motta was trying to convince the deputy in letting him speak to the parents because, you, know we've never got to speak to them again. what about all the other victims here? they can speak to shirlee or thomas or roger or mary. roger or mary. commitment to ukraine. >> the cost of this fight is not cheap. >> president biden asks congress for $33 billion in new aid. >> caving to the aggression will be more costly if we allow it to happen. >> the defense secretary lloyd austin describes widened u.s. war goals. >> we want to see russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading ukraine. >> and speaker nancy pelosi leads a congressional delegation in a visit to kyiv. my guest this morning, senator bob menendez of new jersey. plus, with a record number of crossings at the southern

border -- >> we're losing our country down there. we need you to resign. >> republicans go over the top upping their attacks on homeland security alejandro mayorkas regarding plans to end covid-related restrictions. >> title 42 public health order set to be lifted, we expect migration levels to increase. >> i'll talk to secretary mayorkas about the plans that even some democrats oppose. also, more fallout from the kevin mccarthy tapes. >> i'm calling gaetz, explaining to him, this is serious [ bleep ], cut this out. >> one of many revelations in the book "this will not pass." authors jonathan martin and alexander burns of the "new york times" will be my exclusive guests. no country for democrats. >> we don't have any rogue messengers anymore. we don't have anyone that speaks for the party in the dirt. >> rural democrats say the party has forgotten about them at its own peril. joining me for insight and analysis are, former senator

claire mccaskill, nbc news senior correspondent garrett haake, helene cooper, and stephen hayes of "the dispatch." welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> well, a good sunday morning. house speaker nancy pelosi made an unannounced visit to kyiv with a congressional delegation. she's now the highest ranking american official to make it to the capital of ukraine since this war started. and it's also the latest evidence that america's commitment to ukraine is only growing. amid signs that the war may end up expanding and that russia's assault in ukraine's east may be stalling. so let's take all of these in order. first, president biden is now asking congress for $33 billion in aid to ukraine. most of it, military assistance. in total, it would bring the amount of aid requested close to $50 billion. that's more than we spent each of the last five years in

afghanistan, or at least on pace to do that. mr. biden's request came only days after defense secretary lloyd austin said that the u.s. wants to degrade russia's ability to make war on other countries. next, the expanding war, this past week saw explosions in breakaway region of moldova. likely caused by russia, and fires of explosion at several related war sites. inside russia's border. many in range of our cranian missiles. the european union appears to impose a crippling embargo on russian oil after russia cut off gas exports to bulgaria and poland with an eye toward doing the same to germany. finally russia's advance on ukraine's east has run into stiffer than expected resistance again and ukrainian officials say the russians are having to redeploy troops from the country's far east as reinforcements. so we're going to begin our coverage with nbc news correspondent erin mclaughlin in kyiv. and with the speaker of the house, congressional delegation

visiting yesterday, i assume ukraine's leadership has to feel at least symbolically the u.s. is with them, joined at the hip. >> reporter: absolutely, chuck. house speaker nancy pelosi arriving here in kyiv this weekend and says to thank ukraine for a fight for freedom, telling president zelenskyy, quote our commitment is to be there for you until the fight is done. her visit comes just days after two russian missiles struck the heart of the capital as the u.n. secretary general was visiting. this is the aftermath of those missile strikes. one of the missiles struck that factory just over that way, believed to be the intended target. the other missile struck that apartment building, killing one and injuring ten. the mayor of kyiv saying those strikes mount to the middle finger of russia to the west and

the united nations and seen as a warning to anyone wanting to visit the capital and wanting to visit with president zelenskyy which is perhaps why speaker pelosi's visit was shrouded in secrecy and happened yesterday evening and only made public today, and of course pushing for congress to pass the $33 billion aid package, at the request of president biden, badly-needed funds for this war as it is raging across the south and the east. and the british ministry of defense says russia has made some gains although their gains have come at a high price due to fierce ukrainian resistance. i have been speaking to a ukrainian military official saying they are seeing signs that russia is amassing more forces to strengthen its assault on the donbas region. meanwhile, all eyes on the southern besieged port city of mariupol. yesterday, a rare glimmer of good news, some 20 civilians were evacuated from that steel plant surrounded by russian

forces. that humanitarian corridor secured by the united nations and the red cross. president zelenskyy expressing hope there will be more evacuations of civilians today, chuck. >> erin mclaughlin, excellent reporting from kyiv and i am glad you made note of the fact the missile strikes came when the head of the united nations was visiting under a supposed peacekeeping mission. erin, thank you. joining me, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, welcome back to meet the press. senator menendez. >> good to be with you. >> let me start with some news this morning out of the uk and their intelligence which seems to indicate that vladimir putin may use may 9th, his russian russia's celebration of world war ii victory day, as a chance to declare, officially declare war against ukraine. is that a distinction without a difference as far as you're

concerned and what should the u.s. response be to that declaration? >> well, putin has declared war against ukraine, whether he does it formally or not is inconsequential. i think that what we are doing and what we will continue to do is help ukraine ultimately have victory and defeat russia. ukraine is a test for the west. it's a test for the international order. can one country, in this case, russia under putin, erase the borders of europe? change a country by force? or will the international order prevail? and i think that's what's at stake here. regardless of putin's declarations. >> when secretary austin did a debrief after his visit to kyiv, he said something earlier this week about our goals now with russia. we want to see russia weaken to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading ukraine. in response to that, the russians essentially said, well, the americans are fighting a proxy war against russia and

ukraine. isn't the answer to that yes? that in that sense, yes, this is a proxy war between the west and russia? is that, do you accept that description? >> no, not necessarily. look, i'm not sure what was in secretary austin's mind but i think what he meant is that if russia cannot defeat ukraine with a much larger army, with greater sophisticated weaponry, and much military, then it has to think about creating acts of aggression against any other country in europe or any place else. and that certainly is degrading russia's ability or thoughts about their ability to do so. i would think that's what the secretary meant, but at the end of the day, yes, we don't want to see russia go into moldova. we don't want to go see into a nato country, poland or lithuania or any other such countries. in that respect, i think that's

what the secretary meant. >> should the u.s. posture change at all in, and how much we get involved if this expands into moldova? >> well, look, i think that the ukrainians care about what's going to happen in transnistria because it's another attack point against ukraine. i don't think it will change the calculus about the direct engagement. we need to keep our eye on the ball. and that is about helping ukraine's and ukrainians ultimately be able to defeat the butcher of moscow. and if we do that, the world will be safer, the international order will be preserved, and others who are looking at what is happening in ukraine will have to think twice, and this international response that president biden has led and this new effort by europe to have an

oil embargo, a gas and oil embargo against russia is going to be one of the most strategic blunders putin will have made for his country, and shows the resolve of the west, something we have not seen in the past. >> $50 billion, senator menendez, is what essentially the president's asked for in total allocation, nearly $50 billion together. this appears to be the most money we've ever spent on a war we have not fired a shot in the united states. is there a limit to how much we support ukraine in this or as long as we think they can win this war, we'll do what it takes? >> i think we will do what it takes to see ukraine win. it's not just about ukraine. it is about the international order. if ukraine does not win, if putin can ultimately, not only succeed in the donbas, but then be emboldened maybe to go further, if he strikes a country

under nato, under our treaty obligations with nato, then we would be directly engaged, and so stopping russia from getting to that point is critically of interest to us as well as the world. so that we don't have to send our sons and daughters into battle, and i think that ability to not have to send our sons and daughters into battle is priceless. >> many officials answer the following questions saying it is up to ukraine for what they decide is victory here but what do you believe is ukrainian victory? what does ukrainian victory look like to you, sir? >> well, the reason many officials answer that way to you, chuck, is because it's ukraine that must determine what it will or will not accept to end this war. after such horrific human rights violations, war crimes that putin has committed against the ukrainian people, it's hard to understand what president zelenskyy and the ukrainian

people will accept. maybe there will be some territorial concession, maybe, but it cannot be in a way that ultimately blocks ukraine from sea ports and having access to the sea, which is going to be vital for commerce as well as national security but it's the horrific acts that putin has committed, the war crimes that he has committed that gives ukraine very little room to think about what is peace here. >> quick question about immigration here. i'll have secretary mayorkas on in a moment. many of your democratic colleagues are not happy with the decision to rescind title 42 with what they believe is not an adequate enough plan. you obviously would like to see title 42 ended. i know that. but at the same time, you've questioned whether we have the resources or commitment to do this. what is the best way to handle this situation? what do you tell your democratic colleagues that would like to keep title 42 in place for now? >> well, i'll tell you, chuck,

what i tell them at our caucus last week. title 42 is not the solution. it's part of the problem. who who wants to control the border would create a provision to permit a countless number of times to cross the border. that's what title 42 does. there's no permanent adjudication of those who have a right under asylum and those who do not have a right and have an order of deportation and if they try to come back, there would be criminal penalties for it. that would stop it. there needs to be a comprehensive immigration plan. our republican colleagues, however, they want the issue. they don't want a solution. >> senator robert menendez, democrat of new jersey, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, i know ukraine is taking up a lion's share of your focus but i appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective. >> thank you. let me turn now to immigration as i just said with the senator. republicans went after homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas.

this waft week for the administration's plan to end title 42 restrictions. he was called on to resign and ken buck of colorado questioned mayorkas' loyalty to the country. >> my constituents want you impeached because they believe you've committed treason. they believe you're a traitor. >> but beyond that absurd grandstanding, there are democrats who have concerns about the administration's title 42 plans, especially at a time of record crossings at our southern border. joining me now is secretary mayorkas. welcome back to "meet the press". >> pleased to be here. >> let me start with the type of conversation you had with judiciary committee members this week. why do you think they've personalized this on you? >> chuck, i'm focused on the mission. i'm focused on supporting the workforce of the department of homeland security and getting our work done. that's what i'm focused on. >> do you feel like you're a proxy for attacks on other

people? >> i don't speculate about the motives, the political motives of the personal attacks. i have resolve, an important human quality when one has incredibly important work to do on behalf of the country. >> let's talk about title 42. you put up a six point plan, let's me put up some bullet points about it. surge resources to the border. target some criminal organizations and then deter immigration in the first place. when i saw this six point plan, this is what the biden administration said they would do with the border for months. what is so new about this, and i ask that because if this is sort of similar to what we've already been doing, then it's not working. >> chuck, the plan wasn't devised last week when it was published. this is a plan that we've been working on since september of last year. we understood that the title 42

public health authority of the cdc would not be around forever. and so we've been executing on this plan for months, and we're intensifying our efforts. we're adding resources to it, to address the potential for an increase in migration once title 42 comes to an end. that's what we do. and it's a multifaceted plan, not only with respect to the infusion of the additional resources to the border, the surge of personnel, the surge of transportation capabilities, medical support, increased facilities, but it's also working south of our border with our partners in the region. what we are experiencing in the united states is not unique to us. this is a regional challenge that requires a regional solution. you know that there are more than 1.8 million venezuelans in colombia right now? this is something that's being experienced throughout the hemisphere. and the world as we so powerfully see in europe.

>> there's no doubt, one of the potential tools you could have used, the state department rescinded the sort of third party agreements negotiated, that is if you want to make an asylum plan in the united states and you're not from a border country, make the asylum case first in a border country. from honduras, go to guatemala first. is that a tool that would make your job easier? >> you know, chuck, i don't think there would be very many experts who would say that guatemala is a safe third country. we see tremendous amount of migration from guatemala. some of the concerns that force people to flee their homes are resident in colombia, and we've been speaking with our counterparts, i'm sorry, in guatemala, we've been speaking with our counterparts in guatemala about those challenges. economic despair, violence, corruption, extreme weather events. so i would take issue. >> that's guatemala.

but should there be some other, is there a way to ease the asylum system or not do these at the border but in country? >> that's exactly why we have a regional plan, which is why i and secretary blinken were in panama more than a week ago, why i was in costa rica. >> panama hasn't been very helpful. they're accelerating migration. >> we need countries to apply their laws. to say, if, in fact, somebody qualifies for relief in pan that, then they should be able to remain in panama under the laws of that respective country, and if they don't, we need the country to repatriate those individuals. this is not our responsibility alone. it is a regional responsibility. in response to a regional challenge. >> paint me a picture of what success looks like. title 42 lifted on may 23rd. what does success for your plan look like, if it works as you intend? >> success looks like the

orderly implementation of our plan. where we are applying our laws in accordance with their provisions in a way that respects individual's rights to claim asylum, as the laws that congress provided allow. we're talking about individuals who are claiming fear of persecution in their countries of origin and our laws provide they are allowed in immigration and enforcement proceedings to make those claims before an immigration judge. if they are not successful, they are promptly removed from the country. and that's something that cannot be overlooked. we're not talking about releasing individuals into the united states. what we're talking about is individuals who make claims for asylum and they seek to vindicate those claims in court and if they do not succeed, we enforce the law and they are removed. >> what is the average time that

you think you can get an asylum claim processed? >> one of the great steps that we have taken in the biden/harris administration is to address this challenge. historically, it's been six, eight years plus, and we promulgated an asylum officer rule that allows our asylum officers to make the ultimate asylum determination and we'll take that 6 to 8 year period over time as we ramp up, we're going to take that to under a year. fundamentally though, chuck, we need congress to pass legislation. >> i understand that. what have you done, what have you said to the democratic senators, more of whom, particularly those running for reelection who questioned the plan about title 42 and you can see here, mark kelly is one of them, maggie is another. they don't like the specifics. they feel like will is sort of a disconnect and they think the plan that you've outlined is a bit unrealistic. do you think their criticism is fair?

>> it's not an issue of fair or not, i respectfully disagree with the criticism. we share with individuals the public concept of operations and they were concerned that that was not enough. they didn't see enough, that we don't have a plan. we've had a plan for months, as i mentioned since fall of last year for the eventual end of title 42. so what i did was i published a 20 page memorandum that set forth greater details about our plan, but what i'm not going to do, chuck, is i'm not going to provide an extraordinarily comprehensive blueprint of everything we're doing. let's remember, we have an adversary. we have the cartels that are exploiting vulnerable immigrants for profit, and i'm not going to provide them a blueprint of what we're doing. >> i want to ask you about another conflict. the concern of misinformation and disinformation. the department that you have in dhs. there's some people who look at it and it looks like policing of speech. can you explain what this

program is about? >> sure, so we set up, essentially, an internal working group and i must say that we could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't. it's a working group. it takes best practices with respect to our work that has been going on for years. best practices on how to do that work, the work of addressing disinformation that presents a threat to the security of our country. how to do that work in a way that does not infringe on free speech, does not infringe on civil liberties, so this working group takes best practices, and disseminates it to the operators. >> do you think the person you chose to head that expressed too much in the way of politics and caused some consternation? >> eminently qualified individual of recognized expert on battling the threat of

disinformation that represents a threat to the security of homeland from russia, from china, from iran, from the cartels. >> secretary mayorkas, big job. thank you for coming on. >> thank you so much, chuck. up next, the inside story of those kevin mccarthy tapes. from "the new york times" reporters who got them. they join me when we come back. m m they join me when we come back the only thing fresher than their bread is the guy reading this. subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and refreshing and re-

here's candice... who works from home, and then works from home. but she can handle pickup, even when her bladder makes a little drop-off. because candice has poise, poise under pressure

and poise in her pants. it takes poise. it's still the eat fresh refresh, and subway's refreshing their app. so you can customize your favorite footlong, set a pickup time, and jump the line! oh, here she goes! ugh, i thought she was actually gonna jump. just use this code and order on the subway app! xfinity mobile runs on america's most reliable 5g network, but for up to half the price of verizon so you have more money for more stuff. this phone? fewer groceries. this phone? more groceries! this phone? fewer concert tickets. this phone? more concert tickets. and not just for my shows. switch to xfinity mobile for half the price of verizon. new and existing customers get amazing value with our everyday pricing. switch today.

welcome back. the new book "this will not pass" but "new york times" reporters jonathan martin and alexander burns has already received a lot of attention because of house republican leader kevin mccarthy's comments on president trump and fellow republicans. they write in the past two years, we've seen a battle for survival of democracy that's erupted. they write, two parties not nearly adversaries but enemies in a domestic cold war that had started to run hot and one was enthralled to an authoritarian demagogue who chose to attack

the congress instead of gracefully relinquishing power. gentlemen, first of all, congratulations. heck of a book. ate up my saturday. that's for sure. let me start with, obviously, what we've seen on january 6th, and i want to start with a lindsey graham moment because i believe, jonathan, you were in the room for this. you happened to be, for the book, with the senators when they got quarantined on january 6th, so you were witness, essentially, to all these senators not happy with the situation that went on and you talk about the 25th amendment and lindsey graham. walk me through what happened. >> we were evacuated from the u.s. senate, the tunnels of the capitol complex to one of the senate office buildings, chuck, and there was uncertainty bordering on panic. you have members of the u.s. senate who are largely over the age of 50. in some cases, 60, walking briskly or even running to this holding room. we were put in the holding room

in one of the senate office buildings for hours and hours and hours and obviously tensions there are rising because people don't know what's going on. there's images on their phone, their spouses are calling them or texting them and great uncertainty. in these hours, republican party is grappling with its future. what does this mean for our party, for our outgoing president, and is it so severe that we have to drive him from office before he is set to leave on january 20th and lindsey graham is extremely angry. he's almost shouting down capitol police as they try to address u.s. senators demanding they take action, forcefully recapture the capitol and in the same moment, he gets on the phone and he telephones the white house counsel. >> you're hearing all of this. firsthand account here. this is not from sources. >> i'm in the room, and he calls pat cipollone and says if trump

doesn't tell these people to go home, the rioters in the capitol, we'll call for the 25th amendment. so trump does a second and third take of the video. >> he's responding to the panic. >> yes. >> alexander burns, the mitch mcconnell, liz cheney exchanges that you have in the book are so telling about mitch mcconnell. here's one excerpt. mcconnell found the whole liz cheney saga confusing, a cardinal sin, relinquishing power. why to willingly jeopardize host by continually condemning trump, just ignore like i do, quite telling about mcconnell. >> certainly is, and about liz cheney too. the two of them have a conversation at one point last year where she basically tells him, that is just not going to work. you can't just sort of avert your gaze from donald trump. if you're going to take on donald trump, get rid of donald trump, you have to take on donald trump and get rid of donald trump. so mcconnell's response at that point was, basically, i don't need any more lectures from you

on how to deal with trump. the big mcconnell bet we outline in the book, a central part of the narrative is that after january 6th, he sees trump like many people, many democrats and more republicans than will say so in public, he sees trump as a threat to the american democracy and to the republican party. but once that immediate moment of most dire peril passes, he decides that the way he's going to try to deal with trump is to ignore him and trust that the president, as mcconnell said to a number of people, lose altitude over time, just because people will kind of move on and look to the future. and from where we stand today, that doesn't look like a wager that has particularly panned out. >> spent a lot of time on the right side of the aisle. let's go to the left side of the aisle, and the biden agenda. you outlined all the back and forth on build back better. in some of your report, in the summary of your reporting, jonathan, who you would you say

is to blame for the death of build back better? >> in our government, the president is not only the head of state and commander in chief, he's the leader of his or her party. joe biden is the leader of the democratic party. it's on him to corral the narrowest of congressional majorities. he did so in the opening months of his presidency, passing the american rescue plan, passing this sweeping bill for infrastructure, but he could not find the votes to get this bill passed. >> was there a deal to be done? >> joe manchin effectively killed the bill or put on hold in mid december. it's now may 1st. where has biden been since then? this is what democrats and congress are asking is, what's the plan and what's the strategy and there effectively is no game plan and there is no confidence in the white house that they can get manchin to any kind of a yes, and the clock is ticking. >> alex, you also note in the book that seems to be a more serious effort to get joe manchin to switch parties. here's your excerpt from page

273. you don't have to join our caucus. become an independent and then caucus with us. johnny said if you were the leader, i would do it. not exactly a hard no. how would you describe this effort? is it ongoing? is it real? or is it a little bit of a dinner conversation? >> the republican party made it clear to joe manchin that that offer is on the table and any time he wants to take it up and basically any terms he wants to take it up. >> it was a real effort. >> it was a real effort and that comes right after the moment, right after joe biden and kamala harris take office, where the vice president goes on television in west virginia in what joe manchin takes as a not particularly subtle effort to twist his arm on the american rescue plan. he's upset about that. his republican friends like susan collins and jon thune say, exactly what you just outlined. manchin makes it clear to him that's not something he's interested in but this sort of casts a shadow over all the democratic interactions with

manchin over the last year and today is the sense that this guy has other options. it would be much easier for him politically in his home state if he didn't have the "d" next to his name. >> final topic i want to hit with you guys. so much to get to, but you brought up the vice president, alex. kamala harris felt disrespected. here's one anecdote you had. worried that the staff looked down on her. fixated on real and perceived snubs the way they found tedious, when harris walked in the room, they did not stand up the way they did for biden. the vice president took it as a sign of disrespect. what was astonishing here, apparently there was a meeting about this. >> the chief of staff to kamala harris telephoned the west wing and told a senior adviser in the west wing with biden that the vp has noticed this and she would like folks to stand, staff members to stand when she enters the room. this pulls back the, i think, curtain on what this white house is really like. the tensions are deep and they

are real with the vp's office and the west wing. obviously, the public image is what it is, but this is an ongoing challenge, and what is hovering over all of this, chuck, is 24. is biden going to run again and if not, is it vp harris? that's the mood over the entire democratic party right now as are biden's poll numbers. we have a story today on the "new york times" web site, this for the first time going to reveal a number of memos and polling memorandums and decks that show the course of biden's decline over 2021, and the urgent warnings that his pollster offered in the white house to stop that decline. >> alex, what's remarkable about it, the white house isn't blind to this, so they haven't reacted. >> that's right and one of the prevailing narratives about the white house, they didn't see inflation coming, they didn't see the immigration this persistent, a political headache. what we reveal in the book is the own chief pollster was warning early as april of 2021, the president's barely taken office at that point and his pollsters already warning him, you've got to take this stuff

seriously, and they just didn't. >> a deeply reported book, it is not anything like far left, far-right. it is just a good old fashioned reporting. kudos, guys. what a read. when we come back, so many agreed with mccarthy's comments about president trump but won't admit it in public. why republicans still can't quit trump. up next. up next. man, this is the triple-threat of deli meat! subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and refreshi-

it's still the eat fresh refresh, and now subway's refreshing their italians. like the new supreme meats, topped high with new italian-style capicola. that's one handsome italian. uh... thanks. not you, garoppolo!

♪♪ subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and refres-

welcome back. panelists here. helene cooper. nbc news senior capitol correspondent, garrett hawke and former senator claire mccaskill of new jersey. i'll let you fire away here. you covered congress. is there going to be fallout from what martin and burns reported? >> not the kevin mccarthy side of it. he seems to have weathered the storm on this. i was texting with the republican chief of staff after the tapes came out and "washington post" reported that trump was okay with it and then the chief of staff said then we're okay with it.

they were happy to move on. the book reflects the private conversations people were having before january 6th, on that day or around that day, are now coming to light but were discussed in the hallways for the last two years. >> steve hays, this anecdote, it is what we thought it was. about power. >> reading the book is an emotional experience for those who have been covering this for a long time because you see all the republicans are saying one thing behind the scenes and something totally different when the cameras go on. sometimes within minutes of those two statements. i guess i have a slightly different take. i think mccarthy is okay in the short-term but i think in the medium and long-term, this causes him trouble. he already had some moderates and movement conservatives who are frustrated that he was such a bad leader. now you have trump maga house republicans who are frustrated from the other side. i talked to a couple of republicans in the house this week who were frustrated they

were being asked to defend kevin mccarthy on this. it was a lie. he was caught in a lie. he's a bad liar. the thing i think that's frustrating is they seem to be more frustrated that he's bad at lying than that he's lying. >> that's the fundamental issue is like, in so many ways, sort of the anecdotes in this book validates what we all already knew, which is very much that the republicans, you know, we saw that in 26, they didn't like trump then and then flipped. they had this inability to detach themselves publicly from somebody who they know is, they see him as a dollar sign, they see him as a vote magnet. at the end of the day, these people care far more about being reelected than they do about the country. it's like, that's what it comes down to, and this is what we're seeing on display. >> claire, what do you make of the manchin, again, another thing it is what we thought it was.

>> yeah, i mean, first of all, there's a whole lot of people that could be blamed for the size and scope of build back better. somebody got carried away at the white house and didn't realize the margins were so slim and that you have to count every vote on every piece. >> by the way, there's a great anecdote with andrew yang when he talks about, biden realized he was at a moment he didn't know what to do with the moment and somebody filled in the gaps. >> so as a result, america's kind of forgotten, the wonderful successes he had legislatively near the beginning of the term, something trump never managed and it's really too bad. i got to say, this book, and what it represents is sad to me and the reason it's sad is because the american people are so cynical and so angry at everybody in politics because they think they say one thing and closed doors, and then another publicly and they lie all the time. as it turns out, they have a reason to be cynical. >> i think the thing that emerges from the book is this

total lack of leadership at the top of both parties. as you just mentioned, joe biden not leading in the crucial moments, people are looking for guidance from joe biden. an anecdote in the story, enough mitch mcconnell says i think there are enough republicans to kwirkt dwt. -- convict donald trump. kevin mccarthy says he's going to call on trump to resign, and then they don't do it. they don't do it. there's no leadership. >> garrett, it's like everything. you read this book and it seems like the only person that seems to have some leadership ability is the speaker of the house. >> well, and democrats may find themselves lost without her in the next term if she decides she's going to follow what she said and not seek another term in leadership. i mean, she has been consistent through 2018 through now, but she's had her own problems too. >> this book claims she doesn't want to be speaker, she's so tired of the left. >> that's probably true. always hard to be speaker of the house when the senate is controlled by the other party or your party, the idea to get 60. if i have to talk to another

house democrat upset about the filibuster, she would like to move more. she can only do so much and she's tired of holding off one side to keep everybody on the same, pulling in the same direction. >> helene cooper, the kamala harris, biden stuff, there's a part of it that i read and like, i could have transposed the words obama and biden and biden as harris and obama aides used to look down upon, some of this feels normal. >> every vice president, i mean we're talking about this earlier. every vice president feels as if they're given only the hard stuff. they don't have enough to do. they're not put forward enough by the principal. the kamala harris stuff, i mean, listening just now to your interview with j mart and with alex struck me as also, the idea of her coming out and saying, people should stand up, being upset people are not standing up when she enters the room. that sounds like, in a sad way,

it sounds like a woman who doesn't feel confidence, this is self-confidence issue that can get, when you start counting, when people start counting, it's not just women that do this, obviously, but when you start counting that sort of thing and taking note of things like that that might seem, that strikes me -- >> fellow journalists may worry about those little slights, get off twitter. what's your advice to her? >> i think she's trying to do everything she can in a job that by its nature minimalizes you. i remember days when the senate room was full of people making fun of joe biden when he was vice president. i mean, unfairly, and a lot of what's happening to her is unfair but she, you know, she knows what she's doing and she's going to keep putting one foot in front of the other and i do think, however, there's no guarantee that she is the nominee of the party in '24. i think it could be a free-for-all. buckle up. >> another story that will fire up claire.

up next, in the last two decades, number of rural democratic counties won by the presidential candidate fallen by whopping 83%. the story behind that catastrophic decline when we come back. come back. piled high with tender shaved steak, topped with delicious pepper jack cheese, and kicking it up a notch with smoky- baja chipotle sauce? yep, they're constantly refreshing. y'all get our own commercial! subway keeps refreshing and-

it's still the eat fresh refresh, and subway's refreshing their italians. so, we're taking this to italy. refresh. because subway now has italian-style capicola on the new mozza meat and supreme meats. love the smell of italian food. subway keeps refreshing and refres- >> welcome back. taking a look at election results over the past few decades shows us a flashing warning sign for democrats as the nation's urban and rural divide has deepened. democrats have increasingly lost support from rural america. in 1996, then president clinton

won a whopping 1,117 counties. basically won half of the nation's rural counties. but even though he had won a popular vote by 7 points nationwide. that's all the rural counties he could win. the numbers shrunk again. won 194 counties. that's just 17% of the total that bill clinton won in 1996. and the latest nbc news polling shows you that the problem has not gone away. it's gotten worse. trust me, terry mcauliffe in virginia knows this. the democrats have an advantage on the urban areas on the congressional ballot but as you move out geographically, the democratic numbers shrink and the republican numbers grow and grow big time. 34 points right now. the number appears to be growing. for our current episode, i traveled to iowa and talked to voters why the democratic party is simply hemorrhaging rural support.

you feel simply having a "d" next to your name. representing clayton county in 2016. >> we had a picture taken when hillary clinton stopped by as all candidates do, and i fool heartedly in retrospect, but i posted it, i was a proud mom, on facebook and they used that, they cut my son out. >> you have a picture with hillary clinton. >> yep. >> and that's all they did. >> they ran it. >> you're a democrat. >> yes. >> clayton one of 31 counties carried by barack obama and donald trump. overwhelmingly rural, and home to roughly a quarter of all iowans. biden failed to win a single one of those counties back. >> there was no way biden was going to win iowa in 2020. it was just not going to happen. >> brian chairs the clayton county democratic party. any version of joe biden? >> none.

it was not going to happen, as long as trump was on the ticket. >> got annihilated in 2020. democrats did here in iowa in the state races. >> ruby bodeker ran and lost in 2020. >> i feel like an exhausted rural democrat. tired. i feel like there's a lot of weight on me. i honestly just want to be done a lot of days. i have four kids, a full-time job. i'm a single mom. i work. i don't even make $15 an hour and i am tired. >> our special report also has a story by my colleague how black rural voters feel abandoned by the democratic party and somewhat ignored. you can see the full "meet the press" episode how the democratic party lost rural america, wherever you get nbc news now, or our web site meetthepress.com available right now. when we come back, the 2022 primary season kicks off big time on tuesday and hits 13 states in the month of may alone. a lot at stake, stick with us. a lot at stake, stick with us.

just like my nonna makes when she cooks! i don't cook. wait, what? it's a good thing he's so handsome. subway keeps refreshing and refre- here's candice... who works from home, and then works from home. even when her bladder makes a little drop-off. because candice has poise, poise under pressure and poise in her pants. it takes poise. the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now. it senses your movements and automatically adjusts so you both stay comfortable all night. it's also temperature balancing so you stay cool. save $500 on the sleep number 360 c4 smart bed, queen now only $1,299. plus, free premium delivery when you add a base. ends monday.

it's still the eat fresh refresh, and subway's refreshing everything, like the baja steak and jack. piled high with tender shaved steak, topped with delicious pepper jack cheese, and kicking it up a notch with smoky- baja chipotle sauce? yep, they're constantly refreshing. y'all get our own commercial! subway keeps refreshing and-

(heartbeats) introducing icy hot pro. y'all get our own commercial! with 2 max-strength pain relievers. ice works fast... to freeze your pain and your doubt. heat makes it last. so you'll never sit this one out. new icy hot pro with pro-level contrast therapy. rise from pain. welcome back. it's may 1st and that means

we're in for a big 2022 primary month. look at the calendar. got two primaries coming up this tuesday. the big one, of course, ohio. two more the following tuesday, may 10th. west virginia, nebraska, may be a small state but interesting republican primaries. may 17th is the big one as far as we're concerned. five primaries, including pennsylvania and north carolina and then of course, three primaries in the texas runoff on may 24th, oh, by the way, that's the georgia race. claire, we just did a whole thing. ohio is this tuesday so i want to focus on ohio. the rural problem for democrats in iowa, tim ryan's not going to have a shot if he's losing rural areas 80-20. >> yeah, we have to, if we're going to be a majority party, we have to win in places like democrats have to get some republican votes. and that's what people need to understand, because most places in the country are either bright blue or bright red but the

places that make a majority are not. these are so conflicting for democrats and here's why. we want the trump candidates to win because they are least competitive against our democratic presumed nominees. but for the country, we don't want trump to succeed picking primary winners. it's the same push and pull. >> look at jd vance, campaigning with marjorie taylor greene and matt gaetz. and steve hays, i've got to play a bite that matt gaetz said when he accidentally spoke the truth. take a listen. >> we don't want a circumstance where the establishment could claim they defeated trump so president trump's brand is on the line, the maga brand is on the line. >> like i said, he speaks an occasional truth. do you agree? >> it's interesting. donald trump obviously went all in for jd vance, did it late. this was a risk he took. it looks like it's working out early if these poll numbers over the last couple of weeks are telling us the truth.

i think we'll know a lot more at the end of this month about exactly how powerful donald trump still is in the republican party and looks like mixed results. jd vance looks good in ohio with a trump-supporting republican and georgia, much bigger problems where his endorsement hasn't seemed to help at all. >> all of these candidates have tried to beat the trump candidate so in that way he has already won. josh mandel wins that race in ohio. donald trump will probably still claim victory on wednesday morning as mandel sought to be a trump candidate. >> a convert. it's fitting that ted cruz behind mandel and stuck by because cruz is sort of a wannabe trumper and vance looks like he's converted. >> there's shades of this, but i think this is the case in all of these races, it's a similar dynamic with mccormick and oz too. who is backing who in those races. if the whole battle is who is

the trumpiest candidate, he can claim victory regardless of who he endorses. >> do you know what the candidates are running on? they're not running on anything. >> you stump me with so much on this discussion, it isn't each funny. -- even funny. deep in ukraine and now deep in the primary. primary going on. >> what's interesting about vance is that he has actually, he's not been all in on ukraine. the southern border is more important than the war in ukraine. >> the vance thing i find so confounding. i mean, we all read the eulogy back in 2016 and i thought it was a beautiful piece of writing and it's hard for me to reconcile that person with who we're seeing right now. it's completely, i -- completely confounding. >> we started our conversation, claire, with mitch, you know, they say one thing and they do another in public. jd vance is a candidate of this. >> yeah, and there have been a lot of conversions to trump.

are they permanent? is this the permanent republican party much to the chagrin to my friends who want to talk about smaller government, lower taxes, foreign policy, trade issues, free trade issues, those are all gone. all they are now is about grievance and anger and people who are mad, and want to screw the system. that's what it's about now for the republican party. the question is, is that a good long-term strategy to lead a nation like america? i don't think it is, but the voters will tell us. >> i think that's mostly right. the one place that sticks out though is ukraine and russia, right, because you haven't seen republicans move towards a, you know, pro-putin position, nato skepticism. sort of been, yeah, tucker carlson, and the people who have are the people in the primary. >> which is something, we all may have to reckon with if they actually get into power. thank you guys, that's all we have for today and thank you for watching. we'll be back next week, because

if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." press. vemming news from ukraine. civilians who have been trapped inside horrific conditions in that mariupol steel plant are finally being evacuated. now, the wives of the last defenders in that city are pleading for their husbands' lives as well. plus, the second major u.s. visit to kyiv in two weeks, this time led by house speaker nancy pelosi, adding more weight to america's commitment to ukraine. and new reporting on the january 6th capitol attack. the threat from senator lindsey graham that may have led donald trump to finally urge his supporters to