news Alerts
There are no new alerts at this time
KRISTEN WELKER:
This Sunday: Battle Lines. President Trump threatens to target Iran’s power plants if the Strait Of Hormuz — a vital global energy waterway — remains closed as oil prices soar and the message from the White House shifts.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:
We strongly encourage the other nations to get involved with us. Well, we don’t need too much help.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
We may unsanction the Iranian Oil that’s on the water.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And as the conflict deepens, the costs are rising and now the White House turns to Congress.
SEC. PETE HEGSETH
It takes money to kill bad guys.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:
It’s a small price to pay to make sure we stay tippy top.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is the mission expanding? I’ll talk to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Plus: Breaking Point. As airport security lines grow, the funding fight over the Department of Homeland Security drags on.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
We should be able to get this done today.
PRESS SEC. KAROLINE LEAVITT:
Unfortunately, these are people who are not negotiating in good faith.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Can Washington strike a deal to end the DHS shutdown? And Warning Cuba. President Trump threatens to “take over” Cuba as an energy crisis pushes the island to the brink.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:
Whether I free it or take it, I think I could do whatever I want with it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I’ll talk exclusively to Cuba’s Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío.
[BEGIN TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are you saying that regime change is off the table?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
Absolutely.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News Senior National Security Correspondent Courtney Kube; Jonathan Martin of POLITICO; Mike Dubke, Former Trump White House Communications Director; and Ashley Etienne, Former Communications Director to Vice President Harris. Welcome To Sunday, it’s Meet The Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good Sunday morning. The war with Iran is poised to enter a new and potentially more dangerous phase. The Pentagon announcing it’s sending thousands of more troops to the Persian gulf. As NBC News reports President Trump is weighing “several options,” including the possible deployment of U.S troops inside Iran. One option under consideration: using ground forces to re-open the Strait of Hormuz — a critical artery for global oil supply. The president was asked Friday about the buildup.
[BEGIN TAPE]
KELLY O’DONNELL: Mr. President, are you deploying the additional troops to the region for deterrence or to optimize your operational capability?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I would say this, that if I told you the answer to that question, my military people wouldn’t be very happy. But we have a lot of troops. We have unlimited ammunition. We have the greatest equipment in the world. And we are decimating Iran.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Back here at home, the economic fallout is intensifying. The stock market down four straight weeks and gas prices up nearly a dollar a gallon since the war began. The administration now moving to ease some oil sanctions on Iran — and earlier, on Russia — in an effort to bring prices down. All of this, as the Pentagon prepares to ask Congress for an additional $200 billion to fund the war.
[BEGIN TAPE]
SEC. PETE HEGSETH:As far as $200 billion, I think that number could move obviously. It takes money to kill bad guys.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:
And so it’s our responsibility right now to end this reckless war of choice, to end the fact that billions of dollars have already been spent, perhaps up to $2 billion a day to drop bombs in the Middle East.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:
We want to be sure and it’s a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy top.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
And joining me now is treasury secretary Scott Bessent. Secretary Bessent, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Kristen, good morning.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good morning. Good to have you back. I want to start with the latest of what we’re hearing from President Trump. Let me read you what he posted overnight. He says, “If Iran doesn’t fully open, without threat, the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various power plants, starting with the biggest one first.” Has the president changed his mind about winding down the war, as he said a day earlier, and instead plans to escalate?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I think he said he could wind the war down at any time he wants. And, Kristen, this is the only language the Iranians understand.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But this seems to be an escalation, a threat of escalation, and it seems to run counter to his statement that he, in fact, wants to wind down the war.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, Kristen, the president’s been very clear from the beginning that the goals are: destroy the Iranian air force and the navy, to completely demolish their missile capabilities, demolish their ability to replenish those capabilities, make sure the Iranians cannot have a nuclear weapon and stop their ability to project power internationally. And the president will take whatever steps it takes to achieve those goals.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, you know, I was on the phone with President Trump a week ago. He told me allies were on the way to help secure the Strait of Hormuz. Has the Trump administration abandoned that strategy and now chosen to go it alone?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, what we have done there has been a campaign to -using military assets to soften up the Iranian fortifications along the strait. That’s going to continue until they are completely demolished. And, Kristen, let me tell you, whether it’s this network or the mainstream press, the American people do not have good framing what is going on here. If you were to read what is happening, and I’m sure when Senator Murphy is on, you know, he has come out and said we are losing the war. That is wrong. We have demolished the Iranian capabilities. Their air force is completely destroyed, navy destroyed. And every day we are taking out their missiles, their missile systems, and the factories that build those missiles. And now our- General Caine, Secretary Hegseth, are leading a campaign to destroy all the fortifications along the straits of Hormuz.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Just to put a fine point on this though, is the president in the process of winding down this war or escalating the conflict?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, they are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes you have to escalate to de-escalate, Kristen.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. NBC News is reporting that President Trump is considering sending troops into Iran. Will the administration use troops to secure the Strait of Hormuz or for any other reason, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, as President Trump said during the press break yesterday when he was going out to Marine One, he’s not going to give away what we’re going to do. As President Trump always does, he’s leaving all options on, on the table. We had a very successful bombing campaign against the military installations, Kharg Island, the nexus for all the Iranian oil supply. You know, what could happen with Kharg Island? We’ll see. And again, just to be clear, the command and control system of the Iranian regime is in chaos. This is Hitler’s bunker. Hitler’s dead. Himmler’s dead. Göring is dead. The-most of what you’re seeing are lone wolf activities. The mid-range ICBM that was shot off, these two missiles yesterday, that’s out of desperation, Kristen.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You bring up Kharg Island. I want to ask you about your statement. You said it could become a U.S. asset. What exactly does that mean? Could U.S. troops go into Kharg Island to secure it?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, as I said, all options are on the table.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. So, that’s a possibility.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
All options are on the table.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Let me talk about your announcement this past week. On Friday, the Treasury Department lifted sanctions on Iranian oil stored on tankers, a move that would effectively allow Iran to get more than $14 billion of oil revenue.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT: I, I –
KRISTEN WELKER: Hold on. Why is the U.S. helping to fund a country that it’s currently at war with, Mr. Secretary–
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, Kristen, why don’t we have good facts here? That Iranian oil was always going to be sold to the Chinese. It was going to be sold at a discount. So, which, which is better, Kristen? The uh, which is better? If oil prices spike to $150 and they were getting 70% of that? Or oil prices below $100? It’s better to have them where they are now. And to be clear, we had always planned for this contingency. About 140 million barrels are out on the water. In essence, we are Jiu-Jitsuing the Iranians. We are using their own oil against them. We have a much better line of sight, to be clear, at Treasury, when this oil goes to — if it goes to Indonesia, if it goes to Japan, if it goes to Korea, we have a much better line of sight and are able to block accounts that the oil goes into. When it goes into China it completely gets recycled. So, to be clear, that 14 billion number is grossly overstated.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me unpack what you’re just saying. First of all, how much is it? And second of all, I don’t hear you disputing that Iran will get some of the money.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Iran alway–already gets a huge amount of the money because Iran is the largest sponsor of state terrorism and China has been funding them.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So was always part of the plan to un-sanction Iranian oil?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, we unsanctioned the –at Treasury we plan for all contingencies. We have break-the-glass plans. And to be able — this water — this oil is floating out in Asia, and it is mostly our Asian allies — the U.S. gets virtually no oil from the Gulf. We are energy sufficient. So, when we un-sanction this, rather than the oil going to China, it can go to Japan. It can go to Korea. It can go to Indonesia. It can go to Malaysia –
KRISTEN WELKER:
And it can go to Iran too. I mean, isn’t the point that the sanctions were in place to prevent Iran from getting any of the money. They will have access to some of the –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
No, again–
KRISTEN WELKER:
– money now –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
– Kristen, you’re missing the point. So, please listen to me. They were getting it from China anyway.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Alright. Let me talk about the real-world impact of this because you’re talking about 140 million barrels of Iranian oil, and that’s just a little bit more than what the world uses in one day. How much can that really change prices here at home –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, Kristen, terrible framing, terrible framing –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, how much can it change –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
No, no, no —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– prices here at home?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Just — just –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Talk to consumers. How much will it change prices here at home?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Let me explain. 140 million barrels — about 20 million barrels a day — comes out of the Gulf. About five million has been the uh, repurposed by the Saudis, by the UAE. So, we’re at a 15 deficit. About 1.5 is Iranian oil that comes out. So, we are at between a 10 and 14 million deficit on a daily basis. So, the- if you think about 140 million barrels, that’s between 10 days and two weeks of supply. And one of the reasons, one of the reasons that prices in the U.S. of West Texas crude are below $100 — and we have not seen this massive spike as we did during the beginning of Russia/Ukraine — is because we are well supplied in the market, whether it is the Russian oil, whether it is the Iranian oil, or it is the largest the SPR release in history done by a coalition of 32 countries, 400 million barrels.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Alright. Let’s talk about the Russian oil, which you just raised. The administration did ease oil sanctions on Russia earlier this month. You had initially defended imposing those sanctions, calling Russian exports, quote, “Oil that funds the Russian war machine.” If the point of the sanctions was to stop funding the Russian war machine, why is the administration effectively rewarding Russia now?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, Kristen, you’re missing the point. Which, which is better? Does Russia get more money if oil goes to $150 and they get 70% of that — that’s $105 — or if oil stays below $100, so they’re getting less money? Our analysis shows-our analysis shows that the maximum extra amount that Russia could get would be $2 billion, which is which is one day of the Russian Federation’s budget.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Understood. But they wouldn’t have gotten any of –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
No, no, no–
KRISTEN WELKER:
– that with the sanctions in place –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Kristen. Kristen, I don’t know, whoever’s –
KRISTEN WELKER:
But would they have gotten –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
No, no, no –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– any of that in place –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Kristen, whoever does your research, you should get rid of because they were getting it. It was going into China. China was buying over 90% of the Russian oil, and it was –
KRISTEN WELKER:
–But what’s the point of sanctions if not to punish Russia, if not to punish countries?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, the uh, it–we had no ability to do that to China — if China wants to be a bad actor. But we were substantially able to degrade their exports. Their exports have dropped about 25% when the rest of the world isn’t buying it. So, exports are down, but there was a lifeline into China. Now we’ve opened up that to everyone else.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Just to be clear though. You did defend imposing those sanctions in the first place. Let me ask –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Just to be clear, it is a maximum of $2 billion. So let’s have good framing on this.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let’s talk about the overall cost of this war. The administration’s asking Congress — poised to an additional $200 billion in additional funding for this war. Some Republicans who could cast key votes on this are expressing hesitation or outright opposition. Take a listen to them and then I want to get your reaction on the other side.
[BEGIN TAPE]
FEMALE REPORTER:
Are there any initial red flags for you?
SEN. RICK SCOTT:
No — maybe, it’s a lot of money. I’ll go through it, see what they need.
REP. LAUREN BOEBERT:
I am a no. I’ve already told leadership I am a no on any war supplementals. I am so tired of spending money elsewhere.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Should President Trump have gone to Congress on the front end of this war if he was going to ask for Congress’s help now for more funding?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, President Trump was within his authorities under the War Powers Act to initiate this action. And we, we actually now we have plenty of money to fund this war. What we are doing is this is supplemental. President Trump has built up the military, as he did in his first term, as he is now doing in his second term, and he wants to make sure that the military is well-supplied going forward.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Would the administration ever raise taxes in order to fund this war?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, Kristen, terrible framing. I think that the –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, it’s just a que– it’s a simple question that I think a lot of people have –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
It’s a ridiculous question.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, but –Can you answer it?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Why would we do that? That the, that we-we have plenty. We have a trillion dollars in this year’s budget for the military. And President Trump, even before the conflict started, had said that he would like to further build out the military.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So, just–is raising taxes under consideration at all –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Not —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– if you’re saying you have plenty of money?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Not at all.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let’s turn to how all of this is impacting consumers. United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby is now planning, he says, to cut flights and is planning for oil to go as high as $175 a barrel with prices potentially staying above $100 a barrel through 2027. This is according to him. All of this could potentially mean higher prices for consumers. What do you say to Americans who feel they were promised lower costs and now they’re getting the opposite?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Uh, Kristen, I think the American people understand that any 50 — I’m not going to put a time on it but let’s just pick 50 days of temporary elevated prices, prices will come off on the other side, for 50 years of not having an Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon. The American people are beginning to understand, thanks to President Trump, that there is no prosperity without security.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I heard you say 50 days. Are you saying that prices could start to come down –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
No, no, no, no –
KRISTEN WELKER:
What’s the time frame –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I was just picking a point. I don’t know whether it’s going to be 30 days. I don’t know whether it’s going to be 50 days. I don’t know whether it’s going to be 100 days. But to have 50 years the, uh, of peace in the Middle East and know that the Iranian regime is defanged because, Kristen, what we had before was the illusion of security. Imagine this regime if they had had another year or two years to build out their missile capabilities. They would’ve built a shield around themselves and it would’ve been impossible to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. I want to ask you on a different topic about a post by President Trump from yesterday responding to the death of former special counsel Robert Mueller. He posted this quote, “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!” Do you think it’s appropriate for the president of the United States to celebrate the death of an American citizen, someone who’s a Bronze Star, Purple Heart recipient and who served in Vietnam?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Kristen, I was with the president in the green room at Davos and there was a video playing of the — what may have been an illegal raid on his home at Mar-a-Lago. They are going through his wife’s wardrobe. And I watched the look in his eye, and I think that neither one of us can understand what has been done to the president and to his family.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But to the question of the president’s post, I mean, Robert Mueller didn’t order that raid. Is it appropriate for the president to celebrate the death of any American citizen –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– Mr. Secretary –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I think that given what has been done to President Trump and his family it is impossible for either of us to understand what he has been through.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So, you don’t think that there’s anything wrong with the post, saying, “Good. Robert Mueller’s dead”
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Again, I think that we should all have a little empathy for what has been done to him and his family.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, thank you as always for being here. Really appreciate it.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Thank you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy joins me next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. And joining me now is Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Senator Murphy, welcome back to Meet The Press.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Good morning.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good morning. Thank you for being here. I want to start with Iran. The Pentagon, as I was just discussing with the Treasury secretary, is planning to ask Congress for more than $200 billion in additional funding for the war. Most Democrats have vowed that they’re not going to approve this funding request. But by opposing this request, are you risking potentially leaving American forces vulnerable?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
I thought that was a really scary appearance by the Treasury secretary. This administration has totally lost touch with reality. This war is spinning out of control. Prices are spiking for millions of Americans. There’s a new war breaking out between Israel and Lebanon. Oil assets of our allies are continuing to be hit in the region. There’s no end in sight. The secretary of Treasury just said we’re going to escalate in order to de-escalate — it’s like they’ve never read a history book. That’s exactly what our war leaders said in the middle of Vietnam and the 20 years of mismanagement in Afghanistan. We need to end this war. The only way you are going to get prices down here in the United States, the only way that you are going to bring peace to the region, is by ending this war. And maybe the quickest way we can do that is by denying them the funding that they need to perpetuate this war which is increasingly out of control.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, let me as you though because the — the war is underway. You have argued, and I’ll put this quote, “We need to end this war right now.” If the U.S. ends the war right now as you’re arguing for, could that leave Iran with a — a more extreme anti-American regime and even lead to a potentially larger conflict for the next administration?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
But the administration has already said their goal is not regime change. They are perfectly satisfied to leave in charge of Iran a regime that is going to be worse for American interests than the previous regime. What we know is that the minute we stop bombing, this new regime is going to start rebuilding their missile capacity and their drone capacity. The estimates are that it’ll only take them a handful of months to reconstitute that threat. So what did we get at the end of this war? We’re going to waste billions of dollars. We’re going to get dozens if not hundreds of Americans killed. We’re going to start new conflicts in the region. And when it’s all said and done, a more provocative regime is going to be in charge with the same military capacities? This is nonsensical. This is what happens when you put real estate developers and talk show hosts in charge of American national security.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Just to be very clear, you are a “no” on any funding requests.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
I’m absolutely a “no” on any funding request. I mean, every single day this war makes less and less sense. We’re going to give Iran $14 billion to fund this war with the United States? We’re going to give Russia billions of dollars to fund their war with Ukraine? We are literally putting money into the pockets of the very nations that we are fighting right now. Like, we’ve never seen this level of incompetence in war-making in this country’s history. And frankly we’ve had a lot of incompetence in war-making.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, speaking of my conversation with the Treasury secretary, he said all options are on the table when I asked him about ground troops. Is there any scenario where you would support putting U.S. boots on the ground in Iran?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Never. Never. That would be a mistake of — of colossal proportions. And the American public doesn’t want this war, right? If we’re going to spend $200 billion, they want that money to be spent on them. Think of what we could do with $200 billion here at home. We could make sure that none of the 20 million Americans that are getting a health insurance increase because of Trump’s policies have their premiums raised. We could rebuild schools in every neighborhood across this country. The fact that this president is so focused on Iran and Venezuela — has no interest in helping people here at home — is absolutely heartbreaking.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You heard me ask the secretary about the decision to loosen oil sanctions on Iran and Russia. He said that money was going to go to China anyway. He argues these are temporary moves that are ultimately going to bring down pressure on the supply of the global oil markets. Are you supportive of those moves if ultimately they do in fact lower the cost of oil?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
The only way to lower energy prices is to end this war. I mean, what he told you is that Iran was getting discounted prices previously from China. And we are now removing sanctions so that they can get premium prices. So we are literally putting billions of dollars into the very regime that we are fighting. Again, no matter how badly we fought the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or in Vietnam, I don’t think at any point during those wars we were literally handing the enemy cash with which to fight out troops. I mean, we’ve just never seen anything like this. The quickest way to lower energy prices is to end this war and get this president focused on this country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, let — let me talk to you about the shutdown. President Trump is threatening to put ICE agents in airports as early as Monday as we’re seeing these long TSA lines, as TSA agents call out sick or don’t show up to work because they’re not receiving a paycheck amidst this partial government shutdown. Does that threat make you more inclined to end this shutdown?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Well, why don’t they just reopen TSA? Why don’t we just reopen the Coast Guard and FEMA? Democrats have been clear. We’re willing tonight to provide the votes to open up every part of the Department of Homeland Security while we resolve our narrow differences on how ICE is terrorizing our communities. So almost every single day last week, Democrats went to the Senate floor and said, “Let’s open up ICE.” Republicans said no. “Let’s open up the Coast Guard.” Republicans said no. They want to hold TSA hostage so that they can continue getting Democrats to fund the illegality happening at ICE. Let’s just isolate our differences. Let’s not hold TSA hostage any longer.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, during the previous shutdown in the fall, you criticized the eight Senate Democrats who broke ranks to negotiate an end to the shutdown with Republicans. You said they capitulated and lost the, quote, “political advantage.” Do you see this shutdown ending in the exact same way with moderates effectively saying, “Time to end this. Time to make a deal with Republicans?”
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Well, I hope the Democrats stay together on a very simple principle, which is we swore an oath to the Constitution to uphold the law. And right now, ICE is operating lawlessly. No matter who’s in charge, they are rounding up legal immigrants, denying them their rights. They are still terrorizing American citizens. They are abusing protesters who are standing up to this illegal activity. So until we get commitments from the administration that ICE is going to behave legally, yes, I believe that Democrats should stand together. I think we have an obligation to not fund an agency that is acting this lawlessly.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And to the point, leadership is of course leading the charge here. And there’s a lot of focus on Chuck Schumer right now. The Wall Street Journal reporting that there’s growing frustration with Chuck Schumer which spurs talk of replacing him. Senator, do you want to replace Leader Chuck Schumer?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Well, I think we are united right now as a caucus. There’s always a lot of focus on Senator Schumer and Leader Jeffries. Those are very hard jobs especially at a historic moment like this —
KRISTEN WELKER:
That’s not a “yes.”
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Well, no, we — we are united as a caucus right now. Let me just be clear about that. We are united in ending this war. We are united in reining in the lawlessness of ICE. And we’re going to be united in winning the election this November. So right now we are together as a caucus.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So if you do win the election, would you vote to keep him as leader?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Well I — listen, I think he has a very tough job. And right now you are seeing the Democratic caucus united. That’s really important.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Very quickly, your reaction to President Trump saying he’s glad former Special Counsel Robert Mueller is dead.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
I mean, it’s just disgusting. It’s so heartbreaking that we have a president who’s cheerleading the death of American citizens. The fact of the matter is Robert Mueller is amongst many who have been trying to hold this president to account. He’s the most corrupt president in the history of the country. And of course, he is going to wish for the death of the people that are trying to hold him accountable to the law. But that doesn’t make it any less disgusting.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, Senator Chris Murphy, thank you so much –
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Thank you –
KRISTEN WELKER:
– for being here. I know you’re here working in Washington, appreciate your being here in person. When we come back President Trump threatens to take over Cuba. I’ll talk exclusively to the Deputy Foreign Minister of Cuba, Carlos Fernández de Cossío next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And joining me now is Deputy Foreign Minister of Cuba Carlos Fernández de Cossío. Welcome to Meet the Press, Mr. Foreign Minister.
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
Thank you for having me.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you so much for being here. I do want to start off by playing for you something that President Trump said about Cuba just this week, speaking from the White House. Take a listen.
[BEGIN TAPE]
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:
I do believe I’ll be the honor of — having the honor of taking Cuba. That’d be a good hon — that’s a big honor.
REPORTER:
Taking Cuba?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:
Taking Cuba in some form, yeah. Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it. I think I can do anything I want with it, you want to know the truth.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. Deputy Foreign Minister, what was your reaction to hearing that? Is Cuba bracing for the United States to take it in some form?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
Truly, we don’t know what they’re talking about. But I can tell you this: Cuba is a sovereign country and has the right to be a sovereign country and has the right to self-uh, determination. Cuba would not accept to become a vassal state or a dependent state from any other country or any other superpower.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, let’s delve into this a little bit more deeply. Cuba’s president released a statement that read in part, quote, “Any external aggressor will clash with impregnable resistance.” Do you believe any action by the United States would escalate into a military conflict?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
We hope not, but what our president expressed is what any country that respects itself would uh convey if there was a threat to try to take over a country or to try to dominate or control it in any way. But we truly hope that there’s no military action. And, frankly, we see no reason, we see no justification for military action against Cuba. Cuba is a peaceful country. We’re not an enemy of the United States. We don’t pose any threat to the United States. In fact, we wish, we said it openly, that we would like to have a friendly and respectful relationship with the United States, with its government. And we’ve developed, we’ve been developing it for a long time with the people of the United States.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And yet you heard those words by President Trump, so I’m wondering, is your military preparing for a potential engagement with the United States?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
Our military is always prepared. And in fact it is preparing these days for the possibility of military aggression. We, we would be naive if, looking at what’s happening around the world, we would not do that. But we truly hope that it doesn’t occur. We don’t see why it would have to occur, and we find no justification whatsoever — why would the government of the United States force its country to take military action against a neighboring country like Cuba.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So this is a remarkable statement that you’ve just made, that Cuba is in fact preparing for the potential possibility of a military engagement with the United States. Can you be more specific? What do those preparations look like?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
Our country has historically been ready to mobilize, as a nation as a whole, for military aggression. We truly always see it as something far from us. We don’t believe it is something that is probable. But we would be naive if we do not prepare. That’s what I can tell you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
The U.S. and Cuba have confirmed that they are talking but have given very few details. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is leading those talks for the United States. Here’s what he had to say from the White House this week. Take a listen.
[BEGIN TAPE]
SEC. MARCO RUBIO:
So they’re in a lot of trouble. And the people in charge, they don’t know how to fix it. So they have to get new people in charge.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
So is the United States insisting on regime change in order to give Cuba economic relief?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
I don’t know what they’re insisting among themselves, but I can tell you in conversations with the United States and in dialogue with the United States, the nature of the Cuban government, the structure of the Cuban government, and the members of the Cuban government are not part of the negotiation. That is something that no sovereign country negotiates. I don’t know how many examples are there of countries that negotiate with a foreign power, their system of government or the nature of the government. I’m sure the United States is not ready to negotiate with another government its constitutional system, its political system. Now the U.S. government knows that the problems our Cuba faces are in a great, great measure the result of policies of the United States aimed at causing as much harm possible to the Cuban economy, to Cuban society, and to the people of Cuba, which makes any government, makes it, for any government, very difficult to manage things and to get good results when a superpower is exerting such level of pressure, above all economically, on the country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are you saying that regime change is off the table?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
Absolutely.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let’s talk about what changes you would potentially be willing to make to save your country. The embargo with the U.S. ends if Cuba does three things: schedule elections, recognize political parties, unions, and a free press; and release all political prisoners. Will you commit to any of those steps, Mr. Deputy Foreign Minister, in order to save your country?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
Let me be clear. We are in dialogue with the United States to talk about bilateral issues. We’re not talking about prisoners in the United States, and the U.S. has the highest record of prisoners in the world.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But we’re talking about political prisoners —
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
–We’re not talking of problems in elections in the United States —
KRISTEN WELKER:
–But we’re talking about political prisoners.
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
– or constitutional systems. Well, the United States has a huge amount of people that are in jail for whatever reasons but that have strong political positions. If we’re talking about political positions, we’re not talking about those in the case of the United States. In Cuba, we’re not talking about prisoners in our negotiation with the United States. It’s a domestic issue of Cuba. It is not a bilateral issue with the United States. And the U.S. knows it. But there are many, many important issues of a bilateral nature that should and could be discussed between Cuba and the United States for the benefits of both countries, and that is what we are ready to engage with in conversations with the government of the United States.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and going back to those potential issues, there is only one political party in Cuba, so currently people really have no choice. Going back to my original question, would you be willing to change that in order to save your country, given that it’s one of the things that the United States is asking for?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
It’s a domestic issue of Cuba. The United States has only two political parties that can go to government. Are they ready to negotiate to have ten with equal possibilities of getting to the presidency, of getting in Congress? I’m sure the United States would not negotiate that with any country. I don’t know if they have the willingness to do it, but I’m surely they won’t negotiate it. Cuba is a sovereign nation, as I said at the beginning of the program, and of course it’s something that is not on the table, to negotiate Cuba’s reality.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay —
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
And Cuba’s problems are not the result of having one party.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When did the last discussions take place between the United States and Cuba and where?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
I won’t go into detail. We said publicly that we’re going to be discreet about it, and we’re going to remain that way.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Can you tell me what the ultimate goal is of these discussions from your perspective? What do you hope to gain?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
Our aim is to try to build a respectful relationship. The U.S. government — the current government has said that it wants to make America great again. We have no quarrel with that. That it wants to have secure borders. We have no quarrel with that. In fact, we can help with that. That it wants immigrants that enter into the United States to do so legally, not illegally. And we have no quarrel with that. In fact, we can help with that from our side. And those are the kinds of issues that we believe are of interest of people of the United States and for the government of the United States. We can work together to fight drug trafficking, to fight organized crime in our region, to fight threats in general in our region, and that’s what governments and countries do with each other when they dialogue, when they have dialogue and when they cooperate. We can also talk about business. There are changes taking place in Cuba today, in our investment policy, in the structure of property in Cuba, in the way different forms of property work in Cuba which could be of interest to the United States and for Americans who, today, cannot do business in Cuba because they are prohibited by their government. Those are issues that we can talk about. And we can find room for accommodation. We’re not shut down, or we’re not closed to having some accommodation if it can improve the relationship with the United States in those areas. And I’m sure there’s a lot of areas in which, if we sit down and discuss meaningfully, we can have a lot of ground to work on and for the benefit, again, of both countries.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Secretary Rubio is the son of Cuban immigrants. He has spent his career criticizing your government. In fact, at one point he was asked, “Is Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism?” He said, “Without question.” Can you negotiate in good faith with Secretary of State Marco Rubio?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
We have a long position of having dialogue and being ready to have dialogue with the United States to solve our problems. And it’s not only a standing, a longstanding position. It’s the logical position. What’s the alternative to having dialogue with a country with which you have problems? So we face dialogue as the natural, the logical and the necessary avenue for us to discuss. Now we also have experience of having dialogue with the United States. Some with good results, but also some in which Cuba has fulfilled all of the commitments that we have agreed to and yet the United States has reversed many of them. And the best example was during 2014, ‘15, seven- ‘16, and even ‘17, in which we reached agreements, Cuba fulfilled all of them, and the United States, by their own recognition, broke all those agreements and said that they would not follow what they had agreed the previous years.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But —
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
And still with that, we follow a dialogue.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But on Secretary Rubio specifically, is he someone with whom you can negotiate in good faith?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
We are ready to negotiate with the person that the U.S. government, as a sovereign nation, designates as their spokesperson, as their lead negotiator, and we’re ready to negotiate with whoever is designated by the U.S. government. They’re a sovereign nation. We don’t interfere with that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
There are reports that Secretary Rubio is dealing directly with Raúl Castro’s grandson, Raúlito. Is that accurate? Why is he the one who has direct contact with the United States?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
I won’t go into detail, but the point I need to make is that the Cuban political leadership is committed to this. United cohesively. This is led by the leader of the revolution, Raúl Castro, and by the president of Cuba, who recognized this publicly and said it publicly.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you don’t dispute that report that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is dealing directly with the grandson of Raúl Castro? You don’t deny that?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
I won’t go into de — I won’t go into details.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let’s talk, broadly speaking, now. The United States has made its goal of regime change quite clear. You say that’s off the table, as you just reiterated here. In Venezuela, the Trump administration forcibly removed President Maduro, as you know, and is now working with Acting President Delcy Rodríguez. Iran was in ongoing talks with the U.S. when their leadership was killed. Do you believe Cuba will have a different outcome?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
I prefer for people, when they judge Cuba, not to make parallels — parallels. We have our own reality, our own circumstances. And as I said at the beginning, we hope there won’t be, and we don’t think there’s any need for there to be any military action by the U.S. against Cuba.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And, respectfully, Mr. Deputy Foreign Minister, when people look at these countries, when they hear the comments by President Trump, saying effectively that he does plan to go into Cuba, it seems impossible for people not to draw parallels. So why would there be a different outcome? Are you bracing for the possibility of a similar outcome?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
You would have to ask that question to the United States. We are ready for any outcome, and we have to be ready for any outcome. As you said at the beginning, unfortunately, we’re trying to prepare ourselves for any outcome, including the ones that we feel that there’s no justification for them to,to occur.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What matters to you more in this moment, preserving the revolution or saving the island from total economic collapse?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
Saving our people from being overtaken by a foreign power; and to take it back decades to a Cuba that we overcame a long time ago, a Cuba that people don’t have good memories of them, only very few people; and to continue to protect our people, the peace that we have in our country, the tranquility that we have in our country, the social justice that exists in Cuba, the sense of solidarity among our people. That is the nature of Cuba, and it is our priority to protect that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Cubans, as you know, died trying to protect Nicolás Maduro. They were his bodyguards. I have to ask you, have you reached out to the acting president of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
We have a very fluent communication with them.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And what is the nature of that communication —
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
On a constant basis. It’s not something that I follow personally. I couldn’t answer that with detail, but I know there’s a close communication with them.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Oh. Okay. Mr. Deputy Foreign Minister, this all of course comes back to oil. Your country has not received oil shipments in weeks. And without that fuel, your citizens are quite frankly in crisis. The U.S. has enacted an oil blockade now for nearly three months. How much longer can your nation go on like this? Is it days? Is it weeks? Is it months?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
It is important to point out that for any country to export fuel to Cuba is legal. And for Cuba to import fuel from any country, with the exception of the U.S. because of the economic blockade regulations, but from any other country is legal. What’s happening today is that the U.S. is threatening, with coercive measures, countries that might export fuel to Cuba. And that’s the reason why Cuba has not received fuel for a long time. It is very severe. And we are acting as proactively as we can to cope with the situation. We do hope that fuel will reach Cuba one way or the other and that this boycott that the United States has been imposing does not last and cannot be sustained forever.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But I guess the question is how long –
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
And frankly —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– do you
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
– We hope that — let me finish. And hopefully we feel that clearer minds prevail in the United States and that they come to the conclusion that it’s quite nasty to treat the whole population of a country in the way the United States is treating Cuba. Yesterday, we published 96,000 Cubans are waiting for surgery as a result of lack of fuel and lack of energy, among them 11,000 children. So I would think that the American people, the people in the United States will feel, “Why does our government treat the whole population of Cuba in this way?” And I hope that the people of the United States would understand that it’s not correct to treat another nation in the way the U.S. is doing it simply to try to achieve political goals, because that is what’s behind the approach of the United States. So, again, we’re trusting that this cannot be sustained in the long term.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. Deputy Foreign Minister, NBC News has been on the ground in your country all week long. Our crews have seen people who haven’t worked in weeks, kids who haven’t gone to school, food and energy running dangerously low. President Trump says he believes that Cuba will collapse on its own. Is your country currently in a state of collapse?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
What does “on its own” mean when it’s being forced by the United States? It’s a very bizarre statement, and it’s claimed by most U.S. politicians repeatedly that Cuba will collapse on its own. Then why does the U.S. government need to employ so many resources, so much political capital, so many human resources, to try to destroy the economy of another country? Evidently, it implies that the country does not have the characteristics to collapse on its own.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But is your country in a state of collapse, Mr. Deputy Foreign Minister?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
It is not in a state of collapse. We’re being as creative as possible. We’re mustering all our creativity, our ingenuity, to try to find ways in which we can cope with the reality that we did not choose, of which we are not responsible and that would help our people go through this with the least pain possible. But pain is there, have no doubt.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You say you’re not responsible. Putting this blockade aside, though, Mr. Deputy Foreign Minister, human rights groups have reported that nearly 90% of your citizens live in extreme poverty. Nearly 80% of your citizens intend to emigrate. Has your system of communism failed the people of Cuba?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
I don’t know which are your sources and which are the human rights organizations that claim such. But I’m sure, and I can quite accurately guess, that the majority are either financed directly by the U.S. government or by proxies of the U.S. government. Now people are hurting in Cuba. There’s no doubt about that. But you do not, you cannot put a question mark on the system of socialism or communism, or the system of government that we have in Cuba, whichever way you wish to call it. If the U.S., the most powerful nation in the world, has had to dedicate almost seven decades to try to destroy the system of government and yet failed. Cuba, if you look at the ranks in the U.N., has one of the highest ranks for a developing country, and even compared to developed countries, in terms of human development. Now what does human development mean? The livelihood of people. Not the wealth of a few. Not the wealth of an elite. Not the index of the Dow Jones. It’s the welfare of the population. And Cuba has consistently, for decades, with the system of government that we have, had those rankings. Now if the U.S. today is putting to extreme its economic aggression, it is natural for people to suffer. And if you try to describe whatever rank the amount of people that are suffering poverty, the amount of people that are having difficulty with food, the great majority of all of us who suffer 30, 36 hours of lack of electricity, you cannot blame the government if you have the most powerful nation in the world dedicating so many resources to create that scenario.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. Deputy Foreign Minister, I hear you trying to place blame on the United States. And yet for 67 years, your country has had no free press, no free elections, a history of political prisoners. Your country has not been able to function without the aid or assistance from your allies. Does your government bear some responsibility for the fact that your people are suffering?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
Those are statements that you cannot substantiate. You don’t have evidence to sustain all the affirmations that you have just made in your statement, unfortunately. I know that it might come to you in whatever literature you have, but you cannot sustain those affirmations that you have. Cuba has been a successful country. What developing country has been submitted to the onslaught from the most powerful nation in the world and yet been able to carry the solidarity to over a hundred countries? Have — health indicators that are better than the ones you have in the United States. Have educational indicators that are better than you have in the United States. Have housing indicators which are better than the ones you have in the United States. The majority of people in Cuba, I’m talking about 90%, live in homes that they own, that they don’t have to pay mortgage for. So claims that you make trying to portray Cuba as a failure cannot be substantiated. It is different from the United States. It’s a much humbler country in terms of the size of the economy as the United States. It’s much different than the United States. But it’s not wrong. Being different is not mistaken. And, look, above all, it does not excuse submitting the whole population to an unrelenting warfare by the most powerful nation in the world. There’s no way, whatever statement you make, that can excuse for the U.S. government to abuse in such a way the people of Cuba.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. Dep —
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
It’s common sense. It’s moral sense.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. Deputy Foreign Minister, just finally, what is your message to President Trump this morning?
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
Cuba has no quarrel with the United States. We do have the need and the right to protect ourself. But we are willing to sit down, we’re open for business, and we’re all being open to having a respectful relationship that I’m sure the majority of Americans would support and I’m sure the president of the United States would support if we could sit down and talk meaningfully about it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío, thank you so very much for joining us this morning. We really appreciate it.
MINSTER CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ DE COSSÍO:
Thank you. Thank you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. President Trump’s threats to take over Cuba are the latest flash point in a decades’ long standoff, one that began in 1959 when Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista. Months later, Castro sat down with Meet The Press and was pressed on what moral authority Cuba had to speak about democracy as his government backed revolutionary movements across the region.
[BEGIN TAPE]
FIDEL CASTRO:
The right to speak about in the same way that you in the United States speak about democracy. I, in the same way, speak about democracy because I believe in democracy. And I think that it’s not just that some country be under blood tyranny like Santo Domingo and another country. That is an idea, not defier. Not an intervention. I am against all kind of intervention in the internal matter of other countries. Because we, a Latin America country, were a long time struggling for a principle of nonintervention.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, the costs of war are mounting. Is President Trump preparing to send in ground troops? Our panel is next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. The panel is here. Courtney Kube, NBC News Senior National Security and Pentagon correspondent, Jonathan Martin, Politics Bureau Chief and Senior Political Columnist for Politico, former Communications Director for Vice President Harris, Ashley Etienne, and Mike Dubke, former Trump White House Communications Director. Welcome to all of you. Courtney, I have to start with you because you had new reporting this week that President Trump is in fact considering potentially deploying ground troops into Iran. And then you just heard Secretary Bessent say all options are on the table. Where do things stand?
COURTNEY KUBE:
Yes. So basically right now we’re in a “escalate to de-escalate” or “escalate to end the war” situation. The president’s weighing several options. And they’re kind of in three buckets right now. The first one is addressing the most immediate problem that we’re hearing the most about, and that’s the Strait of Hormuz. The idea is the U.S. could send in the military to a couple of small islands in the Persian Gulf, Abu Musa and then Greater and Lesser Tunbs, and then a couple of ports in the region. And the idea is, the way that the Persian Gulf is, the depth, you have to send large ships through these islands. Iran has put a ton of military equipment on them. And they have spotters. The spotters alert the Iranian navy, “Hey, the ship is coming here.” They send out these fast boats, their mosquito fleet. And they directly threaten shipping coming through. The U.S. military could put troops there. They could stop the mosquito fleet. And ultimately it could help reopen the Strait of Hormuz in conjunction with all of these military strikes we’ve seen. The second one is the oil and gas, Kharg Island, which we’ve heard a ton about including from the Treasury Secretary this morning. The U.S. could send troops there. They could not only cut off the revenue stream to the regime by doing that, but they could also then use that as leverage if there were some sort of a peace negotiation. And then the most dangerous option would be to send U.S. troops for securing the highly enriched uranium. And that would take the most troops. You would need a huge perimeter of security. And it would be a dangerous and difficult undertaking to get all of those cylinders out. Remember, the U.S. military struck those facilities. It’s not clear if they’ve been damaged. There may be poisonous gas. The one benefit to all of these options which all carry tremendous danger, by the way, is the fact that the U.S. has air superiority, meaning they own the air space. That means when Iran would almost certainly try to unleash drones and missiles and things, the U.S. could have some defenses against that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
One of the questions we’re watching so closely that matters to Americans, another one, the impact on consumers, J. Mart, of all of this. Gas prices have been skyrocketing. Energy prices have been skyrocketing. I talked to Secretary Bessent about that. Jon Allen, our reporter this week, was out in Pennsylvania talking to voters. Here’s what one voter had to say. Take a look.
[BEGIN TAPE]
JON ALLEN:
If you could say something to President Trump and he was going to hear you right now, what would it be?
AMANDA ROBBINS:
You are a worthless pile of (BLEEP).
JON ALLEN:
And you voted for him, how many times?
AMANDA ROBBINS:
Three times. That was my bad. Apparently I’m an idiot.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
What do you think the White House thinks when they hear that?
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Well, brevity is the soul of wit as Shakespeare said. And she was to the point, wasn’t she?
KRISTEN WELKER:
She sure was.
JONATHAN MARTIN:
God love the American voter. The White House is consumed with this issue. They’re consumed with the price of gas, with the daily gyrations of the market. Look, there’s nothing that impacts the American voter like pulling into a gas station, looking up at those big numbers, and seeing a four as the first number, and then God forbid, seeing a five. Gas prices have gone up $1.02 according to our friend, Gas Buddy, on Twitter in the last month. We’re now at four bucks a gallon nation-wide. If we get to five bucks a gallon in the next couple of weeks or next month, it’s going to be a crisis point for this White House. That’s why this president is gyrating on a daily or hourly basis about whether or not to climb down from this war or to double down. Because he is so himself, Kristen, driven by the market every day and the gas prices every day. Because that’s how he judges himself as a tool of his political success or failure. What do the markets say? And I think it’s driving him crazy today.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, I mean, pick up on that point, Mike, and the fact that of course the backdrop to all of this is the midterms. You heard the Treasury Secretary say maybe it could be 50 days. Maybe it could be longer or shorter. But even if the war ends tomorrow, gas prices don’t come down overnight. How are Republicans watching all of this play out?
MIKE DUBKE:
Well, I think you’re absolutely right. The White House is consumed by this. And they should be. Gas prices don’t come down overnight. But they probably fluctuate more than the price of eggs and milk and other items. So I do expect gas prices to come down. But they need to be concerned about it because gas prices were the one thing that this administration had going for it in terms of inflation. So those prices will directly affect the midterms if they stay high. The bigger concern I have with the midterms is if we don’t look at affordability, and if this Congress doesn’t get on the ball of making it easier for prices to come down, mortgages to come down, all of that, we’re going to have a midterm election without Donald Trump on the ballot, which has proven for Republicans to be bad in 2018, 2022, possibly in 2026. And so we’re running into this bit of a buzzsaw. And we’re running full on with gas prices at four bucks, five bucks. They’ll come down. But we need to get that under control.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Ashley, how do you feel this is playing out for Democrats?
ASHLEY ETIENNE:
I’m not sure that the gas prices are going to come down. Iran is digging in its heels. And, you know, I think the administration has underestimated their resilience when it comes to this particular issue. But when I was watching Senator Murphy, one word that stuck out to me that Democrats need to hit home, which is the incompetency. The American people are watching as this war continues to escalate, it starts to spread, now starting to spread all over the Middle East. President Trump has opened Pandora’s Box with no sort of clear appreciation for the risks that he’s running. We could have a situation like Iraq 2.0 where we’re spending billions of dollars, losing lives, for an unjustified war. You’ve got prices as we’ve just said. Prices are going up from the gas pump to groceries. And the last thing I would say is that, you know, this message for Democrats has to be very simple and has to be kept very simple. Is that this administration thus far has been a disaster for the American people. The American people are paying the price. And this war is only going exacerbate their pain.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Quick final zip around to all of you. Courtney, my conversation with the deputy foreign minister of Cuba, he was very defiant. He said regime change off the table. What are your sources telling you about how the Pentagon is watching this?
COURTNEY KUBE:
Yes, I mean, the military planned for everything, right? So I wouldn’t be surprised if there are military plans for some sort of an invasion of Cuba. But the reality is the new head of SouthCom said this week that they are not actively planning or exercising for any kind of a ground invasion of Cuba. And in fact military officials, they say, “Look, the economy is struggling. We just saw the electrical grid basically collapse. They have this oil embargo.” All of that and the continued protests, the government there may fall without any kind of U.S. military intervention.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, J. Mart, the president has said the government is going to fall on its own. But you talk about Cuba, Iran, Venezuela. The president promised to get the U.S. out of foreign wars, his MAGA base still largely unified around him. But can that last?
JONATHAN MARTIN:
Well, it can last if gas prices do come down. I think that that’s the best marker as to whether or not there’s patience among the American voter no matter their politics on this. Look, I think it’s very clear. The president is determined to find a long-term legacy. He thought he could do it with the Nobel Peace Prize. The Scandinavians didn’t want to give him that. So he’s choosing Door B here which is the Lindsey Graham door, which is, “We’re going to do regime change around the world.” And it worked so well in Venezuela that he got emboldened and thought, “Well, if I can do it in Caracas just like that, boy, I can do it all over the world.” And it turns out, Iran is different than Venezuela.
MIKE DUBKE:
Okay, I was very negative in my assessment of where Republicans are. But I will say this. At least they’re not the Democrats. So the Democrats– I’ll tell you what that means. They are under water with their own popularity and job approval with Democrats. So 42% of Democrats approve; 48% disapprove. The Democratic Party against the Republican Party is underwater as well. So the Democrats haven’t proven that they have an agenda or a message that works. And, you know, Republicans can hang their hat on that.
ASHLEY ETIENNE:
But here’s what’s working to our advantage. An NBC poll just recently showed that Democrats are up six points ahead of Republicans. We flipped 28 seats thus far. So the trend is headed in our direction. The challenge though is you have no counter agenda to counter where this president is headed. You know, the key with the issue in Iran and others is that this is an appeal to independent voters. It’s not a base vote appeal. And that’s who’s going to flip these seats come the midterm election.
KRISTEN WELKER:
A great conversation, guys. Thank you. That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We will be back next week because if it’s Sunday, it’s Meet The Press.
Follow here for more Meet the Press transcripts
© 2026 NBCUniversal Media, LLC