分类： 未分类

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to what to expect on DHS funding when the Senate meets Monday

2026-03-29T18:30:42-04:00 / Fox News

A single objection to a unanimous consent request could freeze DHS funding through the Easter recess

By Chad Pergram Fox News

Published March 29, 2026 6:30pm EDT

Fox News chief congressional correspondent Chad Pergram says House Republicans have prepped their own DHS spending bill on ‘Fox News @ Night.’

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

Listen to this article

3 min

The DHS funding drama heads back to the Senate on Monday morning after the House approved a two-month stopgap spending plan for all of DHS late Friday night.

The Senate meets on Monday at 10:30 am et in what was supposed to be a brief “pro forma” session where the body simply gavels in and gavels out with a skeleton crew on hand.

But that might not be what happens Monday. As soon as the Senate gets through the prayer and pledge, it’s likely a Republican senator seeks recognition from the chair.

If that happens, we anticipate the GOP senator to ask for unanimous consent (meaning all 100 senators would agree) to take up the DHS bill passed by the House on Friday, that it be “read a third time” and passed.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO WHAT’S NEXT TO END THE DHS SHUTDOWN

The Department of Homeland Security funding debacle heads back to the Senate on Monday morning.(Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

The chair will then ask if there is an objection.

If any senator – be they a Democrat or Republican – objects, the House bill is dead. That means that the House and Senate continue to be out of alignment on the DHS funding question. For instance, the House didn’t even consider the bill cleared by all 100 senators and passed by the Senate at 2:19 am Friday. The House simply wrote their own two-month interim bill, passed it Friday night and skipped town.

If there is no objection, the House and Senate are aligned and will have passed the same bill. That means they are on the same page.

Approval of the House bill by the Senate would end the ongoing DHS shutdown.(WVUE)

Approval of the House bill by the Senate would end the DHS shutdown.

But if there’s an objection, everything remains frozen.

This is both the parliamentary magic – and dark underbelly of “unanimous consent” in the Senate. You could have 99 senators in favor of something. But all it takes is a solitary objection to foil a bill under “unanimous consent” or “UC” as it’s often called in the Senate.

In fact, it’s possible Democrats could then offer their own DHS funding bill and ask the Senate to approve that by unanimous consent. It’s likely that whatever Republican senator is on duty tomorrow would object, thus blocking the Democratic request.

If the Senate blocks the House bill, it’s doubtful there’s any way to end the DHS shutdown until after both bodies return in mid-April after the Easter/Passover recess.

DHS SHUTDOWN BREAKTHROUGH COMES AT COST FOR REPUBLICANS AS FUNDING FIGHTS NEARS END

Republicans genuinely want to fund the DHS – but a Democratic objection presents them with an opportunity for political finger-pointing.(Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Republicans truly want to fund DHS. But a Democratic objection presents the GOP with a political opportunity. They can then point to that objection as the reason DHS remains shuttered, arguing that Democrats blocked the House-approved bill.

Republicans believe this helps them in the midterms. They ran on border security and won in 2024. Republicans want to point to a Democratic objection as evidence that they don’t want to fund ICE.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

But by the same token, Democrats could argue that Republicans are partly responsible for the shutdown and the long TSA lines if they object to the Democratic unanimous consent request.

And so it goes.

Chad Pergram currently serves as Chief Congressional Correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC). He joined the network in September 2007 and is based out of Washington, D.C.

‘Shadow administrator’ at FEMA under investigation by DHS internal watchdog

2026-03-29T23:43:58.847Z / CNN

By Gabe Cohen

16 min ago

PUBLISHED Mar 29, 2026, 7:43 PM ET

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Response Coordination Center in Washington, DC, is seen on January 24, 2026.

Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg/Getty Images/File

An outside contractor installed in the Department of Homeland Security by then-Secretary Kristi Noem and her adviser Corey Lewandowski, gained outsized influence over the Federal Emergency Management Agency over the past year, with a major hand in steering the disaster agency’s spending and day-to-day operations, according to sources who worked with her.

Now that contractor, Kara Voorhies, who was hired as a consultant and adviser, is under scrutiny as part of a sprawling investigation by DHS’ Office of Inspector General into how contracts were handled under Noem, three sources with knowledge told CNN.

Federal regulations generally prohibit contractors from making decisions that bind the government on core agency work like policy changes, awarding contracts, approving budgets and overseeing operations, FEMA insiders told CNN. Contractors also are not supposed to make personnel decisions – such as hiring and firing or supervising federal employees, the insiders said.

But six current and former senior officials who worked with Voorhies at FEMA said she often weighed in on — and in some instances decided — those kinds of issues for the agency.

“In many cases, she was calling the shots,” one senior official said. “She became the shadow administrator.”

Voorhies played a key role in the department’s efforts to scrutinize spending at FEMA, which has a multibillion-dollar budget, as DHS delayed funds, slashed emergency preparedness grants and restricted agency operations, according to the senior officials.

Internal emails reviewed by CNN show senior FEMA officials sought Voorhies’ approval before disbursing disaster aid, briefing Congress or sending documents to the White House.

Officials said they often couldn’t tell whether the decisions were Voorhies’ own or whether she was only passing along what Noem and Lewandowski wanted.

Voorhies did not respond to messages sent by CNN to multiple phone numbers and email addresses listed for her.

DHS, which oversees FEMA, did not respond to questions about Voorhies’ role and her work inside the department. A White House spokesperson referred CNN to DHS.

President Donald Trump fired Noem earlier this month, thanking her for her service and naming her as a special envoy for a new security initiative.

Kristi Noem delivers remarks during a working lunch at the “Shield of the Americas” Summit at Trump National Doral in Miami, Florida, on March 7, 2026.

Rebecca Blackwell/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

After Noem’s removal, the administration terminated Voorhies, three sources said. Trump administration lawyers said in a court filing last week in an unrelated case that “Ms. Voorhies is no longer employed by or serving as a contractor with DHS or FEMA.”

Soon after her ouster, investigators from the inspector general’s office at DHS seized Voorhies’ government-issued equipment and documents as part of its broader probe into DHS contracting practices under Noem and her de facto chief of staff Lewandowski, the three sources said. The Wall Street Journal first reported investigators’ interest in Voorhies.

Corey Lewandowski, a special adviser at the Department of Homeland Security, listens during the inaugural Americas Counter Cartel Conference at the US Southern Command Headquarters in Doral, Florida, on March 5, 2026.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images/File

In the court filing last week – part of a case challenging recent FEMA staff cuts – the administration’s lawyers acknowledged the inspector general probe, saying they have been unable to forensically image Voorhies’ work phones because the device is in the custody of the watchdog office.

Attorneys challenging the staff reductions say DHS went too far in cutting the workforce, and they’re seeking records from Voorhies, along with Noem and Lewandowski.

‘Who is Kara Voorhies?’

Noem’s handling of contracts at DHS was a key factor in Trump’s decision to remove her. Lewandowski’s micromanagement of the department — including his involvement in contracts — has also been a recurring source of tension with White House officials, CNN has reported.

Voorhies served as a gatekeeper for Noem and Lewandowski, helping implement their strict spending controls — including a policy requiring Noem’s personal signoff on any expenditure over $100,000 — as the Trump administration sought to dismantle and overhaul FEMA, multiple senior officials said. That rule has been blamed for a massive backlog in funding requests.

Several of the senior officials said they were told that Lewandowski personally selected Voorhies and placed her inside FEMA, where she effectively served as his — and Noem’s — “eyes and ears.” The officials questioned whether she had been fully vetted by the administration.

They also said FEMA’s acting chief, Karen Evans – appointed under Trump – was required to route decisions through Voorhies before they could be approved, an assertion backed up by documents CNN has reviewed.

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who repeatedly criticized Noem’s oversight of FEMA, raised concerns about Voorhies on the Senate floor in early March.

“I have reason to believe that DHS has delegated responsibilities of the FEMA administrator to an outside contractor,” he said on the Senate floor days before she was terminated. “Who is Kara Voorhies? What is her official role in DHS?”

Tillis has vented frustration over what he saw as Noem’s department slow-walking disaster aid to North Carolina communities battered by Hurricane Helene.

After Noem’s firing, Vice President JD Vance acknowledged FEMA’s missteps to a crowd in North Carolina at a rally.

“We recognize, frankly, that we needed the new leadership to hasten that delivery of resources to the people of North Carolina,” Vance remarked. “It’s useful to have somebody come in and focus on some of this disaster relief and recovery stuff. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do.”

The DHS inspector general’s wide-ranging investigation is examining how contracts were pursued and managed, including the roles of Noem and Lewandowski — and now Voorhies as well. Investigators have ordered dozens of DHS officials to preserve records as part of the probe.

Also under scrutiny is Voorhies’ pay, according to two senior DHS officials, who said they were told it may have been as high as $19,000 a week, or about $1 million a year. CNN has not been able to confirm her compensation.

The State Department, where Noem now works, previously directed CNN’s questions about the investigation to DHS. In response to a text from CNN, Lewandowski dismissed the claim that investigators had confiscated Voorhies’ government equipment, calling it “fake news.”

“I have been told by the [Chief Information Officer] that all of her equipment was turned into him,” Lewandowski wrote. “Please go back and verify your fake sources.”

Lewandowski did not respond to a follow-up message challenging his claim – or a request for comment on the rest of the story.

A spokesperson for the DHS inspector general declined to comment when asked about the investigation.

In a letter to Congress shortly before Noem was ousted earlier this month, the inspector general, Joseph Cuffari, said DHS, under Noem and Lewandowski, had “systematically obstructed” the watchdog’s work in recent months, including by denying access to internal records and information. He cited 11 instances of alleged obstruction, including one tied to “a criminal investigation with national security implications.”

‘We could not do anything without Kara approving it’

Despite Voorhies’ unusual influence given her contractor status, agency insiders say she was not well-known to those below FEMA’s most senior ranks.

She was listed as an “expert/consultant” in the agency’s internal system where she was issued a standard federal email address that didn’t reflect her status as a contractor, which typically limits access and promotes transparency.

“While I was there, we could never get a straight answer about her status,” a former senior official said.

Before FEMA could get a spending request in front of Noem, it had to go through Voorhies first, according to three sources with firsthand knowledge.

“We could not do anything without Kara approving it,” a senior official told CNN. “We could not engage with Congress and governors or talk to the White House unless she was aware. And it slowly became more and more and more over time.”

Internal emails and messages obtained by CNN show Voorhies questioned the release of some disaster assistance. In one case, she told FEMA to fast-track funds to a district after its Republican congressman secured a meeting with Lewandowski. In other exchanges, senior staff asked for her sign-off alongside Evans, FEMA’s acting chief.

“She told Karen what to do,” one senior official told CNN.

Evans did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

Voorhies was a key player in efforts to slash major emergency preparedness grant programs and strip homeland security funds from some big cities, the official said. And when the department abruptly released more than $5 billion in backlogged disaster funds, she helped coordinate the distribution, according to the official.

CNN previously reported that Noem’s spending restrictions slowed FEMA’s response to the deadly Texas floods last July, when the agency was unable to secure timely approval to preposition search-and-rescue teams, bolster call-center staffing and provide aerial data to state partners.

Two former senior FEMA officials involved in that response said Voorhies was part of the disruption.

“She slowed everything down and said ‘no’ to everything,” one said. The other said she halted some rapid-response actions, warning that Noem might not want to approve the moves.

巴基斯坦：准备未来几天主办美伊会谈

2026年3月30日 06:57 / 联合早报

土耳其外交部发布的照片显示，埃及外长阿卜杜勒阿提、沙特外长费萨尔、巴基斯坦外长达尔和土耳其外长费丹3月29日在伊斯兰堡举行会晤，讨论在美以与伊朗发生冲突之际，如何缓和地区局势。 （路透社）

巴基斯坦星期天说，准备在未来几天内主办“有意义的会谈”，以结束围绕伊朗的冲突。巴基斯坦外长达尔在与地区外长会晤后宣布，会谈讨论了如何尽早永久结束该地区的战争，以及在伊斯兰堡举行美伊会谈的可能性。

达尔星期天（3月29日）发表电视讲话说：“巴基斯坦很荣幸能在未来几天内主持并促成双方有意义的会谈，以全面持久地解决当前冲突。”

目前尚不清楚美国和伊朗是否同意出席。美国国务院和白宫尚未就可能在巴基斯坦举行的会谈作出回应。

达尔星期天在伊斯兰堡与沙特阿拉伯、埃及和土耳其外长举行会晤。

埃及说，星期天的会谈在严密安保下举行，美国、以色列和伊朗均未派代表参加。会谈内容包括努力阻止冲突蔓延，并鼓励德黑兰和华盛顿之间建立“谈判渠道”，以防止该地区“陷入彻底混乱”。

达尔会后在电视讲话中说，来访的外长们对在伊斯兰堡举行美伊会谈表示全力支持。“外长们强调，对话和外交是防止冲突、促进地区和平与和谐的唯一可行途径。”

达尔已与中国外长王毅和联合国秘书长古特雷斯通电话。他说，他们“完全支持”巴基斯坦为实现和平所做的努力，世界其他国家政府也持相同立场。

华盛顿智库大西洋理事会的纳瓦兹（Shuja Nawaz）认为，巴基斯坦在促成华盛顿和德黑兰坐到谈判桌前承担了一项“艰巨任务”，且只有在沙特的支持下才能做到这一点。

他告诉法新社：“巴基斯坦面临的真正挑战在于，如何让一位经常朝令夕改的白宫总统，与一个正在权衡是打一场旷日持久的战争，还是寻求结束经济进一步崩溃的伊朗政府达成一致。”

他补充说：“以色列的自主决策将进一步阻碍特朗普宣布胜利并结束这场正在损害其国内支持率的冲突。巴基斯坦对美国和伊朗的影响力都有限，对以色列则完全没有影响力。”

Zuckerberg meeting ‘a slap in the face,’ says father who lost son to suicide after online scam | CNN Politics

2026-03-29 5:10 PM EDT / CNN

Zuckerberg meeting ‘a slap in the face,’ says father who lost son to suicide after online scam

By Fredricka Whitfield and Christi Wolf, CNN

Published 5:10 PM EDT, Sun March 29, 2026

Zuckerberg meeting ‘a slap in the face,’ says father who lost son to suicide after online scam

Newsroom

Brian Montgomery spoke with CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield in the wake of landmark court rulings that found Meta and YouTube liable for harming kids who used their platforms. He told CNN that after losing his son to suicide following an online scam, it was “a slap in the face” for members of Congress to meet with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg instead of families advocating for safety changes.

4:34 • Source: CNN

内坦亚胡：以色列正在多领域作战 打击伊朗及其代理人

2026年3月30日 07:40 / 联合早报

内坦亚胡说，以色列“已经深入敌方腹地”，除了黎巴嫩，以军也在叙利亚和加沙地带建立了缓冲区。 （法新社档案照片）

以色列总理内坦亚胡说，以色列正在进行一场多领域作战，打击伊朗及其代理人，并在伊朗内部制造“明显裂痕”。

内坦亚胡星期天（3月29日）在一段视频声明中说，他已下令以军进一步扩大黎巴嫩境内的缓冲区，誓言以色列将继续在黎巴嫩开展军事行动。“此举旨在彻底消除（真主党武装分子）入侵的威胁，并阻止反坦克导弹袭击边境。”

内坦亚胡在视察北部司令部时说，黎巴嫩真主党仍保留向以色列发射火箭弹的“残余能力”，但该武装组织已遭到以军重创。

内坦亚胡还说，以色列“已经深入敌方腹地”，除了黎巴嫩，以军也在叙利亚和加沙地带建立了缓冲区。

他说：“伊朗已不再是以前的伊朗，真主党已不再是以前的真主党，哈马斯也已不再是以前的哈马斯。这些不再是威胁我们生存的恐怖组织。他们是战败的敌人，正在为自身的生存而战。”

Transcript: Karim Sadjadpour, Ret. Gen. Frank McKenzie on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” March 29, 2026

2026-03-29T12:03:00-0400 / CBS News

The following is the transcript of the interview with Iran policy analyst Karim Sadjadpour and former CENTCOM commander and CBS News contributor and retired Gen. Frank McKenzie that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on March 29, 2026.

*

MARGARET BRENNAN: For more on the ongoing war in Iran, we’re joined by Iran policy analyst Karim Sadjapour, as well as former CENTCOM commander and CBS News contributor, retired General Frank McKenzie, who joins us this morning from Tampa. Good morning to you both, Kareem, let me start with you today in Islamabad, you have Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, these self proclaimed mediators gathered together to talk about how to de-escalate the war. Iran, so far, hasn’t responded to the 15 points the Trump administration put forward, and Rubio said he’s not even sure who they’d be negotiating with. So what is the reality of who we’re negotiating with, and are we even negotiating

KARIM SADJADPOUR: Well, Margaret, this is a regime, Islamic Republic of Iran, which came to power in 1979 taking American diplomats hostage. And now they think they have the global economy hostage, and they’re fighting a war of survival. They’re also fighting a war of revenge against President Trump. So at the moment, they don’t feel compelled to compromise, it seems, because the trend lines are, oil prices are going up, American public opinion about the war is going down, and many of these leaders that we’re hoping to negotiate with are right now living underground, fighting for their lives.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, to your point on that difference, that asymmetric difference in power General, I want to bring you in here, because one of the things that Iran had been waiting to do was activate its militias, or the militias it supports in Yemen, the Houthis, over the weekend, they jumped into the fight and fired on Israel. Do you think that this is a game changer, given that they could not just disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, but another passageway through the Red Sea?

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: Margaret, I don’t think it will be a game changer. Their ability to attack Israel is quite limited. Yes, they will have the ability to further stop slow traffic through the Bab el Mandeb, going up into the Suez Canal. We have the ability to go down there and prevent that. It will require additional resources, but we have those resources, and we can certainly do it if that becomes necessary.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the President has made clear that he needs to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. His language has been contradictory on some of these points as to who’s going to do it and when. What’s the military reality of making it passable?

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: We’re on our way to doing that now, Margaret. This is part of a plan that’s been in existence for many years. What we’re doing right now is we’re reducing Iranian ability to target ships in the strait through their short range missiles, their drones and other activities. We do that by maintaining air superiority over southern Iran on a 24/7 basis, looking for where these missiles are and striking them relentlessly. Once we reduce those to a very low level, then you’ll be able to go in, if necessary, sweep for mines. I’m not certain they put mines in the water yet. I predict eventually they will. It’s their nature, but we have the ability to do this. We’re on, we’re on plan. I’ll be honest with you. Margaret, I’ve simulated this many years in many positions at Central Command, we’re a little further along than we would have expected to be at this point in all the simulations that I’ve seen.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m going to guess in your simulations, you looked at what would happen to the Strait of Hormuz, even though the President said no one ever thought of it, you thought of it, didn’t you?

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: The U.S. military thinks of a lot of things. We certainly have thought of the Strait of Hormuz out of Kharg Island. Think of all those islands on the southern littoral of Iran.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Kareem, the president, said the Israelis killed the second tier pragmatist types that he had thought he might be able to go and negotiate with. In recent days, the name that has emerged is the Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf. What do we know about him? Is he someone you can make a deal with?

KARIM SADJADPOUR: Ghalibaf is, importantly, a former senior Revolutionary Guard Commander and a close advisor to Mojtaba Khamenei. Under different circumstances he is someone who aspires to be Iran’s modern strongman leader. I’ve actually met him in the World Economic Forum in Davos, just the fact that he shows up in Davos shows you a little bit about his worldview. But under the current circumstances, no one in that Iranian system is capable of changing the longtime ideology of antipathy toward America and toward Israel, even if they wanted to.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Explain that, if you would, because what we hear from the White House and from Israel is that pressure will break them. You’re saying they’re unbreakable?

KARIM SADJADPOUR: At the moment, and this could change in the future, but we haven’t seen any cracks in the regime’s resolve. We haven’t seen any cracks, cracks in the cohesion of its security forces, and given the fact that so many of its top officials, including the Supreme Leader, have been killed, it’s a regime which is not prepared to compromise or change its ideology. They actually believe that antipathy towards America is part of their identity, and if you capitulate on that, it actually doesn’t prolong your shelf life, it actually could hasten your death.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So if there’s not a negotiated settlement, how does this end?

KARIM SADJADPOUR: I don’t see any possibility of a resolution to this conflict. I think the US and Iran are miles apart when it comes to their, their goals here. Now, I think we could see a potential cease fire that opens the Strait of Hormuz, which would shift this back from a hot war back to a cold war. But there’s no possibility, in my view, so long as this regime is in power, of a US, Iran, normalization.

MARGARET BRENNAN: General, do you agree with that assessment? I mean, it does seem that the Trump administration is acknowledging the regime will stay if they are at least offering to negotiate with the regime so it would allow for them to remain in power.

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: The primary goal of Iranian statecraft, Margaret, is survival of the regime. Back in the late 1980s they signed a truce with Iraq when things were going very bad for Iran. In Iranian history is known as drinking from the poison chalice. I believe that they will break. I believe that they will come to terms. And it may be an imperfect solution, but I think it would be one that would include opening the Strait of Hormuz, possibly some deal on the missiles, on the missile systems, the nuclear program is certainly a possibility, but I believe eventually they’ll make a deal. But we need to keep the pressure up. We need to continue to press them very hard, because that is, in fact, the only thing they will respond to.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So the President had posted he’s postponed the deadline to open the Strait of Hormuz as a result of the Iranian government asking for it. He says he shifted that to April 6 at 8pm. We also hear from the secretary of state that he is talking to the allies about a post conflict necessity of having other countries help to essentially police the strait. And he said that you will need tankers to have military escorts. So this doesn’t sound like this is a short term project. This sounds like even if combat ends, we’re going to be talking about a military presence in the region for some time. Am I wrong?

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: Margaret, you could be right. Let’s see what happens. I think a negotiated- there are two ways the Strait of Hormuz can be opened. It can be opened if the Iranians negotiate with us to open it. And of course, that’s the desired solution. The other solution would be, if they don’t, and they decide to fight, we can open the strait under that condition too. The second condition is obviously a lot more intensive in terms of ships and equipment that would have to bring into the region, and yes, help from our allies would certainly be, would be very useful in that case. We have the ability to open the Strait of Hormuz under any condition that the Iranians choose to exist under.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Does it appear to you that one of the contingencies that the White House is planning for, given that they’re continuing to move troops into the region, and you have these Marines who are moving into the area as well. Are they preparing for a ground troop presence? And what does that look like?

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: Margaret, for many years, we’ve considered options along the southern coast of Iran, seizing islands, seizing small bases, typically raids. And a raid is an operation with a planned withdrawal. You’re not going to stay. But some of those islands you could seize and hold, that would have a couple effects. First of all, it would be profoundly humiliating for Iran, and would give us great weight in negotiations. The second, the example of Kharg Island, which everyone talks about. If you seize Kharg Island, you really can shut down the Iranian oil economy completely. And the beauty of seizing it is you’re not destroying it. You’re retaining it for further use by the global economy and possibly for return to Iran under certain conditions. So all of these things, this is not back of the, these are not back of the envelope calculations. These are things we’ve been working on for many years, and I think we’re right to threaten the entire littoral to hold all these options out there. And I think the President’s message is spot on when he talks about all these alternatives.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But can he achieve his goals without ground troops, which is what the Secretary of State says. And how does this end? How do you call this a success?

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: Sure, I think a success looks like the Strait of Hormuz is open. We get some kind of deal on the ballistic missile program, some kind of deal on the nuclear program. That’s probably about as much as you could hope for. But I think they’re very discreet things that, for me, at least from an operational military perspective, would be, would look like victory. I believe all of those things are actually within our grasp. We just need to continue. Iran will ultimately respond to the use of force. They know and understand it, perhaps better than we have, we have in the past. This administration is willing to use force. Other administrations have been thoroughly deterred by Iran. President Trump is not deterred by Iran?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah. Well, the President says he wants a deal, even though I know you think that’s going to be pretty hard to get to and he said Vice President Vance is going to be directly involved here, Karim. What does that signal to you?

KARIM SADJADPOUR: Well, the Iranians actually want to negotiate with Vice President Vance for a couple of reasons. Number one, they think he comes from the anti-war wing of the Republican Party. And number two, they think because of the fact that JD Vance wants to run for president, he’s incentivized to want to wrap this war up pretty quickly. And I agree with something General McKenzie said, which is we know over the last five decades that this regime is only compromised under really clear circumstances, when it faces existential pressure coupled with a clear diplomatic exit. I think it’s feeling existential pressure. I don’t think they’ve yet seen a clear diplomatic exit.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, gentlemen, thank you both for lending us your expertise for this conversation. We’ll have to leave it there. We’ll be back in a moment.

Transcript: Rep. Jim Himes on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” March 29, 2026

2026-03-29T12:08:00-0400 / CBS News

The following is the transcript of the interview with Rep. Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut, that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on March 29, 2026.

*

MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Jim Himes, who joins us from Greenwich, Connecticut. Good morning to you.

REP. JIM HIMES: Good morning, Margaret.

So you just heard the border czar, the White House representative here, make his argument. Politically speaking, though. I mean, the shutdown was intended by Democrats to try to constrain ICE and how it had been acting. But practically speaking, ICE is already funded. In fact, it’s one of the few DHS entities where people are getting paid because they had so much funding from the President’s last bill, and now their portfolio is expanding because they’re in American airports across the country. So what did Democrats get out of this standoff?

REP. HIMES: Yeah, well, Margaret, the standoff is not done yet, right? The President is illegally paying, apparently, TSA agents. You had the Senate, as you pointed out, with Mr. Honan- Homan, pass a bipartisan bill unanimously in the United States Senate to say, look, let’s fund everybody else, and let’s deal with this thorny issue about ICE. And then you had the Republican House say, hell no, we’re not doing that. And by the way, mock their own Republican leaders in the Senate. So look what- this thing is still very much live for one very simple reason. We can talk about House, Senate, changing law, for one very simple reason, which is that the vast majority of Americans look at the way ICE behaved with the murder of two American citizens, with the constant knocking down of doors of American citizens without warrants, people dressed like they are, you know, airlifting into Fallujah to do the legitimate work of going after illegal aliens in this country, and they say that is not okay, and that’s our position. Our position is very simply, we want ICE to act like the police force that they are, and that fight is not won yet. And look, I’m sorry it got tied up. I’m sorry that the Republicans on one side of the Capitol said this was a good idea, and on the other side of the Capitol. They called it a joke, but we’re ready to negotiate around something that is not a radical demand. We just want ICE to act like proper police officers.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So in the meantime, the president’s redirecting existing funding to pay TSA agents. You said he was illegally paying them. You believe that he is violating the law in this interpretation that the White House says they have?

REP. HIMES: Well, it’s not that I believe it, it’s that I know it, right? I mean, if there’s one power that Congress has, it is the power of the purse. Now this president has, of course, consistently and universally said that he in fact has that power–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –So they shouldn’t be paid?

REP. HIMES: –but any American that went through fourth grade civics- no, they should be paid. This- they should have never been held hostage. And we had a deal come out unanimously from the Senate, that if it had passed right now, they would be getting paid, and we wouldn’t be talking about the constitutional power of the purse. But Mike Johnson, leader of the House of Representatives, said hell no to what his Republicans in the Senate said yes to.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So there were three Democrats, though, who got on board with Speaker Johnson the House version of this bill, even without any new accountability measures in it, Congresswoman Glusenkamp Perez says she did so because she thinks it’s wrong not to pay people for their work, and Democrats had set unattainable goals. She says since the White House was agreeing to things like body cameras- doesn’t she have a point here that there is, as she put it, ‘ideological purity’ that’s getting in the way of working people?

REP. HIMES: So this is not a question of ideological purity. And I agree with Marie on one point, which is the people shouldn’t be held hostage. And we can come back to that. But this is not extreme demands by any stretch of the imagination. Again, we’re asking that guys not dress like Navy SEALs when they go into Minneapolis. We’re asking that they wear badges the way every other police officer does, that they have warrants when they break down doors.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And some of those things have been agreed to–

REP. HIMES: This is not ideological purity. This is basic adherence to the law- yeah, well, okay, so it’s all agreed to, let’s pass the law which codifies it. Because you know what, we don’t trust the president when he says, okay, no masks any more than we trust him when he says, oh, well, now I’m negotiating with the Iranians when he’s not, right? So if this is so easy, fine, let’s codify it into law. But they’re not, you know- they’re not willing to do that. Now, where Maria’s right, and this is important, we have gotten too used to using shutdowns as a mechanism of getting what we want legislatively. And what that implies is that people like TSA agents or folks that work in the federal government for the Department of Agriculture or- don’t get paid when one party throws a tantrum, right? Now, in this case, I happen to believe that the American people- you know are with the Democratic Party and saying you don’t get to act like ICE acted in Minneapolis, but we do need to get away from legislating through shutdown that is not consonant with the great country that we are.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, and they just want their airports and basic government to work. But on the point you raised, you said that the President’s not really negotiating with Iran is that because you haven’t been briefed as a member of Congress on the diplomacy. Or you think he’s flat out lying?

REP. HIMES: I think he’s flat out lying last Sunday, when he was told- and by the way, we’re in exactly the same position today, you know, oil prices now $112 a barrel. And you know futures in the stock market down 2%. Last Sunday, he realized, oh my God, I’ve got a financial cataclysm on Monday. So he just made it up that they’re in negotiations with the Iranians. Look underneath that statement, the Iranians have now realized that they have the reins. They are controlling the Strait of Hormuz. Gasoline prices are up more than $1 a gallon, and so the Iranians realize, holy smokes, we’ve got a lot of leverage here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: In Islamabad today, there are a number of mediators who are in contact with the United States saying they’re talking about Iran. But neither the United States nor Iran are at that table at this moment in time. But further on, the Iran point, I know you care about what’s happening in Ukraine. Notably, President Zelensky of Ukraine has been in the Gulf in these past few days, and he said yesterday that Russia is providing satellite imagery to Iran, and that imagery consists of U.S. military bases. He also said Russia is giving signals intelligence and electronic intelligence to Iran. Do you know of evidence that Russia is actively helping Iran in its war against the United States?

REP. HIMES: Well, I have to be a little careful about this Margaret, because I do review the intelligence, and I obviously can’t speak about things that are classified, but boy, I would sure not argue with President Zelensky on that point. And I would ask the American people to think about what do you think Putin is doing right now? Over four years, we have been, rightly, in my estimation, helping the Ukrainians exact a terrible toll on the Russians. So what do you think is happening? Meanwhile, as you know, we are letting the Iranians, so now the Iranians are getting billions of dollars sell their oil to the Chinese so that they can buy drones from the Russians. We’re letting the Russians sell oil so that they can get dollars to attack the Ukrainians and use those dollars to attack- to help attack our troops. I mean, you just couldn’t make this stuff up in a Hollywood script.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Secretary Rubio was asked about the degree of aid Russia is giving to Iran, and he minimized it. He says it’s not making a difference on the battlefield. I know the French, I know the British have said that Russia and Iran are helping each other on drones here. When you heard Secretary Rubio’s statement, what did you think he meant?

REP. HIMES: I think it is very much in Marco Rubio’s interest as one of the chief cheerleaders of this war that the American people are now coming to realize is a catastrophe, another quagmire for Marco Rubio to say things like, oh, they’re not making a difference. Well, I don’t agree with Marco Rubio on that point. You know, the Russians have capabilities, things like using basic satellite technology, which you can do commercially, by the way, to find our aircraft carriers. Our military bases in the region, Margaret, right now are supposedly uninhabitable. Why do you think that is?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, Democrats have been making corruption a theme in their campaign against the President and to win back control of the house. Your fellow Democrat, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida has been found guilty on 25 ethics charges related to stealing millions of dollars in COVID relief money. Should she resign? Should she be expelled?

REP. HIMES: You know, if she doesn’t resign, there will be a vote in the House, and you know, people will find reasons to support the congresswoman, just as Republicans found reasons to support George Santos–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Should she resign?

REP. HIMES: –at a time when we’re at war, when gas prices are too high, that shouldn’t happen. So I would hope that my colleague might avoid that outcome by choosing to resign. But it is also very important that both parties be consistent in punishing ethical lapses inside their own teams.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, you hope she resigns. Thank you, congressman for all your insights today. We have to leave it there. We’ll be right back.

Transcript: Jerome Adams on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” March 29, 2026

2026-03-29T12:40:00-0400 / CBS News

The following is the transcript of the interview with Jerome Adams, surgeon general in the first Trump administration, that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on March 29, 2026.

*

MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We turn now to former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, who joins us this morning from Indianapolis. Good morning to you, Doctor.

FORMER U.S. SURGEON GENERAL DR. JEROME ADAMS: Thanks for having me, Margaret. And I’d like to start by saying that the most important thing for your viewers to understand is that America’s most pressing health threat today isn’t opioids or obesity, it’s mistrust. Seventy percent of Americans say they support childhood vaccines and school mandates. Yet a similar majority say they do not trust health information from Robert Kennedy and say they would not trust Surgeon General nominee Casey Means. So a failure to acknowledge this plummeting trust, or worse, if we’re seeing to accelerate it, is going to hurt Americans. And actually, Margaret, according to Republican pollster Fabrizio Ward, it’s going to hurt Republicans in November elections.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that’s not where I was going with the question. But yes, I’ve seen some of that polling. And it says that the MAHA health guidance resonates more with voters than the vaccine skepticism. So Republicans seem to be signaling what would be more resonant with the majority of voters. But in terms of the policy at this moment in time, you were President Trump’s surgeon general during his first term. There are now more than 1,500 confirmed measle cases in the U.S. since January, according to the CDC. There is this spike out in Utah. Why can’t the existing health infrastructure stop this?

DR. ADAMS: Well, that’s a great question. And you have to start off by understanding that almost 20,000 people have been cut from HHS. And so normally, we have measles cases every year. We had about 250 in 2024. We had about 2,000 last year. As you mentioned, we’re at 1,500 already this year. But normally, we’re able to control those outbreaks because of the CDC, because of public health infrastructure in funding. All of that has been cut. And now instead of one case turning into two or three and being stopped, it’s turning into 20, and 50 and 100 cases. And we’re also seeing falling vaccination rates, a broad group of states are falling below that 95% threshold for herd immunity for measles. Utah, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, all below that 95% threshold. And the further we get below that, the more these outbreaks explode.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you mentioned the memo. This was a pollster who continues to consult for the president and for Republicans, Tony Fabrizio. In the memo, he writes, policies related to vaccines and vaccine safety need to be addressed carefully and with nuance. That’s because overall, a slim majority of voters are not convinced there are negative health impacts from vaccines. He was speaking about how MAHA and MAGA need to continue to work together for the benefit of the Republican Party. But by saying there’s a slim majority who are unconvinced, he’s making it sound like your party really is struggling with this, frankly.

DR. ADAMS: Well, they absolutely are. And I understand why parents are frustrated with the health care system. It is not working for people. And we’ve always, as physicians, been taught to respect patient autonomy. But the difference here is you’re seeing a health secretary and an infrastructure that is actively sowing distrust in vaccines and in the healthcare system. I believe we can do both. I believe we can respect patients’ autonomy. We need to make sure we’re facilitating those conversations between patients and their doctors or their pharmacists or nurses, while at the same time telling people what we know to be true. And that is that childhood vaccines like measles, mumps, rubella, are safe, they’re effective, and they’re the most important public health achievement of our lifetimes. We’re not going to make America healthier if we go backwards on vaccines.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So the chair of the health committee, Senator Bill Cassidy, who’s also a physician, asked Casey Means, she is the doctor you referenced, who is the choice of the Trump administration to be the next surgeon general. He asked her whether she would recommend a mother vaccinate her child against measles. Here’s the part of the exchange from her confirmation hearing.

[SOUND ON TAPE BEGINS]

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): You’re the nation’s doctor. Would you encourage her to have her child vaccinated?

DR. CASEY MEANS: I’m not an individual’s doctor and every individual needs to talk to their doctor before putting a medication in their body. I absolutely am supportive of the measles vaccine and I do believe vaccines save lives and are an important part of the public health strategy.

[SOUND ON TAPE ENDS]

MARGARET BRENNAN: So the doctor did say she is supporter- supportive of the measles vaccine. Why does that stop short of what you would want to hear from someone in that role?

DR. ADAMS: Well, number one, I watched the hearing. This was after much pressing and equivocating, number one. And she said she’s not an individualist doctor. That is correct. But you’re applying to be the nation’s doctor. For me, this isn’t personal or political, number one, and I’ve talked to you about this, it’s about her not having the basic qualifications to do the job. She does not have an active medical license and would be the first surgeon general ever to be in the role to not have an active medical license. But beyond that, to the point you brought up, in the midst of a massive measles outbreak, America needs a surgeon general who can clearly stand behind vaccines. When I came in, we had the opioid epidemic and an overdose crisis. Imagine if I had said, you know, as surgeon general, it’s not my place to tell people to take naloxone, the opioid overdose reversal agent, they should talk to their doctor about it. That would not be acceptable in that circumstance, and it’s not acceptable to have a surgeon general who equivocates on vaccines, much less one who can’t actually practice medicine and meet the qualifications to be a physician in the court.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the doctor apparently has an inactive medical license that she says she voluntarily placed on inactive status. And I want to talk about this because it seems a feature, not a bug, right? Because the HHS secretary has described Dr. Means as being perfect for this job. He says the surgeon general is a symbol of moral authority who stands against the financial and institutional gravities that corporatize medicine. He said she was a great student and surgical resident, but she left traditional medicine because patients weren’t getting better, and that’s why she should be the disruptor in this moment. So when you say there’s distrust, how do you respond to those who say disruption is the purpose of this selection?

DR. ADAMS: Well, again, number one, a recent Axios poll came out, and that poll showed that 68% of people who were questioned said they would not trust health advice from a Surgeon General Casey Means. So you’re not going to restore trust if preemptively the public is telling you we’re not trusting the person you’re putting forward. And again, I don’t want to underplay this. Every physician, every nurse, every pharmacist and the Public Health Service Corps has to maintain an active license. I had to fire people for not having an active medical license. So this is not about disruption. Casey Means can be a part of this administration. She can advise the White House. She can advise Secretary Kennedy, as her brother does. But that does not mean she’s qualified to be surgeon general of the United States after dropping out of her residency and not having an active license.

MARGARET BRENMAM: Yeah, and just a note, there is also no Senate-confirmed CDC director currently amid the crisis. Let me ask you about social media as well, because there were these big cases this past week. A New Mexico jury found that Meta platforms violated consumer protection laws by misleading users about the safety of Facebook, of Instagram, and of WhatsApp. Out in California, there was another lawsuit linking Meta to a young woman’s depression. As a doctor, are you convinced that social media has a direct link to health?

DR. ADAMS: As a doctor and as a parent, I’m convinced of these facts. I have three teenage kids. We know, based on Surgeon General Murthy’s report, that there is increasing and very valid evidence out there showing links between social media use, particularly at a younger age, and increasing anxiety, increasing depression, less sleep, which actually leads to mental health problems and also obesity. And so we need to, as a society, understand the harms that are coming from social media, similarly to the harms that surgeon generals have pointed out before coming from cigarettes. We also need to, similar to cigarettes, point out the fact that these substances, meaning social media platforms, are incredibly addictive. And we’re hearing again in these lawsuits that they were specifically designed to addict children, again, the way cigarette manufacturers tried to addict children back in the day.

So, I’m happy that we’re having a conversation about this. The policy is going to be hard, but Australia has already done it. They’ve banned social media for people under 16. You have 25 states, I believe, that are to the point where they’re discussing or have legislation keeping social media and phones out of schools. And we need to to really understand the harm that’s occurring to our children because of this unfettered access to screen time and social media.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, Secretary Kennedy spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday. He said he’s worried about cellphones and recommends parents don’t let their kids sleep with phones beside the bed. Would you agree with that recommendation?

DR. ADAMS: Yes. Actually, AAP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Health Department of California, all say that we should not allow cellphones in children’s bedrooms. It keeps them up at night and subjects them to bullying constantly. And yes, it is a good practice. And I agree with the secretary on this. I want to find common ground with the secretary. This is one place where we agree we should not be exposing young people to cellphones and social media, particularly in their bedrooms at night.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, Doctor, thank you for your insights today. We’ll be right back.

Transcript: Tom Homan on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” March 29, 2026

2026-03-29T12:44:00-0400 / CBS News

The following is the transcript of the interview with Tom Homan, Trump administration border czar, that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on March 29, 2026.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin with White House Border Czar Tom Homan, who was tasked by the president to help oversee ICE efforts following the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti earlier this year out in Minneapolis. Good morning to you, sir.

TOM HOMAN: Good morning.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So Congress is gone until mid-April. Will the president compel them to come back and sort this out?

HOMAN: Well, look, I hope so. I mean, they got to- they got to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Again, we’re talking about the Department of Homeland Security, and we’re in an increased threat posture right now because what’s going on in the world, we’ve got to keep this country safe, which means we got to we got to fund the members of the Coast Guard and, and CISA and- and Secret Service and all these other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. I know the president found a way to pay TSA workers so we can get the American public through those lines and he also came up with the idea of sending ICE agents to the airport, which has had an impact. So we just need to get the department funded. They want to talk about, you know, immigration policies. We can talk about that. But, why do you got to hold the rest of the DHS hostage to do that? Let’s sit down and talk. I’ve been talking to them for the last two weeks.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, but just to be clear, the president is not forcing lawmakers to come back to Washington now. He’s going to wait until mid-April to do this?

HOMAN: Look- and the American people hold Congress responsible. They’re on vacation right now while tens of thousands of DHS employees aren’t being paid —

(CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: — Right. But Republicans control both chambers –

HOMAN: — And that’s what happened at the airports —

MARGARET BRENNAN: — That’s the- this is the president’s party.

(CROSSTALK ENDS)

HOMAN: The Democrats shut, the Democrats shut down DHS. They voted to shut down DHS because they simply won’t fund DHS, because they want to change ICE policies, so ICE is less effective in the interior. Remember why we’re here. We’re here because the last four years of an open border, millions of people are in this country illegally, many public safety threats, national security threats, and we’re out seeking them and arresting them. And they simply don’t like ICE enforcing the law.

(CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: — Well

HOMAN: They proved that the last four years.

MARGARET BRENNAN: — The bill that —

HOMAN: — They didn’t – let ICE enforce the law.

(CROSSTALK ENDS)

MARGARET BRENNAN: – The bill that passed the Senate was bipartisan, and it did have a lot of the funding for the agencies you just laid out there. The issue was specific to parts of ICE, but- but it seems like the White House really didn’t force your party to get in line here, because that Republican controlled Senate did pass a funding bill. The White House didn’t get the House of Representatives leadership on board with that. In fact, the Speaker, Mike Johnson, said that bill was a joke. Why wasn’t the White House able to get both parties- both heads of the party, the president controls on the same page?

HOMAN: Look, I’ve been up on the hill. I’ve been in these meetings. I’ve met with lawmakers from both sides. This isn’t a White House issue. This is the Democrats shutting down the Department of Homeland Security.

(CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: — So did you support the Republican bill in the Senate that passed?

HOMAN: — I’ve been in these meetings, they, they —

(CROSSTALK ENDS)

HOMAN: I support Congress opening up the entire government, the entire DHS, and not holding people in DHS hostage because they don’t like–

(CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: — So no.

HOMAN: — immigration enforcement.

MARGARET BRENNAN: — You weren’t onboard with the Senate bill?

HOMAN: — I support opening up the entire government, I’m with the president.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. Well —

HOMAN: — I missed that. Say that again, ma’am.

(CROSSTALK ENDS)

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you were not in favor of the bill that passed the Senate, which the Republican leaders I got it–

HOMAN: — I support the president of the United States in getting DHS fully funded and operating.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, so tell me- so the President did direct DHS to use other pots of emergency cash to pay these TSA officers, and they’re supposed to receive paychecks as early as tomorrow. Does that mean that the system is going to become unclogged. Do they actually have to show up to work to get paid?

HOMAN: Yeah, I think it’s certainly going to help, because TSA agents have left the job because they got it, you know, whether it’s driving Ubers or finding other jobs so that- so they can feed their families and pay the rent. So I’m hoping with this- this change that President Trump put in place with- was with Secretary Markwayne Mullen, that more will come back to work. Until then, ICE will remain in airports to take those jobs that to secure the airport and check- check identification and check exit lanes where people enter to exit. To do the jobs that don’t require the enhanced TSA screening so we can get more TSA screeners on the X-ray machines, to open up more lanes, so ice is there to do the job, to get TSA screeners back to the line, and hopefully open more lines, get the American public through the airport.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. Well, there’s like, 500 TSA officers who have quit. Do you expect to be able to rehire them, and we have some big events like the World Cup coming up in June. Are we going to have problems at airports for the foreseeable future?

HOMAN: Look, we’re going to continue a nice presence there, and until the airports feel like they’re in- they’re in 100% you know, in a posture where they can do no normal operations. If less TSA agents come back, that means we’ll keep more ICE agents there. The President has been clear. He wants to secure those airports, especially, as I said earlier, in an increased threat posture, we need to secure those airports. ICE is there to help our brothers and sisters in TSA. We’ll be there as long as they need us, until they get back to normal operations and feel like those airports are secure.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, so the- you referenced some of this earlier, the reason that we got to this political standoff is because of the differences between Democrats and Republicans on the policy part of this. And back in January, those two Americans, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, were shot during immigration actions. Democrats point to that and say this is why they need to force change. We saw that letter you signed, and in it you were very willing. You told lawmakers to expand the use of body cameras to limit enforcement activities at locations like schools and hospitals and require officers to identify themselves. So if you’re willing to make those changes, what’s the harm in legislating them?

(CROSSTALK)

HOMAN: We already made those changes. We already made those changes. You–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But why not put them in law then? If you’re–

(CROSSTALK ENDS)

HOMAN: Matter of fact. Matter of fact. The bill- the bill- the bill they’re holding up right now actually gives $120 million to buy more cameras. I’ve already talked to them. They want to- they want to, you know, talk about policy and legislative policy. Look, if they want to change the law, change the law. We’re enforcing laws they enacted. Because I told them–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, they are trying to write new law.

HOMAN: Name- No, give me- give me one instance. And there’s not one Democratic lawmaker that can give me one example. One. A single one, where ICE arrested an illegal alien inside of a hospital. When have we ever arrested an illegal alien inside of a church? The only one that violated the sanctuary of a church was Don Lemon and that group. You know, we- we have not made those arrests, and even though we don’t have a sensible location policy, the men and women of ICE have common sense. They don’t go into schools. You know- not- not- I want to make a caveat here. If you’re a significant public safety threat and national security threat, you have no sanctuary. But they- they can’t point to one instance where ICE has made arrests in those what they call sensible locations.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, but there was a policy change in January 2025 where the Trump administration said they weren’t going to be, you know, have their hands tied in terms of those sensitive locations. So- so that was a shift.

HOMAN: Because- because- because, as I said, a significant public safety threat or national security threat does not have a sanctuary in this country. We’re going to find them. We’re going to arrest them. However, you can’t point to one instance when we actually went into a church and school because we try very hard to wait for people to leave places. We wait for them. We arrest them in their home or arrest them in their community. We try very hard not to go into those sensitive locations because we know there’s an issue there. So that’s what I’ve been telling the members on the Hill. As far as body cameras, the first thing I did in Minneapolis is bring many body cameras there so everybody had a body camera. There is a plan in place right now for CBP and ICE to go body cameras across the entire agency. However, the money to do that is sitting with the Congress fighting over the shutdown.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. Well, one of the policy changes has to do with warrants, requiring specifically ICE to secure a judicial warrant from a judge before entering a home to make an arrest. And that would be a change to the current ICE policy of relying on some administrative warrants. Listen to the DHS secretary during his confirmation hearing.

(START SOUND ON TAPE)

HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY MARKWAYNE MULLIN: I said, we will not enter a home or a place of business without a judicial warrant, unless we’re pursuing the individual that runs into a place of business or a residence- or a- or a house.

(END SOUND ON TAPE)

MARGARET BRENNAN: So the Secretary agreed to that change. When does that take place?

HOMAN: I- I think we’re already in discussions on that. You know, there are certain sections of law on a Section I-205, where it’s legally- you are illegally able to enter a home and a district court has- has upheld that. But these are discussions we’re having right now. I’m talking- I talk to Secretary Markwayne Mullin every day, several times a day. We’re talking with members of the White House. We’re already working all these policies, not really policy and how we- it’s about execution. Again, the laws are the laws. If they don’t like the law to allow us entry into the home, then change the law. But it’s also they want an arrest warrant to just arrest an illegal alien. There’s nothing in federal law says that. Matter of fact, the law that Congress wrote says you can arrest an illegal alien with an administrative warrant. That’s what the federal statute says. Again, but they want- they want judicial warrants just to arrest an illegal alien. They’re asking for changes in policy. That’s really about changes in the law. Again, if they don’t like what ICE is doing, they can change the law. It’s that simple.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I appreciate your argument about changing the law. There are many who would like to but there’s also the question of interpretation of existing law, and the acting ICE Director, Todd Lyons, had sent a memo in May saying: “DHS counsel reinterpreted existing law to allow for agents to make arrests without a judicial warrant.” When we heard the new secretary say they won’t enter without a judicial warrant- was Secretary Mullin stating the current policy? Are you changing the Trump policy going forward from where it was in May?

HOMAN: I’m not going to speak for Secretary Mullin, but I think it was clear he’s looking at he wasn’t the Secretary made that statement. I think he’s looking forward. But one of the first things I did, I’ve asked for a full legal review on that reinterpretation. I want to know exactly what I’m- not, I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve asked DOJ to do a full review on that, and we’ll see where it comes. But I think Secretary Mullin meant what he said. I think he is looking for the future.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we will see where they land. Mr. Homan, thank you very much for your time this morning. Face the issue. Will be back in a minute. Stay with us.

Sen. Rand Paul on his confrontation of Trump and Senate GOP over Iran strikes

March 29, 2026 / 1:45 PM EDT / CBS News

President Trump’s decision to launch strikes against Iran has won support from most Senate Republicans, but Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is the lone exception.

Paul, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said Mr. Trump should not have acted without congressional approval and argues that the president isn’t allowed to begin any military action in the absence of that approval or an imminent attack. For the senator, this moment is testing whether the Republican-controlled Congress will assert itself — as one of the country’s founding fathers, James Madison, intended.

“Madison said that we would give the legislature certain powers and the president certain powers. And as each tried to grasp for the power, they would check and balance each other,” said Paul. “I don’t think our founders ever imagined our current Congress that is completely lacking in ambition. They don’t check the president.”

As for checking Mr. Trump, Paul started doing that more than a decade ago, when they had competing White House bids leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Since then, the two have mostly patched things up. But the senator isn’t afraid to break with Mr. Trump, especially when he feels hawkish advisers are in the president’s ear.

“I think he was misled by some of the more aggressive people,” said Paul, adding that the president’s “basic instincts have been for less war.”

Should the Iran war escalate and continue, Paul said the political and economic costs could be significant.

“On the political landscape, I think the longer this goes on, the less likely Republicans are able to hold onto the House and Senate,” said the senator, who believes congressional Republicans may face another reckoning soon, as the Trump administration requests $200 billion of additional funding for the war.

Paul said he will not vote for the supplemental funding because he doesn’t want the war to continue. The Pentagon has not specifically responded to the news of how Paul has decided to vote.

“Most people will accept the argument and say, ‘Oh, you can’t quit funding ’em. They’re over there,’” he said of soldiers overseas. “But, actually, if they weren’t funded, they’d be brought home.”

Closer to home, the partial government shutdown continues over fully funding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, snarling air travel and causing Transportation Security Administration workers to go for more than a month without pay.

On Friday, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to pay them using funds from the One Big Beautiful Bill that was passed late last year. But the government, Paul says, will keep facing fiscal standoffs.

“We’re going to have another one of these in six months, you know? The spending will expire come the end of September,” he said, since the bill to fund DHS would be effective through September. “So, I’m not against the fight. In fact, I want to make the fight such that we’re fighting over the increases and not the salaries.”

Making things even trickier on the homeland front is Paul’s testy relationship with Mr. Trump’s new pick to run DHS, Secretary Markwayne Mullin. Paul opposed the nomination over Mullin’s character and response to a 2017 incident where Paul was assaulted.

Mullin addressed the conflict with Paul in his opening statement after being sworn in as secretary, saying he “won’t back down from a challenge” and will also admit when he’s wrong.

Paul said he hasn’t had a conversation with Mullin since he was sworn in, but they’ll “operate in a professional manner as time goes on.”

The senator’s support of Kentucky Rep. Tom Massie, another Libertarian and Republican critic of the Trump administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, is another flashpoint with Mr. Trump. The president has endorsed Ed Gallrein, Massie’s relatively unknown, pro-Trump opponent in the Kentucky primary election.

“You can like Donald Trump and Thomas Massie, because they represent a lot of the same things,” said Paul. “But Massie represents an independence of spirit that I think you want in your legislator. If you want a rubber stamp, we could just have AI.”

Paul’s maverick streak follows in the footsteps of his father, former Texas congressman Ron Paul, a Libertarian hero and three-time presidential hopeful. With the 2028 election just around the corner, the senator said he isn’t ruling out another run of his own.

“We’re thinking about it, and I would say 50/50,” he said, adding that he intends to decide after the midterms. “But I’m not going to do it just to do it. It would be, one, because we need to have a free market wing. We need to have a free trade wing in the party. And we need to have a wing of the party who’s not eager for war and tries to at least explore diplomacy as an option to war.”