
Transcript: New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," Aug. 3, 2025
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to New Mexico's Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. She joins us from Santa Fe. Governor, two out of five New Mexicans are on Medicaid. You've got a lot of rural hospitals. Have you figured out how to implement everything Dr. Oz just laid out?
GOV. LUJAN GRISHAM: Absolutely not. There is no real way to implement this. It's more paperwork for everyone. It's more paperwork for federal government, for state governments, for county governments, for local hospitals, for independent providers. And you know what Americans really hate, Margaret? When you go to your primary care physician and you spend 20 minutes sitting at a chair, not even on the exam table, while they are inputting data into a computer. So this doesn't make any sense. We should be a society and a country that is connecting people to healthcare providers. I think the one thing that Dr. Oz represents that's a fair representation, is we should be healthier as Americans. All right. We need to be moving out of poverty. We need drug prices- we should talk about that, to come down. So go after insurance companies. Do manufacturing here. Make sure we can negotiate fair prices. Let states do that, because I guarantee you, we'll do a better job than the federal government. And lastly, get people early, easy access today, more than half, or about half, our small businesses don't even offer health care coverage. So you can get a job. but now what?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, well, you said, though- in your state, because as a governor, you're going to have to figure this out. You have reserve cash from some oil and gas revenues, as I understand it, that have been put aside. Doesn't that show it is possible for the federal government to shift more responsibility back to the states? That's the argument conservatives are making.
GOV. LUJAN GRISHAM: They are and it's temporary. There is no way any state, including this one—which, frankly, I am really proud of, we are in really good financial shape that takes planning and effort. You know, our job projections continue to be met and exceed, unlike the federal jobs report, which is going in the opposite direction. So I don't know where all these jobs are going to be in this anemic economy. I mean, it's so bad. The last time it was this bad, I was in college, and let me tell you, that was a very long time ago. And so yes, temporarily we can do that. But you can't do it over the long haul. The lost minimally to New Mexico over less than a decade is between 12 and $13 billion dollars and when, not if, rural hospitals and local providers close their doors. I can do this better than any other state. The last governor completely canceled behavioral health. Six years later, we are still reeling from trying to rebuild. We put a billion dollars into behavioral health just this last legislative session. It is not so easy to rebuild something out of nothing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the $50 billion Rural Health Care Fund under this Republican law is supposed to give people the— your—states like yours, the ability to come and say, we need this extra cash. Are you going to have to ask for that?
GOV. LUJAN GRISHAM: I'm going to ask for every dollar the federal government has put aside anywhere that benefits a New Mexican. So you got 50 billion. That's $1 billion for each state, if it was even. Do you know how much money it would take to shore up rural hospitals? More than a billion. And to put that in perspective—let me do this, it's a billion just for behavioral health, it's a billion plus just to keep people's coverage, it's another billion for prescription drugs, it's a billion dollars for rural provider delivery investments, and that's only 50 hospitals. You have hundreds of hospitals. Hundreds. 400 rural hospitals across America that will shutter. So that's the number at it is. We are- how do we pick these rural hospitals? And if you pick a Southeastern rural hospital in New Mexico, what about the rural hospital in western New Mexico. Economies fail. People have to move away. You don't have any OBGYN care. That whole area collapses, and they are reducing rural health care delivery by about 134 billion. So the 50 billion is just to make someone somewhere feel like they recognize that this is a disaster. $900 billion out of Medicaid is catastrophic, straight up.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Governor, we ran through a lot of material here. I have more questions for you, but very quickly—can you tell me—you deployed the National Guard to counter unrest in New Mexico. How is that different from what the president did in California?
GOV. LUJAN GRISHAM: Well, they're not policing. They're doing the back end work so that trained community policing, and members of that training, right—those local police officers, they're on the streets. What we have in this country is a shortage of police officers. What I have in New Mexico is a partnership. So they're doing all of the—they answer all of the emergency calls. They handle all the traffic clearance when we've got a crash. And it is working, we're beginning to see more productive fentanyl drug dealing high end arrests than we did without the guard. And I'm really proud of that work. This is about partnering and leveraging, not about indiscriminately going after individuals who have not committed serious crimes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you for your time today. 'Face the Nation' will be right back.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Trump may look like he's winning the trade war, but hurdles remain
By Andrea Shalal WASHINGTON (Reuters) -At a glance, U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be winning the trade war he unleashed after returning to the White House in January, bending major trading partners to his will, imposing double-digit tariff rates on nearly all imports, narrowing the trade deficit, and raking in tens of billions of dollars a month in much-needed cash for federal government coffers. Significant hurdles remain, however, including whether U.S. trading partners will make good on investment and goods-purchase commitments, how much tariffs will drive up inflation or stymie demand and growth, and whether the courts allow many of his ad-hoc levies to stand. On inauguration day, the effective U.S. tariff rate was about 2.5%. It has since jumped to somewhere between 17% and 19%, according to a range of estimates. The Atlantic Council estimates it will edge closer to 20%, the highest in a century, with higher duties taking effect on Thursday. Trading partners have largely refrained from retaliatory tariffs, sparing the global economy from a more painful tit-for-tat trade war. Data on Tuesday showed a 16% narrowing of the U.S. trade deficit in June, while the U.S. trade gap with China shrank to its smallest in more than 21 years. American consumers have shown themselves to be more resilient than expected, but some recent data indicate the tariffs are already affecting jobs, growth and inflation. "The question is, what does winning mean?" said Josh Lipsky, who heads economic studies at the Atlantic Council. "He's raising tariffs on the rest of the world and avoiding a retaliatory trade war far easier than even he anticipated, but the bigger question is what effect does that have on the U.S. economy." Michael Strain, head of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Trump's geopolitical victories could prove hollow. "In a geopolitical sense, Trump's obviously getting tons of concessions from other countries, but in an economic sense, he's not winning the trade war," he said. "What we're seeing is that he is more willing to inflict economic harm on Americans than other countries are willing to inflict on their nations. And I think of that as losing." Kelly Ann Shaw, a White House trade adviser during Trump's first term who is now a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, said a still-strong economy and near-record-high stock prices "support a more aggressive tariff strategy." But Trump's tariffs, tax cuts, deregulation and policies to boost energy production would take time to play out. "I think history will judge these policies, but he is the first president in my lifetime to make major changes to the global trading system," she added. DEALS SO FAR Trump has concluded eight framework agreements with the European Union, Japan, Britain, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines that impose tariffs on their goods ranging from 10% to 20%. That's well short of the "90 deals in 90 days" administration officials had touted in April, but they account for some 40% of U.S. trade flows. Adding in China, currently saddled with a 30% levy on its goods but likely to win another reprieve from even higher tariffs before an August 12 deadline, would raise that to nearly 54%. Deals aside, many of Trump's tariff actions have been mercurial. On Wednesday he ratcheted up pressure on India, doubling new tariffs on goods from there to 50% from 25% because of its imports of oil from Russia. The same rate is in store for goods from Brazil, after Trump complained about its prosecution of former leader Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally. And Switzerland, which Trump had previously praised, is facing 39% tariffs after a conversation between its leader and Trump derailed a deal. Ryan Majerus, a trade lawyer who worked in both the first Trump administration and the Biden government, said what's been announced so far fails to address "longstanding, politically entrenched trade issues" that have bothered U.S. policymakers for decades, and getting there would likely take "months, if not years." He also noted they lack specific enforcement mechanisms for the big investments announced, including $550 billion for Japan and $600 billion for the EU. PROMISES AND RISKS Critics lit into European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after she agreed to a 15% tariff during a surprise meeting with Trump during his trip to Scotland last month, while gaining little in return. The deal frustrated winemakers and farmers, who had sought a zero-for-zero tariff. Francois-Xavier Huard, head of France's FNIL national dairy sector federation, said 15% was better than the threatened 30%, but would still cost dairy farmers millions of euros. European experts say von der Leyen's move did avert higher tariffs, calmed tensions with Trump, averting potentially higher duties on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and cars, while making largely symbolic pledges to buy $750 billion of U.S. strategic goods and invest over $600 billion. Meeting those pledges will fall to individual EU members and companies, and cannot be mandated by Brussels, trade experts and analysts note. U.S. officials insist Trump can re-impose higher tariffs if he believes the EU, Japan or others are not honoring their commitments. But it remains unclear how that would be policed. And history offers a caution. China, with its state-run economy, never met its modest purchase agreements under Trump's Phase 1 U.S.-China trade deal. Holding it to account proved difficult for the subsequent Biden administration. "All of it is untested. The EU, Japan and South Korea are going to have to figure out how to operationalize this," Shaw said. "It's not just government purchases. It's getting the private sector motivated to either make investments or back loans, or to purchase certain commodities." And lastly, the main premise for the tariffs Trump has imposed unilaterally faces legal challenges. His legal team met with stiff questioning during appellate court oral arguments over his novel use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, to justify his tariffs. A ruling could come any time and regardless of the outcome seems destined to be settled ultimately by the Supreme Court. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Burning eyes, scratchy throats: Canadian wildfire smoke is making Americans miserable
Peggy Goodwin typically likes to spend as much time outside as possible in the too-short Michigan summers, riding her bike or taking a walk. But Goodwin, and the residents of the assisted living facility where she works, have been spending more time indoors lately as smoke from hundreds of wildfires burning in Canada drifts across the border. Goodwin said the skies have turned hazy, the smell of barbecue lingers in the air, and her eyes burn and water if she's outside too long. "It's just not pleasant," she said. Canadian wildfire smoke has worsened air quality in many parts of the United States, putting a damper on Americans' summer plans and raising health concerns, particularly for vulnerable groups like children, older adults and those with respiratory conditions. The smoke can irritate the eyes, nose and throat and contain particulate matter small enough to be inhaled. The National Weather Service has issued air quality alerts in states including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. See map: Smoke from Canada wildfires prompt air quality alerts in US "Once inhaled, these particles can affect the lungs and heart and cause serious health effects,' the Environmental Protection Agency has said. 'It almost makes me gasp' Carol Schuchart has been eagerly checking the weather reports to see when she and her two dogs might be able to venture outside again in Hanover, Pennsylvania, where she runs a wedding planning and coordination business. Schuchart, who has fibromyalgia, said she's been having trouble breathing since the haze has settled in. "It's hard to go outside and enjoy when that air quality is bad and you have trouble breathing, you know," she said. "So I tend to stay in when it's like this." Meanwhile, Dorothy Curran said she was shocked to see the Minneapolis skyline obscured by wildfire smoke during a recent commute to work. When she stepped outside, Curran said she felt a tightness in her chest. "I was just feeling very scratchy, having a lot of coughs," she said. "And I think a lot of people were feeling that, even without respiratory conditions." For those who do have health issues, the smoke can cause even more concern. As of Aug. 6, the EPA labeled air quality throughout the Plains, Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions "unhealthy for sensitive groups." Wildfire smoke safety tips: How to keep you, your family and beloved pets safe Curran, a pediatric pulmonologist and a professor at the University of Minnesota, said she's been getting more and more calls from parents seeking refills on medication for their children with asthma or other underlying health conditions. "Things that I've been hearing about are shortness of breath with activity, cough, especially a dry cough," she said. "Very rarely, we've been seeing that trigger more airway reactivity or narrow airways leading to wheezing and presenting to the emergency department." Breathing in wildfire smoke can be dangerous because it can contain hazardous chemicals and particulate matter, which is comprised of small particles of solids or liquids suspended in the air, USA TODAY has reported. While larger particles can irritate the eyes, nose, and throat, particles as small as 2.5 micrometers, PM 2.5, can "penetrate deep into the lungs, where they can impair lung function, cause illnesses, such as bronchitis, and increase asthma attacks," according to Yale Medicine. For Joel Williams, the smoke prompted an asthma flare up that landed him in the hospital for more than three weeks. Williams, a retired police officer who lives in Bloomington, Minnesota, said he started wheezing earlier this summer as the sky turned orange and the air began to smell like a fireplace. He said he tried the usual remedies ‒ breathing treatments, extra prednisone and even antibiotics ‒ but the wheezing persisted. Williams said he was eventually admitted to the hospital where he stayed for 23 days. "I am a very active person," he said. "To miss a whole month just sitting in a hospital bed was uncool." Since his release, Williams said he's been staying indoors more, wearing masks and using an air purifier as he waits for conditions to improve. He urged others affected by the smoke to take similar precautions. "I can almost tell as soon as I step out the house, it almost makes me gasp, even with a mask on," he said. "So that tells you how bad this stuff is." Contributing: Michael Loria, Christopher Cann This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Canadian wildfire smoke blamed for burning eyes, scratchy throats
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A New Mexico Law Just Opened the Door to Psychedelic Medicine. Now What?
ROSWELL, N.M., Aug. 7, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Addiction recovery specialist Trent Carter today praised New Mexico's new medical psilocybin law, calling it "a major step forward in modern mental health and addiction care." Carter, a board-certified nurse practitioner and founder of Renew Health, supports the supervised use of psilocybin to treat trauma, depression, and substance use disorders. "I've worked with thousands of patients battling addiction and PTSD," said Carter. "For many, traditional treatments aren't enough. Psilocybin-assisted therapy offers a new path grounded in research and results." Over the past decade, Carter has treated thousands of individuals struggling with opioid and substance use disorders, many of whom lacked access to consistent care or responded poorly to conventional treatment methods. New Mexico's Medical Psilocybin Act, signed into law in April, creates a licensed program for therapeutic psilocybin use under medical oversight. The law includes provisions for patients with treatment-resistant depression, PTSD, and opioid addiction. Carter believes the legislation reflects growing evidence that psilocybin can help people who haven't responded to standard care. But he warns that the program's success depends on who can actually access it. "We can't make this another solution reserved for the wealthy," he said. "The benefits of psilocybin therapy must reach veterans, working-class families, and rural communities. Otherwise, it will fail the people who need it most." Carter has long supported expanding Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) and trauma-informed approaches. He sees psilocybin not as a replacement, but as an addition to a broader treatment strategy. "This isn't about picking favorites," he said. "Recovery looks different for everyone. Psilocybin should be one more option when the science supports it." Trent Carter is available for interviews and expert commentary on: Psilocybin's role in trauma and addiction care Psychedelic treatment and clinical standards Medicaid coverage and public health access On-the-ground realities in recovery clinics For interviews or press inquiries, please contact BrightRay Publishing at publicist@ Contact: BrightRay PublishingEmail: publicist@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE BrightRay Publishing Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data