City mum on what documents it provided ICE in Streets and Sanitation subpoena
Johnson Corporation Counsel Mary Richardson-Lowry told reporters last week the city's response to an ICE subpoena for the forms of Streets and Sanitation employees that determine whether they can legally work in the U.S. contained no personal information about those workers. But on Monday, a Law Department spokesperson declined to go that far when the Tribune asked about what documents ICE did receive and what information they contain.
'The City's communications with the Department of Homeland Security regarding the subpoena issued to the Department of Streets and Sanitation are still ongoing,' Kristen Cabanban said in a statement. 'Moreover, these communications contain privileged and confidential information. As such, we cannot and will not comment on the specific nature or contents of those communications.'
The latest explanation from the Law Department comes after it denied the Tribune's Freedom of Information Act request last week for records of the correspondence and documents the city has sent to ICE.
Because the city rejected the Tribune's request in its entirety — and didn't simply redact any private data in its response — it remains unclear exactly what information the city provided to ICE.
Last week, Richardson-Lowry answered a question on whether the city's response to ICE contained personal information by saying that 'under federal law, we had an obligation to at least provide a listing, and that information was provided without the kind of detail that you just referenced.'
The Tribune reported earlier this month that ICE subpoenaed two city departments — the Clerk's Office and Streets and Sanitation — as part of an apparent new tactic in Republican President Donald Trump's plan to target Chicago as he seeks to ramp up deportations. Richardson-Lowry has said the administration will not cooperate with the first summons, which seeks applications to the clerk's CityKey municipal ID program that is used by immigrants, among other Chicagoans.
The Tribune had filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records of the correspondence and documents the city sent to ICE in both subpoenas to verify the Law Department's statements. The city rejected the FOIA last week, citing an attorney-client privilege exemption.
The Streets and Sanitation subpoena in question from March 21 seeks the department's I-9 forms, which show whether an employer has complied with verifying its employees are legally authorized to work in the U.S.
Cabanban did not directly answer follow-up questions Monday on whether the city in fact sent over any I-9 forms to ICE; whether any documents turned over contained private data; or whether Streets and Sanitation employees should be concerned about the federal agency obtaining their personal information.
The ICE subpoena asks the city for the I-9 forms of all Streets and Sanitation employees, a list of current employees and ex-staffers terminated 12 months prior to the subpoena date, payroll data for all employees and their Employer Identification Number, a list of all current city contractors and a list of all staffing companies and their rosters.
The I-9 form requires details such as the employee's address, date of birth, Social Security number, contact information, residency status and more. The employee must also provide documents verifying their identity and work eligibility, such as a passport or employment authorization document.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
37 minutes ago
- News24
Hitler's Germany, Netanyahu's Israel, Trump's America: Terrifying parallels
History, when forgotten or distorted, often returns – not as memory but as repetition. The dehumanising machinery of fascist regimes begins not in death camps, but in the use of denigrating, inflammatory language. In Nazi Germany, it began with the labelling of Jews, Roma (Gypsies) and other non-Aryans as 'Ausländers' – outsiders, unworthy of national inclusion. In 21st-century America, President Donald Trump's labelling of black and brown immigrants as 'illegals', 'animals' and 'invaders' echoes this extremely dangerous rhetoric. These parallels demand not only remembrance but immediate action. The use of language in pursuing an agenda of exclusion and oppression is more than adequately defined by Professor Edward Said in his book Covering Islam. In Adolf Hitler's Germany, for example, the SS (Schutzstaffel) was a feared state paramilitary apparatus responsible for enforcing racial purity, rounding up Jews in particular, and orchestrating deportations and genocide. Their targets were first demonised through massive propaganda campaigns, as Iran is today, then criminalised through law and finally liquidated under state policy. In modern-day America, immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) has similarly operated as a tool of ideological enforcement. Under the Trump administration, ICE raids are tearing through communities, workplaces, schools and homes. Immigrants, many of them long-time residents, workers and parents, are being detained and jailed in substandard conditions, herded on to flights in handcuffs, and deported without due process. Jeenah Moon / Reuters The comparison lies not in methods of extermination in this instance, but in the political and legal mechanisms of dehumanisation. The SS was, and now ICE is, empowered by legislation, normalised by political rhetoric by supposedly sane legislators and sustained by a large part of mainly white society willing to turn away from this reality. In occupied Palestine, we continue to witness a third iteration of the Ausländer doctrine. Zionist Israeli propaganda continues to cast Palestinians, especially in Gaza, as an alien threat to the Jewish state. Under the pretext of defence and divine entitlement, Israel has destroyed homes, restricted movement, detained children and killed thousands of civilians in operations that bear a stark resemblance to collective punishment. READ: Netanyahu slams French proposal to recognise Palestinian state as 'launch pad to annihilate Israel' The ongoing siege and massacre of innocents in Gaza – and now the terror on civilians in the West Bank – is not a spontaneous response to violence; it is a systematised policy of domination and de-Arabisation designed as Plan Dalet by David Ben Gurion in 1947/8. Just as Hitler used the language of 'lebensraum' (living room) to justify expansion, Zionism invokes biblical claims to deny Palestinian sovereignty and existence. Palestinians are vilified in the media, denied the right of return, labelled 'terrorists' by default and kept in ghettos behind walls. The echoes of Jewish suffering in Europe should not have been a shield for Israeli policy. It should have been a cautionary tale – a lesson to be learnt and not to be repeated. During Hitler's rise, many ordinary Germans supported or tolerated discriminatory policies. Anti-Jewish laws were passed with little opposition. When the trains to Auschwitz ran, the silence of the public enabled genocide – as is the silence or complicity of most 'civilised' western nations and Arab oligarchs seeking to protect and enhance their control of resource-rich nations. In the US today, congressional support for anti-immigrant enforcement has bipartisan roots. Approved budgets are funding mass deportations, detention camps and border militarisation. While outrage flares on social media, legislative support for these actions continues unabated. An ever-growing military machine continues to get billions more to remain the chief hegemon – a deeply debt-ridden 'superpower'. Even more disturbing is how many American Jews, who once experienced the sharp edge of exclusion and extermination, now back a state that echoes those same exclusionary ideologies driven by powerful lobby groups – chief among which is the well-funded American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Support for Zionist aggression in Gaza and the West Bank often comes from precisely those people whose ancestors were themselves cast as outsiders. What ties these histories together is the dangerous process of labelling human beings as others. Whether called 'Ausländers', 'illegals' or 'threats', the language opens the door to policies that strip people of dignity, rights and, ultimately, life. The lesson is not that all oppressors are the same, but that the structure of oppression is terrifyingly repeatable. Refusing to see these signs opens the doors to allow the cycle to continue. If state violence is excused based on race, religion or national identity, this legitimises the very ideologies once condemned. ICE is not the SS. Gaza is not Auschwitz. But the immoral architecture, use of fear, division and silence are very familiar and concerning. The question is not whether history is repeating itself. The question is whether the world is brave enough to stop it.
Boston Globe
41 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labor market. Advertisement Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. Advertisement 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' The Port of Baltimore on June 30, 2025. ALYSSA SCHUKAR/NYT Trump has long fantasized about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the United States away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. Advertisement 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Workers welded steel components together at a Thomas Built Buses plant in High Point, N.C., on July 21, 2025. TRAVIS DOVE/NYT Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. Advertisement 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the United States, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in
NBC News
42 minutes ago
- NBC News
Meet the Press — August 3, 2025 Director of the White House National Economic Council Kevin Hassett, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Yamiche Alcindor, Susan Glasser, Stephen Hayes, and Symone Sanders Townsend
KRISTEN WELKER: This Sunday: Economic shakeup. After a weak jobs report, President Trump fires the official behind the jobs numbers. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: I believe the numbers were phony just like they were before the election, and there were other times. So, you know what I did. I fired her. SEN. DICK DURBIN: Tells you what he's looking for: blind loyalty. KRISTEN WELKER: As his trade war heats up, disrupting global markets. I'll talk to White House National Economic Advisor Kevin Hassett. Plus, battle lines: Democrats clash over how to fight the Trump presidency. SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: You can't just pick out a few bills that came out of a committee and say, 'I'm going to stop those.' SEN. CORY BOOKER: It's time for Democrats to have a backbone. It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw lines. KRISTEN WELKER: As former Vice President Harris says she's not running for governor of California. FMR. VICE PRES. KAMALA HARRIS: I don't want to go back into the system. I think it's broken. KRISTEN WELKER: And former President Biden warns of the threats he sees ahead. FMR. PRES. JOE BIDEN: Look, folks, you can't sugar coat this. These are dark days. KRISTEN WELKER: I'll talk to Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California. And: line dancing. Texas Republicans redraw congressional maps that could help flip five Democratic house seats. SEN. JOHN CORNYN: There's nothing more political than redistricting, but that's the nature of the beast. REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES: Republican politicians want to choose their voters. KRISTEN WELKER: Will it help Republicans hold power in the midterms? Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News White House Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor; Susan Glasser of the New Yorker; Symone Sanders Townsend, former chief spokeswoman for Vice President Kamala Harris; and Stephen Hayes, Editor of the Dispatch. Welcome to Sunday, it's Meet the Press. ANNOUNCER: From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker. KRISTEN WELKER: Good Sunday morning. With just days to go until President Trump's tariffs take effect for nearly 70 countries around the world, there's uncertainty about the strength of the U.S. economy, following a weaker-than-expected jobs report on Friday. In the wake of that disappointing news, President Trump sent shockwaves across Washington by firing the official in charge of the numbers, Erika McEntarfer, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, claiming, without any evidence, that the numbers were 'rigged' to make him look bad. [BEGIN TAPE] PRES. DONALD TRUMP: I've had issues with the numbers for a long time, but today's – we're doing so well. I believe the numbers were phony, just like they were before the election, and there were other times. So you know what I did? I fired her. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: The move prompting a backlash on Capitol Hill, with some Republicans expressing concern and Democrats denouncing the president's actions. [BEGIN TAPE] SEN. THOM TILLIS: If she was just fired because the president or whoever decided to fire the director just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up. SEN. CYNTHIA LUMMIS: If the president is firing the statistician because he doesn't like the numbers but they are accurate, then that's a problem. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: It is the sign of an authoritarian type that when you get information you don't like, rather than deal with the issue, you fire the people who gave you the bad news. SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: It's classic Donald Trump. When he gets the news he doesn't like, he shoots the messenger. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: In addition to the lackluster July report, jobs numbers for May and June were also revised downward, leading to the worst three months of job growth since the pandemic. All of it coinciding with Mr. Trump's announcement of sweeping tariffs. As the president's August 1st deadline for tariff deals passed, he signed an executive order locking in rates, set to go into effect August 7th. The United Kingdom will see 10% tariffs, and Japan and the EU will each face 15% tariffs, with those nations having made deals with the White House. While Canada, which has not yet reached terms with will face 35% tariffs on many goods. [BEGIN TAPE] PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Well, they have to pay a fair rate. It's all, it's very simple. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: I love Canada. I have so many friends in Canada. But they've, they've been very poorly led. They've been very, very poorly led. And all we want is fairness for our country. Democrats accusing the president of wreaking havoc on the economy. [BEGIN TAPE] SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: The tariffs are going to decimate our economy if they are as extreme as the president wants. SEN. TIM KAINE: They're very, very worried about an economy that was the strongest economy in the world, not a perfect one, but it was strongest economy in the world in December of 2024. Now it's got nothing but smoke coming out of it and red lights flashing. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: And joining me now is the director of the White House National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett. Mr. Hassett, welcome to Meet the Press. KEVIN HASSETT: It's great to be here. Thank you. KRISTEN WELKER: It's great to have you here. Let's start with President Trump's decision to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, who he accused of manipulating job numbers. Mr. Hassett, what evidence does the administration have that she manipulated the jobs numbers? KEVIN HASSETT: Right. Well, what we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers. In fact they were extremely reliable, the kind of numbers that you want to guide policy decisions and markets through Covid. And then when Covid happened because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed. So the typical monthly revision often was bigger than the number itself. And now we had a number that just came out, the actual number for the month wasn't so bad. But the two months before were revised down by more than it ever happened since 1968. And in 2015, Alan Greenspan and I were asked to attend a conference at BLS where we were asked to give advice about how to modernize the data. And we warned that if they didn't try to let the data collection and calculation keep up with the data that was happening in the economy that we would have problems like this. And, finally, in the U.K. they had a very similar problem. And in 2023, they had to for a while shut down the data agency of the U.K. for the same kinds of problems. KRISTEN WELKER: But just to be very clear, do you have – does the administration have any evidence that it was 'rigged,' as the president said? And will you be presenting that to the American public? KEVIN HASSETT: Well, the evidence is that there have been a bunch of revisions that could -- KRISTEN WELKER: But hard evidence? KEVIN HASSETT: Well, I mean, the revisions are hard evidence. For example, there was an 818,000 revision making the Joe Biden job record a lot worse that came out after he withdrew from the presidential campaign. There have been a bunch of patterns that could make people wonder. And I think the most important thing for people to know is that it's the president's highest priority that the data be trusted and that people get to the bottom of why these revisions are so unreliable. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, let me ask you about what William Beach, he was the last commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He was appointed by President Trump. He was sharply critical of this decision to get rid of his successor. I want to read you what he wrote. He says, quote, "These numbers are constructed by hundreds of people. They're finalized by about 40 people. These 40 people are very professional people who've served under Republicans and Democrats. And the commissioner does not see these numbers until the Wednesday prior to the release on Friday. By that time, the numbers are completely set into the IT system. They've been programmed. They are simply reported to the commissioner so the commissioner can on Thursday brief the president's economic team. The commissioner doesn't have any hand or any influence or any way of even knowing the data until they are completely done." Isn't this the very definition of shooting the messenger? KEVIN HASSETT: No, absolutely not. I mean, the bottom line is that there were people involved in creating these numbers. And if I were running the BLS and I had a number that was a huge politically important revision, the biggest since 1968, actually revisions should be smaller, right? Because computers are better and so on. Then I would have a really long report explaining exactly what happened. And we didn't get that. We didn't get that. And so right now people, you know, Goldman Sachs, people on Wall Street are wondering, "Where did these revisions come from? And why do they keep happening?" And what we need is a fresh set of eyes over the BLS. And there are great career staffers. One of the top BLS staffers is actually working in the White House to help us understand the jobs numbers. When I saw the jobs revisions, I literally called up that person and said, "I think there's a typo." Because I've been following these numbers all the way back when I worked with Alan Greenspan for something like 40 years. And I've never seen revisions like this. KRISTEN WELKER: But just to be very clear, I mean, 40 people put these numbers together. Is the president planning to fire all 40 people involved in putting these numbers together? KEVIN HASSETT: We're going to try to get the numbers so that they're transparent and reliable. KRISTEN WELKER: President Trump himself was happy to accept the jobs numbers issued under McEntarfer's leadership when the numbers were good. Take a listen to what he said in the past. [BEGIN TAPE] PRES. DONALD TRUMP: The numbers were much better as you know than projected by the media. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: In three months we have created 350,000 jobs. Think of that. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: A lot of jobs are being created. That's what – that's what happened this morning. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: So is the president prepared to fire anyone who reports data that he disagrees with? KEVIN HASSETT: No, absolutely not. The president wants his own people there so that when we see the numbers, they're more transparent and more reliable. And if there are big changes and big revisions – we expect more big revisions for the jobs data in September, for example – then we want to know why. We want people to explain it to us. KRISTEN WELKER: All right. But bottom line, were the numbers wrong? Do you have any hard evidence that you can present to the American public that these numbers, these revisions that were reported, and there were plenty of revisions under former President Biden including right before the election. Do you have any hard evidence that these numbers were wrong? KEVIN HASSETT: Yes. There is very hard evidence that we're looking at the biggest revision since -- KRISTEN WELKER: Are you going to present those? KEVIN HASSETT: – 1968. KRISTEN WELKER: Are you going to present the evidence -- KEVIN HASSETT: No, if you look at the number itself, it is the evidence. KRISTEN WELKER: But just saying it's an outlier is not evidence, Mr. Hassett. KEVIN HASSETT: It's a historically important outlier. It's something that's unprecedented -- KRISTEN WELKER: Still doesn't -- KEVIN HASSETT: So unprecedented that -- KRISTEN WELKER: It's still not evidence though -- KEVIN HASSETT: – I've been looking at it for 40 years. And I'm like, "It must be a typo." KRISTEN WELKER: Okay. All right. Let's move on to tariffs, the other big news of this week. Are the tariff rates locked in? Or are they still up for negotiation? KEVIN HASSETT: I think these – we have eight deals that cover about 55% of world GDP with our biggest trading partners, the E.U., Japan, Korea, and so on. And I expect that those matters are more or less locked in. Although there'll have to be some, you know, dancing around the edges about exactly what we mean when we do this or that. For the deals that aren't ready yet, they're going to get the reciprocal rates, you know, soon. And then we would expect that there might continue to be negotiations with those countries. KRISTEN WELKER: But for those eight deals that you say are deals that are announced, you're saying 'more or less.' Are they locked in? KEVIN HASSETT: Yes. I mean, the president will decide what the president decides. But the president likes those deals. The Europeans like those deals. And they're absolutely historically wonderful deals. Think about it. We've got Europe agreeing to open their markets to our products so our farmers, our small businessmen can sell stuff in Europe like they never could before. And they're letting us charge a 50% tariff, which is going to raise maybe about $100 million a year. KRISTEN WELKER: And I think people are curious because they remember that back in April when President Trump first announced these tariffs, he then backtracked when the bond market was spooked. Could a market reaction prompt President Trump to change these tariff rates again? KEVIN HASSETT: The markets have seen what we're doing and celebrated it. And so I don't see how that would happen. KRISTEN WELKER: Okay, but not ruling it out. KEVIN HASSETT: No, I would rule it out. Because these are the final deals. KRISTEN WELKER: All right. Let's talk about prices now. New inflation data released this week shows higher prices on products like household furniture, clothing. You have companies like Adidas, Procter & Gamble, Black and Decker all saying they will increase prices. They cite the tariffs. Prices are already up on some of Amazon's products. As you know, President Trump campaigned on a promise to bring prices down. What is your message to Americans who feel like the president's breaking that promise? KEVIN HASSETT: Well, he's not. In fact every measure of inflation, if you aggregate it, if you look at the top-line numbers, is lower than it's been in five months. And we just had the GDP released this week, which was a healthy 3%. And the most important GDP inflation number said it was 2.1%. And so inflation has come down a lot. That number by the way, the 2.1% was 3.7%. That's the number that President Trump inherited. And so inflation has come down. And inflation has come down for a lot of reasons. But I think the main reason is that we're no longer printing money and sending it to people like the Bidens did. That's a recipe for inflation. KRISTEN WELKER: Okay. Let me ask you about this talk of tariff rebates. The president consistently arguing that consumers don't pay tariffs. If that is the case, Mr. Hassett, why would you issue a rebate? KEVIN HASSETT: Well, what's going to happen, right, is the CBO has estimated that we're going to get $3 trillion more in revenue. And so what Congress is going to do when they see all the revenue is they're going to decide, "What are we going to do with it?" They could use it all to reduce the debt. Or they could give some of it back to consumers. And the president looks forward to working with Congress in the second half of the year to decide on what the best way to use that money is. In fact, we think the CBO estimate of $3 trillion is now pretty low, given the new deals that we've had. KRISTEN WELKER: What do you think Congress should do? Rebates or work to pay down the debt? Because you have, for example, some Republican senators, Senator Rick Scott, "We ought to do everything we can to give money back to the American public. But we've got to first balance our budget." KEVIN HASSETT: Well, I think that there are a lot of people that think that balancing the budget is the top priority for the economy right now. But we're also mindful of the fact that there's a legislative process where people dicker over the details. And so I'm not sure. I can't predict right now which way it's going to end up. KRISTEN WELKER: There's been a lot of focus on Fed chair Jerome Powell, obviously President Trump really pressuring him to lower interest rates, which he did not do. So the question becomes, "Who will replace him once his term ends?" If President Trump taps you to be the next Fed chair, will you accept? Do you want to be? KEVIN HASSETT: You know, I've been working with the president for about eight years. And, you know, as one of his closest economic advisors, of course, we've talked about the Federal Reserve. Right now he's set up an active search with Secretary Bessent. And they're going to go through a list of names. And I'm sure the president will pick the best available person. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, if that's you, will you say yes? KEVIN HASSETT: We'll have to see if he chooses me. But I think that I have the best job in the world. And I – really well placed at the National Economic Council -- KRISTEN WELKER: In general, should a Fed chair take direction from the Oval Office, or from the economic conditions? KEVIN HASSETT: I think that a Fed chair should listen to all the voices, especially their critics, to try to think about, "What am I getting right? What am I getting wrong?" The Fed chair also has a transparency responsibility, which I think that Jay has fallen down on a little bit. That if you're going to come out and say, for example, that you think that tariffs are going to cause inflation, then for goodness sake, you should put out a model that explains how much inflation and why you think that way. Because there are others that disagree. Have a lively academic debate, and if you go to actually put your finger on the scale of 'tariffs cause inflation,' then you need to explain why. I don't think that the Fed or the BLS should be a black box. I think it should be transparent. KRISTEN WELKER: All right. Before I let you go, President Trump has now been in office for more than six months. Is this now the Trump economy? KEVIN HASSETT: I mean, there is definitely a lot of policy yet to happen. We've just passed the Big, Beautiful Bill. It's going into effect in July. And it's going to have massive impact on the economy. There are residual problems that we've inherited, in part, the runaway spending from the previous term. And so whose economy is it is more of a political question than an economist question. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, but you just touted all the benefits that you see at this point -- KEVIN HASSETT: With the eye on the horizon. KRISTEN WELKER: Does the president own the economy at this point? He's been in office for six months. KEVIN HASSETT: With the eye on the horizon, the economic outlook is huge. It's great. We've got the Big, Beautiful Bill. We've got AI increasing productivity. We've got everything. And we've got all the tariff revenue coming in. So we have every confidence that the economy is headed way, way up from here. KRISTEN WELKER: All right. Kevin Hassett, thank you so much -- KEVIN HASSETT: Thank you. KRISTEN WELKER: – for being here. KEVIN HASSETT: It's great to be here. KRISTEN WELKER: We really appreciate it. When we come back, Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California joins me next. KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. Joining me now is Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California. Senator Padilla, welcome back to Meet the Press. SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Thanks for having me back. KRISTEN WELKER: Thank you so much for being here in person. Let's start with the economy. President Trump, as I was just discussing with Kevin Hassett, his decision to fire the head of the BLS, of course it has prompted some backlash. We've just heard Kevin Hassett defend the move. Now that the president is appointing a replacement to head the BLS, my question for you, will you trust the job numbers when they come out? SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Well, and that's a big question for members of Congress who have to confirm, just as members of the Senate who have to confirm whoever Trump replaces. It's what confirmation hearings are supposed to be about, is it going to be somebody that will maintain the independence of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, like so many other departments and agencies that need to have the independence from political pressure of the White House to do their job reliably, or will this be another 'yes' person for the president that's going to be more interested in propaganda than statistics, more interested in propaganda than the facts. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, you know, it's interesting because two former BLS commissioners wrote a letter, calling on Congress, actually, to investigate what led to the firing of the commissioner and possibly to reverse the move. And we're even hearing some criticism from your Republican colleagues. Senator, do you think there would be enough bipartisan support to launch an investigation into the firing of the BLS commissioner? And would you support that? SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Yeah. I think an investigation is certainly in order, right? Just as I've called for an investigation, by the way, on Hatch Act violations on the redistricting in Texas conversation. There is example after example of Donald Trump weaponizing, no longer just the Department of Justice — but when he's trying to weaponize the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that tells you a lot about their insecurity about the economy and the state of economic affairs in America because everything that they're claiming to be true is not true. Prices are still going up. And this is from a president who promised to bring prices down. And so American people are feeling it. The impact of tariffs, $2,400 a year for working families across the country, that's the reality of tariffs. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, we are going to get to redistricting, in just a moment. But first, I want to talk to you about another issue that you're deeply engaged in — the issue of immigration. The Trump administration is touting record low illegal crossings at the southern border. You've obviously been very critical of the president's deportation policies. You were very outspoken, for example, at a press conference of the Homeland Security Secretary, wound up getting handcuffed there. But do you give President Trump credit for these record low crossings at the border? SEN. ALEX PADILLA: We should debate how the reduction in crossings has come about, but I think most importantly, let's look at the different pieces of what the immigration system looks like. Border security, everybody agrees, we need an orderly, humane border. There is an element of people wanting to come to the United States and how those programs need to be modernized and updated. My focus has been on the people who have been here, millions of long-term residents of the United States who happen to be undocumented, that have been the target of this administration's increasingly aggressive and cruel arrest, detention and deportation policies. If, and this is important to emphasize, they were truly only going after the dangerous, violent criminals they so often talk about, there would be no debate, there would be no discussion. But the vast majority of the people they're arresting, detaining and even deporting, many without due process, do not have those criminal violent convictions on their records. They're actually people who are critical to the economy. KRISTEN WELKER: All right. I know that debate continues. Something will continue to track. Let's talk now about what you just brought up, the midterms, congressional maps obviously in focus. They are usually redrawn every decade. But in Texas, as you referenced, Republicans there rolled out a new map that could actually add up to five GOP seats. You now have Governor Gavin Newsom promising that California would respond with a new map that would boost Democratic seats in that state. Let me ask you, Senator. Do you believe it's hypocritical for Democrats to deploy the same strategy that they're criticizing by Republicans in Texas? SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Well, first of all, let's understand why Donald Trump is asking for five more Republican seats out of Texas. It's because his policies, especially his economic policies, have been so bad, right? The prior guest referenced the Big Beautiful Bill. Wait until people start losing their healthcare and their healthcare costs go up, right? If Republicans were confident on their policy agenda, they would be eager to defend it with the people and to defend it at the ballot box, next November. But they know they're in trouble. And so they're trying to rig the system to hold on to power next November. That's what this redistricting move is really about. KRISTEN WELKER: You know, powerful language that you're using: "Rig the system." I mean, some of your party warn that going down this path could actually erode trust in the system. Here's California State Assembly Member Alex Lee. This is what he said. He said, quote, "Trying to save democracy by destroying democracy is dangerous and foolish. By legitimizing the race to the bottom of gerrymandering, Democrats will ultimately lose." Do Democrats run the risk of destroying voters' faith in the entire system, Senator? SEN. ALEX PADILLA: I'll tell you what's destroying faith in the system. It's everything coming out of the White House right now. The ideal scenario, Kristen, is for Texas to stand down. They don't have to do this. They shouldn't do this. But if they were to go forward and deliver Trump his five additional Republican seats, that's what he's asked for, just like he asked the Georgia secretary of state for 11,000 more votes after the 2020 stakes are simply too high; the economic stakes, the state of our democracy, the health of our institutions, the checks and balances in our country. So, yes, California and others are going to look at what options we have to defend what we believe America should stand for. KRISTEN WELKER: All right. Let me talk about another recent split in your party. A lot of debate going on. Senator Cory Booker clashed with fellow Democrats over their support, just to explain to our audience, okay, this was their support for bills that would fund police departments. Senator Booker is arguing that these bills would only reward police departments in states favored by the Trump administration. I want to play one exchange that he had with Senator Klobuchar and get your reaction on the other side. SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Sure. [BEGIN TAPE] SEN. KLOBUCHAR: You can't just pick out a few bills that came out of a committee and say, "I'm going to stop those." SEN. CORY BOOKER: That is complicity with an authoritarian leader who is trashing our Constitution. It's time for Democrats to have a backbone. It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw lines. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: Is Senator Booker's approach, where he's basically saying he's not willing to give an inch to President Trump, is that the right approach for Democrats? SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Well, I think what he's doing is using his powers and opportunity as a member of the Judiciary Committee, he and I sit side by side, and on the floor of the Senate, to call out what this administration is doing, you know, budget reconciliation, which we went through a couple months ago, rescissions more recently. On a daily basis, the Trump administration is withholding funds in so many categories from Democratic states and Democratic cities but not so in Republican jurisdictions. That is absolutely wrong, especially when it comes to an issue as important as public safety. So to withhold funds from New Jersey for public safety programs is dangerous. KRISTEN WELKER: But is his no-holds-barred approach the right one, do you think? SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Look, I think the extreme way in which this administration is conducting itself calls for higher and higher profile ways of pushing back and doing right by our own constituents. KRISTEN WELKER: I want to ask you about the big news now for the Democratic Party and your state, former Vice President Kamala Harris announced she will not run for election as California's governor. The move, of course, left the door open for a potential run in 2028. Here's how she explained her decision not to launch a statewide race in an interview this week. Take a look. [BEGIN TAPE] KAMALA HARRIS: For now, I don't want to go back in the system. I think it's broken. I always believed that, as fragile as our democracy is, our systems would be strong enough to defend our most fundamental principles. And I think right now that they're not as strong as they need to be. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: She says the system is broken. That is very strong language. Do you agree? Is the system broken? SEN. ALEX PADILLA: I think the system is under duress because of both the attacks of the Trump administration and the unwillingness of Republicans in Congress to stand up and do their job as a co-equal branch of government. And so what do we need to regain and strengthen the system? Democrats are doing our parts, trying to stand up and push back. But the people across the country are increasingly standing up and speaking up on so many things that are going wrong. KRISTEN WELKER: I know we've got to get through 2026 first, but let me ask you about 2028. Some Democrats are starting to privately express concerns about a possible run by the former vice president. One top operative noted to POLITICO, quote, "Downballot candidates outperformed her in 2024, and she was a drag on them." Would you encourage former Vice President Kamala Harris to run for president in 2028? SEN. ALEX PADILLA: I would encourage Vice President Harris to follow her heart. And I think right now, she says, okay, she's not running for governor, but she's going to spend time trying to help elect more Democrats across the country. And it should be not just for federal office, for state office, for local office. That's the best way to improve our position as Democrats for the 2028 cycle. Let's make sure we do well or very, very well in 2026. KRISTEN WELKER: Alright, I have to ask you about the hunger crisis in Gaza, turning to overseas. Last year, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, charging him with war crimes for "starvation as a method of warfare," among other charges. I have to ask you, Senator, do you believe Prime Minister Netanyahu has committed war crimes? SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Yeah. Well, look, the situation in Gaza is absolutely heartbreaking. And it truly is a humanitarian crisis. So Israel needs to do more. And the United States, the Trump administration, can and should do more to address that. Absolutely. KRISTEN WELKER: But do you think that he's committed a war crime? SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Well, let's let the experts conduct their research investigation and reach those conclusions. Again, what's happening in Gaza is heartbreaking. We need to be doing more. But addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Israel's right to defend itself are not mutually exclusive. KRISTEN WELKER: You're saying the U.S. has to do more. More than half of your caucus this week, a record number, voted to block sales to some weapons to Israel. You did not though, Senator. Why do you think the U.S. should keep sending weapons to Israel, and does that undercut your message that the U.S. should do more? SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Well, I don't think it does. I think we should actually focus on the humanitarian piece and move, not just resolutions, but policy and investments accordingly. What the resolution spoke to is much broader than just Israel and Gaza in those negotiations because, as you know, Israel's under constant threat from Hamas still — from Hezbollah, from the Houthis, from Iran, on a more broader level. And so we need to try to do what we can to maintain the security and stability of the region and address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. KRISTEN WELKER: Senator Alex Padilla, thank you so much for being here today. We really appreciate it. When we come back, the jobs report that rattled the president and the markets. The panel is next. KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. The panel is here. NBC News White House White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor; Susan Glasser, staff writer for The New Yorker; Stephen Hayes, editor and CEO of The Dispatch; and Symone Sanders Townsend, former chief spokesperson for Vice President Harris and co-host of 'The Weeknight' on MSNBC. Thanks to all of you for being here.A lot of news to talk about this week. Yamiche, let me start with you and President Trump's decision to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You heard my conversation with Kevin Hassett. It's obviously going to continue to get backlash heading into this week. What are your sources telling you inside the White House about what was behind this? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Based on my reporting and a lot of conversations with White House officials, this had been brewing for a while. The president had been attacking the Bureau of Labor Statistics even back when he was a candidate in 2024. But White House officials told me that he was liking the job report numbers so he essentially held off on firing the commissioner because he was okay with the data coming out. Then on Friday, when he saw the July numbers and then saw the revisions to May and June, he decided to pull the trigger. And even though Kevin Hassett said these revisions are evidence, there really isn't any hard evidence that this commissioner was cooking the books. And also, William Beach, who held that job before and was appointed by Donald Trump, called her firing "dangerous." So the big question now is who ends up in that job? The president was asked specifically, "Are you going to get somebody with experience in statistics and in data?" And he said, "I want someone who's honest', and I also want someone,essentially, who I like and who's going to be supportive of my goals. So, it's going to be very, very telling who he puts in that job because, if you can't trust those numbers and if the president installs someone that doesn't have the confidence of the 40-odd-plus people, as you said, who put this together, it's going to be a real problem not just for his administration but for America on a whole. KRISTEN WELKER: Talk about the implications of this. Why is it significant and why does it run the risk of eroding public trust? SUSAN GLASSER: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, this is, you know, for many people who've lived and worked in other authoritarian countries, this seems like a move right out of the authoritarian playbook. You know, it's the move of a person, an individual, or a system that doesn't like what it hears and chooses not to address the problem but simply to fire the messenger. And I was really struck by your interview with Kevin Hassett. Not only could he not provide any evidence but he went out of his way essentially to say, "The facts are whatever we think they are. And if we don't like it, you know, the president has the right to act arbitrarily." That, again, is something-- in the past, Donald Trump has insisted on his own facts. But in Trump 2.0, he's moving to create a world where he can fire people on the basis or what he himself admitted the other day was, quote, "My opinion." And I just think that is a transition and an escalation in Donald Trump's tactics that we should take very seriously. KRISTEN WELKER: Symone, pick up on that point. And you are hearing with very fiery language from Democrats. Leader Chuck Schumer saying, quote, "This is classic Donald Trump, shooting the messenger." What recourse do Democrats have in this moment? SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: Well, look, I do think you had Senator Padilla here. Democrats are in the minority, I would note. But in the Senate they do have a little more leeway to hold things up, to go to the floor, to make a speech, to find, some, one or two other senators that want to join with them. And I do think an investigation here is warranted. We do have examples across the world, the globe, of other countries, Venezuela, Argentina, the Soviet Union, okay, the former Soviet Union, of what happens when data is manipulated or changed or maybe just underreported because you want to keep some people happy, like the person at the top, in this case, the president. And in every single one of those instances, the economy has been destabilized. The currency is affected. Business is affected. So there are long-term implications for what looks like a short-term gain. KRISTEN WELKER: And. Yeah– STEPHEN HAYES: –This just really is banana republic stuff. I mean, really. It's like breaking the thermometer because you don't like that it's hot outside. It's not the way that civilized nations behave. And one would hope that Republicans who disagree with this, and behind the scenes are criticizing the president for this, would find their voice at a moment like this. You know, you talk to Republicans who aren't fully on board with the Trump train. And they will say privately they'll criticize him all along and they'll say, "Well, I've got to pick and choose when I'm criticizing him. I don't want to criticize him for everything." Well, now would be the time to find your voice. You know, this was an impetuous decision from the president, sort of a tantrum. We've seen this kind of thing from him before. Remember when there was a black sharpie drawn to show the direction of a hurricane. You remember during Covid he said he wanted to stop testing because he didn't want the results of the tests. The MS-13 photoshop. He just tries to bend reality to meet his perceptions in a way that I think is just fundamentally dishonest. KRISTEN WELKER: It's fascinating to hear some of the backlash from Republicans themselves. In terms of what's dividing Democrats right now, Yamiche, you have to think about Gaza. You heard me have that discussion with Senator Padilla. And this debate over whether funds should continue to flow to Israel. President Trump, actually expressing some frustration privately, amid questions about whether the images coming out of Gaza are real. He's been told, "Yes, they're real." And he's been very firm with the prime minister, apparently. He wants something done about it. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Yes. And my sources at the White House tell me that the president was very moved by the images of these children and families starving in Gaza, and who really couldn't be? You see these images and they're heartbreaking, right? That said, this break between the president and the prime minister, Netanyahu, it might be in some ways over this one issue. But they are still very much allied in the mission of it. And let's remember that President Trump has essentially called for the clearing out of Gaza and said that he wants to turn it into essentially a real estate resort. So there's also that going on. But, the president has been clear. He wants to get people fed. He had an interview with NBC News this week saying he wants to get people fed in Gaza. But, we think about the long-term goal and how he talked about Gaza, and that's not lost on folks. And then, yeah, you have one the Democratic side Senator Bernie Sanders getting as many Democrats as he's ever had before backing this idea of stopping giving weapons to Israel. But that doesn't mean– Senator Padilla said, "Well, I still voted against that." And he's getting by that. So that's also where a majority of Democrats are. KRISTEN WELKER: It's a great point. Susan, you wrote about it this week and that there is mounting pressure on both sides to do something. SUSAN GLASSER: No, that's exactly right. But let's be clear here that Donald Trump, you know, what he's expressing is not so much a foreign policy shift as it is a series of social media postings. And Trump's own policy bears a lot of responsibility for what's happening right now in Gaza. Remember that there was a ceasefire. Donald Trump hailed the ceasefire in January as epic, essentially a world historical event. When it collapsed in March, that was because Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, almost unilaterally pulled out from that ceasefire. You did not hear Donald Trump talking about the subsequent blockade of aid. You did not hear Donald Trump changing American policy to address the very obvious consequence of a near blockade of aid which is going to mean starvation. So, these pictures that he's seeing, he is, in part, the author of them. And I have not heard this week – he sent his envoy Steve Witkoff on a trip to Israel, including a visit to Gaza. I have not heard a major shift in what the U.S. is actually going to do. This is Donald Trump doing what he does which is watching the television and acting in a sort of media feedback loop with it. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Can I just also say that our reporting on the ground from NBC is that, that was sort of a publicity stunt in some people's eyes, including medical professionals. And that Steve Witkoff really wasn't seeing the reality on the ground in Gaza. Of course he's saying something different, but I just want to point out what our reporting is showing. SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: I mean, they announced the trip prior to going. And when you go to a zone, such as, given what's happening on the ground in Gaza, you do not announce a trip like that prior to for security reasons, to ensure that you can see what you need to see and then report out when you leave. The proactive note I think is something to take. KRISTEN WELKER: Quick thought, Steve, before we break -- STEPHEN HAYES: Yes. I mean, look, we should level set here. Hamas is responsible for the deaths and the starvation. They were responsible for starting the war. I think the risk for Israel at this point is the loss of moral authority. Israel has had moral authority since October 7th. They risk losing it now because there clearly is starvation on the ground. KRISTEN WELKER: And that increasingly, I think, becomes the debate and where that goes. Thank you all. Pause for a moment. When we come back, the mystery of Jimmy Hoffa continues 50 years after he vanished. Our Meet the Press minute is next. KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. Fifty years ago this week, labor leader Jimmy Hoffa vanished. An unsolved mystery that still looms large, fueled by his alleged ties to the mafia. In 1961, Hoff had just been reelected to lead the powerful Teamsters Union despite mounting allegations of corruption that would later land him behind bars. He joined Meet the Press at the time to address those claims. [BEGIN TAPE] LAWRENCE SPIVAK: Mr. Hoffa, you have been investigated, as you yourself have said, more than almost any man in this country. Wouldn't it help you if you kept records? Wouldn't it help you if you paid by check instead of by cash and having no records at all of what you did? Doesn't that open you to suspicion? JIMMY HOFFA: There is an old story Mr. Spivak that figures don't lie but liars figure. I go on the premise that I have been investigated by the entire United States Senate, by almost every precinct agency in this country. And I question whether or not any one of the four of you sitting there can go through the same investigation Hoffa did and come out with the record Hoffa can proudly say is his after three and a half years, that they have found nothing wrong with Hoffa's finances. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: When we come back, former Vice President Kamala Harris calls the system "broken" and issues a dire warning for the country. More with the panel next. [BEGIN TAPE] STEPHEN COLBERT: Who's leading the Democratic Party? I'm just curious. FORMER VICE PRES. KAMALA HARRIS: There are lots of leaders. I think it is a mistake for us who want to figure out how to get out and through this and get out of it to put it on the shoulders of any one person. It's really on all of our shoulders. It really is. [END TAPE] KRISTEN WELKER: That was former Vice President Kamala Harris on 'The Late Show' this week, her first interview since losing the 2024 presidential election. The panel is back with us. Symone, of course I have to start with you. You used to work with the former vice president. Look, I've been talking to Democrats. They're divided over where they think she should run for president. She obviously left the door open to that. Some people say, yes, she should run. Other people say she can't run after losing 2024, that that was the end of her political career. What are you hearing? What do you – SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: Look, what I'm hearing, I'm hearing the same things you're hearing. But I will say this: I think that the vice president is someone that understands the landscape. And I think the statement that she put out today and her interview on Colbert was actually very illuminating. For me, I was struck by the fact that she says she wants to – she doesn't want to go back in the system right now. She's – she's not confident in the system. And some could read that as she's not confident in her prospects, but I read that as she is not confident in what is currently happening. Should she, will she be the Democratic nominee in 2028? We have no idea. You know, at this time, in 2007, no one knew it was Barack Obama, right? This time, in 2019, they definitely were saying it wasn't Joe Biden, and we know how that went. So I just think people need to hold their horses. But she absolutely has the right to be out here. She got 75 million votes. She lost by 1.5%. I think the woman has earned her right to speak up and do what she wants. KRISTEN WELKER: Susan, what are you hearing, and the reaction to this comment that the system is broken? SUSAN GLASSER: Yes. I think that was the most notable thing, right? I mean, how striking that, you know, this person who has benefited from the system, who has been the first woman vice president of the United States, just a few months after losing this historic presidential election she says, "Actually, the system is broken." But, you know, we talked about Cory Booker earlier in this show, and I'm really struck by the fact that, you know, many Democrats, millions of Democrats want their leaders to fight. They want them to be in the fight. So it's very hard to say, "I might want the mantle of authority in 2028, but right now I'm going to opt out of the fight." And so that's one challenge. The other issue though is are we looking forward or are we looking back? And American politics generally is looking forward. Now, I will say this: It'll be interesting, the conversation ignited by the former vice president's memoir. But many Democrats I speak with, they are still almost incandescent with rage, many of them, not at Kamala Harris but with her former boss, the former president, Joe Biden. And to the extent that that's the conversation Democrats are having rather than a conversation about how to counter Donald Trump, I don't know, you know, whether that benefits, putting aside their political interests, the country's interests right now. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, Steve, therein lies the problem, I think, for a number of Democratic – STEPHEN HAYES: Yes. KRISTEN WELKER: – candidates, this question about how to respond to the extraordinary arc of former President Biden. His decision to drop out of the race, that debate. That certainly would loom large over a Harris candidacy, should she run, over a Pete Buttigieg – STEPHEN HAYES: For sure. KRISTEN WELKER: – candidacy, should he run. STEPHEN HAYES: Yes. Look, I think we can't overstate the importance, I think, to the general electorate of what that meant. That, not only have Democrats lost twice to Donald Trump in national elections, but the last time they did it they did it in part because the party apparatus covered up the decline of the existing – of the sitting president. And then Kamala Harris had 107 days to try to run. She wasn't a very good candidate, I don't think. And I think that that moment on Colbert was – sort of captures the Democratic Party at this moment where the most recent Democratic leader couldn't name or refused to name Democratic leaders when asked about it. And if you look at what she was doing, she announces that she's, rather than going to try to fix the system, she's going to sit back. She's not going to try to fix the system. I mean, if you're looking for a leader – SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: No, I – STEPHEN HAYES: – that's not it. SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: – Kamala Harris has spent her entire life within the system. And, frankly, I think she mirrors a lot of women elected officials, a lot of Black women in the Democratic Party apparatus that say, "I have been in this. I have been fighting. And I am a little tired, and I'm – I'm a little dismayed by what I'm seeing. So let me –" STEPHEN HAYES: But is that leadership, though? SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: "-- try in a different way." STEPHEN HAYES: Is that leadership? SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: I mean – STEPHEN HAYES: How is she leading? SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: I think – I think Kamala Harris is going to go out there and campaign for folks. I think she's going to raise money for people. And I think she's going to help get some people elected in – KRISTEN WELKER: Yamiche, you covered her campaign. SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: – midterm elections. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: I did. KRISTEN WELKER: What are you watching for? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: So I'm watching for a couple things. One, Our reporting is that she still wants to keep the door open on looking at 2028. I'm also looking at who she ends up campaigning for and how that goes. Who wants her out there on the campaign trail? I think the other thing, when you hear talk about the system being broken, I think Symone is right about the idea of a lot of Black women feeling like the system is broken. Senator Padilla said it's "under duress." He wouldn't say "broken." But, to me, the language is very much mirroring the fact that they see all this power that President Trump has amassed and they're very shaken by it. And they're not, also, really understanding how, not only did they lose, yes, it was a close election, but they lost every battleground state. And that's something that I think Democrats are still trying to wrap their heads around. KRISTEN WELKER: Susan, this comes against the backdrop of this debate that we saw in the Senate between Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar. You referenced it. But this idea about how to fight back against Donald Trump. SUSAN GLASSER: Yes. I mean, what's extraordinary is that you see Donald Trump's shock-and-awe campaign unleashed on the federal government and – and, you know, segments of the American people over the last six months. And you have Democrats still having a circular fight about this. And I just – I have to say too, Symone, like, I get the idea that she's, you know, going to do what she's going to do. But to define that as leadership, you know, right now? And I – I get the idea that, you know, there are many Americans who are suffering right now as a result of, you know, what they perceive to be the Trump administration's policies. But saying, "Well, I'm – I'm going to wash my hands of the fight because the system is broken," I find that hard to believe, just as a matter of politics, that that's going to be a winning message for Democrats next year in – SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: I just – I didn't hear – SUSAN GLASSER: – a midterm election. SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: – the "washing hands of the fight." I think I've heard a lot of people interpret what she said that way, and I didn't hear it that way. I think that power has never come from – real power and the grassroots and the energy has actually never come from the elected leaders, and especially not here in Washington, DC. Even in the resistance movement, if you will, post-2016, those were people in the streets. And so I hear Kamala Harris saying, "I'm about to go over here and get out here with the resistance because what I'm seeing in Washington is not working." STEPHEN HAYES: I think if – if Democrats – KRISTEN WELKER: Steve, the final 30 seconds. STEPHEN HAYES: – look at Donald Trump and his ascent to the pinnacle of American politics, he did it with one thing: He fought. He fought everybody at all times. He blew up what the Republican Party had thought of it – thought of itself, ideologically and philosophically. And I think you're seeing Democrats, Cory Booker being the most notable, trying to imitate that, trying to make that same case. KRISTEN WELKER: All right, guys, thank you so much. Great conversation. 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.
