Meet the Press NOW — September 3

Last summer, the coolest place in the house was in your freezer. This year it's time to level up. Reliance Home Comfort has over 155,000 five star reviews for delivering the type of outstanding customer experience Canadians of Canada for over 60 years right now don't pay for 12 months on a featured air conditioner or heat pump. Call on the experts that know how to beat the heat conditions apply.

See website for details. If it's Wednesday, Jeffrey Epstein's survivors and accusers speak out on the steps of the Capitol, some of them sharing their stories for the very first time. Ramping up pressure on Congress and the Justice Department to release all of the Epstein files as President Trump pushes back. Plus, President Trump threatens to send federal troops to New Orleans as he expands his fight with the courts over his sweeping use of executive authority to crack down on crime, fast track deportations and reorder the global economy.

And breaking news out of Florida, where the state's surgeon general announced a move to end all vaccine mandates, including for children to attend schools in what would be a first of its kind ban in the US that has public health experts sounding the alarm. Welcome to the press. Now I'm Christy Welker in Washington, where the Justice Department is facing renewed pressure to release more files on Jeffrey Epstein from both Congress and now survivors of the late convicted sex offender. At an emotional news conference today in front of the Capitol, a group of those speaking out for the very first time demanded more transparency about the Epstein case, imploring Congress to support a measure that would force the administration to release all Epstein related files.

Take a look at Today is the first time that I ever speak publicly about what happened to me. I never thought that I would find myself here. There are many pieces of my story that I can't remember no matter how hard I try. The constant state of wonder causes me so much fear and so much confusion.

The worst part is that the government is still in possession right now of the documents and information about that could help me remember and get over all of this maybe, and help me heal. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, this does not matter. This is not about sides. You are an American and you are a person who has chosen to serve in an elected position to stand up for those you represent who cannot always stand up for themselves.

We are those people. So I stand here today for every woman who has been silenced, exploited and dismissed. We are not asking for pity. We are here demanding accountability.

And I'm demanding justice. And also at today's news conference, the brother of One of Epstein's most outspoken accusers, Virginia Duffrey, spoke out on behalf of his sister who died by suicide earlier this year. Let's be clear. This is not a political issue.

This is not about left or right. This is about humanity. I plead to you, whether you're a dad, a mom, a brother or a sister, look your young ones in the face, look them in the eye and tell them you didn't stand against the very people who raped, molested and preyed upon children and young women. The survivors of this horrific abuse are watching.

The American people are watching and history is watching. Which side will you be on A Democrat hoax that never ends, from what I understand. I could check, but from what I understand, thousands of pages of documents have been given. But it's really a Democrat hoax because they're trying to get people to talk about something that's totally irrelevant to the success that we've had as a nation since I've been president.

Survivors today responded to the President's claim of a hoax. Mr. President Donald J. Trump, I am a registered Republican.

That matters because this is not political. However, I cordially invite you to the Capitol to meet me in person so you can understand this is not a hoax. We are real human beings. This is real trauma.

Today's event comes as some House Republicans look to give the President a bit of COVID as he claims his administration is being fully transparent. Pointing to the ongoing Republican led House Oversight Committee investigation into the Epstein case. The committee late yesterday releasing more than 30,000 pages related to its investigation which it received from the Justice Department. Democrats pointing out that the vast majority of the information in those documents is not new.

Join me now to unpack all of this. NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent circuit and NBC News national law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winther. Thanks to both of you for being here today. Julie, let me start with you.

House Speaker Mike Johnson met with the Epstein survivors yesterday along with Oversight committee members. What has the Speaker's role been in this whole standoff? Well, too often than the speaker hopes for. He's again stuck in a difficult position, Kristen.

As you know, he often is because the White House in this case wants this issue to go away. They want this Epstein matter to completely go away and it's not going to. We saw the survivors press conference this morning. But we also of course have dual efforts going on in the House right under Secret Johnson's nose in the Oversight Committee where of course we know James Comer as you mentioned, is pushing for those files and slowly receiving them.

But also this Discharge petition. Speaker Johnson trying to get those Republicans that potentially are open to it, not to sign on to it, in large part saying that this is personal between Thomas Massie, who is the top Republican in charge of that effort, but also saying the administration, look, they're already being compliant. They're turning over all these, what he said. They're already producing and putting out there the documents that are uncovered.

The White House is in full compliance. The administration is willfully complying with this opinion because they want action on transparency as well. I talked to the president himself last night about this. He says get it out there.

So this going to be an ongoing effort. It will lead by Parton, which is great. And that the, the Oversight Committee's effort, this is really important, goes further than the disruption, is saying he wants transparency. He's saying the president wants transparency.

I ask him that on the Senate side, what he's doing. And he too, Kristen, says they're all for transparency, but there's a difference between what they say and what they do. And certainly Johnson wanted this to go forward. If he wanted to force the administration's hand, the doc's hand on releasing this, he could, but he doesn't.

And that's why you're seeing this effort in the form of a discharge position. Well, just to follow up on that point, Julie Thomas Massey, Ronna, expressing a lot of confidence that they're going to get the 218 signatures needed for that discharge position. But as you say, Massey's got to convince some of his Republican colleagues there to sign onto this petition. Based on your conversations with sources, how likely is it that he can get enough Republicans to secure support for this?

Well, that's a big question because you certainly see the emotional testimony, how difficult it is for these survivors, some of whom are speaking for the very first time, to come here to put themselves out there like this. But what will it lead to? And certainly the answer to that question is getting those 218 signatures on this star tradition. Because even though James Come of the Oversight Committee says yes, look, we're continuously receiving these documents.

We released 30,000, as you said, pages of them yesterday. He said today we'll continue to get more from the doj. These survivors are just not buying it, and neither is Thomas Massey or Okana or Margaret Taylor Greene who stood with them today. I did notice one Republican in that at that press conference who did not sign on to the district petition.

That is Victoria Sparta. Talking to her about this, she still seems like she's deciding what to do, but it will be an uphill road for Massey to get even two more Republicans, in part because some who are even open to this, like Tim Burchett, for example, now says he's not going to sign on to it because the Oversight Committee is receiving these documents from doj. So it'll be uphill battle for Massey. It doesn't help either that Speaker Johnson and President Trump are Pete again the thorn in the side of their efforts and Republican leadership as a whole as he's trying to solicit partners and friends on his side of the House scientists.

That's a real standoff with the presidential, there's no doubt about that. Tom, let me head over to you. Julie painted that full picture of what is unfolding on Capitol Hill. She Talked about the 30,000 pages of documents that were released overnight.

What exactly is the key takeaway from those documents, Tom? Has anything new been discovered in those documents? You know, Kristen, it was exactly what we kind of anticipated, thanks to the reporting of myself and our colleagues there next to you in our D.C. bureau, focusing on what the Justice Department would have handed over.

And out of that 33,000 pages of documents, it's really only a handful of documents that we have not seen before. Most of these documents have to do with public court filings. They have to do with documents that you're looking at right there. That's something that was documented in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.

We're looking at documents that were produced as part of the original Palm Beach Police Department investigation in Florida, which was quite thorough, really, kind of trying to drive state prosecutors to initially charge I've seen before Palm beach police and the police chief at the time contacted the FBI because they weren't so sure what Florida state prosecutors were doing with it. And then we also saw documents that were contained as part of the review into the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein at the jail. But again, all of that are materials that we've seen before. It was just a handful of documents that had to do with Epstein's travels in the years leading up to his arrest and then his death by suicide.

That was new on that, though. They used exemptions that they would use if they're producing those materials to be via foia. So that any third party name that was traveling with Epstein during that period, those names are redacted. Kristen so Tom, one of the survivors they're speaking today suggested why not just release the files to the survivors.

Is that something that's being discussed at doj? Yeah, I don't think that's something that's really going to carry water because the problem with that is that then it's a public release of information. We're technically entitled, all of us are technically entitled to it. There's no way for the Justice Department to kind of put that out there in a way that couldn't be put out by various receivers of that information in whatever fashion receivers want to put it into.

Certainly the victims here have advocated, you've heard about it all morning long, advocated for transparency for as many documents out there as possible. So I don't think it's something that they would be cherry picked and given to us that way. But on the other hand, it sets a precedent for the Justice Department that would be very difficult. So there's no indication, I think, that they would just share that with them.

It would also potentially be improper if they were eventually going to bring a prosecution. A new information came to light. They would be prejudiced by the materials that they had already seen, even though Justice Department says there's not even enough information to open an investigation into any potential third party. So those are all the types of legal considerations that was brought up today, that press conference.

The amount of documents that were redacted. Well, those were redacted pursuant to court orders or court rules or were sealed pursuant to court orders or court rules. That's not something Congress can get by. That's something that judges will have to handle, the judiciary will have to handle in these cases.

So again, more kind of roadblocks that are out there. It'll be difficult going forward for more documents to be provided unless DOJ goes really outside of their traditional policies and practices. Kristen. All right, Julie and Tom, great reporting.

Thank you for starting us off today. We really appreciate it. We do want to turn now to some breaking news. New plans for a major health policy shift in Florida today.

The state's surgeon general announcing that Florida will move to eliminate all vaccine mandates, including those for childcare and school entry, framing it as a major expansion of medical freedom. Look, who am I as a government or anyone else? Or who am I as a man standing here now to tell you what you should put in your body? Who am I to tell you what your child should put in your body?

I don't have that right now. Florida surgeon general did note that ending every vaccine mandate will need approval by the state legislature. Right now, Florida schools require students to to be up to date on standard pediatric vaccines, much like every other state. If fully enacted, shifting that decision entirely to parental choice would be unprecedented at the national level.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Has already made sweeping changes to federal vaccine policies since taking office, narrowing COVID 19 vaccine recommendations, reshaping advisory committees, and cutting back funding for new vaccine development. Joining now is NBC News medical contributor and former Obama White house policy director, Dr.

Kavita Patel. Dr. Patel, thanks so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.

Thanks so much, Kristen. So you heard the surgeon general there in Florida saying, why should he or any official dictate what families have to put in their bodies, what kids have to be given in terms of vaccines? What do you make of that argument that we heard from the surgeon General today? What are the implications?

Well, it's a false argument because on one level, he's right. Nobody should dictate what anyone does. Every shot we give, I've been doing it just today. Even every shot we give, we treat as a procedure informed consent.

We go to the risks and benefits. And that's exactly what should happen. The mandates are there so that we can have as much of a foundation for this immunity in our community on preventable diseases. But to be clear, Kristen, it's not.

We have the ability, and we do this often when parents have an uniform consent process, they say, no, I don't want this vaccine for my child. We have the ability as a medical professional to do that kind of conscious objection that exists exactly for this reason. But if we start to take away these mandates, think about it. It's equivalent to taking away a seatbelt from your child.

You're leaving them unprotected. And in this case, like with seatbelts, it's deadly. So to take that argument a little bit further, what could this mean for the overall health of residents in the state of Florida and beyond? Because, of course, we are a global community and people in Florida certainly travel to other cities and states across this country.

We do. And again, keep in mind, these are diseases that if you actually showed a patient to me, I don't recognize because I don't see measles on a frequent basis. I haven't seen Rubiola other than a textbook. So we are now seeing these cases.

We've already talked about measles in West Texas and how that's kind of spread. This is exactly what you'll see in Florida. And here's the unfortunate part. Because of this political misinformation, the science and the actual evidence of how this is gonna protect you and your families.

And to your point, versus not just the individuals but the community, think about this. You're right. We have to make sure we do. The people who have Chronic diseases, organ transplants, pregnancy, the young who can't get immunized until a certain age.

This is what we do. We're the United States of America. We care about each other. What does it say when it falls apart state by state?

And I'm very concerned will happen at a federal level as well. So what are your key concerns? We've already seen some major shifts at the federal level as it relates to vaccine policy. The COVID 19 vaccine, for example, not as accessible as it was before Secretary Kennedy took office.

What are the implications nationally of this, Dr. Patel? Yeah, it's nationally truly devastating. I'll give you a real time example.

We cannot vaccinate six months to five years yet because we just don't know when and how and if we're getting vaccines. Until that advisory commission meets now, they will meet. They've been replaced, as you mentioned, by the secretary. So it's entirely possible that a political mandate will supersede data and evidence.

And we have now a CDC that is leaderless and has even at the Cooper level, scientists that have left. So that's not just a gap for the current administration. That's going to be a gap that will feel years down the line. So that means guidelines don't have all the updated information.

That means a doctor such as myself can go to the CDC website to find out what the latest numbers of respiratory cases are and honestly know whether to believe or not. And that will translate to our country ranking not in the leadership for eradication of measles and taking care communicable diseases, but we'll rank lower than we have. All right, Dr. Patel, thank you so much for joining us.

To help us understand the breaking news out of Florida and the broader implications for the rest of the country. Really appreciate it. Coming up, crackdowns and setbacks. Chicago braces for a surge of federal agents that President Trump has vowed to send in as a conservative.

Court rules that the president's use of certain wartime powers is illegal plus lethal force. New details and video footage of a rare US Military strike targeting a boat that the White House says came from Venezuela and was filled with drugs. Stay with us. You're watching the PRESS now.

Welcome back. President Trump's unprecedented efforts to expand the power of the executive in pursuit of the domestic agenda has run into some major resistance from the courts, which have been recent days ruled that he's overstepping his authority in crucial areas on terrorists, the core of his economic policy. The president vowed to take his case to the Supreme Court after a judge ruled his use of emergency power to implement tariffs was illegal. We have a very, very big case in the Supreme Court.

I can only say this. Our country has a chance to be unbelievably rich again, but it can also be unbelievably poor again. If we don't win that case, our country is going to suffer so greatly. I think it's one of the most important cases I've ever seen go before the Supreme Court.

On the deployment of the National Guard in Marines to Los Angeles. The White House of Giling and judges ruling that the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus act, which bars the use of soldiers for civilian law enforcement. That appeal comes as President Trump holds the threat of more National Guard deployments over other Democratic run cities, even as he claims the government is waiting to be asked. I could do that with Chicago, we could do that with New York, we could do it with Los Angeles.

So we're making a determination now. Do we go to Chicago or do we go to a place like New Orleans? The politicians are not in tune with the people. The people in Chicago, the people in Baltimore, the people in all of the places we talk about, they want to see us there.

And I think we're pretty much waiting until we get asked and proper. And on immigration, the Trump administration is appealing one federal judge's decision blocking its expected deportation policy. As a separate appeals court rule, the administration cannot use a wartime law to remove people alleged to be Venezuelan gang members from the United States. Join me now to discuss all this is NBC News senior White House correspondent Kate Gutierrez.

Thanks so much for being here. So let's start with the Alien Enemies Act. The judge ruling that the application does not apply here. How significant of a setback is this for the administration?

And they're obviously going to appeal. Oh, hi there, President. Well, this is basically the main battle, the defining battle so far, the Trump administration isn't the executive versus the judicial branch. At times, the legislative branch has seen mostly irrelevant.

But in this case, Kristen, look, the Trump administration says and continues to maintain that it is the president's decision and that this authority was given to the president. He should be able to decide whether to apply the Alien Enemies act here. Now, as you said, the administration does plan to appeal, ultimately feels that it will be vindicated in the Supreme Court. Another battle that the administration is eager to get to the high court with its conservative majority.

Let's talk about the president sending more Guard troops into other cities. The administration clearly targeting Chicago as its next step. And yet you heard President Trump today saying well, we're considering it. Maybe we'll send guard troops into New Orleans instead, which was really the first time that we had heard that.

What do you make of it? What can we anticipate over the next year? It is so interesting to hear the president talk about today, talk about that today because he's been blasting Chicago's mayor, the Illinois governor, for the last several days, sort of wishing that they would, you know, bow to him essentially and ask for this help, much like the mayor here in D.C. mayor Bowser has worked with that collaborative tone so with Chicago and Illinois officials, obviously, Kristen.

But today, yeah, floating for the first time this idea potentially going to New Orleans, a state that has a Republican governor, but a Democratic mayor of the city of New Orleans, who, by the way, happens to be under indictment. And so perhaps he does feel that he would get a warmer recession in a state like Louisiana down in the south as opposed to in Illinois. But still, we also heard from the president's borders are Tom Holman today in another event, and he doesn't seem to be backing off the administration's intention to send more federal resources into Chicago. Now at this point, it just seems to be a question of when Is it in the next couple days or might the president wait just a bit longer?

We're trying to find it out. Yeah, we know Chicago officials are certainly bracing for that. Just finally, on tariffs, you're the president there called the case one of the most important ever that could come before the Supreme Court. Just how quickly do we think the court could rule here?

Well, these tariffs are set to stay in effect now until mid October. We expect the administration certainly to appeal before then, as you just heard the president in your introduction saying that he wants to do this in an expedited fashion. With the Supreme Court unclear exactly when they might rule, but they were to take up the case normally the expectation would be, you know, that we could expect a decision early to mid-2026. Again, the administration wants an answer before then because of the implications of this tariff policy.

So it could be much sooner than that. But again, the administration wants this expedited as quickly as possible given the safety. All right. Well, we'll watch and wait to see what happens next.

Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. What we're also tracking is the Trump administration faces legal setbacks on what it says is an effort to deport Venezuelan gangs from the US the president announced the US Carried out a rare military operation, striking a boat that the president says departed from Venezuela that was carrying drugs and operated by the trend Aragua gang, the president sharing a video of the strike on his social media page, which the Venezuelan government uses of being AI generated. Now, we should note NBC News found no immediate signs the video was manipulated or AI generated, but also could not definitively prove its authenticity.

Joining me now from the Pentagon is the national security course on it. Courtney, QB Corp, thanks so much for being here. So let's talk about this. We heard about the challenges to President Trump's domestic policy.

Have there been any major legal challenges to this latest military action which President Trump posted online? You know, that we've seen so far. But Kristen, one of the big questions remains. Exactly what authority did the United States military use when they conducted this strike yesterday?

We've been asking that question here, depending on our colleagues over in other agencies around D.C. and so far we don't have an answer to that. Now, as you know, the Trump administration declared TRAGUA as a foreign terrorist organization earlier this year. But it's not clear if it's based off of that solely that they believe they could take this strike.

But at this point, again, we have no real legal justification provided by the administration for the strike. In fact, they're not providing any details at all about who carried it out beyond saying it was the US Military, where exactly they were, other than the officials telling us they were in international waters or exactly what munition was used here. Kristen? So just to put it in a broader context, Courtney, is this a relatively rare and unusual step for the US Military to take against a drug cartel?

It's extremely rare, Kristen. Generally what happened in a case like this, if there was a boat that was suspected of having cartel members or drug traffickers or suspected of carrying any kind of illegal drugs, an agency perhaps like the Coast U.S. coast Guard or other local authorities in the region would stop the boat. They would search it, they would potentially seize it.

The individuals on board, if in fact they found illegal drugs, they would be taken more likely to a country in the region to face some sort of judicial punishment or some sort of justice system. That's the more likely case that we generally see play out. The US Military taking a strike like this opens up a whole lot of questions. Candidly, we've been hearing more detail about the justification for this from Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio and the president himself.

The president saying today that they were watching these individuals, that they were listening to them as a very, very admission from a president or anyone in administration. But it seems as if they were tracking these people, these individuals before they carried out the strike yesterday. All right, Courtney Cubby, the ladies from the Pentagon, thank you so much, Court. Really appreciate it.

Great to you as always. Coming up next, President Trump's handling of the FC files and the seemingly never ending fallout. The panel weighs in straight ahead. I'm in the press now.

I understand that we were subpoenaed to give files and I understand we've given thousands of pages of files. And I know that no matter what you do, it's going to keep going. Welcome back. That was President Trump today acknowledging the staying power of the Jeffrey Epstein saga as victims today spoke out pressuring the Justice Department, the administration to release all files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

I'm joined now by my panel, Tia Mitchell, Washington bureau chief for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Kimberly's Stack and store columnist for the Boston Globe and NBC News political analyst. And Mike Dubkey, who served as White House communications director during Donald Trump's first term. Thanks to all of you for being here. Tia, let me start with you.

You were at this press conference. You spoke with Congressman Marjorie Taylor Green right afterwards. What was the takeaway? Yeah, I spoke with Marjorie Taylor Greene during votes after the press conference.

And it's interesting to me because again, she is a close Donald Trump ally. She said she even spoke to President Trump this morning to encourage him to hear directly from the Epstein victims and he didn't commit to that. But afterwards she said she was aware that President Trump had called this a hoax. Even after the press conference, he said it's a Democratic hoax.

She says, and that's not the case. These are real victims who were raped. They deserve justice. And she is therefore supporting the effort to force the vote on releasing all the Epstein files.

You know, Mike, at various points the White House has tried to say, look, some of the files have been released and they've tried to turn the page on this. President Trump is trying to turn page on this. And yet you had that just extraordinary show of force today, all of the survivors gathering with Congressman Massie and Ro Khanna of course, as well. But is this, this doesn't seem like something the administration can shake very easily.

No, not at all. And they've been trying to turn the page for months now. But the problem is they brought the book to the party and that is part of the issue here. Most Republicans can walk and chew gun at the same time so they can support the president while at the same time wanting to see these records released.

What was striking to me though, about the press conference, which was very powerful, I thought the Statements were incredibly powerful. It was really powerful to realize that these were 14, 15, 16 year old girls who are now women who are standing there. So putting all, putting all of that aside, the fact that the discharge petition does not have the six Republicans already, I think it's going to be very difficult with all of the pressure the White House is putting on and the Speaker's office to get there. I think the next 24 hours on that is going to be important to watch.

What do you make of that point, Kimberly? Do you think that the discharge petition gets across the finish line? Well, it should. Because for all of the people who want answers on behalf of these victims who we saw speak today, or for whatever reason, it's Congress's job to do it.

You're right, the President brought the book to put the book on the table. But it's not DOJ's job to fact find. That's exactly Congress's job. They're supposed to investigate and hopefully pass some sort of law beyond that that better protects people who have been trafficked and victimized and prevent it from happening again.

So this is really literally Congress's job. And if they block that, I think the voters might and should have something to say about that. I guess the question is what are the potential political implications for President Trump because he is able to weather so many storms? Is he able to weather this one if all the files are not released and the calls for transparency?

So I think it's less worse for President Trump because no matter what happens, we don't expect him to be on the ballot, whether, you know, if he tries to remain in power in a different way. But he's not anticipating having to run for office and earn votes again. But all of these Republicans in Congress for the most part, either want to run for reelection or want to run for something else in the future. And that's where the risk is.

Because a lot of them, what we forget is that Donald Trump swept into power in part on this wave of he was going to expose the deep state and get all this corruption out of government and expose the powerful who had done wrong, particularly tied to the Epstein case. And now that he's not doing it, he's going back on some promises he made to voters. People like Marjorie Taylor Greene are standing in the way. But many other Republicans are with Trump and I think their base of voters are going to be concerned about that.

What about that argument we are facing, the midterms? Could this hurt? Look, it's always difficult for the party in power to win at the. So you want to remove all of the instructions that you can.

I think, again, I come back to this. We did not know who the victims were, the hundreds of victims. And we're now starting to see faces. And I think that just makes this that much more difficult.

You brought up maybe the president sitting down with some of these victims. I think that would be a powerful visual. I think the White House still needs to get ahead of this and they need to figure out a way to do it because it's not going away. For Democrats, the debate is how much to focus on this.

Because if you go back to 2024 and rewind the clock, the message that so many Democrats took from that election was we've got to stay more focused on the economy, pocketbook issues. Those are the issues that matter to voters. So ahead of the midterms, is there a concern about over indexing on the Epstein case? It should be.

I mean, for all the reasons we pointed out, it's a promise that Donald Trump, Trump did not keep. It's the job of lawmakers to do this sort of fact finding, investigation and present this to the American people. They should just be telling their, their counterparts across the aisle, do your job. All right.

I want to talk about another story that just popped this afternoon. The New York Times is reporting that the Trump administration is looking at potentially offering Mayor of New York Eric Adams a job in the administration to basically clear the field for Andrew Cuomo to have a better chance at beating Zora Mamdani. Mamdani was asked about it today. Take a listen to what he had to say about this reporting.

This campaign is fighting not simply any other candidate that will be on the ballot, but the notion that New York City is for sale. We know that this city will decide its own future, and we know it is New Yorkers that we will turn to to make that decision in November, not the White House in Washington. Pretty defiant tone from. I'm down there.

Reportedly Trump administration eyeing a potential position for the Republican candidate, Curtis Liu as well. Yeah, I mean, I just think it's an interesting sell for Andrew Cuomo. You won in this very Democratic city. You know, you lost the primary, but now you're running this kind of third party campaign, but with the support of Donald Trump.

I just don't know if that's a winning message in the city of New York. I understand that President Trump has a lot of interest in New York. It's, you know, his hometown and things like that. So he wants someone in there that he likes.

But I Don't know if that's helpful. Kimberly, what is your take as you watch this and the tone from Mamdani, who is a newcomer, depending on who you ask, a rising star in the Democratic Party, clearly not backing down in the face of this. No. And I find it remarkable that a Republican president is trying to nationalize this race in particular.

I mean, if Donald Trump really wanted to have a say in this election, he could have stayed president of New York and voted in this election. But I think that this trying to put a thumb on the scale in this way. And also doesn't he wants someone who is progressive and a Democrat in this position? Absolutely.

Yes. Please. Now, after Buffalo, New York, so not New York City. And you know, we have this love, hate relationship with New York City and New York State.

But you know, let them, let them do this. Again, this comes down to, are you shocked that there are politics involved in this? No. Both parties have done this.

I was involved in a race last year which the Democrats will be exact same thing and switch to candidate right after Labor Day. So it is, it is a thing that happens. But, yes, I would think that you'd want to run against Mandami. You know, we talk about the midterms.

That would be a great thing to run against. Well, we continue to watch that race with great interest. Thank you all for being here. Michael, great conversation, guys.

Appreciate it. Coming back after the break, Congress prepares to question Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Over vaccine policy and turmoil at the CDC.

I will interview one of the Democratic senators who set to question him next. You're watching the press now. Welcome back. And joining me now is Senator Tina Smith, Democrat from Minnesota.

Senator, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. Thank you. Well, we want to get to the news of the day.

There's obviously a lot to cover, but I do want to start by getting your reaction after the Minneapolis tragic shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church. Of course, it follows the shootings that targeted Minnesota state lawmakers earlier this year. So I just want to ask you, Senator, how is your community holding up? I think that people are still really reeling.

There is so much tragedy in this shooting. And I was thinking about how this is so personal for the families of the children that go to Annunciation Catholic School and lost their dear children or those that had their children injured. And all of us who live in the neighborhood of Annunciation School. And yet again, it also is a very public event as well as people all over the city and all over the state and all over the country.

Kind of come together and I could say with one voice, this should not be happening in our schools and our communities. That this toxic mix of hatred and guns results in the, these little babes losing their lives. It's such a terrible thing. It really is.

It's just so hard, I think, for as a country people to process that yet again. This is happening in another community in this country. And I know Governor Walls has said he's going to call a special session on gun control. You are calling for action at the national level.

And my question for you, Senator, how do you get anything passed in a bipartisan manner? Republicans obviously control the White House, the House and the Senate. So what exactly is it you want to see and do you have any hope that you can get something passed? Well, look, I'm a realist, but I also have learned that if you don't try, you will never get it done.

And I like to point to the bipartisan Safer Communities act that Congress passed just a couple of years ago. It did not go nearly far enough, but it made really important steps in the right direction, both funding better access to mental health care. Though there is so much more that we need to do and also taking some important steps to make it a little bit harder for dangerous people to get their hands on firearms. There is, of course, so much more that we need to do and we have a choice to make.

Do we want to live in a country where you are 10 times more likely in America to be shot in a school or a playground or in a, in a, in a shopping mall than you are in nearly any other developed country? I mean, we have to make a different choice. I think we have to keep working on it, but it's not gonna be easy. We have to.

And I don't have any magic pill here. I just know that if you don't try, you'll never get it done. All right. Well, Senator, I do want to turn to tomorrow's high profile hearing, of course, the news HHS Secretary Kennedy before the Senate Finance Committee.

You will be there. You're on that committee. What are your biggest questions going to be for the secretary in the wake of the CDC leadership shake ups, in the wake of him ousting the CDC director? Well, I think it's gonna be quite interesting to see what my Republican colleagues ask what they want to know about.

From my perspective, and I think honestly the perspective of many Americans, RFK Jr. Is discredited. He is not trustworthy. I think that he should be fired.

I believe that the damage that he's doing to the center for Disease Control will be long lasting. He is trafficking, as we knew he would, and these discredited lies and conspiracy theories and fringe ideas about vaccines and even antidepressants that are really harming people's health. So it will be quite interesting to see whether those members of the Republican Party who feel as if they extracted some commitments from him, whether they express their frustration that he's clearly not living to those commitments. Well, you know, your Republican colleague, Senator Cassidy is calling for oversight.

What do you think that will look like? And do you have confidence in Senator Cassidy to carry it out? Well, I believe that Bill Cassidy is a man of integrity and very good intentions who understands health care as a physician himself. And he has a very powerful role because not only does he serve on the Finance Committee where I sit with him, he also is the chair of the Health, the Health Committee, the Health Committee, which has direct oversight over all of the Department of Health and Human Services.

So he has a very pivotal role to play there. And it is the role of Congress to make sure that the laws of the land are being followed by the administration appointees. And I think that they are clearly not the case. What RFP did just last week, which is to fire the head of the center for Disease Control, barely a month after she had been put into this position confirmed by Bill Cassidy and members of the Republican Party, is I think, just a sign of how this, you know, Robert Kennedy has just brought him up and is not trustworthy.

Let me turn now to another big topic facing all of you as you return this fall. Congress has to pass a government funding bill by the end of the month. Democrats, of course, have been incredibly critical of some of the cuts that Republicans are trying to insert in this package. Are you willing to shut down the government, Senator, in order to get those cuts rescinded?

Look, the Republicans are in charge of the House and the Senate and the White House, and it is up to them what happens next. They are in the driver's seat and they need to understand that if they try a go alone strategy where they don't work with Democrats, there's no bipartisan effort, then they're going to fail. And we stand ready. I stand ready to work with them, but it is unrealistic for them to expect that I'm just going to go along with whatever they want when their plans and their budgets are doing so much harm to my constituents.

So I think we should find path forward that is bipartisan and that will allow us to start to undo some of the huge, huge cuts to health care access that is hurting hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans and millions of people around the country. So, Senator, just to be very clear, if you feel as though Republicans are not working with you, as you have just said, to unwind those cuts, will you vote no on any spending bill? I will not vote for a spending bill that is not bipartisan. They have not worked with us on.

If they think that they can go it along alone, then that's going to be on them. But there is a better path here. That's a failing path. It will never work for them.

What we need to be doing, like we always do with these budget bills, is we need to be finding ways of finding that common ground, being realistic, and then making sure that the federal government has the money that it needs to pay its bills. What I'm worried about is that Donald Trump has a completely different plan here. I mean, you know, just over this weekend that he did a whole, he and his administration did a whole bunch of new actions to roll back spending that Congress had already authorized. Remember, this is the president that presided over the longest shutdown in American history.

So I think a lot of people should be watching what he's doing and saying as we try to navigate through what's going to be a really, really tricky September. Indeed it will be. So, Sena Smith, please come back and join us again soon because we want to stay on top of all the developments. Thank you so much for your time today.

Thank you. I look forward to it. Coming up next, the show of strength from China combined with a show of unity against the West. Keep it here on THE res.

Welcome back. China's firepower was on full display today in a huge military parade meant to commemorate the end of World War II. But the spectacle, which featured jets, tanks, missiles and more, was also about showing off China's military might. President Xi Jinping stood in the open sunroof of a limousine as thousands of troops chanted in perfect unison as he passed by.

In his address, President Xi delivered a sharp message warning rivals not to challenge China's sovereignty. And underscoring his message, President Xi stood shoulder to shoulder with strongmen Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un in apparent display of an alternative global order. Earlier at the White House, VCP Alexander asked President Trump about that apparent show of solidarity. Look, they were hoping.

I was watching and I was watching. My relationship with all of them is very good. We're going to find out how good it is over the next week or two. I don't believe that America that The United States was acknowledged for helping China to get to gain its freedom, but perhaps that was just a, that was a sleight of hand.

Joining me now is Ravi Rawal, editor in chief of Foreign Policy magazine. Thank you so much for joining us. So this is China's largest military parade ever. What exactly President Xi Jinping trying to signal here?

What do you make of President Trump's reaction? Well, I think Xi Jinping is trying to signal to the world that if the United States is coming across as more of a bully in recent months, if it's unstable and unpredictable, then China can be predictable. China can offer some sense of stability and a foundation of power and might for the rest of the world. It's focused on multilateralism and etc.

Trump's response is quite interesting there. Of course, he's offering a competing vision here. You know, China wants to remind the world that it played a very big part in World War II. And that's harking back to the future is again in part because they want to show that we were there then.

We can be dominant in the future as well. So Trump and Xi Jinping are trying to contest that. You know, it's interesting because overnight President Trump posted on Truth Social the President Xi, President Putin, Kim Jong Un were quotes conspiring against the U.S. now, President Putin tried to dispute that allegation.

What do you make of the notion that somehow these world forces are trying to conspire against the United States? And could it be a sign of an alliance forming effectively? So just on the conspiring thing, I have to say all countries conspire against each other. All countries fight against each other.

We in the media, I mean, there's no point in us being indignant about these things. It is what countries do. They work in their own interests and their own strategic interests. And that's just how it is.

Should we take it seriously? I think there's as many things uniting these countries as there are that divide them. You know, they each have their own prerogatives, their own domestic agendas, their own international agendas. And if you look at this summit, of course those three strongmen leaders, as you put them, were there.

But there are also other leaders from Pakistan, Slovakia, Serbia, Iran. And when you broaden that out, they all have divergent things that they're looking for out of the world order. So I would not really worry too much about this being a grand new collective or even a massive fillip for autocracies against democracies. Remember, India's prime minister was also in China a couple of days ago for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit.

That's a very important point there. Let me ask you, though, because against this backdrop of President Trump just having had this meeting first with President Putin, then with President Zelensky and other European allies, and still no meeting between Putin and Zelensky, President Trump had warned he was going to slap sanctions on Russia. That has not happened yet. What do you make of the state of play there?

You know, this is the thing we have been warning about for a long time. No matter all this summitry that we look at and we analyze, look at the facts on the ground. And the facts on the ground are that Russia is still attacking Ukraine and Putin still does not want to meet. Zelensky does not even acknowledge that Ukraine is a country.

And the United States has not actually enacted tough sanctions on Russia to move the needle on that front. In that sense, we are no further along than we were one year ago or even two years ago. All right. Ravi Agrawal, thank you so much for joining us.

We really appreciate it. We are back tomorrow with more MEET THE Press now. There's more news ahead on NBC News now as the day wraps up, get this scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, the new podcast from NBC News, with me, your host gazing the studio. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalists.

It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful and it's informative, bringing you closers to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. From front page to zeitgeist. Here's the Scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Amazon Music.