Transcript: Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates on 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,' May 18, 2025

Wakala News

19-05-2025

The following is the full transcript of an interview with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a portion of which aired on 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan' on May 18, 2025.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, if you're ready, we'll dig in.
FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES: Okay.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And there's a lot to ask you about, sir. So President Trump just concluded this week-long trip through the Middle East. He's lifted sanctions on Syria and its interim new government. He is trying to get some kind of diplomatic deal with Iran. He's courting a lot of Gulf money. So far, no success in getting Israel to stop its war in Gaza. But how would you judge his foreign policy focus to date?
SEC. GATES: What's interesting to me is that we're back in the Middle East, after all the talk about the pivot to Asia and- and China and so on. We have two aircraft carriers, strike groups, in the Middle East. We had the president in the Middle East. I don't have to say this though, Margaret, I think, ironically, the Middle East may be one place where there are some real opportunities and- and- and possibilities. I think that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, are all so focused on diversifying their economies, reforming, modernizing, bringing their populations into the 21st century. It's a- it's a place to do business, for China, for the United States, for everybody else. The actions of Israel, post the October 7 massacre by Hamas, has really changed the strategic equation in the Middle East, because Iran has been dramatically weakened, mainly by Israel's attacks on Hamas, on the attack- our attacks on the Houthis, but also, and especially, Hezbollah, and the weakening of Hezbollah. And with the fall of Assad, Syria is no longer a conduit for Iranian weapons to get to Hezbollah. So- and then you add to that, the Iranian- the Israeli air attack on the Iranian nuclear facility that basically wiped out their air defenses. Iran's in a very weak place now. And if there is an opportunity to do a deal on nuclear, this is it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, when it comes to that nuclear program, you didn't really like the Obama era nuclear deal with Iran. President Trump is trying something that may be somewhat similar. What do you think has to be in it for it to really be a success?
SEC. GATES: Well, I think- I- I would agree with those in the Senate and- and elsewhere that Iran really has to stop their nuclear program. They have to stop their enrichment entirely. And they have to give up–
(BEGIN CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Entirely, not just–
SEC. GATES: Entirely.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –highly enriched, all enrichment?
SEC. GATES: Entirely. And- and if they want to have a civil nuclear program, they need to import the uranium, the enriched uranium, to do that. But they need to get rid of the stockpile. They were- they were supposed to get rid of a big part of the stockpile earlier. But I think- I think just given the nature of their program and the secretiveness of the whole thing, I think in terms of monitoring compliance, you really have to get rid of- of- of their program in a way that it can be monitored by international experts from the IAEA or- or whoever. But I- you know, one of my concerns, and- and- that's not going- with the earlier agreement, that's apparently not going to be addressed and won't be in this, was the need for them to get rid of their ballistic missile programs. And I think that's not going to be in- if there is an agreement, it doesn't look to me like that's going to be a part of it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you said, no enrichment. It's not clear what the president's policy is, because he has different advisors who say different things about what the end state is. And some of that, according to our reporting, is because the president has to make some of those very central policy decisions still. That's a different approach, I'm sure, from White Houses you worked in, where you went in with a goal, a strategy, and you worked back from there. Not, let's talk, and then figure out the strategy.
SEC. GATES: Well, I have the impression, and- and I- I don't talk to anybody in the administration, but- so it's just what I hear and what I read. But, I think that his approach is, let's pursue these different avenues and see how far we can get, and if we can get a deal that includes getting rid of the entire- entirely of the enrichment, then that's what we ought to strive for. But if we can't, maybe we settle for something short of that. And- and I think it's basically just playing it tactically, if you will, in terms of seeing what's possible, but with the overall objective of getting some kind of an agreement, and I would hope one that can be monitored by the U.S. or by others to make sure the Iranians aren't cheating.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you oppose an Israeli strike with U.S. support on Iran's nuclear program?
SEC. GATES: The problem that I've had with a strike on the Iranian nuclear program, from the time I was secretary, is that it buys you a year or two. You're not going to be able to destroy, short of- as long as you're using conventional weapons, you cannot get at the very deeply buried parts of the Iranian nuclear program. That's why on site inspection is so important, because you really can't- there's no- there's no kind of ordnance. Even our massive ordnance penetrator won't get that far down. So my argument is, if you attack their nuclear program in a way designed to try and destroy it, you will simply make the Iranians more determined to have a nuclear weapon and to bury the whole program even deeper. It buys you a little time, but it doesn't solve the problem.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The president seems to be saying, the threat of military force exists, but he really wants a diplomatic deal.
SEC. GATES: That's certainly my impression.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you have a history with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. You're smiling. His government, you've said, acts like an ungrateful ally. We're starting to see some points of friction with the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government in particular. Are- are we at the point now where President Trump needs to publicly be clear that the war in Gaza has to end, and withhold U.S. support if it doesn't?
SEC. GATES: I think it would be a very heavy political lift for the President to say he's going to cut off military supplies to Israel, unless they stop in Gaza. I think he can say a lot of things in terms of putting pressure on Netanyahu to stop the war. He can put forward proposals on how humanitarian assistance and other things might might go forward. But I would- I- it would be very difficult for any U.S. president, I think, to say we're just going to cut Israel off from military supplies–
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you did support- I remember President Biden's decision to withhold very specific- actually, just delay delivery of very specific weapons.
SEC. GATES: Well, over time, and including when I was Secretary, I opposed providing Israel with certain kinds of ordinance, mainly because what they wanted was the kind of ordinance that would allow them to attack Israel- attack the Iranian nuclear program.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is there a cost to this ongoing support of such a bloody war, given the projections from U.S. intelligence about the long term recruitment of- among terror groups around the world because of the devastation?
SEC. GATES: I think there is a cost. I think it does provide a basis for radicalization in the region. But it is interesting to me that you're not hearing much out of the Gulf Arabs and- and others in terms of decrying the ongoing operations and so on. I think- I mean, what has been the case to- to date is that the Saudis have really insisted that there be something for the Palestinian people before they would do- before they would establish diplomatic relations with Israel. I don't know as a result of this week's talks whether that may have shifted in some way, but- but clearly they are worried about the feelings of their own people toward the- in their countries, about the- about what has happened to the Palestinians, and what is continuing to happen to the Palestinians. And I think they are worried that- that there could be some protests and- and strong feelings on the part of their populations. And the governments, I think, are all for establishing relationships with with Israel, as- as the UAE and others have done. But I think- I think that it's still a problem for the Saudis.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to move to another part of the world, and that is Ukraine. Secretary of State Rubio said he believes that there won't be a clear read on Vladimir Putin's intentions until he sits down with President Donald Trump. You've met Putin before. Would you- what would you advise for that one-on-one? And does it really take a face-to-face to judge Putin's intentions?
SEC. GATES: I'm not sure even in a face to face that you can judge Putin's intentions. My own view, having dealt with him and having spent most of my life working on Russia and the Soviet Union, is Putin feels that he has a destiny to recreate the Russian Empire. And as my old mentor, Zbigniew Brzezinski once said, without Ukraine, there can be no Russian Empire. So I think the President is- based on what I read, is getting the sense that, as he put it, that Putin is tapping him along and- and that, you know, Putin hasn't given up on any of his original goals in Ukraine. He's going to insist on occupying all four of the eastern provinces of the Donbas. Perpetual recognition of Russian ownership of Crimea. A pro Russian government in Kyiv and a Ukrainian military that looks a lot like an enhanced police force. And, no membership in NATO and probably no membership in the EU he wants- he wants Ukraine, basically, to be a client state of Russia. And I don't- I don't see what it would take to get him to walk away from any of those goals in the foreseeable future. I mean, when you look at 900,000 or so Russian soldiers that have been killed or wounded. He's paid a huge price- the Russian economy and so on. It hasn't deterred him in the slightest.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Has he paid a price, though? Because there are analysts who look at the way he's reoriented that economy around his military, the fact that he gets that lifeline from China, and say sanctions haven't made him buckle one bit in his desire to continue this war.
SEC. GATES: No, that's absolutely correct. And he has militarized the economy, and absolutely there has been a cost- a long term cost for the Russian people. You know, you've had upwards of a million young Russian- mainly men, flee the country. Young tech guys, entrepreneurs and others who thought they had a future in Russia and- and when the war started, decided they didn't. And- and the complete reorientation of the- of the economy for the military industrial complex, as you will, it is very much what the Soviets did in many respects and- and I think he's got 21% interest rates. I mean, the economy is chugging along, it's got positive growth, but it's artificial. The only source of income of revenue for the Russian government is oil and gas. The problem that Putin has is over time, those are old oil and gas fields, and what was enabling the Russians to extract from those fields was Western technology, the Exxons, the Chevrons, the other big oil companies from the West that had the technology. That's all gone. So over time, the revenue stream from oil and gas from Russia is going to diminish, and probably fairly dramatically, but it'll take time. So long term, he has- he has, I think, cost Russia enormously. But that doesn't mean that in the short to near term, it's going to force him to change any of his policies.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you advise President Trump not to take that face-to-face, even if Vladimir Putin was willing to do it?
SEC. GATES: I would like to see what if- I were ever asked, I would say you need to figure out some leverage that you have going into that meeting with Putin. What- what can- what can you do that puts more pressure to bear on Putin to make him believe his- his interests are served by not just a ceasefire, but a- basically, at least freezing things in place.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We've seen a very different approach to this diplomacy, too. The President has been relying on his close friend Steve Witkoff, this former real estate developer, to really be the face with some of the most thorny issues we have in the national security portfolio, including meeting with the Iranian negotiator over a nuclear program, including getting face-to- face with Vladimir Putin. There is a value in having a fresh set of eyes. But is it advisable to put aside the experts, including American translators, and not include them in those meetings?
SEC. GATES: Well, I've always believed that it's a mistake not to have an American interpreter in meetings. The President and Mr. Witkoff are not the first Americans to believe- and he's not the first president to believe, he doesn't need an American interpreter in the room. I think it's always a mistake, because you never know that what you're saying is, in fact, being interpreted to Putin or whoever, exactly as you said it. And so I think that's a mistake. On the other hand, you know, bringing fresh eyes and fresh blood to some of these problems. You know, I know people who've been involved in the Middle East negotiations for peace for 30 years, you know, and have not much to show for it, and then all of a sudden, you bring in somebody else, and things happen like the Abraham Accords. So I- I'm not- I'm not willing to say that you shouldn't bring in some people that have not got a lot of experience. In fact, one of the reasons in 2016 I recommended Rex Tillerson to the- to President Trump for his first Secretary of State, was precisely because, as a businessman, not a diplomat, but as a businessman, Tillerson had negotiated with tough guys all over the world for most of his career. So I think bringing somebody with business background in who's done this kind of thing, it may make a lot of sense.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Even when they're sitting across some- from someone who has spent decades facing off with Americans? Or in the case of the Iranian nuclear negotiations, someone who negotiated the last nuclear accord? That's a lot of experience–
SEC. GATES: –I think- I think just because the guy on the other side of the table has been doing it for a long time doesn't mean you- you can't bring in somebody- somebody fresh, somebody new.
MARGARET BRENNAN: How sustainable do you think it is for the Secretary of State to also be the national security adviser, the acting archivist and the acting director of USAID?
SEC. GATES: It's interesting a lot of people point to the precedent of when Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State and National Security Advisor from 1973 to 1975. I was at the NSC during most of that period, and all I can tell you is Henry Kissinger was an absentee landlord. I mean, what made it work in that time was that Henry had a very experienced and wise deputy in General Brent Scowcroft. And Scowcroft essentially ran the NSC day to day, and Henry would appear now and then, but- but mainly did his Secretary of State job. He still had the title and a lot of papers going to the presidents from the NSC still went through him, but- but day to day, the NSC and the whole interagency process was really managed by Scowcroft. So whether or not this will work, I think, depends on whether the Secretary of State has a deputy at the NSC who is very experienced, knows the interagency and- and- and is respected and trusted by the President.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There is a unique challenge with the NSC, with this president I've heard from officials which is he does not trust the National Security Council because of the history with the first impeachment. So he is suspect of a lot of people who sit there. What's the danger of that, when you don't trust the people who are briefing you on some of the most sensitive national security issues, or advising you?
SEC. GATES: I think it's important for people to remember, and I tried to observe this myself- since I worked on the NSC under four presidents, the NSC is the President's personal foreign policy staff. So I think if- if people on the NSC, and I don't care whether they come from the State Department or CIA or the military or anyplace else or from the outside. If you can't- in- on that staff, if you can't be loyal to the president, then you should leave.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What do you mean loyal?
SEC. GATES: I mean be willing- embrace his policies and do what you can to implement those policies and to ensure that the other agencies are implementing the President's policies. And when the time comes, if the time comes, that you disagree with those policies, then it seems to me it's incumbent on you to return to your agency or to leave the government. I can't- this is really an important point. This is his personal staff. This is the staff that drafts his letters going back to other leaders. This is the staff that does his talking points for meetings with foreign leaders and provides background information for him. So I think- I think he has a right to- to expect loyalty. What I- my line- my line, when I was at the NSC, was be loyal or be gone.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Including when it means having a different view of the last election or having family members who work in the Justice Department? I mean, there are some different definitions of loyalty.
SEC. GATES: Absolutely. And again, if, if you- if you- if your views are- if you hold views that are unacceptable to the President on things like that, like the election and so on, then you probably don't belong in his NSC staff. Maybe you belong at the State Department or at CIA or someplace, but you don't belong inside the White House complex. I mean, I know that's a hard thing to say, but, but I've watched this and and, and I've seen- you know, if you go back to the Nixon days, a number of- a number of NSC staffers resigned from the NSC over Vietnam because of the bombing campaigns and so on. So that's- those are the kinds of issues, it seems to me, where- where you need to be loyal. I think you need to give the president your honest views on things, on the subjects that you're in charge of. And it may be unwelcome to him, but he needs to hear different perspectives and different points of view. So being loyal doesn't mean not- it doesn't mean pulling your punches in terms of the policy debate, but once the president's made a decision, then you have to salute.
MARGARET BRENNAN: On the point of honestly briefing and giving sometimes hard to deliver information that's necessary. You were not just a director at the CIA, you were a long-time CIA person yourself. The president gets that daily briefing. A lot of that intel comes from the agency. The current Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, CBS is reporting she's really trying to exert more control over that daily brief, pull it away from the agency. Does that concern you?
SEC. GATES: She's not the first to try and do that. There were moves in that direction, actually, during the Reagan administration. And we started including in the President's daily brief contributions from, say, the Defense Intelligence Agency that had not been done before. But I think- I think that, you know, having that, you know, the Director of National Intelligence, I think, was not expected to sort of take a daily supervisory role over the content of the information flowing to the president. I think, you know, we would get information from NSA, from DIA, from all these different agencies. CIA did put together the president's brief, but my understanding is in recent years, there's been more and more of a move to have other members of the intelligence community collaborate on putting together the president's daily brief. So I'm I'm not really aware of the details right now, but, but it seems to me that- I remember when, I when I was head of the analytical side of CIA, probably the Director of Central Intelligence who took the greatest day-to-day interest in the PDB was Jimmy Carter's Director of Central Intelligence, Admiral Stanfield Turner, who would literally edit the PDB before it was put to bed. Most D.C. eyes have not touched the PDB. They have, they have let- let the professionals put in there what they needed to put in there, and then, and then they got the fury of the president when he disagreed with something that was in the PDB.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you have any concerns when you look at some of the reshaping, some of the firings within intelligence that- the two heads, for example, of the National Intelligence Council, were just dismissed by Gabbard.
SEC. GATES: Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I don't know enough about the details to be able to comment. The one thing that I would say concerns me, both at CIA and at the Defense Department, are the firings of probationary employees–
MARGARET BRENNAN: The new blood.
SEC. GATES: These are the- this is the future of these organizations. These are the young people dedicated to public service who bring in skills such as data analytics and so on, that- that are their older peer- people don't have, and they're the future of the agency. And there are ways to reduce the manpower and reduce the number of people at these agencies, and most agencies should be reformed and should be made more lean and more efficient, but there's a way to do it that doesn't shortcut the future and also doesn't end up firing people that actually are really needed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think that's what Elon Musk and the DOGE effort did?
SEC. GATES: I think so.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That America lost new talent–
SEC. GATES: I think there–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –that was important.
SEC. GATES: I think there has been a cost in talent with the categorization of the people. And I think the reason that probationaries were put at the top was because they're easier to fire and- but that doesn't mean that was the right thing to do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: When we look around the world right now, there are a lot of hot spots, not just this land war in Ukraine, in the middle of Europe, you have missile attacks between two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, you have China's increased aggression in Asia, the ongoing Israeli war, as we talked about. Two years ago, I re-read this essay that you wrote two years ago, and you said the U.S. confronts graver threats to its security than it ever has. Two years later, what does the playing field look like to you?
SEC. GATES: I think that if anything, the peril has gotten greater, simply because both Russia and especially China have significantly increased their arsenals and their military power. And particularly, as I say in the case of China, China has been much more aggressive in the Taiwan Strait and in the South China Sea than they were two years ago. I think they put themselves in a position, if they chose to do so, to put essentially a stranglehold around Taiwan in terms of shipping and so on. And you know, what we've never faced before is large, aggressive nuclear powers, both in Europe and in Asia, collaborating. And what we are facing today we've never faced as a country, is a country that's almost as rich as we are, that is technologically advanced, competing with us in many areas of technology, technology advances and- and one that has unanswered ambitions, unfulfilled ambitions–
MARGARET BRENNAN: You're talking about China.
SEC. GATES: –in the neighborhood, all China. And so, you know, China is the bigger threat by far, but doesn't negate the 1,500 nuclear weapons that the Russians have either.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yet.
SEC GATES: I'm sorry?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yet, they're expanding, right?
SEC GATES: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you've said, though, of China, I mean, you look at what's happening with their expansion. There was this trade war that on Monday was paused in some way in terms of the tariffs. There are some that are still in place, but some delayed for at least 90 days. Was there a point? Was there a win that came out of this confrontation?
SEC. GATES: My view is that if China is your primary competitor, your primary rival, your primary adversary, and we can avoid a military confrontation with China, then the outcome is going to be- is going to be settled by non-military instruments of power, above all, economics. And you would think that if we were going to put significant additional economic pressure on China, we would want all the other countries around the world to be on our side of the table and willing to collaborate with us in putting those pressures on China and saying you can't- you can't behave the way you have been. You can't dump, you can't steal intellectual property, you can't do these things. And to have most of the developed countries in the world, in essence, echoing each other and on the same page. Declaring trade wars on all of them did not, shall we say, enhance their willingness to collaborate with us against China. So who's the main enemy? And I think that's always the key question. I understand the imbalance in trade and- and that other countries, the Europeans, have never done as much since the end of the Cold War on defense as they should. I bellowed about it, like a lot of other American officials. But the question is, what's the main strategic threat, and what's the best strategy for dealing with that threat?
MARGARET BRENNAN: So having a tariff war with Europe, Japan, South Korea, all the allies at once, you're saying is self defeating.
SEC. GATES: I think- I think it doesn't make strategic sense. Now, others look at it from a more purely economic standpoint, and I understand that. But- but I think we have to, we have to decide, you know, is more revenue and reshoring- how does more revenue and reshoring of manufacturing balance off against what many in this administration consider, and both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill, consider to be the main, the main threat. And are there ways that you apply those tariffs in ways that maybe accomplish both goals.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You wrote in Foreign Affairs, President Trump's 'disdain for U.S. allies, his fondness for authoritarian leaders, his willingness to sow doubt about the United States' commitment to NATO allies, and his generally erratic behavior undermined us credibility and respect across the globe.' That was about his first term. He's back. Are you seeing a repeat of those behaviors now?
SEC. GATES: I think that- I think that he has been more cautious about the language that he has used. He has not talked about not fighting for other countries. He hasn't said, well, I'm not going to participate in Article V, we're not going to go to war for Europe. I mean, there's been some tough language toward the Europeans, the Vice President in Munich and so on, but–
MARGARET BRENNAN: He said things again about, oh if they don't pay up–
SEC. GATES: It's clear–
MARGARET BRENNAN: We don't take it seriously.
SEC. GATES: It's clear he does not see the allies- see our allies as- as an important asset for America's national interests, as a lot of us do. I think, and- and the Europeans have given him ammunition by not being willing to provide for their own defense in even the most modest way. But I think he has avoids- avoided some of the more inflammatory language toward NATO that he used in the first term.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask about the Pentagon, which you ran for a while. You hear a lot these days about identity politics, including when the Secretary of Defense addresses troops. Warrior and war fighting ethos is the mantra. You used to go out and speak to troops, including those serving overseas. What do you think that kind of message is doing? Is that the right tone?
SEC. GATES: Well, I think that- I mean it- as I understand it, it derives from a belief that in the Biden administration, that the leadership of the Pentagon was distracted by the need to pursue diversity in- initiatives and so on.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think they were?
SEC. GATES: You know, I live a long way from the Pentagon. I don't know. I think that, you know, if you look at what some of the military leaders have said, the amount of time that soldiers and leaders actually spent on those issues was pretty small, but it may have been more the focus of public remarks and things like that. I don't know whether it distracted people or not, but I know- I mean, my view is that a big part of the warrior ethos is taking care of your people. Every Second Lieutenant learns that, first thing. And- and so I think- think having a focus on being combat ready, on fitness, on those kinds of things absolutely makes sense and- and I think making sure- and when we talked about various changes, such as the decision made that I made in terms of women serving on submarines, and women going into the Special Forces and so on, the line always was, you can't compromise the standards. The expectations for women need to be exactly the same as they are for men and- and so a focus on that kind of meritocracy, I think, also makes sense. But I think you also have to remember the military needs to look like the American people, and it does. And you can call it whatever you want, but- but we are better served, in my view, by a military that reflects the American people and- and I think it does at this point.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The last two national defense strategies said the U.S. military is not postured or equipped to fight wars against two major rivals at the same time. You've talked about the need to fund defense more. Right now, even the Republican Chair of the Armed Services Committee says the White House isn't doing enough. If the focus is on war, fighting and a warrior ethos, isn't that contradictory?
SEC. GATES: I think there is a general understanding about two things. One is the Pentagon needs to get much more efficient and needs to be reformed, especially when it comes to acquisitions and the integration of new technologies. The second is that it needs more money to do those things and- and to fund new capabilities. The Department of Defense has not had a budget going into the fiscal year for 15 years. If there isn't- if that isn't a dereliction of duty by the Congress, I don't know what is. Because when you have a continuing resolution, you can't start anything new, you can't add to anything. People talk about- about expanding the ship building capabilities, about expanding our defense industrial capability and so on. And for all the speeches they make, nothing's happening because they haven't voted a single dollar to do any of those things. So there is this- and I don't understand, under the circumstances, why the administration's budget puts forward a budget for the Pentagon that, as I understand it, is basically flat, which, given some inflation means a cut.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That's exactly what the Republican Chair of the Armed Services Committee – he said 'it's going to shred to the bone our military capabilities and support to service members.' He said it amounts to a cut and that it contradicts what the President had promised.
SEC. GATES: There has to be an agreement between the president and the Congress on actually what has to be done to recapture our industrial- military industrial capabilities, and- and then for Congress to vote the money in a timely way. Let me give you one example of- of how big the gap is with China. Between 2017 and 2024, the number of warships in our Navy stayed essentially flat. During that same period, China launched 150 warships. They have 250 times the ship cap- building capability we do. This was us in World War II, and now the tables have been turned. We represent kind of 1/10 of 1% of global shipping- ship building capability. They've got over half. So if we're going to fix that, somebody's got to get off the dime.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So then in that context, is it worth to spend as much as $45 million on a military parade on June the 14th, which happens to be the President's birthday?
SEC. GATES: Well, I'll leave that up to- up to the gurus in Washington. In my career, we had one military parade in Washington, and that was after the Gulf War, and I don't- and I think we had to do some repair work on the streets in D.C. after that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You served in public service for nearly 50 years. What is your advice to graduates who are looking at the administration's message that the private sector is more productive than the public one, and when they look at all the cuts that are happening to federal agencies? Is it worth it to go into public service?
SEC. GATES: Well, I totally believe it's worth it to go into public service. There are few things you can do that are more gratifying and more satisfying, and when you look back, being able to say that maybe you made a difference in keeping the nation safer or the nation better off. The reality is government- government- the American government has generally been an enabler of the American people, in terms of education, in terms of opportunities and so on, and protecting opportunities. People make government work, and you want the best people you can get in those jobs. For all the rhetoric, the American civil service is the most honest and efficient anywhere in the world, and has been for a very long time. Does that mean it can't be improved? Absolutely not. Every organization needs to be reformed and improved, but these young people and their dedication and their- their possession of skills that older people don't have, data analytics and so on, they're crucial to the future of these agencies. And- and- and they shouldn't be daunted. We've been through bad times before. I was- I joined CIA at the height of Vietnam. Those were pretty rough days. 1968 was as bad a year as the United States maybe has had since the Civil War, internally, and with deep divisions and- and distrust of government. And believe me, distrust of government didn't begin recently, it began with Watergate and Vietnam. And so young people need to understand there are great opportunities to serve, and- and I would argue, if you're unhappy about things at the federal level, go into local government or state government. There are lots of different places where you can serve. It doesn't have to be at CIA or the State Department. It could be- it can be in a local NGO of some kind, or a charity. There are lots of ways to do public service, and- and young people who feel motivated to do that, this university has a lot of them. Texas A&M, where I was president, has the George H.W. Bush School of Government and Public Service. Lots of universities have these schools, and they've got a lot of kids who are eager to be helpful and help make the country better. My- my view is they ought to go for it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You talked about loss of confidence. Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan recently wrote about the broken windows theory in law enforcement, where you go after the small crimes to dissuade bigger ones. But she was arguing, basically, we need to apply that in politics right now. Are you concerned that even the appearance of corruption, foreign influence peddling, wears away at that, and that perhaps, as she calls for in this piece, that our parties, the Republican and Democratic Parties, need to be a little bit more honest and explicit in policing themselves?
SEC. GATES: Well, I think so, absolutely. I mean, you can't even get legislation on the hill about insider trading. And so I think appearances do matter. And you know, I mean, I remember how strict the rules were when I was in government. If I- if I got a gift when I was traveling from a foreign government, if it was valued at over $300 and I wanted it, I had to pay for it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Including a Boeing plane from a Gulf country? Over $300. All right, we are out of time. We've covered a lot. There's more to talk about, but I will leave it there, Mr. Secretary.
SEC. GATES: Okay. Thank you Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you.