Meet the Press NOW — May 22

If it's Monday, President Biden and Speaker McCarthy are about to meet at the White House as the clock takes down for potential government default as early as June 1st, which Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is now calling a hard deadline. Plus, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott launches his 2024 campaign with red meat rhetoric and attacks on President Biden as Scott sits down with NBC News for an exclusive interview on his campaign and whether he's ready to take on Trump. And SpaceX launches four private citizens on a mission to the International Space Station amid the industry's quest for another giant leap for mankind to Mars. Welcome to Meet the Press Now.

I'm Yamiche Alcindor in for Kristen Walker in Washington where President Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy are gearing up to meet once again at the White House just about 90 minutes from now. The meeting comes a little more than a week before the U.S. could default on its debt with potentially catastrophic consequences for the economy. This will be the first one-on-one meeting between the President and the House Speaker during these talks.

Ahead of the meeting, Speaker McCarthy remains firm that his party won't vote to raise the debt limit unless Democrats agree to immediately cut spending. With Adam's seat, the President today will sit down and we'll talk about it. But the underlying issue here is that Democrats and State put the majority have been predicted to spending and that's going to stop. We're going to spend less than we spent last year.

The President, who returned from Asia late last night, cutting his trip short because of these negotiations, told reporters before leaving Japan that both sides agree that a default cannot be on the table. It's time for Republicans to accept that there is no bipartisan deal to be made solely, solely on their partisan terms. They have to move as well. All four congressional leaders agree with me that default is not, let me say it again, default is not an option.

Time, though, may be running out. Even if the deal is reached, it will still take time to get it through Congress. Today, Speaker McCarthy told reporters that could take a full week. And yesterday, Secretary Secretary Janet Yellen told Chuck that a default could be just 10 days away.

Well, I indicated in my last letter to Congress that we expect to be unable to pay all of our bills in early June and possibly as soon as June 1st. And I will continue to update Congress, but I certainly haven't changed my assessment. So I think that that's a hard deadline. It's clear that June 1st is not hard, but it's the beginning of that period.

What is the likelihood we can get to the June 15th tax receipts to avoid breaching the debt ceiling? Can you put a percentage on it? Is it 20 percent, 40 percent, something like that? Well, there's always uncertainty about tax receipts and spending.

And so it's hard to be absolutely certain about this. But my assessment is that the odds of reaching June 15th while being able to pay all of our bills is quite low. Stark words here to get us started. I'm joined by my colleagues, Monica Alba at the White House and Ryan Nobles on Capitol Hill.

So, Monica, I want to start with you. How concerned is the White House about a potential default, considering the fact that President Biden just suggested yesterday that some of what he calls MAGA Republicans are rooting for a default that could potentially politically hurt him? They're definitely worried about it, Amish, and that is why they have been over the last couple of weeks and months trying to get people to understand the implications of this never-before-seen reaching of a potential brink of default, right? We've never been this close to it being something that could actually happen.

There have been standoffs in the past, but the fact that both sides remain as dug into their positions as they have been and the fact that there isn't a deal is making everybody just as jittery as you can imagine. And that's why the President and Speaker McCarthy are going to come together in the Oval Office here in a little bit and meet face-to-face. And both men in the last 24 hours or so have said a version of, so far to this point, we've had some productive conversation, but there's still a lot of differences that need to be addressed. And so I think what you're going to see here, and the White House is telling me that they're not bracing for something to be completely ironed out by the end of this, but they're just hopeful that they're going to move into some kind of loose framework or agreement that then their negotiators will probably have to go back to the table to hammer out in the next couple of days.

But as you said in your introduction, time is really of the essence here. There's not much legislative runway to get this done. So the negotiators from the White House that have been representing the President were on Capitol Hill earlier today. They wrapped that up, and then they headed to the White House where they just briefed the President, I'm told, and where White House officials are really stressing that the President's going to go in, stress the urgency, appeal to the Speaker saying, neither one of us want to see the U.S.

do this in terms of a potential recession, millions of jobs that could be lost, everything that's at stake. But the major thing that they haven't been able to, of course, come to an agreement on is the spending aspect of all of this, where Republicans want these cuts. The White House has said they're open to some of them, but they're still quite far apart in how they get there, Yamiche. And Ryan, as Monica just said, they're quite far apart.

Everyone's jittery. It's one way to play it. At the same time, Speaker McCarthy, his main argument for why a default won't happen is that the House has already passed his debt-stealing plan. But we should remind folks that that is basically that on arrival Senate Democrats say.

So tell me a little bit about how he's willing to negotiate toward the bipartisan solution and how real it is that we both have a default if Kevin McCarthy's plan isn't going to work for the Senate. Yeah, that's really just a political position that McCarthy has taken, kind of a way to make an argument to the American people that the House of Representatives has already passed a debt-stealing extension if, for some reason, these negotiations go south and the country ends up defaulting. It doesn't really have a whole heck of a lot to do with the real negotiations that are happening between the White House and the Speaker's office. It is maybe a starting point for them to begin the conversation.

But even under those circumstances, there's been some talk that the House Republicans have asked for things that are above and beyond even what are in this proposal. So there's going to have to be some real stark conversations that take place between the President and the House Speaker today. The one thing that we've noticed that has happened here on Capitol Hill is that everybody seems to be willing to put the responsibility on these two men. We've seen Mitch McConnell hand over that responsibility to McCarthy.

We've seen Chuck Schumer basically hand that responsibility over to President Biden. So they've had their emissaries kind of having these conversations and nitty-gritty talks over the past couple of days behind closed doors here on Capitol Hill. Could there potentially be a breakthrough with these two men in this room where they can come to some sort of overarching framework that Monica described that would get us to a path that's a resolution? I think that's what many of us are looking for tonight.

And Ryan, when you talk about that, the expectations must be high in some ways but also realistic. So what are House Republicans really hoping comes from this one-on-one meeting? Do they really believe that these two men can't hash it out at the White House? I mean, that's the hope, Yamiche.

I mean, the one thing that I don't think we've given Kevin McCarthy enough credit for, at least up until this point, is his ability to keep his House Republican colleagues in line. You know, there was a conventional wisdom that was born out of that extended fight for him to win the speakership that he would have, particularly the right flank of his caucus, kind of chirping all the time, every time he was negotiating. And for the most part, at least publicly, they've been very supportive of his efforts. Now, could that change if he does strike a deal with Biden and it doesn't fall in line with what the Freedom Caucus is looking for?

That is certainly a real possibility. But at this point, Kevin McCarthy holds the keys to these negotiations. And if he can find some sort of leverage point with Joe Biden that he feels comfortable enough to move forward on, that's where we'll have to see if he's going to be successful. But up until this point, he's held his caucus together.

He passed a bill. He's right. He's the only one that's done that. And that, I think, is really kind of the basis for them to be so aggressive in these negotiations up until this point.

And Monica, we know President Biden came back from his Asia trip to have these talks. What's the expectation on the White House side? Yeah, and I think what's really important to remember here, too, Yamiche, is that in the last couple of weeks, and you saw there, the Treasury Secretary indicated in her interview with Chuck that she would continue to update Congress. Is that something that we could also see in the next, you know, couple of days?

And does that date at all become a little bit later into June? There were all these discussions of does June 1st become June 8th or June 10th? Or does it really matter? Because, again, in terms of getting everything done, that has to be at least kind of in place before then.

I think that the White House is trying to remind everybody that the timeline here doesn't even matter. Every second really counts. And that is why you want to see them act on this quickly. But the President did say he still felt it was the right decision to cut the trip short because he said he was even hearing from some leaders overseas concerns about what it would mean, the cascading effect on the world stage, if the U.S.

were to default, which it never has before. And that's why he wanted to come back here, have these talks in person, as he will, just a little bit from now. Well, of course, the eyes of the world are on both of your beats. So thank you so much, Monica and Ryan, for joining.

I'm now joined by Congressman Steve Cohen. He's a Democrat from Tennessee and a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Thank you so much, Congressman, for being here. Now, you're urging President Biden to evoke the 14th Amendment.

You're arguing that it allows the Treasury Secretary to keep borrowing to pay for our debt or national debt, even when we reach our debt limit. But Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, she shot down that idea yesterday. Biden said, I believe this morning it doesn't seem like something that could be appropriately used in these circumstances, given the legal uncertainty around it and given the tight time frame we're on. So what does it say about your argument, Congressman, if the head of the Treasury doesn't support it?

Well, my argument has been made by Lawrence Traub. I think Lawrence Traub is Obi-Wan Kenobi when it comes to constitutional law. He thinks it's something the president should use. The 14th Amendment is not just letters that are put out there in a constitution without meaning.

And the meaning is that the debt shall not be – the debt shall be honored. It's never been used before, but it's there for a reason, and this is the reason why it was put there, to make sure that we paid our debts. I know there would be a political question in the courts, but it could be determined a political question that they don't get into, because it is a political question. But I don't think – if this is not appropriate, Lawrence Traub says it is, then what are those words there for?

Just letters that come together to make words that don't have any meaning or any purpose? I don't think so. I want to also ask you, though, Congressman, about the timeline of all this. President Biden has seemed to question whether the timing of the 14th Amendment is an idea that he could get behind.

Here's what he said yesterday. We have not come up with a unilateral action that could succeed in a matter of two weeks or three weeks. That's the issue. So I want to ask you, how can the president invoke the 14th Amendment, if he is questioning, whether that's a viable option, focusing on timing?

Well, timing's important, and I know the president's at council. I don't know who's weighed in with him, but I understand that. But at the same time, he's going to have to get a deal. And if he doesn't get a deal, it's satisfactory to 218 members of Congress.

We're going to – we'll default on our debt. And I don't know that they'll be able to accomplish that together. Right now, it looks like everything's fine. And one of our previous speakers, one of your people said, oh, McCarthy's the only person who's passed the bill.

We could say somebody's the only person who cooked a filet mignon. But with that filet mignon was a whole bunch of terrible, awful vegetables and hot dogs and things you wouldn't want to necessarily have that they put into it with it. That was not a clean debt limit. That's what we should have had.

That's what Trump wanted. That's what Trump got. Trump has said that we should default. He also said that we didn't default when he was president.

He wasn't for defaulting because he was president then and he's not president now. So he's like the kid that was in class and he got out of class. He's throwing spitballs and water balloons at the principal or the teacher. And, Congressman, I understand what you're saying.

The Republicans, you see them as treating President Biden differently. But the point is that they have control of the House. And now you have someone like the Treasury Secretary yelling and saying the 14th Amendment will not work. So square that argument that the Treasury Secretary, the President, they're questioning the 14th Amendment and saying it's probably not going to work with you pushing the President and saying he should use this amendment.

The progressive caucus of about 65 of us signed a letter urging him to use this power. And if he can't get anything worked out, which I don't think he will be able to get something worked with, satisfactory to 218 members of Congress, there's no other alternative but to use it and then worry about the time factor and all those issues later. Lars Stroud hasn't said, this is too late. And unless Lars Stroud talks, I would suggest that it's still in play.

She respects Secretary Yellen, but she's not Lars Stroud. Well, I also want to ask you, of course, one of the core sticky points here is the idea that Republicans are pressing for a reduction in spending. Do you agree that the U.S. as a nation needs to reduce spending in the future?

Well, not really. I mean, we're a very wealthy country. We've got more billionaires and people earning just gazillions of dollars who got 87% of the benefit of the tax break that Trump gave them, gave the upper 1%. Those people are getting away with murder, and they're trying to eliminate the estate tax, so they get away with not just murder, but a mass murder.

And there's plenty of money around in wealthy people's pockets that should be taxed. The Trump tax cut should be repealed or at least reduced. I think they should be repealed. I voted against them.

And the estate tax needs to be maintained, and there will be money to help people who don't have enough, who've never had enough, people who didn't get proper education. The ground for support of education changed segregation in schools, but it's taken years and years and years, and we're still suffering from that. And so there are people in this country that have not had the right opportunities and need to have good public education, need to have highly paid teachers, need to have better police in their communities so their communities are safe from guns. And we need so much that we don't have, and we can afford it.

We're the wealthiest, most powerful country in the United States. We shouldn't have people living in poverty, people living without having a fair standard of living. And we need to raise them in the wage so people work, which they do. They can get paid a fair wage and participate in the society.

Right now, a whole bunch of people in our country do not get to participate in the American dream, and that's because our tax policies are geared toward the wealthiest, and they get away with murder. It's interesting that you meant that. I know a lot of your colleagues would agree with what the statements you're saying. It is interesting that we haven't heard the Democratic leaders in the Senate or the House bring up tax cuts as something that they are pushing for right now.

So what does a bipartisan deal really look like? What are you willing to concede in order to get this deal done? I think President Biden has brought up tax cuts on higher-income people, and he brought up revenue. Revenue is important, and the IRS being funded to be able to get people, particularly the big number of dollar chiefs who take away millions and hundreds of thousands of dollars by not paying their fair share of taxes.

They can only be caught by having a better IRS. This is not to go after little people. It's not to go after people who make $400,000 or more. You saw what President Trump did.

He didn't pay taxes for several years, and they didn't get him. It took him a long time to get him, and for years and years to analyze it. We need an IRS that can get the tax sheet so people pay fairly. Most people pay out of their paychecks every month.

People who don't have paychecks with an employer can wait and pay later, and they don't pay on their taxes on appreciated income that they get out of stocks that they don't sell. Well, Congressman Steve Cohen, I will thank you so much for joining us. I know there's a lot to talk to you, so I appreciate you coming on. Thank you for having me on.

It's good to be on your show. And coming up, running on Red Meat Rhetoric, Republican Senator Tim Scott officially announces he's running for president and then sits down with NBC News' Tommy Honest for an exclusive interview. Plus, pressure from all sides will dive deeper into the potential political fallout for the White House as the administration faces growing angst from some progressives and some voters of the president's handling of the debt limit and the economy. You're watching Meet the Press now.

Welcome back. Today, Republican Senator Tim Scott officially announced his bid for president while also getting an endorsement from the Senate's number two Republican. Scott joins a growing field of declared candidates, and that field is expected to keep growing. This week, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is also expected to officially jump in the race.

Speaking before a crowd in his home state of South Carolina, Scott, the only black Republican senator, highlighted his background as an example of America's opportunity and as a rebuke of President Biden and Democrats. I'm the candidate the far left fears the most. When I cut your taxes, they called me a prop. When I refunded the police, they called me a token.

When I pushed back on President Biden, they even called me the N-word. I disrupt their narrative. I threaten their control. The truth of my life disrupts their lives.

After his announcements, Scott spoke to NBC's Tom Giannis in a wide-range exclusive interview about his pitch for primary voters and what, if anything, makes him a better choice for Republican voters than Trump. What will you offer voters that former President Trump will not? Well, the question is, I'm ready for president. Period.

I plan to win. So the question is, what do the voters want in the president? They want someone who can persuade on the issues that matter the most. You're saying you're a better dealmaker than President Trump?

What I'm saying is that I look forward to persuading the American people, right and left, within my base and on the far side, to making sure that we move this country forward using common sense, finding common ground. Would you ever try to overturn an election you lost? No. What do you think about President Trump's behavior after the 2020 election into January 6th?

We can do two things. We can have a conversation about President Trump, we can have a conversation about my vision for the future. I'm going to say my vision for the future for a couple of reasons. It was a historical moment.

I was actually in there, so I don't know exactly how it was. Joining me now with more of his interview with Senator Scott is Senior National Correspondent and host of Top Story, Tom Yamich. Now, Tom, you're asking all the right questions. Heading into this announcement, Senator Scott has been polling low.

So how is he making the argument that he's the one to beat Trump, who, of course, remains the problem? I know that he sort of didn't want to talk about Trump, but clearly that is a big topic here for right reasons. Yeah, yeah, I think there's a couple headlines being made out of this interview, and it literally just wrapped minutes ago. What I will say is that Senator Tim Scott is drawing a difference with former President Trump by saying that he thinks he can be more persuadable.

Essentially, he can persuade voters more, not only within this party, but also reaching across the aisle to the other party as well. So maybe a more formidable candidate in the general election than former President Trump. He also said, when I asked him about Governor DeSantis, he said that his conservatism is more rooted, his meaning Senator Tim Scott. That he was essentially saying to a degree, and we'll have the transcripts and the bites coming out a little later, but essentially that Senator Tim Scott was a true conservative.

On the issue of Ukraine, he also drew a very stark difference, essentially saying that Governor DeSantis was wrong when he called it a territorial dispute, and also that former President Trump was wrong when he signaled that he didn't care who won, whether it be Ukraine or Russia, just that the war needed to stop. So he drew some clear lines in his race for president, and this is the most he's done, I would argue, since he's announced his candidacy for president, since he's been out there on the campaign trail, and he talked about his journey with religion and the moment that he found God. And he told us about feeling Jesus' presence when that happened, how his life was transformed after a car accident, how he was a football player growing up, and that car accident sort of changed his future, but with the help of God and with others, his life truly changed, and it put him on the path that he is now. And we even talked about also some interesting personal matters, including his personal life.

If he were to win this nomination, if he were to win the general election, he'd be the first president in our history, who would go to the White House as a bachelor, and we talked a little bit about that, and we'll, of course, have those soundbites as we put together our stories in the coming hours and days on Senator Tim Scott. You know, he said he's a 100% pro-life candidate when it comes to abortion. We tried to nail him down when it came to issues like a six-week ban, a 12-week ban. Essentially, what he said is that he didn't want to deal with hypotheticals, right?

But he would sign the most pro-life anti-abortion measures ever to hit this country, is what he was saying. But the problem, he said, was that person to be pushed through Congress, and that hasn't happened yet. He didn't want to say whether the six weeks was too harsh, as President Trump has signaled when we talk about Florida and the law that Governor Santos just signed, and he didn't really want to deal with the 12 weeks as well. He has before signaled that he's okay with timelines like that, with markers like that, but at least in this interview, he wanted to talk more about the legislation that would come to his desk and how he would sign it and how he would make that into law.

We did talk about some other social issues, including transgender athletes, and he was against transgender athletes competing in the sports that those people transition into. So essentially, if a boy transitions to a girl, he says those athletes should not compete in the girls' athletics. We talked about that as well, along with other issues, including China. I pressed him on Taiwan.

I said if China were to invade Taiwan, would the U.S. military defend Taiwan against China? After a little back and forth, he essentially said that the U.S., he believed, would stand shoulder to shoulder with Taiwan, which is a major move, but of course, with U.S. policy as well.

And I told you a little bit of the sound where you're talking to Senator Scott about abortion. So we can play that for folks if we have that. Where do you stand on abortion? Well, I believe that life has intrinsic value because it comes from God.

I have 100% pro-life voting record. I'm 100% pro-life conservative. As President of the United States, I would sign the most conservative legislation, pro-life legislation, that can get to my desk. Here's the issue, though.

Nothing can get to my desk unless we first win the parts of the mind of the American people. Tom? And Senator Scott from here in Charleston, South Carolina, he heads to Iowa and New Hampshire. He's also going to be up in the air with ads as well.

He's raised a lot of money, and he's going to be spending it. Yamiche? Well, congratulations on a big interview on a big day, so thanks so much for joining us. And you can catch more of Tom's exclusive interview with Senator Tim Scott tonight on Nightly News and again on Top Story right here on NBC News Now.

We'll be right back with new reaction from Tim Scott's Republican rivals and more from the campaign show after a quick break. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. Joining me now is our panel, Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today.

Naveen Nayak, President and Executive Director for the Center for American Progress Action Fund. And Republican strategist, Brian Todd. So thank you all for being here, Brian. You're the Republican.

So, Brad, sorry, Brad, you're the Republican. Trump has now twice taken the opportunity to make Senator Scott's entry into the race about himself and also about Ron DeSantis, really attacking him in some ways, really, I would say, comparing him to Ron DeSantis. He's saying anything is basically better than Ron DeSantis. So tell me a bit, Brad, about what your reaction is to that and what this means you think for this race.

Well, I think you just hit up on Tim Scott's strategy. He'll let Trump and Ron DeSantis fight it out while he marches down the other side of the track without unmolested toward where the voters are. I think he could divide the Republican electorate up into three groups. There's about 35 percent that are fiercely loyal to President Trump under any circumstances on his good days and on his bad days.

There's another 30 percent or so, maybe almost a third, that really don't want to see President Trump nominated again. There's another third in the middle that rallies Trump when he's under duress, either in legal trouble or when he thinks the Democrats or the media is after him, but they are also shopping. They're what I call somewhat favorable to Trump voters. They vote for him in general.

They want to defend him when they see him being attacked by the press or Democrats, but they're looking for someone else. Tim Scott, I think, will run his entire campaign at that second, that third group of voters, that group of Trump skeptical but willing to support Trump. Is this the best case scenario for Tim Scott that he sort of just runs above the mudslinging, that he doesn't ever get a direct hit from President Trump? Is it beneficial for Ron DeSantis to be sort of a punchy bag right now?

Absolutely. That's Tim Scott's strategy. If you've ever seen Tim Scott on the trail, he's an inspiring figure that audiences rally around. I mean, whatever that thing is, whatever it is, he does have it.

So he's going to succeed on the trail. I think you saw President Trump praise Tim Scott today. I think that's because he's locked in on Ron DeSantis. He sees that DeSantis is the person that could get inside the Trump base and take Trump votes, and so President Trump's going to focus on taking out Ron DeSantis.

Let's give Tim Scott a chance to take off. And, Susan, Tim Scott has already now gotten two Republicans, two Republican senators to endorse him, one of them being, of course, the second Republican in charge of the Senate, John Tune Thune. So tell me a bit about what you think about the fact that, one, Tim Scott has at least been able to get two of his colleagues to say, yes, we'll back the person that we see every day. But also, does this entry sort of change the primary at all, do you think?

You know, I think it indicates the kind of nervousness there is within the Republican Party, especially among Republican leaders and donors, about Donald Trump. And even though you can look at the national polls, not very meaningful at this point in this race, national polls, Trump looks pretty formidable. There is a significant number of Republicans, including Tim Scott and John Tune, who think there is a way for somebody else to get the nomination this time. You know who else thinks it?

The donors of Ron DeSantis. That's the threat to Ron DeSantis, is that his donors would be happy if Tim Scott suddenly looked like a stronger contender. And I want to ask you, of course, there's an issue of abortion, right? We talk so much about it.

Some Republicans, like Ron DeSantis, don't want to talk about it. But you have Tim Scott talking very frankly about his religion, about the community. He's got it also saying that he would pass what he called, quote, pro-life, the most pro-life legislation we can make about. I mean, I actually thought that interview really captured the challenge Republicans have nationally, which is, you would think in a primary they want to talk about this issue.

Clearly, that's the audience. He doesn't want to talk about it. But what I thought was really revealing is, on the issue of transgender rights, he was more than happy to say what his position was, and really stick it out, even though there's no chance that any bill banning transgender athletes from sports is ever going to come to his desk. I mean, it's a proportion.

He's like, I don't want to talk about it. I'm not going to tell you what my position is. Let's see what Congress does. And it underscores just how out of touch Republicans are on this issue and how much of a problem it is for them heading into the general election.

It also reminded me of the idea that when I was on a campaign trail in the midterms, transgender rights was something that would get either the donor class or the high, wealthy crowds excited and clapping, but also the base if you just went to any town in the USA when you had conservative voters. So when you look at him talking about transgender rights, is he trying to tap into that base, do you think? Yeah, I think he's speaking to something that really a core set of Republican voters care about and that has become a cultural fight for Republicans. But the fact that he doesn't want to talk about it on abortion underscores.

And you see Donald Trump attacking Ron DeSantis on this issue because he knows where the general election population is. At the same time, Donald Trump is more than proud to own the fact that he was responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade. I think this is a really honest problem that Republicans have.

Wait a minute. Tim Scott said that he was on the most pro-life legislation that could get to his desk. And what would get to his desk is something that would appeal to the hearts and minds of America. He gets that there's going to be a Democratic consensus on this.

He's telling you his position and what he's going to try to stake out. My transgender rights, 70% of the American public or more agrees with him on that question on sports. And so I think he'd be glad to talk about that throughout the whole campaign. You know, we've got a war in Ukraine.

We have the risk of a recession. We're heading toward a fiscal cliff. Is it the rules governing kids who transition and what sports they can play? Really the issue we want our presidents to talk about.

He got to ask the question. He had to answer the question. Republicans are very, very happy to talk about this issue. Yeah, my point is more that he has a clear position on that issue and wouldn't say that he's more a 12-week ban or 15-week ban, which underscores how unpopular their position is.

Susan, also, I want to ask you about someone like Lindsey Graham, who has praised Tim Scott in the past. He's obviously someone who stays part of the establishment Republican Party. Do you think Tim Scott has enough goodwill to siphon off more of his colleagues, more of the people that are considered establishment Republican, or maybe even people that are a little more conservative? I mean, Lindsey Graham's a hard person to predict exactly where he'll stand.

But I do think there are, I think a lot of Republican senators would like to be lining up behind somebody who is an alternative to Donald Trump. And one thing that is going to happen, I think we're going to have a pretty sizable field of Republican contenders this time, and some of them, like Chris Christie and Chris Zinnu, are going to be willing to take on Trump with criticism that Ron DeSantis, for instance, and Tim Scott have been unwilling to do. I want to take a hard turn to the thing that, of course, has been dominating the headlines, which, of course, is a debt ceiling. What do you make of the fact that there still isn't an agreement?

The White House has sort of moved off of this idea that they're not going to negotiate. But what do you think about this hour and the fact that we're possibly days away from the people? Well, I mean, listen, I think it is unfortunate that we are negotiating again on something that is as catastrophic as doubling the rate of unemployment, you know, that could cut Social Security and retirement savings by a third. It is disturbing that that's the way politics works.

We are now having a conversation about this. You know, President Biden and others so far have made clear that default is not an option. And at the end of the day, what you hope is that our leaders agree to that. I think what's very concerning to me, and it relates to our last conversation, is there is someone out there who matters a lot who said he's rooting for default, essentially, which is Donald Trump.

And I think he has a lot of sway over Kevin McCarthy and the Republican caucus. And I think there's a real risk that you have a section of the Republican Party that is happy to see us default or willing to see us default. And that's frightening. Is he sort of beholden to his, to the Freedom Caucus and maybe the conservatives that are seen by some as extreme?

Well, the House Republicans have passed the bill to raise the debt limit. They're the only chamber that's done it. Chuck Schumer's not even brought one to the floor. And if you go back to the time machine in 2019, when the minority party, who didn't have the White House, had just won a narrow majority in the House, that was the Democrats.

Nancy Pelosi forced President Trump to get rid of the spending caps and increase spending by $320 billion before she would give him a debt limit increase. The same thing's playing out here. A structural spending change is sought by the party that controls the House narrowly in order to give the president a debt ceiling increase. This is business as usual.

And Joe Biden has miscalculated and not started negotiating soon enough, but I predict they will find the deal. And Susan, I mean, what's the political risk for either side here? Is one side possibly risking more? The White House is saying people are going to blame Republicans, but I know a lot of voters who don't know the intricacies of the debt ceiling and may just look to Washington and may blame the person in the White House.

Well, the president's approval rating is probably about 40 now. What does the recession do to that? It's pretty serious. On the other hand, can Kevin McCarthy deliver a deal and also continue to be Speaker of the House?

Certainly, it's hard to pass a deal that does not include structural spending reform. I don't see it. Just like Nancy Pelosi said, she couldn't pass one that didn't have structural spending reform in 2019. I don't think Kevin can even.

Yeah. Well, thank you so much to Susan, to Naveen, to Brad. We've got a lot to talk about. We'll have more to talk about after the break.

We're taking you behind the scenes of the global space race in the latest episode of Meet the Press reports, including a firsthand look at NASA's latest nuclear technology, which experts say could be a game changer in the race to Mars. That's next. You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back.

This was a scene this morning from low Earth orbit as a second ever private space mission docked at the International Space Station, where the four-person crew was expected to stay for just over a week. This historic flight is led by a retired astronaut, Peggy Whitson, who has spent more time in space than any American, and also includes the first ever Saudi woman to enter orbit. NBC News correspondent Tom Costello is at the site of that launch as NASA sets its sights on beyond low Earth orbit and all the way to Mars. It's the topic of this week's episode of Meet the Press reports.

Hey, I'm Mishka Day, and we are in the middle of a torrential rainstorm here, but this has been the site of a great launch yesterday. The Axiom crew on top of the SpaceX rocket now in orbit on the International Space Station as NASA looks at going to the moon one day and to Mars, and to get to Mars, they're going nuclear. One month after Elon Musk's Starship launch then broke apart on liftoff. A rapid, unstable disassembly.

Both SpaceX and NASA insist that they're committed to the rocket, first to land astronauts on the moon, but ultimately to carry crews to Mars as soon as 2040. While science and exploration are the driving motivators, there's also a competitive factor, China. The Chinese government is very secretive, and a lot of their plans involve their military preparations, and so there's a reason for us to get there first. And NASA wants to get there faster.

A round-trip mission to Mars could take two to three years, so to cut the travel time, America is going back to the future. This project was called NERVA. To the 1960s, and a government program most Americans have never heard of, to develop nuclear-powered rockets. Someday, a manned trip to Mars and return may become the mission assignment.

It turns out they made big progress back in the 60s running expensive tests. The goal now, send astronauts to the moon and beyond on nuclear rockets. When the Apollo astronauts went to the moon, they needed five of these massive F-1 engines just to get them off the Earth and escape the Earth's gravitational pull. Seven and a half million pounds of thrust.

Here at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, they've got an exact replica to scale of the Saturn V, 363 feet tall. Future astronauts will need that kind of lift, but once they're in space, they can use a much smaller engine, a nuclear engine, to go all the way to Mars and back, a fraction of the size. And that engine could last 20 years.

This is a big place. It's happening now at the Marshall Test Light Center in Huntsville. This is where they put components of nuclear rockets such as the fuel element here, and like the one that you're holding. These are the building blocks for America's future nuclear propulsion going to space.

Yes. But America's best-known astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, wonders why we're going. I'm all for people in space, but to accomplish scientific goals, the robot can live off of sunlight, and you can't. The robot is not going to cry because you ran out of money and can't bring it back.

But listen to this. NASA has used nuclear technology before. You remember that Voyager probe that was sent in 1977 to the far reaches of the solar system? It is using nuclear batteries.

It's still out there. It's still sending back data, but it has three million times less memory than your cell phone. 1970s technology is still at work. Yamiche, thank you.

such cool reporting. Tom Costello, thank you so much for that reporting. And you can stream the full episode of Meet the Press Reports, The Race to Mars on NBC News Now and On Demand on Peacock and YouTube. Don't miss it.

Turning now to the ongoing war in Ukraine where Russia is playing a major battlefield victory. And Zelensky returns to Kiev with even more military aid ahead of Ukraine's spring counteroffensive. After a surprise in-person visit to the G7 summit, Zelensky is returning to Ukraine with millions of dollars worth of military assistance. More sanctions on Russia and commitments to train Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighter jets.

Today Moscow reacted to the news, saying the transfer of these F-16s would raise questions about NATO's involvement in the war, but would not undermine Russia's military goals. Meanwhile on the ground, Russian forces claim they now have full control of the long-contested city of Bakhmut. In what would be Moscow's first major battlefield victory in months. Over the weekends, Zelensky maintained that Russia does not occupy that city.

NBC News correspondent Molly Hunter has the latest on the battlefield. It's the deadliest battle of this entire war. It's been running about nine months. We have no idea exactly how many have died on each side.

The military casualties on both sides are very closely guarded. Government secrets, they number in the tens of thousands. But when you look at those pictures, this city that was home to 80,000 people before the war is obliterated. This is just devastating.

Some of those pictures published last night show the smoldering ruins of the high-rises. But what happened is, we can just back you up a little bit because it's very hard to figure out exactly who controls what, of course, in the fall of war. On Saturday, Gedi Pergosyan, of course, a Russian billionaire who heads up the mercenary group, the Wagner Group. His paid fighters have been on the front line of that fight for Russia for months now.

They claimed they had full control of the city center. Then on Sunday, Russian state TV, Trump had mission accomplished. They showed video of soldiers waving the Russian flag. They reported that Putin congratulated the troops.

They said they had victory of the city center. Now, what Ukrainian officials are saying, they're not exactly disputing that propaganda claim, which, of course, is for the audience back home in Russia. What they're saying is that the battle is not really for the outskirts. They are saying they are still pushing on the flanks.

They are still working to encircle that town. I mean, really clearly, Bakhmut does not have strategic importance. It has not had strategic importance for the last nine months. What it does have, though, is symbolism.

For Russia, of course, they have not won a major battle since last summer. That was a chance. And for the Ukrainians, Ukrainian commanders have long said that one of their key objectives by continuing to fight back in Bakhmut, even if they have not been able to really take as much territory in the city center, is to tie up a ton of Russian forces there and to keep them very, very busy, to exhaust them, to deplete them, to deplete their resources, so that the Ukrainian military elsewhere can really rearm and start organizing for that Ukrainian counteroffensive we hear so much about. As far as what to look for in the next 72 hours, the Wagner mercenary chief Pridoshin has said he is pulling his forces out of that city on Thursday.

What does that mean? Does that twist Moscow's arms? Do they have to send regular Russian forces to hold that line? Is that an opportunity for Ukraine?

Or does Ukraine decide, really, that's not worth pushing into the city? They hold their positions maybe, and really, we start to see signs of that imminent counteroffensive. We do know President Zelensky returning back to Ukraine sometime in the next 24 hours, of course, from his very triumphant trip in Japan, so certainly there will be some momentum after everything, of course, he got for Ukraine when he was the G7. Incredibly important reporting.

Thank you, Molly Hunter, for that. And still to come, another major announcement for 2024, this time in Delaware, where a longtime Democratic senator just announced his retirement, caving the way for some potentially historic changes in the city. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back.

Delaware Senator Tom Carper announced this morning that he is hanging up after a nearly 50-year career in politics. Carper, a Democrat, has served in the Senate since 2001 and leaves Democrats their fourth open seat this cycle. In his announcement today, Carper endorsed Delaware Democrat Congressman Lisa Blunt Rochester, who would only be the third black woman in history to serve in the Senate if she runs and if she wins. Carper's seat is expected to stay in Democratic control, but Democrats are still facing a brutal, brutal Senate map in 2024.

They have to defend 23 seats, three of them in states that former President Trump won in 2020. I'm now joined by Amy Walter, who's going to help us deal with all this. Help us your energy of the Cook Political Report. So Amy, how does the Senator's announcement that he's retiring change or impact the Senate map for Democrats?

So I think there are two ways to look at the Senate map for Democrats. There are retirements that create problems, and there are retirements that create opportunities. And this is an opportunity in this case for a younger African-American, now current Congresswoman, but was once a staffer to Senator Carper to come into the Senate, as you pointed out. This would only be the third African-American woman elected to the Senate.

Maryland is another example. That's another very blue state. It's an opportunity here where we may see another African-American woman, that Prince George's County Executive Angela Alsobrooks, likely is in that race. If she wins, then she would be, maybe, we would have double the number of women in the Senate who are African-American, which is a record number there in the Senate.

Those are, so again, opportunities for generational change, and obviously changing from a seat held by a white man to one being held by a black female. The challenging seats are really, when you talk about the brutal map, West Virginia, big one. Everybody's waiting to see what Joe Manchin is going to do. He has a tough fight, even if he stays in and goes up against, likely to be the sitting governor who's very popular.

If he decides to retire, that is a big problem for Democrats, probably takes that seat off the table, even for Democrats to be able to have a chance to hold on to that. I want to ask you about their problems. I guess I want to dig in just a little bit more on the history-making part of this. Lisa Blunt-Rochester has been careful today to say, I really respect the Senator.

I heard he has his endorsement. You also, of course, have Barbara Lee in California running for a possible Senate seat that could be hers. Just talk about the history here, because there was a lot said when Kamala Harris left the Senate and there was no black woman in the Senate serving. That's right.

And if you look at the candidates that have been running in some of the tougher states to win, North Carolina was an example where you had African-American women running last year, 2022, a tough year overall. But for Democrats, just because it was a midterm year, but this would be an opportunity for a black woman to win in a state that they could hold on to that seat probably for as long as they wanted. And so here is the chance to have, as we pointed out, two to three women, if all three of them make it through their primaries. In the case of California, Maryland, and Delaware, that's three new black women in the Senate.

That is an all-time historical And I want to ask you about the sort of seats that are open. Tell us a little bit about how Democrats that you're talking to, but also the ones that you're tracking, how they're feeling about this Senate map and the way that things are looking. Well, they know what they're up against. They're not naive to the fact that there are, you pointed this out, three states that they're defending that Donald Trump carried, and that is tough.

What gives them some hope is that they've been tested before. These senators are not freshmen senators. These are folks who have gone through campaign after campaign. The real question, Mark, as I noted, is whether Joe Manchin decides to stick around and run for re-election.

John Tester in Montana said he is staying. Sherrod Brown and Ohio, both of those are states that Trump carried. They say they're staying. So that's where you want your incumbents to stick around.

The other big question mark is Arizona, and what does Senator Kyrsten Sinema decide to do? I think Democrats privately would like to say that maybe she retires. It makes that race a heck of a lot easier, not just for the Senate, so that's not a three-way race between a Democrat and an Independent and a Republican, but for Biden as well, that he has a united Democratic Party going into an election where that state is critical for the Electoral College. And in a couple seconds we have left, they can a little bit more on Sinema and what's going on there.

As anybody's guess, it is notable that she's been doing a lot more press, especially national press, than we've ever seen her do before. So I think a lot of people are wondering if this is her way to say, I'm in this now. Yeah, yeah, well, fascinating. Amy Walter, in for Halle Jackson.

Hi, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor, host of the podcast The Drink. This month I'm grabbing a matcha latte with comedian Taylor Tomlinson. The Drink is always about someone's journey to the top, and Taylor's story is remarkable. She tells us all about her unlikely path, from performing in churches all the way to headlining her own Netflix specials like her latest prodigal daughter.

And she opens up about her religious upbringing, what drew her to stand up, and how she feels when she gets on that stage. Hope you'll listen and follow The Drink wherever you get your podcasts.