Meet the Press NOW — December 4

If it's Wednesday. President elect Trump's pick for defense secretary digs in and lashes out at the press and his critics as a growing number of Republican senators balk at his confirmation amid allegations tied to his drinking and treatment of women. Plus, a manhunt is underway for a gunman who shot and killed the CEO of United Health Care in the middle of midtown Manhattan in what law enforcement officials are calling a pre planned and targeted attack. And the Supreme Court tackles a key transgender rights case that could decide whether states can restrict or ban gender affirming care for minors in what could be one of the most consequential cases this term.

Welcome to MEET THE press. Now I'm Ali Talley in Washington. As President Electron's paper defense secretary is vowing to fight on, his selection appears to be in serious peril. Hexat was back on Capitol Hill today, meeting with senators including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Whipper, even as three GOP sources tell NBC News that at least six Republican senators are not comfortable supporting Pete Hegset's bid to lead the Pentagon.

That comes as NBC News reports that 10 current and former Fox News employees say Hegset's drinking concerned his colleagues. Two of them said Hegset smelled of alcohol before he went on the air on more than a dozen occasions. One of the sources said they smell alcohol on him as recently as last month. Hegset says he spoke to President Electronic this morning and that Trump told him, quote, I'm behind you all the way.

Here's Hegset with Sirius XM's Megan Kelly. Earlier today, he said when I left his office, when he chose me was besides what he said about being a war fighter, we get into that was you're going to need to be tough. You're going to need to be tough. When he paused again as I was walking away and said, but you're the man for this moment.

Ultimately, he reiterated the same thing this morning. Hey, Peter, got your back. It's a fight. They're coming after you.

Get after it. Also in that interview, Hegseth denied allegations he has a drinking problem. He denied allegations he sexually assaulted a woman in 2017. And he lashed out at the media, claiming a, quote, smear campaign against him.

He acknowledged personal struggles, though, like cheating on his wives. And he vowed to stop drinking altogether if he runs the Pentagon. Hexsev also telling Megyn Kelly about his discussions with the president elect about overhauling the Department of Defense. Clean house of the woke crap, all that stuff, all the climate stuff and the CRT and the DEI and the genderism and the trend, get rid of it.

Let's bring the Pentagon back to the people, the people's Pentagon for warfighters. And that's the message he gave to me that I projected back to senators and it resonates. But on Capitol Hill, some Republicans are now expressing concern, or at least caution about Hex's nomination. The articles I've read, yeah, some of them are concerned.

I don't know if it's true or not. But he'll go through the process. He'll be asked about it. We'll see what happens.

These allegations that have come up just in the last 12 to 14 hours are a surprise to all of us. And so yes, he does need to address those because this was not something of which we were aware, nor was President Trump aware. And with Senate support seemingly wavering, sources familiar with the decision making telling NBC News alternate names are already being floated to replace Hegsef, including Senators Joey Ernest and Dale Hagerty, as well as Congressman Mike Watts, who's currently Mr. Trump's pick for national security advisor.

Also apparently in the mix is Trump's one time primary rival, fellow Florida Man, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Joining me now, NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Kuby, NBC's senior Capitol Hill correspondent Garrett Hake and NBC's chief political analyst Chuck Todd, who called a seniors for fun. I'll call a senior citizen. That's all.

Courtney, first to you. Take us behind your reporting. You spoke with current and former Fox employees about how significant the recency of these allegations could be regarding his alleged drinking too. Yeah, that's right, Ally.

So our colleague Colin Millassen, Sarah Patrick and I, we spoke with 10 current and former FOX News employees. And over the course of a matter of years, from the time that he started at this popular weekend show, Fox and Friends in really in 2017, up until relatively recently, the these individuals laid out this pattern of behavior by him during this time. And it included him showing up at some cases minutes before the show was on the air and sometimes talking about being hungover, not having slept much, not sleeping at all, coming straight into the show after being out in some cases even still smelling of alcohol from the partying from the night before. Now, these individuals, I should say they did not give us cases where he didn't show up at all or where he was visibly drunk on the air.

But this kind of behavior caused pressure and stress for the staff on that show and they laid out how it really impacted the individuals who were Working on the show every single day. Look, everyone here who we're talking to, including our senior citizenshot. No, we all know what it takes to put together a television show. It takes a universe of people.

And when you have someone who is coming in and who's causing that level of stress and anxiety early in the morning and adding in an element of instability, it really impacts many people on the show. Now, I should say the Trump tick transition team, they completely denied this. They called the allegations false. You play a little bit of Pete Hexent on Megyn Kelly's podcast today.

He also denies it. He does acknowledge that he has, you know, had a drink in the past, including when he came back from deployment. But he said that he's never been accused or no one's ever told him that he needs to go to rehab or he has a drinking problem. Again, though, I will say this was a story that we worked on for about three weeks.

We spoke with even more than the 10 individuals were cited in this story. It was very well reported. And the one thing I will say, Ali, that might be lost on people who are listening to this reporting or reading the story, many of the people we spoke with are not. We're not trying to go after Fox News here.

This wasn't an allegation against the channel or the network or the show even. These were people who just about every one of them had concerns about his character going into a job like Secretary of Defense. And I really feel strongly that the people we were talking to that the motivation here, it wasn't about smearing this man. It was about concerns about him, his eligibility for this job.

Alley. Yeah. And Court, your reporting is always so tight. That's why we look at stories like this as important as they are.

But also, I mean, can you extrapolate out from this specific instance that you're talking about? I mean, a show is a few dozen people, tops. I mean, I think people wish their shows were larger than that from a staff perspective. He's now being tasked with being in charge of the agency of hundreds of thousands at this point.

I mean, why is the. Why are these examples that you tease out indicative of a potential problem? Should he get this job? Yeah.

And I have to say, it's been really fascinating to watch the time that Donald Trump announced him as his pick to be Secretary of Defense until today. At the beginning, there were a lot. There was a lot of talk about the policy decisions he might make. Women in combat, transgender serving openly and having access to healthcare within the military.

That has really shifted to his character and his background and the jobs that he's had in the past that would make him really eligible for this. The reality is that the secretaries of defense that we've had in the past have consistently had usually decades of experiencing experience running a government agency, running the military. Four star generals we have right now, retired four star general, but people with extensive experience running large institutions. And he simply doesn't have that.

He has the military experience, but he never was in charge of anything larger than platoon. So he was never really in charge of a large group of people. I also think that I hope it's not lost on our viewers just a magnitude of this job, 3 million people, $900 billion budget. It's overwhelming even to people who are the most seasoned government employees.

Ally Cor, thanks so much for bringing your latest reporting. Garrett, I want to go to you because when I passed you in the hall yesterday on the Hill, even today before I left to come here, it did feel like there was something in the air, this sense of inevitability that there's no way Hegseth can possibly continue in this role. And yet, Mikey, I mean, what are you hearing at this point? Yeah, look, and ultimately that's gonna be Donald Trump's choice and Pete Hegseth's choice made in some combination.

And for right now, Pete Hegseth has clearly made the choice that he wants to keep fighting. He told reporters today that's what Donald Trump has asked to him and that's what we're seeing today, a way we frankly haven't seen up until now. He's been dressing reporters in the hallways. He sat for that interview with Megyn Kelly.

He got his mom who appeared and say nice things about him on Fox News, something that's always helpful to have your mom talking kindly about you. It's clear that he wants to keep this going in a way that, for example, Matt Gates apparently didn't a couple of weeks ago. But also the vibe among senators isn't great. Joni Ernst just left the meeting with him a few minutes ago.

She wouldn't say anything other than what she put out in a tweet. That was a frank and thorough conversation. I talked to Shelley Morpeto Republic from West Virginia, who sounded a little bit skeptical. Hex said they had had a difficult meeting.

She thinks he needs to do more. I think the sense is if the vote were today, he would lose. But it's not today and he's got time to turn it around, especially if Donald Trump is willing to vacation, which Isn't always his strength, but does seem like he's not ready to pull the plug on Hexa, at least not today. Yeah, patience not his strong suit, but neither is backing down from a fight.

I mean, where do you get the sense this goes from here? And also, what do you make of the fact that even if Hexag is keen to fight on this, they're floating other names publicly at this point? Yeah, that's a very good sign. And that also, if you want to compare it to Gates, we never saw sort of alternate names until Gates was already out of the running.

And that was pretty quick to switch to another flirty and Pambani here. The flirty and waiting could be Governor Ron DeSantis, who we know that Trump has spoken to, at least to some extent about this role, according to multiple sources who talk to our colleagues about this across the course of the day. I'm not convinced that DeSantis gets over all the kind of mutual distrust and disaffection between the various Trump and DeSantis camps and ultimately gets selected for this job if it doesn't go to Hexa. But just the fact that this continues to be an open conversation suggests that Donald Trump may not be in this for the long haul.

With Pete Hegseth Garrett. Hate, my friend. Thank you for joining us. You know, Chuck, before Gates withdrew his name, you were talking about Trump bring political capital and trying to get him confirmed.

Is that now the situation he is in if he keeps he in this spot? Well, I think this is the conversation they gotta have with themselves is, okay, maybe he can get through this meeting with Joni Ernst. And she comes away with being cautiously optimistic. Right.

I can't imagine, given how hard she's worked on the issue of sexual assault in the military, that she's gonna come out and endorse him. The question, it'll be something in between. And if she's gonna tank him, I think she goes to the president and then we see it from there. But let's say there's some sort of.

The confirmation hearing itself is going to be ugly. Do you want that? You know how many of these ugly confirmation hearings you want? It's telling to me.

Not only do they float folks, they float floated folks that will breeze through in this environment. Okay. DeSantis will have no problem. Haggerty, a senator, no problem.

Michael Waltz at this point. Right. And Ernst, obviously. Yeah, well, that says a lot to me.

Not a little. Right. It's like, who are they floating? They're floating as conventional as they can get right.

It's not conventional for maybe the Republican Party ten years ago, but it's DeSantis. It's pretty exact. That party's gone pretty. And I, I, Everything is on the table when you're dealing with Donald Trump appointments, and he wants a certain family member in that U.S.

senate seat in Florida that is open, you can't, you can't tell me that the DeSantis float of Defense Secretary Laura Trump for US Senate down there in Florida, that they're somehow disconnected. That's all I'm gonna say. They're not disconnected. But knowing Trump, the way that we all know him, if he backs down from this fight now, what is the message that he's sending when we went into this confirmation process saying, well, this is him testing to see how well.

And that is a question. And then it becomes. And that's. And this could be what some of these Republicans are writing, which is, how many of these folks can you kill of this?

And who are you most worried about? Right. I've talked to a couple senators who look at it, and it's Tulsi Cabot that they're the most concerned about. They have real concerns about her in that position in intel, given a lot of unusual travel and unusual relationships that certainly a leader in the intelligence community wouldn't have.

And if any rank and file, until a person had it, they'd be fired and they'd lose their security clearance. But if you go and knock Gary Hexa, how much, you know, is he going. I just, I'm with you. How many of these will Donald Trump back down front?

And then how many of the senators who whispered him behind the scenes? Right. So that's. But look, Hexa has created his own problems here.

The lack of disclosures and all this stuff, you know, whatever you think of Donald Trump knew everything there was with that gates. Right. There was nothing that was hidden from Donald Trump here. Clearly, Hexa hid himself.

Yeah. I want to turn your latest column, two on President Biden's pardon of his son Hunter. You write that while people might understand his actions on a personal level, politically, this sets a new president. So how significant is that going to a second Trump term where you probably didn't need an excuse to doing the stuff?

I understand that. And I've had folks, you know, say, well, it doesn't matter. Yeah. But now you've given a permission slip.

Presidential acts, unprecedented, presidential. Any presidential act becomes a permission to slip the next president. And we've seen this through history, through our own history, and how the Presidency has worked. Once, once one thing has happened, suddenly it becomes, well, we've done it before so you know, we can do again type of thing.

And that's what this now. And there's two things about this that I think are extraordinarily troubled. Not in a smaller than a big one. The big one is two of them are.

One is the statement that Joe Biden made in around the pardon where he essentially is the exact same rhetoric that Donald Trump uses about the justice system that, you know, they were, it was biased against Hunter Biden. I mean he. You could have literally said it. I could have said to you, donald Trump say this or did Biden say this?

And a lot of people might say, oh, this is something Trump would say. It's not something we were used to Joe Biden saying about the rule of law and about the justice system. Well, now you have. So forget who started it.

You have a leading Democrat in America and the leading republic in America both agreeing on one thing. The Justice Department has been politicized that is absolutely dam. That is long term damaging. This is no longer short term damaging.

This is no longer one election at a time. And then it's that. So now we're in a situation where every party's gonna come in and as they leave, everybody gets their security blanket. Pardon.

Okay, how long do you want it? You want a 10 year window? Because we now have established this 10 year window of whatever you can, you know, this get out of jail free card. Is it gonna be June 15, 2015 that he came down the escalator?

July 20, 2029? Well, guess what? There's now precedent for it. That's what's so damaging about this decision.

Guess what? I understand he probably couldn't live with himself if he didn't do it. And ultimately I get it. Yeah.

But this is unreal damage to the country. And certainly people who know the Bidens, including Senator Cruz Coons, who I spoke to right before I came here, the thing I asked him about was, you make a point of these two men from different parties seemingly agreeing on the same thing. Politicization of doj. But what they don't have in common is the fact that Republicans were never policing Trump.

But listen, I asked Chris Kunz about if Democrats were doing too much self policing on that. Just give me the environment. Listen, what are you doing? I accept the argument that when President elect Trump moved from campaign rhetoric to action by nominating to run the FBI, to run the Department of Justice, folks who've made it clear that they have as their goal weaponizing that department, going after their political enemies.

And the president, his family are frequently on the list of folks I want to go after that that changed his thinking. I do think it's unfortunate that he changed his position on this Spartan, but that's the explanation to me as to why he did in the few seconds we have left. And what do you make of that? Again, if that was the concern, it goes back to should he ever run for president in the first place.

He had three children in crisis at the time that they decided to run for president knowing full well the risk of putting the national spotlight on their family was going to do. And was that fair to do so? Again, the reason his family is in the middle of this is they chose to put their family in the middle of this. It really has been the central question of covering Biden for the last decade.

Really, it's gut wrenching. It makes the phrase Shakespearean more relevant in this case than I think any political story I've covered. I thought it was absolutely apt to even wrote it that way. Choctaw, senior chief, whatever you want to be senior citizen, I'm not there yet.

Here in our hearts. Chuck Todd, thank you. We have a big programming announcement this Sunday on THE press. Kristen Welker will have an NBC News exclusive interview with President Elect Trump.

It's his first network TV interview since winning the election. You will not want to miss this. Coming up, the Supreme Court hears one of his term's most consequential cases. It could have sweeping implications for transgender rights and healthcare across the nation.

But first, the latest on the manhunt happening right now in New York City as police search for the gunman behind this morning's brazen killing of a powerful health insurance CEO. Don't go anywhere. You're watching MEET THE PRESS now. Welcome back.

We're following breaking news of a manhunt underway in New York City. Police just released these photos they say show the suspect who brazenly shot and killed the CEO of UnitedHealthcare in Midtown Manhattan. Brian Thompson was shot early this morning outside the Hilton in Midtown where United Health Group was holding an annual investor conference. NBC News has obtained video of the shooting from a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation.

It shows the gunman approaching Thompson from behind before opening fire. Authorities say he fled on foot to a nearby alleyway and then on an electric bike, which he rode to Central Park. The motive for this murder currently is unknown, but based on the evidence we have so far, it does appear that the victim was specifically targeted. But at this point, we do not know why.

This does not appear to be a random act of violence. NBC News correspondent Stephen Romo joins me now from Midtown. Stephen, what do we know about the search for the gunman and what do law enforcement officials have by way of evidence at this point? Yeah, a good question, Ally.

Right now they're stopping short of calling this suspect a professional, but they are saying that he did appear to know his way around a gun because after that initial shot which hit Thompson in the back, his gun jammed, was able to unjam it and fire again. But the gun jamming situation is something that we're not showing in that video you played in the intro. It is paused just before because the graphic nature of it you mentioned that gun did take off on foot through an alleyway. Police say they recovered a cell phone in that alleyway.

They're trying to see what evidence they're able to get from that. And the suspect continued on getting on a city bike, which you can rent from kiosks around the city. And police saying that there are GPS trackers on those bikes. They're trying to see what information they can get from that or perhaps the kiosk itself.

And this is midtown Manhattan. There are cameras everywhere, not just from the nypd, but from private businesses. They're also asking the public to come forward if they have any video of what happened, any indication, any witnesses they can bring forward to give them any details on who this person might be. The last place that they said he was known to be was Central Park.

And with that gray backpack that we're showing, that distinctive gray backpack, something that he could easily take off, by the way. The 30 Rock Tree Lighting course is tonight as well, Ally. And there are a lot of people here right now. Absolutely.

A stunning story. Stephen Romo, thank you for being on it for us. Turning now to the Supreme Court and a significant case on transgender rights. After all arguments today, the justices appear to be leaning toward upholding a Tennessee law that restricts gender transition treatments for minors.

The state law enacted last year bans gender transition surgery for minors, as well as puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The Biden administration argues the law as a form of sex discrimination. But conservative justices seem to suggest that Tennessee's ban is a medical issue and thus lay within the purview of the state legislature. Here's Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

So it seems to me that we looked at the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't take sides on how to resolve that medical and policy debate. The Constitutions neutral on the question. That's one way to look at it.

And one get a reaction to that. If the Constitution doesn't take sides, if they're strong, forceful scientific policy arguments on both sides in a situation like this, why isn't it best to leave it to the democratic process? Justice Sonia Sotomayor, however, challenged Kavanaugh suggestions about the democratic process. When you're 1% of the population or less, very hard to see how the democratic process is going to protect you.

Blacks were a much larger part of the population and it didn't protect them. It didn't protect women for whole centuries. Joining me now to break it down, NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Kendallanian. And also with us, Joe Yerkaba, a reporter for NBC out, who covers the LGBTQ community for NBC.

Can I start with you? What does this Tennessee law even require? And say it's an outright ban on gender affirming care for minors. And the tricky constitutional issue here was that it wasn't enough just to say this discriminates against transgender people.

The argument had to be that it discriminates on the basis of sex. And the advocate for the law said, well, actually it doesn't. It treats boys and girls the same way. And that went down a very complicated road about different scenarios because there are other uses of these drugs, puberty blockers, other kinds of drugs that aren't about transitioning.

So there's a comparison there. But the conservative justices seem to be very skeptical of that argument. And then they also brought in the policy debate that's going on. And for example, in Europe, the medical consensus is more skeptical than it appears to be here in the United States about these interventions for minors.

And in the UK they're restricted. And a lot of conservative justices were talking about that and saying, wait a second, this isn't even settled medicine. So why should be we nine justices who aren't doctors be weighing in here? That's where it seems to rest.

It's a fascinating case. I think also the other piece of this is it's the Biden administration that's right now arguing this case. So does that just end when the Biden administration does? Well, it's going to be a really interesting scenario.

The Trump administration may change sides and then the Supreme Court would have to confront what to do with that about that. They could grant standing to some other folks and continue with the case. It doesn't like they want to rule on this. I mean, these arguments were supposed to last hour, the last two and a half.

So justice were really Kind of into the discussion today. So it remains to be seen how that plays out. Joe, you cover this all the time. Can you talk about the far reaching ramifications that this case could have if it's decided in the way that we seem to be reading these teles?

Right? Yeah. So the ramifications will be nationwide and could affect care for decades to come because 26 states, including Tennessee, have passed similar restrictions to this. And I've been talking to families over the past three years as these restrictions have taken effect about how they've had to leave their home states to try to continue access to care for their children.

Some have even, you know, had to drive up to five hours at first. April talked to a parent the other day in Missouri who drove five hours from St. Louis to Chicago to continue care for his child. So this will have implications for families across the country.

And I was reading some of the reporting that you were doing about how they would have to drive to over state lines in order to engage to a telehealth appointment to continue getting the kinds of medication that they need. I know that we're talking about this in the sense of how it would apply to people who are trying to transition. But the other piece of this that I can't help but wonder is could this have impact in spaces like youth sports where we've seen Republicans consistently try to make this an issue? Are these tied in any way?

Yeah, that came up during court today and it's really unclear. The ACLU argued that they wouldn't be tied together because the state would be relying on completely different set of justifications for that kind of law. And it is important to note that when ACLU has sued against the sports restrictions, they rely on arguments related to Title nine, whereas today they rely on arguments related to equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. So it's really different when you look at cases like these and the way that Republicans have focused on this issue specifically.

Are there other things coming down the pipeline that you know of because you cover this all the time that maybe the general public is just paying attention to? It's not this case what comes next? Right. Well, what a lot of folks don't know, I think, is that this case could have effects on adult care as well, because the same argument has been used, for example, to argue against restrictions on Medicaid funding or private insurers not covering trans health care for adults in North Carolina and West Virginia.

So if the Supreme Court says no, this isn't discrimination based on sex to exclude this care for transgender people, they could undermine that argument, which is trans people to me, they're really afraid of, particularly because the Trump administration has promised to bar making funding completely and that would affect adults as well. You were nodding about this. Yeah. That's what some liberal justices admonish the court to consider.

It's not just about state bans. It could be soon about a national ban. Could have far reaching implications. Absolutely.

Thank you both so much for covering all this for us. Joe and Ken. Coming up next new year, new Congress, same old chaos. The final House results are in and Republicans will have the narrowest major already possible.

I'll talk to a top House Democrat about the bumpy road ahead. You're WATCHING ME the PRESS now. Welcome back. Nearly a month after Election Day and the final congressional race has now been decided in California's 13th district, Democrat Adam Gray defeated incumbent John duarte by just 187 votes.

That makes it pick up for Democrats in one of two seats they netted this cycle. With the dust now settled, Republicans won 220 House seats and the Democrats won 215. But that extremely slim Republican majority is set to shrink immediately. Republicans Alisa Fonick and Mike Waltz have been tapped to serve in the Trump administration and that Gates has already remedied.

So that means Speaker M. Johnson will be operating with a 217 to 215 majority. And with those numbers, any single Republican affection on any vote could deadlock Congress. So if you thought the last Congress was chaotic, and I can promise you it was, we could just be getting started.

Joining me now is Washington Democratic Congressman Adam Smith, who knows the chaos well. He is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee as well. Congressman, with that one vote margin, any one member of the Republican majority can decide to throw the House into gridlock, though thankfully the motion to vacate threshold is now higher than one, unlike last Congress. But given this no majority majority, do you expect very much to get done this term?

Well, it's hard to say. I mean, we'll see how it begins to play out once we get to it. Also, keep in mind that usually there's at least a couple of members missing for one reason or another. So all of a sudden attendance becomes a major issue depending on what's going on.

And first thing we'll have to see is what is the Republican agenda. They control the White House and Senate and the House. What are they going to try to do and how are they going to try to get it through? There may well be some issues where Republicans are so lockstep United that they'll be able to do that.

Those are gonna be few and far between. If anything actually substantively is going to get done, it's gonna have to be done in a bipartisan way. And I think where it gets challenging is Donald Trump and the Republicans did not run on working in a bipartisan way. They ran on jamming their agenda through.

And I think they're have a very difficult time doing that. I think that's certainly true when you talk about the rhetoric and how they've run. But do you see any opportunity for coalition building or maybe strange partnerships across the aisle on various issues? I'm wondering if Ukraine aid isn't something that Democrats couldn't leverage this tiny majority for.

Yeah, well, I was with you on the first part of that question, not on the second part. Yes, there are things that I think we can work together. I think on the Armed Services Committee, you know, Mike Rogers and I are in complete agreement that one of the biggest things we need to do is to simplify the procurement process so that the Pentagon can get new technologies more quickly, they can buy software more quickly. It's a cumbersome process.

I know this is something that a lot of the incoming Trump people are talking about, too. So I think we can work together to make the Pentagon more efficient, effective in terms of how it purchases the new technology and new equipment the DOD is going to need going forward. That's one second. Republicans, you know, kind of are claiming that they won because they stand up for the working class.

Well, let's hold them to that. Housing costs are a major problem for working class people across the country. To ban hedge funds from buying up single family housing and driving up the prices and denying working class people the equity, we should be able to work together on that. Unions are crucial to helping the working class.

You know, what can we do to strengthen them? I think if we hold Republicans to their rhetoric on these issues, government efficiency, that's something that the Democrats can get behind. So there are areas, but temperamentally, it doesn't seem where the new Republican majorities or the new Republican president are coming from. We'll see if that shifts from January and February, but if it does, yeah, there's, I think, some things that we can work together on.

We've seen even basic, what I would call common sense, keep the government open type things. For example, the Republican majority has struggled to keep the government from shutting down, only passing those continuing resolutions with Democratic support. Now, with the margins set to be what they are, and with Trump in the White House Democrats have lent support in the past, but you get the sense that Democrats are willing to do it going forward or will they just let Republicans fail? Well, it depends on what they offer.

You know, we have our priorities, we have the ways. What can look like? Well, it's not a matter of concessions is the wrong one. It's a matter of what we fund.

Okay, if they come in and say, okay, we're increase the Pentagon by 20% and cut everything else by 25, no, we're not going to vote for that. All right. You know, we have funding priorities and they have funding priorities. And if they make an agreement that makes sense, just like last Congress, we didn't vote for every spending bill that they put forward.

We didn't vote for every continuing resolution that they put forward. We voted for the ones that made sense and I think we'll do that again. But then on the budget, the real problem is that, you know, we have a fiscal challenge here. The country wants the budget balanced.

They don't want to raise taxes and they don't want to cut spending. So anybody who's responsible for passing a budget knows that they are going to fail by the public's definition. So most people would rather not vote for it, including members of the majority. That's what makes it difficult to get to the number of votes necessary to keep doing the basic of funding the government.

There's such disagreement on how to do that. Yeah. And we've watched the appropriation process really struggle for the last few years. But I want to turn to some of Donald Trump's nominations for his cabinet.

Now you're the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. You talk to people in the defense sphere constantly. What are they telling you about these nominees and how have those conversations evolved with each new twist of information specifically around Hegseth? Well, essentially there's a deep level of concern about Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard and Cash Patel and there was about Matt Gaetz.

Yeah, I mean, when you get a little further down there, the idea to bring in some tech and business people into the lower ranks, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Service Secretary, I think there's a real possibility to get some of those reforms I mentioned earlier. Hegseth himself is just deep. Okay. I mean, the record makes it clear.

He just doesn't have the credibility to run the Pentagon. He didn't have the credibility to run a small non profit veterans organization. So he certainly doesn't have it to run the world's largest bureaucracy. And that's not even getting into the experience issue, whether or not he knows, you know, how to work in the Pentagon and make it work.

You know, just the credibility he has in terms of the charges about how he treats women, about his, you know, tendency to show up drunk with things that is going to cost him the credibility to run the Pentagon. I don't think he's going to be confirmed, and I'm certain that he shouldn't be. And certainly those are conversations that I've been having with senators on the other side of the building from where you're sitting. We'll ultimately see if that happens or not.

But you also brought up Tulsi Gabbard, who is currently in the running to be the Director of National Intelligence. Are you comfortable with the notion of her serving in that role? I mean, you've served on Armed Services with her, in the House with her. What do you think?

I get along with Tuls Tulsi quite well. She was, you know, she served on the committee when I was chair. I've texted with her a few times even since she left Congress. She's perfectly pleasant to talk to.

As a colleague of mine told me years ago, you know, nice isn't really the issue. The issue is, you know, how they govern, what are they philosophy, what are they going to do? I think there's considerable cause for concern. You know, her relationship with the Assad regime, her tendency to parrot Putin's talking points on Ukraine, all very troubling.

And then add to that the lack of experience in the intelligence world. I think that adds up to a very dangerous. I don't have as good a feeling of whether or not she's going to be able to confirm. So much of the focus was on Gates and the focus was on Hegstaff that, you know, it's like the old trick of outrunning the bear.

You don't have to run the bear, you just have to run to the person next to you. Well, as Gates fell and Hegstaff falls, I suspect that then the focus will turn to Gabbard next. I think you're probably right about that, though. I would love if we could all just walk, walk and chew gum and entertain many nominees at once.

But we'll see if your Senate colleagues manage to do that. In the last moment, in the last moment that we have, I just want to turn to the state of your party overall. In a video you put out after the election, you said that the Democratic Party is a broken brand and that it desperately needs fixing. What did you mean by that?

And is this a Policy problem or a messaging problem or both. Well, the starting point, I meant just that. And I'm actually having this, you know, argument a little bit with my leadership. I mean, there's a tendency, I think our leadership say, well, you know, we won those two seats in California, we got to 215, and my goodness, if, you know, North Carolina hadn't done there redistricting, we would have been fine.

That's not the way we should be interpreting this election. I don't think putting a happy face on this is the right approach. And don't get me wrong, I mean, I've been involved in a lot of different projects and efforts and they don't always succeed. And sometimes they don't succeed.

And you know, it wasn't because anything you did fundamentally wrong. Do a couple tweaks here, a couple tweaks there. So point number one is I don't think we're in that situation. I think our coalition is fundamentally broken by the way, in which the working class has come to think of Democratic Party as not representing them.

So big thing number one, we're fundamentally broken. Big thing number two, the far left, their ideological approach and their ideological rigidity on a number of issues, on immigration, on identity politics, on crime, on drug abuse, I think is a major problem. And just papering over that and saying, well, we don't run on those things anymore. So it's not, it's still a problem.

It's still the way the people perceive the Democratic Party. Look, I'm a progressive. I just want the progressives to update their thinking a little bit so that their message and their policies work. I live in Seattle, King County, a land of very far left government.

It ain't working, okay? Crime is too high, homelessness is too high, drug abuse is. And government isn't running an efficient and effective way because we're prioritizing identity politics over efficiency and effectiveness. I know where to go.

I'm throwing one more line at you. Just real quick. They like to say in King county we view everything through an equity and social justice lens. And I was like, can you give you maybe a couple of things through an efficiency, effectiveness, problem solving lens.

Can we get a pair of bifocals on that? So I think we need to work on those things. I think it's a bigger problem than some people are saying. I think we can fix it, but not if we pretend like we don't have a problem.

I think certainly you're gonna have some very interesting Democratic cause meetings ahead of you. Congressman and Adam Smith thank you for joining us. We'll be right back. Welcome back.

As set Republicans wave President elect Donald Trump's cabinet picks, they have their own future to consider as well. And going against the wishes of the next president could come with consequences. Takes off Dakota's Mike Rounds. He expressed his support for current FBI Director Christopher Wray a day after Trump said he would have hardliner Cash Patel to lead the agency.

That led to Trump ally and richest man in the world Elon Musk posting on social media, quote, those who oppose reform will lose their primary slash election period. Joining me now on set is Molly Ball, senior political correspondent for the Wall Street Journal Juanita Toliver, Democratic strategist and NBC News political analyst and Jay Shabria, Republican strategist and longtime advisor to Vice President elect JG Vic. So is the conventional wisdom, right, that if a Trump pick makes it to the floor, they're likely getting confirmed? And really, do these threats that we're seeing from people like Elon Musk dissuade anyone from stepping out of line?

Ultimately, I don't think so. I think, you know, Elon Musk also tried to make Rick Scott the Senate majority leader. And how did that go? The Senate is an institution that guards its prerogatives very zealously.

Now, look, they are Republicans. They want to be on the team. They want to be team players. And they want to help Donald Trump be successful.

So they want to help him get his kicks in. If they are acceptable, they take their responsibility, as you know, of advising consent very seriously. And they're not going to be bullied by outside forces. So I don't think we know to your question whether, you know, if they get to a hearing, are they guaranteed?

I think there's a long way to go until that point. But I don't think it is the case that, you know, the Elon and the rest of the Twitter right can just go after senators who say something and that's going to change their vote votes or they can and we'll end up seeing. Right. We saw Rick Scott's Twitter campaign ended backfiring on him because senators didn't necessarily like that.

But I think JR has this interesting nexus of knowing people who are both senators in JD Events, but then also the incoming vice president. So when he's having these conversations, I mean, what do you think it's like behind closed doors for senators who want to maintain that independence advising consent, but who also recognize they've got an R after their name? Well, look, I think everyone's been clear to Moss POINT I think they want to make sure that these folks get through. I think there's also an important thing to understand is why Republicans want selection.

It's to actually kind of like remake Washington and to try to change the way things are. People outside this bubble, they're tired of the way things are working. They're tired of what they've been experiencing. And I think that's kind of the message of a lot of these picks, which sometimes they're off the wall, sometimes people picks that people just don't quite understand why they're there.

That's what they're here to try to break the system, try to break it down for people. I think that's what a lot of conversations behind Closer are about. Are they going to buy the will of people, or are they going to buy Biden norms? And that's going to be.

That's the real power point there. I think we get that if the conversation around Hegseth right now was about the things that he said about women in the military or about the future of transgender folks being able to serve, but the conversation about him is all about these misconduct allegations in his past. So was there no better disruptor to be found? I mean, they're wasting political capital at this point to confirm people with pretty problematic allegations.

Are they really wasting political capital? Strategy they're launching. There's always strategy behind what Donald Trump does, 100%. I mean, this is one of the most really politicians I've seen.

I've been convinced of that. I mean, look, they're launching a million missiles right now through the CAD to the Senate. And will it be knocked down? Matt Gates?

Sure. But they're getting a lot of chain cases through. I think hesitates have a real chance to survive, too. They're going to fight four more things.

Survive. I've been struck by almost how quiet Democrats have been during this. Certainly they've voiced their opposition to the kinds of nominees that have been coming up, but I don't think it's been as loud as I've seen it in past controversies. What are they doing?

Are they biding their time? I mean, how are they watching this? I think it's sit back and watch the Republicans tussle with each other. Right.

Because even though when we look at Hexseth, for example, it runs a similar track to what happened in Matt Gates, in that you have more than three senators saying they're not comfortable. I think the number at the latest reporting was six. And so they're just waiting to see what net happens next. Because I disagree that what Trump does is strategic.

He's just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks or as Representative Adam Smith says, deflect from some of the other people he's nominated. Like a Tulsi Gabbard. That's actually my question. Yeah.

To build on what you just said. I think that's true. I also think what I've heard from a lot of Democrats is they feel like last time Trump was elected, they overreacted to everything, and it led to a situation where people just expected Democrats to hyperventilate no matter what Trump did. So people stopped listening.

And so I think some of it is discouraged, but some of it is they want to try to be more strategic and when they are opposing Trump, to do it in a way that feels actually called for. I think, ultimately, when you read the tea leaves on this, do you think Hegseth is able to grind it out? Well, I actually think he's able to doubt it. He's backing him.

He's 100% abandon. I think there's a good reason for him to be behind him. I think they're gonna fight this thing out. Look, you never know exactly what's gonna come about.

I think one thing that one thing that's important about this is there's a process through this. This has not to be fought out to the media. This is what I think the ask is by the vice president, by the president, is, let's get this Senate confirmation heritage. Let's fight it out there.

And I think that's a fair ask. It's the season of the confirmation battle, but also the season of fair we speech. Jane heard from Utah Republican Senator Mitt Romney. Let's take a listen to that.

There's son a day who would tear at our unity, who would replace love with hate, who deride our foundation of virtue, or who debased the values upon which the blessings of heaven depend. A country's character is a reflection not just of its elected officials, but also of its people. I leave Washington to return to be one among them and hope to be a voice of unity and virtue. For it is only if the American people merit his benevolence that God will continue to bless America.

How does a speech like that ring in today's environment? You know, it's such an incredible arc for Mitt Romney, looking back, you know, to him being the Republican nominee in 2012 and now so obviously having no place in this party at all anymore. And as much as I think, you know, he wanted to go out on a meaningful note. He sounded a bit discouraged, sounded a bit defeated, not just because he failed to solve the national debt, but also because so many of the, of the aspirations that he had for our politics, he feels, are not the direction that our politics is going right now.

So it's quite a dramatic arc that Mitt Romney has undergone over the past decade, and he really finds himself now a man without a party. I think that's right. And I also think that this version of Congress that Trump is coming back to in many ways is so different than the one that he was able to come into in 2017. Gone are the Paul Ryan's and the others who might have said no or I don't think that's a good idea.

He's got a lot of allies here. I mean, what does that say for the way that Washington previously functioned in bipartisan fashion? He doesn't make it harder to make it easier to make it in some ways easier for Trump? Well, easier within which I take into the context of the limited margins that he has, especially in the House, when we know one of the real agenda items for Republicans is gutting government funding or repealing the Affordable Care.

When you have a margin where Marjorie Taylor Greene can stand up and say I'm voting with Democrats or I'm just not showing up today, that is the recipe for chaos. And so I think you said earlier last Congress was chaotic. Expect that to go to the nth degree in the next one. I can just confirm.

I also say this, too. Look, there are a lot of Democrats that are tired of not being able to get things done, especially under Republican Congress. And they're going to see, they're going to say, look, this is not, this is not the Republican Party of wrong. Reggie's not the Republican Party of virtually Bush.

There are some things we can agree with Donald Trump and administration on. And if we can try to find cars and things out, we can get them done so that they become a little more powerful and more power. So I think there's a real opportunity for the Trump administration to find those places of common ground in this first hundred days and actually move some legislation that's significant that actually both parties be happy with. I mean, criminal justice forms an example of that.

In the last Congress himself has talked to me about, though he has the wariness that most Democrats have of what could be coming next four years. Molly, Juanita J. Thank you all for joining us. And still ahead, the very latest on South Korea's volatile political situation as lawmakers move to impeach the president over his attempt to impose martial law.

You're WATCHING THE PRESS now. Welcome back. The dramatic declaration of martial law in South Korea yesterday may have only lasted six hours, but the country is still grappling with the lingering shock waves after violent clashes between protesters and South Korean troops yesterday. Opposition lawmakers moved today to impeach the president.

A vote on that motion could come as early as Friday. Meanwhile, the demonstrations continued tonight with thousands of people marching through the streets of Seoul towards the president office demanding Yoon step down. NBC News international correspondent Janice Mackay Fryer is in Seoul, South Korea tonight and filed this report. Opposition parties move today to impeach President Yoon, and that vote could happen as early as Friday.

There are some lawmakers who are even threatening to have him arrested if he doesn't resign after this dramatic declaration of martial law that has pushed democracy here into turmoil. There were more protests today, thousands of people marching in the streets, some holding candlelight vigils. We went to the National Assembly Building where it was a much different scene than 24 hours before when the military was pushing into the legislature, at times through smashed windows. One lawmaker scaled offense to get back inside for that emergency vote that forced President Yoon to reverse that declaration of martial law.

Why did he do it? He said it was to protect constitutional order, but this is widely seen as a move against the government. It's no secret that President Yun and the opposition have been locked in a bitter standoff. He saw martial law as a way of breaking that political deadlock.

It was a risky move and it backfired. So the question is, what happens next? President Yoon now finds himself politically isolated. He's had key advisors and ministers now offer to resign.

So far he said nothing. He has remained silent over the past couple of days, but there are a lot of questions about his political future. Thanks to Janice Macy FR for that great reporting. And I'm back tomorrow with more MEET THE PRESS now.

But as we mentioned, President Elect Trump is sat down to sit with my friend and colleague Kristen Welker for his first network interview since winning the presidential election. Watch that exclusive interview this Sunday only on Meet the Press, NBC's NBC News now coverage continues with my friend Hallie Jackson right now. I'm Craig Knoff. Cheers.

Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy. And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way, too.

Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny. And my candidate. So I hope you'll join me each week. Who knows, you might just come away with your own Glass F4.

Search Glass Apple with Craig Golfer from today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast.