During this episode of “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” hosted by Margaret Brennan:
- National Security Adviser Mike Waltz
- Rep. Rand Paul, Republican from Kentucky
- Rep. Jim Himes, Democrat from Connecticut
- Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former FDA Commissioner
- CBS News correspondents Camilo Montoya-Galvez and Scott MacFarlane
Click here to access the complete transcripts from 2025 for “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m Margaret Brennan reporting from Washington.
This week on Face the Nation: The wave of political activity transforming Washington and beyond continues, as President Trump nudges Ukraine and Russia towards a peaceful resolution.
Overnight, the U.S. again targeted Iranian-backed Houthi positions in Yemen. Additionally, there is increasing backlash over the deportation of alleged gang members from Venezuela by the Trump administration. We will interview White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rand Paul from Kentucky, and Connecticut’s Jim Himes, the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
While members of Congress may have appreciated their recent recess, they may now be eager to return to Washington.
(Begin VT)
MAN: Are you concerned that we are heading toward an authoritarian regime?
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Elected officials from both parties are hearing frustration from their constituents.
(Begin VT)
MAN #1: The message sent by Democrats with the CR debacle was unmistakable. It’s not just that you’re in the minority; it’s that you aren’t even collaborating on a unified strategy, which is a clear failure!
MAN #2: Why do you believe President Trump is above the law? Why haven’t you said anything about it?
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Additionally, measles cases have been reported in 18 states. We will speak with former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb regarding this issue and discuss the implications of Trump’s funding cuts to medical research.
Stay tuned for all this on Face the Nation.
Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation.
We have much to discuss regarding national security. In just a few hours, U.S. officials will be convening talks with Ukraine, followed by discussions with Russia tomorrow, focusing on establishing a 30-day cease-fire.
At the same time, the Trump administration is increasing military presence in the Middle East by deploying a second aircraft carrier to the region.
We start this morning with White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.
Great to have you here.
MIKE WALTZ (U.S. National Security Adviser): Thank you, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The Iran-backed Houthis have persisted in their attacks on Israel. What have the recent bombings accomplished, and what’s next for Iran?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: We have targeted and eliminated key Houthi leadership, including their primary missile operator. We have successfully attacked their command centers, communication nodes, weapons production sites, and several drone manufacturing facilities over the past few days.
President Trump has opted for a decisive approach towards the Houthis compared to the previous administration, which often executed limited strikes over extended periods. Consequently, vital shipping lanes have been jeopardized.
These militants are comparable to al-Qaeda or ISIS, armed with advanced cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and sophisticated air defenses, all provided by Iran, Margaret. It’s crucial to understand the implications…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Absolutely.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: … the last time one of our destroyers navigated through the straits, it was targeted 23 times; currently, 75% of our flagged vessels have to reroute around Africa to avoid the Suez Canal.
Ensuring the openness of seas and commerce is integral to our national security. The previous administration was ineffective.
The Trump administration is committed to a more robust approach, which I believe will yield more significant results.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The president has also indicated he will hold Iran accountable. Envoy Steve Witkoff has claimed in an interview that Iran responded to U.S. outreach about a letter from the President.
Witkoff suggested it included an offer to establish a verification program to alleviate concerns about nuclear material weaponization. Could you clarify? Is the U.S. aiming for the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, or just verification similar to the Obama-era deal from 2015, which President Trump abandoned?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: We are calling for full dismantlement.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Iran must completely renounce its program in a way that is transparent to the international community.
And, as President…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Have they expressed interest in that?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: As President Trump has stated, this situation is reaching a critical juncture. All options remain on the table.
It is imperative that Iran abandons its aspirations for a nuclear weapon. They must not be permitted to maintain a nuclear weapons program.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Have they officially responded to the president’s recent call for negotiations?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: That includes enrichment, weaponization efforts, and their strategic missile capabilities.
Can you imagine the consequences?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Indeed.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: We have witnessed the havoc and destruction they’ve caused through their proxies, including Hezbollah and the Assad regime. If they acquire nuclear weapons, the entire Middle East would plunge into turmoil.
This scenario is intolerable for our national security. Without diving into specifics, it’s clear that Iran has reached a critical low point in its national security position since 1979, compounded by pressures from Hezbollah, Hamas, the Assad regime, and sustained losses of their air defenses from Israeli actions.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So there remains potential for diplomatic dialogue? I understand you can’t elaborate…
(CROSSTALK)
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Certainly.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Alright.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: The president maintains that all avenues are open, but we want to be clear.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: This is not a repetitive back-and-forth like what we experienced during the Obama and Biden administrations.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: This is about completely relinquishing their nuclear ambitions, or facing repercussions.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Returning to domestic issues, I’d like to discuss the actions regarding Tren de Aragua, or TDA, which you’ve labeled a terrorist organization.
Last Saturday, 238 Venezuelan males were transferred to the government of El Salvador; 137 of these individuals were deported under the seldom-used 1789 Alien Enemies Act. This legislation permits detention and deportation without an initial court hearing for individuals from nations at war with the U.S.
In a hearing last Friday, it was revealed that El Salvador declined to accept two individuals, one on the grounds of gender, as a female couldn’t be placed in a maximum-security facility, while the other was not Venezuelan.
How can such serious oversights occur?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: We will handle these cases individually. However, Margaret, the essential issue is twofold.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So a mistake has occurred, as acknowledged?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: I cannot comment on specific individuals or cases.
What I can state is that President Trump has concluded that this group acts as a terrorist organization, instilling terror into our communities through violent encounters, torture, and deplorable acts against them.
Secondly, we invoke the Alien Sedition Act based on our assessment that this gang operates as a proxy of the Maduro regime. Thus…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Just to clarify, this should apply if the U.S. is at war with the nation. Are you asserting that there’s evidence of directives from the Venezuelan government towards these gangs?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: We assert that TDA is functioning as a proxy for the Maduro regime. This is how the Alien Sedition Act comes into play. District judges cannot hamper the president’s decisions regarding a declared terrorist operation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’re arguing that the U.S. is in conflict with Venezuela?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: And I must point out, we might debate Articles II and III. That’s a valid discussion.
Nonetheless, in this instance, the President is making determined efforts to liberate our communities from gangs operating in a paramilitary capacity.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Certainly.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: We also know that Maduro is undoubtedly releasing prisoners intentionally…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Correct.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: … in a bid to attack and manipulate the U.S.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This situation is vastly different…
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: But this is the crux…
MARGARET BRENNAN: The U.S. is not at war with Venezuela.
I know the Attorney General mentioned on another network…
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: This isn’t…
MARGARET BRENNAN: … she believes this could elevate to the Supreme Court.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Certainly. That’s possible. However…
MARGARET BRENNAN: This is a confrontation you seek.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: No, but, Margaret, there are instances where the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, using Mexican cartels, have attempted to execute attacks on our facilities here in the U.S. We are committed to decisive actions concerning this matter as well.
Moreover, we aim to differentiate in Washington, D.C., since the American public is weary of these gangs.
MARGARET BRENNAN: No one is endorsing gang activity. However, concerns arise…
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: It certainly sounds like it. It feels that way from contrasting views of Democrats.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There is apprehension that this is being executed carelessly.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: It resembles a judge that sought to halt a flight of inmates with intelligence packets that underscored their involvement.
MARGARET BRENNAN: A female was sent to a male prison, which El Salvador refused.
(LAUGHTER)
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: I acknowledge this point.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the issue lies in ensuring that there’s proper judicial oversight for the individuals involved…
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … confirming that these individuals truly belong to a gang.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: However, all of them were in the country illegally.
Thus, we possess every right and should proceed to deport each one of these individuals. If you wish to recognize an exception for one person, that’s understandable.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yet they were not deported; instead, they were redirected to a facility.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: The prevailing Alien Act controls this matter, asserting that the president has the absolute authority to execute this action.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will examine this further with Homeland Security Committee Chair Rand Paul later, I’m sure.
I need to discuss Ukraine with you; active diplomatic efforts are underway, as mentioned. The Ukrainians have accepted a U.S.-proposed cease-fire without preconditions, per the announcement. The Russians suggest limiting energy infrastructure targets.
What objectives are being pursued in these upcoming discussions in Saudi Arabia?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Indeed, we’re nearing a resolution more than we ever have before. This process began with President Trump’s dialogue with both leaders consecutively.
After that, Secretary of State Rubio and I engaged both the Russians and Ukrainians at our respective levels, and presently we have technical teams from both nations collaborating in the same venue for proximity discussions.
Our forthcoming topics will include an aerial infrastructure cease-fire, which was established immediately following President Trump’s communication with President Putin this past week. We also intend to discuss the maritime cease-fire in the Black Sea, which will facilitate trade in grain and fuel across that body of water.
Following that, we will delve into the control lines that encompass actual front lines, addressing verification measures, peacekeeping efforts, and potentially discussing territorial agreements for an enduring peace—an aspect the Ukrainians often associate with security guarantees.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The President has expressed a desire to facilitate the return of Ukrainian children taken under a state program by Russia to undergo forced Russification. Why did the State Department suspend funding for one such initiative aimed at locating these children, specifically a project through Yale University?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Secretary Rubio is in the process of reviewing all pertinent programs. I cannot comment on that specific case.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This seems counterproductive to the objectives laid out.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: However, President Trump has addressed both leaders concerning prisoner exchanges. Both nations recently carried out nearly 200 prisoner exchanges immediately post their call.
He has also tackled the subject of these children. This is very much a priority in our confidence-building steps.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: But it’s essential to see the broader context. Not long ago, there was no substantial dialogue regarding the conclusion of this conflict. We must consider what this conflict may look like in the coming year, two years, or even three years.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Certainly.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: We were caught in a protracted deadlock. Now, we have both parties communicating through technical teams, aligning with President Trump’s strategic goal of concluding this conflict.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Just to clarify, are you advocating for the children’s release as part of building trust? Is that what you’re implying?
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Yes, we’re considering various confidence-building measures, and that’s one of them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Mike Waltz.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MIKE WALTZ: Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Face the Nation will return shortly.
Stay tuned.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We now welcome Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul, chair of the Homeland Security Committee, joining us this morning from Bowling Green.
Good morning, Senator.
SENATOR RAND PAUL (R-Kentucky): Good morning. Thanks for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Of course.
Given your position on the Homeland Security Committee, I’d like to follow up on the matters discussed with National Security Adviser Waltz. There are legal complexities regarding the use of authority to deport detainees without offering them a day in court, along with concerns about the situation involving individuals denied by El Salvador, one due to gender, and another due to nationality. Are these issues concerning to you, especially with claims from their families that many of these individuals are not gang members?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: Yes, there are significant legal questions at play.
While the Bill of Rights extends to everyone, it doesn’t explicitly restrict itself to citizens. It applies to all individuals on U.S. soil. The Alien Enemies Act, conversely, reduces due process for those designated by the president as a threat to foreign policy, allowing for their deportation.
Ultimately, this matter will land in the courts, which will need to determine whether they find the Alien Enemies Act, a longstanding law, unconstitutional or whether they’ll defer to Congress.
If we look at the TikTok ruling, which I disagree with, the court essentially deferred to Congress’s determination about national security, saying who are we to contest that? I believe the court’s inclination will tend to favor upholding the Alien Enemies Act, albeit not necessarily aligning with my views.
The legal standing here is debatable, and the Democrats shouldn’t dismiss it as a lawless situation. There is legal authority supporting this approach, as established over the last two centuries.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Indeed.
But shifting gears from political perspectives to the courts: right now, judges are expressing concerns regarding how these orders are taking shape, indicating they are being conducted under some level of secrecy. Do you believe it’s acceptable to bypass judicial processes entailing the right to due process?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: We’re confronted with fundamental contradictions. More precisely, the Constitution guarantees due process rights for everyone on American soil, aligning with the Bill of Rights. However, we also have the Alien Enemies Act, existing for 200 years, stating that the president can deport individuals unilaterally.
The matter of whether a district judge could issue a nationwide directive is equally contentious. I anticipate that the Supreme Court will assert limits on district judges’ ability to implement broad rulings.
These significant legal questions necessitate challenges to push forward, and the only way to compel courts to rule is through sufficiently challenging each case.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Absolutely. It appears that these complex legal discussions revolve around foundational legal rights. But amidst all this, individuals may be wrongfully sent to facilities outside U.S. jurisdiction.
As someone overseeing these developments, are you comfortable with how this is being managed?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: I believe the courts will eventually find a process must be guaranteed prior to deportation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are comfortable with the implementation of this process?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: I don’t believe individuals will be deported without being afforded some opportunity for legal representation. As for those encompassed within the Alien Enemies Act, there remains ambiguity regarding how this applies.
While I have a penchant for constitutional law, I am not a constitutional lawyer.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Certainly.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: My belief is that this matter will reach the Supreme Court with compelling arguments on both sides.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: I want to discuss some congressional business. Reports have emerged of your proposal to Elon Musk regarding reclaiming $500 billion in previously approved federal funding. A similar effort was attempted in 2018 but ultimately failed.
Do you foresee success in a rescission package, and if so, how much do you believe can be reclaimed?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: This, too, involves substantial legal debate. The central question is whether the president has the authority to halt or recover these funds or if they must be returned, necessitating congressional approval through rescission.
This could lead to Supreme Court involvement given the Trump administration’s view that they possess the authority to suspend spending. There are other inquiries underlying the president’s potential action. Specifically, can the president and his advisors pause fund disbursement without going through the fiscal year-end? If they surpass that timeframe, it turns into a matter of impoundment.
I tend to believe that the courts will affirm that any funds must revert to Congress unless the administration argues that the Impoundment Act is unconstitutional.
This matter, too, will likely be debated in the Supreme Court. Personally, I believe in adhering to the existing legal framework, advocating for a refund and confirmation through a simple majority approach—this is the rescission route. Elon Musk appeared enthusiastic about the possibility. However, it is crucial to realize that no Democrat will propose reducing government spending even marginally.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Indeed.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: The real question is whether we can garner sufficient Republican support to make this feasible.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you believe you can secure support from 51 Republicans to back this?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: The president will need to utilize his influence and popularity to rally the necessary Republican votes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Certainly.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: However, it is not a guarantee that every Republican will advocate for this.
We attempted this previously during the initial Trump term, seeking only $15 billion and losing the support of two Republicans.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Indeed.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: My proposition to the Trump administration is to approach Republicans who may have hesitations and address them beforehand.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: Present them with the comprehensive $500 billion proposal beforehand, allowing them to negotiate specific cuts for their comfort.
To achieve this, pre-negotiation will be paramount.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Now, I want to inquire about the Department of Education.
As is known, states predominantly oversee local schools in terms of funding and regulation. Notably, Kentucky ranks fourth in terms of federal funding per student. With over 900 Title I programs in low-income schools dependent on federal assistance, how will they continue to function if the Department of Education is abolished?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: More fundamentally, if we are sending substantial funding to Kentucky (or any state), why are the educational outcomes so poor? Why do two-thirds of students lack proficiency in reading? Why are we witnessing similar failures in math?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Isn’t this predominantly a state issue?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: Clearly, it has been an evident failure. Allow me to finish.
My position is that funding should be managed at the state level, consistent with mainstream Republican views advocating for state control in education. The funding should come directly from states, or better yet, we shouldn’t take it at all.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Certainly.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: In Kentucky, approximately half of our budget goes to education, as it does in other states.
I believe we can operate more effectively. When engaging with teachers, they express frustration regarding national mandates on testing, viewing it as ineffective for their students. They argue it detracts from valuable teaching time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Indeed.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: Teachers hope for more autonomy in their classrooms—something they certainly deserve.
MARGARET BRENNAN: However, considering Kentucky’s budget, the state receives $2 billion in federal education funding. Can you ensure that the federal taxpayers will continue providing this support for education?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: I would much prefer ensuring my children can read, write, and perform mathematical operations.
The financial figures have surged, yet student performance has declined. The goal is not just about funding; it’s about achieving success. I have spoken extensively on this matter, proposing innovations whereby our most exceptional teachers are financially incentivized to teach more broadly.
Ideally, I envision a system comparable to the NBA or NFL, where exemplary teachers instruct vast audiences—possibly around the world—tailored for local reinforcement from resident educators.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Who would be responsible for overseeing this initiative—likely the Department of Education?
SENATOR RAND PAUL: No, the most outstanding teachers would be selected from individual states across the nation.
People often claim that without the Department of Education, testing would cease to exist. I completed my education before its establishment, participating in assessments across multiple grades, with comparative measures across state lines.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Certainly.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: Empirical testing mechanisms were already in place long before the Department of Education emerged.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: However, I can attest today: the highest caliber educators are absent from the classrooms.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Exactly.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: Our priority should revolve around elevating our best educators above the current standards, ensuring larger numbers of students benefit from their expertise.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Senator Paul. We will certainly continue discussing this topic.
We will be back shortly.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We now turn to Congressman Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION.
Today, we have with us Congressman Jim Himes from Connecticut.
Good morning, Congressman.
I want to delve into the Venezuelan gang conversation. You’ve mentioned that some fellow Democrats may be quick to label this a constitutional crisis. Yet you’ve implied that the misuse of the Alien Enemies Act raises valid concerns. Could you elaborate on that?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES (D-CT): Certainly, Margaret, and thank you for having me.
The term ‘constitutional crisis’ is often used broadly, with varying interpretations for different individuals. Let me clarify what I classify as a constitutional crisis. If the president outright ignores court rulings, as Andrew Jackson did in 1834, we would be in a precarious situation. In such a case, Congress becomes powerless, fully beholden to the president, failing to serve as a counterbalance. Should the president express indifference to court rulings, which has been echoed by his deportation czar, we would undoubtedly face a constitutional crisis.
I believe the upcoming days will critically determine the nature of this administration’s interactions with various judges—many of whom were appointed by Republican presidents and are currently obstructing this administration’s more audacious actions.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Given your access to U.S. intelligence data, can you clarify the assessment regarding the TDA gang? The New York Times indicated the intelligence community expressed moderate confidence that TDA is not directly instructed by the Venezuelan government. However, Mike Waltz stated otherwise. Why does this distinction matter?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: It doesn’t matter at all. I’ll circle back to that. But my concern lies in the uniquely troubling blend of incompetence and illegality displayed by this administration. Instances like firing staff from the Department of Energy responsible for overseeing our nuclear arsenal—only to realize they must be rehired—represent grave incompetence.
I value Mike, but I sensed him dodge your inquiry earlier. I may not be a lawyer, but the first sentence of the Alien Enemies Act is concise: it specifies that the authority claimed by this administration requires a declaration of war.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Mike quite clearly misinterpreted the law. Additionally, the New York Times article brought to attention a lack of concrete intelligence regarding the linkage between Venezuela and the TDA gang.
But I’ll reiterate; I am presently pursuing answers to this question.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Your commitment is commendable. On another note, the Justice Department announced an investigation into the leaks of classified information related to TDA, emphasizing that they will not tolerate attempts by the ‘deep state’ to undermine President Trump’s agenda.
Are there concerns within the intelligence community regarding such leaks?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Leaks are consistently problematic, regardless of who benefits, be it President Trump or any other leader. They represent legal violations.
However, the phrase used—vowing to prevent damaging leaks inconsistent with President Trump’s agenda—is alarming. This raises fears about national security being compromised in service of Trump’s interests. In my oversight role, it remains paramount that the intelligence community focuses solely on delivering unfiltered and impartial advice to national leaders, especially the president, rather than serving a personal agenda.
MARGARET BRENNAN: During a recent town hall in Connecticut, you were asked about the leader of the Democratic Party. While acknowledging key individuals, you remarked, “Hakeem Jeffries is young and untested; Leader Schumer is not a wartime president.” Can your party sustain itself with the existing leadership structure?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Certainly, we can perform significantly better than our current status. During the town hall, I expressed worries about observed differences between our congressional leaders; that discord led to considerable anxiety among constituents, particularly regarding imminent Medicaid cuts affecting 70 million Americans.
The recent public disagreement among Democratic leaders pertaining to the continuing resolution cast an unfavorable light, creating legitimate dissatisfaction amongst voters. I’m confident both Hakeem and Chuck will learn from this experience and aim for unity as we proceed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We shall watch closely.
Congressman Himes, we anticipate your participation in the worldwide threat briefing occurring soon.
We’ll cover more in a moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Next, we’re discussing the healthcare sector with former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who currently serves on the Pfizer board.
Welcome back to FACE THE NATION.
SCOTT GOTTLIEB (Former FDA Commissioner): Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Reports confirm measles infections in 18 states, primarily in Texas and New Mexico. What essential information should parents be aware of, especially regarding the protection of adults?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Vaccinated adults should be safeguarded. Vaccination provides lasting immunity; thus, no additional boosters are required for those who received the complete two-dose series in childhood. However, those caring for measles patients, especially healthcare professionals, might consider getting an additional booster later in life.
The more pressing issue pertains to children. Kids typically receive vaccinations at age one and again around four. However, there is a susceptible period for children who have maternal immunity that diminishes at around six months, leaving a gap until they receive their first vaccination. There are emerging recommendations advocating for an initial vaccination dose for children ages six to twelve months, with follow-up doses at ages one and four.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I heard that former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky addressed this topic recently.
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Correct.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Moreover, HHS Secretary Kennedy advocates for making the MMR vaccines widely available while also identifying as a “freedom of choice person.” How do you assess his comments regarding alternative treatments?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. (HHS Secretary): Reports suggest they are experiencing outstanding results with Budesonide—a long-established steroid—along with erythromycin and cod liver oil, known for its high concentrations of vitamins A and D.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Can these alternatives genuinely substitute vaccination?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: They cannot replace vaccinations. It would be more impactful if he strongly urged parents to have their children vaccinated, especially with the active spread of the virus.
While steroids and antibiotics are applicable for cases of complications arising from measles, they should normally be employed when a child experiences severe respiratory problems. The objective should be for children to avoid the serious consequences of measles in the first place through vaccination.
Concerning vitamin A, the evidence supporting its effectiveness in this context is minimal. While it can offer some advantages in malnourished children, emphasizing such treatments could mislead the understanding of available solutions for measles. The only method to prevent measles and its consequences is vaccination.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The CDC’s stance favors vaccination as the primary defense. Thank you for clarifying that.
Currently, there is no CDC director. As you know, the administration recently withdrew their nominee due to insufficient votes. Reports indicate Florida’s surgeon general and former Texas congressman Michael Burgess are names in contention for the role. How critical is a timely confirmation for this position?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: It is crucial, especially in light of the ongoing measles outbreak in West Texas. This year may witness the highest volumes of measles cases we’ve had in over 25 years. Thus, appointing leadership within the CDC to drive the response is of utmost urgency.
Michael Burgess, having previously led the health subcommittee on energy and commerce, effectively collaborated with the FDA during my tenure. He made immense contributions to our efforts in opioid interception, and his dedication to this cause is commendable. His breadth of experience aligns with the CDC’s crucial missions.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The nominee will naturally be scrutinized through a potential vote once the president presents his selection.
Regarding the impacts of the president’s budgetary cuts, how will this affect medical research and other health programs? For instance, organizations like Johns Hopkins, which produce significant medical research partly funded by USAID, are being adversely affected. Further cuts are also targeted at Columbia and UPenn, both engaged in health research. Can you shed light on the consequences of these funding cuts?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: This situation is evolving, and there’s no definitive insight yet. The consequences manifest in diverse ways. For instance, new grant-making limitations arise, including a backlog on entering research projects into the federal register. Specific entities and countries are prohibited from engaging in research pursuits, as seen in target cancellations associated with funding with China and other policy-related discontinuations.
Moreover, institutional-wide budget cuts are applying pressure, as witnessed with Johns Hopkins in relation to their USAID funding, and Columbia’s $400 million reduction. These competing factors are having significant impacts at the moment. The entire situation continues to unfold.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, ensuring caution is critical when managing patient-related research programs.
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Indeed. When errors occur in program funding—like issues with websites—those can typically be resolved. However, cutting a crucial medical program can irreparably disrupt patient care continuity, necessitating proactive strategies to mitigate the fallout of such decisions.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Absolutely, it is vital to approach medical care expeditiously.
Thank you for your insights, Dr. Gottlieb.
We will return shortly.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Circling back to the Venezuelan deportation case, we have with us our Justice Department correspondent, Scott MacFarlane, alongside our immigration reporter, Camilo Montoya-Galvez.
It’s great to see you both.
Camilo, your investigative efforts this week led to revealing the identities of the migrants transferred to El Salvador, information the administration withheld from the federal judge. What did you find?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: That’s accurate.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Please elaborate on your findings.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: We are conducting an extensive investigation on the entire list of 238 Venezuelan men sent to El Salvador for imprisonment, so here’s what we’ve discerned: according to court records and our own findings, some individuals on this roster possess criminal backgrounds in the U.S. or have prior convictions in countries like Peru, Chile, and Colombia. However, many of these individuals reportedly lack any criminal history in the U.S. Documentation received from family members and attorneys confirms that numerous people on this list do not show any records of prior offenses in the U.S. Nonetheless, the administration is labeling all of them as affiliates of the Tren de Aragua transnational gang.
Yet the manner in which these identifications are made is significant here. The administration claims to rely on U.S. intelligence and other methods for suspecting these individuals as TDA members, but their families and legal representatives assert that tattoos are often the basis for them being identified as such.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This brings us directly to the legal ramifications: can individuals be deported based solely on tattoo evidence, as Senator Paul suggested, without providing the opportunity for a day in court?
Scott, the Trump administration is scheduled for an appeal tomorrow. You were present during the federal court proceedings on Friday when a judge remarked on the concerning extent that the administration was bending legal standards. Why are they pursuing this confrontation?
SCOTT MACFARLANE: The administration seeks to cement its authority through two foundational confrontations: one as a legal matter, striving to claim power to deport individuals held in the U.S. without judicial review, and the political narrative. The administration is looking to reap extensive political rewards from its aggressive approach towards suspected gang members.
This strategy simultaneously plays into the portrayal of D.C. judges as adversaries, rallying the conservative base and Trump’s supporters. This was evident during your prior discussion with the judge, James Boesberg, who rebuffed the president’s claims suggesting he wished to liberate gang members, stating that they remain detained while making a normal deportation procedure available without invoking antiquated laws.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Indeed, he has addressed this offhandedly, including in recent posts on Truth Social.
Camilo, you’ve uncovered efforts to orchestrate this situation and escalate this confrontation. What further information do you have?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Based on my talks with officials at the Department of Homeland Security, preparations for this operation were underway well ahead of the president’s formal proclamation, originating before the public was made aware last Friday and prior to the White House’s public announcement on Saturday, March 15, just as the planes took off.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Meaning they aimed for swift action?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Precisely. They executed a domestic roundup of suspected TDA affiliates and transferred them to a Texas detention facility before the initial court hearing was held. By the time proceedings started, there were airplanes already airborne, and one more poised for departure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: All while anticipating potential judicial pushback.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Scott, the president has enacted multiple executive orders targeting private law firms representing clients opposing the Trump administration. These actions threaten legal practices. One of these firms was ordered to pay $40 million. Can you outline the implications of this development?
SCOTT MACFARLANE: I spoke with an attorney affected by these directives, who indicated that these actions appear aimed at sidelining legal representation for those challenging the administration. The result is a chilling effect making it increasingly challenging for establishments to undertake lawsuits that have so far safeguarded against the administration’s actions.
There’s a distinct aspect from the latest series of actions prohibiting D.C.-based law firms from functioning within government premises or engaging with government representatives, which poses a severe impediment for any D.C. law firm. Perkins Coie, a firm that has been instrumental in legal challenges, expressed that this could decimate their operations. For now, the judiciary has suspended Trump’s executive order to strip certain law firms of access, but the timeline on this pause remains uncertain.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, this could constrain both legal service accessibility and vital operational functionalities.
SCOTT MACFARLANE: Particularly concerning is the revocation of security clearances. This represents a substantial barrier for whistleblowers within the FBI, CIA, or Pentagon trying to secure legal counsel.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Correct, as they need to work with attorneys able to manage classified information appropriately.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: The administration announced on Friday the removal of legal status for up to 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who were granted it during President Biden’s tenure. This further supports a confrontation they wish to instigate. If the focus is on the most serious offenders for deportation, why target individuals who legally resided here?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: The administration argues that former policies under President Biden created this legal status through executive authority without congressional approval. They see these migrants as undermining American labor standards and contend that they are effectively illegal immigrants. Therefore, stripping them of their legal status and work permits instigates their deportation. Currently, they have a brief, 30-day window to self-deport using a mobile application. If they fail to do this, DHS is notifying them of forthcoming arrests and deportations.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, this is an intentional strategy affecting even legal residents?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Yes, the administration contends that federal funds should not support individuals in the U.S. illegally.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you both for your invaluable insights during this critical period.
We will be returning shortly.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: That concludes our program for today. Thank you for tuning in. Until next week, I’m Margaret Brennan for FACE THE NATION.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
