NASA's Jared Isaacman, NCAA's Charlie Baker, more — Face the Nation Full Broadcast - June 28, 2026

[0:01] I'm Ed O'Keefe in Washington. And this week on Face the Nation, as America celebrates its 250th [0:07] birthday, we'll try to put politics aside and focus on some of the things that make this nation [0:13] so unique. Despite record-breaking temperatures sweeping across much of the country, [0:18] Americans came out over the weekend to honor 250 years of independence. [0:25] Fireworks, parades, flyovers and red, white and blue were all on display as we saluted a country [0:31] that, despite being one of the younger nations of the world, has one of the longest continuing [0:36] governments. There is no place we cannot go. There is no goal we cannot reach. And there is nothing [0:44] that Americans cannot do. And we're proving that right now. [0:48] MILES O' We'll take a look at one thing that is proving difficult to fix, immigration. Two members [0:54] of Congress who immigrated here and became U.S. citizens, Florida Republican Carlos Jimenez and [0:59] New York Democrat Adriano Espayan tell us their stories and why immigrants are so important to [1:05] America's future. Plus, space, as America reboots its quest to lead the world in space exploration, [1:15] we'll reflect on our history and take a look at what's ahead with NASA Administrator Jarrett Isaacman. [1:22] And sports, Americans are driven by competition and winning. And few things unite us as much as the [1:29] love of the game. We'll talk about changes in college sports, the proving ground for young [1:33] American athletes, with the head of the NCAA or Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker. [1:40] All this and more just ahead on Face the Nation. Good morning and welcome to Face the Nation. [2:00] Margaret is off. I'm Ed O'Keefe. Neither rain nor lightning nor 100-degree-plus heat could shut down the [2:06] festivities in the nation's capital Saturday night. But all three forces combined prompted officials to [2:11] evacuate thousands from the National Mall for hours until the worst of the bad weather had passed. [2:17] Crowds took shelter in nearby museums and government agency buildings, but they returned to watch [2:22] President Trump's speech and what was considered the world's largest fireworks display ever, which [2:27] lasted until well after midnight. As we reflect on what makes America such a powerful force... [2:32] I hereby declare on oath... [2:34] ...we're reminded that we're a nation built by immigrants. [2:37] So why is it so hard to fix our immigration system? Well, late last week, we spoke with two [2:43] members of Congress who both came to the U.S. as young children. Here's our conversation with [2:47] Florida Republican Carlos Jimenez and New York Democrat Adriano Espaya. [2:52] Congressman Jimenez, you were almost seven years old when your family fled from Cuba at the start of [2:59] the Castro regime. What do you remember about those early days in Florida? [3:03] Well, I remember that we all went to one house. My uncle, my aunt were kind enough to take us in. There [3:13] were about 21 people in that house. And I remember vividly my first day going to school. The day before, [3:23] I went to a, you know, they took me to a parochial school. And then the nun saying that tomorrow was my [3:29] first day of school. That was my first word in English. Until then, I only spoke Spanish. And so [3:36] that I vividly remember. And then the early days there, it's like, it's like a blur, obviously, [3:41] you know, but, but yeah, it was, it was completely different than my experiences had been in Cuba. [3:49] And Congressman Espaya, as I understand it, you were about nine when you came to the United States [3:54] from the Dominican Republic. I imagine New York City was a bit different back then. [3:58] Of course, the weather was cold, obviously. I remember the cold weather. We, we lived with [4:05] our grandparents who had a, a four and a half bedroom bedroom apartment in Washington Heights. [4:12] And we got there in December. And of course, we went to school. I remember sitting in the back of [4:19] the classroom and for a year or more, not knowing really a word of English, but surely and slowly, [4:27] we, we acclimated. And here we are. Do either of you remember your parents ever explaining why they [4:36] wanted to become Americans? My grandmother was the first one to become a U.S. citizen. And she was so [4:43] proud of it. And I remembered that she spoke about it, about how great this nation is and how it gave [4:52] us a new opportunity of moving forward. But she was really proud of becoming an American citizen. And I [4:58] think it translated then back down to all of us. My parents were seeking freedom, not only for [5:05] themselves, but for us, his children, my sister and I, to give us the opportunity to live in a land of [5:11] freedom. I recall one day I asked him, hey, why is it that we came to the United States a little bit [5:16] older? And he, and he told me a story about how I had come home. And I had asked him a question. And [5:23] and to him, it felt like we were being indoctrinated, you know, into communism. And he, he decided right [5:30] then and there that we had to leave. Both of you represent areas where there are many people [5:36] under temporary protected status. But the Supreme Court in recent days ruled [5:40] that about 356,000 or so people from Haiti and Syria are going to lose their TPS. [5:48] And then that decision, of course, follows the Trump administration's decision to [5:52] cancel their temporary legal protection. This issue is perhaps most acute in South Florida, [5:56] given the Haitian community, Congressman Jimenez. I'm curious, what should the secretary do? What [6:00] should the administration do now with these hundreds of thousands of people? [6:03] In the case of Haiti, without a doubt, you know, Haiti is a failed state. And I think that [6:08] that deporting Haitians that are under TPS right now back to Haiti would be a huge mistake. I mean, [6:14] that's the reason why TPS was established to begin with. Just like with Venezuelans, [6:19] if Venezuelans lose their TPS status, which they have too, [6:23] we should reinstate that because of the devastation caused by these earthquakes that happened last week. [6:29] And so, you know, TPS should be should not be abused. TPS is what it says, temporary protective status. [6:37] And if you're here for a number of years, you should change your status from TPS to something else. [6:42] But by the same token, it is meant to safeguard those that are fleeing countries, which are either [6:48] failed states and there would be at risk of going back to them or countries that really can't handle [6:53] them right now as the case of Venezuela. What might be the easiest, fastest, bipartisan fix [7:00] Congress could make to deal with immigration? I believe very strongly that it should be bipartisan. [7:06] And of course, there are three particular items that I think are easy to fix. Dreamers is one of them. [7:13] These are young people that came here when they were one, two years old. Many of them don't speak [7:17] the language of their homeland or have no connections whatsoever with the country where they were born. [7:24] Yet there are Americans, but for one thing, their green car. It's a fixed number of them. Most people [7:29] agree that they should be let in. They should be allowed to stay here. So regularizing them is one. [7:36] Farm workers, many of whom are not going to the fields to work because they're afraid they're going [7:41] to be arrested and deported. We need them. And then keeping families together is important because [7:47] a family that's divided, that's fractured, is a weak family. And many weak families make up a [7:54] weak nation. Congressman Jimenez, any of those on your list? [7:57] Look, I agree with a lot of what the, you know, the Congressman has said. [8:02] The problem of immigration got exacerbated because we, the open borders that we had [8:08] during the Biden years. And you had millions and millions of people coming into the United States. [8:12] And it really drove the issue of immigration, you know, home. And I thought we were getting closer [8:18] to some kind of a solution until that happened. The borders are now closed. And I've always said that [8:23] once you, once you secure the borders, then we can have an honest debate about the people that are [8:28] here, the immigrants that are here, those are undocumented. And I think that we can reach a [8:33] solution. And those that have been here for years that have been working, are part of the community, [8:39] that are part of the economy, we need to find a way to, to normalize them. Doesn't necessarily mean [8:45] that they're going to be citizens at the end of the day, but to normalize them so they can come out of [8:50] the shadows, pay taxes, and then, you know, live their life without having, you know, fear of [8:57] somebody coming up and, and taking them away after 20 something years and separating from, [9:02] from their children that they've had during that time. And so we have to find a solution. [9:07] I think that the solution could be bipartisan, but it's also seems, you know, when the Democrats [9:13] were in control, it wasn't, it didn't happen. When we were in control, it didn't happen. [9:17] It's got to happen. What is your message to someone, perhaps, Congressman Jimenez, that [9:24] is on the outside looking in, who might want to become, who might want to come to the United [9:29] States and build a better life? What would be your message to them? [9:31] My message is to do it the right way. And, and then you will be welcome with, with open arms. [9:38] There's a lot of skills that we need here still in the United States, even though we want to make [9:44] sure that Americans get those jobs. But sometimes, you know, you do need skills from outside. And by [9:48] the way, it's not a bad thing to get, um, new ideas, new perspectives coming into the United States [9:54] from all around the world, because that's what makes America the greatest country in the world. [9:59] And Congressman Espaillat? [10:00] Uh, this nation, as we celebrate the 250th anniversary, uh, still has promise. And, uh, I think, uh, [10:10] uh, immigration has been a central part of, uh, our ability to move forward as a nation. So I ask [10:19] those that want to come to our nation that this, bring your ideas, bring your innovativeness, bring [10:25] your talents, bring your energy, the energy that has displayed itself throughout decades and throughout [10:31] our history. Um, there's been no period in, in American history that has not been pushed by, by [10:38] immigration forward. Even in our most difficult times, it is the influx of new ideas and new energy [10:45] that makes our country, uh, different. And of course, this is a great experiment and everybody wants to [10:52] come to America. Uh, do it the right way. There are channels through which you can do it. Um, we will [10:59] continue to welcome people from all over the world. Uh, this is a nation that still has a lot to offer. [11:06] It's still relatively a very young nation and one that I think has a lot of promise towards the [11:11] future. Uh, I'm happy that, uh, uh, my parents, uh, my grandparents, uh, who were both factory workers, [11:20] brought us here to America. What a great promise. What a great nation. [11:23] MILES O' Face the Nation, we'll be back in one minute with a look at a bright part of our past [11:28] and our future. Space. Stay with us. [11:31] One of the most unifying events so far this year was April's successful launch of Artemis II, [11:42] a mission that had many of us mesmerized for days and introduced a new generation of Americans to one [11:47] of the bright spots when it comes to American ingenuity. Here's senior national correspondent, [11:52] Mark Strassman. [11:53] MARK STRASSMAN, U.S. [11:59] MARK STRASSMAN, U.S. America's pioneering spirit, undeniable, unrelenting. It fueled Artemis II's moonshot back in April. [12:07] It has defined our country for 250 years, from sailing ship to spaceship. What have you been most [12:14] struck by? We have seen and felt things that we have never felt before. We felt it with Alan Shepard, [12:19] the first American in space. John Glenn, the first American in orbit. Oh, that view is tremendous. [12:26] And throughout NASA's early programs, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo. We choose to go to the moon in this [12:33] decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. [12:38] Earth stood still and felt it in 1969, watching in awe two Americans become history's first moonwalkers. [12:46] Engine stop. We copy you down, Eagle. [12:49] What? [12:51] We're going to be busy for a minute. [12:52] Tranquility base here. The Eagle has landed. [12:55] Roger 20. I'll be on the ground. [13:07] Retired astronaut Charlie Duke was the voice in Houston's mission control, talking to Apollo 11's crew. [13:14] It really, to me, brought the U.S. together and was very significant. [13:20] Especially given the turmoil of that decade. [13:23] Right. [13:27] Over the decades, America invited along international partners to help explore the cosmos, [13:33] from the space shuttle to the International Space Station, from Hubble and other universe probing [13:38] satellites to robotic explorers on Mars. Along the way, moments when the human cost, [13:45] was unthinkable. Challenger in 1986. Columbia in 2003. Moments that paused our space exploration, [13:55] but did not stop it. In today's commercial era of space, companies often lead the way, [14:02] rather than countries. SpaceX, Blue Origin, Boeing. And after a nine-year gap, we're again launching [14:09] American astronauts from U.S. soil. Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine back in 2018. [14:16] Some of this is American pride. [14:19] Prestige. I like to use the word prestige. Great nations should be able to launch their own astronauts [14:26] into space. [14:27] Booster ignition. Launching them to the moon and back. Now bound for the moon. [14:32] Yes, space is hard. But America's space story would feel familiar to her original settlers. [14:38] Determination leading to discovery. [14:41] Our Mark Strassman reporting. Thanks to him for that. We turn now to NASA Administrator [14:56] Jarek Isaacman, who's back on the ground after his 4th of July flyover. Yes, he was one of those [15:02] piloting one of those jets right there. I think you're going to stand and face the nation history [15:06] as the first to ever pilot a flyover and then show up for the show. So we appreciate it. Thanks for being here. [15:11] I was grateful to participate in such a historic event as was yesterday and to be here today and [15:16] talk about such an amazing subject. Yeah, and that's part of why we wanted you here because [15:20] I think we've reflected on the last few months about how Artemis especially really seemed to bring [15:25] the country and to some extent the world back together to focus on this common journey back [15:30] into the great beyond. Why in your view is it so important that America maintain a presence in space? [15:37] Well, I've been lucky to be in space twice and have that perspective [15:41] and an appreciation for just the scale of it all. I mean the best way to describe it like we [15:46] are understanding our progress on what I think is the greatest adventure in human history is literally [15:53] just dipping your toe in the grandest ocean of all. I mean just an appreciation. I mean we are lucky. [15:58] We are lucky that we have been gifted a moon that's four and a half days away as a proving ground [16:03] to continue to venture out and we've just begun it all. I mean all that we stand to learn from a [16:08] scientific perspective. Economic potential. I'll tell you there will be a lunar economy someday. [16:12] We'll be mining asteroids at some point. So it's not just scientific. There's economic. There is a [16:18] massive inspirational component to it. I mean we talk about the world pausing and watching those [16:22] Artemis II astronauts, right? But how many children were watching? Your children, grandchildren that [16:27] were watching that now want to grow up and contribute to this great endeavor as engineers and scientists and [16:32] astronauts. I mean certainly a price worth paying. But it is only truly just the beginning. We barely [16:37] understand our solar you know what's in our solar system let alone all the other stars in the Milky [16:41] Way galaxy or all the other galaxies out there. I want to ask you about a few things facing NASA [16:45] right now. First off in the last few days you've launched a bit of a repair mission with private [16:49] companies to work on what's called the Swift telescope that tracks gamma rays and has been falling [16:55] lower and lower closer to the Earth's atmosphere for years. How is that mission progressing now about [17:00] three days into it? Well we're still getting data from it. It is an extremely fascinating mission. It is a rescue [17:05] mission for a for a scientific instrument that's up there. So you know in the past space was extremely [17:12] expensive. You'd have to spend a very long time building your instruments. You know lots of layers of redundancy [17:18] which just adds more cost and more delays. And now we can take advantage of the healthiest commercial launch [17:22] market in the history of America's space program. Lots of different providers that can do things [17:27] inexpensively and we can experiment. So we have a telescope or scientific instrument that's in some degree of [17:33] distress right now. And for a very low cost we can experiment with industry to launch a mission [17:38] to rendezvous with it, dock, boost it, and give it a new lease on life. Now it's it's very early in the [17:44] mission. As you said it's only been a couple days. We're still establishing comms with it and it's also [17:48] very experimental. So I wouldn't have expected it to come out of the gate and be perfect but we'll learn [17:52] more in the days ahead. And if it works this gives us options for Hubble and other scientific instruments. [17:56] And it's about a 30 million dollar price tag which for NASA is affordable or certainly lower cost than [18:02] many of the other projects. Of course I mean you think about something like now James Webb it wouldn't [18:06] be uh applicable to because it's based out at a Lagrange point. But I mean that was an extremely [18:10] expensive multi multi-billion dollar almost a multi-decade mission. Now instead of replacing it [18:15] with another multi-billion dollar mission if you could launch something for 30 million dollars to go [18:19] up and enhance it you know uh give it a new lease on life that's that's money worth spent. Now again you [18:24] wouldn't do it with James Webb but this is a good example of a mission where you could test out the [18:27] capability and who knows the value it'll have in years ahead. In the last century Russia was our [18:32] biggest space competitor. In this one arguably it's China. And you've warned repeatedly that we may [18:39] now be in a race with them that measures not in years but in months. And so it's against that warning. [18:45] I ask you a few questions now about Artemis III. You're preparing to take off the next Artemis mission [18:49] next year. You have had it however some setbacks. Are you still confident it's going to go off the [18:54] schedule? Well I would just say first it's not arguably like there we're very much in a space race [18:58] right now and the Chinese are moving at incredible speeds and they are certainly capable of doing [19:04] what the Soviets were not during the the first space race. The Chinese will land their taikonauts [19:09] on the moon. There's no question. The question is will will the United States return before them [19:14] and will we do so in a different way this time when we build the base establish that enduring [19:18] presence? I think the answer is yes. President Trump gave us a national space policy my first day on [19:23] the job. He gave us a 10 billion dollar plus up investment a historic investment in the working [19:27] family tax cut act. That's what allowed us to add the Artemis III mission next year. So we are going [19:32] back. It will be an unbelievable display. Last night's fireworks show unbelievable display. I'm telling [19:37] you in a very short span of time on Artemis III you're going to see the three most powerful rockets [19:40] in the world. NASA's SLS, SpaceX's Starship, Blue Origin's New Glenn, and then you're going to have [19:46] the landers come together in Earth orbit, test out their capabilities very a la Apollo 9, give us the [19:51] confidence in our landers for Artemis IV in 2028. This is an achievable plan to put astronauts back [19:56] on the surface of the moon and in parallel we're launching missions near constantly on a near monthly [20:00] cadence in 2027 to build the moon base so we have that enduring presence that proving ground for [20:05] Mars. The goal is to get Artemis IV to the moon by 2028. The Chinese are thinking about 2030. Any delay [20:11] potentially puts us too close to their 2030 goal. Well they said before 2030. I want to clarify that's why [20:16] I say this is months not years right now. They are thinking in 2029 we're saying end of 2028 is when [20:22] we're targeting the landing. That is months not years. But we have an achievable plan. We have [20:26] a national space policy. We have bipartisan support from Congress. We have the best and brightest from [20:30] around the nation that did this before and we'll do it again. One of the issues in getting ready for [20:35] these next missions of course is what happened with Blue Origin's new Glenn rocket a few months ago. [20:39] It exploded at the end of May. The CEO has acknowledged they don't know the cause yet. They're still trying to [20:44] figure it out but they still hope to fly and be able to relaunch later this year. Have you gotten [20:48] any updates on what happened with that explosion and is it important to know what happened for sure [20:55] before they attempt any other launches? Well NASA has been playing a role in this from the beginning. [21:01] So we were I was on site with the team the next morning after that that setback. I was there with [21:06] Jeff Bezos and their CEO Dave Lemp on the matter. We've helped provide subject matter experts to Blue Origin. [21:12] We're helping with anomaly investigation on the rocket. We're helping with pad rebuild. [21:16] Most importantly we're helping continue to move the lander along. We can't slow down. [21:20] They're of course they're going to get their arms around the anomaly. They've honed in already on [21:24] a potential engine issue. They're going to solve that right. You go back to the late 1950s early 1960s [21:29] you can see YouTube videos of NASA rockets having issues all the time. It's how we learn. No one got [21:34] hurt in this. So they're going to learn. They're going to fix their engine. They're going to rebuild their pad. [21:38] They're going to get back to launching rockets. NASA's there to help. And like I said it's the healthiest launch [21:41] market in the history of America's space program. We have lots of providers that can contribute. [21:45] We've got to keep the lander progressing and ensure we have the right outcome which is a successful [21:49] Artemis 3 mission and then we land on Artemis 4. In our remaining seconds you mentioned moon bases. [21:54] By 2029 you want to have humans living on the moon for extended periods of time right? Well I would say [22:00] starting in 2027 we want to start building the base. In 2028 when the NASA astronauts get to the [22:05] surface of the moon there's going to be a buggy there, a lunar terrain vehicle. There's going to be the [22:08] start of infrastructure. 2029 you're going to have more infrastructure. But I would say early 2030s the [22:14] moon is going to be like the International Space Station. You're going to have crews that are there [22:17] on pretty extended periods of time as we learn in that environment and prepare for Mars. Lots of money [22:22] required. Lots of work to be done. But we appreciate you being your NASA Administrator [22:26] Jared Geisinger. Happy Fourth of July. Appreciate it. Thank you. And we'll be right back with a lot more [22:30] Face the Nation. Stay with us. Welcome back to Face the Nation. Tomorrow the U.S. national [22:41] soccer team takes the field against Belgium in the round of 16 in the World Cup. And along with many [22:47] diehard Knicks fans, I'm still feeling the thrill of last month's NBA championship. And then there were [22:52] those amazing Olympic gold medal wins of both women and men's U.S. hockey teams. I could go on. But to [22:58] take a look at some of the big changes in college sports, including new rules allowing athletes to earn [23:04] money and schools to directly share revenue, we spoke with the president of the NCAA, former Massachusetts [23:10] Governor Charlie Baker and asked him about those changes. I think it's a good thing. Is it messy? [23:17] Yes. Could it have been less messy? Maybe. But when you go through something like this on this kind [23:24] of scale where you're talking about a billion dollars potentially going out to student athletes every [23:29] year, it's going to be challenging. And as a result, it has been. You're supportive of the bipartisan [23:36] protect college sports act because it establishes national standards on the name, image and likeness [23:42] program for for for student athletes because it limits player transfers and makes other changes that [23:49] are designed to be equitable, at least in the legislation across college athletics. But you know [23:54] several of the largest athletic conferences take issue with this legislation. So as Washington continues [24:00] debating it, why do you think it's necessary? Why do you think it's worth passing? [24:04] If you were to say to me, you know, is the eligibility system that we currently have working? [24:08] I mean, if everybody would comply with it and stay out of the courts, maybe, but they don't. [24:14] There is no agent regulation, which is a huge problem. You talk to any student athlete about [24:18] that and any school about it. They'll tell you that this provides some regulatory structure around [24:23] agents. It also deals with all the state preemption issues. What we're really trying to achieve is some [24:28] sort of national framework so that you can have national championships and national competitions [24:34] in which for all intents and purposes, everybody's playing by the same set of rules. Now, I understand [24:40] some of the concerns that the Big Ten and the SEC in particular raised with the bill. We have some [24:45] concerns with the bill too. But to simply walk away from something that deals with a number of the most [24:52] significant challenges that face college sports at that point in time, in my view, would be a mistake. [24:59] By allowing the NIL and allowing schools to directly share revenue, you are seeing different [25:07] Division I programs in other sports, other than football and basketball, which are the biggest, [25:12] get cut. Things like volleyball, track and field, a lot of the Olympic sports. And there's been a lot [25:16] of concern about that. What does this legislation do? What's the NCAA doing to ensure that while all [25:23] the money is going into football, basketball, lacrosse, maybe to some extent, volleyball, women's volleyball, [25:28] to some extent, but all those other sports, what do you want to protect those and ensure that athletes [25:32] who want to participate in those will still be able to do so? The idea that sports are being cut [25:40] only tells half the story. Because at the same time, certain sports may be being cut, other sports are [25:45] being introduced. If you look at the number of kids who are playing sports right now in Division I, [25:51] and you look at the number that are playing in Division II and Division III, they're basically at pretty close [25:56] to all-time highs. No one ever writes about or talks about or promotes the sports that get added. They [26:01] only talk about, which I understand, having come out of politics myself, about the sports that get cut. [26:07] We track all this stuff every quarter with respect to ads and subtracts with regard to [26:12] sports that are being made available and sports that are being reduced. But I think the idea that somehow [26:18] there's a crisis here, I don't buy it, first of all. And secondly, I think the legislation does deal [26:27] with this in a variety of ways. I happen to think there are better ways to deal with it, and it's an [26:32] important issue, and we're going to continue to talk to folks in the Senate about that. But I think this [26:37] notion that somehow paying or providing revenue sharing to kids in high-revenue sports, of which, [26:44] frankly, there's really only two, football and some basketball programs, people need to remember that [26:50] football and men's basketball, for the most part, supports all the other programs that schools make [26:56] available, especially in Division I. And that is not an insignificant issue when you think about this. [27:04] I believe that at the end of the day, the best way to deal with it is treat the sports that generate [27:09] significant amounts of revenue appropriately, right, and make sure there is this opportunity to share [27:14] revenue. In recent days, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to let states determine whether or not to [27:19] allow transgender athletes to participate in sports. Last year, the NCAA changed its policy [27:24] to align with the president's executive order threatening to revoke federal funding for schools [27:28] that permitted transgender athletes. The NCAA changed its policy in part, [27:32] saying it provides a clear national standard. In light of the high court's ruling, [27:37] do you foresee the NCAA having to tweak its transgender athletes' policy? [27:42] I don't think so. I mean, generally speaking, we try to establish policies [27:47] from most of our programs that can hopefully have a national standard to it. I had said to folks, [27:53] Democrats and Republicans in Washington, after I got this job, that we needed some sort of clarity [28:00] around what the national standard for this would be, and we adopted and comply with the standard [28:05] that was put forth by the Trump administration. I think what happens at the state level is a [28:10] different question, although I do think our national standard is going to be what we expect our schools [28:16] to use with respect to eligibility issues for college sports. There are a lot of people who look at [28:22] this and think, you know, I went to this university, it can't compete with some of these bigger ones. [28:28] Are we essentially in an era now where only the biggest brands and the deepest pockets in [28:34] college sports can expect to win basketball and football championships? [28:41] Well, I think football is a little different than some of the other sports. I think in football, [28:46] given the scale of what it takes to create a competitive program, which was true even before [28:50] the NIL era, that's probably a reasonable assumption. I think in most other sports, [28:58] there's still plenty of room for competition. I mean, if you look at baseball, for example, [29:03] Troy and Alabama made it to the College World Series. If you look at ice hockey, Denver won the [29:10] national championship. There are plenty of sports where there's still a lot of competition. What's [29:16] particularly interesting, I think, on the women's side is the scale and significance of [29:22] how much success the major programs and the power conference schools have had in growing and winning [29:32] in women's sports. The investments that they've made there have made an enormous difference in their [29:37] ability to out-compete just about everybody else. There are leaders at the Southeastern Conference, [29:43] for example. I'm thinking of the head coach and the president of the University of Georgia, [29:47] who've talked openly about the SEC breaking away from the NCAA if this legislation that's being [29:51] considered isn't considered favorable to the conference. And once the TV contracts come up, [29:56] why don't they just go their own separate way? What would you say to those in the SEC or other [30:02] leagues that say or conferences that say, yeah, let's just go out on our own? Well, they'll have a hard [30:09] time running national championships if they do that because everybody won't have the same rules. [30:13] I actually like and respect a lot of the people at Georgia in particular and at Ole Miss and at LSU [30:21] and at a whole bunch of those schools who I deal with on a pretty regular basis. I think the possibility [30:26] of trying to figure out some way to determine what really has to be a national standard to have national [30:33] championships and what you probably could do at a conference level because it doesn't necessarily [30:40] affect our ability to run national championships on a level playing field could be one way to think [30:46] about it. We'll be right back. On Wednesday, Margaret sat down with former CDC chief medical [30:55] officer Deborah Howery, who left the agency in protest after then-CDC director Susan Menares was [31:00] fired late last summer. Howery has provided a Senate committee with hundreds of emails documenting [31:05] the challenges at the agency during this Trump administration. Here's her story of what happened just [31:11] after President Trump took office. We started getting executive orders where we took down hundreds [31:17] of websites and I thought this is highly unusual. You know, science doesn't change based on who is in [31:24] office. And so when these things were happening, I knew this is different than before. I also didn't brief [31:32] the secretary, which was very different than prior administrations. So the websites you're talking [31:37] about being taken down, this was because of the executive order to remove references to [31:41] gender ideology. Yes, and that included the term gender. And gender was in many of our data sets. [31:50] Gender of animals, you know, we had transgender guidance around MPOCs. All of that we were told [31:57] to take down. So it included the CDC and FDA pulling down how physicians should treat STDs. [32:07] That seems important information. It's very important information, but it referred to [32:11] transgender. And you couldn't just do a word replace and said we highlighted things like this that, [32:18] you know, and again, as a doctor, it was very concerning to me that if you've got patients [32:22] and doctors that need specific clinical guidance to not be able to provide that information. [32:27] You also documented a scramble on the inside to get some of the sites back up. And this happened to be just a [32:33] day after the secretary had finished his confirmation hearings. [32:37] Why? We were told that there was a concern it could hurt the secretary's confirmation that if vaccine [32:44] related information was missing from the website, that it could reflect poorly on him. [32:49] Specifically information about vaccines? Yes. Because there was a concern that the secretary had expressed [32:56] anti-vaccine sentiments and that if CDC, as he was coming on board, didn't have information on vaccines [33:03] on the website that it had to do with his hearing and his direction. So all of these have been taken [33:09] down because you're trying to comply with what the president wanted. Correct. But then realizing it might [33:14] hurt votes to confirm the secretary, you had to scramble and put some of them back up. That's our [33:19] understanding. And to be very clear, when we took the websites down, we flagged that many of these [33:25] websites contained information such as that. I don't think they understood the volume or the impact [33:33] until media and others started noticing all the websites that were gone. [33:36] You know, during the secretary's confirmation hearing, he said all decisions would be free of [33:44] political influence and guided by science. But you received an email from his chief of staff telling [33:51] you of the quote, absolute need for political review of major decisions at the CDC. How different [33:59] is that from typical management? That has never happened before. Usually, you know, certainly there [34:04] would be political review of high level decisions, but not every decision. And scientists careers would be [34:12] at the table. I can tell you through my eight months when I was the transition lead and the only career in [34:17] the office of the director, I was not part of most of the conversations with the political [34:22] appointees at HHS. And did most of those political appointees have medical degrees? [34:27] I don't think any in HHS at that time had medical degrees. We had one person at CDC who was a political [34:34] appointee who had a medical degree. He didn't come for the first few months. And in the office of the [34:39] director, we had no one with a medical background or even a public health background. So the decisions [34:44] being made were by individuals who had no medical background? No medical background and not only no [34:51] medical background, no science background, and for many of them, no background in government. And [34:57] I want to be clear, it's certainly okay to have different perspectives, you know, and different [35:01] expertise. But then you want to make sure that the scientists and experts are also being heard [35:05] and part of those decisions. And we weren't. Back in 2024 2025, this was a really intense flu season, [35:14] the worst in more than 15 years, nearly 300 kids died. At that time, HHS had this awareness campaign [35:22] called Wild to Mild. And it encouraged everyone, it said six months and older, to get a flu shot. So one [35:30] day after Secretary Kennedy is sworn in, there are then a flurry of emails saying this is a direct [35:38] request. That was the language used from the secretary to pull down all of those ads. Why? [35:46] I first thought there's a misunderstanding where children are dying. It's an active flu season. [35:53] It's not like flu is over. And we'd already paid for these for these ads. So it didn't make any sense. [35:59] And so I brought it to our political leaders and brought it back to our communication staff and asked [36:04] them to please relay back to the department. Surely this isn't what you want. And then we got a note [36:10] back. It's a direct request from the secretary. A growing number of states, 29 plus DC, have announced [36:16] they're no longer following CDC recommendations as a benchmark for childhood vaccines. They said, [36:23] this is too much. Do you think that public health and faith in public health can be restored? [36:31] I think the secretary has caused a lot of irreparable harm. And when you look at [36:35] many of the polls out there, the trust in public health, specifically CDC, has decreased dramatically, [36:41] over 20 points in many polls. That's really difficult to recover from. And when states are [36:48] removing links to the CDC website and following other medical organizations, I don't know how you [36:55] build back that trust overnight. Autism and finding out more about it is a real focus for the secretary. [37:04] Before, when he was running for president himself, he put this at the top of his agenda as well. [37:09] A lot of families are looking to him with a lot of hope. Do you trust what is being conducted in [37:16] terms of research into autism? Absolutely not. And that's unfortunate because autism is a significant [37:23] issue in our country and worldwide. But there's not a single answer to it. You know, we know that 40 to 60 [37:30] percent is linked to some sort of genetic etiology. There's environmental factors. There's probably [37:37] infectious disease factors. So you need to really have a robust field of study around autism versus, [37:44] again, looking at a single question. And what we saw was back in February and March, we were asked to [37:51] look at autism. And we proposed several different ideas, including a large study looking at autism and [37:58] working with NIH. And what came back to us was, no, we want to look at the vaccine safety data link data [38:06] for autism. So narrowing in on vaccines and autism versus what we had proposed. And even more concerning [38:15] is when my staff reached out to NIH scientists who did autism work, they weren't aware that the NIH [38:22] acting director and some of the other NIH politicals had reached out to us about looking at vaccine and [38:29] autism and CDC data. How is that possible? I guess there wasn't communication between the NIH [38:37] politicals and the NIH experts on autism. And after that, there was no more communication between [38:43] our scientists and autism and the NIH scientists on autism around that topic. The Kennedy aides did [38:49] not trust the professionals within the CDC and the NIH. Is that fair? I'd say that's fair. In your [38:55] emails, there's one from the director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental [39:00] Disabilities. And she said they're looking in how to respond to questions about vaccine safety and [39:04] autism. And that's when you said, not until we're asked, and don't go so narrow. Whatever happened to [39:11] that? Was there ever a CDC study launched? No. Well, not on what I had proposed. What I proposed back to [39:18] that center director was that autism was an important thing to study. And we should be looking broader and [39:24] working with NIH. What came back instead was that NIH, the acting director, as well as the contractor, [39:32] John Powers, who's now NIH Institute acting director, were going to look at the vaccine safety data [39:38] with a lens towards autism. Back in April, the secretary held a press conference on what he [39:46] called the autism epidemic. And he claimed that the media has an ideology of epidemic denial, [39:53] that we are not asking enough questions about why there is an uptick. You wrote in one of your [40:00] documents here that there was a bit of concern that you heard after the secretary spoke. What concerns [40:05] were you hearing? Even, you know, President Trump's first Surgeon General, Jerome Adams, [40:10] put out on social media about how the secretary really focused on profound autism and not really [40:17] looking at the whole spectrum of autism and... Not looking at highly functional individuals. [40:22] Yeah. And just really demeaning, you know, in my mind, anybody with autism versus recognizing the [40:29] struggle that individuals and families have and how we could support them. And he, you know, really kind of [40:35] represented the data, like conflating information on states when a lot of it had to do with detection. [40:42] And if we had been able to brief him, like I had suggested, you know, since it was a CDC paper, [40:47] we could have walked through that with him, like what the statistical analyses meant, what some of [40:52] these findings meant, but we weren't given that opportunity. And there was backlash from many in [40:58] the autism community, including groups like Autism Speaks because of how the secretary spoke about autism. [41:03] And again, autism is impacting so many families in our nation. We need to look at it seriously, [41:10] and not with a conspiracy lens like the secretary is doing. [41:14] You say a conspiracy lens. The secretary from the podium said... [41:19] Somebody made a profit by putting that environmental toxin into our air, our water, our medicines, [41:25] our food. And it's to their benefit to say, oh, to normalize it, to say, oh, this is all normal, [41:32] it's always been here. You believe he had already concluded this, and that's what you were hearing? [41:39] It was also that, you know, in my emails, you'll see that he has requested data from 30-plus years [41:45] ago from studies that have been replicated, that Congress has found that there was no wrongdoing on, [41:53] because he was convinced that CDC was hiding information on autism and vaccines. [41:58] Again, if we want to do studies looking at all of autism, you know, and vaccines as a component of it, [42:06] maybe that's okay. But looking at studies from 30 years ago that have really been litigated over and [42:14] over, that's a waste of taxpayer money, and really, in my mind, a disservice to families that want to [42:21] know what is causing autism in their children and how can you treat it. [42:24] But he seemed to believe that there was a cover-up within the CDC. [42:29] Yes. And he had written about that in many of his books as well. When I was transition lead, [42:35] I had prepared for his arrival by reading many of his books and taking notes and had really looked [42:40] at what were some of the falsehoods in those books and tried, hopefully, to have a discussion [42:45] with him around what we had found in data, but that didn't happen. [42:48] In all of these documents, there also seems to be a theme here of the political leadership [42:55] being completely out of sync with the medical professionals, [43:00] and also disconnected from the Trump administration's doge cuts. [43:04] Yes. [43:05] One of the secretary's aides is emailing asking why data crunching hadn't been done for weeks, [43:10] and you explained the chief data officer and so many people on the IT team had just been laid off. [43:15] Yes. [43:16] Did they not know about the rifts and the layoffs? [43:20] It seems, you know, we had to really emphasize that at multiple points. You know, [43:25] once I got asked around a firefighter program and what was the, you know, [43:29] operating plan to make sure that program was still in place, and I explained, [43:34] we don't have one. They've all been laid off. You know, you can't replace firefighters with an [43:40] infectious disease specialist when they've been laid off. So similarly, when I got asked, [43:45] why is this taking so long? I said, you know, our chief data officer, our chief information officer, [43:51] and the head of our forecasting group were all part of the group that was rift, you know, [43:58] a reduction in force and or transferred to the Indian Health Service or put on administrative leave. [44:03] These cuts, when you lose 30% of your workforce, and over time we ended up losing about 80% of our [44:10] senior leaders had a dramatic impact on the functioning of the agency. [44:16] We've reached out to both HHS and the White House for comment and have not heard back. [44:21] We'll be back in a moment. That's it for us today. Thanks for watching. [44:29] Margaret will be back next Sunday. Enjoy the rest of the holiday weekend. Until then, [44:33] for Face the Nation, I'm Ed O'Keefe.