Meet the Press NOW — Oct. 20

Hi there and welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington where there appears to be no end in sight for what is now the third longest government shutdown in American history. And as more Americans are beginning to feel the impact of the prolonged shutdown with air traffic controllers, staffing issues leading to airport delays, as they and many other federal employees are still working without pay. This weekend, millions of demonstrators took part in No Kings rallies across all 50 states to protest the Trump administration. Organizers say nearly 7 million people turned out across more than 2,500 rallies on Saturday. The day remained overwhelmingly peaceful with only 15 arrests related to the protests reported nationwide. But the rallies appearing to get under the president's skin as he dismissed the demonstrators as a joke. I think it's a joke. I looked at the people. They're not representative of this country. And I looked at all the brand new signs made for, I guess it was made for by Soros and other radical left lunatics. It looks like it was. But I'm checking it out. The demonstrations were very small, very ineffective. And the people were whacked out. When you look at those people, those are not representative of the people of our country. Now, despite that, the president spent part of his weekend responding to the rallies on social media, posting, among other things, an AI-generated video of himself wearing a crown, flying a fighter jet, dumping what appears to be raw sewage on protesters, which NBC News is choosing not to show. On Capitol Hill today, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson echoed the president's claim that, quote, radical anti-American groups were behind the protests. Chuck Schumer himself joined the spectacle in New York City. And it's interesting to note his activities there. He was standing side by side some of the most radical groups that maybe ever assembled on U.S. soil. They openly advertised as co-sponsors of the event in New York City, the Communist Party USA, the Democrat Socialist of America, the Freedom Socialist Party, the Young Communist League of New York, many others. Do we need any further evidence? They're not hiding this. They're out in the open. They're not shy about it, because this is the core constituency of the modern Democratic Party. Congratulations, they didn't burn any buildings down. That's a big achievement for the left to have some kind of gathering where they don't have a looting and riots and burn a building down. They had a free speech event. Congratulations. But you need to look past that and look at what it is they're advocating for openly. And it's really scary stuff. Republicans in the White House are also attempting to tie the rally to the stalemate over the government shutdown. Here is the director of the National Economic Council earlier today. A lot of our friends in the Senate have said that it was just bad optics for Democrats to open the government before the No King's Rally, and that now there's a shot that this week things will come together and very quickly the moderate Democrats will move forward and get us an open government. Hassett also threatening stronger measures from the administration if a deal isn't reached. But so far, neither side's attempts to force the other to the negotiating table have worked. Both sides are dug in, framing the fight as an existential battle against their opponents. And that brings us to how we got here to this prolonged shutdown with no apparent end. At the root of it is an issue in American politics that's been growing like a cancer. Americans have elected a government that is no longer rewarded for compromise. As our districts get more gerrymandered, our political divide becomes more hardened and elected officials are actually incentivized to hold the line and penalized for reaching across the aisle in search of common ground. Just consider this ahead of the 2010 midterms. Our friends at the Cook Political Report ranked 100 races as either toss up or lean. Essentially, that's the number of races they deemed were highly competitive. In 2018, the number of toss ups and leans dropped to 74. In 22, it was 64. Now in the upcoming 2026 midterms, there are currently only 38 seats considered highly competitive. 38 in a chamber with 435 members. What that means is that the vast majority of these elected leaders prioritize the desires of their base of their party at a time when the party's bases are as far apart as they have ever been. If you are a member of Congress, your survival as an elected official likely comes from a constituency that is demanding you fight, not concede. It then makes so much more sense why no one is even attempting to solve this shutdown crisis. We are in a political era where finding common ground could mean the end of your political career. Joining me now from Capitol Hill is senior national politics reporter Sahil Kapoor and outside the White House is NBC's Yamiche Alcindor. So Sahil, right now it looks like the shutdown could keep dragging on for quite some time. What are you watching for as the next inflection points? We've got a few potential inflection points coming up, Ryan. The big one is that government workers in the coming days are set to miss another paycheck. They've already missed some pay and they're being asked to work without pay. Remember, this was a big problem in the last shutdown, 2018 late and 2019 early, which is how it ended. 34 days into it, it ended after TSA agents and air traffic controllers just started calling in sick because they were being asked to work without pay. How long it'll take for that to happen remains to be seen. The other inflection point I'm watching is November 1st, that's when open enrollment begins for the Affordable Care Act. What Democrats are hoping is that Republicans notice that a bunch of their constituents are getting serious premium hikes, notices in the mail and recognize they're about to pay a lot more for health care premiums and may come to the table to negotiate a solution to extend these ACA funds that Democrats are insisting on. No sign of that yet. Republicans are pretty adamant against doing this in this context. Fundamentally, Ryan, I see only three ways this ends. Republicans are in control right now at the White House and Congress. They do get to call the play. They can either nuke the filibuster and do it themselves. There's some uptick in chatter about that, but I don't expect that to happen. They can negotiate with Democrats and come to a deal. I think this is going to have to take an act of President Trump because Republican leaders, Speaker Johnson and Majority Leader Thune, do not feel empowered to do that on their own. And the third is what Republicans have been doing, just running the clock, hoping Democrats cave. It is not working. Yeah. And do you get any sense in your time spent on Capitol Hill that lawmakers are feeling any pressure of the shutdown that many Americans are feeling? I mean, we saw the Senate go home this weekend. The House remains out of session. I think the last time they were in session was September 19th. It feels like business as usual. Or are they not hearing from their constituents upset that this shutdown is going on? Well, two things, Ryan. I think firstly, you're right. It doesn't feel dramatically different on Capitol Hill, as you know, from all your time here as well. You can get coffee or food at the restaurants. The Senate is coming in on Monday as usual and leaving on Thursday for three-day weekends. Just a few days ago, one senator, Jim Justice, held a lavish party for his dog with a line around the building to his door for a bunch of people who wanted to attend. And that was apparently quite the celebration. So that's the Senate. On the House, they have not been in session for more than a month. September 19th, Speaker Johnson has kept them out, said he's not bringing them back until the Dems cave on the shutdown. Again, an attempt to pressure the Democrats that isn't working. So fundamentally, they're not feeling enough pressure in the building. Are they feeling it from constituents? Well, this is also an important thing to watch. So far, Republicans are getting a little bit more of the blame from voters, according to polls. But it's not enough. It's not big enough, in terms of the gap between who's blaming Republicans and who's blaming Democrats, for them to want to cave. And if you were listening with half an ear, Sahil did say that was a lavish party for a dog on Capitol Hill. Not a human being, a dog. We also heard Kevin Hassett's comments, arguing the Democrats couldn't negotiate until after this weekend's No King's protest. I mean, I've not heard that from a single Democrat, privately or publicly, Sahil. Is that anything that you've heard in your reporting? No, I don't think there's any basis in fact for this, Ryan. This was a Republican talking point that had popped up a few weeks ago. Some GOP senators were saying, oh, Democrats want to keep the government shut down because they want to cater to this left-wing base, and they want to keep their No King's protesters happy, and that they'll cave after that. This seems like a situation where some Republicans, and perhaps even the White House, are buying into their own spin. There's no connection whatsoever between the Democratic intransigence against the Republican short-term bill and this No King's protest. Apples and oranges. I would not expect the posturing to change now that it's over. Okay, Sahil Kapoor, thank you for that. Let's turn to Yamiche now at the White House. Yamiche, it seems as though the president is not really engaged in all of this. We've heard him talk about the, quote, Schumer shutdown. He said he's going to cut Democrat programs. But beyond that, it doesn't appear that he's trying to make any effort to be the dealmaker here. It's a good observation, Ryan. We know that the president has invited Republican senators to the White House for a lunch, and that lunch is to thank them for remaining united and for not compromising. So the president is not only not trying to make deals, he's actually thanking lawmakers for not making a deal. Now, early on a few weeks ago, the president said something that was pretty striking. He said that he was open to making a deal on health care with Democrats, that it could happen. We've seen some people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's a staunch Trump supporter, someone who's seen as close to President Trump. She has said that she wants to try to make a deal when it comes to these health care subsidies, because her own children are going to be impacted by this. So that was a Republican sort of changing her mind there. But the president himself has just not done this. So right now, we don't see the president trying to make any deals. Instead, he really has continued to say that this is Democrats' fault and that he is doing the best that he can as the commander in chief to think of other things. And I asked Sahil about the lawmakers facing pressure. Is there any indication that the public pressure could force the White House's hand here? Could they see this November 1st open enrollment as a motivation to try and start making a deal? Or do they just seem to be shrugging all this off? Based on my reporting and conversations with White House aides and top White House officials, I do not get the sense that they feel any pressure right now. The president has found a way to move around some money to pay people, he says, in special agent positions, like FBI special agents, Border Patrol agents, U.S. Park Police, so some law enforcement agencies, as well as active duty troops. So they're in some ways trying to make sure that there's money there for the priorities that they really care about and for Americans that they really see as doing these essential jobs. But I can tell you, in talking to people who are TSA workers, air traffic controllers, other people that are being forced to go to work and not getting paid, there is this real frustration that is mounting. But the White House just doesn't seem moved by that. The president continues to feel like Democrats are ultimately going to be the ones that are hurt by this. We've also seen the president use this and say that he was going to use this to have mass layoffs. We've now seen the court try to stop those mass layoffs. But I've also been asking the White House whether or not they're going to continue at some point and how that would work. Right now, we don't know the answer to that question. But that, again, tells you that this is a White House that just does not seem like they're ready to try to force this shutdown to end. Ryan. And we also talked about the social media response from the president on the No Kings protest, trying to dismiss it on Air Force One last night. He acts like he didn't really care about it, didn't really mean that much and register. But he sure seems to be responding to it every opportunity he gets. Do we expect to hear more from the president or the White House on these rallies? I'm not sure that we're going to hear more from the president, but we've gotten into this cycle where the president is really starting to regularly share at times inappropriate critics who say inappropriate videos dealing with his political adversaries, whether that's sort of videos that are seen as inappropriate, depicting Chuck Schumer and Hocking Jeffries and sort of these costumes that are sort of racially charged. And then you also have, of course, that video that was shared over the weekend where it was the president seemingly showing up at the at the rallies and throwing fecal matter on protesters. So there's this sort of push to continue to have that happening. But overall, we haven't seen the president really talk specifically about these protests. But we do expect, of course, all those images to really continue to happen on social media, because that's just sort of where he is right now, Ryan. OK, Yamiche Alcindor, White House, thank you for that. Let's bring in our panel right away to talk about all of this. Julia Manchester is the White House correspondent for The Hill. Chuck Rocha, the host of the substack show, The Rocha Revolution, and the co-host of the Latino Vote podcast is going to launch another podcast tomorrow. We're going to have time to talk about it now. Lance Trover, Republican strategist, former spokesperson for the Burgum campaign. Thank you guys all for being here. I appreciate it. Julia, I mean, I sometimes I joke that it's like Groundhog Day. I'm writing stories every day about this. I have to say the same things over and over again. But I don't feel like we are in any different place now on day 20 than we were on day point five before the shutdown started. Yeah, no, I would say the only difference that I've seen politically is in polling. And we're starting to see Americans maybe spread the blame around a bit more. There was an APNORC poll that was released last week that showed about 58 percent of Americans blaming Republicans. Another 54 percent said they blamed Democrats. So clearly they're starting to, I think, blame both parties here. And maybe that puts a bit more pressure on Democrats. But for now, we're seeing Republicans don't feel that pressure. They may feel it on Capitol Hill. We know that the president has certainly given some political cover, especially when it comes to military pay and that kind of a thing. But so far, we are where we were on day one, it seems. And so, Lance, I mean, Republicans seem pretty insistent that they don't feel the need to engage in these conversations about health care at this stage, that they've got a short-term spending resolution on the docket and Democrats should just get on board. But isn't this part of the legislative process? I mean, they knew they had to have Democratic votes in order to get this over the finish line. Well, let's not forget, John Thune has made it public. He's offered the Senate a vote on this health care issue to which they've declined. But it's the Hill that's actually reporting today that it is the Democratic Party that is so beholden with groups like Indivisible who are quoted in there. I mean, these are the left-wing groups that are holding them hostage. You read the quotes in there. The idea that the three Democratic senators who already voted for it actually voted for it, they're losing their minds over it. Let's also remember, the president's approval rating is hovering around 45 percent. That's exactly where he was when he got elected last year. So, yeah, I don't think the White House sees any need to move off of this at all. So, Chuck, on the other side, do Democrats see any need to move off? Look, I've been here for months talking about do Democrats seem like a pretty good message to say that 24 million people don't deserve to see their health care premiums rise. I think this is a great fight. And to your point about what we're seeing with the reports on the Hill is that both sides of this, whether you're a Republican or Democrat, the bases love what they're seeing. They love seeing Democrats fight. The Republicans base likes to see the Republicans standing up to Democrats. That's why you've seen this be the third largest shutdown that we have ever seen. That's what I talked about at the top of the program. Isn't that the problem, Chuck? I mean, didn't these weren't these folks sent here to Washington to find common ground, not to just fight with each other at the top? Not you're picking on my podcast, but the most important thing was that as a political consultant, I'm one of the last old school political consultants in this town who actually run campaigns every day. Thirty six marginal seats, which you talked about, is the exact problem of what's wrong with that here, because they're not rewarded for fixing problems. They're rewarded to running to their bases, because if they try to work with the other party, they'll get a primary either from their left in my party or the right in his party. Right. And so, Lance, how do we fix that? Is it is it should it be? Are you asking me how to fix that? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We don't have that much time in the show. Look, I I find the irony in this to be Democrats controlled everything for many years. And they said we passed a clean continuing resolution. Republicans, you need to get on board and not hold it hostage. Now they're saying, oh, no, no, we want to hold this hostage. Listen, I understand. But I understand your argument there. I've been through so many of these shutdowns. And, you know, when Republicans were doing it to build a wall or to end Obamacare, the Democrats use the same exact argument. I grant you that. But the argument I would make back to that is this is how the legislative process works. The leverage that Democrats have right now is to say that we're not going to vote for this until you come to the table. You can whine and complain all day long and say, well, but we gave you a clean, clean, blah, blah, blah. The average person doesn't know anything about that. You know, at what point does the American public just get sick and tired with these technical explanations about what's happening in the shutdown and actually demand that their lawmakers do so? I don't know that the American public, to your point right now, I'm not sure they're really upset about it at all. We're moving along there. If there are points where we have TSA issues and things like that in the airport, such a shutdown. And guess what? People are going to really get engaged and involved. And that's going to stop showing up. But that is the process. Is it is that part of the problem right now, Julia, that the average American just doesn't feel the impacts of this? I think it's certainly part of the problem. And once they feel that, whether it's Social Security checks or airports, then they're starting to feel it, though. I think with air traffic controllers, we're starting to certainly feel that. But, you know, from looking at this on the Democratic side, I think it's interesting because I don't think anyone outside of Capitol Hill wants a shutdown. But for the first time in nine months or so, we have seen Democrats rally around something and almost be unified around something in this shutdown after those widespread losses in twenty twenty four. So in a way, it's a bit of a messaging opportunity for them going into the midterm. But is the message we're just taking on Donald Trump or is it really about health care? And I think that's what's getting muddled when you look at the no King's protests. It's all just anti-Trump messaging. And that's always been the problem, I think, for Democrats is everything is against Trump. And I'm wondering if that's where voters are like, wait, what do you want? Do you have to get beyond that, Chuck? You do. And me and Lance have had these debates on TV a lot. That's why he knows he's scratching at an inch, which is we want a lot of elections being the anti-Trump party. But to actually get to wins in twenty six and look beyond at twenty eight, we have to be the party that's far something that folks on this program knows that I'm rooted in working class East Texas trailer park values. We got to get back to talking to regular folks about regular things that are popular if we want to win and be an anti-Trump. And do you think the health care argument is hitting that? It's easy to say we don't want your premiums to go up. Stop. It's kind of like saying make America great again and put on a hat. Make it simple. We are bad about talking over people. Have simple folks. And I do want to talk a little bit about the rhetoric here because it seems to be just amplified. Right. We saw some of the signs and some of these no King's protests that the speaker pointed out this morning. But last week, the White House press secretary said that the Democratic Party was made up of terrorists and violent criminals. The president's called them the party of Satan. They said they're like insurrectionists at Charlie Kirk's memorial. He said he hates his opponents. I mean, Lance, how do we break through this divide? It's enough like what we talked about at the top of the show, about the way that the system is set up right now, where you need to appeal to your base. But if we're talking to each other like this, how can these guys ever get into a room and actually come up with a deal that they can trust they're going to follow through on? Yeah, look, I'm not somebody who loves the rhetoric when it comes to that type of thing. I think the frustration you hear from the MAGA side is Republicans have endured a lot. We've had two assassination attempts on the president. We lost Charlie Kirk. We've seen ICE officers being attacked. It was in vogue a few months ago to go rip Tesla's apart just because Elon Musk worked in the administration. And I think so. I think for the MAGA wing of the party, the problem is it's not just the rhetoric. It is the input into action and the violence that has been coming from the far left of that country. But wouldn't you argue that January 6th falls in that category? I mean, if January. So it's like the go to line of January 6th. I'm talking about. I know. I disagree with that because these things are all the most recent aspects of what have happened. I mean, January 6th was a protest against an election. But all these other things have been culmination are much bigger than January 6th. I think assassination of the president. I think I think January 6th should be put on the table. But I also think that you can I went home last weekend to East Texas where all of my buddies who I played high school football with are all MAGA and all Republicans. You know, I found a way with them to have a great weekend talking about things that we had in common, not looking for the tiny things that rip us apart. That's how we fix the problem. But there are people and algorithms in this thing right here that make money off of pulling us apart. And I think that's why we're in the situation we're in. OK, before we go and you'll be glad we go here, Lance, I do need to talk about the situation in Virginia with the attorney general candidate Jay Jones. Chuck, I want to play for you what the DNC chairman said about this over the weekend. As the party chair, do you think that those comments are disqualifying? I don't think they're disqualifying, but certainly they're not right. And I'm glad that he apologized for them. They're indefensible. They're hurtful and they're offensive. And as I've listened to Graham Platner, I I absolutely believe in his contrition here. I believe that he acknowledges that the words he used were harmful and offensive to so many people throughout this country. You know, again, people deserve second chances. And that was about the main candidate was in the was asked in the context of the text of the attorney general candidate in Virginia, Jay Jones. Are Democrats excusing too many of these examples right now, Chuck, at the same time that you're criticizing Republicans for the things that they've said about Democrats? Are we giving free passes to these candidates? As somebody that's about as imperfect as you can get, I've made a lot of mistakes in my lifetime, some publicly and some not. And I think second chances are part of America. But I also think you have to own up. And I tell folks this when I talk to them about mistakes and about wording that is not right and you shouldn't use and look at the camera and say, I was wrong. Explain why you're wrong and then ask for forgiveness. Julia, you get the last word. You know, what's so interesting is that you have Winsom Earl Sears running for governor on the Republican side in Virginia. He was framing this as Abigail Spanberger is still backing Jay Jones when she was asked whether she would pull her endorsement. She gave a non-answer. But you have the attorney general, Jason Meara, is the Republican running, essentially saying Abigail Spanberger is not endorsing Jay Jones. Voters have a choice. I think that's very telling. Yeah. And they might be picking which horse they have to get over the finish line. All right. Great conversation, guys. Thank you all for being here. I appreciate it. We can talk about these things and still like each other. Chuck and I grew up quite well. Coming up, President Trump tells reporters today that he does not think Ukraine will win the war as President Zelensky urges the administration to apply more pressure on Putin in an exclusive interview with Kristen Welker. But first, we have breaking news on multiple legal stories as the Trump administration just landed a legal win and it's pushed to deploy the National Guard to Portland. Former FBI Director James Comey is moving to get his case thrown out. We'll have Welcome back. We do have breaking news on multiple legal fronts surrounding the White House, starting with a major ruling tied to the president's deployment of military troops to Democratic-run cities as he tests the limits of his executive authority. In a two-to-one ruling, a federal appeals court just ruled that President Trump can deploy the National Guard to the streets of Portland. It comes after a federal judge had temporarily blocked those deployments, calling President Trump's claims about the conditions in Portland, quote, simply untethered to the facts. Meanwhile, we have new developments in the Justice Department's case against former FBI Director James Comey, with Comey's team filing a motion with the court seeking to disqualify the acting U.S. attorney. It comes as the Justice Department is signaling it might disqualify Comey's lawyer from the case, too. Joining me now to talk about this, NBC News legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach. So, Gary, let's start with the legal ruling tied to Portland. What does it mean? Does it apply to just the Oregon National Guard or the National Guard that the president was trying to send from other states? So, this is a ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that says the Trump administration, as soon as right now, can send in members of the Oregon National Guard onto the streets of Portland. That's important because it's only the state of Oregon's National Guard. The other states that the judge had also said can't come into Oregon, it was a separate ruling that had not been appealed, and so this appeals court only dealt with this. And they say it's all about presidential deference. They say the president has the power to do this, and judges cannot say that he does not. Now, there was one dissenting opinion here, which I thought was very interesting, and she says in the dissent, quote, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer. She's asking for an en banc review, which means the entire Ninth Circuit gets together and re-decides this case. We'll see if that ends up actually happening. And so, could this ruling have implications for other Democrat-run cities that are trying to defend against National Guard deployments to their cities? So, the way our country has broken up here in terms of appeals courts, there's 11 different areas of appeals courts. Within the Ninth Circuit, absolutely. So, California, Oregon, Washington State, absolutely this has an impact. Other circuits will have to make their own decisions, and that's what we're going to be seeing here as it relates to the Supreme Court's decision with Illinois and Chicago's National Guard, which could come at any point now. Okay. Let's also shift gears now and talk about the developments in the case against former FBI Director James Comey, and get us up to speed on that. That's right. So, just about an hour ago, two motions were filed by James Comey's team. One, they're trying to dismiss the case because they believe it's a selective and vindictive prosecution. They're pointing to more than 200 posts by the president on his Truth Social platform that trash FBI Director James Comey, saying this is why Lindsey Halligan, the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. attorney, is going after him. And then they also say she, the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. attorney, wasn't appointed legally in the first place, so she shouldn't be bringing these charges against him at all. They say she's his former personal attorney. All of a sudden, she becomes the U.S. attorney in Eastern District of Virginia, and days later, James Comey is indicted. And how long could it take for them to decide this? So, this could be decided within the next few months. There are going to be oral arguments in both November and December on some of these motions. Okay, great. Gary Garbak, thanks for the update. We appreciate it. Up next, ceasefire uncertainty. President Trump responds to renewed violence in Gaza, insisting that the fragile truce deal he held broker is still in place, as Israel and Hamas blame each other for violating the agreement. You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. President Trump is sending mixed messages about his support for Ukraine and the country's ability to win the war against Russia. Just last month, President Trump said he believed Ukraine could win back all of its territory from Russia, but today, he didn't seem as optimistic. Take a listen. I've settled eight wars in eight months. Not bad. I have one more to go. It's Russia-Ukraine, and I think we'll get there, but it's turned out to be nasty because you have two leaders that truly hate each other. Just a few weeks ago, at UNGA, you said that Ukraine could possibly win the war. Well, they could. They could still win it. I don't think they will, but they could still win it. I never said they would win it. I said they could. Anything can happen. You know, war is a very strange thing. It comes after President Trump spoke to President Putin by phone on Thursday and then hosted Ukraine's President Zelensky at the White House on Friday. Trump and Zelensky appeared cordial in front of the cameras during that meeting, but according to reporting by the Financial Times, behind the scenes, the meeting descended into a shouting match, President Trump warning Zelensky that Russia would destroy Ukraine if he didn't agree to a deal to end the war. Yesterday, in an exclusive interview on Meet the Press, President Zelensky told my colleague Kristen Welker he would be willing to participate in follow-up talks with President Trump and President Putin in Budapest. You will push to go to Budapest? I'm ready. I'm ready. I said to President, I'm ready. Okay. Part of President Trump's success with Israel and Hamas was that he applied pressure to all sides. Does President Trump need to get tougher with President Putin? Yes, and even more, because Putin is something similar, but more strong than Hamas. Joining me now is NBC News Chief International Correspondent Keir Simmons. Keir, what do you make of President Trump's shifting rhetoric when it comes to the war in Ukraine? Well, you know, Ryan, studying the words of leaders around the world's basic principle is, when they say something, believe it. And I think when it comes to President Trump, that might appear tricky, because you're right to point out that what he says seems to shift. But one thing I think that does kind of continue is his idea that he simply wants the war to end, that he wants the killing to end, that it's gone on too long, that it can't get anywhere. And so I think what we're seeing really are very tense conversations, yes, with President Zelensky, but I also think, according to reporting citing multiple sources, with President Putin in that meeting in Alaska, very difficult conversations, where effectively what President Trump is saying is, let's do a deal here, and getting frustrated when Zelensky or Putin doesn't seem prepared to do a deal. Now, both have become adept at presenting themselves as wanting a deal and saying it's the other side. And actually, just today, Europe's chief diplomat again said it is the Russians who don't want to stop fighting. That may be the case in the sense that the Russians continue to pursue their maximalist goals for their war in Ukraine. And I think President Putin is being told that he can win, ultimately, if Russia just carries on. But as President Zelensky said over the weekend, more than a million casualties for Russia. People here in Russia are tired. Many have turned away from the war. And so I think there is a momentum towards a ceasefire, but can it be done? I mean, that's the fundamental question. And you alluded to this already, but I mean, President Trump said that he expects to meet with President Putin in Budapest in the coming weeks. But is there any reason to think there would be more substantive than the meeting that they already had in Alaska? Well, that meeting in Alaska, our understanding is, Ryan, of course, that that was a meeting that didn't go very well. President Trump raised his voice with President Putin on occasions and even threatened to walk away. We know the lunch was cancelled. So in a way, you could view this next meeting as a last chance or at least another chance for President Putin. That being said, President Putin is not indicating, continues to not indicate that he is interested in any substantial compromise. I mean, you do get into the detail here. It is difficult. But just to give you one picture, for example, it does look as if the Kremlin is saying it wants to be handed all of Donetsk, which is some territory, some of which the Russians have not been able to take by force. That would put the Russians in a strategic position where they would be at an advantage in a future conflict, which you can't discount. Now, it does look as if the Russians are offering parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in exchange. So you could argue that's a compromise. But what worries the Europeans, the Ukrainians deeply, is that if you set up the chessboard, if you like, for another fight, then if you give the Russians an advantage, they will take it on another occasion. And again, that's why the Ukrainians keep emphasising that they want security guarantees. And again, the Russians say they're not prepared to do a deal where the West offers security guarantees for Ukraine. So you can just see how complicated it is and why it's so difficult to come to a cessation, to an agreement. All right. Kir Simons, live for us in Moscow. Kir, thank you so much for that. We're going to turn now to the conflict in the Middle East and President Trump's fragile ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas. Over the weekend, tensions flared in the Gaza Strip as both sides accused the other of violating the deal. And yesterday, Israel's military says it launched strikes against Hamas targets, including what it called terrorists who were moving toward IDF troops. President Trump today noted the recent flare-ups and had this warning for Hamas. We have peace in the Middle East for the first time ever. We made a deal with Hamas that, you know, they're going to be very good. They're going to behave. They're going to be nice. And if they're not, we're going to go and we're going to eradicate them if we have to. In addition, you have Israel would go in in two minutes if I asked him to go in. I could tell him, go in and take care of it. But right now, we haven't said that. NBC News international correspondent Matt Bradley is in Tel Aviv and filed this report. Yeah, there has been word about the successful operation for Hamas to hand over yet another body of a slain hostage to the Israelis. And that means that there are only 15 bodies still remaining in the Gaza Strip. Thirteen have now successfully been transferred over to the Israeli side. Now, this is crucial, because this had become a major thorn in the side of this ceasefire. Both sides had said that they are trying their best. The Hamas had said during the negotiation phase that they were really going to have a lot of trouble trying to recover these bodies, not just because the Gaza Strip has been completely leveled after two years of war, but also because, according to Palestinians that I've been speaking to, a lot of the commandos who had buried these bodies have since been killed in the fighting. So they don't even necessarily know where these bodies are. So as we're seeing these operations continue, it looks as though this could repair some of the damage over the past couple of days, where we've seen multiple violations by, according to the Israelis, by Hamas firing across the so yellow line at Israeli troops, in some cases armed men walking towards the yellow line, defying warnings by Israeli troops to stop. That resulted in Israel firing about maybe dozens of airstrikes into the Gaza Strip, killing dozens of Palestinians there. Now, according to health authorities in the Gaza Strip, which is ruled by Hamas, nearly 100 people have been killed ever since the ceasefire came into effect back 10 days ago by Israeli forces. So this is a very, very tenuous ceasefire, and one that could shatter at any moment. But the fact is, is that Jared Kushner and Steve Whitkoff, two of the architects of this deal, are now here in Israel, possibly to try to rescue it from any destruction. This is going to be one of Donald Trump's major legacies in terms of foreign policy. But it also has shown that this ceasefire does have some metal. Despite all of these violations, the ceasefire remains intact. Hadley, thank you for that. After the break, we are spotlighting the surprisingly competitive race for governor in New Jersey, and the view from voters with just over two weeks to go until election day. Plus, it's electric. Rising energy costs could be the key issue powering the midterm elections and next month's high-stakes gubernatorial contests. You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. With early voting just five days away now, New Jersey's gubernatorial candidates are locked in a tight battle. Democrat Mikey Sherrill leads Republican Jack Ciannarelli by just four points in a Fox News poll, a figure that is within the poll's margin of error. The 2024 election has loomed over this race, as President Trump gains over his 2020 performance in the state, losing to Kamala Harris by just six points versus his 16-point loss to President Biden. And in these last few weeks of campaigning, Republicans are looking to capitalize on those gains as they hit the trail in the suburban areas of the state, hoping to cut down Sherrill's slim lead. Joining me on the ground now in Gloucester County, New Jersey, is WCAU reporter Lauren Meg. Lauren, always great to talk to you. Tell us more about those Republican efforts in the New Jersey suburbs. What are you hearing from voters there? Well, the efforts on both sides of the aisle are focused in a lot of ways on one issue, and that is affordability. That is something we have been hearing from the candidates since the beginning of this general election, when they both won their primaries and came out of the gate, talking about bringing costs down in New Jersey. And I can tell you, as I went out today and started to talk to people, the very first voter I went to, I asked about what was important to them, what they wanted to see from the next governor. And immediately, he talked about bringing taxes down. I said, is it just taxes? Is that at the top of the list? Are there other costs as well? He said, oh no, my utility bills are high as well. And I asked, do you think the next governor can do something about that? And his answer was, we hope so. So voters are hopeful. Both candidates really, though, making this kind of pitch that they can bring those costs down. Yeah. I guess it's the way they bring those costs down that might differentiate the two of them. And you've been reporting on some of the demographic shifts in the state. Tell us about that. How might that affect this race? Well, I can tell you about something that's happening right where I am in Gloucester County. Things really have changed in recent years here. Phil Murphy, the current governor of New Jersey, he won this county back in 2017 when he first ran for governor. But things have shifted. Republicans, when it comes to registered voters, Republicans have cut into Democrats' edge in this county, cutting that almost in half. They really have made significant gains here. I talked to former Senate President Steve Sweeney, a Democrat, about that. He referred to it as a dogfight in recent years. So you're seeing Republicans really pick up steam here. Jack Ciatarelli won this county in 2021 when he was the Republican nominee. And Donald Trump, President Trump, won this county last year. So Republicans have high hopes in Gloucester County as things have been shifting here. And we pointed out that President Trump did lose the state to Kamala Harris, but he made significant gains, almost a 10-point difference between 2024 and 2020. How much is that race looming over this race? Is it part of why Republicans have made such an investment, because they've seen the gains there? They see the possibility for success, certainly. And some of those numbers, when you look at them, the improvements that he made over Joe Biden in this state are stunning. There are counties, including this one, where President Trump got more votes than there are registered Republicans in that county. And so the question now is whether Jack Ciatarelli can hang on to those gains and really whether people will turn out. Of course, this is an off-year election. I spoke with someone this morning who has been doing some canvassing and supporting Mikey Sherrill, and she said she feels good about supporting Mikey Sherrill. She's not quite so sure, though, about turnout. She's not sure who's going to show up on Election Day. It's back to you. Lauren May, always there with the pulse of what's happening in New Jersey and beyond. Thank you for that, Lauren. Let's turn now to our NBC reporting on what could be a potent issue next month in both that New Jersey governor's race, as well as this year's other big governor's race in Virginia, and that also matters in the 2026 midterms. It's data centers with sprawling footprints and sky-high electricity needs. They're becoming an electoral issue as state leaders look to balance the promise of tech investment with voters' concerns about rising energy prices. A recent analysis by Bloomberg found that electricity costs near data centers have spiked by as much as 267 percent in the past five years. Joining me now is NBC politics reporter Alan Smith. 267 percent is extraordinary. That is enough maybe to get somebody to go to a ballot box. I live in Virginia. I'm not near one of these data centers. I've noticed my prices tick up. How are state lawmakers responding to this in both Virginia and New Jersey? So any backlash that's brewing right now is still very early stages, but we are seeing it, particularly in Virginia, where the data center industry is much more expansive, and state lawmakers have been trying to offer fixes, right, for issues that have crept up around the electricity bill hikes that are happening near these data centers. Very little, though, is getting passed right now, and almost nothing has been enacted as law yet to kind of alleviate any of these pressures. But in Virginia and New Jersey, both places, lawmakers are saying they're hearing a lot more about this, and they think this is going to be only a bigger and bigger issue even as we get past the elections next month. Do you get the sense it's something that most voters haven't necessarily correlated to their own activity? Like, we've seen people use artificial intelligence way more just in the past year than they have before, and isn't it AI that's really accelerating this massive use of energy? So the interesting thing here is that data centers have long existed, right? You need data centers that are on Uber, Amazon, every single tech app you can think of. But with AI, the data centers require so much more power than data centers previously did in order to run these programs. So, you know, these data centers have really only sprung up recently within the last couple of years, and now, you know, residents are noticing, hey, the improvements that have to be made to the power grid to power these data centers, I'm seeing the cost reflected in my bill, and I'm not changing my amount of electricity usage at all. And then we also have the strain on other sorts of public utilities, water being another one. These data centers require the use of water. How is that impacting the communities? So you're hearing a lot about that in more rural areas where some of these data centers are being built, obviously near water sources, where people are starting to see the impacts. I think when you think ahead to the midterms, you've got states like Arizona and Nevada that have a lot of water issues, and that you're also seeing a pretty significant increase in the amount of electricity that data centers are using. You can see this brewing into a cocktail that might be a really potent issue in places that we already pay a lot of attention to because of the elections that are going to take place next year. And the last point I want you to make about this is it's also one of these investments that's not necessarily automatically generating jobs, right? I mean, it's one thing for a lawmaker, a gubernatorial candidate to say, yeah, we're going to work with these tech companies, we'll give them some tax incentives, because they're going to bring a bunch of good-paying jobs here. It's not as if there's no jobs with these big data centers, but it's not a ton, right? So this is something that you hear from state lawmakers on this. Maybe these electricity bill hikes, maybe property tax assessments going up as a result of these data centers would be more palatable if there were a lot more jobs coming to the local communities. But as one state lawmaker said, these are essentially very large boxes that create value, but not a whole heck of a lot more. Yeah. And is it something that is falling along bipartisan lines, this concern right now? So this is really interesting because the issue is so new, there hasn't really been much time for it to be split on partisan lines. You're seeing Republicans and Democrats trying to solve some of these problems, pushing back on this a little bit. And then when it comes to the coalition coming together on the ground, as a state Senate Republican in Virginia told me, you've got conservative farmers and environmentalists teaming up to try and combat this. Right. Really great topic, Alan. Thanks for looking into it for us. We appreciate it. Thank you, Ryan. Still to come, the impact of the ongoing government shutdown on Americans' healthcare as patients who rely on the subsidies at the center of the ongoing negotiations brace for higher premiums and less access to care. That's ahead on Meet the Personnel. Welcome back. As we mentioned, it is day 20 of the government shutdown. And at the center of the lack of progress on the funding fight is the issue of healthcare subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year. If those subsidies expire, Americans who rely on what is often known as Obamacare could see their premiums more than double. That's according to analysis by the health care policy group KFF. With open enrollments set to begin in less than two weeks, Americans who get their insurance through the Affordable Care Act are questioning whether they're going to even be able to afford it. Joining me now is Kenny Capps, a North Carolina resident who relies on healthcare subsidies to cover the cost of his cancer treatments. Kenny, thank you so much for being here. I'm sorry for everything you're going through. You've been outspoken about the need to get these healthcare subsidies extended. Tell us, if these healthcare subsidies expire, what would that mean for you and your family and your ability to get your necessary cancer treatments? Thanks, Ryan. So I guess the big thing is the significance of the cost that you just put up onto the screen is it's unimaginable almost. The first year that I was diagnosed in 2015, the cost of my first year treatment would have been well over $700,000. And thanks to the ACA, I was able to get healthcare and health insurance to cover my... And so the premiums were affordable at that time. And thanks to the tax credits that came about later on, it kept that manageable. I thought I'm one of those people, one of the many people, one of the many Americans that falls into that strange gap to where I make too much money to qualify for full assistance, but it's a little bit too much for me in order to actually pay for it. And with the going away of the tax credits, the expiration of the tax credits at the end of this year, that could be twice what my mortgage payment is, which means that I'm going to have to start making decisions about what I pay. Yeah. So let's talk about that. Your open enrollment could begin for you as soon as less than two weeks. Have you been given any kind of an idea from your insurance company what your premiums are going to look like if these subsidies aren't extended? Well, based on what my premiums would have been last year without the supplement, yeah, it would be over $2,300 to $2,500 a month. Wow. And so again, that's over double my mortgage payment. And can you afford that? I mean, what would you do if you can't? I mean, you have to have healthcare. What are your options then? Yeah, very. So you're right. And I honestly haven't fully sort of grasped what it is that I'm going to need to do, what I need to change or if I need to change based off of those numbers. If that comes to pass to where my healthcare, my monthly healthcare insurance is $2,300 a month, I have to decide what I'm going to do. And I'll be honest with you, I haven't decided yet. I don't know. I mean, is there even a less or more affordable option out there for you at this point? I mean, you're already in the Affordable Care Act. I have to assume there's not a separate private insurance company that's going to give you a better deal, right? Sure. And I'm actually one of the many Americans that has, so I have a, I'm considered a terminal disease, but even if it were considered chronic in nature, I've been dealing with cancer for 10 years now, over 10 years now. I have to see physicians monthly. I go for infusions at the cancer center. The cost would be exorbitant without insurance and next to impossible for most of us. And if we're talking well over, I think you said 20, over 22 million Americans that will be negatively impacted by this, there's a lot of us that will have to go without treatment, without care. Yeah. So talk to me about your view of what's happening here in Washington. Day 20 of the shutdown. You don't, you can't even get these guys in a room to talk about this. Do you believe that lawmakers are taking this issue seriously enough? Well, that's a good question. And I wondered if you were going to ask me something along those lines. And I have to admit that's in some ways that's outside of my expertise and my experience. My expertise is with, about me and about cancer patients like me. So what I can say is, and I can implore our legislators to think about how important their fellow Americans are to them, how much they want to serve them, how much they want to make sure that they're taken care of. Because we're the ones that are negatively impacted by this delay. We're the ones that are negatively impacted by not knowing. And right now we're in limbo. I can tell you don't want to get into the politics, but are you just frustrated that they can't even talk to each other? Absolutely. Of course I am. I mean, and one of the things, you know, I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to remember that the point of our leaders and to know our leaders is to actually determine a way to work together to solve problems. And that's, right now they have a challenge ahead of them that they need to do. All right. We're going to have to leave it there, Kenny. Sorry for everything you're going through. We continue to wish you good health and good fortune going forward. Thank you for your time. We're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now, but there's more news ahead on NBC News Now.