2026年2月15日 / 美国东部时间上午9:05 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
以下是2026年2月15日在《面对国家》（与玛格丽特·布伦南主持）节目中播出的对北卡罗来纳州共和党参议员汤姆·蒂利斯的采访实录。
*
埃迪·奥基夫：我们现在与来自德国慕尼黑安全会议的汤姆·蒂利斯参议员连线。参议员，很高兴见到您。早上好。感谢您抽出宝贵时间接受我们的采访。本周发布的一份报告——
汤姆·蒂利斯参议员：谢谢。
埃迪·奥基夫：——慕尼黑安全会议的报告称，各国领导人正在“削减”现有规则和机构，并表示欧洲可以无条件依赖美国作为安全保障者的时代已经结束。您认为这一评估公平吗？美国不再是欧洲可靠的伙伴了吗？
参议员蒂利斯：嗯，您知道，在某些方面，我希望我们能进入一个我们对欧洲的依赖程度有所提升的时代。看，我对白宫出台的一些政策感到不满，但很多这种不满来自于北约盟友在共同防务方面的2万亿美元投资缺口。现在他们正在采取行动，但您必须给政府和总统一定的空间，让他们指出这2万亿美元的缺口在20年内对我们的战备状态、创新能力以及军事工业基础和制造能力造成了什么影响？您知道，我们本可以将这2万亿美元用于扩大潜在能力，更好地支持乌克兰并升级他们的武器系统。所以，让我们确保人们能够平衡地看待这个问题，并理解我们目前处境的部分原因是本世纪头20年存在的投资不足。现在，北约联盟是人类历史上最重要的联盟，国会作为其中的一院（立法分支）对此表示认同，并且有大量议员持此观点。因此，我们将致力于——我在慕尼黑这里主要是想提醒大家，我们有三个权力平等的政府分支。总统正在努力让北约盟友更积极地行动并拥有一定的独立性，但国会会支持他们。
埃迪·奥基夫：是的。所以当国防部长派遣国防部三号官员参加本周的北约国防会议，并告诉联盟其他成员国，美国对北约的支持将继续，但以“更有限和更有针对性的方式”，这是否是欧洲现在应该接收到的信息？政府应该这样做吗？
参议员蒂利斯：我不会用这样的措辞。我认为我们应该增强联盟的威慑能力。美国可能可以单独行动。但现实是，我们的联盟使我们成为世界超级大国，保障了世界的安全。历史上我们一直面临恶意行为体，现在依然如此。普京是个骗子和杀人犯，他应该被驱逐出乌克兰。如果弗拉基米尔·泽连斯基想要和平协议，我会接受，但我们必须确保我们的对手除非发生重大转变，否则都被视为我们必须共存但不姑息的对手。同时，欧洲需要加大投入，不要让这成为间歇性的行为，而是现在开始为共同防务和自身能力建设做贡献——顺便说一句，这不是让他们给美国写支票，而是增强他们的能力、互操作性以及在冲突发生时与北约盟友协同作战的能力。所以，这是一个情绪化的时期。我有一个信念，事情永远不会像看起来那么好，也不会像看起来那么糟。我认为来慕尼黑的人认为北约已经走到尽头，这有点危言耸听，我们只需要把事情做好，并从盟友过去的错误或未能达成目标的情况中吸取教训。但关于北约将在未来沦为二流联盟的言论，显然是那些不真正理解北约联盟的 brilliance（辉煌）和力量的人说的。
埃迪·奥基夫：关于北约，该联盟最近宣布了一项新的北极哨兵任务计划，以加强北极地区的安全。当然，这一决定是在总统最近几周敦促北约加强北极安全，并撤回了对格陵兰岛军事入侵的威胁之后做出的。这项新行动是否正是您希望看到联盟采取的行动？它是否也是对总统关于格陵兰岛担忧的回应？
参议员蒂利斯：嗯，我们在达沃斯谈过。对我来说，除了想办法更新1951年的协议外，去其他地方都是不负责任的。当时格陵兰岛和丹麦大致同意让我们不受限制地进入格陵兰岛以在北极地区投射力量。现在，随着气温有所下降，我们应该对丹麦和格陵兰岛表示一点尊重。看看格陵兰岛的哪些部分——我们需要升级我们的太空基地，这是目前美国在格陵兰岛北部唯一的军事存在。看看他们以1美元出售给我们的基地，并找到一种财政上合理且可持续的方式，通过与加拿大及其破冰船合作（这对我们在北极航行至关重要），在东部地区投射力量，并与丹麦以及我们的斯堪的纳维亚和北极盟友合作，真正实现我们需要的威慑力，以应对中国和俄罗斯。
埃迪·奥基夫：德国总理在会议开始时表示，我们所熟知的世界秩序已经结束。我知道您一开始就提到过这种夸张的说法。不过，您是否同意总理关于局势正在迅速变化的观点？
参议员蒂利斯：只有当总理允许这种情况发生时才会如此。看，如果——如果——如果北约国家几十年来一直投资不足，承认那是个错误并加倍努力，我认为这一切都会向好的方向发展，就像关于格陵兰岛的夸张言论现在几乎——简直不敢相信那是三周前的事。但它几乎已成为过去。我认为我们必须向前看，认识到美国人民、美国国会以及我相信政府都会支持这一点，但指出过去的不足并非错误。看，我参加过一些会议，人们讨论我们的一些社会项目，说我们应该如何与欧洲世界接轨，同时他们却削减了自己的国防预算。所以，让我们与盟友进行坦诚的对话，把事情理顺。
埃迪·奥基夫：让我们讨论其他几个问题。欧洲领导人本周表示，他们不排除采取报复性关税。在国内，众议院在大量共和党人加入民主党行列后，投票实质上否决了总统对加拿大的关税措施。如果这一问题在参议院再次出现，您会同意撤销对加拿大的关税吗？
参议员蒂利斯：嗯，我认为我们需要做的是将USMCA现代化协议纳入谈判，并在加强与加拿大和墨西哥关系的背景下解决这些问题。看，我们是一个非常重要的贸易集团，我们应该巩固我们的成功。我相信你们都知道，由于USMCA的存在，很多关税都有豁免。我认为我们应该坐下来解决这些问题。我已经公开表达了对许多关税政策的担忧。直到今天，我还是不明白为什么我们对巴西有50%的关税，而我们与巴西有贸易顺差。这些做法对我来说是不合理的。在其他情况下，我可以根据我们存在贸易逆差的国家的过去行为来解释，但我们需要有针对性，而不是使用蛮力——
埃迪·奥基夫：——当然——
参议员蒂利斯：——来谈判贸易关系，特别是与中国和墨西哥，或者，抱歉，与加拿大和墨西哥。
埃迪·奥基夫：你的政党是否应该更多地与总统在关税问题上划清界限，尤其是随着11月的临近，美国公众对这些举措并不一定认同？
参议员蒂利斯：我认为这不是一个划清界限的问题。这就是华盛顿的问题所在。我们现在陷入了一种模式，似乎有某种忠诚度或忠诚测试，因为我们要么表示同意，要么不同意。很多时候，问题不在于“什么”，而在于“如何做”。我认为，要求那些我们长期存在贸易逆差的国家承担责任是必要的，如果需要关税来引起他们的注意，那也可以。但“如何做”非常重要，应该采取精准的方式，而不是一刀切，更不能造成混乱和不确定性，因为这对商业和美国不利，因为美国在最好的情况下是确定性的代表。
埃迪·奥基夫：你本周重申，在司法部对杰罗姆·鲍威尔的调查解决之前，你将阻止任何新的美联储主席或董事会成员的确认听证会。但即使司法部对鲍威尔的调查仍在继续，对凯文·沃什（Kevin Warsh）的确认听证会会举行吗？
参议员蒂利斯：嗯，让我们区分一下确认听证会和确认投票程序。沃什先生必须决定他是否愿意继续推进。正如你肯定知道的，一旦候选人被提名，他在自己的业务生活中就有某些限制。但我已经非常明确地表示，在这个问题解决之前，我无意支持任何美联储董事会成员（包括主席或其他成员）的确认，例如填补库格勒（Kugler）的席位空缺。我认为，一位年轻的美国检察官本有一个梦想，试图引起总统的注意，甚至没有与政府和司法部高层协商，也许他们以为这样能获得赞赏。这并不明智。如果这只是关于鲍威尔主席三周前的两分钟言论，那么七位共和党成员表示没有发现任何犯罪意图或行为，检察官应该明白这一点。更重要的是，检察官应该了解，正常情况下，这种情况应该由委员会主席或成员提出，说明我们认为这里可能存在犯罪行为。而当有七位共和党成员表示没有发现犯罪行为时，这一点应该很容易理解。
埃迪·奥基夫：但是财政部长周五表示，有协议至少会举行凯文·沃什的确认听证会。他这样说是不是错了？
参议员蒂利斯：嗯，那不是一项协议。那是主席在其职权范围内单方面做出的决定。而我要决定的是是否允许举行标记会议（Markup，委员会内部审议），如果允许，我会如何投票。我要说的是，在问题解决之前，我的态度是“不”。
埃迪·奥基夫：明白了。当你说“解决”时，你指的是司法部和其他机构已经结束调查吗？
参议员蒂利斯：嗯，要知道，整个调查只涉及鲍威尔在两周前的两分钟评论。
埃迪·奥基夫：对。
参议员蒂利斯：即使对这个人来说，这也不难理解。
埃迪·奥基夫：你对政府在一系列问题上的表现相当批评，无论是关税、与欧洲的互动（如你之前提到的）、 homeland security（国土安全）问题等等，并且你说这有冒着在11月大选前损害共和党利益的风险。所以我很好奇，如果选举今天举行，共和党是否能保住众议院和参议院？
参议员蒂利斯：我认为我们能保住参议院。我对众议院的情况持怀疑态度，部分原因是我认为在重新划分选区方面可能有些操之过急。此外，在总统选举后的中期选举中，存在历史挑战和诸多复杂因素。但我认为我们还有工作要做。而且，我几乎总是对做事的方式提出批评。我认为总统身边有一些顾问。你也听过我谈论斯蒂芬·米勒（Stephen Miller），我对克里斯蒂·诺姆（Kristi Noem）的看法。这些人不考虑长远，不关心总统的政治遗产，而我会。如果我必须直言不讳，那就是我在参议院剩余的时间里会这么做。
埃迪·奥基夫：好吧，我们感谢你今天上午在慕尼黑安全会议上的坦诚交流。蒂利斯参议员，感谢你的时间。
参议员蒂利斯：谢谢。
埃迪·奥基夫：我们稍后回来。
Transcript: Sen. Thom Tillis on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” Feb. 15, 2026
February 15, 2026 / 9:05 AM EST / CBS News
The following is the transcript of the interview with Sen. Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on Feb. 15, 2026.
*
ED O’KEEFE: We’re joined now by Sen.Thom Tillis from the Munich Security Conference in Germany. Senator, good to see you. Good morning. Thank you for taking a few minutes to be with us. A report that was published this week–
SENATOR THOM TILLIS: Thank you
ED O’KEEFE: –by the Munich Security Conference describes leaders who are taking an ax to existing rules and institutions, and says the era in which Europe could rely on the U.S. as an unquestioned security guarantor is over. You think that’s a fair assessment. Is the U.S. no longer a reliable partner to Europe?
SEN. TILLIS: Well, you know, in some ways, I hope that we’re going to enter an era where our reliance on Europe is improved. Look, I’ve got a challenge with some of the things coming out of the White House, but a lot of that frustration comes from a $2 trillion shortfall in investing in our mutual defense by far too many NATO Allies. Now, they’re- they’re making right now, but you have to give the administration and the president some latitude to point to the fact that a $2 trillion dollar shortfall over two decades- what has that done to our readiness? What has that done to our innovation? What’s that done to our military industrial base and manufacturing capacity? You know, we could be scaling up latent capabilities that would have been serving that $2 trillion to better serve Ukraine and better modernize their own weapons. So let’s make sure that people look at this with balance and understand that a part of the reason why we are where we are is because we had that deficit in the 20 years, in the first 20 years of this century. Now, the NATO alliance is the most important alliance in the history of mankind, and the- and the Article I branch, Congress, believes that, and they believe it in large numbers. So we’re going to commit- I’m here in Munich to basically remind everybody that we have three coequal branches of government. The president is trying to get our NATO allies to perform more strongly and have some level of independence, but the Congress has their back.
ED O’KEEFE: Yeah. So when the defense secretary sends the Pentagon’s number three to a NATO defense meeting this week and tells the rest of the alliance, the U.S.’s support for NATO will continue, but quote ‘in a more limited and focused fashion,’ is that the message that Europe should be receiving right now? Is that the way the administration should approach it?
SEN. TILLIS: I would not have used those words. I think what we want to do is be stronger and represent the deterrent capabilities of our alliance. The United States could possibly go it alone. But the reality is, our alliance is what makes us the world’s superpower, what keeps this world safer. We’re going to have malign actors for the- for- we’ve had them throughout history. We will continue to. Putin is a liar and a murderer. He should be expelled from Ukraine. I’ll accept a peace agreement if Volodymyr Zelenskyy wants one, but we need to make sure that our adversaries, unless they change profoundly, are viewed as adversaries that we have to coexist with but not appease. At the same time, Europe needs to step up, not let this be episodic, that they’re now starting to contribute to their mutual defense, their own capabilities, incidentally. It’s not like they’re writing a check and send it to the U.S. This is building up their capabilities, their interoperability, their ability to work with NATO allies if a conflict occurs. So, you know, it’s an emotional time. I’ve got a philosophy that nothing is ever as good as- bad as it seems. I think people coming to Munich, thinking that this is the end of NATO, are being a bit alarmist and that we just need to get things right and learn from the past mistakes of our allies, or- or learn from the past mistakes of people who have come up short. But the rhetoric about NATO somehow being a second tier sort of alliance going forward is- is clearly being spoken by somebody who doesn’t really understand the brilliance and the power of the NATO alliance.
ED O’KEEFE: On NATO, one of the things the alliance announced in recent days is this plan for a new Arctic Sentry mission to strengthen security across the Arctic region. The decision, of course, comes in the wake of the president in the last few weeks urging NATO to do more for Arctic security, dropping his threats of military invasion of Greenland. Is this new operation exactly what you’re talking about, what you want to see the alliance doing? And is it also the answer to the president’s concerns about Greenland?
SEN. TILLIS: Well, you know, we talked in Davos. The reality is, to me, it was irresponsible to go anywhere other than figuring out how we modernize the 1951 agreement, where Greenland and Denmark agreed to more or less give us unfettered access in Greenland to project power in the Arctic. So now let’s that- now that the temperatures have cooled, show a little bit of respect to Denmark and to Greenland. Figure out what part of Greenland- we need to up fit our space base, the only- the only instance of military- or U.S. presence in Greenland now to the north. Take a look at a base that they offered to us for a dollar and come up with a fiscally sound, sustainable way to project power in the east by working with Canada and their icebreakers, which are necessary for us to navigate there, working with Denmark and our Scandinavian and- and Arctic allies to really project the kind of power we need to defer- deter China and Russia.
ED O’KEEFE: The German chancellor, at the start of this conference, suggested that the world order as we know it is over. I know you were talking about hyperbole there at the start of this. Do- would you agree, though, with the chancellor that things are changing that rapidly?
SEN. TILLIS: Only if the chancellor allows it to. Look, if- if- if the NATO countries, who came up short for decades, would just admit that that was a mistake and then double their- redouble their efforts, I think that this goes just like the hyperbolic language around Greenland is now almost- it’s unbelievable that was only three weeks ago. But it’s almost in the distant past. I think we have to look ahead and recognize that the American people, the American Congress, and I believe, the administration is behind it, but they’re not wrong to point out the deficiencies of the past. Look, I’ve been in meetings where people talk about some of our social programs, and how we should really step up with the European world, and then at the same time, they’re funding some of those programs at the expense of their own defense. So let’s just have an honest discussion with family members and get the family right.
ED O’KEEFE: Let’s work through a few other issues here. European leaders this week also suggested that they’re not taking retaliatory tariffs off the table. Back here at home, the House voted to essentially reject the president’s tariffs on Canada, after a bunch of Republicans joined with Democrats to make that happen in the House. If that ever comes up in the Senate, are you someone who would agree with that, that the tariffs against Canada should be stripped away?
SEN. TILLIS: Well, I’ve- I’ve looked at- what I think we need to do is get the USMCA modernization the agreement on the table and address that in the context of strengthening our relationship with Canada and Mexico. Look, we’re a very important trading bloc, and we should build on our successes. As I’m sure you know, a lot of the tariffs, there’s a lot of exemptions because of the existence of USMCA. I think we ought to get in a room and sort them out. I’ve had- I’ve expressed publicly concerns with a lot of the tariffs that were imposed. I still, to this day, can’t figure out why we have a 50% tariff on Brazil when we have a trade surplus with Brazil. Those sorts of things are irrational to me. In other cases, I can justify it based on past behaviors of countries that we have a deficit with, but we need to be surgical and not use a blunt force object–
ED O’KEEFE: –Sure–
SEN TILLIS: –to negotiate trade relationships, particularly with China and Mexico, or, I’m sorry, with Canada and Mexico.
ED O’KEEFE: Should your party be distancing itself more from the president though on tariffs, especially the closer it gets to November, when the American public is not necessarily a fan of these moves?
SEN. TILLIS: See, I don’t think it’s a matter of distancing ourselves. That’s what’s wrong with Washington. We’ve gotten into this mode now to where we have some sort of a loyalty or fealty test, because we either disagree. Oftentimes, it’s not even the what, it’s the how. I do think the what of holding countries that have- we have had chronic trade deficits with accountable is necessary, and if tariffs are required to get their attention, fine. But the how is a very surgical approach, not a blanket approach, not one that actually creates froth and uncertainty because that’s not good for business and the U.S., if anything else, is really good when we’re at our best on certainty.
ED O’KEEFE: You reiterated this week, you’re going to block any confirmation hearings for a new Federal Reserve chairman or board member until the Justice Department’s investigation into Jerome Powell is, as you put it, resolved. But will there be confirmation hearings for Kevin Warsh, even if this DOG investigation- DOJ investigation into Powell is continuing?
SEN. TILLIS: Well, let’s make the distinction between a- a confirmation hearing and then a confirmation markup. Mr. Walsh [sic] is going to have to decide whether or not he wants to go through with this, because, as I’m sure you know, once the nominee is put forward, there are certain restrictions on what he can do in his- in his business life. But I’ve tried to make it very clear that I have no intention of supporting any confirmation of any Fed board member, chair or otherwise, to fill the Kugler seat, for example, until this is resolved. I think we had a young U.S. attorney with a dream trying to get the president’s attention, not even consulting with the administration and big DOJ on something that maybe they thought they’d get brownie points for. It’s not cute. And if this is only about two minutes of- of discussion that came before Chair Powell, that prosecutor should listen to the seven members, Republican members, who said they didn’t see any criminal intent or activity. And- and more importantly, the prosecutor should understand that the protocol normally would be a referral from the chair or a member of the committee to say, we think a crime was committed here. We’ve got a crime scene where seven Republican members say no crime was committed. How hard is that to understand?
ED O’KEEFE: But when the treasury secretary said Friday, there’s a deal to at least hold confirmation hearings for Kevin Warsh to serve as the next chairman of the Federal Reserve. Is he misguided on that?
SEN. TILLIS: Well, that’s not a deal. That’s a decision that the- that the chair makes unilaterally in his capacity as chair. The decision I get to make is whether or not I allow a markup, and if I do allow a markup, how I vote. And I’m saying that until the matter is solved, I’m a no.
ED O’KEEFE: Understood, and when you say resolved, when you want this investigation resolved, does that mean everything dropped by the Justice Department and other entities?
SEN. TILLIS: Well, keep in mind, everything is an investigation about two minutes of commentary.
ED O’KEEFE: Right.
SEN. TILLIS: Even for this guy, that’s not hard to figure out.
ED O’KEEFE: You have been quite critical of the administration on a suite of issues, whether it’s tariffs, how it’s engaging Europe, as you mentioned earlier, concerns about homeland security and whatnot, and you’ve said that it runs the risk of hurting your party going into November. So I’m curious, if the elections were held today, would Republicans hold on to the House and the Senate?
SEN. TILLIS: I think that we hold on to the Senate. I have questions about the House, and some of that comes from what I believe may have been a little bit of overreach with respect to- to redistricting. Plus, you have the historic challenge of a midterm election after a presidential election, a lot of complexities in it. But I- you know, we’ve got work to do. And again, my beef almost always relates to what I consider to be how things are being done. And I think the president has some advisers around him. You’ve heard me talk about Stephen Miller, you know my opinion about Kristi Noem. These are people that don’t look around corners and are not taking care of this president’s legacy, and I intend to. And if I have to speak bluntly, that’s what I’m going to do in my remaining time in the Senate.
ED O’KEEFE: Well, we appreciate you speaking bluntly with us this morning from the Munich Security Conference. Senator Tillis, thank you for your time.
SEN. TILLIS: Thank you.
ED O’KEEFE: And we’ll be right back.
购买此文章