program? >> the president and i have talked extensively about this and will 100% partner with him to reinstate the remain in mexico policy and make sure it's in place. >> travis might be alive today if that policy had been in place. cbp one the phone up, service for illegal im granulitis. the biden administration's efforts to allow asylum seekers to apply ahead of time using their phones but not actually to provide any evidence that they needed asylum. there is a newspaper report, press report that said the only problem with the app is it never asks users are you seeking as asylum. they simply release these so-called asylum seekers into the country and parole. sometimes never given a hearing. inspector general actually did a report, full investigation report on cbp1 and found that frequently users of this app were claiming the same addresses

in the united states as their intended destination. they didn't know each other, no family connections. it has been completely abused and the idea that the federal government would pay for this kind of service for illegals is outrageous. will you end the use of the cbp1 app? >> if confirmed and i have the opportunity to be secretary on day one it will be shut down. there is data and information that we'll preserve to insure we know who is coming into this country and who is already here that we need to find but also we make sure there is another program chnv which i'm sure you are familiar with where the federal government paid to fly people into this country directly from other countries without vetting or knowing who they are. there are several of these programs that need to be eliminated and we need to insure we follow legal immigration laws. >> i'm glad you mentioned that. a mass parole program. our law allows parole in only limited circumstances, two circumstances and it requires

case-by-case evaluation. the present administration soon to be gone has granted mass parole in direct defiance of the law, not case-by-case evaluation. that program is one of those instances. will you put to stop to this abuse of our parole and asylum system? >> we'll go back to case-by-case evaluation of these parole cases and insure that we have more resources if you will partner with us to make sure that our legal immigration system is fully utilized and we have more judges, more immigration courts so that we can process people legally and make sure that they are going through that process rather than like joe biden has done, use this as an excuse to allow people to come into our country with no consequences. >> let me ask you another low light of this last administration and dhs. your predecessor, the current secretary of dhs established a disinformation board using taxpayer resources to police speech on the internet. >> bill: 10:02 east coast time

we have a ruling from the u.s. supreme court on the pop lawyer app known as tiktok. it upholds the law passed by congress in a bipartisan manner, signed into law by joe biden last april. to find a new buyer within 270 days. the supreme court has now ruled that that law stands. what happens to the app, however, is a wide open question. >> dana: and this was pretty momentous discussion. we just heard from president-elect trump through truth social he spoke to president xi this morning. the president of china that owns the tiktok app and this did come up. we don't know what was discussed but it did come up. shannon bream is the "fox news sunday" anchor on stand by as we waited for this to come out. to me it makes sense, shannon, congress passed a bipartisan law, the president of the united states signaled it. it was going forward. tiktok tried to challenge and

have been denied. >> there is no single author who signs off on it. the court is essentially speaking with one voice when they do that. they say this, there is no doubt for more than 170 million americans tiktok offers the distinctive and outlet for expression, means of engagement and source of community but congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to support national security concerns and relationship with a foreign adversary. this doesn't violate first amendment rights and a big conversation when the hearing was held bytedance is a foreign entity. it does not have first amendment rights. tiktok is a u.s. entity but have to separate under this law. what the court says with one voice is congress passed this law as you said, dana. it passes muster and now the ban will go in effect. we know both presidents biden and trump have said they may not enforce it and there is a

provision within the law that says a president can delay this for 90 days if there is significant progress on a divestiture deal. will the president-elect try to argue there is? there are conversations with u.s.-based buyers who want to take a stab at it. will it be enough to trigger the 90 days? >> the 19th of january is 48 hours from now. chuck schumer is telling joe biden don't ban it. you will look bad going out the door. as you mentioned there, shannon, biden doesn't want to do it. trump wants to find a buyer, the question is, dana, whether or not you can find the buyer that has no connection to the ccp in china. tiktok likes to say we're head quarts erred out of singapore. bytedance is clearly a chinese company. >> dana: in the ruling, gorsuch wrote this. speaking with and in favor of a foreign adversary is one thing.

allowing a foreign adversary to spy on americans is another. there is the rub. i do think that biden is not going to do anything. a hot potato. here, trump, you take care of it. do you think he will be able to do the 90 today delay >> it seems like president biden -- it sounds like that was decision within the current administration. they couldn't claim that. he would leave this alone but not enforce it for a day or two. it happens on his watch. president trump has to be able to step up. this does give him lee way to show that a deal is in progress. we've been talking about the fact the ceo of tiktok will be at the inauguration and know president trump feels like tiktok was a big part of his win reaching a different generation. he wants to try to salvage this he said to protect first amendment -- to protect businesses that operate, 7 million of them on tiktok and

maybe more. but he also understands the national security interests and the justice department has argued listen, they are collecting all kinds of information not only about you but contacts potentially that you have through your devices as well, even things like private messages. there was a lot of conversation among the justices at the argument last week saying okay, teenagers even if you put a warning on this will probably be happy to use it. what about ten or 15 years from now and they are members of the military or elected position or some other position of influence, could this data be used for blackmail operations? so there are a lot of weighty things to consider. president trump is asking for the pause. see if he does the formal 90 days on his watch starting monday. >> bill: stand by. jonathan turley joins our discussion. professor, your reaction? >> this is what we expected from the oral argument. many of the justices, including gorsuch, were raising real

questions about the basis for declaring that tiktok has a free speech right to preserving their access to the united states. many of the justices said look, we're not controlling the content of speech, we're just -- we're focusing on the ownership of the company. that's a different type of matter. the justices had some division on that point. some were still concerned, including gorsuch, over the free speech implications of this type of action. but the general thrust of the oral argument was that they would let this ban stand and that's going to kick this into the political realm or back there where president trump has to address it. justices view these type of questions as something that should be resolved in the legislaturetive and executive branches trying to not to get ahead of their skis for questions like this.

for many of the justices they were faced with the government, biden administration saying they are a serious national security risks here. so they are not in a position necessarily just to dismiss those concerns. and for others on the court they felt that really stipulating who owns a platform is not necessarily a deprivation of free speech. so this is an incredibly significant opinion for the law as well as for society. this is one of the most popular apps. it is now going to go in front of a president who is a fan of this site. he has said so in the past. it was integrated into his campaign. this is a president who really made his political career in part on social media. so it is ironic that it will fall to him to try to thread this needle. to find a way to resolve it. >> dana: interestingly,

jonathan, one the supreme court has been very frustrated with some of these cases that have come before them. they keep pushing it back and saying congress, you have a job to do. if you want this fixed, then you have to pass a law. we've been going back and forth with the congress. congress is not specific it what it wants. very specific this time. the question i have is does this case in your opinion affect other first amendment cases? does it set a precedent for anything else that is out there? >> that is a great question because i don't think we've ever had this type of unique free speech issue. i did have free speech concerns. justice gorsuch expressed some of those concerns during the oral argument because you can't see congress messing around with the ownership of sites based on the content of the views of the company. there are some legitimate free speech concerns there.

what was different here was the foreign and national security elements. those were well documented for the court. the court is not allowed to the make political judgments. under the political question doctrine, they leave certain political issues to -- they generally leave political issues to political branches. some of the justices viewed this as that type of issue. they accepted the national security representations of the government and once they did that, they didn't feel like they could preserve access to this site. instead left it up to the government to negotiate here. this will also change things dramatically. the chinese were really hoping that the supreme court would come in on their side. they just lost a major bargaining chip here. they don't have a lot of cards left in their hand. they have a lot of money on the table. they will have to negotiate and they will be negotiating with

someone who is not only pretty sophisticated when it comes to social media, but someone who believes in the art of the deal. i think that it is a challenge at the outset of the trump administration that is going to be a defining moment for him. >> bill: professor, stand by a moment. bear in mind they heard arguments a week ago today and they turned this decision around in seven days and had to based on the deadline coming up on sunday. clay travis joins the conversation now. clay, i think with regard to the incoming president, he was not a fan of tiktok for some time but he was a convert during his campaign and used it to great effect to get his message out, maybe even to raise money for the campaign that happened in in november. with regard to a viable buyer, the phrase many have been using that you need to find over the next 90 days. seems to me like you could get a lot of good business people together who would be acceptable

to this next administration and they would have a fine product where they could profit off of that for a very long time. >> i think there are a lot of people lined up who would like to make a bid on tiktok's american assets and i think it is one part of the story that gets a bit under discussed. we wouldn't athrough "new york times" or the "washington post" or this network or the "wall street journal" or any other american media outlets that are supremely involved in shaping public opinion to be owned by a foreign entity. this is very common in many different countries. remember, china won't allow google to compete in its country. it won't allow facebook or twitter, x, there are a huge number of american tech companies that china refuses to provide access to. to me the solution here, which trump will be working on aggressively behind the scenes as you said.

find that american buyer. maybe it's musk, bloomberg reported. certainly there are many different very wealthy americans that would love to have this asset and that seems like something that would be accelerated now. i don't think they'll shut down the app but seems like a no-brainer that's where we're headed. >> dana: kevin o'leary said maybe we can do that here through his means. i love the app, i think it's fun. but i understand also that when you have people in a bipartisan way like rubio, waltz, gallagher, all these guys saying there is a problem here. it is a spy app. we know, clay, china doesn't allow this particular app to poison the brains of the young people of china. they have a very different system. i also understand that there are so many people who have learned

how to be entrepreneurial and make their living utilizing this app. i do believe that both biden and president-elect trump want to find a way to keep it going in a way that just protects americans and one of the things, clay, that has been so unfortunate about all of this is how poorly messaged it has been to people. do you remember when tiktok, when it was first happening they put out a call to all of these 13 and 14-year-olds and said call members of congress and tell them you'll be devastated. that worked against them, clay. >> it did and i think what you are pointing out is really important here about the way that china treats this app and everything else. let's just kind of contemplate this in general. china effectively -- it is owned by a theoretically private company. china has two options right now. one is help to find an american

buyer for the tiktok assets and bank probably tens of billions of dollars for this company. i believe the reports are that this represents the american version of the tiktok entity represents around 15% overall of the business of this company. almost every rational business person watching this right now, almost every rational person would say okay, i'll take my tens of billions of dollars and bank it and i'll bring that in and use it to help the company in other parts. the other option. i think this is really important. the other option is china could just say to heck with you, we're shutting down the app. we're not going to be active in the united states anymore. if they take that latter option, isn't it a default acknowledgement that essentially this is a spying app and that's the value that china sees for it? because otherwise why wouldn't you take the tens of billions of dollars from an american buyer >> bill: interesting. stand by, clay. a lot of people we've mentioned

here made a living off of tiktok. they saw a lot of product. small business people in america sell a lot of product. kevin o'leary is with us on the telephone. good day to you. you have made no secret of your quest. what is the price tag? how far have you gotten? kevin. >> yeah, sorry. okay. so what we have here is the clock ticking. and what i think a lot of people don't understand about this situation, a derivative of the order but where it gets complex. as of midnight on the 19th any service provider, any service provider that could be an op el, oracle, video compression technology company paid as a consulting service. any of them that keep this thing alive is subject to $5 thousand a day fine times 170 million. that's over a billion dollars a

day. now, if you are the counsel for any of these companies right now in the last 15 minutes, you are advising your executive and the board that the risk inherent here is the first billion seven of fines will be implemented maybe or maybe not until the executive order which is untested. we don't know if an executive order can override a law from congress. there is a case in 1937 that was used successfully but you don't know. so as of right now, unless the company enters into an agreement to be purchased by an american syndicate and biden, the executive right now waves for 90 days, this thing goes dark at midnight. who will take on a billion seven risk at midnight? this is the most interesting, complicated, crazy situation i've ever been involved in. i'm really excited about it.

>> bill: so it's been said that the ccp out of beijing could control the algorithm which would do a lot of negative things here in the u.s. and influence a lot of people in ways that frankly we don't want to happen. this past week some others have argued the ccp could get access to your passwords. is that true? >> nobody knows the extent of which the algorithm provides data. highly speculated but there is a reason that congress put this order in front of the supreme court. there is a reason they ruled in favor of it. it's not worth taking the risk. and so the obvious solution is to sell it to an american syndicate as per the order and then decide whether you will rewrite the algorithm completely or work the code, which i don't think many of the subcommittees will allow.

we just don't know. >> bill: i hear all your hesitation. one last question, thanks for jumping on the phone, kevin, what is the price tag to get the deal done? >> right now $20 billion, cash, cash. >> will that do it? >> we're ten minutes old. >> bill: breaking up on the phone. we heard the important thing 2 (000) 000-0000. thank you, charge your phone. >> dana: shannon bream, do you have a cool 2 (000) 000-0000 to take over tiktok? >> no, maybe a 20. just to kevin's point there we talked about the risk these companies take if they say all right, i don't think it will be enforced. president trump decides it won't be enforced, the law. there is a catch there. it came up during the supreme court argument.

justice sotomayor said what is the statute of limitations on this law? she was told it's five years. they got into this conversation making the point that okay, even if president trump, one term, four years left. even if he reassured these companies keep providing the app, it is fine. we won't enforce it. you don't know who comes after him. if you've built up four years of violating this law you are taking a big chance. i don't know that a lot of app providers will be willing to do that. it came up in the supreme court. it is real money. >> bill: oh yeah. >> dana: congress has already passed the law that led to the challenge that led to the supreme court ruling today. is there another play here that president trump could ask congress to do to give him more flexibility, time. would he be able to ask him to do that? >> we know has the law has the 90 day provision. nothing beyond that.

we do know there was a senator who tried to offer something up that would have given another 270 days extension. it didn't go anywhere in the senate. he does now have majority as slim as they are. the attempt this week didn't work. whether it would work when he is the executive who could make these decisions. interesting to congress who just a year ago with bipartisan support passed this ban if they would be willing to flip it that quickly. >> bill: looking at meta , zuckerberg, facebook, they would probably win if a ban were to happen. stock is trading down a buck and a half. $609. mary kathryn hamm joins the conversation. youry action. >> a strange situation where congress did its job and overwhelmingly passed this bill. sometimes they're not really on

top of that part of their job so they did that. it goes to the supreme court. i have some concerns as gorsuch does about the first amendment concerns here but the idea that congress passed this gives this extra weight which is why the court likely decided the way they did. on the political front you have biden who doesn't want to be the guy who banned it. his party has support among users, you have trump who is newly a fan because tiktok was a place he was very popular and outdid the kamala harris campaign in followers and used at various points. the ultimate deal maker. it seems like an opportunity for him to engage in this process pretty actively and he has been sending signals he may do so. >> dana: mary kathryn hamm, what about america's youth. you talk about this quite a lot. one of the problems that i think a lot of people had aside from the spying is the brain rot that comes with tiktok.

i feel it in myself with my phone. always on our phones and the addiction to that and what parents are going through trying to protect their children not just from the spying aspect but of that kind of wire alt when we know china doesn't allow that app in its country. >> i think that's important point. when you find out they don't allow their own young people to engage in this type of content you go well, there is something going on here. i try to protect my own children from it obviously and myself. i don't want to be spied on my china and this app allows them to do so. there is emotional implications, attention span implications for people developing. public exposure implications when you talk about this kind of thing and using it safely. another part that's interesting when new technologies come along older generations say it will be really bad for the youth. the youth say no, we love this and want to keep it.

there is a lot of evidence that the young people actually when interviewed and polled about this go i'm on it because i feel like i have to be because my peers are on it and i would rather not be. that's also an important distinction. they didn't feel that way about radio and tv, forced into the loop. that's what gets unhealthy about it. >> bill: quick whip around here jonathan turley, what do you want to add? go? >> i finished reading the opinion. it is actually very tight, very interesting opinion. it spends a lot of time dealing with the free speech issues. it was a great concern for the justices as they stated in oral argument. the justices said look, we want to look at two things here, is this content neutral? are they taking this action because of what tiktok is saying? and the answer to that is clearly yes, it is neutral. they are not taking the action because of the content. after all, these are millions of dance videos and cooking videos.

there is not any response to the content itself. the court said then we have to ask did they do this indirectly? because of content trying to influence the content. and the court said no, that basically the government came forward and said they have serious national security concerns here. we accept those concerns. the court also said that the company argued there were other people that weren't treated this way or that there were alternatives. the court said look, that's really not our wheel house. we don't make those decisions. what we are finding is that there are valid national security concerns raised. this is not a violation of free speech. and these decisions can legitimately be made by the executive and legislative branches. it is a very important decision. the court is really signaling it took the free speech issues quite seriously and wanted to lay out why this is not like

many other cases that they have dealt with. >> dana: clay travis, it is one thing sort of to talk tough about china, it is another thing to implement. what do you think could be the outcome here? you do have the ceo of tiktok invited to sit with all the other tech executives at the inauguration on monday. >> well, i think going back to kevin o'leary on the show. you broke some big news there. i believe he said before his cell phone start evidence to fizz out there that he had bid $20 billion for cash in tiktok. there are other individuals involved. potentially some of the other tech execs, to your point it would suggest they are right now with trump and his administration is probably a large jockeying that is going on. it raises two things.

again, who is actually making the decision about the future of tiktok. is it the owners of tiktok, a chinese-based company or is it the chinese government? how does that play in here? again, i think it's very significant. on the united states side you covered politics for a long time. can you remember a bill that congress passed that the president signed that was going to come into effect on january 19th and they said hey, actually, we don't really want to do this? that's effectively what is happening right now with biden going out and now with trump coming in, it is a procedural posture i can't really remember very often. congress tries to override them or veto them. they don't say so much for this, we don't want to do it anymore. >> bill: i remember when the law was passed last april and it was like loading a gun. what do you mean, january 19th? white house a moment ago saying

this. tiktok should remain available to americans. that's coming in a statement from the white house. white house says implementation of the law must fall to the next administration. shannon, we'll wrap this up here. kevin o'leary threw a figure of 20 billion that stuns a lot of people. mark zuckerberg's meta is worth 1.5 trillion in market cap as of today. 20 billion is minuscule compared to that. shannon, we were reporting a lot of apps firing up out of china. a lot of people on tiktok said they would have to find somewhere else to go. one called red note and it was the number one app downloaded to the app store all week long. i've been watching some people on x this past week. i haven't downloaded it and don't have plans to do it. they were posting about things like the uighurs, muslims in western china and they are saying that when they posted

that on this red note app, it would be removed, which tells you, if true, that the government in china is watching all that. go ahead and wrap up our coverage as you see all of this unfolding. >> it was justice alito said won't people move to another platform if tiktok is suspended? justice gorsuch talks about the possibility of other options happening. he says whether this law will succeed in its end i don't know. a determined foreign adversary may just seek to replace one loss surveillance application with another. whether it's offering something china doesn't agree with or offers up something through its markets it feels like it can harvest information from there will be other outlets the court expressed worries if it is something else not called tiktok. >> dana: it was unanimous.

>> it was written without an author. it sounds like they agree with the overall opinion. it sounds like it is unanimous. we don't get a formal breakdown in these types of opinions. >> bill: i have had two of my sisters already text me and say thank god. >> oh oh. >> they want it gone for them or their families or kids. >> dana: we'll work on what happens to tiktok kate. she might become the artist formerly known as. i believe that tiktok will remain in some way. it's not going to be shut down. people will have it. they will have a different type of owner and then everybody can go about their business. that's what we have there in addition to that. thank you, shannon. jonathan turley, and others on the breaking news. we're monitoring the confirmation hearing for president-elect trump's nominee for homeland security kristi noem. the governor of south dakota. the hearing as we were listening

to before was quite calm but they were covering a lot of ground. we'll catch you back up right after this break. have you always had trouble with your weight? same. discover the power of wegovy®. with wegovy®, i lost 35 pounds. and some lost over 46 pounds. and i'm keeping the weight off. i'm reducing my risk. wegovy® is the only weight-management medicine proven to reduce risk of major cardiovascular events such as death, heart attack, or stroke

in adults with known heart disease and obesity. don't use wegovy® with semaglutide or glp-1 medicines, or in children under 12. don't take if you or your family had mtc, men 2, or if allergic to it. tell your provider if you plan to have surgery or a procedure, are breastfeeding, pregnant, or plan to be. stop taking and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or any of these allergic reactions. serious side effects may include pancreas inflammation and gallbladder problems. call your prescriber if you have any of these symptoms. wegovy® may cause low blood sugar in people with diabetes, especially if you take medicines to treat diabetes. call your prescriber about vision changes, if you feel your heart racing while at rest, or if you have mental changes. depression or thoughts of suicide may occur. common side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, stomach pain, flu, or upset, headache, feeling tired, dizzy, or bloated, gas, and heartburn. some side effects lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. with wegovy®, i'm losing weight, i'm keeping it off,

and i'm lowering my cv risk. ask your prescriber about wegovy®.

(tom) there's an old saying in the navy that the toughest job in the navy is the navy wife. and if you've made the deployments and you've been the wife at home or you've been the spouse at home you understand what i'm talking about. your spouse has earned the right to apply for a va home loan. the newday 100 loan allows you to borrow up to one hundred percent of your home's value. so, if you're in a situation where you need some help financially, give us a call. (vo) call 1-844-809-1393. what are folks 60 and older learning these days? new perspectives! ♪ how to fix things. ♪ fun recip... (high pitched sound) (high pitched sound) (high pitched sound)

>> bill: the hearing continues. kristi noem, head of the department of homeland security. big job and covers a lot of things that people don't realize. so many news stories today within the past four weeks, let's say, that directly apply to the job that she will have if confirmed. chad pergram has been watching while we were on the tiktok story. chad will bring us up to speed on what we missed. hello again. >> bill, good morning. one of the most interesting things that we heard in the hearing is kristi noem talking about how big the department of homeland security is as you a i lewd to dealings with the secret service and fema. why would some people want to take over such a big agency? she was questioned about the border as to who would be in charge of the border.

she said ultimately president-elect trump will be in charge of the border and also said that frankly some cyberattacks, cyber is a very important part of the department of homeland security that they don't know how to combat some of these attacks. one of the other lines of questioning this came from richard blumenthal the democratic senator from connecticut talking about whether or not there would be equity to california even though some of the politics in california leaned to the left when it comes to fema funding. keep in mind fema comes under the department of homeland security. a big hearing here today. the last big hearing for some of president-elect's trump's nominees this week. there might be a confirmation vote or two on monday night. not necessarily for kristi noem but probably for marco rube yoechlt another big story emerging on capitol hill. a procedural test vote on the

laken riley act before the senate. it has a lot to do with homeland security. it would require the detention, federal detention for those in the u.s. illegally picked up for minor crimes like shoplifting. the procedural barrier with 85 votes. blumenthal says he won't vote for it this time. a number of democrats voting for it. they need 60 votes. when i look at the list, maggie hasen, jaeke rosen, gary peters have all voted for this. there should be enough democratic support coupled with republicans. there are only 52 republicans in the senate right now. they need to get to 60. they need at least eight democrats if everybody votes yes. the reason there is only 52 republicans in the senate is the seat occupied ponce by jd vance, it is vacant and we're told

today there will be an announcement at 1:00 eastern time bio owe governor mike dewine to announce who he will send to washington in vance's place. >> bill: a lot to tie in there. chad, could the income president sign this into law next week? >> potentially but there will be some changes to this bill. there are amendment votes in the senate last night that altered what the house had passed originally a week and a half ago. they would have to ping-pong this back to the house of representatives because it is a changed bill now. this very well could be the first bill that president-elect trump signs into law if they cross this procedural vote today and the house accepts the changes made in the senate. >> bill: thanks much to you. check back in shortly. >> dana: the supreme court up holding the tiktok ban law earlier this hour. lydia hu from fox business joins us now. clay travis pointed out something that bill hemmer and i

maybe missed at the moment. he said we might have broken some news with kevin o'leary who is interested in becoming the owner of tiktok and has apparently but 20 billion on the table as the number. at least maybe that's the negotiating starting point. is that possible? do you see any feasibility of getting a deal like that done so tiktok remains available? >> i think that is definitely where we should keep our eyes this weekend and in the coming days. the reason i say that is because kevin o'leary is presenting an offer to buy tiktok in conjunction with frank mccourt. just mccourt told reuters he is open to allowing bytedance original creators to remain involved in tiktok if it were to come under o'leary and mccourt ownership. that's important. they have to get bytedance to want to di vest and also have to get china's approval for the

sale. why is that important? well, president-elect trump was on the phone with president xi we're getting a report. among the topics they discussed we understand to include tiktok. one would think now president-elect trump who is likely going to inherit this hot potato issue is how to get a deal together to get tiktok going and the offer from o'leary and mccourt was probably discussed with president xi is my guest. >> bill: why did they date it to january 19th? why? was biden assuming he would be the president? >> dana: i don't think biden had a choice. >> bill: this is pre-kamala harris movement and if it's not biden, why would congress load it this way? >> dana: what would you have given it? >> a month, six months, this was done last april and they've dragged it out to january of 2025. >> dana: we should ask the authors of the bill.

it matters. >> a great question. when president biden was signing it there was criticism, nine months or so is not an adequate amount of time. even if they found an owner it would take much longer to plight the transaction. it seems as if some skeptics were saying you are setting it up for tiktok to fail to have the ban go into place. the other point is the speed at which the supreme court issued this decision. we only had oral arguments a week ago. how fast that is and president trump asked president-elect trump asked the supreme court just to pause the implementation of the ban to give them more time to consider. he wanted to work his negotiating magic likely because he recognized you need more time in order for deals to be made, offers to be extended saying listen, there hasn't been enough time since april to your point. >> bill: trump has said tiktok should be a decision left to him. that's crossing right now. this from karine jean-pierre, given the sheer fact of time

this administration recognizes that actions to implement must fall to the next administration. duh. >> dana: i'm sure they're happy to let this hot potato go to president-elect trump because you have had this 11th hour change of heart of a sudden senate democrats saying we have to protect this. what about all the people, all the creators. they weren't saying that before. as tom cotton pointed out as we've said before, china does not allow this app in its own country. a version of it and there is a time limit and age limit. all sorts of things you cannot do in china that you can do here on this app. tom cotton tweeted this is a chinese spy tool. i feel like the messaging of this got messed up along the way. tiktok can exist. nobody is voting to ban tiktok. what they're saying is if we are going to have it, it has to be

safe for americans. >> it's a really good reminder about the national security concerns which to be fair president trump when he was president raised during his first term in office. the one alerted all of us to the data collection and how it could be possibly used to spy on all of us. manipulate us. justice kavanaugh pointed out so wisely could china possibly be saving this data and blackmail our children? sure. could they possibly use it to corrupt their minds, turn them into spies? why let the country be this much to an adversary. >> bill: trump does not say what his decision will be. >> dana: maybe there will be a business deal that gets done. maybe the deadline actually helps, which is like okay, it is complicated but let's get it done as quickly as possible. >> bill: so he has his own

organization, trump media organization under the ticker symbol djt. market cap today is 9 billion. that's only half of what kevin o'leary was saying he was willing to put on the table. lydia, thank you so much. >> i was going to say this proves other big tech does stand to benefit from tiktok di vestment and if they go black. snap or meta will cash in. who will be together at the inauguration? ceos of all big tech including the ceo of tiktok at the invitation of president-elect. >> bill: they'll all be freezing with us. break. back to the hearing in d.c. and much more on a busy friday right after this.

call right at home today! they get it. they know how it works. and most importantly, it works for them. i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. i don't have to worry about a mortgage payment every month. it allowed me to live in my home and not have to make payments. if you're 62 or older and own your home, you could access a portion of your equity to improve your lifestyle. a reverse mortgage loan can eliminate your monthly mortgage payments and put tax-free cash in your pocket. it was the best thing i've ever done. really? yes without a doubt. these folks know, finance of america can show you how a reverse mortgage loan uses your built-up home equity to give you tax-free cash.

it's a good thing! so look, why don't you get the facts like these folks did and see if a reverse mortgage could work for you. call finance of america and get your free, info kit. call this number. (auctioneer) let's start the bidding at 5 million dollars. thank you, sir. (man) these people of privilege... hoarding the financial advantages for far too long. (auctioneer) 7.5 at the back. (man) look at them — unaware that robinhood gold members now enjoy the vip treatment — a 3% ira match

on retirement contributions. (auctioneer) 11 million sir. (man) once they discover their privileges are no longer exclusive... their fragile reality will plunge into disarray. ♪ to my son, i've never been the cool dad. i always wanted to know what he's up to online. but with tiktok's privacy settings being on by default for teens under 16, accounts are set to private. he cannot send or receive dm's, and only his friends can comment. so he can post away, and i've got one less thing, to worry about. so, dad, how old do you have to be to get a tattoo? uh, um. teen safety settings on by default. ♪

>> dana: welcome back to our program. the confirmation hearing for homeland security secretary nominee kristi noem continues. it has been very substantive and pretty calm, i would say. jessica tarlov and rich lowry join us now. jessica, this one seems like, well, smooth sailing but also a huge job. >> massive job. i think it's important the senators on both sides of the

aisle are asking her substantive questions. i imagine she will coast through. the republicans who have made the border and homeland security a lynch pin of their concerns about the biden administration and why we needed a change want to talk to her about that. the theme of the week has been started out with the most contentious hearing with pete hegseth and everything else has seemed like child's play on a comparative basis. until we get to rfk junior and tulsi gabbard and kash patel. >> she sent national guard from her state eight times. she knows the immigration issue well. >> a very important job. so many functions on this department but a low voltage -- everyone knows she will get through. on immigration a lot of the direction will come from stephen miller and tom homan as the border czar. if i were asking her questions one thing i would focus on today, what will you do to

reform the secret service which so disastrousy under per firmed what we expect it to do over the last year? >> dana: i wanted to ask you, jessica, about the idea of the deportation, of course. i think you will start seeing a lot more coverage about how people are feeling. and in fact today "the new york times" daily podcast gets a lot of listeners talks to a woman here illegally. for many years, her children were born here. she is a doctor and says she pays taxes and she is terrified about being deported and her friends are saying you don't have to worry because he is only going after the criminals. it hasn't relieved her concern. i think we don't know. that will be one of the things this administration will have to figure out a way to handle, deal with, and coordinate with state and local officials all across

the country. >> absolutely. i think this is one of the places we've been talking about this a lot on "the five" democrats can get in the business of cooperation and say you want the criminals? here you go. this is the information we have and where they will be. you come and pick them up. but people likely you're talking about are off limits for this. you've seen tom homan has changed the way he is messaging to republican congress people saying we don't have the resources to be able to do what we wanted to do but we want to focus on national security threats and threats to crime and policing and public safety and i think that is the the smart way to go about it. people like who you are talking about, people we know when our lives will live in terror at least the first year to see how it comes into play. the rhetoric during the campaign was so harsh about abuela. >> bill: we talk about mayors and governors in blue states that may resist. another element to that.

will those who operate jails in america cooperate with noe merckx and homeland and miller. >> they can't resist. it is a federal function. the federal law is sup cream but they cannot cooperate what a sanctuary is. we aren't giving you information about the people in our jails which i think is ridiculous. obviously you have the first tronch of criminal illegal aliens and more than a million people who have deportation orders been through the whole process and told to leave and haven't. if you get those two groups of people a big task and it would be 2 million people deported. >> bill: thanks to both of you. back inside the hearing right now in washington. >> from a state that trump won on the same ballot we both won. i understand we'll have different policy opinions and understand the president and income president has the right to nominate he wants. those aren't the issues for me that i will spend my time on.

the ones i care about the most relate to the mission of the organization when it was founded protecting the homeland. and i think to me it's one thing when there is campaign rhetoric or political politization of things. everyone does that on both sides of the aisle in our line of work. when it comes to actually protecting the country, you do have to be clear and honest about facts and not conflate things. it is just important to me that i know particularly since you do have one of the intelligence agencies within the department of homeland security that you are going to call a spade a spade, right? the most recent acts of domestic terrorism in new orleans, horrible incident, in nevada, had nothing to do with migrants, correct. >> correct. >> they were home grown american citizens. one of them was in a very elite military unit.

it's horrible. it is one of the hardest things to catch, the lone wolf radicalized american citizen. but i want to properect the ourselves. our most recent examples of domestic terrorism were not what we spent the majority talking about today, crime from a migrant. i don't dispute there is crime. but i just want to know and i want to hear from you as an intelligence officer that you are going to speak about real threats and not blow something up, politicize something and make something more exciting because that's maybe what the president wants to hear but your mission to protect and defend the constitution means calling honestly what the threats are to the country. can you give me a yes or no, please? >> yes, senator, i will be as transparent and factual every day with you and the american people as possible based on the information that i have. i don't know if the investigations are closed in new orleans and in nevada. what we know so far and needs to

be relayed to the american people needs to be the truth and facts. >> i would ask that. we talked a lot about border security. as a c.i.a. officer i think one of the only people on this committee who has actually worked on protecting the homeland. i'm a middle east terror expert by training and i believe in it. every country of the world gets to decide who comes inside its borders, not a radical concept. but i think i've been open with this commis to fix the deeply b legal immigration system. i'm glad to hear you will carry out the laws on the im grecian system. democrats and republicans are to blame that we haven't fixed this system. but i also believe you can't fully control the border unless you give people that we need for our companies, for our economy a legal vetted way to come here. so do you believe in legal vetted immigration and that we need more of it in the united

states? >> i do believe we need to follow our legal immigration laws and that it needs to be vetted. we need more resources, i believe, in some of the elements of this to insure >> do you believe our economy depends an needs some level. like your family came from norway on economic drive and wanted a better life. >> immigration has been a part of our history and future. we need to the adhere to the nation's laws which this body has the ability to continue to change and to put in place. >> i'm with you. again going back to the fact that you will pledge an oath to the constitution not to president trump like every other nominee, president trump said in november that he is willing to use law enforcement, national guard, or even active duty military to go after quote the threat from within the united states. i don't know exactly what he was talking about. but we have recent examples from your predecessors at dhs where

federal law enforcement were sent into a state in this case oregon, without coordination with the governor. those federal law enforcement officers at the time were putting down threats to federal buildings and they were legitimate threats. i don't dispute there was destruction of property going on during a bunch of protests and riots. i don't dispute that. but they weren't wearing insignia, not wearing any markings. people were arrested by folks in fatigues with no names, no idea who they were right out of a bad hollywood movie, okay? if the president asks you to send in federal law enforcement to a state without coordination of that governor, would you support that action? >> senator, the -- my job if nominated and sworn in as secretary of homeland security

is up ho