on today. the dangerous conditions will arrive washington, d.c. and new york city by about 5:00 p.m. to midnight and with it will come intense winds. 162 million people under wind alerts and the wind predictions have been increasing. we're now thinking the jersey shore and long island could hit winds of up to 70 miles an hour. we will have probably millions without power come this time tomorrow. >> really dangerous. bill karins, thank you so very much. that does it for me and this edition of msnbc reports. thank you for the privilege of your time. katy tur picks up our coverage next here on msnbc. thanks and i'll see you. good to be with you. it has been an extraordinary day. in washington, appellate judges

are deciding whether donald trump is immune from prosecution. in other words, can a president do whatever he wants to in office? even order the assassination of a political rival? trump's team argues a qualified yes. what does that mean? and what did the judges say in response? plus, after the door plug blew on that alaska airlines flight, is it safe to fly? investigators now find there are major problems across boeing's 737 max 9 fleet. what went wrong on the assembly line and what's the fix? and does voting matter? what michelle obama says she is terrified of this election year. let's begin in washington because for the first time in our history, a federal appeals court is tasked with ruling on whether a president is above the law. you might say of course now, but donald trump's team argues

actually yes, that congress has the primary authority that if congress doesn't impeach and convict first, then any official action is golden. >> can a president order seal team six to assassinate a political rival? that's an official act in order to seal team six? >> it would have to be and would speedily be impeach and convicted before the criminal prosecution. >> there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that? >> trump's team says without that immunity, it will open a pandora's box that president bush could be indicted for his claims on weapons of mass destruction in iraq, president obama for his order on drone strikes and president biden for his actions at the border. did the judges buy it? ken dilanian is for us in washington, d.c. garrett haake is in des moines, iowa, where it is very, very cold. also with us is devlin barrett,

"washington post" justice reporter and co-author of the trump trials newsletter. he was in the courtroom today. ken, i'm going to begin with you. i'm going to move past right now what the judges saw today and i want to ask you now that they have this case and these oral arguments are over, what happens next? >> well, they're hearing on an expedited basis so i think they're going to rule rather quickly. this hearing reenforced there are a lot of assumptions but the issue has never really been decided. gerald ford pardoned nixon because everyone assumed nixon would be indicted for his watergate crimes after he left office. what i found interesting is that the judges and special counsel's office acknowledged there could be some sort of -- when barack obama ordered the killing of an all al qaeda terrorist, but if in berkeley california decided to bring a murder charge, you

can imagine the court is stepping in, blocking that. but what president trump is accused of doing is a long way from national security. he's accused of taking actions that went far beyond his duties as president, trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. and that brings up another interesting question here. it's possible the courts could avoid deciding issue of presidential immunity if they decide mr. trump was not agenting at the president when he committed the acts in the indictment. this contention the president could self pardon or have an opponent murdered and be immune from prosecution. >> and they brought that up repeatedly. what if s.e.a.l. team six was ordered to go out and assassinate the political rival. is that okay? they repeatedly pressed donald trump's lawyer. donald trump was in the courtroom. what was he doing in the courtroom and where would he have been if not in d.c. today? >> well, he was in the courtroom voluntarily, which was important. he wasn't compelled to be there

but he chose to go in part because i think what's happening in that courtroom dove tails with the message he's been trying to convey to voters, which is he believes he is being unfairly targeted by the justice department because he is joe biden's biggest opponent in the 2024 election. he can sell that point just as well outside a d.c. courtroom as he could here in iowa today where multiple political events have been canceled by this less than ideal political event weather we're having. after court today, he did speak briefly to reporters where he argued it's not about him, it's the presidency. take a listen. >> we'll see you it all works out. we have a great argument. we have an argument they conceded two major points today. by normal standards, that would be the end of this case, but sometimes they look at me

differently than they look upon others. i think most people understand and we feel very confident that eventually, hopefully at this level, but eventually, we win. a president has to have immunity. >> i'm not sure what the two points he thinks the judges conceded in that hearing were but i think the broader idea, the idea that somehow he is being looked at differently. when i talk to trump supporters across iowa and the country, that is core to their belief about donald trump. that he is somewhere being targeted unfairly. that is a message from donald trump directly to those voters as they're getting ready to head out and caucus a week from yesterday. >> those voters are key for him and they're a big problem for the other republican rivals who want to be the nominee. it's unclear though what it's going to mean for the general election. whether that support, that undying loyalty goes beyond that key base component of about 30% of the republican party. garrett haake, thank you very much. please get out of the cold.

devlin, you were inside the courtroom today. can you bring us inside? tell us what it was like. >> obviously, it was a packed courtroom. a lot of security inside and outside the building because everyone knew he was going to be there. the tenor was this. that the judges were extremely skeptical of trump sort of stand alone immunity argument. that just because he's the president, it's okay. i don't think that argument is likely to fly with this panel. i do think there was a lot more substantive back and forth and some more interesting question around the question of if you're a president who's been acquitted at your impeachment, do you still have criminal liability? can you still be charged by prosecutors? and they spent a lot of time on that. at times, you could see the former president getting a little animated. he was stone faced most of the time, but he got a little animated at a few points, particularly when talking about

vindictiveness and the pandora's box scenario. you can tell he's paying close attention to this and that he understands the stakes. >> having him in the courtroom, did that change the dynamic sns usually for hearings like this, the defendant is not there. >> correct. it's rare. so i think the one way it changes it is one of the practical sense. the security issues. it's a much more complicated procedure to have a former president in a courtroom. two, i think the judges realized that they were looking at him. when judge childs walked in, for example, the first thing she did was smile at the former president. they know he's there. they understand they are talking about the future of the person sitting before them and i think it matters in an unspoken way, but obviously the law and the facts here have to be decided the way judges always do. >> they're hearing this on an expedited timeline as ken was

saying. what is your sense of from your history of covering this court, when a ruling might come? >> well, in most of these related cases, obviously this is a fairly unique question, but in most of these case, you've seen them tried very fast. in a matter of weeks. everyone understands this question is likely to go to the supreme court. this is a question this country has never been forced to answer for more than two centuries and now it looks like because of trump and this prosecution, the government is going to have to decide what are the limits of presidential power and what are the consequences of presidential crimes. so ultimately, this almost certainly has to go to the supreme court, but i think this court will try very hard to move this out quickly in a matter of weeks. >> this is why i say it has been an extraordinary day. thank you gentlemen very much. let's bring in chuck rosenberg. let's talk about this idea of opening a pandora's box.

trump's seem cited president bush, president obama, president biden, to say if you prosecute donald trump, if he's not immune, then you can prosecute any president for any actions they take for orders they give while in office. >> yes, if they're criminals. if they committed crimes. that's not the case. often in my opponents when i was a federal prosecutor, counsel on the other side talked about this pandora's box. sort of a signal that they didn't have the law on their side. the judges don't have to decide all those other cases. but the judges have to decide is the case in front of them. right? whether or not mr. trump has immunity for what he did. right? is it absolute? no, absolutely not. is it qualified? maybe under some farfetched scenario, there could be qualified immunity. there certainly is in a civil context, but the president

allegedly did here according to the indictment was try and overturn a fair and free election. that is outside of his official duties as the president. so it's really hard to believe that they would immunize. >> what if they just as ken was -- wasn't acting in his official capacity, so he's not immune? they're not ruling on presidential immunity there. they're saying he wasn't agenting as president. he wasn't giving orders in any official way. this was his personal crime that he committed. >> because mr. trump is trying to tether his claim today to a 1982 supreme court case that established civil immunity for an official act. so he's using that as a leaping off point. saying that if a president can be immune for official acts in the civil liability context, then i ought to be immune for criminal acts. in same official context.

>> did trump's team make arguments that might sway the judges? >> i heard mr. trump say there were concessions made by the judges during the argument. i listened to the entire argument. i did not hear a single concession. >> any softness there in the line of questioning? >> what i heard were judges doing what judges do. they ask hard hypotheticals. not necessarily because they believe the premise in their question, but they want to test the litigants and see how they respond and judges do that all the time. it can be somewhat hazardous to try and read into their questions. how they think about it, but objectively, i see things in a certain way. this did not go well for mr. trump today. >> when this does go to the supreme court and i think we can suppose that it will, no matter which side loses, what do you anticipate? what will you be watching if? and the supreme court has said yes to getting into the colorado

and maine cases. are they going to want to touch this or do you expect they'll kick this down the road? this is quite pressing. >> it is. because the supreme court says no doesn't mean they say no forever. i'm not sure if it's inevitable it goes to the supreme court now. right? it's very possible the supreme court reviews the strict court's decision. they review the court of appeals decision and say we're going to deny a petition to hear it now, let the case go back to the trial court and if mr. trump is convicted, we could weigh in then. >> there were questions about whether it was an appropriate time for the appellate court to hear this. explain that to me. >> really interesting questions. >> before any appeals are heard, there are exceptions to that.

when an appeal is taken midstream in a verdict in the trial court below, we call it an interlocutory appeals. there's a reason they're few and far between. it's a pretty inefficient way to handle a docket. the question for the court today was is this before us on an interlocutory appeal. i think the answer is yes, i'm sorry, if the court of appeals is looking for an off ramp, that might be an off ramp but both sides agree today, both litigants agreed today that it was properly in front of the court of appeals and i think that's right. >> chuck, it's really good to have you. thank you so much for sticking around today and helping us understand what was going on in this complicated and significant hearing. coming up, let's talk about the constitution. it does not explicitly mention presidential immunity, so what exactly is trump's legal team citing? we go straight to the source with an expert in constitutional

law when we are back in 60 seconds. n constitutional law when we are back in 60 seconds. i love your dress. oh thanks! i splurged a little because liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word. can you say “mama”? baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ with nurtec odt i can treat and prevent my migraine attacks all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion and stomach pain. talk to your doctor about nurtec today.

in court toda president trump's lawyer kept citing e impeachment judgment clause of the constitution. it is article one, section three, clause seven. it reads judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disquality education to hold and joy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states, but the party convicted shall never the less be liable and subject to trial, judgment, and punishment according to law. in layman's term, trump's team argues -- and that the courts only get to weigh in after congress both impeaches and then convicts. joining me now is nyu school of

law professor, richard. good to have you. did i summarize trump's argument regarding that clause correctly? >> you did it perfectly. that's what the clause says. but it doesn't have the implication that president trump's lawyers are arguing for here. >> explain. >> so the impeachment clause makes it clear that even if someone has been convicted, they can still be tried criminally because impeachment doesn't involve any kind of punishment. you can't be fined, put in prison. president trump's lawyers want to kind of turn this the other way around and say if you haven't been convicted and impeached as a federal official, then you can not be tried for crime. i think that's a very difficult position to maintain. i actually didn't see any indication that any judges on the court today were interested in going down that road. >> why do you think it's so hard for them to make that argument? >> the clause doesn't say that. >> is there any generous reading where the clause would say that?

>> quite honestly, there are contexts where they are difficult legal ininterpretertive questions. i don't find this one to be arguable. it's a stretch to find that you cannot be tried for crimes if you have not been convicted, been impeached and convicted. >> when the framers of the constitution were writing this, what was their jumping off point? what were they reacting to that might have been happening in the u.k. parliamentary system? >> so, the framers were in fact worried about what they called demagogues or people who might abuse the power of the presidency. they understood they were creating a very, very powerful office. a single office holder has much more capacity maybe to do good but also to do bad. and so they were sort of worried about that with the president. the impeachment clause isn't written just for the president.

it's written for federal officials. but impeachment was one mechanism to try to protect the system from a corrupt or abusive president. to remove that person from office so they couldn't do further damage. that's just to get them out of office and maybe disqualify them from future office. this wasn't meant to be some all encompassing provision for liability for a president or other federal officials. and as the clause says, you can still be prosecuted criminally even after being convicted. i think it's quite clear without an impeachment let alone an impeachment and a conviction. i just don't think that of the various arguments made, this one has too much weight to it. >> we have two sound bites i want to play. the first is mitch mcconnell talking about why he chose not to convict president trump and the second one is one of donald trump's impeachment lawyers during this impeachment saying there's no reason to impeachment.

there's going to be a remedy down line. listen to both and i want to get your reaction. >> liable for everything he did while he was in office. as an ordinary citizen. unless the statute of limitations in iran still liable for everything he did while he was in office. didn't get away with anything. yet. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation. former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one. >> after he's out of office, you go and arrest him so there is no opportunity where the president of the united states can run rampant in january at the end of his term and just go away scot-free. the department of justice does know what to do with such people. >> so that's donald trump's impeachment lawyer saying there's a criminal system. that can take care of him. it's mitch mcconnell saying hey,

listen, this process doesn't work here because donald trump is out of office. we don't have jurisdiction any longer. the courts are going to handle this. then today, you have trump's lawyers arguing no, it's actually impeachment. one of the judges in this panel seized on that and said hey, listen, one of donald trump's old lawyers was arguing the exact opposite. let's listen to that. >> he took the position or your client did during the impeachment proceedings that there would be an option for criminal prosecution later and it's in the congressional record and i guess the question is what has changed or why have you changed your position? >> the statements and the congressional record, i believe there was a distinction between the judicial process in the quote i just read. in addition to that, would have a concession, may or may not have been made there will not have the kind of effect this this proceedings. these are very different proceedings. >> let's read bruce again. after he's out of office, you go and arrest him so there's no

opportunity where the president can run rampant and go away scot-free. the department of justice does know what to do with such people. what do you think of that contradiction? >> well, i think they were right back during the impeachment proceedings. mcconnell was right. president trump's lawyer was right. there is potential criminal liability for a president once he or she leaves office. i'm not quite sure why they're pressing this argument on the impeachment clause. it weakens their entire argument because this particular argument i think is so weak and i think the judge's is so weak. there are issues about immunity and what the scope might be but the argument that he has to be convicted in impeachment trial before he can be criminally liable. again, it's just not tenable of constitutional doctrine and i don't think the court is likely to accept that. >> how is nixon going to come into play when this reaches the supreme court? >> yeah, so president nixon was held, there was a case involving

him and there are several, but in one major case that's relevant here, the court held presidents to absolute immunity. they cannot be sued for civil damages for acts within the outer boundaries of their office. and that's the precedent on immunity that president trump's lawyers are also relying on here. they want to argument there's no criminal liability for acts taken within the outer boundaries of the office. that's really the heart of the argument here. that's where the focus will be in the opinions. >> so if you were trump's lawyer and you were trying to frame the arguments based on a constitutional reading of the law, is there an argument out there for presidential immunity for what he did being something you can't prosecute? >> so, the argument that the president has some kind of immunity under the constitution from certain actions certainly has been vindicated by the supreme court in the context of private civil suits for damages and the issue here is how does that apply in the context of potential criminal liability.

i think that's a real argument. there are real issues about what the scope of immunity, if any, should be for presidents from criminal prosecution. the district court here said there's no immunity at all. the president's lawyers are arguing well, if it's within the outer boundaries of the office, there might be immunity. that would still leave open the question of whether everything he did was in the scope of the official duty of the office or was more of a candidate seeking to affect the election. so even if he wins on his theory about immunity, he could still lose on the facts because these actions are not considered to be within the scope of the office. >> richard, thank you very much. we have huge breaking news that we have to bring you. u.s. defense secretary lloyd austin has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. courtney has the latest. we were asking what his underlying conditions was and it seems like we know. >> we have our answer. so december 22nd, apparently

earlier in december, secretary austin, doctors told him he has prostate cancer. december 22nd is the medical procedure. he went in for to remove the prostate cancer. they said it was successful but on january 1st, about ten days later, he started experiencing severe pain according to the statement from walter reed that included leg pain and other discomfort. he went to the hospital that evening and was initially was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection but apparently, it got worse. the next day he was moved to the icu according to the statement, for further care. where they identified he had some excess fluid in his abdomen that had to be drained out. one of the things we're learning from this statement which is very extensive and provides a lot of detail about his medical condition is that he was never under general anesthesia for the procedure for including the one that drained his stomach. it's explained as somebody that

required a tube to be placed through his nose into his stomach to drain the fluid but he was never under general anesthesia. the statement also says his prognosis is excellent, he's expected to recover fully but there may be a long recovery period. >> sorry to interrupt you. i'm readying the statement, too. it says he was under general anesthesia during this procedure. >> during the initial procedure, excuse me, on december 22nd, he was. forgive me. during the second time he's been in the hospital for the last eight days or so, he was not placed under general anesthesia. on december 22nd for the original procedure, he did transfer his authorities to deputy secretary kathleen hicks. that's been one of our big questions here. why was the decision made on tuesday, january 2nd, to transfer the authorities to kathleen hicks? what was the nature of his

condition? surgery, anesthesia? medication that could impair his judgment? now we know it wasn't general anesthesia. >> we have a pentagon briefing in a couple of minutes. do we know what stage of cancer this is? >> they do put a little bit of information in saying this is a relatively common type of cancer and that his prognosis is excellent but beyond that, we don't really know much more about what stage he's in. >> we have from this release from the pentagon that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in early december of last year. do we know if the white house knew about this diagnosis? >> we don't. the pentagon did not notify the white house of the december 22nd procedure. that he was having done, yeah. so we have no idea. and we also don't know frankly, this is some of the line of

questioning we should expect in a few moments, did the secretary, when he had this conversation with president biden last saturday, did he disclose the fact he had this diagnosis on the phone call. >> in terms of the breakdown of communications, his chief of staff knew about this. who normally is the person who has to alert all the relevant players here whenever a secretary or higher up official goes under general anesthesia or is incapacitated even for a short time? >> there is not a clear chain of notification. that's one thing this memo we got last night from the chief of staff has laid out that they want to review what they did, what they should have done then in the immediate time frame right now, she has laid out a number of individuals who have to be notified if there's a transfer of authority, immediate transfer of authority, and the reason why. that includes the chairman and vice chairman of the chiefs,

combatant commanders, service secretaries. people you think would have been notified in the first place but apparently, that was not a procedure. >> we hope he's going to get better but we are in a really precarious time. there have been houthi issues in the red sea all the time this has been going on. i'm sorry, we just lost courtney. we have jonathan with us. john, when we're talking about the moment that we're living in with everything being so hot in the middle east. the israel gaza war. again, the houthi attacks and the drone strikes et cetera. how big of a deal is it? how significant is it to have this breakdown in communication? >> i think you want to distinguish between the breakdown of communication and the significance of having a

secretary of defense who's essentially out of action at a time when the world is exploding in several places. you could make an argument given the houthi attacks on american vessels in the red sea that were in a proxy war of sorts with iran. so there are very, very serious things going on around the world that require the attention of the secretary of defense. he's been to the middle east. he's deeply involved in the gaza war and it's possible military outcome. and advising israelis. he's been there to do that. and that's just scratching the surface of the responsibilities of the secretary of defense in this time. so, to me, the big question is not whether they were not transparent in the last couple

of weeks. that's obvious. that's water under the dam. now they are being transparent. the question is not to be quite that, but to have a sense of whether he can perform his duties or whether his illness is such that he'll have to recover, have a lengthy recovery that prevents him from doing so. >> if he is found to be not able to do so, is there a temporary fix? does he step aside and does his deputy take over for a time before he comes back? in this release, they're talk about his prognosis being excellent. they're not saying what stage cancer it is, but they're talking about a surgery to remove it and cure his cancer. they use cure in the statement. does that indicate that this is going to be something he's going to be able to deal with and even if there are bumps along the road, there's no reason for him to step down? >> yeah, it could be. we just don't know enough. you may recall that rudy giuliani when he was mayor of

new york was diagnosed with prostate cancer and that didn't force his resignation. there are many other office holders who have had prostate cancer and continue to hold the office. so he could you know, relen kwish some of the day to day responsibilities to the deputy secretary of defense and not actually resign his position. we've had many cabinet secretaries who have had all kinds of illnesses in the past. just to go back to the very first ever secretary of defense was a man named james forester. they later named an aircraft carrier after him. and he was suffering from severe depression when he was secretary. hospitalized and during one of those hospitalizations, he jumped out a window and killed himself. so i just mention that not because i think there's any suicide connection here, but because you know we have, and that was at a very, very perilous time in the history of

this country in the late 1940s. he can if the prognosis is such and the treatment is such that it allows it. there's nothing that says that he must resign at this stage. >> i know you alluded to somebody else having medical difficulties but is there history of the chain of command being broken down like this? >> i don't know the answer to that question, but the truth is that when it's involved subordinates to the president, the chain of command is never been nearly as significant an issue as it is with the president. it wasn't until quite recently when they got a constitutional amendment approved about 40 years ago now, recent relatively speaking, that there were even provisions for what happened

when the president went under anesthesia. so the idea of a cabinet secretary being operated on, that's happened many times in the past. and doesn't seem to have been an issue in those cases. that's not suggesting that secretary austin was smart to be a little bit nontransparent to put it mildly about the circumstances of the last couple of weeks but there's nothing, no decision that he made in that period no matter how unwise that would merit his resignation. much less impeachment that some people are idiotically calling for on capitol hill. >> stick around. let's bring in aaron gillcrist. any word from the white house? >> not just yet. this information is still coming in. we don't know whether the white house was given the level of information that we just got

from the military medical center about the degree to which the secretary was incapacitated. that he had this cancer diagnosis, that he had had a procedure done on december 22nd and this complication on january 1st. we know that secretary austin had been working. on christmas day, he was involved in a national security conversation with the president ahead of a strike ordered to happen on christmas night. then again on january 1st while we were with the president in the virgin islands, there was a national security call in which the president spoke with secretary austin to the best of our knowledge, as well as other key members of his national security team. so the secretary had been involved with the national security apparatus. he had been obviously in contact with president biden and yet it appears at this point that no one at the white house was aware of either the diagnosis, the surgery that happened on december 22nd or the

complication that happened on january 1th. to the best of our knowledge, it happened later in the day. this is pat rider. the press secretary for the pentagon. >> let's listen. >> appreciate your patience. secretary austin currently remained hospitalized at walter reed and is in good condition. by now, you should have seen the statement released and for the sake of ensuring that everyone here today and everyone watching has the same information, i will read that full statement. this is a statement from dr. john maddux, trauma medical director and dr. gregory chestnut. beginning the statement. as part of secretary austin's routinely recommended health screening, he has undergone

regular prostate antigen surveillance. changes in his laboratory evaluation in early december of 2023 identified prostate cancer which required treatment. on december 22nd, 2023, after consultation with his medical team, he was admitted to walter reed national military medical center and underwent a minimally invasive procedure to treat and cure prostate cancer. he was under general anesthesia during this procedure. he recovered uneventfully from surgery and returned home the next morning. his prostate cancer was detected early and his prognosis is excellent. on january 1st, 2024, secretary austin was admitted to walter reed for complications including nausea with severe hip and leg pain. initial evaluation revealed a urinary tract infection.

on january 2, the decision was made to transfer him to the icu for close monitoring and a higher level of care. further evaluation revealed abdominal fluid collections impairing the function of his small intestines. this resulted in the back up of his intestinal contents which was treated by placing a tube through his nose to drain the stomach. the fluid collections were drained by nonsurgical drain placement. his infection is cleared. he continues to make progress and we anticipate a full recovery, although this can be a slow process. during the stay, secretary austin never lost consciousness and never underwent general anesthesia. prostate cancer is the most common cause of cancer among american men and impacts one in every eight men and one in every six african american men during their lifetime. despite the frequency of prostate cancer, discussions about screening, treatment, and

support are often deeply personal and private ones. early screening is important for the detection and treatment of prostate cancer and people should talk to their doctors to see what screening is important for them. end statement. secretary austin continues to recover well and remains in good spirits. he's in contact with his senior staff and has full access to required secure communications, capabilities and continues to monitor dod's operations worldwide. at this time, i do not have any information to provide in terms of when he might be released from the hospital, but we'll be sure to keep you updated and until then, we will continue to release daily status updates on his condition. we in the department of defense wish him a speedy recovery. the department recognizes the understandable concerns expressed by the public, congress, and the news media in terms of notification, timelines and transparency. i want to underscore again that secretary austin has taken responsibility for the issues with transparency and the

department is taking immediate steps to improve our notification procedures. yesterday, the secretary's chief of staff directed the dod's director of administration and management to conduct a 30-day review of the department's notification process for assumption of functions and duties of the secretary of defense. while the review is underway and effective immediately, the chief of staff also directed several actions to insure awareness about any transfer of authorities from the secretary of defense to insure the general council, the commanders, service secretaries, service chief of staffs, the white house situation room and senior staff of the secretary and deputy secretary of defense are all notified. and that the notification for transfer of authorities includes an explanation of the reason. keep you updated regarding the results of the review and any additional significant changes

to process and procedures is appropriate. as i highlighted to many of you yesterday, nothing is more important to the secretary of defense and the department of defense than the trust and confidence of the american people. and the public we serve and will continue to work every day, work hard every day to earn and deserve this trust. separately, deputy secretary hicks is traveling today en route to space command headquarters in colorado. tomorrow, she'll preside over the u.s. space command change in command at 12:00 p.m. eastern time. event will be live streamed on defense.gov. also, dr. michael chase began talks yesterday with people's republic of china, commission office for military cooperation at the pentagon for the 17th usprc defense policy coordination talks.

those meetings conclude today and we'll issue a readout this afternoon. finally as some of you may be aware, the united states of america vietnam war commemoration was launched in 2012 authorized by congress in support of a national 50th commemoration. to help thank veterans and their families if their service and sacrifice. notably thousands of organizations known as commemorative partners have joined the commemoration to honor america's 7 million vietnam veterans both at home and abroad and the ten million families of all those who served. this saturday, january 13th at 4:00 p.m. eastern, a special commemoration of the service courage and legacy of vietnam war veterans and gold star families and a renewal of american commitment will be

observed at the national cathedral in washington, d.c. hosted by the space forces association and 40 supporting organizations. the event is open to the public and will also be live streamed. for more details, i refer you to the air and space force's national cathedral website. with that, i will take you questions. we'll start with associated press. >> thank you. have you or the staff had a chance to speak to the secretary and has he shared why he was reluctant to make his condition public until now? and given the seriousness of his treatment, do you suspect that he might have to take a step back from some of the more rigorous parts of his job such as a lot of the overseas travel he's been doing and maybe delegate that to secretary hicks? >> the staff has been in contact with the secretary. i know he's in regular communication with his chief of staff. as for his travel schedule, i

don't have anything to announce. he is actively engaged in his duties as i highlighted. and fully engaged. and so completely confident in that and we'll keep you updated. >> has he expressed why he was reluctant to share what he was going through? >> i don't have that specifically but as i highlighted, you know, it's prostate cancer and associated procedures are deeply personal. and so again, we'll continue to work hard to make sure we're being as transparent as possible going forward. >> there's still a lot of questions on the process about all of the notification that didn't happen. when he was taken by ambulance to walter reed and had personal security detail with him why at that point wasn't there a call

to an operations center or something that would have triggered a greater awareness that he was getting medical care? >> a fair question. again, for the sake of not doing the review here from the podium as i highlighted the director has been directed to lead a thorough review to look at those kinds of questions. relevant facts and circumstances during the period in question to evaluate the processes and procedures by which the deputy secretary of defense is notified and the associated timeline. we'll commit to being as transparent as we can. >> thanks. the chief of staff and senior military adviser were told on tuesday that secretary austin was in the hospital. could the chief of staff have asked the sma to make the proper notifications for her since she was sick with the flu? >> we fully recognize there are going to be questions in terms of notification timelines as

well as the transparency issues we've highlighted. i really think is review is going to help us to get to ground truth in a holistic way so we can learn from it importantly, but also insure we're doing better next time. so i think we need to allow this review to run its course. in the meantime, we've taken steps as i highlighted at the top. >> would that have been under procedure for the sma to notify the white house national security adviser? >> again, certainly, we want to make sure that notifications are happening in a timely way and this way as we've acknowledged, there were some shortfalls so it's important we go back and look at what those were, what could have been done better and make sure we're improving those processes so this review will help us. >> do you still think it's appropriate to call his medical procedure on december 22nd a prostatecetomy elective if it was treating prostate cancer?

>> i'm going to defer to medical officials. we released this information as soon as we had it. so i'm going to refer back to the statement and going forward, we'll use that as the baseline in terms of describing, but you know, in this particular case, as soon as we had the information made available to us, we provided it to you. >> because it seems frankly like you were deceived by telling everyone it was an elective medical procedure and telling it to the public. it doesn't seem elective if this was prostate cancer and this was treating it. >> again, i'm not a medical professional. we're going to try to provide you with the most information we have as kwekly as we have it and recognizing that as i say that, we could have done a better job last week. so you know, again, we have this information now from these medical professionals and i think that you know it will go a long way in terms of helping to understand the situation. >> when was president biden notified the secretary was diagnosed with prostate cancer? >> i'd have to refer you to the

white house. >> natasha. >> thank you. the memo directed by austin's chief of staff that lays out the 30-day review, it doesn't mention the initial december 22nd hospital stay. has the pentagon determined in that instance all appropriate procedures were followed despite the white house not being notified he was undergoing surgery which we know he was under general anesthesia for? >> i think that the information we gather and the lessons we learned from that period would be applicable would similarly apply to the situation on december 22nd. the bottom line is ensuring if there's a transfer of authority, making sure the chain of command knows and that importantly, there's a rationale to be able to provide some perspective in terms of why these transfers of

authority are occurring. so certainly lessons learned from that will be allowed to transfers of authority in the future. >> just to be clear, prior to him going under general anesthesia, he transferred authorities to the deputy secretary? >> correct. laura. >> thank you. just again, when this happened in december, who's decision was it not to alert the president that the defense secretary had prostate cancer? >> again, you know, as far as the situation in terms of what the elective surgery was, we're providing that information to you as we received it. we received this this afternoon and we're providing it to you now. just leave it there. >> clearly, you didn't know. did the chief of staff know? >> i'm not going to go into the specifics on who knew what, when, and where. again, a review will help us

better understand that other than to say as soon as we had this information to make available, we provided it. we got it this afternoon and provided it literally minutes before i stepped in here. >> just one last one. did he lose consciousness at all during the december 22nd surgery? >> to my knowledge, no. >> has secretary been on any medication that might alter his judgment? >> so, i have no indications again, no indications anything that would affect his decision making abilities. he's obviously as i highlighted -- is in the presence of medical professionals for the duration. when he resumed full duties on friday evening, that was in consultation with medical professionals and as we've high lighted in the press releases, he continues to stay actively engaged with his senior staff

and is making important decisions about national security and defense. >> has he asked his chief to have staff to resign or has she offered to resign? >> no. >> lastly, the white house chief of staff put out a statement, does the secretary believe he has become a distraction to the administration in which he serves during an election year? >> the secretary continues to remain focused on recovering but more importantly, his duties. to tom. >> thank you. different topic. two questions. first of all, secretary blinken said the death toll in gaza was far too high and the king said israel's campaign has reached the -- does the pentagon agree with these assessments? >> sure. well, as we've said for a long time, any civilian death is a

tragedy. of course, the secretary and others as we've engaged with israeli partners have continued to encourage them to do everything possible to mitigate civilian harm and we'll continue to do that. no one wants to see innocent civilians killed in this conflict. whether it be palestinian or israeli. we'll continue to work toward that. >> second question. over the weekend issued a statement condemning what he said was u.s. weakness in the red sea. do you have any updates on operation and do you have any reaction -- >> it's not being too weak. we are working actively with international partners to address the houthi threat. operation prosperity guardian is bringing together more than 20 nations to help safeguard international commerce and mariners that are transiting the red sea. you know, we will continue to

work very closely with those partners to help deter by presence but also helping to safeguard those ships that are transiting. additionally as you saw last week, a statement was put out by multiple nations highlighting there that will be consequences for any type of continued houthi attacks and so that warning still applies. i'm not going to speculate about what we may or may not do as it relates to addressing those issues other than to say it should be taken very seriously. carla? >> first of all, the secretary is expected to host a report here on thursday at the pentagon. has that changed? is the pentagon prepared for someone else to host? >> i don't have the specific details in front of me other than to say again, we will continue to assess the secretary's schedule in terms of

here at the pentagon and as we have updates or if things need to be delegated, we'll do that as appropriate. the day-to-day business of the department continues and the secretary of course is conducting his duties from the hospital. we'll be sure to keep you and others updated in terms of who may be carrying out those specific duties or functions or if we have to reschedule. >> and just to i understand the timeline. president biden did not find out that austin was in the hospital until thursday. correct? and we don't know at this time when president biden was notified or if he was notified before thursday that the secretary had prostate cancer, correct? >> i'd have to refer you to the white house. i don't want to get into who is telling the president what. >> and so why did it take so long to get to president biden and why did the statement take so long when the chief of staff

returned on thursday assuming she returned on thursday. the statement did not come out until friday after 5:00. that's two full business days. what was the delay in this statement? we usually get statements about strikes or meetings much, much earlier. >> yeah. thanks. i'll provide you a broad oversue. i covered a lot of this yesterday but i recognize not everyone was there. when the notifications occurred, to the staff on tuesday, because the chief of staff was ill with the flu, it impacted a delay in reporting it to the deputy secretary staff and to the national security adviser. again, we recognize there were some shortfalls in this. in terms of you know the obvious question about delegation so that's what this review is going to help us look at in terms of where we can improve processes to ensure these kinds of things

don't happen again going into the future. the bottom line is -- >> post thursday. post her return. it still took all day thursday and all day friday to get a statement out. that's where i'm wondering where the delay was there we recognize we have to do a better job in terms of the timelines and parnsy. we're committed to making sure we do a better job next time. >> can you provide any updates on the three service members injured in the christmas day attack? >> i'd have to refer you to the army. i don't have those. >> could you give us the latest numbers of attacks in iraq and syria? >> sure. there's since january 4, there

has been nine attacks since january 4. there's been 127 attacks total. 52 in iraq. 75 in syria. dod and you previously said the pentagon was looking at reports of israeli use of -- >> i don't have any updates. i haven't seen anything come back but i don't have any updates. >> are you still looking into it or have you closed that? >> i want to, i'd refer you to the israelis. obviously they would know whether they did or not, but i'm not aware of any updates. >> thank you. you talked about iraq. do you have a deadline for the u.s. withdrawal in iraq? if not, how long you going to stay? are you going to stay as long as

the isis tletd threats remain or is it up to the iraqi government? >> yeah, so we are in iraq at the invitation of the government of iraq and we remain focused on the defeat isis mission. we remain in close consultation with the iraqi government. in particular the safety and security of those forces. we are engaged in a coordinated and deliberate process with the government of iraq to discuss the evolution of that mission in a manner that preserves these gains against isis and helps to insure they can never come back. i'm not going to speculate or get into internal iraqi government discussions. again, we are there at the invitation of the government of iraq. >> two questions. the first on japan.

can you give us any update on the u.s. in japan's operations -- >> we do remain in close communication with the government of japan. we are ready to assist if asked at this time to my knowledge. there's not been any specific requests but we'll continue to keep you updated. >> on taiwan, the presidential election take place in taiwan on saturday but china said this election is a choice between conflict and peace. so how concerned is the pentagon that china might step up pressure campaign against taiwan depending on the outcome of the election? >> so we strongly support taiwan's free and fair elections. which we view as a model for democracy not only in the region, but globally. the united states does not take sides in taiwan's elections. we're committed to fair treatment of the candidates. our policy on taiwan will remain

the same regardless of which party's in power and we look forward to working with whomever taiwan voters elect. the u.s. china one china policy as you know will continue to be guided by the taiwan's relation act, the three joint communiques and the six assurances. >> thank you, general. so you have been addressing the campaign against isis in iraq. it seems the pentagon has concerns about maybe the reemergence of isis. how do you assess the threat of isis today in iraq? >> it's really interesting having watched this over time. so, you know, isis in iraq and syria has been largely suppressed. i think it's one of those things though that you have to keep after, obviously. you know, one of the major challenges of course is the detention facility. which of course you know we continue to work with