Skip to content
Meet the Press transcript, August 16, 2026
IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.
Skip to Content
Share
[Add to Google](https://www.google.com/preferences/source?q=nbcnews.com)
Savewith a NBCUniversal Profile
Aug. 16, 2026, 11:34 AM EDT
KRISTEN WELKER:
This Sunday: Rule of law. President Trump’s former personal defense lawyer takes on his new role as attorney general
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
I want people who want to do the right thing every day
KRISTEN WELKER:
How will he use the power of the Justice Department? I’ll talk to newly confirmed Attorney General Todd Blanche. And party lines
PEGGY FLANAGAN:
Thank you Minnesota
KRISTEN WELKER:
With just 11 weeks until the midterms, democrats are being pulled in two directions as they fight for a path back to power.
PEGGY FLANAGAN:
The many just won
HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Our focus right now is making sure that we win as many seats as we can
KRISTEN WELKER:
Can Democrats unite before November? I’ll talk to House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California. Plus, flight risk, the secret flight that helped President Trump evade an Iranian threat. A decoy plane, a catering truck and a secret switch on the tarmac in Turkey
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t worry about anything to be honest. Whatever it is. You know my attitude? Whatever
KRISTEN WELKER:
Joining me for insight and analysis are Jonathan Martin of Politico, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Republican strategist Sara Fagen. Welcome to Sunday, It’s Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press, with Kristen Welker.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good Sunday morning. We are just 79 days until the midterm elections and both parties are facing a test. Democrats are racing to unite a party pulled between its progressive and moderate wings while Republicans face rising gas prices and an Iran war that is getting harder to control. And it’s against that backdrop that Todd Blanche has gone from President Trump’s personal lawyer to the man now in charge of the Justice Department. He survived a bruising confirmation fight, including Republican opposition over President Trump’s so-called anti-weaponization fund. Now the test: Can Blanche run the Justice Department independently of the president he once represented? This week, the new attorney general made this promise:
\[BEGIN TAPE\]
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:I promise you that I will lead this department with integrity. I promise you that I will focus on our core mission, which is to uphold the rule of law fairly and impartially, to keep this great country safe, and to protect the rights of every citizen in this country. It’s a promise that, that we’re going to uphold the law without fear or favor.
\[END TAPE\]
KRISTEN WELKER:
And joining me now is attorney general Todd Blanche. Mr. Attorney General, welcome back to Meet The Press.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Thank you, good morning.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good morning. Thank you for being here.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Of course.
KRISTEN WELKER:
We appreciate you being here in person. As we just heard in your address to the Justice Department staff this week, you said you and the DOJ will, quote, “uphold the law without fear or favor.” You of course used to be President Trump’s former personal defense attorney. Can you pledge that the Justice Department will always act independently of the White House?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Well, there’s a big difference between saying we will always do our job and investigate any case and act independently of the White House. No, I’m not going to pledge that. And no attorney general should ever pledge that. The President, I mean, if I were to pledge I will be independent of the White House, what that means is that if President Trump says, “I want the Department of Justice to go after every violent criminal in this country,” which is what he has said, what you’re saying to me is I should say, “No, sir, I’m not going to do it.” So I will act with integrity. Our prosecutors will act with integrity. We will prosecute without fear or any sort of favor. And that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. And that’s what every Department of Justice should do.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, I guess, big picture: If the president asks you to do something that you feel crosses an ethical or legal line, would you do it?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
The president will never ask me to do something unethical or legal — or illegal. He never has. He never will. And no, I swore to the constitution of the United States like every cabinet secretary has done and like every attorney general before me has done. And so this, this narrative that’s mostly pushed by the left and pushed by the media that the president’s going to pull me aside and ask me to do something illegal is completely a false narrative, not true, will not happen, and hasn’t happened.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let’s delve into how you do see your tenure. You appeared with President Trump at the Nassau County Police Academy on Friday. You made some comments that did get a lot of attention. I want to play it and get your reaction on the other side. Take a look.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
My administration and my Department of Justice, if anybody touches a federal law enforcement officer in any way inappropriate, we will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And yet, Mr. Attorney General, on President Trump’s first day in office, as you know, he pardoned everyone who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, including 172 people who pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers. How is that consistent with your pledge to always protect law enforcement?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
There’s nothing inconsistent about that. The president’s pardon powers, any president’s pardon powers are not limited. So when I say and when this Department of Justice says and when the FBI says, like we’re saying, and every U.S. attorney is saying that if you assault law enforcement, we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law, that is absolutely what President Trump expects, absolutely what I expect of our prosecutors. And that’s completely separate from any president’s ability to pardon.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But he did the opposite of that effectively. I mean, on January 6th police officers were beaten with baseball bats and flagpoles. Do you believe it was wrong to pardon the people who assaulted police officers on January 6th given that you have vowed to protect law enforcement?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Every attorney general vows to protect law enforcement including me. And so I’m not opining or in any way saying what President Trump did is wrong. Absolutely not. By the way, president–
KRISTEN WELKER:
Isn’t it inconsistent with what you said though?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Absolutely not. There’s a difference–
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is it inconsistent with your pledge?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
No. There’s a difference, Kristen. We will prosecute anybody. If later a president chooses to pardon that individual, that is the president’s right under our constitution. Do not forget that a few days before President Trump pardoned the individuals associated and who had plead guilty to the conduct on January 6th, President Biden pardoned hundreds and hundreds of criminals, many of whom were quite violent. So that’s his right to do that just like it’s President Trump’s right to do that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But what message does it send to police officers that people who assaulted them were pardoned?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
The message to police officers is consistent and the same every single day which is that we will protect you. And by the way, that’s a little bit interesting coming from a place where we see violent protests breaking out all over the country, in New Jersey, in Minneapolis, in Seattle and California. And instead of there being a full-throated defense by leadership on the Democrat side, on the Republican side, what you have is it’s as if we’re doing something wrong by saying we will protect law enforcement and we will prosecute those who assault law enforcement. We’re not.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s on this issue of January 6th, your confirmation was actually held up over the so-called anti-weaponization fund. I just want to remind folks what that means. That would effectively pay people who felt they were in some ways wronged by the federal government and could have included people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th. You signed a document. You testified under oath that the fund is dead. But President Trump has said he wishes it weren’t. If the president asks you to revive the fund, will you tell him no?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Well, the president has said it’s dead as well. So you can, and as the president has said that he very strongly believes that those that had this Department of Justice weaponized against them should be compensated, he’s going to continue to say that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
He said it’s up to you. He was just asked about it. He said effectively it’s up to you what to do about this.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
And I’ve said repeatedly it’s dead. And he has also said it’s dead. He said it in a cabinet meeting with the press there. And so I think it might be enjoyable for the media to continually ask me about whether the fund is really dead. And there is no fund. No money went from the treasury to any account. There were no commissioners established. And so there is no fund. There will be no fund. I’ve said it repeatedly. And the different angles coming almost every time I speak with the media, someone says, “Well, wait is it really dead?” And I say, “Yes, it is.” And then the next interview I give, somebody will say to me, “Is it really dead?” And I promise you I will say, “Yes, it is dead.”
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you’re saying you rule out ever reviving it. But just to be very clear, can you guarantee that under your Department of Justice anyone who attacked the Capitol on January 6th will not receive one dime of taxpayer money if they file a claim against the federal government?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Well, anybody can file a claim against the federal government, not just anybody associated with January 6th. I’m not going to sit here and say on a news program whether a litigation that may or may not happen will result in money. I can’t do that. So what I will say is that there’s a process in place for decades where if somebody that believes they’ve been wronged or a tort has been committed against them by the federal government can seek redress. And, you know, beyond that, I’m not going to comment about hypotheticals and what will happen in any of those cases.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So potentially, they could get paid under another stream of government funding, but not the anti-weaponization fund–
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Well, I don’t know. When you say, “They could get paid,” what is their claim? Is it somebody who’s plead guilty–
KRISTEN WELKER:
The Justice Department’s judgment fund.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
No, no, no. So, right. But when you say, “They could get paid,” anybody who sues the federal government could get paid. It depends on the facts. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on what it’s alleged the government did. And so I don’t know the circumstances of any hypothetical case. And I’m not going to comment on a hypothetical case today. But there is a process in place where if you believe that you’ve had a tort committed against you by the government, whether it’s slipping on ice outside of a federal post office or a law enforcement officer assaulting you, you are allowed to seek compensation.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, let’s talk about a case that was recently brought before the Justice Department. The DOJ dropped charges against the Olympic canoeist that it accused of vandalizing the reflecting pool on the National Mall saying the damage was caused by, quote, “botched installation and not vandalism.” President Trump though said U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro was wrong and that she should revisit the case. Do you support Jeanine Pirro dropping the case? Or do you support President Trump’s calls to revive the case?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
So we, yes, I absolutely support U.S. Attorney Pirro as does President Trump. Now, that’s different than whether the president is extraordinarily frustrated at what happened in that case. And I don’t in any way fault him for that. And by the way, the filings didn’t say that all of the damage was done by faulty construction, okay? So that’s where the media is getting some of the reporting wrong.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, it says–
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
There’s–
KRISTEN WELKER:
--the damage was done as a result of a botched installation and not vandalism as initially represented.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
There was potential vandalism. And we know that there was vandalism because there’s witnesses. That’s also in the brief that you’re citing that there’s witnesses that talked about the fact that there was vandalism. And so–
KRISTEN WELKER:
What do you mean by potential vandalism? Who did it?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Well, there’s a witness that said, “I observed the defendant vandalizing the reflecting pool.” Now, that’s different than whether ultimately we have the proof. And you saw what U.S. Attorney Pirro said about that in her filings. And I’ve said this before. We’re talking about a single case, okay? We’re talking about one case. We had another case of vandalism against a memorial earlier this week. This is horrible what’s happening in our nation’s capital with some of these really, really sick people vandalizing our national monuments. And U.S. Attorney Pirro is doing a phenomenal job enforcing that, going after anybody who’s doing it. And I think judging her on a single case because of the evidence that we had is not fair.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Should the president have a voice in individual prosecution decisions at all?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Every American has a voice in prosecutions. I mean, we hear from Americans all the time. As a matter of fact, many of our investigations start with an American citizen coming forward and saying they saw something. And so whether President Trump should have a, quote, “voice,” it depends.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Would you take–
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
But yes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
--his opinions into consideration when he says, “I think this case should be revived”? Will you take that into consideration?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
So hold on. Will I take the president of the United States’s view on something into consideration? Yes, of course. And I hope every attorney general in history would not answer that question differently. Just let’s play that out. The president of the United States, the elected president of the United States, says something to me. And I’m supposed to say to you, “I would say nope.” I mean, that’s not the way it works. Now the president is extraordinarily -- every day he wakes up with one mission which is making this country better and, as it relates to me, making this country safer. So if he has a view on that, he talks about it on social media. He talks about it when he speaks to the American people. That’s certainly something that I listen to.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I’m asking in part because we did this clash play out in his first term. Bill Barr, the attorney general during President Trump’s first term, did push back against President Trump. In 2020, as you recall, he told him his election claims were detached from reality. If you were faced with a similar situation, something that you did not think actually met the standard, the legal standard in your mind, would you stand up to the president?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
I mean, so I will always stand up for what’s right. And I do not, the president does not expect any of his leaders, including me, to just say yes to him no matter what he says. And so of course, there’s vigorous back and forth with every cabinet member of the president of the United States, which is exactly what President Trump expects. And there again, there is this extraordinarily false narrative that the president wakes up in the morning and calls me and says, “Todd, go prosecute X or Y.” He does not do that. He has never done that. He will never do that. And so if there’s something that he wants to do, that he needs to know that there’s a challenge or that we can’t do it, of course, I will tell him. It happens all the time with all of his leaders. And that’s what he expects.
KRISTEN WELKER:
One of the issues that he really cares about, the midterms. And there’s been a lot of focus on the midterms as it relates to the Justice Department, which has lost 22 cases trying to force states to turn over their voter rolls. State officials have pushed back against those moves. They say states dictate how elections are run, not the federal government. Is it time for the DOJ to drop this fight? And will you do it?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Well, just, I mean, we’re relying on a statute passed by Congress that allows us in the right circumstances to review and get those voter rolls. And so yes, no, no, we’re not going to stop doing what I think every American should expect us to do, which is make sure that we have elections that are fair. And as that relates to the Department of Justice, that means making sure that there are no constitutional, legal violations even at the state level. So yes, President Trump, this administration knows and of course understands that states administer elections. And that will always be the case. But it doesn’t mean the federal government should play no role. And so the tension there is of course whether we should be playing the role that we’re playing. And that’s really what we’re litigating.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How far are you willing to take this fight? Because you’ve been ruled against now 22 times. Are you going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, you anticipate?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
We’ll see. We’ll see what happens. We’re trying to work it out with states –
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s a possibility?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Of course. Yes, absolutely it’s a possibility. Election integrity is something that President Trump ran on. And the American people elected him. It’s something that every American should care about. And so the idea that the Department of Justice is trying to investigate issues around elections to make sure they’re fair and make sure they’re conducted the right way is not something that we should be running away from. That’s something we should be running right towards.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I want to finally shift gears here a little bit and ask you about an issue that is, full disclosure, close to us here at NBC, the kidnapping of Savannah Guthrie’s beloved mom, Nancy. The FBI told the Wall Street Journal, quote, “The state is the lead in this investigation, has always been the lead.” Mr. Attorney General, she has been missing for more than six months now. Is it time for the FBI to take the lead in this investigation?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
It’s a horrible situation. And I share the grief and the frustration that you and your colleagues have and that the whole country has in this situation. I mean, I think whether the FBI takes the lead, we are there to support and give. And President Trump pledged it, Director Patel pledged it. The resources, anything that that investigation needs. We are working as hard as we can with the state and local law enforcement in every area. And that means not only providing assistance with manpower, but any sort of forensic assistance. And so we’re going to continue to do that. Whether we come in with sharp elbows and take it over, that’s not necessarily the right thing to do for her or for anybody. But making sure it’s done right and making sure that this investigation is being conducted the way that it should be is something we’re doing.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is there an update? Are you any closer to solving this–
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
I don’t have any update–
KRISTEN WELKER:
--and finding Nancy Guthrie?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
I don’t. And I’m sorry to say that because I wish I had an update. And I know that this type of case is heartbreaking especially when it plays out nationally like this one has. And all I can say is that Director Patel and his leadership and the leadership out in that area of the country, it will remain a priority as it should, with resources and with energy and with focus. And we hope that we get something soon.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Mr. Attorney General, thank you so very much for being here–
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it–
KRISTEN WELKER:
We really appreciate it. When we come back, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries joins me next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back, and joining me now is Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. Leader Jeffries, welcome back to Meet the Press.
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Morning. Great to be with you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Great to have you back. We appreciate it. I do want to start with the recent midterm election results. Seven Democratic incumbent House members have lost their seats this election cycle, Leader Jeffries, including some who you endorsed who lost to more progressive candidates. What message do you think voters are trying to send?
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Well, I expect that there will be at least 220 members of the House Democratic Caucus when we take back the majority, if not a number much greater than that. And what is clear is that the American people want us to focus on driving down the high cost of living and dealing with the affordability crisis that has created a situation in this country where far too many people are working hard, they’re playing by the rules, but they can’t thrive and can barely survive. Which is why we as House Democrats are committed to fighting for an affordable America every day, every week, every month until we solve this crisis.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I want to ask you about what is effectively a battle taking place inside the Democratic Party. Longtime Democratic official Rahm Emanuel, who, as you know, is also eyeing a potential run in 2028, recently described democratic socialists this way. Take a look.
\[BEGIN TAPE\]
### For Subscribers
[](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kansas-family-murder-suicide-rcna592087)
FOR SUBSCRIBERS
### [Kansas father in planned murder-suicide had a long history of violence, records show](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kansas-family-murder-suicide-rcna592087)
[](https://www.nbcnews.com/world/united-kingdom/cambridge-professors-death-witch-hunt-rcna592764)
FOR SUBSCRIBERS
### [Cambridge professor’s death shakes Britain as supporters condemn media ‘witch hunt’](https://www.nbcnews.com/world/united-kingdom/cambridge-professors-death-witch-hunt-rcna592764)
RAHM EMANUEL:
You know, last weekend in Chicago, the DSA held their convention. You’re not Democrats. You’re a separate party. I’ll see you in November.
\[END TAPE\]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do democratic socialists belong in the Democratic Party, Leader Jeffries?
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Well, what I can say is that I do not support defunding the police. I do not support open borders. I do support abolishing the Senate. We’re focused on actually solving problems that hardworking American taxpayers want us to solve, which is to lower the high cost of living in a situation where life is far too expensive in this country. That’s the Democratic agenda. That’s what House Democrats are fighting to achieve.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you think, though, that there is room in the Democratic Party, under the tent of the Democratic Party, for democratic socialists? Is it big enough?
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Well, listen, I don’t support the DSA agenda as has been articulated by the DSA itself. Now, you’re going to have individual members who have been elected in Democratic primaries and if they are elected in the general in November will be part of the House Democratic Caucus. It’s going to be a broad caucus. There will be progressives. There will be New Dems. There will be Blue Dogs. What I’m excited about are the candidates who are running to flip seats in November, to deliver us a majority that pushes back against Donald Trump’s extremism and moves the country in the right direction. That means us, House Democrats, lowering the high cost of living in areas like groceries, and gas, and of course housing and fighting to make health care affordable for every single American while, at the same period of time, pushing back against the corruption that has been unleashed on the American people and holding the crooks accountable beginning on day one in January of next year.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, well, let’s talk about your agenda if you do in fact find yourself in power in January of next year. One of the big issues, as you know, many Democrats have been talking about is abolishing ICE. If Democrats win back the House, if you become speaker, would you bring a vote to abolish ICE to the House floor?
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Well, here’s what I believe unites Democrats in terms of dealing with the situation that we confront in this country. First, we need a safe, secure, and strong border. We also need to proceed under the principle that immigration enforcement in this country should be fair, just, and humane. And clearly ICE is completely and totally out of control, which is why Democrats in this Congress haven’t given Donald Trump’s violent mass deportation machine a dime until we actually see dramatic, bold, and transformational reform. That means ICE conducting itself like every other cop, police officer, and law enforcement agency in this country, because we believe that taxpayer dollars should actually be used to make life more affordable for the American people as opposed to brutalizing and killing American citizens like Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good or violently target law-abiding immigrants, which is what ICE is doing right now.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It sounds like you’re saying ICE should be reformed, not abolished. So just to be very clear, would you bring a vote to actually abolish ICE to the House floor? Do you think that goes too far?
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
What I’ve said is that we’re committed to dramatically reforming ICE in a variety of different ways consistent with what the American people want us to do. In other words, the masks should come off. Body cameras should come on. Judicial warrants should be required before ICE can storm into the homes of the American people, rip them out of their bed in the dead of night, and try to detain them without justification. We also need to make sure that ICE agents are actually subject to prosecution at the state and local level so that they can be held criminally accountable when they break the law. That’s not what’s happening right now when you have a Justice Department under Todd Blanche, for instance, that’s become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump cartel and Donald Trump’s extreme agenda as opposed to standing up for the rule of law.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, let’s move on to Medicare for All. You co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation from 2013 to 2021. You’ve not cosponsored it since you became Democratic leader. Will you put Medicare for All up for a vote if you become speaker?
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Well, listen, these are all conversations that the House Democratic Caucus is going to have to have. Right now, we’re focused on November 3rd, not January 3rd. What we are promising the American people is that we’re going to fight to make health care affordable for every single American. And we know there’s a lot of damage that Republicans have done that we’ve got to restore and repair. For instance, Republicans have enacted the largest cut to Medicaid in American history. More than a trillion dollars or so has been cut from Medicaid. And what you’re going to have is about 14 million Americans lose access to health care.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you personally support –
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
That has to be reversed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– Medicare for All? Do you personally support Medicare for All?
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
No, i — as you indicated, I haven’t cosponsored the Medicare for All legislation that has been introduced over the last several years. I do think we need to figure out how to fix our broken health care system and then build something better once we repair the damage that has been done. Now, that will include doing things like extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits so that more than 20 million people, who have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket, in some cases by up to a thousand dollars a month, that’s not sustainable. And that’s something that Donald Trump and Republicans have visited upon the American people.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Just be very clear though, as the Democratic leader in the House, would you vote for or against Medicare for All?
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
I think as you’ve indicated in your question to me, it’s not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
But we do support the notion that we’ve got to find a path forward to fix our broken health care system and make health care affordable for every single American.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, let’s turn to the Supreme Court. This week, you called for dramatic reform to the Supreme Court. Former Vice President Kamala Harris has called for expanding the court to 13 justices. Do you support adding more justices to the court, Leader Jeffries?
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
What I support is dramatic reform, and what that looks like, to begin with, is making sure that the Supreme Court actually has an ethical code of conduct so that they’re not able to simply conduct themselves in ways that are inconsistent with the notion in this country that no one is above the law. And that should actually include Supreme Court justices. And we’ve seen right-wing justices like Thomas and Alito engage in behavior that is ethically questionable at best. That has to change, because the American people should have confidence in the highest court in the land. Now, in terms of the broad reforms that are going to be necessary to actually deliver a court that’s functioning like a separate and coequal branch of government as opposed to what we saw, for instance, with respect to the Callais decision, where the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in ways that do the bidding of extreme MAGA Republicans who turned around in the deep south and unleashed these Jim Crow-like tactics, yes, I have a problem with that. It’s inconsistent with the law and with the Constitution. Now, Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and other Judiciary Committee Dems are going to take the lead on what dramatic reform of the Supreme Court looks like.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Very quickly — very quickly, Leader Jeffries, I want to get your take on what you are anticipating in November. You have said failure is not an option when it comes to winning back the House. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said she wants Democrats to win at least 30 seats. Is that realistic? How many seats do you think Democrats are going to win?
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Well, we’re going to work as hard as we can to get to 218 and then win as many seats above that as possible so we can actually deliver a Congress that is focused on making life better for the American people, on making life more affordable; on ensuring that people can’t simply survive, which is the challenge right now, but are able to thrive in this great country of ours moving forward.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Leader Jeffries, thank you very much. We will track everything from now until November. Appreciate your being here.
LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
Thank you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, Democrat Congressman Ro Khanna of California joins me next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. And joining me now is Congressman Ro Khanna of California. Congressman Khanna, welcome back to Meet The Press.
REP. RO KHANNA:
Thanks for having me back.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you so much for being here in person. Let’s talk about the state of play as we head toward November. We are seeing this battle play out inside the Democratic Party. I was just talking about it with Leader Jeffries between moderates and progressives. And we’ve really seen some mixed results. For example, the win by Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, the loss by Francesca Hong in Wisconsin. What do you make of it, and how can Democrats unify heading into November given these deep divisions?
REP. RO KHANNA:
There is an energy that the economic system is just working for a few, for people in my district, one-third of the nation’s wealth, and not working for many. And that is really the animating theme in the Democratic Party that we want the economy working for everyone. Now, we have different ideas on how to do that. I am for Medicare for All. I am for a tax on billionaires. I am for no foreign wars. So there are legitimate differences. But the unifying theme is that this system isn’t working for ordinary Americans.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What do you make of what you just heard from Leader Jeffries on Medicare for All?
REP. RO KHANNA:
Medicare for All is arguably the most important priority. It would save money, and it would save lives. Look, there was just a Yale study that came out. It would save $1 trillion in terms of costs, in terms of health care. We know that the average income of workers is 43%. It’s the lowest it’s ever been since 1929. One of the reasons is because of exploding health insurance. Medicare for All would increase wages.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Were you disappointed to hear Leader Jeffries say at this point in time he says he wouldn’t vote for Medicare for All?
REP. RO KHANNA:
Well, look, I respect the difference. But I will say this. It needs to have a vote on the House floor. The majority of the House Democrats are going to support it. It is one of the most important policies if you actually believe in saving lives and in helping increase wages for working class Americans. You talk to folks and they’ll say, “The biggest thing that pushes me into bankruptcy is if someone gets cancer. And I can’t afford the bills.” And even people who have insurance, look at how many premiums have been increasing. This would save money for ordinary Americans. And it would increase their wages. It’s the single biggest roadblock in our economic system hurting working families.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about something that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview last week. She, of course, another progressive leader. She said, “Woke 1 was crazy,” effectively suggesting some progressive views just went too far in the 2020’s. Do you agree with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that “Woke 1 was crazy?”
REP. RO KHANNA:
Well, I don’t know what these labels mean. And I’ll tell you what I’ve always stood for. I have never been for defunding police. Our district in Silicon Valley is one of the safest districts in the country. We’ve actually had more police in San Jose and Fremont. But I believe in police reforms so people aren’t racially profiled. I have never believed in open borders. I’ve always been for a secure border. But I’ve called for abolishing ICE. You know, I was just in Austin and I talked to Benny who was a Trump supporter. And he said that the Lorenzo Salgado’s killing, a father’s killing, who was a construction worker has changed him. He thinks ICE should be abolished. He thinks it’s crazy that ICE officers are arresting people who are pouring concrete. So my view on all of this is — have common sense. You can be for borders, but abolishing ICE. You can be for police, but making sure we don’t racially profile.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Francesca Hong obviously got a lot of attention for a post calling to get rid of Thanksgiving. She tried to explain that. Does that type of rhetoric hurt the overall progressive cause do you think?
REP. RO KHANNA:
You know, I really feel bad for what happened to Francesca. And I know it’s fashionable to distance yourself. I’m not. I was proud to endorse her. And she’s far more than the caricature that was presented. The main reason she was running was to stop data centers and to have child care. And she’s a daughter of Asian immigrants. Look, I love Thanksgiving. I grew up in an Indian-American household. We would go to Indian uncles and aunties to have Thanksgiving. We’d watch the Michigan-Ohio State game. But to judge her and caricature her based on a tweet was just I think unfortunate. And of course, you know, we should love and revere the history of this country. But we also have to understand for someone like her, a single mother, Asian-American, how hard it is to break into politics. She doesn’t have multi-millionaire donors. She doesn’t have Speaker Pelosi or someone clearing her path.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You bring up data centers. So I want to ask you about that. You are a congressman from Silicon Valley. Data centers have obviously become a big flash point in this midterm election cycle. Frankly, with candidates on both sides of the aisle increasingly saying that they are opposed to them out of concerns for the impact that they could have on the environment, the enormous energy costs. I want to just play you a snippet of some of the ads that we’ve seen, get your reaction on the other side.
\[BEGIN TAPE\]
VOICEOVER:
Congressman Tom Barrett wants to turn this field into a data center.
MICHIGAN VOTER:
It’s an existential threat.
VOICEOVER:
Malone voted against stopping data centers, allowing them to expand unchecked.
VOICEOVER:
Why are there 226 data centers in Ohio, the fifth most of any state? Jon Husted, that’s why.
REP. BYRON DONALDS:
In my Florida, you don’t protect our pocketbooks and our people, you won’t build data centers, period.
\[END TAPE\]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Can America lead the world in artificial intelligence if it opposes the very infrastructure that is needed to build these AI centers?
REP. RO KHANNA:
We need a data center bill of rights. Look, these companies are in my district, NVIDIA, AMD, that are building the chips and the servers. But we can’t be putting data centers in residential communities. We can’t be putting data centers in farmland. You can’t shove a data center down the throats of a local community without any say that that community has. You can’t be jacking up electricity prices. Even the technology leaders understand that there needs to be a pause so that we can get this right. Why aren’t — why aren’t you putting them in a brown field where there’s been de-industrialized land? Why are you putting them in residential communities?
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you’re not opposed to them. But you think it needs regulation.
REP. RO KHANNA:
I believe it needs regulation. I introduced a data center bill of rights saying it should never be in a residential community or farmland and a local community should have the say of whether to do it. And I do think a pause in states like Pennsylvania, where I was, where you’ve got six data centers in Plymouth. It’s about 45 minutes from where I grew up in Conshohocken. It makes no sense. I mean, why are you putting it there and these local communities have no say?
KRISTEN WELKER:
I want to ask you a little bit about the future as we look beyond 2026. You obviously have not ruled out a potential run for president. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was asked about her plans in 2028. She explicitly left the door open to a possible run in 2028. Why do you think you would be the better progressive leader in 2028 instead of an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
REP. RO KHANNA:
Oh, she is a phenomenal talent. And she has been so authentic in what she’s done this week. And I have such respect for her. I do believe that the progressive movement is going to have many different voices from city council to congress to mayor, governor, to president. But for me, I’m most focused on a national economic vision for this country. I represent Silicon Valley, one third of the nation’s wealth, $20 trillion. It’s working for a few billionaires in a few places. But it’s not working for people I grew up with. And my vision is how do we get the future economy working for every community and every American, a new deal for America for our time.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How do you believe you’re different than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? What’s your biggest difference?
REP. RO KHANNA:
Well, we have different things that we’re offering the country. For me, it is an economic vision. How are we going to re-industrialize this country? How are we going to bring new jobs everywhere? How are we going to make sure AI is not just working for a few billionaires, but is working for communities that were de-industrialized? I have a clear economic vision. I call it “economic patriotism.” And I believe that this is what the Democratic Party needs, a new national economic project to make sure every person has a stake in the country. And, you know, we’ll see whether it’s me or not. But I will say this. The Democrats’ path back out of the wilderness is to have a clear national economic message. We shafted too many communities that were de-industrialized. We left out the working class. People want to know that someone understands the economy and they have a vision for the future where their families will succeed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, Congressman Ro Khanna, thanks so much. Really appreciate your being here.
REP. RO KHANNA:
Appreciate it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, can the polls be trusted heading into the midterms? Our Meet The Press Minute is next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. After recent election results defied the polls, the credibility of polling is once again under the microscope. But the debate over whether polls can be trusted is nothing new. Back in 1984, George Gallup Jr. — then president of the Gallup Poll — joined this broadcast to defend the accuracy of his polling data.
\[BEGIN TAPE\]
MARVIN KALB:
I mean, you’re confident of yours, but why is it at the same time that so many different pollsters come up with so many different results?
GEORGE GALLUP JR.:
That’s a reflection of a lot of things. In order to compare two different polling organizations’ results you have to have the same interviewing time, you have to have the same question, order of the same question, and very importantly, you have to use the same turn-out scales. We are using the same turn-out scale that we’ve developed over the years, and so I think that’s –there’s a part of the reason why you have these differences, actually. And I should make one more point which I think is very important, that often poll results are reported in terms of the spread, a 20-point spread.
MARVIN KALB:
Right.
GEORGE GALLUP JR.:
But it must be borne in mind that that really means a change — exchange of 10 percentage points in the vote. That spread, I think, exaggerates the difference between the candidates often, because if one goes up 10 the other has to go down 10, of course.
\[END TAPE\]
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, the midterm primaries are sending a message. What does it mean for November? The panel is next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back, the panel is here. Jonathan Martin, politics bureau chief and senior political columnist for Politico, Republican strategist Sara Fagen, and former Homeland Security Secretary under President Obama, Jeh Johnson. Thanks to all of you for being here. JMart, let me allow you to kick it off. We saw mixed results this week between progressives and moderates. And you heard Leader Jeffries and Congressman Khanna respond to that. What do you think the message is for Democrats right now moving forward?
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Well, let me take the big picture first. For decades now we’ve been living through a world in which we have this red and blue political map and sort of demography is destiny. And I think the story now is that you can apply those same lines to primaries. And Democrats are fractured along clean lines of age, race, and education, just the same as our general election is now fractured along those same lines. Hong won 20 counties in Wisconsin, guys. Of those 20, ten have a University of Wisconsin campus. That’s where those votes are. They’re younger, they’re much more educated and progressive. But she lost because she could not win over Black voters, pragmatic whites both with money and working class white voters in more rural parts of Wisconsin. So I think that’s the big picture. The more narrow question about this — this midterm is is this going to create a challenge for Democrats? And I think in a few races it can, Michigan obviously being the example in the Senate race. I think though for the most part, this is more of a ‘28 story than a ‘26 story. This is the dawn and the day that will follow is 2028. Midterms are about the party in power and this is about President Trump more than anything else I think for now.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah, a lot of lessons as we look to 2020. You brought up Michigan. Let’s take a look at a — at a map, Sara Fagen, of — or some graphics I should say, of where this race for the Senate stands right now. Lot of blue when you look at that map with the exception of Michigan, where Rogers leads, Dr. Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, according to this Fox News poll, by four points. What do you make of that and just how competitive do you think a purple state like Michigan is, where Democrats are going to be all hands on deck, trying to hold onto that seat?
SARA FAGEN:
Well, I think for the reasons that Jonathan just outlined, Michigan is the best chance for the Republican Party to pick up a seat. But I think the broader challenge is that there’s just so many places that are competitive in which resources are having to be spent, including the state of Texas, which should not require Republicans to have to intervene. And — and now tens of millions of dollars are going to be spent defending somebody who should have an easy victory and would’ve if it had been John Cornyn, in my view. I think that the broader issue that Republicans are facing is just a widescale enthusiasm gap. And we are seeing that among every measure that matters in politics. Democrats hold an 18-point gap among self-reported enthusiasm. That’s ‘26 levels, 2006 levels, 2010 levels, when Republicans had a wave election. They’re wave-like numbers and that is very worrisome for the party.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And it all comes against the backdrop of newly installed attorney general. Secretary Johnson, what do you make of what we heard from Todd Blanche, particularly as it relates to the midterms? They’ve lost 22 cases so far. But he said they’re potentially going to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
JEH JOHNSON:
So over 22 is not an admirable record for a lawyer. There’s a point where the lawyer says to the client, “Hey, let’s stop banging our head against the wall here.” The issue in every one of these cases is the same, whether or not the federal government has the statutory authority to obtain voter registration lists unredacted with voters’ social security numbers, dates of birth. And the courts uniformly, across the country, Nevada, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which is a fairly moderate circuit to New Jersey, have all said no, even though in New Jersey the governor had to recently acknowledge that there were some 400 non-citizens who were allowed to vote through a computer error. But the courts have all said no to this. And the thing I worry about most in this whole debate leading up to the midterms, leading up to the ‘28 election, is that the most serious threat to our democracy, to the integrity of our election system, are this — this continued suspicion and speculation fueled by people with a public voice. The Chinese are not roaming around in — in voting machines, the 2020 election was the most scrutinized in history, yet through 60 court decisions, no judge found that the votes were altered or results were changed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You’re absolutely right. There is so much skepticism. And it comes, JMart, as President Trump is out dealing with one of the biggest challenges that he is facing, that Republicans are facing, which is this question of affordability, gas prices. I want to play a little bit of what we heard from him on Friday and get everyone’s reaction.
\[BEGIN TAPE\]
PRESIDENT TRUMP:
So for you to pay a tiny, little bit more for your gasoline, just remember you’re doing it so that a very evil country cannot have — a country, really, it’s the number-one state sponsor of terror in the world, we don’t want to have them have a nuclear weapon.
\[END TAPE\]
KRISTEN WELKER:
JMart, how does that play with voters?
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Well, number one, that wasn’t the case he made in ‘24. There was no — there was no asterisk. He said, “I’m going to lower your prices, period.” Secondly, he never made a public case to the country, and Sara knows this, for why you have to invade Iran. There was never a sustained public campaign for this war. And I think that combination of those two things, it wasn’t what he ran on in ‘24, and then he just does this suddenly at the end of February, has created a massive political problem for him. And I think you can say today that, effectively, if there’s not any kind of a ceasefire in the next month, I think the midterms in this country were decided on July 18th, because that’s the day the MOU with Iran officially comes to an end. There’s a window there in early July, where gas prices are coming down, the MOU’s in effect. The 18th it breaks down, and ever since then, gas prices are on the rise, they’re over $4 a gallon now.
SARA FAGEN:
It’d — it’d be one thing if it was just gas prices. But food was lower and housing was — was lower and health care was lower. But the voters are speaking loudly that they are worried about affordability on every measure of their life. And that is the bigger problem, is that there is a focus on something other than economic issues.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Secretary?
JEH JOHNSON:
This war is the foreign policy debacle of a generation, costing Americans billions of dollars. That’s it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Well, we’ll end on that point. Thank you very much for a great conversation. We really appreciate it. That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We will be back next week, because if it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.
Follow here for more [Meet the Press transcripts](https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcripts-n51976)
Share
[Add to Google](https://www.google.com/preferences/source?q=nbcnews.com)
Savewith a NBCUniversal Profile