Meet the Press NOW — June 4

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. avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one.

You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews, all on the app. Download today.

Welcome to meet the press now. I'm Monica Alba in Washington, where the Trump agenda could be on a collision course with Congress, amid new signs that even members of his own party are willing to buck the president. Right now, President Trump is taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office during an event focused on reducing energy costs. With affordability, a major issue plaguing his party ahead of the midterms. We're keeping a close ear on the president and will bring you any headlines as we get them. All this comes after Congress yesterday delivered a stinging if symbolic rebuke of the president's war with Iran, this time in the House. For Republicans joining Democrats to pass a war powers resolution demanding the president remove U.S. forces from the conflict, those GOP lawmakers speaking out about the need for Congress to reassert their check on the White House. I share the interest in making sure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, but we have to do this in a way. that is done through the use of force authorization that Congress has the exclusive authority over. Congress alone declares war and something that we have to be, you know, certainly protective of.

We have to follow the law. There's a law in the books. The War Powers Act of 73 says 48-hour notification and 60-day concurrence of Congress. We're past 60 days. So you have two choices. You either follow the law or you change the law. You can't violate the law.

That's not an option. I think it sends a good message at the people's house, which represents the people. is tired of this war. I think a lot of his decisions are not popular, and as November approaches, you'll see more bifurcation between the White House and the House of Representatives among Republicans as they try to save the majority here. President Trump this morning lashing out at those lawmakers in a post on social media, calling them grandstanders. But it's not just the president's war with Iran that is facing scrutiny in Congress. Republicans are still looking for assurances that the DOJ

so-called anti-weaponization fund is completely dropped, despite President Trump once again refusing to rule it out yesterday. It's amid that controversy that President Trump's nomination of Todd Blanche, his current acting attorney general, who was once his personal lawyer, will formally lead the DOJ, and that may already be facing some roadblocks, including from Republican Senator Thom Tillis, who serves on the Committee of Jurisdiction.

Can Todd Blanche, when your support, if he gets nominated, I think what we need to do right now is focus on this 726 fund, or he's not going to have a very good time in Judiciary Committee. Just think about what the Democrats would do to him. Do you think I'll have a hard time getting confirmed? Hard to say. I mean, I think, you know, obviously most of our members are pretty deferential to who the President wants in some of these key positions, and he's obviously serving in the role already and clearly has experience in it. So, you know, that'll serve him well.

But, you know, this is an environment where nothing's a safe or a sure bet these days. And Todd Blanche isn't the only Trump administration official facing growing scrutiny on Capitol Hill from his own party. The president's appointment of a top housing official with no intelligence experience, Bill Pulte, to serve as his acting director of national intelligence, continues to rankle lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. It's also now threatening congressional reauthorization of a key surveillance tool for the intelligence community. And amid it all, we have a major programming announcement. President Trump is set to sit down with Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker for an exclusive interview. Highlights from the interview, which will take place tomorrow, will be released prior to Sundays.

Meet the press. We will all be tuning in for that, of course. But before that, and joining me now is NBC's Kelly O'Don. Donald at the White House. NBC's Sahel Kapoor is on Capitol Hill, and NBC's Courtney QB is here with me on set. Thank you all. Kelly, I want to start with what we just noted, which is the president is taking questions right now in the Oval Office. So how closely is the president, is the White House tracking everything that's happening on Capitol Hill today amid all this emerging frustration from those Republican lawmakers after we saw what happened with the Iran

war vote in the House yesterday? Well, good afternoon, Monica, certainly the White House is keeping an eye on that, but does not seem to be particularly concerned about what the pushback may be among Republicans and lawmakers on Capitol Hill when it comes to the issue of the Iran War. The president has really focused on other things. So far hasn't really discussed that in his exchange with reporters. He did apparently make a little bit of news in giving some additional insight on his views related to Bill Pulte. And you had reference that, naming Bill Pulte, who's been in a housing role to serve as the acting director of national intelligence, a role that certainly oversees all of the U.S. government's 18 intelligence

services, and the law that set up that position requires that the person have relevant experience, even in an acting position, which at least on the surface, we have no awareness of Bill Pulte having any such experience. The president today is saying that he is smart, that he likes him, that he might be able to find out information related to election integrity from an intelligence perspective, but also seem to indicate that acting is what he has in mind, not as a permanent position, saying to reporters that he thinks Bill Pulte doesn't want to be in that particular role long term. But we are still having this information come in as the president's taking questions, processing that as we're talking with you.

But we'll keep you posted on any other newsmaking moments that come from the president's Q&A. Acting is interesting, but still probably would be in the role perhaps throughout the midterms, which is, of course, a huge topic of conversation with what you just pointed out. Kelly, thank you for that. Sahel. What do you make of Republicans' willingness to rebuke the president right now? What is the mood like on Capitol Hill among those Republicans? Well, Monica, we have seen in the last 24 hours quite the display of Republican division when it comes to elements of President Trump's agenda. And his priority is just yesterday, as you mentioned, there was the House vote to end the war in Iran. That's the first time.

that happened, a group of Republicans broke with Trump, voted with Democrats on that. And just today, on this major reconciliation bill to fund ICE and CBP, we're seeing several Republicans break away from their own party on key issues for President Trump. That includes an amendment pushed by Democrats to ban the weaponization fund, that $1.8 trillion pot of money. That got the votes of Susan Collins, John Houston and Dan Sullivan, three Republicans, what do they all have in common? they're all up for re-election. These Republicans want nothing to do with this fund by the president. There's also another amendment to redirect the money to an anti-fraud unit. That got a dozen Republicans, including John Cornyn, Bill Cassidy and Thom Tillis, all three Republicans who are not going to be coming back,

either lost their primaries or decided to retire after clashing with Trump. And then yet another one to shut down the ballroom, got six Republicans, including the same three who are up for reelection that I mentioned. Finally, Monica, we saw Senator Bill Cassidy, who recently lost his primary, join a legal brief with the Democrat Cory Booker to argue against the constitutionality of the Weaponization Fund, calling it an immediate and dire threat to our constitutional order and the authority of Congress. And Courtney, specifically on the war powers vote, what does that mean for the war, if anything? Is what we are seeing on Capitol Hill, does that have any actual impact you think on the

administration strategy for this conflict? I mean, we don't know what the administration strategy is right now. it seems it's not even a day to day, but it's almost an hour to hour of change in plan for what the president talks about what he might do going forward with Iran. All we can really do right now is look at the military footprint as some sort of guide to where this could be going. And at this point, what we know is the U.S. military has still maintained a large footprint that has been there essentially in the same numbers, roughly the same numbers, since this war began back in February. In fact, they have actually even increased the number who are there. So it's not clear what President Trump is going to do if he's going to try to keep going forward with this peace negotiations or what or trading of notes back and forth, which is what it really is. Or if there could be a real chance that he goes forward with major combat operations again, all we know is that no matter what, he continues to have everything that he needs there in place if he decides to restart operations.

Big if, but still watching that. And Sahel, back to you, as we're watching the president who has been talking about nominating Todd Blanche to be the attorney general. now in a permanent capacity. But that nomination still has to go through the Senate Judiciary Committee, right? So, and that includes John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, both of whom were essentially ousted by the president. So tell us more about what Todd Blanche's path could actually look like here. Yeah, Monica, you are identifying exactly why this is a tenuous nomination at this point.

or to do away with it. So that's certainly going to be one question. And it is worth noting that Todd Blanche did get confirmed by the Senate last year in March of 2025 with a unanimous Republican vote. But that was at the peak of President Trump's powers. Since then, there are a whole bunch of Republicans who are essentially free agents now and can do whatever they want without having to worry about a political bowback. And, Kelly, let's rewind a little bit here to something that we covered very closely in the first Trump administration,

which was the president's willingness to embrace the acting title, to lean into that. So is the White House at all concerned about Todd Blanche's confirmation? Well, as you remember, when we were both covering that in the first room, the president would often say he likes the sound. of acting. He likes acting. And by that he seemed to be indicating that he liked the ability to play someone in a role without having to go through Senate confirmation, allow them to do the job for a period of time, and see how they do. Now, the acting seems to be wearing off for him when it comes to Todd Blanche. Now, while that may serve the president's purposes in a lot of instances,

sometimes the person in that role really wants the full weight of the cabinet level position. And so for Todd Blanche, he has certainly made it clear that he would like the position. And the president is saying he wants to go forward and put that nomination. What is unclear is how that will be received first in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which begins the process and then to the full Senate. And as we heard John Thune, the majority leader, Republican majority leader, said nothing is a certainty here, even though we acknowledge that Todd Blanche is already doing the work and that they tried to defer to the president's wishes. It is not a sure thing, especially after the primaries where the president has alienated some of the people who have the power of that vote. Bill Cassidy, Senator from Louisiana, who was ousted, Thom Tillis, who's not seeking re-election,

John Cornyn. We don't know exactly how they would vote on this matter, but we do know that the president certainly pushed them aside when they needed some political affirmation from the weight of his endorsement, and they didn't get it. And Corp, the other Trump ally that we've been talking about who's really facing some blowback here is Bill Pulte. I want to read you something that Steve Bannon, the Trump advisor, told NBC News about what he perceives Bill Pulte's mandate to be, which will be to, quote, pick up where his predecessor, Tulsi Gabbard left off, which means, quote, focusing on foreign

threats to U.S. elections. So what would that look like in practice and how much influence do you think Bill Pulte could have on U.S. elections? So here's why I think this is a concern. Bill Pulte has shown a propensity to target presidential. Trump's political allies in previous roles, right? In the role as even acting DNI, okay, not even if he's confirmed, but even as acting, he will have access to a tremendous amount of very sensitive intelligence information. The concern is that he could use that information to target president's ally or president's opponents, but it's not just that.

There is also a concern that he could use it to essentially justify federal oversight of the elections. in some way. So imagine a scenario in which he uses information intelligence that he doesn't share with the American public because it's so highly classified, but he says, we have information that says there needs to be some sort of a federal oversight, whatever that may be. I think one of the biggest concerns that I hear about is the possibility of putting troops at federal, at polling stations in the fall. So that's one of the big concerns here about Bill Pulte. Which the president has not ruled out. When he has been asked about that, he has said we will have to see. Courtney Cuby, thank you so much for

that, Sahel, I do want to come back to you because we nodded to this in the introduction, this idea that Congress right now is trying to reauthorize FISA Section 702, which is a key surveillance tool. Could that get derailed in this entire conversation? It certainly faces a rocky road, Monica. It already was in a difficult position because there has been this perennial battle between privacy hawks and security hawks about how exactly to reauthorize FISA Section 7.2. But the Bill Pulte matter has further complication this severely because he would be in charge of this extraordinary power. And top Democrats have communicated internally that it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for them

to supply enough votes on the Democratic side, which is necessary in order to get this FISA, Section 702 law renewed. So tenuous right now, the fact that Bill Pulte is an ally of Trump associated with, you know, using government powers to investigate his perceived political opponents is not going to help get Democratic votes. And without Democratic votes, it does not have a path. Courtney, let's drill down a little bit more on something that you mentioned, which is what Bill Pulte could do in this role, specifically though when it comes to allies and their willingness to share intel with the U.S., especially sensitive intelligence, do you think that that could have an impact here? Is that something you think we could see a change on, potentially?

Yeah, so one of the reasons that allies will often show a hesitance or even cut back on intelligence sharing is if they're worried that some of their sources and methods could be exposed by information. we've already seen this happen under the Trump administration. You'll remember about a year or so ago last spring, there was a time where some NATO allies were talking about curbing some intelligence sharing with the United States because President Trump was showing increasingly or perceiving to be closer to Vladimir Putin. And they were worried that some of their sources and methods, their collection methods, might somehow be exposed to Russia or to the public. And so because we have someone like Bill Pulte, potentially in this very sensitive role, he may not have a recognition. recognition or an understanding of just how sensitive some of that information could be and how

if, in fact, he were to release some of it, it could put people's literally put people's lives in danger among some of the U.S. allies. So I wouldn't be surprised. I've not heard anything about that at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the kind of thing that we see going forward if, in fact, he ends up in the job for an extended period of time. Yeah, we'll be watching that closely. Very high stakes. Thank you to Kelly, Sahil, and Courtney. We are continuing to keep an on the president in the Oval Office as he takes questions. But coming up, crossroads and midterms, I'll go one-on-one with a freshman House Democrat who just beat a longtime Texas congressman in a rare incumbent versus incumbent runoff as the party faces questions on its past and future.

You're watching Meet the Press now. The world of business is constantly evolving. And Comcast business keeps you totally in step, with secure, AI-backed networking in more than 100 countries. They're powering over 90% of the Fortune 500 and millions of small businesses. That's a lot of muscle. And behind it all, thousands of experts answering your call at 2 a.m., like it's 2 p.m. One partner, powering how business gets done for companies around the globe. When you add it all up, no one does business, like Comcast business.

This message comes from DSW, with their semi-annual sales starting now and featuring lots of deals. At designer shoe warehouse, they'll give you something to brag about, like 40% off clearance in all DSW stores or an extra 10% off clearance at DSW.com. Find shoes that get you at prices that get your budget. DSW, let us surprise you.

Breathe in. Feel the sense of calm that comes from having up to $300 in overdraft protection with GoTo Bank. Now? Did you say $300? Yes. Now, back to our breathing. If I overspend my balance, go-to-bank has my back up to $300.

Yes. Can we breathe out now? Less worries, more Zen, with over $300 in overdraft protection. Tap to open an account today. Eligible direct deposits and opt-in required for overdraft protection. Fees, terms, and conditions apply. Welcome back. Election week continues after Tuesday night's midterm primaries, and we're still awaiting results in two key California races.

The race for governor remains too early to call with former HHS secretary Xavier Becerra, billionaire activist Tom Steyer, and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, competing for two spots in the general election. And in the Los Angeles mayoral race, incumbent Karen Bass has punched her ticket for the general election, but whether she'll face a Republican reality TV star or a Democratic City Council member is not yet determined. It comes amid a frenzied stretch of key primaries across a number of House and Senate races involving states that have also been shaken up by redistricting, the two biggest, California and Texas.

Joining me now is Texas Democratic Congressman Christian Meneffey, fresh off his own primary win last week, Congressman, thank you for being here. And that is where I want to start with your victory over fellow congressional, fellow Congressman Al Green in last week's Texas runoffs. What do you believe was the deciding factor for voters in your district? And what does it say about the district and the direction of your party? Thank you so much for having me on. Voters in Texas 18th congressional district, this is a Houston-centric district.

What they knew was Donald Trump and Governor Greg Abbott out in Texas. They created this situation by redrawing the lines and forcing two Democratic leaders into the same district. And when I was going throughout the district and what I heard from people is they absolutely love Congressman Al Green. but they just selected someone who's going to take the district into the future. Both of us had high favorability. Both of us have done the work in the community, but they were just looking for someone to carry that torch into the future. But they would not have been in this situation,

were it not for President Trump trying to force seats in Congress to be stripped away from a democratic basis from black and brown voters and handed to the Republican Party because he knows his policies are not popular enough to sell to the American people. And you did face Congressman Green because of last year's redistricting in Texas. Your district remains solidly blue, but what do you make of Democrats' chances across the rest of the state in November? I think there's going to be a sea change that comes in the state of Texas. If you look at what

happened in a Senate district out in Tarrant County, we had extreme success in a special election because people in Texas are sick and tired of being sick and tired under this president and under this governor. We have a set of folks who are running statewide, some exciting candidates from James Talarico to Gina Hanna Hosa running for governor. And I think that we're going to be able to bring out folks. We're going to turn them out and you're going to see a lot of people who supported the Republican Party in the last couple of elections flip over to the Democratic side. But it's also incumbent upon us those folks who serve in office in strong Democratic districts to make sure that we're turning people out. And when you look at the war in Iran that President Trump has started a war that nobody asked for,

when you look at the impact of tariffs on the average American, folks in my district and throughout the state of Texas are tired of this president making life more expensive for them. We're going to get that message out to voters and hopefully flip the state. And Congressman, other Democratic states have redrawn their maps in response to Texas, including California, where we are still waiting for those results to come in. But do you worry if redistricting could backfire on Republicans in Texas? It could also backfire in other Democratic states? Democrats across the country are doing what we have to do to fight fire with fire.

This fight started with President Trump knowing that the one big ugly bill could not be sold to the American people because it was the greatest wealth transfer in modern American history and it cut snap benefits and access to Medicaid. And that's why he told governors to go find him more Republican seats to effectively pencil-whip representation, stripping communities of their voices. But Democrats had to get down to fight back against this to meet fire. with fire. And I fully support that. But let's be clear, in a race to the bottom, it's always going to be minority underserved communities that lose. And that's why when Democrats get power back,

I want to ban partisan gerrymandering throughout this country so that we're never in a situation where politicians are picking their voters instead of the other way around. The last time that that was before the House of Representatives, you didn't see a single Republican supported. And I'd argue the reason is because they want to continue gerrymandering across this country. But I'm going to do every single thing I can as a member of Congress to put us in a situation where we have nonpartisan redistricting commissions, data scientists, smart people, not politicians, drawing these maps. So if Democrats do take back control of the House of Representatives, do you think the party should push for a ban on redistricting?

100%. I would fully support a ban on partisan gerrymandering throughout this country. In a perfect world, we would be drawing as many districts as possible from 48 to 52% in each party. And the reason is because we've created a system right now where because of primary elections and gerrymandered districts, most members of Congress have no need. There's no requirement to reach across the aisle and hear from all of their constituents and try to best serve each and every one of them. Nobody should want a situation where 90-some-a percent of the seats in the United States Congress are drawn to hell and will be decided in a partisan primary. I think we should have representation that requires us to talk to all of our constituents, to learn from all of them, and to try to. to best serve them regardless of their political party. But we're not seeing that right now.

So I would fully support a ban on partisan gerrymander. Let's talk more broadly about the Democratic agenda if the Democrats do take back the House. Leader Hakeem Jeffries told CNBC that at this moment, the party is not focused on impeaching the president if they regain the majority. Should Democrats commit to taking it off the table entirely? Absolutely not. What Democrats should commit to and what I'm committed to is investigating the the president and his cabinet. We have a host of committees that have investigative authority, and we've already been using that muscle while we're in the minority. You saw cabinet officials like

Kristi Noem, like Pam Bondi, come before House committees. And because Democratic members were so prepared and held their feet to the fire, many of these folks were forced out of the Trump administration because of the revelations that became clear from those committee meetings. When we get the majority, we should be active in investigating the Trump administration that includes the president and it includes all of his cabinet officials. And if those investigations yield evidence that lead to impeachment, then we should absolutely be prepared to do that. We should not be taking that off the table because if we have a president who is committing high crimes and misdemeanors, and that's what the evidence shows, we have a duty as the United States Congress to hold

the president accountable, especially after the United States Supreme Court said that impeachment is the only process to hold a president accountable when he's committing crime. So I look forward to investigating the president when we get the majority back and to taking all steps that flow from the evidence. Let me just ask, do you worry that that could distract from other agenda items, especially if Democrats don't also retake control of the Senate? No, it's 2026. Most people get their news from social media and spend their time doing four or five things at the same time. Democrats in Congress have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We're going to present our affirmative vision for this country, one that makes America less expensive, that goes after Trump's tariffs and his warrant Iran, which have raised costs on the average American, one which puts money back in the working person's pocket. But we have to be able at the same time hold this president accountable.

That is part of the job of Congress. We have three co-equal branches of government. We've seen that the United States Supreme Court has already become beholden to President Trump, and the United States Congress has to assert its independence. and that means holding this president accountable through the committee process. And I trust that folks throughout this country are going to expect us to walk and chew gum and are going to be happy when we do so. Congressman, I also want to ask you about your recent violation of the Stock Act. You told Notice it was the result of a technological misstep and that you weren't trying to hide anything.

You said that do you do support a ban on congressional stock trading so you understand the sensitivity around these disclosures? But what do you say to Americans who are skeptical of Congress's ability to police itself when it comes to this? We shouldn't be policing ourselves. In fact, I campaigned on no stock trading in Congress, and my trades were to sell all of my stock. I got sworn in February 2nd, and in early February, I divested from all stocks that I owned

prior to serving in Congress. It was my first time navigating the online system, and so I completed the disclosure, but there's a final submit button that you have to click, and I didn't click that. So I found out early this week and immediately disclosed and was happy. to be completely transparent about that. It won't happen again now that I've navigated the stock process, but I've already co-sponsored a bill that would ban members of the United States Congress from trading stock because that simply should not be happening in this country.

We shouldn't be able to trade cryptocurrency. We shouldn't be able to trade stock. And people should expect that folks who serve in the United States Congress are only benefiting financially from our salary and not finding outside sources of benefiting ourselves when we're getting insider information from serving in this role. Congressman Christian Menafee, thanks so much for your time today. We appreciate it.

Thank you very much for having me. And up next, sources tell NBC news that John Bolton, President Trump's former national security advisor turned critic, has reached an agreement with federal prosecutors on allegations he retained and transmitted national security information. What it means for John Bolton and other Trump critics, we will talk to the panel all about it next. This is Meet the Press now.

This message comes from DSW, with their semi-annual sales starting now and featuring lots of deals. At designer shoe warehouse, they'll give you something to brag about, like 40% off clearance in all DSW stores, or an extra 10% off clearance at DSW.com. Find shoes that get you at prices that get your budget. DSW, let us surprise you. Breathe in. Feel the sense of calm that comes from how. having up to $300 in overdraft protection with GoToBank. Now... Did you say $300? Yes. Now, back to our breathing.

So if I overspend my balance, GoToBank has my back up to $300. Yes. Can we breathe out now? Less worries, more Zen with over $300 in overdraft protection. Tap to open an account today. Eligible direct deposits and opt-in required for overdraft protection. Fees terms and conditions apply. In the U.S., there's a break in every 26 seconds. But when intruders step near,

Simply Safe home security steps up. Stop. This is Simply Safe. Police are on the way. Using AI alerts, U.S.-based live agents help deter break ins. SimplySaf, no long-term contracts. Save 50% on your new system with professional monitoring at Simplysafe.com slash XXM or with promo code SXM. Outdoor deterrence requires a Simplysafe Active Guard outdoor protection plan starting at $49.99 a month.

Visit Simplysafe.com slash licenses for alarm licensed information, Tennessee 2012. Welcome back. Former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton has reached a plea deal over allegations he mishandled classified information. Two sources familiar with the matter telling NBC News that John Bolton will plead guilty to one count of retention of national security information and will be rearranged later this month. He faces a sentence ranging from probation to up to 60 months in prison. One source says he has also agreed to pay more than $2 million in restitution. John Bolton is on the list of the president's political opponents that the president has demanded that the Justice Department investigate, which the DOJ has done in many of those cases. Joining me now is today's panel, Shelby Talcott, White House correspondent for semifor, Arshi Saddiki, Democratic strategists, and founder of Bellwether Government Affairs, and Michael Dubke, White House Communications Director during the first Trump administration. So I do want to note, guys, the president is still taking questions.

he is still in the Oval Office. And I want to start on something that he was asked about Shelby, that he's been weighing in on, which is this idea that he referred to yesterday as well with the war powers vote by the House. He called it meaningless. But should he be more concerned about what it represents, even if it is largely symbolic? I think so, because it indicates a larger problem, which is that there are a growing number of Republicans who are frustrated with what's going on with the conflict in Iran. And that matters at some point, right?

There's not a huge margin for Republicans for the president with regards to really anything in Congress. So, you know, he says it's meaningless, but at some point, you know, he has to be thinking, well, more and more Republicans are coming out against this. I have to figure out a way to not only end this conflict formally, but also lock down the support of these Republicans who are really pretty staunch allies of the president. And are she on the flip side of? it because this is symbolic and it doesn't have any real actual teeth to it. Do you think that Republicans would have voted for it if it had?

Or is it just so that they can kind of make this statement, but nothing actually comes from it? It is in many ways a symbolic vote, but I would give credit, especially for somebody like Congressman Davidson, who is in a solidly red district. And he basically said this is a constitutional issue, separations, the powers. So I think it was a good day for the Constitution. But then we also have moderates, which is a great, great vote for Republican moderates to say they're doing something. But I think the bigger issue just taking a step back is the midterms and how unpopular this war is and how there is a direct consequence on how Americans are paying

the price for this war. And Michael, exactly to Arsci's point, if we talk about those four Republicans, Thomas Massie, he already lost, right? In his primary, Brian Fitzpatrick, Warren Davidson, who won their primaries, Tom Amy Coney Barrett, who doesn't have a challenger in his primary. So does the president's kind of inability to exact revenge play into these particular decisions from these House members? Well, yes, because we've got, we've got, you know, most of the filing deadlines are passed, most of the primaries are passed. But what we've seen here, I think, is where the president is going for long-term gain with a lot of his endorsement is going to cause him some short-term pain over the next five months. And with Thomas Massie voting, however he wants to do, we can talk about the

Senate in a minute, I'm sure. And then you've got Fitzpatrick, who also was threatened by the president. You know, he's got to worry about these individuals that he's come out. after that for whatever reason, the primaries left or they won or they've lost and they're still here for five months, he's got to worry about those votes in the short term. Shelby, let's go back to the John Bolton of it all. In your view, what message does this send to some of the president's other political opponents? I mean, I think it bolsters the argument that at least some of these prosecutions could result in something other than a dismissal.

And so, you know, if I'm somebody else who is being prosecuted, I'm looking at that fact and getting a little nervous. And I've talked to administration officials and Trump allies who are unsurprisingly pointing to this plea deal as evidence, as an argument that, well, we said all along that he broke the law and everybody called us crazy. Just wait until some of these future prosecutions. And Michael jump on that. I mean, what do you think it sends as a message? And were you surprised at all? I was surprised by the fact that John. John Bolton had a level of stupidity here that is kind of beyond that this, this wasn't like going after

the Biden's, you know, classified documents in his Corvette or Trump's classified documents that he took in boxes at Maralago. This was an actual breach of what John Bolton should have known. You do not take classified information, transmit it on an email that eventually it sounds like got hacked by the Iranians. So this, to me, this is almost an analysis. outlier because this is real criminal behavior. He got caught. There was some national security aspects to this. And I think some of these other, this, to me, this is an outlier from the other, you know, pictures that you threw up on the screen. Some of the other case. The fact pattern was troubling. Yeah. Staying on the Justice Department for a second, do you think that Todd Blanche

would make a good attorney general as the president making a good move in converting his once personal lawyer into his perhaps forever attorney general here? When I worked with the president, he was very upset with Pete Sessions, who was the Attorney General because Pete Sessions was... Jeff Sessions. Jeff Sessions. Yes, not a senator, not a House member. Jeff Sessions was not going far enough for him. You know, Pam Bondi seemed to be, but then she's now no longer in that department.

I think, you know, Todd Blanche has really shown some propensity to do what the president's asking for. And so from the president's point of view, this is the right. right move. And to that effect, that's one of the things that the president has said privately and publicly, he really likes about Todd Blanche. He feels like Todd Blanche is much more aggressive and much more effective than Pam Bondi was able to be. And I remember interviewing Todd Blanche a few months ago and pressing him on the question of, should the DOJ always sort of take the advice when the president brings somebody a name to the DOJ and says, I want you to look into this person or I want you to investigate? And his answer was effectively yes. And that's something that the president likes and wants in his attorney general. Plus the loyalty factor, right? That's key for him. So, Archie, if it's not going to be Todd Blanche here, potentially, are there other, when the Democrats look at this, are there other names who they look at and say, well, that might

be potentially even more concerning? Is it possible that this is the best outcome for Democrats or how do Democrats view this potential nomination for the permanent position? As you know, Democrats have looked at DOJ very differently. They actually try to, presidents have tried to create kind of a step back and leave with independence. Because if you don't have, if you don't have confidence in the DOJ system, then it is, it undermines the whole system.

So I think for Democrats, having that independence is so critical, but that runs counter to the president's approach to this, generally. So that will be the key. If I did, the funny part to that is that when I was there, the president would always say, why can't I get an air colder? Why can't I get an Eric Holder who just did what Obama wanted him to do? I mean, that was his image of that DOJ. I will say, though, I've had conversations during that time with the White House where they're like,

well, we can't talk to Holder on this because it's just offered it. I'm sure. That was his perspective. Now that the president seems to have to this position. Shelby, do you think he gets through, though? I mean, he did on a party line vote when he was in the deputy position. I think it remains to be seen, but I do think he has a very tough road. ahead. I think that there's a lot of skeptics. And to your point earlier, there are Republicans

who have no problem bucking the president because the president didn't back them and they're not running again or they've lost. And so I think that makes it much more difficult. But I can see a world in which the president is able to wrangle enough people and get them in line theoretically. I think it's going to be hard and he's going to want to do it before the midterms. And what about the politics of the anti-weaponization fund? I mean, Todd Blanche is the one who came out and said, we are not pursuing that period. The president's kind of leaving a little bit of wiggle room, but how might that affect his nominations since senators clearly won an answer that they are not pursuing that?

Well, I mean, let's be clear. The president did say that was a beautiful idea, not is a beautiful idea. So yesterday, we'll see, we'll abide by the courts, but we'll see. And then we also saw the votes during voter ramma, which I think is still going on right now. The votes against the anti-weaponization fund are there and represent. Republicans seem to be pushing back against the White House and they're showing it on the floor of the Senate right now. Archie, how do you think Democrats have played the anti-weaponization fund and trying to kind of attach these amendments and seeing if there's more they can do to try to make sure it doesn't become a reality in some fashion?

It's beyond troubling. It's a, you know, it's a friends and family slash fund. And then also with the midterms coming up, there's a sense that a lot of these transgressors on January 6th, there was no accountability. So when you have an administration that's talking about, the U.S. Postal Service looking at who can get a mail-in ballot, all of these pieces. It's one more piece of the puzzle is that are you creating the slush fund where all sorts of things can happen to those who are true blue to the president. Arshi, Michael, Shelby, thank you so much for the conversation today. So many different topics to dive into. Thank you. And after the break, Secretary of State Marco Rubio's warning to Washington that the risk of

escalation in the Russia-Ukraine war is real and intensifying as the House moves to provide Kyiv with billions of dollars in military aid. Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S. joins us next. Stay with us on Meet the Press now.

Welcome back. In another rebuke to President Trump, the House will soon be voting on a bill to provide new military aid to Ukraine after six Republicans joined Democrats on Wednesday to force the legislation to the floor. The bill, which would provide $8 billion in military financing loans to Ukraine, among other provisions, marks the first major attempt by Congress to give aid to Ukraine since President Trump began his second term. It comes as both Russia and Ukraine have escalated aerial attacks on each other's territory, with Russia launching hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles against Kiev and other Ukrainian cities earlier this week.

And Kiev attacking deep into Russia, hitting an oil depot in the state. city of St. Petersburg, ahead of President Vladimir Putin's annual economic conference there. President Trump just moments ago suggesting peace talks could resume between the countries after President Vladimir Putin said he'd be willing to make compromises if Ukraine does the same. President Clinton said today that he was willing to make compromises that you requested to end the war with Ukraine if Ukraine was willing to make similar compromises. What were the compromises that you asked Vladimir Putin? Well, I'd rather not say, because Peter asked me, I think it was meant as a little wise guy question, but I'm not sure.

But I'm very responsible when that happens. It's going to happen. They're going to both make compromises. I suggested those compromises. And, you know, we've had a lot to do with it. We'd love to see their two very good people. They're two very, I mean, incredible countries, beautiful countries. They've got to stop.

And joining me now is Ukraine's ambassador to the United States. I want to start just with what we heard from President Trump. He suggested that President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Vladimir Putin could soon meet. Is that something you feel is realistic? Hello, Monica. Thank you for having me here on air. This presumption comes out of just like hours ago released open letter of President Volodymyr Zelensky to President Vladimir Putin and potentially the Russian people, where he actually underscores the consequences of the nearly half of the President Vladimir Putin's term in the aggression with Ukraine.

And he suggests to have a meeting and to have the discussion between Ukraine and Russia. And this is something the President Trump is aware of and was commenting right away in the White House right now. And President Vladimir Putin also told reporters today that he was ready to make some compromises for a peace deal at the request of President Trump provided Ukraine do the same. We have heard some similar language before, but do you see this as an opening for these peace talks to really start up again in earnest? Well, definitely. There was a desire to negotiate or make compromises. there was like literally zero obstacles to that. Ukraine has been demonstrating in its openness and flexibility

in terms of whatever format was suggesting, including by the U.S. president, to facilitate the talks. But it's actually not something that evolved in the real outcome because basically there has never been a real intention on the aggressor side. And I think that the letter, which has been released by, President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the very fact that Ukraine and ending the war in Ukraine remains, one of the key priorities of this administration, gives a new wind of opportunity to the process.

And actually, the capabilities of Ukraine to deprive Russia from the ability to attack Ukrainian citizens, kill more Ukrainian people and families, they really become very well heard and seen and faced by Russia on their territory. And I think that's another element of pressure that forces put him to come back and seek for the other option of the dialogue. And I want to turn to Ukraine's increased drone attacks against Russia, including on that oil depot that we mentioned in St. Petersburg. What is the strategy behind these kinds of attacks? Well, this is absolutely, if we would be a military people with you, this would really not be a question to us. because basically first, Ukraine deprives Russian Federation from the fuel of war, which is actually the fuel, but also the capabilities which allow Russia to benefit

from the waivers of sanctions, to benefit from the sale of their products abroad and gaining the resources and the financial capabilities to finance the war and continue the aggression. The other priority actions Ukraine is taking on the Russian territory, depriving Russia from the military capabilities which enable Russian attacks into the territory of Ukraine. I just need to give you a number, a couple of numbers. Just over the last two weeks, Russia attacked Ukraine with 2,700 drones and 1,500 guided missiles. Every successful attack of Ukraine on the military targets in the Russian Federation decreases the capabilities of the Russia. attack Ukraine, to have the bombs on Ukrainian cities, on the kindergartens and the schools.

Over the last night, there were like four hospitals were directly targeted by Russian bombs. And the more successful Ukraine in deep strikes on the Russian territory, the more safer Ukrainian people are. And so, Ambassador, does Ukraine intend to strike deeper into Russia then? Is that what you're saying? Is any Russian city specifically off limits? Well, we're not in a priority of targeting the cities. We're just targeting something that enables Russian aggression. And as long as this aggression is lasting, we will use every possible option to defend ourselves, to defend our people.

And we are not able to watch our kids dying, our families being deprived of their homes. And this is the very effective mean of making sure that we can save ourselves. cities. And again, we have making a step towards the dialogue. The president of Ukraine has openly published a letter and sent it formally to the criminal leader of the Russian Federation killing Ukrainian people. And I think this is a step towards the dialogue. This is where we should make sure that we can stop any aggression, be it launched by Russian Federation or anybody by dialogue. And I want to play something for you that Marco Rubio told Congress this week. Let's listen to that. We remain ready to play any role we can in that context of bringing a piece about because we think

the war in Ukraine, devastating war, has no military solution. It can only be solved through a diplomatic route and it's been unfruitful. Do you agree that this war cannot be solved on the battlefield? Absolutely. It has been already like, a million times. And actually, if you would just trace the public statements of the Russian president, even though he was given to President Trump over the phone calls, he never reached any military objective, even publicly declared not speaking about the military, militarily when. And I would highly agree with Marco Rubio that this war is devastating. And this devastating, first and foremost, for Ukrainian people.

this aggression which should have never been started. This is attacks which we should have never been faced. And this is a generation of Ukrainians. We should never remember the war. But the war is there. And diplomatic efforts. And U.S. clear leadership on that is something where we see the pathway. And we hope that the renew momentum created at this point will help the U.S. government

to find innovative ways to facilitate the diplomatic efforts. And in the final moments we have left, the White House and much of the world has been focused on the war with Iran. Do you feel that Ukraine has been forgotten because of that? Absolutely not. I can assure you that even throughout the old period of time when the operation has been started in Iran, the continued dialogue between the American invoice and negotiators was taking place with Ukrainian delegation. We had a number of exchanges of the prisoners of war, and we had a so-called ceasefire on the 9th of May, which enabled a Russian leader to have a small parade on the Red Square.

So there are like so many things which has happened throughout this time. But unfortunately, we're so far yet from seeing the war coming to an end, and I'm sure that there is a way to continue this dialogue. but although there's not too much on the high lines, I can assure you that as the ambassador, I have the understanding that Ukraine remains a priority. Ambassador Stefan Nishina, thank you for your time. And still to come, gold bars, nuclear subs, and government secrets.

We have brand new reporting on the fallout from the ongoing criminal investigation of a former top CIA official ahead of a key and potentially secretive court hearing tomorrow. That story's next. I'm Meet the Press now.

Welcome back. We turn now to the latest in the investigation into a former CIA officer who was arrested last month after 40 million in gold bars, 2 million in cash, and several high-end Rolexes were found at his home. David Rush is set to appear in court tomorrow for a detention hearing,

but the Department of Justice is now asking to hold part of that hearing in a secure room and under seal to protect classified information. It comes as NBC News is learning that Rush worked as a CIA liaison to the Pentagon for a sensitive nuclear submarine program and was brought on at the request of the deputy defense secretary, according to three former officials with knowledge of his involvement. NBC News is also learning that the CIA put senior officials on leave over their hands. handling of Russia's request for money, according to people familiar with the decisions. And joining me now is NBC News Intelligence Reporter Dan DeLuce, who is behind this new reporting with our national security team. So, Dan, I want to start there on that shocking headline. What more can you tell us about that report?

You have several CIA officials being put on administrative leave over this case with questions about how they handled this case, how promptly they responded to. potential flags, potential alarms about the CIA officer who was found with all these gold bars in his home and all that cash. So there's just a huge amount of questions now about exactly what was going on, how it was handled, and also how their security vetting failed in the first place because he's accused of having basically lied about his resume and his education. For a long time, right? And we mentioned this hearing tomorrow that I guess is going to take place in a secure location and under seal.

How unusual is that, Dan? It's pretty unusual, but maybe not unusual when you have a CIA officer in such a kind of sensitive case, right? So it's very typical that the government does not want anything classified, spilling out in a court hearing. And that argument tomorrow

will not be about his guilt or not or innocence. It will be whether he should remain in detention because at the moment the charge is fairly minor, it's, you know, timesheet fraud. They haven't got into these other accusations. So his lawyers will say, you know, he doesn't have a criminal record, please release him pending the proceedings. The government, I think, will say absolutely not given the accusations. And you've been digging into him. What else should we know about him, his background, and his

ability to get these gold bars? Well, I've talked to a lot of former CIA officers, and they're kind of bewildered, actually. It's not unusual for large amounts of cash to move around that agency abroad because, of course, often we are paying informers foreign agents to give the U.S. That's fairly standard. What's not standard is a huge amount of gold bars flowing into someone's home in Virginia. So we don't even know whether that was truly approved by the agency. It might have been a purchase.

The other thing is he was in the Science and Technology Department, and he was working on this submarine program. So that raises a lot of possibilities. Incredible details broken by NBC News. Dan DeLose, thank you so much for that. And we are back tomorrow with much more Meet the Press Now. And as we mentioned, if it's Sunday, Kristen will have an exclusive interview with President Trump only on Meet the Press. There's more ahead now on NBC News Now.

Your phone is your lifeline, calling your kid to say goodnight, waiting on a job callback, or just sending a meme to your best friend when it's been that kind of day. Wherever life takes you, the TextNow app keeps you connected for free. Get a real phone number, unlimited talk and text, and 5G data for your favorite apps, all for $0 a month. No fixed contracts, no hidden fees, no panic when bills pile up, just phone service that's there when it matters most. TextNow, we've got your back. Download TextNow in your app store today. Wireless plans require the purchase of a SIM card.

Visit TextNow.com returns and conditions.