Face the Nation: Hochstein, Adams, Holder

[0:00] And we're joined now by Amos Hochstein. He was a former Biden White House senior energy advisor [0:05] and Middle East negotiator, and he's now managing partner at the investment firm TWG Global. Good to [0:11] have you back here. It's great to be here. So President Trump said current gas prices are not [0:17] very high, but regular gas costs are averaged like $4.05 a gallon. Last time we saw that was [0:24] under the Biden administration when Russia invaded Ukraine. So if you were advising President Trump [0:30] today, how do you make sure this spike isn't long lasting? Well, we're over $4 now because we [0:39] have a real disruption. In the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we had a concern of a disruption that [0:45] never actually happened, and it went all the way up to $5.00. For the president right now, [0:49] any continued duration of closure of the Straits of Hormuz will have to have a spike in prices. [0:57] When you have an energy crisis, like the Strait of Hormuz, it's very slow moving, [1:03] and then it's like falling off a cliff. Because when you close the straits, the world still has [1:08] all the tankers that were on the water before. And that could take 25, 30 days to get to their [1:13] destination. But right now, there are no tankers on the road, on the seas to Asia and to Europe. So [1:21] we're getting to the point now where certain countries no longer have any fuel, no longer have [1:25] jet fuel. Now, those are poor countries and now middle-income countries. But that eventually comes [1:30] to the U.S. So he's got a couple of weeks before this can go much higher. But he's got to get a deal [1:36] quickly. He's got to get a deal quickly. So because we are seeing all these economies get hit, I mean, [1:42] in Europe, they're saying jet fuel is only a few weeks. There's only six weeks left or so. [1:49] Secretary Besant said he expects a price drop sometime between June and September. [1:54] Is that realistic? I think right now what they're doing in the administration is saying things [2:00] further out to say, okay, we'll deal with that in June. If we get to June and prices are high, [2:04] we'll say it's August to November. They're trying to talk the markets down. [2:07] They're talking the markets down. If the straits are closed, you talked about Europe. [2:11] Certain Asian countries are already canceling flights. They don't have any jet fuel. They're [2:15] running out and probably two to three weeks at most before large parts of Asia. But remember, [2:20] Margaret, when a plane leaves the United States, they can't take jet fuel with them. [2:24] The administration has been saying we have plenty in the U.S. Great. But if you leave the U.S. [2:29] and there is no jet fuel on the other side. So what happens is the fuel surcharges that Americans [2:34] are going to see that are already starting to see and ahead of Memorial Day in the summer, [2:38] tickets are going to be very expensive. When jet fuel is expensive in the rest of the world, [2:42] it is also expensive here. And we saw Spirit Airlines really struggling under that, [2:47] with the bankruptcy issue. Let me ask you about your Mideast experience here. In July 2024, [2:54] Secretary Blinken claimed Iran was one or two weeks away from having enough fissile material, [3:00] breakout capacity to eventually make a weapon if Iran had decided to do so. There were indirect [3:06] negotiations that the Biden administration did, but it went nowhere. So when President Trump argues [3:12] that he did when no other president would, is it just simply that the bill was coming due and it fell [3:19] on his watch? I do think there's a certain element to that. And that's why I was supportive of [3:26] President Trump joining in in June to take the strikes that we had thought internally in the Biden [3:32] administration we may have to take if there was a second term. We thought that the spring summer of [3:37] 2025 was probably we may have to be there in the same place. And we did we did war games. We did some [3:43] practice runs on what it would look like to look into it because that may have had to happen under [3:48] our watch as well. But we he said we obliterated their nuclear program. The question then is not [3:54] about what he did in June. This war we were in now did not attack the nuclear facilities again. [4:00] This was not about the nuclear. So the question now becomes can you do a deal with the Iranians and [4:07] the maximum positions that both sides have are right now very far apart despite all the rhetoric that [4:12] we're we're almost there or we are there but if we're not there we'll bomb the hell out of them. [4:18] Right or who knows who's going to show up or not show up from the Iranian side to negotiate with. [4:23] I thought that was interesting that the ambassador acknowledged that. [4:25] Well look Margaret when you have a negotiation that's being done [4:30] loosely right phone calls and and no real paper you get to a point where Iran says Lebanon was included. [4:37] The U.S. says no it wasn't. The Iranians say we're opening the straits because it's completely open and [4:44] the Americans say no the blockade is staying. There's no if there's no paper no serious negotiation on [4:49] this and we're trying to do it really quickly to assuage markets then you get to these misunderstandings [4:54] and now we're in a worse position. This is a very serious issue and I think it shouldn't take just [4:59] three days to do a nuclear deal. It's really really critical. Right. But if the straits are not opened [5:05] soon the leverage that they have and my concern is no matter how the war ends the Iranians now have [5:11] a card they never had before in practice. In theory we knew they can close the straits but they never [5:16] did and now for the foreseeable future they have this card against us and against their neighbors. [5:23] Why do you think President Trump isn't deploying his top diplomat and his national security advisor? [5:29] Why aren't we seeing Secretary of State Rubio leading on this? I mean that's a mystery that I think [5:34] many in the region and around the United States are asking why is this not being run by the [5:38] Secretary of State who's also his national security advisor. Maybe the Secretary of State doesn't [5:42] believe that this is the right approach. I don't know. You have to ask him if you can get him to answer [5:47] that question. We would love for him to join us. I'm sure you would. But that's that's a real mystery. [5:53] Look Vice President United States. But does it does it show you know when you're going to the negotiating table [5:59] the Vice President going is important because the last two times Wyckoff and Kushner showed up [6:05] with the Iranian delegation the talks fell apart. In fact they ended in bombing. So you need someone [6:10] who wasn't there the last two times it failed right? And you need someone who is senior enough [6:14] that the Iranians believe speaks for the President. So I think that it's important that the Vice President [6:19] or someone go. I think it would have been great if we can get to a point where we have preparatory talks [6:24] and you send the Vice President at the end of the process in order to break the logjam. [6:28] Stay with us if you would. I do have to take a break. But I have more to finish on this topic with [6:34] you Amos. We'll be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us. Welcome back to Face [6:44] the Nation. We return to our conversation with former Biden advisor Amos Hochstein. I want to pick up [6:48] on Lebanon. You brokered that 2024 ceasefire in Lebanon. On Friday of this past week we saw the [6:56] President announce 10 days of pause to halt the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel which is [7:03] basically linked to the big deal he really wants to get to with Iran. What do you make of this truce? [7:11] So a few things. One I'm glad to see that the fire is halted even if it's a pause. The worrisome part [7:16] is that it was seen as a ceasefire that was brokered by Iran by insisting on a Lebanese ceasefire before [7:23] they would show up to talks in Pakistan. That's a disaster because the one thing we have always [7:29] been emphasizing Iran does not control Lebanon. It has none of their business what happens in Lebanon. [7:36] Hezbollah has been unmasked in this conflict over the last couple of years as not really a Lebanese [7:42] fighting organization or terrorist organization as they claim but rather they said we are doing this [7:47] at the behest of the Iranians. And so allowing the Iranians to dictate terms is not a good thing. [7:52] However, direct talks between Israel even at the lower level at the ambassador level is a good [7:57] development. Most of the Lebanese people want to see a lasting ceasefire even if they don't want to [8:02] see a peace agreement they want to see end of conflict. But we have to have a serious effort [8:07] here. There's such a great moment of opportunity. It will not be a moment of opportunity if Israel is [8:13] occupying a significant part of Lebanon to re-establish a buffer zone. That won't work because ultimately that [8:20] will help Hezbollah re-establish its political footing and their narrative. So we have to get to the [8:25] table, make sure Israel withdraws from Lebanon, stop the fighting, and give the actual help to [8:32] Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah. They cannot do it on their own. Which is what I asked Ambassador Waltz [8:37] on that. Can they do that? And to be clear the Israelis have said not only that they're going to stay in [8:42] southern Lebanon but also take some of the territory that they had seized after Assad fell in Syria. [8:47] So it's a serious negotiation that has to be placed. This is a tactical victory for Israel that will [8:53] lead once again an overreach that will lead them to lose more ground. I want to ask you, as a Democrat, [9:01] there was this extraordinary vote this past week in the Senate. 40 Senate Democrats tried to block a [9:06] U.S. weapons sale to Israel. And that adds to this growing rift we have seen between your party and [9:13] Benjamin Netanyahu. Do you think Democrats are going to come to regret this break in the alliance? [9:19] So I hope that it's not a break in the alliance. I think this what it really demonstrates is for the [9:24] last several years, Prime Minister Netanyahu has sacrificed Israel's interest in the United States. [9:30] The most important asset Israel has is not its military or its intelligence. It's the [9:36] relation, it's the special relationship with the United States that has been bipartisan for so many [9:40] decades. He has destroyed that because he has decided to become not just part of the Republican [9:46] Party, but he's decided to become just an appendage of Donald Trump. And so every Democrat now sees if [9:53] you want to be Trump, great. If we're anti-Trump, then by de facto, we are against you. I think this [9:59] is a lot to do with Bibi Netanyahu and his extremist right wing government and not to do with Israel. [10:06] Look, you have half of Israel is voting against Bibi. So I think this Democrat should be aligning [10:12] with Israel, not with Bibi. But I think this is a very big wake up call this week, that vote. [10:17] Significant vote. Amos, thank you for your insights. And we're going to turn now to Pope Leo XIV, [10:23] who has spent the last week traveling through Africa. This morning, he praised the temporary [10:28] ceasefire in Lebanon as a reason for hope, encouraging leaders to seek a more permanent peace. [10:34] But much of his tour has been marred by these tense exchanges with President Trump. And now the [10:39] Pope says some of his remarks have been misinterpreted. CBS foreign correspondent Chris Livesay [10:45] has more. Its nickname is Shepherd One. But this week, the papal plane has been ground zero of a clash [10:54] with the Trump administration that's overshadowed a papal trip. The pope is now clarifying his primary [11:00] mission is to preach peace to the people of Africa, not the president of the United States. [11:06] There's been a certain narrative that has not been accurate in all of its aspects, [11:12] but because of the political situation created when on the first day of the trip, [11:18] President of the United States made some comments about myself. Instead, he's trying to keep the focus [11:24] on the people he came to see. In Cameroon, where a separatist conflict has killed thousands and [11:30] displaced more than half a million, the pontiff proclaimed. The world is being ravaged by a handful [11:37] of tyrants. Woe to those who manipulate religion in the very name of God for their own military, [11:44] economic or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth. The pope now tells us [11:52] that the speech was written two weeks ago, before President Trump first lashed out on Truth Social [11:58] over their differences on the Iran War. And yet, as it happens, it was looked at as if I was trying to [12:05] debate again the president, which is not my interest at all. The pope's first stop in Africa was Algeria, [12:13] once home to St. Augustine, a key architect of Catholic doctrine for determining if a war is just. [12:19] Hours after the pope's visit there, Vice President Vance challenged the leader of the Catholic Church [12:25] over his anti-war statements and questioned his grasp of the doctrine itself. I think it's very, [12:32] very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology. Last night, [12:37] the vice president thanked the pontiff for saying he did not want to debate the president while [12:41] acknowledging real disagreements. Today, the pope is celebrating his first mass in Angola. Later [12:48] today, he'll travel to a church where Catholic priests once baptized slaves before they were [12:54] shipped off to the Americas. That was our Chris Livesay reporting from Angola. And we'll be right back. [13:03] We turn now to former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, who joins us this morning from [13:08] Indianapolis. Good to have you back, doctor. The country has been without a Senate-confirmed CDC [13:14] director since Secretary Kennedy fired Dr. Menares just a month into her term. But this past week, [13:22] the president nominated Dr. Erica Schwartz to lead the CDC. I know she worked as your deputy [13:27] surgeon general. Do you see this as a deliberate choice by the White House to pick someone who actually [13:34] does support vaccines? Well, absolutely. And again, we've talked in the past about [13:41] the fact that the Fabrizio and Ward poll showed that Republicans were going to pay in the midterm [13:47] elections if they continued on an anti-vaccine push. But I want to say Dr. Schwartz is a home-run pick. [13:56] She has an MD, a JD, and an MPH in more than two decades of public service in the Coast Guard, [14:01] where she was chief medical officer and in the public health service, as you mentioned, which she retired [14:06] from as a rear admiral. And it's why I personally selected her to be my deputy surgeon general. [14:13] Do you have concerns that she will be able to, you know, conduct herself without political [14:20] interference? Well, it's a great and it's a fair question, Margaret. I'd say she is objectively the [14:26] most qualified health nominee we've seen from this administration so far. And I want to give the [14:30] president and senior HHS advisor Chris Klomp credit for tapping her. But that said, my optimism as yours [14:37] comes with a healthy dose of caution about the environment around Dr. Schwartz. We've seen this [14:42] before, as you mentioned, with Susan Menares. And just last week, the acting CDC director held back an [14:48] MMWR report showing COVID vaccines reduced ER visits in healthy adults this winter. Further, [14:54] Dr. Schwartz still has to get through Senate confirmation, where she will clearly be pitted [14:59] against RFK on vaccines. And recent history tells us if she's confirmed, she will be under real threat [15:05] to follow ideology over evidence and what is a vaccine skeptical HHS, while also confronting a [15:12] growing measles outbreak, low CDC morale, and ongoing doge cut impacts. Well, the secretary will be before [15:20] Congress again this week. You mentioned measles. The US is already at over 1700 measles infections in [15:27] the first four months of this year. We did know that when Secretary Kennedy was under oath this past [15:36] week, he seemed to change his rhetoric around the MMR vaccine. That's the vaccine that prevents measles [15:43] infections. Take a listen. Can you tell me, can you tell all of us, is the MMR vaccine safe and effective? [15:51] Yes or no? The MMR vaccine. Yes or no? Yes. Thank you. It's safe for most people. Can you agree that [15:59] getting the vaccine is a lot safer than getting measles? Yes. So that was a qualified response, [16:07] but it was still an endorsement, it seemed. Is he persuaded by the evidence, do you think? Well, [16:15] he also acknowledged under oath it was possible vaccination could have saved the life of a child [16:19] who died in the recent Texas outbreak. So these statements represent his strongest [16:24] public endorsement of the measles vaccine to date. Not coincidentally, as you mentioned, [16:29] this tepid support comes after reports the White House has instructed him to stop talking negatively [16:35] about vaccines ahead of midterms. But the qualified and temperate answer he gave, it still risks [16:41] Margaret sending mixed messages at a time when we're facing our worst measles resurgence in decades, [16:46] falling vaccination rates, preventable outbreaks, incurring millions in state and local costs, [16:51] and thousands of days of school missed. Yeah. And I know that CDC data shows [16:57] that the vaccine rate, the vaccination rate has been sliding. I didn't know that this one exchange [17:04] that I also want to play for you here, because the secretary was asked a few times about past statements, [17:10] both he and the president of the United States have made linking Tylenol [17:16] use in pregnant women to autism in their children. A Republican lawmaker, Blake Moore of Utah, [17:23] told Kennedy that his own 10 year old son Winnie is neurodivergent. And he said that Kennedy's remarks were [17:31] hurtful. Listen to this. I was underwhelmed with what we ultimately put out. My wife was hurt and she felt [17:40] for a split second until she came to her senses and we talked about this, that there was any way she [17:45] was responsible. We don't even know if she took Tylenol during her pregnancy, but that was a hurtful [17:50] moment for her. But on this, Kennedy did not give ground. He is still saying that studies showing [17:57] there is no linkage are, quote, garbage. What is the reality? Well, the reality is that for pregnant women [18:06] dealing with fever or significant pain, Tylenol remains one of the safest and most studied options [18:11] we have. And suggesting otherwise without evidence is dangerous, it's irresponsible. And as you heard [18:17] the congressman say, it is extremely stigmatizing towards parents and risks real harm to moms and [18:23] babies. The science moves forward with data, not with dogma and with dismissal. And the garbage he was [18:30] referring to was a Danish study of 1.5 million children that came out and it presents clear high [18:37] quality evidence that pregnant women who use Tylenol do not have an increased risk of autism. In fact, [18:45] in that study, they had a lower risk of autism. I want to ask you about what the president announced [18:50] yesterday in the Oval Office. He was surrounded by podcaster Joe Rogan, a number of Navy SEALs, [18:56] and he said he wants to boost federal research into psychedelic drugs and make them more available. [19:03] Specifically, they were touting this one drug, Ibogaine, I believe is how you say it. [19:08] Correct. What do Americans need to know about this particular drug and the uses of it? [19:15] Well, first of all, almost 15 million Americans experience serious mental illness every year. [19:21] And among veterans, that burden is about one in four. So it's clear we do have to accelerate [19:26] rigorous evidence-based research into promising treatments. Early studies of psychedelics such [19:31] as Ibogaine and psilocybin have shown potential for rapid improvements in symptoms and functioning [19:37] in treatment-resistant cases. So yesterday's executive order, it directs 50 million in research funding, [19:44] instructs the FDA to prioritize reviews for vouchers for breakthrough therapy, and directs the FDA and [19:51] DEA to ease barriers under right to try. Also importantly, it maintains full FDA and DEA oversight, [19:59] so it's not legalization or reclassification of psychedelics. But the content, while reasonable, [20:06] what was overshadowed by the rollout, as you mentioned, with Joe Rogan, it was a spectacle [20:11] resembling a WWE promotion. And people such as Kevin Sabbat actually have said, well, this actually [20:18] overshadows the substance that we've seen and what I think could be a productive EO. [20:24] Okay. Executive order. All right. Thank you there, Dr. Adams. Always good to get your insights. We'll be [20:29] right back. We're joined now by Eric Holder, who served as Attorney General under former President [20:36] Obama. Good to have you here. Good to be here. So you've been working on redistricting. You're [20:42] chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. Voters out in Virginia are set to make [20:47] this decision about redrawing districts in a way that would advantage Democrats. As I understand it, [20:54] it's not just you, it's former President Obama. It's the governor of Virginia all pushing for this, [20:59] saying that this gerrymandering will restore fairness. But how is drawing a map along part of [21:06] partisan lines? How is that not just stacking the deck? How is that about fairness? [21:12] Well, you have to look at this in its totality. This is really a national fight. It's not a fight [21:16] only about Virginia. And when the president told Governor Abbott in Texas, I needed five additional [21:22] seats in the House of Representatives, there had to be a response to that. And the governor in [21:26] California decided, all right, we'll put, we'll ask the people of California, do you want to respond to [21:31] what has happened in Texas? We're asking the people of Virginia, do you want to respond to what's [21:35] happened not only in Texas, but in Missouri as well, and is in North Carolina as well. [21:40] And what we're trying to do is come up with a system whereby the people actually decide what's the [21:45] composition of the House of Representatives so that it can be an effective check on this president. [21:50] So what Virginia is doing, what California did is only in response to that which Republicans started [21:58] in Texas. But in Virginia, there already was a bipartisan commission that was set up to do these [22:03] things. I mean, that, that sounds fair bipartisan commission. So by holding this referendum and [22:08] changing the maps, I know you said that this is just a temporary measure. How do you guarantee that [22:14] this is temporary and that this doesn't keep happening? Right. Well, the, the measure itself says [22:20] that it is, it is time limited is only for this cycle, an additional cycle. And after the census, [22:26] that could be changed again. No, well, no, that's nothing that we would be pushing. We, we need to [22:30] deal with the crisis that we have right now, come up with a way in which we deal with that crisis and [22:35] then get back to the redistricting commissions in California and in Virginia. And one thing that I [22:40] think is really important to understand is that the people have the ability to make this decision in [22:45] Virginia as they did in California, as opposed to, as opposed with being imposed upon them, uh, in Texas [22:51] and in Missouri and in North Carolina, which proved to be wildly unpopular, but Republican politicians [22:56] ignored the will of the people in those states and put in place, um, these mechanisms. But if we put [23:02] this another way, I mean, look at all the headwinds the president's party is facing right now. We've been [23:06] talking about the war and the energy costs that go along with it. Historically, the president's party [23:11] doesn't usually do well in the midterm races. So why do Democrats need to do this? I mean, it sounds like [23:17] it's acknowledging that the democratic party can't win on its own, that it has to go through these [23:22] measures. The Democrats can certainly win if it's a fair fight. And the question I have- [23:26] It wasn't going to be a fair fight in Virginia? No, it wasn't going to be a fair fight nationally [23:31] if you try to steal seats in Texas, in North Carolina, uh, and in Missouri. And so the question [23:37] I have for people who are critical of that, which we're doing is, what were we supposed to do? [23:41] Nothing? Just allow them to try to stack the deck to try to steal seats? And all we're trying to do is [23:47] meet them and try to make the system as fair as it possibly can be. And that's all that this is [23:52] about. And it's temporary. And it is also something that the citizens have the ability to say yes or no [23:57] to. Well, I don't have to explain to you the negative parts of gerrymandering because you [24:02] have talked about it for years and years. I mean, we looked back at some of your quotes. You said it [24:07] puts in place governments that don't reflect the policy desires of the American people. In 2019, [24:12] you said it leads to gridlock. It leads to lack of compromise because it caters to the extremes of [24:17] the party. Um, you said, I don't stand for gerrymandering for, for Democrats. So practically [24:24] speaking, aren't you endorsing all these things now? I mean, how does the situation get better? [24:31] How do people lead to compromise now? Well, we have to deal with this crisis that [24:35] is in front of us and that the Republicans put before, uh, the nation. Once we get past this crisis, [24:40] we can get back to that, which I've been fighting for since 2017, which is fairness. But we have to, [24:46] if we want to get to that fairness fight, we have to save our democracy now. And I'm not being [24:51] hyperbolic or alarmist. If we don't respond to that, which they are trying to do, we could lose our [24:56] democracy and not have the ability to get back to that fairness fight. The Supreme Court upheld [25:03] the actions in Texas. Right. Supreme Court upheld the elections in Texas as well as in California. [25:09] Supreme Court. But you still think it's illegal, basically? I think it's inappropriate. And [25:13] hopefully the next time we have, uh, a new Democratic president and control both the House [25:18] and the Senate, I hope we'll pass federal legislation that will ban partisan gerrymandering [25:22] just outright and get away, just do away with this, um, altogether. So even if this is a short-term [25:27] measure, there are some specifically in the state of Virginia who have concerns about what, [25:32] what happens near term. Um, there was an op-ed written by Philip Thompson. I'm not sure if you saw it. [25:36] He's the executive director of the National Black Nonpartisan Redistricting Organization. And he [25:40] said that, specific to Virginia, the redrawn map fails to consolidate Black political influence [25:46] despite the fact that Black voters form a critical component of the Democratic leadership and voting [25:51] bloc in Virginia. And he raises this question, what's in this for us? If you need to get people [25:57] out there excited and voting, how do you respond to something like that? That's simply untrue. That is [26:02] simply untrue. And what I would ask whoever that gentleman is, do you think that another two years [26:08] of unchecked Trump power is in the best interests of African Americans in this nation? No. The answer [26:13] to that is clearly, clearly no. And so we have to look at this not, again, only on a Virginia scale, [26:19] but what is going on nationally. And the impact of having a positive vote in Virginia will be to put in [26:26] place, help put in place a check on that which the Trump administration has been doing. Mr. Holder, [26:32] thank you so much for your time. Thanks for having me. We'll be back in a moment. Americans are [26:37] accustomed to hearing biblical terms from the pulpit on Sunday, but these days they're frequently invoked [26:43] from the Pentagon podium. Pray with me, please. This past week, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said [26:49] he's frustrated by journalists scrutinizing America's Middle East war and invoked scripture, [26:56] comparing journalists to the ancient Jewish scholars who opposed Jesus. You see, the Pharisees, [27:04] the so-called and self-appointed elites of their time, they were there to witness, to write everything [27:11] down, to report, but their hearts were hardened. Even though they witnessed a literal miracle, it didn't [27:20] matter. They were only there to explain away the goodness in pursuit of their agenda. As the passage [27:28] ends, the Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel against him, how to destroy him. I sat there [27:35] in church and I thought, our press are just like these Pharisees. Not all of you, not all of you, [27:43] but the legacy Trump-hating press. Your politically motivated animus for President Trump nearly completely [27:53] blinds you from the brilliance of our American warriors. The Pharisees scrutinized every good [28:00] act in order to find a violation, only looking for the negative. Hegseth called it unpatriotic [28:09] and said it's hard to figure out what side some of the press are on. But what side are journalists [28:15] supposed to be on? Recently, federal judge Paul Friedman invoked a Supreme Court opinion that the press is [28:22] meant to, quote, serve the governed, not the governors. When he twice ruled Hegseth's new [28:29] Pentagon press restrictions to be unconstitutional. As he put it, quote, the curtailment of First [28:35] Amendment rights is dangerous at any time, and even more so in a time of war. He cited the First [28:42] Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor abridging freedom of [28:49] speech or of the press. That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week, [28:56] for Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan.