Meet the Press NOW — June 5

[0:10] Hi there. Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington closing out a wild week for [0:14] the White House as parts of President Trump's agenda were derailed and in some cases re-railed [0:20] with Republicans on Capitol Hill battling internal divisions in the Senate and they basically lost [0:27] control of the agenda in the House to Democrats. Raising questions about how far Congress is [0:32] willing to go to act as a check on the president with less than five months to the midterms. [0:37] Right now, President Trump is in Battleground, Wisconsin, where he's set to participate in a [0:41] roundtable discussion that's focused on agriculture. It's also where he's sitting down with Meet the [0:47] Press moderator Kristen Welker for an exclusive interview for the show on Sunday. We'll have [0:53] more on that in a moment. The president coming off a legislative win last night in the Senate where [0:58] Republicans passing the $70 billion fund to fund ICE and Border Patrol without any definitive guard [1:05] rails to assure the Justice Department follows through on its promise to abandon the president's [1:10] so-called anti-weaponization fund. Now, after that vote, Republican Majority Leader John Thune [1:16] explaining why none of the attempts to include that language in the final legislation were successful. [1:22] What happened with these attempts to try to add amendments related to the weaponization fund? [1:28] Why do you think none of them ended up being successful? [1:31] Well, we didn't have the votes. I mean, I think our folks understood what the mission was, [1:38] and that was to get those two bills across the finish line and fund the border and law enforcement [1:45] and that everything else was a distraction. Still, the weight of all the Republican pushback [1:55] this week against the weaponization fund, the war in Iran, and the president's handling of the war in [2:00] Ukraine is raising questions about how far some Republicans are willing to go to cross the [2:05] administration. And looming on the congressional schedule is the confirmation of acting Attorney [2:10] General Todd Blanche, who will likely still face heat from Republicans about the anti-weaponization [2:16] fund. President Trump also needs Congress to pass reauthorization of a key surveillance tool [2:21] after he appointed a fierce loyalist, Bill Pulte, to the top intel job. Now, Pulte's appointment [2:27] is already facing outrage from both sides of the aisle, and President Trump adding fuel to the fire [2:33] today, confirming reports that he told Pulte to fire staff within the office of the director of [2:39] national intelligence. Why do you want Bill Pulte to cut the office of the director of national [2:45] intelligence? And how long is he going to be in that role? Depends on how long it takes to get [2:49] somebody improved. He'll do a very good job. He'll watch it. He'll sleep. But Bill Pulte is very good. [2:57] He's very talented. You want him to cut the number of people working there? I wouldn't mind. I've heard [3:01] that's way too high for way too long. Yeah, I wouldn't mind. If he cut, I wouldn't mind. Who are the people [3:07] you're talking to for DNI? Can you give us some names? Five different people. All very good, [3:13] all people that you know very well. All people that do that kind of thing, and they're very [3:18] respected people. Joining me now is NBC News senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez, [3:25] who's traveling with the president in Wisconsin, and where the president is set to speak. With me on [3:30] set is NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Melanie Zanona. All right, Gabe, let's go to you first. [3:34] We did hear from the president on his way to Wisconsin, and again, when he got off the plane, [3:38] what else did he say, and what kind of message can we expect from the president when he speaks [3:43] behind you there in Wisconsin? Well, Ryan, certainly this is a very competitive House [3:49] district ahead of the midterms, one of the most competitive, really, across the country, [3:53] and Republicans need, or they feel they need to hold onto this seat, and that's part of the reason [3:58] why the president is coming here today. He'll be speaking to farmers in this area just outside of [4:03] Eau Claire, and the message we expect from him, Ryan, is to talk about the economy. Already, [4:08] the president, in both opportunities, he's had to speak with reporters today aboard Air Force One, [4:14] and also when he got off the plane, he has been touting those economic numbers, those stronger-than-expected [4:19] job numbers that we heard about this morning, also touting how gas prices have come down over the last [4:27] several weeks, some 30 cents or so. However, the stock market, the Dow Jones, took quite a hit today [4:34] over fears over inflation, and that is something that the president and his administration feel [4:39] that they need to try and sell the Iran war to the American people. So we expect to hear more from [4:45] the president on that topic. Board Air Force One, you mentioned some of the things he talked about. [4:50] He dismissed any concerns about Bill Pulte, his selection for acting DNI, and he also lashed out [4:56] against Republicans like Tom Tillis, who are skeptical of Pulte's appointment, calling Tillis [5:02] a very angry man. So certainly the president not backing down, even as he sees that increasing [5:08] skepticism from some Republicans in the Senate, Ryan. [5:13] Yeah, and Gabe, you mentioned it being one of the most competitive congressional districts in the [5:16] country. We see Derek Van Orden, who is the congressman at risk there in that district, [5:20] speaking to this crowd, riling them up. Let's talk about how the White House is feeling about the [5:25] Senate passing that reconciliation bill last night without any language about the anti-weaponization [5:30] fund. Is there still a chance, is there an opening for this fund to come back at some point? [5:34] Well, look, at this point, you talk to White House officials, they're not really talking about [5:41] bringing this fund back, but you do hear the president himself kind of stoking those concerns among [5:47] some congressional Republicans and, of course, Democrats. And every time he's asked about it, [5:51] he says he loves the idea of this weaponization fund, seeming to go against his very own acting [5:58] attorney general, Todd Blanche, who told congressional leaders in no uncertain terms that this [6:04] weaponization fund was, in fact, dead on arrival. Still, the president has been coming back and [6:10] saying that he loves it. And then he didn't back down because of congressional pressure, but only because [6:15] a judge ruled against it, although a judge didn't really rule against it, just issued a temporary [6:20] pause at this point. But so far from what we heard from the White House officials, no, they're not [6:26] thinking that this weaponization fund will come back and in a real form, at least for now, Ryan. [6:31] And you mentioned that the president is standing by Bill Pulte, but he also confirmed that he wants [6:38] to act on Pulte's slashing staff. Is the White House at all concerned about other legislative [6:44] priorities like FISA that could be at risk with Pulte's appointment and then any subsequent firings [6:49] at the DNI's office? Well, look, I just heard from a White House official on that topic, and [6:55] their response is essentially to blame Democrats for any pushback they might get on FISA. They are trying [7:02] to sell the Pulte nomination as best they could, trying to argue that he does have relevant experience. [7:10] The president saying that he led, oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and so that somehow qualifies him [7:16] to be acting DNI, although there is huge skepticism, as you know, Ryan, on the Hill, that he's any [7:23] relevant national security background. But we did hear from the president when he was asked directly [7:28] about this aboard Air Force One a short time ago that he wouldn't mind if Bill Pulte went ahead [7:34] and slashed jobs in the intelligence community. So at this point, though, the White House doesn't [7:39] think that will hold up FISA, and they're tacked on this. What they plan to do is really hit Democrats [7:46] hard if there is any pushback on FISA at this point, Ryan. [7:51] Okay, Gabe Gutierrez, keep an eye on that in Wisconsin for us. We appreciate it. Let's bring [7:56] Mellon to the conversation now, and I want to pick up where Gabe left off. There are Democrats, [7:59] the White House blaming Democrats for the reason that FISA isn't being passed, but they have a real [8:03] problem with Republicans right now on Capitol Hill. What's the mood like? We're certainly starting to [8:08] see some of them push back a little bit, but as we saw last night, they ultimately fell in line. [8:14] What's the next six months going to be like for Republicans? [8:17] I feel like it's going to be very difficult still for the next six months. Yes, the YOLO caucus did fall [8:21] in line. They ultimately did not add any amendments that would have really rebuked Trump. But they are [8:27] starting to light some fires. They're not burning the whole house down. But let's not lose sight of [8:30] the big picture here. It was the pressure from Republicans that led GOP leadership to ultimately [8:35] drop ballroom funding from the reconciliation package. They also had a lot to do with the fact [8:41] that the DOJ announced they would be abandoning that anti-weaponization fund. Now, of course, [8:45] we'll see whether that comes back now that there is no legislative binding to prevent the [8:49] administration from resurrecting that fund. But I do think that some of these Republicans are really [8:54] starting to use their voice. And we're going to see a lot more of that as we get closer to November. [8:58] There's a big difference between passing something they wanted to pass anyway, as opposed to passing [9:02] something with a bunch of stuff in it that the president wanted that they didn't necessarily want. [9:06] We did hear from Senator Murkowski last night. She seemed to keep the door open to this idea [9:10] that they might actually pass something that would prevent the weaponization fund from actually [9:15] being implemented. Is that realistic at this point? [9:18] I'm still skeptical. There are certainly other Republicans who support that, who are concerned [9:22] about the weaponization fund. You see that in Tom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, John Husted, Dan Sullivan, [9:27] some of these members in really tough races. But as you know, on Capitol Hill, it's just very [9:32] difficult to go through the normal legislative process to pass these bills if you don't have a [9:36] majority of the majority's support, which is at least right now not what we're seeing. And so I think [9:41] yesterday was probably their best opportunity to be able to pass legislation. That being said, [9:45] I don't think it's an issue that's necessarily going away anytime soon. [9:48] And let's talk about some of the things that are on the horizon. They've got to confirm Todd Blanche [9:52] as an ex-attorney general. That necessarily won't be easy. They also have to renew this FISA section 702. [9:59] Given what we saw, how difficult could both of those things be? [10:03] I think they're going to be even more difficult than reconciliation. Reconciliation had the benefit of [10:06] the fact that underlying all of it was this immigration bill that had a lot of support among Republicans. [10:11] When it comes to both Todd Blanche as well as FISA, we're already seeing members come out expressing [10:16] their concerns. Tom Tillis, he's a key member of the Judiciary Committee. He has already come out [10:20] and said he has concerns about Ted Blanche as the permanent nominee. And then when it comes to FISA, [10:25] Democrats, they're needed here because Republicans can't agree amongst themselves on FISA. [10:30] So they have come out and said they're going to vote against this bipartisan deal if Pulte is still [10:35] in the acting position. So there is a huge mess awaiting us and everyone else as we get back to Capitol [10:40] Hill next week. Yeah, probably the next six months is going to be a bit like this. All right. [10:43] Melanie Zanota, thank you for that as always. Let's turn now to the economy and a labor market [10:48] that is proving itself to be rather resilient despite the effects of rising costs from the war [10:53] against Iran and high anxiety from consumers. The Labor Department reporting today that the economy [10:58] created 172,000 new jobs last month. That was well above expectations. It's the third straight month the [11:05] labor market has grown by more than 170,000 jobs. The unemployment rate holding steady at 4.3%. [11:12] The White House today touting those numbers. I think that basically what we're seeing is an [11:18] enormous amount of positive momentum in hiring, obviously. You're right that a couple of 170s in [11:24] a row, that's a great couple of months, but then having upper divisions of around 100,000 means that [11:29] this is a job market that's hitting on all cylinders. And it's our belief that this is happening [11:35] because of all of the supply side policies that the president has put in place. [11:40] Now, today's news coming less than a month after the Labor Department reported that inflation in [11:44] April hit 3.8%, its highest level in three years. And as the average price for a gallon of gas remains [11:50] above $4.20 a gallon, that's according to AAA, up more than 40% since the start of the war with Iran. [11:58] It was a brutal day on Wall Street despite that jobs report. All three major indices down on the day. [12:04] The Nasdaq tumbling more than 4%. President Trump posting on social media with a great [12:09] drops report, like just announced, stocks should go up, not down. That's the way it was for 200 [12:15] years. Growth does not mean inflation. NBC News chief business correspondent Christine Romans joins me [12:21] now. The president apparently trying to will the market in his direction. But we did get a wild day [12:26] on Wall Street. And let's start with the May jobs numbers, though. Break down today's report. [12:31] What does it tell us? You know, this is a show that is watched by people who watch and follow [12:36] politics. So let me put it in the political context here. The last three months of job creation [12:42] were the best three months for jobs since Joe Biden was president. So look at that. Last year was not [12:49] a great year for job creation. This shows you three strong months here. You saw Kevin Hassett say firing [12:54] on all cylinders. A few things happening here. You've got tax benefits in the big, beautiful bill. [12:59] That's helping companies. They are through the tariff uncertainty of last year. And in fact, [13:04] many companies are getting millions of dollars back in tariff refunds and an economy that has [13:08] just been resilient. And we saw this at the end of the Biden administration as well. No matter what [13:12] kind of hit the economy took, it kept moving forward. You're seeing that, by the way, voters didn't [13:19] believe that and voted Democrats out. But now you have kind of a similar situation. The jobless rate, [13:25] 4.3 percent, that is enviable. And then here's the rub. You mentioned that 3.8 percent unemployment [13:30] rate or 3.8 percent inflation rate and 3.4 percent wages. This is purchasing power that is [13:38] diminishing a little bit. Another reason why the consumer sentiment numbers are just so bad, Ryan. [13:42] And so let's turn now to this tumultuous day for the markets, especially the NASDAQ. [13:46] Explain to us what happened. [13:48] So a couple of things here. But most importantly, they saw that strong labor number, [13:53] those three strong months in a row and a 4.3 percent jobless rate. And remember, [13:58] a lot of folks have been penciling in rate cuts to support the job market. This is not a job market [14:03] that needs to be supported. So a lot of people thinking here the next move could be a rate hike [14:08] and higher interest rates, of course, hurt very fast growing industries like tech, [14:14] companies that take on a lot of debt. So that's why you're seeing that part of the market really move [14:18] lower. That's an ugly number, by the way. A one day move of 4 percent. [14:21] That is that's a big move, Ryan. You haven't seen anything like that since I think [14:25] April of last year. That was that Liberation Day tariffs when markets just fell out of bed. [14:31] And as your numbers show us, inflation is up, consumer sentiment is down, but the labor market [14:36] is resilient. How do you square those different numbers that seem to tell us different things? [14:40] Because companies are powering ahead here and they're hiring people still. And one thing that [14:46] is interesting to me about this number in particular, it means they're hiring, but they're not having [14:50] to pay up for workers. So a couple of reasons there are probably AI. They're probably the job [14:57] market just isn't as gangbusters as it was maybe in 2024 when we were worried about it being too hot. [15:02] It's it's good. It's good. It's very good. But it's not so good that it means wages have to rise [15:09] faster than inflation. By the way, we're going to get another inflation report, I think, next week. [15:12] And gosh, there are a lot of people I talk to think you could see a number more like four percent [15:18] on inflation. So watch this space. This is the part of the economy that people are screaming about, [15:23] the affordability part of the economy. Prices still rising. Gas prices have improved a little [15:28] bit over the past few days. Hopefully they will in the days ahead as well because oil prices fall [15:33] today. But still, gas was 298 before the war began four months ago, 422 today. That's a big [15:40] difference for family budgets and for business budgets. So that's still a drag on the economy. [15:44] OK, Christine Romans, thanks for breaking it down for us. We appreciate it. As we mentioned, [15:48] we do have a major programming announcement. Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker [15:52] sits down with President Trump today in Wisconsin for a wide ranging exclusive interview. You can watch it [15:58] this Sunday on Meet the Press and catch the highlights right here on NBC News Now. Coming [16:04] up, Russian President Putin claims he's open for a compromise on Ukraine, but says he sees no point [16:09] in meeting with President Zelensky. NBC speaks with a top Kremlin official inside Russia next. [16:16] You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. Russian President Vladimir Putin says he sees [16:28] no point in meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. Those comments came during his remarks to [16:34] the St. Petersburg Economic Forum just one day after he told reporters that he was ready to [16:39] make some compromises for a peace deal at the request of President Trump. At the request of [16:44] President Trump, I should say, provided that Ukraine did the same thing. Joining me now is Chief [16:49] International Correspondent Keir Simmons. He's actually in St. Petersburg. Keir, you just sat down [16:54] with the Russian Deputy Prime Minister, a very important interview. What did he tell you? [17:03] That's right, Ryan. And we spoke to him immediately after President Putin [17:06] had given that address and conducted that Q&A session for hours here in St. Petersburg. And [17:13] you mentioned some of the things President Putin had to say after he rejected that face-to-face meeting [17:19] with Zelensky. He then addressed Russian soldiers and said, keep going, brothers, underscoring [17:25] this impression that the Russian leader believes that he's winning in Ukraine and that Russia can keep [17:32] winning, even if there isn't a negotiation. So I sat down with the Deputy Prime Minister, Alexander [17:36] Novak, and I asked him how long Russia could keep going for. And he said, quite simply, until [17:43] President Putin's goals are achieved. He also dismissed the idea that Russia's economy is [17:51] suffering. And I asked him, too, about relations between Russia and the U.S., because there are some [17:58] here in Russia who believe that there can be a kind of a reset with the U.S., no matter what happens [18:02] with Ukraine. That isn't what the Trump administration is saying. Alexander Novak, [18:10] the Deputy Prime Minister, said, look, in the end, America walked away from us and effectively kind [18:16] of put it on the table that the U.S., it was for the U.S. to decide whether to come back. [18:22] Just one other point. He also said that oil prices higher have been helpful for the Russian [18:29] economy, but that in the end, what Russia needs is stability. Of course, the world impacted by the [18:34] war in Iran and by the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. And how do Moscow and Kiev view the role that [18:42] President Trump plays in any negotiation? Is there a sense that the U.S. needs to play a part in this [18:48] process? Well, they both would like that. And certainly the Russians would like that. And in [18:56] fact, President Trump's representative, Rodney Cook, was here and was sitting in the front row [19:04] when President Putin was conducting that question and answer session. And then at one point, [19:10] President Putin asked him to answer a question. And he looked like he was surprised. He stood up. [19:16] And he conveyed respects from President Trump to President Putin. And President Putin conveyed [19:22] them back to President Trump. I actually had a chance to speak to Rodney Cook just before that [19:28] meeting. And I asked him about Ukraine. And he said that he was hopeful. But, of course, [19:33] the comments that he then listened to from President Putin seemed a lot less hopeful. [19:39] Keir Simmons in St. Petersburg, Russia. Keir, thank you so much for that report. [19:42] Up next, the president's agenda in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives [19:47] gets taken over by Democrats on Iran and the war in Ukraine. A top House Democrat, [19:53] Congresswoman Debbie Dingell of the Battleground Michigan, [19:56] is standing by with her reaction. And what comes next? Keep it here on Meet the Press Now. [20:01] Welcome back. House Democrats were able to push through a bill that would provide billions in [20:13] military aid to Ukraine after winning over some of their Republican colleagues in what's being seen [20:18] as a rebuke to President Trump's foreign policy agenda. 18 Republicans voted with Democrats to pass [20:24] the legislation despite objections from Republican leadership who said it would interfere with the [20:28] president's efforts to end the conflict. The aid package, which also authorizes sanctions on [20:34] Russia, now heads to the Senate, but stands little chance of becoming law since the president [20:38] still has veto power over it. The vote comes just days after four Republicans broke with their party [20:44] to pass a war powers resolution that was also backed by Democrats, designed to force President [20:49] Trump to end the war against Iran, marking another Democratic-led rebuke of the president's foreign [20:55] policy agenda in the House. Joining me now is Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell of Michigan. [21:01] Congressman, thanks so much for being here. We appreciate you joining us. [21:04] You know, just in the last week, your party was able to pass a war powers resolution on Iran, [21:09] a military bill to provide aid to Ukraine. These were all against the wishes of the Republican [21:15] leadership and the president. But this was after enough of your Republican colleagues voted with [21:20] Democrats. How do you read this? Do you think that there's actually some signs that rank-and-file [21:26] Republicans are starting to assert themselves with not only their leadership, but the president [21:31] himself? So I think this is a complicated issue, Ryan. I think too many Republicans are still afraid [21:39] of the White House and the retribution that he pays on those that cross him. But I believe there are two [21:48] different issues here in the—and we did take over the floor because we know and are listening to our [21:55] constituents back home who have seen the cost of everything go up and rise. I think the Republicans [22:02] voted with us on Iran. War Powers Act 1 believe that the law says you need to come to Congress after 60 [22:10] days. And they do believe in the rule of law. Some of those also are hearing from their constituents [22:18] and are furious. They look at the price of gasolene. One of them was a colleague from Michigan. [22:24] Gasolene in Michigan was over $5 several weeks ago. It's gone a little down, but it's still very high [22:29] and now expected to go to $5 or $6 in the next few weeks. So they're listening to their constituents. [22:36] And this is going to get even trickier as they head into the elections. Ukraine, I think a lot of [22:42] people are bothered by the lack of support for Ukraine right now. They want to see an end of this war. [22:48] We know the food costs have gone up for several years. They were the breadbasket of the world. [22:55] And I think that's why you saw more Republicans vote for this bill, because I think that as a [23:03] democracy in this country, we believe in helping other countries that have a form of democracy. [23:09] I mean, do you think that there's any possibility that either of these bills could [23:13] meet the same fate in the Senate? Do you think there are enough Republicans in the Senate? I know [23:18] there are Republicans that support a check on the White House in terms of what's happening in Iran and [23:23] Ukraine. Is this just going to be symbolic or could we actually see this manifest itself? [23:30] So, look, we already know that there are a number of senators that agree with us, [23:36] Republican senators, on the War Powers Act on Iran. And I think the longer this war goes for, [23:42] the higher gasoline prices go up. You have seen oil companies warning us that gasoline prices could [23:49] suddenly escalate very quickly, that it's going to be interesting to see who Republicans are [23:55] listening to, the people that they represent or a White House that's intimidating them. But you're [24:00] right that the president could still veto it. But we have got to demand that the president come and [24:07] talk to the Congress. On Ukraine, the parliamentary situation in the Senate makes it more complicated. [24:14] But I do know that there are many Republicans who believe we should be helping Ukraine more than we [24:19] are. All right. Let's talk now about the midterm elections. Democrats are hopeful not only about [24:24] winning back the House where you sit, but also taking back the Senate. But they're facing a problem [24:28] with their candidate in Maine in Graham Plattner after more reporting from The New York Times last [24:34] night detailing what they describe as unsettling interactions with ex-girlfriends, including [24:38] physical threats. Now, Plattner's responded acknowledging he was far from a perfect boyfriend, [24:42] but he's proud of the work he's done since. Congresswoman, I know that you're someone [24:47] that cares deeply about the issues of relationship violence and the rights of women in situations [24:54] like these. Are you comfortable right now with Graham Plattner being the representative of [24:58] the Democratic Party in Maine? So I'm someone, as you know, that's very candid. I've spent my whole [25:04] life. I lived in a situation where domestic violence was present as a child. I have been present and [25:12] seen other women in it. You are correct. I've spent my whole life. So I'm not going to defend somebody [25:17] with that kind of history. I'm a voter in Michigan. I don't vote in Maine. I know that there are also [25:24] people who feel very strongly that there needs to be a check on the president. So, no, I'm not [25:30] comfortable with that candidate. I'm not going to defend someone who has a history of violence against [25:36] women. It's one of the issues that I'm the most passionate about in my life, and especially [25:42] when they don't appear to even be sorry about it. But having said that, we also have someone in the [25:48] White House that's got a history like that, and there does need to be a check. I'm glad I'm not [25:53] voting in Maine. Yeah, I mean, I think that's an important point you raise. Obviously, there is some [25:58] concern among Democratic voters and elected Democrats that, in some cases, Republicans might be being held to [26:04] a higher standard when it comes—I'm sorry, Democrats are being held to a higher standard when there have [26:08] been Republicans in certain cases that have been elected despite similar accusations in their past. [26:15] Do you think that's the same thing? Shouldn't Democrats want their candidates to be held to that [26:20] higher standard as well? Look, I am talking for myself, and I've always been very clear that violence [26:29] against women and children or even a woman towards a man is unacceptable. I've lived in it. I know how [26:36] scary it is. I know what it is to be afraid that you might die. So I am who I am, and I'm going to [26:43] stand for what I've stood for all of my life. But I also know we have a man in the White House that [26:48] has attacked a woman, and what we're seeing happen in this country is also deeply disturbing. I wish [26:56] that there was another candidate, and there is still one on the ballot on Tuesday, [27:01] but I cannot—I will not change who I am and defend somebody that has been violent against women or [27:08] blames women for the way that they dress or that they are somehow responsible for violence against [27:14] them. Okay. Thank you for being so candid about that, Congresswoman. You are not a voter in Maine, [27:20] but you are a voter in Michigan, and you have a Senate primary there. There are three candidates that [27:25] represent very different factions of the Democratic Party. You said last month that you were concerned [27:29] that the primary was becoming very raucous and called for the candidates to tone down their shots [27:34] at each other. Are you concerned that this type of divisiveness could cost Democrats that [27:40] important seat in Michigan in November? Look, Michigan's a competitive state, [27:46] and that primary is a competitive primary. I have talked to every one of those candidates, [27:50] and actually I've talked to every one of them again this week, that we are going to have to come [27:55] together after this primary, that the tone that we are setting for the next two months [27:59] could set a tone for what's going to happen in November. Michigan cannot afford to lose that [28:05] Democratic seat. I remain neutral because my job is going to be to help bring everybody together, [28:10] and as they are talking about the issues, they've got to remind people about what is at stake in November. [28:16] Okay. So you're not going to make any news with me right now then and tell me [28:19] who you're supporting in this. I am not. All right. Well, I gave you that opportunity. I feel good [28:23] about it. All right. Let's talk before I let you go about just the state of the Democratic Party [28:30] overall right now. It's off the back of this autopsy of the 2024 election, and now these new [28:35] revelations from former First Lady Jill Biden's book that she actually was concerned about her husband's [28:40] health during the campaign. A former Obama advisor, Dan Pfeiffer, says it's led to a broken trust [28:45] between voters and the Democratic Party. You've been candid this entire interview. Do you agree [28:49] that there's been a broken trust as a result of President Biden's decision, and how do you fix that? [28:56] Well, first of all, I'm going to go broader than that. I think there's a broken trust [29:00] between voters and institutions, period. If you look, people don't trust either party, [29:04] and we have to go out and we have to rebuild that trust. Look, I was around Joe Biden. I was stunned [29:13] it what happened that night, but in my daily interaction with him, he was very attuned to [29:19] the issues, and I had blunt discussions with him. But I think that all of us have got to go out and [29:24] rebuild the voters' trust in us, and they need to see us deliver. I think a lot of people are very [29:30] unhappy with what they're watching in Washington. They're tired of the divisive partisan politics. [29:36] They're worried about the vitriolicness, the ugliness, the hatred that we're seeing, [29:40] and we all need to understand the issues that they care about. They're all worried [29:45] about affordability right now, and we need to go show people how we're going to make life [29:49] more affordable for them, period, and do something about it. [29:53] All right. That seems like a good place to leave it. As always, [29:56] great to talk to you, Congresswoman Dingell. We appreciate it. Enjoy your weekend. [30:00] Thank you, Ryan. [30:01] All right. After the break, we'll dig deeper into the latest allegations and controversies [30:05] facing the Democratic Senate candidate, Maine Graham Plattner, as we just talked about with [30:10] Congresswoman Dingell and the headaches they're causing for Democrats in Washington. [30:13] Our panel is next on Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. As we mentioned, Democrats are grappling with [30:26] a new controversy facing the party's likely nominee in a crucial Maine Senate race. In a lengthy report, [30:32] the New York Times interviewed three of Graham Plattner's former girlfriends who described his [30:37] behavior as toxic, unsettling, and at times physically aggressive. Last night, Plattner denying the most [30:43] serious allegations while acknowledging his past problematic behavior. [30:47] There are some allegations in this piece that I just want to be kind of unequivocal about [30:53] are simply not true. Anything alleging physicality, anything alleging that I knew what my tattoo was, [31:01] these are the statements of someone who's politically motivated. There are things in this that I [31:05] absolutely will take responsibility for and have been speaking about openly for months now. [31:11] But those serious allegations are just not true. At any point over the course of the past week, [31:16] have you considered dropping out of the race? No, not once. [31:22] The cascade of controversies has frustrated some Democrats, but seemingly not enough to try and [31:27] sink his candidacy. Senate Democratic leadership sticking by him after a meeting on Capitol Hill [31:31] earlier this week. And today, Congressman Ro Khanna, who is set to campaign with him in Maine this [31:36] evening, also signaling his loyalty, saying, quote, the behavior described in the New York Times story was [31:42] wrong and toxic. Graham has acknowledged that and sought redemption. The people of Maine deserve a [31:47] senator who's going to stand up to the billionaire class against genocide and for the working class. [31:53] Joining me now is our panel, Sahil Kapoor, NBC News National Politics reporter, Susan Page, [31:57] the Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today, Megan Hayes, former special assistant to President Biden, [32:02] and Matt Gorman, Republican strategist and an NBC News contributor. Yes, four people at the panel. [32:07] We're calling it a super panel to end Friday. You know, Sahil, you have done quite a bit of [32:11] reporting about this race in Maine. Talk to us a little bit more about this Times report. I'm sure [32:17] a lot of people have seen the headlines, but talk to us about what he's actually accused of and what [32:20] he's actually admitting to. Right. So essentially, the Times report is built on interviews with three [32:25] women that he dated. Two of them say that he drank a lot, that he was a bad boyfriend, that it was a [32:29] toxic relationship. This he accepts. Graham Plattner has admitted that he was a bad boyfriend at the time. [32:34] He said he went through a dark period. He had what he called undiagnosed PTSD, that he did self-medicate [32:39] with alcohol in his own words, and that he's now a better person. A third one, and these are the [32:44] most serious allegations in the piece, dated him over a decade ago when both of them were in their [32:49] late 20s here in Washington. She says he sometimes got rough with her, that he grabbed her shoulders [32:54] once, that once he tried to yank her out of a car by her wrist, that once he pushed her into a room [33:00] and held the door closed. This he denies. He says this is all false. And he points out, [33:05] and his campaign points out, that this is from a conservative activist. He argues that her claims [33:08] are politically motivated. His campaign issued a pretty firm, quote, pushing back on this, [33:13] calling her a lifelong GOP operative who spent her life trying to elect Republicans. They say that's [33:17] exactly what she's trying to do now. So they're trying to discredit this woman who's making these [33:22] allegations and argue that the rest of it is consistent with his prior story, that he did some [33:26] bad things in his 20s and maybe early 30s, but he's a different person now in his 40s. [33:30] Right. But Susan, I think this is the vexing problem that Democrats find themselves in, right? [33:34] Because they have said time and time again, we should believe women when there are situations [33:38] like these. If you go through and read any of the comments, which I don't advise, but people do that, [33:44] there are millions of people commenting, what about the Republican that's been accused of this? [33:48] It's Democrats that have asked to be held to a higher standard. Should their candidates be held to a higher [33:53] standard? Well, maybe it depends. You know, the main Senate race, crucial for Democratic hopes of [33:59] winning control of the Senate. And the question I hear from Democrats is, is there more? Is this [34:04] everything? We can deal with it in June. By the time we get to October, we'll be focused on other [34:09] issues. Or will there be more disclosures that will be distressing? And I think that's a question [34:14] that's hard to answer. Megan, I'm sure you saw Congresswoman Dingell and how she seems clearly [34:19] frustrated by this. Alyssa Slocken yesterday had a similar reaction, saying that she's sick and [34:23] tired of having to answer for men making bad decisions. How frustrating is this for the [34:28] Democratic Party for this to be their standard bearer in Maine? Yeah, I mean, I echo Alyssa [34:33] Slocken's sentiments as well. I'm sick of having to talk about it. I think that there's going to be [34:38] more. These kinds of things don't just happen in a vacuum. But I don't understand why it wasn't [34:43] disqualifying to have a Nazi tattoo in the beginning. So I think that this is a flawed candidate. [34:47] Democrats are so desperate to win. We're doing exactly what Republicans did with Donald Trump, [34:50] what Republicans are doing with Ken Paxton. And I don't want these people, I don't want any of [34:54] these Ken Paxton or Plattner in the Senate. I just, they're not, they don't have the standards that I [34:59] think our members are elected should have. So to me, I think it's really disheartening. I also think [35:03] it's extremely disheartening to just discredit this woman just because she's worked for GOP [35:07] candidates. I think that's gross and not a place that Democrats want to be. [35:10] So Matt, obviously main voters right now seem to be digesting this, but most of the polling has shown [35:16] that really hasn't heard Plattner standing, at least with Democratic voters. But could this be an [35:20] issue across the country? Are we going to see Republican ads tying Democratic candidates across [35:27] the country to Graham Plattner? Well, look, in Maine, I think Susan Collins is going to beat him [35:30] like a drum. And I believe that even before the story came out yesterday. I mean, you're right. This [35:33] was an incredible story with, you know, abuse allegations and infidelity. Two of the other things [35:39] I took away from it, besides he just seems to be a liar, is the fact that, A, his comments that he [35:45] did not dispute about if someone broke into his apartment, he would, quote, essentially we would [35:50] rape them. And it was about dominance, not sex. Incredible. What a egregious and awful statement to [35:55] make. And the other thing is, to Megan's point, it's a further confirmation past the CNN article from [36:00] a few weeks ago that he knew what the Nazi tattoo was and did not dispute that until he disputed it [36:06] with Chris Hayes last night as well. And I think part of the anger you get from some in the GOP is [36:12] we remember folks like what Sheldon Whitehouse did during the Kavanaugh hearings when he went five [36:16] questions deep on what, quote, boofing was. And yesterday when stopped in a hallway, he said the [36:20] story was a lot of nothing. And so it's the amorality on someone like his part when we, there's [36:25] one standard for when it was Kavanaugh in 2018 and quite another when it's Graham Plattner. [36:29] But do you think Republicans are doing the same thing here? I mean, what about, [36:32] as Megan points out, the allegations against Ken Paxton? Is it, is it in the same category? [36:35] No, infidelity. I will not condone that, whether it's Graham Plattner or Ken Paxton. I haven't heard [36:40] allegations of Ken Paxton abusing women. I haven't heard Ken Paxton going on KIC, [36:44] which is, quote, called a paradise for child predators. I won't excuse infidelity, but I'm [36:49] also not going to draw a line between Graham Plattner's abuse allegations and what Ken Paxton [36:54] did either. Okay. All right. Let's turn now and talk about what happened on Capitol Hill this week. [36:58] We saw, in many ways, I wonder if there are people wondering if Hakeem Jeffries is the new [37:03] Speaker of the House, because we, the only legislation that was passed in the House [37:06] this week were two Democratic-led resolutions, one a war powers resolution and the other funding [37:12] for Ukraine. We also have these, this issue with Republicans standing up to President Trump [37:17] on Bill Pulte, who is his pick for DNI and kind of holding up the FISA legislation. [37:23] They're also angry about the reconciliation package and the anti-weaponization fund. [37:27] Sahil, are we to the point yet where Republicans are getting a backbone, [37:30] or do we still need some evidence that that's actually going to manifest itself? [37:34] I think we're inching toward that point, but moving at a snail's pace. [37:37] And we can go, you know, we can go case by case on these things. The war powers resolution that did [37:41] pass on Iran in the House, that was after three failed attempts. The fourth attempt passed, [37:46] and it passed narrowly, and it's symbolic. Even if it passes the Senate, it's a concurrent resolution. [37:50] It doesn't get to President Trump's desk. The weaponization fund, this is interesting. As many [37:53] as a dozen Senate Republicans voted for some amendments to either ban that fund entirely [37:58] or redirect the money. Those amendments failed. What did those Republicans do at the end? [38:03] All of them, except Lisa Murkowski, voted for the bill. So are they trying to have it both ways? [38:07] Maybe cast a vote or avoid taking a politically difficult vote that could haunt them in the [38:11] election? But ultimately, they didn't do anything to disrupt the bill. It's going to the president's [38:15] desk without any restriction, presuming it passes the House. [38:18] Which is not a guarantee. [38:19] And then you have the issue of Bill Pulte. Now, Democrats are credibly threatening to block [38:24] FISA if Bill Pulte is going to be the one overseeing that extraordinary power of warrantless [38:29] surveillance. Republicans have made some noises in this direction. But TBD, what they'll actually [38:33] do. So, Matt, I think it's interesting. I think probably a lot of people at home don't realize how [38:37] the calendar works here, right? But have we kind of entered a phase where President Trump's lost a [38:41] lot of his leverage with the existing members of Congress? Because we're pretty much past all the [38:47] Republican primaries where he would have the most influence. [38:50] It's tough, certainly, when you have Cassidy and Cornyn feeling like they're a little bit more of [38:53] a free agent and willing to buck the president on these things. It makes it much harder to govern [38:57] the Senate for the next couple of months. And certainly, if Blanche is not the only person who [39:03] could intensively be confirmed, Cabinet secretaries leave all the time. Are we going to be in an area [39:07] where there's just a lot of acting secretaries like we had at the end of Trump One? That remains to [39:11] be seen. I think this could get worse before it gets better, where you have a lot of folks [39:17] working on acting titles, and confirmations are harder to come by. And there's a lot still [39:21] coming, right, Susan? We're going to have to pass a spending plan in September. [39:25] Traditionally, we try to fund the government. [39:27] That's generally— [39:28] Kind of old school. [39:30] It's a goal, not necessarily one that is always accomplished. But there's also perhaps a war [39:35] supplemental. There's a long list of things that need to be done. How difficult will it be? [39:39] I don't think President Trump cares very much about what Congress does or doesn't do. To the degree [39:43] of a government shutdown, maybe that becomes annoying. But President Trump is very focused [39:47] on leaving his stamp on the Capitol for when he leaves the presidency. He has entered that [39:52] part of a second—traditional second term, maybe a little earlier than some others. He is—what does [39:57] he talk about when he has a chance to talk? He talks about the ballroom. He talks about the new [40:01] Lincoln Memorial Promenade, which we had not—people have been aware of. He talks about the enormous [40:06] triumphant arch. And I think that says where his head is. So little cracks in the GOP coalition, [40:14] but I don't think he—I don't think this is what's front of mind for the president. [40:17] And do—can Democrats take advantage of that going into the midterms? [40:20] Yeah, absolutely, because they're already taking advantage of it. You're seeing things pass that [40:23] they want. But I also think that they're able to use the things that the president is saying that [40:26] he doesn't believe in the midterms and he doesn't care that people are suffering. Those are all [40:29] going to be in ads of all the Republican congressmen that have supported him—sorry, [40:33] congressmen and women—that have supported him leading up to this point. So I think, [40:37] you know, I think it's a good thing for Democrats when he's out there talking about the ballroom, [40:40] because it just makes them all look so foolish when people are really suffering in their districts. [40:44] But I—and maybe I'll just put this out to the panel. Anybody can grab it. [40:47] Maybe it's good for Democrats. Maybe they win one or both houses. But Donald Trump's in office for [40:53] another two and a half years. Are we really entering a phase where he doesn't care if he gets anything [40:59] accomplished? Are Democrats going to fight him on every single thing that happens? Are we [41:03] entering an era where it's going to be almost impossible to get anything done? [41:07] Yeah, well, I would—I would reframe the question, right? Like, think of this as 2006 if you're [41:11] George J. Bush or 2015, close to that if you're President Obama. We're essentially—we are in the [41:16] second term of a Trump presidency, even though it's not consecutive. And so the accomplishments in the [41:21] last two years, intensively, of a presidential term, relatively narrow, unless, you know, you have [41:26] the bailout like what Bush did now. [41:28] They still did the basic stuff, didn't they? [41:29] The basic stuff, sure. And I think you will get the basics. I think you'll—certainly [41:32] the government will be funded and with a debt ceiling. [41:34] Are you sure? [41:36] We've been good so far. I mean, certainly it can— [41:39] We've had the two longest government shutdowns in history in the past calendar. [41:42] You know what? You'll have oversight. [41:44] Even if you just win one House, even if you just win the House and not the Senate, you [41:49] will have oversight that President Trump has not had during his presidency, and that [41:53] could make a difference. [41:54] And the president's actions lately suggest that he cares more about having a loyal Republican [41:58] Party without anyone who's going to vote against him or cast votes against him or even [42:02] speak out forcefully against him than he does necessarily by maximizing the numbers in [42:06] the House, just based on his endorsements. The Texas is—the Texas situation is the best [42:09] example. Republicans are going to have to spend millions, maybe tens of millions of dollars [42:12] more than they otherwise would have to hold on to Texas with Ken Paxton than they would [42:16] have with John Cornyn. [42:17] But I also think Democrats right now should take advantage of the—set themselves up for [42:20] 28, right? So if they do take back the House in 26, they should be setting themselves up [42:24] for 28, and that doesn't mean doing every oversight hearing just because you can. It [42:27] means showing the American people you have solutions, because 28 is going to be a battle. [42:31] Trump is not on the ticket. There's going to be 20 candidates, 20-plus candidates on the [42:34] dumb side, probably five or six on the Republican side. It's going to be a slog, and Democrats [42:38] need to have proof that they've done something. [42:40] And that'll take up the attention, right? [42:41] That'll take up a lot more attention, as it always does, from what's happening in Washington. [42:45] It sounds like you're begging them not to impeach Donald Trump, if I'm reading between [42:48] them. [42:50] All right, we'll just take your grin as an answer to that question. [42:54] The mega panel delivered. Thanks, guys. I appreciate it. Sahil, Susan, Megan, Matt, [42:58] thank you all for being here. Still to come, we're breaking down a critical week for AI and [43:03] policymakers in Washington. I'm in new warnings and the fallout from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, [43:09] meeting with top White House officials and skeptical lawmakers on Capitol Hill. [43:13] That story's next. Stay with us on Meet the Press Now. [43:16] Welcome back. We turn now to what's been a major week in the world of artificial intelligence and [43:33] politics. OpenAI, the tech giant behind ChatGPT, says it will comply with President Trump's new [43:39] executive order that asks AI companies to allow the federal government to review their model's [43:44] capabilities before they're released to the public. OpenAI's CEO Sam Altman visited Washington [43:50] earlier this week for meetings at the White House in Capitol Hill as lawmakers struggle to keep pace [43:55] with the rapid growth of AI. Meanwhile, another AI giant, Anthropic, is calling for top tech companies [44:01] to slow or even pause the pace of development and allow society to catch up with the AI systems, [44:07] which they suggest are advancing so rapidly that they may soon be able to build on themselves [44:13] without human intervention. Joining me now is NBC News artificial intelligence reporter Jared Perlow. [44:19] Jared, thanks for joining me. Here's somebody that follows this extremely closely. How concerned [44:23] should we be by Anthropic's warnings? Well, I think we should be somewhat concerned. So [44:29] I think zooming out, it's obviously in the AI company's interest to say, oh my gosh, [44:34] the AI systems will start building themselves, right? Because that says their products are really [44:38] capable. But I do think there's a lot of truth behind this. So Anthropic, which manufactures the [44:44] AI system called Claude, which maybe people are now increasingly familiar with, they said in a blog [44:49] post released yesterday that 80% of the code that they now upgrade into their actual systems, [44:54] the systems that we consumers interact with, 80% of that code is written by AI. So there's now a kind [45:00] of cyborg human AI fusion happening inside these leading AI companies. And what they're concerned about is [45:06] that if we do get to a point where because of competitive pressure, more and more of that AI [45:10] development is outsourced to AI systems themselves, maybe we'll enter some sort of flywheel situation [45:15] where we can't control exactly what's going on. However, they also note that because there are these [45:20] competitive pressures, it's not really in any one company's interest to stop that process. So what [45:24] they say is there should be at least some sort of mechanism for these companies to coordinate between [45:30] themselves, both in America and China globally, to make sure that we don't enter those sorts of [45:34] terrifying race dynamics. That's, I think, a lot easier said than done. And they say they're going to be [45:38] working on building out what that could actually look like in the coming months. So I think really [45:42] important to stay tuned there. [45:44] Yeah, it comes on the heels of this new executive order on AI. What's the reaction been from tech [45:48] companies? [45:49] So tech companies largely really have reacted positively to this executive order. So it's been in the works for [45:54] months, really reaction to this release from Anthropic of a new model called Mythos or Mythos [45:59] Preview, which discovered thousands of new critical vulnerabilities in various software packages [46:05] and, you know, systems like Windows and the Mac operating system. So things that we interact with [46:09] every day. Tech CEOs say it's about high time that the government is getting involved in making sure [46:14] that AI systems are safe for the American public. I chatted with IBM CEO just two days ago. He said, [46:20] thank goodness President Trump finally signed this. He was supposed to sign it several weeks ago, [46:23] but pulled it at the last minute. So I think, you know, the AI system has been calling for some sort of [46:27] regulation for years now, but Capitol Hill is stymied in its own way. And the Trump administration [46:32] on its first day in office actually repealed an executive order that President Biden had passed. [46:36] So I think everybody from the tech side is now happy that there's federal involvement. There's [46:40] lots of disagreement about whether that involvement should be mandatory, voluntary, and what exactly [46:44] should be happening on the inside of that. So that's still a live issue. But I think we're now in [46:47] a situation where the tech CEOs say, well, better something than nothing. [46:51] Okay. Jared Perla, thank you for breaking that down for us. We really appreciate it. [46:55] And the former CIA officer accused of stashing millions of dollars worth of gold bars in his [47:01] home will remain in custody. A federal judge ordering David Rush to continue being held at [47:05] the Alexandria, Virginia detention center until he stands trial. Rush, who worked on one of the [47:10] U.S. government's most highly sensitive programs, appeared in court this morning. He was arrested [47:14] last month after the FBI raided his home, allegedly finding more than 300 gold bars and $2 million in [47:20] cash. NBC News legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach has the latest from Alexandria. [47:25] Hey there. Yeah, David Rush, that senior CIA officer, detained pending trial in this case [47:32] after Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick here in Alexandria, Virginia, saying that due to the [47:36] unique nature of David Rush's job, he is particularly suited to potentially flee the country, to [47:41] potentially be a danger to the community. And because of that, he must be detained pending [47:47] trial. This is a win for the Department of Justice, who the attorney there today called him a master [47:52] manipulator, saying that he lied about a number of things over the past 20 years or so, saying that [47:59] he's told people he was a doctor, which he is not, saying he told people he was a pilot, which he is [48:03] not, saying he committed, quote, tremendous fraud over the past two decades. Russia's attorney, [48:09] Jessica Carmichael, saying this is a case that involves just one charge, theft of public money, [48:14] related to timesheets that were incorrectly, in her words, filled out over the past few years. [48:21] Nothing to do with gold bars, nothing to do with lying about his career. And because of that, [48:26] those issues shouldn't factor into whether or not he is detained pending trial in this particular case [48:32] with a charge that is currently against him. There is one thing both sides do agree on, however, [48:37] that is that every gold bar that Russia allegedly took from the CIA has been accounted for. That's what [48:43] the government said. That's what Carmichael said. So that is some news out of this hearing today. [48:48] So in this case, David Rush will stand trial. In this case, he will be detained pending trial. [48:55] Back to you. Okay, Gary Grumbach, thank you for that report. And we, of course, [48:59] will be back Monday with more Meet the Press now. And if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press on your local [49:03] NBC News station. As we mentioned, Kristen will have her exclusive one-on-one interview with [49:09] President Trump. You won't want to miss it. But there's always more ahead on NBC News Now. [49:14] Thanks so much for watching. Have a terrific week. [49:16] We thank you for watching. And remember, stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app [49:42] or watch live on our YouTube channel.