strike lasts, you could see delays, especially in those those film productions, release dates. And that's going to depend on how long the union strike lasts.

And they have set time again. They're willing to fight for however long it takes. All right, Mercenaria, I know you will stay on top of it for however long it takes. Thank you for that great reporting.

Really appreciate it. After the break. Love. New developments in the fight over trans rights as the ACLU sues Republicans in Montana after they banned a trans lawmaker from speaking on the House floor.

I'll talk to the ACLU attorney in the thick of the fight. That interview is next. You're watching Eat THE PRESS now. Stay with us.

Welcome back. Oklahoma is now the latest state to enact a law restricting transgender health care. It joins 14 other states with similar laws after Governor Kevin Stitt signed a bill yesterday banning minors from receiving gender affirming care. Until yesterday, efforts to roll back transgender rights have become a major part of legislative agendas.

In Republican led statehouses yesterday, Missouri judge temporarily stayed that state's ban on transgender care for minors and adults from going into effect. And Nebraska Democratic state Senator Megan Hunt is under an ethics investigation for opposing anti transgender legislation. Critics say Hunt would have benefited financially from improved Medicare benefits because she has a transgender child. And in Montana, the state's first and only transgender lawmaker, Zoe Zephyr and the ACLU were suing the speaker of the House.

Thereafter, Zephyr was censured in bards in the House chamber last week for comments she made during debate around a transgender. That bill became law on Friday. For more on that lawsuit, I'm joined by the ACLU Use Montana director Alex Raitt. Alex, thank you so much for joining me.

Really appreciate it. Thanks for having me, Kristen. So break down this case. What are the arguments that you are making here?

Yeah, well, I have to say I feel like we've officially entered the twilight zone here in Montana. Never in my legal career would I have expected that you would see a duly elected representative to the Montana legislature essentially silenced and expelled for doing exactly what she was elected to do, which is to represent the voices of her 11,000 constituents. So when Representative Zepper was censured by the House speaker and the full House of Representatives, the only recourse that she had available was to file an emergency lawsuit, essentially arguing that her First Amendment rights have been violated. And it's a well known fact that an individual who's elected to the legislature does not lose their right to free speech when they walk in the doors of the state Capitol.

And we intend to indicate those rights. And you are making essentially a freedom of speech argument, but are there broader implications for the transgender rights movement and for the rights of transgender people all across the country? Yeah, well, I think that, you know, this is not necessarily an issue related to transgender rights. Right.

I mean, we are clearly seeing differential treatment based on who Representative Zephyr is. And certainly we have seen an onslaught of legislation targeting the trans community throughout the 2023 legislative session. But at the end of the day, regardless of your identity, regardless of your political party, you have an obligation to represent the voices of your constituents when you're elected to the state legislature. And that's exactly what Representative Zeppelin did here, here.

So the fact that she's silenced has less to do with her transgender status than the fact that she is speaking out on an issue of important public concern. And her voice needs to be heard in that debate. How confident are you in this suit based on what you know about Montana? You're suing, I should say Montana District Court.

So how confident are you in your suit based on that? Yeah, well, no lawyer will tell you that they have a crystal ball. But I do think that, you know, we have very strong legal claims. I think that the biggest challenge for us right now is time, because we're looking at a situation where the legislature, which here in Montana only meets every other year for 90 days, is scheduled to adjourn imminently.

And so what we need is an emergency order from the court reinstating all of Representative Zephyr's privileges immediately. And that's particularly critical right now because the state is currently set to debate perhaps the most consequential bill impacting all of Montana's, which is the state budget, House Bill 2. So we need to see immediate action in order to make sure that Representative Zephyr and her 11,000 constituents are heard on this particularly critical piece of legislation. Moving to the overall transgender medical care ban that was signed into law Friday.

That we just talked about. Is the ACLU poised to fight that? You've said that that's another case that you will take up. What is the timeline of that?

What will that look like? Yeah, that case is imminent. So obviously life saving, gender affirming care is critically important to trans youth across Montana. This is a matter of life and death.

Representative Zephyr was not being hyperbolic or inflammatory when she said that the legislature has blood on their hands for purposes of passing Senate. And so we intend to vigorously challenge that particularly damaging bill in the courts. And you can expect to see that very, very soon. And over 15 states have some form of ban in place.

What is your national strategy as it relates to transgender rights? Well, I mean, I think it differs state by state, but fair to say that you see copycat legislation being duplicated, you know, among states that have a conservative majority. And the anti trans agenda has proliferated. And this is nothing new.

I mean, these folks have been targeting vulnerable communities for decades and this is only the latest iteration. And I will tell you that ACLU and our allies will continue to stand up and vindicate those rights and make sure that oppressive bills like Senate Bill 99 are not the law of the lamp. Do you anticipate your fight in Montana that some of these other fights that you plan to take on will go all the way to the Supreme Court? Well, we focus a lot of our litigation here in state court relying upon a really unique and special Montana constitution that contains robust protections for individual dignity and privacy.

So the likelihood of a state court claim going up to the US Supreme Court is relatively low. And we have seen that both our district courts and the Montana Supreme Court has jealously defended the most important bedrock rights that exist in the state constitution. So we hope and expect that these fights will unfold in state courts. But certainly there's always the possibility that something will go up, all the way up to the US Supreme Court.

All right, Alex Raitt, thank you so much for joining us and talking us through your lawsuit. We will stay in touch with you as you continue to fight this. We really appreciate it it. Yeah, I appreciate your time, Kristen.

Thank you. Silicon you too. Still come crisis of confidence. What Washington's dysfunctional debate over the debt limit, the border and the Supreme Court says about the state of our broken politics and what it could mean for 2024.

The panel snaps. You're watching the press now. Welcome back. And more partisan bickering on Capitol Hill.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing earlier on ethics reform on the Supreme Court Spurred by some recent reporting on Justice Clarence Thomas's relationship with billionaire Harlan Crowe, many Republicans pushed back on the effort to subject a high court to a code of conduct, claiming bias from Democrats against recent decisions by the court. So to say today's hearing was politically fraught would be an understatement. Here's a sample of what we heard. This is untenable.

Ethics cannot simply be left to the discretion of the nation's highest court. The highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards. This assault on Justice Thomas is well beyond ethics. It is about trying to delegitimize a conservative court that was appointed through the traditional process.

Some of my Democratic colleagues have been on a crusade to undermine the United States Supreme Court's legitimacy and the credibility of the federal judiciary for years. I can see why the public has severe questions about the confidence that they have in our Supreme Court, which seems to hold itself above any other court and any of the rest of us in terms of their ethical behavior. Joining now is my panel, Camilla Chalice, Washington Post congressional reporter Cornell Belcher, Democratic strategist and pollster and an NBC News local analyst. And Danny Platka, senior fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and a Meet the Press contributor.

Than all of you for being here. Camilla, let me start with you and what we just heard there. Obviously they are delving into the ethics of the court and you can see the partisan divides on display, even talking about ethics with the high court. Right.

I was in the congressional hearing in the room when they were making these testimonies. And what I found really interesting is that Republicans, there was a lot of questions of whether the public just views the Supreme Court as hyper partisan. And when you have these reports coming out about financial disclosures, whether he could have done more to kind of unleash or unfold his relationship with that GOP metadonor, then you know, you have Republicans in the room just going on the defense and saying, hey, these are just partisan attacks on the Democrats, just going after Clarence Thomas. But these are not justified that, you know, you guys are just making these things up and that you guys are just going on attack.

So this is just what we've been hearing all along. And they just kind of reiterated their remarks during here and today. Daniel, what's your take on this? What do you make of this separation of powers argument that the court is making that hearings and Republicans there and make it, hey, the court can police itself.

The separation of power's argument is important. Any time you see something like this, it's not about Republicans and Democrats. It is about our Constitution. And we want everybody to be respectful and careful about that because once you begin to unwind those sort of protections, you lose the balance of powers that exist in the Constitution.

But I think there's a more important question here. And by the way, I should sit back a second and say I know Harlan Crowe extremely well. He's on the American Enterprise Institute's board. I'm extraordinarily fond of him.

He's a man of great integrity. So I want everybody to know that and not discover that for me on Twitter later. But let me say this. Anytime you see something like this, the question you have to ask yourself is, is this a standard that the Congress has brought previously?

Has Congress asked of previous justices, hey, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when you got that million dollar prize in 2019 and you said you were going to give it to charity, did you really give it to charity? Hey, Elena Kagan, like to have a hearing about your relationship with Harvard. So I think these are the questions that arise for the Republicans when they talk about fairness. Cornell Belcher, what say you about that?

So let me get this right. I wonder why the Supreme Court is now seen by most Americans as having legitimacy issues. I wonder why. Maybe it's overturning decades of president for what seemingly is political moments.

This is about Democrats. So this is about the system of democracy, about American people. No institution's numbers have dropped as dramatically as the Supreme Court. No, blame it on Democrats.

Blame it on the actions of the Supreme Court. Let me get this right. So every federal judge in the country is bound by a code of ethics that they have to live by except for the top court in the land, where does that make sense? It makes zero sense.

And to compare Elena Kagan's relationship with Harvard to a multi billionaire buying up houses and influence for Justice Thomas, it just doesn't add up. And I'm sorry I interrupted you before, you make me mad sometimes. But, but listen, first of all, I don't think that Harlan bought influence with Justice Thomas because they've been friends for decades on end and he has no cases before the court that's been well, gone over. But second of all, the legitimacy of the court, when it overturns decades of precedent, for example, when it decides to give black people the vote, does that discredit them?

When it decides to make abortion legal throughout the United States, does that discredit them? Or is it only when they don't go the way that you like that they are suddenly an institution that doesn't deserve credit. You know, this is about me. Where the majority of Americans think that court is illegal legitimacy, not Cornell.

Yeah, well, and the court, but institutions in general. And Camila, it's not just the Supreme Court. I mean, it is all of our institutions that are being heavily scrutinized. And the American public is say we're not sure.

I mean, if you look at the approval rating writ large, that's a challenge. I mean, when you look at what's happening in the court, it kind of embodies what's happening. Yes. And I think just given that the reports that just came out, it did prompt this conversation that everybody's taken up.

Should there be they adopt more codes of ethics, not just at the Supreme Court, but at every institution, just ensure that the American public has that trust in that institution. I actually talked to lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, asking should Congress adopt a code that comes a Supreme Court today? And I actually support that across the board. All Democrats said, yes, we should do this.

But some Republicans also said that they were open to this idea. So it also just shows that, I mean, there's just this acknowledgment that maybe something should be done. That way American, the public can have this more trust in this institution. And speaking about faith in our institutions, right now, Congress, the White House are grappling over how to raise the debt limit.

President Biden, Camilla, says he's not going to negotiate speakers, says he's not going to sign anything that doesn't include spending cuts. I can't find an off ramp anywhere I look. Have you been able to locate one? Yes.

This is what's going on Capitol Hill. And there's a lot of talks behind the scenes. And what we know now is that Democrats, especially on the House side, want to sign a discharge petition in order to get something on the House floor. But the reality is they're going to need Republican votes, not just on the House side to try to gain at least five on the outside to get something done, but then also on the Senate since there is such a slim majority there.

And so this is something where I know the president has made it clear that he wants to raise the debt limit without any, you know, add ons or concessions made. But the reality of that being is there's going to have to be more talks to play out and this is getting more real by the day. Now the White House seems to be digging in, but doesn't the buck ultimately stop the president, especially since he's gonna ask him for another Four years in office. No, the buck stops.

Well, talk about Constitution. Constitution's pretty clear on this one. The economic bucks, the writing of the checkbook does not stop with this, with the President. It actually starts and stops with Congress.

And the Congress created this debt and now they're simply trying to hold American economy hostage so that. To pay for the bills that they actually created. Let's see, Danny, I want to know where this Cornell was when the President was trying to hand out $400 million in student loan relief. But that's a different argument, so let's not start it here.

Exactly. What Camilla said is right. What is the offering? The offering for something that I, I know all of us, you and I would agree on.

I hope you and I would agree on, which is, look, McCarthy is the speaker of the House, but he is trapped by the tiny majority he has and by a bunch of fringy creeps who are holding his feet to the fire. What he needs is to work with the President. That means the President needs to work with him. So where's the off ramp?

Does the President need to negotiate? I hear what you're saying, that Congress crossing agree with you. I actually. Sorry, here's the off rank.

You're absolutely right about your analysis of what's going on. So here's the off rank. McCarthy should reach over to enough Democrats who absolutely vote with minority of Republicans or corporate rally Republicans and pass the debt ceiling, clear it out and move around to debating the issues that they want to debate in Congress. Easy, easy, done.

But the President is the boss of his party. No, no, that's a good thing to do. He should try. The President should have said right now.

Go ahead. Politically speaking. Politically speaking. And I asked this of Congressman Boyle.

I mean, isn't this a pox on everyone's House if the nation goes over the debt limit? And I remind everyone what happened in 2011 when S& P downgraded the nation's credit rating, even though they did come to an agreement. But they said the process was so dysfunctional, we're downgrading your credit limit anyway. Yes.

I mean, and this is the thing. They've already come out saying, hey, look, McConnell, McCarthy, Biden, we are all going to meet and let's talk about this. But the reality is there needs to be more conversations going on about, okay, I know you guys, you know, want to raise the debt limit. You don't want any conditions attached, but the reality is, could you really have a debt.

I know Democrats are also talking to Republicans, see if they are willing to break what their party to support this discharge petition. So these are things that are kind of going on behind the scenes that we want to see now. The question is what could those concessions be? And that is the biggest question here that we still just don't have the answer yet.

That's the biggest question here. And we have less than a minute left. But Cornell, just very briefly, I mean, are Democrats concerned about a political backlash? I mean, they want to win the White house again in 2024?

Well, I think the question Republicans should be concerned about a political backlash. So they're the ones holding up. You know, Democrats have always passed that limit. Is he right?

Always pass a dead limit. I think that there's a lot of stake for both parties in this and they should both start behaving like grown ups. It would be so refreshing, like lifting a ceiling. They need behaving like grownups at the White House.

They need to take a page from the two of you reaching across the alley for the bipartisan conversation. Very spirit of your. Appreciate it and thank you for being with us this hour. Chuck us back tomorrow.

More Be the Press now. NBC News NOW coverage continues with Garrett Hake in for Halle right now. I'm Craig. Mel.

Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy and now I'm talking to people who look at the world that way, too.

It's really fascinating. Folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny. And so I hope you'll join me each week. Who knows, you might just come away with your own Glass apple.

Search Glass Apple with Craig Melton From Today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.