right now on "ana cabrera reports," breaking news at a courthouse in washington, rudy giuliani no longer set to testify today in his own defense in the defamation case brought by two election workers. why did the man once known as america's mayor decide not to take the stand? plus, donald trump's fed in pause. will this force the judge to change the trial date? also ahead, the house voting to launch an impeachment inquiry, so why now after a year of investigation resulting in no evidence of wrongdoing by president biden? and later, the return of vladimir putin's hours' long year-end news conference, the first since the invasion of ukraine. his new admissions about the war and what he said about a potential prisoner swap with the u.s. ♪♪ good morning, thanks for being here. it is 10:00 eastern, i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york, and we begin with breaking news from washington. in major reversal, rudy giuliani will not take the stand in his defamation trial. he was expected to be the sole witness for the defense. after days of emotional testimony from these two election workers who say giuliani spread conspiracy theories about them, lied and upended their lives. let's get right to nbc's ryan reilly outsides courthouse in washington and msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin is also with us. so ryan, why this last minute change from giuliani and his legal team? >> reporter: you know, giuliani's lawyer doesn't seem to have much control of his client. giuliani has made these comments outside of court that have then the next day and the next day again come up in the courtroom and become part of this larger proceeding. so really, i mean, the judge commented earlier this week that by limiting giuliani's testimony and what he could speak about, she felt like she was almost saving him and in this scenario, it almost seems like giuliani is saving himself a little bit here. i'm curious to see what giuliani ends up saying about this to reporters. he's not someone who likes to act like he is under someone else's thumb, someone else's control. his lawyer does not think that he can control his client on the stand and rudy giuliani apparently still believes these lies, these conspiracy theories from fringe internet websites about these two election workers, which led to this all in the first place. he can't seem to let that go and let the real truth come out, which is that these election workers did nothing wrong, ana. >> so lisa, giuliani was supposed to be the only defense witness, his team didn't cross examine witnesses yesterday. have they made any kind of case? >> i don't really think so. i mean, ana, this trial, let's go back to what this trial is really about. judge beryl howell had already decided that giuliani is liable for defaming ruby freeman and her daughter shaye moss. so all this trial is about is damages. query what giuliani could have offered as a witness where the only issue for the jury is the quantum of damages. he can't deny that he defamed them. his intent is not at issue. i think what happened here is that money talks and rudy giuliani finally listened. >> maybe. maybe listened. he was saying a lot outside of the courtroom, which the judge didn't like. ryan, we did hear inside the courtroom emotional testimony from ruby freeman yesterday. she told the jury that before all this happened she used to go by lady ruby, and then she went on to testify. i can't use my name anymore, so i'm no longer lady ruby. sometimes i don't know who i am. talk to us about her time on this stand, and was there any notable reaction from jurors? >> reporter: yeah, really brutal testimony, and it was followed by -- that was preceded, of course, by her daughter's testimony, talking about how this tore their lives apart. rudy giuliani's lawyer in this case of ruby freeman took the pass on questioning her. did not really press her. that really probably would have back fired even more. this was a woman who had a pretty good life going for herself and had this, you know, business of her own, was really loved in the community, and she really was impacted by this dramatically. her life will never be the same because of these lies that were spread about her, which we could say again are just false and bogus and based off of someone looking at a video on the internet and thinking that there's some sort of criminality because they don't understand basics about the voting process. there's just this assumption of criminality about voting that we see in many cases, and cities that were targeted by the trump campaign. you know, you look at detroit, you look at philadelphia, you look at atlanta, those are the cities that they really focused on. if we get back to reality here, donald trump performed better in those cities than he did in 2016. this allegation that there was some sort of mass fraud and that's why he lost the 2020 election is just false and bogus and ridiculous on its face. that had real consequences. these conspiracy theories that were spread about these election workers and many people beyond them. >> and lisa, it really is sad when you hear from ruby freeman talking about how she's still afraid to show her face in public. she still goes out with a mask on. she says she's afraid to use her real name. talk about lasting impact from these straight up lies that giuliani has told about them. what possibly could the defense off in, you know, their closing argument, and what kind of impact could this kind of testimony from ruby freeman and before her shaye moss have on the jury? >> the testimony, ana, was incredibly impactful and devastating, and i'm not sure what joe sibley, who is rudy giuliani's attorney, is going to say other than to try to limit the impact and say that there's no way that the quantum of damages here reaches that $47 million mark that the expert witness said it would cost at maximum to rehabilitate their images. the other thing i want to draw our viewers to is ruby freeman and shaye moss are very likely witnesses in the federal election interference case against donald trump, and that's because the indictment specific ly mentions that both rudy giuliani, today's defendant, and donald trump perhaps tomorrow's defendant in a metaphorical sense told about each one of them publicly to elected bodies. in giuliani's case it was to the georgia legislature. in trump's case it was on a phone call with brad raffensperger when he was trying to convince him to throw the election for him. count on seeing these same stories from ruby freeman and shaye moss to devastating impact on a jury again. >> that's such a good point. it's about more than this one case. thank you so much. appreciate it, lieu is a rubin, you'll be back with us shortly. ryan reilly, thanks for your reporting. let's turn to capitol hill where the house has officially authorized an impeachment inquiry into president biden. that vote falling strictly along party lines with democrats blasting the move as a political stunt. it came hours after hunter biden spoke on capitol hill accusing republicans of distorting the facts, and he refused to sit for a closed-door deposition. the question now, will house republicans move forward with their threats to hold him in contempt of congress? nbc's ali vitali is on the hill for us. walk us through how this vote went down and what's next. >> reporter: welcome to day one of the official impeachment inquiry, it both changes everything and nothing really, ana, in large part because these investigations have been going on for the entirety of congress. the focus has always been attempting to tie president joe biden to the business dealings of members of his family including his son hunter. excuse me. that is still the case that the committee is trying to figure out how to make. they don't have that substantive evidence right now, but what republicans feel is that by moving into an actual inquiry phase officially, all republicans voting for it on the floor yesterday, it allows them to better enforce their subpoenas in court. they know that this is where it's likely going to go, especially as they do things like attempt to hold hunter biden in contempt of congress. republicans say that by moving into an official inquiry phase, it better allows them to get the information they're trying to get and enforce this on the legal front. what it also does, though, and i think this is fascinating as we go into a 2024 year where politics is not divorced from what's happening here in the halls of congress, it means that republicans, though all of them jumped to actually open the inquiry, it also means that republicans are going to have to decide at some point next year whether they actually think there's enough to impeach the president. right now they don't have the votes for that, and there are big political ramifications whether they decide to impeach him or not. >> stay with me, i want to bring in former spokesperson for the january 6th committee hannah mcdavin, and former adviser to house speaker john boehner, maura galessky. take a listen to this exchange. >> what is the specific constitutional crime that you're investigating? >> well wooergs having an inquiry so we can do an investigation that will involve the production of witnesses. >> what is the crime you're investigating? >> high crimes, misdemeanors, and bribery. >> what high crime are you investigating? >> once i get time, i will explain what we're looking at. >> maura, shouldn't republicans be able to answer that question? >> they should. i completely agree that they should, and i think ken buck was one of those who said i don't have enough right now to go with it, he ultimately chose to. i think when it comes to an inquiry, obviously ali just talked about it, is to get information, to understand what was happening because they feel as though they've been stone walled from the biden white house from getting the information they wanted to get. and hunter biden not appearing before the committee, a subpoena, you know, that is also a concern because they're not getting that information. he more or less gave an opening statement and then ran back to his car. >> he said he would appear publicly and testify in an open hearing. >> right, and that sounds nice for someone who wants to have that. you don't get to have that choice. the january 6th hearing, when he multiple behind closed doors, to not only have the time is constraints of a public hearing but to have those conversations without anyone playing to o'a camera. it is important to have those conversations behind closed doors, but i also see the need to have this come out in the public in a non-combative way because there are a handful of republicans who are looking at this as retribution. i do think there are also republicans who see what hunter biden has done and said does not pass the smell test in regards to texting his daughter saying that half of my salary went to pop, to joe biden. it causes question. i'm not saying that's anything that's impeachment worthy, but is it something to look into? i think it's worth looking into. >> there's a lot of evidence against hunter biden, who's not eligible for impeachment, he's not an elected officer. house republicans have alleged that president biden was involved in his son hunter's foreign business dealings. both have denied the allegations. there has been no clear evidence of this, but republicans say a formal impeachment inquiry, you know, with what maura is saying is giving them more power to thoroughly investigate, to enforce subpoenas. you've been involved in house investigations. you were there with the january 6th committee. is this how it's supposed to work? >> in short, ana, no. right? i think the most important thing to reiterate right now is no evidence. they have no evidence, right? representative guy reschenthaler said that in the clip you just played. what he said later on, if that clip was extended, he kind of let it slip that this is all a political stunt because donald trump wants this done, right? i was on the january 6th committee. we know that donald trump, we believe that he committed crimes. he's had 91 indictments against him. we know that when the new speaker johnson went to visit mar-a-lago, he came back to capitol hill and held this big press conference talking about how they were going to open an impeachment inquiry. this idea as well that the white house and the administration has not been cooperative and not been forthcoming with information is also not correct. they've been very cooperative. they've given -- the national archives has given over 62 thousand documents. there's been over 2,000 documents from sars, the treasury department. there's suspicious activity reports that republicans were trying to hunt down. this pushback on wanting more information is something that i would push back on. lastly i would say that the people that lose here are the american people, right? instead of focusing on issues that affect them, which president biden came out with a statement yesterday saying i'm focusing on getting aid to ukraine and israel and strengthening our border on continuing the progress of our economy. what are they doing? they're focused on an impeachment with no evidence. it's clear who's the loser here and it's the american people in this impeachment inquiry. >> there were some republican holdouts prior to this vote. we just mentioned ken buck who said he was leaning no on the impeachment inquiry and really made a case against it in an op-ed, so what changed? >> i mean, he was the only one going into the vote yesterday, ana, that we assumed was going to vote no and vote against this. i was actually pretty surprised when i saw his vote pop in as a yes as quickly as it did, frankly, and that meant that everyone jumped together. there had been reluctance over the course of the maybe six weeks prior to the vote yesterday that republicans before thanksgiving, people in biden-leaning district, people like don bacon, the new york republicans, for example, who were reluctant to move into an impeachment inquiry phase, and came back from thanksgiving, and it was clear there was much more of a coalescing, and there were several presentations given in house republican leadership and conference meetings to sort of help people see what the committees say they've established. jim jordan, for example, the chairman of the juare ge a simi presentation to a small group of reporters explaining to me and the several other of us who were in the room what he thinks the there there is. it still lacks a substantive tie between hunter biden and president joe biden, but those presentations as well as going back to their districts are what i'm told republicans felt like they could at least push forward into the inquiry phase of this. what i thought was striking yesterday was the number of republicans on the floor during the debate portion who said this is just an inquiry. they wanted to make it really clear that this was not an impeachment, which does not have the votes and is not as popular. but they did want to make clear it was just an inquiry. it's a small word, but they're going to lean on it a lot right now. >> so hannah, it was about this time yesterday we saw hunter biden speaking on capitol hill, "axios" is reporting that hunter is now taking a more aggressive approach because he believes it will help him and his father, according to people familiar with his team's thinking. is this the approach to take against this republican leadership on the hill? >> well, the republican leadership, which ana includes jim jordan was part of the january 6th plot to overturn the election, as you know. the january 6th committee subpoenaed jim jordan who then didn't show up to talk to us. so i find it very rich for anybody like jim jordan, for example, to be talking about any sort of justice or coming and talking to a committee or holding anyone in contempt. i think when you look at the people leading this investigation, it's clear that they're not doing it in a way that would be forth coming, right? what we know so far is that jim jordan, james comer, the chair of the oversight committee have been interviewing people behind closed doors and then misrepresenting or cherry picking facts. this investigation is not a real investigation, right? i was a part of one. the january 6th committee had something that we were looking into. the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol. what are they looking into here? i'm not quite sure. >> quickly, if you will, maura, do you think this results in an impeachment vote, not just an impeachment inquiry vote, but on actual impeachment of president biden? >> i don't. again, i think to hannah's point, jim jordan fails to be consistent, and that's something that's frustrating to the american people across the board is consistency. so if you stand for one thing and say it's important to have these subpoenas and to ahere to them, be consistent. the american people aren't dumb, they're paying attention to this, and that's frustrating to them. good to see you ladies. when we're back in just 60 seconds, donald trump's federal election interference case on hold, the twin moves from the former president and special counsel that forced this halt. also ahead, the new focus on the fight for abortion rights with the supreme court now set to hear arguments on a widely used abortion pill. and later, putin's hours long end of year news conference, his first since the invasion of ukraine, what he said about the war and americans jailed in russia. war and ameris jailed in russia donald trump might be out of the courtroom for a little bit longer in at least one of his trials. judge tanya chutkan has hit pause on his federal election interference case, which is scheduled to start in march. this pause comes as an appeals court and the supreme court consider a key question, does presidential immunity protect trump from prosecution for crimes committed as commander in chief. nbc's justice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian joins us now, back with us is lisa rubin as well. ken, we're seeing this presidential immunity argument brought up in multiple places. an appeals court is going to consider the issue. jack smith also asked the supreme court to take it up. how will a decision get made and how long might it be before we see this question put to rest? >> that's the million dollar question, ana. procedurally there's a lot of different options. the supreme court could take it up immediately, in which case the appeals court schedule goes away, and it goes to the supreme court. they could defer action and wait to see what the appeals court does. they could say nothing and leave us wondering what exactly they're going to do. when it comes to the substance, there are really two dimensions of what either of these courts are going to have to decide. one is whether donald trump was actually acting as the president when he was trying to overturn the election. an appeals court has already ruled that he was not in a separate civil trial. and that's important because if they decide he wasn't acting as the president, they don't have to go to the next question, which is can a sitting president -- or can a former sitting president be made to face criminal charges that pertain to his conduct as president. that's an open question and the law. it may be something that the supreme court doesn't want to tackle and feels that it does not have to tackle because it decides, and in fact, when donald trump was trying to overturn the election, speaking to state officials, he wasn't acting as the president of the united states. the president of the united states has no role in our federal elections system. it's going to be really interesting to see what these courts do. it does have a huge impact on whether this case can get to trial. >> judge chutkan ruled against the immunity defense. the trump campaign is touting this as a major victory, this pause. is there sort of there there when it comes to the presidential immunity defense or is this simply a delay tactic? >> yes and yes is what i would say. it's an open question whether a president either former or current has any immunity from criminal prosecution. the supreme court has previously held that when a president is acting within the outer perimeter of their official duties, they are entitled to some immunity in a civil case. they have also held in the last three years when the manhattan d.a. was looking for certain tax records relating to trump that a sitting president is not immune from criminal process, meaning they have to answer a subpoena, for example. but no supreme court has ever passed on the exact question presented here, which is about immunity from criminal prosecution and ultimate criminal accountability. on the other hand, is this immunity argument the trojan horse through which they are sneaking in their real aim here, which is delay, delay, delay? yes. >> ken, let's talk about trump's georgia election interference. we have fani willis telling "associated press" it was a silly notion to expect her to pause her case because trump's running for office. more of trump's co-defendants could take plea deals, so a couple of newsy nuggets there. what are you watching for most closely in this case? >> the big question in this case is whether fani willis can get donald trump into the defendant's doc at some point before the november election. that's what she wants to do. i have no doubt she will not respect any kind of donald trump campaign timetable. but this case is so complex, and there's so many defendants, it really depends how quickly the judge can move it along. if she can't get it to trial before the election and donald trump is elected president, it becomes very problematic after that. the justice department doctrine is that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted criminally. that's never been tested by the supreme court. it seems unlikely that the court, the federal courts are going to allow a state d.a. to haul a sitting president into a criminal trial. the stakes are really high as to whether fani willis can get this trial going at some point next year. >> ken dilanian and lisa rubin, thank you both. up next on "ana cabrera reports," new warnings that changes to our immigration policies could, quote, break the border. what homeland security officials are telling nbc exclusively. >> putin's first end of year press conference since the invasion of ukraine began, what he said about the war and the possibility of a prisoner swap with the u.s. with the u.s don't get burned by winter nose. a nose in need deserves puffs indeed. america's #1 lotion tissue. the subway series is taking your favorite to the next level! like the #20. the elite chicken and bacon ranch. built with rotisserie-style chicken and double cheese. i love what i'm seeing here. that's some well-coached chicken. you done, peyton? the subway series just keeps gettin' better. is loving this pay bump in our allowance. wonder where mom and dad got the extra money? maybe they won the lottery? maybe they inherited a fortune? maybe buried treasure? maybe it fell off a truck? maybe they heard that xfinity customers can save hundreds when they buy one unlimted line and get one free. now i can buy that electric scooter! i'm starting a private-equity fund that specializes in midcap. you do you. visit xfinitymobile.com today. is. for the first time since he took his country to war nearly two years ago, russian president vladimir putin held his end of year news conference and call-in show today. it was a marathon event. it got underway several hours ago, and putin began by addressing the war directly saying there will not be peace in ukraine until russia achieves its goals, which he described as demilitarization and denaziification. putin also saying he's open to a prison swap that would free two americans held in russia. putin said any deal would have to be satisfying to both the u.s. and russia. nbc news chief international correspondent keir simmons joins us now from moscow. how did putin describe russia's footing in this war and his end game for the conflict? >> reporter: well, you outlined his end game pretty well there, and in terms of russia's footing, he was bullish, confident. did not show any sign of being interested in compromising. said that there are, he says, more than 6 of hundred thousand russian troops on the ukrainian front line, that appears to be a new number, and said at one point victory will be ours. what we saw in that news conference four hours long with journalists and members of the public if you like selected by the kremlin, the militarization of russia, there were phone-ins or kind of zoom-ins if you like from people in military use them in the russia-occupied parts of ukraine, and when it came to the question of whether or not he was prepared to face any kind of negotiation, any kind of peace deal, effectively his answer was, yes, but on my terms. take a listen. >> speaking of normalizing the relations, it's not only up to us, we did not ruin the relations. they did that. they've always been trying to push us back to the backstage and the background. regarding our interests. >> reporter: it's the same, you know, message from putin we've heard year after year, the idea that the west and nato and the u.s. are responsible for pushing him into a corner. of course many, many would say around the world that he was the one to launch what he calls his special military operation in ukraine. >> so what else did he have to say then about a potential prisoner swap? >> reporter: he was asked about that, ana, by a reporter from "the new york times" about evan gershkovich, about paul whelan. it was a brave question to ask, and she asked him are you -- is it true that you are refusing a serious offer to exchange them, an offer from the u.s.? that's what the u.s. has said. he says we haven't refused it. we want a deal, but it should be satisfying to both parties. he accepted that the negotiations, if you like, are difficult, but what i thought was interesting was that he didn't appear at any point to talk about the accusations against evan gershkovich. he's been accused of espionage or indeed the conviction against paul whelan. he went straight to that question of whether russia would do a deal, and that i think will be listened to closely in the biden administration and by both men's families, although, of course, the big question is going to be what is it that russia wants and how difficult would that be to deliver? >> right, and we know the biden administration has said they've been in contact recently with russia and made some offers that have been rejected. keir simmons, thank you for your reporting live from moscow for us on a snowy day there in moscow. i want to bring in former u.s. ambassador to russia, thank you for joining us, ambassador. as keir mentioned, today's highly orchestrated end of year press conference was an annual tradition that stopped when russia invaded ukraine. why do you think putin decided to halt the event this year? >> because putin's feel ago lot more confident than just a year ago. his forces are holding territory for a year now. the counteroffensive stalemated that the ukrainians did, although they've had massive damage to their soldiers up to over 300,000 according to u.s. intelligence reports. >> right! but he's also very encouraged by the news out of washington at a time when ukraine desperately needs new military assistance, the u.s. congress has decided to have a debate about immigration reform here in the united states, and when you listen to him talk, he says we will win because we will stay the course when western powers, and one place he alluded to that, he said eventually the support is going to fade. we're going to stay the course. he's much more confident today than he wa aear ago. >> you mentioned the new intel we have showing 315,000 russian troops have been killed o wounded in this war. 2,200 tanks destroyed, one-third of its armored vehicles knocked out of action. i just don't see how you can square that with the confidence he's projecting. >> well, that's a great point. he shouldn't be confident, right? those are massive losses. i think it's really important for everybody to remember. they achieved very little on the battlefield. we're always seeing those maps that are all in red, right? half of that red was already de facto controlled by russia before putin invaded. he just really made some marginal gains in two regions in ukraine. but from his perspective, he's watching us. he's watching us divided, debating whether we should give more aid to ukraine and he thinks he can, you know, wait us out. he doesn't face any democratic control, right? he's not facing a real re-election challenge, and he's not really facing much independent press. there were bits and pieces of it today, but remember, it is an autocratic regime that's much more autocratic than before the war. he doesn't face those domestic pressures. he can continue to just send those soldiers to the battlefield and die because he doesn't face repercussions at home, and he is ideologically committed to doing what he said today. i think americans really need to listen to putin. there's so much debate about we need to put pressure on zelenskyy to do a peace deal. putin said very distinctly, my war aims have not changed and they include denaziification. that is a code word for regime change for overthrowing president zelenskyy and his government. >> according to putin today the talks with the u.s. over the detained americans in russia, journalist evanger issue coe vich, paul whelan are ongoing. the state department said they had made a significant proposal for the release of those two men, which was rejected. wa do you think russia wants?? >> well, i think that was a little bit of positive news, that putin said at least they're talking. he's thinking about a deal. of course he wants to get certain people out of jail in the united states. and by the way, in other countries, in nato allied countries, germany in particular. and that's why it's such a heavy lift. i don't want to predict whether there will be a deal or not, but the fact that he hinted at it was good news. i want to remind you, though, there are two other americans that were not talked about mark fogle and al set kerr mush ka, those are two other americans wrongly detained in russia. please let's not forget about them as well. >> thanks so much for joining us, for mentioning them as well. appreciate your time, ambassador, michael mcfaul. up next, president biden's national security adviser meeting with israeli officials today as cracks emerge between washington and jerusalem. and later, the uncertain fate of the most commonly used abortion pill. the supreme court set to hear arguments around mifepristone. i'll talk to a top legal expert on what to expect. welcome back. white house national security adviser jake sullivan is in israel today to meet with top israeli officials as tensions between the u.s. and israel have reached their highest level since the start of the war against hamas. president biden warning israel is losing international support with, quote, indiscriminate bombing of gaza, and with netanyahu's government pushing against a two-state solution after the war. netanyahu not changing his position, though, telling israeli troops nothing will stop us. joining us now from tel aviv, nbc's raf sanchez. jake sullivan meeting with netanyahu, his war cabinet. what should we expect from these meetings and will sullivan press for answers on who will govern gaza after the war? >> yeah, it's likely to be one of the topics that comes up. the meeting between netanyahu and jake sullivan started here in tel aviv at the defense ministry. as far as we know, it's ongoing. sullivan is going to sit down with the israeli war cabinet later on. we're already seeing some signs of those tensions here. jake sullivan sat down earlier with the israeli defense minister who said israel needs more than several months to complete its operations inside of gaza. he said it is a major logistical challenge finding and destroying these hamas tunnels, and it's going to take as long as it's going to take. that is not what the white house wants to hear. they have been pretty clear with the israelis that they support israel's mission against hamas, but that it cannot go on forever. we have seen over the last couple of weeks, the u.s. pretty diplomatically isolated as it tries to preserve time for israel to continue its mission in gaza using its veto to prevent the security council from imposing an immediate cease fire. one of the top priorities of sullivan's trip here is kind of a technical one. the u.s. wants israel to open up the kerem shalom crossing into gaza. it's the main crossing into gaza. it's been closed since october 7th. the u.s., the united nations are saying it has to open up to allow more humanitarian aid to get to civilians inside gaza. if there isn't a deal to open it, that will be a sign of real, real friction here, ana. >> there's been some reporting about the tunnels, a discussion about flooding the tunnels. israel says it's considering a variety of ways to destroy the tunnels as the international aid groups are warning about the catastrophic conditions in gaza. do we know what's happening right now inside gaza? >> reporter: so on this question of using sea water to flood hamas tunnels, a u.s. official says israel has started that process in a limited way. the israelis being absolutely mute about it. we have asked them over and over again whether it's something they're doing, something they're considering. they are refusing to say. humanitarian organizations have been warning it could have devastating impacts on the drinking water supply inside gaza. if you flood that sea water into the aquaphors, mix it up with the fresh water people rely on. the united nations really running out of words to describe the humanitarian crisis inside of gaza right now. half the population is starving, according to the u.n., and around a million people at this point are pressed up against the egyptian border. they're down in the province of rafah. the u.n. is saying they are able to distribute humanitarian aid in that small sliver of southern gaza but really no further. they cannot get up to the north. they cannot get aid to where it's needed and israeli strikes are continuing across the south including in rafah where so many of these civilians are sheltering. remember, many of these people fled their homes in the north at the beginning of the war. they went to the southern city of khan yunis, and now israel is telling them to get out of there. there is nowhere left to run as they run up against the egyptian border. ana. >> raf sanchez, thank you so much for your reporting. back to the u.s. now and what's happening at the southern border, homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas was on the hill last night as congress continues negotiating immigration policy, but homeland security officials tell nbc news that some of the policies being discussed including increasing deportations, denying more asylum claims, making detention at the border mandatory could, quote, break the border. nbc homeland security correspondent julia ainsley joins us now from lukeville, arizona. this is your exclusive reporting. what exactly are the concerns you're hearing from dhs officials? >> reporter: well, ana, i'm able to illustrate it to you perfectly right here where i'm standing in lukeville, arizona. this has been the epicenter of what has become a record high in migrant crossings. 12,000 migrants crossing the border undocumented in a single day last week. the numbers continue to be high, about 2,600 migrants a day in this tucson sector alone. you can sigh behind me, i'm going to step here so our cameras can zoom in. we've seen probably 100 migrants in the last hour come through here where they're processed from these tents. they are then put in these vans. they are then going to be taken to a processing center and released. what these dhs officials are worried about is that if they make detention mandatory, which is what's being discussed and negotiated on the hill is that those processing centers would fill up. they would send them to ice, those would fill up. in part because a lot of these migrants are coming from countries that won't take them back. places like venezuela and places like cuba that only takes a very limited amount. as smugglers start to push more and more of those populations, they say the u.s. immigration system would get to a breaking point and border patrol officers like these here would have to take a knee and watch people go by. this is something i'm hearing from people on the ground worried about these negotiations. when i speak to dhs press conferences, what they tell me is that secretary mayorkas is on the hill for that reason, to talk through the tactical ramifications of any of these negotiations to try to prevent something like that from happening. right now what's on the table is worrying the people who are in charge of processing migrants just like this. >> okay, thank you, and keep us posted, julia ainsley. up next, from the supreme court to texas, the battle over abortion access nationwide. and later, the dow jones reaching record highs with christmas right around the corner, while the fed hints at interest rate cuts next year, you heard it right, interest rate cuts, what it means for your wallet. s, what it means for your wallet. nurtec odt may help. it's the only medication that can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks. treat and prevent, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. relief is possible. talk to a doctor about nurtec odt. (husband) ♪ hey there family! while you're shopping, ♪ relief is possible. ♪ get me a 5g phone, it's on my list. ♪ (wife) instead of doing all of this a better plan is to switch to verizon. (avo) this holiday turn any samsung phone, in any condition, into a galaxy s23+ on us. and now add netflix and max to your plan for just $10 a month. only on verizon. welcome back. the issue of abortion access front and center in our courts again this week. the supreme court announcing it will hear arguments over whether the most commonly used abortion pills should remain easily available. while in arizona, the state's highest court is having arguments and hearing those arguments about a near total abortion ban, a ban that dates back to the 1800s. all eyes have been on texas where that state's supreme court ruled against a woman seeking an emergency abortion. doctors told kate cox that her baby was unlikely to survive and that carrying to term could put her future fertility at risk. molly megan is general counsel for the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists and joins us now. molly, i do want to ask you about that texas case in just a moment, but let's start with the fate of the abortion pill, mifepristone. what exactly are the stakes of this case now before the supreme court? >> the stakes are incredibly high. mifepristone is a basic essential drug that is used throughout the united states. it's been used for more than 5 million times in the united states. it is used in connection with early pregnancy loss, a number of other medical conditions, and it itself makes care possible for people that live in maternity care deserts across the country. it would be a devastating ruling if the supreme court does not permit access to mifepristone in a way that people can actually obtain it. >> right now the lower court's rulings are on hold, nothing has changed in terms of access at this moment. it could be a few months before we have any kind of ruling from the supreme court. so let's turn to what we in texas this week. legally it may not be over there. texas attorney general ken paxton threatened doctors and hospitals against helping kate cox get an abortion and in the end, we learned she decided to go out of state for the procedure. but are there still legal risks for anyone who helps her, even to get out of texas? >> there certainly are. i think the attorney general made that clear. that statement by the attorney general also made it clear that medical emergency exceptions don't work. they aren't intended to work in texas. and they don't work throughout the country. >> to that point, you wrote an amicus brief in sport of her case. her doctors said her pregnancy put her heah and her future fertility at risk and her fetus would likely b stillborn or not live beyond days or weeks if carried to term, and yet the state supreme court ruled her doctor did not clearly demonstrate her need for a life-saving abortion. so, if she doesn't qualify, is it clear who, if anyone, would? >> it is not. this case will have a clear chilling effect on other pregnant patients and doctors trying to provide care in texas during obstetrical complications. i will point out the court was focused herely on a turn of phrase. it was focused on whether the correct language was used, which underscores the fact there isn't relief in texas. doctors that need to provide ca t patients that are undergoing obstetrical compcations cannot. and the patients that need that care can't access it. >> we have seen a number of recent surveys now showing obgyn doctors are moving out of states, conservative states with these really restrictive abortion laws. so, bigger picture, what does this mean for healthcare in america right now? >> it means that healthcare is stratified, it always has been, but it will become more so. people that live in restrictive states will not be able to access care, including the people that come from marginalized populations and have trouble accessing care to begin with. people that are suffering the results of the disparate health outcomes that exist in the united states. we do have members that are leaving restricted states. a lot of them, they don't feel they can practice medicine safely. if you look at texas, you are a doctor in texas who has a clear medical emergency in front of you, yet you know that you have state elected officials or potentially even neighbors that are opposed to abortion that can bring a lawsuit, and the act of bringing a lawsuit can result in tremendous amount of ramifications for a doctor from the financial implications of defending against a suit, to the actual ramifications of losing a suit, which is up to life in prison, $100,000 fines. we can't expect doctors to provide care under these circumstances and texas patients and patients across the united states deserve it. >> molly meegen, thank you for taking the time. i appreciate your perspective and your insights. >> thank you. >> up next on "ana cabrera reports," the stock market soars. what is behind the end of year surge that has investors seeing green? e that has investors seei green? a few years ago, i came to saona, they told me there's no electricity on the island. we always thought that whatever we did here would be an emblem of what small communities can achieve. trying to give a better life to people that don't have the means to do it. si mi papá estuviera vivo, sé que él tuviera orgulloso también de vivir de esta viviendo una vida como la que estamos viviendo ahora. es electricidad aquí es salud. (man) mm, hey, honey. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling. sure, i'm a paid actor, and this is not a real company, but there is no way to fake how upwork can help your business. search talent all over the world with over 10,000 skills you may not have in house. more than 30% of the fortune 500 use upwork because this is how we work now. (carolers) ♪ iphone 15 pro, your husband deserves it! ♪ (mom) carolers? to tell me you want a new iphone?work a better plan is verizon. (vo) it's your last chance to turn any iphone in any condition into a new iphone 15 pro with titanium and ipad and apple watch se - all on us. only on verizon. ten days ahead of the christmas holiday and wall street's giving streak is still going. the dow closing above 37,000 for first time in u.s. history yesterday. all three major indexes up after news that the fed wouldn't raise interest rates this month. and we're keeping a close eye on the markets this morning still. up in positive territory right now as investors continue to react. christin romans joining us now. >> when you look at the s&p 500, that's what most people, the stock equivalent in your 401(k), that's up 23% this year. so it has been a good year for investors. the reason is because the fed chief, he didn't say that victory -- he didn't declare victory over inflation. but he did really paint a promising picture of progress with an economy that is still strong and resilient despite all the fed rate hikes and he said they would be looking at fed rate cuts next year. so that would lower borrowing costs for wall street and for main street and that's why you have stock investors so excited. >> and so for those who aren't in the markets, who don't have those investments, how should they be looking at this? >> it means next year probably maybe in the second half of the year in particular you're going to have lower borrowing costs. maybe for mortgages will start to drift down. a lot of people have been asking me when i can refinance the mortgage i got this year? maybe sometime next year there will be that opening. that's good for consumers. also really watch these interest rates on credit cards. right now the record high is 20%, very dangerous to have borrowed money on a credit card. maybe those credit card rates will start to drift down and maybe card rates for a new home, auto loans will drift down too. that's what we're hoping for, for next year. a turning point, the fed chief yesterday signaled a turning point in the fight against inflation and that has stock investors very excited. >> who deserves credit for this? >> that's a good question. i say the american consumer has been the real, you know, the real hero of the year. but the fed saying that the rate hikes may be over, that's really the big impetus for the near term. overall, the u.s. economy defied all the expectations. earlier this year it was not if there would be a recession, it was when will there be a recession. >> and how bad? >> and how bad would it be? we talked ourself into this very bad mood. people really talked themselves into this not feeling great about the economy, yet the economy held up all along. and people -- consumers say they feel sour, i call it the sourpuss economy. >> people are still hurting. >> people are still hurting and don't believe it. they're waiting for the other shoe to drop or paying a lot for child care still or paying more for milk today than you were two or three years ago, so those are still those underlying things that have people not feeling great about it, but at least stock investors the last couple of days are saying we think better times are ahead and we're recognizing that the economy is holding in there. >> okay. we'll take it. christine romans, thank you. that's going to do it for us today. back tomorrow, same time, same place. it's friday. until then, i'm ana