On CBS’s Face the Nation, host Margaret Brennan expected agreement from Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) as to the relationship between the President of the United States and the National Security Council. Instead, she got taken to school.
Watch the exchange as it aired on Face the Nation (click “expand” to view transcript):
GOP Ohio Rep. and perennial Face the Nation guest Mike Turner very gently SHUTS DOWN Margaret Brennan's line of questioning on the National Security Council pic.twitter.com/4nV9dGuWnO
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 4, 2025
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is it in the national security interest, though, to have the Secretary of State, who also has, at least on paper, three other jobs now, in this role, and for how long? You're saying how important it is.
MIKE TURNER: Well, I mean, it certainly – certainly, we know Henry Kissinger has been in that position before.
BRENNAN: And even he said it was untenable.
TURNER: Right.
BRENNAN: And even – but he was in lockstep with his president.
TURNER: I think what's also very important here is that Marco Rubio, from a policy perspective, is very strong in this administration. His signal of being in this position sends a signal of continuing the same policies in the administration. From a Trump team policy perspective, him taking over this sends a signal of continuation and strength. That's excellent.
BRENNAN: But the policy…
(CROSSTALK)
TURNER: Now we have got to give him the opportunity of, is he going to be able to build out the team in the National Security Council? And that's certainly hope – hopefully that he will be able to do so and build out a strong team there that represents really the opportunity to support President Trump in giving him the information and knowledge and the access to information and knowledge that he needs.
BRENNAN: That's a diplomatic way of saying there shouldn't be loyalty tests to the president. You want actual experts staffing National Security Council. You don't want Laura Loomer, a far right activist, making decisions on personnel?
TURNER: Well, at the same time, there does have to be loyalty to the president.
BRENNAN: Of course, but also to the Constitution.
TURNER: I mean, we saw in the president's first term that the president was betrayed during the first Trump impeachment by individuals who were at the National Security Council. So Trump personally has an understanding that you have to have people at the National Security Council that are on Trump's team. And the National Security Council, being – directly working with him and being in the White House, it's very, very important that they be personnel that work for and on behalf of the president.
BRENNAN: You were talking about National Security Council members who testified under oath that the president was withholding aid to Ukraine during the first administration for a political favor.
TURNER: And was shown to have wrongly been testified, because I was part of that panel. And they – their testimony was proven not to be accurate, that the president was not tying aid to Ukraine to the investigation.
BRENNAN: Well, that was the premise of the impeachment. But your point is, that looms large in the president's memory and interaction with the National Security Council now. OK.
TURNER: The president needs to make certain that he has staff that are supportive of him in the National Security Council and his policies and makes certain that they're providing him information.
BRENNAN: Yes.
TURNER: This is the heart of, what does the president know that our adversaries are doing?
BRENNAN: Right.
TURNER: When he's dealing with Russia and what – and policies with respect to Ukraine, he needs to know what Vladimir Putin is doing. And that's coming directly from the National Security Council.
BRENNAN: Noted.
Turner is a perennial guest on Face the Nation, making frequent appearances wherein he addresses matters pertaining to intelligence and national security. As House Intel Chair, he was practically a regular. So there is a familiarity here that should not be overlooked.
This schooling of Brennan is not the sudden, “I don’t really care, Margaret” blast from Vice President JD Vance. It is the gentle redirection from a stance that is only adversarial because it is in opposition to Trump.
As interim National Security Advisor, it is absolutely Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s province to staff the National Security Council the way he sees fit in alignment with the administration’s agenda and objectives. And it is important that these individuals are loyal to the President of the United States.
When Brennan pushed back on that concept, Turner reminded her of the first Trump impeachment, instigated by NSC staff. Shut down again and with her Laura Loomer strawman burned to the ground, Brennan had little choice than to utter “noted” before meekly moving on to the next question.
Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on CBS Face the Nation on Sunday, May 4th, 2025:
MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. We have a lot to get to, so let's begin today with Ohio Republican Congressman Mike Turner. Good to see you here in person.
MIKE TURNER: Thanks for having me, Margaret.
BRENNAN: So I have a lot of national security topics to get to you, but at the heart of so much is America's economic strength. And so I want to ask you about what President Trump said this week about the cost, the impact of his China tariffs on the supply of goods in the United States. Take a listen.
DONALD TRUMP (President of the United States): Somebody said, oh, the shelves are going to be open. Well, maybe the children will have two dolls, instead of 30 dolls, you know? And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.
BRENNAN: Do your constituents back in Ohio really want to hear the message that they need fewer Christmas presents this year? He's acknowledging less supply, higher prices.
TURNER: Well, I think there's going to be a lot that has to be shaken out here. And we certainly are seeing, I think, some reaction now in China also that means that the president's goal is that these nations, that – of which he's putting tariffs on the table and tariffs, which are a punishment for having behaved poorly, taking advantage of the United States economically, will come to the table and negotiate better economic deals than the United States has been experiencing. Those deals are beginning to be offered. The White House is beginning to negotiate those. China is beginning to signal that they're willing to come to the table. So, even though the president is making those statements, at the same time, we're seeing that the president taking that step of saying we want a better economic deal is beginning to work.
BRENNAN: But, in the meantime, China said it may restrict exports of materials used by General Dynamics, which makes tanks, including in your state of Ohio. Are you concerned that the trade war won't just impact people's purchasing of toys, but preparedness, tanks, and military readiness?
TURNER: I think we're all concerned of the effects on the supply chain. And certainly we have got to make certain that this works through the entire processes and that we are concerned on the effects of the economy. I think the president's going to be looking at that. Congress is going to be looking at that. But the real concern here is that we do have to look long term as to how this protects our overall economy.
BRENNAN: Well, Beijing has not yet launched those talks. We will be watching for them if they do get under way. Let's get to the other news of the week, the reshuffling at the top of the national security apparatus. It has long been clear there are divides within the administration on certain topics. Iran is one of them. Russia is another one of them. Mike Waltz, who you served with, viewed as a traditional Republican hawk. I say this because, when he was on this program previously, he laid out in pretty clear terms that the U.S. goal in these negotiations with Iran are dismantlement of its nuclear program, not limits on enrichment, not verification, but those are the things that the envoy negotiating with Iran have said. We're seeing policy differences from within the president's own administration here. Has Congress been given details on what the goal is and what the plan is?
TURNER: Well, I mean, the goal is simply stated, that we do not have a nuclear Iran. And, certainly, the president is leaning strongly in that. From his first term, with the maximum pressure campaign, the president was clear that, both in non-nuclear Iran and also making certain that we have – that the nefarious activities of Iran working through their proxies, the terrorist groups and organizations, that that be stopped. So the president is very strong on an anti-Iran policy, including ensuring that there not be a nuclear Iran.
BRENNAN: But the things that his envoy have described sound a lot like that 2015 nuclear deal negotiated under President Obama, with limits on enrichment, for example, and things like that. I know in the past you voted for legislation that would give Congress more oversight over a deal with Iran. Do you expect President Trump to bring any kind of deal he brokers to Congress for approval?
TURNER: Well, I think we have to see what the deal is. I mean, currently, there's just ongoing negotiations. We will have to see how that evolves. We will have to see what those terms are and really – well, I…
BRENNAN: You don't want any kind of review regardless?
TURNER: I mean, as it evolves, we will have to see what those terms are and what – and really what is achieved. And, certainly, there's a role for Congress to play as that goes forward. But I think we need to give them the opportunity for success.
BRENNAN: Well, the Israeli prime minister issued a statement yesterday denying that he personally was talking to Mike Waltz about bombing Iran, military action against Iran. Of course, we know his aides could have those conversations. Is it appropriate work for the national security adviser to the president to be coordinating with Israel about military action against Iran, or was Mike Waltz possibly in the wrong here?
TURNER: Well, first off, we don't know specifically that that was occurring. But, at the same time, the National Security Council, the function of the National Security Council is to ensure that the president of the United States has the greatest information possible. And Mike Waltz is – has an incredible background and experience. He worked diligently to make certain he had a strong role in the national security team of the president. And I'm certainly glad that he's going to be retained and staying in a strong role in this administration. Working directly with world leaders and heads of state is certainly an important role of – as the national security adviser to the president. And I – certainly, I think, even as U.N. ambassador, he will continue to do that type of function.
BRENNAN: Is it in the national security interest, though, to have the Secretary of State, who also has, at least on paper, three other jobs now, in this role, and for how long? You're saying how important it is.
TURNER: Well, I mean, it certainly – certainly, we know Henry Kissinger has been in that position before.
BRENNAN: And even he said it was untenable.
TURNER: Right.
BRENNAN: And even – but he was in lockstep with his president.
TURNER: I think what's also very important here is that Marco Rubio, from a policy perspective, is very strong in this administration. His signal of being in this position sends a signal of continuing the same policies in the administration. From a Trump team policy perspective, him taking over this sends a signal of continuation and strength. That's excellent.
BRENNAN: But the policy…
(CROSSTALK)
TURNER: Now we have got to give him the opportunity of, is he going to be able to build out the team in the National Security Council? And that's certainly hope – hopefully that he will be able to do so and build out a strong team there that represents really the opportunity to support President Trump in giving him the information and knowledge and the access to information and knowledge that he needs.
BRENNAN: That's a diplomatic way of saying there shouldn't be loyalty tests to the president. You want actual experts staffing National Security Council. You don't want Laura Loomer, a far right activist, making decisions on personnel?
TURNER: Well, at the same time, there does have to be loyalty to the president.
BRENNAN: Of course, but also to the Constitution.
TURNER: I mean, we saw in the president's first term that the president was betrayed during the first Trump impeachment by individuals who were at the National Security Council. So Trump personally has an understanding that you have to have people at the National Security Council that are on Trump's team. And the National Security Council, being – directly working with him and being in the White House, it's very, very important that they be personnel that work for and on behalf of the president.
BRENNAN: You were talking about National Security Council members who testified under oath that the president was withholding aid to Ukraine during the first administration for a political favor.
TURNER: And was shown to have wrongly been testified, because I was part of that panel. And they – their testimony was proven not to be accurate, that the president was not tying aid to Ukraine to the investigation.
BRENNAN: Well, that was the premise of the impeachment. But your point is, that looms large in the president's memory and interaction with the National Security Council now. OK.
TURNER: The president needs to make certain that he has staff that are supportive of him in the National Security Council and his policies and makes certain that they're providing him information.
BRENNAN: Yes.
TURNER: This is the heart of, what does the president know that our adversaries are doing?
BRENNAN: Right.
TURNER: When he's dealing with Russia and what – and policies with respect to Ukraine, he needs to know what Vladimir Putin is doing. And that's coming directly from the National Security Council.
BRENNAN: Noted. The White House budget was released Friday. It is not the trillion-dollar promise the president campaigned on. Susan Collins on Appropriations, Roger Wicker on the Senate Armed Services Committee says this is not adequate. And, in fact, he said: "The intention is to shred to the bone our military capabilities and support to service members." Do you share your Republican senators' concerns?
TURNER: I think there's more work that can be done on the national security portion of the president's budget.
BRENNAN: You would like to see more defense spending than the White House is putting forth?
TURNER: I think there's going to be more debate and I think there's more opportunity for increased investment. We really need to do more in the national security space. There are adversaries that we have that want to do America harm, and we need to be strong.
BRENNAN: All right, Congressman Turner, thank you for joining us.
TURNER: Thank you.
BRENNAN: Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us.
