CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday: defending democracy. One year after Russia invaded Ukraine, President Biden promises to stand strong against the threat from Vladimir Putin.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. Never.
CHUCK TODD:
But what does victory look like? And are we giving them enough to win the war or just survive it?
FMR. AMB. MICHAEL McFAUL:
If you want victory we have to do more
CHUCK TODD:
Plus, rising tensions.
CHINESE FIGHTER JET RADIO:
You are approaching Chinese airspace, keep a safe distance or you will be intercepted.
CHUCK TODD:
As the U.S. continues to warn China about sending weapons to Ukraine, tensions are rising in the South China Sea. Is the Pentagon preparing to move more troops to Taiwan? My guests this morning: the National Security Advisor to President Biden, Jake Sullivan, and Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska. And off the rails.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I sincerely hope that when all of the politicians get here, including Biden, they get back from touring Ukraine, that he's got some money leftover.
CHUCK TODD:
Donald Trump travels to the site of the toxic train derailment in Ohio to bash the Biden administration for focusing more overseas, creating the first real split screen moment of the 2024 campaign. Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News Chief White House Correspondent Kristen Welker, NPR White House Correspondent Tamara Keith, Republican strategist Al Cardenas and journalist and author Jonathan Alter. Welcome to Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.
CHUCK TODD:
Good Sunday morning. As the war in Ukraine enters its second year, the question is what will victory look like? It's pretty clear no one involved – not the United States or our European allies, Ukraine or Russia – can afford for this war to be in the same place it is today going into year three, a year from now. And yet both sides, President Biden in a surprise visit to Kyiv and Vladimir Putin this week in Moscow, prepared the world for a drawn-out conflict.
[BEGIN TAPE]
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
One year into this war, Putin no longer doubts the strength of our coalition. But he still doubts our conviction. He doubts our staying power. But there should be no doubt. Our support for Ukraine will not waver. NATO will not be divided, and we will not tire.
PRES. VLADIMIR PUTIN:
We decided to conduct a special military operation. Step by step we will continue to resolve the objectives that are before us. They started the war. And we used the force in order to stop it.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Now, Biden's visit to Ukraine was the first time in modern history that a sitting U.S. president has visited an active war zone without a U.S. military presence. And Biden has hitched his legacy to the success of this war. Can he afford for it to drag on into the year 2024 and the inevitable presidential campaign? The American public is already divided on providing ongoing support to Ukraine, split 49-47 on whether Congress should provide more weapons and funding. Isolationism among Republicans is growing, with the leading presidential hopefuls out there right now trying to show some distance from the Ukraine war. On Friday, despite Ukraine's request and a growing bipartisan course in Congress, President Biden made it clear he is ruling out providing F-16s, for now. Meanwhile, Russia has sustained nearly 200,000 casualties, eight times higher than U.S. casualties in the two decades of war we waged in Afghanistan. Moscow's winter offensive has so far delivered just minor territorial gains. The only potential beneficiary of a protracted conflict may be China, which offered a peace plan by the way that Ukraine did not reject out of hand. The U.S. did and it is still leveling accusations that China is considering providing lethal aid to Russia. U.S. officials tell NBC News that intelligence suggests that aid includes artillery and ammunition. But as U.S. officials sound the alarm, on Friday President Biden downplayed the threat from China.
[BEGIN TAPE]
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
I don't anticipate – we haven't seen it yet. But I don't anticipate a major initiative on the part of China providing weaponry to Russia.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
And joining me now is the president's National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Jake, welcome back to Meet the Press.
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Thanks for having me, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to start right there. Secretary Blinken last week and you throughout the week have been very serious – seriously concerned over what China could be doing. President Biden seemed to downplay that risk there. Is that – is that – is that his gut or do you have new intelligence suggesting the Chinese are backing off?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, we have the same intelligence that we've had that has been behind the comments Secretary Blinken has made and what you just heard from President Biden, which is we have not seen China yet provide military equipment to Russia for purposes of fighting in the war in Ukraine. We haven't seen it yet. We're continuing to watch. We'll stay vigilant, as President Biden said. But so far, we haven't seen it.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you have a sense of what their – why they would make a decision to do this? What would be their strategic reason for doing it, if they did it?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
It's a great question, Chuck, because I don't think it is in China's interest to do this. I think it would alienate them from a number of countries in the world, including our European allies and it would put them four-square into the center of responsibility for the kinds of war crimes and bombardments of civilians and atrocities that the Russians are committing in Ukraine. Their weapons would in effect be used for the slaughter of people in Ukraine. So I think it would be ill-advised for China to move forward. But, of course, that's a decision Beijing is going to have to make for itself.
CHUCK TODD:
Other than saying there would be consequences for getting involved, you or anybody else has not laid out any specific consequences. Why not? Why not go public with what could be the consequences, whether it's on sanctions, whether it's weapons or troops to Taiwan? Why not lay it out in public?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, we believe that this is better done directly with Chinese counterparts in private. And in fact, Secretary Blinken had the opportunity to meet with China's top diplomat at the Munich Security Conference just a few days ago. So we have channels to be able to make sure that China fully understands the U.S. position, and what would happen were they to move forward with this step and we don't see as much profit in microphone diplomacy on this.
CHUCK TODD:
I understand that. Do you have the western allies on board with the immediate response that you want to do with China or is that going to be a slog?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
We've actually had intense and very positive consultations with our NATO allies, with other members of the coalition supporting Ukraine. And in fact, Chuck, they're taking steps themselves to communicate to Beijing. Senior officials from Europe are directly talking to senior officials in China, expressing their own strong warnings about China moving forward in this regard.
CHUCK TODD:
So you believe that the severe consequences the U.S. would level that our European and NATO allies would go along with them?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, in staying away from microphone diplomacy, I will stay away from hypotheticals. All I will say is that we have had extremely effective, constructive discussions with our European allies about this contingency. I think we're all on the same page about our concern, our alarm, were this to happen. We all see the same thing right now, which is China has not moved forward, and we will deal with the circ*mstance should it come to pass.
CHUCK TODD:
Is the peace plan that China put out – many United States administration officials have essentially dismissed it out of hand but President Zelenskyy didn't. What do you make of his decision and is that a smart move by him?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, what President Zelenskyy said were there were parts of the plan he didn't like, and parts of the plan that he thought could be okay. One part of the plan that I particularly liked is point one of the plan. Point one of the plan was: respect the sovereignty of all nations. The plan could just stop there because Russia could end this war by respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty and pulling out. But what President Zelenskyy also said, and this is critical, Chuck, is that he would like to speak to President Xi. China put forward this plan without having had a single conversation since the war began between President Xi and President Zelenskyy. The Chinese have talked to the Russians a lot. But at the most senior levels, they have not talked to the Ukrainians and it's very difficult to advance any kind of peace initiative when there's that kind of one-sided diplomacy going on. So from our perspective, the critical thing is that any peace plan offered by anybody has to involve the input of Ukraine. As President Biden has constantly said, "Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine." And that goes for this initiative as well as any other initiative under the sun.
CHUCK TODD:
Let's talk about some of the – some of the, I'll call it I guess criticism, if you will, from some Democrats who believe that there is more aid – there is more aid that needs to be sent to Ukraine and it needs to happen faster, including the F-16s. I want to play an array of folks: Jason Crow, Mike McFaul, former ambassador to Russia, and Jared Golden. Take a listen.
[BEGIN TAPE]
JASON CROW:
They need more aircraft. They need more advanced aircrafts. That's why we've been pressing the administration on a bipartisan basis to help them advance their air force, to give them what they need to fight and win.
MICHAEL MCFAUL:
I think if you want victory, we have to do more. We're not giving them the weapons they need for this counteroffensive that they're planning in the spring. And I think time's going to run out.
JARED GOLDEN:
Some people have raised concerns about training. Well, last September many of us called on the administration to start training in F-16, or fourth-generation aircraft. And of course that hasn't even begun. So the time to start this process is right now.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
And, Jake, it's that last comment I want you to respond to directly. I understand you say the F-16s are not something they need right now but to Congressman Golden's point, why not start training Ukrainians on this now, so that when we inevitably do this, or likely do it, they're ready to use them?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, first, Chuck, it's important for people to understand that Ukrainian pilots are currently flying day in and day out. They are flying their Soviet-era fighters, MiG fighters, Sukhois. And the coalition is providing spare parts for those planes to ensure that they can stay in the sky. So first of all, we are providing a substantial amount of support to the Ukrainian Air Force for the limited kinds of missions that the current war calls for them to undertake. Secondly, the central focus of all of our efforts right now is to help them take back territory that Russia currently occupies. And the assessment of our military commanders, those giving advice to President Biden, are that what they need right now are tanks, and armored personnel carriers, and infantry fighting vehicles, artillery, and air defense systems up there on the front line. That's what we're giving them And we're giving it to them fast. We're giving it to them in large quantities. And the question of F-16s is really a question for another day, for another phase. This phase is about ground combat and being able to have the tools in the hands of the Ukrainians to take the territory back that the Russians are occupying.
CHUCK TODD:
I'm just curious. Why not take the F-16 talking point off the table, going, "You're right, we're going to provide them with that help down the road," because you've said we're committed to Ukraine's security and perpetuity?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
You know, it's really, at the end of the day, not our job to focus on the talking points question, you know, what the right thing to say on a Sunday show or in some other public form. It's our job to figure out, morning, noon, and night, what does the Ukrainian Army need on those front lines and how do we get it to them as rapidly as possible? And we have moved with unprecedented speed and at unprecedented scale to get them a massive amount of military assistance so that they have been able to defend effectively, and to take back half of the territory so far that Russia previously occupied during this war.
CHUCK TODD:
Simple question, and I know it's got a complicated answer. What does victory look like for Ukraine?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
That's up to Ukraine to define. It has been critical to us, and I said it just earlier in this interview, there'd be nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. And so it's not for the United States to define victory for Ukraine. It's for the United States to support Ukraine on the battlefield so that they can achieve the victory that they define. That's what we are determined to do. We believe they can achieve that and we are going to give them the implements, the tools that they need to be able to achieve that.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, if that's the case, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy did define victory, what he thought victory looked like, in August of last year. He said, "Crimea is Ukrainian and we will never give it up. This Russian war against Ukraine and the entire free Europe began with Crimea and must end with Crimea – with its liberation." There's always been hesitance among U.S. officials, Jake, and I know you're included here, about Crimea specifically and it's always been, "Well, it's up to Ukraine." Well, President Zelenskyy said it. Victory is all of the territory back. Why don't we say the same thing now?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, we have repeatedly talked about Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. The question for us is how do we put Ukraine in the best position on the battlefield so that they are ultimately in the best position at the negotiating table. And President Zelenskyy as recently as this week has said we are going to have to ultimately get to a diplomatic phase of this conflict. So from our perspective, our goal is to strengthen the hand of the Ukrainians on the battlefield so that they are in the strongest position, with the most leverage when they get to the negotiating table to ultimately achieve an outcome that restores Ukraine's full sovereignty and territorial integrity.
CHUCK TODD:
If they want to take Crimea militarily, will the United States help Ukraine do that?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Chuck, the critical thing right now is that they need to take back the territory in the South and the East that they are currently focused on and we need to give them the tools to be able to do that. The question of Crimea, and the question of what happens down the road, is something that we will come to. Where we are right now is that we need to be focused on the immediate term, because it is critical that we move fast and we move decisively to help them take back the territory across that line of contact that Russian troops are currently occupying.
CHUCK TODD:
It sounds like you think the ideal outcome is Ukraine is able to take more territory back, Putin fears that he could lose Crimea, and he comes to the negotiating table to see if he can keep Crimea. Is that the best-case scenario you're envisioning?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Again, I understand why you're asking the question. But you have to understand that from the United States' perspective, we're not going to negotiate over the destiny and sovereignty of another country. That is for their democratically elected president to decide. What we are going to do is give Ukraine the tools that it needs, as I said before, to be in the strongest possible position to ultimately be able to convert battlefield gains into diplomatic leverage. That is the goal here and that requires us to achieve those battlefield gains through the provision and military assistance to Ukraine.
CHUCK TODD:
In the open of our show, people are seeing footage of a Chinese fighter jet warning an American fighter jet over the South China Sea earlier this week. We happen to have a reporter onboard of that. It only underscores just all the tension we have with China. Just in the last couple of weeks, we've had a seven-hour meeting with Taiwanese officials. We're sending more troops to Taiwan. China's ignoring calls from our defense secretary. Secretary Blinken had to cancel his trip. The president wants to have a call with Xi. There's no evidence that anything's been scheduled. This lack of communication, how dangerous is this situation with China right now?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Well, we have said repeatedly that we need to have military communications channels to avoid escalation, to avoid surprise, to avoid mistake and it is unfortunate that the Chinese Defense Ministry has declined to take calls from the U.S. secretary of defense. That's on China. Because from the U.S. perspective, for the rest of the world, we are acting responsibly. We are prepared to have those lines of crisis communication. We had them during the Cold War – the height of the Cold War when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were squaring off. But, Chuck, we do have the ability to speak to China at high levels and as I mentioned, Secretary Blinken spoke with his counterpart, the top diplomat of China, Wang Yi, at Munich just a few days ago. So, it is not that all lines of communication are cut – are shut off but rather, that we do not have the military-to-military exchanges that we think are necessary to ensure stability.
CHUCK TODD:
Do we have anything scheduled with the president and Xi on a phone call in the near term?
JAKE SULLIVAN:
Nothing scheduled at the moment, though I anticipate the two leaders will speak at some point in the not-too-distant future.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, Jake Sullivan, the President Biden national security advisor. As always, sir, thank you for coming on and sharing the administration's perspective. When we come back, there is a growing Republican divide over aiding Ukraine as the war passes the one-year mark. Will those skeptics, including some 2024 presidential candidates, impact future funding for the war? Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska, the only member of the Senate currently serving in the military, joins me next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. No issue illustrates the shift in the Republican Party better than the war in Ukraine right now, where traditional hawkishness on Russia has been replaced by a deep skepticism of U.S. involvement overseas, particularly when the policy is led by a Democratic president named Joe Biden. In a Washington Post poll this month, 50% of Republicans said the U.S. was doing too much to support Ukraine. That's up from just 18% who said the same thing in April of last year. This GOP split was on display this week, as a handful of congressional Republicans who are supportive of the Biden policy on Ukraine met with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in Kyiv. While back here at home, most of the declared and likely presidential hopefuls were striking a more skeptical tone about Ukraine with, really, one notable exception.
[START TAPE]
DONALD TRUMP:
World War III has never been closer than it is right now. We need to clean house of all of the warmongers and America-last globalists and the deep state.
GOV. RON DESANTIS:
Well, they have effectively a blank-check policy with no clear strategic objective identified. And I don't think it's in our interest to be getting into proxy war with China getting involved over things like the border lands or over Crimea.
NIKKI HALEY:
I don't think we need to write them blank checks. But they have the passion to fight for their own freedom. Give them the ammunition to do it.
MIKE PENCE:
There can be no room in the leadership of the Republican Party for apologist for Putin.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Needless to say, there's going to be a robust debate on the presidential debate stage there. But joining me now is Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska. He's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He's also a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, the only member right now of the United States Senate that does currently serve in the military. Senator Sullivan, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Morning, Chuck, good to be on the show.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me just start with debates that you heard from the National Security Advisor there. What do you think victory looks like for Ukraine?
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Well, you know, I think just to begin with, looking at the past year we need to recognize how we got here, what mistakes were made, and what we can do going forward. I think one element that the National Security Advisor doesn’t talk about, I think it was clearly some of the Biden administration’s weakness on issues like energy, national defense, and, clearly, the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan that emboldened Putin to undertake the brutal invasion of Ukraine. I think, though, that now that we are in this battle, it’s strongly in our interest to continue to support the Ukrainians to restore their territorial integrity and their sovereignty without committing U.S. forces. But you know, Chuck, your interview actually highlighted one of the problems. Jake Sullivan is talking about, “Well, we’re not going to do F-16s today. That’s for another time, not right now.” That has been a pattern with this administration from the beginning, where they have slow rolled critical military weapons systems. You know, it’s a long list. It’s Patriots, it’s HIMARS, it’s tanks, and now it’s F-16s. And, to me, that is a real blunder. We need to get them what they need now and listen to the Ukrainians not, as he said, the policymakers. They’ve proven their ability to fight bravely, and I think we need to do a much better job. Took nine months to get them the Patriots, and I fear the same thing is happening right now with the F-16s – you just saw it right now with the National Security Advisor.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you want the administration to speak with more clarity on restoring the entire territorial integrity of Ukraine pre-2014, which, of course, means Crimea?
SEN.DAN SULLIVAN:
Well, I think you saw the unease that Jake Sullivan demonstrated when you were pressing him on that. I do agree that this is going to be up to the Ukrainians and Zelenskyy. We need to give them, like I said, the weapon systems to undertake that. But I think they should be more clear. I think it should be all the territorial integrity of the entire country, which includes Crimea. And so yes, I think they need more clarity on that. And the national security advisor didn't demonstrate it in his interview with you today.
CHUCK TODD:
Let's talk about more support for Ukraine going forward. In the introduction, I highlighted there is a growing divide in your party. Do you think you're in the minority now among the Russia hawks and your party these days?
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
No, I don't think so. I mean, you look at the U.S. Senate, the members who are on committees like Intel, Armed Services like myself, Foreign Affairs. I think there's still a strong contingent of Republicans who support supporting the Ukrainians. Now, I do think that there are legitimate criticisms of this administration's conduct of supporting the Ukrainians. Let me give you one that in particular, being home in Alaska, really matters. You know, from the beginning of this administration, this administration's been focused on shutting down the production of American energy. Well, as you know, Chuck, Xi Jinping and Putin fear American energy dominance. And so to have an administration that's shutting down energy, making it harder to move energy, pushing back on the ability to finance energy for America, this actually directly relates to our efforts to push back against Xi Jinping, Putin. You know, in many ways their energy policies have been national security suicide. And I think this is what frustrates Republicans where we see that other policies of this administration aren't at all helping pushing back on what I refer to as this new era of authoritarian aggression led by Putin and Xi Jinping. And it's a frustration you're seeing among Republicans, but it's also frustration among Democrats.
CHUCK TODD:
But I'm curious of your take of the growing – look, this isolationist wing of the GOP used to basically be Ron and Rand Paul. It's bigger than that now. How much of it do you think is genuine sort of leeriness of interventions because of Iraq and Afghanistan on the right, and how much of it do you think is simply because Biden's a Democrat?
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Look, I think you've always had on both sides kind of the wings of each party and isolationist tendency. And I think that this war in particular, you're right, the polling is starting to show a lack of support. And I think that there are ways that you can address this. A lot of Republicans say, "Hey, we should be doing more on our own border, not the Ukraine/Russia border." My response to that is, "Hey, great powers can do both things." But it is important to address our own border, to secure the border. That would take away one of the arguments. Something else – and I hear from Alaskans all the time on this – we need to do a better job, the administration needs to do a better job of getting our European allies to pull their weight. As you know, Chuck, they've had a commitment to spend at a minimum – and it should be a floor not a ceiling – 2% of their GDP on defense. The vast majority of the NATO allies that we have don't do that. And I think that frustrates Americans, where we see this huge conflict in the heart of Europe, and the Europeans aren't stepping up enough the way in which they need to. And I think pressing them to do more and having them do more can help push back against some of the doubts that are starting to spread across the country on Ukrainian support.
CHUCK TODD:
What do you think the best way is to deter China from helping the Russians right now? And if they do, what should the consequences be?
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Well, look, they're already helping the Russians. I mean, every time you hear the Chinese officials talk about this, they're blaming us, they're blaming NATO for the Ukrainian war. I agree, there should be a serious red line with regard to them supplying military equipment to the Russians, and I think that should be in the form of sanctions. But, you know, there's a broader issue here, Chuck, and I think this is another one where Republicans are actually more united. The war in Ukraine really revealed that we are in this new era of authoritarian aggression led by Xi Jinping and Putin. As you know, they're working together. They are increasingly isolated. They view their Democratic neighbors in a very paranoid way. And I think that this challenge where they are looking to take aggressive actions against their neighbors, whether it's in Ukraine, whether it's Taiwan, I think it's going to be with us for decades. We need to face it with strategic resolve and confidence. There's a number of things that we have with regard to our strategic advantages over these dictators that we should promote, if we're wise enough to use them. Our military, our allies, our natural resources and energy, and of course our commitment to democracy and liberty. I mean, in many ways that was what really helped us win the Cold War. Xi Jinping and Putin, their biggest vulnerability is they fear their own people. We need to exploit that as we move forward. But I think that can unify Republicans and Democrats.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to follow up on one more thing on China. There's a report today that another intelligence arm of the U.S. government, this is inside our energy department, has joined the FBI in concluding that COVID began with a lab leak in China. If we end up determining, if our intelligence community over time determines this is the majority view, and it's the U.S. government's view that this was a lab leak in China and that government covered it up, what should be the consequences?
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN:
Well, I think we need to have public hearings on this and really dig into it. Think about what just happened over the last three years: one of the biggest pandemics in a century. A lot of evidence that it's coming from the Chinese, and when other countries even raise it, like Australia, the Chinese use their coercive economic activities to shut people up. So I think we need to do extensive hearings. I hope our Democratic colleagues in the Congress can support that. I know the Republicans in the House are certainly supportive of that. But I think if that happens, we need to make sure every country in the world knows this. Look, this is a country that has no problem coming out and lying to the world. We just saw that with this Chinese spy balloon. It's the nature of a Communist dictatorship to lie to their own people, to lie to the world. But I think that we need to make sure every country knows that and then look at what the consequences could be. Obviously millions of deaths, huge economic impacts, and it would once again show that the Chinese Communist Party is not only a menace, but the nature of these regimes is to lie to the world. And we need to make that clear to people.
CHUCK TODD:
I think you're definitely right on those public hearings. At a minimum, we need to know what we know, and the world needs to know what we know. Senator Dan Sullivan, Republican from the great state of Alaska, thanks for getting up very early this morning out there and sharing your perspective with us. Before we go to break, I want to show you our Meet the Press Minute. It takes a look at the legacy of President Jimmy Carter, who is receiving hospice care at his home in Plains, Georgia. Over the course of 40 years, Carter appeared on this program 11 times. In December 1974, he joined us the week he announced his bid for the White House to talk about why he wanted the nation's top job.
[START TAPE]
GOV. JIMMY CARTER:
I think we have a nation that is truly great. Not that it used to be great, or certainly will be great again, but one that has an innate character about it that's not adequately recognized. A stability, a pride in its past, an economic strength that is presently not recognized adequately by the people in this country and around the world. Also, I think there's a lack of purpose in our country's government now, which is much more vulnerable than the people deserve. It's hard to detect what are our goals, what common purpose we work toward, what sort of sacrifices might be expected from the American people. And if I can exemplify the correction of some of the defects that have been brought in our government by politicians and not by the people, and help to restore the greatness of this country, then I'd like to do it.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, Donald Trump turned the site of the Ohio train derailment into a campaign stop to highlight Biden's absence while he was overseas in Ukraine. Our panel is here, as we look into what may be the first split-screen moment of the 2024 campaign.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back, the panel is here: NBC News Chief White House Correspondent Kristen Welker; co-anchor of Weekend Today; Jonathan Alter, journalist and author of His Very Best Life – His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life. My apologies there. NPR White House Correspondent Tamara Keith, welcome.
TAMARA KEITH:
Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
And Republican strategist Al Cardenas. All right, we really had our first split-screen moment. And I'm curious, Kristen, I'm going to play it here. Essentially, it was Donald Trump, what I thought was a risky move: holding a campaign event in East Palestine. Here he is.
[START TAPE]
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN:
We will stand with you. Let us move forward with faith and conviction with a Biden commitment to be allies.
DONALD TRUMP:
I sincerely hope that when your representatives and all of the politicians get here, including Biden, they get back from touring Ukraine, that he's got some money left over.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
The president in an interview on Friday was pretty defensive of the response, basically saying, "Hey, we were there from the beginning. EPA was there from the beginning," and all of those things. Behind the scenes, any regret at the optic problems here for them?
KRISTEN WELKER:
They're pretty defiant, Chuck. But I have to tell you privately, some allies of the president are concerned that he hasn't been there yet. And they're saying he needs to go. But I've pressed them over and over again, "Are there any plans for the president to go?" And they say there are no conversations about that. They reiterate what you just said. "We were on the ground within two hours of this crisis happening. We've gotten all the resources there that are needed." And I do think big picture there's a question. Optics are important when you're dealing with a crisis like this.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
There's no doubt about that. We learned that during Hurricane Katrina, for example. The question is will this backfire on President Biden if he doesn't go? But could it backfire on former President Trump? Because his visit has put in the spotlight the fact that he rolled back 100 environmental regulations. And so that's because a part of this conversation as well. So I think that there are risks involved for both of them. And the question becomes will we see President Biden on the ground in the coming weeks? At this point in time, still no plans for that.
CHUCK TODD:
Tamara, I sense that almost they don't want to look like they've been pushed into anything by Fox News and Donald Trump. Is that – are they being stubborn about this?
TAMARA KEITH:
And this White House doesn't like to feel like they're being pushed into things. They have resisted other calls for him, "He's got to be there." Though this weekend they've told us that the CDC, the EPA, and FEMA are going door to door, checking on people, you know; the government is here to help kind of a thing. So pushing back on the idea that these people are forgotten, I don't know if everyone is going to want a knock on their door from three federal agencies, but that's what they're going to get.
AL CARDENAS:
You know, President Biden, though, has a habit of showing up late to just about everything we think is significant. In Florida during the campaign, the Florida Democrats were saying, "Hey, these guys are here every week. You haven't shown up. They're calling us socialists. You've got to come defend us." And he finally showed up like three weeks before the election after one year of being prompted. On the border. He just showed up at the border. Why shouldn't he have been there long before? Now on this incident, he had a good reason not to be there, but he has his reputation preceding him about being in places too late.
JONATHAN ALTER:
I just don't think the split screen hurts Biden at all. He's on a very successful trip and his messages were the arsenal of democracy, the FDR message. He's backing the modern Winston Churchill, Zelenskyy. What is Trump doing? He's saying to the people of Palestine, "Have a good time." He's handing out MAGA caps. That's not a very good impression for him.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And I was in Poland with President Biden, and just to add to that point, he was making this broader case. This war is not just about the war in Ukraine. It's about democracy. It's about upholding American ideals. And his surprise trip to Ukraine, if you talk to Republicans and Democrats, they say it may be one of the strongest counterpoints yet to this narrative that he's too old for a second term.
CHUCK TODD:
No, I think that was a big moment for him on his – on his vibrancy.
TAMARA KEITH:
Absolutely. It was not an easy trip. No president has done what he did, which was spend 25 hours in a country at war, a country where the U.S. doesn't have a base of operations. I mean that is – a ten-hour train ride each direction is a remarkable feat for this White House to have pulled off and they are quite happy that they pulled that off.
CHUCK TODD:
But I want to talk about the fact that I was thinking about we've had three one-term presidents in our lifetimes, essentially. And two of them lost arguably due to foreign policy issues. Jonathan, you profiled one of them in Carter. And that was the Iran hostage crisis. George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton successfully sort of used a message that Trump was using, which is, "Hey, he's so concerned overseas. It’s the economy stupid here." This war can't drag on into '24, can it?
JONATHAN ALTER:
Well, I think it very well might. The question is whether it will swamp Joe Biden the way events overseas ended up swamping Jimmy Carter. In his first half of his term, Carter was very successful. But these events kind of really burdened him. The difference is inflation. So basically--
CHUCK TODD:
Speaking of the thing that could hurt both of them, right?
JONATHAN ALTER:
So events overseas with the Iranian revolution in 1979, that kicked off a whole new round of inflation. So Carter was running for reelection with double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. And these overwhelmed many of his quite big achievements, which few people remember now. So if Biden can manage to keep inflation in check in the next couple of years, even if there's a stalemate in Ukraine, I think he'll be okay.
CHUCK TODD:
Al, go ahead, but I want you to address the growing divide in your party. I mean, you're a hawk against authoritarianism, as somebody that’s -- good South Florida Republican. What's going on with DeSantis here?
AL CARDENAS:
Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, here's someone who's served in the military after going to Harvard and Yale. I mean, he had the world in front of him with those records, and yet he went into the military. You would think, like Dan Sullivan, that he'd be on Dan Sullivan's track, not the track of the dissenter. So I -- that's one I can't figure it out. Maybe he's concerned about the base that follows Donald Trump. And maybe that's a reason. But that one I can't figure out. I did want to say that of all of the comments we've made about presidents losing elections, the one that didn't participate in a election but whose circ*mstances are more similar to Biden was Lyndon Johnson. He's in the middle of a war with you know Russian-backed people. And his numbers kept falling. And then he said, "You know what, I'm stepping down."
JONATHAN ALTER:
But he had 500,000 troops there.
AL CARDENAS:
My point is I think--
CHUCK TODD:
That's a big difference.
AL CARDENAS:
--Biden may be facing the Lyndon Johnson predicament--
CHUCK TODD:
Oh wow.
AL CARDENAS:
--before you consider his running for reelection.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. I'm going to have to leave that there. But that's a fascinating conversation, and the point is if this gets into '24, we don't know how this is going to play with the American people. Up next, the Ohio train disaster was 100% preventable according to federal investigators. Trains are still, though, some of the safest options for transporting hazardous chemicals. I'm going to show you why after the break.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back, Data Download time. That East Palestine train derailment and the chemical spill it caused raised some renewed questions about the safety of rail travel and using it to transport toxic chemicals. Just how safe is shipping toxic cargo by train? The answer is somewhat complicated. Let me show you. Train derailments overall have actually been going down over the last 10 years. We had over 1,300 derailments in 2013, just over 1,000 in 2022, about three a day. Good news is not all these train derailments are trains carrying hazardous materials. Now, though, let's compare hazmat spills on railway incidents. So we had 667 hazmat spills in 2013 on the tracks – railroad tracks. It’s down to 355 in 2022, so you can see it's actually been getting safer by rail. Now, contrast that by hazmat spills on the highways. Look at this: In 2013 we had nearly 14,000. It's actually been going up. We had over 23,000 hazmat spills by highway, just 355 by train. So clearly it's safer to do this and better to do this by train, right? Well, you start to look at it financially, it's a different story. Let's take 2022 as an example. There were over 23,000 incidents that happened on highways. The cost of those cleanups: $21 million. The 355 incidents by rail? The cost of that was more than double that: $45 million. Now, why is that? It's mainly due to one large rail spill in May. It was a train carrying petroleum products that derailed in Harmar Township, Pennsylvania. Spilled over 3,000 gallons into a creek, cost over $30 million in damages. By the way, the rail operator of that train? None other than Norfolk Southern, the same one behind this month's incident in East Palestine. When you have these derailments, they can be gigantic accidents. When we come back, more Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. It’s becoming a major political problem for the GOP.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. The Republican Party has an abortion problem. That is the unmistakable conclusion of this new national survey from the Public Religion Research Institute. Of 20,000 Americans, it is easily the most comprehensive survey on abortion attitudes we have seen since the Dobbs decision. This was able to do both national polling and 50 separate state polls. Two-thirds of Americans, 64%, say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. This is an increase from 2010, from 55%. And Republicans right now look like they're more out of step, just 36% favor legal abortion compared with 86% of Democrats. And look at this number: 68% of Independents. The Republican number has not moved since 2010. But support among Democrats and Independents has actually grown by double digits. State by state, you can see here solid majorities favor legal abortion. In the six historically closest presidential states, the battleground states, all of them but one over 60%. And in the three most vulnerable Democratic-held Senate seats, look at those states: Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia, also with very high percentages on legal abortion. Al Cardenas, what does the GOP do here? They seem to be in a box on abortion.
AL CARDENAS:
Well, look, everybody was thankful for Roe v. Wade. The Republicans and Democrats didn't want to touch it for 60 years for obvious reasons. Now, Donald Trump decided he wanted to do evangelicals a favor and name three Supreme Court justices who were committed to looking at this issue. And now, we've got the political explosion of having made that Dobbs decision. And in my opinion, that's not the only one they're going to make. The Supreme Court of the United States has become the Democrats' best ally --
CHUCK TODD:
Wow.
AL CARDENAS:
-- when you come to what's going on, in spite of the fact that Republicans were rejoicing that they --
CHUCK TODD:
Right.AL CARDENAS:
-- had a 6-3 majority.
CHUCK TODD:
Tamara, that's the thing. They don't know what their position is now as a party.
TAMARA KEITH:
That's correct. Well, because they don't actually agree. There are some people like former Vice President Mike Pence, very likely presidential candidate, who says, "We need to stand strong, stand firm on abortion. We need to take a strong position here." Then you have someone like Trump saying, "You know, Republicans could be in real trouble here with this issue." So it's one of the many things that probably won't be settled by 2024. But in terms of the identity of the Republican Party, it is a challenge, because when you start talking about specifics – when something has been taken away and then you start talking about specifics, people actually care about this issue. And that's what showed up in this poll, is just a spike in support.
CHUCK TODD:
And the White House has been, look, I saw Vice President Harris did an event earlier this week.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Oh yeah.CHUCK TODD:
I mean, look, I'm going to look back on 2022 and start to think that we're overrating the impact of the Trump candidates and underrating the impact of the abortion decision.
KRISTEN WELKER:
That's right. I mean, we saw the power of Dobbs in the midterm elections. And I'm told the vice president is going to be out front on this issue. You can expect that over the next two years. In terms of the strategy within the Republican Party moving forward, when you talk to Republicans, one person said something so interesting to me, which is that Roe was overturned and then the focus became on banning abortion in the states. Instead of talking about maternal health, talking about adoption, talking about what happens to these families. Another person said, "We're going to focus on the economy." Well, that's a risky strategy. What is the economy going to look like in the next year and a half? And it'll be a test. Is the economy as motivating as the abortion issue?
JONATHAN ALTER:
And the abortion pill is going to be a huge issue. There's a decision coming out in Texas.
CHUCK TODD:
Oh my goodness, if that goes away, yeah.
JONATHAN ALTER:
So right now, 55% of all abortions are medical abortions with the abortion pill, up from 45% just a couple of years ago. And if this decision comes down the way people are expecting, and then it's upheld at the U.S. Supreme Court, as people expect, a lot of women who want to use the abortion pill are not going to be able to. And they're going to be awfully upset about that.
CHUCK TODD:
I'm going to bring it back. You're my Floridian pal here, Al. I sense Governor DeSantis is uncomfortable on what to say about abortion right now, because he has the 15 week, but I notice he doesn't want this session of the legislature to touch abortion, does he?
AL CARDENAS:
No, he doesn't. He's shied away from this issue. He's acknowledged from the outset it's not a winning issue. He hasn't mentioned the issue. And he's acting like, "Hey, I'm Governor from Florida. I don't need to get involved with this. Let this be a national issue." So far it's working for him. Nobody's really taking him on, primarily because the Democrat Party has imploded in Florida. But if I was them, I would certainly try to put him in a corner, but they haven't.
CHUCK TODD:
But with the Jon Tester news this week, and you see those abortion numbers, I finally – look, I was pretty pessimistic about this Senate map for Democrats. But suddenly you see those abortion numbers and you're like: I see the path for Tester. I see the path for Brown.
TAMARA KEITH:
They can talk about this issue and make it about people's rights. And not just about --
CHUCK TODD:
Make the libertarian argument.
TAMARA KEITH:
-- a healthcare procedure. Yes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But, Chuck, I think it's interesting. Tam, to your first point about the divisions within the Republican Party, one of the biggest ones is about this 15-week national abortion ban. A lot of Republicans are saying Senator Lindsey Graham should've never introduced this, because the whole point of Dobbs was to send this back to the states.
CHUCK TODD:
Except he was actually looking for a compromise number here. I don't know if Democrats will ever get to even 20, let alone 50.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and now every Republican candidate is going to have to weigh in on that.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Before we go, this week on the Chuck Toddcast, I spoke with former ambassador to Russia, Mike McFaul, Washington Post's Dan Balz. And after the broadcast today we're going to have a post-game discussion with Jonathan Alter, talk a little bit about Jimmy Carter. So subscribe to the Chuck Toddcast by scanning the QR code on your screen right now. Or just go to NBCNews.com/ChuckToddcast. That's all for today. Thanks for watching. We'll be back next week, because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
