Meet the Press NOW — November 10

Instagram teen accounts default teens into automatic protections for who can contact them and the content they can see. Explore teen accounts and all of our ongoing work to protect teens online at Instagram.com slash teen accounts. Your morning starts, your coffee pours, the city moves. But beneath it all, something else is moving. It's energy transfer, one of America's largest pipeline companies, transporting oil, natural gas, and refined products across the U.S. These products keep homes warm, businesses running, and everyday life on track. People rely on energy transfer to safely deliver oil and gas whenever and wherever it's needed. Learn more at energy transfer.com. And welcome to meet the press now. I'm Ryan Nobles. You've been listening to President Trump taking questions in the Oval Office on day 41 of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. And for the first time in nearly six weeks, the end does appear to be within sight. A final vote in the Senate could come as soon as today. After last night, when eight members of the Democratic Caucus joined Senate Republicans to advance a bill to reopen the government. Moments ago, President Trump saying he would abide by the deal, calling it very good. Senate Majority John Thune today urging lawmakers not to drag the process out. I would encourage every member of this body, Democrat or Republican, pro-bill or anti-bill, not to stand in the way ever being able to deliver the coming relief quickly. The American people have suffered for long enough. Let's not pointlessly drag this bill out. Let's get it done. Get it over to the house so that we can get this government open. Now, this bipartisan plan would fund all of government through the end of January. It also funds SNAP benefits, previously known as food stamps through next September. It reverses the administration's shutdown layoffs and guarantees back pay for all federal furloughed employees. And it promises Democrats a vote on a bill addressing Affordable Care Act subsidies. Notably not included in the deal, any specific extension of those Affordable Care Act subsidies, which has been at the center. of democratic demands throughout the shutdown. The deal prompting frustration among the majority of Democrats who voted against it, even as they stopped short of directly criticizing their colleagues. I think it's a terrible mistake. The American people want us to stand and fight for health care, and that's what I believe we should do. I think the voters were pretty clear on Tuesday night what they wanted Congress to do. more specifically what they wanted Democrats to do. And I'm really sadden that we didn't listen to them. No, of course not. It's not caving. They're doing what they feel is helping the most number of people. And they're not going to stop fighting to get those subsidies restored. Even though they walked away without getting their key. They didn't get it today, but they're not quitting. What they did get today was making sure that 42 million people can get their staff benefits.

Now, Senator Jeanne Shaheen is one of the Democrats who says the mounting pain of the shutdown put for the deal to reopen the government. I spoke to her today about the criticisms that Democrats conceded too much. Take a listen. We got a deal. It was the only deal on the table. It keeps the fight going on. premium tax credits and health care in a way that I think allows us to continue to rally and point out who's on the side of working families in this country and who's been holding up the ability to make health care more affordable. It allows us to reopen the government and stop the suffering of millions of Americans who are not getting their food assistance, the air traffic controllers who are not getting paid, federal workers who are not getting paid and they'll be hired back and protected. So there is a lot of good. It also allows us to fund portions of the government going forward in ways that protect food assistance in the future, that protect WIC benefits to help mothers and their children, that protects veterans and the VA. So I think... There is a lot. Once people unpack the steel, they'll understand that it's good for us. There are a number of Republicans who now recognize that this is an issue that's important to them, and they need to work with us on it. And if they don't, then the American people are going to hold them accountable. Now, the one thing you didn't get, though, was an assurance that the House would even vote on that legislation. Speaker Johnson actually ran out of the room and didn't answer our questions on it today. How concerned are you? that Republican leadership in the House wouldn't even give your vote or give your bill a vote if it gets those 60 votes? Well, one of the things this agreement did is it forces the House to come back in. They have been AWOL under Speaker Johnson since the beginning of September. They have to come back in now and take up the business of this country. And I think the pressure is going to mount. We've heard from Donald Trump that he wants to fix this. So he's going to work with Speaker Johnson, I'm sure. And again, if they don't... produce, the American people are going to be able to hold them accountable. And I'll guarantee you this is going to be an issue next year in the elections. I also spoke to Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders this afternoon and pushed him on that reasoning from Democrats like Jeanne Shaheen. Here's what he had to say. Look, I think it was a terrible, terrible vote. At a time when we have a broken health care system, this is going to make our health care system even worse. And that vote last night paves the way for 15 million people to be thrown off Medicaid. What are they going to do? Many of them are going to die? So that was a really bad vote that took place last night. So your colleagues have said, there was no deal to be had and that they had to take a step back and try a different approach. What would you, how would you respond? Well, I disagree. You know, Donald Trump, a Republican, is the president of the United States. You are Republicans leading the House. You're Republicans leading the United States Senate. They are, in fact, responsible for the shutdown. They have refused to negotiate.

So where do things go from here? This is not yet a done deal. And passing the Senate is just step one. It will also have to make it through the House with sources telling NBC that Speaker Johnson is eyeing Wednesday for the vote. And now House members will be traveling back to D.C. with airports nationwide experiencing massive delays in cancellations because of FAA ordered flight reductions due to the shutdown. Speaker Johnson today urging members to return to Washington now. As of Sunday, nearly half of all domestic flights and U.S. flights were either canceled or delayed. It's a very serious situation. So I'm saying that by way of reminder. I'm stating the obvious to all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats in the House, you need to begin right now returning to the Hill. We have to do this as quickly as possible. My urgent plea of all my colleagues in the House, and that means every Democrat in the House, is to think carefully, pray, and finally do the right thing. and help us to bring an end to the pain of the American people. Joining me now from Capitol Hills, Melanie Zanona, senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez, a lot of Z's today, and legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach knows he in that name, but still a great guy. With the latest on SNAP benefits, Mel Z, let's start with you. Where do things stand in the moment? Could we get a House vote or a Senate vote today, and how are things looking for passage in the House? So there's still a bit of a road here, but it does look like Congress is on track to reopen the government, potentially by midweek to later this week. First, this funding deal still has to pass the Senate. The leadership was hoping to have a vote this evening, but they need agreement from every single senator in order to be able to do that. Right now, they just don't have that. So they are working to secure a time agreement. And then once that does pass the Senate, which we are expecting it to do, then it heads here to the House. Members have been out of session since September 19th, but Speaker Mike Johnson had a call with his members today where he said he's hoping to have his vote in the House as soon as Wednesday. That could potentially slip to Thursday, depending on what happens in the Senate. And he also encouraged members to get back to D.C. start making their journeys as soon as possible because of those air travel delays that you mentioned. Now, the question of whether this will pass the House, the consensus seems to be it's going to be tight. There could be a handful of Republicans to vote against it, but there could also be a handful of more centrist. Democrats who vote for it. And Speaker Mike Johnson this morning on that call expressing confidence that they'll be able to get it done. Let's talk about these Senate Democrats at voting yes. Is it significant, Mel, that none of them are up for re-election in next year's midterms? Oh, I think it's hugely significant. It is not a coincidence that every single Senate Democrat who voted for that initial procedural step is not going to be on the ballot next year in the midterms. They're either all retiring like Dick Durbin or Jeanne Shaheen or they're not going to be up for reelection until 20. 28 or 2030, which is the case with people like John Fetterman and Jackie Rosen. And so what that signals to me is that Democrats were worried about the backlash, particularly from their own party if they voted with Republicans to reopen the government. And that includes in a purple battleground state like Georgia, where John Offsoff, he's one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for reelection, has been firmly against this deal to reopen the government. We should also note, though, Georgia is set to face really high skyrocketing premiums if those affordable ecstatic go away, Ryan. And then, of course, there's the Chuck Schumer of all of this, Mel. Does he have the most to lose here? Even though he voted no, the Democrat seems very angry with him that he wasn't able to keep these eight Democrats on board with the plan to hold firm. Can he hang on as leader in the wake of that?

the bill into law, and then all of a sudden the SNAP benefit recipients direct deposit automatically updates. It's going to take time for this to rectify itself, right? All of this takes time, and the fight is not over the 65%. Snap beneficiaries around the country are getting 65% of what they usually get from the federal government. The fight is over whether or not they get 100%. But the participant, the average SNAP beneficiary right now with 65% is getting $123 for the month. That is minuscule compared to what normally they get more than $2. $200. And this fight is at the Supreme Court right now because Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has administratively stayed Judge John Mitch McConnell's order, which had said you should get the full 100% of SNAP benefits. That is not happening. The Trump administration is asking for that administrative stay to be extended throughout the rest of the week. So this is a court battle that's going back and forth, basically what the administration can and can't do. when the government is shut down as it relates to SNAP benefits. But if the government funding fight is over, does the legal battle still matter? The legal battle is over, but the practical implications don't. If you're hungry tonight, a government shutdown that ends on Thursday doesn't mean a thing to you. And I think that's an incredibly important point to make here, right? This is food they need now. This is money they need to get to the grocery store, not to go to the fancy restaurant in downtown D.C., but to go to the grocery store and get the food they need to feed their families. All right, Gary Grumbach. Thank you for that update. We appreciate it. And we are going to talk more now about the shutdown. And joining me is Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, who was, of course, one of the few Democratic lawmakers to consistently vote for the Stopgack funding bill throughout the government shutdown. Senator John Fetterman, I'm pleased to be joined with you, normally chasing you down in the hallway. Here we're talking during this program. You have consistently voted to reopen the government for over a month. What ultimately moved the needle and convinced some of your fellow Democrats to join you? I think people realize that this really needs to end, the mass chaos. You know, how many are going to play chicken for the food security of two million Americans? How much more unsafe do you're going to make flying in our country? You know, the military deserves to be paid and the workers here and the Capitol needs to be paid and the Capitol police, all those people. You know, you've run this into record. That's a sad record and enough people realized, you know, this thing has run its course and it's time to just bring it to end. You know, you were one of the few people that I talked to over the course of this shutdown who said you wanted to do both. You wanted to open the government and extend the ACA subsidies at the same time. I think one time you described it as a Venn diagram where many of those recipients would fall in the same sector of that Venn diagram. Are you concerned now that the government is reopened that these ACA subsidies may not be extended? Absolutely. It's entirely, entirely possible. But right now with the shutdown, we're getting, we're not getting either, you know? And it's like, you know, like talk to, talk to hungry people. I don't think they're interested in the political game or the next fundraising email from people that are.

profiting off of it. So what I'm saying, it's like as a committed Democrat, it's wrong to shut our government down. We were very critical of the Republicans to do it appropriately. And now for me, the people that I really fight for are the food insecure and the unions and all of the unions that have been involved in that are saying this has to end. This has to end. At this point, you know, it's run its course. And now enough people finally realized. Now, we're going to put country over the party at this point. All right, but let's talk about the next stage of this debate over the Affordable Care Act subsidies. You've been guaranteed a vote by Senate Republicans. How important is it for Democrats now to negotiate a plan that can get 60 votes? And do you think that's possible that you can strike a deal with Republicans and Democrats to extend those credits for a vote in December? Well, I can guarantee where my vote will be. It's absolutely, I voted for it countless times with now, too. Two things must be true that we should never shut our government down or we should reopen it and now absolutely support those tax credits for the ACA. Now, two things must be true. That's part of democracy and that's part of where we are right now. And all of the criticism and the lectures from the blue states. They're not going to feed 42 million Americans. They're not going to pay our military. But this vote, my vote, will and the others of the seven others, they all understand that we can bring flying in America back to normal as we're approaching Thanksgiving. And now we can all, all of us. There's not a single Democrat in this town that I've met, that we all agree that we want to extend those tax credits. And I do believe there might be a critical mass of Republicans to do that thing. That's where we are, because under this shutdown, millions and millions of Americans were being punished, and they weren't getting, you know, paid, they weren't getting fed, and we weren't getting those kinds of tax credits that we all want. It was a loser, and it was the wrong thing. So let's say that you aren't successful in this vote in December, that even if it passes the Senate, it doesn't get a vote in the House or it doesn't pass the House. How concerned are you that these subsidies will not be extended in the millions of people who benefit from those subsidies? I think 22 million people across the country will just be left with a huge premium hike. Is that something Democrats can accept at this point? Of course I'm concerned about that. Of course I want those things. You know, let's compare the picture in my state, Pennsylvania. Two million Pennsylvanians, you know, rely on SNAP to feed themselves of their families. Around 400,000, you know, get those kinds of tax credits. Now we fight for both. And right now, I'm one of the Democrats that refuse to play chicken with 42 million's ability to feed themselves in their family and pay our military in those things. You know, and if a Democrat in my caucus has a problem with, you know, that's certainly not the big tent kind of party that we need to win. Do you, though, have any concern about the way this unfolded for Democrats that it could undermine the party's momentum heading into a crucial election year?

Because feeding people isn't a political, you know, calculation, feed these people, pay the military, pay these folks. You know, like, that's fundamental. Like, it's not like a sad political game. And, like, it's not a calculation that's more important to me. It's a country over party. And for me, it's like... you know, what's the momentum? It's like, yes, it was a great result for Democrats. But to her credit, you know, I believe one of the governor elect said, my election winning is not a green light to extend this shut down. Absolutely, I agree with her. And now, a lot of the people that are, I don't, that are lecturing us. I guarantee you they're dropping the fundraising emails and they're, you know, they had some great quarters through that. You know, I refuse to monetize, you know, faux outrage. And, you know, and I'll, you know, here, it's like, you know, this is a serious solution that's necessary. And now for me, you know, Democrats should be able to have different views. And now for me, take the win. Take the win that happened on Tuesday. Now that's where we are. And now we are going to recapture the House in 2026. And then we have the first opportunity because remember, we are in the minority here in the Senate and in the House. And Trump is still in the White House. And the Supreme Court is a six and three right now. This is a long game. That's not just because, you know, keeping the government as hostage. That's not a long game. That's the wrong thing. All right. And last question I have for you, sir, your assessment of how leader Chuck Schumer has handled this shutdown. He was one of the driving forces behind it, which you obviously were opposed to. Now he's getting quite a bit of heat from your progressive colleagues that he allowed eight of you to vote. Yes on this. Do you think Chuck Schumer still has the confidence? He didn't allow me to vote. It's like I'm going to vote. You know, Chuck was right. Chuck was right in March. You know, I led that charge in March. And again, I disagree with his vote, but I'm not going to criticize him and I'm not going to attack him. And I'm not going to jab my finger in their chest, you know? Like I said, you know, where the lectures are coming, you know, look how they're behaving and look at where they come from. And for me, Pennsylvania keeps people honest. And now we have to find a way forward. And this is the kind of state that has to win, you know, whether in 26 or in 28 now right now. You know, but I don't want to get lectures about we have to be a big 10 Democrat as a Democrat, a committed Democrat voting Democrat 90% of the time. If I'm not able to just say, hey, it's wrong to shut our government down. And now I think it's time to, you know, where's the problem here? Okay. Senator John Fetterman, thank you for your time, sir. We appreciate it. Thank you.

Joining me now is the view from the House side of things, and that's Democratic Congressman of Pennsylvania, Brendan Boyle, who says that he is a hell no on this Senate deal. Congressman Boyle, you just heard the reaction from your fellow Pennsylvanian, Senator John Fetterman. He obviously feels as though it was time to reopen the government. Why do you feel differently? Oh, I disagree with that characterization. I have from the very beginning. House Democrats have been united, saying that it was Republicans who were shutting down the government because they were, just as it's Republicans who have inflicted these health care cuts on the American people. According to the Congressional Budget Office, over 15 million Americans will lose their health care, and premiums will go up for tens of millions more. That's what this has all been about. Even Donald Trump himself, sitting in the Oval Office, announced that this whole fight has been over health care. And that is the biggest reason, again, as Donald Trump said the morning after the election, that was one of the two big reasons, according to him, why Democrats were so successful this last election. The American people have been on our side throughout this. I just got off a caucus meeting moments ago with the entire House Democratic caucus, and we remain united in opposing any deal. that would do nothing to address the health care of the American people because that issue can't wait until January because those cuts take effect right now and would be locked in place before we get to January 1. So what is your response then to the moderate Democrats who voted yes for this who said? There was no deal to be had. Republicans were insistent that they weren't going to talk to us about health care until the government was reopened. And we felt the best path forward was to alleviate the pain that so many people were feeling as a result of the shutdown and then get to the negotiating table. Is that not an argument that holds water with you? I have to say, you know, and look, each member of Congress is going to search their own... conscience and intellect and make their own decisions, and I respect that. But I have to say, I really don't understand the logic of voting against this CR for weeks and weeks, seeing an election in which our position was validated by a solid majority of the American people, including in my state of Pennsylvania. And then suddenly capitulating and throwing in the towel and getting absolutely nothing. I mean, it is laughable that the only thing these handful of Senate Democrats got was a pinky promise that at some point next month, Senate Republicans would allow a vote on something vague, yet to be defined, yet to be written. And meanwhile, Mike Johnson has already come out and say it was absolutely dead in the water in the House. So what happens now? Obviously, I know that you still have a voice in all of this. The House will get a vote on it. I'm sure you're going to do everything you can to try and prevent that from happening. But at some point, this bill is going to pass. The government will be reopened. And 22 million Americans are still not going to have access to these Affordable Care Act premium subsidies. What is the solution to get to that point, given the reality of where things stand now?

Why I feel the fierce urgency of now, because this actually is the last best chance to solve the Republican-created health care crisis. If this CR passes the Senate... and a few days later passes the House, then Democrats will have effectively given up the last bit of leverage we had in order to save the health care of the American people. And these cuts will certainly take effect. Now, that said, I do not think it's a fait of complete in the House. Again, I was impressed by the unity. on the call that I just left of House Democrats. I think that we will continue to stand firm from our leader, Hakeem Jeffries, all the way down throughout our caucus. And Mike Johnson, you know, will need to carry. probably more than 99% of House Republicans to vote in favor of this. He has more than a dozen House Republicans, by the way, who have signed on the legislation embracing extending the Obamacare tax credits. Well, here's an opportunity for them to put their money where their mouth is and vote with us to make sure we get this done right now before those increases actually take effect. You know, you used a word there that Republicans have been using against Democrats like you since the beginning of this fight, and that's leverage. They've suggested that leverage is not something that should be used when it comes at the expense of federal workers missing a paycheck or the millions of Americans who aren't getting snap benefits. How would you respond to that criticism that you're using these people who are blameless in this whole showdown as leverage to get a policy goal? Yeah, I'm sorry. Are you suggesting that Republican members of Congress suddenly care about federal workers after the Trump administration has already laid off 200,000 federal workers this year, and that was before the shutdown? Are we supposed to pretend that Republicans really care about those who are on SNAP after almost every single one of them? voted for the Republican tax bill that cuts $187 billion from SNAP, the largest cuts in American history. Right now, there are two federal courts that have ruled what President Trump is doing is illegal, that he has to release the contingency funds so that those who are on SNAP aren't adversely affected. And yet the White House is ignoring two different court orders. I have yet to read one statement. from even one House or Senate Republican standing up against this president. So spare me the crocodile tears from my Republican colleagues that suddenly they care about SNAP or federal workers. Give me a break. Okay. You obviously are disappointed with the way some of your summit.

Senate Democratic colleagues have handled this. How much blame do you put at the feet of the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer? And do you believe it's time for a change in leadership on the Senate's out? I know you're not a senator, but obviously their decisions have really impacted the way you guys are going about your policymaking. Yeah, well, first, I'm very proud of House Democratic leadership from Hakeem Jeffries, like I said, throughout the entire leadership team. We have been singing from the same hymnal from the very beginning, and I think that's extraordinarily helpful. I do want to make sure, though, we keep the main thing, the main thing, and that is it is Republicans who have created this health care crisis. Let's not forget. that the record cuts, Congressman, I've let you make that point, though. I'm sorry for answering the question. The record cuts to Obamacare, Medicaid, and Medicare were created as part of the Republican tax bill. And as Republicans right now who are refusing to address that, every Democratic senator, even those who might have suddenly flipped in the last 24 hours, agree with me that we need to stop these Republican health care cuts. So let's not forget who is actually inflicting this pain. on the American people in creating this crisis. But you didn't answer my question. Do you think Chuck Schumer should still be the leader of the Senate Democrats? I'm a House Democrat, to be clear. I'm always, frankly, you know, not pleased when those who are outside the caucus are commenting on our caucus elections. I have always stayed out of House Republican leadership fights, Senate Democratic leadership fights, Senate Republican leadership fights, and I will continue that policy. Okay, Congressman Boyle, thank you so much. We got a lot in there. We appreciate it. Thank you for being on. Thank you. All right. Up next, inside President Trump's decision to pardon dozens of his political allies involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, including Rudy Giuliani. Keep it here on Meet the Press Now.

Let's go, girls. So this is the little pink pill everyone's been talking about. Yep, that's Addy. Good things do come in small packages. And Addy is definitely a good thing. Not just good, it's all. Ooh, la, la. Meow. Man. I feel like a woman. Meet Addie, the little pink pill. Addie is a prescription medicine for women under 65 with hypoactive low sexual desire disorder that's distressing to them. Addie is for low desire that happens in all situations and isn't caused by a medical condition, relationship issues, or medicines. Addie isn't for men or to enhance sexual performance. Addie can cause severe low blood pressure and fainting. Your risk is higher if you drink alcohol close to your dose. Don't take Addie if you have liver problems. Take certain medicines or allergic to any of its ingredients. Before taking Addie, tell your doctor about all the medicines you take. If you have had any mental health condition. Are pregnant, planning pregnancy, or breastfeeding. Side effects may include dizziness, nausea, tiredness, trouble sleeping, and dry mouth. Learn more at adi.com, use coupon code SXM for a $10 telemed appointment at adi.com. I feel like the woman. Your morning starts, your coffee pours, the city moves. But beneath it all, something else is moving. It's energy transfer, one of America's largest pipeline companies, transporting oil, natural gas, and refined products across the U.S. These products keep homes warm, businesses running, and everyday life on track. People rely on energy transfer to safely deliver oil and gas whenever and wherever it's needed. Learn more at energy transfer.com. Nothing beats tradition, like weekly game nights at Mom's House and Tostitos. Crafted with Massa made the traditional way, starting with whole corn kernels, with flavors worth gathering around, like a hint of lime and Mexican street corn, and no artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives. That's the Tostitos way. Bring Tostitos to your next game night, and you'll be winning either way. Tostitos, Tradition Matters.

Welcome back. The White House has announced that President Trump is pardoning a long list of political allies who were part of his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Rudy Giuliani, who was Trump's lawyer during the 2020 election fight, is among the 77 people who are receiving full, complete, and unconditional pardons. The list also includes former Trump attorney Sidney Jerome Powell, John Eastman, Kenneth Cheesboro, and Jenna Ellis, as well as former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Former Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark. The move is largely symbolic. None of the pardoned people have been convicted of any federal crimes. NBC News senior justice reporter Ryan Riley joins me now to talk more about this. So Ryan, if none of these people have been pardoned have been convicted of a federal crime, what's the purpose of these pardons? I mean, I think you nailed it up top. It's symbolic because there was zero chance that any of these people were going to be charged with federal crimes in the first place, given the fact that the statute of limitations expires very shortly. You know, five-year anniversary of January 6th is coming up. The election took place five years ago. So the statute is running out very quickly. And so this really is largely a symbolic factor. Overall, the way that the Trump and his allies have completely changed the narrative on January 6 over the past five years is kind of remarkable. And I think that fits into this effort. Remember, five years ago, you had all of these corporations lining up saying that we're not going to donate money to anyone who voted to overturn the free results of the 2020 election and voted to install Donald Trump as president over the will of the American people. And now we're in a much, much different place where you have a number of corporations who are, of course, you know, donating towards the ballroom, for example, and trying to find their, trying to, you know, make their bid to the White House. So I think that, you know, you've got to sort of look at that in the broader context of this effort to erase what happened on January 6th and retell a different story about what happened that day. A federal judge did find Giuliani, though, to be in contempt of court in connection with his defamation case. Does this pardon have any impact on that? No, because that was involved litigation that was between, you know, private parties. This only really applies to federal criminal charges and because, you know, the statute of limitations is expiring in the fact that, you know, there are 18 people who would next be in the line of succession for president who would never bring any charges against these individuals. There really wasn't. isn't much of a reason for it other than sort of holding them out as either victims or heroes, depending on how you look at it. And remember, there are all these efforts to perhaps reimburse individuals who attack police officers on January 6th with taxpayer dollars. So it really fits into this broader narrative that the Trump administration is trying to create about January 6th. Okay, Brian Riley, thank you for that. Let's turn now back to the shutdown. While many on the left are clearly angry at moderate Senate Democrats for striking a bill with Republicans to try and reopen the government, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries today declined to criticize the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Do you view him as effective and should he be able to? Yes, and yes. But here's what Senator Bernie Sanders, who strongly opposes the deal, told me earlier today.

Chuck Schumer's role in all of this. Do you, were you happy the way he guided the Democratic caucus? Do you think his leadership is still salient? I think it is really problematic that eight out of 37. people in the Democratic caucus. I'm an independent caucusing with the Democrats. That eight people made that decision. And we need leadership, which says that, you know what, it's going to be made by 37 people, not eight people. So the people you've endorsed have said Chuck Schumer should not be the leader anymore. Do you hold that opinion? I think, you know, that's a decision for the Democratic caucus. Right now, I think you have a lot of establishment Democrats in the caucus. What we do need to do and what I'm working really hard on. is to elect new people into the caucus who are going to take the Democratic Party in a very different direction. A different direction. Joining me now is Dan Marica, co-anchor of the Washington Post's early brief newsletter. Don Calloway, former Missouri State Representative and now a Democratic strategist, and Sarah Chamberlain, the president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership. So, Dan, Bernie Sanders didn't say that he wanted Chuck Schumer out, but he basically said he was going to go recruit a bunch of people to get him out. Is that how you heard it? A new direction is a little ominous. It certainly has invigorated folks for running for the Senate who want Chuck Schumer. out. I talked to a number of people today, made some calls. You felt a pep in their step. They were already on the bandwagon of let's get Chuck Schumer out, but this is certainly empowered them. We had the newsletter put a call out in our newsletters and ask voters and people for feedback. What do they think about the shutdown was our question yesterday this morning. And the emails have been overwhelming. We have received hundreds of emails far more than we usually do because people are so angry about this deal that was struck. These are Democrats that are angry. Yeah, these are folks who are emailing us saying that they wanted to see another outcome. What was the shutdown for? It was mostly the gist of what we received. And I think Chuck Schumer is bearing the brunt of it. What is interesting is when this happened earlier in the year, people were upset that he had voted with Republicans. Now there seems to be another angle on this where they can say, you don't have control. of your membership, that you allowed so many of these folks to vote with Republicans and reopen the government. So now it's not just a we don't like your politics, it's we don't really think you are effective at your job. Well, that's a great point, Don, and I want to bring you in on this because you're the Democrat, but, you know, Chuck Schumer was pillored for cutting the deal in the spring. He led the charge this time for them to hold firm. You can take the position today that these eight... sheep strayed from the herd, but he also kept him in line for 42 days when these moderates really didn't want.

this government to shut down. What's your take on it? Let's be clear. I am no Chuck Schumer fan. I'm not a huge Chuck Schumer defender, but he was in an impossible situation from the beginning because like you said in the spring, people lost their minds on the left when we voted to keep the government open, right? So if you want to see some fight, okay, I'll give you a fight. Let's shut it all down. But ultimately, to what end? And let's be clear about something. Chuck Schumer is a master strategist. Whether you agree with them or not, he certainly knew and gave permission to the eight moderate Democrats. senators to break off. They did not do that as a surprise to him. That's not what happens to a 30-year party leader in the upper chamber. But I will say... You know, it's easy to be in the theoretical. And the Senate deals with a lot of the theoretical. We're all smart people and educated sitting here in D.C. But if you talk to the mayors on the ground, they needed to fund SNAP. They needed to fund local transportation. And funds were running out. And there will be no bailout to these cities from the Trump administration. So it was the right thing to do to end the shutdown. And my colleagues on the left should really, really chill out and just be glad that we got the fight that we did. But the fight's not over. You know, they're going to continue to argue for ACA subsidies. But with the government open and people getting paid like they should be. Sarah, did Democrats risk? I mean, they felt like they were playing a pretty strong hand after what happened Tuesday. Did they risk overplaying that hand if they let the shutdown continue to drag on? Absolutely. And I agree with you. The right thing to do. These eight senators did the right thing by joining with the Republican colleagues at 5 o'clock today and voting for this. The House would be on their way and the shutdown will be over. People will get their snap. And I do believe we will have an ACA fix. I know that the far left of Democrats are like, no, we don't trust the Republicans. There's a lot of House Republicans that also want to fix ACA. So I really do see that coming. But I don't disagree with you there, but how much of a voice did they have in all of this? I mean... Doesn't President Trump first have to say he wants an ACA fix before Speaker Johnson brings it to the floor? He has said that before. Well, he said he wants to give them direct payments. He wants to blow up Obamacare completely. Right. But he's kind of all over the place. I think in the long run, my members are the ones who are in these swing districts. The Democrats are coming after next year. They want ACA fix. Right. And Dan, how important will that be? for there to be some sort of an ACA fix on the table. And it can't happen in November of next year. It's got to happen now. I mean, it has to happen now if these prices are going to be locked in. We've talked to a number of folks who run these marketplaces in states. They have already said that these prices are going up. And there's a, there's. going to be a difficult process if they do pass this in December and they have to reorient the prices. That's a whole headache that they're going to deal with. I think the people, especially who voted for this deal, think that there's a rhetorical win here. If they do put this on the floor in December and Republicans reject it, you'll see that in ads over and over and over again during the midterms if Republicans don't come to the rescue of Obamacare and premium skyrocket. But that's a long way from now. I mean, a year is a lifetime in politics. And we don't know what the main issue is going to be in the 2026 midterm.

So assuming that it's going to be this health care fight, you can assume that, but that's a big assumption given how much time between now and the midterms. And so, Don, did the Democrats' willingness to cave when the pain caused by the shutdown? Was that just too much for them to bear? I mean, is that what you were alluding to with what these mayors were dealing with? And then if they come out of it, though, without any sort of a policy gain, could the voters penalize them for that in November? They could, but first of all, my worry is that even as premiums skyrocket next week as they're scheduled to, the Democratic brand is so low right now that they're not raising enough money to message for or against what just happened right now with premiums going up. Ultimately, I don't even like this being characterized as caved. I feel like I'm not going to say these eight senators are heroes and she rose, but... People can't miss. How many people do you know that can miss three consecutive paychecks and onward? That is the fundamental brass tax here. And if it took them, you know, not being responsive to liberal polling or if it takes them, you know, getting beat up on Twitter by the liberal left, that's fine. And I'm okay with it because the practical matter is that the federal government overindexes and employing families of color, middle class, lower middle class, working class families. They simply could not afford to miss multiple paychecks in a row. So it's the right thing to do. I think it's worth noting, though, that the divide in the party on this especially is less ideological. You have plenty of progressives who didn't want to support this deal and some moderates as well. I mean, Jon Ossoff is the most vulnerable senator in the body voted against reopening the government. So the fight versus, you know, the fight kind of dynamic in the party cuts across these ideological lines in a really unique way that isn't just the far left that's coming after these senators. It's a broad swath of folks. And as a Republican, I'm happy to see the Democrats divide on this. I think it will help my members next November. But could it be dangerous, though? I mean, it does appear to Dan Sullivan point. That's where the energy in the party is right now. I mean, you don't want an engaged and energized democratic base if you want your party to retain the House majority. I think they're all over the place. I really don't know what the Democratic base is. Maybe you can help me with that. I mean, it's far left. It's kind of in the moderate. The party of the big tent. It's a big ten until this happens and then they get attacked. So the more they're divided, the better the Republicans would do next. So, Don, what's the next stage for Democrats from here until November? How do they continue to stay, you know, front and center with voters, especially after they did so well last Tuesday? The next stage is to go practical. You explain the practical effect of why you... had to reopen the government, and then you look at people's wallets. You show that the president has done nothing on affordability. You show that pricing has skyrocketed, and you will continue on the floor every week to send a different senator up, to speak on the ACA, speak on Obamacare subsidies, and why they need to be extended, and to show the Republicans aren't doing that. That's your only messaging between now and November. It's always the economy. Whether or not we know what the specific issue is, it's always the economy. Midterms are going to hopefully follow the trend of being against the party of the president. All you can do is preach on affordability and preach on the ACSA. Sarah, can Republicans win that message back? That's what got President Trump elected in 24. We have a strategy that is hopefully going to allow us to do that. We're in meetings now. Just talk about how do we get that talking point back because we have lost it. We lost it. We will get it back. We have a plan. We have a plan. All right. Sounds good. All right. Dan, John, Sarah.

Dan is going fishing after this. You told me I could make that joke. I'm going to wrangle my cattle. I just forgot the bull of the time. Still to come. A historic White House visit as President Trump meets with the Syrian president who used to have ties to al-Qaeda. Stay with us. I meet the press now. A morning walk, some bird watching. It's another easy Sunday. United Health Group makes these ordinary days possible, with partners like the University of Tennessee Health Sciences, helping communities manage their health closer to home. 54% of participants have lowered their blood pressure, meaning fewer heart attacks and more Sundays at the park. This might feel like an ordinary day. To United Health Group, it's the healthcare system working better for everyone. Learn more at UnitedHealthgroup.com slash commitment. There are moments that define who you are and who you're becoming, and when those moments arrive, what you drive should rise to meet them. The Rangerover Sport commands attention from the very first glance. Every line, every detail. engineered for impact. Inside, refinement takes over with sculpted 22-way heated seating with available massage and a 13.1-inch touchscreen that puts everything within easy reach. But the Range Rover Sport isn't just about luxury. It's about uncompromised performance, too, delivering a powerful agile drive that feels as confident as it looks, and with nearly endless ways to personalize, from interior finishes to wheels to unique colors and accessories, Your Range Rover Sport becomes unmistakably yours. For those who expect more from every moment, there's a vehicle designed to meet it. The Rangerover Sport. Exclusive offers available now. Explore further atrangeover.com. Here's what happened when one journalist reported on DEI programs. I decided to just focus on the University of Michigan. I obtained internal documents that showed that the school had spent about a quarter of a billion dollars on DEI programs. I spent two weeks in Ann Arbor talking to everybody I could find. The unintended consequences of these programs, they had sort of left everybody dissatisfied. And this expensive machinery the school had built just imploded. If you're a journalist, you are not on anyone's team. All you're trying to do is figure out as many of the facts as you can gather. The facts are going to guide you to where the story lands. You're not taking sides. I'm Nick Confessori. I'm an investigations reporter for the New York Times. Journalists like Nick follow the facts wherever they lead. They go where news breaks, get answers firsthand, and publish what they find. That's fact-based reporting. Seek it out if you don't already.

Welcome back. President Trump hosted the president of Syria at the White House today, a meeting that not long ago would have been considered unthinkable. Ahmed al-Sharaa's visit to Washington marks a significant transformation for the former rebel leader who had previously had ties to al-Qaeda and served time in the notorious U.S. military prison Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Just a year ago, Ahmed al-Sharaa had a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head, but he's since risen to power in Syria after toppling the Bashar al-Assad regime. President Trump touted his meeting with the Syrian leader, calling him a strong leader, adding that the U.S. will help make Syria successful again. Joining me now is James Jeffrey, he's the former U.S. Special Representative for Syria Engagement in President Trump's first term. He's also a distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute. James, thank you for joining me. What are your takeaways from this meeting today? And what message does it send to the Mid-East region and also to President Vladimir Putin who backed Bashar al-Assad to have the president of Syria at the White House today? Thanks for having me on. One, most importantly, this is a great day for the Syrian people who have lived through almost 14 years of terrible civil war, outside intervention, 600,000 killed, half the population displaced, 200 to 300 billion dollars worth of damage. And now the international community led by Trump is embracing them. Two, it is a victory for the... American administration, Israel, Arab states, and Turkey, who over the last two years have defeated and pushed back Iran across the board in the Middle East, not just nuclear program and missiles, not just Gaza, not just Lebanon, but also finally Syria. That's very important because the message Trump is sending and people are receiving it is we want to build a different, new, more peaceful Middle East. Three, it's a triumph for Trump. Six years ago, third of September. 2018, Trump issued a public, very tough warning to Vladimir Putin. Do not go into Idlib. That's where Ahmed al-Sharaa then Al-Ahmed al-Sharaa and his troops and three million refugees will hold up. Trump forced Vladimir Putin to back down. Vladimir Putin remembered what happened to the Wagner Brigade a few months earlier. And that kept... Alshara and his people in the game opposing Bashar al-Assad, opposing the Iranians, opposing Russia, until finally they could overthrow the entire government in December. So it's a good day for Trump as well. Let's talk more about Ahmed al-Sharaa. He was once linked to al-Qaeda. Can the U.S. trust him? What's your assessment on how he's led Syria since the fall of Bashar al-Assad last year? What we always say in diplomacy is trust but verify. His troops twice have engaged in massacres of minority groups in the spring, the Aloitites in the west in the summer, Drews in the south. The important thing is they then pulled back Alshara, disciplined some troops, open investigations, and it hasn't been repeated. So so far so good. But ever since 9-11.

We, beginning with the Bush administration, General Petraeus, carried it out in Iraq, took the position. We are not going to say, once a terrorist, always a terrorist, if you want to convert, if you want to focus on fighting the bad guys rather than fighting us, we will partner with you. That's what Ahmed al-Sharaa did between 2013 and 2016. We then, by 2018, was starting to... carefully, indirectly partner with him to keep him in the fight, provide assistance to the refugees under his care, and it worked out. We have only about 30 seconds for this answer, but what needs to happen there for there to be stability in Syria? First of all, the international community, led by the United States, has to have one single position towards Ahmed al-Sharaa and the future of Syria. Two, we have to lift the congressionally mandated Caesar sanctions that were great in putting Bashar al-Assad under pressure, but they're squeezing the economy right now. Thirdly, we have to resolve outstanding issues with the Kurds and the North and with Israel to the South. If we can do all of that, and it's a big agenda, we'll be okay. So the fact that you were able to do that in 30 seconds is a good sign for all of us, I think, Ambassador James Jeffrey. Thank you so much for being here in your expertise. We appreciate it. Thank you very much. All right. And we're going to be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now. But as always, there's more news ahead on NBC. Thank you so much for watching NBC News Now.

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. Hire skills first. Learn why at tear the paper ceiling.org. Brought to you by Opportunity at Work and the Ad Council.