← Meet the Press
Meet the Press
Meet the Press NOW — April 30
00:49:51
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) discusses the mounting pressure President Trump faces to have the Iran War approved by Congress. Trump signs a bill to end the 75-day DHS shutdown. Gov. Janet Mills (D-Maine) suspends her campaign for Senate, clearing the way for progressive candidate Graham Platner to win the nomination.
Loading summary
Transcript121 lines
- [00:11]
Kristen Welker
Welcome to Meet the Press. Now, I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, where a historically long 75 day partial government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security is about to be over, with the House finally voting to send a bill to fund most of the agency to the President's desk for his signature. We will have much more on that breaking news and the political fallout in just a moment. But we do begin with the war against Iran. With gas prices moving higher yet again and the President's allies trying to buy him more time to end the conflict and avoid a messy showdown with Congress. It comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Kaine defended the scope, mission and price tag of the war as they were grilled by lawmakers on Capitol Hill for a second straight day. Hegseth also telling Senators the ongoing ceasefire has paused the clock on the constitutional requirement that the President come to Congress at the 60 day mark of this war, which would be tomorrow.
- [01:12]
Senator Jack Reid
Is the President intending to either seek congressional authorization for the war in Iran or send us the legally required certification that he needs an additional 30 days to remove US forces from the war?
- [01:27]
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
Ultimately, I would, I would defer to the White House and White House Counsel on that. However, we are in a cease fire right now, which our understanding means the 60 day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire. So you're not in.
- [01:38]
Dan America
That's.
- [01:39]
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
It's our understanding, just so you know.
- [01:40]
Ryan Nobles
Okay.
- [01:40]
Senator Jack Reid
Well, I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow. And it's going to pose a really important legal question for the administration.
- [01:52]
Kristen Welker
House Speaker Mike Johnson telling my colleague Ryan Nobles, there is no clock because this isn't a war.
- [02:00]
Ryan Nobles
It's time for Congress to weigh in on the war in Iran, especially now that we're past the 60 day threshold.
- [02:05]
House Speaker Mike Johnson
I don't think we have any active kinetic military bombing, firing, anything like that right now. We're trying to broker a peace and it would be. I would be very reluctant to get in front of the administration in the midst of these very sensitive negotiations. So we'll have to see how that plays out.
- [02:18]
Ryan Nobles
But the Constitution specifically states that 60 days, but the President has called it a war. You're saying we're not at war right now?
- [02:26]
House Speaker Mike Johnson
I'm saying that we do not have military, kinetic military action at the moment.
- [02:31]
Kristen Welker
Now, we should note, as Ryan pointed out, the President himself has referred to this conflict numerous times as a war, while also acknowledging that calling it a war would require him to come to Congress.
- [02:42]
President Donald Trump
Look, we don't want to make the war any more complex than it already is. Oil will be coming down. That's just a, it's just a matter of war. The war itself is being prosecuted as well as anybody has ever seen. We got a war going on. The war is proceeding very, very strongly. I won't use the word war because they say if you use the word war, that's maybe not a good thing to do. They don't like the word war because you're supposed to get approval. So I'll use the word military operation. The war in Iran is going along swimmingly.
- [03:16]
Unidentified Speaker
That's the way war goes, right?
- [03:18]
President Donald Trump
Military operation, I don't call it a war. Would you rather have a military operation? We're really, I mean, Iran is dying to make a deal.
- [03:30]
Kristen Welker
The president's next move in this conflict remains uncertain. An official telling NBC News the president's top national security team was planning to brief him about his options at the Strait of Hormuz and on the ground in Iran. With traffic in the vital strait still effectively frozen, gas prices continue to Spike, reaching a four year high of $4.30 a G. That's according to AAA. That's up more than 27 cents from just one week ago. President Trump telling reporters moments ago this would be short term pain and notably once again referring to this as a war.
- [04:08]
President Donald Trump
The gas will go down as soon as the war is over. It'll drop like a rock. There's so much of it. It's all over the place, sitting all over the oceans of the world. And it'll be, it'll go down. But what won't happen is if Iran had a nuclear weapon and used it, then the whole world is a different place. You're not going to have to pay a little bit more for gasoline. The gasoline, the oil will go down rapidly as soon as the war is over.
- [04:37]
Kristen Welker
We've got our team of correspondents to start us off today. NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Kuby joins me now along with NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba, NBC News chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles and NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung. Thanks to all of you for being here. Courtney, of course, I have to start with you. Staked out on Capitol Hill for two straight days. More fireworks today. Court in this Senate hearing. What were your biggest takeaways from the day?
- [05:07]
Courtney Kuby
Yeah, so I mean, today there was, it was beyond just Iran. We heard about things like how secretary of defense has fired a number of people, in fact, from the ranking member, Jack, Senator Jack Reid about how the secretary has fired it seems to be prioritizing black men and women in his taking people out of jobs and firing them from senior officer, general officer positions. We also heard a little bit questions about the secretary's decision making, whether he would in fact potentially defy the Constitution or defy the law to carry out an order, as if in fact, President Trump gives him that one. But Iran was the biggest topic overall today and pretty universally we didn't get anything, any new facts or stats or details or anything. But we did have a number of senators, primarily on the Democratic side, who expressed a lot of concern about where this war is going with very little information about how the US Is continuing to spend a billion dollars a day. And it's not really clear when or how this ends.
- [06:04]
Kristen Welker
Yeah, lawmakers I've spoken to continue to say there's still this big question about what the goal is. Court, as you're pointing out, I want to zero in on some key exchanges here. Senators Mark Kelly and Alyssa Slotkin, we should note they were both investigated by the Justice Department for telling service members they could disobey orders that they deemed to be illegal. They pressed Secretary Haig says on two things, the limits of his legal authority and issues tied to the war and also US Elections. Take a look, get your reaction on the other side.
- [06:36]
Senator Mark Kelly
Your quote was, we will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies. And yesterday you did not clarify whether you stand by this statement. So I'm going to give you another opportunity to clarify if that is what you meant. Do you stand by that statement you made on March 13?
- [06:58]
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
We have untied the hands of our war fighters. We fight to win and we follow the law.
- [07:04]
Senator Mark Kelly
Your response here right now makes it clear to the American people exactly why you are not right for this.
- [07:13]
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
It makes it clear to our enemies,
- [07:14]
Senator Alyssa Slotkin
Senator, if the president who regrets not signing that executive order to the then sec.def in 2020, asks you to seize ballots or voting machines in states during the 2026 election, will you stand up for the Constitution and say no, or will you salute and do his bidding?
- [07:33]
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
It's yet another gotcha hypothetical, which is your specialty.
- [07:37]
Kristen Welker
It's not.
- [07:38]
Senator Alyssa Slotkin
What are you gonna do? You're the guy here in the seat. It's not hypothetical. Tell the American people, will you deploy the uniform military to our polls to collect voter rolls or machines?
- [07:50]
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
Are you accusing me of performing because you're performing for cable news right now?
- [07:53]
Kristen Welker
But Mr. Secretary, we have pretty heated exchanges there. Court how did it play in the room what's the reaction been to those exchanges?
- [08:01]
Courtney Kuby
Yeah, it was pretty heated in there. I mean, one thing about Secretary Hegseth is when there's a question he doesn't want to answer like that, even when there is a simple answer and he's spoken about it before, he attacks the premise of the question. And he did that in both of those cases. And in fact, Senator Mark Kelly actually came back for a second round of, of questioning as well. Senator Kelly, though it's an interesting line of questioning for him because of exactly what you said about the video that he made with the others. He is asking whether in fact Secretary Hegseth standing at the Pentagon podium only a few weeks ago while the war, while the US Was still very actively engaged in offensive combat operations, he said that the US Would provide no quarter, no mercy. Now, he has been asked several times since then if in fact he still believes that. And he refuses to say it, but he also refuses to denounce that he said that. And so it's a, it's a, the reason that that is so concerning to someone like Mark Kelly, who served for more than 20 years in the military is exactly what that means. That means that the US if in fact they were to take an Iranian military person prisoner as a pow, that they would potentially kill that person. That's what that means. And so it is seen as an illegal order. And the Secretary of saying it from the podium at the Pentagon, some people would interpret that as that being an order from him to the men and women. So it's been a very cloudy issue. And once again here he was given an opportunity to clear it up and he refused.
- [09:24]
Kristen Welker
Well, just an extraordinary two days on Capitol Hill with the Secretary of War. Courtney Kibi, thank you so much for starting us off as always. Monica Alba, let me turn to you now at the White House. As you've been reporting on, we are of course approaching the 60 day mark start of this war that is tomorrow. What are your sources at the White House telling you about this day? Are they acknowledging that this is a significant day and that the President would need to go to Congress?
- [09:51]
Monica Alba
Well, the White House is acknowledging to me, Kristen, that there are active conversations between the administration and Capitol Hill about what appears to be tomorrow's deadline. Now remember, the bombs actually started falling in Iran on February 28. But according to the War Powers Resolution, the president then had 48 hours to formally notify Congress of this military conflict. And when he did that, it was technically March 2nd. And so that kicked off a 60 day timeline that would end tomorrow, May 1st first, where he either does need to get an approval from Congress, an authorization to continue this war, or tell Congress that he is potentially seeking some kind of a 30 day extension to withdraw US forces safely. And that is why he would need that additional time. But there are really some questions that are being raised by lawmakers, by the House speaker, as you played there in your introduction, about whether this 60 day timeline is going to apply or not. If you look at the actual law, it certainly does apply to tomorrow. But the White House is not saying yet what the intends to do, just that they are going to be going back and forth and trying to figure out exactly how they're going to handle it. But it does seem like it could go a couple of ways. But tomorrow is that deadline. So the President does need to make a determination or a decision. But we know that there are upcoming meetings that could still help inform exactly what the president plans to do.
- [11:13]
Kristen Welker
Kristen, Monica Alba, stay there. I have more for you. But let me go to Ryan momentarily on the Hill. Ryan, this remarkable exchange you had with House Speaker Mike Johnson telling you we are not at war, is that what other Republicans are saying? What's the thinking there?
- [11:33]
Ryan Nobles
I think you'll find very few Republicans that would say it in as declarative, declarative a fashion as what Mike Johnson said to me today. And he did attempt to try and clean it up a little bit after he initially made that statement that we are not at war and then describe what he believes is the essentially the, the end of hostilities for the moment in this kind of soft cease fire that the United States has implemented in this situation with Iran. But it does ignore the fact that there is an active naval blockade, that there are all these military troops that are in the region right now, and that there is still an issue with the Strait of Hormuz. And to Monica's point about this 60 day threshold, the White House can go back and forth, they can ask their counsel about it, but ultimately, if there aren't leaders in Congress that are willing to enforce this deadline or look the other way as the deadline passes, or take the administration's argument that a cease fire doesn't count toward the ultimate calculation of that 60 day threshold, it really doesn't hold any weight. It doesn't really matter. And right now Republican leaders who would be the ones that would have to force the administration to come to Congress to get that approval just do not seem compelled to take that same step. So for the most part, it really doesn't mean much.
- [12:46]
Kristen Welker
And so but Ryan, there is a divide, right? Some Republicans do believe that 60 day mark is significant.
- [12:55]
Ryan Nobles
Oh, there's no doubt. I talked to Senator Thom Tillis earlier today, the Republican from North Carolina who's been relatively outspoken against the administration, especially since he decided not to run for reelection. And he agreed that Congress needs to weigh in, that there needs to be an author authorization of the use of military force. And Tillis had an interesting argument with this, Kristen. He was coming at it from not from the perspective of I'm opposed to this action or that I think the administration's made a wrong choice in Iran. It's that he needs to help the administration sell this war to the American people. And it's difficult for him to do that if they don't have that box check of that 60 day threshold and the authorization of Congress to conduct this war. And he believes it just makes life more difficult for the White House than it needs to be. And so there are a wide range of Republicans that believe that Congress needs to be involved, that the administration needs to answer specific questions about the cost, about the length of time, about the goals, and that that doesn't necessarily mean that they'd be opposed to any of those answers to those questions, but they need those answers of question answers to those questions if this campaign is to continue.
- [14:02]
Kristen Welker
Well, in your conversation with Senator Tillis really lays out that divide so clearly. Ryan Nobles on Capitol Hill, thank you so much for that reporting. Monica, let me go back to to you at the White House. You talked about the briefings that the president's been getting. We know he had a CENTCOM briefing today presenting him with a range of options, potential next steps in Iran. What are you learning about what happened in that briefing?
- [14:24]
Monica Alba
It seems like this has been a series of meetings that have continued to develop all week long. Kristen, we know Monday started with a situation room meeting with his national security team where he was initially presented with some options about the Strait of Hormuz, what to do about the naval blockade, which the president has indicated publicly he could keep around for an extended amount of time. There are questions about how that would factor into a continuation of this conflict and how Congress would view that. But taking that aside, we know he also met with oil executives at the White House on Tuesday to try to kind of figure out the more economic aspect to everything. And then today he was set to receive a briefing from Admiral Cooper, according to reporting from court on the panel, of course, with us. And that is specifically important because that means that the president could be presented today with more specific military options about whether the president is going to continue with a military engagement in the short term or whether he's going to decide that that is not necessary. It's unclear exactly in which direction the president wants to take this. And we know that he is sort of thinking about this as needing to make a decision in the next day or two to kind of figure out the timing. And so that is an important meeting we know was scheduled to take place today. The president did not speak about it in his earlier event on camera. So we're still trying to get more details about it.
- [15:43]
Kristen Welker
So, Monica, you talk about the economic impact. We have to talk about gas prices. They've reached their highest point this year. They continue to rise. Based on your conversations, how much concern is there inside the administration about what we're seeing? And I know Kevin Hassett weighed in on this today.
- [16:00]
Monica Alba
Yeah, he had some really interesting sound on this. And he has over the last couple of months sort of dismissed this idea, saying that it was a lower priority, that people's concerns about this were sort of low on the list of things that the White House was needing to really put their attention on. But here's sort of how he put the administration's thinking on it today, and we'll talk about it on the other side.
- [16:21]
Kevin Hassett
We've done the Jones Act. We've opened up drilling in California. We've, you know, pursued like, changing the ethanol standards so that the corn ethanol can be used more in the summer. We've taken every single step that we can. And we understand that, you know, it would have been a lot worse if we hadn't done that. But the fact is that our expectation is that things are going to get better very, very quickly if we could just get the Iranians to, like, finish the negotiations.
- [16:55]
Monica Alba
So really, Kristen, it's your definition of very, very quickly. The president, remember, had indicated that there would be this sort of pain at the pump in the short term, but that that was a worthy cost to pay Iran not having a nuclear weapon. Those were his words. Then you had top cabinet officials who were saying that these gas prices could remain this high through the midterms. And then they had to walk that back, including the energy secretary, Chris Wright, in recent weeks. And then the president just again today acknowledging these higher gas prices, promising they're going to come down at some point, but who knows? It's anybody's guess when that will actually happen.
- [17:30]
Kristen Welker
And looming so large over all of this, the midterm elections. Monica Alba from the White House. Monica, thank you so Much so much as always for covering all of those angles for us. Brian, let me turn to you now. Let's pick up right there on these gas prices up about 20 cents a gallon over just the last three days. Why this sudden acceleration, Brian?
- [17:50]
Brian Chung
Yeah, well, it really has everything to do with the lack of progress in negotiations with Iran. Oil markets don't like that. And for that reason, oil has been trading higher and that means higher prices at the pump. As you see on that chart ahead of you, $4.4.30. That's up over 44% since the start of this war. Crazy to think we were at 298 prior to this conflict beginning. But the big story here is that there's expectation that with no traffic going through the Strait of Hormuz, as you could see on that chart ahead of you, that prices will likely continue to rise. Patrick dehan over at GasBuddy predicting that the next stop be $4.50 on an average. And every single state in just the last day, Kristen saw gas prices increase on an average basis.
- [18:31]
Kristen Welker
Wow, that is a staggering figure. So President Trump's argument is once he ends the war in Iran, gas prices will immediately start to come down. Is that how economists see it?
- [18:42]
Brian Chung
Yeah. Well, look, and I think that from the Kevin Hassett clip that we just played, it seems like the administration seems to be satisfied with what it's been doing so far. And we did get some other action from the administration in just the last few minutes. Our D.C. team reporting that the Trump administration is launching a U.S. led, which I think is significant global effort to really restore navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. It sounds like the administration wants to engage other nations around the world. We don't really have that list of what specific nations have been asked to be part of this body. But our team is reporting that Secretary Rubio approved this creation, the creation of this specific body. But I think another question, Kristen, is that we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is supposed to be a way that we can tap domestic supply. That's that could alleviate prices at the pump for Americans. Now there's been some partial release of that in coordination with other nations in the first few weeks of this conflict having begun, will the administration try to release more? That is another lever that they could pull despite the administration's insistence that they've done everything that they can so far.
- [19:43]
Kristen Welker
All right, Brian Chung breaking down the dollars and cents for us. Thank you so much for being here, Brian. Really appreciate it. And coming up, breaking news. The longest ever partial government shutdown is about to end after a major breakthrough in the House as Congress votes on renewing a controversial spy tool. We've got the very latest on how this all went down. Plus we're following some major midterm shakeups as Maine's Democratic Governor Janet Mills drops out of one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country, setting the stage for a showdown between progressive newcomer Graham Platner and veteran Republican Susan Collins. We'll break down that as well. You're watching MEET THE PRESS now. Welcome back. As we mentioned this afternoon, the House voted to end the record setting 75 day shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, passing the Senate approved bill to fund most of DHS except for ICE and Border Patrol. The Republicans now plan to try to fund those two agencies without Democrats. Last night the House adopted a Senate budget resolution to begin that part of the process. And today the speaker celebrated both of those votes.
- [20:57]
House Speaker Mike Johnson
Listen, this will relieve pressure from the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary Mullen, who I've spoken to in the last couple of hours, will be greatly relieved. The president will, the administration will. We were not going to have lines at tsa. Everybody will get their paychecks now. We'll get moving forward and then we will finish the work and finally get again for three years with no crazy Democrat reforms. We will fund border patrol and immigration enforcement as soon as we return for the work session when that bill is finalized.
- [21:24]
Kristen Welker
Joining me now is NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Melanie Zenona. Mel, thanks so much for being here. So walk us through how the House got here. Why didn't they pass this bill weeks ago when the Senate bill initially passed?
- [21:37]
Melanie Zanona
Yeah, it is a great question, Kristen. There's been a lot of acrimony House and Senate Republicans over their DHS funding strategy. And just to rewind a little bit here, the Senate initially passed a version of this exact same bill back in the end of March. The very next day we thought the House was going to pass it, but House conservatives and Republicans balked. They refused to pass it. It took another few weeks for Speaker Mike Johnson to finally commit to putting this bill on the floor. So the Senate repassed it, sent it over to the House. That was on April 2nd. And yet Johnson still refused to put it on the floor. The reason is because conservatives had a major issue with voting for a bill that did not include funding for ice, for immigration, for Border Patrol. And so what changed this week are really two things. Number one, the White House put some renewed pressure on House Republicans to pass this bill. And number two, The House and Senate both did take concrete steps to set up a process that is going to enable them to fund ICE and Border Patrol through reconciliation. That's a party line process that does not require Democratic votes. But certainly there are questions in the Capitol day, questions we asked of the speaker of why they couldn't have just passes a month ago saved a lot of heartache, saved a lot of these employees from the pain of not knowing where their next paycheck is coming from. Just another example of how these shutdowns have really become the norm on Capitol Hill.
- [22:53]
Kristen Welker
You're absolutely right about that. Just to remind folks, at the root of this was Democrats saying they would not spend a penny for ICE and cbp. So as you say, Republicans are going to fund those agencies without Democratic support. Who are the political winners and losers at this point?
- [23:09]
Melanie Zanona
Now, you know, I think both parties are going to say that they came out victorious in this process, Democrats and Republicans. They really did try to come to an agreement initially before all of this on some reforms to ICE and to immigration. They weren't able to come to an agreement, but we did see some significant changes in the way the administration is conducting its immigration operations, from ousting Krissi Noem, who was leading DHS to agreeing to more body worn camera footage funding for body worn cameras for these ICE agents who are out in the field. But Republicans have made the point that now that they've decided to go it alone on ICE funding and Border Patrol, they're not going to need Democratic input. And in fact, they are planning a process that would actually fund those departments for three years without any Democratic vote. So that's what we're expecting to see next. Trump wants that bill on his desk by, by June 1st.
- [23:59]
Kristen Welker
So let's talk about the other big question on Capitol Hill right now. Renewing the foreign surveillance program set to expire tonight. The Senate did pass a 45 day extension of that program. Is that expected to pass now?
- [24:12]
Melanie Zanona
We are expecting it to pass. In fact, the House is voting right now as we speak. We're expecting it to have bipartisan support. But as you mentioned, this is only a 45 day extension, which means we're going to be back here this exact same spot in 45 days. And earlier this week, Speaker Mike Johnson did twist a lot of arms, he put in a lot of political capital into passing a House version that would be a longer 18 month extension. But unfortunately it was not able to get the votes in the Senate, which is why they ultimately decided to do this extension instead. So this is going to be a mess. That certainly awaits them after this upcoming recess.
- [24:47]
Kristen Welker
Kristen and Mel, we do spend a lot of time talking about fisa, but for folks who aren't familiar with what exactly it is, why it's significant, what can you tell them?
- [24:57]
Melanie Zanona
This is a really critical tool that our government uses to collect information. They use it in order to gather intelligence. It's something that would be very critical if it were to expire today. You know, we've had administration officials here on the Hill warning Republicans if they let this expire, people could ultimately die. Our government really depends on this tool in order to be able to to conduct intelligence operations. And so it is of the utmost importance that they are able to extend that surveillance authority in some way.
- [25:28]
Kristen Welker
Well, yet another critical test for House Speaker Mike Johnson as well. Mel Zanona, as always, thank you so much for joining me today. And joining me now is NBC News artificial intelligence reporter Jared Perlow, who has been reporting on how the explosion of AI is raising new concerns over government surveillance. Jared, thanks for being here. Great to have you.
- [25:48]
Jared Perlow
Thanks for having me.
- [25:50]
Kristen Welker
So let's start right there. Why is AI driving so many concerns?
- [25:54]
Jared Perlow
Absolutely. So this is a fascinating debate that we've seen play out over the past couple of weeks. Pfizer is renewed every couple of years, but I really wasn't on the scene the last time this was up for debate in 2024. What we've seen is that over the past year, AI's capabilities have exploded. So these are not your grandmother's AI Systems. You know, ChatGPT from two years ago is not the same as it is today. So what people are really talking about is the fact that I can crunch data like no human analyst really can. We're talk about new speed, scale and accuracy. So if you have a gigantic database of different communications, emails, texts, phone calls that different Americans and foreigners might have made, you can now set an AI system loose on all these to pick up specific keywords, but then also details about the exact messages. So say maybe I'm texting with a friend about going to a protest, or I have views that maybe people in the administration don't like. The people in charge can then use AI to identify those different sentiments, those different messages, and then maybe identify me as a target.
- [26:53]
Kristen Welker
Are the concerns over AI bipartisan?
- [26:57]
Jared Perlow
Absolutely. And I think that's one of the fascinating parts of this debate. So I can just read off a couple names here. So we saw earlier last week Thomas Massie introduced a new bill again. He's kind of A far right Republican in some people's minds. He said, quote, imagine instead of doing a query with one person that you turned AI loose on all these databases. There's virtually nothing the government can't do know about you. But today we saw Ron Wyden, the senator from Oregon, get totally opposite side of the political spectrum, have exactly the same objections because he thinks that AI could pose a new threat.
- [27:30]
Kristen Welker
So what are AI companies saying about all of this, Jared?
- [27:33]
Jared Perlow
So they're saying a variety of things. You know, it's not a great PR move to admit that your systems are being used in surveilling Americans, but we did see. I heard from Senator Wyden's office that Anthropic said they gave access to a limited number of national security agencies to let them use their systems on this sort of intelligence data. Now, I'll also just note that there is breaking news. 2 days ago Google struck a new deal with the Pentagon. And I'll just read the exact language says that, quote, the AI system is not intended for and should not be used for domestic mass surveillance. But of course, what Google thinks the intelligence agencies should not do and what the intelligence agencies think they should not do is very different. A should is not a cannot.
- [28:11]
Kristen Welker
Yeah, really important point there. Jared, thanks so much for staying on top of this. We will check in with you regularly. Thank you.
- [28:18]
Jared Perlow
Thank you.
- [28:18]
Kristen Welker
Good to see you. Coming up next, a House Democrat joins me responding to a very busy day on Capitol Hill. From wartime testimony to a long awaited DHS funding deal, keep it right here on MEET the Press now. Welcome back. As we mentioned, it's been a very busy day on Capitol Hill. Joining me now to discuss all of it is Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw of Virginia. Congressman, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.
- [28:53]
Congressman James Walkinshaw
It thanks for having me.
- [28:56]
Kristen Welker
Well, I do want to start with the Iran war. We're approaching tomorrow's 60 day deadline for the President to come to Congress set by the War Powers Act. House Speaker Mike Johnson was pressed on this deadline by my colleague Ryan Nobles. I want you to play, don't want to play for you a little bit of what he had to say and get your reaction.
- [29:15]
Ryan Nobles
It's time for Congress to weigh in on the war in Iran, especially now that we're past the 60 day threshold.
- [29:21]
House Speaker Mike Johnson
I don't think we have any active kinetic military bombing firing, anything like that right now. We're trying to broker a piece and it would be, I would be very reluctant to get in front of the administration in the midst of These very sensitive negotiations. So we'll have to see how that plays out.
- [29:34]
Ryan Nobles
But the constitution specifically states 60 days. But the President has called it a war. You're saying we're not at war right now?
- [29:41]
House Speaker Mike Johnson
I'm saying that we do not have military, kinetic, military action at the moment.
- [29:47]
Kristen Welker
Now, as President Trump has said, this is a war. But what do you make of Speaker Johnson saying that the United States is not at war?
- [29:56]
Congressman James Walkinshaw
Well, it's a dodge from Speaker Johnson and, you know, after the 60 day mark, we begin 30 days in which the law is very clear. The President has to withdraw US Forces absent a congressional authorization. Being in the region, not engaged actively in kinetic force or kinetic action isn't what the law says. After 60 days, he has 30 days to withdraw. So absent congressional action, the law says the President has to bring those troops home. The only way for that to happen, for the War Powers act to be a reality, is for Congress to have the will to enforce it. It seems that Speaker Johnson doesn't.
- [30:37]
Kristen Welker
Just to break down his argument, he's effectively saying, look, the US Is in negotiations and any action could potentially undermine that effort to ultimately try to bring the war to an end diplomatically. What say you about that?
- [30:55]
Congressman James Walkinshaw
Well, I think the logical conclusion from his argument is that if kinetic action, as he described it, were to resume, then the President would be in violation of the War Powers Act. Would Speaker Johnson then take action? I suspect the answer is no. So I think it's a clever dodge. Look, in terms of the negotiations that are ongoing, the unfortunate, tragic reality is that the war President Trump engaged in by choice hasn't strengthened our negotiating position. We're in precisely the same position negotiating around the same issues that we were before the war started. With the exception of the strait being closed, we're in a worse position than we were. So we need to end this, bring our troops home, get the best possible deal we can get. Right now, it's unauthorized, it's reckless, and it's doing damage.
- [31:48]
Kristen Welker
Secretary Haig says effectively echoed what we heard from the House speaker testifying that it's his understanding that that 60 day clock is paused because of the. Do Democrats have any recourse in this moment to take any action to prevent this war from moving forward?
- [32:06]
Congressman James Walkinshaw
Well, I think you'll see Democrats continue to put War Powers Resolution votes on the floor when we return from Speaker Johnson's recess. But Congress's enforcement mechanism for the War Powers act really is funding. And unfortunately, our Republican colleagues seem willing to, to write huge checks or ask the taxpayers to Write huge checks to fund this war that is in violation of the War Powers Act. They're actively diminishing the power of the very body in which they serve.
- [32:40]
Kristen Welker
I do want to move to the DHS shutdown finally coming to an end. The House approving a funding bill to fund most of the department, while Republicans are set to fund ICE and Border Patrol through reconciliation. So without Democratic support, what would you argue Democrats have gained from this shutdown? Was it worth it, Congressman?
- [33:03]
Congressman James Walkinshaw
Well, look, Democrats didn't start the shutdown. We didn't want the shutdown. We started this conversation months ago saying very simply, if you want our votes for an appropriations bill to give more money to ICE and CBP on top of the $140 billion they have, then you got to come along with us and support the common sense reforms that the American people want to end the brutality. We weren't able to get any progress on that because of Stephen Miller. So we then compromised and said, all right, look, let's separate out ICE and CBP from the rest of dhs, fund fema, fund our cyber agencies, fund civilians at the Coast Guard, all the people truly protecting the United States of America. That deal was on the table months ago and the Republicans rejected an entire. Until today. They ultimately had to cave and go along with what we laid out from the beginning. We're going to continue to fight and push for reforms on ICE and CBP to protect the American people and uphold the rule of law. We might have to take that debate to the ballot box in November because Stephen Miller in the White House seems unwilling to compromise.
- [34:08]
Kristen Welker
Well, to that point, I mean, there was a period several weeks ago the White House had agreed to some of the reforms that Democrats were asking for. It was, was rejected by Democratic leadership. Congressman, was that a missed opportunity not to take the White House up on some of those reforms? Because, as you say, you didn't get any of the initial reforms you were asking for.
- [34:31]
Congressman James Walkinshaw
Well, they agreed to implement some of those forms, but there was never a tangible agreement to put especially the critical reforms around masking around judicial warrants in the statute. And look, forgive me if I'm not someone who's willing to take a handshake deal from Donald Trump or anyone who works for Donald Trump. He's made a career out of reneging on agreements he makes. It's got to be in the statute for it to be real, to truly protect the American people. They weren't willing to do that.
- [34:59]
Kristen Welker
Let me ask you about the Epstein files, the House Oversight Committee, which of course you sit on held an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell's former boyfriend, Ted Waite this morning. What did you learn from that interview, Congressman? What were your key takeaways?
- [35:13]
Congressman James Walkinshaw
I don't think we learned too much. I want to withhold judgment and review the entire transcript. I was there for maybe half of the interview that we did with him. Ted Wade and Glenn Maxwell had a romantic relationship for a long period of time, including a time in which Ghislaine Maxwell was with Jeffrey Epstein, violating the law. He claimed today to have no knowledge of that. We asked some detailed questions about assertions that had been made that he had been the subject of blackmail because of his relationship with Maxwell. He used the phrase I don't recall many, many times. So we're going to go back and look at the transcript, match that up with what's in the files and in the record to see if there's any more that we need to run down from the interview.
- [35:58]
Kristen Welker
And just before I let you go, the Justice Department's chief watchdog as well as as the Government Accountability Office are Both reviewing the DOJ's compliance with the law when it comes to its release and redacting of the Epstein files. What are you going to be looking for in those reviews? Will you accept the findings?
- [36:18]
Congressman James Walkinshaw
Well, I'm glad that there will be an audit. I'm disappointed that there will be an audit rather than a full investigation. And the IG has the legal authority to conduct a full, full investigation without getting too technical. An audit is a relatively limited review of the paperwork, basically. But we need here a full investigation to understand, for example, who made the decisions to redact files that the law didn't allow to be redacted. I'm not confident that just an audit will get us the answers to those questions, but I'm certainly keen to see what comes out of the audit and what more needs to be followed up on from that audit.
- [36:55]
Kristen Welker
All right. Congressman Walkinshaw, thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate it. I know it's a busy one. Louisiana's Republican governor officially delays his state's primary elections despite some voting already underway after the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday opened the door for new redistricting efforts that could help Republicans in the midterms. You're watching MEET the Press now. Welcome back. Turning now to a midterm shakeup in the battle for control of the Senate and some surprising news out of Maine, where Democratic Gov. Janet Mills announced she's suspending her Senate campaign. Writing in a statement, quote, While I have the drive and passion, commitment and experience and above all else, the fight to continue on, I very simply do not have the one thing that political campaigns unfortunately require today, the financial resources. Mills had the backing of Senate Democrats, including leadership, but struggled in the polls against political newcomer Graham Platner, who had to battle through his own set of controversies. Her exit now clears the way for Platner in the Democratic primary today. Plattner saying he and Mills share the same goals.
- [38:11]
Unidentified Speaker
Governor Mills has dedicated her career to this beautiful state. We both got into this race because we knew how critical it is to defeat Susan Collins, and her decision today reflects a commitment to that project. I look forward to working closely with her between now and November to do just that, to defeat Susan Collins and turn this seat blue again.
- [38:34]
Kristen Welker
Earlier this month, my colleague Sahil Kapoor asked Mills about the possibility of Platner as the Democratic nominee. Take a listen.
- [38:42]
Jared Perlow
If the primary doesn't go your way,
- [38:44]
Kristen Welker
would you support Graham Platner in the general election?
- [38:46]
Janet Mills
I've always been a Democrat. I've always supported the Democratic candidate.
- [38:51]
Kristen Welker
And while Graham Platner is looking ahead to November's election, today on Capitol Hill, Senator Susan Collins dodged when asked about her likely opponent.
- [39:00]
Congressman James Walkinshaw
Will Platner be easier to beat in your view?
- [39:03]
Janet Mills
I'm not going to get him to the November election at this point. This is the governor's day and I think the focus should be on her and her wanting to give her message to the people of Maine.
- [39:26]
Kristen Welker
We'll get the panel's take on the politics of all of it and what it means for the map straight ahead on MEET THE PRESS now. Welcome back. And we've got more breaking news right now. We just got word from the White House that the president has signed the bill officially ending the historic 75 day long partial government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. And also just moments ago, the house passed a 45 day clean extension of the FISA Section 702, sending it to the president for his signature before the program expires tonight. Joining me now is our panel, NBC News national political reporter Ben Kamasar Dan America, co anchor of the Early Brief newsletter at the Washington Post, Taryn Rosenkrantz, Democratic strategist and CEO of New Blue Interactive, and Republican strategist Malik Abdul. Thanks to all of you for being here. Ben, I have to start with you. Let's start off by talking about the decision by Janet Mills to drop out. Was this a surprise? She was obviously down in the polls, but she is the sitting governor.
- [40:35]
Ben Kamasar
It's one thing to be down. It's another thing to decide to end your campaign before you face the voters.
- [40:40]
Brian Chung
Right.
- [40:40]
Ben Kamasar
I think in her statement, she made it very clear that one big reason she decided to do this was money. And certainly when you're coming from behind and you're as down as far as she was, having the resources to crawl back that far is very difficult. We did this focus group a couple weeks ago on this show, and we asked seven main voters, every single voter. We didn't know how they would vote, and all of them chose Platner. It was a very tough hole for her to dig out. And it seems like eventually the math just became clear to her.
- [41:07]
Kristen Welker
Well, it's a fascinating development, Dan. The DSCC has been backing Mills, as has other Democratic leaders. Today they released this statement now supporting Platner. No surprise, but writing, our North Star is winning a Democratic Senate majority. And over the past year, Senate Democrats have carved out multiple paths to do that. How is this playing out in the Democratic Party?
- [41:30]
Dan America
I bet if you give Janet Mills a little bit of truth serum, she would have loved a statement like that, like, I don't know, two or three months ago from the DSCC and Chuck Schumer.
- [41:38]
Kristen Welker
Good point.
- [41:39]
Dan America
She ran out of money, but she had some pretty powerful backers who the dscc, Chuck Schumer, Emily's List among them, who could have poured money into this race and could have taken on Plattner if they wanted to. They clearly did not. They saw the writing on the wall as well that Platner had a sizable lead and Mills herself went negative on Platner in ads. And it really didn't work. Didn't really move the needle. What I'm looking for now is how does Maine come together? Because there is a desire to beat Susan Collins. Among Maine Democrats, there are a lot of unhappy, I will say nice word, Mills voters who look at the way this played out, who look at the way that Chuck Schumer recruited her into the race, some say begged her to get into the race, and then really didn't get into the race himself, didn't spend money to support her, didn't spend money to take on Platner. And I think there's a lot of anger in that Mills base. While it's not as big as the Platner base, he will need everyone to take on Susan Collins, who has defeated anyone who has come at her and is in a Senate race. So that will be a very significant step going forward is how does Graham Platner bring those Mills people back into the fold, even those who are really not happy with him.
- [42:44]
Kristen Welker
Well, it's a fascinating question. And Taryn, let's pick up on this idea of how Platner unifies Democrats at this point. As Dan is saying, there are plenty of Mills supporters who are not happy today about developments. And he comes with his own set of baggage, his own set of controversies, and yet he was leading in the polls in the primaries. But how does this play in a general election against Susan Collins?
- [43:11]
Taryn Rosenkrantz
Well, I think one thing we can't forget is that we have not been able to beat Susan Collins. He is the great white whale. And so they did need to take a different approach. So I do kind of look at this a little bit as like maybe we do something totally different. The establishment has been unable to. Every time they've picked somebody that's gonna be the one to beat her, and it's sort of like they were very similar and maybe too similar and that's not gonna get the energy and excitement. And so maybe this is how we do actually beat her. And I think there's gonna be a unifying need for that Democratic Senate that might be able to help put that
- [43:46]
Kristen Welker
over the top pick up on that point. How do Republicans see it? Is this a real threat? Threat to Susan Collins?
- [43:52]
Malik Abdul
You see me smiling because Republicans are happy. There were some concerns about Mills because she was more of a centrist Democrat. So there was some actual concerns about her. But now with this guy, I mean, we're going to run the table against this guy. But there is some concerns really, not even just with Maine, with senators overall, we really didn't think that this was a seat that was going to go to Democrats. But you are looking in places where Donald Trump is backing other candidates in the Louisiana race, but also hasn't endorsed yet in the Texas race. And Republicans are actually concerned about that in the amount of resources at this point that they're having to pour in a place like Texas when and I said it wrong last time I was on here and I wanted to say it right this time around it was Beto O' Rourke lost to Ted Cruz by 2.6 or 2.7 percentage points last time around. We don't know how Talarico is going to perform.
- [44:44]
Kristen Welker
Yeah, there's a big question mark about that, just how Susan Collins is Democrats white whale. Texas is Democrats white whale. Dan, let's talk about the story that that you broke that Louisiana's now going to delay its primary in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, basically gutting yet Another part of the Voting Rights act, depending on how you see it. How do you see this playing out? What's the significance?
- [45:07]
Dan America
I mean, it's a hugely significant moment. I got word last night that Governor Landry, the Republican, had been calling select House select people who are running for House in Louisiana to inform them that he was planning on suspending the primary. Now why is this significant? There have been ballots sent out in this primary. They have gone out to absentee voters. There are ostensibly people who have returned those ballots and voted in a primary that is now delayed. So the governor announced today, officially after we broke that news, that he was suspending or delaying the primary. Four House districts for House seats. There are going to be people who are running in the primary later in May, and that includes a very contentious, interesting primary in Louisiana and other ballot initiatives, other issues. I think there are a lot of Republicans who are perplexed as to what this will mean for turnout in both races. I mean, if you're running in one of those races, how do you model who's going to turn out for a race that now people think has been suspended? Put yourself in the mind of the voters. That's really tough. But I do think it shows that the raw kind of redistricting power that President Trump has pushed and Democrats have responded with, it's kind of the name of the game right now. Whatever advantage either party can try and pull, they are going to do. And that's what we saw last night with this decision.
- [46:21]
Kristen Welker
Well, I think that's a critical point, Ben. I mean, the bottom line is this tit for tat over redistricting. It seems like it's only going to intensify that this battle is not going anywhere. There are other states that are eyeing the possibility of redistricting in the wake of this Supreme Court decision. What states are you watching?
- [46:36]
Ben Kamasar
Yeah, we put aside the decision for one second. Florida passed its maps this week, unrelated and somewhat related, but largely unrelated. So that's, that's potentially a four seat swing depending on how the performance goes there. And then the question is, what can get done this cycle? There are complicating factors. Obviously in Louisiana, like Dan was bringing up, it's harder to do when voting is actually happening, but it's easier to do when the Supreme Court directly rules on your state. Right. So what happens in a state like Georgia where you're already seeing votes starting to get cast? Will the Republican push be successful there? I don't know. But sort of looking broader out, this may have a slight shift in 26. This is going to open the floodgates of redistricting in 2028. And I think a lot of the people who looked the voters in the eye and said we need to do this on both sides, we need to do this one time, this one emergency time, and we'll never do it again, they're going to be making the same argument in a year and a half.
- [47:30]
Kristen Welker
Well, Malik, the president, Republicans celebrating. This is a big victory. But to Ben's point, it's very unclear how it's going to play out overall. And again, what we're see is a lot of redistricting in 2028. It might be limited for the remainder of 2026.
- [47:50]
Malik Abdul
And some of these states constitutions do have limitations on what it is that they can actually do. This is one of the things and I'll, you know, I'll be the Republican to say that we kind of started this. I think most people are against political gerrymandering to the extent that they've done it. What I'm hoping to see after this, and I can't remember the politician who actually pushed for it, it'll never happen. But there needs to be a these type of political gerrymandering. And in this case, we're doing mid decade, mid decade gerrymandering. It's not even the, you know, the decade sort of thing that we normally do. Not a way that we should be handling business, for sure.
- [48:26]
Kristen Welker
Taryn Hakeem Jeffries was doing a victory lap after Virginia, after Democrats were successful in their redistricting effort in Virginia. Now, of course, as Ben just noted, Florida Republicans are trying to pick up a few more seats. How are Democrats responding to the Supreme Court's decision and do they see this as a blow?
- [48:46]
Taryn Rosenkrantz
I think there is a lot of trepidation and I think a lot of nervousness. I think there is overall, though, because these maps have been so in flux this entire time. It does not make it easy if you're a candidate trying to run not just in Louisiana where they postponed it and it's been like more blatant. I mean, some of these people are like, I don't know who I'm running against. I don't know where I'm running. I don't know who I'm talking to. And we're kind of late in the game towards November to be in that precarious position stuff.
- [49:11]
Kristen Welker
Ben, final question to you. Where is the math right now on the redistricting tit for tat? It's still uncertain to some extent it's still uncertain.
- [49:19]
Ben Kamasar
I mean, it depends on how well these candidates can do in some of the districts that are targeted, Republicans probably have a slight edge. But you know, we're gonna have to see over the coming weeks.
- [49:27]
Kristen Welker
We are going to have to see. We will track it closely. Great conversation, great robust panel. Karen Malik, really appreciate it. We are back tomorrow with more MEET THE PRESS now. There is much more ahead on NBC News now.