Latest news with #RobertGates
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
The Congressional Medal of Honor Society and the Coolidge National Medal of Honor Heritage Center Announce Honorees for the 2025 Patriot Awards Gala in Chattanooga
Honorees for the 2025 Patriot Awards Gala Include Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Fox News Correspondent Johnny "Joey" Jones, Country Singer and Songwriter John Rich, and Philanthropist Kathleen Rollins CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., June 5, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- This fall, Chattanooga, Tennessee – also known as the Birthplace of the Medal of Honor – will proudly host the annual gathering of our nation's living Medal of Honor Recipients. Presented by Textile Rubber & Chemical Company, the 2025 Medal of Honor Celebration is a weeklong event, set for September 30 through October 4, that features a series of public and private events in and around Chattanooga and culminates with four individuals being honored during the 2025 Patriot Awards Gala on Saturday, October 4, at the Chattanooga Convention Center. Each year, the Host Committee for the Medal of Honor Celebration works with the Congressional Medal of Honor Society to select four individuals who, through their life's work, promote and perpetuate the principles upon which our country was founded and encourage the six core values of Patriotism, Citizenship, Courage, Integrity, Sacrifice and Commitment. This year's honorees at the 2025 Patriot Awards Gala are the following: Patriot Award: Dr. Robert M. GatesDr. Robert Gates served as the nation's 22nd U.S. Secretary of Defense. He is honored for his lifelong service to the nation and steadfast leadership on behalf of service members and their families. Prior to becoming secretary of defense, Dr. Gates served as President of Texas A&M University and as Director of Central Intelligence. Throughout his nearly five decades in public service, Dr. Gates served eight presidents in total, across both political parties. On his last day in office as secretary of defense, President Obama awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor. John R. "Tex" McCrary Award for Excellence in Journalism: Johnny "Joey" JonesJoey Jones, a retired U.S. Marine Corps bomb technician who lost both legs in Afghanistan, has become a powerful voice in bridging the gap between military and civilian life. As a Fox News contributor and author with Fox News Books, he uses his platform to share his experiences and advocate for veterans. Since recovering from the IED explosion that changed his life, Jones has dedicated himself to inspiring wounded warriors and helping them navigate the transition to civilian life. His service-driven storytelling resonates nationwide, offering clarity, integrity and hope to audiences from all walks of life. Bob Hope Award: John RichAs a country music artist, songwriter and entrepreneur, John Rich has long been a vocal supporter of the military. Through his Redneck Riviera brand and charitable work, he promotes patriotism and supports veteran-focused causes across the country. To date, he has raised nearly $2 million to support veterans' causes, including VFW's Return the Favor campaign and Folds of Honor. Distinguished Citizen Award: Kathleen RollinsA nationally recognized philanthropist and humanitarian, Kathleen Rollins has spent decades supporting education and ethical leadership. Under her leadership, the Gary W. Rollins Foundation—dedicated to fostering critical thinking, empathy and civic responsibility—has awarded more than $86 million to shape institutions and programs that cultivate informed, compassionate citizens, and $25 million in support of veteran causes. "The Patriot Awards recognize Americans who not only lead with purpose, but who demonstrate excellence in their fields and choose to dedicate their skills, resources, and platforms toward strengthening our country," said Britt Slabinski, Medal of Honor Recipient and President of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. "Whether through advocacy, innovation or philanthropy, each honoree has found meaningful ways to support veterans, invest in communities, and uphold the values that unite us." "This fall in Chattanooga, we will gather to share the legacy of the Medal of Honor and to celebrate how its values continue to be reflected in everyday acts of courage, character, and leadership," Slabinski continued. "We are honored to recognize these individuals and look forward to partnering with them to help champion the values that strengthen our nation." Now in its 65th year, the 2025 Medal of Honor Celebration is being organized by the Coolidge National Medal of Honor Heritage Center (Heritage Center), which led the successful campaign to bring this incredible event to Chattanooga. "The Heritage Center has become a national destination for honoring the stories of America's greatest heroes through its immersive exhibits and values-based education programs," said Lynda Minks Hood, member of the Heritage Center's Board of Trustees and Co-Chair for the 2025 Medal of Honor Celebration. "As the Birthplace of the Medal of Honor and home to the acts of valor associated with the first Medals of Honor awarded in our country's history, Chattanooga provides a powerful setting for holding this historic gathering of all living Medal of Honor Recipients." The 2025 Patriot Awards Gala Details:The Patriot Awards Gala is the capstone event for the 2025 Medal of Honor Celebration and offers an opportunity for the public to mingle with Medal of Honor Recipients, the awardees and other dignitaries attending the prestigious, black-tie event. Actor and humanitarian Gary Sinise, a previous Patriot Award recipient who is widely known for his award-winning portrayal of Lt. Dan Taylor in the landmark film Forrest Gump, will serve as the emcee for the 2025 Patriot Awards Gala. Presented by Textile Rubber & Chemical Company, the 2025 Medal of Honor Celebration is also sponsored by the Gary W. Rollins Foundation, the Gary Sinise Foundation, American Airlines, CSX, the Robert Irvine Foundation, the Jack and Charlotte Frost Family Foundation, the Frank P. Pierce Foundation, Unum, AM General, Food City, Miller Industries, Realized Solutions, Tennessee Valley Authority, the Kennedy Family Foundation and PenFed Credit Union. Additional sponsorships are still available today, ranging from $10,000 to $100,000. To learn more about the 2025 Medal of Honor Celebration, the Patriot Awards Gala and how you can become a sponsor, please visit Link to video about the 2025 Medal of Honor Celebration About the Coolidge National Medal of Honor Heritage CenterThe Coolidge National Medal of Honor Heritage Center is situated in the heart of the Birthplace of the Medal of Honor—Chattanooga, Tennessee. The 19,500 square-foot facility is dedicated to preserving the heritage of the Medal of Honor and sharing the incredible stories of Medal of Honor Recipients through immersive exhibits and educational programming. Through this mission, the Heritage Center strives to educate future generations about the six character traits embodied by the Medal of Honor and its Recipients–Patriotism, Citizenship, Courage, Integrity, Sacrifice and Commitment—and inspire the leaders of tomorrow to embody these traits in their daily actions to make a difference in their community and world. Learn more at About the Congressional Medal of Honor SocietyThe Congressional Medal of Honor Society, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is dedicated to preserving the legacy of the Medal of Honor (the United States' highest award for military valor in action) and its Recipients, inspiring Americans to live the values the Medal represents, and supporting Recipients as they connect with communities across America. Chartered by Congress in 1958, the Society's membership consists exclusively of those individuals who have received the Medal of Honor. The Society carries out its mission through outreach, education, and preservation programs, including the Medal of Honor Character Development Program, Citizen Honors Awards, and The Medal of Honor Museum. As part of Public Law 106-83, the Medal of Honor Memorial Act, The Medal of Honor Museum, which is co-located with the Congressional Medal of Honor Society's headquarters on board the U.S.S. Yorktown at Patriots Point Naval & Maritime Museum in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, was designated as one of three national Medal of Honor sites. The Society's programs and operations are fully funded by generous donors. Learn more about the Medal of Honor and the Congressional Medal of Honor Society's initiatives at View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Coolidge National Medal of Honor Heritage Center 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
CBS News
18-05-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Full transcript of "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," May 18, 2025
On this "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" broadcast, moderated by Ed O'Keefe: Secretary of State Marco Rubio Sen. Chris Van Hollen , Democrat of Maryland , Democrat of Maryland Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates Bridget Brink , former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine , former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Ret. Gen. Stanley McChrystal Click here to browse full transcripts from 2025 of "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington. And this week on Face the Nation: President Trump is back from the Middle East and facing new headwinds on the domestic front, especially on the economy and working with Congress to fund his agenda. The president's whirlwind, deal-seeking trip to some of the moneyed parts of the Middle East may be over, but his efforts pushing for cease-fire deals in both Gaza and Ukraine are stepping up, as the fighting in both conflicts intensifies. We will speak with Secretary of State Marco Rubio exclusively. Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen will preview the fight ahead in Congress over a spending package. And we will get the world view from former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, plus former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink and retired Army General Stanley McChrystal. It's all just ahead on Face the Nation. Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. The president is back and facing some new challenges on the domestic front, disarray in his party when it comes to agreement on budget priorities, a downgrading in our credit rating, and warnings of rising costs to consumers in light of his tariffs. But we begin on the international front with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. We spoke to him Saturday while he was visiting Rome for Pope Leo XIV's inaugural mass and asked about the outcome of the first talks between Russia and Ukraine in nearly three years. Those took place Friday in Turkey. Vladimir Putin skipped the meeting that he himself had proposed and instead sent representatives. Ukraine's top diplomat described it as an attempt by Russia to buy time and imitate a peace process. (Begin VT) MARCO RUBIO (U.S. Secretary of State): They were not a complete waste of time. For example, there were 1,000 prisoners that are going to be exchanged. And that, from a humanitarian standpoint, is very positive. He explained to me that they are going to be preparing a document outlining their requirements for a cease-fire that would then lead to broader negotiations. So, obviously, the Ukrainian side is going to be working on their own proposal. And, hopefully, that will be forthcoming soon. MARGARET BRENNAN: You've said repeatedly it's just a matter of days, though, in terms of the waning patience that the U.S. has for this diplomacy to succeed. So are – are they just tapping you along, as President Trump has said? Are they just seeking to continue to talk to buy time? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Are they tapping us along? Well, that's what we're trying to find out. We'll find out pretty soon. They met last – yesterday or the day before in Turkey. From that, they agreed they're going to exchange paper on ideas that get to a cease-fire. If those papers have ideas on them that are realistic and rational, then I think we know we've made progress. If those papers, on the other hand, have requirements in them that we know are unrealistic, then we'll have a different assessment. On the one hand, we're trying to achieve peace and end a very bloody, costly and destructive war. So there's some element of patience that is required. On the other hand, we don't have time to waste. So we don't want to be involved in this process of just endless talks. There has to be some progress, some movement forward. Ultimately, one of the things that could help break this logjam, perhaps the only thing that can, is a direct – direct conversation between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. And he's already openly expressed a desire and a belief that that needs to happen. And – and, hopefully, that'll be worked out soon as well. MARGARET BRENNAN: You're planning on that? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Well, I don't know if – we're – we certainly made the offer. The president's made that offer already publicly. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: The mechanics of setting that kind of meeting up would require a little bit of work, so I can't say that's being planned as we speak in terms of picking a site and a date. But the president wants to do it. He wants to do it as soon as – as feasible. I think the Russian side has also expressed a willingness to do it. And so now it's just a question of bringing them – bringing everyone together and figuring out where and when. MARGARET BRENNAN: Your Senate colleague, former senate colleague Lindsey Graham was next to you in that meeting with the Ukrainian foreign minister. He has a veto-proof majority on this bill to put sanctions on Russia. How quickly do you want the option for more sanctions on Russia? Or are you asking him to wait? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: No, we're not. Look, the Senate is going to act, ultimately. I mean, I think, in the past, we've asked them to give us a little time to see if we can make some progress on our talks. But we've also been pretty clear with the Russian side for weeks now, going back six or seven weeks. We've been communicating to the Russian side that this effort was – was being undertaken, that we anticipated that, when all was said and done, it would have close to 80 co-sponsors in the Senate, and I imagine a comparable percentage of support in the House, that that was an effort we couldn't stop and don't control. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to move on to another part of the world. You've been very involved in the administration's efforts to crack down on this Venezuelan gang TDA that has been designated as a terror group by the U.S. Do you accept the intelligence community's assessment that the Venezuelan gang is not a proxy force of the Maduro government? That was the National Intelligence Council assessment. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Yes, that's their assessment. They're wrong. One of the warnings out there by the FBI is not simply that Tren de Aragua are – are a terrorist organization, but one that has already been operationalized to murder a – to murder a – an – an opposition member in another country. MARGARET BRENNAN: But that's a different thing than being a proxy force controlled by the Maduro government. Part of this is at the heart of the legal arguments the administration is having over its ability to continue to deport suspected gang members. That's why this assessment is so key. You completely reject that intelligence community finding? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: They're – they're – yes, I agree 100 percent with the FBI's finding. This is a prison gang that the Venezuelan government has actively encouraged to leave the country, a prison gang that in some cases they've been in cooperation with. And, by the way, Tren de Aragua members that have been returned to Venezuela on some of these planes that have gone back have been greeted like heroes at the airport. There's no doubt in our mind and in my mind and in the FBI's assessment that this is a group that the regime in Venezuela uses, not just to try to destabilize the United States, but to project power, like they did by murdering a member of the opposition in Chile. MARGARET BRENNAN: South Africa's president is traveling to the United States this week to meet with President Trump. The administration has prioritized bringing some white South Africans, Afrikaners, to the United States, despite the increased restrictions on refugees. President Trump claims there's a genocide under way in South Africa. That's a legal determination. The State Department would make it. Are you trying to determine that now? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: I would determine that these people are having their properties taken from them. You can – they can call it whatever they want, but these are people that, on the basis of their race, are having their properties taken away from them, and their lives being threatened and in some cases killed. These are people that applied and made these claims in their applications and seek to come to the United States in search of – of refuge. I – we've often been lectured by people all over the place about how the United States needs to continue to be a beacon for those who are oppressed abroad. Well, here's an example where we're doing that. So I don't understand why people are criticizing it. I think people should be celebrating it, and I think people should be supporting it. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, is there evidence of a genocide that you have? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: If, in fact, as many claim, they are in favor – I think there's evidence, absolutely, that people have been murdered, that people have been forcibly removed from their properties, both by the government in some cases because of a law they passed, but also because of independent groups encouraged by political parties inside of South – inside of South Africa. So, listen, to move here from half-a-world away and leave behind the only homeland you've ever known, that's not something people do lightly. These people are doing it for a reason. So we welcome them to the United States, and I think there may be more coming soon. MARGARET BRENNAN: The president says he wants to end wars, but Israel's prime minister has said he is expanding this ground operation inside of Gaza. The IDF says it's to seize strategic areas. Does the U.S. fully support expanding this war? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: We expand the destruction of Hamas, the ending of Hamas. We support a future for the people of Gaza that is free of Hamas and full of opportunity. That's what we support. And this is a group that came across on October 7 and carried out one of the most vile series of attacks, kidnappings, rapes, murders and hostage- taking that we've ever seen. That's what we support. Now, that said, we also support an end of the conflict, a cease-fire. We don't want people obviously suffering as they have, and we blame Hamas for that, but, nonetheless, they're suffering. And so we are actively engaged. Even as I speak to you now, we are actively engaged in trying to figure out if there is a way to get more hostages out through some cease-fire-type mechanism. Ambassador Witkoff is working on that on an hourly basis. It's something we're all very focused on and continue to be very supportive of. And I hope we'll have good news soon in that regard, but I think some impediments remain. MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you asking Israel to slow down this military push? And the Qatari prime minister told FOX News that there was a deal being put together for all hostages or many hostages to be released after Edan Alexander, that American-Israeli, was released recently, but then the Israeli military bombed a hospital, killing 70 civilians, and everything went sideways. Is that your understanding of what happened? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Well, I would say that… MARGARET BRENNAN: It was this lack of care of collateral damage? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: No, I – the way I would characterize it is that this war could end immediately. And Israel's made that clear. It can end immediately if Hamas surrenders and gives up their weapons and demilitarizes and releases all the hostages, including the deceased ones. If they did that, this conflict would end. That's been true from the very beginning. It's been true for months now. They're the ones that have chosen not to accept that offer. MARGARET BRENNAN: You have said that Iran is, in your view, a threshold nuclear state, and we're at a critical moment. The U.S. and Iran are talking again. Can you clarify what the U.S. policy is here? Is the bottom line that Iran cannot enrich any uranium, even if it is at low levels for civilian purposes? Do they need to fully dismantle the program? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Well, look, if you're able to enrich at any level, you now are basically able to enrich at weapons grade very quickly. I mean, that's just a fundamental fact, and everyone knows it, and that was the problem with the Obama deal. But the end goal here is simple. Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. And the president's preference – because he doesn't like war, the president's preference is to achieve that through a peaceful negotiation. He's a builder, not a bomber. That's what he views himself as, and that's what he is. He's a president that wants peace, and so he's offered that route. And that's one we hope the Iranians will take. But he's been very clear. Iran is never going to have the capability. They're never going to have a nuclear weapon. It's not going to happen. MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Secretary, I know you have a busy schedule. Thank you for your time this morning. The diplomatic discussions on the Ukraine war will continue tomorrow, when President Trump is scheduled to speak with Vladimir Putin and then Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. As Secretary Rubio mentioned, U.S. negotiators are also hard at work trying to get a cease-fire in Gaza. Our Debora Patta reports on the situation there. (Begin VT) DEBORA PATTA: Since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stepped up the war in Gaza this past week, close to 500 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. (voice-over): For Palestinians, it is more of what they have endured with little respite for over 19 months, relentless bombing in areas mostly reduced to rubble, a death toll that has seen dozens killed almost every day this week, Israeli orders to evacuate, forcing Palestinians to pack up and move once again with no idea where they are heading to. More than two-thirds of Gaza has been declared a military no-go zone. The rest is not much safer. Israel has imposed a total aid blockade. For more than 75 days, it has stopped all food and medicine from entering the territory, saying it is to force Hamas to hand over the remaining hostages. Hunger is so rife that famine is once again stalking Gaza, according to the World Food Program's Antoine Renard, who's just returned from there. ANTOINE RENARD (World Food Program): You have around an estimated 14,000 children that are now facing what we call severe acute malnutrition. DEBORA PATTA: They could die without intervention. ANTOINE RENARD: But when famine is on, it's already too late. That will be a failure of all the international community. (GIRL CRYING) DEBORA PATTA: Doctors have told us they are barely able to treat starving children, as they are running out of supplies because of the blockade. A global hunger monitor says already half-a-million are on the brink of starvation and a million more have barely enough food to survive. (End VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: That's Debora Patta reporting from Israel. Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: And we are back now with Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen. Good morning, and good to have you here. SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-Maryland): Good to be here, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: We just showed some reporting from our colleague Debora Patta with incredible pictures from our shooter inside of Gaza, Marwan. It's hard to look at pictures of children in that level of starvation. You have said: "The Israeli government is starving civilians and the U.S. is complicit in the gross violation of international law." The U.N. is begging to go in. The Israeli government says they don't want to work with the U.N. here. They want to work with this Gaza humanitarian foundation that's just being set up. What do you know about this? Should there be U.S. support for it? SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: So, Margaret, you're right. It's very hard to look at those pictures. And the United States has been complicit. President Trump was in the region and really did nothing, said virtually nothing about what's happening in Gaza, which is on fire. We're in the 77th day of a full blockade. Two million Palestinians are starving. This is collective punishment that is clearly illegal under international law. And this other idea that's been cooked up either by the Israelis or by the Trump administration is clearly not fit for purpose when it comes to trying to address this burgeoning famine. And all it will do is further allow food to be used as a weapon of war. So, I hope the United States will back off this plan. None of the credible international organizations have said that they will participate, because it violates international norms in how it's structured. And so I hope the United States will back off and immediately call today to allow the trucks right now that have food to be able to come provide food to starving people. These are provided by international aid organizations. MARGARET BRENNAN: Is there anything that the United States can do in terms of leverage? You were – you have been bipartisan in your criticism. You said that what happened in Gaza is a black stain on Joe Biden's legacy as president. You are criticizing the current administration for not doing more here. What leverage is there? I mean, is what you're saying falling on any ears that want to listen? SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Well, I have had conversations with some people in the Trump administration and made clear that they need to do more. One of the very obvious things they could do is, President Trump today could call upon the Netanyahu government to let aid in. I mean, the president acknowledged there are people starving in Gaza the other day. He said so. But why hasn't he called on Netanyahu to let the aid in? Let's just start with that. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we will follow the diplomacy that Steve Witkoff is leading. I want to ask you about what's happening here at home. The treasury secretary this morning is dismissing the news that Moody's credit rating agency downgraded America's credit. It's like the first time since 1917. Now all three agencies have said the U.S. fiscal situation is unsustainable. Moody's specifically said the upcoming bills and spending reductions won't make a difference. You're an appropriator. You are in a position of power here. What is going to happen with Capitol Hill and the president's agenda? Is it going to be much of a fight? Is there going to be anyone pushing back because of this? SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Oh, yes, Margaret, what you're seeing is, the Republican plan, the Trump plan is essentially to give these huge tax cuts to very wealthy people and corporations, at the expense of everybody else. They're going to cut Medicaid. They're going to cut food and nutrition programs. But even after those cuts… MARGARET BRENNAN: They say they're not, as you know. SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: But even – well, it's in their current House bill. They have $700 billion in Medicaid cuts and $300 billion in food and nutrition programs in the House bill now. I mean, they can always change it. But, even after that, they're going to – this will result in a huge spike in the national debt. And so that's why Moody's is warning people that we're going down this road. And it will have a direct harmful impact on every American, because what it will do is drive up interest rates, right? Just like the Trump across-the-board tariffs are raising prices, so will these big deficits and debts they incur. MARGARET BRENNAN: Moody's also says, though, that this has been cumulative, which means Democrats bear some responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in now. SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: But just on that point… MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: … I have put forward a variety of plans to close tax loopholes for the very rich to begin to address the deficit problem. MARGARET BRENNAN: Speaking of responsibility, I'm sure you have been tracking all the headlines and the conversation about President Biden and what happened with that debriefing of him by the special counsel Hur during that Justice Department investigation of his mishandling of classified information. No charges were brought, but the audio of that was obtained by Axios. In it, you hear the president halting at times. Remember, Hur was the one who said President Biden was a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. And Democrats really pushed back at the time at that, saying that sounded very political. In hindsight, do you think Democrats were too willing to look the other way? SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Well, hindsight is 20/20. We know a lot more now than we knew then. I can just say, personally, I had limited interactions with President Biden at the time. He came to the Key Bridge in Maryland when it collapsed, and we had a good conversation. So hindsight is 20/20. Obviously, if we could redo this tape and play it over again, we would do things differently. MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you feel like you have to explain and defend that now? I mean, there was a piece in "The Washington Post" from Dan Balz who said Democrats are either – were either covering up then or covering their behinds now. SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: No. MARGARET BRENNAN: Did… (CROSSTALK) SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Well, look, I mean, I think we can acknowledge that this was a – people overlooked a serious problem or were just not aware of it. MARGARET BRENNAN: Willingly? SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Well, I don't – I can only speak for myself. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: I didn't – I wasn't aware of this. MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: But we are focused on the future right now. I mean, right now, we have the Republican tax plan, which is a giveaway to the rich. We have – we didn't talk about it, but Donald Trump's visit to the Middle East, my view is, the overall narrative here was selling out U.S. national interests for the private gain of his family business. He essentially gave away the crown jewels of American A.I. and semiconductor technology to the Gulf… MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: … in exchange, in exchange, it looks like, for a $2 billion investment in the Trump family stablecoin venture. MARGARET BRENNAN: But – another topic, but, on this point, I hear you want to look forward. I do too. But don't Democrats have to reckon with this and say to the public that – the answer to that question, you know? SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: I think we have all acknowledged that, if we had the benefit of hindsight, we would have done things differently. I don't know if all of us have. I have recognized that. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: But, at this point, it seems to me the American people are much more interested in the conversation as to the future of our country… MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: … and the damage that Elon Musk and Donald Trump are doing every day. MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Van Hollen, thank you for your time today. SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Good to be with you. MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be back in a moment. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: Last week, we traveled to Williamsburg, Virginia, to speak with Robert Gates, the former defense secretary and CIA Director, who now serves as chancellor of William & Mary. Before retiring from public service, Gates served under eight different presidents. And we always enjoy his perspective on the state of the world. (Begin VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: When we look around the world right now, there are a lot of hot spots, not just this land war in Ukraine in the middle of Europe. You have missile attacks between two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan. You have China's increased aggression in Asia, the ongoing Israeli war, as we talked about. I reread this essay that you wrote two years ago, and you said: "The U.S. confronts graver threats to its security than it ever has." Two years later, what does the playing field look like to you? ROBERT GATES (Former U.S. Secretary of Defense): I think that, if anything, the peril has gotten greater, simply because both Russia and, especially China have significantly increased their arsenals and their military power. And particularly, as I say in the case of China, China has been much more aggressive in the Taiwan Strait and in the South China Sea than they were two years ago. I think they put themselves in a position, if they chose to do so, to put essentially a stranglehold around Taiwan in terms of shipping and so on. And, you know, what we've never faced before is large, aggressive nuclear powers, both in Europe and in Asia, collaborating. And what we are facing today, we've never faced as a country, is a country that's almost as rich as we are that is technologically advanced competing with us in many areas of technology, technology advances, and – and one that has unanswered ambitions, unfulfilled ambitions… MARGARET BRENNAN: You're talking about China. ROBERT GATES: … in the neighborhood, all China. And so, you know, China is the bigger threat, by far, but doesn't negate the 1,500 nuclear weapons that the Russians have either. (End VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: And we will be right back with more from our conversation from former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION. We also talked to former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about the president's trip to the Middle East and more. (BEGIN VT) ROBERT GATES: The Middle East may be one place where there are some real opportunities and – and – and possibilities. It's – it's a place to do business for China, for the United States, for everybody else. The actions of Israel post the October 7th massacre by Hamas has really changed the strategic equation in the Middle East because Iran has been dramatically weakened. Iran's in a very weak place now. And if there is an opportunity to do a deal on nuclear, this is it. MARGARET BRENNAN: You didn't really like the Obama era nuclear deal with Iran. Now, President Trump is trying something that may be somewhat similar. What do you think has to be in it for it to really be a success? ROBERT GATES: Iran really has to stop their nuclear program. They have to stop their enrichment entirely. And they have to give up – MARGARET BRENNAN: Entirely? ROBERT GATES: Entirely. MARGARET BRENNAN: Not just highly enriched? All enriched? ROBERT GATES: Entirely. And – and if they want to have a civil nuclear program, they need to import the uranium, the enriched uranium, to do that. But they need to get rid of the stockpile. MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you oppose an Israeli strike with U.S. support on Iran's nuclear program? ROBERT GATES: The problem that I've had with a strike on the Iranian nuclear program is that it buys you a year or two. You're not going to be able to (INAUDIBLE). Short of – as long as you're using conventional weapons, you cannot get at the very deeply buried parts of the Iranian nuclear program. MARGARET BRENNAN: We're starting to see some points of friction with the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government in particular. Are – are we at the point now where President Trump needs to publicly be clear that the war in Gaza has to end and withhold U.S. support if it doesn't? ROBERT GATES: I think it would be a very heavy political lift for the president to say he's going to cut off military supplies to Israel unless they stop in Gaza. I think he can say a lot of things in terms of putting pressure on Netanyahu to stop the war. He can put forward proposals on how humanitarian assistance and other things might – might go forward. MARGARET BRENNAN: Is there a cost to this ongoing support of such a bloody war, given the projections from U.S. intelligence about the long-term recruitment of – among terror groups around the world because of the devastation? ROBERT GATES: I think there is a cost. I think it does provide a basis for radicalization in the region. But it is interesting to me that you're not hearing much out of the Gulf Arabs and – and others in terms of decrying the ongoing operations and so on. MARGARET BRENNAN: Secretary of State Rubio said he believes that there won't be a clear read on Vladimir Putin's intentions until he sits down with President Donald Trump. You've met Putin before. Does it really take a face to face to judge Putin's intentions? ROBERT GATES: I'm not sure even in a face to face that you can judge Putin's intentions. My – my own view is, Putin feels that he has a destiny to recreate the Russian empire. Putin hasn't given up on any of his original goals in Ukraine. He's going to insist on occupying all four of the eastern provinces of the Donbas, perpetual recognition of Russian ownership of Crimea, a pro-Russian government in Kyiv, and a – a Ukrainian military that looks a lot like an enhanced police force. He wants Ukraine basically to be a client state of Russia. MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you advise President Trump not to take that face to face, even if Vladimir Putin was willing to do it? ROBERT GATES: I would say you need to figure out some leverage that you have going into this meeting with Putin. What can you do that puts more pressure to bear on Putin, to make him believe his – his interests are served by, not just a ceasefire, but a – basically at least freezing things in place. MARGARET BRENNAN: How sustainable do you think it is for the secretary of state to also be the national security advisor, the acting archivist and the acting director of USAID? ROBERT GATES: It's interesting. A lot of people point to the precedent when Henry Kissinger was secretary of state and national security advisor from 1973 to 1975. I was at the NSC during most of that period. And all I can tell you is, Henry Kessinger was an absentee landlord. I mean what made it work in that time was that Henry had a very experienced and wise deputy in General Brent Scowcroft. And Scowcroft essentially ran the NSC day to day. And Henry would appear now and then. But – but mainly did his secretary of state job. So, whether or not this will work, I think, depends on whether the secretary of state has a deputy at the NSC who is very experienced, knows the inner agency and – and – and is respected and trusted by the president. MARGARET BRENNAN: With this president, I've heard from officials, which is he does not trust National Security Council because of the history with the first impeachment. So, he is suspect of a lot of people who sit there. What's the danger of that when you don't trust the people who are briefing you on some of the most sensitive national security issues, or advising you? ROBERT GATES: I think it's important to – for people to remember, the NSC is the president's personal foreign policy staff. So, I think if – if people on the NSC – and I don't care whether they come from the State Department or CIA or the military or anyplace else, or from the outside. On that staff, if you can't be loyal to the president, then you should leave. MARGARET BRENNAN: What do you mean loyal? ROBERT GATES: I mean be willing – embrace his policies and do what you can to implement those policies and to ensure that the other agencies are implementing the president's policies. And when the time comes, if the time comes that you disagree with those policies, then, it seems to me, it's incumbent on you to return to your agency or to leave the government. I think he has a right to expect loyal. And my – what I – my line – my line when I was at the NSC was, be loyal or be gone. MARGARET BRENNAN: Including when it means having a different view of the last election? Or having family members who work in the Justice Department? I mean there are some different definitions of loyalty. ROBERT GATES: Absolutely. If you hold views that are unacceptable to the president on things like that, like the election and so on, then you probably don't believe in his NSC staff. Maybe you belong at the State Department or at CIA or someplace, but you don't belong inside the White House complex. I think you need to give the president your honest views on things, on the subjects that you're in charge of. And it may be unwelcome to him. But he needs to hear different perspectives and different points of view. So, being loyal doesn't mean not – it doesn't mean pulling your punches in terms of the policy debate. But once the president's made a decision, then you have to salute. (End VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: Our full interview with Secretary Gates is on our website, our YouTube channel as well. We'll be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: Last month Ambassador Bridget Brink resigned from her post as America's top diplomat to Ukraine. She was the first American female ambassador in a war zone. For more we're joined now by Ambassador Brink. Ambassador, good to have you here. BRIDGET BRINK (Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine): 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? BRIDGET 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 II. 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 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. MARGARET BRENNAN: In February? BRIDGET BRINK: In February. MARGARET BRENNAN: Between President Trump and President Zelenskyy? BRIDGET BRINK: Yes. 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? BRIDGET BRINK: Yes, of course, we have leverage. MARGARET BRENNAN: From – for Russia? BRIDGET BRINK: Yes, of course, we do. I mean we're the – the leader and – 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 is 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's 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? BRIDGET 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 interest. 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. BRIDGET BRINK: It's important for us, as the 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 – and diplomacy that can achieve our interests. MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you very much, Ambassador Brink, for sharing your insights with us. BRIDGET BRINK: Thank you. MARGARET BRENNAN: We'll be back in a moment. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We're joined now by retired General Stanley McCrystal, whose new book is "On Character: Choices that Define a Life." Good morning to you. GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL (Retired, CEO And Chairman, McChrystal Group): Thanks for having me, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you write that "character is a choice built upon our deeply held beliefs." It sounds like you really think there's a lack of it these days. We certainly see there's a loss of trust in many of our country's institutions, whether it's the federal government, journalism, the courts. How do you describe our national character right now and the leaders we have? GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Yes, I think it's confused. If you look at polling, as you've just referred to the lack of trust, like, 22 percent of Americans a year ago had trust in the U.S. government. Only 34 percent had trust in other Americans. So, I think we all sort of intuitively know we have a real problem. But what I would argue is, our national leaders are not the cause of the problem. They're the symptom of the problem. The cause is us at our individual level. Our unwillingness to think about character, to talk about character and to demand character. And I would also argue that we're also the cure. There is a symptom that we see, and we're distracted by it, all the things that we are disappointed by, people lying, people doing things that we find beneath us. As a nation, our character is our fate. And so what I'm trying to do is convince people to start a national conversation on character with the idea it starts at the bottom. Not at the top. We need to start it down where things actually happen, on farms, in schools. We've just sent out 240 copies of the book to college sports coaches, to try to have them start just to talk about character. And so, that's what I'm passionate about. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I admire the effort. You know, it's interesting to look at where this began. Not pinning it on a person. GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Sure. MARGARET BRENNAN: I understand you're trying to do that. But is it a symptom of, it's always been this way, we just have more transparency and thus we know more about people's flaws? Why does this seem to be building as a problem? GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Well, we've always had a problem with certain evil in society and corruption, lack of character. But I think the fact that we see everything so much now we normalize it. We start to accept things in celebrities or leaders that are frankly things we wouldn't have accepted even a generation ago. And that's sort of our problem. We give them our likes on social media. We spend our money with them. We vote for them. And we know better than that. And so I think the responsibility again arcs back to us. MARGARET BRENNAN: You're not a Democrat or a Republican you say. GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Right. MARGARET BRENNAN: Though you did endorse Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the last elections. GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Right. MARGARET BRENNAN: Most retired military try to stay out of politics and – and make an argument that that's crossing the Rubicon in some ways. GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Yes. Yes. MARGARET BRENNAN: Why did you? GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Well, of course, you go back to Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant. They actually went into politics. MARGARET BRENNAN: Fair. GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: So, there is some tradition. But that was not my goal to get into politics. I just felt that we had hit a period in which we were so adrift as a nation in terms of character. We were accepting something that is not as good as we are capable of. So, I made a decision. And I'll be honest, it was tough, because there's a lot of pushback from peers and from outsiders that say, you shouldn't get political. But I don't think that saying that America should stand up for its values and for its character is necessarily political. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we had, in the past, conversations with other guests that question about, what does America stand for and does it matter? There is a shift more towards pragmatism or what's in it for me on the national scale. That's very much in our politics right now. GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: And I think it's a mistake for the nation. If you think what really helped the United States in the modern area, we'll call it after World War II, people admired American ideas. They admired American democracy. They admired our social, our culture. They didn't like every part of it. And they knew that we, as a nation, make mistakes. But countries and people wanted to be more like us than they wanted to be like the Soviet Union or other enemies. And as long as we are an example that people want to be, it gives us extraordinary influence and power. When it becomes transactional, when we – when we become somebody that just wants something from them and we're unwilling to be generous, we're unwilling to sacrifice for larger ideals, we lose some of our moral standing and I think some of our national force, our power. MARGARET BRENNAN: At the Pentagon right now we hear a lot about values and culture sort of being at odds with the mission, or that's how it's being described, right? Secretary Hegseth has talked a lot about restoring the warrior ethos. That's part of his justification for eliminating diversity programs or DEI. Do you think DEI really, quote/unquote, hurts lethality? GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Yes. I am completely aligned with Secretary Hegseth on the idea that we need to defend the nation, that the Defense Department needs to be as effective as it can be, and that a certain warrior ethos matters. We just define it differently. In my experience, we tend to understand that everybody can contribute. Particularly in today's modern wars. The idea that everybody has got to look a certain way, got to have biceps of a certain size, there's got to be a male, straight, all these things is not my experience. In the counterterrorist fight, where much of my experience was, it became a meritocracy. You didn't care what somebody looked like or how old they were, what their gender was, their sexual orientation, because it was too important to get the job done. And I would argue now, America needs to harness talent from every corner of our society. Everyone. I would even argue that if – if we went back to a draft, we could draft people with physical disabilities because much of what we do, that's not a block to that. And so, I think we need to think about, what do we need to feel the most effective armed forces. And I think that the DEI thing is frankly a distraction. It's not helpful. MARGARET BRENNAN: In terms of national character, when you were commanding forces, the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, ISAF, you know very well that country. The Taliban has since taken over. GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Yes. MARGARET BRENNAN: We have seen them strip women and girls of even the right to have their voice heard in public. You have seen them carry out retribution against Afghans who worked with our country and put their lives at risk. This past week, the Trump administration said Afghanistan is safe enough for people living here to go back. They stripped the legal protections, the temporary protected status. They are ending some of the programs that helped to evacuate our American allies there. What do you think that says about our character now? GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: I think it's disappointing. I personally disagree with that decision. But I also think it sends a message. What about people who we ask to ally with us in the future? That we ask to partner with us. They look at what happened in the past. And so, I think our national character should be bigger than that. And we're capable of being bigger than that. MARGARET BRENNAN: General McChrystal, thank you very much for sharing your reflections. GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: You're kind to have me. Thank you. MARGARET BRENNAN: And your book, "On Character: Choices that Define a Life." We'll be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: That's it for us today. Thank you for watching. Until next week. For FACE THE NATION, I'm Margaret Brennan. (ANNOUNCEMENTS)
CBS News
18-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Transcript: Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," May 18, 2025
The following is the full transcript of an interview with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a portion of which aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on May 18, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, if you're ready, we'll dig in. FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES: Okay. MARGARET BRENNAN: And there's a lot to ask you about, sir. So President Trump just concluded this week-long trip through the Middle East. He's lifted sanctions on Syria and its interim new government. He is trying to get some kind of diplomatic deal with Iran. He's courting a lot of Gulf money. So far, no success in getting Israel to stop its war in Gaza. But how would you judge his foreign policy focus to date? SEC. GATES: What's interesting to me is that we're back in the Middle East, after all the talk about the pivot to Asia and- and China and so on. We have two aircraft carriers, strike groups, in the Middle East. We had the president in the Middle East. I don't have to say this though, Margaret, I think, ironically, the Middle East may be one place where there are some real opportunities and- and- and possibilities. I think that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, are all so focused on diversifying their economies, reforming, modernizing, bringing their populations into the 21st century. It's a- it's a place to do business, for China, for the United States, for everybody else. The actions of Israel, post the October 7 massacre by Hamas, has really changed the strategic equation in the Middle East, because Iran has been dramatically weakened, mainly by Israel's attacks on Hamas, on the attack- our attacks on the Houthis, but also, and especially, Hezbollah, and the weakening of Hezbollah. And with the fall of Assad, Syria is no longer a conduit for Iranian weapons to get to Hezbollah. So- and then you add to that, the Iranian- the Israeli air attack on the Iranian nuclear facility that basically wiped out their air defenses. Iran's in a very weak place now. And if there is an opportunity to do a deal on nuclear, this is it. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, when it comes to that nuclear program, you didn't really like the Obama era nuclear deal with Iran. President Trump is trying something that may be somewhat similar. What do you think has to be in it for it to really be a success? SEC. GATES: Well, I think- I- I would agree with those in the Senate and- and elsewhere that Iran really has to stop their nuclear program. They have to stop their enrichment entirely. And they have to give up-- (BEGIN CROSSTALK) MARGARET BRENNAN: Entirely, not just-- SEC. GATES: Entirely. MARGARET BRENNAN: --highly enriched, all enrichment? SEC. GATES: Entirely. And- and if they want to have a civil nuclear program, they need to import the uranium, the enriched uranium, to do that. But they need to get rid of the stockpile. They were- they were supposed to get rid of a big part of the stockpile earlier. But I think- I think just given the nature of their program and the secretiveness of the whole thing, I think in terms of monitoring compliance, you really have to get rid of- of- of their program in a way that it can be monitored by international experts from the IAEA or- or whoever. But I- you know, one of my concerns, and- and- that's not going- with the earlier agreement, that's apparently not going to be addressed and won't be in this, was the need for them to get rid of their ballistic missile programs. And I think that's not going to be in- if there is an agreement, it doesn't look to me like that's going to be a part of it. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you said, no enrichment. It's not clear what the president's policy is, because he has different advisors who say different things about what the end state is. And some of that, according to our reporting, is because the president has to make some of those very central policy decisions still. That's a different approach, I'm sure, from White Houses you worked in, where you went in with a goal, a strategy, and you worked back from there. Not, let's talk, and then figure out the strategy. SEC. GATES: Well, I have the impression, and- and I- I don't talk to anybody in the administration, but- so it's just what I hear and what I read. But, I think that his approach is, let's pursue these different avenues and see how far we can get, and if we can get a deal that includes getting rid of the entire- entirely of the enrichment, then that's what we ought to strive for. But if we can't, maybe we settle for something short of that. And- and I think it's basically just playing it tactically, if you will, in terms of seeing what's possible, but with the overall objective of getting some kind of an agreement, and I would hope one that can be monitored by the U.S. or by others to make sure the Iranians aren't cheating. MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you oppose an Israeli strike with U.S. support on Iran's nuclear program? SEC. GATES: The problem that I've had with a strike on the Iranian nuclear program, from the time I was secretary, is that it buys you a year or two. You're not going to be able to destroy, short of- as long as you're using conventional weapons, you cannot get at the very deeply buried parts of the Iranian nuclear program. That's why on site inspection is so important, because you really can't- there's no- there's no kind of ordnance. Even our massive ordnance penetrator won't get that far down. So my argument is, if you attack their nuclear program in a way designed to try and destroy it, you will simply make the Iranians more determined to have a nuclear weapon and to bury the whole program even deeper. It buys you a little time, but it doesn't solve the problem. MARGARET BRENNAN: The president seems to be saying, the threat of military force exists, but he really wants a diplomatic deal. SEC. GATES: That's certainly my impression. MARGARET BRENNAN: So you have a history with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. You're smiling. His government, you've said, acts like an ungrateful ally. We're starting to see some points of friction with the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government in particular. Are- are we at the point now where President Trump needs to publicly be clear that the war in Gaza has to end, and withhold U.S. support if it doesn't? SEC. GATES: I think it would be a very heavy political lift for the President to say he's going to cut off military supplies to Israel, unless they stop in Gaza. I think he can say a lot of things in terms of putting pressure on Netanyahu to stop the war. He can put forward proposals on how humanitarian assistance and other things might might go forward. But I would- I- it would be very difficult for any U.S. president, I think, to say we're just going to cut Israel off from military supplies-- MARGARET BRENNAN: But you did support- I remember President Biden's decision to withhold very specific- actually, just delay delivery of very specific weapons. SEC. GATES: Well, over time, and including when I was Secretary, I opposed providing Israel with certain kinds of ordinance, mainly because what they wanted was the kind of ordinance that would allow them to attack Israel- attack the Iranian nuclear program. MARGARET BRENNAN: Is there a cost to this ongoing support of such a bloody war, given the projections from U.S. intelligence about the long term recruitment of- among terror groups around the world because of the devastation? SEC. GATES: I think there is a cost. I think it does provide a basis for radicalization in the region. But it is interesting to me that you're not hearing much out of the Gulf Arabs and- and others in terms of decrying the ongoing operations and so on. I think- I mean, what has been the case to- to date is that the Saudis have really insisted that there be something for the Palestinian people before they would do- before they would establish diplomatic relations with Israel. I don't know as a result of this week's talks whether that may have shifted in some way, but- but clearly they are worried about the feelings of their own people toward the- in their countries, about the- about what has happened to the Palestinians, and what is continuing to happen to the Palestinians. And I think they are worried that- that there could be some protests and- and strong feelings on the part of their populations. And the governments, I think, are all for establishing relationships with with Israel, as- as the UAE and others have done. But I think- I think that it's still a problem for the Saudis. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to move to another part of the world, and that is Ukraine. Secretary of State Rubio said he believes that there won't be a clear read on Vladimir Putin's intentions until he sits down with President Donald Trump. You've met Putin before. Would you- what would you advise for that one-on-one? And does it really take a face-to-face to judge Putin's intentions? SEC. GATES: I'm not sure even in a face to face that you can judge Putin's intentions. My own view, having dealt with him and having spent most of my life working on Russia and the Soviet Union, is Putin feels that he has a destiny to recreate the Russian Empire. And as my old mentor, Zbigniew Brzezinski once said, without Ukraine, there can be no Russian Empire. So I think the President is- based on what I read, is getting the sense that, as he put it, that Putin is tapping him along and- and that, you know, Putin hasn't given up on any of his original goals in Ukraine. He's going to insist on occupying all four of the eastern provinces of the Donbas. Perpetual recognition of Russian ownership of Crimea. A pro Russian government in Kyiv and a Ukrainian military that looks a lot like an enhanced police force. And, no membership in NATO and probably no membership in the EU he wants- he wants Ukraine, basically, to be a client state of Russia. And I don't- I don't see what it would take to get him to walk away from any of those goals in the foreseeable future. I mean, when you look at 900,000 or so Russian soldiers that have been killed or wounded. He's paid a huge price- the Russian economy and so on. It hasn't deterred him in the slightest. MARGARET BRENNAN: Has he paid a price, though? Because there are analysts who look at the way he's reoriented that economy around his military, the fact that he gets that lifeline from China, and say sanctions haven't made him buckle one bit in his desire to continue this war. SEC. GATES: No, that's absolutely correct. And he has militarized the economy, and absolutely there has been a cost- a long term cost for the Russian people. You know, you've had upwards of a million young Russian- mainly men, flee the country. Young tech guys, entrepreneurs and others who thought they had a future in Russia and- and when the war started, decided they didn't. And- and the complete reorientation of the- of the economy for the military industrial complex, as you will, it is very much what the Soviets did in many respects and- and I think he's got 21% interest rates. I mean, the economy is chugging along, it's got positive growth, but it's artificial. The only source of income of revenue for the Russian government is oil and gas. The problem that Putin has is over time, those are old oil and gas fields, and what was enabling the Russians to extract from those fields was Western technology, the Exxons, the Chevrons, the other big oil companies from the West that had the technology. That's all gone. So over time, the revenue stream from oil and gas from Russia is going to diminish, and probably fairly dramatically, but it'll take time. So long term, he has- he has, I think, cost Russia enormously. But that doesn't mean that in the short to near term, it's going to force him to change any of his policies. MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you advise President Trump not to take that face-to-face, even if Vladimir Putin was willing to do it? SEC. GATES: I would like to see what if- I were ever asked, I would say you need to figure out some leverage that you have going into that meeting with Putin. What- what can- what can you do that puts more pressure to bear on Putin to make him believe his- his interests are served by not just a ceasefire, but a- basically, at least freezing things in place. MARGARET BRENNAN: We've seen a very different approach to this diplomacy, too. The President has been relying on his close friend Steve Witkoff, this former real estate developer, to really be the face with some of the most thorny issues we have in the national security portfolio, including meeting with the Iranian negotiator over a nuclear program, including getting face-to- face with Vladimir Putin. There is a value in having a fresh set of eyes. But is it advisable to put aside the experts, including American translators, and not include them in those meetings? SEC. GATES: Well, I've always believed that it's a mistake not to have an American interpreter in meetings. The President and Mr. Witkoff are not the first Americans to believe- and he's not the first president to believe, he doesn't need an American interpreter in the room. I think it's always a mistake, because you never know that what you're saying is, in fact, being interpreted to Putin or whoever, exactly as you said it. And so I think that's a mistake. On the other hand, you know, bringing fresh eyes and fresh blood to some of these problems. You know, I know people who've been involved in the Middle East negotiations for peace for 30 years, you know, and have not much to show for it, and then all of a sudden, you bring in somebody else, and things happen like the Abraham Accords. So I- I'm not- I'm not willing to say that you shouldn't bring in some people that have not got a lot of experience. In fact, one of the reasons in 2016 I recommended Rex Tillerson to the- to President Trump for his first Secretary of State, was precisely because, as a businessman, not a diplomat, but as a businessman, Tillerson had negotiated with tough guys all over the world for most of his career. So I think bringing somebody with business background in who's done this kind of thing, it may make a lot of sense. MARGARET BRENNAN: Even when they're sitting across some- from someone who has spent decades facing off with Americans? Or in the case of the Iranian nuclear negotiations, someone who negotiated the last nuclear accord? That's a lot of experience-- SEC. GATES: --I think- I think just because the guy on the other side of the table has been doing it for a long time doesn't mean you- you can't bring in somebody- somebody fresh, somebody new. MARGARET BRENNAN: How sustainable do you think it is for the Secretary of State to also be the national security adviser, the acting archivist and the acting director of USAID? SEC. GATES: It's interesting a lot of people point to the precedent of when Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State and National Security Advisor from 1973 to 1975. I was at the NSC during most of that period, and all I can tell you is Henry Kissinger was an absentee landlord. I mean, what made it work in that time was that Henry had a very experienced and wise deputy in General Brent Scowcroft. And Scowcroft essentially ran the NSC day to day, and Henry would appear now and then, but- but mainly did his Secretary of State job. He still had the title and a lot of papers going to the presidents from the NSC still went through him, but- but day to day, the NSC and the whole interagency process was really managed by Scowcroft. So whether or not this will work, I think, depends on whether the Secretary of State has a deputy at the NSC who is very experienced, knows the interagency and- and- and is respected and trusted by the President. MARGARET BRENNAN: There is a unique challenge with the NSC, with this president I've heard from officials which is he does not trust the National Security Council because of the history with the first impeachment. So he is suspect of a lot of people who sit there. What's the danger of that, when you don't trust the people who are briefing you on some of the most sensitive national security issues, or advising you? SEC. GATES: I think it's important for people to remember, and I tried to observe this myself- since I worked on the NSC under four presidents, the NSC is the President's personal foreign policy staff. So I think if- if people on the NSC, and I don't care whether they come from the State Department or CIA or the military or anyplace else or from the outside. If you can't- in- on that staff, if you can't be loyal to the president, then you should leave. MARGARET BRENNAN: What do you mean loyal? SEC. GATES: I mean be willing- embrace his policies and do what you can to implement those policies and to ensure that the other agencies are implementing the President's policies. And when the time comes, if the time comes, that you disagree with those policies, then it seems to me it's incumbent on you to return to your agency or to leave the government. I can't- this is really an important point. This is his personal staff. This is the staff that drafts his letters going back to other leaders. This is the staff that does his talking points for meetings with foreign leaders and provides background information for him. So I think- I think he has a right to- to expect loyalty. What I- my line- my line, when I was at the NSC, was be loyal or be gone. MARGARET BRENNAN: Including when it means having a different view of the last election or having family members who work in the Justice Department? I mean, there are some different definitions of loyalty. SEC. GATES: Absolutely. And again, if, if you- if you- if your views are- if you hold views that are unacceptable to the President on things like that, like the election and so on, then you probably don't belong in his NSC staff. Maybe you belong at the State Department or at CIA or someplace, but you don't belong inside the White House complex. I mean, I know that's a hard thing to say, but, but I've watched this and and, and I've seen- you know, if you go back to the Nixon days, a number of- a number of NSC staffers resigned from the NSC over Vietnam because of the bombing campaigns and so on. So that's- those are the kinds of issues, it seems to me, where- where you need to be loyal. I think you need to give the president your honest views on things, on the subjects that you're in charge of. And it may be unwelcome to him, but he needs to hear different perspectives and different points of view. So being loyal doesn't mean not- it doesn't mean pulling your punches in terms of the policy debate, but once the president's made a decision, then you have to salute. MARGARET BRENNAN: On the point of honestly briefing and giving sometimes hard to deliver information that's necessary. You were not just a director at the CIA, you were a long-time CIA person yourself. The president gets that daily briefing. A lot of that intel comes from the agency. The current Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, CBS is reporting she's really trying to exert more control over that daily brief, pull it away from the agency. Does that concern you? SEC. GATES: She's not the first to try and do that. There were moves in that direction, actually, during the Reagan administration. And we started including in the President's daily brief contributions from, say, the Defense Intelligence Agency that had not been done before. But I think- I think that, you know, having that, you know, the Director of National Intelligence, I think, was not expected to sort of take a daily supervisory role over the content of the information flowing to the president. I think, you know, we would get information from NSA, from DIA, from all these different agencies. CIA did put together the president's brief, but my understanding is in recent years, there's been more and more of a move to have other members of the intelligence community collaborate on putting together the president's daily brief. So I'm I'm not really aware of the details right now, but, but it seems to me that- I remember when, I when I was head of the analytical side of CIA, probably the Director of Central Intelligence who took the greatest day-to-day interest in the PDB was Jimmy Carter's Director of Central Intelligence, Admiral Stanfield Turner, who would literally edit the PDB before it was put to bed. Most D.C. eyes have not touched the PDB. They have, they have let- let the professionals put in there what they needed to put in there, and then, and then they got the fury of the president when he disagreed with something that was in the PDB. MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you have any concerns when you look at some of the reshaping, some of the firings within intelligence that- the two heads, for example, of the National Intelligence Council, were just dismissed by Gabbard. SEC. GATES: Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I don't know enough about the details to be able to comment. The one thing that I would say concerns me, both at CIA and at the Defense Department, are the firings of probationary employees-- MARGARET BRENNAN: The new blood. SEC. GATES: These are the- this is the future of these organizations. These are the young people dedicated to public service who bring in skills such as data analytics and so on, that- that are their older peer- people don't have, and they're the future of the agency. And there are ways to reduce the manpower and reduce the number of people at these agencies, and most agencies should be reformed and should be made more lean and more efficient, but there's a way to do it that doesn't shortcut the future and also doesn't end up firing people that actually are really needed. MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think that's what Elon Musk and the DOGE effort did? SEC. GATES: I think so. MARGARET BRENNAN: That America lost new talent-- SEC. GATES: I think there-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --that was important. SEC. GATES: I think there has been a cost in talent with the categorization of the people. And I think the reason that probationaries were put at the top was because they're easier to fire and- but that doesn't mean that was the right thing to do. MARGARET BRENNAN: When we look around the world right now, there are a lot of hot spots, not just this land war in Ukraine, in the middle of Europe, you have missile attacks between two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, you have China's increased aggression in Asia, the ongoing Israeli war, as we talked about. Two years ago, I re-read this essay that you wrote two years ago, and you said the U.S. confronts graver threats to its security than it ever has. Two years later, what does the playing field look like to you? SEC. GATES: I think that if anything, the peril has gotten greater, simply because both Russia and especially China have significantly increased their arsenals and their military power. And particularly, as I say in the case of China, China has been much more aggressive in the Taiwan Strait and in the South China Sea than they were two years ago. I think they put themselves in a position, if they chose to do so, to put essentially a stranglehold around Taiwan in terms of shipping and so on. And you know, what we've never faced before is large, aggressive nuclear powers, both in Europe and in Asia, collaborating. And what we are facing today we've never faced as a country, is a country that's almost as rich as we are, that is technologically advanced, competing with us in many areas of technology, technology advances and- and one that has unanswered ambitions, unfulfilled ambitions-- MARGARET BRENNAN: You're talking about China. SEC. GATES: --in the neighborhood, all China. And so, you know, China is the bigger threat by far, but doesn't negate the 1,500 nuclear weapons that the Russians have either. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yet. SEC GATES: I'm sorry? MARGARET BRENNAN: Yet, they're expanding, right? SEC GATES: Yes. MARGARET BRENNAN: So you've said, though, of China, I mean, you look at what's happening with their expansion. There was this trade war that on Monday was paused in some way in terms of the tariffs. There are some that are still in place, but some delayed for at least 90 days. Was there a point? Was there a win that came out of this confrontation? SEC. GATES: My view is that if China is your primary competitor, your primary rival, your primary adversary, and we can avoid a military confrontation with China, then the outcome is going to be- is going to be settled by non-military instruments of power, above all, economics. And you would think that if we were going to put significant additional economic pressure on China, we would want all the other countries around the world to be on our side of the table and willing to collaborate with us in putting those pressures on China and saying you can't- you can't behave the way you have been. You can't dump, you can't steal intellectual property, you can't do these things. And to have most of the developed countries in the world, in essence, echoing each other and on the same page. Declaring trade wars on all of them did not, shall we say, enhance their willingness to collaborate with us against China. So who's the main enemy? And I think that's always the key question. I understand the imbalance in trade and- and that other countries, the Europeans, have never done as much since the end of the Cold War on defense as they should. I bellowed about it, like a lot of other American officials. But the question is, what's the main strategic threat, and what's the best strategy for dealing with that threat? MARGARET BRENNAN: So having a tariff war with Europe, Japan, South Korea, all the allies at once, you're saying is self defeating. SEC. GATES: I think- I think it doesn't make strategic sense. Now, others look at it from a more purely economic standpoint, and I understand that. But- but I think we have to, we have to decide, you know, is more revenue and reshoring- how does more revenue and reshoring of manufacturing balance off against what many in this administration consider, and both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill, consider to be the main, the main threat. And are there ways that you apply those tariffs in ways that maybe accomplish both goals. MARGARET BRENNAN: You wrote in Foreign Affairs, President Trump's "disdain for U.S. allies, his fondness for authoritarian leaders, his willingness to sow doubt about the United States' commitment to NATO allies, and his generally erratic behavior undermined us credibility and respect across the globe." That was about his first term. He's back. Are you seeing a repeat of those behaviors now? SEC. GATES: I think that- I think that he has been more cautious about the language that he has used. He has not talked about not fighting for other countries. He hasn't said, well, I'm not going to participate in Article V, we're not going to go to war for Europe. I mean, there's been some tough language toward the Europeans, the Vice President in Munich and so on, but-- MARGARET BRENNAN: He said things again about, oh if they don't pay up-- SEC. GATES: It's clear-- MARGARET BRENNAN: We don't take it seriously. SEC. GATES: It's clear he does not see the allies- see our allies as- as an important asset for America's national interests, as a lot of us do. I think, and- and the Europeans have given him ammunition by not being willing to provide for their own defense in even the most modest way. But I think he has avoids- avoided some of the more inflammatory language toward NATO that he used in the first term. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask about the Pentagon, which you ran for a while. You hear a lot these days about identity politics, including when the Secretary of Defense addresses troops. Warrior and war fighting ethos is the mantra. You used to go out and speak to troops, including those serving overseas. What do you think that kind of message is doing? Is that the right tone? SEC. GATES: Well, I think that- I mean it- as I understand it, it derives from a belief that in the Biden administration, that the leadership of the Pentagon was distracted by the need to pursue diversity in- initiatives and so on. MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think they were? SEC. GATES: You know, I live a long way from the Pentagon. I don't know. I think that, you know, if you look at what some of the military leaders have said, the amount of time that soldiers and leaders actually spent on those issues was pretty small, but it may have been more the focus of public remarks and things like that. I don't know whether it distracted people or not, but I know- I mean, my view is that a big part of the warrior ethos is taking care of your people. Every Second Lieutenant learns that, first thing. And- and so I think- think having a focus on being combat ready, on fitness, on those kinds of things absolutely makes sense and- and I think making sure- and when we talked about various changes, such as the decision made that I made in terms of women serving on submarines, and women going into the Special Forces and so on, the line always was, you can't compromise the standards. The expectations for women need to be exactly the same as they are for men and- and so a focus on that kind of meritocracy, I think, also makes sense. But I think you also have to remember the military needs to look like the American people, and it does. And you can call it whatever you want, but- but we are better served, in my view, by a military that reflects the American people and- and I think it does at this point. MARGARET BRENNAN: The last two national defense strategies said the U.S. military is not postured or equipped to fight wars against two major rivals at the same time. You've talked about the need to fund defense more. Right now, even the Republican Chair of the Armed Services Committee says the White House isn't doing enough. If the focus is on war, fighting and a warrior ethos, isn't that contradictory? SEC. GATES: I think there is a general understanding about two things. One is the Pentagon needs to get much more efficient and needs to be reformed, especially when it comes to acquisitions and the integration of new technologies. The second is that it needs more money to do those things and- and to fund new capabilities. The Department of Defense has not had a budget going into the fiscal year for 15 years. If there isn't- if that isn't a dereliction of duty by the Congress, I don't know what is. Because when you have a continuing resolution, you can't start anything new, you can't add to anything. People talk about- about expanding the ship building capabilities, about expanding our defense industrial capability and so on. And for all the speeches they make, nothing's happening because they haven't voted a single dollar to do any of those things. So there is this- and I don't understand, under the circumstances, why the administration's budget puts forward a budget for the Pentagon that, as I understand it, is basically flat, which, given some inflation means a cut. MARGARET BRENNAN: That's exactly what the Republican Chair of the Armed Services Committee – he said "it's going to shred to the bone our military capabilities and support to service members." He said it amounts to a cut and that it contradicts what the President had promised. SEC. GATES: There has to be an agreement between the president and the Congress on actually what has to be done to recapture our industrial- military industrial capabilities, and- and then for Congress to vote the money in a timely way. Let me give you one example of- of how big the gap is with China. Between 2017 and 2024, the number of warships in our Navy stayed essentially flat. During that same period, China launched 150 warships. They have 250 times the ship cap- building capability we do. This was us in World War II, and now the tables have been turned. We represent kind of 1/10 of 1% of global shipping- ship building capability. They've got over half. So if we're going to fix that, somebody's got to get off the dime. MARGARET BRENNAN: So then in that context, is it worth to spend as much as $45 million on a military parade on June the 14th, which happens to be the President's birthday? SEC. GATES: Well, I'll leave that up to- up to the gurus in Washington. In my career, we had one military parade in Washington, and that was after the Gulf War, and I don't- and I think we had to do some repair work on the streets in D.C. after that. MARGARET BRENNAN: You served in public service for nearly 50 years. What is your advice to graduates who are looking at the administration's message that the private sector is more productive than the public one, and when they look at all the cuts that are happening to federal agencies? Is it worth it to go into public service? SEC. GATES: Well, I totally believe it's worth it to go into public service. There are few things you can do that are more gratifying and more satisfying, and when you look back, being able to say that maybe you made a difference in keeping the nation safer or the nation better off. The reality is government- government- the American government has generally been an enabler of the American people, in terms of education, in terms of opportunities and so on, and protecting opportunities. People make government work, and you want the best people you can get in those jobs. For all the rhetoric, the American civil service is the most honest and efficient anywhere in the world, and has been for a very long time. Does that mean it can't be improved? Absolutely not. Every organization needs to be reformed and improved, but these young people and their dedication and their- their possession of skills that older people don't have, data analytics and so on, they're crucial to the future of these agencies. And- and- and they shouldn't be daunted. We've been through bad times before. I was- I joined CIA at the height of Vietnam. Those were pretty rough days. 1968 was as bad a year as the United States maybe has had since the Civil War, internally, and with deep divisions and- and distrust of government. And believe me, distrust of government didn't begin recently, it began with Watergate and Vietnam. And so young people need to understand there are great opportunities to serve, and- and I would argue, if you're unhappy about things at the federal level, go into local government or state government. There are lots of different places where you can serve. It doesn't have to be at CIA or the State Department. It could be- it can be in a local NGO of some kind, or a charity. There are lots of ways to do public service, and- and young people who feel motivated to do that, this university has a lot of them. Texas A&M, where I was president, has the George H.W. Bush School of Government and Public Service. Lots of universities have these schools, and they've got a lot of kids who are eager to be helpful and help make the country better. My- my view is they ought to go for it. MARGARET BRENNAN: You talked about loss of confidence. Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan recently wrote about the broken windows theory in law enforcement, where you go after the small crimes to dissuade bigger ones. But she was arguing, basically, we need to apply that in politics right now. Are you concerned that even the appearance of corruption, foreign influence peddling, wears away at that, and that perhaps, as she calls for in this piece, that our parties, the Republican and Democratic Parties, need to be a little bit more honest and explicit in policing themselves? SEC. GATES: Well, I think so, absolutely. I mean, you can't even get legislation on the hill about insider trading. And so I think appearances do matter. And you know, I mean, I remember how strict the rules were when I was in government. If I- if I got a gift when I was traveling from a foreign government, if it was valued at over $300 and I wanted it, I had to pay for it. MARGARET BRENNAN: Including a Boeing plane from a Gulf country? Over $300. All right, we are out of time. We've covered a lot. There's more to talk about, but I will leave it there, Mr. Secretary. SEC. GATES: Okay. Thank you Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Moody's downgrades U.S. credit rating, citing rising government debt
The U.S. credit rating was downgraded by Moody's Ratings on Friday, highlighting investor concerns about the government's growing debt. The downgrade from the top rating of Aaa to Aa1 "reflects the increase over more than a decade in government debt and interest payment ratios to levels that are significantly higher than similarly rated sovereigns," the credit rating firm said in a statement on Friday. "Successive US administrations and Congress have failed to agree on measures to reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs," Moody's added. Moody's is the last of the three major credit rating agencies to downgrade U.S. government debt. In August 2011, Standard and Poor's downgraded the U.S. from AAA to AA+, and in August 2023 Fitch Ratings cut the credit rating a notch from AAA to AA+. Moody's said it expects federal deficits to grow from 6.4% of GDP in 2024 to 9% of GDP by 2035, driven by "increased interest payments on debt, rising entitlement spending and relatively low revenue generation.'' The credit downgrade came as the House Budget Committee on Friday rejected President Trump's domestic policy bill, which would extend tax cuts from his first term. If the 2017 Tax Cuts and Job Act is extended, it would add $4 trillion to the federal primary deficit (excluding interest payments) over the next decade, Moody's said Friday. The Congressional Budget Office projects that federal debt held by the public will rise from 100% of GDP to 118% in 2035. That would exceed a previous high of 106% in 1946. Despite the debt downgrade, Moody's changed its outlook on the U.S. from negative to stable. The credit agency said the U.S. "retains exceptional credit strengths such as the size, resilience and dynamism of its economy and the continued role of the U.S. dollar as global reserve currency." Texas mom accused of buying ammunition for son who officials say planned school attack Robert Gates says he isn't sure you can judge Putin's intentions in face-to-face meeting Undocumented immigrant faces $1.8 million fine for not leaving U.S. 20 years ago
CBS News
16-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Putin won't take peace with Ukraine without restoring empire, former Defense Secretary Gates says
Robert Gates says he isn't sure you can judge Putin's intentions in face-to-face meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin believes it's his destiny to recreate the Russian empire and won't back down in Ukraine, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in an interview with "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." Gates said Putin's aims can be unclear, even in one-on-one meetings. "I'm not sure even in a face to face that you can judge Putin's intention," said Gates, who served as defense secretary under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. "My own view, having dealt with him and having spent most of my life working on Russia and the Soviet Union, is Putin feels that he has a destiny to recreate the Russian Empire. And as my old mentor, Zbigniew Brzezinski once said, without Ukraine, there can be no Russian Empire." While campaigning for a return to the White House, President Trump promised a swift end to the war that began three years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine. Now more than 100 days into Mr. Trump's second term, talks to end the conflict have been inconsistent, with little sign an end to fighting is in sight. "I think the president is — based on what I read — is getting the sense that, as he put it, that Putin is 'tapping' him along and … Putin hasn't given up on any of his original goals in Ukraine," Gates said, referring to an April 26 social media post. In the post, Mr. Trump wrote of Putin, "maybe he doesn't want to stop the war." Gates said Putin hasn't shown a willingness to make any major concessions. "He's going to insist on occupying all four of the eastern provinces of the Donbas, perpetual recognition of Russian ownership of Crimea, a pro-Russian government in Kyiv and a Ukrainian military that looks a lot like an enhanced police force. And no membership in NATO and probably no membership in the EU," Gates said. President Trump said Friday he's moving to set up direct talks with Putin as soon as he can. Talks with lower-level Ukrainian and Russian delegations took place in Istanbul Friday, but there was little concrete progress beyond an agreement to a major prisoner exchange in the coming days. The conflict in Ukraine dates back to 2014, when Russian forces seized Crimea after protests in Ukraine led to the ousting of the country's pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych. Gates believes Putin wants the Ukraine that existed before that uprising. "He wants Ukraine, basically, to be a client state of Russia, and I don't see what it would take to get him to walk away from any of those goals in the foreseeable future," Gates said. "I mean, when you look at 900,000 or so Russian soldiers that have been killed or wounded, he's paid a huge price – the Russian economy and so on." "It hasn't deterred him in the slightest," Gates said.
