Transcript: Jack McCain on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," May 25, 2025
MARGARET BRENNAN And we're back with another McCain. Jack McCain is the son of Cindy and the late Senator John McCain. He's a Navy veteran who served in the Afghanistan War, and he joins us now from Kyoto, Japan. Good to have you here.
JACK MCCAIN: Thank you. I'm incredibly glad to be here.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, we know when you were in Afghanistan, you flew alongside and helped to train some of the Afghan Black Hawk pilots. Why is it important to you now to speak out on their behalf? Are any of your personal contacts there at risk?
MCCAIN: Yes, basically everyone that we were unable to get out is at risk. These pilots and crew members fought the Taliban toe to toe, and because of that, the Taliban is trying to seek them out for reprisal, something that they distinctly promised that they would not do. So not only they- are they in danger, but we owe them a debt. I believe that I'm vertical and still on this earth because of the efforts of my Afghan pilots and crews. And not only do I owe them personally, but the nation owes them a debt of honor, one that we have yet to repay. Everyone, interpreters, ground troop pilots that worked and fought alongside the United States at our behest, should be able to be evacuated here to the United States and should be taken care of.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you were active duty at the time of the very chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. I know you helped to get Afghans out. During that period of time, there were a lot of Afghans airlifted out. Who was left behind and what promises were made?
MCCAIN: Yeah, the problem is everyone was left behind, whether it was family members, including family members of U.S. servicemen, whether it was pilots, crews, the people that I worked with, special forces. We did everything we could to get as many as we could out. But through the chaos of the withdrawal and frankly, the lack of planning on the part of the United States government, it was up to individuals and sometimes smaller military units to help either- in my case, I had to triage who we were going to take out. I had to prioritize operational pilots over pilots in training, versus crew members in the back, simply because everyone was trying to do everything they could. So we have tens of thousands that fought alongside us left behind, each one of them in danger in their own way, not to mention family members that can be used as tools of leverage against those that are even here in the United States now.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And to that point: under the Taliban right now, women aren't even allowed to speak in public. They can't go to school over the sixth- past the sixth grade. They're not allowed to work. So the daughters, the wives, the female family members of a lot of these people who worked with Americans are facing some pretty tough conditions. However, this administration just recently said through Homeland Security that it is safe for Afghans to return. So those here could be sent back, some Afghans who had arrived here and been given temporary protection. Does what the U.S. government said match in any way what you are hearing is happening on the ground?
MCCAIN: I would disagree with the entire notion that it is safe for anyone, especially if they've been in the United States, to return to rule under the Taliban. Whether they are, male, female, young, old, that regime has proven itself to be- to not only have gone back on every promise they made to us, but to be- to have no problem using human lives as pawns to imprison, torture, rape, kill, even sell into slavery. So no, I disagree that Afghanistan is safe for anybody, much less those that fought on behalf of the United States. My pilots were doing gun runs on Taliban positions as they were moving forward on the base in Kandahar. I would say that they have a score- the Taliban have a score they'd like to settle. So absolutely, not unequivocally, it is not safe to return.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So there are a number of veterans of the war in Afghanistan who serve currently as lawmakers in the United States Congress. And it is Congress that sets the number of visas for the- these Special Immigrant Visas, SIVs. We checked, there are more than 144,000 applicants in the pipeline, but there are only 11,000 visas left. So that's not even counting family members here. Have you gotten any indication from the lawmakers you know that they are going to raise that cap?
MCCAIN: No, I have not, and it is an utter travesty that that is the case. People on both sides of the aisle had- have served in Afghanistan or fought alongside Afghans, much like me, and the political theater that has taken place of simply ignoring the problem can only be summarized by the word despicable. This is an issue of humanity. This is an issue of national honor, and this is a debt that we owe. So I would urge lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to solve this problem, because it is not going to go away. It is your job to legislate, so please do so.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So that's in the hand of lawmakers. That was a problem even during the last administration. Now though, we have this extra complication where the Trump administration has put in orders to restrict refugee admissions and said the U.S. should prioritize people who can, quote, "fully and appropriately assimilate and who do not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States." That's made it hard for Afghan refugees, family members to enter here. How do you reassure the public that these refugees are not a risk? Even the Vice President of the United States has said he does not trust the vetting of refugees.
MCCAIN: Well, I mean, I think I passed the ultimate test in that I literally put my lives in- my life in these peoples' hands. So not only are they worthy of trust, but they are worthy of our care. The vetting process has taken place. It continues to take place. And if vetting is the issue, fantastic. Let's pass legislation to solve that problem. Let's make sure everyone up to this point has been vetted. But if there's something else that would make anyone on any side of the aisle feel safer, then great, there's a solution for this. It's called the legislative process. So I would urge lawmakers to do the one job that they're paid by the American people to do, and to solve the problem that we have created ourselves.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Secretary Rubio testified this week that he will follow the letter of the law as written by Congress. Congress had established a program to help pay for the Afghans to be resettled here. It's the CARE Program at the State Department, but now the program is no longer paying the way for these Afghans. How difficult is it for some of the Afghans you know to pay to get their wife, their family members here?
MCCAIN: These people were taken from their country with only the clothes on their back in about 99% of cases. They were dumped off into locations that they were unfamiliar with, and as much as service members and the government did an amazing amount to try to support them, it's still not enough. When you imagine the massive change in their lives, not to mention the fact that their entire country and family has now been shattered as a result of American action. It is beyond difficult. I have individuals who are combat wounded, who have extreme injuries that make them almost unable to work, and it's not like I can send them to the VA despite the fact that they got shot at on behalf of the American government. So I would say that life is extremely difficult, but those individuals are of great resolve, and they are doing everything they can to overcome and to become great Americans, the great Americans that I know they will be, and that anybody that knows them personally knows them to be.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There have been a few investigations of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, by the Pentagon, by the State Department. They have found fault with the Biden administration. They have found fault with the first Trump administration. This past week, Secretary Hegseth announced he's going to do a new investigation of it all. That it will be led by his spokesperson. It's unclear why that person in particular. What do you think was missing from those original reviews?
MCCAIN: I don't think anything is missing from those original reviews, and I don't think that going back over the process of the withdrawal is going to solve any of the very real problems that exist today. It was political theater the first time, it is political theater the second time, and it is political theater yet again. This does nothing to solve the problem that we created. This does nothing to make the lives of Afghans better. This does nothing to help stabilize the region. It is simply the Biden administration pointing the finger at the Trump administration, the Trump administration pointing the finger at the Biden administration. It's happening all over again. This is a useless waste of effort, but frankly, it is one that I see continuing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go. Your father famously said it matters less that you can fight, but what you fight for is the real test. I know you feel passionately about this particular issue. Can you ever see yourself entering politics to fight for other issues?
MCCAIN: That's a very interesting question, one that I happen to get asked fairly regularly. And I would say, trying to follow his example, that the best life is one lived adventurously, and if- in service of a cause greater than one's self interest. I'm doing that, and if someday that does take me to office, in service of the nation, then by all means. But to live a life simply focused on the single goal of attaining public office is not, in my mind, a life purposefully lived. In service and in office, it is a purposefully lived one, but that should not be the overriding goal of your life.
08:44:56
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will continue watching. Jack McCain, thank you for weighing in on this important issue.
MCCAIN: Thank you so much.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
VA reverses Biden admin policy providing abortion services agency calls contrary to federal law
EXCLUSIVE: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will announce Friday that it is reversing a Biden-era exception allowing abortion services to be provided to veterans, in what the department cited as likely counter to the current medical benefits package prescribed by law. In a memo obtained by Fox News Digital, the VA said it will return its medical package and "CHAMPVA" benefits to the time preceding a September 2022 agency rule that removed the long-standing abortion restrictions. The 1999 medical benefits package that remains intact, prescribed under the outline of a 1992 law, does not authorize abortion services because they are not considered "needed" under the statute. "It is without question that VA has the authority to bar provision of abortion services through the VA medical benefits package to veterans," the memo read, adding that the former VA leadership made its adjustment in favor of providing abortions in response to the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that effectively overturned Roe v. Wade. Then-Rep. Gillespie Montgomery, D-Miss., laid out in his 1992 Veterans Health Care Act that the agency could provide women with multiple healthcare services, including Papanicolaou Tests ("Pap-smears"), mammography and "general reproductive care, including the management of menopause." However, the law explicitly precluded "infertility services [and] abortions" unless they relate to a pregnancy with "risks of complication [that] are increased by a service-connected condition." "Prior to the Biden administration's politically motivated change in 2022, federal law and longstanding precedent across Democrat and Republican administrations prevented VA from providing abortions and abortion counseling," a VA spokesperson told Fox News Digital in discussing the policy reversal. "VA's proposed rule will reinstate the pre-Biden bipartisan policy, bringing the department back in line with historical norms." The VA memo added that the Dobbs decision was intended to prevent federal overreach and return control of abortion policy to the states, and that the agency prior to current Secretary Doug Collins' tenure "did the exact opposite" of what it said its 2022 policy change was intended to do in that regard. "[It] creat[ed] a purported federal entitlement to abortion for veterans where none had existed before, and without regard to state law," the VA said. "For nearly 50 years, and across a slew of federal programs, including Medicaid, the Child Health Insurance Program, TriCare, Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, and others, Congress has consistently drawn a bright line between elective abortion and health care services that taxpayers would support." The agency also emphasized that its policy reversal will not prevent pregnant women facing life-threatening circumstances from receiving care in those instances.
The Verge
2 hours ago
- The Verge
Fujifilm is raising camera prices by up to $800
Fujifilm has raised prices on cameras and lenses across its lineup, with price hikes reaching into the hundreds of dollars. Among the hikes is an increase to the price of Fuji's ultra-popular X100VI from $1,599 to $1,799. The capable X-T5 has gone from $1,699 to $1,899. And the already very expensive GFX100 II has gone from $7,499 to $8,299 — an $800 increase. Increases to lens prices appear to be somewhat more modest, with bumps in the $50 to $150 range. The price hikes come as President Donald Trump threatens to finally, actually implement his sweeping new round of tariffs on August 7th. Nintendo announced today that it was raising the price on older Switch models, and Apple has said it's burning well over $1 billion on added costs. 'These price increases seem to be here to stay.' For Fuji, the tariffs have been a bit of a disaster. In 2024, the company shifted its supply chain for the X100VI over to China ostensibly to help meet the overwhelming demand it expected after the camera's predecessor, the X100V, blew up on TikTok and was being resold at huge markups for much of its lifespan. Following the initial round of tariffs on China going into effect, Fuji moved some of the X100VI's production back to Japan. But even after cutting a deal with the Trump administration, most imports from Japan are still being hit with an additional 15 percent tariff. The new prices are reflected at retailers like B&H and Adorama. Moment, which sells Fuji cameras, writes in a blog post that it's 'no surprise that Fujifilm needed to increase prices this year' as a result of Trump's tariffs. They don't appear to be temporary, either. 'At this time, these price increases seem to be here to stay,' the company writes. Fuji didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A number of other camera companies have raised prices at this point, including Leica and Canon. PetaPixel reports that Fuji's price hikes were actually set before the new tariff rates were announced, which could put the company in a precarious position if the actual rates are higher than expected. Given the ongoing mystery of when Trump's tariffs will be applied, to whom, at what rate, and for what length of time, this is likely only the start of the price from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Jacob Kastrenakes Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Cameras Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Gadgets Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All News
New York Times
5 hours ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Markets Fall on Weak Jobs Data and Trump's New Tariffs
Workers at the printed circuit board assembly line at Zetwerk Electronics near Bengaluru, India, in June. Personal electronics is one of India's biggest categories of exports to the United States. President Trump's new list of tariffs on half the world's countries sent the United States' trading partners scrambling to understand how their businesses will be affected. India got the bad news a day earlier — its goods face a tariff of 25 percent or more — but the extra time was hardly enough to adjust to the fresh chaos. Indian negotiators had not expected to conclude a meaningful deal in time to meet Mr. Trump's revised deadline of Aug. 1. But they did expect to be treated as well as their neighbors, and to keep haggling with American officials until October or November, when Mr. Trump was invited to visit India as part of the Quad defense group, which brings together four big democracies — India, the United States, Japan and Australia — with a shared interest in standing up to China. Instead, they were fed a heap of insults and injuries. Along with the 25 percent rate, one of the highest in Asia and only a point lower than what was threatened on Liberation Day in April, India was informed that its existing trade barriers are 'strenuous and obnoxious'; it will be charged an untold penalty for buying Russian oil; it is a 'dead economy.' It's archrival Pakistan was praised and promised an oil-exploration deal. Hurt feelings aside, the results are confusing. Two of the biggest categories of exports to the United States from India are personal electronics, worth about $14 billion a year, and pharmaceuticals, worth $10 billion. Rajesh Sharma, executive director of India Cellular and Electronics Association, said smartphones were exempted from these tariffs; so did executives at pharmaceutical companies. But on Friday, after reading the executive order, the Global Trade Research Initiative in New Delhi concluded the opposite. India's stock markets dipped on the news for two days running. Indian and international banks wrote notices warning that the country's generally hard-charging economic growth is likely to slow measurably as a result of the tariffs. Then there are the unknown tariffs. On July 6, Mr. Trump wrote that countries aligned with the BRICS group, of which India is a founding member, would incur an additional 10 percent penalty. Then on July 14, he said that, if Russia didn't make peace with Ukraine within 50 days, he would punish its trading partners with 'secondary tariffs' of 100 percent. That figure is making Indians worry anew. Mr. Trump added 'plus a penalty' to the 25 percent rate imposed on India, for buying Russian oil and weapons. Shashi Tharoor, a prominent member of the opposition, spoke to an Indian news agency about the possible impact. 'There's even talk of a 100 percent penalty,' he said, 'which will destroy our trade with America.' There is evidence that Indian buyers of Russian oil were already pulling back before the executive order. 'Indian refiners have reduced Russian crude purchases this week,' said Sumit Ritolia, an analyst at Kpler, which tracks shipping and commodities. They were already 'looking to further diversify, amid rising concerns over potential U.S. sanctions,' having spent years taking advantage of discounted Russian oil to reduce their imports from the Persian Gulf. Reducing the United States' trade deficit is one of the Trump administration's goals, so convincing India to buy more American oil and gas would make sense. Last year, India exported $45.7 billion more goods to the United States than it imported. It spent about three times as much importing oil. If a third of that were redirected to American sources, their bilateral trade would be evened out. Mr. Trump's angry barrage of social media has complicated further negotiations. The breakdown of trust between Narendra Modi, India's prime minister, and whom he called his 'true friend,' Mr. Trump, is likely to make it harder to complete any deal, analysts say. Indian news outlets have reported that Mr. Trump wanted to iron out some outstanding issues, after four rounds of direct talks between the two sides, in a phone call with Mr. Modi. The Indian government was anxious to avoid any of his last-minute surprises. The U.S. commerce secretary accused India of 'slow-rolling' its trade negotiations. Indian officials and analysts say the friction is caused by a fundamental difference of approach. Mr. Trump has a penchant for quick, top-down deal-making. India's bureaucracy moves at a methodical pace, especially when it comes to opening up the agriculture market, which is politically sensitive. India's recently concluded trade deal with Britain took three years of talks, under two different British prime ministers. On Friday, India's foreign ministry released a statement that put on a brave face. 'India and the United States share a Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership,' established in 2013 between President Barack Obama and then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, 'anchored in shared interests, democratic values and robust people-to-people ties.' The ministry stuck to principles, revealing no plan for breaking through Mr. Trump's hard line. 'This partnership has weathered several transitions and challenges,' the statement said. 'We remain focused on the substantive agenda that our two countries have committed to and are confident that the relationship will continue to move forward.' Rebecca Elliott , Mujib Mashal and Hari Kumar contributed reporting.
