June 21 – Sen. Cory Booker and fmr. Sec. Mark Esper

Honey, I think we should have an open relationship. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Let's definitely do that. With our cars. Oh, Flex Car. Yeah, that's what I meant to. Flex Car is the first and only month-to-month car lease. Swing from a Wrangler one month to a Prius the next. Or tap a Tacoma no strings attached. With Flex Car, you can always swap them out for the newer model.

Love this SUV. Can't wait to show your best friend. Daryl? Why? No reason. Here's to open relationships with cars. Flexcar, you drive everything. Still waiting in line? Again?

That's time you'll never get back. Save time and money with Stamps.com. Over 4 million businesses have skipped the line with Stamps.com. Join them to save up to 90% off carrier rates from your computer or phone right now. Print postage for certified mail, registered mail, and packages in seconds. Then schedule a pickup right from your home or office. For a limited time, go to Stamps.com and use code podcast for a free welcome gift. Taxes and fees apply.

This Sunday, the price of peace. President Trump strikes a deal with Iran to quickly end the war. And it's a memorandum of understanding. If it doesn't get done in 60 days, it's all right. We go back to bombing. But as Iran stands to gain access to billions in economic relief, did the president give away too much? Iran's left stronger.

I think sending billions of dollars to Iran is a mistake. If it works out, I'm going to take the credit. If it doesn't work out, I'm blaming JD. You better be careful. I'll talk to Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Plus, Chicago Hope. President Obama opens his presidential center as former presidents come together in a divided America. I hope this center will serve as an affirmation of just how special, how precious our democracy truly is.

Joining me for insight and analysis are Susan Glasser, staff writer for The New Yorker. Nehamelika Henderson, political columnist for Bloomberg opinion, former Homeland Security Secretary Jay Johnson, and Republican strategist Sarah Fagan. Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press. From NBC News in Washington, the longest running show in television history. This is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker. Good Sunday morning. I'm Garrett Hake in for Kristen Welker,

as she recovers from a medical procedure. She's doing well and plans to be back. soon. This morning, a fragile peace appears to be holding between the U.S. and Iran just days after President Trump signed a memorandum of understanding to end the conflict, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and remove the U.S. blockade of Iran. If you sign the MOU, it's time, yeah. You signed it. You signed it. There are conflicting reports about whether the strait is open or closed, after Iran accused Israel of breaking the ceasefire agreement by continuing its strikes against.

southern Lebanon. Overnight, Vice President JD Vance arrived in Switzerland to continue talks with Iran. For his part, President Trump says the lesson he's learned from this war, there are no limits to his power. What have you learned about not just the exercise of power, but the limits on your power as a result of the conflict? There are no limits. No limit. No, not, I haven't learned that lesson yet. I know there are, but, you know, there are no limits. We defeated them totally militarily. And joining me now is Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey. Senator Cory Booker, welcome back to meet the press. It's good to see you here on national TV and not the halls of the Senate.

When you have Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and progressives, all coming out, talking about capitulation, surrender, catastrophe. You know how bad this deal is. Iran gets all of the benefits, literally billions and billions of dollars. And America continues to hurt and see the losses from the, $100 billion we spent in the war to every American citizen seeing their costs skyrocket. This has been a cataclysmic failure of his making. But if you support the deal, but you also think it's a capitulation, I guess I'm confused.

What's the alternative here? No, no, no, no, no. Let's be clear. I do not support this deal that he made, which was an abject surrender. This is a guy who said he's a great negotiator. But right now Iran has billions and billions of dollars of benefits. It's almost as if American dollars, American real. are now going to be used to help rebuild Iran while we are continuing to carry the bill for it.

So what is the alternative then to ending the war? Well, the alternative is not having a president that led us into this war, that surrendered all of our leverage, that is giving Iran everything they want and achieving none of the specific goals that he said he wanted. We have a disaster for a commander-in-chief who's leaving us with less and less good choices. What the world needs now is leadership. But from our Middle East allies to our NATO allies, I'm hearing over and over again, your president is a danger to the world. And obviously, we at home are paying the cost of that. There has been some democratic reaction to the president's decision that was a little bit more positive.

Democratic strategist James Carville said this this week. Listen. We started war and we surrendered. Let's be very clear about that. And let's give Trump credit where credit is due. He did with Lyndon Johnson. did not do in Vietnam. Just get out.

I think the best thing Biden ever did was just leave Afghanistan. Well, I'll give Trump credit. He saw this thing was gone the wrong way, and he just quit and got out. And sometimes you've got to do that. So there's a lot to chew on there. But does President Trump deserve any credit for trying to end this war now rather than escalate it further?

That's like giving somebody credit for literally, an arsonist starting a fire and getting credit for running out of the burning building. This president has led this nation into a disaster. We have surrendered our power. We have capitulated to the enemy. And they now are mocking us. Look at everything that's coming out of that country from their internal dialogue all the way to what they're saying publicly. They know that they've won this.

And they know Donald Trump is perhaps on the world stage right now, the biggest loser with egg on his face. We need to curtail this chaotic, corrupt, and cruel president. We need to have checks and balances on his power. I'm really sorry that congressional Republicans, from the start of this war, has allowed him to do everything he wanted to do. And now they're crying foul because they don't like the results. Shame on Congress. It's time we get a Congress that will stand up to this president. We've certainly heard a lot more pushback from your Senate Republican colleagues to this deal than I think we're used to hearing to actions the president takes. Do you think this could be a turning point in his relationship with his own party? God, I hope so. Again, this is not left or

right for me. It's about stopping a president who has taken health care away from millions of Americans, who's jacked up our prices, who's caused considerable pain letting billionaires continue to be bigger in polluting and bigger in getting all of the tax breaks. Well, we as Americans as a whole are paying more and more and more. We need an America that stands up to this president. And I don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat, Congress needs to start being strong. Now, I don't expect that from the kind of leaders in the Republican Party in Congress. That's why this midterm election is so vital. This midterm election is not about left or right. It's about right or wrong. It's about stopping a president that's out of control and hurting Americans. I want to talk about

the midterms more in a second, but I have one more question for you about this peace deal. NBC News is reporting that U.S. intelligence officials are warning that Israel could take steps to undermine the emerging Iran agreement. Israel was a U.S. partner in the conflict. Do you see them as a reliable partner in the peace negotiations? Look, look, between Israel and America, we have two criminal presidents, ours who's been indicted over, excuse me, convicted over 30 times for criminal convictions, and theirs who's embroiled in his own corruption, his own trials. These are two failed world leaders. And yes, we should be very worried about both of these leaders continuing to upend any kind of viable pathway to peace in the Middle East. These are both failed leaders that I

cannot wait until they're off the world stage. All right. Let's talk a little bit about the Democratic Party. I know you and most Democrats would prefer to move on entirely from the 2024 election, but former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reopened the debate about what went wrong, weighing in on former President Joe Biden's decision to run for re-election. Listen. He made a terrible mistake. He made a terrible mistake for himself, his legacy, and for the country. I believe if he had kept to that plan and said in, say, the late summer of 23, that he wasn't going to run, that he was going to pass, you know, the torch to the next generation, we would have had a real contest. And very sadly, I believe whoever emerged from that contest,

whether it was the vice president or a governor or a senator or anybody else, would have beaten Donald Trump. Do you agree with that assessment, Senator? Look, this is what I believe in, and this is what my unyielding focus will be until November, because we have five months left. This week alone, I'm going to be in Texas for James Talarico. I'm going to be in Ohio for Sherrod Brown. My urgency and my focus is not looking at the past.

It's doing everything I can in the present to secure a better future for America, and that's getting as many new leaders elected as possible. so we can take back the House and the Senate. One of those opportunities to elect a new leader is in Maine. We have a competitive contest. Democrats just nominated Graham Platner, despite past offensive comments about a tattoo associated, or past offensive comments, he's got this tattoo that's associated with a Nazi symbol.

He also said he didn't understand it's a meeting. He's covered it up. And he's also faced allegations from former girlfriends of abusive behavior, which he denies. Do you think Graham Platner has the character to serve in the United States Senate? Well, this is what campaigns are for. He certainly has a lot of issues and a lot of questions to answer and address. And I think the people are mean are going to give a lot of examination to this going through in this election. For me, I certainly hope we pick up a seat here. For me and people of the state of New Jersey, dear God, we need to get the Senate back so we can start checking this out-of-control president. And that's why, again, I'm going to be doing everything I can all over my state of New Jersey and everywhere I can to help candidates across this country. to get to that end, which is Democrats regaining control of the House and the Senate so we can check and balance a president that's chaotic, cruel, and corrupt. Well, you mentioned Texas and Ohio. Will you campaign in Maine?

I don't have any plans to campaign there now. All right, fair enough. I want to ask you about one of the issues that will surely come up in this midterm and probably come up again in 2028, and that's the Supreme Court. after the court's recent ruling limiting the Voting Rights Act, some Democrats, including former Vice President Harris, have issued calls to expand the court's nine-seat bench. Listen. I absolutely believe that we should be exploring that. And the idea of 13, I agree, because they're 13 circuit courts, 13 justices. You're on the Judiciary Committee. Do you support the idea of expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices? So here's what I believe. And we in a America now have normalized a level of corruption in all three branches of our government that

cannot stand. It is a cancer that is corroding our body politic. All three branches of government need massive reforms. The Supreme Court, if municipal court people in New Jersey did what Supreme Court members are doing now, they would be let out in handcuffs. So my plan is very simple. Two things. One is stop Supreme Court members from accepting unlimited gifts from billionaires who have interest in matters before the court. And number two, put term limits on Supreme Court members to 18 years. So we normalize a system that is actually fair that says every time we elect a president, they get two people on the Supreme Court. We stop people hanging on well past their prime and make sure that we have a court that operates with the kind of integrity

and fairness that America deserves and should be a fundamental expectation for. of every citizen. So your policies are clear, but I just want to be clear also. Would you rule out trying to expand the court? I think the plan that I have would actually solve the problems that people who want to expand the court are trying to achieve. Give term limits of 18 years and put ethics laws on them. You would see quick changes to our court, many of whom we've been on for more than 18 years. And you would actually have a court that serves the people and not the interests of the extraordinary billionaires that are showering members of those courts with everything from RVs to tuitions to gifts. All right. Senator, before I let you go, it is Father's Day.

You've written about helping your father through his struggle with Parkinson's disease. How has that experience shaped what this day means to you? I have to say I hurt every father's day now. I miss my dad. It's a hole that will never be filled. But his struggles with dementia and Parkinson's broke me apart like the millions, tens of millions of Americans right now who are caring for a father or a mother who are struggling with this disease. The one thing about these things that shatter us is actually they open us up and give us more points of connection.

We are a nation that does not do enough for people. people who are at home caring for others. We need a national movement that really supports families that are dealing with Alzheimer's, dealing with dementia. We can do so much better as a nation and it now is a personal driving cause of my life for us to give more dignity to those people who are caregivers and to those people who are in their final years. And to all the dads out there, to all the men, even who are not dads by biology, thank you for stepping up for our children. This nation needs strong men, uh, and strength is measured most by how we love and care for others. And I'll let go that. Senator Cory Booker, thank you for sharing that story and thank you for

joining us this morning. Thank you for having me. You're about. When we come back, former Trump defense secretary, Mark Esper, joins me next. Modern enterprise is made up of a lot of moving parts, and Comcast business helps you orchestrate at all. with SDWAN working at scale to keep 150 hospital locations connected and working as one. Plus, sassy and zero trust security protecting financial data across a bank's 2,000 branches and AI-powered networking that optimizes traffic across five continents. No one does business, like Comcast business. You know that thing where you get an amazing pair of shoes at a really great price

and want to tell everyone about it? Yeah, so do we. Here at Designer Shoe Warehouse, we'll give you something, brag about. Like the latest styles from brands you love, or the trends everyone's obsessing over, or shoes that make you feel like, well, you. So go ahead, show off

a little. Buying shoes that get you with prices that get your budget. Head to your DSW store or dsw.com today. DSW, let us surprise you. Walmart shoppers, meet the debit card design with you in mind. The Walmart money card offers

up to $75 cash back on purchases at Walmart each year. Early direct deposit, overdraft protection, and so much more. When Walmart is your everyday store, you need a card to match. That's the Walmart Money Card. Open your account today. The Walmart Money Card is issued by Green Dot Bank, member FDIC. Feast terms and conditions apply. Visit Walmartmoneycard.com to learn more. Welcome back, and joining me now is Mark Esper, former Defense Secretary during President Trump's first term. Secretary Esper, welcome to meet the press.

Morning, Gary, good to be with you. Oh, thanks for being here. Let's pick up right with this memorandum of understanding with Iran. Do you support this deal? Well, look, I like the fact that we've extended the ceasefire. I like the fact that the straight is being opened up. That will provide economic relief to a lot of people. And I like the fact that we're getting into nuclear talks.

But that's so. When I look at the MOU, there are many of the points that I have serious questions about and concerns about. So, you know, I think in many ways it's to wait and see. My principal concern has been that it appears that too many of the incentives, in my view, have been given up front instead of later in the deal when we've seen much more progress on the nuclear aspects of whatever potential agreement comes from this. Do you think the administration is too trusting of the Iranians by structuring the deal in that way?

Well, I don't believe. So, you know, you look at many of the players on the team. they're experienced in foreign policy for some time. I don't think they trust the Iranians. Nobody trust the Iranians. I think they put a deal on the table. I think, as the vice president said, let's give it a shot and see if it works. And in that regard, I'd say, yeah, there's a lot more of this football game to play out.

We're maybe only in the second or third quarter. We have to get through, you know, the opening negotiations today. Lebanon will continue to be a spoiler and threaten any talks. But at the end of the day, I think this will ultimately be scored on two things. What is the deal we get with the Iranians with regard to the nuclear framework, the nuclear aspects of this deal? And secondly, does the Strait of Hormuz return to the status quo ante? And I think those are two major questions right now that does sit before us. And, in fact, on the second item, I'm concerned about language in the MOU that suggests that maybe after the 60 days,

Iran would retain some type of ability to impose fees on shippers. Well, I mean, let's stick into that a little bit more because on the strait, this morning even, it's not totally clear if the straight is open or closed. If Iran can still open and shut the straight it will or charge fees on it, does that mean this agreement is worthless? Well, I think it would suggest a clearly a strategic setback. We cannot allow the Iranians to control the Strait of Hormuz, much like we can't allow others to control the Strait of Malacca or the South China Sea or the Suez Canal. I'm sorry, not the Suez Canal, but the Bad Badman Debs. So we can't.

cannot allow that to happen. And that's why I say this needs to play out. And, you know, there's been some suggestions that there have been side agreements or gentleman's agreements. We need to know what those are. But I think we need to let this play out a little bit and see what actually happens with regard to the straight after the 60 days. Well, to that end, on the kind of strategic picture here, Iran's deputy speaker of parliament has said, and this is a quote, the straight of Hormuz is Iran's atomic bomb. Do you worry that one of the legacies of this war will be effectively arming Iran with a more powerful weapon than they had before? Yeah, no, I certainly am.

Look, in many ways, I don't want to suggest it is a nuclear weapon because we cannot allow them to get a nuclear weapon. But it has presented a nuclear tool, if you will, that they can threaten to use it, and it is a reusable tool, unlike a nuclear weapon, that they can shut down the global economy, that they can coerce the Arab Gulf states, even impose, even to threaten the United States with regard to our military action. So in that way, they have discovered that they have a tool that they can use and that they are willing to suffer the pain and that maybe we are unwilling to suffer more pain than what they are. Is that a strategic defeat for the U.S.?

I think a strategic setback would be if that is indeed the case. And secondly, my other fear, my other concern, probably a reality, is that the Iranians have learned that they could survive the brunt of U.S. and Israeli military attacks, despite how very successful they've been, the regime has been able to survive and withstand them. And that's going to emboldening them, emboldened them going forward. You mentioned Lebanon earlier. I think that's one of the interesting parts of this. Israel was not included in the crafting of the memorandum of understanding. They continue to bomb Lebanon despite the ceasefire agreement that was signed last week. Do you think it was a mistake to exclude Israel from the negotiations that are happening now?

Well, it's hard to say. We don't know to what degree they were consulted or not. I think it's clear that we cannot obviously speak for what Israel's position will be going for. They clearly have a right to self-defense. And the difference here between the United States and Israel is that Iran and Hezbollah present an existential threat to Israel. And so they have the right to defend themselves. And the other factor here, of course, is that the political dynamics on both sides are very different. Whereas in the United States, six, 60 to 70% of Americans don't support the conflict. 60 to 70% of Israelis do support attacking Hezbollah. In fact, it's well over 70%. So you have different political dynamics at stake at a time when both leaders, President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, have important elections coming up in the fall. Right. I mean, there's a lot of different possibilities for different regimes to be in charge of all three of these countries going forward. I want to talk some more about some of the specifics in this deal.

On paper, it does reopen the Strait of Formuz. it ends the U.S. naval blockade, removes U.S. troops from the proximity of Iran after the final deal, and we'll see what that ultimately means. And this is a quote, will maintain the status quo of Iran's nuclear program pending further negotiations. So what did the U.S. get out of this war that it didn't already have before it began? Well, that's going to be the question, Garrett, at the end of the day, as we assess this. Again, we're in the middle, the beginning of the negotiations, the middle of this conflict maybe. We're going to have to assess when it's all said and done what it looks like.

But as I said earlier, when I look at the MOU, I see Iran getting a number of things. And what we get is one paragraph that speaks about the entering of the framework discussions for the nuclear. And it says one specific item with regard to enrichment that they would downblet their enriched uranium as a minimal process going forward. So I get concerned about the other parts about stockpals, the duration of the agreement, the allowance of inspectors into the country, permitting snap inspections. There are a lot of details that are going to have to be worked out in the 60 days in negotiations, which to me seems difficult to achieve within 60 days. So I've seen this really in two phases. The economic phase, which is beginning now, leading up to certainly before the elections, and then there'll be a

strategic phase where the talks will continue beyond the elections to resolve all the thorny issues, the details with regard to whatever nuclear agreement comes out of this. On the economic phase, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, Republican, said in a statement, quote, the Iranian regime has not renounced its ultimate goal, death to America, death to Israel. The regime will invest every penny it receives to further that aim. Do you agree with Senator Roger Wicker that this deal could allow Iran

to spend that $300 billion just spreading more terror and rearming? Well, of course, money is fungible, and we have agreed up front now that the MOU is implemented to unfreeing, funds, which are total around $100 billion, we've allowed the license-free sell or the sanction-free sell of oil. So the fundability and money means that they can not only put that toward humanitarian stuff, but whatever they free up, can go to rebuilding their military, can go to Hezbollah, in fact, and can go to their other proxies to support this conflict. And look, I talked about this conflict. I know we've been focused on the last, what, three, four, five months,

But in my view, this began on October 7, 2020, when Hamas entered Israel and slaughtered, murdered over 1,200 Israelis. It was the next day that Hezbollah attacked Israel. And all of this was funneled, fueled, inspired, supported by Iran. So this conflict goes back more than four months, certainly back to October 2023. And in my view, knowing this history since 1979, 47 years. Yeah, and that's the way the president frames it as well.

Mr. Secretary, I want to read you something that you wrote in your book. You write, quote, this was one of the mysteries of Donald Trump as commander-in-chief. Sometimes he would express concern about being drawn into a conflict, and he was always talking about getting out of the endless wars. In the same vein, he would call off-strikes we'd already agreed to. At other times, like now, he would complain we were not being tough enough and would want the most aggressive options possible. His views on the use of force swung back and forth like a pendulum, even though a pendulum has some predictability. This, President rarely gave us much at all. You obviously saw President Trump as an unpredictable

commander-in-chief. Do you think that has been an advantage for him or a disadvantage for him? Predictability can certainly be an advantage when you're dealing with your adversaries. That's true. And one thing I concluded as well I wrote about is that he was sincere with regard to not wanting to get involved into war. So I question now whether advisors or others are recommending something different or recommended something different, which launched this attack in late February. But he's been true, as my experience with him was, to not get involved in foreign wars. He just really despised conflicts, extended conflicts, and was much more keen on how do we, you know, improve others' economies, how do we improve the United States economy, how do we find a big deal

of benefits everybody? That was more of his thrust and his push. Well, with that being said, then, do you think this war with Iran was a war of choice, Did he choose this war or was it a war of necessity? Well, I saw in the early days when the president first launched this in late February, I saw a strategic opportunity. Clearly, the administration saw that Iran was rebuilding its air defenses, rebuilding its missile and drone stockpiles, and doing other things that I think warranted, at least, you know, suggested that would make sense to attack Iranian military facility,

sites, and so on. I think the challenge was we kind of got over our skis with regard to the expectations of the conflict, talking about regime change, talking about unconditional surrender, talking about picking the next Ayatollah, all those things, I think, set up in the minds of the Iranians, at least, that this was all or nothing, that this time around we were going to go after completely wiping out the regime, their backs were put against the wall. And of course, when you face that situation, which for them meant, you know, their lives, their livelihoods, everything, that they were going to fight to the bitter end and pull out whatever plugs they needed to to stay alive. And in this case, it meant threatening and blocking the

straight-of-hormoos. Which is exactly what we saw. You also wrote in your book that you were fired for not being loyal. The chief of staff at the time told you, quote, the president's not happy with you. He feels you haven't been supported, you haven't supported him enough. And added, you aren't sufficiently loyal. Given what happened to you, do you think that those serving the president right now are putting their loyalty first to the president or to the Constitution?

Well, that's a tough question. I'm sure find what's going on and answer those questions, but I have no insights on that. Do you trust that the president is being given advice by people who think their loyalty is to the Constitution? I don't see that the president is always getting good advice. And so I think that's the question to ask. I think Republicans on Capitol Hill have asked that same question. Is the president getting the best advice with regard to these strategic matters? All right. Secretary Esper, we have to leave it there. Thank you for coming on. Thank you for being joining us on meet the press today. Thank you. And when we come back, President Trump is facing criticism from both the right and the

left over his new Iran deal. The panel is next. It's Sierra Miller. I can't wait for you to check out my new collection of shoes and accessories at Designer Shoe Warehouse. If you love shoes as much as I do, then trust me, I got you. From cute sneak arenas to the perfect flip-lops to stunning heels. These shoes are all style, no drama. It's a girls' girl's summer and DSW has just the shoes. Shop the Sierra Miller collection right now at your DSW store or DSW.com.

Walmart shoppers, meet the debit card design with you in mind. The Walmart Money Card offers up to $75 cash back on purchases at Walmart each year, early direct deposit, overdraft protection, and so much more. When Walmart is your everyday store, you need a card to match. That's the Walmart Money Card. Open your account today. The Walmart Money Card is issued by green dot bank member FDIC. Fees, terms, and conditions apply.

Visit Walmart Moneycard.com to learn more. How will you celebrate America's 250th birthday? With a perfect night's sleep. Enjoy huge savings at the Serta July 4th sales event. Save up to $600 on Serta Perfect Slepper X mattresses and adjustable base sets with the Q4 support system that helps relieve aches and back pain. Limited time offer. Visit a Serta retailer today.

Perfect sleeper, perfect sleep, night after night. Welcome back. The panel is here. Susan Glasser, staff writer for the New Yorker, Bloomberg opinion columnist Neh Malika Henderson, Republican strategist Sarah Fagan, and Jay Johnson, former Secretary of Homeland Security under President Obama. Welcome to you all. Susan, I'll start with you. You hear me talking about the war and its potential endings and alternatives with some of our guests. Was this ultimately the only way to end this war? Well, look, Donald Trump started out the war a little bit more than 100 days ago, saying that he was going to obliterate the Iranian nuclear program that had already been obliterated. According to him, he said he was going to change the regime. He said he was never going to end it except with unconditional surrender. What's remarkable is that in Washington, across the Middle East, this week, the question is whether it was the United States itself that engaged in a form of unconditional surrender. the terms of this agreement, we can talk about them, essentially are very favorable to the Iranians. They come away with it with far more ability to control the strategic territory of the Strait of Hormuz.

They come away from it with both Israel and America's partners in the Gulf being extremely concerned that they've empowered America's enemy. And by the way, the United States has spent billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars on the conflict. in order to get us to a place that arguably is much worse than where we started. Well, you heard Secretary Esper say we may only be in the second quarter of this, so there's more still to come. Niamaleika, this has now become JD Vance's problem to solve. You heard the president as he was leaving the G7 earlier this week, joking, maybe not joking, that he would blame JD Vance if ultimately this turns into a failure.

How much of a political risk is this for JD Vance? And we're 33 minutes of the program. This will be the first mention of Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, who's been nowhere near this still. Yeah, strategically, I think, in some ways, Marco Rubio has not been anywhere near this deal. The president sounded like he was joking. This is something that he said in April as well. It's also something that the conservative chattering class has picked up, too.

If you watch Fox News, a few folks on that network have talked about of JD Vance giving bad advice to the president. I think the problem for JD Vance with this is that MAGA did not like the war, right? You have this fracturing. And then you have GOP Hawks who also don't like the settlement, the surrender, as some people are calling it. We'll see where it lands. But here you have JD Vance, who is trying to be the heir apparent to Donald Trump, now taking on the mantle of, I think, what might be Donald Trump's biggest strategic blunder as president. I think it also underscores traits that JD Vance has as a politician that aren't great. right? He is seen as a shape shifter. He has, in fact, been one, changing his position to amass more power often.

The other thing, I think, about JD Vance that folks pick up on is that there's a kind of mansplaining quality to him when he talks about any number of things. I mean, he's sort of mansplaining to the Pope even about a faith. And here he is sort of mansplaining to Republicans and to the American public about why this deal has been a good thing so far. Again, we'll see where that goes. But this has just not been a good, a good, I think, position for him. His people will say, well, listen, if there is, in fact, a peace deal and he is the broker of the peace deal, that'll be good. But it's hard to see that. And I think it really exposes he isn't a very experienced politician either. And so I think all of those things are going to be exposed over the next many months.

High risk, high reward. This brought out criticism from both sides of the aisle, including from your former boss, President Obama, who does not weigh in on every day-to-day political story, but he did hear. I want to play a little bit of what he told Craig Melvin about this deal. Let's listen. Now fought a war, spent billions and billions of dollars,

you know, put an enormous strain in our military. A lot of people have died. And it feels like we're back where we were before we start the war, except maybe a little bit worse off. Do you agree with that assessment? He's right. Susan's right. Any objective analysis of this 14-point deal has to lead one to conclude that we're worse off than we were the day before this war started.

We're worse off than we were when the JCPOA was in place. The deal outlines that Iran reaffirms, the use of the word reaffirms. It's pledged not to procure a document. develop a nuclear weapon. They had pledged that before. The deal includes $300 billion in reconstruction funds for Iran, presumably from the Gulf states. That's right. The U.S. agrees to take the sanctions off all Iranian funds. 13 service members died. Let's not forget that there were over 100 schoolchildren who were killed on the first day of this war, apparently by a U.S. missile. And perhaps most significantly, Iran has discovered.

this new muscle, the use turning the straight on and off with the flip of a switch, which, in my judgment, has greater potency than any prospect that they might develop a nuclear weapon in the future. And it's obvious to me that at some level, President Trump realized that this war he got us into, he needed to get us out of on any terms possible. He will certainly claim victory here. But you look at this thing objectively. And, you look at this thing objectively, you realize that this has cost us a lot more than it's benefited us. Yeah, and I think the president's read on the political expediency of getting out now is certainly a big part of this.

Sarah, there's been obviously significant, what amounts to, significant Republican criticism of this deal, too, including this from some Senate Republicans. Let's listen. Iran's left stronger. Everything I've heard about it causes me concern. And I think, unfortunately, the president is receiving. some really bad advice on this deal. I wouldn't want to give Iran any money.

That's not going to go down in history as the most strident political criticism ever, but from Senate Republicans to this president, it's pretty strong. How far do you think Senate Republicans are willing to go to push back on this deal? I think a lot of it depends on what happens in the coming weeks as we get into this negotiation. You know, if it turns out that Iran really does get rid of its enriched uranium or it gets rid of missiles and Israel is not. not as much at threat as they have been to date, you know, perhaps the administration has some room to run with that this is going in a good place. However, we have been dealing with

the regime that has lied to us for nearly 50 years. If the uranium remains in the country and has the prospect of becoming a nuclear weapon, if there are missiles, which there's no mention in this agreement about missiles. Like the president said on Wednesday, he's fine with them having ballistic missiles still. Well, that puts our neighbors and allies at risk. And I think to Jay's point, and I think if the Strait of Hormuz becomes an economic weapon, which it had not been previously, and they have the right to charge passage or turn it on and off, that is strategically very problematic.

And Republicans will continue to criticize if that is the case, and they should. This all comes as we're learning more about the decision-making process that got into this war. in the first place. There's this great new book from the New York Times, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan that talks about the process to get here. And I want to read, Susan, I'll read you an excerpt here. They're right. Several administration officials believed early on that Trump's presidency would be over if they allowed themselves to be drawn into a conflict with Tehran. Were that to happen, at least one of those officials vowed to others that they would resign. Susan, so how do we think this war has changed the Trump presidency? I don't know that we've seen

that resignation. Yeah, please don't hold your breath. because I would be concerned about you. Well, thank you for your concern. The bottom line is, you know, you play these clips of these Republican senators. They're concerned. They're worried about it. They're watching it. You know, we're familiar enough with this dynamic tenures.

And, you know, the Republicans are not going to, in a meaningful way, provide a check on Donald Trump. That's the lesson in this. Whether they're serving inside his administration or on Capitol Hill. And I think it is really remarkable to hear this sort of. of, you know, oh, if only the czar had, you know, better advice. The bottom line is it's Donald Trump's sort of erratic and chaotic decision-making here that is increasingly at issue. And I think it's one of the reasons that, you know, you've seen Trump's numbers just absolutely

crater, including from many Republicans, Republican-leaning independence right now. You know, it's that political pressure he faces because people are looking at a now 80-year-old president and wondering how is it possible that this man who claims that he has unchecked powers is going here. Just one final point on the negotiations. You know, again, just as it's unlikely that Republican senators are going to en masse, you know, sort of draw a line here and say, absolutely you cannot pass with this deal, it's extremely unlikely. And we should not be credulous to think that there's going to be some miraculous settlement of the Iranian nuclear program. It took two years of intensive negotiations.

member for Obama to get that JCPO. Right. And we're looking at like a two-page outline here. I mean, this is not a lengthy deal in the end of the day. To that point about the president saying he has basically unlimited or unchecked power, you heard it in the sound bite there at the top. What do you think this war has done to show

what the limits or not of his power is? On the one hand, he totally ran over Congress. On the other hand, he's watching his approval numbers plummet. Yeah, and listen, I mean, looking for a check is essentially what Democrats were run out, right? Checking this president. I think his comments there, if you're a Democrat, you should run that in a campaign ad because it speaks to what this president is lacking, right?

There is no check, to Susan's point, from Republicans. The courts have done some of that, and you've seen that happen over the last couple of weeks in many different scenarios. But he has greatly expanded his use of power, the way he uses it, in ways big and small from compelling Coke to put cane sugar in their product. Obviously what he's done at the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Center, some checks there as well. You saw Joyce Beatty make a move against him. But yes, I mean, I think we have seen a president has used his power in an expansive way and in a huge and massive way that we haven't seen in our lifetime.

He's also willing to flaunt it in ways we're not used to seeing, like the Qatari Air Force One plane that was unveiled this week. I think we have some pictures of the president checking it out. I mean, Jay, is this an appropriate use of a couple hundred million dollars worth of taxpayer resources here? Well, in fact, the two 747s that the president uses as Air Force One are 35 years old. Right. I don't think there's any debate that those needed to be replaced. And there are new ones on the way.

This very Trump-like 747 is supposed to be a bridge between now and when the new. U.S. government-paid aircraft come off the line. But it, you know, this is, this is a gift, not to the U.S. government. This is a gift to President Donald J. Trump. Let's, there's no doubt about that. And in my judgment, it violates the spirit, if not the letter of the Amalien's clause in the U.S. Constitution, which says no U.S. government official should accept a gift from a foreign government. You mentioned something earlier to Cory Booker about a turning point. and Republican attitudes to all of this, I really do think with their objections

to the weaponization fund with the endorsement of Ken Paxton over John Cornyn, who was very well liked in the Senate, Republicans, and we're seeing this now, are beginning to speak out, object, to a lot of some of this, some of what President Trump's doing.

That's perfect setup. Sarah, I want to get you to react to that. I mean, do you see this as a potential, any of this is a potential turning point? Any of this is a bridge too far? Well, I think the close you get to elections, you know, when things look tough, the more likely you are to see members of Congress start to look around and be more critical of their incumbent president. We see that on both sides of the aisle. We experienced this in 2006 when we were in also unpopular war and Republicans were up in a tough situation, started to become much more critical of President Bush at the time.

So it's normal. And so you would expect it in this deal that has a lot to be determined. Right. Gives them something, you know, certainly to talk about. Well, then stay tuned. And we have got more to talk about. Our panel is all sticking around. But when we come back, all the living former presidents gathered in Chicago for the opening of the Obama Presidential Center.

We look back at Barack Obama before he reached the White House. Our Beat the Press Minute is next. Welcome back. This week, the Obama Presidential Center opened to the public in Chicago, a lasting tribute to the nation's 44th president. But long before the White House, Barack Obama was a little-known Illinois state senator who burst onto the national stage with his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Just months later, after winning his election to the U.S. Senate, Obama joined to meet the press to talk about a theme that would come to define his political career, bridging divides and finding common ground. I absolutely think that it's possible for us to find common ground. You know, the president called me this week. He was extraordinarily gracious in congratulating me.

We both agreed that our wives are sharper than we are, which was nice. And my sense is that if we can disagree without being disagreeable, and if we're not involved in the sort of slash and burn politics that I think has become the custom in Washington, but we seek out common ground on the enormous challenges that we face ahead, whether it's the global economy that Carl Rove just mentioned and how we make sure that the middle class is, in fact, sustainable in this global competition, or we're talking about how we provide the education that our children need so that they can succeed. Those are issues where we all share, I think, success.

And one of the things I told the president was that we all have a stake in seeing him have a success. presidency. I don't think that the Democrats succeed by rooting against the president in office, but we have to be honest where we disagree with him. And he's got to make his case where he's presenting issues that we're skeptical about. And when we come back, new signs Democrats may be gaining ground in the fight for control of Congress. More with the panel is next.

And welcome back. The panel is still here. We're going to talk about the midterms. I can't believe it. We're only four and a half months away. I keep saying six months, like we're frozen in time, but it's moving. And this week, the Cook Political Report moved six Republican held seats in Democrats' favor. Nea, what's the, did Democrats just have the inside track here? What's your assessment? Yeah, I think they do. And I think they've had the inside track for a while, even given the redistricting, which does give the edge to Republicans. At this point, they're about six points ahead on the generic ballot. That's about where they were in 2018.

2018, it was a gain of 40 seats. They're not going to get 40. This go around. They obviously only need three. So I think the House, they'll do well. The Senate is the open question, right? And you sort of see why, given Cory Booker's response, right? When he talks about whether or not he's going to campaign for Graham Platner in Maine.

It sounds like a no. And so this, I think, is going to be a real weakness because I think Democrats' chances to the Senate certainly run through Maine. and Susan Collins, as Democrats have seen time and time again, is a real tough out. So that's what I, you know, maybe 35 to 40 percent chance of taking the Senate, but I think for the House, a much better chance. So, Sarah, if Republicans are going to keep the House, how do they do it? Well, I think structurally it's just really, really difficult. I mean, you would need this Iran situation to get resolved quickly and gas prices to plummet and a bunch of other economic factors to change quickly.

You know, the average midterm loss for an incumbent president is about 26 seats. And Democrats have their highest enthusiasm gap since 2006. There's other parallels to that period of time. I remember them painfully well as sitting in the White House as political director. An impopular war, structurally sound economy, but maybe GDP weakening, unemployment strong, but consumer confidence weakening. I mean, you see these parallels, housing market problems, and it's just structurally hard to see how it's a great night for Republicans.

Just a little bit of time left, but Jay, I'd love to get you to reflect on the Obama Presidential Center. Speaking of 2006, what it was like to sort of relive those moments? I was with Barack Obama from November 2006 when he asked me to join his campaign, even before it started, to January 20, 2017, the end of his administration. I actually was a holdover that day, seven hours, 32 minutes, because I was the designated survivor. From where I sat in the Department of Defense and DHS, we degraded AQ's ability to launch another larger-scale attack on the homeland, began the destruction of ISIS, took out bin Laden, the leader of AQ, took out of Lachie, the leader of AQAP, repealed the dreaded

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Law with Nancy Pelosi as leader in the House, and created DACA in 2012, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which to me is quintessential American values. DACA recipients today are in law school, some of nations leading law firms, and elected a president of color, something I thought in 2008 I'd never see in my lifetime. He and his family served in the White House for eight years with honor, class, dignity, without a misstep, without any hint of scandal, and represented a major step forward for our country. Susan, can you in 30 seconds tell me what it was like to see those former living presidents together? Yeah, you know, nobody had to mention the name Donald Trump for it to be obvious that this was the contrast that we were seeing.

And by the way, just personally, I am totally there for the Michelle Obama, George W. It's everyone's favorite buddy comedy. I think you could sign them to Netflix, and it would be a huge success. All right, panel, we're going to leave it all there. Thank you so much for coming in on this Father's Day weekend. Thank you for a great discussion. And before we go, I want to remind our viewers that Kristen will be sitting down with award-winning actress, producer, and mental health advocate, Taraji P. Henson, for the first ever meet the Moment Live event later this month in New York City. Right now, we have a special offer for our viewers if you use the promo code, Moment 50, to get $50 off your ticket while supplies live.

You can scan that QR code you see there on the bottom of your screen or head to meet the press.com for tickets and details. That's all for today. Thank you for watching. Wishing all the dads out there, including my dad watching at home, a very happy Father's Day. We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.

Snoring, gasping for air during sleep, daytime sleepiness. I'm Shaquille O'Neill, and this shouldn't be anybody's experience. As your doctor about Zepbound to her Zepatatine. The first and only FDA approved prescription medicine for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea and adults with obesity. Zepbound is a prescription medicine used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity to help adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea, OSA, and obesity to improve their OSA. Zepbound is approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, or 15 milligram injection. Zepound contains trezepotide and should not be used with other trezebitide containing products or any GLP1 receptor agonist. medicines. It is not known if Zepbound is safe and effective for use in children. Don't share

needles or pens or reuse needles. Don't take if allergic to it, or if you or someone in your family had medullary thyroid cancer, or if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. Stop Zepbound and call your doctor if you have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction. Severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems. Tell your doctor if you experience vision changes before scheduled procedures with anesthesia, if you're nursing, pregnant, plan to be, or taking birth control pills,

taking Zepbound with a sulfonal urea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems. Talk to your doctor. Call 1-800-545-9709 or visit Zepbound.lily.com.