Meet the Press NOW — February 18

You don't just pour concrete and frame walls. You build schools, stadiums, and city streets that stand the test of time. Every beam, every bolt, every foundation putting place by your hands and hard work. Because when the job's done, it's landmarks left for generations. Build my pros like you. Hello, I'm Ozempic. And I'm other GLP ones, kind of like him. Hey, are you shaking a Maraca? No, I'm shaking the pill version of Ozempic, which no one should ever do except in ads like this. A nice disclaimer. Hey, thanks. Asked your doctor about which FDA approved uses of the Ozempic pen or pill may be right for you. Call 1833 Ozemp or visitozempic.com to view the medication guide and learn more about Ozempic somaglite tablets, 9 milligrams. And Ozempic somaglite injection, two milligrams. There's a pill bird. General Zempeg.

Hi there. Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington, where more Republicans are throwing their support behind President Trump's push for Congress to overhaul voting in America ahead of the midterms, as he threatens to unilaterally overhaul elections if Congress fails to act. Of course, it all comes as the president and his party struggle in the polls and face the prospect of losing control of Congress this November. With the midterms approaching, the White House-backed Save America Act, now has 50 Senate Republicans backing it after Maine Senator Susan Collins became the latest to declare her support. The legislation, which narrowly passed the House last week, would require new voters to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. It would also mandate photo ID across all 50 states to cast a ballot, even if voting by mail. And it would require states... to verify voter registration with the Department of Homeland Security. Senate Majority John Thune has promised to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, but Democrats right now have the votes to block it. Yesterday, Senator Scott, a Florida, Rick Scott, I should say, brushed off concerns the bill could create logistical problems ahead of the midterms if it passes. We have 50 people on it now. What I tell everybody, call every U.S. Senator, you know, it's already passed the House. I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat. It doesn't really matter. We all want election security. Senator Lisa Murkowski has said that she has some concerns because if this were to pass, this could impact the elections happening this year and logistically, that could be a nightmare for local election offices. What do you say to that? So I, that's not been what people have told me. So, I mean. Everybody has show ID for everything else. I mean, how's that a big difference? It's not a big change. So Democrats have slammed the bill, arguing it's an effort to disenfranchise voters. This is what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. They make it so hard to get any kind of voter ID that more than 20 million legitimate people, mainly poorer people and people of color, will not be able to vote under this law. We will not let it pass in the Senate. We are fighting it tooth and nail. It's an outrageous proposal that shows the sort of political bias of the MAGA right. They don't want poor people to vote. They don't want people of color to vote because they often don't vote for them. Meanwhile, President Trump vowing to overhaul voting by himself, if he has to, writing on social media, there will be voter ID for the midterm elections, whether approved by Congress or not, as he makes a full-throttle push for changes to elections ahead of the midterms, repeatedly calling for the federal government and, by extension, Republicans to take control of elections despite the Constitution granting that power to the states. The Republicans should say we want to take over. We should take over the voting and at least.

This poll only tested the voter ID, did not test the proof of citizenship, which I'm told Democrats are going to focus on. They're going to argue it sets up a whole bunch of onerous requirements that could disqualify eligible American citizens who don't have easy access to a passport or birth certificate, including married women who recently changed their name or changed their name years ago and don't have the entire trail of documentation. If they can't prove it in time, they wouldn't be able to vote. So they're going to cite a report that says up to 20 million Americans could be affected here. And what I mentioned, that DHS system They don't want to give Kristi Noem and Donald Trump any more power to potentially disqualify voters. Okay. All right. Sahel, thank you for that. Let's turn now to the White House part of this, Garrett Hake. The president says he's going to pursue an executive order if the Save America Act doesn't pass. Would that accomplish what he wants here, or could states just ignore it? Do they have any responsibility to listen to an executive order when it comes to elections? Yeah, look, Ryan, this came up in the briefing room today from a questioner who I think very much wanted to see the White House get this bill across the finish line. Caroline Lesbett addressed it. I'll tell you kind of the problems with her answer on the other side. Listen to this. He's discussing and exploring legal options for a potential executive order with respect to voter ID, but this is something he's made very clear he wants Congress to get done. The president thinks you should have an ID to vote in our nation's elections, and I know the vast majority of Americans agree with him on that, and he wants Congress to move and move quickly to get it done. So here's the problem with that answer, Ryan, and the answer to your question, the White House has already tried this. They issued an executive order last spring, almost a year ago in March that was ultimately struck down by the courts for having no force of law. The federal government, at the end of the day, especially the president without Congress acting, has really no authority when it comes to how states and municipalities administer their elections. I think that's why you hear Karoline Leavitt say they want Congress to address this because, you know, they can be creative with the language, they can go back to the draw. board, they can try to maybe take a smaller bite out of this. But it's been pretty established law that the president can't do this with a stroke of a patent. Yeah, the Constitution's a pretty impressive roadblock when it comes to something like this. Yeah. One of the things that this Save America Act doesn't do is eliminate mail in voting. And if we go through all the long list of things that the president whines about when it comes to elections, mail and voting is certainly near the top. Is this going to be an area, though, where Republicans are willing to buck him? Well, you might know the answer to that better than me from Capitol Hill, Ryan. It seems more like they're hoping that the president simply doesn't notice. I mean, this is the kind of thing where the debate about the Save Act has gone on, unencumbered by the fact that it doesn't include the President's favorite provision here. You know, if it's the kind of thing that's come to the President's notice, they haven't brought it up. I'll be curious to see if and when he decides that the Save America Act, which, of course, was built on the Save Act after the White House insisted on changes, gets another reason. to try to include this. I mean, at the end of the day, if you're going to try to, you know, force through the kind of bill that would need an overhaul of Senate rules to pass it, if it's a Republican wish list, put everything you want on the wish list. I think the problem here is the president is one of very few Republicans who feels this way about mail-in voting. That's right. And of course.

When he talked about nationalizing elections, the White House also arguing that the president was talking about the Save America Act. But as Seahill pointed out, this really doesn't even talk about administering elections, similar to how it doesn't really talk about mail-in ballots. Is this something where we think the president will also pick at this and say this is something you need to improve upon here? I think it's entirely possible. I mean, look, I think that those comments from the White House were a bit of revisionist history. It was interesting to hear Karoline Leavitt asked a different question entirely today, say that when what appears to be White House or administration policy goes into conflict with truth social posts, we should follow the truth social posts because those are the things that come from the president directly. Here we have from the president directly his desire to go much farther than the legislation that sits before the Senate actually does. Okay, Garrett Hake, thank you for that. Let's turn now to our voting expert, Jane Tim. She can talk to us more about practically what the impact could be here. Jane, first talk to us about how states are responding to both the possibility of the Save America Act, but also to President Trump's efforts more broadly to change how elections are run. Yeah, you know, broadly, election officials in both parties are concerned about the things they hear coming from the Trump administration, both as Department of Justice as well as the president, on election administration. We see officials sort of say that they feel they are being slandered by the Trump administration's claims. They are not keeping clean voter rolls by... Of course, his repeated statements that he won the 2020 election, his repeated statements that there is widespread fraud in American elections. Despite what the president says, voter fraud is incredibly rare. It is typically isolated and caught. There are not large numbers of non-citizens voting in American elections, but we do know that the SAVE Act, which is stated goal, is to make sure that it's only American citizens voting in American elections. could affect millions of eligible voters who might not have access to those documents. You know, we're talking about people who are college students, homeless voters, transient voters, married women, people who have been married multiple times and might have a trail of different names and different addresses. And it takes a lot more documents. to get those to prove to election officials. And there's also the concern about how this would be run. You know, we're talking about election administration, the processes and the training and the systems and rules that this bill would dictate to have the states sort out would create a sort of massive unfunded workload on these officials in an election year. You know, typically we do not, as a country, want to change our election rules close to an election because we don't want election officials to have to be hurrying, potentially making mistakes. in something as critical as the right to vote. If you have a massive change on this, you're definitely going to have errors, human errors that happen in an election year. And so it begs a question, right? Jane, if this isn't a problem, it almost seems in many ways a solution in search of a problem, what are the president's true motives here? And you have to wonder, we already saw him make...

serious claims, false claims about the 2020 election, which have been repeatedly disproven. Is there the possibility that he's laying the groundwork to do something beyond just these claims about wanting to make elections more secure? Could it lead to something like seizing voting machines down the road if he doesn't get what he wants in terms of changing the way voting is run in this country? You know, absolutely that is a concern that I hear from election officials that casting doubt on the American election system may have a greater motive, that there is, you know, we know the Department of Justice is investigating. you know, voting machines in Puerto Rico, FBI seizing ballots in Fulton County. There is a concern that the administration may take further action based on this. And when the president is saying we should nationalize elections and writing in a tweet that he's going to change election policy without Congress, even though. The Constitution gives states the power to set the rules of their own elections. You know, that continues to further those concerns from election officials. And I would say election officials in both parties. Yeah, and I would have to say over and over again, the premise here that there is a problem with our elections is just false. I've been covering elections my entire professional career. One time have I covered a voter fraud situation that actually amounted to something serious. That was North Carolina Nine. Other than that, Jane, they've all been run appropriately, and there's ever even been a hint of a question of fraud. So the idea that there's such a focus on this by the White House is something that needs to be noted. All right, Jane, Tim, thank you so much for that. Turning now to the ongoing investigations and fallout from the Epstein files, we're learning new details about the convicted sex offenders a relationship with the billionaire business mogul Les Wexner, who owned brands such as Victoria's Secret and Bath and Body Works. Wexner, who was a close associate and prominent client of Epstein's, testified before members of the House Oversight Committee today behind closed doors at his home in Ohio. He told lawmakers in his deposition that he was conned by Epstein and denied any knowledge of Epstein's crimes. A 2019 FBI document listed Wexner as a co-conspirator in the Epstein investigation. His name was originally redacted but then unredacted after lawmakers lobbied the Department of Justice for more transparency. Wexner's legal counsel said that his client was told by the Attorney General at the time that he was not a co-conspirator nor a target of any investigation. Joining me now is Capitol Hill correspondent Melanie Zanona. So Mel, tell us more about what we're learning about what Les Wexner told the Oversight Committee.

Well, Wexner is answering questions. He did not plead the fifth. And for Wexner, he said he wanted to use this as an opportunity to really set the record straight. In his opening statement, two lawmakers there for the deposition. He said that he was a victim, essentially, of a con man who led a double life. And he also said he had zero knowledge of Epstein's crime, saying in his opening statement, I was naive, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein. He was a con man. And while I was conned, I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide. I completely and irrevocably cut ties with Epstein nearly 20 years ago when I learned that he was an abuser, a crook, and a liar. But Ryan, some of the Democrats who were present for that deposition, not exactly buying what Les Wexner is selling. Just listen. He's someone that's been named by survivors. Someone that's in the files more than most people. Someone that's clearly the financial benefactor to Jeffrey Epstein and has not been. Contact or interviewed by the FBI or the DOJ. What the hell is going on? Wexer's name did appear thousands of times in the Epstein files. And there was another unredacted, then redacted email that showed him as a co-conspirator. But another FBI email from 2019 said there was limited evidence regarding his involvement, Ryan. But the House Oversight Committee does have questions. I mean, they're particularly interested in the flow of money between Wexter and Epstein. Are we learning anything new about that aspect of their relationship? Well, this is still ongoing, this deposition. I'm sure we'll learn a lot more once they do eventually release the transcript and the video as Republicans on the committee have promised. But Ryan, you're right. The reason why lawmakers are so interested in Les Wexner is because of that financial connection. Epstein was his financial advisor for decades. Epstein was also his power of attorney. And so what lawmakers really want to know here is whether that money that flowed from Wexner to Epstein was used to sort of finance some of his sex trafficking. crimes. And as we've seen, Mel, many of these powerful men say they cut ties with Epstein a long time ago, but then the files tell a different story. Wexner's version of events is that they cut ties in 2007. Did the files released by the DOJ support that claim? That's exactly right. He said he permanently ended his relationship with Epstein in 2007, and that was after Epstein was charged with solicitation of prostitutes for a minor. That's also when Wexner said he discovered that he was actually stealing millions. Epstein was stealing millions from the Wexner estate. But according to that batch of emails that was released by the DOJ, they maintained contact in 2008. In fact, there was one email in which Wexner writes to Epstein that he feels sorry for him. and that Epstein violated his number one rule of always be careful. So clearly there was at least some level of contact after 2007, Ryan. Okay, Melanie's in honor. Thank you for that. We appreciate it. Coming up, hundreds of investigators, thousands of tips, DNA testing, and a suspect still at large. The search for Nancy Guthrie enters an 18th day.

We'll have the very latest from Arizona next. Plus, meta-CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies in a landmark trial about social media addiction and whether platforms like Instagram are engineered to exploit young people. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Shipping, billing, admin, payroll, marketing. You're managing all the things. So why waste time sending important documents the old-fashioned way? Mail and ship when you want, how you want, with Stamps.com. Print postage on-demand 24-7 and schedule pickups from your office or home. Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping. That's why over 1 million small businesses trust Stamps.com. Go to Stamps.com and use code podcast to try Stamps.com risk-free for 60 days. 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-flops 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.

And now, the next chapter of the Serta counting sheep. Hey, Uncle Number One, why aren't we counted anymore? Let me tell you a story. Long ago, Serta invented the perfect sleeper mattress. Oh, no. Oh, yes. It says the all-new Serta Perfect Sleaper with the Q4 support system has four and one perfectly interlinked coils that help relieve aches and back pain for perfect sleep night after night. We'll never get counted again. Uh, nope. Serta, we make the world's best mattress. Welcome back. The search for Nancy Guthrie is now in its 18th day with more than 400 investigators following up on thousands of leads in an effort to find the mother of our NBC News colleague Savannah Guthrie. The Pima County Sheriff telling NBC News that investigators are now searching genealogical databases for any matches. The sheriff also says the identification of this backpack seen in video from Guthrie's front porch could be a crucial piece of evidence in this case. That backpack we could positively now identify as a backpack that is sold at one place only that's Walmart. So we're working with our Walmart managers all across the state to try to find out. How many sales were there of that backpack in the last 20, 30 days? The last 60 days. And can we do something with that? Can we break it? Maybe we'll find a credit card or a bank card. Maybe we'll find a video of the guy walking in. NBC News correspondent Jesse Kirsch joins me now from Tucson. Jesse, it's now been more than a week since the last major break in this case, which was, of course, the release of the footage from Nancy Guthrie's front porch. Just give us an update on where things stand. Yeah, so right now, Ryan, one of the big things we're waiting for more information on and we know that authorities are looking into is a sample of mystery DNA that they have recovered from Nancy Guthrie's property. It does not belong to Savannah's mother. It does not belong to Nancy Guthrie, Savannah's mother's family or close contacts according to authorities. And we also now know from the sheriff because of his interview with our colleague Liz Kreutz that that DNA sample... does not match someone who may have been there for business purposes, someone who works at the property, perhaps as a housekeeper, perhaps as someone who would be servicing the pool. So they've run down those kinds of leads. And so they have this sample of DNA that they say is mixed with other DNA. And so they're working to separate those samples to then be able to run it through systems and see if it matches in a database. So that is something that could potentially become a break in this case if they're able to identify.

someone through that DNA. You just heard the sheriff talking about the Walmart backpack. There are other articles of clothing that are worn there. You can see in the surveillance images, the sheriff talking about the holster, the gun holster, that is on this person of interest, the suspect. has what the sheriff describes as unique characteristics. So perhaps they can identify the holster and then find a list of people who bought both the holster and the backpack and then work off of that. So of course, those are just some of the things that are being looked at right now. And again, as you mentioned, it has been several days since we've had a major update like surveillance video. We know that there's potentially more footage that could be recovered. The sheriff says it is a delicate process and that they're getting help from multiple tech companies. companies to see what else they can do. Let's go back and talk more about the backpack. We did hear from the sheriff there talking about how they're canvassing local Walmarts. Had they had any success there? How are the efforts going to try and determine who bought that specific bag and when? Yeah, so the sheriff referenced potentially thousands of purchases that have been made of that backpack. And again, that is the only item that publicly we have been told. has been positively identified by authorities. It's only sold at Walmart, so we know that is the only company that would have that item. But because authorities have not announced to the public, if they have identified any of the other items, the ski mask, the gloves, the zip up. jacket that the suspect has on the gun holster, the gun. None of those items have been announced to us publicly. We know that, of course, internet slews are always looking at every little piece of a frame of footage that is released. But at this point, we have not been told by authorities what those other items are, if they know what those other items are. And so that leaves a question about where those other items may have been purchased, but perhaps that is something they'll have an answer on soon. Okay, Jesse Kirsch in Tucson. Jesse, thank you for that report. We turn now to a landmark social media trial in California that could send massive ripple effects through Silicon Valley and beyond. Today, Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, took the stand for the first time to defend his company against accusations that social media services like Instagram were intentionally designed to be addictive to young people, fueling a youth mental health crisis. Attorneys for the tech companies argue there are many facts. that lead to mental health issues and their platforms cannot be blamed. The trial was attended by several families of children who died by suicide. They say they were linked to online trends. NBC News Business and Data correspondent Brian Chung is following the trial. He joins me now. So Brian, what did we hear from Mark Zuckerberg today? Yeah, and Mark Zuckerberg is still testifying. Obviously, that's why this is such a high-profile case. There are no cameras in court. However, we are getting from our team in L.A. that's inside the courtroom, a lot of commentary. They've been describing the interactions between Mark Zuckerberg and the plaintiff's attorney as very combative. And Mark Zuckerberg is trying to push back against the attorney's assertions that not only was Facebook and Instagram aware of how their products could be addictive and lead to mental health issues for children and young teens.

but that they continue to do so to try to maximize shareholder profit and also to increase the business at Meta. Now, when it comes to what Meta has said, they've been pushing back on all of this saying that not only is it not their perspective that it was really their products that led to mental health decline in this specific 20-year-old that has filed this lawsuit, but they're also going to argue that the social media use from this particular person actually happened after she was already experiencing some of these mental health. issues. That, at least coming from the statement that we've gotten from meta at the beginning of this trial, where again, they say, quote, the evidence will show she faced many significant difficult challenges well before she ever used social media. But of course, this is a very emotional trial. There have been a number of parents, as you point out, outside of the court that have said they lost their teens because of social media. Take a listen to one. This is Julianna Arnold speaking earlier today. He did not tell the truth in that congressional hearing. It does not match any of the internal documents that we are now seeing. And he's not able to answer those questions now either. And so he's fumbling over them. And we just see that as a sign of, you know, he knew perfectly well what was going on. So you can hear that these parents that are very concerned are not happy with the testimony. But again, Ryan, this all boils down to what a jury thinks. Will they side with the social media companies or with this 20-year-old plaintiff? That is the outcome that we're all trying to watch for. And then what the impact could be, Brian, because people are comparing this to the tech industry's big tobacco moment. Remember how much that changed smoking in America. How significant is this trial in terms of setting precedence for other cases against tech companies? Yeah, I mean, look, the precedent is huge here because if the jury in this case decides that the social media companies are liable for the mental health of young teens that get addicted to these apps, well, then that would open up the floodgates for all of this other litigation that is waiting on the sidelines to also clear the court. They're all basically on hold while to watch the outcome of what's going on here in Los Angeles. There's also a separate court case in New Mexico that we're also watching very closely. But in talking with our legal analyst, Danny Savalos, he has pointed out that, yes, there's been a lot of comparisons. to the tobacco case, but drawing a line between lung cancer and cigarettes is a much more difficult one to prove in the case of mental health and using these types of social media apps. Okay, Brian Chung, thank you for that. Up next, Chase are cashing in on controversy. Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico says his campaign is raking in millions of dollars in donations after his appearance on late night TV was pulled from the airwaves, but posted online instead. You're watching Meet the Press Now. I think

At DSW, we ask the important questions. Like, what shoes are you going to wear? Whether you're prepping for wedding season, festival season, or just planning the ultimate vacay, the right shoes can make or break an RSVP. So own the moment. You've got big plans and we've got just the shoes at the perfect price, of course. Get ready to get ready with designer shoe warehouse. Head to your DSW store or DSW.com today. And let us surprise you. A beauty rest mattress gives you unparalleled motion separation, isolating movement with our pocketed coil technology, while providing individualized support for every sleeping position. People at their best get their beauty rest for 100 years. July means you're halfway through the year, but there's still time to reach your 2026 wellness goals with half off an annual subscription to the Start Today app. Hi everyone, I'm Joy Bauer, the Today Show's nutrition expert. And as part of the Start Today family, we offer easy to follow meal and fitness plans. And we support you with simple, realistic tools that keep you inspired to reach your goals. Go to today.com slash start and download now because it's never too late to start today. Subscription automatically renews each year at 6599 plus taxes and peas until canceled. Offer ends July 31st, 2026. Prices subject to change. Visit today.com slash start for full offer terms and details.

Welcome back with less than three weeks to go until the primary election in Texas, one of the top two Democratic candidates, James Talarico, is seizing on the drama surrounding the interview he did with CBS late night host Stephen Colbert, which was pulled from the TV broadcast and instead posted on YouTube over the network's concerns that it would trigger the FCC's equal time rule. Well, now that interview is racking up more than 6 million views online in James Talarico, saying his campaign has raised $2.5 million in just 24 hours. Joining me now is our panel, Idris Kalloon, a staff writer at the Atlantic, Kendra Barkoff, a former spokesperson to then Vice President Joe Biden, and Matt Gorman, former senior communications advisor to the Tim Scott presidential campaign. So, Adrease, this is a pretty remarkable moment here that you've got... This interview, which now probably will be seen more because of the controversy around the FCC and pulling it off the air. James Talarico posted on X as a way to kind of get people to watch it. He said, this is the interview. Donald Trump didn't want you to see. What do you make of the way that he seized this opportunity? It was a big campaign gift for him. I think his folks are just elated that this happened because it's basically a stric sand effect, right? The fact that, you know, this thing now appears to be banned. It makes people interested in it. Like you said, it's got 6 million views. If it had just been posted regularly, I don't know that it would have gotten maybe a tenth of that, maybe even less. And the timing could have been better for him either. because the primary is on March 3rd. He, you know, might have won, but he was trailing in some polls. This is really a boon for him. And, you know, the FCC's, you know, intervention here, or what the lawyers perceived it to be, probably in kind helped the candidate who has a better chance of beating whoever the Republican nominee is. And Kendra, can he take advantage of this? I mean, how big of a boost could it potentially be? Because I find it interesting. that James Talarico's raised a lot more money than Jasmine Crockett. He seems to have a much more solid organization on the ground and what is it, a massive state. But yet every poll shows the two of them neck and neck. Could this be the boost that James Talarico needs to get over the finish line? We hope it is for his sake. He hopes it is, I should say, for his sake. And I'll say you're seeing Texas in general. You're seeing numbers start to flip in Texas. You're seeing, as we saw in the election, a couple weeks ago with the Senate. Democrat who flipped a seat already, you are seeing things start to shift in Texas and polls start to shift in Texas. And this is something he really does need to take advantage of if he hopes to win in the general election. It's interesting, Matt, Jasmine Crockett, who is his opponent, actually talked about this. I want to play that clip for you. Listen to what she said.

I think it probably gave my opponent the Abusi was looking for. So I think it's probably better that he didn't get on and that they went straight to streaming because we know that when we resist and when we know that it seems like they're trying to change the rules and been to the knee of or been the need to this president that it backfires in a historic fashion. So this is kind of a weird place for her to be, right? She doesn't want to stand on the side of blocking his access here. But is there a way for her to blunt the momentum that James Talarico might get from this? Well, it's certainly money momentum. We'll see if it actually translate to anything besides a little blip right now, early voting and starting in Texas as we speak. Certainly, Jasmine Crockett is where the energy is in Texas in the party. You could argue Ken Paxton is a corollary on the other side. But, you know, again, I think this was a little gambit cooked up by Stephen Colbert and James Talarico to try and get this at the right time. see if it happens. We have a couple more weeks until March 3rd. There's competitive primaries on both sides, so it's going to be a high turnout for everybody. I'm curious to see whether or not James Talarico or Jasmine Crockett can go through, but then you have the Republicans, which is a three-way car crash, so to speak, on their side. Let's get that in a second, but do you agree with Matt's assessment that the momentum's behind Jasmine Crockett? I don't know if I would agree with that. I think you're seeing him on Stephen Colbert, which I think leads you to understand that, like, Stephen Colbert thinks he's going to be something big. So I think the early voting is just beginning. And I think he has the opportunity to take it. His name is not big. He's not been in Congress. He's, you know, has only been in the house for, you know, less time than Jasmine Crockett has been. So we'll see what happened. And the state house? The state house, correct. So, Adrienne, let's. Turn to the Republican side here that Matt alluded to. They have their own primary issues with some candidates that are probably less than desirable, at least for national Republicans. So far, President Trump is just hesitant to get involved. He basically said in all of the above endorsement is where he's pining his hopes right now. Why do you think the president is so reluctant to pick a horse in this race? Well, I think his instincts, and Matt maybe might know better, but I think his instincts would be to lean towards Ken Paxton. And given that John Cornyn, the incumbent is running, I think every Republican senator is saying, Please, Mr. President, don't endorse Ken Paxton. And so maybe for their perspective, the fact that he said, I have three friends in the race, and I'm not endorsing, is victory because if the president weren't to intervene, he probably wouldn't intervene on the side that they particularly want. Now, I think Republicans are also worried not just because they want to protect incumbents, but also because they worry that Ken Paxton is the only candidate who could lose, probably to James Talarico. Maybe not to Jasmine Crockett. And so for them, that's another reason that they really don't want the president to intervene. And maybe from their perspective, he's doing probably the best that he can do at this point. So let's get Matt's take on it then as the Republican at the table. A, are you worried about Ken Paxton winning? And is it enough for Donald Trump just to not endorse?

to blunt Ken Paxton's march towards the nomination. I mean, a couple things, right? This has been the case of a long-time worry for Republicans, right? There was a worry when John Cornyn's numbers were soft a year ago. There was talk, hey, do you find him a job in administration? The NASA administrator is you something else. If they can appoint, it becomes a little bit more of an early transition. But you're right. I'll say this, from what I've heard, a lot of folks in the White House are not happy with Ken Paxton. doing this whole gambit and costing them possibly a seat or at least a bunch of money and attention as well. But I think also, too, this is almost certainly not the only time Republicans are going to be voting in Texas in the Senate race. They'll likely have a runoff among the top two folks. And right now we'll look at anybody, whether it's Hunt, Ken Paxton or John Cornyn, could be in that top two. But depending on who's in that top two, Really, the landscape could look very different. Well, this is what John Cornyn's saying about it, and our Bridget Bowman, who is in Texas right now, just published a piece describing what he thinks the outcome would be if Ken Paxton were the nominee. He says that if Ken Paxton as the nominee, we could well experience a massacre and the first Democrat elected since 1994 in the state of Texas. I've said this many times on the show, Kendra, I've reported on Democratic hopes in the state of Texas in vain multiple different times, multiple different iterations. If Ken Paxton is the nominee, should we actually believe that Texas could go blue? Well, I think not only Texas could go blue, but you're also seeing a governor's race down there, and you're seeing a woman who's running against the incumbent, who has a chance to win as well if Ken Paxton is on the race. And so I do think that it could flip, and it could not only carry the Senate and help carry the Senate, it could carry the governor's mansion as well. Okay. I do agree with that? Do you think the governor's mansion's in play? I have no visibility of the governor's mansion yet, but you don't want somebody like Ken Paxton and Lee a ticket right now, I think. Yeah, okay. All right, so, Idris, let's turn to what's happening here in Washington. Oklahoma governor, a stitt spoke at the economic club. Let's play a little bit of what he said. The federal government shouldn't dictate all of our lives across the country, right? We have 50 different laboratories of democracy. These states are different. States' rights are very important. Federal government has its place, but we need to defer to the state governors, whether it's on whatever the policy that we're talking about today. So Saturday night, where will you be? I will be at the White House on Saturday night. And, you know, to speak on that issue.

So we have to do this quick. But what is this talk, I mean, what does this state coming from a Republican where we see the president increasingly trying to encroach on the rights of states? Yeah, Kevin State's been interesting. He's on a few occasions, especially with the Minneapolis deployment and the ICE deployment there. He's been one of the few Republican governors who's not gone so far as to criticize the president, but to say, like he said there, the federalism is important that, you know, this is a system in which state governors ought to be respected. And I think that he's... He's carved out a little bit of a niche for himself, which I think is quite interesting. Do Republicans, does the president risk going against this kind of limited government idea that Republicans have usually championed? I don't think Trump stays up at night worrying what Kevin Stitt thinks. However, I do think you could be seeing two 2028 candidates on that stage right there, and I'm not talking about David Rubin's stage. Oh, okay. Well, I was just going to say, too, I think. Stitt is interesting because he is completely on the other side as it pertains to tribal sovereignty. He thinks that tribes should not be allowed to do whatever they want. He believes that they can't handle their own crime on their lands. And so I think it's an interesting sort of juxtaposition that he thinks that states should be able to do what they want, but he's very clear about where tribes should be. All right. We'll let that go. Matt, predicting the 2028 field right here. At least. We'll mark it down. Okay, Adrease, Kendra, Matt, thank you all for being here. After the break, Democrats trying to expand the map, now targeting solidly red states in this year's midterms. Are they building a wave or stretching themselves too thin? Congresswoman Susan Del Benny, who runs the campaign arm for the House Democrats, is next. You're watching Meet the Press now.

Welcome back. Joining me now is Democratic Congresswoman Susan Delbeni of Washington. She's also the chair of the Democratic Congresswoman, always a pleasure to talk to you. Let's talk about your work at the DCCC. You recently added five more seats that you believe you can flip in 2026, but most of them are considered solidly Republican districts by the Cook Political Report. What makes you so ambitious here? Why do you think Democrats can flip those? Well, you know, folks are souring on the Republican agenda. They have broken promises over and over to lower costs for the American people. Folks are struggling, and they're struggling with high prices of housing, food, health care, energy costs all going up directly because of actions of Republicans in Congress and this administration. And we've seen in special elections since November of 2024. Folks voting for Democrats. We are running 13 points ahead across the country in special elections and 17 points ahead in congressional special elections. So because of that, we know that people want representatives that are going to stand up for them. All of these districts, we have strong opportunities. These are all districts that Donald Trump won by 13 points or less. We have great candidates who are running. opportunity to have for these districts to help us take back the majority. So now we have an offensive map of 44 districts across the country, really in all corners of the country. Yeah, let's talk about that math. So 44 seats, that'd be a wave election like we really haven't seen since 2010 when Republicans picked up 63 seats. Are you just shooting for the moon here, or is this strategy grounded in reality? Do you really think you can win all 44? Well, we have great candidates running. We know when we have great candidates running talking about the issues that matter, we can win. Remember, in November of 2024, Democrats won 14 seats in Congress that Donald Trump also won in because we had great candidates talking about the issues. We know we can win across the country. People are angry about what they're seeing from this administration. Families are struggling. And Republicans don't care. They promise to lower costs on day one. It's been a big broken promise. And folks, you hear the American Republic responding, and they've responded in special elections, but they're absolutely going to respond in November of 2026 when we take back the House. So one of the biggest issues, it's the biggest issue in almost every election is the economy. In the latest polling, though, more Americans say that they still trust Americans to do a better job than Democrats. But we should point out that a plurality say they actually don't trust either party. How does the Democrat message change the view of voters heading into this very important election? Well, I think we've been very focused on talking about affordability, talking about how the reckless tariffs from this administration from Donald Trump have raised prices on everyday goods and definitely on food, making it harder and harder for families. Trump calls affordability a hoax and says this isn't an issue.

American people know what's happening with their pocketbooks. They see the impact of policies from this administration. And they want folks who are going to stand up for them, not just be a rubber stamp for this president. So that is... why it's so important this election, folks know that having representatives that are going to stand up for them can make a difference and absolutely in a difference on the economy, on opportunities for Americans all over the country. That's why we've been winning in special elections and absolutely why we'll take back the House. Great candidates who are laser-focused on the issues that matter to our communities. So there's a wide range of ways that things would change if Democrats took the majority. And one of the things that Donald Trump has warned his supporters about is the possibility that you could move to impeachment. What's your response to the president's messaging on this? And how realistic that Democrats might seek impeachment proceedings if they win back the majority? No, our focus is on affordability. Our focus is standing up for the American people. Donald Trump can say whatever he wants, but knowing that we have the gavels and actually can have... hearings and move legislation that helps working families is the top priority, making sure that we are holding this administration accountable. Just basic oversight isn't happening right now because Republicans refuse to do even the basic work to make sure that they're holding the administration accountable for standing up for families. voting on important issues, like voting on tariffs, which have to go through Congress and haven't under this administration. That's another thing that Congress can do. When we have the gavels, we can have those hearings. We can move bills that actually help working families. That's our priority as opposed to Republicans who right now are in a Congress that has not been functional, where we have not seen policies that are helping working families. We've only seen policies. that have undermined working families across the country. Their focus is on the wealthy and the well-connected, not on working families across the country. And that's another thing that needs to change. One of your colleagues, Congressman Tony Gonzalez of Texas, is responding to allegations of an affair that he may have had with a staffer who then later took her own life. In your capacity at the D-Triple C, do you think that he should be forced to step down from Congress or suspend his campaign? And what's your overall view of that race in particular? Is it one that you believe Democrats could win that seat back? Well, we have opportunities all across the country, including in Texas, and we have multiple opportunities in Texas. And, you know, Republicans tried. In fact, Donald Trump tried to redistrict in Texas, basically called up Republicans in Texas and said, give me five seats.

People hate that across the country. They want to pick their representatives. They want to vote for the folks who are going to represent them, not have Republicans tried to decide who is going to be their representative. So we have great opportunities across Texas. We have opportunities all across the country. And remember, the reason that Republicans are trying to rig the system through redistricting is because they know they can't win. They know that they are losing. They aren't interested in changing their policies based on what they're hearing from Americans. They are focused on trying to rig the system so they can win. So we are going to fight back. We have been fighting back. But it's important in every district, including the district, if you mentioned, People in that district have the opportunity to elect the person who they think will best represent them, and we're going to compete in districts all across the country. But in terms of the allegations, do you believe that he still fit to serve? And should at the very least the House Ethics Committee be looking into this? You know, I think this is going to be important for the ethics committee to look at. It's important that people have the facts. You know, these allegations are heartbreaking. Okay. And then finally, I want to turn to the president's state of the union next week. At least 12 of your colleagues, Democratic lawmakers, a plan to boycott the president's state of the union address. Is that an effective strategy? And how will you respond to the president's speech? You know, I think people are doing what they think is best to get their message to the American people. I will be attending. That's my plan is to attend the State of the Union. But I think it's important that people hear voices across this country. I know people want to make sure that they are getting the facts, that they know what policy ideas are out there. So. You're going to hear that from Democrats across the country. Again, we need to amplify and stand up for the voices of the American people. That's going to be our job every day, but definitely also our job on Tuesday evening. Okay, Congresswoman Del Bannie, thank you as always for joining us. We appreciate it. Thank you. Still to come. Smells like trouble, the escalating political blame game over the disastrous sewage spill in Washington, D.C. There are a lot of events coming up for America 250. The president wants people from all over to come to the nation's capital. Is he worried that by the summer, the Potomac River will still smell like poop? He is worried about that, which is why the federal government wants to fix it, and we hope that the local authorities will cooperate with us in doing so.

will cooperate with us in doing so. Welcome back, and we are turning now to that massive sewage spill here in the D.C. area and the escalating political blame game, as cleanup efforts continue on the Potomac... Congressional Democrats from Maryland and Virginia have sent a letter to the head of D.C. water to express serious concern about the environmental and health impacts of the spill. E. coli levels in the Potomac have soared as a result of the more than 250 million gallons of sewage spilling into the river. The EPA put out a statement yesterday calling it a sewage crisis of historic proportioned. And adding, quote, the Trump EPA has the experience and track record to fulfill President Trump's strong desire to get this mess cleaned up as fast as humanly possible. The agency, though, says officials in Maryland and D.C. have not asked for any assistance. NBC News Legal Affairs reporter Gary Grumbach joins me now. Gary, this is a mess, both literally and physically. But let's talk about the efforts to fix and clean up the sewage spell. This is going to take a while. It's going to take a while for both fixing and cleaning up. Fixing, though, is the priority here right now. They have diverted the sewage into a empty C&O canal, which is an area right near the DC area, and that is bypassing back into the sewer system. So there's not currently millions and millions of gallons pouring into the... But this is still a real issue. It's going to take five to six weeks to get this temporarily fixed and up to 10 months to get it permanently fixed. So the EPA says that it has the ability to clean up the mess, but they say they're actually not helping with the cleanup efforts now? What's the disconnect? Yeah, that's a good question. And actually there's officials at the White House as we speak from D.C. Water, Virginia, Maryland, and the EPA trying to get all on the same page about this. It took 30 days for them to have a White House meeting, but they are finally having this meeting. The EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, They've all said they are ready and willing to help, but they're not... actually helping yet. In fact, today is the first time we've heard that FEMA is on the ground at the site now beginning the process to help. At some point, could they just say, all right, we're in charge, we're taking over? Does it work that way, or do they need some buy-in from the state and local? So they do need some buying from state and locals. There's something called the Sherman Act, which I won't get into too much detail on, but it does allow states to have to request this sort of information and request this sort of help. But this is something that the federal government has the resources to do. There's a natural disasters like this that happen all the time around the U.S. They can, and they have the knowledge to help this sort of...

situation, and they're simply, at this point, not. So are the locals asking for it, though? They want the help, and they're just not responding? Governor Wes Moore said today that he's, yes, sure, President Trump, come on and help us, if you will. I think that needs to be a little more official than that. And during a press briefing, there needs some paper tossed back and forth, but the help certainly seems to be on the way, but slowly, again, this is day 30? And is it possible that this could end up as part of congressional action? Could there be hearings on this? We've seen both... lawmakers from Virginia and Maryland demanding that. Yeah, I've talked to lawmakers. I've also talked to local leaders. Glenn Echo, Maryland, a town of about 300 people. But the mayor there said she just wants communication. She wants her residents to understand that when it's going to be safe to be able to go near the Potomac because right now it's not going to be safe. There may be hearings. There may be public hearings about this. And there also is just concern, not. for the Potomac itself, but for the folks that live around this area where they're diverting the sewage, right? Yeah, that's the case. And also Montgomery County Fire and Rescue actually came out with a statement saying any rescues that they have to do near the Potomac River, they're going to require their folks to wear PPE, meaning masks, meaning face masks, any of that kind of stuff around the river. I know there's a lot of ways to joke about this, but it really is an awful situation that's going to take a long time to fix. Gary, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it. And we are going to be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now, but there's plenty more news ahead right here on NBC News Now. Thanks so much for watching. Have a great day.

Real talent is defined by what people can do, not where they learn to do it. So by stopping at the education section of a resume, you might throw away the perfect hire. Skills first hiring helps you see talent others miss, like more than 70 million stars, skilled through alternative routes. Let their story unfold and gain a competitive advantage. Because hiring managers who start with skills are 60% more likely to find a successful hire. Higher skills first. Learn why at tear the paper ceiling.org. Brought to you by Opportunity at Work and the Ad Council.