Latest news with #MargaretBrennan
Wakala News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Wakala News
Full transcript of 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,' May 25, 2025
On this 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan' broadcast, moderated by Ed O'Keefe: House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana Rep. Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut Cindy McCain, World Food Programme executive director Navy veteran Jack McCain For Country Caucus members Reps. Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts, Zach Nunn, Republican of Iowa, and Don Davis, Democrat of North Carolina 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: Memorial Day marks the unofficial start to summer. We will kick it off with a hat tip to the nation's military. (Begin VT) (CHEERING) (End VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: President Trump rallied West Point graduates on Saturday. (Begin VT) DONALD TRUMP (President of the United States): The military's job is to dominate any foe and annihilate any threat to America anywhere, any time and any place. MAN: Hip, hip. (End VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: But as these new members of the world's most powerful military go forward, are we doing enough to support them? We will talk with some veterans serving in Congress about the value of public service and we will honor those who protected us. On Capitol Hill, the president's big, beautiful bill squeaks through the House. What kind of impact will some of those tax-and-spend provisions have on Americans? And can they survive the Senate? We will ask House Speaker Mike Johnson and talk with the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jim Himes. Some humanitarian aid is returning to Gaza after a monthslong Israeli blockade, but will it be in time and enough to help those in desperate need of food? Plus, a new plan for American assistance in the region. We will talk to Cindy McCain, head of the U.N.'s World Food Program. All that and more is just ahead on Face the Nation. Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. We have a lot to get to in honor of our military today, but we begin with the passage of what President Trump is calling his big, beautiful bill, and the man who got it through the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, who joins us from Benton, Louisiana. Good morning to you, Mr. Speaker. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON (R-Louisiana): Hey. Good morning. And I wish a blessed Memorial Day weekend to everybody. MARGARET BRENNAN: Indeed. Well, you got this massive tax and border bill through, just barely, one vote margin. You pulled an all-nighter. Among other things, it will eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, put about $50 billion towards the border wall and hiring Border Patrol agents, keep in place existing individual tax rates, create savings accounts for kids with a one-time deposit of $1,000, increase the child tax credit by about 500 bucks. The – the bill on this is estimated to be between $4 trillion and $5 trillion over the next decade. How much do you think this is all going to cost? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Well, that's about the right estimate. But, at the same time, we have historic savings for the American people, cuts to government to make it more efficient and effective and – and work better for the people. That was a big campaign promise of President Trump and a big promise of ours, and we're going to achieve that. So, in the calculation here, there's more than $1.5 trillion in savings, Margaret, for the people. And that's – that's the largest amount – biggest cut in government really in at least 30 years and, if you adjust for inflation, probably the largest in the history of government. So we're proud of what we produced here. We've checked all the boxes, where all the things that you mentioned in existence – in addition to American energy dominance, investing in our military industrial base, which is appropriate for us to talk about this weekend, and so many other priorities. And that's why we call it the one, big beautiful bill. I think, arguably, it's the most consequential legislation that Congress will pass in many generations, and it's a long time coming. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, just this morning, we did hear from some of your Republican colleagues over in the Senate, where this heads next, that they can't support the bill as it is written. I think you know this. Senator Rand Paul said the cuts are 'wimpy and anemic. The math doesn't add up. It will explode the debt.' In addition to that political criticism, you've already seen… REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Yes, look, Senator Paul and I are… MARGARET BRENNAN: … Moody's credit rating agency downgrade American credit. And Goldman Sachs says that this bill will not offset the damage from the president's tariffs. Isn't this an economic gamble? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: No, it's not an economic gamble. It's a big investment. And, look, this – what this bill is going to do is be jet fuel to the U.S. economy. It is going to foster a pro-growth economy. What do we mean by that? Because we're reducing taxes. We're reducing regulations. We're going to increase and incentivize American manufacturing again. And what will – the effect this will have in the economy is that entrepreneurs and risk-takers and job creators will have an easier time in doing that. They will allow for more jobs and more opportunity for more people, and wages will increase. Now, Margaret, this is not a theoretical exercise. We did this already in the first Trump administration. After just the first two years, we brought about the greatest economy in the history of the world, not just the U.S., because we did it, followed a very simple formula. We cut taxes and we cut regulations. MARGARET BRENNAN: You didn't do it in the middle of a tariff war. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: This time, we're doing that on steroids. MARGARET BRENNAN: In the first administration, there was sequencing. MARGARET BRENNAN: You got tax reform. The Republicans got tax reform through and held off the tariff war. Goldman Sachs says, the hit to growth from tariffs will more than offset the boost to growth from the fiscal package. That's Goldman Sachs. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Well – well, I know. I respect Goldman Sachs, but I think what they're discounting here is the growth that will be spurred on by this legislation and the fact that the so-called tariff war is beginning to subside already. You've got over 75 countries that are negotiating new, more fair trade agreements for the U.S. right now because of the president's insistence that that be done. And it was decades overdue. That is going to benefit every American. It's going to benefit the consumers. You know, they howled when the first tariffs – reciprocal tariffs policy was announced. And they said that prices would skyrocket. That simply hasn't happened. Many of those early estimates were far off, and that's being proven now. So what I think will happen is the tariffs, you know, contest will subside. This legislation will pass and get the economy going again. And people will feel that. They'll see it in their own pocketbooks, in their own opportunity. And every American household is going to benefit by these policies. MARGARET BRENNAN: You know Walmart has already said that it will have to raise prices. It's not theoretical. And the president on Friday was talking about even more tariffs, this time on Apple and others. But back – back to your end of the – of the deal here, for this tax relief, you talked about the cuts to pay for it all. You are eliminating subsidized federal student loans, so the government will no longer cover the interest on debt while borrowers are in school. You're eliminating $500 billion in clean energy subsidies and you're terminating early tax breaks for electric vehicles. Alongside that, you're carrying out about a trillion in reductions to Medicaid and food stamps. We looked at your home state, and the projection is that nearly 200,000 Louisianians will lose their Medicaid coverage because of this. How do you defend that to your constituents? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: We have not cut Medicaid, and we have not cut SNAP. What we're doing, Margaret, is working on fraud, waste and abuse. And everyone in Louisiana and around the country understands that that's a responsibility of Congress. Just in – in Medicaid, for example, you've got 1.4 million illegal aliens receiving those benefits. That is not what Medicaid is intended for. It's intended for vulnerable populations, for young, single, pregnant women and the elderly and the disabled and people who desperately need those resources. Right now, they're being drained by fraud, waste and abuse. You've got about 4.8 million people on Medicaid right now nationwide who are able-bodied workers, young men, for example, who are not working, who are taking advantage of the system. If you are able to work and you refuse to do so, you are defrauding the system. You're cheating the system. And no one in the country believes that that's right. MARGARET BRENNAN: So… REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: So there's a – there's a moral component to what we're doing. And when you make young men work, it's good for them, it's good for their dignity. MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: It's good for their self-worth, and it's good for the community that they live in. MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure, but in – first of all, just undocumented immigrants, you know, are not eligible for food stamps or Medicaid. Some… REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: And yet they're receiving them. That's the problem. MARGARET BRENNAN: … lawfully present immigrants are. So the 190,000 Louisianians that are projected by KFF as losing their Medicaid, your position is, they were just lazy, not working, that they were undocumented? What – what about them? How do you defend that they will be losing their benefits? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: No, what we're talking about, again, is able- bodied workers, many of whom are refusing to work because they're gaming the system. And when we make them work, it'll be better for everybody, a win-win-win for all. By the way, the work requirements, Margaret, is not some onerous, burdensome thing. It's a minimum of 20 hours a week. You could either be working or be in a job program, a job training program… MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: … or – or volunteering in your community. This is not some – some onerous thing. This is common sense. And when the American people understand what we are doing here, they applaud it. This is a wildly popular thing, because we have to preserve the programs. What we're doing is strengthening Medicaid and SNAP so that they can exist, so that they'll be there for the people that desperately need it the most, and it's not being taken advantage of. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: And this is something that everybody in Congress, Republicans and Democrats, should agree to. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, one of your Republican colleagues over in the Senate has been very vocal about his concern in regard to what you're doing to Medicaid. Josh Hawley has been arguing: 'It is morally wrong and politically suicidal to slash health insurance for the working poor.' He said the cost-sharing language will force people at or just over the federal poverty level to pay as much as $35 for a medical visit, which means working people will pay more. How do you defend that? Because you know, in the Senate, they are going to make changes to this. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: My friend Josh Hawley is a fiscal conservative, as I am. We don't want to slash benefits. And, again, I make this very clear. We are not cutting Medicaid. We are not cutting SNAP. We're working in the elements of fraud, waste and abuse. SNAP, for example, listen to the statistics. In 2024, over $11 billion in SNAP payments were – were erroneous. I mean, that's – that's a number that everyone acknowledges is real. It may be much higher than that. But here's the problem. The states… MARGARET BRENNAN: Louisiana is like the second largest recipient of food stamps in the country, sir. So… (CROSSTALK) REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Let me explain it, Margaret. Let me explain it. The states – the states are not properly administering this, because they don't have enough skin in the game. So what we've done in the bill is add some – just a modest state sharing component, so that they'll pay attention to that, so that we can reduce fraud. Why? Again, so that it is preserved for the people that need it the most. This is common sense, Margaret. It's good government, and everybody on both sides of the aisle should agree to that. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Senator Hawley objects to that cost-sharing language. He is the one leveraging that criticism. This is going to change, you know that, when it goes to the Senate. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Listen, right. So, I… MARGARET BRENNAN: How do you – how do you put Republicans up to have to defend these things, when they are facing an election in 17 months? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: We got almost every vote in the House because we worked on it for more than a year in finding the exact balance of reforms to the programs, so that we can save them and secure them. I think – I think Senator Hawley will see that when he looks into the details of what we passed on Thursday. This is a big thing. It's an historic thing, once-in-a-generation legislation. We call it the one big, beautiful bill because it's going to do so much and the America first agenda will be delivered for the people just as we promised. And, look, I had lunch with my Senate Republican colleagues on Tuesday, their weekly luncheon, and I encouraged them to remember that we are one team. It's the Senate and the House Republicans together that will deliver this – this ball over the goal line, so to speak. And I encouraged them to make as few modifications as possible, remembering that I have a very delicate balance on our very diverse Republican caucus over in the House. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. Yes, well, you have – you have five to six Republicans from high tax states who are not going to want to see that change in the state and local tax deductions. And there's not a commitment to that in the Senate. Can you still get this through the House without SALT? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Look, we – there's got to be a modification to SALT. And, as I have explained to my Senate colleagues many times, you know, they don't have SALT Caucus in the Senate because they're all from red states, but in the House, we do have a number of members who are elected in places like New York and California and New Jersey, and they have to provide some relief to their constituents. Those are what we call our majority makers. Those are the people who are elected in the toughest districts and help us have the numbers to keep the majority in the House. And so this is political reality. We'd love to cut more costs. We'd love to do even more, but we have to deal within the realm of possibility. And I think this is a huge leap forward for fiscal responsibility, for a government that's effective and accountable to the people and real relief for hardworking Americans, and they well deserve it. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. Well, before I let you go, I want to ask you about another provision that was tucked into this bill. Democrats say it is weakening separation of powers and punishing the courts. It's a specific provision that would restrict a federal court's power to enforce injunctions with contempt, unless there was a bond attached to it. Sounds really weedy, but it's causing a lot of outcry. If this might get stripped out in the Senate anyway, why did you bother to stick it in? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Well, we bothered to stick it in because that's our responsibility in Congress. It is about separation of powers. And, right now, you have activist judges, a handful of them around the country, who are abusing that power. They're issuing these nationwide injunctions. They're – they're engaging in political acts from the bench. And that is not what our system is intended for. And people have lost their – their – their faith in our system of justice. We have to restore it. And bringing about a simple reform like that is something that I think everybody should applaud. MARGARET BRENNAN: Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, thank you for your time this morning. Face the Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We're joined now by Congressman Jim Himes. He is the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, and he joins us today from Greenwich, Connecticut. Good morning to you. REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES (D-Connecticut): Good morning, Margaret. Thanks for having me. MARGARET BRENNAN: You just heard the speaker. I know you did not vote for this bill. But, you know, Connecticut has one of the highest state and local tax burdens in the country. Do you at least like that one little portion of this bill? (LAUGHTER) REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: That one little portion is going to be good for my constituents. But, Margaret, I – I got to tell you, it was like listening to '1984' or something listening to the speaker. You know, anybody can look this up. The American people want basically three things out of their federal budget. Number one, at this point in time, when Americans – the wealthiest Americans, are doing better than ever before, Americans want the wealthiest of the – of Americans to pay more taxes and to give tax relief to the middle class and below. Number two, they want us to address the deficit, which is now spiraling out of control, to the point where we got a downgrade in one of the U.S. credit ratings. And, third, they want a simpler tax code. This bill fails spectacularly on all three counts. They're cutting Medicaid and nutritional assistance, food stamps, to tens of millions of Americans in order to preserve tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. They're adding $3 trillion to the deficit with this bill. And, lastly, they're gumming up the tax code with, you don't have to pay taxes on tips. Now, what about the folks who don't earn tips, you know, auto lending? I mean, again, on the three things that Americans care most about, that they want the Congress to do, this bill fails spectacularly. Look, and that's going to show up in the polling pretty soon, as Americans come to realize what it is that the House of Representatives just did. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I want to ask you about your other role on the House Intelligence Committee. When it comes to what the president has vowed to do to Russia, he floated this idea two weeks ago of possible sanctions if Russia doesn't stop its war in Ukraine. But then he spoke to Vladimir Putin on Monday, and we heard nothing about sanctions. We did hear from the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency that this war is trending in favor of Russia. What changes need to be made, if anything, to how the U.S. provides support? REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Well, Margaret, look, we're at a fork in the road with respect to the Russia-Ukraine war. And, you know, Donald Trump and his acolytes in the Congress will go along with one of these two choices. Either we will continue the trajectory that started when the president and the vice president humiliated Vladimir – humiliated President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office and paused aid, and Vladimir Putin will learn from that experience that he can count on the U.S. to support his murderous incursions into neighboring countries. Or we can take another path, which I hope the president will take, which is to say, what we need to do right now is generate maximum leverage against Vladimir Putin, and I see the president getting a little frustrated by him. But that maximum leverage comes because we really uptick the sanctions, we stop the export of oil, we pressure India to stop buying Russian oil, and, of course, we keep arming the Ukrainians. Again, for this guy who considers himself the master of the deal, maximize the leverage of the West so that we can bring this war not just to a conclusion, but to a fair and just conclusion that will keep the Russians from invading countries in the future. MARGARET BRENNAN: In your role on the Intelligence Committee, you get to see things the public does not. With that in mind, the president has designated this Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, TDA, as a foreign terrorist organization. He says they're invading the country. He's using the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members without a day in court. Part of the legal justification of all of this rests on the claim that the Venezuelan government is controlling what TDA is doing. The National Intelligence Council assessed the Maduro government does not control the gang. But, on this program last Sunday, the secretary of state rejected that. He says he favors the FBI's finding, which is that some members of the Venezuelan government do influence the gang. Why does all of this matter? REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Well, it matters, Margaret, because I will remind you that, in the George W. Bush administration, exactly what is happening right now happened. It was a different topic. Right now, despite the conclusions of the intelligence community, the president, the director of national intelligence and the secretary of state are saying that Venezuela directs Tren de Aragua. Now, they're saying that because they need this no due process mechanism of deporting people, the Alien Enemies Act, which, by the way, the courts are now laughing at. But the reason it matters, Margaret, is because the last time the White House did this, when they were determined that the intelligence community be forced to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which there turned out not to be, 4,400 American servicemen perished in a war that was fought on false pretenses, not to mention, by the way, the many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who perished in that war, which was a catastrophic strategic mistake driven by the politicization, the – the notion that George W. Bush had that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That's why intelligence matters. There's 4,400 families in this country who lost people because the White House decided they would override the conclusion of their $90 billion-a-year intelligence community. That's what Marco Rubio is doing, that's what the president is doing, and that's what Director Gabbard are doing when they contradict what their own organization is telling them. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, on that point, this is also becoming an issue for Joe Kent, who is the president's nominee to run the National Counterterrorism Center. He's under scrutiny because e-mails show that, while acting as chief of staff to DNI Gabbard, he pressed analysts to amend an assessment of links between the government and TDA. According to redacted e-mails that my network has obtained, he wrote: 'We need to do some rewriting, a little more analysis so this document is not used against the DNI or POTUS,' the president of the United States. He says: 'We need to incorporate the FBI's assessment.' You have now read these declassified e-mails as well. Do you believe that Joe Kent was just asking for more context? REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: No, he absolutely was not. And I have seen the redacted e-mails. He was pressuring the National Intelligence Council to alter their conclusions. And, look, he gave away the game. You just read the line. He told us why he did that, so that this report would not be used against the president or the director of national intelligence. Think about that. The chief of staff of the – of the Office of the Director National Intelligence wasn't saying, we need the very best intelligence here. We need you to go back and make sure you're 100 percent true. He was saying, we need to make sure that your product is not used to embarrass the president and the director of national intelligence. That is the very definition, the very definition of politicizing intelligence. This is not about embarrassing or not embarrassing anybody. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: So, no, Joe Kent must never be confirmed for any Senate-confirmed… MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Look, it's all out there for the Senate to see. So, no, he may – he must never be confirmed for any Senate-confirmed position because of what he did. MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. OK. And those e-mails are available for the public to read as well. Congressman Himes, thank you for your time today. We'll be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: In our next half-hour, we will be talking to not one, but two members of the McCain family, Cindy McCain and her son Jack. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: One congressional tradition that brings out both Republicans and Democrats is the Memorial Day weekend cleaning of the Vietnam Wall. We ran into former Trump National Security Adviser Mike Waltz on Thursday when we visited. He's no longer in Congress, but he explained why he started encouraging his fellow veterans in the House to pitch in. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to the executive director of the United Nations World Food Programme, Cindy McCain. She joins us this morning from Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Good morning to you. CINDY MCCAIN (Executive Director, United Nations World Food Programme): Good morning. MARGARET BRENNAN: In Gaza we have this manmade catastrophe with Israeli authorities blocking the entry of all aid from March until about May 18th. The Trump administration said Israel needs to let in food. So, are your deliveries consistently now getting through? CINDY MCCAIN: Well, let's start with the fact that this is a catastrophe. And you're absolutely correct, and I'm very grateful that you are covering this issue. They have let a few trucks in. This is a drop in the bucket as to what's needed. Right now we have 500,000 people inside of Gaza that are – that are extremely food insecure and could be on the verge of famine if we don't help bring them back from that. We need to get in and we need to get in at scale, not just a few dribble of the trucks. Right now it's, as I said, it's a drop in the bucket. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, how many trucks need to be getting in daily to address the scale of the need you see? And – and can they get into northern Gaza? CINDY MCCAIN: Well, prior to the – you know, during the ceasefire, I should say, we were getting in 600 trucks a day. Right now we're getting in maybe 100. Something like that. So, it – it's not nearly enough. And it needs to be going to the correct places. So, the various gates. It's inconsistent as to how the gates are open. It's inconsistent as to the roads we can use. The roads that are the better roads. The ones that can get us further along aren't open at all much. It's complicated right now. And – and again, I will tell anybody who will listen, we need to get in and get in at scale and be allowed to feed these people before further catastrophe occurs. MARGARET BRENNAN: Your organization announced at least 15 of your trucks were looted when they entered southern Gaza on route to – to bakeries. Israel has consistently said that the looting is being carried out by Hamas. Have you seen evidence that it is Hamas stealing the food? CINDY MCCAIN: No, not at all. Not – not in this round. Listen, these people are desperate. And they see a World Food Programme truck coming in and they run for it. This – this doesn't have anything to do with Hamas or any kind of organized crime or anything. It has simply to do with the fact these people are starving to death. And so, we will continue to go in. We will continue to go in with food and the kinds of supplies that we need to help the bakeries operate and make sure that we can continue to do that and – and hopefully be able to do more of it. But, again, we can't do this unless the world community puts pressure on this. We can't be allowed to sit back and watch these people starve to death with no outside diplomatic influence to help us. These – these – these poor souls are really, really, really desperate. And, you know, having been in – in a food riot myself some years ago, I understand the desperation very well. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, five days ago, Prime Minister Netanyahu vowed to take control of all of Gaza, which seems to be a shift from going in, carrying out raids and then withdrawing. We've seen the pope speak out. We've seen the leaders of France, of Canada, of the U.K. calling the cutting of aid egregious. Netanyahu said criticism like that is feeding Hamas and really feeding anti-Semitism. What do you make of that pushback from him, that criticisms of the state are feeding hate? CINDY MCCAIN: What I do know is they're not feeding people. And the most important part of this is that's what we're supposed to be doing. I'm very grateful for anyone, the pope, any of the folks that did – did shout out and say, listen, we need to get more in. But I can't tell you as to what – exactly what Netanyahu's thinking or anything else. What I do know for a fact is that we need food to get into Gaza to avoid an utter catastrophe. MARGARET BRENNAN: The Israeli army had announced aid will be distributed under what they described as an American plan. Prime Minister Netanyahu said it will be American companies giving food directly to Palestinian families in safe zones secured by the Israeli military. There's reporting in 'The Washington Post' that these are armed private contractors doing logistics. Palestinians will have to submit to identity checks to be fed. And that would replace the U.N. coordinated networks, presumably also the World Food Programme. Do you know how much longer you will be allowed to operate in Gaza? CINDY MCCAIN: I have not seen a plan from anybody. We continue to operate doing what we do best. And we are the largest and the best at what we do, I might add. I – we've never been – a plan has never been proposed to us. MARGARET BRENNAN: We haven't heard in – in the press at least from the administration any of the details either. But we do know that the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, announced back on May 9th that this is going to be a U.S. initiative involving only Israeli security. The Israelis are not distributing food. Secretary Rubio was just in Rome. He said he did meet with you. Did you share with him any of your concerns? CINDY MCCAIN: Well, we had a very frank discussion about exactly what was going on and what we could do to help alleviate a lot of this. Some of it, I'm not sure that they were completely clear on how we operate and the size that we are and the logistics ability that we have to be able to do this. So – so, we had a – a very nice discussion. As you know, the Rubio family and – and the McCain family have been friends for a very long time. And so I was grateful that he would take the time to listen to what – what we had to say and let us discuss exactly how we feel we should be able to operate. MARGARET BRENNAN: Did he assure you that the U.S. supports the U.N. and the World Food Programme continuing to supply food in Gaza? CINDY MCCAIN: We didn't really discuss the U.S. participation in any of this. He was really – really concerned with and really trying to understand how we operate and – and the need for what exactly what we do. We will work with anybody as long as it feeds people, and feeds people safely, I might add, on the ground and keeps our people and people from other agencies safe as well. MARGARET BRENNAN: Executive director of the World Food Programme, Cindy McCain. Thank you for your time this morning. CINDY MCCAIN: Thank you very much for having me. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we'll be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're back with another McCain. Jack McCain is the son of Cindy and the late Senator John McCain. He's a Navy veteran who served in the Afghanistan War. And he joins us now from Kyoto, Japan. Good to have you here. JACK MCCAIN (Afghanistan War Combat Veteran): Thank you. I'm incredibly glad to be here. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, we know, when you were in Afghanistan, you flew alongside and helped to train some of the Afghan Black Hawk pilots. Why is it important to you now to speak out on their behalf? Are any of your personal contacts there at risk? JACK MCCAIN: Yes. Basically everyone that we were unable to get out is at risk. These pilots and crew members fought the Taliban toe to toe. And because of that, the Taliban is trying to seek them out for reprisal. Something that they distinctly promised that they would not do. So, not only are they – are they in danger, but we owe them a debt. I believe that I'm vertical and still on this earth because of the efforts of my Afghan pilots and crews. And not only do I owe them personally, but the nation owes them a debt of honor. One that we have yet to repay. Everyone, interpreters, ground troops, pilots, that worked and fought alongside the United States at our behest should be able to be evacuated here to the United States and should be taken care of. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you were active duty at the time of the very chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. I know you helped to get Afghans out during that period of time. There were a lot of Afghans airlifted out. Who was left behind and – and what promises were made? JACK MCCAIN: Yes, the problem is everyone was left behind. Whether it was family members, including family members of U.S. servicemen, whether it was pilots, crews, the people that I worked with, special forces, we did everything we could to get as many as we could out. But due to the chaos of the withdrawal and, frankly, the lack of planning on the part of the United States government, it was up to individuals and sometimes smaller military units to help either, in my case I had to triage who we were going to take out. I had to prioritize operational pilots over pilots in training versus crew members in the back simply because everyone was trying to do everything they could. So, we have tens of thousands that fought alongside us left behind. Each one of them in danger in their own way. Not to mention family members that can be used as tools of leverage against those that are even here in the United States now. MARGARET BRENNAN: And to that point, under the Taliban right now, the daughters, the wives, the female family members of a lot of these people who worked with Americans are facing some pretty tough conditions. However, this administration just recently said through Homeland Security that it is safe for Afghans to return. So those here could be sent back. Some Afghans who had arrived here and been given temporary protection. Does what the U.S. government said match in any way what you are hearing is happening on the ground? JACK MCCAIN: I would disagree with the entire notion that it is safe for anyone, especially if they've been in the United States, to return to rule under the Taliban. Whether they are male, female, young, old, that regime has proven itself to be – to not only have gone back on every promise they made to us, but to be – to have no problem using human lives as pawns to imprison, torture, rape, kill, even sell into slavery. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, there are a number of veterans of the war in Afghanistan who serve currently as lawmakers in the United States Congress. And it is Congress that sets the number of visas for these – these special immigrant visas, SIVs. We checked. There are more than 144,000 applicants in the pipeline, but there are only 11,000 visas left. That's not even counting family members here. Have you gotten any indication from the lawmakers you know that they are going to raise that cap? JACK MCCAIN: No, I have not. And it is an utter travesty that that is the case. People on both sides of the aisle had – have served in Afghanistan or have fought alongside Afghans, much like me. And the political theater that has taken place of simply ignoring the problem can only be summarized by the word despicable. This is an issue of humanity. This is an issue of national honor. And this is a debt that we owe. So, I would urge lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to solve this problem because it is not going to go away. It is your job to legislate, so, please do so. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, that's in the hand of lawmakers. That was a problem even during the last administration. Now, though, we have this extra complication where the Trump administration has put in orders to restrict refugee admissions and said the U.S. should prioritize people who can, quote, 'fully and appropriately assimilate and who do not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.' That's made it hard for Afghan refugees, family members to enter here. How do you reassure the public that these refugees are not a risk? Even the vice president of the United States has said he does not trust the vetting of refugees. JACK MCCAIN: Well, I mean, I think I passed the ultimate test in that I literally put my lives in – my life in these people's hands. So, not only are they worthy of trust, but they are worthy of our care. The vetting process has taken place. It continues to take place. And if vetting is the issue, fantastic. Let's pass legislation to solve that problem. Let's make sure everyone up to this point has been vetted. MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, your father famously said, 'it matters less that you can fight, but what you fight for is the real test.' I know you feel passionately about this particular issue. Can you ever see yourself entering politics to fight for other issues? JACK MCCAIN: That's a – a very interesting question. One that I happen to get asked fairly regularly. And I would say trying to follow his example that the best life is one lived adventurously and in service of a cause greater than one's self interest. I'm doing that. And if someday that does take me to office in service of the nation, then by all means. But to live a life simply focused on the single goal of attaining public office is not in my mind a life purposefully lived, in – in service in office, it is a purposefully lived one, but that should not be the overriding goal of your life. MARGARET BRENNAN: We will continue watching. Jack McCain, thank you for weighing in on this important issue. JACK MCCAIN: Thank you so much. MARGARET BRENNAN: We'll be back in a moment. MARGARET BRENNAN: This year, the bipartisan group, led in the past by then Congressman Mike Waltz, went from the House floor, where they had just passed the president's spending bill in an early morning vote, down to the Washington Mall. Cleaning the Vietnam War Memorial may have been delayed, but the mission was not deterred by either lack of sleep or rain. (BEGIN VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: You were up all night. Why did you show up in the rain in your suit to still do this? REPRESENTATIVE SETH MOULTON (D-MA): Because this is way more important. You know, sometimes people ask me, God, Seth, Washington is a mess today. Is it as bad as Iraq? And every single day the answer is, this is easier than the war. And it's important to keep that perspective. MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think that the divisions in our country now are in the same place, different from what this country went through around the time of Vietnam, when it was a very divided country? REPRESENTATIVE SETH MOULTON: You know, I think there are actually a lot of – a lot of parallels. And one of the lessons that we should learn is to – to do right by our veterans, if for no other reason we've got to work on coming together. And, you know, it's – it's difficult when it feels like we've got the divider in chief to quote one of his former officials, at the head of our government right now. But that doesn't mean that those of us in Congress, especially veterans, can't work together. MARGARET BRENNAN (voice over): Iowa Republican Zach Nunn spent 20 years as an Air Force intelligence officer as still served in the Air Force Reserve. North Carolina Democrat Don Davis also served in the Air Force and told us that his work as a mortuary officer at nearby Andrews Air Force Base makes Memorial Day especially important to him. After the wall was cleaned, we talked about their work together on Capitol Hill. MARGARET BRENNAN: Congress did give that boost of pay last year to the troops. Is it enough in this economy though? Is the country doing enough? REPRESENTATIVE DON DAVIS (D-NC): We know that families are still struggling to make ends meet. Taking care of the day to day, kids, putting gas in the tank. So, it's definitely, I'm sure, not enough. But we are moving, I believe, there with that (INAUDIBLE) in particular in the right direction, not only with pay, but looking at broader quality of life issues, housing, childcare that's available on our installations. MARGARET BRENNAN: America spends more than any other country on its defense. How is it possible we have this happening to our troops? REPRESENTATIVE ZACH NUNN, (R-IA): We've tried to work together on things that not only help veterans, leading a veteran's suicide bill, assistance to families in the military. I'm proud the bill that we just passed is going to be able to extent a 22 percent tax cut to military families. I'm proud that we got a child tax credit in there. I'm thrilled that we were able to get our bill in there that worked towards giving a family a tax credit for adoption. We've got two adopted kids. This goes a long ways to helping a middle American family, whether you're military or not, be successful going forward. REPRESENTATIVE DON DAVIS: But I want to also say, it's important to do all of this for recruitment, retention, addressing quality of life. We recruit families. But also, when I think about being right here, at the Vietnam Memorial, and I think about our service, my service, you don't do it for the money, you do it because you love the country. REPRESENTATIVE ZACH NUNN: That's right. REPRESENTATIVE DON DAVIS: So, because of that love for the country, realizing that families are fighting for our country, the service members and their families, we have to continue to just look and – at prioritizing our military families. MARGARET BRENNAN: How do you tell people now, encourage them to enter public service, at a time when they're being told, even by the federal government – REPRESENTATIVE ZACH NUNN: Right. MARGARET BRENNAN: The private sector is going to be more rewarding for you? REPRESENTATIVE ZACH NUNN: Look, Margaret, I think you highlight a really important part here. There's a number of ways that people can be called to serve. It's one of the things that I think has actually made us most combat effective in Congress is finding people who are mission oriented, who are working together. I tell my kids, the things that they could potentially learn in the military will echo throughout their entire life. But it's up for every American to make that decision, that pathway. You're right, less than 1 percent of Americans are serving. That 1 percent distinguishes itself time and time again. And there's lots of great ways to public service. Don and I have worked together to get more teachers, more nurses, more doctors. There's all great calls to public service. The federal government has a role to play in this, but ultimately it's up to Americans to decide how do they best give back to the communities that they represent? We certainly felt that military service was a way to do it, but I think we came to it in our own pathway. REPRESENTATIVE DON DAVIS: Yes, and I would love to say to any young person listening right now that's remotely interested, I had an amazing career serving in the United States Air Force. I love serving our country. And it was definitely a great career for me. And now as a member of the Armed Services Committee, we're doing everything to continue to make sure all of our branches are vibrant and we're doing things to make sure we support them. Give it a shot. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. Well, we talk about the Vietnam War and the memorial behind you. There are it looks like students coming to reflect this morning. Three million people died in that war, 58,000 Americans among them. I wonder this Memorial Day, who are you thinking of? REPRESENTATIVE ZACH NUNN: Look, this isn't ancient history. This is living history. I think of my uncle who flew spotter planes over Vietnam. I think of my dad, who had the choice between enlisting or joining the ROTC program. I also think about my mother, who got – back home taking care of, you know, at that point, her career as a nurse. Ay aunt, who had two little girls. These are the stories that I think it's so important that young people do have the opportunity to learn about. One, so we never enter this kind of a situation again where we send men and women off to fight and they come back home, not to a hero's welcome, but as a despised class. Peace through strength is a real deterrent. But also knowing that we've got a military that when we commit to fight, we have to go in there knowing that we have a strategy, a plan, and that we're not going to be bringing people home injured, broken or shattered to a country not ready to receive them. REPRESENTATIVE DON DAVIS: It's so warming to see young people, kids walking through and looking at the Vietnam Memorial. I think of those throughout my community back home in eastern North Carolina, who I know served our country during Vietnam. And I go beyond Vietnam. I think of Corporal Ryan Russell, who's from east North Carolina, who was killed in Iraq. And I have a special relationship with his mom, Kathy. And we're doing everything to commemorate those who were killed, not just Vietnam, but in all wars and conflicts so that they know the – that the families, that we're standing with them. There's a way to get through this, this healing process that so many families are going through, those tears, that they're not alone. But not only that, but to embrace nationally when we see this, to think about all those who ultimately gave their lives in service of our country. (END VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: And we will be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: That's it for us today. But on behalf of all of us here at FACE THE NATION, to our military, our veterans, and especially their families, thank you for your service. We are all in your debt. Until next week, for FACE THE NATION, I'm Margaret Brennan.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Congressmen clean Vietnam memorial to honor fallen
In the early morning rain, a group of congressmen -- some still in suits after an all-night voting session -- cleaned the memorial to the 58,000 Americans killed in the Vietnam War. Margaret Brennan has more.
Wakala News
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Wakala 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 Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates Bridget Brink, 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. (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. 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. 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)
Wakala News
04-05-2025
- Politics
- Wakala News
Full transcript of 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,' May 4, 2025
On this 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan' broadcast, moderated by Margaret Brennan: Rep. Mike Turner, Republican of Ohio Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois Oksana Markarova, Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. Ret. Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster NPR CEO Katherine Maher and PBS CEO Paula Kerger Click here to browse full transcripts from 2025 of 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.' MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm Margaret Brennan. And this week on Face the Nation: President Trump begins the next phase of his agenda with a staff shakeup. And what does the economic deal between the U.S. and Ukraine mean for the security relationship between the two countries? Mike Waltz is out as national security adviser, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in, adding another job to his growing list of responsibilities. With Trump's push for a nuclear deal with Iran and an end to Russia's war in Ukraine, we will ask Republican Mike Turner about the impact of the shuffle. And we will get insights from one of Trump's national security advisers in his first term, retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster. Plus, Illinois Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth will join us with an update on the Armed Services Committee's bipartisan request for a probe into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's conduct. Overnight, a new attack on Kyiv. We will get reaction from Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova. And, finally, as President Trump seeks to end federal funding to public broadcasting, we will ask NPR CEO Katherine Maher and PBS CEO Paula Kerger how they plan to fight back. It's all just ahead on Face the Nation. Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. We have a lot to get to, so let's begin today with Ohio Republican Congressman Mike Turner. Good to see you here in person. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER (R-Ohio): Thanks for having me, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: So I have a lot of national security topics to get to you, but at the heart of so much is America's economic strength. And so I want to ask you about what President Trump said this week about the cost, the impact of his China tariffs on the supply of goods in the United States. Take a listen. (Begin VT) DONALD TRUMP (President of the United States): Somebody said, oh, the shelves are going to be open. Well, maybe the children will have two dolls, instead of 30 dolls, you know? And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally. (End VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: Do your constituents back in Ohio really want to hear the message that they need fewer Christmas presents this year? He's acknowledging less supply, higher prices. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Well, I think there's going to be a lot that has to be shaken out here. And we certainly are seeing, I think, some reaction now in China also that means that the president's goal is that these nations, that – of which he's putting tariffs on the table and tariffs, which are a punishment for having behaved poorly, taking advantage of the United States economically, will come to the table and negotiate better economic deals than the United States has been experiencing. Those deals are beginning to be offered. The White House is beginning to negotiate those. China is beginning to signal that they're willing to come to the table. So, even though the president is making those statements, at the same time, we're seeing that the president taking that step of saying we want a better economic deal is beginning to work. MARGARET BRENNAN: But, in the meantime, China said it may restrict exports of materials used by General Dynamics, which makes tanks, including in your state of Ohio. Are you concerned that the trade war won't just impact people's purchasing of toys, but preparedness, tanks, and military readiness? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: I think we're all concerned of the effects on the supply chain. And certainly we have got to make certain that this works through the entire processes and that we are concerned on the effects of the economy. I think the president's going to be looking at that. Congress is going to be looking at that. But the real concern here is that we do have to look long term as to how this protects our overall economy. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Beijing has not yet launched those talks. We will be watching for them if they do get under way. Let's get to the other news of the week, the reshuffling at the top of the national security apparatus. It has long been clear there are divides within the administration on certain topics. Iran is one of them. Russia is another one of them. Mike Waltz, who you served with, viewed as a traditional Republican hawk. I say this because, when he was on this program previously, he laid out in pretty clear terms that the U.S. goal in these negotiations with Iran are dismantlement of its nuclear program, not limits on enrichment, not verification, but those are the things that the envoy negotiating with Iran have said. We're seeing policy differences from within the president's own administration here. Has Congress been given details on what the goal is and what the plan is? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Well, I mean, the goal is simply stated, that we do not have a nuclear Iran. And, certainly, the president is leaning strongly in that. From his first term, with the maximum pressure campaign, the president was clear that, both in non-nuclear Iran and also making certain that we have – that the nefarious activities of Iran working through their proxies, the terrorist groups and organizations, that that be stopped. So the president is very strong on an anti-Iran policy, including ensuring that there not be a nuclear Iran. MARGARET BRENNAN: But the things that his envoy have described sound a lot like that 2015 nuclear deal negotiated under President Obama, with limits on enrichment, for example, and things like that. I know in the past you voted for legislation that would give Congress more oversight over a deal with Iran. Do you expect President Trump to bring any kind of deal he brokers to Congress for approval? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Well, I think we have to see what the deal is. I mean, currently, there's just ongoing negotiations. We will have to see how that evolves. We will have to see what those terms are and really – well, I… MARGARET BRENNAN: You don't want any kind of review regardless? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: I mean, as it evolves, we will have to see what those terms are and what – and really what is achieved. And, certainly, there's a role for Congress to play as that goes forward. But I think we need to give them the opportunity for success. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Israeli prime minister issued a statement yesterday denying that he personally was talking to Mike Waltz about bombing Iran, military action against Iran. Of course, we know his aides could have those conversations. Is it appropriate work for the national security adviser to the president to be coordinating with Israel about military action against Iran, or was Mike Waltz possibly in the wrong here? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Well, first off, we don't know specifically that that was occurring. But, at the same time, the National Security Council, the function of the National Security Council is to ensure that the president of the United States has the greatest information possible. And Mike Waltz is – has an incredible background and experience. He worked diligently to make certain he had a strong role in the national security team of the president. And I'm certainly glad that he's going to be retained and staying in a strong role in this administration. Working directly with world leaders and heads of state is certainly an important role of – as the national security adviser to the president. And I – certainly, I think, even as U.N. ambassador, he will continue to do that type of function. MARGARET BRENNAN: Is it in the national security interest, though, to have the secretary of state, who also has, at least on paper, three other jobs now, in this role, and for how long? You're saying how important it is. MARGARET BRENNAN: And even he said it was untenable. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Right. MARGARET BRENNAN: And even – but he was in lockstep with his president. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: I think what's also very important here is that Marco Rubio, from a policy perspective, is very strong in this administration. His signal of being in this position sends a signal of continuing the same policies in the administration. From a Trump team policy perspective, him taking over this sends a signal of continuation and strength. That's excellent. MARGARET BRENNAN: But the policy… (CROSSTALK) And that's certainly hope – hopefully that he will be able to do so and build out a strong team there that represents really the opportunity to support President Trump in giving him the information and knowledge and the access to information and knowledge that he needs. MARGARET BRENNAN: That's a diplomatic way of saying there shouldn't be loyalty tests to the president. You want actual experts staffing National Security Council. You don't want Laura Loomer, a far right activist, making decisions on personnel? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Well, at the same time, there does have to be loyalty to the president. MARGARET BRENNAN: Of course, but also to the Constitution. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: I mean, we saw in the president's first term that the president was betrayed during the first Trump impeachment by individuals who were at the National Security Council. So Trump personally has an understanding that you have to have people at the National Security Council that are on Trump's team. And the National Security Council, being – directly working with him and being in the White House, it's very, very important that they be personnel that work for and on behalf of the president. MARGARET BRENNAN: You were talking about National Security Council members who testified under oath that the president was withholding aid to Ukraine during the first administration for a political favor. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: And was shown to have wrongly been testified, because I was part of that panel. And they – their testimony was proven not to be accurate, that the president was not tying aid to Ukraine to the investigation. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that was the premise of the impeachment. But your point is, that looms large in the president's memory and interaction with the National Security Council now. OK. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: The president needs to make certain that he has staff that are supportive of him in the National Security Council and his policies and makes certain that they're providing him information. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: This is the heart of, what does the president know that our adversaries are doing? MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: When he's dealing with Russia and what – and policies with respect to Ukraine, he needs to know what Vladimir Putin is doing. And that's coming directly from the National Security Council. MARGARET BRENNAN: Noted. The White House budget was released Friday. It is not the trillion-dollar promise the president campaigned on. Susan Collins on Appropriations, Roger Wicker on the Senate Armed Services Committee says this is not adequate. And, in fact, he said: 'The intention is to shred to the bone our military capabilities and support to service members.' Do you share your Republican senators' concerns? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: I think there's more work that can be done on the national security portion of the president's budget. MARGARET BRENNAN: You would like to see more defense spending than the White House is putting forth? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: I think there's going to be more debate and I think there's more opportunity for increased investment. We really need to do more in the national security space. There are adversaries that we have that want to do America harm, and we need to be strong. MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, Congressman Turner, thank you for joining us. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Thank you. MARGARET BRENNAN: Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're joined now by Illinois Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth. Good to have you here in person. SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D-Illinois): Thanks for having me. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, Senator, I know you did vote to confirm Secretary Rubio. Do you have confidence that he can juggle all four of the jobs that he now has for an indefinite period of time? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: No. There's no way he can do that and do it well, especially since there's such incompetence over at DOD with Pete Hegseth being secretary of defense, and just the hollowing out of the top leadership. There's no way he can carry all that entire load on his own. And so I do think that they need to find a new secretary of defense. They need to find a new NSA – head of NSA as quickly as possible. MARGARET BRENNAN: But, at this point, we heard from the chief of staff that she believes all the Cabinet secretaries will serve a full year. What makes you think that Secretary Hegseth could actually be dismissed? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Well, I think he should be dismissed. Whether or not President Trump's going to dismiss him is a whole different conversation. He should never have been nominated in the first place. He is the most untrained, inadequate secretary of defense in our nation's history. And look at what he's done at the Pentagon. It's in turmoil. He lost his top staffers within a matter of days. He's now put classified information an unclassified chain, and he's put on our nation's national security at risk. MARGARET BRENNAN: He says no war plans, wasn't classified, but it was sensitive information. That's part of this ongoing inspector general probe, as I understand it, into his conduct. Do you have any timeline, any sense of how seriously that's being taken and when the results will be seen? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: We don't have a timeline. It is very serious. Let me make it clear what he did. He put into an unclassified Signal chain that the aircraft are going to be over a certain point in space at a certain point in time. That's classified information. Any basic person getting through military training knows that is classified information. And he did it on a separate chain with his wife and family members. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you, because you sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, along with Armed Services… SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Armed Services, yes. MARGARET BRENNAN: … what you think is going to happen to Mike Waltz, who is now being pushed out of the NSA role and into this job as ambassador to the United Nations. That's arguably a pretty important post. Senate Intel Vice Chairman Mark Warner says it's going to be a brutal hearing. What do you want to know from him? And are you open to confirming him into the job? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: It will be a brutal hearing. He's not qualified for the job, just by nature of the fact that he participated in the Signal chain. In fact, I think everybody on that Signal chain needs to be fired, because not a single one of them spoke up and said, hey, this is inappropriate. We should be in a secure channel. And, by the way, what's really interesting was that there was not a single uniformed personnel on that Signal chain, which was very clear that it was purposefully done to keep the military personnel with the experience off of that Signal chat. Now, Mike Waltz is doing what we call, he is failing up, right? He is failing in his job and getting promoted to be ambassador. That's not what our nation needs at the United Nations. MARGARET BRENNAN: Mike Waltz served this country in a uniform as a Green Beret. He was a lawmaker. You think he is incompetent, and you're not open to voting for him at all? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: I'm not open to voting for him, no, because he – because he's already demonstrated he's incapable of doing the most basic thing, which is handling classified information. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about funding for defense because I know you have said, in particular, the Navy needs more money and more financial support right now. The Republican chair of Appropriations and the Republican chair of Armed Services both saw the White House's budget when it was released on Friday… SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Yes. MARGARET BRENNAN: … and said it freezes military spending at Biden era levels, which they argue amounts to a reduction. Can you work together with your Republican allies to increase defense spending? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Well, one of the places where there has been bipartisanship has been the Armed Services Committee. That has been something that I have been very proud to be a part of. Now, whether or not my Republican colleagues continue to be co-conspirators and collaborators with this administration in basically gutting the United States government is up to them. Right now, their plans are going to require laying off hundreds – at least 100,000 civilian workers at the Pentagon. It's going to, in the words of Chairman Wicker, basically – I'm going to paraphrase him – cut defense capabilities to the bone, I think is how he put it. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, he did. SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: We need to make sure – the Navy needs more ships. We need more – and the Merchant Mariners need more boats, more ships. We need to make major investments in our sixth-generation fighter fleet. We need to make major investments in training pilots. We are short pilots. And yet the cuts that they're proposing in order to fund a vanity project like the Golden Dome does not help make America more secure on a global scale. And it certainly doesn't keep us the leader of the free world. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about one of the programs that is at least nominally being eliminated. Secretary Hegseth posted on social media he's ending the Women, Peace, and Security program. Hegseth said: 'It's a divisive social justice initiative from feminists, a distraction from war fighting.' But when we checked how the now-chairman of the Joint Chiefs described it, General Caine, he said he used the program in the field after an assault to send in female members to speak with women and children to better understand human terrain. So, if the military establishment says it's useful and the secretary of defense says it's not and it's a distraction, what happens? And can lawmakers like yourself actually rescue this program? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: We can if my Republicans will stop rolling over for this president. We can actually rescue this program. The program is clearly important. It's supported by every combatant commander. It's a program that came about – by the way, Marco Rubio was one of the leaders of this. But… (LAUGHTER) MARGARET BRENNAN: He was. And Kristi Noem as a lawmaker supported it. SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: And Kristi Noem as a lawmaker supported the program. MARGARET BRENNAN: And President Trump signed it into law. SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: And he signed it into law. This shows how incompetent Hegseth is, that in his slash-and-burn efforts at the Pentagon, he basically slash and burned something without realizing that this was actually a Trump era law and this was led by his colleagues. And now he can't back out of it. This came out of really some of the lessons we learned in Afghanistan when we had the Marine Corps Lionesses, which were teams of all women Marines, tough, tough fighters, who would go in and talk to the women in the villages and would get intelligence that no one else could. (CROSSTALK) MARGARET BRENNAN: Because the women wouldn't talk to the men. SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Because women wouldn't talk to the men. And so this is a vital program that keeps our military stronger and also makes it more lethal, because we can find where our enemies are and go after them. MARGARET BRENNAN: Hegseth said he will implement the minimum required of – – what does that mean? Do you know? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: I don't know. But he's the minimum of a defense secretary, so it's not surprising that he would go to the lowest levels. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about what's happening within your party. Your fellow Midwesterner Michigan Senator Elisha Slot kin said Democrats are messaging in a way that doesn't resonate outside of blue coastal areas. She was focusing in on Bernie Sanders' use of the term oligarchy. She said, use plain language. Talk about kings, that we oppose them. Do you agree with her that there is at minimum a messaging problem, if there isn't something more within your party right now? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Well, I have long said that we should be listening to Midwest Democrats a lot more. Those of us from the center of the country represent states like Illinois. We're 102 counties; 96 are red and six are blue. You don't get elected in the Midwest without being able to talk to everyday voters in red counties about the issues that they worry about. Do – be able to talk about agricultural issues. Our farmers are just being battered by the Trump administration right now. The tariffs are hurting them with the products they're trying to sell. The inputs that they're trying to import in order to plan and grow their crops are being priced out of range. The steel that John Deere uses to make the tractors are also pricing those – that equipment out of range. I do think that the Democratic Party should be listening to the Industrial Midwest more. MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Duckworth, thank you for your time. SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Thank you. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we will be right back with a lot more Face the Nation, so stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Ukraine's ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova. Ambassador, good to have you back. I understand Russia has been attacking Kyiv as recently as overnight. What can you tell us? OKSANA MARKAROVA (Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States): Good morning, Margaret. Yes, another very difficult day and night in Kyiv, and not only Kyiv, Chafee and some other places. More than 165 Shahed drones, Iranian drones, have been deployed again against completely civilian targets. So, unfortunately, this is a horrible reality during the past 1,166 days. Every day, regardless of Russia says, there are some attacks, and there are civilian casualties and there are civilian destructions. And for the same 1,166 days, we work diligently on getting – not only defending us, but getting to peace. And Ukraine is devoted to peace. MARGARET BRENNAN: There has been a shift in tone at least between the Trump administration and your president. President Zelenskyy told reporters Friday that his conversation with President Trump at the pope's funeral was the best meeting they've ever had and he's confident things will look different now. What is he indicating? What's coming next? When do they speak next? AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Look, our partnership with the U.S. is very important for us. U.S. has been and is a strategic partnership. We are really grateful to American people for all the support that we are getting from the U.S. It would not be possible for us to defend ourselves without those Javelins, without those weapons that U.S. has provided us. And it was President Trump who decided to provide us Javelins as – when I was still a finance minister. MARGARET BRENNAN: Back in 2017. AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: And it was back in 2017. And then large support from American people during the past three years have really been a game changer, and we are very grateful for it. The meeting was great. And, you know, as you know, after that meeting, we have signed really a great agreement, economic partnership agreement between our two nations, which will take that partnership to a new level. So, look, we might have some disagreements on – in some areas, but Ukraine is committed to peace. Ukraine wants peace more than anyone, and we need U.S. We – we – our countries are based on the same values. We are defending freedom in Ukraine. We are not the ones who started this war. And now it's not only the right or moral thing to do – to support Ukraine, but, also, U.S. has, as your secretary of treasury said, an interest, and specific economic interest, in Ukraine. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. Well, I want to ask you about that deal. This is what's often described as a minerals agreement, but it's a broader economic partnership that's going forth for ratification in your government this week, I understand. This was agreed to, but Russia's foreign minister has said that the mineral deposits that exist in Ukraine in the east are one reason his country wouldn't withdraw from that area. So, can the U.S. and Ukraine make this deal work if Russian troops are still in the area where those mineral deposits largely are? AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Margaret, as you said, this is an economic partnership agreement to create an investment fund to – for both of our nations to benefit from amazing investment opportunities that Ukraine has. We discussed before – and I'm so glad that we can not only discuss the horrible tragedy and destruction brought by a Russian unprovoked invasion, but also of the bright future that we, together with America and – and other countries, can have. Ukraine has agricultural land and black soil. And with the technologies, even during the war, we feed more than 400 million people. We have energy. We have mineral – critical mineral deposits. We have so much in the – including the human talent. MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: And we can develop it together. So, look, when Russians criticize something, it's a sign for all of us that we are doing something right. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: This deal will work, and it will work if Ukraine is peaceful. MARGARET BRENNAN: Let's talk – let's talk more on the other side of this commercial break. We will be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION. We return now to our conversation with Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova. We've been discussing the deal that the United States and Ukraine came to in regard to this economic partnership. I've read that the deal counts future U.S. military assistance in the form of ammunition, weapon systems and training as a contribution to the investment fund, and that Ukraine will not reimburse Washington for past military aid. Is that how it's set up? OKSANA MARKAROVA (Ukrainian Ambassador): Well, we – first of all, it's important that it's going to be, as we say, a 50/50 deal. So we, together, will set up that fund, we will run it together. And all the future contribution that – or investments that U.S. will be providing us, including military deals, will be counted as contribution to that fund, and Ukraine will be also committing the proceeds from the new licenses and new developments into the fund. So, essentially, it's a true partnership where we would be able to put resources together in order to invest into a wide range of projects, including infrastructure, including rare earths, including critical minerals, and both of our nations will benefit from it. MARGARET BRENNAN: When does that get up and running? OKSANA MARKAROVA: We're working very actively on it. As you saw, the deal between the governments have been signed. It's going to be ratified by our parliament hopefully soon. You have seen strong messages from President Zelenskyy. And it's his vision and vision of President Trump behind the deal that is moving it forward. Of course, there will be the creation of the fund, the set-up of the fund. I used to work in private equity in my previous life. That takes a little bit of time. But we are moving very fast. So, hopefully the teams will come – put everything together and we'll start working. MARGARET BRENNAN: But within this there aren't security guarantees. Are there promises of future military aid from the United States? Because if this effort to get a peace deal together doesn't work, the fate of the war is still in question. OKSANA MARKAROVA: Well, you know, this – the situation with Russian aggression towards Ukraine is so complex. There are many – we've discussed the potential possible peace deals. We're discussing this economic partnership deal which is already signed. We're discussing other possible scenarios and security guarantees and involvement of other friends and allies. And, you know, Europe has been more active and proactive in a number of areas. So, this economic partnership deal in itself is a very important part of the broader security, security architecture, if I may say so. And, frankly, that fund will be successful if Ukraine is stable and peaceful. So, in a way, it's an important part of the future security guarantees. MARGARET BRENNAN: Vladimir Putin told Russian state TV, he thinks that he can bring this war to a logical conclusion. He avoided the word war. He said this thing that started in 2022. But he said, here's been no need to use nuclear weapons and, quote, 'I hope they will not be required.' How do you interpret that? OKSANA MARKAROVA: Well, it's very difficult to interpret a man and a so- called leader of the nation who attack Georgia in 2008, attacked Ukraine in 2014, conducted two genocidal wars on his own in his own federation against Chechnya, the war crimes in Syria, poisoned people in – in Great Britain. I mean, I think at this point it doesn't matter how we interpret what he says, we just have to believe what he says and understand what he says. He is a threat, not only to Ukraine, but also to anyone who believes that nations should live peacefully, do not challenge each other's borders and just focus on the economic operation. That's what we are doing with the United States. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. OKSANA MARKAROVA: And hopefully our collective efforts and with Europe, with all the Baltic and Nordic states, with all the friends and allies, including Japan, including the U.K., including so many people that are coming together in order to bring peace, not only to our part of the world, but globally because it's important. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. OKSANA MARKAROVA: Putin is doing it, together with Iran and North Korea. They are not hiding it. They are supporting other terroristic regimes. And we should also stay together in order to bring peace. MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador, thank you for your time today. We'll be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster. He served as national security adviser during President Trump's first term, and he is the author of, 'At War with Ourselves: My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House.' Good to have you back with us. LT. GEN. H.R. MCMASTER (Ret., Former Trump National Security Adviser): Hey, great to be with you, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you've been here. Mike Waltz is no longer the national security adviser. CBS reported his deputy, Alex Wong, will also depart his role. But then, as of Friday morning, we found Wong was still on the job. It is not clear what the National Security Council makeup will be or how long the secretary of state will be at the head of it advising the president. What significance does this have for America's national security? H.R. MCMASTER: I think it's significant, Margaret, because I think what it reveals is, is a fight that's going on within the administration associated with the – our role in the world and how certain people in the administration perceive America's role in the world. And I think Mike Waltz as an America first guy, but he was an internationalist and prioritized, I think, our alliances. He knew that, I think, that, quite correctly, that Putin won't stop until he is stopped. And so, he was an advocate for a strong approach to Putin. And I think there were those in the administration that have a much different world view, you know, who are in favor of – of U.S. retrenchment or disengagement from complex challenges abroad and want to prioritize kind of the western hemisphere/North American defense. And you see that in your discussion with – with Congressman Turner as well associated with the defense budget and what's being prioritized in the defense budget as well. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you see this as a – as a policy argument, not just a Signal messaging mistake that, you know, Mike Waltz created that channel where he accidentally included a reporter? H.R. MCMASTER: It is. I think it's a – it's a policy issue, a world view issue, but it's also an understanding of the role of the – the national security council staff and the national security staff that – that – that Mike Waltz was running, and Alex Wong is – is still running. And – and that's really the staff that allows the president to drive his agenda, that gets best analysis, best advice to the president and gets him multiple options. It seems pretty clear that President Trump is not very patient in terms of a deliberative process these days, and this is why I think he may see the National Security Council staff as an impediment instead of really the best vehicle to drive his agenda and to integrate all elements of national power and efforts of like-minded partners to advance American interests. MARGARET BRENNAN: You know, I thought it was an interesting point Congressman Turner made when he brought up the specific point of reference the president has for the National Security Council during his first term, which is, Turner argued, seeing them as the reason he was impeached where – during his first impeachment related to Ukraine. Do you think that is something that makes him distrust that counsel? Why is it that he would take the advice of someone like Laura Loomer, this far right activist who has made racist attacks on some of the members of that council? H.R. MCMASTER: You know, Margaret, I think there are three times of people in any administration, those who are there to give the president best advice, those who are there not for that but want to manipulate decisions consistent with their own agenda. These are people inside and outside of the administration. And there's a third group of people who sometimes take on the role of maybe saving the country and the world from the president. That second and third group, if you have an effective national security decision-making process that gives the president multiple options, they tend to oppose that process. They tend to oppose the national security adviser. And I think what you're seeing is how easy it is for certain people to get in the president's ear, to sow distrust, to drive a wedge between him and the national security adviser in this case or the national security staff and those who are there to get him multiple options. MARGARET BRENNAN: You referenced the different world view of some of the people advising the president right now. Particularly regarding our allies. In Europe, we saw an interesting decision this week in Germany. Their domestic intelligence agency concluded an investigation into a far-right political party known as AFD. They declared it to be an extremist group because of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim positions. Their leaders have trivialized the Holocaust. They've called for deporting non-white citizens because that violates the German constitution. This would sound like a domestic issue. However, the vice president and the secretary of state have taken very public statements here wading into this. Rubio calling it 'tyranny in disguise.' Vice President Vance also weighing in here. Do you think that's advisable when that party's leaders have such a troubled history? Can you explain it? H.R. MCMASTER: Yes, part – part of this, Margaret, is – is what you covered earlier in the show about this kind of women, peace and security initiative, as well as I would say some of the radical DEI agendas of the Biden and maybe the Obama administration before that. This is like an equal and opposite reaction. And it's international. And this is one of the reasons why there are some people in the United States who kind of regard Putin as – as – as the savior of – of western civilization, or – or Christianity and so forth, which is obviously kind of a – a perverse view of him as well. But I think what's related to this is this sort of – this emphasis on, you know, retrenchment, just take care of ourself, disengage from the world and – and I think that these are – are related. What's – what's, I think, interesting about this though is that the Trump administration, I think, risks replicating the flaws of the Obama administration's policy, because what you see is, now some people in the Republican Party seeing the source of all ills in the world as, like, the neocons and – and they trace it back in particular to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So, that blaming ourselves, other Americans for the ills of the world, and the associated impulse toward disengagement risks recreating, I think, some of the fundamental flaws in sort of the Obama administration approach to the world. MARGARET BRENNAN: H.R. McMaster, thank you for sharing your insight. We'll leave it there. And we'll be back in a moment. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: In a commencement address last week at the University of Alabama, President Trump told journalism majors that he's not sure he likes the press, but acknowledged a free press is important. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP (President of the United States): We need a brilliant press. They're like a watchkeeper. They're very important. And you can go out and take it down a new track, help save the country. The people of this country, they know the truth when they hear it. That's why the ratings, the approval numbers of the media are so low. (END VIDEO CLIP) MARGARET BRENNAN: Last week the president offered a cutoff – ordered, excuse me, a cutoff to federal funding to two major public broadcasting systems, PBS and NPR. For more now we're joined by CEOs Katherine Maher and Paula Kerger. Good to have you both together. PAULA KERGER (CEO, PBS): Great to be here. KATHERINE MAHER (CEO, NPR): Thank you for having us. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, the president issued this order for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees you both, to cut off funding. Are you both filing lawsuits? And on what basis can you challenge this? KATHERINE MAHER: We're looking at whatever options are available to us. I think it's a little preliminary for us to be able to speak to the specific strategies that we might take. MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that the same for pbs? PAULA KERGER: Yes. We're, obviously, looking. And I would just say, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a funding mechanism, but they actually don't oversee PBS or NPR. We're independent organizations. MARGARET BRENNAN: Important point to make. But the threat of cutting off funding – PAULA KERGER: Yes. MARGARET BRENNAN: Whether it was in Congress or the president saying he's doing it now. That's not new, right? That's been a talking point for years. There have been efforts in Congress. You do have funding, I think, through 2027, but it feels a little bit different this time. Do you have a backup funding plan? PAULA KERGER: Yes, it is different this time. And I've been through these battles now for a number of years. I've been at PBS almost 20 years. And I remember even going back to the Newt Gingrich days. But this is different. They're coming after us on many different ways. We're waiting for a possible rescission of those funds that have already been appropriated. MARGARET BRENNAN: They're clawing them back. PAULA KERGER: There was an effort within the FCC challenging our ability to accept sponsorships from corporations, which is something that we have worked with the FCC on for many, many years. There was the executive order. There was the effort to try to remove a few members of the CPB board. So, we have never seen a circumstance like this. And, obviously, we're going to be pushing back very hard because what's at risk are our stations, our public television, our public radio stations across the country. We get 15 percent of our funding from the federal government. That's 1-5 percent, but that's an aggregate number. Some of our stations in small communities, it's 40 percent to 50 percent of their funding. And for them it's existential. And that's what's at risk if this funding goes away. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, is it immediate for NPR? KATHERINE MAHER: In – in a similar fashion. If we were to see a claw back of these funds, which we know is part of the conversation from a rescission standpoint, or if we were to see that the stations were no longer able to participate in their membership due, that would be damaging. But I think that Paula's point is the one that really people need to hear. The immediate damage is to local stations. And with NPR we have stations in more than – 246 stations with newsrooms, we're in 200 newsrooms in every state in the country, and that includes journalists who are out there covering their local communities, especially in a time where we're seeing an advance of news deserts across the nation, 20 percent of Americans don't have access to another local source of news. The impact of this could really be devastating, particularly in rural communities. MARGARET BRENNAN: The president tweeted, or socialed, or truthed, 'Republicans must defund and totally disassociate themselves from NPR and PBS, the radical left monsters that so badly hurt our country.' I have to tell you, I heard monsters and I thought of Cookie Monster. PAULA KERGER: I did too, actually. MARGARET BRENNAN: I thought of 'Sesame Street' and I thought of that children's programming. PAULA KERGER: Right. MARGARET BRENNAN: That is in many – many ways what people think of when they think of PBS. PAULA KERGER: Absolutely. (INAUDIBLE). MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that impacted too? PAULA KERGER: Absolutely. And out of this executive order, we believe it impacts our funding out of the Department of Education, which is a 30-year program that has supported the development – not only the creation of many of the children's programming that you see on public television, but also the research that we do to ensure that that programming is not just safe and enjoyable, but that children, after watching, come away with understanding of basic letters and numbers. Half the kids in this country are not enrolled in formal pre-k. That's why programming for children on public television was created. That was the idea with 'Sesame Street' and 'Mister Rogers.' And everything that's followed since is to make sure that children that do not have access to a full array of resources have the opportunity to learn and to develop skills that they'll need the first time they enter preschool. That may be at age two, or three, or four, and sometimes five, not until they start kindergarten. That's what's at risk. MARGARET BRENNAN: At risk or right now? I mean, do you have the money to keep functioning? PAULA KERGER: Well, we have programming, so you're not going to turn on your TV set and not see our children's programming anymore. MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. PAULA KERGER: But if that funding is cut off, we have programs in development right now. And that will suddenly skid to a halt. We also have stations around the country that work directly with preschool providers and parents, and this funds those activities. So, the immediate impact would be fairly significant. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, Katherine, I want to ask you about the news. When we went and we read the executive order, the language in there says, 'government funding of news media in this environment is outdated and unnecessary, corrosive to the appearance of independence. Ad Americans have the right to expect if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting, that it's fair, accurate, unbiased and non-partisan.' How do you respond to the implication that your news coverage is not? KATHERINE MAHER: Is not fair and – and non-partisan? I mean I think – MARGARET BRENNAN: And unbiased. KATHERINE MAHER: Yes, I mean, well, first of all, I think it's important to note that I'm the CEO and we have an independent editor in chief who oversees the newsroom. And so, I don't make editorial decisions. And that, I think, is just always an important point to make. But I think our newsroom would really take issue with that. We have been on air for more than 50 years. We have been covering news as it occurs across the nation, in local communities, oversees. We have an extraordinary Washington desk. And our people report straight down the line. And I think that not only do they do that, they do so with a mission that very few other broadcast organizations have, which is a requirement to serve the entire public. That is the point of public broadcasting as we bring people together in those conversations. And so, we've had a whole host of conservative voices on air of late. We've been making requests of the Trump administration to have their officials on air. We would like to see more people accept those invitations. It's hard for us to be able to say we can speak for everyone when folks won't join us. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, that was the executive order. Then we went and we looked at the White House talking points and what they're putting on social media. They're a lot more about you than you. And on NPR they were saying things like, July 2022 editor's note that said the Declaration of Independent had offensive language against Native Americans. We checked, and the word 'savages' is used. The White House faults your editors for avoiding the term 'biological sex' when discussing transgender issues. They apparently want you to use the term 'pro-life' and faulted your use of the term 'anti-abortion rights' to refer to activists. So, when you see specific editorial criticisms like that, what do you interpret the intention of this being. KATHERINE MAHER: Well, I interpret the intention of this being – trying to create a narrative around our editorial independence. And as I said in our MARGARET BRENNAN: To control it and then (INAUDIBLE)? KATHERINE MAHER: To control it. And I think that that's a – that is an affront to the First Amendment. We have an independent newsroom and we will always have an independent newsroom. From my perspective, part of the separation of – that the First Amendment offers to keep government out. In fact, the statute that was written when the Public Broadcasting Act was signed into law was very explicit about interference from any member of the government, whether it is elected officials, whether members of independent agencies, because it is so sacrosanct, that division between the state and independent media. MARGARET BRENNAN: That was the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. KATHERINE MAHER: That's correct. MARGARET BRENNAN: Set it up as a private corporation to give protection from influence and control. I would assume that's also from the White House, influence and control. KATHERINE MAHER: That's right. And President Lyndon Johnson, who signed the bill into law creating public – the Public Broadcasting Act and creating the system that we all operate within, was – was very note – he noted in his remarks upon signing that speech was that it does requires a greater wisdom, and that's why we have a two-year advance appropriation is to – is to insulate both of our work from political interference. I think that that is critical that Americans understand that public broadcasting is meant to be independent so that we can serve the public interest regardless of whatever administration is in office or whatever Congress' whims are. PAULA KERGER: And the – and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was set up as a private corporation with that same intent. So, I think there was a lot of focus, even at that moment, in – when the act was signed that protections would need to be put in place, because if we do our job, it is – it is possible that we will produce content that some people may wish we have done a different way. And this way it gives us the independence this way. The other thing that keeps us independent is that most of our funding comes from viewers like you. We ask people to make contribution to public broadcasting for something they get for free. MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. PAULA KERGER: Because we are available free to every home in this country. And so, both the combination of the fact that it was built as a public/private partnership, there would be some public money that went into public broadcasting that would enable stations in small communities to exist, alongside the fact that most of our support comes from people in communities. That really does create something that is very independent and very responsive to the communities that we serve. KATHERINE MAHER: And if I may, just to give a sense of those numbers, for every single dollar that the federal government puts in, stations raise on average about $7 – PAULA KERGER: Right. KATHERINE MAHER: From public/private – sorry, from private sources. And so you also have to recognize that this order interferes with the First Amendment rights of our listeners and viewers who have made a choice to contribute. And this is the news that they want to see and hear, or the programming that they are committed to. MARGARET BRENNAN: It did just stand out to us, as journalists ourselves, because the research shows that, you know, there's declining trust in media, in news, and the president was talking about that himself there, that he wants a free and fair press. We're going to continue to cover this. And thank you for your time today. KATHERINE MAHER: You bet. PAULA KERGER: Thank you for having us. MARGARET BRENNAN: We'll be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week. For FACE THE NATION, I'm Margaret Brennan. (ANNOUNCEMENTS)
CBS News
04-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Full transcript of "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," May 4, 2025
On this "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" broadcast, moderated by Margaret Brennan: Rep. Mike Turner , Republican of Ohio , Republican of Ohio Sen. Tammy Duckworth , Democrat of Illinois , Democrat of Illinois Oksana Markarova , Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. , Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. Ret. Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster NPR CEO Katherine Maher and PBS CEO Paula Kerger Click here to browse full transcripts from 2025 of "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm Margaret Brennan. And this week on Face the Nation: President Trump begins the next phase of his agenda with a staff shakeup. And what does the economic deal between the U.S. and Ukraine mean for the security relationship between the two countries? Mike Waltz is out as national security adviser, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in, adding another job to his growing list of responsibilities. With Trump's push for a nuclear deal with Iran and an end to Russia's war in Ukraine, we will ask Republican Mike Turner about the impact of the shuffle. And we will get insights from one of Trump's national security advisers in his first term, retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster. Plus, Illinois Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth will join us with an update on the Armed Services Committee's bipartisan request for a probe into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's conduct. Overnight, a new attack on Kyiv. We will get reaction from Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova. And, finally, as President Trump seeks to end federal funding to public broadcasting, we will ask NPR CEO Katherine Maher and PBS CEO Paula Kerger how they plan to fight back. It's all just ahead on Face the Nation. Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. We have a lot to get to, so let's begin today with Ohio Republican Congressman Mike Turner. Good to see you here in person. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER (R-Ohio): Thanks for having me, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: So I have a lot of national security topics to get to you, but at the heart of so much is America's economic strength. And so I want to ask you about what President Trump said this week about the cost, the impact of his China tariffs on the supply of goods in the United States. Take a listen. (Begin VT) DONALD TRUMP (President of the United States): Somebody said, oh, the shelves are going to be open. Well, maybe the children will have two dolls, instead of 30 dolls, you know? And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally. (End VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: Do your constituents back in Ohio really want to hear the message that they need fewer Christmas presents this year? He's acknowledging less supply, higher prices. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Well, I think there's going to be a lot that has to be shaken out here. And we certainly are seeing, I think, some reaction now in China also that means that the president's goal is that these nations, that – of which he's putting tariffs on the table and tariffs, which are a punishment for having behaved poorly, taking advantage of the United States economically, will come to the table and negotiate better economic deals than the United States has been experiencing. Those deals are beginning to be offered. The White House is beginning to negotiate those. China is beginning to signal that they're willing to come to the table. So, even though the president is making those statements, at the same time, we're seeing that the president taking that step of saying we want a better economic deal is beginning to work. MARGARET BRENNAN: But, in the meantime, China said it may restrict exports of materials used by General Dynamics, which makes tanks, including in your state of Ohio. Are you concerned that the trade war won't just impact people's purchasing of toys, but preparedness, tanks, and military readiness? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: I think we're all concerned of the effects on the supply chain. And certainly we have got to make certain that this works through the entire processes and that we are concerned on the effects of the economy. I think the president's going to be looking at that. Congress is going to be looking at that. But the real concern here is that we do have to look long term as to how this protects our overall economy. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Beijing has not yet launched those talks. We will be watching for them if they do get under way. Let's get to the other news of the week, the reshuffling at the top of the national security apparatus. It has long been clear there are divides within the administration on certain topics. Iran is one of them. Russia is another one of them. Mike Waltz, who you served with, viewed as a traditional Republican hawk. I say this because, when he was on this program previously, he laid out in pretty clear terms that the U.S. goal in these negotiations with Iran are dismantlement of its nuclear program, not limits on enrichment, not verification, but those are the things that the envoy negotiating with Iran have said. We're seeing policy differences from within the president's own administration here. Has Congress been given details on what the goal is and what the plan is? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Well, I mean, the goal is simply stated, that we do not have a nuclear Iran. And, certainly, the president is leaning strongly in that. From his first term, with the maximum pressure campaign, the president was clear that, both in non-nuclear Iran and also making certain that we have – that the nefarious activities of Iran working through their proxies, the terrorist groups and organizations, that that be stopped. So the president is very strong on an anti-Iran policy, including ensuring that there not be a nuclear Iran. MARGARET BRENNAN: But the things that his envoy have described sound a lot like that 2015 nuclear deal negotiated under President Obama, with limits on enrichment, for example, and things like that. I know in the past you voted for legislation that would give Congress more oversight over a deal with Iran. Do you expect President Trump to bring any kind of deal he brokers to Congress for approval? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Well, I think we have to see what the deal is. I mean, currently, there's just ongoing negotiations. We will have to see how that evolves. We will have to see what those terms are and really – well, I… MARGARET BRENNAN: You don't want any kind of review regardless? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: I mean, as it evolves, we will have to see what those terms are and what – and really what is achieved. And, certainly, there's a role for Congress to play as that goes forward. But I think we need to give them the opportunity for success. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Israeli prime minister issued a statement yesterday denying that he personally was talking to Mike Waltz about bombing Iran, military action against Iran. Of course, we know his aides could have those conversations. Is it appropriate work for the national security adviser to the president to be coordinating with Israel about military action against Iran, or was Mike Waltz possibly in the wrong here? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Well, first off, we don't know specifically that that was occurring. But, at the same time, the National Security Council, the function of the National Security Council is to ensure that the president of the United States has the greatest information possible. And Mike Waltz is – has an incredible background and experience. He worked diligently to make certain he had a strong role in the national security team of the president. And I'm certainly glad that he's going to be retained and staying in a strong role in this administration. Working directly with world leaders and heads of state is certainly an important role of – as the national security adviser to the president. And I – certainly, I think, even as U.N. ambassador, he will continue to do that type of function. MARGARET BRENNAN: Is it in the national security interest, though, to have the secretary of state, who also has, at least on paper, three other jobs now, in this role, and for how long? You're saying how important it is. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Well, I mean, it certainly – certainly, we know Henry Kissinger has been in that position before. MARGARET BRENNAN: And even he said it was untenable. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Right. MARGARET BRENNAN: And even – but he was in lockstep with his president. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: I think what's also very important here is that Marco Rubio, from a policy perspective, is very strong in this administration. His signal of being in this position sends a signal of continuing the same policies in the administration. From a Trump team policy perspective, him taking over this sends a signal of continuation and strength. That's excellent. MARGARET BRENNAN: But the policy… (CROSSTALK) REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Now we have got to give him the opportunity of, is he going to be able to build out the team in the National Security Council? And that's certainly hope – hopefully that he will be able to do so and build out a strong team there that represents really the opportunity to support President Trump in giving him the information and knowledge and the access to information and knowledge that he needs. MARGARET BRENNAN: That's a diplomatic way of saying there shouldn't be loyalty tests to the president. You want actual experts staffing National Security Council. You don't want Laura Loomer, a far right activist, making decisions on personnel? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Well, at the same time, there does have to be loyalty to the president. MARGARET BRENNAN: Of course, but also to the Constitution. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: I mean, we saw in the president's first term that the president was betrayed during the first Trump impeachment by individuals who were at the National Security Council. So Trump personally has an understanding that you have to have people at the National Security Council that are on Trump's team. And the National Security Council, being – directly working with him and being in the White House, it's very, very important that they be personnel that work for and on behalf of the president. MARGARET BRENNAN: You were talking about National Security Council members who testified under oath that the president was withholding aid to Ukraine during the first administration for a political favor. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: And was shown to have wrongly been testified, because I was part of that panel. And they – their testimony was proven not to be accurate, that the president was not tying aid to Ukraine to the investigation. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that was the premise of the impeachment. But your point is, that looms large in the president's memory and interaction with the National Security Council now. OK. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: The president needs to make certain that he has staff that are supportive of him in the National Security Council and his policies and makes certain that they're providing him information. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: This is the heart of, what does the president know that our adversaries are doing? MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: When he's dealing with Russia and what – and policies with respect to Ukraine, he needs to know what Vladimir Putin is doing. And that's coming directly from the National Security Council. MARGARET BRENNAN: Noted. The White House budget was released Friday. It is not the trillion-dollar promise the president campaigned on. Susan Collins on Appropriations, Roger Wicker on the Senate Armed Services Committee says this is not adequate. And, in fact, he said: "The intention is to shred to the bone our military capabilities and support to service members." Do you share your Republican senators' concerns? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: I think there's more work that can be done on the national security portion of the president's budget. MARGARET BRENNAN: You would like to see more defense spending than the White House is putting forth? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: I think there's going to be more debate and I think there's more opportunity for increased investment. We really need to do more in the national security space. There are adversaries that we have that want to do America harm, and we need to be strong. MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, Congressman Turner, thank you for joining us. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Thank you. MARGARET BRENNAN: Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're joined now by Illinois Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth. Good to have you here in person. SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D-Illinois): Thanks for having me. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, Senator, I know you did vote to confirm Secretary Rubio. Do you have confidence that he can juggle all four of the jobs that he now has for an indefinite period of time? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: No. There's no way he can do that and do it well, especially since there's such incompetence over at DOD with Pete Hegseth being secretary of defense, and just the hollowing out of the top leadership. There's no way he can carry all that entire load on his own. And so I do think that they need to find a new secretary of defense. They need to find a new NSA – head of NSA as quickly as possible. MARGARET BRENNAN: But, at this point, we heard from the chief of staff that she believes all the Cabinet secretaries will serve a full year. What makes you think that Secretary Hegseth could actually be dismissed? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Well, I think he should be dismissed. Whether or not President Trump's going to dismiss him is a whole different conversation. He should never have been nominated in the first place. He is the most untrained, inadequate secretary of defense in our nation's history. And look at what he's done at the Pentagon. It's in turmoil. He lost his top staffers within a matter of days. He's now put classified information an unclassified chain, and he's put on our nation's national security at risk. MARGARET BRENNAN: He says no war plans, wasn't classified, but it was sensitive information. That's part of this ongoing inspector general probe, as I understand it, into his conduct. Do you have any timeline, any sense of how seriously that's being taken and when the results will be seen? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: We don't have a timeline. It is very serious. Let me make it clear what he did. He put into an unclassified Signal chain that the aircraft are going to be over a certain point in space at a certain point in time. That's classified information. Any basic person getting through military training knows that is classified information. And he did it on a separate chain with his wife and family members. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you, because you sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, along with Armed Services… SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Armed Services, yes. MARGARET BRENNAN: … what you think is going to happen to Mike Waltz, who is now being pushed out of the NSA role and into this job as ambassador to the United Nations. That's arguably a pretty important post. Senate Intel Vice Chairman Mark Warner says it's going to be a brutal hearing. What do you want to know from him? And are you open to confirming him into the job? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: It will be a brutal hearing. He's not qualified for the job, just by nature of the fact that he participated in the Signal chain. In fact, I think everybody on that Signal chain needs to be fired, because not a single one of them spoke up and said, hey, this is inappropriate. We should be in a secure channel. And, by the way, what's really interesting was that there was not a single uniformed personnel on that Signal chain, which was very clear that it was purposefully done to keep the military personnel with the experience off of that Signal chat. Now, Mike Waltz is doing what we call, he is failing up, right? He is failing in his job and getting promoted to be ambassador. That's not what our nation needs at the United Nations. MARGARET BRENNAN: Mike Waltz served this country in a uniform as a Green Beret. He was a lawmaker. You think he is incompetent, and you're not open to voting for him at all? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: I'm not open to voting for him, no, because he – because he's already demonstrated he's incapable of doing the most basic thing, which is handling classified information. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about funding for defense because I know you have said, in particular, the Navy needs more money and more financial support right now. The Republican chair of Appropriations and the Republican chair of Armed Services both saw the White House's budget when it was released on Friday… SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Yes. MARGARET BRENNAN: … and said it freezes military spending at Biden era levels, which they argue amounts to a reduction. Can you work together with your Republican allies to increase defense spending? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Well, one of the places where there has been bipartisanship has been the Armed Services Committee. That has been something that I have been very proud to be a part of. Now, whether or not my Republican colleagues continue to be co-conspirators and collaborators with this administration in basically gutting the United States government is up to them. Right now, their plans are going to require laying off hundreds – at least 100,000 civilian workers at the Pentagon. It's going to, in the words of Chairman Wicker, basically – I'm going to paraphrase him – cut defense capabilities to the bone, I think is how he put it. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, he did. SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: We need to make sure – the Navy needs more ships. We need more – and the Merchant Mariners need more boats, more ships. We need to make major investments in our sixth-generation fighter fleet. We need to make major investments in training pilots. We are short pilots. And yet the cuts that they're proposing in order to fund a vanity project like the Golden Dome does not help make America more secure on a global scale. And it certainly doesn't keep us the leader of the free world. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about one of the programs that is at least nominally being eliminated. Secretary Hegseth posted on social media he's ending the Women, Peace, and Security program. Hegseth said: "It's a divisive social justice initiative from feminists, a distraction from war fighting." But when we checked how the now-chairman of the Joint Chiefs described it, General Caine, he said he used the program in the field after an assault to send in female members to speak with women and children to better understand human terrain. So, if the military establishment says it's useful and the secretary of defense says it's not and it's a distraction, what happens? And can lawmakers like yourself actually rescue this program? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: We can if my Republicans will stop rolling over for this president. We can actually rescue this program. The program is clearly important. It's supported by every combatant commander. It's a program that came about – by the way, Marco Rubio was one of the leaders of this. But… (LAUGHTER) MARGARET BRENNAN: He was. And Kristi Noem as a lawmaker supported it. SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: And Kristi Noem as a lawmaker supported the program. MARGARET BRENNAN: And President Trump signed it into law. SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: And he signed it into law. This shows how incompetent Hegseth is, that in his slash-and-burn efforts at the Pentagon, he basically slash and burned something without realizing that this was actually a Trump era law and this was led by his colleagues. And now he can't back out of it. This came out of really some of the lessons we learned in Afghanistan when we had the Marine Corps Lionesses, which were teams of all women Marines, tough, tough fighters, who would go in and talk to the women in the villages and would get intelligence that no one else could. (CROSSTALK) MARGARET BRENNAN: Because the women wouldn't talk to the men. SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Because women wouldn't talk to the men. And so this is a vital program that keeps our military stronger and also makes it more lethal, because we can find where our enemies are and go after them. MARGARET BRENNAN: Hegseth said he will implement the minimum required of - - what does that mean? Do you know? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: I don't know. But he's the minimum of a defense secretary, so it's not surprising that he would go to the lowest levels. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about what's happening within your party. Your fellow Midwesterner Michigan Senator Elisha Slot kin said Democrats are messaging in a way that doesn't resonate outside of blue coastal areas. She was focusing in on Bernie Sanders' use of the term oligarchy. She said, use plain language. Talk about kings, that we oppose them. Do you agree with her that there is at minimum a messaging problem, if there isn't something more within your party right now? SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Well, I have long said that we should be listening to Midwest Democrats a lot more. Those of us from the center of the country represent states like Illinois. We're 102 counties; 96 are red and six are blue. You don't get elected in the Midwest without being able to talk to everyday voters in red counties about the issues that they worry about. Do – be able to talk about agricultural issues. Our farmers are just being battered by the Trump administration right now. The tariffs are hurting them with the products they're trying to sell. The inputs that they're trying to import in order to plan and grow their crops are being priced out of range. The steel that John Deere uses to make the tractors are also pricing those – that equipment out of range. I do think that the Democratic Party should be listening to the Industrial Midwest more. MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Duckworth, thank you for your time. SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH: Thank you. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we will be right back with a lot more Face the Nation, so stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Ukraine's ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova. Ambassador, good to have you back. I understand Russia has been attacking Kyiv as recently as overnight. What can you tell us? OKSANA MARKAROVA (Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States): Good morning, Margaret. Yes, another very difficult day and night in Kyiv, and not only Kyiv, Chafee and some other places. More than 165 Shahed drones, Iranian drones, have been deployed again against completely civilian targets. So, unfortunately, this is a horrible reality during the past 1,166 days. Every day, regardless of Russia says, there are some attacks, and there are civilian casualties and there are civilian destructions. And for the same 1,166 days, we work diligently on getting – not only defending us, but getting to peace. And Ukraine is devoted to peace. MARGARET BRENNAN: There has been a shift in tone at least between the Trump administration and your president. President Zelenskyy told reporters Friday that his conversation with President Trump at the pope's funeral was the best meeting they've ever had and he's confident things will look different now. What is he indicating? What's coming next? When do they speak next? AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Look, our partnership with the U.S. is very important for us. U.S. has been and is a strategic partnership. We are really grateful to American people for all the support that we are getting from the U.S. It would not be possible for us to defend ourselves without those Javelins, without those weapons that U.S. has provided us. And it was President Trump who decided to provide us Javelins as – when I was still a finance minister. MARGARET BRENNAN: Back in 2017. AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: And it was back in 2017. And then large support from American people during the past three years have really been a game changer, and we are very grateful for it. The meeting was great. And, you know, as you know, after that meeting, we have signed really a great agreement, economic partnership agreement between our two nations, which will take that partnership to a new level. So, look, we might have some disagreements on – in some areas, but Ukraine is committed to peace. Ukraine wants peace more than anyone, and we need U.S. We – we – our countries are based on the same values. We are defending freedom in Ukraine. We are not the ones who started this war. And now it's not only the right or moral thing to do – to support Ukraine, but, also, U.S. has, as your secretary of treasury said, an interest, and specific economic interest, in Ukraine. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. Well, I want to ask you about that deal. This is what's often described as a minerals agreement, but it's a broader economic partnership that's going forth for ratification in your government this week, I understand. This was agreed to, but Russia's foreign minister has said that the mineral deposits that exist in Ukraine in the east are one reason his country wouldn't withdraw from that area. So, can the U.S. and Ukraine make this deal work if Russian troops are still in the area where those mineral deposits largely are? AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Margaret, as you said, this is an economic partnership agreement to create an investment fund to – for both of our nations to benefit from amazing investment opportunities that Ukraine has. We discussed before – and I'm so glad that we can not only discuss the horrible tragedy and destruction brought by a Russian unprovoked invasion, but also of the bright future that we, together with America and – and other countries, can have. Ukraine has agricultural land and black soil. And with the technologies, even during the war, we feed more than 400 million people. We have energy. We have mineral – critical mineral deposits. We have so much in the – including the human talent. MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: And we can develop it together. So, look, when Russians criticize something, it's a sign for all of us that we are doing something right. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: This deal will work, and it will work if Ukraine is peaceful. MARGARET BRENNAN: Let's talk – let's talk more on the other side of this commercial break. We will be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION. We return now to our conversation with Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova. We've been discussing the deal that the United States and Ukraine came to in regard to this economic partnership. I've read that the deal counts future U.S. military assistance in the form of ammunition, weapon systems and training as a contribution to the investment fund, and that Ukraine will not reimburse Washington for past military aid. Is that how it's set up? OKSANA MARKAROVA (Ukrainian Ambassador): Well, we - first of all, it's important that it's going to be, as we say, a 50/50 deal. So we, together, will set up that fund, we will run it together. And all the future contribution that - or investments that U.S. will be providing us, including military deals, will be counted as contribution to that fund, and Ukraine will be also committing the proceeds from the new licenses and new developments into the fund. So, essentially, it's a true partnership where we would be able to put resources together in order to invest into a wide range of projects, including infrastructure, including rare earths, including critical minerals, and both of our nations will benefit from it. MARGARET BRENNAN: When does that get up and running? OKSANA MARKAROVA: We're working very actively on it. As you saw, the deal between the governments have been signed. It's going to be ratified by our parliament hopefully soon. You have seen strong messages from President Zelenskyy. And it's his vision and vision of President Trump behind the deal that is moving it forward. Of course, there will be the creation of the fund, the set-up of the fund. I used to work in private equity in my previous life. That takes a little bit of time. But we are moving very fast. So, hopefully the teams will come - put everything together and we'll start working. MARGARET BRENNAN: But within this there aren't security guarantees. Are there promises of future military aid from the United States? Because if this effort to get a peace deal together doesn't work, the fate of the war is still in question. OKSANA MARKAROVA: Well, you know, this - the situation with Russian aggression towards Ukraine is so complex. There are many - we've discussed the potential possible peace deals. We're discussing this economic partnership deal which is already signed. We're discussing other possible scenarios and security guarantees and involvement of other friends and allies. And, you know, Europe has been more active and proactive in a number of areas. So, this economic partnership deal in itself is a very important part of the broader security, security architecture, if I may say so. And, frankly, that fund will be successful if Ukraine is stable and peaceful. So, in a way, it's an important part of the future security guarantees. MARGARET BRENNAN: Vladimir Putin told Russian state TV, he thinks that he can bring this war to a logical conclusion. He avoided the word war. He said this thing that started in 2022. But he said, here's been no need to use nuclear weapons and, quote, "I hope they will not be required." How do you interpret that? OKSANA MARKAROVA: Well, it's very difficult to interpret a man and a so- called leader of the nation who attack Georgia in 2008, attacked Ukraine in 2014, conducted two genocidal wars on his own in his own federation against Chechnya, the war crimes in Syria, poisoned people in - in Great Britain. I mean, I think at this point it doesn't matter how we interpret what he says, we just have to believe what he says and understand what he says. He is a threat, not only to Ukraine, but also to anyone who believes that nations should live peacefully, do not challenge each other's borders and just focus on the economic operation. That's what we are doing with the United States. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. OKSANA MARKAROVA: And hopefully our collective efforts and with Europe, with all the Baltic and Nordic states, with all the friends and allies, including Japan, including the U.K., including so many people that are coming together in order to bring peace, not only to our part of the world, but globally because it's important. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. OKSANA MARKAROVA: Putin is doing it, together with Iran and North Korea. They are not hiding it. They are supporting other terroristic regimes. And we should also stay together in order to bring peace. MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador, thank you for your time today. We'll be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster. He served as national security adviser during President Trump's first term, and he is the author of, "At War with Ourselves: My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House." Good to have you back with us. LT. GEN. H.R. MCMASTER (Ret., Former Trump National Security Adviser): Hey, great to be with you, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you've been here. Mike Waltz is no longer the national security adviser. CBS reported his deputy, Alex Wong, will also depart his role. But then, as of Friday morning, we found Wong was still on the job. It is not clear what the National Security Council makeup will be or how long the secretary of state will be at the head of it advising the president. What significance does this have for America's national security? H.R. MCMASTER: I think it's significant, Margaret, because I think what it reveals is, is a fight that's going on within the administration associated with the - our role in the world and how certain people in the administration perceive America's role in the world. And I think Mike Waltz as an America first guy, but he was an internationalist and prioritized, I think, our alliances. He knew that, I think, that, quite correctly, that Putin won't stop until he is stopped. And so, he was an advocate for a strong approach to Putin. And I think there were those in the administration that have a much different world view, you know, who are in favor of - of U.S. retrenchment or disengagement from complex challenges abroad and want to prioritize kind of the western hemisphere/North American defense. And you see that in your discussion with - with Congressman Turner as well associated with the defense budget and what's being prioritized in the defense budget as well. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you see this as a - as a policy argument, not just a Signal messaging mistake that, you know, Mike Waltz created that channel where he accidentally included a reporter? H.R. MCMASTER: It is. I think it's a - it's a policy issue, a world view issue, but it's also an understanding of the role of the - the national security council staff and the national security staff that - that - that Mike Waltz was running, and Alex Wong is - is still running. And - and that's really the staff that allows the president to drive his agenda, that gets best analysis, best advice to the president and gets him multiple options. It seems pretty clear that President Trump is not very patient in terms of a deliberative process these days, and this is why I think he may see the National Security Council staff as an impediment instead of really the best vehicle to drive his agenda and to integrate all elements of national power and efforts of like-minded partners to advance American interests. MARGARET BRENNAN: You know, I thought it was an interesting point Congressman Turner made when he brought up the specific point of reference the president has for the National Security Council during his first term, which is, Turner argued, seeing them as the reason he was impeached where - during his first impeachment related to Ukraine. Do you think that is something that makes him distrust that counsel? Why is it that he would take the advice of someone like Laura Loomer, this far right activist who has made racist attacks on some of the members of that council? H.R. MCMASTER: You know, Margaret, I think there are three times of people in any administration, those who are there to give the president best advice, those who are there not for that but want to manipulate decisions consistent with their own agenda. These are people inside and outside of the administration. And there's a third group of people who sometimes take on the role of maybe saving the country and the world from the president. That second and third group, if you have an effective national security decision-making process that gives the president multiple options, they tend to oppose that process. They tend to oppose the national security adviser. And I think what you're seeing is how easy it is for certain people to get in the president's ear, to sow distrust, to drive a wedge between him and the national security adviser in this case or the national security staff and those who are there to get him multiple options. MARGARET BRENNAN: You referenced the different world view of some of the people advising the president right now. Particularly regarding our allies. In Europe, we saw an interesting decision this week in Germany. Their domestic intelligence agency concluded an investigation into a far-right political party known as AFD. They declared it to be an extremist group because of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim positions. Their leaders have trivialized the Holocaust. They've called for deporting non-white citizens because that violates the German constitution. This would sound like a domestic issue. However, the vice president and the secretary of state have taken very public statements here wading into this. Rubio calling it "tyranny in disguise." Vice President Vance also weighing in here. Do you think that's advisable when that party's leaders have such a troubled history? Can you explain it? H.R. MCMASTER: Yes, part - part of this, Margaret, is - is what you covered earlier in the show about this kind of women, peace and security initiative, as well as I would say some of the radical DEI agendas of the Biden and maybe the Obama administration before that. This is like an equal and opposite reaction. And it's international. And this is one of the reasons why there are some people in the United States who kind of regard Putin as - as - as the savior of - of western civilization, or - or Christianity and so forth, which is obviously kind of a - a perverse view of him as well. But I think what's related to this is this sort of - this emphasis on, you know, retrenchment, just take care of ourself, disengage from the world and - and I think that these are - are related. What's - what's, I think, interesting about this though is that the Trump administration, I think, risks replicating the flaws of the Obama administration's policy, because what you see is, now some people in the Republican Party seeing the source of all ills in the world as, like, the neocons and - and they trace it back in particular to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So, that blaming ourselves, other Americans for the ills of the world, and the associated impulse toward disengagement risks recreating, I think, some of the fundamental flaws in sort of the Obama administration approach to the world. MARGARET BRENNAN: H.R. McMaster, thank you for sharing your insight. We'll leave it there. And we'll be back in a moment. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: In a commencement address last week at the University of Alabama, President Trump told journalism majors that he's not sure he likes the press, but acknowledged a free press is important. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP (President of the United States): We need a brilliant press. They're like a watchkeeper. They're very important. And you can go out and take it down a new track, help save the country. The people of this country, they know the truth when they hear it. That's why the ratings, the approval numbers of the media are so low. (END VIDEO CLIP) MARGARET BRENNAN: Last week the president offered a cutoff - ordered, excuse me, a cutoff to federal funding to two major public broadcasting systems, PBS and NPR. For more now we're joined by CEOs Katherine Maher and Paula Kerger. Good to have you both together. PAULA KERGER (CEO, PBS): Great to be here. KATHERINE MAHER (CEO, NPR): Thank you for having us. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, the president issued this order for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees you both, to cut off funding. Are you both filing lawsuits? And on what basis can you challenge this? KATHERINE MAHER: We're looking at whatever options are available to us. I think it's a little preliminary for us to be able to speak to the specific strategies that we might take. MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that the same for pbs? PAULA KERGER: Yes. We're, obviously, looking. And I would just say, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a funding mechanism, but they actually don't oversee PBS or NPR. We're independent organizations. MARGARET BRENNAN: Important point to make. But the threat of cutting off funding - PAULA KERGER: Yes. MARGARET BRENNAN: Whether it was in Congress or the president saying he's doing it now. That's not new, right? That's been a talking point for years. There have been efforts in Congress. You do have funding, I think, through 2027, but it feels a little bit different this time. Do you have a backup funding plan? PAULA KERGER: Yes, it is different this time. And I've been through these battles now for a number of years. I've been at PBS almost 20 years. And I remember even going back to the Newt Gingrich days. But this is different. They're coming after us on many different ways. We're waiting for a possible rescission of those funds that have already been appropriated. MARGARET BRENNAN: They're clawing them back. PAULA KERGER: There was an effort within the FCC challenging our ability to accept sponsorships from corporations, which is something that we have worked with the FCC on for many, many years. There was the executive order. There was the effort to try to remove a few members of the CPB board. So, we have never seen a circumstance like this. And, obviously, we're going to be pushing back very hard because what's at risk are our stations, our public television, our public radio stations across the country. We get 15 percent of our funding from the federal government. That's 1-5 percent, but that's an aggregate number. Some of our stations in small communities, it's 40 percent to 50 percent of their funding. And for them it's existential. And that's what's at risk if this funding goes away. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, is it immediate for NPR? KATHERINE MAHER: In - in a similar fashion. If we were to see a claw back of these funds, which we know is part of the conversation from a rescission standpoint, or if we were to see that the stations were no longer able to participate in their membership due, that would be damaging. But I think that Paula's point is the one that really people need to hear. The immediate damage is to local stations. And with NPR we have stations in more than - 246 stations with newsrooms, we're in 200 newsrooms in every state in the country, and that includes journalists who are out there covering their local communities, especially in a time where we're seeing an advance of news deserts across the nation, 20 percent of Americans don't have access to another local source of news. The impact of this could really be devastating, particularly in rural communities. MARGARET BRENNAN: The president tweeted, or socialed, or truthed, "Republicans must defund and totally disassociate themselves from NPR and PBS, the radical left monsters that so badly hurt our country." I have to tell you, I heard monsters and I thought of Cookie Monster. PAULA KERGER: I did too, actually. MARGARET BRENNAN: I thought of "Sesame Street" and I thought of that children's programming. PAULA KERGER: Right. MARGARET BRENNAN: That is in many - many ways what people think of when they think of PBS. PAULA KERGER: Absolutely. (INAUDIBLE). MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that impacted too? PAULA KERGER: Absolutely. And out of this executive order, we believe it impacts our funding out of the Department of Education, which is a 30-year program that has supported the development - not only the creation of many of the children's programming that you see on public television, but also the research that we do to ensure that that programming is not just safe and enjoyable, but that children, after watching, come away with understanding of basic letters and numbers. Half the kids in this country are not enrolled in formal pre-k. That's why programming for children on public television was created. That was the idea with "Sesame Street" and "Mister Rogers." And everything that's followed since is to make sure that children that do not have access to a full array of resources have the opportunity to learn and to develop skills that they'll need the first time they enter preschool. That may be at age two, or three, or four, and sometimes five, not until they start kindergarten. That's what's at risk. MARGARET BRENNAN: At risk or right now? I mean, do you have the money to keep functioning? PAULA KERGER: Well, we have programming, so you're not going to turn on your TV set and not see our children's programming anymore. MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. PAULA KERGER: But if that funding is cut off, we have programs in development right now. And that will suddenly skid to a halt. We also have stations around the country that work directly with preschool providers and parents, and this funds those activities. So, the immediate impact would be fairly significant. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, Katherine, I want to ask you about the news. When we went and we read the executive order, the language in there says, "government funding of news media in this environment is outdated and unnecessary, corrosive to the appearance of independence. Ad Americans have the right to expect if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting, that it's fair, accurate, unbiased and non-partisan." How do you respond to the implication that your news coverage is not? KATHERINE MAHER: Is not fair and - and non-partisan? I mean I think - MARGARET BRENNAN: And unbiased. KATHERINE MAHER: Yes, I mean, well, first of all, I think it's important to note that I'm the CEO and we have an independent editor in chief who oversees the newsroom. And so, I don't make editorial decisions. And that, I think, is just always an important point to make. But I think our newsroom would really take issue with that. We have been on air for more than 50 years. We have been covering news as it occurs across the nation, in local communities, oversees. We have an extraordinary Washington desk. And our people report straight down the line. And I think that not only do they do that, they do so with a mission that very few other broadcast organizations have, which is a requirement to serve the entire public. That is the point of public broadcasting as we bring people together in those conversations. And so, we've had a whole host of conservative voices on air of late. We've been making requests of the Trump administration to have their officials on air. We would like to see more people accept those invitations. It's hard for us to be able to say we can speak for everyone when folks won't join us. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, that was the executive order. Then we went and we looked at the White House talking points and what they're putting on social media. They're a lot more about you than you. And on NPR they were saying things like, July 2022 editor's note that said the Declaration of Independent had offensive language against Native Americans. We checked, and the word "savages" is used. The White House faults your editors for avoiding the term "biological sex" when discussing transgender issues. They apparently want you to use the term "pro-life" and faulted your use of the term "anti-abortion rights" to refer to activists. So, when you see specific editorial criticisms like that, what do you interpret the intention of this being. KATHERINE MAHER: Well, I interpret the intention of this being - trying to create a narrative around our editorial independence. And as I said in our MARGARET BRENNAN: To control it and then (INAUDIBLE)? KATHERINE MAHER: To control it. And I think that that's a - that is an affront to the First Amendment. We have an independent newsroom and we will always have an independent newsroom. From my perspective, part of the separation of - that the First Amendment offers to keep government out. In fact, the statute that was written when the Public Broadcasting Act was signed into law was very explicit about interference from any member of the government, whether it is elected officials, whether members of independent agencies, because it is so sacrosanct, that division between the state and independent media. MARGARET BRENNAN: That was the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. KATHERINE MAHER: That's correct. MARGARET BRENNAN: Set it up as a private corporation to give protection from influence and control. I would assume that's also from the White House, influence and control. KATHERINE MAHER: That's right. And President Lyndon Johnson, who signed the bill into law creating public - the Public Broadcasting Act and creating the system that we all operate within, was - was very note - he noted in his remarks upon signing that speech was that it does requires a greater wisdom, and that's why we have a two-year advance appropriation is to - is to insulate both of our work from political interference. I think that that is critical that Americans understand that public broadcasting is meant to be independent so that we can serve the public interest regardless of whatever administration is in office or whatever Congress' whims are. PAULA KERGER: And the - and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was set up as a private corporation with that same intent. So, I think there was a lot of focus, even at that moment, in - when the act was signed that protections would need to be put in place, because if we do our job, it is - it is possible that we will produce content that some people may wish we have done a different way. And this way it gives us the independence this way. The other thing that keeps us independent is that most of our funding comes from viewers like you. We ask people to make contribution to public broadcasting for something they get for free. MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. PAULA KERGER: Because we are available free to every home in this country. And so, both the combination of the fact that it was built as a public/private partnership, there would be some public money that went into public broadcasting that would enable stations in small communities to exist, alongside the fact that most of our support comes from people in communities. That really does create something that is very independent and very responsive to the communities that we serve. KATHERINE MAHER: And if I may, just to give a sense of those numbers, for every single dollar that the federal government puts in, stations raise on average about $7 - PAULA KERGER: Right. KATHERINE MAHER: From public/private - sorry, from private sources. And so you also have to recognize that this order interferes with the First Amendment rights of our listeners and viewers who have made a choice to contribute. And this is the news that they want to see and hear, or the programming that they are committed to. MARGARET BRENNAN: It did just stand out to us, as journalists ourselves, because the research shows that, you know, there's declining trust in media, in news, and the president was talking about that himself there, that he wants a free and fair press. We're going to continue to cover this. And thank you for your time today. KATHERINE MAHER: You bet. PAULA KERGER: Thank you for having us. MARGARET BRENNAN: We'll be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week. For FACE THE NATION, I'm Margaret Brennan. (ANNOUNCEMENTS)
