Rep. Ilhan Omar, Scott Bessent and more — "Face the Nation" Full Broadcast - Dec. 7, 2025

[0:01] I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington and this week on Face the Nation, in this holiday season with [0:06] more Americans saying they're feeling the pain of higher prices, we'll talk exclusively with [0:11] Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett. As Washington winds down 2025, there's still a lot of unfinished [0:18] business for Congress and President Trump. And as Trump's Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth doubles [0:24] down on those boat strikes in the Caribbean. We are tracking them, we are killing them, [0:30] and we will keep killing them so long as they are poisoning our people with narcotics so lethal [0:35] that they're tantamount to chemical weapons. The debate over whether they were lawful [0:40] ramps up on Capitol Hill. We'll talk with the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, [0:46] Connecticut's Jim Himes. Plus, the deportation roundups continue in the nation's cities, [0:52] this time targeting communities in Minneapolis, including the congresswoman who represents most [0:57] of the city. Ilhan Omar is garbage. She's garbage. Her friends are garbage. These are people that work. [1:05] We'll talk with Representative Ilhan Omar. And finally, a major change to vaccine guidance for [1:12] newborns, recommended by a panel of advisers chosen by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. [1:18] We have heard, do no harm is a moral imperative. We are doing harm. [1:24] Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb joins us to break it all down. [1:29] It's all just ahead on Face the Nation. Good morning and welcome to Face the Nation. We have [1:49] a lot of news to get to, and we begin with the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Besson. Good to have [1:54] you here. Good morning, Margaret. Mr. Secretary, a lot of people are out there holiday shopping. [1:59] Here is how the president described back in April what to expect from this season. [2:04] Maybe the children will have two dollars instead of 30 dollars, you know, [2:08] and maybe the two dollars will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally. [2:12] Was the president's prediction then correct? Margaret, it's actually been a very strong [2:18] holiday season. And the, you know, we've seen across the, all the income cohorts thus far. [2:24] And so there's nothing to say that there are two dollars instead of 30 dollars. [2:28] The president was wrong to predict lower numbers of purchases and higher prices. [2:34] The economy has been better than we thought. We've had the four, four percent GDP growth in [2:40] a couple of quarters. We're going to finish the year despite the Schumer shutdown with three [2:44] percent real GDP growth. Well, the maker of Tonka Trucks, their CEO said it's going to cost 40 bucks [2:50] for their toys right now because of tariffs and inflation. It was 30 bucks the year before that 25. [2:58] Prices in the toy space are accelerating and people are feeling that. [3:03] Well, Margaret, you know, inflation is a composite number and it's roughly the same year over year. [3:09] And, you know, if we were to look at all imported goods, imported goods inflation is below the [3:15] inflation number. The inflation number you mean? The PC, the PC number, which is about 2.9 percent. [3:23] Imported goods inflation is about 1.8. It's the service economy that's generating inflation, [3:29] which actually has nothing to do with tariffs. But when we hear from, for example, the president, [3:34] when he says that affordability is a con job by Democrats, that seems to just not be resonating [3:41] with consumers that have been polled by CBS. Sixty percent of Americans polled by this network told us [3:46] President Trump makes prices and inflation sound better than they really are. And his approval [3:51] rating on the economy is now down to 36 percent in our latest poll. On inflation, approval is even [3:57] lower, 32 percent. Don't you need to show that you feel the pain? Well, Margaret, I think the president's [4:05] frustrated by the media coverage of what's going on. This is the polling of average Americans. [4:10] Yeah, but I think the average Americans are hearing a lot of it from media coverage. And I will tell you [4:17] that affordability has two components. There's inflation and then there's real incomes. Real incomes are up [4:23] about 1 percent. And what we're not going to do is say that Americans don't know what they're feeling. [4:30] We've been working on it every day. I was on your show on March talking about affordability. [4:36] We've made a lot of gains. But remember, we've got this embedded inflation from the Biden years [4:41] where mainstream media, whether it's Greg up at The Wall Street Journal, [4:44] Toxic Paul Krugman at The New York Times, or former Vice Chair Alan Blinder all said it was a vibe [4:50] session. The American people don't know how good they have it. Now, Democrats created scarcity, [4:56] whether it was in energy or overregulation, that we are now seeing this affordability problem. And I [5:03] think next year we're going to move on to prosperity. You do think there is an affordability problem? [5:07] Sorry? You do believe there's an affordability problem? Oh, I think the Biden administration [5:11] created a terrible- No, but now, we're nearly 12 months in. You said the president would own the [5:15] economy at this point. I said that the Biden administration created the worst inflation in 50 [5:21] years. And maybe for working Americans, the worst inflation of all time. And we have pulled that [5:26] number down. That strategist research does something called the common man index. Under Biden, [5:32] the accumulated inflation number, as measured by CPI, was about 20%. Their index showed 35. This year, [5:40] for the first time, the common man index is below the inflation index because the basket of goods for [5:45] working Americans, food, gasoline, rent is coming down. So I wrote an essay, March 12th, 2024, [5:54] and it talked about the three I's, immigration, interest rates, and inflation. Immigrant mass [6:00] unfettered immigration, depressed wages, caused housing prices to go up. President has closed the border. [6:06] That is fixed. Interest rates have come down. The bond market just had the best year since 2020. And [6:13] now we are working on inflation. And I expect inflation to roll down strongly next year. [6:18] Well, I mean, grocery prices are up nearly 3% compared to last September. The president seems [6:23] to be acknowledging that grocery prices, or at least beef prices, are a challenge because he put [6:29] out this order just yesterday saying they're going to investigate corporate price gouging for high beef [6:35] prices. Isn't suing the food companies the same thing the Biden administration did and it [6:39] didn't really work? How is this any different? Nothing the Biden administration did work. [6:44] So why are you doing it? Because this isn't the same thing. If they had done this, if they'd done [6:49] it properly, we'd be in a different spot. And beef is one component. Thanksgiving turkey was down 16%. [6:57] Well, I know you are working on the trade front. And for American farmers and the prices that they are [7:04] experiencing, they're feeling a pinch about not having a market to sell into necessarily. [7:09] Not anymore. Well, the agricultural secretary just said that the president's going to announce [7:14] a bridge payment for farmers this week to give them short-term relief while you're working on these, [7:19] finalizing these trade packages. There are these low crop prices. And the soybeans in particular, [7:25] I know you spoke with China's vice premier Friday. Are they going to speed purchasing up? [7:29] Well, they're not going to speed purchasing up. They're in the cadence that we agreed to. Soybean [7:32] prices are up about 12% or 15% since the agreement with the Chinese. They are going to buy 12.5 million [7:41] metric tons. But Margaret, I'm involved in the agriculture industry. I run a soybean farm. [7:47] And I can tell you- You own one. You invest in it. [7:49] Sorry? You own or invest a soybean farm. [7:51] And people in my family go out and work on it. I actually just divested it this week as part of [7:56] my ethics agreement. So I'm out of that business. But I probably know more about any treasury secretary [8:02] than about agriculture since the 1800s. And I can tell you that what farmers need is certainty. [8:10] And we have put that in place with this trade deal. 12.5 million metric tons this year, [8:15] 25 million metric tons for the next three years for soybeans, also sorghum and lumber. [8:22] So those purchases, just to clarify, those will be this year? Because I heard you say this past week [8:28] that some of the purchases wouldn't take place until February. [8:31] Well, for the season. So the crop year. [8:36] The season year. [8:36] Yep. [8:37] Okay. But why, if everything's fine, then why do farmers need a bridge payment from the [8:41] agricultural department? [8:43] Sorry? [8:44] Why would farmers need a bridge payment from the agriculture department then? [8:48] Because these prices haven't come in because the Chinese actually used our soybean farmers as [8:53] pawns in the trade negotiations. And we are going to create this bridge because again, [9:00] agriculture is all about the future. You've got to start financing for planning next year. [9:06] They'll win things will be very good. [9:07] I want to ask you about something that was announced this past week, the Trump accounts and building on [9:12] this concept. So parents, as I understand, are going to be able to open these accounts via the treasury. [9:18] For their kids, their tax deferred investment vehicles to US citizen children under 18, [9:24] get $1,000 from the government for babies born between 2025 and 2028. So there are going to be [9:32] restrictions on what the money can be used for college tuition or their first house. Is that right? [9:36] No, it is. The federal government for children born in the period you just described is going to [9:43] put $1,000 into these Trump accounts. It will be invested in a widely diversified low-cost index, [9:50] and then it will be available- In the stock market. [9:53] In the stock market. [9:53] An exchange-traded fund or mutual fund. [9:55] So in essence, it is a trust fund. It is a piece of the American economy for every child, [10:01] and they will be able to take it out when they're 18, or they could convert it to a more [10:06] IRA-type program and keep it for their retirement. [10:09] So there won't be the restrictions I mentioned there about how they use the money? [10:12] No. [10:13] Okay. So there was also a broadening of this this past week with the Dell Foundation [10:19] making a significant investment in the American children. So how is this going to work? Why [10:29] structure it this way instead of a savings account, for example? [10:32] Well, a savings account just gets interest. This is the compounding power of the stock market. As [10:39] Warren Buffett says, don't bet against the American stock market. Don't bet against the economy. [10:43] And this is going to bring a whole group of new investors into the market. We're going to couple [10:50] it with a big amount of financial literacy so that children understand what they own. [10:55] The incredible gift by Michael and Susan Dell will be the- is a program that philanthropists, [11:03] foundations can do to top up these accounts. And we are expecting- we're already- Treasuries are [11:09] already in discussions with foundations, with major philanthropists to top up these accounts. It could [11:15] either be for all- all children or you can specify it by zip code, a school district, or you can do what [11:22] the- the Dells did and say that it will be- won't apply to the zip codes of the top 20% of earners. [11:28] And more information is going to be coming out on how to use this and access it? [11:32] Yes. In the coming weeks, we'll do that. And then the official kickoff will be July 5th. [11:38] Before I let you go, I want to ask you about this massive fraud out in Minnesota and the state [11:43] welfare program has been under federal investigation since all the way back in 2022. The president told [11:50] you, though, this week to look into Somalis who, quote, ripped off that state for billions of [11:55] dollars. He said they contribute nothing. What exactly are you investigating? [11:59] Well, Margaret, to be clear, the initial fraud was discovered by the IRS, for which I'm the acting [12:07] commissioner. It was discovered by IRS Criminal Investigations Unit. This was not an endogenous thing [12:14] that the state of Minnesota decided we had to go in and clean up the mess for them. And this is part of [12:19] the continued cleanup. A lot of money has been transferred from the individuals who committed [12:26] this fraud, including those who donated to the governor, donated to represent Omar, and donated [12:32] to A.G. Ellison. But they've been transferred to something called MBSs. And those are- [12:40] Mortgage-backed securities? What do you mean? [12:42] Sorry? Transferred to what? [12:44] These are money, the bureau services, and they are wire transfer organizations that are outside [12:52] the regulated banking system. And that money has gone overseas. And we are tracking that, [13:00] both to the Middle East and Somalia, to see what the uses of that have been. [13:04] Okay. But you have no evidence of that money being used to fuel terrorism at this point, [13:10] which is what some conservative rioters are alleging. [13:12] That's why it's an investigation. We started it last week. We'll see where it goes. But I can tell [13:18] you that it's terrible. Representative Omar tried to downplay it, said, oh, it was very tough to know [13:29] how this money should be used. She was gaslighting the American people. [13:34] Well, we'll talk to her. [13:35] Yeah. But when you come to this country, you've got to learn which side of the road to drive on. [13:39] You've got to learn to stop signs. And you've got to learn not to defraud the American people. [13:44] Well, there are plenty of criminal behavior from communities well beyond the immigrant community. [13:51] But we'll talk about this with Representative Omar shortly. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [13:55] Good. [13:55] We'll be back in a minute. Stay with us. [13:57] And we're joined now by Minnesota Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. Welcome to the program. [14:06] Thank you. What a good friend. [14:07] We have a lot to get to with you, but I want to pick up on where the treasury secretary just left [14:11] off. He alleged that people who were tied to you or your campaign were involved in this broad, [14:19] brazen scheme to rip off the Minnesota state welfare system. Do you want to respond to that? [14:26] Do you know what he is referring to? [14:28] I really don't. And I don't think the secretary himself understands what he's referring to. [14:32] We obviously had people who were able to donate to our campaign that were involved. We send that money [14:41] back a couple years ago. And actually, I was one of the first members of Congress to send a letter to [14:49] the secretary of egg asking them to look into what I thought was a reprehensible fraud that was occurring [14:58] within the program. [14:59] So this was just for our audience, the Binary Justice Department called it the largest COVID [15:05] fraud scheme in the country. And this was pocketing COVID-era welfare funds, more than a billion [15:11] dollars in taxpayer money that was stolen. It was pretty, pretty shocking. Of the 87 people charged, [15:18] all but eight are of Somali descent. And that has added to the spotlight being put specifically [15:25] on your community. Why do you think this fraud was allowed to get so widespread? [15:31] Well, I want to say, you know, this also has an impact on Somalis because we are also taxpayers in [15:42] Minnesota. We also could have benefited from the program and the money that was stolen. And so it's [15:51] been really frustrating for people to not acknowledge the fact that we're, you know, we're also, [16:00] as Minnesotans, as taxpayers, really upset and angry about the fraud that has occurred. [16:07] Mm-hmm. So do you think, though, that there was a failure by the Democratic [16:13] state government to police itself? This is a brazen, fraudulent activity here. [16:19] Yeah. And that is what I alluded to in my letter that I had sent to the Secretary of Egg, [16:26] was to see where things were going wrong. How can this amount of money disappear fraudulently [16:34] without there being alarms being set off? And it is something that, you know, we have to continue [16:42] to investigate. We have to continue to ask those questions. Because, as you know, one of the initial [16:47] defenses by the organization at the heart of the fraud feeding our future was to claim the probe was [16:52] due to racism. Do you think that this was all about negligence or that it was like political fear of [16:59] alienating the Somali community? So you have to remember that the woman who led the program is a [17:07] Caucasian woman. And that was her way of making sure that this would continue to happen by using whatever [17:16] rhetoric that was available to her. We do know that when the money was stopped, they did sue. The AG, [17:25] Attorney General Keith Ellison, defended the department in that lawsuit. It was a judge [17:33] that said that money should continue to go out. And so this wasn't something that people were not [17:40] looking at. There was always those alarms. And we will continue to understand where things might have [17:47] gone wrong as these investigations continue and as these fraudsters are prosecuted and sent to jail. [17:54] Well, it's going to have impact for your community because we've already heard that the head of [17:58] Medicare and Medicaid say they're going to have a new policy that applies to Minnesota. You heard [18:01] the Treasury Secretary say they're investigating. But there's another threat here because House [18:07] Republicans and the Treasury Secretary just now talked about a link to terrorism, a possible link. [18:12] He said they're just now beginning to look into it. How confident are you that that's a false claim? [18:18] I'm pretty confident at the moment because there are people who have been prosecuted and who have [18:27] been sentenced. If there was a linkage in that the money that they have stolen going to terrorism, [18:33] then that is a failure of the FBI and our court system in not figuring that out and basically [18:43] charging them with these charges. And so I do know that for many years, this sort of alarm that there [18:54] is money being transferred through the airport in bags and going to terrorism, that accusation has [19:01] always existed. There's never been here and there in those accusations. But if that is the case, [19:08] if money from U.S. tax dollars is being sent to help with terrorism in Somalia, we want to know. [19:18] Yeah. And we want those people prosecuted. And we want to make sure that that doesn't ever happen again. [19:24] So there are 80,000 people of Somali descent in your state, but the president has been very focused, [19:31] not just on them, but on you. In this extraordinary cabinet meeting, he said Somalis, quote, [19:37] come from hell. They complain and they do nothing but bitch. Take a listen. [19:44] These are people that do nothing but complain. They complain. And from where they came from, [19:50] they got nothing. We don't want them in our country. Let them go back to where they came from and fix it. [20:02] That knocking is vehement agreement from his cabinet members there. I just wonder what the [20:07] reaction is in your district to have that from the highest office in the land. [20:12] It's disgusting. It's completely disgusting. These are Americans that he is calling garbage. [20:20] And we feel like there is an unhealthy obsession that he has on the Somali community and an unhealthy [20:28] and creepy obsession that he has with me. I think it is also really important for us to remember that [20:36] this kind of hateful rhetoric and this level of dehumanizing can lead to dangerous actions by [20:45] people who listen to the president. And 95 percent of the Somalis in your state are U.S. citizens. [20:51] Yes. Just for clarity there. But the president has restricted all immigration processing, [20:58] including asylum claims from Somalis already on U.S. soil, along with 18 other countries. [21:03] ICE reports it has rounded up about 19 people and they put out press releases with the images of [21:09] about five of them that they say are the worst of the worst. Is that the entirety of the crackdown to [21:15] date? Yeah. So far we know of the people that they've picked up in Minnesota. About five of them are [21:22] Somalis. And from what I have read and from the people that I've spoken to, all of them had already had [21:29] orders of removal. So these are not people who are undocumented, but people who have committed crimes [21:38] and who should have already been sent out of the country. I want to ask you something else that the [21:43] architect of the president's immigration policy, Stephen Miller, said. On Thanksgiving Day, he posted, [21:50] no magic transformation occurs when failed states cross borders. At scale, migrants and their [21:55] descendants recreate the conditions and terrors of their broken homelands. What do you make of this [22:00] argument of failure to assimilate and sort of ruining America? How do you understand this? [22:08] I mean, when I think about Stephen Miller and his white supremacist rhetoric, it reminds me, [22:15] yes, it reminds me of the way the Nazis described Jewish people in Germany. And, you know, as we know, [22:24] there have been many immigrants who have tried to come to the United States, who have turned back, [22:29] one of them being Jewish immigrants. We know the way that people were described who were coming from [22:35] Ireland, Irish immigrants. We know the way in which people were described back then when they were [22:42] Italian immigrants. And to me, you know, we're, we're, yes, of course, ethnically Somali. We are in [22:49] this country as Americans. Yeah. We are citizens. We are productive, um, part of, of this nation, [22:56] and we will continue to be. Congresswoman Omar, thank you for your time today. And we'll be right back [23:03] with a lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us. Welcome back to Face the Nation. We turn now to the [23:16] top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Jim Himes. He joins us this morning [23:21] from Connecticut. Welcome back to Face the Nation. Thanks for having me, Margaret. [23:25] You are one of the few lawmakers, uh, shown the classified version of this September 2nd [23:31] video of the U.S. strikes an alleged drug boat near Venezuela. Four strikes in total, [23:36] we've learned. Um, you met with Admiral Bradley, who commands special operations as well. [23:42] The president of the United States says he's open to this video being made public. Do you think it [23:47] is essential that it become public? And are you confident it will be? Um, I think it's really [23:52] important that this video be made public. Um, it's not lost on anyone, of course, that the, uh, [23:58] interpretation of the video, which, you know, six or seven of us had an opportunity to see last week, [24:03] broke down precisely on party lines. Um, and so this is an instance in which I think the American public [24:09] needs to judge for itself. I know how the public is going to be react is going to react because, [24:14] uh, I felt my own reaction. You know, I've spent years looking at, um, videos of, uh, lethal action [24:21] taken often in the, um, terrorism context. And this video was profoundly shaking and shaken. And I think [24:29] it's important for Americans to see it because look, there's a certain amount of sympathy out there for [24:33] going after, uh, drug runners. Um, but I think it's really important that people see what it looks [24:39] like when the full force of the United States military is turned on two guys who are clinging [24:44] to a piece of wood and about to go under, uh, just so that they have sort of a visceral feel for what [24:48] it is that we're doing. Why was it, why did it shake you so much? What specifically was bothering you? [24:55] Well, you know, and this is sort of the distinction and there's a lot to unpack here about whether this [25:00] is an authorized military action, which it is not. Um, and right on down to whether these were [25:06] legitimate, legitimate targets and they were not. But let me go back to some of the [25:10] reviews I've done of other lethal action. Um, oftentimes when the department of defense [25:16] takes a strike against a terrorist in Yemen or Pakistan or wherever, you watch a video of guys fully [25:21] armed with AK 47s and sidearms and bombs and you name it. And they're on their way to do something [25:27] terrible. Uh, and in this instance, you may have had bad guys. I have no doubt that these guys were [25:33] involved in the running of drugs. Now, whether they were running it to the United States or Europe is [25:38] yet another question. But in that instance, um, these guys were about to die. Had the United States [25:44] just walked away, their little piece of wood would have gone under the waves. And as many times as Tom [25:49] Cotton may say that it doesn't matter what they were doing, it matters essentially what they were [25:54] doing because under the law. And if you've spent 15 minutes in law school, you know, this under the [25:59] law, if someone has been struck and is in continues to engage in hostilities, uh, points a gun at you, [26:06] has a gun. They may be a legitimate target, but if they are outside of combat, um, they are not. And [26:12] attacking them is a violation of the laws of war. And these guys, and this is why the American people [26:17] need to see this video, these guys were, were, were barely alive, uh, much less engaging in hostilities. [26:24] Well, the, the DOD law of war manual seems to hinge a lot of that, um, on whether the person is [26:31] wholly disabled from fighting. And that is where the secretary of defense has used language saying they're [26:37] about to return to the fight. I'm going to play for you what secretary Hanks has said at the Reagan [26:42] Forum Saturday. He described what was happening with these four strikes on the alleged drug running [26:48] vote. A couple hours later, I was told, hey, there had to be a re-attack, uh, because there were [26:54] a couple of folks that could still be in the fight, access to radios. There was a link up point of [26:59] another potential boat. Drugs were still there. They were actively interacting with them. Had to take [27:04] that read. I said, Roger, sounds good. Does what Hegseth said match what Admiral Bradley told you? [27:11] Well, there was a lot of lack of clarity over exactly what Pete Hegseth's role here was. Um, [27:18] but Pete Hegseth has no credibility on this matter, right? Remember a week after this strike, [27:23] there was a briefing for Congress. Why was a followup strike taken? The answer then in the [27:27] first week of September was a followup strike was taken because we needed to clear the wreckage [27:33] so that there wasn't a danger to navigation. That was explanation number one. Explanation number two, [27:38] right before we watched the video was that they might have had a radio and they might have been [27:42] radioing a boat and they might have been trying to recover the cocaine. And then when you actually [27:46] watch the video, you realize they don't have a radio. They're barely hanging on and not slipping [27:51] beneath the waves. Then we get this thing of how they're trying to right the boat. This was about [27:56] a 40 foot boat that had just been hit with a massive piece of munitions. The conflagration probably [28:02] destroyed everything in that boat, but oh, maybe they might've swum under, gotten a radio, [28:07] probably waterlogged and radioed a boat that we're not even sure was there. So what we've had is a [28:12] series of shifting explanations. Oh, and including the fog of war, right? Uh, you know, that Hegseth said, [28:18] well, they took the second strike because of the fog of war. There was no fog. Um, the military watched [28:24] this boat very carefully, or I shouldn't even say boat. They watched the wreckage of the boat [28:28] very carefully for a long period of time before they took the second strike. So look, what Pete [28:33] Hegseth says about this strike has zero credibility at this point. Do you have confidence in Admiral [28:38] Bradley? You know, um, Admiral Bradley, um, this was my first meeting with him. Anyone who has ever [28:44] worked with Admiral Bradley will tell you that he has a storied career and that he is a man of deep, [28:49] deep integrity. And frankly, I have no reason to doubt that. Um, what it raises is what happens when [28:55] an apparently good man like Admiral Bradley is placed in a context where he knows that if he [29:01] countermands an order that he is perhaps uncomfortable with, it is very likely that he'll, [29:05] he will be fired when he works for a guy, Pete Hegseth, who wrote a book about how we shouldn't [29:11] observe the laws of war, about how we need to be lethal and separate. It's interesting to think [29:15] about how a good man in that context maybe does something that if he weren't in that context, [29:21] he might not do. Well, it's Senator Tom Cotton, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, [29:25] said there were dozens of Jag law lawyers observing all of this. On NBC this morning, [29:31] he said all 11 people on the suspected drug smuggling boat were valid targets because the [29:36] U.S. had high confidence they were part of a foreign terrorist organization. Do you know, [29:41] were these high level cartel members? No, of course not. Of course not. Who were they? [29:47] If the U.S. had high confidence. Do you think Pablo Escobar back? [29:51] Well, first of all, first of all, let's be super clear about this. Uh, [29:54] I don't think we knew the identities of any of the people in the boat. We might have known one or two. [29:58] I don't know. But we certainly didn't know the identities of all 11. So nobody can characterize [30:03] who all these people in any of these boats are. Now, I have enough confidence in the intelligence [30:08] community to know that these are probably not guys out fishing or guys out, you know, being tourists [30:13] and stuff. They are almost certainly running drugs. But this really matters for the reason that you said. [30:18] You know, if you're going to occupy an immense amount of the American naval combat capability, [30:24] you'd like to believe that you're going after the leaders, the cartel leaders, the kingpins, [30:30] as they say. What we're doing here is we're taking out the equivalent of the corner drug dealer in the [30:35] Bronx, right? Which by the way, we should arrest the corner drug dealer in the Bronx. But the main [30:40] reason we do that is to go after the kingpins, who I promise you are sitting in very comfortable [30:45] villas right now in Colombia and Venezuela and everywhere and watching as much of the United [30:49] States Navy is dedicated to taking out their lowest level employees. So I hear you saying they were not [30:54] on an internal military target list for high value individuals. That's what I hear what you're saying. [30:59] Well, this is an interesting question. I'm not at all convinced that there is a list of individuals. [31:04] Now, this is what we do in the terrorism world, right? We designate high value targets. We designate [31:09] individuals. I have no reason to believe. And in fact, I doubt that there are any individuals on the list [31:14] anywhere. What we are doing, and I'm not going to get terribly specific about it for obvious reasons, [31:18] but what we are doing is we're picking up that this boat may be carrying drugs. And to the [31:24] administration, it doesn't matter who's in that boat because, and look, they're saying this because [31:28] if this boat is actually carrying drugs, then we can strike it. So no, I don't think there is a list [31:33] of individuals. I don't think we have any idea who precisely the individuals in these boats are. [31:39] So as I understand it, these are signature strikes. This is an intelligence assessment [31:45] based on signals intelligence saying this is who we believe these individuals to be. [31:50] You know, some of these defenders of the Trump policy, like conservative columnists, [31:55] have argued this is a precedent that was set by the Obama administration, which used signature [31:59] strikes to kill alleged al-Qaeda operatives, including a U.S. citizen at one point in Yemen. [32:05] Do they have a point here that the drone policy has long allowed the killing of suspected criminals, [32:10] even without due process? Well, there's a couple of really important distinctions. [32:16] And you'll remember that the Obama administration, there was a lot of debate over whether signature [32:20] strikes were okay or were not. The most important distinction is that Congress authorized the war on [32:26] terror. There is an authorization for the use of military force. The original sin of this whole thing, [32:32] whether you think we should be wasting these guys or not, the original sin is that there is no [32:35] congressional authorization. And then in the Obama administration, they did have a list of [32:41] individuals, right? Often high value targets or HVTs, as we've referred to them. And then the question [32:47] was, if you have an HVT, a high value target in a Jeep in Northern Pakistan, and there's a guy next to [32:53] that HVT, you know, how do you feel about taking that strike? You want to take down the high value guy, [32:58] but what about the young guy next to him? Well, the young guy has an AK-47 and the young guy was [33:03] actually arranging for the transfer of explosives. You have that conversation and then you decide [33:09] whether you're going to take the strike right now, what we're doing. And again, don't, I don't think [33:13] that there's a list of individuals anywhere. They're just saying that boat is carrying drugs. [33:18] And even though military is not authorized by the Congress of the United States, we're taking out the [33:22] boat and we don't give a damn about who's on it. Well, and when you say, I don't think you are a [33:26] member of the Gang of Eight, so presumably that information should be shared with you if it does [33:30] exist. I want to ask you before I let you go, Signal Gate, people may remember a few months ago, [33:37] the Trump, a Trump official added a journalist to an online group on Signal and shared advanced [33:42] information of an upcoming bombing operation in Yemen. The Pentagon inspector general said Hegseth's [33:48] actions risked operational security and violated federal laws on record keeping. Hegseth said he'd do the [33:53] same thing all over again. Are your Republican colleagues saying in private that they have [33:58] problems with what happened? Absolutely. They're saying it in private. In public, of course, [34:02] they're saying that it was perfect exoneration, right? That this report, and you read the key line, [34:07] that this report that said that the secretary of defense put his troops in the mission at risk, [34:12] that that's total exoneration. Now, I didn't hear the comment about I would do this again, [34:17] but if Pete Hegseth said he would do that again, and look again, you don't need to be a military [34:21] expert to understand that sharing operational details before an operation is a really, really, [34:26] really bad idea. If Pete Hegseth said that, that he would do that again, you know, he's just [34:31] reinforcing what we all know, which is that he has absolutely no business in that job. One of the most [34:36] sensitive and difficult jobs to do in the United States government is being done by somebody who put [34:41] his own people and the mission at risk. He said he lives life without regret at the Reagan Forum. [34:48] That was the phrase, to be more exact. But Congressman Himes, always good to have you on [34:53] the program. I'll have to leave it there for today. We'll be right back. [34:56] For a look at some recent changes to U.S. public health policy, we're joined now by former FDA [35:05] commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb. He also serves on the boards of Pfizer and United Healthcare. [35:10] Welcome back. Thank you. [35:13] You know, there was some pretty big news on Friday, and the American Academy of Pediatrics said they [35:19] are deeply alarmed that the CDC's vaccine advisory panel, ACIP, voted in this 8-3 decision [35:27] to change this 30-year-long policy regarding hepatitis B in newborns. They are now recommending [35:35] delaying the dose until a child is two months old instead of within 24 hours of birth. [35:41] What does this decision mean for families of newborns? [35:45] DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB- Yes, well, look, I think we first need to understand why we give that birth [35:50] dose to the vaccine, because the idea of giving a vaccine to a newborn to a lot of parents sounds [35:55] discomforting, that the first thing a child is going to face when they're born is going to be [35:58] a vaccine within the first 24 hours. For a child over the age of 5, if they develop hepatitis B infection, [36:05] if they're exposed to it, they're going to have a 95 percent chance of clearing that infection, [36:09] and they will go on to develop lifelong immunity. For children between the ages of 1 and 5, [36:13] they only have about a 25 to 50 percent chance of clearing the infection. So about 25 to 50 percent [36:19] of kids will develop chronic infection, and about a quarter of them will go on to die from hepatitis B, [36:25] if they're between the ages of 1 and 5. So children are more vulnerable to this virus and can't clear [36:29] the infection. But when you're talking about a newborn, an infant, 90 percent of newborns who become [36:35] infected, and they will become infected during delivery, will go on to develop chronic infection. [36:40] They won't be able to clear the hepatitis B, and about 25 percent of them will die from sequelae [36:45] of that infection, either from liver disease, cirrhosis, or from liver cancer. So we have this [36:50] unique opportunity by giving this birth dose and the subsequent inoculations to virtually eliminate [36:55] the chance that a newborn can contract hepatitis B and go on to develop chronic infection. It's almost [37:00] 99 percent effective at preventing that chronic infection. And the refrain is, and one final point, [37:06] the refrain is, oh, sorry, please. No, no. And this decision now is to wait two months [37:12] before giving that dose. Right. The president of the United States came out and said this was very good [37:18] because hep B is only transmitted sexually or through dirty needles. Yeah, look, that's the problem. [37:25] That's simply not true. The fact is, there's a refrain that if you just test the moms during, [37:32] while they're pregnant, you can detect whether they have hepatitis B. And if they have hepatitis B, [37:36] you continue to give that birth dose. But the reality is, many moms don't get tested, [37:41] even though they intend to. Many times, those test results aren't checked. [37:44] And the tests themselves have a false negative rate, meaning they're going to say you don't have [37:48] hepatitis B, when, in fact, you do, of about 2 percent. That may not sound like a lot, [37:52] but that 2 percent is going to translate into at least 1,000 babies being born and getting infected [37:58] with hepatitis B. There was one modeling estimate that estimated, in the first year of this new guidance, [38:03] there's going to be 1,400 children, infants, contracting hepatitis B. And again, 25 percent of [38:08] them will die from that infection. Well, we look at this because there is this broader [38:15] scrutiny of vaccines right now by the Trump administration. And in this board decision, [38:20] which the public could listen into, it was publicly broadcast. The board was handpicked by RFK [38:26] Jr., who is a skeptic here of vaccines. From those who voted against the decision to delay, [38:34] one of them, who you heard at the top of the show, said the CDC is doing harm. Another said no [38:40] rational science has been presented, and the committee must accept responsibility when harm is [38:46] caused. Those are pretty extraordinary statements. If the group making a decision that has such high [38:52] consequences for the most vulnerable Americans isn't basing it on science, no rational science, [38:59] what does that indicate about what comes next? [39:01] Well, look, this is the ACIP by and large, except for a handful of members are anti-vax activists who [39:10] were put there to carry out a specific agenda. And look, the secretary, to his credit, has been very [39:15] honest about what his intentions are here. He's the most prominent anti-vaxxer in the country prior to [39:20] coming into this position. And he stated that his goal is to eliminate childhood immunization, [39:25] or many of these childhood immunizations. And I think they're going to take a methodical approach [39:29] and slowly chip away at this. This is a big unforced error insofar as ACIP was [39:34] a esteemed body that a lot of states tie their own decision-making to. And what we're seeing right now [39:39] is, as a group, it's being degraded. And I don't think it will ever be restored. I don't think you [39:43] can just flip the switch and restore this, where people are going to suddenly respect its decisions again. [39:49] There's about 600 state laws that were tied to decisions ACIP made. About 17 states have [39:54] already passed new legislation saying they will no longer respect the decisions of ACIP. The [39:58] insurers came out and said they're going to tie their own coverage decisions to the professional [40:03] bodies like the American Academy of Pediatrics and not ACIP. So I think, in time, ACIP is going [40:07] to be fully degraded as a decision-making body, and it's going to be more symbolic. There will be [40:12] certain states that adhere to it, but it will be more symbolic. [40:15] So you, this week, we saw a big sell-off in biotech stocks following these reports that the FDA, [40:23] which you used to run the first part of the Trump administration, is now going to require one study [40:28] to clinch approval of vaccines. You were one of the former commissioners who put out this [40:34] really extraordinary editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, arguing that the FDA and top [40:40] vaccine regulator, Dr. Vinay Prasad, are changing policies in a way that's going to slow down [40:45] new and better vaccines. What specifically is the problem you see? Because this isn't just [40:51] hep B. This is the vaccines of the future you're saying just won't be created. [40:57] Right. So Vinay Prasad, who is the head of the biologic center, also oversees the vaccine division. [41:03] He also has been appointed the head of biostatistics, the chief medical officer of the agency, [41:07] and the chief scientific officer. So he occupies a lot of positions, [41:10] put out a memo saying that they're going to do away with or move away from what they call [41:14] immuno-bridging studies. These are studies that allow you for well-validated vaccines, [41:19] like the flu vaccine, to be able to demonstrate each year that the vaccine, [41:23] the new vaccine that's formulated against the circulating strain can elicit antibodies that [41:28] are effective against that particular strain. And that could be the basis of approval, [41:31] rather than requiring new outcome studies every year to prove that the vaccine actually reduces [41:36] the incidence of influenza. For established vaccines, where we know that antibody production [41:40] is a good correlate for immunity, this has been a longstanding practice. We do it for flu vaccine. [41:45] We do it in COVID, certainly. We do it for things like pneumococcal vaccine, [41:50] the vaccine for pneumococcal disease, where we look at serotypes, circulating bacterial serotypes. [41:56] This allows us to update vaccines as these viral and bacterial strains change and as the [42:01] composition of the strains change in time to provide protection for the fall respiratory season. [42:06] If they move away from this, which is what he said they planned to do, [42:09] we're just not going to be able to update vaccines each season as we've done historically [42:13] to accommodate whatever the circulating strain is. [42:15] And 12 former FDA commissioners came out saying they're deeply concerned about what is happening. [42:22] That memo that made clear the changes that are happening within the FDA from Dr. Prasad [42:30] was obtained by CBS and it claimed that career FDA staff are making changes in part because they found [42:37] at least 10 children have died after and because of receiving the COVID vaccine, referred to it as a [42:43] profound revelation and asked, did it kill more healthy kids than it saved? The administration [42:50] to date has not backed up information to back up these claims, but what questions do you have for [42:55] the FDA commissioner? Because they're arguing they're doing this to help people. [43:01] Yeah, look, well, first of all, one thing doesn't flow from the next. So the idea, [43:05] if in fact they found cases where the COVID vaccine was linked to tragic deaths, [43:10] it doesn't then follow that you make these policy changes. In fact, [43:13] the policy changes wouldn't address what their concerns are related to the COVID vaccine itself. [43:19] These are every case needs to be carefully adjudicated. It's tragic to see any [43:24] suspected case that could be linked to a vaccine. And these were looked at previously by the FDA. [43:30] And I don't believe that the new FDA had access to the case level data. Analysis of cases, [43:35] individual cases that get filed with the agency where there is a death in proximity to vaccination, [43:39] and some of these are filed by the manufacturers themselves, are very subjective and require the [43:44] goodwill of the people involved in that. And so I think that they should make that analysis public so [43:48] it could be scrutinized and people can get comforted. They've already backed away from the 10. There's [43:52] reporting from endpoints that now they're saying it's eight or nine. So they're already backing away from it. [43:57] LISA DESJARDINS- Okay. And HHS said they will eventually make that data public. We'll look [44:02] for it when it comes out. Dr. Gottlieb, thank you for your analysis today. We'll be back in a moment. [44:06] Our Leslie Stahl spoke with Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene about her relationship [44:13] with President Trump for 60 Minutes. [44:15] SEN. LESLIE STAHL, I'm going to ask you about this almost solid support he has among Republicans in [44:23] Congress. Is there in that support fear? Does the support come about because they're afraid [44:31] that they'll get death threats? I think they're terrified to step out of line and get a nasty [44:36] truth social post on them. Yes. And they're watching what happened to you? [44:40] Yes. Behind the scenes, do they talk differently? [44:46] Yes. How? Oh, it would shock people. Well, let's shock people. [44:52] Okay. I watched many of my colleagues go from making fun of him, making fun of how he talks, [44:59] making fun of me constantly for supporting him, to when he won the primary in 2024. They all started, [45:09] excuse my language, Leslie, kissing his ass and decided to put on a MAGA hat for the first time. [45:16] You can see more of Leslie's interview tonight on 60 Minutes at 7 p.m. Eastern. We'll be right back. [45:20] That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week, [45:27] For Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan.