B (3:26)

Oh, yeah, good morning.

A (3:29)

Well, Director, President Trump sent a letter to Congress on Friday saying a few things. One, that the conflict with Iran, the cease fire has been extended. He also said the hostilities have been terminated. He also said the threat posed by Iran remains significant and the force posture will continue to be updated. Then overnight, we saw the President said Iran has not yet paid a big enough price to for what they've done to humanity. What exactly is the message to the market?

B (4:03)

Right. Well, I think the market has been pretty consistent. The fact is that what the president is seeing is that the blockade is working. It's putting an enormous amount of pressure on Iran. And Iran's threats to put mines in the straits have even made it so that humanitarian aid that, of course, we would let through to Iran, that there are a lot of those ship captains that are wary of going to Iranian ports because they're worried about where the Iranians have put the mines. And so, you know, I go down to the Sit Room many times a week and get briefed on what's going on in Iran. And they're an economy that's really on the precipice of extreme calamity. They are having a hyperinflation. They're starting to have hunger. The bottom line is that the pressure on the great American people because of these people who are, like, really intent on American and Israeli destruction with their nuclear weapons are still in power. One last thing, Margaret, I don't know if you noticed, but the UN Human rights folks came out this week condemning Iran because they're killing people who are trying to stand up to this regime that's potentially, you know, causing starvation and even famine.

A (5:14)

So you said the blockade is still on. A blockade is an act of war. Are we at war with Iran?

B (5:21)

Iran shut down the straits, Iran shut down the straits, and the only ones they were letting through were Iranian ships. And President Trump didn't think that was acceptable.

A (5:31)

So we are still at war with Iran.

B (5:36)

You know, I don't know what the definition of war is when we're not shooting and we're negotiating and they're under a lot of pressure. There's no reason, I think, right now to do anything other than what we're doing. The fact is that that regime has destroyed the country. Let me put perspective in 1978, before the Ayatollah came in. Then the per capita GDP in Iran was about the same as for Japan and Italy. Now it's about the same as for Honduras.

A (6:02)

Right.

B (6:02)

So they've run that country into the ground and that's before the straits were closed. So it's really, really a country that's on the rocks.

A (6:09)

Sure. And we're negotiating with them. But so we're going into week 10. I'm wondering what economic modeling you have done here. Because the President had originally said the war was going to last four to six weeks. We are now at the a national average gas price of $4.45 a gallon. Can we end the conflict without taking back the Strait of Hormuz?

B (6:34)

Well, what's going on right now is that we're doing an all of the above approach to get energy to Americans and increase energy production around the world. And I think if you look out into the future, what people are saying. So as an example, we waived the Jones Act. The price in the US is $10 a barrel less than it is on the world and in the world exchanges at all. The west coast was buying world price of oil, but now they're buying US price of oil. So we've made an enormous number of strides to reduce the short term disruption.

A (7:04)

Well, the bank of America came out with a report this week that says the gas price spike has cost consumers $19 billion. They say gas prices have canceled out nearly half of the increase in expected tax refunds. Goldman Sachs concurs, saying the drag will offset the benefits from that tax bill the White House had championed. Do you agree with that analysis?

B (7:27)

No, that analysis is incorrect. Like, think about it this way. 153 million people have filed taxes already and the average tax refund is $3,600. 53 million people have benefited from no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security. For the no tax on tips and Social Security, that exempts between 7 and $8,000 from taxation for those people. And for the no tax on overtime, it's like closer to 5,000. And so these are really, really big numbers. And if people look at their gas bills, of course they're higher. And we're doing everything we can to make the temporary increase as small as possible. But you know, and then finally there's the economic growth component. Real incomes are growing and real incomes, when they adjust for inflation include the price. Real incomes shrunk for almost eight years under Obama, they shrunk under Biden, and they're rising now, despite the short term increase in gas prices.

A (8:22)

Well, we did see an increase in the pce. But just to clarify, the tax law that the President signed doesn't eliminate taxes on Social Security. It gives seniors an enhanced standard deduction through the end of 2028. But let me ask you about the news on Spirit Airlines.

B (8:38)

That makes it so most people aren't covered. Yeah, I want to talk about Spirit. I was just going to say that makes it so most people. So you're right. It's a technical matter, but it has the effect that we discuss.

A (8:49)

So Spirit Airlines ceased operations as we said at the top of the program. I know the White House was trying to craft an 11th hour rescue plan. What happened and do you have a sense of the broader economic impact?

B (9:03)

Oh, sure. You know, it's something that I was very much involved in. We were aware that because the merger between JetBlue and Spirit was canceled unwisely by the Biden administration, that Spirit sadly was on the ropes when we looked at their books, that basically the creditors were going to liquidate them and, you know, try to sell their assets so that they could get some of the money back that they had lent them. And there were some authorities that were explored to see if we could help them, you know, get a lifeline. And in the end, the legal, legal guys decided that those authorities wouldn't apply in this situation. Meanwhile, while that was being investigated, Secretary Duffy and I talked to the other airlines to make sure that they were helping people who were stranded by Spirit get home and to get home basically at much lower prices than the normal fares that they would charge. So the company, in fact American and United and Southwest have all said that they're going to help the passengers of Spirit get home.

A (10:02)

So you mentioned past financial troubles. Unquestionably, Spirit did have them for many years, but they did have that restructuring deal with bondholders back in March. In the statement Spirit released extended explaining why they were shutting down. They said, quote, the sudden and sustained rise in fuel prices in recent weeks ultimately has left us with no alternative. Are other industries also at risk of collapse or other major companies due to this energy shock?

B (10:31)

Well, don't forget that Spirit airlines was chapter 11 twice because they basically didn't have a business that was working. That's right. And the other airlines are still operating. I just flew out here to discuss these matters at the Milken Conference in la. You know, on United Airlines. And the other airlines are operating what they've done because they have thought ahead way more than the management of Spirit is hedge their jet fuel purchases and so on so that energy short term energy shocks don't have a big effect on their business. Certainly it'll affect profits for the airlines for a quarter or so, but their very, very healthy right now.

A (11:12)

Kevin Hassett, we'll let you get back to work. Thank you for joining us this morning. FACE THE NATION will be back in a minute. We go now to Neel Kashkari, who is the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve bank of Minneapolis. Good morning.

C (11:28)

Good morning, Margaret.

A (11:30)

So the Federal Reserve kept interest rates unchanged this past week and on Wednesday you were one of three regional presidents who indicated that future rate cuts may not be appropriate and a hike could even be in the cards. You dissented there. Are you saying that the financial markets and the White House should no longer expect the Fed to cut rates?

C (11:55)

I think we all need to be open minded about where interest rates are going because there's so much uncertainty coming out of the Middle East. You know, I think I'm very focused and many of my colleagues are. What happens in Iran, how long the Strait of Hormuz is closed. And the longer it's closed, the higher likely energy prices and fertilizer prices will go, the bigger impact it's going to have on inflation here in America. And then we at the Fed have to take that on board. And so I was simply saying that there's so much uncertainty about the outlook in the Middle east right now, I don't feel comfortable signaling that a rate cut is in the cards. You know, we might in worse scenarios we might have to go the other direction.

A (12:35)

I know you were just listening to Kevin Hassett, the president's economic adviser. He was not directly answering the question of what comes next, but he was painting a picture of continued tension. And I wonder now, since we're in week 10 of this tension, however it's defined, how are you going to be able to judge the inflation shock over the next few weeks until you get to that June meeting?

C (13:03)

Well, I'll give you an example. So the price effect, the energy effect in energy prices from the Iran conflict is already by some measures as big or larger than when Russia invaded Ukraine. So it's already having a big effect and we're seeing it. You mentioned the PCE data. We're already seeing it in the inflation numbers here at home. I talked to the CEO of a global company headquartered in Minnesota that has supply chains all around the world just last week and they have estimated that even if the strait reopened today, it would probably take six months for their supply chains to return to something like normal. So I think for the Fed, we are going to have to watch what happens in the Middle east and the inflation data very carefully. That's going to have to guide us. But if it's a six month process for inflation returning to normal or something like normal, in the best case scenario, I'm also very concerned about something that's not the best case scenario and what that might do to prices here at home.

A (14:00)

So we'll hear from Chevron's CEO later in the program. He also talks about just the many, many factors that are likely to keep energy prices elevated for some time. In your letter that you published explaining why you dissented, you also said the labor market has been in a, quote, low hire, low fire environment for some time. Right now we're seeing some corporate layoffs underway. And I wonder what the dynamic is that you think is playing out and how the energy shock is going to play into it.

C (14:33)

Well, so far recently, the labor market has shown some signs of stabilization. So if you look at unemployment claims and new unemployment claims, they're very low. The unemployment rate has been at around 4.3%. It's bounced around a little bit for the last six months. So it seems like mostly the labor market is moving sideways. But the bigger the inflation shock that comes out of the Middle east, the more that's going to force Americans to cut back in their spending because they have to pay for gas, for example, so they'll cut back other spending that can have a way of tamping down economic growth. That even could translate into some weakness in the labor market. So at this moment, the labor market seems like it's okay. But if this conflict is prolonged or if it gets much worse from here, then I think that could be a real downward shift to the growth trajectory of the US Economy. And it'll be uneven on who gets affected by that, unfortunately.

A (15:25)

When you say prolonged, what do you mean by that? We're in week 10.

C (15:30)

Well, I mean, could it go on for months? Could it go on for the end of the year? I just don't know. I'm not a foreign policy expert, but we're watching very carefully and that, you know, the challenge the Fed is facing right now is really about uncertainty of the outlook for inflation, which stems back to what happens in the Middle East. And it seems like there's a great deal of uncertainty about the path ahead. From what I can read, I want

A (15:53)

to ask you about what's happening with the Fed as an institution. The Senate Banking Committee voted to Advance Kevin Warsh's nomination as Federal Reserve Chair. He is expected to be confirmed in mid May. During his testimony, he said the Fed has mishandled inflation over the past few years. And he said the Fed needs a, quote, serious shaking up with a good family fight. Do you agree with that? There needs to be a good family fight and a change of how you do business.

C (16:24)

Well, I think we're all looking forward to Kevin concluding his confirmation process. We look forward to working with him and hearing his ideas. Some of the things that he's talked about, I think we are would welcome an examination of how we communicate this thing that we call the dot plot he's talked about. I think many of us would like to examine that there are things about the balance sheet and how we use the balance sheet. I think those are also I think we would welcome a fresh examination of some of these policies. And so I think someone coming in and saying, hey, let's reexamine how we use some of our tools. I think those are good discussions to have. I don't think we'd be physically fighting. I think that we'd have robust discussions over the benefits and the cost of these various tools. And I think that that would be worthwhile to have.

A (17:08)

Or how you measure inflation.

C (17:12)

Well, I think that there are many different ways of measuring inflation. He has talked about in his confirmation hearing, some of his preferred measures. We are always looking at different ways of measuring inflation. And in different moments, certain measures seem like they do a better job than others. And so I think we need to examine all of those options dispassionately and figure out what is the best measurement tool going forward.

A (17:32)

Quickly. The national debt is now larger than the US economy. It's exceeds 100% of GDP. Going towards a record here. What risk does that pose?

C (17:45)

Well, no one knows, you know, how big is the danger zone and when it's going to actually trigger some kind of a crisis. If you look, I know you know this. If you look at the CBO's forecast for where the debt is going, it's absolutely headed to an unsustainable level. Ultimately, this is the job of our fiscal policymakers, Congress and the executive branch to come together and put us on a sound fiscal trajectory, which we're not on right now. I don't see an immediate crisis brewing. But at some point it's going to be a problem and ultimately our political system needs to address it.

A (18:16)

Neel Kashkari, thank you for sharing your insight this morning. And we'll be right back with a Lot more. Face the Nation. Stay with us. President Trump met with oil executives this past Tuesday at the White House. And we spoke to one of the attendees, the chairman and CEO of Chevron, Mike Wirth, a few days prior to that meeting. And we asked him to describe the global energy shock we're all experiencing.

D (18:38)

The way I would frame it is the energy system has lost an incredible amount of flexibility. The global economy consumes about 100 million barrels of oil every day. A barrel is 42 gallons. About 20% of that moves through the Strait of Hormuz. That's been significantly disrupted. Normally, the energy system has shock absorbers in it. So we have inventory in tanks, at facilities, we've got inventory on the water, in ships, we've got inventory in strategic reserves. All of those have been pulled down over the last couple of months as these events have unfolded. And what it's done is it's taken those shock absorbers and made them much less effective in the system. And so disruptions normally are met by moving these inventories around. And price response, response can be muted. As the shock absorbers are withdrawn, the shocks translate a little bit more directly. And so I think what he's referring to is we're in a period where there's been significant supply taken out of the system, and we are facing this upward pressure on prices and volatility that is manifest itself thus far and likely

A (19:52)

to continue if there is negotiated end to the war. Do prices come down or is just a truce enough to give relief?

D (20:02)

Well, what's really needed is for flow to resume through the Strait of Hormuz. You can't take 20% of the energy out of the system, and some of it's finding its way around to the Red Sea. But there's still a substantial amount of world energy supply that is not able to flow. And so that's the key thing, is to restore that flow. It allows markets to begin to rebuild these inventories. It allows us to get products to where they're needed and to alleviate some of the pressure. But that all will take time. It's a world where we got logistics of ships and pipelines and moving things around to markets around the world. And so that's why I say I think it's going to be with us for some time. Because even if the Strait were to open today, getting supplies to where they're needed and resuming the normal functioning of the system is going to take some time.

A (20:50)

It's not just the strait. 12 refiners in the Middle east were hit by a Missile or a drone attack, according to Clearview Energy. So the infrastructure itself has been damaged. How long does it take to get production back as well?

D (21:05)

Well, it's going to take in some cases weeks and months, in some cases years. There have been oil fields that have been just shut in because there's no place to store the oil. Sometimes these fields, it's not like turning the tap on your faucet. These are complex reservoirs with a lot of subsurface dynamics. So those have to be brought back careful. There's been damage to upstream, midstream and downstream infrastructure like refineries.

A (21:31)

When it comes to the price, when we look at what's happening out there on the markets, that's one thing. That's traders placing bets. The American people are looking at the cost when they gas up their car. When will things return to pre. February 28 and the start of this conflict?

D (21:50)

Yeah. One of the things I've Learned in over 40 years in this industry is predicting price is extremely difficult. Even in normal times, markets can surprise you. This is not a normal time. The dynamics that are affecting supply are quite unusual. The potential for that to flow through into the economy and maybe slow demand is, I think, increasing.

A (22:13)

People use less gas, you're saying, because

D (22:14)

of the high speed. Certain parts of the world, it's not just gas, it's LPG for cooking in South Asia, it is jet fuel in Europe. A number of products are becoming very short in supply. Behavior changes in a couple of ways. One, people will use less energy. Second one is people will hoard energy. Back in the 70s, I recall during the embargo of the US in my family, we would drive around with a car as full as we possibly could normally. People drive around, they're comfortable with a half a tank or a quarter tank of gas. And so you'll see people will hold onto supplies that otherwise they might not. They may use less. And so predicting both demand and supply in a market that's this dynamic is very difficult. I think the key thing is, as I said before, the shock absorbers being drained out of the system, which means there's this upward pressure on price because supply is getting tighter and the ability to resupply is getting more difficult. And that increases the likelihood of volatility as well.

A (23:17)

So we can't say that gas prices have peaked, for example.

D (23:20)

I think it's very hard to say that because you have to make a bunch of assumptions about that, and it depends on what you assume.

A (23:28)

We'll be back with more of our conversation with Chevron. CEO Mike Wirth in a moment. Stay with us. Welcome back to FACE THE nation. Here's more now of our conversation with Chevron CEO Mike Wirth. We're reading about airports running out of jet fuel. What's the reality there? What is the supply and what does that mean for Americans who might want to travel?

C (23:52)

Yeah.

D (23:52)

Inventories of jet fuel in certain parts of the world were at seasonally relatively low levels before the conflict began. The Middle east refiners are significant exporters of jet fuel, particularly to Europe, where 75% of Europe's imported jet fuel tends to come from those refineries. It's not flowing today. So we are seeing jet fuel tighten very quickly in Europe, in Asia, and we're seeing airlines announced adjustments to their flight schedules. We're seeing it flow through into fares. I think that's one of the first places it'll be felt most broadly. I mean, we've seen some upward pressure on gasoline prices now. I think aviation is clearly an area where it's going to probably get worse over the next few weeks.

A (24:34)

Get worse over the next few weeks. But that still, that has a lag effect. I mean, what you're saying is if you're buying a trip to Europe, expect to pay a heck of a lot more, even if it's months from now.

D (24:46)

Yeah. Again, I can't predict how the airlines are going to price their product, but I think the upward pressure that they're seeing on prices and the tightness in the market is likely to lead to further route optimization. And so flights may not be as abundant as they otherwise would have been. I think planes will probably be more full than they would have been. And yes, fares could be higher.

A (25:08)

You're saying we don't know enough to actually make hard predictions. That's what I hear you saying.

D (25:13)

Yeah. There's kind of an old axiom that I can tell you the price, I just can't tell you when. It's very difficult to predict these things because markets are dynamic. They can respond to things that we don't anticipate. And the one reality is that these shock absorbers are not as effective as you get down to lower levels of inventory. And so I think that's going to be with us for a period of time.

A (25:38)

So the longer the conflict or this period we're in without resolution, it's going to continue to.

D (25:45)

I think it can extend these market effects.

A (25:48)

Can you just turn on production at a moment's notice? What difference does this make to you?

D (25:55)

Yeah, you can't turn on production at a moment's notice. It takes engineering, it takes supply chains. It takes contracts and workers moving and being mobilized. So it takes time to bring new production into the market. Our company had record production in the US last year, 2 million barrels a day. A million barrels a day in the Permian. We're going to grow 7 to 10% again this year. So we do have plans underway to deliver more oil to the market.

A (26:21)

So the energy industry famously was at odds with the last administration, and vice versa. In this administration, are you and your fellow CEOs calling the white House and saying you're being too optimistic? Are you telling them how much strain there is right now?

D (26:43)

Well, one thing I will say is this is an administration that engages the business community very regularly, and it's across the board from all different departments within the government. They seek dialogue, they seek input, and they're available and accessible in a way that I think is very good, particularly at a time like this. We engage in discussions with them on a regular basis about the situation. I had discussions as recently as today about the things we're doing to try to ensure reliable supplies into US Markets. And so, yes, we speak on a fairly regular basis.

A (27:16)

But you feel you can be honest and say, absolutely, because the president is telling the American people gas prices aren't that high. His cabinet is telling the American people that prices are about to come down. You're telling me that's not that certain at all?

D (27:31)

Well, yeah, I'm telling you the risks kind of skew to the upside right

A (27:35)

now, and they know that.

D (27:36)

And the opportunity is for us to see flow resume through the Strait and then at the same time pursue these policies, which I think the administration really does have as a priority to continue to encourage investment in infrastructure in our economy.

A (27:52)

The IMF director recently told us that this is going to last likely through 2026. You would say that's a fair assessment?

D (28:00)

Well, this is a significant shock to the system. It is reorienting trade flows, logistics, ships. The entire system is in a state of disequilibrium right now that has emerged over the last several weeks. And as we get to a resolution at some point in time to establish a new equilibrium means you're going to have to resume flows. You're going to have to restart fields to our earlier discussion. You're going to have to get ships repositioned in places that are optimal to established supply. So it will take some time. It's not a light switch, as you said.

A (28:37)

And the full conversation was taped on April 23rd. It's available on our YouTube page on our website facethenation.com we'll be right back.

E (28:48)

Hi. My name is Lloyd Lockridge and I'm the host of a new podcast from Odyssey called Family Lore. In this podcast, I'm going to have people on to tell unusual and sometimes far fetched stories about their families.

A (29:00)

I've heard my whole life that she invented the margarita.

E (29:02)

And then we're going to investigate those stories and find out how much of it is true. He gets a patent one month before the Wright brothers. Oh my God. Please follow and listen to Family Lore, an Odyssey podcast, available now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your shows.

A (29:20)

We go now to Colorado Democratic Congressman Jason Crow, who's joining us from Sedona, Arizona, where He's attending the McCain Incident Institute forum. Good morning to you.

E (29:29)

Hi. Good morning, Margaret.

A (29:31)

So I want to ask you about some developing news. We learned late Friday that there was a decision made by Secretary Hegseth and the two Republican chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees are objecting to it. They are very concerned by Hegseth's order to withdraw a US Brigade from Germany. They said it was not coordinated with Congress. And yesterday, President Trump said on top of the 5,000 that was announced, he wants to pull even more troops out of Germany. What is the effect of doing so?

E (30:04)

Well, first of all, it's not just a lack of coordination or just Congress's preference that we want this to be on. This is law. There's actually law in place that both the House and the Senate passed on a bipartisan basis that sets certain conditions for movement of our troops around Europe. And we passed these laws out of grave concern for rhetoric by this administration in the past that they were going to draw down our presence in Europe, which is one of the most important troop footprints we have in the world, that helps secure Europe, helps secure our economy, helps protect the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who live and work on the continent. So we are enforcing the law and the requirements. Second is it appears as though this decision was made because Donald Trump was upset by a comment made by the German chancellor. Like he is getting emotional and angry about this and he's making really consequential troop decision, troop movement decisions based upon, you know, being upset by the comments of a foreign leader, which is no way to run a foreign policy. So we're looking into it and we're going to make sure that any movements, if they do occur, are actually in our interest.

A (31:11)

You were talking about the chancellor of Germany Saying that a whole nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership. I mean, that's a pretty strong statement from an ally. But in regard to pulling troops out of that country, we'll still have at least 30,000 troops or so in Germany. Isn't that still within the legal framework? I believe that the floor is set to 76,000 in Europe, but the president can go below it if he certifies to Congress it's in the national interest. Why do you think there is a violation?

E (31:45)

Well, that's exactly the assessment we have to go through. You know, what we know is that the president is making a decision based upon a comment that he didn't like by a foreign leader. So that alone is very concerning to us. It should be concerning to every American that you have the President of the United States, a commander in chief, who's going to move thousands of troops around just to get back at a foreign leader for a comment that he doesn't like. But I'm not presumptively against troop movements. Like, if we need to move troops or brigades around to respond to national security issues, we should by all means do that. That's the prerogative of the commander in chief. When I was in the military, we would move forces around all the time. My point is we actually have to make sure that this is being done according to the risks that our forces are facing, that it's being done on the proper timeline because moving troops and units around is very risky and exposes them to a variety of risks, and that it's in the best interest of the United States. And right now, sitting here, what we know is that this isn't a decision that's driven by the best interests of our troops and Americans. It's a decision based upon the emotion of Donald Trump.

A (32:50)

Do you think the US can end the war or whatever we're in with Iran right now without clearing that Strait of Hormuz? Do you expect a return to combat?

E (33:00)

Well, first of all, it's Iran that's blockading the Strait of Hormuz. We're blockading their blockades. I think the real question that we should all be asking is, does America really want to continue to have conflict in the Middle east for another 5, 10, 20 years? The problem is we have.

A (33:17)

Why would it go that way?

E (33:19)

We have confused as a nation, tactics versus strategy. Most of the conversation around Iran is about tactics. Should we blockade? How do we counter drones? Who is moving oil around where? What is our strategy? Right. We spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Replace the Taliban with the Taliban in Iraq, to replace Saddam Hussein with isis. We are not good at having off ramps and accomplishing large strategic decisions in the Middle East. Right. And this is just yet another example of that. So let's actually talk strategy and what it is we're trying to accomplish here instead of having a constant, constant discussion around blockades.

A (34:02)

So when Secretary Hegseth was before your committee this week and he was asking for this one and a half trillion dollar budget request, are Democrats gonna say no until they get those answers or do you have to fund the troops who are in harm's way?

E (34:14)

Well, I'm just gonna say no, regardless of what's going on in one area because we don't need that money. Right. The Department of Defense has never passed an audit, never in the history of that department is the only government agency in the US Government.

A (34:30)

Don't you need to restock munitions?

E (34:31)

Tell us how they're spending money? We have already funded munition stockpiles amounts. And what I am not going to do is continue the pattern like we continue to Iraq in Afghanistan of throwing good money after bad and constantly funding conflicts that never end and will not end up in a good result for America. That is exactly what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. And somebody has to say enough is enough. Somebody has to step up and say we're just not gonna do it. And a president that hasn't told us what the strategy is, hasn't come to Congress for authorization, hasn't even articulated to the American people what he's trying to accomplish. I am not going to write blank checks to have that cycle continue. I'm not gonna do it.

A (35:16)

I wanna ask you about another decision. Section 702 is that warrantless surveillance program that's used to collect communications of foreigners. Fraud when they're including when they're interacting with Americans. Your Democratic colleague Jim Himes, who is in that powerful position on House intelligence, called it the most important foreign intelligence tool America has. He said he has seen no evidence that the Trump administration is misusing it. Yet you have voted no on a long term extension. What evidence do you have of abuse or violations of it?

E (35:52)

Well, here's the problem we have. Jim Himes is right. This is an incredibly important tool that helps prevent terrorist attacks. It gives us intelligence on our adversaries that helps protect our troops, which is why I've always supported it. But right now, in the last year, we have seen a president that routinely ignores legal decisions. You know, they are ignoring more than a third of court rulings against them routinely violating the law. Health. In February, they actually politicized doj and they tried to put me in prison. They tried to indict me and other members of Congress simply for stating what the law is and what the obligation of our service members are.

A (36:27)

But your committee chair is begging for it to be extended and saying there's no misuse of it.

E (36:33)

What I am saying is I am not willing to give a very long Runway to this administration on a very powerful intelligence tool when they have routinely said, shown to the American people and to us that they violate the law and they don't respect the law. I will do a short term extension and then we will oversee that program and we will guarantee I will look at it hard every single month. And if they're abusing it, if they're strained from the law, then we pull it back. But giving them a three year Runway gets rid of all of our leverage. If we give them a three year reauthorization, what are we going to do if a year from now, 18 months from now, they say start violating the program and abusing it, we have no recourse.

A (37:12)

Well, right now it goes until June 12th with this short term extension. Jason Crow, thank you, Congressman, for joining us this morning. We'll be back in a moment. Last week In a 6, 3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional map that had been gerrymandered to create a second majority black district. The three liberal justices dissented, saying the ruling would, quote, eviscerate a section of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights act, while conservatives in the majority said the decision updated its legal framework. Reverend Raphael Warnock, Democratic senator from the state of Georgia, joins us this morning from Atlanta. Welcome back to the program.

F (37:55)

Good morning.

A (37:56)

So our CBS News legal analyst described this decision as narrowing the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Effectively, it means it's now going to be harder to bring any lawsuits claiming that gerrymandering discriminates along racial lines unless there is proof of that intent. Why do you call that a defeat for American democracy?

F (38:21)

Margaret, let's be clear. What happened this week is nothing less than a massive and devastating blow, not only to our democracy, but particularly to people of color in the South. This question about intent is on its head, misleading and it ignores our history. We had 100 years after the 15th amendment was passed, which on paper gave black people the right to vote, but with supposedly or putatively race neutral methods. For 100 years, the right to vote was denied. But in more recent history, the Supreme Court. This same conservative supreme court hobbled section five of the Voting Rights act in 2013 with Shelby versus Holder. Since then, we've seen the racial turnout gap get wider and wider, not smaller, and it has grown twice as fast in the states that used to be under section 5. We will see a devastating impact as a result of this. And now more than ever, we've got to stand up and fight for our democracy.

A (39:35)

But as you just said, the Voting Rights act has been weighed by the court multiple times, including back in 2013. But when it was originally written, there were things in place that don't exist now. Right? There was a poll tax in Southern states. The law required nine of those states to go get federal approval or pre clearance before they changed their own voting rules. Congress in the 80s updated this law. Are you of the opinion that the law needs to stand as it was originally written, or does Congress now need to do some work to update it?

F (40:15)

Listen, I know that there are those who are tired of the remedy. I'm tired of racism. I think it's a strange position to be more concerned about the medicine than you are about the malady in that recent history. Roberts wrote in 2013, when they gutted Section 5, that this racial turnout gap had gone away. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she said, look, getting rid of the protections of the voting rights law in this moment, it's like getting rid of your umbrella in the midst of a rainstorm because you're not getting wet. And since then, again, since then, everybody's entitled to their own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts. Since then, the racial voter turnout has grown larger and twice as larger, twice as large in the states that were under Section five. And there's a reason for that, Margaret. Since they removed the protections of Section 5, states that used to play old games, they're playing new games. They're 21st century Jim Crow tactics in new clothes, moving voter polls, closing polls in black and brown communities. The data shows that black and brown people spend much longer time in longer lines, purging people, people literally showing up and not knowing that their names have been purged from the rolls. And the data shows that this disproportionately impacts black and brown citizens. And now, as a result of the decision this week, they're saying that even when you show up, we have given the green light so that politicians can play games with the lines. So that even when you overcome those barriers and show up, your voices will be muted.

A (42:07)

So it sounds like you want to go back to the letter of the law from 1965, you want Congress to once again reinstitute preclearance for these Southern states. That's what I just heard you lay up.

F (42:19)

Yeah, that was Absolutely, absolutely.

A (42:22)

So when I want to point something out to you, which is that the current Congress, statistically in 2025, has a record high number, 66 Black members, according to Pew Research, including five Republicans. That's the most to ever serve in Congress. People will look at that and say, we are in a different country than we were, as Roberts once argued, as you just pointed out. Now that we are in this redistricting arms race that both parties are playing with here, do you think that will hurt black representation?

F (42:59)

I think that the court sadly poured fuel on this redistricting arms race.

A (43:08)

To be clear, you support redistricting that your party is carrying out?

F (43:13)

I do, because Donald Trump, who is better at dividing us than anybody I know, instituted an arms race in redistricting. But I actually hate partisan gerrymandering. I don't like gerrymandering, but we could not unilaterally disarm. He's the one who called Texas and said, literally, give me six more seats. And so California and other states had to respond Virginia in kind. But the solution to this really is to ban partisan gerrymandering. Gerrymandering turns our elections on its head so that rather than the people picking their politicians or their public servants, the politicians are picking their voters.

A (43:54)

Right, exactly. Which is why I'm asking you how you could support it. But I understand you're saying the context of the moment is an emergency. Let me ask you.

F (44:03)

Well, we could. I have a bill, though, Margaret. I have a bill.

A (44:06)

I saw that bill. Yes.

F (44:07)

Right. Now, that would get. That would get rid of partisan gerrymandering. And so far, I've had no Republican takers.

A (44:13)

Well, as we just said, your party is supporting the partisan redistricting in places like California and Virginia as well. Congressman Byron Donalds of Florida said Democrats do not care about black representation. They only care about Democrat representation. Here's what Congressman Wesley Hunt of Texas said when he was asked about the decision of the four black Republicans to leave Congress.

D (44:38)

I represent a white majority district that President Trump would have won by over

F (44:43)

20 points, and I won by 25

A (44:45)

points the last time. I'm being judged not by the color

F (44:48)

of my skin, but by the content of my character.

A (44:49)

I don't care how many black people are here. I want the most qualified people that are here. So what do you make of the argument that you just heard there from Congressman Hunt.

F (45:00)

Yeah, he doesn't understand American history.

A (45:03)

No one.

F (45:04)

He's quoting the words of Dr. King. No one was more committed to a country that embraces all of us than Dr. King. But Dr. King, looking at that reality, is the one who is the moral power behind the Voting Rights act of 1965. Our covenant as an American people is e pluribus unum, out of many one. And so this notion that representation does not matter, it ignores history, it ignores the facts is uninformed. Representation does matter. When I go to the Senate every week, I bring my story and my experience as a black kid who grew up in public housing in Savannah, and so does that white kid who grew up in Appalachia. She brings her experience, too. And so when we create an increasing monolith, which is what I think is going to happen as a result of this decision this week, we hurt the democracy itself and we make it harder to get at a policy, policies that embrace all of our children and give every child a chance.

A (46:10)

That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week, for Face THE Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan. Today's guests were National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank President and CEO Neel Kashkari, Chevron Chairman and CEO Mike Wirth, Colorado Democratic Congressman Jason Crow, and Georgia Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock. The senior executive producer, Face the Nation Nation is Mary Hager Laird. The executive producer of Face the Nation is Anne Hsu. This broadcast was directed by Shelly Schwartz. Face the Nation originates from CBS News in Washington. For more Face the Nation, we're online@facethenation.com and on YouTube. We're also rebroadcast on our CBS News 24. 7 streaming network at 12:30 and 2:00pm on Sundays. It's available through our apps CBS News and Paramount Plus. Hi, everyone. I'm Susie Weiss, and I've noticed there's just simply not enough podcasts in the world, so I'm launching my own.

E (47:07)

Let's go.

A (47:07)

Let's go, baby. Second Thought is a weekly show about pop culture. The stuff everyone's been binging, arguing about, obsessing over. Here's the thing about heated rivalry. I mean, even the most devoted swifties. I think we can agree, not our best work. We'll be hosting thoughtful conversations with culture's most important figures.

E (47:23)

Talk about genius.

A (47:24)

Talk about generational talent. Coming to headphones near you on April 17th with a first guest you won't want to miss. Available wherever you get your podcasts.

C (47:31)

The greatest to ever play the game,

D (47:34)

return to finish what they started.

B (47:36)

Welcome to Survivor 50.

D (47:38)

I wanted one more shot to play

C (47:40)

the game that I fell in love

D (47:41)

with 25 years ago.

A (47:43)

I want to win against the best of the best.

B (47:45)

I chickened out at the final tribal.

A (47:47)

Season 50. It's an honor.

C (47:49)

Light your torch.

A (47:50)

I've got some unfinished business.

C (47:52)

Be part of him.

D (47:53)

History.

F (47:53)

I have more to play for. This time bigger than ever.

B (47:56)

Survivor 50 news, CBS Wednesday at 8,

C (47:59)

7 Central and streaming on Paramount.

B (48:01)

Plus.