Return to Transcripts main page

State of the Union

Interview With FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell; Interview With Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL); Interview With U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired January 12, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:00:39]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST (voice-over): Up in smoke. Firefighters brace for a return of gusty winds, as the raging Los Angeles wildfires threaten to consume more of the city. Is the U.S. ready for this supercharged wildfire threat?

Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Deanne Criswell is next.

And on the spot. This week, Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees face questions from Congress.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (R) AND CURRENT U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: We have a great country, but we have to run it properly.

TAPPER: But will doubts among Republicans sink any of Trump's picks? Republican Senator Katie Britt joins me exclusively.

Plus: bowing out. President Biden set to reflect on his influence in the world as he leaves the stage. But as Trump looks to shake up the world order, what is Biden's global legacy? National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan reflects ahead.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: Hello. I'm Jake Tapper in Washington, where the state of our union is praying, praying that the winds stay low enough to allow firefighters to contain and then extinguish those blazes burning through Los Angeles County.

But after a productive night of fighting those fires this morning, sadly, emergency workers are again preparing for a return of those huge wind gusts that on Saturday propelled the Palisades Fire farther inland, threatening the 405, a major freeway, the Getty Center, the campus of UCLA.

At least 16 people have died in these fires. Conditions are still dangerous, of course, to know the true death toll, as, amidst questions of arson, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms takes the lead in determining the fire's origin and cause. More than 150,000 Angelenos are still under evacuation orders. They're

unsure when they can return to their homes or if they will even have homes when they drive back through the scorched Southern California streets. And no one is sure what comes next.

And joining us now, FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell.

Administrator Criswell, the Los Angeles fires now in their sixth day. What's the latest you're hearing from your teams on the ground? Is any progress being made? How is the weather when it comes to the complication of these efforts?

DEANNE CRISWELL, FEMA ADMINISTRATOR: Yes, Jake, I think what I'm hearing right now is that the winds are potentially getting dangerous and strong again.

I believe the red flag warnings have been put back in place. And so I think the biggest thing that people need to know is that this is still dangerous and they still need to make sure they're listening to their local officials, so they can keep themselves safe.

I know that so many people probably want to get back into the area and check on their homes. But with the winds picking back up, it's just you never know which way they're going to go. And so they really need to pay attention, listen to what's going on, so they don't get in harm's way and our firefighters can continue to do the great work that they have been doing to try to contain this fire.

TAPPER: What do you expect to happen in the next few days?

CRISWELL: It all depends on the weather, Jake.

I mean, the firefighters, they're working day in and day out. There's resources that are out there. But if the weather changes, it creates different conditions. It's going to change the environment with which they're operating under. Again, the most important piece is keeping them safe as they try to protect all the homes that are in the path of the fire.

And then people need to start the registration process with us. They can register for assistance. They need to contact their insurance company and find out what their insurance company is going to pay for. And, really, we can start working with them on what this road to recovery is going to look like.

TAPPER: California Governor Newsom's calling for an investigation into why some fire hydrants ran dry and also why a major reservoir that services the Pacific Palisades area was offline when the fires began.

Based on what you saw when you were in the Los Angeles area, how much of a factor did these water supply issues play in hampering efforts to contain the fires?

CRISWELL: You know, I will defer to the experts in California about what they were using and what impact that had. I do know that there were so many fire starts at the same time and

that it really did put a strain on the water system in the early hours and early days of this firefighting effort. But they know exactly what they had to work with. And the investigation, I'm sure, will show additional information.

I think the biggest thing is to still focus on the fact that we still have fires to put out and that they're bringing in the resources necessary to help them do that.

[09:05:05]

TAPPER: A lot of Californians had their insurance canceled by private insurance companies, fire insurance. The industry in California was already in crisis before the fires.

How worried are you that insurance providers are going to choose to flee California, as we have seen in other disaster-prone states such as Florida, and that California taxpayers and actually American taxpayers are going to end up footing the bill here?

CRISWELL: I'm always concerned about the fact that many of the insurance carriers are pulling out of the -- out of the markets.

These types of catastrophic risks, these fire risks, they are increasing. We're seeing the change coming from climate change, and we're seeing more significant severe weather events. That's what we're seeing here in California.

Without insurance, people are not going to have the tools and the resources to help rebuild their lives. FEMA's programs can help jump- start that recovery, but they're not there to rebuild their home. And so, without insurance, we're going to have to bring in philanthropy. We're going to have to bring in our nonprofits.

The Small Business Administration is going to have a critical role in helping these communities recover, but it's going to take all of us if they don't have the insurance to be able to help them rebuild.

TAPPER: You just touched on something we're hearing from a lot of survivors of these fires, which is this idea that this is just the new world we're living in due to the climate crisis, extreme heat, prolonged droughts, hurricane-force Santa Ana winds. All that created the tinderbox fueling this catastrophe.

Does the scale of devastation in Los Angeles indicate that we as a country are just simply not prepared for the realities of the climate crisis?

CRISWELL: Well, I think what we have to do is look at what these new weather events are bringing, the severity that they're bringing, and think about what the future risk is going to continue to be.

And as we have these tragedies, we also need to make sure that we're taking this as an opportunity to rebuild these communities in a way that's going to make them more resilient against these types of disasters. I talked about this all last year. We -- FEMA had a year of resilience in trying to get people to understand, what is it we do to protect these communities and reduce the impact?

There are things that we can do, and those are the steps we're going to have to take to make sure that they don't have as much impact as we're seeing right now from these fires.

TAPPER: President-elect Trump takes office in eight days. He has publicly been blaming Governor Newsom for the crisis. He calls him incompetent. He says -- quote -- "They just can't put out the fires. What's wrong with them?"

How worried are you that politics could get in the way of disaster relief?

CRISWELL: You know, disasters, they need to make -- we need to make sure that they are never politicized, right? It doesn't matter if you are Democrat or Republican. These types of weather events, they do not discriminate.

And so the women and men of FEMA are going to continue to work hard to make sure that we are continuing to support all of those people impacted. They will work through this transition like they have worked through every other presidential transition to deliver the services that people are eligible for and to make sure we're helping these communities recover.

TAPPER: Thank you so much, Administrator Criswell. Appreciate it.

CRISWELL: Thanks, Jake.

TAPPER: Ahead, more on the Los Angeles wildfires, as the president- elect picks a fight with California's governor.

Plus: This week, Donald Trump's nominees take questions on Capitol Hill. Will they be confirmed?

Republican Senator Katie Britt joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:12:57]

TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.

President-elect Donald Trump will walk back into the Oval Office in just eight days. But, this week, all the president-elect's men and women face a hurdle on Capitol Hill, confirmation hearings for a long list of Trump's Cabinet picks, with questions among some in his own party about some of their qualifications.

Joining us now, Republican Senator from Alabama Katie Britt.

Senator, thanks so much for joining.

Let's start with the wildfires, if we can, because, obviously, I know you and all of us who are not affected are looking out at California with such empathy and concern. These wildfires could be the costliest in American history, thousands of buildings destroyed, more than 100,000 people under evacuation orders.

President Biden says the federal government will cover 100 percent of the initial disaster response costs. Do you think president-elect should honor that pledge? And is Congress prepared to act if more aid is needed to help those impacted by the fires?

SEN. KATIE BRITT (R-AL): Yes, look, well, first, Jake, my heart and my prayers go out to every single family affected, those who have lost life, who have lost property.

Having been through a natural disaster myself, you really don't even know where to start. We lost our house, our things, and it's such a disorienting moment for you. And so I think what the people of California need is us standing united, letting them know we are praying for them, we are lifting them up and we stand ready to support.

When it comes to the Republican Conference, we actually had this conversation this week, certainly understand the needs of the people of California, and we will continue to learn more.

I was texting with a friend who has been affected by this. I was texting last night with Senator -- former Senator Laphonza Butler, getting an idea of what's going on, on the ground. And we will be ready to act.

And so I know that President Trump certainly stands for the people across this nation and will make sure that the people of California have what they need.

TAPPER: Let's turn to Congress right now.

The Senate voted this week to advance your legislation, the Laken Riley Act, which would require federal authorities to detain undocumented immigrants who have been charged with, arrested for, or convicted of burglary, theft, or shoplifting.

[09:15:03]

You have support from some Democrats. Other Democrats say, the way the bill is written, they believe, could result in thousands of people being detained indefinitely simply for being accused of a crime, without actually having been charged or convicted, violating due process rights. Are they wrong?

BRITT: Yes, look, the Laken Riley Act is ultimately going to save lives.

It is a commonsense piece of legislation, and it actually puts the talk that we have been having over the last four years into action. Jake, there's been no more litigated issue over the last four years than President Biden and Vice President Harris' open border policies. It is my belief that the American people entered a verdict on that on

November 5, saying, we are ready for secure borders. We want our streets and our communities to be safe and secure. This is the first step in doing this. This is a targeted piece of legislation that goes directly to the heart of the tragedy that occurred with Laken Riley.

As you well know, Friday would have been her 23rd birthday. She should still be with us. If this piece of legislation had been enacted, she would. And so Americans are ready for commonsense solutions, and they're ready for us to stop talking and actually yield results.

I'm encouraged by the number of Democrats that have come on board and those who have voiced their support for this piece of legislation. I think, as we continue to debate this and talk about the merits of it this week, it'll garner more support.

And, as you know, Jake, it passed the House not once, but twice. Last year, in the last Congress, it passed with 37 Democrats supporting. This year, it had 48 Democrats supporting it. So it's a bipartisan piece of legislation that has 60 percent of the House. I expect it to get 60 percent or more in the Senate.

TAPPER: I'm sure there is wide-consensus approval for supporting violent undocumented immigrants 100 percent, but what I have heard concerns expressed about is indefinitely detaining those who are merely suspected of committing nonviolent crimes, not formally charged.

Is that not a concern?

BRITT: Yes, so Jake, this is actually charged, arrested or convicted.

And if you look at this, we have 11 million illegal immigrants in this nation. Of that, 7.8 million of those are actually in removal proceedings. Of the 7.8 that are in removal proceedings, Jake, 1.4 million of those have been given final orders of removal, meaning they have been given due process, and we have said it is time for you to leave.

My question is, I have heard a number of things about the number of migrants that this would affect, I think more recently was said. My question is, I wonder how many of those who have created theft-related crimes actually have already been given their final orders of removal? I have asked for those answers and certainly look forward to them.

I think, at the end of the day, if you don't commit a crime, the Laken Riley Act, you're not subject to it. So I think we should start there. I think Democrats have to wake up and realize that Americans are sick of excuses and they're ready for action. And as long as you don't commit a crime, this doesn't apply to you.

And I think people would agree that, if you do commit a crime, you should go to the front of the line when it comes to detention and removal. Of those numbers that I talked about, only 1 percent of illegal immigrants are actually being detained, less than 1 percent of those in removal proceedings. So I think, Jake, it's about 40,000 that are being detained. Of those

40,000 being detained, 15,000 of them have committed crimes. I think the American public would take a look at this and say, yes, if you came illegally and then you chose to commit a crime against Americans, whether that's property or life, that we are saying, yes, you go to the front of the line when it comes to detention and deportation.

TAPPER: You're on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Attorney general nominee Pam Bondi will testify before your committee later this week. You have said she has your support and she will help restore the Department of Justice to become one -- quote -- "driven by blind justice, not blind partisan politics" -- unquote.

We should note, as a member of Trump's legal team in 2020, she falsely claimed that Trump had won Pennsylvania, which he had not. She spread baseless claims about widespread cheating by Democrats, about fake ballots. That is partisan politics, what she said in 2020. That is not justice.

BRITT: Yes, Jake, I mean, look at what's happened under the Biden administration.

We have people in these offices who have chosen to go after American citizens, who have chosen to weaponize the justice system in a number of ways. When I talked with Pam Bondi, she committed to me to getting back to doing the job of the people, to getting back to doing what the department was created to do.

So, whether we're talking about the A.G., whether we're talking about the FBI, whether they're talking about the Department of Defense, people want these agencies, these departments to actually work for the American people. Pam is committed to that. I think you will see that.

What President Trump has done is, he has selected people who are willing to not move as business as usual, but yet are ready for action. They understand his vision for the nation. They understand the mandate that was given on November 5, and they understand the time for talk is gone and time for results and action is now.

[09:20:15]

And so I think people are actually sick of the weaponization. We had this conversation. We talked about politics not being part of the process of what you do in the department. She is committed to that, and I think she's going to do an excellent job of returning the department to the work of the American people.

And I am excited for her hearing. I'm certainly excited. It'll be my very first hearing as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have got a lot of great nominees on the Hill this week, and they will be -- they will have the opportunity, not only to make their case to those on that committee, Jake, but they will have their opportunity to make their case to the American people of why they're best -- why they are best suited to move President Trump's agenda forward. TAPPER: Well, but why would you think somebody who's willing to lie

about the election results in Pennsylvania is going to restore integrity in the Justice Department, the way that you are calling for?

BRITT: Look, Jake, I have had very direct conversations with each and every one of these nominees that I have had the opportunity to sit down with.

I take my duty as United States senator seriously. Article 2, Section 2 mandates that I do. We have an obligation both to the American people and to the president to ask these tough questions. I ask that question very directly. And with each and every nominee, the answers that I have been given with them has satisfied -- satisfied me that they're going to move forward in that direction.

So I'm sure she will have an opportunity to answer this in front of the American people, but the answer she has given me, most definitely, she is not only qualified, but she's ready to move forward and move forward in a way that the American people deserve.

TAPPER: So you said that you asked Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer twice last year to schedule a Senate briefing on threats from terrorist groups such as ISIS, but he never even responded.

BRITT: Yes.

TAPPER: We obviously saw the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack on New Year's Day in New Orleans. How concerned are you about the potential for more terrorist attacks here at home?

BRITT: Significantly.

As you know, we lost an Alabamian in that attack. We lost both a young man who went to the University of Alabama and a young man who was born and raised here in the state. When I talked with his parents, with Drew Dauphin's parents, the heartbreak from his mother was unimaginable.

She said: "Never did I believe that my son would be killed by a terrorist."

And when you rewind to where this came from, in my opinion, this is a direct result of Biden's failed policies across the world. When you look at the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, we know that that created a vacuum. It created a vacuum that allowed ISIS-K to continue to flourish.

Our conversation -- or even kind of start and flourish. Our conversations surrounding that and our request of Senator Schumer was, make sure that we understand this, so that we can do everything that we need to. This is also right after Director Wray said that he saw blinking lights everywhere he turned.

Senator Lindsey Graham had asked him that in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing talking about 9/11 and all of the signs we missed, and that was his response. There are blinking lights everywhere we turn.

When you take the combination of these things, this is something we have to take seriously. We cannot allow these things to happen on American soil. Getting answers and understanding how we equipped our law enforcement, our FBI and others the tools they need to combat this is critically important. We're going to keep pushing.

But it was incredibly disappointing that Senator Schumer chose to not allow us to have those. It was clearly in the midst of the election cycle. And I can't help but think that part of that obviously was to keep that information from leaking out.

TAPPER: Senator Katie Britt of Alabama, good to see you. Thank you so much for joining us.

BRITT: Thank you, Jake. I appreciate it.

TAPPER: Are we better off now than we were four years ago?

With President Biden set to address his legacy tomorrow, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:28:18]

TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.

Joe Biden started his presidency by proclaiming America is back and allies across the globe could sleep easier. It turns out the world had other plans, from Russia's invasion of Ukraine to the October 7 Hamas attacks and Israel's response and much, much more.

Joining us to reflect on the past four years, Biden National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.

Jake, thanks for being here. We appreciate it.

As we come to the waning days of the Biden administration, where across the globe could you point and say the United States is safer because of what we did here?

JAKE SULLIVAN, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, I'd start by saying our alliances are stronger than we found them four years ago. They're stronger than they have been in decades.

NATO is more powerful, purposeful and bigger. Our alliances in the Asia-Pacific are at all-time highs. And our adversaries and competitors are weaker across the board. Russia's weaker. Iran's weaker. China's weaker.

And all the while, we kept America out of war. So I think the American people are safer and the country is better off than we were four years ago. And we're handing all that off to the next team, as well as having the engines of American power humming, our economy, our technology, our defense industrial base, our supply chains. So, the United States is in a stronger, more secure position, and our

competitors and adversaries are weaker and under pressure. I think that's the main handoff that we will make to the incoming team.

TAPPER: You talked about how America is not at war, at least not in a hot war, right now. And it's true that no more Americans are being killed in Afghanistan. The U.S. has withdrawn. Obviously, Afghanistan is one place the U.S. did not leave in a stronger position, the country of Afghanistan itself. In the chaotic withdrawal, we lost 13 U.S. service members.

Today, the Taliban is firmly in charge, once again stripping away women's rights. You heard Senator Katie Britt talk about the resurgence of ISIS-K.

[09:30:03]

According to "Washington Post" columnist David Ignatius, you offered to resign in the wake of the withdrawal operation. Is that true?

SULLIVAN: Well, I have kept my personal conversations with the president private for four years. That is the job of national security adviser, and I'm not going to change up in the last week. So I can't tell you what I talked about with him personally and privately.

What I can tell you is that the United States of America is definitively better off that we are not entering our 25th year of Americans fighting and dying in Afghanistan. So...

TAPPER: Well, let me ask you this then. Did you feel responsible? Did you feel personally responsible for the failures in the withdrawal?

SULLIVAN: I think the entire team, the entire national security team has responsibility for everything in our national security, and that includes me as the national security adviser.

I also believe that the strategic call President Biden made, looking back three years, history has judged well and will continue to judge well, from the point of view that, if we were still in Afghanistan today, Americans would be fighting and dying. Russia would have more leverage over us. We would be less able to respond to the major strategic challenges we face.

And just to the point that Senator Britt made before, we have not seen, although the investigation continues, any connection between Afghanistan and the attacker in New Orleans. Now, the FBI will continue to look for foreign connections. Maybe we will find one.

But what we have seen is proof of what President Biden said, which is that the terrorist threat has gotten more diffuse and more metastasized elsewhere, including homegrown extremists here in the United States who have committed terrorist attacks, not just under President Biden, but under President Trump in his first term.

And that is part of why we had to move our focus from a hot war in Afghanistan to a larger counterterrorism effort across the world. TAPPER: Let's talk about some unfinished business between Israel and

Hamas.

How close is anyone to a hostage deal?

SULLIVAN: Well, I can answer that question in two ways. We are very, very close. And yet being very close still means we're far, because, until you actually get across the finish line, we're not there.

We have right now President Biden's top Middle East adviser, Brett McGurk, in Doha. He has been there for a full week hammering out with the mediators the final details of a text to be presented to both sides, and we are still determined to use every day we have an office to get this done.

Can we get it done before the 20th? It is possible. But I certainly can't make any predictions that we will. I will say, President Biden is getting daily updates on this. He is likely in the near term to engage with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And we are not, by any stretch of the imagination, setting this aside. There is a possibility this comes together.

There's also a possibility, as has happened so many times before, that Hamas in particular remains intransigent.

TAPPER: October 7 was obviously a huge intelligence failure, mainly the Israelis' intelligence, but also our own.

Here are you in September 2023 before the Hamas attacks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SULLIVAN: And the Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Eight days later, Hamas attacked Israel, Hezbollah began ramping up its rocket fire into Israel, the Houthis joined in, firing missiles from Yemen.

What did the Biden administration, the Israelis, the West miss about Iran's readiness to go at Israel on all these fronts, Hamas, Hezbollah, the other militias and the Houthis?

SULLIVAN: Well, first, Jake, you cut that clip pretty well, because, the sentences before it, I said this could change in an instant.

TAPPER: Yes.

SULLIVAN: This could change tomorrow, because that's always true in the Middle East.

What I was noting was that, at that moment in September, you didn't have the kinds of hot wars and other upheavals that you had seen in the previous two decades. But I noted that there were two things in particular we had to be concerned about. One was Iran and the other was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So we were focused on trying to bring solutions to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. And part of the solution we were looking for was moving down the track of normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia as a way to get Israel to move on the Palestinian file towards a two- state solution.

Obviously, that was disrupted in a very severe way by what happened on October 7. But we moved immediately to support Israel, to stand up for our friends and partners in the region. And if you look today at where we are, Iran is at its weakest point since 1979, and you also see the fall of Assad, showing just how weak and distracted Russia is as well.

So there is a huge opportunity now, alongside the very real risks that remain, for the new administration to work towards a brighter future for the Middle East.

TAPPER: We're coming up on the three-year mark since Russia invaded Ukraine. Trump said a meeting is being set up between him and Vladimir Putin to discuss ending the war.

What does a good deal look like versus a bad deal for Ukraine? And doesn't any deal necessitate, in order to get Russia out, ceding some land?

[09:35:04]

SULLIVAN: Well, first, a good deal involves Ukraine making decisions about its territory, its people, and its freedom, and not having decisions imposed upon it by the United States or anyone else.

Second, a good deal means that, after the war is over, it doesn't start again a few months later because Russia just picks up where it left off. That requires some degree of security commitments from the West to Ukraine. Those...

TAPPER: NATO troops in Ukraine?

SULLIVAN: Well, there's a number of different ways that President Trump could go on that front, and I can't, obviously, predict what he will do.

What I can say is that, at the NATO Summit last year, President Biden brought all of the allies together, and they collectively said, Ukraine's future is in NATO. The question is, what kind of bridge can we build from here to there? How does that fit into these negotiations? Those will be the things that the incoming team will have to grapple with.

TAPPER: "The New York Post" coined a new phrase for Donald Trump's foreign policy aspirations in our hemisphere, the Donroe Doctrine, taking all the way from Greenland in the north and Panama to the south for the U.S.

Does this make sense strategically? SULLIVAN: Look, I'm -- I have heard his comments on Canada and the

Panama Canal and Greenland. I don't have enough information to assess what he actually has in mind.

And, also, I think there are enough armchair quarterbacks out there. I certainly have been subject to their opinions. I won't, sitting here today, be an armchair quarterback on what President Trump intends to do in this regard.

TAPPER: Your successor, Florida Republican Congressman Mike Waltz, has told Breitbart he has asked for and expects the resignation of every intelligence official detailed to the National Security Council at noon on Inauguration Day, so he can fill those vacancies with those who share the new president's agenda.

How unusual is that? How disruptive could it be?

SULLIVAN: Well, first, I have had very good, substantive engagement with Congressman Waltz. He is very well informed. He is focused on the issues. We're trying to have as smooth a handoff as possible, especially on these significant issues in Ukraine and the Middle East.

And that has been working in a very professional way. I saw his comments in Breitbart. He and I have not talked about this. I don't know what he's actually going to do, so I will reserve comment until I see.

The one thing I will say is that the professionals who make up the National Security Council staff, they're not political. They come from departments and agencies across the government, from the Defense Department, the intelligence community, the State Department, and they serve the country and the Constitution. They don't serve anyone's particular political agenda.

That is to the good for America's national security.

TAPPER: And, finally, President Biden is set to give a speech tomorrow from the State Department about foreign policy, about the Biden years.

Can you give us any sort of preview what his final message will be?

SULLIVAN: Well, he's going to ask the question, is America stronger than we were four years ago? And he's going to answer that question with a definitive yes.

Our alliances are stronger, as I said before. Our enemies and competitors are weaker. We have kept the nation out of war. Every element of American power is stronger today. And if you look around the world at every other significant country, they're looking at the United States in 2025 and saying, damn, I wish we were in their position, because the U.S., alone among the major economies in the world, is dynamic, powerful, propelled with very good friends and with adversaries and competitors under pressure. That's the legacy. That's what we're handing off to the next team.

President Biden will elaborate that and also talk about the future, the technology revolution, the energy transition, how we're set up for success on those. But the work has to continue. And that's what the next team will have to carry forward.

TAPPER: Jake Sullivan, national security adviser today, congressional spouse tomorrow, thanks so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.

And it's been a pleasure having you on the show the last four years.

SULLIVAN: Thanks, Jake. And good luck to your Eagles.

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: Thank you.

We're following the breaking news out of L.A., where strong winds are set to return. Coming up next, an old feud between the governor and the president-elect comes roaring back.

My panel's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:43:35]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: You have concerns that he might withhold disaster assistance when he becomes president?

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): Of course. He's been pretty straightforward about that. He's tried to do it in the past. The rhetoric is very familiar. It's delusional, and it's a consistent mantra from Trump going back years and years and years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.

Donald Trump and Governor Gavin Newsom pointing fingers.

Our panel joins me now.

So, let's start with you.

Is Trump just being Trump here or is past prelude and there might actually be some withholding of aid?

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, I think Trump's being Trump, but I think we need to rewind the tape on Gavin Newsom.

I remember, in April of 2023, I was working on the governor's race there. We had a tornado that came through Rolling Fork. Well, like, a few days later, Gavin Newsom comes to Mississippi to criticize the governor of the state. He's run ads against Ron DeSantis. He's run ads against Greg Abbott and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

He is a very partisan politician and so he's getting back some of what he's given in the last few years.

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But Trump is the king of this. I mean, we have had reporting that, in past disasters, he's had to be presented with information that showed that people in the area voted for him in order for him to bless aid going there.

And this is one of those moments where the president of the United States or about to be president of the United States can be a uniter, can be somebody that people in both parties can look to and say, this is a person who's looking out for me.

I never understand why Donald Trump continues to use these moments of crisis as division. It's just -- I mean, it is -- I mean, it's, like, morally repugnant, in my opinion, but it's also just bad politics. And it's just bizarre to me that this is kind of always where his instinct goes. And I think it's fair for Newsom to call him out on it. threat

[09:45:10]

TAPPER: So, earlier this morning, Trump took the TRUTH Social and said -- quote -- "The fires are still raging in L.A. The incompetent pols have no idea how to put them out. Thousands of magnificent houses are gone, and many more will soon be lost. There is death all over the place. This is one of the worst catastrophes in the history of our country. They just can't put out the fires. What's wrong with them?"

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: There were so many quotes from Gavin Newsom early on or Mayor Karen Bass early on that made it seem as though there was not communication between the state and local level.

And this perception that the state could have done more to prevent this, that the local government could have done more to prevent this is pervasive for a reason. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that there are many things that could have been done to sort of stave this off. Where was the water? Gavin Newsom doesn't seem to have answers when he's asked about this.

So I think it's fair to say it does not feel like the politicians in California are doing a great job at this.

TAPPER: Well, Mo, let me ask you, because, on that point, Gavin Newsom has a Web site now where he's supposedly correcting the record on facts. And he talks about how the California state government did not eliminate or reduce funding to fight fires.

But it is also true that Los Angeles did reduce funding. And if you're a victim of wildfire, or if you're just somebody trying to figure out the truth, there's really not much of a difference. You know what I mean?

MO ELLEITHEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEORGETOWN INSTITUTE OF POLITICS AND PUBLIC SERVICE: Yes.

TAPPER: Like, oh, they cut it $18 million in Los Angeles, but they didn't cut it in the state. It doesn't matter. Your house is still burned to the ground.

And I understand the point that Kristen is making here.

ELLEITHEE: Yes, look, political leaders are often judged by how they handle crises, by how -- especially when it comes to natural disasters. And I actually think that's legit. I think that's fair.

My problem is, let's wait until the fires are -- at least stopped burning, right? This is a time for us to actually come together and figure out how to deal with this in real time. We get to the recovery after the last embers are put out, all right, right, gloves off, go nuts on one another.

But the fires are still burning. People are still suffering right now. To be on the outside taking potshots, most of which -- much of which, at least, is rooted in misinformation and disinformation -- I mean, some of the stuff Trump's put up on TRUTH Social has no basis in truth. That's not helping get the fires out now. Let's wait.

TAPPER: Let's talk about this week, because the Senate has a busy week ahead, committee hearings for Trump's nominees.

Some of them include nominees who are somewhat controversial. Pete Hegseth for Defense, Pam Bondi for attorney general. Who else do we have here? Kristi Noem for Homeland Security. Marco Rubio should be pretty easy.

What are you looking for this week?

ELLEITHEE: Look, I think you can't tell me that every single Republican senator is 100 percent comfortable with some of these Trump nominees, right?

And we have heard some of that. We have heard some of them step up and talk about their concerns about Pete Hegseth, about Tulsi Gabbard, about some of the stuff that RFK Jr. has talked about. I will be very curious to see, one, what they do in these hearings, what those Republicans do in these hearings. Are they just going to kind of swallow the pill and go along with the program, or are they going to actually highlight some of the problematic areas among some of the most problematic nominees?

Number two, I want to know if some of these problematic nominees, like the ones we just mentioned, are going to actually answer for their past remarks, their past actions. And does Pete Hegseth have anything to say about the Pentagon, beyond that it's too woke or that women shouldn't be in combat?

This is his chance to tell us how much he actually knows.

TODD: I think you put these in two categories, right? There was one group of nominees that might have a problem with a few Republicans. RFK Jr. is one of those nominees.

I would be watching Charles Grassley, who represents a major agriculture state, and has said he has questions about the food supply agenda for RFK. So that's one group of nominees.

The other group is, I put it in places where Democrats are trying to score points. The Senate Judiciary Committee this week, Dick Durbin issued a real rifle shot against Pam Bondi. Pam Bondi's going to be confirmed. She has 53 Republican votes. That's a Democratic theater.

And so I want to see, how much theater Democrats are going to be willing to engage in on these nominees?

BEDINGFIELD: Yes, and I think that it's often true, it is certainly almost always true, that the confirmation hearings itself can be a moment where things go sideways.

And I think that's actually probably never more true than right now, where you have some of these Republican senators like Grassley, like Mitch McConnell, on RFK, who have misgivings. You have senators who have misgivings, Republican senators who have misgivings about Tulsi Gabbard.

So watching to see how they perform in these high-profile moments, when Democrats absolutely will be using the moment to message their constituents back home, to fund-raise. I mean, it is theatrical, but, sometimes, the theater produces moments that is hard for the nominee to overcome. And I think that's going to be especially true with this group...

(CROSSTALK)

SOLTIS ANDERSON: I think, in the end, these Republican senators want to get to yes. And I think they want to get to yes, even on the picks that are a little more unconventional, that might fall into that first bucket you're talking about, Brad, where these are not folks you might have expected to have the sort of policy agenda that a Republican president would pick.

[09:50:10]

But Donald Trump is different. Donald Trump is the clear leader of the party. And I think these folks, unless some big, blockbuster new information comes out, or some hearing goes catastrophically wrong, I think you're likely to see these folks get...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: So President Biden was asked by reporters at the White House Friday if he regretted his initial decision to run for reelection. And, well, let's just roll the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think I would have beaten Trump, could have beaten Trump. And I think that Kamala could have beaten Trump and would have beaten Trump.

And when the party was worried about whether or not I was going to be able to move, I thought -- even though I thought I could win again, I thought it was better to unify the party. But I didn't want to be one who caused a party that wasn't unified to lose an election. And that's why I stepped aside. But I was confident she could win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: I mean, first of all, it's just -- "I think Kamala would have beaten Trump"?

I -- she ran against him and she lost. That's just nonsensical.

BEDINGFIELD: Well, I think he was trying to give her kudos for running a strong campaign. I think he was trying to...

TAPPER: I think he was trying to backtrack after he's been spending the last couple months, like, basically dissing her.

(CROSSTALK)

BEDINGFIELD: No, see, I don't think that's fair.

TAPPER: He says, "I could have won. I could have won."

(CROSSTALK)

BEDINGFIELD: There is not a politician in the world who's going to tell you that they couldn't have won, wouldn't have won had they stayed in the race. I mean, these -- that's just -- that is how they are built. They are -- they are -- it's all ego.

And so I think what he was trying to do there was acknowledge that she ran a strong race, that he was proud of her. That's how he articulated it.

TODD: The bigger question is, there's 330 million people in America, and everyone knows that that was a failed presidency except for him.

BEDINGFIELD: Oh, that's not true. Come on. Give me a break. That's not close to true, Brad, not even close.

TAPPER: Well, we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:56:04]

TAPPER: Tonight, CNN will take you to the front lines in California, as Anderson Cooper reports from a major American city in flames. Tune in at 8:00 p.m. Eastern to get "THE WHOLE STORY WITH ANDERSON COOPER."

Thank you for spending your Sunday morning with us.

"FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" starts next.