This Sunday, truce collapse. Fighting between Israel and Hamas resumes after a seven-day pause and more than 100 hostages released. But now pressure is growing for Israel to reduce civilian deaths. The way Israel defends itself matters.
What will change in the next phase of the war? I'll talk to National Security Council spokesman John Kirby. Plus, banking on Iowa. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis faces off in a debate against a governor he's not actually running against.
This country must choose freedom over failure. As Nikki Haley gains ground in the battle for the number two spot behind Donald Trump. I just have one more fellow I got to catch up to. Can DeSantis really win Iowa?
I'll talk to the Republican presidential candidate as he completes his 99-county tour. And expelled. The U.S. House removes Republican Congressman George Santos of New York in a bipartisan vote.
Only the sixth member ever to be expelled in the body's history. If I leave, they win. This is bullying. Plus, pregnancy risks.
Alison Felix, the most decorated U.S. track and field athlete of all time. Felix, get your gold. Speaks out about the black maternal health crisis.
Three of the fittest, healthiest women in the world are facing these complications. I think it shows how dangerous it is to give birth today in America as a black woman. Joining me for insight and analysis are Tim Alberta of The Atlantic, Kimberly Atkins Store, senior opinion writer for The Boston Globe, and Stephen Hayes, editor of The Dispatch. Welcome to Sunday.
It's Meet the Press. From NBC News in Washington, the longest running show in television history. This is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker. Good Sunday morning.
Top U.S. officials are toughening their tone, urging Israel to do more to spare civilians after the collapse of a fragile truce between Israel and Hamas. Israel is pounding targets in crowded southern Gaza and has ordered more neighborhoods designated for attack to evacuate, driving up the death toll. Now warnings from the U.S., previously delivered behind closed doors, are breaking out into the open.
Secretary Blinken saying the massive loss of civilian life and displacement of the scale we saw in northern Gaza must not be repeated in the south. And both the vice president traveling in the region and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Saturday calling for restraint. As Israel defends itself, it matters how. The United States is unequivocal.
International humanitarian law must be respected. Too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Frankly, the scale of civilian suffering and the images and videos coming from Gaza are devastating. I personally pushed Israeli leaders to avoid civilian casualties and to shun irresponsible rhetoric and to prevent violence by settlers in the West Bank.
Secretary Austin warning Israel risks strategic defeat if it does not protect civilian lives. But in Israel, pressure on the government to bring home the nearly 140 hostages who remain in captivity in Gaza, with thousands protesting in Tel Aviv on Saturday. In an address, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu promised to do everything possible to bring the remaining hostages home, vowing total victory against Hamas. At the end of the day, this is our war, and we're the ones who need to decide.
Ultimately, we're the ones who actually decide. And joining me now is John Kirby, National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications. John, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thank you so much, Kristen.
Good to be with you. Thank you for being here. I want to start with the very latest. The ceasefire fell apart early Friday.
Fighting has resumed. Israel, of course, has withdrawn from negotiations in Qatar. Can you give us a sense this morning, what is the status of negotiations to resume a temporary truce? Well, there are no official negotiations going on right now, Kristen.
And that's because Hamas. Hamas failed to come up with yet another list of women and children that could be released. And we know they're holding additional women and children, not combatants, not female IDF soldiers, but innocent civilians, women and children that they have that they couldn't put on a list and turn that in. So unfortunately, the negotiations have stopped.
That said, what hasn't stopped is our own involvement trying to get those back on track and trying to discuss with those partners and all those interlocutors, see if we can't get it back in place. So those discussions have halted. What is the potential timeline to get them back on track? I wish I knew the answer to that one.
What I can tell you is that we are still working it really hard hour by hour to see if we can't get the sides back to the table and see if we can't get something moving. We would like to have that happen today. But honestly, I just don't know. All right.
Well, let me ask you about Secretary Blinken's trip to the region this week. He said the Israeli government has agreed to a, quote, clear plan for averting civilian deaths before resuming its assault on southern Gaza. Can you give us an indication what is that plan, John? And what specific assurances has Israel given to the U.S.?
I want to be careful that I don't speak to Israeli military operations and get ahead of what they're doing. That would be inappropriate for me to do. What I can tell you is that in our conversations with them, they have said that they agree with our idea here, that the approach they take matters, that the reduction of civilian casualties and quite frankly, minimizing damage to civilian infrastructure is important to them, that they understand that. They're receptive to that message.
And again, without getting ahead of their tactics, I can tell you that we saw them go in with less force when they went into the north. We're seeing them now conduct what we would call shaping operations in other places and making preparations. But they have actually given civilians in Gaza a list, a map. It's online where a list of areas where they can go to be more safe.
There's not too many modern militaries in advance of conducting operations that would actually do that. So they are making an effort to at least inform the civilian population about where to go and where to avoid. I'm going to ask you about that map momentarily. But what is the United States prepared to do if it feels as though Israel is not following a specific plan to mitigate civilian casualties?
That's a hypothetical one. I don't want to get ahead again of where we are right now. Secretary Blinken was very clear. We've been clear actually from the beginning of this.
But will there be consequences, John, if the United States feels as though Israel is not following a specific plan? Again, I don't want to speculate one way or the other, Kristen. I want to make two things clear. One is we're going to continue to support Israel as they go after Hamas.
The security assistance continues to flow. That's not going to change. We're also going to do everything we can to make sure that they are properly accounting for the civilian population and minimizing the damage and the casualties as much as possible. The other thing that we're not going to take our foot off the gas on is see if we can get another pause in place so we can get more hostages out and just as critically, more aid in.
Let's talk about this map that you have referenced, the fact that Israel has said these specific places are safe zones. Obviously, civilians were already told to evacuate from the north. There's a sense that these civilians don't have a place to go. A UNICEF spokesperson tells The Washington Post, quote, there is nowhere to move to.
Nowhere is safe in Gaza. What is your response to him and others? Well, we understand the anxiety and the fear there. I mean, not only are there still a lot of civilians in southern Gaza, there are more civilians in southern Gaza because the Israelis accounted for humanitarian corridors to get hundreds of thousands.
So we're estimating more than about a million. So that's roughly half the population of Gaza before the war is now internally displaced. That's a lot of people. And so we understand the concerns by the U.N.
and by other non-governmental humanitarian organizations in there. That's why, again, we're working with our Israeli counterparts to do everything they can to provide these areas where people can go and feel a sense of safety. And again, they did put some information out in the last 24, 48 hours to articulate those kinds of areas. That's a step in the right direction.
All right. Well, as we have discussed, the civilian death toll in Gaza has just been staggering. And despite all of this, only one fifth of Hamas's fighters have been killed. Is Israel's goal of eradicating Hamas a realistic one?
We know from our own experience, Kristen, that while you can't defeat an ideology necessarily, you can certainly make it much more difficult for a group to operate, resource, train, plan, conduct attacks by going after their leadership, certainly going after their sources of funding. And we've laid out additional sanctions on Hamas ourselves. But going after their leadership has a deleterious effect on their ability to operate. And that is what Israel is focusing on.
And they have taken out, in fact, in just the last 24 hours, taken out yet another leader of Hamas, of battalion commander. And they're going to go after others. But we think that that is certainly a useful tactic to pursue. Let's talk about the hostages.
There are still eight Americans who are unaccounted for, including one woman. Has the U.S. been able to obtain information about the whereabouts, the conditions of these hostages? Are they still alive?
We have imperfect information. We do believe that there are still a number of Americans that are being held hostage, Kristen. And largely, we're getting that from communication with the family members and, of course, our Israeli counterparts. But it's difficult for us to know where they all are.
And just as critically, Kristen, it's difficult for us to know what their condition is. Well, the relatives of the hostages are demanding that the Red Cross get institutional and grassroots support and it's only going to build from here. And we look forward to being victorious on January 15th. So just to be clear, you are committed to staying in the race through the caucuses.
Of course I am. I mean, it's absurd that I wouldn't be. If you look at past Iowa caucus winners and compare to what, you know, people were saying in November with this poll or that poll, it almost never comes out the same way. So we have a great base of support.
We have a much wider base of people who are potential caucus goers who believe that I've been a great governor and would be a good president. And we've just got to bring that home when people start to make their decisions and they will be doing it. But I'll tell you one thing, what people in Iowa and even the other early states, they do not want the media choosing the Republican nominee. They do not want narrative to trump over their decisions.
And so I see a lot of resistance on the ground here to some of the things that have tried to be spun, whether it's through polls, whether it's through pundits. And I think that's a good thing. I think you're going to see on caucus night people's voice be heard. Well, let's talk about the stakes on caucus night.
If you don't come in at least second, would you then drop out of the race? How critical is Iowa? Well, we're going to win the caucus. We're doing everything that we need to do.
What if you don't, Governor? What if you don't? I said from the beginning, we're going to win the caucus. But even apart from that, there have been people that have won Iowa and not won the nomination and vice versa.
You need to win a majority of the delegates. And so we're committed to doing that through the whole process to to win the majority of the delegates. There's a lot of things that happen. I mean, even two months ago, the field looked a lot different than it does now.
I think the field will look different on caucus night than it does now. So it's a very dynamic situation. Fortunately, we're somebody that has broad support. We're well positioned and we're going to be able to take it all the way to the end to be able to win a majority of those delegates.
Bottom line is Iowa do or die for you, Governor. We're going to win Iowa. I think it's going to help propel us to the nomination, but I think we'll have a lot of work that we'll have to do beyond that. I don't think you take anything for granted.
And I do I do recognize that there have been people that have won it, have knocked on the way to the nomination. I think this year is a little bit different. I think the field is narrowed quicker. I think it's going to narrow even more.
And ultimately, Republican voters are going to have the choice of Donald Trump, which I think would make the election a referendum on him and a lot of the issues that he's dealing with or me. And that will be a referendum on Biden's failures, on all the issues in the country that are affecting people. And I'll be able to stand for a positive vision going forward. We have a much better chance if we're doing it with me as the candidate.
I'd also be able to serve two terms and I'm more likely to actually get a lot of this stuff done. But those are the choices realistically for Republican voters. You bring up former President Trump. Let me ask you about the GOP front runner.
Mr. Trump is campaigning on the idea of retribution. He's promising to jail his political enemies if he's reelected. He's also referred to some of his political opponents as vermin, language that people, frankly, across the political spectrum say harkens back to Nazi Germany.
Do you think that kind of language is presidential? Well, I think even beyond that, the issue is, why are you running? Are you running for your personal issues? Are you running for the American people's issues?
And I'm running for the American people's issues. And now part of that is this government is out of control. We have seen weaponization of agencies like the DOJ and the FBI and the IRS. I'm going to end that weaponization, but that's not because I'm doing it for me.
It's because I'm doing it for the people that have been under the thumb of these agencies. And I'm going to restore the rule of law. So I think if Donald Trump is saying his whole thing is retribution for himself, well, what about all the other people that have had issues with that? Is that somebody, are those people he's going to be standing up with?
So I don't think you can say it's about your enemies. I think you've got to say it's about the American people's future. And the goal is to end weaponization period and to have a single standard of justice employed, not to basically do what we don't like is being done now, just in a different direction. Governor, as you know, DOJ officials would reject the idea that it has been weaponized.
But let me ask you about my original question, the use of the word vermin. Are you comfortable with that term? Are you comfortable with that term, Governor? Let me just say on the DOJ, well, first of all, I'm responsible for my, what I say, and I say things differently.
But on the DOJ and the FBI, I mean, we have seen. Let's get to my question, though, Governor. Excuse me. What I'm not comfortable with is FBI agents going after parents going to school board meetings.
I'm not comfortable with DOJ, FBI working with tech companies to censor dissent. I'm not comfortable with how this has been, the power has been exercised. And you have an agency that is very political. People say, oh, they're career, but it's 99% donations to Democrats.
And you are seeing how that happens. So I don't use the same rhetoric that he does. I conduct myself in a different way. I think I conduct myself in a way that's more effective as a leader.
Part of what you have to do is you have to be strong. You have to deliver big results. But what you don't want to do is you don't want to alienate people for no reason. And I think some of the reasons why he struggled electorally is because it's not even about the policy.
It's about some of these other things. So do you condone the use of the word vermin? Do you condone the use of the word vermin then? I don't use the term, but what I don't do is play the media's game where I'm asked to referee other people.
He's responsible for his words. He's responsible for his conduct. I'm responsible for mine. But I will tell you, more important than the choice of words is why are you running?
If he's running for personal retribution, that is not going to lead to what we need as a country. You've got to be running for the American people and their issues, not about your own personal issues. And that is a distinction between us. I am focused on the folks.
I am focused on what they want to see done for this country in a positive direction. I'm the vessel, but ultimately it's not about me. Let me ask you about a development on Capitol Hill. Speaker Mike Johnson says he believes he has the votes to open an impeachment inquiry into President Biden and that he has a duty to hold such a vote.
But let me ask you, do you think Republicans run the risk of having that move potentially backfire and emboldening President Biden as he heads into a re-election year if they move to impeach him? So here's what I think. I think that the Biden family, the amount of money that's flowed into that family to me is corrupt. I think that it's not been explained in ways that make any sense.
And so opening an inquiry based on the facts that we have, I think would be justifiable. However, I think they run the risk of doing an inquiry that doesn't necessarily lead anywhere while they've been ignoring a lot of the problems that our voters are talking about. When I'm going through Iowa, Republican voters obviously are not fond of Joe Biden. Yes, they're concerned about Hunter and all this money.
But they're more concerned about what's happening at our border. They're more concerned about what's happening with the economy. They're more concerned about federal agencies that are overstepping their bounds. And so if you're doing the inquiry, which again, I think is justifiable, you also have to be addressing all these other issues.
And I think that there's a feeling out here that they're not focused on the key issues that they wanted to see addressed. Clearly on the budget, there's been no progress on that. So make sure you're not ignoring all these other issues and don't use that inquiry as kind of a Trojan horse to not then meet your responsibilities on all these other things. And of course, there is a special counsel investigation into Hunter Biden.
Let me turn to another domestic policy issue. One of the big issues that came up during your debate with Governor Gavin Newsom, abortion. Governor Newsom asked if you would sign a six-week national ban if you were president. You still have not answered that question.
So let me ask you again here now. If you were elected president, would you sign a six-week national ban if it came to your desk? Well, that's what I answered the question a bunch of times. So Florida has protections when there's a heartbeat.
Other states have done it differently. This is something that's going to be done in a bottom-up way. I recognize that. I'm here in Iowa where they have a heartbeat bill.
I'll be going to New Hampshire to begin next week. They obviously are not going to do that. They're going to approach it differently. We understand that.
But I do think every state has a responsibility to have some limit into how they're doing it. And California, they fund abortion with tax dollars and can go all the way debate this week with Governor Gavin Newsom of California trying to basically shake up the race. Is it too late for him to shake up this race? I'm not sure it's too late for anybody to shake up this race.
We've got five-plus weeks until Iowa. A lot can happen. But the facts are troubling for Ron DeSantis. Donald Trump, as you pointed out, is ahead by, depending on the poll, 30 points in Iowa, some 50 points nationally.
And what struck me about your interview with him is how small he felt in response to those questions. You're losing to Donald Trump by double digits, by a huge margin. You've got a short amount of time to make your case. You gave him multiple openings to make his case against Donald Trump, and he just really didn't seem to take it.
He never prods on Obamacare and claimed that Trump is running for himself and not for the folks. But on the big things, he didn't jump in and prosecute the kind of case against the person he needs to topple in order to win. Tim, what was your take? And is Iowa do or die for him?
He says, hey, I'm going to win, but does he need to at least come in second or else have a hard discussion about potentially dropping out? Well, it's hard to see how, for Ron DeSantis, anything short of winning Iowa catapults him into real contention in this race. Because let's just deal in reality here. Donald Trump's going to win New Hampshire.
He's probably going to win New Hampshire running away the same way that he did in 2016 against a crowded field. Ron DeSantis is approaching, I think, sort of a fork in the road. Maybe he's already at the fork in the road, Kristen. He seems defensive, jumpy in that interview.
He almost gives the vibe of a guy who sort of knows that the end could be near. And let's keep in mind, Ron DeSantis is a young man. He's a talented politician. This is someone who a lot of Republican donors, a lot of Republican voters would like to see be president one day, perhaps not now.
So are you served in your political future by losing Iowa, getting demolished in New Hampshire, and then losing in South Carolina, perhaps finishing third in South Carolina? The bloom would come off the rose, perhaps permanently at that point. So DeSantis has a very interesting decision to make here. And, of course, we need to consider that in the context of his campaign apparatus and his super PAC outside apparatus sort of at war with one another and sort of imploding in real time.
This is not a great moment for Ron DeSantis to be on a downward trajectory. And that's where he appears to be. Such a great point about the fact that he is simultaneously keeping his eye on the future, which underscores likely why he decided to do that debate with Governor Gavin Newsom. Talking of the GOP frontrunner, we did hear from him yesterday in Iowa, former President Trump keeping his sights squarely set on President Biden.
Take a look. Joe Biden is not the defender of American democracy. Joe Biden is the destroyer of American democracy. The fact is, Americans don't like fascists.
We don't like communists. We don't like tyrants. We don't like corrupt politicians like Joe Biden. Kimberly, what do you make of this?
Well, clearly he is looking at the general, because as we pointed out, the chances of anybody else on either side beating, catching up to Biden or him are very small. But I think what we really should be looking at is his penchant for projection, which is something he's always done. He was a businessman. He would call the people he didn't like crooks.
Now he stands accused of business fraud. I was surprised he didn't say that Joe Biden is facing 91 criminal counts. He is rejecting what he is getting. And I think what that means is he knows that the Democrats, the warning signs by Democrats and even some Republicans about the authoritarian nature of Donald Trump and what another term would bring are hitting home.
Voters are listening to that. And so his plan is just to try to deflect, paint himself somehow as the defender of democracy when the truth is he is the exact opposite. Yeah. And Tim, look, in your book, you explore why evangelicals are so dedicated to former President Trump.
And you can think of it in a way. I mean, look what just happened on Capitol Hill. George Santos was just ousted, expelled because he is facing a number of charges. President Trump's facing a number of charges as well.
That has only reinforced his support among his base, including evangelicals in the state of Iowa. Talk about those dynamics and play and how challenging it is for Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley to peel away at that constituency. Well, Kristen, we know now that there are sort of two standards in the Republican Party. There's a Trump standard and then there's a standard for everyone else.
Trump can obviously get away with things that nobody else can get away with. I think what's important to recognize specific to his relationship with the evangelical base of the Republican Party is that Donald Trump is not succeeding with these voters in spite of his behavior, in spite of the 91 counts, in spite of the rhetoric. But he is succeeding because of those things. And what I mean specifically is that when you consider the sort of psychological transformation of the evangelical base's relationship with Donald Trump and how they have come to view him as their protector in a time when they are in danger, they are under siege, the country is coming for them and their churches and their faith.
They view Donald Trump as almost a mercenary to protect them in these dangerous times. And that's something that's very hard for another candidate to compete with. Yeah, Kimberly, we just have about 10 seconds left. Well, I mean, I think people can, say, hold two thoughts at the same time and one that there is the threat to democracy.
What does those freedoms that they're standing for mean if that's destroyed? All right, great. Great conversation. Thank you so much.
When we come back, a former first lady known as a loyal partner and advocate remembering Rosalynn Carter in our Meet the Press minute. Welcome back. This week, we lost three giants in the world of Washington. Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court.
Henry Kissinger, the complicated and often controversial statesman who advised 12 presidents, serving as secretary of state and national security adviser to both Presidents Nixon and Ford. And former first lady Rosalynn Carter, who was laid to rest on Wednesday in Plains, Georgia, the town of 600 where she met her husband. President Jimmy Carter left hospice care to attend the services. In 1976, during Carter's campaign for president, Rosalynn Carter imagined what kind of first lady she might become.
I don't think I could ever compare myself to Eleanor Roosevelt. But there's so many things that I see that need to be done. I don't think I have ever shied away from controversy. I don't think Jimmy has ever shied away from controversy.
Jimmy has always told me that if you do anything, you're going to be criticized. The only way not to be criticized is just to be mediocre, never do anything. But the things that I want to work with are the mental health program. I've worked with that for a long time.
I'm very concerned about it. I want to work with programs of the elderly. Everybody talks about the elderly, but nothing gets done for them. To me, it's urgent.
Rosalynn Carter was 96 years old. And when we come back, the most decorated U.S. track and field athlete in Olympic history is calling for better maternal health care for black women. Our conversation with Allison Felix is next.
For more than 75 years, Meet the Press has had a history of shining light on people who influence our politics from outside of Washington. When Allison Felix stepped off the track at the Tokyo Games in 2021, she had just won her 11th career medal, seven golds, eclipsing Carl Lewis to become the most decorated U.S. track and field athlete in Olympic history. But now she's making headlines for a new reason, as an advocate for black maternal health.
Black women have a maternal mortality rate about three times the rate for white women. For Felix, it's personal. In 2018, she developed severe preeclampsia during her pregnancy with her daughter, Cameron. In a devastating turn, this past May, Tory Bowie, Allison's teammate and the anchor of the gold medal winning 4x100 relay team at the 2016 Rio Olympics, was found dead in her home after facing complications from childbirth at eight months pregnant.
That experience and her own has made Allison Felix a powerful voice on behalf of black moms everywhere, from the White House to the halls of Congress. Mothers don't die from childbirth, right? Not in 2019. Not professional athletes.
Not at one of the best hospitals in the country. And certainly not to women who have a birthing plan and a birthing suite lined up. I thought maternal health was solely about fitness, resources, and care. If that was true, then why was this happening to me?
Allison Felix, welcome to Meet the Press. Thank you so much for having me. Well, let's talk about your road to motherhood. At 32 weeks, you were diagnosed with preeclampsia.
Your beautiful daughter, Cameron, was born two months early. How did that experience shape you? I feel like it really changed me. And I think more than anything, it opened my eyes.
I think I kind of had an understanding of statistics and of what maternal health was like in America, but I didn't really understand it. I remember when I was in the hospital and I had this whole birth plan, you know, I thought I was going to have a natural birth and it was gonna be beautiful one side and had all these special moments. And, you know, everyone dreams of motherhood, a lot of women do, and it just, it breaks my heart to know that that was her experience. I think it shows how dangerous it is to give birth today in America as a black woman.
I mean, out of the four of the women on the team, only three of us are mothers. And that is astonishing. And it's just not okay. And I think about the future and just keeping families together.
And I just know that we have to do more. What is your message to the medical community? What more do you want to see done? Yeah, definitely more training, more implicit bias training.
You know, we, there's countless stories of women not being heard when they are in the delivery room at doctor's appointments. I don't think you should have to be prepared to advocate for yourself. I think it's intimidating for a lot of women. You know, the doctor is the expert.
And so to have to really push up against them is difficult. And so that's one thing. Policy change, of course, you know, at that level is very important. And then just awareness of it all as well.
And I think we just have to remember these stories, these people, and not be detached from that as well. When you look at the statistics, women of color are three times more likely to die in childbirth than white women. When you see those statistics and 80% of complications are preventable, how does that make you feel? Knowing that 80% are preventable, to me, it's infuriating.
I also, it's also brings me a lot of hope. Like there is the possibility to reverse this. Like we can do something about this. And I think it starts with listening.
It starts with hearing. And obviously there's a lot more to that, but I am hopeful for the future. And before we go, we do have exciting news. We learned after our interview that Alison Felix is pregnant and expecting her second child.
Cameron's baby brother is due in April. Congratulations. And you can see my full interview with Alison Felix at meetthepress.com. And you can catch the Paris Olympics next summer on NBC and streaming on Peacock.
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. Hey everyone, I'm Dylan Dreyer, co-host of the third hour of today and mom to three wild boys.
I've learned a lot in my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat. Each week, I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real world advice about parenting.
All right, I'm over here just like winging it. Hey, I'm just trying not to screw my own kids up. I'm not giving you advice on how not to screw yourself up. Search Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.