Face the Nation: Warner, Kelly, Cohn

[0:00] We're joined now by the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Virginia Senator Mark [0:05] Warner. It's good to have you here. As you heard from the secretary, a lot of these very important [0:10] details have to still be negotiated. What do you think, though, of the emerging ceasefire [0:15] and agreement? Because you favored diplomacy. Listen, if the president can declare victory, [0:20] so be it. But you heard Pete Hegg's pitch. Let's look at the real facts. 107 days into Donald [0:27] Trump's war of choice. Can anyone make the case that we or our allies are in a better spot than [0:34] before this war? The regime's leadership is more radical than ever. The ability for us to get the [0:41] enriched uranium out, I believe, will require troops on the ground, which I don't think America wants to [0:46] do. The idea that we have a 60-day additional negotiation. Where does that lead? We'll be [0:51] here 60 days. Still won't have access to it. Clearly, after the head staff had said, we've [0:56] destroyed all their capabilities. They still have plenty of missiles and thousands of drones. And [1:02] the idea that the strait is suddenly going to be magically reopened? Look at the gas prices. They [1:07] went from $2.80 to $4.20. And I believe they'll go up more because the overall world reserves have [1:14] all come down. How is that better for America or better for our allies? Well, there are a lot of [1:20] details in here that, like I said, still have to be negotiated. And when we look at Congress's role [1:27] in terms of peeling back some of these sanctions, this was hugely controversial during the Obama [1:32] administration. Do you think, ultimately, that whatever is hammered out by Steve Witkopf and Jared [1:38] Kushner and J.D. Vance, the vice president, will come up for approval? Do you get any say? [1:44] Well, first of all, the idea that these three gentlemen that have very little background in [1:50] terms of negotiations or the technical nature of nuclear negotiations going against a hardened [1:57] Iranian team that's been doing this for decades, you know, I wish we had some of our experts at the [2:03] table as well. But I'm not sure any of this will become before Congress. And it should. I mean, [2:08] if the president wanted to start this war, a war of choice, there was no imminent threat from Iran. [2:13] Come to the Congress. Come to the people and lay out the case. He has not. And we have not done the [2:19] kind of oversight that is required. Yeah. We are slowly moving along and getting additional [2:24] Republicans to say stop on the War Powers Act. But Congress has failed miserably. [2:29] Before I move on to other things, I just want to put a fine point on the U.S. intelligence [2:32] assessment was not that Iran was creating a nuclear weapon, but that they wanted the possibility to make [2:37] one in the future. Given what they have, the nuclear dust, the dirty bomb in the desert [2:43] scenario, does that still worry you? How concerned should Americans be? [2:47] Yes, I'm still worried. And, you know, for all this critique of JCPOA, we had international observers. [2:54] We actually had an alliance there that included the Europeans and Russia and China were all signatories. [3:00] Now it is America going alone or going with Israel only. And that does not make us safer. And again, [3:06] I will be happy to come back on the show and eat my words if the Iranians over the next 60 days give [3:12] up that enriched uranium. Yeah. Well, we'll watch for whatever happens next. I want to ask you about [3:18] surveillance here and the lapse of a key authority. On Thursday, the president did appoint Jay Clayton, [3:26] he said, who will be the next director of national intelligence instead of Bill Pulte, who I know you [3:30] oppose. Not only I oppose, but virtually all of the Republican senators who will know anything about [3:36] national security oppose as well. Yes, there are some pretty colorful statements. But Clayton is the [3:41] current U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, a former SEC chair. How quickly can he [3:46] move into the role? I mean, he doesn't necessarily have the kind of extensive national security background [3:52] that you would expect. He does have law enforcement. He was head of the SEC. And as Southern [3:56] District of New York, that's where we pursue a lot of our terrorists. I know Jay. I think he's got the [4:02] right temperament. I've got a lot of questions like, you know, who won the election in 2020? [4:06] So he at least acknowledges that truthfulness. But remember, Margaret, this was totally caused by [4:13] Donald Trump. Well, he could have nominated Jay Clayton a week ago and we wouldn't have gone dark. [4:19] This is an extraordinary series of events that we have to take more time to talk about on the other [4:23] side of the break. Let me take it and we'll finish it. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Face the [4:34] Nation. We return to our conversation now with Senator Mark Warner. Before the break, Senator, [4:39] we were talking about the next director of national intelligence. The hearing for Jay Clayton is next [4:46] week, this Wednesday, right? How quickly can he get confirmed? And what does that do in terms of [4:55] blocking Bill Pulte from ever taking the job? Well, I've got questions for Jay, like I want to [5:00] make sure that he's going to maintain the integrity of our elections, not try to pull the things that [5:06] Ms. Gabbard did, where she was interfering in domestic election activities with the seizure of [5:12] the ballots in Fulton County. My hope is if we can get unanimous consent, we could even get him [5:17] confirmed this week. I would hope that the president would then say to Tulsi Gabbard, who was going to [5:25] stay till the end of the month, you know, stay at least until Clayton is confirmed or allow the number [5:33] two to stay. That's a shocking statement from you because you are a huge critic of Tulsi Gabbard. [5:37] I am a huge critic. I am a huge critic. How much damage could Bill Pulte actually do in a matter of [5:41] days? Well, my fear is not so much the damage he could do on Section 702, which has a full audit [5:48] trail. If he misuses that, we'll figure it out. But having him exposed where he doesn't even have a [5:54] security clearance to all our nation's classified programs, out of ignorance, he might give away [6:00] information. I've had heads of our intelligence communities say to us they're terrified of showing [6:06] him information. I've had foreign governments express huge concern. The one thing we know about [6:12] Bill Pulte is he will do whatever Donald Trump says. He was able to weaponize private mortgage [6:17] insurance information. Giving him the keys to the 18 intelligence agencies would be a disaster and a [6:23] national security threat. So I'm understanding you will withhold your vote to reauthorize FISA based [6:31] on this. Listen, we have to get FISA reauthorized. We were on a glide path to getting this done. [6:36] Warrantless surveillance tool for foreigners of concern abroad. [6:38] This is a tool that foreigners, listening in on foreigners, talking to foreigners abroad. [6:43] None of this needed to happen if Donald Trump had, he didn't even come out in support of this [6:50] tool until about six weeks ago. If he put forward Clayton or somebody else six weeks ago. If he would [6:56] have done even Jay Clayton a few days earlier. I actually think Donald Trump wants this tool to expire [7:02] because he would then try to blame Democrats if God forbid if anything happens. And the remarkable [7:10] thing on this is normally we come on here and it's Democrats versus Republicans. This one is not. [7:15] My Republican colleagues have worked hand in glove. If there is something that happens, God forbid, [7:22] the responsibility lies with one man, Donald Trump. That is a tremendous statement that you think the [7:27] president actually wants this tool to not be accessible. I mean, it's a congressional authorization [7:32] expired on Friday. Your Republican counterpart, Senator Tom Cotton described the consequences as [7:39] severe, potentially fatal, considering all the mass gatherings in America right now. How vulnerable is [7:47] the U.S. right now? Have Google and Verizon and the rest said, if you come and ask me for information, [7:54] I won't hand it over? What has happened is those investigations that have already started continue. [8:00] Okay. Our ability to continue to listen to bad guys talking to bad guys abroad continues. The [8:06] question is whether you can start new actions and we are now and I've not gotten a report yet [8:13] whether the telcos and the Googles are going to continue to adhere or whether because they don't [8:20] have the indemnification, they'll stop participating. We don't have, I don't, as of Sunday [8:24] morning, I don't have an answer on that. I hope the Justice Department would use all the tools they [8:30] can to try to encourage them to continue this program for what will be, whether we like it now [8:36] or not, a short-term lapse. But Democrats are using their leverage here with FISA to force the [8:43] president to change his nominees. He did that. So why do we have a Democrat standing up and, for example, [8:51] blocking unanimous consent in regard to reauthorizing even a short-term surveillance too? Like, this [8:56] seems to be national security risk of huge proportion. National security risk caused because [9:03] Donald Trump did not put forward Clayton or anyone else that was legitimate until the clock had run out. [9:12] There is no question, if you got any of my Republican colleagues here, they would agree this was a White [9:17] House created problem. And finally, somebody got to Trump and say, you got to put a rational person [9:22] in, not this guy who's not even got a national security clearance. We will get Clayton, I hope, [9:27] confirmed as quickly as possible. We will then move very quickly to get FISA reauthorized. In the interim, [9:33] I hope the telcos will continue to cooperate with the government. Senator Mark Warner, thank you for [9:38] your time today. Thank you, Mark. We'll be right back. We turn now to Arizona Democratic Senator Mark [9:45] Kelly, who joins us from Phoenix. Welcome back to Face the Nation. Senator, I just want to read [9:53] something that the president posted on his social media account moments ago in regard to the events [10:00] today in Beirut. He said the attack, the Israeli attack on Beirut, should not have happened, [10:06] particularly on a special day when we are so close to a peace deal with Iran. Israel's right to defend [10:12] itself. But the attack it was responding to was very small and meaningless and all sides should stand [10:19] down. That's a different response than what the secretary of defense shared with us. It seems like [10:27] the president is worried this could disrupt the negotiation and the possibility of a deal being [10:34] signed. Do you support the memorandum of understanding? Well, I haven't seen the details yet, [10:41] Margaret. And, you know, I don't know if this is a special day and if we're very close to a deal. [10:48] I do agree with what the president said about standing down. It's obvious that we're negotiating [10:54] with the Iranians at this point. I think it's always important for folks to remember how to, [11:00] how did we get here? You know, we're here because in 2018, Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA and got us into [11:07] an unauthorized war with the Iranians. And all this is done for the American people is driven up costs, [11:13] the costs of energy, so specifically gasoline, the cost of food. And this is at a time when, [11:20] you know, the American people are having a historic time just affording their lives. [11:26] Well, you questioned Secretary Hagseth last month about what this war did to American military [11:34] preparedness, specifically restocking munitions that are depleted by the Iran war. As I questioned [11:41] him about that, he said it was a media narrative that I was making it up, but also said his testimony [11:49] before your committee was speculation. What's the reality check there? Do we have a munitions problem? [11:55] Well, as Secretary Hagseth said in front of the armed services committee, of which I'm a member, [12:03] this will take years to rebuild these stockpiles of munitions. So of course we have a munitions issue. [12:13] I mean, it just came from him. And I think it's widely understood that when you attack over 10,000 [12:22] targets from the air with cruise missiles and ballistic missiles and bombs from airplanes, [12:30] you are using a lot of munitions and we do not have an endless supply of these things. So now we're in a [12:37] posture where we've got to be incredibly careful. And this is also at a time when Ukraine continues to [12:45] need some help. The president now sells munitions to the Europeans because I think, as everybody [12:51] understands, this is always about the bottom line for him. But Ukraine is an ally. They've been [12:57] illegally attacked by the Russians and they still need our assistance. [13:01] Well, President Zelenskyy was on this program and told us he's waiting on President Trump to say [13:06] yes to a U.S.-Ukraine drone deal. Do you know what the holdup is? [13:09] I do not at this point, and I don't think there should be a holdup. I also agree that we should [13:19] consider some co-manufacturing. The Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, clearly indicated that [13:29] he didn't seem very interested in this. But if Ukraine is going to win, and I got to say right [13:36] now it seems like the momentum is on their side, they need additional help from us. [13:40] So co-production of some interceptors could be a possibility, but also help with their drone [13:48] manufacturing. And this could also help us in the future. The Ukrainians are really good at this, [13:53] and we have a lot we could learn from them. I want to come back to something we were [13:57] discussing with Senator Warner, and that is the security risk that is resulting from having [14:04] this warrantless surveillance program Section 702 suspended right now. You earlier this month voted [14:11] against a bipartisan bill extending surveillance authority. You said any short or long-term extension [14:19] you would not be in favor of until you solve the Bill Pulte problem. Hasn't that problem been solved now [14:26] that Jay Clayton is the nominee? Not completely, because when Tulsi Gabbard leaves, we're not so sure [14:35] if the President is going to put Bill Pulte in as the acting DNI. But this is very easy to solve. The [14:43] President could today make it very clear to the American people that Bill Pulte is going to have no [14:50] role in the office of the Director of National Intelligence. When I hear that, then we have a [14:57] very straightforward path to getting FISA renewed. That's the price of your vote, is that statement [15:04] from the President himself? Well, I mean, you know, I'm constantly reevaluating the situation. I value [15:10] FISA, especially 702B that allows surveillance of foreign nationals in other countries. It is incredibly [15:19] important to our national security. And when it lapses, there is some risk. But I also think there [15:24] is as much, if not more, risk of putting somebody, Bill Pulte specifically, who is unqualified for this [15:33] job, Margaret. If you made a list of the 1 million most qualified Americans for this position, I am very [15:40] confident that Bill Pulte would not be on that list. There's risk in putting him in this position. And it's [15:45] pretty straightforward right now how we solve this. Well, the hearing for Jay Clayton, who would be the [15:51] Senate confirmed head of national intelligence, if he gets all these votes, is this Wednesday. [15:59] Are you pretty much a definite yes? I mean, given your opposition to Pulte, you need a solution. It [16:05] sounds like this is not a question. Hey, I don't know Clayton. I mean, I'm reviewing his background. [16:13] He's got a process to go through. We need to vet him. The statute for this job says somebody will [16:20] have extensive national security or intelligence experience. Does he have that? I think it's pretty [16:28] clear he does not. Is he better than Bill Pulte? Yes. I think a lot better. Does he meet some kind of [16:35] maybe a minimum, barely minimum standard? Perhaps. So I'm looking forward to Wednesday. He's got to answer [16:42] some tough, tough questions from the committee and I'll evaluate his background and whether or not [16:48] I think he's prepared to do this job. Wow. Meanwhile, there are so many issues of serious concern on the [16:58] national security front. One of them, artificial intelligence. The White House on Friday [17:04] came out and seemed to really ramp up the dispute with Anthropic. The White House told them to suspend [17:12] access to any foreign nationals, which led the company to suspend all customers from accessing its [17:17] most advanced AI systems. Do you know if there is an emergency and is it, as reported by Semaphore, [17:26] because there was suspicion that a China link group had accessed it? Well, I haven't officially [17:35] heard that, but Mythos and some of their other models from AI companies are incredibly capable. And some of the [17:49] capabilities that these models have to access systems, not only federal government systems, [17:56] but financial systems is very concerning to us. So we've got to take some time with these tools [18:05] and do extensive evaluations as to what is the risk to the American people when we release these. [18:13] So I agree with the administration on this. We've got to be incredibly careful and the AI companies, [18:20] and I think Anthropic is a good example, seems to be willing to work with the federal government on this [18:26] to make sure that we do not make a mistake and release something that we will later regret. [18:32] Senator Mark Kelly, thank you for your time today. We'll be back in a moment. We're joined now by [18:39] Gary Cohn, who is the top economic advisor to President Trump in his first term. He is currently [18:44] vice chairman at IBM. Good to have you back here. Thanks for having me. So Secretary Hegseth didn't [18:50] give a lot of clarity on the exact time. He said both the straightforward moves would be immediately [18:54] open, but that it could take up to 30 days. The bottom line for the economy here, [19:00] it's going to be impacted by what happens with oil and gas prices. Should American consumers expect [19:08] that the prices they're paying for their food and their gas and everything else is going to fall like [19:12] a rock? Well, it's not going to fall like a rock overnight. You know, we're going to have to see [19:18] exactly what happens in the straits. It was not clear how quickly they'll open. But as they do open, [19:24] we will start getting a change in psychology. People will start thinking that prices are going [19:29] down and they will continue to go down. When you're in an upward price environment, [19:34] people tend to fill their tanks up early because they think the price is going to be higher next [19:38] week and they tend to not let their tanks go down. When you're in an environment when you think the [19:43] price is going to get cheaper, people tend to drive their cars till they're almost empty because they [19:47] think the longer I wait, the cheaper gas will be. So we're going to be in a psychological change [19:53] when the straits open and as oil starts flowing out. We will start to see some impact. We've [19:58] actually already seen some impact. You know, where gas prices are, I won't say well, but they're 10% [20:03] off their recent highs. Yeah. And if we open the straits, I think we'll continue to see these gas [20:08] prices come down. But as you also point out, it's not just the price of gasoline. It's the price of [20:12] groceries. The price of energy feeds through the entire economy. It feeds through manufacturing. It feeds [20:17] through delivery. It feeds through everything we consume as daily consumers. And what you're talking about [20:22] prices, you're talking about the price at market. But for the price for consumers, [20:27] if companies have already jacked up the price of food, are they really going to bring it back down? [20:30] Well, they will bring it back. The price of energy will come back down. So the energy component [20:36] will come back down. Whether actual food at the store will come back down, you know, it will take [20:42] some time. There's always there's always some pressure. And it takes a first mover to show some [20:46] leadership. You know, we've seen prices go up. And then if someone wants to bring more and more retail [20:51] traffic into their store, they tend to cut the price of a necessity good. And you as a consumer [20:56] say, hey, that necessity good is cheaper at that store. I then go into that store and the other [21:01] store needs to match their price. So the open market will drive prices down over time. [21:07] Because as Senator Warner was talking about, those fuel inventories, commercial fuel inventories, [21:11] they're hitting some risky levels in July that could cause a secondary price spike. Goldman [21:16] Sachs said, what, $10 higher per barrel than before the war, because there's this new security [21:21] premium built in here. Given all the forces you are seeing in the economy right now, do you think [21:27] the Federal Reserve can really do the kind of rate cut that President Trump very publicly says he wants [21:35] to see? Well, Margaret, look, we have exhausted a lot of the global supply of oil. All the major economies [21:40] do carry an excess reserve. And those excess reserves are at relatively low levels. So I understand [21:46] what everyone's concerned about. So getting oil back online now is important. When it comes to the [21:50] Federal Reserve, look, we have a new Federal Reserve chairperson, Kevin Warsh. I think Kevin [21:55] is completely acknowledging where we are in the economy. He understands that we've got inflation at [22:00] three-year highs. He also understands that the job market is relatively, yes, relatively strong. [22:06] And he also understands there's pressure on him to lower interest rates. I think Kevin will remove [22:12] himself from the political pressure and he will do the right thing economically. Kevin is, you know, [22:17] this is not his first time in the Federal Reserve. He was a Fed governor before. I think Kevin will [22:22] approach this as a very traditional Fed governor. He will stay heavily involved in his lane in monetary [22:28] policy. I think he will stay outside of the secondary issues that the Fed has gotten in more recently. [22:33] And I think he will also be in a position where he will move based on what he is actually seeing [22:40] in the economy, not what he hopes he sees in the economy. He's also made clear he thinks sort of how [22:44] we judge the economy may need to change and look at data differently. To that point, what we saw this past [22:51] week with SpaceX was pretty incredible. Elon Musk is the first trillionaire with a T. SpaceX, they make [22:59] rocket ships. They want to put AI data centers in space. They want to mine asteroids. I mean, [23:04] it sounds like it's straight out of the movies, but this was a huge publicly traded debut this week, [23:10] the largest ever. We're going to see more AI companies also go public. Where are we in the boom? [23:17] So, Margaret, this is a time to celebrate. We should celebrate America's entrepreneurial spirit. We should [23:23] celebrate America's engineering capabilities. We should celebrate the fact that we are solving some [23:29] of the biggest problems in the world. And if we in America were not solving these problems and the [23:33] Chinese were, we would A, be way behind them or B, paying them to solve our problems if they were [23:40] willing to sell us a solution. So I look at this as a massive celebration in American entrepreneurial [23:45] spirit. As you said, it isn't stopping with SpaceX. And SpaceX is now about a 25-year-old company, [23:51] one where Elon Musk himself said there's a 10% chance this company even survives. [23:56] We now have a handful of companies almost of that size that are changing the way you and I live our [24:03] lives and how we're going to change our lives going forward. And these are American-based companies, [24:07] American entrepreneurs, American technology, and American engineers. We should be lucky that we have [24:12] these companies here domestically and we're not having to entice them into the United States. [24:17] But what they're facilitating with this transformation, there's this whole debate [24:21] about whether it's good or bad for American workers. The Wall Street Journal editorial board, [24:26] conservative leaning, as you know, was extolling the benefit of SpaceX creating jobs for working [24:31] class communities and said they gave stock options to their workers so they made blue-collar workers [24:37] arguably millionaires, right, by doing something like that. Is that, I mean, this is a special case, [24:43] clearly. But what is the impact on blue-collar workers? [24:48] So you're talking about AI in general. [24:50] So look, there's a large debate going on in the economy today, in the business today. [24:55] And the debate is, is this time different or is this time the same? [24:59] I'm in the camp that this time is the same. And what I mean by that [25:03] is if you look back at all of the major technological advancements that we have lived through, [25:07] and before we were live, we read stories about how this was the end of employment. [25:13] If you go back to the cotton gin or the internal combustion engine or the telephone or the cell [25:18] phone or the internet, all of these technological inventions were supposed to be the demise of human [25:23] capital. I think what we have found in the history is they're not the demise of human capital. [25:28] What happens is the gross domestic product, the GDP of the country grows. As it grows, [25:34] we create more and more jobs. And I think that's what's going on here. There's another phenomena [25:39] that's equally as important here. The largest companies in America historically have been [25:43] asset-like companies, and they've been intellectual property heavy. [25:47] The largest companies in America today are becoming a combination of asset-based companies [25:51] and intellectual companies. The assets need to be built by people. [25:55] Gary Cohn, good to have your insights as always. We'll be right back. [26:01] Before we go today, a quick update on a story we've been tracking. [26:04] President Trump's name was removed yesterday from the facade of the Kennedy Center here in [26:09] Washington, D.C. After a court ruling last month ordered it to be taken down, declaring [26:14] Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name and only Congress can change it. [26:19] A crowd of people gathered Friday night waiting to watch its removal. [26:23] In the end, the name of the 45th and 47th president adorned the building for almost six months. [26:28] It was installed in December after the center's board, controlled by the president's hand-picked [26:33] trustees voted to rebrand with the addition of the Trump moniker. [26:37] That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week. [26:41] For Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan.