Sens. Mark Kelly, Rand Paul and more — "Face the Nation" Full Broadcast - Nov. 23, 2025

[0:01] I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington, and this week on Face the Nation, [0:05] divisions between Congress and the White House grow on crucial conflicts, both foreign and [0:10] domestic. Breaking overnight, Secretary of State Rubio and other administration officials [0:15] are in Geneva, meeting with Ukrainian officials and other allies about the administration's [0:20] 28-point plan to end the war in Ukraine. We're trying to get it ended. One way or the other, [0:26] we have to get it ended. But does the proposal favor Russia over Ukraine? [0:30] And if President Zelensky doesn't accept it? [0:34] Then he can continue to fight his little heart out. [0:37] Back home, a dangerous war of words has erupted. [0:41] This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals [0:46] against American citizens. [0:47] With Democrats who served urging members of the military to side with the Constitution [0:53] and the law when it comes to following commands from the president. [0:56] Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. [1:00] And the president responded, saying those members in the video were traitors, showing seditious [1:06] behavior and more. We'll cover it with two Democrats who are facing threats of political [1:11] violence because of their efforts. Arizona Senator Mark Kelly and Colorado Democratic [1:15] Congressman Jason Crow. Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul and the new Ukrainian ambassador [1:21] to the U.S., Olga Stefani Sheena, will also be here. [1:26] That, plus some tough news for the president when it comes to how Americans think he's handling [1:30] the economy. It's all just ahead on Face the Nation. [1:57] Good morning and welcome to Face the Nation. [2:00] As Americans prepare to kick off the holiday season with Thanksgiving, followed by Black Friday, [2:05] our new poll out today underscores that their focus is still very much on the economy and high [2:10] prices, with more than three-quarters of Americans who are judging Trump on the economy, [2:15] saying he is not spending enough time focused on the economy and inflation. [2:21] Overall, his approval rating has dropped to its lowest this year. [2:25] Only 40 percent of Americans now approve of Mr. Trump's job performance. [2:29] The Trump administration is facing other challenges that they're dealing with right now, [2:33] what their strategy is for further military action in Venezuela, negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine, [2:38] and now disturbing rhetoric that's led to an increase in threats against some lawmakers, [2:44] with some of that rhetoric coming from the president's social media feed. [2:49] And we're joined here in studio by Colorado Democratic Congressman Jason Crow, [2:53] who is one of the six lawmakers who released a recorded video earlier last week, [2:58] urging service members to defy illegal and unlawful orders. [3:04] Good morning. [3:05] Good morning. [3:05] And it was that video that prompted some of this rhetoric from the president. [3:10] I want to speak, though, about what's happening right now. [3:13] I understand there was a bomb threat against your office in Aurora, Colorado, [3:17] that your family has received painful death threats, even murder threats. [3:23] Here is some of what your office released. [3:31] You ain't an American. [3:33] You're a communist. [3:35] These, I believe, are phone calls that were made to your office. [3:39] Are any of these threats credible? [3:43] We don't know, Margaret. [3:44] We're going to take these seriously. [3:45] But it's very disturbing stuff. [3:47] When you have the president of the United States threatening to execute and to hang and to arrest using this rhetoric, [3:54] people listen to it. [3:55] We've seen before a pattern of insightful, dangerous rhetoric being used by the president, [4:00] and then people acting on that. [4:02] You know, I lived through and experienced January 6th, a very similar dynamic. [4:07] He's been doing this for years, saying things in total disregard for the outcome [4:13] and what might happen when he throws this stuff out in the world. [4:16] Well, the president has made these social media posts, but then he then sort of walked some of those threats back, [4:23] saying he wasn't threatening death. [4:25] He was saying sedition was often, in the past, punishable by death. [4:29] And then, before you appeared here today on social media, he put out, [4:33] the traitors that told the military to disobey my orders should be in jail right now, [4:38] not roaming the fake news networks, I guess that's us, [4:41] trying to explain what they said was okay. [4:44] It wasn't and never will be. [4:46] It was sedition at the highest level. [4:48] It's a major crime. [4:49] There can be no other interpretation of what they said. [4:52] That's a quote from what he put on social media. [4:55] Do you have any idea what all these threats actually mean? [4:58] Because he mentioned in an interview military courts and referenced the DOJ as well. [5:04] No, we don't know what this means. [5:05] He doesn't know what this means because he's irresponsible. [5:08] He's acting dangerous. [5:09] He's acting in an insightful way. [5:12] There's two things going on here, Margaret. [5:13] One is the irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric by the president of the United States [5:18] threatening to have members of Congress executed who he disagrees with. [5:22] But it's also so telling that when members of Congress simply remind service members of the [5:28] Constitution and their duty to obey the law, which is not just our right, but is our obligation [5:34] to do, that he cannot handle that and he resorts the threats of violence and threats [5:40] of arrest and execution. [5:42] That tells you everything you need to know about Donald Trump's respect for the Constitution [5:46] and the rule of law and actually underscores our point. [5:49] Well, let's get to the content of what you had in that video you released, because there [5:55] are also 15 House Republicans who are also veterans who released a video, including a [6:00] retired three-star Marine Corps general, Jack Bergman. [6:03] Take a listen to this. [6:06] Troops, listen up. [6:07] Any service member who refuses a lawful order is subject to court-martial for violating [6:13] the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [6:15] We study what's lawful and what's not lawful. [6:17] And the Democrats' stunt, insinuating that they're illegal or unconstitutional orders, [6:23] it's downright dangerous. [6:24] It is corrosive. [6:25] It is meant to weaken our country and weaken the military. [6:29] How do you respond to these allegations from your colleagues, fellow veterans, that what [6:33] you have put out there is weakening and corrosive to the military? [6:37] Well, these, unfortunately, are some of Trump's core supporters that are rallying behind the [6:41] president. [6:42] And they know better. [6:43] They know exactly the difference between lawful versus unlawful. [6:47] We were very clear in the video that what we're talking about is unlawful orders. [6:51] You have the president's spokesperson going on into a press conference this past week and [6:57] saying that we called for people to disobey lawful orders. [7:00] They're simply lying because the truth is unacceptable to them. [7:04] It's unacceptable. [7:05] We wanted to start a conversation, and we did, about the dangerous rhetoric this president [7:11] is using and the threats that he's made to use our military in an unlawful way. [7:17] Specifically what? [7:18] Well, send troops into Chicago, send troops into polling stations, kill terrorists' families, [7:23] arrest and execute members of Congress, shoot peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square. [7:29] Need I go on? [7:30] He has a history of doing this, and if we wait until the moment that he gives a manifestly [7:36] unlawful order to a young soldier, then we have failed them. [7:41] We have to start that conversation now and get people thinking about the distinction, which [7:46] is exactly what we did. [7:47] Yeah. [7:47] So those were comments, not orders he gave, and social media posts and like, but I hear [7:51] you, that words matter. [7:54] But the standard for troops, as I understand it, is that they should consult with the staff [7:59] judge advocate, the staff legal counsel regarding orders if they have legal questions. [8:04] There is a process in place. [8:06] Are you telling the rank-and-file troops to go outside of that practice? [8:12] No, absolutely not. [8:13] Let me use an example of how this plays out and what this looks like downrange, as we say [8:17] in the military. [8:17] Yeah, because it sounds like you're putting a lot of pressure on those people downrange. [8:20] Yeah, I did three combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and before each of those [8:25] combat deployments, I sat my soldiers down, my paratroopers and my rangers, and we talked [8:29] about the law of war. [8:30] We talked about lawful versus unlawful orders, about the protection of civilians in conflict, [8:35] right? [8:36] Because you can't wait until a soldier is in the moment and has to make a split-second [8:41] decision about what to do to train them. [8:44] Right. [8:45] You have to talk about it. [8:46] You have to train them before, which was why we put this video out, to get people [8:50] thinking about their obligation, and all of the threats and all of the things the president [8:55] have said would be manifestly unlawful and would be the types of orders that people shouldn't [9:00] carry through because they would be murder if people actually did the things that Donald [9:04] Trump threatened. [9:05] But we don't know yet that the deployment of troops on U.S. soil, if you were referring [9:11] to the National Guard deployments in major U.S. cities, is actually unlawful. [9:15] That's tied up in the courts right now. [9:18] Well, we're talking about the decision of troops on the ground out in operations, right? [9:23] Their interface with civilians, shooting civilians, going to polling stations, which is a violation [9:29] of U.S. criminal law. [9:31] But these things haven't happened. [9:32] You're afraid they will. [9:33] Things that are manifestly unlawful that our troops might be put in the position to carry [9:37] out because that is what the president has repeatedly threatened to do. [9:43] So, again, it's very telling that simply restating their obligation to the Constitution and the [9:48] law, which we do constantly with our service members, gets this type of response from the [9:55] president. [9:56] You know, I am not going to be threatened and intimidated by the president of the United [9:59] States. [10:00] I have a job to do, and that is to ensure people follow the law. [10:03] I took an oath to this country. [10:05] It is a lifetime oath that I intend to carry out, and I am not going to be intimidated and [10:10] threatened by the president and stop reminding people to follow the law. [10:14] No, but I've talked to lawyers about this and military lawyers about this, and there is [10:19] some frustration that, you know, lawmakers haven't been in Washington doing their job in terms [10:24] of oversight. [10:26] There aren't hearings on Venezuela. [10:28] There aren't hearings on those deployments of the National Guard. [10:31] And yet there are public videos calling on troops at low ranks to make decisions unto [10:38] themselves here about what is lawful or unlawful or recall their training or talk to their staff [10:43] judge advocate about this. [10:44] I mean, this, why not first publicly call for a hearing before you call on the troops? [10:50] Well, first of all, two separate issues. [10:51] So, on the hearing, absolutely right. [10:53] We are pushing the Trump administration to actually give us briefings, give us hearings. [10:58] Mike Johnson, Speaker Johnson, shut Congress down twice, twice to avoid votes on releasing [11:04] the Epstein files. [11:06] You would argue Democrats shut down Congress for the health care argument. [11:09] It's very clear what they did. [11:11] I still came to D.C. anyhow and pushed for oversight and pushed for briefings. [11:15] So, I've been in Congress for seven years almost, and I have never seen the lack of briefings [11:20] and oversight and ability to access information. [11:23] I have been completely shut out of the DOD and the CIA at this point as a member of the [11:27] Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee. [11:30] So, this administration- [11:31] This is so much of this because of the Republican leadership in Congress that isn't demanding [11:33] those things. [11:34] Exactly right. [11:35] So- [11:35] Congress has the power to do this. [11:37] So, they're right. [11:38] We need to be doing this. [11:40] Democrats are trying to do it. [11:41] We are being stonewalled and blocked by the Republicans, blocked by the administration, [11:46] because they actually don't want us to do the oversight because they're afraid of what [11:50] we're going to learn. [11:51] And that is different, Margaret, than what we're talking about. [11:54] You know, operational decisions, decisions to go to war in the Caribbean, Venezuela, which [12:00] are strictly within the purview of Congress, and Congress needs to be making those decisions [12:05] and debating it versus- [12:06] Well, the White House says, oh, it's not an act of war. [12:08] It's, you know, foreign policy, and the president has a lot of leeway under the Constitution. [12:12] That's their argument. [12:13] We've been hearing this for 25 years, which is why Iraq and Afghanistan went on for as [12:17] long as it did. [12:18] We spent $3 trillion, lost 7,000 service members' lives, and those ended poorly. [12:24] Congress has to make that decision. [12:26] Congress needs to be accountable for it. [12:29] And Congress needs to be debating this before the American people, going to the American people [12:34] and telling them why they should send their sons and daughters into conflict, and they [12:39] should spend hundreds of billions of dollars of their hard-earned money. [12:42] This president doesn't want that process to happen. [12:45] And as somebody that did three combat tours in these wars, I've had enough of Congress [12:49] being cut out of it. [12:51] Well, you'll see in some of our upcoming polling data that the American public would [12:54] like more information about the plans for Venezuela, which you were referencing there. [12:58] Congressman Krupp, thank you. [12:59] Thank you. [13:00] Face the Nation will be back in one minute. [13:02] Stay with us. [13:02] And we're joined now by Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, who joins us from Tucson, Arizona. [13:11] Welcome back to Face the Nation, Senator. [13:14] Thank you for having me on. [13:15] I want to pick up where we left off on this topic of political violence. [13:20] I know your family has suffered because of it very, very directly. [13:25] And then this past week, the president called that video you participated in, sedition. [13:30] You heard me read what he said again this morning, sedition at the highest level and a major crime. [13:36] Do you have credible threats? [13:41] How concerned are you about your security at this point? [13:45] Well, Margaret, what the president said is very serious. [13:49] I didn't think he would step over that line calling for the execution of members of Congress. [13:57] And his words carry tremendous weight, more so than anybody else in the country. [14:02] And he should be aware of that. [14:04] And because of what he says, there is now an increased threats against us. [14:08] I'm not going to get into, you know, details on my personal security. [14:11] But as the husband of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, we, I understand what political violence is. [14:20] The president should as well. [14:22] Just like Gabby, somebody tried to assassinate him. [14:25] And he should understand that his words have, you know, could have serious, serious consequences. [14:32] And I remember just weeks ago hearing from the president and other Republicans about the need to dial back the rhetoric after the tragic shooting of Charlie Kirk. [14:42] When it comes to yours- [14:42] Yeah, what happened to that? [14:43] I mean, that was two months ago. [14:45] Where are they now? [14:46] We, we've heard very little, basically crickets from Republicans in the United States Congress about what the president has said about hanging members of Congress. [14:59] That's what I wanted to ask you. [15:01] Why aren't we hearing from your Republican colleagues? [15:05] And in terms of your security, I understand there was a request for you to get a boost in Capitol Hill security support. [15:13] Are Republican members on board with that? [15:17] I don't know. [15:20] I've heard them say, you know, very little about this. [15:22] I think, you know, the president tries to intimidate them. [15:27] He tries to intimidate Congress. [15:29] He looks at government accountability as a nuisance. [15:34] And I think it's really important for people to understand, Margaret, that the message he sent a couple days ago was he declared that loyalty to the Constitution is now punishable by death. [15:49] Those are serious words coming from the president of the United States. [15:55] He's trying to intimidate us. [15:56] But, Margaret, I'm not going to be intimidated. [15:58] You know, you just heard Jason Crow. [16:00] He's not going to be intimidated either. [16:02] We both served our country. [16:03] We swore an oath. [16:04] All we said is we reiterated what basically is the rule of law, that members of the military should not, cannot follow illegal orders. [16:14] Well, on that point, in terms of lawful and unlawful orders, it gets complicated for rank and file to understand. [16:24] I understand, and other networks have reported, that the senior judge advocate down at Southcom raised serious doubts about the legality of the strikes on those alleged drug boats, but was contradicted by lawyers at the executive branch. [16:39] Have you spoken to the Southcom, commander? [16:41] Do you, are you hearing that there are unlawful orders being given? [16:48] Well, we're hearing the same thing that you are. [16:50] The administration hasn't shared much information with us. [16:55] I read the legal analysis. [16:57] It was just like the briefs. [16:58] They're tying themselves in knots, trying to explain why what they're doing with regards to these drug boats is legal. [17:06] And it's questionable at best. [17:10] One of our biggest allies, the United Kingdom, recently stopped sharing intelligence with us in the Caribbean because they question whether this is legal or not. [17:21] We've been asking for more briefings from the right people. [17:25] We have not received them. [17:27] But the information that you just shared with me is the public information. [17:32] I don't have much more beyond that. [17:33] Well, and the French government has said it's a violation of international law and the law of the sea. [17:37] That's what our allies are saying about those strikes that are happening there. [17:42] But, Margaret, getting back to the junior folks. [17:46] Is that why you made this video? [17:47] No, no. [17:48] The reason why we made this video is a couple things. [17:51] This president, from before he was in office, as he was a candidate to the time he was in office in his first administration, has said things that cause us great concern. [18:03] There was a trend here. [18:04] When he was running for president the first time, he talked about he wanted the military. [18:09] He said he would, he would, the military should be killing the families of terrorists. [18:15] And when he was told that that was illegal, this was on a debate stage, he basically said that the military will not refuse to follow my orders, that they will carry out his orders regardless of what they were. [18:29] Shooting protesters in the legs is something he brought up in his first administration. [18:34] And thankfully, Mark Esper, his secretary of defense, and Mark Milley, you know, basically told him, you cannot do that. [18:42] If they weren't there, think of what possibly could have happened. [18:45] So we're concerned. [18:47] Yeah. [18:48] I'm sorry. [18:49] I just want to make sure I get to you on Ukraine because there's so much happening. [18:52] And I know you're such a big supporter of Ukraine. [18:55] There are three prominent U.S. senators who have gone on the record now, including Republican Mike Rounds, [19:00] who said yesterday, Secretary of State Rubio told them he was unaware of a threat to cut off U.S. support to Ukraine if they don't accept this proposed plan that's on the table. [19:10] Here is how Senator Rounds described it. [19:13] What he told us was that this was not the American proposal. [19:18] This was a proposal which was received by someone who has identified and they believe to be representing Russia in this proposal. [19:29] It was given to Mr. Whitcoff. [19:34] So since those remarks were made and backed up by multiple senators, I've received phone calls from senior White House officials, from senior U.S. officials saying, [19:46] no, no, no, that's not at all what Secretary Rubio said. [19:50] What version of events do we believe here in terms of what America is putting forward? [19:58] Margaret, they've got to clear this up. [19:59] You have Rubio talking to my Senate colleagues saying one thing, the spokesperson for the State Department saying another. [20:08] Your conversations with the White House contradict what the Secretary of State and, by the way, the National Security Advisor, same guy, has said about this. [20:17] They've got to figure this out and get the message out and explain to the American people what's going on. [20:22] I will say this, that that plan, that's Putin's plan. [20:26] That is a very good deal for Russia. [20:29] It is a horrible deal for Ukraine, for our allies, and even for our own national security. [20:33] If Putin gets the chance with that deal to, you know, rearm, rebuild his economy, and gained territory, by the way, that's what he wanted. [20:44] Then the Baltics, Poland, Romania, all those other countries down the line are at threat. [20:49] Well, the U.S. keeps emphasizing it is a working document. [20:52] So it may be in a different state than what was leaked by an anti-Zelensky politician. [20:57] But Ukraine's ambassador did tell us there's a separate security guarantee document. [21:02] What needs to be in there that would actually protect Ukraine? [21:06] Does that need to go for a vote before the U.S. Congress? [21:09] Well, it depends on what it is, but Congress should be involved. [21:15] If there is a treaty with Ukraine on their own security, it's something that we would want to have some say in. [21:21] And ultimately, we would vote on. [21:23] In the United States Senate, we would send to the president. [21:25] But they need to be talking to us about this. [21:27] Yeah. [21:28] On both sides of the aisle, often the path they're going on recently is to just share information with the Republicans. [21:37] And even my Republican colleagues don't seem to like that. [21:40] No. [21:41] That's what this White House is doing. [21:44] And it's because they don't want congressional oversight in any way, whether it's on Ukraine, Venezuela, or any issue. [21:56] All right. [21:56] We've got to leave it there, Senator. [21:57] But to your point, a number of very fiery statements from Republican senators in the past few hours. [22:03] We'll be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. [22:05] Stay with us. [22:05] The number of detainees held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has reached a record high of nearly 66,000, according to data released Friday by DHS. [22:19] Earlier this month, our Camilo Montoya-Galvez reported that roughly half of those in custody have no criminal charges or convictions on their record, [22:27] but are being held solely because of alleged civil violations of immigration law. [22:32] And now the government has confirmed it. [22:34] 48 percent of current detainees lack criminal charges or convictions. [22:38] Since President Trump took office, the number of non-criminal detainees arrested by ICE has increased by over 2,000 percent. [22:46] Our new CBS poll shows that 54 percent of Americans believe the government is stopping and detaining more people than necessary. [22:53] A similar number, 55 percent, now disapprove of President Trump's handling of immigration policy. [23:00] Despite growing public concern, the administration has recently expanded enforcement operations to Charlotte and other cities, [23:07] giving no sign their so-called mass deportation campaign is ending anytime soon. [23:12] Welcome back to Face the Nation. [23:23] For more from our latest CBS News poll, we're now joined by our Executive Director of Elections and Surveys, Anthony Salvato. [23:29] Anthony, it's always great to have you here. [23:32] It's the time of year where Americans go out and they spend a whole lot of money because they're getting ready for the holidays. [23:37] So how are people feeling about the economy? [23:39] The story of the economy is a story about prices, as it has been for years. [23:43] And people say prices are still high, not going down. [23:47] In fact, many say they're still going up. [23:49] And it's a reminder that even as we talk about inflation and the macro inflation rate of change numbers, [23:55] this is people walking down the aisle in the grocery store and saying that's expensive or that's not. [24:00] As simple as that is what you pick up in a poll. [24:03] Now, the other part of this is about expectations, which is at the start of this year, [24:08] people told us that they thought the economy was going to get better, that prices were going to come down. [24:13] So you see this sort of realization here that it is not. [24:18] That's number two. [24:19] But the other part of this is, as it comes back to those numbers you mentioned for the President [24:23] and his ratings for all of this. [24:26] First of all, what people say they're hearing from the White House doesn't match with what they are feeling. [24:32] They say the President is making the inflation issue sound better than it really is. [24:37] Now, look, some of that is just going to be any President. [24:39] Trying to be optimistic, right? [24:41] Maybe that's Trump being Trump, putting something positive out there. [24:44] But at the same time, you look at people who say they judge the President, first and foremost, [24:49] on how he handles the economy, and the big majority of them say his administration is not spending enough time on it. [24:56] So it's not just about the rhetoric. [24:57] It's also about the action. [24:59] Now, the other part of this is, when you look at the decline in his approval ratings on handling the economy, [25:06] it's kind of slow and steady down to this point, which comes back to those expectations, [25:11] which is that people sort of comparing what they expected to what they're seeing now. [25:16] And that's a big reason why his handling for it has slowly gone down. [25:20] Pocketbook politics, always so important. [25:23] The other big policy for this President has been immigration. [25:28] And his supporters have stuck by him on that. [25:31] How is he faring? [25:32] Very much so. [25:33] Still, very strong support from the Republican base. [25:35] That's right. [25:36] And relatively better than he does on the economy. [25:39] But speaking of the economy, there's an economic component to this, too, [25:42] which is people say that the deportation program is more likely to be hurting the economy right now, [25:50] making it weaker than making it stronger. [25:52] So you go a little... [25:53] It's harder to find workers? [25:54] Well, you go a little bit into that, right? [25:56] And people say... [25:57] The ones who say that they feel like it's impacting the area around them, [26:01] and the ones who say they think that is for the worse, [26:03] say their sense of things is that people are staying home more as a result of this, [26:09] not necessarily going out. [26:10] And so one of the things you see there is the potential or the perception of [26:14] an economic impact out of the deportation program, [26:18] although, yes, it still maintains strong support from Republicans. [26:21] Different topic, but related. [26:23] The White House is preparing for some kind of military action against Venezuela, [26:28] and the president has linked this to both drug policy and immigration policy [26:34] because of those Venezuelan refugees who've been coming into this country in recent years. [26:39] We have lawmakers saying not enough information is being shared. [26:43] Does the public think they know what's happening? [26:45] The public is echoing exactly that sentiment, right? [26:49] You get this big majority that says the administration has not yet explained [26:53] what the U.S. position is, what is going on there, [26:57] but then on the other side of that, that it needs to. [27:00] And even across the board, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, [27:04] all saying that it needs to. [27:06] Now, the reason then that you see, as we see, [27:10] this big number that say they would oppose military action in Venezuela [27:14] is that that connection hasn't been made, right? [27:18] So people don't feel like they know what's going on. [27:19] So you see that opposition, at least in general. [27:22] The other part is you compare that to relatively larger approval [27:26] for the idea of or the attacks on boats and ships [27:30] that the administration says are carrying drugs. [27:32] That gets a little higher approval, [27:35] but at the same time, you still see people saying [27:37] the administration should show evidence that there are drugs on that boat. [27:41] So it comes back to that idea of people wanting to know more. [27:44] Bring the public along with you in the decisions you're making. [27:49] You also have been looking at the president's base, MAGA. [27:52] How are they feeling, and how does this idea of intervention, [27:58] some kind of action overseas, settle with them? [28:02] Because the president had promised America first, focus at home. [28:06] Right now, with regard to Venezuela, you see the MAGA Republicans, [28:11] so identify as MAGA Republicans, [28:13] even more supportive than non-MAGA Republicans at the idea. [28:18] Why is that? [28:19] Number one, they do see it as tied to drugs. [28:23] They're more likely to say, if we were to go in there, [28:27] that it might stop the flow of drugs into the U.S. [28:29] So they're listening to what the president is arguing, number one. [28:33] Number two, for context, [28:34] we have often seen MAGA Republicans more deferential to the president [28:39] across a range of issues, including foreign policy ones. [28:42] It was, say, on the around strikes, as well as others. [28:45] And what they think, what we see is, when they say America first, [28:50] what they're saying is, look out for U.S. interests, number one. [28:54] Not necessarily be entirely isolationist, [28:57] but that deference to the president among the MAGA base [29:00] has been something consistent throughout this. [29:03] It is still very much about him and his connection to that MAGA base. [29:08] Anthony Salvando, great insights. Thank you. [29:11] Thanks. [29:12] We'll be right back. [29:12] We go now to Republican Senator Rand Paul, [29:18] who joins us from Bowling Green, Kentucky. [29:21] Welcome back to the program, Senator. [29:24] A lot to get to, but on this concern about political violence [29:27] or angry rhetoric, [29:29] I know the president himself has survived these two attempts on his life. [29:33] You've talked to us about those risks to him. [29:36] And then we had this killing of Charlie Kirk just a few months ago. [29:41] Is the president holding himself to the same standard that he is asking of others [29:46] when it comes to dialing back dangerous rhetoric? [29:50] You know, everybody knows that the president is famous for his unfiltered social media. [29:57] But if you take it face value, the idea that calling your opponents traitors [30:01] and then specifically saying that it warrants the death penalty is reckless, inappropriate, [30:08] irresponsible, there are a number of other ways to describe it. [30:12] But it's not something that is helping the country heal wounds. [30:15] I think it stirs things up. [30:17] And really, I think we can do better. [30:19] Well, on the Homeland Security front, I understand you are chair of that committee. [30:24] And so you have some insight into some of these domestic threats. [30:28] It's not just these Democratic lawmakers. [30:30] We saw out in the state of Indiana, [30:32] four Republican state senators were targeted by swatting threats [30:35] amid President Trump's public pressure on them to redistrict their state. [30:40] Just a few weeks ago, we did see one of the convicted January 6 rioters [30:45] who was then pardoned by President Trump, arrested for threatening [30:49] to kill Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. [30:52] I mean, are we at the point here where it's not just unfiltered social media posts, [30:57] but truly dangerous rhetoric? [30:59] Well, you know, I've been on the receiving side of this. [31:05] Even my father, who's been retired for some time, [31:07] has been on the receiving end of swatting. [31:11] Police are called, says there's an emergency in the home. [31:14] And the goal is to, you know, have someone draw a gun and be killed [31:17] as the police come in supposedly to rescue someone [31:19] who's not really in need of being rescued. [31:23] So I think both sides have been doing this. [31:25] And I think the language on treason and traitors, [31:29] both to Republicans and Democrats, is, as I said, reckless, [31:33] inappropriate, irresponsible. [31:35] Do you think that... [31:38] So one of the other developments we've seen just over the weekend [31:40] is that Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican from Georgia, [31:44] just a staunch supporter for so long of the president, [31:47] has said she is going to step away because she's paid such a public price [31:52] for some of her positions. [31:55] Do you think there is room in your party for disagreeing with President Trump? [32:02] I think it's important that we have independent voices. [32:04] So I'm sad to see her voice go away or potentially go away. [32:08] I think that she brought up something in the last week or so that was very important. [32:11] What is the Republican plan for health care? [32:13] So I've engaged the president on this, and I'm putting forward my own plan. [32:18] But in my plan, what it allows for is people to buy their insurance through a collective, [32:23] basically to buy their insurance through Costco or Sam's Club or Amazon. [32:28] And mine is the only plan out there that would actually drive prices down. [32:31] But that's what an independent voice will help in our country, [32:34] independent voice within the Republican caucus, [32:37] not to see things always inside the box, [32:39] but to think of some out-of-the-box solutions. [32:41] So I think independent voices are important in the Republican Party. [32:46] I want to ask you, because of your position on homeland security, [32:49] you may have some insight into the drug cartels. [32:53] You are also on Senate Foreign Relations. [32:55] And it is tomorrow that the Trump administration officially will designate [33:00] the Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization. [33:04] That's the cartel the Trump administration says is linked to [33:07] Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. [33:09] Secretary Hegseth says it gives the administration new tools. [33:14] Nothing's on or off the table, he says militarily. [33:18] Legally, what changes tomorrow? [33:20] What becomes possible? [33:21] I think by doing this, they're pretending as if we are at war. [33:28] They're pretending as if they've gotten some imprimatur to do what they want. [33:32] When you have war, the rules of engagement are lessened. [33:35] So, for example, we normally don't shoot boats that we suspect of being drug dealers. [33:40] In fact, if the Coast Guard tomorrow started shooting all vessels that are off of Miami [33:46] or off of San Diego, about one in four of the vessels that they normally board doesn't have drugs. [33:52] So it actually would be unlawful if the Coast Guard started blowing up boats. [33:56] But for some reason, they say, oh, we're at war off the coast of Venezuela. [34:00] And so it's a different rule of engagement. [34:03] It's one of war. [34:04] But, you know, Senator Cain and I brought this up. [34:06] And we said if it's war, let's declare it as war. [34:08] Let's have this discussion. [34:10] Is it war or not? [34:11] And the administration refused that. [34:13] They want to have it both ways. [34:14] They want to say, oh, we can just say these people are terrorists. [34:17] They're narco-terrorists. [34:18] So we can blow them up. [34:19] But it's extraordinary that when some of them survive, they pluck them out of the water. [34:24] They don't prosecute them for drugs. [34:26] They don't collect drugs. [34:27] They don't tell us if they were armed or not. [34:29] They just send them back to their country, most of the time not being Venezuela. [34:33] They've sent one back to Colombia and one back to Ecuador. [34:36] But nobody's making any pretense of even interviewing them to find out who's selling you the drugs. [34:42] Maybe we could find out who the kingpins are if they're involved in the drug trade. [34:45] Not a word. [34:46] And I've been given zero, not one briefing, because I'm skeptical of what they're doing. [34:53] They don't brief me or the general Senate at all. [34:56] A few hand-selected people may have gotten a briefing, but I have not been invited to any briefings on Venezuela. [35:02] Well, that's fairly unusual, given your homeland security role and that the premise for some of this action has to do with both immigration and drug policy, according to the president. [35:13] I know the DEA administrator recently spoke to our Nicole Skanga and told her that they have seen between a 30 to 45 percent increase in cocaine prices per kilogram due to these DOD boat strikes and a shift towards land routes for delivery of those drugs. [35:32] In other words, there's still demand for the drugs and the cartels are just finding different routes to deliver them. [35:41] Have you seen any evidence that the president's actions to date are winning a drug war? [35:47] You know, I think we should be trying to work on the demand side, treating it as a health problem, as an addiction problem in our country, and trying to lessen the demand. [35:57] And that is part of the overall solution. [36:00] The war on drugs, though, to capture all the people selling drugs, the price goes up and more people are attracted to it. [36:07] You know, a couple of the people that have been identified as being on these boats are simply down on their luck, people with no prospects, who are offered $500 to get on a boat and race across the ocean. [36:19] And so there always will be those people. [36:21] There's probably a limitless number of those people in South America. [36:25] There's been some benefit when we've cooperated with countries and with governments, but that's not what this is. [36:31] And I fear that this is not going to do anything for the drug trade, but it is really going against the rule of law in the way in which we interact with people on the high seas. [36:41] And it has no precedent. [36:43] I've seen you quoted as saying there are people in the administration who have wanted to go to war in Venezuela for some time. [36:50] Who are you talking about? [36:51] I think it's clear that Senator Rubio, as a senator, was very much an advocate of regime change. [36:59] This was at odds, really, with President Trump. [37:01] And so when he was picked, a lot of people who had been supportive of President Trump were, oh, my goodness, they're picking someone much more hawkish and much more eager to be involved and to intervene in other countries. [37:13] And so people worried. [37:14] And then the first year or so, people were like, oh, well, Rubio's done a good job on foreign aid and they've cut back on all of the abuse of these NGOs around the world. [37:23] And I think the people supporting the president have been very supportive of the secretary of state. [37:28] But I think once there's an invasion of Venezuela or if they decide to re-up the subsidies and the gifts to Ukraine, I think you'll see a splintering and a fracturing of the movement that has supported the president. [37:41] Because I think a lot of people, including myself, were attracted to the president because of his reticence to get us involved in foreign war. [37:50] Well, to date, they say nothing on or off the table, no specifics. [37:54] We'll continue to track all the reporting on that. [37:59] Senator Rand Paul, thank you for your time today. [38:01] We'll be back in a moment. [38:01] We're joined now by the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Olga Stefanyshina. [38:11] Welcome to Face the Nation. [38:12] Welcome, Margaret. [38:13] Hello. [38:14] I understand this is a very intense week for your country for a number of reasons, including the diplomacy that's happening right now as we sit here in Geneva. [38:24] Your president said Ukraine faces a choice between losing its dignity or losing a key ally, the United States. [38:32] What has been agreed to at this point? [38:34] Well, as it is known, the consultations are still ongoing between Ukraine and the American officials. [38:45] This is Secretary of State Rubio and also Secretary of Army Driscoll, who arrived a little bit earlier. [38:51] These consultations are still continuing on the basis of the proposal of the American side on 28-point peace plan, as it's been called here. [39:02] And European allies are also present in Geneva these days to work hand-in-hand with the Ukrainian delegation, but also with the American delegation to discuss the proposals on our and on their side. [39:17] So the consultations are still ongoing, but there has been a number of points which have been already widely discussed in public. [39:30] Are you aware of Russia making any concessions at this point? [39:33] Well, it is not seen this way from the proposal, which is on the table. [39:42] In fact, none of the points are actually related to forcing anything on the Russian side. [39:53] Of course, it's recognized that it is aggression. [39:56] There is a number of points related to return of hostages and prisoners of war of a humanitarian nation. [40:05] But this is definitely not about the justice. [40:11] This plan is not about the justice and the truth of this war and the aggression. [40:17] It's about, you know, ending the war and stopping the military engagements. [40:24] It's unfair to Ukraine, you're saying? [40:26] Well, again, I think this should be divided. [40:29] This plan is not about justice, you know, and this plan is about a number of actions proposed as part of estimated agreement between Ukraine and potentially Russian Federation. [40:45] Ukraine is in intensive engagement in a very constructive way with the American side. [40:51] And under the umbrella of U.S. leadership, these discussions are ongoing, and we believe that the fair piece is not the words, but this is something that should be put on the paper. [41:03] So, yes. [41:04] Have you been told that the United States will cut off military and intelligence sharing if President Zelensky doesn't agree to this plan by Thursday? [41:11] I think it's totally unfair to American colleagues and partners to quote these or that statements, which were done in course of, you know, various meetings and a phone call. [41:24] There was quite a few, you know. [41:26] We had a first senior military visit to Ukraine by Secretary of Army Driscoll since we gained the independence in 1991. [41:35] And I had a meeting with him as well here in Washington, and his role is extremely, extremely clear to us. [41:46] We also had an engagement between President and Vice President on a phone call. [41:50] There was, like, a lot of discussions. [41:52] Some of them were more emotional. [41:54] Some of them were less emotional. [41:56] But here we are. [41:57] We are sitting together and looking for a solution to end the war. [42:00] And Russia is not part of this process formally. [42:03] Well, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that in addition to those 28 points, there's a separate document that has to do with security guarantees. [42:11] I have also been told that there's a separate document with security guarantees. [42:15] Yes. [42:16] The Journal is reporting that it's 10 years of support, but it doesn't commit the U.S. to provide direct military assistance. [42:23] What guarantees do you want from the United States? [42:26] Well, there is a separate document called the Framework of the Security Assurances from the United States. [42:33] So, this is not the agreement. [42:34] This is not the treaty. [42:36] This is not the formal or detailed layout of what security guarantees is. [42:44] It is the, like, document specifying the intention that U.S. government is committed to providing security assurances, [42:51] which are, like, something like the Article 5 of the Washington NATO treaty. [43:00] So, it's still very different. [43:03] And it specifies it's been in a public access. [43:06] So, it's been publicly leaked as well. [43:08] So, that U.S. will stand up together with the allies in case of the Russian aggression from the territory of the Russian Federation. [43:18] I think we should now forget that the Russian aggression started, in fact, from Belarusian territory. [43:26] So, there are, like, a lot of nuances. [43:28] And this is to be discussed. [43:30] Oh, I see. [43:31] So, you're saying you want a clear security guarantee that says if you're invaded or if you're attacked, [43:36] including by surrounding countries that are Russian proxies, you want America to say that it will come to you. [43:41] Yeah, absolutely. [43:42] So, firstly, we can really speak about security assurances, where we have, like, the real document in front of our eyes. [43:49] And what is really important that we had, we are a very complicated partner for U.S., [43:56] because we also had a lot of different sad experiences, like Budapest's memorandum, where we gave up nuclear weapons, [44:03] that we had another of different situations, where we have learned our lessons, [44:10] and we faced the aggression for three and a half years, and we learned. [44:15] I have to ask you, U.S. and European officials tell me that the trajectory on the battlefield for Ukraine is not good, [44:23] particularly in that key industrial city of Pokrovsk. [44:27] Pokrovsk. [44:28] Pokrovsk. [44:28] And that Russia will likely take control of this, and that this is sort of a gateway to the eastern part, the Donbass. [44:37] How do you respond to the argument that Ukraine is losing on the battlefield and that you need to negotiate now? [44:42] Well, Ukraine is one of the largest European countries, and on a regular, within one week, [44:50] there are more than 1,000 incumbent engagements happening on all the front lines. [44:56] And Russia is trying to present that it's only happening in Pokrovsk, right? [45:01] So this is a victorious narrative Russia is using as a tactic of pressuring or changing the reality also here in the United States. [45:10] That's why, I mean, Pokrovsk is a very important spot on the front line, but definitely not the only one. [45:17] Ambassador, thank you for your time this morning. [45:20] We'll be right back. [45:21] That's it for us today. [45:26] Thank you all for watching. [45:27] Until next week. [45:28] For Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan.