Full transcript of "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," April 13, 2025

On this "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" broadcast, moderated by Margaret Brennan:

• U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer
• Neel Kashkari, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
• Anthony Salvanto, CBS News director of elections and surveys
• Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California
• Dr. Peter Marks, former head of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

Click here to browse full transcripts from 2025 of "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan."

MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington.

And this week on Face the Nation: President Trump's multifront trade war whipsaws markets, and China fires back. What's next, as the world's two biggest economic powers clash?

(Begin VT)

(CHEERING)

ANNOUNCER: The 47th president of the United States!

(End VT)

MARGARET BRENNAN: After one of the most volatile weeks in Wall Street history, President Trump spent his Saturday night at a UFC match and hyped his combative approach on trade policy.

(Begin VT)

DONALD TRUMP (President of the United States): We have lots of fights going around the world. And I think we have a lot of good news coming soon about some of those fights.

(End VT)

MARGARET BRENNAN: Despite backing off of what he called reciprocal tariffs against dozens of countries and announcing new exemptions on some key consumer products, the president is digging in on tariffs against China.

We will discuss what's next with U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer.

And we will get a read on the economic impact from the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari.

Silicon Valley's congressman, Democrat Ro Khanna, will weigh in on how the trade war may impact big tech.

Plus, we will have a new poll on how Americans think Trump is handling the economy.

And, finally, an update on the measles outbreak with the former top vaccine regulator with the FDA Dr. Peter Marks.

It's all just ahead on Face the Nation.

Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation.

Our new CBS poll shows President Trump's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent. That's a three-point drop since President Trump announced his global tariff plan as part of what he called liberation day. That's a drop, but it is still a better approval rating than he ever saw in his first term. We will have more on that in just a few minutes.

The president hiked tariffs on imports from China to 145 percent last week, and Beijing responded with a 125 percent tariff on American goods sold in China. Late Friday, President Trump changed course again, lifting some of those duties off of Chinese-made tech products, including smartphones, chips and computers.

Speaking with reporters last night, the president said more details would be revealed Monday.

For more, we go to United States Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer.

Good morning to you, Mr. Ambassador.

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER (U.S. Trade Representative): Good morning, Margaret. How are you?

MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm well.

I'm hoping you can give us some news of movement on this clash. Is the Trump administration opening any kind of channel to Beijing right now? Are there any plans for presidents Trump and Xi to speak?

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: Right now, we don't have any plans on that. This issue is truly at the leaders level.

Before April 2, I had a conversation with my counterpart, and others did since April 2. We have this at the leaders level. And, at some point, as President Trump has pointed out, we expect that we'll be able to have a conversation with them.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, China holds about $1.5 trillion in assets in this country. About half of them are U.S. treasuries.

In the past, you've talked – you've spoken about strategic decoupling from China and acknowledged it would cause some short-term pain. Are you trying to get China to sell some of those assets? Is that part of your goal as well?

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: That's not part of this plan.

President Trump has a global program to try to reshore American manufacturing and address the trade deficit. It's a global issue. The only reason we're really in this position right now is because China chose to retaliate. So many other countries affirmatively said they did not want to retaliate, we want to negotiate with the Americans.

And the Chinese made a different decision. So, it's not a plan to do that. It was a Chinese decision. They have agency here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But are you prepared for China to consider selling assets it holds in the United States? And do you want that to happen?

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: Well, remember, China has been selling off treasuries for some time. It's not a – it's not a brand-new development.

You know, the treasuries market will fluctuate. You know, I'm not the Treasury secretary, so I'm not the best poised to talk about that. But I think the issue is, we've become so dependent on China, and for so many decades, we haven't had fair market access. And so – so again, we see China taking action, implementing their policy to try to be less tied up with us as well.

So, it's not – it's not surprising to see them making these kinds of moves. We obviously have to be prepared on our part to have a resilient economy.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, last Friday, late in the day, the administration published some exceptions to the tariffs on countries including China with smartphones, computers, electronics and machines that make semiconductor computer chips.

Last Sunday, on this program, the commerce secretary told us the tariffs are part of a strategy to bring high-tech factories to the U.S. Take a listen.

(Begin VT)

HOWARD LUTNICK (U.S. Commerce Secretary): The army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little, little screws to make iPhones, that kind of thing is going to come to America. It's going to be automated. And great Americans, the tradecraft of America is going to fix them, is going to work on them.

Our high school-educated Americans, the core to our work force, is going to have the greatest resurgence of jobs in the history of America to work on these high-tech factories.

(End VT)

MARGARET BRENNAN: But now those high-tech items are given these exceptions. So, is the goal still to move electronics manufacturing to the United States?

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: We certainly need to have semiconductors and the downstream electronics supply chain move to the United States.

What happened is – it's not really an exception. That's not even the right word for it. What happened is, this type of supply chain moved from the tariff regime for the global tariff, the reciprocal tariff, and it moved to the national security tariff regime, where we have studies ongoing for pharmaceuticals, for semiconductors, metals, et cetera.

So, it's not that they won't be subject to tariffs geared at reshoring. They'll just be under a different regime. It's shifting from one bucket of tariffs to a different bucket of potential tariffs.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But those tariffs aren't in place?

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: That's right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So they are exempt from them.

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: That is – that is subject to study by the Commerce Department.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But…

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: For now, they're subject to a 20 percent tariff. They're subject to a 20 percent tariff that's on China.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The commerce secretary was on another network this morning, and he said semiconductors are – quote – "exempt from reciprocal tariffs, but that won't be a permanent sort of exemption."

Here's what you told my colleague Nikole Killion April 8.

(Begin VT)

NIKOLE KILLION: Why aren't there any exemptions with some of these tariffs, sir?

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: The president decided that we're not going to have exemptions. We can't have a Swiss cheese solution to this universal problem that we're facing.

(End VT)

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, I hear you saying the carve-outs are temporary, but isn't that still the Swiss cheese situation you said you were trying to avoid?

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: I would just disagree with that, Margaret.

We have two different tariff programs. You have the global reciprocal tariff getting at the trade deficit, and you have critical sector national security tariffs, where we – we have tariffs in place on auto, steel and aluminum, and we have them coming on semiconductors in the supply chain, pharmaceuticals, lumber, copper, et cetera.

They're just different approaches to do it. We have to be much more deliberate about the semiconductor supply chain…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: … because we don't even import semiconductors, as such, that much, right? They go into downstream products. So, we have to be very careful. And we want the whole supply chain here, not just one product.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, the president said on Monday he'd be much more specific. Will we see those sectoral tariffs announced?

I mean, he – he's saying he's already putting big tariffs on pharma. You're telling me that there's going to be an investigation into it. That's something that sounds like it's far in the future. What – what time frame are we talking about?

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: Well, you have – for the national security tariffs, you have to do an investigation in order to impose the tariffs. That's just legal process. That's – that's how we do it. That's how it's done for steel, aluminum, autos, et cetera.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, but you've decided the outcome.

(CROSSTALK)

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: …. investigations for those.

No, we have not. We have not. That's why they're exempt. That's why they're – you know, they don't have a tariff covered right now, because you have to go through the investigation to determine the outcome.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. Is it…

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: We expect there will have to be some kind of tariff on that, but we have to go through the investigation, figure out what's appropriate. And that – and that's a Commerce Department function to do that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.

I understand you and the Treasury secretary are going to be meeting on the 17th of – of the month with Japanese officials to talk about the potential of a trade deal. I have been told you've been looking at some of these non- tariff barrier issues that the United States sees problems with in current – including their currency.

Are you asking governments to do things like that, not just, you know, to buy into America, but to actually change their own currency and change, like, their central bank policy?

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: So, our view, Margaret, is that currency manipulation or misalignment, whatever you want to call it, that can have a negative impact on U.S. exporters and unfairly advantage foreign exports into the United States.

In the USMCA and in the Japan-China – the Japan-U.S. deal from the first Trump term, we had chapters with the parties committing not to do currency manipulation. You know, the Treasury Department has a statute to avoid that. So we certainly are in these kinds of discussions with these countries to see if they're willing to make these types of commitments as well, as have been done in other contexts.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That's a pretty big ask.

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: Well, the Japanese agreed to it in the first Trump term.

The Canadians and the Mexicans agreed to it. This is something that periodically has – has happened over the years. Countries have had to revalue to make sure they aren't giving artificial competition – you know, artificial competitive advantage to their exports.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: I mean, it's a big ask because we're in a – we're in a nefarious situation.

We have a $1.2 trillion trade deficit that Biden left us with.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: It's the highest in human history. And currency is certainly part of that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But – but – but I say it's a big ask because it takes time to negotiate. It could take you longer than 90 days, right?

So, does that mean this 90-day reprieve could continue to be renewed? I mean, do you know what happens at the end of 90 days? Is that the amount of time you have to negotiate deals with the 70 countries the White House says are calling?

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: Well, I'm – I'm considering that we have 90 days. Before April 2, we were already having many talks with other countries, because everyone knew tariffs were coming.

This was – this was not some secret. Everyone knew. And so we already were in conversations with several countries. You know, it's going to be up to these countries to come to the table, continue coming to the table, and make these kinds of offers.

I mean, the reality is, we're working around the clock day and night, you know, sharing paper, receiving offers and giving feedback to these countries with respect to how they can better achieve reciprocal trade with the United States.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But 90 days could be a rolling deadline, is what I hear you saying?

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: Well, I – I would not say that. In the president's Cabinet meeting last week, he was asked about this.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: And he said, well, we'll see.

I mean, my goal is to get meaningful deals before 90 days.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: And I think we're going to be there with several countries in the next few weeks.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador, the president – I know you were testifying on – on the Hill when the president changed the policy on reciprocal tariffs.

He said later to reporters that he didn't have access to lawyers when he made the announcement of the change in policy – quote – "We wrote it up from our hearts. It was written from the heart."

He said that a few times. Why doesn't the president have access to trade lawyers when he's announcing policy? These are massive policy shifts. I'm sure there's somebody who could have taken a call.

AMBASSADOR JAMIESON GREER: So that type of – that type of discussion had been happening for – for several days. He's talking about drafting the tweets. He drafted the tweet from his heart.

But that kind of policy, that was always a possibility, and the order was drafted by lawyers to ensure that the president could modify the policy to further the underlying goals of the order.

So – so lawyer – you know, trade lawyers like – like myself and a huge staff that works for me, White House Counsel, et cetera, they've all been involved from day one to give the president the kind of flexibility he needs to address the emergency he's declared that's – forms the basis for these tariffs.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador Greer, thank you for your time this morning. We'll be watching what you get done.

Face the Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to Neel Kashkari, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

Welcome back to Face the Nation.

NEEL KASHKARI (President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis): Thank you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We checked and we saw soybeans are Minnesota's largest export, something like two billion annually. A lot of those soybeans go to China.

Do you have a sense yet of what the sustained trade war with China would cost farmers in the midsection of the country?

NEEL KASHKARI: Well, it's funny you said that.

I just heard from an ag leader two days ago in Minnesota, who said that, even if there's a 10 percent tariff from China on soybeans, zero Minnesota soybeans will go to China, because it's a competitive global market. It's a commodity. They will have to go someplace else.

And so, in many sectors, whether it's a 10 percent tariff or 50 percent or 100 percent tariff, it has dramatic effect on the trade flows. And so a lot of my folks that I hear from here are quite concerned about it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, Bloomberg was already reporting that China was purchasing soybeans from Brazil, so looking to other suppliers, potentially.

I want to ask you more broadly, beyond your state, you said on CNBC this past week, investors may now be saying America is no longer the most attractive place in the world to invest.

What makes you say that?

NEEL KASHKARI: Well, we have to start at what causes a trade deficit.

It's just economic math that if investors around the world say one country is the best place to invest, the math works out that that country will have a trade deficit. And part of how that shows up for that economy is, interest rates will be lower across the economy because investors are investing and bringing their money into that economy.

So, now, if we're not going to have a trade deficit going forward, then investors must conclude that there are other attractive places to invest too. And as we see yields go up, we're seeing the treasury yields go up. The reason the Fed cares about this is, we have to make sure that it's not inflation that's driving those yields up.

It could be that investors are saying, hey, there are other places we also want to invest, that it won't just be everybody wants to pour money in America. So these are very complicated details to sort out. The Fed's job is to keep inflation under control and not let it get unanchored.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, people typically think of U.S. treasuries as the safe thing to buy in a crisis, because they're backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

So when the president says the bond markets got queasy, and that was part of his decision in delaying these reciprocal tariffs, what does that say to you? How do you interpret that the bond market got spooked like it did?

NEEL KASHKARI: Well, I think investors in the U.S. and around the world are trying to determine, what is the new normal in America?

You know, I saw an interview on Friday where BlackRock CEO Larry Fink speculated that maybe the 10-year treasury would go to a 5 percent yield. He just offered it as a possibility.

We don't know where that new normal level is going to be, and we at the Fed have no ability, zero ability, to affect that destination. And I think markets are searching for, where are these trade negotiations going to end up? Ultimately, that destination, whether it's a 5 percent treasury or 4 or something else, that's 100 percent determined by trade policy and fiscal policy.

And I think there's a lot of uncertainty in the markets about what is that new destination, and we're going to have to watch and see. And, at the Fed, our job is to keep inflation under control so that rate isn't even higher.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. And just for our audience, when what – yields going up indicates people are selling treasuries.

And when Larry Fink, who I believe is the world's largest asset manager, spoke, he said something about the Fed might not have the ability to do any real easings. Is that what you – what concerned you?

NEEL KASHKARI: Well, it's not a concern.

It's just a recognition of the tools that we have. So, we at the Fed, we can manage kind of near-term ups and downs in the economy. But, ultimately, where the economy settles in the long run as a result of all of these renegotiations and these new trade flows and fiscal policy, that new normal is completely out of the Central Bank's control. We cannot affect that.

All we can do is keep inflation expectations anchored and try to manage some of the ups and downs on that journey, but that destination is up to the executive branch and Congress, not the Fed.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, the tariffs on things like steel and lumber and all the things you use to build a building and a house, those may raise prices.

Shelter already was a big contributor to the inflation rate. If – what does all this add up to? Do you have any expectations? It certainly sounds like the trajectory is prices going up.

NEEL KASHKARI: Well, there's no question that tariffs, by themselves, are inflationary. They push prices up, just as you articulated.

The question is, is it a one-time increase in prices and then prices grow slowly from there, or is it something more sustained and ongoing? And it's the Fed's job to make sure that it's only a one-time adjustment in prices, and nothing longer-term than that.

So that's the part that we have a role to play here, and we're committed to doing so. But you're right. Tariffs push up prices and push down economic activity, and that's a challenging situation, because the Fed simply does not have the tools to undo the economic effects of tariffs and a trade war. We can just keep inflation from getting out of hand.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And you don't meet again until, what, May 7?

NEEL KASHKARI: In a few weeks, we meet.

But, yes, obviously, we are continuing to monitor all the economic data. The economy was fundamentally very healthy January, February, March. The job market has been strong. The underlying inflationary dynamics have been coming down, just as we hoped for and we've been trying to engineer.

But, obviously, this is the biggest – in the last month or so, this is the biggest hit to confidence that I can recall in the 10 years that I have been at the Fed, except for March of 2020, when COVID first hit. So when there's that type of hit to confidence, it can have large effects on the economy.

And we're monitoring that very carefully through the data and through all of our discussions with businesses all around the country.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon said the odds of recession are now 50/50. Goldman Sachs says 45 percent chance of recession.

Is the risk that high, in your estimate?

NEEL KASHKARI: You know, it's really going to be determined by, is – are there quick resolutions? To your prior guest, are there quick resolutions to these trade uncertainties with our major trading partners?

The faster those resolutions come, I think the more that confidence can be restored, and, hopefully, those odds can be brought down. But it is a serious situation. If everybody gets nervous at the same time, businesses and consumers, and they all pull back at the same time, that can lead to an economic downturn just by itself, setting aside the math of what the tariffs end up doing to prices.

And so there's a lot to try to unwrap right now, and we're doing our best to try to keep our arms around it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the financial markets look orderly to you at this point?

NEEL KASHKARI: They are.

I mean, obviously, the market participants are trying to grasp for, where is this all going to settle? And that's causing volatility as they're – as they're trying to do these assessments. So that volatility is to be expected.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.

NEEL KASHKARI: But markets are functioning. Transactions are happening. And so I anticipate that's going to continue.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, Neel Kashkari, always good to get your insights. Thank you for joining us.

We'll be right back with more Face the Nation.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MARGARET BRENNAN: Tomorrow, CBS Mornings co-host Gayle King will be making history, traveling in an all-woman crew into space.

Mark Strassmann has a preview.

(Begin VT)

MARK STRASSMANN (voice-over): In Blue Origin's training capsule, CBS' Gayle King got a sense of tomorrow's thrill ride, a trip 62 miles straight up to the edge of space.

GAYLE KING: And I realize this is so much bigger than just a fun trip, what it represents to young women, to girls, what they're trying to do on space in terms of looking at the planet in another way.

MARK STRASSMANN: Space tourism, civilian astronauts, took off four years ago. Three space companies, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic and SpaceX, have rocketed more than 120 people into space, including billionaire Jeff Bezos, Blue Origin's founder, in 2021.

Did this moment motivate you to push deeper into the cosmos?

JEFF BEZOS (FOUNDER, Amazon): Hell yes.

(LAUGHTER)

JEFF BEZOS: Yes, absolutely, no doubt. We have to build a road to space. The several tourism missions is about practicing.

LAUREN SANCHEZ (Journalist): What are we doing?

KATY PERRY (Musician): We're going to space.

LAUREN SANCHEZ: Oh, we're going to space.

MARK STRASSMANN: Bezos' fiancee, Lauren Sanchez, put together Monday's all female-crew, six accomplished women, including King, pop star Katy Perry, two scientists and a filmmaker.

Their 11-minute round-trip adventure will include roughly three minutes of weightlessness, floating in the capsule, looking out a window onto the world below.

CBS News space analyst Bill Harwood:

BILL HARWOOD: It's something we all marvel at, but I think getting from there to the point where the average person can do this is decades away, if not longer.

(End VT)

MARK STRASSMANN: Liftoff will happen here in West Texas from a launchpad on a mammoth ranch owned by Jeff Bezos. Gayle admits she's both excited and terrified – Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we wish Gayle a very safe flight.

Our special coverage of the historic mission will begin tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Eastern. Be sure to tune in.

Face the Nation will be right back.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be right back with more from our latest poll on President Trump's economic policies, plus Silicon Valley Congressman Ro Khanna and the former director of the FDA's vaccine program.

Stay with us.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: For more on our latest poll on how Americans are reacting to the Trump economic agenda, we're joined now by our executive director of elections and surveys, Anthony Salvanto.

Anthony, President Trump put tariffs at the center of his campaign. Now he's enacting them. Is there support for what he's doing?

ANTHONY SALVANTO: Like a lot of the way people look at investments, it depends on what you see as your goals and your time horizon. By which I mean, in the immediate we see three quarters of Americans think that tariffs will raise prices. At least in the short term. And a lot think in the long term, too. Now, they're sensitive to that because, as we've discussed for many years, inflation and prices are top concerns right?

The second thing we see is an increase in the number of people who think that Donald Trump's policies now are making them financially worse off. And it's not just that movement, but it's the setup against expectations. Back at the start of his term a few months ago, a lot of people thought that his policies would make them financially better off. So, that's a big change.

But now let me talk about the time horizon, because this applies to his political base, to Republicans, many of whom say, hold on a second, you can't evaluate this right now. You have to give it six months. You have to give it a year to see how his tariff and trade policies are going to play out.

So, with that, they're much more supportive of tariffs and of his approach. They also think that he is just using this as a negotiating tactic. Most of them think that he's going to ultimately remove those tariffs, maybe when he gets what he wants. And so that's why you still see a lot of Republican support for all of this.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the White House had said it's not up for negotiation, but then President Trump said there is a negotiation, and that's where there's some of the confusion right now.

But you did indicate the approval rating itself is under pressure. Where is that pressure centered?

ANTHONY SALVANTO: So, more people say that they like his goals with trade and tariff policies than his approach. And that approach part is weighing on his ratings for handling the economy, which are down, his ratings for handling inflation, tied to what I described about prices, which are also down.

But look, the market, in the public mind, is not the economy. There's a -

MARGARET BRENNAN: It's not. The stock market isn't.

ANTHONY SALVANTO: Right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But it's a pricing mechanism of the future of the economy.

ANTHONY SALVANTO: Exactly. And it is an indicator, especially for people who say they have money, not just in the market, but that their finances are sensitive to what happens in the market. They're much less approving of his approach right now.

But having said that, consider also jobs. The public is mixed on whether Trump's approach is going to lead to more manufacturing jobs. Republicans think it will. But again, that's kind of a long-term issue.

Back to the politics for a second. You know, people often ask, when does a president own the economy? And right now this looks like Donald Trump's economy. A majority of people say it's his policies that are responsible, either way, good or bad, for how it is, not Joe Biden's. And that, of course, sets things up going forward.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Anthony Salvanto, great insights. Thank you.

ANTHONY SALVANTO: Thank you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And we'll be right back with a lot more FACE THE NATION. Stay with us.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to California Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, who joins us this morning from another state, Ohio.

Good morning to you, Congressman.

REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA (D-CA): Good morning, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to get to what's happening to Silicon Valley in just a moment on the trade and tech front. But, first off, I want to ask you, since you sit on the Armed Services Committee, for any insight you might have on one of the announcements made late on Friday. The president authorized the U.S. military to take over a large swath of public land along the southern border, including in the state of California. And I understand that that means the Pentagon's budget can now be used for things like border security or potentially to even detain migrants in that area.

Has Congress been briefed on these plans? Do you have any sense of what's happening?

REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: We have not. And, Margaret, it's longstanding law that you can't use the military for domestic enforcement. It's a violation of the Constitution. I'm hopeful the Supreme Court would 9-0 rule that way, just like they've ruled that the deportation of Abrego (ph) was unconstitutional. But we have not heard any specifics of it, and it's blatantly against the law.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You there were talking about Maryland resident Abrego Garcia, who was detained and then sent to a prison in El Salvador. The Supreme Court said that the Trump administration actually has to facilitate getting him back, but they didn't actually rule on whether he was a gang member or not. I mean the Justice Department can't substantiate it. But why did you bring up that specific case as proof of something?

REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: Well, it just shows that this administration is taking actions that are unconstitutional. Look, Vice President Vance said that the - Abrego was an M-13 gang member with no legal rights here. And the Supreme Court said, well, we don't know. And he does actually have legal rights.

And so, similarly, you now have an administration that is using the military for domestic enforcement, which is illegal. And I believe that even this Supreme Court, a conservative Supreme Court, would rule it's unconstitutional.

MARGARET BRENNAN: On Garcia, ICE said it was an administrative error that led to this man's arrest in the first place. It seems the Trump administration is saying it's now in the hands of the president of El Salvador, who will be at the White House this week. So, we will watch for developments on that space.

But going back to the line of questioning here regarding Armed Services, we understand that the president sent his envoy, Steve Witkoff, to talk to Iranian officials over this past weekend. We don't know much, other than they're going to meet again. But in the meantime, the U.S. military has positioned as many as six B-2 bombers in the Indian Ocean. That's the kind of aircraft that would carry a weapon that could be used to take out underground facilities for a nuclear program.

Do you believe President Trump would need congressional approval to carry out a strike, even if it was just in support of Israel leading that attack on Iran?

REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: Absolutely. And almost a third of our B-2 bombers are there.

Look, it's unconstitutional what they're doing in Yemen. I said it was unconstitutional when Biden made those strikes. We - they need to come to Congress.

And look, the president was elected by the American people to say, we don't want our tax dollars going for more bombing in the Middle East, for more wars in the Middle East. I think he's ignoring the base that actually elected him that does not want more of these strikes.

In the case of Yemen, the Saudis had war there for almost ten years. And the - it didn't do anything to address the situation with the Houthis. The president campaigned on diplomacy. He hasn't seen that. And what we're seeing is escalation.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we'll see what the diplomacy he's attempting achieves in the near term.

But let me ask you why you're out in Ohio talking to us this morning. I understand in the coming days you're also going to go to Connecticut, to Yale Law, on Tuesday. Are you trying to sort of troll Vice President Vance? And, if so, why?

REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: Well, no. I mean the Cleveland City Club invited me to give a speech on the economy. And let's talk about these tariffs. I mean, they were chaotic and they were totally haphazard. So, you had Howard Lutnick on saying that we were going to bring manufacturing back, electronics manufacturing back to the United States. And they realized suddenly that that wasn't going to happen. Actually, the iPhone price would go up to $1,700 or $2,000. And, by the way, if that manufacturing moved, it would probably move to Malaysia or Vietnam.

So, they suddenly reversed. They exempted all of electronics manufacturing, which is about a third of our trade deficit. And I'm here at the Cleveland City Club to say, if you want to have electronics manufacturing here, the way to do it is not blanket tariffs. You have to create an electronic manufacturing hub, the kind we did with the Chips Act. That means investing in tool engineering and workforce. It means having investment tax credits. It means having government buy things from the United States. The president has no plan of how to actually have high-end advance manufacturing in the United States.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the district you represent includes Silicon Valley. So, you must be hearing from some of these CEOs. Who are they lobbying, apparently successfully, to get these carve-outs?

REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: I think they're talking about sound economic policy. I mean it really would have been - they're talking to anyone they can at the White House. They're talking to anyone they can who has the president's ear. But what they're saying is pretty simple. First they're saying that Howard Lutnick, the screws and the screwing only is about 0.1 percent of an iPhone's cost. I mean you need to - the actual components are memory, are camera, are ram. I mean it's like you - I understand they have 19th century policies of McKinley, but they need to have a 21st century understanding of the economy.

And then they're saying, OK, you really want to do this? The iPhone will cost $1,600 to $1,700 but we're not going to be able to bring it back to the United States. We'll go to India. We'll go to Malaysia. We'll go to Vietnam.

And if you want to bring back the manufacturing to the United States, you have to invest in the workforce, you have to have some investment tax credit for the facilities, and you have to be able to buy the things we make in the United States.

So, all I'm saying is, let's have sound economic policy. And, you know, I saw the poll earlier.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: This is not a hypothetical. This is not something the president will be able to spin. Either we're going to see new factories come, or we're not. And tariffs just aren't going to do that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we didn't get a clear answer on when these semiconductor tariffs are coming. But the administration argues they're in the pipeline and that, you know, China's not going to get a free pass when it comes to tech. What is that going to mean for your part of the country?

REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: Well, it's - again, they don't have any sense of when the tariff will come, when it won't come, and they're against the Chips Act. So, how are you going to - let's say you suddenly put tariffs on China. What it would mean is the production would move to other parts of the Asia. It still isn't going to come here unless you're financing those factories here, willing to buy here. Tariffs can be a tool used as a broader Hamiltonian industrial policy.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: And that's what I'm here in Ohio to talk about, which is, what is actually going to bring advanced manufacturing to this country.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

All right, Congressman Khanna, we'll be watching.

We'll be right back.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MARGARET BRENNAN: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy claimed last week that the measles outbreak may be plateauing, but the highly contagious virus continues to spread mostly in unvaccinated people. And the CDC reports that the number of cases topped 700 in 2025 so far.

The measles virus, which was once effectively eradicated here in America thanks to widespread vaccination, is now in two dozen states.

We spoke Friday with Dr. Peter Marks, the former head of the Food and Drug Administration's vaccine program, who was forced to resign last month as part of Kennedy's redesign of America's health policy. Our conversation began on the subject of the measles outbreak and the response by the Trump administration.

(BEGIN VT)

MARGARET BRENNAN: Secretary Kennedy spoke to my colleague, Dr. Jon LaPook, earlier this week following the death of a second unvaccinated child in Texas due to measles. Kennedy reiterated, people should get the MMR vaccine.

Take a listen.

DR. JON LAPOOK: What's the position, philosophically, of the federal government in terms of public health?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. (Health and Human Services Secretary): The federal's government's position, my position is, people should get the measles vaccine. But at - if - the - the government should not be mandating those.

LAPOOK: Understand. But the -

KENNEDY: You know, I've always said during my campaign and - and every part that - every public statement I've made, I'm not going to take people's vaccines away from them.

LAPOOK: Right.

KENNEDY: What I'm going to do is make sure that we have good science so that people can make an informed choice.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that a sufficient endorsement?

PETER MARKS (M.D., Former Director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research): As a public health professional, I'm going to tell you what an endorsement of the measles vaccine sounds like right now. If you can hear my voice right now and you have a child that is unvaccinated against measles, we have measles spreading it this country very significantly. You wouldn't put your child in a back seat of a car without being strapped into their car seat. You want to get your child vaccinated against measles so that they don't have a one in a thousand chance of dying from measles if they contract it. There is no reason to put your child at that risk because the vaccine does not cause death. It does not cause encephalitis. And it does not cause autism. So, that's what an endorsement sounds like. Just make the comparison.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That has to be extremely frustrating for you as someone who worked in the vaccine space for so long. You clearly feel that this is safe and effective and that not saying it clearly is endangering people. And I understand the frustration.

PETER MARKS: Right. So, another way of - yes, no, exactly. Exactly. And - but - there's a whole host of people who can't speak out like I am that are saying, you know, this is a vaccine for which the benefits so greatly outweigh the risks that to not use it is the equivalent of, again, throwing - I mean if you saw a child - if you saw a 15-month-old rolling around in the back seat of a car, you'd probably call child protective services.

Now, I'm not saying we should have - we should order parents to do this because I don't want to get into the whole issue of mandates. But we should have a moral responsibility to protect our children against something that could potentially be life-threatening, particularly when it's spreading across the United States the way it is.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You've said there are people like you who can't speak freely. You can speak freely because you're no longer at the FDA?

PETER MARKS: Correct.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You're saying your former colleagues can't directly answer a question, they can't honestly answer a question and endorse a vaccine right now?

PETER MARKS: I think it's challenging in this environment for some of them, but you'd have to ask them directly.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

In your resignation letter you wrote of the measles outbreak, and what happens when confidence in science is undermined. You said it's clear truth and transparency are not desired by the secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies.

Did you ever speak to him about your concerns?

PETER MARKS: So, just a matter of record, I never interacted with the secretary. I don't - I don't intend to engage on, you know, disputing any of that. If the administration can have me come and go, that's fine. The more important thing here is that we deal with the issue at hand, which is vaccine confidence is really important for this country and it's been undermined over and over again over the past years. And now we're seeing the result of this.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You are saying here that the man running HHS doesn't take in information, wishes subservient confirmation of misinformation and lies. There's presumed outcomes, is what you're saying?

PETER MARKS: I think that my words then spoke for itself. I don't need to belabor it here.

You know, science is the pursuit of objective truth for the benefit of mankind. And those of us who believe in it, we - we take it very seriously. And it hurts us deeply when there are those who would undercut the name of science, undercut the very name of science because it's convenient for them to purvey lies.

And that's just - it's not OK because at the end of the day I was so strongly affected by what happened last week with the death of a second child, that I actually - I actually used profanity with a reporter without - while - while I was on the record without realizing it, which is something I've never done. I really - I don't believe that we should be saying, well, these are people who believe that they shouldn't be vaccinated because my experience -

MARGARET BRENNAN: They're from the Mennonite community.

PETER MARKS: The Mennonite community.

My experience is that if you meet people on their level, they generally will eventually come around.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Many parents probably know ASD diagnosis rates are on the increase in this country. The CDC says the current numbers are one in 36 American children. This is a huge - a very broad spectrum of neurodevelopmental disorders. There is no established cause.

On Thursday, the HHS secretary, Kennedy, said he's got hundreds of scientists from around the world working on it, and he promised this.

KENNEDY: By September we will know what has caused the autism epidemic and we'll be - we'll be able to eliminate those exposures.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That gives tremendous hope to a lot of people. Do you know anything about that ongoing research?

PETER MARKS: I know a minimal amount of effort that's being - going on to try to relook at prior autism research. But I am not aware of what is being discussed there.

I cared for leukemia patients for a significant number of years. Giving people false hope is something you should never do. It is absolutely - you could be incredibly supportive of people. But giving them false hope is wrong.

If you just ask me, as a scientist, is it possible to get the answer to quickly? I don't see any possible way.

And, remember, you're talking to the person who came up with Operation Warp Speed for vaccines. Autism is an incredibly complicated issue. So, we have the issue of diagnosis bias. We don't know how many of those cases are true, how much of this is true growth of autism, how much of this is just that we now have diagnostic criteria and we diagnose it more often.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The president of the United States said, something artificial is causing autism rates to go up. On Thursday he said, maybe you stop taking something. You stop eating something. Or maybe it's a shot. But something's causing it. Right after that, RFK appeared at - the HHS secretary appeared on Fox News and dismissed 14 studies that have shown no link between autism and vaccines. He said it is an epidemic.

KENNEDY: Epidemics are not caused by genes. Genes can provide a vulnerability, but you need an environmental toxin. So, we know that it is an environmental toxin that is causing this cataclysm. And we are going to identify it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is there scientific evidence ruling out genetics as a cause of ASD?

PETER MARKS: There is no - there's no scientific evidence ruling out genetics. In fact, there is data that had been published that say that genetics may contribute to autism. There are, obviously, data that can - that suggest that perhaps environmental factors may. But one has to be incredibly careful, incredibly careful about making associations between environmental factors and autism.

There is a wonderful graphic that shows that Coca-Cola increase goes along with the increase in autism, but there's also a wonderful graphic that you can find online that shows that the increase in spending on organic food also goes along with the rise in autism false causality. Scientists do not want to find false causality. We want to find true causality.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It stood out to us that Secretary Kennedy has hired someone named David Geier to conduct analysis of the links between autism and vaccines. He was charged by the state of Maryland in 2011 with practicing medicine without a license. That was weeks after his father's medical license was suspended for putting autistic children at risk by giving them a hormone blocking agent.

So, what should the public know or expect from the work that he will do for the U.S. government?

PETER MARKS: So, all I can say is, I would not - he's - to the best of my knowledge, he's not had any training after college in any of the sciences that we value here.

What I think we can expect is the expected, that there will be an association determined between vaccines and autism because it's already been determined. This is not how science is conducted.

(END VT)

MARGARET BRENNAN: You can find our extended interview with Dr. Marks on our YouTube channel or on facethenation.com.

We'll be back in a moment.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MARGARET BRENNAN: That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week. For FACE THE NATION, I'm Margaret Brennan.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)