Face the Nation: Warner and Turner

[0:04] Welcome back to face the nation for more from our new CBS poll. We're joined now by our executive director of elections and surveys, Anthony Salvato. Anthony, a lot of focus on immigration here this morning. That issue, the mass deportation election promise from President Trump, it used to really be a winning one for him. He began the term with majority support. He's now down to 46 percent approval. What accounts for that drop? [0:33] So for the program, it's about the who and the how that's driving views of it. And here's what I mean. The who. Who do people think the administration is targeting for deportation? It used to be more people thought it was just dangerous criminals. Now it's more people think it's expanded beyond that. That goes with more disapproval of the program. Then the how. When I ask people, what do you think of the ICE operations, the tactics that you see? Are they about right? No, more people now say they think they're too tough. That goes with more disapproval. [1:03] approval. A couple of important points, though. Number one, Republicans remain very strongly supportive of this program and Republicans stand out by saying they think the protesters against ICE operations have gone too far. So there's that dynamic, too. But sum it up this way. Difference between the perceived goals and the approach. The goals divide the country are more mixed, but the approach gets more negative ratings. Goals versus approach. [1:31] So we've also seen the president very active abroad in this first year of his presidency from Iran, potentially to Greenland. Americans seem to say Trump's policies are going to decrease peace and stability in the world. That's what you found. [1:48] So underneath that, a couple of things start with Greenland, right? The notion of using military force to take Greenland gets wide and bipartisan opposition. The notion of buying Greenland also gets opposition gets just gets disapproval. But it's the why here. What are the implications of it? You follow that up. Yeah, some Americans say it might give the U.S. access to resources it needs. But the larger implications that the U.S. might [2:18] have the U.S. access to peace and stability in the world, those things underpin those views. Iran, a little bit different here, still majority opposition to the idea of taking military action to support the protests there. But it's the why. You do see a sizable number saying the U.S. might have a moral responsibility to do it, certainly to have strategic interests in the region, but also a majority saying they don't think the U.S. has effective plans for what to do about it. [2:48] They want to see a plan. They want to see that laid out. And until they get that, you might see that majority disapproval. And when you've been here throughout the past year, you have just emphasized, even with the last president, it's the economy, the economy, the economy. That's what Americans are really judging performance by. I have, because that's what Americans keep telling us is very important. Really specifically, it's about prices. And this is not new. This has been not just this year, but it's been going back to the pandemic, really. People are still trying to adjust. [3:19] To a world in which they have these really high prices. What they're really concerned when they say they want the administration to focus on lowering prices more, and a majority has consistently said that they do, is they're talking about buying power. So I ask them, is your income keeping up with inflation? And big majorities say, no, it's not. That's been consistent across. Are they looking for prices to go down? Yes. They're looking systematically for deflation? Not necessarily, but it's that buying power. [3:49] That underpins all that. Prices are the way that people evaluate the economy. Always, right? It is an election year, as you know. And in the midterms, people judge often the party by its president. But what are you hearing when it comes to Democrats? [4:04] A couple of things for Democrats. A couple of challenges, if you will. First, does their party convince its voters that they have an effective way to challenge Donald Trump, which their voters want them to do? [4:13] Right now, increasingly, there's voters say no. They don't think their party has an effective way. The second part of it is, just in terms of approach, do they need to offer a compelling alternative to the president? [4:27] Right now, you ask, who has a better approach? Donald Trump and the Republicans still lead the Democrats on the economy and on immigration. [4:34] So, going through the campaign, is it going to be enough to just say, we're not Donald Trump? Or do they need that alternative? It looks like people are saying they're looking for that compelling alternative. [4:45] Something we will ask our Democratic guests. Thank you very much, Anthony Salvato. [4:49] Thank you. [4:50] We'll be right back. [4:51] We go now to the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, who joins us this morning from Virginia. [5:01] Senator, we have had some extraordinary news this week on the national security front. [5:08] Two of America's closest allies, NATO and Canada. [5:13] Canada signed a trade deal with China. [5:16] The prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney, said the U.S. is undercutting the international world order. [5:22] In the past 24 hours, President Trump seemed to start a trade war with our closest European allies, [5:28] saying he put tariffs on the U.K., France, Denmark, until they agree to hand over Greenland. [5:34] Will there be, now, any checks and balances from Congress when it comes to the president's use of tariffs in this way? [5:45] Well, Margaret, that's the question of the hour. [5:48] I would hope so. [5:49] We thought when the president took on the independence of the Federal Reserve, Congress might stand up. [5:56] We thought when the president sent 20 percent of our fleet down off the coast of Venezuela, Congress might stand up. [6:02] We would get a—we got a vote on the War Powers Act, then the administration rolled back the Republican votes. [6:08] Now the question is, when the president is taking on potentially a new tariff war with our NATO partners, with threatening Greenland, [6:19] will my Republican friends, beyond saying quietly to me, Mark, this is crazy, [6:24] will they say that publicly and stand up against a president that has brought chaos to the international order? [6:31] And I've got to tell you, it's not making Americans safer when you threaten, for example, the security of NATO, [6:39] the most successful alliance in modern history. [6:42] The only country that is, frankly, benefiting the most from this chaos are both Russia and China. [6:48] And I'm going to get to some of that in detail with Congressman Mike Turner shortly. [6:52] But just on this point, there is an effort by some Republicans. [6:57] Lisa Murkowski is one of them. [6:59] She and Jean Shaheen are working on a bipartisan bill called the NATO Unity Protection Act [7:04] to prohibit the use of federal funds to blockade, occupy, annex, conduct military operations against, [7:12] or assert control over the territory of a NATO state. [7:16] That is extraordinary that that is being put forward as a bill. [7:20] Would you vote for it? [7:22] Of course I would. [7:25] But remember, the only security threat, I don't know. [7:30] But let's be clear about this. [7:32] They're currently, and as vice chair of the intel committee, I am very familiar with what's going on. [7:37] There is no current security threat from Russia or China to Greenland. [7:41] The only security threat to Greenland right now is the United States. [7:46] I've been in touch with the bipartisan delegation who've met with the Danes, who are over there now. [7:51] The Danish people, frankly, are flipping out that their longest ally, America, is now threatening to invade part of their territory. [8:00] Those other countries that Trump is now threatening with additional tariffs, remember the European Union's already got a 15 percent tariff. [8:07] The French, the Germans, the Norwegians have all put small numbers of troops in Greenland to help protect it, but also send a signal that if America attacks, they're attacking our closest allies. [8:20] And I would also point out, you know, America used to have 17 military bases in Greenland. [8:26] We decided we didn't need them all. [8:28] We're down to one military base, and on that base, there are more Danish partners on the base than American military. [8:34] The Danes have made very clear that if we want more military bases, if we want more ability to extract critical minerals, they would welcome that. [8:44] But it ought to be done in partnership, and it ought to be done with the NATO allies. [8:48] And I just point out, Margaret, when we – these are all tied together. [8:53] This craziness around NATO weakens our ability to have the world rally against the Iranian regime right now, which has been brutal to its people. [9:02] One of the reasons the president couldn't take military action against the Iranians was because the aircraft carrier that would normally be there to prevent – to help our forces was off the coast of Venezuela. [9:16] So all of this international chaos ties itself together, making America less safe. [9:23] And when you see the Canadian prime minister, in effect, saying, you know, China may be a more dependable partner. [9:28] Yeah. [9:28] If that doesn't bring us all back, I'm not sure what would. [9:33] Well, the president is moving – on the Iran front – is moving an aircraft carrier from the Pacific to CENTCOM, to that Mideast region where there hasn't been an aircraft carrier. [9:43] He also told Politico Saturday it's time to look for new leadership in Iran that doesn't kill people by the thousands in order to keep it under control. [9:52] It was reported that the head of the Mossad, David Barnea, was down in Miami meeting with Steve Witkoff. [10:00] Do you know the focus of those meetings is the United States working with Israel on a plan for what happens next in Iran? [10:06] I can't talk about anything specific, but what is in the public domain is that Israel, as well as all of our allies in that region, were concerned about a strike in terms of Iranian reprisals. [10:20] And the fact that we don't have all of our forces there, because part of our forces are off the coast of Venezuela, make us less of a threat. [10:30] And there is a real question, what would you bomb, and is there a chance that that kind of kinetic action might make more support for the regime, a rally around the flag? [10:40] That doesn't mean that we couldn't be doing more cyber. [10:42] It doesn't mean – and I say I've got a lot of concerns with Elon Musk, but his Starlink operations are brilliant. [10:48] We should be able to get more Starlink into Iran so the Iranian people can get reconnected to the Internet. [10:54] And our ability, for example, in a normal course, we would be rallying all of our NATO allies to also put pressure, because they have relations with Iran. [11:05] But most of our NATO allies are concerned about America's potential military action in Greenland and the threat of additional tariffs. [11:12] So the ability for America to bring a concerted worldwide confrontation to this awful Iranian regime, and the Iranian people are extraordinarily brave to stand up. [11:22] We need to do more, but some of our options are limited because of the chaotic approach that the president is taking around the whole world. [11:29] Well, let me ask you about Venezuela, because you are chair – or ranking member on the Intelligence Committee. [11:35] The CIA director, John Ratcliffe, was down in Caracas on Thursday to meet with the interim president, Delcey Rodriguez. [11:42] A U.S. official described it as intending to improve the relationship between the two countries. [11:47] Are you comfortable with the administration's plan and what the director has explained to you is the intention to basically coerce them into compliance? [12:00] Well, let's look. [12:01] What the American military did in Venezuela was extraordinary. [12:04] Nobody else could do that. [12:07] And the president's goal, which he's made clear, was mostly about oil, not about the Venezuelan people. [12:12] It will take years for the Venezuelan oil fields to get up back operating to anything close to efficiency. [12:19] Maduro was awful on that. [12:22] But our ability to strangle off and keep the chokehold on the Venezuelan regime keeps that fleet blockading Venezuela. [12:30] Are we going to keep that fleet, 20 percent of our fleet, off the coast of Venezuela for the next three years? [12:36] I think it's like 14 percent now. [12:38] Is that really in America's long term? [12:38] Have you asked the administration that? [12:41] We have asked, and we have not gotten a response on how long the fleet will be there. [12:46] And one thing that I would also point out, and let me be clear, the Biden administration screwed up in 2024 when the Venezuelan people voted overwhelmingly to throw out Maduro and we didn't push him out. [12:57] But to suddenly say to the leader, Machado, who was leader of the Venezuelan opposition, who got the Nobel Prize. [13:06] I mean, does President Trump not realize he looks kind of silly taking that prize from her as she tries to basically suck up to him? [13:14] And the fact is, what she has said, and again publicly, is that, yes, you got rid of Maduro, but the same people who tortured and imprisoned the Venezuelan opposition are still in control of the regime. [13:27] Where does that lead the Venezuelan people? [13:29] And where does that lead us to a better relationship? [13:31] Frankly, a partnering relationship with Central and South America and not a colonial relationship, which is, again, what the president seems to be intending. [13:39] All right. Senator Warner, a world of problems to talk to you on that front, but I got to leave it there. [13:45] Thank you for your time today. We'll be back in a moment. [13:51] We're joined now by Ohio Republican Congressman Mike Turner. [13:55] He is the head of the U.S. delegation to NATO's parliamentary assembly. [13:59] Congressman Turner, I imagine that many of those NATO partners are calling you right now and saying, [14:04] what is the president doing with this threat of escalating tariffs against us unless we hand over Greenland? [14:11] What are you saying to them? [14:12] Well, Margaret, as you know, this Greenland and the United States and America is not a new issue. [14:17] I mean, this five times the United States- [14:19] Threatening to invade it is a new issue. [14:20] Right. It certainly is a new issue. [14:22] Five times the United States has had a discussion about Greenland all the way back to the 1800s, [14:29] four times in the 1900s. [14:31] And the president's raised it twice. [14:33] We have a 1951 defense agreement with respect to a presence that we have a military presence there. [14:39] The president's not wrong that there's a national security issue with respect to Greenland. [14:45] Senator Warner said there was no direct threat other than from the United States. [14:48] But there are national security issues there. [14:50] Generally in the Arctic. [14:51] In the Arctic itself and with respect to Greenland. [14:53] But there certainly is no authority that the president has to use military force to seize territory from a NATO country. [15:06] And certainly this is problematic that the president has made this statement and has caused tension among the alliance. [15:14] And there certainly is going to be a continuation of a discussion among all of our allies as to what did this mean. [15:22] And, you know, certainly people need to have, you know, some understanding of what are the basic principles. [15:26] And America still is for democracy. [15:28] America still is for self-determination of people, for sovereignty of other nations. [15:36] And that certainly are our basic principles and values. [15:39] And certainly I think this does put at risk. [15:40] We're seeing from our allies their response. [15:43] They're very concerned about Trump's response. [15:46] And this is putting at risk, I think, Trump's peace principles with respect to Gaza, with respect to Ukraine and Russia, his leadership among our allies. [15:55] Because he needs our allies for being a base for his ability to rally. [16:00] And certainly, you know, one of his principles of trade and his ability to help our economy. [16:08] It's put at risk his EU negotiations. [16:11] Yes. [16:11] They're threatening to blow up the trade deal. [16:13] He had a monumental deal with the EU where he was going to go to zero tariffs. [16:18] With the EU, that's at risk. [16:20] So certainly, you know, people are concerned. [16:23] He has prospectively said that he is going to impose these tariffs. [16:27] So there is, I think, this period of time where there will be a dialogue and discussion. [16:31] Well, there was this past week. [16:32] There was a diplomatic meeting, and the outcome afterwards was the president put this tweet up saying he's putting in the tariffs. [16:38] So it didn't seem the diplomacy actually went anywhere. [16:41] Well, and I think there will certainly be a discussion. [16:43] Certainly, the American public, I think, are questioning. [16:47] Yeah, well, you saw our poll. [16:49] He shared it with you. [16:49] 70% of Americans disapprove of using funds to buy Greenland. [16:52] 86% disapprove of him using military force to take it. [16:55] How do you justify and explain his strategy when both our allies and Americans say no? [17:02] I think people would prefer a focus on the economy instead of a focus on Greenland itself. [17:07] I think certainly in Congress, you know, we're looking at trying to make certain we get the budget deal through and we don't have a shutdown. [17:14] And, you know, as we look to the president's proposal on national security, [17:18] we look at his proposal on, you know, increasing our defense budget. [17:22] And that's how, you know, we certainly want to. [17:24] Is it legal for him to even try to use tariffs in this way? [17:27] I mean, Congress could claw back this authority if you wanted to put a check on him. [17:32] Well, Article 1, Section 8 does reserve to Congress international trade. [17:36] And the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on a very limited basis delegates to the president the ability to do some sanctions. [17:48] And currently before the Supreme Court, there is this issue as to whether or not he even has the authority to do tariffs at all. [17:54] Now, depending upon how the Supreme Court rules, they may find he doesn't even have tariff authority. [17:59] But even if he is found to have tariff authority, I don't believe he has the ability to impose tariffs for the purposes of compelling other nations to sell the United States land for the purposes of us expanding. [18:12] Now, in this issue of- [18:15] How many Republicans are with you on that? [18:16] Well, you know- [18:17] Because Speaker Johnson was in the United Kingdom telling everyone that the president's just playing chess here. [18:22] Well, you know- [18:23] You're taking him seriously. [18:24] And if you are, then what do you do? [18:26] There certainly are national security issues. [18:28] The president having identified this with respect to the fact of this is the Golden Dome and that there are locations that are going to be necessary with respect to the operations of the Golden Dome is absolutely an essential issue. [18:39] And the Golden Dome is going to be very, very important. [18:42] We have other locations that are essential, critical infrastructure overall that we don't own. [18:48] And then I think certainly Greenland and the Greenlanders need to, you know, decide their future and their outcome. [18:56] I think this is more of an issue of asking them to join us as opposed to Art of the Deal. [19:01] But we already have the ability to do a lot. [19:03] And what's so baffling to European allies, and I know you've heard this from them as well, they sent those troops to Greenland to show that they will defend Greenland against those threats. [19:12] And yet the president interpreted that not as help from our NATO allies, but as a threat from our NATO allies. [19:18] Does he understand how NATO works? [19:20] And that is certainly, I think, you know, and when you look at the fact that, you know, of the allies that he's talking about putting a tariff on, seven of them are F-35 partners. [19:31] Three of them, we have U.S. nuclear weapons on their soil. [19:33] And five of them, we have permanent troops on their soil. [19:37] These are not just casual allies. [19:40] These are very strong allies. [19:42] And this is, if we're talking about Greenland, you know, this is not Art of the Deal. [19:45] This is more the dating game. [19:47] I mean, we need to be more on, you know, how we would be a partner, not more how we would be compulsory. [19:55] And this certainly isn't the type of language that someone should be using and trying to ask someone to join you in a partnership. [20:02] Well, so all those technical points I take, but you also look at this from the other lens, which is Senator Murkowski said that this is creating a dynamic that benefits Vladimir Putin by threatening the stability of the strongest coalition of democracies the world has ever seen. [20:22] Even without doing anything other than a tweet, threatening the alliance. [20:26] Well, the other thing that is concerning to me is this. [20:29] We're not in Germany just to- [20:30] Doesn't it benefit Russia here? [20:31] And also, we're not just in Germany to defend the NATO alliance. [20:35] We're in Germany to defend Israel and Africa and the Middle East. [20:39] Our worldwide footprint is our worldwide power. [20:42] I mean, the presidency's authority, his ability to project power, is our NATO alliance, the strongest alliance in the world. [20:50] To threaten the NATO alliance, to say, well, we'll just pack up and go home, means that the United States doesn't have the ability to project power. [20:58] The ability for the United States president to do things to benefit anyone around the world is to be around the world. [21:06] It means to be able to have partners. [21:09] It means to be able to do operations. [21:10] Almost every operation that this president has done over the past year has, in part, been done out of and with and including the bases that we have in Europe and in NATO. [21:21] But the Treasury Secretary said in another network, the president believes enhanced security is not possible without Greenland being part of the United States. [21:28] They're being very clear. [21:30] And I truly believe that it is, that, you know, the president can continue the issue of engagement, but presidential want doesn't translate into presidential authority. [21:42] We will leave it there. [21:43] Congressman Turner, thank you for your time today. [21:46] We'll be right back. [21:51] That's it for us today. [21:52] Thank you all for watching. [21:53] Until next week, for Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan.