CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday, confronting Putin.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
NATO is stronger, more energized and, yes, more united than ever in history.
CHUCK TODD:
President Biden rallies NATO allies and warns Russia about trying to outlast Ukraine on the battlefield
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
Putin’s already lost the war.
CHUCK TODD:
But Ukraine's hopes of NATO membership continue to go unfulfilled, as they run low on ammunition. Has the west done enough to help Ukraine win the war? I'll talk to National Security advisor Jake Sullivan. Plus, military readiness: pentagon officials warn that a single Republican Senator’s block on top military promotions is impacting national security
SEC. LLOYD AUSTIN:
This is a national security issue. It’s a readiness issue.
CHUCK TODD:
As the Republican led House adds more restrictions on the Pentagon's abortion and transgender policies, with polarizing "culture war" issues now added to a new defense spending bill
SPEAKER KEVIN McCARTHY:
Why do the Democrats think we should spend taxpayer money to pay for abortion or to pay for wokeism in our military? Do they want Disneyland to train our military?
CHUCK TODD:
How will the Senate respond? I'll talk to Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois. And doubting DeSantis, more evidence Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' campaign is struggling – laying off staff and burning through campaign cash too quickly. And it's only July.
GOV. RON DeSANTIS:
I’m not worried about anything, man. We’ve got a plan.
CHUCK TODD:
Can his campaign bounce back? Plus, Director Christopher Nolan talks with me about his new film, telling the story of the scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his creation of the atomic bomb.
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN:
The leading researchers in the field of AI right now, for example, they literally refer to this right now as their Oppenheimer moment.
CHUCK TODD:
Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC news Washington Managing Editor
Carol Lee, Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher, and Republican strategist Sara Fagen. Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.
CHUCK TODD:
Good Sunday morning. This week we saw some good news on the economy, inflation cooling and more signs the 2024 campaign is heating up, which we’re going to get to. But the biggest story of the week was in Lithuania, where members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization met to expand the coalition and discuss their alliance, even expand the scope of NATO’s focus, perhaps to Asia. President’s Biden’s work with NATO may be judged by history as some of the most consequential decisions of his presidency. Sixteen months into the war in Ukraine, Russia is actually much weaker and the NATO alliance President Putin hoped would crumble now borders almost the entire Baltic Sea. Even as Ukraine runs low on ammunition, and awaits NATO admission for itself, – President Biden predicted the alliance would help the invaded nation outlast Putin on the battlefield.
[START TAPE]
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
Putin has already lost the war. Putin has a real problem. How does he move from here? What does he do?
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Still perhaps the most remarkable part of all of this is how Biden has succeeded in rallying NATO nations to help fight a proxy war between Ukraine and Russia without putting any American boots on the ground, or any NATO boots on the ground. Instead, adding to the Ukrainian arsenal. Just this week, the U.S. made cluster munitions that many countries and even some U.S. lawmakers oppose. Five years after President Donald Trump stood next to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland and came to his defense on 2016 election interference, President Biden went to that same world capital, which is now a NATO ally, and promised unity against the Russian president and tried to reassure the world the U.S. commitment was a lasting one.
[START TAPE]
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
I absolutely guarantee it. There is no question. There's overwhelming support from the American people. There's overwhelming support from the members of the Congress, both House and Senate. In both parties, notwithstanding the fact there are some extreme elements of one party. We will stand together.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
And joining me now to discuss all of this is the National Security Advisor to the president, Jake Sullivan. Jake, welcome back to Meet The Press.
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Thanks for having me, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with the assurances or lack of assurances that Ukraine is publicly asking for when it comes to NATO membership. Let me ask it this way. Their concern is this: by not having some sort of concrete commitment, that it means that the idea of NATO’s – membership to NATO – is still going to be there for negotiating an end to this war with Russia. How do you draw that line in the sand that says, you know, are you willing to say NATO’s future membership – Ukraine's future membership in NATO will never be a part of negotiating the end of this war?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, I'm not sure we could have said it more clearly than the 31 allies said in the NATO communique, Chuck, which was, "Ukraine's future will be in NATO.” Period. Full stop. That was a single clear sentence. It's not subject to negotiation with any country, including Russia. It is a subject only for the allies and for Ukraine. And what the rest of the document that was released at the NATO summit said was that we will work on a pathway between here and when Ukraine actually joins to ensure that Ukraine gets an invitation to join NATO when all allies agree and the necessary conditions are met, but that is not going to be subject to negotiation with Russia.
CHUCK TODD:
It's that phrase, “necessary conditions,” right? I know you've already scrapped the ones that they're going to get the fast track that both Finland and Sweden got, but it’s even that phrase seems to irritate Ukraine. Any reason to keep that in there?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, what NATO allies have said is that every member of the alliance, every country that seeks to come into NATO, has to meet certain democratic reform standards. And Ukraine's own annual national program, which it agreed with NATO some years ago, indicates that there are further steps it needs to take along the democratic reform path. And if you talk to Ukrainian civil society activists, even members of the Ukrainian government, they would say they want to continue down that reform path. NATO will work with Ukraine to ensure those reforms are completed and when they are complete, Ukraine will be very much in a position to step forward and meet all of the requirements for coming into NATO.
CHUCK TODD:
Hey, by the way, do you think NATO can – NATO – do you think Ukraine can hold parliamentary elections this fall?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, first, ultimately the decision about how to play out parliamentary elections is up to Ukraine, itself. It's not up to the United States. So, I'm not going to opine on the steps they need to take to ensure they're staying consistent with their constitution, only that we want to see that rule of law, democracy and fidelity to the constitution are respected. And the Ukrainians will work out for themselves how that plays out with respect to elections this fall.
CHUCK TODD:
Would it be a problem for the United States, though, if they postpone those elections?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
I'm not going to get into hypotheticals. We're in regular contact with the Ukrainians about making sure, as I said before, that they're following the law, that they are remaining true to their democratic ideals. We'll continue to do that in the months ahead.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to talk about what's going on with Vladimir Putin. We have crossed a number of his so-called “red lines” when this war started. Finland and Sweden have joined NATO – that was a red line. Increasing NATO troops in Europe was a red line at one point for him. Supplying fighter jets and tanks to Ukraine was one time considered a red line, providing long-range missile systems – we've done all of those things. Why do you think there – Number one, why do you think there hasn't been a response by him, number one? And why do we take any other red lines seriously with him?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, at the beginning of this war, President Biden laid out the American position, which was we are going to take dramatic, bold steps to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We were going to ensure and sustain the unity of the West and we were going to make sure that we did not end up in World War III with Russia, meaning U.S. troops fighting Russian troops in Ukraine or anywhere else. We have stood by those three basic precepts throughout this conflict, and as the conflict has evolved, the nature of our assistance to Ukraine has evolved with it. And we, of course, have learned along the way about what is possible and what is not possible. I can't speak to what's in the mind of President Putin. All I can say is that the basic U.S. position in this comes down to a single clear point, which is we are going to support Ukraine without having U.S. boots on the ground and American soldiers fighting Russian soldiers. And that will remain consistent throughout the course of this conflict.
CHUCK TODD:
Are you concerned that Vladimir Putin is going to use the American political calendar, that he wants to buy time and see what happens in the November 2024 elections?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, it's fair to say that Vladimir Putin, from before this conflict began, had certain misconceptions about the United States and the West. He thought the United States would not step up and support Ukraine. He thought that the U.S. and our European allies, NATO, would not be able to sustain unity. He thought the Ukrainians, themselves, would wither and collapse in the face of the Russian attack. He's been proven wrong time and time again. And he was proven wrong again in Vilnius this past week when the NATO alliance came out stronger, larger, and more unified than at any point in history. So, if, in fact, he is betting on American resolve to falter or fail, he is going to continue losing that bet. That's all I can say.
CHUCK TODD:
Really? You don't think betting on a different party becoming – controlling the White House, that that isn't a bet he should make?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, what I'm saying is that the United States, our NATO allies, and a larger coalition of nations around the world that have stepped up to provide unprecedented levels of support to Ukraine, all of that has flown in the face of Vladimir Putin's expectations. And I think he will continue to have his expectations dashed, that the West is going to falter or crack in this. And all we can do in the Biden administration is get up every single day and work as hard as we possibly can alongside our allies and partners to get Ukraine what it needs as fast as it needs it to be able to succeed in this effort.
CHUCK TODD:
Two things on the decision on cluster munitions. Number one: Look, I understand the rationale. It's been explained. You've painstakingly explained, and I know this is not a unanimous decision in NATO. But have we not lost our moral authority on something like this, as a leader on this stuff when it comes to – Look, we just got rid of our chemical weapons, and we've been trying to lead the world in getting rid of that. We try to rhetorically lead the world in trying to get rid of these barbaric weapons and then here we are now, still, going into our stockpile and giving them to an ally. Does that not harm our moral authority?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, Chuck, our moral authority has not derived from being a signatory to the Convention Against Cluster Munitions. We are not; we have not been at any point since that convention came into effect. Neither has Ukraine. Our moral authority and Ukraine's moral authority in this conflict comes from the fact that we are supporting a country under brutal, vicious attack by its neighbor with missiles and bombs raining down on its cities, killing its civilians, destroying its schools, its churches, its hospitals. And the idea that providing Ukraine with a weapon in order for them to be able to defend their homeland, protect their civilians, is somehow a challenge to our moral authority I find questionable. I would say that we are stepping up to give Ukraine what it needs in order to not be defenseless in the face of a Russian onslaught. We are simply not going –
CHUCK TODD:
Are –
JAKE SULLIVAN:
– to leave Ukraine defenseless. The president was determined on that point. And we’ve remained committed to that.
CHUCK TODD:
Is the United States out of the manufacturing of new cluster munitions? Are we not going to –will we replenish this stockpile, or not?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Our current plan is not to replenish that stockpile.
CHUCK TODD:
Okay.
JAKE SULLIVAN:
It is rather to build up the capacity to produce the unitary round of the 155, the non-cluster munition round of ammunition. We began that process months ago as we anticipated the need for continuing supply to Ukraine, but it takes time. And that is why we need a bridge from today when we need to ensure that Ukraine has the necessary supply of ammunition to a few months down the road when we believe we can supply enough of the unitary round to meet Ukraine's defense needs.
CHUCK TODD:
Jake Sullivan, I have to leave it there. I know you have a busy morning ahead of you. I appreciate you coming on and sharing the administration's perspective. Thank you, sir.
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Thanks for having me.
CHUCK TODD:
This week, Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville was featured on the international stage, probably not the way he wanted to be, when the president chastised him from Helsinki for his hold on hundreds of military promotions.
[START TAPE]
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
He's jeopardizing U.S. security is what he's doing. I expect the Republican Party to stand up, stand up and do something about it.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
And joining now is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a military veteran himself and he also attended the NATO summit. It's Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska. And, senator, first of all, thank you for getting up extraordinarily early this morning, although I don't think the sun sets right now where you are. So, good morning.
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Good morning, Chuck. It's good to be back on the show, from Alaska.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with that question right there. Respond to the president there, that he's, that he’s hoping the rest of this Republican Party, the Senate Republicans is basically what he's saying, will be able to talk Senator Tuberville out of what he's doing. Considering that the House has sent over a bill with amendment on it, isn't it fair to say this is in the legislative process? And what Senator –
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
– Tuberville is doing is now unnecessary and harmful?
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Well, I hope, I hope we get a chance to talk about the NATO summit. But --
CHUCK TODD:
We will.
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
-- let me address that. The president, a lot of my Democratic colleagues, are talking about this as a big national security issue. I think, I think we should be clear: The biggest national security issue from my perspective, Chuck, is the Biden administration is continuing to put forward defense budget cuts during what everybody -- and the president agrees with this, so does the security of defense -- thinks is the most dangerous time since World War II, right? The budget for next year's going to take us below 3% of GDP spending. That's the lowest level in almost 70 years. So, to me, that's the biggest national security threat and readiness threat we have facing us, and that's something the president needs to address directly. Now, to Senator Tuberville. You know, as you know, every senator has the right to place holds on nominees on an issue of policy importance. I certainly have done this myself. I'm here in Alaska right now. I had a hold a couple years ago on the secretary of the Army, the chief of staff of the Army, to get them to change a position when they were going to remove a brigade combat team, airborne brigade combat team from Alaska. I know my friend Tammy Duckworth is going to be on your show next. And, look, she's a war hero. Very few Americans have sacrificed for their country like she has. But Senator Duckworth has had the exact same hold that Tommy Tuberville does a couple years ago on generals to be promoted. Here's the bottom line, and I think you're getting at it, and I think, I think we're getting closer here: Every single one of these kind of holds, 99% of them, get resolved through compromise. And what needs to happen, the secretary of defense, secretary -- Senator Tuberville, Chuck Schumer need to sit down and have that path. The good news is, and I've encouraged this, you may have seen Secretary Austin reached out to Senator Tuberville a couple days ago. I appreciate Secretary Austin doing that. But I think we're going to be debating the NDAA in the Senate the next two weeks. To your point, I think there are going to be opportunities to get to that compromise like we have on all these kind of holds that happen regularly in the Senate.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. I do want to get back to the NATO meeting. You were there. I want to talk about the, the number of mentions of China in the communique. You know, it went from one last year in Madrid to I think over a dozen mentions here. Look, is NATO expansion into the Asia arena inevitable over the next two decades?
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Oh, I think it is. And I think it was a positive summit. I think there was a lot of progress. It wasn't just the mention of China, several times, almost 20 times on my count. But, Chuck, you probably saw the leaders who were there. It was the prime minister of Japan, prime minister of Australia, the president of Korea. Our Senate delegation had the opportunity to meet with those leaders, and I think that was a really strong signal with regard to NATO. My big message to all the leaders in NATO during the summit, and it's something we talked about with the president, Jake Sullivan, when we were over there: One of the critical issues that we have to keep pushing with regard to NATO is to get the rest of our allies to step up and do their part. You know, we want this alliance, which is one of the most successful military alliances in history, to be strong, to be sustainable. But it's undermined the sustainability of NATO when only seven of 31 members of NATO currently meet their 2% of GDP obligation for defense spending. And, look, that in my view has the potential to undermine even support for Ukraine in the near term and, longer term, the support for NATO. So we need our other NATO allies to step up. Some are doing it. Sweden's joining, as you know. They're going to hit 2% right off the bat. Some are laggards. Canada is barely above 1%. It's unacceptable. And we drove that message home, by the way, in a bipartisan way, in every meeting we had.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to stick with NATO here very quickly. Do you give President Biden credit for NATO expansion? I mean, Sweden and Finland. Nobody saw that coming four years ago.
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Yes, I do. And, look, I give President Biden credit for keeping the unity of NATO, revitalizing NATO, as your opening piece did, as setting out the framework for this war of aggression which was, "We're going to provide significant military assets and intelligence, but we're not going to commit U.S. troops." So, I give him credit for that. Where I don't give him credit, and you and I have talked about this, is in two areas. One, this slow rolling and self-deterrence that we've had, this administration's had, with getting the Ukrainians the weapons systems that they need. You know, the list is very long. Last time I was on this show, by the way, with you and Jake Sullivan, we talked about the F-16s. I predicted, "They're eventually going to do it, but it's taking too darn long." That's exactly what happened. And then the other issue, I already mentioned it --
CHUCK TODD:
With the defense spending, yeah.
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
-- is we're cutting defense spending and -- when it's a very dangerous world. Everybody agrees we --
CHUCK TODD:
Well --
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
-- should not be going below 3% of defense spending. You know, the current budget shrinks the Army, shrinks the Navy, shrinks the Marine Corps. That is the wrong signal to send to --
CHUCK TODD:
Right. It is up in --
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
-- Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
CHUCK TODD:
-- raw dollars, it would be, but I don't want to get into that. We can debate what cuts are like in Washington. People have a different view. I want to ask you something George Will wrote very quickly here. He wrote this: "Vladimir Putin's fifth column is not in Kyiv but in the Trump-DeSantis faction of the Republican Party. Putin has two hopes for a less than completely mortifying rescue from his Ukraine blunder. One is the election of Trump, whose frivolousness about national security compliments his weakling's admiration for a bully. Putin's other hope is the election of DeSantis." Are you concerned? And should Ukraine be concerned that the election of Donald Trump could harm our support?
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Well, look, in terms of the Republican Party, I think there’s some -- for elected officials right now – I think there's been some very positive news. Hasn't been talked about. You know, there was this debate in the Republican conference in the Senate about cutting off aid to Ukraine. A couple members wanted to send a letter to the president. We debated it. I strongly was opposed to that. Three Republican senators signed this letter, and that's not very strong. And you just saw the NDAA that was marked up in the House. All the amendments that were calling on cutting off Ukraine aid went down strongly in a bipartisan way. So, I think elected Republican officials right now in the Senate and the House are still strongly supportive of Ukraine. We need to make sure our other allies –
CHUCK TODD:
But is Will right –
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
– step up to their 2% –
CHUCK TODD:
– that Putin –
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
– commitment. We need to make sure, and I tell the Ukrainians this all the time -- well, I think -- there's my point. I think that current elected officials can have a strong impact on whoever the next president is. When President Trump was president, I pressed him on the issue of NATO quite a lot, and so did many other members. I'll tell you one thing President Trump did quite well was press this 2% of GDP issue. By the way, President Biden has been doing that. President Obama did it as well. So I think the current elected Republican leadership in the House and Senate strongly supports --
CHUCK TODD:
All right.
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
– NATO. And I think that's the most important thing to look at right now in terms of that issue.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Well, as I said, I really appreciate you getting up very early for us in Anchorage. Senator Dan Sullivan, Republican from Alaska.
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Very early. That's okay.
CHUCK TODD:
Or, who knows, maybe you stayed up really late.
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Good to be on the show, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
Thanks very much. When we come back, more on the politics of military readiness with Iraq war veteran and Senate Armed Services Committee member Democrat Tammy Duckworth of Illinois.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back to Meet The Press. This week the Republican-led House narrowly passed the Defense Authorization Act, but it weighed it down with a lot of culture war restrictions on the Pentagon's abortion and transgender policies. Military funding now rests with finding a compromise between the House and Senate bills, because the House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. The military promotions continue to be held up, as we were discussing with Senator Sullivan, by Republican senator from Alabama Tommy Tuberville. So joining me now is Army veteran and Democratic senator from Illinois Tammy Duckworth. Senator Duckworth, welcome back to Meet The Press.
SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH:
It's good to be on. Thanks for having me.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with this issue of these military promotions and what Tuberville's been doing. You heard your colleague, Senator Sullivan, say, "Hey, look, it's a senator's prerogative.” You've done it. A lot of people have done it. One could argue doing it, having to do with — if it's about Pentagon policy versus when it's not, I think is certainly fair game there." So let me ask this: Are you willing to have a vote? Tuberville wants a vote. Are you willing to put a vote on this on the floor? Is this the best way out of this?
SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH:
We've given him many options for a vote, and he's turned them all down. Joni Ernst has a bill that goes even further than where Senator Tuberville is, and he declined that vote. And Republican leadership had offered him multiple off-ramps to this, and he's backed himself into a corner. I mean, you know, what he's saying is, “Well, Democrats need to pass a national codification of Roe v. Wade.” We would love to do that. Obviously that's not going to happen any time soon with the Senate as closely split as it is. And so, you know, I'm going to just say what President Biden has said. It is bizarre for Senator Tuberville to say that he's not jeopardizing national security when he injects politics into the defense process. And frankly, this is not the time to do it, not when there is a war going on in Europe, not when American leadership is vital to the international global order. And for him to really jeopardize our national security by injecting politics and preventing our military leaders from being able to take their positions and do their jobs, is really, you know, it's beyond distressing. It is just that. It is a jeopardization to our national security.
CHUCK TODD:
Is there any other way around this? Or is this power-of-one-senator hold something that – it's one senator and it’s just– this is the way the Senate works?
SEN.TAMMY DUCKWORTH:
Well, in part, I mean, one of the ways you can do it is we can vote on each individual nominee, but that would take well into next year. The process is very slow. What Senator Tuberville is doing is upsetting how we normally confirm candidates. We would take, you know, all 250 officers and say, "Okay, you know, with unanimous consent let's go ahead and promote all of these officers." And generally there's unanimous consent, and Senator Tuberville is the one who's saying, "Nope, I want this done one by one." Well, there's so many promotions that we're going to fall further and further behind, and we could never get any other business done. You know, Senator Sullivan is a good friend of mine. We've traveled together. We share many of the same concerns. And he's right. This is something that is done often in the Senate but not to the extent that Senator Tuberville's doing it. I only held for 14 days, and that was over Alexander Vindman being retaliated against by the Trump White House. And right now Senator Tuberville is jeopardizing our nation's ability to lead the free world at a time when there's a war in Europe, because he wants to inject politics into this.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to ask you the same question about NATO expansion that I asked Senator Sullivan. Do you think NATO expansion to Asia's inevitable over the next decade or so?
SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH:
I think it is. I agree with my friend. And frankly, you know, it already has started to do that with our successful AUKUS agreement between the U.K., Australia, and the United States. Our Asian allies, I will tell you — I travel extensively throughout the Indo-Pacific, and our Asian allies are looking very closely to what has happened with Ukraine and realize that there is a greater need to participate themselves in NATO, as well as NATO allies coming back into the Indo-Pacific region. I think what Vladimir Putin has done is not only has he expanded NATO, he's actually strengthened the resolve of countries like Japan and Korea and Taiwan and other nations. I mean, even the ASEAN nations put out a statement condemning Russia's actions in Ukraine. So he's in fact united the world, in a way, against what he's doing there.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask you — I know you're chair of the Environmental Justice Caucus. What I'm going to do later in the show – obviously we've had the hottest temperatures on Earth in the month of July so far. Among the proposals to deal with extreme heat is some — I was talking with the chief heat advisor of Phoenix, and he wants extremely hot days to be considered natural disasters and national emergencies and have FEMA funding kick in on that. It would mean a lot more money for FEMA if we could fund FEMA that way. Do you think that's something that's coming and that should be a role for FEMA?
SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH:
You know, I don't think so. But I will tell you, one of the things that we can do to cool the earth back down is to transition into greener energy alternatives. My home state of Illinois is a big energy state. We have more nuclear reactors than anyone else. We grew 100,000 new jobs in ten years under wind, and, of course, biofuels. And this is where we really need to turn and look at companies like United Airlines that is looking to be a leader when it comes to sustainable aviation fuel. There's nothing better than good-old American-grown corn and soybeans to produce the biofuels that will lead us into a greener future.
CHUCK TODD:
And I want to ask about the Supreme Court. I know there's a lot of progressive Democrats that would like to see the president and other Democrats speak out about court expansion, rather than maybe trying to work within the rules that exist. Where are you on this?
SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH:
You know, I think — I'm not opposed to court expansion, but I'm not certainly there where I would support it at this point in time. I think what we need to do is what we're continuing to do. And my senior senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, is doing a great job of confirming justices to all of the various levels of federal benches, so that we have folks in place who can be elevated to the Supreme Court who are not going to be the activist judges like Neil Gorsuch, who, by the way, did not tell the truth when he came up for his confirmation hearing. In fact, he told Senator Collins that he would not oppose or work to overturn Roe v. Wade, and that's exactly what he did – similarly, justices like Amy Coney Barrett. And so we need to take a look at where we're going in terms of confirming judiciary appointments all across the country.
CHUCK TODD:
Senator Tammy Duckworth, Democrat from Illinois, appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us. Thank you.
SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH:
Thanks for having me on.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, before we go to break, FBI Director Christopher Wray had fend off House Republican attacks this week in a congressional hearing. Wray, a Trump appointee and registered Republican, took particular offense from the assertion from some members that somehow he was helping law enforcement weaponize the FBI in favor of Democrats in the executive branch. But guess what? These fears about the FBI is nothing new. Back in 1976, then-presidential candidate Jimmy Carter detailed his fears of how politics could corrupt the FBI and Justice Department in the post-Watergate era. Take a listen.
[START TAPE]
GOV. JIMMY CARTER:
Well, the first thing we need to do is to make sure that the FBI is completely professionalized once again and is removed from politics. So I would like to remove the attorney general from the cabinet, have the attorney general appointed for a certain period of time, maybe five to seven years, have him appointed on the basis of merit — or her — have the Senate confirm that appointment but not remove that person from office unless the president and the leaders of Congress, as designated with a special prosecutor, determine that the attorney general is not adequately performing the duties of that office. I think this removal of the attorney general, who's the boss of the FBI, from politics would let the FBI seek its natural role as a nonpolitical professional organization.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Turn the Justice Department into the Federal Reserve? Hmm, interesting. When we come back, Republican presidential candidates gather in Iowa minus the front-runner, former President Donald Trump. Can anyone take down the runaway favorite in the first contest of the primary season? Panel is next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Panel is here: Carol Lee, the NBC News Washington managing editor; Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher; and Republican strategist Sara Fagen. A little more intimate here. Let's start with Ron DeSantis news. You know, every month since February, there has been a story about, "Ron DeSantis has problems." In February, impatience because he hadn't gotten in. In March, donors were starting to look at other challengers. In April, it was, "Uh-oh, there already needs to be a shakeup," and he hadn't formally announced. In May, more donors fretting. In June, the campaign launch itself fizzled. And now, once again, here we are, and this FEC report was the picture of a bloated campaign that we've seen before, and the Scott Walker parallels from 2015 are suddenly here. Is this a time to panic in DeSantis world?
CAROL LEE:
Well, you can see it in the sense that they already had this shakeup. There's expected to be more to come in that space. And the FEC report, what it did was really underscore and confirm a lot of the concerns that donors had, that people who wanted DeSantis to be the Trump alternative had. When you talk to allies of the governor, they will say that his strategy is win Iowa, play a long game, put in the work, grind it out. The question is, do they have the resources to go the distance like that? And, right now, what you're seeing is he had some big donor support. The grassroots is not there. It's with former President Trump. And so, how he executes this strategy is really a big question --
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah, I was going to say, Sara Fagen, we did some analysis here. He's got too many maxed-out donors already. He only got 14% of his haul from small donors. There was a story about, "Oh, yeah, they're trying to be more honest about their small-donor fundraising." I think that's what you say when you want to explain away why you're not doing this. You’ve seen – we were just talking before –
SARA FAGEN:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
– there always is this one campaign that sort of their eyes got bigger than their stomach.
SARA FAGEN:
Yeah. I mean, they were running the campaign of inevitability, and it was them and Trump. And that's not what's happening. You see Chris Christie on the rise in New Hampshire. You see Tim Scott becoming the darling of donors. They have to fundamentally adjust their mindset, which is that they're going to have to knock off everyone else and then be the person who takes on Trump. And there's still plenty of time to do that, and he has plenty of resources to do that. But he's going to have to fundamentally kind of adjust his strategy.
CHUCK TODD:
Cornell, a lot of DeSantis supporters are going to point to something that you were a part of, which was 2007, Barack Obama, you know, donors were fretting. "How come he hasn't caught Hillary yet?" Is that fair? Or is that missing something?
CORNELL BELCHER:
Well, the dynamics are very different here. One of the things that – and, look, I would argue that it's really early, and that this --
CHUCK TODD:
I don't argue that, but that's okay. I don't think it's early anymore.
CORNELL BELCHER:
I don't think it's early anymore, either. I was going to get to that point. But you also see, one of the things that is most distributing about DeSantis is that he's losing support. In all the polls that we're seeing now, he is weaker now than he was a month ago and two months ago. We never had that – we never saw that with Barack Obama, and Barack Obama started out 20 points behind Hillary. Everywhere, we made the argument that, again, “This is not a national election. We will take this state by state and –
CHUCK TODD:
Well, that's what DeSantis is arguing.
CORNELL BELCHER:
“ – we'll take this state by state.” But Barack Obama wasn't losing support.
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
CORNELL BELCHER:
DeSantis has shown up, and voters have taken a look, and they've pulled back from him.
CHUCK TODD:
I do think that Cornell makes an important point. That has been – I mean, you just see it.
SARA FAGEN:
Well, it is a good point, which is what I sort of stand by in my statement, which is you've kind of got to fundamentally shift your mindset here, which is, "Now you're in the game of inches, and you have to survive on the debate stage, acknowledge today you're probably not going to be the winner of the debate, and start to downplay expectations," and that, inch by inch, go win Iowa, which is what the campaign is saying is a big part of their strategy. They're going to have to win Iowa. And if that were the happen, then, certainly, we'd be having a very different conversation.
CORNELL BELCHER:
But, real quickly –
CAROL LEE:
Part of the issue with DeSantis trying to downplay expectations and kind of run as if he's the underdog now is that is not part of his brand. His brand is, "I'm a winner" –
CHUCK TODD:
Strength.
CAROL LEE:
"I'm strong. I'm going to beat Trump. I'm the alternative. It's me." And so, it'll be interesting to watch how he tries to navigate that because it's so counterintuitive to what he's presented himself as.
CORNELL BELCHER:
Really quick, if I can make a quick point –
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
CORNELL BELCHER:
The problem is that you've got to make it up in the debates. I think the debates now because more important, because, look, you're not going to –
CHUCK TODD:
But what happens if there's no Trump in the debate?
CORNELL BELCHER:
If you –
CHUCK TODD:
If you're DeSantis, he needs Trump in that debate –
SARA FAGEN:
I totally disagree. This is kind of my point, which is this is no longer an election between Trump and DeSantis. It's an election between Trump and everybody else. And so, who is going to be the person –
CHUCK TODD:
So, if you're DeSantis –
SARA FAGEN:
Yes.
CHUCK TODD:
– would you actually not want Trump in the first debate now?
SARA FAGEN:
Because this is –
CHUCK TODD:
Actually contrast yourself with Tim Scott?
SARA FAGEN:
Potentially.
CHUCK TODD:
Hmm.
SARA FAGEN:
Potentially. I mean, they have to have a fundamental mind shift, because they are not going to clear the field. They haven't cleared the field –
CHUCK TODD:
They messed up. They had a shot, and they blew it –
SARA FAGEN:
They had a shot, and it's over –
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah. Right.
SARA FAGEN:
– and now, the field is on the ascent. And he's going to have to figure out how to beat down the field.
CORNELL BELCHER:
And if I'm Trump, I don't get in the debate. I would tell Trump, "If I were Trump, I wouldn't do the debate, because you're 30 points ahead. Only thing you can do is take punches on that debate stage."
CHUCK TODD:
Hey, Carol, before we go, you had some reporting out of the White House. We talked a little bit about the whole what's going on with the defense bill and military promotions and that the White House wants to try to make this more public.
CAROL LEE:
Yeah, they've already dialed it up. You heard the president weigh in on this. But what I'm told by administration officials is that, this week, starting this week, they're going to really point to very specific examples of how this hold is affecting, you know, everything from the chain of command, to military facilities in different states, to military families including in Alabama. Huntsville has a large military population there, and so, they're going to lean in in that sense. And the through line that they're going to draw to the presidential race, or that's inherent in this, is that what Tuberville is doing, what was passed in the National Defense Authorization Act by the House, which focused on abortion, transgender care, equity and diversity programs, that that is a direct correlation to the Republican Party as a whole under Trump.
CHUCK TODD:
Sara, how would you advise Tommy Tuberville to – it seems like he is looking for an exit ramp and doesn't know how to find it.
SARA FAGEN:
Well, I think part of it is Senator Sullivan said, there's going to be a chance during this debate in the Senate to horse trade some of these various amendments and to figure out, "What is the path forward?" And that’s – he's probably going to need his colleagues at this point to give him that off-ramp.
CHUCK TODD:
Mmm. All right.
SARA FAGEN:
Uh-huh.
CHUCK TODD:
Thank you, guys. When we come back, the country was hit with a destructive heat wave this week as temperatures reached their highest recorded levels on Earth. We're going to take a look at climate change by the numbers. Data Download is next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Data Download time. As reports of record heat waves, and wildfires, and floods come in, the potential impacts of climate change have begun to feel very real and becoming an everyday part of our lives. And if there's one lesson from this summer's extreme weather, it may be that no place is going to be safe, no matter where you live in America or, frankly, around the globe. Look, this is the average global temperature, and in the month of July, look at this first week of July. We have broken the record. This was the hottest temperature – average temperature that we've ever recorded on Earth. It's about 2° higher than what is normal. Two degrees are huge, and it makes a huge difference. You have all that kind of heat, you know what you end up having? High water temperatures. 92.7° on Wednesday in Florida. This is not the air temperature in Florida. Hey, that's just normal summer. This was the temperature of the water around Key West. When you have the temperature that high, it puts coral reefs at risk. You have coral reefs die, you get rid of natural flood protections, you get rid of fish, you hurt industry. It has a huge economic impact and a huge, obviously, environmental impact. And this heat wave is not just in the water or in the Atlantic Ocean. It's in the air in Phoenix. Look at these recorded temperatures this week: three straight days of 115° or more. And, again, this is not the feels-like temperature that you hear about from your local weather person. This is the actual air temperature in Phoenix. So, that's heat. How about water? That two-day rain event in Vermont caused all sorts of problems, this extreme weather. They couldn't handle it. And overall, in New England, we had nearly 2 million people under flood alerts because of all the rain that came down and started just – and started overflowing these rivers in Vermont. And, of course, if you've lived on the East Coast, you knew about the wildfire smoke. 120 million people have been impacted by that. So, water, smoke, heated oceans, heated air. Guess what? This month, the whole world and the whole nation is experiencing what extreme weather is like. When we come back, my conversation with director Christopher Nolan on his new film, Oppenheimer.
[START TAPE]
J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER [FICTIONAL]:
If we detonate an atomic device, we might start a chain reaction that destroys the world.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. It was 78 years ago today that a group of scientists, led by J. Robert Oppenheimer, gathered at the Trinity site near Los Alamos, New Mexico to test the very first atomic bomb. Of course, a few weeks later a bomb would be dropped on Hiroshima. The successful test shook not only northern New Mexico, but the entire world. The creation and fallout from the nuclear arms race is featured on the big screen in Universal's new movie, Oppenheimer.
[START TAPE]
GEN. LESLIE GROVES [FICTIONAL]:
Are we saying there's a chance that when we push that button, we destroy the world?
J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER:
Chances are near zero.
GEN. LESLIE GROVES:
Near zero?
J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER:
What do you want from theory alone?
GEN. LESLIE GROVES:
Zero would be nice.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
On Saturday, I sat down with the writer/director of the film, Christopher Nolan, along with a panel of physicists to discuss why telling Oppenheimer's story is so important.
CHUCK TODD:
Why did you feel this movie needed to be made? There was a great story that you talked about your own kids, and they were going, "Why do we have to worry about nuclear weapons anymore?" This is before Russia invaded Ukraine. And then your response was, "Well, this is why I have to make the movie."
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN:
Yeah, and sadly, with everything that's happening in the world right now, no one's asking that question anymore. But to me, you know, there were two answers to that. You know, one is maybe that's a reason to make the film. But the other is that the story itself—particularly as found in American Prometheus—the story of Robert Oppenheimer's life, and obviously in particular his relationship with the Manhattan Project, but his entire life – involves some of the most dramatic elements I've ever encountered in anybody's story, fictional or real. And so for me, everything really was about wanting to dive into his head, you know, really try and live his experience with him. And in that way, you know, I talked to everybody, Cillian, everyone involved in the film. You know, we're trying to keep people in his point of view, and in that way achieve understanding rather than judgment. And the hope is that by achieving that and going through the story that way, you sort of leave the film with some unsettling questions and some troubling issues.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think we'll keep reexamining Oppenheimer, as our understanding of quantum physics continues, as our taming of the atom continues, as our ability from being 30 years away with cold fusion, right, and all those things? Will we continue to re-litigate his legacy?
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN:
I hope so. I mean, when I talk to the leading researchers in the field of AI right now, for example, they literally refer to this right now as their Oppenheimer moment. They're looking to his story to say, "Okay, what are the responsibilities for scientists developing new technologies that may have unintended consequences?"
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think Silicon Valley's thinking that right now? Do you think they understand this is an Oppenheimer moment?
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN:
I mean, they say that they do, and that's helpful that at least it's in the conversation. You know, and I hope that that thought process will continue. I'm not saying that Oppenheimer's story offers any easy answers to those questions, but at least it can serve as a cautionary tale. It at least could show, you know, where some of those responsibilities lie.
CHUCK TODD:
Christopher, if I could get you to do two screenings, right? I'd have you do one screening to the U.S. Congress. What would you hope they would take away from this?
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN:
I think more than anything, coming out of making the film, and as it starts to go out to the world, I realize that – we talked about this earlier – our relationship with the fear of nuclear weapons ebbs and flows with the geopolitical situation. And it shouldn't, because the threat is constant. And very often, when you look back at history, some of the closest moments to nuclear disaster have actually been in times of relatively calm, geopolitically. So even though the situation in Ukraine kind of puts it more in the forefront of people's minds, the truth is nuclear weapons are extraordinarily dangerous things to have lying around the house. And it's not something we should ever forget about, and it's not something we should take lightly. One of the things that frightens me the most – you talk about coming home from work with anxiety – when I hear in the media people talking about tactical nuclear weapons, as if this distinction can be made, and can be made via first politicians in the media sort of warming us up to the idea that perhaps there's a certain size of nuclear weapon that would be acceptable, as opposed to larger ones.
CHUCK TODD:
One more screening I want you to have, which is in Silicon Valley. And what do you want those guys to take away from this film?
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN:
I think what I would want them to take away is the concept of accountability. Not to sideline the conversation to the labor disputes going on in Hollywood right now, but a lot of it, when they're talking about things like AI, when we talk about these issues, they're all ultimately boiled into the same thing. Which is when you innovate with technology, you have to maintain accountability. And the rise of companies over the last 15 years who bandy about words like algorithm, not knowing what they mean in any kind of meaningful mathematical sense. People in my business talking about it, they just don't want to take responsibility for whatever their algorithm does. And applied to AI, that's a terrifying possibility, terrifying. Not least because as AI systems go into the defense infrastructure, ultimately they'll be in charge of nuclear weapons. And if we allow people to say that that's a separate entity from the person who is wielding, programming, putting that AI into use, then we're doomed. It has to be about accountability. We have to hold people accountable for what they do with the tools that they have.
CHUCK TODD:
As you could see there, AI and nukes, ouch. Oppenheimer can be seen in theaters in IMAX nationwide this week, on Friday, July 21st. Another quick programming note, this week's episode of Meet the Press Reports is on the living wage. Talk with former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who advocated a universal minimum income of $1,000 a month, and the fight many Americans have to make ends meet. That episode and all of season six is available right now on Peacock and YouTube. That's all we have for today. Thanks for watching. Because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
