Rep. Michael McCaul, Rep.  Ilhan Omar, and Sen. Bill Hagerty
55:00 Share

Every day, thousands of Comcast engineers and technologists, like Kunle, put people at the heart of everything they create. In the average household, there are dozens of connected devices. Here in the Comcast family, we're building an integrated in-home Wi-Fi solution for millions of families like my own.

It brings people together in meaningful ways. Kunle and his team are building a Wi-Fi experience that connects one billion devices every year. Learn more about how Comcast is redefining the future of connectivity at comcastcorporation.com slash Wi-Fi.

Let the bodies hit the... The phenomenon is back. The new season of Yellow Jackets, streaming February 14th on Paramount Plus with Showtime. Think about how screwed up we would be if we had survived a plane crash only to end up eating each other. This place will follow us for the rest of our lives. The only way to truly be safe is to be the only one left. This season, the past will come back to hunt you. You really are insane. Yellow Jackets, new season, streaming February 14th on the Paramount Plus with Showtime.

I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington, and this week on Face the Nation, President Trump continues to make good on his campaign pledges. What do Americans think of the Trump 2.0 policies and the job Mr. Trump's doing as president? As Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency squad continue their sweep through the federal agencies, President Trump says they're doing so at his insistence and that there's more to come.

But that revamp is leading to confusion and the consequences are spreading across the country and around the world. How could the president's bureaucratic shakeup impact America's law enforcement, homeland security and intelligence capabilities? Plus, what's the impact of cutting U.S. aid to the countries that need it the most?

We'll talk with Texas Republican Congressman Michael McCaul and Minnesota Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. Tennessee Republican Senator Bill Hagerty will join us from the Senate Republican retreat in Florida. It's all just ahead on Face the Nation. ♪♪♪

Good morning and welcome to Face the Nation. We begin today with our first assessment of how President Trump and his policies are doing just three weeks into his second term. Our CBS poll finds that a majority of Americans, 53 percent, approve of the job he's doing. That's a better approval number than he ever reached during his first term in the White House.

Joining us with more is our executive director of elections and surveys, Anthony Salvato. Good to see you, Anthony. What's driving this? I will keep it simple, Margaret.

He is doing in the eyes of the public what he said he would do in the campaign. There's political value in that. In fact, 70 percent of people say he's doing what he promised. That's whether they approve of him or not. Now, there's another part of this that continues over from the campaign. There were words that he was described as being tough, right?

being energetic, and he still is today in big majority numbers. So as people take a look in these first few weeks, there's been a lot of activity. They're getting that general sense of governance, and that's being reflected in these early numbers. So that's perception. What about the actual policies? Well, let's start with the ones that are popular.

And again, these echo a lot of what we saw in the campaign. The idea of deporting those in the country illegally continues to be popular. We saw that in the campaign. Sending troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. Again, majority in favor. We'd seen that in the campaign. For his supporters in particular, the focus on ending DEI is

is popular. We had seen in the campaign a lot of them thought those processes had gone too far. There are some other things in here that get more mixed reviews, I will add. The idea of the U.S. taking over Gaza

is not seen as a good idea. Something he floated at a press conference this past week. He did, but it also gives you a little insight into how people are processing Donald Trump and what he does because then for a lot of his supporters they say, "Well, that's not really his goal. That's a negotiating tactic." And then on tariffs, those are not as popular.

Those are things that majority, with the exception of the ones on China. Why? People think it will raise prices. And that's important context here, too, because people are still sensitive to price increases. A lot of them report the prices haven't gone down. Remember that Donald Trump won the election on

On inflation, and that was a big reason, and what we find now is two-thirds of people saying that they don't think the administration is focused enough on lowering prices. And that stands out as one of those big gaps when we talk about initial inflation.

preferences, initial expectations and what's getting delivered, that's certainly going to be something. Well, that's interesting because throughout the campaign, he was abundantly clear that tariffs were something he wanted to use. And we talked quite a lot about possible impact on inflation. I know you also polled on President Trump's work with Elon Musk and this

so-called DOGE, Department of Government Efficiency. We're all kind of learning what it is. What do people think of it? Well, exactly on that point, we're all sort of learning this. So I think this will take a while to play out. Initially, you get very partisan responses on the role that Elon Musk should or should not play. You get a majority of Republicans saying you should have at least some influence, though it's more of the MAGA base that really wants him to have a lot and a lot of Democrats in opposition.

opposition. You know, part of this is, too, the broad goals of cutting spending, of cutting foreign aid, have things that have long been in the polling popular with Republicans. But in terms of the impact and approach, that may take a while for people to really see it play out. How you do it. And we'll be talking about that ahead on the program. Anthony, thank you. Thank you.

And we turn now to Republican Congressman Mike McCaul of Texas. Good morning. Good to have you here. Thanks for having me. I want to dig in to what has been happening, this mass confusion with U.S. aid. There were 30 million metric tons of food sitting at a port in Houston all week because there weren't U.S. workers to unload the food aid. Food American taxpayers had already bought from

food that Secretary Rubio said should be delivered but wasn't, how is this mass confusion increasing efficiency?

Well, if I could peel back on that a little bit, the the confusion, I think, goes back to the Biden administration when they started to implement these woke policies of drag queen shows in Ecuador, when they started talking about LGBTQIA programs, like, say, in Latin American countries, how to sue Catholic governments.

promoting atheism in Nepal where you have Tibetan Buddhist monks. I saw the White House fact sheet on that. This is what gave USAID a black eye. I personally believe that USAID has a national security mission. If you go back to its inception in the 60s under President Kennedy and the Cold War, it was to counter the Soviet Union. We need to return to the core mission principles.

Well, you have been a big supporter of USAID when you were chairman of House Foreign Affairs. You've talked about the great work that it does around the world. But back to this food aid, I mean, this isn't a theater program. This is food for starving people. How is getting it all locked up in these ports? I mean, it's the way it's being implemented that has drawn so much attention.

shock here. Do you think this is being done well? Well, I think so. The secretary in response to all this. And by the way, I put holds on all those programs I was talking about that had nothing to do with the central core mission. However, the secretary made waivers on humanitarian assistance and PEPFAR, which has been the most successful global health program initiated by President Bush. Yes.

by the way. The implementation of this is where I would urge the administration to move more expeditiously. I just got word about 10 minutes ago at the World Food Program now, these waivers are now being implemented, that it is being executed, that food will be going out. But to your point,

About $40 million in food rotting in these warehouses in Houston. About 500,000 metric tons on ships on the sea. The peace through food program dates back to the 50s after the Marshall Plan. It is to provide stability in fragile, unstable countries. It is to counter Russia, China, and terrorism.

It is our diplomatic power. Otherwise, we're talking about bullets, as Mattis talked about, and Lindsey Graham. Right. If you don't fully fund the State Department, you've got to buy me more bullets, is Mattis' line. But on how this is being done, Secretary of State Rubio keeps saying he's issuing waivers and he's getting things moving. I'm glad the World Food Program now says food is moving. But there's a huge divide between what he's saying and then the fact that there weren't USAID workers there to actually load ships or move things. There weren't folks to process things.

It seems a fundamental misunderstanding between the bosses and the operators. Is this really how it should be done? Why not?

and then take action. And there's a debate about whether you should, you know, there is a top to bottom review. I think after what happened under the Biden administration, it absolutely needs to be reviewed to get back to the core mission as I talked about. Right. So that is being done. At the same time, putting a halt on all humanitarian assistance and life-saving medicines. I think that's where Secretary Rubio issued these waivers for a reason in consultation with the president, President Trump, and

And it seems to me his department needs to start implementing the waivers. Now, again, the World Food Program is doing that. Well, people have to be able to go back to work. I mean, that was before the courts if people could even go back to work to implement what he's telling them to do. And there is a temporary injection on that issue. Yeah. I would urge the State Department to put the adequate resources necessary to do that.

to deliver this because our foreign adversaries are looking at this just as they laughed at the Ecuador drag shows. They're also questioning what's happening now. And I think we need to have a strong presence in destabilized nations to keep out our adversaries. But do you think this was done intentionally or are people like this individual, Pete Morocco, who Secretary Rubio has authorized to run this, do they just not know

how the department works or how you speak for him. I know that he's been in charge, put in charge of the foreign assistance program into Congress and answer questions since there's a hearing on USAID this week. Well, I do think the administration has provided, by the way, notification and consultation with the foreign affairs committee that I chaired. And that is required under law.

They have done that. I think if they decide to terminate, that's a whole other issue. My understanding is that they want to look at putting USAID underneath the State Department, which is not a novel concept. Madeleine Albright talked about this under, you know, and Bill Clinton and Warren Christopher talked about this. Even Joe Biden talked about this. I think...

Putting it under state makes a lot of sense to me to provide the direct supervision and oversight. But you know how this department works since you were the chair for so long of the committee overseeing it. When this Trump-appointed judge put that federal deposit

on the putting USAID workers on leave. He wrote in the opinion, "No future lawsuit could undo the physical harm that might result if USAID employees are not informed of imminent security threats occurring in the countries to which they've relocated in the course of their service to the United States." He's saying that the messy way this rolled out put people in physical risk when they are deployed by our government to countries overseas. Did the Secretary of State have any idea?

Secretary of State issued the waivers for PEPFAR and for humanitarian, both food and medicine. But people living and working in places like Syria aren't able to access computer systems and security warnings that are there. Every president that comes in does a review.

I would argue, though, that since the secretary has issued the waivers, it's incumbent upon his subordinates now to implement these waivers so that we don't see what could happen where people are not getting their vaccines. They're not getting the HIV treatment. They're starving people in destabilized countries. And then we see China and Russia.

And quite frankly, Lindsey Graham did the Global Fragility Act to impact the Sahel in Africa. That is turning into a terror safe haven. You got a boy popping up in Uganda. These are serious issues that if we don't start implementing the waivers, you're going to see it get worse, not better. And I would urge the administration to do that.

You're striking a very different tone than Congressman Brian Mast, who was here last week, and he said there's a grift on the American people. He said PEPFAR and Americans shouldn't fund AIDS drugs for 20 million people across Africa because their governments might work with China.

It's the best- There's a divide in your party about this right now. Well, it's the best, I can only speak to the program that President Bush started, and it was to save millions of lives. That is probably one of the best goodwill missions in the United States, and put the best face, no pun intended, on the nation overseas with our adversaries, countering them with these people who are saving their lives,

The best global health program ever implemented by the United States was PEPFAR. I'd hate to see that go away. It will sunset once we achieve the mission. However, programs like that, when you look at the national security importance of U.S. aid, need to be maintained. And I go back to why it was implemented in the first place.

On Friday night, the president ordered all foreign assistance to South Africa be halted and said we should prioritize the resettling of Afrikaner refugees. These are white South Africans. That means they will get priority over everyone, it seems, because there's a suspension of refugee entry into the United States, including those Afghan allies who worked alongside the United States. Are you going to try to help lift that priority?

Yeah, I believe, you know, I did a comprehensive investigation that the debacle of Afghanistan that the Biden administration was responsible for, including leaving our Afghan partners behind. Should they get a carve out from the Trump ban on refugees? And I do believe that it was an unintended consequence that needs to be fixed. Look,

Look, we promised them we would protect them when they worked with our servicemen and women in Afghanistan. These are the interpreters, the ones who are right alongside our combat veterans. They have these special immigrant visas in P1, P2, and it's my view that they should be allowed to go forward with the SIV program.

And they have been vetted, by the way, Margaret. They have been vetted, unlike some of the other groups they talk about. These have been vetted. They worked with our troops to defeat the Taliban, which unfortunately Biden surrendered to. But it seems to me we ought to live up to our word. Otherwise, down the road in another conflict, no one's going to trust us. Congressman McCaul, thank you. Thanks, Margaret. Face the Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us.

We go now to Tennessee Republican Senator Bill Hagerty, who joins us this morning from Palm Beach, Florida. Good morning to you, Senator.

Good morning, Margaret. Good to be with you. I have a lot to get to with you today, but I want to start with the announcement from the White House that over 65,000 employees have accepted the offer to leave their jobs with pay through September 30th. This is that deferred resignation program or buyout, as it's called. Can you explain how putting federal workers on paid leave through September will save taxpayers money if we're paying them not to work?

Margaret, eventually it will save taxpayers money. I think what President Trump is trying to do is be humane in the process of allowing them to make plans to find other employment. But I certainly think the government is far too big, far too bloated. And we're on a path now to start to see it shrink. This is a first step only, but we're moving in the right direction. So does that mean the agencies won't hire replacements for these people who take this so-called buyout?

Are you reducing headcount? I think what we'll see is each agency. Yeah, I think what we'll see, Margaret, is each agency go through a top to bottom review to decide exactly what they need to do to deliver on behalf of the American public. As you know, there's been a lot of consternation and pearl clutching about the activities of Elon Musk and his team. But their charge, led by President Trump, is to go in and find efficiencies, find opportunities and frankly, deliver more of taxpayer dollars to the actual programs that are intended less to overhead and administration.

So you said eventually it will save money. I know you're on Appropriations Committee and you watch these things pretty closely here. When will it save money? Well, I would say certainly as soon as these people start to roll off the payroll. Again, I'm from the private sector. Margaret, my entire background has been in business.

This is the way you do it. You come in, you look at the opportunities before you. President Trump has brought a new administration in. This is not unusual to take a hard look at these programs and also to look for opportunities to cut bloat and waste. Look, we're $36 trillion in debt. Clearly, the American public needs to see more accountability, more visibility, more performance for their taxpayer dollars. Yeah, and I think anyone who works in the private sector understands how layoffs work. A

The government is so unique, though, with laws establishing some of these agencies. And as you know, and we'll talk about it later in the program, some of this is tied up in the courts. Specifically, since you're on banking, the budget director announced he's notified the Federal Reserve that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will no longer take congressional funding because it's not necessary. Elon Musk tweeted, rest in peace.

Can you tell us, did the White House inform the bank- I missed Elon Musk's tweet. Yeah. Did the White House inform the banking committee that it's being dismantled? What does CFPB rest in peace mean?

So I've had significant conversations with Russ Vogt, who is our new OMB director. The CFPB has been out of control for some time. The way it's designed, I think, is unconstitutional. It has no oversight. It's been basically a reckless agency that's been allowed to go way beyond any mandate that I think was originally intended. So it's time to rein it in. And I'm applauding anything that we can do to bring more stability, more control to the federal government and take agencies like this back into the

you know, back into some sort of sense of accountability and oversight. So what does that mean? Because it's established as an agency and there are legal protections here.

Well, it was established as an agency that does not have the jurisdiction of the Congress. Its funding source is separate from us. It has no accountability. This is not the type of agency I think that the founding fathers contemplated. We actually contemplated a balance of power, yet this rogue agency has been created, and frankly it's been used as a tool to come in and just hammer the American private sector and pursue initiatives that certain people like Rohit Chopra might have approved or that Senator Elizabeth Warren might have approved.

but this is not the way the American public should be funding and supporting programs of this nature. - Okay, so a different government agency, USAID, and its fate is also in question. We looked at the Congressional Research Service definition here because it was enshrined in law, USAID. It says because Congress established it,

as independent within the executive branch, the president does not have the authority to abolish it. Congressional authorization would be required to abolish, move or consolidate USAID. So have you or do you expect Congress to actually authorize the president to dismantle and consolidate USAID?

I think there's a tremendous appetite to do it again, Margaret, because what we want to see is alignment of our programs with America's national security interest. USAID has been out of control. I've demanded accountability from AID. They've refused it. As an appropriator, I've asked them to be very clear about, for example, their role funding Hamas in Gaza. They would not comply. They will not tell us what they do. Now that we start to find out some of the programs that AID has been funding,

If you think about it, sex change operations in Guatemala, LGBTQ programs in Serbia. This is ridiculous. This is so beyond the pale. The U.S. government does not fund sex change operations or fund Hamas. You know that, though. But you sit on— That is not true, Margaret. I couldn't get the Secretary of State. I asked him three times to tell me that we were not funding Hamas through AID. He couldn't do it. And frankly, what we found is that we've been funding as American taxpayers' organizations— Do you have any evidence that the United States government is funding a terrorist group?

Certainly, the funds that have gone to UNRWA. You saw the UNRWA members who were also Hamas members going in attack on... UNRWA is part of the United Nations. UNRWA is supporting terrorist groups. And if you look at what UNRWA has done, it's been so counter to our national interest. It's unbelievable that we would fund it. Okay. Since you're on foreign relations, let me ask you specifically what's happening inside the State Department right now. A gentleman named Darren Beattie has been appointed as acting Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

He was fired from the first Trump administration after he attended a white nationalist convention. He's made a lot of inflammatory statements against women and minorities. If he couldn't work for the first Trump administration, how is he qualified to work now?

Margaret, I'm not familiar with Mr. Beattie or the claims that you raised, but we want to talk about qualifications for people serving in the administration. Why not look back at the prior administration? The only qualification Tony Blinken seemed to have to be secretary of state is that he organized 51 intelligence, so-called intelligence officials to forge a letter to say that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. Okay. We want to talk about attending a white nationalist rally. Let's go back and look at the last administration.

If it wasn't appropriate to attend a white nationalist rally then, is it appropriate now? I don't know anything about this. Okay, well the Secretary of State spoke about it earlier this week, so Secretary Rubio does know about it. Tariffs. President Trump said he plans, as soon as this week, new reciprocal tariffs on everybody. It sounds like he's broadening out this trade war. Do you know exactly which goods or countries will be impacted in the coming days?

So I talked with President Trump on Friday about this broadly, Margaret. This is a concern that he has had for some time. As you know, I served in his previous administration and worked my heart out to get two trade agreements executed with Japan. I was the U.S. ambassador to Japan in his administration. Here's what we're trying to deal with. And it goes all the way back to World War II and the aftermath. We made very favorable terms of trade with countries whose economies have devastated in Europe and Japan.

We should have time limited that. We should have put some type of GDP per capita limit on it because what we have now are countries that have very unfavorable and unfair terms that are fully developed. So it's time to address this. It's already begun to happen. President Trump and I talked. Yeah. Sorry, Mike. It's already begun. I'm running out of time because of the commercial break that's coming up here. So I have to leave it there. I apologize for cutting you off. We'll be right back.

Coming up, we'll check in with Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar from Minnesota. She's here with us in studio. We'll be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us. This episode is brought to you by Shopify.

Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify, the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling wherever you sell. With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps, and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands. Sign up today for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash tech, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash tech.

Think about how screwed up we would be if we had survived a plane crash only to end up eating each other. The only way to truly be safe is to be the only one left. You really are insane. Yellow Jackets, new season streaming February 14th on the Paramount Plus with Showtime Plan. We're joined now by Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

Good to have you here. You have spoken quite a bit this week about what USAID meant in your life, particularly when you were living in a refugee camp for four years. And USAID, you talked about helping to keep you alive. We know this week a federal judge will come to some kind of hearing and decision perhaps on what happens to all those government workers. Are the courts the main line of defense here?

Yeah, I mean, what we are witnessing is a constitutional crisis. We are seeing an executive branch that has decided that they are no longer going to abide by the Constitution in honoring Congress's role in the creation of the agencies, in their role in deciding where money is allocated.

And so the only recourse we have since our congressional leadership, the speaker, will not stop the executive is through the judiciary. And this is, you know, when you think about the checks and balances that we have, the courts are the only recourse we have at the moment. And we have seen that.

And when we talk about the illegality of what the executive is doing, we have seen every single executive order that has been challenged in the courts was found to be illegal.

And that, I think, should give faith to the American people that our courts are working as they should. The checks and balances are working. What is not working is the way that the executive is behaving and the congressional leadership that is failing the American people. Well, some of these court cases are ongoing, so we'll have to see where they end up. The ones that have already been adjudicated...

Every single executive order has been halted at the moment by an order. - Many of them Republican judges who've also made that decision. - Trump appointed judges. - It was interesting to hear Congressman McCaul indicate that when it came to breaking up an agency that was enshrined in law, that maybe there is some resistance there. Senator Hagerty, however, thought that Congress would be supportive

of dismantling USAID after I read that description of the statute. It seems though that Democrats don't have a lot of leverage here to push this argument forward in Congress. Do you think you do? - Well, they don't have the numbers in order to dismantle through Congress. That's why they are going through this illegal, that's why they're going through this illegal route

We know that USAID has support, not just with Democrats, but with Republicans. I can't see McCaul taking a vote to dismantle USAID. So we know that the votes are not there to dismantle the Department of Education. We know that the votes are not there to grant support

security clearances for them accessing Treasury. And so every single process that they are going through in implementing Trump's agenda is at the moment illegal, and they know they don't have the support for it in Congress. That's why they're not bringing it through Congress. It's interesting that the first place to focus is such a small portion of federal spending to look at aid. But when you look at the popularity...

Secretary Rubio was right in saying that it's getting harder to defend foreign aid because it's not popular. We saw the Chicago Council on Global Affairs surveyed American opinions on foreign policy, and they found a growing number want to reduce economic and military aid to other countries. So how do you convince the public that your point of view is the right one? Because it sounds like there's

sliding the other way? Well, foreign aid, I think, throughout the history of our country has not been popular with the American people because we don't have that many conversations about what it does, how much of it

it accounts for in our budget. A lot of people hear the millions, billions, and they don't fully have a concept of what that actually means, the lives it touches, and how important it is both...

the soft power that we have as a country, how it keeps us competitive around the world, how it buys us goodwill. We can have the conversation, but when you just say foreign aid to a lot of people, they're thinking that we're sending bombs to other countries, which...

which people like me and others oppose. Right. An allegation we heard earlier in the program. I want to ask you about something President Trump said this week alongside the Israeli prime minister. It took many by surprise. Take a listen. The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too. We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site.

The president said Palestinians would be permanently removed. How do you think this is heard and understood around the world?

Well, that's just plain out ethnic cleansing and genocide. That's what he's talking about. The Palestinian people will remain in Gaza. There is no support around the world for the ludicrous suggestion that he is making. Well, he's saying give them a choice to leave, open the gates. Yeah, I'm pretty sure most of the people in Gaza would love to remain in their homeland forever.

and be where they're born. Congresswoman, we have to leave it there for today, but I appreciate you coming in. We'll be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us.

- Streaming February 23rd on Paramount+. It's "The Return of 1923". - They won't take this place from us. - Starring Harrison Ford and Helen Mirren. - I pray Spencer can get here. - I don't have time. - 1923 season two, streaming February 23rd on Paramount+. - Streaming on Paramount+. - Everyone who comes into this clinic is a mystery. - We don't know what we're looking for. - Their bodies are the scene of the crime. Their symptoms and history are clues. - You saved her life.

We're doctors and we're detectives. I kind of love it if I'm being honest. Solve the puzzle, save the patient. Morris Chestnut is Watson. Now streaming on Paramount Plus and new episodes return Sunday, February 16th on CBS.

Prepare to be entertained. Gladiator 2 is now streaming on Paramount+. You hear that crowd? It's ferociously entertaining. I'm just here for the games. And an absolute triumph. Take your father's strength. His name is Maximus. Paul Meskel, Pedro Pascal, with Connie Nielsen and Denzel Washington.

Strength and honor. Strength and honor. Gladiator 2, directed by Ridley Scott. Now streaming on Paramount Plus. Rated R. We just have a lot of unknowns and it feels like no one has our backs. No one's been a voice for the small people. And if we're going to go out there and risk our lives, the least you could do is protect our safety and our families.

That was an active FBI agent who spoke with CBS's Scott McFarlane last week. The agent asked for anonymity due to safety concerns, including the risk that private information about the individual could be made public, a practice known as doxing.

For more on that interview and the impact of the Trump administration's bureaucratic overhaul is Justice Department correspondent Scott McFarland. We're also joined by chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford, Homeland Security contributor Samantha Vinograd, and cybersecurity expert and analyst Chris Krebs. It's good to have you all here. And even just trying to whittle this down to exactly what to ask you was hard because there has been so much happening. Scott, let's talk on the very immediate basis.

that was raised in that interview, physical security. You obtained an email from the acting FBI director that said he has concerns for the safety of personnel as well as risks to their families. What exactly does he have in mind and what's being done to protect them?

Let's take a moment to underscore the significance of that message. These are people who chase terrorists for a living. And there's an internal email they're worried about a unique form of retribution at this moment. That gives you an indication the turmoil the FBI is in at this moment. There are two types of retribution these agents are concerned about. First of all, as you mentioned, the doxing, that people are going to come after them. And they're concerned that the January 6th rioters, now lionized,

Now, galvanized or their supporters and sympathizers will come after the agents who are responsible for nearly 1,600 arrests. But more fundamentally and perhaps more immediately, they're worried about retribution for doing their jobs, professional retribution, that there will be a purge, firings.

forced resignations that are going to gut America's Joint Terror Task Force, Child Predator Task Forces, and violent crime units. And just to be clear, FBI agents don't get to pick what assignments they get, just like the United States military does not get to pick it. And this was not a Washington, D.C. investigation. This involved every field office of the FBI nationwide. They were assigned in communities from California to Connecticut.

Sam, when you look at some of the national security implications here, it's not just the domestic law enforcement. The CIA offered a different early retirement and resignation option. The CIA director said if an individual works on a high priority issue or has a specific language skill, they can't take the so-called buyout we've been talking about earlier in the program. They are trying to target these cutbacks in specific ways.

Can you actually really do that? And is this a good idea? Well, I think it depends the subjectivity of how you define national security. I would argue that all of the CIA counts as a critical national security position. But more broadly, Margaret, I worked for three presidents. They all had different approaches to the federal workforce. What concerns me with this administration's rapid elimination approach is that it creates a wildly uneven playing field with their adversaries.

The KGB is not shedding agents. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not losing diplomats. What we have in this moment is tens of thousands of personnel taking the buyout, leaving their jobs. We have countless others on leave. We have others who are worried about taking certain assignments because of fear of retribution or spending hours talking to family and lawyers about their professional options while being expected to do their day job.

We don't have all hands on deck in a very dynamic threat environment. And longer term, I am concerned what this will do for recruitment to the federal government and redundancy. It takes years to train and equip a spy. It takes years to train an aid worker. So coming back from the talent cuts that we're seeing could have a generational impact.

And the comparison was made early in the program. Oh, well, in the private sector, they do buy it. Even in the private sector, people can say, hey, we lost some institutional knowledge or expertise here. You're saying American government, the taxpayer invested in that expertise, and that's what's being lost here. And there's no quick fix switch to turn it back on. It'll be a longer term investment in getting talent back onto the field.

So, Chris, you know, in trying to whittle down who this applies to, who it doesn't, CBS has obtained an internal communication given out at Homeland Security. Employees were told anyone working for Customs and Border Patrol can't take the buyout. ICE, other immigration-related departments,

TSA, you can't. FEMA, parts of it at least you can't. And the agency you used to run, CISA, was singled out. But then we're seeing conflicting reports that say very different things about parts of that agency

being affected and dismantled. Cybersecurity is the new frontier for warfare, right? - Absolutely, yeah. - So what does this mean? - Well, it's not clear, right? Let's also step back a minute and recognize that President Trump in his first administration in 2018 established CISA, the cybersecurity. - Which is when you work for him. - And it's our security agency. That's the agency I ran. And to your point,

The threat landscape is as active and dynamic as ever. And it's not as if we're all of a sudden unplugging systems today that we weren't doing two to three months ago. It's becoming more digitized, more connected. And the opportunity space for the bad guys is also increasing, even during the campaign. Mm-hmm.

the Vice President's phone was accessed by Chinese threat actors. So we have this opportunity right now to continue to invest in our cybersecurity defenses. So the conversations I've had with CISA personnel is that they're gonna hang on because the public service mission is so important to many of these individuals. It could be making millions

in the cybersecurity industry, in the private sector. They are committed to getting through this, to continuing to protect the American people, American networks, the federal government. That's the opportunity. Secretary Noem said CISA has gotten far off mission.

How is that received? Well, I think to Sam's point, you know, every administration has a set of policies and priorities that they they go in, they review. They sometimes do it rapidly, sometimes do it slowly. At the beginning of the Biden administration, Scott, as we were talking about, the they took down or dissembled the Department of Justice China task force. China is obviously a huge threat.

There are elements of CISA, the election security mission specifically, that was clearly spelled out in Project 2025 as a distraction, as something that is not core. And I will say that having worked with those people, they're American patriots, they're public servants. My hope is that as the administrative review process goes through, that they are provided opportunities to work elsewhere because they are effective and there are other things we have to continue to be doing.

I want to drill down more, but come back.

With everything these days, Jan, to the fundamental questions, is this legal? As our legal expert, you know, some of these buyouts are tied up in court. Right. Is it legal? And we're going to have a hearing this week, tomorrow, on whether or not these pauses can remain. I think the judge is going to keep this pause in place. It's kind of putting it on hold, even though this is one of the weaker of all the lawsuits that's been filed against these many executive orders. The argument is that Trump just went about this the wrong way.

So that's why it's different than when Bill Clinton cut over 200,000 jobs from the federal government when he was in office. He involved Congress. And that's a common theme with all of these lawsuits. And there are many, I mean, dozens and dozens from coast to coast.

that these executive orders and doing these executive orders, Trump did it unilaterally, and he cannot do that. He has to involve Congress, and he's usurping Congress's role. So whatever the judge does in this case on the buyouts,

I think it does raise one interesting issue when you're talking about the impact on people and how some of these orders, as you guys were discussing, what about those 65,000 people who say they want those? They want to do this. They may have a claim now. They're relying on this. So that raises a whole other legal issue if these buyouts cannot proceed.

All this is going to take some time to sort out. The courts right now are definitely putting up yellow to red lights on a lot of these executive orders. But, you know, like our polling is showing like I this to me, regardless of whether these end up being legal losses, losses in the courts, they're political wins.

It's a victory for Trump because he's showing that he's doing, as our polling reflects, what he promised in the campaign. And so, you know, regardless of how many of these end up surviving at the end of the day, Trump can still say this was a win for him politically. Right. And we keep coming back to that. But it's not just what you do, it's how you do it. And that's what I think is so illuminating to hear from you all from inside the agencies. Scott, I want to come back to you because the attorney general,

Bondi dissolved an FBI task force that worked to uncover covert efforts by Russia, China, Iran and others to manipulate voters. There seems to be an effort to refocus the Justice Department. What's that focus? There were some first day orders when Pam Bondi arrived at Maine Justice this week, including repurposing this foreign influence task force the FBI has trying to shepherd its resources more towards drug cartels.

versus the ongoing kinetic foreign influence campaigns, which have been part of our country for some time now that Chris knows quite well. I think their concern, though, is broader than just that task force. If there is a gutting

of FBI personnel, either by giving them new jobs that aren't what they're there for or firing them. You can't just replace an FBI agent tomorrow. It takes many months of training, background checks, polygraphs. They go to Quantico. It takes a long time to deploy, years to get them up to speed. And for a supervisor, we're told it takes five to seven years to get somebody in place. That's something that goes beyond the Trump term.

Jan, on the legal question, Democrats are throwing around constitutional crisis as a phrase. I don't see that yet. I mean, so far, the president is not ignoring judicial orders. So far? Right. And they're appealing then. On the congressional consent portion, though, you did hear from Congressman McCaul that, well, if it's in statute, that's another matter. You have to at least consult with Congress before you destroy an agency or dismantle it.

Right. And all of these executive orders raise similar legal issues, but they're different because they depend on what the law at issue actually says. So the USAID, you know, trying to put those employees that you were talking about on administrative leave. I think there's about 3000 of them. And then kind of the forced evacuation from their host countries. A very highly regarded federal district court judge here in D.C., a Trump appointee.

put that on hold and pointed to a specific federal law that says that he has to consult Congress before you're going to dismantle or really kind of reorganize USAID. So that one, that's a pretty strong lawsuit right there. That's a strong one. But that judge also upheld part of Secretary Rubio's order that would freeze future Congress.

funding of USAID projects. So a mixed bag. Chris, quickly on the national security questions of having these Doge employees, which the White House says have security clearances and are only looking inside systems read-only.

Is there a risk? Well, theoretically, there are various risks associated with access to systems. You could have sensitive information, proprietary information. You could be plugging in systems that aren't necessarily clean or haven't gone through the normal protocols for access to these government systems. You could also see some of these folks getting targeted

by Chinese or Russian actors for compromise, for extortion and exploitation. But the real, you know, the opportunity that I'm looking for out of Doge specifically is to radically transform government IT. We have to do it. It's been too long. And we'll continue to track that. Chris, thank you, all of you. We'll be back in a moment.

This ranch is under attack. Our whole way of life is under attack. Streaming Sunday, February 23rd on Paramount+. The Return of 1923. A Yellowstone origin story.

My family is in danger and I don't have time. Starring Academy Award winner Helen Mirren and Academy Award nominee Harrison Ford. I pray Spencer can get here. This fight ain't over. Anything worth having is worth fighting for. 1923 Season 2 streaming Sunday, February 23rd exclusively on Paramount+.

Now streaming, Academy Award winner Michelle Yeoh takes command. Gather your people. We're gonna need every one of them. In Section 31, a new Star Trek original movie on Paramount+. Section 31 is just a place for people to bend the rules. Starfleet is here to make sure no one commits murder. What a cute idea. This is chaos. Let's get messy. Don't miss Star Trek Section 31. Now streaming exclusively on Paramount+.

When the U.S. Agency for International Development sends assistance to countries around the world, the material is stamped with the agency's logo and its motto, From the American People, so the recipients of our assistance know exactly who sent it. Today, the future of the agency is very much in doubt. President John F. Kennedy created USAID in 1961 as a way to exert American strength.

The people who are opposed to aid should realize that this is a very powerful source of strength for us. 64 years later, Elon Musk called those public servants criminals and said USAID must die. President Trump tasked him to go to work. Look at all the fraud that he's found in this USAID. It's a disaster what the people, radical left lunatics,

They have things that nobody would have even believed. - On Friday, the USAID signs were removed from outside the building named after President Ronald Reagan, who fiercely fought for foreign aid. - We aren't buying friends.

We're helping friends. We spoke with a 10-year veteran of USAID who asked to stay anonymous out of fear for their family member's safety. Are people motivated by politics where you work? Civil servants are, at their core, sworn to uphold the rules of our government, of our Constitution, and to serve each incoming administration. My personal politics don't play a role in us delivering

small food pockets to kids in Sudan that are literally hours away from dying. A federal court will decide whether it is legal for a president to unilaterally dismantle an agency enshrined in law by Congress. Yet last week, half a million metric tons of food aid sat waiting in U.S. ports, with no workers able to unload or deliver it.

complicating Secretary of State Marco Rubio's ability to unfreeze a few projects, like feeding the starving in Sudan and giving medication to AIDS patients. Do you think there is a chance that these people with Doge are doing what Donald Trump has said, the president of the United States has said they're increasing efficiency? No, I don't. You know,

I respect our new Secretary of State, and when he took office, he said that he was going to do everything in his power to align U.S. foreign policy with making Americans stronger, safer, and more prosperous. I can tell you that every individual at USAID welcomes that conversation and welcomes that challenge, including myself.

It isn't clear why this sliver of spending, less than 1% of the federal budget, is the first focus of this so-called efficiency project. But it feels like a demolition, perhaps a preview of the future for other public servants. Please pay attention to USAID. This might not affect you right now, but it will tomorrow. We'll be right back.

That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week. For Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan. Today's guests were Texas Republican Congressman Michael McCaul, Minnesota Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, Tennessee Republican Senator Bill Hagerty, and CBS News Executive Director of Elections and Surveys Anthony Salvata.

The executive producer of Face the Nation is Mary Hager. This broadcast was directed by Shelley Schwartz. Face the Nation originates from CBS News in Washington. For more Face the Nation, we're online at facethenation.com and on YouTube.

Face the Nation is also rebroadcast on our CBS News 24-7 streaming network at 12.30, 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Sundays. It's available through our apps, CBS News and Paramount+.