This is a rush transcript of ‘Fox News Sunday’ on June 16, 2024. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I’m Shannon Bream.
Terror fears rise after ICE agents arrest eight people with suspected ISIS ties, all reportedly arriving illegally in the U.S. and simply released into the country. What if anything is Washington doing about the growing threats?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA), HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: How many more terrorists are in our country because Joe Biden opened up the southern border?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’re headed for another 9/11. We should know who’s coming into our country. We don’t.
BREAM (voice-over): Anger building over disarray at the border, putting America in danger. The Department of Homeland Security warning we continue to be at a heightened risk for a terror attack.
Plus, President Biden wraps up a key G7 meeting in Europe where he signed a new security agreement with Ukraine, and added new sanctions on Russia ratcheting up tensions with Moscow.
We’ll get reaction from the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jim Himes.
Then —
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT & 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There’s tremendous unity in the Republican Party.
BREAM: Former President Trump makes his first visit to Capitol Hill since leaving office, then hits the campaign trail in the battleground state of Michigan.
CROWD: USA! USA!
BREAM: As speculation over whom he’ll pick as his running mate hits a fever pitch.
We’ll talk to a man many put at the top of that list, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum.
Plus —
REP. RITCHIE TORRES (D-NY): The Supreme Court is crippling our ability to combat the epidemic of gun violence.
REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): But that’s a huge win for a lot of the Second Amendment community.
BREAM: A divided Supreme Court rules against a Trump era ban on gun bump stocks but stands united against rolling back access to an abortion pill for now.
Our Sunday panel debates those decisions and looks ahead to the big opinions yet to come, including a make or break case on presidential immunity.
All, right now, on “FOX News Sunday”.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BREAM (on camera): Hello from FOX News in Washington and happy Father’s Day.
In the headlines today, former President Trump in the key battleground state of Michigan rallying supporters at the conservative Turning Point Action Conference in Detroit, hoping to flip that critical state from blue to red.
While in California, the president and first lady took part in a star studded fundraiser event in Hollywood that raised more than $25 million for Biden’s re-election campaign.
The president fresh off the G7 Summit in Italy where he emphasized united support for Ukraine, including billions of dollars in new aid from Europe and the U.S.
In a moment we’ll get reaction from the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Jim Himes.
But, first, we turn to Lucas Tomlinson at the White House for more on the president’s foreign policy focus this week.
Hey, Lucas.
LUCAS TOMLINSON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Shannon.
President Biden declined to attend the Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland, instead opting to fly from Italy to Los Angeles to attend the big Hollywood fundraiser. Still back in Europe, questions persisted about the president.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REPORTER: Prime minister, how would you describe President Biden’s mental acuity in your meetings?
TOMLINSON (voice-over): President Biden spent time with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Italy. The two held a joint press conference.
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We’ve taken three major steps at the G7 that collectively show Putin we cannot — we cannot — he cannot wait us out.
TOMLINSON: The three steps are, a new 10-year bilateral security agreement, providing Ukraine with $50 billion in seized Russian assets and sanctioning third countries such as China for helping Russia’s war efforts.
The moves drew a strong rebuke from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Despite all the scheming, theft will remain theft and will not go unpunished.
TOMLINSON: One day before G7 leaders arrived in Italy, a Russian armada arrived in Havana, just 90 miles from Key West, including a frigate and a nuclear-powered submarine. Cuban officials said there were no nuclear weapons on board.
In his remarks Friday, Putin demanded Ukraine surrender four regions occupied by Russian forces.
PUTIN: Today, we are making another concrete real peace proposal.
TOMLINSON: Representing the Biden administration in Switzerland, Vice president Kamala Harris responded to Putin’s offer.
KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He is not calling for negotiations, he is calling for surrender.
TOMLINSON: Harris pledged an additional $1.5 billion to Ukraine at the summit.
Many Ukrainians believe Putin only wants peace talks in order to give Russia time to prepare another offensive.
Ukraine’s president compared Putin’s offer to the failed Munich agreement with Adolf Hitler in 1938, when European leaders allowed Hitler to keep the German-speaking regions of Czechoslovakia in exchange for peace, an agreement broken by the Nazis leading to the start of World War II.
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): These messages are the same as those of Hitler who said less than years ago, who said, give me a part of Czechoslovakia and that will put an end to everything. No. These are historical lies. After that, he went after Poland.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TOMLINSON (on camera): Officials say President Biden plans to hunker down over the next week to prepare for his first debate with former President Donald Trump in less than two weeks — Shannon.
BREAM: All right. Lucas Tomlinson at the White House, thank you, Lucas.
And turning to threats at home before I let you go, I want to make sure I ask you about this, too. Last week, there were eight Tajik nationals with suspected ties to ISIS. They were arrested in three cities across the U.S. It’s raising a whole new conversation and worry about terrorist threats here in the U.S.
Do we have any new warnings issued from Homeland Security? What’s the plan?
TOMLINSON: Well, Shannon, there’s no new warnings from DHS. In fact, the last time they issued a bulletin was over a year ago and that had more to do with domestic extremists in the 2024 election. There is no mention of ISIS and it’s notable, Shannon, that the main suspects in the Moscow massacre back in March that killed 145 people, they were also Tajiks and also tied to ISIS — Shannon.
BREAM: All right. Lucas, thank you very much.
Joining me now, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Jim Himes.
Congressman, welcome back to “FOX News Sunday”.
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT), HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER: Thanks for having me, Shannon.
BREAM: Okay. I want to start there because FBI Director Christopher Wray has — he’s issued numerous warnings in recent months and years about the porous border that we have and that is a national security interest, an issue. There’s a piece in foreign affairs and it cites the numerous testimony he’s given over the last few months.
They say under this headline: The terrorism warning lights are blinking red again. They say it echoes of the run-up to 9/11. It’s not difficult to imagine a person or even a group with the intent to do harm slipping across the border and carrying out a large massacre.
Wray himself says he is hard-pressed to think of a time in his career where there have been more national security issues at a higher level than they are right now.
You serve on Intel. How worried are you about potentially millions of people in this country that we really don’t know their full story?
HIMES: Yeah. Well, it’s not just that, Shannon, right? I mean, remember, the perpetrators of 9/11 pulled off the most spectacular terrorist attack against the United States from inside the United States, on student visas. So, yes, the fact that there are lots of people who — who are here on an undocumented basis is a threat and the FBI director is right about that, and the FBI director and the chiefs of all of the intelligence community are very, very focused.
Underlying this, of course, is the conflict in Israel and Gaza which has sort of activated radical Islamic terrorists. They more than ever before would like to undertake an attack in a spectacular way.
The other thing going on, of course, is that over time we have gradually shifted our attention to China and, of course, to Russia. And, you know, to some extent, it’s a little bit of a zero-sum game. If you’re really focused on China, which I think is appropriate, if you’re really focused on supporting the Ukrainians, which is appropriate, inevitably, there is a little bit less — fewer resources devoted to count — the counterterrorism mission.
BREAM: Okay, and I want to get to all those things because of your unique position obviously on that particular committee, but before we leave the border, let’s talk about this. A federal source tells FOX that these eight men were, quote, fully vetted at the border.
The acting director of ICE says right now it’s common for people to be there and we don’t have full information on them. So I think the question after DHS, also, their inspector general report out just a few days ago says the vetting process is not what it needs to be at the border.
Instead of absolutely just saying we’re not going to let these folks into the country, we may have questions, we don’t know everything about them, I think the question most Americans have is why were they not deported, detained and we can talk about the overflowing detention facilities.
But why is the answer to just release them into the United States?
HIMES: Well, Shannon, remember and I think you put your finger on it here, the issue was not that they came across the border, although that that is an issue — that is an issue, and the issue is not fundamentally with the vetting process per se. The issue was that when their identities were determined, we did not have derogatory information on them.
Now, that’s sort of a, you know, an inevitable aspect of you never have perfect information, right? Well, over time, an American should be very proud of the caliber of the work that their law enforcement and intelligence did, over time, it became evident that these individuals actually had connections and were communicating in ways that were concerning.
And so, of course, all of a sudden, eyes on to those individuals and so, again, it’s, you know, no vetting system is perfect and the problem is not with the vetting, it’s with the fact that your database is never complete no matter how good you are.
Now Americans should take some comfort in the fact that the moment these guys started communicating and doing suspect things, we were all over them.
Now, it doesn’t mean that we don’t need to double down on this stuff, but the fact is — and, by the way, I should mention, Shannon, you know, there’s always a tension between arrest the guys immediately which is, of course, the safest thing to do, versus let’s surveil them and see who else they’re talking to. Do they have connections? Can they point us to other people that we should be looking after?
And I think have — being familiar with the case, I think they made the right decision to watch, to learn, to listen to figure out who they else they were talking to, and then when the moment was right, to make those — to make those arrests.
BREAM: Yeah, I think a lot of people have questions about what, quote, fully vetted means if these are the folks who are ending up here and who knows how many else.
But you mentioned, there are worries and Director Wray has mentioned this, too, that October 7th, that attack would inspire other people to do things within this country.
Right now, we’re watching to see if a ceasefire comes together there, but at the same time, we’re learning from reporting at “The Wall Street Journal” that they have text from Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, saying things about the necessary deaths of civilians to benefit Hamas from a — some texting earlier this year.
They say this: Sinwar in a message urged his comrades in Hamas’s political leadership outside Gaza not to make concessions. High civilian casualties would create worldwide pressure on Israel, he said.
Again, other communications saying that he sees these deaths as necessary sacrifices to benefit Hamas.
How can we expect Israel to negotiate with Hamas knowing those things?
HIMES: Yeah. No surprise, right? We have long known that Sinwar and Hamas in particular are just, you know, disgusting human beings.
Think about the hundreds of miles of tunnels that are very, very hard to access in Gaza, not a single civilian, not a single person in Gaza has access to those tunnels.
And so, again, we’ve known for a very long time that Hamas uses civilians as human shields and, frankly, you know, I’m not surprised about Sinwar’s point of view. I think he understands that when peace comes, over time, maybe not immediately, but Hamas will never again be allowed by anyone, Israel or the rest of the world, to run Gaza.
So that’s a huge impediment to his doing a deal, but no surprise that he would deliberately seek to create a humanitarian catastrophe.
Now, look at the end of the day, we saw eight Israeli soldiers die yesterday. This is a war that is taking a huge toll on both sides and, you know, it’s always a good idea to maintain negotiations to try to stop that kind of violence.
So, you know, how you negotiate is a very complicated thing. There’s a reason we haven’t seen a deal agreed to yet. But, you know, Bill Burns of the — of the CIA, and others are working very, very hard to try to get to a situation where Hamas is out of the picture, and where there are just a lot fewer Israelis and Palestinians dying.
Okay, I want to talk about foreign policy more broadly because the president obviously has been in the world stage this week, bringing together a bilateral deal, 10-year security guarantees for Ukraine. I talked to at least one senator who thinks it looks an awful lot like a treaty something that they should be, you know, having the privilege and the duty to put through a two-thirds vote here on Capitol Hill.
That’s not happening. It looks like it was structured maybe to go around that. But I want to talk about overall how the president — president is doing. We have conflicts around the world. Americans, in part, elected President Biden on the reassurance that he would restore us to norms, to calm.
But here’s what political — excuse me, Democratic pollster and strategist Doug Schoen writes: Ultimately, when Americans go to the ballot box in November, one question they will ask themselves is whether or not the world is safer than it was four years ago. Right now, the polls make it clear that no, Americans don’t feel that the world is safer, nor do they trust the current administration to make it safe.
“Politico” quotes Ian Bremmer over at the Eurasia Group: If this election is at all about foreign policy, Biden’s going to lose.
You know, this is something that’s going to come up in the debate less than two weeks from now. How should President Biden answer which you can imagine are going to be claims by President Trump, that there are new wars started under his administration, that he’s not managing the world stage well.
HIMES: Well, first, Shannon, as a political matter, I think in 250 years of United States history, foreign policy has never been all that much of a — of an influencer of American vote — Americans votes, for better or for worse.
But look, if you want to sort of overlay the very complicated situation in the world with sort of partisan talking points, you could say, gosh, yeah, there are more wars globally than there were four years ago. Well, I don’t know that it’s President Biden’s fault that Putin decided to attack Ukraine. I don’t think it’s President Biden’s fault that Hamas decided to perpetrate an appalling terrorist attack on Israel. And, in fact —
(CROSSTALK)
BREAM: But you know what his Republican critics will say is that he has telegraphed some level of weakness, appeasement with Iran and other things that have led other, you know, bad actors around the world to think that they can take advantage of the situation.
HIMES: Well, that’s just nonsense, right? You know, NATO is stronger than ever before. There are two new members of NATO. European countries are starting to spend the 2 percent that they’re required to do so.
The invasion of Ukraine was turned back and will not succeed. Hamas will be taken out of the picture in the Middle East at some point. Europe and the allies are more together than ever before.
Look, you know, you could ask lots of Republicans, I would urge you to actually ask, you know, Europeans, to ask the Taiwanese whether they feel safer —
BREAM: Well —
HIMES: — with President Biden or President Trump. I think you’d get a very instructive set of answers there.
BREAM: Well, when we ask Americans right now, the polling is not good for the president on that point. But there are many others that will factor into the November decision.
Congressman, we always appreciate your time.
HIMES: Thank you.
BREAM: President Trump returns to the campaign trail in a key battleground state. A speculation over whom he will choose as his running mate heats up. We’re going to talk to the man, some say is at the top of the list. Governor Doug Burgum is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Michigan was better off with Trump by a lot. Joe Biden and his cronies in Washington got rich by selling off Michigan jobs and selling out Detroit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BREAM: Former President Trump speaking out in Battleground, Michigan last night with less than two weeks to go before his first debate with President Biden. Speculation over whom he may pick or his running mate is spiking.
Joining us now is someone, you know, at the top of a lot of shortlists for a lot of folks, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum.
Good to see you again, Governor.
GOV. DOUG BURGUM (R-ND): Great to see you, Shannon. And first of all, Happy Father’s Day. And a quick shout out to our three kids. Without them, I wouldn’t have a chance to be a father. And that’s one of the great honors of my life.
BREAM: Yes, absolutely. And I’m sure they’re watching you and cheering you on, as you’re a very busy man out there on the trail and here today.
I want to bring this up. “The New York Post” quotes a number of so-called insiders about what the President is looking for in a VP. They say you’re perceived to be at the top of the list because you’re smart, you’re rich, you’ve been a great surrogate, you have an ability to fade into the background. Let the President be the headliner. They also said you have great hair. So apparently that’s part of the criteria this year.
So let me get this out of the way. You’ve been a supporter of President Trump for a long time, but you said this last year.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you ever do business with Donald Trump?
BURGUM: I don’t think so.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why?
BURGUM: I would — I just think that it’s important that you’re judged by the company you keep, and I —
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You just wouldn’t do business with him?
BURGUM: No, I wouldn’t.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BREAM: So you have been a supporter of his as far back as 2016, as I mentioned, and again in 2020, but you did decide to run against him, and you said that. So have you evolved on how you view the president?
BURGUM: Well, Shannon, first of all, thanks for having an opportunity to talk about this, but as you said, I endorsed him early during my primary. He and I were both business guys running for the first time. I’d never met President Trump when I endorsed him, but I was excited about a business person being in the White House.
And, of course, when he won that November same night, we won first time running for public office. You know, the excitement that night at our event in North Dakota when he beat Hillary Clinton was — it was electric.
And, of course, serving underneath him for four years as a governor was fantastic. It was like a breeze at your back. And then we had to serve under Joe Biden, and that’s been like having a gale force wind in your face.
But during the time that Biden’s been in office, I had a great relationship, the First Lady and I, with the White House and with the President during the time as a governor and a president and gained a ton of respect. Cabinet visits to North Dakota, record number 19 Cabinet visits. The President was in North Dakota three times. The Vice President was there. So a great relationship. And gained a ton of respect for him as a leader during that time.
BREAM: But that was prior to you saying you wouldn’t do business with him?
BURGUM: Yes, and then — but I didn’t know him personally. But since January, you know, when we endorsed him, when we dropped out, the first of the candidates to endorse him, had a chance to spend a ton of time with him since January, and I wish every American could see him the way Kathryn and I have got to know him in the last six months, because this guy is tireless, he’s committed, he’s smart, he’s funny. He’s nothing like he’s portrayed in the press.
And so if you asked me that same question today, I’d be like, absolutely, I would do business with him. Because think about how successful he’s been, whether it’s a — whatever it is, I mean, whether it’s in TV, real estate, politics, all the things that he’s done, the guy knows how to get it done. And I think every American should be, I don’t know, we should be grateful that we’ve got someone who’s willing, with that kind of talent from the private sector that’s willing to put himself back into the presidential race again.
BREAM: Well, it seems like a lot of the affinity between the two of you is that shared background as businessmen. He’s talked a lot about things he would like to do, and you echo this, too, deregulation and other things. But when it comes to his overall economic plan, there are some questions.
Critics say things like mass deportation is going to up the cost of labor, that new tariffs on imported goods will raise prices, and that domestic suppliers may then try to match those prices, raising the prices overall.
“Punchbowl” said on Friday that when President Trump was here meeting with lawmakers, they said that he, quote, “loves tariffs,” and even floated replacing the income tax with the revenue from tariffs. But Michael Strain over at the “American Enterprise Institute,” not a liberal-leaning group, says, “I think we can say with a lot of confidence that President Trump’s trade policies and immigration policies would result in price spikes.” You know that’s the last thing Americans want right now. What do you say to that as a businessman yourself?
BURGUM: Well, I think if anybody looks at his actual record of negotiating with other countries, what he’s always looking for is balanced trade, and – – not free trade, but balanced trade. I mean, we’ve got the largest economy in the world, all kinds of countries around the world, and it’s not just China, but France and others. They put tariffs on American products going their way, and it’s pretty simple for President Trump. If you’re going to tariff our stuff, we’re going to tariff yours.
And I think that he’s then negotiating on behalf of American workers and American companies when he does that. And I think it’s also, again, he understands how to use power. You know, diplomatic, informational, our economic — economic power is sometimes more powerful than military power. He knows how to wield that, and he’s going to be able to drive solutions that benefit America and benefit American workers.
BREAM: You talk a lot about energy, and the president says he thinks you’re one of the most knowledgeable people that he talks to about issues of energy. But you’ve got critics back home in North Dakota that think you’ve shifted on this from more green-friendly policies to something that’s now much more supportive of the gas and oil industry.
“The New York Times” quotes Scott Skokos, who is the executive director of the Dakota Resource Council. They say that he and others have witnessed you taking a sharp tack to the right on energy issues, echoing the oil industry’s attacks on the Biden administration after entering your second term in office and getting ready for a presidential run. Quote, “I don’t think it’s so much that he changed his views, as he’s an opportunist.” Your answer to Mr. Skokos.
BURGUM: Well, I think if there’s left-leaning groups in the “New York Times” that think that I’m too pro-American energy, I think that’s a great endorsement, and I’ll take it. But of course, that’s not — none of those phrases are accurate.
In North Dakota, we’ve been pro-energy all along, but we’ve been pro- innovation, not pro-regulation. I think that drives some people on the left crazy, because they want to regulate the U.S. energy business out of business. And of course, that’s fundamental to both our economy and to national security.
When you drive American energy supply down, you drive price up. That hurts every American. It’s the core piece of inflation, because energy is embedded in everything. But the worst part about the Biden energy policy is, I don’t know if it was written by China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela. They’re the countries that are all benefiting, our adversaries. We’re in two proxy wars. We’re in a war with Iran and we’re in a war with Russia, and they are literally funding those wars with Biden’s energy policy.
BREAM: You know what they’ll say, though? The White House will point out that there’s more production now than there’s ever been before under this administration of domestic energy.
BURGUM: They point that out, but it’s such a false headline, because it should be much higher. They act like it’s at the perfect level. For Iran to have their production way up, and places like North Dakota have production down. And then they’re bragging about that, like, oh, look at our production is up. It should be much higher.
It’s at the levels it’s at in spite of the Biden administration, not because of the Biden administration. And when the Biden administration does stuff like put a quote, “Put pause on LNG exports,” the only party that night was in the Kremlin. I mean, they had to have been celebrating. They had to have been like, oh, it worked. We’re writing — we continue to write the energy policy in the Biden administration for Russia.
You know, he approved the Nord Stream 2. Trump canceled it. Trump was tough on Russia. And he understood that we could not have all of Western Europe, all our allies dependent on Russian energy, and of course, this whole war for Russia’s being funded by his oil prices. We turned Russia into China’s discount gas station. The whole thing is a disaster. Hurts the economy, hurts national security.
And in North Dakota, we can produce low carbon fuels in North Dakota. If you want to have low carbon intensity fuels, let’s do it with innovation. The subsidies around EV cars, that’s Team China. Low carbon liquid fuels is Team USA. We’re already doing it in North Dakota.
BREAM: OK, I want to make sure we touch on the border, too, because you mentioned national security, and I know you think a lot of these things are all tied together. Most Republicans, few Democrats, have been very critical of what the President’s doing. He had this recent executive order. He made people, it seems like, mad on the left and the right. We understand there’s more coming.
Now, many of the executive actions President Trump took during his time were discarded by the Biden administration when he showed up. It’s easier to do that than it is to overcome something obviously passed legislatively. The White House says this has got to be solved by Congress.
President Trump was in the White House and had the House and the Senate, and this didn’t get solved. So, what would a Trump administration, maybe a Trump-Burgum administration do to actually solve concrete problems at the border?
BURGUM: Well, we know that President Trump knows how to shut down the border, and we know that our own Border Patrol knows how to shut down the border if they’re supported. Effectively, what the Biden administration has done with their lack of support for law enforcement at the border is the same thing that the Blue Cities have done. They’ve defunded the police.
I’ve had an opportunity to be down on the border, more than Biden, more than Harris. We’ve had North Dakota troops down there, National Guard troops supporting the efforts to keep our country secure almost entirely during the Biden administration. And when you’re down there and seeking the ground truth and you see the challenge we have here, I mean, just my last trip down there, you know, huge increase in people coming from China, people from 140 countries.
The number — we’ve just seen this week where ISIS members in the United States, I mean, the possibility of a 9/11 type terror attack happening in our country has gone up dramatically, and I think the American people are ready to get behind a president who says we’re going to make sure we can’t have national security unless we have border security, and we can make that happen on day one. And part of it is just supporting the people that can do it. Executive orders, whatever it takes, we know that President Trump will close the border.
BREAM: Well, and legislatively. We’ll look for that, too. And the president has said if he wins he wants you to be part of his administration. We’ll see if that means joining the ticket.
Governor, thank you for coming in.
BURGUM: Thank you, Shannon.
BREAM: Good to see you.
Up next, former President Trump returns to Capitol Hill for the first time since leaving office, looking to unite the GOP and make peace with some of his critics inside the party. Our Sunday panel is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I’ve said earlier this year, I support him. He’s been earned the nomination by the voters all across the country.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): It’s sad to see members like that folding under the authoritarian politics of Donald Trump. But at least it clarifies stakes for us in the 2024 election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BREAM: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was once at odds with former President Trump. Looks like they’ve called a truce. As Democrats like Congressman Jamie Raskin try to leverage that shift against the GOP ahead of November’s elections.
Time now for our Sunday group. “USA Today” Washington bureau chief, Susan Page. Juan Williams, Fox News senior political analyst. The Heritage Foundation president, Kevin Roberts. And Jeff Mason of Reuters White House correspondent. Good to have all of you with us.
Welcome and happy Father’s Day to our dads —
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi.
BREAM: — on the panel.
OK. So the — President Trump went back to Capitol Hill. There have been some really tense relationships. I think it’s fair to say there.
But, you know, “The Washington Post” headline is that he seems to have achieved the goal of remarkable Republican unanimity.
Kevin, that’s what he needs going into the fall?
KEVIN ROBERTS, PRESIDENT, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: He does. And in fact, the entire conservative movement needs it. The country needs it. Hats off to President Trump for his leadership on that.
But let me also say, given that I’m often at odds, and Heritage is often at odds with Leader McConnell, hats off to him too.
I think we understand the urgency of the moment, not just politically, but very important, Shannon.
The American people want that fractiousness inside the conservative movement to be behind them. And hopefully, maybe the fractiousness in the entire country can be resolved by none other than Donald Trump.
BREAM: Ooh, I don’t know. I think that — I think that’s a tall order for half the country. But we’ll see.
So while he was making his return here to Washington, President Biden has been doing his overseas trips.
Jeff, you were with him on the trip for D-Day and in France. He’s now just back from the G7.
“Politico” says this that while foreign policy was one of his real calling cards during the campaign, it may not be now.
They say “Divisive wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are overshadowing his rhetoric about global leadership at home for those who care about foreign policy, while plenty of American voters are focusing, instead, on domestic issues like inflation and immigration.”
How do you think it’s time on the global stage one?
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Well, there’s no question that the election overshadowed, in part, his time abroad, but it also gave him an opportunity to talk about some things that he would have been talking about if he were doing campaign events.
I mean, and while he was in France, he spoke about democracy a couple times. He had a chance to visit with the veterans who helped win the war, the World War II, 80 years ago. And that gave him a chance to say, look, these are the stakes. This is who I am.
But there’s no question that there’s concern in Europe about what’s going to happen in the U.S. election, and that Joe Biden can’t necessarily assure them that the assurances or that the promises that he makes now is commander-in-chief, and that the principles or the policies that he’s putting in place will still be there if he’s not — if he’s not elected in November.
BREAM: Yes. And one of those things was this 10-year bilateral security agreement with Ukraine, which as I mentioned earlier, had at least one senator say to me, that feels like a treaty. That feels like something we should be approving here, but it doesn’t have the same teeth.
And so if President Trump is re-elected and he doesn’t like it, that may go away.
I want to put this up from Ronald Reagan Institute’s summer survey on Ukraine and how people think that we’re doing.
Their numbers show that more and more people think that Russia is winning that war. Essentially, those numbers have changed. And far fewer feel like Ukraine is actually winning the war. We’ll put that up when we get that.
But in the meantime, Susan, I mean, it kind of highlights that it’s you see here, “Four in ten now say Russia is winning up. Eight points since November and 12 points since last summer. Only two in ten think Ukraine is currently winning, which is down 15 points in the last six months.
It opens the president up to these arguments that he does too little, too late, so often in what’s happening in Ukraine.
You know, looking at the — at the Reagan’s you pulled, the thing that struck me was that Democrats, in this poll, had more allegiance to Reagan’s principles on foreign policy than Republicans did.
When you talk about greater engagement in the world, including in Ukraine, about two-thirds of Democrats supported that idea, just under half of Republicans did.
So it’s politically a changed world. You know, I don’t think that President Biden would have chosen to be staking part of his presidency on a war between Russia and Ukraine, but those are the cards that he’s been dealt this year.
BREAM: Well, and he’s also got this issue with China, which the same institute from Ronald Reagan Institute, the same survey said this about China.
More than half of Americans, 56 percent do not believe the U.S. has a clear strategy for managing its relationship with China.
Well, only about a quarter, 27 percent think it does. Those numbers haven’t shifted since 2022. This comes at the same time when we’re getting reports that President Xi has told European officials and others that he thinks that the U.S. is trying to goad him into attacking Taiwan.
WILLIAMS: Well, I think that it’s important. I think given the Reagan survey, to understand the American people stand with Taiwan. They don’t want China running over Taiwan.
So the sentiment here is very clear. And the U.S., not only in terms of President Biden, but congressional delegations that have visited, have said explicitly that Taiwan is important to the United States.
And I think what you’ve seen from the Biden administration is a creation of an alliance with the Japanese, the South Koreans, even to Australia, and saying, we will potentially stay in militarily against China.
I think that’s why the Chinese, for a while, were so upset. They weren’t talking to our military. So I don’t think it’s the case that we’re weaker. I think it’s the case that China, especially with their economic problems right now, is in a little bit of tumult.
BREAM: Well, you heard the last interview we had was with Doug Burgum, governor, could be joining the ticket as VP. He’s going to have to deal with these issues, if he does, and they’re elected.
Of the VEEP stakes, which President Trump will say, it’s not a huge deal, it’s not going to change votes. I think some people would disagree that Mike Pence may be made a difference last time.
“Vox” though says this — “His pick this year could be the most important choice of our time with major implications for the future of both the Republican Party and American democracy as a whole.”
Kevin, does that under or overstating it? I mean, this person would be on the track to be the leader for 2028, knowing that President Trump has only one term if re-elected.
ROBERTS: I think it’s right on the bulls-eye. Look, we’ve had eight presidents who have died in office. We’ve had another Nixon who left office. And I really congratulate President Trump for zeroing in on the most important qualification, which is at whomever he picks, and he’s got a great list, is able to step into the role. God forbid that something happened to him.
And I will also say, and I mean, this is a philosophical point, whoever it is, whoever Trump’s running mate is, will be imminently better qualified than Vice President Harris, who is an utter embarrassment to the office.
BREAM: Well, her —
WILLIAMS: Well, wait. Hold on. Hang on.
BREAM: Her polling is not good.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
BREAM: I think that’s fair to say.
WILLIAMS: Her polling is not good. But you know what’s interesting watching this, Kevin, is I was thinking ideally for president, former President Trump. Nikki Haley would be the one.
Why would I think that? One, he needs help with women given the abortion issue. But also, 20 percent of the Republicans haven’t been voting for Trump even after Haley, you know, left the race.
But what I see is that there’s only one woman remaining, that’s Elise Stefanik.
BREAM: Mm-hmm.
WILLIAMS: The Congresswoman. So I think that what the Trump team wants is a man, opposite Harris, in the vice presidential debate.
I think, you know, Trump is focused on ratings and T.V. And I think that’s what he sees.
I don’t know that that’s going to work for him, but I think that’s the thinking.
BREAM: Well, you know, Kathleen Parker had an interesting piece over the “Washington Post” that she thinks that President Biden should think about changing his vice presidential running mate.
She writes this, “Why not replace Harris with Clinton, at 76, meaning Hillary Clinton, not Bill. She might want no part of it, but it’s hard to retire when you feel your job isn’t done. If Biden needs to step down, even those who didn’t vote for Clinton, would have confidence in her ability to keep the country on track. It’s just a thought, but worse ideas have met with regrettable success.” Susan.
PAGE: Yes. Guess what’s not going to happen. That would be Kamala Harris being replaced on the Democratic ticket.
BREAM: Yes.
ROBERTS: No.
PAGE: That’s not going to happen. And, you know, the fact is we have no history of having elections depend very much —
BREAM: Mm-hmm.
PAGE: — on whoever the running mate is.
People — Americans vote on who the — who the top of the ticket is. And that’s why the general theory is to do no harm when you pick —
BREAM: Mm-hmm.
PAGE: — a vice president. And that’s one reason I would be betting on Burgum. Because he is a candidate who has — he is a low risk choice for Trump. And that he’s — you know, you saw he did well in the interview with you.
He doesn’t get — he doesn’t get flustered. He is reliably conservative. And he’s from that key electoral state of North Dakota.
BREAM: Right, which may be a vote against him winding up on the ticket with all of their, I think, three electoral votes.
But hey, every vote of this election may count, especially when he gets the Electoral College.
All right. Panel, do not go anywhere because up next, we’re awaiting the biggest decisions of the Supreme Court term.
And Democrats on Capitol Hill are making another run at trying to regulate the justices.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): It appears that Justice Alito is an insurrectionist sympathizer joined by his right-wing buddy, Clarence Thomas.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): This is an election year and they’re trying to make much to do about nothing.
I think these justices have long careers and extraordinary integrity and they prove that every day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BREAM: Well, the House’s top Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, blasting conservative Supreme Court Justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, over a lot of recent headlines. As House Speaker Mike Johnson says his democratic colleagues are playing politics.
As we await decisions on abortion, guns, and presidential immunity from the High Court. We are back now with the panel.
And, Jeff, this got us into some wrangling on another legislative effort to try to regulate the justices.
Will that go anywhere on the Hill?
MASON: Well, here’s how I’m going to answer that. There are — the two parties — looking at the two-party system, the United States, who really votes in an election about the Supreme Court? It’s not the Democrats.
So the Democrats may talk a lot about what’s going on in the Supreme Court. It’s almost, in my view, very, very unlikely that that’s going to affect the election.
As far as regulations concerned, I don’t think that’s going to happen either.
BREAM: Well, and I think when you have a situation like we did back in the 2016 election when Justice Scalia had passed away, that’s a whole different motivator —
MASON: Absolutely.
BREAM: — for people. And I don’t think we’re going to have any of that this time.
We’ll talk about pressure for retirement on the justices in just a second.
But first, I want to get to the recordings this week of the Chief Justice and — of Justice Alito and his wife.
Peggy Noonan writing in the “Wall Street Journal,” an opinion piece says, “There was something quite inhuman in what the left-wing activists did. She acted out admiration to perform a reputational harm. She presented herself falsely to inflict damage that the content she produced was disseminated by honest grown-up journalists is to their discredit.”
Kevin.
ROBERTS: It’s such a Washington thing to do, to go into – and I would – I would hopefully criticize someone on my side of the political aisle the same way. It really is inhumane.
And the other thing I would connect this too, Shannon, is, and this actually is a poetical motivation for many Senate right voters, is we still don’t have any real understanding of who leaked the draft decision last year. We really have had no justice for the people who have gone out to the homes, the private residences of members of the court. This is the kind of thing that’s got to come to an end in America. Whether we’re liberal or conservative or somewhere in the middle, this is not how this country should be.
BREAM: Well, the woman who got these recordings, Lauren Windsor, she had a ticket. She was rightfully there. D.C. is a one-party consent city where essentially you can record somebody else. So, there was nothing criminal or illegal here. And she thinks the outrage over this is misplaced.
Here’s what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAUREN WINDSOR, LIBERAL ACTIVIST, SECRETLY RECORDED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO: I wish that they were more shocked about the ethics breaches at the Supreme Court than some lies that I told them in order to elicit truths that serve the – the greater public good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BREAM: So, Susan, she said she was doing an important job as a journalist and we should be more upset about what was said than the way she got the comments.
SUSAN PAGE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, “USA TODAY”: You know, she was acting as a journalist would act. Journalists do not lie about who they are and misrepresent themselves the way she did. She was acting as an activist, as she has a right to do that.
I am not dismayed or all wrought up about Mrs. Alito’s views. And it seems to me she’s a person who’s entitled to have her views and express them.
I do think this feeds into the general deterioration of trust in the Supreme Court. The sense that the Supreme Court is somehow above politics, we are through with that. We now see – I think many Americans, most Americas now see the court as just another political player in Washington. And that could have some real devastating consequences as controversial decisions come forward probably in the next few weeks.
BREAM: Yes. And I think there are members of the court who will express, privately and maybe some publicly as well, that they feel these attempts will – will undermine the court. And that could be a problem if this country, at some point, needs to rely on the court to hold things together in a real crisis.
Senator Dick Durbin, though, who – a Democrat, obviously, and he chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “the ethics crisis at the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is unacceptable. I tis unsustainable. And it is unworthy of the highest court in the land.”
Juan, you know, he’s pushing legislation again to try – to do summing about that. But even he said he wasn’t comfortable with the way that this tape came about.
WILLIAMS: Right. And I think everybody on this panel has said it’s, you know, it’s a little discomforting to know people come and try to perpetrate a fraud to get your opinions.
Look, the fact is, from the Democrat’s point of view, you can’t get the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to come to Capitol Hill and talk about this credibility crisis for the court, which is very real. Even this week we saw more financial disclosures about money going to Justice Thomas.
BREAM: Flights.
WILLIAMS: Excuse me.
BREAM: Flights that he took.
WILLIAMS: Yes, but it’s – again, it had to be added to his financial disclosure statement.
But looking forward, Shannon, I thank you look at this week, you look at the cases that remain right now, specifically, most importantly, the immunity case. What will Alito and Thomas say? How can the American people say, oh, yes, we trust what these two men are saying as impartial and adherent to the law and not to their political associations. You know, it’s the same thing with the guns issue that’s coming up. The guns case. This is about whether people who have been convicted of domestic violence are allowed to have guns.
Well, my God, you know, look at what happened on the abortion case. Now you’re going to give guns potentially to people who –
BREAM: OK, but let’s talk about the abortion case –
WILLIAMS: Well, let me finish with one other thought on the bump stocks case that happened this week.
They said, oh, yes, you can have basically a machine gun that’s used in mass murder. You think, what is going on with this court!
BREAM: OK. OK. Let me just clarify a couple of things. First of all, they said that under the statutory language that these bump stocks didn’t qualify as a machine gun. That if Congress wants to clarify that they, they can. It’s up to Congress, not to them, to legislate from the bench.
And on the abortion pill case this week, 9-0. They left that case alone. They left the access there. Does that not give you confidence that these men and women can be impartial when it comes to tough issues?
WILLIAMS: No. It was 9-0 and I was very pleased to see a unanimous decision.
BREAM: Yes, you were, on that one. But – but isn’t –
WILLIAMS: But I must say – but the case was about the standing.
BREAM: Right, it was.
WILLIAMS: It had nothing to do – it did not help us to have a better understanding of how, you know, does government have a role in a woman’s right to have a choice about contraception or abortion. It did not. This is about standing. Those people didn’t have any standings to bring the case.
BREAM: But if they weren’t fair and honest brokers, couldn’t a couple of those justices have said, in a dissenter, or somewhere else to say, like, no, we should have taken this case. This pro-life doctors did have standing.
WILLIAMS: No, I think – I think they left it open. In fact, now you can have this whole issue come back to the court under a possible Trump presidency of Trump doesn’t take action himself.
BREAM: We’ll see.
OK. We do have a lot of cases left. Obviously, the presidential immunity one is a big one.
Who thinks they have a prediction on how that’s going to go?
ROBERTS: Oh, another unanimous decision because –
BREAM: No, no. No, no.
ROBERTS: My friend, Juan, that would be real justice.
BREAM: I do not think we’re getting –
WILLIAMS: What’s unanimous – unanimous (INAUDIBLE).
BREAM: I don’t think you’re going to get your unanimous decision on that.
ROBERTS: The right way.
WILLIAMS: The right way.
ROBERTS: In defense of the presidency.
WILLIAMS: Oh, no the right way is in defense of the American people, democracy, and no one is above the law.
BREAM: Well, I think that people will say too, no one’s below the law. I think that they’re going to split the baby somewhere. I don’t know, sitting through the arguments, it seems like they’re not going to give either side complete and total immunity for anything you could ever do in the presidency and no coverage whatsoever.
PAGE: But what an impact they’ve had already by the delay.
BREAM: Yes, a delay. I will say, though –
PAGE: Delay the prosecution on the most important case against – against President Trump until now it seems really unlikely that it could take place before the election.
BREAM: It’s true. But I will say, by Supreme Court standards, it’s pretty fast tracked. They move rather slowly over there.
OK, maybe we get it this week.
Panel, thank you very much.
Up next, former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison joins us to talk about his new book chronicling his time in office and opens up about how his faith guided him through some very dark times.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BREAM: Princess Catherine making a welcome, though we’re told temporary, return to public life this weekend in her first royal appearance since Christmas amid her fight against cancer. She appeared with her children to support King Charles and the Trooping of the Colour. The 260-year-old official ceremony celebrates the monarch’s birthday each summer, no matter when their actual birthday falls on the calendar. I keep forgetting he’s king now!
All right, former Australian prime minister Scott Morrison’s out with a new book detailing his toughest challenges while in office. In “Plans for Your Good: A Prime Minister’s Testimony of God’s Faithfulness,” Morrison gets real about seeking help for his mental health and how his faith steadied him then and does now. It’s our Sunday special.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BREAM: You talk so openly and personally about your faith. Some people almost seem sort of offended like that. They don’t get it when you talk about praying and that you talk to God, especially for somebody who’s been a world leader.
SCOTT MORRISON, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA: Yes.
BREAM: They can’t make sense of how that could be your life.
MORRISON: Well, I think when you write a book, when you’re a former politician, people expect it to be about politics. And I deliberately didn’t want to do that because politics wasn’t my life, my faith is, and my family is.
I just wanted to share how God sustained me over this period of my life. And not just then but throughout the course of my life and – and to share some lessons from that and hopefully some encouragement for those who – who have a faith of their own but perhaps have questions about it. And hopefully that will be the result.
BREAM: And you talk about how stepping into things you aren’t unsure of or that seem impossible to you, like becoming the prime minister, because of your faith you felt led to go where God was calling you, not that everything made sense or would be easy.
MORRISON: I describe it as, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a prime minister, you’re a journalist, you run a small business, you’re a teacher or whatever. Whatever walk of life we’re in, and we have a faith, then I – I believe we are sustained. We are encouraged. And it all these things and the challenges that come our way, I mean, your faith is personal. It’s intended to be personal. And – and that, I think, is the real – the real advantage, the real benefit and blessing of – of talking about it in this way.
BREAM: And you do have to go back –
MORRISON: Yes.
BREAM: The deep dive of going back through, reliving really difficult things, difficult times –
MORRISON: Yes.
BREAM: Covid. Dealing with China. All of those things.
MORRISON: I think a leader in any – in any walk of life, and certainly as a country, in what was the most challenging period Australia had faced since the second world war. And during – in the wake of the Great Depression and when we had two prime ministers who died in office it was that serious. And so this was a pretty challenging time.
When you’re in the middle of it, you’re very focused. You are solving the problems. You are making the decisions. And there is an adrenaline and a momentum which takes you from one to the other.
But once the music stops, and you sit down and you start reflecting on this, I mean I think the emotional impact and a lot of the other things that was occurring at the time do wash over you. And that’s an important part of your reflection.
BREAM: You also disclosed that you were under such stress and anxiety at one point that you worked with a doctor with medication on that.
MORRISON: Yes.
BREAM: And I thought it was important to read what you said about this, that you ran hard at the challenges. You said what impacted you “was the combination of pure physical exhaustion with the unrelenting and callous brutality of politics and media attacks. As a politician, I know this goes with the territory. That’s not a complaint or even an accusation. It’s just reality.”
MORRISON: Yes. When we’re going through all that and we’re getting to that final point, you know, that wasn’t the challenge, it was the pile-on that would occur in the normal realm of politics. And politics now has become very personal. It’s not about who’s got the better ideas to run the country often. It’s – it gets down to a personality slinging (ph) match. And pretty much now anything goes on that front. Once upon a time there used to be some guardrails for some civility in that. In the social media age, I mean I’m sure, you know, you – you struggles with that as a journalist, many journalists I know. You’ve got to balance the – the clicks with the – with the content. And – and the integrity challenges you have amongst that. I mean it’s difficult for you guys as well.
BREAM: Well, and the way that you talked about this, it did feel so raw and so brutal. And I wonder if you think now that this kind of thing will keep good people or people of faith or wherever they’re coming from, from considering, you know, serving their country in some way?
MORRISON: Well, I hope – I hope it doesn’t. But I think you’ve got to be open about it. But you’ve got to really, I think, be committed to that – that life of service. It does cost a lot. But, you know, I don’t regret it for a second. I had – I had the opportunity to serve my country and to do some incredible things on behalf of my country. And I’m pleased about that opportunity.
But it comes with working in a pretty brutal environment. So, my encouragement to particularly tell Christians, but not just Christians, but men, blokes as we call them in Australia is, you know, it’s – there’s nothing wrong with managing your health. Managing your physical health is as important as managing your mental health.
BREAM: Well, “Plans for Your Good,” scripture is woven through your faith. It’s clear that that has been your guiding north star.
MORRISON: Yes.
BREAM: So, it ends up being a very encouraging book and very interesting and informative looking back on those years too.
MORRISON: Well, I hope so.
BREAM: So, thank you for joining us.
MORRIS: Well, thanks, Shannon. I particularly enjoy it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BREAM: And just a quick note, my podcast, “Livin’ the Bream” drops today wherever you like to get your podcasts.
I sat down with Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner to talk about her trip across Vietnam tracing her late father’s brave tours of duty there. A few surprises and some tears along the way. It’s part of a new special available on Fox Nation called “Vietnam: Footsteps of My Father.” “Livin’ the Bream” available wherever you get your podcasts.
And before we go we have something special in store for you next week. FOX NEWS SUNDAY will be live from the Supreme Court. We’re going to discuss all the top cases the justices are set to release, including that one on presidential immunity.
That’s it for today. Thanks for joining us. I’m Shannon Bream. Happy Father’s Day. Have a great week and we’ll see you next FOX NEWS SUNDAY.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Content and Programming Copyright 2024 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2024 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Source link
