Face the Nation: Pence, McCain

You've got the majority of the House and the Senate. They're pretty silent. He has earned great loyalty among Republican primary voters. We saw that in Texas. Voters we saw that in Louisiana. We saw that in Indiana in our recent state Senate primaries. And I think it's because, look, the progressive left has been essentially in the saddle for about a hundred years in this country. Ronald Reagan began the battle back. I think Republican voters truly appreciate the way that President Trump has fought back against the radical left and continues to. But I want our voters to know that there is this new push from the populist right. And as we look at the midterm elections, as we look at 2028, I think it's important that we focus on what we're for. Because not only is it a winning agenda for Republicans, Margaret, I believe it's delivered freedom and prosperity for the American people. Well, when you say primary voters, you know that that is not necessarily all Republican voters. Certainly you just look at the turnouts in that Texas race to speak to that. But isn't your party, from the president on down, with this gerrymandering push locking in the changes, that will only feed into that more extreme part of the party? The populist-- It's awfully hard for Democrats to throw stones when they live in glass houses on gerrymandering. Sure, but doesn't gerrymandering disincentivize bipartisan? There are states around the country, though, where 40% of voters are Republicans, and there are no Republican representatives from those states in the Congress.

So you support the gerrymandering? I've never been a fan of gerrymandering. But, look, I have great confidence in the American people and in Republican voters. I think if we hold the banner of American leadership on the world stage of limited government, free-market economics, of traditional values and the right to life high, I think voters will rally to our cause in these midterms and in 2028, when we're going to decide whether the progressive left, with its embrace of socialism, is in the lead on the national stage or whether a populist right that is a form of progressive politics. When you look at the embrace of isolationism, protectionism, nationalization of companies and marginalizing values, it's more and more an echo of what the left has provided. I think, as President Reagan said years ago, the Republican Party ought to offer a choice, not an echo. But isn't the Vice President, JD Vance, an echo of all of those things? If President Trump's not a conservative, is JD Vance one? Well, look, let me say I had lost count of the number of times President Trump corrected me when I said that a particular position was conservative. In fact, he said himself, he's not a conservative. He's never really claimed to be. I'm less clear about the vice president's views and his philosophy of government. But I'm very clear, as I wrote in my book, that there is this new tension within the Republican Party that will take those pieces of the agenda, the populist right agenda that President Trump has embraced, and try and make that the new direction of the Republican Party. I think that'd be bad for the Republican Party. I think it would be worse for the country that needs a vigorous, strong conservative party committed to freedom, committed to free markets, committed to traditional values. Talking about the midterms, you also spent a lot of time writing about character. And you say it matters. Last week, Texas Republicans voted to make-- you know this is coming-- Ken Paxton is their nominee. He's the current AG. He was impeached by the Republican-controlled House. Multiple charges of abuse there, including bribery. His wife, a sitting senator in that state, accused him of committing adultery and is divorcing him on biblical grounds. He was indicted in 2015 on securities fraud charges, though those charges were dropped. And the president chose him over a much more conservative, in your description, John Cornyn. Does character of Ken Paxton represent your party? Well, as I write in my book, I think character, integrity to principle are enormously important in the life of our movement, in the life of our nation. But when I look at the Texas primary, when I look at Louisiana, Kentucky, Indiana's many state Senate races, I see it more as a reflection of the grip that President Trump has on Republican primary voters, who are grateful for the way that he has stood up and fought against the radical left. You look at where the Democratic Party is today, it's amazing to see-- if Republicans, in part, have lost our way with embrace of the populist right, Democrats have gone over the beam with embracing socialist candidates, socialist policies. I think Republican voters--

So you would separate yourself from Ken Paxton? He does not represent conservative values-- Republican voters want to push back on that. They respect the president's views. I just want to make sure people understand that as we through all these elections this year, that there's a new force afoot in the Republican Party. And I think we've got to get back to those core values and principles that have always made our country and our party strong and prosperous. Well, at Louisiana, Senator Bill Cassidy, his offense to President Trump seemed to be that vote to convict him in the second impeachment trial following the attack on the Capitol on January 6. Does it trouble you that the president is even making primary choices based on grievances having to do from January 6? Well, I don't know precisely what the president's reasons were for rof weighing in in Louisiana--

He tweeted pretty explicitly. --the way that he did. So we haven't chatted in a while. But, yeah, I'll be honest with you that I'll never minimize what happened on January 6. And I'll always believe, by God's grace, we did our duty that day to the seat of the peaceful transfer of power under the Constitution. It's one of the reasons why this talk of a weaponization fund, Margaret, the idea of creating a fund that could compensate people who assaulted police officers and vandalized the Capitol that day is totally unacceptable. My hope is the administration will drop it, drop the idea entirely. Do you think Senate Republicans will make them drop it? Because it's hard to stand up to the president, many Republicans find, because of what you just said. Those primaries and those midterms. It is, but I've been heartened by the number of Republicans in the Senate who've spoken out against it. Look, people that assaulted police officers on January 6 and vandalized our Capitol should not get one dime of taxpayer money from that fund or anywhere else. But even just the precedent of setting it up, should they exclude January 6 attackers? The idea of a weaponization fund is its own thing that it bears examining. But I want to explicitly ask you about something also that happened. In Washington, we don't need slush funds to settle cases.

You view it as a slush fund? There was a pro-life family that was literally run over by the Biden Department of Justice, that it was just a seven-figure settlement for them. The DOJ can settle these issues where people have had their rights trampled on and ought to do that. I welcome that settlement greatly. Last week, at the request of the Department of Justice, a federal appeals court threw out the convictions of four members of far right extremist group, the Oath Keepers, that was a militia involved in January 6. Do you think that the Trump administration is deliberately whitewashing that day? Well, I've certainly seen evidence of that. Particularly, I was offended on the anniversary of January 6, when the White House put out a timeline that literally blamed Capitol Hill police for the riot that took place that day. Look, I'm very confident of the judgment of history in the years ahead about our role, about all the Republicans and Democrats who returned that day after Capitol Police secured the Capitol. And we all did our duty under the Constitution. But there's clearly been an effort by some to rewrite that history, but I don't expect it'll work. All right. Mr. Vice President, thank you very much for sharing your reflections. It's good to have you here in person, too. Thank you, Margaret. Appreciate it. We'll be right back. World Food Program Executive Director Cindy McCain is stepping down from her post Monday. During her three years at the helm of the UN agency, there have been two famines. And when we spoke with her late last week from Rome, she told us we're looking potentially at several more among many other challenges. There is this emergency response to Ebola in the Congo. That's a country that's already struggling, as I understand it, with about 27 million food-insecure people. I know the US State Department is pledging some help here, but what are you hearing about the situation on the ground for emergency responders like yours? It's not good, and it's hitting people in a mass way. And there's really no way to know right now how many people have been affected by this, but we know that it's a rampage now with it. So what we need to do is not only be able to get in, we run logistics, we bring in supplies, we bring in people, and we do much more than that as well, just in the region. But this is going to take a real-world effort. This is very deadly. You said there's a rampage of Ebola. Are you able to keep your workers on the ground? Our workers are on the ground. But one of my big projects, a large reason what we planned today, was taking care of our own people, the duty of care. And that comes into play. Because right now there's no adequate facilities set up to handle that. And so we're obviously putting together a task force and a team that will do just that to make sure that we're protected, as well as, of course, anyone that is from WFP. Well, you have been in this role at a time when there are so many hotspots, so many conflicts. And, of course, the Mideast continues to be a big challenge. I understand that you still do have some operations inside of Iran. As you know, there isn't a free press on the ground able to document what's happening. What can you tell us about how civilians there are doing? Things aren't good. Let's face it, when you shut the Strait of Hormuz and you've got bombings on both sides, all the way up and down, people are going to not only become food-insecure, but they're going to starve. It's time to end this and make sure that we can open the Strait of Hormuz because it's affecting everybody. And it will take us months to get back on track when they do open it. Months to get back on track. Why is that? Because the ships with the food are stuck or because of the food prices? Why? Prices, availability, movement. Good example is that we do work in Afghanistan, and before, what would usually take us three weeks maybe to get the food in from where it comes in from, now takes us almost three months.

Wow. But in the meantime, women and children, which are always the first to be hit, are starving. And so this is the case with all of them. And when you talk about fertilizer, when you talk about seeds, of course, and other things, they're being moved around that helps stave off hunger, it's a real problem. Bigger picture, when you look at the destruction in the Middle East just within the past few years, how do you describe to an American at home what the longer-term impact is? Well, the longer-term impact, to put it very bluntly, is not good. We staved off hunger in Gaza when it was finally the ceasefire held and we were able to get trucks in at scale. We're back to where we were. We can't get trucks in at scale. As you know, there's bombings. There's all those things. And we're looking at not just a serious situation, we're looking at possibly losing a generation of children. So in any of these countries where there's an issue-- Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Sudan, all the ones that I've been to, plus Ukraine-- access and being able to get in at scale is most important and making sure that our humanitarian workers are not targets and that we respect humanitarian law. And that simply isn't happening right now. It's very dangerous to be an aid worker right now. What do you mean, losing a generation of children? Well, when you talk about kids that are either not getting enough food or what they're getting is not nutritious enough, and plus, there's no schools open and there's no proper housing, clean water, et cetera, medicine, et cetera, that spells disaster for a child especially. And so I'm obviously one that has-- as a mother first and a grandmother six times over. And so I see it through my mother's eyes. You will do anything to feed your children, anything as a parent. And the fact that it's not happening in so many of these areas now is really alarming and very desperate. I've heard you say feed them now or fight them later. You draw a direct connection to national security and radicalization.

Yes. No, you're absolutely right. We believe that. Because when folks who are hungry can't get adequate nutrition or food, they will turn to the bad guys because food's offered there. You recently were asked about the conservative movement and that within the conservative movement, aid, you said, has become a dirty word, and being a humanitarian useless. You're a lifelong conservative. When you describe things going this direction, that has to be hard to stomach. Why do you think this is happening? And do you think it is temporary? I will say this. Obviously, that was frustration speaking to a great degree. I believe there are many, many, many good people in the United States that are more than willing to help this cause or help whatever they see fit to do for all of this. But we need more of it. And we need actionable items from not just the United States, but other countries around the globe that will stand up also and help us. We can't do this alone. As you know, the United States is our largest donor, and we're very proud of that. But we need everybody involved in this. America, though, has changed its policy towards aid. The Trump administration uses that phrase, "trade, not aid," arguing they're going to be more efficient and more effective with the support they provide in the form of foreign assistance. When you look at the places you operate, do you think there has been an impact from the dismantling of USAID?

I do. I do. AID was an intimate part of all of these things, and, of course, we relied on them to a degree as well. I wish we still had AID. But it was a choice of this administration, and so we have to work with that. I am hoping, though, that, eventually, we can put back some of the soft power aspects that we were able to do as well. As you know that's a very important part of at least USAID. But again, I'm not criticizing anybody in the administration. I'm simply saying we need help. Our full interview with Ambassador McCain is on our YouTube channel and our website and on Face the Nation's podcast platform. The Kennedy Center will soon once again be the Kennedy Center. On Friday, a federal judge ordered President Trump's name to be removed in the next two weeks, saying, quote, "Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it." The judge also ruled that the Kennedy Center's board, led by President Trump's handpicked trustees, cannot move forward with its plan to close the facility in July for a multiyear renovation. President Trump expressed his frustration at the decision in a social media post and said that he had canceled involvement with the failing and unsafe to be in Kennedy Center. It's just the latest setback for the president's effort to reimagine some of Washington's historic landmarks. His renovation of the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool and his demolition of the White House East Wing to build a ballroom are also facing legal challenges. We'll be right back. [THEME MUSIC]