If it's Wednesday, the Trump campaign says it was briefed by top US Intelligence officials on specific ongoing threats from Iran to assassinate the former president in what the campaign says is an effort to sow chaos ahead of the election. Plus, Vice President Harris speaks out about her economic plan while campaigning in Pennsylvania as she looks to sharpen her message on what voters say is their top issue heading into November. And Israel calls up reserves and prepares to deploy more troops to its border with Lebanon, signaling a ground invasion could be imminent in what would mark a major escalation in the Israel Hezbollah conflict. Welcome to me, the press now.
I'm Kristen welker. With just 41 days to go until the election, both Vice President Harris and former President Donald Trump are on trail today, with Harris in Pennsylvania and Trump in North Carolina after his campaign revealed that top U.S. intelligence officials briefed the former president yesterday on what the campaign says are, quote, real and specific Iranian threats to assassinate Mr. Trump.
The office of the Director of National Intelligence confirmed that briefing, but declined to address any specifics. This morning, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told NBC Savannah Guthrie that U.S. is tracking threats from Iran against both former and current government officials. Look, this is something we've been tracking very intensely for a long time.
An ongoing threat fire on against a number of senior officials, including former government officials like President Trump and some people who are currently serving the administration. So something we take very, very seriously. We're looking at it very carefully. Information to share, but know that we're watching this very carefully.
Well, yesterday marks the only intelligence briefing the former president has received as the Republican nominee, according to the campaign. Until now, he has refused those briefings, they say, citing concerns he would be blamed for leaks. It comes after US Officials confirmed Iran was behind a hack of the Trump campaign last month. And earlier this summer, the Secret Service ramped up security around Trump after the Biden administration received intelligence on an alleged Iranian assassination plot.
Speaking in North Carolina this afternoon, the former president addressed the threat from Iran and criticized the Biden administration. If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country, in this case Iran, that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens. We're going to blow it to smithereens. You can't do that.
And there would be no more threats. There would be no more threats. But right now, we don't have that leadership or the necessary people, the necessary leaders. Now, we should note there's plenty we do not know about these threats, including the full extent of who else is under similar threats, whether this is a new threat and why Mr.
Trump received this briefing. Now, Mr. Trump also suggesting without evidence that Iran may be behind the two attempts on his life this summer, despite no indication that the suspects in either attempted assassination had ties to Iran. I want to bring in our team of reporters now.
Justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney joins me right here on set. Von Hilliard is covering the Trump campaigns in North Carolina and senior national security correspondent Courtney Kuby is at the Pentagon. Thanks to all of you for starting us off. Ken, let me start with with you.
Secretary Blinken made some headlines this morning by saying we've been tracking these threats for quite some time and there may be people currently serving in US Government who are being threatened. What more do we know about the nature of these threats against the former president? The US Intelligence community has been talking about this for some time. The Iranians are angry about the operation ordered by Donald Trump to kill Qasem Soleimani, a famous general from the Revolution Guard Corps.
And they have targeted several people involved in that operation. And their list of targets appears to have continually expanded. Some of those people are out of government and have security protections that they normally wouldn't have because of this threat stream. So it's a very serious set of threats.
Iran has a history of trying to pay people in the United States to carry out killings. They go through dissidents and they have targeted American officials. And the former president saying that he's now received an intelligence briefing. He says this is the first one that he has received.
Do you have any reporting, Ken, on why now? Why did he receive this briefing now? Not specifically, although we know that Trump and his aides complain that they weren't briefed when there was intelligence before the assassination attempts of this Iranian plot. And it's remarkable to says on the side that those two attempt assassination plots unfolded while he had enhanced protection.
The sea source knew there was Iranian plot to kill him. But so there was some anger about that in the Trump world. And there's generally a feeling when you officials that we talk to that they want to lean forward on this. Now there's no briefing and they want everybody to know everything.
It's not clear at all that these are new threats to Mr. Trump. There's an ongoing sort of generalized threat environment around him. Trump also, as we said, and I think a lot of people are wondering, well, there were two assassination attempts against his life.
It comes against this backdrop. Is there any link? Trump suggested that there may be. There's Absolutely no evidence of that, right?
No. And we reached out to sources again today after he said that, and we're told once again they can't rule it out. You can't prove a negative. But there's just no evidence at all linking Iran, both from the intelligence community side and the just foreign FBI side.
No evidence all linking Iran to this. And update us if you will on the suspect Ryan Roots charged in the second assassination attempt. What is the latest there? Of course, he was hiding effectively outside Mar A Lago.
Yeah. He had been staking out locations where he thought Mr. Trump would be for many weeks. It turns out based on his cell phone location data, these new charges, very significant, having been brought in a generation by just carries a lifetime in prison a little bit tension with the state of Florida because there's a weird provision in the special statute that says once they bring it, they can't share any information with state officials who may want to bring their own charges.
So that's an ongoing drama between the two organizations. Kent strike Senate Homeland Security Committee releasing its findings about the initial assassination attempt this summer when Trump was of course at that rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Just a remarkable report. Yeah.
That basically no one was in charge of making sure that that site was secure and that the Secret Service never instructed the local police to make sure that that roof was taken care of and therefore it wasn't. And then there were massive radio communication failures so that even when one Secret Service person knew two minutes before the shop for fire, there was a man, unidentified man, on the roof that was not communicated to Donald Trump's detail, they could have taken him off the stage. Obviously they didn't. So, and this isn't the last word, there are many other investigations to go, but massive failures, incredibly disturbing report.
All right, Ken, thanks for breaking all of that down with us. Let me go back to you in North Carolina. We know that the former president did talk about this Iranian threat. What more did he say today?
What are your key takeaways? He said that he was told by the office of the Director of National Intelligence that the threats were big. One of the campaign co managers for Donald Trump also this afternoon posting on social media that US Intelligence officials should do more to speak publicly about that. I ran poses to Donald Trump at least what was communicated to the former president, Republican nominee, yesterday in that meeting here in North Carolina at a campaign event just a short time ago, the former president was very explicit saying that if he becomes president that Iran will receive the message very clearly if there is any effort to attack him or any other former president or candidate for president that Iran, the country would be blown to.
In his word, smithereens. He repeated the word smithereens multiple times to say that he, this president, would not be intimidated by the threats that Iran poses. And he told the Daily Mail in August that he was not taking intelligence briefings. Talk a little bit about why he decided to take that unusual step.
And of course, we should say he now has had one. Our colleague Jake Traylor has been told by the campaign that Donald Trump will still not take intelligence briefings that are offered to candidates from the party. Historically, we have seen candidates take those intelligence briefings, but Donald Trump is chosen not to do so. And the reason that has been provided is that he does not want to be accused eventually of leaking any of the information.
I was talking to one individual familiar with those conversations that Donald Trump was a part of in which Trump was concerned that he would be accused by the Democrats or those intelligence community of using the assessments provided to him and passing along to the American public. Of course, during his presidency, the four years, there were often concerns about his revealing of otherwise classified information which he was able to reveal publicly while he was president at the time. And of course, the decision to take classified documents with Marlowe St. After leaving the White House and then according to the Special Counsel's office, revealing some of the contents of the information inside of those documents for the allegations outlined by the Special Counsel in their night and against Donald Trump choosing publicly to not take those intelligence briefings so as to avoid any such accusations.
And Vaughn, on another foreign policy matter, we should note that the former president's also weighing in on Ukrainian President Zelensky, who of course spoke at the UN Today. The two were expected to meet tomorrow. That meeting's no longer expected to happen. Talk a little bit about why.
Right. I was told by a campaign official earlier today that the decision to not meet with Zelenskyy was due in part to the actions of President Zelensky over the course of this week. On Sunday, in an interview with the New Yorker, he was critical of J.D. vance and J.D.
vance's suggestion that Ukraine may have to sacrifice some of its sovereign land as part of any peace deal with Russia. And then on Monday, Zelensky, he flew to Pennsylvania, a battleground state, and appeared at ammunition plant alongside Governor Joshua Shapiro. The campaign suggesting that he is a surrogate of the Harris campaign. And then we saw just here today, Donald Trump using the microphone at this campaign events in the most direct ways yet suggests that Ukraine is all but lost here at this point.
He saying that Ukraine, there's not enough money in the world to rebuild Ukraine, of course, which is a misrepresentation of the situation in Kyiv and other towns across Ukraine at this moment in time. But he said that Zelensky missed the opportunity to strike a deal two years ago. And he said that Zelensky is somebody who continues under the US Seeking US Financial assistance, tens of billions of dollars, but openly questioning here to this North Carolina crowd whether it's a good investment for Americans to continue to provide such aid. But as Donald Trump suggested, there are apparently no future for Ukraine to take out his land.
Yeah, just a fascinating development. One of the biggest flashpoints and dividing lines within the Republican Party. Von Hillier, thank you so much, Courtney. Kibi, let me go out to you.
We were just talking about the fact that Secretary Blinken indicated that there have been tracking threats for quite some time, tracking threats potentially against other US Officials. What did you make of that? What reporting do you have around that? So, as Ken said, these are threats that the US has been tracking for nearly five years now.
It goes back to January of 2020, when the US assassinated Qasem Soleimani. He was a popular Iranian general. He was known for leading the Iranian Quds Force. U.S.
officials said very forcefully that he was also responsible, directly responsible for the death of US Service members in Iraq and Syria. So he was someone who the US you know, claimed openly, claims to be a direct enemy. And you'll recall, recall that at the time, then President Donald Trump, after Isolami was killed at Baghdad airport in January 2020, President Trump came out, came out and said that he had ordered decisive defensive action to protect U.S. troops in the region from this man.
Now, of course, only a few days later, the Iranian military carried out a series of ballistic missile strikes attacking Al Assad Air Base, where there were US Troops, and Erbil in the north of Iraq, more than 100 U.S. troops suffered concussions and some traumatic brain injuries. No one was killed in those strikes. But just as a sense of the direct retaliation, it was even codenamed Operation Martyr Soleimani.
But that wasn't the end. That's simply not how Iran has historically operated. In cases like this, they play the long game. So ever since we have been hearing about US Officials, people, military leaders who are directly involved in that mission or in the planning or in the execution of it, Pentagon leaders, administration officials, those who are directly involved in that decision have been, there's been concerns that they have been, there could be threats against them by Iran.
And I have to say, Kristen, I don't see any, sorry, I don't get any sense from youth officials that those threats are going to go away anytime soon. Well, it's something obviously we'll continue to track very closely. I want to quickly play you, Andrea Mitchell had a chance to sit down with the vice president of Iran. I play a little bit of that and get your reaction.
On the other side. There are numerous American officials from the previous administration and this administration, military as well as diplomatic, who are under 24 hour guard because of, they say, threats of assassination from Iran through third parties. Well, we do not assassinate people, but the fact of the matter is they assassinated and revered Iranian general General Suleimani. General Suleimani.
But is that a reason to have threats to kill the generals involved? Well, actions have consequences, Courtney. Pretty ominous words there and frankly underscores all the reporting that you have. Yeah, so it's exactly what he's saying there.
He is saying that the US Assassinated this again, top military leader who's someone who was very popular in Iran, by the way, with the people, not just within the military establishment. He was seen as, as ruthless. He was seen as a shrewd and strategic military commander. So this was a huge, I mean, this was a huge world event when he was killed.
And you can see just from our colleague Andrea's interview there, Iran has not forgotten. They absolutely have not. In your reporting about their strategy, playing the long game. You could hear that in his remarks as well.
Courtney, qb, as always, thank you so much for bringing your great reporting to us. We appreciate it. And as we mentioned today, Vice President Harris's campaign in battleground Pennsylvania where she just wrapped up remarks focused on her economic vision for the country as she looks to chip away at Donald Trump's advantage on what voters say is their top issue. Harris telling the crowd she understands work still needs to be done.
Let's be clear for all these positive steps, the cost of living in America is still just too high. You know it and I know it. I intend to chart a new way forward and grow America's middle class. Donald Trump intends to take America backward to the failed policies of the past.
He has no intention to grow our middle class now. Our latest NBC News poll shows inflation and cost of living voters top concerns heading into November, while other economic issues rate within the top five. And voters give Trump the advantage on those issues by 8 and 9 points respectively. But that advantage is significantly less than when President Biden was still in the race.
When Trump led Biden by 22 points on dealing with the economy. Let's bring in NBC News White House correspondent Mike Mulley. And also with us for some analysis is NBC News chief political analyst Chuck Todd. Mike Mumbling set the stage for us here because the big question was would the vice president roll out any new policy specifics?
So did she? Chris, this is an interesting speech. I don't know, some wires got crossed in the rollout or what, because what she did do today was give what we might call a framing speech. She really tried to contrast herself with Donald Trump in terms of what is inspiring the policy decisions she will make, the kind of policy she will roll out, how she looks at the economy versus Donald Trump.
She talked about really being on the side of those who are mopping the floors and cleaning skyscraper rather than those who own it. It sounds a lot like a framing speech, frankly. President Biden gave earlier this year in Scranton where he talked about a philosophy of Park Avenue versus Main street, mar a Lago versus Scranton. And so what we didn't hear was anything in the form of new policy today.
I think it's clear what the Harris campaign is trying to do. They are trying to, as she did at the beginning of the speech, take credit for the economic successes that have happened in their view, at least under the Biden administration. She talked about through the last three years what we have done and then try to at least temperamentally or give a nod to being somewhat different than a conventional Democrat or at least a caricature of a Democrat that the Republicans would like to portray. She talked about being pragmatic throughout her speech as well.
But to the extent that this was billed as something of a policy speech, I don't think it hit that mark. So interesting, Mike, because we had all been given guidance that it was going to do exactly that to hit that mark. Chuck, let me go to you on this. We're get your comment one second.
But can we just get your gut reaction to this from a strategy perspective? Here we are six weeks from the election, Chuck. We had all been given guidance. This was going to be a speech focused on the economy.
We're going to hear more about our economic vision. And so yes, the assumption was there would be new policies. Is this smart strategy to not get specific or does she need to put some need on the bones here? Look, I understand the reticence about being too specific, about making it about her too much and giving the Trump campaign something tangible to go after.
At the same time, there are a couple things she's for that you Know, I'm surprised they're just not leaning into and making it, you know, something that she plans to make. Her signature issue, and that's the child care tax credit, whether you call it a home care tax credit, which, which I think is what eventually will be. But you've got, you know, we're going to get a new entitlement in this country in the next four years. This is something that we've heard elements in both parties be supportive of.
It seems to be the easiest place for her to hang her hat and do. And it is. It's been surprising to me that that item in particular, which I think is tangible to people, something that did get to them temporarily, isn't something she's making her North Star. It's a great point, Chuck, and we have heard some specifics, but again, I think there was a lot of eagerness to talk about things like the child tax credit.
Exactly as you're saying. Let's get to your column from this week. Let me read everyone a little bit of what you say this week. Quote, what the country is sour on is Biden's economy.
Biden's vice president Kamala Harris was not a popular figure, but many voters have seen Vice President Kamala Harris as a fresher candidate, including those who previously viewed Trump as a better steward of the economy. Is that, do you think, the way to explain essentially why Harris has seen some progress so far and could be solid? That's the question you're asking? Maybe I was too subtle.
I mean, I probably should put the words Biden in bold and italics. The point is, Biden's brand is. Is unpopular. Hard stop.
So one of the best explanations for Kamala Harris turnaround on her personal ratings on the economy is that she went from being Biden's vice president anything. Biden is unpopular. Biden nomics. Why do you think Donald Trump was out there going, joe is Kamala.
Kamala is Joe. Right? They know this. The polls say this Biden, the brand name is unpopular.
You put in front of the economy or you put in front of policy, you put in front of anything, it's not gonna be popular. So that's. This is the line she's gotta walk. Right?
And on one hand, I think that there are, hey, this is a healing economy. And I'm surprised they haven't leaned in on the idea that, you know, this is the third straight time that a Democratic president inherited a recessionary economy from a Republican president. There are ways that this could be framed better. The.
I do think for all the good things they've done on tone and tenor with their messaging, I do think they've totally whiffed here on their framing of the economy. Look, I think the Biden folks are worse at it. The Harris folks at least have a tone in tenor right on this. But I really think they keep whiffing here in the economy.
They're too afraid of it. They're afraid of the issue. That's what it comes across. They fear it so much, they try to, you know, play patty cake with it.
You know, with her saying the words pragmatic rather than saying, hey, we inherited a mess. It is so much better today and it isn't as good as it should be. And then like, you know, being a little forward, lenient. Let me follow up with you on that very point because the question I think everyone is asking is at some point, Chuck, does she need to really separate herself from Biden?
We have not seen her do that yet. We're just showing video of former President Bill Clinton. It makes me think of Al Gore running when he did in fact separate himself. Obviously, the issues were vastly different, but it was inexperienced example of someone running for office realizing or at least making the calculation back then that that was the better choice.
But we're not seeing that with Harris. Well, look, I don't know when the Harris campaign convinced the White House to do a massive foreign trip in October, but they'll be getting a raise. I do think, you know, normally those foreign, big foreign trips are sort of fun for world trips are after the election. I noticed this one could be in October.
It's exactly the way the Harris people would want it. Get the president out of the country. Right. Out of sight, out of mind.
We're going to find out whether she's going to need to. All right. The Trump campaign is heavily running this hit on dynamics where she says it right. I think if she starts taking on water, they should.
They should. I think the border is an interesting place to do it and I think would make the most sense to separate there. Yeah, no doubt that is one of the biggest pressure points for her. Chuck, as always, great to see you.
I know it's been a day. Thanks for taking time. Appreciate it. See you soon.
Bye. Bye. Silicon why this could be one of the biggest years ever for election reform. Plus more key issues on the ballot in November.
We're talking about those ballot measures. But first, we're live in Beirut as Lebanon braces for potential ground invasion from Israel after Hezbollah fires a missile aimed at Telugu for the first time. Stay with us. You're watching THE PRESS now.
Welcome back. The UN Security Council is set to meet later this evening to discuss the escalating tensions in Lebanon as Israel appears to be moving to an expansion of its conflict with Hezbollah. Earlier today, the IDF released this video of one of its leaders visiting troops along Israel's northern border. In the video, he tells soldiers to prepare for a possible ground operation in Lebanon.
It comes as Lebanese officials say Israeli airstrikes killed more than 50 people today, a day after the country reported more than 550 deaths. Israel, meanwhile, says it intercepted a missile fired from Lebanon toward Tel Aviv. This is video that appears to show that incident. It would be the first time Hezbollah had targeted Israel's economic hub.
NBC News international correspondent Matt Bradley joins me now from Beirut. So, Matt, let's talk about this. There's been a lot of discussion about a ground invasion. Does it now seem inevitable?
Where do things stand? I wouldn't say it seems inevitable, Christian, but I mean, the language that we've been hearing from the chief of staff of the Israeli military really makes it sound like they are girding for that very possibility in a way that almost looks as though there's no going back. I can't make predictions, and every time I do, Kristen, I end up with egg on my face. So I'm not gonna do that.
Now, we did hear the words possibly and potentially, but we also heard in those same comments that he was addressing his own rank and file, his own troops in northern Israel. He said, and he used this term, you know, boots on the ground. He said to these troops, put on your boots, you know, kind of lace up your shoes, put on your boots for these maneuvers. And he described everything about the upcoming operation, not in a tactical way, but he talked about how they will be going into and he used the word will be after he used the word perhaps and possibly earlier in his statements, saying they will be going into villages and towns that have been fortified by Hezbollah areas where they're going to be meeting really strenuous resistance.
And he said that they will be showing these Hezbollah fighters an example of a professional fighting force. So there is on some level both the preparation and it sounds almost like the will and the desire to go in and execute what could become a blistering operation clearly is a real possibility, that's for sure. And it comes to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken saying today to Savannah Guthrie that he is pushing for a temporary cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah. Do you have a sense of where those efforts stand?
I mean, we're talking about a ceasefire. We're talking about an American government that no longer has the same kind of traction on the Israeli government that it did maybe even a month ago, maybe even two months ago. This is, you know, a decoupling of two of the strongest allies that the world knows right now, the United States and Israel. We're no longer seeing them.
In fact, we had this on our own NBC News reporting on our website, that Israeli American officials no longer feel as though Jerusalem is listening to them. And so in the past, remember in the early days when I think I was here in Beirut speaking to you, Kristen, from here, when there are all of these indications that the Israelis are doing the same thing that it looks like they're about to do now, attack forcefully or even ruling the ground invasion. Back then, it was the Biden administration, this is getting nearly enough credit. It was the Biden administration that prevailed upon Netanyahu to step back from the brink and bring Israel away from what could become what still could become a terrifying region wide war.
It looks as though from our own reporting again that the Biden administration no longer has that kind of leverage. All right, well, Matt Bradley, thank you as always for your reporting. Please continue to stay safe. We really appreciate it.
Coming up next, President Zelensky warns world leaders that Russia is planning attacks on Ukraine's nuclear power plants and offers a stimming critique of the United Nations. You're watching the press now. Hey guys, Willie Geist here reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit down podcast. On this week's episode, I sit down with one of the biggest bands in the world, Mumford and Sons, as we get the boys together to talk about their new number one album, Prize Fighter and the evolution of that irresistible foot stomping sound.
You can get our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts. Welcome back. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke at the UN General assembly today, trying to rally Western allies in support of his country's efforts to defeat Russia after its provoked and illegal invasion. Speaking in English, Zelensky warned about the threat of Putin's war that it poses to the world, including the heightened risk of a nuclear disaster and the possibility that Russia expands its land grab beyond Ukraine.
If, God forbid, Russia causes a nuclear disaster at 1:1 of our nuclear power plants, radiation will not respect state borders and unfortunately, various nations could feel the devastating effects. Now every neighbor of Russia in Europe and Central Asia feels that the war could come to them as well. And just think what kind of losses that would mean for the world. Now, Zelensky also rejected China and Brazil's peace proposal and reiterated the need for a just peace for the Ukrainian people.
Joining me now is Bill Taylor, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and vice president for Russia and Europe at the US Institute of Peace. Ambassador, thank you for being here. Pleasure.
So we heard this impassioned speech from President Zelensky. We know he's going to be meeting with President Biden with Vice President Kamala Harris. What do you anticipate he's looking for in terms of deliverables from those meetings in order for his visit to be a success? He has what he calls a victory plan.
And part of that plan is a military. Part of that plan is economic. Part of the plan is diplomatic. On the military side, he does have a specific request and that is to be able to use U.S.
nATO, his own weapons. He can use any case, but he needs the permission, the authority from the United States to use our weapons deep into Russia. The Russians are attacking Ukraine from deep in Russia, from air bases and missile launch sites. And President Zelensky is going to be asking President Biden respectfully appreciates all the support, but he really wants the ability to defend himself against these deep strikes.
What do you anticipate the response will be? And it comes against the backdrop, the criticism of the US Strategy toward Ukraine is the Biden administration is giving Ukraine just enough ammunition, munitions, aid to stay in the war, but not necessarily enough to win. So Kristen, I think you're right. That had been the charge.
But in the last about three or four weeks, the message coming from administration has been different. It used to be your exaggerated we're with them as long as it takes. But now it's changed. Now it's we're with them until they prevail, until Ukraine's prevail.
That means to me when. And then your question is a good one. Will they get the authority? Will President Biden and the administration gives Zelensky the ability to shoot the there's been a debate with the administration, very intense debate.
I bet that they will get the authority to do that. But we will see over the next few days. We certainly will continue to track that. I want to ask you about some exclusive reporting by NBC News that senior Pentagon officials have recommended that Ukraine, the US Provide Ukraine with white phosphorus munitions for use on the battlefield.
The White House so far rejecting that idea several times. We should note that it's not illegal to use white phosphorus shells, but there are humanitarian concerns. How do you see this playing out and what are the implications, this is a difficult one. I remember I was in Vietnam and we use white phosphorus not to shoot at the enemy, but to illuminate the night, just to get light.
So we'll be able to see at night. Using white phosphorus does has the potential to cause damage and injury to civilians. This is a hard decision. I would imagine this will take some time before that.
Let me ask you about another development. It was anticipated that President Zelensky would meet with former President Trump's a Republican nominee. That meeting has now been canceled. According to one official, part of the reason was because of Zelensky's criticisms when he called J.D.
vance's positions on the war, quote, too radical. Is this a blow to Zelenskyy? How do you see the fact that they're no longer meeting? He wanted President Zelensky wanted to brief first President Biden on his equity plan, but then the two candidates who wanted to brief both sides, both Vice President Harris as well as Donald Trump.
And he put in that request. He responded to statements by the vice presidential candidate who has said in the past that he doesn't much care what happens in Ukraine. So that was something that undoubtedly bothered President Zelenskyy when he hears that. But he does want to make the case to former President Trump that this is an important piece.
They've been fighting for 944 days against the Russians. And President Zelensky wants to make that case to President Biden, Vice President Harris and Donald Trump. He's also getting some criticism for visiting Pennsylvania. Republicans accusing him basically of going to a battleground, putting his thumb on the scale.
Are you surprised that he decided to go to Pennsylvania or do you see this as part of his tactical trip to make the case for why the United States needs to be on board and stay on board. Now he wants to make that case, though, to keep the United States on board. And the placing land was where they're manufacturing artillery shells. And he's very short on artillery shells.
And he wants to really thank those workers in Pennsylvania for making those shells sending to Ukraine for their use. So that's the main thing is a message to the US People, US Workers, that you're supporting Ukraine and you're defending yourself. Okay, well, a very significant trip, significant speech that President Zelensky delivered today. Ambassador Gold, thank you so much for being here.
Thank you, Chris. We really appreciate it. After the break, mind the gap. We're digging into gender politics and the voters and issues that matter most.
The panel's next. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. We talk a lot about the gender gap heading into November's election, but its biggest impact may not be exactly how you think about it.
As my friend Chuck Ty writes in his new column, it's obvious at this point that by close to double digits, ditto with Harris. Among women, the question is how well each campaign does with its weaker gender. In 2016, for example, Trump won just 41% of women. But because Hillary Clinton won an equal 41% of men, she didn't gain enough of an edge to win there.
But in 2020, Biden did better among men than Trump did among women. And that wider gender gap gave him a pretty decent size win in the electoral college. So where do things stand right now? Well, our latest NBC News poll has Harris winning 40% of men, Trump winning 37% of women.
Join me now to break down all of these numbers. I'm fed as Crystal is a founder of the so what substack newsletter and YouTube channel. Actually at the end, former communications director for Vice President Harris and former Pennsylvania Republican congressman Charlie Dent. He is also a senior advisor at our Republican Legacy.
Thanks to all of you for being here. Chris, I wonder what you make of Chuck's analysis. Is that how you see it, that basically Harrison have to do needs to do better with men? Yeah.
It pains me to disagree with, to agree with shot. No, I think he's right. Yeah. Because I think what you have to remember we all need to remember in this election.
It's almost certainly going to be really close. I always remind people, yes, yo, I won one with Ranger plus Electro votes in 2020. But he wins Georgia by 11,700. He wins Arizona by 12,000.
He wins Wisconsin by 20,000. Right. So we're talking about small margins so little things matter. And as you were showing those numbers, you know what I was thinking of?
In his own ham handed way, Donald Trump is trying to appeal to women. Earlier this week, the speech I'll be your protector, that's him trying. You know that song this is me trying? Yeah, like that.
He's trying because someone has said you cannot lose women by 20 points. They've been a majority of the electorate since 1984. At the presidential level, there's a lot of water under that bridge with Trump and the female vote. So I don't know if some idea of language in him saying I'll be your women need to be protected and I'll be protected.
I'm not sure that's what you get there, but that's him trying to narrow that Gap, actually, of course, what makes this election so extraordinary? It's the first presidential election since Roe was overturned. So to Chris's point, Trump is trying to win over those women voters, but, boy, it's uphill in some instances. Yeah, they're clearly not buying it.
They're not falling for whatever tactics are, you know, and trying to pull the wool over their eyes. I mean, it's very clear that they've consistently had this assault. It's all out sort of what I'm characterizing as a war against women. I mean, everything from, you know, trying to argue for a national ban against abortion to the single cat ladies, you know, deserving less in American democracy.
And then they're actually silent on economic issues that affect women. If you're for women, why not talk about equal pay? Why not lean into what you're going to do about policies that support women and that support. That's why it's completely disingenuous and I think with the women of the country are not being fooled by it.
Well, Charlie, the economy wasn't focused today. You had an economic speech by Trump. He's really trying to make that his focus. He does better on the economy than Vice President Harris, so she's closing that gap.
But he still got a pretty significant lead. Harris also gave economic speech, didn't provide really new details, but laid out her vision for what she wants to do. Well, only economy Republicans have traditionally done reasonably well because a lot of small business people and voters think Republicans are for lighter taxes, lighter regulatory touch. That helps him.
But with Trump, though, there's an incoherence with his arguments. He's out there saying that I think he said in North Carolina, but he's saying things like, oh, foreign incumbent countries, you must manufacture in the US While he's proposing massive tariffs and opposing a deal in Pittsburgh. By the way, not by the multiple journal on this Nippon US Steel. That's actually going to undermine steel making in the United States.
And Harris is the same place, frankly, where Trump is on that. So Trump's message is incoherent on the economy. He's going to kill more manufacturing, manufacturing jobs than he is going to save with these tariffs because those tariffs are going to impact inputs, the things that American manufacturers need. It's fascinating to hear him talk about tariffs because it is one of his big policy proposals on the economy.
Obviously one that divides the Republican Party won't play a new Trump ad that he's running against Harris. Get everyone's reaction on the other side. Their Biden nomics led to the highest inflation in 40 years. Yet Kamala Harris is clueless.
We are very proud of Bidenomics. Bidenomics is working because this is arguably the single biggest challenge for the vice president to figure out how to navigate the extent to which she wants to embrace President Biden and part of what they accomplish together and the extent to which she's got to try to separate her. I think it's really hard. And I think Trump, that ad is about as good as I've seen it done.
He is not, honestly not a great messenger because he, to the conscious point, he just rambles all the time. So, like, there might be a good message in there, but it's hard to hear it. A good message. I was thinking of that today.
Joe Biden on the View saying, Kamala Harris was by my side taking to having a role in all the foreign and domestic issues that we dealt with. I was like, hey, Joe, thanks so much for helping. Like, that cut is not helpful because remember Joe B. Today, he did get a little bump when he said wasn't running again.
That always happens. They always remember you finally when you're leaving. But his approval in Gallup is 39%, the most recent gap. So he's still not a popular president.
You don't want to be linked to him like that as. Weigh in on this and ask it in this context. Mgage Action, one of the biggest Muslim voter turnout groups in the country, did come out today in support of the Harris Walls ticket. They write today, we're once again pledging to do all we can to ensure that Trump does not return to the White House.
This endorsement is not in agreement with Vice President Harris on all this issues, but rather an honest guidance to our voters regarding the difficult choice they confront at the ballot box. It's obviously not a ringing endorsement, but this is another issue where President Biden struggled mightily. Absolutely. I mean, you know, you.
This is. This is a good, positive sign for the vice president. I mean, you need pick up wherever you can get it. I mean, to Chris's point, this is gonna be a tight election.
Each endorsement matters. You don't. You can't afford to lose anyone, any one voter. And so, you know, for them to espouse some level of confidence in the vice president in terms of how she set a different tone from Biden on the issue of the war in Gaza, for example, is incredibly encouraging.
I think that's what the vice President has continued to do. You saw today during the econ speech where she. She took ownership of some of the pieces of bidenomics that actually work. Inflation's down now, unemployment's at a record low.
I mean, that's all very positive. But she has continued to sort of carve out her own voice on many of these issues and she's done it on war in Gaza. It's clearly working out. We're hearing from the 4Vi.
Charlie didn't let me read to a little bit of what Mike Pence wrote in the Wall Street Journal. He writes Republicans will win by embracing traditional conservative priorities. If the party abandons these positions, it will fail to motivate our voters. Worse, it will demoralize them, undermining Republicans chances of victories.
He's really talking about the House and Senate. What do you think the impact of his op ed is? And is that how Republicans are talking to see it? I don't know.
It'll have a big impact. I think he was right on some points and he was off on another one. He was right. I think he's right to criticize the tariffs, he's right to talk about more free market policies.
But he's also doubling down on the right to life issue, which is not winning issue for Republicans right now because you want to persuade my Pence of that. So I think part of what he said is correct, that the party needs to return to principles that have, that have allowed the party to survive for 170 years. Maga's principles are very weak and they've only been there now eight years. And so he's trying to get a counter narrative.
He's right on some things, but I think that abortion position is just unsuffic. I totally agree with the congressman. I think the problem is you disagrees with Mike Pence and most of what we agree on the base of the Republican Party, I mean, that's the issue. This is Donald Trump's party.
As much as Mike Pence does want to acknowledge it, they need to be left and they needed an alternative narrative and there just isn't one and nor is there an alternative narrator. Right. And there's just no other voice other than them. Great conversation, guys.
Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Chris, Ashley and Charlie, great stuff. Still to come, abortion and marijuana and so much more will highlight some of the key ballot initiatives that voters are set to decide this November with just 41 days to go.
You're watching the press now. Welcome back. As we've mentioned many times, abortion is a key issue in November's election with amendments to protect access to abortions on the ballot in 10 states. But there are several other ballot measures as well that we'll be watching on election night.
Voters in five states will be decided whether to raise the minimum wage. Voters in three states will be deciding whether to legalize marijuana. And voters in nine states as well as here in the District of Columbia, will be voting on how future elections are run. I'm joined now by Reed Wilson, founder and editor of Pluribus News, which covers state level public policy comprehensively.
Thanks for being here, Reed. Thanks. It's always great to see you. Let's start right there with abortion.
It's going to be on the ballot in 10 different states. Which state are you watching that have the biggest impact nationally? Well, if you take a look at that map that they showed earlier, the two states that are going to matter that really overlap is between the presidential battleground and abortion measures on the ballot are Arizona and Nevada. These are two states where republic in Arizona at least, the Republican legislature has just rolled back an antiquated abortion ban.
But the abortion rights measure would cut if abortion rights to make sure that people have access to it. Both of these measures are passing by wide margins according to the polls. And the whole goal of these ballot measures is really to prime voters into thinking about certain things, thinking about a larger election through a certain lens. If you have voters going into the polls thinking about say immigration, well, that's an issue to favors Republicans if they're thinking about abortion.
And in these two states they will be, that might favor Democrats because those issues tend to hue more towards what Vice President Harris is talking. And the big question is, will it have an impact on turnout? Basically, is what you were saying, is there any metric, any way we can know whether or not it might? So the one big academic study out of this came out of 2004 when a bunch of anti same sex marriage measures were on the ballot.
It's not clear that that did a lot for turnout. But what Democrats hope is that these kinds of measures will pull out the types of voters who are otherwise unlikely to show up at the polls. Primarily very young women who are overwhelmingly likely to vote for Vice President Harris if they show up at the polls in the first place. This gives them a let's talk about the minimum wage on the ballot in five states, I believe.
How motivating is this and what are you gonna be watching for here? So the minimum wage is surprisingly popular across party lines. People tend to vote for minimum wage increases regardless of their party affiliation. In fact, since 2000, there have been almost 30 minimum wage increases on the ballots in states across the country, red states and blue states alike, every single one of them has passed.
It is a bad batch of batting some minimum wage increases. Fascinating. Okay. And it's also, of course, a typical topic that has come up in past presidential debates as well.
We haven't heard them really weigh in on that as a source of debate. And then of course, the other one we're watching very closely, marijuana ballots in the states. And this is really interesting. It's going back on the ballot in Florida where it's failed in the past.
Remember, Florida requires a 60% threshold for an amendment to pass. It'll be on ballot in North Dakota and South Dakota as well. The really funny thing is that marijuana rights supporters, marijuana legalization supporters, they're kind of victims of their own success. They're run out of states where ballot initiatives are possible to pass marijuana legalization.
So now I think you'll see a new push in the states where it's not legal to go through the legislature. So let's just zoom out a little bit, Reid, because typically there are how many ballot measures that you're tracking this issue? There are about 150 on the ballot. Okay.
So of all of those, what are the ones this cycle that you find to be the most dynamic, most interesting? Obviously, abortion. But beyond that, what are the ones that you're really going to be watching? Typically, ballot measures in places like California are some of the most expensive campaigns that are run in the entire country.
There have been campaigns recently that attracted half a billion dollars in spending. There are some other sort of smaller initiatives that are sort of state specific, if you will. One really interesting one is in Missouri where they're going to vote on whether to allow sports betting. Now sports betting is legal in a lot of the country.
It's also legal in Kansas. And right now the legislatures in Kansas and Missouri are fighting over who gets to host the Kansas City Chiefs and the Kansas City Royals. Sports betting is a huge part of that and a huge part of the sports business. So funny enough, a ballot manager could decide where the Kansas City cheese play football in the future.
All right. Reed Wilson, thank you so much for all that great information. Great to see you. Thank you for joining us on back tomorrow with more of the press.
Now the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now. I'm Craig. Mel. 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. It's a 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. Who knows, you might just come away with your own glass head. Full search Glass Apple with great Melan From Today on YouTube.
Wherever you get a podcast.