Joining me now is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
Governor DeSantis, welcome back to Meet the Press.
Thanks for having me. Thanks so much for being here.
So you have now held events in all
99 of Iowa's counties, and yet former President Trump is
still
27 points ahead of you in the state.
So, Governor, I have to ask you,
are you committed to staying in this race through the
Iowa caucuses?
Well, I'll tell you what,
doing all 99 counties is a tradition here.
It's something that Governor Reynolds advised that I do.
And it's it's a way to 1 show that you're
earning people support.
Two, it's a way to hear from real people
outside of kind of the media bubble about what's important
to them.
And then I think 3.
It reminds you that at the end of the day,
you're a servant. You're not a ruler.
And we really believe in serving leadership.
So we went everywhere. We showed up.
We took questions and we've been able to build a
really incredible organization.
We've got over 30,000 people that already committed the caucus
for us.
We're adding more every day.
Of course, we have the endorsement by the great governor
here,
Kim Reynolds, and of course by Bob Vander Plaats,
most recently from the Family Leader.
So I don't think anyone's ever done an Iowa caucus
with this amount of institutional and grassroots support and it's
only going to build for here.
And we look forward to being victorious on January 15th.
So just to be clear,
you are committed to staying in the race through the
caucuses.
Of course I am. In a minute.
It's absurd that I wouldn't be.
If you look at past Iowa caucus winners and compare
to what,
you know, people were saying in November with this poll
or that poll,
it almost never comes out the same way.
So we have a a great base of support.
We have a much wider base of people who are
potential caucus goers,
who who believe that I've been a great governor and
and are and would be a good president.
And we've just got to bring that home when people
start to make their decisions and and they will be
doing it.
But I'll tell you one thing,
what people in Iowa and even the other early states,
they do not want the media choosing the Republican nominee.
They do not want narrative to trump over their decisions.
And so I see a lot of resistance on the
ground here to some of the things that have tried
to be spun,
whether it's through polls, whether it's through pundits.
And I think that's a good thing.
I think you're going to see on caucus night
people's voice be heard
stakes on caucus night. If you don't come in at
least second
would you then drop out of the race.
How critical is Iowa?
Well we're we're going to win the caucus We we're
doing everything that that we need to do it But
what if you don't governor?
What if you don't from the beginning?
We we are we are
we're going to win we're going to win the we're
going to win the caucus.
But even apart from that,
there have been people that have won Iowa and not
won the nomination and vice versa.
You need to win a majority of the delegates.
And so we're committed to to doing that through the
whole process,
to to win the majority of the delegates.
There's a lot of things that happened.
I mean, even two months ago,
the field looked a lot different than it does now.
I think the field will look different on caucus night
than it does now.
So it's a very dynamic situation.
Fortunately, we're somebody that has broad support.
We're well positioned and we're going to be able to
take it all the way to the end to be
be able to win a majority of those delegates.
Bottom line is Iowa, do or die for you,
Governor,
we're going to win Iowa.
I think it's going to help propel us to the
nomination,
but I think we'll have a lot of work that
we'll have to do beyond that.
I don't think you take anything for granted,
and I do. I do recognize that there have been
people that have wanted who've not gone on to win
the nomination.
I think this year's a little bit different.
I think the field is narrowed quicker.
I think it's going to narrow even more.
And ultimately, Republican voters are going to have the choice
of Donald Trump,
which I think would make the election a referendum on
him
and a lot of the issues that he's dealing with,
or me, and that will be a referendum on
Biden's failures, on all the issues in the country that
are affecting people.
And I'll be able to stand for positive vision going
forward.
We have a much better chance
if we're doing it with me as the candidate.
I'd also be able to serve two terms and I'm
more likely to actually get a lot of this stuff
done.
But those are the choices realistically,
for Republican voters. You bring up former President Trump.
So let me ask you about the GOP frontrunner.
Mr. Trump is campaigning on the idea of retribution.
He's promising to jail his political enemies if he's re
elected.
He's also referred to some of his political opponents as
vermin language.
The people, frankly, across the political spectrum,
say Harkins back to Nazi Germany.
Do you think that kind of language is presidential?
Well, I think even beyond that,
the issue is, is why are you running?
Are you running for your personal issues?
Are you running for the American people's issues?
And I'm running for the American people's issues.
And now part of that is this government is out
of control.
We have seen weaponization of agencies like the DOJ and
the FBI and the IRS.
I'm going to end that weaponization,
but that's not because I'm doing it for me.
It's because I'm doing it for the people that have
been under the thumb of these agencies.
And I'm going to restore the rule of law.
So I think of Donald Trump is saying his whole
thing is retribution for himself.
Well, what about all the other people
that have had issues with that?
Is that somebody? Are those people he's going to be
standing up with?
So I don't think you can say it's about your
enemies.
I think you got to say it's about the American
people's future.
And the goal is to end weaponization period and to
have a single standard of justice employed,
not to basically do what we don't like is being
done now just in a different direction,
Governor. As you know, DOJ officials would reject the idea
that it has been weaponized.
But let me ask you about my original question,
the use of the word vermin.
Are you comfortable with that term?
But are you comfortable with that term Governor?
Let me, let me just say on the DOJ,
well, first of all I'm responsible for my what I
say and and I say things differently but on the
deal are you.
I mean, we have just my question though,
Governor, excuse me, what I what I'm not what I'm
not comfortable with
is FBI agents going after parents going to school board
meetings.
I'm not comfortable with DOJ,
FBI working with tech companies to censor dissent.
I'm not comfortable with how this has been power has
been exercised and you have an agency that is very
political.
People say, oh, their career,
but it's 99% donations to Democrats.
You are seeing how that happens.
So I don't use the same rhetoric that he does.
I conduct myself in different way.
I think I conduct myself in a way that's more
effective as a leader.
Part of what you have to do is you have
to be strong,
you have to deliver big results.
But what you don't want to do is you don't
want to alienate people for no reason.
And I think some of the reasons why he struggled
electorally is because it's not even about the policy,
it's about some of these other things.
So do you condemn the use of the word vermin?
Condemn the use of the word vermin.
I don't use the term,
but what I don't do is play the media's game
where I'm asked to referee other people.
He's responsible for his words,
he's responsible for his conduct.
I'm responsible for mine. But I will tell you,
more important than the choice of words is why are
you running?
If he's running for personal retribution,
that is not going to lead to what we need
as a country.
You got to be running
for the American people and their issues,
not about your own personal issues.
And that is a distinction between us.
I am focused on the folks.
I am focused on what they want to see done
for this country in a positive direction.
I'm the vessel, but ultimately it's not about me.
Let me ask you about a development on Capitol Hill.
Speaker Mike Johnson says he believes he has the votes
to open an impeachment inquiry into President Biden and that
he has a duty to hold such a vote.
But let me ask you,
Do you think Republicans run the risk of having that
move potentially backfire and emboldening President Biden as he heads
into a re election year if they move to impeach
him?
So here's what I think.
I think that the Biden family,
the amount of money that's flowed into that family to
me
is corrupt. I think that it's not been explained in
ways that make any sense.
And so opening an inquiry based on the the facts
that we have I think would be justifiable.
However, I think they run the risk of doing an
inquiry that doesn't necessarily lead anywhere while they've been ignoring
a lot of the problems that our voters are talking
about. When I'm going through Iowa,
Republican voters obviously are not fond of Joe Biden.
Yes, they're concerned about Hunter and all this money,
but they're more concerned about what's happening at our border.
They're more concerned about what's happening with the economy.
They're more concerned about federal agencies that are overstepping their
bounds.
And so if you're doing the inquiry,
which again, I think is justifiable,
you also have to be addressing all these other issues.
And I think that there's a feeling out here that
they're not focused on the key issues that they wanted
to see addressed clearly on the budget.
There's been no progress on that.
So make sure you're not ignoring all these other issues
and don't use that inquiry as kind of a Trojan
horse to not then meet your responsibilities and all these
other things. And of course there is a special counsel
investigation into Hunter Biden.
Let me turn to another domestic policy issue,
one of the big issues that came up during your
debate with Governor Gavin Newsom.
Abortion. Governor Newsom asked if you would sign a six
week national ban if you were president.
You still have not answered that question.
So let me ask you again here now,
if you were elected president,
would you sign a six week national ban if it
came to your desk?
I've actually answered the question a bunch of time.
So. So Florida has protections when there's a heartbeat.
Other states have done it differently.
This is something that's going to be done in a
bottom up way.
I I recognize that I'm here in Iowa where they
have a heartbeat bill.
I'll be going to New Hampshire at the beginning of
next week.
They obviously are not going to,
not going to do that.
They're going to approach it differently.
We understand that. But I do think
every state has a responsibility to have some limit into
how they're doing it.
And California, they fund abortion with tax dollars and can
go all the way up to the moment of birth.
I don't agree with that.
I think it's wrong. But in terms of how this
issue is going to be adjudicated,
it's clearly going to be done on a bottom up
level.
What's what's good for Florida or what's good for Texas
is not necessarily what's going to fly in New Hampshire
or Pennsylvania.
The reality Dobbs return the issue to the political process,
I understand. But you signed a six week ban in
the state of Florida.
So voters want to know.
People of Iowa want to know where do you stand
on this issue?
Would you sign a six week federal ban if it
came to your desk,
if you were president?
But we signed a legislation to stand for a culture
of life that was done by the Florida legislature.
I mean this was them bringing the will of the
people there.
Well, Congress is not going to do any type of
abortion legislation.
They haven't done abortion legislation.
The only thing that's impacted abortion on the federal level
I think is last thing is Obamacare in 2010.
So we understand that. And so and part of me
protect promoting a culture of life is to do things
that that are that are achievable and that obviously would
have consensus, no taxpayer funding for abortion.
We're going to eliminate the abortion tourism policy of the
Department of Defense,
and we're going to protect the rights of states to
enact pro-life protection.
Let me ask you about Obamacare.
Former President Trump said he wants to repeal and replace
Obamacare,
something he tried and failed to do when he was
president.
You were in Congress at the time.
If you were president, would it be your plan to
try to repeal and replace Obamacare,
something you voted to eliminate three times?
Well, you're right. President Trump promised that he would repeal
and replace Obamacare,
and he didn't do it.
And that was a promise that he made a lot
of time.
What would you think of there?
What would you continue? Have continued to go up well,
but I think it's important to point out he's running
on a lot of the things he campaigned on in
2016 and didn't deliver it.
On whether it's repeal and replace Obamacare.
Whether it's building the border wall,
whether it's draining the swamp.
Remember, he said he would do a special counsel against
Hillary Clinton.
Then two weeks after the election said no.
Now he says he's going to do one against Biden.
Understood. But Governor, what would he do where he's running
on things that he didn't do?
Here's what I will do.
What I think you're going to need to do is
have a plan that will supersede Obamacare,
that will lower prices for people so that they can
afford healthcare,
while also making sure that people with pre-existing conditions are
protected.
And we're going to look at the big institutions that
are causing prices to be high,
big pharma, big insurance and big government.
But it's going to need to be where you have
a reform package
that's going to be put in place.
I don't think that repeating what Trump did and the
failure is necessarily going to make sense.
So. So we will address that.
We will make sure that the Obamacare promised lower premiums
that didn't deliver that.
We know we need to go in a different direction.
But it's going to be done by having a plan
that's going to be able to supersede it and even
be working on that.
I want to be clear by what you mean by
supersede.
Do you mean you will move to repeal Obamacare and
try to replace it with something else?
Or will you leave it in place and make revisions?
No, no. You will have a totally different healthcare plan,
so you repeal it. But what it will be is
people
people. So people that will be on things like if
they have a
an exchange plan we'll have a plan that will offer
them coverage.
So the coverage will be different and better but they're
still going to be able to be covered.
So we want to make sure we have as many
people covered as possible at the lowest possible price.
And like in places like Florida I mean we we
already have I signed pre-existing protections
anyways and so I know that that was like a
big deal with Obamacare but that's an easy thing that
that we'll agree on.
So that's not a big deal.
So it's going to be we're going to have a
plan
I think it's going to over it's going to supersede
Obamacare.
It's going to be much better for people.
I just want to be very clear,
though, Are you going to keep Obamacare in place and
make revisions to it?
Is that your plan just to be this will be,
this will be, this will be,
this will be replacing Obamacare.
So you need to have a health care plan that
works.
Obamacare hasn't worked. We are going to replace and supersede
with a better,
better plan.
Can you tell me specifically what the plan is and
what your plan is to ensure the 40 million people
who now have health insurance who didn't before Obamacare was
passed,
Well, we're going to be working on probably in the
spring we'll we'll roll out a a big proposal.
I've got a lot of input that that's been coming
in from a lot of good people around the country.
But we will be definitely be addressing insurance.
We'll definitely be addressing big government and we will be
addressing a big pharma.
You know, we pay more for drugs in this country
than anybody else in the world.
I'd like to see some equity across these developed countries
so that our consumers are getting relief.
Obamacare promised that it didn't deliver.
So we're going to do something that actually works,
Governor, Very quickly, though, as you know,
Iowa Iowans are weighing in in just over a month
now.
They want to know what your plan is on a
range of issues.
On this critical issue of healthcare,
can you say specifically what your plan looks like?
What would your plan be to insure Americans?
More transparency? More consumer choice?
More affordable options, less red tape,
less bureaucracy, weighing everybody down.
And for example, we need price transparency.
If you want to lower prices,
you need to have markets actually work well.
If nobody knows how much anything costs,
well, of course it's not going to lower prices.
There's third party payers. So we're going to have transparency
and then we're going to have folks that have health
plans available so that if they do choose a procedure
that's cheaper than the one down the street that they
actually share in the savings with lower premiums.
You got to give the consumer a benefit if they're
doing that type of price comparison.
And so we've done that on a small level in
Florida with our state health plan,
save millions of dollars for folks and they've gotten lower
premiums as a result.
That's a model that I think can work nationally.
Governor DeSantis, final question. You are a big supporter of
deregulation and small government.
You were just talking about it in your speech when
it comes to things like corporate subsidies,
environmental regulations, But when it comes to things like education,
and you support banning critical race theory and as well
instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity,
how is that not just another form of government regulation?
Well, first of all, the states clearly have priority when
it comes to education.
It's one of our core functions.
I would not support the federal government setting a national
curriculum.
That's the state's job. So we have to set standards
about what we're going to do and what we're not
going to do.
And so we've determined as a state that we want
education but not agendas or indoctrination.
Things like critical race theory are inappropriate,
its divisive and it's not something that is proven to
be effective.
Now on the whole issue of the sexualization of the
curriculum for the particularly for the elementary schools,
because this was the the fight that we we had
when Disney opposed that legislation.
Parents of young kids do not want these issues adjudicated
in elementary school.
We need to focus on reading.
We need to focus on math and science and the
basics and not have a second grader told that they
can change their gender.
Governor, Governor, and so I want to ask you about
the
state regulation. You support government regulation at the state level
but not at the federal level.
It it's OK to have government regulation at the state
level,
but you're you're conflating, you're conflating regulating the regulation.
So for example, to have the EPA say you have
a puddle on your farm here in Iowa and so
we should come in and regulate you,
well, that's obviously overreach. But when you're talking about a
K through 12 school system,
which we fund with tax dollars,
we have a State Board of Education that sets state
standards and and that absolutely has an appropriate role in
ensuring that we have adequate curriculum.
Those are two different things.
That's a government product that is being provided for people,
for education. Of course we can determine what the terms
are for that,
but that's much different than having government go outside of
that and and going after a farmer going after these
other things.
So what we're doing is totally appropriate.
And you know what, Kristen,
the proofs and the pudding.
I mean, U.S. News and World Report ranks US number
one for education.
The most recent results for
2022. First post COVID results,
we were third and 4th,
respectively, in 4th grade reading and 4th grade math.
I was born and raised in Florida.
That was not true when I was a kid.
So we're doing it right and we're producing high quality
education.
All right. Governor Ron DeSantis,
thank you so much for joining us.
We really appreciate it.
Thanks for having me.