KRISTEN WELKER:
This Sunday, end game. With just 37 days until the midterms, pressure grows to end the war in Iran as Americans face rising prices at the pump.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Will a deal be made with Iran or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is there a way out? I’ll talk exclusively to the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz and Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California. Plus: Beyond human. Bill Gates on the rapid rise of artificial intelligence — and whether humans can keep it under control.
BILL GATES:
This is truly an evolutionary event. You know, we have created an intelligent species that in many respects is already smarter than we are.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And: Breaking ranks. As Election Day nears Republicans distance themselves from President Trump.
MIKE ROGERS:
The war with Iran needs to end and end quickly.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News Chief Capitol Hill Correspondent Ryan Nobles, Marc Short, former Director of Legislative Affairs for President Trump, And Adrienne Elrod, former Senior Adviser to the Harris campaign. Welcome to Sunday, It’s Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press, with Kristen Welker.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good Sunday morning. With just five weeks until the midterms, the war with Iran is looming over the elections, unpopular with voters, as rising energy prices hit Americans at home. Now, a new turn in the war: President Trump has rejected Iran’s proposal for a seven-day ceasefire, a plan that would have reopened the Strait of Hormuz and resumed nuclear talks in exchange for the U.S. lifting its naval blockade. The Wall Street Journal is reporting the president has told aides he expects the U.S. to resume bombing Iran after the midterms. In a moment, I’ll speak exclusively with Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, who proposed that plan. But first, joining me now is the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz. Ambassador Waltz, welcome back to Meet The Press.
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
Yeah, thank you. Good to be with you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you so much for being here. Let’s start right there with Iran’s proposed seven-day cease fire that would have opened the Strait of Hormuz and restarted broader talks. Why did the U.S. turn down this deal, Mr. Ambassador?
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
Well, Kristen, look, there’s — there’s a number of reasons. But with this offer came a request to have access to billions in frozen funds, came a request for the lifting of sanctions. These aren’t just the United States’ sanctions. These are global sanctions. Kristen, it’s worth reminding people this isn’t just the U.S. position. This is the world’s position. There has been not one, not two, but seven UN Security Council resolutions over the last 20 years saying Iran cannot, should not, and will not have a nuclear weapons program, cannot enrich illegally, does not have an appropriate inspections regime like other countries, for example, the United Arab Emirates just across the Gulf that allows fulsome inspections. And then even further, you have the IAEA, the nuclear watchdog for the UN. Their board of governors just referred Iran to the UN Security Council just last week for violations, not allowing inspectors, not allowing appropriate oversight of their enrichment. So I would love to hear you ask the foreign minister: Why does Iran need to enrich to 60%, which is a pathway to a bomb? Why did they need to bury a program under not one, but four different sites? Why, you know, are they attacking international shipping? And finally it’s worth noting, because again he’s going to frame this as the U.S. versus Iran or Iran versus Israel. 146 countries have joined us, a UN record, in condemning Iran’s attack on civilian shipping. You can’t start shooting at civilian shipping any more than you can shoot down
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well —
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
— civilian airliners because you’re a party to a conflict. So Iran is, just, is being condemned by the entire world. And they’re in violation of international law across the board.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, Mr. Ambassador, I do have a range of questions for the foreign minister. But I just want to get back to this deal. In June the U.S. and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding that was similar to this deal. It traded easing sanctions and lifting the naval blockade in exchange for opening the Strait of Hormuz and nuclear talks. If the president doesn’t want this deal, if he thinks this deal isn’t good enough, what deal does he want? What would he accept?
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
Well, I’m not going to negotiate in public for the president. But we have to know, number one, that people coming to the table can actually speak for the ayatollah. And that has been a consistent issue that have frustrated our negotiators. Who’s calling the shots in Iran right now? Is it the IRGC? Is it the president? Is it the foreign minister? Ultimately we know it’s the ayatollah. But when we finally had an MOU, and of course the president wants a deal and authorized us to enter into that memorandum of agreement, Iran immediately began shooting at international shipping because illegally and in violation of international law. It’s demanding to try to control the Straits of Hormuz through violence and has taken a position of publish — punishing the entire world’s economy because of its pursuit for a nuclear weapon—
KRISTEN WELKER:
Understood but, but —
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
President Trump’s not going to stand for it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But the U.S. was negotiating with the same group of people in June. So why not move forward with this deal and give a ceasefire a chance, Mr. Ambassador?
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
Well, look, Kristen, as I, you know, this was I think a pretty cynical attempt to put something on the table that they knew was unacceptable. That to ask for the release of the blockade, the sanctions, international sanctions and access to billions in assets just to talk when we entered into a memorandum of agreement just a few months ago and it was immediately violated by attacking international shipping. I think it’s kind of common sense that the president doesn’t have a lot of confidence this time—
KRISTEN WELKER:
Right.
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
—after we just tried a few months ago. But at the end of the day,
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
—of course, the pres — this has to end in some type of arrangement. But he’s going to leave all options on the table to get there.
KRISTEN WELKER:
The Wall Street Journal, to that point, is reporting that President Trump is preparing to resume military strikes against Iran after the midterms. Is that true? Can you confirm that?
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
Well, that’s anonymous reporting. What I can tell you is the president will leave all options on the table to ensure the world is safe from Iran holding the world hostage with a nuclear weapon, number one. And number two, he was quite clear in his speech before the UN that politics have nothing to do with this. This is about keeping the next generation safe from Iran threatening the world with a nuclear weapon or building such a mountain of, a conventional shield of drones and missiles that they can achieve breakout in these underground facilities behind that shield.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So, so to that point--
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
—This is a regime that has attacked its neighbors on all sides including civilian infrastructure, resorts, ports, hotels. And it’s just completely unacceptable.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Ambassador Waltz, to that point, President Trump and his advisors have said the objective in the war is that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, as you’re repeating here. I want to play what we’ve heard from the president since the war has started. Take a look.
[BEGIN TAPE]
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We blew up their nuclear potential. It was obliterated. We attacked. Ten months ago, we attacked their nuclear sites and they were obliterated. It’s not a quagmire. I just wiped out the military of a very dangerous country. And I wiped out the nuclear threat –
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
So the president has said multiple times that Iran’s nuclear potential is destroyed. If that’s the case, what is left to accomplish in this war?
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
Well, we know that we obliterated their ability to enrich in a number of these facilities. But we also know they moved and dispersed highly enriched uranium. Again, Kristen, there is no reason. No country on Earth with a peaceful civilian program has a need to enrich to weapons-grade or just short of weapons-grade. So they still have that hidden and dispersed —
KRISTEN WELKER:
But what’s left to do on the nuclear side —
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
And again, the UN has said they’re not —
KRISTEN WELKER:
And is regime change necessary to achieve it
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
—But the UN has said they’re not being accountable for it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So is regime change —
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
I’m sorry.
KRISTEN WELKER:
— what’s necessary to accomplish what you’re going for? What is there left to accomplish? And is regime change necessary to do it?
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
I, well, look, I mean, the regime can come to the table and in accordance with international law, in accordance with their obligations in the non-proliferation treaty and either hand over. I mean, there’s a number of ways that we can get there. And President Trump is open to that and deal with the highly enriched, deal with their ability to reconstitute their enrichment. Heck, our negotiators even offered to sell them uranium. And again the United Arab Emirates have a peaceful program right there in their neighborhood. And they abide by international law and inspection regimes. The Iranians refuse to as stated by the UN just a week ago. So this is, I think the facts are obvious here.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right.
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
And by the way, Kristen, I hope that you also ask the foreign minister about the 40,000 of their own people that were machine gunned —
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right —
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
— in the streets and the people that are being hung right now as we speak, again, condemned by the world for massacring their own people.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, I do want to turn to the state visit with President Xi Jinping. There are reports that China is actively supporting Iran through oil sales, satellite imagery, and more. Yes or no? Does the United States believe that China is helping Iran in this war?
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
President Trump, I won’t get into the details of the conversation. President Trump has raised this issue repeatedly both in Beijing, here in the United States. And we are seeing movement in a positive direction. It’s also notable that even President Xi stated in our joint read-out from the summit Iran cannot and should not have a nuclear weapon and cannot toll international waterways in violation of the UN Law of the Sea, and certainly cannot fire upon innocent civilian shipping.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So did President Xi —
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
That’s from President Xi —
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
Not President Trump.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, so let me follow-up with you. Did President Xi actually commit to stop China’s support of Iran with this war?
AMB. MIKE WALTZ:
They’ve had uh, they’ve had good, strong and I think fulsome conversations about that support. But I’ll leave that to the president to detail any conversations he’s had.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. And Ambassador Waltz, thank you so very much. Appreciate it. And joining me now is the Foreign Minister of Iran, Abbas Araghchi. Mr. Foreign Minister, welcome back to Meet the Press.
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
Well, good morning, Kristen, and thank you for having me in your program.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you very much for being here. Let’s start right there with your seven-day ceasefire proposal. President Trump has rejected it. What is your response?
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
Well, first of all, let me say that I’m — it’s very interesting to listen to the U.S. ambassador, who is desperately going back to old, unproved accusations in order to answer a very simple question of why they are rejecting a seven-day plan — a seven-day plan which can bring the life back to normal in the Persian Gulf and in the Strait of Hormuz. Why they are rejecting this? This is a very, you know, important question that they have to answer. Also I’m surprised that the Ambassador is talking about the seven-day plan, as he has not read it. Maybe — maybe he has not been given a copy. Our proposal is very clear. We are ready to open the Strait if certain things are done by the U.S. And these certain things are not new, have not come from the space. These are our rights, that we want to be respected. First of all, we want to end this war — this war of aggression. They started this war eight months ago with the hope that in two, three days, you know, they can win the war. It’s now eight months. And we want it to be ended. We want our moneys, our assets, which are illegally frozen, to be released. We want, you know, to be able to sell our oil. So we want certain things that U.S. has already committed itself in the previous, you know, deals.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But Mr. Foreign Minister, the Ambassador’s point was the United States is not going to unfreeze assets on the front end. It’s not gonna lift sanctions on the front end. Is it possible to negotiate a new peace plan at this juncture? Or has diplomacy failed?
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
Well, why — why they are not ready to release our money? It is our own money. It is not, you know, any other’s money. Why are we –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Because they want to see some actionable items from Iran, like opening the Strait of Hormuz, before they do that. Has diplomacy failed, Mr. Foreign Minister?
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
Well, diplomacy can never — there is — well, there is always hope for diplomacy. But we have no reason — to be honest with you, we have no reason to come back to diplomacy and engage with this administration once again because of they’ve behaved in the past two years. You know, in 2025 they offered negotiations. We accepted, and we engaged in the negotiation. And then in the middle of negotiations, they attacked us. Eight months later, in 2026, February, again they offered negotiation. Again we accepted, and again they attacked us right in the middle of negotiations. Then they offered — after the war, they offered negotiation for a deal. We accepted. We had three months of negotiations. And it took only two weeks for them to violate a deal, which they had signed themselves. So if you ask us, there is no reason why we should go back — go back to diplomacy. But I’m still trying diplomacy because I think we shouldn’t miss any chance for peace. We — we don’t care about, you know, U.S. midterm elections. We don’t care about any other things. We care about our national interests. We are ready to negotiate as much as we are ready to face any challenge. We stand firm in the face of any challenge, any aggression, sorry, we stand firm in the face of any aggression against us, even if comes to a doomsday war.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well –
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
At the same time, we are ready for diplomacy. But, and now there is a very reasonable plan on the table. If they reject it with no reason, this is their fault. And I have to say that although we heard from President Trump that he’s rejecting this deal, but we are still waiting for an official response through the mediators.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and it is worth noting, you’re saying that they violated the last agreement. Iran did fire first on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. But let me ask you broadly speaking, because it doesn’t sound like you have a lot of faith in diplomacy, do you trust President Trump?
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
Well, first of all, we didn’t violate the deal; they violated it first. But if they had their story, and they think that we had violated the deal, why did they bomb us? They could have activated paragraph 12 of the MOU, which is for, you know, dispute settlement.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Because they say you were firing –
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
Why did they start the war again?
KRISTEN WELKER:
– at commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. But to my question, do you trust President Trump?
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
Well, we trust ourselves. We are ready for diplomacy. We are ready for war at the same time. They had tested us in both cases. They tested us in — in their aggression twice, and they are welcome if they want to test us once again. They have tested us also in diplomacy. In 2015, we had a deal. We remained committed to that deal. It was the U.S. who withdrew with no justification. Now, we had a deal, and they withdrew, they violated it with no justification. And still we have offered the plan. If they want — if they are serious that they want a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, now there is the possibility. We have offered this seven-day plan. We — we want them to do certain things, which we think they can do it in four, five days, and then on day six the Strait will be open, and on day seven we resume talks with them for the final –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. Foreign Minister, I want to get through a lot more here. I just want to ask you, because The Wall Street Journal is reporting that President Trump expects to resume bombing Iran after the midterms. As you know, he stood at the UN and threatened to annihilate Iran. Are you preparing for this war to resume?
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
We are fully prepared for the war to be resumed. And I repeat, we stand firm in the face of any new aggression, even if it comes to a doomsday war. But at the same time, we are ready, we stand ready for diplomacy. It is up to President Trump to choose. He wanted unconditional surrender in the previous war in two days. And now it’s eight months that they are fighting with no results. A new aggression would be certainly the same.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s –
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
We are fully prepared for that. We have learned our lesson from the two previous wars, and we have corrected our tactics. We have changed our tactics, and we are fully prepared to do that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, Iran’s president said this week that Iran has, quote, “never sought nuclear weapons.” But Iran has enriched uranium to 60%. That’s 20 times more than enriched uranium percentage needed to produce electricity. Why does Iran need a stockpile of 60% enriched uranium?
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
Well, it — it is a question that we have answered during the negotiations we had with the U.S. First of all, enriching up to 60% is not illegal. It is still in the framework of NPT and our peaceful program. We have done it for certain purposes: medical purposes, other purposes. But we have offered a deal on our 60% material in 2025, in 2026, and still it is something that, you know, could be considered if they prove their goodwill and their real determination for a peace. We decided to put everything nuclear for the — for later stages, and go for confidence building in this stage —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
This is why we have offered this seven-day plan, based on the understanding that we had with the U.S. interlocutors in the past. First, confidence should be built. Our money, which are illegally frozen, should be released —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
The blockade should be removed –
KRISTEN WELKER:
But again –
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane
FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts
FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane
FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts
– and other things that they know — what to do there.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But — but Mr. Foreign Minister, again, we’re talking about 20 times more enriched uranium than is needed to produce electricity. All that is needed is 3% to 5%. So why do you need that 60% of enriched uranium? Would you let the U.S. come in and take it to end the war?
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
Well, I can explain why do we need that. But you answer one question: is this illegal or not? We are a committed member of NPT. And going to –
KRISTEN WELKER:
But my question is whether this is –
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
– 60% enrichment is not illegal. This is the question regarding –
KRISTEN WELKER:
No, but is it for peaceful purposes, though?
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
– our nuclear programs.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I’m not talking about legal or illegal.
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
Yes, yes it is.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I’m talking about for peaceful purposes, when it’s 20 times the amount –
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
No, it is.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– of enriched uranium needed for electricity.
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
No, it is. It is for peaceful purposes, and we have answered this question. Yeah. We have removed any concern in — in our past negotiations. If there is still such a question, then why they bombed us? Are they, you know, allowed to bomb anything that they think is illegal, or there is no justification for that? War is not a solution. That — that was a subject for negotiation, and we did it in the past. We have enriched uranium up to 60% for peaceful purposes, and it is within our commitment in the NPT. We have not violated the NPT. Okay, there are questions. We — we answered that question in the past during the negotiations, and we can do it again. There’s no need for military operation.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. Foreign Minister, final question to you. The President of Iran said this week he has spoken to the Supreme Leader. He says he is in good health. Why has there been no proof of life of the Supreme Leader since he took power in March?
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
Well, there are security concerns, and you’re well aware of that. You know, our Supreme Leader was illegally assassinated during the — the last war. And I think it is very logical that we protect our leader in —
KRISTEN WELKER:
But why not put out a video?
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
– Any way. There are lots of indications –
KRISTEN WELKER:
So why not put out a video?
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
No, no there are — For security reasons. There are lots of indications that he is under threat by Americans, and there are other indications that he is in full control, he is in full order. We receive his, his you know, comments, and orders, and opinions. And there is a national consensus on decision-making. It is, it is false if somebody thinks that there are different sources of power inside Iran. We move based on national consensus. We in the Foreign Ministry are in close coordination with the government, with IRGC, with the National — Supreme National Security Council, with the Parliament. We are all in one front, facing —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
— all challenges imposed on us by the U.S. –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Alright.
FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI:
— by the sanctions or military operations.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Alright. Foreign Minister Araghchi, thank you very much. We really appreciate it. And when we come back, Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna joins me next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California. Congressman Khanna, welcome back to Meet the Press.
REP. RO KHANNA:
Thank you for having me back.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you so much for being here. A lot to unpack. I want to start with what we just heard from the foreign minister of Iran and from UN Ambassador Mike Waltz. Do you believe the United States should accept a deal where Iran still has control of its nuclear material if it means ending this war, Congressman?
REP. RO KHANNA:
We should accept a deal to end the war, not specifically this deal. Let’s just review the facts, Kristen. Thomas Massie and I had a war powers resolution to prevent us from getting into this war. That would’ve been the right decision. We made things worse with gas up at over $4.40, diesel at almost $6.40. Then, with your exchange with the foreign minister, you’re right. They’re enriching at 60%. And while that’s not a violation of the NPT, President Obama with the JCPOA had that enrichment down to 3.67%. It’s only because Trump ripped up the agreement and went into war that we’re in this situation. So now how do we get out of it? In my view, the biggest thing that we need to give the Iranians is an ironclad commitment that we will not have regime-change war. That’s what they really care about. And you’ve got Trump going to the UN and saying we’re going to blow them all up after he had said that we already blew up all their nuclear facilities, which obviously we didn’t. If we gave them an ironclad agreement, no regime-change war, I believe we can get a ceasefire and we don’t have to agree to all of their terms, which I do believe some of them are excessive.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, Congressman. I do want to move on to another major topic that’s been under a microscope. You’ve been working on it: AI. You are supporting legislation proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders, Congressman Greg Casar that would effectively, among other things, pause advanced AI development while guardrails are put into place. You are, of course, the congressman who represents Silicon Valley. Do your constituents support you trying to slow down the development of AI, Congressman?
REP. RO KHANNA:
Not all of them. And obviously some of the executives are opposed to it. But you know who does support me is a lot of the engineers and researchers. Many of them, actually, who work at OpenAI and Anthropic. In fact, later today I’m meeting with about a group of 10 to 15 of them at these companies. And what the legislation would ban is recursive self-improving AI. That is basically AI that isn’t being trained anymore by human beings. It’s AI that can train itself. And that is a real risk of losing human control. And what Senator Sanders and Greg Casar and Geoffrey Hinton, the godfather of AI you’re saying, until we have guardrails, we can’t let AI train itself and lose control. It’s actually something we don’t have the capability to do right now, but we shouldn’t get to the point where we actually are doing it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Congressman, as you know, there’s a big concern about the fact that there’s effectively this race with China when it comes to AI. President Trump has talked about this. If China doesn’t slow down its production and development of AI, how can the United States afford to?
REP. RO KHANNA:
Well, we had a big hearing that I led on what an agreement with China can look like. I’m glad they’ve at least taken a step, which is to say, “Let’s have a dialogue about AI.” What we need, actually, is a working group with our technologists and Chinese technologists about a common agreement. Banning self-recursive self-improving AI should not be controversial. China doesn’t want to lose control over AI models either. In fact, as a much more closed society, recursive self-improving AI is a bigger risk to them. And I do believe the United States can lead on a treaty that is both enforceable and verifiable where we ban recursive self-improving AI, and we have some monitoring of these frontier labs.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, Congressman, let’s turn to the potential impact of the midterm elections. Democrats already debating how aggressively they should investigate and potentially even impeach President Trump should they, in fact, take back control of the House. But Senator Tammy Duckworth is warning Democrats against doing that. I want to play a little bit of what she said and get your reaction on the other side.
[BEGIN TAPE]
SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH:
Don’t be impeaching anybody. Don’t be — Let’s just — let’s just get back to work. I’m not interested in being in a confrontation with Donald Trump. I can be. I have been. It’s not going to stop me. But I would rather move the ball forward and to the benefit of the American people.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is impeaching President Trump a third time a mistake for Democrats?
REP. RO KHANNA:
No, it’s not. Because it’s not about Donald Trump. He’s going to be a lame duck, and in my view, largely increasingly irrelevant. The point is to stand up for the Constitution. Impeachment says that you can’t get into an illegal war in Iran without constitutional approval. Impeachment says that you can’t just start firing federal employees when — in defiance of what Congress says. Impeachment says you can’t do deals with foreign governments to allegedly enrich your own family. It’s about setting a standard. And the Democrats can impeach to uphold constitutional values, and at the same time, have a first-hundred-day agenda that deals with the cost of living. To have child care. I just unleashed a free child care plan, to have an increase in minimum wage, to have paid family leave, to tax the billionaires. We can do both.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you. You joined us on a day when we have a jam-packed show. We really appreciate your perspective this morning. Thanks so much.
REP. RO KHANNA:
Appreciate you, Kristen.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, with the midterms closing in, the panel on why some Republicans are distancing themselves from President Trump. And still ahead, our conversation with Bill Gates, who warns AI is powerful enough to cause a billion deaths.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back, the panel is here. NBC News chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles, Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod and Marc Short, former Trump director of legislative affairs. Thanks to all of you for being here. Ryan, I have to start with you. What made this week, the past few weeks, so notable, is we’re starting to see Republicans break with President Trump, including on this issue of Iran. Mike Rogers, for example, saying that it’s time for this war to end. What are your sources telling you about the concerns within the GOP right now?
RYAN NOBLES:
Well, the Republicans that are in very difficult races are recognizing the reality on the ground. It cost my wife $75 to fill up our family van last week. And that’s the same experience –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
RYAN NOBLES:
– that Americans are having all across the country. And if you’re a Republican in one of these difficult races, you have to find a way to differentiate yourself from the reality on the ground. And one of the easy ways to do that, is say, “It’s time to wrap this thing up.” That is the quickest path towards these prices, particularly the prices at the pump, coming down. But it’s not an easy sell for Republicans, particularly Republicans like Ashley Hinson in Iowa who have voted repeatedly to allow the war to continue to try and convince voters at this stage of the game that you have daylight between you and the White House is not an easy task. And it’s one of the biggest things that these Republican candidates have in front of them heading into November.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Marc, pick up on that point within the context of the Cook Political Report moving 15 House races and three Senate races towards Democrats. What do you make of this climate right now?
MARC SHORT:
Well, look, we knew it was going to be a difficult environment, that there are a lot of headwinds. Americans prefer a divided government anyhow. But at the end of the day, I don’t think the White House is doing congressional Republicans any favors. I think that Trump was elected in part because of high inflation of the previous regime and to address affordability. And we’ve learned that the populist economics isn’t working. And I think that one of our better opportunities, I think one of the reasons that some of the gains will be limited on the Democrat side is because they’ve nominated so many socialist, far-left candidates. But Kristen, it’s harder to make that case when this week alone, the president goes to New York and embraces and lavishes Mamdani with praise, you roll out the red carpet for a communist regime, as you point out in your interview, that has been helping to provide Iran with intelligence that’s used against American soldiers, sailors and airmen. And then this week it got less coverage as the White House invited Putin to come to America for the G20 Summit when he was kicked out after the invasion of Crimea. So if we’re saying, “Look at how radical the socialists are,” this week doesn’t really help that messaging.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and Adrienne, weigh in here, because when you talk about some of these candidates, we are seeing former Vice President Kamala Harris out on the trail. She was campaigning with Abdul El-Sayed, someone who President Trump by the way is trying to argue is a communist. He says “No, he is a capitalist.” He said that on this program. But she’s not campaigning with the likes of James Talarico, Mary Peltola, in Alaska, for example. How do you see her role unfolding between now and Election Day?
ADRIENNE ELROD:
Yeah, look Kristen, just like any surrogate, there are places where Vice President Harris performs very well and places where she doesn’t. That is standard across the board with a number of other popular surrogates within the Democratic Party. Vice President Harris does very well with Black voters, the event she did with Dr. El-Sayed was a Black maternal health event. So there are places where she’s going to be very effective. I think she’s going to be in Georgia, for example. But again, across the board, there are going to be places where somebody like secretary — former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg does really well, places where he doesn’t. Still one of the most popular surrogates in the Democratic Party who has universal appeal remains President Barack Obama. And I do think that you are seeing a lot of candidates this cycle embracing who — sort of who are going to be the new faces of 2028, AOC for example is somebody who will be campaigning more for some of these candidates. So it just really depends on where we’re going in the country, where the race is.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah, depend — race dependent for sure. Ryan, as we have this conversation, you have to think about what Washington might look like post-November. Part of what I was discussing with Congressman Ro Khanna, who backed away from what Senator Duckworth said, said basically no, that he doesn’t think taking impeachment off the table is the right move. What is your reporting telling you about how aggressive Democrats are gearing up to be should they in fact win back the House?
RYAN NOBLES:
That’s what they’re — I think there’s two ways to look at this. There is no doubt an energy and a commitment by Democrats when they get the majority, if they get the majority, to conduct robust oversight of the administration. That means investigations, that means Robert Garcia, if he becomes the chair of the Oversight Committee, holds hearings, issues subpoenas. The question is whether or not that leads to impeachment. Oversight, impeachment are two different things. And impeachment, in many ways, Donald Trump has used as a benefit. He’s made it his foil.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
RYAN NOBLES:
He’s used it to turn out his base. And there’s no scenario in which an impeachment process leads to a conviction, because the votes will never be there in the Senate. I think House Democratic leadership would prefer to not even go down the impeachment road. But the problem is, they’re going to have a very slim majority if they get the majority. There’s energy among the base of the party to go after Donald Trump in this fashion. And then what if one of these investigations reveals something that someone believes is impeachable? It would be very difficult to stop that train.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Adrienne, there is a lot of concern that it could backfire against Democrats. Again, should they take back the House, should they go down the impeachment route?
ADRIENNE ELROD:
Look, I think Ryan just laid it out perfectly, where there is a two-track system, right? Where number one, we have to make sure, and Leader Jeffries has made very clear that he does have an agenda on day one, if he becomes the speaker, that will take on and address the issues of affordability while also holding this administration accountable. But I will say this, if Democrats focus on impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, at the expense of, you know, helping the American people, lowering their prices, lowering gas prices, you know, restoring health care subsidies, if they allow impeachment to overtake why they were elected in the first place, why they were able to flip the House and potentially the Senate, then that will be at the expense of Democratic candidates in 2028. So I do think you can walk and chew gum at the same time. That is what Democrats will do. But if impeachment becomes the overriding theme of why Democrats, what their agenda is, it’s going to hurt them a lot going forward.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Marc?
MARC SHORT:
There’s no way Democrats can help themselves. The reality is that, I hear Adrienne’s talking points, I hear that a lot from different Democrat leaders. But as Ryan said, once you start the impeachment investigations, as more and more information comes out, the base is going to demand it. And one thing that I think we haven’t talked about enough, is that because of redistricting, the Democrat majority will likely be narrow in the Democrat House. Which means this group of Democrat socialists are going to have significant power and they’re going to exert that power over Jeffries to make his life a nightmare. And I think that that’s going to give, you know, the notion that we’re going to not do impeachments for Democrats is just, the reality that’s where they’re going to go.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, guys. Great conversation. We’ll be watching all of it very closely. We appreciate that great conversation. When we come back, the presidency and the battle with the press. Our Meet the Press Minute is next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. This week, the ongoing battle between President Trump and the media continues after President Trump barred CNN from Air Force One. It comes just days after a federal judge ordered the administration to restore White House access to CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, temporarily blocking a ban that had kept them out for nearly a week. Of course, presidents and the press have clashed before. In 1997, President Bill Clinton joined Meet the Press and reflected on his own sometimes difficult relationship with the press.
[BEGIN TAPE]
TIM RUSSERT:
Do you think we do a good job? Have we been fair to you?
PRES. BILL CLINTON:
On balance, yes. I think — first of all I don’t think there’s ever been a president of either party and any philosophy that didn’t think that he should’ve gotten a better press. So that just goes with the territory. I think there have been rather dramatic changes in press coverage over the last 20 years. Particularly in the, in the Washington press, which — which bears some examination and evaluation by those of you who are in the press. But I don’t think that the president gets anywhere by making any comments on the press. I mean, you know, I believe in the First Amendment. You know when, when President Jiang of China was here, I was pushing freedom of the press with him, you know? And I said that it’d be hard to find anybody that’d been beat up much more than I have in the press. But I still thought that a country was stronger when we were free to speak. I raised the freedom of press issues when I was in Latin America recently. I think it’s one of the best things about this country. And how it should be done and whether it’s being done in the most responsible and effective way can only be determined by members of the press themselves and our system, because that’s the only way you can keep it free.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, Bill Gates on why he says the dangers of AI are unlike anything we have faced before.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. This week, CEOs of America’s top AI companies warned the United Nations their trillion-dollar technology “could be a risk to humanity as a whole.” It’s a warning Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates shares. He says the decisions that are made right now could determine both the best and worst outcomes of the AI revolution. We sat down just blocks from the UN General Assembly to talk about what comes next.
[BEGIN TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
So let’s talk about this moment in AI development. You are one of the voices who’s been warning about the potential risks. You wrote in August, quote, “AI will either be the greatest equalizer ever invented or the worst source of injustice.” How serious are the risks posed by AI, do you believe?
BILL GATES:
Well, AI is not just a new technology, and that’s why people who say, “Okay, past technologies there was all this worry and, you know, by and large it all worked out, so maybe this time all these warnings that we have to shape it intentionally are unnecessary.” This is truly an evolutionary event. You know, we have created an intelligent species that, in many respects, is already smarter than we are, and over the next several years at kind of exponentially improving level will be insanely smarter than we are. You know, the ability to transfer knowledge, there’s no sort of individual boundaries like humans having to educate each other. And so I can’t say strongly enough how much society, not just the companies, but every academic think tank, voter, policymaker, need to really engage on how we want to shape this technology. You know, there’s no such thing as being too focused on accelerating the good potential and minimizing some truly horrific bad things that could happen.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you believe AI is powerful enough to end all of humanity?
BILL GATES:
AI is certainly powerful enough to drive events that, you know, cause a billion deaths. You know, so even though it’s pretty hard to get to 100%, there’s never been a weapon as powerful as the combination of people with ill intent using the latest AI tools. And it’s great that there’s this discussion with the industry, almost against their interest, admitting these things. The problem is that the rest of the world is either discounting this or just thinking of this as a competition. And it’s very scary that we don’t have all of the thinkers saying, “How do we want to shape this?”
KRISTEN WELKER:
You take me to my next question, which is the debate about what to do. There’s a debate over should there be a kill switch that is imposed? Others are suggesting a total pause, as you note, on AI development. And there are some who say companies can regulate themselves. How do you believe AI should be regulated?
BILL GATES:
Well, unfortunately most dangerous technologies, the government understands because they funded the research, or they’re an important customer for nuclear bombs or rockets or things like that. AI has emerged from the private sector, and so the depth of understanding of these dangerous thresholds that were crossed literally this year, bio-attack capability, cyber attack capability and others, you have so little expertise in the government. And, you know, because it’s cast in this nationalistic, you know, us versus them type thing, you have people who are saying, “Well, let’s just go full-speed ahead.” It’s completely irresponsible not to require every AI to have these safeguards and monitoring capabilities. And it only is a question of do you do it now?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you think self-regulation is sufficient? Or does it need to be accompanied by legislation in Washington –
BILL GATES:
No one thinks self-regulation is enough.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So there needs to be legislation passed in Washington?
BILL GATES:
Absolutely. You need law enforcement and the politicians to get into the discussion about what safeguards and monitoring look like. And that has to be a required thing. And it will be a little bit of overhead for the industry, but not a dramatic slowing of what they’re doing.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You know, it’s interesting, because during the Cold War the U.S. and the then-USSR were able to cooperate on limitations around nuclear weapons development. Is that a model that can be used right now between the United States and China to try to reach an agreement on AI?
BILL GATES:
Yeah, absolutely. This is more difficult than that was.
KRISTEN WELKER:
More difficult than nuclear weapons?
BILL GATES:
Yes. Nuclear weapons, access to fissile materials, the ability to see tasks, there were things that were unique about it. You know, even there we could be doing better in terms of drawing China into some of those frameworks. We’ve let a lot of that stuff expire. But since World War II the U.S. should be very proud that when there have been global challenges, we, in a way that was benign, you know, where we had friends and allies coming along with us, you know, aviation safety, ozone layer, nuclear weapons, a lot of things where we were played the fair actor, not aggrandizing whatever our unique strengths were. And AI is one we’re going to have to go back to this, “Hey, we’re all in — humanity is all in this together.”
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER: And my thanks to Bill Gates for that conversation. You can watch the full interview, including how he uses AI and his answer on his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, on MeetThePress.com. That is all for today. Thank you so much for watching. We’ll be back next week because if it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.