Meet the Press NOW — June 17

Our very own American dream just happens to be ice cream. Red, white, and bluebell is an all-American frozen celebration of strawberry ice cream loaded with strawberries, alongside creamy vanilla and blueberry ice cream with real blueberries. Lushes stripes of red, white, and blue ice cream side by side in a full half gallon. Freedom never tasted so good.

Welcome to be the press now. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington. We begin with breaking news with the White House publicly releasing the full text of its agreement with Iran to halt the war and reopen the strait of Hormuz. President Trump both touted and at times seemed to downplay the agreement during a press conference today at the G7 summit in France. At the same time as the president was holding that news conference, a senior administration official, was reading. the 14-point memorandum of understanding to reporters during a phone briefing. So here are the main points. Point one, the termination of all military operations, including in Lebanon, where Iran's proxy Hezbollah operates. Point two, both sides agreeing to respect each other's sovereignty. Point three, the clock starts on 60 days of negotiations. Point four, the U.S. ends its naval blockade of Iran's ports. Point five, Iran agrees to reopen the strike. of Ramos, toll-free. Point six includes $300 billion in economic relief for Iran's reconstruction.

Point seven lays out a pathway for all types of U.S. sanctions to be lifted over time, of course, once Iran meets certain benchmarks. And point eight, mirror prior public statements by Iran that it will not produce or develop nuclear weapons. At that press conference today, President Trump renewed his threat to bomb Iran if it doesn't abide by the text and other unspecified unwritten agreements. Take a look. If it doesn't get done in 60 days, it's all right.

We go back to bombing. You know, I don't want to do that because it's so good. But we might have to because we're never going to let them have a nuclear weapon. But they've agreed not to, and you'll see that very clearly in the agreement. And by the way, if they don't honor the agreement or some things aren't even mentioned in the agreement, it's a memorandum of understanding, but we have an understanding of a certain. things without writing it. And if they don't honor that, we'll probably go back to bombing them until they honor it. You know, it's amazing what bombs can do. So you're threatening to bomb Iran if

they don't comply, but there's nothing enforceable in the deal itself. Is that correct? Doesn't have to be. I let him know. I said, look, if you don't adhere to the agreement, I don't want to do that, but we're going to bomb the hell out of you. And I don't think that they're going to veer from the agreement. What else am I going to do? Am I going to say, I'm going to take you to court? Let me take you to court. Let me sue you.

No, we're going to bomb the hell out of them if they violate the agreement. I don't want them to. I want them to honor the agreement. Is there any safeguard in this deal to prevent Iran from charging what they say could be fees after the 60-day extension? The thing that's going to stop them from doing that, because you can't cover everything in a document, is common sense. They don't want to get bombed.

I don't want to get hit. Notably, not in the agreement is anything about addressing Iran's ballistic missile threat. Now, remember, President Trump said at the start of the war that that issue was a major reason the U.S. began combat operations in the first place. Take a look at that. The United States military has undertaken a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests. we are going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. It's a stark contrast to what the president said today, where he seemed to soften his stance on Iran's ballistic missile capabilities.

NBC's Garrett Haik pressed the president on that point. So we'll be working on a parallel effort with the Gulf nations to address non-nuclear issues, such as the conventional ballistic missiles, which we'll be talking to. about and support them. I mean, they have to have some because other people have some. You've got to have some. Why is it acceptable to you now that they keep some of that capability? And Iran is... What are they keeping? What are they keeping? They have less than other nations now. We knocked out probably 84, 85 percent of their missiles. The rest of them are underground. They can't even get them out.

Joining me now to start us off, NBC's Gabe Gutierrez is covering the president's trip in Geneva. NBC's Matt Bradley is in Tel Aviv. NBC's Sahel Kippur is on Capitol Hill. And here with me on set, NBC's Dan DeLuce and Elise Labett, host of the Cosmopoletics podcast. Thanks to all of you for starting us off. Gabe. Let me start with you. The president did not reveal many new details about this agreement. But what are you hearing from administration officials about this memorandum of understanding? Well, Kristen, it was a remarkable series of developments that's, afternoon when we did hear from those senior U.S. officials about some of the details of this memorandum of understanding. And importantly, it was the financial aspect of this. You mentioned some of this in your introduction, but in addition to that $300 billion reconstruction fund that is to be created by Iran's Arab neighbors, but also to be developed by the U.S. although the administration insists that no U.S. money will be used for that

Reconstruction Fund. In addition to that, there's the issue of sanctions relief. And immediately, some of that relief, at least waivers for Iranian oil exports, will kick in immediately upon the signing of this memorandum of understanding. That is very significant. It wouldn't kick in at the end of this 60-day window of future negotiations. Those waivers of Iranian oil, which had been sanctioned, that will kick in immediately. And the senior U.S. official on that phone call with reporters, that saying that one, it would be easier to keep track of some of the oil that Iran was selling, but also he acknowledged that it was a concession in part to keep the price of oil globally down. So that is extremely significant.

And then also the idea of the president today coming back during that press conference and saying that he seemed to be okay with the unfreezing of Iranian funds. That is incredible to hear from the president, considering that he has spent so much time, really much of the last 10 years, really against the Obama administration, for unfreezing Iranian funds as part of a previous Iran nuclear deal. So a lot of developments here that the administration is trying to defend. And yes, we did hear that memorandum of understanding from those senior U.S. officials just as the president was wrapping up that news conference, Chris. Yeah, just extraordinary timing on all of these developments, Gabe. I also want to play in

exchange at the end of the news conference when the president was asked about whether he would stay in Europe to sign the agreement. Here's what he said. Why not stick around for the signing ceremony with this Iran peace deal? I might. You might. Yeah, I might. But I'd rather, this is a memorandum of understanding. It's very important, but it might not be the kind of a document that I should be signing. There's some element to this where, you know, you know, send the vice president. If it works out, great, you'll look like a genius for sending him. And if it doesn't work out, it's the vice president's law. I like that idea. Sure. What? This way, 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, JD. He's going to turn his plane around and get the hell out of here. Yeah, I like that idea. seemed to be joking a bit there, Gabe, but what are your sources telling you about? The reality of is the president trying to make the vice president own this? Look, Kristen, there was certain a lot of palace intrigue there. You notice the secretary of St. Marco Rubio standing right next to the president. He was very careful not to have any expression on his face right there.

Look, I asked senior White House officials, you know, was the president trying to make JD Vance own. this by, you know, having him come out to Switzerland to sign for this formal ceremony, which, by the way, he left open the president today that it may or may not actually happen. But from what I'm told from a senior White House official that the president is doing his best to sell this agreement. He has been repeatedly on camera today through social media, that he feels that he is the best messenger here and that he is trying to sell this agreement as best he can. The president always likes to joke around in that sense.

And yes, there are a lot of questions about whether the vice president, if this doesn't work out, could he end up being the fall guy, the president, seemed to play along with that speculation, at least today. All right. Gabe Gutierrez starting us off today. Gabe, thank you so much traveling with the president there. Matt, I want to turn to you. Of course, the United States launched strikes along with Israel.

And so there is an important component here in terms of what Israel's reaction is. to all of this. I do want to play some of what the president said about Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Take a look. We did send a copy to Israel, by the way. They've been a good partner. Again, I think they could do better with respect to Hezbollah. I love them as a partner. They were terrific, but they could do a much better job with Hezbollah. On that, I don't think they're doing well. Look, think of what Israel's getting. They're not going to be nuked. It's very simple. I told Baby, BB, your biggest risk was that they drop a nuclear weapon into the middle of Israel.

They'd only need one. And there would be no more Israel. Think of it, baby, you got the best, the most important thing that you were asking for is that. So I think they're happy. So what has the reaction been in Israel based on conversations with your sources, Matt? Yeah, I mean, we haven't heard anything. yet really from the past two hours from those comments that you just played from President Trump speaking at the G7 summit. But, you know, a lot of what the president said, except for when he said

that when he revealed that he had actually given over a copy of the MOU to the Israelis, which he hadn't done before, amazingly. You know, a lot of what we've been hearing from the president at the G7 was kind of repeats from what we'd heard earlier in the week. And I can tell you that the criticism against Benjamin Netanyahu here in Israel has been scathing from all angles, the prime minister, has been getting it from his allies and his rivals, all of them saying that the prime minister has looked weak, that he dragged the country into a war that yielded no results, and that he really didn't stand up to the president

when it came to fighting in Lebanon, which there are many, many people here and in the security establishment here in Israel, who want to see the prime minister finish the job against Hezbollah. They've made this very clear. And even the head of the military, the chief of staff, as announced, along with Benjamin Netanyahu, that Israel is not going to be withdrawing its troops from Lebanon. This fight looks like it's set to continue.

So the problem that President Trump has here is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the biggest stakeholders, the biggest stakeholder in this war, to have had no interaction even at all, no contribution to the negotiating process that led to this memorandum of understanding and will presumably lead to a more permanent ceasefire. But he is the person who has the biggest chance to scuttle all of the progress that's been made. If the prime minister goes back to fiercely fighting against Hezbollah in Lebanon and, for example, fires weapons, fires missiles into the outskirts of Beirut, that would anger Iran and could set off another crossfire over the entire Middle East and could really sabotage this deal. Well, it's a really good point, Matt. And you take me to my following question, which is what about the fact that the fact that

the president says Iran will be allowed to keep some missiles. How is Israel responding to that? Yeah, I mean, that's something that a lot of folks have already been hitting on. And again, we didn't hear in response from the president's most recent comment about two hours ago at the G7. But I can tell you, it's been part of just a group of different complaints that everybody has been firing together all at once at the prime minister. There are some major things that the prime minister had assured the Israeli public he was going to achieve with this world. and with its conclusion that are now left gaping open, the resolution to Iran's nuclear future,

the missiles, the ballistic missiles, and Iran's funding for proxy groups across the region. All of these have not been answered in this MOU. All right, Matt Bradley, traveling in Tel Aviv. Thank you, Matt. Please stay safe. We really appreciate it. Sahel, let me turn to you on Capitol Hill.

You're getting reaction from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. And the chief complaint seems to be there's a lack of details in this memorandum of understanding the language that's been released so far. What are you hearing? Well, Kristen, I think we can safely call the reaction a mixed bag. I will say in the last few hours since some of the details of this MOU have come out. I've heard more criticism than praise. And let's start with Republicans. I think the most interesting thought line here breaks down between those who are essentially free agents, no longer have to worry about the politics or crossing President Trump, and those who are conscious of the politics and

want to align with President Trump to that end. Take a listen to what Senator Bill Cassidy said. He's a free agent, no longer running for re-election, retiring. Take a look. It's going to lead a high-stronger. We're going to make a lot of U.S. taxpayer values. Now, Iran recognizes that they can do their bill literally of the straightforward form used to extract from the other countries of the world

whatever they want. This is JCPOA plus. And I opposed to then, I close now. That JCPOA line was Bill Cassidy comparing it to President Obama's Iran deal 11 years ago that Republicans vehemently opposed. Now there's Senator Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally who is running for re-election with Trump's endorsement this fall. He had a different take.

Quote, it's my opinion that signing the MOU will be beneficial to the United States inasmuch as the Strait of our moves will begin to open and the hostilities with Iran will stop. Graham goes on to say whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined. But I see little downside to trying, end quote, notice how Graham qualifies his praise there saying it's all contingent on getting a final deal. Now, the Democrats, the prevailing feeling there is that this deal is going to be worse than the JCPOA, that at this point Iran is negotiating from a position of greater strength than they were 11 years ago because they've executed. the closure of the Strait of Ramoots and imposed economic pain on the United States and the views of Democrats. It's working. Senator Richard Blumenthal called this a disgraceful deal,

an unconditional surrender by the United States, took issue with a $300 billion windfall, the unenforceable promises, and Senator Chris Murphy went a little further, calling it a total humiliation for the United States, even a necessary humiliation in Chris Murphy's words, because he thinks any deal has to be taken to end this war, given that in his view, Iran is only going to get stronger. Well, incredibly strong reaction in these opening hours of us seeing that memorandum of understanding. Sahel, thank you for your reporting from Capitol Hill. Dan and Elise, you're both with me on set.

Dan, give us the reality check. 60 days to get a deal done with Iran. It took the Obama administration two years. Is it possible? I would not put my money on it. And the MOU does say that if both parties are still ready to keep talking, they can extend it another six days, you know, forever. forever, right? But these are incredibly technical issues. As you say, that agreement under the Obama administration was so technical, so complicated, and every concession had to be extracted,

you know, with a brutal kind of painful negotiations. So I don't think 60 days will produce a historic deal. Yeah, it can't. I mean, that deal, look, the framework deal took about six to eight months. And then that larger deal took two years. And it was, you know, hundreds of patients. But Dan and I have the text in our hot little hands, and it has all these Easter eggs that, like, are, you know, really incredible. What stands out to you, Lisa? What are you focused on having seen this, having listened to the president? Where does this go from here? Listen, this is a deal to open the street, okay?

And it's a framework. Straight was open before the war began, by the way. It was. So it's a, what they say in diplomaties that Dan and I talk about is back to the status quo. right? It's back to February 27th, right? And this is a framework deal and a pinky swear to negotiate the nuclear program. Now look, if it ends the war and you go back to, you know, the economy settles, the straight opens, there's no more conflict in the region, the economy improves for Americans, that's a good thing. And Iran's program was severely, you know, damaged. The missile program, the weapons. silos, the industrial base was damage. So yes, this is not as strong as the JCPOA, and it's very unlikely that they're going to get that kind of deal, because as we've been talking about, this is the best deal that the president could get. The JCPOA was the best deal that the U.S.

could get at the time, and the costs have gone up because of, you know, now the Strait of Hormuz is the new weapon, but Iran is maybe in a politically stronger position. And, you know, the old Ayatollah didn't want to use this trait. But it's also, you know, weapons wise and, you know, I would say militarily wise. It's in a weaker position. So, Dan, how are the United States golf partners reacting in this moment, at least lays out the fact that Iran actually may be more emboldened than it was during the negotiations over the JCPO? They are relieved. I think. think for the most part, they could not absorb yet more warfare, more bombing, more damage to their oil and natural gas infrastructure to their economies. They had all these elaborate plants to diversify

their economies. This has thrown a wrench in that. So they were slightly desperate for the war to end. However, they're full of anxiety. They don't know if this will last. There isn't a serious treaty or agreement here. This is just a memorandum. Will Israel continue to bomb Lebanon? And will that then trigger all of this to unravel. So I think there's a lot of concern in the Gulf. At least one of the focuses of the president's Republican allies, quite frankly, was this idea of unfreezing Iranian assets. Now we're hearing about a $300 billion reconstruction fund. Is the idea that that will be gifted over time once the administration sees progress? And how can the United States is sure that that's what's actually happening. Well, Dan, I were talking about this earlier.

So initially, you know, on day one, when the deal is signed, the blockade is opened. Iran gets some waivers to sell oil off the bat. Off the bat. And, you know, for a little while, the straight will open without some tolls. What happens going forward? We really don't know. Iran gets the major benefits, whether it's lifting sanctions, unfrozen assets, this Reconstruction Fund, the more they engage in negotiations. And then there is a final deal. But, you know, JD Vance, Vice President JD Vance said something very interesting yesterday to Megyn Kelly on her show. and he said, listen, you know, if this is all we could get, you know, Iran doesn't get any more benefits. And we open the strait and the war is over and everyone goes on with their lives. So I think that the U.S. is already bracing for the fact that these negotiations could go on indefinitely.

They could stall. And let's be honest, if you look at what happened in Ukraine, if you look at what happened in Gaza, this is kind of par for the course with this administration is, look, they do try to negotiate, you know, an end to the conflict. But the president, you know, gets impatient. He moves on. He's talking about Cuba. I mean, I don't see these negotiations really going anywhere anytime past. Dan, very quickly, what are you going to be watching for in these next 60 days?

I would like to hear more about what has been promised to Iran about unfreezing assets. And where is that money, $300 billion coming from? to rebuild Iran. I would just make one last point here, which is this administration has embraced the concept of negotiation that they criticize President Obama for embracing, which is, you, Iran, will, you know, limit your nuclear work, and in return, we will ease sanctions. And they really embrace that idea. And they can do pretty much, it says, I mean, that they could do whatever they want with the money. So, you know, back to the missiles and the proxies, it says, like, you know, the central bank would determine, you know, where the money goes.

And I thought it was notable. You heard President Trump effectively say none of this is binding. They'll do it because I'll start bombing them if they don't. Not if he takes the troops out and, you know, the midterms are coming and the troops are home. It'll be difficult to do that again. All right. Elise and Dan, thank you so much for your great insights and reporting. We really appreciate it.

Coming up, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee joins me to respond to what we're learning about the agreement between the U.S. Iran. And we'll get his reaction to another major breaking news story today. President Trump forcing the Senate to postpone the confirmation hearing for his Director of National Intelligence. Senator Mark Warner joins me next. You're watching Meet the Press now.

Summer routines live or die by how easy they are. And honestly, if something takes too much effort, I'm out. That's why Grooons is my go-to. It's one daily pack of gummies covering my greens, vitamins and minerals. Plus, it has six grams of prebiotic fiber, which is more than two cups of broccoli. No mixing powders, no giant pills, no hassle. I just rip open the pack and I'm done. They taste good and make it easy to stay on top of my health,

even when life gets busy. Save up to 52% off with code podcast at grooms.co. That's code podcast at gruns.c. The gLP1 pill you've been waiting for is now on row. Yep, it's finally here. With the same clinically proven ingredient, now in a pill. and now on row.

It's the first FDA approved GLP1 pill for weight loss. At the lowest price available, that's one daily GLP1 pill for big results. Now on row. Go to row.com slash listen to see if you qualify.

RX only go to row.com slash safety for serious side effects and boxed warning associated with GLP ones. He loves it freezing. She loves it hot. The pot-by-eat-sleep ends the argument for good

with independent temperatureism, that cheat both of you sleeping deeper. Try it at 8Sleep.com.

Welcome back. We turn now to some breaking news on Capitol Hill. After President Trump unexpectedly threw a wrench into negotiations in Congress to renew a key surveillance tool known as FISA that lapsed last Friday. Today, the Senate Intelligence Committee postponed the confirmation hearing of President Trump's pick for Director of National Intelligence, Jay Clayton after the president said he was delaying Jay Clayton's nomination. Now, the president announced on social media he was, quote, canceling the hearing, saying, quote, to add a slight bit of intrigue, but for the good of the nation and the people of our country, I will not approve FISA without the Save America Act going along with it. That's, of course, the president's bill to overhaul elections in America.

Senate leaders have repeatedly said it doesn't have the votes to pass. Senators on both sides of the aisle expressing concern over the move. Take a long. I was surprised I was looking forward to the hearing and the opportunity to ask some questions of Mr. Jay Clayton. I'm concerned that this slows down the regional bicep, which is vital to our national security. Donald Trump seems hell-bent on stopping FISA, which is a threat to our country by this absolutely chaotic approach to the appointment of a DNI. And FISA seemed to be dead on arrival here in almost any form as long as Bill Pulte remains in that job. Joining me now is Capitol Hill correspondent Melanie Z.

Zanona, Mel, so where does this leave Jay Clayton's nomination? A lot of head scratching on the hill today. Yeah, head scratching is probably the nicest way to put it. It is completely up in the air when this nomination is actually going to get done because President Donald Trump gave no indication about when he is willing to let his own nominee come to the hill and get confirmed, which also means, Kristen, that this critical surveillance law, which expired last Friday, is also going to remain laps. Because remember, GOP leadership, they were trying to lightning speed, fast-track this confirmation process because there was a lot of bipartisan outrage over Trump's acting director for the DNI that he had selected, Bill Pulte, who was not in the job yet. And so, GOP leaders really

begged Trump to name his permanent replacement. That's when he named Jay Clayton, someone who Democrat said they actually respected and had a lot of praise for. So GOP leaders thought they found their way out of this mess by trying to get him confirmed and then hopefully unlock the votes to open up that FISA bill. However, once Trump realized that meant that Bill Pulte was never going to be in the job, he quickly threw a wrench into those plans this morning, really making GOP leadership's life more difficult. So that's where we're out right now, just one of many examples of Trump's sort of throwing a grenade onto the laps of Senate Republicans and making their lives so much more difficult, Kristen. Yeah, well, let's talk about the other curveball sticking point here.

the president saying he now wants the Save America Act attached to the FISA renewal? Is there any world where that gets passed? John Thune has said there aren't the votes to pass it? Yeah, I mean, the Senate has tried repeatedly and failed repeatedly to pass the Save Act. The reality is the votes are just not there. They need 60 votes in the Senate in order to be able to pass a bill like that. They also tried to push it through reconciliation where only a 50 vote threshold is required. They weren't able to get around the rules there either.

And GOP leader John Thune knows that better than anyone. Just take a listen to what he said on Fox News last night. We are doing everything that we can, but it is a function of math. I mean, we are bound by arithmetic in the United States Senate. The votes currently aren't there. But if you tried to attach it, for example, to FISA, it would tank FISA. So, Kristen, unless Trump backs off of his demand to attach the safe, Act, and unless he lets his nominee go through on Capitol Hill, it seems that we are still

at a standstill over this critical FISA debate. Kristen. Yes. John Thune's job just got even more difficult. Mel Zanona on Capitol Hill for us. Thanks so much. Joining me now is Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. He's the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator, thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate it. Thank you, Kristen. Well, we're going to get to everything that happened with the Intelligence Committee and Jay Clayton's confirmation hearing in just a moment, but I do want to start on the latest with Iran. Can you give us your reaction to what we heard from the president today about the memorandum of understanding? Do you think this is a positive step toward ending the war?

Well, I think the fact that the president is declaring victory and ending the war is positive. I think this memorandum in agreement won't stand the test of time. I think even as good as salesmen as Donald Trump is, no way he can sell this as a win for America. And if we look at the items, I mean, the regime is more radical than the prior regime before the war. This memorandum doesn't even mention the Iranian ballistic missiles and drones, and they've still got 50% of the missiles, 60% of missiles and 50% are launchers and countless drones. It doesn't mention the Iranian proxy forces where the $300 billion, wherever that comes from,

my fear is a lot of that money will end up in the hands of Hezbollah for the Houthis in Yemen, which will destabilize the region. And while the strait may be reopened, we know that Iran, because of their capacity of having literally hundreds of these small speedboats, which at any moment go out and place mines in the strait, they have a de facto ability to close down the strait at any point, which is worse than we were before the war. And the idea that Iran promised not to go move to a nuclear weapon, well, they'd had that promise. And Trump's own intelligence community said they weren't moving towards a weapon. So this was a war of choice.

And then finally, the idea that the Iranians over the next 60 days are going to somehow give up their enriched uranium. enrich uranium, you know, is, I think, wishful thinking at best and foolish at worse. And you've even heard at least reports that serious people in the Trump administration are questioning whether the Iranians are really serious. They have been able to negotiate on these items for now decades. And I don't see how this puts us again in any better situation, us, our allies in the region, than before the president started the war of choice. Well, let me ask you to respond to one of your colleagues, Chris Murphy, who told notice that if this memorandum of understanding ends the war, the deal is, quote, a disaster, but it's probably a necessary disaster, he calls it. Do you agree

with that assessment that it's a necessary disaster? I believe that continuing this war, bombing the Iranians was not going to bring them around. The fact that Americans have already paid $60 billion in additional cost on gas, the fact that we are going to continue to see gas costs, fertilizer costs that come from this region, aluminum costs that come through this trade of Hermose, none of that is going to return to pre-war levels in weeks or months, if ever, that the war needed to come to an end. And if the president declares victory, I think there may be a group of synchafants around him and they'll say, attaboy, but neither their history, nor our allies, nor our adversaries will ever see this as a victory for America.

We are, unfortunately, in a worse position after the president started. Again, a war of choice. There was no imminent threat from Iran. Well, let me just ask you, though. President Trump insists he's going to get that final deal in which Iran will ultimately turn over what he has referred to as its nuclear dust and then commit to not developing a nuclear weapon. If that is, the outcome, Senator, understanding that there's this 60-day period to try to negotiate those terms, would that have been worth it? Listen, if we can permanently make sure Iran does not move towards a nuclear weapon, yes,

I will give the president credit. But anyone who's been an observer of this region and the Iranians negotiating styles, I don't think you could find anyone that thinks that that is a, probable outcome. And, you know, we may end up at almost back where we were with the deal under Obama, which was called the JCPOA. The only difference was at that point in time, the international regime that was trying to hold Iran in check included the Europeans, us. It also included the Russians and the Chinese. Well, in the 15 or 12 years or so since the deal was signed, the Russians and Chinese are now fully on the Iranian side. We're not even sure whether our European allies are on our side

and because of the way Trump has treated them and is moved towards Greenland and so forth. And again, I would love to be proven wrong and see the Iranians, literally these canisters of enriched uranium, which are very volatile, would require literally thousands of troops on the ground to take them out, even, I think, within a ceasefire, uh, circumcision. circumstance, I just don't, I will be surprised if that happens. I will be pleasantly surprised if that happens. But the Iranians have known, they have basically, they view they have taken on America and Israel, and at worst fought them to a draw. And Iran has, again, de facto control over or ability to influence the Straits of Hermos, and the proxies will get some of this 300 billion, I believe.

they still have the missile capacity. And I'm not sure other than renewing their commitment that they wouldn't build a bomb, which they already had in place, what we've got other than 13 American soldiers lost, billions of expenses in the region, $60 billion of American gas costs alone going up. Even Donald Trump, in his best salesman day, can't sell that as a win. All right, Senator, I do want to turn to the president deciding to delay J.E. Jay Clayton's nomination for Director of National Intelligence. He was set to appear before your committee today.

President Trump says Democrats were going to vote against the FISA reauthorization, even if Jay Clayton was confirmed. What's your response to these developments and to the fact that the hearing has now been delayed? My response is this. Section 702, which is our ability for to listen in on foreigners, talking to foreigners, broad, a critical tool, was on a path to a bipartisan three-year extension. It's always a tough argument because there are inadvertently Americans that may be talking to a foreigner. And your name comes up repeated. We need to figure out are you a spy or are you a victim of a hack? It's always

controversial. But we had worked in a bipartisan way with Tom Cotton, my partner on the Intelligence Committee, and we are on a path to getting this done. And then Donald Trump throws the most singularly most unqualified individual possible in Mr. Bill Pulte, who doesn't even have a security clearance, who has no experience in national security. The only thing we know about him is he's absolutely loyal to Donald Trump will do anything. And the idea of what he's done in a relatively benign position managing our mortgage industry has managed to weaponize private mortgage information against people like Lisa Cook of the Federal Reserve. So that kind of inappropriate behaviors getting rewarded with the keys to the kingdom of all of our country's secrets as director of national intelligence.

Even my Republicans all pushed back. Serious people within the Trump administration all pushed back. The president retreated last week and said, well, well, just make him act him, and I'll put somebody else up. And Jay Clayton, who many Democrats would have voted against, he had been the U.S. attorney from the Southern District of New York, but I've known Jay. And I had tough questions for him. But he was confident. He was on a path to actually getting confirmed so we wouldn't have this lapse of the Section 702. Also, we wouldn't have Bill Pulte in the job. And because the system was actually going to work in a bipartisan way, Trump again in the middle of the night last night threw another hand grenade and said, no, I'm not going to let my choice, Jay Clayton become the director of national intelligence, at least in the short term, which shows that the president is willing to play politics with their national security. know when a new hearing is going to be scheduled, Senator? Do you know when a new hearing is going to be scheduled? I'm not even sure whether Mr. Jay Clayton is going to still be the nominee. He didn't know this morning. I hope it'll get scheduled again very shortly. But I think, again, Donald Trump

was playing politics with our national security saying he wants this guy Bill Pulte in there to get a look, I guess, at all of our country's top secrets. That is a national security risk. Even people in the Trump administration acknowledge that. The good news is, though, even though the Section 702 has expired and that gets pretty complicated, the telecommunication companies are still working with the government, so we still have coverage. We have not had a national security lapse yet. But the biggest security problem is Bill Pulte being in this job without even a security clearance is a potential national disaster in terms of national security.

And it doesn't appear that Donald Trump cares. How would you answer the sort of question? main question here, which is, does the threat of Bill Pulte as acting D&I actually outweigh the risks of FISA not being reauthorized? Of course, there are major events right now going on around the country, the World Cup, the America 250 celebrations. How do you balance that, Senator? Well, it is a balance. And I want this tool renewed. We were on a bipartisan path to get it done. I think there were more than enough Democratic votes with Bill Pulte as the acting director, regardless of what I did, they're not the votes.

And everybody knew that. Donald Trump threw this wrench into this process. And again, I feel less immediate pressure right now because the telecommunication companies are still cooperating with the government. And I appreciate that. But with the World Cup, with other things happening, with our 250th anniversary, the cavalier attitude that the president has on this is, is pretty stunning. And I, again, don't believe me. Please believe my Republican comments,

colleagues who've all said virtually without exception, Bill Pulte does not have the temperament, the experience, or the background to be the director of national security. My concern about Bill Pulte isn't what he could do. Mischief he could do is 702. There is an audit trail there. My concern with Bill Pulte is if he gets our nation's top secrets, I have no trust that he won't reveal those. I have no trust that he won't try to weaponize the intelligence community against free and fair elections in this country. Again, they go back to the case where I started. If he couldn't even take mortgage information secret, what will we do with our nation's secret weapons programs with our nation's most secure spies that we have, with our ability to look at our adversaries? This is a national

security threat and it's jaw-dropping. And it's one of the reasons why so many of the people in the Trump administration have worked with us quietly to see if we can avoid it. But at least for some short period of time and it looks like Bill Pulte will be there. All right. Senator Mark Warner, thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate it. Thank you so much, Kristen. Up next, more breaking news. The Federal Reserve holds interest rates steady. And Kevin Warsh holds his first press conference as Fed Chair. Stay with. us on Meet the Press Now.

Summer routines live or die by how easy they are, and honestly, if something takes too much effort, I'm out. That's why Grooons is my go-to. It's one daily pack of gummies covering my greens, vitamins, and minerals. Plus, it has six grams of prebiotic fiber, which is more than two cups of broccoli. No mixing powders, no giant pills, no hassle. I just rip open the pack, and I'm done. They taste good and make it easy to stay on top of my health, even when life gets busy.

Save up to 52% off with code podcast at grooms.co. That's code podcast at gruns.co. Want a $1,000 weight loss medication for $50? It all starts with Rowe's free GLP1 insurance check. Just upload your insurance card to see if you have coverage, then relax. Over 200,000 people have qualified for a $50 copay through Rowe. Go to row.com. Half of coverage patients have a $50 per month copay or less for medication,

plus $145 monthly row membership fee. deductible costs may apply and final cost varies by insurance plan. For safety information about GLP1 medications, including boxed warning, go to row.com slash safety RX only. She loves it freezing. She loves it hot. The pod by eight sleep ends the argument for good, with independent temperature zones that keep both of you sleeping deeper.

Try it at eightsleep.com. Welcome back. We want to turn now to more breaking news. the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates steady in its first rate decision under the leadership of President Trump's new Fed chairman, Kevin Warsh. In a unanimous decision, the central bank announced that interest rates will remain unchanged between 3 and 3.5, 3.7%. Fed officials also hinting that they could see rates go up later this year amid growing concerns about inflation, despite President Trump's repeated demands that rates are lowered. The Fed meeting coming after

Labor Department reported last week that inflation reached 4.2% last month compared to a year earlier. Now, that's the highest rate since 2023. Today's decision also marked the first press conference by Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh, who noted an overhaul of the Fed's policy statement. It's a bit shorter, a bit simpler, and it dispenses with some older language. That statement just gives you the facts as best we can judge it. Absent also is so-called forward guidance, which we agreed was not well suited to the current policy conjuncture. NBC News Business and Data correspondent Brian Chung joins me now.

Great to have you here in person, fresh off the news conference with Kevin Warsh. What were your key takeaways today? Yeah, well, again, the announcement itself wasn't a surprise. We were expecting the Federal Reserve to hold on interest rates. But I think the question is, what do they do from here? You have an environment where the labor market and job gains are steadying. but at the same time you have inflation that has been rocketing up since the summer began, in part, of course, because of the war with Iran. But normally when you have inflation rising,

what does the Federal Reserve do? They usually hike interest rates. So this brand new Fed chair is between the hard place of a president that wants lower interest rates and the rock of an economy that might need interest rate hikes. So we'll have to see how he navigates that in the future. Yeah, I know you'll be covering every twist and turning. You had a chance to press him on wages and the realities of what so many Americans are facing right now. Yeah, well, I mean, Kevin Warsh coming from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, he speaks sometimes in kind of academic language. And so I wanted him to talk to Main Street.

And I asked them the question for people that are going to the store, they notice price tags rising at a faster pace than their wages. That's a big problem. How do you message that if you ran into someone at the store? Here's what he said. When I saw somebody in the grocery store, what I would say to them is that we can, cannot have a very significant effect on particular prices. The price of oil in the markets today,

or even the price of a dozen eggs, that does not have first order consequences to what we're doing. But we do have a really important job there, and it's to make sure that those changes in oil or beef or eggs or milk don't broaden in the economy, don't have second and third order effects. That's our job. That's our commitment. That's our capability. And we're going to deliver on it. And so whether or not that resonates to Main Street is going to be, you know, I think a theme that we'll watch for throughout the rest of his tenure there at the Fed. But again, he's saying we don't target oil. We don't target eggs. And I think that's going to be a challenge, especially with affordability, top of mind for most Americans. And a messaging challenge for the White House Republicans in this midterm election cycle, no doubt. You also learned today, Kevin Warsh announced five new task forces. What's that about? Yeah. And again, I should point out, I mean, it was a real wildcard. All the reporters went into this press conference not knowing what he was going to do. It's a new Fed chair. He decided to change the structure entirely. And he, he announced as part of this press conference that he was going to review essentially five new, you know, initiatives at the Federal Reserve, ranging from things like how they collect data, what type of data they prioritize over other certain types of data. That could be a big one. How they look at inflation,

this new Fed chair suggests that he wants to look at different measures of inflation. But communications, I think, Kristen, is going to be a big one. The statement that the Federal Reserve released alongside their announcement that they're not moving on interest rates was less than half the length of the previous statements under his personal. predecessor Jerome Powell. So he wants to reduce the amount of information. Kevin Warsh says that's making it simpler, but that could also be read as having a little bit more obscurity, obfuscating what the Fed might be doing going forward. Is that something that markets are going to like? That's going to be a really interesting thread to follow as well. Right. Brian Chung, thank you so very much.

Great job getting a question to him. Really appreciate it. We have more news and politics ahead when the panel joins us on Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. Joining me now to discuss today's developments, today's panel, Jasmine Wright, White House correspondent for notice. Democratic strategist Joel Payne and Michael Dubke, former White House Communications Director in the Trump administration during the first term. Thanks to all of you for being here. Jasmine, let me start with you. Your key takeaways having read and listened to the president today, talk about this memorandum of understanding.

Well, from what I read, what I heard, and also the call that senior officials had with reporters, it's clear that the White House and the larger administration are a bit defensive over what is in or what's not in this memorandum of understanding. I think that they believe that it is just the first step to get to those next 60 days of technical conversations in which maybe some of these, like the larger nuclear questions and all the details will be filled in. But you've seen both Vice President JD Vance, a little bit of Donald Trump today, other officials really kind of going across networks, media ecosystems to try to tout what they believe is beneficial and go against the naysayers. But fundamentally, I think you're seeing them on the back foot for a couple of days. And now that this is out, people still don't really like it. Well, respond to that, Mike. And the fact that you're hearing even some Republicans say, this is basically the J.

or the precursor to the JCPOA and that Iran seems more emboldened, has more leverage this time. Well, I think a couple things. I think you're absolutely right that what we saw is, you know, on Sunday there was all this talk about what's in it. And then we had three days of no one knows. And then we get a little bit of the information on it. Look, at this point, it is what we can pull together to move this conflict forward and get us to a point. where the United States can claim credit for dismantling a lot of the military of Iran, moving them beyond the funding of their third-party proxies in the region,

all of that. And there was a very specific language about minimum nuclear material, and that I think was in the second point of the whole thing. What really worries me, and I think this is the long-term problem that they're going to have, and they're going to defend, and you all will be talking about for days to come, is the Strait of Hormuz. That was very unclear. And I think where you see Republicans pushing back on this is that we didn't get a real good

message on the Strait of Hormuz. There's still the potential of a toll booth after the 30 or 60 days. And I think that worries a lot of Republicans because that could shut this whole thing down again. Joel, your reaction. And what if at the end of this, President Trump is? able to get a deal in which Iran turns over its nuclear dust, as he calls it, and commits to not developing a nuclear weapon.

Kristen, bottom line, Donald Trump traded a lot of American credibility around the world. He traded, unfortunately, the lives of those 14 brave members of the armed service, who we lost, traded hundreds, thousands of lives in that part of the world, millions and billions of dollars for a pretty meager advance. in the United States leverage against Iran. And I think that's the story that they're having a hard time defending and that they're having a hard time losing the narrative around. The fact that they are trying to paint this as JD Vance's deal,

as opposed to Donald Trump's deal, is Exhibit A as to why we should be very, very suspicious of whether or not this president and this administration actually liked the deal that they seem to be backed into cutting. What about that? JD Vance's really seems to be the face of this deal. Well, kind of. I mean, I will just say briefly on this. And I thought the president addressed this at his press conference today.

This is a memorandum of understanding. So I think the president's position on this is when we have that final deal in 60 days. Now, he's setting himself up by saying this. But when we have this deal in 60 days, I'll be this electronic signature on this, as opposed to vice president in advance. So we've got an MOU. We all need to recognize that. We've got 60 days or whatever of negotiation to go. Yeah.

Jasmine, are your sources saying anything? about the strategy behind having the vice president, to some extent, own this. Now, look, we should note he's on a book tour. So some of these media appearances have been pre-scheduled. But he was everywhere this week talking about this memorandum of understanding that was coming together.

Yeah, it was a round robin on steroids. Yeah. To be clear. Listen, when I talk to my sources about the vice president, they say one thing is that the president asked him to be in this position. And therefore, he is doing his vice presidential duty. in trying to make the best of it.

I think it's really interesting because we know JD Vance to be a skeptic when it comes to intervention, particularly with Iran. There's been so much reporting about it. He's attested to something like it. The president has even said that he was more interested

in doing this than JD Vance was. And so that is going to be the color that colors all of this for the rest of the 60 days, 90 days, however long it goes. I think the vice president has, in some ways, been defending this bill,

but also perhaps saying, leaving an option open as to what happens next. If there is no deal, what could happen? And I think that that's the reality that the administration feels is that they hope to get a deal in 60 days or 90 days, but they're not exactly sure. And I think that Vice President JD Vance will be a part of that calculus. Donald Trump likes to put his name on everything. Overprice golf resorts on checks, on the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Center. The fact that Donald Trump doesn't want to put his name on his deal should tell you everything you need to know about how he thinks.

Mike, what about that point? What about this idea that JD Vance, if this does not come to fruition, does that in some way cloud any potential future hopes he has for the president? He is tied at the hip. The vice president is tied at the hip per your, what you're saying. He's tied at the hip to the president. Regardless, there's really no other way out for him right now. So I am not surprised. And he is on a book tour. And we need to recognize that. And that's why he's out there. All right, let's shift gears very quickly because the president today threw a little bit of a curveball to the Senate Intelligence Committee, basically pulling temporarily the nomination of Jay Clayton saying, I'm not going to move forward with that until you pass FISA and the Save America Act. John Thune has said there aren't the votes for the Save America Act, this bill to overhaul how elections are run. What are you hearing from the Hill? Well, they are frustrated, and I think you're seeing the president. I mean, just to be very clear here. First of all, the Save America Act in some of the Senate is. something that they, particularly Senate Republicans, have hoped the president would move on after

it's been clear time and time again that there are just not the votes on it. Clearly, he's not doing that. And I think you're seeing the president being very frustrated by this box that both Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats have been putting on him, saying that they're not going to do something. They're not going to vote for this if he does this. And you're seeing that time and time again. And I think you're now seeing the president basically push back on it and say, respond to this. And I think you're going to see that tit for tat go on for quite a very eye.

It's fascinating this tip for town. We haven't seen this in the first year and a half of the president. I think it's just one, it's one ask too many. I thought it was, I mean, if you really step back and you look at this, the Republicans were going to have difficulty with whoever he nominated, except they set up this perfect scenario by putting Bill Pulte out there that when you had this new DNI director being put out there, the Democrats are saying, we'll get it done in three days.

We're ready to go. And I don't really understand this. next, except for the love of the SAVE Act. I don't really understand this because I think he avoided a really contentious hearing that we will probably now have on foreign policy, on national intelligence, on all of this. It all could have been avoided today. Well, Joe Mark Warner said he thought he was going to get confirmed. Yes, he would have faced some tough questions, but likely would have gotten confirmed. Hikes assessment is exactly right. There are a class of Democrats who were dying to get this deal done. I mean, the Mark Warner's, the Gene Cahines, there's an entire

of Democrats within that caucus that will love nothing more than avoid a fight with Donald Trump on this. And the fact that his political judgment was to pick a fight on this shows you that the political judgments off in this White House. All right, guys. Thank you so much. Great conversation. Jasmine, Joel, and Mike really appreciate it. We are back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now. There is much more ahead on NBC News Now.

founder of Angie. When you use Angie for your home projects, you know all your jobs will be done well. Roof repair? Done well. Kitchen sink install? Done well. Deck upgrades? Done well. Electrical upgrade? Done well. Angie's been connecting homeowners with skilled pros for nearly 30 years, so we know the difference between done and done well. Angie, the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find a pro for your project at Angie.com.