- Republican Sen. JD Vance of Ohio
- Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly
- Ret. Gen. Frank McKenzie, former commander for U.S. Central Command
- Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan
Click here to browse full transcripts of “Face the Nation.”
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m Margaret Brennan in Washington.
And this week on Face the Nation: Overnight, there are new reports of foreign interference in the 2024 election. This time, the target is former President Trump’s campaign. And we go in-depth with Trump’s running mate, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance.
Vice President Kamala Harris picked a coach for her running mate, Minnesota’s Governor Tim Walz. But, last night in Las Vegas, she lifted a campaign play from the Trump playbook and raised him one.
(Begin VT)
KAMALA HARRIS (Vice President of the United States (D) and U.S. Presidential Candidate): That we will continue our fight for working families of America…
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: … including to raise the minimum wage…
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: … and eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s a proposal that will go over well in the battleground state of Nevada.
But can Democrats score in the heartland? We will talk with Kansas Democrat Governor Laura Kelly.
Plus: V.P. hopeful J.D. Vance has been on the offensive on the campaign trail.
(Begin VT)
SENATOR J.D. VANCE (R-Ohio) (Vice Presidential Candidate): Everything that Kamala Harris touches has been a disaster.
MARGARET BRENNAN: President Trump has said you are outstanding, but when you look at what decides elections, the vice presidential pick rarely matters. How are you going to prove him wrong?
(LAUGHTER)
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, I think President Trump’s right about that, actually.
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will talk with him about campaign policy and how GOP proposals will impact Americans.
We will check in on two other big stories, the state of the economy with Bank of America CEO, Brian Moynihan. And retired General Frank McKenzie will give us an update on tensions in the Middle East.
It’s all just ahead on Face the Nation.
Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation.
Last night, former President Trump said that his campaign had been informed that one of his top advisers was hacked by the Iranian government. We have got a lot more on that ahead, but we begin with our interview with Mr. Trump’s running mate J.D. Vance.
We sat down with him in Cincinnati Saturday morning, before the news broke about the hack.
(Begin VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: You supported the Supreme Court ruling recently on mifepristone, the – the so-called abortion pill, that ruled opponents lacked the legal right to sue over the FDA approval.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE (R-Ohio) (Vice Presidential Candidate): That’s right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This drug is used in like 60 percent of all abortions in the United States. In a Trump/Vance administration, would you use the FDA to block access to this drug?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, no.
What the president has said very clearly is that abortion policy should be made by the states, right? You, of course, want to make sure that any medicine is safe, that it’s prescribed in the right way, and so forth, but the president wants individual states to make these decisions, because, look, Margaret, California is going to have a different abortion policy from Ohio, which is going to have a different abortion policy from Alabama.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, but that was actually different, because, after Dobbs, the Supreme Court took up this case, right.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Yes, but – but, like you said, on…
MARGARET BRENNAN: They viewed it as different.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Sure, but, like you said, on a matter of legal standing.
But I think that what we really want is, when states and voters in those states make decisions, we of course want the states and the federal government to respect those decisions, and that’s what President Trump has said is, consistently, we need to get out of the culture war side of the abortion issue.
We need to let the states decide their specific abortion policy. And, look, what President Trump and I want to do on family policy is make it easier for families to start in the first place.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, at his presser this past week, Donald Trump seemed to indicate he was open to restrictions on mifepristone.
He was asked by a reporter about this, and he said: “There are many things on a humane basis that you can do, but also give a vote.”
So he did seem to be indicating he’s open to restrictions on this particular drug.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: First of all, even some of the reporters who were in the room at that press conference said it wasn’t clear what the reporter was asking. Maybe he couldn’t hear that person super clearly.
So I don’t want to put words in President Trump’s mouth. What he said very clearly in the debate is that he agrees with the Supreme Court decision, but, more importantly, he wants these decisions to be made by the states.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You, personally, signed on as a senator to a letter to the DOJ demanding it shut down all mail-order abortion operations under the Comstock Act.
So, would you seek to enforce that law differently?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, what we said in that letter, Margaret, is that we want doctors to prescribe this stuff to ensure that it’s safe. I mean, we do this with antibiotics. We do this with a lot of antidepressants.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the FDA says it is.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: And we – we just want the FDA to make sure that doctors are prescribing this in a safe way. That’s all that we ever said, and I – I believe that that is how President Trump feels about this is, again, you want the states to make these determinations.
You also want to make sure the FDA is ensuring that these medications are safe for anybody who’s taking them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s been on the market for decades, and the FDA does say it is safe, but would – where a doctor…
(CROSSTALK)
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, antibiotic – Margaret, antibiotics are safe, but we want to make sure they’re prescribed by doctors, and the doctors are properly monitoring this stuff so that people don’t get hurt.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure, of course. But…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: And, Margaret, we’ve – we’ve talked now, I think, for six questions about abortion.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m still trying to get a clear answer.
So, for an FDA…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: And I gave you one.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … commissioner…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … that you would be part of choosing, where that Commissioner stands on this drug, would that determine whether or not they are chosen to be put in this key role?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: I think President Trump has clearly said there are no litmus tests on this particular issue.
He just wants to make sure that drugs are safe and effective before they’re out there in the market, and, of course, that doctors are properly controlling this stuff, so that people don’t get hurt. And, again, Margaret, I mean, we talk about abortion. I think President Trump’s views on abortion are extremely clear.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve been talking about the concern about the low birth rate in the United States of America, which is well-documented.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You said people without children should pay higher tax rates than those who have children, and the U.S. should look at lowering income tax rates on women who have multiple children. And you pointed to Hungary as a model for that.
How do you plan to implement that policy?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, it’s called the child tax credit, and we should expand the child tax credit.
If you think about what the child tax credit does…
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you and the Biden administration agree on the childcare tax credit?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, we think it should be bigger. I think President Trump and I believe in an expanded child tax credit.
But we also, importantly, want to actually get this thing done.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: The child tax credit has languished thanks to the Biden administration, because Harris has failed to show fundamental leadership. Chuck Schumer has been unable to get it through the United States Senate, and we want to have a more pro-family policy.
Now, you asked about…
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: There was just a vote on this. You know that.
And you weren’t there.
(CROSSTALK)
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: But, Margaret…
MARGARET BRENNAN: It was a messaging bill. I will give you that.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: It was a show vote.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m – I’m with you on that. But…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: And if I had been there, it would have failed. And I was – and I was…
MARGARET BRENNAN: So tell me specifically what you want to do to expand the childcare tax credit, because it’s like two grand per kid right now.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, I think one of the things you can do is make it bigger per child. I think we’d love to see it at a higher dollar value –
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you have a number in mind?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: I mean, look, I would love to see a child tax credit that’s $5,000 per child. But you, of course, have to work with Congress to see how possible and viable that is.
We’ve also proposed legislation, Margaret, to end this practice of parents getting these surprise medical bills where they go to the hospital, they have a baby, they chose an out-of-network provider, and they come home with unexpected bills. I have actually sponsored legislation to end that practice.
So we have a whole host of pro-family policies that are out there. And – and, again, on the Harris administration, I have to push back against something a little bit, Margaret, because when these comments where I said parents should pay lower taxes via the child tax credit came out, the Harris administration immediately jumped and said, we disagree with this.
The Harris campaign said, we disagree with this. So do they want the elimination of the child tax credit? Or were they just being careless in responding to remarks that I made three years ago? I don’t know.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: They should clarify it, maybe in an interview with you. But, of course, Kamala Harris refuses to do interviews with anybody.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We hope to have on and ask her about that.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Me too.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, the childcare tax credit, you said $5,000 per child is what you’d like to get to. Where would that kick in?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: I would like to have a broad-based family policy and a broad-based child tax credit, Margaret.
Again, we’ve talked about doing this for a long time. President Trump has been on the record for a long time supporting a bigger child tax credit.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: And I think you want it to apply to all American families. I don’t think that you want this – this – this massive cutoff for lower-income families, which you have right now. You don’t want a different policy for higher-income families.
You just want to have a pro-family child tax credit.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you have personally opposed universal childcare. How do you solve the childcare crisis in America?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, what I have opposed is one model of childcare.
We, of course, want to give everybody access to childcare. But, look, in my family, I grew up in a poor family where the childcare was my grandparents.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: And a lot of these childcare proposals do nothing for grandparents. If you look at some of these proposals, they do nothing for stay-at-home moms or stay-at-home dads.
I want us to have a childcare policy that’s good for all families, not just a particular model of family, and that’s what I have said.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So what do you mean by that? There would be like a credit per kid if it’s a stay-at-home mom, a credit per kid if it’s grandma?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Yes, exactly.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Like they would get a check to take care of their…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: No, that – that – that – that’s exactly what I propose.
I’m just saying that I don’t want us to favor one family model over another. If you’ve got grandparents who are at home taking care of the kids, I think they deserve to be treated the same as – the same way as other family models by their government.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Gay families, they’d be included? All families?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: All families would be included, of course.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: All families would be included.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What about really young kids? Should 3- and 4-year-old kids have access to preschool?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, look, I think that certainly some families are going to choose that, but again, some families are going to choose grandparents and so forth. I think our view…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that’s childcare. That’s different than a preschool.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, our – our view – well, very often preschool is childcare. It’s at least a form of childcare. I know that, when I went to preschool…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Your kids went to preschool.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Yes, and we use it as childcare, right? You’re hoping your kids get a good education, but you’re also doing it because you want to provide childcare for your kids. I don’t think there’s anything incongruous or inconsistent about that.
And I think, look, we believe that we want to make it easier for American families, Margaret, to make their own choices on this stuff. We talk about school choice, of course, school choice would apply to all families, it would apply to all parents, and we would just want parents to have choices. And I think…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Including for preschool, because, in many public school systems, there is no preschool. That’s why I’m asking.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: I think that we want parents to have choices, Margaret. Like I just said, we want them to be able to make the choices that make the most sense for their family. For some, it’s going to be preschool. For some, it’s going to be day care. For some, it’s going to be having the kids stay at home a little bit longer.
We just want the government to treat everybody equally, regardless of whatever education or family model you have.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you have a very young family.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: I do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have a very accomplished wife, Usha, who she went to…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: I’m very proud of her.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … yes, Yale, Cambridge. She clerked at the Supreme Court. We heard her on stage at the RNC.
You gave a recent interview to Megyn Kelly.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you spoke about white supremacists attacking your family…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … because she’s not a white person.
How concerned are you that this kind of hate would follow you to the White House?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, look, it’s going to follow us wherever we go, because that’s the nature of public life in America, and it’s disgraceful.
Look, I love my wife. I’m very proud of her. I’m extremely lucky to have met her and to have gotten the chance to build a life with her. And my attitude on this is, people want to attack me, attack my policy views, they’re welcome to. I signed up for it. My wife didn’t sign up for it.
And, by the way, she’s out of the – she’s way out of their league, the people who are attacking her. So I wish they would just keep their mouths shut, or at least focus on me. But, look, it’s the nature of public life in this country. My wife’s pretty tough, and she knows what we signed up for.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I imagine it’s hard to keep your temper when you hear things like that.
(LAUGHTER)
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Yes, I get pissed off sometimes, certainly…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: …when people attack your family, and certainly attack your family for something that no person can control.
And I do think that there’s been this thing in America…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: … where we’ve said that we should judge people based on their skin color, based on their immutable characteristics, based on things that they can’t control.
I, frankly, think that, unfortunately, a lot of people on the left have leaned into this by trying to categorize people by skin color and then give special benefits or special amounts of discrimination. The Harris administration, for example, handed out farm benefits to people based on skin color. I think that’s disgraceful.
I don’t – I don’t think we should say, you get farm benefits if you’re a black farmer, you don’t get farm benefits if you’re a white farmer. All farmers, we want to thrive, and that’s certainly the President Trump and J.D. Vance view of the situation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: But I do think, unfortunately, when our leaders divide us by race, you’re going to have hate on the left side of the political spectrum. You’re going to have hate on the right side of the political spectrum.
We should just judge people based on individual characteristics and based on merit, and that’s certainly what President Trump and I want to do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. But that wasn’t born in the last four years, I mean, one of the…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: No, no, not at all, but I think that President Biden and Harris have certainly accelerated it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: I don’t think you’ve seen any – anything like what we’ve seen from Kamala Harris when it comes to handing out government benefits based on people’s immutable characteristics.
The actual legal enshrinement of discrimination in this country, we haven’t seen anything like it in the last 30 or 40 years. Certainly, back in the ’60s and ’50s, we all look at that as a period that we wanted to get away from, and, in some ways, the Harris administration has reimplemented it.
I think it’s pretty disgraceful.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, in your own movement – that’s what I want to ask about, because one of the supremacists who was saying things like this about your family…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … Nick Fuentes, an avowed antisemite…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … went after your wife. He had previously dined at Mar-a-Lago with Donald Trump.
Does this have any room in your movement, in the MAGA movement?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Of course it doesn’t have any room in the MAGA movement. And, of course…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you disavow him and – and this?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: And, of course – and, of course, Donald Trump has criticized this person.
Look, I think the guy’s a total loser. Certainly, I disavow him. But if you ask me what I care more about, is it a person attacking me personally, or is it government policy that discriminates based on race, that’s what I really worry about.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re going to mark this year the three-year anniversary of the U.S. – the end of the U.S. war in Afghanistan.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: President Trump negotiated that withdrawal.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The execution, you’ve been very critical of as very chaotic, under President Biden.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But let’s look at what you could do if you’re in office.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There are about 80,000 or so Afghans who were left behind, many of whom worked for the United States. Does America owe them? Should you bring them here?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, I think that we should bring people here who helped us and have been properly vetted. And that’s very, very important, because a lot of the people the Biden administration has brought in have not been properly vetted. And I think…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you talking about Afghan vets?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: And I think the most important – certainly, the Biden administration has let in Afghan nationals who say that they supported Americans, but actually did not.
We also need to remember, Margaret, there was a lot, when we were in Afghanistan, a lot of so-called blue-on-green, or green-on-blue violence, where people who are allegedly supposed to help us killed American troops. Do I want them in our country? Of course I don’t. In fact, I wish they weren’t on this Earth anymore. So we have to be careful about who we let into this country. But I think the…
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m talking about people who worked alongside United States servicepeople…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: And if they’re…
MARGARET BRENNAN: … on the ground in Afghanistan.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: And if they’re properly vetted, I think that we should help them. Some of them don’t want to come here, by the way, Margaret. Some of them would like us to give them safety in another country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I ask you that because President Trump said a few days ago he’ll suspend refugee admissions to the United States…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Exactly, because we’re not properly…
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you’re saying not in this case?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: No, absolutely, I’m saying in this case, Margaret, because we’re not properly vetting the people that are being let in through these refugee programs.
What President Trump said is very important. You cannot show up at an American consulate and say, I helped the Americans. Go let me into America because I’m a refugee.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s not how the process works. You know that.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: It very often is how the process works, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It is not.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: The Biden administration has been scandalous in not properly vetting these people. Donald Trump is exactly right.
And, again, just because they helped us, allegedly, doesn’t mean you have to let them come to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Maybe some of them should go to other countries. Maybe we should help some of them in their own country. And President Trump is exactly right about this.
In fact, we know, we know beyond a shadow of doubt that some of the people who have been let into this country are on the terrorist watch list. That is disgraceful. And Trump is right that we should stop it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I think now you’re conflating a few different things. You are now talking about people who have come in through the southern border, versus people who were vetted and worked with U.S. intelligence.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Oh, no, we – we – we’ve certainly let in people through refugee resettlement who should not be in this country. Absolutely, we have. We have not properly vetted everybody who’s come in.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you have something that you’ve been briefed on?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Certainly, if you look at…
MARGARET BRENNAN: A specific example you’re worried about?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, I have been – I have been briefed privately, but there’s also been public reports of people who have come in through the refugee resettlement process who are actually on some kind of terrorism watch list who – or who, importantly, were not actually helping Americans, even though they claimed – we got to be careful, Margaret.
We have a country to protect, and we have – I mean, I have three young children. I don’t want people walking around the streets of this country who said they served the United States, but because the Biden Administration doesn’t believe in immigration enforcement, they didn’t properly vet them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you view China as a competitor or an adversary?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: I think they’re both, right?
And I think that what we want to do here is build the kind of international order where we can check China. We don’t want to go to war with China, but, certainly, they’re an adversary.
I mean, they know – for example, the Chinese know that they’re manufacturing tons of fentanyl they’re letting come – come into our country. Kamala Harris has done nothing about this. She should apply diplomatic and economic leverage over the Chinese to stop manufacturing this fentanyl, which then comes into the Mexican drug cartels, which they then ship into our country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The United States has…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: This – this – this – this is a…
MARGARET BRENNAN: The United States has designated some of these groups…
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: This is a scandal.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … and pressed the Chinese government.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Oh, we could do so much more.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Fentanyl is not easy to manufacture, Margaret.
And if Harris was applying proper leverage to the Chinese and to the Mexican drug cartels, we would not have so many people dying of fentanyl overdoses.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Like, what? How – how do you do that? What’s your vision of do – how you do that?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, I think you walk into – to – to Beijing, you talk to Xi Jinping, and you say, your entire economy is going to collapse unless you get access to American markets. You need to take this fentanyl seriously or we are going to impose serious tariffs and economic penalties for not following our laws and not helping us stem the flow of this deadly poison.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you wouldn’t be worried about blowback on the U.S. economy?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: I think that we have a powerful economy, Margaret, with the best workers in the entire world.
If we need to fight a trade war with the Chinese, we will fight it and we will win it, but we cannot do what Kamala Harris has done, which is be so terrified of using the economic power that we have…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: … that she’s not even willing to stop the flow of this deadly poison coming into our country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: President Trump said Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi were lovely individuals when he was speaking in Montana last night. You agree with that characterization?
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: I think that President Trump gets along with world leaders, and there’s nothing wrong with him complimenting them as people, if it makes him more effective diplomatically. And there’s an irony here.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s different than walking in and laying down the law to Xi Jinping.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: There’s an – oh, no, it’s not actually, because you’re better able to lay down the law, like President Trump did, if you actually have a good relationship with people and they trust you to follow your word.
We have to remember that Democrats, including Kamala Harris, attacked Donald Trump for having a good relationship with Vladimir Putin. Well, when Donald Trump was president, Vladimir Putin didn’t invade another country. When Kamala Harris was vice president, he did. So maybe they should take a lesson from Trump’s play – playbook about diplomatic legitimacy, because I think Donald Trump got a lot done because world leaders respected him.
MARGARET BRENNAN: J.D. Vance, always good to talk to you.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Thanks, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you for making time for us.
SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Good to see you.
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: The full interview is available on our YouTube channel and on our Web site.
We will be back in one minute, so stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yesterday, the Trump campaign said it was hacked and suggested Iranian actors had stolen documents.
E-mails obtained from that hack were reportedly sent to Politico and “The Washington Post,” but both organizations declined to publish them. The claim came a day after Microsoft revealed that Iran and other foreign actors are interfering in the campaign.
We go now to CBS News intelligence and national security reporter Olivia Gazis and CBS News cybersecurity expert and analyst Chris Krebs. He was also the head of CISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, during the Trump administration.
So, Olivia, does U.S. intelligence assess that this was indeed Iran?
OLIVIA GAZIS: So, far the U.S. intelligence community hasn’t said either way.
They have deferred instead to the Justice Department, as has the White House. They haven’t weighed in on this alleged hack. Microsoft, likewise, is declining to comment beyond the original report that it already issued this week, which didn’t specify which campaign was at issue.
Both of them, however, thus far have said things about Iranian activity that lends credence to some of what the campaign has said. The intelligence community in its last update on election security in late July indicated that Iran was moving beyond being a chaos agent to actively intervening in order to affect the outcome of the presidential race.
And while intelligence officials didn’t specify explicitly which campaign Iran was trying to denigrate, officials said that they were opposing the candidate that they believe would exacerbate tensions. So, it looks right now like it’s a reprisal of what happened in 2020, when U.S. intelligence concluded with high confidence that Iranian-linked actors had worked to undermine Mr. Trump’s campaign at the direction of the supreme leader.
I think it’s worth noting that Microsoft’s analysis did link the spearfishing attempt to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, which has a direct line…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
OLIVIA GAZIS: … to the supreme leader, and also notable that they weren’t clear on the intentions.
Iranians target senior political officials all of the time for intelligence-gathering purposes. Whether that was the purpose here, to gather intelligence, or to fuel an election interference campaign, or both, is still a question.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
CHRIS KREBS: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And, Chris, you were in office in 2020 when Iran tried to intervene then.
CHRIS KREBS: That’s right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: How difference is – different is this?
CHRIS KREBS: Well, that was a much more public effort.
So if you recall, in late October, the Iranians sent a bunch of e-mails out to voters. They were able to collect e-mails through hacking into voter registration databases. And they threatened them. They posed as the Proud Boys. They said: We’re going to come after you if you don’t register to vote as a Republican and go out and vote for President Trump.
Subsequent to that, they released a video. Immediately, the intelligence community was on top of it. There was a public press conference Wednesday evening with the director of national intelligence, the director of the FBI. I was there alongside the Department of Justice.
And that was a – a stark difference from 2016, when it took about eight, nine months to make a public attribution.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
CHRIS KREBS: This was done in the order of 36 hours or something to that effect.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Should we expect that now?
CHRIS KREBS: I think it – based on the intelligence community’s rapid declassification in advance of the Russian attack on Ukraine, it seems to be that that is the pattern for rapid declassification.
So I – I would not be surprised to see something soon.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re going to take a break and come back and complete this conversation on the other side of it, so stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: In our next half-hour, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, and the latest on the threat of attack from Iran and Hezbollah on Israel.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We return now to our conversation on cyber security with Olivia Gazis and Chris Krebs.
Chris, the Trump campaign is calling on reporters not to publish anything they might receive as a result of this alleged criminal behavior. The model I think of is what happened in 2016 when the DNC was hacked and e-mails ended up hurting Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Is that what Iran is replicating now?
CHRIS KREBS: It sure seems so. If you go back and you look at the Microsoft statement from Friday that talks about three prongs of an Iranian effort right now. One is to go after campaigns, another is this broader disinformation effort to stoke the fires among society. And the third element is they went after a county election official. That is the exact replicate – replication of the 2016 Russian playbook that was outlined in the 2017 intelligence community assessment. So, what I think we’re seeing is the russification of Iranian information operations.
Now, what is different is who is receiving the information and what they do. So, what are – what is the – the – what is “Politico” doing? What is “The Washington Post” doing? They are showing some discretion right now. I think that is an evolution in a response.
What will also be interesting to see in what social media platforms do. They do have a mixed track record of – of allowing some of this information to get out there. In other cases they have suppressed or taken it off-line. And that is yet to be seen what’s going to happen.
MARGARET BRENNAN: A hack and dump, and does this information show up somewhere.
CHRIS KREBS: This is a critical point here. This is hack and leak. This is mal information we’ve been told for over half a decade that hacking leak’s not a real thing. Now that, in this case, the shoe’s on the other foot, we are finding that, yes, in fact, hacking leak is a real thing. We should expect more of that.
Keep in mind, it is August. We have a long way to go in this election. Iran specifically seems to have advanced their efforts, moved them to the left perhaps a little bit. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Russia enter the fray soon. I mean Microsoft talks about Russian disinformation efforts. A group that we track, Senolabs (ph), known as “Doppelganger,” they are active. Others are going to be out there moving as well as the Chinese.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And, Olivia, we know that national – the director of national intelligence has made clear it is Russia, it is also China, trying to have some influence here. What are they seeing in terms of preferred candidates? If Iran is trying to hurt Donald Trump, who are the others trying to help or hurt?
OLIVIA GAZIS: Right. There’s definitely an interesting dynamic this time around because as much as the focus today is on Iran, intelligence officials have actually said that Russia continues to pose the preeminent threat in 2024. They are active, they are aggressive, they are increasingly reaching for tools that boost the efficacy and sophistication of the campaigns that they’re launching.
And as with the case in Iran, intelligence officials aren’t explicit about whose campaign they’re intervene to undermine or boost, but said that their preferences haven’t changed, which in 2016 and 2020 we know that at President Putin’s direction there was a broad campaign led by Russian actors in order to denigrate the Democratic candidates and support Mr. Trump.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
OLIVIA GAZIS: What makes things interesting this year is, Iran and Russia being at cross purposes, all while deepening their strategic partnership in Ukraine, right?
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s a great point.
OLIVIA GAZIS: Exchanging missile and technologies there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
OLIVIA GAZIS: But again, they’re probably both happy for the byproduct of as much disinformation and discord it – sowing as much of that as they can over the course of the election season.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And I know we’re going to be talking about this unfortunately through the election, as you just said, Chris Krebs.
CHRIS KREBS: And that – that is a key point, chaos is the point here.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, chaos is the point. And we need to sort out fact from fiction.
Thank you both for helping us do that.
We want to go now to Kansas Democratic Governor Laura Kelly.
Good morning to you, Governor.
GOV. LAURA Kelly (D-KS): Good morning to you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, Governor, you are in a pretty unique position here. You are a twice elected Democratic governor of a pretty red state. Democrats have been bleeding support in rural America for years. How do Democrats woo back rural America?
LAURA KELLY: Well, you just have to get out there and listen and then produce. You know, it – when you – when you do that, you will see that, you know, while we label everybody red or blue, the fact of the matter is, here in Kansas, we’re Kansans. And so, you know, if you are a Democrat, but you share the values of most Kansans, you just need to get out there, talk with them, get them to know you, you to know them, and then they’ll develop that trust and put it in you to run the state.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Tim Walz is the first sitting governor to join a Democratic presidential ticket since Bill Clinton. He runs a pretty blue state, but there seems to be a bet that he can speak to the heartland, that he can speak to rural America. Do you think that’s overstated?
LAURA KELLY: No, not at all. I mean Tim Walz is the epitome of the midwestern dad. You know, you could put him at any state fair, on any main street, and certainly in a Friday night football game in rural Kansas, and he would fit right in.
I think we also need to remember that while Minnesota is a blue state, he represented in Congress for 12 years a very red section of Minnesota. So, he understand rural Minnesota. He understand rural America. And I think that’s one of the reasons that he is a huge asset to the Harris-Walz team.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, your state was one of the first to put the issue of abortion on a state ballot to leave it to the voters to decide. And those voters overwhelmingly rejected restrictions. So, Democrats often push – point to your state as proof of concept that this is a galvanizing issue across party lines. But I found it interesting in interviews that you’ve said, you try not to talk about abortion. Are Democrats miscalculating by putting it front and center?
LAURA KELLY: No, I don’t think so. I think – I didn’t put it front and center because it wasn’t an issue that I could really deal with. It was a ballot issue. Those issues go right around me and on to the ballot and to the people. So, I decided that it was better for me to let the people decide what they wanted to do with that and for me to continue to focus on the other issues where I actually could have an impact, you know, on our infrastructure, on our economic development, on our schools.
So – but we can see in other states where governors have come out very aggressively supporting women’s reproductive rights. Michigan, for instance, comes to mind. And it has worked. You know, they have moved the needle in Michigan and other states because they have focused on that issue. And whether we want it to be an issue or not, it is. And I think it will be an issue in the presidential race this year, too.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But I read that you said one of the reasons you personally tried not to talk about it was not just procedural, but also because you said Democrats are getting drawn in to hot button culture war issues. And you said you don’t want to get dragged into conversations that you don’t want to have. What do you mean by that?
LAURA KELLY: Well, I don’t want to get distracted by issues that take us away from the core issues of run – that a governor is responsible for. And – and that is just what I said before. You’ve got – you’ve got to make sure your schools are funded. You’ve got to make sure your roads are built. You’ve got to make sure you’re building in your economy. You’ve got to make sure you’re fixing your child welfare system. We’ve got all sort of other things that we need to be focused on. And what I found, particularly during my campaigns, is that the – my opponents wanted to use cultural socially divisive issues to distract from the real issues because they didn’t have answers for that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Governor, it will be interesting to see if you can replicate your success. And we will track what is happening, not just in Kansas, but in some of these other gubernatorial races around the country.
We’ll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re joined now by the CEO of Bank of America, Brian Moynihan.
Good to have you here.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN (CEO, Bank of America): It’s great to be here again, Margaret. Good to see you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Good to see you.
And this is a week where we had a lot of turbulence in the financial markets and some jitters here. We know that both presidential campaigns in the coming days will outline their vision for the economy. So, I’m hoping you can kind of level-set for us. What is the reality of what you are seeing with American consumers right now?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Well, in our consumer base of 60 million customers spending every week, what you’re seeing is they’re spending at a rate of growth of – this year over last year for July and August so far about 3 percent. That is half the rate it was last year at this time. And so the consumer has slowed down. They have money in their accounts, but they’re depleting a little bit. They’re employed. They’re earning money. And it – but if you look at it, they’ve really slowed down. So, the Fed is in a position, they have to be careful that they don’t slow down too much.
Right now where they are spending at is consistent where they’ve spent in ’17, ’18, ’19, the low inflation, more normal growth economy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I saw, in one of your Bank of America reports, that – and you just alluded to this, more price sensitivity, and that savings accounts are being diminished.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That would suggest people really are not bringing in enough, that they have to go into their – into their savings. Like, is this all just inflation that’s pressuring?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: If you look across different segments of earnings power, those answers are somewhat different.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: But if you look at it overall, there’s been a lot of money moved to instruments that pay higher interest rates out of checking accounts, they cleaned up because it went from zero percent interest to five percent interest. And so if you remove that, basically the people who had an account with us in January 2020, before the pandemic, you look at them now, they’re still sitting with much more – even inflation adjusted, much more in their account. The problem is, it’s started drifting down, which indicates that they’re using that money now to maintain their lifestyle. That’s not that unusual in the summer months, frankly, because of travel and vacations and everything.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: And where the money is being spent by our consumers is on those type of experiences. But if you look within it, they’re still going to restaurants and they’re taking travel. But on the other hand, they’re spending a little bit less – they’re going to the food store the same number of times, but spending a little bit less, which means they’re basically finding bargains and things like that. And you’re seeing corporations cut price to respond to that. And so it’s the way the economy works in those – it’s slowing down. And that’s where we have to be careful because we’ve won the war on inflation. It’s come down. It’s not where people want it yet. But we’ve got to be careful that we don’t try to get so perfect that we actually put us in recession.
But our team is a great team at Bank of America research, does not have any recession predicament anymore. Last year this time it was a recession. This year we talked about, now there’s no recession. And basically they say we go to 2 percent growth to 1.5 percent growth over the next six quarters and kind of bump along at that growth rate plus or minus 2 (ph) percent (ph).
MARGARET BRENNAN: And they’re betting that in September the Federal Reserve does go ahead with an interest rate cut.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes, and I think that’s the – that’s the market consensus is actually more cuts than our team is. Ours is two this year, September, December, four next year, and a couple next year. But I think one of the concepts out hear out there a lot, Margaret, is this concept of higher for longer. The reality is, our team, and most people think we’ll set (ph) them with 3, 3.5 percent Fed Funds Rate, which is much different than the last 15, 17 years people have lived it. So, people who came into the business world, you know, in 2007, 2008 have not seen this kind of interest rate environment.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: And so we’re getting back to normal. And that’s going to take a while for people to adjust to, both on the corporate side, commercial side, and on the consumer side.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, I’m not asking you a political question here. The Federal Reserve is set up by Congress as politically neutral.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It, you know, has to deal with employment and stabilizing prices. This past week Donald Trump was asked if, as president, he could manage a soft landing of the economy with the current Federal Reserve leadership in place. Here is how he responded.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I feel a president should have at least say in there. Yes, I feel that strongly. I think that in my case I’ve made a lot of money. I was very successful. And I think I have a better instinct than, in many cases, people that would be on the Federal Reserve or the chairman.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARGARET BRENNAN: The chairman was appointed by Donald Trump, Jerome Powell, and continues to serve.
But what he’s talking about now is political leaders influencing or overriding economists in setting the Fed Funds Rate, in setting interest rates.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: I think it would be –
MARGARET BRENNAN: What would be the implication of that?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: I think, if you look around the world’s economies and you see where fed central banks are independent and operate freely, they tend to fair better than ones that don’t. And so I think that that’s kind of the – the American way. It’s been that way.
Does that stop people from giving the – Chair Powell advice or other people? No. I give him advice, you know. So, we all give him advice. And so I think you – we’ve got to be careful. You know, when he goes up and does the Humphrey Hawkins, he gets lots of advice about where rates should go. So, there’s a lot of people that have a view of it. But their job is to sort through it all and say what’s best for the U.S. economy on those two dimensions you talked about and be consistent.
I think right now Brian Moynihan giving advice has got to be more careful of the downside of not starting moving down rates, to restore a feeling that, you know, there’s light at the end of the tunnel. They’ve told people rates probably aren’t going to go up, but if they don’t start taking them down relatively soon, you could dispirit the American consumer.
Once the American consumer really starts going very negative, then it’s hard to get them back. And on the commercial side, the high rate environment is slowing down commercial progress. So, the corporations aren’t using their lines of credit. Middle markets, small businesses, they’re – they ‘ve gone backwards in their use of lines of credit. So, why don’t they use a line of credit? Either there is an opportunity or the cost is high or both. And right now that’s a little bit they’re worried about the future.
So, I think right now it’s time for them to start to take the – become a little more accommodative and take off the restrictions and let the thing (INAUDIBLE). So, I’m giving them advice, everybody does, and I think the strong central bank has to take all that advice and process it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s not unusual during a political campaign to hear some of the populist ideas, but one thing I’ve heard from Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan, I’ve heard from you at Bank of America, is this concern of when you send checks to people, as we’ve discussed with J.D. Vance, when you talk about now taxing tips as now both campaigns are doing, that there is still that hard question of, how does America deal with the debts and deficits it already has.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Those conversations just aren’t happening. What does that cost?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Well, I think right now the cost is not that high. I mean there’s a mathematical cost to it as interest rates go up, the debt carry cost goes up for the federal government, just like it goes up for the consumer or companies. And so that’s a hurt to the economy because that money could have been used for something else had they not borrowed so much.
The second question is, was there more stimulus applied to the Covid issues than needed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: And the answer is yes by most economists. Multiples. And so that – we’ve got to let that work its way out of the system. That’s what helped inflation. And it happened on both administration’s watch.
Now, the third question really is this question of handling the debt. And at the end of the day, you know, 15 years or so ago, the Bowles-Simpson commission came out with ways to do it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: There was an idea it will raise taxes. The response to the business community is, if you’re going to raise taxes, for what?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: If you’re going to do it to pay down debt, you know, individuals and companies would probably say, I got that. We’ve – we’ve had to wage a war on Covid. We won the war and now we’ve got to move it. But we can’t just raise taxes and stuff that doesn’t really provide for productivity or frankly help manage the debt.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: And that’s a concern people have. That will be a political food fight of high order here for the next few months.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we will definitely be talking about that as we go into 2025 and the expiration of some of those tax policies.
Brian Moynihan, it’s great to have you here.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: It’s always good to be here, Margaret. Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll be back in a moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Tensions are high in the Middle East where fears of an expanding regional war are growing a week after Israel killed a top Hamas leader in Iran and two Hezbollah commanders.
For more we go to retired General Frank McKenzie, who was the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.
Good to have you back.
GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE (Retired Former Commander United States Central Command): Good to be here, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: General, we’ve talked a number of times in recent months and the scenario you have flagged is the most concerning is one it seems we are on the brink of, and that is Lebanese-Hezbollah entering this conflict potentially in a significant way. How do you characterize where we are right now?
FRANK MCKENZIE: Margaret, I think we are hours, maybe days, not weeks away from Lebanese-Hezbollah entering this fight. And that’s always been the big variable. They are the largest nonstate military entity in the world. You know, a parasite on Lebanon. But they have tens and tens of thousands of highly accurate rockets and missiles and they can challenge Israel in a way that Iran, and the Houthis for that matter, are unable to do so because of their geographic proximity, because of the number of weapons that they have. And that’s – that’s very concerning. I’ve thought all along the most dangerous turn in events would be if they chose to enter its scale.
Now, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Lebanese Hezbollah, has got to make a very strategic decision on this because he will be open to a withering Israeli counter attack should he choose to enter at great scale. And what would great scale be? Don’t know. I would say if he chooses to attack Israeli population centers, I would say if he – if significant casualties are caused by a Hezbollah attack, that will bring the IDF in, back in, with great force. And he recognizes that.
And the last point I’d just make is, Hassan Nasrallah and Lebanese Hezbollah are perhaps weaker in Lebanon now than they’ve been in many years because of the destruction of the economy, the fact that the country is in governmental gridlock, lots of problems in Lebanon that he has to think about before he chooses to fight Israel toe to toe.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And that certainly is something the diplomats who are trying to cool things off are very aware of.
Your successor, CENTCOM Command General Kurilla, was twice in Israel this past week. We know the United States has sent F-22 jets to the region. What do you expect the scope of U.S. involvement to be?
FRANK MCKENZIE: I think we saw a taste of that last April in Iran’s 13 April attack on Israel, which was not a successful attack and it was not successful for several reasons, one of which was Israeli competence (ph). The second was U.S. assistance and some assistance from other nations in the region. All of those things militated to blunt and really turn aside the Iranian attack.
I think that General Kurilla will probably strive to reproduce those same capabilities, that same approach this time. It will be a significantly harder task, though, again, if Lebanese-Hezbollah chooses to enter because now you face a multi-axis attack. Iranian from the east, Lebanese-Hezbollah from the north. I’m sure Hamas will chime in to the limits of their ability. And the Houthis will come in. So, what will be a significant test for Israel, we are committed to their defense. I think that Central Command has done a great job of assisting them as they prepare for this attack, which I believe is imminent.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is imminent. You would expect to see U.S. jets in the air there intercepting as they did last time?
FRANK MCKENZIE: I think we would see the same model that was used last time. Now, here’s the thing. The Iranians and Lebanese-Hezbollah have had the opportunity to study that template. I’m sure they’ll try to make some adjustments that will make it more difficult. On the other hand, we too are an adaptive learning organization. So, we’ll be looking at our tactics. And we’ve got very good commanders that can fight an air battle and it will be an air battle that’s going to be fought and I think – I think we can be very successful here.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think the U.S. strategy of trying to focus in on August 15th and a cease-fire in Gaza should still be the centerpiece for lowering tensions throughout the region?
FRANK MCKENZIE: Certainly, we should try to get to some post-conflict state in Gaza. That’s an – that’s an objective that needs to be there regardless of whatever else is going on in the region.
I’m not certain, though, that the current Iranian efforts against Israel are directly related to what’s going on in Gaza. You know, the Iranians, fundamental to Iranian philosophy of life is destruction of the state of Israel. We should take them at their word on this. They’re not actually going to attack or come into conflict with Israel because of what’s going on in Gaza. Their reasons are the existence of Israel itself. And those transcend anything going on in Gaza.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sir, before I let you go, August 15th is the anniversary of the Taliban seizing control of Afghanistan a few years ago. I wonder what you think about U.S. security currently.
FRANK MCKENZIE: Well, I think about it a lot, Margaret. And three years on, our ability to see inside Afghanistan is quite limited. The violent extremist organizations characterized by ISIS-K and other groups, we believe they’re actually expanding. They carried out a successful attack in Russia a few months ago. I am concerned about the growth of those organizations, and I’m concerned about their relative lack of our ability to see what they’re doing and act against them should it prove necessary to do so. So, I think we’re in a weaker state now than we were a year ago or two years ago, and I – I am concerned about the future.
MARGARET BRENNAN: General, always good to talk to you. And we’ll all be on edge, as you said, for the coming days.
Thank you.
And thanks to all of us – all of you out there for watching us. Until next week, for FACE THE NATION, I’m Margaret Brennan.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
Content and programming Copyright MMXXIV CBS Broadcasting Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2024 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
المصدر
الكاتب:
الموقع : www.cbsnews.com
نشر الخبر اول مرة بتاريخ : 2024-08-12 01:08:12
ادارة الموقع لا تتبنى وجهة نظر الكاتب او الخبر المنشور بل يقع على عاتق الناشر الاصلي
تم نشر الخبر مترجم عبر خدمة غوغل
