KRISTEN WELKER:
This Sunday: Pentagon pressure. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faces growing scrutiny over the strikes on alleged drug boats as questions grow over the legal basis for the attacks.
SEC. PETE HEGSETH:
The thing was on fire. It was exploded in fire and smoke. You can't see anything. You got digital, there's – this is called the fog of war.
REP. JIM HIMES:
You have two individuals in clear distress.
SEN. TOM COTTON:
I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat, loaded with drugs bound for the United States, back over so they could stay in the fight.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I’ll talk to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California. Plus: Hard lines. President Trump dismisses concerns about the cost of living.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
This is fake narrative that the Democrats talk about affordability; they just say the word. It doesn't mean anything to anybody.
KRISTEN WELKER:
As the Supreme Court allows Texas to use its newly redrawn map that favors Republicans. What will it all mean for next year's midterms? I’ll talk to Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. And: Crackdown. Immigration raids expand in New Orleans and Minneapolis as the president ramps up his rhetoric against Somali immigrants.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t want them in our country. We’re going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Joining me for insight and analysis are: USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page; Sam Jacobs, editor-in-chief of TIME; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan; and Adrienne Elrod, former senior adviser to the Harris campaign. Welcome to Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good Sunday morning. The demand for answers is growing louder over the Trump administration’s targeted strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in the hot seat over a September operation that targeted two men who survived an initial strike on their vessel, but were killed in a second hit. The admiral in charge of the mission appearing on Capitol Hill this week for closed-door briefings with members of Congress. New this morning, NBC News reporting that Admiral Frank Bradley told lawmakers that everyone on the boat was on a list of military targets, while the Trump administration maintains its actions have been legal.
[BEGIN TAPE]
SEC. PETE HEGSETH:
I did not personally see survivors, but I stand because the thing was on fire. It was exploded in fire and smoke. You can't see anything. You got digital – this is called the fog of war.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think you're going to find that this is war. I think you're going to find that there's a very receptive ear to doing exactly what they're doing, taking out those boats, and very soon we're going to start doing it on land, too.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
The reaction breaking along party lines, with Republicans defending the Pentagon’s decisions while top Democrats on Capitol Hill expressing deep concerns.
[BEGIN TAPE]
SEN. TOM COTTON:
The first strike, the second strike, and the third and the fourth strike on September 2 were entirely lawful and needful, and they were exactly what we expect our military commanders to do.
REP. JIM HIMES:
What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service. You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
And joining me now is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who was in those briefings this week, Republican Tom Cotton of Arkansas. Senator Cotton, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Thanks for having me on, Kristen.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you so much for being here after a very big week. I want to ask you about our new reporting. NBC News is reporting this morning that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, his order was to kill all 11 individuals on that boat because they were on a list of narco-terrorists who intelligence and military officials determined could be legally targeted. Was Secretary Hegseth's order to kill everyone on the boat because they were on this target list, Senator?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
The order, like the entire operation, Kristen, is to destroy these drug boats, which are running drugs into our country from foreign drug cartels and traffickers that are killing hundreds of Arkansans every year and hundreds of thousands of Americans. You know, of course before our military conducts such a strike, they have multiple sources of intelligence. They give high confidence that everyone on that boat is a foreign drug trafficker, not an innocent civilian who's being human trafficked for instance. And therefore, Secretary Hegseth said, and I agree, they're all valid targets. Now this controversy, let's remember, all started with a Washington Post story about nine days ago that said after the first strike, there were two survivors that were helpless. And then they were ordered to kill these helpless survivors. That is simply not the case. They were not floating in the ocean on a wooden plank or in life jackets. They were on a capsized vessel. They were not incapacitated in any way. It was entirely appropriate to strike the boat again to make sure that its cargo was destroyed. It is in no way a violation of the law of war. And I think the Washington Post owes Secretary Hegseth and especially Admiral Mitch Bradley, a highly decorated career Navy SEAL, an apology for that slander.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. And we're going to get to what you saw in the video momentarily. But I just want to be very clear. But what you're saying is significant, Senator. It sounds like you're confirming – did Admiral Bradley brief lawmakers that in fact all of the people on that boat were on a military target list? Is that accurate?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
I did not hear him personally say anything about a military target list. Now, he had several briefings throughout the day. I wasn't in the briefing, for instance, with Mark Warner, my counterpart in the Senate Intelligence Committee. I can only say what he told me. He said that they had high confidence based on multiple sources of intelligence that everyone on that boat was part of a foreign terrorist organization, and had been designated by the U.S. government –
KRISTEN WELKER:
So they could be legally –
SEN. TOM COTTON:
– as drug cartels –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– targeted. They could be lethally --
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Yes, that these were –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– and legally targeted –
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Yes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– he argued.
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Yes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay –
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Both before the first strike and after the first strike.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Was Admiral Bradley acting on Secretary Hegseth's orders, Senator?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Well, anytime you have an operation like this there's an operation order. It's written down. It's got very detailed instructions. I think because this was the first strike, Secretary Hegseth and Admiral Bradley both wanted to be present and be making the decision. As you heard Secretary Hegseth in the opening say, he initiated the first strike. You've seen the video. There's a lot of smoke. It takes a long time to clear. I'm sure Secretary Hegseth had many other matters that he had to attend to. And he trusts Admiral Bradley. Once the smoke had cleared, once the cloud cover cleared, it was clear that the first strike had not destroyed the boat. And Admiral Bradley made the decision for the second strike. Now in subsequent strikes since then, because there's been more than 20, obviously it's no longer Secretary Hegseth or even four-star generals making that decision, nor should it be. But on the first strike I believe they both wanted to be present and be observing it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about the aftermath of that first strike. The Pentagon's Law of War Manual, which you're familiar with having served in Iraq and Afghanistan says, quote, "Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal." Given that, how was that follow-on strike of two survivors legal, Senator?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Well, again, Kristen, they were not incapacitated. They were not in the water surviving only because they had a life jacket or hanging to a plank of wood. They were sitting on that boat. They were clearly moving around on it. That is in contrast, for instance, to another strike that Secretary Hegseth described just yesterday in October in which you had two survivors who were in that state. They were essentially just dog-paddling in the water. And what happened on that strike, a U.S. vessel went and picked those survivors up and took them back to their home country. That's just an example of how our military makes these decisions based on the facts and circumstances of each particular case consistent with laws and with the directive you just stated.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I hear you saying they weren't incapacitated. And yet Democratic Congressman Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking member in the House Armed Services committee, saw this very differently. He saw that video. He said, quote, "It looks like two classically shipwrecked people." Other lawmakers who saw the video said, "The two men appeared to raise their arms potentially to signal that they were trying to surrender." Senator, why did Admiral Bradley interpret those actions as anything other than these two men trying to seek help and survive?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Well, again, they were sitting or standing on top of a capsized boat. They weren't floating helplessly in the water. And Kristen, I don't think it matters all that much what they were trying to do. They looked at one point like they were trying to flip the boat back over presumably to rescue its cargo and continue their mission.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Or to stay afloat –
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Maybe they –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– potentially?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Maybe they were signaling to other airplanes or drug cartel boats because they're in waters that are just off drug cartel areas. At one point the guy takes off his T-shirt. Maybe he's trying to get a suntan. It doesn't really matter what they were trying to do. What matters is they were not in a shipwrecked state, distressed, dog-paddling in the water at all. And therefore, that boat, its cargo, and those drug traffickers remained valid targets. And I think what the Democrats object to here is not the second strike, it's the first strike and every other strike –
KRISTEN WELKER:
And we are going to –
SEN.TOM COTTON:
– on all these boats.
KRISTEN WELKER:
We are going to talk about that as well. You continue to talk about one of them took off his shirt as if he's trying to suntan. But again, your colleagues, some of them saying, "Look, they were waving their arms around." Isn't it possible that even the act of taking off a T-shirt could have been part of an attempt to get attention for help?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Or it could have been an attempt to signal to another cartel boat to come pick them up and pick up the cargo.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But is there confirmation of what –
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Well, Kristen –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– they were doing –
SEN. TOM COTTON:
– but again for –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– and what their intentions were –
SEN. TOM COTTON:
– for Admiral Bradley's decision, it doesn't really matter what they were doing. They were on that boat. That boat was still a valid target. They were not in a state of distress on a plank of wood in the ocean like subsequent survivors were. And when that was the case in October, our military did the right thing. It sent a vessel. It picked them up. It took them back to shore.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You're saying this boat was a threat to the United States. And yet NBC is reporting that Admiral Bradley told the lawmakers the drugs were heading first to Suriname, that's another South American country, and then ultimately to Europe or Africa. How is a boat that's not heading to the United States an imminent threat to this country, Senator?
SEN.TOM COTTON:
Well, that's one possibility based on the tactics and techniques that we've observed of these drug cartels. They send smaller boats to sea. And then they link up with a larger boat where they continue their mission. I didn't hear that specifically from Admiral Bradley in my briefing. But what we know is that these drug cartels, which are designated foreign terrorist organizations, are trafficking drugs to our shores. And when we have an opportunity to strike one of these boats, or the intelligence gives us high confidence that everyone on the boat is a valid target because they are associated with these cartels, then I think we need to strike it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But, Senator –
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Now, there's other cases when we don't have that high confidence, when there might be, for instance, young girls that are being trafficked. Then obviously our military wouldn't take that strike. I think it's much more likely that we're missing some opportunities to strike these boats and protect Americans because we don't have the same high level of confidence.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Senator, is there any hard evidence that shows that this particular boat was headed to the United States?
SEN.TOM COTTON:
That didn't come up in my briefing. But again there's very reliable multiple sources of intelligence that tells us that this boat had drugs on it, that everyone on that boat was associated with these designated foreign terrorist organizations that are trying to kill American children.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But are you comfortable having the United States target a boat in which you have not seen evidence that it's actually heading to the United States, that it's an imminent threat?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Any boat loaded with drugs that is crewed by associates and members of foreign terrorist organizations that are trying to kill American kids I think is a valid target. I'm not just comfortable with it, I want to continue it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Do you think that the video should be released in full to the American public as President Trump has said he would support?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
So I personally don't have any problem with it. It's not gruesome. I didn't find it distressing or disturbing. It looks like any number of dozens of strikes we've seen on Jeeps and pickup trucks in the Middle East over the years. I will say that the department may have valid concerns about revealing what we know about tactics and techniques that these cartels are using or about our sources or methods. And I would trust Secretary Hegseth and his team to make the decision about whether they can declassify and release the video. But again, there's nothing remarkable on that video in my opinion.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let's talk bigger picture, as you were just alluding to. The Trump administration overall, these military actions, has taken action against 22 alleged drug boats, killing 86 people. Now Republican Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio made the point. He said this, quote, "If the people in these boats were captured and had a trial and were convicted, they would not be subject to capital punishment. They would go to jail." Why should death without due process be the punishment for would-be drug smugglers at sea?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Well, what President Trump is trying to do and what I support is to protect Americans from these drugs, especially kids. Again we've had hundreds of thousands of Americans die of drug overdoses in recent years. And it's been proven that the best way to have a large-scale effect on these drug traffickers is to destroy these boats. Interdiction is very dangerous for our sailors or for our Coast Guardsmen. It's time-consuming. And it's clear over the years that it simply doesn't have the kind of impact that blowing up these boats does. Right now there's been a significant decrease in drugs trafficked into our country. And I bet there's a significant decrease in the number of cartel members who are willing to get on these boats.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But the United States doesn't shoot people at the border who are bringing drugs into the country. Why should it be different at sea? Are you saying we should start shooting people at the border?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
We're – no, I'm not, Kristen. But we are going to the source where we have large-scale boats that are trafficking hundreds if not thousands of pounds of drugs that could kill thousands of Americans, hundreds of Arkansans a year. It is a highly effective and efficient way to stop these drugs from reaching our shores.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You are talking about the president protecting Americans, Arkansans from drugs, and yet just this week the president pardoned the former president of Honduras who trafficked more than 500 tons of cocaine into the United States. He was serving a 45-year sentence, Senator. How does that make America safer?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Well, I haven't spoken to the president about that pardon. There may be strategic reasons to pardon the former president of Honduras because of our relationship with Honduras and trying to move them in a more pro-American direction. I'll leave that open as a possibility. But Kristen, I think you know my general approach to crime is that we should lock them – we should convict them and that we should lock them up. And once they're locked up, we should keep them locked up.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So given that, do you oppose the pardon given that you're saying –
SENATOR TOM COTTON:
I'd have –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– you want to protect Arkansans?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
I'd have to know more about the circumstances. Sometimes pardons of foreign nationals who have been leaders of other countries do have underlying strategic reasons. But my approach, as you know Kristen, to crime is to lock them up, throw away the key, and don't let them out.
KRISTEN WELKER:
The War Powers Act requires the president to notify Congress of the reason for committing combat troops within 48 hours of their deployment, and it specifies that hostilities must end within 60 days unless Congress extends that period. If the president wants to continue these strikes, which he says he's going to do, do you believe he needs to seek congressional approval?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
No, I don't, Kristen. There's literally hundreds if not thousands of examples of presidents using the military to protect America going back to the earliest days of our republic. You don't have to go back that far though. In 1989 George Bush authorized the invasion of Panama and overthrew its government but their illegitimate dictator was a U.S.-indicted drug trafficker. If George Bush can invade a Latin American country and overthrow its regime, I think President Bush has every power under the Constitution to strike boats in international waters from foreign terrorist-designated organizations.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Final question to you, Senator. The Pentagon's inspector general was out with a report this week concluding that when Secretary Hegseth shared secret information about the United States attack plan in a Signal group chat, he, quote, "created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed U.S. mission objectives and potential harm to U.S. pilots." Do you still have confidence in Secretary Hegseth?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Absolutely. 100%. And I've read the report, not just the public report, but the classified report. It exonerated Secretary Hegseth of any criminal wrongdoing, the rest of the group chat as well. And Kristen, by the time they were sharing that information on the Signal app, they were also calling their foreign counterparts to let them know what had happened on open lines. I just think this is a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But based on what the IG found, which found that he could have potentially caused harm to U.S. pilots, are you comfortable with the Pentagon continuing to use Signal to communicate sensitive information?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Well, I'm not going to opine on what communication apps or devices our government does or does not use and tell the bad guys that on national television –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Would you urge them not to use Signal though?
SEN. TOM COTTON:
I am confident that Secretary Hegseth is making the right decisions to protect our country also to keep other administration officials and our foreign counterparts informed. I have total confidence in the job he's doing.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Senator Tom Cotton, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.
SEN. TOM COTTON:
Thank you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California joins me next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. And joining me now is Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California. Senator Schiff, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
Good to be with you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, it's great to have to have you back. We appreciate it. Let me start on the boat strikes, what I was just discussing with Senator Tom Cotton. You heard his robust defense of these strikes. He says that they are lawful. Let me put this question to you, Senator. I know you haven't seen the video, but based on what you know, do you believe these boat strikes are legal?
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
No, I don't. They're unlawful. They're unconstitutional. And killing two people who are shipwrecked at sea is also morally repugnant. I agree with Tom, we should do everything lawfully that we can to stop the scourge of drugs coming into this country. But this is not at all lawful or constitutional. And frankly, if the Pentagon and our defense secretary are so proud of what they're doing, let the American people see that video. Let the American people see two people standing on a capsized boat, or sitting on a capsized boat, and deliberately killed and decide for themselves whether they're proud of what the country is doing. I can't imagine people would be proud of that. And as you pointed out, the Manual on the Law of War makes it explicit that killing people who are shipwrecked is illegal, is a violation of law. And the most troubling thing I heard from Senator Cotton was when he said it really didn't matter what these people were doing on that capsized boat, whether they were signaling their distress and asking for rescue or what they were doing. It does matter. It does matter. And, you know, one point I would share with him, and that is I also think that all of these strikes are unlawful. They're a form of extrajudicial killing. These boats are not invading the United States in an armed assault. They're thousands of miles away. Some of them, maybe even this vessel, if reports are accurate, wasn't even heading to the United States. And for us to be engaged in this kind of unauthorized campaign of extrajudicial killing, couldn't be I think a more clear violation of the law. The fact that the administration may put a group of organizations, terrorists, narco-terrorist organizations on a list doesn't change the legal ability, doesn't confer on a president the ability to kill them at sea. You could put anyone you want on a list. It doesn't make it lawful to say I can now kill them. And one final point, they've been very fast and loose with whether they know exactly who is on those ships. Or they're just saying they're associated with a terrorist organization on a secret list. And we need a thorough investigation to find out what the orders were, whether it was to kill everybody in an organization without knowing specifically who these people were, or what the situation was.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Senator Schiff, let me ask you, because Admiral Bradley did consult with the military lawyer in the room before that second strike. There were hundreds of uniformed and civilian personnel at the Pentagon reportedly watching this operation. Wouldn't they have raised a red flag if they thought this attack was illegal?
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, we can't forget the backdrop to this, which is it's been reported that the admiral in charge of Southern Command left that command, potentially over concerns about these strikes. The top lawyer in that command may have been fired or forced to resign. So it all depends on whether you bring in a lawyer to simply tell you what you want to hear. We have seen inspector generals pushed out. We've seen lawyers pushed out, top military lawyers pushed out. So you can always find a lawyer to give you the advice you want to hear. That doesn't make it the right legal advice. And having read that Office of Legal Counsel opinion, that is still classified, I can say in the most general of terms, that it looks like one strained legal argument piled on another strained legal argument piled on another. We are boot-strapping an argument that takes people that are thousands of miles away or more than a thousand miles away, some of which who are not even heading to this country, who are not engaged in an armed attack on this country, and we are somehow labeling them "invading enemy combatants" to justify their extrajudicial killing. And that doesn't make it lawful –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Senator –
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
– coming up with some legal rationale doesn't make it lawful.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Senator, let me ask you about the president's argument that he is making this week. He said, quote, "I think you're going to find that this is war. Have you seen what happens with the families of not only the people killed, the people that are trying to get their son or their daughter off of this poison that they've been fed? I think you're going to find that there's a very receptive ear to doing exactly what they're doing." Now the administration has not provided evidence of who's on the boats or what the boats are carrying. But what do you say to American families who do agree with President Trump's argument that these strikes may be making them safer?
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, first of all, I agree that this is a scourge on the country, the flow of illegal drugs coming into America, and most particularly fentanyl, which is not what's involved in these boat strikes. But I would say this to the president: "If that's the case, then why did you pardon the former president of Honduras, who as you pointed out, was convicted in a massive cocaine smuggling scheme?" It is simply the most blatant hypocrisy. And you can't explain it except, I think, when you look at what's really going on here which is: this is not about drug trafficking for the president, it's about regime change, it's about forcing Maduro out. And how do you rationalize pardoning the former president of one country for drug-running and bringing in an aircraft carrier, bringing in a massive amount of sailors and other forces to try to force one president out when you just pardoned another for essentially the same offense? So none of it makes sense. The American people don't want to go to war with Venezuela. And yes, we should be interdicting people bringing drugs in this country. We should be prosecuting them. We shouldn't be simply killing people at sea who are not even coming to this country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Senator, let me look forward with you, if I might. The president's saying U.S. military will begin targeting Latin American drug smuggling operations with land strikes, quote, "very soon including in Venezuela." You have introduced a bipartisan resolution that would effectively block U.S. forces for military action in Venezuela unless authorized by Congress. Do you believe that you have enough votes to get your resolution passed?
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
I don't know. I think it's very possible that we could. We had two Republicans vote with us. Tim Kaine and I and Rand Paul have introduced the last couple resolutions. Now, this is the third resolution. And that number may grow as people watch what has just taken place and are appalled by it. One of the reasons that we began introducing these resolutions is we wanted to protect our troops who might be put in harm's way. But we also wanted to protect them not just from physical harm, but from legal harm. And now we have, you know, everyone in the chain of command that carried out this strike on these shipwrecked people, you know, potentially facing legal liability. That is not good for our country. It's not good for our service members. So I think the support for these resolutions is likely to grow. And it will grow further if the president follows through and actually releases this video to the American people, because I think the clamor that will cause will force my colleagues to support an end to these strikes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Senator, a final question here on the inspector general report of that group chat on Signal that was used by Secretary Hegseth, the report finding that he ran the risk of potentially endangering U.S. troops when he shared secret information about military operations. Secretary Hegseth says the report exonerates him. You just heard Senator Tom Cotton say the same thing. What say you? Do you believe that this report exonerates Secretary Hegseth legally?
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
No, of course not. And it's another powerful reason why Hegseth should be fired. He should be fired over this killing of these survivors at sea. And he should be fired for endangering our pilots. That inspector general report made it clear that his actions and using this commercial app to signal military strike plans ahead of those strikes endangered our pilots. It also endangered the success of the mission. That is more than enough reason to get rid of him. That kind of dangerous incompetence puts everyone at risk. His claim of exoneration is based on the fact that he has the authority to declassify information. And he is deeming it declassified because he went through this reckless step of, you know, texting it out on Signal to a journalist and family members and others. But the threat to our service members and to the mission remained, whatever you call it. That material was classified before he sent it out. And I think it was classified when he did. So there needs to be some accountability or other people are going to be put in harm's way.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, Senator Adam Schiff, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it.
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
Thank you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina joins me next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back and joining me now is Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina, the author of the new book “The First Eight: A Personal History of the Pioneering Black Congressman Who Shaped a Nation.” Congressman Clyburn, welcome back to Meet the Press. Congratulations on the new book.
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
Well, thank you very much for having me back.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you so much for being here. We'll get to your book in just a moment. But let's start with this big Supreme Court ruling this week that basically allows Texas to use a redrawn congressional map which is favorable to Republicans. Democrats have been responding to efforts in Texas and other states in kind with blue states like California trying to add additional Democratic seats. But some in your party, including your friend Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, are warning against this tit-for-tat response. Here's what he said, Congressman. He said, "If you fight fire with fire long enough, all you're going to have left is ashes." What do you say to Congressman Cleaver and others like him who fear that this tit-for-tat response could ultimately undermine the Democratic norms of this country?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
I agree with him entirely. The fact of the matter is we are seeing today, and this is so much of what The First Eight is all about, a repeat of a history that led to some catastrophic consequences in our previous history. My book is all about what happened after the Civil War, what happened when the reconstruction came to an end that led to Jim Crow. And it's all about the Supreme Court at that time, starting with the Slaughter-House cases, all the way up to Plessy v. Ferguson, made a mockery, see, of – of democracy. And that is what we are approaching today. Are we going to continue our pursuit of a more perfect union or are we going to make a mockery out of this democracy?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and in your book, “The First Eight,” I have it here with me, I want to talk a little bit more about what you write. You write that your rise in politics was made possible thanks to three landmark laws. Here's your quote. You say, "The hard-won successes of the movements I have served in, the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the 1968 Fair Housing Act provided the faith and promise that I could one day serve in public office." You are currently the only Democrat representing South Carolina. Your district was created as a result of the Voting Rights Act. Congressman, let me ask you: if the Supreme Court rules to further weaken the Voting Rights Act, would that effectively wipe out Democratic representation in your state for the foreseeable future?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
Absolutely. When I used to teach history down in Charleston, South Carolina, I used to say to my students all the time, "Anything that's happened before can happen again." And this is exactly what happened before. This “First Eight” is about the first eight African Americans that served in Congress from South Carolina. I'm the ninth. The problem is there are 95 years between number eight and number nine, and I believe that what we are approaching with this Supreme Court could very well result in the next century being one that will repeat that which took place in the previous century in 1877.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, those are pretty stark words and let me kind of push this conversation forward a little bit and have you respond to some of the rhetoric at least that we are hearing. This week, President Trump referred to people in the Somalian community as, quote, unquote, "garbage," even singling out Congressman Ilhan Omar. This, of course, a part of his broader crackdown on illegal immigration, but what do you make of the rhetoric that we heard this week from President Trump?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
It is incredible. And of course, once again, it is not new. The number – seventh guy on this list of eight, Thomas Miller, was referred to as a canary. And number eight on that list, George Washington Murray, was nicknamed "the Black Crow." This kind of nicknaming that took place after the Civil War trying to discredit the people of color is exactly what we're seeing now. People see all these nicknames denigrating people, devaluing their existence. That is not the kind of stuff of which our country has been made. We got over that after the 1954 Supreme Court decision. Why should we start back in that direction? And so when you look at the Somalians out in Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, she is one incredible young lady who has withstood a lot in her life. And I have defended her and her Somalian brethrens. And I do believe that's what this country is all about. It is what made us a great country. And what we've got to do is continue that trek toward a more perfect union. We'll never be perfect, but we should always be in pursuit of perfection. And we don't do that by turning back the clock and having a future for our children and grandchildren much like the past was for my parents and grandparents. That's not the American way.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about the Democratic Party now. Former Vice President Harris has said sexism and racism played a major role in her defeat back in 2024. In remarks last month, former First Lady Michelle Obama said something really interesting. I want to play it for you and get your reaction on the other side. Take a look.
[BEGIN TAPE]
MICHELLE OBAMA:
As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain't ready. That's why I'm like, "Don't even look at me about running because you all are lying. You're not ready for a woman."
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Congressman, do you think that America is ready to elect a woman president? Or do you agree with the former first lady?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
Well, history is prologued, and I understand exactly what Kamala Harris has said. I had a very pleasant conversation with her last week. Michelle Obama is absolutely correct. If you look at the history, we demonstrated that we were not ready. These are incredible women who have run, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris. And I think that we are getting there. That's why we can't afford to turn the clock back. We've taken one, two and three steps forward. Let's not take two, three and four steps backwards, which is what we're doing in these elections. So just because it doesn't seem that we are ready, doesn't mean we should stop the pursuit. It’s never – my dad used to tell me all the time, "Son, the darkest point of the night is that moment just before dawn." And so we may be in a dark moment as it relates to women serving as president. But we may be in that moment just before dawn when a woman will serve. And in order for that to happen, they have got to run. So I want women to run. I'm going to support them. I'm the father of three fantastic women. I want them to keep their pursuit and not give up on this country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Congressman Clyburn, thank you much – so much. We always appreciate having you.
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
Thank you very much for having me.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right and when we come back, a national security scandal where the major players admitted mistakes were made. Our Meet the Press Minute is next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. The Pentagon's scrutiny over its targeting of suspected drug boats echoes another crisis from decades ago when a secret military operation erupted into a national scandal. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration secretly sold arms to Iran hoping to free American hostages held by Hezbollah, and diverted the profits to fund the anti-communist contras in Nicaragua despite a congressional ban. The Iran-Contra Affair quickly grew into a major political crisis for the Reagan White House. Vice President George H.W. Bush addressed it right here on Meet the Press.
[BEGIN TAPE]
VICE PRES. GEORGE H.W. BUSH:
I have said that mistakes were made on this and now we're moving forward.
CHRIS WALLACE:
Did you make mistakes?
VICE PRES. GEORGE H.W. BUSH:
Sure. In retrospect.
CHRIS WALLACE:
Why? What was your mistake?
VICE PRES. GEORGE H.W. BUSH:
Well, if I'd had a lot more knowledge of what was going on I would've said, "Don't do this." Or if I'd have been sharp enough to see into the future that a program that started out as not having arms for hostages turned into that, I'd have said, "Don't do that."
CHRIS WALLACE:
But you're –
VICE PRES. GEORGE H.W. BUSH:
And if I'd have had – if I’d have been a little more, you know, perceptive about the future I would've said, "Let's convene the National Security Council to be sure that everybody who has a different opinion is heard so the president can benefit by the advice of everybody." And I didn't do that. But now we're moving forward. Mistakes were made, and everyone admits that. And so I don't see much use in dwelling on what I told the president or not because I am not going to now do that which I've been unwilling to do for seven years.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, is President Trump's handling of the issue of affordability going to cost his party in the midterms? The panel is next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. The panel is here. Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today; Editor-in-Chief of Time, Sam Jacobs; Peggy Noonan, columnist for the Wall Street Journal; and Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod. Thanks to all of you for being here. Susan, let me start with you. Let's talk about these boat strikes. What's so extraordinary is that you had these closed-door briefings this week on Capitol Hill. Democrats and Republicans emerged with two totally different interpretations of what happened. What do you make of this divide that we're seeing, what we heard from Senator Cotton this morning?
SUSAN PAGE:
Watching the same videos, seeing very different things. Look what you heard in – in your interviews this morning, Senator Cotton saying everything was entirely appropriate. Senator Schiff saying illegal and unconstitutional. You know, there was a moment about a week ago where there was kind of bipartisan concern about holding the administration accountable to these – to the specific attacks on September 2nd, but also the entire regime of attacks on boats. But that moment has passed. It looks like members of Congress have returned to their partisan corners. So if you're waiting for bipartisan oversight, not yet.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Sam, what do you make of this moment? The fact you heard Senator Cotton say he still has confidence in Secretary Hegseth, but clearly not ready to fully endorse the use of Signal as – as a separate matter, another controversy looming over the defense secretary.
SAM JACOBS:
There are three different controversies right now.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
SAM JACOBS:
One, his relationship with the press, keeping people outside the Pentagon. Two, the “Signalgate” issue. And then three, these boat strikes. And I think the fact that you asked the question is leading many people to believe, “Is he secure in this administration?” And I would say good luck to any of us who wants to predict what Donald Trump is going to do, his values, or intention here. He set up this administration to say, “It's going to be calmer, more stable than the last one.” We're not going to have this carousel of characters coming in and out. And at the same time, the president is an eternal programmer. And as we round the corner to year one, it's possible he's ready for new characters in this administration.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Peggy, what do you think? What do you make of that, and what do you make of what we are seeing from Congress?
PEGGY NOONAN:
I think it's interesting. Things are moving in a – things are sort of fluid, it seems to me. Although I know at the end everybody will go back to their corners, but the president's been president for about ten months now, and that is long enough to get on everybody's nerves. There is an old saying in politics, "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate," you know what I mean? So I think I see a lot – a little bit of that going on in Capitol Hill. I do think the – the boat story is going to stay, because at the end of the day it has to do with accusations of war crime. I think we should all keep in mind, as Tom Cotton said, this is an administration attempt which can be debated, but it's an attempt to keep drugs from coming to the American shores. And Americans will say “Thank you for that,” especially American parents. I also think it's hanging on as an issue because Pete Hegseth himself has a reputation as being a guy who's unduly cocky, and his comments tend to be aggressive and his pushback on the story has not been completely credible. So I think it's going to continue going for a while here.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Adrienne, pick up on the point that Peggy makes about – this is visceral for some American families. You heard the president make this argument about the fact that for parents who are afraid of or who have lost their children to drugs, they support these strikes, some of them. How do you Democrats navigate this moment, given that, the politics of this?
ADRIENNE ELROD:
Well I think – yeah. Well, first of all, 90% of fentanyl comes from the southern border. So I think it's important to bear that in mind. But look, here's the bottom line. I think this is where the Trump administration, yet again, has gotten themselves into a pickle. Democrats should lean into this. We should make it clear that we take our national security very seriously. We should also make it clear, as you heard Senator Schiff say, that the tapes should be released so that the American people can see for themselves what they actually think happened. We believe in transparency, but we also believe in the rule of law. And again, protecting our national security's important. But Americans should be able to see for themselves whether or not this was a war crime.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And of course, Sam, this is all taking place against the backdrop of the midterm elections. All of this is getting factored in for voters. At the top of the list, though, arguably, the economy, affordability. And what's fascinating is that we've heard President Trump really try to downplay the issue this week, referencing it as a Democratic hoax. He's going to Pennsylvania to talk about the economy on Tuesday. Do you think we're going to hear a different tone from him?
SAM JACOBS:
I'm – I’m almost certain we are. Here's why. The president says people don't know what affordability means. Senator Josh Hawley says, “People aren't dumb.” And in fact, preparing for this conversation, the last night, the White House press office sent out an email and it said, "The primary focus of the Trump administration is affordability." It's – it’s a challenge for the president because he knows he won the election because the Biden-Harris campaign couldn't win this argument. And he also has always offered himself up as an essential player in our lives. This is not someone who's hands off. When Time spoke with him in the Oval Office in April, he described the American economy as a department store, and the president as the store owner.
PEGGY NOONAN:
Woah.
KRISTEN WELKER:The imagery.
SAM JACOBS:
He told us in 2016 “I alone can fix it.” So it's very, very hard for him now to say, “Eh, Not my problem.”
KRISTEN WELKER:
Susan, what's so great about Sam's anecdote is that you have the White House press office and then you have what President Trump says. Do – do the two align at some point, do you think?
SUSAN PAGE:
No, not necessarily. Just because the White House press office says, "Affordability is our primary item on our agenda," doesn't make it so for President Trump because he's not running for reelection. He's running at this point for history. And that's why I think you see the focus on winning the Nobel Peace Prize, for instance, and leaving his physical stamp on everything from the Rose Garden to this new ballroom to the Kennedy Center.
SAM JACOBS:
But surely the White House knows holding onto Congress is the only way to preserve that mission.
SUSAN PAGE:
No, I think he is not particularly interested in any more legislation. I think he's interested in things he can do himself. So – so we'll see what happens.
SAM JACOBS:
But this is about investigations and subpoenas.
SUSAN PAGE:
And he's – he’s familiar with what happens when Democrats win the House.
SAM JACOBS:
Correct.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Peggy, what a great question to pose to you. Do you think he's interested in legislating or is he done? Is – is he deeply in the midterms and just trying to hold on to the House right now?
PEGGY NOONAN:
I think he's certainly trying to hold on to the House. Very important for Republicans, of course. He's on his back heels for the last two years of his administration if they don't. But I was so struck by the blooper this week that the president said on the “affordability crisis,” that it's kind of a con, a Democratic hex or whatever the heck. He sounded to me like Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam era when people were complaining that inflation's starting to go up and Johnson said, "Why are they complaining? They've never had it so good." Presidents get to the point where they say, "They've never had it so good," and it speaks to a detachment that has begun.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Adrienne, the parallels with what we saw with former President Biden and his reelection campaign are astounding. He struggled with his messaging on the economy. Are Democrats already cutting the campaign ads with some of the language we heard this week?
ADRIENNE ELROD:
Yes. "Affordability's a hoax." I mean – how many – ask American families who are trying to put food on their table and trying to put gas in their car and – and feed their families. Look, at the end of the day, here's the bottom line, Kristen. Affordability was the number one issue in the 2024 campaign. It's been the number one issue in every special election that we've had in the last year. It will be the number one issue in the midterms. Trump going out there and telling the American people that, "No, actually, the economy's fine, this is all a hoax, it's a Democratic hoax," people don't believe that. They will vote with their pocketbooks. It's a tale as old as time. That's exactly what we'll see happen in the midterms in 2026.
PEGGY NOONAN:
And when they start to feel that a president has become a little detached in his interests, gallivanting a bit about in the world, having a good time, creating ballrooms and fighting with architects, it seems – you know, with the American people, they're patient. They know things go up and down. It's hard to turn the battleship. But also they want a president who's thinking long-term about creating a secure economy going forward, like in the age of AI. Everybody's afraid of losing their job. They want to see him on the economy.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, guys. Fantastic conversation. Thank you so much. That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We'll be back next week, because if it's Sunday it's Meet the Press.
