i'm jane pauley. please join us when our trumpet sounds again next sunday morning. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ washington and this week on washington, and this week on "face the nation," president trum continues to make good on

his campaign pledges. what do americans think of the trump 2.0 policies and the job mr. trump is doing as president? as elon musk and his department of government efficiency squad continue their sweep through the federal agencies, president trump says they're doing so at his insistence, and that there's more to come, but that revamp is leading to confusion and the consequences are spreading across the country and around the world. how could the president's bure craftic shake-up affect america's law enforcement, homeland security and intelligence capabilities? plus, what's the impact of cutting u.s. aid to the countries that need it the most? we'll talk with texas republican congressman michael mccaul and congresswoman ilhan omar. it's all just ahead on "face the nation." ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ good morning, and welcome to "face the nation." we begin today with our first assessment of how president trump and his policies are doing just three weeks into his second term. our cbs poll finds that a majority of americans, 53%, approve of the job he's doing. that's a better approval number than he ever reached during his first term in the white house. joining us with more is our executive director of elections and surveys, anthony salvanto. good to see you, anthony. what's driving this? >> i will keep it simple. he's doing in the eyes of the public, what he said he would do in the campaign. there's political value in that. 70% of people are saying what he am proissed and that's they approve of him or not and there's another thing that continues over from the

campaign. there were words that he was described as being tough, being energetic and he still is today in big majority numbers. so as people take a look in these first few weeks, there's been a lot of activity. they're getting that general sense of governance and that's being reflected in these early numbers. >> so that's perception. what about the actual policies? >> let's start with the ones that are popular. again, these echo a lot of what we saw in the campaign. the idea of deporting those in the country illegally continues to be popular. we saw that in the campaign. sending troops to the u.s.-mexico border. again, majority in favor. we'd seen that in the campaign. for his supporters in particular the focus on ending dei is popular. we had seen in the campaign a lot of them thought those processes had gone too far. there are some other things in here that get more mixed reviews. i will add, the idea of the u.s. taking over gaza is not seen as

a good idea. >> something he floated at a press conference this week. >> he did, but it also gives you insight into how people are processing donald trump and what he does because then for a lot of his supporters they say, that's not really his goal. that's a negotiating tactic and then on tariffs, those are not as popular. those are things that majority with the exception of the ones on china. why? >> people think it will raise prices and that's important context here, too, because people are still sensitive to price increases. a lot of them report the prices haven't gone down. remember that donald trump won the election on inflation, and that was a big reason and what we find now is two-thirds of people saying that they don't think the administration is focused enough on lowering prices and that stands out as one of those big gaps that talk about initial preferences and initial expectations and what's getting delivered and that's certainly going to be something to watch.

>> it's interesting because throughout the campaign he was abundantly clear that tariffs was something he wanted to use and we talked quite a lot about the possible impact on inflation. i know you also polled on president trump's work with elon musk in this so-called doge, department of government efficiency. >> yeah. >> we are are all kind of learning what it is. what do people think of it? >> exactly to that point, we are sort of learning this so it will take a while to play out. initially, you get very partisan responses on the role that elon musk should or should n play. you have the majority of republicans who say he should have some influence though it's more of the maga base that really wants him to have a lot and a lot of democrats in opposition. part of this is, too, the broad goals of cutting spending of cutting foreign aid have things that have long been in the polling popular with republicans, but in terms of the impact and approach that may take a while for people to really see it play out. >> how you do, and we'll be talking about that on the

program. anthony, thank you. >> thank you. and we turn now to republican congressman mike mccaul of texas, good morning. good to have you here. >> thanks for having me. >> i want to dig into what has been happening, this mass confusion with usaid. there were 30 million metric tons of food sitting at a port in houston because there weren't u.s. workers to unload the food aid that had taxpayers had bought, food that secretary rubio said should have been delivered, but wasn't. how is this mass confusion increasing efficiency? >> if i can peel back on that a little bit. the confusion, i think goes back to the biden administration when they started to implement these woke policies of drag queen shows in ecuador, when they started talking about lgbtqia programs like, say in latin american countries how to sue catholic governments, promoting

atheism in nepal -- >> i saw the white house fact sheet on that. this gave usaid a black eye. i personally believe that usaid has a national security mission. >> correct. >> if you go back to its inception in the '60s under president kennedy and the cold war it was to counter the soviet union. we need to return to the core mission principles. >> you have been a big supporter of usaid when you were chair of house foreign affairs and you talked about the great work that it does around the world, but back to this food aid, this isn't a theater program. this is food for starving people. how is it getting it all locked up in these ports and it's the way that's being implemented that's drawn so much shock here. do you think this is being done well? >> well, i think, so the secretary in response to all this and by the way, i put holds on all those programs that i was talking about that had nothing

to do with the central core mission and it had waivers on humanitarian, and it was the most successful global health program initiated by president bush, by the way. >> yeah. >> the implementation of this is where i would urge the administration to move expeditiously. i just got word about ten minutes ago through the world wood program that the waivers are implemented and that it is being executed and that food will be going out, but to your point about $40 million food rotting in these warehouses in houston, about 500,000 metric tons on ships on the sea. the peace through food program dates back to the '50s after the marshall plan. it is to provide stability in -- in fragile, unstable countries and it is to counter russia, china and terrorism. it is our diplomatic power. > yeah. >> -- otherwise, we are talking about lindsey graham. >> if you don't fully fund the

state department you have to buy me more bullet, mattis' line. the secretary is issuing waivers and getting things moving. i'm glad the world food program says food is move, but there's a huge divide between what he's saying and there weren't usaid workers there to move ships or move things and there weren't folks to process. it seems a fundamental misunderstanding between the bosses and the operators. is this really how it should be done? why not review and then take action? >> and there's a debate about whether you should -- there is a top to bottom review. i think after what happened under the biden administration it absolutely needs to be reviewed to get back to the core mission as i talked about. >> right. >> so that is being done. at the same time putting a halt on all humanitarian assistance and life-saving medicines, i think that's where secretary rubio issued these waivers for a reason. >> yeah. >> in consultation with the

president, president trump and it seems to me the department should start implementing the waivers. >> people have to be able to go back to work. that was before the courts, that people could even go back to work to implement what he's telling them to do. >> that's a temporary issue. i would urge the state department to put the adequate resources necessary to deliver this because our adversaries are looking at this, just as the drag shows and they are looking at what's happening now. i think we have to make a strong presence in destabilized presence. >> do you think this is done intentionally or are people like pete morocco who the secretary has authorized to run this, do they just not know how the department works? >> i really can't speak for him. i know he was put in charge of the foreign assistance program. >> to congress and answer questions since there's a hearing on usaid this week? >> i do think -- the administration has provided, by the way, notification and

consultation with the foreign affairs committee that i chaired, and that is required under law. they have done that. i think if they decide to terminate, that's a whole other issue. my understanding is that they want to look at putting usaid underneath the state department which is not a novel concept. madeleine albright talked about it, and putting it under state make sense to me to provide the correct supervision and oversight. >> you know how this department works since you were the chair for so long of the committee overseeing it. when this trump-appointed judge put that federal -- the pause on the putting usaid workers on leave, he wrote in the opinion no future lawsuit could undo the physical harm that might result if usaid employees are not informed of imminent security threats occurring in the countries to which they've

relocated in the service to the united states. he's saying that the messy way this rolled output people in physical risk when they are deployed by our government to countries overseas. did the secretary of state have any idea? >> the secretary of state issued the waivers for pepfar and for humanitarian both food and medicine. >> but people living and working in places like syria aren't able to access computer systems and security warnings that are there. >> every president that comes in does a review. i would argue, though, that since the secretary's issued the waivers, it's incumbent upon his subordinates now to implement these waivers so that we don't see what could happen where people are not getting their vaccines and they're not getting the hiv treatment, there are starving people in destabilized countries and then we see china and russia and quite frankly,

that is turning into a terror safe haven. you have ebola popping up in uganda. these are serious issues that if you don't start implementing waivers you will start to see it get worse, not better and i would urge the administration to do that. >> you are striking a different tone than congressman brian mass saying there is a grift on the american people and americans shouldn't fund aids drugs for people in africa because their governments might work with china. there's a divide in your party about this right now. >> well, it's the best -- i can only speak to the program that president bush started and it was to save millions of lives. that has probably been one of the best good will missions of the united states and put the best face, no pun intended, with our adversaries and countering them, and with these people, we're saving their lives and the best global program in the united states was pepfar.

i would hate to see that go away. it will sense that once we achieve the mission, however, programs like that, when you look at the national security importance of usaid need to be maintained, and i go back to why it was implemented in the first place. >> on friday night, the president ordered all foreign assistance to south africa be halted and said we should prioritize the resettlement of afrikaner, because there is a suspension of refugees into the united states including the allies who worked alongsid the united states. are you going to help lift that? >> yeah, i believe i did a comprehensive investigation that the debacle of afghanistan that the biden administration was responsible for including leaving our afghan partners behind. >> should they get a carve out from the trump ban on refugees?

>> i do believe it was unintended consequence that needs to be fixed. look, we promised them we'd protect them when they worked with our service men and women in afghanistan. these are the uninterpreters an worked alongside our combat veterans and have special visas, p1 and p2,s and my view that they should be allowed to go forward with the siv program and they have been vetted, by the way, margaret. they have been vetted unlike some of the other groups they talk about. these have been vetted. they worked with our troops to defeat the taliban which, unfortunately, biden surrendered to, but seems to me we have to live up to our word otherwise down the road in another conflict no one's going to trust us. >> congressman mccaul, thank you. >> thanks, margaret. >> "face the nation" will be back in a minute. stay with us.

we go now to tennessee republican senator bill hagerty who joins us this morning from

palm beach, florida. good morning to you, senator. >> good morning, margaret. good to be with you. >> i have a lot to get to with you today, but i want to start with the announcement from the white house that over 65,000 employees have accepted the offer to leave their jobs with pay through september 30th. this is that deferred resignation program or buyout, as it's called. can you explain how putting federal workers on paid leave through september will save taxpayers money if we're paying them not to work? >> margaret, eventually it will save taxpayers money. what president trump is trying to be humane in the process of allowing them to find other employment and it is far too big and far too bloated and we're moving in theright direction. >> does that mean the agencies won't hire replacements for these people who take the so-called buyout? are you reducing headcount?

>> i think what we'll see is each agency -- i think that we'll see, margaret, is each agency will have a top to bottom review on what they have to do to deliver on the american public. there's been pearl clutching on the abilities of elon musk and his team and they go and find efficiencies and find opportunities and deliver more of taxpayer dollars to the actual programs that are less to overhead and administration. >> you said eventually it will save money. i know you're on appropriations committee and you watch these things pretty closely here. when will it save money? >> well, i would say as soon as these people start to roll off the payroll. i'm from the private sector and my entire break ackground has bn business. you come in and look at the opportunities before you and president trump has brought in a new administration and this is not unusual to take a hard look at these programs and the opportunities to cut bloat and waste. we are $36 trillion in debt.

clearly, the american public needs to see more accountability and more performance in the taxpayer dollars. >> i think everyone who works in the private sector understands how layoffs work and the government is so unique with laws establishing some of these agencies as you know, and we'll talk about it later in the program and some of this is tied up in the courts. specifically, the public director has notified the federal reserve that the consumer financial protection bureau will no longer take kong re congressional funding because it's not necessary. elon musk tweeted rest in peace. can you tell us, did the white house inform the banking committee that it's being dismantled? what does cfpb, rest in peace mean? >> so i've had significant conversations with russ who is our omb director. the cfpb has been out of control, it's not constitutional

and has no oversight and it's been a reckless agency that has gone way beyond what it was originally intended and it's time to rein it in, and i am for taking more control and taking them back to some sense of accountability and oversight. >> so what does that mean? because it's established as an agency and there are legal protections here. >> well, it was established as an agency that does not have the jurisdiction of the congress. its funding source is separate from us and has no accountability and this is not the type of agency that the founding fathers contemplated. we contemplated a balance of power yet this rogue agency has been created and frankly, it's been use as a tool to come in and hammer the american private sector and pursue initiatives that certain people like chopra might have approved or elizabeth warren might have approved and it is not the way the american public should be funding and supporting programs of this

nature. >> so a different government agency, usaid and its fate is also in question. we looked at the congressional research service definition here because it was enshrineded in law, usaid, it says because congress established it as independent, the president does not have the authority to abolish it and congressional author authorization would be required to abolish, con ssolidate or diminish usaid. have you allowed the congress to abolish or dismantle usaid? >> i think there's a tremendous appetite to do it because what we want to see is alignment with our programs with the national security interest. usaid has been out of control. i've demanded accountability from usaid as appropriator and i've asked them to be very clear, for example, their role funding hamas in gaza. they will not comply. they will not tell us what they

do and now that we start to find out some of the programs that usaid has funded, sex change operations in guatemala. >> the u.s. government does not fund sex change operations and fund hamas. >> that is not true, margaret. i couldn't get the secretary of state. i asked him three times and he couldn't do it. >> do you have any evidence that the united states government is funding a terrorist group? >> certainly, the funds that have gone to unrwa. you saw the unrwa -- >> unrwa is not a terrorist group. unrwa is part of the united nations. >> supporting terrorist groups and if you look at what unrwa has done it has been so ■count tore our national interest. it's unbelievable that we would fund it. >> since you're on foreign relations, let me ask you specifically what's happening inside the state department. a gentleman named david beatty

has been elected for secretary of public affairs. he was fired from the first trump administration after he attended a white nationalist convention. he's made a lot of inflammatory statement against women and minorities. if he couldn't work for the first trump administration how is he qualified to work now? >> margaret, i'm not familiar with mr. beady or the claims. why not look back at the prior administration. the only qualification tony blinken had as secretary of state was he organized 51 intelligence officials to say that the hunter biden laptop was disinformation. >> is attending a white nationalist rally a -- if it wasn't appropriate to attend a white nationalist rally -- >> i don't know anything about this, margaret. >> the secretary of state spoke about it earlier this week, so secretary rubio does know about it. tariffs. president trump said he plans as

soon as this week new reciprocal tariffs on everybody. it sounds like he's broadening out this trade war. do you know exactly which goods or countries will be impacted in the coming days? >> so i talk with president trump on friday about this broadly, margaret. this is a concern that he's had for some time. i served in this previous administration and worked my heart out to get two trade agreements executed with japan. i was u.s. ambassador to japan in his administration. here's what we're trying to deal with and it goes all of the way back to world war i, and the aftermath, we've made favorable terms of trade, we should have time limited that, we should have put some gdp per capita on it because what we have is unfavorable and unfair terms that are fully develop period. >> senator, i'm sorry -- >> president trump -- >> sorry, it's already begun to happen. >> i'm running out of time because of the commercial break so i have to leave it there. i apologize for cutting you off.

i apologize for cutting you off. we'll be right back. within a week of posting, i had over $25,000 in sales. i don't have a million dollars to put towards marketing and branding. tiktok was the way and it saved my company. we had a video do really good this week. sales were up 29%. about 80% of my business right now is from tiktok. small businesses thrive on tiktok. tiktok brings in so much foot traffic. i need tiktok to keep growing. we have so much more work to do. type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. i need tiktok to keep growing. i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7.

ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. and adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for type 1 diabetes or children. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take if you or your family had mtc, men 2, or if allergic to it. stop taking and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or any of these allergic reactions. tell your provider if you plan to have surgery or a procedure, are breastfeeding, pregnant, or plan to be. serious side effects may include inflammation of pancreas, gallbladder problems, or changes in vision. call your prescriber if you have any of these symptoms. taking with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, constipation. some side effects lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®.

coming up, we'll check in with democratic congresswoman ilhan omar from minnesota. she is here with us in studio. ih the same way, you have... the fearless investor. the type a cpa. the boot strapper. the boot maker. hee-ha. but many do have something in common. we all trust schwab with our wealth. thanks to our award-winning service, low costs and transparent advice, every day, over a million multi-millionaires, trust schwab with more than three trillion dollars of their wealth. ♪♪ (vo) weight loss. of their wealth. for so long, i felt stuck. but zepbound means change.

zepbound is for adults with obesity, to help lose weight and keep it off. activating 2 naturally occurring hormone receptors in my body, it works differently. it's changing what i believe is possible when it comes to weight loss. it's changing how much weight i lose. up to 48 pounds. and changing what happens. don't take if allergic to it, or if you or someone in your family had medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. stop zepbound and call your doctor if you have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction. severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems. tell your doctor if you are experiencing vision changes, taking a sulfonylurea or insulin, having suicidal thoughts, if you're nursing, pregnant, plan to be, or taking birth control pills. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems.

zepbound means change. and when it comes to weight loss... change is good. discover the weight loss you could be bound for. talk to your doctor about zepbound. we will be right back with >> we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation." stay with us.

♪ we are joined now by democratic congresswoman ilhan omar of minnesota.

good to have you here. you have spoken quite a bit this week about what usaid meant in your life, particularly when you were living in a refugee camp for four years, and usaid, you talked about helping to keep you alive. we know this week a federal judge will come to some kind of hearing and decision, perhaps, on what happens to all those government workers. are the courts the main line of defense here? >> yeah. i mean, what we are witnessing is a constitutional crisis. we are seeing an executive branch that has decided that they are no longer going to abide by the constitution in honoring congress' role in the creation of the agencies, in their role in deciding where money is allocated, and so the only recourse we have since our congressional leadership, the speaker will not stop the

executive is through the judiciary, and this is, you know, when you think about the checks and balances that we have, the courts are the only recourse we have at the moment, and we have seen when we talk about the illegality of what the executive is doing, we have seen every single executive order that has been challenged in the courts was found to be illegal, and that, i think, should give faith to the american people that our courts are working as they should. the checks and balances are working. what is not working is the way that the executive is behaving and the congressional leadership that failing the american people. >> some of these court cases are ongoing. so we'll have to see where they end up -- >> the ones that have already been adjudicated and every single executive order has been halted at the moment by an order. >> many of them republican judges who have made that decision. >> trump-appointed judges.

>> it was interesting to hear congressman mccaul indicate that when it came to breaking up an agency that was enshrined in law that maybe there is in resistance there, senator hagerty, however, thought that congress would be supportive of dismantling usaid after i read that description of this statute. it seems, though, that democrats don't have a lot of leverage here to push this argument forward in congress. do you think you do? >> they don't have the numbers in order to dismantle through congress. that's why they are going through this illegal -- that's why they're going hrough this illegal route. we know that u.s. aid has support and not just with democrat, but with republicans. i can see mccaul taking a vote to dismantle usaid. so we know that the votes are

not there, and i think they dismantled the department of education and we know the votes are not there to grant security clearances for them accessing treasury and so every single process that they are going through and implementing trump's agenda is at the moment illegal and they know they don't have the support for it in congress. that's why they're not bringing it through congress. >> it's interesting that the first place to focus is such a small portion of federal spending to look at aid, but when you look at the popularity, secretary rubio was right in saying that it's getting harder to defend foreign aid because it's not popular. we saw the chicago counsel on global affairs surveyed opinions on foreign policy and they found a growing number want to reduce economic and military aid to other countries. so how do you convince the public that your point of view is the right one because it

sounds like they're sliding the other way. >> foreign aid, i think, throughout the history of our country has not been popular with the american people because we don't have that many conversations about what it does, how much of it it accounts for in our budget. a lot of people hear the millions and billions and they don't fully have a concept of what that actually means and the lives it touches and how important it is both -- the soft power that we have as a country, and how it keeps us competitive around the world and how it buys us good will. we can have the conversation, but when you just say forrin aid to people they think we're sending bombs to other countries that people like me other ands oppose. >> an allegation we heard earlier in the program. i want to ask you something that

president trump said this week alongside the israeli prime minister. it took many by surprise. take a listen. >> the u.s. will take over the gaza strip, and we will do a job with it, too. we'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangers, unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site. >> the president said palestinians would be permanently removed. how do you think this is heard and understood around the world? >> that's just plain-out ethnic cleansing and genocide. that's what he's talking about. the palestinian people will remain in gaza. there is no support around the world for the ludicrous suggestion that he is making. >> he said give them a choice to leave, open the gates. i'm pretty sure most of the people in gaza would love to remain in their homeland, and be where they were born. >> congresswoman, we have to

leave it there for today, but ia, appreciate you coming in. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation." stay with us. 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. [ car engine revving ]

♪♪ imagine checking your own heart with medical precision from anywhere. 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. check your heart with the most advanced personal ekg outside the hospital. get yours at kardia.com or amazon. ♪♪ can neuriva support your brain health? 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. we just have we just have a lot of unknowns, and it feels like no one has our backs. no one has been a voice for the small people, and if we go out there and risk our lives the least you can do is protect our, you know, safety and our families. >> that was an active fbi agent who spoke with cbs' scott forecast far land last week. the agent asked for anonymity for safety concerns including the risk of private information could be made public. for more on the bureaucratic overhaul is justice correspondent scott mcfarland. we are joined by legal correspondent, jan crawford, samantha vinograd and cybersecurity expert and analyst

chris krebs. it is good to have you all here and even just trying to whittle this down to ask you was hard because there has been so much happening. scott, let's talk on the very immediate thing that was raised in that interview. physical security. you obtained an email from the acting fbi director that said he had concerns for the safety of personnel as well as risks to their families. what exactly does he have in mind and what's being done to protect them? >> let's take a moment to underscore the significance of that message. these are people who chase terrorists for a living and there's an internal e-mail about a unique form of retribution at the moment and that gives you an indication of the turmoil. there are two types of retribution the agents, and the doxxing and people will come after them and they're concerned that the january 6th rioters now lionized, or galvanized their supporters and will come to 1600

arrests. more fundamentally, they're worried about retribution for doing their jobs, professional retribution that there will be forced forced resignations that will impact, task forces, and violent crime units. >> they do not get to pick it. >> this is not a washington, d.c. investigation this involved every field office of the fbi nationwide. they were assigned from communities from california to connecticut. >> sam, when you look at some of the national security implications here, it's not just the domestic law enforcement. the cia offered a different early retirement and resignation offer, if the individual had a high-specific skill they can't take the so-called buyout we talked about earlier in the program. they are trying to target these cutbacks in specific ways.

can you actually really do that and is this a good idea? >> well, it depends on how you define national security. i would argue all of the cia count is an important security position. more importantly, margaret. i worked for three, and the rapid elimination approach is it creates a wildly uneven playing field with our adversaries. the kgb is not shedding agents. the chinese ministry of foreign affairs is not relieving diplomats. we have personnel taking the buyout, leaving their jobs. we have others on leave, we vrths worried about taking certain assignments for fear of retribution and we're spending hours talking to families while expected to do their day job. we don't have all hands on deck and longer term i am concerned

for what that will do for recruitment for the federal government and redundancy. it takes years to train and equip a spy. it takes years to train an aid worker. so coming back from the talent cuts that we're seeing could have a generational impact. >> and the comparisons made earlier in the program, in the private sector, they do buy it. even in the private sector they can say we lost institutional knowledge and expertise. you're saying the taxpayer invested in that expertise and that's what's being lost there. >> and there's no quick fix switch to turn it back on. it will be a long-term investment to get talent back on to the field. >> chris, in trying to whittle down who this applies to and who it doesn't, cbs has obtained internal communication, employees were told, anyone working for customs and border patrol can't take the buyout. i.c.e. and other related departments, tsa, you can't, fema, parts of it you can't and the agency you used to run, sisa

was singled out and then we see conflicting reports that say different things about parts of that agency being affected and dismantled. cybersecurity is the new frontier for warfare, right? >> right. >> what does this mean? >> it is also not clear. let's step back for a minute and prk president trump in the first administration established sisa, that's the agency, i ran, and to your point, the threat landscape is as active and dynamic as ever and it's not as if we're all of a sudden unplugging systems today that we weren't doing two to three months ago. it's becoming more digitized, more connected and the opportunity space for the bad guys is also increasing and even during the campaign, the vice president's phone was accessed by chinese threat actors. so we have this opportunity right now to continue to invest in our cybersecurity defenses. so the conversations i've had with sisa personnel is they're going to hang on because the

public service mission is so important to many of these individuals they could be making millions in the cybersecurity industry, in the private sector. they are committed to getting through this, through continuing to protect the american people, american networks, the federal government. that's the opportunity. >> secretary noem says sisa has gotten far off mission. how was that received? >> to sam's point, every administration has policies and priorities that they go in, they review, they sometimes do it rapidly, sometimes do it slowly at the beginning of the biden administration as scott was talking about. they took down some of the department of justice china task force. china is obviously a huge threat. there are elements of sisa, the election security missions specifically that was clearly spelled out in project 2025 as a distraction and something that was not core, and i will say

that having worked with those people, they are patriots and work in public service and they will work elsewhere because they're effective and there are other things we have to continue to be doing. >> want to drill down more, but i come back with everything these days, jan, to the fundamental questions. is this legal? as our legal expert, some of these buyouts are tied up in court. is it legal? >> then we'll have a hearing this week, tomorrow, on whether or not these pauses can remain. i think the judge is anygoing t keep this pause in place putting it on hold even though this is the weaker lawsuits. the argument is that trump just went about this the wrong way. so that's why it's different than what bill clinton cut over 200,000 jobs from the federal government when he was in office. he involved congress and that's a common theme with all of these

lawsuits and there are many, dozens and dozens from coast to coast that these executive orders in doing the executive orders trump did it unilaterally and he's usurping congress' role. so whatever the judge does in this case on the buyouts t does raise one interesting issue when you talk about the impact on people and how some of these as you were discussing, what about those 65,000 people who say they want those? they want to do this. they may have a claim now. they're relying on this, so that raises a whole other legal issue if these buyouts cannot proceed. so all of this is going to take some time to sort out pf the courts right now are putting up yellow to red lights on a lot of these executive orders, but you know, like our polling is showing, this, to me, regardless of whether these end up being legal losses, losses in the

courts, they're political wins. it's a victory for trump because he's showing that he's doing as our polling reflects what he promised in the campaign, and so regardless of how many of these end up surviving at the end of the day. trump can still say this was a win for him politically. >> we keep coming back and it's not what you do, it's how you do it and that's why it is so illuminating to hear from you all. scott, i want to come back to you because the attorney general, bondi dissolved an fbi task force that worked to uncover covert, forts by china iran and others to manipulate voters. there seems to be an effort to refocus the justice department. what's that focus? >> there were first-day orders when pam bondi arrived this week including repurposing this foreign influence task force the fbi has to shift forces to drug cartels versus the kinetic influence campaign, that chris

knows quite well. i think their concern is broader than just that task force. if there is a gutting of fbi personnel, even by giving them new jobs that aren't what they're there for or firing them, you can't just replace an fbi agent tomorrow. >> right. >> it takes many months of training, background checks and polygraphs and they go to quantico and years to get them up to speed and for a supervisor it takes five to seven years to get someone in place and that's something that goes beyond the trump term. >> democrats are throwing around constitutional crisis as a phrase. >> i don't see that yet. so far the president is not ignoring judicial orders. so far. >> they're repealing them -- >> the congressional consent portion, though. you did hear from congressman mccaul, if it's another matter you have to consult with

congress before you destroy an agency or dismantle it. >> they raise issues, but they're different because it depends on what the law actually says. the usaid and trying to put those employees on administrative leave, i think thee are 3,000 of them and kind of the forced evacuations of their host countries and there's a court judge here in d.c., a trump appointee put that on hold and pointed to a specific federal law that says that he has to consult congress before you're going to dismantle or really reorganize usaid. so that one -- that's a pretty strong lawsuit right there. that's a strong one, but that judge also upheld part of secretary rubio's order that would freeze future funding of usaid projects. >> chris, quickly, on the national security question of having these doge employees which the white house says have

national security clearances and are only looking. is there risk? >> theoretically, there are various risks with access to systems, sensitive information, proprietary information, plugging in systems that aren't necessarily clean and haven't gone through the normal protocols for access to the government systems. you can also see some of these folks getting targeted by chinese or russian actors for compromise, for extortion and exploitation, but the real -- you know, the opportunity that i'm looking for out of those specifically is to radically transform government i.t. we have to do it. it's been too long. >> and we'll continue to track that. chris krebs, thank you. all of you. we'll be back in a moment. inogr.

when the u.s. a when the u.s. agency for international development send assistance to count reesries ar the world it is stamped with its logo and it's motto from the american people so the recipients of our assistance knows exactly who sent it. today the future of the agency is very much in doubt. president john f. kennedy created usaid in 1961 as a way

to exert american strength. >> the people who are opposed to aid should realize that this is a very powerful source of strength for us. >> 64 years later, elon musk called those public servants criminals and said usaid must die. president trump tasked him to go to work. >> look at all of the fraud that he's found in this usaid. it's a disaster what the people, radical left lunatics. they have things that nobody would even believe. >> on friday, the usaid signs were removed from outside the building named after president ronald reagan who fiercely fought for foreign aid. >> we aren't buying friends. we are helping friends. >> we spoke with a ten-year veteran of usaid who asked to stay anonymous out of fear for their family members' safety.

>> are people motivated by politics where you work? >> civil servants are at their core sworn to uphold the rules of our government, of our constitution and to serve each incoming administration. my personal politics don't play a role in us delivering small food packets to kids in sudan that are literally hour away from dying. >> a federal court will decide whether it is legal for a president to unilaterally dismantle an agency enshrined by congress. last week half a metric ton of food aid sat in ports with no workers to unload or deliver it. comp complicating secretary of state's marco rubio's project like feeding the starving in sudan and giving medication to aids patients. >> do you think there is a chance that these people with

doge are doing what donald trump has said, the president of the united states has said they're increasing efficiency. >> no, i don't. i respect our new secretary of state, and when he took office, he said that he was going to do everything in his power to align u.s. foreign policy with making america stronger, safer and more prosperous. i can tell you that every individual at usaid welcomes that conversation and welcomes that challenge including myself. >> it isn't clear why this spending, less than 1% of the federal budget is the first focus of this so-called efficiency project, but it feels like a demolition, perhaps a preview of the future for other public servants. >> please pay attention to usaid. this might not affect you right now, but it will tomorrow. >> we'll be right back. t will t >> we will be right back. are so much more than clients.

they're conquerors and champions, parents and caretakers, believers and breadwinners. the goals that matter most to you matter most to us. helping you achieve them is what we do best. with personal financial advice from an advisor you can trust, and goal-based investing in solutions. it's no wonder we have a 4.9 out 5 client satisfaction rating. ameriprise financial. advice worth talking about. businesses and communities come together on tiktok. they don't show up

like they do on tiktok. and i had all these people rooting for me on tiktok. empowering over 7 million us businesses. there's no way i'd be able to support this building or any of my employees. > that went from maybe a few hundred people seeing my product to millions. they rely on tiktok to succeed. i don't think i could have gotten this far if i didn't have that kind of community. small businesses thrive on tiktok. (♪♪)

that's it for us >> that's it for us today. thank you all for watching, until next week. for "face the nation," i'm margaret brennan. ♪ ♪