Meet the Press NOW — September 1

If it's Monday, Democratic-led cities across the U.S. brace for a possible surge in federal law enforcement activity and plan their response, as the Trump administration prepares to ramp up immigration enforcement in Chicago, where protesters are already pushing back. Plus, sending a message, China's President Xi is all smiles as he hosts Russia's President Putin and India's Prime Minister Modi, as the trio looks to tighten economic and security ties and response to President Trump's trade wars and stall peace negotiations. And President Trump injects new uncertainty in the debate over vaccines in America, pressing drug makers to quote, justify the success of COVID-19 shots as former CDC leader sound the alarm about the deepening crisis of the agency.

Welcome to me, the press now. I'm Garrett Hake in Washington, where the Trump administration is facing legal setbacks on two fronts, immigration and trade. The president's signature issues as the White House is planning to further expand its immigration crackdown and possibly send federal troops into Democratic-run cities like Chicago. In a dramatic moment yesterday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the deportation of unaccompanied minors back to Guatemala, even as some of those children were sitting on planes on the tarmac in Texas waiting to be deported.

All of those children are expected to be returned to the custody of the office of refugee resettlement today, and the judge's order prohibits their deportation for two weeks while the case is pending. It comes as federal law enforcement officials tell NBC News that ICE, Border Patrol and other federal agencies plan to increase manpower and scale up operations to arrest immigrants in Chicago as early as this week. Here's Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem this weekend. Well, we've already had ongoing operations with ICE in Chicago and throughout Illinois and other states, making sure that we're upholding our laws.

But we do intend to add more resources to those operations. I won't disclose the details because they are law enforcement and investigative folks that are on the ground there, and I want to make sure we keep their security our number one priority. But we will continue to go after the worst of the worst across the country like President Trump has told us to do. The president has repeatedly criticized and attacked Illinois Democratic leaders as he threatens to expand his crime crackdown in Democratic led cities like Chicago and send in the National Guard.

Today, protests in the Windy City over those threats after Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order this weekend aimed at protecting quote, the constitutional rights of Chicago and amidst the possibility of imminent militarized immigration or national guard deployment by the federal government. Meanwhile, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has called the threat to deploy troops on America. No one in the administration, the president or anybody under him, has called anyone in my administration or and me have not called the city of Chicago or anyone else.

So it's clear that in secret, they're planning this, well, it's an invasion with US troops. If they in fact do that, they want to let us know when they're coming, where they're coming, if it's ICE or if it's ATF or whoever it is. But they don't want to do that either. And I must say it's disruptive.

It's dangerous. It tends to inflame passions on the ground when they don't let us know what their plans are. And joining now from the White House is NBC's Vaughn Hill, NBC's Adrienne Brotus is in Chicago with the latest on the ground and NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent, Julia Ainsley, will join me in a moment on set. But Vaughn, I'll start with you.

The administration is planning again to scale up this immigration enforcement operations this time in Chicago. Why there? Chicago is a place that, number one, it's a Democratic city with Brandon Johnson mayor already taking preemptive orders to prepare for the surge in federal agents on the ground and potentially the national guard. And of course, J.B.

Pritzker, somebody that could very well run for president is a Democratic candidate, come 2028, somebody who has been eager to take on the president and his policies here in 2025. And when you're looking at the crime statistics, you are looking at yes, a place where crime has dropped. But day to day, there are still a number of shootings that take place and deaths. And the president over the course of the last 48 hours has been consistently pointing to crime that has taken place in this major American city.

And so on one hand, we have seen the president of the United States be quick to draw and suggest that this would be immigration enforcement. But then on the other hand, suggest that it's to address crime. And all at the same time that they, if you're looking at Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., are coming off a summer in which they have distorted the reality of crime in the streets of two other major American cities to justify the federalizing of local law enforcement here in D.C. and the use of national guard.

And now here, already preparing to do so with the city of Chicago. Well, when you started your answer talking about the politics of this, you've got Democratic governors in Illinois and California, also in Maryland, all of whom at least theoretical presidential candidates. How much about what this White House is doing is about tying those governors in knots ahead of 2028? It's you're if you're looking at Westmore and Maryland, right?

The city of Baltimore has been on a journey over the last three decades, Garrett. And they're seeing their lowest violent crime statistics over the course of those last three decades. But Westmore is somebody else, the governor of Maryland that could very well run for president in 2028 as well. And crime has been an issue that you well know, Garrett.

The president ran on for three straight election cycles in the midterm elections. They believe that it's also going to be a focal point. And frankly, when you are putting Democrats on their heels to defend a crime or the way in which law enforcement ultimately operates in their cities or in their states, it's a very tough posture to make with the public that tends to side with more stringent ramped up increased attention to addressing crime in their cities. And so this is a tough political play, if you will, if you were the Democrats.

But that is where you've seen JB Pritzker not run from this issue. It has been very much on the front lines and making the case that he has been willing to work with the FBI and ATF, for example, in the past, when it comes to addressing serious criminal allegations and particular cases. But he says that that is not what is happening in this case. And that it is the Trump administration that is not seeking to work in good faith, unlike him and the folks in the city.

Yeah, I mean, you say not running from it. The White House says they're walking into a trap. Does the White House welcome a court battle over this, where you would have essentially blue city mayors or blue state governors that could paint as pro crime? And this is where you're looking at the way in which some Democrats have suggested, including Pritzker, that this is all an effort to cause a bigger issue.

Pritzker suggested that this is an attempt to manufacture a crisis in his major city of Chicago. In the thinking being that, if in the city of case of Los Angeles or DC, somebody had done more than throw a subway sandwich, but thrown a stone, taken a shot, a civilian onto law enforcement, that there could be actual potential riots and demonstrations that turn violent in the streets. And that is the concern in the case of Chicago. And it's why I asked Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller on Friday, Garrett, it's very specifically whether he had engaged with the president on the question of potentially seeking to invoke the insurrection act.

And despite three attempts to ask him that, he sidesteped answering directly, which would allow the military to potentially be used for domestic law enforcement purposes. It was a very thorough effort, Vaughn, that you made with Stephen Miller. Stick around. I'm going to come back to you on another topic in a moment.

But first, I want to go to Adrian. We mentioned this executive order that Mayor Johnson has signed there in Chicago. How else are city leaders preparing for this potential deployment that they really know nothing about in terms of the specifics of how it might go down? Garrett, you said it there.

This is all new. But in addition to that executive order, that Mayor Brandon Johnson signed over the weekend, which by the way, says that Chicago police will not be allowed to assist the military in any immigration enforcement acts taking place here in the city of Chicago. It also says that CPD officials cannot change their uniforms, for example, not removing a logo. And they should refrain from wearing a mask because we've seen in other cities where some of the ICE agents go in and they're wearing masks, they cover their face.

But Mayor Brandon Johnson says if members of the national bar come into the city this week, expect to see the city of Chicago taking legal action. It's something they've done before. And quite frankly, they're not afraid to do it again. And he's backed by Illinois Governor, JB Pritzker.

We heard from Governor Pritzker over the weekend saying, yes, they welcome help, just not the military. This is not the type of help they want. Instead, he said he would like to see, quote, civilian law enforcement help, ATF agents helping to take guns off the street and partnering with the FBI, the FBI partnering with local members of law enforcement to kind of catch some of these people who are behind the violent crimes that the city has seen, Garrett. Andrew, I know you spent the day out with some of these demonstrators today, but you live in Chicago.

What's the feeling on the ground? What are you hearing from residents? I know here in Washington, there is a bit of tension about whether you welcome federal help or whether they look at it as a potential takeout. You know, people that I've talked to here are divided.

No one wants to appear to be soft on crime. They do want to see the crime rate go down even further. The city says that overall violent crime is down by nearly 20%. When you look at shootings, almost 40%.

But they want prevention efforts to be restored. And I'll give you an example. I spoke with an organizer who primarily operates on the south side of Chicago. In May, he says his funding was cut by nearly $500,000.

That was funding his team would use to go out and try to get ahead of some of these violent crimes. They would show up in areas when situations were tense. They may show up in a hospital room to help prevent any retaliation. But he had to cut a third of his staff under the Trump administration.

That is the type of help they want, that federal funding to restore the dollars so they can continue on what they call success. But at the end of the day, nobody wants to be labeled as a city that is riddled with crime. Take a listen to what some people told us earlier today who were here taking over the street for a rally fighting against President Trump. Take a listen.

Are you concerned about the presence of possibly seeing tanks and national guard members on our streets? Absolutely. Absolutely. Chicago doesn't need that.

That's part of it. In the cruelty all around, it's just not a miracle. And not the American. We grew up in and not the America that we want to see our children and grandchildren work on.

And it's all on the line right now. We have so much extra balances except us, the people. So it's clear people want help, but they just want a different approach. And this all comes despite a challenging weekend.

Since Friday, there have been more than 50 shootings in Chicago, killing seven people. And we're talking about victims, gunshot victims, 14 years old and 17 years old, guys. Yeah, the numbers are striking and they're certainly something that the President and the Trump administration have been noticing. I want to bring you in here because the administration, this all starts with immigration.

They talk about going after the worst of the worst in criminals, but then you hear about a plain load of Guatemalan children. These things seem incongruous. What's going on here? Well, they've had this really tough course they set themselves up on from the beginning of the campaign.

And you remember this, Garrett, where they're talking about doing nasty portations but also going after the worst of the worst. Well, as it turns out, it takes a lot more manpower, takes a lot more expense to go after actual criminals who are not taking their kids to school in broad daylight, delivering your Uber Eats order. There are people who maybe even left the country. It takes a lot to get information on these people.

And it's easier to go after people who have not committed crimes. It's easier to go after people who are regularly checking in for their other ICE check-ins or going to court, ending their protection and putting them on the path. And then for these children, these were kids who were still pursuing asylum claims. They were in the custody of Health and Human Services.

And under US law, they have the right to stay here, be matched with a sponsor, and then have their asylum claims heard. They cannot be put on a fast track like an adult stopped at the border, might be for deportation because there are special protections put in place for minors. But in this case, they tried to short circuit that and deport them anyway. So why was this another 11-hour situation where you've got people being pulled off of planes?

Yeah, it felt just like that playbook. I was taken back to March 15th where Judge Boseburg said, turn the planes around and they didn't. And so we heard in this order, in no uncertain term, she didn't want anything to be vague about her order to say, you need to pull these people back. She was woken up at 2.30 in the morning on Sunday, being told that there was a plane, two planes leaving Harlan, Texas before Guatemala.

And this case, what's also particularly interesting is, and really a reminder of what happened in the passes are attacking the judge. They're saying that this judge is kidnapping people, kidnapping these kids by not allowing them to reunite with their parents. And remember, children do have the right to voluntarily deport if they want to at any point. But these kids were pursuing their claims and we only know of one so far who had indicated they wanted to voluntarily deport.

And on a similar timeline, we had this ruling about expedited removal over the last couple of days. Is this a situation in which the Trump administration is perfectly happy to have this fight and hopefully just take it up to the Supreme Court again? Yeah, I think they are perfectly happy to have the fight. But it can actually, if they're interested in raw numbers and results, which I know Stephen Miller is, this would have a detracting effect from their goal.

Because expedited removal was to short circuit the asylum process for any immigrant in the country, no matter where they were. Typically, it was used for people who would just cross the border. Now you could be someone who's been living in the United States. If you can't prove you've been here for under two years, you might even be living in a U.S.

city. They could fast-track you and cancel your ability to clean the asylum much like they were trying to do with these children. But in both cases, the courts are blocking us. Well, busy weekend on your beat, Julie.

Thank you and Adrian Brodus with us in Chicago. Before that, I'm turning now to another legal setback for the Trump administration, this time on the economy. A federal appeals court ruled late Friday that President Trump overstepped his authority by using emergency powers to impose tariffs, saying that the power to impose such sweeping measures rests exclusively with Congress. The court, however, will allow the tariffs to remain in place as the case proceeds, likely to the Supreme Court.

Here's what Senator James Langford told my colleague, Kristin Wilker, on Meet the Press about the ongoing tariff turmoil. The ultimate thing, what I'm here, Kristin, more than anything else from all the companies that I've talked to is they just want it to be set. They just want to know what the rules of the road are. Every time there's a new court hearing, every time there's a new change, it's destabilizing for every one of our businesses.

So let's get all these things resolved as quickly as we possibly can. And von Hill, just back with us from the North Lawn. So von, President Trump has imposed lots of different tariffs since he took office, which ones specifically are affected by this ruling? Most of them.

The biggest ones are, you know, the ceiling aluminum tariffs. They're not a part of this. They came through another section of federal trade law, but effectively the major tariffs on China, Mexico, Canada, India, more than 90 other countries. The ones that the president unilaterally imposed here this summer are off the books come October, unless the Supreme Court or another court intervenes.

And that is where the president and the social media post this weekend suggested that he believes he's going to get the quote help of the Supreme Court and allow them to move forward. This was a seven to four decision by this appellate court. So there notably was a dissent, but the seven judges in the majority made clear that the ability to put tariffs on imports committed the United States falls under the Constitution with a legislative branch. And so for the president, he's going to continue to fight.

They're going to stay in effect for at least another month and a half, but then we'll have to see from there. Yeah, I mean, look, this is the signature economic policy of this White House. How seriously are they taking the threat to the tariffs? And you said a month and a half.

Is that the timeline in which we think we might see a Supreme Court weighing on this? Right. You could very well see the Supreme Court. I think the stakes of this case most would agree are quite high in which this would be an emergency type of a case for them to pick up.

But you're looking at not only, you know, the economic policy of this administration, but also their strategy, Garrett. Right. We've been covering for the last seven months, the campaign, of course, essentially to push China and Mexico, Canada, the EU, every other country to the negotiating table and signed an agreement, a trade agreement with the US. But if the president doesn't have in his hand the ability to unilaterally throw these tariffs onto imports coming from any of these countries, that makes the pressure campaign to come to the negotiating table that much harder.

And the other part of this is, I think, that we have to consistently come back to Garrett as the fact that he could go to the Republican majorities in the House and the Senate and get these authorized immediately. But he has refused to do that. Republicans, historically, would be right as it to these sorts of tariffs. But that's where you go back to the Section 232 tariffs, right?

If it was a national security threat, well, that formal investigation, which under law would have to take place by the Commerce Department could take upwards of a year. So pretty much there's no other really good option for the president outside of hoping that the Supreme Court takes this side come this fall. We've got a bipartisan secondary tariffs bill waiting for his say so on Russia if he decides he wants to go that route. But again, no action there.

Thank you so much for doing double duty for us to start off the broadcast and coming up, power shifts. The leaders of Russia, China, and India put on a show of unity at a meeting of world leaders. As President Trump's policies appear to push some America's top adversaries closer together. Plus, Israel intensifies its airstrikes in Gaza City and plans to escalate the offensive there even further, despite opposition to the war appearing to grow in Israel.

We have the latest from the region. You're watching the press now. Welcome back. Top world leaders are meeting today in China for an annual summit with the leaders of China, Russia, and India clearly sending a message to Washington.

These images of President Putin, President Xi, and Prime Minister Modi greeting each other warmly, holding hands, smiling, and at times laughing are clearly meant to show unity between the leaders as their relationships with the United States are all increasingly strained. This summit comes just over two weeks after President Trump's own diplomatic push, hosting President Putin in Alaska, President Zelensky at the White House, and hopes that it would lead to leader level talks between those two heads of state. But in the days following, Russia has said no such meeting as planned with no let up in their war. Meanwhile, President Trump has also been clashing with India's Prime Minister Modi, putting a 50 percent tariff on goods from India as a punishment for that nation's purchase of Russian oil.

NBC News International correspondent Janice Mackey Freiers and Beijing she filed this report. This summit has been all about optics. China under Xi Jinping is seeking influence and to present an alternative to a war order dominated by the U.S. In his speech to leaders of Russia, Iran, India, Turkey, Pakistan, and a dozen other countries, Xi took some sats that the way President Trump has been reshaping U.S.

foreign policy. He talked of global upheaval and bullying without any names, but all of it underscoring how Xi has been working to present China as the more stable option and what he called an inclusive world order. This summit also marked another opportunity for Russia's Vladimir Putin to ease out of political isolation and into the spotlight. Just weeks ago, Putin met with President Trump in Alaska about the war in Ukraine.

Today, he blamed NATO for the war and said he had, quote, understandings with President Trump. Putin didn't say whether he's agreed to ceasefire talks despite discussion of a deadline to do so. Instead, Putin held hands with India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi. They shared a car to a sideline meeting.

This was also a key summit for Modi coming days after President Trump slapped 50 percent tariffs on India for buying Russian oil. This is his first visit to China in seven years after strained relations over border disputes. The summit didn't need to deliver headlines or deals. It was heavy on symbolism.

The message being that the leaders here may have differences among them, but they are united in saying to the U.S. and to the West that they are not without friends. Janice Mackey, thank you for that report. And joining me now on set is foreign policy expert, at least lab and host of the cosmopolitan podcast.

I love that name. We're talking about the optics of all this. What do you make of the images that we've seen here and the different audiences for them? Well, I mean, the symbolism was unbelievable.

And, you know, it's interesting with Putin and Modi and the limo. I guess limo diplomacy is what it's all about because you just Putin and Trump's limo a little bit ago. But when you see them, the picture, we didn't see of them walking a movie in Putin, walking, holding hands. Putin is definitely trying to say, listen, you can do whatever you want with me on Ukraine.

I have other options. And I think that was really what Putin was trying to do. Deepening that relationship with Modi, as Janice said, China, India, they're all trying to send messages to the United States. Modi, the relationship with Modi has really soured also, not just because of the tariffs.

But if you remember a couple weeks ago, when President Trump took credit for ending the fighting between India and Pakistan, he was very insistent to Modi, that Modi gave him credit and Modi would not have it. And so now this is also, Trump is souring on Modi. So this, you know, Troika, if you will, of Russia, India and China has always kind of been in the ether, you always look at it. And so has the Shanghai cooperation organization that China's been running.

But now with Trump's unilateralism, with these tariffs around the world, with China trying to position itself as this alternative to the US, it takes on this new symbolism and a new importance. The aim of the secondary tariffs on India for purchasing Russian oil was meant to drive a wedge between those two nations. And it brought them closer. I mean, is that the correct read here based on this summit?

Oh, absolutely. Trump thought that he could bring India to his knees and when threatening Putin, that he could bring Putin to his knees. These leaders are not prone to, you know, they're Trump likes them because they're strong men. They're strong men for a reason because they don't bow so easily.

And now they have this alternative. They can be with each other, the three of them with China. I mean, the big gift is to China right now. If Trump came to office saying he wanted to counter China, he's doing the exact opposite.

This is a real, these tariffs, you know, the diplomacy with Modi, you know, not being able to take a strong stand on Putin, this kind of back and forth is really a gift to China. Well, the Chinese have always wanted to present themselves as a stable alternative to the United States. And the one thing they've always lacked are the kind of alliances that we have. Is that one of the potential long term implications here of this kind of binding of this trick?

If you will, if China all of a sudden has friends, real friends, this is a different sort of ballgame across the globe. Well, they've always kind of had Russia and India as clients or, you know, frenemies. But now they're also positioning themselves in Europe. And yes, the Europeans were hoping that Trump would, you know, be a collaborative partner on Ukraine.

They see him dithering on Ukraine. And you've seen over the last few years, whether it was President Trump in his first term, President Biden, now President Trump again, China is saying, listen, if you're not going to ask, we will, they tried to negotiate on Iran. They tried to negotiate between Saudi Arabia and others. They're taking a greater role in world diplomacy, a greater role in the world economy.

And they are positioning themselves as a more stable, the devil you know, as opposed to Trump, who's, you know, the unpredictable devil you can't deal with. What if anything does this summit tell us about the Ukraine of it all? We're two weeks into the latest deadline. President Macron made a comment that if this day comes and goes without Trump acting, it's just more sign that President Trump's being played by Vladimir Putin.

President Putin seems like you have a great time in China. It doesn't seem particularly interesting to see what President Trump does. President Trump can't say anything anymore. He has to act.

If he's going to put those sanctions on Russia, if he's going to follow through with the consequences that he threatened, you know, he still has a chance. But the more that he kind of goes back and forth and is indecisive, not only does it limit his ability on Ukraine and show that Putin has other diplomatic options, I mean, Putin's just not afraid anymore. And he knows that Trump is not going to make the real no sense. The one audience we didn't get to was how this is playing in the White House.

I'm very curious if we hear from President Trump about this summit all this week, but we'll have to leave it there at least live it. Thank you for your time and your expertise. Turning out to the Middle East, where Israel is ramping up its military offensive in Gaza City. This was the scene over the weekend after an Israeli airstrike in the western part of the city.

You can see the immense damage that building as people dug through the rubble trying to rescue anyone trapped underneath. Israel says Hamas's chief spokesperson was killed in that attack. Let me see his chief foreign correspondent Richard Engle is in Tel Aviv with more. Here in his real the military is now clearly focused on an upcoming operation against Gaza City.

It is the biggest city in Gaza, home to roughly one million people. In fact, more people are entering Gaza City, even though it could face a major ground offensive any day now, because as Israeli troops advanced toward the city, Palestinians and surrounding towns and villages are running to the city to find some sort of safety to find shelter, even though according to international organizations, there is already a famine in Gaza City. But that is the focus right now of the Israeli military offensive, an offensive that is intensifying just over this weekend. The Israeli military says that in a strike it carried out.

It killed Hamas's main spokesman, militant called known by his nom de gere Abu Obeda. He was one of the most well-known Hamas figures still alive. Hamas has not commented on his apparent death. But the people of Gaza City are now waiting for this major offensive humanitarian group say that if there is this big push into Gaza City, it will be devastating for the people there, for the roughly one million people, and a number that is growing who are taking shelter there.

But Israel insists that Hamas militants like Abu Obeda are holed up in Gaza City. They are using it as a safe haven and that it might be where some of the surviving hostages are still being kept. As to what happens to the future of Gaza, even after this potential operation, President Trump has suggested repeatedly that Gaza be turned into some sort of economic development project. A project he described as the Riviera, a tech hub.

The idea was quickly rejected because it would involve deporting the Palestinians who were living there to some third location. But apparently the idea is not dead because the Washington Post is now reporting that the Trump administration has been reviewing a detailed plan to remove all Palestinians, all two million Palestinians in Gaza, sending them to a third country, describing their deportations as quote voluntary. And that Palestinians would be compensated with payments of $5,000 and digital tokens for their land. The administration has not responded to our repeated requests for comment.

All right, Richard Angle, thank you for that reporting. Up next, President Trump's latest push to ban mail-in voting as some in his own party are starting to push back, raising concerns that ban could harm Republican candidates. You're watching the press now. Welcome back.

And despite it being unconstitutional, President Trump is ramping up his threat to set nationwide voting rules from the White House down the street. He posted over the weekend, voter ID must be part of every single vote. No exceptions. I'll be doing an executive order that.

And also, no mail-in voting, except for those that are very ill and the far away military. Use paper ballots only. We'll remind you that the Constitution, that's Article 1, Section 4, to be precise grants states the power to set the rules for their elections, unless superseded by Congress. We'll also remind you that mail-in balloting is safe and secure and was used in fact by about 30% of voters in the 2024 presidential election, which checking my notes, Trump 1.

And now some Republicans are starting to express concern about President Trump's eagerness to ban that voting technique. Do you know what I mean? I would more as NBC News, senior national political reporter Henry Gomez, who just wrote a great piece about this for our website, NBC News.com. And Henry, you talked to top Republicans around the country about this.

What did they tell you? A lot of explaining what they believe the president actually meant here? Again, you know, Garrett, there was a little bit of that throughout the reporting process. Most interestingly, we spoke with the chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, Paul Damon.

What he told us was that, quote, as Trump often does, he sometimes overstates his case. I don't think anyone supports a complete elimination that would disenfranchise men and women overseas. I'm sure that's not his intention. End quote.

Of course, the men and women overseas that Paul Damon's talking about there are the military voters. And mail-in voting has been an option that's been widely available to them for years. And this is one of the main concerns that we've heard in our reporting. Are the Republican officials that you spoke to about this, who, you know, the piece largely generally opposed to the idea of banning mail-in voting, ready to push back on this fight?

I asked because this was such a topic during the campaign in 2024. So many Republicans wanted President Trump to, candidate Trump then, to stop talking about this. I mean, this was something that not everybody was eager to talk to us about, as you might imagine. Lots of phone calls were going out last week as we reported this piece.

And the ones that we got back were the ones that I think were being more candid about this. And what was interesting to me is they disagree not only that he can do this, but that he should do this. And Michigan, which is a state where Republicans have been pretty steadfastly supportive of Donald Trump over the years, the chair of the Republican party there, was very skeptical that this is something that Trump could unilaterally do and unilaterally act on. He and others we talked to can see that they feel there are things that could be done to improve, though by mail, that there are changes they believe need to be made to the system.

I'll get the token statements about election fraud and this and that. But they were generally opposed to this being something that Trump could do. I also spoke with the House majority leader in Michigan, a Republican who doesn't think that it should be banned at all. He feels that there could be some changes made, but this is generally something that Republicans like having at their disposal and feel that it's a system that can benefit them when they organize and work at heart.

It benefits them quite well out west where huge percentage of ballots are cast by mail. Talking about what happens when you get west of Michigan and you see the states that are heavily reliant on vote by mail, a lot of those states typically look red on your election nightnaps. Yeah, it's right. Some of these are states that have like almost universal mail in bally in terms of anybody that wants a ballot by mail can get one by mail and they have really high participation in those states.

It's something that they've become used to over the years. And it's not something that they're really eager to disrupt on the whims of the of the president. So it's one of those things that I've asked several of the folks we talked with over the last few days, because it's something the White House has reached out to you on and is looking to negotiate on. And it's not something they heard from directly from the White House, whether it's the president or his staff.

So it's one of those things that they're sort of ready to have in the conversation that comes to that. Yeah, and this might be one of those where their follow up is not necessarily there, given how much the broader Republican apparatus understands this is something that tends to work. It's not to their advantage, at least to a break even point. But we got to leave it there for now Henry Gomez.

Thank you for your great reporting and sharing on the broadcast. Thank you. And after the break, questioning the science President Trump calls on drug makers to justify the success of the COVID-19 vaccines as his administration sets new limits on who will be eligible to get the shot. Panelists next, unmute the press now.

Subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including every article, 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. Daily on Amazon Music. The answer to that question is yes. The other thing that's really important to clarify is the facts.

The facts are that the vaccine saves millions of lives. And he may say in his social posts that some people disagree, but the evidence is absolutely to the contrary. So that's very important. The politics, which you're getting to, is fascinating.

Because you're right, he could and should take credit for Project Warp Speed. I remember being in a cabinet meeting with him or wasn't a cabinet meeting, but it was a meeting in the cabinet room. Vaccine experts, including Dr. Fauci, who were explaining that it takes a long time to get vaccines made.

And I remember him saying you guys have to go faster and they did. And then he proceeded to not take the vaccine himself on camera and to allow this information about vaccines to proliferate. And that is because there's a good chunk of his base that doesn't believe in them or has concerns about them. And that's what that's the line that you're seeing him cross-netry social.

He ultimately did take the vaccine and cheerleader for it, but then you always got this strange back and forth. I want to put up some numbers from YouGov Tiffany and show you these Republicans are much more likely to believe that the risks outweigh the benefits when it comes to the COVID vaccines. Again, huge accomplishment of the first Trump term. How did we get to this point?

Yeah, I mean, I think it's important to remember that Operation Warp Speed was historic and it was an absolute miracle. And I don't think anyone else could have pulled that off to be honest. No other president would have been able to do that. And President Trump did it with flying colors to deliver for the American people.

But the CDC has become politicized. The government stepped in and started demanding and mandating Americans. And it's okay to question. We should question our government.

This was a vaccine that hadn't been researched that we didn't have a lot of data on. And we have seen adverse reactions to it. So that is okay to question in science. That is what you do.

That's how you come out with a better product in the end and healthier outcomes. So to say that's unacceptable, the American people can't question a vaccine is it's we're losing our country if we're in a place where we can't do that. I understand that. I don't understand that at all.

I think the kind of argument to that is put out in part by these nine former CDC directors here who say if the science isn't necessarily settled, because I think we can all agree that science is never entirely settled enough itself, that the evidence here is overwhelming. And that the questioning of it from such a big megaphone is potentially very damaging to public health. That's the argument they make. I want to bring Andrew into my hand.

I mean, look at the whole movement, look at the mandate vote that was sent down in November, make America healthy again. I mean, that's millions of Americans who said no more. And we want the answer. And Trump is trying to be transparent and rebuild the truth back to the American people.

I don't know why that's a bad thing. I don't know why you don't understand that. I want to actually we jump ahead here because I think there's a good way we can illustrate this. I want to bring up the tweet today from Bill Cassidy, who is a physician, is United States Senator, he's a chairman of the health committee.

And he took the argument here that what the president is calling for is essentially radical transparency. Here's his expose here on screen here. He says we need to see what the data says and where it's coming from. So the CDC and HHS can make the best decisions.

I think someone could argue that this is a cart long after the horse here. Bates, I'll bring you in on this. How are we in a position here where the president has a movement that he has at least partially created in the Maha movement to make America healthy again, which I think is the core of this kind of questioning of the science has gotten so far out of the way in which he controls almost every other element of what members of his party believe about politics and a certain degree science on an issue like vaccines that you've got someone now like Bill Cassidy in the middle, twisting himself in knots to defend a policy that he was probably not in favor of before. Where are we in this moment with the president's kind of control over the science and the way that it has cleaved his party?

America, healthy again is a slogan. And I don't know a single American who disagrees with it. But I also don't know a single American who thinks that actions matter less than words. And if we look at this record, if we look at what the practical effects of this will be, he is stopping a lot of the most promising research in defining cures for terminal diseases, for horrible diseases that there was reporting over the last several days about how research into child cancer is being canceled because it doesn't meet RFK's dogma.

And it is true that Operation Warp Speed was a very significant accomplishment. It was crucial to ending the worst public health crisis of all of our lifetimes. And I think what's really happening is he disrespects his base by trying to tell the multiple things that once he saw that with the Epstein files, you've seen that with him trying to move Gillain Maxwell to minimum security, even though she's a convicted sex offender, you see that with the tariffs too, where he's raving and saying that the country will be destroyed if these illegal tariffs that are dragging our economy down are not upheld by the Supreme Court. I think that he will talk out of both sides of his mouth if he realizes there are constituencies that he can pander to.

Tiffany, I guess I want to go back on this because I have this question all the time. When it comes to something like the vaccines now, if the Trump CDC said it's safe, if President Trump said it's safe, if CDC directors say it's safe, if he's calling for radical transparency from the companies that developed it who all say it's safe, who will the people who question the efficacy of these vaccines believe if not all of those things? The idea of questioning, it seems to me like there's a lot of different people offering the same answers. Is there any authority that could provide an answer that would satisfy the people in the Republican Party who are skeptics that these vaccines are safe?

Yeah, I mean, the CDC became politicized, really. And the American people have every right to question what was shoved down our throats every single day. It's like common sense went out the window, right? Whose answer would be politicized?

Is it no longer politicized now that these handful of people have quit? I mean, what point is the answer satisfactory as what I'm trying to get to here? Well, also, so our kid, your president, Trump have an agenda, a very aggressive agenda to start to deliver for America within the CDC, right? So if there are people in there that are not serving at the pleasure of the president, then they should be there, then they should move on.

It's a new administration. That's not always a bad thing. That is a good thing for our country and for the president to be able to get his agenda across the line. In addition to, you know, getting the truth and getting the facts on the vaccines, were they all effective?

Like, let's see the numbers. Did kids really need them? All right. I mean, I appreciate the question that.

I appreciate the question. I just didn't hear an answer to my question. So I'm going to move on. I want to talk about something that has popped up in the zeitgeist this weekend, which was President Trump and the fact that we have not seen him in public since Tuesday.

Jeff, as a former White House Correspondents Association, president of someone who understands this. Can you talk about how unusual that is or isn't and kind of take what has been the world's most bizarre Twitter rumor this weekend and explain what it would be like to not see the president for a period of time and why these questions appear and what have we seen of the president of the United States since Tuesday? I've covered the White House for 17 years. I've covered three presidents.

All of them take time away from the press and it's completely normal and it's not a big deal. The president was golfing this weekend. There are pictures of him. I have colleagues who were in the pool.

He has not disappeared. He is not dead. God forbid. He is alive and well.

It just hasn't talked to the press in a few days. It may seem slightly more unusual for President Trump because he engages with the press so much. Andrew Bates is someone who has dealt with rumors about presidential health and speculation about the president's well-being for a good bit of your last several years of your life. What do you make of the way that this has taken the spot in the zeitgeist this has taken over the last week?

I agree with Jeff that we're an environment where it is very easy for something that does not have a strong foundation to spread faster than it ever has. My biggest concern about him when it comes to his health has to do with the things that he says, the claims he makes that are just transparently not true. This week during the cabinet meeting, he said, I am the president. I can do whatever I want inherently in America with our Constitution that is not true or how when there were four service members who lost their lives in Lithuania, he got asked about them going missing in the Oval Office and he did not know it was happening.

I knew about it as a private citizen. He did not know that four American service members under his charge were missing. He regularly says things that indicate he is prioritizing rehabbing the White House over bringing down costs. That's what concerns me about his health.

All right, we're going to leave it there. But that was an interesting conversation. I appreciate all of you taking the time today. Happy Labor Day to you all.

Still to come. Doctors discovered the ten-year-old boy who survived last week's horrific mass shooting in Minneapolis and recounted his experience of reporters as a piece of bullet lodged in his neck. Well, that updates straight ahead. I need to press now.

And welcome back. Minneapolis continues to grieve after last week's deadly church shooting. This weekend, parishioners gathered for the first mass since the attack at the enunciation Catholic Church that killed two school children and injured 18 other children and three adults, according to the latest update from officials. One of those young survivors spoke to my colleague, Nagy Vespa, about what it was like for him to be in that church yesterday.

Nice to go to church again, even though I'm a little traumatized by going to church. It's just good to be praying about it. Like, yeah, it feels good. I really hope it's going to go easier every day.

And I'm not trying to forget it, but I don't think I'm going to. NBC News correspondent, Nagy Vespa, joins me now from Minneapolis. Nagy, you also spoke to the father of the ten-year-old boy who recounted his harrowing experience today of the shooting after it was revealed. He was actually injured in the attack.

What did you learn there exactly? And how was he doing? Well, Garrett, he's doing fine, which amazes his father, who told me dad told me that everywhere he goes, he cries. But he said ten-year-old Weston Hall's name, his son, the little red-headed boy who we all saw, and we're so captivated by.

On that first day talking about surviving the shooting, he said he's emotionally doing okay, but it wasn't until at least a day later that they remembered that he was saying in the interview that he thought he had gunpowder on his neck, and it was kind of irritating. And his dad said, we finally took him to his pediatrician. They did an x-ray, and they were told that it's actually not gunpowder at all. What the doctor revealed, they said, just made their jaws drop at one point.

He said, it made him shake. Take a listen to what they learned. He thought it was gunpowder. Turns out it wasn't gunpowder.

It's a bullet fragment? Yes, I think the bullet just maybe whizzed by his neck and who knows. So it entered, and the bullet stopped right at his crowd at artery. So just ran out of momentum just in time.

So we're very, very thankful for that. Yeah, so Surgeons this week, Garrett said, to remove that from this boy's neck. We're told he should make a completely full physical recovery. His dad, though his family, completely shaken up.

And just knowing that he's now one of the injured member that initially there was an injury count of 17, that it became 18, now 21, because people like this keep coming forward. It just keeps rolling. It's a tough kid. Tell me, what else have you heard you were there at that service from the other people who returned to the pronunciation church over the weekend?

We heard from a priest, and this seems to sum it up, that people were restless to be together. In fact, one mom, back to the mom of Pablo, who you heard from at the top, who told us that all they want to do is be with other people who went through this in her bells in the background. That's a bit eerie, but they just want to be with those frankly who get it. You can see the video at the church there.

Look how packed that was. There was a service Saturday evening. There was a service Sunday morning, both were live streamed. People just coming together again to worship and mourn as they try to get through this, Garrett.

Maggie, thank you for your reporting on this. It's a brutal story, and you've been doing a great job. We appreciate it. We'll be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now.

There's more news ahead on NBC News Now.