Fox News Sunday 03-02-2025
53:18 Share

Your data is like gold to hackers. They'll sell it to the highest bidder. Are you protected? McAfee helps shield you, blocking suspicious texts, malicious emails, and fraudulent websites. McAfee's secure VPN lets you browse safely, and its AI-powered text scam detector spots threats instantly. You'll also get up to $2 million of award-winning antivirus and identity theft protection, all for just $39.99 for your first year. Visit McAfee.com. Cancel any time. Terms apply.

I'm Shannon Breen. Fallout after tensions boil over between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, with the path towards peace now unclear. You're playing cards. You're gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with World War III. You're gambling with World War III. What security guarantees can we have? I'm not pushing. We are not pressuring. We're just asking. We are just sharing. The Oval Office.

The American government should be bringing Mexican criminals...

to Mexican justice in Mexican courtrooms. All right now on Fox News Sunday. Hello from Fox News in Washington. We begin with a look at your top headlines. Israel has stopped all aid supplies from entering the Gaza Strip, citing Hamas's refusal to accept an outline for continued peace talks and the failure to release the remaining Israeli hostages. Hamas has released its own statement condemning the move.

High winds and dry conditions are fueling wildfires in the Carolinas, leading to evacuations in several communities. Firefighters did get some help overnight as the winds died down.

And Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is meeting with European leaders in the U.K. today. Britain, France and Ukraine have agreed to work on a ceasefire plan that they will then present to the United States. In a moment, we'll talk with the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. But first, we turn to Lucas Tomlinson. He's covering the president in Florida and he's at Mar-a-Lago this morning. Good morning, Lucas.

You have full backing across the United Kingdom.

Zelensky received a warm welcome in London. Before arriving at 10 Downing Street, Zelensky showed his appreciation for the U.S., posting on X, We are very grateful to the United States for all the support. I'm thankful to President Trump, Congress for their bipartisan support, and American people.

Gratitude the Trump administration thought was lacking in Washington. Zelensky arrived at the White House to sign a mineral rights deal. But 40 minutes into an Oval Office meeting with President Trump, it went off the rails. Vice President J.D. Vance jumped in. Mr. President, Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media.

A fiery exchange in the Oval Office unlike any in history caught on camera. Zelensky left the White House a short time later after Trump asked him to leave. The planned press conference and lunch canceled. The mineral rights deal unsigned. Before leaving for Palm Beach, Trump was asked when Zelensky will return to the White House. Well, he says he wants it now. He wants to come back right now, but I can't do that.

Hours later, Zelensky appeared on special report with Brett Baier. Many in the Trump administration wanted an apology. Zelensky did not offer one. So I'm not hearing from you, Mr. President, a thought that you owe the president an apology. No, I respect the president and I respect American people. And if I don't know if

I think that we have to be very open and very honest. And I'm not sure that we did something bad. The fallout split along party lines, even among Ukraine's biggest supporters. Complete, utter disaster. He either needs to resign or he needs to change. It was a planned ambush designed to embarrass President Zelensky in order to benefit Vladimir Putin.

This weekend, President Trump will be working on his speech to Congress Tuesday night. Shannon. All right. We'll have full coverage. Lucas, thank you very much. Joining us now, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. Welcome to Fox News Sunday. Morning, Shannon. So what is the intelligence community's assessment of Vladimir Putin and his future ambitions?

Well, I want to focus, first of all, on President Trump's goal and the reality that's on the ground. And that's the thing that seems to be getting lost in what we're seeing in President Zelensky's statements in the White House and the European leader's response to this. President Trump recognizes the urgent need to end this war after three long, bloody years and has proven that he is the only person that can do this.

President Zelensky has different aims in mind. He has said that he wants to end this war.

But he will only accept an end, apparently, that leads to what he views as Ukraine's victory, even if it comes at an incredibly high cost of potentially World War III or even a nuclear war. President Trump is committed to peace and to freedom. We're seeing this big divergence here between his position and his commitment to these values and the interests of the American people and the interests of President Zelensky and these European leaders.

This is an issue that has to be resolved. I know President Trump is committed to doing this, and that's really where the next step needs to lead. Yeah. So what is that next step? Because one of the criticisms of the Biden administration is that they hadn't talked to Putin for years. President Trump is doing that. He's having that conversation. But now it seems the relationship with Zelensky is broken, at least temporarily. How does that get back on track? Because he's got to be part of the conversation as well.

Of course. And President Trump has made very clear that in his previous conversations with both Putin and Zelensky, that he wants to engage with both. He wants to engage in honest and real negotiations. And unfortunately, what happened in the White House after Zelensky

Close to an hour of conversation when President Zelensky directly challenged President Trump and Vice President Vance in front of the media and the American people. He really showed his lack of interest in any real good faith negotiations. I can tell you there were a lot of conversations that were happening through different channels.

emissaries, both for Zelensky and for President Trump, leading up to his visit there to the Oval Office. And President Zelensky's immediate escalation there was frankly quite a surprise. This has created a huge rift in the relationship. President Zelensky, as you pointed out in the clips that you played, doesn't believe that he did anything wrong, that there was no issue with what he brought up in the Oval Office with President Trump.

There's going to have to be a rebuilding of any kind of interest in good faith negotiations, I think, before President Trump is going to be willing to reengage on this. One of the things that might have gotten lost in the shuffle as people were trying to listen and now they're talking over each other, we've all seen the clips there from the Oval Office. Zelensky was saying, we did have ceasefires. I have signed on to other agreements and yet...

Putin crossed those lines. He said he blew up the ceasefires. He killed my people. Does he not have a valid point that there should be real, you know, understanding his frustrations and skepticism that Putin is actually going to be a reliable partner in whatever deal comes together?

Really, there's two viable paths here. One is that this war continues on as it has for over three years. More and more Ukrainians will lose their lives. More and more of the country of Ukraine will be decimated and destroyed.

in this what will continue to be essentially a war of attrition. And to what end? To what outcome? President Trump sees this reality. So the alternative to this, which he is so intent on, which he talked about continuously throughout his campaign, that the American people voted for, is his commitment to ending this war and bringing about peace. That requires bringing interested parties to the table to conduct these negotiations.

Of course, both sides are going to have their arguments and their interests that they are fighting for. This is the reality of how these negotiations always occur during times of war. Neither side is going to be happy, very likely, with the outcome. But ultimately...

It needs to lead to peace. And that's what President Trump is so committed to because he recognizes that the longer this goes on, not only are more Ukrainians losing their lives, but it increases the potential of this escalation towards World War III that he warned against as he sat there with Zelensky saying that he's gambling with World War III. And that's not a...

a cost that President Trump is willing to accept. I want to put something up. A recent Quinnipiac poll just days ago, this is before the incident in the Oval Office, if that's what we want to call it. And it asked the American people, do you think the U.S. should trust Russian President Vladimir Putin? Eighty one percent of them said no. You know, it's hard to get 81 percent of Americans to agree on anything, but they're united on that. So why does this administration trust Putin?

I think President Trump goes in with the cynical eye as he does. I imagine with any deal that he's made, it's not about blind trust at all. It's about looking at the factors that are on the table, negotiating with all interested parties. And then for President Trump, ultimately, he's going to look out for what's in the best interest of the American people, our ability to live in a peaceful and prosperous way in our country and uphold the values of freedom that we hold dear.

So so I think, again, President Trump has a very realist view of the picture and what's at stake, which is why he's so committed to working to bring about an end to this war. And frankly, why he's proven that as as this war has been waged over the last three years, he's the only one that has the ability to do that.

So our next guest coming up, Democratic Congressman, excuse me, now Senator, was Congressman, Senator Chris Van Hollen, says that he is very worried about what he saw on Friday, what it communicates. He says the people who are celebrating are Russia and Putin, Xi and China, people who don't have America's best interests at heart. And we do have

over the weekend a number of reactions out of Russia. You've got Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying President Trump's the one using common sense and that we like the way he's acting. You've got the Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, saying what the U.S. is doing is changing the game and it largely coincides with our vision. What do you make of Russia celebrating and saying what the U.S. is doing lines up with their vision?

They're going to say what their position is. What we should pay attention to here in the United States of America is the American people, so many people across the country celebrating the strong leadership that President Trump and Vice President Vance demonstrated in the Oval Office.

something we have not seen over the last four years of the biden administration where we finally have a president who's going to stand up strongly and fiercely and unwaveringly for the cause of peace and freedom for the american people i know that that is who president trump has on his heart and on his mind as he is working towards bringing about a negotiated end to this war i think those who are criticizing his efforts in this way are showing that they are not committed to peace

And in the case of many of those European countries, that they're not committed to the cause and values of freedom. Even though they speak of this, we heard very clearly during Vice President Vance's speech in Munich.

Different examples of how these European partners and longtime allies in many cases are actually implementing policies that undermine democracy, that shows that they don't actually believe in the voices of the people being heard and implementing anti-freedom policies. We're seeing this in the United Kingdom. We're seeing this in Germany. We saw it with the tossing out of the elections policy.

Thank you.

saying basically that they are going to support him in continuing this war and that they don't stand with us around these fundamental values of freedom. Well, and they also, though, think that they're in more alignment and they should be with the U.S. when it comes to those freedoms and things you talk about. Certainly those are not things that you would say that Russia or Putin celebrates or bestows on his own people.

That's correct. I would not make that claim. And it's clear that that's not the case, nor does President Trump. But that's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about many of these European countries and Zelensky himself, who claim to be standing and fighting for the cause of freedom and democracy when we actually look at what's happening internationally.

in reality, in these countries, as well as with Zelensky's government in Ukraine, is the exact opposite. You have the canceling of elections in Ukraine. You have political parties being silenced or even criminalized or thrown in prison. You have the freedom of religion, churches being shut down. You have political opposition being silenced. You have total government control of the media. We could go down a whole laundry list of issues that are against Zelensky

the values of democracy and freedom. So it really begs the question, as Vice President Vance said again in Munich,

It's clear that they're standing against Putin. Obviously, that's clear. But what are they actually really fighting for? And are they aligned with the values that they claim to hold in agreement with us, the values that President Trump and Vice President Vance are standing for? And those are the values of freedom, of peace and true security. All right. So the way that you describe Ukraine and the way that most Americans and most of the world understands Russia, are you saying it's essentially choosing between the lesser of two evils?

What I'm focused on is what President Trump is focused on, which is peace, seeing the world through a very clear picture and making sure that the president is having honest and good faith negotiations with both of these countries to bring about an end to this war. That is what it's about.

that lives are at stake. The potential of World War III, if this war continues to go on and escalate, is what's at stake. And again, President Trump will make his decisions and will stay very focused on what is in the best interests of the American people and ensuring that future of peace and freedom. All right. And we'll stay tuned to see where the reset is on the Ukrainian side. Director Gabbard, thank you for stopping in.

Thank you, Sean. Up next, we're to get reaction from a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrat Chris Van Hollen. He's live next. So, listen, he's got a chip on his shoulder. Every European leader applauds him for standing up to Trump. All I can say is a missed opportunity doesn't even begin to explain it.

Okay, that was Senator Lindsey Graham, clearly frustrated in the wake of that chaotic Oval Office meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, leaving the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations perhaps more uncertain than ever. Joining us now, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. Welcome, good to have you. Shannon, good to be with you. Okay, so this didn't happen suddenly on Friday. We know that there have been growing tensions. There have been a number of Trump administration officials who've sat down, who've met with Zelensky or his inner circle,

and have said they've been very heated meetings. There have been attempts to come to some kind of agreement on a number of things. They feel sometimes they've come out of these meetings and they've been misrepresented or misconstrued what was actually discussed there. I want to play something from Secretary Rubio that he said Friday night about all this.

And when you see efforts to impede it, when you deliberate, when you tell someone, don't say, let's not talk about these things, let's not go in this direction because it makes it harder for us to engage. And they insist on doing it anyway. You start to wonder. You start to wonder. I don't like to impugn people's motives, but you start to wonder what's behind it. You voted for Secretary Rubio. Do you have confidence in him and the way that he's trying to manage this?

I did vote for Senator Rubio to be Secretary of State. I regret that vote because as a member of the Senate, Secretary Rubio was somebody who stood up for American values, American principles. He acknowledged that Russia was the aggressor against Ukraine. He realized that

It wasn't it wasn't Zelensky, who is the dictator. And now he's simply taking his directions to the State Department from Elon Musk and essentially parroting the president's position, which I understand. But it's very different than what Senator Rubio used to talk about.

OK, so we've got Secretary Besson. He described the meeting that he had with President Zelensky in Kiev. He said they wanted to get this deal done on the rare earth minerals. They wanted to show a bond and come out of that meeting united against Russia. He said it was very tough. Forty five minute meeting. Very loud decibel level. He wanted no daylight between the two. He says he refused Zelensky to sign that. He said I'll sign in Munich. Didn't sign in Munich. Came here.

on Friday, which we thought was going to be a celebration of signing this deal. And Secretary Besson said it was one of the biggest own goals in history. That's how we saw the meeting going down.

I saw the meeting as a despicable display of bullying by the president of the United States and the vice president of the United States against somebody whose country is at war with Putin, a brutal assault by Putin, who's lost thousands and thousands of Ukrainians, who wants peace more than anybody, but he also wants to make sure that it's a durable, sustainable peace. You mentioned this mineral deal.

The deal that was on the table at the White House, just to be clear, was very different than what Secretary Besson first put on the table, both in Ukraine and in Munich. Was that in part because Zelensky and his team, they had input? I mean, they wanted changes to this deal. Right. But just to be clear, what happened in Munich was the...

The president's people essentially tried to extort the Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to give up half of their mineral supplies in order for past U.S. support and to continue ongoing U.S. support. It was extortion, pure and simple. It would be like in the middle of World War II, you know, FDR saying to Churchill, we're not going to help you against the Nazis and Hitler unless you give up half of your mineral resources and half of your coal.

So it did change. But to suggest that, you know, Zelensky was wrong to be rejecting what was essentially extortion earlier on is a is a warped version of what actually happened. Do you think that the U.S. should get some return on the billions in taxpayer dollar investment in the way that Europe has structuring these as loans?

Well, Europe has provided a lot in grants. They provided some in concessionary loans. I'm fine if the United States wants to include some of its support in the form of concessionary loans. I'm sure Zelensky would support that. I mean, it was Zelensky's idea originally to include some kind of deal on minerals to provide for reconstructions.

But what happened is that idea got transformed originally into an idea where it was really extortion. It was like, give us half of this stuff for what we've already done.

And then to see what happened at the White House, I will say, was embarrassing because, you know, Zelensky has talked about the sacrifice of his people. He's also been grateful to the United States. Whenever I meet with him and I met with him with others before his meeting at the White House, he always expresses gratitude. But, you know, Donald Trump does not recognize sacrifice for this greater principle. Absolutely.

After all, it was Donald Trump who said of American combat troops who died for our country that they were suckers and losers. Well, to that point, you know that there are 17 people who've been on the record who were in those meetings and on that trip who said those words were never said. So...

That's 17 people saying it didn't happen. It is a popular line to use. You can understand, though, maybe that this administration has got real levels of frustration with this and the way that things have gone down. It's not just them. You were part of this meeting. You said bipartisan senators meeting with Mr. Zelensky before he went to the White House. Lindsey Graham was also one of them. He seemed super frustrated after this meeting that the way he had talked with Mr. Zelensky about how to approach Mr. Trump had not maybe gone in one ear and out the other. Here is a bit of his reaction.

I've busted my ass to try to help Ukraine to make sure we help them win a war that would, you know, get this war over in a way that we don't have further aggression. And Donald Trump's the man to do it. I told him this morning, I told him, don't take the bait. Don't let the media or anybody else get you into a argument with President Trump. What he's doing today is resetting the relationship. You should be grateful.

You know, a lot of folks here in Washington are thinking, if you've lost Lindsey Graham on this, who's been incredibly supportive of President Zelensky and of continuing aid to Ukraine, you may be in trouble. First, Shannon, I would just say it was General Kelly, a Marine Corps general, who made that statement about what Trump had said about U.S. service people. I choose to believe General Kelly. Look, Senator Graham has been a big supporter of the Ukrainian people. This was clearly an example where he decided to

preserve his relationship with President Trump. Do you think he was not genuinely frustrated? I mean, you were part of that meeting that morning, and it sounded like he was trying to prep him for success. I was part of that meeting. And in that meeting, we saw President Zelensky again express gratitude to the American people. And he was sitting through this meeting, President Zelensky,

for a long time and faced a barrage of misrepresentations, misstatements. I actually thought he handled himself very well under the circumstances. I don't think we should expect foreign leaders to have to come into the Oval Office and play dear leader like the president's cabinet officials and others may be doing. I don't think that that is what we should expect of them. He had to listen to a litany of

lies and misinformation. And I thought he did it with incredible calm. And then, of course, you saw the president, the vice president just turn on him and bully him. And that spectacle

as you played earlier today, is being warmly received and embraced by our adversaries, by Putin and the Russians. And you can be sure President Xi is keeping one eye on what's happening on Ukraine as he keeps another eye on Taiwan. This was a total disaster for those of us who believe in American foreign policy, where we respect our allies and our friends, and we stand up for democracy and freedom around the world.

It is definitely a change in tone from the last administration, and we'll see how it plays out as we hope that these conversations come back to the table. Senator, always good to see you. Thank you for coming in. Good to be with you. Appreciate your time. All right, outrage after the Department of Justice releases documents from the Jeffrey Epstein case, but maybe not for the reasons you might imagine. Our Sunday panel on that and the possibility of a government shutdown just days away from the federal government running out of money. They're next.

It's that time of year again. I can say to my new Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, hey, find a keto-friendly restaurant nearby and text it to Beth and Steve. And it does without me lifting a finger. So I can get in more squats anywhere I can. One, two, three.

Three. Will that be cash or credit? Credit. Four. Galaxy S25 Ultra, the AI companion that does the heavy lifting so you can do you. Get yours at Samsung.com. Compatible with select apps requires Google Gemini account results may vary based on input check responses for accuracy. We're looking for peace. We're not looking for somebody that's going to sign up a strong power and then not make peace because they feel emboldened. And that's what I saw happening. It will be difficult for us. That's what I saw happening.

That's why I'm here. That's why we speak about the future negotiations. It will be difficult without your support.

Future of U.S. support for Ukraine in question after an extraordinary Oval Office dust-up between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky. Time now to discuss with our Sunday group. USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page. Richard Fowler, Fox News contributor and Forbes contributing writer. Former RNC communications director Doug High. And Hans Nichols, Axios congressional reporter.

I think we're all in agreement. We've never seen anything like we saw Friday in the Oval. But now we're on to the aftermath of it. We know that Zelensky is meeting with a number of European leaders today. Washington Post says this. European diplomats have acknowledged that while Europe could try to match U.S. funding if needed, they would have a harder time substituting the full range of weapons that have been provided to Kiev, especially key capabilities in which they are lagging, such as air defenses. Of course, Susan, that begs the whole question.

Can this move forward a resolution to this conflict without active U.S. involvement? It won't be the same. Europe was not able to make up the whole role that the United States is playing. And they have to make a decision about how far they go along with a U.S. peace that's acceptable to the United States and could be imposed that way. That also doesn't just leave Ukraine out in the cold. I mean, we've been at many of those Oval Office meetings recently.

between a president and a leader of a foreign leader. Nothing like this has ever happened before. The world changed this week, coupled with the U.N. vote that the United States cast with Russia and against our European allies on Ukraine. The alignment of the United States changed this week and the U.S. role in the world has changed. And we're going to look back at this week as epic.

Well, Hans, how much and that was the third world leader that was in the Oval Office this week. I mean, it's been a week. But Hans, how much of what this administration is saying about Putin, about Russia, about Zelensky is posturing for the sake of negotiating, keeping Putin at the table and moving him toward a resolution? You know, in diplomacy, there's always the public part and the private part. And I think what was remarkable about this week is that the private part was public.

So, yes, we've never seen anything like that happen. But that's not to say nothing like that has ever happened behind closed doors. And when you look to sort of the core of your question is where is the Trump administration on finding a final peace deal? We know where they want to end up, which is to have some sort of end of fighting and but not security guarantees and the access to the minerals.

But the details of how they get there are very messy. And they're not... I mean, you can say a lot about Donald Trump, but he always isn't very clear on how he wants to, from path A to path B, where he wants to get, how he wants to do it. And he's being almost intentionally ambiguous about his path because that's how he negotiates. And...

I'm not in a position to adjudicate on how good of a negotiator Donald Trump is, but a lot of his staff and a lot of his allies say he's the best in the business. Yeah, he loves to get a deal done. With that in mind, though, Wall Street Journal editorial board says this, their headline, Putin wins the Zelensky, Trump-Zelensky Oval Office's

spectacle, said Mr. Trump does not want to be the president who abandoned Ukraine to Vladimir Putin with all the bloodshed and damage to U.S. interests that would result. Mr. Vance won't like to run for president in such a world either. They were asking about why the vice president jumped in the way he did, but clearly he thought there was some measure of disrespect.

Sure. And I think this is a situation where everybody didn't really adjudicate themselves in the best way possible. Zelensky should have known that he was walking into this. I don't think he was ambushed, as some were saying. But ultimately, the conversations that European leaders have been having over the past couple of weeks have been focused on what this question is. And obviously, I saw you this week at the British embassy. The week before, I was in London. Every conversation I had was, whether it was with a Tory, a Lib Dem, somebody from Labour,

What is the posture of the United States moving forward? And I go back to when Keir Starmer was in the Oval Office. One of the first things that Donald Trump did was point out, hey, we have a bust of Winston Churchill. It's back.

in the Oval Office. Well, Winston Churchill, we know, said, we will fight on the beaches, we will fight on the fields, we will never surrender. That is the kind of language that we usually expect from Donald Trump. And I think ultimately, Zelensky has one card here that he can still play, and it's the visual of Donald Trump if he goes to Ukraine. We saw how that played very, very well for Boris Johnson, the times that he went. Donald Trump understands visuals very well.

Some type of Reagan-esque moment, if that is possible, in Kiev would be a real strong signal from Trump and to Putin. And I think that it's going to take a lot, it would take a lot, Richard, to get there because I'm not sure they're even communicating at this point. But to President Trump's point, he is having a conversation with Putin.

that wasn't happening during the Biden administration? And how do you resolve it if you're not at the table with the key players? This is actually I agree with the sitting president is that we do need to be talking to everybody at the table. With that being said, the ideal of Donald Trump going to Kiev, I think, is highly unlikely. I don't want to play down Susan's point because I do think the ideal of this meeting being historic and unprecedented and all the actions that follow is actually very important in this moment. What we heard from the United on the

European Union foreign minister talking about that we need a new world order, we need a new world leader. That moment to me was very, very, very, it caused pause, but it was also very telling. Europe is sort of saying, if the U.S. is not going to lead in this moment against somebody that we can all agree is our adversary, Russia and Putin under Russia's control, then there's other problems that's at stake. How do we do joint military engagements? How do we do joint intelligence deals in a world in which the United States is walking away from outstripping

from alliances they've had since the beginning of our founding, i.e., France and the Europeans. And so I think this is a very telling moment for the United States. And I think it is a shift in the world order. And I think there's a lot of countries, many of our longtime allies, saying, how do we navigate? And I think also with that being said, many of our foes, including China, saying, how do we navigate in a moment where the United States is walking back in an attempt to save America first? Is this also an America last? Because the world is shifting.

Well, and he is definitely up into the world order, but a lot of people would say that's his strength. These leaders do not know exactly what to expect from President Trump, and that's part of his negotiation style. It certainly works when you're talking with people like the Taliban and others who were really concerned about what he might actually do. I want to make sure that we touch on this, though, a couple of things. There are other things going on here domestically that we are going to run out of money, apparently, in a couple of weeks. There is this massive budget deal on a collision course. I mean, Hans...

Where do we go on this? Because the two frameworks that we have right now are both Republican-led, but they have serious differences, and President Trump's going to have to get involved, it would seem, at some point, in trying to negotiate these. And we see the level at which Trump had to get involved just to get this first incremental House deal across the line, which is a lot of phone calls and a lot of leverage. If there's going to be any sort of big tax and spending package of the scope that the president and his Republican allies are going to talk about,

The president is going to get much more involved. He wants it. It's central to his agenda. He wants to deliver tax cuts. There's a sense inside the White House that they need to have an economic boost and have Americans starting to feel better about it. So that's the strategy. Again, how they get there, it's going to be difficult. The change in the last 48, 72 hours is that there's less talk about a budget reconciliation deal and more talk about a potential government shutdown, which I'll leave for the rest of the table to solve.

You got a resolution? I've lived through government shutdowns. They are not fun. And by the way, Congress is working throughout them. They're not on vacation or anything. But this comes down to, I think, ultimately Donald Trump's leadership, right? We have a very small majority in the House, so small that Elise Stefanik can't have her confirmation vote because they need her vote in the House. Obviously, a small one in the Senate as well. Donald Trump is the one who's going to have to

get these House Republicans and Senate Republicans in line together to move forward. Because ultimately, regardless of party, we always know the House and the Senate don't agree on things in any normal circumstance. This is not a normal circumstance. And it leads to a lot of questions of what would the Doge effort then be if we're operating in a shutdown? OK, another thing that made headlines for...

not the reasons that we thought it was going to make headlines potentially is the Epstein revelations this week, which were not revelations. Fox News dot com has this headline. Conservatives explode at botched Epstein document rollout, quote, complete disappointment. It is utter and complete disappointment. I'm not really sure what they were expecting. I don't think we'll see these Epstein files come out for all the reasons, even though we should. But I do think it's important to sort of talk about this government shutdown because I think that's a real thing. And I think we've got to take it outside the beltway for just a second.

And when I say that, I think about somebody like Maria Alvarez, who's somebody who works at HUD. She lives in Virginia. She's worked there for 10 years helping the American people navigate our complicated federal housing system. She's worried about her job right now, like many federal employees are. And when you think about, one, a government shutdown, which could make many of them not have a job,

have money. But two, they're also worried about mass firings that could come this week because of Elon Musk and Donald Trump, who are basically pushing the line on federal executive power while Congress sort of sits and sort of, I guess, applauds this. This is a real, real concern for a lot of the American people.

And I think there's a lot of blame going on mosque and Trump. But at this moment, I also blame the American Congress. When are you going to say this is our job to allocate allocate how money is spent? This is our job to to write federal statutes and determine how agencies are operated. And we're going to hold that job, whether we're Democrats or Republicans, because the Constitution has given this to us. Well, and Susan, what about that? Because we're going to hear more of these personal anecdotes and stories of a real people who are on the other end of these decisions. Do Republicans risk pushing this too far?

Yeah. You know, the problem for President Trump is that this is beyond the power of an executive order to fund the government. And so the issue with a shutdown may be not whether it happens. I think that is more likely than not now. But who gets blamed when it happens? And if Republicans control the White House, the House and the Senate, how do they avoid holding responsibility for the government running out of power?

Well, and I feel like they get blamed even when they're not running the House and the Senate and the White House. Democrats have been really good at messaging on these shutdowns. So we'll see. But hopefully the next time we see each other, we will not be sitting in the midst of a shutdown panel. Thank you very much. We'll see you next week. OK, courtroom drama. The Trump administration facing nearly 100 lawsuits now as it aims to impose sweeping changes to the federal government. And as we right now await action from the Supreme Court, our legal panel is going to join us to break down the most critical cases next.

This episode is brought to you by PDS Debt.

Struggling with credit cards, personal loans, medical bills, or collections? It's time to stop worrying about that high-interest debt you've got piling up. PDS Debt can help you start saving money immediately. Their platform can analyze your unique situation and create a plan to get you out of debt. There's no minimum credit score required, and it takes 30 seconds to get your results. With PDS Debt, you'll take back control of your finances. Get a free debt analysis in just 30 seconds at pdsdebt.com.

Since the president began his second term with a flurry of executive action and sweeping cuts to the federal budget and workforce, the legal challenges against him have been piling up. Check it out.

A couple of these have already reached to the Supreme Court, and we're waiting on action there. But it hasn't all been defense. The administration is on offense, too, as it warns it's going to take action against states and localities that did not or will not comply with the president's directives. Our legal panel is here to break down the merits of some of the most critical cases. Tom Dupree, former principal deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro, great to have both of you with us.

Okay, so let's start there. The DOJ on offense, they are going after states and localities that are not complying with some of these executive orders, whether it's sanctuary cities, whether it's something like the president's statement in executive order on women's sports.

Ilya, there's outgoing, not just incoming in the legal fights. Well, they're lawyered up. They're aggressive. They use the transition well. And look, states, if you take federal funds, there are strings attached, including civil rights protections, including enforcing federal law. So if you don't like it, don't take the money.

Well, and we saw this play out with the president and the governor of Maine, and she said, we'll see you in court. Oh, absolutely. And look, I think the Trump administration is much more comfortable playing offense and trying to enforce their policy agenda through litigation than having to defend all their actions in the federal court. And what we saw with the Maine governor, I think, is just the first in what is going to be a long series.

of blue state governors pushing back against the Trump administration's agenda, saying we'll see you in court and you know the Trump team is ready for a legal battle. They have been gearing up. Okay, next in our countdown, these arguments about Doge and Elon Musk and whether they have the authority to do what they're doing. Wall Street Journal had an opinion piece and said, listen, Congress could solve this. They could put a line into the reconciliation package of the budget conferring this authority over onto the administration. The piece says the plaintiff's

claim that Mr. Trump is violating statutes or exercising authority Congress hasn't granted him. Such claims would be made moot if Congress gave the president express power to take these actions. Would it work?

I think it would work if Congress took those actions. But I think it is a very, very long shot, to put it charitably, that Congress is actually going to legislate in a lot of these areas. And look, the administration has made clear they are going to move as fast as they can, as hard as they can, on as many fronts as they can. Elon Musk and the courts may push back. They may put in guardrails. They may slow down the administration. But I think at the end of the day, it's going to be largely speed bumps. And their courts are not going to prevent the Trump administration from trying to dramatically reduce the size of the federal workforce.

So there's been a mix of wins and loses. While there may be some gray areas, most of what Doge is doing has authority in the sense that there's actually an Obama-era U.S. digital service that Trump renamed the U.S. Doge Service. Elon Musk and all of the Musketeers are special government employees pursuant to statute. They're not just kind of floating out there on some whim. And they're looking at waste, fraud, and abuse. They can't shut down the entire Department of Education. That would take legislation.

But they can certainly cancel certain contracts, reevaluate certain things. And there shouldn't even be standing to challenge because the president has until the end of the fiscal year to spend the money. OK, so next on our list, it kind of works in with this is the firing of federal employees and doing this in a mass email or whatever it is.

The Office of Personnel Management here in D.C. has sent out some of these emails, and they've done firing of thousands of probationary employees. Well, a judge has ruled on this. Judge William Alsup said this on Friday. He said no statute anywhere ever has granted OPM, Office of Personnel Management, the authority to direct the termination of employees in other agencies. He goes on to write, Congress's statutory scheme grants to each agency head the authority to manage their own affairs

including the hiring and firing of employees. Ilya, does that suggest if these agencies did this on a more individual basis?

at least within their silo, could it work? I think so. This is kind of ticky-tack. You know, you haven't crossed the T's, dotted the I's. There could be bigger challenges, again, proactive Trump administration litigation against some of these civil service rules tying the president's hands. Union contracts in the public sector might violate executive control over the executive branch.

OK, I want to get to number two on our list because, Tom, this is something that you flagged. It didn't get a lot of attention this week. But this idea that the Justice Department now under Attorney General Bondi has said a number of local fire and police departments that were being sued because they were using standardized tests.

that there was an argument they were having discriminatory results, that they were facing legal trouble over that. Now, under the Biden administration, the assistant AG Kristen Clark at the time said discriminatory barriers that deny qualified black and female applicants the opportunity to be police officers violate civil rights and undermine public safety efforts. The AG says these are standardized tests. We're not going to sue you over that when the results don't go well.

according to a certain quota or plan. Exactly. And look, this is one of the clearest possible signals that there is a new sheriff in town at the Justice Department. The Civil Rights Division is walking back a lot of these lawsuits that were filed under Biden. And to your point, what they are saying is the fact that these police departments and fire departments are using standardized tests that may result in disparate outcomes and not achieve the diversity results that they were hoping for.

That doesn't amount to intentional discrimination. They're walking these lawsuits back. They're closing the door on the litigation. They're saying, let the police and fire departments make their hiring decisions. And they will. We're going to focus on different priorities, such as enforcement of, I'm assuming, religious civil rights and other civil liberties that may not have been as enforced as strictly in the Biden administration. Yeah. And Ilya, every administration is going to have its own.

priorities and they're going to want their to-do list when they get a new AG. I mean, police departments, fire departments, didn't the Supreme Court already rule on this like 15 years ago in the Ritchie case? Yeah, I covered it. I remember it very well. Yeah. So universities as well, if they're engaged in massive resistance to or just shuffling around the same educrats rather than shutting down those civil rights violating programs, they're going to

there's gonna be hell to pay. - Okay, so let's get to the Supreme Court. This is our number one case that we're watching 'cause this could literally come at any time. A lower court judge has ordered the Trump administration to pay out a lot of money in federal foreign aid. They don't wanna do it. The administration says, "Give us time. "We're viewing a lot of these decisions."

Chief Justice John Roberts has got appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. He put a pause Wednesday night because there was a midnight deadline. He said, let us look at this before we make a decision. So we're waiting for that. When the Trump administration filed with the Supreme Court to get that lower court order thrown out, they said what the government cannot do is pay arbitrarily determined demands on an arbitrary timeline of the district court's choosing or according to extra contractual rules that a court has devised. So they're saying this lower court judge can't force us to pay the money.

Yeah, the Trump administration is saying this lower court judge overstepped his bounds. And look, I think the Supreme Court has a very good chance they are going to come to the rescue of the administration on this for two reasons. One is that they may say that the district judge infringed on the president's power to conduct foreign affairs.

The other thing they may do, and this is we saw in that quote, is that they may say, look, this is an arbitrary timeline. The district judge basically said, you know, pay within 72 hours. I direct the money to go out. The U.S. came to the court and said, we can't do it that fast. It's a physical impossibility. So my sense is the Supreme Court may be receptive to that and may say, look, even if you have to pay some of these, we're going to let you do it on the schedule that you, the administration, are requesting, not what the district court has ordered.

Now, these groups that are suing on the other side, they say forcing thousands of American businesses and nonprofits to suspend their work, halting disbursements for work already done, work that had already been reviewed. It's the government is plunging response respondents into financial turmoil. They say the money's got to go out.

Well, the question isn't whether businesses or anybody else, foreign organizations, NGOs are affected. The question is whether the president has authority and discretion to review these contracts. And it's pretty clear that he does. Most of what Doge is doing and, you know, it's not saying, Congress, you spent this, we're not going to do it. They're saying, you know, this particular thing we don't like. And ultimately the Supreme Court, you know, for John Roberts to jump in alone, that's a big deal.

It is. And we stand by and I will let you know when he makes a decision. Ilya and Tom, thank you very much for lending us your expertise. Good to see you. Thank you. OK, this week, by the way, a novel case lands at the Supreme Court. Mexico is suing several U.S.-based gun manufacturers, saying they are to blame for growing violence south of the border. The companies say they produce a lawful product and they're not responsible for Mexico's crime crisis. Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colts, Glock.

all among the defendants in a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Mexico, alleging these U.S. companies knowingly allowed guns to end up in the hands of dangerous cartel members in Mexico, who then used them to terrorize and kill. Larry Keene is senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

So you know what Mexico says? There were notifications that there were entities that were letting these distributors, letting these manufacturers know this is where your weapons are ending up, that they had some form of notice. Generalized foreseeability does not give rise. It's not proximate cause. There's no legal duty.

Baseball bat manufacturers know that some of their products will be misused in assaults. Knife manufacturers know that some of their products will be misused to stab people.

That doesn't give rise to liability. But what happens if the U.S. Supreme Court, after hearing arguments next week, allows Mexico to pursue a legal remedy in the U.S. court system? Gun rights advocates like Keene are worried. It would mean the destruction of the Second Amendment in the United States.

It would bankrupt the industry. Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 to prevent gun companies from being held liable for misuse of their products. But Mexico argues the law, quote, provides no protection for businesses engaged in unlawful commerce in arms.

and alleges that's what the manufacturers have been doing. By selling to dealers, Mexico claims the manufacturers knew were preferred by the cartels. A group of blue state attorneys general is backing Mexico, saying the law is meant only to shield blameless manufacturers and sellers, but that it doesn't equate to blanket absolute immunity against any and all liability. But another coalition led by Republican Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen

argues it isn't the manufacturer's fault that gun crime is raging out of control in Mexico and points the finger elsewhere. This is happening primarily because we provide a lot of firearms to the Mexican government, to the Mexican army, and a lot of those guns go missing and end up in the cartel's hands. This is a Mexico problem, not an American problem.

We'll see what the justices think. That case is scheduled for an hour-long argument on Tuesday with a decision due by the end of June. Up next, we will take you live to Rome for an update on Pope Francis as he struggles to overcome a life-threatening health crisis. That's next. You might know him. Have you ever spotted McDonald's hot, crispy fries right as they're being scooped into the carton? And time just stands still. Ba-da-ba-ba-ba.

Pope Francis is resting today as he undergoes treatment for double pneumonia. Fox News chief religion correspondent Lauren Green is in Rome with more. It sounds like he's tweeting as well, Lauren.

He's tweeting a little bit. A lot of that tweet he had is a reflection of his Angelus prayer that he released earlier today. But Pope Francis is still slowly improving. You know, Friday's respiratory crisis appears to be a rather isolated event from which he recovered rather quickly. As you said, the Vatican, the latest out of the Vatican, is that he had a good night. He woke up. He had breakfast and continued to read newspapers, as always.

Doctors at Gemelli Hospital continue to treat the 88-year-old pope for double pneumonia, alternating between two types of oxygen therapy, air through a nose tube and a more intense mechanical mask. Vatican sources says the pope is in good spirits, eating solid food and able to walk with some assistance.

Today marks the third Sunday that the Pope has not delivered his Angelus prayer in person. He released it in writing earlier today. In it, he thanked doctors and staff for their attentive care and for the faithful for their prayers, saying in part, I feel in my heart the blessing that is hidden within frailty because it is precisely in these moments that we learn even more to trust in the Lord.

Last night, the continuing Rosary vigil, this time inside St. Peter's Basilica because of the rain. While the Pope continues to direct Vatican business from the hospital, it hasn't stopped the rumor mill from speculating that he could resign if his frail health becomes an obstacle. One papal historian rejects that scenario.

He's spoken various times about this. He's saying that for him the papacy is for life. It's really important in a world where there's a kind of cult of health and youth that here in the church we say, no, there is a mission which God gives you which is for life.

Doctors say the Pope's prognosis is still guarded, that he is still not out of danger. Shannon. Lauren, thank you very much for the update. And a quick note, my new episode of my podcast, Live in the Bream, drops today. I talked with Joel Rosenberg about his newest book, The Beijing Portrayal. It is a thriller that looks at the terror connections and foreign policy challenges ranging from the Middle East.

to the Asia-Pacific region. Check it out wherever you like to get your podcasts. And don't forget, we've got special coverage of the president's joint address to Congress on Tuesday. Have a wonderful week. We'll see you next Fox News Sunday.

I'm Dana Perino. This week on Perino on Politics, I'm joined by former GOP strategist and host of The Rich Zioli Show, Rich Zioli. Available now on FoxNewsPodcast.com or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Must listen to podcasts from Fox News Audio. Listen to Fox News Sunday ad-free on Amazon Music with your Prime membership or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.