needed to build a better america. the first value is fiscal responsibility. the previous administration, as you all know, ran up record budget deficits. in fact the deficit went up every year under my predecessor. my administration is turning that around. last year we cut the deficit by $350 billion. this year we're on track to cut the deficit by more than $1,300,000,000. that would be the largest one-year reduction of the deficit in u.s. history. here is how we are achieving it, this record deficit reduction. first, we're growing the economy. we've created a record 6.7 million jobs since i took office and we have generated a gdp growth of 5.7%, the best economic growth we've seen in this country in over 40 years. this has led to substantial increase in government revenues

and dramatically improved our fiscal situation. secondly, this record economic and job growth has made it possible for us to responsibly and significantly cut back on emergency spending. earlier in the pandemic, it was right to give people help to make ends meet and to keep this economy going. because of the progress we've made dealing with these emergencies, the labor market is strong and unemployment, unemployment claims are at historic lows. we ended the pandemic, unemployment assistance programs because americans are back to work. i'm calling for new pandemic subsidies for large businesses to not continue those because those businesses are back and moving again as well. but because we have to put this economy in a strong foundation, even the delta and omicron variants of covid-19 and the cost of putin's aggression in ukraine have not required an additional fiscal package for

state and local governments. but we still spend what we need to spend to continue to fight covid. those expenditures will be dramatically less than last year. compared to 2020, we're reducing the size of the deficit relative to our economy by almost two-thirds, reducing inflationary pressures, and making real headway cleaning up the fiscal mess i inherited. after my predecessor's fiscal mismanagement, we're reducing the trump deficits and returning our fiscal house to order. now, the budget i'm releasing today will continue this approach. it makes prudent investments in economic growth and a more equitable economy while making sure corporations and the very wealthy pay their fair share. i would add nobody making less than $400,000 a year will pay a penny more in federal taxes. we can do this by, one, passing

legislation that lowers costs for families on things like child care, health care and energy costs while lowering our deficit at the same time. we can give hard-working parents raising children tax relief that gives them just a little bit of breathing room and lowers child poverty. we can give medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription prices. this will bring down the cost for seniors and reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. congress can do this all right now. they're debating it now. we can also restore fiscal responsibility. the trump tax cuts added $2 trillion in deficit spending and largely helped the rich and largest corporations. under my plan as i said no one making less than $400,000 a year will pay an additional single penny in taxes, no one. if you don't make 400 grand, you're not going to pay a single penny in additional federal taxes. and the wealthy and corporations will finally begin to pay their

fair share. for most americans, the last four years were very hard. billionaires and large corporations got richer than ever. right now billionaires pay an average rate of 8% on their total income, 8%. that's the average any pay. now, i'm a capitalist, but just -- if you make a billion bucks, great. just pay your fair share. pay a little bit. a firefighter and a teacher pay more than double, double the tax rate that a billionaire pays. that's not right. that's not fair. my budget contains a billionaire minimum tax because of that. the 20% minimum tax that applies only to the top 1/100 of 1% of the americans will pay this tax. the billionaire minimum tax is share and it raises $360 billion that can be used to lower costs for families and cut the

deficit. as i said, my budget also ensures that corporations pay their fair share. in 2020, there were 50 fortune 500 corporations that made 40 billion in profit combined but didn't pay a single solitary cent in federal taxes. my budget raises the corporate tax rate to 28%, far lower than the rate it was between world war ii and 2017 when it was lowered as it is today. last year i rallied more than 130 countries to create a global minimum tax for corporations doing business in their countries, to put an end to a tax system that rewards multi national corporations for shipping the jobs and profits overseas and avoiding taxes at home. it's my hope that congress enacts this law this year so i can sign it and get to work. the second value is security. security at home and security

abroad. my budget tackles security in two key ways. first, it secures our communities at home. this is an issue families in every part of the country face. i've said it before, the answer is not to defund our police departments, it's to fund our police and give them all the tools they need, training and foundation and partners and protectors that our communities need. the budget puts more police on the street for community policing so they get to know the community they're policing, allows the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, and funds body cameras and makes sure police work with our local communities and are accountable to those communities. it funds crime prevention and community violence intervention, drug treatment, mental health, criminal justice reform, and re-entry for people coming home after incarceration.

all the demonstrable ways to reduce crime. security also means national and international security. this budget provides the resources we need to keep americans safe. ensuring that our military remains the best prepared, best trained, best equipped military in the world. this budget also provides additional funding to forcefully respond to putin's aggression against ukraine and its economic, humanitarian and security consequences. the world has changed. we're dealing with terrorist organizations. we're once again facing increased competition from other nation states. china and russia, which are going to require investments to make things like space and cyber and other advanced capabilities including hypersonics. this will be among the largest investments in our national security in history. some people don't like the increase, but we're in a different world today. america is more prosperous, more

successful and more just when it is more secure. we can restore fiscal responsibility and safeguard our security at home and abroad while beating a third value, what i call building a better america. let's provide universal preschool, cap the cost of child care at 7% of a family's income. like many families, that would cut the cost of child care in half and let's make college affordable. my budget doubles the maximum pell grant to nearly $13,000 and helps more than 8 million students who rely on pell grants to pay for college. my budget invests in building more homes. my budget lowers family energy costs with tax credits to help people make their homes more efficient. research and development to

broaden the reach of solar and build a clean energy future. my budget also invests in other bipartisan common good, i call them unity agendas. i spoke to them at the state of the union. beating the opioid epidemic, taking on challenges of mental health, supporting our veterans and ending cancer as we know it. this budget includes investments to get americans the mental health services they need, and we need them. and when it comes to fighting cancer and other diseases, my budget funds a new organization called arpah at the department of health. it stands for advanced research projects for health. it's based on darpa, the defense department program that led to the internet, gps and so much more. it will drive breakthroughs to prevent, detect and treat diseases, including alzheimer's, diabetes, cancers and more. here's what this all adds up to.

historic deficit reduction, historic investment in our security at home and abroad by modernizing our capabilities in both areas, and an unprecedented commitment to building an economy where everyone has a chance to succeed. a plan to pay for those investments that we need as a nation. that's what we do. so i look forward to working with members of congress, democrats, republicans, independents to deliver this budget and keep delivering for the american people. i want to thank you all. god bless you all and my god protect our troops. let me -- kelly o'donnell, nbc. >> thank you, mr. president. do you believe what you said -- thank you, sir. do you believe what you said that putin can't remain in power or do you now regret saying that because your government has been trying to walk that back. did your words complicate matters? >> well, yes, three different questions and i'll answer them

all. number one, i'm not walking anything back. the fact of the matter is i was expressing the outrage i felt toward the way putin is dealing and the actions of this man, just brutality. half the children in ukraine. i had just come from being with those families. and so -- but i want to make it clear i wasn't then or am i now articulating a policy change. i was expressing the moral outrage i feel. >> personal feelings? >> my personal feelings. secondly you asked me -- what was the second question? >> does it complicate the diplomacy of this moment? >> no, i don't think it does. the fact is that we're in a situation where what complicates the situation at the moment is the escalatory things by putin

that makes the whole world say my god, what is this man doing. that's what complicates things a great deal but i don't think it complicates it at all. >> let me go to steve holland, reuters. >> mr. president, thank you. when you say that you're not walking anything back, you do feel that vladimir putin should be removed from power, is that what you're saying? >> no, i was expressing just what i said. i was expressing the moral outrage i felt towards this man. i wasn't articulating a policy change. and i think that, you know, he continues on this course that he's on, he is going to become a pariah worldwide. who knows what he becomes at home in terms of support. >> are you concerned this remark might escalate the conflict? >> no, i'm not. i'm not at all. you know, look, another thing is a couple of people have asked me as well that other governments

have suggested that this is a problem, i'm escalating things. no. has it weakened nato? no, it hasn't. nato has never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever been as strong as it is today. never. >> so saying he cannot remain in power does not mean regime change, what does it mean? >> i was expressing my outrage. he shouldn't remain in power, just like bad people shouldn't continue to do bad things. it doesn't mean we have a fundamental policy to do anything to take putin down in any way. >> what made you add that, because that wasn't in your prepared remarks we were told so what made you add that at the end, mr. president? >> because i was talking to the russian people. the last part of the speech was talking to the russian people telling them what we thought. i was communicating this to not only the russian people but the whole world. this is -- this is just stating

a simple fact that this kind of behavior is totally unacceptable, totally unacceptable and the way to deal with it is to strengthen and put the -- keep nato completely united and help ukraine where we can. cleve, you had a question. where is he? >> thanks, mr. president. on your budget, you've said repeatedly at the state of the union that you're not for defunding the police. i do wonder how much emphasis you think should be put on alternative forms of crime prevention, not just defunding the police but crime reduction in communities? >> a significant amount. i've laid that out in detail in the budget. for example, we do know that intervention programs work. we do know that what police need, they need psychologists in the department as much as they need extra rifles. they need people who are in the department who can deal with the

crisis that the police are going through as well, dealing with their crises, dealing with their mental state and how they're handling things. they need social workers engaged with them. i lay it all out and it all works. you see these community intervention programs, they work. they actually reduce crime. they significantly reduce crime. so that's a big piece of it. >> just a follow-up, is any of it related to political pressure from republicans saying that democrats are soft on crime, that you guys are careening to the left? >> isn't it fascinating, when i first got elected i was being beat up because i supported the police too much the previous 30 years. no, that's what i think. azma. >> thank you, mr. president. are you -- are you willing to try to meet with vladimir putin?

and i have a quick follow-up to that. when you last met with him face-to-face in geneva, you described that as a productive conversation. you said that he did not want a cold war. do you feel given the actions that have happened over the last few months, i guess i'm asking what has changed in his mind? >> i don't know what's changed in his mind. his behavior has changed. when we met, remember what we were talking about. we were talking about setting up a strategic dialogue and talking about the relationship of nato and russia and facing off in the regions and how we can have more transparency and all the rest. it was a normal discussion i had going all the way back 100 years ago when i was a young senator. and so what changed was nothing remotely approaching that. remember, when he first met with me i said even two objectives. this is the second or third time i met with him. i have two objectives. one is to make sure that they

never become part of nato and, two, to make sure there are no long-range missiles in there, in ukraine. i said we can deal with the second one easily but we can't close the door on the first because when we talk about missiles, we want to talk about what's also on the russian border heading toward europe, do both. and then if you notice, that demand list of his not with me, with others, have escalated significantly in terms of what he thinks is necessary. thank you -- >> thank you. thank you very much. >> i know you're going to ask a really nice question. >> well, it's an important question, i think. are you worried that other leaders in the world are going to start to doubt that america is back if some of these big things that you say on the world stage keep getting walked back? >> what's getting walked back? >> they made it sound like in the last couple of days, it sounded like you told u.s.

troops they were going to ukraine. it sounded like you said it was possible the u.s. would use a chemical weapon, and it sounded like you were calling for regime change in russia. and we know -- >> none of the three occurred. >> none of the three occurred. >> mr. president -- >> you interpret the language that way. i was talking to the troops. we were talking about helping train the troops, the ukraine troops that are in poland. that's the context. i sat there with those guys for a couple hours. that's who we talked about. >> so when you said you're going to see when you're there, you were not intending -- >> i was referring meeting with and talking with the ukrainian troops that were in poland. >> and when you said a chemical weapon used by russia would trigger a response in kind -- >> it will trigger a significant response. >> what does that mean? >> i'm not going to tell you. why would i tell you? you've got to be silly. >> the world wants to know. >> the world wants to know a lot of things. i'm not telling them what the response would be.

then russia knows the response. >> mr. president -- >> all right, i'm going to take two more questions. one, two. >> mr. president, i still want to get back to your original words that he cannot remain in power. can you help us understand you have more foreign policy experience than any president who has ever held this office, whether those are your personal feelings or your feelings as president, do you understand why someone would believe you as someone commanding one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world saying someone cannot remain in power is a statement of u.s. policy, and also are you concerned about propaganda use of those remarks by the russians. >> no. >> tell me why. you have so much experience, you are the leader of this country. >> because it's ridiculous. nobody believes i was talking about taking down putin. nobody believes that. number one. number two, what have i been talking about since this all began? the only war that's worse than

the one intended is one that's unintended. the last thing i want to do is engage in a land war or nuclear war with russia. that's not part of it. i was expressing my outrage at the behavior of this man. it's outrageous, it's outrageous. and it's more an aspiration than anything that he shouldn't be in power. people like this shouldn't be ruling countries, but they do. the fact they do, but it doesn't mean i can't express my outrage about it. >> thank you. you've said that you're confident that your comment won't undermine diplomatic efforts. are you cold front that vladimir putin sees it that way, that he will not use this as an escalatory -- >> i don't care. >> you're not concerned that he may see your language and use that as an excuse to escalate given his recent behavior? >> given his recent behavior -- excuse me, i shouldn't say that to you. given his recent behavior,

people should understand that he is going to do what he thinks he should do, period. he's not affected by anybody else, including, unfortunately, his own advisers. this is a guy who goes to the beat of his own drummer. and the idea that he is going to do something outrageous because i called him for what he was and what he's doing i think is just not rational. >> would you meet with president putin ever again? >> it's not a question of -- the question is, is there something to meet on that would justify him being to end this war and be able to rebuild ukraine. [ overlapping speakers ] >> can you say yes or no whether or not you would be willing to meet with president putin? >> it depends on what he wants to talk about. >> what if he wanted to talk about negotiations? >> you said supreme court. >> well, you can't leave that hanging. >> just real quick, two matters

on the supreme court. while you were away, there were reports about the wife of justice thomas and texts that she had with former white house chief of staff mark meadows. should justice thomas recuse himself from any cases involving the january 6 insurrection or former president trump at this point? >> i leave that to two entities. one, the january 6 committee and, two, the justice department. that's their judgment, not mine to make. >> so justice thomas recusing, you don't think he should? >> i said that, i told you those things get into legal issues that in fact i told you i would not tell the justice department what position to take or not take. i'm not going to instruct the congress either. >> did you get any chance to watch much of the judiciary committee hearing? >> i didn't see any of it. >> the fact that republicans were questioning judge jackson on matters like former sentences related to child pornography

cases or the definition of a woman, does that as former chairman of the judiciary committee make sense to you? >> this is one of the most qualified nominees ever nominated for the supreme court in every respect in terms of her disposition, her intellectual capacity, her experience and background and serving on three additional courts. a woman who is totally, thoroughy qualified, totally, thoroughly qualified and will be a great addition to the court in my view. thank you. >> you have been watching president biden answer questions from reporters after a speech laying out his budget for the upcoming fiscal year, very newsy. the president directly addressing his comments over the weekend at that speech in poland in which he said this man, meaning vladimir putin, should not remain in power. the president making

exceptionally clear just now as you saw to our own kelly o'donnell, he is not he believes walking anything back but he is making very clear that distinction between his own personal beliefs, his moral outrage as he described it and any kind of policy position or policy change on behalf of the united states, saying, no, it is not a policy change. the u.s. is not calling for regime change. you heard reporters in the room press him on this. i want to bring in a couple of folks here. ali arouzi, carol lee, courtney kube and former u.s. ambassador to nato, evo daalder. carol, let me start with you first because perhaps unsurprisingly, and we'll get to some of the other headlines the president made in a little bit. but perhaps unsurprisingly, the first question and most of the questions related to this walk-back that the white house has tried to conduct over the last 48 hours because of the comment that the president made right at the end of his speech when he was overseas as relates to vladimir putin. president biden says this does

not complicate the diplomatic moment that we are in now. the kremlin has obviously called the president's comments alarming, but he very clearly sort of dismissed the idea that there were any concerns this could be used by propaganda by russia. >> yeah, hallie, and he said that he didn't really care what putin did with what the president said. he said that it was not something in his view, that the idea that vladimir putin was going to do something because these are the president's words, the president called him out for something that he is, is just not based in reality, essentially saying that vladimir putin is going to do what he wants to do regardless of what the president said about him. and what i was struck by with the president's remarks is that he really seemed to want to clarify this. they intentionally had the president come out and take these questions, knowing what questions were going to be asked. >> yeah. >> and the message there was that what we had heard from white house officials in the lead-up to this since the

president made these remarks wasn't really enough in the president's view. and so he came out and said this himself, and he said that he was expressing what he described as his moral outrage. he had just come from meeting with refugees on the ukrainian/polish border and he was appalled by what he had seen and what putin has done. that's where this was coming from, that it was not an official policy change. but again, saying that he knows that allies have said this is something that's problematic and others are criticizing them and he was very dismissive of that. >> and it was very clear, carol, as you note, the added questions, this q & a session with reporters, i think just today, that was a late in the game decision that was made. the president was very clear that it seemed he wanted to get out this point. he wanted to address this head on. it looked as though he had an answer ready to go on this. >> absolutely. and he said it multiple time. his answer was that he was expressing his moral outrage. he said, you know, people like this shouldn't be in power, but

they are. so he was saying that that's a reality. that people like this shouldn't be in power but they are. our policy is, this is the president's words, is not that we're going to try to remove vladimir putin from power, he was just making this observation that this is somebody who has done things and he should not be in power. at the same time, saying this was not something that was going to change u.s. policy in terms of regime change towards russia. he also said, hallie, which was interesting, that he would meet with putin again, it depended on what the topic was. he was asked about that, so not completely closing the door here on some potential discussions or at least in the future in the longer term. >> yeah. the president basically saying there needed to be something to negotiate but not ruling it out altogether. ambassador, let me turn to you here. do you believe that president biden did what he needed to do in the last couple of minutes as we've been watching it live? >> i think he did. it was very important for him to make clear as the president of

the united states that the policy of the united states remains not to look for regime change. that of course we are morally outraged, that he is personally morally outraged, frankly that all leaders of the western coalition are morally outraged and would be quite happy for putin not to be in power. i think that's the case. but actually having a policy to effect that change is something different. i also think it was very important for him to make very clear that vladimir putin, who by the way has thought that we were out to get him for the last 25 years, really isn't going to change this behavior just because the president uttered nine words. vladimir putin will do what he needs to do or wants to do no matter what we say and i think that was important for him to underscore again. >> ali arouzi, let me go to you. you are live in lviv. i understand there's been activity in lviv in the last day and how the president's remarks have landed where you are, over the weekend obviously. >> reporter: hi, hallie, that's

right. over the weekend lviv got hit just two miles from where i'm standing. the russians hit large fuel depot and a military sort of factory, which we don't have very many details about. the russians say that they launched long-range and precision missiles to hit both of those locations from the sea. and it did considerable damage. we saw it with our eyes. the fuel depot was a raging inferno for a good 16, 18 hours until firefighters put it out. and i don't think the timing of that was any coincidence. the fuel depot was hit just before president biden made his speech in poland. the military factory was hit just after the speech ended and that did shake up people here in lviv. this has always been a safe zone. this is where people who came from the battered east soft safety and sanctuary and to go on to poland. a lot of the ukrainians here you speak to are wondering how much longer will lviv remain a refuge

for all of these people that have been so badly displaced. so that was quite a moment over the weekend. but also to tell you it's still relatively safe here in lviv. the city center is functioning and people are going about their daily routines. as for the president's speech, any ukrainian you speak to here will agree that they want putin removed from power, even though the president walked back or his staff walked back a lot of the comments about him being removed. they do see him as a butcher and much worse and they tell you that all the time, because many of their cities have been decimated. the civilian population here is in really bad shape. humanitarian crises have been sparked in places like mariupol where they don't have food, water, electricity. so they would certainly like to see vladimir putin be removed, but they're realistic too. they know that that's not going to happen and america isn't going to do that. but a lot of the people you also speak to here wanted more from the speech.

they said, listen, they want the airspace closed. you hear that over and over again. they want defensive -- air defense systems to fight the russians. they want these tanks that nato has gone silent about. they said they're even willing to pay for those tanks to save their country and their people. so they're always grateful for tough talk by the president for the financial aid, for whatever armament they can get, but they're always saying they need more. in fact they can't have enough of these things. it's a tough fight and these guys are putting up a huge fight in this country, staving off the russian assault on the east and making sure that they don't get here to the west, because the west is very important for those supply lines to the east. that's what the russians said. they said they hit that fuel depot to stop fuel getting to ukrainian troops in the east of the country and of course the fear is that more of those strategic places may be hit in the coming days and weeks and also ukrainians wonder how long

lviv will remain a sanctuary, a refuge for all of these people. >> ali arouzi live for us in lviv. i know you've got to get going. i'll let you go. courtney, carol made the point that at the ending of the news conference, the president left open the door potentially to have conversations with russian president vladimir putin down the road, and there are these discussions now about what would ukraine/russia peace talks look like. would ukraine, could they commit to neutrality. but the president was also clear that russia will, he believes, continue to act with impunity. and what they have done in his words has been morally outrageous. and you have now this continued advance by russian troops in certain parts of the country, right? you look at what's happening in the south, you look at what's happening in mariupol and these increasing concerns that russia is looking to in essence split the country in two, take the east and leave the west.

>> that's right. so mariupol is seeing just a tremendous amount of bombardment, as it has now for the better part of about two weeks. and that is the place where -- that is really the place that is getting the worst of the russian military assault at this moment. but other areas, even though the russians are not necessarily advancing and the military would characterize them as being stalled around cities like kyiv, kharkiv, cherniv, the russians continue to attack those cities from outside. so what we're hearing about is more and more what's being called long-range or stand-off munitions. so the russians are literally firing it from inside russia into these cities inside ukraine. we know that russia has now fired off more than 1,300, in fact nearly 1,400 missiles to date since the beginning of this conflict more than 30 days ago. the ukrainians are pushing back.

they are still trying to retake some territory. we know that they were able to according to this defense official take back one town near sumy, which is up in the east. but there's another town that we've been hearing more and more about today, irpin. the u.s. can't confirm at this point who is in control of it. it seems to be contested. now, for the u.s. part, they are continuing to send more equipment into the region, but they are still not sending anything into ukraine at this point. there is no intention at this point to send any u.s. troops into ukraine. the u.s. announced today, pentagon press secretary john kirby, that they're sending six ea-18 growlers. now, these are jets, these are u.s. navy jets. what they are known for is electronic warfare. what we would generally call, hallie, jamming. so they can jam enemy radars. these are going in and are su

pouzed to land today. these are the pilots, the maintainers. but the defense officials who we spoke with said, look, there is no intention of these being used in ukraine. it is part of this continuing effort on behalf of the united states to shore up the defenses and to reinforce the defenses and the unity of nato there in the region, hallie. >> courtney kube, live from the pentagon with that. ambassador, let me go back to what we heard from president biden. we talked about the broad outlines of his speech. what else stood out to you? >> i mean i think what was important was to remember that just as these growlers that are being sent over here, that one of the main reasons why biden went to europe was to remind all of our allies that we have their back, that we are going to deploy significant military capability. nato agreed to double the number of battalions now placed forward, not just in poland and the baltic states but other

eastern european countries and is looking at continuing reinforcing the capability of nato to defend, as the president put it, every inch of nato territory. it's also, i think, important that we are continuing to flow really large amounts of weapons back into ukraine to help them. it may not be everything that the ukrainians are asking for, but it is everything they need to keep the fight going and to continue to take the fight to the russians. anti-tank weapons, air defense capabilities of all kinds, not only stingers but also it's my understanding soviet era medium and long-range defense weapons that are being supplied by nato countries and we are backfilling with our own equipment. so we're continuing to put the pressure on putin and make sure that what we are seeing happening on the ground in ukraine does not go unresponded and that there is no further

escalation of this war beyond the territory where it's taking place right now, because that would be a wider war and as the president just said could lead to a direct confrontation between the united states and russia and possibly even a nuclear war. no one wants that. >> ambassador, thank you so much for being with us. carol lee, courtney kube, great reporting as always. coming up, we've got a flurry of breaking news in from the january 6 committee today in just the last couple of minutes, including that brand-new reporting that jared kushner is scheduled for an interview this week as the committee considers calling in another high-profile witness, somebody you just heard the president asked about. plus the explosive ruling from a federal judge saying former president trump probably broke the law to try to obstruct what went down that day. we'll talk about it right after the break. we'll lkta about it right after the break. of the bride possibly be doing on his phone? checking in with his merrill advisor to see if he's on track to do this again... and again. did i mention she made the guest list? digital tools so impressive, you just can't stop.

what would you like the power to do?

[♪♪] digital tools so impressive, you just can't stop. if you have diabetes, it's important to have confidence in the nutritional drink you choose. try boost glucose control®. it's clinically shown to help manage blood sugar levels and contains high quality protein to help manage hunger and support muscle health. try boost® today. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. xfinity mobile runs on america's most reliable 5g network, but for up to half the price of verizon, match your job criteria. so you have more money for more stuff. this phone? fewer groceries. this phone? more groceries!

this phone? fewer concert tickets. this phone? more concert tickets. and not just for my shows. switch to xfinity mobile for half the price of verizon. that's a savings of over $500 a year. switch today.

back on capitol hill, a bunch of big headlines in the january 6th investigation, as the select committee gets ready

to hold some back-to-back meetings starting tonight just a few hours from now actually. we've also learned that former president trump's son-in-law, jared kushner, is scheduled to come before the committee later on this week. we don't know if he's actually going to do it but it's on the agenda according to three sources familiar with that. nbc news is reporting that the committee tonight plans to talk about calling in ginni thomas, wife of supreme court justice clarence thomas. that discussion expected to happen behind closed doors on whether to recommend contempt charges against peter navarro and dan scavino who have refused to comply with committee subpoenas. the committee seems a little closer to getting documents john eastman has tried to keep from them. nearly all of eastman's documents need to be handed over and significantly noting the former president, in his words, likely attempted to obstruct joint session of congress. let me break this down.

leigh ann caldwell is on capitol hill for nbc news. also with us is pete williams. betsy woodruff swan, an msnbc contributor, joins us as well. leigh ann, let me start with you and about jared kushner set to appear in front of the committee this week. talk to us about what we know. >> we don't know that much, hallie. we do know that he's scheduled to appear on thursday. perhaps because with he wasn't subpoenaed, he was requested to come, as they do with other trump family members. that he might actually speak to the committee. if he does, though, would he actually give them any information or would he plead the fifth? but it is on the schedule, and this is another sign that the committee is moving very closely to the former president and trying to get as much information as possible, hallie. >> leigh ann, there's also this piece of reporting that i know you and our team have as relates to ginni thomas. what is your sense as to whether the committee will seek to talk

with her, seek to ask her questions about these text messages that were revealed between her and former chief of staff mark meadows in which she pushed for former president trump to try to overturn the legitimate election? >> it's looking more and more likely that the committee is going to request to speak with her. last week when this story broke, i know that there was debate and disagreement among members of the committee on whether they should move forward with talking to ginni thomas. there are some members on the committee who think that, yes, she was sending these text messages to the former chief of staff but so did a lot of people and it's not necessarily relevant and explosive as far as this investigation is concerned. there is others on the committee who say that absolutely she should be spoken to. she is the wife of a supreme court justice, a supreme court justice who was the only one to dissent in a very critical case on the january 6 select committee. and so the committee will speak about it behind closed doors later tonight and it looks

likely that they will move forward in requesting to speak with her, hallie. >> that is something that president biden was asked about as we watched live unfold right here on msnbc not 30 minutes ago when the president was asked if he believes that justice thomas should recuse himself and the president very clearly said not up to me, i'm going to defer to two entities, to the january 6 select committee on anything related to ginni thomas and to the department of justice as relates to the january 6th investigation. as leigh ann knows, dick durbin, head of the senate judiciary committee, said this. i'm going to play it. >> it raises a serious question about conflict of interest for justice thomas. to think that he would consider a case where his wife is frequently contacting the chief of staff for the president and giving advice on matters that are going to be ultimately litigated by the court, that is the ultimate conflict of interest. for the good of the court, i think he should recuse himself from those cases. >> betsy, talk to me about what you're hearing from your sources

and what it would mean if in fact the january 6th committee did move forward with looking to talk more with ginni thomas. >> ginni thomas has been deeply involved in a very conservative washington activist circles for many, many years now and it's something that has frequently created calls for her husband to recuse himself from particular cases. of course none quite as pressing and vociferous as the calls in this particular moment as it relates to january 6th. she's very unusual among supreme court spouses because of her involvement and her proximity to matters that can or that could come before the highest court. what i can also tell you is that conversations among people on the committee regarding ginni thomas predate the breaking of the news about her texts. it's something that's a complicated issue because the select committee doesn't want to look like they're trying to do oversight of the supreme court itself. at the same time, to leigh ann's

point there has been these discussions about should she come in. clearly she was very close to the action. clearly she was lobbying for certain steps to be taken by the president's own chief of staff. there's kind of a perception that the decision to potentially call her in has only been discussed in the last five days but this actually goes back earlier than that. it's something that's really been percolating on the committee and we expect to know more, of course, by the end of the day. at this point, though, given all the calls for action on the part of the select committee, i think it's a very safe bet that they do end up calling her. one other thing i would note is one of the challenges for people who want her husband, of course, to recuse is only supreme court justices can decide whether or not they recuse from cases. that's up to the court itself. the court governs itself. so regardless of what people on the executive branch or the legislative branch might think is appropriate, regardless of what people in the public might think is appropriate, ultimately

it's up to the court and for better or for worse the court is very insulated from pressure on these issues. >> pete, let me go to you on the other piece of this, which is this federal judge's ruling suggesting that former president trump and john eastman likely attempted to obstruct the joint session of congress on january 6th. this is not a criminal case, right, so there is a distinction that needs to be drawn there. but explain where this goes from here. >> well, i think the likely thing is that eastman will appeal. but he's the law professor who wrote the emails to the white house suggesting that vice president pence on january 6th could simply refuse to count the votes from the disputed seven states that trump people say were affected by voter fraud and that would have one of two consequences, either trump would have the larger number of votes or there would be no majority and it would be thrown into the house where the republicans had an electoral advantage. what the judge says here is that that was clearly an attempt to obstruct the congressional proceeding and defraud the government.

he says a couple of things here. one is he says president trump likely, this is the way he puts it, likely knew that the justification for doing this was baseless and, therefore, that the entire plan was unlawful. of course intent is an important part of the criminal law. and then he says the illegality of the plan was obvious. our nation was founded on the peaceful transition of power, epitomized by george washington laying down the sword to make way to democratic elections. he said trump vigorously campaigned for the vice president to single-handedly determine the results of the election. so it's an important voice that basically concurs with what many members of the january 6 committee have been saying, that the president likely committed crimes. the question here is will it increase pressure on the justice department to consider bringing charges possibly. the judge himself says this at the end of his opinion. he says the public is still searching for accountability. this case can't provide it. this court is tasked only with

deciding in dispute over a handful of emails. this is not a criminal prosecution, it's not even a civil liability suit. at most it's a warning about the danger of legal theories gone wrong. but, he says, and perhaps this is a message perhaps this is a message to the justice department. some people think so. if the country doesn't commit to investigating accountability for those responsible the court feels that january 6 will repeat itself. >> thank you for that. we want to get to breaking news just this afternoon about a story we covered a lot on this show. florida governor signing that controversial parents rights in education bill into law. you are looking at the signing on the screen now. critics call this the don't say gay bill. here's what the governor said at the signing. >> we'll make sure that parents can send the kids to school to

get an education, not an indoctrination. >> i want to bring in blayne alexander covering this story for us. this law, now law, had been met with widespread protest in florida from students who felt like it was unfair and dangerous for lgbtq plus kids in that state. >> reporter: absolutely. we have seen opposition there in florida and something that has reresch rated across the country and people just last week we saw disney employees in california walking off the job over this. this is a flashpoint. back in florida i want to bring in some polling on this. recent morning poll with politico shows with the voters polled about this, nationwide,

51% are actually in support of the most popular provision which is banning classroom instruction on sexual operatation k-3 grade and what we are seeing is back and forth over this and drawing statements from corporations like disney. we saw employees that said their company wasn't strong enough in condemning the legislation. the company put out a statement saying it never should have been proposed in law and doubling down on the commitment to oppose the legislation in other states and there are other states including louisiana that are already considering similar legislation and we are starting to see protests there, as well. >> blayne alexander live on the story, thank you. any minute now at the white house we heard from president biden. we now expect to see multiple

administration officials briefing reporters. it is after the president's remarks last hour on the budget and among the headlines, beyond the q&a piece, the conversation about ukraine and the remarks on vladimir putin, also the meat and potatoes of the budget. a billionaire's tax rate. i want to bring in now jared bernstein a member of president biden's advisers. good afternoon. >> great to be here. thank you for inviting me on. >> the minimum tax for very rich americans to apply to people with more than $100 million basically. is this a first step to potentially raising taxes on wealthy americans or is this it for the moment? >> i think what this is is an

absolutely historically unique piece of tax legislation which is to do something that's never been done in u.s. tax policy which is to try to figure out how to fix the problem that billionaires tend to pay an effective tax rate of 8%. 8%. below 10%. below what a firefighter or a teacher pays in many cases because our tax system leaves wealth out of its base and this billionaire's minimum tax disallows that and requires the top .01% of the income scale to pay at a minimum a 20% tax rate. not the current 8%. raises $360 billion over 10 years and injects a dose of fairness into the tax code. very important to this president.

>> it is in many ways as you know presidential budget is in some ways symbolic. these are the priorities. is there a reason to believe that senators manchin and sinema would be on board? >> we have heard different reports. you would have to talk to the legislative team to do a nose counts like that why what we heard including the snos you mentioned is a real intention to do what the president does in this budget, which is to invest in the american middle class and the well being of the american workforce. lower prescription drug costs and the cost of health care and in a way that's fiscally responsible. part occurs because the deficit the largest ever decline in the

deficit in a year. almost 7 percent taj points is a share of gdp and a reason over the clonger term in this budget, is precisely because not only do we make the investments in the economy's growth but in a way to highly progressively raises revenues. that's an ironclad biden rule there in terms of tax policy. >> a new nbc news poll shows the disaprufl of the way that the president is handling the economy is up 20% from last april. the economy by a lot of measures is doing well. unemployment is down. wages are up. when you look at it objectively there are bright spots to point to. inflation is up, too. what's the message to people to look at the budget proposal and want to know what does it do to address the immediate need for them? >> well, it is really what the

president's message is concerned. with the budget there's policies directly targeted at reducing some of the pressures on household budgets. i worked for joe biden for a long time. when it comes to a real tangible understanding of what households have to go through in a high inflationary environment he gets it and wants to take actions reduce prescription drug costs, to invest in the infrastructure which eases price pressures by boosting the economy's productive capacity but remember this is a fiscal year '23 budget. we take steps right now to try to ease the price pressures present in the numbers you cited. getting goods from ship to shelf as quickly as possible. released oil to help with downward pressure on gas prices. making sure corporations pass price savings to consumers.

very urgent and values among president biden right now. >> thank you very much. >> my pleasure. got more breaking news for you. this is from the academy award folks launching a review of okay will smith smacking chris rock. let's bring in miguel almaguer. this appears to be a new development from the academy this afternoon? do i have that right? >> first piece of action taken against will smith. the academy said last night they didn't condone violence and today re-upped the statement saying we condemn the actions of mr. smith and we have officially start add review and will explore actions and consequences in accordance with the bylaws. that's the first major step

taken. we know that will smith after the incident went to an afterparty and seen with the family celebrating and we have been waiting to hear from him or chris rock. the statements could come this week. >> do you expect anything from the academy or is this a wait and see game now? >> sounds like wait and see game. they have begun the investigation. we don't know how long it will take to look into did investigation. they came under scrutiny yesterday when they didn't remove will smith from the auditorium. of course he was up for best actor. he actually won the award. this happened about 40 minutes after that slap and the academy came under scrutiny. they seem to be responding to that, as well. >> miguel almaguer, we'll look

for more reporting tonight on "nbc nightly news." thank you. thank you to all of you for watching a busy hour. "deadline: white house" starts right now. ♪♪ hi there, everyone. happy monday. it was a coup in search of a legal theory. in a ruling with potentially historic consequences, a judge rules that president trump likely committed felonies trying to overturn the 2020 election result. in an order of john east mesne author of the january 6 memo described by members of both parties as the quote blueprint for a coup to hand over his ere mails to