
Transcript: Former Ambassador Bridget Brink on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," May 18, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Bridget Brink, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on May 18, 2025.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Last month, Ambassador Bridget Brink resigned from her post as America's top diplomat to Ukraine, and last week, she explained why. Though she had been serving as a career diplomat for three decades, Brink wrote in the Detroit Free Press she could, quote, 'no longer in good faith carry out the administration's policy,' accusing President Trump and his team of putting pressure on the victim, Ukraine, rather than on the aggressor, Russia. For more, we're joined now by Ambassador Brink. Ambassador, good to have you here.
AMBASSADOR BRIDGET BRINK: Hi, Margaret, thanks so much for having me on.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You served this country for so many decades. What happened that made you say, 'I can't take it'?
AMB. BRINK: Well, maybe let me give you a little context. What I saw in Ukraine was horrifying. For three years, Russia launched missiles and drones at men, women and children sleeping in their homes, tried to take down the energy grid for millions of Ukrainians, to take out the power, heat and light in the middle of winter, and committed war crimes and atrocities at a level we haven't seen since World War Two. I resigned from Ukraine and also from the Foreign Service, because the policy since the beginning of the administration was to put pressure on the victim Ukraine, rather than on the aggressor, Russia. I fully agree that the war needs to end, but I believe that peace at any price is not peace at all. It's appeasement and as we know from history, appeasement only leads to more war.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And to be clear, you are a career diplomat, so that means you serve regardless of who is the president of the United States and what party they come from. And in fact, when you tried to leave post in January, Secretary Rubio asked you to stay on in Kyiv, as I understand it, you were there for a number of months until April. What specifically with this policy is a problem for you? Because you did. You worked at post under the Trump administration. Was there a trigger that made you say we're getting it so wrong?
BRIDGET BRINK: Well, I would say it wasn't a hard, a hasty, rash decision. It was one that I took over the first three months of the administration. But the first sign was the Oval Office meeting in February, in February, President Trump and President Zelensky, where I saw that our approach is to put pressure on Ukraine and not pressure on Russia.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The President and this administration's policies, you have heard Secretary Rubio say is just to try to get the fighting to stop. Do you see that America has leverage here?
AMB. BRINK: Yes, of course we have leverage-
MARGARET BRENNAN: On Russia?
BRIDGET BRINK: Yes, of course we do. I mean, we're the leader in- of the free world. I think let's just be clear, Russia and Putin have invaded a sovereign, independent, democratic country in the heart of Europe, with the help of North Korea, Iran and China. This is fundamentally against U.S. interests Europe as our largest trading partner, is responsible for 16 million jobs on both continents, and having this war or any festering, unresolved war on the margins of Europe, is very bad for the United States. So what do we need to do as the United States? We need to put together with partners and allies, pressure on Russia to end the war. And there are many ways to do this. We can put additional sanctions in the energy sector, in the banking sector. Russia is not as strong as some people say, or some people think. The economy is hurting. They have 20 percent interest rates- 21 percent interest rates, 10 percent inflation. And so right now is the time to increase the pressure on Russia, to bring Putin to the table, not decrease it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we know that President Trump and President Putin have plans to speak on Monday, when you were still in Kyiv. President Zelenskyy called out the U.S. Embassy for what he called a disappointingly weak reaction from America following a missile attack that killed small children. He said, you must not be afraid to call things by their names, and the U.S. is afraid to even say the word Russian when speaking about the missile that murdered children. Do you feel American officials are being censored from saying things frankly and honestly?
AMB. BRINK: I mean, our job as diplomats is to reflect and represent the policy of the the President and the administration. That's our job. That's- that's what we do as professionals and having worked for five different presidents that requires reflecting that policy that's made constitutionally by the President. So to me, the real question is, how are we going to help to end this war in a way that's in the interest of the United States? And to do that, it can't be peace at any price. It has to be a peace that does things that advance our own interests, and those are really simple. It's how to keep Ukraine free, how to deter Russia, and how to send the right signal to China. And this is what we should be doing. And every step that we make in diplomacy, I think should try to help achieve this goal.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And call things what they are.
AMB. BRINK: It's important for us, as a leader of the free world- again, to be clear and accurate, and also, I think it's an important moment in history. We've seen the devastation that happens when we appease aggressors, and we do not want to do that again. So my strong advice in terms of how to deal with Putin and Russia is not to give a single meeting or concession or legitimacy until Putin agrees to an unconditional ceasefire that's verifiable and moves forward toward a just and lasting peace. On that basis, I can see a conversation and diplomacy that can achieve our interests.
MARGARET BRENNAN: At the State Department, we have seen plans from Secretary Rubio to make some dramatic changes, and- and these are the professionals who would be advising the Secretary and the President in some way on these policies. He's going to close 132 offices, consolidate bureaus, he's going to cut about 15 percent of staff, he says. Eliminate offices. What do you think the impact will be on making the right decision when you have these changes? Is all of this helping our foreign policy or is this hurting the ability to shape it?
AMB. BRINK: I mean, again, having worked for five presidents, every new administration comes in with a set of goals, and our job as professional civil service was to execute and implement those goals to the best of our ability. I believe that cutting the State Department in ways that take away our diplomatic power does not help us achieve American interests, and there are key parts of the State Department that- that ensure our security broader than simply security from the defense side. There's cyber security, there's fight against disinformation, there's ensuring that there's free media and free press. That's all that we do as part of the State Department. So I think how we do it really matters. And my concern would be, as many people have said, If you don't fully fund the State Department, you need a bigger military budget. Because what we do- and we do it in small, sometimes quiet and unknown ways, is we help prevent wars. We help to open markets to U.S. businesses. We help American citizens when they're hurt or injured overseas. We play a very important role that's not necessarily the most public role, but I think this is a critical role to American foreign policy and national interest.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And do it often in war zones far away from your family, as you did for many years. Thank you very much, Ambassador Brink, for sharing your insights with us. We'll be back in a moment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
By Dietrich Knauth President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind "its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County" and return them to his command. WHAT LAWS DID TRUMP CITE TO JUSTIFY THE MOVE? Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' WHAT ARE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE LAW CITED IN TRUMP'S ORDER? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH? The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press. Experts have said that Trump's decision to have U.S. troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticizes his administration's policies. IS TRUMP'S MOVE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEGAL CHALLENGES? Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump's actions would only escalate tensions. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Title 10 also says "orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States," but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. COULD CALIFORNIA SUE TO CHALLENGE TRUMP'S MOVE? California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion' or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said. WHAT OTHER LAWS COULD TRUMP INVOKE TO DIRECT THE NATIONAL GUARD OR OTHER U.S MILITARY TROOPS? Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Casting protests as an 'insurrection' that requires the deployment of troops against U.S. citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren't the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial. But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Top Republican Flames Musk for Pushing GOP ‘Off the Cliff'
Nebraska GOP Rep. Don Bacon blamed billionaire Elon Musk for bankrolling the Republican party to a point of no return amid the former 'First Buddy's' very public spat with President Donald Trump. Bacon—who has publicly opposed Trump's handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, tariffs, Signalgate, and cuts to the United States Agency for International Development—told the New York Times he refuses to follow his party 'off the cliff' and into oblivion. Bacon pointed the finger at Musk for using his money to muscle his way into politics, saying the Tesla CEO used his financial hold over Republicans to tank a bipartisan spending bill that would have averted a government shutdown in December. 'I sort of blame him for that disaster,' Bacon, 61, said. Bacon was the sole House Republican to vote 'no' on renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. However, he did vote 'yes' to shuffle Trump's 'big beautiful bill' to its next phase. Upon voting, Bacon announced that the bill, though 'not perfect,' 'delivers for Nebraskans.' 'I don't like voting 'no,'' Bacon said. 'I like fixing things.' He added that he does what Trump 'has done' at the Southern Border. 'I have no problem with that,' he said. With Musk on the outs with Trump, Bacon said it's an opportunity to 'fight for the soul of our party,' 'I don't want to be the guy who follows the flute player off the cliff. I think that's what's going on right now,' Bacon said, comparing his numerous breaks from party lines to Winston Churchill condemning Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Bacon added, 'Winston Churchill, who is one of my heroes, he was very unpopular 1932 through '40 because he was anti-Nazi. But in 1940, they go, 'Who was the only guy that knew what was going on?'' Shooting down any talk of campaigning to take the top job for himself as president, Bacon instead put the buzz out that he'd like to go into intelligence. 'If I had a perfect lane, someday I'd love to work in an administration as director of intelligence or secretary of Defense or Air Force,' he said. He added, 'I'd rather go down in history as being on the right side of this stuff.' The Daily Beast has reached out to Elon Musk for comment on Bacon's remarks.


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
The Mexican Flag Has Become a Potent Protest Symbol
Elizabeth Torres, 36, held a Mexican flag outside the detention center in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday morning. 'I am a very proud American,' said Ms. Torres, whose grandparents immigrated to the United States. 'But I have to show support also for our Mexican brothers and sisters.' Throughout this weekend's protests, Mexican and other Latin American flags have emerged as protest emblems, which has angered the Trump administration's officials and supporters. Trump officials have cast flag wavers as insurrectionists and seemed to assume that they are not U.S. citizens. Stephen Miller, a top White House adviser, called out ' foreign nationals, waving foreign flags, rioting and obstructing federal law enforcement attempting to expel illegal foreign invaders' in a social media post on Sunday afternoon. But for many protesters who are American citizens, the flag signifies pride in their roots, as well as solidarity with immigrants who are being targeted for deportation. 'They're the children and grandchildren of immigrants,' said Chris Zepeda-Millán, a professor of Chicano studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has studied the immigrants rights movement in California. 'They have no doubt in their own citizenship or their own belonging here, but they understand the racial undertones of the attacks on immigrants,' he said. 'So you're getting this reaction of 'We're not going to let you make us be ashamed of where our parents and grandparents came from,'' Mr. Zepeda-Millán added. On Saturday afternoon in Paramount, Eric Torres, 30 and no relation to Elizabeth Torres, waved a Mexican flag in front of sheriff's deputies in riot gear. Mr. Torres wore an oversized white T-shirt and baggy jeans, typical attire for many Chicanos in Los Angeles. 'I came out here to support my people and show them where we came from,' Mr. Torres said. 'My parents are immigrants. Most of the people right here have immigrant parents, so I'm here to support, show them our love.' The appearance of foreign flags at immigration protests is not new, nor is the outrage by those who deem it un-American. But American flags have been flown by protesters in Los Angeles, too, as they have in past protests against immigration crackdowns. And in Los Angeles this week, fusions of the American flag with that of another country, such as Mexico or Guatemala, have regularly been seen waving among the demonstrators. Some immigrant coalitions in the past have discouraged the waving of foreign flags, lest it feed anti-immigrant backlash. But Alfonso Gonzales Toribio, an ethnic studies professor at the University of California, Riverside, who has written about Latino immigrant rights movements, said that right now, immigrants 'feel attacked.' He added, 'I don't think we are going to be able to dissuade people' from flying the flag of their homeland. 'It gives people a sense of pride.'