whether he can keep most of those promises, the latest on the new deal being signed later this hour meant to secure a ten-year military alliance. plus, we are the party of common sense, the words of former president donald trump as he travels to capitol hill and tries to unite house republicans. one source inside today's meeting tells nbc news he seemed to be trying to make peace. and following the supreme court's decision not to restrict access to the abortion pill, the president and democrats insist the fight for reproductive freedom is far from over. so what happens now? more on all of that coming up: but we start with president biden working to underscore america's commitment to ukraine by signing a ten-year security agreement with president zelenskyy, although how much it will ultimately be worth and how long it could last is still a very open question. the two world leaders expected to sign the deal this hour. now, on paper it means the u.s. commits to keep training and arming ukrainian forces over the next decade, but because it's not a treaty, and it hasn't been ratified by congress, there's no guarantee it means any new money for zelenskyy. nbc's gabe gutierrez is traveling with the president, and former senior adviser to the supreme allied commander of europe, and the executive director of the mccain institute and david ignatius, foreign columnist and associated editor of "the washington post" as well as an msnbc contributor. gabe, can you give us more details on what is happening in italy, what this deal does and doesn't do? >> reporter: good afternoon, jose. well, this deal is meant to send a strong message to russia, and it comes just a day after the u.s. expanded sanctions against russia. now, as you alluded to, this is meant to show a commitment to ukraine over the next ten years. the u.s. is promising to train and equip ukraine's military. now, what it is not doing, jose is committing u.s. troops to go into ukrainian territory at any point to defend it. again, this is an executive agreement, bilateral security agreement, excuse me, being signed by president biden in just a short time here within the hour. ukrainian president zelenskyy and him are set to hold a joint press conference, jose. >> and so evelyn, no guarantee of more aid. what is the value of this agreement? >> reporter: well, jose, i think that if you look beyond the money and, you know, maybe we'll get into other sources of money that ukraine will now have access to, it means that the united states will be directed by the executive branch to help ukraine build its defense industry. that actually, you know, in the bureaucratic world does mean something. it lifts up a lot of restrictions on maybe technology sharing and may provide also some additional boost to investors. they may also have to go through u.s. -- u.s. investment channels, so our dfc, which is a bank that provides loans to companies that want to invest and do business in places like ukraine. so i think that it is actually significant, and obviously the political signal that we are saying, you know, we are committed to ukraine regardless of whether they are a member of nato. >> a very strong political message no doubt. david, how is the reality on the ground in ukraine years into this russian attack into that homeland? >> so the situation increasingly returns to one of stalemate. the russians appeared to be on the offensive in the long period when ukraine was waiting for u.s. arms to arrive after the house of representatives delayed approval of those arms. now that they're arriving, now that the u.s. has eased restrictions on how ukraine can use them, ukraine can now fire them somewhat into russian territory, it appears that the russian offensive has slowed. most reports from the front describe that. at the same time, ukraine is using the new weapons it has, especially the attack on his missiles to attack aggressively russian occupied crimea, so we're in a situation where, again, the two sides enormous cost are fighting it out without much gain on the ground either way. i think the agreement that president biden is signing with president zelenskyy is symbolism, but it's important symbolism. it's a message to ukrainians who are bloodied by this war so severely that the united states remains with them. there's a sense of continuity, and don't assume you can wait this out. don't assume that you can just wait for donald trump to be elected or the american public to become exhausted with the war because here's a commitment, executive order, yes, but like the military commitments we have with many countries around the world who are ally, not formal treaty allies but have military relationships with us just the same. ukraine now has one formally, and i think in that sense it's important symbolism. >> and david, just wondering, the losses that russia has been taking for a long time now, i mean, some say maybe up to a thousand losses per day in this campaign. is this something that putin can continue having without any costs? >> so jose, it's a meat grinder for both sides, most recent u.s. estimates are over 350,000 russian dead and wounded in this war over two years. putin seems to be able to sustain the war. he was reelected, but the polls suggest he's probably more popular now than when the war began. there is a point at which the russians become exhausted. there's no sign that it's been reached yet. there were interestingly some financial troubles in moscow financial markets today. if life gets much more difficult for the average russian in moscow or st. petersburg, maybe you'll see the beginning of a popular rebellion against the policy, but i don't see any sign of that yet. >> yeah, i mean, evelyn, you were talking about the very strong messaging that are coming out of the g-7 meeting vis-a-vis russia, the messages of, you know, do not -- for example, even expanding some sanctions on russia. however, russia is really their reaction, for example, they just sent ships, three military ships and a russian nuclear submarine to cuba. moscow says it's armed with a new top of the line hypersonic missiles, these three ships are, and they're just, you know, right off the coast of florida soon. what does it tell you about russia's geopolitical strategy right now? >> well, i think, jose, to kind of echo or underscore what my very smart friend david ignatius just said about the -- you know, the situation in russia, it doesn't look very good. vladimir putin is clearly very upset about a couple of things. first, the fact that we now took away the restrictions that we had placed on the use of the weaponry weapon providing the ukrainians so that they can now use them to attack valid military targets inside of russia, and you know, we are now providing them with this political reassurance and this very public sign of support. vladimir putin got so mad that, yes, he sent warships to cuba, and that is actually an escalation from the past. when i was in the pentagon in 2014, 2015, it wasn't uncommon to see russia sending spy ships, intelligence gathering ships, to even the west coast. so in 2014, 2015 after the crimea invasion and our robust response, the russians sent an intelligence gathering ship of the small group of ships off the coast of florida. they lingered there for quite some time. this is an escalation because of warships. today they announced they're accusing, they're indicting evan gershkovich, "the wall street journal" reporter that they have jailed and imprisoned with no right to trial thus far, and of course he won't get a free trial, they're calling him a spy. so that's another thing that happened today. again, more evidence that putin doesn't like this and he's basically not doing very well. this is not welcome for him. >> you know, david, i'm just wondering your thoughts on this. i mean, when you think of ships and warships, thinks of october 1962 and certainly the 15 days that rfk wrote about. it's a clear message from putin that is this something that is happening right at the u.s. back door. >> so, jose, i think you've got it exactly right. this is a deliberate attempt to evoke the most serious crisis in terms of nuclear confrontation in cold war history, the cuban missile crisis in 1962, putin has done it very deliberately, just as he and former president speak of tactical use of nuclear weapons. they're trying to intimidate the united states and europe by throwing up the specter that this could escalate into a nuclear conflict. that's part of russia's strategy. i think increasingly as u.s. officials watch this, they're skeptical that russia really will take these steps. i mean, for goodness sakes, russia's having trouble even moving west in ukraine, a tiny country. does it really propose to take on the united states and europe in some major conflict that would escalate up to nuclear war? it just -- there's an aspect of this i think that really is, as we says earlier, theater. it's meant to frighten. it's meant to break resolve. i'd be very curious about how the u.s. responds to this in terms of its own signaling. when another country does something, we get it, we match you in the same symbolic way. >> and so gabe, also today, the g-7 reached a deal to use profits from the $300 billion in frozen russian assets to back a $50 billion loan to the ukrainians, what can you tell us about that? >> yeah, jose, the g-7 countries have been trying to hash out the deal, the details of this for a while, but the g-7 leaders have agreed, as you said, to take that $300 billion in frozen russian assets, which, again started back in 2022. there's about 300 billion in frozen russian assets across the world, much of it held in belgium. they plan to use the interest off of that, which is estimated to be about $50 billion over the next ten years, the g-7 leaders will give that money to ukraine upfront in the form of a loan to help ukraine on the battlefield. now, jose, before i let you go, i do want to tell you something that i was just told, president biden was asked a question just within the past few moments. he was asked whether he has spoken about the -- a possible cease fire deal in the israel-hamas war. the president confirmed that he had already spoken about that deal with world leaders. he was asked whether he was confident there would be a deal. he responded no, but that he still has hope. jose. >> thank you for that last minute update on that, and david, i just want your thoughts on, you know, president biden is going there to southern italy to meet with these leaders that have a different political reality just a couple of days ago because of the elections that were held throughout europe. >> so this is a world in europe where incumbents are under fire. there is some right ward movement in germany, other countries. there's left ward movement in britain where prime minister sunak is likely to lose to the british labor party. it's hard to draw a single trend other than voter frustration with the status quo, something we're very familiar with in the united states, but you've seen that all over the world. i think it's interesting to see the g-7, this group that's supposed to symbolize stability, continuity, the major powers sailing forward. each country in some ways is facing very uncertain going because of domestic political pressures. >> yeah, and to see that meloni is really the strongest of all of them is pretty remarkable. gabe gutierrez, evelyn farkas and david ignatius, thank you so much for being with us today. i really appreciate the conversation. huge implications for women seeking access to a commonly used abortion pill. we've got the very latest on that after this. e very latest on that after this. reat and preven, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... talk to a healthcare provider so i wear a lot of hats. my restaurants, my tattoo shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (waitress) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. man, the fish tacos are blowing up! so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on. liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. with all the money i saved i thought i'd buy stilts. being so tall definitely has its advantages. oh whoa. here you go, kiddo. thanks. hi honey ready to go? yup. there it is, there it is... ahhh...here we go. i guess it also has some disadvantages. yes it does. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty, liberty.♪ 15 past the hour. the supreme court unanimously rejected a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone. the justices dismissed a lawsuit brought by a group of doctors who oppose abortion rights and questioned the fda's approval of the bill saying they did not have the legal standing to sue. this of course means that the drug can stay on the market. joining us now nbc's yamiche alcindor and former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst carol lam. so yamiche, walk us through this decision and what it means. >> reporter: well, good afternoon, jose. what this decision ultimately means is that access to mifepristone, which is this abortion medication used in the majority of abortions across the country, that access remains the same. patients can get it through telehealth visits, they can get it through the mail. they can get it through any way the fda has approved access to that pill. if you're a woman who was watching this case, your access to the abortion medication here remains the same. this was a unanimous decision, though the court is of course a 6-3 conservative majority, this is the same court that overturned roe v. wade two years ago coming up on the anniversary in a couple of weeks here. but the justices today said that this really was about standing, that the doctors at antiabortion groups who sued to try to get the fda's approval revoked here and to curtail access to this drug, that they did not have the standing. they could not prove they were injured because they merely disagreed with abortion and disagreed with the use of this drug. it's interesting that brett kavanaugh was the one who wrote this decision. during oral arguments he hinted at how he saw this case. at one point he was asking the lawyer for the antiabortion groups whether or not doctors could be forced to perform abortions or whether or not they could be forced to prescribe mifepristone. federal law already protects that. this is pretd kavanaugh and conservative justices saying you already have some protections here. more importantly here the doctors don't have the standing. this is not a ruling on merit, which is important to note. they're saying in a separate case possibly down in the future, a separate group of people who do have standing, maybe a patient who feels they were harmed by the bill or a doctor who feels like they were forced to prescribe it, that person could have standing. i want to talk about the politics here, just within the last -- within a few minutes of hearing this ruling we had a group out here chanting abortion pills kill. so it really does tell you that for the antiabortion movement here this is a ruling they're not happy with. when it comes to democrats, we have the president, the vice president, the biden harris campaign reacting saying they are relieved that this decision happened, that this decision so far of keeping this drug on the market for now, but they also are underscoring that that could change and they're highlighting the fact that donald trump could push down the line to bring a new case or sign executive orders or pass legislation to ban abortion medication or abortion totally across this country, something that they were definitely -- indicates in particular that i'm talking to and texting they are highlighting that this is sort of for now this drug has continued to be accessible, but that they are looking at making this a talking point as the politics and the presidential election get underway hear. a lot to talk about here. the bottom line is for now access to the pill remains the same, jose. >> yeah, and so, carol, if you would expand a little bit about what yamiche is talking about. the case was on standing and the supreme court said they had no standing. didn't rule on the legal merits of for example, the fda approval. so what are the ramifications of this ruling and how do you see this ruling affecting other cases? >> right, jose, what the supreme court was really saying here is, look, we've said this before many, many times. if you want to actually come to court, you have to actually have been injured in some way, and the court relied very heavily on the fact that federal law already protects doctors when they want to do something that they feel is against -- or when they have to do something, provide a medical service that's against their conscience, they don't have to do it. they will be protected under federal law. because of that existing structure, the court is saying you don't have any standing here. you have not been harmed in any way. so in that sense, the court has sort of made clear the bar that plaintiffs have to satisfy in order to have their cases heard in court, and justice kavanaugh even said towards the end of his opinion, he even said, you know, this argument that if not us than who can bring these cases? we have rejected that as a standing argument. you don't have standing to bring these cases, and justice thomas who wrote the only concurring opinion here where he agrees with the decision of the court but wants to say something more, even justice thomas said, you know, i don't believe in this right to -- for an association here, an association of doctors to bring the case. we want personal injury. we want the plaintiffs to actually have been personally injured. so i think in terms of -- in terms of challenging laws that are currently on the books, it actually makes the bar a little bit higher, but it makes the bar higher for all parties, so we have to watch out about that a little bit as well. >> so yamiche, there is another abortion issue that the supreme court has still yet to rule on. >> that's right, there were actually 26 pending cases, one of them that you're talking about is a case that's really focused on emergency medical care. em emtala, a federal law that requires doctors and hospitals to give emergency care to people. there's a lawsuit now that's challenging the law in idaho that's a near total ban on abortion, and what the biden administration is saying is that is really in contradiction with federal legislation and federal law that says you have to give someone emergency access to health care, and that could include possibly giving someone abortion care if they need it, especially if someone's, for example, having a miscarriage or something like that. so it's very, very sort of an interesting case and one that we're going to continue to watch. the other really big abortion case, this was the most significant abortion ruling since roe v. wade. that one would be another big case that we're watching along with a slew of other cases dealing with gun laws, dealing with the trump immunity case. you're right to say there's another big abortion case coming. >> idaho versus u.s., yamiche alcindor and car