On this “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” broadcast, moderated by Margaret Brennan:
- Sen. Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia
- Rep. Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas
- Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner
- Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of International Atomic Energy Agency
- Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations
Click here to browse full transcripts from 2025 of “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m Margaret Brennan in Washington.
And this week on Face the Nation: Putting last week’s dramatic military strikes aside for a moment, President Trump turns his focus to getting his Big Beautiful Bill through Congress.
President Trump warned his party Saturday that refusing to support his signature domestic spending bill would be an act of the ultimate betrayal. He hit the golf course with a key GOP holdout and two of the bill’s supporters. Earlier, he took aim at Democrats.
(Begin VT)
DONALD TRUMP (President of the United States): The Democrats want to give you the biggest tax increase in the history of our country. They have things, whether it’s border or economic development or no tax on tips and Social Security and no tax on overtime.
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Plus, we will take a look at that surprising string of foreign policy successes last week with the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Virginia’s Mark Warner and Texas House Republican Michael McCaul.
Then: What’s next when it comes to Iran? We will talk with the head of the IAEA, the watchdog agency who monitors nuclear capabilities in Iran, Rafael Grossi, and speak to Iran’s ambassador to the U.N., Amir Saeid Iravani.
Finally, former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb will join us for a reality check on new developments with vaccines and health policy.
It’s all just ahead on Face the Nation.
Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation.
Last night, the president’s Big Beautiful Bill passed a key procedural vote in the Senate, but efforts to make the legislation palatable to enough Republicans to secure final passage continue, as you can see.
Overnight, there are new complications. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the Senate bill would cost almost a trillion dollars more than the House bill. That’s a preliminary estimate. But if the bill passes the Senate as it currently exists, that could jeopardize the fragile support among fiscal conservatives in the House.
We begin today with Virginia Democrat Mark Warner. He is the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Good morning.
SENATOR MARK WARNER (D-Virginia): Good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have been probably sleep-deprived with all of what is happening.
But I want to ask you about what’s going on, on 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 childcare 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?
SENATOR MARK WARNER: Margaret, you can put as much lipstick on this pig as you want.
This will be a political albatross for the Republicans.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why?
SENATOR MARK 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 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. Do we – are we 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 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 will 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?
SENATOR MARK WARNER: No, it’s 16 million Americans off of health care.
Medicaid cuts, they’re – these numbers, they’re not my numbers. They’re all independent sources. And what – the thing that I don’t think people have realized, people say, well, I’m Medicaid, I’m not poor, I maybe buying 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 health care 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 interests, why haven’t you been able to peel more Republicans away?
SENATOR MARK WARNER: Well, I think we will 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.
And 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, the whole notion that we are moving towards cleaner and energy jobs, all on the chopping block, adding $4 trillion into the debt.
Tell me…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR MARK WARNER: … 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 a 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?
(CROSSTALK)
SENATOR MARK 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 5:00, all these cuts would have taken place.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It was that explicit?
SENATOR MARK WARNER: It was that explicit. This is extortion.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But that sounds personal. That doesn’t sound specific to policy or changes.
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Like, how does the next university president get in line and get the money?
SENATOR MARK WARNER: You’re shocked that is coming – personal attacks are coming out of this administration?
This is – I thought the Republicans were about states’ rights. I thought the Republicans were about let’s transfer more power to the states. This federal DOE 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 will 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 willing to make his personal job more important than these cuts, but, boy, oh, boy, that shouldn’t have been the choice.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, and we know that the university – that the administration is looking at more universities and the assistant A.G., Harmeet Dhillon, indicated that publicly, and University of California next in the crosshairs. So we’re going to be watching that carefully.
SENATOR MARK WARNER: They all to make them like Harvard. They want to take on public universities the way they have now taken on the Ivies.
End of the day, this is going to hurt our universities, chase away world- class talent.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR MARK WARNER: 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?
SENATOR MARK WARNER: I don’t think we have final assessments.
Let me – first of all…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR MARK WARNER: … we don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Secondly, the military performed an extraordinary mission. And I think they effected 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 it – 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 had 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 – nuclear-armed.
But what they don’t know is, they didn’t – and this was appropriate. I don’t – I’m not criticizing administration. They didn’t go after the enriched uranium that was Isfahan, at that base, because it’s buried so deeply. So…
MARGARET BRENNAN: They just hit it with Tomahawks, not the bunker-busters.
SENATOR MARK 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…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR MARK WARNER: … 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 U.S. had to act in the moment it did?
SENATOR MARK 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 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 cybersecurity personnel in this country? So do – I just want to make sure that 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.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR MARK WARNER: 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.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
SENATOR MARK WARNER: That means we have got to go to diplomacy.
If America and Iran start negotiating this week face-to-face…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SENATOR MARK WARNER: … 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.
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re going to have to leave it there.
We will be back in a moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by Texas Republican Congressman Michael McCaul.
Good morning to you.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-Texas): Good morning. Thanks for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, your Republican colleagues in the Senate have been working hard on trying to get this bill together, and they’re probably going to eke it past.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But that’s even with GOP lawmakers like Thom Tillis saying they can’t stomach what this is going to do to Medicaid, an estimated $930 billion in cuts to it.
That’s more significant than what you all had voted to do in the House. Are you going to vote again for final passage if it looks like this?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: No, I’m going to vote for it for this reason.
I think these numbers, it’s all about waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid. What I’m voting for is a border security measure, $80 billion, $12 billion to reimburse states like mine. I’m voting for $150 billion that will go to our Department of Defense at a time when we saw, with Iran, it is desperately needed.
The world is on fire, Eastern Europe, Indo-Pacific. And then the tax cuts. I mean, if we don’t extend these tax cuts, it’ll be the largest tax increase in American history. For those three reasons, I’m a yes. I think everyone in the House, they know the peril they’re in if they vote no on this thing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What do you mean the peril they’re in?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I think, first of all, it’s good for the nation.
Secondly, they know that their – their jobs are at risk.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The president will come after them.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Not just from the president, but from the voting – the American people.
Our base back home will not reelect us to office if we vote no on this.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But is it about reelection, or is it about the policies, right?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: No. It’s about – it’s about what’s – no, it’s great for the country, and I have outlined the three top points.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But help me understand, then. You have such narrow margins in the House.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you look at these projections from, like, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. They say it violates the House instructions by $500 billion or more, what the Senate just put together here, and that deficits could rise more than $3 trillion.
How do you get that through when you have fellow conservatives who are fiscal hawks and saying, I can’t get with this, like Chip Roy?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Not to get into the weeds on the economics, but the dynamic scoring is not taken into account here by the Congressional Budget Office.
That means that, when you cut taxes, you actually get increased revenues to the Treasury. And that’s something we saw under President Kennedy, under President Reagan, and under President Bush.
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Chip Roy and some of these other fiscal conservatives are going to come along for the ride?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, I think – at the end of the day, I think they’re going to vote for it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You do.
Let’s talk about some of the threats that you mentioned there at home and abroad. You’ve been briefed on the actions against Iran. The IAEA director told us here that Iran has capabilities and could be up and running within a matter of months.
Do you think it is an overstatement by the White House or a mistake to declare mission accomplished?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, first of all, I respect the IAEA. Their job is to inspect, not to be an intelligence agency, so they don’t really have the clear intelligence analysis that I would attribute to our intelligence community like the CIA.
We met with Director Ratcliffe. It was not just his decision. These are career and intelligence officers that have been at the CIA for over 30 years that made this assessment that it was severely damaged and sets the program back a matter of years.
In any event, the world and the Middle East is safer today than it was seven days ago, a week ago. That is highlighted by the fact that the proxies didn’t light up. Russia didn’t come to their – to their aid. China basically ran back for cover. Iran is on its own and psychologically is very damaged. The deterrence is real. The damage is real.
This was a masterful military operation, the likes of which I haven’t seen since my father’s war, World War II.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, on the homeland front, do you then dismiss these concerns about threats? You have the National Terrorism Advisory System that says there’s a heightened threat environment in the U.S. after the strikes.
There were federal agents that arrested 11 foreign nationals from Iran, including one who had ties to Hezbollah. Have you seen specific evidence of any kind of threat here in the United States, or is it, as you say, just done and over with?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: No, I have.
We picked up 11 Iranians, one a sniper, one IRGC, another one a known suspected terrorist, just within the last couple of days.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But were they planning to do anything, or did they just happen to have those alliances from the past?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: You know, I don’t know all the details, but I will tell you, the FBI briefed me in a defensive briefing after Soleimani was killed. I was a part of that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Back in 2020.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: That I was under indictment in Iran and that I was on that top target list.
So, you know, look – and is it imminent? I don’t know. We have to take it seriously that there could be sleeper cells in the United States that could go after people like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, you know – you know, myself and others that were involved in that decision-making, and including the president of the United States. We know he’s been targeted.
MARGARET BRENNAN: When it comes to detention of migrants here in the United States, it’s a high, 59,000 detainees, according to ICE; 47 percent of them, though, lack a criminal record. Fewer than 30 percent have been convicted of crimes.
Doesn’t that show that the numbers, these aren’t the worst of the worst?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Yes, I was a federal prosecutor for many years, counterterrorism. You have to prioritize, right? I would prioritize the aggravated felons that Mayorkas let in, in defiance of federal law.
It was shall detain. He said may detain and let them out into the streets. I would – I would prioritize that first.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you would prefer that Homeland Security prioritize them, and not run up the numbers the way they are in this…
(CROSSTALK)
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, I think they’re running the numbers up because 15 to 20 million people came under the – under the Biden administration, and they’re trying to get some sanity involved in the United States.
And I think deterrence is the key here. And, Margaret, it is working. You know, the apprehension rate at the border – and Texas is…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: … the biggest one – has gone down to almost zero.
I mean, the border is just about secure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Catch and release is over, and the threats are going away.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mike McCaul, Congressman, thank you very much for your insights today.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Thanks, Margaret. Thanks for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’ll be back with more Face the Nation.
Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: For a look now at some of the changes to America’s public health policies under the Trump administration, we’re joined by former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who sits on the board at Pfizer and is now the chairman of the board at Illumina.
Good morning. Good to see you.
DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB (Former FDA Commissioner): Good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You know, Dr. Gottlieb, you worked in the first Trump administration. This second Trump administration seems very different in its approach to public health on a lot of fronts. One of them was really laid bare this week with this newly remade Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP.
Secretary Kennedy had dismissed about 17 members of the existing board and put in some members of his own choice. And, in a video, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics said federal immunization policy is – quote – “no longer a credible process” and it’s being politicized at the expense of children.
That’s a pretty stunning statement. Do you agree with the Academy of Pediatrics?
DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Look, you’re right. I worked in the first Trump administration. I was fortunate to do that and proud to serve in that administration. I think we did a lot of important things on public health. We presided over the first cell and gene therapy approvals.
The president tried to expand access to those treatments through the right to try legislation that he championed. He supported the FDA on an effort to try to keep tobacco products out of the hands of kids, record number of generic approvals, and a lot of other accomplishments.
I think a lot of people on my side of the political aisle feel that a lot of these policies that Secretary Kennedy is championing are – are going to be contained to vaccines and not bleed into a broader public health doctrine.
I think that’s not right. I think there’s a lot of people now who don’t think these things are particularly political, or shouldn’t be, and don’t think these decisions should be politically decided who are going to find, when they go to the doctor’s office, that vaccines that they may want to protect their lives or the lives of their families aren’t going to be available.
This does look like a political process right now. The secretary is going after issues that have long been bugaboos of him and his anti-vax group, Children’s Health Defense. I don’t think that’s unmistakable – mistakable at this point. And I think that he would probably acknowledge that, that he’s taking on issues that he’s championed for the last 20 years to restrict access to certain vaccines.
That’s going to grow. The list is growing, and it’s going to start to be very tangible for people, and go well beyond just the COVID vaccine, which is, I think, what most people think about when they perceive this administration’s or the secretary’s efforts to try to restrict access to vaccines.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, one of the specific things from this meeting was advice to avoid flu vaccines containing an ingredient called thimerosal.
Right around the same time as the meeting, the CDC removed information from its website that debunked claims that this ingredient was linked to autism. Secretary Kennedy says it’s – it’s journalists who are obscuring the truth.
What do people need to know about the flu vaccine and this ingredient?
DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Yes, so this is an old ingredient. It’s a preservative used in multidose vials of flu vaccine primarily. Only a very small percentage of flu vaccine vials still contain it.
What it is, is an ingredient that’s added to multidose vials, because those vials, you’re going to go in and out of with different needles as you administer the vaccine to different patients. So they’re not single dose injections. They’re multidose vials that – primarily used in some busy clinics, almost exclusively in adults right now.
Back in the early 2000s, I was at FDA when we reformulated the vaccine, so we compelled manufacturers to reformulate the vaccines to take this preservative out, not because we thought it was unsafe, but because there was a lot of consternation among anti-vax groups that they thought that there was a link between this ingredient and autism.
The ingredient does contain small amounts of ethylmercury, not methylmercury, ethylmercury, which is the same kind of mercury found in fish, in very small – very small amounts. And so we compelled the manufacturers to reformulate the vast majority of vaccines. Still, 4 percent of flu vaccines that get administered, mostly to adults, are from these multidose vials.
And this has long been a bugaboo of the secretary and his group, the Children’s Health Defense Fund. In fact, the only presentation at the ACIP meeting was from the head of that group. And you’re right that there was a countering analysis from the CDC officials asserting that there’s no link between thimerosal and autism.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB: That – that analysis was taken down from the website. The secretary put out a statement that said that it wasn’t – it didn’t go through proper review.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re going to take a break, Dr. Gottlieb, and talk more with you on the other side of this. These are complicated issues I want to dig into with you.
So we hope all of you will stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION.
We return to our conversation with former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb.
Dr. Gottlieb, just to pick back up, we were talking about the meeting that took place this past week with the newly reconstituted advisory committee on immunization. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, you know him, he’s a doctor, he has oversight and chairs the Health Committee, he called for the meeting to be canceled because he said there’s no CDC director in place, and when it comes to these appointees, he said, “many of them do not have significant experience studying microbiology, epidemiology, or immunology.” And they may have preconceived bias against mRNA vaccines.
It’s – I’m not a doctor, but it seems to me that experience in immunology would be important if you’re advising on immunizations. His counsel was ignored here. Is there any check on Secretary Kennedy at this point? Is there a need to get a CDC director in place quickly?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB, M.D., (Former FBA Commissioner): Yes, well, the CDC director had a confirmation hearing this week, and hopefully she’ll be in place soon. I think he’s quite strong and a good pick for that job.
The board, this ACIP board, isn’t fully constituted. There’s only seven members on the board. At its peak membership it has about 15. And you’re right, a lot of the people who have been appointed don’t have deep experience or any experience, quite frankly, in vaccine science. They are people who have been ideologically aligned with Secretary Kennedy in the past and worked with him, many of them, not all of them. And I think that that isn’t something that even the secretary would probably dispute at this time.
And it did lead to some awkward moments at that meeting. For example, you know, one member had to have explained to him the difference between an antibody prophylaxis and a vaccine. So, there were evidence in that discussion where the CDC directors had to provide some, quite frankly, remedial assistance to help brief these members on the basis of vaccine science. So, it did show.
Hopefully, once they fully constitute that board, you’re going to get more balance on it. I think some people are skeptical. I remain hopeful that there will be some good members that get seated eventually.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You know, one of the things about the American health system is that question of continued innovation. Earlier this month, the FDA approved a twice-yearly injection of an HIV prevention drug called Lenacapavir. How significant is an innovation like that. And given the environment you’re talking about, will these new advisers get in the way of being able to get those kind of things to market?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Yes, this shouldn’t come before ACIP. So, this is a therapeutic. It’s a long-acting antiviral that provides six months of protection against HIV and was extremely effective at preventing HIV infection in a population that was high risk of contracting HIV. So, it was a change in the formulation of an antiviral that allows it to be administered just twice a year and provides sustained exposure to the benefits of that antiviral.
We’re seeing a lot of innovation like this. There was also news this week from a small biotech company that I don’t have any involvement with that they had developed a pill that could provide sustained protection against flu. So, it’s an antiviral, but it is formulated in a way where it could be administered once ahead of flu season to provide protection across the entire season, and also look to be very effective. So, we’re seeing a lot of innovations like this.
What I’m worried about is innovation in vaccine science. I work on the venture capital side, where we make investments in – in new companies. And there has been a pullback of biotech start-ups that have been looking to develop new vaccines. For example, vaccines for Epstein-Barr virus, which we know is linked to certain “b”-cell lymphomas and maybe is linked to multiple sclerosis. That – that’s a new area of science, the potential to vaccinate children against that, much like we vaccinate kids against HPV right now and prevent cervical cancer and other types of cancers. Maybe in the future we may be vaccinating for EBV. But there’s been a lot of pullback to that kind of investment. And so I think we’re going to see less innovation in vaccine science as a result of the environment we’re in.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Quickly, Secretary Kennedy was asked this week about the declarations in some states to start removing fluoride from water. Oklahoma made some moves in that direction. He said, “You’re going to see probably slightly more cavities, but there’s a direct inverse correlation between the amount of fluoride in your water and your loss of IQ.” What should parents be thinking about when they hear things like that?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Well, look, this has been a long-standing issue. Another issue that Secretary Kennedy has championed over his career, this perceived – this perception that there’s a link between fluoride in water and some neurotoxic effects of that. That’s been studied thoroughly. It’s been, I think, fully debunked. There’s very small amounts of fluoride in water. And at the levels that it’s put into the water supply, it’s been demonstrated to be safe.
The CDC has data showing that there’s a 25 percent reduction in dental caries (ph) as a result of fluoride that’s added routinely to the water supply. It’s not just a question of increased dental cavities, but also oral health more generally, which we know is correlated to systemic health.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
Dr. Gottlieb, good to get your insight today.
We’ll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Even the Iranians concede that the damage to three of their nuclear sites from last week’s bombing was excessive and serious, but it’s a mystery as to what the Iranian nuclear capability is now. Friday, we spoke with the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, Rafael Mariano Grossi, and we asked him just that.
(BEGIN VT)
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI (IAEA Director General): It’s clear that what happened in particular in – in Fordow, in Natanz, Isfahan, where Iran used to have and still has to some degree capabilities in terms of treatment, conversion, and enrichment of uranium have been destroyed to an important degree. Some is still standing. So, there is, of course, an important setback in terms of those – of those capabilities.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There was roughly 400 kilograms, which is just under 900 pounds, of highly enriched uranium before the attacks.
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I know these are in small canisters and relatively easy to move. Do you have any idea where that was moved and if it was moved before the attack?
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: We presume, and I think it’s – it’s logical to presume, that when they announced that they are going to be taking protective measures, this could be part of it. But as I said, we don’t know where this material could be, or if part of it could have been, you know, under the attack during those 12 days. So, some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved.
So, there has to be, at some point, a clarification. If we don’t get that clarification, this will continue to be hanging, you know, over our heads as – as a potential problem. So, this is why I say, it’s so important, first of all, for Iran to allow our inspectors to continue their indispensable work as soon as possible.
MARGARET BRENNAN: If we don’t know where the highly enriched uranium is, and cannot account for all the centrifuges, is there still a risk that they could rushing towards a bomb?
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: We don’t want to be alarmists here. And I don’t want to – to – to be part of a, you know, a messaging that would be spreading, as I say, alarm. But we need to be in a position to assert and to confirm what is there and – and where is it and – and – and what happened.
Iran had a very vast, ambitious program. Part of it may still be there. And if not, there is also the self-evident truth that the knowledge is there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: The industrial capacity is there. Iran is a very sophisticated country in terms of nuclear technology, as is obvious. So, you cannot dis-invent this. You cannot undo the knowledge that you have or the capacities that you have. It’s a huge country, isn’t it? So, I think this should be the incentive that we all must have to understand that military operations are not – you are not going to solve this in a definitive way militarily.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Up until these strikes, Iran – Iran was still disclosing information to the IAEA in certain amounts.
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Well, yes. Yes, yes, yes. Well, there – there were – there were deficits. There were deficits. There were some things that they were not clarifying to us. But our inspection work was – was constant. In particular, in this sensitive area of the number of centrifuges and the amount of material, we had perfect view. We didn’t have view on other things that we wanted to have. But on this one, it was – it was complete. It was comprehensive. And – and, of course, at the moment, there is – there is nothing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Iran wasn’t keeping its stockpile of enriched uranium secret. What do you think it was intended for? And did you see anything that suggested that they were looking to weaponize?
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: They have all of these capabilities, but for the agency they – first of all, they didn’t have nuclear weapons, OK? This needs to be said. The IAEA does not judge intentions. The IAEA looks at the activities of a country and reports it to the world. So, it is countries that – that say, well, this is of concern on a (ph).
What we were concerning – what I was concerned about is that there were other things that were not clear. For example, we have found traces of uranium in – in – in some places in Iran which were not the normal, declared facilities. And we were asking for years, why did we find these traces of enriched uranium in place “x,” “y,” or zed (ph). And we were simply not getting credible answers.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: There was material. Where is this material? So, there could be even more. We – we – we don’t know. This is why we need to go back.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And that report that you gave about some of those open questions or unanswered questions.
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The Iranians are pointing to it now. And the foreign minister seems to be sort of blaming you for the military strikes. He said, it wasn’t honest and fair, your report. What do you make of those criticisms?
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: The IAEA, as always, has had a very honest assessment of the situation. And there were many, I can assure you, there were many that they – that we’re seeing (ph) in your report, you must say that they have nuclear weapons, or they are very close to have nuclear weapons. And we didn’t. We simply didn’t because this was not what we were seeing, all right, so –
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you also said you couldn’t verify that it was a peaceful program.
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Absolutely, because we have to say everything.
MARGARET BRENNAN: People here are looking for clarity, and there’s confusion in the United States.
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: CBS is reporting that the Defense Intelligence Agency assesses Iran’s program was set back a few months. But once they dig out, they could resume in a number of months. They have to rebuild electrical and water supplies. The CIA and the national intelligence director say the facilities were destroyed, and it would take years to rebuild. Israel says the military program is set back many years.
What’s the truth here? What do you make of these assessments?
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: All of that depends on your metrics, Margaret. If you tell me it will take them two months or three months, for what?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: The capacities they have are there. They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium. Or less than that. But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there. It is clear that there have been severe damage, but is not total damage, first of all.
And secondly, Iran has the capacities there. Industrial and technological capacities. So, if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again.
(END VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you can watch our full interview with Director Grossi on our website or YouTube channel, or listen on our FACE THE NATION podcast platform.
We’ll be back in a moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, who joins us from New York.
Welcome to FACE THE NATION.
AMIR SAEID IRAVANI (Iran Ambassador to the United Nations): Thank you for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador, can you give us some clarity. Does Iran intend to reconstitute a nuclear enrichment program on its soil?
AMIR SAEID IRAVANI: You know that we are a member – responsible member of the NPT. And according to the – this treaty, we have the mutual rights. It means that the right of one side will be the obligation of the other sides. And the NPT has been defined that we have to the (ph) exclusive rights.
The first is that we can have research on development, we can have the production of uranium, and we can have – use the peaceful energy. And the second right is that the legal protection by the IAEA for our activity and technical corporations for our development programs.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
AMIR SAEID IRAVANI: And, in return, also, it will be to right for the agency in this regard that they should have the full access, according to the safeguard cohesive (ph) –safeguard agreement.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
AMIR SAEID IRAVANI: And the second one is that to preserve our peaceful nuclear activity will remain always in peaceful manner. So, the enrichment is our right. An inalienable right. And we want to implement this right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you do plan to restart enrichment that sounds like.
AMIR SAEID IRAVANI: I think that enrichment will not – never stop.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, when you mention NPT, just for our listeners, you’re talking about some of the international agreements Iran has made with the U.N., on non-proliferation and safeguards. You mentioned the U.N. nuclear inspectors.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement yesterday saying that there were calls in Iran – this, I believe, is from a newspaper that the supreme leader oversees, accusing our prior guest, Raphael Grossi, of being an Israeli spy and calling for his arrest and execution. To be clear, is Iran threatening U.N. inspectors?
AMIR SAEID IRAVANI: No, there is not any threat. It is a very clear law of our parliament that they have suspended our cooperation with IAEA because the agency has not implemented their rights, their responsibility. Due to this, it is conditional law. And as long as this condition has not been set, so are the cooperation with IAEA will be suspended.
But wherever it’s set up as according to the law, so we can have – resume our cooperation. But there is not any threat against the general director of IAEA.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that was published in Israel – in Iran’s Kayhan newspaper. Your foreign minister did also say that the IAEA and Grossi himself are malign in intent. Are the IAEA personnel, are the inspectors already inside Iran safe and can they go back to their work of inspecting your sites?
AMIR SAEID IRAVANI: Exactly. They are in Iran. They are in the safe conditions. But activity has been suspended. They cannot have access to our site. But maybe some one individual opinion of the people that may criticize the IAEA or threat the general director. But we criticize IAEA. We – our assessment is that they have not done their jobs, so they failed and they prepared and pay great (ph) for such aggravation against us.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I imagine that you would condemn the calls for his execution?
AMIR SAEID IRAVANI: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: President Trump’s –
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, and I know, and you’re speaking to us from the U.N.
President Trump said Friday that Iranian officials want to meet with him, personally, and he said that will be soon. Mr. Ambassador, is Tehran planning to drop this demand of indirect communication with the United States, and will you be begin speaking with the Trump administration?
AMIR SAEID IRAVANI: See we’re willing (ph) the negotiation, but because we know that any dispute between Iran and the United States or other part of the JCPOA cannot be resolved without negotiation and using the peaceful means for – to resolve this dispute. So, we are in the negotiation, we are ready for the negotiation. But after this aggression, it is not proper condition for a new round of the negotiation. And there is no request for negotiation and meeting with the president.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the United States is wanting to meet with Iran to talk. And while the supreme leader issued a statement saying Iran had dealt the U.S. a slap in the face, after that, President Trump said he had actually stopped Israel from going further and had stopped Israel from an attempt to kill your supreme leader. Why not take the offer of a diplomatic lifeline? Because he seems to be offering one.
AMIR SAEID IRAVANI: Oh, it is a very gross violation of international law that they’re treating the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran or any heads of our state. They have impunity from any attacks. So, we should understand that what is the principle and condition for any negotiation. Negotiation is – has its – the principles, and it is a give and take process. So we should engage in the negotiation and discuss with this order (ph) maybe we reach to a conclusion or not. But unconditional surrender is not negotiation –
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
AMIR SAEID IRAVANI: – it is dictating the policy towards us. If they are ready for negotiation, they will find us ready for that. But if they want to dictate us, it is impossible for any negotiation with them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your time today. We will be watching and waiting to see if there are any diplomatic opportunities.
We’ll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Our Imtiaz Tyab is in Iran and filed this reporter’s notebook. We want to note, the Iranian government is monitoring our CBS’ team’s movements there.
(BEGIN VT)
IMTIAZ TYAB (voice over): We started our journey from the Turkish/Iranian border at night. A nearly 600-mile trip made longer by check points and bad roads.
IMTIAZ TYAB: We’ve already been driving for ten hours and have another four hours ahead of us.
IMTIAZ TYAB (voice over): When we reached Tehran, we found the city slowly coming back to life. With the ceasefire appearing to hold, some had started to venture out. And after days of silence, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini spoke in a taped address, where he lashed out at Israel and the U.S., saying, Iran had, quote, “delivered a slap to America’s face.”
Fatima Mohajarani (ph) is the Iranian government’s spokeswoman who told us President Trump’s decision to bomb three of Iran’s nuclear facilities was a mistake.
“What happened was a bullet the diplomacy,” she said, “but from the point of view of Iran, diplomacy has no end.”
At Friday prayers, the truest believers in the Islamic republic.
IMTIAZ TYAB: Here in theocratic Iran, religion and politics don’t just go hand in hand, they’re inseparable from each other. And, as expected, you can hear chants of “death to America” and “death to Israel.”
IMTIAZ TYAB (voice over): In the women’s section, more anger.
IMTIAZ TYAB: What is your message to President Trump?
IMTIAZ TYAB (voice over): She said, “hands off Iran, Trump. This is not your homeland.”
Our next stop was to a well-to-do neighborhood in Tehran, where the scars of war were clear to see.
On Saturday, hundreds of thousands of mourners gathered in Tehran for the state funerals of top military commanders, nuclear scientists, and women and children killed in Israeli attacks.
IMTIAZ TYAB: What’s really been striking at this demonstration is, yes, there are many people here who are very supportive of the Iranian leadership, but we’ve met people from across the political spectrum who share in their anger and in their grief.
(END VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s our Imtiaz Tyab reporting from Tehran.
That’s it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week. For FACE THE NATION, I’m Margaret Brennan.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
