Meet the Press Now — August 28

Hi there. Welcome to meet the press. Now I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington. The war in Iran has officially reached the six month mark as the president's goals for the conflict and the path to end it remain unclear. What is clear this war and its economic consequences are deeply unpopular with less than 10 weeks to go until the midterms. In the past 180 days of war, 18 U. S. Service members have been killed and more than 750 have been wounded. There are more than 50,000 troops stationed in the region. According to an NBC News estimate, the war has cost between 80 and $100 billion. That's more than double the Pentagon's estimate of $37.5 billion. NBC News reporting shows that U. S. Military bases have suffered more than a billion dollars in damages and the Pentagon's munitions have been significantly depleted. The president, who now says he's focusing economic pressure on Iran rather than military force, has repeatedly shifted the goals and the timeline of the war since the beginning. We also projected four weeks to terminate the military leadership. And as you know, that was done in about an hour. So we're ahead of schedule there by a lot. We're ensuring that the world's number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon. We're not ready to leave yet, but we will be leaving in the near future. So many people say, Oh, why are you doing this way? We can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon. I've been doing this for six weeks, and we're the military is totally defeated. Those were from March and April. Now the president saying he has no time schedule for Iran to turn return to negotiations and the conflicts beginning to look more and more intractable, something the president insisted would not happen when he spoke to my colleague Kristen Welker earlier this summer. During your 2016 campaign, you called the Middle East a quagmire. What makes you so sure this won't become a quagmire? We're not gonna be there. You're convinced this won't become a quagmire. It's not a quagmire. Now, as we said, the war is deeply unpopular with the American public. A plurality disapproved of the U. S. Strikes on Iran in March. When the conflict began, that number has now risen to 63% just 34% approved of the president's handling of the war, according to Fox News polling, driving those numbers frustration over the economic impact of the conflict. The flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains significantly lower before the war, even as the president insists the Strait is open. We have total control over the Hormuz Strait right now. They don't have control. We have total control. We own it. After we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated, pretty soon I'll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States. Right now, the Strait is open. We had a lot of boats are coming through. The Strait is open. We're taking a lot of boats. Millions and millions of barrels of oil are coming out of the Strait every day. I guess it depends on your definition of open. Yesterday, just nine ships transiting the Strait. According to analysts, that's far below the pre war average. The overall impact pushing oil prices above pre war prices. Gas is on average a dollar more a gallon than before. Inflation is up overall as well, clocking in a full percent higher this month and back in February. All of it likely to be on the minds of voters as they head to the polls in November. Joining me now, NBC News White House correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor, also with me on set, senior national security correspondent, Courtney Kube, and national politics reporter Ben Kamasar. Let's start with you, Yamiche. The president's strategy when it comes to his public messaging on the war in recent weeks has just been to double down this despite the public disapproval of the war. What is the thinking in the White House about the public's tolerance for this conflict to continue? Well, it's a key question, and it's not clear whether or not the president has been moved by these polls that show not only Americans, but Republicans in particular. When you look at the latest Reuters, it's those poll that Republicans have also soured on this war. Overall, the president is is really sticking to the idea that he believes Iran can't have a nuclear weapon, and that is the driving force for this war, though we have heard the vice president give a different understanding of the war, saying that he was concerned that that oil prices were the reason why Iran was why this war with Iran was necessary. The other thing to note here is that the president, as you said, that timeline has shifted so much. At first, it was 4 to 5 weeks. Now, the president essentially saying I'm in no hurry. I have no deadline, also saying he's not moved by the midterm. So it's really in some ways unclear what the White House is overall strategy with the president's overall strategy is here, other than the fact that, of course, we did see this week the president essentially give an ultimatum to all countries around the world, saying that they need to cut financial times with Iran. That the big question, of course, whether or not China is going to actually heed any of that warning or change everything, given the fact that they're a big trading partner with Iran, buying about 80% of its shipping oil. But big questions and not a lot of answers, Ryan. Yeah, let's expand on that idea. You meet the White House is calling it economic D day on Monday, Secretary Besson said the first economic sanctions would be announced. And what do we know? Well, it's good that you ask that question because I was looking at what was gonna be rolled out because when Secretary Besson set this up, he said that there were gonna be major financial institutions that we're gonna see a lot of impact from this. What we can see now is that there were a few individuals with ties to Iran that the administration targeted today. But there was no real big news here. What we know now is that they're continuing to, in some ways, make calls. We don't exactly know who the president's been calling, but the administration continues to say that he's personally calling world leaders. We know the president was mad at South Korea at one point for not wanting to be involved militarily in the war. But this is really, in some ways, an expanding issue for the United States, that it's not just about a war in Iran now. Now he's essentially the president asking all of his friends, all of his neighbors, everyone that has anything to do with Iran, to also get behind the United States. And that's complicating things, Ryan. Okay, Yamiche Alcindor, thank you for starting us off. Courtney, let's turn to you. We got Yamiche's point of view here on how the White House is trying to end this, or at least bring it to an end economically. But there's still quite a bit of military might in the region. 50,000 troops at last check. What's their posture now, as we extend into the six months? Could there be a re-ignition of military action there? Yeah, absolutely. So the military posture there hasn't changed since major combat operations ended, so since this war started back in February. And that includes more than 50,000 troops, more than 20 ships. There's hundreds of aircraft there. And that is because the military isn't sure if Donald Trump is going to say one day, look, I want to restart major combat operations. So they are keeping the flexibility that he needs and that the military leadership needs. If Trump were to order to do so, they could do it very quickly. One of the biggest things that has changed over the course of this war is what we've been talking about a lot in the last several months. That's munitions. So the military that are there, they have restocked their supplies, right? So they've got what they need if they need to take long range strikes, if they need to take long range defensive action. But the U. S. Stockpiles have been depleted during the course of this war, and it's something that's been happening for more than a year now, but it was really accelerated during the 40 days of combat here. And so that is a big shift. And the reason that that matters is if President Trump were to decide he wants to restart major combat operations, that could play into how long the U. S. military could sustain that. Not again, just the offensive, but almost more importantly, the defensive component of that. Iran still is a military. They could put the U. S. Military and allies in the region at risk, and the U. S. simply does not have the same capability to defend against it. I mean, under any circumstances, is there a pure military solution to this? I mean, if there were, wouldn't we have already employed it at this point? We have heard so many military experts say you cannot bomb your way out of this and that an air combat campaign alone, it's just not going to win this. But the reality is right now. So we're in this economic phase, right? The military pressure still exists in that the military is carrying out this blockade. There's still this tension over the Strait of Hormuz. But just to show that Iran's not down and out, they're still firing projectiles on a nearly daily basis at commercial ships that are going through the Strait of Hormuz. So even if the military is shooting them down or they're not actually effective attacks, just the threat of that has an impact on the Strait of Hormuz, and that has become such a big issue here. It's another one. I don't know how that gets resolved. I think what you're hinting at is it would require at least ground troops to even begin that conversation, or there needs to be some sort of an agreement that everyone can come to it. But again, President Trump has been very clear about the fact that he wants that to remain open and Iran can't can't own the strait. But I don't really know what the solution here is going to be. That that's another one that you really can't even bomb your way out of the Strait of Hormuz. One more quick one for you, Courtney. You talked about the munitions problem, but there's also a funding problem, right? They've said that it's already cost $37.5 billion. Our estimates are that it's way beyond that. They're gonna have to ask Congress for more money here, right? And that's by no means a guarantee. Absolutely. So they need money for the munitions, like dozens and dozens and dozens of aircraft have been destroyed during the course of this war. And then there's just the basic operating cost of keeping all these thousands of troops and these ships and everything. The ships are also undergoing really tough deployments, extended deployments. Then they need to come back. They need to be refitted. Everything needs to be, you know, fixed up and cleaned up. So all of that costs a lot of money. So the Pentagon's asking for $1.5 trillion. The math is just frankly fuzzy and confusing. We believe, according to our reporting, that it's upwards of $100 billion that this war has costed, and that is not even including the day to day maintenance of the more than 50,000 troops that are still there today. Worth pointing out 1.5 trillion when we just saw the national debt rise over 40 trillion. An interesting ask for, especially from a Republican administration. We've talked about the economics. We talked about the military part of this. Let's talk about the politics. Ben, how does this impact the midterms? You know, what are voters telling us about what they think about this war and how could it manifest itself when they actually go to the polls? I mean, I think the big problem for the president here is that it started off in the polls as an unpopular war, and it continues six months later as an unpopular war. And I mean, all of the things that that Courtney was bringing up about all of the issues on the battlefield of this economic trickle down, right? We're seeing prices continue to go up. You're seeing poll results that show that people are confused and concerned about the goals here. They don't know when it's going to end. There was a recent poll. The plurality of folks said they thought this is gonna last a year or more, you know, or months. And then other folks said months. You know, there really were not many that people that think this is gonna wind its way down soon. And to the questions of, you know, what are the downtrail political effects of this? Even if you president was going to snap his fingers tomorrow and answer all of the questions that Courtney pose that certainly I can't answer. This stuff takes time, right? You know, maybe the economic trickle down, the economic stuff could work itself out within some period of weeks and months, depending on all of the answers to the corny questions. But if not, people are going to be feeling the same economic impacts and the same frustrations when they cast their ballot today. Maybe that wouldn't be enough. But it's interesting. You talk about this from an economic perspective, Ben, because, you know, generally voters, foreign policy is not number one on their list. But this is one of those rare issues where foreign policy and their pocketbooks directly intertwine, right? Yeah, and it's I think it's the big messaging question for the Republicans, right for the president. The president, I always go back to this, told her colleague Chris Smoker right after he won. He won on groceries. Anyone on immigration, right? So immigration is an issue where he's lost some ground on. And prices is the thing that we talked about this and you talked about this in the beginning. He's prices have been sticky prices, but they've not been going down to the rate that he wants them to go down. Gas prices you're seeing here are constant reminder day to day, and Democrats have done a so far pretty good job of connecting those gas prices that the voters see every day to this war. So, yes, there is a foreign policy discussion here, and Republicans want to make that argument. Republicans want to say, Look, you're taking hits in your for your pocketbook. Sure, but look at what we're going to do. We're going. We can't have and this is in their voice, right? But we can't have on Iran that continues to, you know, push us around. So if that's gonna be the question is, can they make that sale or voters can be focused on these economic polling is telling us that voters do not seem that concerned about Iran is an imminent threat to the point where they're willing to pay four bucks a gallon for gas. And then, obviously, the president's never gonna be on the ballot again. But his Republican colleagues, Courtney, his Republican colleagues are gonna be on the ballot this fall. I mean, are they concerned about how this is gonna affect that? I mean, again, you talk about this is so far. We're seeing this politically through the lens of an economic issue, right? And if people are voting with their wallets, that's the big question for them right now is our, you know, our voters going to give them benefit down. We saw this with Joe Biden in the 20, you know, in his in his presidency, talking about the war with Russia, right? It was the same argument, which was don't worry. I know that the economy is tough right now, but we're fighting this larger fight for freedom against Russia when we're backing our allies and we're, you know, we're doing something bigger than this. So if gas goes up a little bit, you're gonna be okay. And voters didn't really buy that. And I think the big question or concern for Republicans is why will this be any different? Yeah, you could make the same argument. That was the argument Joe Biden made around Covid and it did not resonate with the voters either. All right, Ben and Courtney, thanks for a great conversation. We appreciate it. As we look ahead to the midterms, House Democrats are feeling confident about their chances to retake the chamber with the House Democratic campaign arm designating dozens of Republican held districts as in play. That includes Nebraska's first congressional district, where Congressman Mike Flood is defending his seat against a challenger from Democratic candidate challenge. I should say from Democratic candidate Chris Beckemeyer and joining me right now is Chris Beckemeyer. He's running to represent Nebraska's first congressional district. Thank you so much for joining me, Chris. We're gonna get to your race in a moment, but I want to start with the war in Iran specifically because of your background and expertise. You recently wrote an op ed critical of the war, particularly about the amount of money being spent on it. If you're elected to Congress, what are you gonna do to change this situation? Well, first, thanks for having me here. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk to your audience. I think the point that I tried to make in my op ed was that this war was without any sort of strategic objective, any sort of thought about how we're going to get out of the war and what we're going to accomplish and what the risks were. We're seeing those risks play out on the ground in my district every single day where people are frustrated at the high gas prices, the high grocery prices, the high fertilizer prices that are affecting our largest industry, which is agriculture. And so if I'm elected, I'm going to insist on Congress being a co equal branch of government again and asserting its authority over the war powers. And how does that work out to a way that you can bring it to an end? I understand you oppose the war from the beginning, but now it's a thing that exists that you've got to deal with. What's the exit strategy that would allow for the least amount of pain for who could be your potential constituents? Well, the reality is that there are a lot of bad options on the table right now. And as you might know, I was one of the negotiators, the 2015 nuclear deal. And we negotiated that deal because the military options were so bad that we knew that, as your panelists mentioned earlier, you can't just bomb your way out of this situation. And so it's not gonna be for Congress to be able to come up with the strategy. But Congress can insist that the administration pull together a strategy where it can get out of this this conflict. But unfortunately, the reality is the steps that have been taken, the steps that have been supported and voted for by House Republicans, by House Republicans, by Mike Flood. Those that support has led us to a situation where we have very bad options to get out. So under in that vein, would you be supportive of any sort of supplemental funding request if it came to that point? Well, certainly, I think Congress should take a hard look at any sort of supplemental funding request. Obviously, we need to ensure that our troops are supported while they're in harm's way. But any sort of request would need to come with a really clear pathway on what we're trying to accomplish in this conflict and how we're gonna get out of it again. The administration and the support of congressional Republicans has put us in a really bad spot. The people in my district are feeling it every single day. I'll tell you that I just had a woman come up to me the other day in my district, a Republican who came up and asked me what I thought about this war and how we're gonna get out of it because she had two young boys that were nearing draft age, and she was worried that we might be getting to a point where we'd be getting into another forever war and might be considering going into a draft. I couldn't tell her how exactly we're gonna get out of that. Congress should be standing up. Our current delegation should be standing up, going to the White House, insisting that there's a real strategy to get out of this war, uh, and finding a way that we can do that. But I mean, you have a level of expertise here. Earlier this month, Senator Chris Murphy told meet the press that he'd support a bad deal if it meant reopening the straight or four moves, if it meant an end to the conflict. Do you think we're at this point now where we have to accept a bad deal? And what specifically, given what you know about the region and the contours of the deal that you helped to negotiate would get us to a place where things might get better? Well, it's worth looking at what we accomplished in the first place. And when you look at the deal that was on the table, but the ceasefire that the Trump administration negotiated, it offered all sorts of things that were never even contemplated in the 2015 nuclear deal. And so they've created a baseline that makes it incredibly difficult. It's also worth pointing out that Iran has never had control of the straight or four moves, and now they do. And so we're starting from a place, a baseline that is much lower than than it ever should have been. What's a good deal and what's a bad deal is all going to be relative. But what's most important is that we find a way to address the nuclear threat. Iran still has 10 warheads worth of nearly enriched or nearly weapons grade uranium in the country, and we need to make sure that we're addressing the very real economic pain that people are going through. You know, the people in my district are talking about this all the time. They're struggling to make ends meet on. We have a war without a strategy, without a without a plan for getting out of it. And so there's two ways to really get the job done, which is what my opponent continues to talk about. Getting the job done either puts American troops on the ground, which would be insane, or it involves a diplomatic agreement that could that can resolve these issues. Okay, let's talk about some of the other issues that you're confronting as a candidate. Obviously, the war has led to concerns about energy prices. Affordability still the top issue for voters. If Democrats retake the House and Senate, you're still gonna have to contend with Donald Trump is president. How can Democrats work to address the cost of living in a way that will get the president's support? Well, clearly, you're right. We are going to have to contend with the president who has two years left in his term and is going to be continuing to pursue policies that we probably disagree with. But the bottom line is, if Democrats were able to retake the Congress, and if I have one that's lucky enough to be elected, there's a number of things that we need to do. We need to bring an end to this reckless trade war that the administration started. You know, these tariffs have hurt doubly in my district here, where they have driven up prices for consumers just like they have across the country. But they've also driven up prices and the cost of producing for our farmers and our ranchers, and it is ruined their export markets, making it harder for them to sell their products. And so for my district, that's the number one thing we need to do. When you expand the child tax credit, make sure that working families have a little bit of a boost in this economy and are able to get a little bit of help. And then we need to fix our health care system. That's a huge part of every family's budget. It comes up in every single town hall that I do. People, it's too hard and too expensive to get health care. So these are things that we need to focus on. And we, as Democrats, need to focus on putting a bill, an affirmative agenda on the president's desk. Whether he votes for it is going to be a real question mark, but that's what we need to do. Okay, let's talk about one of the biggest issues confronting the Democratic Party. In particular, it's dividing many of your candidates in these primaries across the country, and that is aid to Israel. Last month, nearly half of the House Democrats voted to cut off military support to the country. How would you vote on that issue? Well, look, I think that our support Israel plays really important role in our national security, but there's no question there. Two things could be true. We can also have real concerns about how the Israeli government has conducted the war in Gaza, and I share those concerns. I think if elected to Congress, we need to have a real hard look on making sure that that aid is conditioned on being consistent with U. S. Policy and U. S. Law, and that should go for every single one of our allies. And so that's something that I would be, you know, very concerned about if elected. Do you feel the bill that was before Congress just recently did not have enough of those conditions? Would you have voted no on that bill? I think I think that bill went too far and far as far as the conditions that it had. But I do believe that there should be conditions as far as U. S. Policy being consistent with U. S. Policy and consistent with international law. Yeah. All right, and let's finally talk about the race that you're in. You're taking on Congressman Mike Flood. He won his race in 2024 by more than 20 points. It's a district that President Trump carried by 13 points on paper. People might think that you're a long shot. How do you plan to be successful there? Well, it's real simple. The reality of it in this reality is that in this district, we have an amazing amount of energy, and we have a lot of really strong hunger for change. The reality is that you're right. A lot of people did vote for Congressman Flood. A lot of people did vote for President Trump on those same people in return have gotten very little. They've got a trade war that has driven up costs and driven up prices here in the district. Trade war that has made our largest industry agriculture that much more difficult for our farmers to make a profit. They've seen they've seen their healthcare get cut. They've seen a new war in Iran, and they've seen our national debt go up to $40 trillion. And so when I'm out talking to people, these are the things that they're frustrated about. And so they didn't. This isn't what they voted for. This isn't what they got. And so we believe that we're able to have enough energy to bring this across the finish line in November. And as of right now, it looks incredibly promising. So but you're gonna have to have folks in that district who voted for Donald Trump cast a ballot for you this time around. Do you have a specific message to someone that may have voted for Donald Trump three different times that would now need to vote for you in order for you to be successful? We have people show up at our town halls at our events all the time that have voted for President Trump on that regret that vote because of what they're seeing because of how it's impacting their pocketbooks. So my message to those people is that I'm here to represent you. I'm here to stand up against policies that aren't going to work for Nebraskans, no matter what party is pursuing them on. I'm here to make sure that your voice is heard in Washington, and that's something that they don't feel like it's happening right now. I mean, their own representative voted for the tariffs that are destroying the current the economy here that have plunged our farm economy into crisis. Their own representative supported and voted for this war in Iran that has made things more expensive for everybody. And so they're not getting the representation representation that they want. And my message to them is that I will have their back. Okay, Chris Backemeyer. I caught that they've got their back. It sounds like a campaign slogan coming up. We appreciate it. Thank you for being here. Coming up the letter of the law, a late night legal filing delivering the Trump administration a setback on the issue of mail in voting with ballots set to go out to some voters within days. We're gonna try and cut through the confusion and the uncertainty. Plus, birthright battle, new developments and another legal saga at the center of the Trump agenda as the courts weigh the fate of the administration's latest effort to limit birthright citizenship. You're watching meet the press now. All right, welcome back. We turn now to the latest twists and turns in the administration's push to overhaul voting in America ahead of the midterms, with just one week before the first mail in ballots are sent to voters. A federal judge late yesterday blocked a new Postal Service rule that would have given the federal government sweeping control over who is eligible to receive a mail in ballot. Last hour, the Trump administration appealed that order. The new regulation stems from the executive order that President Trump signed earlier this year, which the Supreme Court temporary temporarily allowed to proceed on Monday. Now, the high court did not rule on the actual legality of the executive order, but rather just on the procedure, saying that it was too soon for states to challenge the order. NBC News senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley joins me now to talk all about this. It probably has people's head spinning Lawrence the back and forth courts letting it go, then stopping it. Explain what the status is of President Trump's executive order right now. Yeah, I mean, I can certainly appreciate appreciate and sympathize with anyone who is confused by this because there's been a real whiplash this week going back and forth from the Supreme Court to lower courts. But the bottom line for anyone who's planning on voting by mail this year is that nothing has changed at the federal level. Whatever people do normally based on what the state requires, that's what's gonna be happening right now, unless something very dramatic changes. So for now, because of the ruling last night, the Postal Service regulation that would impose these kind of new limits and really put the federal government in kind of exerting control over elections in a way that's never been done before, and it's completely unprecedented, will not be happening anytime soon. But the litigation obviously is still playing out, and we'll be certainly keeping a close eye on that. Yeah, and I guess that's the next question, right? Because we're only about 10 weeks away from Election Day. But really, some states are already starting this process. There are already starting to send out their mail in ballots. From a practical standpoint, is it too late for this order to actually be enforced by this year's Election Day? Yeah, I mean, this has always been an issue with this executive order, right? Even if the courts hadn't got involved, there were big questions as to whether this could actually be implemented, whether the Postal Service has the capacity to implement it, which already has some resource problems and concerns about reliability. And I actually talked to an election official in one of the states today who said that even if this wasn't blocked by courts, his state would not be able to implement it. They simply, you know, they have to order envelopes ahead of time. This order would require new envelopes with special barcodes on them, a whole new system for the state to implement. This administrator said there's just no way they can do that. And do we think that the Supreme Court will actually have the final say? And could it happen before Election Day? Well, as you mentioned, the Trump administration has noticed today that it's gonna file an appeal of last night's order. This could get to the Supreme Court really quickly. And also, as you mentioned, the Supreme Court did not weigh in on the merits of this order in the decision that went out earlier this week. It could be a very swift trip to the Supreme Court maybe as soon as next week. And so that could determine what happens with this going forward. But what about the final decision on this? How long could that take? Well, I think at the moment we're just talking provisional for this year's election, right? If the executive order can be implemented for a later election, maybe that's a different question. But for the short time frame heading into this election, this Supreme, whatever the Supreme Court says, if it gets there is gonna determine what happens for this election. Okay, thanks for sorting that out, Lawrence. We appreciate it. We're gonna turn now to a major legal battle for the Trump administration. The president's renewed push to limit birthright citizenship. A federal judge in Maryland declined to immediately block the implementation of an executive order that President Trump signed earlier this year. That order would restrict automatic citizenship for Children born to adults working for foreign embassies. It would also block automatic citizenship for groups considered an alien enemy of the U. S. The president signed that order weeks after the Supreme Court rejected his initial attempt to limit birthright citizenship in order that he signed on his first day in office. NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley joins me now to talk more about this. So Julia, the judge refused to block the president's executive order immediately. But did she give any indication of how she may rule on this going into the future? Yeah, it does not seem like it's gonna be a permanent win for the White House here. What the judge was saying was just that this these plaintiffs who decided to bring their challenge to the executive order under the same lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court that they need to actually file a separate lawsuit because this is a different executive order. So it's really more of a procedural ruling here from what the judge was saying today. It seems she really doesn't think that what the president is trying to do through this more limited slice to limit birthright citizenship is really gonna pass the muster. After all, the Supreme Court already said birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution, and the only way to change that is to go through Congress. And it's felt like they were pretty clear about that. I mean, is there any reason to believe that this new working of this executive order will have any different response by the courts? No, I mean, in some ways we already have limits for Children of diplomats. You can ask that of anyone who's ambassador working in any kind of diplomatic office here. Their Children are not U. S. Citizens, and they know that coming here. They're trying to say that people born to alien enemies also don't have that. They can designate us. We've seen like gangs like MS 13 say that they should also not have citizenship. But there's a woman who is already being brought up as a potential class member in this case who would be able to show that she's been hurt by this if it does go into effect. So it's a matter of D. O. J. Getting the guidance on how would be implemented from the White House and then these plaintiffs filing again in a different lawsuit. But either way, it doesn't seem like the path is going toward Trump actually getting what he wants here. There's another thing that the Trump administration wants, and that's robotic dogs. Oh, yeah, spend a million dollars to do this. And we're talking about ice here. Yeah, that came across my desk today. It's a little bit of a surprise on a Friday to hear about robotic dogs. You can see them here. Uh, this is called Spot. It is built by a company called Boston Dynamics, and we saw in a federal database that ice is actually offering to pay between one and $2 million to buy these things. And when I talked to a senior DHS official about how they would be used, they said that they can have cameras and sensors on them so they could go into a building or a house or anywhere that ice wants to go in. They could go in before an ice officer does to make sure it's safe. They can detect for chemicals or any other thing that might be dangerous. I asked specifically, could these be used in force? Could you know, could there be some kind of weapon attached to it? They said they have no plans for that at this time. But there are a lot of there's a lot of outrage over things like this because civil liberties activists think that robotics and policing really eliminates the human element that might cause someone to stop before they result in catastrophic damage. I think we all saw the movie Robocop and how that ended. You know, I missed that. You'll have to recap it for me. Okay, thank you for that. And before we go, folks, we have contact. President trump made history earlier today, becoming the first sitting president to call astronauts aboard the International Space Station from NASA's Mission Control in Houston. Station, this is Houston. Are you ready for the event? Houston, this is station. We are ready for the event. Well, this is a great honor to be with you is a great honor. And I just want to thank and Jessica and Neil Jack, uh, great Americans, great patriots, brave people. I wouldn't do it. I will tell you right now. I hate to admit it. I would not want to do it. But some people love it more than anything. And you have amazing courage. The president went on to inform the astronauts that he just signed an executive order that will begin the process to open a new space academy, which he compared to West Point and other military academies. The fun moment in Houston came minutes after the crew of Artemis two was awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor for their landmark mission around the moon earlier this year. We'll be right back with more. Meet the press now. Welcome back. We are staying on top of breaking news of the ongoing disaster in the Himalayas. Officials now confirming at least 579 people have been killed. Nearly 2000 are missing after Wednesday's catastrophic flash floods along the border region between Nepal and China. Entire communities were washed away in just moments outside a hospital in Kathmandu. Posters of the missing are being hung up as families search for loved ones. Researchers are working in very difficult and dangerous conditions, trying to find survivors and the mountains of mud and debris. The U. S. State Department confirming today that five American citizens have been confirmed to be safe, but that approximately 90 Americans are unaccounted for right now. Meanwhile, authorities are monitoring the potential for more flooding from a new lake that was formed as a result of the initial flash floods. Cordelia Lynch from Sky News filed this report earlier today from Nepal. It is a very chaotic scene here in the district. You can see the army that's been hard at work carrying out rescue operations, trying to bring back any survivors from some of the hardest hit areas. We've actually just been told that they will be pausing operations for a 90 minute window, and that is because we've received news of a damned lake that has burst its banks. Now that's raised concern about secondary disasters, about landslides and possible further loss of life. So just in here is the center where some of those people have been landing on the helicopters. We've seen a pretty steady stream of that across the morning, some very badly injured, others just carrying what little belongings they have left. Very lucky, very grateful to still be alive. But there are also many grieving families here too, that have lost entire households. I just spoke to one woman who said that thousands of people from her village were killed, and elderly women who somehow managed to escape in time. It's a pretty dire picture and you get a sense of just how much the Nepali authorities are under pressure. The hope is that they will continue these rescues, that the helicopters can keep coming in. But right now, most people are trying to leave, trying to get somewhere high to safety. Cordelia Lynch, thank you for that report. We'll continue to stay on top of this story as it unfolds. After the break, court just adjourned in the Massachusetts triple murder trial of Lindsay Clancy that's captured the nation's attention. The latest on the case with jury deliberation set to continue next week. Stay with us and meet the press now. Welcome back to the jury in the high profile trial of Lindsay Clancy. The Massachusetts mother accused of first degree murder of her three Children adjourned for the day without reaching a verdict. Deliberations center around the question of whether Lindsay Clancy should be held criminally responsible for the death of her Children. Clancy does not deny she killed her Children, but the defense argued she suffered from postpartum psychosis. The prosecution, however, says that the killings were premeditated. Jury deliberations will resume on Monday and come after several weeks of emotional testimony and more than 80 witnesses joining me now is NBC News correspondent Stephen Romo, who's been following this trial. So, Stephen, jury deliberations are done for the day, but this morning they did come back with a question. What do we know? And what do you make of how this case has seized the public's interest? Yeah, Ryan, just about an hour into deliberations today, the jury already had a question. They were asking to see some pill bottles that were shown during this case, particularly during closing arguments. And they also asked to see the knife that Lindsay Clancy used in her suicide attempt. Now, both of those things, people are trying to draw conclusions of what exactly the deliberations may be going on back there. But of course, it's just so hard to tell with that limited amount of information, no real way of knowing. And as far as just the amount of attention this case has gotten, it is remarkable about this case because there's not a central mystery. It's not a whodunit at all. It's very clear from both sides conceding that Lindsay Clancy killed her Children. But this is really about the why. And there are a few different reasons. A lot of people interested in true crime are very interested in this. But the other big bell that has been wrong in this case is the issue of maternal mental health care, something a lot of people have very strong feelings about in this country. Yeah, definitely. We learned today that one of the doctors who was a rebuttal witness for the prosecution resigned from his job. What more do we know about that? Yeah, this is interesting. The, um, the rebuttal witness, the second one to go, Dr Avermack, forensic psychiatrist who testified on behalf of the prosecution of some heated exchanges with defense attorney Kevin Reddington. We do know that he resigned from his position at Nemours Children's Hospital. We have a statement from them saying his expert witness testimony in the Clancy trial was related to his private forensic practice, which was always separate from his clinical work at Nemours. So from their statement doesn't seem to be related. But the timing interesting because they say that he resigned on August 24th and that is just the same day that he wrapped up his testimony in this case, Ryan. And the jury can also consider a lesser charge of manslaughter. Could that complicate the deliberations? Yeah. And this seems like a win for the defense. They really wanted to include in the jury instructions this possibility of a manslaughter charge. And you can see second degree murder that was already agreed upon by prosecution and defense. The judge siding with the defense and including that. And this will give jurors another option that is not murder and is also not a lack of criminal responsibility. Now, with manslaughter, you often think of an accidental death. The thinking here, and you could actually hear in prosecution's closing arguments, maybe some justification for this talking about maybe actions that are reckless that ended in the death. And that could be not following doctors instructions. That's something that we heard from prosecution and closing. We'll have to wait and see what the jury ultimately decides. The jury taking a lot of time with this verdict. Obviously, this is a case that has captured the country's attention for a wide range of reasons. Stephen Rummel, thank you for that. If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, you are not alone. Call or text 988 or go to 988 lifeline dot org to reach the 988 suicide and crisis. Lifeline. Help is just a moment away. We'll be right back with more. You're watching. Meet the press now. Welcome back. Thousands gathered today at the Lincoln Memorial to mark 30 63 years since the march on Washington when Martin Luther King Jr delivered his historic I have a dream address. But this year, civil rights leaders and Democratic lawmakers are also sounding the alarm on President Trump's attempts to overhaul elections ahead of the November midterms. Take a listen. The fact that we still have to fight to maintain and renew voting rights in this country is beyond abysmal and a truly national disgrace. Today we have a president along with the Supreme Court members he appointed is carrying out the most significant assault on voting rights since segregation, targeting virtually every aspect of the electoral system. So let's be clear about the country that we are fighting for. We, the people demand full protected and restored voting rights in the United States of America. Let's talk about it. Joining me now is our panel Deepa Shivaram, the White House correspondent for M. P. R. Megan Hayes, former special assistant to President Biden and Matt Gorman, Republican strategist and NBC News contributor. So Deepa, let's talk about the dueling optics here, right? You have Democrats warning about attacks on voting rights. Then you have President Trump's executive order on mail and ballots tied up in the courts. How worried do you think in general Democrats are about some chicanery happening with the election results? I think very worried. I had a colleague at M. P. R. Who reported on this like just this week about how Democrats on the Hill are creating a task force to try and prepare for some of the threats that they perceive coming from Trump from this administration when it comes to election day and early voting people going to the polls and having potentially, you know, based on things that the president has said, um, you know, members of law enforcement at a polling locations. He's floated the idea of a national emergency, which we don't really know what that means. He's obviously very much pushing the Save Act requiring voter I. D. And things like that. But he's also started to question, um, you know, teasing some of these ideas of saying if Democrats are opposed to the Save Act like that's, you know, suggesting that they might want to cheat in this election. This is the president who, to this day, still claims that he won the 2020 election, that there's rampant voter fraud, which we know isn't true. Um, and so I think like in order to sort of combat that you're seeing the other side, Democrats try to come ahead instead of trying to treat this as a response. You talk to Democrats all the time. Megan, are they? Are they taking it seriously? And are they prepared for something like this? Look, if you talk to people in the States and you talk to donors, election protection and election security are the number one thing people are focused on in the states and organizations more than getting the vote to give money to. I think people are very worried that the votes aren't going to be counted correctly. And I think Donald Trump is trying to so that discontent to get people to stay home or convince people that their vote doesn't matter. And so I just Democrats are extremely concerned about this from all levels of government and I think throughout the party. Matt, this this makes him a lot of money and this gets especially African American vote. A lot of these again, the donors and a lot of these third party advocacy groups that do a lot of this stuff. It's prime time right for a lot of fundraising drives. And I think also to it gets African Americans, uh, you know, uh, engaged. I think that's what the real part of this is, right? It gets it's about politics both for 26 and also 28. I noticed AOC speaking there, right? That African Americans are the backbone of the Democratic primary base. So getting them energized. You think they don't have any reason to be worried? I don't have it. I don't believe so. No again. Voter ID is an 80 20 issue. That's number one. And also every time Democrats come out with, I think what we have to now, according in their eyes, Jim Crow 8.0. Uh, it really just it's it makes engages their base at a high level. Okay, let's talk about that energy deep because I don't put too much stock in prediction markets, but there is something that people talk about all the time. Many of these prediction markets are now suggesting a Democratic sweep of both the House and Senate. I think if we had that conversation a year ago, people would think we were crazy, especially just because of the way the map lays out for the Senate. But is that the reality on the ground? Are people just looking to make money here? Or are people becoming increasingly coming around to the idea that Democrats could win both the House and Senate? I think there's definitely a sense of fatigue of a lot of issues that we've been facing as a country in the last several months. I mean, we're hitting six months on the Iran war this week, right? If you look at how voters are thinking about this election for months now, costs are a high issue. You know how they're going to pay for groceries, gas or a high issue. Um, and when you talk to voters on the ground, I was just, you know, traveling in South Carolina. I was just in Nevada. People do vote with their wallets. That is something that's very top of mind. Um, so I also am a little wary at looking at prediction markets as well. But I think there's very much a sense from people when they look at the status quo, starting to get a sense of, you know, how do I make a decision going forward right now? It's not really working so well for them for a lot of people I speak to. But Megan, I think we talk about this maybe from 30,000 ft and we say, well, the generic ballot tells us this, you know, Democrats obviously have the energy, but there's, I mean, I said this before. There's a map problem here, right? I mean, let's look at it in order to flip the Senate. They've got to win Texas, Iowa, Maine and Alaska. They have to win them all. They can't win any of those and keep Michigan and keep Michigan right. And you know, keep Georgia right. So isn't that a tall order? Even under the best of circumstances, they basically have to have a perfect night in order to win back the Senate. Yeah, I don't put too much stake in the prediction markets either. And I don't actually think so good. I brought it up. I don't think they're not polls, right? And they're not people who are actual voters. And I think I don't know that Democrats are going to take back the Senate. I think that they'll put up a good fight. I think they'll lessen the majority of the Republicans have. I do think Democrats will take back the House, and I think that's the most important fact here that people should be focused on. But I think that there's also these 36 governors races. The Democrats have a chance to flip seats. There's a seat in Texas that we could flip. There's, you know, their seats in Ohio. And I think that's really important here that Republicans are on their heels. And Donald Trump being out there more and more is only good for Democrats. So I think whatever the prediction markets are telling us, it is a tough road to go and take the entire Senate. But I do think the house is well within. Is there? Is there a danger map for Democrats, though, to get a little too ambitious? I saw Dan Pfeiffer the day after Darlene Graham captured the South Carolina primary put out a long tweet thread about how the Democrats need to put money and energy behind Annie Andrews. Is there a chance that they start to reach for places like Kansas and South Carolina and miss the game in Michigan or somewhere? Well, just that's Hillary Clinton. When you start right, I believe other states. I mean, I remember Jane, the Jamie Harrison boom lit about six years ago. The last time when Lindsey Graham won and he got his doors beaten. But look, I will say this. I agree with you on governor days. We need to pay attention to those, especially in light of what we're talking about with voting. You thought 26 was was chaos with redistricting. 28 is primed to be even more so. That's number one. I'll say in and prediction markets are a snapshot in time, right? It's a it's a consensus of conventional wisdom in any respect, right? I think again, the fight is going to be if we're talking, you know, 70 some odd days from now, certainly focus on the Senate. But I think we also, you know, I remember going days heading up to 20 in 2024. Those seven swing states were saying, Okay, what if Kamala wins this or Trump wins that and it comes down to one state? Most of the time, these things fall all together. That's an argument that Democrats could be good. It's a matter of how far it goes. When do the dominoes stop? I think that's always the key with this. And then deeper. What's the president's role in all of this? He's telling voters pretend I'm on the ballot. Is that if you're a Republican candidate, is that a good or bad thing? Yeah, I was just at that rally in South Carolina when he said that and basically telling a crowd of supporters to be clear, like essentially acknowledging that like turnout might be lower and just come just pretend I'm on the ballot. Come anyway. Come and vote. Um, it's interesting to me, because if you if you look at what Trump even has talked about this week, I mean, on Monday, he did event about education on Wednesday or Thursday. He signed this, you know, executive order changing the name of Lake Ontario. Today he's talking about the Space Force. He's not really, you know, able to make a lot of arguments right now that are, you know, talking about people's paychecks and wallets. And he's in South Carolina saying, I know gas prices are really high and doesn't have the ability to kind of pivot off of that. So, yeah, kind of an interesting position. I mean, it's tough for Republicans, right, Matt? Because you can't run away from the president too far because then you risk alienating his base, right? Here's the thing. I think where that's coming from and his message coming from is our base is in a lot of times depressed. And I think that is the big problem they're trying to solve for immediately is we need the base to come out or we don't even earn the game in a lot of these elections. I think that is the key. Obviously, you know, we have to get to 50 plus one independence leaner leaners. Yes, but where I think where he's solving for is trying to get the base out. And did Democrats tap into that? Do they say, Hey, you're running with Trump. Is that a good thing for them? Yeah, go forth and conquer. I mean, you just hit the lowest approval rating. He's done nothing to lower costs. He I mean, J. D. Vance put out something saying grocery costs are what they are like. They don't seem to care. So I think Democrats would welcome Donald Trump campaigning on Donald Trump's record. Okay, guys, that was a great conversation. Deepa, Matt, Megan, thank you all for being here. We appreciate it. Have a terrific weekend. Thank you all for joining us. We'll be back Monday with more meet the press now. But if it's Sunday, it's meet the press on your local NBC News station. Chris will have exclusive interviews with Senator Ted Cruz and Congressman Jim Clyburn. You're not gonna want to miss that. There's more ahead, though, now on NBC News. Now, thanks so much for watching. We thank you for watching and remember, stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app or watch live on our YouTube channel.