Rep. Mike Turner, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Ambassador Oksana Markarova
54:25 Share

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start? Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin? Or what that clunking sound from your dryer is? With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews, all on the app.

Download today. Toyota is the best resale value brand for 2025, according to kellybluebookskbb.com. And with a wide range of dependable vehicles for any lifestyle, you can get everything you need in a vehicle today while investing in tomorrow. So choose Toyota and choose value. Shop via toyota.com for great deals and more. Vehicles projected resale value is specific to the 2025 model year. For more information, visit kellybluebookskbb.com. Kelly Blue Book is a registered trademark of Kelly Blue Book Co. Inc.

- Toyota, let's go places. - I'm Margaret Brennan and this week on Face the Nation, President Trump begins the next phase of his agenda with a staff shakeup. And what does the economic deal between the US and Ukraine mean for the security relationship between the two countries? Mike Waltz is out as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in, adding another job to his growing list of responsibilities.

With Trump's push for a nuclear deal with Iran and an end to Russia's war in Ukraine, we'll ask Republican Mike Turner about the impact of the shuffle. And we'll get insights from one of Trump's national security advisors in his first term, retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster. Plus, Illinois Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth will join us with an update on the Armed Services Committee's bipartisan request for a probe into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's conduct.

Overnight, a new attack on Kyiv will get reaction from Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova. And finally, as President Trump seeks to end federal funding to public broadcasting, we'll ask NPR CEO Catherine Marr and PBS CEO Paula Kerger how they plan to fight back. It's all just ahead on Face the Nation. ♪♪

Good morning and welcome to Face the Nation. We have a lot to get to, so let's begin today with Ohio Republican Congressman Mike Turner. Good to see you here in person. Thanks for having me, Margaret. So I have a lot of national security topics to get to you, but at the heart of so much is America's economic strength. And so I want to ask you about what President Trump said this week about the cost, the impact of his China tariffs on the supply of goods in the United States. Take a listen.

Somebody said, oh, the shelves are going to be open. Well, maybe the children will have $2 instead of $30, you know? And maybe the $2 will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally. Do your constituents back in Ohio really want to hear the message that they need fewer Christmas presents this year? I mean, he's acknowledging less supply, higher prices.

Well, I think there's going to be a lot that has to be shaken out here. And we certainly are seeing, I think, some reaction now in China also. That means that, you know, the president's goal is that these nations that of which he's

putting tariffs on the table and in tariffs which are a punishment for having behaved poorly taking advantage of the United States economically will come to the table and negotiate better economic deals than the United States has been experiencing those Those deals are beginning to to be offered the the White House is beginning to negotiate those China is beginning to signal that they're willing to come to the table and

So, you know, even though the president is making those statements at the same time, we're seeing that that the president taking that step of saying, you know, we want a better economic deal is beginning to work. But in the meantime, China said it may restrict exports of materials used by General Dynamics, which makes tanks, including in your state of Ohio. Are you concerned that the trade war won't just impact people's purchasing of toys, but

tanks and military readiness. I think we're all concerned of the effects on the supply chain. And certainly we've got to make certain that this works through the entire processes and that we are concerned of the effects of the economy. I think the president's going to be looking at that. Congress is going to be looking at that. But the real concern here is that we do have to look long term as to how this protects our overall economy.

Well, Beijing has not yet launched those talks. We'll be watching for them if they do get underway. Let's get to the other news of the week, the reshuffling at the top of the national security apparatus. It has long been clear there are divides within the administration on certain topics. Iran is one of them. Russia is another one of them. Mike Waltz, who you served with, viewed as a traditional Republican hawk.

I say this because when he was on this program previously, he laid out in pretty clear terms that the US goal in these negotiations with Iran are dismantlement of its nuclear program, not limits on enrichment, not verification. But those are the things that the envoy negotiating with Iran have said. We're seeing policy differences from within the president's own administration here.

Has Congress been given details on what the goal is and what the plan is? Well, I mean, the goal is simply stated that we do not have a nuclear Iran. And certainly the president is leaning strongly in that. From his first term with the maximum pressure campaign, the president was clear that, you know, both in non-nuclear Iran and also making certain that we have

that the nefarious activities of Iran working through their proxies, the terrorist groups and organizations, that that be stopped. So the president is very strong on an anti-Iran policy, including ensuring that there not be a nuclear Iran. But the things that his envoy have described sound a lot like that 2015 nuclear deal negotiated under President Obama with limits on enrichment, for example, and things like that. I know in the past you voted for legislation that would give Congress

more oversight over a deal with Iran. Do you expect President Trump to bring any kind of deal he brokers to Congress for approval? Well, I think we have to see what the deal is. I mean, currently, there's just ongoing negotiations. We'll have to see how that evolves. We'll have to see what those terms are. You don't want any kind of review regardless? I mean, as it evolves, we'll have to see what those terms are and really what

what is achieved. And certainly there's a role for Congress to play as that goes forward. But I think we need to give them the opportunity for success.

Well, the Israeli prime minister issued a statement yesterday denying that he personally was talking to Mike Waltz about bombing Iran or military action against Iran. Of course, we know his aides could have those conversations. Is it appropriate work for the national security advisor to the president to be coordinating with Israel about military action against Iran? Or was Mike Waltz possibly in the wrong here?

Well, first off, we don't know specifically that was occurring, but at the same time, the National Security Council, the function of the National Security Council is to ensure that the President of the United States has the greatest information possible. And Mike Walz has an incredible background and experience. He worked diligently to make certain he had a strong role in the national security team of the President. And I'm certainly glad that he's going to be retained and staying in a strong role in this administration.

Working directly with world leaders and heads of state is certainly an important role as the national security advisor to the president. Certainly, I think even as UN ambassador, he'll continue to do that type of function. Is it in the national security interest, though, to have the secretary of state, who also has, at least on paper, three other jobs now, in this role? And for how long?

Well, I mean, certainly we know Henry Kissinger has been in that position before. And even he said it was untenable. Right. But he was in lockstep with his president. I think what's also very important here is that Marco Rubio, from a policy perspective, is very strong in this administration. His signal of it being in this position sends a signal of continuing the same policies in the administration.

From a Trump team policy perspective, you know, him taking over this sends a signal of continuation and strength. That's excellent. But the policy is not clear. Now we've got to give, now we've got to give him the opportunity of, is he going to be able to build out the team in the National Security Council? And that's certainly hope, hopefully that he'll be able to do so and build out a strong team there that represents really the opportunity to support President Trump and giving him the information and knowledge and the access to information and knowledge that he needs.

That's a diplomatic way of saying there shouldn't be loyalty tests to the president. You want actual experts staffing the National Security Council. You don't want Laura Loomer, a far-right activist, making decisions on personnel. Well, at the same time, there does have to be loyalty to the president. I mean, we saw in the president's first term that the president was betrayed during the first election.

Trump impeachment by individuals who were at the National Security Council. So Trump personally has an understanding that you have to have people at the National Security Council that are on Trump's team. And the National Security Council being directly working with him and being in the White House, it's very, very important that they be involved

personnel that work for and on behalf of the president. You are talking about National Security Council members who testified under oath that the president was withholding aid to Ukraine during the first administrations for a political favor. And was shown to have wrongly been testified because I was part of that panel and their testimony was proven not to be accurate, that the president was not tying aid to Ukraine.

to the investigation. The premise of the impeachment. But your point is that looms large in the president's memory and interaction with the National Security Council now. The president needs to make certain that he has staff that are supportive of him and the National Security Council and his policies and make certain that they're providing him information. This is the heart of what does the president know that our adversaries are doing. When he's dealing with Russia and policies with respect to Ukraine, he needs to know what Vladimir Putin is doing and that's coming directly from the National Security Council.

Noted. The White House budget was released Friday. It is not the trillion dollar promise the president campaigned on. Susan Collins on appropriations, Roger Wicker and the Senate Armed Services Committee says this is not adequate. And in fact, he said the intention is to shred to the bone our military capabilities and support to service members. Do you share your Republican stance?

Senator's concerns? I think there's more work that can be done on the national security portion of the president's budget. You would like to see more defense spending than the White House is putting forward? I think there's going to be more debate and I think there's more opportunity for increased investment. We really need to do more in the national security space. There are adversaries that we have that want to do America harm and we need to be strong. All right. Congressman Turner, thank you for joining us. Thank you. Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us.

Running a business comes with a lot of what-ifs. But luckily, there's a simple answer to them. Shopify. It's the commerce platform behind millions of businesses, including Thrive Cosmetics and Momofuku. And it'll help you with everything you need. From website design and marketing to boosting sales and expanding operations, Shopify can get the job done and make your dream a reality. Turn those what-ifs into... Sign up for your $1 per month trial at shopify.com slash special offer.

Don't get shot out. Blinds.com's Spring Cyber Monday Last Chance Deals end soon. Elevate your window treatments while the savings last. DIY or let our pros handle everything from measure to install. Blinds.com makes upgrading your home easy with free virtual consultations, honest pricing, and free samples delivered to your door. Shop confidently with our 100% satisfaction guarantee. Blinds.com's Spring Cyber Monday Last Chance Deals are happening now.

Save up to 45% site-wide plus a free measure. Blinds.com. Rules and restrictions may apply. And we're joined now by Illinois Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth. Good to have you here in person. Thanks for having me. So, Senator, I know you did vote to confirm Secretary Rubio. Do you have confidence that he can juggle all four of the jobs that he now has for an

indefinite period of time? No, there's no way he can do that and do it well, especially since there's such incompetence over at DOD with Pete Hexeth being Secretary of Defense and just the hollowing out of the top leadership. There's no way he can carry all that entire load on his own. And so I do think that they need to find a new Secretary of Defense. They need to find a new NSA, head of NSA as quickly as possible.

But at this point, we heard from the chief of staff that she believes all the cabinet secretaries will serve a full year. What makes you think that Secretary Hegseth could actually be dismissed? Well, I think he should be dismissed. Whether or not President Trump's going to dismiss him is a whole different conversation. He should never have been nominated in the first place. He is the most untrained candidate.

inadequate Secretary of Defense on our nation's history. And look at what he's done at the Pentagon. It's in turmoil. He lost his top staffers within a matter of days. He's now put classified information on an unclassified chain, and he's put our nation's national security at risk. He says no war plans wasn't classified, but it was sensitive information. That's part of this ongoing

inspector general probe, as I understand it, into his conduct. Do you have any timeline, any sense of how seriously that's being taken and when the results will be seen? We don't have a timeline. It is very serious. Let me make it clear what he did. He put into an unclassified signal chain that the aircraft are going to be over a certain point in space at a certain point in time, uh,

That's classified information. Any basic person getting through military training knows that is classified information. And he did it on a separate chain with his wife and family members. I want to ask you, because you sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, along with Armed Services, what you think is going to happen to Mike Waltz, who is now being pushed out of the NSA role and into this job as ambassador to the United Nations. That's arguably a pretty important post.

Senate Intel Vice Chairman Mark Warner says it's going to be a brutal hearing. What do you want to know from him and are you open to confirming him into the job? It will be a brutal, brutal hearing. He's not qualified for the job just by nature of the fact that he

participated in this signal chain. In fact, I think everybody on that signal chain needs to be fired because not a single one of them spoke up and said, hey, this is inappropriate. We should be in a secure channel. And by the way, what's really interesting was that there was not a single uniformed personnel on that signal chain, which was very clear that it was purposefully done

to keep the military personnel with the experience off of that signal chat. Now, Mike Walz is doing what we call he is failing up, right? He is failing in his job and getting promoted to be ambassador. That's not what our nation needs at the United Nations. Mike Walz served this country in uniform as a Green Beret. He was a lawmaker. You think he is incompetent and you're not open to voting for him at all? I'm not open to voting for him, no, because he is incompetent.

because he's already demonstrated he's incapable of doing the most basic thing, which is handling classified information.

I want to ask you about funding for defense because I know you've said in particular the Navy needs more money and more financial support right now. The Republican chair of appropriations and the Republican chair of armed services both saw the White House's budget when it was released on Friday and said it freezes military spending at Biden era levels, which they argue amounts to a reduction. Can you work together with your Republican allies to increase defense spending?

Well, one of the places where there has been bipartisanship has been the Armed Services Committee. That has been something that I've been very proud to be a part of. Now, whether or not my Republican colleagues continue to be co-conspirators and collaborators with this administration in basically gutting the United States government is up to

is up to them. Right now their plans are going to require laying off hundreds, at least 100,000 civilian workers at the Pentagon. It's going to, in the words of Chairman Wicker, basically, I'm going to paraphrase him, cut defense capabilities to the bone. I think is how he put it.

We need to make sure the Navy needs more ships. We need more and the merchant mariners need more boats, more ships. We need to make major investments in our sixth generation fighter fleet. We need to make major investments in training pilots. We are short pilots. And yet, you know, the cuts that they're proposing in order to fund a vanity project like the Golden Dome does not help make America more secure on a global scale. And it certainly doesn't keep us, you know, the leader of the free world.

I want to ask you about one of the programs that is at least nominally being eliminated. Secretary Hegseth posted on social media he's ending the Women, Peace and Security program. Hegseth said it's a divisive social justice initiative from feminists, a distraction from war fighting. But when we checked how the now chairman of the Joint Chiefs described it, General Cain, he said he used the program in the field after an assault

to send in female members to speak with women and children to better understand human terrain. So if the military establishment says it's useful and the Secretary of Defense says it's not and it's a distraction,

What happens? And can lawmakers like yourself actually rescue this program? We can if my Republicans will stop, you know, rolling over for this president. We can actually rescue this program. The program is critically important. It's supported by every combatant commander.

It's a program that came about. By the way, Marco Rubio was one of the leaders. And Kristi Noem as a lawmaker supported the program. And President Trump signed it into law. And he signed it into law. This shows how incompetent Hexeth is, that in his slash and burn efforts at the Pentagon, he basically slashed and burned something without realizing that this was actually a Trump era law. And this was led by his colleagues. And now he can't back out of it.

This came out of really some of the lessons we learned in Afghanistan when we had the Marine Corps Lionesses, which were teams of all women Marines,

tough, tough fighters who would go in and talk to the women in the villages and would get intelligence that no one else could. Because the women wouldn't talk to the men. Because the women wouldn't talk to the men. And so this is a vital program that keeps our military stronger and also makes it more lethal because we can find where our enemies are and go after them. Hegseth said he'll implement the minimum required of

What does that mean? Do you know? I don't know, but he's the minimum of a defense secretary. So it's not surprising that he would go to the lowest levels. I want to ask you about what's happening within your party. Your fellow Midwesterner, Michigan Senator Alyssa Slotkin, said Democrats are messaging in a way that doesn't resonate outside of blue coastal areas. She was focusing in on Bernie Sanders' use of the term oligarchy.

She said, use plain language. Talk about kings that we oppose them. Do you agree with her that there is at minimum a messaging problem if there isn't something more within your party right now? Well,

Well, I've long said that we should be listening to Midwest Democrats a lot more. Those of us from the center of the country, you know, represent states like Illinois, where 102 counties, 96 are red and six are blue. You know, you don't get elected in the Midwest without being able to talk to everyday voters in red counties about the issues that they worry about. To be able to talk about agricultural issues, you know, our farmers are just being battered.

by the Trump administration right now. The tariffs are hurting them with the products they're trying to sell. The inputs that they're trying to import in order to plant and grow their crops are being priced out of range. The steel that John Deere uses to make the tractors are also pricing that equipment out of range. I do think that the Democratic Party should be listening to the industrial Midwest more. Senator Duckworth, thank you for your time. Thank you. And we'll be right back with a lot more Face the Nation, so stay with us.

We turn now to Ukraine's ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova.

Ambassador, good to have you back. I understand Russia has been attacking Kyiv as recently as overnight. What can you tell us? Good morning, Margaret. Yes, another very difficult day and night in Kyiv. And not only Kyiv, Cherkassy and some other places, more than 165 Shahed drones, Iranian drones, have been deployed again against completely civilian targets.

Unfortunately, this is a horrible reality during the past 1,166 days. Every day, regardless of Russia says, there are some attacks and there are civilian casualties and there are civilian destructions. And for the same 1,166 days, we work diligently on getting not only defending us, but getting to peace. And Ukraine is devoted to peace.

There has been a shift in tone, at least, between the Trump administration and your president. President Zelensky told reporters Friday that his conversation with President Trump at the Pope's funeral was the best meeting they've ever had, and he's confident things will look different now. What is he indicating? What's coming next? When do they speak next?

Look, our partnership with the U.S. is very important for us. U.S. has been and is a strategic partnership. We are really grateful to American people for all the support that we are getting from the U.S. It would not be possible for us to defend ourselves without those javelins, without those

weapons that U.S. has provided us. And it was President Trump who decided to provide us with the evidence when I was still a finance minister. Back in 2017. And it was back in 2017. And then large support from American people during the past three years have really been

a game changer and we are very grateful for it. The meeting was great and, you know, as you know, after that meeting we have signed really a great agreement, economic partnership agreement between our two nations, which will take that partnership to a new level. So, look, we might have some disagreements in some areas, but Ukraine is committed to peace. Ukraine wants peace more than anyone and we need U.S. Our countries are based on the same values,

We are defending freedom in Ukraine. We are not the ones who started this war. And now it's not only the right or moral thing to do to support Ukraine, but also U.S. has...

as your Secretary of Treasury said, an interest and specific economic interest in Ukraine. Yeah. Well, I want to ask you about that deal. This is what's often described as a minerals agreement, but it's a broader economic partnership that's going forth for ratification in your government this week, I understand. This was agreed to, but...

Russia's foreign minister has said that the mineral deposits that exist in Ukraine in the east are one reason his country wouldn't withdraw from that area. So can the U.S. and Ukraine make this deal work if Russian troops are still in the area where those mineral deposits largely are?

Margaret, as you said, this is an economic partnership agreement to create an investment fund for both of our nations to benefit from amazing investment opportunities that Ukraine has. We discussed before, and I'm so glad that we can not only discuss the horrible tragedy and destruction brought by Russian unprovoked invasion, but also of the bright future that we, together with America and other countries, can have.

Ukraine has agricultural land and black soil and with the technologies even during the war we feed more than 400 million people. We have energy, we have mineral, critical mineral deposits, we have so much including the human talent and we can develop it together. So look, when Russians criticize something it's a sign for all of us that we are doing something right.

This deal will work and it will work if Ukraine is peaceful. Let's talk more on the other side of this commercial break. We'll be right back. We'll be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us. Your snacking routine can get a little dull. Time for an Oikos remix. Like a crunchy storm of sea salt praline pretzels, dark chocolate and butter toffee showering down into a smooth, creamy yogurt.

Enjoy three Oikos Remix varieties with epic mix-ins and 11 grams of complete protein per 4.5-ounce serving. See remixyogurt.com. Now streaming. When everything's on the line, real heroes rise to the occasion. TV's hottest show is Fire Country. We're firefighters. We're gonna find a way to get you out of here. We take the hits together. We're on the same team. I'm right here with you, no matter what. I would never leave you hanging in the deep end.

This place is a way of giving you new family. Fire Country. All episodes now streaming on Paramount+.

Welcome back to Face the Nation. We return now to our conversation with Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Makarova. We've been discussing the deal that the United States and Ukraine came to in regard to this economic partnership. I've read that the deal counts future U.S. military assistance in the form of ammunition, weapons systems, and training as a contribution to the investment fund, and that Ukraine will not reimburse Washington for past military aid. Is that how it's set up?

Well, we first of all, it's important that it's going to be, as we say, 50-50 deal. So we together will set up that fund. We will run it together. And all the future contribution that or investments that U.S. will be providing us, including military deals, will be counted as contribution to that fund. And Ukraine will be also committing the proceeds from the new licenses and new agreements.

developments into the fund. So essentially it's a true partnership where we would be able to put resources together in order to invest into a wide range of projects, including infrastructure, including rare earths, including critical minerals, and both of our nations will benefit from it. When does that get up and running?

We are working very actively on it. As you saw, the deal between the governments have been signed. It's going to be ratified by our parliament, hopefully soon. You have seen strong messages from President Zelensky and his vision and vision of President Trump behind the deal that is moving it forward.

Of course, there will be the creation of the fund, the setup of the fund. I used to work in private equity in my previous life. That takes a little bit of time, but we are moving very fast. So hopefully the teams will come, put everything together, and we'll start working. But within this, there aren't security guarantees. Are there promises of future military aid from the United States? Because if this effort to get a peace deal together doesn't work, the fate of the war is still in question.

Well, you know, the situation with Russian aggression towards Ukraine is so complex. There are many. We're discussing the potential possible peace deals. We're discussing this economic partnership deal, which is already signed. We're discussing other possible scenarios and security guarantees and involvement of other friends and allies. And, you know, Europe has been more active and proactive in a number of areas. So this economic partnership deal in itself is a very important part

of the broader security architecture, if I may say so. And frankly, that fund will be successful if Ukraine is stable and peaceful. So in a way, it's an important part of the future security guarantees. Vladimir Putin told Russian state TV he thinks that he can bring this war to a logical conclusion. He avoided the word war. He said this thing that started in 2022.

But he said there's been no need to use nuclear weapons and quote. I hope they will not be required How do you interpret that? Well, it's very difficult to interpret a man and a so-called leader of the nation who attacked Georgia in 2008 attacked Ukraine in 2014 conducted two genocidal wars on his own in his own Federation against Chechnya did war crimes in Syria poisoned people in in Great Britain I mean

I think at this point, it doesn't matter how we interpret what he says. We just have to believe what he says and understand what he says. He is a threat not only to Ukraine, but also to anyone who believes that nations should live peacefully, do not challenge each other's borders and just focus on the economic cooperation. That's what we are doing with the United States and hopefully our collective efforts and with Europe, with all the Baltic and Nordic states, with

all the friends and allies, including Japan, including UK, including so many people that are coming together in order to bring peace not only to our part of the world, but globally, because it's important. Putin is doing it together with Iran and North Korea. They are not hiding it. They are supporting other terroristic regimes. And we should also stay together in order to bring peace. Ambassador, thank you for your time today. We'll be right back.

We turn now to retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster. He served as National Security Advisor during President Trump's first term, and he is the author of At War With Ourselves, My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House. Good to have you back with us.

Hey, great to be with you, Margaret. So you've been here. Mike Waltz is no longer the national security advisor. CBS reported his deputy, Alex Wong, will also depart his role. But then as of Friday morning, we found Wong was still on the job.

It is not clear what the National Security Council makeup will be or how long the secretary of state will be at the head of it advising the president. What significance does this have for America's national security? I think it's significant, Margaret, because I think what it reveals is is a fight that's going on within the administration associated with.

our role in the world and how certain people in the administration perceive America's role in the world. And I think Mike Waltz was an America first guy, but he was an internationalist and prioritized, I think, our alliances. He knew that...

I think that quite correctly that Putin won't stop until he is stopped. And so he was an advocate for a strong approach to Putin. And I think there are those administration of a much different worldview, you know, who are in favor of of U.S. retrenchment or disengagement from complex challenges abroad, want to prioritize kind of the Western Hemisphere, North American defense.

And you see that in your discussion with with Congressman Turner as well, associated with the defense budget and what's being prioritized in the defense budget as well. So you see this as a as a policy argument, not just a signal messaging mistake that, you know, Mike Waltz created that channel where he accidentally included a reporter.

It is. I think it's a policy issue, a worldview issue, but it's also an understanding of the role of the National Security Council staff and the national security staff that Mike Waltz was running and Alex Wong is still running. And that's really the staff that allows the president to drive his agenda, that gets best analysis, best advice to the president and gets him multiple options. It seems pretty clear that President Trump is not...

very patient in terms of a deliberative process these days. And this is why I think he may see the National Security Council staff as an impediment instead of really the best vehicle to drive his agenda and to integrate all elements of national power and efforts of like-minded partners to advance American interests. You know, I thought it was an interesting point Congressman Turner made when he brought up the specific

point of reference the president has for the National Security Council during his first term, which is, Turner argued, seeing them as the reason he was impeached.

or during his first impeachment related to Ukraine. Do you think that is something that makes him distrust the council? Why is it that he would take the advice of someone like Laura Loomer, this far-right activist who has made racist attacks on some of the members of that council? Yeah, Margaret, I think there are three types of people in any administration. Those who are there to give the president best advice,

Those who are there not for that, but want to manipulate decisions consistent with their own agenda. These are people inside and outside of the administration. And there's a third group of people who sometimes take on the role of maybe saving the country and the world from the president. That second and third group, if you have an effective national security decision making process,

that gives the president multiple options, they tend to oppose that process. They tend to oppose the national security advisor. And I think what you're seeing is how easy it is for certain people to get in the president's ear to sow distrust, to drive a wedge between him and the national security advisor in this case or the national security staff and those who are there to get him multiple options.

You referenced the different worldviews of some of the people advising the president right now, particularly regarding our allies. In Europe, we saw an interesting decision this week. In Germany, their domestic intelligence agency concluded an investigation into a far-right political party known as AFD. They declared it to be an extremist group because of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim positions.

Their leaders have trivialized the Holocaust. They've called for deporting non-white citizens because that violates the German constitution. This would sound like a domestic issue. However, the vice president and the secretary of state have taken very public statements here, wading into this. Rubio calling it tyranny in disguise. Vice President Vance also weighing in here. Do you think

that's advisable when that party's leaders have such a troubled history. Can you explain it? Yeah, part of this, Margaret, is what you've covered earlier in the show about this kind of Women, Peace and Security Initiative, as well as I would say some of the radical DEI agendas of the Biden and maybe the Obama administration before that. This is like an equal and opposite reaction, and it's international. And this is one of the reasons why there are some people in the United States who

who kind of regard Putin as the savior of Western civilization or Christianity and so forth, which is obviously kind of a perverse view of him as well. But I think what's related to this is this sort of this emphasis on retrenchment, just take care of ourselves, disengage from the world. And I think that these are related. What's

What's, I think, interesting about this, though, is that the Trump administration, I think, risks replicating the flaws of the Obama administration's policy. Because what you see is now some people in the Republican Party seeing the source of all ills in the world as, like,

the neocons and they trace that back in particular to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So that blaming ourselves, other Americans for the ills of the world, and the associated impulse toward disengagement risks recreating, I think, some of the fundamental flaws in sort of the Obama administration approach to the world. HR McMaster, thank you for sharing your insight. We'll leave it there and we'll be back in a moment.

In a commencement address last week at the University of Alabama, President Trump told journalism majors that he's not sure he likes the press, but acknowledged a free press is important. We need a brilliant press. They're like a watchkeeper. They're very important, and you can go out and take it down a new track, help save the country. The people of this country, they know the truth when they hear it. That's why the ratings, the approval numbers of the media are so low.

Last week, the president offered a cutoff, ordered, excuse me, a cutoff to federal funding to two major public broadcasting systems, PBS and NPR. For more now, we're joined by CEOs Catherine Maher and Paula Kerger. Good to have you both together. Great to be here. So the president issued this order for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees you both, to cut off funding.

Are you both filing lawsuits? And on what basis can you challenge this? We're looking at whatever options are available to us. I think it's a little preliminary for us to be able to speak to the specific strategies that we might take. Is that the same for PBS? Yeah, we're obviously looking. And I would just say the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a funding mechanism, but they actually don't oversee PBS or NPR. We're independent organizations. Important point to make. But the threat of...

cutting off funding, whether it was in Congress or the president saying he's doing it now. That's not new, right? That's been a talking point for years. There have been efforts in Congress. You do have funding, I think, through 2027. But

It feels a little bit different this time. Do you have a backup funding plan? Yeah, it is different this time. And I've been through these battles now for a number of years. I've been at PBS almost 20 years. And I remember even going back to the Newt Gingrich days. But this is different.

They're coming after us in many different ways. We're waiting for a possible rescission of those funds that have already been appropriated. A call back. There was an effort within the FCC challenging our ability to accept sponsorships from corporations, which is something that we have worked with the FCC on for many, many years.

There was the executive order. There was the effort to try to remove a few members of the CPB board. So we have never seen a circumstance like this. And obviously, we're going to be pushing back very hard because what's at risk are our stations, our public television, our public radio stations across the country. We get 15 percent of our funding from the federal government. That's one five percent. But that's an aggregate number.

Some of our stations in small communities, it's 40 to 50 percent of their funding. And for them, it's existential. And that's what's at risk if this funding goes away. So is it immediate for NPR?

In a similar fashion, if we were to see a clawback of these funds, which we know is part of the conversation from a recession standpoint, or if we were to see that stations were no longer able to participate in their membership dues, that would be damaging. But I think that Paula's point is the one that really people need to hear, the immediate damages to local stations. And with NPR, we have

stations in more than 246 stations with newsrooms, more than 200 newsrooms in every state in the country, and that includes journalists who are out there covering their local communities. Especially in a time where we're seeing an advance of news deserts across the nation, 20% of Americans don't have access to another local source of news. The impact of this could really be devastating, particularly in rural communities.

The president tweeted or socialed or truthed, Republicans must defund and totally disassociate themselves from NPR and PBS, the radical left monsters that so badly hurt our country.

I have to tell you, I heard monsters and I thought of Cookie Monster. I did too, actually. I thought of Sesame Street, and I thought of that children's programming. That is in many ways what people think of when they think of PVF. Absolutely. Is that impacted too? Absolutely. And out of this executive order, we believe it impacts our funding out of the Department of Education, which is a 30-year program that has supported not only the creation of many of the children's programming that you see on public television,

but also the research that we do to ensure that that programming is not just safe and enjoyable, but that children, after watching, come away with understanding of basic letters and numbers. Half the kids in this country are not enrolled in formal pre-K. That's why programming for children on public television was created. That was the idea with Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers, and everything that's followed since is to make sure that children that do not have access to a full array of resources

have the opportunity to learn and to develop skills that they'll need the first time they enter preschool. That may be at age two or three or four and sometimes five, not until they start kindergarten. That's what's at risk. At risk or right now? I mean, do you have the money to keep functioning?

Well, we have programming, so you're not going to turn on your TV set and not see our children's programming anymore. But if that funding is cut off, we have programs in development right now, and that will suddenly skid to a halt. We also have stations around the country that work directly with preschool providers and parents, and this funds those activities. So the immediate impact would be fairly significant.

So, Catherine, I want to ask you about the news. When we went and we read the executive order, the language in there says government funding of news media in this environment is outdated and unnecessary, corrosive to the appearance of independence. And Americans have the right to expect if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting that it's fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan. How do you respond to the implication that your news coverage is not?

is not fair and nonpartisan. And unbiased. Yeah, I mean, well, first of all, I think it's important to note that I'm the CEO and we have an independent editor-in-chief who oversees the newsroom. And so I don't make editorial decisions. And that, I think, is just always an important point to make. But I think our newsroom would really take issue with that. We have been on air for more than 50 years. We've been covering news as it occurs across the nation in local communities, overseas. We have an extraordinary Washington desk. And

And our people report straight down the line. And I think that not only do they do that, they do so with a mission that very few other broadcast organizations have, which is a requirement to serve the entire public. That is the point of public broadcasting, is we bring people together in those conversations. And so we've had a whole host of conservative voices on air of late. We've been making requests of the Trump administration to have their officials on air. We would like to see more people accept those invitations.

hard for us to be able to say we can speak for everyone when folks won't join us. So that was the executive order. Then we went and we looked at the White House talking points and what they're putting on social media. They're a lot more about you than you. And on NPR, they were saying things like a July 2022 editor's note that said the Declaration of Independence had offensive language against Native Americans. We checked, and the word savages is used.

The White House faults your editors for avoiding the term biological sex when discussing transgender issues. They apparently want you to use the term pro-life and faulted your use of the term anti-abortion rights to refer to activists.

So when you see specific editorial criticisms like that, what do you interpret the intention of this being? Well, I interpret the intention of this being trying to create a narrative around our editorial independence. To control it? To control it. And I think that that is an affront to the First Amendment. We have an independent newsroom, and we will always have an independent newsroom. From my perspective, part of the separation of the

that the First Amendment offers is to keep government out. In fact, the statute that was written when the Public Broadcasting Act was signed into law was very explicit about interference from any member of the government, whether it is elected officials, whether members of independent agencies, because it is so sacrosanct, that division between the state and independent media.

That was the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Set it up as a private corporation to give protection from influence and control. I would assume that's also from the White House, influence and control. That's right. And President Lyndon Johnson, who signed the bill into law, creating the Public Broadcasting Act and creating the system that we all operate within, he noted in his remarks upon signing that speech was that it does require a greater wisdom, and that's why we have a two-year advance appropriation, is to

is to insulate both of our work from political interference. I think that that is critical that Americans understand that public broadcasting is meant to be independent so that we can serve the public interest regardless of whatever administration is in office or whatever Congress's whims are. And the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was set up as a private corporation with that same intent.

So I think there was a lot of focus, even at that moment when the act was signed, that protections would need to be put in place. Because if we do our job,

It is possible that we will produce content that some people may wish we have done a different way. And this way it gives us the independence. The other thing that keeps us independent is that most of our funding comes from viewers like you. We ask people to make contribution to public broadcasting for something they get for free, because we are available free to every home in this country.

And so both the combination of the fact that it was built as a public-private partnership, there would be some public money that went into public broadcasting that would enable stations in small communities to exist, alongside the fact that most of our support comes from people in communities, that really does create something that is very independent and very responsive to the communities that we serve. And if I may, just to give a sense of those numbers,

For every single dollar that the federal government puts in, stations raise on average about $7 from private sources. And so you also have to recognize that this order interferes with the First Amendment rights of our listeners and viewers who've made a choice to contribute. And this is the news that they want to see and hear or the programming that they are committed to.

It did just stand out to us as journalists ourselves because the research shows that there's declining trust in media, in news, and the president was talking about that himself there, that he wants a free and fair press. We're going to continue to cover this, and thank you for your time today. Thank you for having us. 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. The senior executive producer of Face the Nation is Mary Hager, and the executive producer is Ann Hsu. This broadcast was directed by Shelley Schwartz. Face the Nation originates from CBS News in Washington.

For more, we're online at facenation.com and on YouTube. We're also rebroadcast on our CBS News 24-7 streaming network at 1230 on Sundays, and we're available through our apps, CBS News and Paramount+.