The following is the transcript of an interview with Retired Army General Stanley McChrystal that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on May 18, 2025.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re joined now by retired General Stanley McChrystal, whose new book is “On Character: Choices That Define a Life.” Good morning to you.
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Thanks for having me, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you write that character is a choice built upon our deeply held beliefs. Sounds like you really think there’s a lack of it these days, we certainly see there’s a loss of trust in many of our country’s institutions, whether it’s the federal government, journalism, the courts. How do you describe our national character right now and the leaders we have?
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: I think it’s confused. If you look at polling, as you just referred to the lack of trust, like 22% of Americans a year ago had trust in the U.S. government. Only 34% had trust in other Americans. So I think we all sort of intuitively know we have a real problem, but what I would argue is our national leaders are not the cause of the problem, they’re the symptom of the problem. The cause is us at our individual level, our unwillingness to think about character, to talk about character, and to demand character. And I would also argue that we’re also the cure. There is a symptom that we see and we’re distracted by it, all the things that we are disappointed by, people lying, people doing things that we find beneath us. As a nation, our character is our fate. And so what I’m trying to do is convince people to start a national conversation on character with the idea it starts at the bottom, not at the top. We need to start it down where things actually happen, on farms, in schools. We’ve just sent out 240 copies of the book to college sports coaches to try to have them start just to talk about character. And so that’s what I’m passionate about.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I admire the effort. You know, it’s interesting to look at where this began, not pinning it on a person. I understand you’re trying to do that. But is it a symptom of, it’s always been this way we just have more transparency, and thus we know more about people’s flaws? Why does this seem to be building as a problem?
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Well, we’ve always had a problem with certain evil in society and corruption, lack of character, but I think the fact that we see everything so much now we normalize it. We start to accept things in celebrities or leaders that I frankly think we wouldn’t have accepted even a generation ago. And that’s sort of our problem. We give them our likes on social media, we spend our money with them, we vote for them, and we know better than that. And so I think the responsibility, again, arcs back to us.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re not a Democrat or Republican you say.
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Though you did endorse Joe Biden and Kamala Harris–
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Right–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –In the last elections. Most retired military try to stay out of politics and make an argument that that’s crossing the rubicon in some ways.
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Yeah.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why did you?
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Well, of course, you go back to Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant, they actually went into politics.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Fair.
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: So there is some tradition, but that was not my goal to get into politics. I just felt that we had hit a period in which we were so adrift as a nation in terms of character, we were accepting something that is not as good as we are capable of. So I made a decision, and I’ll be honest, it was tough, because there’s a lot of pushback from peers and from outsiders that say you shouldn’t get political. But I don’t think that saying that America should stand up for its values and for its character is necessarily political.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we had, in the past, conversations with other guests that question about what does America stand for, and does it matter. There is a shift more towards pragmatism, or what’s in it for me, on the national scale. That’s very much in our politics right now.
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: And I think it’s a mistake for the nation. If you think what really helped the United States in the modern era, we’ll call it after World War II, people admired American ideas. They admired American democracy. They admired our social, our culture. They didn’t like every part of it, and they knew that we as a nation made mistakes, but countries and people wanted to be more like us than they wanted to be like the Soviet Union or other enemies. And as long as we are an example that people want to be, it gives us extraordinary influence and power. When it becomes transactional, when we, when we become somebody that just wants something from them, and we’re unwilling to be generous, we’re unwilling to sacrifice for larger ideals, we lose some of our moral standing and I think some of our national force, our power.
MARGARET BRENNAN: At the Pentagon right now, we hear a lot about values and culture sort of being at odds with the mission.
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Yeah.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Or that’s how it’s being described, right? Secretary Hegseth has talked a lot about restoring the warrior ethos. That’s part of his justification for eliminating diversity programs or DEI. Do you think DEI really “hurts lethality”?
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Yeah. I am completely aligned with Secretary Hegseth on the idea that we need to defend the nation, that the defense department needs to be as effective as it can be, and that a certain warrior ethos matters. We just define it differently. In my experience, we tend to understand that everybody can contribute, particularly in today’s modern wars. The idea that everybody’s got to look a certain way, got to have biceps of a certain size, there’s got to be a male, straight, all these things, is not my experience. In the counter terrorist fight, where much of my experience was, it became a meritocracy. You didn’t care what somebody looked like or how old they were, what their gender was or sexual orientation because it was too important to get the job done. And I would argue now America needs to harness talent from every corner of our society, everyone. I would even argue that if we went back to a draft, we could draft people with physical disabilities because much of what we do, that’s not a block to that. And so I think we need to think about what do we need to field the most effective armed forces, and I think that the DEI thing is, frankly, a distraction. It’s not helpful.
MARGARET BRENNAN: In terms of national character, when you were commanding forces, the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, ISAF, you know very well that country. The Taliban’s since taken over. We have seen them strip women and girls of even the right to have their voice heard in public. You have seen them carry out retribution against Afghans who worked with our country and put their lives at risk. This past week, the Trump administration said Afghanistan is safe enough for people living here to go back. They stripped the legal protections, the Temporary Protected Status. They are ending some of the programs that helped to evacuate our American allies there. What do you think that says about our character now?
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: I think it’s disappointing. I personally disagree with that decision, but I also think it sends a message. What about people who we ask to ally with us in the future, that we asked to partner with us, they look at what happened in the past. And so I think our national character should be bigger than that and we’re capable of being bigger than that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: General McChrystal, thank you very much for sharing your reflections.
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: You’re kind to have me. Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And your book “On Character: Choices That Define a Life.” We’ll be right back.
The following is the transcript of an interview with Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on May 18, 2025.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we are back now with Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen. Good morning and good to have you here.
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Good to be here, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We just showed some reporting from our colleague, Debora Patta, with incredible pictures from our- our shooter inside of Gaza, Marwan. It’s hard to look at pictures of children in that level of starvation. You have said the Israeli government is starving civilians, and the U.S. is complicit in the gross violation of international law. The U.N.’s begging to go in. The Israeli government says they don’t want to work with the U.N. here. They want to work with this Gaza Humanitarian Foundation that’s just being set up. What do you know about this? Should there be U.S. support for it?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: So Margaret, you’re right. It’s very hard to look at those pictures, and the United States has been complicit. President Trump was in the region and really did nothing, said virtually nothing about what’s happening in Gaza, which is on- on fire. We’re in 77th day of a full blockade. Two million Palestinians are starving. This is collective punishment that is clearly illegal under international law. And this other idea that’s been cooked up, either by the Israelis or by the Trump administration, is clearly not fit for purpose when it comes to trying to address this burgeoning famine. And all it will do is further allow food to be used as a weapon of the war. So I hope the United States will back off this plan. None of the credible international organizations have said that they will participate because it violates, you know, international norms and how it’s structured. And so I hope the United States will back off and immediately call today to allow the trucks right now that have food to be able to come, provide food to starving people. These are provided by international aid organizations.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is there anything that the United States can do in terms of leverage? You were- you’ve been bipartisan in your criticism. You said that what happened in Gaza is a black stain on Joe Biden’s legacy as president. You are criticizing the current administration for not doing more here. What leverage is there? I mean, is what you’re saying falling on any ears that want to listen?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, I’ve had conversations with some people in- in the Trump administration and made clear that they need to do more. One of the very obvious things they could do is President Trump today could call upon the Netanyahu government to let aid in. I mean, the President acknowledged there are people starving in Gaza the other day. He said so. But why hasn’t he called on Netanyahu to let the aid in? Let’s just start with that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we’ll follow the diplomacy that Steve Witkoff is leading. I want to ask you about what’s happening here at home. The Treasury Secretary this morning, is dismissing the news that Moody’s credit rating agency downgraded America’s credit, the first time since 1917 now all three agencies have said the US fiscal situation is unsustainable. Moody specifically said the upcoming bills and spending reductions won’t make a difference. You’re an appropriator. You are in a position of power here. What is going to happen with Capitol Hill and the President’s agenda? Is it going to be much of a fight? Is there going to be anyone pushing back because of this?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Oh, yes, Margaret. What you’re seeing is the Republican plan, the Trump plan is essentially to give these huge tax cuts to very wealthy people and corporations at the expense of everybody else. They’re going to cut Medicaid, they’re going to cut food and nutrition programs, but even after those cuts–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –They say they are not, as you know–
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: –but even- well, it’s in their current House bill. They have $700 billion in Medicaid cuts and 300 billion in food nutrition programs in the House bill now. I mean, they can always change it. But even after that, they’re going to- this will result in a huge spike in the national debt. And so that’s why Moody’s is warning people that we’re going down this road, and it will have a direct harmful impact on every American, because what it will do is drive up interest rates. Right? Just like the Trump across-the-board tariffs are raising prices, so will these big deficits and debts they incur.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Moody’s also says, though, that this has been cumulative, which means Democrats bear some responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in now.
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Just on that point, I put forward a variety of plans to close tax loopholes for the very rich to begin to address the deficit problem.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Speaking of responsibility, I’m sure you’ve been tracking all the headlines and the conversation about President Biden and what happened with that debriefing of him by the Special Counsel Hur during that Justice Department investigation of his mishandling of classified information. No charges were brought, but the audio of that was obtained by Axios, and it- you hear the president halting at times. Remember Hur was the one who said President Biden was a sympathetic, well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory, and Democrats really pushed back at the time at that saying that sounded very political. In hindsight, do you think Democrats were too willing to look the other way?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, hindsight is 20/20. We know a lot more now than we knew then. I can just say personally, I had limited interactions with President Biden at the time. He came to the Key Bridge in Maryland when it collapsed, and we had a good conversation. So hindsight is 20/20. Obviously, if we could redo this tape and play it over again, we would do things differently.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you feel like you have to explain and defend that now? I mean, there was a piece in The Washington Post from Dan Balz who said Democrats are either- were either covering up then or covering their behinds now.
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: No- well- look- I mean, I think we can acknowledge that this was a- people overlooked a serious problem or were just not aware.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Willingly?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, I don’t- I can only speak for myself. I didn’t- I wasn’t aware of this, but we are focused on the future right now. I mean, right- right now we have the Republican tax plan, which is a giveaway to the rich. We have- you know, we didn’t talk about it, but Donald Trump’s visit to the Middle East, my view, is the overall narrative here was selling out US national interests for the private gain of his family business. He essentially gave away the crown jewels of American AI and semiconductor technology to the Gulf in exchange, in exchange, it looks like, for a $2 billion investment in the Trump family stablecoin venture.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Another topic. But on this point, I hear you want to look forward. I do too. But don’t Democrats have to reckon with this and say to the public that the answer to that question- you know?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: I think we’ve all acknowledged that if we had the benefit of hindsight, we would have done things differently. I don’t know if all of us have. I recognize that, but at this point, it seems to me, the American people are much more interested in the conversation as to the future of our country and the damage that Elon Musk and Donald Trump are doing every day.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Van Hollen, thank you for your time today.
This week on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer and Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari discuss the latest with the U.S. economy. Plus, the FDA’s former top regulator, Dr. Peter Marks, joins.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
The following is the transcript of an interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio that will air on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on May 18, 2025.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And joining us now is Secretary of State Marco Rubio from Rome. Mr. Secretary, you’ve had a very busy week. I know you have been at the Vatican, and they have offered to host a direct meeting between Ukraine and Russia. Given that Vladimir Putin was a no show at the talks he called for in Istanbul this past week, is there reason to believe that he will take up Pope Leo on the offer?
SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: Well, I think if you saw- again, I’m not a spokesperson for the Kremlin, but if you saw their statements, I believe yesterday, where they said that they would be open to such a meeting under the right conditions. So we’ll wait and see if that’s possible. Obviously, the Vatican has made a very generous offer to host anything, by the way, not just a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin, but any meeting, including at a technical level, you know, any meetings that- that need to be hosted, they- they’ve expressed a willingness to do so. So it’s a very generous offer that may be taken up on. I mean, it would be a site that all parties would feel comfortable. So hopefully we’ll get to that stage where- where talks are happening on a regular basis and that the Vatican will have the opportunity to be one of the options.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The Russian Foreign Ministry is saying that you initiated a call to your Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, on Saturday. What was that about? Are you talking about lining up that face-to-face meeting between President Putin and President Trump?
SEC. RUBIO: Well, we talked about a variety of things. We did talk about- I wanted to get his readout on his view of how the talks went yesterday. There- they were not a complete waste of time. For example, there were 1,000 prisoners that are going to be exchanged, and that, from a humanitarian standpoint, is very positive. He explained to me that they are going to be pre- preparing a document outlining their requirements for a cease-fire that would then lead to broader negotiations. So obviously, the Ukrainian side is going to be working on their own proposal, and hopefully that will be forthcoming soon. And if that does happen, and the proposal that comes forward from the Russian side and- and for that matter, from the Ukrainian side, are proposals that are serious and viable, then there’s been real progress, and we can work off of that. So we’ll have to wait and see. But he wanted me to know, and he communicated in our call, that they are- their side will be working on a series of ideas and requirements that they would have in order to move forward with a cease-fire and further negotiations. So we’ll await that, and hopefully it’s one- it’s a document that is close enough to what the Ukrainians want to be able to get to that point and maybe work out those differences.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve said repeatedly it’s just a matter of days, though, in terms of the waning patience that the U.S. has for this diplomacy to succeed. So are- are they just tapping you along, as President Trump has said? Are they just seeking to talk- Are they just seeking to continue to talk to buy time?
SEC. RUBIO: Well, that’s what we’re testing. And that’s what we’ll know. Look, at the end of the day what I’ve said, and it’s happening now, we’re no longer flying all over the world trying to set up meetings. We’re responding to meetings that are set up and we’re willing- we always said we’re willing to do whatever it takes to bring them together if the opportunities present themselves. So I think your question is, are they tapping us along? Well, that’s what we’re trying to find out. We’ll find out pretty soon. They met last- yesterday or the day before in Turkey. From that they agreed they’re going to exchange paper on ideas that get to a cease-fire. If those papers have ideas on them that are realistic and rational, then I think we know we’ve made progress. If those papers, on the other hand, have requirements in them that we know are unrealistic, then we’ll have a different assessment. So, we’re going to try to find that out. And there’s a combination here. On the one hand, we’re trying to achieve peace and end a very bloody, costly and destructive war. So there’s some element of patience that is required. On the other hand, we don’t have time to waste. There are a lot of other things happening in the world that we also need to be paying attention to. So we don’t want to be involved in this process of just endless talks, there has to be some progress, some movement forward. And if at the end of this, in the next few days, we get a document produced by both sides, and it shows that both sides are being- making concessions and being realistic and rational in their approach, then I think we can feel good about continuing to remain engaged. If, on the other hand, what we see is not very productive, perhaps we’ll have a different assessment. I also agree that ultimately, one of the things that could help break this log jam, perhaps the only thing that can, is a direct- direct conversation between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. And he’s already openly expressed a desire and a belief that that needs to happen, and- and hopefully that’ll be worked out soon as well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re planning on that?
SEC. RUBIO: Well, I don’t know. We’re- we’re certainly made the offer. The president’s made that offer already publicly. The mechanics of setting that kind of meeting up would require a little bit of work, so I can’t say that’s being planned as we speak in terms of picking a site and a date. But the president wants to do it. He wants to do it as soon as- as feasible. I think the Russian side has also expressed a willingness to do it. And so, now it’s just a question of bringing them- bringing everyone together, and figuring out where and when and that meeting will happen and what it will be about.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, I- I want to move on to other topics. But lastly, your- your Senate- former senate colleague, Lindsey Graham, was next to you in that meeting with the Ukrainian foreign minister. He has a- he has a veto-proof majority on this bill to put sanctions on Russia. How quickly do you want the option for more sanctions on Russia? Or are you asking him to wait?
SEC. RUBIO: No, we’re not- look, the Senate is going to act, ultimately. I mean, I think in the past, we’ve act- asked to give us a little time to see if we can make some progress on our talks. But we’ve also been pretty clear with the Russian side for weeks now, going back six or seven weeks. We’ve been communicating to the Russian side that this effort was- was being undertaken. That we anticipated that when all was said and done, it would have close to 80 cosponsors in the Senate, and I imagine a comparable percentage of support in the House, that that was an effort we couldn’t stop and don’t control, that ultimately, Congress and particularly the Republicans in the House and Senate, have tried to give the president space and time to negotiate something here. But we’ve- we’ve advised the Russians repeatedly now for almost two months that this was coming if no progress was made. So I think that’s just coming to fruition now. And it’s one of the- one of the things that I confirmed, again, being with Lindsey Graham this week in Turkey, is they’re now up to 77. He thinks they could get close to 80 or more. And that’s just- that’s just a fact, and something we’ve told the Russians about for weeks was coming.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to move on to another part of the world. You’ve been very involved in the administration’s efforts to crack down on this Venezuelan gang, TdA, that has been designated as a terror group by the U.S. Do you accept the intelligence community’s assessment that the Venezuelan gang is not a proxy force of the Maduro government? That was the National Intelligence Council assessment.
SEC. RUBIO: Yeah, that’s their assessment. They’re wrong. In fact, the FBI agrees with me that they are. We- we- the FBI agrees that not only is Tren de Aragua exported by the Venezuelan regime, but in fact, if you go back and see a Tren de Aragua member, all the evidence is there, and it’s growing every day, was actually contracted to murder an opposition member, I believe, in Chile a few months ago. So one of the warnings out there by the FBI is not simply that Tren de Aragua are- are a terrorist organization, but one that has already been operationalized, to murder a- to murder a- an- an opposition member in another country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But that’s a different thing than being a proxy force controlled by the Maduro government. Part of this is at the heart of the legal arguments the administration is having over its ability to continue to deport suspected gang members. That’s why this assessment is so key. You completely reject that intelligence–
SEC. RUBIO: There- there–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –community finding?
SEC. RUBIO: Yeah, I agree 100 percent with the FBI’s finding. This is a prison gang that the Venezuelan government has actively encouraged to leave the country. A prison gang that, in some cases, they’ve been in cooperation- and by the way, Tren de Aragua members that have been returned to Venezuela on some of these planes that have gone back have been greeted like heroes at the airport. So we have no doubt, I have no doubt and the FBI has made clear, I mean, this is the gang that they hired in order to- to murder an opposition member in another country. So they- they- there’s no doubt in our mind, and in my mind, and in the FBI’s assessment that this is a group that the regime in Venezuela uses, not just to try to destabilize the United States, but to project power, like they did by murdering a member of the opposition in Chile.
MARGARET BRENNAN: South Africa’s president is traveling to the United States this week to meet with President Trump. The administration has prioritized bringing some white South Africans, Afrikaners, to the United States, despite the increased restrictions on refugees. President Trump claims there’s a genocide underway in South Africa. That’s a legal determination, the State Department would make it. Are you trying to determine that now?
SEC. RUBIO: I would determine that these people are having their properties taken from them. You can- they can call it whatever they want, but these are people that, on the basis of their race, are having their properties taken away from them, and their lives being threatened and, in some cases, killed. These are people that applied and made these claims in their applications and seek to come to the United States in search of- of refuge. I- we’ve often been lectured by people all over the place about how the United States needs to continue to be a beacon for those who are oppressed abroad. Well, here’s an example where we’re doing that. So I don’t understand why people are criticizing it. I think people should be celebrating it, and I think people should be supporting it–
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well is there evidence–
SEC. RUBIO: If in fact as many claim, they are in favor–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –of a genocide that you have?
(END CROSSTALK)
SEC. RUBIO: I think there’s evidence, absolutely, that people have been murdered, that people have been forcibly removed from their properties, both by the government, in some cases because of a law they passed, but also because of independent groups encouraged by political parties inside of South- inside of South Africa. So, listen, to move here from half a world away and leave behind the only homeland you’ve ever known, that’s not something people do lightly–
MARGARET BRENNAN: No.
SEC. RUBIO: –especially people who have spent generations farming their land and developing their property. That’s not something that you take lightly and do. These people are doing it for a reason. So we welcome them to the United States, and I think there may be more coming soon.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will stand by to see if that determination of genocide is made. I want to ask you about the Middle East. The president says he wants to end wars, but Israel’s prime minister has said he is expanding this ground operation inside of Gaza, the IDF says is to seize strategic areas. Does the U.S. fully support expanding this war?
SEC. RUBIO: We expand the destruction of Hamas, the ending of Hamas. We support a future for the people of Gaza that is free of Hamas and full of opportunity. That’s what we support. And this is a group that came across on October 7 and carried out one of the most vile series of attacks, kidnappings, rapes, murders and hostage taking that we’ve ever seen. That’s what we support. Now that said, we also support an end of the conflict, a cease-fire. We don’t want people obviously suffering as they have, and we blame Hamas for that, but nonetheless, they’re suffering. And so we are actively engaged, even as I speak to you now, we are actively engaged in trying to figure out if there is a way to get more hostages out through some cease-fire type mechanism. We’re not going to do anything to undermine Israel and its security, but by the same token, if there is a possibility here to find a way forward that frees more hostages, including those who are alive, but also the bodies to their relatives, and potentially bring about an end to this war in a way that puts the people of Gaza on a pathway of peace and prosperity and being free of Hamas, we’re going to explore that. We think we’ve made some progress, but there’s more work to be done. Ambassador Witkoff is working on that on an hourly basis. It’s something we’re all very focused on and continue to be very supportive of. And I hope we’ll have good news soon in that regard, but I think some impediments remain.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you asking Israel to slow down this military push? And the Qatari prime minister told Fox News that there was a deal being put together for all hostages, or many hostages, to be released after Edan Alexander, that American-Israeli was released recently, but then the Israeli military bombed a hospital, killing 70 civilians, and everything went sideways. Is that your understanding of what happened–
SEC. RUBIO: Well, I would say that–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –it was this lack of care of collateral damage?
SEC. RUBIO: No, I- the way I would characterize it is that this war could end immediately. And Israel’s made that clear, it can end immediately if Hamas surrenders and gives up their weapons and demilitarizes and releases all the hostages, including the deceased ones. If they did that, this conflict would end. That’s been true from the very beginning. It’s been true for months now. They’re the ones that have chosen not to accept that offer. That said, we continue to work and do everything we can through diplomatic channels and private means to bring about an end to this conflict in a way that ends Hamas and provides the people of Gaza the opportunity at a prosperous and peaceful future that also ensures Israel’s security. So we’re working on that, and we’ve never stopped working on that. We’ve never stopped taking efforts to make that possible. And that continues. Even as I speak to you now, there are people working on that. So we’re going to continue to do that and that’s the outcome we want to see. And hopefully, the sooner the better.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the president has said Prime Minister Netanyahu didn’t want to end the war. So the views are quite–
SEC. RUBIO: Well, I think what the–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –in contrast.
SEC. RUBIO: Yeah- no- what the president’s- no, no. I think what the president is saying is he doesn’t want to end the war until Hamas is defeated. This is a group that is a threat- if an ember survives, it will spark again into a fire. And that is the view of- there is no future. There can be no peaceful and prosperous Gaza as long as Hamas governs it by rule of arms. And that’s a- that’s a fundamental truth. Now that doesn’t mean that there isn’t some way that we can achieve that through a cease-fire and some peace mechanism, and that’s what we’re trying to accomplish here. Ending Hamas, ending its governance of Gaza, ending the conflict, freeing all of the hostages, including the bodies of those who have passed away and been killed and murdered by the Hamas terrorists, and then beginning the work of a future for Gaza and also of ensuring Israel’s security. That’s always been our goal. That remains our goal, and that’s what we continue to be focused on. But in the absence of that such agreement, we anticipate that, you know, Israel will continue forward with their operations. But that doesn’t mean we stopped working on trying to achieve a peaceful outcome that also protects Israel’s security and ends Hamas’s governance of Gaza, so that Gaza can have a free and prosperous future moving forward. That’s what the president wants to see as the end goal here. That is the end goal, and that’s what we’re working on through every means at our disposal.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have said that Iran is, in your view, a threshold nuclear state, and we’re at a critical moment. The U.S. and Iran are talking again. Can you clarify what the U.S. policy is here? Is the bottom line that Iran cannot enrich any uranium, even if it is at low levels for civilian purposes? Do they need to fully dismantle the program?
SEC. RUBIO: Well, look, if you’re able to enrich at any level you’ve now are basically able to enrich at weapons grade very quickly. I mean, that’s just a fundamental fact, and everyone knows it, and that was the problem with the Obama deal. But the end goal here is simple, Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. And the president’s preference, because he doesn’t like war, the president’s preference is to achieve that through a peaceful negotiation. In fact, the president’s preference is not- not only that Iran not pursue nuclear weapons, but that Iran be a rich, peaceful and prosperous country where its people can be happy. He wants them to have a better future. He has said this, he’s a builder, not a bomber. That’s what he views himself as, and that’s what he is. He’s a president that wants peace, and so he’s offered that route, and that’s one we hope the Iranians will take. But he’s been very clear, Iran is never going to have the capability. They’re never going to have a nuclear weapon. It’s not going to happen. And we hope that that is achieved, that outcome is achieved through peaceful, diplomatic means, and that’s what we’re engaged on. We’re not going to negotiate it in the media, because it makes it difficult to get an outcome. But that is the ultimate goal here, is to have an Iran that does not have a nuclear weapon or the ability to threaten its neighbors, particularly Israel.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Secretary, I know you have a busy schedule. Thank you for your time this morning.
Wu can’t just point the finger at the bus vendor and the driver – she needs to take full accountability for the city’s needless delay in reporting details of the April 28 accident and appoint an independent investigator to oversee the deadly incident.
Robert Gates says he isn’t sure you can judge Putin’s intentions in face-to-face meeting – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan that he isn’t sure if you can judge Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intentions in a face-to-face meeting. In the interview airing Sunday, Gates said he believes President Trump is “getting the sense” that Russian President Vladimir Putin “is tapping him along.”
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Robert Gates says he isn’t sure you can judge Putin’s intention in face-to-face meeting – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan that he isn’t sure if you can judge Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intentions in a face-to-face meeting. In the interview airing Sunday, Gates said he believes President Trump is “getting the sense” that Russian President Vladimir Putin “is tapping him along.”
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
A federal judge in Texas struck down guidance from a government agency specifying protections against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Thursday determined that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission exceeded its statutory authority when the agency issued guidance to employers against deliberately using the wrong pronouns for an employee, refusing them access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity, and barring employees from wearing dress code-compliant clothing according to their gender identity because they may constitute forms of workplace harassment.
Kacsmaryk said the guidance is “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
Texas and the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, in August challenged the guidance, which the agency says serves as a tool for employers to assess compliance with anti-discrimination laws and is not legally binding. Kacsmaryk disagreed, writing that the guidance creates “mandatory standards … from which legal consequences will necessarily flow if an employer fails to comply.”
The decision marks the latest blow to workplace protections for transgender workers following President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order declaring that the government would recognize only two “immutable” sexes — male and female.
Kacsmaryk, a 2017 Trump nominee, invalidated all portions of the EEOC guidance that defines “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” along with an entire section addressing the subject.
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts commended the decision in an emailed statement: “The Biden EEOC tried to compel businesses — and the American people — to deny basic biological truth. Today, thanks to the great state of Texas and the work of my Heritage colleagues, a federal judge said: not so fast.”
He added: “This ruling is more than a legal victory. It’s a cultural one. It says no — you don’t have to surrender common sense at the altar of leftist ideology. You don’t have to pretend men are women. And you don’t have to lie to keep your job. ”
The National Women’s Law Center, which filed an amicus brief in November in support of the harassment guidance, blasted the decision in an emailed statement.
“The district court’s decision is an outrage and blatantly at odds with Supreme Court precedent,” said Liz Theran, senior director of litigation for education and workplace justice at NWLC. “The EEOC’s Harassment Guidance reminds employers and workers alike to do one simple thing that should cost no one anything: refrain from degrading others on the job based on their identity and who they love. This decision does not change the law, but it will make it harder for LGBTQIA+ workers to enforce their rights and experience a workplace free from harassment.”
The U.S. Department of Justice and the EEOC declined to comment on the outcome of the case.
The EEOC in fiscal year 2024 received more than 3,000 charges alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and 3,000-plus in 2023, according to the agency’s website.
The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
LJUBLJANA, Slovenia (AP) — Police in Slovenia are investigating the disappearance of a bronze statue of U.S. first lady Melania Trump that was sawed off and carried away from her hometown.
The life-size sculpture was unveiled in 2020 during President Donald Trump’s first term in office near Sevnica in central Slovenia, where Melanija Knavs was born in 1970. It replaced a wooden statue that had been set on fire earlier that year.
Police spokeswoman Alenka Drenik Rangus said Friday that the police were informed about the theft of the statue on Tuesday. She said police were working to track down those responsible.
According to Slovenian media reports, the bronze replica was sawed off at the ankles and removed.
Ankles of sawed off and taken away bronze statue which represented Melania Trump remain on the tree stump where it was placed in 2020, in the village of Rozno, Slovenia, Friday, May 16, 2025, near Melania Trump’s hometown of Sevnica. (AP Photo/Relja Dusek)
Franja Kranjc, who works at a bakery in Sevnica that sells cakes with Melania Trump’s name in support of the first lady, said the stolen statue won’t be missed.
“I think no one was really proud at this statue, not even the first lady of the USA,” he said. “So I think its OK that it’s removed.”
The original wooden statue was torched in July 2020. The rustic figure was cut from the trunk of a linden tree, showing her in a pale blue dress like the one she wore at Trump’s presidential inauguration in 2017. The replica bronze statue has no obvious resemblance with the first lady.
Harvard is clearly starting to feel the effect of going toe-to-toe with the Trump administration.
The Ivy League university has notified its researchers and students that they will dip into their saving accounts to help cover the gap caused by frozen research funding withheld after the school refused to bow before the whims of the federal government — and the school’s president is apparently taking a voluntary pay cut.
“Although we cannot absorb the entire cost of the suspended or canceled federal funds, we will mobilize financial resources to support critical research activity for a transitional period as we continue to work with our researchers to identify alternative funding sources,” Harvard President Alan Garber and Provost John Manning wrote in a joint letter addressed to members of the university community.
Garber will take a voluntary 25% pay cut during the upcoming fiscal year, according to a spokesperson for the university. Garber’s current salary is not publicly available information.
The university will also “dedicate $250 million of central funding to complement School-based resources and strategies to support research affected by these recent suspensions and cancellations” to help defray grant funding lost after the school chose against complying with President Donald Trump’s attempts to coerce the school into compliance with his demands they abandon diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and do more to combat antisemitism on campus.
Their fight has already cost them.
According to the university, the federal government has frozen more than $2 billion in research funding meant for use by Harvard scientists. In just the last week, Garber and Manning wrote, “The University has received a large number of grant terminations from the federal government, stopping lifesaving research and, in some cases, losing years of important work.”
In a letter sent by Trump’s Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism to the university on Tuesday, the administration informed Harvard that another $450 million in grants were on the chopping block because the school has allegedly become a “breeding ground for virtue signaling and discrimination.”
“This is not leadership; it is cowardice. And it’s not academic freedom; it’s institutional disenfranchisement,” the letter reads.
According to the task force, “There is a dark problem on Harvard’s campus” at present, where they claim administrators are “prioritizing appeasement over accountability,” and as such have “forfeited the school’s claim to taxpayer support.”
“As a result, eight federal agencies across the government are announcing the termination of approximately $450 million in grants to Harvard, which is in addition to the $2.2 billion that was terminated last week,” they wrote.
The most recent grant terminations come after the school, on Monday, informed Education Secretary Linda McMahon that the university is not willing to “surrender its core, legally-protected principles out of fear of unfounded retaliation by the federal government,” especially while progress toward admittedly necessary reforms takes place.
Garber acknowledged the university has some work to do in order to “combat antisemitism and other bigotry through policy and discipline reforms, academic investments, community support initiatives, and educational programs,” but said that their efforts are being “undermined and threatened by the federal government’s overreach into the constitutional freedoms of private universities and its continuing disregard of Harvard’s compliance with the law.”
Earlier this week, Harvard amended a lawsuit they’ve filed against the Trump administration to include the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism’s apparent determination to strip Harvard of grant funding.
“On May 13, 2025, the Federal Task Force issued a press release claiming ‘Harvard University has repeatedly failed to confront the pervasive race discrimination and anti-Semitic harassment plaguing its campus,’ and stating that ‘[t]he Task Force fully supports the Trump Administration’s multi-agency move to cut funding to Harvard, demonstrating the entire Administration’s commitment to eradicating discrimination on Harvard’s campus,’” the amended suit informs the court.
According to the suit, the Trump administration is deliberately ignoring the “meaningful reforms” the school has taken to “eliminate antisemitism and other forms of hate” seen on campus.
U.S. Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, along with House Minority Whip Katherine Clark and U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, have condemned the Trump administration’s war on Harvard as an unconstitutional and authoritarian overreach.
“The Trump administration is demonstrating astonishing disregard for not only the students, faculty, and staff that these cuts impact, but also for the general public who benefit from scientific breakthroughs and the global standing of the United States,” they said in a joint statement.
