Meet the Press NOW – March 11

Hey there, it's Stephen Dubner, host of Freakonomics Radio, and we have just made a new show, a TV talk show. It's called Better In Person. We have the kind of guests you don't see on every other show, and we have the kind of conversations you don't hear anywhere. I'm like, yes, chef, people home with the pork. You have the opportunity to make this little corner of the world into your ideal world, your dream world. You can watch better in person on the Freakonomics YouTube channel. You'll find a new episode there every week. This is how a conversation works. More people, more devices, more AI. The way we live today takes a lot of energy. Wind and solar are powerful, but not always available. That's where natural gas comes in, with reliable energy whenever it's needed. Companies like energy transfer work behind the scenes, safely transporting these resources to facilities across the country through a network of underground pipelines. Learn more at it takesenergy.com.

Welcome to meet the press now. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington. President Trump hit the road today visiting Ohio and Kentucky to tout his economic agenda. He's set to deliver remarks this hour, but it of course comes as the administration is trying to contain the economic fallout from the war with Iran, with fuel prices rising and growing concerns about safety in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane that borders Iran. Oil prices moved higher once again today. They're now up roughly 30 percent. since the start of the war 12 days ago. In hopes of easing prices, a group of more than 30 countries who are members of the International Energy Agency, which includes the U.S., announced they will release 400 million barrels of oil from their reserves. It is the largest release in history. Here's Interior Secretary Doug Burgum ahead of that announcement. Well, certainly these are the kinds of moments that these reserves are used for because what we have here is not a shortage of energy in the world. We've got a transit problem, which is temporary. And when you have a temporary transit problem that we're resolving militarily and diplomatically, which we can resolve and will resolve, this is the perfect time to think about releasing some of those to take some pressure off of the global price. But again, as you've seen President Trump's leadership itself is helping to keep price. ISIS down all over the world right now. It comes as transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway, which 20% of the world's oil passed through, becomes increasingly precarious. According to a British monitoring agency, three ships have been in separate incidents near the strait. Today, President Trump spoke to reporters and downplayed concerns facing tankers in the region. Take a look. Are you talking to the CEOs of various oil companies encouraging them to use the straight-up hormones right now? I think they should. I think they should. I think they should use this. In my opinion, look, we took out just about all of their mineships in one night. Have they laid any mines in the straight-up hormones? We don't think so. Now, the president spoke a second time with reporters this afternoon, saying he believes the price of oil will start to come down. It comes as the Pentagon released these new videos, saying it has eliminated 16 Iranian mine layers. President Trump this afternoon said the U.S. has knocked out... 28 of those vessels. President Trump continuing to tout the overall success of the U.S. military actions in Iran telling Axios in a phone interview there is, quote, practically nothing left to target. And quote, anytime I want it to end it, it will end. NBC's Peter Alexander pressed the president today on what it would take to end the war. What more do you need to do militarily for this operation to end? More of the same. And we'll see how that all comes out right now. They are, they've lost their Navy, they've lost their Air Force. They have no anti-aircraft apparatus at all. They have no radar. Their leaders are gone. And we could do a lot worse. We're leaving certain things that if we take them out or we could take them out by this afternoon, in fact within an hour.

They literally would never be able to build that country back. Can you declare victory in this war if the supreme leader remains the Ayatollah's son? I don't want to comment on that. Those comments coming after Iran's president said today, Iran's new supreme leader, Most Tabah Ali Khamenei, has been wounded in the war, but is safe. And as Iran says, it is launching its most intense operations since the start of the war. Joining me now to start us off today, NBC News White House correspondent Julie Cirkin, NBC News Business and Data Correspondent Brian Chung, NBC News Chief International correspondent Keir Starmer Simmons, and NBC News Senior National Security Correspondent, Courtney Kube. Thanks to all of you. for being here. Julie, I want to start with you. You are traveling with the president as he hits the road to talk about the economy. What are your sources telling you about how he plans to balance his talk about affordability with the tough fact that oil prices, gas prices are going up? Especially in this area. I talked to several of his supporters. Kristen, I didn't even have to press them or prompt them on oil and gas. They brought it up themselves. I want you to take a listen to one supporter that I heard from. Her name is Billy Jean Wright. She's a truck driver. And this is her take on everything that's going on. Watch this. Do you support what the administration is doing in Iran? Yes and no. Tell me more about the guess you know. I support what's going on, but I doesn't like how it's turning out. In what way? The gas prices are going up. Our food industry is going up. Everything is going up and we can't survive over here.

Listen, this is the president's seventh event focused on the economy on affordability since early December. His fifth event focused on this subject area this year alone. And that is because the president knows that the midterm elections are around the corner. The economy is something he had the most success on when he ran. And certainly something like oil and gas prices going up is not going to make his base happy. I also want to give you a preview, perhaps, of other things we expect from the president, because the president gave us a preview by posting on truth social all morning long about Thomas Massie. He represents this district, and there were several in the crowd wearing pins and buttons of his supporter at Galrine that the president handpicked, who spoke just a couple of minutes ago, who spoke about the war in Iran, spoke about Thomas Massie's record. And it's notable here that so far we've heard from several supporters who still support Thomas Massie and the president at the same time. So the president expected to hit on that, Kristen, as well as the SAVE Act, the voter ID law that the president has tried to push Senate to pass. That's something he's been posting a lot about and something certainly that's going to come up here today, as many of his supporters want to see that pass Congress, even though it has a very unrealistic path. Yeah, becoming a critical issue in the midterms, Julie. That's for sure. Let me ask you about something else that we heard President Trump say today. This was to Axios. He told Axios, quote, there is practically nothing left to target in Iran. He also added that he can end the war any time he wants. Do you have any idea what the actual timeline is here based on your conversations, Julie? Christian, I don't think anybody around the president knows what the timeline is, because if you look at different administration officials, they are saying different things. The president himself, as you pointed out, moments ago, called the operation in Iran an excursion. And then when asked about the rise and gas and oil, he then said, well, this is what happens in a war. So the president trying to have it both ways, on one hand knowing it is extremely unpopular, particularly among the people that elected him on no new wars, no foreign intervention. Even here, the prayer in this room began. And for the members of the military, applause around me as the president arrives in this building, Kristen, for members of the military fighting overseas. So this is a raw issue for the president, but a timeline that remains uncertain. He said in the beginning of this operation, it would be four to six weeks. I know on Capitol Hill, members that I talked to, heard a potentially open-ended window, but this is something the president knows he needs to wrap up. And his supporters here that I talk to know that as well. But so far, at least most of them supportive of him in these efforts. Kristen? And Julie, as you've been talking, we saw the presidential seal go up on the podium, so we're likely just moments away from hearing from President Trump. Julie Sarkin, thank you so much for starting us off. Let me turn now to Brian Chung. So, Brian, let's talk about these gas prices. They're up 20 percent. Diesel, up 25 percent since the start of the war. Talk about this level of volatility. Can these prices go down as quickly as they went up? Yeah, I mean, we heard from the voter that Julie was just talking to that anxiety is already being felt by people that are going to the pump and seeing those prices rise.

in real time. You can see crude oil prices hovering just south of $90 a barrel right now. But the question is that as long as this conflict in Iran is still going on, there's still the risk that those prices could go even higher from here. So as we pointed out, $3.58. That is the national average right now. But the estimate is that for every $10 a barrel of oil continues to go up, that's another $25 per gallon that you and I would face at the pump when we go up to fill up our cars, our trucks, what have you. And for that reason, we already saw barrels of oil. oil spike to over $100 earlier this week, that is a glimpse into what could be possible and where gas prices could go from here. It's not out of the realm of possibility that gas prices on a national average could hit $4. It depends on the length and the intensity of what's going on in the Middle East, Kristen. Let me ask you about this other really significant news today, the International Energy Agency, saying it will release 400 million barrels of oil from its reserves to help ease these prices. Again, this is the largest release that we've seen. in history? What impact are you anticipating on global markets, Brian? Yeah, and there have been this talk in the lead-up to this announcement of whether or not the United States might use their strategic petroleum reserve countries have their own versions of that. But it was really going to be a coordinated approach by many countries around the world that would have alleviated overall gas prices because of the fact that those barrels of oil at a commodities market level are invoiced and priced at a global level. And for that reason, that's why the IEA, which has 32 members... including the United States, announcing that they would release 400 million barrels of oil is so significant. But Kristen, what was so interesting that our team noticed was that barrels of oil in terms of prices did not really budge all that much in the aftermath to this decision. And that's because this is a intention to release 400 million barrels of oil. That does not mean 400 million barrels of oil being released today. So it seems like the issues that are out of the Strait of Hormuz do continue to be a pressure point once we actually see those barrels of oil getting sold by individual. countries like the United States, that could be the actual trigger point for some of these prices to really go down in markets. All right, Brian Chong, thank you so much. Really appreciate that context and perspective. Let's turn now to Keir Starmer Simmons. So, Keir Starmer, let's talk about what we're seeing from Iran, launching its most intense operation since the beginning of the war. That's according to Iranian state media. But apparently firing on ships near the Strait of Hormuz, what's the state of play right now, Keir Starmer? Well, just listening to Brian there, Kristen, I think another reason why oil prices didn't come down when the announcement was made by those 33 countries to release such a massive amount of reserves is because I think oil traders... don't think that this is going to be over soon. And I'll explain why. Because even as President Trump is saying that he can decide when the war ends, this is a war. It is not entirely in his control. And what the Iranians are effectively now doing is setting out their demands for if President Trump wants it to end. So, for example, what they are saying to the Gulf countries like where I am here in the UAE is that they can stop being fired upon if they agree to no longer.

have US bases. The Iranians are, according to reports, according to Bloomberg, telling intermediaries that if Israel and the United States wants an end to this war, they must agree never to attack Iran again. Now, obviously, those are the kinds of demands that the Trump administration and Israel... I'm not going to agree to. And even here in the United Arab Emirates, a senior diplomat has suggested to me that they wouldn't be prepared to see this war end unless there was a clear agreement, clarity that they would no longer be threatened by Iranian missiles. And that gives you a picture, it's diplomatically, but that gives you a picture of why this is such a dangerous point now that President Trump may face either having to double down or by back out? And how do you back out if the Iranians keep fighting? You lay out the stakes very clearly. Keir Starmer, let me ask you about something that has gotten a lot of attention. The fact that the United States has eased some restrictions on Russian oil exports to help stabilize the energy market. What are the implications of this cure? I mean, obviously, President Trump's trying to end the war in Ukraine. This seems like a gift to Russia. Because it is, absolutely right. And the Russians at the same time are reportedly providing intelligence for the Iranians to target US forces and US servicemen and women bases and US capability and capability across the Gulf. And whether or not the Russians... are right to say that's not true and they've denied it. They certainly have a security agreement with Iran. So we know, for example, that the Iranians have been providing drones to Russia to use, and we've seen them over the skies of Ukraine, to use in the Ukraine war. But what an irony now that the potential way to bring oil prices down might be through Russian... oil through lifting sanctions on Russian oil. And already President Trump has given something like a green light for India to continue buying Russian oil for President Vladimir Putin. Of course, high oil prices mean more money. And at the same time, the US is using capability here in this region of the Middle East that the Europeans might have been hoping to buy in order to send Ukraine to help Ukraine defend itself. So is it strengthening President Vladimir Putin? Yes, it is. And China too, Kristen, we were talking to a company that... studies the Straits of Hormuz and being told by them that the relatively small number of ships that are getting through are Iranian ships that are taking their oil straight to China. So for China, which gets most of its oil from this region and is really going to be challenged by a close in the Straits of Hormuz.

It's Iran that is their ally that is going to be trying to help them even while continuing to bear down on the Gulf and on the U.S. and Israel. And those are some of the key questions. How are the United States adversaries potentially being impacted or even bolstered during this war? Keir Starmer, thank you so much for your great reporting. As always, please stay safe. We really appreciate it. Courtney, let me turn to you now. The president has promised escorts for tankers moving through Strait of Hormuz. How is that? panned out. Is that working so far? It hasn't panned out at all, as far as we know. I just checked in to make sure we haven't, there's no indications that any U.S. Navy ships have been involved in any escorts. There are other countries in the region that they could decide to do something, but at this point we're not aware of it. And part of that, there's two main reasons. The first one is the ships that are there are actually actively still involved in this war, both in the offensive and the defensive component of the war. But it's not just that there is still a very real threat to any ship in the region, not just the civilians, but the Navy ships. It's not the mines. The mines, of course, are always a concern, but the real threat of the drones. And U.S. Navy ships, they have a tough time defending against those, a swarm of drones as well. So it's dangerous for the U.S. to be involved right now. Well, and U.S. Central Command, speaking of the mine-laying ships, says it's eliminated 16 Iranian mine-laying boats. What are the implications of that? What are you hearing about that? The mines were not an immediate threat is the way it was explained to us. It's the immediate threats were the air defense systems, then the missiles, the missile launchers, the ballistic missile program, all of that, the drones. The drones is sort of one of the major focuses right now, the tens of thousands of drones, the production facilities, all of that. The mines, it was sort of, they got to a point where they could start taking out the mines right now. They were not an immediate threat because they take time to put together. And they were watching the boats anywhere that they would use to lay them. And Courtney, you have new reporting about the strike that hit... the Iranian school, 160 people killed mostly children in elementary school. What are you learning today? Yeah, so we had been hearing already that the preliminary investigation results were showing that the U.S. was likely behind this. We've all seen the video of the Tomahawk. No one is disputing that. The real question was how could this have happened if, in fact, there is real evidence that it was the United States military that did this. And it does appear now that according to the preliminary findings that there was old intelligence that was being used here. And keep in mind, when the military puts together a target package like this, they'll get information from multiple different places, the Defense Intelligence Agency is one, U.S. allies is another, and then they'll sort of aggregate that together, they'll verify the target, and then they will strike. So the real question now is, how was that target validated? We know that the school is at an area where there used to be an Iranian military base, and that may have played into this, what ended up being such a tragic event. Well, I know the president was asked about this today, said he hadn't. wasn't aware of the latest reporting, so we'll wait to see what type of reaction. We hear from him. Courtney Kubi, thank you so much. We really appreciate it. Thanks for being here. Coming up, as we mentioned, President Trump is expected to speak in Kentucky moments from now as he takes his message on the road for the first time since the start of the war against Iran. We'll bring you any news from that event when it happens. But first, President Trump's former national security advisor, who himself was targeted by Tehran in a murder-for-hire plot, weighs in on the future.

How do you think he can bring about regime change? Would it require boots on the ground? That's one of the big questions and, frankly, concerns a lot of Americans. Yeah, it would not require boots on the ground. What this should be doing is destroying the state institutions like the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, the besieged militia, that have the capability of threatening us, threatening Israel and the Gulf Arabs, threatening the people of Iran. And by diminishing those state institutions, you destabilize the government. You permit fractures to occur among the leadership. We've already fractured a lot of it by killing nearly 500 of the top leaders. This should allow the opposition if we are working and cooperating with them to begin to find others in the regime who say, this ship is going down. I don't think I want to go down with it. People in the regular military, not the Revolutionary Guard. That continues the fracturing of the regime, which then collapses. That's not what we're doing. That's what people inside Iran would do. Let me ask you, though, because there is a new leader in place, the son of the supreme leader. President Trump was asked about that today, didn't directly comment. Is that regime change? Is that enough? Or could it be setting up a situation that's even worse? than the former leader. By everything we know about the son, Mojtaba, how many, he's worse than his father, more hard line. And indeed, most observers would say the younger generation of Ayatollahs are even more hard line than the people who brought us the revolution in 79. This is not regime change. Regime change in the context of Iran means the end of the rule of the Ayatollahs and the elimination of the Revolutionary Guard. And that's just not going to come by one change of personnel. I want to play you something that Speaker Mike Johnson had to say and gets your reaction on the other side talking about nation building. Take a look. We are the defenders of freedom and liberty. And freedom-loving people all around the world benefit from a strong America. These are undisputed objective facts. Does that mean that we should be intervening everywhere around the world and nation-building and doing all these other endeavors? No, because we don't have the resources or the appetite to do that. That's not our responsibility. What do you make of what the speaker is saying? Does he have a point that there's just no appetite in the U.S. for nation building? Well, there are two points here. One is intervention to affect the government of a country that we consider hostile to us. That's what we're doing now. The second is the nation building part. I have never been in favor of that. That's why I'm not a neo-conservative. I want to destroy this regime because it threatens America through its... pursuit of nuclear weapons and its pursuit of international terrorism. That is a legitimate objective for us. Then I think we look to the Iranian people to decide what comes next. Now, in terms of not having an appetite, this is Donald Trump's self-inflicted wound. He announced this war to the people in a speech at 2.30 and Saturday morning when not many people were watching. properly done, a president leads the people, makes the case in advance, what I think is the compelling case for regime change in Iran. It doesn't mean revealing what we're going to do or when we're going to do it. It means making the broad policy case. Where's the speech from the president sitting at the resolute desk at the Oval Office at 9 o'clock at night saying, I want to speak to the American people about a serious issue? And many other things he could have done to prepare. He didn't. He didn't prepare the people. He didn't prepare Congress. He didn't prepare the allies.

needs to do that at this point. You know that he's been talking to reporters on the telephone. He has taken questions fairly consistently. Is that enough in the wake of this military action ambassador? I don't think it's nearly enough. I think this is very serious business when you commit American forces into combat like this. We have very good reasons. He has not made that case. He can still do it. The time is running out. Let me ask you about the Strait of Hormuz, which has obviously become a critical part of this war. You've said the administration didn't do enough planning in advance economically, politically, militarily. What exactly does that mean, Ambassador? What should the Trump administration have done in advance? Well, should have realized that beginning a war in a region of the world that produces 20% of the world's oil supply is going to have an effect on oil prices. There's reporting the White House was taken aback by it. Surprised. I have to say, I'm surprised that they're surprised. And doing what you need to do to ensure the straight stays open should have been part of the early priorities in the war. Just as we were striking their ballistic missile capacity, striking at their retaliatory capabilities. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz was a retaliatory capability. We should have gone earlier to prevent them from doing that. A couple more questions for you. The administration has eased some sanctions on Russia as a part of this overall goal to lower oil prices. What do you make of that? And is it effectively rewarding Russia for bad behavior? Well, I think they drank a lot of vodka in the Kremlin when they heard that news. This is an absolute gift to the Russians. Obviously, you want to do what you can to bring the price of oil down, giving a gift to the Kremlin wrong answer. What do you make of the news today that they are going to release 400 million barrels of oil? Well, I think that's an appropriate step at a time like this. That's what strategic petroleum reserves are for. whether it has a real impact or not, I don't know. It sounds to me like a stopgap last-ditch method. They hadn't prepared for it in advance. And that's part of the problem. You do contingency thinking and planning when you begin a war. World's oil supply should have been near the top of the list of things to worry about. There's no evidence they did that. I have to ask you about... This report that there is evidence that it was the United States behind that attack on an elementary school in Iran. You heard me talking about that with my colleague, Courtney QB, killed 160 people, including many children. President Trump has not yet commented or responded. He said he's not aware of the reporting. What should the reaction be from the administration if it is definitively confirmed that this was the United States? This was a tragedy, but there is no way anybody could believe we deliberately targeted that school.

It could be, for example, that that building had been used as part of the naval base years before and given over to the locality to be a school and it didn't register in our intelligence. Whatever the reason we should do our best to find it, to say it was not deliberate, we apologize. So to be very clear, should the president come out if in fact this is... determined beyond a reasonable doubt come out and say the United States made a mistake and the United States apologizes. That's what a big country does. So a big president does. Okay. Ambassador John Bolton, thank you so much for being here. Thank you. We really appreciate it. Coming up next, filibuster flip-flop, new reporting on a major reversal from Republican Senator John Cornyn and how his Republican colleagues are responding as President Trump pushes his party to throw out the old rulebook and pass his voting reform agenda right now. We're live on Capitol Hill. That's next. I'll meet the press now.

Hey there, it's Stephen Dubner, host of Freakonomics Radio, and we have just made a new show, a TV talk show. It's called Better In Person. We have the kind of guests you don't see on every other show, and we have the kind of conversations you don't hear anywhere. I'm like, yes, chef. People home with the pork. You have the opportunity to make this little corner of the world into your ideal world, your dream world. You can watch better in person on the Freakonomics YouTube channel. You'll find a new episode there every week. This is how a conversation works. The GLP1 pill you've been waiting for is now on row. Yep, it's finally here with the same clinically proven ingredient. Now in a pill. And now on row. It's the first FDA approved GLP1 pill for weight loss. At the lowest price available, that's one daily GLP1 pill for big results. Now on row. Go to row.com slash listen to see if you qualify. RX only go to road.co slash safety for serious side effects and boxed warning associated with GLP1s. 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 flip-lops to stunning heels. These shoes are all style, no drama. It's a girls' girl's summer, and DSW has just the shoes. Shop the Sierra Miller Collection right now at your DSW store or DSW.com. Welcome back. A showdown is brewing on Capitol Hill over the Save America Act, the Republican-backed legislation requiring voter ID and proof of citizenship to register to vote. President Trump has given Republicans an ultimatum, passed the act or he won't sign any new legislation. Senate Majority Leader John Thune says he doesn't have the votes to pass it in the Senate, but the president's pressure seems to be reaching some vulnerable Republicans. Senator John Cornyn, who is locked in a competitive primary runoff race in Texas and has been waiting for the president's endorsement, wrote an op-ed overnight, saying after years of defending the Senate's 60-vote filibuster rule he is now siding with the president who wants to change the rules to get this bill passed. John Cornyn blaming Democrats, writing, quote, I believe the Democrats with their votes and statements have already dealt the filibuster a fatal blow. The Senate rules will change eventually. Whether Republicans like it or not, Democrats started this fight. Now Republicans should finish it. Joining me now is NBC News Chief Capitol Hill correspondent, Ryan Nobles. Ryan, thanks so much for being here. So put this all into context for us. Just how significant is this shift from the senator?

I think it's very significant, Kristen, and I think it demonstrates the kind of heat that John Cornyn is facing in this Republican primary in Texas. And make no mistake, this is about the process. It's not about the underlying policy. The Save Act or the Save America Act, whichever version of this bill that comes to the Senate floor, will definitely get at least 51 Republican votes. The issue is whether or not it's worth blowing up the filibuster over and then setting a precedent that could come back to haunt Republicans in the future. And there simply aren't 51 Republicans that are willing to take that step of getting rid of the filibuster. For a long time, John Cornyn was in that camp, argued that if you got rid of the filibuster and Democrats took the majority, they could do things like PAC the Supreme Court. Things are a lot different now that he is in this heated primary. And Brennan Leach pressed him on it today, and this is how he responded. What would you say to those who say, you just change your mind to win the president's endorsement? I'd say that's not true. You also said that it's leader. I think we're through. Go ahead. Go away. Obviously not something that he wanted to talk about. Throughout the day we have subsequently pressed him a little bit more on this. And while he told Brennan that he didn't care or wasn't about winning the president's endorsement, he said today that he hoped the president saw it and this president appreciated it, which I guess is not an explicit pretty. quid pro quo, but there's certainly something to be said about the position that he finds himself in. Now, at the end of the day, though, Kristen, I think it's important to point out there is no realistic path to blowing up the filibuster at this point. You may not get 30 Republican senators to tell you on the record that they're opposed to passing the filibuster or getting rid of the filibuster, but I can tell you from my own reporting, there is just not the appetite to take that dramatic of a step, especially for a piece of legislation like this. Yeah, it always comes down to the votes, and it's always uphill once you start counting them when it comes to changing the filibuster. President Trump reacted to John Thune saying he doesn't have the votes to pass the Save America Act. I'm going to play it. Ryan, get your reaction on the other side. Take a look. He's got to be a leader, you know? He's a leader. He's got to get him. It's the most popular bill I've ever seen put before Congress. So how exactly do you see this all playing out, Ryan? Well, it's interesting that the president said that today because two days ago at Dural in Florida, he told me that he knew that it was going to require Democrat votes in order to pass it, essentially admitting that there was no path to passing the Save Act by blowing up the filibuster. And there's just no way that Democrats are going to support this legislation as it currently stands. Right now, I think this is going to continue to be a stalemate. There is the real possibility, the likelihood that the Republican leadership will put it on the floor. next week, if anything, to force Democrats into a position where they vote no on something, like requiring a photo ID when you come to vote. But at the end of the day, I think there is a lot of misinformation that's being spread on the internet about the feasibility of this legislation passing. Many of it being peddled by some of the president's strongest supporters. And I think giving a false hope to rank and file Republicans who think that this bill could actually become law in the near future at this point. It's just not feasible, Kristen. All right. Ryan Noble, thank you so much for your reporting. Appreciate it. Joining me now is Republican Senator from North Dakota. Kevin Kramer, Senator Kramer, thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate it. My pleasure. Thank you.

So I want to start off by getting your reaction to John Cornyn, his op-ed, saying he will now support whatever changes to Senate rules are necessary to pass the Save America Act. What do you make of his change in position he was initially opposed to getting rid of the filibuster? Well, one of the great things about our system of governance, self-governance, is that we listen carefully to our constituents and come every six years, if you want to run for re-election, you are all the more attentive. But one of the other great things about the United States Senate is that we have six-year terms and only a third of us are up every two years and that's... by design so that we can look out for the country, look out for the institutions that govern this country and that preserve this country. And coming from a small state like I do where we have two senators, just like Texas has two senators, but we don't have 60 House members. Protecting the power of the Senate is really, really important. So we all come from different places, different perspectives. At the end of the day, I think Ryan's reporting is right on point. There are not the votes to blow up the filibuster. Yeah, and you have long expressed your opposition to blowing up the filibuster for the argument that you just made because you think it's important to represent a state like North Dakota. Let me read you something that you said back when Democrats were talking about this in 2022 when they wanted to change it potentially over the Voting Rights Act. You said the Democrats have created a fake crisis. These attempts to undermine the integrity of the U.S. Senate are purely designed to tilt the scales in Democrats' favor for future election. Republicans now doing the same thing, Senator? I think presidents, when they have the opportunity with the majority of their party in the Senate, they'd like to talk about getting rid of the filibuster to advance their agenda. Completely understandable. Presidents are presidents. But what's special about the United States Senate, as I've just said, is the fact that we represent states and small states have equal representation. And to give up that power doesn't make any sense. And by the way, remember, Democrats tried to do this just a couple of years ago to that quote. to do of all things, federalize elections. And now we're trying to do the same thing. And I support the Save America Act. I'm a co-sponsor of the Save America Act. I think the principles embedded in it make all of the sense in the world. And they're all the principles that the state of North Dakota has in our elections in the state of North Dakota. And more states ought to do that. But the filibuster is more important than any one issue that we would vote on or any policy we'd try to change. Well, let me read you what President Trump said earlier this week. He told at a Florida retreat House Republicans on Monday that if the Save America Act passes, quote, Democrats probably won't win an election for 50 years and maybe longer. Do you think the president's message actually undermines getting the bill passed and the goal of the overall bill?

Well, it certainly wouldn't have inspired any Democrats to vote for the bill if that was his goal, but I'm pretty sure that probably wasn't his goal. Having said that, I'm not even sure that that statement would actually be the outcome. Perhaps it would help. But I think the thing that I keep going back to is... In North Dakota, for example, we've just become more and more Republican with every election. In California, they've become more and more Democratic with every election. It's a big, diverse country that goes through various cycles. And I just think it's the greatest experiment in the world, and I don't really see any reason why we would manipulate this way. I do think. I think it's insane that people shouldn't have to show an ID to vote when that's show an ID to do a whole bunch of other things. But if California wants... to run itself that way. That's, I suppose, up to them. I would vote for the Save America Act. I wouldn't blow up the Philhubuster to do it. So you support the Save America Act. The president has added on new provisions to the bill, including no, what he has said, no men and women's sports, no gender affirming care for minors. Do you support those amendments? What do they have to do with voting? Well, one of the things that that does do is it does add other issues that probably... attract, maybe they attract some more votes, but it probably distracts as many as it would attract. I support all of those principles. Again, I would vote for the bill with those amendments in them. I'd vote for the bill without those amendments in them. There's nothing in there that's a poison bill to me personally. However, the goal of legislating is to pass bills. And so if it adds value to the bill, great. If it doesn't, that's fine as well. I just think that At this point, there's not a chance that this bill is going to pass. I'm happy to vote on it. I'm happy to get everybody on the record on it. Like I said, I could, by the way, Chris and I welcome a talking filibuster. And I told the whip that last night. If you want to keep us here for two, three, four months holding up the Senate floor on this one issue because it's that important, you know, I'll participate. I don't think it'll have a great outcome or be productive for the United States Senate, but I'd be willing to do it. I just don't think there are enough people that are willing to do it. I want to turn to Iran now, President Trump saying he can leave whenever he deems that it's an appropriate time. This is what your colleague, Senator Josh Hawley, had to say about the war yesterday. Take a look. We have totally destroyed forever their nuclear program. We have destroyed their ballistic missiles. We have destroyed their navy. It's been astounding. It's been historic. And now it's time to declare victory.

Do you think it is time to get out of Iran or do you agree with the argument Ambassador John Bolton was making, which is that if the United States leaves before there's actual regime change, the outcome would be worse than if it hadn't gone in at all. So, Kristen, I would find a position somewhere between those two, to be honest with you. I do think if you're going to pull 90% of the weeds out of your garden but leave a small portion for weeds, you're going to have a weedy garden. And I think that's what would happen if we were to leave now. I do think that to Ambassador John Bolton's point, and by the way, great interview. You know, we have to destroy the institutions that support the regime. I don't think we can determine who should be elected in a free country because that's what we want to accomplish is a free Iran. That's up to the people. But I do think destroying more of the institutions is paramount. And frankly, the last 10% is the hardest 10% to get. On the one hand, on the other hand, it does provide us now with our superior weapons, the bigger bombs, the gravity bombs. to destroy other institutions, other installations that we can identify, along with, of course, our friends in Israel. We've already created an environment for change in Iran, but I'd hate to see us leave a week early, only to leave the regime in charge and at the end of the day not accomplished as much as we could by staying another week or whatever it takes to make sure that the people have their decision to make, not us making it for them. Very quickly, as you know, there is a lot of concern inside the administration, Republican circles, about the fact that gas prices are going up, the disruption to global markets. Do you think the president has it in him to continue to watch these gas and oil prices go up and stay in Iran to finish the job? Or do you think the political costs could ultimately be too great? Well, obviously, the geopolitics of it to include the economic politics of it are part of the calculation, although the one thing we have going for us now is that we are producing more oil in the United States than we ever have. And I think there's even more opportunity to do that. I think we need to refine more of our oil here in the United States and have refineries capable of doing that. But that's a longer... term plan, but I think we ought to be about that so that we are truly not just dominant, not just secure energy-wise, but we're actually independent. In other words, we don't need the oil from other places to affect our prices, and we become the price maker instead of the price taker. Having said that, using some of the reserves, I suppose, could be helpful. Maybe there are some other things that we can do, but I'm not worried about the moment. Frankly, I think this spike is understandable, but I also think that in the long run, it is worth whatever the price is in the next short to midterm. All right. Senator Kevin Kramer, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it.

My pleasure. Thank you, Kristen. And coming up, what happens when 17 candidates from four different parties all compete on the same ballot in a special election? We'll tell you next. You're watching me at the press now. Welcome back. If it's Wednesday, we have election results in that Georgia special election to replace former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. Republican Clay Fuller and Democrat Sean Harris are advancing to an April runoff after a very crowded field led to no candidate receiving above 50%. Fuller clearly benefited from Trump's endorsement coming in worth the points ahead of his next closest Republican on the ballot. And while the many, many candidates on the ballot led to Democrat Sean Harris getting the most votes of the night, this is a solidly Republican district. President Trump carried it by 37 percentage points in 2024, and Fuller is already expressing confidence that he will emerge victorious in the runoff. I would describe this as an outright win. We know that the endorsement from President Trump made a difference in this race, and we're going to go and win it. I think it's time that the Republican vote unites and gets represented to Capitol Hill as soon as possible. But this is a win. This is an absolute win. We'll see how it all shakes out, and we want to now take you to a live look. Pictures here for the president delivering remarks in Kentucky looking to defend his economic agenda, even as the Iran war has cast new uncertainty on oil and gas prices, which are major factors when it comes to issues tied to inflation and the cost of living two areas the president is struggling with with voters, according to our latest NBC News poll. You see 36% of... approve of his handling of inflation and the cost of living 62% disapprove. Joining me now is our panel, Ujus Calhoun, staff writer at the Atlantic. Kendra Barkoff, former spokesperson to then Vice President Joe Biden, and managing director at SKDK, and Sarah Chamberlain, President and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership. Thanks to all of you for being here. Just let me start with you. Let's talk about this economic. message because here the president is trying to sell his message on the economy, his agenda on the economy, and yet oil prices are going up, gas prices are going up. How does he straddle that line effectively? I don't know that he can that easily. Gas prices, as you know, are up 20 percent due to the war in Iran, which whatever he says, I think a lot of Americans know was a discretionary choice. And that's going to be hard for him to defend. It's going to be hard. It puts his Republican colleagues in a difficult place as well, given all of their campaigning in 2024, that actually the reason they needed to vote for Republicans was that Kamala Harris would lead America into war with Iran. So I think he set himself up for a difficult balancing position. I think that the intention of this visit was to go and make some noise in the Thomas Massie congressional race, right? The longtime kind of gadfly, although he's a Republican for...

Trump, you know, he's endorsed his primary opponent and he's campaigning and speaking right now in his district. So I think that was the intention, but maybe we can hear from him. But he's trying to also make an economic pitch as well. So, Sarah, if you were advising President Trump, what would your advice be? I mean, he just is talking about how challenging it is, quite frankly, to walk that line right now. What should he say? He should be talking about the big, beautiful bill and all the good things are in that bill. I mean, and it goes from taxes, no taxes on overtime, on tips, but we have not messengers that well, so we have to go back and do that. The New York members are doing a lot of messaging on salt. It's tax time. People are getting their tax bills lower. They're thrilled about that. But we have to talk about the economy and economic issues. I mean, we've not done a good job at that yet. And the president is talking about, apparently the big beautiful bill, is we're having this conversation. Your point is he needs to stay laser-focused on it. Kendra, It's actually tricky to some extent potentially for Democrats, too. How should they message without looking like they're cheering? for high gas prices and high oil prices? I think they need to keep talking about what Americans are seeing at the gas pump. Americans are going there. They are seeing their gas dramatically higher than even it was yesterday. I think it's now at $3.58 a gallon that is up from yesterday. They're still going to the grocery store and seeing their prices that are still higher from then in some ways than when Trump took office. And so Democrats need to keep talking about affordability and how that is a big issue and how apparently, you know, Trump was voted in to have an effect on that. And it's just not doing anything. Well, you just, you know, when I was talking to our guest today about the idea that this is one of the factors that is contributing to President Trump's calculus on when and whether he wants to get out of Iran. He told Axios today he can get out whenever he wants. John Bolton says that's a little bit of an oversimplification. What are folks inside the White House, close to the White House, saying about the pressure that the president's feeling? Well, we can just see the actions that he's taken, the way that, you know, the Secretary of Energy put out this tweet saying that the U.S. Navy was escorting a tanker that caused the oil price to surge. Ten minutes later, the White House says, no, no, no, no. That was a staffer who put that out inadvertently. So clearly that's the thing that he cares about. You know, American voters historically don't bother that much with foreign policy. Those decisions don't really affect us because we're insulated with oceans. The only exceptions are when American soldiers die in large numbers and when, you know, prices increase. And, you know, unfortunately, a few soldiers have died already. If that remains limited, maybe that won't have as much of an effect as it did with the Iraq war. But these oil prices and grocery prices, which will also increase as well, those might be things that people respond to. You know, Sarah, it's interesting because President Trump said I was actually expecting gas prices to be even higher, and yet all of the reporting suggests the administration was caught off guard. How much...

concern and consternation is there inside Republican circles about these prices? There's a lot of concern because the majority of the minority will come through through Public Main Street Partnership. So they're down there. They were had their retreat this past week earlier this week. They're talking about that with him. But our polling shows he's got about six weeks at this gas crisis before it becomes a real crisis because what people are saying is, you know what, we would like to see peace in the Middle East. It's been probably all of us hasn't been in our life. time, and they would like to very much see that. So short-term pain for long-term gain, they're willing to do. But as I said, it's for only a few more weeks. Kendra, what about that argument that Sarah makes, that long-term gain, that if this does, in fact... lead to more stability in the Middle East. And of course, we don't know what it's going to lead to. It's a big question mark at this point. Again, I turn back to the prices and what Americans are seeing when they're going to pay. And you even had Rand Paul out there saying this could be detrimental or something along those lines to the election. The midterms are coming up. It's actually not that far away. And Americans are starting to pay attention to who's running. We're in primary season right now. And they're going to start to think about who do I want to vote for come this fall when I'm still seeing these prices really high. Just Kendris takes me to my next topic, which is the midterms, one of the biggest races we're watching in Texas. Senator John Cornyn out with an op-ed saying, after opposing getting rid of the filibuster, he would now support it for the Save Act. He places the blame on Democrats, but he's clearly looking for that endorsement from President Trump by all accounts. It looked like it was coming. And then it seems like the pause button has been hit. We know Ken Paxton came out with that tweet that he would consider dropping out of the race if the SAVE Act was passed, which as Ryan Noble's laid out earlier in the broadcast, it's a very, very steep climb to get it passed. Yeah, yeah, John Cornyn has the sort of Damocles hanging over him. So he is having to reverse a longstanding position. You know, he's doing, you know, the best he can. But I think it's obvious to everyone what's motivating his actions. And, you know, the president is, you know, a lot of senators were worried that he was going to endorse Paxson. I think they thought that they would just keep him at neutrality and they would be okay with that. And then suddenly there came the idea, oh, he might actually endorse Senator John Cornyn. which would give them the best chance of keeping the Texas Senate race. I think everyone would agree on that. But now the president, you know, is his own man and makes up his own decisions. Is Sarah? So that leads me to you. I'm told he's being shown data, which proves exactly what he just is talking about, which is that Senator John Cornyn is far and away the strongest general election candidate. But there's other data being presented to him that John Cornyn is just not where... the bases, and that's quite frankly been the dilemma all along. Well, he came out first in the primary, so clearly a lot of the base is with him. And I think this is a calculator. He knows there's not enough senators to do this. So he's throwing, I think, President Trump, like a...

a bone here to say, listen, I'm willing now to change. But we all know a lot of senators, you just interviewed one, who said they're not willing to change the filibuster. So I think this is a good place for corn into it. But do you think the endorsement's coming? I hope so, because as we were talking out in the green room, very concerned about the Democratic candidate. The Democrats got the right candidate through. She would have been easy to beat. He is a different matter. So let's talk about that. How do you think State Representative James Talarico is doing in his campaign? He's got a wide open field because he's in the general election and the Republicans are in a runoff, which is what a lot of Republicans have feared all along. Yeah. I mean, for him, in some ways, he hopes that Trump... doesn't do the endorsement, right? And then either stays neutral or endorses Ken Paxton because I think that's a win for him. Look, he's raising money hand over foot and he's doing well. He's speaking to a broad audience. And I think he has the ability to pull over some independence and maybe some Republicans, especially if Ken Paxton gets on the ballot. Kendra, one of the concerns with him was would he be able to, yes, it's independence, it's moderates. Will he be able to energize black voters in Texas in the way or maybe not in the same way, but can he energize black voters? Jasmine Crockett made that one of our key arguments. I think you'll see Democrats coming together and uniting around him come election time because I think they're going to want to win the election. So I have no doubt that that will be the case. And that could be control of the Senate. Well, okay, so I just final point to you. I mean, Democrats have been eyeing Texas for a very long time. Is this a year when they could actually win the Senate seat? They haven't won in more than three decades of Senate seat in Texas. Yeah, I think if Tallareka, James Talarico is the nominee, if Ken Paxton is the Republican nominee, they are definitely going to fuel it again. and they will spend a lot of money trying to get there. They will force the Republicans and spend a lot of money to do it. And I think that they will think it's in sight. It's a good year for them. The president is unpopular. It's a midterm election. Historically, presidents don't do that well in that time. So I think they're going to go for it again. All right. One of the many races we're watching very closely. Guys, thank you so much. Great conversation. Edgis Kendra and Sarah, really appreciate it. We are back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now. There's more ahead on NBC News Now. Hey there, it's Stephen Dubner, host of Freakonomics Radio, and we have just made a new show, a TV talk show. It's called Better In Person. We have the kind of guests you don't see on every other show, and we have the kind of conversations you don't hear anywhere. I'm like, yes, chef. Be one with the pork. You have the opportunity to make this little corner of the world into your ideal world, your dream world. You can watch better in person on the Freakonomics YouTube channel. You'll find a new episode there every week. This is how a conversation works.