Meet the Press NOW — June 1

[0:11] Hi there. Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington, and we start today with breaking news from the White House. [0:16] Sources telling NBC News that President Trump is dropping the Justice Department's so-called anti-weaponization fund amid the backlash he was facing from members of his own party, [0:27] and after a federal judge blocked the administration from distributing any money from the fund. [0:32] We'll have more on this breaking news in a moment, but it also comes as the high-stakes peace negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, [0:38] which President Trump last week said were close to producing a deal, maybe on life support. [0:44] Today, state media reporting that Iranian negotiators say they're suspending talks with the U.S., citing Israel's expanding offensive into Lebanon against Iran's proxy Hezbollah. [0:56] It comes after the U.S. and Iran also exchanged fire overnight. [0:59] Tehran now threatening to once again close the Strait of Hormuz, that turmoil sending oil prices back above $90 a barrel. [1:07] In a phone call this morning with NBC's Garrett Haake, the President says he was not informed of the latest decision [1:13] by Iran to suspend the talks, but going on to say, quote, I think it's fine if they're done talking. [1:19] I would be very happy with that. [1:21] I think it's okay. [1:22] That's a good thing for them to say because they're good negotiators, but I don't really care. [1:27] I really don't care. [1:29] The President also saying, quote, it doesn't mean we're going to go and start dropping bombs all over there. [1:35] We'll just go silent. [1:36] We'll keep the blockade. [1:37] Now, that stands in stark contrast to what the President and the Secretary of Defense said just a few days ago. [1:43] Take a listen. [1:45] They are starting to give us the things that they have to give us, and if they do, that's great. [1:50] And if they won't, then the man on my left is going to finish him off. [1:53] I know he means it when he looks in the camera in the cabinet room and said they can either do this now through a deal, [1:59] and we think we're in a good place to make that deal, or they can deal with the War Department. [2:04] And we are prepared. [2:06] We're postured even stronger today than we were on day one to address it that way if we have to, but he'd prefer not to. [2:13] So Iran knows very, very clearly what our expectations are. [2:17] Now, this afternoon, the President posting on social media that, quote, talks are continuing at a rapid pace with Iran. [2:25] The President also saying he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and with Hezbollah, claiming both sides have agreed to de-escalate. [2:32] The whiplash in headlines comes as support for the President continues to hemorrhage here at home due to the economic fallout of the war. [2:41] Joining me now are team of reporters covering all the angles. [2:43] NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Melanie Zanona, NBC News White House, of course, Chief White House correspondent Garrett Haake, [2:50] NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel is in Tel Aviv. [2:53] Also with me are NBC News Senior National Security Correspondent Courtney Kuby and NBC News Business and Economic Reporter Ali Canal. [3:01] Mel, I'm going to start with you because you have the breaking news about the President's Anti-Weaponization Fund. [3:07] What more can you tell us about this? [3:08] There seems to be not a whole lot of clarity exactly how this is coming to an end, but how did we get to this point? [3:15] Yeah, that's exactly right. [3:16] There had been so much backlash on Capitol Hill from Republicans. [3:19] They had been privately and publicly urging President Trump to either drop this fund or put some sort of guardrails or restrictions on it. [3:27] And, Ryan, as you know, it had become such a political problem for Republicans that they were even willing to blow up a completely unrelated immigration bill in order to get some of these things done. [3:37] So this is going to be a huge relief for both Senate GOP Leader John Thune as well as Speaker Mike Johnson, who was meeting with President Trump at the White House today. [3:46] But that being said, Ryan, Democrats are still vowing to make this an issue for Republicans. [3:52] Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said they're going to force votes this week on proposals to restrict this fund or similar funds from coming back in the future. [3:59] And to your point on the clarity issue, Republicans might want some more ironclad commitments from the administration, that they're not going to change their minds and appeal this court ruling after this immigration bill is already signed. [4:12] So while there could be some relief today, these headaches not going away quite yet for Republicans on Capitol Hill. [4:17] Yeah, I think that's safe to say. [4:20] It also comes as we see the war with Iran becoming a political liability for this president. [4:24] We have the House back tomorrow. [4:26] They're probably not going to vote for a couple of days. [4:28] They're going to have to vote on a war powers resolution that they pushed to after the recess. [4:33] We saw a war powers resolution advance in the Senate to curb the president's ability to continue the war. [4:38] Do we think there'll be similar movement in the House? [4:41] We are expecting similar movement in the House. [4:43] In fact, before the recess break, House GOP leaders had to pull a war powers resolution from the floor because they knew it would have succeeded. [4:50] So they're hoping this week that attendance will be better on their side, but they can't put off this vote forever because of procedural reasons. [4:57] And so it is going to come to a floor vote, and it is very likely that it is going to succeed, even though this would be a symbolic vote because it's not the exact same measure that the Senate passed. [5:07] And Trump, of course, could always veto it. [5:09] This would be an embarrassing defeat for the president and one that GOP leaders are very clearly trying to avoid here. [5:14] And finally, Congress also needs to pass this reconciliation bill, that immigration bill you were talking about before. [5:21] Is there a possibility that they can get it done now? [5:24] That's the hope, especially now that this DOJ fund apparently is being dropped. [5:28] They think the process will go much smoother in the Senate. [5:31] They're hoping to kick off the so-called Votarama, which would be an unlimited number of amendments being offered throughout the night on Wednesday night. [5:38] They would pass that Thursday, and then it would kick it over to the House, which still needs to pass it themselves. [5:43] And then it would put an end to what has become one of the longest stalemates over immigration funding in our history, Ryan. [5:49] All right, Melanita Zonona with the breaking news. [5:52] Mel, we appreciate that. [5:53] Let's go to the White House now. [5:54] Garrett, you had a phone conversation with the president today. [5:58] He had doubled down on this fund. [6:00] What's the latest from the White House? [6:01] Are they explaining exactly what the future of this fund is like? [6:06] They're not, Ryan, and neither did the president when I spoke to him earlier today, [6:09] although I had some reporting that over the weekend the White House was looking for an exit strategy here, [6:14] that it had started to become clear to them the depth of their problem here, [6:17] particularly with Senate Republicans as related to this fund, [6:20] and that they thought perhaps that the judge's initial ruling kind of putting a delay on this [6:26] and punting further decisions a few weeks out might have opened the door for that. [6:29] And through that open door today came this other DOJ statement, [6:33] which essentially says that they will abide by the judge's ruling and talks about the fund in the past tense. [6:40] That's about as much clarity as we have on this right now. [6:43] Perhaps we'll hear more from the president on his social media later today. [6:46] But I do think this was a situation where the White House didn't realize exactly how deep the water [6:52] they were swimming in was around this fund until, you know, Congress had already left town, [6:58] and they needed to find something like a graceful exit. [7:01] In this case, they may have gotten it from the judges who have ruled on this case. [7:05] All right. [7:06] Let's talk about your phone conversation with the president. [7:09] You said last—he said last week that he's not concerned about the impact this war could have on the midterms. [7:14] But with oil prices back up today, does he feel any pressure to resume talks and get a deal with Iran? [7:19] Well, let me put it this way, Ryan. [7:21] I think lack of clarity is an emerging theme across all of these storylines today [7:25] because the president wasn't totally clear on that between what he told me [7:28] and what he's posted on social media subsequently. [7:31] But at least in our phone conversation, he seemed to suggest that his patience is almost unlimited. [7:36] I'll show you a quote. [7:37] When I asked him about the idea of waiting out Iran, he said, [7:40] I think I can wait as long as they want, [7:42] suggesting that Iran has sort of a harder economic hand to play here than he does, [7:46] the money they're losing because of the blockade, their inflation. [7:49] He says if they don't want to talk, it's fine, [7:52] and insisted to me that the U.S. could just keep this blockade up indefinitely, [7:56] and that when Iran was good and ready, they'd come to the table. [7:59] He also said he's not interested in resuming bombing. [8:01] That works in June politically, but probably doesn't work as well in September or October. [8:07] I think the White House thinks they still have a little bit of time to try to sort this out, [8:11] and they understand that it takes time. [8:13] Just even getting messages back and forth to the Iranian decision makers is a multi-day process. [8:18] So I think they've pretty much given up on the idea that there's going to be some [8:21] swift solution to this, even if those rumors and reports pop up every few days or so. [8:27] And of course, there's the Lebanon of all of this as well. [8:29] That's an ongoing problem. [8:30] Iran said that they had paused the talks because of Israel's operation there. [8:34] We know the president talked with Prime Minister Netanyahu today. [8:37] What more do we know about that call? [8:39] Yeah, lack of clarity, part three. [8:41] Here, President Trump, in his readout of the call, [8:43] says that he talked to Netanyahu and that there would be no IDF forces in Beirut, [8:48] that any such efforts would be turned around, [8:52] and that he even, through representatives, spoke with Hezbollah, [8:54] and that things would be calming down. [8:56] Prime Minister Netanyahu subsequently put out a statement that says [8:59] Israel's going to keep defending itself, and if they have to strike Beirut, [9:02] because that's where the terrorists, as he describes them, are operating, [9:05] then that's what they're going to do. [9:07] Tell me what the truth is in between there, and you'll have quite the story. [9:11] I do think the call itself is interesting, regardless of what was discussed, [9:15] because it does suggest that despite what the president told me about not really caring about [9:19] Iran's concerns here, he wanted to at least feel out Israel to see what, [9:25] if anything, could be done to address those concerns. [9:29] Okay, Garrett Haig, from what appears to be a very opaque White House North Lawn today, [9:33] not much clarity on a number of topics, but we appreciate you trying to get to the bottom of it, [9:37] Garrett. [9:37] Let's move overseas now and bring Richard Engel in. [9:41] Richard, as we mentioned, Iran's signaling it is suspending talks because of the Israeli military [9:46] operations in Lebanon. It was Israel's deepest incursion into Lebanon in 26 years. How significant [9:53] of an escalation was that? [9:57] So Israel has been steadily increasing its military activity in southern Lebanon in particular [10:03] over the last week or so, ordering new evacuation orders almost daily, telling Lebanese civilians [10:10] that they should leave their homes, leave their towns, head north, get out of the south for their [10:16] own safety because the Israeli military is operating there, fighting there against Hezbollah. [10:22] And Israel is continuing to advance to the north, capturing a castle that you showed on the screen [10:29] a short while ago, taking a very strategic piece of territory, keeping the pressure on Hezbollah, [10:36] which is a militia group backed by Iran, a group the United States considers it a terrorist organization. [10:41] But things almost escalated much further this morning when Prime Minister Netanyahu said that [10:48] he was going to begin attacks in Beirut, starting to attack Hezbollah stronghold called the neighborhood [10:55] of Dahye, which is in south Lebanon. That call was likely what triggered Iran to say enough is enough, [11:05] as long as Israel is continuing its advance in Lebanon and now openly attacking or openly planning [11:11] to attack a large section of Beirut, then there was no point in having conversations. This was put out [11:17] by the Iranian state news agencies. It was also stressed by the Iranian foreign minister. Over the last [11:24] several days, Iran has increasingly been focused on Lebanon, saying it must be part of an overall peace [11:30] deal. Then, before the strikes on the southern suburb of Dahye began, because today there were not [11:38] major strikes in Beirut, although many of us were anticipating that they could come at any moment, [11:44] we heard about this breakthrough. There was a call between President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu, [11:49] communications directly with Hezbollah. And Hezbollah now, according to Hezbollah media, [11:55] says it will abide by a ceasefire. It will stop shooting as long as Israel stops shooting on [12:02] Lebanese territory. And I'm emphasizing that because it's important, because there's a distinction, [12:08] there's a discrepancy. Prime Minister Netanyahu just put out a statement a short while ago saying [12:13] that for now there won't be operations against Dahye, there won't be these bombings against Beirut, [12:21] but that Israeli troops would continue to act in southern Lebanon, would continue their offensive [12:28] there as normal. That was not what Hezbollah agreed to. So it is very possible that this, [12:34] I don't know if you want to call it a ceasefire, that word is being overused these days, [12:39] if this temporary agreement even survives the night. Prime Minister Netanyahu also said that if [12:46] Hezbollah fires over the border into Israel at civilians living in northern Israel, then he would [12:53] resume his intended plan and carry out a bombing campaign in Beirut itself. [12:59] And you mentioned that phone call between the president and the prime minister. Does it [13:03] seem as though President Trump is able to exact any sort of leverage over Prime Minister Netanyahu? [13:11] Or does it appear that Netanyahu is more worried about his own political standing in Israel? How [13:15] much influence does President Trump have? I think yes and both. The president has a lot of influence [13:25] over Israel, has a lot of influence over Prime Minister Netanyahu. Netanyahu does face elections in [13:31] the fall. Israeli politics are an aggressive sport. Netanyahu is an expert at it, who's managed to keep [13:38] himself at the forefront of Israeli politics for several decades now. Some people have counted him [13:43] out. Many Israelis are not. They call him the magician here because of his ability to form [13:49] coalitions and stay in power. But the war in Lebanon is proving to be a sensitive point. People in this [13:58] country remember their long history in Lebanon. Israel occupied southern Lebanon for many years. I was [14:06] on hand when Israeli troops ultimately decided that holding south Lebanon wasn't worth it and pulled [14:11] out. Now Israeli forces are back in southern Lebanon. And because of the fact that they're setting up new [14:19] positions on mountaintops where old strategic castles are positioned, it looks like they are going to be [14:25] there for some time. So President Trump has enormous amount of influence over Prime Minister Netanyahu, [14:31] but he operates according to his own agenda. And he does face this election coming up in the fall. [14:37] Okay, Richard Engel, thanks for being on top of it. We appreciate it. Stay safe. Let's now turn [14:41] to Courtney QB, who if there's a reporter that has whiplash the most, it may be Courtney QB as she goes [14:47] back and forth thinking that we've got a deal and maybe not. Let's talk first about what the U.S. [14:52] military is actually doing, because sometimes that's more important than what the president says. [14:55] And they launched more strikes on Iranian targets over the weekend. Talk to me about what was [15:00] targeted. And can we officially say that the ceasefire no longer exists? [15:04] So this was another case where the U.S. military claims that they were getting, [15:08] they were having threatening actions from, in this case, Iranian drones. They were launching [15:12] them out of this little island sort of at the beginning of the Strait of Hormuz and from the [15:16] Persian Gulf known as Kashm Island. And then they were also launching from a place called Garouk, [15:20] which is on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz, almost to the Gulf of Oman. Because of that, [15:24] the U.S. hit these radar sites, command and control sites. So basically the places where they would [15:28] launch these drones out of. Now, the U.S. is calling these self-defense. But as you mentioned, [15:33] this has been going on, this back and forth between what is primarily the Islamic Revolutionary Guard [15:39] Corps, the IRGC, and the U.S. military for several weeks now. This back and forth, this continued [15:45] escalation, which gets to the question about the ceasefire. The reality is there is no ceasefire. [15:50] Both sides, the militaries are continuing to fire at one another, whether it is self-defense, [15:54] as they claim, or whatever it is. This is really more at this point of a pause in major combat [16:01] operations and hostilities. But as these two sides continue to operate in such close proximity to [16:06] one another, there are these continued tit-for-tat escalations that seem to blow up every few days [16:12] into the kinds of strikes we saw the U.S. military take over the weekend. [16:15] And then in some other great reporting that you had over the weekend, it's that the Pentagon has not [16:20] confirmed that Iran placed mines in the Strait of Hormuz, despite what the administration officials, [16:26] including a top general, have said. What have you learned about this? [16:28] So we've been hearing from early on, frankly, for years, actually, there's always been the sense that [16:32] one of Iran's main threats to the Strait of Hormuz would be potentially mines. There are several [16:36] different kinds of them that they can use. There have been multiple reports throughout the course [16:40] of the war, so these 90 days or so, including during the ceasefire, of times where Iran was either [16:46] seen placing new mines or there were mines that were spotted somewhere in the waterways there, [16:52] all the way down towards the Gulf of Oman. At this point, the U.S. military on multiple occasions has [16:57] sent out underwater drones, robots, surveillance aircraft, all these different things. They have [17:02] not identified, positively identified any mines in any of these cases. President Trump went on [17:07] True Social the other day and said, look, we've been blowing up these mines. Officials explained, [17:11] we don't know if they're mines, actually. There have been occasions where they have blown up [17:15] things that could be mines. They look like it. But at this point, there's still no concrete evidence [17:22] that Iran has actually mined the Strait of Hormuz. Okay. That's an important detail. All right. Thank [17:27] you, Courtney. We appreciate it. Let's talk about how this is impacting your bottom line. We bring in [17:30] Ali Canal for more on that. Ali, first, let's talk about the oil markets. How are they reacting [17:35] to where things stand in these negotiations with Iran? Yeah, well, obviously, Ryan, a lot of back and [17:40] forth when it comes to these negotiations. But if you just zero in on the oil market here, [17:44] these traders clearly don't expect a resolution anytime soon. U.S. crude oil briefly neared 95 [17:51] bucks a barrel today. It's since pulled back a bit. We're trading at just around that $92 a barrel [17:56] range. But prior to today, investors have actually been pricing in the possibility of some sort of a [18:02] diplomatic breakthrough here. That helped oil drop below 90 bucks a barrel at certain points over the [18:09] past two weeks. Now we're back up again. And as a reminder here, this all centers on the Strait of [18:14] Hormuz, something that we've been talking about throughout the entire program. It's that critical [18:17] waterway essentially been shut down. We're lucky to see just one or two ships get through. And at [18:23] one point prior to this war, 20 percent of the world's oil supply moved through it every single [18:28] day. So it really is critical that we get the Strait reopened and operating again. You mentioned it [18:34] reopening. There's a chance now that Iran may actually move to completely close the Strait of [18:39] Hormuz. If they actually follow through on that, what could that mean for the price of gas? [18:43] Yeah, it's likely that gas prices are going to go higher. So oil and gas very closely correlated. [18:48] A good rule of thumb is that for every $1 move in crude, that translates to about two to three cents [18:54] a gallon at the pump here. So if you take a look at the national average for gas, we're at $4.32 a gallon. [19:00] Now over the past few weeks, drivers actually saw a bit of relief at the pump due to the fact that oil [19:06] prices were falling on hopes of a breakthrough in these negotiations. But it's also important to keep [19:11] that relief in perspective. Despite these recent declines, gas, it's still up around 45 percent from [19:18] where we were pre-war when the national average was firmly below three bucks a gallon. [19:24] And then finally, we also saw Treasury yields go up. What does that mean for the average consumer? [19:29] It means your borrowing costs are going to go up. So the 10-year Treasury yield, it's a pretty good [19:33] benchmark when you look at things like mortgage rates, also affects other types of borrowing costs [19:38] like the loan you pay on your car, credit card debt, things like that. And it's also important [19:43] when we look ahead to inflation expectations. So traders essentially thinking, OK, if oil keeps going [19:48] up, that means inflation is going to go higher. And if inflation goes higher, it's going to be very [19:53] difficult for the Fed to cut interest rates. So it's all centers on those expectations. And it shows [19:59] that this isn't just an oil story. Everything is very interconnected when we think about the [20:04] economy. It affects inflation, interest rates, and ultimately what consumers are paying. [20:09] Just despite President Trump almost demanding that the Fed cut interest rates. Ali, thanks so much [20:13] for that. We're going to dig more into those numbers a bit later and also more on Trump's decision [20:18] to drop the DOJ anti-weaponization fund. That'll be straight ahead with our panel. [20:23] Plus, another round of revelations facing the Democratic Senate candidate in Maine, [20:28] Graham Plattner. The news that his campaign was warned last year about sexually explicit [20:33] text messages that he sent to multiple women while he was married. The reaction and the fallout [20:39] you're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. The likely Democratic nominee in a crucial [20:55] Maine Senate race is facing yet another controversy. Graham Plattner's campaign confirming he sent [21:00] multiple women sexually explicit texts at the beginning of his marriage. The New York Times and [21:06] Wall Street Journal report his wife, Amy Gertner, told the campaign last year about those texts [21:10] at the outset of his Senate bid during a conversation about potential opposition research into Plattner. [21:17] The outlets cite a former campaign official and people familiar with the matter. Speaking to reporters [21:23] last night, Plattner denying that reporting, but he deflected when pressed about the actual texts. [21:29] The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times ran stories without any evidence besides the gossip [21:36] from a former staffer. I'm sorry. That's, frankly, journalistic malpractice. We pushed back on it. [21:44] They did it anyways. So are you confirming that the messages did not exist? [21:49] What's that? The messages, they did not. I'm confirming that what Genevieve McDonald said [21:54] in the New York Times is not true. It comes as Plattner's trying to shift attention, [22:01] his attention to November's general election against Republican Senator Susan Collins last week, [22:07] sparring with her over his military service after she said in an interview that Collins voted to send [22:12] him to Iraq. I respect anyone who steps forward to serve their country. But the fact is that was [22:21] Plattner's decision to serve, he was not drafted. The idea that it's my fault that I wanted to serve my [22:32] country, but she, one of the establishment politicians who actually started the war, [22:38] has no agency whatsoever and no responsibility. It's a, I think it's a pretty damning admission [22:46] that she doesn't actually seem to take any, any responsibility or even understand the [22:51] consequences of her power and her inability to use it effectively. [22:55] And we aren't done talking about the scandals. Collins also slamming Plattner for a now deleted [23:01] 2019 Reddit post in which he mocked a soldier wounded in Afghanistan who later was awarded a purple heart. [23:09] All of it follows controversies that have dogged his campaign for months, including other Reddit [23:13] posts, minimizing sexual assault in the military, and a since-covered tattoo on his chest that [23:19] resembled a Nazi symbol. Joining me now is our panel, Tia Mitchell, Washington Bureau Chief for the [23:25] Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Democratic strategist Joel Payne, and Rob Blewey, the president and [23:31] executive editor of The Daily Signal. We will dive into this Plattner situation in just a second, guys, [23:38] but I do want to get your immediate reaction to this news that President Trump has decided to pull [23:43] the GOP weaponization fund. At least it appears to be that way. The DOJ putting out a statement that [23:48] they're going to abide by the court's ruling. Does this surprise you, Tia, based on what you saw on [23:52] Capitol Hill the same time I did last week? I think it surprises me a little bit because Trump [23:56] has been so for the fund, saying he wasn't going to go back on what he wanted. He was going to push [24:03] forward. I think he felt emboldened that he could control Congress because of some recent results at [24:08] the polls. But I think what today's announcement indicates is that last week's implosion in Congress [24:16] and the pushback Trump received, I think he got the message that if you don't start learning where [24:22] your limits are and compromising a bit and listening a bit, you're going to have a rough rest of your [24:28] tenure in the White House. Do you think he's gotten that message, Rob, based on your conversations [24:31] with Republican offices? Sure. Ryan, it's June 1st, and this was the self-imposed deadline that [24:36] President Trump gave Congress to get the second reconciliation bill to him to fund ICE and CBP. [24:42] So he understands that if he's going to get that across the finish line, he needed to drop this [24:46] because there was going to be a whole bunch of show votes on the part of Democrats this week. [24:51] Republicans would have voted for it. And the Republicans probably would have done that. [24:54] And what they need to do, Ryan, is they need to shift their focus now to reconciliation 3.0 [24:58] and some of the other things that they want to accomplish to enact the Trump agenda if they're [25:03] going to get back on track when they're talking about economic messaging, lowering taxes, cutting, [25:07] spending, all those things. This was a distraction. [25:09] Joel, it seems like President Trump handed the Democrats a gift with this in many ways. [25:14] Sure. I think also it seems like Democrats actually stuck together. I mean, [25:18] Schumer was able to hold that caucus together. This is actually a little bit of a role that [25:22] Schumer is on in holding Democrats with resolve and with strength against what Trump and Republicans [25:28] are trying to do. Look, I take your skepticism. I share that skepticism. I imagine that there might [25:35] be other attempts to fund this in other ways. But the fact that he realizes he can't go through [25:39] the front door, I do think says something about him acknowledging that the political climate [25:44] doesn't allow for this at this moment. It's an interesting point you make, though, [25:47] about Schumer, right? I mean, the reason that the White House finds themselves in this position [25:51] is because Democrats have held the line on ICE and Border Patrol funding, right? The fact that they even [25:55] had to go the reconciliation route and put this in a dangerous situation is part of the strategy [26:01] by Democrats. Schumer made a bet that at some point that Trump would alienate enough Republicans [26:06] and that the political moment would come to him to allow him to put the squeeze on John Thune [26:12] and Senate Republicans. And look, I think that that's paid off. Obviously, Schumer's gotten a lot [26:16] of criticism. Groups like the one that I represent, Move On, have been a part of that. But you do have [26:21] to give Schumer and Senate Democrats credit when they stand firm. [26:24] We've talked enough about the good things happening to Chuck Schumer. Let's talk about [26:27] something that is a huge headache for him, and that is Graham Plattner [26:29] in Maine. Tia, you've covered your share of flawed candidates in Georgia, and in most of those cases, [26:38] Republicans taking victory out of the jaws of defeat or the other way around. Are the Democrats [26:43] going down a road here where a winnable Senate seat could be in trouble because of Graham Plattner? [26:48] I think there is concern from the Democratic establishment, the party leaders, the insiders, [26:55] the longtime staffers who know a thing or two about winning campaigns. That being said, [27:01] Graham Plattner continues to lead not just in the polls in the primary, but in the polls showing a [27:06] head-to-head matchup against Susan Collins. So the question is, is this really something that is [27:12] rattling voters, or is this just rattling the insiders? And maybe the insiders are seeing [27:19] things that voters don't see yet, but his controversies have not yet really affected [27:25] his standing with voters. [27:26] And I'm going to go to Rob next, but Joel, I want you to weigh in on that part, because I do think [27:30] that's an interesting dynamic here. Are we living in kind of a post-scandal political era where [27:36] if you agree with somebody's policies, you can forgive a lot? [27:40] Yeah. I mean, look, let's look at a parallel in Texas with Ken Paxton. Texas voters seem to [27:45] have forgiven a lot with Ken Paxton. U.S. voters, 70-plus million on three different occasions have [27:50] seem to have forgiven Donald Trump for a lot, including many of the things that Graham Plattner [27:54] is accused of doing. I think what would be a problem for Plattner is if his brand was different [27:59] than what is being exposed right now. If Graham Plattner positioned himself as a choir boy who had never [28:04] fallen on the wrong side of the law or the wrong side of, you know, kind of, you know, societal [28:09] standards, right? I think that would be a problem. The fact that actually this is within the range of [28:15] who main voters know Graham Plattner to be, I actually think gives some insulation. [28:18] You really think that's a fair assessment, though? [28:19] I do. I actually— [28:21] Like, they knew that he was sexting people inside of his marriage. [28:23] I mean, I think the fact that some of his Reddit posts are already out and some of his tattoos are [28:27] already out, and he was about to blow Janet Mills out of the water by 40 points, and he's up nine [28:31] points in some polls on Susan Collins with that being on a public record now. I'm not saying [28:35] he can't be beaten. I'm saying voters, I think, have a changing rubric on this that I think [28:40] Washington is updating. [28:43] I think Joel's on to something there. I mean, in terms of the image that he has presented, [28:46] I also think the anti-incumbent mentality that seems to be present right now because of the [28:51] frustrations about the cost of living in our country and some of the inability for Congress [28:55] to get anything done. But I will say this about Susan Collins. I mean, she's proven time and time again [28:59] that she's able to push back on Democrat attempts to unseat her. I mean, she's done it repeatedly, [29:04] and so we're still very early in this Senate race, Ryan. I think that as she starts to ramp [29:09] up her messaging and attacks on Plattner, we'll see if that nine-point lead sticks. [29:13] Does anyone at this table remember the name Sarah Gideon, right? Whatever happened to her, [29:17] she was going to win by 10 points. But, Rob, to that point, I understand where things may sit [29:22] on the ground in Maine, and maybe Plattner survives. But if I'm a Republican strategist, [29:26] am I bringing Graham Plattner's name up in every competitive congressional district and state [29:31] across the country? [29:32] Yeah, it seems that you're already starting to see that, right? Because Republicans do see an [29:35] opportunity here to make him the new face of the Democrat Party. And so I think that you'll [29:39] increasingly see that, Ryan. It's interesting that Plattner took a page almost from Donald Trump [29:43] there in the clip you played earlier, Ryan, where he was attacking the news media. And I think that [29:47] maybe, to your point, that's the approach that he would try to do to rebuff some of those attacks [29:53] that Republicans will no doubt launch against him across the country. [29:56] Yeah, okay. Let's talk about another big issue that's dominating the headlines, and that is [30:00] Jill Biden's new book. She was on the Today Show this morning with my colleague, Craig Melvin. I want [30:06] to play just a little clip of the back and forth between them about the moment at the end of the [30:11] debate that kind of led to the end of Joe Biden's career. [30:13] He gets off the stage. I see he appears to be okay. He says to me, Jill, I really, in other words, [30:23] messed up, didn't I? And I said, yes, you did. I'm his wife. I've got to lift him up. [30:29] So we go to the next event, and I'm thinking, what do I say that will lift him up? That is true. [30:34] I want to say the things that are true. And so I said, you know, you answered every question. [30:39] My mind's racing. [30:40] That's a pretty low bar. [30:42] That is a pretty low bar. And Tia, I know Democrats do not want to relitigate this, [30:48] but there's certainly a trust issue that exists, not just with independent voters, but [30:52] based Democratic voters that believe that they were sold a bill of goods by the Bidens. [30:56] Are interviews like this by the first lady, former first lady doing anything to solve that problem? [31:01] I don't think so, because there still doesn't seem to be what I think a lot of voters, [31:06] including Democrats, are looking for, which is people who are willing to say, [31:10] we overlooked some things. We gave him too much grace. We were deferring to what he wanted, [31:16] maybe not what the country in our party needed. And that's not really, I think, [31:20] her purpose. You know, she's wanting to give, you know, a very friendly narrative towards not [31:26] just herself, but of course her husband. And I get that from the aspect of a spouse wanting to [31:32] protect her husband, but I don't necessarily think that's the conversation that a lot of people are [31:37] looking for in this moment. [31:39] Yeah. And Joel, when you talk about, you know, people, and Bob talked about it too, [31:42] not wanting establishment. I mean, is this helping at all in terms of that narrative? [31:46] I'll just use this as an example. I work with MoveOn. We announced a big election program going [31:51] through the midterms this year. One of our big points is we are going after Democratic-leaning [31:56] folks who stayed home in 2024, voted in 2020. There are 19 million of those people. I think [32:02] Democrats get caught up talking about those jump ball voters in the middle, the flippers, [32:05] but the skippers are people who are dissuaded from voting because they don't trust Democratic [32:11] establishment thought and Democratic establishment leaders. And unfortunately, I think what the former [32:16] first lady is showing here is exhibit A of why there is so much disaffection within that [32:20] Democratic base. [32:21] And I'll let you have the last word, Rob. [32:22] Yeah. Particularly coming on the heels of the autopsy, which was not well received, [32:26] I don't think by anybody, particularly Democrats who are looking for some real reasons why they [32:31] may have underperformed in 2024. This does not help, Ryan. [32:34] Okay. We're going to leave it there, guys. Tia, Joel, and Rob. Terrific conversation as always. [32:37] We appreciate you being here. Up next, if it is Monday, it's election day eve, and we're previewing [32:43] tomorrow's midterm primaries across six states, including marquee races in California and Iowa, [32:48] and what to watch for as the results start rolling in. Keep it right here. [32:52] We're going to meet the press now. [33:04] Welcome back. Tomorrow is one of the largest and busiest primary days of the midterm cycle, [33:08] with voters in six states, California, Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, [33:13] and South Dakota heading to the polls. In Iowa, Democrats will decide between state [33:18] Representative Josh Turek, a moderate, and state Senator Zach Walls, a progressive, [33:23] as they seek to flip retiring Senator Joni Ernst's Senate seat. [33:27] In the Republican primary, Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, who was endorsed by President Trump, [33:32] is facing off against former state Senator Jim Carlin. [33:35] The other big races in California are in California, which features a top two primary, [33:40] meaning the two top candidates move on to November's general election, regardless of their party affiliation. [33:45] The race for governor features a crowded field, including Democrat and former HHS Secretary Javier [33:51] Becerra, and Trump-backed Republican Steve Hilton. Remember, this contest was roiled by sexual [33:58] assault allegations against one of the race's frontrunners, former Congressman Eric Swalwell, [34:03] who dropped out. And in the race for Los Angeles mayor incumbent Karen Bass is facing a challenge [34:09] from the right and the left, Republican reality TV star Spencer Pratt, and city council member [34:15] Democratic Socialist Naitha Rahman. NBC News correspondent Liz Kreutz joins me now. [34:22] And, Liz, you are in the Pacific Palisades. That, of course, has been a focal point of the mayoral race. [34:27] So let's start there. And we'll have to talk about Spencer Pratt, if that's where we're starting. [34:32] He has relentlessly attacked Mayor Bass' response to last year's wildfires. Is that resonating with voters? [34:38] Hey, Ryan, it really is here in the Pacific Palisades. And it's important to remember that [34:44] Spencer Pratt is also a fire victim. He lost his home in the fire. His parents lost his home in the [34:50] fire. So this is personal for him. And the fires is why he decided to run for mayor. Talking to voters [34:56] here in the Palisades, we can feel the anger. One after the next voter tells us they are voting for [35:01] Spencer Pratt. Whether or not they want to say so publicly, they are. And they are doing so because [35:06] they are angry. They feel like the city of L.A. failed them. They feel like the current incumbent [35:11] mayor, Karen Bass, mismanaged the fire, didn't do enough in the initial days, and has had a slow [35:16] recovery response since. So there's a lot of anger here. And, Ryan, I'll tell you, I talked to one [35:20] voter here. I said, what do you say to those who say Spencer Pratt is a grievance candidate? He's just [35:24] yelling about the problems of L.A., homelessness, crime, but doesn't actually have a plan to fix it and [35:29] doesn't have experience. And she flat out said, you know, I think that's true, but I'm voting because of [35:35] grievances. And I want to send a message for change. Well, it sounds, Liz, based on your [35:39] conversations, that he may have enough support to move on to November. Is there momentum [35:43] behind Pratt's campaign? That is the big question. There's certainly momentum and there's certainly [35:49] momentum online. I'm sure you've seen these AI campaign ads that have gone viral made by his [35:54] supporters. The question will be, can he translate that online support to actual votes? And can he get [36:00] support outside of a place like the Pacific Palisades? Can he appeal to the Latino and Black [36:05] communities here in L.A.? What he is going for him potentially is this idea of the shy Spencer [36:10] Pratt voter, like we saw here today. So many people that don't want to publicly say they're voting for [36:14] him in a very blue city. What he is working against him is just the electorate of this city. I mean, [36:20] L.A. County, I know we're talking about the city, but L.A. County is 51 percent registered Democrats, [36:24] 18 percent registered Republicans. And let's talk about the California gubernatorial primary. [36:31] That's been somewhat of a jumbled mess, especially after Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race. [36:35] Is there a front runner? Yeah. I mean, Eric Swalwell dropping out, [36:41] he was seen as the person who would be the front runner that Democrats would coalesce behind. [36:45] He had the backing of the establishment of many of the unions. He dropped out of the race and many [36:50] Democrats were looking around saying, what are we going to do? There's tons of Democrats and [36:54] candidates in this race. It took a long time for people to kind of coalesce behind some of them. [36:58] But we are in these final days seeing that Democrats seem to be rallying behind two candidates. [37:04] The front runner right now is Javier Becerra, Biden's former HHS secretary. And then also [37:09] Tom Steyer, who is a hedge fund manager turned billionaire climate activist who sort of [37:14] surprisingly has captured the progressive wing of the voters. And there's also the Republican in [37:19] this race, Steve Hilton, who is British. He worked for a former British prime minister, [37:23] David Cameron. Right now, Becerra seems to be in the lead. So it's really going to be a race to [37:28] see who gets that second spot, Becerra, Steyer or Hilton going into November, Ryan. [37:34] Okay. Liz, we'll be on top of all of it tomorrow. I'm sure you will too. Thank you so much. Speaking [37:38] of elections, I'll be joining my colleagues, Hallie Jackson, Steve Kordacki and Garrett Haig for a live [37:43] special coverage of tomorrow's primaries. It kicks off at 10 p.m. Eastern. You can watch it right here [37:49] on NBC News Now. After the break, though, meet one of the Democratic candidates vying to replace [37:54] retiring Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi in one of California's key House matchup. That interview [38:00] is next on Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. For the first time in 40 years, Nancy Pelosi will not [38:14] be on the ballot this election year, but her presence is still very much a part of the race [38:19] to succeed her. Three Democrats are vying to replace the retiring Speaker Emerita in California's [38:25] 11th congressional district. Pelosi has endorsed San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan in that race, [38:31] but progressive and former AOC chief of staff, Shaka Chakrabani, who was just 10 months old when [38:37] Pelosi was first elected to Congress, is casting himself as the anti-establishment candidate in [38:43] hopes of moving on to November's general election. And Chakrabani joins me now to talk more about his [38:49] race. Thank you so much for being here. You're certainly running as an outsider in this race to [38:54] succeed Nancy Pelosi. She was, of course, the face of the Democratic Party for a generation [38:58] who hasn't endorsed your opponent. But do you think you can still win tomorrow's primary by [39:03] criticizing her? Well, I'm not criticizing Nancy Pelosi, but I do talk about my policy differences [39:10] with Nancy Pelosi. Look, I have a lot of respect for former Speaker Pelosi, especially what she did [39:15] when she first got elected into the seat back in the 1980s when she really brought light to the AIDS [39:21] epidemic that was going on then. You know, she really pushed the bounds of what was politically [39:24] possible at that time. But that's what I think we need a Democratic Party to do today. I mean, [39:28] people are getting crushed by the cost of living crisis. People are sick of the corruption they [39:32] see in Washington. And I am running to change the Democratic Party to make sure we root out that [39:37] corruption to make sure we can actually fight Trump, but also to have a real vision for how to use [39:42] democracy to make people's lives better. And I believe we're in a huge change moment right now [39:46] where that's possible. There are dozens of candidates running all over the country talking about the [39:51] same kind of platform. And I'm reaching out to them to try to organize a team of us who are going to go to [39:55] D.C. and actually change the system. Well, you did serve as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's [40:02] chief of staff. Yet, as the New York Times points out, she's not endorsed you or been [40:05] actively campaigning for you. Do you wish that she'd been more a vocal campaigner ahead of tomorrow's [40:11] primary? You know, of course, I'd love to have representative Ocasio-Cortez's endorsement, [40:17] but she was part of a group of candidates that I was supporting back in 2018 when I started Justice [40:23] Justice Democrats. And back then, we started Justice Democrats to recruit working-class candidates who [40:27] would take no corporate money to challenge not just Republicans, but to also primary some corporate [40:31] Democrats. And so AOC was one of those candidates, but so was Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna [40:37] Presley, the squad, you know, and we got them elected. And I am proud to have the endorsements [40:41] from Representative Tlaib and Representative Omar. But look, this campaign has never been about [40:46] endorsements. I started this race back in February of last year as a primary challenge to Nancy Pelosi. [40:50] So our theory of change was always direct voter contact. And that's why we've built the largest [40:57] field campaign in San Francisco history and congressional race history, as far as I can tell. [41:01] We've knocked about a half a million doors in the city. We've talked to hundreds of thousands of [41:05] people. I've done virtual town halls almost every weekday, about 250 of them since I started this [41:09] campaign. And what we've learned through that is that when people actually hear our message that we need [41:14] real change, that we actually need to change the Democratic Party so we can actually pass things like [41:18] Medicare for all, you know, do things like banning congressional stock trading, that's resonating [41:22] with people. And that's why I believe going to tomorrow, we are going to have a really strong [41:27] showing and get past this all the way to November. [41:30] You mentioned your co-founding of Justice Democrats. You also worked on Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign, [41:35] which was very much directed and steered toward the working class. But you're also worth more than [41:41] $150 million, according to multiple reports. How do you square that with that message that you have [41:46] with voters who are struggling to make ends meet that might be concerns you can't relate to their [41:51] issues? Look, when I first came out to San Francisco back in 2009, I wasn't political at all the time. [41:58] I worked in the tech industry thinking I'd be using technology to maybe tackle some of the big [42:02] problems facing society. But it was living in San Francisco, seeing my neighbors getting displaced every [42:09] single day that drove me into progressive politics. But yeah, at the same time, I ended up joining a [42:14] startup as an early engineer. And then just because I was in the right place at the right time, I ended up [42:18] making a lot of money. But, you know, I worked hard, but I didn't work harder than a teacher or a nurse [42:24] or the janitors who were cleaning our offices were every single day. I just won a startup lottery. [42:28] And at the same time, I was watching those teachers and janitors and nurses getting kicked out. [42:32] And that whole experience really showed me just how broken our economy is, especially for someone like me, [42:37] because, you know, I don't come from money. I grew up middle class going to public schools and my [42:41] parents grew up in poverty. My dad was a refugee during partition in India. And he came to this [42:46] country with literally eight dollars in his pocket and was able to achieve the American dream. [42:50] And so that's why I quit tech. And I've spent the last 10 years of my life trying to unrig this [42:55] rigged economy, trying to pass taxes on the ultra rich, including myself, you know, trying to actually [42:59] build a society that works for working people. Because I fundamentally believe that if we can't bring that [43:04] American dream back, we can't make it again so that you can come to this country with eight dollars [43:09] in your pockets and actually afford a life on a middle income, then we are going to keep seeing [43:13] authoritarians come to power. You have to use democracy to make people's lives better or people [43:17] are going to keep voting for the strong man. And you talk about changing the system. Do you think [43:21] that includes leadership in Washington? Would you support Hakeem Jeffries to continue leading the [43:26] House Democrats, especially if Democrats win back the majority? No, I don't believe Hakeem Jeffries has been a good [43:34] leader and I've said that I would not support him. And if you look at candidates running around the [43:38] country right now, there's about a hundred people running for Congress who off the record [43:42] will tell you that they don't support Hakeem Jeffries. And I believe that's an organizing [43:45] opportunity. I really think we need leadership in the party who will refuse corporate money, [43:50] who will refuse money from the Israel lobby and who will have a real vision for how to fight Trump in [43:56] this moment. I mean, we've seen over and over again a Democratic Party that keeps caving when they have [44:00] these points of leverage. And so that's what I'm going in there to do in 2026. I think there's a [44:05] chance for a team of us to go in there and actually force Democrats to fight when we have things like [44:09] these debt ceiling fights, these government budget fights, you know, claw back the money that we've [44:14] given to ICE, which now has the budget, same budget as the military of Canada, actually restore the ACA [44:19] cuts, the Medicaid subsidies, the food snap benefits. And then the real opportunity is going in 2028. [44:24] I think that's going to be our New Deal moment, right? People are really suffering right now and they're [44:29] looking for change. People have been voting for change since Obama. And the question in front of [44:34] us right now is, what is the kind of change the Democrats are going to offer? Are we going to try [44:38] to just go back to a pre-Trump status quo that wasn't working? Or are we going to pitch something [44:42] different and then actually implement it, actually do things like, you know, slash our military budget [44:47] and stop spending trillions of dollars on endless wars and genocides abroad and invest that back home [44:52] here, actually pass a wealth tax on the ultra-rich, actually create the kind of clean high-wage [44:57] industries that create tons of wealth for working people. And then, of course, you know, actually [45:03] get the cost of living under control. Do things like universal child care, you know, universal [45:07] health care, tuition-free public college and trade schools. Make sure we make housing affordable. [45:11] We have to actually do this stuff if we want a hope of winning our country back. [45:16] Okay. Chakravati, we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you and good luck. We'll be watching [45:20] your race very closely. Still to come, clashes and unrest. We're live outside the federal immigration [45:26] detention center where protesters have been demonstrating and clashing with authorities [45:29] over allegations of inhumane conditions for those inside. Stay with us. This is Meet the Press Now. [45:50] Welcome back. Protests outside the ICE detention center in New Jersey are showing no signs of slowing [45:55] down. Officials say several protesters were arrested on Sunday as protesters faced off with police at [46:01] Delaney Hall. The immigration detention center in Newark that's been at the center of more than a week [46:06] of chaotic and sometimes violent clashes. On Sunday, Newark's mayor imposed a 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. [46:13] curfew for the half-mile area around the facility due to the escalating situation. Detainees at Delaney [46:19] Hall have reportedly been holding hunger and labor strikes over the conditions at the center [46:23] and a temporary suspension of visitation rights for their families by government officials. [46:28] The Department of Homeland Security has pushed back against those claims, posting online that no [46:33] lawbreakers in the history of human civilization have been treated better than illegal aliens. [46:40] NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley joins me from outside Delaney Hall. [46:46] Julia, just update us. What is the situation like there tonight after the first night of curfew? [46:53] Well, you can tell things are getting just a little more tense. There's some more yelling. [46:57] That's actually being directed at the New Jersey state police that are outside here because they've set [47:01] up a security perimeter now. You can't even get within a half-mile of Delaney Hall. So the [47:06] protesters are all out here. It's actually leading to some pretty significant traffic jams. But [47:11] it's been largely peaceful during the day. But I want you to hear what Secretary of Homeland Security [47:15] Mark Wayne Mullen said about how they will be responding to any violence or threats from [47:21] protesters. Take a listen. [47:23] We have zero tolerance. The president and I have talked about this. [47:26] If you verbally assault our officers, if you attack our vehicles, if you attack our property, [47:34] you attack the person themselves, we will arrest you. [47:41] And that, of course, comes after the protest here in recent nights. Some have been arrested, [47:47] really picking up Thursday, Friday, Saturday nights. We'll see what happens tonight when that [47:52] 9 p.m. curfew goes into effect. But I should say, we can still see protesters here because they're [47:57] just not allowed to get any closer after that curfew. [48:01] And you have some new reporting that border czar Tom Homan visited the facility this weekend. [48:06] What more do we know about his visit? [48:10] Yeah, Ryan, what makes this kind of funny is the fact that I'm relying on two anonymous sources to [48:14] tell you this. You'd think it would have been more of a publicity thing, something they'd want to [48:17] get out. But as we understand it from sources familiar, Tom Homan, the border czar who's been [48:21] closed on immigration issues with Trump since the first term, came here on Saturday for lunch. He came [48:26] unannounced and sat down with the detainees and had a meal with them. We understand he had spaghetti [48:30] and meatballs, salad, green beans, and a bread roll, and that he thought that the food was [48:35] adequate. But that's not something that was publicized. And again, it just goes to the fact [48:40] that if cameras could get inside, if journalists could get inside, and we could talk to more people [48:44] inside, it would be easier to try to figure out the discrepancy between what we're hearing from [48:50] lawyers and advocates and Democratic lawmakers like Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey, like the [48:56] governor of New Jersey, and what we're hearing from people who were close to Tom Homan, as well [49:01] as Secretary Mullen and the spokespeople for DHS who say that these people are being given adequate [49:07] food, adequate health care, and are being treated totally humanely. And just very quickly, New Jersey [49:12] Governor Mikey Sherrill announced over the weekend that family visitation rights which had been suspended [49:17] were being restored. Are those visits taking place? Yeah, Ryan. In fact, we just saw today [49:24] two women on their way in to meet with a family member. They were given a police escort past the [49:29] security barrier so that they could find their way in and have that meeting. And we expect when you hear [49:34] about family visitation rights being taken away anywhere, that usually makes things much more tense [49:40] inside because people feel they have no outlet, no way to communicate what's happening. So we may see that [49:45] we might alleviate some tension in this situation, but we'll wait and see. Everything we'll be watching [49:49] tonight. Okay, Julia, thank you so much for being there. We appreciate it. We'll be back tomorrow [49:53] with more Meet the Press Now, but there's more news ahead on NBC News Now.