← Meet the Press
Meet the Press
Meet the Press NOW — July 21
00:51:46
Pentagon leadership testifies on Capitol Hill as President Trump threatens more military action on Iran. Premier of Ontario Doug Ford reacts to latest U.S. tariffs on Canada. Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed (D) joins Meet the Press NOW ahead of next month’s high-stakes primary.
Loading summary
Transcript149 lines
- [00:01]
Kelly O'Donnell
I really love the Start Today app.
- [00:03]
Zach Roday
They care about how I feel.
- [00:04]
Kate Snow
It's the staff on the app. It's the connections you make.
- [00:08]
Bram Resnick
Without good mental and physical health, you have nothing.
- [00:13]
Kate Snow
It tells me how to cook to keep myself healthy.
- [00:17]
Zach Roday
I look at my app and I'm like, wow, I didn't know I did 7,000 steps today.
- [00:21]
Abdul El Sayed
Start Today meets you where you are.
- [00:23]
Kelly O'Donnell
Download the Start Today wellness app now on your Apple or Android device. Terms apply. See app for details.
- [00:31]
Kate Snow
Hi, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor
- [00:33]
Kelly O'Donnell
and host of the NBC News podcast the Drink. And this month I'm having mojitos with comedian Eric Andre. Was I a little bit worried he might prank me?
- [00:42]
Kate Snow
Absolutely. But he promised he'd behave.
- [00:45]
Kelly O'Donnell
Mostly did. Here at the Drink, we are all
- [00:47]
Kate Snow
about the journey, and Eric's journey to
- [00:49]
Kelly O'Donnell
success is anything but typical.
- [00:51]
Kate Snow
We talk about his childhood, his brief run in music, and the decade he
- [00:55]
Kelly O'Donnell
spent hustling in New York City before his hit TV show changed everything. It's a conversation peppered with humor, but also a real look at the path
- [01:03]
Kate Snow
behind his larger than life Persona.
- [01:06]
Kelly O'Donnell
We hope you'll join us for the Drink. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to MEET THE press. Now. I'm Kelly o' Donnell in Washington, and right now Pentagon leadership is testifying on Capitol Hill as the war with Iran risks becoming a political and military quagmire for the Trump administration, with the president threatening even more military action after 10 straight days of US strikes and new polling showing broad public frustration with the war. Now you're looking live at the hearing where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Kaine, are testifying on the administration's request for an $88 billion infusion of resources, much of that for the Pentagon to fund the ongoing war with Iran. We are monitoring this hearing and we'll bring you any news as it happens. Now this, of course, comes as the Pentagon launched more strikes on Iran yesterday, once again striking Iran's military command centers, maritime capabilities and air defense systems. Today, during a meeting in the Oval Office with Lebanon's president, President Trump downplayed the possibility of diplomatic talks with Iran and signaled more strikes are ahead.
- [02:32]
Donald Trump
They want to desperately meet, and until they're ready to meet in a meaningful way, we have no interest in Even if we left today, it would take them decades to rebuild, and I don't believe they could ever rebuild. And honestly, they haven't seen anything yet. We've been nice. We've been nice.
- [02:52]
Kelly O'Donnell
Do you believe that Iran has moved
- [02:55]
Kate Snow
nuclear centrifuges into pickaxe mountain. And when you say we're not done
- [02:59]
Kelly O'Donnell
yet, what is left to finish?
- [03:00]
Donald Trump
We'll be hitting that area very probably pretty soon, and there's not, not a thing they can do about it. You know, normally I wouldn't say that. If I thought they could do something about it, I would never say that. But we'll be hitting that area pretty soon and very heavily.
- [03:18]
Kelly O'Donnell
At the end of that meeting, the president touting the U.S. economy, highlighting new investments coming into the U.S. and he said, quote, truly, it's the golden age of America. But many Americans here at home are feeling the economic fallout from the war, with the average cost of gas now back above $4 a gallon and oil prices rising more than 15% in the last week alone, closing today at around $85 a barrel. Meanwhile, a poll by the Washington Post shows 68% of Americans say the war with Iran has not been worth fighting. That number is worse than how Americans felt about the war in Iraq in any of the polls done by the Washington Post. And it is on par with the worst rating during the war in Afghanistan. Joining me now to share in our discussion, NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba, NBC News chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles, and NBC News senior national Security correspondent Courtney Kuby. So, Monica, let me begin with you. So this seems like a very straightforward question, and yet maybe the answer isn't so easy. Does the administration have a clear strategy when it comes to Iran?
- [04:26]
Monica Alba
Not a clear one, Kelly. And this has really been a military conflict that's been marked by contradictions and mixed messaging, with the president really saying that there is going to be more military action, but his own secretary of state and others saying that diplomacy is a path that is still pursued. And it's not even clear exactly how the White House views this current conflict right now, whether it is an altogether new action. They did formally notify Congress that that seemed to be the case. But there also are some open questions about exactly how this is or isn't different from Operation Epic Fury that began this. So this is really a case where we are sort of in the same place we were just days ago. And there seems to be a pattern that repeats without any meaningful momentum that helps us understand, understand what the strategy might actually be. Kelly.
- [05:16]
Kelly O'Donnell
So we heard today the president said that he's not interested in talks with Iran, claimed that they're desperate to make a deal, which he said many times. And this is just days after Secretary Rubio said the door to diplomacy is still open. So when you have those two kinds of comments, is it clear what the status of negotiations really is at this point?
- [05:36]
Monica Alba
Not at all. And it was interesting that, with the President saying that their vice president, J.D. vance, was in the room, who, of course, was leading the US Side of those kinds of talks when they were taking place both in person and behind the scenes. And Secretary Rubio and Vice President Vance have been more upfront about acknowledging that there is still work that is taking place that is not apparent or as visible. But the president today seemed to shut down whether there would be any scenario in which he would want to talk to the Iranians again, even though we know through mediators that efforts continue to see if some kind of return to the tentative deal can be considered. But that is really hard to imagine right now, Kelly, because it was the President who said he would only do that when Iran wants to do so in a, quote, meaningful way. And we don't actually also know the definition of what in a meaningful way actually means.
- [06:26]
Kelly O'Donnell
Of course, there's conducting the war and then there's the political environment in which this is all happening. So what is your sense of how the administration may or may not be concerned about the political or midterm implications of. Of this war, especially given how unpopular it's become?
- [06:41]
Monica Alba
Yeah. And the president, of course, made headlines some time ago when he said that in thinking about decision making, specifically with regards to Iran, that he doesn't factor in Americans personal financial situations. When he was asked to even clarify that, he doubled down and tripled down on it. But today he also had an interesting perspective on how he views this in relation to the midterms. Let's listen to that.
- [07:04]
Abdul El Sayed
Do you believe that Iran is trying to impact the midterm elections by threatening the Strait of Horus?
- [07:09]
Donald Trump
They won't have any impact on me. I'm just going to do the right thing. I don't view it as, gee, we're having an election in a period of time. You know, everyone says, oh, I'm doing something before, no, the election. I can't think about that having to do with this. I think people are very impressed.
- [07:27]
Monica Alba
So it's interesting, of course, Kelly, because at a certain point, the White House sort of view on this was that the president was. Would be a key person out on the road ahead of the midterms, and that even if his name wasn't physically on the ballot, that his sort of brand of politics and everything associated with him would be. And now the president there sort of seeming to put a little bit of distance between that, saying that it's not going to factor in to his political decision making here, even though many Republicans and some GOP allies probably are hoping that it does, because it could be a huge problem potentially for Republicans if the issue of affordability voters feel is not dealt with or addressed in the
- [08:04]
Kelly O'Donnell
way that they would like it to
- [08:05]
Monica Alba
be ahead of the midterms.
- [08:06]
Kelly O'Donnell
Kelly Appreciate that, Monica. We're both old enough to remember when he was going to be involved in the midterms all the time, but perhaps things do change around that White House. Ryan, let me turn to you. We are also watching, of course, the ongoing testimony with Secretary Hegseth and General Kaine on Capitol Hill. Is there an appetite that you're able to detect among lawmakers about appropriating more money for this war at a time when, based on the polling, based on what they're hearing, there's a real sense among many Americans that it may not be worth the cost?
- [08:39]
Ryan Nobles
Well, I think it's going to be a difficult ask for the White House, Kelly, for a number of reasons. First off, that any sort of supplemental in the fashion that the appropriators are looking for would require 60 votes in the Senate. This is not something you can do through a reconciliation process. The amount of money that they're talking about, the way that money would be spent, would require 60 votes. And right now, Democrats in particular are extremely upset with the lack of transparency that they're seeing from the Pentagon as it relates to the prosecution of this war. But it's not just Democrats. There are a fair number of Republicans that are asking those same questions and want to be supportive of the administration, believe that this war was appropriate and responsible, but need the administration to help them sell this message, not only to their constituents but to Democrats as well. I did ask the Senate Majority leader, John Thune, about this very specifically, and while there are some skeptics within the Republican Party, he's not among them. He seems very convinced that the White House is handling this war in an appropriate way and believes that they should get the funding that they're asking for, not just because of what they hope to do in the future, but to backfill all the munitions and different military resources that have been expended as a result of this war. He's hoping that Democrats will come on board, but this will not be an easy process because as Senator Tim Kaine pointed out today, the only lever that Congress has right now to have any sort of impact on the direction of this war is through the appropriations process because the administration has effectively ignored a War Powers act that was passed by both the House and Senate despite the Republican majorities, Kelly.
- [10:19]
Kelly O'Donnell
And the funding is one issue. But do you also detect any weariness among Republicans about defending the war more broadly when you consider so many of them are facing reelection in just a matter of months?
- [10:32]
Ryan Nobles
Yeah, it really depends on who you're talking to, right, Kelly. I mean, I think for those senators that are safely entrenched in their seats, don't have a reelection bid for until the next cycle or maybe the cycle after that, they remain committed to the administration's talking points and defending them. But I think the ones that you're finding some skepticism among are those that are leaving, folks like Thom Tillis of North Carolina, folks who have traditionally not been afraid to stand up to the administration, like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and those who have a kind of rich understanding of how these war efforts normally go. And that makes me think of Roger Wicker, who's the chair of the Armed Services Committee. These folks are asking very serious, directed and pointed questions to the administration about where this goes from here. And there is some unease that the administration is not being completely forthcoming about the plan forward. And that's just going to make getting through that supplemental that much more difficult as this process moves forward.
- [11:33]
Kelly O'Donnell
And Ryan, we know you will keep us up to date on the pulse of what you're hearing there. And we're continuing to check this hearing as it plays out in real time. So let me turn now to Courtney. We just got a new estimate on the cost of the war from this testimony. And what can you tell us about that and what are the implications, as you've been reporting, if this doesn't pass, if the supplemental doesn't go through, what is the real impact on the ability of the Department of Defense to carry out this war?
- [12:02]
Courtney Kuby
Yeah.
- [12:02]
Kate Snow
So Secretary of Defense Hegseth was asked about the current cost of the war and he gave a new number. He said $37.5 billion is the current cost. But then when, when Senator Durbin followed up, he seemed to say that that would be the cost through September 30th. Kelly, frankly, that just doesn't make sense given the daily operational tempo, even the little bit that we know about how much the US Military is striking. Given the forward presence that exists there, two dozen ships, several hundreds of aircraft, and more than 50,000 men and women who are deployed forward, the simple day to day operational cost of that would far exceed $37.5 billion. But that is the number that he gave. And he didn't provide a whole lot more clarity on exactly what all that encompasses beyond just the operations. He said again through September 30th. One thing that the Secretary did acknowledge today under questioning was that if in fact the funding doesn't come through, one thing that would be impacted potentially soon and then over time would be training. But he didn't talk about any specifics about how that would impact the operations against Iran. Instead, all we have heard out of Secretary Hegseth now for months is that, yes, the U.S. needs these billions of dollars, what $67 billion, we believe that is for resupplying the munitions and rebuilding some of the aircraft and systems that may have been destroyed or broken during the course of the war. But it's still not 100% clear exactly how much it would cost just to simply replace those sorts of systems and specifically the munitions. We have that $67 billion marker that came out through the supplemental. But I mean, Kelly, it's just really not clear exactly what this would cost and how quickly it could have an impact, an operational impact on people who are forward, who are still carrying out strikes against Iran every single day. The Pentagon can move some money around to keep covering those costs, but we don't have an answer about sort of a drop dead day.
- [14:08]
Kelly O'Donnell
And the risk you're talking about leads me to my next question, which is we heard the President acknowledge today that one of Iran's attacks, quote, slipped through, in his words, the US Defenses in Jordan. And can you tell us about how you think the military is able to defend against Iran's retaliatory strikes, given everything we've been talking about with what's happening in the region and some of these economic pressures?
- [14:31]
Bram Resnick
Yeah.
- [14:31]
Kate Snow
So the munitions shortfalls that we've been talking about, the biggest concerns are the defensive munitions. So things like interceptor missiles that are used for a Thaad or a Patriot system, those are the most effective and successful way to defend against something like an incoming Iranian ballistic missile. And Kelly, one of the reasons that those interceptors are so short is not just the fact that the US has been defending against Iranian missiles now for several months now, but the US Also used a huge supply of those munitions back during the 12 Day War last summer and then defending against the Houthis. So the stockpile has been slowly depleting, and then that really accelerated since the US Started this war back in February. But those are the most effective ways to defend against those. But they are not 100% one of the ways that the US military tends to up their percentages or the chance of being successful in intercepting or stopping a missile from coming through is by firing multiple interceptors at every projectile. So they look at their trajectory as that's coming in. They determine where it could potentially hit. And if it looks like it's going to hit a place where there's a bunch of people or there's critical systems or something important that they want to defend against, that's when they will fire off multiple interceptors. That's one of the reasons that the stockpile has gotten to such a critical state, though.
- [15:51]
Kelly O'Donnell
And while I have you here, let me play one clip from the hearing so our viewers can get a sense of what it's been like. This is something that Secretary Headset said just a short time ago in questioning. Mr. Secretary, Iran has been firing at US military, military bases in the region and ships for the last week. How is it possible if their capabilities were, quote, functionally destroyed three months earlier, as she claimed, for them to be
- [16:17]
Bram Resnick
doing this now, Senator, Iran is at
- [16:21]
Abdul El Sayed
the weakest point militarily it has ever been in, in the past decade. So I acknowledge they still have capabilities, no doubt, but the amount of, the amount of damage that we've done to them over the course of, of these series of operations has put them in the worst place they've ever been.
- [16:37]
Kelly O'Donnell
So how do you square that, Kelly?
- [16:40]
Kate Snow
This is the product of a lack of transparency throughout the course of this war. We don't know exactly what the US has been hitting, exactly how many strikes they have taken. We were getting a sense for a while, but a lot of that, even that minor bit of transparency has gone away. And because of that, we have these statements from the president, from the Secretary of Defense that they've destroyed Iran militarily. And then the next day Iran is carrying out strikes like this. That's why there is this cognitive dissonance that's not making sense about exactly where Iran's military stands. But the reality is, as hard as we try to get the answers to this, there's just not a lot of transparency surrounding exactly where Iran's military stands right now. They simply do have the capability to continue to threaten the US and allies in the region, though.
- [17:24]
Kelly O'Donnell
And if I'm correct, there has not been a press briefing from the Secretary and the Joint Chiefs chairman since early May. And so today's hearing really is an important part of hearing from them directly.
- [17:35]
Kate Snow
It is. And we've been asking for briefings for months.
- [17:38]
Kelly O'Donnell
Please keep doing that. We appreciate it. Thank you so much, Courtney. And coming up, of course, if it is a Tuesday, and it is, voters are voting somewhere. And this time it's in battleground Arizona where primary fights are underway in both parties and you'll be hearing about affordability, election security and President Trump. We'll get the view from Phoenix coming up. Plus, I go one on one with a top Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan, where the race for Senate control and the fight for really the soul of the Democratic Party are on the line. Abdul Al Said meets the press straight ahead. July means you're halfway through the year, but there's still time to reach your 2026 wellness goals with half off an
- [18:26]
Joy Bauer
annual subscription to the Start TODAY app.
- [18:29]
Kelly O'Donnell
Hi, everyone. I'm Joy Bauer, the Today Show's nutrition expert. And as part of the START TODAY family, we offer easy to follow meal and fitness plans. And we support you with simple, realistic
- [18:39]
Joy Bauer
tools that keep you inspired to reach your goals.
- [18:41]
Kelly O'Donnell
Go to today.comstart and download now because it's never too late to start today. Subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99
- [18:51]
Abdul El Sayed
plus taxes and fees until canceled. Offer ends July 31, 2026.
- [18:55]
Bram Resnick
Price is subject to change.
- [18:56]
Abdul El Sayed
Visit today.comstart for full offer terms and details.
- [19:04]
Kelly O'Donnell
Welcome back. You know our slogan. If it's Tuesday, voters are voting somewhere. And today that somewhere is battleground Arizona, with primary contests that will set some of the country's most competitive House races this fall. Plus the battle for governor and secretary of state, a pair of races that could have major implications for how elections are administered in that swing state in 2028. So joining me now is Bram Resnick, political reporter and anchor for our affiliate kpnx. Always good when I see you on the road. We appreciate having you in studio with us today, Bram.
- [19:40]
Bram Resnick
Thanks so much, Kelly.
- [19:41]
Kelly O'Donnell
And let's start with the Republican primary for governor. President Trump has backed Congressman Andy Biggs over Congressman David Schweikart. How much of a factor do you see president, President Trump's presence or his influence in this race?
- [19:57]
Bram Resnick
He is a huge factor. And I should update your viewers today. Essentially, Andy Biggs declared victory. The polls have showed him leading David Schweikart by double digits. Schweikart is very conservative, votes with Trump, but has never really embraced Don Donald Trump. Andy Biggs has given the president a full embrace for ever since Donald Trump was elected in 2016. That is going to be an issue in the campaign. I also point out something folks have overlooked. Andy Biggs has been a lawmaker for 24 years, he's never faced a tough fight. This will be the first time his record gets close scrutiny in an election. And that's going to be a could be challenging for him, as will the Trump endorsement. Donald Trump is underwater here in Arizona as he is across the country. That's something virtually all of the candidates or Republican candidates up today on the statewide ballot are likely gonna have to deal with.
- [20:51]
Kelly O'Donnell
It's so interesting how a primary race and all its dynamics can be so different between that and the November show. So Republicans have to consider can they beat Governor Katie Hobbs, who is a Democrat, of course, battleground state. She's got a national profile. And when you're talking about a Republican with those presidential ties to Mr. Trump, what does it look like for the issues that will happen over the next few months?
- [21:18]
Bram Resnick
Well, just to focus in, it's Republicans have been on a three cycle losing streak when it comes to statewide offices. They've given up a statewide office in each of the last three cycles. The question is, are voters this time around, Republican voters going to nominate candidates who are electable? What's different this time as well in the primary is you have a few opponents such as David Schweikart and in the secretary of state's race, Gino Sibota saying my opponent is not electable. So far, that argument isn't winning. It's not winning in the governor's race. We'll have to see later tonight when the votecamp comes whether it's going to win in the secretary of state's race. It doesn't look like it will. Republican voters, largely the Trump base, are going to go with who they want as far as the issues are concerned. The big issue here right now as it is across the country, is affordability. It's number one, the question of election denial. And in Andy Biggs case, he voted to overturn the tried to overturn the 2020 election results that the pollsters tell me has receded as an issue. It's not very high up for voters.
- [22:26]
Kelly O'Donnell
That's interesting because one of the races I want to ask you about is the secretary of State, of course, who has the responsibility for administering the elections in a state. States have control of their elections and both candidates there have talked about the claims that the president has made that have been proven to not be accurate about 2020. What is your sense about, given the importance of election administration, how is that playing out? If you think that issue is receding a bit, is that something that those candidates are talking about day to day
- [23:00]
Bram Resnick
they're talking about election integrity, the way they view things. And you just brought up Alex Collodin, a state representative, and Gina Swobod, the former chair of the Arizona Republican Party. Gina Swoboda is a former elections official and can talk persuasively about how the system works. Alex Culloden, however, state representative, is the author of a ballot referral on an issue the voters are going to vote on in November. That would pretty much eliminate mail in voting, which is very popular here. But not, you know, many of the election deniers are not fans of mail in voting. They think it's ripe for fraud. So that is clearly going to play out there. And again, I had to remind folks, Andy Biggs is going to have to certify the election of 2028 presidential election if he wins the governor's race.
- [23:50]
Kelly O'Donnell
It's so interesting how that history of how they viewed 2020 is really relevant even now and in the race ahead. So, Bram, great to see you. I'll see you on the road again at one of these campaign events. Appreciate your time today.
- [24:03]
Bram Resnick
Hope to see you soon. Take care.
- [24:05]
Kelly O'Donnell
And up next, we go again through the kind of thing that we've seen before. You've heard it. We're going to tell you about it again. A new iteration of President Trump threatening Canada with 50% tariffs on a wide range of goods that could raise your costs. The president claiming that trade discrimination is happening. And the premier of Ontario is urging Canada to fight back. He will join us next. And you're watching MEET THE Press now, Honey, did you invite the minions over?
- [24:38]
Abdul El Sayed
Well, you know how we talked about getting WI fi from Xfinity? Yeah, I ordered it this morning, was online in minutes.
- [24:44]
Kelly O'Donnell
Then they showed up.
- [24:46]
Kate Snow
So they just came over to use
- [24:47]
Kelly O'Donnell
the WI fi for what?
- [24:51]
Abdul El Sayed
Better not to know.
- [24:52]
Kate Snow
Get online in minutes with same day Wi fi from Xfinity plus, lock in your price for five years and see
- [24:58]
Kelly O'Donnell
Minions and Monsters only in theaters.
- [24:59]
Kate Snow
Xfinity imagine that restrictions apply.
- [25:02]
Kelly O'Donnell
Not available in all areas. Learn more@xfinity.com SameDayWifi. Welcome back. Canadian leaders are reacting today to new U.S. tariffs on Canada announced by President Trump late yesterday. The 50% levies, which apply to imports vehicles, dairy products and alcohol are set to take effect a month from now. The White House accusing Canada of discriminating against American exports of those goods. Today, the president also accusing Canada's leaders of trying to take advantage of U.S. farmers while telling reporters in the Oval Office that Canada, quote, needs the US to survive. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney Says he's spoken with the President not only about new tariffs, but also about negotiating a wider trade agreement.
- [25:52]
Abdul El Sayed
I spoke with President Trump earlier this morning. We agreed to intensify negotiations in the coming weeks, and the team and myself look to forward to doing that. As always, Canadians, governments, business, labour will
- [26:07]
Bram Resnick
stand together to build Canada strong and
- [26:10]
Abdul El Sayed
to have a trading relationship with our North American partners that benefits everyone.
- [26:15]
Kelly O'Donnell
And welcome back to the program. And joining me now is the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford. We appreciate your time today. Gorgeous backdrop. That's probably good news for Canada there. You said earlier today. Thank you, sir. You said that Canada is an energy powerhouse that could dismantle the US if you wanted to and that the US Needs to feel the pain. So I have to ask you, I know you're always complimentary about how you care about the American people and you're fond of the United States, but are you trying to inflict pain on Americans to make your point?
- [26:50]
Doug Ford
I would never do that. You know, the President started this economic war against their closest friend and ally, every Canadian. We love Americans. I love Americans. Spent 20 years of my life there. But again, I differentiate between President Trump and the great American people. I believe in making a free and fair trade agreement no different than what Ronald Reagan believed in. And every tariff he puts on Canada, it's a massive, massive tax on Americans. We're the number one customer. We buy more goods off the US Than any other jurisdiction in the world. Motor vehicles, we buy 400% more vehicles off the US than any country in the world. I want a fair deal. I want prosperity. Americans want certainty. They want stability. And right now, when there's not certainty and stability, the investment is stalled. But when there's investment, we see investment and jobs and production and lower cost of goods. You see what's happening in the U.S. cost of gas is going up, cost of building homes because he has tariffs on the soft one, softwood lumber. 33% of all the lumber used is coming from Canada. Again, he's attacking Canada. And when you attack your closest friend and ally that's been shoulder to shoulder with you for over 200 years, fought wars together, that's unacceptable. We have to work together and make sure both countries prosper and thrive.
- [28:26]
Kelly O'Donnell
And to give our viewers a little more sense of how you respond. And when this initially came out from the president, you tweeted about this in response to the US Announcement. I'll never stop fighting to protect Ontario. If these tariffs proceed, Canada should respond tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar. In the past, you've talked about energy exports being on the table. Is that something that you would embrace again?
- [28:51]
Doug Ford
Kelly, Everything's on the table. We power 1.5 million homes and businesses in New York, in Michigan and Minnesota. We're an energy powerhouse. We're leading the G7 on small modular reactors. There's no one I'd want to give our energy to more than our closest friends and allies. I've never seen anything like this with any president ever in the history of the United States. We need to work together and make sure both countries are prosperous and they thrive. That's what our goal is.
- [29:24]
Kelly O'Donnell
Well, we could probably replay this conversation and go back into our files and find a very similar conversation, because there have been a few of these iterations of terror fights between the United States imposing them on Canada. Canada also coming back with that. Do you think this is for real this time, or is this a larger tactic from President Trump seeking something else?
- [29:48]
Doug Ford
I'm not too sure what the president's tactics are, but I can assure the American people, we want the best for your country. We want the best for Canada. But he continues to attack and put 50% tariffs is very simple. A tariff on Canada is nothing more than taxing his own American people. He didn't run on this. He ran on creating more jobs, lower cost. And what's happened, total opposite. So I encourage the American people to talk to your senators, your, your Congress people, your governors. I've been down there numerous times over the last month, and I get treated like gold. And I, you know, I just love our American neighbors. But we have to protect ourselves as, as well. Again, a tariff on Canada is an outright tax on the American people. There's no qualms about it.
- [30:39]
Kelly O'Donnell
Today, President Trump was also arguing that the U.S. in his view, has leverage and Canada needs the U.S. to survive. Let's share what he said today on that point.
- [30:50]
Donald Trump
I love Canada. I love the people of Canada, many friends that live in Canada, but their leadership, from Trudeau to the current leadership, I mean, in all fairness to them, they need us to survive. Without us, there's no way they can survive.
- [31:09]
Kelly O'Donnell
So he loves Canada. You love the United States. There was a lot of love today. But I am also wondering, where does this leave us? The US Obviously likes some of the exports that Canada has. Would you put American alcohol back on the shelves for Canadian buyers? Would you see other things coming back this way?
- [31:29]
Zach Roday
Sort of.
- [31:29]
Kelly O'Donnell
What's your bottom line at the moment?
- [31:33]
Doug Ford
Well, the, the, the tariffs. You get rid of the tariffs, the alcohol is coming back on. On the shelves or the largest purchaser of alcohol in the entire world in, in Ontario. And as for Canada needs America. Absolutely, we need America. But guess what? America needs Canada. We ship in more oil than anywhere in the world, 4.1 million barrels a day. We ship potash to your farmers. That. I was reading an article in Financial Times. The farmers are not happy with President Trump's tariffs. We send the electricity down there. We send high grade nickel from Ontario. That 65% of your nickel comes from Ontario. We send uranium down there processed right here in Ontario and then gets enriched down to the US So I guess President Trump has a choice. Either deal with China and Russia for those goods or you deal with your closest ally, your number one customer in the world. And yes, the US Is our number one customer. This just does not make sense. I have a recommendation for President Trump. Start focusing on China and start focusing on Russia, not your closest friend that fought war shoulder to shoulder with our great American allies.
- [32:47]
Kelly O'Donnell
We so appreciate your time today. I know you had a packed schedule and you made time for us. So thank you. Doug Ford, we appreciate it. We'll see you again.
- [32:56]
Doug Ford
Thank you. God bless America. God bless Canada. Thank you.
- [32:59]
Kelly O'Donnell
And after the break, we're spotlighting Michigan's hotly competitive Democratic race for Senate, where the debate over US and aid to Israel is deepening. It's a divide between progressives and moderates that's taking shape. And we'll talk about all of it if you stay with us right here on MEET THE PRESS now. And welcome back. We're turning now to one of the most closely watched races this primary cycle and the next big test for the Democratic establishment. It's the battle between Congressman, Congresswoman Haley Stevens and former Wayne County Health Director Dr. Abdul Al said to replace Michigan Senator Gary Peters, who has announced he's not seeking reelection. So the winner of the primary in just two weeks will face former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers. This weekend, El Sayed held a series of rallies with Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, two of the most progressive members of Congress who have thrown their support behind his campaign. And joining me now is Abdul El Sayed. And we welcome you here. Thank you so much for making time. And so I really want to get at a bit of what motivates you and how it plays into the realities in Michigan. So Michigan is a state that President Trump won twice. And what makes you think that someone who is leaning progressive as you are can win in November when it has been so much of a state that has relied on independent voters and soft Republicans and moderate Democrats. How can you win there?
- [34:39]
Abdul El Sayed
I'll tell you this. I've been up and down my state, 110 different cities, 475 public events. No matter where I go, I don't hear people asking where do I sit On a left right spectrum. Instead they're saying, why do I feel so locked out of my politics? How am I going to afford my groceries? What's going to happen next month when my rent or my mortgage is due? What happens if I get sick? Am I locked out of the health care system because I can't afford my deductible? These are the questions animating most folks. The divide in our politics is not left or right. The divide in our politics is people who are locked out and people doing the locking out. Now I'm not somebody who's ever taken a dime of corporate money. I'm running against a Democrat who is got a $50 million crutch paid for by AIPAC, by Big Pharma, by big Tech, by our local utilities, by our big health insurance corporations. All of that tells you who she's going to fight for. And that's not you. That's not making your bills more affordable. That's not making sure you can see a doctor. In fact, it's helping to rig a system to make those things less attainable. So how do you win? You win by speaking to the challenges that people are facing in their everyday lives rather than playing this political game of asking where you fit on a left right spectrum.
- [35:47]
Kelly O'Donnell
So you're hearing from voters, you're getting that feedback. But there is sort of the mechanics of how these races work. And you lost the Democratic primary for governor in 2018 to Gretchen Whitmer. Your opponent has won four terms in Congress and is endorsed by both Senator Gary Peters and former Senator Debbie Stabenow. Now, they both know how to win statewide. They are choosing your primary opponent. So what is your strategy to appeal to those voters who are more centrist, who are more likely to even give a listen to Republicans in the fall primary? In the fall election, voters want change.
- [36:22]
Abdul El Sayed
And I think nothing says change like having the last two senators pick the next one. I just think people are sick and tired of a politics that has locked them out for a very long time. And I think the way you appeal to them is to talk about the challenges that they all face. Right now, gas is what, four bucks is down from five bucks and it's probably going to go up again because this war doesn't end. The Republican who told you that he was never going to fight another forever war just got us into what feels like a forever war. We're in a situation right now where the guy I'm going to be running against, he has never met a pharma lobbyist he didn't like. Voted countless times to raise prescription drug prices, helped to architect the opioid epidemic, and then let's left our great state to go move to Florida where he made $14 million. He really can't explain. So I think the way that we win is by having an honest conversation about what it looks like to take on the system of politics that has rigged our system for too long. Say what you will about my positions on things like guaranteeing you health care or standing up to corporations or for unions. I think you probably don't want a politician who's taking money from the utility that raised your rates faster than in 46 states over the last 20 years. I think you probably don't want a guy who architected the opioid epidemic and has said nothing about all of the damage he's caused. So I think we win by actually taking the fight to Republicans.
- [37:35]
Kelly O'Donnell
Let's talk about some of the platform ideas that you are running on and I want to tap into something you said at a rally this weekend. Let's play that clip.
- [37:44]
Abdul El Sayed
So it is time for us in this country to stand up and decide that we are no longer going to send unconditional foreign military aid to foreign governments. Not Israel, not Egypt, not Jordan, not Saudi Arabia. I want my tax dollars in Michigan.
- [38:09]
Kelly O'Donnell
I imagine that voters that were there liked hearing about tax dollars staying in Michigan. But let's drill down into this a little bit. Are you saying that you would not support foreign aid broadly or is it just in specific cases? For example, would you rule out foreign aid that goes to other nations, not those ones you specifically mentioned?
- [38:28]
Abdul El Sayed
I said unconditional foreign military aid is what I would rule out right when it's got conditions like when we invest in supporting Ukraine against the effort of a would be dictator trying to violate their territorial sovereignty. That is conditional military aid, conditional on the circumstances in which they are fighting back and protecting and upholding international law. So to me that's where it really
- [38:51]
Kelly O'Donnell
goes back for Ukraine.
- [38:53]
Abdul El Sayed
So let me just offer a framework instead of yes and no per country. The framework is I believe in international law and I believe that when it comes to upholding international law we have an opportunity to support via foreign military aid. But when it comes to opposing military law like or international law, like backstopping an apartheid or a genocide or supporting a anti democratic government in Egypt, I think we should not do it. So my point is this shouldn't just be unconditional to certain allies. It should be based on certain conditions according to international law.
- [39:26]
Kelly O'Donnell
If we look at foreign aid in another way, things like usaid, where President Trump stopped that organization that provided us support around the world largely for humanitarian, medical, other kinds of things like fortifying elections elsewhere, do you support that?
- [39:43]
Abdul El Sayed
Well, look, I'd be the first ever public health official elected to the U.S. senate. And I know something about epidemics, which is if you stop them where they are, you can prevent them coming to you. And I think it's a smart use of our tax dollars to fight epidemics elsewhere so they don't become epidemics in New York City or Detroit or Grand Rapids or Lansing. And so I think we have an opportunity to be taking on big challenges that are going to end up at our doorstep if we don't, rather than creating big challenges like wars that end up in our doorstep, like the war in Iran.
- [40:12]
Kelly O'Donnell
Several physicians have been elected to the Senate. But you're saying public health official, because that's a job you held.
- [40:17]
Abdul El Sayed
There hasn't been a Democratic doctor elected to the U.S. senate since 1969. And I'd be the first ever formal public health official elected to the U.S. senate.
- [40:24]
Kelly O'Donnell
Let's talk about some other issues in your primary. So if you were to win, and then there are those Democrats who have supported Haley Stevens, who do believe in supporting Israel and sending money there, and there's polling that backs that up, how would you reach out to those voters who might choose her in the primary? But if you're victorious, how would you appeal to them for November?
- [40:47]
Abdul El Sayed
Well, look, I have my principles and I hope that they'd support the idea that, you know, we have a responsibility, I think, to uphold international law. And insofar as the Israeli government is violating international law, I don't think they have a right to our tax dollars. I think we should be keeping our tax dollars here to invest in children and schools and opportunity here. Now, a lot of folks conflate this with standing up against anti Semitism. I'll be clear. I grew up in a community where I was blessed to have about 40% of our community from the Jewish community. And I learned a lot about Judaism and Jewish history and Jewish culture. You will find me to be the chief opponent of anti Semitism, especially since I know what it's like to be discriminated against for how I pray as a devout Muslim. And so I think we can differentiate between Judaism and the Jewish people here and Israel and AIPAC there. And I hope that folks who recognize that we have a responsibility to take care of our problems here at home would recognize that. For me it's about principle. My family comes from Egypt. I don't want to send my foreign my money there either to backstop a military dictatorship there either. So ultimately I hope that folks will support us on principle and recognize there's a lot of work we could do to take on the challenges we face here at home.
- [41:59]
Kelly O'Donnell
There's been a lot of discussion of Israel as an issue that is broadly being discussed in the Democratic Party and certainly in Michigan where there's a large Middle Eastern population. You're a part of that community. Your opponent says you do not support a two state solution in the Middle east where Israel is a sovereign nation and then Palestine, Gaza has its own sovereignty. Is that correct?
- [42:22]
Abdul El Sayed
She doesn't either. First of all, you know if you're sending $3.3 billion to a foreign government that wants to foreclose on the possibility of Palestine, you clearly don't support a two state solution either. But what I support is equal rights to peace, dignity and self determination for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike. I believe that they ought to be the ultimate arbiters of what the ultimate peace should look like. If that is a two state solution and is chosen by the free Palestinian people and free Jewish Israeli people people, then great. And if that's a single state solution or a 23 state solution or a land for all solution, that is their choice to make. The problem though is that as American policymakers we've often had the hubris of thinking that we get to dictate what the ultimate solution for other people should look like. And I don't think the ultimate peace is going to be decided from the United States of America. I think the ultimate peace is going to be decided by equal stakes from Jewish Israelis and Palestinians alike. And I want our tax dollars not to be spent foreclosing on that possibility for other people. I want them to be spent here providing schools and health care here.
- [43:23]
Kelly O'Donnell
Let's talk about another policy position. And you have called for abolishing ice. And while you are also advocating for a secure southern border, so how would you address illegal entry into the United States? And do you believe that is an offense that would be subject to deportation? And how would you do that if ICE is no longer functioning as we know it?
- [43:46]
Abdul El Sayed
Well, as you well know, that is not enforced by ice. That's enforced by Customs and Border Protection. I'm not calling for the abolition of Customs and Border Protection. I actually think that they need to operate according to the law. But I think we need to be invested in making sure that we secure our southern border, rather than this farce of making a show out of detentions with the idea that somehow this is about immigration enforcement. This is not about immigration enforcement. This is. This is about criminalizing immigration on its own terms and making a show of immigration enforcement. I'll be clear. I went to Minneapolis at the height of Project Metro surge. I saw for myself what that looked like. But Minneapolis is not the southern border. So if we think that ICE has anything to do with the southern border, let's just be clear that the principal actions that they've taken have been in Chicago and Minneapolis, which are nowhere near the southern border. So we can have a safe, secure southern border, and we don't need ICE to do it.
- [44:37]
Kelly O'Donnell
Let me turn to another part of what life would be like if you are able to win this primary and to win in November. You said that you would not be coming to D.C. to, quote, make nice. And you said, don't invite me to your cocktail parties. A lot of people here will tell you that in order to be successful once you're in Washington, you have to build relationships. You have to work with others. Do you think that going it alone and trying to not be a part of DC Would make you effective?
- [45:04]
Abdul El Sayed
Well, I'm not going to be going it alone. There's plenty of folks in D.C. with whom I'm really looking forward to work. And look, I'll build great cordial relationships with everybody. But my goal is not to sit with corporate lobbyists every day to be told what it is that they want done. My goal is to serve Michiganders, and I intend to keep my family in Michigan because I want to serve Michiganders. It's more important to me to listen to Michiganders and what they want rather than to go and have cocktail parties with corporate lobbyists who fund the whole thing and then pretend that somehow we're doing the people's work, when in fact we are taking money from the same corporations to pass policy that makes life harder for people in places like where I come from in Michigan. So, ultimately, look, I'm looking forward to having great relationships, but that doesn't mean that I'm coming to party with you. That means that I'm coming to work on behalf of my state. And let's get the work Done.
- [45:53]
Kelly O'Donnell
We so appreciate your time. Thank you. We know this is a heated point in the race and there's a lot of demands on your time. We appreciate you sharing your views with us today. We have also reached out to Haley Stevens campaign. She has an open invitation to join us here on this show. And we know that we'll be watching the Michigan race closely. And I've got some help now. Joining me is our panel, Tia Mitchell, Washington bureau chief for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, former New York Democratic Congressman Joe Crowley and Zach Roday, Republican strategist and former adviser to former Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, among other. We've worked together many times covering politics and your role on the other side. Let's get a sense. Tia, let me start with you. You've just heard from one of the most talked about candidates in this election cycle. He's a bright man. He's definitely getting a lot of attention. His issues are in many ways at the core of what is dividing the Democratic Party. Can he appeal to independents or soft Republicans, more moderate Democrats with the identity that he's built for himself in this race?
- [46:59]
Courtney Kuby
I mean, I think if people listen to him when he was talking about no money for foreign moors, that's an America first message.
- [47:05]
Kelly O'Donnell
Yes, it did have a Trumpian sound to it. It did on the other end of the perspective.
- [47:09]
Courtney Kuby
So, you know, I think that his message is very populous, maybe more populous than what some establishment Democrats want to give him credit for. On things that says we want to focus on the American people, we want to prioritize our money on the things that matter, like affordability, like their pocketbooks, like their family health care and their livelihoods. So I do think that message can resonate. The question for him is, is he able to break through to people who are already getting the message that he's the big bad werewolf, Will they pause and actually listen to what he's saying and give him a chance?
- [47:44]
Kelly O'Donnell
That is the challenge for voters. So, Congressman, you know very well what it's like to have establishment and upstart in a race and how it is changing the party, how the progressive left is changing the party. What do you think Democrats should be learning about candidates like El Sayed and others that are influencing the debate?
- [48:03]
Zach Roday
Well, for one thing, they're very good at canceling people. You know, that's a corporate Democrat. I'm not a corporate Democrat. This is the billionaire class. I'm for the working people. And it really, it's a cancel culture. It's like you can't really come back from that sometimes that's 1, 2. El Sayed this week also said, you know what Democrats fear most? You know what Democrats really fear the most ultimately, him getting elected. Why should Democrats fear that? You know, that kind of rhetoric, how do you bring that back together? Maybe that's the established Democrats he's talking about, but you can need them
- [48:38]
Bram Resnick
in
- [48:38]
Zach Roday
your bailiwick in order to win.
- [48:39]
Kelly O'Donnell
So do you worry he's alienating people? He would have to.
- [48:41]
Zach Roday
I think so. I think that's part of the problem. You know, part of the problem with dsa, the Democratic Socialists of America, is that they're not really Democrats. They're using the Democratic Party to really promote their own agenda structure of running too for or you can't do it on the Republican side, you do it in deep blue seats. And this is a big difference here too. This is a purple state. They have elected statewide Republicans to the gubernatorial race and other races as well, not so recently in the Senate, but Republicans can win there. And so I do think, you know, that the Republicans have used very effectively is the notion or idea that these are communists, so these are socialists who are coming. That's the big bad wolf. And I think in many respects it has worked in deep blue districts, but not so much in no purple districts.
- [49:26]
Kelly O'Donnell
So that takes me to you, Zach, when you hear what he is saying, when you see the lay of the land in this primary race on the Democratic side, what do you think that means for Mike Rogers, the Republican?
- [49:37]
Joy Bauer
Well, with Mike, I mean he's established there. He's had, he's been running basically for three years, good name ID, good approvals, well funded, very different than 24 from his structure. So that's a huge advantage just at the start and then and the message from El Sayed is solid from a working class perspective, but it's not going to be in isolation in the general election. It will be a choice and he presents a very stark choice with Rogers and that's the difference. And so it doesn't allow for the referendum on the president as much because he's so electric on the left that you can have a true, true choice for Michiganders. And I think that's a detriment to El Sayed. That's why they want Stevens here in Washington.
- [50:20]
Kelly O'Donnell
And do you think that he wants to draw El Sayed then? Is that a stark contrast?
- [50:24]
Joy Bauer
I think that to the congressman's point, it's a purple state. And even though we haven't won since 1994, we have won statewide in state elections and of Course, the president has won it twice, so I think that it will be competitive regardless. It's probably our best pickup opportunity. But El said his positions, he said none of them. He said none of his actual core messages and positions when he was interviewing with you. Well, I think Mike Rogers, SLF, and a whole host of others will be letting the Michigan people know what his true positions are over the next 90 days.
- [50:56]
Zach Roday
Kevin, keep in mind, Rogers only lost by less than 20,000 votes just 2 years ago in a very competitive race in a presidential election year. You know, this is not going to be a walk in the park for either side. And I think it has to be kept in mind as well.
- [51:10]
Kelly O'Donnell
A lot of money will be spent there. We've also been talking about the integrity of the election, broadly. The president talked about it in a primetime address. People come at it from different perspectives. I was a little surprised when the Democratic governor of New Jersey, Mikey Sherrill, put out information today saying that due to a software glitch, roughly 6,600 non citizens who had registered for motor vehicle license and that the motor voter concept that if you're getting your license, you can also be registered to vote, that they were erroneously registered to vote and then roughly 400 of them cast ballots. Now, she brought this forward, talked about it. Are you surprised? And do you think talking about it is an advantage for transparency, or do you believe it inherently makes voters worry about what's really going on here? Let me start with you, Zach.
- [52:03]
Joy Bauer
Well, I mean, election integrity, we've discussed it a lot over the last half a decade. And this is a proof positive that an 8020 issue like voter ID, the Save America act, of course, has been the central discussion point on Capitol Hill for months now. And as Republicans, this is, this is right in front of you. This is why you should be driving the message and not infighting should be driving the message that it's an 8020 issue. Democrats support it. The only ones that don't support it seem to be the activists far left and some Democrat politicians. I think that if you had voter ID and then of course, there's 19 states, I think in the district that do automatic red, you don't have to do that.
- [52:39]
Kelly O'Donnell
There's an argument for voter suppression, that it costs money to have the kind of required documentation and that that would hinder some voters from voting or women who change their name or all those kinds of things.
- [52:50]
Joy Bauer
And the other point I'd make though, too is on the Save America act, really just simple. I mean, you have to go to dhs, uscis, in order to actually determine that they're an American citizen. That would have caught it as well. So there's a lot in the Save America act that Democrats should support and get it done.
- [53:02]
Courtney Kuby
I mean, I just want to be clear. The Save America act becomes problematic not just about voter ID to polls. I get that some blue states don't want that, but most states have that now. But it's more about the proof of citizenship to register and how that will affect possibly women who have changed their name, as well as the limitations on mail in voting that the president has pushed forward. That, as you know, even Republican states don't want that.
- [53:26]
Kelly O'Donnell
It means popular.
- [53:27]
Courtney Kuby
For me, it remains very popular. That's why the SAVE act is not particularly popular when you get down into the details. But to your point about New Jersey, I will say that it is important for transparency. It is important to Note that, yes, 400 people may have voted illegally. And that's a concern. That is a very small number of people when you Remember that in 2024, 4.3 million people cast ballots in New Jersey. So it's not saying it's not a problem, but we have to have any
- [53:54]
Zach Roday
impact on the election anyway.
- [53:56]
Kelly O'Donnell
And you get the last word.
- [53:57]
Zach Roday
Well, I would just say that kudos to Mikey Sherrill for bringing this up, especially during this time. Bodes well for her.
- [54:05]
Kelly O'Donnell
And on that we say thank you for being here. Appreciate your time today. Always an exciting conversation. There'll be more tomorrow.
- [54:11]
Doug Ford
I'm Craig Melvin. Cheers.
- [54:13]
Donald Trump
Cheers.
- [54:13]
Doug Ford
Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy, and now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way, too. Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny and quite candid. So I hope you'll join me each week.
- [54:31]
Abdul El Sayed
And who knows, you might just come
- [54:33]
Kelly O'Donnell
away with your own Glass Half Full. Search Glass Half Full with Craig Melvin From Today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.