Latest news with #SenateIntelligenceCommittee
CBS News
13 hours ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Transcript: Sen. Mark Warner on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 29, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Sen. Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, that will air on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on June 29, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin today with Virginia Democrat Mark Warner. He is the Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Good morning. SEN. MARK WARNER: Good morning. MARGARET BRENNAN: You've been, probably, sleep-deprived with all of what is happening, but I want to ask you about what's going on in Capitol Hill. Republicans are going to pass this along party lines. It's expected, right? But, it includes things in here that Democrats, including you, had supported, right? The no taxes on tips provision, more money for Border Patrol, expansion of the Child Care Tax Credit upwards of $2,000. Why vote against it, when there are popular provisions within it, and doesn't that just allow the President to say, oh, you want to raise taxes? SEN. WARNER: You can put as much lipstick on this pig as you want. This will- this will be a political albatross for the Republicans -- MARGARET BRENNAN: -- Why? -- SEN. WARNER: -- because it takes 16 million Americans off of health care coverage with cuts to Medicaid, and cuts to the Obamacare marketplace. That will move us, as a nation, back to the same percentage of uninsured we had before- before Obamacare. And, it's not like these people are not going to get sick. They're going to show up at the emergency room. Rural hospitals are going to shut down. That has been evidenced across the nation. It also goes after food assistance. So we are really in such a place that we're cutting, in my state, a couple hundred thousand people off of school lunches, school breakfasts. They even cut food banks. It's- it's cruel. They have also ended up, at the end of the day, cutting 20,000-plus clean energy jobs. And for what? This was to make sure that the highest, most wealthy Americans can get an extra tax-break. And, as you just saw on your chyron, there, it adds $4.5 trillion to the debt. I think many of my Republican friends know they're walking the plank on this, and we'll see if those who've expressed quiet consternation will actually have the courage of their convictions. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, some of the Republicans are arguing, well, we have to deal with these entitlements and the work requirements and things that may lead to some of the lack of qualifications you talk about. They're not that burdensome. It's volunteer work or part-time work. So, are you overstating it? SEN. WARNER: No. It's 16 million Americans off of health care. You know, Medicaid cuts- these numbers, they're not my numbers. They're all independent sources. And what- the thing that I don't think people have realized is people say, well, Medicaid, I'm not poor. I, maybe, buy my health insurance through the marketplace. Your rates will go up $800 or $900 a month. And that will trickle through the whole rest of the healthcare market, because if you suddenly take people out of the system, they show up at the emergency room in uncompensated care. The only way those costs get passed on, is higher health insurance to all of us who have traditional coverage. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, if this is so against their own interest, why haven't you been able to peel more Republicans away? SEN. WARNER: Well, I think we'll see. Even as recently as just an hour ago, some of the special Medicaid provisions for certain states, I think, were disallowed because of the so-called Byrd Rule. It's not over until it's over. I will give you- I will grant that President Trump has been able to hold his party in line in an unprecedented manner. At the other end, this bill will come back and bite them. This is going to do so much damage in terms of, not only health care, food assistance, you know, the whole notion that we are moving towards cleaner energy jobs, all on the chopping block, adding $4 trillion to the debt. Tell me, at the end of the day, how that is good for America? I don't think you can make the case. MARGARET BRENNAN: Education is another front in this fight with the President. And I want to ask you about what's happening in Virginia. We saw the University of Virginia's President, James Ryan, resign on Friday. This was extraordinary. This was a pressure campaign from the Trump administration over diversity, or so-called DEI programs. In the letter, and I want to read this, Ryan wrote that if he had tried to fight back, hundreds of employees would lose jobs, researchers would lose funding, and hundreds of students could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld. But, he resigned to avoid this. Is that now the playbook for other university presidents: walk away, don't have the fight? SEN. WARNER: This is the most outrageous action, I think, this crowd has taken on education. We have great public universities in Virginia. We have a very strong governance system, where we have an independent board of visitors appointed by the Governor. Jim Ryan had done a very good job; just completed a major capital campaign. For him to be threatened, and, literally, there was indication that they received the letter that if he didn't resign on a day last week, by five o'clock, all these cuts would take place. -- MARGARET BRENNAN: -- It was that explicit? -- SEN. WARNER: -- It was that explicit. -- MARGARET BRENNAN: This is- but that sounds personal. That doesn't sound specific to policy or changes. Like, how does the next university president get in line and get the money? SEN. WARNER: You're shocked it's coming- personal attacks are coming out of this administration? This is, you know- I thought the Republicans were about states' rights. I thought the Republicans were about, let's transfer more power in the States. This federal D.O.E. and Department of Justice should get their nose out of University of Virginia. They are doing damage to our flagship university. And if they can do it here, they'll do it elsewhere. At the end of the day, I understand that, with so many things at stake, that the idea, and I think Jim Ryan laid it out, that he was going to make his personal- personal job more important than these cuts. But, boy, that shouldn't have been the choice. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, and we know that the universe that the administration is looking at more universities, and the assistant A.G., Harmeet Dhillon, indicated that publicly, and University of California is next to the crosshairs, so we're going to be watching that carefully -- SEN. WARNER: They all want to make them like Harvard. They want to take on public universities, the way they have now taken on the Ivys. End of the day, this is going to hurt our universities, chase away what world-class talent. And, frankly, if we don't have some level of academic freedom, then what kind of country are we? MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about your oversight role on intelligence. You were briefed on what's going on with Iran. You said you fear the American people are being given a false sense of comfort with these declarations of mission accomplished. Do you believe U.S. intelligence knows how much of a capability Iran maintains now? SEN. WARNER: I don't think we have final assessments. Let me- first of all, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Secondly, the military performed an extraordinary mission, and I think they affected a great deal of damage to Iran's facilities. But, the idea that the President of the United States, with no data, two hours after the strike, is suddenly hitting the standard of saying total obliteration. That leads us to think that they are out of the game, and we don't know that yet. And, let's just be clear, you can actually set back the major program where they were trying to create, potentially, and there'd been no decision made by the Ayatollah to actually move towards weaponization, but where they could have a weaponized system with a dozen-plus missiles that are nuclear warned. But what they don't know is they didn't, and this was appropriate, I'm not criticizing the administration; they didn't go after the enriched uranium that was Isfahan, at that base, because it's buried so deeply -- MARGARET BRENNAN: -- They just hit it with Tomahawks, not the bunker-busters -- SEN. WARNER: -- So, the fact that they can have, still, enriched uranium, they may have some ability to still cascade that- means they could still move forward on something, that might be not delivered by a missile, but a bomb in a trunk of a car. And all I don't want is the American people, or, for that matter, our allies in the region, to rely on a term that was set by the President before he had any facts. MARGARET BRENNAN: Point taken there on the specifics of the rudimentary bomb. But, coming back to what you just said, there had been no decision by the Supreme Leader to make a weapon. Secretary of State Rubio, on this program, last Sunday, told me it was irrelevant, the answer to that question, because Iran had everything it needed to make and build a weapon. So, based on what you know, was there an emergency? Was there a reason the US had to act in the moment it did? SEN. WARNER: We were on the verge of what could have been a much greater war, in terms of Iran and Israel spreading to the whole region. Was there the imminent emergency that would trigger? Because lots of presidents have looked at taking this action, I think that's- that's very debatable. If, at the end of the day, we end up where this peace holds, and Iran doesn't strike back, Hallelujah. But, what we don't know, for example, is Iran going to try to hit us on cyber with this administration cutting, literally, half of our cyber-security personnel in this country? So, I just want to make sure that we- we do this in a measured way. The military did great. We have set them back. But let's not pretend that they don't have any capabilities. And the only way we can get resolution on that, Margaret, and Secretary Rubio acknowledged this in the brief, is if we have boots on the ground with inspectors. That means we've got to go to diplomacy. If America and Iran start negotiating this week, face-to-face, that would be good. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we were- we will talk to the man who directs those boots on the grounds, potentially, the inspectors later on in the program from the IAEA. Thank you very much, Senator. We're going to have to leave it there. We'll be back in a moment.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senate Democrats question "obliteration" of Iran's nuclear sites
Washington — Some Senate Democrats cast doubt on the Trump administration's characterization of the strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities after top officials briefed senators Thursday. In recent days, President Trump repeatedly declared "total obliteration" after three nuclear sites were bombed in a secret attack by the U.S. Meanwhile, an initial classified assessment found that the strikes set back Tehran's nuclear program by a matter of months, while Mr. Trump said the nuclear program was set back "basically decades." Democrats questioned assertions regarding how much Iran's nuclear program has been hindered. "I walk away from that briefing still under the belief that we have not obliterated the program," Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, told reporters. "The president was deliberately misleading the public when he said the program was obliterated. It is certain that there is still significant capability, significant equipment that remain." "You cannot bomb knowledge out of existence — no matter how many scientists you kill," Murphy added. "There are still people in Iran who how to work centrifuges. And if they still have enriched uranium and they still have the ability to use centrifuges, then you're not setting back the program by years. You're setting back the program by months." Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested that administration jumped to a conclusion too soon. "Listen, I hope that is the final assessment," Warner said. "But if not, does that end up providing a false sense of comfort to the American people?" Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said he did not receive adequate answers about whether the nuclear stockpile was obliterated. "What was clear is that there was no coherent strategy, no end game, no plan, no specific, no detailed plan on how Iran does not attain a nuclear weapon," Schumer said. Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said only a final battle damage assessment confirming the assertions "would enable us to be comfortable or complacent about what has been done." "The point is, we don't know. Anybody who says we know with certainty is making it up because we don't have a final battle damage assessment," he said. "I think 'obliterated' is much too strong of word because it implies that it couldn't be reconstituted or somehow it was completely eliminated." Still, Blumenthal praised the military action as "one that will go down in the annals of military history." "Certainly, this mission was successful insofar as it extensively destroyed and perhaps severely damaged and set back the Iranian nuclear arms program. But how long and how much really remains to be determined by the intelligence community itself," he said. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stood behind the administration's characterization, but acknowledged that Iran's capabilities could eventually be restored. "The real question is, have we obliterated their desire to have a nuclear weapon," Graham said after the classified briefing. "I don't want people to think that the site wasn't severely damaged or obliterated. It was. But having said that, I don't want people to think the problem is over, because it's not." Graham said he believed the program had been set back by years. Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said he was confident "it's been set way back — a year, at minimum." Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the strikes "effectively destroyed Iran's nuclear program." Cotton added that the initial assessment had several intelligence gaps and "assumed the worst-case scenario with perfect conditions in Iran." Top intelligence officials said Wednesday that new intelligence showed the nuclear program had been "severely damaged" and its facilities "destroyed." It would take the Iranians "years" to rebuild the facilities, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said. Ratcliffe was among those who briefed senators Thursday, along with Secretary of State and national security adviser Marco Rubio and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine. The briefing had been initially scheduled for Tuesday but was delayed two days, upsetting some Democrats who demanded immediate transparency about the strikes after they were initially left in the dark about the military action. Hegseth slams Iran strikes initial assessment that contradicts Trump's take Young Cuban girl asks Trump to lift travel ban stopping her from joining mom in U.S. Full Interview: Abigail Spanberger on her run for Virginia governor
Wall Street Journal
4 days ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
The Drug-Price Surrender to China
During my time chairing the Senate Intelligence Committee, I saw firsthand how China wages economic warfare—stealing intellectual property, subsidizing its domestic industries, and exploiting America's openness to gain the upper hand. Beijing has its sights set on America's longstanding leadership in biomedical innovation and is closing in. Unfortunately, some in Washington support policies with significant unintended consequences. President Trump's executive order on most-favored-nation drug pricing proposes to tie U.S. prices to the lowest prices paid by other wealthy countries. At first glance, it seems reasonable. Who doesn't want to pay less at the pharmacy? But the policy misunderstands global pharmaceutical markets and our own benefit system. It risks giving Beijing exactly what it wants: the collapse of America's innovation edge in medicine, and perhaps one of America's remaining bastions of industrial leadership.
New York Post
6 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
WH claims Jeffries didn't pick up the phone to be alerted about Iran strikes
The White House on Monday insisted it called Dem House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to give him a heads-up about the airstrikes in Iran — but said he didn't pick up the phone. 'First of all, we did make bipartisan calls,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told 'Fox & Friends' — pushing back on what she called 'fake news' reports that Democrats weren't given advance notice about the attacks while also contending the administration wasn't 'obligated' to do so. 'The White House made calls to congressional leadership. They were bipartisan calls. In fact, Hakeem Jeffries couldn't be reached,' Leavitt said of the New York pol. She said a CNN report that claimed 'the White House did not give a head's up to Democrats is just completely false.' 3 White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said there were false reports that Democrats weren't given the heads-up about the strikes. REUTERS A source familiar with Jeffries' situation told The Post his office 'received a … no-details notification' similar to what other Dems were given shortly before the strikes were announced. The source said the notification came on an unsecure line and that Jeffries did not get key details or a fuller classified briefing about the strikes before they occurred. The pol's office did not respond to a Post question about why Jeffries did not answer the call. Jeffries then held a press conference Monday afternoon griping, 'We haven't gotten an initial briefing from the White House. 'All we received from the White House was a so-called courtesy call with no explanation as to the rationale for the decision that was taken that could have serious consequences for the American people.' 3 The White House stressed that it had made attempts to reach out to Democratic leaders — including New York pols Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries — before the strikes against Iran. CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) received a similar call but was essentially 'given no details' about the strike, another source said. Jeffries and Schumer are part of the so-called 'Gang of Eight' congress members who receive highly sensitive intelligence briefings. The group is comprised of the top Democrat and Republican leaders and intelligence committee members of both chambers of Congress. The Post has confirmed that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) were briefed before the strikes, although it wasn't clear if they received the same alleged limited-information calls or more details. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was not given a head's up even with a bare-bones call, according to his office. Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) has implied that he was not given advance notice, either. The Post has reached out to his office for clarification. 'According to the Constitution, we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall,' Himes wrote on X on Saturday after the strikes were announced. Leavitt fired back at critics, 'The White House was not obligated to call anyone because the president was acting within his legal authority under Article II of the Constitution, as Commander in Chief of the President of the United States [sic]. 'We gave these calls as a courtesy, and the Democrats are lying about this because they can't talk about the truth of the success of that operation and the success of our United States military.' Some rank-and-file members of Congress, such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), have groused that the full Congress should've been given the chance to weigh in on the strikes, which he called unconstitutional. 3 President Trump hailed the strikes against three of Iran's nuclear facilities as a success. AP 'He should be a Democrat, because he's more aligned with them than with the Republican Party,' Leavitt said of Massie. President Trump has vowed to back efforts to defeat Massie in his primary next year in the 2026 midterm election cycle. Massie is championing a measure in the House to rein in Trump's war powers. A similar measure is circulating in the Senate.
The Journal
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Journal
Timeline: When did Donald Trump really decide to bomb Iran?
AS THE SMOKE clears from Sunday's US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, retrospective analysis of the timeline of events suggest Donald Trump knew he was never going to negotiate with Iran. Called Operation Midnight Hammer, the carefully choreographed bombing of critical sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan was carried out by a fleet of B-2 bombers using 14 'bunker buster' missiles and decoy planes in an effort to destroy what Israel maintains is a nefarious Iranian nuclear programme. In the hours after the mission, Trump claimed it a 'a spectacular military success'. The flight path and timeline of Operation Midnight Hammer. US Defence Department US Defence Department Less than two days prior to 'one of the most complex and historic military operations of all time', in the words of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, Trump communicated that he would make a decision on whether to strike Iran 'within the next two weeks', leaving the door open for negotiations. The New York Times analysed this statement with respect to the timeline of events leading up to US intervention in Iran, suggesting Washington engages in a deliberate exercise of political and military misdirection. 25 March – US says no nuclear threat from Iran The US published its annual threat assessment, stating: 'We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorised the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.' This was reaffirmed by US director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard who told a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing that month that nuclear weaponisation by Iran was not impending. Trump said this week that Gabbard's testimony before the committee was 'false', after which she has backtracked on her March statement, attacking 'dishonest media' and claiming Iran could soon build a nuclear weapon 'if they decide to'. 12 April – 60-day ultimatum US and Iranian officials held 'constructive' talks in Oman on the subject of limiting Iran's uranium enrichment and moves towards developing nuclear weapons after Trump sent a letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei. In the letter, Trump gave Iran sixty days to show 'substantial progress' on the issue. To keep the ultimatum viable, Trump asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to strike before then to allow for negotiations to achieve a peaceful resolution. 26 May – Netanyahu warns he will strike Despite Trump's negotiation window facilitating active talks on limiting Iranian nuclear capabilities, Netanyahu told a group of US lawmakers that he would undertake military action against Iran without seeking American approval , according to CNN. Advertisement Netanyahu has for over three decades in politics tried to enlist the help of the US in dismantling Iran's nuclear programme, constantly warning of weaponisation in the very near future, but to no avail. 8 June – Camp David talks Less than a week out from the commencement of Israel's strikes against Iran, Trump and his national security advisers huddled at Camp David where military plans were drawn up. Sources told ABC News that among the items on the agenda in those discussions was Israel's plan to proactively strike upon the passing of Trump's 60-day deadline. This claim has legitimacy, considering reports of daily contact between Trump and Netanyahu prior to Israel's pre-emptive attack on Iran's military sites and army officials. 9 June – IAEA gives verdict The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a statement commenting on Iran's uranium enrichment efforts. IAEA director general Rafael Mariano Grossi said: 'Unless and until Iran assists the Agency in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.' 13 June – Israel strikes first One day after the lapse of Trump's 60-day window, Israel began airstrikes against Iran, triggering what have become daily missile exchanges between both sides. The initial attacks killed top Iranian military figures, including Ali Shamkhani, a key nuclear negotiator and close aide to Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 16 June – Trump ditches the G7 Three days after fighting began, Trump left the G7 Summit in Canada under the guise of working to resolve the conflict. That same day, he shirked any appearance of confidentiality about his country's military plans in Iran, posting to Truth Social: 'Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!' 17-19 June – Trump keeps the world guessing In the week leading up to the American strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, Trump remained ambivalent about whether he would intervene in the conflict, telling reporters 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do'. He faced opposition to the move, even from the most ardent of the Maga movement, including the outspoken Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Greene and conservative TV host Tucker Carlson. 20 June – America intervenes Trump authorised a fleet of US B-2 bombers to drop 14 bunker busters on Iranian nuclear sites in the early hours of the morning local time. US defence secretary Pete Hegseth said 'took months and weeks of positioning and preparation', implying that the US was always fully intent on assisting Israel is dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities if called upon. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... Our Explainer articles bring context and explanations in plain language to help make sense of complex issues. We're asking readers like you to support us so we can continue to provide helpful context to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Learn More Support The Journal
