Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor, and host of The Drink. This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple.
Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young, and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow the drink wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome to Meet the President. I'm Kristen Welker and Washington, where the White House is defending some extremely incendiary comments by the president today, criticizing a group of Democrats for their comments about the military, and suggesting those Democrats' actions are punishable by death. We'll have much more on all of that in the firestorm and the reaction on Capitol Hill in just a moment. But it comes as the administration is confronting some dismal new poll numbers on how Americans feel about the president's economic agenda, despite some stronger than expected jobs data out today.
The Labor Department reporting that the US added 119,000 new jobs in September. That's far more than economists were forecasting. The release of the September jobs report delayed by the government shutdown. And with the October jobs report canceled, and November report delayed, this will be the last look at the labor market before the Federal Reserve considers additional rate cuts next month.
And speculation about the Fed's next move triggered a wild day on Wall Street, where the Dow saw swings of more than 1,000 points closing down close to 400 points. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt touted today's jobs report as evidence. The economy is strong. Nearly all of this solid monthly job growth came from the private sector and went to Americans rather than foreign-born workers.
The opposite of what we saw under the previous administration. Inflation also remains under control and wages are up by 3.8% over the year for American workers because of President Trump's pro-growth policies. But Americans' views of the overall economy and President Trump's handling of it are on the decline. In a new Fox News poll, 76% of Americans view the economy as poor or just fair.
Those numbers are worse than Americans' opinion of the economy at the end of the Biden administration. Just 38% of Americans approve of President Trump's handling of the economy, and even fewer say, his economic policies have helped him. And when it comes to which party has a plan to make things more affordable, Democrats hold a 10-point edge over Republicans. Vice President J.D.
Vance today said the Trump administration understands Americans' pain when it comes to making ends meet. My message to the American people who are still feeling like things are unaffordable, who are still feeling like things are rough out there is look, we get it, and we hear you, and we know that there's a lot of work to do. Even though we've made incredible progress, we understand that there's a lot more work to do, and the things I'd ask for the American people is a little bit of patience. But those comments come after yesterday, President Trump seemed to downplay concerns about affordability.
We're also making incredible strides to make America affordable. Again, that's a new word that they're using, affordability they talk about. They're the worst inflation in history. They're the highest prices in history.
The country who's going to hell, the only thing that we're going up in is our stock market, okay? The only price that we really have, I mean, we're bringing prices down. NBC News Business and Data Correspondent Brian Shung joins me along with NBC News Senior White House correspondent, Garrett Hake. Brian, I want to start with you, and with the September Jobs Report, what do these delayed numbers tell us about the state of the economy?
Yeah, and I should point out that this is a snapshot of the economy from well over two months ago. Because we're talking about a September jobs report, which we were supposed to get the first week of October, instead we're getting it seven weeks late. So you can imagine just how much noise there is in trying to read this. But basically, what this tells us is that the economy was adding jobs that are relatively healthy clip, at least in September, prior to the government shutting down 119,000 jobs being added in the month of September.
That was actually well above what Wall Street had expected. They were expecting only about 50,000 jobs. And when you talk about the unemployment rate, yes, it did take up just a little bit to 4.4%, but you could see that's basically around the fluctuations that it's been at for the beginning of this year. I should point out that the young unemployment rate as well as the black unemployment rate are rising, that's something that we're watching for.
When we talk about the industries that accounted for a lot of these job gains, like where was it in the economy? Well, we saw a lot of that robust hiring. It was really in bars and restaurants, leisure and hospitality, which was driving a lot of the post-pandemic gains in terms of the jobs market. But interestingly, the federal government did see a contraction in the month of September, again, a subtraction of 3,000 jobs in that month, again, prior to the shutdown, but may have reflected some of the residual of the doge cuts.
But also one thing I'm watching for is information. This is the kind of bucket within this report that would reflect tech jobs. Again, we've been watching for the impact of automation as regards to AI. This is something where we saw jobs unchanged between August and September, another thread that we're watching for in this late market as well.
Ask you, will these numbers have any bearing on what the Fed may do when it meets next month? Yeah, well, look, when it comes to the Federal Reserve, the challenge here is that this data was supposed to be in their hands prior to them making that decision in October where they cut interest rates. But now you also do have this conundrum where what were they looking at during that October report? They were looking at a private measure of jobs because again, the government wasn't open.
We simply did not have this data. So they were getting it from ADP, which may be processing your paychecks. This is a private company. They said that in September, there was a contraction of 29,000 jobs.
So that swears with what we see as the gold standard of government data. Now showing that in the same month, there were 119,000 jobs added. So this underscores the challenge of the Federal Reserve going forward. It is not out of the woods because the government's open because the fact that the October jobs report is canceled.
There was no one at the BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics to go out and collect data on who was working and who was not working. So we just don't have the data on October and even the November data, which we were expecting in December, that's now going to happen after the Fed's next decision on December 10th. Very much clogging whether or not we'll get a rate cut in that next meeting. Okay, well, I know you'll continue to watch all of the numbers for us very closely.
Brian Sean, thank you so much. Karen Hake, let me turn to you at the White House, President Trump again downplaying affordability concerns. And what he said seemed a little bit different than what we heard from his vice president who basically said, we understand what you are feeling. Take us inside some of your conversations.
What's the strategy right now inside the Trump administration to address concerns about affordability? Well, it's interesting listening to that line, Kristen, because it is sort of a stock line. It reminded me that the president said something very similar to me months ago when I asked him about tariffs and the fear about prices going up. He fell back on that one liner about the only thing going up is the market.
President Trump is almost innately unwilling to criticize his own economy or the steps that he's taken. I think that's why you see the rhetorical split between he and President Vance, but make no Vice President Vance. But make no mistake, I mean, this is a White House that's keenly aware that these costs of living issues hurt Republicans in the elections earlier this month and could be a major albatross around their neck in the midterms. I think you're seeing them sort of try on different ways to address it.
I'm not certain that the vice president's please for patience will be much more popular with voters. It sounds a lot like what we heard from the Biden administration years past. The policy-wise, their toolkit is relatively limited without Congress. You saw them last week, rollback tariffs on certain grocery items, hoping that that could provide some relief.
Orkerson, at least get them caught trying to lower prices. Of course, those tariffs were also put in place by this president. So again, I don't know how much credit they'll get from the voters for undoing their own actions there. Well, I do want to ask you about this Fox News poll.
It shows that just 30% of Republicans say that Trump administration's economic policies have helped them. Is the administration concerned about these numbers? And frankly, some other poll numbers that show that the president is under water on his handling of the economy, which again, we can't overstate this. This is the top issue for voters.
That's right. I think there may be disconnect here between the president and his team on this. The president has, you know, Chris, that has a particular personal animus towards the Fox News poll. He has complained about the longest I have covered him.
He thinks it should somehow treat him more favorably than it often does. And so I think he will look at these numbers and likely see that they are fake. But his professional team around him, we'll look at them and say, this is a problem that we have to address. It was core to his campaign in 2024.
It'll be core to Republicans success in the midterms. I'm reminded of something one of our colleagues, John Allen likes to say, Chris, and which is the voters say, please, but they don't say thank you. And what you're seeing here from these Republican voters are an unwillingness to thank the president for policies that while they're being enacted are not hitting their bottom line in a significant way yet. Oh, well said, the White House has pointed to early next year when taxes are being done and returns are coming out for an opportunity for voters to feel a little bit of a difference of the policies they haven't acted through Congress.
You know, circle that sort of mid April to mid May period is something to watch. Well, for sure, Garrett, the other thing we're watching, I know you're watching this headline today, President Trump posting on social media accusing some Democrats of seditious behavior punishable by death, that in response to Democrats saying to U.S. service members, they can ignore orders if they think they are illegal or referenced to some of those strikes against quote unquote, alleged drug boats. Talk about the fallout and what are sources saying about this, Garrett?
Yeah, look, this is something, this interesting link was posted first on Tuesday. It seems to have taken a little while to come to the president's attention and then you see this kind of all caps outrage from the president about the contents of the video, which he sort of mischaracterizes in which the White House mischaracterized to a degree today. There's been a quick backlash from Democrats on the Hill to say this kind of language is incredibly dangerous. They've called for additional security, for the lawmakers involved, but the White House is downplaying this and trying to spin off the president's comments, suggesting that it's these Democrats who are creating some kind of dangerous situation by encouraging members of the military to not follow orders.
This is the press secretary asked about this a few hours ago. Just to be clear, does the president want to execute members of Congress? No, let's be clear about what the president is responding to because many in this room want to talk about the president's response, but not what brought the president to responding in this way. You have sitting members of the United States Congress who conspired together to orchestrate a video, message to members of the United States military to active duty service members, to members of the national security apparatus, encouraging them to defy the president's lawful orders.
The sanctity of our military rests on the chain of command. And if that chain of command is broken, it can lead to people getting killed, it can lead to chaos. You've got to be clear and the video itself is quite clear. Those lawmakers are encouraging people to defy only unlawful or unconstitutional orders.
What I'm watching for to see how much legs this story has got to Republicans on Capitol Hill condiment, so far they've been relatively quiet about the president's post. All right, Garrett, hey, thank you so much. We really appreciate covering all the angles for us today. We want to turn out to a major piece of the affordability equation for many Americans.
The cost of healthcare, we spent a lot of time talking about this, Congress means divided not just on how to fix the expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits, but whether it even needs to happen. The president this week seemed to rule out an extension of those subsidies, even as a recent poll from the health policy research group. KFF finds most Americans support Congress extending the tax credits. And the majority view the Affordable Care Act also known as Obamacare favorably.
On Capitol Hill, there are multiple plans, but so far zero consensus. The House Democratic position is very clear, very simple, very easy, very straightforward. A three-year extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits. If Cassidy's proposal, as I understand it, replaces them, looks like it's privatizing health insurance, and it looks like it's really problematic, and particularly problematic to do very quickly.
I have supported extending the ACA enhanced tax credit for a year so that we can actually focus on addressing the longer term issues with healthcare, and why it is unaffordable for every American. We can't continue to subsidize this failure. If people are given the money to make their own decisions and buy what works best for them and for their families, I think that those choice, the opportunities are much, much better. Joining me now on set to talk about their own bipartisan proposal on those Affordable Care Act subsidies, Democratic Congressmen, San Ricardo, and Republican Congressmen Kevin Kylie both from California, their proposal would extend ACA tax credits for two years and pay for it by capping eligibility and cracking down on Medicare advantage payouts to ensure so much to both of you for being here.
I do appreciate it. So let's dive right into this Congressman, Ricardo. We just heard there's a lot of different plans out there, not a lot of consensus, consensus at this table. Why is this proposal the best?
Well, Kevin and I worked on a plan that would accomplish three things. First, to address the skyrocketing health insurance premiums at tens of millions of Americans are grappling with. Second, find a way to pay for it, and that's obviously a controversial topic. And third, do it in a way that's bipartisan.
We know it needs to get past the Senate, so it needs both Democratic and Republican support. So this is certainly one idea. There may be better ones, but it's important for us to actually have something that qualifies under each of those criteria. Congressman Kylie, have you had conversations with your colleagues?
Do you get the sense that there is support for this bipartisan legislation that you all are proposing? I do. I mean, number one, as we just saw, there are a number of Republicans who believe that we do need to do something. We can't just let 22 million Americans suddenly see this huge increase in health and cost thousands of dollars.
But also, the components of this that Sam just listed are really crucial in that they make it so that we can actually have this extension without increasing the deficit and without raising taxes, and by making reforms that actually make the program work a lot better. So I think that those are the key pieces that are actually going to lead to a bipartisan deal. You know, it's interesting. Republican Kylie, Congressman Kiggans, also has a bill for temporary extensions.
I believe that's only for one year, though. Why not join forces where they're not be strength in numbers? Why don't you start for them? Well, then we have to enforce this.
All of us are interested in finding a solution. I don't think either Sam or I will say no. This is the one and only thing to do. But I think that we've put forward a framework that is a great compromise.
I don't think that anyone's going to say that this gives them 100% of what they want. But I think it gives enough sort of constituencies and groups of members in the House enough of what they want that it could be the basis. I do have to ask you about President Trump's proposal, which is direct payments, Congressman Laccardo. Is that something that you think ultimately could be realistic?
Well, I don't see it as a substitute for what we need to do, which is to help tens of millions of Americans be able to pay for their health premiums. What we know about HSA, for example, is it typically can't be used for insurance premiums. If you've got cancer, if you've got a chronic illness of some kind, that money's going to go very quickly. The whole point of having insurance is to protect all of us and give us the peace of mind to know that we may have a very serious illness and still be able to find a way to pay for it.
Congressman Kylie, how about you? Do you think that could ultimately be a long-term solution? I think it could. I'm a fan of health savings accounts and giving that kind of choice to consumers.
But what Representative Laccardo said is correct that right now there's a restriction on using it for premium support. Now, there's a theory that well, maybe that you can have a debt to a plan and so that will level out the cost. I'm a little skeptical that we'll be able to figure anything like that out in a month and a half, which is when this cliff is going to hit. So that's why we're saying, let's extend this for two years.
Let's do it in a fiscal-responsible way. And then in the meantime, we can actually work on a long-term solution to the healthcare affordability crisis. You take me to my next question. Congressman Kylie, you are the party in power.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has not committed to bringing a bill to the floor. So let me ask you, do you think that will happen? And do you think it will happen in time before these subsidies start to increase and actually have an impact? I do think what about?
I mean, the house will work its well and I think you have a solid majority in the house that believes that we need to do something, that thinks that doing nothing is not an option here. When you have people who are already facing such a high cost of living, particularly in our state, of California and they're telling folks, sorry, you're gonna suddenly have to pay thousands of dollars more, many thousands more, in some cases, for healthcare. These are independent contractors. These are people who work for small businesses.
These are folks who are retired and aren't yet eligible for Medicare. We can't force them to pay such a high price because Congress has failed to act. Let me ask you a similar question, Congressman Laccardo. Do you think this can get done in time because early enrollment has already begun?
There are already signs that people's premiums are starting to increase. Based on what we've heard so far from the speaker, if we get this done, it's gonna have to be around the leadership now. Fortunately, we have some practice with the vote on the Epstein file petition. Clearly, it's gonna take enough Republicans and Democrats getting together to say, we're gonna have to go around the speaker if the speaker's not gonna allow the vote.
Yeah, well, and you're talking about a discharge petition, rarely works with the exception of this Epstein. You're right, vote. I mean, does that enough to give you confidence? Well, we're gonna continue these conversations.
I had conversations this recently last night with several Republicans that were very eager to get a deal done. I think there's plenty of room to do this, if we're all working together. I wanna talk to you all about bipartisanship more broadly. We are coming off of the longest government shutdown in history where it seemed like it was just impossible to find common ground on this issue of healthcare.
Congressman Lecardo, why do you think it is so challenging? How did we get to this point? Well, I've been here for all of 11 months, so I'm probably not an expert on that subject, but I can tell you what has hit me to difference. Well, here you are, you found.
We're trying to bounce here. I was grateful, Kevin, said some publicly about supporting ways to help address these healthcare costs. I reached out to him and that's really how it has to happen. What amazed me, I probably had conversations with three dozen Republicans over the last few weeks on this bill and it was surprising to me how many people were surprised that they got a direct phone call from me.
There simply is not enough for a communication from member to member across the aisle. Yeah, Congressman, Kylie, it's in to you. Yeah, and I give him a representative of the Democratic. He really is walking the walk on those sort of things and reaching out to members on those sides.
I've tried to do that as well, and I think we all have a role to play in kind of shifting our paradigm from searching for points of division, to searching for points of commonality and trying to actually seek out the common ground where it exists. Well, let me read you some poll numbers. This is from NPR. 82% of Republicans say they find Democrats close-minded.
72% say they're dishonest. Among Democrats, 85% find Republicans close-minded, then 65% say they are dishonest. When you look at those numbers, Congressman Kylie, first to you, how much concern and pause does that give you that the country can move beyond this moment of extreme partisanship and find more bipartisan ways to work together? Well, it's concerning in that that seems to show that this is permeating the whole country and we've all experienced this in our daily lives, but a lot of it really emanates out of Washington, DC here, and the way that we conduct ourselves and the items that are put on the agenda.
So I do think it's incumbent on us to try to show that there's a better way. And at the end of the day, I think when you're actually looking for common ground, whether we're talking about folks like us in the halls of Congress or just people out in their communities, looking for the values we have in common, there's a lot more there than you might think at first glance. Congressman Laccardo, what about you when you see those staggering numbers? Yeah, I think I would agree with what Kevin said.
This is a lack of leadership, frankly, from Washington. What we've been doing far too often is following the great divide that we see that is spun up between social media and obviously the political establishments. It's time to see leadership that helps us collectively overcome this kind of divide. Well, here we have today another example of extreme partisanship.
You have Democrats saying that some service members should ignore orders if they think they are legal. The President responded by accusing them of seditious conspiracy. First to you, I just want to get your reactions to what the President accused these Democrats of. Well, I think it's outrageous and even more outrageous that he would retweet a post that says hang them.
That is on his own truth social site. Look, political violence has no place in America. And this is why many of us believe that Don't Trump has no place in leadership or in the White House. You simply can't have a commander in chief who is simultaneously identifying people.
My colleagues, all six of whom served honorably in the armed services and pointed at them and saying they deserve a violent outcome, whatever it is, he's suggesting. Look, my colleagues urged, which simply, that the members of the military followed the law. And Article 92, the military code of justice is very clear. Not only is there a right not to obey an unlawful order.
In fact, there is a duty, not to obey an unlawful order. This should have been a non-issue instead. The President made it one. Congressman Kylie, what was your reaction?
Did the President's comments make you uncomfortable at all? Well, of course, I just saw it. I think it's wrong. I think there's no place for that.
It's unacceptable. I didn't like the video either, by the way. I think that if you think of order as unlawful, the appropriate thing to do is to challenge that in court. But in any case, we just need to dial down the rhetoric and find ways to remember that we're all Americans here.
Final thoughts to both of you building on that point. If you could talk to your conference, what would you tell them about the importance of trying to dial down the rhetoric, trying to find these common spaces? Well, I mean, I just say, look at everything that we've lived through. We keep having these traumatic incidents that have really just shocked our country.
And the level of rhetoric that we have is, I think, contributing to that environment. And we all came here because we love our country and we want to make a difference and we want to improve people's lives and when we're yelling at each other and engaging in this extreme rhetoric, it makes that very difficult to do. Final thought, Congressman Ricardo. Yeah, it's time for all of us to lead by example and we can all do it in our own communities.
All right, well, what a fantastic conversation. Thanks so much to both of you for being here. Congressman Zamlakarto and Kevin Kiley appreciate both of your time today. Thank you.
Coming up, shocking and problematic, that's how Democratic Congressman Eugene Vinman is describing a 2019 phone call between President Trump and the Saudi Crown Prince as he calls on the White House to release the transcripts. Congressman Vinman is standing by, so don't go anywhere, plus remembering former Vice President Dick Cheney, former presidents and vice presidents descended on DC to pay respects to one of the most influential figures in modern American politics. Their tributes are straight ahead. You're watching at the press now.
Welcome back, Virginia Democratic Congressman Eugene Vinman. Announced today, he's leading a group of 38 Democrats in demanding the White House release the transcript of a 2019 call between President Trump and Saudi Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman. Congressman Vinman served on the White House National Security Council staff during the president's first term. During his tenure, he reviewed many calls between President Trump and world leaders, including the one with President Zelensky, which ultimately led to the president's first impeachment.
Now, Congressman Vinman is raising concerns about what he says is another, quote, problematic call. After the murder of journalists, Jamal Khashoggi, a review to call between the president and the Saudi Crown Prince. The American people and the Khashoggi family deserve to know what was said on that call. If history is any guide, the receipts will be shocking.
I call on the president to release that transcript. Well, it comes after Crown Prince bin Salman's visit to the White House this week where President Trump insisted the Saudi leader knew nothing about the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which the CIA determined was ordered by the Crown Prince himself. In response, the White House released a statement calling Vinman, a quote, bitter backbencher and a serial liar. Democratic Congressman Eugene Finman of Virginia joins me now, Congressman, thank you so much for being here.
Thank you for having me. Well, let's dive right in. You called that 2019 call, quote, shocking. And in your letter to the White House, this, I'm going to read a little bit of it.
You say, quote, we recognize that US national security sometimes requires engaging with governments and leaders whose values do not align with our own, however, doing so in a manner that publicly flatters, defends or excuses their conduct undermines US credibility and projects weakness on the world stage. I understand this call is still classified, but can you characterize what exactly shocked you about the call? Well, look, what I can tell you is this, is that there were two calls, in particular, that bothered me during my time as a deputy legal advisor, ethics lawyer, at the White House. One was the Ukraine call.
And as we know, the president, after the whistleblower complaint came out, was impeached for that call. This was the second one. And we know that the president subsequently said, during an interview with Bob Woodward, that he saved MBS's ass. We also know that the president, over the ensuing years, he and his family have benefited immensely from that relationship.
And so I can tell you that the call itself was shocking. There's both in the Woodward comment, the quid. And then there's a pro quo in the massive benefits that the president and his family have reaped, and that smacks the corruption. Can you give me a little bit more detail, Congressman?
Was it the tone of the call? Was it conciliatory? Was it the contents of the call? Why exactly was it so shocking and disturbing to you?
So look, it was shocking to me, because by that point, we had already a pretty clear sense that this was an ordered kill capture operation by MBS, Muhammad bin Salman, and that the intelligence services had assessed that with high confidence, a gruesome, grisly murder in the Saudi embassy in Turkey. And frankly, there's audio and release transcripts where you can hear or certainly read how terrorizing the last moments of Mr. Chogi's life are. And so you have those comments, and then you have a stark contrast of the president really welcoming MBS with open arms, and then covering floor, even to an extent that MBS himself didn't go to.
And so I think that call itself would be very illuminating, again, in my opinion, shocking and really descriptive of the events that have taken place over the last several years and the benefits that the president has reaped. And ultimately, this is about justice and closure for Chogi's widow, a resident of Virginia, Chogi himself, a Washington Post reporter, resident of Virginia, and also about transparency for their American people. Congressman, did anything illegal or impeachable happen in that call in your estimation? I would say that there are events, as I've alluded to, that would be a smack of conflict of interest that are potentially corrupt.
And the impeachment provisions are about high crimes and misdemeanors. And so that is only after a full swim investigation and, frankly, a release of these documents and the facts and circumstances surrounding that before we even get into that kind of discussion. I'm a former prosecutor. I act based on evidence and not based on just feeling.
But when you say corrupt, as it relates to conflict of interest, as it relates to that call specifically congressman? As it relates to the president and how he and his family have benefited enormously from the relationship. And as the president said, I think he said saving MBS's ass. Let me ask you, because this call between the president and the crown prince happened back in 2019, if you were so concerned about it, why hold on to this information for six years?
Why not sound the alarm back then, congressman? Because at that point, intelligence services were assessing that MBS was involved. He was still, for the most part, in pariah status. But to see all these years later, the president actually welcoming MBS back in with open arms and actually being counterfactual and about what actually has happened and what US intelligence services have asserted.
Seeing him in the White House, I mean, that to me was unacceptable. As you know, President Biden also met with MBS after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Do you think that President Biden may have played a role in MBS's return to the international community? Yeah, I think so, it's unfortunate.
And look, I think this is the infamous fist bump. And President Biden got some brief for it, probably not enough. And we do have to recognize that we have to deal with sometimes unsavory characters around the world, whether they're Kim in North Korea, Putin in Russia, Xi in China, and MBS and other folks. And we have to be realistic about who these folks are, realistic about what US national security interests, what US interests are, and deal with them.
But that doesn't mean we have to whitewash and completely rewrite history. That is what I find completely unacceptable. And frankly, in the context of how much profit the president and his family have received, that those conversations, way back when, take on a much more sinister character. Let me ask you something, I don't know if you just heard my conversation, I had a bipartisan conversation about, with two members of Congress, Kylie and Ricardo.
And we discussed the fact that President Trump has called and accused some Democrats of seditious conspiracy because those Democrats called for service members to refuse to carry out orders. If they believe those orders are illegal, it's a response to some of the strikes that we've seen against alleged drug boats. You heard Congressman Kylie say that he doesn't condone the comments by President Trump, but he also doesn't think it's right for these Democrats to be calling for service members to ignore orders. What say you of this?
Well, look, I was a former troop commander and a prosecutor as well as legal advisor in the NSC. I was involved in many of the decisions that made our leadership. And you cannot litigate those decisions. I think the representative from California, the representative said, we should litigate those.
No, those are split second decisions. We expect soldiers, service members to make those decisions. Let me flip that on its ear for just one second. If a soldier was saying, hey, I was only following orders as their defense for executing an illegal order that resulted in the death of innocent civilians, which I believe in Virginia, in Venezuela, those operations are in fact highly problematic and likely illegal, you think for a second that they would not be prosecuted for executing those orders just by saying that they were following orders?
No, that is a defense we know in the World War Two context with German soldiers absolutely did not work. And so our expectations of our service members are much higher. They're expected not to follow the legal orders. And that's, they could be held liable if they do.
All right, Congressman Eugene Vinman, thank you so much for your perspective on all of this today, we really appreciate it. Thank you for having me. Still ahead, former vice president hits the trail for a Democratic candidate trying to pull off a major upset in his seat that's been in Republican control for decades. Steve Bernanke, spotlighting that special election at the big board.
Stay with us, you're watching, meet the press now. 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 leader host, Gaz and Vesugia. 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 this webpage, the Zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the criteria.
Workouts, meal plans, it's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the XFINITY member celebration, members begin an exclusive 50% off at annual subscription into XFINITY.com slash membership to learn more. XFINITY, imagine that. Subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99 plus tax fees until canceled.
All for ends may 20th, 26th price is subject to change. Visit today.com slash XFINITY for full offer terms and details. 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. Welcome back, family, friends, and every living former vice president, as well as two former presidents gathered today at Washington's National Cathedral to say goodbye to former vice president Dick Cheney, passed away earlier this month at the age of 84. Among those paying tribute, Cheney's daughter lives who lost her seat in Congress after helping lead the January 6th committee. Former president George W.
Bush, who chose Cheney as his running mate, and longtime NBC reporter Pete Williams, who was the Pentagon spokesman when Cheney was the defense secretary. He knew that bonds of party must always yield to the single bond we share as Americans. For him, a choice between defense of the Constitution and defense of your political party was no choice at all. His time produced an old breed of public servant, defined by their substance and character.
This was a vice president, totally devoted to protecting the United States and its interests. There was never any gender or angle beyond that. You did not know Dick Cheney unless you understood his greatest concerns and ambitions were for his country. When you can look back on a lifetime in politics and government and what you value most of the friendships, then I guess you've done all right.
Those of us fortunate to work for him knew that he had a slice sense of humor. He loved to tell a story about attending a political event when he ran for re-election as Wyoming's congressman. He said he walked up to one old rancher, stuck out his hand and said, I'm Dick Cheney, I'm running for Congress, and I'd like to have your vote. And the rancher replied, you got it.
That guy we got in there now is no damn good. Cheney, who served in four White House administrations, was a powerful but also controversial vice president. He helped lead the nation's response to the September 11th attacks, pushing the US into war with Saddam Hussein. Last year, he broke with his party, endorsing Kamala Harris over Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential race.
And a President Trump, nor Vice President Vance, were invited to today's funeral. I before my dad died, this guy above my parents' house filled with clouds in the shape of winged angels. I'd never seen anything like it. It seemed, indeed, that angels and archangels and all the company of heaven had come to watch over him.
As my dad left this earth, his last words were to tell my mother, he left her. And now, all of us, who loved him so dearly, say to him, good night, sweet dad. May flights of angels sing thee to thy best. Welcome back.
In less than two weeks, we're going to get our next clues on how voters are feeling ahead of the midterms. It will come from a special election and a solidly Republican congressional district in the middle of Tennessee, one where Democrats are hoping they can pull off an upset. Former Vice President Kamala Harris even made a surprise appearance for the Democrat there this week. The first time, she's joined a candidate on the campaign trail since leaving office.
W.C. Steve Kornacki has more on the race at the big board. All right, December 2nd, less than two weeks from now, we get our next election, our next readout on the atmosphere as 2026 starts to come into focus. So it's a special election in the seventh congressional district of Tennessee, sort of middle Tennessee.
What are we talking about here? Well, there's downtown Nashville. There's the suburbs in Williamson County, which is right outside Nashville. And then it kind of sprawls and crawls to the west into the south of some rural areas.
It's sort of a mixedness district, a very Republican district. You wouldn't normally talk about this district being in all potentially competitive, except here's what's been happening in recent elections, you know, in New Jersey here. Democratic landslide in the governor's race. But the key was this, look, Trump had lost this state by six points to Kamala Harris last year in New Jersey, went up to a 14-point margin in the governor's race there.
So the Democrats didn't just win. I think they overperformed relative to last year. Same thing happened in Virginia. Again, it's a blue state to start with.
Harris had won this by just under six points last year. But again, look at this, up to 15 points here. So two Democratic landslides. It wasn't just Democrats won these states.
It's that they won them in landslides. And this comes on the heels of what we've had. Four special elections for the House so far this year. And in all four of them, the Democrats have overperformed relative to 2024.
In Florida, first district, Republicans won it by 15. But that was down from 37 points last year. In Florida, six Republicans won by 14, down from a 30-point win. Democrats carried two districts here, but they increased their margin relative to 2024.
So again, you look at this district, Tennessee seven. Look, Trump won it by 22 points last year. He won it by 15 points in 2020. But if you get this kind of movement, if you get some of that movement you saw in Virginia, some of that movement in New Jersey, this could get into the single digits.
This could get potentially interesting. One thing we've been seeing, these special elections, lower turnout, Democrats have been more motivated. Their voters have been Republican. So keep an eye on this one.
And Republicans think the Democratic candidate, you know, she's sort of from the progressive side of the party, her own party called her the AOC of Tennessee. I think they can get some mileage out of those. They want to be using nationally in 2026. If the Republicans end up winning this big, not having this kind of drop off, it would show those attacks.
Maybe you're going to work next year. If the Democrats can get this down to single digits, it would be more momentum for them heading into the midterm. All right, we'll be watching closely. Steve Krenakki, thank you so much for that.
Still to come, political foes face-to-face. New York City's newly elected mayor, Zora Mamdani, is sent to me with President Trump in the Oval Office tomorrow. We'll preview the high stakes sit down, the panel's next. Don't meet the press now.
Welcome back, President Trump. It's said to me with New York City Mayor-elect Zora Mamdani at the White House tomorrow, it will be their first in-person meeting following a heated election where Mayor-elect Mamdani fiercely criticized many of President Trump's policies, and President Trump repeatedly maligned Mr. Mamdani as a communist while threatening to cut off federal funding for New York City. Mayor-elect Mamdani said his team reached out to the White House to set up the meeting.
And today, both Mayor-elect Mamdani and the White House laid out their expectations. Let's take a listen. Many disagreements with the President. And I believe that we should be relentless and pursue all avenues and all meetings that can make our city affordable for every single New Yorker.
I intend to make it clear to President Trump that I will work with him on any agenda that benefits New Yorkers. If an agenda hurts New Yorkers, I will also be the first to say so. President Trump is willing to meet with anyone and talk to anyone and to try to do what's right on behalf of the American people, whether they live in blue states or by states or blue cities. And this Sunday, I will have an exclusive interview with New York City Mayor-elect Zora Mamdani to refresh off his meeting with President Trump.
You will only be able to see it on Meet the Press to discuss that high stakes meeting tomorrow. The panel is here, Deepa Shivram, White House Correspondent at NPR, Amisha Cross, Democratic Strategist. And Stephen Hayes, editor and CEO of the Dispatch and NBC News contributor, thanks to all of you for being here, Deepa. I want to start with you.
What are you going to be watching for? Oh, to be a fly on the wall. I know. I mean, I was trying to think about, okay, what could happen in this meeting?
And then I was like, we really tried to put a list together or anything that could possibly happen. It would probably be like 25 pages tall. We're really going into this truly to see, you know, which person behaves, you know, what could be said. It could be very chummy.
It could be very contentious. There are a lot of ways this could shake out because, as we know, President Trump tends to be someone who's quite unpredictable in these kinds of settings. And so it'll be interesting, I think, to see how he receives this mayor who, as you said, you know, he's repeatedly attacked for the last several months. Yeah, Steve Hayes, I mean, I think one of the things that I'll be watching for is the body language.
It's going to be so significant. You think about, when you think about an Oval Office meeting, of course, you think about the explosive meeting with President Zelensky of Ukraine. You realize how quickly these meetings can go off track. Do you anticipate Mayor Montdani will go in with a strategy to be conciliatory toward the president?
I mean, I would think it would be conciliatory in tone, but not on substance necessarily. It's odd because Montdani's obviously coming to Washington, so this should be sort of home court advantage for Donald Trump. But it's not because the issue set that Montdani's likely to raise and focus on is affordability. And that's one of the president's big vulnerabilities right now.
Montdani, being a Democratic socialist, you know, we know what his affordability solution is. The government will do it. Trump has to be a little more careful because while he, I think, is a big government advocate, many of his parties still believe in smaller governments, which I think puts him a little bit of a disadvantage. Could this be mutually beneficial, do you think?
We know, I mean, sure that we're anticipating the president's going to wrap Montdani around the entire Democratic party from now until the midterms. But what do you think they both get out of sitting next to each other tomorrow? Well, from Montdani, he gets to shit a little bit of what some people are fear of with the Democratic socialist tag because he is coming to the table and meeting with the president of the United States. But in addition to that, there are the role of New York in the federal system is massive.
It's the most popular city in America. It has an economy larger than many countries. He has to have this meeting. It also puts him in somewhat of a level playing field.
Not only did he shoot up as a rising star within the Democratic Party, but also this allows him to really be able to set the stage. And for Trump, because that affordability conversation is such a toughie for him, and he saw those two days elections really set fire, it gives him a chance to really also try to bolster himself as somebody who understands the affordability crisis and can move forward on it. And, Steve, it's also the president's meeting with someone who won, who had much like himself a surprise victory, particularly when you're thinking about the primary, he came out of relative obscurity and surged past Andrew Cuomo to win twice. Yeah, I mean, I think that also gives Montdani an advantage in this conversation.
In Trump, I think that's gonna be careful. We've seen mixed messages from the White House on affordability for a long time. I mean, there's no crisis, there is a crisis, we're addressing the crisis. I mean, the Biden administration struggled similarly with inflation and how to speak to that.
But I think it'll be interesting to see if Donald Trump can come up with something that resembles coherent on the question of affordability. It is also, go ahead. I was gonna say, they also have a couple of things in common, one being messaging strategy. They have been able to tap into people who normally don't come out to vote.
They've also been able to get people excited about something that is kind of a dream, but also a belief in a system that can work. And I think that even though Donald Trump is, you know, trying to destroy the federal government in a variety of ways, he put that belief in himself, whereas Montdani is also trying to extend it to the government. I was gonna say, I don't even know if it matters how the meeting goes, because these are two people who are very good messengers and very good singers. They will frame it, however they see fit.
It's a great point. Let me shift gears here a little bit and ask you guys about one of the big headlines we're tracking today, the latest clash between President Trump and a group of Democrats, a group of Democrats came out, and they effectively called on service members, US service members, not to follow orders to strike alleged drug boats if they think those orders are illegal. President Trump fired back accusing these Democrats of seditious conspiracy, punishable by death. This is a little bit of the Capitol Hill response, and I'll get you all to react on the other side.
It's still clear, the President of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials. This is an outright threat, and it's deadly serious. But what I can address is what everybody knows, that was wildly inappropriate, it is very dangerous. You have leading members of Congress telling troops to disobey orders.
I think that's unprecedented in American history. So, Deepa, the partisanship just deepens in the wake of these comments. Yeah, and in the wake of living in a time where there is already a lot of rhetoric that is violent and political rhetoric that is violent, that has led to personal, physical attacks on people. I mean, this is coming at a time that is already extremely tense.
And as you've seen, both sides are really able to then further that divide, and it doesn't really result at any kind of resolution or any kind of finding of, you know, peace, literally. Amisha, do you think that this is going to continue to resonate, that the backlash will deepen here? Or is this something where the page gets turned very quickly? How big of a deal do you think this moment is?
I think it will last a little bit, to be honest. President Trump has said things on social media and outside of social media in terms of public attacks against Democrats as well as the strategy that has been employed by them multiple times. That can also elicit violence. And most of the time it just keeps on moving.
I think that at this point, he is upset because he's being called out on what is problematic. There should be a congressional hearing on this, like possibly a vote, on what he is doing as it relates to basically, you know, playing police in the high seas. There are people who are dying without any, you know, without any evidence of one, there actually being drugs. Two, there's no due process whatsoever.
At least one person was actually repatriated. If you have an instance where you believe that there are high crimes happening and there's intense drug trafficking, then bring those people in, have an investigation. They deserve their time in court of law. They do not deserve to die at the hands of this administration.
So even based on your conversations with your fellow Republicans, what are they saying about what the president said today? Well, I think that many of them find it outrageous, but it's not atypical for the kinds of things that Donald Trump has said in the past. And if you look at, if you take literally what those Democrats, all who served their country, said, there's nothing at all objectionable about it. You don't have to follow illegal orders.
That's something that you could see Republicans cutting in and on, making the same claim in a different context. Yeah, Deepa, of course, all of this comes, as you both made the point that there's a real issue around affordability and the White House is struggling to figure out what its messaging is. We saw Vice President J.D. Vance with a very different message than President Trump on affordability today.
Saying basically, we feel your pain. We are addressing it, be patient. Do you think the White House is close to figuring out a strategy on this? So funny, because I think the B-patient line was exactly what we heard in the last administration, too.
So I wouldn't say a plan is imminent here. It sounds like what voters in America have been hearing for quite a long time. And the answer may not come any time soon, and what you see is perhaps a president Trump who's losing his grasp on that line of messaging that has worked well for him the last several months. I'm curious to see what he kind of grasps on next to sort of pivot the message.
And the steps they are taking are rolling back, some of the president's previous policies, which should be an admission of failure. The irony there, though, is that initially Trump said that the American public could take a little bit of pain to reach ultimate game on the other side. He is immediately noticing it's like they're tired of pain. All right, guys, great conversation.
Thank you so much. Deepal Nisha and Steven, thank you. We are back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now. There's more head on NBC News now.
He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together. Then one night, Marine died.
And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected, and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Maguetz, and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all-new podcast from Bigline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.