Notice how some homes sell faster in your neighborhood? It's not luck, it's local know-how. REMAX agents know their streets, schools, and communities inside and out. And with REMAX, those local pros are everywhere.
Which means when you're ready to buy or sell, you'll get trusted neighborhood insight that puts you a step ahead. Reach out today. REMAX, the experts close to home. Each office independently owned and operated.
This Sunday, confirmation battles. President-elect Donald Trump's controversial cabinet picks are sending shockwaves through Washington and raising questions about how he will carry out his second administration. I don't think it's a serious nomination for the attorney general. I was shocked that he has been nominated.
I have concerns that he can't get across the finish line. It must be the worst nomination for a cabinet position in American history. Will the Senate approve Mr. Trump's picks?
Plus, total control. Republicans take charge of both chambers of Congress, clearing a path for Mr. Trump to enact his policy plan. We're going to raise an America-first banner above this place.
We have a mandate for the American people. We should regard this election not merely as a defeat, but more importantly, as a challenge. How will Democrats operate with the GOP in control? Politics is tough, and in many cases it's not a very nice world, but it is a nice world today.
My guests this morning, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma. Joining me for insight and analysis are Amin Abaz, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour, political playbook co-author Eugene Daniels, former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, and Lonnie Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press.
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Kristen Lunker. Good Sunday morning. President-elect Donald Trump is racing to assemble his cabinet, making it clear the most important qualification may be personal loyalty to him. Facing scrutiny, Trump's election of now former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General.
The House's bipartisan ethics investigation into Gaetz most recently zeroing in on alleged illegal drug use, sexual misconduct with a minor, accepting improper gifts, obstruction, and other allegations, but effectively ending this week after Gaetz resigned from Congress following Trump's announcement. Gaetz has denied wrongdoing. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are calling on the committee to release its report before a confirmation hearing. Do you want to see it before voting on?
I don't want there to be any limitation at all on what the Senate can consider. Do you want to see it? Absolutely. Do you have any concerns about someone who's been accused of sex trafficking, possibly leading the Department of Justice?
I have concerns that he can't get across the finish line and we're going to spend a lot of political capital. You're not on the House ethics committee release that report? Yes, I do. House Speaker Mike Johnson initially said, quote, The Speaker is not involved with what happens in ethics, but one day later and after a visit with President-elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago, Johnson reversed course, saying he would strongly discourage the report's release.
There's a policy condition. There's reason for that. We don't have a report on this. It's helping these two.
Now, Gaetz has been a fierce critic of the department. He has now been tapped to leave, a department that investigated him for sex trafficking, but did not charge him. I don't care if it takes every second of our time and every ounce of our energy. We either get this government back on our side or we defund and get rid of, abolish the FBI, CDC, ATF, DOJ, every last one of them, if they do not come to heel.
Now, several GOP sources have told NBC News that more than half of Senate Republicans, including some in senior leadership positions, are privately saying they don't see a path for Gaetz to be confirmed and would not support him. Then there's the nomination of Robert S. Kennedy Jr. to run the Department of Health and Human Services.
Kennedy now says he's not against vaccines. I'm not going to take away anybody's vaccines. I've never been to any vaccine. But Kennedy has frequently pushed false and misleading claims about vaccines, despite decades of medical studies that show vaccines are safe and effective.
Kennedy even touted a false conspiracy theory that COVID was designed to target certain ethnicities. COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Asken, Asken, Jews and Chinese. Can you name any vaccines that you think are good?
I think some of the live virus vaccines are probably solving more problems than they're causing. There's no vaccine that is safe and effective. I do believe that autism does come from vaccines. A mountain of scientific study links autism to early vaccination with certain vaccines.
According to the CDC, there's no evidence of any link between autism and vaccines, which protect children from contagious diseases like measles. Also underscruity, President-elect Trump's pick for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host and decorated combat veteran. Police in Monterey, California, say he was investigated in 2017 for an alleged sexual assault after a gathering at a hotel hosting an event for Republican women. He was not arrested and no charges were filed.
Hegseth's attorney telling NBC News it didn't happen. The Trump transition team saying, quote, Hegseth has vigorously denied any and all accusations and no charges were filed. We look forward to his confirmation as United States Secretary of Defense. Hegseth also has argued that women should not serve in combat roles.
You don't like women in combat? No. Why not? I love women service members who contribute amazingly because everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated.
And complication in combat means casualties are worse. Now, the Pentagon opened combat roles to women in 2016, and women have succeeded and excelled in those roles since then. And joining me now is Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma. Senator Mullen, welcome to Meet the Press.
Thanks for having me on, Kristen. Well, thank you for being here. I want to start with former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, who, of course, President-elect Trump, as we just said, announced this week was his pick for Attorney General. You have said you trust Mr.
Trump's decision-making in naming Gaetz, but you have been critical of Gaetz as well. Here's a little bit of what you've had to say. We had all seen the videos he was showing on the House floor that all of us had walked away of the girls that he had slept with. And he walked up to me as Chris, you know, now Governor Chris, you know, and he said, man, she said, fine.
And you can put the B word in place there. This is the type of individual Matt Gaetz is. So, Senator, you clearly have questions about Matt Gaetz's character, but do you believe that Matt Gaetz is qualified to serve as Attorney General? You know, there's no question that Matt Gaetz and I have had our differences, and that's no secret.
Moving forward, I do respect President Trump's right to appoint these individuals, but underneath Article 2, Section 2, Congress has to vice and consent. And Matt Gaetz is going to go through the same scrutiny as every other individual, and I'm going to give him a fair shot, just like every individual. And at the end of the day, the Senate has to confirm him. I do think it's a very, very tough role.
I've got a tough situation. I've got to set my personal opinions, and they're really not opinions. I've got to set my personal situation with Matt to the side and look at the facts. If he's qualified, he's qualified.
I'd be quite frank. I didn't even know he was an attorney until after he was appointed Attorney General, and I had to do my research on him. And I know that's crazy because I served with him, but I just never did the dig to find out actually his actual degree, what it was in. Well, and speaking of digging into his background, the House Ethics Committee was about to release the findings of its investigation into allegations of misconduct by former Congressman Gaetz.
Of course, he abruptly resigned before that could happen. A number of your colleagues, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have said they would like to see that report. Should the House Ethics Committee release that report, Senator? Absolutely.
And I believe the Senate should have access to that. Now, should it be released to the public or not? I guess that would be part of the negotiations, but that should be definitely part of our decision making. Once again, I go back to it.
In Article 2, Section 2, in the Constitution, the Senate has to advise and consent these individuals. And in that process, we're going to give Matt Gaetz the same chances we'll give all President Trump's nominees. And by the way, I do believe that President Trump has the ability to pick some really, really good people. You can see why he's been successful in business, why he was successful in running his campaign, because he surrounds himself with the right people.
So I have no doubt that President Trump believes that Matt Gaetz is the right person to do the right job. But at the same time, the background of Matt Gaetz does matter. And what the decisions that the Senate makes has to be within our boundaries of the constitutional authority that we have. And we will do our due diligence there.
And I'll say this. Matt will be treated the same as every nominee out there for myself and every other senator out there. And you say background matters. I want to ask you about his views.
Here's a little bit of what Matt Gaetz had to say last year about the very law enforcement agencies that he is poised to be tapped to oversee. Take a look. The FBI, CDC, ATF, DOJ, every last one of them, if they do not come to heel. Senator, do you support getting rid of the FBI, the DOJ, under any circumstances?
No, I actually agree with what Matt was saying there. It's hard that it is for me to say that. I actually agree with him, because what he's saying is that he's got to come to the side of the American people and quit playing politics. The DOJ and the FBI has been politicized.
There's no question about it. We've seen what they've done to President Trump. We've seen the attacks that they continue to go after him with. The DOJ is 100% weaponized.
You saw the FBI and the fake Russia hoax. You saw the FBI shielding the Biden family and shielding the laptop from the American people during the election. If they don't want to come back and do their job, and their job is to keep America safe, to watch over America's freedom through DOJ, making sure the American justice system is running smoothly, and leaving politics out of it. But they haven't lately.
And if they don't want to come back and get focused on what the American people's mandate was for them, then we do need to revamp the system and say, hey, maybe we've got it wrong. So I don't disagree with what Matt was saying there. Well, worth noting, of course, Hunter Biden has now been convicted on several charges. The charges that were brought against President-elect Trump were brought by individual great jury.
Let me ask you broadly, though. Do you support the President-elect telling his Attorney General to prosecute, to go after people he considers to be his political enemies? The President didn't say that. That's been taken completely out of context.
And President Trump hasn't been the one that weaponized the DOJ to go after his political enemies. President Trump did not do that when he was in office the first four years. He could have clearly done that against the Clintons if he wanted to. He didn't.
Who did weaponize the DOJ was the Biden administration. We saw them continuously going after President Trump, treating him completely different. Just don't think about the classified records that was kept at Mar-a-Lago versus the classified documents that was kept in the garage of Biden and how the different reports read. It is no question they were treated different.
Now, who has weaponized the politicals or the DOJ is the Democrats. And no one can deny what they did to President Trump with four years of Biden. Senator, it's worth noting. There's absolutely no evidence that President Biden had anything to do with the federal charges brought against President-elect Trump.
But are you comfortable with law enforcement? By President Biden. And there's no question that the White House was informed about what was happening there. But Senator, you have said we're too good of a country to have the Justice Department go after political opponents.
Are you comfortable with the DOJ doing exactly what you're saying you oppose? If the DOJ is willing to take a hard look at themselves and say, hey, we got it wrong, there's some leadership positions that have to change. The people that made these decisions have to go and get the DOJ focused on what their priorities are supposed to be. And that's to be making sure the Constitution of the United States is equal for every person out there.
And if the DOJ is willing to do that and capable of doing that, and they did it for decades, by the way, for decades. If they're able to get back and say, hey, we got it wrong and admit it wrong, then hey, yeah, let's do it. I tell people all the time, I've never fired a single individual for making a mistake. I will fire you if you can't admit that you made a mistake.
And the DOJ has made multiple mistakes, and so has the FBI. All right, well, and again, Senator, let me just ask you bottom line here. Have you decided at this point whether you're going to vote for Matt Gaetz? Oh, absolutely not.
I haven't made a decision who I'm going to vote for with any one of these nominations. As I said, I'm going to treat everybody the same and do my constitutional duty, and that is to go through advice and consent. And that means background, that means we're going to be doing everything we can to verify the individuals, know who they are, and put them in the best place to succeed, to put America first. And I understand the American people.
We have an agenda and a mandate from the American people because President Trump won the popular vote and overwhelming electoral vote, and they want to have a new direction for this country, and we agree with that. I want to ask you about some of these other picks. Of course, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which will hold confirmation hearings into Trump's pick for Defense Secretary of Fox News host Pete Hegseth. You said on Thursday you're absolutely planning to vote for him, but since then, allegations of sexual assault in 2017 have surfaced, including been paid the accuser as part of a non-disclosure agreement, Senator, that's according to documents obtained by the Washington Post.
Mr. Hegseth's attorney, we want to say, deny the allegations of misconduct. He was never charged. But do you think that this matter could sink Pete Hegseth's confirmation?
It could, but let me tell you about Pete. He's an individual who served 20 years in the service. He's an honorable discharge veteran who served as a combat individual that walked into Afghanistan and Iraq as two bronze stars, highly decorated contact veteran that is a civilian today. He's a major, and he fits the role of Secretary of Defense.
I think he's a good pick. But once again, as allegations come out, we'll figure out if, as the Senate moves forward with the advising consent of the President of the United States and doing our constitutional duties, we'll figure out if he can get confirmed or not. And I do think that Pete's a good pick for this position. And just to follow up with you, because you had said you absolutely planned to vote for him.
Do you still absolutely plan to vote for him? Well, I do. As of right now, I start with yes. But can I be moved off of that?
I'm sure. Everybody starts at some point. Some people start at dead even. Some people start at yes.
Some people start at no. But I started at yes, and it's going to take some movement for me to move off of that. Let's talk about President-elect Trump's pick for HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Of course, he has said he believes that no vaccine is safe and effective. You have been on the record defending the efficacy of vaccines. Are RFK's views on vaccines a deal breaker for you, Senator? No, I absolutely appreciate Bobby Kennedy taking a hard look at the vaccines.
There are some questions that have to be made, and I appreciate some of the scrutiny that's going through there. I think Bobby can answer all those. I've had multiple conversations with him. I've sat down and had long conversations with him, and I actually find the guy extremely intelligent when it comes to this stuff.
And some of this stuff does raise a lot of questions. But I do got a question for you. The Democrats are spending so much time talking about the scrutiny of President Trump's picks. And yet we spend this amount of time scrutinizing Biden's pick.
I mean, we can talk about Rachel, the Assistant Secretary of HHS. I think that's a pretty controversial pick from whatever pronoun he or she decides to use. We talked about Sam, the Assistant Secretary or Executive, and the individual was arrested multiple times for stealing luggage off of conveyor belts inside airports. And I didn't see the same type of scrutiny that the Democrats used on these individual picks.
There's been a lot of picks. I mean, we can talk about Pete Buttigieg. Is he really qualified to be part of the transportation? But I don't see the same people getting scrutiny here.
Let's scrutinize all of those picks robustly. But, Senator, let me just go back to this, because you've been on the record saying that you do believe vaccines are safe and effective. You're not concerned about RFPG overseeing the largest health agency in the land? I have said that there's some positives to vaccinations.
I've also questioned vaccines multiple times, and I think they should be questioned. For instance, why is America highest in autism? What is causing that? Is it our diet or is it some of the stuff we're putting in our children's system?
It used to be almost not even heard of. Kids by the age of three have developed some form of autism. What is causing that? And if it is a vaccine, there's nothing wrong with actually taking a hard look and finding it.
Is that what's causing it? Is it something else that we're putting in our systems? We do know we're not as healthy as we should be right now. We're the most developed country in the world, so all things should be on the table.
And if that's scrutinizing vaccinations, then that is exactly where we need to go. Senator, I just have to say, no credible expert or study has shown a link between vaccines and autism. So I just want to be on the record with that. Exactly.
But when we ask about the studies for the vaccine, Kristen, I know, but when we ask about the vaccines and the study that was done specific for autism, it's extremely vague. And in fact, there's not been a direct study on each individual vaccine if it has a possibility of causing it. They have an over. we're all reaching you.
And I've asked these questions because I said on health in the House and on the Senate, and we've got almost no answers on that. Again, there's just no scientific evidence for that. But very quickly, because we're almost out of time. Of course, President-elect Trump has floated the idea of recess appointments.
Would you vote to approve recess appointments? Is that something you would support? Yeah, if it became the last option. It is very difficult to get there.
Remember, Article 2, Section 3, the President does have the right to call us into recess if we can't agree. And that means if we get bogged down, and let's say that King Jeffries in the House is holding up some of the Senate, or some of the, not the Senate confirmation, but some of the stuff that's going on in the House, it not to do with confirmations, or if we do with Chuck Schumer in the Senate with confirmations, the President does have the right to call us into recess. However, it's very difficult to get that done, because in 2014, Obama did this. Republicans took him to court, and underneath the Cannon case, and we actually won.
So there's some cases out there that shows that this wouldn't be temporary. First of all, we'd have to be in recess for 10 days. Both houses would agree to be in recess for 10 days before the first appointment. The appointment would be temporary, and it would only be at least two years or until the next Congress goes in.
And so we'd still have to go through the confirmation period anyway. So it'd be absolute last resort. But if that's what we have to do to get the confirmation through, then absolutely, let's do it. But I would say that would be the last option.
Okay, yeah. And you talk about Hakeem Jeffries, we'll put this to him coming up in just a minute. But Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, thank you so much for joining us this morning. We really appreciate it.
Thank you. And when we come back, the House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, joins me next. Welcome back. Republicans have retained control of the House, holding a narrow majority of 218 seats to Democrats' 212, with five races still uncalled at this hour.
Joining me now is the House Democratic leader, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries of New York. He's also the author of the new children's book, The ABCs of Democracy. Leader Jeffries, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thank you for being here.
Good morning. Great to be with you. Well, it is great to have you. I want to start with the results of the presidential election.
For more than a year now, you have issued really dire warnings about what a second Trump term would look like. Take a look at a little bit of what you've said. It would be a very dangerous, devastating, and destructive thing if Donald Trump got anywhere close to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The American people should be terrified.
Everything that we care about is on the ballot this November. If Roe v. Wade get forward, then anything get forward. Democracy itself, as we know it, get forward.
Leader Jeffries, why do you think those warnings didn't resonate with voters? Well, I've congratulated incoming President Donald Trump and the House Democrats. We look forward to working with the incoming administration whenever and wherever possible to find bipartisan common ground to solve problems for the American people. That's what the American people want us to do, to deliver real results on the issues that matter.
But at the same period of time, we will continuously push back against far-right extremism whenever necessary. We will protect Social Security. We will protect Medicare. We will protect the Affordable Care Act.
We will protect reproductive freedom. And we will protect the progress that we've made on having a sustainable planet. Let me ask you about some new reporting that's come out. Axios is reporting that some Democrats are frustrated with Speaker of Nerida Pelosi's public critique of the party's missteps leading up to the election, saying she needs to let you lead the caucus.
One lawmaker went so far as to say, quote, she needs to take a seat. Another said they don't think Pelosi is being, quote, respectful of you. Do you agree? I think Speaker of Nerida Pelosi has been incredibly respectful of the entire leadership team.
It's an honor to stand on the shoulders of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, an incredibly consequential public servant in the history of America, and to continue to work closely with Speaker Pelosi and, of course, Jim Clyburn and Steny Hoyer. We stand on their shoulders. At the same period of time, you know, as House Democrats, we're proud of the new leadership team. We're looking forward to confronting the challenges that we have to face on behalf of the American people.
We're going to focus like a laser beam on dealing with the issues related to working-class Americans and middle-class Americans and those who aspire to be part of the middle class to make sure that we can build a healthy and affordable economy and help out everyday Americans who for far too long have been struggling to live paycheck to paycheck. That's a team effort, and we're going to dive right in as a team. Very quickly, though, do you think she's undermining your leadership with her public pronouncements? No.
Okay, that was quick. One of the arguments that Nancy Pelosi made is that President Biden should have gotten out of the race sooner. Do you believe he should have dropped out sooner? I think that President Biden will go down in history as one of the most consequential presidents of all time, and I was thankful for all the work that we were able to do together.
He did make the decision. It was a selfless decision to pass the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris. I think she ran with it and did the best job that she could under incredibly challenging circumstances in a little over 100 days. She came close, but we fell short, and we'll have to figure out through an after-action analysis, and we've said that should be candid and clear-eyed and comprehensive about what was done right, what was done wrong, collectively, and most importantly, how do we improve upon our performance so we're in the strongest possible position to solve the real challenges that everyday Americans face and have faced for far too long.
The deck has been stacked against the American middle class and those who aspire to be part of it. We recognize that, and we have to deal with it decisively. Well, you take me to my next point, and it starts with your book, your new book, The ABCs of Democracy. This is a children's book.
It's based, of course, on the floor speech that you delivered outlining democratic values when you became leader. One of the values, and I want to put this up on the screen, is you say, quote, working families over the well-connected. In this past election, Donald Trump won working-class voters, traditionally Democrats' stronghold. Why?
Well, it's an illustrated book for people of all ages, and hopefully we'll set forth some values and a blueprint for how we move forward. We clearly have to put working families over the well-connected. In America, let's be clear, when you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself and for your family, purchase a home, educate your children, have access to high-quality health care, go on vacation every now and then. But Leader Jeffries, why did President-elect Trump resonate with those voters instead of Democrats?
What were you all missing? Well, that's going to be an incredibly important part of our analysis. What I can tell you is that our focus has and always will be on delivering for everyday Americans. That American dream that I talked about, it's been under assault for decades for a wide variety of reasons.
Poorly negotiated trade deals, the outsourcing of good-paying American jobs, the decline of unionization, and of course the rise of automation have all jammed up people in the heartland of America, the Great Lakes states, and working families all across the country. And it's going to fall on Democrats, Republicans, and independents to do something about it decisively. To me, that's the lesson that I take from the most recent election. I want to ask you now about that report that the House Ethics Committee was set to vote on to release into former Congressman Matt Gaetz, of course, President-elect Trump's pick to be the next Attorney General.
Speaker Johnson is now saying that the report should not be released. What's your reaction to what, Speaker Johnson is saying? Of course it should be released, and that's not just Democrats saying that. You have repeatedly seen Senate Republicans make clear who are on the Senate Judiciary Committee or throughout that chamber say that they want access to all available information so they can make a decision about whether the nominee for Attorney General is qualified to serve in that office.
The Senate has a clear responsibility to serve as a separate and co-equal branch of government and a check and balance. That says America is baseball, motherhood, and apple pie. All right, let me ask you about another pick, President-elect Trump's pick for Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. Of course, your former colleague in the House.
Here's what Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to say about her just this week. Take a look. Tulsi Gabbard is someone who has met with war criminals. violated the Department of State's guidance and secretly clandestinely went to Syria and met with Assad who gassed and attacked his own people with chemical weapons.
She's considered to be essentially by most by most assessments a Russian asset. Leader Jeffries, do you agree that she's a Russian asset? Here's what I have to say about several of the nominations that have been made by the incoming president, including the one that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was referring to. The incoming president throughout the campaign promised the American people that we would have the best economy, the best border security, and the best administration possible.
The question that has to be asked, is this the best that we can do in the context of some of these nominations? Is this the very best that America has to offer for a moment like this with so many challenges that we confront? Of course not. America deserves better.
Hopefully, we'll see the Senate Republicans do their job, scrutinize these picks, certainly confirm those that meet the basic level of qualifications, and reject others. Leader Jeffries, you're not willing to say she's a Russian asset? No, that's not how I would characterize her at this particular juncture, but I'm open to scrutinizing whatever information is presented to all of us, but this is going to fall on Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans. Very quickly, of course, there's talk of recess appointments.
If President Trump tries to push that, is there any recourse that you have in the House to try to block that from happening? What would you do? Well, we will work very closely with our Senate Democratic colleagues that have great trust and respect in Leader Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin to make sure that no end runs can be done as best as we can. Listen, at the end of the day, we have to stop the brinksmanship, stop the partisanship, stop the bickering and the backbiting.
The American people sent a message. They want us to work together to deliver real results and solve problems for hardworking American taxpayers. That's the job that House Democrats will do. All right, Leader Jeffries, thank you so much for joining us this morning.
We really appreciate it. Thank you. And when we come back, President-elect Donald Trump's cabinet picks have shocked Washington. Will the Senate confirm some of his most controversial choices, the panel's next.
Hey guys, Willie Geist here, reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit-Down Podcast. On this week's episode, I get together with red-hot stand-up comedian Nikki Glaser to talk about the long career grind that has brought her to this starring moment, hosting the Golden Globes, killing it at the Tom Brady roast, and now with another hit special on Hulu. You can get our conversation now for free wherever you download your podcasts. Welcome back.
The panel is here. I'm Navaz, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour, Eugene Daniels, White House correspondent for Politico and co-author of Politico Playbook. Jen Psaki, former White House press secretary and host of Inside, Jen Psaki. And Lonnie Chen, fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
Thanks to all of you for being here. And let me start with you. We've been talking about President-elect Trump's cabinet picks throughout this morning. Obviously, some of them are controversial.
To some extent, this is really the first big test for Republicans in the Senate. It's the first big loyalty test, probably the first of many to come. And loyalty is the one thread that ties all of these nominees together. Look, we've seen the way that the nomination process is unfolding.
For Team Trump, we know he's making these decisions very, very quickly. His team tells us they believe they have a mandate because of the way he won this election to put into place, whoever he wants to see his agenda through. And we also know that they don't want to repeat what they see as the mistakes of the past, where they leaned on Republican establishment, went with candidates who they now see as problematic, people like Jim Mattis and Rex Tillerson and John Kelly, people who disagreed with the president and stood up to him to restrain some of his worst impulses in office. Those people will not be in the room this time.
So for the senators, I think the big question right now is how will they treat these nominees and how they choose to oppose some of them? Do they ask enough questions about RFK's anti-back status, except lack of experience in management of any kind, Gabbert's questioning of her own intelligence committees, or all the questions around Gates, or do they act as a rubber stamp? It's a big indication of how they'll act for the whole presidency moving forward. Yeah, Eugene, that really is the big difference.
In 2016, the Pittsburgh establishment, now it seems like it's all about loyalty. Matt Gaetz seems to have one of the toughest past number of senators privately telling NBC News that they think it's going to be very tough for him to get confirmed. How do you see this playing out? Loyalty and also some disdain for the exact agencies that we'll be in charge of in a lot of cases, too.
For Gaetz, I think he is probably the easiest person for senators to behind the scenes say, I'm not with it, because the kinds of allegations that we've seen publicly already, a lot of it already happening, is not that he doesn't have experience, it's that, you know, allegedly that he had relations with women who are under, girls who are under 18 years old, right? But the difference is, this happens all the time with Republicans. We've seen it for years. They say a lot of things to us behind closed doors, and we watch them walk right up to the cameras and say the exact opposite, right?
Or, more importantly, they vote the exact opposite. That has happened over and over and over again. And so there's a possibility that Gaetz here might not become the attorney general, not do the normal process, or he might, because the senators are going to do, likely, the rubber stamping aspect of it. The ones to watch are the ones who are up in 2026, and the folks who are in the kind of bluer, purpler states, who are safer.
People like Susan Collins, who probably, if she goes against Gaetz, are going to get more support in her home state. And of course, Lonnie Gaetz has denied any wrongdoing. You just heard Senator Mark Wayne Mullen say he hasn't decided how he's going to vote yet, but he does want to see that report from House ethics. Yeah, look, the advice and consent function is a serious function.
I think a lot of senators will take it very seriously. And 53 is a significant majority for Republicans, but it's not 60, right? And so it doesn't take all that many Republicans to peel off before there is a problem there. But obviously, there's a focus on some of these nominees.
If you step back for a minute, though, there's a lot of nominees that aren't getting as much attention that I think are actually very, very good choices, whether it's Doug Burgum, to deal with some of these issues around energy costs, which are rising in America. Marco Rubio has strong bipartisan support. We see that with Elise Stefanik. So I think that you can spend time talking about the controversial ones, but the reality is there are some very good appointments here, too, that I think aren't getting a lot of attention and should because they're important from a policy perspective.
Jen, you were in the Biden administration when the president was making his tips to fill out his cabinet. Talk a little bit about the high stakes of a process like this and what your takeaways are. Well, what we're seeing here play out is clearly this is not how a normal process goes. And how a normal process goes is there's an extensive vetting process where candidates are asked everything about their personal lives, everything about their finances.
Clearly, we're not seeing that right now. I think I understand your point here, but if you look at two of the big four, as we can shorthand them, to the Department of Justice and the Secretary and the Department of Defense, you have nominees that are not qualified and have major ethical issues that are publicly known. So I think the lack of focus on some of the other nominees is more because that is quite alarming to not just Democrats, but Republicans as well. And I think there's an ease here in just focusing on what the tabloid headlines are.
And I would hope and I advise Democrats not to just do that, right? Because it's easy just to focus on, oh, he had allegedly had sex with a minor. He's also not qualified for the job in multiple of these cases. And that's the key thing.
What about the ethical questions? Well, the ethical questions are serious, but I would say we have seen nominations before from presidents of both. parties where there have been ethical and substantive issues. Let's not forget we had a nominee for HHS secretary in this administration who had never dealt with health care before being nominated.
So I think the notion that... Look, I'm not here to... He was the attorney general for the state of California. This is a little bit of a difference.
He's been selling health care companies, but not anything with health care. I think the issue here that I'm raising that I hope that is part of the process here, not just the ethical questions and this is my point, is somebody who, yes, he was a military veteran and that should be honored, but he is somebody who has never overseen an entity that is as large and as expansive as the Department of Defense be sitting in the Oval Office, sitting in the Situation Room, advising the president on the lives of servicemen and women. Should he be the one sitting next to you? I wish these nominations is coming out.
It's forcing us to have a lot of these nominations and I think we're forcing Republicans to have answers. They don't have answers yet because remember last time he was elected, Mr. Trump didn't make a single nomination until December. We are seeing key positions roll out one after the other, after the other raises questions about how those decisions are being made and also makes it harder to ask questions.
Eugene, what about the tension between, yes, you have the ethical questions and then also the questions about whether these folks, some of them actually have the right experience for the roles that they're being picked for? To Jim's point, if Democrats can convince enough senators, Republican senators, on the issues and the policy prescriptions and whether these people have a management experience, that's probably a better lane for them to try to do this, right? Because you're not going to see them, what we've seen from Republicans for a long time in the Senate and the House, is that, you know, a lot of the tabloid stuff doesn't bother them, right? And that has been key as Trump has run the Republican Party.
So Democrats can do that, talk to them behind closed doors and they can do a pressure campaign, right? That's a question we've been asking a lot of on both House and Senate Democrats. Are you guys going to work on a pressure campaign publicly to convince some of these senators to do the thing that they're saying behind closed doors that they already wanted? And he's a pick one.
This is the party on the press. We can't do all of them. Correct. And public-private thing is important too because the vote to make senator if a majority leader was a private vote.
They were not to publicly defend votes for the 90s. All right. Well, great conversation, guys. Stand by.
We have more to come. When we come back, President Biden's thoughts from his time as a senator on the role the Senate should play in confirming the president's cabinet. Our New The Press Minute is next. Welcome back.
The Senate's role in providing advice and consent on a president's cabinet nominees is in the spotlight once again, as some of President-elect Trump's picks raise eyebrows on Capitol Hill. As George W. Bush was preparing to take office, then-Senator Joe Biden joined this broadcast with his thoughts about the Senate's duty to closely examine White House appointees. I hear so often people say, you know, the president wanted to get his picks.
Well, if that were the case, there wouldn't be a thing called advice and consent in the Constitution. There are several circumstances in which the president should not get his pick. One, obviously, if he picks someone for a job who says they want to do away with the job. I'm not going to vote for anybody who says, I want to be head of the department.
My purpose is to get rid of the department. Number two, if you have someone for the job who communicates to the public at large that they are not likely to, in an even-handed way, apply the law, whatever it happens to be, whatever department, then that's a reason not to be. For example, I've voted against attorneys general in both administrations. When we come back, Democrats in the political wilderness.
How will they operate with the GOP in control of Congress? Welcome back. The panel is still here. Jen, I want to play one of, I think, the biggest images from the week, which is President-elect Trump meeting with President Biden.
Of course, this is a tradition that then-President Trump did not extend to the incoming President Biden four years ago. How do you see Democrats charting their path forward at this moment? And I should mention both leaders that we do have a smooth transition. That's correct.
But I also think that you can't, nobody here and anywhere should focus on one visual moment as an indication of all things happening behind the scenes. You're obviously not doing that. Look, I think Democrats are in the wilderness. As you just said before, there is no clear leader of the party.
Joe Biden is going to be out of office shortly. Kamala Harris just lost the election. There are a lot of governors and other people who might emerge. Maybe people we don't know about yet, but there's no clear leader of the party right now.
That, to me, is an opportunity because people have to decide. Nobody's given it, right? You seize the mantle or you don't. Are you going to be the person who's the right person to stand up against Trump?
Are you going to be the person who brings the country together? Are you going to be the person who talks about the economy in ways that people understand? There are lots of ways to do it. I don't know who's going to emerge, but that's the moment we're in right now.
Eugene, I think that's one of the most fascinating aspects of this moment. There's no clear leader of this party, and yet, Nardi leader Hakeem Jeffries, one of the leadership voices. What do you make of what you heard from him in the context of the path forward? Does it seem like they know exactly what it's going to look like?
No, they don't, right? They seem to have no idea. And part of that is because there's so many different constituencies within the Democratic Party, both here on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. I think the most interesting dynamic that's going to play out here is kind of the young guard versus the old guard.
And I've been hearing from a lot of 30, 40, even 50, that's the younger one here in kind of D.C., that they are going to put up a huge fight with the older folks because I think you can't bring us to where we are right now and take us out of it. And it's a moment, I'm just going to say, for generational changes now, because there are people in leadership positions who are not of the young guard. Democrats control nothing. So people out there want to change.
Now's the moment to change it. That's part of the tension with Nancy Pelosi, by the way. I think one of the challenges that Democrats are going to have in the next couple of years is, is it going to be an oppositional agenda or is it going to be a forward-looking agenda? Because they have an opportunity.
Well, but they're going to have to emphasize one or the other. And I'd argue that they really don't emphasize the agenda that's forward-looking and thinking about the ways in which, and this is one way in which I never thought I'd say this, but I might agree with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. I do think, but look, I think there is this idea that there has to be an articulation of what are you actually going to do for working Americans? And I think that got lost a little bit in the 2024 campaign.
Lots of people are going to present their agendas. That's the moment that everybody's, and also, Speaker Pelosi did step back. She's still in Congress. She's no longer the Speaker.
I don't think that's the same example as kind of moving people out of leadership roles who have now aged out of those roles. There's a tension, though, between how they move going forward with the next-term presidency, the generational tension. This is what's going to define Democrats way forward. Look, there's the unknowables they're still wrestling with.
Like, what would have happened if there was a different primary process if I hadn't had dropped out earlier? All of those things are still very much part of the conversation. But even in the House alone, you have folks like Jeffrey's obviously saying, we're going to work with this president where we can. You have folks like Carmel Jai Paul saying, we're not going to help Republicans govern moving forward.
They have to do it on their own. Democrats haven't yet figured out which way they're going to go. Because every time they want to be the adults in the room, right, they want to show the American people, you know how to govern. But the American people often want to see people fighting, right, and more importantly, they want to see someone who is going to, give me an example, right, if Democrats believe that Donald Trump or Republicans can't govern this country, why assist them in doing that and making it look like they can?
That is something the Democrats have to figure out. And Jen, that tonal issue being the adults in the room, I've heard some Democrats privately say, that came off as condescending, and that's part of what needs to be addressed as well, in terms of the message to vote. Yes, I mean, look, adults in the room has many meanings, and finding ways to work together on policies where there's agreement, actually, the public does want that, right? But also finding places to pick your fights and being bold is also important.
I know you're going to say you can do both. You absolutely can do both. You absolutely can do both. I think tonally, though, there are lessons learned from the election without navel-gazing forever.
It was not just people going to Trump. It was the Democrats losing working people. If they're the party of working people, they need to figure out how to talk to that group of people. All right, fantastic conversation, guys.
Thank you so much. That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We'll be back next week, because if it's Sunday, it is Meet the Press.
I'm Craig Mell. Cheers, cheers, cheers. I've always been a glass-half-full kind of guy, and now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way, too. Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories, their funny, and I can't.
So I hope you'll join me each week. Who knows? You might just come away with your own glass-half-full. Search glass-half-full with Craig Mellon from today on YouTube and wherever you get to podcasts.