Meet the Press NOW — November 18

Hey everyone, I'm Dylan Dryer, co-host of The Third Hour of Today, and Mom to Three Wild Boys. I've learned a lot my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat.

Each week I sit down with someone new, for honest conversation, and real-world advice about parenting. I am over here just like winging it. Hey, I'm just trying not to screw my own kids up. I'm not giving you advice on how to screw yourself.

Search the Parent Chat on YouTube, and wherever you get your podcasts. He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together.

Then one night the Marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected, and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Maguots, and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all-new podcast from Dateline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kelly O'Donnell in Washington, where we begin with Breaking News. In an era of bitter partisanship, congressional gridlock, and the longest government shutdown in history, the U.S. House of Representatives is virtually all in agreement on this.

The Justice Department should release the Epstein Files. This afternoon, the House passing legislation aimed at forcing the release of those files to vote nearly unanimous, 427 to 1. That sends the bill to the Senate, where Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says he will try to pass it unanimously today. Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, had said he wanted Majority Leader John Thune to make changes to the bill.

But this afternoon, Thune signaling that's unlikely. Well, my assumption is that the President sounds like he's prepared to sign it, so I've seen it a little bit quickly over here. I'm going to speak more to you, but you have 427 votes. This all comes after that abrupt 180 by President Trump in support of the bill.

Given as he continues to latch out, calling the issue a hoax and a distraction, and despite saying just a few days ago that he has nothing to hide. This afternoon, the President berated an ABC News correspondent and threatened to revoke that network's broadcast license when she asked him about the issue. Mr. President, why wait for Congress to release the Epstein Files?

Why not just do it now? Well, it's not a question that I mind. It's your attitude. I think you are a terrible reporter.

As far as the Epstein Files is, I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. I threw him out of my club many years ago because I thought he was a sick pervert, but I guess I'm turning out to be right. You just keep going on the Epstein Files. And what the Epstein is, is a Democrat hoax to try and get me not to be able to talk about the $21 trillion that I talked about today.

It's a hoax. I'll tell you something. I think the license should be taken away from ABC because your news is so fake and it's so wrong. That tense exchange comes after survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell spoke today on Capitol Hill criticizing the President for downplaying the Epstein Files and the whole episode while also pleading for lawmakers to put aside politics.

This is not an issue of a few corrupt Democrats or a few corrupt Republicans. This is a case of institutional betrayal. It's an institutional failure on a historic scale, and every member of Congress in this administration must answer for that failure. I beg you, President Trump, please stop making this political show some class.

Show some real leadership. Show that you actually care about the people other than yourself. I voted for you, but your behavior on this issue has been an national embarrassment. While I do understand that your position has changed on the Epstein Files and I'm grateful that you applied to sign this bill, I can't help to be skeptical of what the agenda is.

So with that being said, I want to relay this message to you. I am traumatized. I am not stupid. But the path forward for the President, for those victims, for Congress, and for the Justice Department remains riddled with uncertainty, including the big question underlying this whole debate.

What new information, if any, could be in these files? On Friday, President Trump ordered his Justice Department to launch an investigation into prominent Democrats' ties to Epstein. Despite a July memo from the Department of Justice saying, quote, we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against any uncharted third parties, uncharged third parties. Of course, we'll be on Epstein himself and Glenn Maxwell.

And so joining me now is Chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles, Senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez, a National Law Enforcement and Intelligence correspondent Tom Winter. All of these gentlemen have been working this from different angles. And Ryan, let me start with you. So this bill moves from that overwhelming vote in the House over the Senate.

Schumer says he will attempt to pass it by what we know in the parlance of the Hill is UC unanimous consent. What do you think will happen if that succeeds? Is that expected? It seems as though it's not a fast track to do something along those lines, Kelly.

The form and fashion in which it passes the Senate, I think, is still to be determined. But it seems very clear that there's no stopping this train. And the Senate majority leader, John Thune, has made it clear that the Congress is no longer going to provide cover or an excuse for the Epstein files to be released. Thune said today that the overwhelming vote in the House indicates to him that there's no need for any sort of an amendment to this resolution, despite that being something that Speaker Johnson has pleaded for.

Right now, the only question is how quickly they could get this done. And it seems that Thune wants it out of his way and out of his hair as soon as possible. They are going through a process right now. They describe as hotlining, which is basically taking a pull of all the members of the Senate to see how they would vote if this resolution were on the floor.

If it clears that hotline and everyone says that they'll vote, yes, they could move on it as soon as tonight, meaning that President Trump could have this resolution on his desk tonight. The question then is, how does his administration respond to this directive from Congress ordering the Department of Justice to release these files? Ryan, how would you characterize what we're seeing in the Republican Party right now? They have in so many instances, and on so many issues, they've been in lockstep with the President.

But not now. How significant is that, and what do you think changed that dynamic? You know, Kelly, I've been covering Congress on it all since 2018, 2017, and the best comparison that I can give to this current moment in time would be when John McCain stood up and gave the thumbs down on the Senate floor to prevent the Trump administration from repealing Obamacare. Since that moment, Republicans in Congress have basically capitulated to everything that Donald Trump has wanted.

There are very few instances from them standing up and telling him that they were going to exert their article One Power and prevent something that he desires. And in this case, he said repeatedly over and over again that he did not want the Congress to pass this resolution. It was only after it became clear that they had the necessary signatures to get it to the floor, and that Republicans were going to overwhelmingly vote, yes, that he then decided to give them the green light and basically prevented himself from being bold over by this. This is the rare issue where Republicans feel as though the base is different from where the President is.

It is based Republicans that are clamoring for the Epstein files to be released, and it is one of the few issues in American politics right now that has broad-based support among both Republicans and Democrats, which is evident by the fact that it passed 427 to one on the House floor tonight. With that kind of momentum shift, do you think this sort of response among Republicans on some other issue could also change? Is this opening a door to more pushback from Republicans? I know that won't happen often, but do you think it changes that situation?

I'm a little reluctant to go that far, Kelly. I do think that this right now is a unique issue that strikes a unique chord, particularly with the MAGA base of the Republican Party. I don't think in any way, shape or form we should be then extending that out to perhaps they buck him on healthcare or buck him on taxes or tariffs or anything along those lines. Foreign policy, they still seem to be in lockstep of the President on that count, but this is still notable that they've at least found the flexibility to step away from the President in this particular issue, and we'll have to see what happens going forward.

Great insight. Thank you, Ryan. And Gabe, let me turn to you. So we know the President has said he would sign this bill, and he is at the same time been defensive in his response on the same issue today.

So what is it that you're hearing inside the White House reaction to the vote and how overwhelming it was? What's the sense of the snapshot of this moment? Well, Kelly, look, the White House from quite some time now, they've been trying to spin this, and that the President has always been for transparency, and that he really doesn't care if the Epstein files are released, although we do know that it was quite the pivot a few days ago when the President realized that the large amount of Republican defections that were expected when it came to passing this. But with the White House, they expected this vote today.

They want to move on from this issue. They've been wanting to move on from this issue for quite some time. And as you know, it's something that the White House officials are really keen to talk about. You saw the frustration from the President today even being asked a question, a question that he certainly had to know was coming on such a large day on Capitol Hill when it came to the release of these files, but there is intense frustration here that this is overshadowing other parts of the President's agenda, Kelly.

You get a sense, Gabe, that there is concern that this is a signal in some way about the President's power over his party. Ryan thinks this is really a standalone issue, and that makes sense for a lot of reasons. But does this chipping away make a difference? You know, Kelly, I was listening to your discussion with Ryan.

I agree with him on pretty much everything he said. The one point I would add, though, on most issues, yes, I don't see Republicans bucking with the President at all, there is one other potentially, perhaps foreign policy, only because I bring up the escalating feud with Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene in some parts of the MAGA base that have been very frustrated with what they see as the President's focus on foreign policy at the expense of domestic issues. And while some members of the MAGA base of the Republican Party, the question will be moving forward, do they lash out in other ways? However, what Ryan says is it's very true, it's hard to see the Republican Party that has been so with Donald Trump for so long, really hasn't stood up to him in many ways.

The other one other point that I would make, really, aside from the Epstein issue with the Republicans in the Senate not going along with his desire to end the filibuster, that might be the only thing that I can think about that Republicans have stood up with Donald Trump, at least during the second term, Kelly. It is certainly a notable moment. Thank you, Dave. I'm going to turn now to Tom.

And I want our viewers to know that Tom has done extensive work over the years on the Epstein case and really understands what is already public and has a sense of where this could go. So the question of what could be released, Tom, if this bill does become law, what new information would you expect to see? Sure, and thank you, Kelly. I think one of the things that we'll be looking at are the internal deliberations of the Justice Department.

They're kind of the holy grail, if you will, of the Justice Department's inner workings. They never make those public. There's attorney-client privileges. Other privileges they seek to use to kind of cover all of that.

And so the fact that we might see the internal deliberations would be interesting. We should point out that the Office of Professional Responsibility, OPR, did an investigation into the non-prosecution agreement, commonly referred to by a lot of members of Congress and the public is the sweetheart deal that Jeffrey Epstein got. That's a particular instance. We have seen some messages from some of the other things here you're looking at on screen, the FBI interview summaries, any sort of leads that didn't result in anything, any sort of emails or text messages.

I'm just struck by, as I read the copy of the bill, really all communications member and the directives, logs, or metadata concerning the destruction, deletion, alteration, displacement, or concealment of documents. That's interesting. They're also asking for the medical examiner reports on Epstein's death. That's not surprising.

We've already seen a lot of that just so we're all clear. So a lot of things that they're asking for here, Kelly. We have seen in the course of this bill, but certainly some of those internal deliberations could be interesting. Ultimately, that gets back to what you led the show, that memo that says there's no uncharged third party where we have even enough information to open investigation.

It's hard to see how the Justice Department made that statement and then could find new information in the same files. This is not an ongoing case. Do you think it would take for this volume information to be readied for public review? And do you expect it to be to a committee and redactions and those kinds of things?

Are we still expecting that? Sure. So if this was real, unfortunately, this would be the point, Kelly. We want to be buying an asterisk or many of them.

Is it spells out, says that Justice, upon the bills enactment, turn over these documents within 30 days, it has to do so in a searchable format. The Justice Department is not Amazon.com or some other e-retailer. The web is not in strong suit. And this goes for all the administrations since I've been covering them.

So that's going to be a challenge in and of itself. But there's also a line in the bill that says, look, there's an ongoing investigation. Those materials can be as well. And as you pointed out, Kelly, there's now an ongoing investigation per the Attorney General.

So with that delay, files from being made public, any redactions will be included in a report to come. One that is assigned to that. The President had named some prominent Democrats and notable figures, including the former President of Harvard, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. And he has now come out publicly and acknowledged that his interactions on e-mail, which were made public recently with Epstein, were an error in judgment.

How do you think something like that? It's not a criminal offense, but it is part of the public relations and really public humiliation that can be associated with all things Epstein. It's a critical component of this. It's something that a lot of people in the law enforcement community, a lot of journalists have raised.

The idea that people who have not been wrong in the eyes of the law as far as violating federal statute are now potentially in a situation where they would be named having nothing else than is just evidence that was collected. By the way, some of that evidence could include the information found on Epstein's phone. If that's not tied up in the grand jury process, could his text messages and his new contact list? Remember, the one we have goes back to about 2005, 2006 time period, who has he been communicating with recently?

I think that's going to be something interesting. It will probably raise a lot of the potential headline risk, as the PR people call it, for a lot of third parties, similar to Larry Summers' killing. Thank you, Tom. Appreciate all your expertise here.

And joining us now is NBC News Senior Washington correspondent, Halley Jackson. And Halley, I know you've been in touch with a lot of the survivors. You've been telling their stories, message to politicians. Those who have been advocating for this kind of moment for years, what does this mean to them?

So much, Kelly. I mean, the idea that they felt like this was perhaps impossible, or at least they were told it was impossible. You know, having covered Capitol Hill, that these so-called discharge petitions, the kind of mechanism used to get to this point today, is really a long shot, right? And now you have this bill that is one step closer to becoming law after that, a really overwhelming vote.

And so you've seen these, many of these survivors, and you're looking here at the rally earlier today, I was there, each of them stepping forward, reading. That's the family of Virginia, one of the most prominent Jeffrey Epstein accusers, talking about what this means to them and their fight for transparency and accountability. And they really want this to move forward. They want to see these files released.

They want the Senate to act. They want the president to sign this into law, as he said he would. Right after this event, I caught up with Liz Stein, who is an Epstein-W survivor. And I want to play what she told me about all of this.

Listen. How are you thinking about the road ahead for you and for the other survivors? I think that today is a really good starting point for us all. We have been relentless in speaking out about this, and this is not going to stop just because we're getting a vote from the house today.

We know that we have a long road ahead of us, and we're prepared to write it out. We've waited so long for this, and we've been so patient. And we know that we're going to have to be patient for a while longer, but it feels really good to see finally something happen. And Kelly, I think that that's really important, which you heard from Stein there.

This idea that in her words, it is a starting point. It is in some ways, and I've talked about this with others as well. It's almost like a new beginning here, and they, you know, I think it's important to talk about, and some of these survivors talk about it. They're coming, traveling to Washington, traveling around advocating for this on their own dime in these instances.

They are doing this at their own personal time. Many of them have other jobs, of course, if they're taking time out to be here for, as you're taking a look at some of these images from the rally today. It speaks to how important and how personal this fight is for them. And I think the gratitude, too, that they have to the members of Congress who have supported them so far.

Kelly. Kelly, thank you so much for bringing their stories to us and helping us put face to all of this as well. And coming up, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler receives a royal welcome in Washington in his first visit to the White House since the U.S. determined he ordered the killing of a journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, an incident the President trumped off in the Oval Office today.

Plus, we're keeping an eye on the Senate floor where lawmakers are about to decide if they're going to fast-track passage of the House Bill related to the Epstein files that we've been talking about. We'll bring you that breaking news when it happens, and you're watching Meet the Press Now. Hey guys, Willie Geist here reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit Down Podcast. On this week's episode, I sit down with one of the biggest bands in the world, Mumford and Sons, as we get the boys together to talk about their new number one album, Prize Fighter, and the evolution of that irresistible foot stomping sound.

You can get our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts. As the day wraps up, get this scoop on what's been happening with Here's The Scoop, a new podcast from NBC News, with me your host, Gazem Vasugia. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful, hands informative, bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world.

On the front page, the Zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on SiriusXM. Get the best of NBC News with a subscription.

Pure ads, deeper access, and exclusive content. And now, during the Xfinity member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to Xfinity.com slash membership to learn more. Xfinity, then that and that.

Subscription automatically renews each year at 6599 plus taxes and fees until canceled. Hotter ends May 20th, 2026. Price is subject to change. Visit NBCNews.com slash Xfinity for full offer terms and details.

Welcome back. President Trump posted Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, often referred to by his initials MBS at the White House today. Now, this is his first visit to the U.S. After becoming an international pariah for his role in the murder of journalist and critic of the Kingdom, Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

His visit, which marks a major step forward in MBS's return to the international community, was filled with pomp and pageantry. With President Trump rolling out the literal red carpet for the defactors Saudi leader, his father is still king, followed by a military flyover of U.S. fighter jets. During their meeting, in the Oval Office, the two leaders touted their relationship, highlighting new investments, Saudi Arabia will be making in the U.S.

They say, but they were also pressed on the death of Khashoggi, which the CIA determined was ordered by MBS himself. Gentlemen is concerned. He's done a phenomenal job. You're mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial.

A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen. But he knew nothing about it. And we couldn't leave it at that.

It's been painful for us in Saudi Arabia. We did all the light steps of investigation in Saudi Arabia. And we've improved our system to be sure that nothing happened, like that. And it's painful.

And it's a huge mistake. And we're doing all this. That doesn't happen again. And joining me now is NBC News Senior White House correspondent, Garrett Hake and Belal Saab, Senior Managing Director of Tren's USA.

And so, Garrett, this was really a remarkable day. It was all that the White House can do to show a welcome with all of the touches. And what do you make of that and what it says about the relationship between this president and the kingdom, but specifically MBS? Yeah.

And with more to come tonight, Kelly, with a state dinner that's not a state dinner here happening at the White House for the Crown Prince and a number of luminaries invited as well. Look, I think it's not terribly surprising. The Crown Prince checks a lot of boxes for someone who would be a person who the president would roll out the red carpet for as he did today. He is a authoritarian leader in his country, unchallenged in his rule there.

That's the kind of thing that the president likes. He is a builder and developer. The president thinks of him as a visionary who is trying to transform Saudi Arabia's economy. In some ways, it's physical geography and building new cities and trying to reinvent the kingdom to a post-oil future.

It's also someone who has something that the president very much wants. And that's the prospect of Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accord. It's really the president's signature foreign policy achievement across both of his terms. Getting Saudi Arabia to recognize the state of Israel would be a massive diplomatic coup.

You could hear the president covets it, sort of trying to speak for the Crown Prince to a certain degree in this meeting here today. The Crown Prince holding back saying that that's something that he wants to see progress on a two-state solution in Israel. But when you add all those things up, Kelly, this is sort of a set of circumstances and a person whom this president is going to be predisposed to like and treat well as we saw today. And maybe that's part of the reason he was so quick to absolve MBS of responsibility and yet MBS himself acknowledged that his country has gone through a process and that it was a terrible thing that the journalist was murdered.

Part of this, of course, always comes to business. And Saudi Arabia will be making investments. And the president also wants to extend something that is unusual, which is the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. And one of the concerns there is they have a close relationship with China and those jets are highly sophisticated.

Do you get a sense that the investments are, that there are any guardrails around these kinds of discussions? Well, it's not to tell so far, Kelly, because details from the White House have been so scant. And normally we'd see a fact sheet of some kind of outlay of the specifics that have been discussed here on both the investments and what's in the arms deal around these F-35s. We simply don't know the answer to that question.

You see on your screen here, a lot of the things that were under discussion here today, including a civil nuclear energy. The president suggested that could take some time to come online, defense sales beyond those sophisticated F-35s. What other equipment could be included here? Are we talking about other sophisticated equipment like Patriot missile systems, which are wanted all over the world.

There is a lot of this tied up together, but to your point, that's how this president likes to do business. I was struck on that trip back in May about these war welcomes and the depth and complexity of the business deals covering everything from cryptocurrency, to AI development, to weapons sales, to traditional commerce. All of it is on the table simultaneously with the kingdom. Thank you so much, Garrett.

And Belal, what are your big takeaways? When you look at some of the items that Garrett just outlined, some of the elements of the deal that may be coming together between President Trump and the Crown Prince, do you think this is mutually beneficial? I couldn't agree more when you're calling them. The devil's in the details, right?

That said, I think what the president just did today was pretty unprecedented in terms of elevating the relationship with the Saudi Arabia. I mean, this relationship I survived as you very well know many crises over the years, but it's been more or less solid, except that I think President Trump has taken it to new heights, frankly. Each got what they wanted. I think that President Trump got the trillion dollar figure that he was looking for in terms of Saudi investments in the American economy.

Saudi Crown Prince came with a long list of demands. He got also pretty much what he wanted. But once again, it comes down to implementation and those details. Typically, those agreements happen at the high level.

Now the president has to instruct the interagency to implement those deals. So hopefully, we're going to get some communication from the Pentagon from the State Department in terms of how they're going to execute what they just agreed on. And we may remember that right before October 7th, in the start of that war, Saudi Arabia was close to participating in the Abraham Accords. Obviously, that conflict changed things and continues to have an impact.

I want to play a bit of what was said about joining the Abraham Accords. And as I understand it, that agreement with Saudi Arabia recognizing Israel was intended to be a gift from a gesture from the kingdom that would also be a gift from the kingdom. That would also open up some of these benefits that they would receive from the US. Let's play that and let me get your take.

We believe having a relation with all these countries are good thing. And we want to be part of the framework, but we want also to be sure that security path of two-state solution. So that's not a yes we're ready today. Is that how you see it?

No, I think you're exactly right. So listen, I'll get credit to the Saudis because they've been pretty consistent on this issue. They have made their not even preference as a condition. Pretty clear, right?

And they've communicated that to the Biden administration because the whole conversation members started with the Biden administration. And then they've made the same exact condition clear with the Trump administration, which is that the Israelis have to guarantee to the Saudis that they are on board with the two-state solution over the creation of the Palestinian state. Obviously, it was sort of like an attempt by President Trump, the corner of the Saudi Crown Prince in that meeting, but he held his ground. And, you know, in principle, he's okay with joining the Abraham Accords, but that condition has remained consistent throughout.

And I don't think they're going to change. This is no small matter for the Saudis, Kelly, because it has religious and political ramifications. They are the custodian of the two holy mosques, right? So that obligates them to have certain religious obligations where the fate of Jerusalem, right?

And then politically speaking, they are the leader. And so the Palestinian issue is pretty big for them. Absolutely. Certainly understand that.

And thank you so much for your insights, Belal Saab. Appreciate your time today. Pleasure. And up next, we're going to talk about food rights, farmer wars, and affordability in America inside the Trump administration's plan to combat rising costs at the grocery store and stabilize with the supply chains.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins is standing by with a view from the White House. Stay with us on Meet the Press now. 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.

Welcome back with a rising cost of groceries top of mind for many Americans. President Trump is insisting today that China will make good on its vow to buy millions of tons of U.S. farm products, including soybeans. Our relationship with China has been very good.

And as far as buying our farm products, they're pretty much on schedule, Scott. I'd like you to call them and say they could speed it up. Okay, but they're pretty much on schedule. His comments coming as data from the Department of Agriculture shows China is so far well short of its obligations based on an agreement reached during the President's meeting with Chinese President Xi.

That happened last month. The USDA reporting that China has made two soybean purchases that total 332,000 metric tons. So they are buying, but that is well short of the 12 million metric tons that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said China had agreed to buy by January. And the USDA has since revised those numbers downward, acknowledging that one of China's purchases was 100,000 metric tons and that's smaller than initially reported.

And we are joined now by the Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. I so appreciate your time today. Thank you for making time for us. So we know China is buying, but maybe not at the rate that is expected.

So what assurances have you received that China will make good on its soybean purchase promises? Well, thanks for having me on. Obviously, this President is very focused on making America affordable again, so again, supporting our farmers and our ranchers and to your lead into our conversation where our soybeans stand in terms of the commitment. China.

So the number you put up on the screen was about a couple weeks ago. In the middle of the night, we got word and Jameson Greer, our U.S. trade rep and I were talking actually it was 3 AM this morning that almost another million dollar purchase order, sorry, million metric ton purchase order had come in. And that's just another step and another step.

Listen, we got to get to 12 million. That was the commitment that was made. But the President, Secretary Scott Bessent, who is in constant communication with the teams in China. And of course, our entire cabinet are very focused on this.

And all signs are pointing to that they will fulfill that commitment. And again, last night's million metric ton purchase is a good step in that direction. Well, appreciate you bringing us some breaking news there. Is it a seasonal issue?

And when you consider how much time is left until January, can they make up that ground? Absolutely. They can make it up. And this is the way the market and the trading often works.

I mean, clearly, China buys about 65% of our soybeans in any given year with the back and forth over the last year, especially during the last few months. They had put in zero purchase orders. Then, of course, the President goes in with Secretary Bessent cuts a deal, puts our soybean farmers at the top of the list. The 12 million metric tons is committed to for this year, 25 million for the years coming later.

But at the end of the day, there is no sign that China will not meet that commitment. And I have every confidence that the President, and just what you showed in the Oval Office, hey, Scott, call them and tell them to speed it up, that in fact those purchases are coming. But if I may say this goes to the larger work that the President's doing to open up markets around the world so that we're not so reliant on one market, especially for one of our row crops like soybeans, that this will be less of a problem in years to come because we've opened up markets in Indonesia across Asia, now Central America in the EU and in Europe where there are going to be a lot more soybean and wheat and cotton and a lot of our other row crops and all of our products, they're going to be moving out across the world in a much bigger way than has been in the recent past. And of course, President Trump has rolled back tariffs on some critical food groups, and that will probably mean that Americans will see some prices at the supermarket come down.

He picked some key things, especially those products that are not made in the United, not produced in the United States. So, do you see a timeline for when the rollback of the tariffs will result in lower prices at the grocery store? Well, let me say first and foremost, almost every product is already on its way down. Derry, I think, is down 14% at the supermarket.

Of course, eggs down 86% over the last year, ice cream, cheese, fruit, all of that is down. Turkey is as we're moving into Thanksgiving. The price of Turkey is down. We're going to do a little bit more on that this week when I visit a Turkey farm in North Carolina, but almost every product that American puts into their basket at the grocery store is on its way down.

Similar to what's happening with fuel and other drivers for average everyday Americans' price and their worries. There are some that are still high. Of course, the prices are. There are just talked a lot about beef, coffee, et cetera.

So, to answer your initial question, yes, we fully expect those costs on those products that haven't come down yet to come down very soon. Now, beef is a little bit different because we're a 75-year-old. May I ask you about that? May I ask you about that?

If I heard? Yes, absolutely. So, I do know that the amount, the volume of cattle in the U.S. is down, but the prices are up more than 13% compared to a year ago.

And there are complicating factors to that. I understand that. But what can the administration do to try to address beef prices? That's a big staple in many American homes.

Sure is. Well, and may I say that Bobby Kennedy and I are working on the Maha agenda, the new dietary guidelines. The demand for beef has increased 8% just year over year. It will probably get even more of a demand, which is great for our ranchers.

But to your point, when we're at a 75-year herd low, it's a supply and demand issue. How do we rebuild the beef herd? After four years of the last administration, basically saying cattle are the reason for climate change amongst other things, and really not supporting that part of our industry. You combine that with drought, a significant drought.

You combine that with, we've closed the ports now for almost seven months. We have no movement of cattle coming from Mexico and south of us. So all of these factors have driven into this increased cost in beef. But the plan we laid out a few weeks ago, increasing access on our lands, 5 million more acres are available, opening up more processing plants, ensuring that we're doing everything we can to provide, especially lean beef, the ground beef, which is a really important staple for a lot of our most vulnerable families, that that plan is in place by next spring.

If not before, we should see those prices coming down. And we also saw the President ask the Justice Department, or the Justice Department, you could say, to investigate new packing companies, and whether they are artificially driving up the price of beef. Do you blame those companies for some element of this increase that we're seeing? It's an important question, and I think the President is spot on to say, let's take a look at this.

There have been years of lawsuits and investigations and allegations that those four key meat packing companies, by the way, two of them are owned by foreign countries. They're not even American companies. They control about 85% of the beef supply. What is happening?

Is there a reason these costs have gone so high? Let's understand what that looks like, and let's make sure we're putting America first. At the end of the day, is it healthy to have four companies with almost 85% of the market? It isn't.

We need to open up the market, make sure that smaller and medium-sized processors can get into the market and conserve their local community. Listen, it's great for agriculture, it's great for our ranchers, but it's also great for local schools and other programs that can rely on more locally produced beef, healthier beef, what's closer to home. And all of this is working together right now as we work to reorganize and realign the infrastructure within that industry. And a final lightning round question, what timeline do you think for reduction in prices on those goods from coffee to bananas to tomatoes?

Is this a few weeks, a few months? It should be very quick within, I'd say a few weeks to a few months, those tariffs have come off, things like coffee that we don't produce in America or bananas, et cetera. Those are important too, and the president fully realizes that, and as his, again, resolute drive toward making America affordable again, we are all hands on deck across our entire cabinet, coming up with creative ideas, working with the private sector, and ensuring that while we have this amazing wage growth, why we see fuel and everything coming down, but that Americans feel that in their pocketbooks, around their dinner table, and that they really can work for the American dream, that's the goal. We so appreciate your time this afternoon, Secretary Brooke Rollins, thank you for making some time for us, we appreciate it.

Oh, so great to be on any time, thank you, thank you. And after the break, we have breaking news coming out of Texas, where Republicans were just handed a significant legal setback in their efforts to redraw the Lone Star State's congressional map to give the GOP a major mid-term advantage. That's coming up next on Meet the Press Map. And welcome back.

We are following some breaking news and a setback for Republicans redistricting efforts in Texas, a federal court today blocking Texas from using a new congressional map that was at the heart of a national reckoning on the issue of redistricting. After the president urged that state to redraw its districts to give Republicans more seats in next year's midterms. That, of course, prompted California Democrats to retaliate by redrawing their districts. The court, ordering Texas to use its old map, which was passed in 2021, which was right after the census the normal time.

And this case could ultimately end up at the Supreme Court. Jane Tim has been covering the nationwide redistricting fight for NBC News, and she joins me now. And Jane, this is one of those days where your expertise really comes in handy. Can you explain to us what the judge's reasoning was for blocking this proposed congressional map change?

Hey, Kelly, yeah, this ruling was about race. He says this is a racial gerrymander, not a partisan gerrymander, which is what Texas Republicans said they had done and defended it, saying that this was all about who was going to win and nothing to do with race. But the judge says, you know, you targeted non-white, majority non-white districts in your redistricting, and they also point to what the Trump's Department of Justice said in a letter, which is, as we recall this summer, sort of gay Republicans covered because they said, look, you know, your map is unlawful because you have the way you craft in what's called coalition districts, which are majority non-white seats that don't have one race that makes up more than 50%. So sort of black and Latino districts that vote together, but do not have one.

They said, these seats are unlawful. You need to draw them differently. And Texas Republicans went right ahead and changed those seats. The court says, if this wasn't about race, why did you mostly draw these seats in non-white areas?

And we expect that this could go to the Supreme Court. We don't know if the court would take up this case. But there is certainly a time component to this because this map would be used next year, and there are all sorts of deadlines associated with that. Do you have any sense of what the timing might be if the court were to hear it?

Yeah, the Supreme Court is almost certainly going to rule on this case. It's like this guy peeled directly to the Supreme Court, and they will, they could send a one-word ruling affirmed, denied, or they could hear arguments. So it really depends on how they want to hear this. But I think there's a good chance they're going to hear, and a good chance that control Congress really could come down to this case.

So interesting. And that, of course, puts your reporting at the center of this. So do you have a sense of if that decision comes from the court one way or another, that it would affect how the midterms would play out, because if, in fact, it goes one way or the other, is there a particular point where you think this could be that instrumental? You know, it's all in the timing, as you said.

But I do think that if this map gets thrown out, you could see other Republican states respond and say that we have to gerrymander now. Florida has been noticeably silent, as you might notice. As we talk about these issues, other states have said we don't want to gerrymander. They could change their mind.

But it all comes down to the timing, and, you know, of course, what's ruled on. And it does seem to have a bit of a contagious element to it. Thank you so much, Jane. We appreciate your help in understanding this important development.

And still to come, the president wades back into a politically perilous issue for his party. That's health care reform, as premiums are about to skyrocket for millions of Americans. Our panel of political experts is here to break it all down. You're watching.

Beat the press now. And welcome back. With Congress focused today on the Epstein files, President Trump weighed in this morning on an issue that is set to dominate next month's agenda on Capitol Hill. That's health care.

The president posting in a truth social, in part, the only health care I will support or approve is sending the money directly back to the people. Congress do not waste your time and energy on anything else. Those are the words of the president. It comes as Democrats look to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits before they expire at the end of this year.

And after failing to get a deal to extend them during the shutdown, minority leader Chuck Schumer says, the president's plan, quote, makes no sense. Joining me now is our panel. Talu Olarubnipa is a staff writer at the Atlantic. Janae Wardell is a Democratic strategist and Sarah Matthews is a former White House deputy press secretary in the Trump First Administration.

And she's now a spokesperson for Home of the Brave. Talu, let me start with you. The president taking a very hard line. After saying he wouldn't negotiate, that didn't sound like negotiating.

Where do you think this puts the debate? Well, the president said, open up the government, then we'll talk about health care. Now he is talking about health care, but he's talking about it in a very different form of language than what the Democrats want. Yes, they expected something else.

They thought that he could eventually sort of come to an agreement, not have Obamacare subsidies forever, but maybe a one-year extension or a two-year extension, get us past the midterms. But he has a completely different idea. He's sort of going back to this idea of repealing or reforming Obamacare, having a completely different health care program. He obviously was burned by that his first term, but he is very open to the idea of reforming health care this time around in his own way and giving people money as something that he's interested in.

And it doesn't look like he's going to come to the table with Democrats. He wants to come up with his own plan, give people money for health care. We'll see whether or not that works, but that seems to be his hard line at this point. He has been cinged, Sarah, by the debate over health care more than once, over as it's totally outlined, the different times they've tried to come up with something.

So if he's in this only giving money to individual citizens to pay for their own, how do you think that changes the debate when we heard from Republicans in rural states that are concerned about their constituents? This is not just a Democrats issue. Yeah, he seems to be throwing out these ideas of what components of a plan could look like, but the issue is that Republicans have had 15 years to come up with a plan, and they have failed to do so. And that's a large criticism I have of my own party.

And I think Marjorie Taylor Greene has been a loud voice criticizing the president for his handling of the Epstein files, but she's also been raising and sounding the alarm on this issue and saying that Republicans have had a lot of time come up with the plan, and they haven't. And so now it seems like politically Republicans are going to be in trouble if they let these subsidies expire, because they're already dealing with an affordability crisis in this country. And when Americans see their premium skyrocket as a result of these subsidies expiring, then they're going to hold Republicans responsible at the ballot box come 2026. And today, Chuck Schumer and Democrats talked about the fact that they wanted to extract something on health care during the shutdown.

That didn't happen except for this promise to negotiate, and we see that that seems to be a short runway. How can Democrats use what the president has said to try to drive some sort of negotiation? Well, let's be clear, Democrats, Republicans have had this debate in this conversation for quite some time now, and Republicans don't still have a plan, as we've mentioned. So I think what we have to really do is have a conversation about how do we make sure that we can protect coverage standards and that we can ensure that these skyrocketing premiums aren't negatively impacting constituents all over the country, and we see right now that we're in this affordability crisis.

And so I think Democrats have to come back to the table and say, listen, the health current plan or concepts of a plan, as the president famously says, are not working. What can we do to make sure that health care costs aren't crippling for everyday Americans? And we have a deadline of the government funding that was put together to get us out of the shutdown, only goes in certain ways, only till January. And so people have to make their elections for their health care, have to pay their premiums.

Is the squeeze of the timetable going to make this move to an issue that Democrats can get some traction on? Well, that's the hope. As you can see in all of these districts across America, these red states and blue states, people are really panicking about what this is going to mean for their bottom line, what this is going to mean for affordability when it comes to health care. So the hope is that the public pressure here, the outrage, the outcry from everyday Americans who rely on this coverage will, in fact, move not just Democrats, but Republicans back to the negotiation table to say, what can we figure out to make this plan work?

And so do you see a strange intersection here? You mentioned it with Marjorie Taylor Greene. The Epstein files got overwhelming Republican support. And there is a block of mega and Republican House members and lawmakers who are concerned about health care.

They may not like the options, but they want to address it. Do you think that there will be pressure from within the president's party to do more than a direct payment to citizens? Yeah, I think there's going to be a lot of pressure because as we've been talking about with the affordability, crisis happening, that is something that is top of mind right now for these Republicans that are up next year, up next year and for reelection, and they know that it's something that could cost them their seat, and they have voters breathing down their necks wanting to know what are you guys doing? I mean, in the recent Reuters poll that came out that I saw today, I think it was 26% of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the cost of living.

And so I think that voters are going to want to know what are you going to do on health care specifically, and not just health care, but across the board when it comes to cost of living. And so do you think the president wants to keep that mega coalition together, or is he willing to take a bit of splintering? And he tossed Marjorie Taylor Greene to the side, at least politically, accused her of being a traitor and maybe trying to chill other Republicans from coming out? How do you see him handling this when he knows his party is on the ballot, even if he is not?

Yeah, I think he's a little worried about that splintering of his party. The election two weeks ago really sent a shockwave through the Republican party, and you have a number of... There's a message in that, right? It was a big message, and you have a number of Republicans, not massive among them.

Looking past this presidency and starting to think of Donald Trump as a lame duck, seeing him as someone who's not going to be in office forever and whose power is going to begin to wane, especially as we get closer to the midterms. And so the president is a little concerned that he's losing his strong grip on his party, and that's part of the reason he's latching out against Marjorie Taylor Greene, trying to make an example out of her, hoping that other Republicans don't follow behind. But we've seen in Indiana and other places, Republicans are starting to chart their own path, and not necessarily being as afraid of the president as they used to. And that could really upend the way that he's governed, because he's governed by fear and keeping his party in line.

And typically lame duck status takes place after the midterms, because then you're really down to the end of a term. Do you think there are things the president is doing or can't do to extend his influence? Well, he's trying to talk more about the economy and be more on message, focus more on domestic policy. He's spent a lot of time, as second-term presidents often do, focusing on foreign policy.

He's gotten the message loud and clear that members of his party want him to address the cost of living crisis and want him to be talking about the economy and staying on message. That's something that he's trying to do more and more, focusing more on people's cost of living, taking away some of these tariffs that are hitting people in their pocketbooks and also talking about ways that he wants to send people cash and send people direct payments, because that is always popular among voters. And so he's talking about the economy more, whether or not he'll be able to follow through and focus on that, that will determine whether or not he's successful in keeping his party together. A lightning round to close us out on the Epstein Files.

Is it your expectation that Americans will see more material come out, Janae? I think they will. I think the American people have been pushing for weeks and months now to hear the truth. This first step in this vote, I think, is a step forward and saying, listen, let's release this relevant information.

I don't think that anyone wants to be in the middle of this, caught in the crosshairs. He's trying to protect the president. Lightning, lightning. He's trying to protect the president, but more truth will come out.

I think, I think, no, Trump said that house oversight can have what they were legally entitled to. I think DOJ is going to hold back on that. I think there'll be more documents released, but not everything. A lot will be unreleased.

We got it in. We got it in. We got it in. And Sarah, thank you so much.

We are back tomorrow with more, Meet the Press now. And there's more ahead, right here on NBC News Now. I'm Craig Malef. Cheers.

Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy. And now, I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too. Some really fascinating folks who shared their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny.

And you're my candidate. So I hope you'll join me each week. And who knows? You might just come away with your own glass half full.

Search when that's half full with Craig Malef and from today on YouTube and wherever you get the podcast.