‘My Dear Wife, I'm Free'
'My dear wife,' he said. 'I'm free.'
He had been released from prison after negotiations between authoritarian leader Alexander Lukashenko and Trump administration officials, and was at the border between Belarus and Lithuania. He and 13 other political prisoners were heading to the American embassy in Vilnius.
Tsikhanouskaya and Siarhei have since reintroduced him to their children, traveled to a solidarity rally in Poland and done interviews with major news outlets. But both Tsikhanouskaya and her husband, a blogger and political activist who was preparing to challenge Lukashenko in Belarus' 2020 election when he was imprisoned, are grappling with the opposition's role in what comes next.
In an interview with POLITICO Magazine, Tsikhanouskaya described the joy of finally reuniting her family even as she said there was far more work to be done. She also made clear that a certain peace-seeking president could help her cause.
'We ask President Trump, go further, free them all,' she said. 'Use your influence again. We believe that you can do this, and Belarusians will never forget it.'
The administration's efforts in Belarus come as Trump continues to search for an end to Russia's war on Ukraine, and as Lukashenko looks for a means to end the political isolation his relationship with Vladimir Putin has wrought.
Along with freeing more political prisoners, Tsikhanouskaya is desperate to make sure Belarus isn't pulled further into Russia's orbit as part of negotiations to end Putin's war.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
When did you know that your husband Siarhei would be freed?
The moment when I understood that he was free was when he called me from the border, just a direct call, and I heard his voice, and he told me, 'My dear wife, I'm free.' I could hardly believe this, because I was sure that he would be one of the last who would be released from prison, but who understands the logic of this regime? We had several lists of people to be released, humanitarian lists where people who were about to die were there and people who were incommunicado, some others. They chose Siarhei, I don't know why.
A lot has been made of the term 'incommunicado.' What exactly does that mean in the context of Belarus?
Incommunicado means that a person is kept in full isolation. Since March 2023, more than two years, we lost full connection with Siarhei. A lawyer wasn't able to attend to him. Letters were not received from my husband. Nothing. Just forced disappearance. And we have eight people at the moment on this list, and I wasn't sure if he was alive, what prison he's kept in, what state he's in. The regime is doing this to blackmail relatives, put a burden on the shoulders of their relatives. This knowing nothing about people is, of course, very, very painful.
Can you speak to what it was like to see Siarhei for the first time post-prison sentence?
It was, it is now, shocking to see him in such a state. He lost half of his weight. He says that for the last couple of months, they even gave him additional portions of butter, cottage cheese. When he got out of the minivan, I knew that he would be there, but if I had seen him somewhere else, I wouldn't have recognized him. And when he returned home, our young daughter didn't recognize him at all. I said, 'Dear, look who came?' And she just said, 'Hello, who are you?' And when he started talking, she just recognized his voice. Of course, there were oceans of tears, hugs, but prison changes people a lot. It's like gray face, like very skinny people.
It's difficult to see, but the physical state, maybe it's possible to improve somehow. But all those memories from prison, the emotional trauma, psychological trauma, it will not be able to be softened.
Has it set in that he's back? How has it been to have him back in the movement?
The release of Siarhei, it's brought a boost of energy to the Belarusian people, first of all. It was such news for people. And he's full of energy. For five years, he was thinking about new ideas, new projects, how to change the situation in Belarus. And now we have to use this momentum to direct more attention to the topic of Belarus, to the topic of political prisoners and the country's political disaster.
So, on the one hand, as a wife, I want to take care of him, I want him to relax a little bit. But on the other hand, I understand that he has to jump into the agenda. He's given so many interviews now, so many people want to meet him, to see him, and we have to use that momentum. And he's still realizing what has happened in the democratic movement. But, for sure he will join this movement as a strong speaker, as a leader, just to try to mobilize the energy of Belarusians.
Five years [since an anti-Lukashenko protest movement was violently quashed and Siarhei was first jailed], and people are exhausted. You know, people continue to fight. We are working on different projects in coordination with the people on the ground, but somehow people are losing, step by step, the energy. And he's a driver who can really, really attract attention. So Siarhei will focus on building new channels of communication with the workers, rural communities, entrepreneurs, officials. His voice is powerful and he speaks the language of people. Many Belarusians watched his first press conference, it gave maybe people inside the country new hope. Many people who believed in 2020, and were silent for five years, are active again.
Switching gears to politics — are you worried at all that the Trump White House might be legitimizing Lukashenko by negotiating with him on the release of political prisoners?
So first of all, President Trump really made a difference. His team — Gen. Keith Kellogg, John Cole, Chris Smith — took real action and it worked.
Trump has shown that diplomacy and pressure can bring results. He has leverage in the situation of Belarus and he used it. Now, we must maintain pressure on the regime. We have seen that the pressure works, and it is the most effective tool. I think that actually Belarus can be President Trump's foreign policy success story — a place where American leadership ends a crisis without war. It can be a victory that the world will notice. And we ask President Trump, go further, free them all. Use your influence again. We believe that you can do this, and Belarusians will never forget it. It was American diplomacy and mission that rescued this group of people. But for sure, without the strong and principled and firm position of the European Union as well, it wouldn't have brought this result. So again, President Trump can solve the crisis in Belarus, which lasts 30 years already, and it must be easier to bring changes to Belarus than to Russia.
Of course, there is gossip that this visit of Gen. Kellogg might look like legitimization of the regime, but I trust that our American partners know who they're dealing with. And it was President Trump, actually in 2020, who didn't recognize the legitimacy of Lukashenko. They understand that Lukashenko is a criminal, he committed crimes against Belarusians, he is a war criminal. And he has to be brought to accountability for all the crimes.
But nevertheless, for Lukashenko this meeting is more important than it is for the Americans, because he's seeking legitimacy. He's seeking to show the world that 'Look Americans themselves listen to me, I'm important.' But Americans understand that he's playing on the side of Putin in this game, that he is not an independent player.
What would you like to see President Trump do in Belarus?
We understand that President Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine and this is why Belarus might be a topic for negotiation as well. For us, it's very important that the peace in Ukraine that President Trump wants to achieve must be lasting and just. It must be on the conditions of Ukraine. We can't reward the aggressor. There cannot be peace without justice, and the Belarusian topic is existential here because if Lukashenko stays in power in Belarus, there will no longer be a possibility to secure peace in the whole region.
So we want President Trump to continue first of all releases, but also continue this communication through the State Department with the Belarusian Democratic Forces, and bring changes in Belarus that will actually change the security architecture of the whole region. So, continue this humanitarian track and also push Lukashenko and his regime on their path of national dialogue with Belarusians.
America can play this very strong mediation role between the Belarusians and the regime. Because again, I want to underline that Lukashenko wants negotiations with the USA or with the West, possibly with the European Union, but we need systematic changes. We want Belarusian people to return to Belarus, where they will not be prosecuted. We want to write our constitution so that it works for Belarusian people. The aim is much broader than the release of political prisoners, though that is our priority.
Are you worried that the Trump administration may be giving Putin and Lukashenko too much credit in its bid to end the war? Is it too transactional?
Of course, you know President Trump's politics, we see it is rather transactional. But maybe it's not about credit, it's about giving a chance to Putin, maybe to Lukashenko, to change the situation that will meet the demands of Ukrainians and Belarusians. We already saw that President Trump met President Zelenskyy during the NATO Summit and it was a very pleasant conversation. And I think that there was disappointment in Trump's administration that Putin doesn't want to make any concessions.
What advice do you have for the Trump administration as it embarks on negotiations and attempts to improve relationships with Minsk?
We must not normalize the trafficking of political prisoners, when people are released for some concessions from your side, softening of sanctions or publicity. And then new political prisoners are taken. Lukashenko has to be punished, not rewarded.
What is a realistic path forward for getting Belarus' political prisoners freed with American coordination?
There's a big chance to release all people from prison. But the issue is what the regime wants in return for this. We always say that sanctions are the leverage to release people, but we have to use this leverage smartly. If we don't see any signs that repressions are stopped, this instrument cannot be used.
Because 14 people have been released but [in June], 28 were detained. When we see a change of policy by Lukashenko, that he's ready to stop these repressions and make steps forward toward the Belarusian people, it might be a signal that you can talk about lifting of sanctions. But again, don't, forget that we have more leverage with European sanctions. Of course, the actions have to be coordinated. And there should be no pressure, for example, from the American side to the European side. The main message is that sanctions as instruments have to be used smartly.
We can't even speak about softening sanctions now, while repressions continue and with more than 1,000 behind bars. The first condition — ending repression — must be met. And I am sure President Trump, with all his power, can achieve it. Like the release of my husband — it happened without lifting any sanctions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump criticized the idea of presidential vacations. His Scotland trip is built around golf.
The White House isn't calling Trump's five-day, midsummer jaunt a vacation, but rather a working trip where the Republican president might hold a news conference and sit for interviews with U.S. and British media outlets. Trump was also talking trade in separate meetings with European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Trump is staying at his properties near Turnberry and Aberdeen, where his family owns two golf courses and is opening a third on Aug. 13. Trump played golf over the weekend at Turnberry and is helping cut the ribbon on the new course on Tuesday. Advertisement He's not the first president to play in Scotland: Dwight D. Eisenhower played at Turnberry in 1959, more than a half century before Trump bought it, after meeting with French President Charles de Gaulle in Paris. But none of Trump's predecessors has constructed a foreign itinerary around promoting vacation sites his family owns and is actively expanding. Advertisement It lays bare how Trump has leveraged his second term to pad his family's profits in a variety of ways, including overseas development deals and promoting cryptocurrencies, despite growing questions about ethics concerns. 'You have to look at this as yet another attempt by Donald Trump to monetize his presidency,' said Leonard Steinhorn, who teaches political communication and courses on American culture and the modern presidency at American University. 'In this case, using the trip as a PR opportunity to promote his golf courses.' A parade of golf carts and security accompanied President Trump at Turnberry, on the Scottish coast southwest of Glasgow, on Sunday. Christopher Furlong/Getty President Trump on the links. Christopher Furlong/Getty Presidents typically vacation in the US Franklin D. Roosevelt went to the Bahamas, often for the excellent fishing, five times between 1933 and 1940. He visited Canada's Campobello Island in New Brunswick, where he had vacationed as a child, in 1933, 1936 and 1939. Reagan spent Easter 1982 on vacation in Barbados after meeting with Caribbean leaders and warning of a Marxist threat that could spread throughout the region from nearby Grenada. Presidents also never fully go on vacation. They travel with a large entourage of aides, receive intelligence briefings, take calls and otherwise work away from Washington. Kicking back in the United States, though, has long been the norm. Harry S. Truman helped make Key West, Florida, a tourist hot spot with his 'Little White House' cottage there. Several presidents, including James Buchanan and Benjamin Harrison, visited the Victorian architecture in Cape May, New Jersey. More recently, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama boosted tourism on Massachusetts' Martha's Vineyard, while Trump has buoyed Palm Beach, Florida, with frequent trips to his Mar-a-Lago estate. But any tourist lift Trump gets from his Scottish visit is likely to most benefit his family. 'Every president is forced to weigh politics versus fun on vacation,' said Jeffrey Engel, David Gergen Director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, who added that Trump is 'demonstrating his priorities.' Advertisement 'When he thinks about how he wants to spend his free time, A., playing golf, B., visiting places where he has investments and C., enhancing those investments, that was not the priority for previous presidents, but it is his vacation time,' Engel said. It's even a departure from Trump's first term, when he found ways to squeeze in visits to his properties while on trips more focused on work. Trump stopped at his resort in Hawaii to thank staff members after visiting the memorial site at Pearl Harbor and before embarking on an Asia trip in November 2017. He played golf at Turnberry in 2018 before meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Finland. Trump once decried the idea of taking vacations as president. 'Don't take vacations. What's the point? If you're not enjoying your work, you're in the wrong job,' Trump wrote in his 2004 book, 'Think Like a Billionaire.' During his presidential campaign in 2015, he pledged to 'rarely leave the White House.' Even as recently as a speech at a summit on artificial intelligence in Washington on Wednesday, Trump derided his predecessor for flying long distances for golf — something he's now doing. 'They talked about the carbon footprint and then Obama hops onto a 747, Air Force One, and flies to Hawaii to play a round of golf and comes back,' he said. On the green... Christopher Furlong/Getty ... and in the sand. Christopher Furlong/Getty Presidential vacations and any overseas trips were once taboo Trump isn't the first president not wanting to publicize taking time off. George Washington was criticized for embarking on a New England tour to promote the presidency. Some took issue with his successor, John Adams, for leaving the then-capital of Philadelphia in 1797 for a long visit to his family's farm in Quincy, Massachusetts. James Madison left Washington for months after the War of 1812. Advertisement Teddy Roosevelt helped pioneer the modern presidential vacation in 1902 by chartering a special train and directing key staffers to rent houses near Sagamore Hill, his home in Oyster Bay, New York, according to the White House Historical Association. Four years later, Roosevelt upended tradition again, this time by becoming the first president to leave the country while in office. The New York Times noted that Roosevelt's 30-day trip by yacht and battleship to tour construction of the Panama Canal 'will violate the traditions of the United States for 117 years by taking its President outside the jurisdiction of the Government at Washington.' In the decades since, where presidents opted to vacation, even outside the U.S., has become part of their political personas. In addition to New Jersey, Grant relaxed on Martha's Vineyard. Calvin Coolidge spent the 1928 Christmas holidays at Sapelo Island, Georgia. Lyndon B. Johnson had his 'Texas White House,' a Hill Country ranch. Eisenhower vacationed in Newport, Rhode Island. John F. Kennedy went to Palm Springs, California, and his family's compound in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, among other places. Richard Nixon had the 'Southern White House' on Key Biscayne, Florida, while Joe Biden traveled frequently to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, while also visiting Nantucket, Massachusetts, and St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. George H.W. Bush was a frequent visitor to his family's property in Kennebunkport, Maine, and didn't let the start of the Gulf War in 1991 detour him from a monthlong vacation there. His son, George W. Bush, opted for his ranch in Crawford, Texas, rather than a more posh destination. Advertisement Presidential visits help tourism in some places more than others, but Engel said that for some Americans, 'if the president of the Untied States goes some place, you want to go to the same place.' He noted that visitors emulating presidential vacations are out 'to show that you're either as cool as he or she, that you understand the same values as he or she or, heck, maybe you'll bump into he or she.'
NBC News
8 minutes ago
- NBC News
Transcripts Meet the Press — July 27, 2025 Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Rep. Mike Johnson (R) Speaker of the House, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Peter Baker, Former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), Jeh Johnson, and Amna Nawaz
KRISTEN WELKER: This Sunday: Mounting pressure. REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES: What are they hiding from the American people? KRISTEN WELKER: The fight to release the Justice Department's Jeffrey Epstein files grows—touching a political nerve and triggering a pain point for Republicans. SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: There is no daylight between the house Republicans, the House, and the president on maximum transparency. REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: People want information. They don't want things covered up. SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: Speaker Johnson has assured that August has become 'the Epstein recess' KRISTEN WELKER: The House leaves for an early recess, as President Trump shifts blame to the Democrats. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: After what they did to me, and whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. KRISTEN WELKER: My guests this morning: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, and a joint interview with Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna and Republican Congressman Thomas Massie. Plus, building tensions. As President Trump turns up the heat on the Fed Chair—Powell pushes back. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Looks like it's about 3.1 billion, went up a little bit or a lot, so the 2.7 is now 3.1. FED. CHAIR JEROME POWELL: I'm not aware of that, Mr. President. PRES. DONALD TRUMP Yeah, it just came out. FED. CHAIR JEROME POWELL: You just added in a third building, is what that is. KRISTEN WELKER: And, hunger crisis. As ceasefire negotiations fall apart, warnings of mass starvation spreading inside Gaza. Joining me for insight and analysis are: New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker, Amna Nawaz, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, and former Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo. 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. President Trump is waking up at his golf resort in Scotland this weekend, but unable to shake the controversy that is increasingly engulfing his White House back at home— those growing calls for his administration to release all of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein was a financier convicted of sex crimes and facing federal sex trafficking charges when he was found dead in his jail cell in 2019, ruled a suicide. On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump said he would release the Epstein files. [BEGIN TAPE] RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY: Would you declassify the Epstein files? PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Yeah. Yeah, I would. I guess I would. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: But now his administration is backtracking—creating a backlash from Democrats and for the first time from many in his own base. The president facing mounting questions about his relationship with Epstein—trying to shift the focus. [BEGIN TAPE] PRES. DONALD TRUMP: You're making a very big thing over something that's not a big thing. Don't talk about Trump. What you should be talking about is the fact that we have the greatest six months in the history of a presidency. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: This week the Wall Street Journal reported that back in 2003 Mr. Trump contributed to a collection of letters to Epstein for his 50th birthday, allegedly writing a 'bawdy' letter to Epstein which included an outline of a naked woman. The president has forcefully denied he wrote the letter and is now suing the Journal. [BEGIN TAPE] Do you maintain you did not write a letter for Jeffrey Epstein's birthday book? PRES. DONALD TRUMP: I don't even know what they're talking about. Now, somebody could have written a letter and used my name, but that's happened a lot. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: The Journal also reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed Mr. Trump during a May briefing that his name appeared in Justice Department documents related to Epstein. While the White House confirms that meeting happened, the president denies being told his name appears in the files. [BEGIN TAPE] REPORTER: Mr. President, were you briefed on your name appearing in Epstein files ever? PRES. DONALD TRUMP: No, I was never, never briefed, no. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: Being named in the files is not evidence of wrongdoing. And Epstein's one-time girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell who is serving a 20-year sentence, convicted of assisting his sex trafficking ring, including luring and abusing young women herself – answered questions from DOJ officials for two straight days. Prompting the question – would the president pardon her? When Mr. Trump was pressed, he didn't rule it out. [BEGIN TAPE] PRES. DONALD TRUMP: It's something I haven't thought about, it's really something, it's something – I'm allowed to do it. But it's something I have not thought about. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: All as the drumbeat for the release of the Epstein files continues to grow louder and as Republican infighting over the potential disclosure has reached a fever pitch. [BEING TAPE] REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: People want the information. They don't want things covered up, especially when it comes to the most well known convicted pedophile in modern day history. It's important to them, and they really want the information out. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: And joining me now, a bipartisan duo who is teaming up to force a House vote demanding the release of the Epstein files. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California, welcome to Meet the Press to both of you. REP. THOMAS MASSIE: Thank you. REP. RO KHANNA: Thank you. KRISTEN WELKER: Thank you both so much for being here. I want to start with a question for both of you. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who will be my next guest, has accused you of being hypocritical for pushing for the release of these files now and not when former President Biden was in office. Take a listen to what he had to say. [BEGIN TAPE] SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Remember, President Biden and his DOJ had these files for four years. Neither of those guys said a word about it. Thomas Massie is suggesting that this is some sort of watershed moment. We are all on the same page trying to advance the truth, the full truth and transparency. And the idea that he's suddenly so concerned about it is curious to me. He waited until President Trump was elected to bring this– MAJOR GARRETT: Hypocritical? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Seems that way to me. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: Congressman Khanna, let me start with you first. Why are you pushing for the release of the Epstein files now and not during President Biden's administration? REP. RO KHANNA: Well, Speaker Johnson's a friend. We came into Congress together. But I hope he'll join us for transparency. Actually in 2019 I tweeted out that I was working with Elijah Cummings to have a full investigation of the Epstein situation and the deaths associated with it. Then in 2021 and in 2024, the courts started to release Epstein files. Then you had a situation where the president of the United States, President Trump says when he's president, "We're going to release all the files." Then Pam Bondi says that there's a client list. There may not be a client list. But we're going to release all the files." I didn't say anything while giving him the benefit of doubt in the first few months. What triggered this is Pam Bondi issuing a memo saying, "There's nothing more to be seen," after saying that there was an Epstein file and a list. And that's what triggered this crisis of trust. That's why we need a full disclosure now and why I have teamed up with Representative Massie and 11 other prominent Republicans to demand that. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, Congressman Massie, let me turn to you. What say you? Are you being hypocritical by demanding this now and not sooner? REP. THOMAS MASSIE: No, not at all. Look, the release of the Epstein files is emblematic of what Trump ran for and why he got the populist vote. There seems to be a class of people beyond the law, beyond the judicial system that operates outside of all of that. And we all thought that when Trump was elected, he would be the bull in the china shop and that he would break that up and bring transparency. Frankly, it wasn't until just recently that I realized that people who were allegedly working on this weren't sincere in their efforts. And also, politics is the art of the doable. There's enough public pressure right now that we can get 218 votes and force this to a vote on the floor. Somebody should ask Speaker Mike Johnson, 'Why did he recess Congress early so that he didn't have to deal with the Epstein issue?' He can bring this to the floor at any point. Yet he's chosen to send us home early for August recess. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, Congressman Massie, let me delve into this with you. We will get to Johnson in just a moment. But the Department of Justice says they will not be releasing further Epstein material in order to protect what they say is more than 1,000 victims, many of whom were underage. I want to read you a little bit of a DOJ memo which writes, quote, "Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials. One of our highest priorities is combating child exploitation and bringing justice to victims. Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither one of those ends." What is your response to the concern that releasing these files could ultimately hurt the victims, Congressman Massie? REP. THOMAS MASSIE: Well, look, that's a straw man. Ro and I carefully crafted this legislation so that the victims' names will be redacted and that no child pornography will be released. So they're hiding behind that. But we're trying to get justice for the victims and transparency for America. And so, you know, we've redacted things before. We don't want to hurt the victims. We're doing this for the victims. I think it's just something that they're hiding behind. And in the end of that statement I heard something about conspiracy theories or something like that. Look, they're the ones – it's the president's own attorney general, FBI director, and children who said – and vice president who said that these files need to be released. We're just trying to hold their feet to the fire. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, and Congressman Khanna, take another piece of this based on what you are proposing in this legislation, the names of frankly anyone who flew on Jeffrey Epstein's planes or visited any of his properties, anyone named in the files who was not a victim will likely be publicly released if these files are released. Is it fair to release files that may never see their day in court but could be devastating, quite frankly, to the people mentioned in them? REP. RO KHANNA: Kristen, that is a fair question. But I want to just focus first on the victims. Bradley Edwards, was the lawyer for the victims, has demanded a full release of the files, obviously with the victims' names redacted. He said the Justice Department has never cared about the victims – about centering the victims. They gave Jeffrey Epstein the plea deal in the first place. They never cared about victims rights. And no one has asked the victims what they want. They do want these files released for closure and for healing. Now there's a reason the Justice Department usually doesn't release information before charging people. And I understand the sensitivity of that. But in this case, given that this has created a trust in our very government itself. Different people feel that the rich and the powerful have been not held accountable, that they have a different set of rules, and that there may be government officials involved. There possibly could be foreign government involved, business involved, financial fraud involved. The president should say, "I ran on this. The attorney general promised this. We're going to do a clean, full release." And I think the American people are fair. They're going to be able to distinguish between someone who got a grant from Jeffrey Epstein to do cancer research versus rich and powerful men who were abusing underage girls. KRISTEN WELKER: Congressman Massie, I do want to go back to the fact that House was adjourned early. House Speaker Mike Johnson has defended that decision. He says, "Look, the White House is already pushing for the release of the grand jury materials." Obviously that's been held up in court. He's accusing you of trying to inflict political pain on your party by criticizing him for adjourning the House early. Is he right? Are you trying to inflict political pain with this criticism? REP. THOMAS MASSIE: I don't know why it should be politically painful to be transparent. Is the pain he's talking about that somebody in our party will be embarrassed by those files? Then that's not a good excuse. Is the pain he's talking about that is that the legislators when they vote have to pick between protecting embarrassment of the rich and powerful versus getting justice for victims? I don't really understand what he means by that. Why is it painful for Mike Johnson to call a vote on this? And, you know, the American people deserve this regardless of what the political ramifications are for the speaker. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, let's talk about Ghislaine Maxwell now. Of course, she sat for two days of interviews with DOJ officials. President Trump was asked, does he want to pardon her? He said he hasn't thought about it but he's allowed to do it. Congressman Massie, first to you. Would you support a pardon or commutation of Ghislaine Maxwell? REP. THOMAS MASSIE: You know, that would be up to the president. But if she has information that could help us, then I think she should testify. Let's get that out there. And whatever they need to do to compel that testimony, as long as it's truthful, I would be in favor of. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, Congressman Khanna, I mean, look at her record. Convicted of sex trafficking of a minor, sex trafficking conspiracy, the list goes on and on. Do you think Ghislaine Maxwell should be pardoned or have a commutation of her sentence, her 20-year sentence? REP. RO KHANNA: No, I don't. And I'm concerned that the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche is meeting with her supposedly one-on-one. Look, I agree with Congressman Massie that she should testify. But she's been indicted twice on perjury. This is why we need the files. This is why we need independent evidence. But by the way, the only person who suffered political pain in this whole thing is Congressman Thomas Massie for telling the truth. He's got the president's entire team who got the president reelected coming down on him in his district. And it's just made him stronger. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, Congressman Khanna, I have to ask you politically speaking, the implication for Democrats, there has been a lot of focus by yourself, by other Democrats on this issue of Jeffrey Epstein. Prior to this, you all were talking about the so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill', the fact that the CBO has estimated for example some 10 million people could be kicked off of their health care. Are you concerned that by focusing on Epstein, you could overshadow Democrats' message on pocketbook issues and hurt your chances in the midterms? REP. RO KHANNA: No I'm not. Look, my core conviction is a new economic patriotism to re-industrialize America, a 21st century Marshall Plan for America, Medicare for all, opposing the Medicaid cuts. But you can't do anything constructive with government if you don't have trust in government. This is about trust in government. When John F. Kennedy was president, trust in government was 60%. Today it's in the teens. Speaker Johnson and I came to Congress together. He was on the reform side too. He wanted to make government work. This is a perfect opportunity for him to say, "Look, the past is the past." Okay, I didn't love that he shut down government. Maybe on your show today he'll commit that when we come back, let's have a vote. Remind him of what we were like, the conversations we had in our freshman class. This is about being a reform agent of transparency. KRISTEN WELKER: Very quickly before I let you both go. First Congressman Massie to you. Will this pass? Will it come to the floor and pass the House when you return from August recess? REP. THOMAS MASSIE: Well, I hope it does because, you know, the question you asked Ro, this is going to hurt Republicans in the midterms. The voters will be apathetic if we don't hold the rich and powerful accountable. I think when we get back, we can get the signatures required to force this to the floor, Speaker Mike Johnson should do the right thing and just bring it to the floor and not require us to force it. And he'll have a choice once we get those 218 signatures. Is he going to try and change the rules of the House of Representatives mid-stream or not? If he does, that becomes the vote for the American people. KRISTEN WELKER: Congressman Khanna, I'm out of time. But yes or no, will it pass? REP. RO KHANNA: It will pass. KRISTEN WELKER: All right, there you go. Congressmen, thank you so much for joining us for this conversation. We really appreciate it. Thank you so much. And when we come back, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson joins me next. KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. Joining me now is House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana. Speaker Johnson, welcome back to Meet the Press. SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Great to be with you. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, it is great to have you. You just heard my conversation with Congressman Massie, Congressman Khanna. So let me start off with this question. Why did you adjourn the House early? And does it run the risk of feeding the perception that there's something to hide in the Epstein matter? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Look, these are all important questions. Let me be absolutely clear as we have been from the very beginning. House Republicans insist upon the release of all credible evidence and information related to Epstein in any way. But we are also insisting upon the protection of innocent victims. And our concern is that the Massie and Khanna discharge petition is reckless in the way that it is drafted and presented. It does not adequately include those protections. And I can explain all the details of that. With the important thing on the timing, to answer that question first, is that we did not do anything to end the term of Congress early. The Massie-Khanna discharge petition was filed so that it would not ripen until a day after Congress had previously been scheduled for almost a year to be out of session and in the district work period for August. And that is the timing of it. So what we did do this week is end the chaos in the Rules Committee because the Democrats are trying to use this in a shameless manner for political purposes, quite obviously. They hijacked the Rules Committee. And they tried to turn it into an Epstein hearing. That's not what the Rules Committee is about. So that's why the floor votes ended on Wednesday instead of Thursday. But the work of Congress continues. And the schedule of Congress was published well over a year ago, December of 2024. So none of this was a surprise. And Khanna and Massie could have brought their discharge petition a day earlier and prevented that or, as noted earlier, any time over the last four years. They did not do it during the Biden administration. And that's an important point for everybody to note. KRISTEN WELKER: But Mr. Speaker, it's not just Republicans supporting this, it's 11 — it's not just Democrats, it's 11 Republicans as well. Let me just ask you because I hear you saying that, yes, the files should be made public while protecting the victims. Let me just ask you though, should all of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein be released and made public? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Yes. I agree with President Trump, with the Department of Justice, with the FBI that you need all credible evidence and information out there. That word credible is important. And why? Because you have to protect innocent people's names and reputations whose names might be, as you noted at the onset of the program, intertwined into all these has been a long legal process. There's a reason, for example, that grand jury materials are protected under the federal rules of criminal procedure because they're not to be put out. See, the Massie and Khanna discharge petition would require the would require the DOJ and FBI to release information that they know is false, that is based on lies and rumors and was not even credible enough to be entered into the court proceedings. And that would be a dangerous thing. Our main concern here, though, is the protection of the innocent victims. I mean, these are minors in many cases who were subjected to unspeakable crimes, abject evil. They've already suffered great harm. We do not need their names being unmasked. The Massie and the Khanna discharge petition does not have adequate protections. For example, in the way that it was drafted, they cite that they don't want child abuse, sex abuse information uncovered. But they cite the wrong provision of the federal code. And so it makes it unworkable. It requires the DOJ to release grand jury are prohibited by law from doing so. So it is not the right approach. There is another approach out there that House Republicans on the Rules Committee have a resolution that is well drafted, that is lawfully drafted by lawyers that would make this workable. That's the approach. We have to protect the innocent. We'll do it at all cost. KRISTEN WELKER: They do say that they want victims' names redacted though just to be clear. Let me move on to Ghislaine Maxwell — SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Yes, but their language doesn't adequately produce that. Yes. KRISTEN WELKER: Okay. SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Yes. KRISTEN WELKER: Let me move on to Ghislaine Maxwell. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the deputy attorney general spent two days interviewing her. She of course has been convicted of grooming, recruiting, abusing young teenage girls along with Jeffrey Epstein. Mr. Speaker, Maxwell's attorney said she answered all questions honestly and truthfully. But do you think that Ghislaine Maxwell can be trusted? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Well, I mean, look, it's a good question. I hope so. I hope that she would want to come clean. We certainly are interested in knowing everything that she knows. And as you'll know in our House Republican majority we're working towards that. Chairmen Comer and our Oversight Committee has already issued their own subpoena. They want to bring in Ghislaine Maxwell as well. I hope she's telling the truth. She is convicted. She is serving a 20-year sentence for child sex trafficking. And so her character is in some question. But if she wants to come clean now, that would be a great service to the country. And we'd like to know every single bit of information that she has. I certainly hope she's telling the truth. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, listen, this week President Trump didn't rule out a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. Of course, that's one of the big questions looming over all of this. So let me put this to you, Mr. Speaker, would you support a pardon or a commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex trafficker? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Well, I mean, obviously that's a decision of the president. He said he had not adequately considered that. I won't get in front of him. That's not my lane. My lane is to help direct and control the House of Representatives and to use every tool within our arsenal to get to the truth. I'm going to say this as clearly and plainly and repeatedly as I can over and over. We are for maximum disclosure. We want all transparency. I trust the American people. I and the House Republicans believe that they should have all this information to be able to determine what they will. But we have to protect the innocent. And that's the only safeguard here that we've got to be diligent about. And I'm insistent upon doing so. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, I guess my question is: Are you open to a pardon or commutation? I mean, Mr. Speaker, the victims refer to Maxwell as Epstein's right-hand woman. Here's what one victim who testified under a pseudonym told the court at sentencing, quote, "The many acts that were perpetrated on me by Epstein including rape, strangulation and sexual assault were never consensual and would not have occurred had it not been for the cunning and premeditated role Ghislaine Maxwell played." Is that someone deserving of a pardon or commutation in any circumstance, Mr. Speaker? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance. I think she should have a life sentence at least. I mean, think of all these unspeakable crimes. And as you noted earlier, probably 1,000 victims. I mean, you know, this is, it's hard to put into words how evil this was. And that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it, at least under the criminal sanction, I think is an unforgivable thing. So again, not my decision, but I have great pause about that as any reasonable person would. KRISTEN WELKER: Two more critical topics to get to with you, Mr. Speaker. Let's talk about what has been called the Big Beautiful Bill. In June, you told me the bill would not cut Medicaid. But two Republican senators ultimately voted against it because of what they thought were cuts to Medicaid. And Senator Josh Hawley is already out proposing legislation to actually roll back some of the Medicaid cuts that he just voted for. Did the Medicaid cuts go too far, Mr. Speaker? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: The bill does not cut Medicaid. The One Big Beautiful Bill does not cut Medicaid. What it does is strengthen the program. And we talked about this, Kristen, is that the problem is there's a high degree of fraud, waste and abuse in that program. I'm talking about 10s of billions of dollars every year. What we did is we went in to go in and fix that. We introduced work requirements which is a wildly popular notion in public opinion polling because it makes sense. Medicaid is a safety net program. It is intended for the elderly, the disabled, young, single pregnant women, young mothers. And those resources are being drained because you had able-bodied young men, for example, with no dependents who are riding the wagon. That's not right. It's morally wrong. And it doesn't comport with the law. So what we did in our Big Beautiful Bill is we went in to carve those guys out that program. They have work requirements now, 20 hours a week. They either have to be working, looking for a job, in a work training program or volunteering in their community, which is good for them and their surroundings. We find dignity in our work. We're proud of that reform. And by the way, there was a Harris and a Harvard poll that came out about two weeks ago. And they looked at 17 of the 21 primary provisions in that Big Beautiful Bill. And 17 out of 21 are majority supported in the public. And that's after the onslaught of the mainstream media and Democrats lying about the bill. So we're excited to go out into districts in August and tell the truth. KRISTEN WELKER: But Mr. Speaker, Josh Hawley says he is worried about cuts to payments and Medicaid reimbursements. Why would he be introducing a bill to roll back cuts to Medicaid if there were no cuts to Medicaid? He says the people in his state are going to suffer. SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: I haven't talked to my friend Josh Hawley about his legalization. I'm not sure what that's directed to. But I will tell you that the One Big Beautiful Bill safeguards the program. It strengthens it. It makes sure that Medicaid will be there for those who actually need it and who the law is intended to provide for. It is not for illegal aliens. We've kicked them off. It's not for people who are gaming the system. We've kicked them off. And it's not for people who should be working. They have to be able to prove that they're in one of these programs in order to get those benefits. And I think taxpayers will be served very well by that and everything else in the bill is wildly popular as well. KRISTEN WELKER: Let me ask you about a critical issue on the world world has been watching what has been unfolding Gaza. We are going to show some of these pictures. They're very disturbing. Mr. Speaker, of course, this humanitarian crisis, children starving to death. Israel has now paused military operations amid the international outcry over this hungry crisis. Are Israel's actions too little, too late, Mr. Speaker? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: The images are disturbing and heartbreaking. We all want a peace there in that region. President Trump is trying to forge that. And we support it 100%. I will tell you that I have spoken to my friend Ambassador Leiter, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., and to other Israeli officials. This is important to note. Israel, since this war began, has, has supplied over 94,000 truckloads full of food. It's enough food to feed two million people for two years, trying to get that into Gaza. But Hamas has stolen the food, a huge amount. In fact in 2024, the numbers are that Hamas profited over $500 million in stolen food aid that was supposed to go to these poor people who needed it. That's half of their budget. So this is a broken system. The UN needs to work with Israel to make sure that the food is getting to the people that need it most. The IDF I'm told, as recently as this morning, will begin tomorrow in opening new channels of distribution to get it to those people who are desperately in need. That's Israel's intention. That's the U.S.'s intention and the UN as well. KRISTEN WELKER: All right. Mr. Speaker, we are out of time. We should note the New York Times just yesterday did report that the IDF never found proof that Hamas had systematically, that word 'systematically" stolen deliveries of aid provided by the UN and other groups. We do really appreciate your joining us. And I hear you defending the Israeli position on that. Thank you Mr. Speaker. SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: You got it, thank you. Yes, thank you. KRISTEN WELKER: When we come back, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joins me next. KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. Joining me now is Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Senator Graham, welcome back to Meet the Press. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Thank you. KRISTEN WELKER: Thank you for being back. So, let's start with the Epstein files. Let me ask you the question I've asked everyone. You've just heard my conversations. Do you think that the Jeffrey Epstein files should be released in full, Senator? SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Yeah. I liked what the speaker said. I am on board with Speaker Johnson to release as much as you can, protecting victims the best you can. KRISTEN WELKER: All right. Well, let me ask you about this twist that happened this week. President Trump seemed to want to try to shut down questions about the Epstein files by accusing former President Obama of treason. This came as his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, declassified documents which alleged top Obama officials manufactured information related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Now, Senator, as you are well aware, this actually contradicts a bipartisan Senate Intelligence report led by Marco Rubio, which found that Russia did in fact interfere in the election. Do you actually believe that former President Obama committed treason? SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, I think somebody needs to look at what we found. The intel committee looked at the matter. And they said in 2017, the intelligence analysis of 2017 showing that Russia was trying to interfere in our election was real. They didn't achieve their goal. But what she found, Ms. Gabbard, is that in 2016, the intelligence community told President Obama, "There's no evidence that Russia was involved in trying to change the outcome of the election." And he supposedly told a group of people, "Keep looking." And the analysis changed. So, what we're looking at is, what role did Obama play in 2016 to change the narrative that resulted in 2017? I'm not alleging he committed treason, but I am saying it bothers me, it's disturbing that this is new information. And now, you got the number two guy at the FBI, Dan-- Mr. Bongino, saying he's saying things that has changed his life. And I assume now he's referring to Russia. So, the best way to handle this is if there is evidence of a crime being committed or suspected evidence of a crime being committed, create a special counsel to look at it. I think that's the best way to go. KRISTEN WELKER: Okay. Let me follow up with you on your calls for a special counsel investigation. As you know, Senator, there was already a Trump-appointed special counsel at the time, investigating the origins of the Russia probe. It did not find any evidence of political interference. And, Senator, at the time, you agreed with the findings of the intelligence community. I want to play back what you said at the time. Take a look. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Yep. [BEGIN TAPE] SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM The Russians did it. It was the Russians who tried to interfere in our election. Every member of the committee agrees it was the Russians. They didn't change the outcome, but they did release information embarrassing to the Democratic Party. It did affect Hillary Clinton. There's only one person in Washington that I know of that has any doubt about what Russia did in our election. And it's President Trump. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: Senator, are you now saying that you don't believe that Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election? SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, what I am saying is that you left a lot out here. It's called the Horowitz report. It's the Mueller investigation– was crooked and rotten to the core. The Washington Post and The New York Times got a Pulitzer prize for reporting on Trump's campaign's relationship with Russia. It was all BS. At the time, I didn't know any of that. At the time, I didn't know that they were manufacturing evidence to get FISA warrants. There was a confirmation bias. Durham didn't say there was no political bias. He said quite the opposite. He said every time a FISA warrant was sought in the Mueller world, they got it, and the errors made to get warrants in this space were a lot greater than they were in anything not involving Trump. But what I'm saying is that this is new evidence. This is something I didn't know, you didn't know, that in 2016 Obama suggested I don't like the outcome that there's no evidence Russia was involved. Well, now we all say Russia was involved. But in 2016, they said Russia wasn't involved. What the hell happened? KRISTEN WELKER: Senator– SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Let's get a special counsel. KRISTEN WELKER: Hold on, Senator. As you know, former President Obama has weighed in through a spokesperson. He says that's just patently false. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Yes. KRISTEN WELKER: I actually spoke to Susan Miller, who's a former senior CIA officer who helped to oversee the 2017 intelligence assessment on Russian interference. She says it's completely false that Obama or anyone else asked them to change or sway their investigation. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: What else did he say? KRISTEN WELKER: She says they all– SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: What else did he say? KRISTEN WELKER: She says, and she's a Republican, they all would have quit if that had happened, Senator. Are you trying to– SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: No. No. KRISTEN WELKER: –rewrite history to distract from the Epstein matter, Senator? SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: No. I am trying to let you know and the media know that we found something we didn't know before. At the end of the day, I'm not calling for prosecution against President Obama for treason. But, I am calling for an investigation. Mr. Mueller also said there was no credible evidence that President Trump colluded with the Russians. For years, and months, and days, and weeks, people had their lives turned upside down, chasing the Mueller narrative that Trump was in bed with the Russians, that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. The only people colluding with the Russians were the Hillary Clinton campaign and Christopher Steele manufacturing a document to get warrants against Carter Page, based on lies and falsehoods. So, yeah, I'm very familiar with it. What you don't seem to acknowledge is there's something new being found. Rather than reinventing the wheel here, let's go back to a special counsel model to look at this something new. KRISTEN WELKER: But, Senator– SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: The something new is statements by President Obama, "I don't like your analysis. Russia wasn't involved here," in 2016. KRISTEN WELKER: Senator, you're saying there's something new. This report goes back to 2020. It's five years old. There's actually nothing new in this report and nothing that changes anything-- SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: The evidence that she turned over– KRISTEN WELKER: I want to talk about Gaza, Senator. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: –is new to me. KRISTEN WELKER: Senator– SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: It's new to me. KRISTEN WELKER: But, Senator– SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: You're trying to sweep this stuff under the rug. And that's not right. Let's go to Gaza. KRISTEN WELKER: But, Senator, you know that at the time, you said you did believe the assessments and the multiple investigations. But let me move onto Gaza. Let's talk about Gaza, Senator, because this is so important. As I just talked about with the House speaker, the world is just watching this humanitarian crisis unfold. President Trump said he told Prime Minister Netanyahu to quote, "Finish the job, this week." I know that you are in touch with President Trump. You're in touch with Israeli officials. What are you anticipating is going to happen next? What does, "Finish the job," mean, Senator? SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, I talked to Cindy McCain last night. Here's some good news for the people in Gaza. Humanitarian corridors are now going to be open. Israel is going to work with the UN, the World Food Program, to get some food into these people, who need it. But, I think what the topic we're talking about today is a change in strategy. I think President Trump has come to believe, and I've certainly come to believe, there's no way you're going to negotiate an end of this war with Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization who is chartered to destroy the state of Israel. They're religious Nazis. They hold Israeli hostages. I think Israel's come to conclude that they can't achieve a goal of ending the war with Hamas that would be satisfactory to the safety of Israel and that they're going to do in Gaza what we did in Tokyo and Berlin; take the place by force then start over again, presenting a better future for the Palestinians, hopefully having the Arabs take over the West Bank and Gaza. But I think going forward, Kristen, you're going to see a change in tactics, a full military effort by Israel to take Gaza down, like we did in Tokyo and Berlin. KRISTEN WELKER: Senator, bottom line, does that mean the hostages are not going to be coming back alive, if Israel were to move forward with what you're effectively saying? SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I hope not. I think there are people, maybe, in the Hamas organization that would accept safe passage if they released the hostages. If I were Israel, I would make that offer to Hamas fighters, "You can leave safely. We want our hostages back." But here's the problem Israel has. They're losing soldiers, four and five a week. I hope and pray the hostages will come back. Hamas could end this tomorrow, laying down their weapons and releasing the hostages. There is no future for the Palestinian people, as long as Hamas is around. So all I can say is that you're going to see, I think, in the next days and weeks, a military effort to destroy Hamas, akin to what we did in Tokyo and Berlin to destroy the Nazis and the Japanese. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, we all are praying for those hostages, still. Senator Lindsey Graham, thank you so much. When we come back, the cancellation of a late-night comedy show and what we've heard from its iconic host over the years. Our Meet the Press Minute is next. KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. It's the end of an era for a late night institution. CBS announced last week that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert will end its run in May of next year. The decision comes after the parent company of CBS settled a lawsuit with President Trump. Before Stephen Colbert took the helm of The Late Show in 2015 he rose to fame on Comedy Central, where he hosted the satirical Colbert Report playing a character named Stephen Colbert, a right-wing anchorman. In 2007, Colbert joined Meet the Press, where he talked about the importance of making his audience, and himself, laugh. [BEGIN TAPE] TIM RUSSERT: I read a wonderful quote from you. You were talking about humor, and particularly after September 11th, 2001. And you said, "You can't laugh and be afraid at the same time." STEPHEN COLBERT: That's not a philosophical statement. I think it's a physiological statement. When you laugh you're not afraid. And sometimes you laugh because you're afraid. But when you laugh, the laughter goes away. And it's not just whistling past the graveyard. It actually just goes away when you're laughing. And that's why I don't think I could ever stop doing what I'm doing, because I laugh all day long. And if I didn't, I would just cry all day long. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: When we come back, President Trump facing pressure from his own base over the Epstein files. The panel is next. KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. The panel is here. Amna Nawaz, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour; Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times; former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; and former Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo. Peter, let me start with you. You've been writing extensively about the Epstein matter. It's broken through in a way that other scandals haven't. President Trump can't shake it. Why? What's different? PETER BAKER: Well, look, this is a president who came to the political stage stoking conspiracy theories, stoking suspicion of government, suspicion of elites, and now suddenly he's in charge of the government that won't release the files that people say show that he was right. And so it's, of course, coming back to bite him with the very people he has cultivated over the last decade basically. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, and Amna, it's so fascinating because all of the guests this morning said they want the Epstein files released in some form or fashion. What did you make of what we heard this morning? AMNA NAWAZ: There's been a little bit of an evolution to the Republican messaging. You see the qualifying statements there about, "Just the credible information. We want to make sure we're protecting victims." All of that is absolutely true. No one's arguing otherwise. But you know, President Trump and his supporters are asking his base to really get their heads around a lot. It's a lot of whiplash. You had in January people closest to him, like Kash Patel at his confirmation hearing, saying, "We're going to get all the information out." You had in February Attorney General Pam Bondi saying, "I have the client list on my desk." By July, they're saying there's nothing there, there's no client list. "Pay no attention to this." I should say the president's been somewhat consistent on this. Even last June, during the presidential campaign, he was saying he supports some release of the information, but he wants to protect victims. He doesn't want the phony stuff coming out, as he says. But the context for this is that this is a guy who now faces Americans, more than half of whom say they don't like the way he's handled this issue. 37% approval rating, that's a ten-point drop from the beginning of the term. It's a lot for the president. Carlos, it is having an impact. How significant is this divide in the MAGA base? Is it real? Is it lasting, do you think? CARLOS CURBELO: It is very significant because it is so contradictory to what the base believes about Donald Trump. Donald Trump is the anti-establishment superhero. He is the populist superhero for his base. And now for the first time he's the one saying, "Let's be measured. Let's keep this information hidden." So that's very shocking. And House Republicans in particular, the ones in swing districts – it's ironic because the ones that are sweating right now are the hardliners. Members in swing districts really aren't having to talk about this very much. But the ones in swing districts depend on that base. And if there's any lack of enthusiasm in that base going into 2026, then that could have real consequences. KRISTEN WELKER: Jeh, talk about what we heard from Senator Lindsey Graham, this effort to try to bring former President Obama, the attention back on the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. You heard what Senator Graham had to say. What do you make of that part of the story? JEH JOHNSON: I'll just repeat what my former boss, President Obama, said: "It's bizarre." Doesn't make any sense. To the extent people want to re-litigate what happened nine years ago, first it's important to go back to October 2016. We had an evolving intelligence picture, but we believed it was important that the American people know that there was a foreign actor with his thumb on the scale. What we did not say pre-election, we believed they were trying to help Trump hurt Clinton. After the election, the president wanted to put out as much as possible to the American people so the public would understand what happened. There was the assessment done in January 2017 that said that the Russian government favored Trump, was out to hurt Clinton. Most significantly were the congressional reviews, specifically the Senate intel committee. Their final version of the report on this came out in November 2020 during a lame duck session, after Trump had lost but while the Republicans were still in control of the Senate. A lame duck – forgive me, Carlos – is when, you know, Congress tells you what they really think about things. And so the SSCI report, done by a very professional, Republican-driven staff, made the same conclusion that the -- the Russians were out to help Trump, hurt Clinton in even more forceful terms. KRISTEN WELKER: And that is the idea, that there were just so many investigations -- JEH JOHNSON: Chaired, by the way, by now -- KRISTEN WELKER: FORMER SECRETARY JEH JOHNSON: – Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. KRISTEN WELKER: Yes, indeed. Peter Baker, zoom out for us. How might this impact Republicans, Democrats in the midterms? PETER BAKER: Well, it's a way of trying to muddy the waters, right? You know, "Don't pay attention to this; pay attention to that." What you saw is the President of the United States put out an artificial intelligence video showing Obama being handcuffed in the Oval Office and put in prison. And another image over the weekend showing him in the white Bronco, as if he was O.J. Simpson budget chased by police officers. We should stop for a second and remind ourselves that this is not what presidents do. Presidents don't do that. Even if you think there were some criminal issue, no president is supposed to weigh in on an issue that might be adjudicated like that. He has taken a fog of innuendo, a smattering of selective facts, and added that up to say, "This is a years-long coup." That was the phrase Tulsi Gabbard used, and treason. And there's zero backing that up, but it's a way of trying to get the base energized against a common enemy, that enemy, of course, being Barack Obama and Democrats. KRISTEN WELKER: And Democrats are trying to energize the base with the Epstein matter. The question is will it overshadow – what I put to Ro Khanna, will it overshadow the pocketbook issue? AMNA NAWAZ: Look, I don't think we know what's going to happen next week, let alone in the midterms just yet, how much this actually resonates with voters. We do not know. But I will say, I know we're having this conversation in a political context related to Epstein because it's an issue right now with Democrats and Republicans, to not lose sight of the victims in all of this is important. And I just want to give a quick shoutout to people like Julie Brown of The Miami Herald, the journalist who uncovered a lot of these heinous crimes in the first place. You and your team here, Peter and his team, my team at The NewsHour, even in federal funding cuts are working on this. If there's going to be credible information that comes out from this, it's going to be because it's led by the facts, not by politics. CARLOS CURBELO: And look, the best thing for Republicans to do is to get some information out there as soon as possible, maybe get Pam Bondi answering some real questions. Best thing for Democrats to do is to stay out of the way. If they make this an us versus them issue, that's the best that happen to Donald Trump. JEH JOHNSON: I agree. I worry that a large segment of the American public is drowning in conspiracy theories. I think Democrats should stay away from this, focus on what we know really matters to the American people: pocketbook issues, the economy, tariffs, so forth. KRISTEN WELKER: All right. Powerful final message. Thank you all for joining us. Really appreciate it. That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We'll be back next week, because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
U.S. immigration policy overhaul threatens opportunities for African skilled workers
Joseph Edlow, the newly appointed director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has signalled a major restructuring of the H-1B system and changes to the U.S. citizenship test, moves that many analysts believe will disproportionately affect immigrants from developing regions, including Africa. In remarks made shortly after assuming office, Edlow revealed that the current structure of the H-1B system no longer serves the needs of the American labor market and requires urgent restructuring. Edlow told The New York Times that the current U.S. citizenship test is too easy and in need of reform. ' The test as it's laid out right now isn't very difficult,' he said. 'It's easy to simply memorize the answers, and I don't think that truly reflects the spirit of the law.' He added that the H-1B visa should be used to " supplement, not supplant" American workers and businesses, a sentiment consistent with calls from conservative lawmakers. In addition to H-1B changes, Edlow announced plans to revise the U.S. naturalization test, a mandatory assessment for immigrants seeking citizenship. The current test requires applicants to study 100 civics questions and answer six correctly out of 10. Edlow indicated a return to a stricter version used during the Trump era, which expanded the question pool and raised the passing requirement to 12 out of 20. How the H-1B program supports African professionals The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to temporarily hire foreign nationals for roles in specialty occupations—positions that require specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent. It also covers fashion models of distinguished merit and ability. Designed to fill gaps in the American labor market, the program helps companies access talent they cannot find domestically. The visa programme, which issues 85,000 slots annually through a lottery system, has long served sectors such as technology and healthcare. However, critics argue the system has been abused to replace U.S. workers with lower-cost foreign labor. For many African professionals, the H-1B program serves as a critical entry point into the U.S. workforce, offering opportunities in fields like engineering, healthcare, information technology, and academia. It not only opens doors to global career advancement but also contributes to the transfer of skills and remittances that benefit families and economies back home. The proposed reforms come amid growing political pressure on immigration practices. Vice President JD Vance recently criticized corporations for laying off American workers and hiring cheaper foreign labor through the H-1B channel. These proposed reforms, however, will not take immediate effect. Any changes to visa policy or naturalization procedures must first undergo the federal rule-making process before implementation.
