AG Todd Blanche, Sen. Thom Tillis, more — Face the Nation Full Broadcast - Oct. 25, 2026

[0:01] I'm Margaret Frennan in Washington, and this week on Face the Nation, with control of Congress on the line, [0:07] closing arguments from Republicans and Democrats are coming into focus, with just days to go until the midterm elections. [0:15] We're going to crush the radical-left Democrats all across the country, and we're going to win the Republican House, and we're going to win the Republican Senate. [0:23] Two presidents with competing visions for America, neither on the ballot, delivering dueling messages in battleground states. [0:32] This election is our last, best chance to at least rein in some of the foolishness of this administration. [0:40] It is the circuit breaker in the system. [0:43] But President Trump's final push extends beyond the campaign trail. [0:48] The Justice Department is stepping up its efforts to intervene with a series of legal challenges. [0:53] We'll speak with U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche about the department's actions and what more could be ahead as the midterms near. [1:01] Will the Lone Star State turn blue? [1:04] Texas' Democratic nominee for governor, Gina Hinojosa, will join us. [1:08] Plus, does Elon Musk wield too much control in space? [1:12] Yesterday, he explained it was his decision to throttle Ukraine's SpaceX satellite access due to their drone strikes against Russia. [1:20] We'll ask Democratic Congressman Jason Crow and Republican Senator Tom Tillis what, if anything, [1:27] Congress can do about the billionaire's influence over technology critical to the U.S. and its allies. [1:34] It's all just ahead on Face the Nation. [1:37] Good morning and welcome to Face the Nation. [1:54] With just nine days until the final voting day of the midterm elections, [1:58] our CBS News battleground tracker estimates Democrats are on pace to take control of the House with 229 seats. [2:07] The Senate remains a toss-up. [2:09] And although President Trump isn't on the ballot this year, voters tell us he is a major factor in their decision at the ballot box. [2:16] We'll have much more on our news survey later in the broadcast, [2:19] But first, we turn to a series of election-related actions by the Justice Department [2:23] that are drawing new attention in the closing days of the campaign. [2:29] And we begin with U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche. [2:31] Good morning to you, sir. [2:34] Good morning. [2:35] So we're nine days out. [2:37] Your colleague, Harmeet Dillon, whose office would oversee election integrity cases, [2:42] told my colleagues over at 60 Minutes that, quote, [2:45] absent some shocking contingency that's unexpected, [2:48] there should be no interruption in the usual course of counting and certifying the results in the states. [2:54] Do you share that view? [2:57] Well, yes, of course, absent some facts that require us to do otherwise. [3:02] There's President Trump, the Department of Justice. [3:04] We don't want to have to get a law involved in elections. [3:07] Of course not. [3:08] But that doesn't mean that, at times, any Justice Department doesn't do that [3:12] and shouldn't do that if the facts and the law require it. [3:16] Well, it seems you already are taking action up in Alaska. [3:19] Just for our audience to understand, there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot there. [3:24] There's the incumbent senator, a Republican, Dan S. Sullivan, [3:28] and then there's a challenger there, Dan J. Sullivan. [3:31] The Justice Department is suing Alaska preemptively to block the certification of the results [3:37] if Senator Sullivan loses. [3:41] Now, President Trump was asked about this lawsuit. [3:43] He said, quote, I'm the one that said do it. [3:48] Who did he tell to do this? [3:49] Did he tell you to do this? [3:53] Well, first of all, let me correct you, okay? [3:55] You described facts that were just simply either at best misleading, [3:58] but really a lie to your viewers. [4:00] It's not two Dan Sullivans, one an incumbent and one running. [4:04] That's not true. [4:05] The head of the Alaska Election Commission, not President Trump, not me, [4:09] has said that the second Dan Sullivan is running solely to confuse voters, [4:14] solely to pull votes away from the incumbent senator, okay? [4:17] So that is something that we're dealing with. [4:19] It's not just two Dan Sullivans running on the ballot in Alaska. [4:22] That is not true. [4:23] And second, President Trump has been talking about what a travesty this is [4:27] for many, many, many months, and the Department of Justice has been looking at it [4:30] for many, many, many months, as we should under federal law. [4:33] And you saw what we did earlier this week, late last week. [4:37] And it was not, it's not to let the federal government take over [4:40] the Alaska system of selecting their next senator [4:43] or certifying who's going to be senator. [4:45] It's asking the court to step in where the Alaska Supreme Court didn't, [4:49] which is to look at federal law, [4:50] and if necessary, to allow a process for Alaska to decide [4:55] who should be, who should be certified as a winner. [4:58] Well, the Alaska Supreme Court did uphold lower court's ruling on this matter. [5:02] They found the assertion that Mr. Sullivan seeks to confuse or misguide voters [5:06] is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. [5:09] The Alaska Supreme Court did take on this matter. [5:12] I also want to show our viewers what the ballot will look like. [5:15] We have a picture of it. [5:16] No, they didn't. That's the state law. That's the state law. [5:18] Just to make clear here. [5:19] That's the state law. [5:20] This is how the state, in this country, the states administer the elections. [5:22] This is how the state came up with the issue and how to handle any confusion. [5:27] Our viewers are seeing it right now. It's ranked choice voting. [5:30] I mean, you're not, you're not telling the truth. [5:31] They can see that, Dan, I'm showing the ballot to the viewers right now. [5:35] It's on the screen. It says Dan S. Sullivan is listed as the incumbent. [5:39] Why is that? It says incumbent. Why is that not sufficient? [5:44] Well, listen, I don't know if it's sufficient, but I can tell you this, [5:49] that the director of the Alaska election system has said that it will likely cause confusion. [5:54] And so, you know, you can continue to talk and continue to state facts as you want them to be. [5:59] But that's different than the way that they actually are. [6:01] The Alaska Supreme Court did not rule on the federal law that's implicated in every election. [6:06] And it is true that it is not often that we have to get involved. [6:09] But just take a step back. Take a step back and understand what's happening here. [6:13] There is no dispute that the only reason the second Dan Sullivan is running [6:18] is to pull votes away in a confusing and inappropriate manner [6:21] from the Dan Sullivan incumbent, okay? [6:23] And the Alaska Supreme Court, when they issued a ruling, they didn't issue a decision yet. [6:27] We're waiting for that decision to be, to the opinion to be issued. [6:30] But in the meantime, all that we are trying to do as the Department of Justice [6:33] is make sure that federal law is enforced and upheld if it needs to happen after the election. [6:40] Well, the ballots are out. There's a lot of mail-in ballot voting in Alaska. [6:44] The ballot's going to look like what we just showed our viewers. [6:47] They are both on there. [6:49] In terms of the question I asked you, I asked if it was President Trump [6:53] who told you to take this action when the president said, [6:56] I'm the one that said, do it. Who did he tell to do it? [7:00] So I don't... I will never, ever, ever talk about communications [7:05] that I have with the president of the United States. [7:06] I never have and I never will. [7:08] No, the president actually said this on camera. [7:10] He said, I told them to do it. Did he tell that to you? [7:13] No, that wasn't your question. No, he didn't say it on camera. [7:15] He said he told them to do that. [7:16] I said, I will not talk, ever, about... [7:18] No, that wasn't your question, I said. [7:20] I said, what your question was to me is, did he tell me? [7:23] And I said to you, I will not talk about communications I have with the president of the United States. [7:27] I haven't, ever, and I won't, ever. [7:29] But I will tell you this. [7:30] This is the Department of Justice doing our own research under the law, [7:33] the Civil Rights Unit in the Department of Justice, [7:36] drafting this lawsuit, and then ultimately we filed the lawsuit. [7:39] President Trump has been talking about this for months and months and months and months and months. [7:42] This isn't something new that just came up last week. [7:44] This is something that's been going on for a long time. [7:46] Why did he file it 11 days before the election? [7:51] Well, we were hopeful that the Supreme Court would actually issue an opinion and explain their reasoning. [7:56] What we knew from their ruling is that they didn't consider federal law. [7:59] I'm not judging them for that. It's just a fact. [8:01] They didn't consider federal law. [8:02] So we want a procedure in place that if there is litigation, there may not be, [8:07] but if there is litigation brought by others after the election because of possible voter confusion, [8:12] that the ballots are kept in a way that the Alaska state, that the Alaska state election system [8:18] can determine who the accurate winner is, not the federal government, not President Trump, not me, [8:23] but the Alaska system as the law is required, as the law has set out for it to do. [8:28] So the DOJ lawsuit says the defendants, who are the state election board and the ballot [8:32] county review board, quote, not certify any election result that may be impacted by voter confusion. [8:38] The confusion is defined as Senator Sullivan not winning, and had all votes cast for [8:46] Daniel J. Sullivan been cast as said for Senator Sullivan, then he would have won. [8:51] That's not what it says, okay? [8:55] I'm quoting from it. [8:57] What it says is the way that you can determine... [8:58] You are telling them not to certify it. [8:59] No, no, but the way you started that... [9:00] What right does the federal government have telling a state not to certify or how to certify it? [9:03] We are not, we are... [9:04] You know, if you talk the whole time, you're not going to get answers out of me. [9:07] But if you let me answer your question, I can address your question. [9:11] Okay, so exactly what we want is that there are ways, because of the way that Alaska ballots [9:15] are set up, where voters can vote for more than one candidate, there is a way, potentially, [9:20] we don't know what's going to happen yet, where it will be obvious from the results and from the [9:24] ballots that voters were confused, and that could be obvious from the way that they rank the Dan [9:29] Sullivans or not including a Dan Sullivan on the ballot. I don't know yet, because there hasn't [9:33] been an election, but all we are doing is trying to put guardrails in place so that if that happens, [9:39] there's a system allowed where the ballots are kept in a way so that we can determine whether there [9:43] was confusion. It's not saying don't certify. It's saying if a court ultimately determines that it was [9:48] decided because of confusion and not the will of the voters, then we do not think the state should [9:53] certify. And that's consistent with federal law and consistent with even Alaskan law, if that happens. [9:58] You've been clear in saying you won't talk about your conversations with the president. [10:03] Who was he referring to when he said, I'm the one that said do it? [10:09] I have no idea who he was referring to. And even if I did have an idea, I would most certainly not [10:14] talk about it. He's not. What the president is saying and what he clearly has said for the past [10:18] four months, five months, is that this is a travesty. And in this country, we should not [10:23] have a system of elections where it's okay for somebody who is only running with the same name [10:28] to pull votes away. And by the way, how about we talk about that? I mean, do you disagree with that? [10:32] Do you think that that's okay? You think that should be allowed in our system of government? [10:36] Someone that the head of the Alaskan system of voters has said that there is no scenario under [10:41] which she can certify that voters will not be confused. And she lists a number of reasons why [10:46] that wasn't President Trump and that wasn't me. And the fact that the conversation is about this [10:50] lawsuit we filed and not the fact that there's a person running for Senate in the United States [10:55] in Alaska, that the head of the elections has said is only running to confuse voters, [11:00] that should be the conversation. And it's not. And that's unfortunate. But we're going to make it [11:04] the conversation. [11:04] Well, the Supreme Court also talked about the fact that the good faith requirement does [11:10] not appear in the Constitution. So whether it was intended to be confusing or not, [11:15] they sort of put that aside. Anyway. [11:19] It's correct. So that's, you know, you're totally, you're totally right about that. But [11:23] that's where they did not consider federal law. You're right that what the Alaska Supreme Court said [11:28] is even if it's bad faith, our laws in Alaska, for reasons that, you know, that not up to them, [11:33] don't address that. But that's different than federal law, which is why we brought a federal [11:37] lawsuit. [11:38] Let me ask you about other federal actions. CBS is reporting that DOJ is looking into [11:43] allegations that Corey Lewandowski, the former advisor to then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, [11:49] used his position for financial gain. President Trump said this. [11:53] All I know is I want my people to be honest. And if they're not going to be honest, [11:59] they have to be prosecuted. I don't know about specifically, but because I view if people are not [12:04] honest, they're stealing from me. As president, they're stealing from me. So I want my people [12:10] to be honest. And if they're not honest, I'll have my DOJ go and do whatever they have to do. [12:15] Have you briefed the president on any part of this investigation? [12:20] Are you willing to go after corruption within the administration? [12:23] Your source for that, I don't know what it is that CBS is reporting. I don't, [12:29] I will not comment on leaks and sources. I very much agree with every word the president just said. [12:34] But beyond that, I'm not commenting on some leak that several news outlets supposedly got less [12:40] weak about the former employee at DHS. And whether I would, quote, go after people in the [12:45] administration, I agree with the president. Everybody in this administration, in any [12:49] administration, should operate with integrity and honesty and do the right thing. And if they [12:53] don't, yes, of course, the Department of Justice will investigate. [12:56] Okay. Well, to that point, Democrats, if they do win in November, are talking about [13:02] when they are in control, investigating Trump officials. Vice President Vance was asked by my [13:07] colleague, Tony DeCoppo, the other day about this scenario and told him he will, of course, [13:13] abide by any congressional subpoenas he receives. It is the Justice Department that ultimately would [13:20] decide whether to charge someone for defying a congressional subpoena. Would you, as AG, [13:25] charge Trump officials for not adhering to them? [13:27] Wait, so you just say the vice president says, of course, we're going to comply with [13:34] the subpoena and then ask me if I was, if I'm going to prosecute somebody who doesn't. [13:38] I have no idea what the facts are around that. I have no idea. I mean, you're talking about [13:42] hypothetical after hypothetical. If a crime has been committed, yes, of course, we will investigate it. [13:47] The vice president answered the question and said he would. But for those who defy congressional [13:50] subpoenas, should the Democrats go ahead with some of these investigations? [13:53] Who's defying a subpoena? Who's defying a subpoena? [13:58] I mean, you're literally making things up to try to get an answer out of you. [14:01] I mean, you're literally making things up to try to get an answer out of you. [14:01] I mean, would you be open to it? The vice president was very clear in his remarks. [14:03] To who? [14:04] Would you like to be as clear as the vice president was? [14:06] Yes, of course. Of course. We comply with subpoenas. [14:09] That we will comply with subpoenas as we always have? Of course. Yes. [14:13] Is there any subpoena you can identify in this administration that we haven't complied with? [14:17] Has there been any allegation or any contempt of Congress finding? No. No, of course not. [14:23] So I very much agree with the vice president. And we're not here to not defy subpoenas. [14:27] Of course, we comply with subpoenas. [14:30] Attorney General Todd Blanche, thank you for your time today. [14:34] Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us. [14:40] We go now to Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado, who is in Denver this morning. [14:46] Congressman, our CBS polling shows Democrats are on pace to have a narrow majority of about 11 seats [14:52] and that for most voters who are backing Democrats, they tell us their motivation is more about stopping Trump [14:58] and GOP policies than advancing other policies. Is that how you think your party will govern the [15:04] House in opposition? You know, politics is really interesting. [15:10] There's a lot of weird things about politics in this job. But one of the weird things is when, [15:14] you know, the political class comes out with polling and they're like, hey, [15:18] Americans want to be able to pay their bills and afford health care and afford housing and groceries. [15:24] I mean, that's just, it always has been true, always will be true. [15:29] It always will be the primary thing people are concerned about. [15:32] It's actually what we're running on as the battleground chair for House Democrats. [15:35] I have recruited and mentored this battlefield of candidates. [15:39] It's what they're running on. It's what we're going to win on. [15:41] And it's what we're going to address when we get into power in January. [15:44] Well, I take your point on polling, but at the same time, our poll shows 57% of voters don't [15:50] think Democrats have a clear plan to do all the things that you just laid out. [15:55] In Ohio yesterday, former President Barack Obama put the challenge this way. Take a listen. [16:00] We can't just be against something. We got to be for something. [16:06] We got to start showing what a future on the other side of this administration can look like. [16:18] Susan, that was Michigan, not Ohio. But the point he's diagnosing there, [16:23] the issue he's diagnosing there, you would acknowledge. And how, if you do win the House, [16:29] how do you move any of the affordability platforms if Republicans control the Senate? [16:35] Yeah, absolutely. And here's the honest, here's the honest truth. [16:38] We're running against Donald Trump. We're running against mega extremism. We're running against [16:42] corruption. But we are also running against our own history to some degree, right? It is true. [16:48] I mean, I couldn't sit here in front of you and tell you otherwise. It is true that we have not [16:52] addressed the issues that we needed to address in years past and in cycles past. And that's why we've [16:57] lost, right? We've lost 90% of U.S. counties in fall of 2024. That is not a governing coalition. [17:04] And we have to prove otherwise. We have to go to Americans. We have to go to working class and [17:08] rural folks in particular who haven't voted for us in cycles and said, hey, we have learned our [17:13] lesson. We get it. We're going to be relentless about addressing your issues, rebuilding America's [17:18] middle class. That is our charge and our responsibility. And it's our candidates that I am [17:23] working with who are going to come in and they're going to lead that charge for us. And that's how we're [17:28] going to have to govern. [17:29] I know you have also spoken about the possibility of investigating corruption should Democrats [17:35] win. Senator Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan recently spoke out at the University of Chicago. [17:41] She spoke about investigations Democrats will conduct. And then she said this. [17:46] I want young people coming out of school to say, should I go work for the Trump administration? [17:52] Like, that sounds fun. I might get an opportunity. I want them to be like, Lord, that might be buying [17:57] myself a ton of problems that I don't want. And so let me avoid participating in that. [18:03] I want that deterrence message sent. [18:06] So that remark was interpreted by many conservatives as a threat of persecution, [18:11] if not prosecution. What do you make of what she was laying out? [18:18] Well, I didn't hear the full conversation. And I can tell you, I'm very close friends with [18:22] Alyssa Slotkin. She's a patriot. She's a public servant. She has spent most of her life in national [18:27] security, working for both Republicans and Democrats. So there's just no question in my [18:31] mind that she is pro-public servant and pro-public service, right? So I think the key here is, [18:39] is we don't want people to want to go to work for a corrupt administration to try to line their [18:44] pockets. Like, that is not servant leadership. If the message that's being sent from Donald Trump [18:48] is, hey, come to work for me and you'll get a lot out of it and you'll get rich doing it, [18:54] that's actually not public servants. That is antithetical to what Alyssa and I served when we [19:00] served in the national security infrastructure, we served in the military, in my case, that is [19:06] the exact opposite of what public service should be about. That is the message, right? What we want [19:11] is a next generation of leadership to step up, young folks who are going to lead the way and help [19:16] us build something new. You know, we are not going back. We're not going to just rebuild what [19:21] once was and we're not going to try to rebuild a system that actually didn't deliver for most [19:26] Americans. We're building something new. That is America 2.0, the startup. And we need young folks [19:31] across this country, particularly in the middle of the country, the heartland, to step up and to serve. [19:36] I want to ask you about national security issues. The director of national intelligence, [19:41] Jay Clayton, reported the U.S. received intelligence that Iran has substantially increased efforts [19:46] to target U.S. personnel. Lethal plotting efforts was how he put it in a memo by the Iranians against [19:54] U.S. citizens have reached advanced stages in the Middle East and other countries. You sit on the [20:00] intelligence committee. We know that the U.S. has drawn down from some military bases, some diplomatic [20:07] posts. What, if anything, can you tell us about this plot? Well, Iran remains a danger. Pete Hegseth remains [20:17] incompetent and is not doing what's necessary to protect our service members, which is why he's [20:22] my priority number one if we retake the majority, to make sure we oust him from the Pentagon because [20:27] our service members actually deserve competent, serious, real leadership that will protect them [20:32] and do the right thing. And they currently don't have that. But what's more is, you know, who is [20:37] the primary supporter of Iran, who is providing intelligence and helping supply and provide [20:43] targeting to Iran to kill Americans? Vladimir Putin and Russia. So how about we talk about the fact [20:50] that in the last two weeks, you had Steve Witkoff go and sit across from Vladimir Putin and call him [20:56] a humanitarian. And Donald Trump lifted and eased sanctions to provide tens of billions of dollars [21:02] to the Russian war machine to try to kill Americans. That is just beyond the pale. And Donald Trump [21:09] needs to stop because he is putting our service members at risk. And Americans should be beside [21:15] themselves what this administration is doing. You talk about what has happened in the past few weeks [21:22] with Russia and Ukraine policy. As of yesterday, Ukraine said that SpaceX satellite services have [21:28] been fully restored as of yesterday. Elon Musk owns that entity. Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut has said [21:37] the events with this disruption, which has impacted the battlefield show how a single point of control [21:43] can be turned against the forces that depend on it, degrading service, disabled missions across a [21:49] military theater. He wants to know who possesses the authority to alter these capabilities and [21:56] safeguards. Is it truly the case that one man and his whim, an unelected official, can have such unilateral [22:05] influence over our national security policy? Yeah, it appears to be the case. And it's [22:13] beyond disturbing to me, which is why I also wrote a letter directly to President Trump, along with [22:18] Adam Smith of the Armed Services Committee and Jim Himes of the Intelligence Committee, both of my [22:23] colleagues on those committees, senior members, saying we deserve answers. You know, it cannot and should [22:29] not be the case that a tech oligarch, a private citizen who has that much control over our national [22:36] security, who is unaccountable, who is unelected, with zero transparency, is making life and death [22:42] decisions on the battlefield in systems that our service members and our partners and allies rely [22:48] upon. It should not be the case. And under this administration, they are allowing it to happen, [22:53] and we're going to try to stop it because Americans deserve accountability and they deserve [22:57] leadership. All right, we got to leave it there. Congressman Crowe, thank you for your time. [23:01] We'll face the nation in a moment. Welcome back to face the nation. We're joined by CBS News [23:12] Elections and Surveys Executive Director Anthony Salvato. Anthony, Speaker Johnson said last week that it is [23:19] hilarious to see projections that Democrats will take a 230 seat majority. What is your polling show? [23:27] Well, the model and the vote preference has been pretty stable at 229. There is a range around that. [23:34] There is a narrow path for Republicans to still hold on to the House. Democrats could go a little bit [23:40] higher. The big thing is that does not describe a giant blue wave. That would be a fairly historically [23:48] narrow House majority. Number one, turnout is a big factor. It does favor Democrats. Right now, [23:56] more Democrats tell us that they are definitely going to vote or already have than Republicans do. [24:01] But here's the thing about the Republican side. If you look at the voters who say, well, [24:06] there may be going to vote. More of them are Republicans. They're just planning to stay at home [24:11] right now. If they get activated or motivated, then yeah, this thing could shift or change a little. [24:18] This relates to because it's about voter attitudes. That explains this. Number one, Democrats are winning [24:23] more of the voters who say that they're concerned about inflation. And that's pretty typical for a [24:29] midterm. That pushback against the party in power. Number two is look at gas prices. And you ask [24:34] people, what do you think is going to happen to gas prices depending on who wins? And more of them [24:39] think prices will go up if Republicans win. How much is President Trump himself a factor? [24:45] Look, he is on pace to be, to set his own record for being a factor in an election, [24:53] which is to say, when you ask voters, as we do for many past presidents, [24:57] is the president a factor, either to support him or oppose him, you get this two-thirds majority [25:03] saying that he is. And the opposition side is dominant there. There's more people saying they're [25:09] voting to oppose his policies. Even to the extent that people voting for Democrats say that they're [25:15] mostly voting to try to block Trump's policies, even then to affirm Democratic ones. On the [25:20] Republican side, there is a motivating factor for him. That's probably why you see him hitting [25:25] the campaign trail. But that works mainly for MAGA voters, not the entire Republican Party. [25:30] So it's closing argument time. What is resonating? [25:34] You look at government corruption is a big deal for voters of both parties. Both of them say it's a [25:40] very large factor. Finances, people's own, they've told us, are an issue. They think that the [25:47] president prioritizes his own over those of the country. That could be a trouble for Republicans. [25:54] But look, we've seen for a long time, in terms of general focus, people thinking the administration [25:59] not putting enough on inflation. And finally, look, cultural identity issues. A lot of Republicans [26:06] think that Democrats would be a threat to their way of life and their culture. So [26:12] that partly explains some of the advertising that you'll see in these closing arguments. [26:16] It's about inflation, but it's not just about inflation. [26:18] AMNA NAWAZER, ANTHONY SALVANTO, THANK YOU. [26:20] Thanks. [26:20] We turn now to North Carolina Republican Senator Tom Tillis, [26:25] who joins us from Charlotte this morning. Good morning to you, sir. [26:28] Good morning. [26:31] I want to ask you to be a bit of a pundit before we get into some policy. [26:36] CBS polling shows voters see corruption as a major factor. 83 percent see it as a concern [26:43] in determining their vote. And they see it as more of an issue with Republicans. [26:48] How does your party overcome this perception? [26:51] Well, I think a part of what we have to do is be open about what we have done right [26:57] and where we have kind of skated into the gray area. I will give you a good example of why I think [27:02] maybe people feel that way. You can't have an oligarch pay tens or hundreds of thousands [27:07] of dollars for the president's son's wedding and not make it look odd, particularly when that [27:12] oligarch is aligned with Putin and has gone on delegations with Putin to Beijing. That's just [27:17] one example. What we need to do is learn the rule of figure out where the line is and take a step [27:23] back. Or American people are already predisposed to assume Democrats and Republicans are corrupt. [27:28] We're just feeding that narrative when we let things like that happen. Whether it's legal or not, [27:32] it's irrelevant. Yeah. Well, it seems Democrats may be [27:37] carrying out some scrutiny if they do win the majority. You will not be in the Senate at that [27:45] time. You're retiring. And you were deeply frustrated by Republicans when they passed this tax [27:51] and spending bill on a party-line vote that included cuts to Medicaid and will deeply affect rural [27:57] hospitals. In your state, more than 25 percent of people rely on Medicaid. I know North Carolina has [28:05] tried to patch things up here to plan ahead. Do you still expect devastating health care cuts [28:12] in the new year? We're going to have significant headwinds. It's really a 10-year [28:18] impact if you take a look at the original bill. And, by the way, I supported the tax provisions of the bill. [28:24] It was the health care provisions beyond what the House has proposed that are problematic. [28:28] And it's going to take time. What I was trying to do was not necessarily get rid of the cuts, [28:33] but try to affect their timing. I think they're coming too soon. And I have a lot of experience [28:38] with the state budget here in North Carolina understanding Medicaid. I believe it's going [28:42] to be very, very challenging. And we're going to have to get it. We've got our work cut out for us [28:45] because some of those impacts could also feed right into the 2028 election. [28:50] Mm-hmm. So health care will be a big factor in that election is your prediction, it sounds like. [28:55] I want to ask you a bit about what I engaged with the attorney general on. [29:02] In recent weeks, the Justice Department has filed this case up in Alaska to preemptively [29:08] challenge the outcome there. Out in California, DOJ also told election officials they'll risk, [29:14] quote, legal consequences if they continue to send vote-by-mail ballots to a list of voters [29:20] they say are not confirmed citizens. And then there was, of course, this action taken against [29:27] Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, though she has not been charged with a crime. Do you see a pattern here? [29:33] And are you comfortable with these actions this close to an election? [29:36] Well, I think we have to be careful. First, you got to take them separately. California [29:44] has been guilty of ballot harvesting. They have a policy to do it. They have a system there that is [29:49] ripe for abuse, and they need to be looked at. Alaska has a candidate who just coincidentally [29:54] happens to be the same name as my friend and colleague who came in with me in 2014. [30:00] And they also have rate choice voting. So I think it's appropriate to take a look at it. I'm not [30:04] sure why they thought they had to file a lawsuit other than, as Todd said earlier, make sure that [30:09] you have the ballots right so we can be certain that the Democrats were not successful in confusing [30:15] candidates to vote for someone else to better position Patola for being the winner. And with [30:20] respect to Omar, I've got to look at the details there. But I found it very concerning. You know, [30:25] as a member of Congress, you better have a very, very high bar to issue a subpoena and a search [30:31] warrant. And the facts better be there. Otherwise, the DOJ needs to be held accountable. It's that simple. [30:36] I'd say the same thing if it was, and I have in the past, in a Biden administration where I felt like [30:42] they were moving a little bit out ahead of their skis. They better have the facts to substantiate [30:47] their action. Well, I guess that gets to the timing of it all, because the action itself [30:53] draws attention and scrutiny, whether or not the cases actually have legs to them. But up in Alaska, [30:59] your Republican colleague, Lisa Murkowski, the other Republican senator, said the DOJ should never [31:06] have filed the lawsuit. She said when it came to the ballot, Alaskans don't need help picking [31:13] a preferred candidate. The state already handled this by distinguishing the candidates on the ballot, [31:18] and the Department of Justice should never have filed the lawsuit. You sit on judiciary. I mean, [31:23] what are the consequences? Will there be any? Well, there are very few people that know Alaska [31:30] better than Lisa, to be honest with you. Lisa Murkowski is a friend and an extraordinary member [31:35] of the U.S. Senate. I agree that I think the lawsuit, I mean, filing a lawsuit before anything that [31:41] could be substantiated that's a legal question. It's suspicious to me. Even before the elections [31:45] held. I'm on judiciary, but I'm not an attorney. Yeah, that's what I mean. It's almost a preemptive, [31:50] a presumptive posture versus simply telling the Alaska election officials, we're going to be watching [31:57] this closely because clearly Democrats game the system by having a Dan Sullivan on the ballot. [32:01] Either the Democrat Party, there's some evidence to suggest that Chuck Schumer may have even been involved. [32:06] So I don't mind looking at it, but I do mind the appearance of filing a lawsuit before we even [32:12] know if the facts that would substantiate a lawsuit actually occur. Well, that Dan, [32:17] other Dan Sullivan claims he's, he's not a Democrat, but there has been reporting that [32:23] a Democratic strategist may have helped him along the way, but that is something that- [32:28] It's a strange coincidence. We can all admit that. [32:31] No doubt. No doubt. But the state has handled it, and clearly the senator thinks handled it well. [32:39] I want to get back to Vladimir Putin, because you have been very vocal in recent days about your [32:45] concern here with President Trump and his actions. Just yesterday, Elon Musk said the SpaceX satellite [32:52] services have been restored. And Senator Kramer of North Dakota, who was on this program last week, [32:59] told us though, he is concerned one person or one company just has too much control over America's [33:06] ability to protect the domain of space. People might be confused over which service was switched [33:13] on and off and to what degree, but the bigger picture issue here that your Republican colleagues [33:18] seem concerned about is just how much control Elon Musk has over defense. Do you share that concern? [33:27] Yeah, I do. And I have a concern with the whole narrative that played out. Elon Musk, [33:32] I was trying to put pressure on everyone to own responsibility for this. Elon Musk originally said [33:38] he didn't do it. Then we start focusing on the administration, and now we hear Elon says that he [33:44] did. And also to the American people, many members of Congress, this distinction between Star [33:50] Lincoln, Star Shield. Are you telling me, and I agree with Kevin Kramer, he's a great senator also, [33:56] are you telling me that we don't know something as important as a tool that's being used by our [34:02] Western nations is subject to the whims of one CEO? And that there's some other, the star defense, [34:12] is that controlled by him, controlled by somebody in DOD? We need answers to this question. And I'm [34:18] not satisfied. I'm glad that the capabilities back up. Shame on whoever is responsible for it ever [34:24] having elapsed. People died in that intervening time. But what I want to know more importantly is [34:29] what, to what extent is the Department of Defense and the U.S. government involved in this? I get it's a [34:35] private company, but they're playing into military space, geopolitical space, that there's got to be [34:40] some guard rounds, guard rails and accountability, in my opinion. Well, I know you helped organize a [34:45] call with Senator Blumenthal and President Zelensky this past week to try to get some clarity around [34:51] this. From what you know, are all of the arrangements to expand access, to let Ukraine target [34:59] inside of Russia? Is all of that on hold right now? You know, the best we can tell you, when we're [35:07] thankful for doing nothing more than reestablishing the current capabilities, I am concerned that we're [35:12] not expanding it. Look, there is a bad guy and there is a good country in the mix here. The bad [35:18] guy is Vladimir Putin. The good country is Ukraine. We, like the other Western European nations, [35:25] need to support them, expand capabilities and defeat Putin. Putin is no friend. There is no such [35:30] thing as a win-win when you're dealing with a despot, a totalitarian in the Western world. [35:35] So we need to plus up that capability, not simply be thankful for getting something back [35:40] that was working fine two weeks ago. It was working okay when I was in Ukraine just a month ago. [35:46] So in the back and forth over exactly what was turned off and why Russia was able to hit [35:53] inside of Ukraine so much over the past 10 days, it came to light that there were also failures [36:00] of the early warning system. Two, if not three, the BC-3 systems did not detect incoming Russian [36:09] ballistic missiles into Ukraine. Secretary Rubio was asked about this, and he talked about technical [36:15] issues. That sounds deeply concerning. I mean, does this mean that Russia can subvert American [36:23] early warning systems, or are we misunderstanding that? I think that's a legitimate question. That's [36:30] why I think this whole timeline needs to be examined, probably in a secured setting, [36:37] not necessarily in a public hearing. But we need to go through that entire timeline and say, [36:41] seriously, guys, we're that vulnerable? I don't think we are. And so I'm beginning to think that [36:46] maybe we're finessing around the reality that somebody needs to own the lapse in service. [36:51] And it became at the same time the Starlink or Star Shield capabilities went down. Let's just map [36:58] this out, folks. I don't mind, the American people don't mind people making mistakes or maybe having [37:03] a policy that they decide they've got to reverse. But this sort of who's on first game being played [37:11] with who actually called this, who's responsible for it's unacceptable. We're the greatest, [37:15] we're an exceptional nation, greatest nation on Earth. This is a simple question. We should have [37:19] simple answers for it. Well, we will continue to try to get answers. Sir, thank you, Senator, [37:25] for your time today. Thank you. And we will be right back. We turn now to the Texas governor's [37:35] race and Democratic candidate Gina Hinojosa. She joins us from Austin. Good to have you here. [37:41] It's great to be with you. So if you win, you would be the first Democratic governor and the first [37:47] female governor in over 30 years. You're running in a state, though, that has more Republicans than [37:54] Democrats. So what is your message to get Republicans to cross over and vote for you? [37:59] Well, right now, nobody wants politics as usual. Most of us see that it is broken. And so what we [38:06] are seeing in Texas is, because there is deep disappointment in both political parties, people [38:11] are forging a new way forward, one that is postpartisan in some ways. The data centers are [38:18] a physical manifestation of a governor, Governor Abbott, and a government that's working for the [38:23] moneyed interests and leaving the people of Texas to fend for themselves. Public schools are another [38:28] issue where there has been a bipartisan coming together in support of our public schools. And so, [38:36] listen, this creates an opportunity for Texans to evaluate the candidate. [38:40] I believe that's why we have now six or seven polls out of the last six weeks that show us winning. [38:47] All polls show us within the margin of error. Turnout is high. Enthusiasm is high on our side. [38:53] So we feel really good about where we are. [38:55] AMNA NAWAZ, You mentioned schools. I was surprised to see that 181 school [38:59] districts in Texas are operating just four days a week. Some schools have shut down. [39:05] How much of this is people just moving to more populated areas out of the rural ones? [39:10] And how much of it is funding? [39:11] ANNA NAWAZ, A lot of it is funding. [39:14] Greg Abbott, in 2023, withheld funding our schools needed, because we didn't pass vouchers. He said he [39:21] would withhold it if we didn't pass it. And we didn't. We fought it. Myself and James Tallarico [39:27] led that fight to stop school vouchers. He passed it last year. That took a billion dollars [39:32] from our neighborhood public schools to take and put into unaccountable private schools. [39:37] And so school districts are really struggling. Our schools are shutting down. Teachers have left. [39:43] And you should know that public schools are part of our identity as Texans. They are enshrined in [39:48] our Texas Constitution as being essential to our liberties. They are the largest employer [39:53] in most or many of our counties. They are Friday night lights. And so [39:58] there is bipartisan anger about what Greg Abbott has done to our public schools. And, [40:03] listen, I'm running my broad agendas to secure the American dream. [40:07] And public schools are essential, are an essential part of the American dream, [40:12] because they provide the gateway and the opportunity to the American dream. [40:16] So saving Texas public schools is a key part of my agenda. And that's why [40:20] this campaign has resonated amongst Texans. [40:22] AMNA NAWAZ, You have been campaigning on the issue of Texas having the highest [40:26] uninsured rate and the highest number of uninsured children in this country. [40:31] If you win, you're still going to have a Republican-controlled legislature. You're [40:35] likely to have a Republican lieutenant governor. How do you work with them to improve health care? [40:40] AMNA NAWAZ, Well, I will tell you that my agenda is not a Democratic agenda. [40:44] It is a popular populist agenda, one that delivers for the people of Texas. So my [40:49] health care policy and platform and plan is to ensure every Texas child has quality [40:54] health care, because we have the most uninsured children of any state in America. [40:58] We're one of the few states that hasn't expanded Medicaid. Expanding Medicaid is one way to get [41:03] there. Democrats of the past have run on expanding Medicaid. I am not, because most people don't [41:07] understand what that means. They know what it means to provide quality health care to our children. [41:13] So that is what I am running on. I think there is bipartisan support to get there. [41:16] There's also a big problem in Texas with those of us who have insurance paying more, [41:22] and it's harder to see the doctors we need and getting the medication we need. [41:26] So banning those bad faith denials is a key part of my agenda as well. [41:30] AMNA NAWAZ, But you do want to expand Medicaid, just to be clear? [41:34] AMNA NAWAZ, Yes, but we're not running on that. That is just the process. [41:38] It's kind of a geeky way to talk about ensuring people. We're talking about ensuring every Texas [41:44] child has quality health care. And that's part of my Secure the American Dream agenda that can be [41:49] found on my website at GinaForTexas.com. AMNA NAWAZ, Okay. So Governor Abbott gave hyperscale data [41:57] centers, which you mentioned, a 20-year tax break and wanted to make your state the epicenter, [42:03] he said, of AI development. You are calling for a moratorium, an immediate one, on building any data [42:09] centers until the state legislature puts in place protections. Do you want to repeal those tax breaks? [42:15] Like, what exactly are the protections you think you can get your Republicans, that you will deal [42:21] with, on board with? [42:22] AMNA NAWAZ, You know, what's interesting is, nobody is pushing back against the data centers [42:27] harder than MAGA, because these data centers are mostly moving into our rural communities that are [42:32] unincorporated. There are no zoning regulations. There are no rules or laws. And so this part of Texas [42:39] is being taken advantage of by these data centers, and the people of Texas and rural Texas are being [42:44] taken advantage of. So there's pressure on Republicans as well to put in place some laws [42:49] to stop this data center takeover. Yes, I would repeal those tax breaks. And most importantly, [42:55] I would give Texans a seat at the table to decide if and how these data centers come into their [43:01] community. There are big water concerns. There are big electricity costs concerns, property rights [43:06] concerns. And so we need to visit all of it and make sure Texans are protected and, first and foremost, [43:12] have a seat at the table. [43:13] AMNA NAWAZ, You talk about repealing tax breaks. Someone who's a big investor, [43:17] whose companies are in Texas, is Elon Musk. He's given about half a million dollars to Governor [43:23] Abbott's campaign. You have filed a lawsuit, as I understand it, to try to obtain emails between him [43:29] and Governor Abbott. What are you trying to do with this? And isn't it dangerous, frankly, [43:35] to go after someone who employs so many Texans? [43:38] AMNA NAWAZ, Well, listen, we can't be afraid to do what's right as leaders in Texas. [43:44] And so the right thing is to see, what are these emails about? We have had breaking news in the last [43:50] few months. Just most recently, we learned that Greg Abbott's Parks and Wildlife Board plans to sell [43:57] our beach, Boca Chica Beach, to Elon Musk, who has plans to launch 356 rockets from these sites. [44:06] I'm from this part of Texas. Every time these rockets launch, it feels like an earthquake [44:11] happening. So we need to know what exactly is going on. We know Elon Musk received $1.7 billion [44:17] in tax breaks after he donated to Greg Abbott's campaign. We know that, over the summer, [44:23] Greg Abbott intervened to redirect a $100 million broadband contract to Elon Musk. [44:29] This was from testimony during a Senate hearing by the director of the broadband office. So [44:34] there's a lot that we need to see. And as a legislator, I have a responsibility and a right [44:39] to see what those emails are about. [44:40] AMNA NAWAZ, We'll see what you get. We'll watch your campaign. [44:44] Thank you for your time today. We'll be back in a moment. [44:46] That's it for us today. Thank you for watching. Until next week. For Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan.