Meet the Press NOW — January 24

If it's Friday, President Trump is in route to Los Angeles to tour the aftermath of those historic wildfires after calling for abolishing FEMA while visiting Hurricane Ravage communities in North Carolina. Plus, President Trump's immigration crackdown is ramping up, and so is the fallout with ICE arrests taking place in cities across the country and military aircraft carrying out their first deportation flights. And President Trump expresses new uncertainty on whether Pete Haggseth, his nominee to run the Pentagon, will survive Senate confirmation just hours before tonight's final vote. Welcome to Meet the Press Now.

I'm Kristen Welker in Washington. Right now, President Trump is on his way to California after a visit to North Carolina as both states grapple with recovery from major natural disasters. It's President Trump's first trip outside of Washington since taking office as he continues to push the limits of his presidential authority and ramps up pressure on cities and states to comply with his agenda. In North Carolina, the President received an update on hurricane recovery efforts and preview the potential executive order that would overhaul or even get rid of FEMA.

I'll also be signing the executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA or maybe getting rid of FEMA. I think frankly FEMA is not good. FEMA has been a very big disappointment. They cost a tremendous amount of money.

It's very bureaucratic and it's very slow. The President also doubled down on his demand for conditions on federal disaster relief to California, suggesting the government withhold aid unless the state enacts a voter ID law. But as for North Carolina, a state Mr. Trump won in November, the President made no demand saying instead, quote, it's a different kind of thing, while also making a number of baseless claims about the crisis.

In California, I have a condition in California. We want them to have voter ID so that people have a voice because right now the people don't have a voice because you don't know who's voting and it's very corrupt. And we also want them to release the water. If they released the water, they wouldn't have had a problem.

If they released the water when I told them to, because I told them to do it seven years ago, if they would have done it, you wouldn't have had the problem that you might have, you might not have even had a fire. So, but here I don't have that, it's a different thing. This all comes as local communities are now feeling the impacts of President Trump's immigration crackdown. A senior administration official tells NBC News that ICE agents made 538 arrests yesterday, almost doubling the agency's average of 282 arrests a day in September of 2024.

The most recent month when data was available, those arrests took place in cities all across the country, Buffalo, Chicago, San Francisco, as well as New York, New Jersey. This new surveillance video obtained by WNBC shows ICE agents making an arrest after a workplace raid in Newark, officials in the city condemn the raid, calling it an egregious act. We believe that there were three people who they say were undocumented that they detained, but they also detained folks that were, in fact, citizens of this country. One person showed their military veteran identification and was still questioned anyway.

When I got this information, I was appalled, upset, angry, that this would happen here in this state, in this country, that this would be allowed. The minute we allow, the Constitution of the United States to be eroded, that becomes everybody's problem. It's a slippery slope, because today they'll go into a store and violate those people's rights without a warrant and go in the back and go people out of there tomorrow, they'll come to your house. Now, we're also getting these new images from the southern border where U.S.

troops have arrived to assist with deportation and detention efforts. The White House Press Secretary confirming in a post on X that deportation flights have also begun. The Guatemalan vice president's office confirming that at least one of those U.S. military planes transporting migrants did arrive in the country this morning.

Joining me now to start us off is our team of reporters, NBC News White House correspondent Von Hilliard, NBC News homeland security correspondent Julia Ainsley joins me on set, and NBC News senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez is in Newark, New Jersey, where multiple ice rates have taken place. Gabe, let me start with you, because you have some new information about these rates. What can you tell us? Hi there, Chris.

Yes, the New York's mayor. I just wrapped up in interview with him. And he does say that in addition to the roundup, you just mentioned here in Newark, the New York Snare, excuse me, says there were two additional operations today, we're still waiting to get more details on that. But Chris, this investigation is ongoing and local officials, as you just pointed out, they say they are appalled.

Now, the restaurant behind the employees, about 80 to 90 people each day, according to city officials, they say that three undocumented immigrants, who I say are undocumented immigrants, were arrested yesterday. So a lot of questions about exactly what happened here. But ICE is responding and saying that, you know, in the course of these operations, they sometimes do run into citizens and do request documentation. And the whether what you call it is actually a big part of this question.

ICE does not call this a raid or a roundup. They refer to it as a targeted workplace operation, city officials here, though, say that this was a raid and that these agents walked in here, kicked down some bathroom doors, and in their words, terrified the community. Great. Well, Gabe, you talk about city officials and we heard some of the outrage from city officials there in the sound at the top of this segment.

I'm wondering, is there anything, are there any steps that they are taking to try to prevent these types of workplace incidents from happening, whether you want to call them that, whether you want to call them raids? Is there any action being taken? Well, local officials say they're trying to inform the public about this, but you'll remember, Kristin, that's a very touchy subject, especially when Tom Homan, President Trump's borders are, had said that he would prosecute local or state officials that tried to impede ICE in any way. I asked the mayor whether he planned to use city resources to do that.

He didn't say he would, of course, that would be, you know, be a showdown exactly with the Trump administration. And that's something that Newark's mayor didn't say he wanted to do. So what he's saying is that he wants to protect this community. It remains unclear how this will play out in cities across the country, as he suggests, that now ICE is ramping up this, this enforcement and the numbers are up, at least in the last few days when compared to just several months ago, Kristin.

Well, and following up on that point, how does this tactic that we're seeing going into workplaces, for example, compared to what we've seen in previous administrations? And that's so interesting. So you just showed that video just a little bit ago of these migrants getting onto military aircraft. That is something that we really had not seen before.

Now, we should point out that Biden administration did do a lot of deportations. They actually ramped them up the further they got into their administration, but they were taken away in chartered flights. Now the military is taking an active role in this. And as you mentioned, Guatemalan authorities say they received two planes just this morning.

So in terms of the numbers, we just put those on the screen. Look, the Trump administration wants the public to think that these enforcement operations just began after he took office. That's not correct. That's not correct, because the Biden administration did.

We were just in a couple of weeks ago, we were in Boston, where the ICE took us along and showed us some of these targeted enforcement operations. What's different this time is that it appears that they are arresting more people per day. They're really highlighting the numbers day by day. And also the workplace part of this is that they're going into workplaces, not just homes and that has a lot of officials in cities like this concerned.

Thank you, Gutierrez. Thanks for bringing that new reporting to us. We really appreciate it. Let me turn to Julia now who's here with me on centrally.

Thanks so much for being here. I really appreciate it. So basically, we are seeing an expansion of these deportation efforts and you actually have new reporting as well about the Trump administration moving to remove people who were here legally under the Biden administration. Tell us about that.

That's right. This is something we actually heard that they were working on during the transition. There were a lot of plans they drew up. Some of them they were able to execute right when they came in.

Some are going to take a little more funding, a little more time. This is the end of a parole program. That's something the Biden administration granted in a number of cases. People from Ukraine, people from Afghanistan.

For the most people though, there were people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The Biden administration allowed them to apply legally from their home countries if they had a US-based sponsor. And when they did that, those nationalities arriving at the southern border, that dropped by 98%. So they saw that as a success.

Trump, another said, look, that is the Biden administration flying in undocumented immigrants in the dead of night and allowing them to stay, seeing that very differently. So this has been a population he's wanted to target. And in day one, he undid parole. They said they would do parole on a case by case basis, which takes away the legal right for those people to live and work here.

And now we understand that ICE is actually telling its agents that they could put these people on the fast track for deportation. It's called expedited removal. It means you don't get the chance to go before a judge and plead your case for asylum. And for a lot of these people, they didn't go on the path for asylum because they thought they had two years to do it.

They thought they came to legal way. They applied. The United States let them in. But now the rug is being pulled out and ICE is actually going to start targeting some of these people because now they see it as low hanging fruit.

Don't forget, they gave all their information to the US government. Wow, that is a very stark difference from what we saw with the previous administration. Let's talk about the pace because obviously President Trump wants to show he said in the ground running that he's really moving forward with these plans for mass deportation. Do you think it's realistic to continue to keep up with this pace that we're seeing this week in these recent days?

Or are you anticipating it's going to peter out in the next few weeks? I actually imagine we're going to see more in the next week just based on what I'm hearing, kind of the way that they've put the chess pieces on the board, so to speak right now, he's using the military. He's just engaged other parts of DOJ. The question is, what will this look like in March or April?

As I understand it, most of these people who are being arrested now, those who had a criminal records that were on ICE's list to be arrested, as Gabe pointed out, he and I have both been out to see them do those operations before, but as I understand they took what they would have done over a month or two and have squeezed it into a week. And so we're going to see more of those next week, but eventually these cities are going to start to get to the end of their list of these high-value targets, people who they think are threats to public safety, and then ICE will run out of space to keep them before they can deport them. Even if they have military planes, a lot of these people are from countries that won't take them back. So then it will come down to people like Marco Rubio who can negotiate use diplomatic pressure to try to get these countries to take people back.

Otherwise, you have millions of people in detention, but nowhere to go. Wow. Okay. Well, they've been saying all along, it's incredibly complex and complicated and expensive.

So the action is also going to move to Congress. Julia Ainsley, you've been out front on all of this. So thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.

Juan, let me turn to you. And of course, separate from this immigration crackdown today, we've heard a lot from President Trump, including traveling to North Carolina, floating the idea of eliminating FEMA. What can you tell us about this and what's the reaction been so far? Right.

Number one, Chris, I mean, some basic facts around FEMA is, number one, they're not ever the ones that take the lead on disaster relief. It is states and governors that are the ones that ultimately oversee the operations, whether it's a hurricane, a wildfire, or a tornado disaster. And where FEMA comes in is at the request of governors who seek federal support. That is when FEMA steps in to provide the logistical efforts to back up the state and local efforts.

And then there are the situations where President can declare a national emergency. And that is when FEMA can come in here as well. And what you heard from President Trump today was the suggestion that FEMA, in one situation, that funds should be bypassed through FEMA and instead go straight to the states, but that comes into the question of whether it's a matter of resources or personnel for states and what those additional funds would be able to do as opposed to the actual personnel resources that FEMA is able to offer. The second part of his statement today was that FEMA may be should be done away with altogether, which would come back to the same conversation we've had about the Department of Education and other agencies that it would require Congress reauthorizing the Presidential Reorganization Act to ultimately either do away with any agencies or to restructure them, including FEMA.

The last time that was done was back in Ronald Reagan's tenure, President Obama tried to do it in 2012, but Congress didn't ultimately approve or give him that authority. So there's a lot of questions we haven't heard from Republicans on Capitol Hill, whether they would support that. So today is visiting these disaster zones, but also a lot of political questions that he can bring back to Washington. All right, fine.

Hill, you're watching. All of it for us. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

And coming up, Congress compromised and the cost of President Trump's sweeping agenda. The top Democratic House Budget Committee will join me on set with his reaction to the President's first days back in office and the looming debt ceiling debate facing Capitol Hill, plus multiple federal agencies from national parks to the National Institute of Health are already feeling the impacts of Trump's executive orders and actions will dig into the political and practical fallout of all of it. Stay with us. You're watching.

Welcome back. Turning to Capitol Hill now and a looming math problem for congressional Republicans, among the launching list of priorities for Speaker Johnson and Majority Leader Thune, is raising the debt limit, something that's much easier said than done with their slim and Jordanis in Congress and with a sizable chunk of the Republican conference ideologically opposed to raising the debt limit. According to my colleague, Bridget Bowman, 12 current Senate Republicans and 49 House Republicans have never voted for a law raising the debt limit. That's more than one-fifth of each conference.

That means raising the debt limit will require buy-in from congressional Democrats who may have a rare moment of leverage. Joining me to discuss all of this is Pennsylvania Democratic Congress and Brendan Boyle. He is the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. Congressman, thanks for being here.

Hey, great to be with you. So I'm going to get to that in one minute, but I do want to get your reaction to the comments we heard from President Trump today floating that maybe he wants to get rid of FEMA. What was your reaction to hearing that? Do you think that that's realistic?

What do you think the impact would be? No, it's completely unrealistic. But if it were to happen, which by the way, he can't do by executive order, this is created by an act of Congress, so he cannot suddenly just have a whim on a random Friday and get rid of an entire government agency. But if somehow FEMA was done away with, then what he's saying is every state you're on your own, that instead of adhering to the national compact that we're Americans first, that if there's a hurricane in Florida or wildfire in California, I as a Pennsylvania care about it and committed to helping my fellow citizens, what Donald Trump is saying each state is on its own.

That sounds more like the Articles of Confederation than actually the United States of America as it has existed for over two centuries. All right. We'll watch closely to see what happens there. I do want to turn now to the debt limit and this disaster relief funding.

When I interviewed House Speaker Mike Johnson this past weekend, he said that yes, there will likely need to be strings attached to disaster relief for California, floated the idea of linking it to the debt limit. It will require a Democratic buy and have you heard from Speaker Johnson from Republicans? Are they trying to loop you in on this process? That's really funny.

When Florida needed relief recently because of the hurricanes, we didn't condition the aid. When Texas had all of their natural disasters in recent years, we didn't condition that aid. We didn't condition aid to North Carolina and the other places that were affected by the recent storm some months ago. The idea that for the first time ever in American history, we would condition aid just because certain Republicans and the President don't like the Democratic leanings politically of California.

That is both wrong and dangerous. That would create a dangerous new precedent that wouldn't just impact California. It would impact future states as well when they have natural disasters. Have you heard from Republicans on this point though?

No, I have not. Look, this is a non-starter. There is no way that any Democrat is going to accept the conditioning of aid period. So you're voting no on this, even if you think it's the fastest best way to get disaster with California?

By definition, it wouldn't be the fastest and best way to get relief to those who need it in California. We should take out of the political food fight. The idea that somehow now conditioning or delivering aid to people who are victims is somehow part of the normal political fight. It didn't use to be that way and it shouldn't start becoming that way now.

What about the argument that it could actually give Democrats some leverage to get some of your priorities passed? So if you look at the last several years under a nominal Republican majority, any time they've needed to pass anything of consequence, it is required Democrat votes because they are so divided internally. So I think that we are going to have tremendous leverage over the course of the next two years, regardless. Let's talk about some of the cuts.

We're watching Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency or Doge very closely. We don't know what ultimately his proposal is going to be, but there are all sorts of things that are potentially on the table, including cuts to Medicaid and other issues like that. What are you going to be watching for and have you heard the direction that they're going in? So just to be clear, extending the original 2017 GOP tax plan would already add $4.6 trillion to the national debt.

Those aren't my numbers. That's a nonpartisan congressional budget office that has certified that. So that's number one. If in an effort to deliver even further and deeper tax cuts, the other side really wants to come up with cuts that would equal $4.5 trillion, there are only a few places where you have that kind of money, Social Security, Medicare, Defense and Veterans.

So it is a bit of a shell game to say the least for Republicans to say, oh no, we're not going to cut Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Medicaid, Veterans, but we're going to somehow find trillions of dollars of cuts elsewhere. The reality is the math doesn't add up. So you don't buy it. I mean, President Trump said to me, Social Security, Medicare, off the table, you don't buy that.

I don't buy it because I understand math. The reality is most of the money that government spends are in those areas I just outlined, Social Security, Medicare, Defense and Veterans benefits. Let me ask you, several Senate Democrats wrote a letter to their Republican counterparts asking to cooperate on a bipartisan bill. The response from Senator Johnson was, that's a letter we will ignore if they want to, this is on the border.

If they want to secure the border, they could have done that. Is the border an area where you think you may be able to work with Republicans? Well, I certainly have been trying. You know, we did have a big bipartisan bill that passed the Senate some years ago by more than two to one margin, but House Republicans wouldn't even call it up for a vote, even though the votes were there on a bipartisan basis to pass it.

I hope finally now we can have a grand agreement that would secure the border, but the reality is time and time again, Donald Trump has shown he's more interested in using this as a political issue. Let's not forget there was that bipartisan deal last year in the Senate that was negotiated by a very conservative Republican and Donald Trump killed it because he wanted the issue, not to actually solve it. Given though now that President Trump is in the White House and Republicans have control of both chambers, do you need to find some common ground with them on this issue? Well, we have certainly tried to find common ground.

I will continue to do so, but really in the end the question is for President Trump, will he stop playing politics with this issue and take the bipartisan win that has existed really for the last 12 months in a sitting there if he wants it? I want to get your reaction to the pardons that we saw this week and let's start with President Biden. He decided to pardon members of the January 6 committee and members of his own family. That has prompted some criticism from Republicans, but also from some Democrats as well.

Where do you fall on this? How do you view those pardons that he issued to his family? So over a month ago, I became the first congressional Democrat to publicly call for preemptive pardons for all of those who were involved in the investigations as they relate to January 6, including and especially the Capitol police officers who participated as witnesses. Donald Trump has made it very clear as has his supposedly new FBI director, Cash Patel, if he gets confirmed, he has made it clear that he is going to use the criminal justice system to come after those public servants who valiantly came forward just to testify and tell the truth.

Now, Donald Trump wants to use the legal system to turn it around to go after them. So I applaud the fact that President Biden issued those pardons. I think it was right and I'm glad he did it. Does it make it harder, though, to critique President Trump for his pardons, as blanket pardons, for example of those convicted crimes on January 7?

There is no, let's be clear about this. There is no moral equivalency whatsoever between those Capitol police officers who were attacked on January 6, or January 6, 2021 and who bravely defended the Capitol in our democracy versus the 1500 individuals who were dangerous criminals, who committed serious felonies and committed acts of violence. There is no equivalency between the two. All right.

Congressman Brennan Boyle, thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Coming up next, Power Shift.

I'll talk to a former White House attorney from the first Trump administration as President Trump tests the limits of presidential power in the opening days of his second term. Stay with us. You're watching with the press now. Welcome back.

Since taking the oath of office on Monday, President Trump has made multiple moves that push the historic limits of executive power. As we noted earlier today, he suggested he would sign an executive order to abolish FEMA, a move actually where I'd say he doesn't have the authority to do without Congress. He signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship, which a federal judge yesterday halted calling the order blatantly constitutional. He says he'll appeal that.

He's also granted pardons to all 1500 January 6 defendants, including violent offenders, a sweeping use of pardon authority that surprised even some of his own aides. And President Trump's return to the White House comes after the Supreme Court ruled that the office has absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts. And with that, I'm joined now by Ty Cobb, who served as a White House attorney in Donald Trump's first administration. Ty, thanks so much for being here.

It's always great to see you. Hi, Kirsten. Great to be with you. So let's dive right in.

When President Trump first won in November and you said it would be, quote, tragic if he pardoned the January 6 defendants, now that he has actually followed through with that, this blanket pardon of 1,500 people. What's your reaction? Yes. I think this was a gross abuse of power.

Hopefully we'll not look finally back on this when you have a man who frustrated a lawful transfer of power in an effort to preserve his own legacy and stay in power. And people committed violent acts on his behalf, you know, that, you know, normalizing those people and giving them pardons and commutations, particularly the most violent people. You know, obviously some of these offenses, unlawful parading, et cetera, you know, not the biggest things in the world. But the people who actually did commit violence and exhort violence, of which there were hundreds, you know, that's, that is very sad.

Of course, you know, the day before we had some very sad pardons too that I think the founders are probably still spending the graves about when the Biden pardon his whole family and others. So it's just sad to see these two men denigrate the pardon power and the majesty of the Constitution. You know, President Trump did campaign saying he was an pardon to all the defendants. He didn't say that he would pardon everyone, but he said he wasn't ruling anyone out.

Are you surprised to tie? No, because fundamentally, this is a lazy act. This is somebody who didn't want to make the distinctions between, you know, different types of conduct, which would have been easy to do. And I'm sure his advisors were urging him with regard to many of these people, not to take any action on their behalf.

But no, I think when he's, when he gets the urge or the whim, he just, he just acts and consequences be damned. I want to follow up with you on President Biden's pardons. He did, as you know, pardon his family members. He did not pardon himself.

President Trump weighed in on that. Take a look at your reaction on the other side. And people said you wouldn't have even taken most of those people. They wouldn't have even taken a pardon.

This guy went around giving everybody pardons. And you know, the funny thing, maybe the sad thing is he didn't give himself a pardon. But if you look at it, it all had to do with him. Ty, how do you read that comment from the president?

I read it as his sort of middle meand rings in the middle of an answer. I mean, he will seize on, you know, some odd aspect of an action and call it out. But I don't think it's anything other than provocative. I don't think it's, I don't think it's foreshadows going after President Biden.

So you don't, you don't think he's suggesting that he's laying the groundwork to potentially go after President Biden or to have his Attorney General or FBI Director go after him? I don't believe so, but I can't make any guarantees. Okay. Let me ask you about the Supreme Court.

As I just noted, gave the president, not just this president, but any president, broad immunity from anything considered official acts. How do you think that ruling plays out in a Trump presidency? So I think that decision has gotten really undue, undue emphasis as a, you know, political decision as opposed to a purely constitutional decision. You know, in reality, it's, you know, since, since Nixon back in the early 70s, you know, we've understood that the president had immunity from official acts.

And what we didn't understand was whether or not that would include a criminal immunity, now we understand that it does, constitutionally that makes some sense. There was a line that had to be drawn because a jury had to be instructed on the differences between a crime by a former president and a, you know, and lawful acts. So they had to make, they had to make a decision. They had to draw a line and they had to say where the line was.

Now they may have gone too far. I think personally they went too far. I think they went too far on the evidentiary issues, but I think they were right that there is some immunity and certainly some criminal immunity to official acts or you could be prosecuted for war crimes all around the world. So at the same time, no, it did embolden Trump, Trump did misread the opinion.

He does see it as, you know, suggesting that he is totally insulated from consequences. And hopefully, hopefully won't test it as hard as we expect him to. But if he does, I think he'll be really disappointed by the fact that there really do remain some limitations. Let me ask you about his picks for Attorney General and FBI Director Pam Bondi.

Cash Patel, what are you, if they are both confirmed? What are you going to be watching for? I think, I think Pam Bondi has the opportunity to be a solid Attorney General and she's got as much or more law enforcement experience than most people who overcame into that job, running a large professional law enforcement agency to say Florida, which she did effectively for many years. You know, on the other hand, she is definitely a Trump loyalist and there will be things that frustrate people about that.

I hope that she will not go as low as Cash Patel has promised to go. I hope Cash Patel does not get confirmed. But given the fact that Pete Hexa is going to be confirmed, I think it's highly likely that they won't be able to stop anybody. So unfortunately, I think the FBI will wither and dry on the vine under his leadership and I think it will be a disaster for that organization, which has obviously had its difficulties over the recent past and particularly with Comey and others.

But at the same time, it's been a jewel in the crown of American law enforcement and worldwide law enforcement for many, many decades. And I hope that it can restore itself. All right, Ty Cobb, we covered a lot of ground. Thank you so much for joining us on this Friday.

I really appreciate it. Great to be with you. Have a wonderful weekend. You too.

It's always great to see you, Ty. Thank you. Coming up after the break, a live report from Capitol Hill after President Trump cast out on the fate of his defense secretary nominee Pete Hexa with his confirmation vote expected tonight. You're watching me the press now.

Look, whatever it is, it is, he's a good man. I don't know what's going to happen. You never know those things, but he's a very, very good man. I hope he makes it.

I hope he makes it. I was very surprised that Collins and Murkowski would do that. And of course, Mitch has always said no vote. I guess it's Mitch and no vote.

How about Mitch? Huh? You what? Let's see.

What else? Welcome back. That was President Trump this morning voicing his uncertainty on whether Pete Hagg's death has nominated for secretary of defense would be confirmed in tonight's Senate vote. As you heard, I mentioned Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have come out against excess.

But Mitch McConnell has not revealed how he will vote. It comes as new details about Hexa's personal life continue to come out, including a $50,000 settlement over sexual assault allegations in 2017 allegations, which he denies. Joining me now with the latest on Hexa's fate is NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Circuit. Julie, great to see you.

Thanks for being here. So break it down. What are you hearing from your sources? Do you think he has the votes tonight, Julie?

I got to tell you, Kristen, they went a little bit silent over the last half an hour, which leads me to believe that they are still mulling this over. Earlier today, Democrats met behind closed doors trying to see how they can stop this procedure, or at least drag out the clock as long as possible, barring any time agreements, that vote for Pete Hexa will not begin until 8.57 p.m. tonight. Now, I have been hearing from some Republicans, even ones that aren't on that list that you just put up, who have privately been expressing concerns, not only amongst themselves, to other members, also to the transition at that point now, the White House, of course, about all of these allegations.

The glaring problem that they have with crossing Trump on this one, Kristen, is that Samantha Hexa had denied at least physical abuse in her marriage to Pete Hexa, but notably, of course, she did not respond to us in terms of the other specific allegations outlined at that signed affidavit by Daniel Hexa at the former sister-in-law of Pete and Samantha Hexa. So, definitely a lot of allegations, some of which Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski laid out in their very long statements. The two women said that Pete Hexa does not have the temperament, does not have the qualifications, and does not have the expertise for this job. The only way that he will go down tonight, however, is if at least two more Senate Republicans join in and vote against him, and we have no indication at this point yet if that will happen, but it is a very live ball, Kristen.

So, let's talk about Mitch McConnell, obviously, historic tensions between Mitch McConnell and President Trump. As President Trump noted there, we just heard him in that sound before he was departing earlier today. He said he doesn't know how Mitch McConnell has been a vote. McConnell has not said publicly how he's going to vote.

What are you hearing? He has not said publicly how he's going to vote, and you know that he's in a very different position that he was in even six months ago as leader of the Republicans in the Senate. Now, he doesn't really have that. He doesn't need to step and plot carefully here.

His term is also up in 2026, and that's a really important point here, not only from McConnell, but also some of these other senators, Tom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Joni Earns, they are all up in 2026, and so they have very real political calculations here. But when it comes to McConnell and some of these other senators, I've heard personally from some of them that they will continue to vote, yes, through all of these procedural votes, but they will not reveal how they're voting until the final one. And obviously, that's because they don't want the public pressure and the public attention and the heat that comes with crossing Trump ahead of time. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski already getting some internal pushback, they're already getting some pressure even online.

And of course, Trump and his allies have been crystal clear when it comes to those primary threats and putting money into those in 2026. All right, Julie Stercan. Long night for you, my friend. Keep your running shoes on.

Thank you for joining us. I really appreciate it. Joining now on set, Jeff Mason, White House correspondent for Reuters, Simone Sanders Townsend, former senior advisor to President Biden and Vice President Harris, she's also co-host of The Weekend, which airs weekends on MSNBC, and Sarah Chamberlain, president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership. Thanks to all of you for being here, Jeff.

Let me start with you. What are your sources telling you about whether Hagg Seth has enough votes to make it across the finish line? Well, for starters, the White House is still completely behind him. And that's key.

I mean, I think it was interesting to hear President Trump talking about it and sort of raising the possibility that he might not make it because that's not the message really that his advisors have been giving. Even the latest reporting this week that came out about abuse allegations, I spoke to somebody at the White House who said you sort of dismissed that. I mean, it's just not something that they're worried about, at least not worried about enough that it would change his support. So that's key.

In terms of how, you know, doesn't get the votes? TBD, clearly TBD. And Mitch McConnell, it seems to be at least one of the wild cards. You know, Sarah, it's interesting because you do have Collins and Murkowski who have broken with Trump.

Not a huge surprise. They were no votes in voting him out of committee. How do you see this playing out tonight? I think Mitch McConnell could potentially be a no, but I think he needs one more person to go no, or it's kind of, I hate to say, but kind of a waste to vote because obviously the Vice President will come in and be the decider and he'll get confirmed.

So I think they're probably, as she said, they kind of gone quiet. I think they're meeting behind closed doors to see if they have four at this point. I don't think they do. Yeah.

And apparently the Vice President has been told to be on stand by just in case. I remember that like well. Yeah. Very well, right?

I spoke to a number of Republicans who said, boy, we thought Democrats would be tougher on them. And they weren't. What did you make of the showing of Democrats in this period? Look, I think that there is a tendency to go towards the moral and the character issues on a number of these nominees.

And I think in a past, you know, iteration of our politics, the conduct that we are finding, the alleged conduct that we are hearing about would in fact be disqualifying from a number of these nominees. However, we have to recognize, you know, the Vice President is talking about unburdened, but what has been what you've got to understand what it is. Okay. And so what it currently is, that is not this little climate.

So I think some of the Democrats have very pointed questioning. When Senator Duckworth asked Mr. Hexett to name the countries in ASEAN, and he named countries that were not a party to ASEAN, I think that that was very telling. When Senator Gillibrand had very direct questioning about what do you mean about standards?

Like there's not a two mile run to pass the test. That's not true. They're no quotas. That's not true.

Like I thought that those were very pointed. But these other things, I thought that they were actually distractions. I don't know if the ex-set has ever looked and negotiated in a great manner. And to be very clear, that is one of the chief duties of the Secretary of Defense.

Hello. And no one pointed that out. No one pointed that out. No one pointed that out.

I'm not a nation here. Jeff, someone takes me to my next question, which is we are going to have the RFK hearing. We're going to have the Tulsi Gabbard hearing as well. And there's a lot of rumbling on Capitol Hill that she may actually be in were peril than a Pete Hexett.

What are you hearing about those two hearings? Well, I think there's also a momentum factor here. Like, if certainly if Hexett's were to fall, then that would, I suspect emboldened some Democrats, some not Democrats, but some Republicans to follow through that way with Gabbard. So far, to go back to what I was saying before, the White House's support has really made a huge difference in terms of the Republicans sticking behind the people that Donald Trump wants.

But she has, I mean, there's a lot of reporting about her trip to Syria, to see Assad. I think concerns about that on both sides of the aisle. So that's going to be a tricky one. Sarah, do you think that makes her vulnerable?

Absolutely without question. I think she is the most vulnerable. And I actually think they're kind of talking about that today behind closed doors. If you really can, if you bring home down any of Trump's people, you can really only bring down one.

And I think they're trying to figure out, okay, who's the most important one to bring down? I actually think it is going to be her. One in addition to, of course, Matt Gaetz, who'd been tapped to be H.G., Simone, do you think Democrats are going to bring the heat in this next week? I think they are.

First of all, I think I've talked to a lot of Democrats and their aides who have watched the coverage and watched back the tapes, if you will. And they too feel like they want to make sure that they're using them doing the most with their time. I also think, though, there is a realization that they're, you don't have to go to these moral and character issues. What are the nominees that Donald Trump has put forth that the president has put forth?

Are some of them qualified? It's why Marco Rubio advanced so quickly. You may disagree with some of his politics. You can't say he's not qualified to serve as Secretary of State.

But someone who has actively, like, worked against just basic vaccines that we all agree with, like, polio. I think that that's really questionable. It's totally gathered. Someone who has, not just Syria, but Vladimir Putin, regardless of what the president says and how he feels about Vladimir Putin, members on both sides of the aisle are quite skeptical of the love fest with the president of Russia.

So I do think that the qualifications, what the role is, what they will be doing, will take front and center next week. So let's move now to what I'm calling pardon-palooza that we saw this week, pardons on both sides that frankly got criticism. I want to play a little bit of what President Trump had to say recently on this. Get everyone's reaction.

I don't know. I'm sure that they probably would like to. I did do something important, but what they did is they were protesting in the crooked election. I haven't spoken to any of them yet, but I know they're very happy.

I gave them their life back. Their life was taken away from them unnecessarily and unfairly. I gave them their life back. I gave them their life back.

Of course, we have to say the 2020 election wasn't crooked. But he is defending the decision of these blanket pardons, which caught some of his own aides off guard quite frankly. But on the campaign trail, candidate Trump made it very clear he wasn't taking anyone off the table. What do you think the repercussions of any will be?

Do you think there will be political blowback? I don't actually think there will be. I think that he did make it very clear. He won.

He won the majority of the votes. And I think most people expected this. But I think it kind of offsets what Biden did in the last moment is going out. So I think both of them all studied each other in the country is going to move on and put this behind us the next few weeks.

Simone, as you know, President Biden's decision to pardon his own family was met with some criticism. We can Democrats hand their ability to make that strong case against some of the sweeping Trump pardons. I just really feel like Democrats can get a backbone out here. You can do two things at once.

You can say, I do not agree. The president caught me off guard with these pardons. I would not have done it. I don't agree.

And in the same breath, say it is not okay that the current President of the United States attempted to let out people who beat police officers who went to our United States Capitol with a goal to disrupt the election. I talked to a number of lawmakers, legislative folks across the country because they are actually quite concerned. Because if you remember, some of the profiles of these people, they were sheriffs, some of them were local elected officials. These were many of the folks after January 6th, they went home.

They were not actually, no one was arrested the day up. And so they legislatively just across the country I have spoken to have said that they are concerned because there has been this rise of these private militias, these armed vigilantes, and that they feel as though the President simply just now let his own private militia out of jail. You can do two things at one time and I don't understand why Democrats have just folded here. You know, Jeff, it's so interesting.

Something that Simone says caught my attention. Democrats have to grow a backbone harsh language, but it speaks to the facts that Democrats right now are in the process of trying to figure out how to move out of this political wilderness, if you will, that they are in. What are you hearing right now in this moment about where they are? Which leaders I should say are emerging?

What's the messaging that's emerging? And that's the question. I mean, it's a leaderless party right now. And Joe Biden and Kamala Harris departing Washington, they were already on their way out.

Obviously, as leaders of the party, there is no replacement until they get a DNC chair, which is there's a little bit of a fight over that right now. But even a DNC chair doesn't take on the mantle of leading and setting the agenda for a party that is standing up to this historic Republican president. So it's a challenge for them. And certainly the way Joe Biden left is a challenge.

And yet there is a way to message that. And I think Simone hit it on the head, but you can also say he did that. And for a reason, whether you like it or not, he did it for a reason. All right, guys.

Great conversation. Thank you so much for being here, Jeff Simone. And Sarah, still to come. Hamas releases the names of four more Israeli hostages, all of them female soldiers, who are set to be released tomorrow as part of the ceasefire deal.

We're live in Jerusalem with all of the details. That's next. You're watching the press now. Welcome back, turning to the Middle East and the latest developments in the ceasefire and hostage release deal.

Today, the Hamas today Hamas announced the names of the four female soldiers set to be released tomorrow as part of that agreement in exchange. Israel says it will release 200 prisoners, including more than 100 who have been sentenced to life in prison. Now, this would be the second hostage release since the ceasefire went into effect last weekend. Three hostages were free last Sunday.

NBC News International correspondent, Ross Sanchez joins me from Jerusalem. Rob, thanks so much for being here. What do you know about the hostages who are set to be released? So Kristen, as you said, it's going to be four female Israeli soldiers released tomorrow according to Hamas.

And they are known here as the Watchtower Girls. These were unarmed soldiers. They were manning an observation post on the Israel Gaza border when they were taken captive on October 7th. You're seeing them on your screen there, Karina Ariev, Daniella Gilboa, Nama Levy, and, er, the bag.

And it is, as you can imagine, a source of great joy for the families of these four soldiers to be hearing that they expect their loved ones to come out tomorrow. I can tell you, there is some concern inside of the Israeli government because the expectation had been that all of the Israeli female civilians would come out first before soldiers. There are still two Israeli women inside Gaza. They are unaccounted for and it remains unclear at this point why they are not coming out in this batch of hostages.

And is there any information on the prisoners at Israel plans to release an exchange? Yeah. So again, what we know is coming from Hamas. It's going to be 200 Palestinian prisoners.

This is this equation that one female soldier is equivalent of 50 Palestinian prisoners. Some of these prisoners are serving long sentences. They were convicted in Israeli military courts for the most part of terrorism of murder in those instances where they are serving long sentences. It's a source of deep concern, deep distress for some Israelis, many of them on the political right, some of them part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's domestic political base.

Some of these prisoners we understand, Kristen, are going to be deported to third countries rather than going back to Gaza or the West Bank. We don't know exactly which countries, but possibly Qatar, possibly Turkey. And we will wait to see exactly how that mechanism unfolds. And of course, Raf, we have a little less than a minute, but we're just in phase one of this ceasefire deal.

Does it appear to be holding at this point? Take one of phase one, Kristen. And I think all we can say at this point is so far so good that badly needed humanitarian aid is getting into Gaza. The guns are silent.

The hostages appear to be coming out. The Palestinian prisoners are being released so far so good. The big concern is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has indicated he wants to go back to fighting on the other side of this six weeks ceasefire. He is seeking the complete destruction of Hamas.

And I think it will be a big, big question how much pressure the Trump administration will or won't put on him to make sure that this ceasefire moves into phase two. All right, Raf Sanchez. Thank you so much for joining us. Be safe out there.

We will be back Monday with more Meet the Press now. And if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press on your local NBC News station. I'll have an exclusive interview with Senator Adam Schiff plus Senator Lindsey Graham. Don't miss it.

The news continues with Tom Costello and for Hallie Jackson right now. 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 Maguet and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all-new podcast from Dateline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.