On this “Face the Nation” broadcast, moderated by Margaret Brennan:

  • 2024 Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson 
  • Sen. Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona
  • New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat
  • U.S. Rep. Mike Turner, Republican of Ohio
  • European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde

Click here to browse full transcripts of “Face the Nation.”    

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m Margaret Brennan in Washington.

And this week on Face the Nation: Flare-ups on two polarizing issues in America, guns and abortion, reach new levels of concern.

Overnight, more gun violence. We will tell you what’s happened, and we will look at the impact it’s having on us and our children.

We will talk with Arizona’s Democratic Senator Mark Kelly in a rare Sunday interview, as conservatives wrap up their annual NRA conference.

(Begin VT)

MIKE PENCE (Former Vice President of the United States): Stop endangering our lives with gun bans and stop trampling on the God-given rights of the American people.

DONALD TRUMP (Former President of the United States): The issue is not too many guns. The issue is too many thugs, hoodlums and savage criminals on our street.

(End VT)

MARGARET BRENNAN: Former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson once headed up the School Shield program for the NRA. Now he’s running for president. He will join us.

And, as the Supreme Court considers whether a decades-old abortion drug should remain on the market, we will talk with New Mexico’s Democratic governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Then: Questions continue, as more jaw-dropping revelations are reported from those classified documents discovered on social media platforms, as a 21-year-old Air National Guardsman is arrested and accused of publishing intelligence secrets.

(Begin VT)

JOE BIDEN (President of the United States): I have instructed the department to make sure that they get to the root of why he had access in the first place.

(End VT)

MARGARET BRENNAN: And just how damaging are the leaks to our national security? President Biden says he’s not concerned.

(Begin VT)

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Nothing contemporaneous that I’m aware of that is of great consequence.

(End VT)

MARGARET BRENNAN: We will get an assessment from the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Turner.

Finally, the head of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, joins us to talk about the state of the global economy.

It’s all just ahead on Face the Nation.

Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation.

We are monitoring a developing story in Dadeville, Alabama. Overnight there, there was a shooting at a 16th birthday party at a local dance hall. Information at this point is very limited, but the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency reports there have been four fatalities and multiple injuries.

Another big story we are covering today is abortion rights and the increasingly tighter restrictions across the country following the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade nearly a year ago.

We begin with our Mark Strassmann in Atlanta.

(Begin VT)

MARK STRASSMANN (voice-over): Dadeville, Alabama, population roughly 3,000, the scene of a weekend sweet 16 party that turned to horror.

Also overnight, two people were killed when someone fired shots into a crowd in Louisville, Kentucky, still reeling from last week’s bank massacre.

CRAIG GREENBERG (D-Mayor of Louisville, Kentucky): This has been an unspeakable week of tragedy for our city.

MARK STRASSMANN: New Mexico authorities just released this police bodycam footage, officers responding to a domestic violence call. It’s the wrong house. But the confused homeowner is apparently armed, and police fatally shoot him.

It’s another American front line, what to do about gun violence. Our new CBS News poll shows roughly three in four Americans believe mass shootings are preventable. Increasingly worried, parents, 77 percent at least somewhat concerned, up from an already high 72 percent last year. About 60 percent of parents say their kids worry about gun violence.

What about fewer guns or no guns? Eighty-three percent of Democrats say America would be safer, but only 25 percent of Republicans. Easy access to guns contrasts with abortion access in America.

PROTESTER: Hands off!

PROTESTERS: Our bodies!

PROTESTER: Hands off!

PROTESTERS: Our bodies!

MARK STRASSMANN: More precarious than ever.

By Wednesday midnight, another potential Supreme Court milestone, deciding the future availability of mifepristone, the most commonly taken abortion drug. More broadly, our CBS News poll shows American women by a roughly 4-1 margin believe access to reproductive health care is getting harder, especially in red states. More than half of voters in those states see more restrictions coming.

Take Florida. Last Thursday, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a bill banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. With Florida’s new law, abortion access here in the South essentially is limited to two states, North and South Carolina.

Republican leaders generally approve states deciding the abortion issue, but our poll shows more than half of Americans believe the Republican Party is trying to ban abortion nationally, rather than let states decide.

That view is driven by abortion rights supporters, both Democrats and independents.

(End VT)

MARK STRASSMANN: Mark Strassmann in Atlanta.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, who is attending a Republican gathering in Nashville. Governor,

it’s good to have you here.

I know you have said you are running for president. So I want to start there.

What is the affirmative reason you want to be chief executive of the United States of America?

FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON (R-Arkansas) (Presidential Candidate): Because we need leadership that brings out the best of America and doesn’t appeal to our worst instincts.

We need to have leadership that understands our responsibility across the globe, and that we’re not an isolationist party or country. And so whenever you look at the challenges we face from the economy, that we could be headed into recession, to our border security and the fentanyl crisis that we face, to the lack of energy supply that’s so critical to our growth in our country, these are all issues that I think need to be solved.

And my experience as Congress, as head of the DEA, involved in national security issues, gives me the capability to address those. And I’m excited about the opportunity to run.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I want to ask you about one of the issues on the minds certainly have a lot of American parents. According to our polling, that is most certainly gun violence. Six in 10 parents say their kids express worry to them about gun violence, either a lot or sometimes.

You were with us last after Uvalde, when an 18-year-old man took an AR-15 carrying three times the amount of ammunition that a soldier carries into combat and massacred elementary school children. At that period of time, you told me: “The U.S. should look at the type of triggers that can alert law enforcement.”

What triggers do you want to write into law?

FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: Well, whenever you look at each of these incidences of mass shootings — and that’s the challenge that we face in America.

We ought to always be looking at what can make a difference. What can we do to save lives? And that’s why I worked very hard on the National School Shield initiative as to what expertise we could bring in the schools to bring more safety.

Whenever you look at the Uvalde shooting, I looked at what the solutions were. And thank goodness we had Senator Cornyn and Senator Murphy that stepped up to the plate and said there’s a bipartisan solution that can address that particular instance.


FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: And so these are steps that have been proven to be successful in — in saving lives.

And I think we continue to look at what can be done.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that appears to be the limit of what Congress is willing to do, that bipartisan Safer Communities Act you just referenced.

And, in it, there was over a billion dollars appropriated for mental health resources at school. Just $188 million has actually been allocated to about 30 states. There was money in it to incentivize red flag laws. But in these states like Kentucky and Tennessee, where these shootings have just happened, they don’t have red flag laws. They don’t appear to want them there.

So how do you fix that connection between mental health and mass shootings?

FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: Well, the investment is important.

And, in Arkansas, we made sure that our school counselors can devote them time to actually counseling with students and not doing administrative work. And so putting more money into the school resources and the mental health services across the board are important. Secondly…

MARGARET BRENNAN: More than a billion dollars already allocated?

FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: Well, the states have to pick up that responsibility as well.

And, yes, you shift into enhancing those mental health services, but also making sure that we have the capacity to identify and respond if someone poses a risk. And this is important, Margaret, that we have to look at actually utilizing the law that’s on the books. And it’s been there since the ’70s.

But it was used in a different way. And that is, if somebody is a danger to themselves or a risk to others, then they can be committed. It has to go before a judge.


FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: There has to be a hearing on it.


FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: But we aren’t utilizing that. And that — we need to change the context of our society to take those steps whenever we identify those mental health problems that pose those kinds of risks.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK, but that assumes identification of the problem.

The shooter in Louisville was 25 years old. His family said he had no history of violence. He had no police record. And he bought an AR-15-style weapon six days before he carried out this massacre.

Your solution doesn’t solve for that.

FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: Well, it doesn’t solve every problem. You have got — you have got instances of mass shootings that are caused by mental illness and a failure to respond to those instances you can identify.

And, here, you cite the case. And I think we’re still learning the facts. But it’s evil. And you have got to be able to enforce the law. And you have got to send the signal that there’s going to be serious consequences and the death penalty when somebody, through a pure act of evil, carries out that kind of shooting.

MARGARET BRENNAN: He was killed.

FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: And so you have got to go to the heart of that problem.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. He was killed on site.

The CDC says that more than 50 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with a mental illness or disorder at some point in their lifetime. So, the numbers are with you in terms of mental health crisis in this country. That’s 50 percent of Americans.

How are you going to decide who has enough of a problem to institutionalize? Where are you going to draw that line?

FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: Well, that’s the line that I just recited that’s in the law currently, which is not that you have — are suffering from depression or not that you have to go into counseling for some reason. We all have those issues in life.

But if it reaches the point of paranoia, sociopathic behavior, or that you’re a risk to yourself of suicide or you’re a risk to others in terms of homicide, then we, as a society, if we can identify that, which we can, we have to act on it. And it’s not adjudicated by a police officer. It is by a court where evidence is received.

But we have failed in our society to utilize and to act upon that. And so mental illness is there. But whenever it gets to the level of risk and danger to others, we should act as a society. And we have ignored that for the last really 50 years.

And we’re going to have to change if we’re going to address the issues that we see.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But there are states who are literally turning down money on the table that’s in that act you just praised to put in place red flag laws that would allow for family members to say, hey, my loved one is a danger and shouldn’t be allowed to buy that weapon.

Those state governments in Tennessee and in Kentucky didn’t have those laws. They didn’t want them there.

FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: I think there’s a resist…

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, are you talking about some national law you want to create here that would force those states to do things to prevent people with how you define mental illness buying weapons?

FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: Well, there’s two separate issues here. One is the red flag law that you raised.

And then, secondly, there is the adjudication through a court of law for someone who poses a risk to themselves or to others. And that’s on the books. It’s in virtually every state. And that’s dependent upon action that a family member might take when they identify another family member that is a risk.

It might be the police that could identify that of somebody that’s on the streets, or it could be a whole host of ways, but it would get it into court. So this is not a federal law that needs to be passed. It is actually a matter of practice, and that the civil libertarians pushed us away from this action 50 years ago, and we have never returned to that kind of action when we see the problem in an individual.

On the red flag law, that is a separate issue.


FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: And there’s a resistance because it’s not a — going into court and fully adjudicating it. It is — we’re still studying the experience that they had in Florida on this.

We want to make sure it’s due process, it’s fair, you’re not unnecessarily taking firearms…


FORMER GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON: … away from somebody just because they say they’re having a bad day.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Governor, there’s so much more to get into with you. I got to leave it there for today. Thank you for joining us.

And we turn now to Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, who joins us from Tucson.

Senator, welcome to the program.

SENATOR MARK KELLY (D-Arizona): Thank you, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I have a lot to get to with you, but I want to start on this issue.

Our viewers remember, of course, that your wife, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, was critically injured in a shooting many years ago. You’ve made gun safety a real priority issue.

Your colleague Senator Murphy of Connecticut said to me recently: “Something is dying inside the soul of this nation.”

Do you think America is numb to gum — gun violence?

SENATOR MARK KELLY: Well, I don’t think we’re numb to it.

And it’s really heartbreaking to see moms across the country terrified about sending their kids to school. I mean, it’s not the country we should live in.

I have a 2-year-old granddaughter, and, in her preschool, she has already gone through one lockdown. Now, she’s 2. She doesn’t know what it was. But, I mean, this — if we don’t make some serious change, this is going to be her experience growing up.

We have some of the most permissive gun laws in the world. And we have the — some of the highest levels of gun violence. We passed this bipartisan, Safer Communities Act. It is a step in the right direction, but it’s only one step, and there is more we can do.

MARGARET BRENNAN: On that law, it — as we just talked about with — with Mr. Hutchinson, it gave a billion dollars for school mental health resources. About $188 million has been awarded to about 30 states so far.

Is that money moving fast enough? Is there more that can be done with these resources already allocated?

SENATOR MARK KELLY: Well, I think this issue is so important to address and so tragic.

And, you know, Margaret, I’m a gun owner. I’m a supporter of the Second Amendment, but we make it so easy for irresponsible people and criminal — criminals to get access to firearms. There are three schools in Arizona that have already gained access to this money, but, you know, moving it into the states and into communities faster is going to be — it’s going to be helpful.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. Yes. Well, it only really began moving in February.

You just heard Asa Hutchinson, who is running for president, talk about institutionalizing people with mental health issues to avoid mass shootings. It’s something that Mike Pence, the former vice president who’s running, also said at the NRA this weekend. He also called for the death penalty for mass shooters.

How do you assess those solutions?

SENATOR MARK KELLY: Well, Governor Hutchinson also said that he didn’t want to compel states to — to comply with the red flag laws.

You know, we provided money. And it’s voluntary for states. We could make that mandatory. Red flag laws work. I mean, we — we have data that shows that, in states that have red flag laws, you prevent — you prevent gun violence. So that’s certainly a place to start.

And we provided money for mental health services. We’ve got a mental health crisis in our country. There’s more we can do. But listening to the — the former vice president to say that this isn’t about, you know, firearms, not about guns? I mean, it is.

I mean, we just make it way too easy. How about more background checks? You know, here in the state of Arizona or Texas or many places, you can go to a gun show and get a gun without a back — background check. That doesn’t make sense to most Americans.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We have to take a break here, Senator.

I want to talk to you on the other side of it about your recent trip to Ukraine and other issues. So, please stay with us.

More from Senator Kelly in one minute.


MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re back now with Arizona Senator Mark Kelly.

Senator, I know you just returned from Ukraine. So, I want to ask you about this news that we got confirmed, essentially, this week in these leaked Pentagon documents that estimate Ukraine will deplete their stock of anti- aircraft missiles within weeks.

It’s been widely reported how quickly they’re going through ammunition. How concerned are you that this is going to give Russia the opportunity to have air superiority?

SENATOR MARK KELLY: Well, Margaret, I spent 25 years in the United States Navy. I flew in combat. This is my first time I have actually went to a war one, a country that’s been brutally attacked by — by Vladimir Putin.

There’s war crimes committed every day. I mean, the situation is just heartbreaking. You know, one of the things we were looking at was their ammunition supply. I don’t want to comment specifically on the classified intelligence here.

But we have to make sure that we continue to give them the weapons and the weapon systems that they need to be successful. We cannot allow Putin to win this thing. I mean, he — he said what his plan is. I mean, he wants to rebuild the Soviet Empire. And, if we don’t stop him in Ukraine, I mean, there is no telling where he will go next.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But when you say more ammunition, you specifically mean more anti-aircraft missiles now?

SENATOR MARK KELLY: No. I mean, there’s rounds for their howitzers. They need to — their air defense system is challenged as well. I mean, that’s what you’re specifically talking about.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine have air superiority at this time. That’s important in a combat zone. And to get it is — is challenging. And they’re using a lot of their weapons. I mean, they — they — HIMARS is another example.

So, the purpose of this trip was to see what they need, see what we can supply. I will go back to DOD and to the administration and give them my assessment of what the situation in Ukraine is.

MARGARET BRENNAN: President Biden has said they don’t need F-16s. You disagree.

SENATOR MARK KELLY: Well, I think it’s something we need to look at. And I have communicated that to the Department of Defense and the administration.

We recently evaluated here in Arizona, in Tucson, where I live, two Ukrainian F-16 pilots. I spoke to the instructor pilots. It’s still unclear exactly how they want to use the F-16. They’re looking for the next game changer. F-16 is not an artillery piece. It’s not a tank. It’s very complicated and hard to maintain.


SENATOR MARK KELLY: We — we — we’ve also looked at some other options. I mean, there are other countries that have F-16s as well. That might become an option.

But it’s going to take some time. I mean, the assessment here is, it’ll take about a year to train 12 Ukrainian — if we go that route, 12 Ukrainian MiG-29 pilots.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Kelly, it’s good to have you on the program. We hope to have you back.

We’re going to have to leave it there for today.

Stay with us.


MARGARET BRENNAN: We want to bring in chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford to help us understand what is going on legally when it comes to abortion access and this pill.

Jan, it’s good to have you here.


MARGARET BRENNAN: We know the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade back in June. They sent the decision back to states. Now we’re back at the Supreme Court talking about abortion access again.

Will they hear this case on the pill?

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I mean, no, I don’t think so.

But, first of all, let’s think about what they did last June. They said in that Dobbs decision there’s no constitutional right to abortion. States can decide what they want to do with it. Let it play out in the political process. And that’s exactly what we have seen.

We have seen the red states, the more conservative states, restrict or even ban abortion. We have seen the blue states, the more liberal states, say: We’re going to keep it widely available.

This case here is an effort by a conservative legal group in Texas to restrict abortion nationwide in every state by trying to outlaw a pill that’s used in more than half of all abortions in this country. They’re saying that the FDA didn’t properly approve this pill 23 years ago.

And a federal judge in Texas, who’s a Trump appointee, by the way, agreed with that. So, now the case is before the Supreme Court, whether they should get involved. And I don’t think the justices are going to go along with this. I think they’re going to block that lower court judge’s order. They’re going to keep this pill — pill available nationwide.

And that’s because there are conservative legal principles that go to the heart of this case. This is not a case about the right to abortion. This is not a case about the Constitution. This is a case about jurisdiction and administrative law. This is a case that says, do these challengers have standing to go into court and attack a law — a procedure that they just don’t agree with?

I don’t think the court is going to go along with that. I think it’s probably going to be at least 7-2 and maybe even 9-0.


MARGARET BRENNAN: … to — what is your prediction in…


JAN CRAWFORD: Blocking the lower court’s order and keeping this pill available nationwide.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That would be surprising for those assuming a conservative-leaning court.

JAN CRAWFORD: But the conservative legal principles…

MARGARET BRENNAN: And you’re saying it’s not a…

JAN CRAWFORD: … at the heart of this case, say you have got to have a good reason to go into federal court and challenge something. You can’t just say: I don’t agree with this.


JAN CRAWFORD: You have got to show that you were harmed by it, that you had a stake in it.

And that’s not clear here. And if the court goes along with this, in this case, it will be at odds with what they have said in other cases in the past about the role of federal judges to get involved in social disputes. I think it’ll be very surprising if the court blocks this pill.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let’s take a break, come back.

I have more questions for you, Jan.

So, we will be right back. And we will speak to New Mexico Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Stay with us.



And we are back now with our chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford.

Jan, I wanted you to take something head on, which is this Democratic argument that if — that if this one FDA approved drug for abortion is blocked –

JAN CRAWFORD: Mifepristone.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That all drugs are somehow at risk. Is that true?

JAN CRAWFORD: I mean I think that’s a valid argument. If the – if the courts are going to say lower the bar and let people come in to the federal courts to challenge things that were approved 23 years ago, even if they haven’t been harmed by the drug, I mean it’s hard — that’s certainly a valid argument and it could apply in other cases with other social issues. If the court lowers the bar in this case, you’re going to see conservative groups on other social issues going into the Supreme Court and saying they have a right to sue here, too. You’re going to broil federal judges back into these social issue disputes, which, if we take the Supreme Court at its word, is exactly what they said should not be happening.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, Jan Crawford, I have to leave it there. Thank you for your time.

And we turn now to New Mexico’s Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.

It’s good to have you back here in studio.

GOV. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM (D-NM): Well, thank you, Margaret. I’m happy to be here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, your state is part of a 20 state coalition of governors, the Reproductive Freedom Alliance. Some of the states in it have started stockpiling this medication for abortion. When you were here in February you said that’s the wrong focus, the wrong question.


MARGARET BRENNAN: Has that changed?

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: No, it — for me it hasn’t changed. And we were — we’re going to make sure, and we already are, that we have access to all of those medications. But if the response is, we’ll stockpile instead of protecting all access, then we’re minimizing the work that we have to do to make sure that women and families are fully protected. Not that in and of itself there’s a disagreement by a state that’s making sure that irrespective of the legal decisions we’re going to make sure that medication abortion is available in our state.

But I think that we are moving – And to Jan’s point — it’s every social issue that you disagree with. Is it stem cell research? Is it fertility drugs? Whatever it is in this context, if we’re going to use the federal courts as a way to bar and ban access, we are looking at a national abortion ban and more. And I think states have to ban together to do as much as they can in opposition to that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And the states are on the front line here because there is no federal guarantee.


MARGARET BRENNAN: The court kicked it back to chief executives like yourself back in June.

So, currently in New Mexico, abortion is legal, but you don’t actually have a law codifying it. I know you want to write one.

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: We do. We do now. So, the last time I was here we didn’t, and you were — and thank you — talking about Colorado’s work. We now have a law both codifying right to abortion, abortion care and access, as well as gender affirming care in the state. So that just got signed by me.

MARGARET BRENNAN: What – so nail down for me then, how do you define – because up – up until now my understanding is there wasn’t a limit on when in pregnancy a woman could receive an abortion. Have you set any limit on that?

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: There are no limits. So, for us, and from —

MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s very controversial.

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: It can be. I mean, look, it’s 1 percent of all abortions and that’s still a sizable number of abortions worldwide.

MARGARET BRENNAN: One percent over 21 weeks of pregnancy.

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: Correct. However, you know, look, these are women that have named these soon-to-be born babies. These are horrific medical conditions. And, again, New Mexico’s position and mine is that we should not be interfering with a woman’s right, medical situation, and her decision about that life-threatening potential circumstance. We shouldn’t be doing that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, explain that.


MARGARET BRENNAN: How do you define fetal viability and – and — or that line?


MARGARET BRENNAN: You say it’s very, very uncommon, but.

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: It – it is. That is not defined. It is left to two physicians make that decision with the patient. That’s the issue is that the government’s —

MARGARET BRENNAN: Two physicians?

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: Two physicians. Uh-huh.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And so the fear is that folks could take that to an extreme if someone has an affliction that isn’t life threatening.

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: Well, of course, and that is –

MARGARET BRENNAN: But they’re picking and choosing which children they want to carry to term or not.

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: Well, I find that argument not to be nearly as compelling as the arguments that we make that we should be focused on, contraceptives and better maternal health care, which means you have better outcomes. It’s the wrong side of the argument. And it pushes buttons for people’s fears about what’s really happening. Late-term abortions should occur as rarely as humanly possible and they should be only for life- threatening conditions of the – of the fetus or the mother, and that should be analyzed by that physician.

If we start making any access points, which we are all around the country, you end up with triggers and six weeks, fewer than six weeks. These are all barriers to women’s health care, comprehensive reproductive health care. And New Mexico’s going to stand with many other states to make sure that’s not the direction we’re headed in.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, your state has become this haven of sorts for the surrounding states that do heavily restrict abortion, like Texas.


MARGARET BRENNAN: And Oklahoma. So that’s, I’m sure, part of your calculus here in crafting the law you did.

But I wanted to come back to something you said, both in February and in other remarks. You talked about using federal lands.


MARGARET BRENNAN: You talked about talking to the tribes in your state. You have a large tribal population there. You said, we’re moving towards tribal nations providing access, including abortion. The Hyde Amendment prevents federal dollars being used from abortion. The White House has not endorsed this.

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: But sovereign land – yes, but sovereign land is a whole different designation of federalism and federal land.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you doing this?

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: We aren’t doing it now, but I think we will, and I think we can.


MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: Well, a couple different ways. A sovereign nation makes its own decisions. Now, the question that I think you’re asking is, would we use Medicaid to actually pay for those services? That is complicated with the Hyde Amendment. So the answer there is no.

But we do a ton of state investments and tribes have their own resources. They’re already building behavioral health clinics. They run hospitals. They run primary care clinics. They’re already in the business of delivering health care. And at least one of those tribes, the Pueblo in New Mexico, has certainly indicated that they would be more than ready, willing, able, and interested to make sure that access — because women of color have limited access for a number of reasons all over the country. And these are Pueblos that want to make sure that the women and families in their Pueblo or sovereign nation have equal access irrespective of distances that they might have to travel.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because last June Vice President Harris was asked about this and said the, no, the White House isn’t looking at it. Are they looking at it or is this you?

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: Well, I don’t think the White House is looking at it, but they have heard loud and clear from a variety of states, including New York, that every federal tool in the toolbox ought to be used to protect and expand access. New Mexico has an opportunity with 23 independent tribes to do that in a little different way. And so the point was, we won’t leave any access point, right, on the table if it makes sense and we have willing partners.


I want to quickly ask you about the water crisis. There’s this debate over the Colorado River, which appears to be drying up. It’s been drought stricken for like two decades now. Do you need the Biden administration to step in here? Because the states aren’t settling this amongst themselves.

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM: I think we do. And I think having at least $4 billion, which is an incentive. Look, people aren’t going to give up water rights and automatically lean in to do conservation. It’s hard. And it’s full of risk. The Biden administration, rightly so, got money available to create incentives so that we’re doing better conservation and management. We’ve got six states working pretty well together. California, big water user, going to be tough. But with good snowpacks, money, incentives, and cooperation, we are in the best place ever to do something meaningful about this.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Governor, thank you for your time.


MARGARET BRENNAN: Good to have you back.

And we’ll be right back.


MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Ohio Congressman Mike Turner.

Good to have you back.

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): Thank you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you have any sense yet of the scale of the damage caused by the leak of this classified material by apparently this 21-year- old airman who has been arrested?

MIKE TURNER: Not completely, but clearly there’s damage that’s done. I mean we have documents classified because we don’t want them to get in the hands of our adversaries, and these have been widely circulated. So, obviously, these are – are – are damaging both to the United States and to our allies.

You know, what’s troubling here is when you look at the documents that were circulated, that, you know, without the care of its handling, these relate to actual real people. The marks on maps are – are real people. And they can impact people’s lives. And that’s certainly our concern.

MARGARET BRENNAN: President Biden said when it came to the content of the messages and information, he wasn’t concerned. You seem to disagree with that.

MIKE TURNER: Well, I can tell you, President Zelenskyy certainly would be concerned and so would our other allies. Whenever we’re trusted with information, we’re working in partnership with someone, you know, our intelligence gathering, our intelligence information, if it is released, can represent a vulnerability to them. So, obviously, it’s an issue that’s troubling and that needs to be addressed.

In the – the outcome for the Ukraine conflict, though, it’s early enough, and these are static documents, meaning they’re pictures of an exact period of time.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Period (ph) of time.

MIKE TURNER: And mitigation can happen, people can change their strategies, and – and that can change the outcome.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I asked this question to Senator Kelly about the concern of Ukraine running through its ammunition stocks too quickly. Are you concerned about that?

MIKE TURNER: Right. So, some of these documents would be in the form of management documents. When you look at inventories or depleting inventories, they, too, are static. What they show is a to-do list. And what we need to do, and our allies need to do to help Ukraine replenish those. It doesn’t indicate that they have no other sources and, in fact, they’ll – they will – will run out and be completely open and vulnerable to Russia.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. So, not necessarily — it would be a leap to say Russia will have air dominance on this date because they run out of these things?


MARGARET BRENNAN: On the leak itself, the individual who is accused here, Mr. Teixeira, there’s video that circulated of him saying racist things, shooting guns, anti-Semitic things. He’s apparently posted these things on social media and they were there undetected for a long period of time. What part of this needs to change? Because clearly the protocols failed.

MIKE TURNER: Right. Absolutely. And if you look at the actual complaint and affidavit that was filed when he was arraigned, you – you have the – the also admission from the Department of Defense that they are able to track his movements. So, clearly, he was having access to documents that he should not have had access to and someone should have been paying attention, tapping him on the shoulder and – and ending that access.

But in this instance, as you just indicated, you know, through life patterns that were clearly signals that – that he was — might be a likely leaker of information in the future and then also the access that he was having to this information should have been cut off. He should have never been having access to this level of classified information that could hurt the United States.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But he was working basically in tech support. It wasn’t necessarily analyzing this information. Do —

MIKE TURNER: Right. He had no reason — there was no need to know for him of the information that he was accessing. And the Department of Defense admits in the affidavit that they had the ability to track him. That’s going to be the questions my committee is going to be having.


MIKE TURNER: So, we’re going to be having hearings on this. And what we need to do – and from the 9/11 Commission we learned that we needed to more widely disseminate classified information so that people had actionable intelligence that they could piece together puzzles.


MIKE TURNER: Clearly, we’ve gone too far. And where we have an instance where someone in Massachusetts who’s looking at documents with respect to war plans in Ukraine, and the Department of Defense knows, and that’s what our committee is going to be looking at is, how do we make certain we make changes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to — so to make those changes I want to ask you to clarify this because there are some conservatives saying things, like Tucker Carlson has, your colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene, in defense of this individual, this 21-year-old man. She called him essentially heroic. White, male, Christian, anti-war, an enemy to the Biden regime. She said he told the truth about troops being on the ground in Ukraine and a lot more.

MIKE TURNER: First off, let’s be clear, there are – there are no U.S. troops on – on the ground in Ukraine, other than there are troops that are normally at an embassy protecting the embassy.


MIKE TURNER: We do not have the boots on the ground.

MARGARET BRENNAN: They’re not on the battlefield.

MIKE TURNER: We do not have – have – have troops on the ground. So it’s absolutely incorrect assumption from the documents that – that this individual leaked.

The other aspect is, he’s guilty of – of — if he’s brought through this process and he’s found guilty, it will be of espionage. It’s of being a traitor to your country. That’s not someone who — to look up to. That is someone who has compromised his country and has certainly compromised our allies. That’s not the oath that he took. That’s not the job that he took.


You are in the Gang of Eight, that small group of lawmakers that gets access to some of the most classified information, including the documents that were found at the residents of President Biden, President Trump, and former Vice President Pence. Have you looked at the documents and are your questions answered?

MIKE TURNER: Right. No, so the Department of Justice has not been forthcoming in this. And they’ve been somewhat disingenuous. And certainly both the House and the Senate are going to have to address this. One, the documents that were delivered to Congress are not complete. And, secondly, they don’t identify whose documents they were. Whether they came from the trove of Biden’s behind the Corvette, or whether or not they came from Mar- a-Lago. That, obviously, has to be addressed.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You can figure that out through the timing.

MIKE TURNER: Timing ought to be able to tell us.


MIKE TURNER: But, still, at the same time, to deliver those documents without even designating whose documents they were clearly shows, you know, a — an unwillingness to be — work closely with Congress.

And this also it’s incomplete. I can tell you this, in the reviews that we’ve had so far of indexes that do include the documents, there’s no nuclear codes here. There’s no — no one had anything that – that – that was of an extreme imminent threat to the United States.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Have you seen everything or in the —

MIKE TURNER: We’ve seen the – the index of them.


MIKE TURNER: We’ve gotten some of the documents delivered to us. But the Department of Justice really needs to – to come clean. They need to deliver the documents to Congress. They promised them to us. And they – they need to work with us so that we can get an assessment of what happened here.

There are laws that need to be changed so that we can more protect our classified documents and those who handle them.


MIKE TURNER: And so we – we need them to work with us.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The White House gave access to the classified after action report on Afghanistan about a week ago. Have you seen it yet?



MIKE TURNER: The — well, so the — I’m — I’m very concerned that the Biden administration is looking more for fault, blame — and blame than really action items as to what we need to do.

What – what clearly happened here in the abrupt departure from Afghanistan is a number of mistakes were made. We can only make certain that we don’t repeat those mistakes if we’re able to — to really understand them. Congress has put together an Afghan commission that is reviewing our time there and our exit. I think that’s going to be a very helpful avenue also of getting an understanding of what happened and how do we not do this again.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman, it’s good to have you here. There was a lot to get through.

MIKE TURNER: Thank you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And we hope to have you back soon.


MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll be back in a moment.


MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re joined now by Christine Lagarde, former head of the IMF, now the president of the European Central Bank.

Good morning.

CHRISTINE LAGARDE (President, European Central Bank): Good morning, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Good to have you here.

CHRISTINE LAGARDE: Lovely to be back.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And your recovery is going all right?

CHRISTINE LAGARDE: Yes. In a couple of days I think I’ll be fine.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m glad to hear that.

You have a long list of things ahead of you and I want to ask you about the global recovery.

You were speaking a few days ago and you said the recovery for the economy is fragile and uncertain. In this country the Fed thinks we’ll see a mild recession later this year. What is it that you predict?

CHRISTINE LAGARDE: First of all, there is recovery. That’s, I think, a point that was not really firm only six months ago where we all assumed that there would be a recession, if only a technical one. If you look at all the forecasts at the moment, it’s all positive. It’s been slightly downgrades, but overall we have a recovery. And we are faced with high uncertainty because of multiple factors. You know, from our corners of the world, it’s the war in Ukraine, it’s the financial stability that clearly has been shaken up a bit by the U.S. and Switzerland development. It’s inflation that we are fighting. It’s all that which really create a hollow of uncertainty around a recovery that we want to embed. That’s pretty much where we are.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, there were those recent bank failures here in the United States. Also one in Switzerland. Given that, it sounds like you’re saying you don’t see a hard landing. You’re seeing a positive trajectory for the global economy?

CHRISTINE LAGARDE: I think we have a narrow path to navigate, which requires that both the governments and the central banks around the world adopt the right policies.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Given the bank failures we just saw, you hear from bank CEOs in this country this idea that they’re getting more cautious about lending money largely.


MARGARET BRENNAN: That there’s some contraction in credit there. How concerned are you and how does that complicate your planning?

CHRISTINE LAGARDE: It’s funny you should ask complication, because in a way it facilitates my planning and it complicates the future as far as growth.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because it slows down business activity so you don’t have to raise rates as much or as frequently?

CHRISTINE LAGARDE: Yes. Yes. We don’t have to reduce. We — we’ll see because we need to really measure what will come out of this – this financial events that took place recently. What impact will it have? How will banks react? How will they assess risk and how much credit will they lend?

But if they don’t lend too much credit, and if they manage their risk, it might reduce the work that we have to do to reduce inflation. OK. But if they reduce too much credit, then it will weigh on growth excessively.

MARGARET BRENNAN: There are predictions that the U.S. could default on its national debt as soon as June, some say September. And we have a political standoff in this country. Virtually no negotiation happening on how to resolve this. Does that undermine your confidence in the United States, and – and what message does that send to the world?

CHRISTINE LAGARDE: I have huge confidence in the United States. You know, ever since my year in this country, in this city, in ’73-’74, I have had confidence in this country. And I just cannot believe that they would let such a major, major disaster happen of the United States defaulting on its debt. This is not possible. I cannot believe that it would happen. But if it did happen, it would have very, very negative impact, not just for this country, where confidence would be challenged, but around the world. Let’s face it, this is the largest economy. It’s — it’s a major leader in economic growth around the world. It cannot let that happen.

I understand the politics. I’ve been in politics myself. But there is a time when the higher interest of a nation has to prevail. I’m sorry.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And you think that will happen? The higher (INAUDIBLE) —

CHRISTINE LAGARDE: I have huge trust in this country yet again.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re bringing a lot of optimism to a show where we don’t have a lot of optimism, Madam Lagarde.


MARGARET BRENNAN: No, I like it. It’s interesting. It’s a change.

I want to ask you, though, about what you just said in terms of U.S. leadership. You look to the other side of the globe and Xi Jinping has said he wants China to be the world’s leading power by 2049. And Beijing is very interlinked into so many economies, particularly in Europe. Is the U.S. losing global influence?

CHRISTINE LAGARDE: There is clearly a competition between these – these large economies. What I hope very much is that they can have a dialog because, you know, all these relationships, whether it’s trade, whether it’s politics, whether it’s economic development, whether it is financial stability, it’s a two-way street. We cannot ignore each other and trade should not be confrontational. It has to be careful, it has to identify the areas that are strategic for one country or the other, or all the others, but it shouldn’t be confrontational. I’m on the same page as Henry Kessinger on that, or Kevin Rudd, the new Australian ambassador. Conflict is not unavoidable.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But there is, it seems, increased political pressure to choose between the United States and China in many ways in some of these political capitals. Is that even practical from an economic point of view?

CHRISTINE LAGARDE: It would lead to economic downside. The – the amount of which is uncertain. Is the global economy going to be affected by one or x percent? There are multiple forecasts. All of them are negative.

So, the decoupling and the sort of depolarization (ph) of the world would lead to less economic growth, less prosperity in the world, more poverty across the world. So I think that this is something that should be by all means avoided.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Madam Lagarde, it’s always wonderful to have you here.


MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll be right back.


MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s it for us today. Thank you for watching. Until next, for FACE THE NATION, I’m Margaret Brennan.