He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together. Then one night, the Marine died.
And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected, and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Mankiewicz, and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all-new podcast from Dateline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Craig Melvin.
Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half-full kind of guy, and now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too.
Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, challenges. Their stories are funny, and my candid. So I hope you'll join me each week, and who knows? You might just come away with your own glass half-full.
Search glass half-full with Craig Melvin from today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Garrett Hake on a day in which the health of the American economy, the health of American democracy, and the health of Americans in general is in focus. And we'll get to all of it, but we begin with the economy, a growing concern from the Federal Reserve about a slowdown in the U.S.
labor market. Spurring the central bank, led by Chairman Jerome Powell, today to announce it was slashing interest rates for the first time in nine months in order to spur growth. The federal funds rate, which is seen as a benchmark for lending rates, was cut by a quarter point, as most economists had predicted, despite calls from President Trump for an even larger cut. The Fed also signaled that additional cuts are coming this year.
Wall Street's response to today's news was fairly muted, with the Dow roughly half a percentage point. Speaking to reporters this afternoon, Chairman Powell painted the portrait of an economy that is on uncertain footing. After recent data showed the first monthly loss of jobs since the pandemic, and with overall economic growth stagnant and prices creeping higher. Over the course of this year, we've kept our policy at a restrictive level, and people have different views, but a clearly restrictive level, I would say.
So, and we were able to do that over the course of this year, because the labor market was in very solid condition with strong job creation and all those things. I think if you go back to April and now look at the revised job creation numbers for May June, July and August, you can kind of, I can no longer say that. The Fed's meeting was the first since President Trump's newest Fed governor, his economic advisor, Stephen Myron, was installed to the board. Myron still technically holds his White House role the first time that's ever happened to the Fed.
He was the sole dissenter in today's decision, echoing the President's view that rates need to be cut more aggressively. Meanwhile, Lisa Cook, the Fed governor who the President is trying to fire over allegations of mortgage fraud, voted in favor of today's move. Now, we're watching breaking news all over the world, and we're going to dip in now to hearing King Charles speak at a state dinner for President Trump in London. Let's listen.
These successes of the British Redcoats and of George Washington's Continental Army today stand shoulder to shoulder, brothers and sisters in arms, protecting the freedoms we both cherish. Our countries are working together in support of crucial diplomatic efforts. Not least of which, Mr. President, is your own personal commitment to finding solutions to some of the world's most intractable conflicts in order to secure peace.
In striving for a better world, we also have a precious opportunity to safeguard and to restore the wonders and beauty of nature for the generations who follow us. We share the ambition and determination to preserve our majestic lands and waters, above all, to ensure that we have clean walls of clean air and clean food. Our legacy for the next 250 years and beyond is to ensure that our children, grandchildren and those who come after them, can experience the awe and magnificence of the natural treasures found in the countryside, on the coasts, in the seas and in the national parks established by your predecessors and mine. Mr.
President, Mrs. Trump, the bond between our two nations is indeed a remarkable world. Forged in the fire of conflict, it has been fortified through our shared endeavors and burnished by the deep affection between our people. Tested time and again, it has borne the weight of our common purpose and raised our ambition for a better world.
So in renewing our bond tonight, we do so with unshakable trust in our friendship and in our shared commitment to independence and liberty. Therefore, as we celebrate this unparalleled partnership, allow me to propose a toast to President Trump and the First Lady and to the health, prosperity and happiness of the people of the United States of America. We've been listening live to these remarks from King Charles at the State Dinner in Windsor Castle tonight. The President is expected to speak shortly after the conclusion of this toast.
We're going to bring you those remarks live when they happen. This is, of course, an unprecedented second state dinner for President Trump in the United Kingdom there in his remarks you heard from King Charles, talking about an issue near and dear to his heart, although not necessarily the President's, his own record on environmentalism, urging the President to continue to protect the natural world, excuse me, for generations to come. A toast for the President there, see surrounded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Prince of Wales, across the table, seated next to the First Lady. He's got best into the Treasury Secretary among dozens of other Americans in the entourage in attendance here.
Let's see if we hear remarks from the President now. Connie and I are deeply grateful to you and Queen Camilla for your extraordinary graciously. To William and Kate, thank you so much. It's been so great being with you today.
Thank you very much. It's a singular privilege to be the first American President welcomed here. And if you think about it, it's a lot of presidents, and this was the second state visit. And that's the first, and maybe that's going to be the last time.
I hope it is, actually. But this is truly one of the highest honors of my life, such respect for you and such respect for your country. For many decades, his Majesty the King is epitomized the fortitude, nobility, and the spirit of the British monarchy and the British people. He's dedicated himself to preserving the glory and unique character of this kingdom, restoring life to the rivers and streams, supporting the works of its artists and composers, planting trees and gardens in its countryside.
And I just visited one of the most beautiful I've ever seen that you just completed and protecting the architectural integrity of cities, villages, and towns. He has uplifted the poor, cared for rural farms, and tended to wounded veterans like nobody else. I'll tell you that I just stood in line and shook about 150 hands. And the King knew every single person and every single company.
And some of them had bad names like XYZ-Q3. And he knew every one of them, or at least I think he did, because nobody was complaining. I was very impressed with that, but I just want to say that his Majesty has also raised a remarkable son in his royal highness, Prince of Wales. Really amazing.
We've gotten to know you, and I think you're going to have an unbelievable success in the future. Milani and I are delighted to visit again with Prince William and to see her royal highness, Princess Catherine. So radiant and so healthy. So beautiful.
It's really great honor, thank you. Three years ago his Majesty opened his archives to a biographer among the documents was a letter from 1993 in which he described the patriotism and guided as many projects. He wrote that he was, quote, entirely motivated by a desperate desire to put the great back into Great Britain in the finest tradition of British sovereigns. He's given his whole heart everything he's got to those parts of Britain that are beyond the realm of mere legislation.
It's not easy, but which define its essence and its virtue, its harmony, and its soul. It's an amazing calling, and there's nobody that's answered that calling like you have. A fifth of all, if humanity speaks, writes, thinks, and prays in the language born on these dials and perfected in the pages of Shakespeare and Dickens and Tolkien, Lewis, Orwell, Kipley, incredible people, unbelievable people like we have rarely seen before, probably won't see. Again, the lion-hearted people of this kingdom defeated Napoleon unleashed the Industrial Revolution, destroyed slavery and defended civilization in the darkest days of fascism and communism.
The British gave the world the Magna Carta, the modern parliament, and Francis Bacon's scientific method. They gave us the works of Locke, Hobbes, Smith, and Burke, Newton, and Blackstone. The legal intellectual, cultural, and political traditions of this kingdom have been among the highest achievements of mankind is really never been anything like him. The British Empire laid the foundations of law, liberty, free speech, and individual rights virtually everywhere.
The Union Jack has ever flown, including a place called America. You know that place very well, don't you? His Majesty spoke eloquently about the bond which inspired Sir Winston Churchill, and the bust is in the Oval Office right now, the beautiful bust of Winston Churchill to coin the phrase special relationship. But seen from American eyes, the word special does not begin to do it justice.
We're joined by history and faith, by love and language, and by transcendent lives of culture, tradition, ancestry, and destiny. We like two notes in one court or two verses of the same hall, each beautiful, on its own, but really meant to be played together. The bond of kinship and identity between America and the United Kingdom is priceless and eternal. It's irreplaceable and unbreakable, and we are, as a country, as you know, doing unbelievably well.
We had a very sick country one year ago, and today I believe with the hottest country anywhere in the world. In fact, nobody's even questioning it, but we owe so much of that to you and the footing that you gave us when we started. Together we've done more good for humanity than any two countries in all of history. Together we must defend the exceptional heritage that makes us who we are, and we must continue to stand for the values and the people of the English-speaking world, and we do indeed stand for that.
On behalf of all Americans, I offer a toast to one of the great friendships, to two great countries, and to his majesty, King Charles III, a very, very special man, and also a very, very special queen. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much.
It's great honor to be with you. We'll see a brief toast now from President Trump and King Charles of the conclusion of these remarks, which we did not expect to be able to bring to you live, tributes from the leaders' heads of state of both nations to each other and to each other's people, the President praising the British for their historical contributions to the world, the English-speaking world, including praising British authors from Dickens to Tolkien, the President slipping a little bit of his traditional presidential stump speech in there, talking about the United States as the hottest country anywhere in the world, but giving a tip of his hat to the British at the start. I think we'll dip out of this now and pick up where we left off, back on this side of the Atlantic, although we'll have much more coverage on the President's trip later in the hour. I want to bring back in NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chun to pick up where we left off on the economy and on the markets today.
Brian, we were talking about the Fed cutting rates today. Actually, these rate cuts are done when there are signs of trouble in the economy. What more can you tell us about today's announcement? Yeah, well, I mean, the signs of trouble were coming from the labor market.
That's where the Federal Reserve has seen a slowing over the last few months. You'll recall that in the beginning of this year, we were adding something closer to 100,000 jobs every single month. That pace slowed as we got to the summer, and that is the reason why the Federal Reserve decided to cut interest rates today by a quarter of a percentage point. I want to point out that that is the first interest rate cut that we've seen from the central bank since the end of last year, and it also comes as there are these concerns about inflation going up as a result of the tariffs, which are making prices higher because the importing companies that bring in goods from abroad are now having to pay a lot more to do that.
Now, the stock market, as you can see in the board ahead of you, moving marginally to Dow Jones ending the day up over half a percent, nothing crazy notable in that movement, but nonetheless, this is what could be the beginning of a cycle of rate cuts from the Federal Reserve as they did message. There's the possibility of one or two more interest rate cuts before the end of 2025, which for people that are looking at the housing market in terms of mortgage rates, they will have already noticed the 30-year falling by about a percent since the beginning of this year. Again, nothing too monumental. We should not expect to see 3%, 30-year mortgage rates again, anytime soon.
But again, marginally, this is having the impact of bringing some of those borrowing costs down Garrett. Aaron, just beginning his service on the board today, dissenting in this decision, and obviously he never resigned from his White House job. What do we make of what was essentially a protest vote here amid all these concerns about the Fed's independence? Yeah.
I mean, it's a pretty remarkable situation, an unprecedented one, where you have someone who is a sitting governor at the Federal Reserve that is still holding on technically to his role as a top economic advisor to the president. He's essentially taking a leave from that role. But again, what is interesting here is that not only is he holding on to that role, but he's also dissenting against the central bank's other members. He was the only one to vote against the action today instead of a quarter percentage point of an interest rate cut.
He was advocating for half a percentage point cut. And even when you look at the range of forecasts, which these Federal Reserve members published as part of their announcement today, there was one member of the board. That's not technically stated who, but one member who saw 1.5% in cuts through the end of this year, that is likely Stephen Myron. So again, this is someone who we're going to be watching very closely, given his ties to the president, although it is kind of a sobering reminder of the fact that this is not a singular person who gets to vote on what the interest rates are.
It is a board of people, and the committee does still have a way over what the Fed does, which again, could maybe water down or dilute his influence on the board. Everyone president in a day covering this economy, Brian Chung, thank you for your expertise. We're going to turn out a Capitol Hill where President Trump's former CDC director, Susan Menares, delivered some explosive testimony before Congress, speaking out for the first time since she was ousted after just 27 days on the job after clashing with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
on the issue of vaccines. Kennedy recently testified that Menares was lying about what led up to her firing, and today Menares responded. And a kid will tell the head of the CDC that if she refused to sign off on your changes to the childhood vaccine schedule that she had to resign. No, I told her that she had to resign because I asked her, are you a trustworthy person?
And she said, no, if you asked me, he didn't ask me, he told me he could not trust me. He told me he could not trust me because I had shared information related to our conversation beyond his staff. I told him, if you cannot trust me, then you can fire me. Menares also detailing a dramatic confrontation last month with Secretary Kennedy that led to her ouster, telling members of the Senate Health Committee that he instructed her to approve changes to the childhood vaccine schedule without scientific evidence and that she refused.
He said that the childhood vaccine schedule would be changing starting in September, and I needed to be on board with it. Did he ever suggest that the president was that he was speaking for the president? In that morning meeting, he did say that he had spoken to the president. He spoke to the president every day about changing the childhood vaccine schedule.
We got into an exchange where I had suggested that I would be open to changing childhood vaccine schedules if the evidence or science were supportive, and he responded that there was no science or evidence associated with the childhood vaccine schedule. And he elaborated that CDC had never collected the science or the data to make it available related to the safety and evidence. To be clear, he said there was not science or data, but that you still expected you to change the schedule. Correct.
Warren said Kennedy was upset and animated in that meeting, and that he then took aim at the entire CDC. He called in that context CDC the most corrupt federal agency in the world, emphasized that CDC employees were horrible people. He had said that he said that CDC employees were killing children, and they don't care. He said that CDC employees were bought by the pharmaceutical industry.
He said CDC forced people to wear masks and social distance, like a dictatorship. And the one I think that hurt me the most was a particularly vivid phrase he said during the COVID outbreak. CDC told hospitals to turn away sick COVID patients until they had blue lips before allowing them to get treatment. And it is fair to say in your view that those statements are not true.
Those statements are not true. I mean, now on Capitol Hill's NBC's Julie Serkin, and also with me as medical reporter Erica Edwards, Julie, we heard plenty of recounting of that meeting between Menaras and Kennedy. What else did the senators focus on today? Well, it wasn't just Menaras that was in the hot seat.
It was also the former chief medical officer who said she left when Menaras was ousted, Deborah Owry. And she had similar comments to make as Menaras. She told senators, by the way, at their personal risk as Senator Cassidy pointed out because of the heightened moment that we are in with political violence, with what happened at the CDC HQ in Atlanta, that is still so raw from any CDC employees, current and former. But they came to testify before the Senate, Republican led, about their experience.
Because in Menaras' words, she's scared. It doesn't want to give up her integrity. She said she worked her whole life for this title, for this job. But she left, of course, she was ousted.
But in her words, she told RFK Jr., the HHS secretary, that she is not just going to blindly go along with everything he wants her to without any science behind it. Of course, contradicting what RFK Jr. told the Senate just a couple of days ago. But Garrett, both her and Owry were adamant.
They said that RFK Jr. does not follow science when it comes to vaccinating children. And this is relevant. Why?
Because tomorrow, the CDC advisory panel, filled with people that RFK Jr. himself appointed, put on a panel when he ousted others that were on there a couple of months ago, they're meeting to discuss that very schedule change, potentially changing according to some reports. The hepatitis B vaccine, when it's given to children, now recommended for babies. But according to reports, they could change that for a child four years of age.
And Cassidy himself, at the end of this hearing, Garrett took a moment to explain why this vaccine is so important for babies. He's a doctor by trade. And I thought that was really notable. We're going to talk more about that coming up a little bit.
I want to talk a little bit about the politics of all this too, Julie. The most interesting person on the lawmaker side of the hearing is Bill Cassidy, the chairman of that committee, the doctor himself. He's defended vaccines and sort of got rolled by RFK Jr., I think, by Secretary Kennedy early on in this process of confirmation. He's been trying to put pressure on HHS, but he's also in cycle.
What more can we expect to see from him going forward? That's a great point. And I think Cassidy today maybe decided what direction this political future is heading in because he, by far, out of every single Republican on that panel, defended what Susan Menares was telling him, defended the fact that she reached out to him. There was some criticism from Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, Senator Ashley Moody of Florida, people who are allies of the president.
We know Cassidy is not. Cassidy defended Menares. He said this is the purpose of our oversight of this panel. She's supposed to reach out to me.
We were supposed to have what he called radical transparency. I thought that was a really notable way of closing this hearing. He said, as the president said, his mandate was anything less than radical transparency, betrays that very promise that the president made. But I think when you look at Cassidy, you're right.
He did get rolled. He voted to confirm RFK Jr., he sat, of course, before his committee. Cassidy, knowing that RFK Jr. was a vaccine skeptic, disagreeing with many of his views.
During COVID, I remember he was one of the top Republicans walking around with a mask, advocating for vaccine news, totally on different pages with what the Trump administration wants the direction of helping this country to take, and we saw that very clearly play out in this committee hearing today. Erica Julie mentioned the vaccine advisory panel that's set to meet tomorrow. This is not a group that normally gets a lot of attention, but clearly they're going to tomorrow. Will their recommendations be the clearest indication yet of the direction that Secretary Kennedy wants to move public health?
No question. As Julie said, this is a vaccine advisory panel handpicked by Secretary Kennedy. They're going to address vaccines that the Secretary has targeted for years, including the ones that have been used safely and effectively for decades. And now because there's no longer a permanent CDC director, I expect that Kennedy will be the one to sign off on his panel's recommendation.
And what is the practical potential fallout here, the uncertainty that might be generated out of this meeting, the data shows that childhood vaccination rates have already been followed. Should we expect that trend to continue almost no matter what this panel says tomorrow? Yeah. So NBC News just wrapped up a big investigation on the declining vaccination rates nationwide more than a quarter of U.S.
counties have seen declines in recent years. But there's something bigger looming with this week's meetings that Julie alluded to. And that's that newborns get a hepatitis B shot for 30 years. It's been one of the most significant reasons that falling hepatitis B infections offer falling hepatitis B infections in kids.
One of the biggest ways that children get those infections are from mothers who don't know that they themselves have been infected. There's no cure for hepatitis B. There is only prevention. Garrett.
Erica, thank you. I want to go back to Julie, because we're also watching another big story on Capitol Hill right now, which is is it so often is on that beat, can they keep the government funded and the lights on? Where do things stand right now? You know, I think all the times that we go through this, this is probably the moment where I feel like we might shut down the most.
And yet there's not a lot of panic up here. I don't know. Maybe it's because there's just so much going on. But here's the deal, Garrett.
The government will shut down at the end of this month. Of course, we're almost there if you're looking at your calendar, unless they're able to pass both Democrats and Republicans, because that's the way the math maths around here, a clean continuing resolution to fund the government. Republicans put out a plan. We want to fund the government for just seven weeks.
That's what we're talking about here, which means, yes, we're going to be talking about this again in November, if that's what they managed to do. But here's the problem, Democrats say it's not clean. Take a listen to Leader Schumer. Republicans have been calling their bill a clean CR, but clean is the wrong word.
It's a partisan bill. It's had no input from Democrats. And most importantly, because it's had no input from Democrats, it's a status quo bill. Democrats don't want to shut down, but Republicans cannot shut Democrats out of the process and pretend like the last nine months have been business as usual.
There's nothing business as usual about kicking 16 million people off health care. All right. So, Garrett, when we talk about a clean, continuing resolution, it essentially means we're extending status quo spending levels for a couple of weeks in this case. It's not totally clean because in light of all the political violence, a security situation and Speaker Johnson put an additional funding in there to protect members, to give them more security.
That's something members on both sides of the aisle would welcome with open arms. The real hang up here on the Democratic side of the aisle is the fact that those ACA subsidies, essentially critical health care tax subsidies that were passed as part of Obamacare, that Republicans got it as part of their one big, beautiful bill earlier this summer. Those expire at the end of the year. You might wonder why Democrats won't just let Republicans let them expire, essentially, and try to play that messaging battle with the president, and we know they've lost it before.
We also know, interestingly, Schumer got a lot of flack a couple of months ago when he voted to fund the government, essentially voting for the partisan Republican proposal at that time, because he said it would be too dangerous to shut down the government and allow Trump to have free rein. I don't know how Schumer wins this messaging battle, but this is certainly a ground that they're dug in on. Well, it's clear he wanted the Democratic base wanted Schumer to fight, and he's going to give him a fight now, but nobody knows how it's going to end. Julie Serkin, thank you for that reporting.
We're going to talk a little bit more about that coming up. But as we mentioned, today's hearing with fired CDC director, Dr. Susan Menares and former CDC chief medical officer, Dr. Deborah Ory, comes just one day before Secretary Kennedy's revamped and much scrutinized vaccine advisory panel is set to meet.
Both Menares and Ory voiced concerns about the recommendations that may come from that panel during their testimony, while Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, who, of course, chairs that committee, went even further in comments to reporters after the hearing. If the vaccine advisory panel makes recommendations to change the childhood vaccine schedule, should the American people have confidence in that decision? No, because this data clearly shows that when you give the mother an option, it's not a mandate. You give the mother the option.
And if she has that option, she can elect to have her child vaccinated. And we've shown that as I quoted the data, I mean, we have decreased from 20,000 kids a year getting hepatitis B to like 20 a year. That's exponential decline. Cassidy, who again is a medical doctor, gave a full throat of defense of vaccines during today's hearing, specifically that hepatitis B vaccine using RFK's own tagline to underscore its importance.
Fewer than 20 babies per year get hepatitis B from their mother. That is an accomplishment to make America healthy again. And we should stand up and salute the people that made that decision. Because there's people who would otherwise be dead if those mothers were not given that option to have their child vaccinated.
And joining me now is Dr. Dimitri Deskelakis, one of the several top CDC officials who resigned in protest last month following Dr. Menara's firing doc. I hope I'm pronouncing your name correctly.
I apologize if I'm not, but I want to start with your reaction to seeing your former colleagues in their testimony before Congress today. So first you've pronounced it great. So thank you. And I think that really looking at Dr.
Harry and Dr. Menara's, and I think that they did a really great job expressing what's happening within the CDC, which is that the scientific process has been compromised. Science isn't ruling decisions, it's not ruling the process. And if you can't trust the data that underpins a recommendation, you can't trust a recommendation.
What is the mood within the agency? I mean, we heard from Dr. Menara is talking about all these negative things that Secretary Kennedy was saying about the CDC and agency under his direction. I mean, I think it's fair to say that the mood there is dark.
I think having a leader who is really targeting your organization to discredit it, to make the science that underpins all of the work that you do be suspect, it's not what public health should be dealt with, it's not how it should be treated. And these folks who work at CDC are really amazing scientists and most importantly, public servants 24 hours a day, seven days a week, what they care about is maintaining the health of people in the US and the globe. So hearing someone saying that they're killing children, hearing someone saying that they're horrible people, take a mirror and look at that and say, listen, like someone who's telling you that you can't trust your doctor and you can't trust the people that are working for you to make sure that you're healthy, you have to question if you should be listening to that person at all. Well, and to that point, I mean, you heard that from Senator Kennedy, or excuse me, Senator Cassidy, very much making that point saying that you won't be able to trust the recommendations that come out of this committee tomorrow.
Do you agree with that, Reed? Yeah, I mean, I think we have to watch that committee really carefully tomorrow. I'll tell you that the early signals, I've already looked at the data that they're starting to post for the meeting. And it seems as if it's fixated on risk and not anything about benefit for how these vaccines work.
And so I'm worried that they're going to really be focusing on only downsides and not even downsides that have strong or vetted data, but downsides that serve the purpose of budging the children's vaccine schedule. Well, I feel like we should back up a little bit for people. Have you heard Director Menares testifying today that Secretary Kennedy claimed there's no scientific data behind the childhood vaccination schedule? Talk to us a little bit about how those recommendations for the schedule actually are reached.
Yeah. So it is a very, very rigorous process. The way that it's done is that a question of new vaccine, something is considered CDC scientists pull all the data, they go through a very rigorous process to make sure that the data is of the highest quality, that there's no bias, they then package it, then they have more conversations within their work groups to come up with an evidence to recommendation framework where it really is something that you present to the folks at the meeting to go through everything very system, like system, like systematically, like, is this a real public health problem? Is it implementable?
What is a risk benefit ratio? And they do that presented to people who in the past have been vaccine experts and then come up with recommendations to the director. This is not what's happening now. Instead of having a months-long process to review data in a very methodologically sound way, there is an agenda item that the secretary says, we're going to have to do the next month.
All of a sudden, the scientists have to scurry to put things together. They have to be responsive to the ACIP members who really have, I think, different strategies and different goals and making sure that the health of children is maintained. And so the process has broken down. And so what usually happens is order and review what's happening instead is kind of chaos.
It's interesting to hear you describe that. I mean, my day job as a White House correspondent, I see the different ways in which this administration is sort of upending or removing process across different elements of the way the government functions. They're not as a general rule interested in kind of the way things are traditionally done to reach some of these conclusions. The last time you were on this program, you said that Americans should look to their own doctors, their pharmacists, pediatricians, for guidelines around the vaccines in the wake of all this turmoil.
But if everybody's talking to just their own pediatrician about this, do you worry that that increases the likelihood of kind of health care disparities, sort of information deserts around the country where the information might not be as good? It sort of turns everything into a free-for-all basically. I am worried about that. I think the reason that CDC is so important is it creates a unified set of recommendations that pediatricians and other physicians are able to follow.
In a universe where you can't trust the CDC recommendations, those pediatricians really need to look at their professional organizations like the American Academy of Pediatricians, like to just make sure that they're getting the best data and the best guidance. So I am worried about it. And that's why there's an existential risk to public health, which is an existential risk to the health of Americans. Dr.
Daskalakis, we have to leave it there. I have so many questions about how to restore that trust. But if we could solve it in an hour, we'd both probably have different jobs. Thank you for being with us and bringing us your expertise.
Thank you. And after the break, back on the hot seat, the takeaways from Cash Patel's second day of congressional testimony as the FBI director faces scrutiny over his handling of the Epstein files and the investigation into Charlie Kirk's assassination. The panel is next, unmute the press now. And subscribe for more.
As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop, a new podcast from NBC News with me, your host, Jasmine Vesugian. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and informative, bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world on the front page of the Zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News.
Listen daily on Spotify. All right, welcome back, FBI director Cash Patel was back on Capitol Hill today, facing tough questions once again, this time from Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, one day after his heated testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, with many focusing on the issues of the Epstein files. Why are you hiding pedophiles? Why are you shielding pedophiles?
Why are you protecting pedophiles? That is maybe the most offensive thing you could say to me, given the numbers. Director, it sounds like you don't want to tell us. Did you tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump's name was in the Epstein files?
Why don't you try serving your constituency by focusing on reducing violent crime in this country and the number of pedophiles that are legally, corporate, and sanctuary cities in California? I'll work with you on that, do you want to work with us on that? Are these women credible? It's a yes or no answer.
I have answered the question. Well, what is he telling you? I'm the only FBI director that has welcomed new information in this case. While all that was going on, our colleagues at NBC News, being told by a source that the Trump administration is, in fact, planning actions by the end of this month against certain liberal organizations that it deems to have contributed to political unrest and violence against the right.
It comes as the White House has zeroed in on democratic groups, blaming them for Charlie Kirk's assassination, even as authorities have not definitively stated what they believe to be the killer's motive. Joining me now is USA Today White House correspondent Francesca Chambers, democratic strategist and former senior advisor to President Biden, John McCarthy, and former Trump White House communications director Michael Dubby. So Mike, after two days of testimony here on Capitol Hill, how is Cash Patel doing? Does he maintain the confidence of this president right now?
I think, well, part of maintaining the confidence of this president is, I think, giving as good as you got. Right. That's right. Absolutely is doing that.
I was struck when we talk about decorum on Capitol Hill, I was kind of struck watching the back and forth that both the director of the FBI and the congressional members were making very inflammatory remarks to each other. I don't know what we as the American people get when they decide to kind of go into this schoolhouse recess type of gotcha games. But it, you know, if it plays well on TV, I guess that's the ultimate goal. Well, and Cash Patel about former Capitol Hill staffer, by the way, makes the dynamic all the more interesting.
Yeah. Yeah. For Jessica, I mean, so many people when they go to testify from the Trump administration understand they are speaking to an audience of one. Cash Patel, I think, clearly did today, although the president was pretty tied up in the UK.
What do you make of his appeal to the president after what I think even, you know, other people in the Trump administration were saying was kind of a rocky couple of days last week after the Kirk assassination. Yeah. I think to your point, that's one of the most combative, contentious hearings, two-day hearings that, you know, we've seen in maybe, yeah, very, very long time. But I think as Mike knows better than anybody else, that officials in the president, I mean, they are performing for the president of the United States, and he likes to see that fight.
He likes to see that kind of back and forth. What other administrations might see is maybe not something they want to see on Capitol Hill. I can't imagine that that's something that John wanted to see other people doing in the Biden administration. It's different for the Trump administration.
I mean, that is the kind of thing that the president wants to see his people doing, is fighting for what he sees as his agenda. And the president said earlier this week, when he was leaving for the United Kingdom, that he still has confidence in Cash Patel as well as the Attorney General, Pam Bondi. John, I thought it was interesting. You know, I always love it.
We get a house in a Senate hearing like this back to back, and you see the different strategies. On the Senate side, there was a lot more talk about what Patel has done inside the FBI on the House side Democrats were pursuing a strategy of going after him about the Epstein file specifically. Do you think that was a coordinated strategy among Democrats, and what do you think was sort of a more effective approach to dealing with an FBI director who they clearly don't trust? Yeah, well, I don't think anybody gets any awards for good behavior out of this.
Clearly not. No, so let's start there. But I will say, you know, I'm a former House staffer, and most of these hearings are usually pretty sleepy. These are not usually exciting things.
So we're calling it combative, but really at the end of the day, this was pretty bizarre. I mean, at the end of the day, the director works for the American people. And yes, he was on TV today auditioning to keep his job in the kind of great game show that is this administration at the moment. But really what he needed to be doing was reassuring the American people that the office that is designed to protect them and look out for them is actually doing that.
And I don't think he did that today. And I think that that's going to be a problem. So I'm going to counter that because I, and in both the testimony in front of the Senate and in the House today, he went through very specific numbers of changes that we've had murder rates down, firearms off the street. He actually went through all of these numbers that the Democrats never countered.
They never said, well, that's not true. And it really was lost on me that if everything that Cash Patel put out there was true today and no one said it wasn't, this has been one of the most effective FBI directors that we've had in terms of pulling down criminal behavior. And I also think there's been a lot of good reporting about the way in which he's shifting the focus of the FBI away from things like counterterrorism and more towards that kind of crime focus. So it'll be interesting to see how that pans out over time.
I want to talk about the other top official at the DOJ, though, Pam Bondi, Francesca. She's gotten herself in some hot water for her comments about going after hate speech, which is not something you typically hear from Republicans really anywhere. What do you make of the manner in which the administration seems to be trying to target what they see as violent speech or hateful speech and the very thin first amendment line that they're potentially walking there? Well, and they're getting some pushback now from Democrats, including former President Barack Obama, who has talked about how he thinks that some of the rhetoric coming out of the White House and the rhetoric heated right now that this is an opportunity to bring people together.
That you were going to see Republicans in light of everything that we've seen over the past week, I think that you're going to see a very aggressive and forceful push coming not just from the Department of Justice, but also from the White House around some of these issues. I mean, they're obviously very, very upset in light of Charlie Kirk's murder. Mike, the entirety of the presidential campaign that I was out covering, I was hearing from Republicans who were against cancel culture and censorship and anybody being told what to do about free speech, these comments from Bond, he got a backlash from the right as well. You're in a very unusual position right now.
Well, and I was going to add to what Francesco was saying, it's a conservative radio host who's saying, well, wait a second here. We talked about hate speech. Generally it was a speech against conservatives on campus was to shut them down. We talk about hate speech.
I do think that there is a very thin line in the way that you describe this. Freedom of speech needs to be protected here. But we also, when it crosses into violence, we need to take a position. I think the Attorney General was maybe not as clear as she should have been that there is that difference from hate speech versus violent, inciting violent speech, and there's a difference there.
And hopefully that's what the administration is focused on. John, how are progressive groups preparing for the possibility here that they might be investigated for speech, for donations? I mean, the White House is clearly looking to find a way to turn this moment into some kind of action. And I'm not suggesting that in a nefarious way, but they do want to go out and find somebody to investigate.
What does the left do? I mean, we're seeing this across the political spectrum at the moment. It's a similar argument that people are using about redistricting. And the honest part is I don't know how this makes anything better.
This tit-for-tat culture that's taken over our politics is actually hurting both the left and the right in the eyes of the American people. So Mike and I both had the great honor of being able to serve a president. I don't necessarily agree with your politics, but I respect your service. And I think that that's where most voters actually are.
So if the right is going to constantly attack the left once they're in power and then the left gets back in and does that exact thing, it's not going to get better. And one of the most alarming things in that vein is if you hear from young people right now around the country, they're not looking at public service, they're not looking at journalism, they're not looking at running for elected office because of just how horrible this process is getting. So unless we find a way to change the rhetoric, this is not going to get sooner any better by jumping into kind of frivolous lawsuits. And I will say we've seen a pretty broad spectrum condemnation of that kind of rhetoric from politicians across the spectrum.
I want to play for a moment, President Obama, who was asked about this issue last night, lets us know the former president. When I hear not just our current president, but his aides, who have a history of calling political opponents, vermin, enemies, who need to be targeted, that speaks to a broader problem that we have right now. Michael, I'll let you pick that up here. What do you make of the former president's comments here?
And I'm just going to bear with John said, I think when you've got Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of this. So we do need to, we do need to take a step back. Violent rhetoric has caused destruction last week with Charlie Kirk that is a murder, basically an assassination. We all need to recognize that and take a step back.
The president, President Barack Obama can say whatever he wants, but he's got to look at both sides and it's driving me nuts that both President Trump and Obama are trying to blame the other side. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to go on that long, but that's driving me crazy. No, I'll be covering Charlie Kirk's funeral Sunday, the president will be speaking at an enormous opportunity there to be very curious to see how it takes that. Folks, we got to wrap it up here in a little bit now, we're going to take our viewers to some breaking news out of Pennsylvania, where state authorities say five police officers have been shot, three of them apparently in grave condition, again, this is all breaking news, just coming in now, I want to bring in NBC News, national law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winter, who's been monitoring this out of York County, Tom, what do we know?
Garrett, still trying to get a lot of details here on what this situation is and how this all started, what we're told is that in York County, about two and a half hours north of you in Washington, D.C., apparently five police officers were shot earlier this afternoon in the course of serving a warrant, a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the suspect, we're not sure what that warrant is about, I'm continuing to check my notes here, as I'm talking to you, the Northern York Regional Police were where four of the officers were shot, three are in grave condition, one is expected to survive in serious condition, and then a York sheriff's deputy was also injured in the course of this in serious condition as well. Obviously, as you can imagine, anytime you have five police officers shot the scene of this, it's very difficult for police, it's in a more rural part of Pennsylvania, so right now state authorities are on their way there to hopefully get some more information to help out with this situation. Obviously, the good news is that this individual who is apparently responsible for it is deceased, so that means that there'll be no further injuries, but the information that we're getting out of York County, Pennsylvania this afternoon is not good, this is preliminary information, it is obviously subject to change, and we're waiting on more from Pennsylvania officials, but obviously a difficult incident. I know that it's gotten some pick up online that the Mexican consulate tweeted that they were monitoring the situation, people wondering of what the nexus might be there, one of our assignment editors here was able to speak with the Mexican consulate, and they just said, look, anytime anything happens in our Philadelphia area, we like to let people know, we like to put it out there in our language, but we're not suggesting that there's any sort of nexus to Mexico or anything like that, it's just more of a point of awareness, I want to clarify that because obviously it's gotten some interest on the internet, so we'll continue to follow this Garrett, still looking for more information, I'm presumably get a briefing from the Pennsylvania State Police and authorities there in York County, but to recap, four officers from the North York Regional Police have been shot, three are in grave condition, one expected to survive in serious condition and the sheriff's deputy also shot as well, we'll get, as we get more details on what the warrant was about and who this individual is, obviously we'll bring that to you as soon as we get it.
All right, Tom Winter monitoring that for us from New York, Tom, thank you, we're going to continue to cover that breaking news throughout the evening as we work to get a reporter there as well. And as we mentioned, it has been a very busy day on Capitol Hill, I want to pick back up with Republican Congressman from North Carolina, Greg Murphy, Congressman, thanks for being with us. Thanks for rolling with the breaking news here a little bit. I want to start with that Senate hearing today with former CDC director, Susan Menares, where she said she was asked to approve every recommendation from this vaccine panel, which now includes these Kennedy appointed vaccine skeptics, regardless of the scientific evidence based on what we heard today from the Senate side.
Do you believe her, Oster, was justified? You know, I think Garrett, what we're seeing here is an employee got fired and a boss that fired her. And what the truth is really remains to be seen. What we're seeing, you know, and what RFK has brought, he's brought a healthy disruption to what's happened in medicine, long time overdue.
Whether I agree 100% with what RFK are saying is not, is almost irrelevant. What you do as an executive of a department is you have the ability to take care of fire, individuals you feel fit with the plan, and that's what he's done. Whether it was justified or not, I have to leave that up to him. Well, I mean, you're a medical doctor as well.
You know, I mean, the CDC, they're not making widgets. I mean, they're making recommendations that are important to the rest of the country. Would you be comfortable making the kind of decision that Dr. Menares described, setting aside the science to follow the, you know, decision of your boss?
Yeah, Garrett, but what you saw with the CDC during the last administration, you saw them telling that six months old needed to be COVID or vaccinated for COVID, which is absolutely and ridiculously medically not necessary. So you saw many things where you pushed a vaccine where it also defied really what was ever done for vaccines before. There was always for at-risk populations. So you've seen populations within the CDC that have defied scientific knowledge and scientific law as it were.
And so, yeah, no, I mean, you know, we all know where RFK is on vaccines. You just push, we've pushed back some on some of this stuff. But no, you can't say that the CDC is an almighty, pure institution or has been, there have been problems with the CDC as we saw during the last administration. I want to play something that Dr.
Ori, the former chief medical officer of the CDC said in that hearing today. Let's listen. I resigned because CDC leaders were reduced to rubber stamps, supporting policies not based in science and putting American lives at risk. Secretary Kennedy censored CDC science, politicized its processes, and stripped leaders of independence.
I wonder what you make of that and your ability to trust the recommendations that come out of this HHS. And to your point about what was going on in COVID, I wonder, do you have a theory here on how you can restore trust in the CDC to people who, especially the people who are sort of not wearing the jersey of the party in power at the moment? Sure. And you know, it wouldn't be wonderful to not wear any jersey when it's talking about science, when you're talking about health care.
This is what one of the real things, just as a physician of 35 years, really troubles me so, is how much politics has polluted medicine, be it in education or in science itself. You know, we saw during the CDC, the CDC had to backtrack its data talking about infant or childhood mortality, and there was three times less than what the CDC said. So you know, is this scientist really, you know, saying back what RFK said to her? I don't know, and you know, only honestly they know.
But I think what I do know is I want the American institution, the CDC, the NIH, all those institutions literally to regain the trust of America, and that only comes through non-political, healthy debate. And sadly, you know, I don't know how we get there with the media pushing so many political narratives. I don't know how we get there, but we have to get there through some type of vigorous debate. Well, there's certainly going to be a lot of scrutiny on that vaccine advisory panel tomorrow.
I can tell you that for sure. We can do a whole lot more on this, but I want to get you on the record on a couple of other topics. Obviously, government funding, we're coming up against the end of the current funding. House Republicans released the text of this seven-week continuing resolution.
Have you had an opportunity to review that? And are you prepared to vote for it? Yeah, it's pretty clean CR. There's some things in there.
I wish there was some stuff I'm trying. I've been a medical missionary in Haiti. I wish we had been able to extend some of the things that goes on with Haiti with some of the ways we help the economy there. I think we'll be able to get to it soon enough.
But I think we need to move. We have to fund the government. Good Lord. Look at what's happened in Western North Carolina with Hurricane relief, Hurricane Helene relief.
We need to get there. The opposition in the Senate needs to go away and understand that their duty is that to the country and not to a party. Well, Democrats have really centered in on now this Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire at the end of this year. They say that if these expire, people could see significant increases in their health care premiums.
They want to see that as part of this discussion. Should the government funding bill ultimately extend those subsidies? Well, I don't think we have time to do that by the time the government's such sound. I think we really need to look at what those subsidies did.
We had 30 million people who never claimed one medical claim get put good on the PTCs of premium tax credits. We know that those people had checks sent directly in their name to insurance companies. So there was a huge amount of fraud. We also saw the individuals up to $400,000 or more were receiving credits on their taxes for this.
So this is nonsense. We need to go back to see what this was. This was a COVID era supplementation. Why it needs to continue really needs to be debated.
I don't believe it needs to be a clean reauthorization. I think we need to get rid of the fraud. Some people may need to go to jail who enrolled some of these fraudulent people. But I think we need to do we need some time really to look at that and put thoughtful debate.
We're not going to be able to get that done by a time of CR needs to be done. And if you have constituents whose health care costs go up without it, what do you tell them? Yeah, we tell them that the health care costs are going to go up just for insurance premiums. You look at who the real people who gain the most through all of these subsidies from the ACA through the PTCs, their insurance company profits.
So don't tell me that the insurance companies are raising premiums because they want to continue coverage. They want to continue their profits, period. I want to ask you about one other part of this. You're a member of the House Administration Committee of Jurisdiction over Security on Capitol Hill.
What can you tell us about the discussions to provide lawmakers with some kind of enhanced security in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination? I mean, I covered Congress for almost a decade. This was always sort of part of the conversation, but it is really front of mind right now. Yeah, it is front of mind.
And you know, many members of Congress really receive honestly daily death threats. And you talk to the Sergeant Arms, you talk to the Capitol Police and the meteoric rise and the number of threats and member of Congress. We're out there. We're with the people.
You know, we're quote, easy targets. There needs to be something done to take away some of the insanity that's going on in the world, attacking representative using violence as a way of for voting. There are a lot of members concerned. A lot of members even talk about not coming back, not wanting to put them themselves or their families through this.
We need some rational safety security concerns for those members who are willing to serve the nation. I mean, is that a problem that can be solved with giving every member a detail and more money to protect their house? Or is that a bigger problem? Well, it's a problem from society.
It's a problem of media. It's social media that says violence is okay. Good Lord. You look at college campuses were up to a third, two thirds of say violence is okay for wanting when you want to go against someone of a differing opinion.
I don't know that there's enough money really to make a detail for every member of Congress. But we definitely have to do something for security for members. On the idea of going after, you know, the sort of the current political environment, we're talking a little bit about this with our panel. I don't know if you're able to listen in on any of that conversation.
The idea of the White House trying to investigate voices and voices on the left that they think are perhaps inciting violence or engaging in hate speech, a concept that yes, you well know many conservatives, you know, didn't particularly acknowledge until recent weeks. What do you make of that effort by the White House? And is it something you'd support to see some of these liberal groups investigate it? Well, I think anybody that incites violence, I don't care what political that's where the line is.
Yeah, I think you incite violence. You know, you had Maxine Waters going on telling people to be violent. Go out and confront people. You had Biden to tell put a bullseye on Trump.
These things incite violence. There's a difference between that, you know, and hate speech per se. But anytime you incite violence, I don't care what political party you belong to or what group you belong to, you cross the line when you incite violence. I don't care who you are.
I think that bears investigation. Alright, Congressman Greg Murphy, we were able to get a lot in and not a lot of time. Thank you for being with us and for sticking around. We'll be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now.
And there's more news ahead on NBC News Now. 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.