CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday: our growing commitment to Ukraine.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
The cost of this fight is not cheap.
CHUCK TODD:
President Biden asks Congress for 33 billion dollars in new aid.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
But caving to aggression is going to be more costly if we allow it to happen.
CHUCK TODD:
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin describes widened U.S. war goals.
SEC. LLOYD AUSTIN:
We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.
CHUCK TODD:
And Speaker Nancy Pelosi leads a Congressional delegation in a visit to Kyiv. My guest this morning: Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey. Plus: With a record number of crossings at the southern border –
REP. BRIAN HIGGINS:
We're losing our country down there. We need you to resign.
CHUCK TODD:
– Republicans go over the top in their attacks on Homeland Security Chief Alejandro Mayorkas regarding plans to end Covid-related restrictions.
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
With the Title 42 public health order set to be lifted we expect migration levels to increase.
CHUCK TODD:
I'll talk to Secretary Mayorkas about those plans that even some Democrats oppose. Also, more fallout from the Kevin McCarthy tapes.
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY:
I'm calling Gaetz, I'm explaining to him. This is serious s***, to cut this out.
CHUCK TODD:
That's just one of many revelations in the new book "This Will Not Pass". Authors Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns of the New York Times will be my exclusive guests. And no country for Democrats.
RUDY BODEKER:
We don't have any rural messengers anymore. We don't have anyone that speaks for the party in the dirt.
CHUCK TODD:
Rural Democrats say the party has forgotten about them, at its own peril. Joining me for insight and analysis are: Former Senator Claire McCaskill, NBC News Senior Capitol Hill correspondent Garrett Haake, New York Times Pentagon correspondent Helene Cooper and Stephen Hayes of the Dispatch. 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 Chuck Todd.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, a good Sunday morning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made an unannounced visit to Kyiv with a Congressional delegation. She's now the highest ranking American official to make it to the capital of Ukraine since this war started. And it's also the latest evidence that America's commitment to Ukraine is only growing, amid signs that the war may end up expanding, and that Russia's assault in Ukraine's east may be stalling. So let's take all of these in order. First, President Biden is now asking Congress for $33 billion in aid to Ukraine, most of it military assistance. In total, it would bring the amount of aid requested to close to $50 billion. That's more than we spent each of the last five years in Afghanistan, or at least we're on pace to do that. Mr. Biden's request came only days after Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the U.S. wants to degrade Russia's ability to make war on other countries. Next, the expanding war. This past week saw explosions in a breakaway region of Moldova, likely caused by Russia, and fires and explosions at several war-related sites inside Russia's border, many in range of Ukrainian missiles. The European Union appears ready to impose a potentially crippling embargo on Russian oil after Russia cut off gas exports to Bulgaria and Poland, with an eye towards doing the same to Germany. Finally, Russia's advance on Ukraine's east has run into stiffer than expected resistance again. And Ukrainian officials say the Russians are having to redeploy troops from the country's far east as reinforcements. So we're going to begin our coverage with NBC New Correspondent Erin McLaughlin, who is in Kyiv. And Erin, with the speaker of the House, Congressional delegation visiting yesterday, I assume Ukraine's leadership has to feel that, at least symbolically, the U.S. is with them, joined at the hip.
ERIN MCLAUGHLIN:
Oh, absolutely, Chuck. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arriving here in Kyiv this weekend, she says to thank Ukraine for its fight for freedom, telling President Zelenskyy, quote, "Our commitment is to be there for you until the fight is done." Her visit comes just days after two Russian missiles struck the heart of the capital as the U.N. Secretary General was visiting. This is the aftermath of those missile strikes. One of the missiles struck that factory just over that way, believed to be the intended target. The other missile struck that apartment building, killing one and injuring ten. The mayor of Kyiv saying that those strikes effectively amount to the middle finger from Russia to the west as well as to the United Nations. It's also seen as a warning to anyone wanting to visit the capital, wanting to meet with President Zelenskyy, which is perhaps why Speaker Pelosi's visit was shrouded in secrecy. It happened yesterday evening. Was only made public today. Pelosi has been pushing for Congress to pass the $33 billion aid package at the request of President Biden, badly needed funds for this war, as it's raging across the south and the east. The British Ministry of Defense saying that Russia has made some gains, although those gains have come at a high price due to fierce Ukrainian resistance. I've been working to a Ukrainian military official who says they are seeing signs that Russia is amassing more forces to strengthen its assault on the Donbas region. Meanwhile, all eyes on the southern besieged port city of Mariupol. Yesterday, a rare glimmer of good news. Some 20 civilians were evacuated from that steel plant, surrounded by Russian forces. That humanitarian corridor secured by the United Nations and the Red Cross. President Zelenskyy expressing hope that there will be more evacuations of civilians today, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
Erin McLaughlin, excellent reporting from Kyiv. And I'm really glad you made note of the fact those missile strikes came when the head of the United Nations was visiting on a supposed peace-keeping mission. Erin, thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
And joining me now is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it's Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat. Senator Menendez, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ:
Good to be with you.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with some news this morning out of the U.K. and their intelligence, which seems to indicate that Vladimir Putin may use May 9th, Russia's celebration of World War II Victory Day, as a chance to officially declare war against Ukraine. Is that a distinction without a difference as far as you're concerned? And what should the U.S. response be to that declaration?
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ:
Well, Putin has declared war against Ukraine. Whether he does it formally or not is inconsequential. I think that what we are doing and what we will continue to do is help Ukraine ultimately have victory and defeat Russia. Ukraine is a test for the West. It's a test for the international order. Can one country, in this case Russia under Putin, erase the borders of Europe, change a country by force? Or will the international order prevail? And I think that's what's at stake here, regardless of Putin's declarations.
CHUCK TODD:
When Secretary Austin did a debrief after his visit to Kyiv, he said something earlier this week about our goals now with Russia. "We want to see Russia weaken to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine." In response to that, the Russians essentially said, "Well, the Americans are fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine." Isn't the answer to that, "Yes?" That in that sense, yes, this is a proxy war between the West and Russia. Do you accept that description?
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ:
No, not necessarily. Look, I'm not sure what was in Secretary Austin's mind, but I think what he meant is that if Russia cannot defeat Ukraine with a much larger army with greater sophisticated weaponry and a much-vaunted military, then it has to think about creating acts of aggression against any other country in Europe or anyplace else. And that certainly is degrading Russia's ability and thoughts about their ability to do so. I would think that that's what the secretary meant. But at the end of the day, yes, we don't want to see Russia go into Moldova. We don't want to go see into a NATO country, and Poland, or Lithuania, or any other such country. So in that respect, I think that's what the secretary meant.
CHUCK TODD:
Should the U.S. posture change at all in how much we get involved if this expands into Moldova?
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ:
Well, look, I think that the Ukrainians care about what's going to happen in Transnistria because it's another attack point against Ukraine. I don't think that's going to change our calculus about our direct engagement. We need to keep our eye on the ball. And that is about helping Ukraine and Ukrainians ultimately be able to defeat the butcher of Moscow. And if we do that, the world will be safer, the international order will be preserved, and others who are looking at what is happening in Ukraine will have to think twice. And this international response that President Biden has led and this new effort by Europe to have a gas and oil embargo against Russia is going to be one of the most strategic blunders Putin will have made for his country, and shows the resolve of the West, something we have not seen in the past.
CHUCK TODD:
$50 billion, Senator Menendez, is what essentially the president's asked for in total allocation. You put the two numbers together, nearly $50 billion. This appears to be the most money we've ever spent on a war that we've not fired a shot in, the United States. Is there a limit in how much support we're going to give Ukraine for this? Or as long as we think they can win this war, we'll do what it takes?
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ:
I think we will do what it takes to see Ukraine win because it's not just about Ukraine. It is about the international order. If Ukraine does not win, if Putin can ultimately not only succeed in the Donbass but then be emboldened maybe to go further, if he strikes a country under NATO, under our treaty obligations with NATO, then we would be directly engaged. And so stopping Russia from getting to that point is critically of interest to us, as well as the world so that we don't have to send our sons and daughters into battle. And I think that ability not to have to send our sons and daughters into battle is priceless.
CHUCK TODD:
I know many officials answered the following question by saying, "It's up to Ukraine what they decide is victory here." But what do you believe is Ukrainian victory? What does Ukrainian victory look like to you, sir?
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ:
Well, the reason many officials answer that way to you, Chuck, is because it's Ukraine that must determine what it will or will not accept to end this war. After such horrific human rights violations, war crimes that Putin has committed against the Ukrainian people, it's hard to understand what President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people will accept. Maybe there will be some territorial concession. Maybe. But it cannot be in a way that ultimately blocks Ukraine from seaports and having access to the sea, which is going to be vital for commerce as well as national security. But it's the horrific acts that Putin has committed, the war crimes that he has committed that gives Ukraine very little room to think about what is peace here.
CHUCK TODD:
Quick question about immigration. I'm going to have Secretary Mayorkas on in a moment. Many of your Democratic colleagues are not happy with the decision to rescind Title 42 with what they believe is not an adequate enough plan. You obviously would like to see Title 42 ended, I know that. But at the same time, you've questioned whether we have the resources or the commitment to do this. What is the best way to handle this situation? What do you tell your Democratic colleagues that would like to keep Title 42 in place for now?
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ:
Well, I'll tell you, Chuck, what I told them at our caucus last week. Title 42 is not the solution, it's part of the problem. Who who wants to control the border would permit a provision that allows countless numbers of times that an individual can try to cross the border? That's what Title 42 does. There's no permanent adjudication of those who have a right under asylum and those who do not have a right, and then would have an order of deportation. And if they tried to come back, there would be criminal penalties for it. That would stop it. There needs to be a comprehensive immigration plan. Our Republican colleagues, however, they want the issue. They don't want a solution.
CHUCK TODD:
Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I know Ukraine is taking up a lion's share of your focus. I appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us, sir.
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ:
Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me turn now to immigration, as I just said with the senator. Republicans went after Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas this past week for the administration's plan to end Covid-era Title 42 immigration restrictions. Representative Clay Higgins, of Louisiana, called on Mayorkas to resign. And Ken Buck, of Colorado, even questioned Mayorkas's loyalty to the country.
(START TAPE)
REP. KEN BUCK:
My constituents want you impeached because they believe you've committed treason. They believe you're a traitor.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
But beyond that absurd grandstanding, there are Democrats who have concerns about the administration's Title 42 plans, especially at a time of record crossings at our southern border. So, joining me now is Secretary Mayorkas. Mr. Secretary, welcome back to Meet The Press.
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
Good morning, Chuck. Pleased to be here.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me just start with the type of conversation you had with Judiciary Committee members this week. Why do you think they've personalized this on you?
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
Chuck, I'm focused on mission. I'm focused on supporting the workforce of the Department of Homeland Security and getting our work done. That's what I'm focused on.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you feel like you're a proxy for attacks on other people?
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
I don't speculate about the motives – the political motives of the political motives of personal attacks. I have resolve. It's an important human quality when one has incredibly important work to do on behalf of the country.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, let's talk about Title 42. You put out a six-point plan. Let me put up some bullet points about it. Surging resources to the border, enforcing legal consequences, target some transnational criminal organizations, and try to deter migration in the first place. When I saw the six-point plan, I was like, hm, this is what has been said about – what the Biden administration has said they were going to do at the border for months. What is so new about this? And I ask that because, if this is sort of similar to what we've already been doing, then it's not working.
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
Chuck, the plan wasn't devised last week when it was published. This was a – is a plan that we've been working on since September of last year. We understood that the Title 42 Public Health Authority of the CDC would not be around forever. And so, we've been executing on this plan for months. And we're intensifying our efforts. We're adding resources to it to address the potential for an increase in migration once Title 42 comes to an end. That's what we do. And it's a multi-faceted plan, not only with respect to the infusion of additional resources to the border, the surge of personnel, the surge of transportation capabilities, medical support, increased facilities, but it's also working south of our border, with our partners in the region, because what we are experiencing in the United States is not unique to us. This is a regional challenge that requires a regional solution. Do you know that there are more than 1.8 million Venezuelans in Colombia right now? This is something that is being experienced throughout the hemisphere and the world, as we so powerfully see in Europe.
CHUCK TODD:
There's no doubt one of the potential tools you could have used, the State Department rescinded these sort of third-party agreements that the Trump administration had negotiated, which is if you want to make an asylum claim in the United States and you're not from a border country, make the asylum case first in a border country. So, from Honduras, go to Guatemala first. Is that a tool that would make your job easier?
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
You know, Chuck, I don't think there would be very many experts who would say that Guatemala is a safe third country. We see a tremendous amount of migration from Guatemala. Some of the concerns that force people to flee their homes are resident in Colombia. We've been speaking with our counterparts – I’m sorry, in Guatemala – we have been speaking with our counterparts in Guatemala about those challenges, economic despair, violence, corruption, extreme weather events. So, I would take issue --
CHUCK TODD:
Okay, so that's Guatemala, but should there be some other third -- is there a way to ease the asylum system? Is there a way to not do these at the border, but do these in-country?
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
Which is exactly why we have a regional plan, which is why I, and Secretary Blinken, were in Panama more than a week ago, why I was in Costa Rica.
CHUCK TODD:
Panama hasn't been very helpful. They're accelerating migration.
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
So, what we need countries to do is to apply their laws and say, look, if, in fact, somebody qualifies for relief in Panama, then they should be able to remain in Panama under the laws of that respective country. And if they don't, we need the country to repatriate those individuals. This is not our responsibility alone. It is a regional responsibility in response to a regional challenge.
CHUCK TODD:
Paint me a picture of what success looks like. Title 42 is lifted on May 23. What does success for your plan look like if it works as you intend?
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
Success looks like the orderly implementation of our plan, where we are applying our laws in accordance with their provisions, in a way that respects individuals' rights to claim asylum as the laws that Congress provided allow. You know, we're talking about individuals who are claiming fear of persecution in their countries of origin. And our laws provide that they are allowed, in immigration enforcement proceedings –
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
– to make those claims before an immigration judge. If they are not successful, they are promptly removed from the country. And that's something that cannot be overlooked. We're not talking about releasing individuals into the United States. What we're talking about is individuals who make claims for asylum and they seek to vindicate those claims in court. And if they do not succeed, we enforce the law and they are removed.
CHUCK TODD:
What is the average time that you think you can get an asylum claim processed?
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
One of the great steps that we have taken in the Biden-Harris administration is to address this challenge. Historically, it's been six, eight years plus. And we promulgated an asylum officer rule that allows our asylum officers to make the ultimate asylum determination. And we're going to take that six-to-eight-year period, over time, as we ramp up, we’re going to take that to under a year. Fundamentally though, Chuck, we need Congress to pass legislation.
CHUCK TODD:
I understand that. What have you done – what have you said to the Democratic senators, particularly those running for reelection, who have questioned the plan about Title 42? And you can see here, Mark Kelly is one of them, Maggie Hassan is another, they don't like the specifics. They feel like there's sort of a disconnect. They think the plan that you've outlined is a bit unrealistic. Do you think their criticism is fair?
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
Well, it's not an issue of fair or not. I respectfully disagree with the criticism. You know, we shared with individuals, with the public, a concept of operations and they were concerned that that was not enough, they didn't see enough, that we don't have a plan. We've had a plan for months, as I mentioned, since fall of last year, for the eventual end of Title 42. So, what I did was I published a 20-page memorandum that set forth greater details about our plan. But what I'm not going to do, Chuck, is I'm not going to provide an extraordinarily comprehensive blueprint –
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
– of everything we're doing because, let's remember, we have an adversary. We have the cartels –
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
– that are exploiting vulnerable immigrants for profit. And I'm not going to provide them the blueprint with what we're doing.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to ask you about another concept. There is some concern about misinformation and disinformation, a department that you have in DHS. There's some people who look at it and it looks like policing of speech. Can you explain what this program is about?
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
Sure. So, we've set up essentially an internal working group. And I must say that we could have done a better job in communicating what it is and what it isn't. It's a working group that takes best practices with respect to our work that has been going on for years. Best practices on how to do that work, the work of addressing disinformation that presents a threat to the security of our country, how to do that work in a way that does not infringe on free speech, does not infringe on civil liberties. So, this working group takes best practices and disseminates those best practices to the operators.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think the person you chose to head it expressed too much politics on their Twitter feed and it's caused some consternation?
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
Imminently qualified individual, a recognized expert on battling the threat of disinformation that presents a threat to the security of our homeland from Russia, from China, from Iran, from the cartels.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, Secretary Mayorkas, you have a big job. Thanks for coming on and spending a few minutes with us.
SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS:
Thank you so much, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
Up next, the inside story of those Kevin McCarthy tapes from the New York Times reporters who got them. Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns join me when we come back.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. The new book, “This Will Not Pass,” by New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, has already received a lot of attention because of House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy's comments about President Trump and some fellow Republicans. But Martin and Burns also write that in the past two years, we've seen a battle for the survival of our democracy that has erupted. They write, "The two parties were not merely adversaries, but enemies in a domestic cold war that had started to run hot. And one of those two parties was in thrall to an authoritarian demagogue who chose to attack the Congress, rather than gracefully relinquish power.” Well, Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns join me now. Gentlemen, first of all, congratulations.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
Heck of a book. It ate up my Saturday, that's for sure. Let me start with obviously, what we've seen on January 6th. And I want to start with a Lindsey Graham moment because I believe, Jonathan –
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Yes –
CHUCK TODD:
– you were in the room for this. You happened to be, for the book, with the senators when they got quarantined on January 6th. So you were witness, essentially, to all these senators not happy with the situation going on, and you talk about the 25th Amendment and Lindsey Graham. Walk me through what happened.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Sure. So we were evacuated from the U.S. Senate through the tunnels of the Capitol complex, to one of the Senate office buildings, Chuck. And there was uncertainty bordering on panic. You have members of the U.S. Senate who are largely over the age of 50, in some cases 60, walking briskly, or even running, to this holding room. We were put in the holding room in one of the Senate office buildings for hours, and hours, and hours. And obviously, tensions there are rising because people don't know what's going on. They're seeing images on their phone. Their spouses are calling them or texting them. And there's great uncertainty. And in these hours, the Republican Party is grappling with its future. "What does this mean for our party, for our outgoing president? And is it so severe that we have to drive him from office before he is set to leave on January 20th?" And Lindsey Graham is extremely angry. He's almost shouting down the Capitol Police as they try to address the U.S. senators, demanding that they take action and forcefully recapture the Capitol. And in the same moment, he gets on the phone. And he telephones the White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone --
CHUCK TODD:
Again, you're hearing all of this? Firsthand account here? This is not --
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Yes.
CHUCK TODD:
– from sources?
JONATHAN MARTIN:
I'm in the room. And he calls Pat Cipollone and says, "If Trump doesn't tell these people to go home," meaning the rioters in the Capitol, "we're going to call for the 25th Amendment." And so Trump does a second and third take of that video.
CHUCK TODD:
Right, essentially responding to this panic?
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Yes.
CHUCK TODD:
Alexander Burns, I want to – the Mitch McConnell-Liz Cheney exchanges that you have in the book are so telling about Mitch McConnell. Here's one excerpt. "McConnell found the whole Liz Cheney saga confusing. In his mind, she was committing a cardinal sin, relinquishing power. 'Why,' he wondered aloud, 'would Cheney willingly jeopardize her leadership post by continually condemning Trump? Just ignore him like I do,' he said." It's quite telling about McConnell.
ALEXANDER BURNS:
It certainly is. And it's quite telling about Liz Cheney too. The two of them have a conversation at one point last year, where she basically tells him, "That is just not going to work. You can't just sort of avert your gaze from Donald Trump. If you're going to take on Donald Trump, if you're going to get rid of Donald Trump, you have to take on Donald Trump and get rid of Donald Trump." And McConnell's response at that point was basically, "I don't need any more lectures from you on how to deal with Trump." The big McConnell bet that we outline in the book, it's a central part of the narrative, is that after January 6th, he sees Trump, like many people, like many Democrats and like more Republicans than will say so in public, he sees Trump as a threat to the American – to American democracy and a threat to the Republican party. But once that immediate moment of most dire peril passes, he decides that the way he's going to try to deal with Trump is to ignore him and trust that the president will, as McConnell has said to a number of people, lose altitude over time just because people will kind of move on and look to the future. And, you know, from where we stand today, that doesn't look like a wager that has particularly panned out.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. We've spent a lot of time on the right side of the aisle. Let's go to the left side of the aisle and the Biden agenda. You outlined all the back and forth on Build Back Better. In sum of your report, in the summary of all your reporting, Jonathan, who would you say, who's to blame for the death of Build Back Better?
JONATHAN MARTIN:
In our government, the president is not only the head of state, commander in chief, he's the leader of his or her party. Joe Biden is the leader of the Democratic Party. It has been on him to corral the narrowest of Congressional majorities. He did so obviously in the opening months of his presidency, passing the American Rescue Plan, passing this sweeping bill for infrastructure. But he could not find the votes to get this bill passed.
CHUCK TODD:
Was there a deal to be done?
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Well, Joe Manchin effectively killed the bill, or at least put the bill on hold in mid-December, Chuck. It's now May 1st, okay?
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Where has Biden been since then? This is what Democrats in Congress are asking is, "What's our – what's the plan? What's the strategy?" And there effectively is no game plan. And there is no confidence in the White House that they can get Manchin to any kind of a yes. And the clock is ticking.
CHUCK TODD:
Alex, you also note in the book that there seems to be a more serious effort to get Joe Manchin to switch parties. Here's your excerpt on page 273. "'You don't have to join our caucus,' John Thune told Manchin, 'just become an independent and then caucus with us.' 'John,' he said, 'if you were the leader, I would do it.' It was not exactly a hard no." How would you describe this effort? Is it – is it ongoing? Is it real? Or is it a little bit of a salon dinner conversation?
ALEXANDER BURNS:
Look, I think the Republican Party has made it very clear to Joe Manchin that that offer is on the table any time he wants to take it up, and on basically any terms that he wants to take it up.
CHUCK TODD:
And it was a real effort, right?
ALEXANDER BURNS:
It was a real effort. And that comes right after that moment, right after Joe Biden and Kamala Harris take office, where the vice president goes on television in West Virginia in what Joe Manchin takes as a not particularly subtle effort to twist his arm on the American Rescue Plan. He's upset about that. His Republican friends, like Susan Collins and John Thune, know he's upset about it. They take him to dinner and say exactly what you just outlined. Manchin makes it pretty clear to him that that's not something he's interested in.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
ALEXANDER BURNS:
But this sort of cast a shadow over all the Democratic interactions with Manchin. Over the last year, and even today, is the sense that this guy has other options. It would be much easier for him politically –
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
ALEXANDER BURNS:
– in his home state, if he didn't have the "D" next to his name.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. The final topic I want to hit with you guys. There's so much to get to. But you brought up the vice president, Alex. Kamala Harris felt disrespected. Here's one anecdote you have: "Harris worried that Biden's staff looked down on her. "She fixated on real and perceived snubs in ways the West Wing found tedious. When Harris walked into a room, the White House staff did not stand up the way they did for Biden. The vice president took it as a sign of disrespect." What was astonishing here is apparently, there was a meeting about this.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Yes. The, the chief of staff to Kamala Harris telephoned the West Wing and told a senior advisor in the West Wing to Biden, "The VP has noticed this and she would like folks to stand, staff members to stand, when she enters the room." This pulls back, I think, the curtain on what this White House is really like. The tensions are deep and they are real between the VP's office and the West Wing. Obviously, the public image is what it is. But this is an ongoing challenge. And what is hovering over all of this, Chuck –
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
– is '24.
CHUCK TODD:
So true.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Is Biden going to run again? And if not, is it going to be VP Harris? That is the mood music hanging over the entire Democratic Party right now, as are Biden's poor numbers. And we have a story that's going to be today –
CHUCK TODD:
Yep.
JONATHAN MARTIN
– on The New York Times’ website that's for the first time going to reveal a number of memos and polling memoranda – and decks that show the course of Biden's decline over 2021, and the urgent warnings —
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
JONATHAN MARTIN
– that his pollster offered the White House to stop that decline.
CHUCK TODD:
Alex, what's remarkable about it is that the White House isn't blind to this, so they haven't reacted.
ALEXANDER BURNS:
That's right. And, you know, I think one of the prevailing narratives about the White House is that they didn't see inflation coming, how they didn't see it coming, that immigration was going to be this persistent a political headache. What we reveal in the book is that the president's own chief pollster was warning as early as April of 2021. The president's barely taken office at that point, and his pollster's already warning him, "You've got to take this stuff seriously." And they just didn't.
CHUCK TODD:
It's a deeply reported book. It is, it is not anything like far left, far right. It is just good, old-fashioned reporting. Kudos, guys.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Thank you.
ALEXANDER BURNS:
Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
What a read. When we come back, so many Republicans agreed with McCarthy's comments about President Trump. But they still won't admit it in public. Why Republicans still can't quit Trump. Panel is next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Panel is here: New York Times Pentagon correspondent Helene Cooper; NBC News's Senior Capitol Hill correspondent Garrett Haake; Stephen Hayes, the CEO and editor of The Dispatch; and former Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Garrett, I'll let you just fire away here. You cover Congress. Is there going to be fallout from what Martin and Burns have reported and uncovered?
GARRETT HAAKE:
Certainly not on the Kevin McCarthy side of it. He seems to have weathered the storm on this. I was texting with a Republican chief of staff right after those tapes came out, and The Washington Post reported that Trump was okay with it. And that chief of staff said, "Then we're okay with it." They were perfectly happy to move on. I think the book reflects the reality of a lot of the private conversations that people have been having before January 6th, on that day, around that day, that are now coming to light, but were discussed in the hallways for the last two years.
CHUCK TODD:
Steve Hayes, it’s – everything in this book and every anecdote, it is what we thought it was. It's just about power.
STEPHEN HAYES:
No, I mean, reading the book is an emotional experience for those of us who've been covering this for a long time because you just – you see all these Republicans are saying one thing behind the scenes, and they're saying something totally different when the cameras go on, and sometimes within minutes of those two statements. I guess I have a slightly different take. I think McCarthy is okay in the short term. But I think in the medium and long term, this causes him trouble. He already had some restive moderates and movement conservatives who were frustrated that he was such a bad leader. Now, you have Trump MAGA House Republicans who are frustrated at him from the other side. I talked to a couple Republicans in the House this week who were frustrated that they were being asked to defend Kevin McCarthy on this. It was a lie. He was caught in a lie. He's a bad liar. The thing I think that's a little bit frustrating is that they seem to be more frustrated that he's bad at lying, than that he's lying.
HELENE COOPER:
That's – that’s the fundamental issue is, like, in so many ways, sort of the anecdotes in this book validates what we all already knew, which is very much that the Republicans, you know, we saw that in '16, they didn't like Trump then, and then they all flipped. And they had this inability to detach themselves publicly from somebody who they know is – they see him as a dollar sign, they see him as a vote magnet. And at the end of the day, these people care far more about being reelected than they do about the country. It's, like, that's – that’s what it comes down to. And this is what we're seeing on display.
CHUCK TODD:
Claire, what'd you make of the Manchin anecdote, again, another thing that is what we thought it was?
CLAIRE McCASKILL:
Yeah. I mean, first of all, there are a whole lot of people that can be blamed for the size and scope of Build Back Better. Somebody got carried away at the White House and didn't realize that the margins were so slim and that you have to count every vote on every piece.
CHUCK TODD:
There's a great anecdote –
CLAIRE MCCASKILL:
They went too big.
CHUCK TODD:
By the way, there's a great anecdote with Andrew Yang where it talks about he realized that – Biden realized he was at a moment, but he didn't know what to do with the moment. And somebody filled in the gaps.
CLAIRE McCASKILL:
Right. And so as a result, America's kind of forgotten the wonderful successes he had legislatively near the beginning of his term, something that Trump never managed. And it's really too bad. And I've got to say, this book and what it represents is sad to me. And the reason it's sad is because the American people are so cynical and so angry at everybody in politics because they think they say one thing in closed doors, and then another publicly and that they lie all the time. As it turns out, they have a reason to be cynical.
STEPHEN HAYES:
They're right to be cynical. I mean, I think the thing that emerges from the book is this total lack of leadership at the top of both parties. As you just mentioned, Joe Biden not leading in these crucial moments. Not leading. People are looking for guidance from Joe Biden. There's an anecdote and a story where Mitch McConnell basically says, "I think there are enough Republicans to convict Donald Trump.” Kevin McCarthy calls – said he's going to call on Trump to resign, and then they don't do it. Then they don't do it. There's no leadership.
CHUCK TODD:
Garrett, like everything, you read this book and it seems like the only person that seems to have some leadership ability is the Speaker of the House.
GARRETT HAAKE:
Well, and Democrats may find themselves lost without her in the next term if she decides she's going to follow what she said and not seek another term in leadership. I mean, she has been consistent through 2018 through now. But she's had her own problems.
CHUCK TODD:
But this book claims she doesn't want to be speaker again, she's so tired of the left.
GARRETT HAAKE:
I imagine that's probably true. I mean, it's always hard to be the Speaker of the House when the Senate is controlled by the other party, or by your party. The idea that you've got to get 60. If I have to talk to another House Democrat who's upset about the filibuster, you know, she would like to move more. She can only do so much. And she's tired of holding off one side to try to keep everybody in the same – pulling in the same direction.
CHUCK TODD:
Helene Cooper, the Kamala Harris-Biden stuff. There's a part of it, I read it and I'm, like, "I could've transposed the words 'Obama and Biden,' and had Biden as Harris and Obama as Obama aides used to look down upon." I mean, some of this feels normal.
HELENE COOPER:
Every vice president – I mean, we were talking about this earlier. Every vice president feels as if they're given only the hard stuff. They don't have enough to do. They're not – they’re not put forward enough by the principal. The Kamala Harris stuff, I mean, listening just now to your interview with J. Martin and with Alex, struck me also as, you know, the idea of her coming out and saying, "People should be standing up," being upset that people are not standing up when she enters a room, that sounds like – in a sad way, it sounds like a woman who doesn't feel confidence. There’s a self confidence issue that can get – when you start counting, when people start counting, it's not just women that do this obviously, but when you start counting that sort of thing and taking note of things like that, that might seem – that strikes me --
CHUCK TODD:
You know what I tell fellow journalists when they worry about those little slights? Get off Twitter. Claire, what's your advice to her?
CLAIRE McCASKILL:
I think she's trying to do everything she can in a job that, just by its very nature, minimalizes you. I mean, I remember days when the Senate Cloak Room was full of people making fun of Joe Biden when he --
CHUCK TODD:
Right. When he was the vice?
CLAIRE McCASKILL:
– vice president, yeah. I mean, unfairly. And a lot of what's happening to her is unfair. But she – listen, she knows what she's doing and she's going to keep putting one foot in front of the other. And I do think, however, there is no guarantee that she is the nominee of the party in '24. I think it could be a free-for-all. Buckle up.
CHUCK TODD:
Buckle up. Well, buckle up because I've got another story that's going to fire up Claire. Up next, in the last two decades, the number of rural counties won by the Democratic presidential candidate has fallen by a whopping 83%. The story behind that catastrophic decline when we come back.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Taking a look at election results over the past few decades, it shows us a flashing warning sign for Democrats. The nation's urban/rural divide has deepened. Democrats have increasingly lost support in rural America. In 1996, then-President Clinton, he won a whopping 1,117 counties, rural counties, including all but 20 of Iowa's 99 counties. Basically, he won half of the nation's rural counties. But in 2008, Barack Obama won less than half of that—just 455 rural counties—even though he had won a popular vote by seven points nationwide. That's all the rural counties he could win. Fast forward to 2020, the number shrunk again. Joe Biden won just 194 counties. That's just 17 percent of the total that Bill Clinton won in 1996. And the latest NBC News polling shows you that the problem has not gone away; it's gotten worse. Trust me. Terry McAuliffe in Virginia knows this. Yes, Democrats have an advantage in the urban areas, 24 points on the generic congressional ballot. But as you move out geographically, the Democratic numbers shrink and the Republican numbers grow and grow big time: 34 points right now. The number appears to be growing. For our current episode of Meet the Press Reports, I traveled to Iowa. I talked to voters about why the Democratic Party is simply hemorrhaging rural support.
(BEGIN TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Do you feel as if simply having a D next to your name is why you lost?
PATTI RUFF:
Yes.
CHUCK TODD:
Patti Ruff lost her statehouse seat, representing Clayton County in 2016.
PATTI RUFF:
We had a picture taken with Hillary Clinton stopped by, as all candidates do. And I full-heartedly, I guess now in retrospect, I posted it. I was a proud mom, and I posted it on Facebook. And they used that. They cut my --
CHUCK TODD:
Just literally you have a picture with Hillary Clinton.
PATTI RUFF:
Yes.
CHUCK TODD:
And that's all they did?
PATTI RUFF:
Yes. They ran it.
CHUCK TODD:
You're a national Democrat.
PATTI RUFF:
Yes.
CHUCK TODD:
Clayton was one of 31 counties that were carried by Barack Obama and Donald Trump, overwhelmingly rural, and home to roughly a quarter of all Iowans. In 2020, Biden failed to win a single one of these counties back.
BRIAN BRUENING:
There was no way Biden was going to win Iowa in 2020. It just was not going to happen.
CHUCK TODD:
Brian Bruening chairs the Clayton County Democratic Party.
CHUCK TODD:
Any version of Joe Biden?
BRIAN BRUENING:
None. It was not going to happen as long as Trump was on the thing.
RUBY BODEKER:
They got annihilated in 2020—Democrats—did here in Iowa in the state races.
CHUCK TODD:
Ruby Bodeker ran and lost a campaign for state house in 2020.
RUBY BODEKER:
I feel like an exhausted rural Democrat. I'm tired. I feel like there's a lot of weight on me. Like, I honestly just want to be done a lot of days. I mean, I have four kids. I have a full-time job. I'm a single mom. I work. I don't even make $15 an hour, and I am tired.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Our special report also has a story by my colleague Antonia Hylton about how Black rural voters feel abandoned by the Democratic Party, somewhat ignored. You can see the full Meet the Press Reports episode, How the Democratic Party Lost Rural America, wherever you get NBC News Now or on our website MeetThePress.com. It's available right now. When we come back, the 2022 primary season kicks off big time on Tuesday and hits 13 states in the month of May alone. A lot at stake. Stick with us.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. It's May 1st, and that means we're in for a big 2022 primary month. Just take a look at the calendar. We've got two primaries coming up this Tuesday. The big one, of course, Ohio. Two more the following Tuesday, May 10th: West Virginia and Nebraska. They may be small states, but they have some interesting Republican primaries. May 17th is the big one as far as we're concerned: five primaries, including Pennsylvania and North Carolina. And then of course three primaries and the Texas runoff on May 24th. Oh, by the way, that's the Georgia race. Claire, we just did a whole thing. Ohio's this Tuesday, so I want to focus on Ohio. The rural problem for Democrats in Iowa, Tim Ryan is not going to have a shot if he's losing rural areas 80/20.
CLAIRE MCCASKILL:
Yeah. If we're going to be a majority party, we have to win in places where Democrats have to get some Republican votes. And that's what people need to understand. Because most places in the country are either bright blue or bright red, but the places that make majorities are not. And these primaries are so conflicting for Democrats, and here's why. We want the Trump candidates to win because they are least competitive against our Democratic presumed nominees. But for the country, we don't want Trump to succeed picking primary winners. So it's the same push and pull.
CHUCK TODD:
Look at JD Vance. He was campaigning with Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz. And, Steve Hayes, I've got to play a bite Matt Gaetz said which I think this is a case where he accidentally spoke the truth. Take a listen.
(BEGIN TAPE)
REP. MATT GAETZ:
We don't want a circumstance where the establishment can claim that they defeated Trump. So President Trump's brand is on the line. The MAGA brand is on the line.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Like I said, he speaks an occasional truth. Steve, do you agree?
STEPHEN HAYES:
Yeah. I mean, it's pretty interesting. I think Donald Trump obviously went all in for JD Vance. He did it late. This was a risk that he took. It looks like it's working out early if these poll numbers over the past couple weeks are telling us the truth. Look, I think we'll know a lot more at the end of this month about exactly how powerful Donald Trump is still in the Republican Party. It looks like we'll get some mixed results. JD Vance looks good in Ohio if you're a Trump-supporting Republican. In Georgia, there are much bigger problems where his endorsement hasn't seemed to help at all.
CHUCK TODD:
Go ahead.
GARRETT HAAKE:
Well, all of these candidates have tried to be the Trump candidate. And so in that way he has already won, right? I mean, if Josh Mandel wins that race in Ohio, Donald Trump will probably still claim victory on Wednesday morning because Mandel has sought to be a Trump candidate.
CHUCK TODD:
But he's a convert. You know, it's funny to me. It's fitting that --
GARRETT HAAKE:
They're all converts.
CHUCK TODD:
No, it's fitting that Ted Cruz is behind Mandel on this, stuck by him, because Cruz sort of is a wannabe Trumper. Mandel is a wannabe Trumper. Vance looks like he actually has converted.
GARRETT HAAKE:
Yeah. I mean, look. There's shades of this. But I think this is the case in all of these races. And it's a similar dynamic with McCormick and Mehmet Oz, too, where who's back whom in those races. But if the whole battle in the primary is to be the Trumpiest candidate, he can still claim victory the next day regardless of who he actually endorsed.
CHUCK TODD:
Helene, I could stump you by saying, "Do you know what these candidates are running on?" Because they're not running on anything.
HELENE COOPER:
You can stump me with so much on this discussion. It's not even funny, okay? I've been deep into Ukraine, and you guys have gone deep into this, like --
CHUCK TODD:
Well, what's interesting about Vance --
HELENE COOPER:
I didn't even realize there was a primary going on.
CHUCK TODD:
Good. What's interesting about Vance is that he has actually not been all in on Ukraine. He says the southern border --
HELENE COOPER:
No.
CHUCK TODD:
– is more important than the war in Ukraine.
HELENE COOPER:
The Vance thing I find so confounding. I mean, we all read Hillbilly Elegy back in 2016, right? I thought it was a beautiful piece of writing. It's hard for me to reconcile that person with who we're seeing right now. It's completely confounding --
CHUCK TODD:
Isn’t this the theme of the show? We started our conversation --
HELENE COOPER:
Yeah. No, I know.
CHUCK TODD:
– Claire, with they say one thing and they do another in public. JD Vance is the candidate of this.
CLAIRE MCCASKILL:
Yeah. There have been a lot of conversions to Trump. Are they permanent? Is this the permanent Republican Party, much to the chagrin of my friends who want to get back talking about smaller government, lower taxes, foreign policy, trade issues, free trade issues? Those are all gone. All they are now is about grievance, and anger, and people who are mad and want to screw the system. That's what it's about now for the Republican Party. The question is: Is that a good long-term strategy to lead a nation like America? I don't think it is, but the voters will tell us.
STEPHEN HAYES:
I think that's mostly right. The one place that sticks out though is Ukraine and Russia, right? Because you haven't seen Republicans move towards a, you know, pro-Putin position, NATO skepticism. It's sort of been --
HELENE COOPER:
Except for Tucker Carlson.
STEPHEN HAYES:
Yeah, Tucker Carlson. And the people who have are the people running in a primary right now.
CHUCK TODD:
Which is something we all may have to reckon with if they actually get into power. Thank you, guys. That's all we have for today. Thank you all for watching. We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.