Last summer, the coolest place in the house was in your freezer. This year, it's time to level up. Reliance Home Comfort has over 160,000 five star reviews for delivering the type of outstanding customer experience Canadians have counted on for over 60 years. Right now, don't pay for 12 months on a featured air conditioner or heat pump.
Call on the experts that know how to beat the heat. Reliance conditions apply. See website for details. If it's Tuesday, the Trump administration moves to cut all remaining government contracts and ties with Harvard as the president ramps up his fight against higher education institutions under the guise of combating anti Semitism plus settling scores.
The Trump administration reopens several high profile Biden era investigations as the president threatens California's governor with a funding ban and pardons a prominent supporter who was convicted of bribery. And President Trump blasts President Putin again, this time warning the Russian leader that he's playing with fire as Moscow unleashes another large scale attack on Ukraine. Welcome to MEET the press. Now I'm Kelly o' Donnell in Washington, where President Trump is once again escalating his fight with Harvard, the nation's oldest, wealthiest and most esteemed university, not to mention the alma mater of eight American presidents.
Mr. Trump now seeking to cut off all federal contracts with the Ivy League school, which he has maligned as a threat to democracy. NBC News has obtained a copy of a letter sent by the General Services Administration to all federal agencies encouraging them to seek alternative vendors for future services where you had previously considered Harvard. The news comes a day after the president warned on social media that he was considering taking $3 billion of federal grant money from Harvard and giving it to trade schools, despite the reality that some of those funds are congressionally authorized for medical and scientific research, not the work of trade schools.
Harvard's president says the Trump administration's ongoing attacks on his university could have serious and long term effects on all Americans. I would say that the federal government has the authority through the budgeting process to reallocate funds, but the question to ask is what problem is he trying to solve by doing that? The money that goes to research universities in the form of grants and contracts, which is almost all of the federal support that we get is used to pay for work that we perform at the behest of the government. I'm less concerned about whether it goes to a trade school or if it goes to some other project like working on highways.
The real question is how much value does the federal government get from its expenditures on research. There is a lot of Actual research demonstrating the returns to the American people have been enormous. Today's move is the latest in a six week onslaught of actions the White House has taken against Harvard. While accusing it of liberal bias, discriminatory admissions policies and anti Semitism, Harvard has forcefully pushed back, including with a pair of lawsuits challenging the administration's funding cuts and its move to revoke the university's ability to enroll or keep its international students, which a federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked.
Joining me now is news White House correspondent Vaughn Hilliard. And Vaughn, tell us about this letter. Sometimes things come in these very simple packages that give a lot of information. So a letter sent by the Trump administration to federal agencies lays out these changes.
What does it tell us? Right. And this is just the latest letter here as Garber lays out on behalf of Harvard the argument that these are federally funded and backed research efforts that are in the federal government's interest. Essentially, the university is a research institution that is there to benefit the federal government's efforts.
And that is where in this latest letter here from the General Services Administration this morning that went out to the hundreds of federal government agencies, it makes clear that the federal government is requesting that these agencies turn to different partners, different contractors, rather than previous relationships that they had existing with Harvard. That amounts, one senior administration official tells NBC News, to an estimated $100 million. Of course, this comes after a freeze and a hold up of more than $2 billion in other research and grant funds from the federal government to Harvard. So this is the latest effort to squeeze Harvard through the desires of this White House.
Do you have a sense in practical terms what that would look like when you consider how the White House is casting its actions against Harvard? What do we think the end game is here? This is an all out effort to make Harvard an example. Let's be clear here, Kelly.
We have seen efforts by this White House to force Columbia University, for instance, to capitulate some of their demands. And we have seen the other universities acquiesce to the demands when it comes to, for example, the admittance and hiring practices of students and faculty. And that is where you see Harvard and the President, Alan Barber, making the case that Harvard needs to stand firm. What are the ultimate consequences?
Well, we see over the last, the administration continuing to find new ways to try to squeeze the institution. The Department of Education, for example, has suggested that their tax exempt status is going to be reviewed and the president himself has urged the IRS to revoke their tax exempt status. So this White House has given them an off ramp. If you will.
But Harvard continuing to hold firm that they will not back down to the demands of this White House. And they've been rationing that up. When you look at another related area is that the administration stopped all interviews for international students seeking visas to come and study the United States and to expand the screening of applicants to include their social media accounts. Certainly the government does that screening.
Obviously, Harvard has its own list of students. What do we know about this pause and the impact it could have? Right. And that's where, again, Harvard is sort of this example university, example college here.
Just last week, the Trump administration told them that they were no longer going to be allowed through the Department of Homeland Security to have any international students and those that broadband needed to look to another university. The federal court stepped in and placed an injunction on that after Biden's administration. But fast forward to today. An internal cable signed by Secretary Marco Rubio and reviewed by NBC News indicates that this White House, through the Secretary of State, is ordering all consulates and embassies to immediately freeze any future interviews with potential foreign students that are seeking visas to study here inside of the United States, not just for Harvard, but for any college and university.
It is not clear when that they will begin that interview process again. But the reason for this pause, Kelly, is that the State Department is indicating that they intend to review the social media accounts aggressively of these students that are seeking to study inside the U.S. and of course, free speech comes into play there. Juan, thank you so much.
We'll be following this. And joining me now is Arne Duncan, who served as the Education Secretary and the President Obama. He's also a Harvard graduate. I'm sure you have a lot of thoughts on all of this.
Secretary Duncan, what do you think the federal funding that is at stake here means to everyday citizens who might never visit Harvard, might not have any chance to study at Harvard, but are affected by what Harvard produces as a research institution. What's at stake? That's exactly the right question. And this is the opposite of making America great again.
When you attack research, you heard all of us new tech foreign students in the five, our country of the best in advisors around the world. We lose their creativity. We lose their ability to find cures for cancer. We lose their ability to create jobs and own businesses.
And so this is what Trump is doing. He's challenging America. He's hurting America. And it's a tough analogy.
The best analogy I can think of, when a husband beats his wife and says, I still love you, you don't listen to words you watch the actions. What Trump is doing is he's beating America, he's abusing America, he's saying make America great again. He's doing exactly the opposite. We have to watch his actions, not just listen to his words.
That is a colorful metaphor you painted there, but I'm. President Trump has implied that he might take billions of dollars that is directed toward Harvard and give that to trade schools. Now, we've seen an emphasis certainly in recent years on trade schools and non college bound opportunities. And so that is certainly something that is gaining some traction.
But when you talk about taking money, science and the medical research and some of the innovations, how would that work? This is money that's appropriated by Congress. Can he simply pull money from Harvard and give it to trade schools? And what would that mean?
Well, first of all, stop. You have to recognize just how mind boggling crazy this is. We've never seen anything like this, any president, any time, from any party, just attacking universities like this. And Trump is terrified for good reason.
It's a place of truth, it's a place of knowledge, it's a place where he feels inferior. So we get it. But as you said, the federal budget is not his personal piggy bank. This is money appropriated back by Congress.
We should fund academic research, we should try and get scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, and we should fund trade schools and fund vocational training and give people a pathway to a great career. He cannot take one money from one place to pay somebody else. It's not a personal piggy bank. That's not how the federal budget works.
And again, we're seeing the courts. Thank goodness the courts stopped him time and time and time again. But unfortunately, he has an administration that just acquiesces. It does what he says.
He has a Congress that so far folks on the public inside have refused to check what is just egregious, you know, abuses of power. And so right now, our only hope today, I hope this changes, but our only hope is the course. And he's starting to lose in public opinion. The public is catching on to this and at some point he might pay a price for it.
Politically, that hasn't quite happened yet. President Trump has been laying out some of his complaints about Harvard and the university's president, Alan Garber, does acknowledge that the school has had real free speech concerns and problems and things are trying to grapple with. Let's listen to what he had to say. We think it's a real problem if particularly research universities, students don't feel free to speak their minds when faculty feels that they have to think twice before they talk about the subjects that they're teaching.
That's a real problem that we need to address. And it's particularly concerning when people who have views that they think are unpopular. And the administration and others have said conservatives are too few on campus and their views are not welcome. As we wrap up here, you have experience as an education secretary giving advice to these institutions.
What would you say about how they can best address that reality? That they recognize there are some issues on campus where they'd like to see an expansion of free speech and tolerance and so forth? Yeah. Well, no university in America is perfect and Harvard will never be perfect.
And every university every day is trying to get better and create that environment again. That's we're all trying to get better. The profession's progress, what's unprecedented is the US President trying to attack a university that actually terrifies him. And we've never seen anything like this.
That's what has to change. Harvard will continue to get better. Harvard will always be extraordinary. There's always improvement.
What has to change is the behavior of a president that is absolutely out of control. So appreciate your time today. Arne Duncan, former secretary of Education, thank you so much. Thank you.
And returning now to President Trump's use of executive power in reshaping the FBI. Yesterday, deputy director and former Fox News host Dan Bongino announced the agency will reopen and re examine several investigations dating back to the Biden administration. In a post on X, Bongino identified three cases the FBI will further examine. You may remember the unsolved case from 2021 where pipe bombs were planted outside the DNC and RNC headquarters here in Washington around January 6th.
There was also the baggie of cocaine found at a White House entrance back in 2023 and the leak of the unpublished Supreme Court ruling Dobbs case that overturned Roe v. Wade. Those are all prominent cases they want to reopen. Joining me now on set is NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney.
And, Ken, good to have you with us here. What does this mean to reach back in time and to revisit cases that the Department of Justice and the FBI have been working on or even completed? Well, the FBI hasn't explained why they're doing this, Kelly, but in fact, it's not even clear the Dobbs leak was a crime. There was no previous criminal investigation into that.
Exactly. Administrative investigation. But there's an obvious context here, and that is that Dan Bongino and Cash Patel, his boss for years fomented Conspiracy theories about alleged FBI misconduct around things like the Jeffrey Epstein case. And their MAGA base is getting restless and did an interview recently on Fox News where they said, for example, that they believe Jeff Epstein committed suicide.
They got a lot of blowback on that. So now they're finding these cases where they can say, hey, here's some stuff we can look into that may have been Biden narrow misconduct. And specifically on the FBI bomb investigation, Dan Bongino spent months saying they believed there was a cover up, that the FBI was lying when they said they didn't know they had any suspect. And he hasn't said that since he's now he's a job.
Exactly. But he, and he actually retweeted the repost the other day, an FBI appeal for information from public suggesting that he had come around on this issue. But it's clear that he wants more information about it. And so this is a sort of, I'm seeing this as kind of a sop to the MAGA base that is saying, wait a second, where are the people taken out in handcuffs and things like that.
So to satisfy what has been kind of an appetite for more answers. And maybe the answers aren't going to be all that satisfying when they actually get. Well, judging by reaction to Dan Bongino's post on X, people aren't satisfied. I mean, it's really remarkable to look and see very prominent MAGA supporters with large following saying, wait a second, what about Epstein?
What about the Donald Trump assassination, which maybe they believe was an inside job. Those are things that realistically, Dan, Bonnie and Cashetel are never going to be able to deliver on, but perhaps they can deliver on the shift is being outsider to actually having responsibilities. Thank you, Ken. Appreciate that very much.
And we also want to talk about how the president is flexing his presidential authority in another way. Announcing yesterday that he will pardon former Culpepper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins. Force the power of pardon is important for president in this instance, the person being pardoned was convicted on federal bribery charges back in December. Jenkins, a prominent local Trump supporter, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for accepting more than $75,000 in bribes in exchange for appointing several Virginia businessmen as auxiliary deputies.
But in a social media post, President Trump said the former sheriff doesn't deserve to spend a single day in jail, claiming that Jenkins was a victim of the Biden Justice Department. And joining me now instead is NBC News justice reporter Ryan Reilly. You've been tracking this. What stands out most to you about this individual being given the benefit of presidential pardon and how it not fit into the normal way this is done.
Yeah, I think that he's made him explicitly. He's made himself to be this Trump supporter and said that that's why he's being targeted. And that isn't a very appealing, you know, angle that they've been able to work with the Trump administration itself, and you've seen several instances of this before. Someone can say that, you know, this is the reason that they went after me.
They can point to Donald Trump's previous experience with the colonel justice system himself as a recent criminal, federal criminal defendant, and sort of link up with that. So I think it's sort of about working those angles off. And remember, this case involved a lot of undercover FBI agents, involved a cooperator. And so there's a lot of video evidence.
And, you know, he was convicted locally by a jury here. Right. Like in Virginia, the people who sat on that jury must be wondering. They gave up their time, they listened to the evidence, and they're among those who must be wondering what happened here.
When you talk about evidence, you're right. This isn't just saying there was weaponization. There is supporting evidence. What have we seen?
What does the record show about this case? Undercover video of these exchanges. Right. So you're seeing some of, you know, that undercover video on the screen.
The allegation here is that he was giving out these. The ability basically to bring a weapon across state lines by making them these auxiliary deputies in direct exchange for cash, often that involve not only local individuals who were prosecuted alongside him, but also involved those undercover agents. So they have this really extensive evidence of this pattern, they say, of these donations being made and then these abilities being given. And you have some new reporting on what has been going on with the approach to pardons.
Tell us what you've learned. Yeah. So Ed Martin, who was the interim USA for the District of Columbia, he also is the head, the director of this Weaponization, a working group that's within the Justice Department. He actually accepted a lot of these pardon applications from members of the Oath Keepers and from the Proud Boys.
I just met with him last week. He's only been in this job for a very short period of time with this lawyer who was representing these individuals, presented these, and he's going to. And Martin is kind of going to run those through the White House. Remember, most people were pardoned in connection with January 6, but there was a narrow subset of individuals from the Proud Boys and from the Oath Keepers who received commutations, meaning that they still have those felonies on their record.
And this would be give them, amongst other things, the ability to get weapons again and also make it easier for them to get jobs going forward. It certainly sounds like there's more to watch in that space if he is now in that position and you're getting those files being delivered. Ryan, thank you so much. Really appreciate your time and your expertise on this.
And coming up, Wall street and consumer confidence ending the day on a high note as the Trump administration again suggests that its bark might be worse than its bike when it comes to terror threats. Plus, the CDC is no longer recommending the COVID 19 vaccine for millions of Americans. We'll explain who's affected and why the guidance is changing. You're watching MEET THE Press now.
Last summer, the coolest place in the house was in your freezer. This year, it's time to level up. Reliance Home Comfort has over 155,000 five star reviews for delivering the type of outstanding customer experience Canadians have counted on for over 60 years. Right now, don't pay for 12 months on a featured air conditioner or heat pump.
Call on the experts that know how to beat the heat conditions apply. See website for details. Welcome back. Good to have you with us.
The economic roller coaster of the second Trump administration rolls on. Buckle up everybody as stocks today recoup some of the market's recent losses. On the news that the president would postpone a potentially massive hike in tariffs on goods from Europe to allow more time for trade talks. After making the announcement yesterday when markets were closed for the Memorial Day holiday, the president posted today, I've just been informed that the EU has called to quickly establish meeting dates.
This is a positive event. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett also opened the door for lower tariffs for other U.S. trading partners, telling CNBC that President Trump has that 10% blanket tariffs that could have some exceptions. Are you thinking eventually tariffs will get down to the level that businesses can negotiate within 10% or less?
Or do you think that a lot of this is going to be paid by the American consumer too? Well, in the end that's going to be up to president. But we've seen that 10 is a place that a lot of people have been pushed to and I would guess that if they come in with good enough offers, then they'll stay there or perhaps even below. So we'll all mark tend out.
Additionally, the administration's recent willingness to step back from the brink of a runaway trade war with China boosted consumer confidence in May, reversing five straight months of decline. NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung has the latest on all of this. And Brian, when we talked to you after the announcement, felt like markets didn't believe the president's threats on the eu and now that the deadline has been pushed back and markets are up a bit. What's your take on what we saw in the markets today?
Yeah, well, look, I mean, it is undoubtedly a great day for markets when you consider not just the Dow Jones, but the other measures of the market, the S&P 500 and the tech heavy NASDAQ indexes were also off substantially higher today in trading. I think that this underscores not just necessarily the optimism at what's going on specifically with the European Union and the United States conversations, but by extensions, conversations around the world as well. As we know the president has been particularly critical of the European Union. I think that some of the actions that he took at the end of last week by threatening his 50% tariff or in part due to his dislike of the European Union, taking the posture of if these conversations don't go well, the European Union would take counteracting and impose their own countervailing tariffs.
But again, the story here is that if there is his positive development and positive optimism, as the president has described it in social post with the European Union, then maybe he's open to a good fake negotiating with other countries as well. I think that's why we saw markets rising, not just because the EU but the other countries of the United States is trying to simultaneously negotiate. And we heard a bit of that in what we played with Kevin Hasse and what he said this morning, that the tariffs could go below 10% if there's a good deal to be made. What do you think of that comment?
Is that something kind of a new bar and do you see that stocks could be affected by this just by sort of watching how it's been ratcheted down? Yeah, I think it underscores the point that I was just making, which is that naturally the conversation that the president had talked about, referred to on this true social post was limited to the European Union, which is indeed a more complicated situation than say negotiations with other countries, visits a block of dozens of countries that we're talking about. But again, the natural question as put forward by our politics over CNBC, is what this means for all the other negotiations that are going on where in many cases they're facing that baseline 10% which by the way is still substantially higher than it was prior to January 20th. So, you know, kind of hassle by saying that they could also go down, it just reinforces the view among markets, among investors, among small businesses and big businesses that some of these tariffs are likely to go down before they go back up.
But of course, this administration, we never really know. We've been really on the tether back and forth. We've been watching consumer confidence too and it was up in the month of May and that is the month we saw the president back down from the giant tariffs at 145% on China. And do you see those as being related?
Yeah, absolutely. I mean I think that the trend that we've seen as of late is that when tariffs are dramatically ratcheted up, we see the stock market sell off and we see consumer confidence drop. However, on the other side, when the tariffs are delayed or canceled or reversed or lower, then we see the stock market go back up and we see consumer confidence come back up as well. Again, the numbers that were talking about the you showed the CNBC report just there.
Consumer confidence bounced back in May. What happened in May? Well, we saw a lot of the paring back of the tariffs that were announced by the president or at least delay now for once get to the first week of July because I want to remind people we have not removed the tariffs. We just put a 90 day delay in many cases on those same situation with China where we de escalated the temperature of the tariffs.
Well, yeah, those conversations become much more relevant once we get to that first week of July markets. Consumers, businesses will also be dubbed into all this development very closely. No summer vacation for you, Brian. You've got to be hungry.
I'll be right here. Thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it. We want to turn now to an announcement today from Health and Human Services Secretary ROBERT F.
Kennedy jr. That marks a major change to vaccine recommendations in this country. I couldn't be more pleased to announce that as of today the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule. So that was a one minute video announcement posted on X where Kennedy went on to decry the Biden administration for recommending, quote, yet another Covid shot for children, saying there's no clinical data to support it.
And the head of the nih, the National Institutes of Health called the change common sense and good science. The CDC previously recommended everyone six months and older should get a routine Covid shot. This is just the latest vaccine related change at HHS under RFK Jr who is and you know he's been a local Vaccine skeptic and has at times trafficked in misinformation surrounding vaccines for decades. NBC News medical reporter Erica Edwards joins us now to talk through some of these changes.
Erica, thank you for being with us. Is there truth to what Secretary Kennedy said and the NIH director are saying about science pointing to making this change? Hey, Kelly. Well, the answer is no.
The CDC lists pregnancy itself as a major risk factor for complications from COVID During the pandemic, doctors routinely saw pregnant women in the hospital. In the hospital and dying from COVID Now, today, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying, we have seen firsthand how dangerous COVID infection can be during pregnancy and for newborns who depend on maternal antibodies from the vaccine for protection. We also understand that despite the change in recommendations to hhs, the science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability.
Now, the American Academy of Pediatrics also this afternoon told me that it was not consulted about today's change. You know, pediatricians still tell me, Kelly, that they are seeing kids in the ER sick with COVID 19 and how our vaccines schedule changed in this way. When they make a change on the recommendations, is it normal to do it like this because we didn't hear directly from the CDC here? Yeah, this is highly unusual historically.
What happens is that a group of independent scientists come together, they discuss the vaccine schedule, and then they make recommendations to the CDC director. Now, we don't have an acting CDC director right now, so that responsibility would fall to the CDC's boss. And today that is HHS Secretary Kennedy. But his announcement today totally bypassed that scientific process that's been in place for decades.
And that's the thing people have worried about with Kennedy's stewardship. Would he be following the norms and the practices here? There's also a factor, very practical one, about cost. If you change the recommendations, does that impact the price people pay or whether their insurance provides access to these Covid vaccines?
Yeah, it certainly could because insurance companies rely on those CDC recommendations to figure out which vaccines to cover. Now, Pfizer and Moderna both can charge up to $141 per COVID vaccine. Now, that said Medicare, Medicaid, important to remember that they require that all vaccines are free to patients. And the Affordable Care act, also known as Obamacare, requires private insurers to cover vaccines recommended by the cdc.
But Kelly, as we know today, that group is stuck a lot smaller and many people will have questions ongoing on this. Erica, thank you for your expertise in the reporting you did for us. And up next, Russia pummels Ukraine with another relentless volley of airstrikes, validating fears that Putin is more interested in prolonging the war than making a deal to end it. I'll talk to a former ambassador to Russia straight ahead.
You're watching Eat the press. Last summer, the coolest place in the house was in your freezer. This year, it's time to level up. Reliant Home Comfort has over 155,000 five star reviews for delivering the type of outstanding customer experience.
Canadians of Canada for over 60 years right now don't pay for 12 months on a featured air conditioner or heat pump. Call on the experts that know how to beat the heat. Conditions apply. See website for details.
Let's kick start your wellness journey with the truck today at Workouts Meal Plans. It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the Xfinity Members Celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to xfinity.com membership to learn more Xfinity.
Imagine that subscription automatically reviews each year at 6,599, plus taxes and fees until canceled on the range May 20, 2026. Prices subject to change. Visit today.comxfinity for full on preservative details. And welcome back.
For the third consecutive day, President Trump is lashing out at Vladimir Putin as Russia continues to pummel Ukraine with aerial attacks and as peace talks appears to have stalled. In a post on social media, President Trump warned Putin is, quote, playing with fire. Meanwhile, in his evening address, President Zelensky said Russia's attacks have become increasingly brazen, saying Moscow has launched more than 900 drones in the past three days alone. President Zelensky appeared to echo President Trump's frustrations, saying the attacks are a sign that Russia is looking to prolong the war, not end it.
Joining me now is Michael McFall, former US Ambassador to Russia and an NBC News international affairs analyst. So good to be with you today to get your expertise. There are so many things going on with the Trump and Russia relationship. So let's start right there.
President Trump has been lashing out against Vladimir Putin on social media. You've seen it. Do you view this as a shift rhetoric or a deterioration of the relationship or something else? What stands out?
Well, it's definitely shifting rhetoric. President Trump has been praising Putin for a decade now. He's never said anything critical of him, and there are a lot of critical things to say about him. He has a theory that Putin somehow changed.
Right. If you read his postings, that's not my view. Putin, I think, has been very consistent. He's been killing civilians from the very beginning of this war.
But the fact that the president now has a more critical view is a change. The real question was, will be, does this rhetoric lead to concrete changes in American foreign policy? So far, that hasn't been the case. Interesting that it really is President Trump's rhetoric and maybe approach that's changing, whereas Putin has been quite consistent.
One of the things I wanted to get your take on is comments from Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. He wrote on X, he says that I believe that President Trump was sincere when he was working on relations, relationship, friendship with President Putin and that could end the war. But now that doesn't seem to be the case. It's time for sanctions that are strong enough so that Putin knows game over.
We have been hearing about sanctions for years now. What's left in the sanctions tank and what would that look like? Well, first, I agree that plan A hasn't worked. President Trump tried to court Putin.
He tried to give him concessions, basically everything he wanted. And then he tried to pressure the Ukrainians. That was his strategy for getting a peace deal. It hasn't worked.
So he has to go to plan B if he wants to achieve his objectives. And I think it's a combination of both sanctions and new military assistance. If President Trump does not continue to provide military assistance, Putin thinks that time is on his side and he could be right about that. So it's a combination of both.
And with respect to sanctions, there are many, many more things that we can do. This notion that it's completely exhausted is simply not tr. We could start by banning the entire black. It's called the shadow fleet that they're shipping their oil and gas on.
Their oil, excuse me. If we put all those ships on notice that they cannot go to ports in the west, that would have a big impact. We could seize their assets. We've been sitting on billions of dollars of Russian central bank assets for years.
So if the Europeans. You want to get Putin's attention, seize those assets now and give them to the Ukrainians. That's interesting because you really get the sense of the. Stick with that when you talk about military aid.
Germany announced yesterday that it would lift all of the range restrictions on weapons that it sends to Ukraine. We've seen that over the last few years where some of those who've been helping Ukraine have been concerned about those munitions or ordnance going into Russia. And so they would become Germany would be the last of the Western allies to lift this. How do you think that could have a practical impact in the country conflict?
It's the right decision. I wish it would have been made years ago, but it's the right decision. And I think the only way we in the west will convince Putin to stop fighting is when he no longer thinks that his armed forces occupying Ukraine can advance. And the only way to stop them from advancing is to arm Ukrainians with the weapons they need to stop the Russian soldiers on the battlefield.
I hate to make it so simplistic, but it is just that simple. Talking won't get Putin to stop. He's made very clear that he has the same objectives that he had in 2022. That's the only way to actually get to a peace negotiation.
And do you have a sense that there is something you are looking for from President Trump that would change the dynamic? He has threatened to walk away from peace negotiations. Is that something that would would make a difference here, or is there something you're looking for in rhetoric that could show that there is a next step in the this? I'm looking for him to meet his rhetoric with his actions.
He's threatened sanctions many times on social media. He's never imposed sanctions. And think about it, we're sanctioning all kinds of our allies right now with tariffs. Russia, under the Trump administration has never experienced an increase in sanctions.
So very concretely, if the president wants to get Putin's attention, that's what he should do. Match actions with his strong words. We will watch that space. Always good to get your insights.
Thank you, Ambassador. So good to have your time. Thanks for having me. And now, with tensions high between Canada and the United States, Britain's King Charles delivered a symbolic show of support for Canada, opening the country's 45th session of parliament.
The invitation of the king, who, as you know, is Canada's head of state, came earlier this month from the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, following repeated threats by President Trump to annex Canada as the, quote, 51st state. Today's address, officially called the throne Speech, is traditionally delivered from the throne in Canada's Senate Chamber. It's usually given by the governor General who represents the monarchy in Canada. A reigning king or queen.
Delivering the address in person is, in fact, rare. The last time it happened was back in 1977. While King Charles did not mention President Trump by name, he spoke firmly about Canada's sovereignty. Today, Canada faces another critical moment.
Democracy, pluralism, the rule of Law, self determination and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear and ones which the government is determined to protect. As the answer reminds us, the true north is indeed strong and free. And it's important to note that the king is a nonpartisan head of government and the speech was written for him by the Canadian government. After the break, the COUNTDOWN is on to one of the year's most competitive primary contests.
And you know what that means. C. Kornack is at the big board tracking where the race for New Jersey governor stands. It's just two weeks ago until voters hit polls.
You're watching. Need to press now. Welcome back. Glad you're still with us.
We're just two weeks away from the primary day in one of the country's most high profile primary elections of the year, the race to be the next governor of New Jersey. Here's a field on the Democratic side which has been both costly and contentious. Congresswoman Mikey Sherrill, who's leaning into her background as a former Navy helicopter pilot and prosecutor, is up narrowly in the field. There's a few public polls so far that we've seen, but the race far from settled.
And here's the Republican side, which is led by Jack Ciarelli, running for a third time after almost pulling off an upset as the Republican nominee in 2021. He's up in the polls and has President Trump's endorsement. That's always critical in these. Joining me now for a look at where things stand is our New Jersey politics guru, Steve Kornacki.
And Steve, this is a big, high profile national job becoming governor of New Jersey. What are you watching? Yeah. Let's take a closer look at the Democratic contest.
Here's an interesting dynamic. This is the most recent public poll we have. It actually does show Cheryl, Mikey, Cheryl, the congressman opening up a pretty clear advantage here over the rest of the field. We hadn't seen this in the polling until the last week or so.
So that's significant potentially. But what's also significant is what Cheryl has done on the inside, the inside game. This is what makes New Jersey unique, especially on the Democratic side. It's a bit of a throwback state.
They still have political machines, county political machines. And the way it's typically worked in New Jersey democr primaries is get the biggest county machine endorsements, win the primary. Let me show you how that inside game looks right now. 21 counties in New Jersey, 21 county Democratic organizations showing you who they've endorsed in the brown color here.
That is Sherrill. You see, that includes the biggest in the state. Biggest Democratic vote producing county in the state, Essex County. That's where Newark is.
You see Josh gottheimer, the other congressman. This race, Bergen county, that's his base. That's a big one. He has that.
And you see down here, all this green. This is South Jersey, big, North Jersey, South Jersey divide here, culturally, politically. The one candidate from South Jersey, Steve Sweeney, he's basically gobbled up the county endorsements in South Jersey. What does this look like when you put them all together?
Whoa, tons of numbers here. Well, you're looking at all 21 counties here and the share of Democratic registrations in the state from each county. 12% of all registered Democrats, New Jersey are in Essex county, where Newark is. Cheryl has the endorsement there.
Look, she's got other big ones. Middlesex, Hudson, Union. Add these all together. Cheryl's support makes up 60%.
The counties that are backing Cheryl make up 60% of all the Democratic vote in New Jersey. No one else comes close to this. So traditionally in New Jersey, this would be it. Cheryl would win almost certainly based on this, because what the county organizations have been able to do in the past, they're able to give you a special place on the primary ballot in that, in that county.
It's very easy to see, hard to miss your group with an official slogan, official logo, and it's almost been unbeatable. Well, that county line was undone by a court ruling last year. So this is the first time you won't have that preferred ballot position. But these organizations can still campaign for, put mailers out, send their volunteers out for Cheryl.
So she's got the lead in the polling rate right now in this inside edge. We don't know what it's going to be like without that county ballot feature, but it still is going to give her an extra edge because of the inside game, which matters in New Jersey. It's always exciting when another big primary day is approaching. Thank you, Steve, for Nick.
We appreciate your time and expertise, especially there. Still to come, Trump versus everyone else. The administration's SLA fight against the president's perceived enemies and the political fallout. The panel is next.
You're watching. Read the press now. Welcome back. Harvard University is just one of President Trump's perceived political foes facing federal investigation.
Everyone from Democratic campaign groups and politicians to staffers that spoke out against his whole series of the 2020 election have found themselves in the crosshairs in the opening months of this new Trump administration. And joining me now on set is Leanne Caldwell. She's Washington correspondent for P. Naveen Naya, president of the center for American Progress Action Fund and Rob Louis, president and executive editor of the Daily Signal.
Leanne, let me start with you. Welcome all. When we talk about the retribution campaign that the president promised, although he also said success would be the answer, what are we seeing and how you think this, these actions, all these enemies, how that is either filling that promise or just playing out sort of the mindset of President Trump? Yeah, well, retribution is absolutely still in the mind of President Trump.
It's evident on almost his daily actions on decisions he makes. Harvard institution that is not backing down is one that Donald Trump continues to go after because he also doesn't appreciate the fight. You see the ones who do back down, some of the law firms who, you know, have backed away. Yeah.
And so Donald Trump is continuing to go after those where he thinks that he can using federal funds in any way he can control the federal bureaucracy to target some of these people and institutions. And but the federal funds he does not have direct control over that that's appropriated money, even though he talks about it and can direct some things within administrative departments. When you talk about the big beautiful bill that is through the House but will now face the Senate when it comes back, what is your sense of how this is going to play out in terms of changes? These acknowledge changes are coming.
Are we, should we prepare ourselves for some big speed bumps on the big beautiful bill? Yes. Yeah. So now it's headed to the Senate.
The Senate is going to change their big beautiful bill from the House version. There's many ways that it could change, including the inflation Reduction act where actually there are senators who don't want some of these tax credits from the Biden era, renewable energy tax credits to go away. They're benefiting states and their districts. That could be one fight.
There could be steeper cuts to Medicaid. That's what some senators want, there's some who don't. But there are going to be lots of changes and this is just the next step. And Donald Trump is going to have to get involved again like he did in the House to get this over the finish line.
Often his involvement seems to be that final step. When you look at sort of the retribution agenda that is out there right now, what stands out to you? And are there any entities or sectors of American life that you think could be next? Well, listen, I think it's one of the conflicts of Donald Trump is that he usually just campaigns and is now governing with a very small sliver of Americans mind.
Right. That's his MAGA base. He promised retribution, but I think for the vast majority of Americans that's not what they wanted and not what they cared about. They were also listening to other part of his promises which were economics.
Yeah, we're dealing with the inflation and the economy. The problem for Donald Trump is he's really failing on that first on that big promise to the American people. And he's only kind of governing with an eye towards amassing power for himself and attacking and weakening anyone who is deemed an opponent. So whether that's elite universities, it is only those on the left that don't hold in high regard that he wants to attack nonprofit institutions.
The list is long legal institutions. I think the I think we should expect that this is going to be four years of this. And this is why I think it's really important for a broader segment of civil society, not just on the left, but actually engaging folks on the center right who will not tolerate this sort of abuse of power and throwing away sort of constitutional rights. If we don't build that broader coalition, you're going to see Donald Trump and those around him continue to attack anyone who they deem and those who support federalism, who don't want interference at every level.
That certainly comes into play as well. When you see how for example the Harvard battle is going because Harvard pushes back, they get more incoming from the president. Sometimes it feels like he's feeling pauses in his week too, adding another iteration to this. They have talked about wanting to make some changes to be responsive to some of his underlying concerns.
What is your sense of how that is going? Well, I think this is a losing battle for Harvard. A lot of this plays out. Students are going to probably choose other Ivy League schools because they want to be caught in the crosshairs of this battle between Trump and Harvard.
I also think Harvard has a huge stake that they're going to lose, particularly if that 27% of foreign students are no longer allowed to go there. And I know that the judges put the temporary restraint order, but that's not the end of this fight. And then the additional piece of this is the research dollars that he's pulling from Harvard. And so there are big implications for Harvard's problem too far because well established institutions of scientific study and when you pull the money back, that break in the continuity could have long term impact.
If I was in the position of Harvard's president, I would say I don't want the federal money. I'm going to go to route Hillsdale College and do things on my own. So the federal government has no say in how I run my operations as long as the taxpayers have a stake in this. I think the Donald Trump is very different, though.
Well, let's be clear. This is not anymore about a public interest that Donald Trump is weighing in on. Right. The purported argument initially was around 1970s semen, where you actually had a lot of people at Harvard, including the new president, recognizing there's a Trump campaign.
This is not that. These are attacks on who Harvard hires, who gets to go to Harvard only because Donald Trump doesn't agree with you. This is an ideological fight which once watched how conservatives didn't support the federal government intruding on private enterprises that are staked here. And that's the same debate that we're having over NPR and PBS right now.
You see, conservatives in conservatives would not have supported a Democrat withholding taxpayer dollars unless a private entity hired who they wanted them to hire. Rob, this isn't like ancient history. These are very. And they're applying for Republicans who voted for funding for public broadcasting.
Other things over the years. When you look at what Harvard can do, there may not be enough research money in the private space to replenish what they have. Do you think that people who voted for President Trump, who are in red states or across America, do they benefit from the kind of work that is done at Harvard or these other lead institutions when it comes to innovation, scientific research, medical research? Sure.
I'm sure that they do. But I think at the same time, those grants could go to other institutions that are not Harvard and that research can still be done. Those people who are doing their research at Harvard will simply move to another Ivy League or elite institution and do that type of work. So it's not that the research is going to stop.
It'll just not happen. There's a lot of disruption in what you're describing. I understand you're making good faith offer there, but that's very disruptive too, when you look at what is happening on Capitol Hill. Is there any support for, among Republicans for trying to, to sort of bring the Harvard and elite school graduates who are in Congress any sense that you have that they want to take on this fight or make the argument that we heard here where nobody was saying that, you know, this is a, this is a traditional conservative point of view to let different entities carry out their will free of government.
This is an issue that they do not feel like they want to break with the president on. This is not something that is important enough to them to separate themselves from the president. So most Republicans, there's some who are getting involved in support of the president. But most are just saying I shouldn't be surprised that that was your perspective.
Thank you so much. I'm so happy to have all the panel here. Thank you for your insights. And tomorrow we will be back with more MEET THE PRESS now.
But the news continues right now with Hallie Jackson. I'm Craig. Mel. Cheers.
Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy and now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way, too. Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs and challenges.
Their stories are funny. And so I hope you'll join me each week. Who knows, you might just come away with your own glass F4. Search glass half full with Craig Melton.
From today on YouTube everywhere, you get a podcast.