Morning Joe - Morning Joe: CIA says Iran’s nuclear program has been severely damaged

Episode Date: June 26, 2025

CIA says Iran’s nuclear program ‘severely damaged’ by U.S. strikes

33-year-old Senate Assemblyman Zoran Mamdani pulled off a huge upset and is now the favorite to win the general election. Check out what some former mayors said after his big win. First, Mike Bloomberg said, I wish you the best, Mr. Mamdani. Becoming mayor was the greatest honor of my life. That's nice.

Next, Bill de Blasio said, we're all rooting for you. There's nothing like being mayor of New York. Then Rudy Giuliani said, Yo, kids, can I borrow 20 bucks? ["The New York Times"] That was Jimmy Fallon's take on the mayor's race here in New York City. Beautiful shot there of lower Manhattan

still dealing with the aftershocks of that major shakeup here in Democratic politics and what it might mean for the party nationwide. We're going to dig into that. Plus, Senate Republicans are still debating the proposed Medicaid cuts in President Trump's domestic policy bill. We'll break down the Republican infighting as Congress faces a self-imposed July 4th deadline to pass that legislation. And we'll go through the biggest headlines out of the NATO summit as President Trump

touts America's strike in Iran and shifts his tone potentially on working with the alliance. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Thursday, June 26th. I'm Jonathan Lemire. Thanks for joining us alongside the host of the Rest is Politics podcast, the BBC's Cady Kay.

We're in for Joe, Mika and Willie, who will be back next week from his time off with us. Here this morning we have President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas. He is the author of the weekly newsletter Home and Away, which is available on Substack. So morning gang lot to get to today, but let's begin for a beat on the mayor's race here in New York City. Zoran Mamdani, as I wrote for the Atlantic this morning, to say that he was an afterthought

at the beginning of this race was an insult to the concept of afterthought. He was a complete no name, an unheralded 33-year-old assembly man who simply caught fire. And I think the lesson here for Democrats is how even less what he ran on. It's simply how he ran the race. He was tireless. He did. He adapted social media. He spoke with real lift and energy and enthusiasm. He vanquished stunningly. Former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is the heavy favorite going into this race,

supported by a lot of wealthy donors and democratic establishment. But Richard, I think that for Mamdani, you know, there are dangers to draw too many national lessons from a race in New York City, a race where there are two thirds Democrats. We also still have a general election, which could be complicated.

We'll get into it with potentially Cuomo and certainly Eric Adams, the current mayor, a race where there are two-thirds Democrats. We also still have a general election, which could be complicated. We'll get into it with potentially Cuomo and certainly Eric Adams, the current mayor, running his independence. But I think for Democrats, there's something to be said. And this is what I heard from yesterday. Yes, are there concerns? Maybe he's too lefty, he's too liberal. We'll get into that, too.

But at the very least, he's a young, fresh face for a party that kind of needed to turn the page. I'm shocked to hear you say that, Jonathan, in the party of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden. Joe Biden. So yeah, all that. And he's also a really good political athlete just in terms of sheer talent. Also really mobilized younger kids living around the city.

I think the real question is on the other side of the ledger, a lot of his agenda, raising taxes, a lot of his promises are simply unsustainable, I would argue. His views on Israel are clearly, shall we say, controversial. And to me, the most interesting question is, to what extent is he prepared to tack towards the center? Will he do so? Can he do so without losing his base? Because what he doesn't want to see are massive defections of wealthy individuals and businesses out of New York. That is something New York City doesn't simply have the cushion for anymore. This is a city in difficult shape in terms of security,

in terms of its fiscal situation. So to me, the real question is to what extent is he willing and able to reassure the business community and wealthier New Yorkers, older New Yorkers, without losing his base? And you hit on something. He's the first Democrat we've seen in a year or so. They're really excited voters. People wanted to turn out for him. They're enthusiastic.

They volunteered. Also enthusiastic? Republicans. So now say, look, he is out of step. He's too lefty. He's too liberal. We heard from JD Vance saying that Mamdani would now be the new face of the National Party.

So they're going to try to link him and some of his more out there ideas, shall we say, to the rest of the party and thinking that isn't what America wants. We shall see. It is a fascinating development here. We will have more on it later in the show. We now turn to our top story, which is the situation with Iran. The CIA says its intelligence indicates that America's strikes did severely damage Iran's

nuclear program. In a statement, Director John Ratcliffe explains a body of credible intelligence from a historically reliable and accurate source indicates, quote, several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years. This contradicts a leaked initial assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which found that the bombings only set back Iran's program by several months. Three sources with knowledge of the matter tell NBC News that the bombings only set back Iran's program by several months. Three sources with knowledge of the matter tell NBC News that the agency also labeled its report

as being low confidence. They categorize these things. It comes as the president and his administration have been outright dismissing the assessment, angrily doing so, calling it inconclusive and premature. Yesterday, during the NATO summit at The Hague, President Trump doubled down on his claim that America's bombs simply obliterated

Tehran's nuclear capabilities. As you know, last weekend, the United States successfully carried out a massive precision strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, and it was very, very successful. It was called obliteration. No other military on earth could have done it and now this incredible exercise of American strength has paved the way for peace. The devastating US strike on Fordow destroyed the site's critical infrastructure and rendered

the enrichment facility totally inoperable. It was devastated. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is set to hold a news conference on America's strikes in Iran later this morning. And, Cady, it has been vociferous objections from the administration the last 24 hours or so about that assessment from DIA with a lot of attacks on the news media, you know, unfounded claims of bias or deep state conspiracy. The short answer is they're still assessing what's going on.

We'll probably learn more later today. Yeah, they're painting that press conference with Secretary Heccess later this morning as a kind of defense of the pilots. Nobody is criticizing the pilots. They did an extraordinary job. Meanwhile, a classified Senate briefing regarding last weekend's airstrikes in Iran is set for today after it was postponed earlier this week. Two sources tell NBC News the White House is expected to send both Secretary of State

Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, also General Dan Kaine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to brief senators. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, however, will not attend. A classified briefing for members of the House of Representatives is also set for tomorrow. Throughout the NATO summit, President Trump repeatedly said the US strikes on Iran ended the war, but he also conceded that the fighting between Israel and Iran could start up again. I dealt with both, and they're both tired, exhausted. They fought very, very hard and very viciously, very violently, and they were both satisfied

to go home and get out. And can it start again? I guess someday it can. It could maybe start soon. I think a big telltale sign was when, as you know, Iran somewhat, by not much, violated the ceasefire and Israel had the planes going out that morning and there were a lot of them, 52 of them, and I said you got to get them back and they brought them back. They didn't do anything. They brought them back. It was very good. I thought it was amazing. We're going to talk to them next week with Iran. We may sign an agreement. I don't know. To me, I don't think it's that necessary. I mean

they had a war, they fought. Now they're going back to their world. I don't care if I have an agreement or not. We, the only thing we'd be asking for is what we were asking for before about we want no nuclear, but we've, we destroyed the nuclear. Okay. Richard, can you pass that last comment for me? If the president says there's really no need for any kind of diplomatic negotiations now, no need for an agreement with Iran because we have destroyed their nuclear capabilities, but that is still actually under review. We don't have the final data on that. What do you make of what he just said? Well, two things. First, on the destruction thing, there's obviously debate between the

CIA and the DIA over what the damage was. That's, by the way, pretty traditional. Bomb damage assessment is much more art than science. The Iranians are obviously not going to allow people to get a good look. I actually think the bigger issue, Cadi, is what amount of enriched uranium, number of centrifuges were not housed in those three facilities, which obviously then survived the strike. So one has to assume that Iran has elements of a nuclear program that could be reconstituted if and when they chose. I think what the president's alluding to, some people are saying, well, now we have

to have a new agreement with the Iranians. Diplomatically, that would arrange for inspections, place severe limits, maybe 100 percent limits on their nuclear program. I'm not sure that can be negotiated with the Iranian government. And I actually think we're facing a future where probably we either don't have a formal agreement on what Iran does in the nuclear realm, or even if we do have it,

the Iranians will look for ways to work around it or not comply with it. Because my sense is that a lot of people in that country are gonna come to the conclusion that the reason Israel and the United States attacked them the way they did is because Iran did not possess nuclear weapons. So I actually think there'll be a big push, not over the next couple of days, but over months and years to come, for Iran to secretly try to reconstitute its nuclear program.

So I don't think whatever else happened the last couple of weeks, it didn't solve this problem. This problem is going to be with us down the road. That idea of having the weapons as a deterrent, sort of the North Korea model, perhaps Iran will follow. So before President Trump wrapped up his trip to the NATO summit in The Hague yesterday, allied countries, with the exception of Spain,

committed to raising their individual defense spending to 5% of their GDP by the year 2035. According to a joint declaration, 3.5 percent will be devoted directly to defense, while the remaining 1.5 percent will go toward security related critical infrastructure. In his remarks to reporters, the president praised the summit and the alliance as a whole. As far as Article 5, look, when I came here, I came here because it was something I'm supposed

to be doing, but I left here a little bit differently. I said I watched the heads of these countries get up, and the love and the passion that they showed for their country was unbelievable. I've never seen quite anything like it. They want to protect their country and they need the United States. And without the United States, it's not going to be the same. Without the United States, we couldn't, they couldn't really have NATO. It wouldn't work.

It wouldn't work. It will in the future because now they're paying much more money, but it wouldn't work. It was great. And I left here differently. I left here saying that these people really love their countries. It's not a ripoff. And we're here to help them protect their country. Joining us now, White House correspondent for Reuters, Jeff Mason.

He was traveling with the president overseas. In fact, we saw a video of Jeff asking the president questions there back at Air Force One on the trip over. Jeff, so great to see you this morning. A slightly different tune from this president who vacillates quite a bit on his feelings about NATO. He's certainly very pleased with the increased defense spending. It's something he's wanted a long time.

Other presidents have too. That's clearly a win for him. He's sort of wishy washy,hy though on his support for Article 5, which of course is the very backbone of NATO, this mutual defense pact. So give us your latest reporting in terms of just where the president feels about NATO, particularly as it comes to Ukraine's defense. Sure. Well, Jonathan, there's just a whiplash sort of aspect to covering President Trump and

I think for people watching President Trump and that was certainly clear with his comments on NATO on Air Force One, which you referenced on his way over on Tuesday. He told us that there were different definitions of Article 5, which as you rightly said is the agreement to mutual defense. And then yesterday he came out and said, hey, I came to NATO. I'm all in. We support our allies. That's why I'm here.

I think that European allies are wise to that and to that whiplash, insofar as that's one reason that they're doing what he's asked, which is to increase spending, because they want to be prepared in case the US ever were to pull back. But I think it's also fair to say that the president got what he wanted. And that's in part because the people in that room, led by Mark Rutte, the former prime minister of the Netherlands, who's now leading NATO, figured out a way to work with President Trump that included flattery, a great deal of flattery, and also included kind of doing what he asked for with regard to increasing spending.

So you know, the president can change his mind. But I thought that clip that you played where he said, I came in, come, you know, thinking, hey, I'm here because it's something I need to do. But I'm leaving feeling good is a reflection of the fact that allies around the world are figuring out how to work with President Trump, and those allies include the NATO alliance. And then the question is whether he keeps to the latest thinking on NATO or changes his mind again. As you said, Jeff, President Trump also met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky

on the sidelines of that NATO summit. They were scheduled to meet at the G7 summit earlier this month in Canada before Trump had to leave early to deal with the Israel-Iran conflict. With the full-scale war in the Ukraine now approaching three and a half years, President Trump was asked about his relationship with both Zelensky and Russia's Vladimir Putin during the press conference later in the day.

Mr. President, Secretary General Ruta has described President Putin as an adversary, a threat, an enemy. Do you view him the same way? And in addition to that, you mentioned General Kaine, your chief of staff, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Kane. Yes. He has said that Mr. Putin has territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine.

Do you view that in the same way? It's possible. I mean, it's possible. I know one thing. He'd like to settle. He'd like to get out of this thing. It's a mess for him. He called the other day.

He said, can I help you with Iran? I said, no, you can help me with Russia. But he did call up and he said, you know, he's close to Iran. He'd like to help us get a settlement. I said, no, no, you help me get a settlement with you, with Russia. And I think we're going to be doing that too. I think you just had a meeting with President Zelensky. Did you discuss any ceasefire in this Russo-Ukrainian? No, no, I just wanted to know how he's doing. It was very nice, actually. We had little rough times.

He couldn't have been nicer. I think he'd like to see an end to this. I do. I think what I took from the meeting couldn't have been nicer, actually. But I took from the meeting that he'd like to see it end. I think it's a great time to end it. I'm gonna speak to Vladimir Putin, see if we can get it ended.

But look, these are brave people. They're fighting these wars all over the place. So I'll be speaking to Putin. Now I had a good meeting with Zelensky and I had a lot of good meetings. We had a lot of good meetings with a lot of good meetings with a lot of people a lot of great leaders But he's he's fighting a brave battle. It's a tough battle Richard Ukraine is running low on supplies from the United States. It needs another commitment of

funding Coming out of this NATO summit. Are you any clearer on whether Zelensky can expect that? In a word, no. Look, I think the summit was an important accomplishment more broadly. The three and a half percent defense commitment from the Europeans by 2035 was a big step in the right direction. The administration takes, you know, should take a victory lap for that. The Ukraine issue, though, is still very much up in the air.

You saw a slightly different tone, a little bit more sympathetic to Ukraine, a little bit or mildly more critical of Russia. But you put your finger on the single biggest issue. This summer, the pipeline from the United States to Ukraine is essentially going to run dry. And the big strategic decision, political decision for this administration is whether they put in a new tranche of arms. Interesting enough, if they were to do that, it dramatically increases the chances of President

Trump getting the ceasefire he wants. He needs to persuade Vladimir Putin that time is not Russia's friend, that the United States and the West will not grow weary of supporting Ukraine. So if he wants to ceasefire, he really has to be more supportive of Ukraine. And we still don't know whether this administration's prepared to do so, and if so, to what extent. That's, quite honestly, the biggest single question mark

coming out of the NATO summit. So, Jeff, the agenda was certainly packed there at the NATO summit, and the situation in the Middle East, overshadowing a lot of it. And you flagged something interesting that President Trump said about Iran and oil sanctions, particularly lifting some of those, China's benefit among others. Talk to us about what he said and what are the implications. Sure.

I mean, this kind of goes back to the whiplash characterization that I mentioned earlier. A few weeks ago, the president was talking about negotiations with Iran, then the U.S. bombed Iran's nuclear sites. Now the president is going back yesterday to saying perhaps that there would be room to lift some sanctions on Iran and to make it easier for Iran to sell its oil. What are the implications of that? Well, it's a suggestion that the U.S. and that the president in particular is hoping to boost Iran again, despite the ongoing concerns

that Richard was referencing before, that the Iranians can still pursue nuclear weapons and that the Iranians will still try clandestinely to go forward with a weapons program. White House correspondent for Reuters, Jeff Mason, thank you for joining us this morning, particularly after all that traveling, we appreciate it. Still ahead here on Morning Joe, we'll bring you the latest from Capitol Hill as Senate Republicans look to find a middle ground

on the proposed Medicaid cuts in President Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill. Plus, we're going to dig into the concerns that lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia are now raising as a judge ways potential conditions for his release from federal custody. And of course, a reminder that the Morning Joe podcast is available each weekday featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen to it wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back after a quick break. Pretty shot there.

Live shot of the U.S. Capitol, 620 in the morning. Sun is up. It'll be a little less hot today. It's been punishing the U.S. Capitol, 620 in the morning, sun is up. It'll be a little less hot today. It's been punishing the last few days. Turning our attention to D.C., where the Treasury Secretary, Scott Besson, says his department has taken special measures to avoid breaching the federal debt ceiling until July 24th.

In a letter to congressional leaders, Besson wrote in part, Congress must act to increase or suspend the debt limit as soon as possible before its scheduled August recess to protect the full faith and credit of the United States. A $5 trillion debt ceiling increase is built into President Trump's domestic agenda bill, which would be the largest increase in U.S. history.

Without action, the Treasury estimates that the U.S. could run out of borrowing room as soon as August. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters yesterday that he hopes the House will take up that Republican budget bill next week ahead of their self-imposed July 4th deadline. Everybody is cautiously optimistic. There's good movement, momentum going forward. We believe we're going to be able to get this done and get it done by the deadline of July

4th deadline. Yeah, but those Senate Republicans are still debating several points of contention within the bill, despite another meeting yesterday to hash out differences on issues like Medicaid cuts and energy tax credits. When asked if the bill could be voted on this week, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who opposes the legislation because he says it adds too much to the deficit, said he couldn't imagine it would be. As Republicans work to find middle ground on proposed Medicaid cuts in their budget bill, the Senate Finance Committee drafted a new compromise that would create a stabilization fund

to help rural hospitals that could be affected by the legislation. The proposal would direct $15 billion over a five-year period to states in need. But some say that amount isn't nearly enough to make up for the tens of billions of dollars in proposed federal cuts. Senator Susan Collins of Maine is one of them and is instead suggesting a hundred billion dollar fund. Meanwhile, Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas says that original

fifteen billion dollar figure is too much money and is instead arguing for five billion dollar fund. The American Hospital Association, a group that lobbies on behalf of the industry, estimates that rural hospitals would lose $50 billion over the next decade if the GOP's cuts go into effect. And of course, John, that would affect rural hospitals. I've heard that as many as hundreds could close around the country. And because many rural hospitals

are in guess where red states, that could also affect midterm elections and the Republicans' chances in them. Is that what you're hearing? Yeah, no question. That's why some Republicans who are usually so aligned with President Trump, like Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, have come out really opposing this part of it.

We heard other concerns, Senator Tillis, this week about the impact to his state. And we've seen polling that suggests Americans really uneasy with a lot of this in the bill. But yet, as President Trump is now back from overseas, I think his attention will largely turn to this, Richard. His focus is trying to get this bill done. And they've said they want it by July 4th.

That deadline could certainly slip. That seems unlikely, but soon is the answer. This is a signature piece of his domestic agenda. He wants it done. And it seems like despite the opposition from some Republicans, and we know there's been a limit to the appetite for Republicans to stand up to President Trump, some may still, but I think what we heard from Mitch McConnell this week about how voters will, quote, get over it and just back this bill, that seems to be where they are.

Yeah, everybody I hear from essentially is betting it's going to happen this summer, that this is too big not to happen. It's become too politically freighted or symbolic. This is the signature piece. This is the defining piece of legislation for this president this time around. So it's going to happen. And I think some of the Republicans and others are going to have to maybe figure a year from now when they're up for a reelection or something, memories will have softened and all that. Cause there's going to be parts of it

that are clearly going to give voters heartburn for good reason. Yeah. There's certainly a number of Republicans I've talked to last couple of weeks though, who do fear what the midterms will hold. I'm traditional for a party, a party in power to take losses, but they feel like they may be really setting themselves up.

So that's the Republicans. Let's turn back to a major topic for Democrats here in New York City. In its latest editorial titled The People's Republic of New York City, The Wall Street Journal editorial board writes in part this. The easy victory by Zoran Mamdani in Tuesday's Democratic mayoral primary marks a sharp left turn for New York City. But perhaps more important is that it signals the rise of left-wing economic populism as a leading alternative to the MAGA Republicans.

Democrats nationwide have been debating how to respond to their defeats in 2024, and the victory by the 33-year-old assemblyman is a triumph for the Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez faction. The populist left poses obvious problems for national Democrats who want to move the party back toward the middle. But Republicans will be wise not to gloat.

If Trumponomics fails to deliver strong growth and gains in real incomes, the left-wing populists will be waiting as the main alternative. I think this is exactly right where I've heard Democrats really a split verdict on this. I have heard some who actually are really worried about Mamdani's win saying, hey, look, the lessons of 2024 are that we actually were too out of step. We're too far left. he's win saying, hey, look, the lessons of 2024 are that we actually were too out of step. We're too far left. We need to move back to the center on a lot of these sort of social issues in particular.

Others say, well, no, first of all, he ran an exciting campaign. We haven't seen one of those in a while. But also, Caddy, his focus really on kitchen table issues, economic populism. And maybe, yes, maybe some of his ideas are too far out there, but others really are resonating. There's some good to be taken from this. That's what we should be talking about. If we want to compete again for the voters that in 2024, we lost.

He was very clear on his message. It was all about affordability. And he was very skilled in the way that he delivered that message with those great communications right around the city. The question is, obviously, New York is not the rest of the country. It's not Wisconsin, it's not Michigan, and it's not Pennsylvania. But nonetheless, it does reflect this split in the Democratic Party,

particularly a generational split with younger voters in the party, saying, hold on a second, you guys just haven't delivered for us, we've left you in power for far too long, it's time now for a shakeup. We're willing to try something else. When you are paying six times your income in rent, you want something that is going to try and shift the needle. And so far, it hasn't happened for them.

So they've, you know, taken a shot with somebody who has very charismatic political skills. We'll see how he does, and we'll see what Republicans make of this, because they're going to jump on this one too. They are. There are certainly some Republicans, including the president, who deemed Mamdani a communist lunatic, I believe was his exact phrase. But others, including Steve Bannon, have said, look, this economic populist message, it could

work. It's not so different than some of the elements of MA of MAGAism and that maybe the it's what could bring some of those swing voters back to Democrats. We shall see but there are national implications and we're going to take a look at some of them now. We're going to take a closer glance at the job market as new college graduates start to look for work. Steve Radner is standing by the southwest wall with his famous charts. He'll join us next on Morning Jump. I'm going to take a minute to the American people. When Kennedy appeared before this committee, I said I did not want any more tiny coffins in our country. I meant it.

And I hope you will be forceful in pushing back against Secretary Kennedy's wrong assessment and messaging on vaccines. Do you agree with Secretary Kennedy's decision to fire all 17 ACIP members on the basis of conflicts of interest. So look, the American restoring trust in public health is a critical priority. For me, it's a critical- Doctor, I would really just love an answer.

Do you agree with that? I agree that the secretary had to make a decision. Democratic senators, they there pressing CDC Director nominee Susan Monarez on her views of Health and Human Services Director Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during her confirmation hearing yesterday. Monarez appeared before the Senate Help Committee, where she was peppered with questions on everything from rural health care to overdose deaths. The hearing though took a turn

when Democrats questioned her about Secretary Kennedy's decisions on vaccines. The overhauled CDC vaccine advisory panel mentioned by the senators there held its first meeting at the same time as the hearing. And just weeks after Secretary Kennedy fired the entire 17 member panel. Kennedy replaced them with appointees of his own choosing, just weeks after Secretary Kennedy fired the entire 17-member panel.

Kennedy replaced them with appointees of his own choosing, some who have expressed vaccine skepticism. In the meeting, the members announced they plan to review the childhood vaccination schedule, the standard that has been approved for decades. The panel added they could also consider revising long-standing vaccine recommendations. So joining us now, NBC News medical contributor Dr.

Vin Gupta, also with us Dr. Fiona Havers. She recently resigned from the CDC over HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s vaccine policies. Dr. Havers, start by telling us what you expect from this new panel. You resigned from the CDC, but when you look at the new panel, what do you think of the makeup of it? I would say the makeup of the panel

is very different than these 17 members that were fired. Those 17 members were highly respected vaccine experts. And I watched the meeting all day yesterday and I would say the quality of the questions, the tone of the questions from almost all of the members on the new committee were not the same type of questions that the previous ACIP members would have asked. They generally speaking, not gonna name names,

but the people that are currently on ACIP, by and large, are not the people that should be sitting on that panel. Dr. Gupta, let's go to you on this. Set the stage for our audience, please. Just how important is this panel, and what are your concerns about how you see it now? Well, Jonathan, building on Dr. Haber's point, this panel can be consequential, has been very consequential in the past.

Us as clinicians across the country look for the recommendations to then recommend what our patients should be doing when we're visiting with them in clinics across the country. This notion of they've moved towards, quote unquote, shared decision making, that we should be having conversations in a lot of cases on whether a family should or should not

be getting vaccinated when previously it was very clear what families should be doing to get vaccinated in a lot of these vaccines. You know, when I hear from clinicians, my peers across the country, they say, you know, Vin, we don't have enough time in a quick 15 minute visit to engage in these types of conversations when previously it was pretty crystal clear.

I'll say, just in the last 24 hours, Jonathan, there's been a lot of movement across civil society. The American Medical Association with 78 medical societies came together and vociferously backed existing guidelines for seasonal vaccines against COVID RSV flu. American health insurance plans, AHIP for short, said that their member health insurance plans are going to continue reimbursements and coverage for vaccines. So it's important to recognize that there's movement around what's happening with ACIP. Yeah.

And Richard, I mean, it can't be overstated. Some of the worries about the change in the vaccination approach from this government. We know Senator Cassidy from Louisiana, a doctor, said he got assurances from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that he wouldn't change anything. Well, turned out that wasn't the case. Exactly what I really, Jonathan,

what I want to ask Dr. Havers, what is the bottom line here? What are we talking about in terms of the consequences, either in terms of if the existing guidelines are somehow changed, modified, whatever the word is, weakened, and also in terms of new vaccines in the pipeline? What are the consequences of what is going on in Washington? What's your answer to the why should we care?

What's the so what answer to this? So not only is the CDC immunization schedule critical for providers and to know what vaccines to give, but insurance coverage depends on it. By law, if it's on the CDC immunization schedule, insurance companies have to cover it. So in addition, the ACIP, this advisory committee, is the one that recommends what vaccines are covered by the Vaccine for

Children's Program, which provides pre-vaccines to millions of children. So if RFK Jr. continues to interfere with this process, and people who have anti-vaccine views are the ones making recommendations, and they recommend to restrict and change the CDC schedule so that certain vaccines are no longer recommended, insurance won't cover it. So if you're a parent and they vote to remove certain childhood vaccines that are safe and effective, you could end up in a situation in a year where you take your toddler to the pediatrician, they want to give you a vaccine, but your insurance will no longer pay for it or you won't be able to receive it free like you would now. And the direct consequences of that is that more people are going to die. Vaccine preventable diseases are increasing in the United States.

Since HHS Secretary R.F.K. Jr. has been in his position, we've seen two children die from measles, which was eliminated in this country. I think we will potentially see, if they restrict access to vaccines, we're going to see more vaccine preventable deaths. Let's just simply underscore. That's not preventable deaths. Let's just simply underscore that point right now. What you just said, more people are going to die. Yes. Dr. Fiona Havers, thank you so much. We really appreciate you being here this morning. Dr. Gupta, that's obviously those words echo in the air and really concerning. We also want to turn you now in our closing moments about another serious matter, which

is extreme heat, which we of course see more and more here in the U.S. and around the world thanks to climate change. Give us your concerns. We're just coming out of this dangerous heat wave here in the East Coast, but I'm sure there will be more. What are your worries? How can people take care of themselves? Well, Dr. I know we don't have a lot of time here,

so just quick tips here for your viewers, reminders here, wear a hat. Even if you have a full head of hair, wear a hat. It's gonna protect against unnecessary sun exposure. Put on sunscreen, look for broad spectrum on the label. It protects against all forms of ultraviolet light, SPF 30 minimum, use the lotion form, and hydrate. Skin milk is the most hydrating fluid you can actually drink, more so than even water.

Skin milk, if you can do it. And then check on your elderly neighbors, anybody that may be a child in your home or around you. Fatigue, just weak acting, altered are the early signs of heat exhaustion. NBC News, mental health contributor, Dr. Vangupta, thank you for those wise words. We appreciate it and we'll talk to you again soon.