minnesota, a car, and money, it's not a very good why. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> what will you miss most about carrie? >> what i ultimately miss is that she's not there, pulling in my driveway, honking, you know? announcing that she's here. she had a heart of gold. she was there for everybody. >> she had a lot of hope for her future. she had everything to live for. >> that is all for this edition of dateline. i am natalie morales. thank you for tuning in. ♪♪ this sunday, a crisis of confidence. supreme court justice clarence thomas faces growing scrutiny for failing to disclose payments and gifts from a top republican donor.

>> the reputation of the court is at stake. >> and a new report reveals thomas' wife received secret payments from an activist with business before the court. >> i do think that there's more that the supreme court should do to address those perception problems. >> with public confidence in the court at a record low, what can be done to restore americans' trust in the judicial branch? plus default danger. as the deadline nears for the government to pay its bills president biden faces off with republicans who want to negotiate spending cuts. >> we're not a deadbeat nation. we pay our bills. >> does president biden have a plan to get republicans to work with them? >> we're the only ones to lift the debt limit to make sure this economy is not in jeopardy. >> president biden has produced a budget. house republicans produced a ransom note. >> i'll talk to house democratic leader hakeem jeffries. and guilty as charged.

four members of the far right proud boys were found guilty of the high crime of seditious conspiracy. it's the third time the justice department has secured convictions for the january 6th attack. >> our work will continue. >> what do these convictions mean for a potential prosecution of donald trump for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election. i'll talk to former arkansas governor asa hutchinson, who is challenging trump for the republican nomination. joining me for insight and analysis are. nbc news senior capitol hill correspondent garrett haake. >> mark leibovich of "the atlantic" and republican strategist sara fagen. 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. good sunday morning. before we get to politics, it's another shooting. at least eight people are dead including children after a gunman opened fire at a suburban outlet mall in allen, texas, not

far from dallas before the gunman was shot and killed by a police officer who happened to be there. [ shots fired ] >> this is the second deadliest mass shooting this calendar year. when we came on the air last week, by the way, we were following the manhunt for another texas gunman who had fatally shot five people after he was asked by a neighbor to simply stop firing his gun in his yard. today six people were killed in henryetta, oklahoma, and a gunman fire opened fire in a medical room killing one and injuring four others and despite the uptick in mass shootings this year, there's been no change in the political response to the growing gun violence crisis. it's yet another example of our broken situation where politicization polar san diego has made governing in any action impossible, faces of both

parties punished anybody that seeks any sort of common ground. we're seeing it in response to the judicial branch where there is say growing cancer on the supreme court and a body that pride itself on judicial independence is perceive as another branch of government in the polarized nation. in the eyes of the american the justice' robes are not black anymore. they're red and blue. one in four americans said they had a great deal in the confidence of the supreme court, according to gallup, the lowest rating in 50 years, and that was after the leak of the draft of dobbs' opinion on abortion and before what we're dealing with right now which is a slew of ethics issues involving justices. what started with a story of justice thomas and a billionaire donor, has had questions for great nephew being paid for, paying for thomas' mother's home and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a nonprofit and paying money to his wife ginni and paying ginni thomas under

the table while he has business before the supreme court. thomas has not responded to any of the most recent charges and after the first story came out about the vacations he issued a statement said he didn't think the trips with close personal friends were reportable. democrats are demanding a formal ing ethics code for the supreme court, which has no ethical code of conduct that governors every other federal judge in america. and most republicans are afraid of angering the base or looking like you're giving the left anything are rallying around thomas using what-aboutism and rejecting any tightening of ethics rules. >> he's obviously been targeted because he's a conservative black man and he's on the supreme court in an effort to undercut the legitimacy of the court. >> many people, some in the media, many in congress want to make this about justice thomas, but you can't make this issue about justice thomas unless you're willing to make it about any number of other justices who had very similar situations that they're dealing with. >> now, the same broken partisan

politics that are eroding the supreme court's reputation are making it impossible for members of congress to move forward and make deals and legislate, whether it's on addressing mass shootings, on immigration, title 42 is set to expire, or the debt limit with the risk of default coming at the end of this month. as leaders of both parties, president biden who claims he's not negotiating, but he clearly hopes he can drive a wedge between republicans as he does it. >> there's a republican party and maga republicans, and the maga republicans really have put him in a position where in order to stake speaker, he has to agree -- he's agreed to thinks that maybe he believes but are just extreme. >> joining me now is the house democratic leader hakeem jefferies of new york. congressman jeffer res, welcome back to "meet the

press." >> good morning. great to be on. >> well, let's start with this meeting that you will have with the group of four congressional leaders and the president. it will include speaker mccarthy and senate majority leader schumer and yourself. i guess we should call this talks and not negotiations. is anything on the table or is this a negotiation? >> well, it's a very important discussion. i'm thankful that president biden has called us together. we need to do two things. one, we have to plark make sure that america pays its bills to avoid a dangerous default on our debt in a manner that will blow up our united states' economy, likely trigger a job-killing recession, cost us millions of good paying jobs, crash the stockmarket, which, of course, will adversely impact the retirement security of millions of americans, and it will dramatically raise costs for almost everyone. that has to be avoided, and the

one way to do that is to make sure that we raise the debt ceiling in a manner consistent with what has been done more than a hundred times under democrat presidents and republican presidents. at the same time, chuck, president biden has continued to make clear that we can have a discussion about the right balance of spending, investments, and river news to make life better for everyday americans to impact in a favorable way the health, the safety, and the economic well being of the american people. >> so do you accept the premise that you're not going to get a clean debt ceiling hike? >> i do not because we have a constitutional responsibility to make sure that we protect the full faith and credit of the united states of america. everyday americans understand this principle. if you have a bill, you need to pay it. if you fail to pay it, it's going toed a versionly impact your credit rating. your credit score will drop. if your costs drop, your costs are going to go up, and if

america defaults on our bills, that's exactly what's going to happen, and everyone is going to pay the price, and so i accept the premise that the only responsible thing to do is to do what democrats did in the previous administration where we helped trump raise the debt ceiling and avoid the default three different times, notwithstanding the fact that in our 247-year history, 25% of america's debt was acquired during the trump administration and yet we avoided a default without gamesmanship, without showmanship and that's what the republicans should do this time around. >> i understand what you want them to do, but as you know, the republicans don't accept that premise. you have almost every senate republicans and 43 of them saying they're not going to raise the debt ceiling without some sort of quid pro quo, cuts

or something like that. you've got independent groups including the chamber of commerce, including the committee for responsible federal budget, which is normally a pretty non-partisan group. they have said, hey, look, republicans have done their job. you may not have liked the bill the house passed, but they did do something. shouldn't democrats respond with a counterproposal? >> president biden has consistently made clear and, in fact, he introduced his budget two months ago, and it is a budget that will invest and protect in social security. it's going to try to strengthen the economy in a way that bills an economy that works with everyday american and the economy from the middle out and the ground up and not the top down, and president biden's budget will also cut the deficit by $3 trillion. we've been waiting for months for the republicans to articulate their position. they didn't produce the budget. what they did was produce a ran some note.

that is what the default on america act is, and effectively what they're saying to the american people is that either you accept these dramatic cuts and cuts to medicaid spending for disabled children and for elderly americans and cuts to law enforcement, cuts to education, cuts to health care, cuts to nutrition assistance for food and secure americans more than 30 million people throughout the country, either republicans want us to accept these dramatic cuts or accept a catastrophic default on our nation's debt. that is what is the unreasonable position, and hopefully in a few days republicans will come to their senses and do who's right by the american people. >> is the obvious solution here a short-term punt and it looks like this, you essentially raise the debt ceiling through september 30th and make the debt ceiling and the budget deadlines converge?

doesn't that give everybody what they want? you didn't negotiate cuts directly for the raising of the debt ceiling and you do -- the republicans get their budget negotiations with the budget? isn't that the uncomfortable compromise that is the best way forward here? >> i don't think the responsible thing to do is to kick the can down the road when president biden has been saying for months the position of leader schumer, the position of house democrats has been we have to avoid a default. america should pay its bills and protect the full faith and credit of the united states of america, but we, of course, are open to having a discussion about what type of investments, what type of spending, what type of revenues are appropriate in order to protect the health, the safety, and the economic well being of the american people. that's a process available to us right now.

i don't think we need to delay those discussions for a few months. >> i understand that, but are you ruling it out? i mean, if that's the way out of this, no one's saying, look, there are better ways out of a lot of problems. the question is if it avoids default, is this a way out? >> we have to avoid a default, period, full stop. i think what's in front of us right now is president biden has convened a very important discussion on tuesday so we can find a way forward to do what is necessary to continue to strengthen our economy in a manner that benefits everyday americans. >> let me ask it this way. are you following president biden's lead here, that if president biden and speaker mccarthy come up with some sort of handshake in some form here, are congressional democrats going to support the president's decision? >> we are in lockstep right now in terms of what the path forward president biden laid out. ultimately, everyone evaluates on the merits any particular piece of legislation that is presented to us, but we are in lockstep with president biden. we are in lockstep with senate

democrats. we want to do the right thing for the american people. that means paying our bills and simultaneously having this discussion about the future and what spending can look like anchored in president biden's budget proposal. >> i want to ask you a couple of other questions on some things that are happening this week. title 42 is going to end this week. do you believe the administration is prepared for what's coming to the border? >> i do believe the administration is prepared. secretary mayorkas was at the border this week. steps are being taken to make sure there's order at the border, but it should be done in a way that's consistent with two principles. one, the rule of law, but, two, our history as a compassionate

nation, as a nation of immigrants, and i think that the administration is preparing in an all-hands on deck way to make sure that when we move beyond this title 42 moment that we're in position to absorb what takes place. at the same time, we need to begin to have a real, bipartisan discussion on comprehensive immigration reform, and i hope that my republican colleagues will come to the table to have those discussions. >> i know you have confidence in the plan. a lot of border democrats do not. mark kelly, i don't have a lot of confidence. ruben gallego, i have heard repeated concerns about the lack of information. kyrsten sinema, i know is not a democrat anymore, has a caucus, and they prepared an end for title 42. let me ask you this. in the next couple of weeks, if this doesn't look like it's working, would you be in favor of reinstating title 42 powers? there's a bill in the senate that would do that, is this something that if it doesn't work you would be open to? >> i think that's a premature

discussion. we have to deal with the situation that is in front of us right now and support the administration efforts to make sure that there are resources at the border to deal with a post-title 42 environment and to do it in a way, as i mentioned, consistent with both rule of law. we want order at the border, and at the same time, do it in a compassionate way, and is consistent with who we are, our values as a nation. >> one final, straight-up political question and there's a poll out this morning and it has a startling view with former president trump and president biden, and you just made the case that president biden has been a good steward for the country. a poll believes that president trump did a better job at handling the economy than president biden at 56. why do you believe the public thinks it is so poor compared to the numbers you were citing? >> that's one poll of public opinion surveys that have indicated that there is a closer approximation between the actual reality of the incredible job

that president biden has done with respect to the economy. record low unemployment, more than 12 million good-paying jobs have been created. he reduced the deficit by $1.7 trillion during president biden's first two years. that's a record for a similar period of time in american history for any president, but of course, president biden recognizes that more needs to be done to continue to build out an economy that benefits everyday americans coming out of covid and in an inflationary environment. i think when it's all said and done and president biden is on the campaign trail able to make his case against the extreme maga republicans who are extreme on reproductive freedom, extreme on democracy, extreme on social security and medicare, extreme in their unwillingness to deal with the gun violence epidemic and violence, extreme

on pretty much every issue out there, i believe the american people will see fit to re-elect president biden and re-elect him comfortably. >> house democratic leader hakeem jefferies from brooklyn, new york. appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us, sir. good to see you. >> thank you, chuck. when we come back, he called for donald trump to drop out of the race, but how will he appeal to the trump loyal base of support? newly minted republican presidential candidate, asa hutchinson joins me next. xt advil targets pain at the source of inflammation. when pain comes for you, come back fast with advil liqui-gels.

welcome back. he's been called the 2024 candidate democrats should fear and the ideal candidate for a gop that no longer exists. asa hutchinson is a former u.s. attorney, the arkansas republican party chair, a three-term member of congress, he served as a house impeachment manager during bill clinton's impeachment and george w. bush directed him as department of

homeland security and left after two terms of governor of arkansas. and last week, hutchinson who has stood out in the republican field to pubically take on donald trump formally announced his presidential campaign. >> we have learned in times of turmoil, uncertainty and division, america has always benefited from leaders who challenge us and give us hope. i am running if are president of the united states because i know that the best of america is ahead of us. >> and the former governor of arkansas and republican presidential candidate asa hutchinson joins me now. governor hutchinson, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thank you, chuck. it's always good to be with you. >> i think the single most important speech any presidential candidate gives is the announcement speech. it's the speech that truly comes from the candidate that hasn't had a lot of consultants in it with speech writers and over time it happens.

i get that. and what i found from it is that it feels like you were running to lead a party from ten years ago, and you probably know what i mean by that. do you really think you have a message for a post-trump era in an era where donald trump still exists? >> no. i think the message that i presented is about the future. whenever you look at the rule of law which i talked about, the challenge of crime in our cities and the challenge of border security, that's where we simply need to enforce the law, and that is the background that i bring to this campaign. and whenever you look at reducing the size of the federal government and controlling spending, i presented the idea that the plan to reduce state, federal, civilian employment by 10%, i can do that because we reduced it by 14% in arkansas. so these are specific plans that

i present, and it's about the future. it's about the strength of america, it's about our leadership. so, no, it's not about the past. it's about the future, and i think that resonates. >> it does seem as if, though, that having the right positions that maybe the republican party supports and uphold doesn't seem to translate to votes. i look at your positions, and in theory, it makes a ton of sense to me that you should be able toee night this party around what you're selling. but as you know, they're looking for something else. donald trump, whatever it is. he's a fighter. he says what i think and you've said all of the different words. how do you appeal to the voter? the voter that likes the pugilism? >> that's true, but you will fight for them and whenever you look at my history of fighting against the establishment in

arkansas and also in congress in balancing the budget, this is proof of a record of someone who does fight for them. and whenever you look at growing the economy and the challenge of the high interest rates, high inflation, economy is the number one issue that will face americans as we go into 2024. >> yeah. >> and so you talk about these and as you're willing to fight for them, that's what they want, but they also want somebody that can win. it's about policy and it's about electability, and we do not watt to have a repeat of 2020 with a trump/biden race. we want something different that we can win and that's the case that we make. >> why do you think right now republican voters think donald trump is the best candidate? >> well, really, you look back to the true numbers, which is after the last midterm elections, and his numbers were down, and he was responsible for a lot of the failure and growth that we expected and wins in a

number of different states, and so his numbers were down. since then, his numbers have gone up because he's played the victim. people believe he's been picked on because of some prosecutions. i joke in some ways that his campaign manager is alvin bragg of new york city. that indictment caused those numbers to go up because they don't believe they're fair. this will settle out over time, and so let's judge it understanding it early in the campaign. we have a lot of room to grow. >> it's funny you bring up the legal issues and the conspiracy seditions of the proud boys. that was a tall task for justice to prove that case. they were able to prove it. as you have experience dealing in the justice department, as a former u.s. attorney were you surprised they were successful and you think this is a dire -- a dire outcome for the former president?

>> well, they are difficult cases to make. it's a high bar, and they were successful in it, and i think it really reflects the seriousness of the offense of january 6th, and undermining our democracy and how seriously the jury considers this that found them guilty of that. whenever you look at the impact on the future, donald trump has a moral responsibility for what happened on january 6th. the question is whether there is a criminal responsibility, and that's a judgement that the department of justice is going to have to make. i believe that we will have an america to go in a different direction, but it's going to be through the ballot box and not what happens in the courtroom, and so that's what i want to focus on is persuading americans that we need to go in a different direction. >> are you committing to support the republican nominee even if it is donald trump? >> i expect to be on the debate stage. we are still looking at what is required for that in terms of the pledge, but yes, i am sure

that the candidates that will be participating in that will be the nominee and so we will support the nominee. we will be on the debate stage. i think it's important and we're working very hard to get there and let's see, we're not sure whether trump will be there or not. i hope that he will be. i think it's important, but let's see how that develops. >> do you think if he doesn't show up to the debates, it makes it easier for you not to commit to support the nominee? >> well, that reflects the question as to who he will support if he's not the nominee. >> right. >> but he'll drop in the polls, and that's why i think he'll ultimately be there. it's important for the american public to hear -- particularly the republican voters -- to hear

the future, their ideas for it and to engage in that debate and defend their positions, and that's what the expectation is, and i think everybody has an obligation to participate in that. >> a couple of tricky policy issues that are very divisive or else we'd have resolved them by now. we have a lot more mass shootings again this week and what we saw in texas at an outlet mall. let me ask you this. do all of these recent shootings that took place in the states that have extended the rights of gun owners? if we want to tackle the mental health issue, how do you do it without regulating the firearm? >> well, first of all, we've had mass shootings that occurred blue states and states that have significant restrictions on firearms, and so they happened across america. and, chuck, this is a serious issue for us. it breaks everyone's heart and causes everyone to think what can we do to prevent this and to

reduce the deaths by violence. and so, as you said, the mental health is a significant part of it that we need to invest in, and you talked earlier about there's not any bipartisan consensus. and we did find last year a bipartisan consensus to address issues after the uvalde shooting in texas, and i applaud senator cornyn for his leadership on that so we can. we have to continue to look at what makes a difference and what fits within our constitutional framework and right now there is the consensus on addressing the mental health crisis in america particularly as it came out of the pandemic. >> let me ask you about the current crisis of confidence at the supreme court. back in the late '90s when you were in congress, you led a bipartisan effort. there was a rebuke, an ethics investigation of newt gingrich, and you led a bipartisan effort,

and, hey, this was concluded, and it was a bipartisan action. he had to pay a pretty hefty fine, but it was -- it was accepted by the public because it was bipartisan. do we need that here with the supreme court? it feels like there isn't an accepting that the premise that the court has an ethical problem right now. >> well, this is an important issue, and whenever you look at the confidence of the supreme court, which is critical to operation of our democracy, that confidence level is somewhat down, but if you look back at history, you had during the warren court, they had a controversial decision, brown versus board of education. and for a long time, the court was under extraordinary criticism. the confidence level was diminished. that has been built back up over time. you had a controversial decision and history is repeating itself and you have, in this case, the democrats undermining the court, first of all, by wanting to pack it by more than nine, which has been our historic number, and,

secondly, these allegations against justice thomas. the court needs to be transparent, first of all. they need to be clear on what their reporting rules are. they need to review those to make sure they're very similar to the other public officials and branches of government which has broad reporting requirements and clearly have not been sufficient and they've changed those, but i think they need to step simply in terms of transparency, so american people understand what the rules are and what is required and is similar to other public officials. >> it sounds like you think, chief justice roberts he needs to come out and publicly state what you just said? >> sure. i think there needs to be a clear set of rules, and there needs to be openness about it so that everybody knows what the rules are. those are important. every public official has to follow those. they can set those. they should set those versus the congress of the united states because they are a separate branch of government. >> right. governor asa hutchinson, former governor of arkansas, presidential candidate just announced this week. appreciate you coming on,

sharing your perspective, and stay safe on the trail, sir. we'll see you again. >> thank you, chuck. good to be with you. before we go to break, on saturday, millions of people watched the coronation of king charles iii, the first british monarch to be crowned in 70 years, and it raises questions about the future of the royal family with the public finding its role in modern democracy increasingly insignificant. during a 1969 tour of north america, the duke of edinburgh, the father of king charles appeared on "meet the press" to defend the monarchy. >> your highness, there have been reports which say that the british monarchy gets its strength in popularity because it hasn't changed, and then i see that it gets its strength in popularity because it has changed and become more modern. what's your opinion on that? >> well, different things have changed. i think when people say it's not changed there is a sense of continuity, the fact that you have roughly the same people

and all the time. it givens the community a sense that whatever changes there are, some things don't change all the time. when we come back, the growing ethics allegations against clarence thomas and the fight over the debt ceiling and both with deep partisan divides. the panel is next.

i know there's conflicting information about dupuytren's contracture. i thought i couldn't get treatment yet? well, people may think that their contracture has to be severe to be treated, but it doesn't. if you can't lay your hand flat on the table, talk to a hand specialist. but what if i don't want surgery? well, then you should find a hand specialist certified to offer nonsurgical treatments. what's the next step? visit findahandspecialist.com today to get started.

welcome back. the panel is here. maria christina kumar, global latino, garrett haake, mark leibovich, staff writer at "the atlantic," and republican strategist sara fagen. i want to set up the conversation. we're going to hear from john roberts from 15 years ago and clarence thomas at his confirmation hearing regarding ethics, conflicts of interest, and the supreme court. >> i think the most important thing for the public to understand is that we are not a

political branch of government. they don't elect us. if they don't like what we're doing, it's more or less just too bad. >> we are, as judges, in the least democratic branch of government. we have lifetime appointments. we make very, very important decisions, and we do not stand for re-election. i may talk about the flaws, but i also point out the importance of the legislative and oversight process. on this process, it's necessary. and it has, to me, become more clearly necessary since i became a judge. >> garrett haake, what was interesting about that response from then judge thomas, it was about acknowledging, hey, this process has been kind of -- you haven't enjoyed it, and he's basically saying, no, i haven't, but, look, this is what is congress' job. you can argue he's saying, try

to write an ethics code. >> they can try. the ethics code other judges follow was not written by congress is it would not actually be enforceable. what's the mechanism you would put over the supreme court to put an ethics court in place. he was practically begging justice roberts to kind of get a hold of this, to get in front of it that only the supreme court could put something in place to increase confidence in the supreme court that they're even taking this seriously. that seems to be the only real road here. >> it does, and i guess -- i don't want to -- you were in the bush white house when john roberts was picked. this is not who he is, but i've got to think, will he meet this moment? he needs to do something. >> well, i think he probably will get forced to do something. i mean the partisan nature of what is going on in life today, in politics today is why we see so much scrutiny on the court and on these justices, and there's been a standard on

thomas since the minute he stepped on the supreme court, which is that liberals have wanted to take him out, and he's in some degrees made it the criticism easy, but i don't think they're going to let up. the courts will be forced to do something. >> maria teresa, it is interesting already and i've heard republicans say they've always come after tom, and the republicans are going after sonia sotomayor. >> okay. all nine justices will end up looking terrible once political operatives were done with him in three months. how do you put a stop to this? >> you have to stop and recognize there are three issues before us. one is i don't think the founding fathers actually believe that corruption was part of the courts and i say this tongue in cheek because clarence thomas is an originalist, and i don't think the founding fathers had this in mind, but if you look at where the money came from and what was it impacting and that's what they should be investigating. i'm a lay person and not a

constitutional lawyer, but if you look at the funding that ginni, his wife, received under the table, it was someone with business before the court in the voting rights act that changed the course of history, and so i do think that when you look at where he chose -- he chose not to recuse himself, recognizing that there was business before the court. and the third part, what are the future cases he hasn't recused himself from? we have a supreme court case under review that basically guts the authority of federal agencies such as the epa and such as the fda and basically concentrates the power on judges. that's an issue for the american people. >> mark leibovich, i do think the other source of blame here for the current corrosive nature of the supreme court is the united states senate. they have essentially destroyed the confirmation process and created an entire judiciary that is red and blue. >> yes. in that sense, the idea that it's not a political body, that is not true anymore.

i will say, though, the ideas that liberals are going after clarence thomas, as a member of the church of print journalism on this, the propublica, which is a great investigative journalism, is rock solid. this is damning stuff and justice roberts is right. we have to life with it because they're not going to stand for elections, but yes, it's political, but at the same time, this is a -- this is an issue of right and wrong. >> it is. i do think it falls under the larger issue of an impossible, nobody can concede when their side is ever doing wrong. i want to turn to the debt ceiling because we did statistical analysis. just 27% of congress was in office in 2011 the last time we had a debt ceiling. fewer than one in four republicans and fewer than one in four democrats. this tells me that the warnings may be falling on deaf ears. >> i think that's absolutely true based on the conversations

i've had on the hill, and there are a number of people, particularly republicans, who don't think either the deadline is real or the consequences will be as severe as they've been suggested to be. i mean, it's hot potato with a live grenade at this point, and i think what may happen is we may have to get really close to that deadline and see actual consequences before this gets serious. i mean i talked to some sources on the democratic side who don't expect much to come out of this meeting with president biden, and we might see it start to panic. there's only a political loss for either party. there's no win anymore, is there? >> it would be pretty hard to see. there's a scenario where the president and the house republicans win which is if they came together in a compromise would seem pretty hard at this point and both saying you're great. good luck with that.

>> a funny thing came on the way of republicans is they passed a spending plan. >> yeah. >> it's a pretty good political argument to say we're going to raise the debt ceiling and hold spending to 2022 levels. that's not exactly austere. >> yeah, it does mean that the president needs to negotiate, don't you think, maria teresa? >> when you look at republicans who said i would vote for mccarthy, and it speaks that there's so much in there that is good for republicans that they want the president to come in and be almost their barrier to be able to proceed and i do think there will be temporary fixes. >> the short-term punt, and that's the way washington works. >> certainly the september solution and we can look forward to more kicking the can down the road in the next few weeks, but look, it's much more reckless, and it's a much tighter margin. senator mccarthy has four votes to work with, and a lot of those are districts. >> we will crash into guardrails. let's just hope we don't end up in a ditch.

all right, guys. up next, how the republican party is taking the culture war fight to another level, and tennessee which has become ground zero for the fight. s bece ground zero for the fight. ha. away. ♪ ♪ there is a better way to manage diabetes. the dexcom g7 continuous glucose monitoring system away. eliminates painful finger sticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. all of that finger pricking and all that pain, my a1c was still stuck. before dexcom g7, i couldn't enjoy a single meal. i was always trying to outguess my glucose, and it was awful. before dexcom g7, my diabetes was out of control because i was tired, not having the energy to do the things that i wanted to do. (female announcer) dexcom g7 is a small, easy-to-use wearable that sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver

without painful finger sticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady-- and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm, you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment. it can even alert you before you go too low or when you're high. oh, the fun is absolutely back. after dexcom g7, i can on the spot figure out what i'm gonna eat and how it's going to affect my glucose! when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," i can get excited again. (earl) after using the dexcom g7, my diabetes, it doesn't slow me down at all. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. it's so easy to use. it has given me confidence and control, everything i need is right there on my phone. (earl) the dexcom g7 is so small, so easy to use, and it's very discreet. (dr. aaron king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do. (david) within months, my a1c went down,

that's 6.9. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9. (female announcer) dexcom is the number one recommended cgm brand and offers 24/7 tech support, so call now to get started. you'll talk to a real person. don't wait, this one short call could change your life. (bright music)

welcome back. this week we are debuting a brand-new season of "meet the press" reports, our sixth, by the way. each week on "meet the press" reports, we take a deep dive into a single topic, and we take a look at restrict drag, and it's a wave of anti-lgbtq laws

that have passed republican state legislatures over the past few years. our own antonia hylton reports from all across ten states, which became the first state to pass an anti-drag law, and although the law has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge, is impacts are being felt by performers like story van esse. >> as a transgender woman in tennessee, she spent years hiding who she was. it wasn't until she turned 18 and stepped out on to her first drag show stage that she realized it didn't have to be

that way. >> and i didn't have the words for it. it was one of the few times i felt powerful. i felt seen. i felt right in my skin. i can do anything i need to do when i'm in drag. >> wait, are there all of the children. if you're a child, not emotionally, i mean, like, legally. >> for story and her friend who performs under the name harry scary, it's begun to feel like their very existence is a political act. >> the agenda is to just exist, and to not -- and to feel valid. >> the agenda is to be able to go to the bathroom without being worried about being punched in the face. >> the state senate majority leader jack johnson, a republican from franklin, tennessee, sponsored the new legislation. it talks about how it's harmful to minors, and it doesn't see how performances are deemed to be harmful or sexual. have you been to drag shows? >> i have not. i've seen videos of drag and i guess i should say, have i been to places where a man was dressed as a woman and performing or singing or maybe they were -- if it was a halloween party and dressed up as dolly parton, of course, i have. >> are you trying to send a signal that some types of people aren't welcome in tennessee? >> the only signal i am trying to send, you shouldn't be sexually graphic -- you shouldn't be simulating sex acts in front of children.

>> you can watch the episode on peacock of after the broadcast of "nbc news now." you can watch it on demand on peacock the next day. next week we tackle artificial intelligence. when we come back, a rare glimpse at donald trump under oath. >> she would not be my first choice, that i can tell you. >> you were referring to her physical looks, correct? >> just the overall, not -- i look at her. i see her. i hear what she says. whatever. you wouldn't be a choice of mine, either, to be honest. i hope i'm not insulting. i would not in any circumstances have any interest in you.

(music throughout) get the royal treatment. join the millions playing royal match today. download now.

welcome back. obviously, we were talking about the president's very legal issues, yet we have this new poll out this morning, abc, and sara fagen, i'm curious of your

thoughts with it. donald trump who did a better job handling the economy, donald trump, and president biden, 36%. there are some voters who would like to see trump prosecuted for various crimes and think he should be prosecuted who were picking trump over biden. does that make it possible to knock trump out of the nomination? >> well, i don't think it's impossible to knock him out. you've got to remember, it's going to be a long process, and what happens in iowa, what happens in new hampshire, south carolina, that's going to be very consequential, and if a candidate, you know, is expected to get 10% and gets 15%, it becomes a week of great press for that person, and the dynamic can change. i do think it's going to be difficult to beat donald trump, don't get me wrong, but if you really analyze polling and you ask the question four different ways, trump's hard, hard, hard support is about 14%. it's not 40. you've got a bunch of people who are for him today that are open to other people, and that's the

path that these folks have to put together. >> the alarm bell that ought to go off at the white house is the economic number. if this election is not about abortion rights, they're in trouble. >> i think it's about the economy and education. i think a lot of parents right now are seeing their kids are way far behind. who is talking to me about education? the republicans are, and the economy as we see it there might be inflationary pressures that are going to come. everybody is saying it, but it looks like it might actually happen. i think the challenge for the biden administration is to remind the american people who got them out of the pandemic and the real checks. one of the things that we found in voter latino was that when people supported donald trump that they believed he literally gave them the checks that he signed, and i think it's getting the american people to understand it's far more complex and who actually got us out of the incredible pandemic.

>> hakeem jefferies, he immediately, there was abortion rights and democracy, it reminded me of the bush-ford days this will be a choice, not a referendum. >> look at the announcement in the biden video and january 6th and freedom, and the same thing they were trying to run on in 2022, disqualifying republicans, and they've all hugged him on the january 6th issue, but, yeah, the less they can be talking about the inflation and the price of eggs or what your mortgage rate will be and the more you can talk about look what the other guy is up to, that's the play for democrats. >> i want to play something from trump's definition in his defamation trial because in many ways it is a throwback to 2016 and i'll explain. take a listen. >> i don't even know who the woman -- let's say, it's marla. >> you say marla's in this photo? >> that's marla, yeah. that's my wife. >> which one are you pointing to?

>> here. >> e. jean carroll. >> who is this? >> and the person on the right is your then wife ivana? >> this is the picture. i assume that's john johnson. because it's very blurry. >> does it matter, right? "access hollywood" tape didn't matter. does this stuff matter? >> not among trump supporters, no. history would tell us not really, it doesn't move the needle. his supporters are his supporters, they're not watching this, first of all and making any new determinations. i was a little bit more surprised that this didn't get more pickup just because -- i mean the rest of this video -- >> donald trump under oath. you don't see that very often. >> right. you're not -- this is not a great setup, and bill clinton can attest to that. i mean, look, it's not -- history shows that this is not going to be something that takes trump supporters away from him. >> sara fagen, trump folks have been pushing around this

thought, it's 2016 again, it's 2016 again, and they're almost embracing it. we're the outsider and not the insider. can they pull this off? >> i don't think they can pull it off. he's the incumbent party leader, but what i think is going to help him is that oddly, this calendar of trials appears to be sort of shaping up to have some verdict or some ruling every two months and he gets a sympathy bounce from it, and i had one person from a rival campaign say the calendar isn't working to our favor -- >> it's bizarre. >> -- to make the -- >> isn't that the about the voters? >> this is what drives me nuts because the rival campaigns could choose to go the other way. every other republican theoretical primary candidate or actual primary candidate has hugged trump in the face of all these controversies. >> they can come out and say this guy is being credibly accused of rape in this case. he's being charged in manhattan. who knows what he will be charged with in january 6th and they've embraced him so as not to turn his voters off. >> the republican party believes

this is all made up, every one of these. >> and i don't subscribe to the idea that this is a godsend to donald trump, the prosecutions and verdict. >> go. >> the reason why i don't think it's 2016 because the majority of the american people remember what his precedences was like and they want a time out. >> we'll find out together. that's all we have for today, we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪ a horrific scene after the deadly mass shooting at an outlet mall in texas.