Meet the Press NOW — April 13

There's a pill version of OZMPIC. Hello, I'm OZMPIC. And I'm other GLP-1s, kind of like him. Hey, did I hear there's a pill version of OZMPIC? Yep, you sure did. Ask your doctor about which FDA-approved uses of the OZempic pen or pill may be right for you. Call 1833-OZMPIC or visit OZMPIC. To view the medication guide and learn more about OZMPIC-Semaglite tablets, 9 milligrams,

and OZMPIC-Semaglite injection, 2 milligrams. There's a pill version of OZMPIC. Game day at my place is kind of a big deal. If I'm grilling, chilling, and watching hoops, my outdoor patio setup better be ready to play. That's where Wayfair wins. From patio seating and umbrellas to grills and grilling accessories, Wayfair's got it all, and it shows up fast.

I'm talking championship level fast and easy delivery. So level up your grill game and your outdoor chill game and head to Wayfair.com now to get your outdoor space ready for the season.

Welcome to meet the press now. I'm Kelly O'Donnell in Washington, and of course that was the closing bell on Wall Street. We were watching how the market would react today as the U.S. began a blockade on Iranian ports. After those peace negotiations between the U.S. and Iran broke down this weekend. without a deal to end the war. Markets rallying to close higher by about a half a percent, while oil prices continue to hover around $100 a barrel, as the safety and status of the Strait of Hormuz remains a question right now.

After President Trump ordered a naval blockade on all maritime traffic to and from Iran's shores. The Pentagon noting, however, it will not block other ships from going through the strait. Iran's armed forces calling the restrictions illegal and amounting to piracy. Now, in a social media post today, President Trump also warning any Iranian ship that comes close to the U.S. blockade will be, quote, immediately eliminated. The president speaking to reporters outside the Oval Office today about this move. We can't let a country blackmail or extort the world because that's what they're doing. They're really blackmailing the world. We're not going to let that happen.

Other countries are going to also. Which countries, sir? We don't need other countries, frankly, but they've offered the services. We'll let it be known probably tomorrow. So no answer there yet, but the president today also discussing the status of the talks with Iran following Vice President JD Vance's 21-hour closed-door negotiations in Islamabad Saturday. The White House saying the talks ended because Tehran would not give up its nuclear ambit. Last night, the president said he didn't care whether Iran returned to the negotiating table,

but today he claimed his administration was contacted by the, quote, right people and insisting Iran does want to make a deal. Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. And we agreed to a lot of things, but they didn't agree to that. And I think they will agree to it. I'm almost sure of it. In fact, I am sure of it. If they don't agree, there's no deal. They'll never be a deal. Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. and we're going to get the dust back. We'll get it back either. We'll get it back from them or we'll take it. The deal is not reached by the end of the ceasefire.

Does your threat from before still stand? Yeah, I don't want to comment on that, but it won't be pleasant for them. Let me put it at that one. Now, we don't know who the president was referring to, and Iran has made no new claims publicly about wanting a deal with the Iranian president saying the only way an agreement could be reached

as if the Trump administration gives up its totalitarianist approach. Now, meanwhile, the White House continues grappling with the politics of war. According to a new CBS-UGO poll, 64% of Americans disapprove of the president's handling of this conflict. And President Trump, for the first time, acknowledges that gas prices could remain elevated heading into the midterm elections, even as his party is increasingly concerned about affordability issues. So do you believe the price of oil and gas will be lower before the midterm elections? I hope so. I mean, I think so. It could be. It could be the same or maybe a little bit higher.

But it should be around the same. I think this won't be that much longer. Joining me now, members of our NBC News team, White House correspondent Julie Sirkin, and senior national security correspondent Courtney Kube. Glad to have you both here. Julie, let me start with you. What are you hearing from sources there about what the president hopes to accomplish with this naval blockade. Well, Kelly, when you were playing that bite from the president saying the only thing the Iranians haven't agreed to is giving up their nuclear weapons program, that's not exactly true because we know that Iran also hasn't agreed to reopen that critical strait of her moves.

When I asked the president about it on Saturday, he was clearly frustrated. He asked me, how do I know that? But it was clear by Sunday that they didn't do that because that's when the president had issued this threat of a barcade this morning at 10 a.m., according to Central. command, that became a reality. What he's really hoping to do is take away the Iranian's last remaining leverage point, their biggest leverage point, this critical waterway that you see gas, oil, fertilizer, helium so much passed through. And the president intended to counter that blockade with his own blockade of Iranian ports on that straight, intended to essentially

cut off the Iranian revenue stream for the oil and gas that they sell to the limited number of countries. The president's saying it's going to be all in or all out. And it's the president who says that the U.S. will decide if Iran can make money or they can't. Some of the things we've been hearing the president say really amount to trying to either hype the situation or set expectations around these negotiations. What do you sense between what the president is saying and where there might be actual movement, if any, in these negotiations with Iran? Yeah, it's a really good question, Kelly.

And it's interesting you say that because the president in the White House also say there's a difference between what the Iranians are saying publicly and what they are saying privately at the negotiating table. So the president claims, as you mentioned, that he heard from the right people this morning from Iran, a U.S. official telling NBC news that there's continued engagement between U.S. and Iran, though after that 21-hour meeting that the vice president had, we still know there are a number of red lines that were not agreed to, that nuclear enrichment program, reopening the street, the missile, ballistic missile program that we know Israel, a U.S. ally had asked the president to focus on months ago when Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White House, all of those extremely important. But that ceasefire is soon approaching that deadline, April 21st,

when the clock would run out on that two-week ceasefire, the president hinting that Iran may face grave consequences if they don't come to the table. But I think it's just so important. This ceasefire has been hinging on the straight of Ramos reopening. Iran has refused to do so, and yet we see the ceasefire holding as fragile as it is. And one of the things we're noticing is that Iran's side is sort of playing the social media game as well as certainly the president often does. There was an important quote today from the head of their negotiating team. Enjoy the current pump figures referring to gas prices with the so-called blockade. Soon you'll be nostalgic for four to five dollar gas. That gives you a sense of how they are sort of pushing it right back in the face of the administration.

What is the White House saying about concerns the public has and in the political landscape when, gas prices are higher and not coming right down. The president acknowledged yesterday that they could be even higher when it comes to the midterm elections. He was asked on Fox News about that. He said, hopefully they will stay the same, but certainly not promising that they will lower. There's been a 38% increase for the cost of gas, the national average, from when the war

started in February to this point now. So a monumental increase for the president's supporters and for his people, maybe that he's trying to attract, or Republicans are hoping to keep in their. corner when it comes to the midterm elections. Look, from my conversations on Capitol Hill and with various Republicans, we know that they want the focus to be on the economy. The president is holding multiple events, touting no tax on tips, no tax on overtime. We saw a door dash delivery worker pop up at the White House today as well as the president tries to make a point about that. But for Americans, it's really hard to focus on the wins that the president is trying to put in

front of them when they're going to the gas pump and paying so much more to fill up their car or whatever it may be. So certainly the president wants to wrap up this. this conflict, wants to get to a place where he can tell the economy once again heading into the midterms. And really interestingly, Kelly, that tweet that you showed was from the parliamentary speaker who was in the room with JD Vance all weekend long. That's an in-your-face moment. Thank you, Julie. We appreciate your updates. And let me turn now to Courtney Kuby, who's here. And you always help us to understand more about how is this actually working with your expertise from the Pentagon. So we're talking about a naval

blockade. It's not of the entire straight. It is designated locations within. How is this working? Does the U.S. have all the resources it needs to carry this out? So the U.S. has a number of Navy ships already there that they could carry out a lot of this and they have enough

Marines and personnel that if they need to do boarding. So stop a ship, board it, maybe search it, maybe seize it. They do have enough for a select number of ships. Not the number of the 100 plus that used to go through the strait before the war started, but a select number.

But what's really critical here is it's not clear how exactly this is going to play out. We've been watching all day since it started at 10 o'clock this morning, Eastern Time, to see if there were any confrontation. So far, we've not seen any. These are ships that are leaving Iranian ports or coastal areas and trying to transit out through the Strait of Hormuz, at least two have turned around before they actually went into sort of the choke point of the Strait of Hormuz. We don't really know why they've turned around.

We've been asking that question. but that's the closest that we've seen. I think the real big question here is exactly what would happen if a ship tried to make it all the way through after leaving an Iranian port. Would that be rules of engagement that we need to know more about? Which normally the military doesn't talk about here. But the way that President Trump is speaking about this on truth social, it certainly seems as if they would use force to stop a ship from going. But again, we just haven't seen it happen yet. They have everything that they need to do that if they decide to.

sort of a Venezuelan boat comparison that the administration has made talking about if these vessels get too close to the U.S., that they would sort of duplicate what we saw off the coast of Venezuela with what they claimed were drug boats, blowing them out of the ocean. Is that an apples to apples comparison? The big difference here is those have been small boats for the most part, are much smaller than what we're talking about a tanker or a big shipping liner of some sort, which is largely what we would see going through the strait of form. moves. Now, there is the possibility I've been asking this question. I don't have an answer to it is what would happen if some of these smaller Iranian fastboats were to deploy around one of these

tankers? What would happen? We've absolutely seen these fast boats move through the Strait of Hormuz and harass ships for years now. We've seen that happen. I don't have an answer to that. But the reality is... Are those military? They are. They're Iranian, generally Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. And they aren't even all... Some of them are just unmanned. So when the president says the Iranian Navy has been fully decimated, they at least still have some of those ships. They have, yeah, most of the large surface ships have largely been either destroyed or badly damaged, but they still have, we don't even know how many of these small boats they have. They present a huge threat because they're small, they're agile, they're fast, exactly.

I mean, I would remind you what it was that hit into the USS coal more than 20 years ago, a small boat just like that. You also have some reporting about China. We know the president intends to go to China soon. We know that China and Iran have long been partners. What are you learning? Yeah. So there's a, and U.S. intelligence believes that China is planning to send Iran some air defense

systems or some parts for an air defense system in the coming weeks. That's according to an official who's been briefed on this intelligence. What's really critical here is we have seen China help out in conflicts, including in the war in Ukraine. They've provided non-lethal parts, components, even some drones to Russia for. for use in Ukraine. And the argument there is, well, these are non-lethal things. But the reality is Russia is able to take these non-lethal components and often apply them on the battlefield with lethal effects. If we're talking about air defense missiles, yes, they may not necessarily be a lethal

weapon right off. Tipping the scale. Well, but also if an air defense system hits a U.S. aircraft, that absolutely has lethal effects. So this would absolutely be a provocation and definitely an expansion of what we have seen China do even recently. We'll be looking for more on that. Thank you so much, Courtney. Thank you, Julie. And joining me now for more analysis is retired Vice Admiral Kevin Donagan, former commander of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. He's now a distinguished military fellow at the Middle East Institute. So glad to have you here and to bring your expertise to us. When you hear the president talking about a naval blockade, the way he has described it, what do you anticipate the rules of engagement would be, knowing, as

just discussed with Courtney, and that's not typically publicly discussed. But what would you expect? Kelly, what I listen to is because it helps me focus a little bit better, as I listen to what Sentcom and Brad Cooper and Kurt Rensho are running the operation, have said in their releases, and what they've said their job is to do is to basically not allow ships to either leave or enter Iranian ports across the whole coastline, both north of the strait, in the Straits and in the Gulf of Oman. So that doesn't mean necessarily, though, that the U.S. is going to get up close and personal, so to speak, and put ships right into the middle of the straits or even closely there any coastline.

I would assume, and this is, don't have this for certain, but a better tactic would likely be to monitor what those ships are doing with surveillance assets and such, because there are lots of those in the region. And then as those ships exit and get more into the waters where the ships currently are, more of a sanctuary for the U.S. ships, that's where they would take care of whatever they're going to do with those ships. But they also said it's entering or leaving. So they'd be looking at ships going both ways. But as you just notice, it's not hundreds of ships now that are going. And most all the ships that are leaving are generally part of the flow of Iranian goods or oil

coming and going. And would you anticipate that this will remain more of a surveillance operation as opposed to actual strikes? And if the U.S. were to make strikes, would that require any additional authorities? The way that this typically plays out is these ships aren't crewed by the IRGC, right? These ships are crewed by mariners from different countries under different flags that are professionals in some way, that even the shadow fleet has mariners that generally follow the guidelines and rules. So what typically would happen in a situation like this is those ships will come out, and when they're identified as having been in a raining port,

they'll then be talked to by the U.S. and the U.S. will give them some direction on what to do. A few will probably try to spoof this by changing their automatic indication system that tells you who they are, maybe change their name, maybe even hug the coastline, things like that. But in general, I'm not expecting that this will be a confrontation, so to speak, initially. Instead, it would be identifying the ships that are there, determining if they did enter port, and then if they're a sanctioned ship,

then there's other options you can do like you saw with Venezuela when there were sanctioned ships. And that's a lot of them. About 87 or so percent of the ships that are carrying oil for Iran are already sanctioned by the United States. Do you get a sense that strategically this is about creating pressure on the Iranian regime to return to talks, or is it about inflicting more harm on the broader Iranian society? I don't think it's the latter, Kelly. The way that, you know, we're in the situation we're in, right? And everyone can look backwards and maybe doesn't want to be where we are right now, but it is where we are. The talks have gone on, right? And neither side, as was rightly pointed out, they haven't come to agreement. But they also didn't say the talks were stopped. Neither side has said that. So I think that's important. And clearly both sides are trying to leverage what they have to their advantage. And this puts pressure on Iran in a different. way. And it also puts, you know, when you look at that, it's probably, you know, what would be the other option going back to bombing again. It allows some room for negotiation because it's not as

aggressive. Now, what we don't know? The key unknown here is what will Iran do when we start stopping a ship? Well, they do what they said. Their rhetoric was if the U.S. stops ships that it's an illegal action and we're going to bomb Gulf Nation ports. Now, this is coming from a nation that mined the straits. So illegal action, you know, I guess it's where you sit. Well, and you've given us sort of a window for our next conversation. So Admiral Donagan, thank you for that, because you talked about talks have not been set aside entirely. And so joining us now is Wendy Sherman, former deputy secretary at the State Department during the Biden administration. She was also one of the lead negotiators of the Iran nuclear deal

during the Obama years. So wonderful to have you. You bring a lot of expertise. to this. Good to see you, as always. And when you were across the table and talking with Iranian officials, you have that experience. You've been in the room. What do you think, based on your experience, was happening this weekend behind closed doors during the 21 hours when it was Vice President JD Vance, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff across the table? So here's the good news. When the Vice President Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner went this time, they brought a team of experts with. them. In previous negotiating meetings, they had not. And this is a highly technical set of challenges that really take a lot of time to negotiate. And you need some experts to help you do that.

On the other hand, there is no way they were going to get to an agreement, even in 21 hours, because there are multiple issues. They each have technical elements. They each have to have not only what you agreed to, but how are you going to implement it? How are you going to enforce it? How are you going to verify it? All of these things take a lot of time to figure out and negotiate every single detail. The Iranians are excellent negotiators. Abbas Araghchi, who's now the foreign minister, was my counterpart during the negotiations in 2015. He is very smart. He is very determined. He's very tough. And he knows every single detail, down to the technical details of what needs to be decided. So if the Trump administration really wants to get to a deal here, it's going to take more

than 20 hours. That's great context. And of course, when the president says no nuclear capability, that's the big sweeping overall thematic approach. But you're talking about all the scientific specifics that would effectively be in a contract if they were to agree to change things. And that's where that expertise comes in. When you talk about the willingness of The president says they're saying they would be willing to give up their enrichment capabilities, and yet we don't see evidence of that. Is that something that is really just the kind of final line for Iran, that giving that up would permanently weaken them and their ambitions?

Is that a line that you think is just going to be too difficult? Obviously, with JCPOA, you had some willingness to not go toward the weaponry, but only for the civilian purposes. where are we on that today and have the current events change where Iran sits on this issue? So it appears that the vice president in his press conference after the Islamabad meeting said that the United States put a demand down to end all enrichment and the Iranians would not agree and, of course, would not capitulate. This is a negotiation. It's not a capitulation for either side, it's a negotiation. There are some reports out today that the United States asked that Iran

not enriched for 20 years and Iran came back with a single digit. That means there is a negotiation underway and it would be worthwhile to continue to have those talks and to try to dig into that. Iran believes that it has a right to enrich for civil nuclear purposes. And under the non-proliferation treaty, many countries, not the U.S., but many countries believe that right. does exist in what was written in that treaty. And this is very much a matter of pride for Iran. Look, Iran is a terrible regime. It slaughtered its own people, the protesters who were just wanting freedom in a better way of life. So I hold no book for this regime. That said, it is existential for them. They believe they must hold on to this right. They are willing to

constrain it as they did in the JCPOA, but they are not willing to give it up. There are creative ways around this. The Trump administration has to decide it wants to find those creative ways. And do you see the current blockade strategy that the president, or at least, if I don't call it a strategy, this move the president is making, do you think that would be effective in enhancing negotiations, putting more pressure to reach a deal, or is it just a placeholder as we see where this all heads? Well, the dangerous part of the blockade is the president clearly wants to create economic cost for Iran. And there's no doubt that if they can't export many of their materials, including oil, fertilizer, helium, other things, that they will take an economic hit.

But they are a culture of resistance. And they have outlasted in the Iran-Iraq war. It was eight years of war. They are pretty resistant and pretty persistent, and I think they can outlast us, and they can take actions. They can hit our golf partners. They can use their fast boats, as you were discussing previously. They can use coastal missile barrages. So they have a lot of tools, or they can just sit and wait us out as the price of oil goes up around the world.

which will hurt our economy and American citizens who are already totally against this war and the effort that the president is making. So we'll see what happens here. But one of my great concerns are actually two, one, that we will stop a Chinese or a Russian ship, and then what will we do and what will the reaction be? And we've unsanctioned Russian oil, which gives them more money to attack Ukraine. and the other problem we have here, Kelly, why we really need to deal here is that Iran's regime is now more hardline than ever. It is controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

I think over time they may decide they have to go for a nuclear weapon in order to deter further attacks. That wouldn't be good at all. I agree with the president on that. But it also would encourage other countries around the world to believe they need to get nuclear weapons. And then we would be in a whole different world, one that would be pretty awful. Those are some very daunting possibilities that you lay out, and I know that's coming from a lot of knowledge and experience in these issues. Thank you, Wendy Sherman. We so appreciate your time and look forward to talking to you again soon. And coming up, the President versus the Pope, two global leaders at odds over the war in Iran. As President Trump faces backlash for posting an

image on social media that appeared to depict himself as a Christ-like figure. Plus, blues clues. The top election forecaster says the Senate battlefield is shifting in Democrats' favor as the race for congressional control takes shape. You're watching. Meet the press now.

Hello, I'm Ozempic. And I'm other GLP-1s, kind of like him. Are you shaking a Maraca? No, I'm shaking the pill version. of Ozmpic, which no one should ever do except in ads like this. A nice disclaimer. Hey, thanks. Ask your doctor about which FDA approved uses of the Ozempic pen or pill may be right for you. Call 1833 Ozemp or visitozepic.com to view the medication guide and learn more about osempic somaglite tablets, 9 milligrams.

And Ozempic somaglite injection, 2 milligrams. There's a pill version of Ozmpic. This summer, Fandul is the best place to bet on goals. Including equalizers? Uh-huh. Wallis? Yep. Petters.

Every goal is worth more. fan duel. So let there be goals. New customers get 350 and bonus bets guaranteed when you bet $5 for seven days. 21 plus and present in Tennessee. First online real money wager only, minimum $5 $5.5 dollar wager required. Five dollar first deposit required. Bonus issued as non-witrable bonus bets which expires seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply. See full terms at fanduel.com slash sportsbook. Gambling problem, call tea and redline 1-800-8-9-9-7-89. Game day at my place is kind of a big deal.

If I'm grilling, chilling, chilling, and watching hoops, my outdoor set up better be ready to play. That's where Wayfair wins. From patio seating and umbrellas to grills and grilling accessories, Wayfair's got it all, and it shows up fast. I'm talking championship level fast and easy delivery. So level up your grill game and your outdoor chill game

and head to Wayfair.com now to get your outdoor space ready for the season. Welcome back. Turning now to the escalating tension between the American president and the first American-born Pope. Now, over the weekend, President Trump lashing out at the pontiff for criticizing the war against Iran, calling him weak and terrible on social media posts and telling reporters he's not a big fan of Pope Leo. Today, the president doubling down, saying he will not apologize for those comments.

No, I don't because Pope Leo said things that are wrong. There's nothing to apologize for. He's wrong. And the other thing is he didn't like what we're doing with respect to Iran, but Iran is a, wants to be a nuclear nation so they can exterminate the world. Not going to happen. NBC's own Claudio Lavagna, traveling with the Holy Father, asked Leo about the president's criticisms earlier today, and this is what he said. I have no fear of the administration.

I was speaking out loudly about the message of the gospel. And that's what I believe. I am called to know what the church is about to do. We're not politicians. We're not looking to make foreign policy as he calls it with the same perspective that he might understand it. But I do believe that the message of the gospel, the lesson of the peacemakers, as the message of the war, needs to hear him. Also today, the president was drawing widespread backlash for posting this AI-generated image of himself, appearing as a Christ-like figure that has now been removed from the president's social media account.

And today, the president expressed no remorse about that. He did not say why the image is since been deleted while offering this explanation about the imagery in the post itself. I did post it, and I thought it was me as a doctor. and had to do with Red Cross as a Red Cross worker there, which we support. It's supposed to be me as a doctor, making people better. And I do make people better. I make people a lot better. Now, there was no stethoscope, and there were no, you know, doctor outfit there.

But that's up for you to decide. This all comes after American Christians of many denominations overwhelmingly supported the president in the 2024 election. That includes a significant 25.0.6. swing among U.S. Catholics in favor of the president compared to the election in 2020. And joining me now is Elizabeth Dias, National Religion correspondent for the New York Times. So glad to have you here. Thank you for being with us. I wanted to start in our conversation with you about this very direct engagement from the president to the Pope over the last few days. Do you sense that the reaction to it, the outrage,

is bigger than the Catholic community itself? The outrage that I've heard about the president's direct attack by name, really, on Pope Leo has been very widespread across most sectors of the Catholic Church and even Christians and other denominations. It's been really the first direct rant against Pope Leo. We saw this much more when the dynamic was Pope Francis, who was far more. vocal than Pope Leo has been so far in taking on President Trump's policies. Even before he became President, Pope Francis was saying that Mr. Trump was not a Christian, which drew the president's great ire. But this looks pretty different because Pope Leo hasn't been known to be combative.

He's soft-spoken, and yet he has taken time at key moments in recent months to speak out on Catholic teaching against war and for the migrant. When we look at American Catholics and how they play into the political space, they can be a large voting block, they can be very dominant in critical states that are important in midterm elections and in presidential elections, we know that a majority voted for the president in 2024. Does this register as just a blip or is whatever offense may have been taken or whatever disagreement some may have with it?

Do you sense that it has a real effect on how people might view the president for a longer term, more than just these couple of days? Right. I mean, I've heard from Catholics in swing districts today, swing political districts, who may have voted for President Trump, you know, one or two or even, you know, many times, who are saying this was too far for them. I mean, the midterms are very far away, the future of the MAGA movement, the Republican Party is, of course, still in flux.

There's outrages almost every day of different kinds. But attacking the Holy Father, especially someone that many conservative Catholics, have really felt an affinity to in a way they didn't for the previous Pope. This is really potentially more damaging than the president realizes, which is a reason I think the backlash was so swift. And the image, the most controversial image, which appeared to be President Trump laying his hand on the head of a sick person and opposed an outfit, very similar to Jesus in much of Catholic art history, it's a reason that that's no longer posted on the president's social media feed.

It's filled with religious overtones and implications there. Part of this seems to be the choices this administration is making. The president acknowledges he posted that. We've also heard some criticism of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth-Feth. And the way he has talked about, talked about religious issues in connection with the war. Some of the tension appears to be the Pope has denounced the war, talking about the gospel being about peacemaking. And Pete Hegseth, who is evangelical Christian, has talked about actions with sort of religious imagery himself. We've got some of those that I want to play for you, and then we can talk about it. Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.

flown out of Iran as the sun was rising on Easter Sunday. A pilot reborn, all home and accounted for a nation rejoicing. God is good. But God deserves all the glory. Tens of thousands of sorties, refuelings, and strikes carried out under the protection of divine providence, a massive effort with miraculous protection. In your reporting, does that kind of language, does it upset church leadership across not only the Catholic Church, but a broad list of religious leaders? Is that going too far? Progressive Christians absolutely have been very upset by that kind of language.

It's interesting, though, to note that the Secretary of War's language, I mean, you noted he's evangelical, is very different from what we hear from, say, Vice President J.JD Vance. who is the nation's most high-profile Catholic convert. And this is language that's not as familiar for Catholics. It scans very socially evangelical and sort of apocalyptic in this way that makes many people feel uncomfortable, especially if they may already be unsure about the purpose of the U.S. military actions in Iran. So it'll be very interesting to watch what happens between the Pentagon and the White House on this kind of divine language and how the evangelical and Catholic base may

respond differently amongst itself about that, which would be an interesting development about the future of the MAG movement heading into the midterm elections. It is indeed an interesting time on your beat. Elizabeth, thank you so much for being with us, and we'll follow your reporting in the weeks to come as this issue may have legs. We'll see. Up next, Hungary for change. Prime Minister and Trump ally, Viktor Orban, ousted in national elections despite the Trump administration's campaign to keep the far-right leader in power. What that means for Europe and the U.S. Stay with us on Meet the Press Now.

Game Day at my place is kind of a big deal. If I'm grilling, chilling, and watching hoops, my outdoor patio setup better be ready to play. That's where Wayfair win. From patio seating and umbrellas to grills and grilling accessories, Wayfair's got it all, and it shows up fast. I'm talking championship level fast and easy delivery. So level up your grill game and your outdoor chill game and head to Wayfair.com now to get your outdoor space ready for the season.

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

Sometimes life will get you stressed out. Lucky you can always count on text now. Free talk, free text, free 5G, and they'll never shut you off. Because like I said, it's free. Text Now's got your back nationwide, no long-term contracts. But all they're nervous by losing service. Text Now's got your back. That's their sense of purpose.

No matter what comes next, you've got free talk and text with the TextNow app. Wireless plans require the purchase of a SIM card. Visit textNow.com for terms and conditions. We're so glad you're back with us. And turning now to a stunning election result in Hungary. After 16 years in power, Prime Minister Viktor Orban conceded defeat in the country's parliamentary elections. Viktor Orban was a trailblazer for the global hard right. You know, he was an ally of President Donald Trump who dispatched his vice president, JD Vance,

too hungry, to campaign with Viktor Orban just last week. Viktor Orban was also an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, putting him at odds with the rest of the European Union over the war in Ukraine. In his victory speech today, Peter Maggiar, a former member of Viktor Orban's party who now leads his own center-right party, pledging to be a, quote, constructive partner in Europe. And joining me now is NBC News senior reporter Alexander Smith. I know you've been following this closely. Take us through the result. Was this as surprising in Hungary as it may have been to observers here? Well, if you look at the raw data, actually this might have not seemed like such a surprise because Petta Maghian led most polls since late 2024. He was really the big favourite before this election.

But the context here means this was actually colossal. As I think you said, Viktor Orban led Hungary for 16 years and really reshaped the country in his own image. He restricted the freedom of the courts, restricted the freedom of the judiciary. And he really made this an uphill strangle for anyone who was going to challenge him on the electoral stage, so much so that the European Parliament said that Hungary could no longer be considered democracy. So these elections were often seen as free, but not exactly fair. Now, this was not a close election. This was an absolute landslide. Pet Damagia has a supermajority now, which means that he may be able to repeal a lot of Viktor Orban state.

But we should really see this from a voter perspective as a real repudiation of the last 16 years. And what a lot of people told me when I was visiting Hungary last week was that they're just very tired. This was not an election about big geopolitical themes. It was about the economy. It was about rising prices. It was about corruption. It was about a state that most people just felt wasn't working anymore. So, yes, this is a huge result in the context of Hungary and also Europe.

And notably he did concede, Viktor Orban did concede, even in the context that you laid out for us, of how authoritarian his leadership had become. So you sort of describe this as a change moment. And when you see the vice president used some of his political capital and the administration's capital to be there trying to urge voters in Hungary to support Viktor Orban, what does that say about the influence of the U.S. and the administration in Hungary or perhaps more broadly on the global stage? Look, I think a lot of pundits and observers will see this is pretty embarrassing for the Trump administration. As you say, the vice president flew all the way to Hungary just days before the vote. In a real break from precedent, we don't really see U.S. governments or any other Western governments really doing this, parachuting into the final days of an election campaign to throw their weight behind one of their allies whose numbers are really flailing. So I don't think that's a great look for the Trump administration and its ability to project soft power abroad.

However, I think we should also say that the US was never going to sway this election. Viktor Orban has been in power for 16 years. And most voters had already made up their minds. They were obviously undecided. But they weren't going to be swayed by a vice president flying at the last minute. As I said before, this was an election one on the economy, really. It was an election one on corruption. Most voters paraphrased James Carville to some extent.

You know, they were just fed up of rising prices. They were fed up of the sense that their country was corrupt. Transparency International said that it's one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. So, yes, it's pretty embarrassing for the Trump administration, but also this was not really a reflection on JD Vance or the Trump administration that all that lost. Well, Alex, thank you for helping us to understand the conditions on the ground and what brought this to be. Thank you for your reporting. We appreciate it so much.

And after the break, the Eric Swalwell scandal, the California Democrat drops his bid for governor and now faces calls to resign from Congress as multiple women, including a former staffer, come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct. We're live on Capitol Hill with the latest. Keep it here on Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. Now to the story of Democratic. Congressman Eric Swalwell. He has suspended his campaign for California governor. Eric Swalwell announced his decision late yesterday on social media after several women, including a former staffer, accused him of sexual misconduct. The accusations range from lewd text messages to rape an allegation the congressman denies. Eric Swalwell tweeting last night, I'm deeply sorry for mistakes in judgment I've made in my past. I will fight the serious

false allegations that have been made. But that's, my fight, not a campaign. The congressman's attorney sending a cease and assist letter to the former staffer who is alleging Eric Swalwell sexually assaulted her in two separate instances while she was intoxicated. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office confirms to NBC News that it is launching a criminal investigation into one of those incidents, which allegedly happened in a New York City hotel room in 2024. Now, the House Ethics Committee says it is also investigating Eric Swalwell a growing number of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, as well as dozens of former staffers, are calling on Eric Swalwell to resign from Congress.

NBC News Chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles is tracking all of this and joining me now. So the House Ethics Committee is investigating. And do we have a sense if that will stall any other moves from Congress while it does its own work? Well, in the past, Kelly, that's exactly what has happened. the Ethics Committee is the first step toward finding any sort of resolution when it comes to matters like these, unless the lawmaker is willing to take action on their own. And there is a growing chorus of calls for Eric Swalwell to just step away from his congressional seat, to resign and leave this ugly chapter behind so that the House of Representatives no longer has to deal with it. But if he refuses to do that, and so far up until this point, he has not expressed any effort or willingness to step down

from his position, it will be the ethics committee that takes the ball and carries it to the next stage of all of this. And those investigations take time. It will include calling in witnesses for depositions and interviews. It will mean collecting evidence and materials related to the claims. And then it could even get to the stage of a trial, which the ethics committee has done in previous instances. So it's not as if an expulsion vote, which is something many are calling for, could happen as soon as this week. There will need to be a lengthy process to get to that point. The question is, we'll stand in the way of all of it

and just decide to resign on his own because, as we've seen in previous ethics investigations, they could uncover things that we don't even know yet and haven't been out there. And as soon as he's no longer a member of Congress, that investigation would stop, Kelly. And we don't know what other shoes may drop in terms of what others may say

about their knowledge of its conduct. Do you get a sense then? I take it from your comments that simply getting out of the California race with its high profile is not enough to blunt the problem for him politically. Not at all, Kelly. In fact, when Congress returns here tomorrow and the House of Representatives returns here tomorrow after their spring break, you can only expect that that call for him to leave office will increase. And not only that, it's also raised new issues and questions. about the other members of Congress who have been accused of similar sexual misconduct. The best example being Representative Tony Gonzalez of Texas, who is accused of having a sexual relationship with a staffer who then later took her own life and has also been accused of sending lewd text messages and other pictures to members of his staff.

It is explicitly against House rules for members of Congress to have intimate relationships with their staffers. And there's a whole other group of members of Congress who've had accusations against them in the past, who there are, frankly, a group of members that are just sick and tired of being associated with them. So this is an ongoing conversation that's happening here in Washington. And Eric Swalwell, being willing to just step out of the governor's race is not going to stop that conversation from continuing. And do you think each of the members who have their own issues and are in this area of getting a lot of scrutiny. Will they be judged as a group or completely individually based on the facts associated with their, or is there a push to deal

with all of them at the same time? And we know that expelling members is exceedingly rare in Congress. It's such a great question, Kelly, and it shows your understanding of how this place works, right? There's always a political element to all of this. And we are dealing with extraordinarily tight margins between Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives. So you could see a possible exit ramp here where there are an equal number of Republicans and Democrats who are accused of things that are in violation of the House rules that are all expelled at the same time. So therefore, it does not impact the margins in any meaningful way. And you could get wide bipartisan support for something like that to happen. The only issue with that is the timing of it.

terms of Congressman Gonzalez, there's been a lengthy ethics investigation into him that's already been underway for several weeks that could be close to being wrapped up with Congressman Eric Swalwell. They just started that investigation today. So it might take several months before you got to the point where you could put them both on the floor for an expulsion vote. But what is interesting about this, Kelly, and perhaps what's different in this era of Congress that we're in now is that there was an expulsion not too long ago, and that involved, of course, the former Congressman George Santos. So there's precedent here for moving on this in a very quick fashion in a way that didn't exist here for decades. The type of incidents that would require expulsion were just so

grave that it was almost impossible to make it happen. That's not the case anymore, and these members are much more willing to boot one of their own if they think they've done something that doesn't abide by the standard they're trying to hold here in Washington. The Hill on Hyperspeed. Ryan, thank you so much. Appreciate your insights. And now we're going to bring this to the panel. NBC's senior national political reporter Sahil Kupur joins me and Terranz, former managing director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and founder of and CEO of New Blue Interactive and Republican strategist Malik Abdul. Now, we have plenty to talk about. First, let me just start with you, Sahil. When you look at

these allegations and what it means to the Democratic brand broadly at a time when they feel so good about their potential to reclaim the House, maybe even the Senate, we've seen some movement. How damaging are these problems? Seriously damaging, but more so if Democrats are seen as protecting Eric Swalwell. That's where it elevates. If they're not, then it's a very different story. Then this is a case of one man doing some bad things. So far, we've seen Democrats successfully push him out of the governor's rates.

So that's just a start. They've supported an Ethics Committee investigation just moments ago. A group of more than a dozen House Democrats came out and said it should be expedited as well. Some have already come out and said he should be expelled. So this is the kind of thing that signals that they're not going to support this behavior and tolerate this behavior. Now, there's also, in addition to Eric Swalwell, another Democrat, Sheila-Chief, Phyllis McCormick, under ethics investigation for allegedly stealing taxpayer money. Ryan talked about Tony Gonzalez, as well as Cory Mills, another Republican who's been accused of sexual misconduct.

under investigation. So there's not a one party problem. It's not a one party problem. And there, let's say there are a lot of options that, uh, that the House has in front of them in terms of deciding whether they're going to put up with this and where they're going to draw the line. And Taryn, you've been in these rooms where you're deciding campaign issues. And when you talk about the nature of these allegations, and Eric Swalwell denies some of the allegations, he has acknowledged some misjudgments. We don't know exactly what that means. Does this now rise to Democratic leadership in the House and any responsibility they have for protecting their own staffers, for how they set standards? Yeah, I think you'll see a lot of this discussion come up again.

I mean, I think there's going to be more joins in the chorus for the call for him to resign. I can't imagine anything different at this point, especially, you know, I don't think anyone's saying don't investigate, but him being resigned still continues a criminal investigation as we saw and some of the other things. And I think that just all around, we are as a Democratic Party really committed to making sure that we are transparent and honest. And that's been this big belief in talking point. And we really have to act, as we are saying. And so I think you're going to continue to see that there will be meetings there of asking him to resign. And if they have to step in to do something, those meetings will be happening, I'm sure. And as we said, Republicans have their own set of issues. How do you think the party needs to respond in this moment? Is it kind of equal justice across the way, or is there an opportunity to do some positioning based on the different circumstances among these members? Well, I think the inclination simply because we're in politics, is to make it political. So one side has a political advantage over the other. But at the end of the day, when it comes to assault, I do think it's something that we need to take seriously.

At the end of the day, I do also believe that there are people who, I think all of the victims or alleged victims need to be heard that doesn't necessarily mean that need to be believed. So I think we also need to be cognizant of that fact that at this point, these are just accusations. But I do believe that there is a responsibility on Congress to govern itself. Has that ever happened? No. It's always channel. But they do have the levers of control right now. And would you expect that the speaker, for example, would want to have a slow process,

a swift process, any sense of what you would expect, given the pressures of this moment, and the limited time until November? I would imagine, especially considering the numbers and Congress that Speaker Johnson would be reluctant to kind of push to move one, push one of the members out of Congress. I do think that the members themselves, though, they could take that upon themselves, but I doubt very seriously that there would be any push for Johnson to expel a member of Congress until we get more information. I think where everybody is sitting on is saying that at this point these are just allegations. You hate to think that the tiny margins of the

candidate contrast is useful to Democrats. Nebraska is still very much a long shot, but the fact that even that is moving tells you something. It does tell us something. So, like, what do we think in terms of the amount of time? It's April, feels like a long way to November. What do you think Republicans would need to do to change the trajectory of voter sentiment? Well, the irony is that it's not so much of what Republicans need to do. It's more so Donald Trump. Remember earlier in the year, there were conversations from Susie Wiles about how Donald Trump... Is there being all that helpful, is he? Well, that's what I was going to focus a lot on the economy. I think it's hard to argue

that he's been focused on the economy. And so I talked to people at the NRC, the National Republican Senatorial Committee. And although they have talked about those states, They kind of thought that Georgia would go off of anyway since Brian Kemp decided not to run. But they're looking at what happens because it's the motivation, momentum here, and that when you look at a place like Texas, Beto O'Rourke beat Ted Cruz by 2.6 percentage points, that was when he ran against Ted Cruz. Well, James Talarico is people seem to like him more. So I think that Republicans are looking at that with Donald Trump deciding that he's not going to endorse at all.

if John Cornyn ends up winning, well, if Maga says, well, we don't like John Cornyn, we're going to stay at home, that could potentially impact a place like Texas. There were people who believed Beto O'Rourke was going to win that first. Yeah, but 2.6%. That's actually... But Cruz won. Yes, yes, just clearing that up. Yes, I'm sorry, yes.

Yes, yes, just because that was an alternate universe we were in for a while. Do you get the sense that it's candidate quality in Georgia? It's an incumbent. That is part of it? I do think that's part of it. I think you have a very solid person who's talking. The thing is, is with all of the candidates, they are talking about what matters to Americans

and what's happening at home, which is that things are not feeling affordable. Everything feels too expensive, whether you're at the gas pump or your car, if you're trying to get on a flight, everything is impacted by what's happening, and Donald Trump is continuing to ignore it. So when you have candidates that are talking about,

here's what I can do, here's what can happen, here's how I can make it better for you. People are feeling listened to, and that's having an impact. I had so many more things on my list. We've got to have you back to keep that conversation going. Thank you to each of you. Appreciate your expertise.

We will be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now, and we're glad you could stay with us. More news coming up on NBC News Now. Snoring, gasping for air during sleep, daytime sleepiness. I'm Shaquille O'Neill, and this shouldn't be anybody's experience. As your doctor about Zepbound to her Zepatine. The first and only FDA approved prescription medicine for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea

in adults with obesity. Zepbound is a prescription medicine used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity to help adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea, OSA, and obesity to improve their OSA. Zepbound is approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, or 15 milligram injection. Zepound contains chrezepotide and should not be used with other trezepotide containing products or any GLP1 receptor agonist medicines. It is not known if Zepound is safe and effective for use in children.

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

Taking Zepbound with a sulfonel urea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems. Talk to your doctor. Call 1-800-545-9 or visit Zepbound.lily.com.