welcome back to "face the nation." we're joined now by cbs news

business analyst jill schlesinger. she's in southampton, new york, this morning. senator ted cruz described tariffs and the threat thereof of leverage. what i'm curious about is do retailers view it as only leverage, do consumers view it as only leverage or are they beginning to change their behavior in anticipation? >> let's talk about all they're going to change their behavior. there were some retailers dangling this out around this holiday weekend. buy now because tariffs could make prices go up. i don't know what the motivation of most people is when they shop, but i'm not sure it's tariffs. what we do know about tariffs is remember this is a fee that is imposed on an imported good. the importing company, the u.s. company that takes that good in has to make a decision in that moment. and that company has to decide, are we going to eat it and maybe make less money this year, or are we going to pass it along to consumers. that is why consumers are a

little unnerved by this and businesses are as well, because they're not really sure whether they can pass that along and have consumers pay that additional price. what we know is over the long term, in history, tariffs tend to increase the price of certain goods. it's not necessarily across the board, but you know, it is hard coming off of what we just have come through in the last few years with this inflationary spike to imagine that consumers are just going to take it in stride. it is a real hard thing to imagine that any company or consumer is going to feel like they want to absorb higher prices at this point. >> jill, there was a tariff story in the first trump administration. do you foresee a deeper and different tariff story potentially in trump 2.0? >> well, i think there's two parts of that question. which is we don't know what these tariffs are. and as senator cruz said, this is a negotiation. so we don't know whether we're going to land in that negotiation, but a big

difference between where we are today and where we were back in 2017 and 2018 is during the early trump administration, what we had was incredibly low inflation. it was after the financial crisis, for all those years, inflation or prices only grew by about less than 2% a year. now, compare that with where we are now. we had inflation spike at a 40-year high of 9% in the summer of 2022. yes, that inflation rate has come down, but prices are still about 22%, 23% higher than they were just four or five years ago. so the big difference between the first trump administration and the second trump administration is prices are already high, and the are many americans who are struggling. i think that is the real fear among economists that i speak to. they're worried this is going to cause a real anxiety among consumers, and that consumers might pull back at a time where

they actually the economy is doing pretty well. >> talking about the economy doing well, you crunch a lot of numbers for us, jill. and always break them down so easily for our audience. when you look at the data, what's the best news you see and what's the most worrisome sign? >> well, the best news is that the labor market has grown really substantially and has kept up. so i think the labor market has been the driver of this economy. and it's been pretty consistent. the other part of the good news story is that the united states economy, more than any other developed nation, has come out of the covid era and that post-covid inflationary spike much stronger in a growth mode. so we're seeing really good things from the labor market, we're seeing things in the economy, we're seeing that a.i. and technology is really in a boom period. these are all wonderful things. so what's the downside here? i hate to be a kill joy, but why not? i play one on sunday mornings.

what i i see is these tariffs could cause a problem for a lot of consumers who are already struggling, and also, this idea extension of the tax cuts from the first trump administration in the individual tax code, there is a fear among some investors that while we may not have a crisis right now when it comes to the debt and the deficit, that the extension of those tax cuts could start to really unnerve financial markets. not happened yet, but those are the two worrisome things. the tariffs and the debt and deficit. i think those are the two looming things and all the things we can't contemplate right now. >> the three stock indexes have gone up pretty regularly since election day. is that a methodical and well thought out reaction to an election or a kind of exuberance that may soon run its course? >> time will tell. i think that the initial

investor reaction was a second trump presidency would mean a drop in the tax rates or the extension of the tax cuts and those tax rates would basically be in place for another four years. so we would have low taxes which is good for especially the wealthier people out there. they love low taxes and corporate taxes were already enshrined in the code. okay, so we have taxes staying low. that's a big factor when it comes to investing. the second part is the idea that a trump administration would have a light regulatory touch. so when you saw that first few -- the first few trading days after the election, what went up a lot? the most highly regulated industries. that could be energy, that could be banking, that could be other areas where you could really need an -- industrial companies where you need a lot of regulatory prominence in the working of your business. lighter regulatory touch will

mean that those businesses will do well. okay, so is it exuberance or not? who knows? i can only tell you that as someone who watches markets all the time, when everybody tells me that the sky is clear and the sun is shining and it's rainbows and unicorns, the only thing i can remember is what my father used to say, no one ever rings a bell at the top or the bottom. if you're an individual investor, don't count on everything being great. there's going to be a market slide, a sell-off at some point. don't count on everything being great all the time. stick to your game plan and only change that game plan, not when the administration changes, but when your own life changes. that's it. >> breaking it down for us as always, and beautifully so, jill schlesinger. thanks so very much. we'll be right back. elebration moments... ...to joyride moments. your moments are worth protecting against rsv. rsv is a highly contagious virus if you're 60 or older with certain chronic conditions,

you're at higher risk of being hospitalized from rsv. and there are no prescription rsv treatments. you know how to protect against covid and flu. so ask your pharmacist or doctor about scheduling pfizer's rsv vaccine, too. because moments like these matter.

take an ekg from anywhere, but with 6-times the data. can your smartwatch do that? introducing kardiamobile 6l, the fda-cleared ekg that provides six-times more heart data than any smartwatch. and it detects three of the most common arrhythmias in just 30 seconds, including atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and tachycardia. get kardiamobile 6l for just $99 right now, our lowest price of the year, at kardia.com or amazon we're joined now by president biden's national security adviser jake sullivan.

he's in new hampshire this morning. good morning. good to see you. the hamas video release of edawn alexander, the administration regards it as a cruel maneuver but do you detect any tactical at all in the timing of the release of this video, jake? >> well, major, first, thanks for having me. as far as this video, it is a cruel reminder of the barbarity and the brutality of hamas. holding so many innocent people hostage, including americans, including edan. we were in touch with his family yesterday. i'll be talking to the families of all the american hostages this week. i do think that hamas is feeling the pressure. they're feeling the pressure because one of their main partners in crime here, hezbollah, has now cut a cease-fire deal and they thought hezbollah would be with them until the end. they're feeling the pressure, of course, because their top leader, sinwar, has been killed. they may be looking anew at the

possibility of getting a cease-fire and hostage deal and we're working actively with all of the key players in the region including israel and turkey and qatar and egypt to try to bring that about. >> the fate of the hostages, of course, on the administration's mind, on the minds of all americans and all in the region and also, i'm sure you saw over the last couple of days, the video from gaza of palestinians surging to try to get a loaf of bread, in some cases crushing one another unintentionally. all suggestions are that the humanitarian situation there is if it already isn't past crisis stage, near famine crisis stage. how much does that intensify the need to get this thing across, as you just said, the finish line? >> the humanitarian situation in gaza is a crisis. you have too many people who are suffering from shortages of food, water, medicine, access to sanitation.

innocent people who deserve a measure of peace and deserve access to all of those life-saving supplies in abundance. the united states has been working week in, week out, month in, month out, to open crossings, to move trucks, to insure that humanitarian aid gets in. and at critical moments we have been able to intervene in ways that have staved off the worst case scenarios of famine. but it's constantly stalking gaza. so more needs to be done to get aid in. part of the problem, as we have seen just in the last 24 hours, is not actually moving aid from outside gaza into gaza but moving it around gaza once it's inside. the u.n. in fact said it was suspending movement from certain areas of gauze ozbecause of concerns about looting. these are all things that would be helped if there were a cease-fire in place. >> is the probability of a cease-fire enhanced or undercut when someone such as south carolina senator lindsey graham

says, president-elect trump wants a cease-fire before inauguration deal. does that help you or hurt you? >> look, i think the key actor right now holding the decision on the cease-fire is hamas. and the key thing motivating hamas is not american politics or the american presidential transition. it's their determination about whether or not it makes sense for them at this point, after hezbollah has abandoned them, after their leader has been kilded, after their military formations have been degraded to finally say yes to a cease-fire and hostage deal. that's going to be the telling thing more than anything said back here. i will say this, there has been very good coordination between our team and the incoming team on all of the aspects of the crisis in the middle east. we felt it was important we be in touch with them to keep them up to speed on what's happening because this handoff has to be smooth. and they in turn have reciprocated by being open and transparent and working with us. this is how it should be in a transition.

this is what we're going to keep driving for for every day we have left. >> i want to have a conversation about leverage as regards to the israeli government. i want to play for you something that maryland democratic senator chris van hollen said on this program a week ago. >> we have seen this pattern where president biden makes demands of prime minister netanyahu only to be ignored or slapped down entirely, then president biden sends more bombs and more money. that is not an effective use of leverage. >> your response? >> first of all, i respect senator van hollen. he knows these issues as well as any person in washington, and he is passionate about them. but of course, we have a different perspective. we have at various points over the course of this conflict made asks of the israelis consistent with our values and interests. have we gotten everything we asked for? snow. have we seen a change in israeli behavior with respect to how

they conducted certain military operations including in places like rafah? yes, we have. we believe we have had a constructive engagement with the israeli government and also been able to make a difference on the ground with respect to the flow of humanitarian aid. in addition, we worked closely with the israeli government to bring about a cease-fire in lebanon. a cease-fire people said wasn't possible until a new administration took office. >> i want to turn your attention to ukraine, where the ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy appeared to indicate in a recent interview that he could possibly be open to a peace settlement in which russia retains the territory it has. ukraine, meaning kyiv, keeps all the rest, if that is swiftly brought under the umbrella of nato. is that the outline or the contours of something you believe the administration believes could be workable? >> well, major, i'm sorry to disappoint you. i can't negotiate in public on

your program and i certainly can't negotiate on behalf of president zelenskyy, who really should speak for himself when it comes to the destiny of his country. the future of ukraine should be determined at the negotiating table by decisions of the ukrainians, not imposed by the outside by the united states or anybody else. i will say we have been engaging with ukrainians over the course of this year on how you marry the support we provided them for use on the battlefield with a diplomatic strategy for the negotiating table. >> some recent decisions in the administration have been criticized by republicans as setting the situation on fire, meaning atacms and anti-personnel mines. those advocates for ukraine say those decisions are way too late to change the battle space in any strategically important way. where do you come down? >> anti-personnel land mines which are nonpersistent mines that's shut off two weeks so they don't represent a long term threat to civilians could be helpful against the particular type of tactics the russian

infnltry is using right now in eastern ukraine. so he's sending them. the atacms permission into russian territory, that was a decision he took after russia escalated by introducing north korean troops into this war, a foreign army into this war. so that was a responsible, coordinated step we took with other allies to respond to that provocation, to that escalation by russia. the president has been clear all along. we're going to give ukraine the tools it needs. we're also going to do what we can to put them in the best possible position on the battlefield so they'll be in the best possible position at the negotiating table, and then this war will ultimately end in diplomacy. >> jake sullivan, thanks so much for your time. and we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation." please stay with us.

welcome back. we turn now to author and historian h.w. brands, the jack s. blanton senior chair at the university of texas at austin. his latest book is "america first: roosevelt vs. lindbergh in the shadow of war." he joins us this morning from

austin, texas. it's great to see you. first of all, what does this america first clash then tell us if anything about today and references to america first? >> the debate i describe in the book is whether the united states should enter a world war ii. between the time germany started the war in september of 1939 and the united states entered the war in december of 1941, that was the narrow focus of the debate. the larger question and the one that persists today is what do americans think their country's role in the world ought to be? should the united states, must the united states take a leading role in the world? should the united states concern itself in conflicts among other nations that perhaps don't directly address american interests? this was the question, and it's a question we're dealing with again today. >> if you could, sketch out briefly charles lindbergh's stature at the time this debate with franklin roosevelt was

engaged? >> lindbergh came to the attention of the american public, the world public in 1927 when he flew a solo flight for the first time across the atlantic ocean. he became this national hero. he became a world celebrity for accomplishing this great technical feat but also a feat of personal daring. he was a darling of the united states, a darling in other countries. he was decorated by foreign governments. he became an early celebrity in an age when slibt was first starting to take form. that was his position as of 1927. his celebrity took a different turn in the early 1930s when his and his wife's infant son was kidnapped and murdered in what then was called the crime of the century, which gave rise to the trial of the century. and so this golden boy, all of a sudden, had a dark shadow cast across his life. so he was in some ways this star-crossed hero at this point. he continued to be influential

in aeronautical engineering circles. he knew a lot about aircraft. in the american mind, he was this great celebrity, and many people were surprised actually that he did take a leading role in the debate over american policy, because he was not a political figure. he eschewed politics. >> in that debate with roosevelt, did roosevelt and his administration regard charles lindbergh as a potential political threat? if so, how did they deal with it? >> it's a little hard to say. franklin roosevelt at some point decided that he wanted to run for a third term. this broke a long-standing informal rule of american politics. and he knew that republicans were constantly going after charles lindbergh and saying you could be president. you would be a great candidate. lindbergh's father had been a congressman, but lindbergh took from his father's experience, which turned out badly because of his opposition to american policy during world war i that

he didn't want to have anything to do with politics or politicians. he considered politicians a bunch of liars, people who could not be trusted and politics this low and mean occupation he wanted nothing to do with. >> when this debate began, lindbergh was in one place. when it ended in 1941, he was in a different place in the public mind. some accused him of being a nazi sympathizer. where do you come down? >> the one thing i should say is everybody who calls him an anti-semite had political reasons for doing so. because lindbergh became the face of opposition to american intervention in the war. and it served his opponents' purposes to paint him in this negative category. in terms of his nazi sympathy, there were american nazis. there was an american nazi party. they were clearly nazi sympathizers. lindbergh was not a member of the party. in fact, the america first

committee of which lindbergh was a part, took pains to keep its distance from those. lindbergh did not want germany to win the war. his position was that the united states should not place its frontier of security in the middle of europe. the way franklin roosevelt and the interventionists appears to be doing. because he took that position and it was a position the germans supported, the germans didn't want the united states to enter the war. there was this objective sense in one could say when lindbergh gave a speech, it served the german government. >> how about his appraisal of american jews wanted to push america into the war and then exercising outsized influence culturally? > the charges of antisemptism against lindbergh are associated with a single speech he gave in the autumn of 1941 in which he identified three groups that in his opinion were most influential in pushing the united states toward war. one was the british government. britain was already at war and he explained it was natural that

they would try to get the united states involved in the war. the second group was american jews. he said it's perfectly understandable that they should want the united states to get in the war given what hitler and the nazis have done to their relatives. friends, coreligionests in europe. and the third group was the roosevelt administration. he was most critical of the roosevelt administration because he claimed roosevelt was using the excuse of the war to further his own political ambitions. now, merely for mentioning american jews in the context of war policy, the sky fell down upon lindbergh. everybody who wanted to make sure they were want accused of a anti-s anti-semitism, came down and pointed the finger at lindbergh. to what extent was lindbergh actually an anti-semite? i would put him in the category of not in my country club kind of anti-semite, which was extremely common in the united states at the time. >> very quickly, h.w., there's a clash over information and

disinformation. both sides warn each other and the american public about that. unspool that for us if you could real quick. >> the british government and the german government, the two antagonists in the war at that point, were both engaged in propaganda campaigns in the united states. and so when the british government would plant editorials, features in american newspapers, often unknown to the reading public, then lindbergh and his side would say look what the british government is doing. when the german government would do something similar, the roosevelt administration would say look what the german government is doing. each side then, the governments of the two sides, they were doing their best to sway american public opinion because they realized in the end, it was american public opinion that had to be persuaded. >> foreign interference in american public opinion then and now. h.w. brands, it's been a pleasure. thank you so much. and we'll be right back. brain ? mary. janet. hey! eddie. no! fraser. frank.

frank. fred. how are you? support up to seven brain health indicators, including memory. when you need to remember, remember neuriva. for more than a decade farxiga has been trusted again and again, and again. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ask your doctor about farxiga.

it is inevitable. chloe! hey dad. they will grow up. [cheering] silly face, ready? discover who they are. [playing music] what they want from this world. and how they will make it better. and while parenting has changed, how much you care has not. that's why instagram is introducing teen accounts. automatic protections for who can contact them and the content they can see. ♪♪

that's it for us today. want to thank you for watching. for "face the nation," i'm major garrett.

♪