in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer.

plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. in just a few minutes here, we're going to hear from defense secretary lloyd austin as u.s. officials say iran is worried about the escalating attacks by

its proxy groups on american forces in the region and president biden prepares to retaliate for the deaths of three american soldiers. the first poll in a while that might have president biden smiling. plus, what will nikki haley do with her campaign cash? a new financial report shows she has some money to burn. and weeping in the courtroom, while an investigator details what happened to her son's victims. will the mother of the michigan school shooter now take the stand in her own defense today? i'm kate bolduan with sara sidner and john berman. this is cnn news central. in just a few minutes, defense secretary lloyd austin will stand before cameras at the pentagon and speak to reporters, take questions. it will be his first news conference since his hospitalization and his first since three u.s. soldiers were killed in jordan in a drone

attack by what the united states says was a group linked to iran. now, we're wondering whether he's going to reveal anything new about how president biden plans to respond as he has promised to do. biden yesterday saying he knows what the response will be. the latest message from u.s. officials, iran is actually getting nervous as tensions escalate in the region. let's get right to pentagon where there is natasha bertrand standing by waiting to hear what secretary austin has to say. natasha, what are you hearing about what we're expecting from him today? >> reporter: well, look, i can tell you the pentagon press corps had been pushing the pentagon to make secretary austin available for questions following all of the drama surrounding his hospitalization and the fact that he did not disclose it to some of his senior advisers as well as to the president himself until many days after he was hospitalized on january 1st. questions about his health are likely to be top of mind,

especially because he has not briefed the media since he returned to the pentagon earlier this week from working from home after recovering from surgery. he has not spoken to the media since december 20th. it's an opportunity to ask him a wide range of questions but his health and the procedures surrounding notifications and transfer of power, that will also be top of mind here. of course, there are expected to be many questions about how the u.s. is going to respond to the january 3rd -- the sunday drone attack on the u.s. outpost in jordan that killed three u.s. service members. it's very unlikely that secretary austin is going to preview any kind of u.s. response. he's known to be quite reticent in his remarks to the media, but he's expected to reiterate the u.s. does see iran's hand behind those attacks, something the u.s. announced publicly, saying they believe this group was responsible for planning and carrying out this attack that killed these service members and wounded over 40 others. so those are the two main points

we expect him to kind of hit at the top. he will probably offer his condolences to the families of the service members. and also discuss a little bit the broadening tensions that the u.s. military is encountering right now in the red sea where the houthis in yemen have continued to launch missiles at u.s. warships including a very close call just the other day with a warship in the red sea. >> you can understand why secretary austin and president biden are being very careful with what they say. you do not want the other side to know how you're going to respond. i know you'll be watching this and we'll check in with you. all right, kalt. join ugus is a former director of communications for national intelligence, shaun turner. these signs that u.s. intel has picked up of iranian leadership being nervous about some of the actions of its proxy groups in iraq, in syria, in yemen. from a national security perspective, should that be

comforting or more worrisome? >> yeah, thanks for having me, kate. i from a national persecurity perspective, this is something i'm concerned about. look, we have to remember that while clearly iran is funding, backing, and supporting in many of these militant groups throughout the region including the houthis in yemen, hezbollah in lebanon and hamas in gaza, iran does not always have full control over what these groups do. now, that's not to suggest that tehran and the rgc aren't orchestrated more than some of the 160 attacks that have happened since october. but it is to say that for the most part, it is the idealogical alignment between these groups in iran that sort of underpins many of these attacks. so i think that it's concerning because it really sort of sheds light and lays bare the lack of command and control that iran

has on groups that are allover the region. which obviously threatens our national security and continues to be a concern for any u.s. forces in the region. >> yeah, at the same time, of course, they continue funding and training many of these groups. what is your reaction, then, to the white house now laying responsibility on the islamic resistance in iraq, saying this is a group that was behind the deadly drone attack in jordan? because the islamic resistance on sunday put out a statement claiming the responsibility. and now we're hearing this from the white house. >> yeah, you know, when i saw this, and talked to colleagues in the intelligence community, it helped me understand a little more about why the white house is taking the time that it is to be really deliberate and cautious about when and where and how the united states responds. when we're talking about the islamic resistance in iraq, what

we're talking about is a network of disparate groups in iraq that came into existence back in 2003, 2004, in response to the war in iraq, the u.s. war in iraq. and what's challenging about this group is that they're mostly anti-u.s., and while they are idealogically aligned with iran, the funding that supports these groups and the command and control, again, is something that varies widely. and so when the united states says that this group or this network of groups is responsible, what that tells me is that the response that the united states has is imminently more challenging because, again, varying loyalties. and you have to be really cautious about making sure you hit those pain points that caused this attack without, as we talked about, escalating in the area. i think the administration is doing the right thing in taking their time and figuring out where to attack here. >> the little we have learned about what the contours of what

the response could include, you have heard from john kirby that it will involve likely involve multiple targets over the course of several days. and i wonder what the ongoing deterrence efforts look like after this plays out, because just on tuesday, as natasha was pointing to, the houthis launched a cruise missile into the red sea. it's now the closest a houthi attack has come to a u.s. warship. it's not slowing down. >> no. yeah, you know, and this is where it really gets challenging because we have to remember that the stakes are different for these militant groups in relation to the stakes for nation states that support and host these groups. and so when we think about what that response might look like, we absolutely want to deter and prevent these groups from attacking the u.s., the united states again. but that also means we have to deal with nation states. so for iran, for syria, for lebanon, for all of these nation

states, look, they have economies, they have infrastructure, they have people that they have to deal with. and i think that underlies some of the nervousness we're seeing from those nation states. but i think this has to be a response that focuses on deterring support of these groups while at the same time attacking these groups directly. and i think that for this response, as john kirby and others have said, we're looking at economic response, we're looking at perhaps military response with a cyberresponse. and it must be sustained over time to deter the nation states. but i think for these various groups we have to act militarily to prevent them from launching those attacks because even if the nation states are suffering, these groups will continue to act independently and we have to take away their ability to do thereat. >> shawn turner, good to see you. this morning, one poll is just one poll, but it is a poll that seems to say something different than a lot of polls we have seen recently.

new national numbers from quinnipiac show president biden with a lead over donald trump. cnn senior data reporter ha harriharry enten is here with that and so much more. >> let's talk about the new national numbers. this is biden versus his potential gop challengers. biden ahead of trump by six points. that is the best poll for biden against any gop challenger since over a year. in over a year, you know, you were talking about how different it was. but of course, haley is ahead of joe biden by five points, and that's despite the fact that a lot of republican voters in exit poll and entrance pollidaty have been saying trump is the more electable one, but in this particular poll, like a lot of others, haley is the one who is more electable than donald trump. >> this was a sizable drop, particularly among women voters. it will be interesting to see if it is a trend. yes, haley ahead in this

national poll against biden, but when it comes to the contest that probably matters most to her right now. >> she has to get to the general election, right? here's the choice for gop nominee in south carolina among likely gop primary voters. 58% for trump. 32% for haley. that is a 26-point lead according to the mathematical skills in my mind. i will note haley was down by 29 points to donald trump in south carolina at the end of last year, according to monmouth university who conducted this poll, but this ain't going to cut it. this ain't going to cut it. donald trump ahead in south carolina. he won iowa by nearly 30 points. he won in new hampshire by a little more than ten points. and south carolina, nikki haley's home state, he's again ahead once again. >> so, you know, how does it go for candidates in a nominating contest when they lose their home state? >> yeah, i looked this up. it's not particularly good, john. lost home state in the primary and became their party's nominee, it's zero.

zero, zero candidates since 1972. remember, of course, donald trump knocked marco rubio out of the race in 2016 by defeating him in florida. there's a real question about whether donald trump can knock nikki haley out of the race. >> zero as in none? >> none, nada, yes. >> harry enten, thank you for making it so clear. sara. >> again, none. is that what you were saying? i think that's -- >> zero. >> got it. joining us now is cnn senior political analyst and senior editor with the atlantic, ron brownstein. thank you. good to see you. ron, this is a snapshot in time as we always have to remind ourselves and those who are watching. it is also a national poll, not a poll of the swing states, for example. it looks at sentiment. what do you think is driving these numbers? >> yeah, look, at the moment, it's still an outlier. it is the best poll for biden in

quite some time. i kind of look at it as aspirational. it really does give you a sense of what the coalition is likely to look like if biden in fact is able to win this election. if you compare this poll to 2020, he's weaker with young people, he's weaker with men. he's weaker with non-white voters, especially those without degrees. but he's stronger with women, stronger with college graduates. and stronger with seniors. if he does win, i think there's a lot of evidence that's how the coalition will have to evolve for him. the other thing that i think is important for biden here is, and important for republicans who are kind of skating past this evidence, biden is running, his vote against trump is nine points higher than his approval rating. that is pretty much unprecedented in presidential elections but a lot like what we saw in 2022 when there were a

lot of unsatisfied voters, still voted for democrats because they viewed the trump inspired alternatives too extreme. there's a warning sign about that in this poll as well. >> i wonder what you think about the fact that nikki haley still is in this race. she's going to go through at least south carolina, her home state. is that impacting numbers like this? >> well, i think it's a really big question going forward, because haley has kind of made flesh something we have seen in polling for, you know, several years now, which is there's somewhere around a quarter of self-identified republican voters who are deeply disaffected from donald trump. who will say what he did after the election was wrong. who will say the prosecutions of him are justified. and who now in the exit polls, roughly 30% will say he's not fit to be president if he is convicted of a crime and also that joe biden won the election fair and square. the real -- i have felt all

along those voters are a critical variable in kind of the next couple years of american politics because the evidence of iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina is they're not enough to control the republican party. the republican party is now a maga dominated party. heavily blue collar, but they're more than enough to make that path unviable, to make it implausible for trump to win if in fact those voters who say that they believe trump is unfit if he is convicted do not vote for him. with haley, you're getting both a sense of how big that coalition is, maybe a third of the party, and they're being shown very clearly, they're now the subordinate part of the party. what do they do if and when trump wins the nomination? >> they do one of two things. vote for another candidate or don't show up to the polls. either way, interesting to watch how it plays out. ron, always lovely to talk to you. we have breaking news coming in.

president biden planning to take action, targeting violent settlers in the west bank. we are bringing in more details on this. we'll have that shortly. plus, this still ahead. weeping in the courtroom while an investigator details what happened to her son's victims. will the mother of the michigan school shooter take the stand today in her own defense? and overwhelmed and being pushed to the brink. cnn gets a close-up look at how the migrant crisis is hitting the city of denver, colorado, so hard right now. we'll be back.

this just in to cnn.

president biden planning now to take action targeting violent settlers in the west bank. an executive order in the works. let's get over to the white house. kevin liptak is standing by with details as they're still coming in. what are you learning? >> reporter: this is an xk tf order expected to be announced later today and would apply sanctions on individuals who are accused of being involved in some of the settler violence in the west bank, and this has been an issue that has been deeply concerning to president biden, to administration officials over the last several months. you have seen an uptick in these incidents involving israeli settlers in the west bank. as many as 500 incidents. eight palestinians have died as part of them. and it has been sort of a constant back and forth between the white house and the israeli government to try and get a handle on this violence. and the real concern had been that this could undermine stability in the region at a moment, of course, deep in

instability as the war rages. it's something president biden has raised directly with the israeli prime ministers, and as early as yesterday, a top aide to netanyahu was here at the white house discussing all of these issues. president biden back in november had tasked administration officials with coming up with options to do something about this uptick in violence in the west bank. in december, he announced some visa bans on some of these individuals who would have been responsible for this violence. and what we'll see today is further action, further punishment in the form of sanctions against some of these israeli settlers, but i don't think you can separate it from some of the pressures that president biden has been facing from members of his own party to do and say more about the plight of palestinians, not only in the west bank but more particularly in gaza. president biden will be in michigan later today. that is home to one of the largest concentrations of arab

americans in the united states. certainly the anger in those communities has been palpable at president biden's handling of the conflict in the middle east. he doesn't have anything in particular on his schedule to speak with some of the members of those communities today, but certainly, this is something that the white house has been confronting and dealing with for the last several months, kate. >> that's exactly right. great reporting and putting all the context around it. thank you so much. much more on this as more details come out about what the sanctions could include. >> we're hearing that the mother of the michigan school shooter could take the stand in her own defense as soon as today. moments ago, jennifer crumbley broke down in court as the lead investigator in the case walked through her son's disturben journal entries. she's charged with involuntary manslaughter in the deaths of the people her son killed in 2021. jean casarez is watching every twist and turn.

jennifer crumbley broke down in that courtroom. >> the whole tenor of the case has changed. this is if not the last one of the last wintnesses for the prosecution. emotion has filled the courtroom because this is a homicide case, involuntary manslaughter. an element is the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that jennifer crumbley, the mother, caused the deaths of the four students beyond a reasonable doubt, because of her gross negligence. and so lieutenant timothy willis who is on the stand describing some of the autopsy results, and the emotion began, and he got emotional. listen to that testimony. >> the official cause of manner of death from the autopsy is multiple gunshot wounds. homicide. she was shot in her upper torso, her abdomen, her thighs.

>> could you refer to exhibit two? >> that was hana st. juliana that he was talking about right there. also, the backpack. we now know the contents of the backpack, besides the gun. there was the journal of ethan crumbley, which he had 22 pages of writing about the mass shooting and what he wanted to do. i think we had some shots, though, of some of the writings that he gave, that he wrote down in his backpack. that backpack that he would take to school every day. here's some examples. he said, i have zero help from my mental problems, causing me to shoot up the school. my parents won't listen to me about help or a therapist. i want help. but my parents don't listen to me or help me get a therapist. there were 90 sheets of loose paper in that backpack.

school assignments, mainly, but on those pieces of paper, 50 of them had drawings of firearms. >> jean, every detail that comes out of this case is just so wrenching. you can hear it in the emotion of the testimony. you can see it in the faces of everyone in the courtroom. and i imagine this will only continue later today when we do expect jennifer crumbley on the stand, yes? >> yes, and very likely. the prosecution will end today and will she be the first witness? we don't know, but here's the thing with this backpack. his parents would drop him off at school every day. he had the backpack. so do they have a duty to look in that backpack? is there a legal duty to look in that backpack for his welfare, for the welfare of the community? it's another theory of the prosecution here, because if they only looked in that backpack, they would have found it all. >> that's a great point. there is the emotion, which is so visible. there are also key legal points here, some precedent that will

be tested. jean casarez, thank you for explaining it all so well. >> wow, this case is just chilling. all right, still to come, strained resources and near freezing temperatures add up to a potentially life-threatening combination for thousands of migrants arriving now in denver. cnn got an up-close look at the city, saying it is near a breaking point now with the number of people coming in to that city. also, very soon now, we're going to hear from defense secretary lloyd austin. he's going to be taking questions for the first time since his hospitalization and since those three service members were killed in jordan in an attack. we'll take you there live when it begins.

tower 22. sergeant william j. rivers, age 46. sergeant kennedy l. sanders, age 24. and sergeant brianna a. moffett, age 23. our thoughts and prayers are with their families and their loved ones. and we know that this grief will never leave them. and we hope that they know that the department's love and support will never leave them either. we're also praying for the other american troops who were wounded. now, our teammates were killed when a one-way attack drone struck their living quarters. and we continue to gather the facts about this deadly attack. our fallen soldiers had a vital mission to support operation

inherent resolve. and to work with our partners to insure the lasting defeat of isis. they risked their lives and lost their lives to keep their fellow americans safe from global terrorism. the president will not tolerate attacks on american troops. and neither will i. our teammates were killed by radical militias backed by iran, and operating inside syria and iraq. in the aftermath of the vile hamas terror asack on israel on october 7th, terrorist groups backed by iran and funded by iran have tried to create even more turmoil, including the houthis attacking commercial shipping in the red sea. this is a dangerous moment in the middle east. we will continue to work to avoid a wider conflict in the region, but we will take all

necessary actions to defend the united states, our interests, and our people. and we will respond when we choose, where we choose, and how we choose. now, that's what everyone here is focused on. but in my first week back in the pentagon, i did want to address my recent hospital stay and some of the issues around it. i'm recovering well, but as you can see, i'm still recovering. i'm still having some leg pain and doing physical therapy to get past it. i'm deeply grateful to my doctors and the nursing staff at walter reed and i very much appreciate all the good wishes. but i want to be crystal clear. we did not handle this right. and i did not handle this right. i should have told the president about my cancer diagnosis. i should have also told my team and the american public.

and i take full responsibility. i apologize to my teammates and to the american people. now, i want to make it very clear that there were no gaps in authorities and no risk to the department's command and control. at every moment, either i or the deputy secretary was in full charge. and we have already put in place some new procedures to make sure that any lapses in notification don't happen. in the future, if the deputy secretary needs to temporarily assume the duties of my office, she and several white house officers will be immediately notified including the white house situation room. so will key officials across the department. and the reason for that assumption of duties will be included in writing. now, i want you all to know why this happened. i was being treated for prostate

capser. the news shook me. and i know that it shakes so many others, especially in a black community. it was a gut punch. and frankly, my first instinct was to keep it private. i don't think it's news that i'm a pretty private guy. i never liked burdening others with my problems. it's just not my way. but i have learned from this experience, taking this kind of job means losing some of the privacy that most of us expect. the american people have a right to know if their leaders are facing health challenges that might affect their abilities, even temporarily. a wider circle should have been notified, especially the president. i'll take your questions today, but as you know, we have an ongoing internal review, as well as a dod inspector general review that we fully support. so i may have to discuss some aspects later.

now, let me back up a bit. as you know, on the 22nd of december, i had a minimally invasive procedure to cure me of my recently diagnosed prostate cancer. and then i hit some bad luck during what is usually a pretty easy recovery. on january 1st, i felt severe leg pain and pain in the abdomen and hip. that evening, an ambulance took me to walter reed. the doctors found i had several issues that needed treatment, including a bladder infection and abdomen problems. on january 2nd, i was also experiencing fever and chills and shallow breathing. the medical staff decided to transfer me to the critical care unit for several days, for closer monitoring and better team care by my doctors. the deputy secretary assumed the functions and duties of my office, which happens when necessary. her senior staff, my senior

staff, and the joint staff were notified of this through our regular email notification procedures. and i never directed anyone to keep my january hospitalization from the white house. on january 5th, i resumed my functions and duties as secretary from the hospital. i was functioning well mentally but not so well physically, so i stayed at walter reed for additional time for additional treatment including physical therapy for some lingering issues with my leg. now, i'm offering all of this as an explanation and not an excuse. i am very proud of what we have achieved at the department over the past three years. but we fell short on this one. as a rule, i don't talk about conversations with my boss, but i can tell you i have apologized directly to president biden. and i have told him i'm deeply

sorry for not letting him know immediately that i received a heavy diagnosis and was getting treatment. and he has responded with the grace and warm heart that anyone who knows president biden would expect. and i'm grateful for his full confidence in me. and finally, i also missed an opportunity to send a message on an important public health issue. and i would like to fix that right now. i was diagnosed with a highly treatable form of cancer. a pretty common one. one in eight american men will get prostate cancer. one in six black men will get it. and so i'm here with a clear message to other men, especially older men, get screened. get your regular checkups. prostate cancer has a glass jar. if your doctor can spot it, they can treat it and beat it. the side effects i experienced are highly, highly unusual.

so you can count on me to set a better example on this issue today and for the rest of my life. and again, i want to thank everyone for their well wishes and their great support. and with that, i'll take your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. first question will go to associated press. >> thank you. thank you, mr. secretary. you said that you never directed anyone to keep this from the white house. did you direct your staff or others to keep it from the public and from other senior staff members? if you did not, has anyone been disciplined for doing something that you did not tell them to do? then just quickly on iraq and syria, what is your response to the kh statement today that they are postponing or not doing any more attacks? >> good morning, leta. to answer your question on whether or not i directed my staff to conceal my

hospitalization from anyone else, the answer is no. in terms of my response to kh's statement, we always listen to what people are saying. but we watch what they do. and again, actions are everything. so we'll see what happens in the future. >> next question will go to fox. >> sir, during that time that you were in the intensive care unit, there was an air strike carried out, a drone strike against an iraqi leader of a militia. how is it that -- do you regret that the authorities were not clear at that point? and what can you explain about what was going through your mind at that time? and then separately, there's been a lot of telegraphing about targeting and responding to the drone strike.

so much so that the iranian proxy leaders have left the cou country. some are back in tehran. has there been too much telegraphing or is the point not to kill any iranian commanders? >> regarding the strike on the 8th, jen, that strike was planned. i had made recommendations to the president on actions that we should carry out. and the president made a decision and based upon that decision, authorities were pushed down to the central command commander, and as you know, a strike like that, you can't pick the precise time when that strike is going to take place. you want to minimize collateral damage. you want to make sure that you have everything right. and so the subordinate commander

had the controls on that particular strike. i was very much involved in planning and the recommendations for that. and we knew that that would take place within a matter of days. in terms of telegraphing about strikes and whether or not people leave or would have left, i won't speculate on any of that. i would just tell you that, you know, we will have a multi-tiered response. and again, we have the ability to respond a number of times depending on what the situation is. >> let's go to reuters. phil. >> what did your deputy know about your condition and when did she know it? >> yeah, phil, i think in terms of what she knew and didn't know, i think we should probably

let that come out of the review. i think -- i won't speculate on what she knew and did not know based upon what information was passed to her. again, i think the details will come out one or both of those reviews. >> gordon. >> mr. secretary, you said you didn't direct your staff to hide this truth or lie. but did you create a culture of secrecy that then the staff kind of interpreted your desires or your intentions when it came to you getting sick? >> yeah, you know, i don't think i have created a culture of secrecy. i think there will be security officers, there will be other staff members who may perceive that they're doing things in my best interest, and you know, i can't predict or determine or ascertain what those things may be.

i just know what i said and did not say, and of course, you know, i have a great staff. and they always want to and tend to do the right things. but in terms of what one may or may not have perceived at any point in time, i won't speculate on it. >> let's go to abc. >> thank you for doing this. and i think on behalf of all of us, we wish you a speedy recovery. i'd like to ask you about the current situation in the middle east. the message has been deterrence, deterring the attacks by the houthis, deterring attacks by the militias. has deterrence failed? and if you are going to retaliate at a time and place of your choosing, is that not an escalation, particularly given all the rhetoric with iran? and a question on your recovery, sir. at any point, did you feel that your situation had caused you to consider possibly resigning given all of the political

attention that had developed as a result of it? >> in terms of resignation, the answer is no. in terms of escalation in the middle east, you know, our goal was to make sure that we contain this crisis in gaza. and that we prevented things from spreading to a wider conflict. there's a lot of activity in the region, but there's always been a lot of activity in the region. you know well that iranian proxy groups have been attacking our troops, even well before october 7th. and we can go back and count the numbers of attacks before october 7th. and they're not insignificant. there are things that are ongoing now, well, things are not ongoing. we don't see a conflict, an

all-out conflict between israel and lebanese hezbollah, so i think managing that, i think, has been artfully done. so we remain in contact with our israeli counterparts and make sure that doesn't blossom into a war on another front. we don't see israel engaged in a conflict with other countries in the region. we're not at war with iran. and yeah, the houthis continue to do some things that are very irresponsible and illegal. and so our goal is to make sure that we take away -- we continue to take away capability from the houthis to do what they have been doing. this is not a u.s. issue. this is an international issue. you know, we're going to either be serious about the freedom of navigation or we're not. and so as we look at partners

like the uk and so many others that have joined us in this effort, this is about freedom of navigation. there are others in the world that are watching this to see how serious we are about this. and we are serious. and again, our partners and allies are serious about it as well. this is costing countries and companies significant amounts of money, as they have had to redirect commercial traffic around. but the houthis, i mean, their activity needs to come to a halt. and we will call upon iran to quit or to cease supplying the houthis with these advanced conventional weapons they have used to attack ships in the red sea. >> let's go to lena. >> sir, commiserations on your illness. good to see you back on your feet. >> at least on one foot. >> on one foot. you said that you never directed your staff to keep the news of

your hospitalization from anyone. did any senior members of your family or your wife direct people to keep this a secret? >> to my knowledge, no members -- i don't know. i don't know what anyone on my staff may have said, but i think these things will come out in the review. and so rather than speculate, i think we should let the facts come out as the review is done. >> can i ask you one more question about, you mentioned during your opening statement that this was an opportunity to talk about prostate cancer, especially in the black community. i wonder, though, do you have any regret that your silence on this re-enforces culture of secrecy among black men about prostate cancer? >> and you mentioned that, and it's probably not an issue of

secrecy as much as it's an issue of privacy. and this is a very -- cancer, period, is very private. and there are maybe cancer survivors amongst us in ths room right here, and i know there are at least a couple. but you know how private that is. and you know what the initial diagnosis feels like. and so among the black community, though, it's even more a thing that people want to keep private. and again, it's more about privacy than secrecy. in my case, i should have informed my boss. i did not. that was a mistake. and again, i apologized to him for not doing so. >> let's go to npr. >> you went to the hospital on december 22nd. was your staff aware that you had gone to the hospital? if so, why didn't they tell the white house? you went back to the hospital on

january 1st. and an aide told a dispatcher when the ambulance arrives, no lights, no sirens. did you direct the aide to say that? >> i asked my assistant to call the ambulance. that did not direct him to do anything further than just call the ambulance. so what he said and why he said it, i think, that should come out in the review as well. >> what about december 22nd when you went to the hospital the first time? was your staff away? if so, why didn't they tell the white house? >> when i went to the hospital on december 22nd, i went in for that procedure. my duties were transferred to the deputy. that was planned. and i decided to stay in the hospital overnight. didn't have to. decided to stay overnight because of the anesthesia that was involved. and then the next day, later in the afternoon, early evening, we transferred authorities back. >> talking about your staff.

>> peter. >> mr. secretary, first, we wish you good health and thank you for taking our questions. we hope you have a quick recovery. i have two questions. i'll start with your hospitalization. you were hospitalized for days before you informed the white house or the commander in chief of your condition in your absence. anyone else in the military chain of command would have faced reprimand or dismissal. why shouldn't that same standard apply to you, sir? >> thanks for the question. we didn't get this right. and as i said, i take full responsibility for the department's actions. in terms of why on the second notification was not made to the white house, that information was available. i'm not sure at this point what exactly happened, but i think details will play out as the review is conducted. >> a follow up about the situation overseas and the

deliberation in regards to strikes. there have been more than 160 strikes on american targets across the region, as you noted, since october. why has the u.s. waited until american service members were killed to escalate its response? >> well, as you know, we have responded a number of times and taken out -- first of all, their attacks, many of them, most of them are going to be ineffective. many and most we're going to defend ourselves against. and whenever we conduct a strike, we're going to hit at what we're aiming at. we're going to take away capability. we're going to do what we're desiring to do. so this particular attack was egregious in that the attack was on the sleeping area of one

of -- of our base. and again, we have -- hezbollah and other elements continue to attack our troops. and again, i think at this point, we should -- it's time to take away even more capability than we have taken in the past. in terms of, you used the term escalation. we have not described what our response is going to be, but we look to hold the people that are responsible for this accountable. we also look to make sure that we continue to take away capability from them as we go forward. >> let's go to the next question. "washington post," missy. >> welcome back, mr. secretary. first of all, the chairman of the house armed services committee, one of the main

oversight committees for this building, has asked if you'll testify on a specific date? will you do that? on the middle east, what is your response to the criticism that the united states is sort of playing into the hands of the houthis because the u.s. response is elevating their status, they have demonstrated an ability to withstand years of bombing in the past, and more broadly, played into the hands of the iranians who support houthis and the other groups when the goal of president biden and the united states has been to prevent increased violence in the middle east and now the united states is taking part in actually increasing it? thanks. >> missy, what was the first part? >> will you testify as chairman rogers has asked? >> so congress has had some very relevant questions that they have asked us. and we will continue to answer

those questions. we'll continue to work with chairman rogers' office to address any additional questions or issues that he might have. and again, we'll stay in touch with chairman rogers' office, as things play out. >> sorry, on the middle east? are you playing into the hands of the houthis in iran, more generally. >> if you take a look at what the houthis are doing, i mean, they're attacking commercial shipping. initially, they said that they're attacking commercial shipping because these ships were supporting israel. they have attacked the ships that have the interest of some 50 countries that are not supporting israel. and so this is an international crime. and this is something that we have to do about. in terms of elevating the status of the houthis, i think we have to do something about that. this is not elevating their

status. this is about preventing them from having the ability to do what they have done in terms of attacking ships and trying to sink ships that have nothing to do with the israeli conflict. >> let's go to cbs. david. >> mr. secretary, we all saw a golf cart out in the hallway. is that how you're getting around now? and how confident are you that your recovery is going to be complete enough to allow you to continue in what everybody recognizes is a very demanding job? >> nobody recognizes that more than me. but that's the first time i used that golf cart, by the way, but i think it's pretty neat. my leg will continue to improve. the doctors are confident that it will. my pt specialist who i think is a sadist, he continues to work

me hard. and he has confidence as well. it will just take time because of the nature of the injury. >> how much time? >> no, they can't put a number on it in terms of days or weeks. but it will be incremental improvement. i won't be ready for the olympics but i'll improve. >> let's go to afp. >> thank you, mr. secretary. does the u.s. need to escalate its military actions or do something new or unprecedented in order to deter iran, and if so, how can that be done without sparking a broader conflict? >> i think everyone recognizes that the challenge associated with making sure that we hold the right people accountable, that we do everything necessary to protect our troops, and that we manage things so that they don't escalate. i don't think there's any set formula for doing this. i do think, though, that in everything that we do, as we

work our way through our decision making process with the national security council, we're managing all of that, looking at all that, and we're using every instrument of national power to address various issues. so i think, i mean, there are ways to manage this so it doesn't spiral out of control. and that's been our focus throughout. >> let's go to alg jazeera. >> speedy recovery, mr. secretary. i have two things. back in december in your speech at the reagan library, you told israeli leaders they have to protect civilian lives in gaza. since that speech, 12,000 more palestinians have been killed. we're now at 27,000 killed. why are you still supporting this war when this government that is the most extreme in the history of israel led by someone