On this “Face the Nation” broadcast, moderated by Major Garrett: 

• Sen. Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas 
• National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan 
• Sen. Alex Padilla, Democrat of California
• Jill Schlesinger, CBS News business analyst
• Historian H.W. Brands

Click here to browse full transcripts of “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”   

---

MAJOR GARRETT: I’m Major Garrett in Washington.

And this week on Face the Nation: President-elect Trump selects a – quote – “warrior” to lead the FBI and rattles top trading partners with threats of tariffs.

The drumbeat continues from Mar-a-Lago, as president-elect Trump announces plans to nominate loyalists who have more than once lashed out at the agencies they hope to lead.

We will hear from two senators who will be evaluating these Cabinet picks, Texas Republican Ted Cruz and California Democrat Alex Padilla.

Plus, as Americans kick off the busiest shopping season of the year, it’s crunch time for retailers and a window into the economy at large. Questions loom over the future of American consumers as the incoming president threatens across-the-board import tariffs. We will look at the impact with CBS News business analyst Jill Schlesinger.

Then, with just weeks to go until he leaves office, President Biden is notching a few hard-fought victories overseas, securing the release of Americans wrongfully held in China and a cease-fire deal between Israel and Hezbollah. Could a deal between Israel and Hamas be next?

We will talk unfinished business with White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.

Finally, a conversation with author and historian H.W. Brands. His latest book, “America First,” examines the debate over isolationism in America ahead of World War II.

It’s all just ahead on Face the Nation.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Face the Nation.

As we put the final touches on this long holiday weekend and the leftovers that go with it, the economy and border loom large as the nation and world anticipate a second Trump administration. Meanwhile, President Biden tries to secure last-minute diplomatic breakthroughs, Congress tackles unfinished business, and retailers slash prices to launch the holiday shopping season in this final month of 2024.

But we begin this morning with the latest on the Trump transition with senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang.

(Begin VT)

WEIJIA JIANG (voice-over): Kash Patel’s pending nomination for FBI director embodies president-elect Trump’s desire to disrupt federal law enforcement agencies.

KASH PATEL (Former Deputy Assistant to President Trump): I’d shut down the FBI Hoover building on day one and reopening the next day as a museum of the deep state.

WEIJIA JIANG: Patel rose to prominence during Trump’s first term when he helped lead the charge against the DOJ’s investigation of Russia meddling in the 2016 election.

DONALD TRUMP (Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. President-Elect): And Kash Patel is here, one of our real warriors.

(CHEERING)

WEIJIA JIANG: The current FBI director, Christopher Wray, who was appointed by Trump in 2017, has three years left on a 10-year term. He would have to resign or be fired to create an opening.

The FBI says: “Director Wray’s focus remains on the men and women of the FBI, the people we do the work with and the people we do the work for.”

Trump also announced he has selected son-in-law Jared Kushner’s father, Charles Kushner, to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to France. Kushner was pardoned by Trump in 2020 after serving time in prison as part of a two-year sentence on federal criminal charges.

As Trump fills his administration, he’s also meeting with world leaders.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU (Canadian Prime Minister): It was – it was an excellent conversation.

WEIJIA JIANG: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Friday, then posted: “I look forward to the work we can do together again.”

But Trump’s threat to impose a 25 percent tariff on Canada and Mexico remains, unless, he says, the countries take action to stop migrants and drugs from entering the U.S. border.

(End VT)

WEIJIA JIANG: Both North American allies say they are preparing retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports.

Now Trump has issued a new threat against a group of nine countries, including Brazil, Russia and China. He says, if they try to shy away from the U.S. dollar on international trade, he would impose a 100 percent tariff on their goods – Major.

MAJOR GARRETT: Weijia Jiang in Palm Beach, Florida, thank you.

We turn now to Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who joins us this morning from Houston.

Senator, it’s good to see you. Good morning to you.

Let’s pick up this thread on tariffs. I remember covering your presidential campaign in 2016, and you were a skeptic of tariffs then. I know the politics around tariffs have changed. President-elect Trump has done that. But have the economics changed?

SENATOR TED CRUZ (R-Texas): Well, I will tell you, what hasn’t changed is – is the importance of leverage.

And I got to say, you look at the threat of tariffs against Mexico and Canada immediately has produced action. We’ve seen the president of Mexico stand up and promise that she is going to work hand in hand with the president of the United States, President Trump, to secure the border.

I will tell you, representing Texas, we’ve seen four years of an invasion at our southern border. Let me ask you, Major, why hasn’t Joe Biden done this? Why hasn’t Joe Biden actually stood up and used leverage to secure the border?

And the reason is, Joe Biden and the Democrats wanted this invasion to happen. And I got to say, this is a promise that I believe President Trump is going to deliver on and deliver quickly. We are going to secure the border. This is about using leverage to get Mexico and Canada to cooperate.

And I will tell you, Major, I think one of the very first bills we’re going to take up in the Senate, vote on, and I hope pass, is my legislation the Justice for Jocelyn Act that is a response to the horrific rape and murder of Jocelyn Nungaray, 12-year-old girl in Houston, Texas, killed by violent criminal illegal aliens released by Joe Biden and the Democrats.

This is a promise the president needs to deliver on, and I think he’s going to.

MAJOR GARRETT: So, when you think about tariffs and president-elect Trump, you don’t take them seriously as an economic matter; you take them seriously only as a diplomatic lever?

SENATOR TED CRUZ: Well, look, I think the president was explicit with Mexico and Canada. He said he will impose these tariffs unless they secure the border.

It was explicitly leverage. And, by the way, that is the same way that President Trump negotiated the remain-in-Mexico agreement. If you remember, during his first term, President Trump threatened tariffs against Mexico. And AMLO, then the president of Mexico, he was incredibly scared and concerned. He was scared of Trump, and he ended up signing the remain-in- Mexico agreement, which produced the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years.

It was incredibly successful. What did Joe Biden the Democrats do when they came in? The very first week in office, they ripped up that incredibly successful international agreement. I expect we will once again enter into remain-in-Mexico.

And we are going to see – I’m going to make a prediction right now. We will see the numbers plummet of illegal immigration coming into this country, not in a year, not in six months, but in January and February, because we will have a president who will vigorously enforce the law.

MAJOR GARRETT: On that point. Senator Cruz, you would concede, in the last three or four months, numbers have gone down already, have they not?

SENATOR TED CRUZ: They have ticked down slightly. We have still seen over these four years the highest rate of illegal immigration in our nation’s history. Twelve million illegal immigrants have come into this country.

And I got to say, in a state like Texas, you want to see the consequences, this last election was an incredible landslide for President Trump. He won all seven of the swing states. And, in Texas, President Trump won Hispanic voters in Texas. I won Hispanic voters in Texas. I won statewide by a million votes, nine points.

And South Texas, the Rio Grande Valley, has literally spent over 100 years as a bright blue Democrat bastion. This cycle, South Texas flipped Republican. And it is amazing what having 12 million people invade your home can do to change people’s voting behavior. I think the president has a mandate to deliver on securing the border, and I look forward to working hand in hand with him to deliver on that promise.

MAJOR GARRETT: Kash Patel suggested by President Trump as the new leader of the FBI, how enthusiastic are you about that?

SENATOR TED CRUZ: Listen, I think Kash Patel is a very strong nominee. I think the entire slate of Cabinet nominees President Trump has put forward is very strong.

I believe every one of these Cabinet nominees is going to be confirmed by the Senate. I think Kash Patel is going to be confirmed by the Senate. You look at his background, he has a serious professional background. He was a prosecutor. He was a public defender. He was a senior intelligence staffer on Capitol Hill. He was a senior intelligence staffer in the White House. He was the chief of staff of the Department of Defense.

He was the deputy director of national intelligence. And I got to say, all of the weeping and gnashing of teeth, all of the people pulling their hair out are exactly the people who are dismayed about having a real reformer come into the FBI and clean out the corrupted partisans who sadly have burrowed into senior career positions at the FBI.

The FBI and the Department of Justice are two institutions incredibly important to the rule of law in the United States. I revere both. And one of the most tragic consequences of four years of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris is, both the DOJ and the FBI have been politicized and weaponized, and I think Kash Patel is a very strong nominee to take on the partisan corruption in the FBI.

MAJOR GARRETT: As you know, Senator, there isn’t a vacancy at the top of the FBI. What should become of Christopher Wray, appointed by President Trump?

SENATOR TED CRUZ: Well, I think he’ll make a choice. I think either he will resign or President Trump will fire him. But it’s no secret to anybody, including Chris Wray, that he is not going to continue to serve as the head of the FBI under Donald Trump.

Listen, if you look at James Comey and Chris Wray, there has never been a period in our nation’s history where the FBI has suffered a greater loss of respect, where more Americans doubt the fundamental integrity of the FBI.

And it’s because James Comey and Chris Wray presided over allowing the FBI to become a partisan cudgel to be used to target parents at school board meetings, to be used to target people who chose not to take the COVID vaccine, to be used to target President Trump and to target the political opponents of Joe Biden and the White House.

It is tragic. That is not what the FBI is for. That is not what the DOJ is for. And I got to say, Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, I think, together are a very strong slate of nominees to go and restore integrity to both institutions.

MAJOR GARRETT: How do you place that up against the prosecutions of Bob Menendez, a congressman, a Democrat from Texas, Hunter Biden? Are those political prosecutions as well or not?

SENATOR TED CRUZ: Well, first of all, let’s be clear. Bob Menendez was – was literally caught with gold bars and a stack of cash with his fingerprints taking bribes, and it’s why Bob Menendez is not my colleague anymore. At that point, the evidence was overwhelming.

Look, Major, I wrote an entire book entitled “Justice Corrupted: How the Left Has Weaponized the Legal System.” And it broke down – it started, sadly, under Barack Obama, where he began using the federal government to target his political opponents.

The book details how many of those partisans then burrowed in to senior career positions during the Trump administration. They waged war against President Trump during his first term. And now, under Joe Biden, they have been open and brazen, and I think it has done unbelievable damage to the integrity of the Department of Justice and the FBI.

I think Merrick Garland will go down in history as the most partisan attorney general our nation has ever seen. And I got to say, I hear regularly from – from prosecutors, from FBI agents who are deeply dismayed about the institution they have devoted a lifetime working for, because, listen, I don’t want a Republican Department of Justice.

I don’t want a Democrat Department of Justice. I want a Department of Justice and an FBI that enforces the law regardless of party. And, sadly, we haven’t seen that these last four years.

MAJOR GARRETT: What can you tell us about the three Americans released by China who are in San Antonio? Have you been in touch with them? And do you have any concerns about the contours of that swap?

SENATOR TED CRUZ: Well, at this stage, we don’t know all of the details of the contours of the swap, but I will tell you, I am celebrating the return of three Americans, especially Mark Swidan.

Mark Swidan is a Texan from Houston. His mom, Katherine, is from Luling, Texas. I have talked with Katherine many times. I authored and passed a resolution in the Senate that passed unanimously calling for Mark Swidan’s return to America. He spent 12 years unjustly imprisoned in communist China.

I will tell you, I have raised it directly with the foreign minister of China. I have raised it with President Biden. I have raised it with Secretary of State Tony Blinken.

And I will give them credit on this. Tony Blinken, just two weeks ago was the most recent time I spoke with him about Mark Swidan, and the administration has pressed the Chinese government. And Mark Swidan is back home with his mother, who has prayed for him, who has loved – loved him.

I want to say, Mark, welcome home. Katherine, congratulations. I told you this day would come. This is a time where all Texans and all Americans should be celebrating.

MAJOR GARRETT: Very quickly, Senator Cruz, because I also know you care about the case of Austin Tice.

SENATOR TED CRUZ: Yes.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you have any sense that the rebel gains in Syria of the recent vintage will have any chance of unlocking Austin Tice’s freedom?

SENATOR TED CRUZ: I don’t know. I certainly hope and pray. Austin Tice needs to come home. And I hope and pray.

Listen, there’s a combination of two things working. One, as Joe Biden is in the process of transitioning out, any – any outgoing president is looking to try to get some final wins. I would encourage him and I’m sure he is doing everything he can to bring Austin Tice home, to bring the hostages in Gaza home, both the Israelis and the Americans, bring them home in this window.

I also think President Trump coming into office on January 20, the enemies of America, I think, are afraid of President Trump. That is a moment. I hope we have a moment right now that is very much like the end of the Jimmy Carter administration…

MAJOR GARRETT: Yes.

SENATOR TED CRUZ: … right before Ronald Reagan came in. And we saw, on January 20, our hostages in Iran released, I think in significant part because the ayatollah was afraid of Reagan.

MAJOR GARRETT: Yes, sir.

SENATOR TED CRUZ: I hope a similar dynamic is playing out. And if we can see more hostages come home, that would be cause for enormous celebration.

MAJOR GARRETT: Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, thank you. Good morning.

We’ll be back with Face the Nation in just one moment. Please stay with us.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MAJOR GARRETT: Welcome back to Face the Nation.

We go now to California Democratic Senator Alex Padilla. He joins us this morning from Porter Ranch, California.

Senator, good to see you.

Let’s start with Kash Patel. Your reaction to that nomination or that suggested nomination from president-elect Trump?

SENATOR ALEX PADILLA (D-California): Well, good morning. Great to be with you.

And, look, the – this announcement that Kash Patel is going to be nominated for a high-ranking position at the FBI, very key to the Department of Justice, raises a lot of the same questions that other announcements and other nominations raise.

Are they going to go in there and do the job of – that the Department of Justice calls for to truly, truly be independent of the president of the United States, or is he going in there to do Trump’s bidding? That’s the big question here. Is it a genuine, legitimate appointment or a political appointment to politicize the bureau and the Department in Trump’s – in Trump’s favor?

That’s just the beginning of the questions that we expect to raise in the con – in the confirmation hearings that will begin in January.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you expect that the current FBI director, who has three years remaining, will just have to resign?

SENATOR ALEX PADILLA: Well, that’s going to be a personal decision for Director Wray who, look, the public should remember, was a Trump appointee to begin with.

And so he’s got three years left. It’s up to him to resign or not. Your prior guest suggested that Trump may very well fire him, which is just par for the course. Anybody who recalls the first Trump administration recalls a whole lot of Cabinet officials being named, being confirmed, and being sold as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And, as soon as they lose favor with Trump, as soon as they don’t do 100 percent of what he’s demanding, all of a sudden, you know, they’re fired, a lot of times by social media posts. And so who knows what Donald Trump is going to decide to do, whether it’s with Director Wray, Kash Patel or any of his other nominees this coming term.

MAJOR GARRETT: During the first Trump administration, California fashioned itself the resistance state. Some Democrats in the legislature have already begun to describe that as a cliche and say they don’t even know what that means anymore.

What does it mean?

SENATOR ALEX PADILLA: Look, I think there’s a lot of reason for concern of the second Trump administration, if the first administration is any indicator.

I think, as the governor, as other legislative leaders and even the congressional delegation have said, if – if, you know, the federal government will continue to support California in its leadership in so many policy areas, there’s a lot of good work to be done there.

But Donald Trump has made it no secret that he has it in for California, whether it’s the withholding of disaster funds, I mean, a lot of FEMA dollars that Donald Trump tried to keep from, not the state government of California, but from California families, simply because it’s a state that did not vote for him in the presidential election. We’re trying to inoculate ourselves from those types of threats.

There’s also a lot of good that – that can be finalized before the end of the Biden administration, whether it’s Environmental Protection Agency waivers that will allow California to continue to grow our economy while tackling climate change aggressively, waivers at Health and Human Services that would give California a little bit of flexibility with our Medicare dollars to be able to also treat behavioral health issues, mental health issues of Californians, because when – we know that treating the whole body is good for both physical and mental health.

We’re trying to make sure those waivers…

MAJOR GARRETT: Where do those – where – where…

SENATOR ALEX PADILLA: … are locked in before the end of the Biden administration.

MAJOR GARRETT: Where do you stand with the Biden administration on that, Senator? Are they going to be responsive?

SENATOR ALEX PADILLA: They’ve been very encouraging that the technical work can and should be done before the end of the term.

But we’ll know it when there’s signatures on the documents that we need. But, again, these are just examples that we want to lock into place before President Trump comes into office, and then can use it either as a threat, as a punishment, or, as Senator Cruz mentioned in the prior segment, simply leverage to get other things he would want out of California.

MAJOR GARRETT: You know President elect Trump has promised mass deportations. You also know, in California, there is a state law that tells local law enforcement not to participate and cooperate with ICE agents in deportation or identification processes.

The incoming Trump administration border czar, Tom Homan, has said any law enforcement who don’t cooperate will be prosecuted under federal law. How is this going to be resolved?

SENATOR ALEX PADILLA: Yes. Well, I think there’s an important distinction here.

No state government, not Texas, not California, not any state in the nation, has a constitutional authority to impose federal immigration law. That is the responsibility of the federal government. Some states like Texas want to push the envelope and try to find a way to assist, but there’s no obligation to do so.

And that’s what California leaders and municipal leaders throughout the state are saying. You know, we’re not going to utilize state and local resources to do the federal government’s job for them, number one. I think there’s a long history of this being smart public safety policy as well.

California is the most populous state in the nation, the most diverse state in the nation, home to more immigrants than any state in the nation. And the last thing you want to do is have immigrants who are victims of crime afraid to come forward to report that crime. The last thing you want is immigrants who may be witnesses to crime to be afraid to come forward and share any information that they have in the investigation and prosecution of crimes.

That’s what we’re talking about here. Let the federal government do the federal government’s job, but have state and local officials do the state and local officials’ job. There doesn’t have to be a conflict, unless that’s what Trump wants.

MAJOR GARRETT: The governor has called a special session that will convene this week to set aside money to battle the Trump administration.

Will some of that money also be set aside to protect migrants and undocumented immigrants in California as they seek either legal advice or continued legal financial backing to support their efforts to stay within California and the United States?

SENATOR ALEX PADILLA: Yes, again, if the first Trump administration is any indicator, we know that there will continue to be a lot of fear in communities and communities that deserve to know what their rights are and what their rights are – are not.

And so, if it’s legal assistance, legal advice, legal support, that’s just the California way. We embrace our diversity. Our diversity is what has made our communities thrive and our economy thrive. And so we will assist families against the threats of the Trump administration.

If we wanted to sort of cut to the chase, you know, we’re hearing a lot of bombast from Trump and his allies about the biggest deportation operation in our country’s history, on the one hand, versus a – maybe a focus on violent criminals on the other.

Nobody – nobody disagrees with a focus on violent criminals.

MAJOR GARRETT: Yes.

SENATOR ALEX PADILLA: Democrats, Republicans agree. But that’s very different…

MAJOR GARRETT: Yes.

SENATOR ALEX PADILLA: … than millions and millions of people being deported indiscriminately, not just tearing families apart, tearing communities apart…

MAJOR GARRETT: Yes, Senator.

SENATOR ALEX PADILLA: … but tremendous damage to our economy that that would create.

MAJOR GARRETT: Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat from California, we thank you for your time this morning.

And we’ll be back right away with a lot more Face the Nation. I invite you to please stay with us.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MAJOR GARRETT: Be sure to tune in to CBS News on January 20 for full coverage of Donald Trump’s inauguration here in Washington, D.C. You can watch live on CBS, on Paramount+, or on our CBS News app.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MAJOR GARRETT: We will be right back with CBS News business analyst Jill Schlesinger, White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and author H.W. Brands.

Please stay with us.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MAJOR GARRETT: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION. We’re joined now by CBS News business analyst Jill Schlesinger. She’s in Southampton, New York, this morning.

Jill, Senator Ted Cruz described tariffs and the threat thereof as leverage. But what I’m curious about economically is, do retailers view it as only leverage, do consumers view it only as leverage, or are they beginning to change their behavior in anticipation?

JILL SCHLESINGER: Well, let’s just talk about whether or not they’re going to change their behavior. We know that t here were some retailers who were sort of dangling this out around this holiday weekend, saying, oh, buy now because tariffs could make prices go up. I don’t know what the motivation of most people is when they shop, but I’m not sure it’s tariffs.

What we do know about tariffs is, remember, this is a fee that is imposed on an imported good. The importing company, the U.S. company that takes that good in has to make a decision in that moment. And that company has to decide, are we going to eat it and maybe make less money this year, or are we going to pass it along to consumers. So, that is why consumers are a little unnerved by this, and businesses are as well, because they’re not really sure whether they can pass that along and have consumers pay that additional price.

What we know is, over the long term, in history, tariffs tend to increase the price of certain goods. It’s not necessarily across the board. But, you know, it is hard coming off of what we’ve just come through in the last few years with this inflationary spike to imagine that consumers are just going to take it in stride. It is a real hard thing to imagine that any company or consumer is going to feel like they want to absorb higher prices at this point.

MAJOR GARRETT: Jill, there was a tariff story in the first Trump administration. Do you foresee a deeper and different tariff story potentially in Trump 2.0?

JILL SCHLESINGER: Well, I think there’s two parts of that question, which is, we don’t know what these tariffs are. And as Senator Cruz said, this is a negotiation. So, we don’t know whether we’re going to land in that negotiation. But a big difference between where we are today and where we were back in 2017 and 2018 is, during the early Trump administration, what we had was incredibly low inflation. That was after the financial crisis. For all those years, inflation or prices only grew by about less than 2 percent a year.

Now, compare that with where we are now. We had inflation spike at a 40- year high of 9 percent in the summer of 2022. Yes, that inflation rate has come down, but prices are still about 22 percent, 23 percent higher than they were just four or five years ago. So, the big difference between the first Trump administration and the second Trump administration is prices are already high, and there are many Americans who are struggling.

So, I think that that is the real fear among economists that I speak to. They’re worried that this is going to cause a real anxiety among consumers, and that consumers might pull back at a time where they – actually, the economy’s doing pretty well.

MAJOR GARRETT: Talking about the economy doing well. You crunch a lot of numbers, Jill, and always break them down so easily for our audience. When you look at the data, what’s the best news you see and what’s the most worrisome sign?

JILL SCHLESINGER: Well, the best news as – is that the labor market has grown really substantially and has kept up. So, I think that the labor market has been the driver of this economy. And it’s been pretty consistent.

The other part of the good news story is that the United States economy, more than any other developed nation, has come out of the Covid era and that post-Covid inflationary spike much stronger in a growth mode. So, we are seeing really good things from the labor market. We’re seeing things in the economy. We’re seeing that AI and technology is really in a boom period. These are all wonderful things.

So, what’s the downside here? I hate to be a kill joy, but why not, I play one on Sunday mornings. And what I can see is that these tariffs could cause a problem for a lot of consumers who are already struggling, and also this idea that we are going to see the extension of the tax cuts from the first Trump administration in the individual tax code. There is a fear among some investors that while we may not have a crisis right now when it comes to the debt and the deficit, that the extension of those tax cuts could start to really unnerve financial markets. Not happened yet, but those are the two worrisome things, the tariffs and the debt and deficit. I think those are the two looming things. And, of course, all the things we can’t contemplate right now.

MAJOR GARRETT: The three stock indexes have gone up pretty regularly since Election Day. Is that a methodical and well thought out reaction to an election or a kind of exuberance that may soon run its course?

JILL SCHLESINGER: Time will tell. I think that the initial investor reaction was a second Trump presidency would mean a drop in the tax rates – or the extension of the tax cuts and those tax rates would basically be in place for another four years. So, we’d have low taxes, which is good for especially the wealthier people out there. They love low taxes. And corporate taxes were already enshrined in the code. OK, so we have taxes staying low. That’s a big factor when you come – when it comes to investing.

The second part is the idea that a Trump administration would have a light regulatory touch. So, when you saw that first few trading – those first few trading days after the election, what went up a lot? The most highly regulated industries. So, that could be energy, that could be banking, that could be other areas where you could really need an industrial companies where you need a lot of regulatory prominence in the working of your business. Lighter regulatory touch will mean that those businesses will do well.

OK, so is it exuberance or not? Who knows? I can only tell you that as someone who watches markets all the time, when everybody tells me that the sky is clear and the sun is shining and it’s rainbows and unicorns, the only thing I can remember is what my father used to say is, well, no one ever rings a bell at the top or at the bottom. So, if you’re an individual investor, don’t count on everything being great. There’s going to be a market slide. There is going to be a sell-off at some point. Don’t count on everything being great all the time. Stick to your game plan and only change that game plan, not when the administration changes, but when your own life changes. That’s it.

MAJOR GARRETT: Breaking it down for us, as always, and beautifully so. Jill Schlesinger, thanks so very much.

And we’ll be right back.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MAJOR GARRETT: We’ are joined now by President Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. He is in New Castle, New Hampshire, this morning.

Jake, good morning. It’s good to see you.

The Hamas video release of Edan Alexander, I know the administration regards it as a cruel propagandistic maneuver, but do you detect anything tactical at all in the timing of the release of this video, Jake?

JAKE SULLIVAN (President Biden’s National Security Adviser): Well, Major, first, thanks for having me.

And as far as this video, it is a cruel reminder of the barbarity and the brutality of Hamas, holding so many innocent people hostage, including Americans, including Edan. We were in touch with Edan’s family yesterday. I’ll be talking to the families of all of the American hostages, including Edan’s family, this week.

And I do think that Hamas is feeling the pressure. They’re feeling the pressure because one of their main partners in crime here, Hezbollah, has now cut a ceasefire deal and they thought that Hezbollah would be with them until the end. They’re feeling the pressure, of course, because their top leader, Sinwar, has been killed. So, they may be looking anew at the possibility of getting a ceasefire and hostage deal, and we are working actively with all of the key players in the region, including Israel and Turkey and Qatar and Egypt to try to bring that about.

MAJOR GARRETT: The fate of the hostages, of course, on the administration’s mind, on the minds of all Americans and all in the region. But also, Jake, I’m sure you saw over the last couple of days the video from Gaza of Palestinians surging to try to get a loaf of bread, in some cases crushing one another unintentionally. All suggestions are that the humanitarian situation there is – if it already isn’t past crisis stage, near famine crisis stage.

How much does that intensify the need to get this thing across, as you just said, the finish line?

JAKE SULLIVAN: The humanitarian situation in Gaza is a crisis. You have too many people who are suffering from shortages of food, water, medicine, access to sanitation. Innocent people who deserve a measure of peace and deserve access to all of those life-saving supplies in abundance. The United States has been working, week in, week out, month in, month out, to open crossings, to move trucks, to insure that humanitarian aid gets in. And at critical moments, we have been able to intervene in ways that have staved off the worst case scenarios of famine. But it’s constantly stocking (ph) Gaza. And so more needs to be done to get aid in.

Now, part of the problem, as we’ve seen just in the last 24 hours, is not actually moving aid from outside Gaza into Gaza, but moving it around Gaza once it’s inside. The U.N., in fact, said it was suspending movement from certain areas of Gaza because of concerns about looting. These are all things that would be helped if there were a ceasefire in place.

MAJOR GARRETT: Jake, is the probability of a ceasefire enhanced or undercut when someone such as South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham says, President- elect Trump wants a ceasefire before inauguration deal. Does that help you or hurt you?

JAKE SULLIVAN: Look, I think the key actor right now holding the decision on the ceasefire is Hamas. And the key thing motivating Hamas is not American politics or the American presidential transition, it’s their determination about whether or not it makes sense for them at this point, after Hezbollah has abandoned them, after their leader has been killed, after their military formations have been degraded to finally say yes to a ceasefire and hostage deal. That’s going to be the telling thing more than anything that’s said back here.

But I will say this, there has been very good coordination between our team and the incoming team on all of the aspects of the crisis in the Middle East. We felt it was important that we be in touch with them, to keep them up to speed on what’s happening, because this handoff has got to be smooth. And they, in turn, have reciprocated by being open and transparent and working with us. This is how it should be in a transition. This is what we’re going to keep driving for, for every day that we have left in office.

MAJOR GARRETT: Jake, I want to have a conversation with you about leverage as regards to the Israeli government. I want to play for you something that Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said on this program a week ago.

Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VC)

SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): We’ve seen this pattern where President Biden makes demands of Prime Minister Netanyahu, only to be ignored or slapped down entirely. And then President Biden sends more bombs and more money. That is not an effective use of leverage.

(END VC)

MAJOR GARRETT: Your response?

JAKE SULLIVAN: First of all, I respect Senator Van Hollen. He knows these issues as well as any person in Washington, and he is passionate about them.

But, of course, we have a different perspective. We have, at various points over the course of this conflict, made asks of the Israelis consistent with our values and our interests. Have we gotten everything we’ve asked for? No. Have we seen a change in Israeli behavior with respect to the movement of humanitarian assistance, with respect to how they conducted certain military operations, including in places like Rafah? Yes, we have.

And so, we do believe that we’ve had a constructive engagement with the Israeli government and also been able to make a difference on the ground with respect to the flow of humanitarian aid.

In addition, we worked closely with the Israeli government to bring about a ceasefire in Lebanon. A ceasefire people said wasn’t possible until a new administration took office.

MAJOR GARRETT: Jake, I want to take – turn your attention to Ukraine, where the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to indicate in a recent interview that he could possibly be open to a peace settlement in which Russia retains the territory it has. Ukraine, meaning Kyiv, keeps all the rest, if that is swiftly brought under the umbrella of NATO. Is that the outline or the contours of something you believe the administration believes could be workable?

JAKE SULLIVAN: Well, Major, I’m sorry to disappoint you. I can’t negotiate in public on your program, and I certainly can’t negotiate on behalf of President Zelenskyy, who really should speak for himself when it comes to the destiny of his country. The future of Ukraine should be determined at the negotiating table by decisions of the Ukrainians, not imposed from the outside by the United States or anybody else.

I will say, though, that we have been engaging with the Ukrainians over the course of this year on how you marry the support we provided them for use on the battlefield with a diplomatic strategy for the negotiating table.

MAJOR GARRETT: And some recent decisions in the administration have been criticized by Republicans as setting the situation on fire, meaning ATACMS and anti-personnel mines. Those advocates for Ukraine say those decisions are way too late to change the battle space in any strategically important way. Where do you come down?

JAKE SULLIVAN: Anti-personnel land mines, which are nonpersistent mines that shut off after two weeks so they don’t represent a long term threat to civilians, these could be helpful against the particular type of tactics that the Russian infantry is using right now in eastern Ukraine. So, he’s sending them.

The ATACMS permission into Russian territory, that was a decision he took after Russia escalated by introducing North Korean troops into this war, a foreign army into this war. So that was a responsible, coordinated step that we took with other allies to respond to that provocation, to that escalation by Russia.

The president has been clear all along, we are going to give Ukraine the tools it needs. We are also going to do what we can to put them in the best possible position on the battlefield so they’ll be in the best possible position at the negotiating table, and then this war will ultimately end in diplomacy.

MAJOR GARRETT: National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, thanks so much for your time.

And we’ll be right back with a lot more FACE THE NATION.

Please, stay with us.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MAJOR GARRETT: Welcome back.

We turn now to author and historian H.W. Brands. He is the Jack S. Blanton senior chair at the University of Texas in Austin. And his latest book is “America First: Roosevelt vs. Lindbergh in the Shadow of War.”

He joins us this morning from Austin, Texas.

H.W., it’s great to see you.

First of all, what does this America first clash then tell us if anything about today and references to America first?

H.W. BRANDS (Author, “America Frist: Roosevelt vs. Lindbergh in the Shadow of War”): The debate that I describe in the book is whether the United States should enter World War II. Between the time Germany started the war in September of 1939 and the United States entered the war in December of 1941, that was the narrow focus of the debate. The larger question and the one that persists today is, what do Americans think their country’s role in the world ought to be? Should the United States, must the United States take a leading role in the world? Should the United States concern itself in conflicts among other nations that perhaps don’t directly address American interests? This – this was the question then. It’s a question we’re dealing with again today.

MAJOR GARRETT: If you could, sketch out briefly Charles Lindbergh’s stature at the time this debate with Franklin Delano Roosevelt was engaged.

H.W. BRANDS: Lindbergh came to the attention of the American public, indeed to the world public, in 1927 when he flew a solo flight for the first time across the Atlantic Ocean. He became this national hero. He became a world celebrity for accomplishing this great technical feat, but it was also a feat of personal daring.

He was a darling of the United States, a darling in other countries. He was decorated by foreign governments. He became an early celebrity in an age when celebrity was first starting to take form. So, that was his position as of 1927.

His celebrity took a different turn in the early 1930s when his and his wife’s infant son was kidnapped and murdered in what then was called the crime of the century, which gave rise to the trial of the century. And so, this golden boy, all of a sudden had a dark shadow cast across his life. And so he was, in some ways, this star-crossed hero at that point.

He continued to be influential in aeronautical engineering circles. He knew a lot about aircraft. But in the American mind he was this – he was this great celebrity. And many people were surprised actually that he did take a leading role in the debate over American policy because he was not a political figure, he eschewed politics.

MAJOR GARRETT: And in that debate with Roosevelt, did Roosevelt and his administration regard Charles Lindbergh as a potential political threat? And if so, how did they deal with it?

H.W. BRANDS: It’s a little bit hard to say. Franklin Roosevelt at some point decided that he wanted to run for a third term. This broke a long- standing, informal rule of American politics. And he knew that Republicans were constantly going up to Charles Lindbergh and saying, you could be president. You’d be a great candidate.

Lindbergh’s father had been a congressman, but Lindbergh took from his father’s experience, which turned out badly because of his opposition to American policy during World War I, that he didn’t want to have anything to do with politics or politicians. He considered politicians a bunch of liars, people who could not be trusted and he considered politics this low and sort of mean occupation that he wanted to have nothing to do with.

MAJOR GARRETT: When this debate began in 1931, Lindbergh was in one place. When it ended in 1941, he was in a different place in the public mind. Some accused him of being a Nazi sympathizer. Some editorialist described him as an anti-Semite. Where do you come down?

H.W. BRANDS: The one thing I should say is that everybody who calls him an anti-Semite or a Nazi sympathizer, had political reasons for doing so because Lindbergh became the face of opposition to American intervention in the war. And it served his opponents’ purposes to paint him in this negative category.

In terms of his Nazi sympathy, he – there were American Nazis. There was an American Nazi party. They were clearly Nazi sympathizers. Lindbergh was not a member of the party. In fact, the America first committee, of which Lindbergh was a part, took pains to keep its distance from those. Lindbergh did not want Germany to win the war. His position was that the United States should not place its frontier of security in the middle of Europe the way Franklin Roosevelt and the interventionists appears to be doing.

But because he took that position – and it was a position the Germans supported. The Germans didn’t want the United States to enter the war. There was this objective sense in which one could say that when Lindbergh gave a speech, it served the purposes of the German government.

MAJOR GARRETT: How about his appraisal of American Jews wanted to push America into the war and then exercising outsized influence culturally in our country?

H.W. BRANDS: So, the charges of anti-Semitism against Lindbergh really are associated with a single speech he gave in the autumn of 1941, in which he identified three groups that in his opinion were most influential in pushing the United States toward war. One was the British government. Britain was already at war, and he explained it was natural that they would try to get the United States involved in the war. The second group he said was American Jews. And he said, it’s perfectly understandable that they should want the United States to get into the war given what Hitler and the Nazis have done to their relatives, friends, co-religionists in Europe. And the third group was the Roosevelt administration. He was most critical of the Roosevelt administration because Lindbergh claimed that Roosevelt was using the excuse of the war to further his own political ambitions.

Now, merely for mentioning American Jews in the context of war policy, the sky fell down upon Lindbergh. Everybody who wanted to make sure that they weren’t accused of anti-Semitism, everybody who opposed Lindbergh’s policy came down and pointed the finger of anti-Semitism at Lindbergh.

To what extent was Lindbergh actually an anti-Semite? Well, I would – I would – I would – I would put him in the category of the sort of not in my country club kind of anti-Semite, which was extremely common in the United States at the time.

MAJOR GARRETT: Very quickly, H.W., there’s a clash over information and disinformation. Both sides warn each other and the American public about that. Unspool that for us, if you could, real quick.

H.W. BRANDS: The British government and the germane government, the two antagonists in the war at that point, were both engaged in propaganda campaigns in the United States. And so, when the British government would plant editorials, features in American newspapers, often unknown to the reading public, then Lindbergh and his side would say, well, look what the British government is doing. When the German government would do something similar, then the Roosevelt administration would say, look at what the German government is doing. So, each side then, the governments of the two sides, they were doing their best to sway American public opinion because they realized that in the end it was American public opinion that had to be persuaded.

MAJOR GARRETT: H.W. – foreign interference in American public opinion then and now.

H.W. Brands, it’s been a pleasure. Thank you so much.

And we’ll be right back.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MAJOR GARRETT: That’s it for us today. Want to thank you for watching.

For FACE THE NATION, I’m Major Garrett.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)