If it's Friday, President Trump reignites trade war fears and ratchets up economic concerns now threatening to increase tariffs on all smartphone makers and the European Union if they don't start complying with the administration's demands. Plus, a federal judge blocks the Trump administration from revoking Harvard's ability to enroll international students. Major but temporary legal loss for the president as Harvard accuses the president of an unlawful campaign of retribution and why the FDA's plan for updated COVID 19 shots mean they likely won't be available to most Americans this fall. And a new government report from RFK Junior's HHS department spotlights some of the controversial views on vaccines for children.
Hi there. Happy Friday. Welcome to MEET THE press. Now on my Nobles in Washington, as US Stocks are ending the day down slightly after new trade threats from President Trump and mixed signals from the administration about whether there's a trade deal to be made with the European Union.
Trump's bombastic tariff threats and the subsequent backing down on those threats have been a hallmark of the first few months of his administration. Fears of a devastating global trade war cooled down in recent weeks as the White House touted what it says are trade deals with China and the UK but the president's early morning social media posts reignited some concern. First, the EU Mr. Trump was saying this morning the European Union has been very difficult to deal with.
Our discussions with them are going nowhere. Therefore, I am recommending a straight 50% tariff on the European Union starting on June 1, 2025. He elaborated on that in the Oval Office this afternoon. I've been saying to everybody, they've treated us very badly over the years.
I just said it's time that we play the game the way I know how to play the game. Nobody, they've taken advantage of other people representing this country and they're not going to do that any longer. Now, that came after Treasury Secretary Scott Benson said that he hopes this announcement would merely change the EU's posture in negotiations. I believe the president believes that the EU proposals have not been of the same quality that we've seen from our other important trading partners.
Not going to negotiate on tv. But I would hope that this would light a fire under the EU because, Bill, I said before, EU has a collective action problem here. It's 27 countries, but they're being represented by this one group in Brussels. So some of the feedback that I've been getting is that the underlying countries don't even know what the EU is negotiating on their behalf.
However, Mr. Trump struck a different tone. I'm not looking for a deal. I mean, we've set the deal.
It's a 50%. But again, there's no tariff. If they build a plant here, is there anything the EU can do? I don't know.
We'll see what happens. But right now it's going on on June 1st and that's the way it doesn't haven't treated us properly. And in another post this morning, President Trump threatened Apple with a 25% tariff if it doesn't start manufacturing its iPhones in the US this afternoon, the Oval Office, Mr. Trump expanded that tariff threat to other smartphone manufacturers like Samsung, saying they would also be subject to 25% tariffs if they don't move their facilities to the US as well.
Joining me now with the latest is NBC News business and data course by Brian Chung. So Brian, the markets don't seem to totally be sold on Trump's posts becoming a reality. Take us inside the numbers. What happened out there?
Are they taking him seriously or literally at all? Yeah, well, look, when you talk about the closing numbers, you can see them on the board ahead of you. Dow Jones down 6 tens of percent. The S&P 500 more broad base index down 7.
10 of percent. And those tech heavy stocks were, that would certainly include a heavier weighting on companies like Apple, down a little bit more by 1%. But this isn't necessarily a Black Monday type of day. It's just simply a day where stocks ended marginally red.
So I don't think that the market's necessarily freaking out over what's going on with these announcements, but I do think broadly speaking, there was this concern that, you know, look, we had gotten over most of the crazy tariff headlines about a month ago and after the 90 day pause and especially the escalation, especially with China, there was gonna be some thought within Wall street that maybe this is going to be a quieter summer. Then here you have the Friday Memorial Day weekend, the president kicking back off some of these tariff headlines. I think that has the volatility perhaps coming back marginally to Wall Street. But again, the question here is what he's saying on True Social to be taken literally or figuratively, that is kind of the ongoing story with this administration.
And that's something that Wall Street's going to have to grab with as we continue to tariff threats going forward. And then another confusing call by the president. He's called on Apple to make iPhones in the US or face a tariff is what he's called for actually realistic. What Exactly.
Is he threatening here? Well, originally in the morning when he posted on true Social suggestion that he was not only looking at specifically tariffing Apple, but tariffing a specific product line, the iPhone, there were a lot of questions rolling around over how could the President do that? Yes, they could use the emergency authorities and claim under national security interest that you need to tariff an entire industry, but to take one specific company and one specific product remain legally ambiguous. Although we did hear from the President in the Oval Office just a few minutes ago where he did clarify that quote.
He didn't want to be unfair to Apple even though Apple and the iPhone very clearly the specific target of his truth Social. But he said that he would expand the scope of this particular tariff to cover essentially all smartphones that are coming into the United States, which would include and he name check company, Samsung, a Korean phone that makes a lot of a Korean phone maker that makes a lot of popular Android based products. So it does sound like he does want to follow through on this 25% tariff. It will just cover the ipod, Ryan.
It will cover all the smartphones in this country which are very few of them made entirely domestically here in the United States. Of course, will he follow through? Because he's threatened a lot of tariffs and not necessarily many of them have actually manifest themselves. What else did we hear about the President say about tariffs today?
It seems to indicate that these companies like to eat the tariffs. Yeah, well, look, there was the conversation of whether or not the, you know, President was actually adamant on whether or not these companies should take these costs. There was a conversation that was reported that he had had with Walmart suggesting that they should take the price increases themselves. As we know, when it comes to the tariffs, any importing company which make these zombie American companies, they're the ones that would have to pay for.
Take a look in this exchange with regards to his clarification over where he thinks the tariffs should be paid for. Sometimes the country will eat it, sometimes Walmart will eat it and sometimes it'll be something to pay, something extra. I don't like it when a department serve because you'll do a lot of business but they announce record profits and everything else. I have to take out some of their profits.
I'll make a little bit less money, but I don't want the consumer to pay. I don't want the consumer to pay. Again, we're gonna take it into the timely story of today, which is about these smartphones. You have Dan Eyes of web security saying that an entirely US made iPhone would cost $3,500.
That's a lot more expensive than $1,213 hundred dollars it costs today. How would the consumer not be able to pay for that? It would have to be Apple. That's a big question.
Whether Apple wants to do that. Right. Someone's got to pay, right? Right.
I guess we want to. Exactly. Until it actually is implemented. Brian Chung, thank you, as always.
Turning now to breaking news, the Trump administration's ongoing battle with Harvard University as the president continues to attempt to use the power of the presidency to target his critics. An illegal blow to the Trump administration. A federal judge in Boston is blocking the White House from revoking Harvard's ability to enroll international students, at least for now. Yesterday, the White House terminated Harvard's student and exchange visitor program, aiming to bar the Ivy League university from admitting international students and also forcing current international students to transfer schools or lose their legal status.
The judge's ruling came just hours after Harvard filed a lawsuit accusing the administration of, quote, unconstitutional retaliation after the school refused to comply with demands from the White House's task Force to Combat Anti Semitism. The Department of Homeland Security is demanding that Harvard turn over disciplinary, criminal and protest records for all students over the last five years. Harvard's legal complaint states, quote, with a stroke of a pen, the government is to erase a quarter of Harvard's student body, international students who contribute significantly to the university and its mission. Harvard is also suing the Trump administration for holding more than $2 billion in federal research funding last month after the school refused to comply with White House demands to change its hiring and admissions processes.
NBC News senior digital White House reporter Shannon Petty joins me now. Also joining me from Harvard is NBC News correspondent Antonia Hilton. Shannon, let's start with you. Is there any response from the White House right now to this Boston judge's ruling?
Well, definitely no signs of the White House or the president backing down on this. The president was asked a couple hours ago in the Oval Office by reporter about this action taken against Harvard that would significantly reduce their enrollment and essentially wipe out all of their foreign student enrollment. The president continued to double down on this position he has taken. He has said that Harvard students accused him of doing remedial math.
He said they were engaged in anti Semitic protests. What the president is saying, he said that Harvard was going to have to clean up its act. And he suggested that other universities could be next in the administration's efforts to sort of put pressure on these universities to make the changes that the White House has been asking for them around cracking down on some of these student protests and free speech to their students. How's the White House responding to this latest lawsuit from Harvard?
Yeah, I mean, the White House put out a statement earlier today. It said in the statement, only Harvard cared this much about ending the scores of anti American, anti Semitic, pro Israel, pro terrorist agitators on their campus. They wouldn't be in this situation to begin with. So, again, coming back to this accusation that the university is the one who's not taking action against what the administration claims of these anti Semitic, anti American actions.
The administration also said that this lawsuit by Harvard is an attempt to essentially kneecap the president's constitutional ability to restrict immigration, which is another argument that the White House has been making here. All Shannon, thank you for that. Let's turn now to Antonio, who is on the runner in Cambridge. What's the reaction been like on Harvard's campus, Antonia?
Shock, exhaustion, fear from the students that I've been speaking to. Look, even though they're relieved that the judge has taken this action, there's this temporary restraint order in place. There's a hearing coming up next week, the day before graduation here. The reality that these students are faced with is that this could wind through the courts for quite a while.
And it could mean that their legal status, their ability to focus on their studies, to live their lives here could become incredibly complicated. You know, scenarios that came up today in my conversations with international students. What happens if I go home and visit my parents and then come back and I'm detained at the US Border? Who helps me?
Am I going to be stuck in detention somewhere for a while? Is that worth the risk? What happens if I'm here on campus and then lose my status? Well, I used to send on our campus and come get students and try to get them out of the country as quickly as possible.
If we're in legal limbo at that moment, take a listen to a conversation I had with a senior named Leo. He's graduating in just a few days. It's just so horrible. Trump is using us right now as poker chips in a battle between the White House and Harvard.
And really, I think it's. I think it's just dehumanizing that we're being used in this way. We've done nothing to be in this situation. Our only crime is that we study at Harvard.
And there are so many dreams that are simply shattered. A lot of the students that I'm talking to, Ryan, they're particularly concerned about their international classmates who are from countries like Ukraine or Pakistan. And there's real serious concern about what it would mean if they were sent home, if they would be safe, what kinds of resources they might have, aid they'll be looking to get from the school in that scenario. And so this has really caused a fear that I think is unlikely to go away, certainly not by next week when the year ends here on campus, but likely we'll stick with them through the next year.
Imagine if you're actually a freshman or about to be a freshman. So you've already said yes, you turned down other schools, you've made your plans to move here in August, and now you're being told that all this may be up in the air. That is a pretty frightening scenario if you're just 17 or 18 years old. Ryan.
Yeah, a lack of clarity has got to make lives difficult for so many. Antonia Hilton, thank you for that reporting on the ground in Massachusetts. With me now is Holden Thor. He's the former chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who has warned that the trepidation attacks on higher education should be concerning to all Americans.
You were the chancellor, sir, of a public university, as opposed to Harvard, which is a private institution. But just give us your reaction to this move by the administration and Whitney's big picture for higher ed in general. Well, big picture, the reason that the United States has led the scientific enterprise which has been good for the US and for the world, is really four things. One, higher investment.
The second is strong IP protection. The third is little government interference and research. And the fourth is the ability to attract the best talent from all over the world. Well, all four of those have been weakened significantly.
And this latest move shows that the ability to attract talent from all over the world is going to be weakened significantly. Because even if Harvard prevails here, the chill that this sends over whether outstanding people are welcome at US Universities right now from outside the United States is something that a lot of people are feeling, as your interview just showed. All right, listen, if you can, to what Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said yesterday, this should be a warning to every other university to get your act together. Get your act together, because we are coming to make sure that these programs that you are facilitating, an environment where students can learn where they're safe, and that they're not discriminated against based on their race or their religion.
I would imagine if you were still in your role as chancellor, you'd listen and hear those words, and that could have a chilling effect on the decisions that you make. What kind of impact could this have on colleges and universities across the country? Yes. Well, after I was in North Carolina, I was the provost of Washington University in St.
Louis, which is an excellent private university. And I think for any university, both large publics and large private universities in the U.S. international students are a source of talent that helps administer a lot of the research grants, but also as a source of revenue. And there are a lot of undergraduates from outside the country who come to the the US and pay for college and don't get financial aid.
And there are a lot of master's students that keep solve at many of the professional schools which can't always charge the full freight for their marquee professional programs like jds and mbas. So not only is this a philosophical problem, but it's also a massive financial problem if it were to spread to other universities. And I think that has to be behind a lot of the moves that they're making here. It also must be a logistical nightmare for the folks in charge of admissions at all these different universities.
If this block remains in place. We're talking about 6,000 students from Harvard alone. They're either going to transfer to another school or simply not attend college this fall. I would imagine at this stage in the calendar year, that's almost impossible to find a new school, especially one of Harvard's caliber.
From a logistical standpoint, how big of a mess will this be? Well, it'll be almost impossible to get folks moved around in time for the next school year or whatever the big deadline would be. And so there are offices at universities that deal with students visa status and things like that. They're usually understaffed now.
They're going to have a whole lot more work to do. But the bigger question is schools and the students asking themselves how many people should come from outside the United States in the fall. And again, that is going to have a talent impact and it's going to have a financial impact. And the students who might be considering coming to the US may very well decide to go to another country to take their talent and their tuition dollars somewhere else.
So that could have a huge effect. We've also seen the Trump administration withhold grant money from Harvard. We've seen the administration attempt to block for students from attempting Harvard. What do you worry could the next weapon the White House may use in this effort that they have to try and at least have some level of control over higher education?
Yeah, well, I think what they're doing is just try to keep throwing different things at these institutions to get them overwhelmed and just as you said, you know, part of the thing that is really ironic about this is that this is an administration that says they want less bureaucratic red tape, but they keep burying these universities and more requests for information and more legal things they have to go through and more logistical things that they have to carry out. So they're actually using the very red tape that they supposedly hate as a weapon to overwhelm these institutions. And so I think they'll keep doing that, particularly because most of these things get stayed or delayed somehow in court because frankly, most of them probably are not legal. And so I think they'll just continue to throw these things at the institutions by every different interaction that the federal government has.
So financial aid is the big one that's looming now. Will Pell grants be administered properly and other federal loans? And will there be more bureaucratic tasks associated with doing that at the very time that the universities can't afford to hire more people to do all this stuff? And you're right, even if they win these lawsuits, if you're a student that's trying to decide where you're going to school in the fall, you may not have the opportunity to wait for that legal process to play itself out.
And the damage should be long term. All right, former Chancellor Holden Thorpe, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it. Thanks, Ryan.
Great to be with you. Coming up, firings and the Fed inside a Supreme Court order allowing President Trump to oust the heads of independent agencies, but appearing to draw the line at the firing of the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Plus, presidential promises we can reality check on President Trump's vows to make in vitro fertilization treatment affordable and accessible for hopeful parents. You're watching Meet the President now.
Welcome back. The Supreme Court is granting the Trump administration's emergency request to remove members of two independent federal agencies while the case continues to make its way through the lower courts. While it's not a final ruling from the high court, the two page unsigned order says the president can remove officials who exercise power on his behalf. The court's three liberal justices dissented notably in their ruling.
The Supreme Court made a clear exception when it came to the Federal Reserve suggesting the president could not remove members of the Fed due to it being a uniquely structured quasi private entity with a distinct historical traditional. Joining me now is NBC News senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley. So, Lawrence, just how much does yesterday's ruling expand the president's executive authority and what happens next in this case? I mean, the short answer is it expands it Quite a bit.
The long answer is we have to kind of go back to why these independent agencies were set up in the first place, which is almost 100 years ago now. After the Depression, Congress passed these statutes setting up these agencies like the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Trade Commission. And they were designed to protect workers, to scrutinize business, to regulate business. And they've set these limits to prevent the president from firing the members without court if he didn't have any cause to do so because of corruption or malfeasance.
And the Supreme Court upheld that in the 1935 decision. And so that's been the law of the Iran for almost 100 years. And for almost all that time, big business hasn't liked it, and a lot of Republicans haven't liked it. And President Trump, who, as we all know, wants to have a very muscular presidency, is the first president to really test this.
And he's done it by firing these members of independent agencies for no real reason, just because he wants to fire them. And so the Supreme Court in this order said, for now, that's okay. And it's an issue where the Supreme Court's interest in that conservative majority on the court kind of dovetails, if you like, with what the Trump administration wants to do. But they did notably make an exception when it comes to the Federal Reserve.
But the president showed a willing to break literature. Right. Could that change, even though they said that, well, as we've heard, President Trump has been very critical of Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. And the markets have been concerned about the prospect that he might try and fire him.
And most people think that's a reason why the president won't fire Powell. But this sentence in the order, which to sort of separate out the Federal Reserve, saying it's somehow different to these other agencies because of its historical tradition, because it's kind of quasi private, is a reason why they think they can sort of put the blinkers on Trump, trying to not do that and maybe make the markets kind of calm down and not have to worry about the prospect of that happening. But as the liberal justice said in their dissent, legally speaking, they didn't see any reason why the Federal Reserve would be any different from these other agencies. It's kind of like a made up rule that the Supreme Court has just come out of thin air.
You also have some new reporting on another Supreme Court ruling when it comes to access to Doge documents. What can you tell us about that? Yeah, these emergency orders are coming out of the Supreme Court thick and fast with all these Trump actions. This one is about an attempt by a public interest group to try to get hold of some internal documents relating to Doge.
And the Supreme Court said for now that the government doesn't have to disclose those documents. It all comes down to this kind of issue of whether DOGE is actually a federal agency or there's just this kind of advisory body within the White House which will determine whether it's subject to freedom of information request. So it's not one of the kind of big cases that we've been following, but just another one of those cases where the Supreme Court is, for now, doing what Trump wants. Yeah.
All right, Lawrence, Raleigh, thank you for your reporting. We appreciate it. Up next, reality check on RFK Junior's new report on children's health and chronic disease in America and what to know about the next COVID 19 vaccine and uncertainty over who will be eligible for the shots. You're watching the PRESS now.
Welcome back. The FDA just made a major call that could impact how Americans protect themselves from COVID this fall. The agency announced it would like drug makers to update the COVID vaccine to target the LP 8.1 strain, despite recommendations from an advisory committee to stick with the current vaccine in past years, changing the strain would be standard practice, similar to how the flu shots updated each year. But under the Trump administration, the FDA changed its rules to require a new COVID vaccine for healthy adults under 65 to undergo additional placebo controlled trials.
That extra testing requirements take time means the updated shots will likely only be available this year for the most at risk Americans. Joining Me now is Dr. Peter Hotez, is the co director of the center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children's Hospital and the dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. So maybe what I read there was a godly book to those of us who aren't medical experts like yourself, sir.
But the FDA decided to ignore the advisory committee's recommendation instead of pick a new Covid strain for the fall vaccine. How unusual is that for the FDA to stray from these recommendations? I mean, it does, it does happen. I mean, the truth is the new strain, the LP 8.1, is quite closely related to the previous last year's variant, which was either JN 0.1 or something that soup, JN 0.1 with the Novavax vaccine or KP2 with the two MRNA vaccines last year.
I think the bigger issue is the fact that now adults under the age of 65 or children will be denied this new annual immunization unless they can demonstrate one or more of a certain list of underlying risk factors. And here's why that's concerning. Because their decision to vaccinate only those over the age of 65 or those with underlying risk factor conditions is based on the acute manifestations of COVID meaning case fatality rates and hospitalizations. But it misses, and that's important course, but it misses the chronic complications such as long Covid or some of the heart disease, strokes and heart attacks that can occur afterwards in even healthy adults.
And so now healthy adults or adolescents or kids can no longer have that decision made between themselves and their doctors. It's been taken away from them by the federal government. Which is sort of ironic given that this whole new administration and HHS is pushing hard on this concept of health freedom, medical freedom. Seems to me it's exactly in the opposite direction.
Yeah. Let's talk more about the HHS secretary, Robert Kennedy Jr. He released his highly anticipated report yesterday. In it, he points to the growth of the childhood vaccine schedule as one of the causes of chronic illness in children.
The report says many vaccines on the CDC's childhood schedule involved small participant groups, had no inert placebo controlled trials, and had limited safety monitoring, some lasting six months or less, raising concerns about the ability to detect rare or long term adverse effects. Sir, have you seen any links between the childhood vaccine schedule and chronic disease? No, and there's a lot of gaslighting in that document. For instance, one of the things they say is they only had three kids, only had three vaccines in 1986, and now it's 29.
Well, first of all, I began my pediatric training. I became a resident in 1987, one year after 1986. And we vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and polio. So it's not three, it's seven or eight right off the bat.
And now we're up to 16. So it's not from three to 29, it's a doubling. And that includes diseases such as Hib meningitis. During my residency, I was admitting a very sick kid every couple of weeks with that devastating condition lead to permanent neurologic injury or death.
And now it's gone because of the Hib factor. So what they're saying is life saving vaccines such as this are responsible for chronic illness with no evidence. Because we have a very elaborate system of safety monitoring. It is between the Centers for Disease Control and the fda.
We've designed the most extensive system of vaccine monitoring the world has ever seen. And now they're just again, this kind of gaslighting, saying it's inadequate and causing all sorts of chronic illnesses with zero evidence, including, you know, this constant need for them to reopen vaccines and autism links. And I've debunked that personally with Mr. Kennedy because I have a daughter with autism, intellectual disabilities, and I'm a vaccine developer and even wrote a book about my discussions with Mr.
Kennedy called vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel's Autism, which detailed the absence of links. So I'm very troubled both by his regular state misleading statement, public statements about vaccines, and I'm troubled by this report. Okay. Dr.
Peter Hotez, thank you so much for expertise. We appreciate it. Moving on now. One of President Trump's key campaign promises was to expand access to in vitro fertilization for hopeful parents facing fertility challenges.
Candidate Trump went so far as to promise that under the Trump administration, IVF treatment would be free for all Americans. And in February, the president signed an executive order he said was fulfilling his campaign promises, but in reality was asking for recommendations on expanding access to IVF. NBC's Yamiche has a look at where those promises stand. Julie Ashelman and her husband first started fertility treatments in 2016.
And then we got the news that we were moving, complicating Julie's journey life as a military spouse. Each time her husband gets re stationed, so does her medical care, including fertility specialists. We have three weeks to sell her house, to pack up and to move from Arizona to Illinois. And during that move, while we were driving across country, we experienced our first miscarriage.
Five years of fertility treatments and multiple miscarriages later, Julie gave birth to a daughter. How much did IVF end up costing your family? I mean, I think the total number over, gosh, the last almost nine years has probably been up towards $80,000. Julie first began fertility treatment during President Trump's first term in office.
She says she could not have imagined that his second term might be the determining factor whether she decides to have a second child. All because of this campaign process under the Trump administration. We are going to be paying for that treatment. It was definitely something that was hopeful, hearing presidential candidates talking about IVF.
Those things weren't happening five years ago or 10 years ago. Now she's watching closely to see what comes from President Trump's executive order on ivf, which requested policy recommendations on lowering costs and reduc barriers within 90 days. That 90 day deadline ending this week, I'll be known as the fertilization president is by calling for more babies. President Trump gutted the CDC bread responsible for reproductive health.
We don't know of anybody else at the CDC who has that level of knowledge or experience. They are now gone and so they certainly cannot weigh in and provide any input on these policy recommendations. Barbara Kalura is the president and CEO of Resolve, the national infertility alliance, which was not invited to meet with the White House. We hear this from doctors every day.
Oftentimes they can't deliver the care that that patient needs because of financial concerns. A spokesperson for the White House had in a statement. Expanding IVF access for everyday Americans is a key priority for President Trump, adding, the administration is in close coordination with outside stakeholder groups across the political spectrum, etc to come up with a plan for ivf. Those groups include providers and benefit companies, as well as members of groups that are spoken out against ivf, like doctors from the Catholic Medical association who say IVF raises significant concerns both medically and ethically.
One group that did meet with White House officials was the Fertility Providers alliance, the exciting news executive where was it? Obviously, as you know, as you probably read it, it doesn't have any actual actions in it. FPA President TJ Farnsworth says they laid out a number of recommendations like expanding training services for new doctors and funding more research into infertility, as well as addressing the politics around ivf. There's sometimes a competing narrative of whether or not what we do in IVF link and fertility services are congruent with pro life movements is when we make clear that they're more perspective, we deserve ourselves the definition of pro life.
For Julie, the politics surrounding IVF are a deep cause for concern. For me, actions speak louder than words and the actions that have been taken so far don't really change the status quo. The White House tells NBC news that after 90 days the domestic Policy Council has completed its recommendations and the President is reviewing them. Our thanks to Avalanche for that report.
After the break, how Republicans in the White House responded to concerns that President Trump is profiting off the presidency after he hosts a pricey and exclusive dinner with the top buyers of his crypto cryptocurrency. You're watching the PRESS now. Welcome back. President Trump was both the guest of honor and to some degree, the financial beneficiary for the most expensive dinner in town.
Last night, 220 crypto investors that bought into the president's official crypto coin got to dine with the president at his Virginia Gold Coast. Now we don't know the identity or the nationality of all the attendees last night. But we do know that on average, they spent over a million dollars to rub elbows with the president. And from photos posted online, we know that Mr.
Trump addressed them from behind the presidential seal, despite the White House saying that he was attending in a personal capacity. The dinner has raised questions about conflicts of interest and pay to play and sparked outrage from Democrats. And Republicans in control of Congress have largely seen on the sidelines. Here's Arkansas Republican Congressman French Hill this morning.
The Trump family activity in the meme coin space makes my work in Congress more complicated. I do the dinner last night is, you know, whatever. That's to me a distraction from the work I think we need to do for the, for the major big picture macro policy. Joining me now on set is Kevin Fry, Washington correspondent For Spectrum News, New York 1.
Don Edwards, former Maryland congresswoman and NBC News political analyst and Republican strategist Lance Tr. So, Kevin, Congressman Hill says that it makes his job more complicated, but he can't worry about the Trump administration or I should say the Trump family investing in crypto. Isn't that the problem is that it's making his life difficult? Yeah, I mean, inherently, look, I mean, over the last couple weeks, we've seen instances where, you know, the Trump administration and the Trump travel agenda has kind of coincided with some of it seems to Trump Organization's larger business interests and personal interests, be it going to Middle east where there are new investments in Doha, in Saudi Arabia, for example.
And so this has led to and contributed much to perhaps the Republican chagrin, a tagline for Democrats that they've been building over the course of this administration, which said this is a corrupt administration that doesn't care about you, is more invested in building up the billionaires and billionaires and Elon Musk types of the world. And I still remember not too long ago Republican members of Congress being very concerned about the business interests of the president's family. Right. I mean, this isn't a, this isn't like really a long term memory.
Look back on how they felt about the Biden family. Correct. I mean, we'll take a look for simple Hunter Biden and what he was working on and also even just questions about how much his paintings were selling for throughout the course of the Biden administration's term and need to get into the 100 Biden laptop situation as well. So, I mean, that was major focus.
We'll see. I mean, Republicans are on the Hill this week or they've left town, shall we say. And so they've avoided getting those questions in direct response to soft flows. Okay, so, Lance, I want to play for what the press secretary said about this yesterday.
The president has been asked about this. He has addressed this. I have also stated previously from this podium that the president is abiding by all conflict of interest laws that are applicable to the president. And I think everybody of the American public believe it's absurd for anyone to insinuate that this president is profiting off of the President's.
Why would it be absurd to ask questions about this? He's his companies control 80% of this crypto coin, not to mention the billions of dollars that are being spent in the Middle east right now. Well, I don't think it's absurd to ask questions. When I ask questions, that's fine.
But I do agree with her. I don't think people are worried that he's making money off of what they're trying to. He has a blind trust and so he doesn't control what's been there. The key operative word I've heard you say hello is outrage for Democrats.
And this is what happens. They're outreach from Democrats. The media gets involved and they try to tell the American people that they too should be outrageous about the dinner about how Trump went to in Virginia last night. And I still think Americans are happening.
I think they're going to more lately weaken with gas prices the lowest they've been in years. We had a huge tax cut bill. I have a tax increase that passed the House last week. Fair point.
And we had two young people murdered on the streets of Washington, D.C. because of their religion this week. I still think it's something American people really focus on. Okay, well, you might be distracting a little bit, Don.
I want to play an exchange that I had with Speaker Johnson on this topic. I think that was in the room at the time just about a week ago. Whatever President Trump is doing is out in the open. The investment in the meme coin, those folks are not transparent.
We do not know who those people are. I don't know anything about the meme coin. I don't know. I can just tell you that.
I mean, President Trump has had nothing to hide. He's very upfront about it. And there are people who watch all the ethics of that. But I mean, I've got a big concern about running House representatives over cycle.
That's the congressional responsibility. Congress has oversight responsibility. But I think so far as I know, the ethics are all being followed. I covered the inquiry, President Biden and his family very closely.
I Was in almost every hearing, talked to all the players involved. Republicans at the time were obsessed with this idea that Joe Biden was profiting off of his family's business dealings. They said it was the responsibility of Congress to look into it from an oversight perspective. Now all of a sudden, the same accusations against the sitting president and it's not my job.
Ethics are being filed. Does that make any sense? It makes no sense whatsoever. And I think that, you know, this graft is just.
It is out in the open. Even though we don't know who was at that, that dinner, we know that they were all investors of the presidents. And so to say that, well, he has a blind trust and so we don't know. Well, it wasn't so blind with all those people who were at dinner the other night.
And so I think the American people should be concerned about this and the Congress should be concerned about it. And it is a double standard, as you point out, the focus on President Biden, where there was like, nothing there and then this right out in the open. And Congress has a responsibility to make legislation where it concerns cryptocurrency. And so, you know, the idea that somehow the president isn't going to benefit or not from.
From that, I think really defies the imagination here. Is it enough? Let's just to say that some. It's not completely transparent, as we pointed out, but that it's a little.
I mean, Argentina Republic is more in the open than the Biden family business is. Is there a more transparent presence than this one right here? He talks with you every single day. He sits in the Oval Office and takes questions for hours on end.
I can't think of a transparent administration. He answers more questions than any president probably in modern history. But there are key areas in which they shield very important information from the public. As an example, last night, who was at this dinner?
Who made this investment? I mean, that's up to them. If they want to really say, that's their prerogative. But if all the ethics rules are followed and he's got his financial holdings or any blind trust, and again, I'm sure you'll have a million opportunities to ask him about him.
He takes questions at some point or the weekend around Tuesday night. If there's no inquiry, how do you know that all the ethics rules are being followed? I think it's a pretty simple question. All right, let's move on and talk about another topic.
President Trump using his executive power to take aim at his perceived that. He's now again at Harvard University I'm gonna put up a non exhaustive list right now of all the people that he's promised retribution against. You've got Harvard Media Matters, Chris Krasnoar, law firms representing legal foes, Act Blue, the fundraising outfit, online fundraising outfit, a Democrat, James. And New York Attorney General Miles Taylor of course was anonymous during his previous administration at Lancet.
This is, you know, one of the things people voted for. Donald Trump promised that he was gonna have this level of retribution. Is this him making good on campaign promise. Thank you Ms.
Oprah. And Bruce Springsteen, he did promise and say throughout the four years leading up to his return to the OLAF office that he was going to be the retribution. They basically stepped into the void on behalf of his followers and his supporters. So in some sense, yes, the question is exactly to what end is this going to be leading?
I mean you just hit on all of these. When it comes to for example, just James example, she has among other things, pursued a successful civil case against him and has a multi hundred million dollar judgment against him over questions of whether or not he was basically exaggerating the size of his facilities. At the same time, when it comes to Harvard, this does into another kind of cultural moment which is this anti elitism that has been part of the MAGA movement really since the beginning. But at least didn't he say wanted to get rid of the weaponization of the executive branch of the Department of Justice?
Isn't this just a different version of it than what he felt he was finding funny? Democrats for now has spent four years trying to imprison Donald Trump and they're not suddenly concerned about using the weaponization of government? No. I mean, look, let's see what happened in the streets of Washington.
It was at Harvard, for example, two young people were viciously murdered on the streets of Washington D.C. all because they somebody thought they were Jewish. Harvard University, Northwestern, Columbia have all tolerated and endorsed in some cases these groups, anti Semitic groups and acts of violence have been going on this campus. If you're going to take billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers, then this government has every right to step in and say, hey, what's going on on this campus?
And it's working because they are the instigators of a lot of this anti Semitism the country. I just, I don't know any university in this country, whether it's Harvard or any other that has endorsed violence either by their students or by other people. I think all of us universally condemn the violence that happened on the streets of Washington D.C. that's very separate from the way that the president and this administration are attacking Harvard and other universities.
They're, you know, targeting their tax status, they're targeting their research grants. This is an all out assault on higher education. Thank you, guys. Kevin, Donna, Lance, I'm a great memorial.
I appreciate you guys being here. Still to come, when in Rome, top US Officials hold the fifth round of nuclear talks with Iran as the two sides appear to hit an impasse over a crucial sticking point. You're watching me the press now. Welcome back.
The U.S. and Iran wrapped up their fifth round of talks today in Rome as the Trump administration continues efforts to rein into Iran's nuclear ambitions. Special envoy Wikoff, Iran's foreign minister, held indirect negotiations through mediators from Oman. But heading into today's meeting, both sides appear to harden their positions on uranium enrichment.
Wykoff, held in a red line with Iran, warned that zero enrichment would be a deal breaker. Joining me now is NBC's chief Washington correspondent, chief foreign correspondent Andrew Mitchell. So, Andrew, last week, President Trump, it seemed to indicate that the US And Iran were close to a big deal. But what's the reality of the situation right now?
The reality is they're not close to a deal, but they're talking. And the fact that they have met again for two hours, there were some direct as well as the indirect, according to a US Readout that we just got. But that would be a deal breaker. The IoT committee said going into these talks earlier this week that they have to be able to enrich that.
That is a deal breaker. They want to be able to keep some centrifuges still in rich, some uranium, they say, for civilian use, for medical research, for nuclear power. The US Is saying you can't have any centrifuges. There is a compromise that could be on the table where they would buy enriched uranium, just enough for civilian use, but not enough to break out.
So they're still talking. Of course, Israel kind of hangs over these conversations. Right. And you've reported that the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu believes that now's the time to strike Iran.
He wanted military support from the United States to make it happen. The Trump administration. But President Trump said let's try diplomacy instead. I would imagine that these negotiations in addition to Netanyahu's desires are conflictual on some level.
No, absolutely. Now he wants to strike Iran for a lot of reasons. He believes very strongly. I know this from conversations personally and very good sourcing that senior Israeli officials believe that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map.
By 2040, that they have a countdown clock. And he believes that now, having taken out a lot of their air defenses and retaliatory strikes months back and also eliminated mostly the weaponry and the forces of his proxies, his key proxies, Hezbollah, his chief defenders, and Hamas. Not the Houthis, but those other two, that this is the time to strike, that Iran is vulnerable, they are economically suffering, and they don't have those air defenses rebuilt. He came to the White House on his last visit ready to ask for US Air cover for an American for Israeli special forces operation against Iran.
And instead, in his presence in the Oval Office with no morning, the president talked about direct talks with Iran for the first time. Diplomacy. That was one major source of friction. And is this part of what is leading to the tension between President Trump and the prime Minister?
Absolutely. That and the fact that the US Negotiated a side deal, a ceasefire with the Houthis cutting out Israel. The US Negotiated the release with Cuffdyq for the last living American hostage, young Alexander, without Israel. So they're not on the same page.
But of course, what has brought them together in the last 48 hours is the tragedy of the slaying, the Houthis slaying of the two Israeli, the young couple right here a few blocks from here at the Jewish Capital Jewish Museum, that has brought the two leaders together in grief. And we have less than 30 seconds. But how is this impacting Netanyahu politically back home? Because his relationship with President Trump is one of his biggest selling points.
Well, the other thing is that he is under fire back home for not getting all the Israeli hostages out, for continuing the war with Hamas. Israel is deeply divided. Going after Iran would be very popular. It would certainly, if you think back, wag the dog.
Going after Iran right now would certainly help him politically. The Israelis would rally around him. Okay, intervention. Thank you so much for.
Appreciate it. And I'll be back on Monday, Memorial Day with more Meet the Press now. And if it's Sunday, it's a special edition of Meet the Press on your local NBC news stations. Kristen will take a deep dive into America's mental health crisis.
You're not gonna want to miss this next, though. The news continues with Maggie Vest, but she is in for Hallie Jackson right now. Thanks so much for watching. Have a great Memorial Day week.
Hey, everyone, I'm Dylan Dryer, co host of the third hour of Sea and mom to three Wild Boys. I learned a lot my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, the Parent Chat.
Each week, I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real world. I am over here just, like, winging it. Hey, I'm just trying not to buy my own tip. I want to give you advice on how to search parent chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.