Full interview: Sen. Thom Tillis on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan"

[0:00] We're joined now by Senator Tom Tillis from the Munich Security Conference in Germany. [0:05] Senator, good to see you. Good morning. Thank you for taking a few minutes to be with us. [0:09] A report that was published this week by the Munich Security Conference describes leaders [0:14] who are taking an axe to existing rules and institutions and says the era in which Europe [0:19] could rely on the U.S. as an unquestioned security guarantor is over. You think that's [0:25] a fair assessment? Is the U.S. no longer a reliable partner to Europe? [0:28] Well, you know, in some ways, I hope that we're going to enter an era where our reliance on Europe [0:35] is improved. Look, I have got a challenge with some of the things coming out of the White House, [0:41] but a lot of that frustration comes from a $2 trillion shortfall in investing in our mutual [0:47] defense by far too many NATO allies. Now, they're making right now, but you have to give the [0:53] administration and the president some latitude to point to the fact that a $2 trillion shortfall [1:00] over two decades, what has that done to our readiness? What has that done to our innovation? [1:04] What's that done to our military industrial base and manufacturing capacity? You know, [1:09] we could be scaling up latent capabilities that would have been serving that $2 trillion [1:14] to better serve Ukraine and better modernize their own weapons. So let's make sure that people look [1:20] at this with balance and understand that a part of the reason why we are where we are is because we [1:25] had that deficit in the 20 years, in the first 20 years of this century. Now, the NATO alliance is [1:30] the most important alliance in the history of mankind. And the Article I branch, Congress, [1:35] believes that. And they believe it in large numbers. So we're going to commit, I'm here in Munich to [1:41] basically remind everybody that we have three coequal branches of government. The president is trying to [1:47] get our NATO allies to perform more strongly and have some level of independence. But the Congress has [1:52] their back. Yeah. So when the Defense Secretary sends the Pentagon's number three to a NATO defense [1:59] meeting this week and tells the rest of the alliance the U.S.'s support for NATO will continue, [2:04] but, quote, in a more limited and focused fashion, is that the message that Europe should be receiving [2:10] right now? Is that the way the administration should approach it? I would not have used those words. I think [2:16] what we want to do is be stronger and represent the deterrent capabilities of our alliance. The United [2:23] States could possibly go it alone. But the reality is our alliance is what makes us the world's [2:29] superpower and what keeps this world safer. We're going to have malign actors. We've had them [2:35] throughout history. We will continue to. Putin is a liar and a murderer. He should be expelled from Ukraine. [2:40] I'll accept a peace agreement if Vladimir Zelensky wants one. But we need to make sure that our [2:46] adversaries, unless they change profoundly, are viewed as adversaries, that we have to coexist with [2:52] but not appease. At the same time, Europe needs to step up, not let this be episodic that they're [2:58] now starting to contribute to their mutual defense, their own capabilities, incidentally. It's not like [3:03] they're writing a check and sending it to the U.S. This is building up their capabilities, their [3:07] interoperability, their ability to work with NATO allies if a conflict occurs. So, you know, [3:13] it's an emotional time. I've got a philosophy that nothing is ever as good as bad as it seems. [3:17] I think people coming to Munich thinking that this is the end of NATO are being a bit alarmist [3:22] and that we just need to get things right and learn from the past mistakes of our allies or learn from [3:27] the past mistakes and people have come up short. But the rhetoric about NATO somehow being a second [3:33] tier sort of alliance going forward is clearly being spoken by somebody who doesn't really [3:39] understand the brilliance and the power of the NATO alliance. On NATO, one of the things the [3:44] alliance announced in recent days is this plan for a new Arctic Sentry mission to strengthen security [3:49] across the Arctic region. That decision, of course, comes in the wake of the president in the last few [3:53] weeks, urging NATO to do more for Arctic security, dropping his threats of military invasion of [4:01] Greenland. Is this new operation exactly what you're talking about, what you want to see the alliance [4:05] doing? And is it also the answer to the president's concerns about Greenland? Well, you know, [4:09] we talked in Davos. The reality is, to me, it was irresponsible to go anywhere other than figuring [4:15] out how we modernize the 1951 agreement where Greenland and Denmark agreed to more or less give us [4:20] unfettered access in Greenland to project power in the Arctic. So now that the temperatures have cooled, [4:27] show a little bit of respect to Denmark and to Greenland, figure out what part of Greenland. [4:32] We need to upfit our space base, the only instance of U.S. presence in Greenland now to the north. [4:40] Take a look at a base that they offered to us for a dollar and come up with a fiscally sound, [4:46] sustainable way to project power in the east by working with Canada and their icebreakers, [4:51] which are necessary for us to navigate there, working with Denmark and our Scandinavian and [4:57] Arctic allies to really project the kind of power we need to deter China and Russia. [5:03] The German chancellor at the start of this conference suggested that the world order as we know it [5:08] is over. I know you were talking about hyperbole there at the start of this. [5:12] Would you agree, though, with the chancellor that things are changing that rapidly? [5:15] MARK SHIELDS, U.S. Secretary of State, only if the chancellor allows it to. [5:19] Look, if the NATO countries who came up short for decades would just admit that that was a mistake [5:28] and then double their, redouble their efforts, I think that this goes just like the [5:32] the hyperbolic language around Greenland is now almost, it's unbelievable. That was only three weeks [5:39] ago, but it's almost in the distant past. I think we have to look ahead and recognize that the American [5:45] people, the American Congress, and I believe the administration is behind it, but they're not [5:50] wrong to point out the deficiencies of the past. Look, I've been in meetings where people talk about [5:54] some of our social programs and now we should really step up with the European world and then at the [6:00] same time they're funding some of those programs at the expense of their own defense. So let's just [6:05] have an honest discussion with family members and get the family right. [6:08] Let's work through a few other issues here. European leaders this week also suggested that [6:12] that they're not taking retaliatory tariffs off the table. Back here at home, [6:16] the House voted to essentially reject the president's tariffs on Canada [6:21] after a bunch of Republicans joins with Democrats to make that happen in the House. [6:25] If that ever comes up in the Senate, are you someone who would agree with that, [6:28] that the tariffs against Canada should be stripped away? [6:31] Well, I've looked at what I think we need to do is get the USMCA modernization, [6:36] the agreement on the table and address that in the context of strengthening our relationship with [6:41] Canada and Mexico. Look, we're a very important trading block and we should build on our successes. [6:48] As I'm sure you know, a lot of the tariffs, there's a lot of exemptions because of the existence [6:54] of USMCA. I think we ought to get in a room and sort them out. I've had, I've expressed publicly [6:59] concerns with a lot of the tariffs that were imposed. I still to this day can't figure out [7:03] why we have a 50% tariff on Brazil when we have a trade surplus with Brazil. Those sorts of things [7:09] are irrational to me. In other cases, I can justify it based on past behaviors of countries [7:14] that we have a deficit with, but we need to be surgical and not use a blunt force object to [7:19] negotiate trade relationships, particularly with China and Mexico, or I'm sorry, with Canada and Mexico. [7:25] Should your party be distancing itself more from the president though on tariffs, [7:28] especially the closer it gets to November when the American public is not necessarily a fan of [7:32] these moves? See, I don't think it's a matter of distancing or stuff. That's what's wrong with [7:37] Washington. We've gotten into this mode now to where we have some sort of a loyalty or fealty test [7:42] because we either disagree. Oftentimes it's not even the what, it's the how. I do think the what [7:48] of holding countries that have, we have had chronic trade deficits with accountable is necessary. [7:54] And if tariffs are required to get their attention, fine. But the how is a very surgical approach, [8:00] not a blanket approach, not one that actually creates froth and uncertainty because that's not [8:04] good for business. And the U.S., if anything else, is really good when we're at our best on certainty. [8:10] You reiterated this week you're going to block any confirmation hearings for a new Federal Reserve [8:15] chairman or board member until the Justice Department's investigation of Jerome Powell [8:19] is, as you put it, resolved. But will there be confirmation hearings for Kevin Walsh, [8:24] even if this DOJ investigation into Powell's continuing? [8:28] Well, let's make the distinction between a confirmation hearing and then a confirmation markup. [8:35] Mr. Walsh is going to have to decide whether or not he wants to go through with this because, [8:39] as I'm sure you know, once the nominee is put forward, there are certain restrictions on what [8:44] he can do in his business life. But I have tried to make it very clear that I have no intention of [8:52] supporting any confirmation of any Fed board member, chair or otherwise, to fill the Kugler seat, [8:58] for example, until this is resolved. I think we had a young U.S. attorney with a dream trying to get [9:05] the president's attention, not even consulting with the administration and big DOJ on something [9:11] that maybe they thought they'd get brownie points for. It's not cute. And if this is only about two [9:15] minutes of discussion that came before chair Powell, that prosecutor should listen to the seven members, [9:23] Republican members, who said they didn't see any criminal intent or activity. And more importantly, [9:28] the prosecutors should understand that the protocol normally would be a referral from the chair [9:33] or a member of the committee to say we think a crime was committed here. We've got a crime scene [9:38] where seven Republican members say no crime was committed. How hard is that to understand? [9:43] But when the Treasury Secretary said Friday there's a deal to at least hold confirmation hearings for [9:49] Kevin Warsh to serve as the next chairman of the Federal Reserve, is he misguided on that? [9:53] Well, it's not a deal. That's a decision that the chair makes unilaterally in his capacity as chair. [9:59] The decision I get to make is whether or not I allow markup, and if I do allow markup, how I vote. [10:04] And I'm saying that until the matter is solved, I'm a no. [10:07] Understood. And when you say resolved, when you want this investigation resolved, [10:12] does that mean everything dropped by the Justice Department and other entities? [10:16] Well, keep in mind, everything is an investigation about two minutes of commentary. [10:22] Right. [10:23] Even for this guy, that's not hard to figure out. [10:26] You have been quite critical of the administration on a suite of issues, [10:29] whether it's tariffs, how it's engaging Europe, as you mentioned earlier, [10:34] concerns about homeland security and whatnot. And you've said that it runs the risk of hurting your [10:39] party going into November. So I'm curious, if the elections were held today, [10:42] would Republicans hold onto the House and the Senate? [10:45] I think that we hold onto the Senate. I have questions about the House, [10:50] and some of that comes from what I believe may have been a little bit of overreach with respect to [10:55] redistricting. Plus, you have the historic challenge of a midterm election after [11:01] presidential election, a lot of complexities in it. But, you know, we've got work to do. And, [11:06] again, my beef almost always relates to what I consider to be how things are being done. [11:13] And I think the president has some advisers around him. You've heard me talk about Stephen Miller. [11:18] You know my opinion about Kristi Noem. These are people that don't look around corners and are not [11:23] taking care of this president's legacy. And I intend to. And if I have to speak bluntly, [11:27] that's what I'm going to do in my remaining time in the Senate. [11:29] Well, we appreciate you speaking bluntly with us this morning from the Munich Security [11:33] Conference. Senator Tillis, thank you for your time. [11:35] Thank you. [11:38] Thank you.