Meet the Press NOW — March 19

High five!

Yeah!

Dave's company just got the five-year price lock guarantee from Comcast Business.

Heck yeah!

That's gig speed internet at a great rate for five years.

Powering five years of savings, powering possibilities, Comcast Business.

Now at the March 29th, switch to Comcast Business and lock in a great rate for five years

on a qualifying internet bundle.

Plus ask how to get a $500 pretty paid car for a limited time only, call today.

Restrictions apply, new customers only.

One-year contract required for guaranteed rate.

Five-year pricing applies to monthly service charge, excluding taxes and fees.

Martha listens to her favorite band all the time.

In the car?

Jim.

Even sleeping.

So when they finally went on tour, Martha bundled her flight in her hotel on Expedia to

see them live.

She saved so much she got to see close enough to actually see and hear them.

Sort of.

You were made to scream from the front row.

We were made to quietly save you more.

Expedia made to travel.

Sounds very unsubject to availability.

Light inclusive packages are at all protected.

Welcome to Meet the Press Now.

I'm Kelly O'Donnell in Washington, where the Trump administration is racing to calm

growing anxiety over soaring energy prices, as the war with Iran intensifies.

Under Israel and Iran, exchange strikes on critical energy infrastructure in the region.

These were the stunning images out of Iran after Israel launched an attack on South

Pars, one of the world's largest natural gas fields, which is shared by both Iran and

Qatar.

You can see the large fires burning as plumes of black smoke billowed into the air.

Iran responding, launching retaliatory strikes on energy infrastructure across the Gulf

region, hitting a refinery in Saudi Arabia, an energy facility in Qatar, and two oil

refineries in Kuwait.

President Trump is also reacting to dueling strikes, posting on social media that the

US did not know about the Israeli attack on South Pars, while also threatening to quote

massively blow up the South Pars gas fields if Iran carried out any more strikes on Qatar.

However, a US official familiar with the information, telling NBC News, Israel did inform

the US they were planning to strike that facility.

Speaking in the Oval Office today, while hosting the Japanese Prime Minister, the president

said he told Israel to stop strikes on Iran's energy fields.

Have you talked to Prime Minister Mnanyahu about attacking the oil and gas fields?

Yeah, I did.

I told him, don't do that.

And he's won't do that.

We didn't discuss.

We do.

We're independent, we get along great, it's coordinated, but on occasion he'll do something

and if I don't like it, and so we're not doing that anymore.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Mnanyahu, also speaking to reporters late today, saying

Israel acted alone when striking the oil field, but not answering the question about whether

President Trump knew or had approved the strike.

It's for whether the US and Israel are aligned on their goals for the war.

Prime Minister Mnanyahu and Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, offer two different

perspectives.

Together in close coordination with President Trump, the close coordination between America

and Israel are in militaries, our intelligence services, we're achieving goals in lightning

speed.

The objectives that have been laid out by the President are different from the objectives

that have been laid out by the Israeli government.

Meanwhile, energy prices are surging in the wake of those strikes, crude oil settling

at around $96, up 43% since the start of the war.

Gas and diesel prices also continue to tick up as the war moves on.

Despite that, President Trump trying to downplay the economic consequences of the war.

There's a little bit more of what he said today in the Oval Office.

Iran is a serious threat to the world, to the Middle East and to the world, and everybody

agrees with me.

I think virtually every country agrees with me on that.

So I wanted to put out that fire, and I said, you know, when we do that, oil prices

will go up, the economy will go down a little bit.

I feel it would be worse, much worse, actually.

I thought there was a chance it could be much worse, it's not bad, and it's going to

be over with pretty soon.

As the administration looks for more ways to bring prices down, Treasury Secretary

Besant said the U.S. could remove some of its sanctions on Iran.

In the coming days, we may unsanction the Iranian oil that's on the water.

It's about 140 million barrels, so depending on how you count it, that's 10 days to two

weeks of supply, that the Iranians had been pushing out.

That would have all gone to China, in essence, we will be using the Iranian barrels against

the Iranians to keep the price down for the next 10 or 14 days as we continue this campaign.

And joining me now is NBC News, Senior White House correspondent Garrett Hake, NBC News,

Senior National Security Correspondent Courtney QB, and NBC News, Chief International Correspondent

Kier Simmons.

Welcome all.

Garrett, let me start with you.

There's been a lot of concern that we've heard about within the White House about these

rising prices.

Give us sort of a snapshot of where you think that stands today.

Well, look, I think the White House is clearly aware of this problem, and they're willing

to do things that might otherwise be politically unpalatable to try to address it.

They've made several attempts to loosen sanctions on Russian oil, in particular, to get it

back on the market to try to keep prices down.

And that comment from Scott Besant kind of cuts both ways, loosening restrictions on

Iranian oil and war with them, scenes counterintuitive, but also speaks to the fact that the

president's had to punt that big summit he claimed to do with China, getting that Iranian

oil back to China might keep things a little more copacetic with the Chinese.

The administration has found themselves now, if they didn't know at the start, in the

middle of a mess as relates to the global energy market.

It is global.

It doesn't necessarily relate just to American production.

And you're seeing them test different ways to, if not actually lower the price of oil,

at least be caught trying to do so for the benefit of American consumers and voters.

We saw the president sitting alongside the Japanese prime minister today.

In the early days of this conflict, there was talk that Japan was one of the countries

that he was urging to come help deal with the straight-of-war moves.

Any sense where that stands now?

It's hard to say for sure, the president seemed to be pushing the prime minister to say

something in that meeting, saying several times that Japan was stepping up or would step

up, sort of suggesting that they should step up.

He kept using that language in different terms.

The Japanese constitution is essentially pacifist after World War II.

It is very difficult for them in keeping with their own laws and constitutions to deploy

military assets anywhere outside their own territorial waters.

It's unclear if there were any commitments made today in that meeting or afterwards.

We're now several hours hence, and there's been nothing announced by the White House.

There were a number of moments today where knowing history would have been very helpful

in the interactions there in the body language we could see.

We also have seen some reporting, and it appeared that Secretary Hegseth seemed to confirm

it today that the Pentagon will ask Congress for as much as $200 billion to fund the ongoing

operations and replenish supplies.

Do you sense that the administration's ready to unveil a justification for that to really

outline the request?

Well, the president gave a little bit of a preview of what that might look like today,

talking again about how elite American weaponry is and suggesting that our stockpiles need

to be topped up, not just for this conflict, but for the future.

That matches his rhetoric at least about the state of the war and the state of munitions

that we're using, but it may not sell on Capitol Hill.

I mean, Kelly, you know this well.

It feels to me like that $200 million number is perhaps an opening offer for discussions

that could take quite a while with Congress, it pretty evenly divided on this issue.

Garrett, we thank you for that.

Let me turn to Courtney now.

And one of the questions today is, was the U.S. aware of?

Did it give any tacit approval for the big strike that Israel carried out?

What is your reporting telling?

Yeah, and we heard from President Trump first on Truth Social, where he said that the

U.S. didn't know that that was going to happen, but that Israel wasn't going to do it

again unless Iran were to retaliate here.

What we're told, according to a U.S. official familiar with this, is that in fact the U.S.

was aware that Iran, or excuse me, that Israel was planning to carry out this strike.

And the reason that this is such a big deal is not just the fact that Israel struck this

facility, this very critical facility, well, gas facility, is that Iran retaliated striking

a number of different facilities in the region, including one in Qatar.

It's really caused a lot of concern and people being upset in the region about this.

Now the big question is, what will happen next?

Will Israel actually follow through and not strike more oil and gas facilities?

Will Iran escalate even further?

That's what everyone's watching to see.

And it comes as we've been talking about forever, gas prices are very high.

This only will make them rise higher.

And do you get the sense that, based on your reporting, and then when the President says

there's coordination, does that rise all the way to his level, or is it the Pentagon

is informed in advance of an operation like that?

It's hard to know, and it could also be that it's sent-com that's informed of it, or

the combined air operations that are known as the Kayak.

It could be all of those things.

But it's hard to know when the military will say we should probably let the President

know about this or not.

We don't have a really good sense of his briefing schedule, of how often they're keeping

him updated on the ins and outs of this war.

And I only point to one thing as evidence of that is he was very upset when the Wall

Street Journal, or excuse me, Reuters, I believe first reported that there were a number

of U.S. aircraft that had been damaged in an Iranian strike early on.

He read that in the press rather than being told about it.

So we don't have a really good sense of exactly what he's being told is that's interesting.

Now this pledge from Israel, as we understand it today, of holding off from additional strikes,

is that going to create tension between the U.S. and Israel?

Does that put them out of alignment?

I mean, what's very clear is, no matter how this war started with the U.S. and Israel

together, their strategic goals have just, have separated, and that's notable right on

its face.

And I will say the U.S. goals keep shifting.

So now we keep hearing about the military goals, and those have actually remained somewhat

the same, and that is going after the ballistic missiles and the drones, and sometimes they

talk about the nuclear program, sometimes they don't.

But Iran, excuse me, Israel is really focused on regime change in Iran, and we don't hear

that as much from the United States.

So we don't really know what the U.S. political goals in Iran are right now.

We are focused more on the military goals.

So there's a potential for a huge crossroads here at some point, when the U.S. really

finishes carrying out some of these military objectives and is able to really take care

of a lot of these Iranian threats, if Israel wants to keep going to get rid of the regime,

is the U.S. going to have to keep in this wars as well?

I mean, there's going to be a crossroads at some point where that happens.

And are you seeing any evolution in the plans for U.S. boots on the ground?

You've reported about some units that are moving to the area where the President

say today he's not going to do that.

How do you put those two things together?

I mean, the more we get into this straight-of-hormouse continuing to be closed, or at least very

inaccessible to most commercial traffic, I find it difficult to see a scenario where the

U.S. doesn't put boots on the ground.

I don't know how they will reopen it in any short order without some sort of a military

intervention here.

We don't exactly know what that's going to look like.

The President keeps giving the same response, including again today, saying, well, I don't

think I'm going to do that, but I wouldn't tell you if I was going to anyway.

So the reality is we just don't know.

That has become his reflexive answer.

Let me turn now to Kier, who is in the region.

He's in Saudi Arabia, and I know you've been tracking a lot of the developments there.

And obviously, the region is hot.

What can you tell us about what officials are saying about these strikes and how yet again

it is expanded to partners in the region?

Yeah, Kelly, they're worried, they're angry, they're frustrated, all of those things.

And when you talk to the Saudi Arabian government here, as we do, what you get from them is a

sense that they are putting aside questions over how this started, who is responsible,

but what they are saying is that Iran's behavior is frustrating, actually, has them furious.

And not least, because in the past 24 hours, this emergency meeting of foreign ministers

around the region was held here in the capital rehab, and there were missiles from Iran.

We heard the boom.

We saw the, get to a safe place alerts on our phones.

We heard all that while we were seeing ministers walking around the hotel lobby.

And then I managed to ask the Saudi Foreign Ministry about it, take a listen.

To me, it was clear that the attack today was timed to coincide with this meeting in order

to attempt, I don't know, to intimidate those present, to send home the message that Iran

will not stop.

All I can say is we were not intimidated.

So the reality is, any re-engagement to Iran, this conflict will end at some point.

But I have to tell you, what little trust there was before has completely been shattered.

The piece of that, Kelly, that people should really pay attention to is that effectively

what he's saying there is that this region is very close to the point of no return, where

it becomes impossible to re-engage with Iran that might still have missiles or drones or

the ability to effectively close the strait of hormones.

In other words, this has to be finished.

And again, the overriding question with all of the conversations you're having there is,

how do you get to the point where there is an outcome that these allies and partners

of the U.S. and the Trump administration are satisfied with?

These are some of the dominoes that happen when you cannot predict all of the consequences

of war.

Do you get a sense from the conversations you're having that that urgency to see it be

concluded?

How is that defined in time?

Is that weak, as we've heard President Trump sometimes talk about, or do they see this

spilling into a longer term?

Well, I think they would like to see a conclusion quickly, but they also now are increasingly

saying the governments here in the GCC, the Arab governments, Islamic governments are increasingly

saying we need to see the right conclusion.

And just to think about this in terms of a timeline, there are reports from Doha from

Qatar that the strikes by Iran on the gas facilities there that are crucial to the

world economy that be repairs to that may take years.

Now that is a serious impact on the world economy and inflationary impact.

We're already, it's too late to conclude this without any repercussions, but the repercussions

continue to escalate.

And again, though, sensing, and it does depend on which government here you speak to.

A man, for example, is much more interested in trying, as it says, to help the U.S. get

out of this effectively.

It does depend on which government you speak to, but increasingly, my sense is that they

need to see the right conclusion to this, not just a quick conclusion to it, from their

perspective.

Well, Kier, you are in the right place to help us understand this.

Thank you so much for your reporting.

And now I'm going to turn to more on how the war is affecting the energy markets, and

we're joined by energy industry analysts, John Kilda, founding partner of, again, capital.

So you've heard our discussion.

If the U.S. goes ahead and hits one of these gas fields and oil infrastructure as the

president has threatened, what would the impact be on global energy markets?

It would be another escalation, and a good day to you.

Another escalation that is almost unimaginable.

I mean, this recent attack, again, up the ante.

And just when you think the ante can't be raised anymore, it happens again.

I will say the Iranian gas production out of the Paris field is mostly for domestic

consumption.

So as far as upending the global supply, it doesn't necessarily have the impact it does

if you're hitting the Qatari portion of the South Park fields.

But at this point, we're watching all this very closely in terms of what the balance is

going to be.

I will say that the damage estimates and the repair estimates might be a little overblown.

They generally exaggerate the amount of time it would take to get those sort of operations

back online.

I don't think it would take much more than really a year to a year and a half rather than

the two to four that I'm hearing bandied about in the marketplace.

And we even, in our last report, heard three to five.

And so that time piece is an important part of this.

And you're suggesting that it wouldn't be as long, even if there's ongoing conflict.

Oh, no.

The conflict has to stop.

The straight has to get secured.

What we're focusing on here is this next two week period.

The military seems to be indicating that this whole operation was a four to six week plan

that the straight was not the top priority, which we're all learning the hard way.

But it is now, and it will be, I mean, you hear the administration officials will hands

on deck, including Secretary Besan to talk about this.

And they're all using this two week sort of time period.

So let's see what kind of force they can muster to secure the transit of the straight

of hormones because that's where it's all going to be.

It's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be some kind of required U.S. military footprint

on the ground in Iran along the shoreline, at least, to be able to secure the straight.

But this is what we're going to be learning in the coming days.

And I'll tell you the market reaction has been somewhat moderate.

We did see oil prices decline a bit here today on the idea floated that we could unsanction

the Iranian floating storage that the oil that's on tankers right now, as the Secretary

Besan said as well, that would represent a chunk of supply that would help ease really

what's developing into a crisis and shortages in Asia in particular.

So even though those sanctions were meant to be punitive to the regime, it sounds like

you're describing that that would sort of release the valve a bit and help to adjust

some of the strain on the global market.

Is that what you think?

Yeah, so I mean, it's a bandaid for an acute problem that we're facing.

It's not a fix.

There is nothing anyone can do to fix this situation in the short term.

No matter how you slice and dice it, alternative pipelines, you name it in terms of trying

to get oil out of the Gulf region in any way, shape or form.

You're still talking about 10 million barrels a day, at least, of production and supply

to the global market.

That's offline.

And we can't make that up anywhere, know how.

But for now, I will tell you that the oil market is pricing in and into this, a liberation,

if you will, of the straight sooner rather than later.

A lot of us have circled April 1st on our calendars to see where we're at.

But after that period, once we get into April and now we're several more weeks into this

and there's no resolution seemingly close, that's when you're really going to see oil

prices ramp up.

And that's when you're going to start to see the shortages of supply hit the market.

And dare I remind you that if you circled April 1st, that's April Fool's Day.

We hope that's not the case.

The president talks about the fact the U.S. does not rely on the product coming through

the Strait of Hormuz.

Does that make any difference given all of the supply issues that you described?

Well, if we still import about 6 to 7 million barrels of crude oil per day into the United States,

mostly from Canada, and the additional liberation of the Venezuelan oil that was also

desanctioned recently for lack of a better word, if that's a word, helped here as well.

It is now.

But no, but it is now, thank you.

So in that April 1st, they've been to.

But what I was going to say is that we are energy dominant.

People talk about us being energy independent, we're not that.

But we're certainly not energy insulated.

OK, this is a global market.

And I will tell you that our barrels of crude oil that are being exported on the long

the Gulf Coast will reflect just the premium and the security premium of the global marketplace

very shortly.

Because those ships in the Gulf here can obviously sail to Asia as well.

It will take some time.

But everybody will be on the hunt for every available barrel of crude oil as we get here into April.

So that's why I say that we're definitely not energy insulated.

That's a great observation and it will help people to understand this.

John Kindle killed off.

Thank you for being with us and having some fun with us on very serious matters.

Thank you so much.

Yes.

Thank you.

Coming up, the president's own intelligence community is unable to back up his primary

justification for this war that Iran posed an imminent threat against the United States.

As top national security officials are again grilled on Capitol Hill, you're watching.

Meet the press now.

In 2024, a truck crashed into Canaw in Mar rescue where I work.

146 of our dogs needed homes fast.

We asked for help on Facebook.

Our story spread through WhatsApp messages and Instagram reposts.

Immediately people stepped up.

And just six hours later, every dog was fostered.

I'll never forget how our community showed up for us.

Learn how over 3.5 billion people connect to what matters with meta at meta.com slash community.

United Health Group is bringing in-home treatment directly to patients,

closing caregabs, identifying risks earlier and improving patient outcomes.

In 2025, patients received over 19 million home visits.

Learn more at unitedhealthgroup.com slash commitment.

Hey guys, have you heard of Goldbelly?

It's this amazing site where they ship the most iconic, famous foods from restaurants across the country.

Anywhere nationwide, I've never found a more perfect gift than food.

Goldbelly ship Chicago deep dish pizza, New York bagels, main lobster rolls,

and even Inaigardin's famous cakes.

So if you're looking for a gift for the food lover in your life, head to goldbelly.com

and get 20% off your first order with promo code gift.

That's goldbelly.com promo code gift.

Welcome back.

President Trump has repeatedly justified the war with Iran by saying there was an

imminent threat to the United States. But during testimony on Capitol Hill today,

top intelligence officials presented no specific evidence of such a threat.

And their explanation sometimes seemed at odds with the administration.

Let's watch.

So is there any evidence that Iran intended to conduct a preemptive attack on the U.S.

prior to beginning this war? Yes or no?

Congressman, the answer to this question needs to be reserved for a closed hearing.

I will say, however, the intelligence community does provide the assessments of the threats

that exist to the president so that he can make that determination.

As the DNI said, there's a body of intelligence that will be able to cover in the

classified portion of this hearing that reflects, that does reflect, that in the likely event of

a conflict between Iran and Israel, that the U.S. would be immediately attacked,

regardless of whether the United States stayed out of that conflict.

Now, this all comes after yesterday, when under questioning from senators,

DNI Gabbard said the intelligence community assessed that Iran, quote,

maintained the intention to rebuild their nuclear capabilities, but had not resumed uranium and

since the U.S. bombed Iranian nuclear sites. And joining me now is NBC News Intelligence

reporter Dan Delus. Dan, welcome. What does this tell us about the kinds of intelligence that

the president was reviewing before he made these decisions?

It was interesting. We had two days of this testimony and they were asked, what did the president

know about the possible retaliation that Iran would take? Would they shut down the

state of her moves? Would they attack energy sites across the region? And their answers indicated

that he was informed about those possibilities. And here's what Gabbard said when she was asked.

Did the intelligence community brief the president on the potential impacts a conflict could have

on global supply chains and on oil and gas prices prior to the outbreak of hostilities?

Were you in a meeting? Were you in any meetings where that came up?

Yes, that is the intelligence community's assessments and those were provided.

So that was Tulsi Gabbard's answer to that question. But then just a few days ago, the president

was asked about how he expected or whether he expected something like that at the

state of her moves and in the Gulf and neighbors of Iran being attacked. And here's what he had to say.

Are you surprised that nobody briefed you ahead of time that that might be their retaliation?

No, the greatest actress. Nobody thought they were going to hit. I wouldn't say friendly countries.

They were like neutral. They lived with them for years. There was no expert that would say that

was going to happen. So that's quite a contrast. It certainly is. And when the job of these

intelligence professionals is to give the president all the options and potential outcomes,

and then he says nobody, no experts said that. That really is a contradiction. Does that tell you

anything about how the president reviews these intelligence briefings or how he consumes the

information? I think what's interesting is the president is used to using the sound bite.

He's able to sort of shape or frame issues often, right? And this is a situation where the facts

and the reporting and the intelligence that's coming across in these hearings doesn't always

sink with the way he would like to frame something. And so I think what he's having a problem with

is articulating the rationale for the war still because it has shifted. And then also trying to

explain how the U.S. was prepared for these foreseeable reactions from Iran.

And do you think that because this is now public that it may in any way alter how

the president has to then answer these questions in the future because we've had this testimony?

I think it makes his life more complicated. That is a complicated job. Dan, thank you so much.

We appreciate your expertise on this. And up next, an NBC News exclusive. This is new reporting on

allegations of a kickback scheme tied directly to Corey Lewandowski, a top advisor to DHS

Secretary Christie Known, a long time ally of the president. He's denying those allegations,

but we'll explain more of it coming up on Meet the Press now.

Instagram Tina Counts default teens into automatic protections for who can contact them and the

content they can see. Explore Tina Counts and all of our ongoing work to protect teens online

at instagram.com slash Tina Counts. The United Health Group is simplifying health

care by investing in tools to help patients know more and pay less. These tools help patients

find providers and compare costs and save hundreds of dollars annually. Learn more at unitedhealthgroup.com slash

commitment. With Verbal's last minute deals, you can save over $50 on your spring getaway.

So whether it's a mountain escape, city break, or a week at the beach, there's still time to get

great discounts. Look your next day now. Average savings $72, select homes only.

And we're turning now to exclusive new reporting from NBC News that multiple companies

complain to the White House that Corey Lewandowski as a special government employee at the Department

of Homeland Security directly or indirectly stood to personally profit from the DHS contracting

process. And that is a court, according to four senior White House officials and a former White

House official and a person familiar with the conversations. And one White House official

telling NBC News they had received a quote dozen complaints from at least four companies about

Lewandowski's involvement in the contracting process. Now Lewandowski denies these allegations.

We have now one of the people who've been working four months on this story. Julia Ainsley is here

with us. And Julia, you have been doing a lot of the very difficult work to trace all of this.

I follow the money kind of story. And for our viewers to understand that contracting is

supposed to be separate from anything that would allow for personal enrichment. So give us a

sense of what have you found and how surprised were the companies involved in having this alleged

ask for some kind of benefit? Well, as you know, we've been reporting this over the past seven

months. And it has not been a quiet seven months on the DHS beat as surges across cities, fatal

shootings by ICE and CBP. But this is something that came to my attention at the end of last summer.

We started working with our colleagues across NBC News because it seemed that these allegations

just kept adding up. And we were hearing they were starting to make their way to the White House.

The allegation being that Cory Lewandowski directly and indirectly was soliciting payment from

people who wanted to do business with DHS. And as you point that out, so well, this is supposed

to be a completely apolitical process. It's supposed to be left in the hands of procurement officers

who look at all the bids in a competitive process and decide who can do this in the best manner

for the cheapest amount of money for the American taxpayer. So taxpayer money is at hand here.

What we understand is that Cory Lewandowski in a meeting with Geo Group CEO, George Sully,

that's the largest holding of ICE detention. Regular contractor. Regular contractor. They hold

a billion dollars in ICE contracting. They hold the most ICE detention anywhere in the country

that he told Sully he wanted an exchange for a proportional amount of money in exchange for

contracts that he could renew or get new contracts for Geo Group. He refused. And as a result,

we've seen Geo Group, a company who stalks sword after Trump's election, actually lose contracts

and have their contracts shortened. And another example, there was an indirect payment

solicited through a third party, through a company named Salis that had previously been awarded

a $1 billion contract through DHS. They reached out to a marketing firm about contracts. They said

they could have for multi-million dollars. It was secured as long as they properly thanked the

person who secured it for them. And they told this marketing firm that would be a consulting firm

that would ultimately pay Cory Lewandowski. It's kind of like a finder's fee that if you help

bring about the deal, you'd get some kind of a benefit through a company he was associated with

or something like that. And again, he has denied these allegations. He has denied the allegations.

And neither of those companies paid, what's tricky here, as you know, is those who will pay are

probably less likely to speak to us. But those who refuse to pay feel that they didn't get the

contracts that they wanted as a result. And you're reporting also shows the White House has been

made aware of this and has expressed some concern. That's right. Even President Trump were told

it did get to him in a meeting in a meeting last fall. Someone raised a concern that Cory Lewandowski

may be getting paid as he had this very large influence over the contracts at DHS. You'd

need to approve of anything over $100,000 as did Christy Nome. And so this was brought to him.

One White House official said that they are aware of the allegations of paid-of-play.

And then as you also point out the beginning, one White House official, this is a third,

said they were aware of dozens of complaints about his role in the contracting process.

And we know that Christy Nome has been fired. She's out by March 31st. What's the future for Lewandowski?

You know, it's interesting. I spoke to Cory Lewandowski on the phone last week. And he said,

first of all, that he's never taken one penny from any contractor that he's overseen their contract

bits for. And he also said that he has not made any decision about whether he will leave

the government or not, that he is there as a volunteer unpaid employee. And he does not see

Christy Nome's departure as a sign that he needs to leave. And he believes he still has a good

relationship with the president. As you know, Kelly, he goes back to even-

Way back, 2015, yes, exactly. He was early campaign managers at first go around.

We also heard during the confirmation hearing for Mark Wayne Mullen that there is

ongoing scrutiny of this. And he said he would go along with any investigation when he takes over.

He did. It was an interesting exchange. And I know you watched it where it's actually a matter of

the Congress saying, would you look at help us with our investigation? And then he says,

basically admits that there is an IG investigation that we've confirmed into a $220 million

ad campaign. And now he says he will be supportive. And we'll be watching that for sure.

Congratulations on really impactful reporting. And after the break, the growing costs of war.

President Trump tells reporters that an additional $200 billion to fund the Iran war is,

quote, a small price to pay. We'll get the panels taken. This is Meet the Press now.

It's panel time, despite the president repeatedly insisting that the war with Iran is nearly over.

Today he appeared to confirm the Pentagon is seeking as much as $200 billion from Congress

to finance the war. Well, we're asking for a lot of reasons beyond even what we're talking about

in Iran. This is a very volatile world. So we're in very good shape, but we want to be in the best

shape, the best shape we've ever been in. We want to be sure. And it's a small price to pay to

make sure that we stay tippy top. Tippy top on Capitol Hill Republicans today sounded open to funding

the massive request. I'm sure it would be detailed and specified. I'm sure it's not a random

number, so we'll look at that. But obviously, it's a dangerous time in the world and we have to

adequately fund the fence. I'll go through it. See what they need. I want to make sure that

Iran's, you know, their ability to produce new components and both the missiles to destroy

maintaining bases in the Middle East to protect Americans against the surrounding attack

is also very explicit. So we've got to be able to figure out what's the cost, what's it going to,

how is this managed, but we need to finish what we've got.

And joining me now is our panel, Audrey Falver, reporter for the National Review,

Chuck Roca, host of the Substact Show, the Roca Revolution, and co-host of the Latino vote

podcast and Mark Short, former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence. And of course,

he's also a contributor on Meet the Press. So Audrey, let me start with you. We heard a little bit

from Republicans. What is your assessment of how they are looking at this number? Is it sticker

shock or is it what they expect? Well, thank you for having me on today. When we think about

Congress, we think about it theoretically as an institution that likes to jealousy, guard its power.

I think under the Trump administration, Republicans have been really amenable to all of Trump's

requests, whether that's tariffs, foreign entanglements overseas. I think broadly speaking,

when we think about House and Senate leadership, they're going to be amenable to probably

to whatever number that Trump wants. Definitely watch moderate Republicans because they're not

just going to want an invoice. Some of them are going to want to probably try to assert some

congressional authority over the war in Iran. Mark, we've heard from Republicans at times when

Ukraine was in the subject line for funding for that. A lot of pushback. Do you think this will be

viewed quite differently? Oh, I do. I think there's much more unity to support American troops

in conflict. And frankly, Kelly, I think you'll end up seeing Democrats support too. I don't

think Democrats will be proceeding against troops. Hard to do that. And I think that because the

margin house is so small, they're going to need it to be bipartisan. So I think you're going to see

this bill, like it always does, become larger, include other priorities that Democrats have,

and therefore get the funding across the line. Well, let's turn to you then. Do you think Democrats

will be in that kind of tough spot of wanting to look like they're supportive of men and women

in uniform want to replenish the supplies that are needed, etc. Or is this a time to show some

opposition? You know, if everybody's taxes were low and everybody's belly was full and gas was

$3 a gallon, I think they'd be amenable. I don't think right now that's the case. I think that

this Congress always finds a way to fund wars, but we can't find a way to fund Medicaid,

fund child care, fund things that will bring down utility costs. That's what I hear every day.

I'm not just on TV pontificating. I run campaigns across the country and every voter, Democrat

Republican or independent are sick and tired of this anxiety around the cost of living. And they

don't want to see their tax dollars spent wars overseas. And are you hearing that notion that the

president talks about that it's a short-term thing that's worth it to try to eradicate a problem

with Iran that costs maybe up as a result? Look, if it was a short-term thing in America,

somebody would already be over. It's already went too long for folks because gas prices,

everything that everybody has to do with every day. That war is a vision a long way away,

but what they deal with every day is on their mind. Audrey, there was a really notable moment

today when the president was with the Japanese Prime Minister and they were talking about why Japan

wasn't notified ahead of time for the U.S. action in Iran. And the president used a bit of history

in an awkward moment. Let's play that and then talk about it.

One thing you don't want to signal too much, when we go in, we went in very hard and we didn't

tell anybody about it because we wanted surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan?

Why didn't you tell me about Pearl Harbor?

You could see the Prime Minister breathing in there, obviously, for more than 80 years,

the U.S. and Japan have been trying to heal that relationship and have had a strong bond.

Was that an issue for President Trump? Were you surprised by it? How do you think people will hear

that? I wasn't particularly surprised by that. I think the president likes to keep foreign

leaders on their toes. I'm a political reporter. I was in the White House when Trump made a similar

crack at the German Chancellor's face. This kind of thing is common with him. I think he likes to

keep foreign leaders on their toes. I think broadly speaking, those two do have a solid relationship.

She's kind of new to her posts and maybe he's trying to test her a little bit, but definitely

kind of a wild thing to watch in real time. It was something to watch. And Chuck, what do you think

in terms of the president has said he wants help from Japan with a straight-of-formos that has not

been forthcoming? That is a moment where she appeared uncomfortable, hard to know what was in her

thoughts. I think every time he has one of these things in the White House where he has a foreign

leader there, and he spent so much of his presidency deal with international. And I understand,

as the president, you have to deal with international matters. But what I just said while I go,

is there's so much wrong on domestic soil. And I think every time my voter sees whether it's this

person or this other folks, they see them dealing with international stuff when they're like, we

should be focusing on what things are at home. Well, let's go home in terms of you had worked in

the White House. You were a part of the Trump administration in the 45-era. Want to point your

attention to the reporting we've talked about today from some of my colleagues about Cory Lewandowski,

who you obviously know, who's been working as a top aide to Secretary Nome at DHS. So the

reporting suggests that there may have been requests for some kind of compensation in exchange for

contracts related to, especially the mass deportations. He denies those claims. Does that have

legs in a Trump White House? Is that something that would get the president's attention?

Of course it would, Kelly. And I think also the fact that you're seeing Republicans

initiate investigations, I don't think they'd be doing that unless the White House was comfortable

with it. I think there's no doubt that President Trump could tell them to stop those investigations,

the fact that he's not, gives me every bullet reason to believe that the White House is

comfortable investigating this further. And is there an atmosphere in sort of the Trump era where

people are engaged in some level of business relationships? We see that with Jared Kushner,

who is also one of these, he's not even a special government employee at this time, but he is not

being paid by taxpayers, but he's in roles officially. Is there an environment that's been fostered

by the Trump administration? I think in the Second Chop of administration there's an extraordinary

amount of grift that I think a lot of Americans are uncomfortable with. And so I think this is

just a piece of it. I think also when you think about the way this presidency started with Doge,

and about us all talking about waste fraud and abuse, and we were going to save all of this money,

I think that this flies in the face of that. I think the American voter is just won'ting somebody

to be responsible and spend their tax dollars on things that matter to them. We're at a turning

point, Audrey, with the Department of Homeland Security awaiting a new secretary. A first step of

the vote today from Arquain Mullin, the committee passed him out through the Senate. Now for the next

review. Do you see that as a turn the page moment based on your reporting there? I absolutely do.

I think people are really optimistic that Mullin will work better with DHS officials. You

has to remember looking back. I mean, the straw that really broke the camel's back was the

president's frustration that during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Nome had suggested that

the president greenlit that $220 million ad campaign that's become so controversial. Beyond that,

there's also been a lot of infighting between Nome and other DHS leaders like Borders,

our Tom Homan and others. There's hope that under Mullin, that kind of infighting will stop.

And do you get a sense that that could in any way lead to a resolution of the budget impasse with

DHS or is that on its own track? I think it's shocking. The midst of us having a conflict with

a random Democrats are stopping funding a Department of Homeland Security. You've already seen a

couple domestic incidents. And the fact that they're not providing security for the United States

citizens, I think, is absolutely shocking. I was surprised, though, in the hearing that I thought

Republicans should have been focused on that message. Like, the fact that Republicans aren't hitting

that message each and every day, I think it's an incredible liability for Democrats. We should be

on the offense there. But instead, we're talking about, you know, personal attacks on Rand Paul as

opposed to focusing on Democrats, not funding Homeland Security. There were a couple of senators,

Moreno and Holly, who took their time to make that case. But it should be unified. Yeah, it did

not break through with some of the contentious aspects of this. I want to say thank you to our

panel. Appreciate all your insights and coming in today and giving us your real-world expertise.

Thank you so much. And we're going to turn now to the latest installment of what we call our

Common Ground series, where Democratic Congressman Jimmy Panetta of California and Republican

Congressman Tracy Mann of Kansas have teamed up to co-captain the Congressional football team.

Now, while they didn't win their annual game against the U.S. Capitol Police this week,

the Congressman told Kristen Wilker, of course, regular host of this program that part of being on

the team is about much more than the game itself. And it has helped Republicans and Democrats come

together, have some fun, tackle. No pun intended. Yeah, it is intended. Some of the congressional

issues that can be most troubling. Let's look at her conversation. So you're both sore after this

game. Little bit in the review mirror, still sore, still some bumps and bruises, but slowly recovery.

Well, Congressman Panetta, this game is about so much more than football. This is about raising money.

And it's about bipartisanship. So y'all didn't win the game, but talk about the importance and why

you wanted to participate in it. Yeah, that's an understatement about not winning, but the fact is

that there are other goals when it comes to the Congressional football game in which Democrats

and Republicans with the aid of a few former football players play against the Capitol Police.

Obviously it is about the game, but it's also about the charities that we support. I think we raised

over $350,000 for four charities, especially the Capitol Police Memorial Fund, Boys and Girls Club

here in Washington, DC, A Advantage for Kids and our military kids, all impactful charities that are

taking place and affecting people's lives right here. So yes, it's about the game. Yes, it's about

the charities, and it is about bipartisanship and opportunity for us to come together, which

unfortunately now is few and far between. Well, and pick up on that point, Congressman Man,

to what extent does this foster bipartisanship? You are co-cathed in this great team, and you and

I are talking about the practices are almost as important as the game itself. It's fun to get to

co-cathed with my good friend, Jim Panetta. You know, I'm from Kansas, he's from California. It

cannot be more different in some ways, but the point is you get to know people. And when you're

sweating in the mornings at practice and the sun's coming up, doesn't matter a part of your

firm, there's commonalities that you reach. You get to know people in a way you would,

and otherwise part of the problem in Washington, DC is that people just don't know each other,

and there are ways to do that. And things like this bipartisan football game,

one is a lot of fun, but two is the way to get to know people in ways you wouldn't otherwise.

Well, it's just fantastic and kudos for raising all of that money for really important causes.

On the issue of bipartisanship, I want to talk about some of the pressing issues facing Congress

right now. Let's start with the partial government shutdown, DHS shutdown currently,

Democrats demanding some key changes to ice tactics. The White House has actually put forward

some proposals. I want to read it so our viewers have a sense. The administration releasing

a letter detailing the changes it's willing to make, including body-worn cameras for officers

limiting immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, like hospitals and schools,

and allowing oversight of detention facilities. Congressman Man, would you vote for these reforms

to DHS? Is this something you could get behind? I'd have to look at them, but certainly,

the White House has put that forward. Those seem reasonable at first glance. It's always about

the details, but at the end of the day, we've got to come together as a country.

What you just outlined seems pretty reasonable to me, but we'll take a look at it.

Well, Congressman Pineda, the list that I just read only addresses some of what Democrats are

demanding. One of the big things is they're demanding that the masks be abandoned, that they

no longer can wear masks, for example. Do the reforms go far enough for you? Would you be able to get

behind what I just read? Yes, and look, as a former prosecutor, I dealt with law enforcement

quite a bit for close to 20 years. And if you're going to call yourself law enforcement, then

you dang well better act like law enforcement. And unfortunately, what we've seen, especially

in the Appalachian, through other parts of the country, you have a rogue agency that's acting

with impunity that really is not anything like the law enforcement I dealt with at the local

levels. And so I would hope that there are these certain basic common-sensical law enforcement

procedures and protocols that could get put in place before we do anything. You mentioned three

of them. Obviously, our leader, Jeffries has come out with a list of them that include other

things like judicial warrants before you go into a house, making sure there's not a paramilitary

force that's out there acting with impunity. And making sure that there are actually body

cameras that are worn, stored, and has proper protocols when it comes to that. So, like I said,

it comes down to, if you're going to call yourself law enforcement, you got to act like law enforcement.

And these types of procedures have to be put in place before we even consider determining whether

or not we're going to vote for DHS funding. All right, let's talk about the Save Act now. Again,

just for some context, it would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections

as well as a photo ID when voting. Nationwide Congressman Man Records showed that just 4% of voters,

0.04% of voter verification cases are returned as non-citizens. Why is this bill necessary?

Yeah, well, 4% matters a lot when you look at the elections around. We have some elections that

come down to 20, 30, 40 votes. I mean, every vote matters. Certainly, Kansas has had these

reforms for a long time. You know, proof of citizenship to be able to vote and then photo ID,

you know, when actually the day of very reasonable to me, common sense, widely popular amongst

Republicans and Democrats, I proudly supported the Save American Act and want to see it signed into law.

And Congressman Penetra, what do you make of those arguments? You do have a majority of people

who do support some type of reforms to voter ID. Yeah, look, I'm all for showing some form of

identification in the voter registration or voting process. The Save Act, unfortunately,

isn't about putting up barriers is what's happening here. And it's making it more difficult and

tougher and actually going after something that really isn't an issue when it comes to undocumented

people voting. There is yet to be any sort of solid evidence that's been presented to make this

such a big deal. Again, I'm for voter identification, but it also comes down to when they show it,

how they show it, what form of identification is necessary. And it was just so burdensome in the

Save Act, it's why I voted against it. Congressman Nan, the president is proposing adding some

amendments to the Save Act, which you're likely aware of. It would include banning biological

men from women's sports and transition surgeries for transgender minors. Do you think those

amendments make it even more difficult to pass the Save Act, which is already in a pill battle?

Yeah, we'll see the Save America Act just passed the House twice now. I've probably supported it

over some, it's over in the Senate right now. They'll be various amendments that will come up on

the Senate side probably and we'll just have to take a look at what those actually end up being.

Do you think those amendments, though, do make it more complicated to get it through?

But actually, but a lot of those amendments, there's quite a bit of bipartisan support,

some common sense things as well. So it just all depends on what the amendment is and how it's

approached. All right, I want to zoom out a little bit and talk about actual ways that you think

Congress can do a better job of coming together. Public trust in Congress right now is near

historic lows, only 16% of Americans saying they approve of the way Congress is handling its job.

That's according to recent polling. Congressman Panetta, why do you think this number is so low

and what do you think you and your fellow lawmakers can do about it? Look, unfortunately,

when you turn on the TV today, excluding your show, you see you see the partisans yelling and

screaming at each other. And like I said earlier, good governing is just not sexy these days.

But to me, good governing is good politics. And that's why I'm here to get stuff done and to gravitate

towards people like Tracy, as you've heard, we're going to have our differences. But we're not here

just to point out our differences. We're here to at least find our similarities. And what I have

to tell you and your viewers is that for the most part, there are people on both sides out that

actually come here to work together to get stuff done. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people

who are here just to yell and scream to blow things up and to not find solutions. However,

people need to understand that for the most part, there are Democrats and Republicans willing to

sit down, willing to have those conversations, willing to get to know one another, to develop that

trust upon what you can actually come up with meaningful, impactful legislation.

Congressman Man, final point to you, what would you tell your fellow lawmakers about finding common

ground? Sure. Well, I started with Genshinon each other and really outlining where are the ways

that we can agree and come together. We have to remember that Congress is a lagging indicator,

not a leading indicator where the country is at. The country is very divided. So as a result,

of course, the Congress is going to be divided as well. We've got to keep talking about the areas

we have a lot of common ground. And those would be things like, I look at these housing bills that

are coming up. There's a lot of broad bipartisan support to lower the cost of housing.

I'm on the House ad committee, broad bipartisan support out of a farm bill that we passed out

a committee two weeks ago. There's going to be a big surface transportation re-authorization.

Roads, bridges, art, Republican or Democrat, they need to be done for the good of the citizens,

and those are things we ought to be focusing on. Beyond just being co-chairs and co-captains

of the football team, we're co-chairs of the future farmers of America caucus. And so he has

different agriculture than with his row crops, than my specialty crops, but there are certain areas

and the people who work in agriculture are where we want to find our similarities and solutions for

them knowing how hard they work. And we both strongly support young people looking at agriculture

as a career field, and that's an easy thing to get behind. Well, undoubtedly all of this football

practices helped you define some of that common ground as well, and that critical issue. Thank you

for raising that. Really appreciate it. Congressman Mann and Congressman Panetta, great conversation.

Thanks for being here. Thank you. Thank you.

And I'll add our thanks to the Congressman Andrew Christian for that thoughtful conversation.

We will be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now. And as always, you can catch up on full

episodes of Meet the Press and Meet the Press now with the Meet the Press podcast. Just scan

the QR code and listen now whenever, wherever you get your podcast. There's more news ahead on NBC News Now.

Easy way with Expedia. She bundled her flight with a hotel to save more. Of course, she still climbed

all 674 steps to the top of the Eiffel Tower. You were made to take the easy route. We were made

to easily package your trip. Expedia made to travel. Flight inclusive packages are at all protected.