but we certainly don't seek a wider conflict. but we also on the clock here and we will respond at a time and place of our choosing. sorry, go ahead. >> if the iranian proxy, do you hold them accountable, what lake response would be, retaliation against this attack? >> so as you can appreciate, i'm not going to forecast what her response look like but of course, we rolled iran responsible as they are supporting these groups. these groups that continue to inflict casualties on our forces, whether it be in jordan, iraq, or syria. we absolutely hold iran responsible because we know that they fund and train and support and equip these militias that operate in iraq and syria. >> thank you. it is the position of the department of that iran is

responsible for the attack that killed three u.s. soldiers in northeast jordan? >> i ran a bears responsibility because it funds these groups that operate in iraq in syria that launch attacks on our service members. >> i understand that, but this attack led to the death of three servicemembers. is iran responsible for the death of these three servicemembers that you just read their names and their families have been notified of their death? >> again, iran certainly bears a responsibility, as they fund these groups that continue to use capabilities that they get from iran. of course, they killed three of our service members. >> can i take just a step back. >> sure. >> and just looking at last week maybe from saturday of last week up until saturday of last week. or sunday, maybe. nine days. the u.s. launched a strike in syria, in iraq, against houthi,

inside yemen, with the aim of re-establishing deterrence and degrade the abilities of whether attacking u.s. forces or shipping in the red sea. nonetheless, as throughout those days, what we saw is unprecedented escalation targeted with ballistic missiles. targeted with a drone, more u.s. soldiers were injured, the houthi rebels went after a british ship, after a u.s. ship. does the u.s. think it's approach is firing back, would you say it's successful, especially when three soldiers were killed? >> we are assessing what happened yesterday, and we are trying to figure out how a one- way attack drone was able to evade air defenses and was able to kill three of our service members and injured dozens more. to your question on deterrence,

i can continue to say that we don't see war. we don't seek further conflict. we don't want to see this widen out into a regional conflict. but we will continue to do whatever we need to when it comes to protecting u.s. forces and our coalition partners and innocent mariners transiting the red sea. we believe that we have been effective integrating their capabilities and disrupting their ability to launch certain attacks. but the reality is, yesterday, unfortunately, they were successful, and they killed three of our service members and that is an absolute tragedy. i am going to the phones, and then i will come back to the room. politico? >> thank you. can you say whether there has been any decisions made to send any additional forces to the region to beef up some of the

counter u.s. capability here? >> thank you, laura. i'm not going to get ahead of any decisions that are going to be made and certainly wouldn't preview the repositioning of any air defenses. >> do we have sufficient counter drug capability in the region to account for all the different bases that have come under attack recently? >> yeah, thank you, laura. again, we seen repeated attacks on our u.s. service members in both iraq in syria and a majority of the time, our air defenses have been incredibly successful. we've only seen it minor damage to infrastructure and of course, some injuries, which we all take very seriously, but for the most part, our air defenses have been robust and have been successful. i am going to take one more from the phone here. heather? >> thank you so much. the who the leadership announced that they fired a naval missile in the gulf of aden. i'm wondering if there's any confirmation from the department whether that happened and if there is any damage or if they shot it down.

>> thank you, heather. i don't have anything for you at this time. i'm happy to, we are happy to get back to you on that one. i will take a few more from you in the room and then i'm sorry, we do have something coming up soon. >> there has been some back-and- forth of whether you the u.s. has any troops in yemen. >> we do not have u.s. troops in yemen. yeah. >> the u.s. carried out preemptive strikes, targeting houthi missiles before they could strike. is the u.s. going to consider preemptive strikes? >> you seen them take dynamic strikes within the region when we have identified, when we have been able to identify a potential set up of an attack or identified a point of origin. we have seen some of those dynamic strikes in the region, and i am sorry i don't have the exact dates, but they were late

last year. i am not going to get ahead of any decisions that the secretary and the president are making on what future action looks like, only to say that we, of course, will respond when we do. yeah, i will take a few more and we have to wrap. >> you mentioned the drone impacted the living quarters. do you have any -- >> the deputy printed gone -- pentagon press secretary sabrina singh -- some of the highlights included an update on the members injured. we learned it's more than 40. also, she walked to the investigation that central command is doing on exactly how this took place. talking about how a high number of troops were impacted by the attack because the attack happened early in the morning and it attack the living quarters, where some of these servicemembers were. she was also asked repeatedly of who was responsible and she said that this has the fingerprints of a group that has backed by iran. she says the united states will the biggest news to come out of

this is that she laid out exactly who was killed, the three members. >> typically right. we have the names here. we also just missed the very top of that briefing. sergeant william rivers, who was 46 years old, from carrollton, georgia. specialist kennedy sanders, 24 years old from waycross, georgia, and specialist breanna moffat, 23 years old from savannah, georgia. all three of those soldiers with the u.s. army, part of the 718th engineer army, which is part of the u.s. army river -- reserve. this is out of georgia, which is near columbus, georgia and they were serving as part of operation rick inherent resolve. this particular place, tower

22, has really been critical in that mission to combat isys. of course, so much of that work has been done, but continues to go on in the region and obviously, it's a matter for the military of trying to maintain some of those results after having really put isis at bay and these servicemembers are serving in that capacity but very sad news as we have learned that these three, sergeant rivers, specialist kennedy sanders, and specialist breonna moffett passed away. >> still a lot of questions to be answered. one of the center once is how the white house plans to respond. we are going to cnn's lauren lieberman, who is tracking this, and we are also going to -- ben route. or in. >> reporter: it seemed to me, and you pointed this out right at the top here. whether it was one of the more powerful running back groups, this has the fingerprints of

kata'ib hizballah, but would not go and say, sabrina singh would not say direct attribution, and then, iran's role. they would say they were broadly responsible, but there is an indication that they gave a specific order or a specif direction to karen -- carry out this attack. it's more that iran is probably responsible, and that the u.s. holds them responsible for the actions of its proxies and the milton groups it backs. it provides the funding, the support, the weapons, and equipment, the weather it actually gives the specific order to attack the space in jordan, that part remains unclear. sabrina singh would not quite go that far in talking about this. she was then pressed repeatedly on, is this now the regional conflict the u.s. has been trying to avoid ever since october 7th? now the point here was sort of

trying to draw a line here. we have seen more than 160 attacks on iraq, syria, and in jordan. the vast majority of these impact areas that have no effect or are intercepted by u.s. air defenses that protect u.s. troops there. this one got through. even if that was the intent of the 160 or so others, none have gone through to this point. that was a point to try to make there, that this is not a regional conflict now. it is, however, and escalation here, and that sort of thinking will guide the u.s. response, of course, neither sabrina singh or john kirby has been on the air earlier. we will telegraph exactly how the u.s. will respond. that something the ministration is, a, still trying to figure out, and b, we will let you know when the decision has been made. >> and, oren, this particular drone came in and took out the living quarters, it appears. it was coming in at the same time or around the same time as a u.s. drone returning to the

base. so now, of course, there are questions about whether the militia was exploiting that and able to kind of get through the defenses in that regard and also what this means more broadly for u.s. defenses and other bases, as well. >> of course. >> reporter: that's one thing the defense department is trying to figure out. we have learned from two u.s. officials that this drone, this attack drone that struck near the living quarters and killed three soldiers and wondered so many others came through at about the same time as a u.s. drone was returning to base and that caused a bit of confusion and a delayed response to the attack drone that led to it being able to cause such damage. now the pentagon press secretary would not say what type of drone it was, but the u.s. will have to figure out how this happened. was it simply blind, dumb luck

that this drone came at the exact same time or roughly the same time as the u.s. drone, or is this something the militia groups have learned to try to do to be able to sort of sneaks through as other drones return to u.s. bases throughout the middle east? that the key question and one you point out has a profound effect on how the u.s. thinks about its own force protection in the region. >> reporter: and ben, to that point, this is not the first time that these iranian back groups have attended to carry out these kinds of attacks on u.s. forces. more than 100 u.s. personnel and coalition personnel have now , or rather, more than 100 attacks have been launched against u.s. and coalition personnel in the region. how are you seeing all of this play out from lebanon, where -- has been more than eager to see its role expanded into a broader conflict? >> it struck 13 times by our account. is really positions on the border. we are also seeing an uptick in their actions as well.

>> reporter: the same time we are seeing this attack in jordan. but what we are hearing from lebanese officials, as well as diplomats here in beirut , their biggest concern is the very real possibility that this regional war, which is really been going on, it's been a low intensity war, really since the beginning of the war in gaza, but it's going to escalate even further. the fact that united states has now lost three servicemen, more than 40 injured in this attack in jordan, it really raises the stakes dramatically and really underscores, in a sense, just how tenuous this situation is, whereby you basically have four flashpoints. you have the border between lebanon and israel. you have the american troops in eastern syria, which have come under attack multiple times.

you have the american troops in iraq and then you have the situation in yemen. three of those flashpoints, the united states has already struck, and it appears that in the aftermath of this attack, in jordan, there is going to be some sort of strike by the united states. obviously, where and what we don't know, now, it was interesting. the spokesperson did say several times, we do not seek a wider conflict with iran, and most diplomats will tell you that the iranians don't seek a wider conflict either, but this attack in jordan, whether it was just luck on the part of the, we assume, the iranian backed militia group that did it or it was actually the result of improved technology, what we have seen really through, since the beginning of the war in gaza, is that the technology of the foes of the

united states has improved dramatically, and the united states advantage technological advantage may be not quite what they saw in the same way the israeli technological advantage was clearly not what they thought it was on the seventh of october. there is a very real danger that one side or the other is going to go too far and that will bring about reaction that could really start a cycle that could, indeed, lead to a massive regional war. >> all right. ben and oren, you so much for those reports. big concerns this afternoon. let's discuss now the democratic congressman, he served in the iraq war. congressman, thank you so much for being with us this afternoon. obviously, there are a range of recommendations coming from how the u.s. should respond to this attack. some are calling for directly targeting tehran. you have suggested this calls play into the enemy's hands. what should the united states

do? >> we clearly need to send a decisive message that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. it will be tolerated, and we will strike back, but starting a war would, indeed, play into our enemies hands. we have had these iranian proxies attacking u.s. troops for 20 years. let's not forget, this has been going on for a long time. when i was on the ground in iraq, iranian made weapons in the hands of iranian proxies, they were killing literally hundreds of americans every year. deterring that is hard, but we have known that we want to deter without starting a war. these militant groups are starting -- trying to start a war. that's what they want. they are not attacking u.s. troops to strike eight trade delia. they want a war. we want to stop a war, not start one. >> i am curious what you make of the assessment that iran is

not eager for a direct conflict but you are saying that these militia groups are. it seems like a very passive aggressive policy by iran that they do not want to directly attack the united states, but they are happy if these proxy groups kill americans. how do you deal with that? >> you know, if there is one thing i learned about three years on the ground in the middle east over four towards in iraq is that the middle east is not a black-and-white place. iran is not a black-and-white country. it may be true that the high echelons of iranian minute -- leadership do not want to broader war, and i've seen intelligence that supports that, as well, while at the same time, some of the forces that are directly supporting, they do actually want to war. there is this great divide in iran between the hardline forces that want to attack the west and they actually want to

reconcile and reform the country for the better. so what we don't want to do is empower the hardliners here. we don't want to empower the militias. we want to stop them militias and empower the democratic forces. not just in iran but in all the other countries in question here, as well. >> congressman, i want to get your response to republicans who argue that the biden administration has been weak on iran. in their eyes, they have tried to broker a deal with iran and in doing so, unfreezing billions of dollars of assets and such, what would you say to them about the proper way to conduct a foreign policy with iran -- to ron. >> we need to send decisive messages that this kind of admin is acceptable. we, i'm confident that just as

president biden has said that he will respond. but to say that we should never have any diplomacy, especially with the elements in the middle east that are aligned to our interest, that's ridiculous. and many of these republican served in republican administrations. some of them, before coming to congress, that face the exact same problem and have the exact same dual pronged approach. i mean, let's not forget that under president bush, when we were in iraq, with cheney as his vice president, we were losing dozens and dozens of american servicemen to iranian backed attacks. but at the same time, that republican president did not want to start a war with iran. just like president trump. president trump wanted to hit back at iran, but was very careful not to start a war. so, you know, throughout history here, at least the last two decades, this has been a comp get a problem and that is why he deserves a complex

solution. a mixture of hard military messages with tactical diplomacy. >> so what more needs to be done to protect u.s. service members in the region? what we are hearing for the white house is, as of a few days before this incident, president biden is saying that a message had been sent to iran and its proxies in the region. it doesn't seem like they are getting that message. >> i think that's a fair assessment and i think the president would agree with that, as well. he has been working to walk this line between deterrence and actually starting a war but clearly, we need to put more pressure, militarily, on these militant, these terrorist groups. but there are other things that need to be done, as well. in terms of protecting u.s. troops, the administration has come out and said that it looks like our air defenses were confused because a u.s. drone was coming into the base of the same time as this attack. you know, regardless of whether this was a sophisticated enemy attack that did exactly that,

that tried to confuse our air defenses or not, i think confused here is a polite term for mistakes. we've got to stop these drones, whether they come at the same time as our drones or not. so clearly we need to make sure that we have robust air defenses madrone defenses. the operators are trained for this kind of operation. a mistake was made here and that's part of why three troops lost their lives. >> on that no, congressman. i do want to leave by asking you about those three personnel, those three servicemembers. as someone who served, what is your message to their families? >> my message their families is that there is nothing that we can do either in the future of the past to bring back your loved ones and you are bearing an inordinate cost for our security and safety. but know that your loved ones were standing out there on the front, on the front in the

middle east, because it's important to our national security. because we don't want a broader war in the middle east that will cost thousands and thousands of american lives, that because standing with our allies in the middle east and all across the globe helps to fundamentally protect us at home. so don't believe, don't think for a second that these deaths were in vain. >> congressman seth moulton, our hearts go out to their families. we appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> of course. still ahead this hour on cnn news central, a number of migrants , lawmakers say they have reached a bipartisan will -- bill that could help.p. so why is biden n tryiying t to it? ? we will exexplore that in justs few minutetes. >> the lead, with jajake tapper

a key border deal negotiated tells cnn a bipartisan agreement has been reached and could be ready to go to the senate floor in the coming days. resident biden is urging lawmakers to pass the bill, calling it the toughest set of reforms yet. but former president trump is pressuring republicans to block it in an effort to stay think a policy win for biden. right now, i pretensions at the u.s. mexican border are taking up, recently topping about 4000 migrants per day. and last year, border authorities reported a total of nearly 2 1/2 encounters. that they search for this numbers that we saw in 2021. let's turn out to cnn's melanie zanona. she's life for us on capitol hill. melanie, tell us where things stand in the future of this agreement in this divided congress. >> yet, the negotiators are hoping to unveil it sometime this week, but even without a deal in hand, we are seeing some very strong pushback from

republicans, particularly in the house >> reporter: speaker mike johnson already put a letter. the deal is likely dead on arrival in the house and today, he put out another statement, railing against one of the reported provisions in the deal. i want to redo what he wrote on social media. he said the border shutdown authority that allows even one illegal crossing is a nonstarter. thousands each day is outrageous. them number must be zero. that is a reference to a provision in the senate bill we have learned about that would automatically shut down the southern border, if average t c over 5000 during a one-week period. other provisions have been agreed to include a provision that would speed up the process for those seeking asylum at the southern border, as well as provisions to grant more work permits. some pretty significant concessions there from democrats. this likely is the most conservative immigration deal that has been discussed on capitol hill in decades. and yet the steel is facing major headwinds in the gop and a large reason for that is

because of donald trump. he's been privately and -- in large part because he wants to campaign on this issue and he doesn't want to hand democrats and president biden a win. what you're saying and many republicans eager to follow his lead and not only let -- but aid for israel in ukraine hanging in the balance. breanna? >> very interesting development there. thank you so much, for that report. donald trump is seizing on the deaths on three u.s. service members who were killed in jordan. what he's saying about the drone attack that also injured more than 40 members of the military.

congress is clashing over a border deal. president biden grapples with the escalating conflict in the middle east. and 2021 republican front- runner taking full advantage of the situation. >> that's right, the former president is taking full advantage of the situation. >> that's right. >> trump is also trying to tank a senate compromise the deal that might ease problems on the southern border. let's discuss this with cnn's alina training -- elaine training. let's talk, alina, with trump using this jordan attack to go after president biden.

you are at his rally where he really went in on him. talk about what happened. >> reporter: first of all, i think nevada was the perfect place for donald trump to make that pivot to a general election. it's a state that both he and in this campaign, already felt like he won because nikki haley is not even on the ballot for the caucus there and so you really saw him escalated. but when it comes to this attack, it really plays into donald trump's key general election message which is that biden is a week and incapable later. that's what he calls him on social media and argue that under joe biden, the united states is heading into world war iii. not just domestically, he asserts that the -- he should not be going as far in this rhetoric all these things about

how these wars would not have started, whether it's israel, ukraine, or what happened with these soldiers in jordan. it's all something though that i know, when i talk to voters, they do believe. they really do believe that, under trump, the world was safer, that donald trump is a leader, a strong leader who, maybe could do better when it comes to poor foreign policy, and it's an argument that works with -- this was he was giving on saturday and he is continuing to try and push and it's unclear still, i think if general voters are buying that rhetoric from him. >> conversely, jeff, at the white house a short while ago, john kirby became animated when reporters asked him about joe biden weighing the political factor. the 2024 election, when deciding how to respond to these attacks in jordan. we actually have a clip of it. let's play it now. >> this is an election year. is the president looking at his polling when he is weighing all of these options? is the president looking -- >> that's a heck of a question. ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, let me to

stop you right there. >> let me finish my question. >> that commander-in-chief is not looking at polling when he is defending -- >> about the war on gaza. >> now can i answer the question? he is not looking at political calculations or the polling for the electoral calendar as he worked to protect our troops ashore in our ships at sea. >> this issue has a multitude of dimensions that carries significance for president biden, not the least of which is that his son served and receives. >> absolutely. there are many powers of incumbency and challenges of incumbency. this is first and foremost among them. the commander-in-chief has to make decisions regardless of if we are 10 months before an election or a week before election or what. so from an outsider, it's very easy to sort of throw attacks, as joe biden did when trump was the president. so that's just how it works.

but watching john kirby there reminds me so much of other presidents in these positions here. everyone things and wonders if election polling is guiding decisions. if that were the case, he probably would have already called for a cease-fire, at least among his left flank because there's no doubt that the white house and president biden or losing support and losing this coalition that's really fraying that brought him into office. look. president biden, vice president biden, senator biden, he's been around for a very long time. sometimes in power, sometimes out of power. it's a pretty straight line, but the question was about his polling guiding things. the consequence of his decision is going to guide polling. so regardless of he's driven by this, it still has an effect in this election year. >> americans care. >> sure. >> and elected officials should

care about what americans care about, whether you pose it as political or whatnot. >> when he calls the family members of those three service members identified today, it's impossible to separate the reality from it. >> we had a republican congressman, michael waltz, former green beret, served in the middle east, on earlier. and he and, i think this was, he was projecting what i think trump is trying to project, which was the idea that he was bold and he took out solo money, except peace did not break out. there were proxy attacks after that. american servicemembers died in the month, just a couple of months after that. it's just not, the facts don't bear it out. but what strikes me as strange, jeff is that we are in a really. place in politics. a very strange place. yo expect your politicians to be arguing over the bodies of dead soldiers and yet in a way, that is a little bit where we are and it's uncomfortable and unbecoming. >> is certainly uncomfortable, and the lines are drawn in very

different ways. this is not a republican and a democratic online thing. the foreign policy in the era of donald trump has changed tremendously and i think this is one example of that. you have people on the hawkish side, select lindsey graham and others, thing attack tehran, basically. some other republican talking hansen thinkers are thinking that's lunacy. the protest that we see at president biden's rally are from the inside. we are used to seeing antiwar protesters, and i'm thinking back to george w. bush and the iraq protesters. the politics of all of this is so curious, with a contentious circle and a strange alliance here. it's unlike anything i've ever seen in at least two decades in washington. >> we haven't said the word unprecedented enough when talking about this election cycle beal, jeff, thank you so much. still to come, could alex murdaugh get another trial, what one attorney said that

could get the convicted killer a new trial. all that and more next on cnn news central.

>> he wanted to shrink nato. it is now larger and getting larger still. he wanted to weaken nato, it is stronger than it has ever been. all of this will, i think, coming to an important inflection point we get to the nato stomach, the historic summit that we are very honored to host in washington in july. this is going to be, i think, the most ambitious summit since the end of the cold war. showing the adaptation to new challenges and new threats, whether it's russia, whether it's very different ways, the

prc, the cyber domain, terrorism, and what you are seeing is an alliance that, as i said, is coming together in new ways and in stronger ways to make sure that it can deal effectively with those challenges. even as we are celebrating when we get to the nato summit, 75 years of its history, the real focus on the summit is going to be on the next 75 years, and everything nato has done to adapt and make it self, as it has been, indispensable to the defense and security of its members. some of those capabilities and some of that strength was on display as we kicked off the latest military exercises since the end of the cold war. 90,000 personnel. they are sending a very clear message peer this alliance is ready and it is able to defend every square inch of nato territory. we discussed with the secretary- general, the unwavering support for ukraine. last week, nato signed a $1.2

billion contract to produce $220,000 -- artillery shells. that's going to allow allies to restock their own arsenals and it complements efforts by the united states, by the european union, by ukraine, to ramp up defense production. this will make nato itself and all allies much more resilient for future threats as we move forward. as all of us take on these challenges and i want to emphasize, in the case of ukraine, we have seen is very clearly, this probably never been a better example of burden sharing in the history of the alliance in the partnerships that we have with different countries, then we see when it comes to ukraine. as i mentioned before, the support that the united states has provided to ukraine has been exceptional. about $75 billion over the last

couple of years, but our partners and allies, notably our or nato allies have provided more than $110 million over the same time. whether it's military support, whether it's humanitarian support, the burden sharing we have seen in the case of ukraine has been more than exemplary. but in order to make sure that that continues, that all of us step and do what is necessary to continue to ensure that ukraine knows success and russia knows failure, -- put before it. without it, simply put, everything that ukraine has achieved and the we have to help them achieve will be in jeopardy. and absent that supplemental, we are going to be sending a strong and wrong message to all of our adversaries that we are not serious about the defense of freedom, the defense of democracy. and it will simply reinforce for vladimir putin that he can somehow outlast ukraine and outlast us. well, that is not going to be the case. we have to make sure of it.

that is not the case. finally, let me just say that we have a lot of work to do over the next few months to prepare for the summit. i think we have, today, a very good session with the secretary- general and we will be meeting shortly with the national security advisor and the defense over the pentagon to continue that work. i look for to that and the weeks and months ahead as we prepare for the nato summit. again. >> thank you so much, secretary antony blinken. thank you so much for hosting me in washington. it's always good to meet with you. even more important, given the dangers that we are facing. so let me begin by offering my deepest condolences for the u.s. troops killed and wounded in yesterday's drone attack in jordan. we see iran continue to destabilthregion. iran also bears responsibility for backing terrorists who attack

ships in the red sea. tehran's behavior reminds us of what a world without rules looks like. unpredictable and dangerous. a world where security becomes more expensive. i welcome your tireless diplomacy, secretary, to prevent further explanation -- human suffering and your hard work towards a peaceful resolution. russia's brutal war against ukraine is nearing the two year mark. a russian victory would embolden iran, north korea, and china. that matters for europe security. and it matters for america's security. so supporting ukraine serves you as an interest.

for a time, the fraction of annual defense spending, the united states, has helped ukraine a major part of the combat capacity. without placing a single american soldier in of russia's combat capacity. without placing a single american soldier in harm's way. i welcome the clear commitment from president biden and you, to sustain, as you said, all the allies are also stepping up in fact, the european allies can provide military and financial aid, and actually exceeds what the usa is providing, so this is truly a joint effort. and i'm confident

that all nato allies will continue to deliver because supporting ukraine is not charity. it is an investment in our own security . president putin started this war and he could end it today, if he stopped attacking a neighbor, the were cut also and if ukraine stopped defending itself but that would not mean peace. it would mean russian occupation, and occupation is not peace. just peace will require president putin to realize that he will not get what he wants on the battlefield .

what happens around the negotiating table is linked to the situation on the battlefield. so if we want a lasting peace we must provide ukraine with more weapons and ammunition. weapons to ukraine is the path to peace. finally, we also discussed adapting our lines for the future -- >> you are listening to the nato secretary-general, there he was alongside secretary of state blinkin and let's go back and listen because we heard blinkin but we weren't able to bring this to you as quickly as we would have liked, talking about this attack in the middle east that took the lives of three servicemembers, let's listen in. >> first and foremost, i'm thinking of those who lost their lives, those who were wounded, their family members and their friends.

every day we have our men and women in uniform around the world who are putting their lives on the line for our security, for our freedom. i am as always, humbled by their courage and their sacrifice. from the outset, we've been very clear in warning that anyone looking to take advantage of conflict in the middle east, and try to expand it, don't do it. we've taken steps to defend ourselves and defend our partners as well as to prevent escalation. the president has been crystal clear. we will respond decisively to any aggression. and we will hold responsible the people who attacked our troops and we will do so at a time and a place of our choosing. at the same time, we remain focused on our core objectives in the region, both in terms of the conflict in gaza and broader efforts to build truly durable peace, security, to that end i had an opportunity to ask >> that with the secretary of state, describing condolences and his frustration with the

situation in the middle east and the loss of u.s. life in jordan after this drone strike. obviously we will stay on top of this developing story and bring you the latest. we will take a quick rake and we will see you on the other side.

(vo) if you overdraw your account, wells fargo gives you an extra day grace period to avoid the overdraft fee. what if everything came with a grace period? like accidentally parking where you shouldn't... (driver 1) hey what about this one? (driver 2) nah.. that one gets an extra day (driver 1) somebody got lucky (vo) like having an extra day grace period? when it comes to overdrafts, you can with wells fargo.

king charles and catherine the princess of wales are both bein g, they are both home after

being hospitalized. mistry remains about why kate middleton needed to undergo abdominal surgery. max foster is in london for us, what are we learning about this? >> he's the king, looking really well, the cameras were invited. i think the messages that the crown is still strong, a statement saying that he has rescheduled forthcoming public engagements. we are not being told which home he went to but we won't be seeing him in public for some time. we haven't actually seen the princess of wales in public since christmas day because she went into the same hospital about 13 days ago. and she left today, hidden from the cameras. you saw a bunch of flowers in the karsh she was traveling in. she's going to windsor we don't know when they will come back