Face the Nation: Hochstein, Adams, Holder

They're trying to talk the markets down. They're talking the markets down. If the straits are closed-- you talked about Europe. Certain Asian countries are already canceling flights. They don't have any jet fuel. They're running out, and probably two to three weeks at most before large parts of Asia. But remember, Margaret, when a plane leaves the United States, they can't take jet fuel with them. The administration has been saying we have plenty in the US. Great. But if you leave the US and there's no jet fuel on the other side-- so what happens is the fuel surcharges that Americans are going to see, that are already starting to see, and ahead of Memorial Day in the summer, tickets are going to be very expensive. When jet fuel is expensive in the rest of the world, it is also expensive here. And we saw Spirit Airlines really struggling under that with the bankruptcy issue. Let me ask you about your Mideast experience here. In July 2024, Secretary Blinken claimed Iran was one or two weeks away from having enough fissile material, breakout capacity to eventually make a weapon, if Iran had decided to do so. There were indirect negotiations that the Biden administration did, but it went nowhere. So when President Trump argues that he did what no other president would, is it just simply that the bill was coming due and it fell on his watch? I do think there's a certain element to that, and that's why I was supportive of President Trump joining in in June to take the strikes that we had thought internally in the Biden administration we may have to take if there was a second term. We thought that the spring, summer of 2025 was probably-- we may have to be there in the same place. We did war games. We did some practice runs on what it would look like to look into it and because that may have had to happen under our watch as well. He said we obliterated their nuclear program. The question, then, is not about what he did in June. This war we were in now did not attack the nuclear facilities again. This was not about the nuclear. So the question now becomes, can you do a deal with the Iranians? And the maximalist positions that both sides have are right now very far apart, despite all the rhetoric that we're almost there or we are there, but if we're not there, we'll bomb the hell out of them. Right. Or who knows who's going to show up or not show up from the Iranian side to negotiate with. I thought that was interesting that the ambassador acknowledged that. Well, look, Margaret, when you have a negotiation that's being done loosely, phone calls and no real paper, you get to a point where Iran says Lebanon was included. The US says, no, it wasn't. The Iranians say we're opening the straits because it's completely open. And the Americans say, no, the blockade is staying. If there's no paper, no serious negotiation on this and we're trying to do it really quickly to assuage markets, then you get to these misunderstandings. And now we're in a worse position. This is a very serious issue, and I think it shouldn't take just three days to do a nuclear deal. It's really, really critical. But if the straits are not opened soon, the leverage that they have-- and my concern is no matter how the war ends, the Iranians now have a card they never had before in practice. In theory, we knew they can close the straits, but they never did. And now, for the foreseeable future, they have this card against us and against their neighbors. Why do you think President Trump isn't deploying his top diplomat, his national security advisor? Why aren't we seeing Secretary of State Rubio leading on this? I mean, that's a mystery that I think many in the region and around the United States are asking, why is this not being run by the Secretary of State, who's also his national security advisor? Maybe the secretary of state doesn't believe that this is the right approach. I don't know. You have to ask him if you can get him to answer that question.

We would love for him to join us. I'm sure you would. But that's a real mystery. Look, vice president of the United States-- But does it show when you're going to the negotiating table? The vice president going is important because the last two times Witkoff and Kushner showed up with the Iranian delegation, the talks fell apart. In fact, they ended in bombing. So you need someone who wasn't there the last two times it failed, right? And you need someone who is senior enough that the Iranians believe speaks for the president. So I think that it's important that the vice president or someone go. I think it would have been great if we can get to a point where we have preparatory talks, and you send the vice president at the end of the process in order to break the logjam.

Stay with us, if you would. I do have to take a break, but I have more to finish on this topic with you, Amos. We'll be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us. [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome back to Face the Nation. We return to our conversation with former Biden advisor Amos Hochstein. I want to pick up on Lebanon. You brokered that 2024 ceasefire in Lebanon. On Friday of this past week, we saw the president announce 10 days of pause to halt the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel, which is basically linked to the big deal he really wants to get to with Iran. What do you make of this truce? So a few things. One, I'm glad to see that the fire has halted, even if it's a pause. The worrisome part is that it was seen as a ceasefire that was brokered by Iran, by insisting on a Lebanese ceasefire before they would show up to talks in Pakistan. That's a disaster because the one thing we have always been emphasizing, Iran does not control Lebanon. It is none of their business what happens in Lebanon. Hezbollah has been unmasked in this conflict over the last couple of years as not really a Lebanese fighting organization or terrorist organization as they claim, but rather they said, we are doing this at the behest of the Iranians. And so allowing the Iranians to dictate terms is not a good thing. However, direct talks between Israel, even at the lower level, at the ambassador level, is a good development. Most of the Lebanese people want to see a lasting ceasefire. Even if they don't want to see a peace agreement, they want to see end of conflict. But we have to have a serious effort here. There's such a great moment of opportunity. It will not be a moment of opportunity if Israel is occupying a significant part of Lebanon to reestablish a buffer zone. That won't work because, ultimately, that will help Hezbollah re-establish its political footing and their narrative. So we have to get to the table, make sure Israel withdraws from Lebanon, stop the fighting, and give the actual help to Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah. They cannot-- This is what I-- --do it on their own. --asked Ambassador Waltz on that. Can they do that? And to be clear, the Israelis have said not only that they're going to stay in southern Lebanon, but also take some of the territory that they had seized after Assad fell in Syria. It's a serious negotiation that has to take place. This is a tactical victory for Israel that will lead once again to an overreach that will lead them to lose more ground.

I want to ask you as a Democrat, there was this extraordinary vote this past week in the Senate, 40 Senate Democrats tried to block a US weapons sale to Israel. And that adds to this growing rift we have seen between your party and Benjamin Netanyahu. Do you think Democrats are going to come to regret this break in the alliance? So I hope that it's not a break in the alliance. I think what it really demonstrates is for the last several years, Prime Minister Netanyahu has sacrificed Israel's interests in the United States. The most important asset that Israel has is not its military or its intelligence. It's the special relationship with the United States that has been bipartisan for so many decades. He has destroyed that because he has decided to become not just part of the Republican Party, but he's decided to become just an appendage of Donald Trump. And so every Democrat now sees if you want to be Trump, great. If we're anti-Trump, then by de facto, we are against you. I think this has a lot to do with Bibi Netanyahu and his extremist right-wing government and not to do with Israel. Look, you have half of Israel is voting against Bibi. Democrats should be aligning with Israel, not with Bibi. But I think this is a very big wake-up call this week, that vote. Significant vote. Amos, thank you for your insights. And we're going to turn now to Pope Leo XIV, who has spent the last week traveling through Africa. This morning, he praised the temporary ceasefire in Lebanon as a reason for hope, encouraging leaders to seek a more permanent peace. But much of his tour has been marred by these tense exchanges with President Trump. And now the pope says some of his remarks have been misinterpreted. CBS foreign correspondent Chris Livesay has more.

Its nickname is Shepherd One. But this week, the papal plane has been ground zero of a clash with the Trump administration that's overshadowed a papal trip. The pope is now clarifying his primary mission is to preach peace to the people of Africa, not the president of the United States. There's been a certain narrative that has not been accurate in all of its aspects, but because of the political situation created when on the first day of the trip president of the United States made some comments about myself.

Instead, he's trying to keep the focus on the people he came to see. In Cameroon, where a separatist conflict has killed thousands and displaced more than half a million, the pontiff proclaimed-- The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants. Woe to those who manipulate religion in the very name of God for their own military, economic, or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth.

The pope now tells us that the speech was written two weeks ago, before President Trump first lashed out on Truth Social over their differences on the Iran war. And yet, as it happens, it was looked at as if I was trying to debate, again, the president, which is not my interest at all. The pope's first stop in Africa was Algeria, once home to St. Augustine, a key architect of Catholic doctrine for determining if a war is just. Hours after the Pope's visit there, Vice President Vance challenged the leader of the Catholic Church over his anti-war statements and questioned his grasp of the doctrine itself. I think it's very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology. Last night, the vice president thanked the pontiff for saying he did not want to debate the president while acknowledging real disagreements. Today, the pope is celebrating his first mass in Angola. Later today, he'll travel to a church where Catholic priests once baptized slaves before they were shipped off to the Americas. That was our Chris Livesay reporting from Angola. And we'll be right back. We turn now to former US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, who joins us this morning from Indianapolis. Good to have you back, Doctor. The country has been without a Senate confirmed CDC director since Secretary Kennedy fired Dr. Monarez just a month into her term. But this past week, the president nominated Dr. Erica Schwartz to lead the CDC. I know she worked as your deputy surgeon general. Do you see this as a deliberate choice by the White House to pick someone who actually does support vaccines? Well, absolutely. And again, we've talked in the past about the fact that the Fabrizio and Ward poll showed that Republicans were going to pay in the midterm elections if they continued on an anti-vaccine push. But I want to say Dr. Schwartz is a home-run pick. She has an MD, a JD, and an MPH and more than two decades of public service in the Coast Guard, where she was chief medical officer and in the public health service, as you mentioned, which she retired from as a Rear Admiral. And it's why I personally selected her to be my deputy surgeon general. Do you have concerns that she will be able to conduct herself without political interference? Well, it's a great, and it's a fair question, Margaret. I'd say she is objectively the most qualified health nominee we've seen from this administration so far. And I want to give the president and senior HHS advisor Chris Klomp credit for tapping her. But that said, my optimism, as yours, comes with a healthy dose of caution about the environment around Dr. Schwartz. We've seen this before, as you mentioned, with Susan Monarez. And just last week, the acting CDC director held back an MMWR report showing COVID vaccines reduced ER visits in healthy adults this winter. Further, Dr. Schwartz still has to get through Senate confirmation, where she will clearly be pitted against RFK on vaccines. And recent history tells us if she's confirmed, she will be under real threat to follow ideology over evidence in what is a vaccine skeptical HHS, while also confronting a growing measles outbreak, low CDC morale, and ongoing DOGE cut impacts. Well, the Secretary will be before Congress again this week. You mentioned measles. The US is already at over 1,700 measles infections in the first four months of this year. We did note that when Secretary Kennedy was under oath this past week, he seemed to change his rhetoric around the MMR vaccine. That's the vaccine that prevents measles infections. Take a listen. Can you tell me, can you tell all of us, is the MMR vaccine safe and effective? Yes or no? The MMR vaccine--

Yes or no? Yes. Thank you. ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR: It's safe for most people. Can you agree that getting the vaccine is a lot safer than getting measles? Yes. So that was a qualified response, but it was still an endorsement it seemed. Is he persuaded by the evidence, do you think? Well, he also acknowledged under oath it was possible vaccination could have saved the life of a child who died in the recent Texas outbreak. So these statements represent his strongest public endorsement of the measles vaccine to date. Not coincidentally, as you mentioned, this tepid support comes after reports the White House has instructed him to stop talking negatively about vaccines ahead of midterms. But the qualified and tempered answer he gave, it still risks, Margaret, sending mixed messages at a time when we're facing our worst measles resurgence in decades, falling vaccination rates, preventable outbreaks, incurring millions in state and local costs and thousands of days of school missed. Yeah. And I know that the CDC data shows that the vaccination rate has been sliding. I did note that this one exchange that I also want to play for you here-- because the secretary was asked a few times about past statements, both he and the president of the United States have made linking Tylenol use in pregnant women to autism in their children. A Republican lawmaker, Blake Moore of Utah, told Kennedy that his own 10-year-old son, Winnie, is neurodivergent, and he said that Kennedy's remarks were hurtful. Listen to this. I was underwhelmed with what we ultimately put out. My wife was hurt, and she felt for a split second until she came to her senses and we talked about this, that there was any way she was responsible. We don't even know if she took Tylenol during her pregnancy, but that was a hurtful moment for her. But on this, Kennedy did not give ground. He is still saying that studies showing there is no linkage are, quote, "garbage." What is the reality? Well, the reality is that for pregnant women dealing with fever or significant pain, Tylenol remains one of the safest and most studied options we have. And suggesting otherwise without evidence is dangerous, and it's irresponsible. And as you heard the congressman say, it is extremely stigmatizing towards parents and risk real harm to moms and babies. The science moves forward with data, not with dogma and with dismissal. And the garbage he was referring to was a Danish study of 1.5 million children that came out. And it presents clear, high-quality evidence that pregnant women who use Tylenol do not have an increased risk of autism. In fact, in that study, they had a lower risk of autism. I want to ask you about what the president announced yesterday in the Oval Office. He was surrounded by podcaster Joe Rogan, a number of Navy SEALs, and he said he wants to boost federal research into psychedelic drugs and make them more available. Specifically, they were touting this one drug, ibogaine, I believe, is how you say it.

Correct. What do Americans need to know about this particular drug and the uses of it? Well, first of all, almost 15 million Americans experience serious mental illness every year. And among veterans, that burden is about 1 in 4. So it's clear we do have to accelerate rigorous, evidence-based research into promising treatments. Early studies of psychedelics such as ibogaine and psilocybin have shown potential for rapid improvements in symptoms and functioning in treatment-resistant cases. So yesterday's executive order, it directs $50 million in research funding, instructs the FDA to prioritize reviews for vouchers for breakthrough therapy, and directs the FDA and DEA to ease barriers under right to try. Also importantly, it maintains full FDA and DEA oversight, so it's not legalization or reclassification of psychedelics. But the content, while reasonable, what's overshadowed by the rollout. As you mentioned with Joe Rogan, it was a spectacle resembling a WWE promotion, and people such as Kevin Sabot actually have said, well, this actually overshadows the substance that we've seen and what I think could be a productive EO. OK, Executive Order. All right, thank you there, Dr. Adams, always good to get your insights. We'll be right back. We're joined now by Eric Holder, who served as attorney general under former President Obama. Good to have you here. Good to be here. So you've been working on redistricting. You're chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. Voters out in Virginia are set to make this decision about redrawing districts in a way that would advantage Democrats. As I understand it, it's not just you, it's former President Obama, it's the governor of Virginia, all pushing for this, saying that this gerrymandering will restore fairness. But how is drawing a map along partisan lines, how is that not just stacking the deck? How is that about fairness? Well, you have to look at this in its totality. This is really a national fight. It's not a fight only about Virginia. And when the president told Governor Abbott in Texas I need five additional seats in the House of Representatives, there had to be a response to that. And the governor in California decided, all right, we'll ask the people of California, do you want to respond to what has happened in Texas? We're asking the people of Virginia, do you want to respond to what's happened not only in Texas but in Missouri as well, and in North Carolina as well? And what we're trying to do is come up with a system whereby the people actually decide what's the composition of the House of Representatives so that it can be an effective check on this president. So what Virginia is doing, what California did is only in response to that which Republicans started in Texas. But in Virginia, there already was a bipartisan commission that was set up to do these things. I mean, that sounds fair, bipartisan commission. So by holding this referendum and changing the map, I know you've said that this is just a temporary measure. How do you guarantee that this is temporary and that this doesn't keep happening? Well, the measure itself says that it is time limited. It is only for this cycle, an additional cycle. And after the census--

But that could be changed again. Well, no, that's nothing that we would be pushing. We need to deal with the crisis that we have right now, come up with a way in which we deal with that crisis, and then get back to the redistricting commissions in California and in Virginia. And one thing that I think is really important to understand is that the people have the ability to make this decision in Virginia, as they did in California-- Because they have a referendum. --as opposed to it being imposed upon them in Texas, and in Missouri, and in North Carolina, which proved to be wildly unpopular. But Republican politicians ignored the will of the people in those states and put in place these mechanisms.

But if we put this another way, I mean, look at all the headwinds the president's party is facing right now. We've been talking about the war and the energy costs that go along with it. Historically, the president's party doesn't usually do well in the midterm races. So why do Democrats need to do this? I mean, it sounds like it's acknowledging that the Democratic Party can't win on its own, that it has to go through these measures. The Democrats can certainly win if it's a fair fight. And the question I have--

It wasn't going to be a fair fight in Virginia? No, it wasn't going to be a fair fight nationally if you try to steal seats in Texas, in North Carolina, and in Missouri. And so the question I have for people who are critical of that, which we're doing is, what were we supposed to do, nothing, just allow them to try to stack the deck, to try to steal seats? And all we're trying to do is meet them and try to make the system as fair as it possibly can be. And that's all that this is about. And it's temporary. And it is also something that the citizens have the ability to say yes or no to.

Well, I don't have to explain to you the negative parts of gerrymandering because you have talked about it for years and-- Sure. --years. I mean, we looked back at some of your quotes. You said it puts in place governments that don't reflect the policy desires of the American people. In 2019, you said it leads to gridlock. It leads to lack of compromise because it caters to the extremes of the party. You said, I don't stand for gerrymandering for Democrats. So practically speaking, aren't you endorsing all these things now? I mean, how does the situation get better/ How do people lead to compromise now? Well, we have to deal with this crisis that is in front of us and that the Republicans put before the nation. Once we get past this crisis, we can get back to that which I've been fighting for since 2017, which is fairness. But we have to-- if we want to get to that fairness fight, we have to save our democracy now. And I'm not being hyperbolic or alarmist. If we don't respond to that which they are trying to do, we could lose our democracy and not have the ability to get back to that fairness fight. The Supreme Court upheld the actions in Texas. Right. Supreme Court upheld the actions in Texas as well as in California. Supreme Court--

But you still think it's illegal, basically? I think it's inappropriate. And hopefully the next time we have a new Democratic president and control both the House and the Senate, I hope we'll pass federal legislation that will ban partisan gerrymandering just outright and just do away with this altogether.

So even if this is a short-term measure, there are some, specifically in the state of Virginia, who have concerns about what happens near term. There was an op ed written by Phillip Thompson. I'm not sure if you saw it. He's the executive director of the National Black Non-Partisan Redistricting Organization. And he said that specific to Virginia, the redrawn map fails to consolidate Black political influence, despite the fact that Black voters form a critical component of the Democratic leadership and voting bloc in Virginia. And he raises this question, what's in this for us? If you need to get people out there excited and voting, how do you respond to something like that? That's simply untrue. That is simply untrue. And what I would ask whoever that gentleman is, do you think that another two years of unchecked Trump power is in the best interests of African Americans in this nation? No, the answer to that is clearly, clearly no. And so we have to look at this not, again, only on a Virginia scale, but what is going on nationally. And the impact of having a positive vote in Virginia will be to help put in place a check on that which the Trump administration has been doing Mr. Holder, thank you so much for your time. Thanks for having me. We'll be back in a moment. Americans are accustomed to hearing biblical terms from the pulpit on Sunday, but these days they're frequently invoked from the Pentagon podium. And pray with me, please. This past week, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said he's frustrated by journalists scrutinizing America's Middle East war and invoked scripture, comparing journalists to the ancient Jewish scholars who opposed Jesus. You see the Pharisees, the so-called and self-appointed elites of their time, they were there to witness, to write everything down, to report. But their hearts were hardened. Even though they witnessed a literal miracle, it didn't matter. They were only there to explain away the goodness in pursuit of their agenda. As the passage ends, the Pharisees went out and immediately held council against him, how to destroy him. I sat there in church and I thought, our press are just like these Pharisees, not all of you, not all of you. But the legacy Trump-hating press, your politically motivated animus for President Trump nearly completely blinds you from the brilliance of our American warriors. The Pharisees scrutinized every good act in order to find a violation, only looking for the negative.

Hegseth called it unpatriotic and said it's hard to figure out what side some of the press are on. But what side are journalists supposed to be on? Recently, federal Judge Paul Friedman invoked a Supreme Court opinion that the press is meant to quote, "serve the governed, not the governor," when he twice ruled Hegseth's new Pentagon press restrictions to be unconstitutional, as he put it, quote, "The curtailment of First Amendment rights is dangerous at any time, and even more so in a time of war." He cited the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor abridging freedom of speech or of the press. That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week. For Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan. [MUSIC PLAYING]