c tour ears. genesys, we're behind every customer smile. i'm margaret brennan in washington. on this fourth of july weekend on "face the nation" we'll look at the challenges facing an increasingly divided america. president biden's message after a week of consultation with our closest allies on the issues threatening global stability. all is well with our friends. the biggest threat to the world view of america is from within. >> you haven't found one person, one world leader to say america is going backwards. america is better positioned to lead the world than we ever has been. the one thing that has been destabilizing is the outrageous behavior of the supreme court of the united states. >> he's not the only one angry with the supreme court, as they

conclude their most consequential session in years, about far-reaching decisions on religion, the environment, immigration, and of course abortion rights. he is hoping democrats channel their anger and fear into support for his party in the november midterm elections. >> i share the public outrage of this extremist court that's committed to moving america backwards. but ultimately congress is going to have to act to codify roe into federal law. >> we'll assess the impact of these rulings. the court did rule in favor of president biden's plan to scrap a trump-era policy to make asylum seekers wait in mexico, clearing the way for more migrants to enter the u.s. we'll talk with homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas about how the administration olympians to handle the influx. with rapid-fire local court decisions causing more chaos over where abortion is now illegal, we'll look at the state of maternal health in america. how can we keep our abysmal

record from getting worse. then what's next for the january 6th hearings following trump white house aide cassidy hutch hutchinson's stunning testimony? >> the president said something to the effect of i'm the effing president, take me to the capitol now. >> we'll talk to congressman adam schiff about the attempts to have testimony unfavorable to the trump administration. plus our interview with the german chancellor, olaf scholz. it's all just ahead on "face the nation." ♪ good morning, and welcome to "face the nation." thank you for joining us this holiday weekend. we begin today with immigration and the win for the biden administration last week in the supreme court. that of the ending of president

trump's remain in mexico policy. to discuss that and more we want to welcome homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas to this broadcast. mr. secretary, good morning to you. happy early fourth of july. >> good morning, and the same wish to you, margaret. thank you. >> so what happens now that remain in mexico is going away? are you ending this policy immediately? and what happens to those individuals in the encampments waiting right across the border. >> margaret, we were very pleased with th supreme court's decision, so now in light of the favorable supreme court ruling, we have to wait for that ruling to reach the district court that issues the injunction preventing us from ending "remain in mexico." so we have several weeks to go before the district court lifts its injunction. until then we are obligated by the district court's ruling to continue to implement the "remain in mexico" program and we will do so in accordance with

law. >> so these people will still have to wait in the camps on the mexican side of the border, but what happens to them next? >> right now they do have to remain in mexico and then we will actually continue with their immigration enforcement proceedings. remember, when people are encountered at the border, they are just not merely released into the united states. they are placed in immigration enforcement proceedings. and that is what will occur with these people. their proceedings will continue in immigration court where they will pursue their claims for asylum. and if those claims are unsuccessful, they will be swiftly removed from the united states. >> so reuters is reporting that there are right now thousands of people who departed on friday and are moving towards the u.s. border. what do you need right now? do you need more personnel for customs and border control? exploiting the w are working vey

closely with our partners to the south, with mexico. that breaks up very often these caravans of individuals that seek to take that dangerous to be meturh . h ae onl continue to warn people not to take the dangerous journey. we saw so tragically in san antonio, texas, one of the possible tragic results of that dangerous journey and so many people don't even make it that far in the hands of exploitative smugglers. we continue to enforce immigration law as is our responsibility. >> you're saying do not come but people are moving right now. so the efforts to stop the root causes are not stopping them. this horrific trafficking, the

worst smuggling tragedy in u.s. history with those individuals found dead in that trailer truck, that's not stopping people. are you predicting that this is only going to get more significant from here, that we are going to go beyond the record surge in migrants? >> no, i am not predicting that at all. and in fact in th we of the san antonio tragedy and our homeland security investigatin what occurred and working with office in the prosecution of thus far four individuals who have been charged with that heinous crime, we're working with our partners to the south as this is a regional challenge that requires a regional response. >> but they got past the u.s. border officials. >> we have a multi-layered approach, margaret. we of course have our

inspections at the port of entry with our sophisticated nonintrusive technology. we then have checkpoints that are staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. the laredo checkpoint in question, 10,000 to 14,000 vehicles pass through that checkpoint every day. >> so how did this smuggler get these people across? 53 people died? >> these are very sophisticated transnational organizations. they have evolved over the last 30 years. in the '90s i prosecuted them and they were much more rudimentary. now they are very sophisticated using technology and they're extraordinarily organized transnational criminal enterprises. we are much more sophisticated using technology and personnel 24 hours a day. you know, we have saved more than 10,000 individuals this fiscal year alone and more than 400 vehicle inspections.

so can a truck get through our sophisticated means? sometimes yes. but we have interdicted more drugs at the ports of entry than ever before. we've rescued more migrants. we're seeing a challenge that is really regional. hemispheric in scope and we're addressing it accordingly. >> i also want to ask you about what we've seen in the past 24 hours. there's been a back and forth between state and federal law enforcement regarding security to supreme court justices and protests outside their home. does it go beyond picketing? is it specific and credible? >> so we have seen a heightened threat environment over the last several months over a number of different volatile issues that galvanize people on different sides of each issue. we in the department of homeland security have become involved. there is a connectivity between

the opposition to a particular view or an ideology of hate, a false narrative and violence. it is that connectivity to violence when we engage and we are very mindful that the supreme court's decision in reversing and overturning roe versus wade has really heightened the threat environment and we have deployed resources to ensure the safety and security of the supreme court and the justices. >> before i let you go, i do want to ask you about what we saw this weekend up in boston. a white supremacist group called patriot front marched through that city. they recently planned events, a riot in idaho. you're seeing this far right group, the proud boys, also disrupt events in california. how concerned are you right now about these militias? >> margaret, i have said and this has been echoed by the

director of the fbi that domestic violent extremism is one of the greatest terrorism threats that we face in the homeland today. individuals spurred by ideologies of hate, false narratives, personal grievances, to acts of violence. it is that violence that we respond to and we seek to of course prevent. we are in a heightened threat environment. >> mr. secretary, thank you for your time today. >> thank you, margaret. we're joined now by california democratic congressman adam schiff. he is a member of the january 6th select committchairmthellin committee. good morning and good to have you here in person. >> thank you. good to be with you. >> i want to pick up on what we just heard from the secretary when we were talking about this far right group, the proud boys. this is one of the militias involved in january 6th. in this incredible testimony this past week from cassidy hutchinson, the former trump white house aide, chief of staff to mark meadows, she testified

she heard conversations inside the white house about this far right group and another one called the oath keepers. is there corroborating evidence to show that there was communication between those militias and the white house? >> i don't want to get too far ahead of what we intend to present in our next hearings, but our very next hearing will be -- who was participating, how it was organized including the participation of these white nationalist groups like the proud boys, the 3%ers and others. we'll presenting all the information we have. answer all the questions we've and continue our investigation into precisely what you're describing. >> hutchinson said rudy giuliani was someone she personally heard talking about them. >> this is one of the reasons that we had interest in his testimony and interest in the testimony of others. we obviously want to probe any

connection between these dangerous groups and the white house. i think we've gotten some answers but there's still a great deal we don't know that we're endeavoring to find out. >> it's an incredible allegation of course. would be a much graver constitutional threat to the country than the political difficulties involved with bringing charges. she said this in an abc interview. she also said there were possible criminal referrals. >> for four years the justice department took the position that you can't indict a sitting president. if the department were to take the position that you can't investigate or indict a former president, then the president becomes above the law. that's a very dangerous idea that the founders would never have subscribed to. even more dangerous in the case of donald trump. donald trump is someone who has

shown when he's not held accountable, he goes on to commit worse and worse abuses of power. i agree with judge carter in california. i think there's evidence the former president engaged in multiple violations of the law and that should be investigated. >> but there will be a political calculus to this as well. this is incredibly divided country right now. millions of people voted for the former president and still believe, wrongly, that he won the election. prosecuting him, isn't there a very high risk to that? >> you know, it's certainly not a step to be taken lightly at all. at the same time, immunizing a former president who has engaged in wrongdoing i would agree with the vice chair is more dangerous than anything else. and the decision not to move forward with an investigation or not to move forward with the prosecution because of someone's political status or political influence or because they have a following, to me that is a far more dangerous thing to our constitution than following the

evidence wherever it leads, including when it leads to a former president. your colleague, adam kinzinger, said new witnesses have come forward since cassidy hutchinson testified. how many, how significant? is there new information that requires new hearings? >> i think there's certainly more information that is coming forward. in terms of whether that will materialize into particular witnesses on this topic or that topic, we're going to wait and see, but we are following additional leads. i think those leads will lead to new testimony. it's part of the reason we wanted her to come before the public is we were hoping it would generate others stepping forward seeing her courage would inspire them to show the same kind of courage. >> has she inspired pat cipollone to take up the request to speak to him again? >> i hope so. we're in discussions with mr. cipollone's counsel. i'm hopeful that we can work out bringing him in for testimony.

he clearly has information about concerns about criminal violations, concerns about the president going to the capital that day, concerns about the chief of staff having blood on his hands and not doing more to stop that violent attack on the capitol. and i hope that he'll demonstrate the same courage we saw of cassidy hutchinson display. >> who is attempting to intimidate the witnesses, as congressman cheney said, and how significant are the security threats against hutchinson? >> i have to imagine the security threats are very pronounced. certainly our members are feeling them and hearing them. i have to expect the same is true of her since the former president and his enablers are going after her. we want to make sure that she is safe. we have several concerns. we have the concern over the safety of our witnesses, we have concern over people trying to influence or intimidate

witnesses. >> who's doing that? >> i can't comment on specifics. >> but you know? >> we wanted to let the country know and anyone in the former president's world know that if they seek to intimidate witnesses, they will be referred for prosecution and we hope the justice department will move against them. we also have a concern about the fact that some of these witnesses are sharing lawyers, that essentially, and this gets to some of the testimony we revealed during the cassidy hutchinson hearing, that they are reviewing transcripts, that they're essentially coordinating potentially their stories or that witnesses feel they have got big brother watching when they sit in for their depositions. >> so on that, i want to ask you, one of the things that cassidy hutchinson described having been told by another individual is about this tussel in the beast, the president's vehicle where he allegedly lunged for the wheel demanding to be taken to the capitol.

the committee has already interviewed tony ornato and secret service agent robert engel. was this the first time you heard about that incident? did they back that up or contradict that sytestimony? >> i can say i think we'd be interested in having him come back and others that can shed light on this. but the most important thing is there doesn't appear to be any dispute over the fact the president was furious that he could not accompany this armed mob to the capitol. that seems to be undisputed. and the fact that the president knew that the mob was armed, wanted the magnetometers down so they could take their arms to the capitol, that doesn't seem to be disputed by anyone except donald trump, and he has, as we've seen in the past, no credibility at all. >> quickly before i let you go, with your intel hat on here, the bullet that was used to kill an

american journalist has been handed over to the united states. it's undergoing ballistics testing. if israeli soldiers did indeed kill her, what consequences should there be? >> i think there needs to be an independent investigation so we understand exactly what happened and who was responsible and why. once we know that, then i think we can talk about what the consequences should be. but i do think there needs to be an objective investigation and i'm glad that the united states congressman schiff, thanks t for your time. >> thank you. >> "face the nation" will be back in a minute. stay with us.

the supreme court ended its term with a number of historic rulings. for a breakdown and a look at what comes next, we turn to cbs legal correspondent jan crawford. you have been incredibly busy, jan. we had a number of these decisions this week that reflect the will of the conservative majority. president biden called them extremist -- an extremist court. how do you characterize the

decisions? >> i mean this is a court that has shown it is clearly turned firmly to the right. it could have sweeping implications for american life, democratic process. taken together what we've seen this term is this is a court that is not going to get involved in these divisive policy issues unless that it's clearly within its purview. if it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, then that goes to the democratic process. that's what we saw in the abortion rights case overturning roe versus wade. it was not specifically mentioned. therefore, we're not going to resolve it. back to the democratic process. if congress can't do its job and congress isn't acting, this is a court that says administrative agencies and unelected bureaucrats, they can't jump isn't and fill those vacuums if congress isn't acting and try to set major policy questions. that was the case involving climate change and the epa. the bottom line is this court, unlike a more liberal court, is not jumping in to fill these

vacuums where congress or the legislatures are failing to act. and that is going to mean a profound difference in the democratic process and the rule of the courts or the role of the courts. >> because it's not clear if lawmakers will take up these issues. >> with a functioning congress, absolutely. but they're saying the ball is in congress' court or the state legislatures when it's a policy dispute if it's not specifically addressed by the constitution. >> to that point because now we are seeing all these states, their courts, their legislatures have arguments over what to do next, particularly on the issue of abortion. kentucky, florida, utah, louisiana, really significant legal battles taking place about abortion protections. what is your takeaway so far? is there a commonality to where they're ending up? >> right. remember 26 states asked the supreme court to overturn roe versus wade and set their own policies and that's what we're seeing now. the court agreed and we're seeing that play out across the country.

already states, almost a dozen states, had laws in place ready to go to completely ban abortion in their states. so you're seeing abortion rights advocates go into those states and file lawsuits in state courts under state constitutions because the supreme court said it's not in the federal constitution. but if a state has more protective rights in their constitutions, then work it out there. so that's what we're seeing now. we're seeing these legal battles play out at the same time as the state legislatures are passing their own laws. blue states passing laws to ensalhrine abortion access. >> and some people mistakenly think abortion is banned. >> that's the most striking thing. the supreme court did not ban abortion nationwide. they just said there's not a right to abortion in the constitution. therefore, it goes back to the democratic process and states set their open policies. if congress wants to do something, congress can, but it's not in the constitution. so now you've seen a patchwork of laws and you're seeing legal

challenges under state constitutions, but you're going to see different laws in different states. if you're in new york or california or boston or illinois or any of those democratic states, this will not affect your life at all. the laws in your states won't change. it's those red states that we see that will try to ban or greatly restrict abortion and we already are seeing that. >> i want to ask you about what's coming. >> oh, yeah. >> why do you say oh, god? >> as big of a term this was and whenever the court overturns a near 50-year-old precedent, as they did with roe versus wade, next term could be as consequential, divisive as this term or more so. they have major cases already on the docket. they'll continue to add them throughout the year. they already have a case challenging affirmative action in college admissions. i expect the court will end that. they have a case about a conflict between free speech and gay rights and whether a state law can prohibit someone from saying on their website they oppose same-sex marriage and don't want to do that business

and designers and artists. they have voting rights and an elections case that could have huge implications for elections. and a new justice stepping in to a divided court. >> jan, you'll be back with us a lot, i understand, based on what you just sketched out. thank you for your analysis. we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation." stay with us. f your phone didn't just take epic photos? what if it fixed them too? the amazing magic eraser on google pixel 6. my a1c stayed here, tit needed to be here.er ruby's a1c is down with rybelsus®. my a1c wasn't at goal, now i'm down with rybelsus®. mom's a1c is down with rybelsus®. (♪ ♪) in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes.

don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? (♪ ♪) ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. what if you were a global bank who wanted to supercharge your audit system? so you tap ibm to un-silo your data. and start crunching a year's worth of transactions against thousands of compliance controls with the help of ai. now you're making smarter decisions faster. operating costs are lower. and everyone from your auditors to your bankers feels like a million bucks. let's create smarter ways of putting your data to work.

ibm. let's create your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire if you can't watch the full "face the nation" you can set your dvr. plus watch us through our cbs or paramount plus app. y managers e , but at fisher investments we're clearly different. (other money manager) different how? you sell high commission investment products, right? (fisher investments) nope. fisher avoids them. (other money manager) well, you must earn commissions on trades. (fisher investments) never at fisher investments. (other money manager) ok, then you probably sneak in some hidden and layered fees. (fisher investments) no. we structure our fees so we do better when clients do better. that might be why most of our clients

come from other money managers. at fisher investments, we're clearly different.

we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation." stay with us.

> . this is the "cbs overnight news." we begin in akron, ohio, where the city's fourth of july celebrations were canceled due to an investigation of jaylen walker. the 25-year-old black man was unarmed when he was killed in a hail of bullets after a traffic stop. this afternoon they released a disturbing body cam footage. this weekend hundreds of people protesteds in the streets calling for justice. elise preston has been covering the developments today. elise. >> reporter: jericka, the eight