Amb. Jamieson Greer, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Christine Lagarde

Summary

Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan – Detailed Summary

Episode Date: February 22, 2026
Main Guests:

• Amb. Jamieson Greer (U.S. Trade Representative)
• Abbas Aragchi (Iranian Foreign Minister)
• Christine Lagarde (President, European Central Bank)
• Governors Laura Kelly (KS), Andy Beshear (KY), Mike Braun (IN), Mike DeWine (OH)

---

Episode Overview

In this pivotal episode, Margaret Brennan explores the fallout from a major Supreme Court ruling that struck down President Trump’s emergency imposition of tariffs, how his administration aims to respond, and the cascading effects on global trade and politics. The show also delves into mounting U.S.-Iran tensions over nuclear negotiations, examines economic outlooks from a European perspective, and spotlights how governors are coping with federal trade and immigration policies.

---

Key Segments and Analysis

1. Tariffs, Congress, and the Supreme Court: Interview with Amb. Jamieson Greer (00:56–12:05)

Main Theme:
How the administration will adapt its economic strategy following the Supreme Court’s ruling limiting the President’s authority to unilaterally impose tariffs.

Key Points:

• Supreme Court Decision: The Court ruled 6-3 that imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) overstepped the executive's authority, reaffirming Congress as the primary authority over taxation and tariffs.

• President’s Reaction: Trump reacts angrily, calling out the Supreme Court justices as “unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”

  “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed. Shamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country. They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. I think it’s an embarrassment to their families.” – President Trump (00:56)

• Hostile Environment in Congress:

  • Brennan notes bipartisan wariness: only tepid Republican support for unilateral tariffs.
  • Greer counters that more Republicans than before see tariffs as beneficial for negotiation and “reshoring” jobs.

  “We’ve seen this as effective to negotiate deals, … to reshore. And three, it’s real money coming in.” – Greer (04:43)

• Current Legislative Tools:

  • Greer says Congress has already delegated authority for tariffs via Section 301, Section 122, and more—so new legislation isn’t immediately necessary.
  • Tariffs under Section 122 can be imposed quickly but expire after five months; Section 301 takes longer but can provide continuity.

• International Reaction:

  • Both India and the EU are reassessing their relations with the U.S., holding emergency meetings.

• Host:

  • Questions the administration’s long-term strategy—asks whether Congress will be directly involved in future tariff policy.

Notable Exchange:

• On Foreign Influence Allegation:

  Brennan: “That’s a pretty huge allegation. What foreign interest has corrupted the court, according to the President?” – (09:29) Greer: “Foreign companies are benefiting from the tariffs being struck down… Foreign countries don’t like it and foreign companies don’t like it because they’re the ones that don’t want to have the tariffs in place… They’re the ones that are suing.” – (09:41)

Memorable Moment:
Greer repeatedly pivots, refusing to directly back up the President’s allegations about Supreme Court justices, instead pointing the finger at foreign corporate interests.

Segment Timestamps:

• Supreme Court context & initial reaction: 00:56–02:54
• Legal process, Congressional authority: 02:54–05:19
• Global response and ongoing investigations: 06:05–08:59
• Presidential accusations and discussion of “foreign influence”: 09:15–12:05

---

2. US-Iran Tensions: Interview with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi (12:48–22:54)

Main Theme:
Possibility of war versus diplomacy as the U.S. gathers military force; state of nuclear negotiations.

Key Points:

• Iran Open to Diplomacy:

  • Aragchi steadfastly advocates for a diplomatic, win-win solution, and contends that the nuclear program is—and will remain—peaceful.

  “If they want to find a resolution for Iran's peaceful nuclear program, the only way is diplomacy… there is no need for any military buildup.” – Aragchi (13:00)

• Negotiation Updates:

  • Iran is preparing a fresh proposal for resumed talks; meeting set for Thursday in Geneva with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff.
  • Aragchi notes differences with the previous (2015) deal: Iran's technological progress and increased sanctions make a "better" deal than JCPOA possible.

• On Enrichment and Inspections:

  • Iran insists on its right to enrich uranium, dismisses the prospect of “zero enrichment.”

  “Enrichment is our right… It’s very dear to us because we have paid a lot. We have paid a huge expense for that. We have been under sanctions for at least 20 years and we have lost our scientists and we have had a war because of that. So that is now a matter of dignity and pride for Iranians. And we are not going to give it up.” – Aragchi (19:08)

  • Will accept full IAEA inspection, potentially including the Additional Protocol, but with conditions.

• Security and Military Posture:

  • Aragchi asserts that although Iran’s air defenses suffered in the recent war with Israel, Iran’s missile capabilities remain a strong deterrent.

  “Israelis had also problem with their air defense. And our missiles were able to hit targets inside Israel… So as a matter of fact, we are in a powerful position to defend ourselves.” – Aragchi (20:32)

  • Threatens U.S. bases in the region if attacked but emphasizes preference for peace.

Memorable Exchange:
Brennan presses Aragchi on why Iran is risking its regime by holding to uranium enrichment in the face of damage and isolation; Aragchi links it to national dignity and sovereignty.

Segment Timestamps:

• Discussion of war risk vs. diplomacy: 12:48–13:39
• Status of nuclear proposal: 13:39–14:56
• Differences from 2015 deal: 14:56–16:09
• Scope of negotiations (nuclear only vs. regional proxies): 16:09–16:30
• On IAEA inspections: 16:30–17:18
• On enrichment red line and US pressure: 17:18–20:03
• Iran’s military capabilities, response to attacks: 20:03–22:54

---

3. Global Economic Outlook: Christine Lagarde, ECB President (24:14–31:36)

Main Theme:
Global market nervousness post-tariffs, the economic consequences of ongoing trade disputes, and central bank independence amid political turbulence.

Key Points:

• Uncertainty Hurts Everyone:

  • Lagarde underscores how unpredictability in U.S. tariff policy is “the biggest poison for the economies of Europe and the U.S.”

  “You want to know the rules of the road before you get in the car. It's the same with trade. It's the same with investment. ...People doing business... don't want to go into legal lawsuits.” – Lagarde (24:55)

• Tariff Impact Analysis:

  • Concludes U.S. consumers have borne much of the tariff burden as importers eventually pass costs on.

  “While some exporters have borne some of the brunt, most of it was borne by the US importers and eventually the US consumers.” – Lagarde (27:27)

• Central Bank Independence:

  • Expresses grave concern over political interference following President Trump’s moves to have Fed Chair Powell investigated and replaced.

  “You don't want someone who sets interest rates...to be under political influence. ...That's why many central bankers around the world signed this support to central bank independence, as applied to Chair Powell.” – Lagarde (29:10)

• Personal Position:

  • Dismisses speculation about leaving the ECB early for French political reasons.

Segment Timestamps:

• Trade uncertainty and impact on EU-U.S. agreements: 24:14–26:38
• Consumer pain from tariffs: 27:15–28:31
• Central bank independence and populism: 28:31–30:26
• ECB leadership/mission: 31:01–31:36

---

4. Governors’ Roundtable: Impact on States (32:17–45:59)

Main Theme:
Real-world effects of federal tariff and immigration policies on business, agriculture, and communities across the heartland—plus the legal, economic, and humane dimensions of immigration enforcement.

Key Points:

• Tariffs’ Real Impact:

  • Gov. Laura Kelly (KS) and Gov. Andy Beshear (KY) describe agricultural and local business harms, especially to crops (soybeans) and bourbon.

    “Tariffs are a tax on the American people…90% of these tariffs are being borne by American business.” – Beshear (32:42)

  • Gov. Braun (IN) supports tariffs as a means to push “fair and free trade” and reshore manufacturing jobs, but acknowledges constitutional hurdles after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

    “You can do that through tariffs, you can do it through trade negotiations.” – Braun (34:48)

  • Gov. DeWine (OH) is more circumspect, noting price increases and complexity in attributing economic shifts directly to tariffs but citing increased investment in manufacturing.

• Desire for Stability:

  • Both parties want tariff policies to be predictable and more collaborative, cautioning against “chaos” in trade.

• Immigration: Approaches and Tensions:

  • Kelly and Beshear (Democrats) stress the strains and complexity of state-federal cooperation on immigration; call for humane enforcement.

    “How we do it shows our humanity or our lack thereof. Shackling people's legs, putting them in cages that we would not put animals in is wrong.” – Beshear (39:13)

  • Beshear is sharply critical of ICE tactics, calls for retraining, and emphasizes the negative impact on communities.
  • DeWine and Braun (Republicans) highlight the economic contribution of legal immigrants, especially those with Temporary Protected Status (TPS); DeWine opposes Trump’s move to revoke TPS for Haitians, arguing it would devastate certain Ohio industries.

    “Springfield is an industrial city...it has been coming back. And frankly, one of the reasons it's coming back is because of the Haitians who are working there.” – DeWine (41:57)

Segment Timestamps:

• Tariffs’ effects on agriculture and manufacturing: 32:17–37:14
• Immigration policy debate, ICE enforcement criticism: 37:14–45:13
• TPS and labor market realities: 41:44–45:59

---

Notable Quotes

• President Trump:

  “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed. ...They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.” (00:56)

• Amb. Jamieson Greer:

  “Tariffs under what we call Section 301 related to unfair trading practices remain in place…so we, of course, can conduct additional investigations under these tools.” (02:54)
  “Foreign companies are benefiting from the tariffs being struck down…They’re the ones that are suing.” (09:41)

• Christine Lagarde:

  “You want to know the rules of the road before you get in the car. It's the same with trade. ...They want to do business…not go into legal lawsuits.” (24:55)
  “While some exporters have borne some of the brunt, most of it was borne by the US importers and eventually the US consumers.” (27:27)
  “You don't want someone who sets interest rates ...to be under political influence.” (29:10)

• Abbas Aragchi:

  “We can make sure that Iran’s program, nuclear program, is peaceful and would remain peaceful forever and at the same time more sanctions would be lifted.” (15:44)
  “Enrichment is our right… it’s now a matter of dignity and pride for Iranians. And we are not going to give it up.” (19:08)
  “We are fully prepared to repeat that (12-day) war if necessary.” (21:23)

• Gov. Andy Beshear:

  “How we do it shows our humanity or our lack thereof. Shackling people's legs, putting them in cages that we would not put animals in is wrong.” (39:13)

• Gov. Mike DeWine:

  “Springfield is an industrial city...it has been coming back. And frankly, one of the reasons it's coming back is because of the Haitians who are working there.” (41:57)

---

Takeaways for New Listeners

• The Supreme Court’s ruling on emergency tariffs is a defining challenge for the Trump administration, catalyzing legal and political maneuvering both domestically and internationally.
• While the administration pursues new ways to sustain tariffs, U.S. allies and rivals are scrambling to adjust—raising global uncertainty.
• The Iran-U.S. standoff is at a crossroads; Iranian leadership remains open to negotiations but is adamant about retaining core nuclear capabilities.
• European leaders press for predictability and adherence to rules, warning that political instability and poorly coordinated trade policies most hurt consumers.
• On the ground, governors reflect a deep divide: some see tariffs as a path to American industrial recovery, while others fear their haphazard application undermines economic stability. Immigration, likewise, is a source of practical and moral tension, with real impacts on states’ economies and communities.

---

For further context and unfiltered exchanges, visit the Face the Nation YouTube Channel or facethenation.com.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, Sal.

[B]

Hank, what's going on?

[C]

We haven't worked a case in years.

[B]

I just bought my car at Carvana and it was so easy.

[C]

Too easy.

[A]

Think something's up? You tell me.

[B]

They got thousands of options, found a great car at a great price, and it got delivered the next day.

[C]

It sounds like Carvana just makes it

[B]

easy to buy your car, Hank. Yeah, you're right.

[D]

Case closed. Buy your car today on Carvana. Delivery fees may apply. I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington. And this week on Face A Nation, In a major blow to the president's economic agenda, the Supreme Court strikes down his use of an emergency law to impose tariffs on foreign goods. Despite the defeat, the president digs in, announcing a new 15% global tariff to replace the measures struck down by the court and lashed out at the justices who struck it down.

[A]

I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed. Shamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. I think it's an embarrassment to their families.

[D]

We'll get the latest from U.S. trade Representative Ambassador Jamison Greer. And what's the impact on the global economy? We'll ask the president of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde. Meanwhile, tensions remain high in the Middle east with a fresh tide of protests in Iran as the US Continues its military buildup in the region, putting pressure on Tehran to agree on a nuclear deal. We'll get the latest from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arabchi. And finally, a conversation with a bipartisan group of governors on how the president's trade and immigration policies are affecting their state's economies and more. It's all just ahead on FACE THE Nation. Good morning and welcome to FACE THE nation. We have a lot of news to get to today, and we will begin with our interview with U.S. trade Representative Ambassador Jamison Greer. We spoke with him earlier this morning. So the president has imposed these tariffs using several different statutes, but the Supreme Court declared that invoking tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers act because taxation is the authority of the Congress. But the president then said he is going to issue, quote, legally permissible tariffs and that he doesn't need to go to Congress. So can you clarify? Will you ask Congress to legislate tariffs and if so, which ones?

[E]

So again, thanks for having me on. And right now it's important to understand that over the years, Congress has delegated enormous tariff setting authority to the president, depending on the situation. So even though the Supreme Court struck down tariffs under one authority. Tariffs under other national security elements remain in place. Tariffs under what we call section 301 related to unfair trading practices remain in place. And so we, of course, can conduct additional investigations under these tools to impose tariffs to have continuity in the president's trade policy.

[D]

But to be clear, those investigations, they have guardrails, they have processes. In fact, the 301s, they could take a year or so to complete those investigations before tariffs come in. You won't have the ability to move as quickly now that the court has ruled. Correct.

[E]

So we don't have the same flexibility that I, EAPA, gave us, which is the emergency statute under section 301. We have series of hearings, we have public comment. We consult with the other countries and then we try to resolve the, the unfair practices we identify. And if they're not resolved, you can take actions like tariffs or other things to try to resolve them. We have tariffs like this already in place on China. We have open investigations already.

[D]

But back on the question of congressional authority, there were six House Republicans who voted the other week to roll back the tariffs that the US had put on goods from Canada. That is a signal here of apprehension among members of the president's own party, given the president's low approval ratings on the economy. According to CBS polling, he's at 39%. Now. Can you go and ask Republican lawmakers when you are just months out from those midterm races to take a vote to legislate on tariffs?

[E]

So this is, this is interesting because one, I've heard from a lot of Republicans over the past year, ones who traditionally, you know, weren't always in favor of tariffs, they've now come around and they said, one, we've seen this as effective to negotiate deals, two, we've seen it's effective to reshore. And three, it's real money coming in. And so I've heard from folks all over the spectrum, and I have to point out, too, we did get one Democrat voting in favor of the tariffs as well. And the Republicans who voted against the president, they vote against him on everything. These are people who are either in the doghouse or on the way out. So it's not, it's not really representative of where the party is.

[D]

Well, one of them had been endorsed by the President, though. The president just pulled back that endorsement because he didn't like what he said about tariffs. But to my point, will you ask Congress to actually legislate or are you just going to avoid going to Congress?

[E]

Well, first of all, Congress has already put out statutes allowing the President to impose tariffs, and tariffs have been in place under those types of statutes for many years at this point. So in some ways, Congress has already pre approved these types of authorities. I'm happy to have conversations with Congress about how to legislate the President's trade program. And I've had, you know, conversations like that already, and there is some interest. And so we're happy to talk to them about it, but we're not going to stop our program. We'll just use the congressional authorities they've extended already for now.

[D]

Okay, so in terms of the existing authorities, the President said he's going to sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under section 122. That was Friday. The next morning he posted on social media he's going to hike it to the maximum of 15%. What changed overnight in your strategy?

[E]

Well, I think. Well, the strategy didn't change because the problem remains the same. And frankly, as the President and his advisers reviewed this action, this authority allows the President to go up to 15%. And considering the severity of the issue we're dealing with, which is a huge unfairness, huge disparity, huge imbalance between the United States and its trading partners, just the urgency of the situation demands that he use his full authority, which is to impose a.

[D]

But that expires at five months.

[E]

For about five months.

[D]

Yeah, that expires at five.

[E]

That's exactly right.

[D]

Back to us.

[E]

So in the meantime, we'll be doing. No. So I'm not sure you understand how section 301 works. We're talking about section 122.

[D]

We're talking about section 122 dot you said. Isn't that what the President's using to hike to 15%?

[E]

I'm agreeing with you. So that's right. That's right. And during that time, we're going to conduct investigations that can allow us to impose tariffs if it's justified by the investigation. So we expect to have continuity in the President's tariff program. We know that these laws work, they're tried and true, and so we'll have continuity. The policy hasn't changed, just the tools have changed.

[D]

Okay, so you're saying 122 expires after this period of time, but you expect your investigation to sort of pick up where they left off, Is that what you're saying? With continuity?

[E]

Yeah, that's one way to put it. Yeah.

[D]

Yeah. Okay. So in terms of what's happening around the world, you had India reportedly call off a visit by their trade delegation to Washington because they're trying to figure out what just happened. South Korea, the EU bloc, they're both holding emergency meetings to try to figure out what's going on. They have trade deals with the US what's going to happen to those trade deals? Are they in jeopardy?

[E]

So I spoke with my counterpart from the EU this weekend. I have a call that I'm going to have with others. I spoke to my counterparts in other countries. And so the deals were not premised on whether or not the emergency tariff litigation would rise or fall. They weren't premised on that. So it's totally normal for these countries to, you know, talk to each other, have meetings internally to determine this. But rest assured, I've been speaking to these folks as well, and I've been telling them for a year, whether this case, whether we won or lost, we were going to have tariffs. The president's policy was going to continue. That's why they signed these deals even while the litigation was pending. So we're having active conversations with them. We want them to understand that these deals are going to be good deals. We expect to stand by them. We expect our partners to stand by them. And I haven't heard anyone yet come to me and say the deal's off. They want to see how this plays out. I'm in active conversation with them on it.

[D]

Okay, so we'll watch that space. The Supreme Court ruling. That vote was 6, 3. The president, as you know, you were there, came out publicly and he railed against some of those justices by name. He said this on Friday. Take a listen.

[A]

They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.

[D]

That's a pretty huge allegation. What foreign interest has corrupted the court, according to the President?

[E]

Well, I won't characterize his words too much. He speaks for himself. What I will say, do you know

[D]

what he's talking about?

[E]

So many, so many of the interests that are that were at issue in this case were really about foreign importers or foreign companies that have interests here in the US who are suing the president and suing the administration. It's foreign companies that are benefiting from the tariffs being struck down. This is why when we impose tariffs, foreign countries don't like it and foreign companies don't like it because they're the ones that don't want to have the tariffs in place. They're the ones that are suing. They're the ones that are trying to get together coalitions and groups who oppose what the president is doing. The president's fighting for American workers. He's trying to impose a trade policy that has a through line through the first Trump administration, Biden and Trump with tariffs. But it's foreign countries and companies that are suing that want these things to go away.

[D]

They are suing, but the president wasn't talking about them. The president was talking about the Supreme Court justices, who he said are unpatriotic and disloyal and swayed by foreign interests. Do you have any evidence to back up that allegation about these Supreme Court justices who, as you know, face security threats on a daily basis?

[E]

So when the foreign interests sue, they appear before the courts. They're literally arguing before the courts that they should have a different outcome. So they are. It's quite obvious that foreign interests are involved. They're helping bring lawsuits. They're arguing before the court. And these justices, six of them, agree with what a lot of these foreign interests want, which is take down the tariffs, take down the barriers, and let us import as much cheap crap as we want to the United States at the expense of American workers.

[D]

But do you need to clarify or feel compelled in any way to clarify in regard to the allegations against the justices themselves?

[E]

I'm not speaking for the president. What I'm telling you is that when the president talks about foreign influences, at a minimum, what we see is that foreign companies are involved in the coalitions, the PR effort, they're involved in the cases, and they don't want these tariffs. It's not a secret. I mean, for months, these foreign countries and companies and people in the United States who benefit from their commercial relations with them, they want these tariffs to be gone. That should be the signal for us that we're doing the right thing, that we're over the target. When the foreign countries and companies are literally arguing in court through their advocates to take it down, we know they have influence.

[D]

Well, 1,500 businesses, including Costco, have filed lawsuits to get repaid for these tariffs. But we will leave it there. James and Greer, thank you for your time this morning. We'll be right back. A lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us. We turn now to the escalating tensions between the US And Iran. The US has assembled what is by some measures, the biggest military buildup in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. As the world's largest warship also heads towards the region. But President Trump has said he'd prefer a diplomatic deal with Iran. For the latest, we go now to Tehran and the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Aragchi. Welcome to Face the nation.

[F]

Well, thank you, Margaret. Thank you so much for having me this evening.

[D]

So do you believe President Trump plans to strike Iran or is he using this threat as leverage?

[F]

Well, I'm not. I cannot judge. But one fact is there that if they want to find a resolution for Iran's peaceful nuclear program, the only way is diplomacy. And we have proved this in the past. And I believe that still there is a good chance to have a diplomatic solution which is based on a win win game. And a solution is at our reach. So there is no need for any military buildup, and military buildup cannot help it and cannot pressurize us.

[D]

Well, you said on Friday that you would have a draft proposal within two to three days. Have you gotten the supreme Leader to sign off on that proposal yet? And if so, when will you give it to envoy Steve Witkoff?

[F]

Well, we are still working on that. And we are trying to make it something which consists of elements which can accommodate both sides, concerns and interests. And we are working on those elements. And I believe that when we meet probably this Thursday in Geneva again, we can work on those elements and prepare a good text and come to a fast deal. This is my understanding. I see it quite possible.

[D]

So you have confirmed a meeting with Steve Witkoff Thursday in Geneva, but your leadership has still not signed off on the proposal, is that right?

[F]

But these are two separate things. Of course, we continue our negotiation at the same time. We are working on the elements of a deal and a draft of the text. So I hope that when we get there, we are prepared to talk and negotiate on those drafts.

[D]

Well, let me ask you this. You helped negotiate that 2015 nuclear deal under the Obama administration. How would this deal with Trump be different than that one?

[F]

Well, 10 years have passed and there is a new situation. Our nuclear program has advanced technologically, more advanced at that time. And there are, of course, more sanctions and more pressures. So I believe that a better deal than JCPOA or 2015 nuclear deal is possible. And there are elements that could be much better than the previous deal.

[D]

So, like what?

[F]

I have the experience. I have the experience of that deal. As you said, I negotiated that deal. We went into so many details, but I think right now there is no need for that much details. We can agree on basic things and we can make sure that Iran's program, nuclear program, is peaceful and would remain peaceful forever and at the same time more sanctions would be lifted.

[D]

Well, just very quickly, you're talking about nuclear. You are offering a nuclear only deal at this stage because Secretary Rubio said anything meaningful would also have to involve ballistic missiles and your support for proxies in the region.

[F]

Right now we are negotiating only nuclear and there is no other subject.

[D]

Okay. Would you be willing to allow weapons inspectors unfettered access to your nuclear sites and for American inspectors to be among them?

[F]

Well, we are a committed member of npt, Non Proliferation Treaty, and we have a safeguard agreement with the agency, International Atomic Energy Agency, and we are ready to cooperate with the agency in full according to the safeguard, and we may accept with certain conditions the additional protocol to the safeguard to the npt. And I think a full verification mechanism, full monitoring mechanism is acceptable and can be in place.

[D]

Okay, so you continue to say that your nuclear program is peaceful. And you know, there are a lot of skeptics around the world, including in the United States Congress. There's pressure on President Trump from within his own party. There were 52 Republican senators, 177 House Republicans who have called on President Trump to demand zero enrichment and full dismantlement of your nuclear program. Why should President Trump consider allowing Iran to have even the smallest bit of enrichment?

[F]

Well, first of all, enrichment is our right. We are a member of NPT and we have every right to enjoy a peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment. How we use this right is something, you know, related to us only. The enrichment is a sensitive part of our negotiation. The American team know about. They know our position, we know their position, and we have already exchanged our concerns. And I think a solution is achievable. But I'm not going to negotiate through media.

[D]

No, I understand, but we have seen very public statements from the president that he said no enrichment, and that's a red line. But when you say it's your right, okay, but you could get enriched uranium and buy it from someplace else. You know, this, you've done this. Is demanding the right to enrich on Iranian soil really worth the risk? Right now you're facing the potential destruction of your country and the regime based on the kind of military buildup we're looking at.

[F]

Well, I think as a sovereign country, we have every right to decide for ourselves by ourselves. We have developed this technology by ourselves, by our scientists, and it's very dear to us because we have paid a lot. We have paid a huge expense for that. We have been under sanctions for at least 20 years and we have Lost our scientists and we have had a war because of that. So that is now a matter of dignity and pride for Iranians. And we are not going to give it up. There is no legal reason to do that while everything is peaceful, while everything is safeguarded by the agency. While we had an agreement in the past when we remain fully committed to that and you know, it was the US who just withdrew with no justification. So we are a committed member of npt. We want to use our right. We want to have our right and to exercise that.

[D]

But you understand this could be. Make it or break it for you here. I mean, look, your air defenses were largely demolished by Israel this past summer. They dominate your military. They killed the leader of your most powerful proxy in Hezbollah. The United States bombed your underground nuclear facilities. Your economy is in shambles right now. So why do you think the regime could even survive unless you give this up?

[F]

Well, that is not the case. When you talked about the air defense and the war we had with Israel, you know, yes, we had problem with our air defense, but Israelis had also problem with their air def. And our missiles were able to hit targets inside Israel. So, you know, they started the war, but after 12 days they asked for a ceasefire, unconditional ceasefire. Why? Because they couldn't defend themselves against our missiles. So we have a very good capability of missiles and now we are even in a better situation than previous war. So as a matter of fact, we are in a powerful position to defend ourselves. We know how to defend ourselves. We did it in the, in 12 day war. And we are fully prepared to repeat that if necessary.

[D]

Well, respectfully, Israel has air superiority over Iran. But let's talk about what you're, you

[F]

are saying in terms of war, our missiles has also. Our missiles have also superiority over the space of Israel. They can hit their targets. They, they heated their targets in a very exact way and they can do it again.

[D]

Okay, well, there are 40,000American personnel in the Middle east right now. In Iran's letter to the UN Security Council, you seem to threaten them because you said America will bear full responsibility. You said you don't want war. But if that's what happens, all bases, facilities and assets of the hostile force in the region will be legitimate targets. Are you saying Iran will hit US bases in the Gulf or will you also bomb the Gulf countries that are your neighbors?

[F]

Well, I'm not going to say what we are going to do exactly. Obviously we defend ourselves. If the US Attacks us, then we have every right to defend ourselves. If the US Attacks US that is the act of aggression. What we do in response is the act of self defense and it is justifiable and legitimate. So our missiles cannot hit the American soil. So obviously we have to do something else. We have to hit, you know, the Americans base in the region. That is a fact. I am a diplomat. I'm not supposed to talk about, you know, our military plans. But what can I say is that why we should go for war when there is every possibility for a peaceful solution?

[D]

Mr. Foreign Minister, I have more questions for you, but I am out of time here. We are going to watch this diplomacy very carefully to see what happens in the coming days. Thank you for joining us. We'll be right back with a lot more information.

[A]

Thank you.

[D]

Stay with us. CBS News will have full coverage this Tuesday of President Trump's State of the Union and the Democratic Party's response. You can tune into our digital network, CBS News 24. 7 starting at 5pm and primetime coverage on CBS and Paramount plus will begin at 9pm Eastern. We'll be right back with the president of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, in a conversation with a bipartisan group of governors. Stay with us.

[E]

Thirty years ago, blinds.com broke the mold and made custom window treatments easy for everyone. Over 25 million windows later, we're celebrating

[F]

by giving our customers up to 50% off site wide during our anniversary sale.

[C]

Whether you DIY it or want a pro to handle everything from measure to

[E]

install, blinds.com has you covered. Shop online, access real design professionals and get free samples. Thank you for 30amazing years. Shop the anniversary sale now through March 11th and get up to 50% off site [e-mail].

[D]

Welcome back to FACE THE nation. We're joined now by the head of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde. The ECB sets interest rates for many countries in the European Union, which is America's largest trading partner. It's great to have you here.

[G]

Great to be here, Margaret.

[D]

Well, particularly in this moment in time where there is confusion over what happens next with global trade, I saw that the chancellor of Germany, Germany's the biggest economy in Europe. He came out and said tariffs harm everyone. The biggest poison for the economies of Europe and the U.S. is this uncertainty about tariffs. Did you hear and get any clarity from Ambassador Greer about what's going to happen next?

[G]

I'm not so sure. And I tell you, I think it's critically important that all people in the trade, both outside of the United States, but also in the United States, have clarity about the future of the relationships, because it's a bit like driving. You want to know the rules of the road before you get in the car. It's the same with trade. It's the same with investment. You want to know what the rules are and you want to avoid having to come back and claim tariffs back. Because this is just not the purpose of people doing business. They want to do business. They don't want to go into legal lawsuits. So I hope it's going to be clarified and it's going to be sufficiently thought through so that we don't have, again, more challenges and the proposals will be in compliance with the Constitution, in compliance with the law.

[D]

Well, what you just said sounded very similar to what one of the justices raised. I think it was Justice Gorsuch saying that's why there is the call to put things in law, so that there is clarity for planning ahead. I didn't hear Ambassador Greer say with any certainty that they're going to, to try to put any of these things in law, just use existing regulations is what I underheard him, what I heard him say. But he did seem certain that the existing trade deals will hold. The EU and the US do have an agreement, 15% tariff ceiling in a recent trade deal. But there's an emergency meeting about all this tomorrow. Do you see that as disruptive, that this could be in jeopardy? In fact,

[G]

you know, I'm no longer trade Minister, I used to be. So I don't know what the outcome of those meetings will be. But you know, it's not as if it was sort of straightforward. 15% across the boards. There are also exemptions, there are carve outs, there are areas for which there is no tariffs. So I think if it shakes the whole equilibrium which people in the trade had got used to because they continued trading after the April decisions and the July trade arrangement between the US and Europe. But to sort of shake it up again is going to bring about disruptions in the business for sure.

[D]

Well, when you were last here in October and I asked you about the impact of the tariffs, you said the global economy had not yet felt the pain. Did we avoid that pain? Did the consumer avoid the pain?

[G]

I don't think the consumers avoided the pain. And I think that there are many studies that are being completed now to determine what is the impact and where is the burden of tariffs. And I think that while some exporters have borne some of the brunt, most of it was borne by the US Importers and eventually the US Consumers because the US Importers have squeezed their margins A bit to absorb some of these additional cost due to tariffs. But there is a point where you don't squeeze your margin so much and you have to pass it on to the consumers. I think this is what we are beginning to see, and multiple studies and very serious people are looking into this. We are trying to look at the data ourselves to make sure what impact it has on trade and on our economies. And this is a continuous process which is clearly going to be a bit disrupted by the current development.

[D]

I want to ask you about, as a central banker, your thoughts on some of the populism we're seeing right now. You took a lead role in defending Chair Powell, Jerome Powell, here in the United States, after President Trump's Justice Department launched an investigation into him. You said it was critical to preserve the independence of central banks with full respect for the rule of law and democratic accountability. We know Powell is set to be replaced in May by Kevin Warshaw, someone you also know from your time as Trade minister. Do you believe that he personally can resist political pressure from the president?

[G]

First of all, I have enormous respect, as you know, for Powell, for Kevin Walsh and for Fed chairs in the past. And I'm very proud to receive an award tomorrow in the name of Paul Volcker. You know, for monetary policy, the rule of law is critically important, and the independence of a central bank is critically important. We have seen in history, we have seen in literature, we have seen in just anything that analyzes the activity of a central bank, be it the Fed, be it the ecb, that the independence matters a lot. Why is that? Because you don't want someone who sets interest rates, who has in charge price stability and financial stability. You don't want that person to be under political influence. And the decisions that we make generally do not impact right away. They produce an effect 6, 12, 18 months, sometimes two years down the road. In the meantime, the political life continues, and we have to be, in a way immune to that. That's why many central bankers around the world signed this support to central bank independence, as applied to Chair Powell.

[D]

It was an incredible statement because usually bankers want to stay out of that spotlight. But you see a real risk here. And there is concern about this populist wave even in France. The far right could win the French election next year. I have to ask you about these reports that you might be leaving the ECB early because of basically an insurance policy to allow for the French president to select a successor, rather than potentially a far right leader helping to select ahead.

[G]

I'm riveted to a mission. And my mission is price stability, financial stability. I want the euro, which we are custodian of, to be strong and fit for the future. I think we've achieved a lot. Inflation is at target, growth is okay, not brilliant, but resilient, 1.5% and unemployment is at the lowest level ever. But we need to consolidate all that. And my baseline is that it will take until the end of my term. And electors in any country in the world make their choices and those choices have to be respected.

[D]

So, nope, you're not answering on the leaving early, but you think it sounds like it'll take more work till the end of your eight year term. Christine Lagarre, thank you very much for your time this morning. We'll be right back. We spoke Friday with a bipartisan group of governors, Democrats Laura Kelly of Kansas and Andy Beshear of Kentucky, along with Republicans Mike Braun of Indiana and Ohio's Mike DeWine. The conversation took place before President Trump announced a new 15% global tariff to replace the those tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court. We began by asking what impact the ruling might have on their states.

[H]

I'm hopeful, optimistic that it will settle some of the issues that we have, particularly in our agricultural industry. You know, they've been hit very, very hard by these tariffs. And I'm hoping that this court decision will reverse some of those and allow them to get back to business again.

[D]

Governor Beshear, Kentucky Bourbon had been hit hard by those retaliatory tariffs. Does this ruling do much for that industry or broadly for your state?

[C]

I hope so. Tariffs are a tax on the American people. We've seen studies that show that 90% of these tariffs are being borne by American business. Those are all in our states as well as our people. We've seen parts of the economy slow down because of it. It can add 30% more cost to a major new construction project, which could slow down new jobs coming to our communities. Bourbon has been hit hard and now this is the second straight time. And this is from a state where both of our US Senators, this governor, despite being in different parties, are all against tariffs.

[D]

Governor Braun, for you. What are you seeing out in Indiana? Because we checked the stats and it looked like your auto and machinery manufacturing have lagged a bit. The Indiana Business Review says your farmers were hit hard by retaliatory tariffs. Is this going to bring relief?

[B]

So Indiana's along with Wisconsin, the two biggest states per capita manufacturing. So tariffs would have been a plus due to the industries that have been kind of hollowed out. You look at Gary, Indiana, that was the second largest city in Indiana. Steel goes overseas. I think the key is trade has to be fair and free. And from the Marshall Plan, through rebuilding the global economy, we did some things that got that out of balance. I mean, we were in a trillion dollar, give or take annual deficit in trade, 2 trillion on our fiscal account. That turns you into a debt or nation. So ideally through reciprocity you get things down and even free and fair and get back on an even playing field over those 40, 50 years. It got imbalanced and I think that's where Trump was coming from.

[D]

But the court said he over overreached.

[B]

Well, that's a, that's a constitutional issue and yes, you're going to have to deal with it.

[D]

In your state though, you said you believed this theory that it might actually help bring back some of those manufacturing jobs. Did you see that it did any of that?

[B]

Yes, it was starting. I mean, the amount of investment that's coming back to this country that whooshed out of it, that created chronic trade deficits that needs to be rectified. And you can do that through tariffs, you can do it through trade negotiations. And we were going the wrong way for a long time.

[D]

So you think this is a negative?

[B]

I think there will be other ways to continue what's already occurred. It'll be interesting with the countries they've already done deals with, whether they'll try to renege. I got a feeling a lot of them will stay put with the trade deals they put in place.

[D]

Governor DeWine, for you in Ohio. The Cleveland Fed said the tariffs drove price increases across multiple sectors in your state, including in manufacturing and including in retail. Do you believe their analysis or do you believe the President's analysis?

[A]

Well, first of all, Margaret, I don't think we know what's going to happen

[D]

now after this ruling.

[A]

You know, look, the President I'm sure is going to look for any way he can to basically go back and do this.

[D]

He pretty much said that one of

[A]

the dissenters said he had the authority to do it. We'll have to see. So I don't think anybody knows. It's been mixed for us. I think, you know, for agriculture, particularly soybeans, for example, it was not, that was not helpful. But we are, we are a manufacturing state. And I think one of the things that we learned, all of us who were governors at the time during COVID is that the supply chains, we got to make more. We're not, we're broken. We have to make more things back here in the United States. But I think that's a general feeling of the, of the public. So I think as, as a manufacturing state, you know, we're seeing some new investment coming in. It's hard to tell sometimes. Do you attribute it to the fact that they now have to be investing more and don't want to have the tariffs or not? But my feeling is that we're getting a lot that's coming in because of, frankly, because of those tariffs.

[C]

Margaret, my hope is that this decision stops the chaos in how these tariffs are being implemented because business needs stability, trade needs stability. And if a president can wield this authority that he was trying to, then you see the chaos we've seen where we had first across the board, then reciprocal tariffs, then industry specific tariffs, then we had tariffs on a country for non economic reasons. What this should say is the President has to go to Congress, we have former members of Congress here, and actually work it through in a thoughtful way.

[H]

And what I'd like to see is I do think there are ways that the President can work around this and get where he wants to go on tariffs. I'm hoping, though, that the approach will be, what about his tariff policy before worked in the manufacturing arena, for instance. But where did it not work? And be very careful when you're looking at what impact it has on small businesses and agriculture. So I hope whatever comes next is more thoughtful.

[D]

I want to ask you about another big issue many of you are facing, and that is how to deal with immigration and immigration policy as it affects your state. Governor Kelly, you're a Democrat, but you did sign a bill to get state law enforcement to work with federal authorities when it comes to immigration enforcement. And one of the complaints is often that having local authorities involved is a drain on their resources or it's a distraction for them. Why isn't that the case in your state?

[H]

Oh, I didn't say it wasn't. We haven't.

[D]

You think that cooperation is a drain on locals?

[H]

I think when ICE comes into your state, that it creates some problems and creates some problems for your local law enforcement because it's sort of a who's on first, who's in charge here. And I think that's been a problem. My approach has always been, you know, when we work with the federal government on anything, whether it's disaster relief or with our National Guard, you know, we, we look for ways to cooperate and partner. That's what we want to see. You know, if they're going to come in and Try to do enforcement, immigration enforcement in our state.

[D]

Governor Beshear, in your state, the Republican legislators want to pass a bill to force the state to work with ice. As I understand it, you're not a fan of this idea.

[C]

We'll see what happens in my state legislature. Because at the end of, I think last week, two of our Republican senators got up on the Senate floor and talked about how they thought this immigration enforcement had gone too far. For me, I believe that border security is national security and we needed to tighten our borders. We also have to enforce our laws as a nation. But how we do it shows our humanity or our lack thereof. Shackling people's legs, putting them in cages that we would not put animals in is wrong.

[D]

Where have you seen that?

[C]

Well, you see it in the pictures coming out of the Alligator, Alcatraz or other facilities. We read about kids getting sick, getting the health care they need in the Texas facility. But the tactics of ICE show that there is a significant training problem. Far too aggressive. And there is now an American body count. They believe they can go into an American citizen's home with just an administrative warrant. They cannot. So I've called for the retraining of all ICE agents. And in the meantime, if they think there's a violent criminal in Kentucky illegally, send us his or her name. We'll go get them.

[D]

You were talking there about administrative versus judicial warrants and the ability to enter. Do you then appreciate what's happening here in Washington with Democrats cutting off some of that short term funding for homeland security on that issue along with others?

[C]

I do. And I wish we didn't have to be at this point, but we have an American body count. We have at least two ICE agents that are being investigated for perjury. We have others, Americans that have been injured or hurt that shouldn't have been. I was the top law enforcement official in Kentucky. I've never seen a law enforcement enforcement agencies, state, local or federal act with the same tactics that ICE does. And these are on our streets, these are in our cities.

[D]

They would argue that the amount of immigration was at such unprecedented levels that new operational things had to be adapted. That's what the administration argues, right? That they have to do the tough business now. You're not buying it?

[C]

Watch the videos. This is not how law enforcement acts. This is not respecting our rights as Americans. It's wrong.

[D]

Governor DeWine in Ohio, your state has been the focus of the Trump vance campaign during 2024 and their administration now, particularly the Haitians that you have tens of thousands in the state of Ohio, you said this week ICE has not been clear on when they're going to surge to your state. Did you bring that up when you were at the White House?

[A]

I did not. I really didn't have the opportunity to do that. Look, Margaret, my position has been very clear in regard to TPS for Haitians.

[D]

Temporary Protected Status.

[A]

Yes.

[D]

Which the President is trying to revoke.

[A]

Yeah. I think the policy to revoke that is wrong. I think there's a consensus in this country, as we all have said, let's get rid of the violent offenders, get them out of here. I think there's a consensus behind the need to do. And I think the President gets high marks for doing that on the border. But once you get beyond that, I don't think there's a consensus for taking people who are working, who are supporting their family. And we've kind of seen it almost in a micro way with the Haitian community that's come into Springfield. Springfield is an industrial city, manufacturing city that was down. It has been coming back. And frankly, one of the reasons it's coming back is because of the Haitians who are working there. These are people who, if you talk to the employers, they were filling jobs that were not being able to be filled in any other way. So it's been a big boost to the economy. So if one day that TPS is taken away, no employer can hire them anymore. And so you got all these people who are unemployed. So I think the policy there is wrong. If I could just say this, I think that this is a real opportunity for the President in regard to immigration. Probably after the election. After the election. Because nothing's going to get done before

[D]

the midterms of 2026.

[A]

That's right. I think the President has a chance to do something that no president has done for four decades if he would take that opportunity. And I think after the election he'll have a chance.

[D]

Governor Braun, Indiana also had exceptionally high levels of immigration in recent years. When we checked the data, according to the Census Bureau, nearly 10% of your labor, labor force are immigrants. What are the President's policies doing? Are you having a similar experience to Governor DeWine?

[B]

So Indiana, among the peer states, has the lowest unemployment rate and we've got the highest economic growth rate, too. That's due to certain policies. But let's get back to the border. It was the same legislative template under the prior administration that encouraged tens of millions to come into the country. So just like when we were talking about the trade issues, go back to the source of why it occurred here, it was bad policy, calculated, I think, in a very political way to maybe think it's going to benefit you down the road electorally. Put that aside. That's a whole nother issue, I think.

[D]

Sorry, just to be clear here, you're not talking about illegal people who cannot vote?

[B]

No, I'm talking about how the census is determined, how your congressional districts are put together. All I can tell you, it was a mess in those four years. And the same legislative template was in place during the Biden administration that the Trump administration has used. I think everybody agrees that we've got to have border security. And what we're hearing here is that immigration is definitely important, legal immigration. And the country was built upon immigrants. And when you're in a state like ours where you're constantly looking for workforce need to do it. There was even a conversation in an executive session at the NGA about governors getting more involved in work permits and bringing people in coordinated. You know, I think that's a good place.

[D]

But just to put a button on it, because I don't want us to speak past each other. What Governor DeWine was talking about was legal immigration and people with legal status, temporary protected status, not people who were.

[B]

No, I know that. And I think we all agree on legal immigration. All I'm citing.

[D]

But you would like to keep that temporary protected status.

[B]

If that was something that was aimed at a particular workforce need, yes, it occurred. So I think you have to respect it. But I think it was all part of a really kind of chaotic approach that allowed a lot of illegal immigration to come across. That's what we're dealing now with, ICE enforcement. And I agree, too. That's got to be done in a. And that has humanity to it.

[D]

You can catch our full conversation with the governors on our website and our YouTube page. We'll be back in a moment. Some breaking news now. The U.S. olympic men's hockey team bested Canada in overtime 2 to 1 to claim the gold medal for the first time in that event since 1980. That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week for Face the Nation, I'm Margaret. Margaret Brennan. Today's guests were Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi, US Trade Representative, Ambassador Jamison Greer, European Central Bank President Christine LaGarde, Kansas Democratic Governor Laura Kelly, Kentucky Democratic Governor Andy Beshear, Indiana Republican Governor Mike Braun, and Ohio Republican Governor Mike DeWine. The senior executive producer of Face the Nation is Mary Hager, and the executive producer producer is Anne Hsu this broadcast was directed by Shelly Schwartz. Face the Nation originates from CBS News in Washington. For more, we're [e-mail] and on YouTube. We're also rebroadcast on our CBS News 24. 7 streaming network at 12:30 on Sundays. And we're available through our apps CBS News and Paramount.

[A]

Plus Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone. Paying Big Wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good

[D]

in this world, stop with Mint.

[A]

You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month.

[D]

Of course, if you enjoy overpaying.

[A]

No judgments. But that's weird.

[D]

Okay, one judgment anyway.

[A]

Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment

[D]

of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full [e-mail] I'm back.

[G]

I'm really back.

[B]

School Spirits return.

[C]

Why am I here?

[E]

Not dead, right?

[D]

This place is an absolute death trap.

[E]

We need to get out of here now.

[B]

School Spirits new season now streaming only on Paramount Plus.