pete g. writes, "my tween wants a new phone. how do i not break the bank?" we got you, pete. xfinity mobile was designed to save you money and gives you access to wifi speeds up to a gig.

so you get high speeds for low prices. better than getting low speeds for high prices. right, bruce? -jealous? yeah, look at that. -honestly. someone get a helmet on this guy. xfinity internet customers, get a free unlimited line for a year when you buy one unlimited line. senators, i think we can agree you'd be a little upset. >> so i just ask that you give the same respect for coordination and that we just we are very sensitive. people are worried about politicizing of law enforcement and the uniform military. that's a bad thing. i hope we can agree. lastly, i will just say look forward to looking at the northern border, the gordie howe bridge, your help staffing that we know you are right now across many administrations. we haven't met our staffing goals at dhs and that's a problem. so we really want to make sure that opens on time. but i also want your assurances. you know, you received fema assistance from

joe biden's administration, right? you had historic floods. you asked and requested of the administration, and you were given millions of dollars to help with that. i understand you don't like gavin newsom, but can you say in front of the american people that you will open the books to this committee who does have oversight over fema, right, that you will open the books in a bipartisan way to ensure whether it's north carolina or california or anywhere in between, that the american people can know that you are not playing politics with disaster assistance. yes, senator, i'll work with you in this committee to make sure i'm following the federal law and ensuring that you have information and transparency from us and from dhs and fema. thank you. appreciate it. yield back, senator lankford. >> governor noem, great to see you. >> great to see you, too. >> thanks for being here. thanks for accepting this nod that the president has given you for brian. thanks, both of you. you've walked through a lot. >> i have had the privilege of knowing you for a very long time, since we served together in the house of representatives,

so i have the benefit of knowing how your qualifications and how strong you are and all these background issues and how hard you work on these things, because i've seen it firsthand. >> so i appreciate you stepping into this, because a lot of attention across the country will be focused on this. you know that full well, and you've stepped into it for governor landry, my state and many folks in my state are praying for you and for your state. you've done a great job in leadership at this moment in a very, very tough time for louisiana. >> and we don't want to see acts of terrorism anywhere in our country. and it's incredibly difficult days for a governor. >> so thanks for your leadership on that as well. >> i also have to tell you, christie, i, i've whined to my wife occasionally about the temperature that's coming on monday. >> i'm very excited about trump's inaugural, but we're all going to be sitting outside in about 12 degrees. >> and i thought, just for fun, i would check south dakota on monday. it's one okay for a high, for a high, for a high. and so i'm going to stop whining

about the temperature monday here in washington, d.c. on it. >> i'm going to run through a couple of things here because i know you, not everybody in oklahoma knows you. the questions that i get from people, though, in oklahoma, i want to be able to run past you because they want to be able to know the answer to these things. >> so i'm just going to blitz through a whole bunch of them. >> will you use the legal authority that dhs already has to be able to close our border? >> yes, senator, i will work with president trump to ensure that we're securing our border. >> thank you. >> there's a lot of things that this congress needs to do has already been mentioned by senator slotkin, as well, that we need to do to be able to close loopholes, to be able to give you additional authority. but there's a tremendous amount of authority currently not being used in oklahoma, as you're saying. >> is that about to be used? and they'll be grateful to be able to hear that no other president has ever created a phone app to be able to facilitate a faster processing of aliens in, called the cbp one app. >> it's been mentioned several times here. will you use your authority to stop facilitating

faster processing of illegal aliens into our country with the cbp one app? >> yes, senator, we will eliminate the cbp one app, maintain some of the data that's in it. that's critical to knowing who's in our country. but that app will no longer be in use. >> thank you. >> no other president has ever used the parole authority just in general humanitarian parole, to facilitate faster processing of aliens into our country, which leads to the catch and release we've all heard about. so the oklahomans that i talked to say, are we about to end the abuse of parole and end catch and release? is that about to stop? >> senator, president trump's been very clear that he will end, catch and release. >> terrific. folks want to know, will you use your authority with the funds that are given to you by congress to actually build more wall, rather than use the funding that's given to you, as the biden administration did, to do environmental remediation around the border, rather than actual border wall and border structure. >> yeah, yeah, senator, president trump has been clear that he wants to build the wall.

>> so do we. >> so will you use your authority to be able to scan more vehicles. and obviously we've got to get you the funding to be able to do this, to be able to scan more vehicles and individuals that are carrying fentanyl into our country through our ports of entry. >> yes, senator, we will continue to use technologies, but hopefully be able to use more with the resources that we're granted to scan those vehicles and know what's coming in and out of this country. >> last year, fema employees during disaster relief were instructed by one of their supervisors that if they see a trump sign or a trump flag flying to skip that house, to not stop by there and tell them what their federal government can do for them. >> will you allow fema employees or any within dhs to politicize their role in to pick and choose who gets help and who doesn't? >> as an american senator under president trump's administration, disaster and emergency relief will not be

handed out with political bias. every american will be responded to and treated equally. >> that's what folks want to know. will you review the secret service responsibilities to be able to go back through it and to say, are they focused on their primary mission, or is there something that could distract? secret service still chases down financial crimes. they're still chasing down child exploitation. those are serious things for treasury or for fbi to do. but there's a question is if that's the first priority for secret service, senator, the secret service is in need of dramatic reforms. >> they do have a protective detail element that is their priority. and also an investigation side. my understanding is that that investigation site is often used to train the protective detail officers, but clearly they are not focusing on what their true duty is, and that needs to get back on to what they were created for. and that was the protective detail mission and emergency situations that they need to help plan and prepare for and defend. >> thank you. this this

committee made a request to the secretary of homeland security last year. and by the way, also the head of the fbi, to be able to come before this committee and to do what every secretary of homeland security has done for the last 20 years, every single year, unbroken until last year. and then the secretary refused to come before this committee in an open session and talk about national threats. now, the former chairman protested strongly to the biden administration and dhs. they weren't coming, but they still refused to be able to come. will you come before this committee and talk about the threats openly to the american people, can hear them in a public forum? >> yes. senator. senator peters and i discussed this quite a bit in our meeting as well, and i have committed to come and give that briefing to this committee and to the american people. >> thank you. we need that. let me tell you another challenge we've had with homeland security in the past four years. when we asked for data and for

information we get. i'll get back to you on that. when we ask again and again and again and again, we get the same statement. i'll get back to you on that. now i can go down the street to the command center where they actually get the data in live, and they have it up on big screens, and they're tracking exactly what's happening on the southern border to the minute. but if i ask for what happened last month, they'll say, we're still gathering that data. we're not asking for anything other than what congress is supposed to get. that's the ability to be able to see data and to have real oversight over dhs. and that has been a failure of this. dhs, along with multiple other issues on that. when we request the data for basic things, like how many special interest aliens were allowed across the border, if it was last year, we had to find out on our own. it was 70,000 people that were targeted by this administration as a potential national security risk that were not just found at the border, that were released when they were found at the border, 70,000 people just from last year in the country. right now

that this administration declared at the border, they're a potential national security risk. now, i know you're not going to do that, but when we asked for the data and for the information, when we say, how's the national vetting center working, do you have the connection between to be able to screen individuals there? we're just doing our oversight responsibility. you've served in congress before and did a great job on that and did oversight. we want to still be able to do the same thing. will you provide data to this committee so that we can cooperate with you to help? >> senator, i will follow the law and be transparent with you and allow you to do the due diligence towards oversight that you are tasked with. >> i have absolutely no doubt about that, governor. i have absolutely no doubt. and looking forward to you serving in that role. thank you. thank you. >> well, congratulations, governor. you are almost done. >> okay. >> we've been through a lot of questions. i think you've handled the questions very well. and there's going to be i'm going to ask a couple of questions. and i think the ranking member has a few. and i

think we'll be done very shortly. i think a lot of americans, including some conservatives, misunderstand the first amendment. they think the first amendment says that facebook has to publish my opinion, or the wall street journal has to publish my opinion, or we need to force them. to be fair, that's not what the first amendment is about at all. the first amendment really doesn't apply to telling private companies what we can or cannot say. youtube censored me and i despise their policy. they actually took down speeches i made on the floor, but really, i don't have a legal recourse other than i can complain about youtube being unfair and not hosting, you know, both sides of an issue. however, with the government, though, there is a rule, it's the first amendment specifically says congress shall pass no law banning or abridging speech. and this is what really got us worried about, you know what? not only the fbi was doing, but the department of homeland security actually meeting with these companies on a weekly basis. and imagine the chilling effect of this. imagine that, you know, there are

cameras here that they're going to end their filming of this interview and then decide, well, you know, what she said or what he said really was misinformation. and we should edit that out. can you imagine? you know, it's just hard for me to imagine that the media has not, which once defended the first amendment, hasn't been in more of an uproar over the government meeting with the media to decide things. some of this we didn't know. and then elon musk bought twitter. people asked him, they said, you paid $44 billion for twitter. isn't that too much? and he said, i paid $44 billion to defend free speech. and it's been an amazing service, not only to open up the forum to more viewpoints, but to point out what the government was doing in this last week, we heard from mark zuckerberg, who said that the, the pushiness, the coerciveness of government meeting with them was unprecedented, that they pushed back. but he also said worse

than worse than them, just sort of telling him he should restrict speech. they also threatened him. they threatened to come after him through antitrust law. they threatened to remove parts of, you know, section 230 of the liability protection. the just to imagine this bully nature of government. and i know you're opposed to that. but if you're confirmed and you're in a position of saying we're just no longer sending people to meet with media, and the way i describe it is to talk about constitutionally protected speech, because some will say, oh, well, what about, you know, you know, pornography or what about child trafficking? those are illegal. those are not constitutionally protected speech. you have every ability to meet with that. but for constitutionally protected speech, will you tell us and america that you will no longer be sending government agents to meet with the media? >> yes, senator. i'll work with you to ensure that civil rights and liberties are protected and

that we are not in the misinformation and disinformation space like the current dhs is the only. >> the other thing i would ask on this basis is we will send requests. we sent requests previously, sometimes and often bipartisan requests for information. the twitter files, michael shellenberger, matt taibbi, barry weiss did a great job of showing what was happening in twitter and how they were cooperating with government. i think the other investigation that needs to occur is who are the people in government they were talking to? do they still work at dhs? and can we make sure that they're not in a position of authority? and this is not something i'm going to tell you to do. it's just a request that you have your own investigation, that you have people who work for dhs to say, we are going to look for people who are bringing their political bias to work and trying to influence speech and restrict speech based on their bias, and help us in rooting that out and making sure that these people never again have

that responsibility. because i think that i don't think there's ever been anything like this as far as the restriction of speech, and i think the election is, is largely going to stop and tilt things the other way. but will you help us by looking internally for those who are trying to restrict speech? >> senator, i look forward to working with you on that mission. >> and i don't have any other questions now, but i think senator peters and senator blumenthal, and we'll see how it goes. we're going to start with senator peters with one more five minute round. >> yeah, i'll be fairly brief. we've had opportunity to talk at length about many issues. and again, i appreciate that, governor. i just want to stress going forward. and we've heard a lot of a lot of comments here. i think there's been a fair amount of political theater. not as much as i know exists in other committees. and i've always strived and i know ranking member or now chairman paul, share the notion that we want to

be a fact based committee and try to find tangible solutions to the tough problems that we face. and data is important. i've we've heard a lot of numbers being thrown around here, and i don't have time to go through and challenge those numbers. some of them, we don't even know where they came from. i don't think that's helpful to the very important mission, if confirmed, that you're going to be dealing with. so i hope in the future there were actually dealing with facts. you've mentioned many times that you do want to deal with facts and real data. and again, we heard a lot here. that's not real data and we should not operate that way. and if confirmed, when we move forward we're going to look i'm going to look forward to working with you based on the facts and understand where the real threats are, how we need to appropriate resources to make sure we're meeting those threats. and let's take this hyper partizanship out of such an important issue of homeland security. we have way too much partizanship in this country. and it's resulted in a polarization of people here. we've got to come together as

this country. we've got to lock arms and understand that we're all proud americans. we all want to do what's best for the american people and solve the issues that are before us. so in that spirit, and certainly you've communicated that spirit to me, but in that spirit, i hope, if confirmed, that is exactly what you will be bringing to this, this office. and let's let's move away from of this toxic political environment that we have in the country and celebrate what's great about our country and the spirit of bringing the american people together. so i have one question before i turn it over to other members, as a member of this committee, as well as the armed services committee, i've focused a great deal on the safe integration of drones in our airspace while addressing the growing threats that drones possess. we certainly see what drones are doing in changing the face of warfare, whether it's in ukraine and other battlefields around the world. we are very concerned about the weaponization of those drones

and what it could mean to the security here in the united states. i've proposed a comprehensive legislation to extend authorities beyond just the fbi and doj and homeland security to local law enforcement. you mentioned in your comments about security for the super bowl, which is incredibly important. but we have to remember that that threat exists for all games. in fact, one of the biggest supporters of my legislation is the nfl. in fact, we just had a recent playoff game that was delayed because of drones that flew into that playoff game. we are very concerned that you could have a drone with a grenade or an explosive device, which would be absolutely catastrophic. it's absolutely essential that we address this threat, what we're seeing around the world and what we're seeing in daily activities should be a concern. i think this is just a matter of time. it's not if, it's when, and we need to be on the front end of that. and with that in mind, i want to remind folks that congress just

recently extended critical counter uas authority counter drone authority only for a short time basis through the for the 12th time. we only do these little tiny short term extensions, and we aren't dealing with the problem comprehensively as we should. and those are going to expire on march 14th, a very short time from now. and so my question for you, governor, is, if confirmed as dhs secretary, will you commit to working with me and my colleagues to pass durable, long term authorities that will protect this country from what is a real threat? and it's just a matter of time, and i don't want to have a horrible incident occur. and people wonder why we didn't take action beforehand. so please address that. >> senator, i look forward to working with you in this committee to address the threats we may face and the usage of drones in this country and in relation to our national security interests and our homeland security interests. so thank you for bringing up the conversation today, because it is one of the areas within dhs

that we have a responsibility to address and cooperation with congress. >> and my first comments on bringing people together, please comment on that. >> oh, well, thank you. >> i didn't ask that question, but it's in my 24 seconds left. >> i'm looking forward to working with everyone, republicans and democrats and everyone else in between that in this country that is focused on on keeping america safe and secure for our future. i would just point, senator, to my background and my history. when i came to congress, i worked with republicans and democrats on both sides of the aisle on many pieces of legislation, and was very happy to do so and focus on priorities on where we could agreement, knowing we may disagree on some issues, but there was areas where we could keep the federal government accountable and do due diligence by the people that pay their taxes and get up and go to work every single day as as governor as well. i was governor for every single person in the state of south dakota, and they were my number one priority. and everyone knew there that that it didn't matter if you were republican or democrat, that my

focus was on them and keeping our state thriving and free. so i look forward to continuing the work that i always have to be coming up with solutions and in a bipartisan manner, and hopefully my visits to your office and conversations reflected that and my intention on how i would conduct the role as the department of homeland security secretary and a brief follow up to that. >> so it's data, yes, and facts that we can all agree on to drive our policy and not political theater. would you agree? >> well, certainly. certainly, sir. we need to be addressing facts and information rather than political theater. we also need to speak truth to facts. so i think it's important that we're willing to confront our challenges head on and have those conversations. and you'll see me back at your office door very soon to continue our work together. >> very good. thank you. >> and i want to second, basically what senator peters has said, like on records requests. i've told him and i plan on it, it's going to be administration of my party. but

if he wants records and there are legitimate records, we're going to sign requests together and we'd like to get the records. it also helps, though, and i think senator lankford mentioned this is you ask a question, not you, but to the administration or any administration. they're like, oh yeah, we'll get back to you on it. many times i've even asked in advance, and i would suggest that we ask in advance together. we ask in advance if you're coming in a month. we say we want this data. be prepared to talk about it. and if you are, you'll have many more friends on both sides. because. because what usually happens. and that's why i don't like springing the question. if it's a technical question that needs data, we're going to tell you in advance, at least i will. and we want you to come prepared with that. and that goes a long way, because really what happens is we get stiff armed. they say, we'll get back to you, and then we have no way to force you, really, other than we could cut the money off. and nobody ever does that. but you'll have 200,000 people working for you, by goodness. send your experts out, scour the records. and it is true. i mean, facts are difficult, and sometimes there's different spins on the same set of facts,

but i think that will help. on the drones. i think we need more facts. we've been listening to the senate confirmation hearing for president elect donald trump's pick to lead the department of homeland security. that's the agency that oversees fema, secret service. it's also the agency that will be tasked with fulfilling the president elect's campaign promise of carrying out the largest deportation operation in u.s. history, south dakota governor kristi noem telling senators that securing the border would be her top priority if confirmed. joining us now, nbc's ryan nobles, also with us, julia ainsley, journalist and msnbc contributor paola ramos. >> also with us, tara setmayer, former gop communications director and co-founder of the seneca project. >> former democratic congresswoman stephanie murphy is with us as well. so, ryan, what were the most important moments of this hearing today? >> well, i think first off, jose, we have to acknowledge the fact that it doesn't appear that kristi noem is in any danger of

not being confirmed. >> it would require at least four republicans to vote against her nomination. >> and from what we saw from this panel, there doesn't seem to be any real opposition to nome. >> as the next secretary of the department of homeland security. what we did hear from republicans, though, is basically taking another opportunity to hammer the biden administration and the current secretary, alejandro mayorkas, and getting pledges from noem that once the trump administration takes office, that they will turn back to some of the policies of the trump administration that they could do immediately. for instance, an executive order to return to the remain in mexico program. there was talking about reform of the parole process so that there's no longer these blanket paroles, that they do it on a case by case basis, and also reforming some of the ways that some of these apps are used to allow people the opportunity to migrate into the country so that they're a little bit more discerning and, and a bit more of a rigorous vetting process before people are allowed to come back into this country. you

know, this is going to be one of the most important departments in the incoming trump administration, because trump made immigration reform and sealing up the border and that mass deportation program a central plank in his bid to become the president of the united states once again. and the voters responded by giving him back the oval office. so it's going to be a big responsibility for kristi noem. and you could tell from the questions that were being asked by these republican senators, they want to see how trump's promises are going to be implemented. >> yeah. i mean, julia, this comes as you have new reporting about what governor noem's leadership could look like if she's confirmed lead dhs. what have you learned? >> yeah, that's right. >> jose, i'm actually in harlingen, texas right now outside of one of the airports that carries out deportation flights, a place that could see a lot of activity in the next few weeks. >> if trump is able to carry through on that campaign promise of mass deportations, as you mentioned. >> but yes, we have reporting that says that the policies of

the border and the policies regarding mass deportations and how that will be carried out will largely be in the hands of stephen miller and tom homan, the border czar that trump appointed, who will report to him at the white house. >> in fact, no one was asked about that today by democratic senator andy kim, saying, how exactly is that going to break down? >> who's in charge of the border? >> not just when it comes to policies, but oversight, because this committee wants to be able to talk to the person in charge. >> here's what she had to say. >> tom and i work very well together and talk and communicate all the time, and we'll be working together on a daily basis when we're in our positions under the new administration. and, and i would say there's no authorities being planned to be taken away from the department or, or myself if i'm in the role. >> jose. i mean, she was asked who is in charge of the border? who will be in charge of the border? will it be you or tom homan? >> she said the president will be in charge of the border.

>> so i think that's something to watch, especially as if things go wrong or trump doesn't get the results he wants. >> will she be the one to blame? she would be the one to be called in front of congress. and as tom homan takes on this very new role as border czar. how will congress be able to police him and those policies if he's protected within the white house? so i thought those were some of the questions coming to the surface today that she didn't quite answer fully. >> yeah. >> and julia, i mean, how is that different from what we have seen in the last four years? and the question has been asked in the past, who is in charge of the border? is it secretary mayorkas? is it the president? how is that different than what we've seen in the last four years? >> well, what we know is traditionally a secretary of homeland security is in charge of carrying out the overall policy objectives of the person in the white house of the president. >> but they have a lot of latitude when it comes to manpower issuing memos. >> of course, it's the mayorkas memo that put in place the

current ice deportation policies that tell agents to prioritize national security and public safety. will that in the future be a gnome memo, or will that be a policy dictated from homan or miller within the white house? and if the numbers at the border get high again, or these deportations are harder to carry out than they think, who will ultimately be the one to be responsible for that policy? i think now, with so much coming from the white house, it could be that gnome doesn't have that same responsibility. that's what i've been told by people that she won't have as much authority over immigration as some of her predecessors, simply because so many of those discussions will happen inside the white house. jose. >> paula, i know that you listen to every second of this hearing. what stood out to you? >> well, what stood out to me is what we didn't hear. one of the fundamental questions that i had hearing in this confirmation hearing is whether governor noem completely disavows and denounces zero tolerance policy.

now, if it were up to her, would she separate families? is she someone that believes that every human being has a legal right to seek asylum in this country, as stated under the us law? and so i am honestly kind of in disbelief that that question never came up. i think one of the reasons why this position carries so much significance is because we know what the first trump administration was capable of doing during the first administration, right? they didn't just dismantle the asylum seeking process that the us-mexico border, but this was an agency that was capable, morally capable of overseeing family separation. and so the question that i had is, would she be okay with something like that? the other thing that really stood out to me, jose, is this idea that the core of this ideology that she represents and defends is this idea that there is a fundamental invasion at the southern border now that there is a war zone happening, and that ideology, i think, will justify so much of this maga movement, it justifies invoking the alien enemies act. it

justifies a dhs sort of treating migrants as criminals. it will justify so much of what we're about to see. and that is the one thing that was extremely evident, is that she fundamentally believes that we're facing that existential threat. >> tara, what's. tara, i'm sorry. what stood out to you today? >> you know, there were a few things that stood out. and my concern as as someone who looks at the proper role of government, of accountability, particularly when it comes to federal law enforcement and how our federal law enforcement will be used against american citizens. and the role that maga seems to think that our department of homeland security and our federal law enforcement, they look at it as some type of like pretorian guard to protect the emperor here. and i don't think that that's the intention, nor do i. i'm concerned about the unconstitutional use of our law enforcement. i was concerned

about the line of questioning that i'm glad that senator slotkin was asking her concerning coordination with national guard troops and governors in our states, because it's been clear that donald trump does not understand the separation of powers, and seems to think that human rights and our laws don't apply. just, you know, why can't you just shoot them in the leg or, you know, mass, how are we going to execute this mass deportation? we all know that that is that should that should give pause to a lot of americans. so those the idea around normalizing some of these things that are very troubling when it comes to personal freedom and liberty and the proper use of our federal law enforcement and, and the way that they were shaping it, because there is this invasion, you know, making it seem as though are there problems with our, our, our southern border and immigration? yes. i worked on immigration reform when i was a capitol hill staffer for seven years. i understand it's a very complex thing, but the cruelty

can't be what motivates the policy here. and when you have people like stephen miller and the awful things that he has said about immigrants and tom homan, another person who has said some very troubling things about the approach to national security in our border security, these are unelected bureaucrats. i remember when republicans used to be very upset about that, when democrats wanted to have, quote, czars in certain positions. but now that seems to be the way they want to rule, so they can avoid accountability and oversight, the proper oversight by congress, that should not be okay. and i hope that democrats continue to push back and are very diligent in raising these questions in interest of the american people in the constitution. and one last thing. kristi noem wants to be the department of homeland security secretary, but that oversees the secret service. she needs a little history lesson as to what the original purpose of

the secret service was. it was not protection. it was counterfeiting and financial crime. and it was 36 years later, after 1865, when the secret service was created, created two more assassinations. when congress finally said, perhaps we should add protection. so we understand that colloquially in today's terms, that the secret service is known for protection. but if that's what if that's what their core mission is going to be now, then they should say that. but that was not their original mission. it was, in fact counterfeiting. and there should be real conversations about the role of the secret service and improving it. >> and, stephanie, you know, as we're speaking, it looks as though that in the senate, ten democrats supported the entirety of the republican side on allowing the lincoln riley act to go forward. so what does that tell you about where the focus and the priorities are for this next congress? >> i think that's a reflection of the fact that democrats

learned a lesson out of this current, this most recent election that the american people do care about reasonable immigration laws. >> and so you're starting to see them acknowledge that. i remember when i was a member of congress, i voted for a very similar bill to that lochlan riley bill called kate's law, and i was one of just a handful of democrats to do so. and the blowback that my office received from the progressive left was overwhelming. and it was very simple. it was a law, just like lachlan riley's law was, which is to ensure that people who are in this country illegally, who are committing crimes, are held to account. and democrats have got to learn that. they have got to be able to get to a reasonable position as it relates to immigration in this country, because americans care about it and they're willing to punish legislators at the ballot box for not putting american security first. one thing that i will say about this hearing is

that there was a lot of talk among the senators asking kristi noem to make a commitment not to politicize her role. what they didn't talk about is how her budget will be fairly politicized. she oversees, she's going to be overseeing border patrol and ice and fema and those agencies over the last few years have seen their budget budget get caught up in highly political conversations within congress and find that they haven't been able to have the funding that they need to execute on the mission that is in front of them. and so that will be one of her biggest challenges, is securing the resources she needs to execute the responsibilities that she will have. >> ryan nobles, julia ainsley, paola ramos, tara setmayer and stephanie murphy. thank you very much. as we can see right there on our screens, this session has concluded, and the governor of north dakota has concluded the process that is now going to either give her or not. the

secretary of dhs. up next, breaking news from the supreme court. what's next for tiktok now that the justices have upheld the app's ban in the u.s, a ban that's going to take effect this sunday. you're watching jose diaz balart reports on msnbc. >> i'm a teacher, and i'm sick of working hard and not getting much back. >> i'm sick of having to do everything. >> i'm sick of there not being enough consideration, being taken advantage of. >> i'm sick of competing with a computer. >> i am definitely sick of government overreach. >> sick of minimum wage. >> cancer. >> cancer. >> what's happened to us? you inez, let me ask you, you're using head and shoulders, right? only when i see flakes. then i switch back to my regular shampoo. you should use it every wash, otherwise the flakes will come back. —he's right, you know. is that tiny troy? the ingredients in head and shoulders

keep the microbes that cause flakes at bay. microbes, really? they're always on your scalp... but good news, there's no itchiness, dryness or flakes down here! i love tiny troy. and his tiny gorgeous hair. make every wash count! and for stubborn dandruff, try head & shoulders clinical strength. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need, and the flavor you love. so, here's to now... now available: boost max! care? before i pick up my prescription? >> i always check the single care price. >> it's quick, easy, and totally free to use. >> single care can literally beat my insurance co-pay. >> go to single care.com and start saving today. >> well, you're in the big leagues now. >> how was your vacation, sir? >> well, i needed one with your 10% loyalty program discount. that's $225 for the night.

>> not bad. >> $155 for the night. >> hold up. how? it's easy when you know where to look. >> trivago compares hotel prices from hundreds of sites so you can save up to 40%. can save up to 40%. >> trivago is my secret tactic. (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. ♪ one minute. >> and look at the difference.

>> my eyes look brighter and >> my eyes look brighter and whiter the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. and it could strike at any time. think you're not at risk? wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. wave hello to zane. he's king of the... ping. for every 1 sentence spoken on a call, he has 3 comments 2 memes and 4 emojis to contribute. a flood of positivity... during every. single. meeting. but oh how his passion for product management takes your team from level zero to level... zane. you need zane. zane needs benefits. work with principal so we can help you help zane with a retirement and benefits plan that's right for him. let our expertise round out yours. no. >> i mean, it's unlimited

premium wireless for $15 a month. >> i mean, honestly, when i started this, i thought i only have to do like four of these. how are there still people paying 2 or 3 times that much? i'm sorry. i shouldn't be victim blaming here. yeah, i know it's still $15 a month, so whenever you're ready. >> sorry about all that production value. >> machine learning is advancing, but businesses wonder if some machines can keep up. >> let's welcome our new coworker, jeff. >> copier has a great idea. >> i wonder if it's the same idea as yesterday. >> it's a performance issue. >> really? >> i know people push your buttons, but you still have to deliver. >> anything can change the world of work. adp assist is i informed by workplace data and designed for the next anything. >> 40 past the hour. >> we're following breaking news this morning from the us supreme court just last hour. the

justices upheld a law that would ban tiktok starting this sunday, if its chinese parent company does not sell it to an american company. with us now nbc news justice reporter ryan riley at the us supreme court and nbc's savannahellers, who's been covering this story very closely, nbc news white house correspondent aaron gilchrist and defense attorney misty marris, also with us, former federal prosecutor kristy greenberg. so, ryan, what exactly did the justices say in their decision? >> so they upheld the law. >> and i mean, you know, they said that basically the first amendment concerns that tiktok raised were not enough to overturn this law and keep it from going into effect specifically because of that, that foreign ownership. right. so, you know, obviously, foreign entities do not have the same sort of first amendment rights as ones within the united states. and why they said that all of these users within the united states are using this specific platform to, you know, share posts to communicate with others that there's nothing banning the government from

putting something in place for national security reasons, that doesn't allow that company to be owned by a foreign entity. and that was really what was the emphasis here? you know, the judges did not buy into the government's argument so much that this could also be used as a propaganda tool by by china, though they did on the national security end in terms of just the raw data and information that the chinese government could access on americans, you know, details about their lives, extensive details into, you know, basically being able to identify individuals, figure them out, perhaps trace them. there are a lot of ways that you could get that data and that could be used against for national security reasons. that made it a threat to the united states, according to the federal government. so that's what the justices upheld. of course, joe biden has said that he is not going to enforce this for the 36 hours. or rather, the fines aren't going to be enforced for that first 36 hours of this law going into effect, because that's sunday. and, you know, one of the reasons there is because the government is closing down in just a few hours, because there is the

federal government overall is closing down because there is that the there's in addition to being inauguration day on monday, it is also a federal holiday. so you see a lot of these resignations at the justice department already going into effect. their key people and key roles are going to continue on. but overall, you know, the government is sort of winding down as this administration comes to an end. >> so, savannah, what does this mean for tiktok and the 170 million tiktok users in the us? >> so, josie, i'll start by saying we have not officially heard from tiktok yet, but my sources tell me we will hear from tiktok today, both essentially a reaction to that ruling, but also a little bit more information about what it means moving forward. but the real crux here of what it means for tiktok and what it most likely means for users of tiktok, has honestly more to do with what ryan just pointed out there about the biden administration not enforcing it than it does the supreme court upholding the ban. that announcement yesterday, we actually broke that at nbc news. that took a lot of the air out of a lot of the pressure out of a ruling from the supreme court

for tiktok. obviously, it would have been great for them if they would have just said, nope, this is a violation of free speech. but no one was anticipating that. in that emergency session last friday, it was pretty clear most, if not all, of the justices were skeptical of tiktok's free speech argument. so if we were anticipating the fact that the supreme court was going to uphold that, if you take that as fact, the biden administration coming in and saying that they are not going to enforce it by not collecting on those fines is a big deal. and i'd actually go a little bit further than what ryan just said. he said, you know, one of the reasons they're saying is the federal government is closing down. i mean, we've all known this date was coming and we've all known it was a holiday weekend. we've all known that it was the inauguration the next day. this was the deadline outlined in the law very specifically, an exact number of days, the same law that president biden himself signed. so the fact that they are now saying they are not going to collect on those fines is a major reversal. and it's honestly one of the best things that could have happened if you are tiktok, because day one was that big hurdle for them. we know a soon to be president

trump has been signaling that he wants to save tiktok, where his words he has a warm spot in his heart for tiktok. he plans to figure that out. whether that means he does exactly what president biden is doing for one day for a lot longer, just not enforcing it, meaning not collect fines or if he's going to do something further to satisfy the law, really try to organize some type of sale, or maybe even something like just an investment in tiktok, that he then has the authority, once he's president, to say, hey, that qualifies as that divestiture that i was looking for. what it means, though, for 170 million users. if i were a betting woman, i would say there is a very good chance that not much is going to change for tiktok users right now. they are getting assurances from the places they need it that they will not be punished. >> and so, aaron, you know, kind of reflecting on what, you know, we were just talking about savannah was talking about this reversal by the white house. has there been any clarity just in the last hour or two from the white house about and then just is it okay for the executive to

ignore a law that was passed and then found to be constitutional? >> so not not specifically to that question, josie. and i think the idea of the law being ignored may not be something that has to be dealt with, at least in the very near term. ryan alluded to the fact that effectively, the biden administration comes to an end at close of business today. it's friday, and so people will go home and typically over the weekend things don't happen unless there's an emergency. and so if on sunday, the entities that would be impacted by this law were to take some sort of action or not take the action that the law calls for, there wouldn't be lawyers around immediately filing paperwork to find these companies on sunday. monday is martin luther king junior day. it's a federal holiday, so you wouldn't have that on monday either. and obviously it's an inauguration day as well, the white house said in a statement from the press secretary earlier today that president biden still

believes that that this app, tiktok, should be available to americans, but that it should be owned by an american company or another company that is in line with the national security concerns of the american government. but given the fact that this law goes into effect on sunday, and there's a new administration coming in on monday at noon, the biden administration has taken the position that it won't act on this, that it should be left up to the new administration taking taking office on monday. at the same time, we've heard from president elect trump himself, he posted on his social media site a little while ago a statement saying the supreme court decision was expected and everyone must respect it. my decision on tiktok will be made in the not too distant future, but i must have time to review the situation. stay tuned. his national, his incoming national security adviser, said on television yesterday that they're going to put some measures in place to make sure that tiktok can still continue to function in this country. at

the same time, try to make sure that the national security concerns the risk that's been talked about, not the necessarily any action that's been taken in violation of national security, but the risk that exists by this app being owned by bytedance and ostensibly the chinese government is something that the trump administration will be taking a look at and trying to address. jose. >> yeah. >> and, you know, aaron was talking about teams of lawyers stepping in. you can expect that always. but what do you make of the supreme court's ruling in this case? and then this kind of threading the needle thing on. well, it's not for me to decide. it's for someone else to decide. i'm not going to, you know, how do you read it? >> yeah. jose, i'm not surprised at all by the supreme court's decision. and that's having sat and listened to all of the arguments that took place and hearing the supreme court justices, many of them say, we're not even sure if the first amendment is at issue here, because it's not the content of the speech that's being

regulated. it's the platform that is a national security concern. now, the decision reflected that any issue relating to free speech was outweighed by the national security risk. and there's a lot of deference when it comes to national security that that really lies with congress, not the judicial branch of the government. so not surprised by the decision. but now when we're talking about the enforcement and implementation, that's a whole different story. the biden administration stepping back, we knew that there was only going to be this one day. >> it was always the 19th. >> we spoke about it before. leaves says that, you know, if there's no meaningful impact to these companies, no penalties that will be enforced. there's no incentive to stop tiktok. and then from trump's friend of the court brief, we know that he's going to try and keep this, to keep tiktok going and strike up some form of a deal, whether that's an executive order divestment decision or something of the like is unclear. but it was pretty clear that once trump took over from what he's been

saying and that brief, that there was going to be a delay in the implementation, even if it just meant telling the doj to back off. >> yeah. and i mean, kristy, let's talk about that, the trump amicus brief and so much more. what do you read in all of this? and it's just like and you know, it's back to savannah's point. everybody knew that this was the date that has been put in the legislation that nothing is done by, you know, just coincidence. and yet, oh my gosh, maybe we need more time. but how do you read it. >> yeah. >> well, i mean, the decision is very specific about what the act permits, right? it allows the president to grant a one time 90 day extension that. and that's only if the president can make certain certifications to congress regarding progress towards this qualified divestiture. >> now, what exactly does that mean? what does progress mean? i mean, you know, they may i can anticipate that, you know,

president trump can say that he's been engaged in discussions with bytedance, which owns tiktok. and, you know, progress may be defined very loosely there to kind of get him that extension that already exists in the act. that may be one way that he buys himself some time here to be able to try to make a deal. but it's very clear in the crux of this opinion that what the supreme court found was a legitimate national security interest. was this data collection piece, not so much the algorithm that determines what content should go out to users, but really the data collection piece, just the vast amount of data that that the chinese government has available to them, and the fact that bytedance has refused in the past the government's, you know, efforts here to say, just stop collecting us data and they've refused to do it. and that that can be used by the chinese government for intelligence purposes. i mean, the opinion goes to great lengths to say

that that there is a record here from china that that justifies this national security interest. so again, i think there's going to be some effort from from trump. it's baked into the act itself. that gives him some time here. but there's a real interest that that does need to be addressed. >> and ryan, not a lot of division within the magistrates. >> yeah. and actually i just got a statement from the justice department coming in on this on the tiktok decision, said that the court's decision enables the justice department to prevent the chinese government from weaponizing tiktok to undermine america's national security, according to attorney general merrick garland, authoritarian regime should not have unfettered access to millions of americans sensitive data. the court's decision affirms that this act protects national, the national security of the united states in a manner that is consistent with the constitution. the next phase of this effort, implementing and ensuring compliance with the law after it goes into effect on january 19th, will be a process

that plays out over time. of course, you know the time that merrick garland himself is going to have left after that goes into effect is 36 hours, because he will no longer be attorney general of the united states on monday. and i should point out that we don't know who the acting attorney general of the united states is going to be. that person has not been publicly designated by the incoming trump administration, so we don't even know who's going to really be at the at the helm, at the controls. and there are all these variables, all of these very important issues, national security issues, and all of the issues that the justice department oversees, that there's still a big question about, you know, even though we're winding down the final business hours of the last day before donald trump is actually sworn back as president of the united states, jose ryan riley, savannah sellers, misty marris, and kristy greenberg, thank you so very much. >> aaron, if you would stay with us because we have more breaking news out of the white house this morning. >> we do. jose. we are just learning. our team has been able to track down that. there's a possibility, according to a

source, that president elect trump's swearing in ceremony is going to be moved indoors. the language we got is likely moving indoors. of course, the ceremony is set for monday, late monday morning into the afternoon. you're seeing some of the images of the u.s. capitol already set up for what is typically an outdoor ceremony. the harsh reality, though, here in washington, is that on monday, we're expecting a high temperature, a feels like temperature of ten degrees. it is going to be bitterly cold here on monday. add to that the fact that we are anticipating anywhere between 1 and 4in of snow on sunday. this clearly seems to be something that's coming in reaction to the weather that's anticipated here in washington. now, it's not unheard of for a presidential swearing in to be moved indoors. that happened during president reagan's time, and there have been other instances throughout

history where the ceremony has been moved indoors, whether it's at the capitol or at the white house. and so it's not totally unheard of. and it seems as though at this point, because there's concern about having so many people outside on the west front of the u.s. capitol for the ceremony in really harsh weather conditions, that there is a likelihood that the ceremony will be moved indoors. now, there are several other elements of the inauguration day. of course, there is the presidential motorcade down pennsylvania avenue from the capitol to the white house. there is the parade that typically follows. we don't have any indication at this point about whether there are changes anticipated for that. washington, d.c. has been effectively locked down for these inaugural events. you're looking at some of the images of the fencing that's gone up in so many places in the federal section of washington, d.c, and that is to facilitate secure entry points for members of the public who want to come and see the inaugural ceremony, who want to come and see the parade as

well. and so at this point, we don't know whether any of that will be changing or how it might change if there's a decision made. and so we are out to official sources to try to get to nail down jose what exactly the plan might be, as these changes seem to be coming into place at the ceremony. the swearing in ceremony is going to be moved inside. >> sorry about that interruption, aaron. so it's so far we the understanding is that they're considering bringing just the ceremony part inside, but we still don't have any confirmation or any real information on the folks that are expected to be there all all close to the capitol hill. >> right? you're absolutely right. the expectation is that there would be thousands of people participating in the parade that typically follows the swearing in ceremony. and of course, there are people who come from all over the country to bear witness to the inauguration of american presidents. that's a regular thing. and so at this point, we don't have any any indication

that there are going to be changes made to how the public engages with the ceremony that's going to be happening if memory serves. when i was on the national mall for former president obama's first inauguration, it was it was just insanely cold outside. and you saw people with you were out. you remember. it was it was. >> and i think it was i think 19 degrees. >> yeah. i think it was one of the only subfreezing inaugurations. and obviously people packed into the national mall. the ceremony happened on the west front, but it seems as though there's some concern that we're reaching a point where it's going to be dangerously cold here in washington, and there might be some changes that are made. >> jose aaron gilchrist, thank you so very much. that wraps up the hour for me, i'm jose diaz. well, you can always reach me on social media at jd ballard. i'll see you tomorrow night on nbc nightly news saturday. you can watch clips from our show at youtube at msnbc.com/jdb. thank you for the privilege of your you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell picks up ( ♪♪ )

nothing makes a gathering great like eggland's best eggs. ( ♪♪ ) they're just so delicious. ( ♪♪ ) with better nutrition, too. ( ♪♪ ) for us, it's eggs any style. as long as they're the best. ( ♪♪ ) eggland's best. power e*trade's easy-to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. e*trade from morgan stanley. with so many choices on booking.com there are so many tina feys i could be. so i hired body doubles. mountain climbing tina at a cabin. or tree climbing tina at a beach resort. nice! booking.com booking.yeah. here's to getting better with age.

here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need, and the flavor you love. so, here's to now... now available: boost max! -honey... -but the gains are pumping! dad, is mommy a "finance bro?" she switched careers to make money for your weddings. oooh the asian market is blowing up! hey who wants shots, huh?! -shots?? -of milk. the right money moves aren't as aggressive as you think. what the biggest companies deliver is an exceptional customer experience. what makes it possible is unmatched connectivity and 5g solutions from t-mobile for business. t-mobile connects 100,000 delta airlines employees, powers tractor supply's stores nationwide with reliable 5g business internet, and partners with pga of america on game changing innovation. this is how business goes further with t-mobile for business.

mushroom, a superfood mood booster that reduces stress. booster that reduces stress. that's much incoming dishes. —ahhh! —duck! dawn powerwash flies through 99% of grease and grime in half the time. yeah, it absorbs grease five times faster. even replaces multiple cleaning products. ooh, those suds got game. dawn powerwash. the better grease getter. dave's been very excited about saving big