[0:02]If it's Tuesday, it's the Trump economy as businesses, trading partners, and consumers brace for even more tariffs while President Trump touts his turbulent trade agenda and doubles down
[0:13]on baseless claims that the jobs numbers were rigged. Plus, new fallout in the Epstein file saga as the Republican controlled House Oversight Committee
[0:23]subpoenas Attorney General Pam Bondi, demanding she hand over every document she can find related to the Epstein case. And go big or go home. A top Texas
[0:34]senator asked the FBI to help track down the Texas House Democrats who are defying civil arrest warrants after leaving the state to block a Trumpbacked
[0:45]redistricting plan. [Music] Welcome to Meet the Press Now. Now, I'm
[0:59]Gabe Gutierrez in Washington with the US economy once again front and center as the clock ticks down on sweeping new tariffs on dozens of US trading partners. And the president warns of
[1:11]more trade penalties on everything from computer chips to prescription drugs. In an interview on CNBC, the president claimed that tariffs were boosting his poll numbers, even though his approval
[1:22]rating has weakened across multiple polls. And most voters disapprove of his handling of the economy. Still, the president doubled down on his tariff agenda while vowing sweeping new
[1:34]penalties on imports of semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. >> We're going to be announcing on uh semiconductors and chips, which is a separate category because we want them
[1:45]made in the United States. But on pharmaceuticals, we'll be putting a initially small tariff on pharmaceuticals. But in one year, one and a half years maximum, it's going to
[1:55]go to 150% and then it's going to go to 250%. Because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country. It comes as the president continues to
[2:06]downplay weaker than expected do jobs jobs numbers, repeating his baseless claim that the numbers were being rigged and that the ousted head of the agency that produced the report was part of a
[2:17]government conspiracy. Here's his response to push back from CNBC anchors when they pressed him for evidence to back up his claims. >> Well, I think when somebody says the
[2:29]commissioner is not involved, I don't want to get into any arguments with anybody. Why should I? She's a very nice woman. >> Exactly. >> But when they say that the uh, you know,
[2:38]that nobody was involved, that it wasn't political, give me a break. >> The president has said he plans to name a new commissioner of labor statistics in the coming days. He's also naming
[2:49]names of potential candidates to replace Fed chair Jerome Powell, who he is also baselessly accused of conspiring against him. Join me now is NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba. Hey there,
[3:00]Monica. President Trump says he'll unveil new tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors as we just just heard. What more do we know about them? >> Yeah, this was some news that was made earlier today in that interview, Gabe,
[3:12]and he is essentially when it comes to semiconductors talking about the fact that he wants more of those chips made in the United States. Of course, many of the world's semiconductors come from
[3:22]Taiwan and specifically a company called TSMC, which has multiple clients, including companies in the US like Apple and others. And so he is saying that he
[3:32]is going to unveil this new plan perhaps in the next week or so that would include those tariffs on semiconductors. And that is of course an important economic point and plan for the
[3:43]president. But he is also raising this issue of pharmaceuticals as you mentioned. and he had talked about a tariff rate that would potentially be something like 200% and now is floating
[3:54]the idea of raising that to 250%. So as we're talking about countries that are making certain kinds of deals with the United States which we know are still ongoing and evolving in real time. In
[4:06]fact the president of Switzerland is heading to the US to try to see if they can get a better deal or framework than what they currently have. So that shows you there is an openness to this. But the president is also now talking about
[4:18]these other sectors that are key that he's eyeing as well to perhaps change or increase tariffs on too. >> And you know, Monica, is is the White House concerned about how those pharmaceutical tariffs could potentially
[4:29]impact American consumers? >> Yeah, and this is something that the White House says that they would like to continue to have a conversation with the pharmaceutical companies about. remember the president had reached out to I think
[4:40]almost all of them issuing nearly 17 or so letters trying to urge them to try to consider to lower certain prices otherwise there will be again this talk
[4:52]or discussion but this is something the president has tried to have an ongoing dialogue about and tries to dismiss concerns for consumers saying that they are the ones that the administration is
[5:02]trying to work to protect but they could see higher prices from this too >> and Monica quickly is there any update on the president's search for a new BLS commissioner. >> We know that he wants to make that announcement in the next couple of days.
[5:13]He says he wants to install somebody that he would like more than the person that he fired. And he does have a right to fire a political appointee, but it's a Senate confirmed position. So, whoever he does nominate would have to go
[5:24]through that process. And that may take some time and face some opposition from Democrats who've already indicated that they will oppose that perhaps. And Monica, before I let you go, the White House also just confirmed that the
[5:35]president spoke with President Zalinski of Ukraine today. Do we have any information about that call? >> Well, we know from the Ukrainian side a little bit more information. Uh, but the president hasn't given very many
[5:46]details. But of course, the really relevant and important context here is that the president has given Russian president President Vladimir Putin just until uh the end of this week as his
[5:57]deadline. And if he doesn't meet it in terms of trying to have a conversation about ending the war in Ukraine, there could be some secondary tariffs for Russia and some other potential
[6:08]responses the administration has not outlined. So we know that currently the president's envoy who deals with a lot of these complicated overseas issues,
[6:16]Steve Wickoff is on his way uh we expect to Russia to have some of those meetings. So we know the administration is really approaching this from all angles right now. Monica Alba live for
[6:28]us outside the White House. Monica, thank you. And joining me now is the White House uh is from the White House rather is one of the president's top economic adviserss, Peter Navaro. He is a senior counselor to the president for
[6:39]trade and manufacturing. Mr. Navaro, thank you so much for your time here on Meet the Press Now. >> Gabe, nice to see you, sir. >> Um Mr. Navaro, yesterday we talked to the previous commissioner of the Bureau
[6:50]of Labor Statistics, William Beach. He he was appointed and served in the first Trump administration. I want to play some of what he told us. >> It's not possible for the commissioner
[7:01]to have that influence there. I was never in the room where the data was collected. I was never in the room where there was the the data was was was uh
[7:11]summed up and then estimated into these well-known uh numbers that we get on First Friday. In fact, uh the commissioner doesn't see the numbers until they're completely finished. The
[7:21]current situation does not permit the commissioner to lead a conspiracy to rig the data. >> So, Mr. Navaro, as we just heard, he says it's not possible for a commissioner to have that much influence over the labor data. What's your
[7:33]reaction to that? >> You know, the fish rots from the head down. Uh the commissioner uh if the data is consistently bad,
[7:45]uh has a responsibility as being the head of that union to figure out what the heck's going on. We had in this case uh the worst miss in 50 years. The worst
[7:56]miss in 50 years. And if you want to like look at it from the lens of the failure, it had a catastrophic failure in terms of our economy. If those
[8:07]numbers are indeed accurate and they had to be revised to what they were this week, what that tells you is that the Federal Reserve,
[8:19]there's no question it should have lowered interest rates by as much as 100 or 150 basis points. >> So the fact that the commissioner
[8:29]uh was not running the ship properly and allowed that air to happen is grounds alone for firing. Now with respect to whether there's manipulation the data I
[8:39]can tell you there's several documented cases where in the hands of Obama uh when Biden was vice president
[8:50]documented manipulation of the data in 2018 for example uh we had a situation where things were moved uh from from Q4
[9:01]to Q3 to make things look >> like the the the tax cuts were failed. Now, hear me out. I mean, this is documented and it was documented by the Federal Reserve. And then there was
[9:11]another thing called the Quickay scandal back during Obama's thing. So, um this idea that it can't be rigged or whatever. Um I I think more importantly
[9:22]that there's so much variable in the data post pandemic that we need competent people in there and that's what we should focus on. Those people are not competent if they give you those kind of numbers.
[9:32]>> Okay. Well, Mr. Nvaro, you couple things. First, you said the numbers were may have been consistently bad. That is different than than being rigged, but I do want to press you on this point. The president just over the last couple of
[9:44]months, for example, on March 7th, he touted uh the job numbers back then. He said that they were much better. Uh on April 29th, uh he said that in 3 months,
[9:53]you created 350,000 jobs. On June 6th, he said a lot of jobs are being created. And even today in his CNBC interview, he said if you look at the jobs report last
[10:04]week, it did show that 1.7 million uh there was a drop off of 1.7 million foreignb born workers from March to July. So he's okay with those numbers,
[10:15]but not these specific jobs numbers. How can you explain that? >> Well, let me get get back. Okay, see here's the thing. If you're uh if you want to know how you could like cause
[10:27]trouble for the Trump administration, the only thing holding back the Trump economy right now is the failure of the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. Let me say that one more. The only thing
[10:37]holding us back is the failure of the Fed to lower >> We'll get to that point, but I want to ask you on this but here's my point. So, if if three or four months ago I'm
[10:48]sitting over in the Bureau of Labor Statistics and I hate Trump like a lot of those bureaucrats do, what what could I do? I could I could make the job
[10:59]numbers look better in the short run and keep Jay Powell on on ice there. It's like, you know, the econom is growing too fast and then drop that bomb. I mean
[11:10]you that's a scenario but I think let's not get lost in that. I think you and I can agree on this. That was the worst miss in 50 years. You and I can agree on
[11:21]this just as a factual matter since the pandemic. For whatever reason we need need to get to the bottom two. The numbers have gotten much more variable and we've got to fix that problem
[11:32]because it has real implications for investors in Wall Street and for Fed reserve decisions. We can agree on that. And so who's ever running that place if they're overseeing that
[11:44]>> it's fair game to fire them like get them out of there. I my view is they were incompetent. That's incompetent. That cannot happen if they're paying attention.
[11:54]>> So I said we get to the point about the Fed and I do want to ask you about that. Are we in an economic emergency right now to justify the firing of Jerome Pal?
[12:05]>> Well, let me do the numbers for you there. My my view is that we're a 100 basis points at least higher than we are on short-term rates. Now, what does that do?
[12:17]>> And yet, but the administration, let me make the case for let me make >> this happened during the Trump administration. This is the problem. I get to come here and say, "Hey, when we
[12:28]were back in 2018 and they were making bad decisions, instead of growing 3%, we could have grown at 4%. So this Powell
[12:39]was was was screw Powell has had three major blunders. Like back back in the first term, he raised rates too fast and that cost us a point of growth. But
[12:50]during Biden's thing, he raised rates too late and that allowed inflation to get wildly out of control. And now this time he's raising them too late. But you ask me, is this an emergency? Well, you
[13:02]tell me. 100 basis points too high is over a hundred billion dollars of extra interest rates we're going to have to
[13:12]pay on the debt because 20 to 30% of that debt is financed by short-term rates. It's mortgage rates. A family pays $1,000 or more on a on their on
[13:23]their mortgage. It's credit card debt. It's over a million jobs, Gabe. over a million jobs you do not create because interest rates are too high. All
[13:34]of that is fact. All of that is statistics. So when you ask, >> you know, should he be fired? I I would say to Jay Powell, it's like resign. You you are you are the worst Fed chair in
[13:46]in history and I've written an op-ed in the Hill on that. And fact, >> I we have you for a limited time, so I want to move on uh to tariffs. Uh President Trump's this morning uh he
[13:56]announced that he's planning to increase tariffs on pharmaceuticals as we mentioned um that is is that going to make Americans pay more for some prescription drugs. >> So I have some experience in this. Uh I
[14:08]was what was called the defense production act coordinator during the pandemic and during the pandemic we were threatened by China in particular that
[14:18]be being drowned in a sea of virus holding back our pharmaceuticals and it was epiphany an epiphany then that we needed to bring home uh our production
[14:30]of pharmaceuticals and we need to do that now we started to do that dur at the end of the Trump first term but Biden dropped drop the ball on that and we need to do that now with respect to
[14:41]whether prices are going to be higher. Here's here's another problem we've got to deal with. We're dealing with these pharmaceutical companies which are
[14:50]oligopies. One of the practices they do which I think Americans should should really condemn is what's called cross subsidization. In other words, they have
[15:00]pills that they sell worldwide and they stick us with the highest prices because we have the highest incomes and therefore have the have the uh highest
[15:10]lowest elasticity and demand for it. It just it it's that's kind of thing's not fair and and so um that one is is complicated. But I can tell you Gate, I
[15:21]can tell you this. If we do not bring home our pharmaceutical production, we will be vulnerable strategically to the kind of blackmail that China has been
[15:32]using lately with things like rare earths and gallium and things like that. >> And we can't live in that world, Gabe. >> And Mr. Navaro the administration has made that argument repeatedly that you want to bring manufacturing
[15:43]pharmaceuticals back to the United States. But yes, the question I have still stands. Can you assure Americans that the price of their drugs won't go up at least in the short term?
[15:53]>> Gabe, that that's you haven't been listening to what I'm saying here. It's like again we have a lot of tools to keep drug prices down by putting pressure on the pharmaceutical companies
[16:05]to stop earing all the monopoly prices, stop spending so much money on TV on their ads and instead give them back to the American people. Uh at the same time
[16:15]we develop our capabilities. I mean, are you saying to me, Gabe, you'd rather have the lowest possible prices and depend on the rest of the world and and then like in the pandemic, not have the
[16:26]pharmaceuticals when you need them? Do you want to live in that world? So, don't present me with this false choice of prices versus what. You got to say what the what is. The what is is a very
[16:37]dangerous strategic vulnerability if we're not able to produce the penicellin, the ant, all the antibiotics, everything we need. And we can't do that right now, Gabe. And we need to.
[16:49]>> Peter Navaro, top White House adviser joining us. Uh, sir, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate the administration's perspective. >> Pleasure to talk. Thanks. >> All right. And thank you. Turning now to Capitol Hill where the Republican chair
[17:00]of the House Oversight Committee just issued a trove of new subpoenas demanding information tied to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Among the targets of Congressman James Comr, President
[17:10]Trump's own Justice Department, which has been subpoenaed to turn over the full, complete, unredacted Epstein files to his committee by August 19th, two weeks from today. Other targets include
[17:22]a slew of other names directly and indirectly tied to Epstein, like former President Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as former top justice department officials,
[17:32]including five former attorneys general from the Bush, Obama, and first Trump administrations. NBC News senior national political reporter Sah Kapoor joins me now. And
[17:42]Sahill, uh, to what lengths is the House Oversight Committee willing to go to get the Epstein files from the Justice Department? significant. Gabe, uh, Mr. Comr is going
[17:53]to be a very busy man in the months of August and September because he just dropped a lot of subpoenas on Justice Department officials dating all the way back to Attorney General Alberto
[18:02]Gonzalez in uh, back to 2006 when Jeffrey Epstein was first arrested. This also includes uh, subpoenas for uh, FBI directors James Comey and Robert
[18:12]Mueller. All for testimony related to horrific crimes perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein. Now, the most interesting one here is a subpoena to current Attorney General Pam Bondi requiring her to turn
[18:23]over a slew of documents and communications regarding the Epstein matter, including case files, including the nonprosecution agreement back in 2007, including uh those involving
[18:33]Epstein's death in 2019, which has been uh quite the topic of conversation among some of President Trump's uh MAGA base. The deadline comr gives uh Bondi is August 19th. All these documents are
[18:45]required uh to be turned over to him in unredacted form, the letter says with some exceptions for personally identifiable information for the victims. Now, this does follow a vote
[18:55]within the House Oversight Committee requiring James Comr to issue this subpoena, and he pushed it off for a little while. Now, he has issued it. So, in a way, James Comr's hands were tied
[19:05]here because of of this effort by not just Republicans, but a lot of Democrats in the House of Representatives, forced, in fact, by Democrats uh to, you know, require the DOJ to release the Epstein
[19:16]files. Uh, in part, Democrats seeing an opportunity here to drive a wedge between the president and his uh and his base of supporters. >> You know, Sahill, this eps story has been a drip drip of information over the last couple of weeks. Even, you know,
[19:27]President Trump commenting in on several days has really catapulted the news cycle at times. And these subpoenas specifically put the Epstein story front
[19:36]and center yet again, which is not exactly what the White House wants. So, do you know if James Comr consulted with the Trump administration at all before issuing these new subpoenas?
[19:47]>> We don't know. If he didn't, he's going to be dealing with a pretty angry President Trump who has been eager to get this issue of of Jeffrey Epstein and this whole saga off his plate. tried unsuccessfully uh to get his own base
[19:58]and some of his own staunch supporters to move on from it. There is one element of this here with James Comr trying to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton. They would be and I think the White House
[20:08]would be uh more content to hear a conversation about the Clinton's past associations with Jeffrey Epste. Now, there is a subpoena for the former President Bill Clinton. It's not quite so simple as you know the January 6th
[20:20]committee learned when they tried to subpoena then former President Trump and he simply ignored it and nothing happened. Bill Clinton, by the way, through a spokesman said in 2019 that he knows nothing about the terrible crimes that Epstein had been charged with. That
[20:31]yes, he had traveled on Epstein's plane. This spokesperson said while doing work for the Clinton Foundation, but as of 2019 uh when Jeffrey Epste had died that Bill Clinton had not spoken to him in
[20:42]well over a decade, Gabe. So that's uh the statement from the Clintons. And beyond that, with all these subpoenas, there's usually a legal back and forth between the committee and these individuals about when they would testify, about the nature of the
[20:52]deposition testimony. Uh all of that is going to be ongoing and it's going to continue in the month of August while Congress is off. >> Sah Kapoor live for us on Capitol Hill. Sahil, thank you. And coming up, don't
[21:03]mess with Texas. We have the latest developments in the spiraling redistricting fiasco. Let's talk to one of the Democratic state lawmakers who is currently on the run and facing a civil
[21:13]arrest threat for blocking a vote on the Lone Star State's proposed congressional map. Don't go anywhere. You're watching Meet the Press Now.
[21:23][Music] And welcome back. Turning to Texas where the state house of representatives
[21:34]adjourned without a quorum for the second straight day as dozens of Democratic lawmakers remain out of the state to block the start of a special
[21:44]legislative session and a Trumpbacked plan to draw new lines for the state's congressional districts. The Texas House Speaker says they'll try again on Friday to see if there's a quorum, urging
[21:55]Democrats to return to take up business in the special session. Some of the Democrats who fled to Illinois include DNC Chair Ken Martin at a press conference today digging in on their
[22:07]opposition to the new district maps. Now, meanwhile, Texas Republican Senator John Cornin is asking the FBI to get involved to investigate the lawmakers that left
[22:17]the state after the House authorized warrants for their arrest. And the governor ordered state authorities to return them to the chamber. President Trump weighed in on the situation for the first time today, saying that
[22:28]Republicans are entitled to five more seats in Texas under the new maps he wants. >> We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats. We have a really good
[22:40]governor and we have good people in Texas and I won Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas as you probably know and uh we are entitled to five more seats.
[22:51]>> Entitled to five more seats. Now, let's turn now to one of the Texas Democratic lawmakers who's left the state. Joining me now is Texas State Representative Gina Hinosa. >> State Representative, thank you so much for for joining us here on Meet the
[23:03]Press. Now, you're in Illinois with other Democratic representatives. Now, in 2021, you and your fellow Democrats also left the state for 6 weeks before returning. Is this time going to be
[23:14]different? And how long are you planning on staying out of the state? >> We take it day by day. We fight to win today. When we broke Corman 2021, we knew we could win for the day. Then we
[23:25]knew we could win for a special session. And the amount of national attention that we shined on what Texas Republicans were doing to take away the voice and
[23:35]vote of Texans shamed them into getting their own bill and removing the most egregious provisions of the bill that had inspired our cornbreak to begin with. We could not have known at that
[23:45]time that would be the outcome. We just knew it was the right thing to do on that day. At that time, that is a lesson from 21. We take it day by day. We fight to win each day. Representative Governor
[23:57]Abbott is threatening to find, remove, and prosecute Texas Democrats who left the state, including herself. Are you and Texas Democrats prepared to potentially be arrested when and if you
[24:08]return to Texas? >> The same thing happened in 2021. It is a civil arrest warrant. And um that's why
[24:16]we had to come to another state to uh avoid being taken back to the floor of the house to be forced to pass their um
[24:27]power grab their Trump maps. So um that's why we're here in order to keep from having to be hauled into the Texas House. >> What is the endgame here? Is this just
[24:39]about trying to make things more painful for Governor Abbott and Republicans? You talked about, you know, drawing national attention to this. You have it. What is your endgame now? >> The end game is to kill the maps. So, we
[24:50]take it day by day. We fight to win. And that is what the endgame is. >> All right. I want to play something for you that Governor Abbott said uh last night. Let's listen.
[25:02]>> The point here is that Democrats have done something that's very untex. They've turned their backs on their fellow Texans. when it came to a fight, they turned and ran away. Not just from
[25:11]this redistricting fight, they ran away from dealing with the flooding issues that are that are still echoing across the Kurville area. Families desperately
[25:22]need results from the state legislature in this 30-day special session that are not going to be delivered because Democrats are hanging out in Chicago and New York and other places. >> Representative Hinosa, what's your
[25:33]reaction to that? and he's saying that you're holding up flood release relief rather by leaving the state. What do you make of that? >> The truth is this governor is shamefully
[25:43]withholding flood flood relief in um exchange for his maps. He is holding flood relief hostage. So he has the
[25:52]power to move money for these victims, for these communities that have been devastated by the July 4th flood. He did it in 2021 when he moved $250
[26:04]million to build parts of a border wall. It was not appropriate then, but this would be appropriate for him to use his emergency powers to move money because
[26:14]there was a natural disaster. Let's also remember that his appointed river authority refused to spend their reserves of $3.4 4 million for a flood
[26:26]warning system that could have saved lives. It was only a million dollars to purchase that system. They did not. The problem here is not the laws. The
[26:36]problem here is who is elected and who is in power and that's Governor Abbott. And he has disregarded the lives and safety of Texans. The dereliction of
[26:47]duty is in the lap of Governor Abbott. Now, representative national Democrats like uh New York Governor Kathy Hokll are saying Democrats must fight fire with fire and use similar redistricting
[26:59]to match Governor Abbott. Do you want to see that? Isn't that exactly what you're fighting against in Texas? >> So, if Democrats were in power in Texas, we would have independent, nonpartisan
[27:10]citizen redistricting commissions. That is legislation we have filed. That is legislation we have signed on to. We aren't in power, unfortunately. And so what you are seeing now is an arms war.
[27:21]We have other governors of Democratic states seeing a real and present threat from their constituents through Texas through this power grab. And they're
[27:32]just trying to figure out how to defend their own constituents from the harm and pain that this president who is unchecked for another two years under the midterms will cause them. That's
[27:43]what you're seeing. It's an arms race and um it wouldn't be happening if Democrats were in charge in Texas. >> I I take your point about an arms race. I I want to put up some of your oped um
[27:54]right here. It says we must fight for Texas and a country where every voter in every neighborhood has an equal voice. After all, a hallmark a hallmark of a thriving American democracy is that
[28:05]voters choose their elected leaders, not the other way around. So, Representative, if California and New York both redistrict to help Democrats, wouldn't they be denying Republicans in
[28:16]those states an equal voice? And and how is that different than what Greg Abbott is pushing in Texas? >> So, again, this is not ideal, but it is
[28:27]the reality when Republicans are in charge of Texas and trying to uh achieve this power grab that is disrespectful of
[28:37]voters. So what is happening in other states is they're just trying to figure out how to protect their own. In Texas, they are trying to achieve five more Republican members, but on the backs of
[28:49]black and brown communities. In Austin, where I represent, they have eliminated a Latino district in the Trump map. In Houston, the same thing is true in the
[28:58]area that has the most Latinos living in it in any other part of Texas. it will no longer have a Latino opportunity district um out of Houston. So that is
[29:10]illegal. It is unlawful. It is exactly what Governor Abbott was charged to do with the Department of Justice letter by Pam Bondi saying we need to eliminate
[29:21]districts because they are majority black and brown. That's what they are trying to do and it is unlawful. It is unconscionable and is shameful. And finally, Representative Illinois Governor JB Pritsker said that Texas Republicans are trying to cheat with
[29:33]these maps. And California Governor Gavin Newsome says that the 2026 election is rigged because of these maps. Do you agree with that? >> Yes, absolutely. What they were trying
[29:44]to do is manipulate these congressional districts so that the outcome of the 26 midterms is predetermined in favor of Republican control. Trump is running
[29:56]scared. He's running away from the voters. He is trying to block them from holding him accountable for high prices at the grocery stores, loss of health care, hits to our neighborhood schools.
[30:06]The list goes on and on. They have a right to hold them accountable. It is fundamental to our identity as Americans and um we are doing everything in our power to stop it. >> Texas State Representative Gina Hinosa,
[30:18]we thank you so much for your time. >> It's my pleasure. Thank you. And up next, a deeper dive into the importance of Texas redistricting and why it could decide House control nationwide. Steve
[30:30]Cornaki standing by at the big board to break it all down. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Stay with us. [Music]
[30:43]Welcome back. As we mentioned, the fight in Texas is brewing over the new congressional map proposed by Republicans that they hope will help them gain up to five seats in the House in the 2026 midterms. Well, joining me
[30:55]now from the big board is NBC News national political correspondent Steve Cornaki. Steve, so good to have you here. How might the proposed redistricting map in Texas affect the
[31:05]balance of power in the House? >> Yeah, well, you mentioned those five seats that Republicans are aiming for here. Look, the proposal has not been enacted. It might change, but I think it shows you here at least what their goal
[31:16]is. 2513 is the delegation right now from Texas. This proposed map from Republicans, if you just filled in each district based on the presidential
[31:26]election result last year, Trump Republican or Harris Democrat, it would give Republicans a 30-8 advantage uh from the Texas delegation. Now, actually
[31:37]getting all five of those though might be complicated under this plan a little bit, at least for Republicans. Let me show you this. These are the five districts Republicans are after with
[31:46]this proposed redraw. And there are two different things happening here. Start with these three that I'm going to circle right here. The 35th district, the 9th district, and the 32nd district.
[31:57]In these three, what you are seeing here is just sort of a wholesale redraw of each district. Geographically, demographically, a transformed district.
[32:07]All of these overwhelming Democratic districts currently represented by Democrats, they would become doubledigit Trump districts. Likely then, the question would be with these Democratic incumbents, do they go try to seek
[32:19]re-election in other nearby districts? So, these could be three almost gimme pickups for Republicans here. Then the other two, Henry Quayar is the Democratic incumbent in the 28th
[32:30]district. Vicente Gonzalez is the Democratic incumbent in the 34th district. The changes in these districts were more minor. You can see here Quayar, a Democrat, had just won
[32:41]reelection last year in a district that went for Trump by seven points under this redraw. This district, this is in the Laredo, Laredo area, South Texas,
[32:51]gets more Republican by three points. But again, Quayrar was able to win with Trump winning this district by seven. It becomes a district Trump would have won
[33:01]by 10. Quay certainly would still be competitive in that district. So this would not be automatic for Republicans. A wild card here, too. Henry Quay, a
[33:11]more moderate conservative Democrat, especially on the border, has some particular appeal in that district. He's facing federal bribery charges. Will he even be a candidate come 2026? That's a
[33:23]big wild card. But certainly if he is in this district, this redraw doesn't rule him out of winning that at all. And also Gonzalez here, Vicente Gonzalez in the
[33:33]34th district. Again, Rio Grand Valley. He won last year in a district that voted for Trump by four points. It becomes a district that would have voted for Trump by 10. That certainly puts him
[33:45]in grave jeopardy if this is the district he ends up running in. But again, the fact that he could win here means he certainly would have a shot to win here, especially in a midterm
[33:54]environment. Nationalize this. Again, we talk about these three districts here that have gone that that under this plan would go from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. What that means is
[34:04]we have this count here. There are currently 13 Democrats around the country in districts that were won by Trump last year. These are places Republicans want to play offense uh in
[34:15]2026. those three that they're completely redrawing. We just showed you in Texas would bring that count up to 16. So, Republicans could now
[34:25]potentially be playing offense in 16 districts. And don't forget, Gabe, there's certainly a possibility what we're seeing in Texas could play out soon in Ohio with Republicans trying to
[34:36]do the same thing here. And Republicans could potentially bring this number of 16 up to say 18, maybe 19 if they were able to get a redraw. uh the redraw
[34:46]they're looking for there. So the net effect here for Dem for Republicans if they get a map like this out of Texas, it lets them play offense next year in places they weren't originally going to
[34:58]and they can afford Republicans can afford a net loss of no more than two House seats. So anything they can pick up from Democrats is huge for them. >> You know, Steve, 20 26 doesn't seem so
[35:09]far off anymore. Thanks so much for helping us flush it out, Steve Cornaki. >> You got it. And after the break, Tom is where the town halls are. We have a look at how Republican and Democratic
[35:20]lawmakers are taking heat from their constituents as voters demand accountability. You're watching Meet the Press. Now, [Music]
[35:35]welcome back. If it's August, it's time for some fiery town halls. With Congress out of session, lawmakers are back in their districts facing constituents. Starting in Nebraska, where Republican
[35:46]Congressman Mike Flood was just a few minutes into his remarks trying to sell the president's sweeping agenda bill when the audience broke out into booze. >> I want to go right into this bill
[35:57]because I know this is something a lot of people have questions about and quite frankly from where I sit there's been a lot of misinformation out there about the bill. I
[36:09]one of those changes is that if you are able to work and you are able-bodied, you have to work. If you choose not to
[36:19]work, you do not get free healthcare. You do not get free healthcare. Okay. Okay.
[36:34]Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Alyssa Slotkin held a town hall in a Republican district trying to focus on pocketbook issues, healthcare, and the cost of living.
[36:44]>> For Donald Trump, whose central thesis, his central theme when he ran in November was he was going to lower your costs in every single category. He is
[36:56]not lowering your costs, he is raising your costs. And we should note while prices for some goods are up, inflation overall is about the same as as it was when President Biden left office. ABC
[37:07]News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Cirkin was at that town hall in Michigan. She joins me now. Julie, um, what more did you hear from Senator Slackin about what direction the Democratic party needs to go heading
[37:19]into 2026 and 2028? Well, Gabe, it was kind of a full circle because I remember being on the campaign bus with her when she was running for Senate in November, and she told me then that Democrats need
[37:30]to go on offense, that leaders right now don't have a plan. So, I asked her yesterday, do you feel like they have a plan now? You've been in the Senate for 7 months. And she said there's still more work to be done. And she threw
[37:40]shade at Democratic leadership for being too old. I should note her town hall was different than Mike Floods. It was a ticketed event. You had to register in advance. I should also note her message was catered toward young people, but
[37:52]everyone in that room, almost everyone, was older. Take a listen to what she told me. >> They don't see themselves in in elected leadership. And that's why some of the
[38:02]youngest members of elected leadership get a ton of energy and enthusiasm around them because it's like, oh, that person understands my issues. You know,
[38:12]that person uh doesn't use a flip phone. that person is like up understands technology and the changing economy. So um the economy and a new generation of
[38:21]leadership to me are keys to bringing that next generation into politics. >> Is that why you think Mumani New York had so much success? It wasn't necessarily his progressiveness. It was
[38:32]his age. >> Yeah. I've said very openly uh that I don't I don't I'm never would be called an expert on New York City politics, but the two messages were like a blinking red light. How can you miss them? People
[38:44]are still extremely focused on the cost of living and how they can't get ahead. Still the motivating issue. And then number two, they want that new generation of leadership.
[38:54]>> That's what Satkins said. She said Democrats are too scattered. She compared Mani's victory to what happened in November. Of course, when Democrats, some of them didn't show up. Trump ended up benefiting off of that. And she said
[39:05]Democrats need to focus on the economy. >> And Julie, there's also this, as we've been talking about, the the growing fight over redistricting. uh in Texas. Where does she stand on how Democrats
[39:16]should respond to that? >> Gabe, I've covered her in the House. She was a CIA analyst before she got into politics. I covered her run for Senate. She's always been somebody who was middle of the road, center of the aisle,
[39:28]moderate. And now she says that she will go nuclear. Those are her words. She said, "If Republicans are going to play with fire, then you bring fire right back." back and she said she doesn't
[39:39]like the idea of redistricting becoming partisan. But if Republicans are going to follow suit, whatever the president tells them to do in Texas, now potentially eyeing other red states, she said Democrats have to be out there in
[39:50]California, in Illinois, in New York. They need to be out there saying that they too will try to redraw the maps in favor of their party. Though she agrees, of course, as many Democrats and even
[40:01]some Republicans do, that this entire process is just partisan, no matter which side is trying to redraw the lines. Uh but of course this issue so big Sloan saying on redistricting on government funding which is the next
[40:11]fight coming up she's going to play hard ball. >> Julie Cirin live for us on Capitol Hill. Julie thank you. >> We thank you for watching and remember stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app or watch
[40:23]live on our YouTube channel.