Last summer, the coolest place in the house was in your freezer. This year, it's time to level up. Reliance HomeComfort has over 155,000 5-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. Oh, yes! Condition supply. See website for details.
As he grants full pardons to a reality TV couple convicted of fraud and says he will look into pardons for a group of men convicted of plotting to kidnap Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. And Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israeli forces have killed Hamas as Gaza Chief as chaos and violence erupt at a new U.S.-backed humanitarian aid center in Gaza. Welcome to the press. Now, I'm Krista Welker in Washington.
President Trump today is facing new scrutiny about profiting off the presidency as his family business force billions of dollars into Bitcoin while the White House deregulates the industry and ramps up its promotion of cryptocurrencies. The president's eldest sons who oversee Trump's businesses are set to speak later this hour at a conference in Las Vegas that is billed as the world's largest Bitcoin event. It's the same conference where Vice President Vance spoke earlier today, using the trappings of the executive branch to promote the administration's investments in the crypto industry. Take a look.
I'm here today to say loud and clear. With President Trump, crypto finally has a champion and an ally in the White House. We prioritize eliminating the rules, the red tape and the law fair that we saw aimed at crypto by our predecessors. We want our fellow Americans to know that crypto and digital assets and particularly Bitcoin are part of the mainstream economy and are here to stay.
It comes as Trump media, the parent company of truth social, announced that it was raising two and a half billion dollars to buy Bitcoin, essentially turning what was the president's social media company into a Bitcoin reserve. It comes after last week, Mr. Trump hosted an exclusive and private dinner for more than 200 top investors in his personal mean coin. The president's personal investment in cryptocurrencies have raised major concerns from ethics watchdogs because the president has at the same time used his executive authority to aggressively remove regulations around the industry and to promote the historically volatile and speculative asset class.
Under the Trump presidency, the SEC no longer regulates crypto exchanges. The Justice Department has disbanded its national cryptocurrency enforcement team and the agency that regulates commodities is now being run by a veteran of the crypto industry. NBC News Senior White House correspondent Garrett Hake joins me now from Las Vegas, the site of the Bitcoin 2025 conference. And Brady Dale, who covers the crypto industry for access, also joins us.
So Garrett, let me start with you. You are at this Bitcoin conference. Give us the big takeaways. What are you seeing?
What are you hearing? Well, for some, it's been fascinating to see the degree to which the attendees of this conference have welcomed the presence of Jamie Vance and the Trump sons who are speaking here later today. But they feel like have granted legitimacy to this asset class. And I've talked to folks who have been invested in Bitcoin.
The term of art is orange killed for many years now who described the way this conference has grown from a fringe event. There's something that represents a significant portion of the American economy and that there are now kind of blue chip names invested in it as well. They were especially warm to Jamie Vance's description of how the administration wants to keep a light or regulatory touch on this industry going forward. And sheered his commentary about getting rid of kind of a chief boogie man in this space here again, so the former head of the SEC.
Listen to the vice president talking about that from Mr. March earlier today. He rejects the Biden administration's legacy of death by a thousand enforcement actions. We reject regulators.
Maybe the most important thing that we did for this community. We reject regulators and we fired Gary Gensler and we're going to fire everybody like it. A notable response there from the audience here today, Kristin. I think the other big takeaway that I've had is the degree to which this Bitcoin community crypto community is a subculture unto itself.
It is separate from Naga, but there's a significant overlap in that Venn diagram. And Trump and his team have really we needed that aggressively both from financial basis personally and politically to his great benefit. Well, and it's fascinating, Gary, because as you say, it's not just President Trump, it's his sons, Eric and Don Jr. They're both slated to speak at the conference as major players in this community.
We also saw Trump media announced plans to buy billions in Bitcoin this week. So explain to folks why this is creating all of that buzz among watchdog groups about potential conflicts of interest. What do they say? Right.
I mean, it's just it makes it incredibly simple. Really, all of the Trump positions in crypto do to buy or invest in products that will directly support the president of the United States. Now, you could argue that it was always the case. You know, if you stayed in a Trump hotel room in the first term, you're doing the same thing.
Here, there is a similar complaint, particularly as it evolves about that Trump mean coin, which is a totally separate thing from Bitcoin into essentially a digital novelty investment, in which your only real investment is in showing Donald Trump how much you like it. In Bitcoin, it's a bit of a separate, separate issue because it's such a well-established investment. And the argument that Trump folks make, and I say that because it includes both the White House and the Trump family and Trump businesses, look, we're doing this all out in the open. So when we're investing in Bitcoin, we are raising the value for everyone, not just ourselves.
And so kind of take it or leave it. They are unbowed by the criticism that this is somehow a conflict of interest because they argue anybody with where would all go online and create a digital wallet can join the party, as it were, which has its own risks. But that's the approach that they've chosen to take. Well, and just finally, Garrett, let's talk a little bit about this fundraiser that Vice President Vance headlined last night in Las Vegas.
It cost more than $1 million ahead. How much was this a part of, quite frankly, the Trump campaign, President Trump's success in 2024, and is this a window into the future, what we can expect? Yeah, I mean, this fundraiser was for MAGA 8, the super packet supports the President, and potentially the Vice President in any future campaigns. He might run, so keep that in mind as you think about the future.
But you're actually right, I mean, this is a wholesale embrace of crypto broadly by Trump enterprises and Trump politically. He made this 180 between his first term in a second, really embraced crypto on the campaign trail, trying to tap into that subculture for support and the community for fundraising. They did it quite successfully. The crypto industry was the biggest donor to Trump Vance in 2024, bigger than the oil and gas industry, bigger than traditional banking and finance typical lanes of support for Republican presidents.
So this is sort of part of how Trump is remaking a Republican party here to embrace this new industry, President. Well, you give me a perfect jumping off point with Brady, Garrett Hake, thank you for your great reporting and your in-depth knowledge of cryptocurrency. It's quite impressive, I must say. Brady, let me turn to you.
Look, pick up right there, where Garrett left off. I mean, he really lays this out from the perspective of the White House. They believe this is the future. And there, at least publicly, not concerned about the criticism, the questions that they're getting from watchdog groups.
What are you watching for moving forward in this space? Well, I mean, the big thing I'm watching for moving forward is Congress is, and the Securities and Exchange Commission right now, are working to write a new set of rules for the industry, both to concern, you know, cover how to prevent crime on blockchains and also how to protect consumers, and also just to give legitimate industries in this industry a pathway to move forward, because they really haven't had that before. There really hasn't been regulations of this industry at all. Instead, the Biden administration just prosecuted businesses.
And so what I'm watching is for this new set of rules, this new framework to take shape. And is there, what is the argument that there is, in fact, a benefit for the country embracing crypto and establishing some type of strategic Bitcoin reserve? Well, the strategic Bitcoin reserve is a separate question. I mean, on the first part of your question about what's the benefit of the industry, I mean, it's a big new industry in which folks have made a lot of money.
And the United States government tends to lead in tech industries that it embraces. And so the argument is, let's embrace this tech industry and let's lead. You know, if nothing else, a lot of people agree, this isn't just crypto weirdos, people like Bank of America agree, blockchains are a better way to move money around the world, at least for certain kinds of transactions. And so that's probably going to be pretty profitable over time.
The strategic reserve, you know, I don't know, that's a more, that's a more net case. Fair enough. Look, this industry is new, it's volatile. What do you make of the deregulation that we are seeing?
Could it potentially backfire? Well, it isn't, I mean, it isn't really deregulation, right? Like what the Gensler SEC did and what the Biden White House did is it just largely prosecuted people for following rules that didn't exist. And I'm not being hyperbolic there.
That is really the way it was. And so what we really are seeing going forward, I mean, it's true, the Trump administration has a lot of ethical questions about his business dealings, but they are also the first administration to start writing actual rules for this industry. And, you know, there's a certain number of Democrats that see the opportunity and are engaging there. So this really will be the first time we have a new set of rules specific for a new industry that is really unlike anything else that the world has ever seen before.
And just very quickly, obviously, one of the big stories in this space, the collapse of FTX did have these so-called crypto cops who were put in place in response to that. What are the implications? What are the lessons there? Well, I mean, the big lesson of FTX is, you know, we should have had a set of rules where exchanges could easily get registered in the United States.
You know, the FTX operated out of Hong Kong and out of the Bahamas because there was no way for it to get registered as an exchange here. There wasn't a clear legal path forward. And so if we have a clear legal path forward for those kinds of businesses, then actual U.S. regulators will be able to keep an eye on them.
All right, Brady, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Great to have your perspective today. Thanks for having me.
Absolutely. Well, President Trump answered questions from reporters today in the Oval Office after presiding over this, wearing in a former Fox News personality and former judge Janine Piero to serve as the U.S. Attorney for D.C., and the President shared some of the tough words he had for both Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin as the conflicts range on in Gaza and Ukraine. President Trump telling reporters he warned Prime Minister Netanyahu about taking actions against Iran as he pursues a nuclear deal with Tehran.
Here's some of what he had to say. President Trump, did you warn Prime Minister Netanyahu against taking some sort of actions that could disrupt the talks there in a phone call last week? Well, I'd like to be honest. Yes, I did.
Yeah, I told him this would be inappropriate to do right now because we're very close to a solution. Now, that could change at any moment. And for a fourth consecutive day, President Trump expressed his frustration with Vladimir Putin and Russia's latest attacks on Ukraine, while also blaming Russia, Ukraine, and the Biden administration for starting the war. Take a look.
I'm very disappointed at what happened a couple of nights now where people were killed in the middle of what you would call a negotiation. I'm very disappointed by that. Very, very disappointed. Only the fact that if I think I'm close to getting a deal, I don't want to screw it up by doing this.
This isn't my war. This is Biden's war, Zelensky's war, and Putin's war. This isn't Trump's war. I'm only here for one thing to see if I can end it.
And joining now is Kelly O'Donnell, who as of today is NBC's Chief Justice and National Affairs correspondent, Kelly, congratulations. We are so thrilled. Thanks for being here this afternoon. Oh, that's okay.
If you're Kristen, thank you so much. Absolutely. It is a fantastic day here in the DC Bureau. So let's talk about what we heard from President Trump.
I played you a couple of his sound bites as it relates to Russia and of course what's happening in Gaza. What were your other key takeaways as he's grappling with all these different foreign policy challenges? Well, there are huge issues on his plate, and the president appears to want to push away responsibility in trying to resolve some of the thorniest things, but would ideally like to take credit if he can be successful in bringing the parties together. And so you get a sense of that frustration.
These are difficult partners, if you will, certainly figures that he has to deal with who are not willing to bend at his demands. And that has been very frustrating for the president. And you get the sense from his comments that he would like to see this result quickly for all the benefits that exist in that. Obviously, an end to war is something that is long sought, but also it would alleviate a lot of the stress points that he is dealing with.
And as he says, these were not his wars. Well, they really weren't the wars of the prior president either. These events happen when you are at this level. And what comes to a president's desk is often determined by events far outside their own choosing.
And President Trump is certainly dealing with that right now. He wants to be tough on Putin based on what he is saying. But there were many who are saying that he needs to take action on sanctions to push things further. We'll have to watch what happens with sanctions very closely.
Of course, President Trump saying that is one of the options on the table, but hasn't made any action there yet. Let me ask you about another element of what we heard from him today. He talked about the possibility of more potential pardons, Kelly. What was the big news there?
Well, the pardon power is one that President Trump particularly seems to enjoy it is a pardon power that gives him enormous discretion for his methodology, his reasoning, and so forth. And a number of his pardons have been quite notable and are doably controversial. In a typical White House in times going by, you might have a long process where someone goes through a Justice Department review makes a case for after serving their sentence appealing for this kind of clemency. That is really a different system now.
The president has different ways that he's getting information. Some of them have been controversial and some connected to him. So we've seen pardons in recent days were expecting a formal documentation to say he is pardoning the reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley after speaking with their daughter and saying, yes, that pardon power is to come. They were, of course, imprisoned on tax related and mortgage fraud charges.
And the judge in that case said that there was great concern about a lack of remorse. Then you see other instances where he has done a pardon for a local sheriff who had been convicted by a jury of accepting bribes. And so the president is now floating the possibility that he would consider parting those who were involved in a plot against the Michigan governor to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who of course you may recall has been a Democrat who's been willing to try to deal with President Trump. She was a visitor in the Oval Office.
She was also kind of a host for him when he arrived in Michigan for an event. And she was trying to persuade him on policy issues that would be important to her state, which of course voted for Donald Trump in the most recent election. And so to perhaps give clemency to those individuals who plotted to kidnap her, that would certainly be notable. He says he has not made up his mind yet, but it's something that he would give consideration to.
Yeah, a lot of eyeballs on that. We should know while you and I have been having this conversation, Kelly O, our colleague, Gabe Gutierrez reports that according to a White House official president, Trump has officially signed the pardons for reality TV stars, Todd and Julie Chrisley, and has also pardoned former New York representative, Michael Grimm, who was convicted of tax fraud and related charges back in 2014 among a few others. So this is obviously a story that is getting active right now. Yes, it is.
Kelly O'Donnell, thank you for helping us break it all down in your new capacity. We love it. Thank you. Coming up chaos and confusion at new aid distribution sites in Gaza, as Israel says, it's taken out of top of Mosley during the region.
We'll get an update from the region. Plus the very latest on the White House's mass deportation plans, as new data shows, deportations are ramping up and not nearly as quickly as the president. Oh, they would. You're watching the press now.
Stay with us. Conditions apply. See website for details. Resolution of that conflict.
Welcome back. That was U.S. Special Envoy Steve Whitcoff in the Oval Office today, talking about the status of ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas. It comes as Prime Minister Netanyahu announced Israel has killed Muhammad Seymour, the younger brother of Yaya Sinwar, who orchestrated the October 7th attack on Israel.
Hamas has yet to publicly comment on the death of Sinwar. NBC News International correspondent Matt Bradley has more. Well, in fact, we've been hearing about Muhammad Sinwar's death for the past several weeks. It looks like just now the Israeli government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself actually, have finally confirmed that the corpse that they had must have been that Muhammad Sinwar.
Again, this is the younger brother of Yaya Sinwar, the main architect of those October 7th attacks that set off the latest war in the Gaza Strip and really has transformed the entire Middle East in the last year and a half. Now, is this going to affect the way this war is conducted or crucially, the way Hamas negotiates with the United States and with Israel? Well, probably not, because as I mentioned, it sounds as though Muhammad Sinwar has been dead for the past several weeks, and it looks as though negotiations have more or less been continuing. The fighting in the Gaza Strip have been ongoing despite the fact that he was dead.
So it doesn't look as though this is going to have an appreciable effect on how Hamas conducts its business in the near term. However, you know, we have to remember these terror groups. When we talk about the Taliban, Islamic State, they are prepared to be decapitated. The head will grow back.
And we've seen this time and time again, targeted airstrikes, taking out the leaders of these organizations. They simply have a new leader. They're prepared for this eventuality. But in Hamas, this case, it's a little bit different because so many of their leadership has been killed, not just Muhammad and Yaya Sinwar, but also many of their leaders in the Gaza Strip and their leaders abroad in places like Doha or Beirut or Istanbul, it's going to be hard for them to replace Muhammad Sinwar and to keep replacing them, particularly since this group has been so badly damaged already.
Now, we saw on the Gaza Strip these horrifying images of thousands of people rushing to try to get aid from one of these aid stations, and that just is a signal of how terrible things have been going there. This was a U.S. backed aid group called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Now, we understand from our own team on the ground that this was a scene of chaos, shots were fired, and the military had to come in and subdue the crowd.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation released their own statement today, where they described a situation that was immediately under control, there was no casualties, and that aid was distributed and taken up again immediately after this happened. And they said they've opened even more aid stations now. So depending on who you believe, it doesn't necessarily mean that this maiden voyage for this U.S. backed aid effort has been such a disaster, but only time will tell yesterday was really their first day on the job.
Wow. All right, Matt Bradley, thank you so much for that report. We want to turn out a President Trump's agenda right here at home as the Trump administration significantly ramps up its deportation efforts. According to ICE data obtained by NBC News, the Trump administration deported more than 17,200 people in the month of April, a 29% increase compared to April of last year.
It's the first time this year, deportations under the second Trump administration outpaced deportations under Biden during the same period last year. With me now on set as NBC News Senior Homeland Security correspondent, Julia Ainsley, Julia, thank you so much for being here, really appreciate it. So let's start right there. What do you make of this uptick in deportations?
Yeah, it's interesting. This is the first month as you pointed out that they've actually deported more people than they did under Biden in the same period. In part, that was because with Biden, there were so many immigrants that were arrested crossing the border and it's much easier to deport people when they're in the hands of Customs and Border Protection than after they are living and large in the United States. But it also shows that they're not near the pace that they would want to be if Trump wanted to make good on his inauguration.
They promised somebody promised on the campaign trail for those millions and millions of deportations. In fact, if you do the math and you just keep this pace going for a year, they would be at around 200,000 deportations a year to put that in context. Obama reported over 430,000 people in 2013. One thing they're running into is space and deportation flight issues.
And of course, they want more funding from Congress, but they have ramped up in small ways. They've gone from about four to five flights a day to between eight and 10 flights a day. They are now, they've added 47 more facilities where they can detain migrants, including in local prisons. And they are now able to arrest more people and they're booking in more of those people.
So Julia, just looking forward, I mean, given what you are saying, do you actually expect the pace of these deportations to continue to increase? I do not necessarily buy some shock and all explosive exponential number, but just based on some of the things that they've put in place so far, more detention space, they're building more, if they're able to one day put tens or they wanted to enforce lists, that contract has been in limbo. These are always that it could increase it. Of course, they would need more money from Congress in order to do that.
One of the concessions Trump made in that big beautiful bill was to go from 45 billion for ICE detention to 10 billion. So they may not get to that high level. But I think they're putting in these places and as Axios reported last week, the White House meeting, Miller said they wanted 3,000 arrests per day. I don't know if that's doable, but at least that pressure is not letting up.
Yeah, and they will need more resources. They argue to do it. As you say, let me ask about the Trump administration asking the Supreme Court to block a lower court's order as it relates to setting migrants to a third party country. What can you tell us about that?
Yeah, it seems like we've heard this before. It's because it's a really similar argument. The Supreme Court already said that migrants need reasonable time to appeal if they're sent to a country that's not their own. But that's under the Alien Enemies Act.
That pertained to those people who are about to be sent to El Salvador. That is largely on hold for now. It's a temporary hold. Right now they're being asked to weigh in on the migrants who are being sent.
First, they tried to send them to Libya. A judge of Massachusetts said no, they need reasonable time to appeal. And then, of course, they were the eight sent to South Sudan. And as we know, they are now on hold to Burley and Djibouti.
We need a map just to talk about all of this. But basically, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule this district court judge and to put a stay on his order that says that these people need reasonable time to appeal before they're sent somewhere else. In other words, should immigrants be given a chance to say, I can't be sent to that country for X, Y, and Z reason? A reasonable appeal could be that there's a huge travel advisory to go to South Sudan right now from the State Department because it's a war-torn country.
Without being able to contact our lawyer or make those appeals, that might not be considered reasonable time. They want the Supreme Court to say they don't need that amount of time. All right, Julia, it's like, thank you so much for your great reporting. As always, really appreciate it.
Coming up next, Elon Musk criticizes President Trump's massive spending bill, warning it could increase the deficit and undermine Djibouti's mission. The panels next, you're watching 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. Come on the experts that know how to beat the heat. Conditions apply.
See website for details. Welcome back to Spike saying he's stepping back for politics. Elon Musk, architect of Trump's Doge Initiative, has re-emerged for the moment, sharing his opinion on the so-called big beautiful bill to fund President Trump's agenda. Musk criticized the legislation which passed the House last week saying it undermines Doge's work to cut government spending and increase the deficit.
Take a listen to a little bit of what he said. So, you know, I was like disappointed to see the massive spending goal, right? Which increases the budget deficit, not just decrease it, and it reminds the work that the Doge team is doing. I actually thought that when this big beautiful bill came along, I mean, like everything he's going on, Doge gets wiped out in the first year.
I think a, I think a bill can be, can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don't know if it can be both. My personal opinion. Well, President Trump was asked about Elon Musk's comments in the Oval Office today, but did not address the criticism just saying that the bill is being negotiated and that while he's not happy with some of it, he's thrilled by other aspects of it. Joining me now is Tia Mitchell, Washington Bureau Chief for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Anthony Colley, Democratic Strategist, and an NBC News Political Analyst, and Brendan Buck, former advisor to House Speaker Sean Boehner and Paul Ryan, and also an NBC News Political Analyst.
Thanks to all of you for being here. Tia, let me start with you. Boy, that was pretty pointed criticism from Elon Musk and it could carry some weight in Trump world with Republicans. How do you anticipate those words are going to land?
Yeah, it does carry weight because it just adds to some angst that many conservatives do have about the bill. Some of them willing to say it more publicly than others. We know it was a through line between a revolt from a few hard liners in the House before it was passed. There are some hard liners in the Senate who are making similar comments.
That being said, the question is, the new spending that is creating the increase in deficits is tax cut extensions. And what we didn't hear Elon Musk say specifically is what he wouldn't do. You know, what does he think Congress is doing that they shouldn't do in this bill? That's going to be harder for any Republican or any ally of President Trump to say flat out.
We shouldn't do these tax cuts. Brendan, it's such a great point because, of course, this is a key part of what President Trump campaigned on extending the 2017 tax cuts. And now here we are. And yet those comments from Elon Musk, I mean, how much sway does he have, do you think?
And President Trump shows his words pretty carefully, but you have to think he's a little bothered by that. Yeah, I think it's hard not to say that Elon Musk is a bit of a diminished figure at this point. I don't really hit the marks that they were hoping to. Clearly, they didn't cut as much spending as they promised.
And the other important thing I think you have to notice is that he's backing away from spending money in politics coming up. And that is a huge thing. Republicans in Congress, I think they were excited by what he was doing with those, but they also knew that he was sort of the key to their re-elections. And at any moment, if they crossed him, then he could spend money in primary and potentially take them out.
That's not really, he's not getting involved in that way anymore. I think they look at him a little bit differently. He's also not like tweeting every 10 minutes about what's going on here. So that's a couple as well.
Well, so Anthony, pick up on that point, because I've spoken to Democrats, I've spoken to Republicans who several months ago were quite concerned that Elon Musk would really be the focus of Democratic ads in the primary and the midterms. And I've heard Democrats say the same thing. Do you think the same political calculation applies, or does Brendan have a point that he's politically diminished at this point? He has politically diminished, but I agree with Brendan in that the most important thing he said was not about the specifics of this big, beautiful bill.
It was that he quote said, the post, I'm going to spend a lot less on politics, right? And to put this in perspective for your viewers, he spent $290 million over the last cycle for Trump and Trump aligned candidates. And he committed to spending $100 million for Republicans to cycle when Trump isn't on the ballot. We don't know if he's still committed to spend that much money.
But if you are Republican, you talked about ain't that Republicans are feeling on the Hill? You read those comments in the Washington Post, and I get you some names. Yeah, I just want to say that, yes, his political kind of shadow in Washington is diminished, I agree. The fact that he's indicated he won't be spending money, I think that gives him less influence over members of Congress quite frankly.
However, he still controls a very influential social media platform. He's still the world's richest person. And so therefore, what he says continues to grab headlines and carry weight. So if he is criticizing this key legislation, I do still think it carries weight.
It creates headlines, all the things that are headed for the Republicans trying to get this across the finish line. This is Donald Trump's entire legislative agenda in Brazil. He does actually wage a campaign to go against it. I think that would be a huge deal and a huge, obvious rip.
I don't imagine he's going to do that, but he has shown when he defeated a government funding bill back in December that when he really wants to turn it on, he can't. Brendan, just historically speaking, because you're no stranger to some of these battles on the hill. I mean, how unique is it that we have these moments, you have Biden passing, a huge piece of legislation when he was in the White House. Now you have President Trump trying to pass this big beautiful bill, which is all encompassing.
I mean, they want to get it done by July. Is that realistic? And is this a little bit of a break with what we've seen in the past? I do think it's realistic.
I think that the House did a lot of the heavy lifting and a lot of the hard work. So I do think they're going to get it done. But what I'm actually most struck by is the sort of smallness of the Trump legislative agenda, which sounds, I think, might sound strange because it's a big spending kind of, but it is largely just extending what he did in 2017. Usually new presidents come in and they have some new bold initiative they want to do.
Joe Biden certainly passed a series of big sweeping reforms. Donald Trump seems content to just really extend what he did in 2017. He's got a few add-ons that are no tactics on tips and things like that. But they're not very significant.
If we're your average voter, and I've always seen some Republicans going back home and getting beat up, there's not a lot to sell new. Donald Trump talks about big tax cuts, but for most people, you're just keeping your tax rates the same. That's not a whole lot to celebrate. So there's not actually too much to it.
Anthony, what's your take in terms of how Democrats are going to spin this? And obviously they're very focused on the Medicaid piece of the potential cuts to Medicaid. Right. So listen, I think Democrats do need to do is not just, well, let me say this way, the base of the party wants to see fighters.
They want to see people, if you're not winning against Trump, they want to at least see you try. But I also think Democrats have been coming up in this moment to try to find some common ground with Donald Trump. You don't hear that a lot from the Hakeem Jeffries, lead House of Representatives. But the Democratic Party really does have a brand problem.
And there's a clear majority of the American people who voted for Donald Trump. And they're going to need to try to find some ways to work together with this guy, despite all the other things that he's doing to upend norms and throughout the rule of law. Well, as we watch what's going on in Congress, notably more people are saying they want to actually be governor. They want to leave the house.
They want to leave Senator Tommy Tuberville, the latest person, to you from your neighboring state to say, hey, I want to run for Governor Michael Bennett, also announced he wants to run. What do you make of this kind of, I don't want to call it an exodus yet. But the fact that you do have people who are serving here in Washington, who are starting to look back to their home states to say they want to serve in the executive branch. And I would like to add to this conversation, governors who have been heavily recruited to run for the Senate, who said, no, thank you.
That includes Governor Kemp and governor and governor and New Hampshire. So it's not just people saying, I'm ready to leave the Senate, as other people saying, nope, I don't even want to go there in the first place. And I do think it indicates just in our politics today, the hyper-partisan climate, how difficult it is under President Trump, quite frankly, for senators on both sides of the aisle. And I think it's just not as an attractive position as maybe it was in the past.
That being said, it's still the U.S. Senate. There are still people who are clawing and cleaning up qualified candidates to run for these seats. But I do think it is notable that there are people saying, you know what, I want out.
This is not the job for me. Anthony, we have a minute left. Go ahead. So I will say this, I'm working for three U.S senators and one governor.
I won't work for a governor any day. The ability to do big things in real time is real. And I do think if you are Roy Cooper or if you're Andy Brashir, these are people who could potentially be Democratic presidential candidates, right, they have open Senate seats in their backyard. And my hope as a, you know, Democrat in this town is that they would look strongly at running for Senate and not for president.
And what do you mean? Just even the job itself is not fun in the way that perhaps you don't have the power to do things. Even if you're a committee chair, you're not as empowered as you once were. Everything is very top down.
The leaders decide what's going to happen. You used to be a powerful individual senator and you had sway yourself. That doesn't really happen anymore in a way. So it's a lot of the downsides, but for what upside?
Yeah. Well, it's fascinating to watch it all unfold. Thank you. Great conversation.
Anthony Brendan and Tia appreciate it. Coming up after the break, rebuilding the Democratic Party from its base. I'll talk to the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus about his push to revamp his party's platform to win back working class voters. You're watching the Press Now.
Welcome back, turning now to the future of the Democratic Party and the Progressive bases battle to rebrand to win back working class voters. It's no easy task after many of those voters either stayed home in 2024 or rallied Donald Trump's fiery brand of economic populism as he attacked progressives as out of touch and overly focused on social causes. The new leader of Progressives in Congress, Texas Democratic Congressman Greg Kasar seems acutely aware of those criticisms. He recently told Time Quote, the Democratic Party needs to make as our central message that our goal is to break the unholy alliance between corporate greed and corrupt government.
If somebody is more conservative than me on the social issue or we may disagree on this foreign policy issue, at the end of the day, people say the Democratic Party puts me first and the billionaires last and that's what wins. So you know what I mean now is Texas Democratic Congressman and Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Kasar. Congressman, thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate it.
Thank you. I do want to start with your vision for the Democratic Party, economic populism. What exactly does that look like in practice and why do you think it is the right path for Democrats to take to start winning again? I learned economic populism, not in courtroom or in the C-suites, but on construction sites.
Before I was ever elected official, I was a labor organizer where we had to bring together 100, 200 different construction workers, guys with different views on almost anything you could imagine. But we could bring these guys together by saying everyone here deserves a raise because the billionaire developers that usually work very few hours are making the most were keeping so much of the money to themselves. And those billionaire developers would try to break every rule or say you're hired or try to divide immigrants from native board workers and we could beat them back by bringing everyone together around our pocketbook issues. And I think the Democratic Party needs to relearn that lesson that we can have a big test that brings together people across a variety of social issues and we can unite them if we put those economic working class issues first.
And Congressman, speaking of the billionaires, I know you have been outspoken about the likes of Elon Musk who says he's now taking a step back from politics. Is there a risk there in focusing your messaging around that? Or do you think he'll still be a potent issue in 1836 months? When Elon Musk says he's stepping back, we can't believe him.
What he wants to do is step back behind the curtain. Because for the longest time, billionaires have run our government hiding behind the curtain. Elon Musk's big innovation was that he bought the presidency and then came out in front of the curtain and bragged about ready the government on social media. The American people are right, he outraged.
So when he says he's stepping back, I see him trying to go and hide, but he's still meeting the senators. He's still meeting with foreign heads of state. He's still influencing Trump. And I think Democrats need to continue campaigning on getting folks like Elon Musk and all billionaires out of their control of the government, because they're clearly enriching themselves and screwing everybody also.
Well, and he's one of the biggest employers in your district. Is there any risk to you? So is there any risk to you politically, Congressman, of really going after him? We learned this same lesson in the labor movement, just because somebody runs a big company, just because somebody makes a ton of money, doesn't make them untouchable.
Look, the Democratic Party, just a few months ago, with debating whether we should play book C with Elon Musk or go toe to toe with him. And when the Democratic Party got the guts to say, we're going to go toe to toe with what happened. No matter how much money Musk spent on the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, we beat him because the American people decided that we would vote for those people that would for the people instead of big money. So I'm going to stand up for the Tesla workers that are working in the factory right up the street from where I'm sitting right now and standing up for those workers means I want those jobs.
But frankly, Elon Musk should be paying those workers more, just like he should be paying his taxes and not stealing our taxpayer money for himself. Let me ask you about Democrats based on everything you're saying, Congressman. I mean, do you think that the Democratic Party should swear off campaign donations from billionaires? I think that we should detach ourselves from the corporate class.
That's why I don't take corporate patent donations. And I think we need to continue to expand that. I think the Democratic Party should be campaigning this election cycle on getting big money out of politics, banning, stop trading by members of Congress, and then going after folks like Donald Trump, who are enriching themselves off the American public through their cryptocurrency schemes that have earned Trump billions of dollars getting written since he was just elected to the White House the second time. We should be going after any politician of any party that is putting the White House up for sale as we saw Donald Trump literally saying put money in my pocket and you can come to a private dinner with you, put money in my pocket and your family can earn a pardon.
So we should be campaigning on being the part anti-corruption party and a part that stops taking in so much work for cash. Well, let me ask you to kind of expand on the messaging a little bit, because you've been on the road. You've been a part of Senator Sanders and Congressman Alexandria Costo Cortez's stopping oligarchy tour. What do you make of that message?
Do you think that should be the message of the Democratic Party right now? And as you know, Congressman, Senator Sanders has said that people should be open to running as independents. I think that the American people are looking for authentic leaders that stand up for them and don't have some other economic interest in their minds. When I was out there in Arizona, for example, with Bernie and AOC, we thought that we would fill a high school gym, 2,000 people.
Suddenly, 24,000 people showed up, filling an entire football field, the biggest rally in Arizona history. Not in the middle of Washington's cycle, but because people want to see a different kind of leadership right now. And I think that's a real opportunity for us. If we go out there and say, look, you don't have to agree with me on every issue.
I have to agree with you on every issue. Even our own families, we don't agree on everything. But at the end of the day, people are looking for leadership that is interested in their bottom line. Think of how, at the R, build out social security and the new deal and secure democratic victories for generations, LBJ, past Medicare and Medicaid and Head Start, all in one term.
That's how we've been back states like Texas. That's how we went over the voters that we've lost since the Obama era. Let me ask you about leadership. Congressman Alexandria Acasio-Cortez is a name that is being floated both for leadership positions in the House, but also for leadership positions within the party overall.
Do you think she's a potential contender for president? I think the sky is the limit for Congresswoman Acasio-Cortez and she will be making her own decisions about whether she stays in the House or runs for anything else in the future. But what I think is so important that we should all be taking a look at is how a Congresswoman, just a member of the House, continues to be able to speak to so many millions of people all across the country. And for too long, I think, in the House, we just had this view that whoever's been there the longest should be the first person in line when instead I think of the Democratic Party, we should be looking to messengers like Congressman Acasio-Cortez to speak to millions of people.
And we should try to avoid controversy. Trump certainly doesn't avoid controversy. We should be willing to take strong stands that get people talking about who the Democrats really are, so that the Republicans don't feel the way talking about us. I think we should be going right after guys like you love us, but Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg too, we should stop acting like these billionaires are friends of the working person.
Trump, Musk, Bezos, all of them should be the folks that the Democratic Party is standing on the guess, so that way people know that we're actually for them. Congressman Cassar, thank you so much for being here for your perspective. Please come back soon. We really appreciate it.
Thank you so much. Silica, I'm the head of the FDA, speaks out on the decision to end the COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for pregnant women and healthy children. Do stay with us, you're watching The Press Now. Welcome back.
As we reported here on the show on Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a major change of vaccine guidance for Americans. The CDC will no longer recommend the COVID vaccine for healthy children or pregnant women, a move that's gotten pushed back from pediatricians and OBGYNs.
The decision did not go through the typical CDC process. In part, because right now there is no CDC director. In the video announcement that was posted to social media, Kennedy was joined by FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty McCarry, who sat down with NBC's Julie Circuit today.
In their conversation, McCarry defends these decisions, arguing that he believes the CDC's previous recommendation to have children receive a yearly COVID booster shot is not based on science. Listen, what they said was that it is easiest to remember and that it was almost a marketing message. And they argue that if it was a different vaccine recommendation for older Americans versus young healthy children, that people could be confused. And I think it's that type of paternalism in medicine that gets us in trouble and probably accounts for the low public trust that we've walked into here in our term.
But respectfully, when people who may not be fans of RFK Jr. administration listened to him on the campaign trail and he said over and over again that he does not believe in many vaccines, not only just COVID but others for himself. Doesn't that so a different kind of distrust when it seems like decisions are made like a one yesterday and there's no public information. There are no data points available to the public.
Is it just trading one public distrust or one form of public distrust for another? Yeah, my experience with Secretary Robert F Kennedy is that he listens, he listens to myself, he listens to J about a chariot, listens to Dr. Mehmed Oz. He listens to a host of scientists that are giving him guidance.
So he may have big questions, but the questions he's asking are the questions most Americans are asking. Remember, 90, almost 90%, 88% of Americans chose not to get their children vaccinated among those who have children. And so the question he's asking, those are questions Americans are asking. I will say that a lot of scientists were involved in the recent recommendation and that recommendation is not even as strong as the recommendation coming out of Europe.
So many people might think that this is a shift, but really it's a shift that gets us closer to standard of care in Europe and not even where they are now. NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Serkin joins me now on essentially congratulations on this get fantastic, fantastic interview. You also pressed Dr. McCarry on the criticism that they've gotten from medical organizations of these new guidelines.
What was his response to that? Yeah, and what he said was it's okay to have an open discourse. Those are the words that he used that we've gotten used to under the Biden administration. As he said, perhaps a challenge in the medical school of thought that's no longer okay.
He's trying to bring the FDA into a space where he says there will be more dialogue with the American people where there will be more conversations. He said it's okay that other major medical institutions are saying that this new guideline is wrong. My question to him was because it is confusing for Americans, especially as they're seeing information on social media, the administration's saying that everything is fake news. How can they really trust that the FDA that the HHS is making the right recommendation for them?
And I thought it was fascinating, Kristen, because not only on the point of vaccines, but he really seems to think that for the last five decades, the public health system in America has been going the wrong way. I asked him point blank, are you trying to tell Americans that big pharma and big food essentially bought public health? And he said there's been corruption. Yes.
You know, as you have pointed out in the interview and in the report at the top, there wasn't a public review process. Talk a little bit about why. Yeah, and there wasn't. And I asked him about that.
And he said, well, we're still in the process of all of these trials and studies. And I said, well, why rush to make this recommendation then when you're still in the middle of it all. And he essentially said that he wants to be closer to Europe. You heard him say there, but in Europe, they actually still recommend pregnant women to get the vaccine healthy pregnant women even.
So you can see this is still a work in progress. He maintains that RFK junior health secretary listens to everyone though. All right. Well, it's a great interview and a great get Julie Sturgen.
Thank you so much for bringing it to us. We appreciate it. Great to see you as always. We are back tomorrow with more meet the press now, but the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now.