Meet the Press NOW — January 14

Drive off in a new Hyundai launcher today with $0 down during the Hyundai Advantage sales event. Take advantage of the $1,000 spring drive bonus and lease the 20-60 launcher essential for just $73 weekly at 4.99% for 60 months. And you're covered by a launcher's best-in-class five-year new car warranty. Now that's the Hyundai Advantage.

Conditions apply. Offer includes 1% loyalty rate reduction for qualifying customers. Visit HyundaiCanada.com or your local dealer for details. Plus, California officials activate the highest possible level fire alert in L.A.

as wind gusts are forecast to approach hurricane strength threatened to fuel the wildfire flames that are already burning out of control. And special counsel Jack Smith rejects President Electrums claims that his investigation was influenced by politics saying he had sufficient evidence to charge and convict Mr. Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Welcome to Meet the Press Now.

I'm Peter Alexander here in Washington. A busy week of confirmation hearings just kicked off with what's expected to be one of the most contentious ones of all. For President Electrums picked to lead the Department of Defense, smear campaign orchestrated in the media against us. That was clear from moment one.

And what we knew was that it wasn't about me. Most of it was about President Donald Trump, who said to endure the very same thing for much longer amounts of time, and he endured it in incredibly strong ways. So we in some ways knew it was coming. I'm not a perfect person, as has been acknowledged.

Saved by the grace of God, by Jesus and Jenny. I'm not a perfect person. But redemption is real. And God forged me in ways that I know I'm prepared for.

Hex was also pressed multiple times in that hearing by women, female senators on the committee about his past comments that women should not serve in combat, a view that he articulated in his book, and doubled down on his recently as a couple months ago in November. What do you have to say to the almost 400,000 women who are serving today about your position on whether they should be capable to rise through the highest ranks of our military? Senator, I would say I would be honored to have the opportunity to serve alongside you, shoulder to shoulder, men, women, black, white, all backgrounds with a shared purpose. Our differences are not what define us.

Our unity and our shared purpose is what define us. And you will be treated fairly with dignity, honor, and respect just like every man and women in uniform, just like the men and women that I've worked with in my veterans' organizations to include when I was a headquarters and headquarters company commander in the Minnesota National Guard. Well, I appreciate your 11-hour conversion. My critiques, Senator, recently and in the past, and from personal experience, have been instances where I've seen standards lowered what each and every one of them told me.

And which personal instances have shown me is that in ways direct, indirect, overt, and subtle, standards have been changed inside infantry training units, Ranger School, infantry battalions to ensure that... Give me one example. Please give me an example. I get you're making these generalized statements.

Commanders meet quotas to have a certain number of female infantry officers or infantry enlisted, and that disparages those women. Commanders do not have to be quotas for the infantry. Commanders do not have to have a quota for women in the infantry. That does not exist.

It does not exist. And your statements are creating the impression that these exist because they do not. They're not quotas. What I see is that there's a 32-day period in which you suddenly have another description about your views of women in the military.

And I just want to know what changed in the 32 days that the song you sang is not the song you come in here today to sing. Senator, the concerns I have and the concerns that many have had, especially in ground combat units, is that in pursuit of certain percentages or quotas, standards have been changed. And that makes the combat more difficult. No, let me make a suggestion about what happened in that 32 days.

You've got a nomination for President Trump. Now, I've heard of deathbed conversions, but this is the first time I've heard of a nomination for conversion. Hex was also pressed on sexual assault allegations tied to a hotel encounter back in 2017, claiming that he was, quote, completely cleared. Listen.

You have admitted that you had sex while you were married to wife II after you had just had father to child by wife III. You've admitted that. Now, if it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualifying to be a secretary of defense, wouldn't it? It was a false claim, then, and a false claim.

Now, if it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualifying to be a secretary of defense, wouldn't it? That was a false claim. So you can't tell me whether someone who has committed a sexual assault is disqualified from being a secretary of defense. Senator, I know in my instance, and I'm talking about my instance only, it was a false claim.

It was mostly Democrats on the committee who grilled hex that. The clear signal from Republicans there was that they are standing behind Donald Trump's pick. Going into this hearing, all eyes were on one Republican Senator in particular, Joni Ernst, a veteran who initially expressed some uncertainty about Hex that, but has since come under immense pressure from Trump supporters to fall in line. Ernst did not pose any particularly challenging questions today instead, using her time to secure commitments from Hex Seth on the role of women in combat and sexual assault prevention in the military.

Let's make it very clear for everyone here today. As Secretary of Defense, will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles? Senator, first of all, thank you for your service as we discussed extensively as well. That's my privilege.

And my answer is yes, exactly the way that you caveat it. Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles, combat roles, given the standards remain high. Will you appoint a senior level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response? Senator, as we have discussed, yes, I will.

So that was part of one of the key exchanges to watch today. Joining me now, our team of reporters, Sahil Kapoor, is on Capitol Hill. Courtney Kubi, as at her perch at the Pentagon, Gabe Gutierrez, is in West Palm Beach covering the Trump transition right now. Sahil would start with you.

Walk us through what all sort of stood out to you from Hex Seth's testimony today. How is it being viewed? How did he fare? Yeah, Peter, watching the Republicans on that committee.

It looks to me like Pete Hex Seth is one step closer to the coming. The next Secretary of Defense. I was particularly struck by the warmth and the friendliness of the Republican reception he got. I think one month ago, there's been a very different tone and tenor for Hex Seth sitting at that committee across from those members.

But a lot has changed politically. In the last month, I was very struck by Joining Ernst, not really challenging Pete Hex Seth in any meaningful way, not having any kind of confrontation with Pete Hex Seth. She looked like a senator who came into this hearing with the intention of getting to yes. She also began her questioning by entering into the record a letter from a Hex Seth supporter, making the case for him.

He did have some tough moments, some tough questioning from Democrats, including, most notably, the moments you played from Tim Kaine, questioning his personal indiscretions as infidelity, talking about, you've taken oaths to your ex-wives as well and not kept them. Why should we trust you? Connecting it to character. But the reality is Republicans have a majority on that committee.

They have 53 votes in the Senate. And there are only two members on the Republican side who have any history of bucking their party. So it would take something pretty extraordinary for Hex Seth to be stuttled. I did not see anything of that sort.

So unless something changes between now and the next few days when he's expected to get committee and four votes, he appears to be in shape. Finally, Peter, I think it's also notable the culture war rhetoric that we heard from Hex Seth. He was kind of talking about the MAGA hard strings there by repeatedly lavishing praise on President Trump, repeatedly criticizing President Biden, you know, the kind of rhetoric that I think is familiar to MAGA travelers about being a victim of a smear campaign and going after woke institutions. All of that stuff is deliberate.

He knows what he's doing. Yeah, he seemed a sort of parrot part of Donald Trump's talking points throughout the course of the campaign season, saying, hey, you know, they're not going after me. They're going after you. He said they're not going after me.

They're really going after Donald Trump here. There has been a lot of a series of questions about Hex's FBI background, Jack and the fact that his ex-wives and a woman who accused him of sexual assault did not provide any information. Given that, how did Democrats push him and what more can you tell us about this sort of background check process? To be clear, not every one of those senators today had access to the background check.

It was only the top Democrat and top Republican who were even briefed on it, right? That's right. The most important thing to know about this background check is that it's not a legal requirement. It's a custom.

So it only matters if Republicans poke their head out and say we're not voting for this nominee unless we get the full background check. Democrats have very serious concerns that they don't think this background check is complete, that they're very clear instances in Pete Hegset's past individuals who have leveled serious accusations against him that you just mentioned who were not interviewed for this. So why is that the case? I think Democrats want answers there, but I haven't really heard anything from Republicans signaling that they're not ready to support Hegset's nomination without that background check.

This is all in the midst of a major pressure campaign by Donald Trump and his allies to get behind each one of his nominees. The sequence was Matt Gaetz was put out for attorney general. That nomination was scuttled because Republicans indicated that Trump, that was a no-go, that weren't going to support him. But after that Trump made clear that he wanted every one of his other nominees confirmed, and that's where he got the threat, the primary challenges, the heavy political pressure on senators, like Joining Ernst, who by the way is up for reelection in 2026.

That's a non-trivial threat that she faces of a potential Republican challenge if she bucks if she bucks Trump, and it looks like she's not going to be doing that. Yeah, with Donald Trump among others saying that Elon Musk has tens of millions of dollars to put behind another candidate if necessary. So I hope we're on Capitol Hill for you. Appreciate you starting it.

With us, Courtney, I wanted to have you get in on this conversation. What indication did Pete Hegset sort of give us today about what kind of defense secretary he will be would be? So we didn't actually hear a whole lot about various policies that he has. It is very clear is he will enact and he will, whatever it is that Donald Trump wants to do here at the Pentagon, Peter.

So two specific things we heard. He does intend to do a full review, as he said, of the senior military leaders to ensure, as he kept saying throughout the hearing today, that they made it to their positions based on meritocracy. That was a word we heard over and over during a long hearing today. The idea that these generals and admirals have reached their positions of military leadership through their own merit-based process.

This is all based on his accusations and his claims that the military has focused too much on diversity initiatives and that people are no longer being promoted because of the merit of their work. Another thing that we heard is he does intend to review standards. That was another consistent theme throughout the hearing today is when talking about women in combat, when talking again about promotions, that he believes that standards have been changed for women and that because of that, he intends to fully review the standards and ensure that the U.S. military continues to be lethal.

That was another word that we heard a lot today. The idea that the military needs to focus more on lethality than some of these social issues, as he said, that they have been focused on the current administration, Peter. Court, I want to play for you some of the exchange today between the Arizona Senator Mark Kelly and Hagg Seth on the allegations about Hagg Seth's drinking, his past behavior. Listen.

Memorial Day, 2014, at a CBA event in Virginia, you needed to be carried out of the event for being intoxicated. Senator Anand Smirz, just too revolved. Very simple. Summer of 2014 in Cleveland, drunk in public with the CBA team.

Anonymous Smirz. I'm just asking for true or false answers. An event in North Carolina, drunk in front of three young female staff members after you had instituted a no alcohol policy and then reversed it. True or false?

Anonymous Smirz. December of 2014 at the CBA Christmas party at the Grand Hyatt at Washington, D.C., you were noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to your room, is that true or false? Anonymous Smirz. Another time, a CBA staffer stated that you passed out in the back of a party bus as that true or false?

Anonymous Smirz. In 2014, while in Louisiana on official business for CBA, did you take your staff, including young female staff members, to a strip club? Absolutely not, Anonymous Smirz. According to what's interesting there is we have heard from Hagg Seth over the course of the last several months, and in the past he did drink sometimes a little bit more perhaps than he showed that he turned alcohol, sort of an escape after he came back from serving overseas.

You were a part of NBC's reporting about some of these concerns. How serious are the concerns? A lot of those were coming from within his own colleagues at Fox News about his drinking. Yeah, and it's interesting because he's even vowed that he will not drink as Secretary of Defense, saying he will treat us essentially as a deployment and not drink.

So if he wasn't drinking before, why does he have to stop drinking now? It really doesn't make sense, frankly. One thing I was really struck by by that, and I'm glad you guys played that entire exchange with Senator Kelly, is he kept saying that throughout the entire hearing when there was something that he wasn't confirming or denying, he would call it an Anonymous Smirz. He said it over and over.

But I was struck by the very last thing that Senator Kelly asked about there. He said absolutely false, Anonymous Smirz. The one that he actually denied, when he didn't deny the other. So I don't know if that was striking to me, frankly.

But the Senators frankly let him get away with that without saying, look, I told you true or false, is this true or is this false? I will say he completely rejected every throughout the entire hearing when Democrats, primarily I think it was all Democrats who asked him about drinking throughout the course of it. He always denied the fact or he simply did not answer and fell back on as he called it was liberal media reporting and the smear campaign against him. And he never actually addressed with the exception of that one question there from Senator Kelly.

He never actually addressed the allegations. Instead, he said he was a victim of a smear campaign. Yeah, Court, you make a really good point, which is why would there be any need to value, you'll never have another sip if there wasn't some issue with drinking in the past that he has acknowledged in past podcast and the like. If I want to get you in here, if I can, you're in West Palm Beach for us right now.

You've been keeping in touch with the folks in the Trump transition team. How are they viewing this? What's their reaction to his testimony today? Well, hi there, Peter.

Well, the Trump transition is certainly not popping champagne bottles, but there is a sense of relief here. I spoke with one transition official who said this went smoothly and another who said that the team was extremely happy that a much larger audience got to see Pete Hexith and got to see the man that Donald Trump knows according to this official. Now, this is something, Peter, that the Trump transition has been saying that once he's able to allegations in front of his larger audience that he, you know, would be successful. When you heard there from Sahel with the Republican majority in the Senate, they really feel that he cleared the bar.

Now, I did ask them about that exchange with Tim Kane, and this transition official said, look, it's unfortunate that some politicians feel that they, you know, have to have this holder than now attitude and pretend that they haven't made a mistake, and that's how they're trying to brush off some of those more contentious allegations that contentious line of questioning from some of those Democratic senators. Again, they feel that Hexith cleared the bar that there was no collapse here here. And, again, quickly, I want to turn to the inauguration. We're less than a week away.

What an inauguration day, just Monday of next week. What more do we know about the preparations? Well, certainly a lot of security there, Peter, but we're also just learning about who will attend this inauguration. We know that former President Obama will be there, but former First Lady Michelle Obama we learned today will not be there.

No reason has been given for her absence, but she has gone on record before saying that when she attended the inauguration back in 2016, not an enjoyable experience for her. And also we're learning that there will be others at that inauguration. That tightens. We'll have a very prominent position.

Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg will be on a very prominent platform right alongside cabinet members, certainly showing how much influence they're trying to have in this new administration, Peter. A presidential changing of the guard gave Gutierrez on the ground for us in West Palm. Good to see you, appreciate that. Coming up, a live report from California where dangerous winds are escalating, the already dire wildfire crisis there, and further complicating the efforts to get the flames under control.

Plus, negotiators say ceasefire and hostage talks have entered the final stages. We are on the ground in Jerusalem. We will have an update. We're watching meet the press now.

We're back. Los Angeles is preparing for the return of fierce Santa Ana wins. 13 million Californians are under red flag warnings and fire crews are battling increasing wind gusts as they try to contain these wildfires still burning and they try to prevent new ones from starting. Life threatening and destructive and widespread winds are already here.

For this significant wind event, we're taking an aggressive lean forward posture and the LEFDS theft all available resources strategically placing fire patrols and engines in the unimpacted high fire risk areas in the city. Four wildfires are currently burning in Southern California. The largest two have burned more than 35,000 acres. The fires are being blamed for at least 24 deaths.

Fears that number could rise. More than 12,000 structures have been destroyed since the fires began a week ago. And investigators there were seen examining the area believed to be where the palisades fire may have started. Here they are.

You can see going through the tape at that gate. The ACF is now leading a task force to investigate the cause of the palisades fire. NBC News correspondent Steve Patterson's been on the ground in Southern California for the last week. He joins us from Altadena now also with us as NBC News.

Meteorologist Bill Cairns will show us what some of these weather wind gusts are looking like. Steve, you're there. What are you seeing? What are the conditions on the ground right now?

Yeah, I'm sure Bill Cairns is going to tell you all about sort of the situation when it comes to the wind events because we're kind of in the middle of two sort of acute periods. We're in what's called a PDS, a particularly dangerous situation. A designation comes from the National Weather Service. I think they want to be a little more provocative in their wording because they want to show how dangerous the weather pattern we're in is right now.

We're talking about winds that we've already seen north of 70 miles an hour when you go up into higher elevations. If that stuff comes down here, it could kick up a lot of the fires that were already at the eating fire where I'm standing. If there's a pocket of embers, if there's a hot spot, it could flare that up and make things much more dangerous for the men and women that are working this. Meanwhile, it's a little bit of a lull because usually the most acute times are very early in the morning and as sort of the evening starts to peak.

Right now, it is sunny, it is hot, you can feel it. And there's a flurry of activity in the fire scene here. I mean, obviously you saw the devastation behind me. You can see National Guard trucks.

I believe that we're fire investigators down this way. We don't want to get too close because obviously some of this is now sensitive. The removal of bodies is possible in certain scenes like this also sensitive information as well. But also highway patrol, the National Guard, they are making sure that they have an accurate and stable perimeter here on a scene like this because it's cutting in this area, which is unfortunate to think about, but it's happening.

And so we've seen a whole lot more of this activity. We're going to leave a shot there. You can see obviously it froze up as we have some technical challenges, but to give you a sense, he's an Altadena there. That's further inland about an hour from the water where the Palisades Fire basically was taking place.

We heard from friends Bill over the weekend that they lost their modest home in Altadena. The real fears of other neighbors that this thing's not done yet. So what are these powerful winds looking like? How long are they expected to last?

So at 48-hour period, Peter, and right now we're about 24 hours in. So we're halfway through this latest Santa Ana wind event. And we still expect these red flag warnings to be lifted about this time tomorrow. And so then, you know, the first half of this, we haven't had any new big fire starts.

The high winds have stayed away from the Palisades and the Eaton Fire, so that's fantastic. But as you were mentioning, and Steve was mentioning, we still have this particularly dangerous situation. Low relative humidity, gusty strong winds, and warm temperatures, too. And that's all of these areas.

This is more LA County. Notice downtown Los Angeles, but you know, Pasadena, this area, Burbank to downtown LA is not involved in this event. This is not in the same location as the way I went a week ago. This is going to be bad later tonight and early tomorrow morning.

It would be areas more toward like Santa Clarita, the mountainous canyons in between there, all the way through Ventura County. Yeah, the further north you go, obviously a lot more of those dry lands there. They use this phrase, what does it say, particularly dangerous situation here? I'm from California.

I never really heard that phrase before. How rare or how dire is this kind of a warning from the weather service? Before this year, on average, about once every four years, we go through this. This is now the fourth time Peter since November.

So this has been an exceptionally unusual period with the one in November, the one in December, the one last week, and then this week. And with the other three previous, we had fires that forced evacuations and burn structures. So far, knock on wood. This time, we haven't had any devastating fires.

So the humidity is still really low and I just want to show you the winds. The winds have come down. This is the lull that Steve was showing. It wasn't that windy.

He's right here near the eight and fire, the 16 mile per hour winds up in the mountains. We're still gusting the 30 to 40. But later on tonight, those winds will kick up again. We think we'll get some gusts up there to 50, maybe 65 miles per hour.

There it is about 4 a.m. And that's kind of the risk time. And then after that, Peter, once the sun comes up, the wind should go down. So I know the firefighters, they're in position.

All the aerial assets, the pilots are all ready to go in case something happens. Just fingers crossed. We get through 24 more hours, Peter. The humidity goes up, the winds are light, and they're going to have excellent firefighting conditions all the way through the weekend.

Just have to get through this evening. Yeah, fingers crossed for this evening and the scary time, of course, and people are sleeping. Those winds start to pick up again. So real fears for the folks there.

Bill Karen, appreciate your updating us on all of that. Up next right here, Jack Smith defends his years-long investigation into present-elect Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election calling accusations that the investigation was politically biased, laughable. We'll have the key takeaways from the special counsel report that's straight ahead to watching the press now. Welcome back to the newly released report.

Special counsel Jack Smith says that the government had enough evidence to convict Donald Trump if he had not been reelected. Overnight, the Department of Justice released the final report on Smith's investigation into Trump's actions after he lost the 2020 election. And with it, ending a chapter in American history. In the 1970 pages, this report, Smith defends the investigation, lays out what he calls Trump's unprecedented criminal effort to hold on to power, including pressuring state officials and his vice president to overturn the 2020 results, and knowingly spreading a false narrative about election fraud.

Smith writes in part, indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election, an imminent return to the presidency, the office, his office, assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial. NBC News Justice reporter Ryan Riley joins me now. So I had a chance to browse through this.

You've probably seen a lot more than 170 pages here. What are the key takeaways? What are the biggest takeaways from this report? Yeah, I mean, basically they think that they could have proven that Donald Trump didn't actually believe the lies that he was spreading, and I think that's really at the core of this, because there's always sort of the back and forth, because, you know, as soon as you put some critical thought or some pressure on any of these claims, they sort of evaporate.

They fall apart. They're just not sustainable. They're not any serious arguments. They're not something that would fall, obviously, the campaign fell apart and court repeatedly after time and again.

So the question was, did Donald Trump actually believe all of this? And I thought that one of the striking things here is that they think that they could prove that he didn't actually believe that, that he knew that these were crazy theories that he was spreading because he wanted to retain power and admit it in other contexts that he had actually lost the election. And as noble as anything is what's missing from this report? So what's not in this report?

I mean, there's a lot that's not in the report, you know, overall, I mean, right? They didn't go into some of the details about a lot of the co-conspirators, so we didn't, you know, get those names in paper, obviously, and that's because under Justice Department of Policy, those people aren't charged. The question is, you know, hindsight being 2020, whether it would have made more sense for them to be all then indicted altogether, because this case was essentially built for speed because it was aimed towards Donald Trump. So if they charged all of these individuals together, then we would be in a situation where this case would actually continue.

Donald Trump would just be taken off of it, and then Donald Trump would have to pardon all of the potential co-conspirators in the case once he's present in the United States. So to be clear, is this the last word from Jack Smith? Is there anything else of his that we'll see? It looks unlikely given what we've heard from the judges as it relates to the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation.

There is, yeah, there is that. That report still could potentially come out. That case, you know, sort of will continue ongoing, although it's been dismissed by the Trump appointed judge in this case, I think, and it's pretty much cited with Donald Trump at every step of the way. So we don't know whether we'll ultimately see that.

Actually, there's an injunction right now blocking the Justice Department for even showing it to members of Congress, which they want to do, which they intend to do, but really we're running down the clock here, right? We're on six days left here. So, you know, whether or not they get that over the finish line by Friday when a lot of Justice Department employees would be resigning is a real question. This was so divine.

We have time to talk about Justice Department employees resigning to it another time. But let me ask you for this moment. This is so defining in the last hour of many years, right? What is the legacy of Jack Smith and this investigation?

I mean, I think if this investigation had begun a little bit sooner, that, you know, according to Jack Smith, he says that they could have sustained a conviction here. So I really, I think when history looks back at this, they're going to be looking at that year of sort of lost time, that time when there was not a lot of forward progress on the investigation. The effectiveness of the delay tactics by Donald Trump's team. Absolutely successful.

I mean, that was, you know, running basically, you know, three for four here ultimately in the end. And even on that one, you know, in the New York case, he wasn't ultimately sensed any real time. They got that felony conviction on the record, but that's basically all they got, just that, you know, note for history. So I think that, you know, laying out the record is really ultimately was what was important to Jack Smith's team in the end, and laying out, you know, the evidence that they obtained about what Donald Trump did after he lost the program.

And your reporting's been took this year on all this for the start. Ryan, appreciate it very much. Thank you. Turning out of the Middle East and negotiators met today in Doha, moving toward finalizing a plan for a ceasefire and hostage release.

According to the Qatari government, Israel Hamas are close to an agreement. President Biden said on Monday that a deal was on the brink of fruition. Israeli and Hamas officials also expressed optimism over the negotiations. Earlier today in a fireside chat, it was hosted by the Atlantic Council.

We heard from the Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, who said that the U.S. cutter and Egypt put forward a final proposal, and it is now up to Hamas to accept the deal. I want to get right to NBC News G4 and correspondent Richard Nagel, who's on the ground in the region in Jerusalem, was where we find him tonight. Richard, what's the latest on these negotiations?

There was a sense that this could happen within days, maybe even hours. How close are we to an agreement? Well, until we have an agreement, we don't have one, but all indications remain positive. In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tonight held what was described by an Israeli official as an urgent meeting with top defense officials in this country.

Already several Israeli government ministers have been commenting on the deal as if it is going to happen. Some expressing support, some expressing opposition, but it does seem to be going forward. And Israeli officials have also been briefing journalists in private about what the deal, if it does get signed, might look like. And it is a multi-phase or would be a multi-phase deal with initially a ceasefire, 48 hours ceasefire, followed by the release by Hamas of 33 hostages in batches, over 42 days.

The initial hostages being the most critical cases, those that are injured or elderly children, and that if that is successful, it will be followed by the release of all of the remaining hostages, Israel believes that there are 98 hostages still alive in Gaza, and that in exchange, Israel would free hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, pull out of populated areas in Gaza, but pertain a buffer zone. Those are the broad outlines as being described by Israeli officials, and Israeli and U.S. officials say that Hamas, however, has yet to agree to it, so nothing has been implemented. But officials that I'm speaking to as well are saying that this is the closest that they have been to a hostage release at ceasefire deal in months.

And Richard, I was speaking to one of the hostage families today who they spoke about, the real concern, the sense of urgency here that a lot of these assets are not in good shape right now, that they need their release immediately. No doubt. It's been 15 months, and some of the hostages were injured during their initial capture. A lot of them have been held primarily underground in tunnels.

Some of these tunnels are extraordinarily cramped. Journalists have had the opportunity on visits by the Israeli Army to visit some of these tunnels. They are extremely dark, freezing cold. It's an area all of Gaza is under attack.

The people just living in Gaza are experiencing extraordinary hardship. That would be even more difficult for the hostages themselves. So yes, for the hostage families, there is this sense of optimism right now, but also with that optimism comes nervousness. Once you start to believe that maybe they're going to come out, soon you don't want something to happen in the last moment.

Part of that is human nature, and part of that is they've seen this before. We have gotten close to hostage deals in the past only to see sometimes the hostages killed in the very last minute. So an incredibly difficult time for those families when their expectations are being built up, and with that comes increased nervousness. Yeah, our prayers for them, for the families for all of those impacted by this awful war, Richard Engle on the ground for us in Jerusalem tonight.

Richard, thank you. I know you keep it posted if we learn any new details over the course of the next several hours. And after this break, we're going to dig deeper in the political fallout. After a contentious first day of confirmation hearings for Donald Trump's Cabinet picks with an Auguration Day now under a week away, our panel is next.

You're watching with the press now. Welcome back, it's a busy day and a busy week in a busy month. You're in Washington, so let's get right to the panel now. Joining us is Francesca Chambers, White House correspondent for USA Today.

Former New York Democratic Congressman Joe Crowley and Republican strategist Matt Gorman. We're going to get around the horn. We've got a bunch to talk about. Francesca, let's start with you quickly.

The first high profile congressional hearing of the Trump years. Take two. What was the biggest thing you took away from today and be Texas hearing? Well, watching Joni Ernst, right?

All eyes were on her because Republicans have 52 seats. Now the JD Vance has resigned the US sign and they can confirm with 51 votes, right? So who would you need to follow up that list? Joni Ernst would be at the top of that list.

She did pretty quickly. I mean, she read a letter from people who had a sport of hexet that the drama that we thought makes us today disappeared pretty quickly. Right. And she asked a very specific question about what he appoints someone who's senior to look at a sexual assault response.

He said that he would. Now, one thing that was very interesting, though, was with respect to women serving in the military, he didn't exactly commit to that. What he actually said was, if they can meet the standards, the high standards that we have for the military, then yes, I would support that. But he said he wants to do an assessment.

So Matt, I want to play what she's referring to. This is what Hexa said, only recently as related to women in combat lesson. I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. Has it made us more effective?

Has it made us more lethal? Has made fighting more complicated? So to be clear, that's not what he said today, as Francesco notes, he was talking about standards and how he says they are now different for men and for women. He didn't give any examples.

He said there have been, you know, I'm hearing from friends who are there that have been direct or indirect examples or things that they've witnessed there. Do Republican senators care, is this an issue that they're concerned about? I think the bottom line might take away from this was that he was boring. Right at the clock, right?

And the key to this, right? Even the confirmation earned state senior leader support before Christmas. And so as long as anything's not unforeseen right now between now and that vote, he likely had it. So the key was be boring, be not memorable.

And as a compliment, he was. Yeah, you're right. The bottom line is right. They don't want the headline on the news that evening, not to be fireworks on Capitol Hill.

He'll have stuff that gets into it. They could fire away at him and he just sort of deflected. I think that was the case though too. I think they really attempted to rile him up.

Yeah. You know, Tim Caine. The question is pretty harsh. Timmy Duckworth, you know, got very emotional.

And yet he kept his cool. He really did. I think I think that was part of the game plan was to get him off his his kilter. It didn't really happen.

The question then becomes is when it goes before the full Senate, would you lose any of these other Republicans? Well, can we play that line out? Who else would there be? If there were three, it could be Susan Collins, could be Murkowski, perhaps Mitch McConnell, right?

No longer in the Senate majority leader. I would say though, to be fair, the threshold's really still four because I know the Vansi is open. Correct. But I know it's going to be enough.

He's the most likely to look like everybody appointed immediately. He'd head down. Well, he'd also be a tight-breaking vote in his capacity. In English that people are watching, right?

But the point is, you know, he's going to be key. And if she's going to support him, then it looks like this thing. He's going to get these. So let me ask you about that, then, if I can't convince me for a second, because one of the tactics he used today, I thought, was something Donald Trump has said before, which is basically, they're not coming after me.

They're coming after me. They're coming after me. They're coming after you, the voter in this situation. Is that sort of the means of deflection, I guess, of defense we're going to see?

I think part of that, but also finding Jesus didn't hurt either. I mean, we got a lot of that today. You know, in terms of his, the occult is, and I found the Lord in there for, you know, you can't attack me anymore. I mean, that clearly works with a number of Republicans.

We saw them congratulating him. You know, talking about how we, you know, we're all frail. We all make mistakes, which is true. But I would offer this.

If anyone else, if anyone else had offered this person, if any of them had offered this person up as a nominee to be the defense secretary, they'd never get passed. Go. It would never happen. It's only because he's Donald Trump's nominee.

So you're the one who has served. So what is the, what is, what do you worry about with him as defense secretary? What concerns you? Well, I think given the background that he, you know, has left himself exposed and potentially in the future could be exposed again.

I mean, he is frail. I think he's a liability. I don't think he's a leader. He's waiting to happen.

There's notion our idea in terms of abuse of drinking. Does that end all of a sudden? I don't think it does. He's promising one another.

He's not going to help to get through that. Let me ask you, Francesca, because some things have struck us. He dodged questions on ignoring the orders from Donald Trump about mass, about using the military to carry out mass deportations about possibly invading Greenland. He also had an exchange with Angus King.

Listen to this one. We fight enemies also, as our generation understands. They play by no rules. They use civilians as human shields.

So are you saying? They target when they show the genetic defense. We don't do that. Not the answer.

We follow rules. But we don't need burdensome rules of engagement that make it impossible for us to win these wars. We follow rules, but we don't have to follow the rules in all cases. Is that correct?

Senator, I'm making an important tactical distinction that warfighters will understand. But an American first national security policy is not going to do is hand its prerogatives over to international bodies that make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield. Sometimes the non-answers, the deflecting, I guess, was his effective means of sort of avoiding that back and forth. I mean, that's pretty typical though in confirmation hearings regardless of who it is, right?

You know what I mean? It seems like he did it pretty well. I think people would agree in spite of them maybe disagreeing with his answers. But what's interesting though about that last answer though is he gave a look inside of what we expect a Trump foreign policy to be, which is unlike Joe Biden, he will not rely on these multilateral institutions like the United Nations.

He's made threats against US allies, said that NATO needs to pay more for its defense. So I think what he is describing there in the latter part of that answer though is what we can expect broadly from the Trump administration. Let me ask you if I can't really quickly. Do you think, Matt, that there's anybody else on that list of nominees who may get knocked down the same way Matt case did?

Knockdown? No, but the one that could be at least a washable confirmation hearing would be Tulsi Gabbard and RFK coming up. I just think as of right now, I think I've ever seen people get through, but at least they'll be interesting. Joe, let me ask you to change your gears quickly to the fires in California.

Republican members of Congress are pushing for a strings attached aid package. We heard from Speaker Johnson saying there need to be conditions here. You were in Congress during Hurricane Sandy, plenty of other disasters. I'm sure your reaction to that idea of aid with conditions.

I think it's I was there for 9-11 as well. You know, man made disasters and there were no strings attached. There was some discussion that never happened. So why?

Why did it not happen? You know, so why are they proposing? I think they look at this as an opportunity to score political points. They see the vulnerabilities of both the mayor and other governor.

The mayor have been out of the country during this time. Mayor Bass, a great friend of mine, a great wonderful woman. And the governor, in terms of the back and forth between he and Trump, I think when the governor was inviting Trump to the scene, don't be calling Johnson outside the state. Give me a new checkup when I have to see him when I'm dealing with.

I thought that was very good. But you know, this is really typical Trump. And to see all Republicans just get on the bandwagon. What happens next time a hurricane hits Louisiana?

Do you ever have to control me? So you can that? Okay. How would you are?

You cannot build in six miles of the shore. How are there constituents? I've got to feel about that if you want money back. If you want to get money from the floor.

Not for nothing. The celebrity's got a lot of attention here. But there are tons of people there who do not have the celebrity. And they're the ones who are as impacted as anybody here.

Matt, is this is a trial balloon. I don't see what the conditions are. But candidly, I don't really feel the need to suddenly be holier than that when it comes when playing games last fall during the hurricane with Ron DeSantis. And also, I looked it up the other day.

Gavin Newsom is tweeting attacking Marshall Blackburn and Florida gun around DeSantis during mass shooting events. God forbid. So this whole notion they found Jesus on politicizing national zest or horrible events. I used to know something before candidly.

Okay. I'll have to follow up. I don't know the specifics of the Blackburn situation and others. But we'll check into that.

Francesca Joe. Nice to see you. Matt always appreciate your being here as well. And still the kind of future of U.S.

Canada relations is major leadership shakeups and potential trade war looms for both nations and the rest of the world. Welcome back into his confirmation hearing today. Pete Haggspeth, President-elect Trump's pick for Defense Secretary, refused to say whether he would carry out an order from President Trump to seize Greenland or to take over the Panama Canal. We do expect similar questions about Trump's foreign policy and his desire for territorial expansion tomorrow.

That's when Trump's pick to lead the State Department Senator Marco Rubio will appear before his colleagues for his confirmation hearing. Recently, Chris and Welker spoke to the premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, and began by asking him about Trump's threats to impose 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and the use of economic force to make Canada the 51st state and whether he's taking those threats seriously. I have to take these threats seriously when the President or President-elect Trump says something. It's really concerning.

I have a different approach. Why don't we work together, build two greatest countries in the world, make us the most prosperous, the richest, the wealthiest and safest countries in the world. We have a lot of sectors that we can support the U.S. and we do on a daily basis.

I just think we're stronger together and that's the message we're sending across the U.S. Prime Minister Trudeau has said that there is no way that Canada would ever become the 51st state. Do you agree with the outgoing Prime Minister? I do agree with the outgoing Prime Minister and I think everyone feels that way for the most part in Canada.

But there's a real opportunity on a trade deal working together, making us stronger. A lot of products that are coming from China bring them back to the U.S. and Canada must create strong, good American jobs. That's what I believe in.

Chris, I spent 20 years of my life in our Chicago facility and our New Jersey facility. I love the U.S. I absolutely love the Americans and I know they love us too. I've talked to endless governors and senators and congresspeople from both sides of the island.

No one's saying what the president's saying. So I'm concerned why he's ratcheted it up over the last couple of days. And you talk about potentially renegotiating a trade deal. It is possible that President-elect Trump is using the threat of tariffs as a bargaining chip.

Now, according to the CBC, of course, the broadcast network in Canada, senior officials in Ottawa are considering putting retaliatory tariffs if Trump does move forward with imposing them on steel products produced in Michigan and Pennsylvania and orange juice from Florida as a way to send a message to Trump. Do you believe that officials in Canada will target those states that also happen to be critical to Republicans? You know, that's the last thing I'd want to do, but if we get faced at 25% tariffs, we have no choice. And no one wins in these tariffs, no one wins in these trade wars.

The only people that win is China. They're the only people that win. Not Americans, not Canadians, though. You know, let's hope that doesn't happen.

Let me shift gears a little bit. You've announced you're going to be leading a delegation of Canadian premiers to Washington next month. What do you hope to achieve and what is your message to lawmakers in Congress and, frankly, the American public about this potential trade war? Really didn't inform the American public.

We're running ads. We're hitting over 100 million Americans every day with our positive ads, working together. What we have to offer for the US, a matter of its energy or, you know, critical flows, rarer minerals, and there's many different areas, but that's what we're focusing on. And, of course, the United States, the rest of the world is gearing up for the second Trump administration.

What did you learn from the first Trump administration that you think will inform how you approach a relationship to Donald Trump in the second administration? Well, I was part of the last trade deal with our federal government with Bob Lighthizer. You use a good man, very honest and straightforward. We'd want that same relationship.

Again, we're stronger together. When all that breaks loose and God forbid it ever happened, you're standing by the US's side. It's Canada and vice versa in the US as well. Let me ask you about something that is happening in Canada.

The turmoil after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he plans to step down. How much do you think President-elect Trump has America first policies will influence whoever Canada chooses to be? It's next leader. I don't believe too much at all, really.

I know he didn't see eye to eye with Prime Minister Trudeau. That's fine. Prime Minister Trudeau lost confidence within his own party. He's had a step away.

Now it's a new chapter. Let's move forward on a real positive approach. I can tell you, Ontario, we're the third largest trading partner in the world, just Ontario alone. We're the number one customer to 17 states, the number one export destination, number two to 11 others.

9 million Americans wake up every morning to produce products just for Ontario alone, not even the rest of the country. Again, we love our American friends. We love the U.S. and let's build Amcan Fortress, as I say, American Canadian Fortress, and we're more unstoppable around the world economically.

We do that. I have to ask you about NATO. Of course, it has been in focus, particularly in the wake of Russia's war against Ukraine. President-elect Trump suggesting that NATO countries should spend 5% of their GDP on defense.

Now we should note that the U.S. does not contribute that level, but the NATO Secretary-General has suggested allies do need to contribute more. So just broadly speaking, is President-elect Trump right here? 2% is a 2% NATO commitment.

All the premiers and for the listeners, that's equal to the governor. So we have all the premiers on the side really pushing the federal government to make sure we meet the 2% NATO commitment. We also truly believe we need to tighten up the borders on both sides of the border, not just ones, but both sides, and we're doing it. We're getting it done in a more secure border.

Thanks to Ontario Premier, Doug Ford. We're going to be back tomorrow with more of the press now, but before we go, we do have a special programming announcement. We will have live coverage of President Biden's farewell address. Tomorrow night, it's at 8 o'clock Eastern right here on NBC News.

Now, the news continues with my colleague, Holly Chas.