Meet the Press NOW — May 7

I'm Craig Malph, cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half bowl kind of guy. And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too.

So really fascinating folks who shared their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny and my candid. So I hope you'll join me each week. Who knows? You might just come away with your own glass half bowl.

Search glass half bowl with Craig Malph, and from today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening. With Here's the Scoop, a new podcast from NBC News with me your host, Gazem D'Sougean. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalist.

It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and informative bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world on the front page of the Zeitgeist. Here's the Scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on SiriusXM. If it's Wednesday, the head of the Federal Reserve defined pressure for President Trump, holds interest rates steady but warns that economic uncertainty is growing as the US and China prepare to talk tariffs face to face for the first time.

Plus, black smoke rises from the Vatican, which means the papal conclave is set to head into a second day of voting with no Pope elected after an historic day of ceremony and selection drama with the world's most secretive and unpredictable election now underway. The Pakistan vows to retaliate against India calling deadly strikes on multiple targets and Pakistan a quote, act of war as top White House officials respond, urging the two nuclear powers to de-escalate tensions before it's too late. Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington.

We begin with new warnings from the Federal Reserve about the future of the Trump economy, as the President doubles down on his trade war with China. This afternoon, the central bank announced it was leaving interest rates unchanged, bucking the President's demands to lower rates, while bluntly warning that uncertainty about the economic outlook has increased further, in part saying due to the President's tariffs. It comes as the President's team confirmed its first high-level meeting with China, which is our nation's top supplier of goods, as Treasury Secretary Scott Besson and US trade rep Jameson Greer traveled to Switzerland this weekend to meet with their Chinese counterparts. It also comes as the President's ambassador to China, David Perdue, was officially sworn in from the Oval Office.

The President took questions from reporters and had some short but terse words for Beijing. China says in order to have substantive negotiations, you have to bring down your 145% tariffs. Are you open to pulling back your tariffs in order to get China to the negotiating table? No.

China said the US initiated the trade talks this weekend, that its position hasn't changed. Are you still coming? You can reach a deal with China. They said we initiated it?

Well, I think they ought to go back and study their files. On Capitol Hill today, Treasury Secretary Scott Besson was pressed by Democrats about the state of negotiations with China, and he made it clear both sides still have a very long way to go before making a deal. In congressional testimony yesterday, you said the US has not that, it's not started negotiating with China on tariff reductions. Does that continue to be your position?

Yes or no? Yes or no sir? Yes or no sir. That will be going to Switzerland and the negotiations will begin on Saturday.

Are those negotiations considered advanced? As I said on Saturday, we will begin, which I believe is the opposite of advance. As economic anxiety mounts over those crippling tariffs with China, President Trump threw cold water on any urgency to make any trade deal. Here's what he told reporters just yesterday.

We also have a situation where he says, when, when, when are you going to sign deals? We don't have to sign deals. We can sign 25 deals right now Howard if we want it. We don't have to sign deals with us.

They want a piece of our market. We don't want a piece of their market. We don't care about their market. We want a piece of our market.

You keep writing about deals, deals. Why don't we go to sign one? It's very simple. We're going to say, in some cases we want you to open up your country.

In some cases we want you to drop your tariffs. So I wish that keep, you know, stop asking how many deals are you signing this week? Because one day we'll come and we'll give you a hundred deals. And they don't have to sign.

MBC News White House correspondent Von Hill here joins me now alongside MBC News senior business correspondent Christine Romans. Thanks to both of you for starting us off today. Von let me start with you. What are the expectations heading into this weekend's talks?

Notably it's not a president of the United States who's going to be in the room, Kristen. And as he told you over the weekend and as he just said in the Oval Office just a little bit earlier this afternoon, he does not believe and does not want the US to drop its 145% tariff on China as China has demanded as part of their negotiations yet. That is different than what we have heard from Scott Bess and his treasury secretary who will be the one in Switzerland engage with Chinese counterparts on this very topic. Jameson Greer, the US trade representative is going to be joining Bess and there for that meeting and over the last 24 hours, Bess and his left the door open to potentially trying to drop the 145% tariff.

He was specifically asked about this meeting here today, well on Capitol Hill and he said it is the start of a conversation. It's far from being advanced. And when he was asked last night on Fox about the basis of this meeting, right, it was not necessarily about negotiating a deal, but at least deescalating the tariff standoff and naturally the deescalation that China has demanded would be a drawback, a drawdown of the tariffs that this White House have imposed and that the president suggested he has no interest in removing. Yeah, and Von it was so interesting to hear him say, look, we don't need to be announcing deals.

What Wall Street wants, what CEOs want is clarity on what his trade policy is going to look like moving forward. Take us behind the scenes of some of your conversations. What are sources saying to you about those comments and the thinking that led to them? Exactly.

It's a lot of the question marks is to exactly the direction for this White House going forward because they understand it's not just markets and investors, but American consumers who are hearing the words of the president directly to you on camera suggesting that on one hand either they should expect a higher price for goods in the case used from the president, pencils or dolls or a fewer options and fewer goods that are available on the shelves. And there are serious questions that this administration and that individuals inside the White House have been unable to provide in terms of specifics or in terms of what American consumers should expect. And that is where a lot of this hinges on the words of the president United States directly. Scott Bessin is a treasury secretary, is called the quote strategic uncertainty.

And in so many ways that is the extent of what we are getting on the reporting end, but also in terms of what is own cabinet top officials that are negotiating these potential deals or potential set of standards and price points of tariffs that they intend to offer up to other countries, that is effectively what is being conveyed from the Oval Office. And Von just finally before I go over to Christine Romans, the president in his interview with me and elsewhere has been very clear. He wanted the Fed to cut interest rates today. That did not happen anywhere on reaction.

And when we might get the next truth, social posts, which responds to this. Right. It was actually one interesting comment from Jerome Powell, the Fed Chair this afternoon that I thought was notable. And that was when he was asked whether he has met or spoken with President Trump, who has called him a loser, told you that he was a big stiff.

Of course, he has met the ire of the president for not lowering interest rates previously. And then, of course, today they held from yet again. And he said that it is in his belief, never the role of the Fed Chair to request a meeting at the White House with the president, but that typically that comes at the request of the president. At this point in time, despite his public dissension from a Fed Chair Powell and the Fed's decisions, the president has not requested a meeting directly with Powell 101.

So the thing that is notable here that the president has continued to try to use a social media account in the airwaves to express his ire with the Fed's decision as opposed to having that meeting directly with Powell himself. Yeah. And saying at this point, he has no intentions of trying to remove him, von Hilliard. Thank you so much.

Christine Romans, let me head over to you now. Let's start with these upcoming talks between the US and China. What are the implications of that for investors for Wall Street? Will that start to calm some of their fears?

Look, it's an important first step here. And it means the door instead of slam shut and locked. At least the door is opening a crack here. And you rightfully talked about Scott Bess and the Treasury Secretary saying essentially the goal here is de-escalation.

So it's got to stop things from getting worse here before they can get better. And that's what people are really, really eager for. But there still is uncertainty. We don't know if this could be the beginning of us very soon resulting in a reduction in the 145% tariffs on China.

Those tariffs are so high, it's essentially a trade embargo between the two biggest economies in the world. That is in the Treasury Secretary's own words from last week unsustainable. And Christine, of course, we weren't expecting the Fed to cut interest rates. But what are the implications of this decision now being made?

But also those very strong words that the Fed share had about the state of the economy today. There is more uncertainty today than a week ago, right? And uncertainty is Kryptonite for business people, for anybody trying to make a plan or deploy a dollar or hire a new worker, right? So you heard the Fed chief and the Fed say that essentially the risks are rising.

There's a higher chance of rising unemployment and rising inflation. He didn't use the word stagflation. Stagflation is the scariest thing we have in economics. And he didn't use that word.

But that's what those two particular conditions taken together mean. So very clearly what we call a hawkish position from the Fed, even though it didn't do anything, what it said was there's so much uncertainty. The risks have tilted so dramatically so quickly they're in a position they can't move interest rates right now. And Christine, just very quickly, do you think there's a strong likelihood we do see the Fed cut rates at some point this year?

When you look at markets, markets are pricing in three, two or three, maybe rate cuts later this year, but pushing them later all the time because the risk is you cut rates here right now will make the president happy, but it could really inflame a situation where you've got inflation and you've got slowing growth. And that's again a very dangerous combination in the economy. All right, Christine Romans, thank you so much for your reporting and your insights. We really appreciate it.

We'll have more on the economy later this hour, but we do now want to turn to the Vatican where Cardinals from around the world gathered today sequester behind closed doors at the Sistine Chapel to cast their first ballots of the papal conclave. This was the scene today as 133 Cardinals draped in red robes took their oche of secrecy, vowing to follow all the prescribed rules and pledging not to be swayed by external influences before the doors were sealed marking the start of the conclave significant moment there. For hours, all eyes were on the chimney of the Sistine Chapel as people gathered waiting for any sign of smoke signaling if a new pope had been elected. Last hour we did see black smoke bill out of the chimney indicating no pope has been chosen today.

Trimmy now is NBC's Molly Hunter, at the Vatican and NBC News papal analyst Kathleen Sproes Cummings thanks to both of you for starting us off. Molly, the Cardinals did take their first vote today. They did not pick a pope. Of course, we saw that black smoke emanating everyone waiting for holding their breath for white smoke to come out of the chimney.

What was the scene like there today where you are? Yeah, Christine, we were down just outside of St. Peter's Square on the ground with tens of thousands of people, the Vatican estimated about 30,000. But our crew, I think, think that number was a little bit higher.

People were packed in, eyes trained on that chimney. And Chris, it was so interesting as they also had huge jumbo trons. So if you didn't have a good view, you could still watch it. And the crowd got jumpy after a couple hours of waiting.

So someone would gasp and everyone would bring up their phone or someone would start clapping. And people would look around as if, what am I missing? But there was this unbelievable atmosphere, kind of this universal just hopefulness that we as journalists didn't have any additional information. There were no exit polls that we had access to.

I didn't know anymore than the women standing next to me. And it was a pretty extraordinary experience in 2025 with so many Canadian sisters, including Nico Lina, they are in it for the long haul. Take a listen to what she told me. The time that it took, I was hoping it would be white because it was a bit too long.

But it took a long time, I guess it did. But we'll be here tomorrow. And if the black comes out again, we'll be here tomorrow night, then we'll be here for as long as it takes for the pope to be like this. Chris, it was a pretty diverse kind of population out there.

There were people like Nico Lina and her sister who flew in for the conclave. They were so excited. There were people who happened to be in Rome on vacation. And then there were Italians who were called to the square because these jumbo trons have huge speakers.

And as that procession began earlier today, Chris, in the singing kind of wafted through the city, it was pretty amazing. Well, it's amazing to hear you describe it, Molly, in that interview. So fantastic to hear her determination to be there when there is, in fact, white smoke. Talk a little bit, Molly, about who the potential successors are.

Yeah, Chris, and it's been so interesting. In the last 10 days, there have used lists of likely candidates that Italian press, French press, of course, NBC News has our own short list as well, that people have really been talking about. And this population of electors, 133, as you already mentioned, is the biggest and most diverse in history. And so a lot of the last 10 days, they were getting to know each other.

But a couple names and certainly we'll put these on the screen for our audience have come out on top whether or not tonight in that vote, they remain as front runners. We don't know, but I'll run you through a few. There's Cardinal Mateo Zuppi. He is Italian, Cardinal Pietro Perilin.

He's also Italian. He's probably the best known and actually the book he's having kind of running at the top of the list, Chris. And he was the secretary of state under Francis. He's a really experienced Vatican official in diplomat.

And so a lot of people know him. There's Cardinal Peter Erdow. He's a more conservative voice from Hungary. There's Cardinal Pietista Pizzabala, also an Italian.

He's been living in Jerusalem and living abroad for so long. And then there's Cardinal Luis Tagli. He is from the Philippines. He's often called the Asian Pope Francis.

And he's also very, very popular. Molly, fantastic reporting. I know you've got another extraordinary day ahead of you. Thank you so much.

We really appreciate it. Kathleen, let me turn to you now. Talk a little bit about what happens behind closed doors. I mean, Molly did such a great job of setting the scene of secrecy.

This election that no one knows what's happening except those who are there behind closed doors. It's extraordinary in this day and age to have something so secret. On the length of it, I can only imagine what it was like for Molly and others there in the swear because it seemed a very long time to wait. And just to put it in perspective, it was longer than last time in March of 2013.

There was black smoke at 7.41 p.m. Whereas this time it was just after nine. That's not surprising. There's more.

There's 18 more men that had a vote and it's a very elaborate voting process. We don't know how long Cardinal Amaisa spoke in his meditation. It could have been a bit longer. So that is not a surprise but still very hard to wait.

Of course, we follow politics here in Washington all of the time. And as I was reading through and researching this, politics also plays a bit of a role in this process as well. Explain to us what that looks like from the perspective of selecting a new pope. Of course, politics plays into it.

But at the moment, when they celebrated the mass this morning and certainly when they processed into the Sistine Chapel today, they put politics aside and began to turn increasingly to prayer. They recited the litany of the saints, calling down all the saints for their help in choosing an spirit. And sung a hymn called Compoli Spirit simply, a very beautiful prayer, a simple prayer. But they're at that point, we're invoking a greater power.

Now, of course, it's different from a political election in that there are names on the ballot. Whereas each Cardinal today would have been given a ballot that had no name on it. And they could write any name that they wanted on it. And so of course, we don't know who is emerging.

But this is kind of akin to, like, as a primary would be in a political election. The candidates, the front runners will be surfacing. And of course, we don't know yet, but they do. And they're probably having very interesting conversations right now back at the cast of Santa Marta.

Well, it's fascinating to think about it that way. I must say, how much do you think, and in what ways will Pope Francis' legacy determine who his successor will be? We know that he was someone who talked about the importance of the simplicity of life. He was someone who did things on his own, paid his own hotel bill famously after he was elected to be pope.

How do you think that will inform who the next pope is? Pope Francis' surely shaping his legacy is already visible. One very concrete way is in the global nature of this conclave. It contains men from 70 different countries where it was only 48 different countries back in 2013.

Pope Francis talked about a church that goes out from itself, goes out to the peripheries. And the makeup of the College of Cardinals now has done that. So the men who will be voting will think about that global sensibility. Yes, Pope Francis was a person who was close to the hearts of Catholics and non-Catholics really throughout the globe.

And it's clear that the Cardinals recognized that they went a man who can also capture some of that closeness. I think Pope Francis' legacy is very valued and will be on the minds of all the Cardinals as they continue to vote for the next pope. Kathleen Cummings, thank you so much for bringing your expertise and your insights to us today on this truly remarkable day. We really appreciate it.

Thank you. Coming up, what's next in the escalating conflict between India and Pakistan after last night's strikes of the growing fears that the two nuclear powers could be on the brink of war. And before we go to break a big programming announcement, if you missed our special edition of Meet the Press Now featuring my exclusive one-on-one interview with President Trump, analysis from our political insiders and new reactions from top members of both parties, don't worry, you can tune in and watch it tonight at 9PM Eastern right here on NBC News Now. Stay with us.

We'll be right back. Stay informed with the NBC News app. Breaking News just coming in moments ago. Watch, read, and listen throughout your day.

And now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles, podcasts, and full NBC News shows, plus deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust.

Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Thanks for watching. Welcome back. That was President Trump today responding to questions about the mounting tensions between India and Pakistan, which escalated dramatically overnight as India launched missile strikes on Pakistan two weeks after a deadly militant attack on tourists in the Indian administered Kashmir region.

Massive explosions could be seen and heard in Pakistan as India's army launched its strikes targeting what it described as terrorist infrastructure. Pakistan says 26 people were killed and 46 others were injured, calling the attack an after-war. Pakistan also claimed that shot down five Indian fighter jets, though India has not responded to that claim and vowed its own retaliation. The two nuclear-armed countries have a long history of tensions and war, but the latest clashes have been some of the deadliest they have seen in decades.

Joining me now is Ravi Agarwal, editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy Magazine. Thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate it. Let's dive into what is at the root of these tensions.

Can you help people understand how this began and why it's escalating right now? Gosh, will the roots go back all the way to the founding of these two countries in 1947? The most proximate recent cause, as you said, was April 22nd, this big militant attack in Indian administered Kashmir. There are two Kashmirs.

There's an Indian administered one. There's a Pakistani administered one. Both countries claim all of Kashmir. This has been an uneasy stalemate basically since 1948 when the two fought a war over it.

They've since fought many wars over it and also had other clashes over it. Since they became nuclear powers in the 1990s, those clashes have often been less intense. There's been a greater likelihood of de-escalation in part because of nuclear deterrence. This most recent flashpoint comes at a time when India has been trying to promote tourism in Indian administered Kashmir.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a real blow to his reputation and is part of the reason why India's tried to strike back hard. They have gone further in these attacks deep into Pakistani territory than at any point since 1971. This is very serious. Pakistan is likely to respond.

How are you anticipating Pakistan will respond? What is India bracing for? So the response could take many forms. It could also take a lot of time.

Remember India's attack overnight came two weeks after the militant attack in Kashmir. By the way, Pakistan denies that it had anything to do with that particular attack. India says that there's a long history of Pakistani support for cross-border terrorism. But as we all know, history and the past is not proof of the present.

So Pakistan says it has been unfairly targeted in this particular instance. There is one element here, Kristen, that could determine how this ends up. And that is the claim that you mentioned that Pakistan had shot down five Indian fighter jets. India hasn't commented on this yet.

There's a history here of both sides making maximalist claims of damage and us not being able to confirm them. What is interesting here is that some of these jets are actually not Indian jets. They are bought from the French or the Russians. And in this case, there is a report that French intelligence says that they know one of their planes has been shot down.

Now, if that is the case, India may feel that it also needs to up the ante here. Both sides are going to be looking for reasons to deescalate, however. Given the history of conflict between these two countries, given the tensions that you are describing now, how close is it perceived that these two nations are to an actual all-out war? Here on the brink of it, this is a very dangerous moment.

The one ray of light that I am seeing right now is that if both sides make maximalist claims of victory and deny the other side a claim of victory in their own domestic media, and these are fairly siloed media ecosystems with a lot of distrust for the other side, these are countries that are quite jingoistic as well, Kristin. If they are able to sell a victory or win to either side to their own sides, then that would allow them to deescalate a little bit. Absent here is a lot of global leverage that used to be there before. So I don't think the United States is a major player this time round, and it has been in the past.

I don't think the United Nations has as much leverage as it once did. And India also feels less restrained than it did in years past, in part because it's now the fifth biggest economy in the world. And it feels that it has the room and the confidence to act in a way that it sees fit. It is also looking finally at what's happening in other parts of the world.

Israel can defend itself, for example, after October 7. Why can't India? Ravi Agrawal, thank you so much for your incredible insights and information. We really appreciate it.

Pleasure. Coming up next, Democrats map their midterm strategy as their party's political standing struggles to regain ground six months after the November election. A leader of the House Democratic Caucus joins me next. Stay with us.

You're watching The Press Now. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the start today at Workout's 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 into XFINITY.COM slash membership to learn more.

XFINITY, imagine that. Subscription automatically renews each year at 65.99 plus taxes and fees until canceled. All for ends May 20th, 26th, prices subject to change. Visit today.com slash XFINITY for full-off returns and details.

Welcome back. Monday marked six months since the 2024 election that left Democrats in the minority across the board in Washington. And recent polling says the party has a deep hold of crawl out of by next year's midterm elections. Despite President Trump being under water in the sampling of the economy, our latest NBC news state tune poll had the Democratic Party less popular than the Republican Party with just 40% holding a favorable opinion of it.

Joining me now is California Democratic Congressman Ted Lu. He is the vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Congressman Lu, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.

Thank you, Kristen. We're so glad to have you here. I do want to start off by playing what DNC chair Ken Martin had to say this morning on MSNBC about the Democratic Party struggles and the polls and what he perceives to be the way forward. Well, we've lost trust with voters and we talked about this on the show before.

We actually have to show folks that we're going to stand up, right? Grow a spine and fight for their lives. I think the reality is part of it is actually making sure that we're communicating our values the right way, connecting our policies that we support back to people's lives. We've been hearing that same diagnosis effectively since the election, Congressman.

Do you feel as though Democrats have made any significant changes over the past six months to be in a better standing with voters? Thank you, Kristen, for your question. I do. First of all, I support Ken Martin.

He was recently elected as DNC chair and I know we all support him as he takes the DNC and improves it and makes it so that it is a very, very good Democratic Party. I can speak about House Democrats and we have been focused on the economy, on reducing the costs of rent and housing and grocery prices and consumer goods. The Trump administration is doing exactly the opposite with their indiscriminate tariffs, raising prices and throwing our economy into negative GDP growth. Where do you stand in terms of how much do you focus on opposing President Trump and his policies and how much do you focus on the economy, which is still the top issue for voters?

How do you see that balancing act? Well, right now it's one of the same because Donald Trump is hurting our economy. You know, it takes a special kind of stupid to take a growing US economy and throw it into reverse with negative GDP growth. Donald Trump could have played golf every day for 100 days and we would not have gone into negative GDP growth.

So we're fighting back and particularly with what Republicans try and do with an $880 billion Medicaid cut that would devastate not only our economy but the health care of millions of Americans, Democrats are fighting back against that as well. And obviously all eyes are on the midterms, Republicans are making the case that if Democrats win back the House that they will move to impeach President Trump. Where do you come down on that and would you support impeaching the president? Some of your colleagues have not ruled this out.

The first priority of Democrats would be to help restore our economy. Donald Trump ran a campaign on having the golden age, of having economic growth, of lowering prices. He's done none of that. He's done exactly the opposite.

That's why his poll ratings are now at the lowest of any president in 80 years at the 100 day mark. And I do note that when you talk about House Democrats, a recent Fox News poll has House Democrats at a plus seven advantage on the generic congressional ballot over House Republicans. But just to go back to that question, Congressman, would you rule out moving to impeach President Trump if Democrats were to win back the House? I would have to look at the evidence, but that is not the priority right now of House Democrats.

It's to stop the humongous Medicaid cuts that Republicans were opposing and to help restore sanity to our economy, not have negative GDP growth, but also have positive growth and to create jobs and to lower prices, none of which a Trump administration is doing. So not ruling it out, but not making it a priority if you were to win back the House, it sounds like. I do want to talk about the president's legislative agenda. Democrats really focused on the possibility of cuts to Medicaid.

I did interview the president. He said he vetoed anything that included cuts to Medicaid. But if this is something that you face, that you believe that they're going to be cuts to Medicaid, what do you think Democrats can do about it? And do you think the social safety net is sustainable?

Oh, absolutely. The Medicaid program is one of the best programs in America. It's absolutely sustainable. Two-thirds of nursing home patients rely on Medicaid.

It also provides healthcare for millions of millions of Americans. And by the way, if you strip healthcare away from these Americans, guess what? They're still going to get healthcare. They're just going to walk into an emergency room in a hospital and get treated, and that increases costs for all of us.

And the reason that we're so focused on this is because House Republicans literally passed a budget resolution that calls for $880 billion in cuts. And those cuts, the only way it could happen from the committee they directed it to is from Medicaid. Of course, part of this legislative package will include extending the 2017 tax cuts that are set to expire this year. The president, Republicans say this would be a big tax cycle in Americans.

If it does expire, Democrats say, actually, this is a tax cut for wealthy Americans. But again, what if any recourse do you have and our Democrats are going to lay out their own vision for tax cuts? Right. Well, first of all, the Trump cabinet doesn't need any more tax cuts.

wealthy people don't need any more tax cuts. And so what makes these proposed cuts so better, even worse, is Republicans are doing this so that they can do this giant tax package to benefit the top 1% of Americans. That is morally wrong and it's also fizzly stupid because what we want to do is help ordinary Americans on Main Street, not super wealthy Americans who don't need another tax cut. Congressman, just very quickly, I want to get your reaction to the Fed Chair, both what he said today and what he did, declining to decrease interest rates, President Trump in an interview with me and frankly, in other public spaces, has said he believes that rates should be cut.

That didn't happen today. What do you make of it? The Fed Chair is absolutely right. He has rightfully pointed out that these indiscriminate tariffs are increasing the risk of recession.

He essentially described a scenario that looks like stagflation where we have bad GDP growth, maybe even negative GDP growth and inflation at the same time. This is why Donald Trump's approval ratings are so low. This is why House Democrats have much better, uh, program numbers and House Republicans. We want House Republicans to listen to American people and do what the American people wanted to have done, which is lower prices, increased growth, increased jobs.

All right. Congressman Ted Lue, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. Thank you, Chris.

Coming up after the break, former President Biden sits down for his first interview since leaving office and President Trump's crypto conflict of interest. The panel's next to watch a meet the president. Let's do it with us. Welcome back.

Well, it's a busy week for presidential interviews with former President Joe Biden giving his first major sit down interview since leaving the Oval Office and taking some shots at his successor. Take a listen to some of what he told the BBC. In the way we talk about now that, uh, well, since the Gulf of America, maybe we're going to have to take back Panama. Maybe we need to acquire agreement.

Maybe Canada should be, what the hell's going on here? What president ever talked like that? I said, who we are? We're about freedom, democracy, opportunity, not about confiscation.

Joining me now on set to discuss all of this is Rhonda Colvin, senior political correspondent for the Washington Post, former New York Democratic Congressman Joe Crowley, and former Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Charlie Dent. Thanks to all of you for being here, Rhonda. Let me start with you. What do you make of what we heard from former President Biden in this interview and notable that he gave this interview to the BBC, clearly talking to a European audience?

Yes, that's very notable. That was actually the first thing that struck me is that this was his first choice when I know there were many US journalism organizations and news organizations that were seeking this first interview. But I bought, you know, Joe Biden under the circumstances that he left, he is still trying to recast himself. He's still trying to figure out his legacy.

And he did lead, you know, the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate for years. That is an area that he feels comfortable in, and I was thinking, well, okay, maybe this is one of the reasons he wanted to go to the international press first. Also, I was struck by one of the points in the interview where he was saying that he believes that congressional Republicans will eventually catch on to Trump and curb him in. And I thought, you know, Joe Biden is still very much an institutionalist.

Yes. So that was the other part that was striking to me. He also still seems to be very much trying to figure out what happened in the 2024 election. If you saw that part of the clip, he still seems like he's trying to figure out, you know, what happened, how to respond to it.

It was really an interesting interview. Well, you take me to my next clip. We're going to play that part of it. Let's play it and talk about it on the other side.

What we had set out to do, no one thought we could do. It becomes so successful, our agenda was hard to say, now I'm going to stop now. I know when I said when I started that I think it's, I'm preparing to hand this to the next generation, the transition government. But it moved so quickly that it made it difficult to walk away to get, and it was a hard decision.

But, Regrat said, no, I think it was the right decision. I think that, well, it was just a difficult decision. Joe, it's really fascinating to hear him talk about it. Things were moving so quickly.

It was hard to walk away. You had some people inside his White House saying, wait, I thought that was the plan to walk away. What do you take away is when you hear him speaking about that very tough decision? It certainly was a tough decision.

I think he did put his ego aside, and he thought it was the right thing to do at that time. Unfortunately, I think the diet already been cast in terms of, you know, how deep we are into the election cycle. What I've said consistently is that after he had his success in legislation, and really on the first two years of his term, he continued to tack to the left, trying to massage the left, and I think trying to avoid a primary. And that should have been ought to have been really recognized by the party, by the fathers, and that's maybe when they should have stepped in and said, really?

Are you going to do this again? You can't have a transition to a new generation if you run for another term. And I think that was where the opportunity was missed. But certainly, how can I feel for the guy?

I mean, he was the president. Things were moving. Things happened very quickly. Yeah, it is so fascinating.

You can hear him still grappling with it in real time, Charlie. Well, he made a huge blunder by running in the first place. What didn't he understand in the polls that were saying before he announced that close to 70% of the population thought one candidate was too old and the other too dangerous? And he ran anyway.

And he promised that he would be a transitional candidate to the next generation. Now, transitioning requires transit. And he did not transit timely. And Democrats pay a price for it.

Joe, let me have your response to that before we move on. No, I mean, I hear that. I think that, you know, hindsight is 20, 20. I think we look back.

We saw the debate. We saw what happened there. And at that point, it was clearly too late. It was too late.

Even when he made the decision to bow out, it really did not give Kamala Harris the time that she really needed to get the American people to get to know her better. I don't know if it had a difference, but we would have had a primary. My son says we would deny the primary. The opportunity to pick the next leader.

Rhonda, of course, we are focused now on this president who's facing a real test of his leadership because of the tariffs, because of the way that the economy has responded, and now trying to get his legislative package through Congress. Initially, they were saying, oh, we're going to get it done by Memorial Day. Now, it's July 4th. What are you hearing?

What's the status of this? Well, I think publicly, House Republicans particularly want to project that. They are still on track. They're just delaying this a little bit to make sure that all the eyes are done to the cross.

So, however, there are so many details in this, you know, the big, beautiful bill or make a bill this summer are saying it is that, you know, if you're observing the mechanisms up there on the Hill, it's going to be really tough over the next few weeks for them to meet any sort of deadline. There's all sorts of moving parts, all sorts of proposed cuts. You have moderate Republicans that need to be on board in order to, you know, go through with this. So, there are just so many moving things.

I think we've all seen a movie before where Congress says we're going to meet this deadline and then we're still talking about it before August recess. So, I really think things are very TBD on the Hill right now when it comes to Trump's economic policy. The President Trump told me, by the way, he would veto any bill that included cuts to entitlements. And yet the math is quite challenging if you don't deal with entitlements.

Oh, he really did say that. I caught that on your energy. In fact, he berated me in 2017 when I pushed back in the meetings with him in the White House on cuts to Medicaid. He said, I was going to destroy the Republican Party.

He's going to be your phone. I'm blaming you, Charlie. He said, all those things. And I go to know.

But I mean, the question is Medicaid. And it seems right now that House Republicans, at least for the moment, have figured out a way not to do for capita caps and also the FMAP changes. That's really onerous. And it seems like the moderates are winning on that for now in the House.

But the other issue that they're dealing with on Medicaid, of course, is work requirements. That's something that's probably going to be stuck in at some point. But they're not going to get the savings in Medicaid that they think they're going to get. And of course, then there's the Senate, which I don't think is an appetite too much.

They have a much lower threshold for paying over their than that. But they're also doing a real different majority. They had a 17 to 24 majority advantage in 2017. They don't have that.

So every Republican is going to own this bill. No one can shy away. No one can vote against it because Democrats are going to give him a single vote. What about this idea though that entitlements, in order to get the math that Republicans need to get this reconciliation bill passed, they do need to, by all accounts, grapple with entitlements in some way.

And of course, work requirements has been one of the top items on that agenda. Yeah, I mean, going back to Clinton, it has been done by Democrats in the past, but no Democrat will support this bill. I don't see that happening. And it's going to put pressure on the likes of Michael Ola and other moderates who, you know, one of both ways, one of past this bill.

And at the same time, I'm not voting for any cuts to Medicare or Social Security. Well, the politics of Medicaid has changed dramatically since 2017. When back then, many Republicans wanted to do some major changes to Medicaid, block grants and all that. And they, you know, a lot of Republicans, in particularly in very red states, recognize that much of their base is on Medicaid and that they can't touch it.

Look at these people on the far right, you know, the larloomers of the world and Steve Bannon saying, no cuts to Medicaid. I mean, what a reversal that is. It's 2.3 million people could lose their benefits if they go through it. Yeah, Ron, I mean, it is such a c-turn and you go back to the Republican primary.

And most of the candidates for the most part were saying, no, we're not going to touch Medicaid or maybe there can be some changes or not prepared to lay out exactly what those changes are going to look like. But at the end of the day, this legislation may rise and fall on lawmakers' ability or inability to get something done in this way. That's exactly right. You can watch the Energy Committee, House Energy Committee on whether you're doing next, House Ways and Means meets next week on their plan for the tax cuts.

So again, it remains to be seen how this is all going to shake out. I also think you're going to start hearing from state legislatures and governors who are like, well, what do we do? Because we're waiting for you all to respond and then we need to know what we do. Right.

All right, guys, great conversation. Thank you so much, Rhonda Jo and Charlie. Appreciate it. Still to come.

I'll talk to CNBC's Steve Leesman, who is in the room for the Fed Chair's press conference today about what's next for the Trump economy and Jerome Powell's decision to defy pressure from the president. Stay with us. You're watching the Press Now. Do you think you're going to do any closer now to deciding which side of the mandate is going to need urgent care first?

I don't think we can say which way this will shake out. I think there's a great deal of uncertainty about, for example, where tariff policies are going to settle out and also when they do settle out what will be the implications for the economy for growth and for employment. I think it's too early to know that. Welcome back that with CNBC's senior economics reporter, Steve Leesman, pressing Fed Chair Jerome Powell this afternoon about the central bank's warning of economic uncertainty and the one and only Steve Leesman joins me now.

Steve, thank you for being here. We really appreciate it. Talk about that question. It's one question to ask.

There was only one question to ask and whether or not there had been any movement at all because remember the last meeting the last time we got to talk to Powell was before the April 2nd Liberation Day before the April 9th rollback of the tariffs before, in fact, this bill that you were just talking about was in Congress in a meaningful way. So I was trying to see was there any progress and in fact, there doesn't look like there has been any and the key part of the Fed statement that came out of half an hour before Powell spoke was this idea that the risks of higher unemployment and higher inflation have risen. So both dangers have looked like they're up equally more than they were before because of what's happened. And explain why that's a toxic mix and the big word, stanflation, right, is what he didn't say that, but that's essentially what the Fed statement said.

And the reason why it's such a toxic mix is because the Fed has really one tool and that's interest rates. It lowers interest rates when unemployment is up and inflation is usually down or raises interest rates when inflation is up and employment is too high or threatens to create inflation. But right now these tariffs create this toxic mix of both higher unemployment potentially and higher inflation. But none of that is in the actual hard data.

It's all something that's going to happen and the Fed made clear. Look, I don't know what to do here. We have all of this uncertainty. We're just going to lay back and lay back for a while longer.

How do you expect Wall Street to react? How do you expect the president to react? He's been very vocal, including in my interview with him, that he wanted the Fed to lower rates today. So all of the Fed's PhDs and all of the Fed's men and women there just can't do any better than the market is doing right now.

We all know what the risks are. The risks are you wake up in the morning and there's a tweak that they're going to tariff the bedsheets or tariff the alarm you woke up with or in this case the other day tariff movies. So there's just no way of knowing and there's also the same risk. It decides not to do it.

And that's what gives the Fed's real trepidation in moving forward with any policy on either way. So imagine there's economic weakness, the Fed cuts rates and economic weakness from the tariff, the Fed cuts, and then the president gets rid of those tariffs. The Fed all of a sudden is off-sides. Well, we have sound of Jerome Powell responding to a question about pressure from President Trump on the play a little bit of it and get your reaction on the other side.

So then how does President Trump calling in personally as well as the Fed reserve to make rate cuts affect your decision today and affect your job difficulty? It doesn't affect our doing our job at all. So we're always going to do the same thing, which is we're going to use our tools to foster maximum employment and price stability for the benefit of the American people. We're always going to consider only the economic data, the outlook, the balance of risks, and that's it.

That's all we're going to consider. So it really doesn't affect either our job or the way we do it. Steve, he has been so steadfast in that approach and in responding to questions in that exact same way, what was your reaction? I look at that.

I hear that all the time. He says that same mantra. We're not going to get involved in this. It's like he's a man out of time.

He's trying to exist in the old reality we used to have where the president didn't say much about the Fed and the Fed didn't say anything about fiscal policy and trying to maintain that difference. He asked today whether or not he would call the president to go see him. He says, no, that's not the way it works. The president is supposed to call me.

I don't know how President Trump feels about that, but he's a throwback and he's going to maintain this differential. His idea is the Fed will address the fiscal policy that's given to them. And we have just less than a minute left now, Steve, but of course, a lot of questions about whether there'll be a recession. Did you get any clues today about where the Fed stands?

Well, the idea that they're saying that there's a risk of higher unemployment and higher inflation. It does tell me that they are thinking that there is a higher chance of a recession. We did our survey this week ahead of the Fed meeting. We found a 53% probability of recession.

The biggest two meeting increase in recession probability since 2022 when the Fed was going to hike rates and everybody thought we're going to have a recession because of that. It ended up being wrong. So it is possible that we avoid this. But right now everybody's on center hooks thinking that the economy could contract in coming quarters.

All right, Steve, listen, thank you so much. You have been here so many days to help us sort through this. We really appreciate it. We're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now.

And as we mentioned, we'll have a very special edition of Meet the Press Now featuring my exclusive one-on-one interview with President Trump plus expert analysis and reaction from Capitol Hill. That is tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern right here on NBC News Now. You don't want to miss it.

The news continues with Hallie Jackson right now. Notice how some homes sell faster in your neighborhood? It's not luck. It's local know-how.

Relax agents know their street, schools and communities inside and out. And with Relax, those local pros are everywhere. Which means when you're ready to buy yourself, you'll get trusted neighborhood insight that puts you a step ahead. Reach out today.

Relax. The experts close to home. Each office independently owned and operated.