Meet the Press NOW – January 22

If it's Wednesday, new details emerge surrounding President Trump's 11th hour decision to issue sweeping pardons for all January 6th defendants, including violent offenders on day one, as the President and his allies in Congress defend the controversial move. Plus, the White House says they're set to deploy about 1,500 more active duty troops to the southern border as the Trump administration beats up border enforcement and threatens to prosecute legal officials who get in their way. And the debate over disaster relief is heating up on Capitol Hill as Republican leaders push for conditioning federal aid to California in the middle of an historic wildfire emergency and massive recovery operation. Welcome to be the press now.

I'm Garrett Hake in Washington, where President Trump is full steam ahead with his sweeping second term agenda as he defends part of violent genocide. January 6th rioters deploys troops to the southern border and takes new steps to reshape the federal workforce in his image. It comes as we're learning new details about the president's last minute decision to pardon virtually every person charged in connection with the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the decision that was made just days before the inauguration, according to two officials who worked on Trump's transition, surprising even some of his own aides. The move came after Trump himself publicly indicated he wasn't going to pardon violent rioters, telling the press last month that he would issue pardons on a case by case basis.

The White House yesterday my colleague Peter Alexander pressed the president on his decision. You would agree that it's never acceptable to assault a police officer. So then if I can. Among those who pardon DJ Rodriguez, he drove a stun gun in the neck of a D.C.

police officer who was abducted by the mob that day. He later confessed on video to the FBI and pleaded guilty for his crimes. Why does he deserve a pardon? Well, I don't know.

Is it a pardon me? Because we're looking at commutes and we're looking at pardons. Okay, well, we'll take a look at these. People have already served a long period of time and I made a decision to give a pardon.

Joe Biden gave a pardon yesterday to a lot of criminals. These are criminals that he gave a pardon to. Your president, who has long said that you backed the blue. But are you sending the message that assaulting officers is okay with these pardons?

No, the opposite. Today on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Mike Johnson defended President Trump's pardon authority while also criticizing former President Biden's pardons for members of his family during his final minutes in office. The president has the pardon and computation authority. It's his decision.

And I think what was made clear along is that peaceful protests and people engage in that should never be punished. It was a weaponization of the Justice Department. The president made his decision. I was going to guess those.

And yes, you know, it's kind of my ethos, my worldview. We believe in redemption. It was shocking. I mean, it was, it was shocking what President Biden did on the way out, pardoning his family for more than a decade of whatever activity, any nonviolent offenses.

It was breathtaking to us. It is disgusting to us. It probably proves the point, the suspicion that, you know, they called the Biden crime family. If they weren't the crime family, why do they need pardons?

Right? Today, President Trump is also plowing ahead another key campaign promise, his immigration agenda. The White House press secretary saying moments ago that the administration is planning to send approximately 1500 additional active duty troops to the US southern border. To what is still unclear.

President Trump is also making notable changes to the federal workforce. In a memo from the Office of Personnel Management, the administration has ordered all departments and agencies to place employees in DEI roles on paid leave no later than 5 o' clock today and to come up with a plan to potentially fire those employees. Additionally, the president has fired four top officials who oversee U.S. immigration courts.

He's fired, they had the Coast Guard. He's asked several career foreign service diplomats to step back from senior positions, and he's removed or reassigned career DOJ officials in the National Security Division. The president also made other government workforce moves on day one, including implementing hiring freeze, mandating return to office, and making it easier to fire federal employees. All these moves by the president facing little in the way of actual pushback from Congress as the new administration looks to move quickly to implement its agenda.

Joining me now is NBC News senior White House correspondent Kelly o'. Donnell. And NBC News justice reporter Ryan Reilly is with me here on set. Kelly, what else stood out to you from those lengthy remarks from the president yesterday defending these pardons?

Part of what is striking is that the president has apparently linked so many of his actions with respect to pardons to none of the things we are traditionally looking for in pardons, and that often has been rehabilitation of the person who was convict it, contrition on their part. Was there a specific action by the judicial process that needs to be addressed instead of those kinds of things? He talked about broad weaponization, did not seem familiar with the specifics of the cases. And because there are 1500 of them, that might be a reasonable thing he talked about.

We could look at it even though the power to offer commutation and pardon is absolute. So there's no going back and undoing a specific case if he were to somehow review that. And a lot of what he has talked about is how these cases, whether it's the January 6th pardons that he has granted, the commutations there, or that of the, the darknet drug kingpin Russell Ulbricht, that these are people who have some connection to supporting him. And he's talked about that with the darknet silver road kingpin, if you can use that term, cocaine, heroin trafficking and so forth.

It's about his libertarian cause and the support among people in that community and the crypto community that he has a tie to as well with the January 6th that has been a politically intensified part of the culture. And even as members of Congress talk about not wanting to see violent offenders, they talk about due process. Well, the cases did go through due process and obviously peaceful protesters might have had a trespass conviction. But that's not the bulk of what people are talking about here.

They're talking about violent acts, damage to the Capitol and trying to obstruct official acts. So the president's view of what a pardon is for is somewhat different than we've seen over time. I think that's definitely becoming clear. And Ryan, you've covered so many of these cases for so long.

What's the reaction been from all sides to this decision by the president? Yeah, I think you've seen some Democrats without statements. I'm not just taking them like 24 hours to put out a statement on this. But you know, you've seen some defense from, you know, from Mike Johnson I think for speaking M.

Johnson, comparing that to the Biden sort of, you know, what about the Biden pardons? And you know, someone have to fact check me on this. I don't know if any members of the Biden family drove a stun gun into a cops neck of the Capitol. Right.

So I think that's sort of what you have to look at here is one of the facts of these cases, what has been proven in court because we see a lot of political error coming from Capitol Hill. But the facts of these cases are extraordinarily clear and beyond any reasonable doubt. And that's why judges of both parties convicted these individuals because the evidence was just so completely overwhelming. You can interview the NFL fans, switch around and look at these.

This is a really, this crime is captured on camera from every different angle. You can look at that and see that and see what the evidence is. And it's not just the people who are at the Capitol, but we're also seeing pardons for some of these figures who were behind scenes players like Rita Tario. We have new video of him returning to Miami.

What happens to him now? What happens to these militias, the proud boys, the Oath Keepers that are kind of dormant and now have their leadership back if they want them? I suppose. Yeah, it's a great question.

He's been on a little bit of sabbatical there, right. Because he's coming back now. He's going to be taking charge of this organization. And the real question is, you know, with someone like Cash Patel coming into the FBI, they're going to be very worried about, you know, the FBI really looking into them.

Because imagine working at the FBI and there was just this message sent that all this political violence at Capitol is okay. We're not caring about that. We're not going to arrest these 200 people who we have. Because I think that's one thing that people don't recognize necessarily.

There's a 400 people who are pardoned who are already guilty of attacking officers or very serious felonies. Those are sort of the, you know, 400, I think most people who are focused on. But then there's 200 other people, the young ones who's already identified the FBI have those names in their possession right now. They could charge them, they're still here, left in the statue of limitations.

But now you're saying now what? The FBI is going to sit on their hands and cross the stone on their hands and not vindicate those victims who were assaulted by those people straight up, get away with it. This is maybe a technical question, but the nature of these pardons are for the actions on January 6th. There are cases, for example, where you had a January 6th riot who was convicted of trying to kill FBI agents later.

Something like that's not pardon for those additional crimes. Right. There's an extremely narrow category, you know, 1500 pardons. That's huge.

And a lot of these people committed other crimes that this doesn't really apply to. But that's the narrow set of categories that people are still being held today. There's one individual who threw a explosive license into the tunnel where some of the officers were victimized that day, who then was charged with a gun charge afterwards because, oh, you know, they searched his house. Right.

So there are these sort of add on charges that might be at play, but that's such a tiny category you're talking about maybe, you know, a dozen or so people, including that individual who plotted to murder the FBI, was convicted by a D.C. jury, jury, jury all the way over Tennessee that looked at that evidence, sworn off look at the evidence and said this man is guilty of plotting to kill FBI, especially to investigate. Ron. Thank you all for your reporting on this.

We've clearly not talked about this for the last time. I'm just going to continue to destroy Rhyme Raleigh injustice. Speed Kelly, I want to come back to you for just a second because there are so many other layers to all this. The Trump administration also has ordered all federal employees in DEI roles, something that I don't think they clearly define necessarily be placed on leave.

Do you have any sense yet of who all could be swept up by this, how many people we're talking about and where this fits in terms of culture war agenda? Well, on the culture war piece, he is arguing that he wants to restore merit based opportunities for hiring the federal workforce. And he believes that diversity, equity and inclusion programs somehow are not along the lines of merit and have been unfair. And so he wants to root those out.

You're right about the question of how many people. In some cases, there are specific programs in federal agencies that have been formally attached to that concept of trying to make certain that there is opportunity in the workforce and trying to have programs tailored to those who've been underrepresented. Those kinds of programs may be easier to spot. So any unit that is directly attached to that kind of work is included in this.

But they're also looking for ways that those kinds of themes might have been employed in other parts of the workforce. And so they're kind of casting a net to try to figure out where that is. They also want to know if there were any efforts to shield some of those programs with a different name or in some other way in order to keep them going. So they're really trying to root out the obvious and then the less obvious along these lines, believing that they want only merit based.

Now, these employees who are affected by this will be paid, but their work is cut off, no email, no access to the office and so forth for some period of time. And then ultimately, because of protections for the civilian workforce, they may have other opportunities for employment in the federal government. Some may just choose to walk away. And that's part of what we're seeing as well, is trying to put pressure on federal workers who don't have the same ideas as the Trump administration.

Some will find new homes, others will simply be out And Kelly, it's pretty clear that the president is forging ahead of this agenda with basically no guardrails, in part because he doesn't have to face the voters again. But his Republican allies will, especially in the House and especially some of the folks who met with him today. These House members who were Republicans represent Kamala Harris districts. Do we have any idea what came out of that meeting and what these groups, those members and Donald Trump want from each other?

Well, that is the distinction that is so clear and so telling about Donald Trump, who now knows more about the office, does not want to be constrained by the typical rules and won't have to face voters again. So he's plowing ahead. Take him with taking with him are these other elected representatives who do have to face the voters and have to answer for these things. And the new practice in Washington is, at least in these early days, asking all of these members do they agree or not agree on how do they respond to the actions of the president when he's forging ahead.

So this puts pressure on them and at the same time they have to try to find a way to not get sideways with the president. Clearly that's treacherous terrain, but to also talk about how things might be different in individual cases and how it's reflected in their own home districts. And so that will be an ongoing challenge. There's some careful walking on those kinds of issues here.

Definitely with a majority of this small, every single one of those members is a majority maker and has a little more pole than they might have otherwise. Kelly o', Donnell, thank you for that reporting. And as I mentioned, the Trump administration is planning to send about 1,500 additional active duty troops to the southern border, according to senior White House official, although the exact details of their deployment remain unknown. That comes as Trump's Justice Department is also making immigration enforcement one of the department's top priorities.

A new memo from the acting attorney general instructs federal prosecutors to investigate any state or local official who resists or obstructs the of federal immigration laws. NBC News homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley joins me now. Julia, you're busy. I know you already are.

Hopefully you can answer this question. Do we know what these additional troops will be doing at the border or what they can't do? We know what they can't do. At least what the Constitution says they can't do.

We'll see if. Right. Exactly. If Trump tries to push that at all.

But they should be there to. It's they've done the pass. They did in the first Trump administration, they can build barriers, they can help put wire over the border wall. They can transport migrants from one place to another, which is actually a really important job if you're trying to increase deportation.

And then they can also just help in any kind of anything that doesn't include arresting migrants, because that would be violating pasi comitatus. That's something in the Constitution that precludes the military from enforcing domestic law within U.S. boundaries. And so that is their limit, but they could go pretty far.

The other way the military could be instrumental at the border is that they can give some land. If Trump is going to try to detain every migrant who crosses, as he said executive orders today that he will, and he's going to try to drastically increase deportation since he has some place to hold these people. If they can use military land and use military personnel there, that could be helpful for him. Talking about this DOJ memo, is this a dramatic change in policy and posture, or is this the Trump administration just trying to put voice to an idea of the Trump campaign?

It's dramatic, but it's not surprising. I would say we were reporting on this shortly after the election because we knew this was a big plan of the transition. They want to restrict federal funding for many sanctuary cities, and they want to be able to actually prosecute any state and local police or officials that they think get in their way. It really mischaractizes what a sanctuary city is, though.

All that means is that if a cop encounters an undocumented person, it'll call up ICE to come pick them up and deport them. It never has meant that they're standing in front of doorways and keeping ICE from making arrests. So what kind of charges would we be looking at? Are you an accessory to an undocumented person's entry?

I mean, I can't get there. Yeah. I mean, look, they could do it in a number of ways. They could also look at any kind of local official that's giving out aid, you know, as some states have done, so they don't have microbes sleeping on their streets.

They could see that as something that counters the mission of ice. We're at this phase, and I can remember it in 2017, in January, where Trump is putting out these really vague executive orders. The latest one he just sent out was suspend physical entry of all aliens crossing the border. What does that mean in practice?

Border Patrol has a kind of that says what they're supposed to do with that. So we're getting a lot of these broad parameters the structure. But the ME on the boat hasn't quite become clear yet. Can we go a little deeper on that?

Because to me, isn't that the job of the Border Patrol anyway? I mean, is this just Trump again trying to sort of get credit for telling these agencies to go do their jobs? Right. They already arrest people who cross illegally if they spot them and can arrest them.

And we just heard from Carol Levin who was on FOX a few minutes ago, who really didn't add a whole lot more detail to this. Anyway, she just said this is Trump making it on his promise? No, no one should be thinking about coming to the border. But there's some language in there, Gary, that could be interpreted and taken really far.

It says the Department of Homeland Security, justice and State can do anything in their power to repel migrants. I mean, are we talking about famous separation again, there are a lot of questions about what this can lead to and does it allow for kind of some rogue actors to take matters into their own hands or are they going to give really specific advice? And yes, currently asylum at this other border is already almost impossible to come from. Come by if you cross the legally.

We'll find out more and hopefully soon from your good reporting, Julia Ainsley, thank you. And coming up, I'll talk to a House Democrat about his party's divide over how to handle the president's actions on immigration. Plus, the debate brewing in Congress right now over federal wildfire relief as Republican leaders look to tie conditions to disaster aid. That's next.

You're WATCHING ME the press now. You're looking at live pictures of a new wildfire that's broken out in Los Angeles county today. The Hughes fire, which is in a relatively unpopulated area, has already burned more than 5,000 acres north of Santa Clarita and is 0% contained. On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, Speaker Mike Johnson spoke today about congressional action on forest management that could be coming in the wake of the fires.

And last night he explicitly said conditions could be attached to California federal aid. Yeah, we're talking about conditions to this disaster. There are natural disasters, but there are man made disasters as well. They made terrible decisions.

If there's culpability for what happened, there really needs to be conditions to follow that. A, it's not unprecedented, by the way, after Katrina and my staff, there are conditions placed upon the funds that happened after Hurricane Sandy up in the Northeast. So there's a tradition of doing this. And in California it certainly makes sense.

And joining me now is California Democratic Congressman Ami Berrah. Congressman, thank you for joining us. I just want to start with your reaction to Speaker Johnson. What do you know about these conditions that he may be looking at?

You know, when I think it's a dangerous precedent? If you're conditioned, hey, we're all Americans. Yeah. When Louisiana suffers a catastrophe or Bonsa, North Carolina, South Carolina, we shall come together as a nation and support those citizens that were affected.

What's happening in my home state in Southern California with these fires, this probably is the worst disaster that we've ever seen. Again, I wouldn't attach conditions. I just think it's a bad precedent. Is it a different story if the conditions are something like the fix our Forest act which you co sponsor or you know, we're gonna tie the debt ceiling as a way to get around.

But Republicans who don't want to vote for that ceiling, you know, if they tied to the debt ceiling, that is really heinous. And I certainly hope they don't go that route because I think the American public will see exactly what that is. I'll vote for the Pixar force that they did last time on, the co sponsor of it. It would not have prevented this fire, but it will hopefully help us manage force a little bit better, clear underbrush and prevent fires that we've seen in the past in California and across the West.

So. But that should be a condition of aid. As a country, we should come together when we see fellow citizens being challenged and help them, our viewers. We're continuing to look at live pictures of that fire, the Hughes fire, while you're talking.

Congressman, the President has some pretty strong feelings about all this. I want to play for you what he said last night about water in California. Los Angeles has massive amounts of water available to it. All they have to do is turn the valve.

So we're demanding that they turn the valve back toward Los Angeles. Right now. It's not even believable that they haven't done it. Just so you know, they have a valve and it turns like think of a sink, but multiply it times, many thousands of times the size of it, it's massive.

And you turn it back toward Los Angeles. Why aren't they doing it? Congressman, you're not from la. You're from further upstate, I guess where the valve is.

The President makes it sound like there's a very simple solution to California's water situation. What do you say? There is no simple solution. I do represent the Sacramento area.

We've got a water system that relies on a big snowpack in Sierra Nevadas. It Melts off slowly and then we can move water south both to our farmers, but also to Los Angeles. LA also depends on Colorado river water coming through there. So we know we've had massive droughts in the past and so forth.

No easy solution here. Certainly we should come up with longer term solutions that help us preserve water better, capture water when we have wet seasons and move that water. But there's no magic wand and no magic valve. Congressman, you're also member of the House Intelligence Committee.

We learned yesterday that this cyber review board that was investigating the so called salt typhoon hack for China has been disbanded. How much does this hurt our understanding of what was going on there and the fight against other hacks in the future? I mean, I certainly think we'll continue to do our work as the IC Committee and the Intelligence Committee, but the President has the right to do this. But I think it's a bad idea.

Right? This is a group that is looking at all these cyber threats, looking at ways to work with the private sector to enhance our cybersecurity and, you know, again, to wholesale get rid of all these boards. Makes us more vulnerable. And we know what China and others are already doing.

We talked about salt typing. They're hacking into our telecom system. So it's a bad idea. I think it makes us much more vulnerable.

Having a board that could just be cashiered by the stroke of a pen and make entire country much more vulnerable doesn't sound to me like the best way to investigate something that is so serious. Do you need to consider a more wholesale reform of how we look at these kinds of things to keep Americans safe? If the President decides this board's not doing this anymore, 100% right? Yeah.

We can't every four years go back and forth. We are in a long term competition with competitors and we've got to have a long term strategy. You know, whether it's talking about China, whether it's talking about Russia, whether it's talking about AI and cyber threats. And again, we can't go back and forth every four years.

We've got to come together as Democrats and Republicans. We have a long term strategy that's not partisan, but that's good for America. Punchable news this morning had some smart Republican, smart reporting about this divide in the Democratic Party on how to message on Trump's immigration plans. Right now, some people in the conference think Democrats are speaking out more against these crackdowns.

Others want to look like they're working together to sort of fight illegal immigration where it matters. Where do you stand on this issue. Is there kind of a Goldilocks response for Democrats, do you think? Yeah, I think there is.

So as someone who lived through the first Trump term, it was exhausting. You can't jump at everything. You have to get a sense of what he actually means. So if they really are targeting folks with criminal convictions, folks with existing deportation orders, I think it'd be very hard for Democrats to take a stance against that.

On the other hand, if they're sending ICE agents into schools, into churches, picking up, you know, folks that have not committed any crime, dreamers, things like that, I think you will see the party come together and push back. What do you think? This Justice Department memo basically suggesting that local officials could face criminal charges or criminal investigations if they stand in the way or don't support the actions that the Trump ICE will take. I think that's a real overreach.

I talk to my hometown sheriff and so forth. We have laws in California and we intend to uphold and honor those laws. I would think a better approach with ICE with the Trump administration is approach and partner with local communities. But again, keep it focused on folks with criminal convictions, folks with existing deportation orders, and again, you can probably find some agreement.

But you, if you're separating families, if you're going into schools, if you go into churches, again, that's a slippery slope. I think about your state where you've got so many needs right now, and the governor has been butting heads with Donald Trump, maybe Trump suggesting where I go after local officials. California really is kind of where the rubber meets the road between needs of millions of people and an administration that has its own goals. How do you work together with the Trump administration whose goals are so different when your needs are so great right now in the state of California?

Look, what I'd say is, yeah, not even meet us at the 50 yard line. We'll go to your 40 yard line, but don't go to the. Try to take us to the end zone. If we can meet at the 40 yard line, we can get things done that meet the mandate that the American people elected you with Mr.

Trump, we can get things done again. They want secure borders, great, we'll work with you. There's. They want to find folks with criminal convictions.

We'll work with you there. Deportation orders will work with you there. But don't go after kids, don't go after the dreamers. That isn't what they want the public wants you to do.

All right, Congressman Barry, we have to leave it there. Thank you very much. For your time. Thanks, Greg.

Be well. You, too. Up next, tech ties, the Elon Musk Factor. And what President Trump has not done in his first days back in office will take into the politics of it all.

Panel is next. You're watching MEET THE PRESS man. Welcome back. Through executive orders, President Trump has already delivered on some of his major campaign promises like overhauling immigration system and changing the makeup of the federal government.

But we haven't seen him yet lean into a promise that was front and center for millions of voters who elected he's vowed to tackle inflation and lower prices. In fact, the president appears to be downplaying the message voter sent in November on that issue. Here's what he told supporters of the Capitol following his inaugural address on Monday. They all said inflation was the number one issue.

I said I disagree. I think people coming into our country from prisons and from mental institutions is a bigger issue for the people that I know. And I made up my number where I talked about inflation, too. But you know, how many times can you say that an apple has doubled in cost?

I'd say it and I'd hit it hard. But then I go back to the fact that we don't want criminals coming into our country. Joining me now on set is Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for the New York Times. He's also an NBC News political analyst.

Ashanti Golar is a Democratic strategist and president of Emerge. And former Illinois Republican Congressman Rodney Davis. He's now the head of government affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce. Peter, also review, what do you make the president's comments there?

He said something similar to me back in New Hampshire when he was a candidate. He really thinks immigration was a bigger issue. But it's not clear the voters of this country are going to agree with at least maybe not for long if prices stay high. Well, the problem he has is that on both immigration and inflation, actually things were bad for quite a while under Biden.

By the time Biden left office, they'd gotten back down to normal levels. The border crossings at are now below where they were when Trump left office. Inflation back to its historical norms. So it's not like Trump can take immediate action to have progress.

He can show on that. Right. And actually dropping prices below it's really to stop inflation going higher, prices where they are. You're talking about deflation that leads recession.

That's not what he wants, obviously. So it's a real hard thing to show progress on. Democrats are saying, wait a minute, it's hard to stop inflation with A stroke of the pen. This is what we've been trying to tell you.

How do you take advantage of this money? What do you make of that? We continue to talk about it. The fact is, President Trump, he's benefiting from President Biden's really great economy and all the amazing things that he has done.

And we need to make sure that people know we still want to have a good economy. We still know that there are so many people who can't put food on the table. We have to work on that. So despite what President Trump is saying, wanting to deflect immigration, we know that a lot of Americans are struggling and we have to keep the focus on that.

I mean, how much room do you think Donald Trump's supporters and voters will give him on this question about prices and on the economy and doesn't matter, given that he's not going to face the voters again? Well, first off, like, I appreciate the comments from my friends here at the table, but that great Biden economy gave Donald Trump a landslide victory in a victory winning the popular vote, which many Americans did not expect, including me. Donald Trump supporters will give him the flexibility that he needs to be able to address the issues that are most important. Now, when you look at what he said about inflation and immigration, remember the number one issue that exit poll showed leaving election, leaving the polling booth on Election Day for those who supported President Trump was the economy.

And inflation wasn't just inflationary economic issues. The number two, a close number two was immigration. And don't underestimate the fact that many, many people who would have wanted to come to this country illegally were worried about coming because President Trump could win. He did win.

I think President Trump being on the ballot helped correct a lot of the issues at the southern border that President Biden was not willing to correct. We think about this accountability question, though, he's not going to be on the ballot again. But some of the folks, like a Don Bacon who we met with today, are, are they going to feel the pain if, you know, the economy question doesn't get answered to voters satisfaction? Well, of course, I mean, I can speak from experience.

The midterms are not fun. Your party controls all of the Houses, Senate and the White House. It is not fun, it is tough. And yes, Republicans will be held accountable.

However, let's not underestimate what President Trump did by doing something like the executive order on opening up the exports of liquid natural gas, liquefied natural gas. Exploring that, that helps us become energy independent. It helps lower the cost for every for everyday average Americans in I think there's an argument that if you're selling it abroad, you're not selling at home. That might not lower the cost directly.

But I want to move on a little bit. My job is the economy should become energy independent. We can't export and we should. And that's one of the reasons of the many reasons Joe Biden is not president anymore.

A chair position to be sure. Here. I want to talk about this accountability question a little bit more though, because here now you have a president who's basically not accountable to the legal system, won't be accountable to the voters again and has been given wide latitude by the rest of his party, at least for the time being. What are the guardrails around Donald Trump, if any at this moment?

Well, look, the guardrails are in the middle term elections for long. He's got two years. Right. And the Trump people know that.

They understand they got a short window of opportunity to get a lot of things done. That's why you see them with the shock and awe strategy. Flood the zone, get as much out there as they can because they know in two years the chances of having both houses in Congress not guaranteed. Right.

And begin to think about the next president out two years from now. He's more of a lame duck at that point. So that's, you know, he's got the, he's got time. That's his bar will in that sense.

And I think, look, he still reacts to public discussion of his issues, the media coverage of it. But you're right, obviously he does have both houses of congressman and the courts have been relatively sympathetic to him on at least some issues. But it may not be sympathetic on all issues. We were all struck by the way that Kevin Kramer talked about this question, accountability.

I want to play for something he said talking about the January six cards. We'll talk about on the other side. He got more votes, more like girl votes. People sworn in.

I was real. And so we just can't get over it. I didn't either. But they did.

They did. And so we're going to move forward with it. Johnny, what do you make of this argument, this acceptance from a Republican senator? Donald Trump won, so he's going to do stuff he don't like.

And what, there's nothing we can do about it? No, that's not it. That's not it at all. We still have to hold him accountable.

I am very proud of the fact that we do have Republicans and Democrats who are very upset about the pardons and this is something we knew was gonna happen, didn't expect it to happen so quickly, but he's doing that. Overreach. Yes, It's a shocking awe. He's doing things that we expected him to do, but people are fighting back and they're having that courage to call him out.

And that is something that we need to keep strong on for the next four years on both sides. I don't think this issue on pardons is going to go away anytime soon. You have the police officers who are attacked, who are speaking about it, the fact that they now want to get protection from these people who harm them. This is very serious.

You cannot say you are a law and order president when you are allowing yourself to pardon people who have done serious harm to law enforcement. We're seeing interesting things here because you have groups like the turn order of police condemning these pardons, but also condemning the pardons that President Biden chose to make on his way out the door. How problematic for Democrats are those actions of President Biden? In just the last day, Tim Kaine talked about the idea that we basically lost the high ground.

Is it hard to stand on the high ground and make a critique of Trump pardons on January 6th when President Biden is pardoning his own family members? Have the waters gotten too muddy to make that argument effectively for me? No. And I appreciate what Senator Kaine has said, but we need to focus on why did President Biden feel the need to make those burdens.

It was because he cannot expect that Donald Trump will not continue to attack him and his family. That is what it was about. So I definitely think that we do still have some moral high ground. You shouldn't have to worry about that when you're leaving office.

Is the next person coming in still wanting to make my life hard, my family's life hard to go after that? So he did what he did was best, and I respect President Biden for that. House Republicans are keen to conflate all of these things. I was struck here by Speaker Johnson saying yesterday, basically, we ready to move forward.

We're looking at the future. And then today announcing a new subcommittee that's going to continue to investigate January 2nd. What do you make of that? Yeah, well, obviously that's selective and it's all gonna be select.

But I think, to your point that the Biden parts undercut the Democratic argument. I think it's really hard for them to say pardon should be sackers saying, hey, look, they're always political. They've always been, you know, used by Presidents for, you know, political purposes. But to part your own family, six members of your own family is unprecedented.

And it just allows people to say, even if whatever the difference starts on the merits, it allows people to say, well, he did it, therefore. And I think that Democrats are feeling kind of upset at present. Biden. I've heard remarkably negative things about President Biden's in these offices, including people who work for him who feel like he kind of let them down.

Ronnie, on the, on the pardons, there are no takebacks. What's done is done. But the decision to continue investigating January 6th without House speaker, the elevation of some of these writers who've been pardoned by some House Republicans will keep this story alive. Is it a net positive for Republicans to continue talking about the events of January 6th beyond today?

I was in the Capitol on January 6th. I was evacuated off the floor. Helped carry one of my former colleagues, Ron R, who was receiving lung cancer treatments, down the stairs, got him to safety and everybody else, I abhor anything that happens to our law enforcement officers, especially the Capitol Police because it was two great Capitol Police officers that saved my life and my friends lives on a baseball field just a few short years before that. It's difficult for me to see what happened to them.

But as an original appointee of the January 6th elect committee before Speaker Pelosi did the unprecedented and wouldn't let our party pick our own members. We saw what happened with the 16 select committee and now you see the report. There are inaccuracies in the report. They accused Barry Loudermo, one of the chairs of the oversight process of this new, of this new part of the Judiciary Committee.

They accused him of taking people who reach the capital. Reconnaissance tours. That is an out and out falsehood, Lieutenant. And the Capitol Police have verified that.

So yes, things have to be done to make sure truth comes out. We cannot sit back as an institution and watch the and watch what has happened before and not ask questions about how do we put the Capitol the best security posture going into the future. All right, we gotta leave it there. There'll be lots more to discuss about this issue going forward and I'm glad to have you guys all with us here to talk about it today.

Thank you very much. And you're looking at live pictures of that new wildfire we've been monitoring in California, the Hughes fire that's just exploded in size from just a few hundred acres to more than 5,000. After the break, I'll talk to Los Angeles county official about the fire response and the Long road to recovery. That's next.

You're watching me depress now. Welcome back. Right now, cruiser battling a new wildfire burning in Los Angeles County. These are live pictures of the Hughes fire that we were showing you earlier in the hour.

It's burning in Los Angeles county north of Santa Clarita and has already burned more than 5,000 acres since it started earlier today. It comes as the two largest and most destructive wildfires in Los Angeles area also continue to burn, but they're largely contained. California officials have promised a quick rebuild for what could be the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history.

The questions still remain about how fast that process will be, who will pay for it, and where the thousands of residents who lost everything in the fires are supposed to go. And join me now is Los Angeles County Supervisor Katherine Barker. And Ms. Barker here at D.C.

people have been kind of tuned out a little bit, I think what's been going on in Los Angeles watching the inauguration in the last first few days of the Trump administration. First off, just tell us what's the latest and how are people doing now there? Well, you know, the latest is the good news is that it looks like we've got full containment on the Eden fire and also the Palisades. They made really strong movement.

The bad news is the devastation that's left is thousands, tens of thousands. Over 10,000 homes have been lost and an entire community has been annihilated. And so for us, getting the fires out is one part. But now we have to begin the rebuilding.

Well, as we get to part two, the rebuilding part, do you have any sense yet of how much assistance you'll think you will need from the federal government to start that rebuilding? Well, obviously, I mean, on the front with fema, we are looking for assistance that relates to the fighting of fire and then cleaning the debris. We've got the Army Corps of Engineers out here. I'm doing an assessment and getting ready to do debris removal.

Obviously, looking at how we rebuild, the community is going to take both local, state and federal partners to make it happen. And we're putting that piece together as it relates to what the needs are. But make no mistake, I mean, this is about a community that really wants to rebuild and is committed to a community. Altadena is part of the county of Los Angeles, unincorporated.

So it really is under the jurisdiction of the county. And I've made it my priority to work with each and every resident to make sure they have every opportunity to rebuild and rebuild in a way that's safe for the, for the area because we know it's a high fire area, but at the same time, it provides a family, you know, a home to live in the rest of their lives. As I'm sure you might imagine, federal officials have a lot of thoughts about this. I want to play for you what House Speaker Mike Johnson said this morning about federal assistance for the people affecting California.

They did not manage the forest as they were supposed to, and they let forest debris pile up near homes in at risk areas. All of this was known. They assumed the risk because they advanced their radical political agenda. And now people are paying a heavy price for that.

We think that needs to be taken into account going forward. But the bipartisan fix our Forest act will do what the governor of California would not do, and that is restore the health of our forest and make communities more resilient to wildfires. I'm curious what you make of his critique there specifically, but also more generally the idea of would you be willing to put conditions on to receive federal aid? Yeah, you know, I do support some of his comments because we know that there have been.

There's been a need to clean out the forest where especially we have a lot of dentries that, that are right for fires as it relates to what we've seen, you know, just over the years in terms of the fires that are forest. But what I've said to my colleagues who are now saying there's gonna be strings attached, whether it be this administration or the last administration, you don't get a blank check. There are always strings attached. I would expect no less.

And I, for one, you know, full disclosure, I'm a Republican on this board of Supervisors. But for me, it's not about political ideology. It's about doing this right for my constituents. And we have to work toward addressing what lessons we've learned, what can we do differently?

And that may mean looking at how we address the forest, how we address building in high fire zones. It's on the table. But again, strings attached, that's not uncommon. That was not uncommon with the past administration.

And I just don't want my constituents to get sucked up into this. This political garb of, you know, give and take and all that. I mean, I want to bring it home and get done. I want to go a little bit deeper because you've also talked about this idea that it'll take bold thinking to rebuild there.

What does bold thinking involve in the circumstance? It means bureaucracy, get out of the way. We are good about adding on requirements and what we believe is necessary for homeowners and yet in California, we know that the housing crisis here is real even before this fire. So we need to get out of the way and let people build, build in a way that is responsible, not compromising health and welfare at the same time.

Allow them to rebuild. And, you know, I've made that commitment to my commitment to my constituents. Rather than taking, you know, about six months to get approval, we should do that in six days. And that is something that I'm going to do.

This is my last term. My term is going to be about rebuilding, and I am going to take no hostages. You can move faster here. But if you're talking about not just rebuilding homes, but schools and grocery stores and post offices, whole communities, what is your sense of the timeline that we're really talking about here?

Well, we have the Armored Corps engineers out here, and I talked to Colonel this morning to ask him. He was in Lahaina, and I asked him how long it took and how long is it going to take? Because while we talk about, you know, phase one, phase two, my constituents want to know, how long is it going to take and best case scenario, 18 months to get the removal? I mean, worst case scenario, 18 months to get the removal.

But if we work together, we can do it in a quicker way. And my goal is to begin that process as soon as possible, especially given the fact that we know we've got rains coming, which brings a whole different set of problems as it relates to mudslides. And I want to avoid that at all cost. All right, Supervisor, Captain Barger, the country is watching and pulling for you.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. And Silicon a live report from Israel after the IDF launched what Prime Minister Netanyahu is calling an expansive military operation in the west bank and what the violence there could mean for the ceasefire with Hamas. Don't go anywhere.

You're watching me. The press now. Welcome back. And turning now to the Middle east, the temporary cease fire between Israel and Hamas is holding in Gaza.

The violence is intensifying in the West Bank. That's where the Israeli military is now conducting what it calls a significant operation aimed at defeating terrorism. According to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israeli tanks and armored bulldozers entered the city of Jenin yesterday, where the Palestinian Health Ministry says at least 10 people were killed and dozens and Israel's military said they killed 10 terrorists. The Israeli operation was launched today after President Trump revoked sanctions that the Biden administration had placed on extremist Israeli settlers in the west bank, even as dozens of those settlers, angry over The Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal attacked Palestinian homes on Monday night.

And joining now to latest from television, NBC News international correspondent Raf Sanchez. So, Raf, what do we know about these forces moving in and what's the impact been on civilians there in West Bank? So Garrett, as you know better than anybody, President Trump signed dozens of executive orders on Monday shortly after he took office. And as you said, one of those orders was revoking these sanctions the Biden administration had imposed on Israeli extremists in the West Bank.

Almost to the minute, at the exact same time those settlers were beginning to go on a rampage in the west bank. They were setting fire to Palestinian homes. The Israeli military says they actually attacked Israeli troops who tried to break up that riot. And the next morning, what you're seeing on your screen got underway.

Israeli forces moving into the city of Jenin in the West Bank. Now, this has long been a hotbed for militants, but I think it is probably no coincidence that just 48 hours or so after the cease fire deal, which is so unpopular with Prime Minister Netanyahu's right wing political base, many of whom are settlers in the west bank, that this operation began. It is a way for the Israeli government to signal to those constituents that even though the guns have gone quiet in Gaza, they are remaining tough with the Palestinians in the West Bank. And that operation in Jenin is ongoing for how long is it a tenable situation to have a military operation and a ceasefire in place at the same time?

That, yeah, it's a really good question. And a leading Israeli human rights group said yesterday flatly that this is not what a ceasefire looks like. And as you have increasing friction in the west bank, there is the danger of some kind of miscalculation, some kind of serious loss of life that potentially spills over into Gaza. In terms of the situation in Gaza, I think the phrase is so far so good.

We're four days into the ceasefire. Hundreds of those badly needed humanitarian aid trucks are making their way into the strip. Israeli forces and mosque fighters remain in close physical proximity, but they aren't exchanging fire. We saw those first Israeli hostages come out Sunday and we are expecting four more to come out this coming weekend.

RAF Israel's top general resigned this week over the security failures on October 7th. I think all the times I heard the prime minister say that sort of the accountability questions would come later. Are those questions being answered now for the Netanyahu administration? Administration, yeah, it's a really interesting development for Israel's most senior military leader to say, you know what, I'm taking responsibility for my part in the failure on October 7th.

And I'm stepping aside, obviously raises the question, will we see at any point any of Israel's political leaders, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, taking responsibility from their side? Netanyahu so far is resisting a 911 Commission style investigation into what went wrong on October 7th. Ross, appreciate all your reporting there. And we'll be back tomorrow with more MEET THE PRESS now.

And Chris will have a bipartisan interview with Congressman Mike Lawler, who was one of those three House Republicans who met with President Trump today, and Democratic Congresswoman Brittany Patterson. Don't miss that. The news continues with Hallie Jackson, Right? Yeah.

He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together. Then one night the Marine died.

And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Magowitz and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from Dayline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.