KRISTEN WELKER:
This Sunday: diplomatic frustrations. As President Trump approaches 100 days in office, his efforts to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine hit a stumbling block.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We’re putting a lot of pressure on Russia and Russia knows that, and some people that are close to it know, or he wouldn’t be talking right now.
KRISTEN WELKER:
After meeting with Ukranian President Zelenskyy for the first time since that Oval Office blowup, is President Trump losing his patience with President Putin? I’ll talk exclusively to Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. Plus: tariff troubles. There are growing warning signs about President Trump’s handling of the economy, and fears it could lead to empty store shelves.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We’ve been ripped off by every country in the world, practically, friend and foe, we’re not doing that anymore.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Will the president scale back his tariff plans? Steve Kornacki will reveal new polling results. And I’ll talk to Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. And: on defense. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth defends his leadership, after he fires his top advisors and his chief spokesman quits calling it “total chaos.”
SEC. PETE HEGESTH:
They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputation. Not going to work with me.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News Chief Capitol Hill Correspondent Ryan Nobles; Amna Nawaz, co-anchor of PBS Newshour; former Biden White House Press SEC. Jen Psaki; and Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. Welcome to Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good Sunday morning. As President Trump nears the 100 day mark of his presidency, the world is watching the president’s escalating trade war, his mass deportation plans and his diplomatic moves. In his efforts to broker a cease-fire with Russia and Ukraine, President Trump has been unable to secure a deal he promised he could accomplish on day one. White House Envoy Steve Witkoff met with President Putin for three hours on Friday. The meeting came after President Trump called on Russia to stop missile strikes on Ukraine and made a rare personal rebuke of Putin, saying “Vladimir, STOP!” But there is growing pressure on Ukraine to accept a deal allowing land taken by Russia to remain in Russian control.
[BEGIN TAPE]
REPORTER:
What concessions has Russia offered up thus far to get to the point where you’re closer to peace?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Stopping the war. Stopping – taking the whole country. Pretty big concession.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
As world leaders gathered at the Vatican on Saturday for the funeral of Pope Francis, President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky met for the first time since that Oval Office blowup, captured in this stunning photo and after President Trump said this week he was prepared to recognize Crimea as Russian territory. President Trump posted after the meeting, “There was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into civilian areas, cities, and towns over the last few days. It makes me think that maybe he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along and has to be dealt with differently.” Zelenskyy provided few details about the meeting.
[BEGIN TAPE]
REPORTER:
Mr. President, how did the meeting with Trump go?
PRES. VOLODOMYR ZELESNKYY:
Really, really well – productive meeting. I don’t want to go into a lot of details, if it is possible, because the question is very sensitive. Questions on – of course, totally it’s about how to bring peace closer and how resultative, positive Paris and London, and we want to continue such meetings to bring peace to Ukraine.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
And joining me now is Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Secretary Rubio, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Good morning. Thanks.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, good morning to you. Thank you so much for being here. President Trump is about to mark his 100th day in office. It comes as a key campaign promise is to end the war in Ukraine, and against the backdrop of that extraordinary meeting between President Trump and President Zelenskyy. Mr. Secretary, is Russia and Ukraine now closer to a deal in the wake of that meeting?
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Well, I think they’re closer in general than they’ve been any time in the last three years, but it’s still not there. And, as I said and he has said and others have said, he’s done an extraordinary job. At the highest levels of our government, the president has put out everybody you can imagine: Ambassador Witkoff, myself, the national security advisor, the vice president, been involved and engaged in this effort to bring the two sides closer so we can have path to peace. By the way, that’s something that should be celebrated. He’s trying to end a three-year war that has no military solution, where every day people are dying, especially on the Ukrainian side, in many cases civilians and children, as we’ve seen the images over the last few weeks. He’s trying to bring this war to an end. And we’ve made real progress. But those last couple steps of this journey were always going to be the hardest ones, and it needs to happen soon. We cannot continue, as I said, to dedicate time and resources to this effort if it’s not going to come to fruition. So the last week has really been about figuring out how close are these sides really and are they close enough that this merits a – a continued investment of our time as a mediator in this regard.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What is the timeline? Are you talking weeks or months? How long are you willing to give them to reach a peace agreement?
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Well, I always think it’s silly to set a specific date or whatever, but I can just tell you that almost 100 days into this presidency, the president has dedicated a tremendous amount of time and energy to this. And we think we’ve brought the sides closer than they’ve been in a very long time, but we’re not there yet. And it needs to start happening. We need to start – I think this is going to be a very critical week. This week is going to be a really important week in which we have to make a determination about whether this is an endeavor that we want to continue to be involved in, or if it’s time to sort of focus on some other issues that – that are equally, if not more, important in some cases. But we want to see it happen. There are reasons to be optimistic, but there are reasons to be realistic, of course, as well. We’re close, but we’re not close enough.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s talk about what we’ve heard from and seen from President Trump online, who now says he wants to deal with President Putin, quote, “Differently through banking or secondary sanctions.” Will President Trump follow through with imposing new sanctions against Russia?
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Well, first of all, I’m not going – the president – we have multiple options, frankly, to address this and to deal with all of this. But we don’t want to get to that point. This is still not the time – I think what the president is saying, and has been saying for some time now, is he is aware that he has these options. People ask him about it all the time. But what he really wants is a peace deal. He wants the dying and the killing to stop. This is a terrible war. It’s cost the lives of thousands of people, billions of dollars and generational destruction on the side – especially on the Ukrainian side. We want the war to end. You saw yesterday at the pope’s mass there was talk about war and how it needed to stop. The pope – the – the late pope was celebrated for being a peacemaker and trying to talk about these things. We should all be happy that we have a president of the United States in Donald J. Trump who wants to end and prevent wars. And that’s what we’re trying to do here. And so ultimately, look, if it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t come to fruition, then, as a nation-state, there are options that we have for those who we hold responsible for not wanting the peace.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What –
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
But we’d prefer not to get to that stage yet because we think it closes the door to diplomacy.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, you know, the president has made a number of demands against Ukraine. Just last month the president told me he might impose penalties against Russia. I – I guess given the frustrations that he is voicing, Mr. Secretary, why hasn’t he imposed sanctions yet?
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Well, because I think we’re still hoping to see that this effort works out in diplomacy and that we can bring these two sides closer together. I mean, the minute you start doing that kind of stuff, you’re – you’re walking – you’re walking away from it. You’ve now doomed yourself to another two years of war. And we don’t want to see it happen. I think what’s important is, and – and really weighs, is there is no other country. There is no other institution or organization on the earth that can bring these two sides together. No one else is talking to both sides but us. And no one else in the world can make something like this happen but the president. This is a very significant responsibility and a really important opportunity. And we want to make sure that we work it all the way through, that we don’t walk away from something that – that can actually work or that can actually lead to peace. But we also don’t want to continue to spend time on something that’s not going to get us there. So, throughout this process, this is about determining: do both sides really want peace? And how close are they or how far apart they are after 90 days of effort here, over 90 days of effort? That’s what we’re trying to determine this week. There are reasons to be optimistic, and there are also reasons to be concerned. It’s complicated. If this was an easy war to end, it would’ve been ended by someone else a long time ago. But right now the only one who can bring these two sides together to end this war is our president, President Trump. And we’re doing everything we can to see if we can get that done here over the next few days.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, let me ask you about some of the language you’ve taken. Just three years ago you co-sponsored a Senate bill barring the United States from recognizing Russian claims to any portion of Ukraine’s land. Let me read you part of what you said. Quote, “Vladimir Putin is the real aggressor in this war, and he is attempting an unjustified takeover of a sovereign democratic country. The United States cannot recognize Putin’s claims or we risk establishing a dangerous precedent for other authoritarian regimes, like the Chinese Communist Party, to imitate.” What message does it send to China and other adversaries if the United States allows Russia to keep the land it’s illegally claimed?
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Well, first of all, I would say that right now there’s a lot of press reports about this, that, or these concessions or that concession. A lot of things have been discussed, and the reason why those things are being discussed is very simple. Not because we’re going to force anyone to do anything or pressure anyone to do anything like this but because we need to understand what are the options of bringing about an end to the war. We need to be grown ups and realistic here. In any negotiated end to a war, both sides get something and both sides have to give something up. That’s a reality. Without speaking specifically about that or another, you wrote – you talk about – that was back in September of 2022. Since September of 2022 this war has continued. Thousands of more people have died. Generational destruction that Ukraine’s going to spend two generations rebuilding from. This is a war that needs to end now. And so, in order for this war to end, there are things Russia wants that it will not get, and there are things Ukraine wants that it will not get. If it wasn’t the case it would’ve been done a long time ago. No one here is claiming that one side is going to unconditionally surrender to the other and bring this to an end. But that’s why diplomacy can be difficult and time-consuming, but it is the only way to end this conflict. There is no military solution to this war. The only solution to this war is a negotiated settlement where both sides are going to have to give up something they claim to want and are going to have to give the other side something they wish they didn’t. That’s how you end wars. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve here so more people won’t die. There are people who will die today in this war because there is no peace. We don’t want to continue to have to say that. Every time you turn on the news and they say, “Well, another missile strike,” another – all these things will continue to happen. This could get even worse in the months to come.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah. You know, President Putin has never acknowledged Ukraine’s right to exist. So why do you trust that he won’t invade Ukraine again or another European country?
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Well, I don’t think peace deals are built on trust. I think peace deals have to be built on verification, have to be built on facts, have to be built on action, have to built on realities. So this is not an issue of trust. It’s an issue of building in these sorts of things: verification, security guarantees, things that have been discussed in the past. All these things are being talked about here, all of these things. But right now is not the time – if we’re trying to bring two sides together, the last thing you want to do is give some side –one of the two sides – an excuse to walk away from this effort. We’re just trying to achieve peace. At the end of the day, let me remind everybody, what we are trying to do is end a war that has cost a lot of money to us, to our allies, cost a lot of lives, destroyed a lot of lives, forced people by the millions to leave their country, millions of Ukrainians that no longer live in the country and have not been able to come back. We just want all this to stop. And we’re trying to find whether we can play a role to make that happen. I hope – everyone should hope that we’re successful. Instead of rooting against President Trump, everyone should be hopeful that President Trump can bring this war to an end because it truly, at this point, is not good for anybody. It may not work out. Peace deals are hard. But we are trying, and I think the president deserves credit for spending this much time and this much energy and these many resources to try to bring about this outcome of peace.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Mr. Secretary, let’s turn to China and the president’s trade war. President Trump said he has spoken directly with President Xi Jinping. Chinese officials though say that no talks have taken place about a trade war. Can you help us to understand where this stands? Has President Trump spoken to President Xi after imposing those 145% tariffs?
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Well, I mean, just like the previous answer I think I’m not going to be commenting on who talked to who and what they talked about because obviously this is also a high-stakes negotiation. The fundamental fact is this: For 30-something years the Chinese have gotten away with unfair trade practices. Not just unfair, outrageously unfair trade practices. Just very simple: Chinese companies can do whatever they want in America. American companies can only do what the Chinese allow them to do in China, and it’s very limited. And every year it gets more and more limited.They flood – not just us, but they flood the world with exports but they push back against any imports. They are 100% favorable – unfairly favorable to their companies and unfair to ours. They steal our intellectual property. They reverse engineer things they get a hold of. I mean, it’s on and on and on unfair. And they’ve been allowed to get away with it. And finally, almost too late really but finally, we have a president that stood up to it. And it’s not just us that needs to be standing up to it, by the way. Europe is concerned about the number of electric cars that China tried to dump on them. China’s had trade problems with Canada and with others. This needs to stop. And so the bottom line is that the president is dealing with something that should’ve been dealt with a very long time ago, and it was almost too late.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So, Mr. Secretary, just to be clear, you can’t confirm that a phone call has taken place between President Trump and President Xi of China post –
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Well, I don’t comment on the phone calls the president makes –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay –
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
– with foreign leaders.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right.
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Yeah –
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right.
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
I think I’d direct you to the White House. It’s for the president to tell you who he’s talked to. I’m not going to get in the way of those negotiations.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let’s talk now about some new reporting that came in overnight. I want to just go through it for you and for our audience. Three U.S. citizen children have been deported with their mothers. Now, this is according to The Washington Post, the family’s lawyer says, “One of them is a four-year-old with stage-four cancer, deported without medication or ability to contact doctors.” The families’ lawyers are also saying their clients were denied communication with family and legal representatives before being deported. And it’s raising concerns about the issue of due process, that it’s being violated. So, let me ask you, is everyone on U.S. soil, citizens and non-citizens, entitled to due process?
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Yes, of course. But let me tell you, it looks – in immigration standing, the laws are very specific. If you’re in this country unlawfully, you have no right to be here and you must be removed. That’s what the law says. Somehow over the last 20 years we’ve completely lost this notion that somehow – or completely adopted this idea that, yes, we have immigration laws but once you come into our country illegally it triggers all kinds of rights that can keep you here indefinitely. That’s why we were being flooded at the border. And we’ve ended that, and that’s why you don’t – you see a historically low number of people not just trying to cross our border, trying to cross the border into Panama all the way down in the Darién Gap. I mean, it’s been a huge help for those countries as well. On the headline: that’s a misleading headline, okay? Three U.S. citizens ages four, seven, and two were not deported. Their mothers, who were illegally in this country, were deported. The children went with their mothers. If those children are U.S. citizens, they can come back into the United States if their father or someone here who wants to assume them. But ultimately who was deported was their mother – their mothers, who were here illegally. The children just went with their mothers. But – it wasn’t like – you guys make it sound like ICE agents kicked down the door and grabbed a two-year-old and threw him on an airplane. That’s misleading. That’s just not true.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Just to be clear, because I do want to get to the overhaul at the State Department, is it the U.S. policy to deport children, even U.S. citizens, with their families, and I hear what you’re saying, without due process? Just to be very clear there.
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Well, no, no, no, no, no. Again, if someone’s in this country unlawfully, illegally, that person gets deported. If that person is with a two-year-old child or has a two-year-old child and says, “I want to take my child with you – with me,” well, then you have two choices. You can say, “Yes, of course, you can take your child, whether they’re a citizen or not because it’s your child,” or you can say, “Yes, you can go, but your child must stay behind.” And then your headlines would read, “U.S. holding hostage two-year-old, four-year-old, seven-year-old while mother deported.” So the mother, the parents, make that choice. I imagine those three U.S. citizen children have fathers here in the United States. They can stay with their father. That’s up to their family to decide where the children go. Children go with their parents. Parents decide where their children go.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right.
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
The U.S. deported their mothers, who were illegally in America.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. Secretary, I want to talk to you about this overhaul of the State Department. You slashed U.S. based employees by 15%. Actually less than what the White House was recommending, which was about 50%, it’s my understanding. Are you finished with the cuts or are more coming?
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
We haven’t slashed anything yet. What we did is reorganized the agency because we have – you know, the world, the globe, the planet, is the exact same size that it was 20 years ago. But the State Department is somehow almost, you know, double the size. So the world hasn’t gotten any bigger but somehow the State Department continues to grow. But this is not just about saving money. This is about – it’s primarily about making sure that every bureau and every office in the State Department has a purpose and it’s fulfilling them and they work together. What this really is about is empowering what’s called the regional bureaus and our embassies. We want to return more power and more influence and more responsibility to our embassies and to the regional bureaus that oversee those embassies. That’s what this reorganization is about. The 15% you’re referring to is: after we’ve reorganized we’re going to ask the bureau heads and the assistant secretaries, many of whom are career foreign service officers, to look at their bureaus and their operations and suggest to us 15% reductions. Suggest to us 15% reductions. Then we’ll look at that. That’s not an unreasonable number. But I – this is a reorganization that should have been done 10, 15 years ago. Multiple secretaries of state from both – appointed by presidents, both Democratic and Republican, would’ve loved to have done it. I just happen to be fortunate to work for a president that allowed us to do it, that actually asked us to do it. And I’m excited about it. I think it’s going to make the State Department more nimble, more effective, and it’s going to empower our very talented diplomats to finally be able to do their jobs in ways they’ve been held back from doing in the past because of bureaucracy and redundancy within the State Department.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. Secretary, very quickly because we’re out of time already, but Canadians as you know head to the polls tomorrow for their parliamentary elections. Have you taken any steps to carry out President Trump’s plans? He says he wants to annex Canada.
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Any what? I’m sorry?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Any plans to carry out —
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
I missed —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– what he says —
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
– the last part of your question.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Absolutely. I’ll repeat it. Have you taken any steps to carry out President Trump’s plans? As he has said, he would like to annex Canada. Have you taken any steps in that direction?
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
No, I think what the — No, no. What the president has said, and he has said this repeatedly, is he was told by the previous prime minister that Canada could not survive without unfair trade with the United States, at which point he asked, “Well, if you can’t survive as a nation without treating us unfairly in trade, then you should become a state.” That’s what he said. They’ll have their elections this week. They’re going to have their — a new leader, and we’ll deal with a new leadership of Canada. There are many things we work with cooperatively on Canada on, but we actually don’t like the way they treated us when it comes to trade, and the president has made that point when he responded to the previous prime minister in regards to this.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So does the president, does the U.S. still want to make Canada the 51st state?
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
I think the president has stated repeatedly he thinks Canada would be better off as a state. I mean, he has said that based on what he was told by the previous prime minister, who said Canada can’t survive unless it treats the U.S. unfairly in trade.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Okay. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, thank you so much. We covered a lot of ground today. Really appreciate your joining us.
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
Thank you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And when we come back, Senator Bernie Sanders joins me next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. Joining me now is Independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
Great to be with you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s great to have you here. Let’s start off by talking about Russia and Ukraine. You just heard my conversation with Secretary Rubio. President Trump signaling he could be looking at the possibility of imposing new sanctions against Russia. Do you think that President Trump should impose new sanctions against Russia?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I think what Trump has done over the last number of months has been an absolute disaster and been of real assistance to Putin and his horrible war against the people of Ukraine. When you announce to the world that it was Ukraine that started the war, when you insult Zelenskyy who comes into the Oval Office, what you are telling Putin is, “Hey, we are on your side.” For the first time in the 250-year history of the United States of America, we have a president who sides with a dictatorship, and that is outrageous. So, I hope very much that in the coming weeks and months, we can reach some kind of a settlement that Ukraine, of course, who have suffered so much in fighting Russia and defending democracy, is at the table. You cannot make a decision without the Ukrainian people abiding by that and being part of that process.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, just to be very clear, though, do you think now is the time for sanctions? Just quickly before we move on to tariffs.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
I think we have got to do everything that we can to work with the rest of the world and tell Putin he cannot run over an independent country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. So not taking sanctions off the table. I do want to talk about tariffs now and the trade war. President Trump says he is taking an aggressive approach on the trade war because he says he wants to bring manufacturing back. He says he wants to bring jobs back for American workers. Senator, do you support temporary economic pain, if it does mean bringing back manufacturing and leveling the playing field, as President Trump has argued?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
Look Kristen, you’re talking to somebody who helped lead the effort against NAFTA, against PNTR with China. Because I understood back then that these were trade agreements written by corporate America, so they could shut down thousands of plants in this country, lay off millions of workers and move to low-wage countries where people were paid starvation wages. So if your question is, do I believe in selective tariffs, tariffs that make sense to protect American workers? I do. Do I support what Trump did, which is an arbitrary tariff on virtually every country on earth which will raise prices substantially for ordinary Americans? No, I don’t. So if you have selective tariffs, carefully thought out to protect American workers, yes. What Trump has done is, in my view, very, very wrong.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Let’s talk about what you have called your oligarchy tour. You and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been crisscrossing the country warning of an emerging oligarchy. Senator, you told the New York Times, I’m going to read this quote, “One of the aspects of this tour is to try to rally people to get engaged in the political process and run as independents outside of the Democratic Party.” As someone who twice ran in the Democratic presidential primary, are you trying to strengthen the Democratic Party or, Senator, are you trying to start a third party?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
No, we’re not trying to start a third party. What we’re trying to do is strengthen American democracy, where faith in both the Democratic and Republican parties right now is extremely low. We are living, Kristen, in the richest country in the history of the world. And yet you got one person, Mr. Musk, who owns more wealth than the bottom 53% of American households. That is insane. That is oligarchy on steroids. Meanwhile, we have 60% of our workers living paycheck to paycheck. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major nation on earth. And we have over 20% of seniors in America living on $15,000 a year or less. What the American people are saying is that they want, and what our tour was about, is to say that they want an economy that works for all of us, not just for Mr. Musk and other billionaires. Now, my concern right now is you have Democrats appropriately – and I’m working with them – talking about Trump’s movement toward authoritarianism. Vigorously opposing the so-called reconciliation bill to give over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the 1%, and make massive cuts in Medicaid, nutrition and housing. Opposing what Musk is doing to dismember the Social Security Administration and the Veterans Administration, making it hard for our veterans to get decent healthcare or benefits on time. We’re on the same page. But what Democrats lack right now is a vision for the future. How are we going to provide a decent standard of living for a younger generation, which, everything being equal, will be poorer than their parents? How do we repair a broken healthcare system? How do we raise the minimum wage to a living wage? How do we deal with a corrupt campaign finance system that allows billionaires to control both political parties? Those are some of the issues that need to be discussed. And we’re going out around the country right now asking people – working people, run for office. They want to run as a Democrat? Great. They want to run as an independent? That’s great. But you’ve got to get involved in the political process, because right now, the two-party system is failing the working class of this country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about something that your colleague, Senator Elissa Slotkin, said. She said Democrats should stop using the term “oligarchy” because it’s a phrase that doesn’t resonate with all Americans. Are you missing a chance to speak to a wider audience, Senator?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, jeez, we had 36,000 people out in Los Angeles, 34,000 people in Colorado. We had 30,000 people in Folsom, California, which is kind of a rural area. I think the American people are not quite as dumb as Ms. Slotkin thinks they are. I think they understand very well, when the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90%, when big money interests are able to control both political parties, they are living in an oligarchy. And these are precisely the issues that have got to be talked about. Are you living in a democracy when Mr. Musk can spend $270 million to elect Trump and then becomes the most important person in government? Or where AIPAC and other super PACs have enormous power over Democratic candidates? Those are issues that we have got to talk about. That is the reality of American society today: the very rich getting richer, working-class people are struggling, 800,000 people sleeping out on the streets. If we don’t address that issue, the American people will continue to turn their backs on democracy because they’re looking around and they’re saying, “Does anybody understand what I am going through?” And unfortunately, right now, to a large degree, neither party does.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Senator Bernie Sanders. I have a lot more questions. We are unfortunately out of time. We’ll have you back soon. Thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
Thank you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, when we come back, President Trump’s sweeping agenda has disrupted Washington and the world as he approaches 100 days in office. The panel is next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. The panel is here. Ryan Nobles, Chief Capitol Hill Correspondent for NBC News: Amna Nawaz, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour: Lanhee Chen, fellow at the Hoover Institution; and former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, host of Inside with Jen Psaki. Thanks to all of you for being here. Amna, I’m going to start with you. So we have this extraordinary meeting between President Trump and President Zelenskyy. You heard Secretary Rubio weigh in on the state of the talks, effectively saying, “Look, we’re closer than we have been, but we’re not there yet.” What are your sources telling you about where things stand?
AMNA NAWAZ:
I’ll also point out there’s a lot of inconsistency to the messaging right now, because that’s not what we’ve heard from the president in the last couple of days. And it is absolutely an admirable goal to say, “We want to end this war.” I’ve been on the ground reporting on that war. Nobody wants that killing to continue. Say what you will about the Biden plan, at least there was clarity and a core mission behind it. It was defend Ukraine against Russian aggression. I don’t know what that core value is driving the Trump agenda here other than end the war. We went from ending the war on day one to, “I’m not sure a deal is even possible, 100 days in.” Within 48 hours after the Witkoff and Putin meeting, we’re very close to a deal. After the meeting with Zelenskyy and Trump, I’m not sure a deal is possible. There’s the threats of sanctions, but when global tariffs rule out, Russia is excluded from those tariffs and the chance to issue some of those sanctions. So Secretary Rubio’s absolutely correct that only the U.S. can play that role in bringing the war to an end. But the threats to walk away are not a neutral threat. The European security guarantee is not enough to maintain Putin. The day the U.S. walks away is a very good day for Putin.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah. And Ryan, Amna references the fact that President Trump said he would end that war on day one. And in an interview with Time Magazine the president said, “Well, that was an exaggeration.” I mean, take us inside your conversations on Capitol Hill. How much pressure are they feeling? Because obviously the big debate is, well, can they continue to fund the war?
RYAN NOBLES:
Right. Exactly, Kristen. And like so many of these issues, Hill Republicans are following the president’s lead, right? There was a period of time where there were a number of defense hawks on Capitol Hill in the Republican Party that were the strongest defenders of Ukraine, that were leading the push to get that funding. They have largely been sidelined here and they’re waiting to see how Donald Trump is responding to each stage of these negotiations and then trying to fashion something on the back end. Does it mean also trying to push for sanctions after Donald Trump has said that he’s comfortable with it? But your point is so important, Kristen. There is no will right now on Capitol Hill to continue that funding stream to support Ukraine’s security efforts. And there won’t be unless Donald Trump comes out and says, “We’ve got a deal, and I need your help to fund that deal to continue that support.” Because right now, many Hill Republicans are just not interested in going down that road.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah. And Lanhee Chen, it’s so notable. Senator Sanders kind of made this point, which is that President Trump’s broken with Republican orthodoxy in terms of how he handles Russia. Yes, he’s been tough in terms of his language against them. But he has had incredibly tough language for President Zelenskyy, even at various points blaming Zelenskyy for starting the war, which is just not the case.
LANHEE CHEN:
Well, I think this is core to his strategy to negotiate this agreement, the notion that he wants to appear as though he is the orbiter between Putin and Zelenskyy in these conversations. Look, the situation that we’re in now is really different than the situation we were in a few years ago. If you look at U.S. public opinion, to your point, Ryan, there isn’t an appetite to continue this funding. And the prior strategy, the prior orientation was, look, we’re going to kind of continue indefinitely, essentially, funding into what was appearing to be a little bit of a doom loop. And so I think the president is trying to reset expectations around how this conflict ends. He does bring a different strategy fundamentally. And I do think for some Republicans that’s uncomfortable, given their prior positioning. But it’s the reality of where we are right now that requires and demands, I think, a different approach.
JEN PSAKI:
I – I just have to say, I think it might be generous to suggest this is part of a strategy. Given – any chance he’s been given over the last ten years, President Trump has sided with Putin and Russia. That is where he has always leaned. Maybe this will result in the end of the war, but I think the challenge here for the United States and the kind of fundamental values of the United States they’ve had through Democratic and Republican presidents, is the belief that Europe should be a strong united – you know, strong continent where people have sovereign borders. And those are things that the United States has defended for many years. That’s why the Europeans are so concerned. Because the question you asked, which I think is the pivotal one, is, “Why would you trust Putin?” Because you come to an agreement here, whatever it may be, and then what’s to stop him a year from now going and invading Ukraine again or other European countries? That’s the concern which, through Democratic and Republican presidents, they have defended that value and right for decades.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And very quick whip-around on this, guys, all of this comes against the backdrop of increased scrutiny against his defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Just this week it came out that he was sharing sensitive information with his wife, with his brother in the wake of revelations about that Signal chain. How much pressure, Jen, as someone who’s been inside the White House, can that bring to bear on a president, on an administration?
JEN PSAKI:
Well, I think the question is, does President Trump and the people around him care? Clearly, Hegseth is under a tremendous amount – I mean, he has had the closest advisors to him depart the Pentagon. Who knows who’s even advising him at this point? He’s had a number of scenarios, and there are probably more to come, where he has been misusing classified information, or not being careful with the use of classified information. So under normal circumstances, I think a Democratic or Republican president, you would say, this is not a person who should be leading the military and leading the Pentagon. But then that would be acknowledging weakness and it would be acknowledging you need a different choice than the one you picked three months ago. And it seems to be, at least from the reporting, that’s not a choice at the point that he’s going to make.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah, Lanhee, some allies say, they’re just not going to engage in trying to make changes at the top levels at this point.
LANHEE CHEN:
Yeah. I mean, I – I think that the appearance of instability is something that they’re trying to avoid. The reality is the president deserves the best national security team around him he can have. And there’s a lot of strong players on the bench in the Republican Party who could step forward and assume that role potentially.
RYAN NOBLES:
And – and Hill Republicans have to be so frustrated by this, Kristen, because they really put their necks out for Pete Hegseth. Many of them did not want to make this vote. And it – it feels, in many ways, like they have egg on their face, and they’d – they’d like the opportunity to help him and they’re just not getting that right now.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Everyone pause. We will be back, and when we come back, Steve Kornacki is here with new poll numbers and some warning signs for President Trump.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. We have brand new poll numbers this morning with some warning signs for President Trump’s agenda. Here to break it all down for us is NBC News Chief Data Analyst Steve Kornacki. Steve, it’s great to have you here in person. What are you watching in these numbers?
STEVE KORNACKI:
Yeah, Kristen, some interesting numbers. A little different kind of poll here. This is the NBC Stay Tuned poll, looking deeply at the youngest group of voters, Gen Z voters, but it’s such a big pool. We also can show you everybody, all adults. So look at the comparison. You’re getting a look at this generation. Again, when we say Gen Z, what are we talking? We’re talking about people under 30 years old, newest, youngest set of voters. Overall what you’re seeing here is Donald Trump, not that popular. You see overall 45 approve, 55 disapprove, but much less popular. It’s basically two to one disapprove among Gen Z. This is a more anti-Trump, Trump-hostile generation than we see in the other generations. This extends to Trump policies: trade, tariffs. Again, overall not that popular.
KRISTEN WELKER:
We have to pause here, Steve. You can’t overstate the significance of this. The economy was really the number one issue for voters and one of the main reasons President Trump won the White House.
STEVE KORNACKI:
Exactly. These numbers you see on the economy in his first term look very different than this. And it’s not good overall. And again, what you see is much more negative among that youngest set of voters here. How about just optimism about the future? Is it there? Is the country going in the right direction or the wrong direction? Again, overall this is similar to what we had in our own NBC poll a couple months back. Overall 40 right track, 60 wrong track. Again, more pessimistic, Gen Z. Now, where this gets interesting, though, is I keep saying Gen Z, more Trump hostile, more anti-Trump. There’s really part of Gen Z that’s powering this and part that isn’t, and it has to do with gender. We talk about gender gaps but look at this, Kristen. Among men in Gen Z, 45/55, Trump’s approval rating. That’s what we saw with everybody. Among women, that’s where he falls off the cliff.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And of course the gender gap was so significant in the 2024 election, continues to be an important factor.
STEVE KORNACKI:
And when you looked in ’24, a lot of folks thought it might be bigger, and it wasn’t in the older generations, it was here. And this is what really stands out. It’s Gen Z, this side of the gender gap. Women Gen Z, much more progressive, much more liberal – we’re going to see this on issue after issue – than any other group, any generation. So again, looking at Trump’s approval rating, this is the percentage of people who approve of his job, and again, look, it’s so consistent. Men across these generations, women, it’s in the four – look how much that stands out right there. And this extends to some personality, some issues. Just again, look at this. “Do you have a favorable view of the Republican Party?” All adults 44, Gen Z men, it’s the same. Look, it falls off a cliff with Gen Z women. Totally different than every other group. Trump’s handling of DEI we asked about. Again, similar, similar, totally different. Gen Z women favorable view of Musk, again, you see it right there. And two more, Kristen. “Do you agree there are two genders?” Big drop off for Gen Z women. And how about this question just about basic attitudes about are you proud to be an American. “Are you only a little or not at all proud?” Twenty-two percent of all adults say that. Twenty-two percent of Gen Z men. Almost double Gen Z women. That is what’s powering the liberalism you see among Gen Z.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Fascinating findings, as always. Steve Kornacki, thank you so much.
STEVE KORNACKI:
You got it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Great to have you here. And when we come back, will President Trump listen to voters who are souring on his agenda? The panel is next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back, the panel is still with us. Ryan, let’s talk about these new poll numbers that Steve Kornacki just laid out. So younger voters, more pessimistic about President Trump. Here’s the notable thing from my perspective, though. When you look at his handling of the economy, 60% of all voters disapprove. That’s a big warning sign for him, particularly while he’s locked in this trade war.
RYAN NOBLES:
And he keeps saying over and over again, “Be patient. Be patient.” But voters tend to not be too patient when it comes to their pocketbooks or providing for their families. And where Donald Trump is in a situation where he theoretically is never going to run again – maybe, we’ll have to see how that all plays out – these Congressional Republicans are going to be on the ballot relatively soon. I know 2026 seems, like, really far away. But if you’re someone in a moderate district where you feel the pressure of – of the economy starting to bear down on you and you’re going to be forced to take really tough votes around this reconciliation package, which could include Medicaid cuts, that is really going to start to come to bear here over the next couple of months. And there’s not a real sign here that Donald Trump understands the pressure that these individual members of Congress are feeling in their home districts.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And – and Amna, you know, you’re watching the economy numbers. You’re watching the numbers that he’s getting on deportation. Another one of his top issues where he’s doing better, certainly, than the economy, but not as well as he would like.
AMNA NAWAZ:
Not at all. And actually, he’s slightly underwater overall on approval for immigration. But one point on the economy I will just note, that I think the pressure could come much sooner than the midterms. Only because the single most important economic factor to people is the cost of living. Those trade tariffs are not going anywhere. The CEOs and business leaders and foreign leaders I talked to are looking for clarity and they’re not getting it. That – that could actually build in the coming weeks and months ahead. On immigration, though, I thought it was really striking. He’s underwater slightly, but also on the sub-issues, the individual issues, there’s a lot – really high disapproval. So something like nearly 60% say they oppose the efforts to deport students who were protesting the war in Gaza. Over 80% said that people who are here with visas and green cards should be given due process. That is not what we’re seeing in the cases of Mahmoud Khalil or Rumeysa Ozturk, Kilmar Abrego Garcia or the children that you brought up. I think those individual stories, the more they’re reported on, could resonate and could get the president to react.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Lanhee, do you get the sense that the White House is reactive in watching these polls? Or – or is it the threat of – of what you have CEOs warning, there could be empty store shelves on the horizon?
LANHEE CHEN:
Yeah, I don’t – I don’t think there’s particular concern around where the poll numbers are now. I think a lot of this reflects the fact that you have a well-defined president basically in his second term, and so these numbers I think are – are slightly more reflective of that. I do think that the question around the impact of tariffs, the impact of economic policy, we are going to see what happens over the next few months. I do think it’s too early to tell what the economic impact will be. I think most people, when they think about tariffs, they don’t necessarily have a great sense of how it’s impacting them quite yet. Once we have a fuller sense of that, then we can look at the numbers and assess what changes in policy might be necessary. But for me, at least at this point, I do think that there still needs to be a certain amount of patience as we look at what the impact of these policies will be, what the poll numbers are. And then to your point, Amna, around – and prices. That’s really how most people think about the state of the economy.
JEN PSAKI:
The longer the tariffs are in place, the more the cost of living is going to go up. So right now, people may not be feeling that and they’re only going to feel it more as time goes on. And we’ll see how that impacts poll numbers. I’d also say on the poll numbers, the thing that’s striking about them is that they flipped a bit for Trump. On immigration, he is always – and this is something that a lot of Democrats, not all, but some missed in 2024 and even before that, that the majority of the country was for stronger border security measures. Now the flip to make him underwater is interesting because it means that some of these individual cases that Amna was referencing are resonating with people. And they’re like, “Yeah, I want border – stronger border security, but that doesn’t feel good to me with these human stories.” And that’s what’s interesting about that number.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah. And Democrats are trying to figure out how to capitalize on this moment, Amna. That brings you to the oligarchy tour with Senator Sanders, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He was very firm that, yes, this messaging is the right one right now to fill that void. But there is some debate over whether this is the right way to win over new voters. And of course I asked him, “Are you trying to start a third party?” He said, “No, that’s not the goal of the – these rallies.”
AMNA NAWAZ:
He did. There was some mixed messaging, though, at the end there where he kind of flipped on that at the end. What – what’s striking to me about the Democrats’ approach right now, I will say, is they’re starting to grab on to some of these immigration stories. You saw Senator van Hollen go down, try to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia in El Salvador. You’re seeing more Democratic leaders go to meet with these detained people who have been in the headlines. And you’re also on the oligarchy tour seeing this messaging around wealth inequality, the things that really resonate. Also, those rallies are becoming more of like a gathering place for people who were always upset with Republican policies and not sure where to put it.
RYAN NOBLES:
But the Democrats I’m talking to are — the thing they’re most nervous about is this kind of splintered effort amongst the people that are opposed to Donald Trump, right? The one thing that Donald Trump has always been able to do is coalesce at least 35% of the country that are always going to be behind him no matter how bad his poll numbers look broadly. And what Democrats are worried about is if everyone’s going off in these different directions, it’s going to be difficult to unite everyone in a common effort to topple his policies and prevent his administration from doing things that they find harmful.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You know, Jen, that was sort of part of the argument, I think, that Senator Slotkin was making, is the oligarchy message a little bit — does it resonate with a large enough audience? Senator Sanders said, “Yes, it does. Come to our rallies. Look at how many people are there.”
JEN PSAKI:
Well, yeah, look, I think the issue that Senator Slotkin was raising was the word “oligarchy,” and whether that is actually the word that should be projected on bumper stickers. I tend to agree with her, that — that maybe it isn’t the word, and here’s why. Because yes, there are people who are very tuned in, who watch you every week, who watch –consume everything. And of course it’s not that people don’t know what it is. It’s just – is that speaking to people who are not consuming politics every single day and not consuming news, who are just raising their kids, trying to go to work, trying to make ends meet? And I think that’s the point she’s making. Actually, I think there’s alignment in some ways. What I’ve seen in terms of a shift from the Democrats is really a move to emphasize the economy and economic messaging over the last six months. That was not front and center in 2024. I think we all know. They’re doing it in different ways. It’s sort of the experimentation phase right now, I would say. But that’s been a shift. And I think it’s kind of – where do they get to a clear, unified message over the next six to eight months.
LANHEE CHEN:
Yeah. I mean, look, I think if they focus on immigration, it’s still going to be a losing issue notwithstanding where the numbers are right now. I think the big question will be when we get to next spring, when we really — midterms really clarify, how are these swing-district Democrats, swing-district Republicans, what are they doing? What are they talking about? They have to animate on a message much sooner than that. I would submit to you: “oligarchy” is probably not the right word to be using. But they do need to focus around three things, in my mind. One is leadership, two is the core of a message, and the third is a — is a set of tactics to execute against that strategy. I don’t know if I’ve seen any of that yet.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah, still debating what that strategy will look like. Thank you, guys. Fantastic conversation. That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We’ll be back next week, because if it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.