Meet the Press NOW — January 6

Hi there, and welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington, where the fallout from the U.S. capture and arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro continues to send shockwaves through the U.S. government and around the world, with big questions remaining about who's in charge in Venezuela and what the U.S.

is truly aiming to accomplish in the oil-rich country. Today, while delivering remarks to House Republicans, the President received a standing ovation as he touted the success of the operation in Venezuela. It was an amazing military feat that took place yesterday. Think of it.

The people are saying, well, thank you. The United States proved once again that we have the most powerful, most lethal, most sophisticated, and most fearsome. It's a fearsome military on planet Earth, and it's not even close. While the President highlighted the role the U.S.

military played, his administration maintains that this was not a military action requiring congressional authorization, but rather a law enforcement operation to enforce an indictment against Maduro, although the President has also suggested it was about regaining access to Venezuela's oil reserves. Administration officials were on Capitol Hill late yesterday to brief lawmakers on Maduro's capture. Reaction to that briefing unsurprisingly falling along party lines, with Republicans defending the President and Democrats sounding the alarm. This is not a regime change.

This is a demand for change of behavior by a regime. We don't expect troops on the ground. We don't expect direct involvement in any other way beyond just coercing the new, the interim government to get that going. I did not receive any assurances that we would not try to do the same thing in other countries.

And in conclusion, when the United States engages in this kind of regime change and so-called nation-building, it always ends up hurting the United States. I left the briefing feeling that it would again. Now, as we've said, significant questions remain about the immediate future of Venezuela and the U.S.'s goals in removing Maduro. Senator Lindsey Graham is one of the loudest voices in the President's inner circle calling for Maduro's removal.

Here's what he said today about the U.S.'s endgame. What is the goal? Fix up the place. Stabilize the place.

Make it more livable. Create conditions for a free, fair election. That's what we're going to do. Now, how long that takes, I don't know.

You want to get the country on its feet before you have the election. But for those who are saying that we're going to run and occupy Venezuela, we're not. Now, some Republicans have expressed optimism that free and fair elections would happen quickly in Venezuela. But yesterday, during an exclusive phone interview, President Trump told Kristen Welker that he didn't have a timeline for elections.

Kristen asked the President if he could see elections in Venezuela within 30 days. He said, quote, no, you can't do that. We have to fix the country first. You can't have an election.

There's no way the people could even vote. The people don't have food. Joining me now is NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba, NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Kuby, and NBC News senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez, who is in Colombia. Monica, let's start with you.

After the latest U.S. action in the Western Hemisphere, is there a clear understanding what the President's so-called doctrine is here, including beyond Venezuela? The President already now talking about Greenland again. Yeah, and it's a very fair question, Ryan, because he's also talking about Cuba, potentially Colombia, putting other world leaders on notice, essentially, in a way trying to take hold of this, what he calls the Dunn Road doctrine, in his own view, of not just making America great again, but making the Americas great again, making all of Latin America potentially and throughout other places, as you mentioned, Greenland, in his image.

And in a really bold declaration of that potential foreign policy, you do have an administration here leaning into the possibility of the U.S. military being involved, perhaps, in seizing Greenland. We just got a new statement from the White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, saying that that is an option that is being reviewed, that is on the table. She says that the President and his team are discussing a range of possibilities and options to pursue this important foreign policy goal.

And of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander in chief's disposal. Now, he is the one, the President, over the weekend, who certainly discussed this and some of his other top aides have as well. Last night, the White House deputy chief of staff, Steven Miller, really leaned into this saying that if the U.S.

wanted to take control of Greenland, of the Danish territory, that essentially he predicted that no one would get in the way of the United States, that there wouldn't be anybody blocking that. But we saw some really fierce and swift condemnation from European leaders today, Ryan, certainly in a joint statement saying that that would be a violation of NATO and that essentially that would be the end of NATO if the U.S. decided to proceed with that option. And Monica, this was a relatively long-winded speech from the President.

I think he spoke to somewhere in the range of an hour and a half, but didn't really linger on the issue of Venezuela when he was speaking to House Republicans. Could that be a signal that he recognizes that this isn't an issue that is going to matter to voters in the midterms? Well, he certainly spent a lot more time talking about other topics and talking about some of the domestic implications, certainly saying to those House Republicans who you cover day in and day out, Ryan, that if they don't do what they need to do, essentially, that they could lose the midterm elections. And the President did know in his speech, he likes to say that if you win the presidency, maybe you lose the midterms again, trying to perhaps lower expectations there, but also saying, Ryan, interestingly, that he doesn't really like to travel, which raises questions about whether he is going to be out there campaigning alongside some of these Republicans when we know that the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, had said that she wanted him to be out there because they believe that they had suffered recent election losses because his name wasn't on the ballot and that they were going to try to change that this time around.

Again, with a focus on the domestic policy, maybe perhaps more than that of foreign policy and overseas matters. Also struck an ominous tone suggesting he might be impeached if the Democrats were to win back the House. Monica Alba, thank you for that update. Let's turn now to Courtney and talk more about what's happening in Venezuela.

Now, Courtney, interesting report today about this CIA assessment about the now interim leader of Venezuela, Delsi Rodriguez. What did the intel community say? So this is what the CIA does, right? They look at countries.

They look at the assessments of the leaders, possibility for succession plans, those kinds of things, essentially that they do modeling of succession. In this case, there was a recent assessment that we shared with a very small group of people in the Trump administration that specifically said that Maria Cortina Machado Machado, the opposition leader, would not have as strong of a foothold in Venezuela if she was brought in as this leader during this transition time as members of Maduro's own regime would have. And apparently, according to officials who are familiar with this, that was one of the reasoning behind President Trump on Saturday coming out and praising the vice president now, the acting president there. Interestingly enough, they keep insisting it's not a military action, right?

But President Trump told our colleague Kristen Welker yesterday he doesn't think he needs a second round of congressional approval. I guess it would be a first round of congressional approval for a second round of attacks. What could a second wave in Venezuela look like? And would it undermine this argument that it's a legal exercise as opposed to a military exercise?

So as far as just like the makeup of what another wave would look like, I suspect it would be similar to what we saw. Remember, the military still has all these ships off the coast. They have the ability to fire Tomahawk missiles. They still have a ton of aircraft there, fighter aircraft drones.

They have the helicopters. They have things that could carry out airstrikes. And of course, they still have all these more unique or sort of exquisite capabilities that the president's been surprisingly talking about in public. Things like being able to knock out electricity to parts of Venezuela.

All of that still exists for them to use. The bigger question is really, why would they need a second wave, right? If in fact this entire operation was intended to go in and get Nicolas Maduro and his wife and to execute this indictment against them or to carry out this indictment, then why would you need to take additional strikes? The president himself has said that they are not at war with the Venezuelan people, with the Venezuelan military.

So why would you take more strikes? And if so, who would they be against? Now, one thing that we have been expecting for some time now is the possibility of limited strikes against cartels. But at this point, we're not hearing any indication that that's what the Trump administration is actively considering or is potentially in the offing.

Is it also something you don't take off the table so the new regime knows, you know, this could happen to me too. I could end up in a jail cell. And the president Trump's even spoken about that. And I think one of the word that they keep using here is leverage.

They're using the military as leverage. Marco Rubio talked about that over the weekend with Kristen, in fact. So I suspect that the military will stay there not only as what the military would generally call that deterrent, not leverage, but not only as leverage against the cartels, but also against the incoming administration. Steven Miller may use to try to influence the course of events in Venezuela.

Whether or not it will be successful, that we haven't seen yet. So that's interesting you make that point about leverage because the CIA had a classified assessment that concluded that Delcy Rodriguez was best positioned to lead. Despite all these things that you say about her connection to Maduro and others in the Maduro regime. Do you think the intelligence community is underestimating the opposition in Venezuela?

Unfortunately, I don't. I think their assessment is probably correct. And I think that they said that not despite her connections to other regime insiders, but because of them. Because she commands such power and already has for a number of years.

She and her brother were instrumental in continuing to make the Venezuelan economy run when it came under heavy U.S. sanctions. They figured out how to continue producing oil, selling it, exerting sanctions, evading them, selling it around the world. They have been crafty negotiators in a number of circumstances, sometimes directly with the United States.

So they're certainly formidable. And I think that that's probably why the CIA concluded that. Not because the United States likes Delcy Rodriguez or necessarily trusts them, but because they seem to be the ones who could simply hold things together in the event of a sudden power vacuum, which is what we saw, you know, for a few hours early that morning or that evening when President Trump seized Maduro. And I guess that leads to my next question, because Kristen Welker, my colleague, spoke to President Trump yesterday.

She asked him about the possibility of elections in Venezuela. That would be the next stage of leadership there. President Trump said that he needs to fix the country first. Even if that's what they wanted to do, is Venezuela even in a position where elections are possible right now?

Is the president right? Is there some degree of fixing that needs to take place first? Well, first of all, I think we shouldn't forget the fact that Venezuela was a functioning democracy for decades before Maduro's predecessor Hugo Chavez came in and destroyed it. So Venezuela has a lot of experience with democracy.

This is a country that has sent many peaceful elections before, that had a vigorous party system that's been obliterated by this dictatorship. And what you do have is also an organized opposition which participated in elections last year. And despite a very tilted playing field and a lot of unfairness, they actually managed to win them by a large margin. However, Maduro simply stole that vote, remained in power.

So I think it's insulting to the opposition to suggest that they somehow, you know, aren't serious actors or aren't capable. But where there is a grain of truth here is that the current leadership of the opposition is most likely unacceptable to the Venezuelan military and other of the factions that I just mentioned. And that means that were they to suddenly take power, were they to suddenly be allowed to be inaugurated and start governing the country, you could have a potential for coups, for really serious instability. And I think that that is what the Trump administration is wary of here.

So again, it's a morally uncomfortable, I think, recognition. But it's that if all of a sudden the duly elected president of Venezuela who won that vote last year, and Lugo Gonzalez, were to magically be transported into the presidency, there would be more instability today in Venezuela. I mean, that's just a fact. There is a lot of uncertainty in that country still.

Will Freeman, thank you for your time and expertise. We appreciate it. Coming up, the view from House Democratic leadership on the Trump administration's capture of Nicolas Maduro and the role of Congress. Plus, health care, the midterms and much more straight ahead.

But first, five years after the January 6th attack, new efforts from the White House to amplify the president's false narrative about that day. Pro-Trump protesters, including some rioters who were pardoned, once again marched to the Capitol. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back.

Today marks five years since the January 6th attack when the allies of President Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol and tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Democrats held an unofficial and largely symbolic hearing today aiming to highlight how the Trump White House and Republicans are actively trying to rewrite the history of that terrible day. And while that was happening inside the Capitol, outside January 6th defendants who were pardoned by President Trump on his first day in office marched from the ellipse to the Capitol.

The same as they did on the day of the attack. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer condemning that march and the president's pardon of the rioters. Donald Trump, a man who claims to stand up to the police, a man who says he cares about law and order, pardoned every single convicted insurrectionist on his very first day as president. These pardons are among the most sickening things Donald Trump has done in office.

His betrayal of law enforcement, of democracy, makes a mockery of the rule of law. The White House meanwhile launched a new webpage today to push President Trump's narrative of what happened on January 6th, falsely claiming the protesters were peaceful and that the election was stolen. And the president himself reiterated his previous baseless claims that the 2020 election was rigged while speaking to House Republicans who decided to not be on Capitol Hill today and instead hold a retreat at the newly renamed Trump Kennedy Center. I'm joined now by NBC News senior justice reporter Ryan Reilly and Frank Thorpe who covers Congress with me for NBC News.

Frank is also the author of the new book After the Riot, which is a remarkable photo essay of the moments surrounding January 6th. And we'll talk about Frank's book in just a second and its meaning and its necessity of it, especially given the White House's efforts to try and change this conversation. But Ryan, let's talk to you first about this new website that's specifically aimed at trying to rewrite the history of that day. We're not going to show you what's on it because it's not worthy of our viewers seeing what the White House is claiming here.

But is it an example of how they're trying to rewrite the narrative of that day? Yeah, I mean, when I wrote this story about all of their efforts to rewrite the effort, I wasn't expecting them to launch a website that literally rewrites what happened on January 6th. But that's what it does. I mean, it just has a number of falsehoods on it, things that are out of context.

It just completely really tries to create a different story of the reality that people, I think, experienced that day. And looking at the march today was fascinating. You saw all these people. I mean, I saw someone on the street there who I watched be sentenced for stomping on the heads of law enforcement officers.

I mean, the number of people who committed violent crimes who were once again in D.C. today was pretty staggering and included Enrique Tarrio, of course, the head of the Proud Boys, who sort of, you know, the Proud Boys were sort of the tip of the spear in many ways on January 6th. So it was this group that was trying to, you know, retell the story of what happened that day and lay down flowers for Ashley Babbitt, who was shot when she went through that Speaker's lobby window, that broken window, and sort of made her out to be to be a martyr. Yeah, so it was quite a quite a retelling.

I mean, President Trump pardoned the January 6th defendants on day one of his presidency. It was one of his first acts. How impactful were those pardons and how do they play a role in undermining the real accounts of what happened on that day? Yeah, I mean, what instantly ended not only those cases, that were some of which were still ongoing, some of which had concluded, and people were obviously free from prison, but it ended any chance of getting accountability for individuals who were never arrested.

And that includes people who assaulted law enforcement officers that day. There was a list within the FBI, within DOJ, of all these people who were identified but had not yet been arrested. And the thought process was that, you know, had the statute of limitations, which expires today, that five-year statute of limitations been allowed to run its course, they would have had that extra almost year, 11 months to bring a lot of those cases to fruition. And so now there are people out there who will never be publicly identified.

Even if the administration changes hands. Yeah, exactly. And there's also some questions about these pardons, that they could have some unintended consequences, right? Yeah, that's right.

I mean, the pipe bombers is one of them. Does the language of Politico had a story today examining whether or not the language of the pardon would actually apply to the pipe bomber, who is the one person that the Trump administration wants to hold accountable for leaving those bombs outside the RNC and DNC on the eve of January 6th. The Trump administration has also sort of decided that it wants it to apply to people who were found with illegal guns in their home. Those people get the pardon, but not to individuals who were found with child sex abuse material on their computers and whatnot.

So those cases, they've carved out sort of a specialty and said, whoa, whoa, whoa, the pardon doesn't apply to those because I think the backlash obviously to that would be so extreme if they were out there, you know, getting free, get out of jail free cards to pedophiles. All right, Frank, let's bring you in to have this conversation now about the impact that this day has had five years later on Capitol Hill. There are no more physical remnants of the actions that took place on that day, no sign of the violence or the chaos. But we saw Democrats hold a symbolic hearing today to commemorate the anniversary.

What was their goal there? Who were they trying to reach? But that means that our Republican colleagues are gonna have to stand up and say that we deserve an opportunity to be heard here and that the President needs to come to Congress and ask for our support and give detailed plans. But right now, it's clear from our perspective that they're using some of the dollars, some of the DOD dollars and the reconciliation, you know, one big ugly law bill in order to help DOD with their mission around the world seemingly, which could include, you know, Cuba and Greenland and other countries.

It's deeply troubling to us, but they have resources that House Republicans have authorized for them, but Congress needs to exert itself much, much more. Would that include, I mean, it would take 60 votes in the Senate to pass an appropriations package for the Pentagon. Should the Senate take that into account when passing the full Pentagon appropriations package? I hope so.

Look, we need Democrats and Republicans both standing up for the prerogatives of Congress here. They have a duty to report to Congress and our obligation is to expend these resources, and the administration should follow that authority. But they haven't done that yet. So, you know, we're not holding out hope that the administration is going to wake up tomorrow and operate differently.

But what we do need are our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to really step up and to tell the administration that they deserve, that we deserve broader saying in what's going on here. Let's turn now to health care. I know that's something that you and your caucus are very concerned about. The House could vote as soon as tomorrow on an extension of the Obamacare subsidies.

This after several Republicans signed on to a discharge petition to force a vote. How confident are you that this extension is going to pass, at least the House, this week? Well, we're hopeful, but it would mean that the Republican colleagues that we have who signed the discharge petition will vote for the measure. I haven't heard or seen anything that would tell me that they aren't going to, but it would mean that we need bipartisan support.

And I know a number of them have indicated that they are willing to support these efforts to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. And it would be important for the American people. These have obviously lapsed now in the new year, but it would be an important step to send something over to the Senate in a bipartisan way, hoping that we can pass law. We know that, you know, Donald Trump this morning told House Republicans that they need to be the party of health care.

They know that their bill that they passed took health care away from millions of Americans and that the expiring tax credits affected millions more. So clearly this is something that Donald Trump understands is a weakness in his party and in his administration. And I hope that we can have a bipartisan solution to it. And if there isn't, are you willing to enter into another possible shutdown to get what you're looking for out of these negotiations?

Look, my answer is always that we want bipartisan solutions and we want to fund government. We didn't want the longest shutdown in American history. Donald Trump wanted that. Clearly, Republicans have paid a price for it.

The American people know what the health care is on the ballot this November. They know that Republicans stood by and actively helped eliminate millions of people from health care across this country. So those are just the facts that I don't want another shutdown and none of my colleagues do. OK, let's talk now about January six.

This is the fifth anniversary of the attack on the Capitol. You, of course, were part of the select committee that investigated the attack. Today, Democrats held a special hearing to examine the threats to free and fair elections. At the same time, the president was addressing your Republican colleagues.

He's still calling the 2020 election rigged. He said that the U.S. election system is, quote, crooked. What do you make of his comments and just where we are as a country five years later?

Well, on the website that he put out today blaming Capitol police officers for the violence on January six. I mean, it's it's it's a shameful, but this is just part of a strategy that the president continues to advocate to whitewash and to tell a different story on January six. He doesn't want the American people to know that for three hours he sat in his office watching this coverage, rewinding the coverage because he summoned this mob to the Capitol. That's exactly what he wanted.

He doesn't want the American people knowing that. And it's just deeply troubling that the first act, just like you said in the last segment, the first act of his administration was a pardon of fifteen hundred violent criminals, people who ended up going back across the country and reoffending many of them. It's just deeply troubling. OK, Congressman Pete Aguilar, thank you so much for joining us.

Really appreciate it. Thanks, man. All right. After the break, the last walls.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz ends his bid for reelection, shaping up the potential 2028 presidential primary field. Speaker Johnson faces an ever shrinking Republican majority. The panel is next on the press now. Welcome back.

And we do have some sad news to report from Capitol Hill. We learned today that Republican Congressman Doug LaMalfa of California died suddenly yesterday at the age of 65. The seven term congressman represented a largely rural district in the northern part of the state. His death, combined with Marjorie Taylor Greene's official departure from Congress today, means that Republicans already tight majority just got even tighter.

They now hold 218 seats to the Democrats 213 with four open seats. I'm joined now by my panel, Jeff Mason, who's a White House correspondent for Reuters. Arshi Siddiqui, former senior aide to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and now a Democratic strategist. And Rob Louie, the president and executive editor of The Daily Signal.

And I should say, just from somebody that covered Doug LaMalfa, someone that was universally beloved by both Republicans and Democrats. You see the outpouring of people just talking about what a nice man he was, what a pleasure it was to work with. That's both Republicans and Democrats. So it is just a terrible tragedy and came so suddenly.

But there is a reality now that Republicans have to deal with immediately, Jeff. And that is this increasingly shrinking majority. Could this impact how the House functions over the next year? Well, I mean, that's been a reality for a while and this is just making it worse.

And absolutely, it could affect how they function over the next year. I mean, number one, everybody in the House is up for reelection and they're going to be spending time focusing on the midterms. But number two, the president still has an agenda that he wants to get done. And he talked about that a little bit at the Kennedy Center today.

And there's just no room for anyone from his party to differ with him and to differ with Speaker Johnson. And there are some divisions in the Republican Party and watching Marjorie Taylor Greene leave. I mean, that's she's been exhibit A now for months about those divisions. If any more of those come and arrive or infect others within his base who are in Congress, it's going to be really hard to get anything passed.

You already have somebody like Tom Massey Rob Louie who's shown a willingness to kind of step outside the Trump MAGA universe. How does Mike Johnson keep this coalition together? And could it mean that basically we're already into a midterm cycle here where nothing really is going to get done? Yes, January.

And right. You think that they have a whole year, as Jeff indicated, to follow President Trump's agenda and what he articulated today. And that you have the reality now, Thomas Massey is probably not going to go along on some of the spending bills or the national security issues that pop up. He's just a libertarian.

And that's his mindset. And then there were a few other Republicans who may decide that they want to break ranks with Mike Johnson as well. So it makes his job very difficult. But Ryan, they have to stay focused on those issues, those kitchen table issues.

The American people care about. I think independents are going to be looking to what this Republican Congress is able to do to give them confidence that they should be returned to power come 2027. And could this open the floodgates on the discharge petition? I mean, we already saw this happen with the Epstein files almost immediately.

We now see it with the ACA subsidies. Could we now see opportunities for breakaway Republicans to team up with Democrats to actually get something done? Is that something that could be in the future here over the next year in Congress? Or is that a little too Pollyannish on my part?

Well, it could be in the cards if Donald Trump goes along. Right. That's what we saw the floodgates on Epstein is that when he saw some of the writing on the wall on the discharge petition, then suddenly the whole dynamic and landscape changed. So, I mean, I'm a former leadership staffer.

I think normally this would be such a huge opening for bipartisanship, not floodgates, but just an opening, an opportunity to get things done. But in this environment with Donald Trump having such a ironclad grasp over Republicans in the House and Senate, it's just it's a really difficult trajectory to see going forward. And so if you're a House Republican, Jeff, and you're kind of mapping out what the next few months look like and you've got to make a case to voters, are you willing to stick with Donald Trump? This is what he told Kristen yesterday in her exclusive interview.

Trump said in this quote is getting a lot of play. MAGA loves what I'm doing. MAGA loves everything I do. MAGA is me.

MAGA loves everything I do. I love everything I do, too, which is probably not a surprise. But is that is he almost telling these House Republicans, do not step Vaccines for flu, meningitis, RSV, and more. The CDC now saying those additional vaccines are only recommended for high-risk children or after consultation with a healthcare provider.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a known vaccine skeptic, has long claimed that children get too many shots and has pushed to bring USA recommendations in line with those of Denmark. The overhaul to the recommendations was made outside of the typical process and without input from the CDC's advisory committee on immunization practices. Joining me now is Dr.

Michael Osterholm. He's the director for the Center of Infectious Disease and research and policy at the University of Minnesota. Doctor, thank you so much for joining us. A vaccine for six diseases here, including RSV and the flu, were taken off the CDC's recommended childhood vaccine schedule.

Just talk to us about the impact that these changes could have. Well, I think the most important takeaway message that all the listeners here should understand is you can no longer trust the federal government to provide you with scientifically sound and reliable information on vaccines. It no longer exists. You must now trust your medical societies, which in turn, working with doctors and nurses that administer the vaccines, are really the only reliable place you can get that kind of information.

That's a huge, huge change in what has been over 60 years of vaccine delivery in this country. And there are six diseases. Now they're taken off the list and will only be recommended in high risk groups. That doesn't necessarily mean that a parent can't get that vaccine for their child, even if they're not in that designation.

But it could change how parents interpret this. And could it also change the way doctors recommend this information to their patients? This is absolutely the critical issue related to what happened yesterday. You're right.

These vaccines still are available, but now they're not recommended. And if I'm a parent, a 22-year-old with a young baby, and now I say, well, they changed the recommendation to say that they're not recommended, but I can get the vaccine, am I likely to get that vaccine? Let me remind you that last year, almost 380 children in this country died from influenza. Over half of those had no identified risk factor.

They wouldn't even have fit into this category right now of what they were saying. So in fact, again, there is no credible data to support what the federal government did yesterday. And the consequences are such that the public can just no longer trust anything that comes out of the Department of Health and Human Services. We've heard the Secretary constantly refer to Denmark as kind of the standard that he's going by here.

What are the challenges of trying to transfer the public health policy of a small country like Denmark to a country the size of the United States? Well, first of all, you have to look at the conditions. And what I mean by that is this is a country of 6 million people with universal health care. They have incredible health care access with medical records that are tracking with an individual day by day by day.

And so there you have a very different situation of delivering vaccines and following up on individuals who might be exposed to a disease or sick. Think of it this way. The difference between swimming up Niagara Falls or swimming in your backyard swimming pool are both swimming experiences, but they're quite different. And what we have to deal with in this country is a fragmented health care system.

That means many people fall through the cracks. People do not get vaccines when they're supposed to. And there are no records that necessarily track these individuals. So what we've developed here is a system that tries to accommodate for all of those challenges.

And to say that Denmark is the ideal, they're the outlier. If you look at all the other countries of the world, including low-income countries in Africa that are very similar to our own vaccine recommendations. And I might add, we have historically in this country been the leader worldwide and people often follow us. Just last week, the United Kingdom added varicella vaccine to their portfolio.

So the Denmark analysis just doesn't hold water. And we have about 30 seconds left, but it's interesting because these are the CDC recommendations, but states make their own recommendations when it comes to vaccines for school children. Could this end up being a red state, blue state thing where the blue states, more kids are vaccinated and we could see vaccine deserts in red states? We're very concerned about that.

We already have vaccine deserts in a number of states, but this will only further enhance that problem. Okay, Dr. Michael Osterholm, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate your expertise.

All right, and we'll be back with more tomorrow on Meet the Press now. But as always, there's more news ahead right here on NBC News Now. Have a great day. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of The Drink.

This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon.

She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top. And this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow The Drink wherever you get your podcasts.