On this “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” broadcast, moderated by Margaret Brennan:
- National Security Adviser Mike Waltz
- Rep. Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky
- Rep. Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut
- Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissoner
- CBS News correspondents Camilo Montoya-Galvez and Scott MacFarlane
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: The tsunami of activity shaking up Washington and beyond continues. And President Trump prods Ukraine and Russia toward peace.
Overnight, the U.S. pounded Iranian-backed Houthi targets in Yemen again. And the backlash grows over the Trump administration’s deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. We will talk to White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, the head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, and the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Connecticut’s Jim Himes.
Meanwhile, members of Congress may have been happy to head home for recess last week, but now they may be eager to get back to Washington.
(Begin VT)
MAN: Do you share a concern that we’re careening toward an authoritarian country?
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: As elected officials on both sides of the aisle got an earful from angry constituents.
(Begin VT)
MAN #1: The message that was sent by Democrats in Congress with the C.R. catastrophe was clear. It’s not that you’re in the minority. It’s that you aren’t even working together on a shared strategy. And that is failure!
MAN #2: Why do you believe that President Trump is above the law? Why have you not spoken out for it?
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Plus, measles infections have now been reported in 18 states. We will consult with former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb about that and talk about the impact of Trump’s cuts on medical research.
It’s all just ahead on Face the Nation.
Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation.
There is a lot to cover on the home front, but we begin first on national security. In just a few hours, U.S. officials will be holding talks with Ukraine and tomorrow a separate round with Russia in pursuit of a 30-day cease-fire.
In the meantime, the Trump administration is ramping up the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, sending a second aircraft carrier to the region.
We begin this morning with White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.
Good to have you here.
MIKE WALTZ (U.S. National Security Adviser): Thanks, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, the Iran-backed Houthis, they continue to fire at Israel. What has the last week of bombing achieved? And if you’re holding Iran responsible, what’s next?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Well, we have taken out key Houthi leadership, including their head missileer. We have hit their headquarters. We have hit communications nodes, weapons factories, and even some of their over-the-water drone production facilities just in the last couple of days.
President Trump has decided to hit the Houthis and hit them hard, as opposed to, in the last administration, where literally weeks or months would go by with these kind of one-off pinprick attacks. And, as a result, we have had one of the world’s most critical sea lanes get shut down.
I mean, these guys are like al Qaeda or ISIS with advanced cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and some of the most sophisticated air defenses, all provided by Iran, Margaret. Just to – so everybody understands the impact here…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: … the last time one of our destroyers went through the straits there, it was attacked 23 times; 75 percent of our U.S.-flagged shipping now has to go around the southern coast of Africa, rather than going through the Suez Canal.
And keeping the sea lanes open, keeping trade and commerce open…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: … is a fundamental aspect of our national security. The last administration was not effective.
The Trump administration and President Trump have decided to do something much harder, much tougher, and much – and what – we will see, but I think will be much more effective.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the president said he’s going to hold Iran responsible as well. Envoy Steve Witkoff said in an interview that Iran had responded to this U.S. outreach via multiple channels in regard to a letter sent by the president.
Witkoff described it as an offer to Iran to create a verification program so nobody worries about weaponization of nuclear material. Can you clarify, is the U.S. seeking the dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program or verification, like what President Obama put in place back in 2015 and President Trump pulled out of?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Full dismantlement.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Iran has to give up its program in a way that the entire world can see.
And this is – look, as President…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Have they said they’re interested?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: As President Trump has said, this is coming to a head. All options are on the table.
And it is time for Iran to walk away completely from its desire to have a nuclear weapon. That – and they will not and cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapons program.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Have they responded to the president’s call for these talks?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: That’s enrichment, that is weaponization, and that is its strategic missile program.
Can you only imagine?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: We have seen the death and destruction that they’re doing through its proxies, between Hezbollah, the Assad regime, the Houthis and what have you. If they had nuclear weapons, the entire Middle East would explode in an arms race.
That is completely unacceptable to our national security. I won’t get into what the back-and-forth has been, but Iran is in the worst place it has been from its own national security since 1979, thanks to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Assad regime and its own air defenses being taken out by the Israelis.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So there’s still a chance for diplomacy? I know you won’t get into…
(CROSSTALK)
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Well, of course.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: The president has all options on the table, but we want to be clear.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: This isn’t some kind of – kind of tit for tat that we had under the Obama administration or Biden.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: This is the full program. Give it up or there will be consequences.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you, closer to home, what has been happening here with Tren de Aragua, TDA, we’re going to call them, which have been designated by the Trump administration as terrorists.
Last Saturday, 238 Venezuelan men were handed over to the government of El Salvador; 137 of them were deported using this rarely used 1789 Alien Enemies Act. This is important because it gives the power to detain and deport without a court hearing first if they come from countries at war with the U.S.
In the hearing on Friday, it was revealed that El Salvador, where they’re being held, rejected two of the people, one on the basis of gender, because it was a woman and they can’t be held at a maximum-security prison, the other because the person wasn’t even Venezuelan at all.
How does that kind of high-consequence mistake happen?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Well, these kind of one-offs, we will deal with on an individual basis.
But, Margaret, the underlying issue here is twofold.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So there was a mistake that you acknowledge there?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: I – I can’t speak to those individual cases and the details of the individual cases.
But what I can speak to is, President Trump has determined that this group is acting as a terrorist organization. It is terrorizing our communities through attacks, torture, rape and the most awful of situations for those communities, number one.
And, number two, the Alien Sedition Act fully applies because we have also determined that this group is acting as a proxy of the Maduro regime. So…
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have – I’m sorry, just to clarify on that, this is supposed to apply if the U.S. is at war with a country. You are saying you have evidence that the government of Venezuela is directing these gangs?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: We are saying – we are saying – we are saying that TDA is acting as a proxy of the Maduro regime. This is how the Alien Sedition Act applies. And we cannot have district judges interfering with the commander in chief’s actions to take care of in the way he deems necessary a terrorist organization.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the U.S. is at war with Venezuela?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: And I got to tell you, we can – we can debate on Article II, Article III. That’s a fair debate.
However, in this case, the commander in chief, President Trump, is taking decisive action to rid our communities of these gangs that are operating in a paramilitary fashion.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: And that we know Maduro is deliberately emptying his prisons…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: … in a proxy manner to influence and attack the United States.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s different – that’s so different…
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: But that’s how…
MARGARET BRENNAN: The U.S. is not at war with the country of Venezuela.
I know the attorney general said on another network…
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Look, this is not…
MARGARET BRENNAN: … she thinks this is going to go to the Supreme Court.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Sure. That’s fine. But…
MARGARET BRENNAN: You want to have this fight.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: No, but, Margaret, we have instances where the IRGC from Iran have operated to – by, with and through Mexican cartels, to then bomb facilities here in the United States. We have taken decisive action in that regard. We’re going to take decisive action in this regard.
And we’re making a Washington, D.C., distinction…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: … when the American people are tired of being terrorized by these gangs. So…
MARGARET BRENNAN: No one is defending gangs. But there is concern…
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Well, but it sounds like it. It certainly sounds like it from the Democrats on the other side.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There is concern that this is being carried out in a sloppy way.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: It sounds like in the case of this judge that wanted to turn a flight around full of gang members that had intelligence packets that had determined what they’re doing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There was a woman sent to a men’s – man’s prison, and El Salvador said no.
(LAUGHTER)
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: I mean, OK.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So it’s the question of, if you’re suspending the ability to have a day in court…
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Look, I can’t speak to the those individual details, if you want to…
MARGARET BRENNAN: … that you get the list right, right…
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: But under – right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … that you can verify that these people are gang members.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: But under – look, every one of them were here illegally.
So, first of all, we had every right and every – and should deport every one of these individuals. If you want to make a special case for one, that’s fine.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But they weren’t deported. They were sent to the prison.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: But underlying that – underlying that is the Alien Act that has determined the commander in chief has the absolute authority to do this.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will talk about this more with the Homeland Security Committee chair, Rand Paul, ahead, I’m sure.
I need to get to Ukraine with you because this is active diplomacy, as we mentioned. The Ukrainians accepted this U.S. cease-fire without preconditions, according to the announcement. The Russians said only holding back on energy infrastructure.
What’s the goal out of these talks that are about to begin in Saudi Arabia?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Yes, well, first, we’re moving closer and we’re closer to peace than we ever have been. This started with President Trump talking to both leaders back to back.
We then – Secretary of State Rubio and I engaged the Russians, engaged the Ukrainians at our level, and now we have technical teams actually with Ukrainians and Russians in the same facility conducting proximity talks.
And the progression will be, we have this cease-fire on aerial infrastructure. That went in place immediately after President Trump’s call with President Putin this week. We are now going to talk about a Black Sea maritime cease-fire, so that both sides can move grain, fuel and start conducting trade again in the Black Sea.
And then we will talk the line of control, which is the actual front lines. And that gets into the details of verification mechanisms, peacekeeping, freezing the lines where they are, and then, of course, the broader and permanent peace, which will be some type of discussion of territory for permanent peace and a lasting peace, what the Ukrainians tend to talk about or have talked about as security guarantees.
MARGARET BRENNAN: One of the things the president has said he wants to see is the return of these Ukrainian children who were abducted as part of a state program…
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … by Russia to Russify them, take them from their families and move them into Russia.
Why did the State Department cut off funding to one of the programs that helps find these kids? It’s a Yale University program. And they said – the money was cut off. There are senators, including Grassley and Tillis, who want to know why. Do you know why?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Well, Secretary Rubio is conducting a review of all of those programs. I can’t speak to that specific one.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because it seems at odds with the goal.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: But I can say that President Trump has spoken to both leaders about prisoner exchanges. Both the Russians and Ukrainians exchanged prisoners, nearly 200, immediately following their call.
And he’s also talked about the future of these children. So that’s certainly first and foremost in kind of confidence-building measures.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: But, again, Margaret, we have to take a step back. We have to take a step back.
Just a few months ago, no one was talking about how this war would end. And we have to ask ourselves, what would it look like a year from now, two years from now, three years from now?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: We were in an endless stalemate here. And now we have both sides in the same facility with the United States really living out, I think, in real time President Trump’s vision to end this war, which he campaigned on.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Just to be clear, are you asking for the release of these children as a confidence-building measure? Is that what you meant?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: We’re talking through a number of confidence-building measures. That’s one of them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. Thank you, Mike Waltz.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Thank you. All right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Face the Nation will be back in a minute.
Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we turn now to Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. He is the chair of the Homeland Security Committee. And he joins us this morning from Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Good morning to you, Senator.
Because…
SENATOR RAND PAUL (R-Kentucky): Good morning. Thanks for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure.
Because of your role in on Homeland Security, I want to follow up where we left off with National Security Adviser Waltz. There are legal questions around using these authorities to send out detainees without giving them a day in court, but there’s also just questions of how it’s being handled in regard to these individuals who were rejected by El Salvador, one for gender, one because they weren’t Venezuelan at all.
Do these concern – does any of this concern you, along with claims from their family members that many of these people weren’t gang members?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: You know, there are some big legal questions here.
On the one hand, the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, to persons. The Bill of Rights doesn’t specifically designate citizens. It’s really anyone in the United States the Bill of Rights applies to. On the other hand, the Alien Enemies Act simply says, you really don’t get much process. The president can simply declare that you are somehow a problem for foreign policy and opposed to our foreign policy and you can be deported.
So, really, ultimately, this goes to the court, and then the court’s going to have to decide, are they going to declare unconstitutional a law that’s been around for a couple hundred years or are they going to defer to Congress?
If you look at the TikTok decision recently, which I don’t agree with, but in the TikTok decision, the court basically said, we’re going to defer to Congress. Congress says this is about national security, and who are we to question? And I think they should have ruled based on…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, and then the president issued an executive order that defied the congressional – what Congress did.
(LAUGHTER)
SENATOR RAND PAUL: Yes. Right. Right.
But my point is, is, I think the court should have ruled on the First Amendment with regard to TikTok and not said, oh, well, whatever Congress wants. But if you look at the TikTok decision and you had to guess what the Supreme County is going to do, my guess is, they will uphold the Alien Enemies Act. It’s not necessarily my position, but I think the court will uphold it.
So it’s at least debatable on both sides who’s right or who’s wrong here. And I think it’s not correct for Democrats to simply say…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: … oh, it’s constitutional chaos, there’s no leg to stand on. There actually is legal authority on the one hand that’s been around for over 200 years.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
But just – we’re not talking about partisan politics. We’re talking about the courts right now and what the judge said he had questions about and talks about this being done essentially in the cover of night. This seems to be an argument the administration wants to have go to the Supreme Court.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you comfortable with bypassing what you described as, you know, what’s guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, a day in court, or at least some verification that some of these people actually are guilty in some way of what they’re accused of, which is membership in a gang?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: So we have a contradiction. We basically have the Constitution that says everyone, persons in the United States have due process rights, have the Bill of Rights on their side.
But we also have law that has been in power for 200 years saying, oh, well, except when the president wants to deport people. So, these are in conflict. There will have to be some decision-making.
On the question of whether or not a district judge can make a ruling for the whole country, that’s also a very big question. And I suspect, as this works its way up to the Supreme Court, when you get to the Supreme Court, I do believe the Supreme Court is going to limit district judges from having nationwide rulings.
So I think that’s also in the offing. But these are huge legal questions. And the only way they begin is by a challenge.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: If the president doesn’t challenge these, they never have standing and never get to court. So, on the one hand, the president is generating this, but it’s the only way to generate a final conclusion from the court.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It just sounds – I mean, these are debates for law professors, certainly. But, in the meantime, there are individuals who may have been sent wrongly to these facilities that are outside the U.S. jurisdiction.
Are you comfortable, as the man with oversight as chair of the committee, with what’s being done?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: I think the courts will rule that there has to be some process.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, yes, you’re comfortable with it?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: I don’t think you’re going to be able to deport people – so, no, I – well, I don’t think – you’re answering for me.
I think there is going to be some process afforded by the courts for representation before you’re deported in most cases. I don’t know about the ones under the Alien Enemies Act, and I’m not sure anybody knows that. And, while I love constitutional law, I’m not a constitutional lawyer.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: I do think it goes to the Supreme Court, and there are arguments to be made on both sides of this question.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Got it.
I want to ask you about some congressional business. I have seen it reported that you have pitched to Elon Musk a plan to claw back $500 billion in federal funding that Congress has already approved. There was an effort back in 2018 to do something like this, and it failed.
Do you think you can actually get this done in a rescission package, and how much money do you think you can get back?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: Well, this goes to another huge legal question. Can the president impound money, or does he have to send it back, and we approve the cuts through rescission?
And this is going all the way to the Supreme Court also, because I think the Trump administration believes they can just not spend it. There’s another question within the question, can the president and his people – can Secretary Rubio pause the spending?
On that issue, I think they will win. You will be able to pause spending as long as you don’t go through the end of an appropriations year. If you get through that, I believe it’s impoundment. And I think the courts so far have said it has to come back…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: … unless, as the Trump administration argues, that the Impoundment Act is unconstitutional.
So this one’s headed to the Supreme Court also. It is my personal belief we should adhere to the law as it is now, and that is send it back and have Congress confirm it. It’s a simple majority vote. It’s called rescission. I did mention this to Elon Musk.
He seemed enthusiastic it can be done. No Democrats – you have to realize…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: … no Democrat will cut one penny from any spending anywhere.
But can we get all the Republicans is the real question.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You can get 51 Republicans, you think, to get on board with this?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: Well, I think the president is going to have – the president is going to have to use effectively his bully pulpit and his popularity to convince all Republicans to do it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: It’s not a given that Republicans will stand – will vote for this.
We tried it once in the first administration.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, I remember.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: It was only $15 billion. And we lost. We lost two Republicans.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Two Republicans.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: But my suggestion to the Trump – my suggestion to the Trump administration is, come to the Republicans who you suspect might have misgivings and convince them in advance.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: Don’t put it in their lap. Bring them $500 billion. And if they say, this $10 billion, I can’t deal with, I can deal with the 490, you’re going to have to pre-negotiate the rescissions package.
But I think you could get there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about the Department of Education.
States, as everyone, I think, knows, provide the majority of the funding and oversight for your local schools. But Kentucky, when we looked at the numbers, gets the fourth most federal education funding per student of any state in this country. You have over 900 schools that have these Title I programs, which are low-income schools who need that federal subsidy to continue to operate.
How are schools going to get that money if the president closes the Education Department?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: I think the bigger question, if we’re sending all this money to Kentucky and all the other states, why are our scores abysmal? Why do two-thirds of the kids not read at proficiency? Why do two-thirds of the kids or more not have math proficiency?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Isn’t that up to the state?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: So, it’s been an utter failure. What I’d like to – let me finish.
I’d leave it back to the states. It has always been a position, a very mainstream Republican position, to have control of the schools by the states, send the money back to the states, or, better yet, never take it from the states.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: About half of our budget in Kentucky goes to education, and that’s the same in a lot of states.
I think we can handle it much better. When I talk to teachers, they chafe at the national mandates on testing, they think are not appropriate for their kids. They think they waste too much time teaching to national testing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: The teachers would like more autonomy, and I think the teachers deserve more autonomy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But when we looked at the budget in Kentucky, the state receives $2 billion in federal education funding. Do you have a guarantee that the federal government, federal taxpayers will still provide $2 billion in education funding? That seems important to your state.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: I’d rather – well, no, I’d rather is a guarantee that my kids can read and write and do math.
The amount of dollars – look, the number of dollars has gone up exponentially and our scores have gone the other way. So dollars are not proportional to educational success. What I want is success. And I have talked a lot about this. I think there are innovations we can do where there’s more learning via some of the best teachers and we pay them more.
I would like to have an NBA or NFL of teachers, the most extraordinary teachers, teach the entire country, if not the entire world.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Who would run that, the Education Department?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: And some of them – no, what you would find is, they’d be selected out state by state, across the nation.
Look, people say, oh, without the Department of Education, we would have no testing. I was in school before then. We did achievement tests in the sixth grade, the fifth grade, the eighth grade, and we compared ourselves across state lines. There were international testing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: You don’t need the Department of Education for any of that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: But what I can tell you is, the best teacher in the world is not teaching the kids.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: What we need to do is have the best teachers and pay them more.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: But they wouldn’t teach 30 kids. They might teach 10 million kids at a time because it would be presented through the Internet, with local teachers reinforcing the lessons.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
Well, I’m sure we will be talking more about this. Senator Paul, thank you for your time today.
We will be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we will be right back with the top Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee, Jim Himes.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION.
We turn now to the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes. He joins us this morning from Greenwich.
Good morning to you.
I want to jump right into it on the conversation about this Venezuelan gang. You have said some of your fellow Democrats have been too quick to use the term constitutional crisis. But because of the use of the Alien Enemies Act and this gang, you have started to become concerned that’s where we are. Can you explain that?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES (D-CT): Yes, that’s right, Margaret, and thanks for having me.
You know, constitutional crisis is a – a sort of broadly used term. Lots of people have different definitions for it. It’s a lot of stuff you don’t like.
I’ll tell you what I know is a constitutional crisis. If the president of the United States decides to ignore the orders of a court – we have not seen that since Andrew Jackson did that in 1834. When that happens, you have a supine on its back Congress of the United States, completely beholden to the president, not acting as a check. And if the president says, I don’t care what the court – courts say, which, by the way, he has not said, but which Tom Homan, his czar for deportation has said, now you have a full-blown constitutional crisis.
So, I think these next couple of days, as we see how this administration goes after the many judges and the many courts – many of these judges appointed by Republican presidents who are stopping the wild and illegal actions of this administration, we’re going to see whether we are in a true, you know, Jacksonian constitutional crisis.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because of your role on the Intelligence Committee, I know you have some visibility into the assessments of U.S. intelligence. “The New York Times” reported that the intelligence community said, with moderate confidence, that the gang, TDA, that we’ve been talking about, is not directed by the Venezuelan government. However, the national security advisor just told us on this program, TDA is acting as a proxy of the Venezuelan government. Why does that distinction matter?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Yes, well, it doesn’t matter. And I’ll come back around to that.
But look, what – what – what people worry about is that this administration acts with an unbelievable kind of cocktail of incompetence and illegality. When you fire all of the people at the Department of Energy who look after our nuclear weapons and then say, oops, we need to hire you back, that’s incompetence.
I listened to Mike. Mike is a friend of mine. I have respect for Mike. But what he did was dodge your question. I’m not a lawyer, but I can read the first paragraph of the Aliens Enemy Act, which says very clearly that the authority that this administration claims is dependent on a declaration of war.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Not on acting as a proxy. So, Mike distorted the law. And, you know, I read “The New York Times” article, too. I haven’t seen specific intelligence about whether there’s any connection whatsoever between Venezuela and the TDA gang.
But you’re right, “The New York Times” – and, by the way, I’ll get an answer on this tomorrow and I’m going to have some questions for Mike. “The New York Times,” of course, reported that there’s – that the intelligence community believes that there’s not a meaningful connection between Venezuela and the TDA gang. So, again, it’s a bizarre combination of acting incompetently because maybe there’s a Venezuelan hairdresser, a gay Venezuelan hairdresser with no connection to TDA. And if he’s in this country illegally, fine, deport him. But to do it in this way under authorities that are not legal is not the way to do this.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
You’re – you’re referring there to some reporting in “Time” magazine about what happened to some of these – one particular detainee. On Friday, the Justice Department announced a criminal investigation into what they described as the leak of classified intelligence about this group, TDA. The deputy attorney general said they won’t “tolerate politically motivated efforts by the deep state to undercut President Trump’s agenda by leaking false information” to “The New York Times.”
Do you have any concern – or is there concern within the intelligence community about these leaks?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: There’s always concerns about leaks, Margaret. As ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, I don’t care who a leak benefits. Whether it benefits Joe Biden or Donald Trump or whatever, they are not OK. They are violations of the law.
It’s very interesting though that characterization that you just read, that we will not tolerate leaks that are inconsistent with President Trump’s agenda. And this gets at one of my worst fears with respect to the national security operates under Donald Trump. Everything is about Donald Trump, right? And where I work, inside and overseeing the intelligence community, it is absolutely essential that the intelligence community be about one thing and one thing only, which is giving Donald Trump and other national leaders unvarnished, unbiased advise. And if this is all about serving the president’s agenda, that is a notion that is completely at odds with what the intelligence community and what we spend $90 billion on making sure that policymakers, the president chief amongst them, has good information.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I was listening to a town hall that you did this past Thursday in Connecticut, and you were asked who the leader of the Democratic Party is. You threw out some of the sort of known entities, governors out there, but you said, “while the party’s not leaderless, Hakeem Jeffries is young and untested and Leader Schumer is not a wartime president.”
Do you think that your party can afford to stay the course with the existing leadership they have?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Margaret, I think we can do a lot better job with the leadership that we had. What I was acknowledging in the town hall meeting – and I will tell you, I’ve seen a lot of town hall meetings. I saw Chuck Grassley’s town hall meeting. I saw my colleagues from Wyoming – ruby red Wyoming’s time in the barrel.
And people are outraged. They’re outraged mainly, by the way, because they’re coming to understand what Medicaid cuts are going to look like for them, what it means to obliterate programs that so much of the country – 70 million people in the case of Medicaid – rely on. So, there’s an immense amount of anger.
What I do know is that it was not a good look for the two congressional Democratic leaders to be on opposite sides of the continuing resolution. That created a great deal of adjita (ph) out there, and legitimately so. So, I am quite certain that Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer have learned from this experience and are going to, at a minimum, be unified going forward here.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will see.
Congressman Jim Himes, we’ll be watching you and that worldwide threat briefing that will be happening this coming week.
We’ll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to America’s health care system and former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb. He’s also a board member at Pfizer.
Welcome back to FACE THE NATION.
SCOTT GOTTLIEB (Former FDA Commissioner): Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, measles is now in 18 states, as I understand it. Mostly Texas and New Mexico. But we have seen a growing number of infections, particularly in children.
What do parents need to know and are adults protected?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Adults who have been vaccinated should be protected. This vaccine provides durable immunity. And there’s no recommendation that anyone who’s already been vaccinated, had the full schedule of two doses of vaccine when they were children, would need to get another booster. But if people are concerned, they can check their titers (ph). The only recommendation that CDC makes is people who are taking care of those with measles, perhaps health care workers, might consider an additional booster later in life.
The bigger challenge is with children. So, children get vaccinated, as you know, at one year, and then again when they’re entering school at around age four. There’s a window where children probably don’t have a lot of immunity. So, a child born, has some immunity passed from their mom up until about six months. But there’s a window between six and 12 months where they are largely unprotected. Typically, we don’t vaccinate at six months because babies don’t have developed immune systems where they can develop a durable immunity from an immunization like this. But there’s some recommendations now that children, between the ages of six and 12 months, might get a first dose of vaccine. They would still require a second dose at age one and a third dose at age four.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I saw the former CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, was talking about that this past week.
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The current secretary of HHS, Secretary Kennedy, has said he wants anyone who desires the vaccine MMR to be able to get one. But he also describes himself as a, quote, “freedom of choice person.” I want to get your analysis of what seemed to be a suggested alternative treatment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. (HHS Secretary): They are getting very, very good results they report from Budesonide (ph), which is a steroid. It’s a 30- year-old steroid. And they’re – and erythromycin (ph) and also cod liver oil, which has high – high concentrations of vitamin a and vitamin d. And they are seeing what they describe as almost miraculous, instantaneous recovery from that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are those viable alternatives?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: They’re not viable alternatives to vaccination. And I’d much prefer if he made a full-throated recommendation to parents to get kids vaccinated, especially in a setting of the regions where there’s virus now spreading. He’s talking about steroids and antibiotics. Those will use in the setting of a child who has developed pneumonitis, who’s hospitalized, has respiratory distress. And so you might dose them with antibiotics to prevent secondary infections. And steroids can reduce some of the inflammation in the lungs. The hope is children don’t get into that kind of distressed situation because they’ve been vaccinated.
As far as vitamin a is concerned, there’s really scant evidence that it’s effective in this setting. It’s used in the setting of malnourished children where it might provide some benefit. But I think talking about those kinds of therapeutics in this context creates a false impression that there’s treatments available for measles when, in fact, there’s not. The only way to prevent measles and prevent the sequelic (ph) from measles is to get vaccinated.
You know, it’s the same way people may consider whether or not they choose to get vaccinated for influenza, for the flu. Some people might make a decision not to get vaccinated because they know therapeutics are available. I certainly would recommend that – that they do that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: I think everyone should get vaccinated for influenza. But some people might make that choice. There is no choice in this setting. There’s nothing effective at mitigating the effects of measles once you get it. So, the only way to do that is to get vaccinated.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, the CDC website describes vitamin a as supportive care, but vaccination the best defense. So, thank you for explaining that.
There’s no CDC director right now. The administration had to pull their nominee, as you know, because they couldn’t get enough votes. Alex Tin (ph) here at CBS is reporting Florida’s surgeon general and a former Texas congressman, Michael Burgess, are both being floated for the job. How important is it to get someone confirmed and in the role quickly?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Yes, I think it’s very important, especially when you see what’s going on around the country with this measles outbreak in west Texas. We may have more measles cases this year than we’ve had in 25 years. And so having leadership at the CDC that can direct that response is exceedingly important.
Mike Burgess ran the health subcommittee on energy and commerce, worked closely with the FDA when I was there. He was very good, very effective. He did a lot – a lot to advance our interdiction work in mail facilities to stop opioids from flowing through those facilities. He was very dedicated to that effort. Actually visited the mail facility in New York at JFK Airport to see firsthand the operation before he led a charge in Congress to help provide more funding to get more inspectors into the facilities. He has a lot of experience in a lot of the areas where CDC has a very relevant mission.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And they’ll have to face a potential vote once the president makes a selection here.
I want to ask about some of the byproducts and some of them deliberate cuts from the president’s so-called belt-tightening here. There have been impacts at, for example, Johns Hopkins, an institute that does medical research and receives USAID grants. There are also deliberate cuts that have been vowed at Columbia and UPenn, two universities that get federal funding and do health research. Do you have any insight into how many health programs or the significance of the health programs that will be affected?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Yes, I don’t think anyone has insight into it yet. I think this is still playing out. These impacts are happening across a couple of different domains. There is restrictions on the ability to go forward with new grants because of limitations, for example, posting things in the federal register. There’s new grant making policies that are being implemented. So, certain entities, certain countries are being added to lists where you can’t do research. There were recently some grants canceled that coincided with research that would be done in conjunction with China. They’re terminating certain grants on the basis of policy considerations, like whether or not they have a certain DEI component and however they are defining that.
And then you see the institutional wide cuts. I think that’s what happened to Johns Hopkins with respect to the USAID cuts. It’s also what happened to Columbia with respect to that $400 million cut – federal cut that impacted a lot of research. There’s – so there’s multiple domains where they’re being impacted right now. This is – this isn’t all DOGE led.
I think we need to be very careful when it comes to research programs where patients are involved.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: You know, if you make a mistake with a program like a website that you took down, you can always put it back up. But when you cut a grant to a program where patients are involved, where continuity of care is really important to those patients, you need to make accommodation for that, or not make those cuts in the first place.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: I do know – I’ve had some conversations – I think DOGE is aware of that and trying to be mindful of those impacts.
MARGARET BRENNAN: No, it’s a – it’s an important point to be strategic when it comes to medical care.
Dr. Gottlieb, thank you for your insight.
We’ll be back in a moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We return now to the Venezuelan deportation case. And for what’s next, we’re joined by our Justice Department correspondent, Scott Macfarlane and our immigration reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez.
It’s good to have you both here.
Camilo, you did some extraordinary reporting this week and obtained the names of the migrants who were sent to El Salvador. That’s information that the administration refused to share with a federal judge, but you got it.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: That’s right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What did you learn?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: We’re still investigating every single case on this list of 238 Venezuelan men who were sent to El Salvador to be imprisoned there, but this is what we know. We know that according to court filings and also our own findings here at CBS News, some of the people on this list do have criminal histories in the U.S. or abroad in countries like Peru, Chile and Columbia. But we also know that, according to the government, many of these people do not have any criminal record in the U.S. And we have received documents from lawyers and attorneys and also the family members of the deportees who say that these people, some of them, do not have any criminal history in the U.S. But the administration is accusing all of them of being part of this transnational gang known as Tren de Aragua.
But how that accusation is being made is at the center of this story. The administration says they have U.S. intelligence and other techniques to identify these people as suspected TDA members, but their relatives and their lawyers say that some of these men were identified as TDA simply because of tattoos.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And that is really where we get to the legal nub of the argument is, can you, as – as Senator Paul was saying, bypass the right to a day in court on the basis of someone having some tattoos?
So, Scott, the Trump administration is going to have this appeal tomorrow, as I understand it. You were in federal court Friday when the judge said it was, quote, awfully frightening how the administration stretched the law. They are looking for this fight. Why?
SCOTT MACFARLANE: There’s two different fights they’re looking for. The legal is one of them. They are going to be in the appeals court tomorrow. They’ll go to the Supreme Court potentially eventually, trying to consolidate power to make it an 18th century reality right now where you can expel people who are locked up currently on U.S. soil without having to go through the courts, even though the courts are trying to catch mistakes and make sure nobody’s scooped upper erroneously.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Even though you could deport them anyhow?
SCOTT MACFARLANE: You can still deport them anyhow. That’s one fight they’re looking to fight.
There’s also the political one, Margaret. There is so much political upside
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
SCOTT MACFARLANE: To all of this for the Trump administration. And you heard that from the national security advisor a few moments ago when he told you this is a D.C. distinction. That the administration is not exactly concerned about looking too aggressive in deporting suspected gang members. There’s all kinds of wins there.
And then there’s the other one, Margaret. The villainization of Washington, D.C., federal judges, which can galvanize the conservative base and the Trump base. And you saw that Friday in the courtroom with the judge, James Boesberg, pushing back on the president’s allegations that he just wants to set these gang members free. The judge said, they are still locked up. You can deport them the normal way without invoking this 18th century law. Let’s see how much more pushback there is from the president to the judge. There was more overnight on Truth Social.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They’re – yes, he’s spoken about it. He’s posted about this judge, raising other concerns.
Camilo, though, you actually have reported out what was done behind the scenes to bring this all to a head, to set up this fight. What did you learn?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: What I can tell you is that based on conversations with DHS sources, the administration was actively preparing for this operation well before the president actually signed this proclamation, unbeknownst to the public last Friday before the White House actually published the actual proclamation on Saturday, March 15th and before those planes took off –
MARGARET BRENNAN: Meaning do it as quickly as possible?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: That’s right. They staged a roundup across the country of suspected TDA members and transferred those people to a Texas detention center. And by the time the judge held the first emergency hearing on this case, there were already two planes in the air and another one ready to take off.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Knowing that they might have to face a fight back in the courts.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Scott, the president has issued at least three executive orders that we have clocked impacting private law firms who represented clients at odds with President – or then Mr. Trump. That’s bad for private business. One of those law firms cut a deal, $40 million. What’s the impact here?
SCOTT MACFARLANE: I talked to one of the lawyers who’s been targeted by one of these actions. He says, they’re trying to take me off the playing field. They’re trying to take others off the playing field as we continue to challenge the administration in course. A chilling affect to make it harder to file these lawsuits that have been the firewall so far on the Trump administration.
But there’s a distinction in the latest round of actions prohibiting these law firms based in Washington from doing business in government buildings or with government employees. That is a death sentence for a Washington, D.C. law firm. And, in fact, one of those firms, Perkins Coie, the ones challenging this in court, said as much to the judge, this would kill us. And the judge here in Washington has, for now, held off on the Trump executive action to strip Perkins Coie. But we’ll see how long that protection lasts.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And this has knock=on affects for others seeking legal services but also, as you said, makes them hard to just function.
SCOTT MACFARLANE: Especially the stripping of security clearances, Margaret. That makes it harder for a whistleblower at the FBI, or the CIA, or the Pentagon to find a lawyer to blow the whistle. It makes it possible such whistles will not be blown.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, because they need to seek counsel who have ability to deal with classified information.
SCOTT MACFARLANE: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Camilo, the administration announced Friday they’re revoking legal status of half a million migrants who came here legally from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela during President Biden’s term. This is another fight they wanted to have. But if the intention – the stated intention is to go after the worst of the worst and deport them, why focus on people who bothered to be here legally?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Well, the administration would argue that the Biden administration abused its immigration executive authority to create this program without Congress and that the people who came here under this policy are undercutting American workers and that they are essentially illegal immigrants as well. And now they are turning them into illegal immigrants by stripping them of their legal status, their work permits, their deportations protection. Right now they have, for the next 30 days, a chance to self-deport through a smartphone app. If they don’t do that, DHS is warning that they will be found, arrested and deported from the country.
And this crackdown on immigration by the administration is also extending to other parts of the immigration system. We also know that the administration is suspending funding – federal funding for legal services providers and lawyers to help – who help migrant children, who have left federal custody, or who are still in federal custody and who are facing deportation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And this is all intentional, the taking funding away, even from migrant kids?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Yes, this administration does not believe that federal funds should be used for people who are in the country illegally or without legal permission.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Gentlemen, you’re going to be busy. Thank you for breaking it all down for us. I appreciate it.
MACFARLANE: Thank you.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Thank you.
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)
The post Full transcript of “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” March 23, 2025 appeared first on CBS News.
