Gov. Wes Moore, Rep. Mike Lawler and more — "Face the Nation" Full Broadcast - Aug. 24, 2025

[0:01] I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington and this week on Face the Nation, the Trump [0:05] administration builds up the federal presence in the nation's capital to [0:09] crack down on crime and the president vows to use similar tactics in other U.S. [0:14] cities. The number of National Guard troops sent to protect Washington [0:19] continues to grow as President Trump praises his own plan to clean up the [0:24] city. D.C. was a hellhole and now it's safe. The numbers were horrible. It was a [0:30] crime infested rat hole and they do have a lot of rats. We're getting rid of them [0:35] too. But as Mr. Trump dismissed district leaders claim of a 30 year low and [0:40] violent crime, he's vowing a similar surge in Chicago, New York and other [0:45] cities. What could that mean for public safety in your community? We'll check [0:50] in with Maryland Democratic Governor Wes Moore and New York Republican [0:53] Congressman Mike Waller. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell hints at an [0:58] interest rate cut and the stock market soars. But he also cautions that the [1:03] U.S. economy is facing challenging times. There is significant uncertainty [1:08] about where all of these policies will eventually settle and what their [1:12] lasting effects on the economy will be. We'll get a reality check on Powell's [1:17] speech and the state of the economy from economist Mohammed Al-Aryan. Plus, a [1:22] U.N.-backed group confirms residents of Gaza City are facing catastrophic [1:26] conditions of famine and warned that it will soon expand to other areas [1:31] within the Gaza Strip. New Hampshire Democratic Senator Gene Shaheen is [1:35] visiting the region and will join us. We'll also talk with UNICEF executive [1:40] director Catherine Russell. It's all just ahead on Face the Nation. Good [1:59] morning and welcome to Face the Nation. It's quiet here in Washington as we [2:03] come on the air this morning, but the debate is heating up over President [2:07] Trump's calling up of nearly 2,300 National Guardsmen along with federal [2:12] agents from ICE, the ATF, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the FBI, and [2:17] others to patrol the streets of the city alongside D.C. police forces. And [2:22] we're seeing yet another instance of Trump's expanding of the federal [2:26] government's reach, this time when it comes to control of police in local [2:29] communities. Will we see pictures like these in other U.S. cities in the future? [2:36] Well, one of the places President Trump has mentioned as needing help [2:41] fighting crime is nearby Baltimore. And joining us right now is Maryland's [2:45] Democratic Governor Wes Moore. Thank you for being here. Thank you so much for [2:49] having me. So they're here in D.C. there are guardsmen from six different [2:53] states on the street. The mission is, quote, beautification duty and support. The [2:59] defense secretary has authorized them to carry M4 and M17 rifles, but to date we have [3:05] not been able to locate anyone armed within the National Guard on the streets [3:09] of D.C. Why, though, are you so opposed to this deployment? [3:14] Well, there's plenty of reasons. You know, one, it is not sustainable. You cannot [3:20] continue this type of pace of operations, particularly when it's costing over a [3:23] million dollars a day in order to do this. The second, it's not scalable. You're not [3:27] going to be able to do this in every single major American city, particularly when many of the [3:31] cities that have the highest crime rates are the places that have actually deployed [3:35] their National Guards to Washington, D.C. So who's going to who's going to go do the [3:38] work in their cities? The third, it's unconstitutional. It's a direct violation [3:42] of the Tenth Amendment. And for a party that talks about state rights, it's amazing how [3:46] they're having such a big government approach in the way they're conducting [3:49] public safety. The fourth reason is because it's deeply disrespectful to the [3:54] members of the National Guard. You know, as someone who actually deployed overseas and [3:57] served my country in combat, to ask these men and women to do a job that [4:01] they're not trained for is just deeply disrespectful. And so when we're [4:04] thinking about all of these lasting factors, when we're thinking about the [4:08] fact that it serves as a distraction from the fact that the president's [4:11] disastrous economic policies are making everything more expensive for everyday [4:16] Americans, it's making life harder for everyday Americans. There is a [4:19] multitude of reasons that I am against this and I will not authorize the [4:22] Maryland National Guard to be utilized for this. Well, the National Guard does say that [4:26] these troops will be trained and deputized by federal marshals. So this is going to be [4:34] distinct from the military rules of engagement. But it is counter to every [4:39] bit of training that we received. When I joined the military, we joined with a clear [4:43] intention to fight and win our nation's wars. The members of our National Guard are [4:47] trained up to be able to address things like emergency situations, situations where [4:52] you need, where you need a surge of supports for, for traumas and disasters that are happening [4:57] within individual jurisdictions. That is not this. And this is a direct deflection that [5:02] the president is authorizing. [5:03] We know the president watches the program and he likely saw the guest listing because [5:07] he's tweeting about you or truthing, I guess. He says the governor, Westmore of Maryland, [5:12] is asked in a nasty and provocative tone that I walk the streets of Maryland with him. And [5:18] he's talking about crime ridden Baltimore. It's, it's quite lengthy, but he goes after [5:22] your record on crime. He says, it's a bad one. He says, if you need help, he will send in [5:27] the troops, which is being done in nearby DC. I mean, when we saw a few weeks ago, the deployment [5:35] on the streets of Los Angeles, the governor of California tried to go to the courts and he [5:39] was unable to stop it. Is the reality here is you can't stop the president from sending [5:44] troops to Baltimore if he wants to. [5:47] The year before I became the governor, uh, in 2022, Baltimore was averaging almost a [5:52] homicide a day. And I came in and I said, I refuse to be a governor who just offers thoughts [5:58] and prayers to this situation. So we said, we're actually gonna work in partnership with [6:03] Mayor Scott, work in partnership with local elected officials, work in partnership with local, [6:07] local law enforcement. We made the largest investments in local law enforcement in our [6:11] state's history, over $50 million going to Baltimore city alone and federal money that [6:16] wouldn't know that came from both federal and state money. And also Maryland became one of [6:19] the only States that actually helps to fund the U S attorney out of balance sheet, taking [6:23] many of those gun crimes and actually turning them into federal charges. And the results have [6:27] been, have been incredibly encouraging where Maryland's had amongst the fastest drops in violent [6:32] crime of anywhere in the United States in the past two and a half years. The homicide rate [6:36] Maryland is down over 20% since I had been the governor. And the last time the homicide rate [6:40] was this low in Baltimore city, I was not born yet. And so the reason that I've asked the president [6:46] to come and join us is because he seems to enjoy living in this blissful ignorance, this, these tropes [6:52] in these 1980 scare tactics, scare tactics. And, you know, just last week I was in Baltimore and I was [6:58] with a group called, we are us, who's a violence intervention groups. And they say, we're all we got, [7:04] we're all we need. And that's exactly how people in this community feel, [7:08] because while the president is spending his time from the oval office making jabs and attacks at us, [7:13] there are people actually on the ground doing the work who know what supports would actually work [7:17] to continue to bring down crime, but it's falling on deaf ears of the president of the United States. [7:20] You're talking about the positive trend line at the president's pointing to the FBI statistics, [7:24] which shows Baltimore is the fifth most instances of violent crime on a per capita basis, [7:29] fourth highest murder rate. To your point, the city of Memphis is also on that list. And the [7:35] governor of Tennessee sent those National Guard troops here to this city, not to the streets of [7:40] Memphis. But we know we have work to do. We know like if one person does not feel safe in their [7:44] neighborhood, that's one too many. But we also know what tactics actually work and what taxes just [7:48] theatrics. But you're the mayor in Baltimore did just say he wants federal help. He doesn't want [7:54] National Guard troops per se, though he says he wants agents from FBI, DEA, and ATF. Do you need [8:01] more federal help in policing if your mayor thinks you do? Oh, absolutely. And we need the president [8:06] to stop cutting funding. Because if you look at the president's budget, it actually cuts funding [8:11] towards violence intervention groups. It cuts funding towards the bureaus of the FBI and the ATF that [8:16] are supporting local jurisdictions like Baltimore. That it doesn't do anything about things like ghost [8:21] guns and these extended glock clips that allow these glocks to essentially turn into automatic [8:26] weapons. Those are actually real tangible things that the president of the United States could do [8:31] and where he could put capital to actually make our community safer. So you are a Democrat who is, [8:37] President Trump says so as well, possibly a presidential candidate. He talked about you the [8:41] other day. Yeah. He spent a lot of time talking about you. I've been on his mind a lot. You're spending [8:45] time talking about crime. Is this something that as a Democrat you think the Democratic Party needs to be [8:50] more vocal and muscular about when running for office? Because I hear you doing that. It's a [8:55] very big change from 2020 when the, you know, idea was defund the police. Absolutely. And yeah, [9:01] the president's spending all of his time talking about me. I'm spending my time talking about the [9:04] people I serve. And yes, I believe that we have to be able to address the issue of crime. [9:09] I came up in and I have existed in neighborhoods and communities that have been chronically neglected. [9:15] And I remember one of the first things that happened in our first months in, [9:18] I had to visit shock trauma inside of Baltimore because Baltimore had one of the largest mass [9:24] shootings in its history. And I visited a young man, a teenager who was just finished surgery and had [9:31] one of his testicles shot off and was talking about how was he ever going to become a father. [9:37] And I said at that point, I refuse to continue doing this and not putting the proper resources in [9:42] place and not being able to put a real focus on making our community safer. And that's why it is so [9:48] frustrating when we're hearing from the president of the United States, something that is just purely [9:52] performative without actually focusing on these communities and these neighborhoods who believe [9:57] that progress is possible and who are willing to put in the work. And we're just simply asking for [10:01] Washington to be able to acknowledge it and support it. He says you're not presidential timber at [10:07] all. I imagine you disagree with that assessment. No, I've been very clear. I'm not running for [10:13] president, but it's interesting that, but it's interesting. The president seems to be more [10:17] concerned about my future than he is about the future of the American people. And that's where [10:22] I'm asking him to keep his focus, focus on the things that actually matter right now, [10:27] which is the fact that his economic policies are driving up prices on everything from electronics [10:31] to the clothes that we wear to the food that we eat. Talk about the fact that he has immigration [10:36] policies that are knocking out tens of thousands of jobs in the state of Maryland. Talk about the fact [10:42] that you are about to kick veterans and seniors off of health care. Don't worry about my future. [10:47] Worry about theirs. I want to ask you, you brought up immigration. One of the residents of your state, [10:53] Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was just released from pretrial detention on Friday. But the Trump [10:59] administration has instructed him to report to ICE within 72 hours for deportation to Uganda. He's [11:05] originally from El Salvador. He was mistakenly deported to that prison in El Salvador and then returned to [11:11] the U.S. This is federal policy. This is not state policy. But I do wonder, is there anything that [11:17] you are doing to help his family stay united? What we know is that, you know, and all we're asking for [11:25] is that the Constitution be filed on this. The Constitution is very clear about how we deal with [11:30] these types of issues. And when we look at what's happened in this situation, it's the president [11:35] manipulating the fact that we have a very broken immigration system inside this country. But instead of [11:40] actually doing the work that it requires to fix it, actually working in Congress to come up with [11:44] a comprehensive immigration bill, the president is working to exploit the brokenness. And I'm very [11:51] clear that there is no higher priority for me than public safety. You want him to face a day in court, [11:57] in other words. Absolutely. I want due process. I just simply want a court and a judge to decide what is [12:04] going to be the future fate of this case and all cases like this, and not simply the president of the [12:09] United States or the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is trying to be judge, juror, prosecutor, and [12:17] executioner inside this case. I believe in the Constitution, and I believe that that's what we [12:21] should follow for this case. I want to ask you about something your party is tinkering with here, [12:27] redistricting or gerrymandering, as some people know it. You've said you don't like talking about it, [12:33] but all options are on the table when it comes to your state. There's only one seat here that is [12:39] actually Republican, and it's a seat held by Representative Andy Harris. Are you considering [12:45] trying to redraw lines in Maryland? Yeah. When I say all options are on the table, [12:50] all options are on the table. Are you actively looking at it now? Yeah. And I think we have to. [12:55] Yes. And I think we have to. Because I think what's happened is this is what people hate about [12:59] politics in the first place, the fact that the president of the United States, very similar to [13:03] what he did in Georgia, where he called up a series of voter registrants and said, I need you to find [13:08] me more votes. We're watching the same thing now where he's calling up legislatures around the country [13:12] and saying, I need you to find me more congressional districts. He's doing it. That may be different, [13:16] but Democrats redistrict. You know this. Yeah. But Gavin Newsom's doing it right now. A few years ago in New [13:21] York, we saw this. This can backfire. Do you really want to go down this road? [13:25] I want to make sure that we have fair lines and fair seats, where we don't have situations where [13:30] where politicians are choosing voters, but that voters actually have a chance to choose their [13:35] elected officials. We need to be able to have fair maps. And we also need to make sure that if the [13:39] president of the United States is putting his finger on the scale to try to manipulate elections [13:44] because he knows that his policies cannot win in a ballot box, then it behooves each and every one of us [13:49] to be able to keep all options on the table to ensure that the voters' voices can actually be [13:54] heard and we can have maps. And you don't think in that one district where they represent, [13:57] they have a Republican representative that they are actively being represented in Maryland? [14:03] I think if you look at maps across the country, less than 10 percent of congressional seats are [14:07] actually competitive by nature, less than 10 percent. And so if you look at the average win margin [14:12] in our state and so many states, the average win margin is upwards of 20 to 30 percent. So that means we [14:18] already have so many gerrymandered areas that we have to be able to add a measure of fairness in [14:22] the way that it's applied. And so, yes, all options need to be on the table in the state of Maryland. [14:27] And you're looking at it, you said. Governor, thank you for your time this morning. [14:30] Thank you so much. [14:31] Face Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us. [14:34] And we're back now with the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, [14:42] New Hampshire's Senator Jean Shaheen. She joins us from Amman, Jordan. [14:47] Good morning, Senator. I know we've got a bit of a delay here, so I'll launch right in. [14:54] Good morning or afternoon here. [14:56] Yeah, exactly. You do sit on the Armed Services Committee as well. Here in Washington, there was a [15:03] sudden round of firings we learned of on Friday. There was Lieutenant General Jeffrey Krauss, the head [15:10] of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was dismissed. The Pentagon did not explain why. In addition, [15:16] the Navy Reserve Chief, Vice Admiral Nancy LaCour, was fired. The Navy SEAL, who oversees Naval Special [15:23] Warfare Command, Rear Admiral Milton Sands, was dismissed. Has Congress been informed as to why [15:30] these leaders are being fired by Secretary Hegseth? [15:39] I'm not aware that Congress has been informed about any of these firings. And they come on the heels of [15:45] firings earlier this year of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, [15:49] the head of Naval Operations, Admiral Franchetti, and a series of other military leaders. [15:57] And it's unfortunate because one of the things, one of the strengths of America's military are the [16:04] professional military leaders who have come up through the ranks, who have the training, the [16:10] expertise, to be able to do the jobs. And what we don't want is political people in those jobs who are [16:17] not going to give honest assessments of the military situation wherever we happen to be. So it's very troubling. [16:25] I believe our feed there just froze. And we're going to try to get that back up if we can. The [16:34] center is joining us from Amman, Jordan. So I'm going to take a break while we reestablish that connection. [16:41] The feed just froze. [16:42] And we're back now with Senator Jean Shaheen, who joins us remote from Amman, Jordan. We lost you [16:52] there, but we're so glad you're back with us now, Senator. Let me ask you about why you are in the [16:58] Middle East right now. We heard on Friday this internationally recognized body backed by the UN, [17:06] the IPC. It tracks hunger. And they confirmed, technically confirmed, there is a man-made famine [17:14] underway in Gaza. This is a very rare designation. Only four other times has one been designated. [17:22] The country you are in, Jordan, called it a shameful failure of humanity that Israel is starving [17:29] Palestinians with impunity. Called it a war crime. Would you say that that three-month blockade by [17:36] Israel of Gaza is a war crime? I think it is a shameful black mark on humanity that the world has [17:51] allowed this to happen and that Israel is allowing this to happen. We had a very good meeting today with [17:58] King Abdullah of Jordan. And one of the places that we visited is the Jordan Humanitarian Assistance [18:05] program that is trying to get aid into Gaza. This is funded trucks and warehouses and food that the United [18:17] States has contributed to as part of this administration. They are trying to get in 150 trucks [18:24] a day into Israel. And Israel has prevented those trucks from going in in a way that would provide [18:32] the nutrition that Gazans need to prevent starvation. It is unacceptable. Prime Minister Netanyahu [18:40] is the point at which obstruction is happening. He needs to look at what he's doing and change his position. [18:48] The Israeli Prime Minister's office on Friday had a very harsh statement about the famine designation. [18:57] They called it, quote, a modern blood libel spreading like wildfire through prejudice. [19:06] That suggests this is about anti-Jewish hate rather than starvation. How do you make sense of the Israeli [19:12] defense? I don't think that's a good defense. The fact is, this is not about anti-Semitism, which I [19:24] abhor. And the United States position is against anti-Semitism and we need to do everything we can to [19:30] prevent it. But the reality is we have people dying because they are systematically being starved to [19:36] death, because Israel is refusing to allow in the humanitarian aid that people need to keep alive. [19:43] Not only that, they're getting ready to do another or they've already started planning another major [19:49] incursion into Gaza in ways that are going to kill more people. So this is not acceptable. The world needs [19:56] to speak out. I think it's very important that we allow that humanitarian aid in to the people who are [20:03] starving. [20:03] I understand your criticism right now. I want to ask you a little bit, though, about standing U.S. policy, [20:12] because this has been a problem even during the Biden administration. In fact, former deputy national [20:19] security adviser for President Biden, John Feiner, just wrote a piece in The Atlantic. [20:24] And he said that while he stands by the decision to embrace Israel after October 7th, he believes we [20:32] did far too little, far too late to limit the truly catastrophic civilian harm that Israel's response [20:39] inflicted. Do you agree with him? And do you wish that you spoke out more forcefully sooner? [20:46] I don't think this is a partisan position. With me on this journey to Jordan is Congressman Joe Wilson [21:01] from South Carolina. He agreed with me that we need to make sure those humanitarian aid trucks get into [21:09] Israel. We need to do everything possible to ensure that Prime Minister Netanyahu is stopping the roadblocks [21:17] that are preventing the humanitarian aid from getting in. I think it's something that I hope [21:22] that both Democrats and Republicans can embrace. [21:25] But do you agree with this self-criticism by this key Democrat? [21:34] Do you think Democrats should have said more sooner? [21:36] We should be doing more and we should have done more. Absolutely. [21:39] I want to also ask you. I think everybody should have said more sooner. Not just Democrats, but Republicans. [21:48] Why are you now? [21:49] We had the opportunity to be here today to meet with those Jordanians who are working very hard to try and [22:04] get humanitarian aid into Gaza, who are being stymied in that effort by bureaucratic obstacles [22:12] that make no sense when it takes hours to scan a truck, which could be done in two to three. [22:20] And it diverts the aid when it's costing hundreds of dollars per truck. [22:26] And they turn those trucks away. And when they come back the next day, it costs [22:30] another hundreds of dollars more for the same truck when they find an excuse for why it gets [22:38] stopped at the border. That's not a legitimate effort to get humanitarian aid into the people [22:45] of Gaza who are starving. And that can be changed. All it takes is Prime Minister Netanyahu saying, [22:53] we're going to allow that aid in. [22:54] AMNA NAWAZ- Senators Jean Shaheen joining us from Amman, Jordan. A bit of a delay there. We'll be right back. [23:09] Welcome back to Face the Nation. We go now to Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New York. [23:16] Good to have you here, Congressman. There's a lot to get to with you, [23:19] but I want to pick up on something we were discussing with the governor of Maryland, [23:23] and that was this redistricting gerrymandering that is happening. The president encouraged [23:31] Texas Republicans to do it. Now California Democrats are trying to get districts redrawn as well. [23:38] Why do you so strongly oppose this? I think gerrymandering is fundamentally wrong, [23:46] and it is at the heart of why Congress has been broken for so many years. If you look three [23:51] decades ago, there were over 100 competitive districts. Last November, only 35 seats were [23:58] decided by five points or less, and mine wasn't even one of them, despite the fact that Kamala Harris [24:03] won my seat. I won by six and a half points. So when you look at the map across the country, [24:10] the fact is roughly 400 members are not in competitive districts. They're focused primarily [24:15] on primaries and not general elections, and therefore they're not focused on appealing to [24:21] a much broader swath of the electorate. And I think that obviously reflects itself [24:27] when you're actually trying to negotiate legislation and beyond. [24:30] But when you look at the redistricting situation, obviously both parties do not have clean hands [24:36] here. Democrats in New York did mid-decade redistricting last year in 2024 at the behest of [24:44] Hakeem Jeffries, who wanted to pick up seats in New York to become Speaker. They gerrymandered the [24:51] maps after stacking the court and getting a favorable ruling ordering a mid-decade redistricting, [24:58] despite the fact that they gerrymandered maps in 2022 and those were thrown out because it [25:03] violated the state constitution. So now New York is going for a third bite at the apple, [25:09] according to Governor Hochul, who has made it clear since the moment she took office in 2021 [25:14] that she would use redistricting to help Democrats win the house. So this is what you're dealing with, [25:20] red states and blue states trying to get electoral advantage right now. I guess what's different now is [25:26] the president's direct involvement in this, which is why it's interesting you have legislation to [25:31] try to oppose some of this. Do you really think you can get that done if the president of the United [25:36] States doesn't want it done? Look, obviously it's going to be a fight, but this is something that [25:44] I fundamentally believe we need to reform. We need to ban gerrymandering nationwide. We need to ban [25:50] mid-decade redistricting. I want to include term limits as part of those reforms because I fundamentally [25:58] believe when you have members of Congress like Chuck Schumer, who's been in elected office since 1974, [26:05] never held a job outside of elected office. It's time to go. You need term limits. You need [26:12] overall reform. So I'm going to fight tooth and nail to get this done. Obviously, you know, [26:18] there's going to be strong headwinds from both parties because frankly, I don't think both parties [26:23] are interested in reforming the way Congress functions. No, they want the majority, period. [26:29] On the question, though, that we have been also been discussing with the governor, that is crime. [26:33] The president of the United States has mentioned New York is another city he wants to look at to deploy [26:38] National Guard troops. Do you think that's the best use of federal taxpayer dollars? And are you [26:45] comfortable with that happening in your state? Well, crime has been a major problem in New York [26:54] for years. And Kathy Hochul and Albany and New York City Democrats have failed miserably [26:59] to tackle this crime crisis. Do you want National Guard troops? By the way, Kathy Hochul has mobilized, [27:04] Kathy Hochul has mobilized National Guard troops to go into the subway system because of the crime in the [27:11] subway system. So that has been done, obviously, for the purpose of surging resources and trying [27:18] to prevent crime. When you look at the fact that in New York City, for instance, 80 percent of gun [27:23] crimes do not result in a conviction or prosecution, that 80 percent of these individuals are released [27:31] back out onto the street despite using guns in the commission of a crime. You look at Washington, [27:37] D.C. 1.7 percent of gun crime convictions result in jail time. So when Democrats talk about gun violence, [27:47] how come they don't want to actually prosecute and enforce the law against criminals who are using guns [27:53] in the commission of a crime? No, but that's a local issue that would need to get changed. But [27:59] in terms of the question on the troops, you'd rather troops than FBI agents or ATF agents or DEA [28:06] agents, you don't want federal agents who are trained law enforcement officers in New York City, [28:12] you would rather National Guardsmen who have to be trained to police? [28:15] I want all of the above. No, no, no. Don't put words in my mouth. I'd rather all of the above. [28:22] The FBI, the DEA, ATF. I've met with ATF just a few weeks ago in my office on this very issue [28:31] of really cracking down on gun crimes and prosecuting criminals who use guns in the [28:37] commission of a crime. I was proud last year to lead the passage of the Undetectable Firearms Act, [28:43] a common sense bipartisan piece of gun safety legislation enacted into law in the 1980s. [28:50] We extended it seven years to make sure that no gun is manufactured or sold with less than 3.7 [28:57] ounces of metal. I led that effort. And the reason I did is because we do not want guns [29:03] on the street being used in the commission of a crime. And yet, as I pointed out, you look at [29:08] Washington, DC, only 1.7% of gun crime convictions result in jail time. This is why you've seen the [29:16] homicide rate double in less than a decade. It's outrageous. And it's exactly why the president is [29:22] cracking down on crime in major cities. And as we saw in California, he is legally authorized to do so. [29:29] I want to ask you about something in New York state that that matters. A good amount of money [29:34] from that chips bill went to New York. On Friday, the White House announced there's going to be a change [29:41] to how the government deals with that money that's meant to make America independent of Asian [29:48] computer chip manufacturing and bring it all back on shore. The president wants to buy a 10% stake in [29:55] Intel. That company says it's going to now basically have U.S. taxpayers as a shareholder own 10%. [30:03] As a conservative, do you think that the government should have ownership stakes in private companies? [30:13] Generally speaking, no. I think when you look at prior history, when we've had, [30:19] for instance, the bank bailouts, when we've had the auto bailouts, you know, in the aftermath of the [30:27] collapse of the market in 08, the American taxpayer really didn't get a return on that. [30:33] I think what the president is seemingly trying to do is get a return on these tens of billions of [30:39] dollars that are being invested by U.S. taxpayers, by U.S. taxpayers into companies like Intel [30:48] to manufacture chips. And so rather than just give the money away, get a return on that investment. [30:55] Obviously, this is a national security issue. We want to be in control of the manufacturing of [31:02] semiconductors. Congressman, I'm sorry to cut you off. I'm being told I have to go to a commercial break. [31:08] So I'm going to leave it there. We'll be right back. We turn now to the U.S. economy. Mohamed Al-Aryan [31:16] is the chief economic advisor at Allianz, and he joins us this morning from Greenwich, Connecticut. [31:21] Good morning to you. Good morning, Margaret. So we saw the Federal Reserve chair [31:27] signal on Friday that the Fed is going to, as expected, begin lowering rates very soon. But he's also [31:36] cited slowing economic growth and a cooling job market. So why then did the financial markets rally? [31:44] Because he finally pivoted to the risk that matters most for the U.S. economy right now. [31:53] By construct, the Fed has to deliver two things, maximum employment and price stability. And the [32:00] Fed is looking at slightly higher inflation and a weakening labor market. And what Powell finally did, [32:07] and many of us feel he should have done this earlier, is he said the risk to the employment side [32:13] is higher than the risk to the inflation side. And therefore, an interest rate cut is warranted. [32:18] As you know, many of us felt he should have cut last month. [32:21] Mm-hmm. Well, the Fed chair said significantly higher tariffs are remaking the entire global trade [32:28] system. Tighter immigration policy has slowed labor growth. And there are big tax and regulation [32:35] changes you can't quite, you know, quantify at this point. But it's a lot of uncertainty. [32:40] Since economists have to build off of models and data, how do you predict where we're going? If [32:46] basically he's saying, throw out your models? So one of the problems is he hasn't looked forward [32:54] enough. He's been very data dependent, and therefore he has tended to be late. Look, there is something [33:01] promising in our future. And that is productivity enhancement that comes from exciting innovation in [33:08] AI and life sciences and robotics and other area. We just have to manage a challenging few months in the [33:15] period ahead. And if that challenge is mishandled, we will not be able to get the opportunities that we [33:22] have that offset a lot of structural headwinds. And that includes high debt and high deficits. [33:28] Mm-hmm. I want to ask you about something we were discussing with Congressman Lawler just before you. [33:34] And that is this unusual decision for the U.S. government to take a stake in chipmaker Intel. [33:42] That company has been struggling of late, and its CEO was criticized by the president of the United [33:47] States. He was criticized by the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tom Cotton. [33:51] President Trump mentioned all of that on Friday, and he said this. [33:55] He walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States. So [34:03] we picked up $10 billion. And we do a lot of deals like that. [34:06] The president said the CEO wanted to keep his job, so he offered a 10 percent stake in his company. [34:13] Is this signaling a new era for U.S. policy? I mean, central planning of the economy? [34:19] I don't think so. Margaret, look, as the congressman said, it's good to send the message [34:27] that companies will not get something for nothing. And that is what they have gotten used to since 2008, [34:33] all the bailouts. And what the U.S. is saying now is... [34:37] Which were paid back. [34:37] ...which were paid back. But at the time, the government took enormous risk in many, many areas. [34:45] The most important distinction, if I may here, is between ownership and control. [34:49] Yes, the government can own 10 percent, but it must not control how this company manages its affair. [34:57] Because once we go down that road, that is a really dangerous road, and that would eat away [35:02] at what makes America really special, which is a dynamic entrepreneurial economy. [35:07] Mm-hmm. And I believe the commerce secretary said there won't be control, but that is something to watch for. [35:14] I want to also ask you about political pressure, not just on the Federal Reserve chair, which you've nodded to, [35:21] but the president is also now threatening to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. [35:27] They're accusing her without publicly disclosed evidence of mortgage fraud and urging an investigation. [35:35] In fact, the Justice Department wrote a letter to Chair Powell encouraging her to be removed. [35:41] Are you concerned that this is starting to be a pattern here of political interference with the Federal Reserve? [35:48] So these allegations are unproven, and it's important to stress that. Having just said that, [35:56] this is the fifth time in the last five years that there has been allegations against a Fed official, [36:03] and already four of them have had to resign. So what I'm concerned about is that there seems [36:09] to have been a culture that has developed at the Fed that has resulted in these four resignations. [36:15] But I am very worried about preserving Fed independence, and an independent central bank [36:22] is critical to the well-being of the economy, and there's lots of reasons for that. [36:28] So, you know, one has to distinguish between the two. I can't speak to the unproven allegations, [36:34] but I do think it's really important to defend the central bank independence. [36:37] Well, as I understand it, the governor has said she wants to, you know, share information [36:44] and is denying wrongdoing here. But just the fact that it is the president directing the attention [36:51] towards her, doesn't this suggest that even if Jerome Powell steps aside as head of the Federal [36:57] Reserve, that this isn't going to stop this big spotlight on the central bank that is so powerful, [37:06] and that the fear you have of political interference may not go away? [37:12] MOHAMMAD AL- Yes. And I, my fear and my concern is that the longer Chair Powell is in his position, [37:21] and it runs out in May, the longer he's in his position until then, the more this acts as a magnet [37:29] for attacking not only deeper attacks from the president, but much broader from the political [37:36] system. And that's one thing that quite a few people are worried about. [37:39] MOHAMMAD AL-Arym, thank you so much for sharing your insight today. We'll leave it there. [37:44] We'll be back in a moment. We return now to Gaza and that stunning declaration Friday [37:54] about a monitoring group that Gaza City is experiencing man-made famine and that those conditions will [38:02] expand soon. UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell joins us now. We want to warn our viewers [38:08] there will be some upsetting images in this segment. Executive Director Russell, thank you for joining [38:15] us. We've spoken so many times over the past few years about the catastrophic starvation. Now you have [38:23] this technical designation, so rare to see a famine here. They project it's going to spread. Can you [38:31] explain in real world terms, what does this mean for the children who live there? [38:37] Well, thank you, Margaret. Let me say this. You know, it's been now almost two years since October 7th. [38:44] And since then, Israeli children have been killed and taken hostage. And now we're seeing Palestinian [38:50] children finally facing what we've been yelling and screaming about for months and months and months, [38:56] which is a terrible famine. You know, we've estimated at this point that about 18,000 children in Gaza have [39:03] already died. And those are children who have died from a whole range of issues. But when you think about [39:07] that, that's about 28 children a day. That's almost a classroom of children every single day who have [39:14] died since the beginning of this conflict. We have been saying, beware, right? This famine is just right [39:22] around the corner. And it's almost like you're screaming into an abyss. You know, it's so it's [39:27] shocking that it's happened, because, as you said, it happens so rarely. But it's not surprising. And what [39:33] it means really is that children have been spending months and months without sufficient food. And we see [39:39] just a horrible situation where children are on the verge of starvation and ultimately dying from [39:45] starvation. And I think, you know, for your viewers who haven't seen this, and hopefully many of them have [39:51] not. It is a haunting image. Children literally waste away. And you see it in rooms where, you know, [39:57] suddenly they're all quiet. The children are so quiet because they have no energy even to cry. [40:03] And to see that happen, and especially in a place where food is not very far away, right? There's no [40:09] reason for this. This did not happen because there were cyclones or, you know, droughts. This happened [40:16] because we could not get enough aid into these children. [40:20] And as you know, the Israeli government entity that oversees the Palestinian territories, it's called [40:26] Kogat, says there is no famine. They say the UN data is flawed. The prime minister's office says these [40:33] are fabrications and due to prejudice. Can you explain how you know what you know? We are showing images [40:42] that we know journalists have shot, journalists who live inside Gaza because journalists are not [40:47] allowed into Gaza to report. How do you know that what you're saying is fact? [40:52] Let me say two things about that. One is the IPC, which is the organization that makes this [40:57] determination, is an independent organization. They're technical people. They're not political [41:02] people. And they monitor this as they go. And they look at issues like what are the levels of food [41:07] deprivation? What's the acute malnutrition level? How many starvation-related deaths? So it's a very [41:12] technical assessment. And I think we have seen in other places that this is very accurate. [41:18] I would also say, to me, it's kind of obscene that we are having these conversations arguing about [41:26] whether the methodology works or not. We know children are dying, right? I am tired of a discussion [41:33] about, well, are we giving the right information or not? First of all, let the international press in. [41:39] Let them make determinations. I mean, we have talked about this, Margaret, of you coming. You should [41:43] see it yourself. Everyone should be able to get in there. Absent that, we're going to have to rely [41:47] on the data that we have, the people who are there. And I can tell you from the UNICEF perspective, [41:53] our people are tortured by this. I mean, I have spoken to our staff, and they are seeing children [41:59] who are incredibly deprived, many thousands of children who have had amputations and are, you know, [42:05] I mean, just one terrible thing after another for children. And to suggest that there's anything [42:11] funny going on here is really, in my mind, just almost making the situation worse, right? Just [42:18] stop the discussion, stop arguing, and address the problem. Get food in there. Take care of these [42:24] children. Make sure that they have the wherewithal to survive and have a decent future. [42:30] And the Israeli government controls who gets in and who gets out. On the question, though, [42:37] of making sure that the food you do get in gets to the right people, the former U.S. ambassador to [42:43] Israel, Jack Lew, and another Mideast envoy have said the UN agencies may not like it, but if the [42:50] Israeli-backed Gaza humanitarian foundation is the only thing really allowed to operate, then maybe [42:56] there needs to be some compromise. Why not? The United States government is putting $30 million to [43:03] work there. Why not work with them? You know, look, the methodology of the [43:10] Gaza humanitarian foundation is not something that is consistent with the way humanitarians work. [43:15] That's a simple answer. And honestly, you know, if you think about it, the UN had 400 places where we [43:21] would distribute aid. The Gaza humanitarian foundation had four. Okay? And you have seen [43:27] on television, you have seen this video of these almost apocalyptic situations where people are [43:33] streaming towards these places, trying to get food. People are getting shot. It's a terrible situation, [43:40] and it doesn't work. It's not working that well. Now, look, I don't much care if the Gaza [43:46] humanitarian foundation does some distribution. Just let us do our work, too. Let us in. We know [43:53] how to do this distribution. And when I say we, it's not just UNICEF. It's the UN. It's the other [43:57] international NGOs. We do it all around the world. We have done it for decades. We know how to do it. [44:02] We know how to do it in a way that it gets to the people who need it. And, you know, do both. I'm fine [44:08] with that. But at least make sure that humanitarians can get in there and distribute the aid fairly, [44:13] and make sure that these children are not dying unnecessarily. Nobody wants that. President [44:18] Trump has said that. Nobody wants to say that. He did indeed. I want to ask you as well about Sudan, [44:25] where there was a massive humanitarian crisis. If the United States is not leading efforts to get aid [44:32] in there, is anyone else stepping up? You know, look, the United States has the ability to be such [44:41] a force for good. And we need them to step up and do more. Sudan, as you say, [44:46] it's the largest displacement crisis in the world. Millions of children are on the move. [44:51] They are not in school. We now have a horrible outbreak of cholera, which is very destructive, [44:56] and kills children within hours if they can't get aid. I mean, it is absolutely horrific. [45:01] And the United States can be such a force for making positive contributions. And I think, [45:07] you know, other countries are trying, but the U.S. really can make a much bigger difference if they [45:12] try to do this work and do it as quickly as possible. [45:15] JUDY WOODRUFF, And in Sudan, what is the generational impact here, when you don't get food to a kid? [45:21] NANCY CORDES- That was horrible. [45:21] You know, look, first of all, they're not getting food. They're facing horrible sexual violence. [45:25] I was just in chat and heard stories that could just break your heart. And it's devastating. And [45:31] the results, as you say, will last for generations. [45:33] JUDY WOODRUFF, thank you for sharing that. That's it for us today. Thank you for watching. [45:38] JUDY WOODRUFF, I'm Margaret Brown.