Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Dr. Deborah Birx, more — Face the Nation Full Broadcast - May 24, 2026

[0:01] I'm Nancy Cordes in Washington and this week on Face the Nation, U.S. negotiators appear to be [0:07] nearing a peace agreement with Iran. We'll have the latest. Sources familiar with the talks tell [0:13] CBS News that the latest proposal to end the war, which is now in its 13th week, includes a process [0:20] to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the unfreezing of some Iranian assets held in foreign banks, [0:26] and a continuation of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. We'll talk to the president's [0:32] top economic advisor, Kevin Hassett, about the impact of the war on the economy. And we'll take [0:39] a closer look at the outrage on both sides of the aisle this week over the creation of a $1.8 billion [0:46] anti-weaponization payout fund. Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen will be with us. [0:52] We'll also hear from a bipartisan duo working to fight anti-Semitism in politics. New York Republican [1:00] Mike Lawler and New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer. Plus, as the World Health Organization warns that [1:07] Ebola is spreading rapidly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, we'll talk to Dr. Deborah Birx. And [1:14] finally, a special Memorial Day conversation with two Medal of Honor recipients about the significance [1:20] of service. It's all just ahead on Face the Nation. Good morning and welcome to Face the Nation. [1:42] Margaret is off. I'm Nancy Cordes. On this holiday weekend, President Trump has been hard at work at [1:48] the White House to iron out an agreement with Iran. When I spoke to the president on Saturday, [1:53] he sounded upbeat about the potential for a deal and said that he, quote, wouldn't even be talking [1:59] about an agreement if it did not prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, adding, quote, [2:04] we're getting everything we want. I will only sign a deal where we get everything we want. [2:11] But it appears that most of the nuclear decisions would actually be left to the next round of [2:15] negotiations. And that has some Republicans worried this morning. We're going to begin with senior [2:21] foreign correspondent Imtiaz Tayyab reporting from Tel Aviv. In New Delhi this morning, Secretary of [2:28] State Marco Rubio had this to say about Iran. I'll leave it to the president to make further [2:33] announcements on it. Suffice it to say that some progress has been made. On Saturday, President [2:38] Trump held a conference call with leaders of several Arab and Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, [2:43] Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, the UAE and Pakistan. In a true social post afterwards, the president said, [2:50] an agreement has largely been negotiated, subject to finalization between the United States of America [2:56] and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Pakistan's army chief Asim Muneer, who's been acting as lead mediator, [3:02] was in Tehran at the time, where he met with Iranian leaders as part of attempts to narrow the [3:07] remaining gaps with Washington. At a media briefing, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Asim al-Bagai said, [3:13] over the past week, the process has moved towards reducing the points of disagreement, [3:18] but there are still issues that need to be discussed through the mediators. [3:22] Those points of disagreement include the fate of the Strait of Hormuz, [3:26] Iran's frozen assets in foreign banks, and its nuclear program, [3:30] which includes a large stockpile of nearly bomb-grade, highly enriched uranium, [3:34] which the president says is his red line. [3:37] And after his calls with Muslim and Arab leaders last night, President Trump also spoke to Israel's [3:43] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Now, a senior Israeli political source has told CBS News the [3:48] PM made it clear to the president that Israel would retain the right to take action against [3:53] what it sees as threats, including in Lebanon, Nancy. Avid reports the potential agreement between [3:59] the U.S. and Iran would also see an end to the war there. [4:02] Mtiaz Tayyab, thank you so much. Some key Republican senators have already weighed in on the early reports [4:09] about the contours of a possible deal. Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker said putting off nuclear [4:14] discussions for later would, quote, be a disaster and that everything accomplished by Operation [4:20] Epic Fury would be for naught. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said if the result of all that is to be [4:27] an Iranian regime now receiving billions of dollars being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear [4:32] weapons, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake. We turn now to Maryland Democratic Senator [4:39] Chris Van Hollen. Senator, thank you so much for being with me. [4:41] It's good to be with you, Nancy. So I want to stress that all of this is still evolving. We're [4:50] getting slightly different takes on the terms of the deal from the Americans and the Iranians. But [4:55] what do you think about what you've heard so far? Well, Nancy, this war against Iran has been a big [5:04] blunder from the very start. The president should have stuck to his campaign pledge of keeping us out [5:11] of war and focused on bringing down prices. He's done just the opposite. Prices are going up, [5:17] interest rates are going up, and we're mired in this war in Iran. And when you're digging a hole, [5:22] you should stop digging. That's what this agreement sounds like. It sounds like we will go back to [5:28] opening the Strait of Hormuz, which of course was open before the war started. I will say, however, [5:35] it looks like Iran will retain more control over those straits. We also know Iran has an even more [5:42] hardline regime in place now. And we're talking about releasing some of Iran's frozen assets. So [5:51] look, my view is, as I said, stop digging. I want to ask you about something that stirred up [5:58] a lot of controversy on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill this week. The DOJ's new anti-weaponization [6:05] fund, nearly $1.8 billion set aside for people who say they were treated unfairly by the federal [6:11] government. You've been calling it a political slush fund. You are trying to force Republicans [6:16] to take a vote on placing some guardrails around that fund. What kind of guardrails are you talking [6:21] about? Well, Nancy, first, we should get rid of this political slush fund, $1.8 billion of taxpayer money. [6:31] But I have been proposing amendments to prohibit, for example, people who rioted on January 6th and [6:39] assaulted police officers from being eligible for the fund. People who have been convicted of [6:45] child molestation, they should not be eligible for the fund. Members of Congress should not be eligible [6:52] for the fund. And I would hope all Republicans, including Republican candidates, should come out [6:58] strongly against this slush fund, which the president has set up for these purposes. [7:04] You pushed the acting attorney general this week on that question of whether people who attacked [7:10] police officers would be eligible for the fund. I asked the president about that this week as well. [7:15] He did not say that those people would be ineligible. Senate Republicans were very angry [7:21] about this. And they really gave it to the attorney acting attorney general behind closed doors this [7:26] week. Do you think that there is an appetite for trying to get rid of this fund in Congress? And how [7:32] would that even work? Well, I hope so, Nancy. I think most Republicans are more upset about the fact that [7:40] this interrupted their effort to pass this reconciliation bill with another $70 billion of taxpayer funds [7:49] for ICE. I think that's what upset them the most. And they decided to leave town because they didn't [7:55] want to have to vote on these amendments that I've proposed and others have proposed. So we'll see how [8:01] this all turns out. We should get rid of this political slush fund altogether. And we will insist [8:07] on having these votes when we get back. I've been told by a senior administration official that there [8:14] are now some urgent efforts underway to address the concerns that Republicans have raised about this [8:21] fund. But they continue to insist they've got the right to do this and that, in fact, [8:25] they already have the ability to make these payouts. And if anything, [8:28] they're making the process more transparent by coming up with rules, by appointing commissioners [8:33] and all the rest. What do you think of that argument? Well, that's absurd. And this is really [8:40] corrupt from the start. I mean, this is essentially President Trump negotiating with President Trump [8:44] President Trump through the acting attorney general, who was Trump's former personal lawyer. [8:51] They set it up so they have complete control over the five members of this commission that can be [8:58] selected. President Trump can fire any of them whenever he wants. And so this is completely [9:05] under their control, a slush fund. And they've not committed, Nancy, to being completely transparent. [9:10] The acting attorney general refused to say that they would disclose the names of all the people [9:15] who received these taxpayer funds. So let's be clear. This is a corrupt deal. And in the process, [9:23] the president, of course, got a complete get out of free, get out of jail free card with respect to any [9:31] taxes that he has due and owing, another corrupt part of this deal. [9:35] I want to ask you about a case that you've been heavily involved in. And there was a big development [9:40] this week. A judge threw out the federal human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia [9:46] of your home state, Maryland. You visited him in El Salvador after he was wrongfully deported to [9:52] that country, placed in the supermax presidency coat. The judge said that DOJ's prosecution of him was [9:58] vindictive. And DOJ now says it plans to appeal. Have you spoken to him or his family? How are they [10:04] feeling about this decision? Nancy, I have spoken to him and his wife, Jennifer, [10:12] and they're, of course, pleased that the court system have applied the law. This was absolutely [10:19] a vindictive prosecution. The judge called it essentially an abuse of power because the Trump [10:26] administration brought these new charges against him because he decided to exercise his due process and [10:35] constitutional rights. They had admitted that they had wrongfully disappeared him to El Salvador. [10:42] And he contested that. And of course, he is now back. They're still trying to deport him. [10:48] But he filed his claims under the Constitution. And so this case is not about Kilmar Abrego Garcia alone. [10:56] This is really about the rights of each and every one of us. And when the Trump administration [11:03] decided to vindictively prosecute him for that, they were further threatening the rights of all of us. [11:10] We've got about a minute left, but I want to ask you about this election autopsy that was finally released [11:17] by the Democratic National Committee this week. Do you feel like you got any answers from that autopsy [11:23] on why the Democrats lost in 2024? And do you believe that the head of the DNC should resign over this? [11:30] Well, Nancy, this is a very shoddy piece of work. It's an incomplete piece of work. [11:38] And I can understand why Ken Martin was reluctant to release it earlier. But as he has said, [11:44] he owns this problem. He should have just ripped the Band-Aid off earlier and put it out. No, [11:49] we're six months from a very important election. And we should not be changing horses at this time. [11:56] I will say that the overall thrust of the report indicates that, you know, [12:02] we should not just go back to the pre-Trump status quo. And I've said from the beginning, [12:08] it was a failure, obviously, the Democratic Party to lose to someone like Donald Trump a second time. [12:14] We need to be clear to the American people that we understand their financial and economic pain [12:22] and their daily struggles, and that we're going to do something about it. We're going to fight for [12:26] them and we're going to fight against the special interests, very powerful special interests, [12:31] who try to stack the deck against them. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, [12:35] thank you so much for joining us this morning. I appreciate it. And we'll be right back. [12:41] We go now to a bipartisan pair of representatives. Josh Gottheimer is a Democrat from New Jersey [12:53] and Mike Lawler is a Republican from New York. Congressman, welcome. Thank you for joining us. [12:59] Thanks for having us. Sure. Congressman Lawler, [13:03] I want to start with you and get your take on this memorandum of understanding that appears to be [13:08] taking shape between the U.S. and Iran. We've already seen some blowback from some of your fellow [13:14] Republicans. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said if the reports on the deal are accurate, [13:18] quote, it makes one wonder why the war started to begin with. Congressman, do you share his view? [13:27] No. And I think it's important that we actually get all of the details, number one. Number two, [13:33] if you look at what took place during the kinetic activity, what did they do? They focused on the [13:38] ballistic missiles program, the drone capabilities, the naval fleet, and seizing control of Iran's [13:45] airspace. They were able to do that. Iran retaliated with a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, [13:50] and President Trump blockaded that, which caused great harm to Iran's economy, stopped the flow of [13:57] oil to China. And so there's been immense pressure for everybody to reach a deal. But the bottom line [14:05] is the objective is to ensure that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon. And that is what President [14:11] Trump has been clear and consistent on from the very beginning. And so I think it's imperative [14:16] before everybody rush to, you know, get to the microphone that they actually understand the terms [14:22] of the agreement that is being proposed, and specifically with respect to the enriched uranium. [14:29] So you like what you're hearing? [14:31] Look, I've been in touch with the administration. I serve as chair of the Middle East and North [14:38] Africa subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I think on the whole, what the [14:42] administration has been able to do for the first time in 47 years is force the remnants of this regime [14:50] into a negotiation, a real negotiation. The fact is, the JCPOA from over a decade ago was not a [14:58] negotiation. It put Iran on the glide path to a nuclear bomb. We are trying to stop that. And [15:04] the president took decisive action to do it. Congressman Gottheimer, you've been pushing to get [15:09] a war powers resolution passed. You're getting closer to doing it. If the nuclear decisions get pushed off, [15:16] but the Strait of Hormuz does get reopened more quickly, is that a win for American taxpayers? [15:23] Well, I think the good news here, and as Mike said, we're still getting details. The good news [15:30] is the Straits will be back open, if that's true. And that will mean gas prices will go down for [15:35] Americans. And that's good news. The news is bad news, in my opinion, is, and this is where it's [15:40] unclear, is the initial objectives had to do with enriched uranium and making sure that from a nuclear [15:47] capability, Iran, which I think is a clear adversary to the United States with under banners of death to [15:53] America. And I believe the Iranian regime should be crushed. But part of that is making sure that we [15:57] diminish their nuclear capabilities so they can't make the jump to having a nuclear weapon, [16:03] that we significantly diminish their ballistic military capabilities or missile capabilities, [16:09] and of course their drone activity. And then there's all the dollars that have gone historically [16:14] to terror programs and their proxy programs, Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Those are all [16:21] questions that are out there, and it's unclear if we've made any substantial progress there. And I [16:26] think, you know, if the end went to the point of Senator Graham, if you look back at this and say, [16:30] okay, we've made huge investments and we've had a clear goal all along, which is to crush Iran and [16:35] reduce their ballistic and missile program and their nuclear program and their terror program, [16:40] and all we got was actually something that was never on the table, a reopening of the Straits of Hormuz, [16:45] that to me in the end will not be reaching the goals initially set forth here. And so that's [16:51] that's the big question if we've just really gotten nothing and kind of run in place. [16:56] Congressman Lawler, the president made a high-profile visit to your district on Friday. He [17:01] campaigned for you because you represent one of just three Republican-held districts in the U.S. [17:05] that Kamala Harris won in 2024. How are you explaining to your constituents this new settlement [17:13] that prevents the IRS from auditing any Trump family documents prior to this year? [17:19] Well, I think when it comes to any agreements that the president has made with the IRS from my [17:31] vantage point, you know, I think looking back at what the Biden administration did, [17:38] they certainly weaponized the government and were targeting the president. And I think he obviously had [17:45] claims that he brought against the government as a result of that. From the standpoint of the president, [17:52] you know, I was happy to welcome him to my district just as I did Joe Biden when he was president. [17:57] Joe Biden came three years ago to my district and I showed up. President Trump was here. We had over [18:03] 5,000 people show up in my district to hear directly from the president on the issues most acutely impacting [18:11] them, including my ability to deliver on lifting the cap on salt. The president also announced bestowing [18:19] the Presidential Medal of Freedom on one of my constituents who died on 9-11, Wells Crowther, [18:25] the man in the red bandana who saved 18 lives. And we also heard from the Gorman family. Their [18:32] daughter, Sheridan Gorman, was brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant who was allowed into this country [18:37] under Joe Biden's open border policies and then arrested in Chicago, released under cashless bail [18:44] and disastrous pro-criminal policies in the city of Chicago, and murdered this 18-year-old girl who [18:51] had her whole life ahead of her. And so hearing from her family was paramount. So I was happy to have [18:58] the president there on Friday. Understood. I do want to get to the issue of anti-Semitism because we wanted [19:04] to have you both on together because you are working together on ways to address the rise in anti-Semitism [19:12] in the U.S. Congressman Gottheimer, I understand the value in lawmakers drawing attention to some of the [19:20] really vile incidents that we have seen in this country lately. The stabbing of a Jewish man on the [19:26] streets of New York, the shooting at the Capitol Jewish Museum here in Washington. But what can Congress [19:34] realistically do about this problem? Well, we know since October 7th in Hamas' terrorist attacks, [19:43] anti-Semitic incidents in the country are up 70 percent. Mike and I in both our states have some [19:48] of the top numbers of anti-Semitic incidents in the entire country. It's totally unacceptable. [19:53] And what's happening now is it's far too often in our politics on both sides, right, whether it's [19:58] Hassan Piker, who's a streamer on the left, or Candace Owens on the right, who were campaigning [20:03] with candidates around the country actually encouraging some of the most vile anti-Semitic [20:09] language, like Hassan Piker, who calls Jews pig dogs, Candace Owens, who denies the Holocaust. [20:15] We've got candidates on both sides who've embraced them, who've made insane comments, [20:20] like the woman in Texas this past week, a Democratic candidate who said that Jews should be in camps. [20:25] You've got Balzarian, Dan Balzarian in Florida, who said we should exterminate Jews. None of this [20:31] should be acceptable. And Mike and I, whether it's through the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which we [20:36] passed out of the House last Congress on defining anti-Semitism and have introduced again this Congress, [20:41] or both of us condemning Piker and Owens in legislation, both of us believe deeply that we need to stand up to [20:48] this. And Mike's been very outspoken, as have others. And our leadership on both sides needs to make it very [20:54] clear time and again that you don't stand with these, with people like Owens and Piker, and they're not welcome [21:00] in our districts. And none of this language is acceptable either. I think it's very important. [21:06] Congressman Lawler, why do you believe that fringe candidates like the one that Congressman [21:11] Gottheimer just mentioned sense that there is a market for that sort of hate to begin with? [21:17] Is there some kind of permission structure that has been created in both of your parties? [21:22] Well, I don't think there's any question that anti-Semitism has been, you know, condoned by folks [21:33] across the political aisle. And from my vantage point, it is something that all of us have a responsibility [21:40] to push back against, regardless of party. These candidates are coming forward. They feel it is [21:48] okay to blame Jews for whatever ills there are in the world. Obviously, you know, I experienced just [21:57] last week, Rand Paul's son screaming at me in a bar because he thought I was Jewish, [22:03] when in fact, I'm Irish, Italian, Catholic. And regardless of whether I was or I wasn't Jewish, [22:09] the idea that people feel it is okay to engage in that. He did ultimately. But the idea that people [22:17] feel it's okay to engage in that type of conduct is shameful. And I think what Josh and I are trying to do [22:24] in putting this resolution forward is to say enough and to say to both parties, we have to police our [22:30] own. We cannot allow this. We cannot support candidates who engage in rank vile anti-Semitism. [22:38] Uh, you know, the Jewish population is about 2% of the United States. And meanwhile, [22:43] it's over 50% of the hate crimes that are experienced. Something's got to give. [22:48] Got it. Congressman Lawler, Congressman Gottheimer, [22:51] we appreciate both of you coming on. Thank you so much. And we'll be right back. [23:03] Welcome back to Face the Nation. We turn now to the director of the National Economic Council, [23:08] Kevin Hassett, who joins us from the White House North Lawn. Kevin, [23:12] thank you so much for being with me. Great to be here. Thank you. [23:16] I want to start by getting your take on the state of the economy because [23:20] a kind of confusing picture emerged this week. The Dow Jones hit an all-time high, [23:25] and yet consumer sentiment hit an all-time low. Mortgage rates hit a nine-month peak. [23:30] Inflation is up. Earnings at big box stores like Walmart are up, in part because people [23:35] from across the income spectrum are being drawn to low prices right now. Are there storm clouds [23:41] gathering in the economy? No, I don't think there are storm clouds gathering at all. And in fact, [23:46] let's start with the consumer sentiment number, because that was a number that was very striking [23:50] to me and to you, I know, when it came in very, very low. And what we did is we went to their website [23:56] and we looked that they actually break it out by political affiliation. So they have it for [24:00] Democrats, independents, and Republicans. And if you look at it, consumer sentiment at the sort of [24:05] peak of the Biden inflation, the stagflation, was way above 100. And it's dropped all the way down [24:11] into the low 30s now, about the lowest it's ever been for Democrats. But for Republicans, it's held [24:16] about steady. And if you look at it, independents and Democrats are really highly correlated, [24:20] which suggests to us that their sample is Democrats. And so if you go to consumer confidence, [24:26] which is something that's actually, I think, a more scientific survey, the consumer confidence [24:30] is consistent with all the other positive numbers we're seeing right now. But you don't dispute that [24:35] the war has taken a toll on parts of the economy? Right now, consumer confidence is the highest it's [24:41] been since the beginning of the year. And so you don't see a toll of the war on consumer confidence, [24:47] which is the conference board survey. But again, GDP now, the Atlanta Fed's estimate of [24:51] second quarter GDP is north of 4%. We've got initial claims for unemployment insurance as low as they've [24:57] been since the 60s. And so there's so much going on that is really, I think, surprising people that [25:03] think that the disruption from the Middle East is going to harm the economy. It's just not there in [25:07] the data, except for the consumer sentiment data. But I actually think that we should stop calling it [25:11] consumer sentiment and start calling it political sentiment, because it's really a political [25:16] variable, not an economic variable. The data on gas prices is pretty undeniable. Memorial Day weekend, [25:21] gas prices are at a four-year high. AAA says they'll remain elevated throughout the summer, [25:26] at least. Last month, you said that high gas prices would be a temporary phenomenon. [25:32] Did the White House paint too rosy a picture of the impact that this war [25:36] would have by emphasizing that this was going to be a four to six-week excursion? [25:42] Well, I think the four to six-week was an accurate description of when the active [25:49] kinetic events were going to happen. Right now, I'll let the president decide on whether he thinks [25:54] the deal is ready to go this week or not. But the bottom line is, once the straits are open, [25:59] then the tankers are going to go back and they're going to refill the refineries almost right away. [26:04] A tanker goes about 300 nautical miles a day. And so the places like India and Pakistan, which are close [26:10] to the straits, are going to get their oil and then turn it into refined product right away. [26:14] Singapore, which is one of the places where jet fuel prices are the highest, [26:18] is going to get its stuff just about right away. But if you're down in New Zealand, [26:21] it will take a little bit longer. But really, like, between a month and two months, [26:25] we expect everybody to have all the oil they need at every refinery on Earth. [26:28] Well, we know that things will get better once the strait reopens. The question is, when will it reopen? [26:33] Right. Well, that's something for the president, Marco Rubio, and the Iranians to work out. [26:39] I realize that, as director of the White House Economic Council, this $1.8 billion [26:45] anti-weaponization fund is not part of your portfolio. But the backlash to that fund did [26:53] derail a bill this week that included funding for ICE and the CBP. And government funding is part [26:58] of your portfolio. So what is the administration doing, if anything, to try to cool members of the [27:05] president's own party down on this issue? They seemed really angry and really blindsided. [27:10] Well, I don't know if across the board they were, but there are certainly some people who [27:14] felt that way. And our head of ledge affairs, James Braid, is a real professional. He's been [27:20] talking to everybody. He's been arranging for phone calls with those of us in the White House [27:24] that want to talk to people and hear people's concerns. But the bottom line is that, you know, [27:29] we expect the progress that the president wants to see in Congress to happen. Congress has delivered [27:34] over and over under the leadership of Mike Johnson. And so I understand that, you know, there's [27:39] something that was a little bit different this week than maybe you expected, but I don't expect [27:42] that to go on. And one thing we've seen from primaries is that people that buck the president, [27:47] you know, generally regret it politically. [27:49] The Wall Street Journal editorial board really took a swipe at the president over that fund, [27:55] over the ballroom on Saturday. They said, quote, Republicans don't want to say this publicly, [28:00] but privately they do. President Trump's personal political obsessions are hurting his presidency, [28:07] hurting the chances for further foreign policy gains, and putting control of the House and Senate [28:12] in jeopardy. Does the president realize that he is putting Republicans in a tough spot by forcing [28:18] them to take votes on things that are unpopular, like the fund, like the ballroom, like the war, [28:25] in a midterm election year? [28:27] Look, look, I respect the Wall Street Journal very much. I saw Paul Jago at the Kevin Worsh [28:31] signing in on just on Friday. But the bottom line is the president believes that the ballroom is [28:36] something that should have been there for a long time, and he's using his own money and the money [28:40] of donors to make it so that the taxpayers don't have to pay for that ballroom. And as far as weaponization, [28:47] I don't think that you or I would disagree. Well, they would have to pay a billion dollars, [28:49] correct? No, it's not for the ballroom. That's for securing the entire White House. And my goodness, [28:53] to argue about that after we were all here yesterday, I actually wasn't here. I was at my [28:57] home a couple blocks away when the shooting happened. Of course we've got to make the White [29:01] House more secure. But on the $1.8 billion fund for weaponization, I don't think you would disagree, [29:07] right? The previous administration and the Obama administration weaponized government [29:12] against President Trump. And what he wants to do is make sure that never happens again [29:16] and compensate the people who are the targets of the destruction of their lives. You know, [29:21] what they would do is they would call people in to Jack Smith's office and then bury them [29:26] in subpoena requests and bankrupt them. And that's something that should never happen again, never. [29:31] And I think that I doubt that there's anyone that disagrees with that. [29:34] JUDY WOODRUFF, Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, appreciate your time this morning. [29:39] KEVIN HASSETT, the director of the National Economic Council, appreciate your time this morning. [29:39] KEVIN HASSETT, the director of the National Economic Council, appreciate your time this morning. [29:39] KEVIN HASSETT, the director of the National Economic Council, and we'll be right back. [29:42] We turn now to the escalating Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [29:52] Joining us to discuss is the former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, [29:56] Dr. Deborah Birx, who also previously helped coordinate the international response [30:01] to the 2014 Ebola outbreak when she was global AIDS coordinator. Dr. Birx, thank you so much for being with us. [30:07] DR. DEBORAH BURX, Thank you so much for being with us. [30:09] DR. DEBORAH BURX, Good to be with you, Nancy. [30:10] DR. DEBORAH BURX, The WHO, rather, says there are now almost 750 [30:17] suspected cases in the Congo, around the Congo, and nearly 200 deaths. How does the severity of [30:23] this situation compare to previous outbreaks? [30:26] DR. DEBORAH BURX, Well, the problem with this particular outbreak is there was probably two, [30:33] three, or four cycles of infection before it was even reported. And so a lot of the numbers you're [30:39] seeing and the rapid rise of the numbers is because it went undetected and under-reported for probably [30:45] three or four weeks. That resulted in a lot of case reporting all at once. And so I can't really [30:52] tell you what the slope of new cases are, which is really the important thing when you're following [30:57] an acute infectious disease. But just to make it very clear to your audience, the people we are seeing [31:02] today that our cases were probably infected two weeks ago. And so I think that's what makes us [31:07] all concerned, is we're looking at this virus and this outbreak with really old data. [31:14] DR. DEBORAH BURX, I want to get to that delay in reporting the outbreak in a moment. [31:18] But first, we saw this week that a plane from Paris to Detroit had to be diverted to Montreal after [31:24] a person from the Congo was mistakenly allowed to board. [31:29] What do Americans need to know about the transition of this [31:33] disease and the risk here at home? I think people are worried. [31:36] DR. DEBORAH BURX, Well, when you see this [31:40] level of outbreak ever since COVID, I can understand why people are worried. [31:43] But remember, DRC has had 17 or 18 of these outbreaks in the last 20, 30 years. So [31:50] this is actually fairly commonplace, although this is a large one. I think we learned from COVID how to be [31:56] much more proactive about preventing the virus getting to the country. Ever since we had those [32:03] cases almost a decade ago, what we did is we really strengthened hospitals. Now we have [32:08] biocontainment facilities in multiple hospitals. So we're prepared if it ever happens or someone [32:13] enters the country. But it's important that we are proactive like they have been. And when you have a [32:18] travel ban, you have to really enforce it. And it's what they did when they diverted the plane. [32:23] DR. DEBORAH BURX, Is this travel ban the right answer? People from the Congo, [32:29] from a couple other countries not being able to come into the U.S., [32:32] even green card holders, if they've been in that area over the past 21 days or so? [32:36] DR. DEBORAH BURX, You know, it's part of a comprehensive response, [32:42] which it is. And I don't think it's getting that much coverage. But within four days, [32:46] the U.S. sent a DART team. A lot of the USAID people who are no longer in the USAID building [32:53] are now in the State Department and have been part of Ebola responses, the 2014 and 2018 response. [32:59] They're already on the ground. There's a CDC group that was in Kinshasa, is permanently in Kinshasa. [33:05] They're responding. And so when it's part of a comprehensive funding response, yes, [33:10] not as an only one solution. [33:12] DR. DEBORAH BURX, As you know, in the past year and a half, [33:15] the Trump administration has largely dismantled USAID. It has withdrawn from the World Health [33:21] Organization. It cut funding to the Congo and Uganda. Do you think that those moves contributed [33:28] to the delay in reporting this outbreak? And are they contributing to the lack of supplies [33:35] in dealing with the outbreak in the Congo? [33:37] DR. DEBORAH BURX, Well, when I look what the administration has done recently, [33:43] I think they put $50, $100 million out there immediately and sent people what's part of the [33:48] response. I think the bigger question to me is, a lot of us in the global community invested [33:54] extensively in creating the African CDC for this very reason, for this very response. [34:00] Hundreds of millions of dollars went into building laboratory capacity in the DRC, [34:05] at the African CDC. And for some reason, that failed us. And so what we need to do is figure out, [34:12] why didn't we detect this earlier? Why didn't the institutions that we all stood up as a global [34:17] community effectively controlled this outbreak early so that it didn't spread as far and wide as it [34:23] has within the DRC? I understand it's a conflict area, but we have to do better. We owe it to the [34:29] people in the DRC. [34:30] I hear what you're saying about the fact that the money is now flowing from the U.S. to the region, [34:36] but we talked to aid workers in the region as well, who said that a lot of local programs [34:41] were terminated after U.S. aid was dismantled, programs aimed at Ebola preparedness and response. [34:48] And so they just don't have the same capacity as they did before. [34:53] I think it's a great question. And we need to really look at that. I know CDC's global health [35:00] security program was retained and a lot of that funding retained. I know we had people in Kinshasa [35:07] as part of the CDC. If you look at the Uganda funding, now I'm looking at it from the HIV side, [35:12] which really built a lot of the laboratory capacity. This year, they're getting over 400 [35:17] million dollars. So maybe there was a 5 percent cut. But I think the American people were thinking [35:22] that these programs had been slashed. If you look at the MOUs, the agreements that the U.S. [35:28] government have been made, I've actually been reassured by the numbers that are there on paper. [35:32] The U.S. right now does not have a confirmed head of the CDC. It does not have a confirmed head of [35:40] the FDA. It doesn't have a confirmed surgeon general. Is the U.S. prepared to deal with an [35:47] outbreak of Ebola or any other infectious disease if it comes to our shores? [35:52] I think it's a great question. And watching how this plays out will be very important. And I'm [36:00] watching that. They've already created an interagency Ebola response task force. And just to reassure the [36:06] American public, I was in the federal government for 40-plus years and in the military for 29. [36:12] There's a deep bench. And so, yes, it's important to have the leads of all of these agencies. I think [36:18] people have been nominated to at least the CDC. So I think that's very important. But we do have a [36:24] deep bench in many of these agencies. And I really I know them. They're great people. I think this [36:30] interagency response is already putting assets, people and money on the ground. And I think what [36:36] we do need I just keep coming back to African CDC because that was supposed to be our early mobilizer [36:42] of protective gear, of testing, of community work. And we just need to figure out how to strengthen [36:48] that even further. Got it. Dr. Deborah Birx, thanks so much for being with us. Thanks for the context. [36:53] We appreciate it. And we'll be back in a moment. To commemorate Memorial Day as we approach our [37:04] country's 250th birthday, Margaret sat down with two Medal of Honor recipients, retired Army Lieutenant [37:10] Colonel William Swenson and retired Army Command Sergeant Major Matt Williams. Here's part of their [37:16] conversation. Well, when President Obama presented you the Medal of Honor, he said Americans like Will [37:25] remind us of what our country can be at its best, a nation of citizens who look out for one another, [37:32] who meet our obligations to one another, not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard. [37:37] Is it a burden to carry expectations like that with you when you enter private life? [37:45] I think we have to remember that the crucible of war is unfair, and it does bring out both the [37:53] worst of us and the best of us. In moments of great risk to our own lives, we do things that are [37:59] inexplicable. And we see things that are almost at the level of miracles. People are coming together as a [38:05] team to do things that ultimately flies in the face of good decision making. But ultimately, [38:12] what they're doing is fighting on behalf of each other and on behalf of their country. [38:16] And when I recognized that I received individual accolades from the president, [38:24] one of the things that we have to remember specifically as Medal of Honor recipients is [38:28] that we're ambassadors to other people's stories. We're ambassadors to those whose stories were not told. [38:32] We're ambassadors to those who were with us on the battlefield. Johnson, Johnson, Kennefic, Leighton, [38:38] and Westbrook. And they didn't come home. Their stories are part of our story. We wear this medal [38:44] as a representation of service, not as a representation of ourselves. And that is a weight [38:50] that we as recipients of this award have to remember is our responsibility is to continue telling the [38:55] stories, not just of us, but of everyone we served with and everyone who will serve. [38:59] That feels heavy. It feels like you will always be part of public service after going through [39:10] something like this. I would say as Medal of Honor recipients, we are a very fair representation of [39:15] America. We're a snapshot of this country. We come from towns, cities, all walks of life, [39:20] different political views. And ultimately, we are a very democratic representation of the values of this [39:25] country. But as recipients of this award, we have to take those backgrounds, some humble, some not. [39:32] And with that, continue to try to lead lives that are emblematic of what this award represents. [39:39] And I understand both of you are continuing to try to to help and to serve, particularly with veterans. [39:46] Matt, President Trump said of you, [39:47] We salute your unyielding service, your unbreakable resolve, and your untiring devotion to our great [39:56] nation. Do you think of those words as a burden or as an assignment for the rest of your life? How do [40:03] you think of it? I think it's probably a little of both, but I'll kind of frame it a little bit [40:06] differently. You know, to me, it's a privilege because not everybody gets the opportunity to put [40:14] this medal on. Well over 50% of the medals that have been awarded have been awarded posthumously. [40:20] So to be able to stand there in front of the nation, in front of your family, in front of your [40:24] peers, in front of your team, and have the president of the United States of America present an award to [40:29] you that you can never feel like you actually ever earned because it's just impossible, you know, [40:35] is extremely heavy. And it is a burden at the end of the day. And you know, one of my friends and fellow [40:40] recipients, you know, Kyle Carpenter says all the time, he calls it a beautiful burden. [40:44] And I agree with him to a point, but I also, I also think it's a privilege at the end of the day. [40:49] It's a privilege to be able to continue to serve, serve our country, serve our people, [40:53] serve our fellow recipients, and serve the fellow service members that are out there across the globe [40:58] today. Another key anniversary is Afghanistan. There has been so much scrutiny in this country over [41:06] the war that ended five years ago this August, hard to believe, America's longest war. I wonder [41:16] how that sits with you since you both served on that battlefield. What do you think of those who [41:22] sacrificed in that conflict? It's spoken about in so many different heated ways. But for you, [41:30] when you think of that war, how do you make sense of America's experience? [41:37] As military service members, we were asked by our country to go serve overseas on behalf of the [41:42] defense of the nation. It's as simple as that. We did our jobs. We did our jobs honorably. And we did [41:49] our jobs to the measure that we left some of ours behind. There was loss of life because we believed [41:55] in the mission. And ultimately, as service members, that's what we do. We serve to the best of our ability [42:00] when our nation calls us to serve. Is it difficult to hear people talk about the war? [42:06] Our war is part of our history. Our service overseas is part of our history. If we don't tell [42:10] these stories, we as a nation don't know how to always improve. We are an imperfect nation that's [42:16] always trying to improve. And it's through our history as a lens that we look forward on how to do [42:22] better next time. How do you feel about conversation about America's longest war? I mean, is it painful? [42:28] I think we have to talk about it. You know, we have to learn from it. You know, you can love it [42:34] or hate it or agree with it or disagree with it. And that's all fine. And that's your prerogative. [42:38] And that's part of living in a free country. You know, that's why we did what we did so that you can [42:43] disagree or like or hate or whatever. It doesn't matter. You know, I think about it a little bit [42:50] differently. You know, I'm not I'm not sad about it. I know what I did over there. I know what I saw [42:54] people do over there. My experiences have made me grow as a husband, a father, as a man. [43:01] And I think all those things are extremely important. I know what I serve for. I know what [43:05] I did. I know what we accomplished together as a team and as an ODA and as a special forces [43:10] community writ large. And I'm very proud of that. I'm very proud of my service to Afghanistan. [43:15] We are coming up on this 250th anniversary of the American experience. What specifically [43:23] makes you optimistic? Because this country at times can feel dark these days. There's a lot of [43:29] darkness. What makes you feel optimistic? Well, ultimately, because we're in Washington, [43:35] D.C. and everything revolves around politics, we have to remember that politics aren't everything. [43:39] American lives continue on. Children are born. Children go to school. Lives are achieved. Dreams are [43:44] achieved. This country is a great place. It's not politics. It's not just what's the news bites [43:50] coming off of media. Ultimately, we continue forward as a country, continually imperfect, [43:54] continually evolving forward, always trying to achieve a more perfect union. That's what's [43:59] important to remember, what we can achieve aspirationally. No other place in history, time, [44:04] or on this planet have ever gotten to where we are today. We need to be proud of that. And we [44:09] need to remember that is what we stay focused on, what we can be. What we can be. And the [44:15] promise of it. What makes you optimistic? It's so important to remember who we are [44:20] as a country and take the opportunity to celebrate that and think about all the challenges that we've [44:25] overcome, how far we've actually come. I think if you frame it that way, you think very deeply about [44:31] our trials and tribulations from beginning to today. We've made tremendous strides. Our country is, [44:38] you know, we're a global superpower. Our economy is doing well. All those things are great. And take [44:45] politics aside out of this whole conversation. Be grateful for what you've got and the opportunities [44:50] that it's provided for you. And if you do that, I don't see how you can't be optimistic about our future. [44:55] Well, thank you. Thank you both. And thank you for your service. [44:59] Thank you. Two of America's best. The full conversation is on our website [45:06] and on our YouTube channel. We'll be right back. [45:08] That's it for us today. Thanks for watching. Margaret will be back next week. On behalf of [45:17] all of us here at Face the Nation, to our military, our veterans and their families, [45:21] thank you for your service. For Face the Nation, I'm Nancy Cordes.