July 11, 2025 • 55 mins
Former Vice President Mike Pence sits down with Margaret Hoover to discuss the first six months of Donald Trump’s second term and his advocacy for adhering to the conservative principles that he feels led to success in the first Trump administration.
Pence assesses President Trump’s apparent shift toward a more aggressive posture against Vladimir Putin and makes the case for continued U.S. aid to Ukraine. He also praises Trump’s support for Israel and suggests the debate over striking Iran’s nuclear facilities dampened the influence of GOP isolationists on the president.
But Pence raises concerns about Trump’s tariffs–which he says the president has no authority to impose–and his refusal to enforce the ban on TikTok that was passed by Congress. He defends Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill for extending the Trump-Pence tax cuts and reforming Medicaid, but he calls for more leadership from Republicans on reducing deficits going forward.
Pence also explains why he sent a letter to a January 6th rioter who refused a pardon from President Trump, and he offers his take on whether Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, whether Afghans who aided the U.S. should face deportation, and whether the Trump family should be profiting off the presidency.
Support for Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is provided by Robert Granieri, The Tepper Foundation, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, and Pritzker Military Foundation.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
There are loud voices in and around this administration that
would have America pull back from the world stage, that would
embrace big government policies that would marginalized the
right to life. But I'm going to continue to be
a voice for that broad, mainstream conservative agenda.
That's Donald Trump's first vicepresident Mike Pence explaining
(00:21):
how he views his role on the outside of the second Trump
administration. I'm Margaret Hoover.
This is the Firing Line podcast.Joseph R Biden, Junior of the
state of Delaware has received 306 vote.
(00:42):
Donald J Trump of the state of Florida has received 232 votes.
Mike Pence's actions on January 6th made him a villain to MAGA,
but a hero to many others. Vice President Pence put his
life and career and that of his family on the line to execute
his constitutional responsibilities.
Although Pence declined to endorse Donald Trump in 2024, he
(01:03):
still defends much of the president's agenda.
For me, there was no more important economic priority for
the administration then ensuringthat the Trump Pence tax cuts
were made permanent. But Pence has also criticized
his former running mate for imposing steep tariffs allies
for refusing to enforce a ban onTikTok and for wavering in his
support of Ukraine. I'm very concerned that the
(01:24):
current administration is not acting in a manner consistent
with the law that forced the sale or banned TikTok.
And he has doubts about his own party's willingness to confront
the national debt. Where's the evidence that
there's leadership to do this? Well, there's, there's not a lot
of evidence right now. Vice President Mike Pence,
(01:45):
welcome back to FIRING LINE. Good to be back Margaret.
Thanks for having me on. I've been told by some of your
colleagues from the first Trump administration who have not
participated in the second Trumpadministration, as you haven't,
that your advice to them is, quote, stand firm and stand
(02:06):
aside. What does that mean to you?
Well, well, this the stand firm part means let's let's just
continue to stand up. Whatever the wherever the
political winds are blowing in the Republican Party.
We I think it's important, particularly those of us that
that served in the Trump Pence administration to make the case
(02:28):
for a record that I'll always beproud of.
You know, as we've talked before, Margaret, it didn't end
the way I wanted it to. And the president and I still
have some profound differences on those issues, but the record
itself. Or just January 6th or other
issues? The difference is over my duties
under the Constitution of the United States on that fateful
(02:48):
day. But the balance of that record,
where we rebuilt the military, revive the economy, we cut
taxes, rollback regulations, we we stood without apology with
with Israel and with our allies around the world.
We stood for the right to life. All of those policies, I think
they I think they set a stage for the extraordinary success of
(03:13):
the Trump Pence years. And, and in fairness, I, I'm
encouraged in recent days to seePresident Trump at home and
abroad hewing back to those principles, even while the winds
of populism are blowing pretty vigorously in the Republican
Party. I mean, with that, that's the
issue that I see today, that that that while I think the
(03:37):
majority of Republican voters still hew to that conservative
agenda, there are there are loudvoices in and around this
administration that would have America pull back from the world
stage that would embrace big government policies that would
marginalized the right to life. But I'm going to continue to be
a voice and encourage former colleagues to be a voice for
(03:59):
that broad, mainstream conservative agenda.
President Trump's posture seems to have changed with respect to
Vladimir Putin. In a cabinet meeting this week,
President Trump said this of Vladimir Putin.
We get a lot of votes thrown at us by Putin for you want to know
the truth. He's very nice all the time, but
it turns out to be meaningless. So over the last six months, you
(04:22):
have been urging the president and the administration to renew
and increase military support toUkraine.
This week, as Putin has escalated attacks on Kiev,
President Trump and Republicans seem to be warming to the idea
of doing just what you have advised, to imposing new
sanctions on Russia and to potentially increasing, not just
(04:45):
restarting the weapon shipments,but increasing support to
Ukraine, including considering potentially an additional
Patriot missile defense system. You have said that you are
somebody who knows President Trump more than his most ardent
defenders. How significant is this shift
(05:05):
vis A vis Putin and will it stick?
Well, I'm very encouraged by thepresident's recent statements.
Look, I, I think it's important to remember that our
administration was the it's the only administration in the 21st
century that Vladimir Putin didn't attempt to redraw
international lines by force. He rolled tanks into Georgia
under the Bush administration. He rolled tanks into Crimea
(05:29):
under the Obama administration. And of course, he crossed into
Ukraine during the Biden years after that disastrous withdrawal
from Afghanistan. And I think it was.
It was a function of the fact that that we provided lethal
support for Ukraine. We also stood with our allies,
stood up to our enemies in the region.
(05:50):
We fired cruise missiles into Syria, we unleashed our military
to take out the ISIS caliphate and even took out Qasem
Soleimani, the head of the Iran Revolutionary Guard.
I think all that sent a message of strength that that held Putin
at Bay. And my judgement is that the
only way to adjust and lasting peace in Ukraine is if the
(06:14):
United States sends an unambiguous message to Putin
that we will continue to providemilitary support until peace is
secured. And I'm encouraged then that
despite the stops and starts from the first of the year,
including that meeting in the Oval Office with President
Zelensky. And it appears to me that the
(06:37):
president is now moving toward not only continuing to provide
military support that he restarted after the Pentagon
pause of the last two weeks, butalso it's my hope also the
president will, will let the Senate know that he wants that
new sanctions bill on his desk and when the Senate reconvenes
(06:59):
next week. Now to your question, what's
changed? I I I honestly think that some
of the isolationist voices around this administration and
within the administration lost ground when they came out
against the use of US air power to take out the Iranian nuclear
(07:21):
weapons program. How did those voices around
President Trump lose stature in this most recent chapter with
Iran? Well, look, I, I, I think it's
because they, they literally came out and made it clear that
they'd be willing to compromise the long term security of the
state of Israel to embrace theirisolationist views.
(07:45):
You know, it seemed to me it wasone thing with a lot of
challenges at home, Americans have had different views about
our support for Ukraine. And I think, I think President
Biden did a terrible job explaining why it was important
for us to support Ukraine. My, my reason has always been
that I have no doubt that if Vladimir Putin is able to
overrun Ukraine, it's only a matter of time before he crosses
(08:08):
a border where our men and womenin uniform are going to have to
go and fight him. And so for me, it was always
about an updated version of the Reagan Doctrine, which was if
you're willing to fight the communists on your soil with
your troops, we'll give you the means to fight them there so we
don't have to fight them. And so, but there was a lot of
debate within the party still isto some extent about support for
(08:30):
Ukraine, but the American peoples, particularly
Republicans, stand with Israel. And when you saw the likes of
Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon actually talking about opposing
efforts to destroy or dismantle the Iran nuclear program, when
(08:53):
you actually had one commentatortalk about dumping Israel and
the threat of World War Three. My sense is knowing the
president as well as I do that that that was very eliminating
for him. Because look, I want to say this
very emphatically, the PresidentTrump I served with is not an
(09:18):
isolationist. His bias is for leadership.
He understands America's the leader of the free world.
He was a demanding leader of thefree world.
Call on our allies to do more for a common defense.
But this notion that that America has to choose between
solving our problems at home andleading the free world, I think
(09:41):
would, would, would go against his, his view of American
strength. Let me ask you about where we
are with Iran now. You supported, of course,
President Trump acting decisively with American air
strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities.
It is being reported now the administration officials are
actually considering easing sanctions against Iran, freeing
(10:06):
up Iranian assets and arranging for new investments in civilian
nuclear programs. If Iran gives up enriching,
enriching uranium now, you wrotein National Review this week
that, quote, we must demand an irreversible end to all uranium
enrichment, weapons grade or otherwise.
So how would you advise the president to proceed in this
(10:26):
moment? Well, I think the president's
got to make it clear that there will be no nuclear program of
any kind, no enrichment of any kind.
I mean, the the reality is the mullahs in Tehran have, have
been the principal source of, ofterrorism in the world for
(10:47):
nearly 50 years. And, and now that we have struck
their facilities. And I trust that with the
president's decisive leadership and the extraordinary
professionalism of our airmen, we greatly degraded their
capacity. But now the United States and
our allies need to make it clearto Iran that they are going to
(11:10):
have to forfeit entirely and publicly any ambition for any
type of a nuclear program, or the United States will have to
avail ourselves of of options inthe future.
What kind of options? Well, I, I, I think as, as the
president demonstrated, when, when it, when we said that Iran
(11:33):
would never be allowed to obtaina nuclear weapon, we meant it.
I think they believe us now. I think they believe us now, and
that's the great advantage. I I honestly think that to to
the President's credit, the greatest accomplishment of that
B2 strike in Iran was the restoration of American
(11:56):
deterrence. And not only, not only Iran, but
I would expect to some extent Putin and President Xi in the
Asia Pacific understand that theUnited States military and our
commander in chief have both thewill and the capacity to defend
our interests in the world and to take action when necessary.
(12:18):
If I could go back to one small piece about Ukraine, I want to
ask you about the 20,000 Ukrainian children who have been
deported forcibly from Ukrainianterritory, from the occupied
territories. And I know that you're familiar
with this issue because you visited when you've been in
(12:39):
Ukraine, with organizations who are advocating on behalf of
these children. In April, more than 30 Christian
organizations sent a letter to the president and to Secretary
Rubio demanding that Ukraine's abducted children return home as
a precondition to any peace negotiations with Russia.
Do you agree? I strongly agree.
(13:00):
In 2023, when I visited Kiev, I went to the relief agency.
I met with families whose children had literally been
absconded by Russian soldiers, vanished into Russia.
And I think that's where when wetalk about peace, we need to
talk about a a just and lasting peace.
(13:22):
And part of the way it is a justpeace is by restoring those
children to their families. And the United States and our
allies should take no other view.
This week, the president has sent letters to at least 20
countries threatening them with tariffs and new tariff rates as
high as 50%, at least in the case of Brazil.
(13:45):
In the case of Brazil, he threatened a 50% tariff with the
lieu. Government doesn't stop
prosecuting former President Bolsonaro, but we'll put that
aside. The The courts are reviewing
whether President Trump and the administration even have the
legal authority to impose these tariffs.
And your organization, AdvancingAmerican Freedom, has filed an
(14:09):
amicus brief just this week arguing that under the
Constitution, no administration has the authority to impose
tariffs in the way they are being imposed.
Are these tariffs legal? Well, I think that's question
for the Supreme Court of the United States, But in my
judgement, it's important to go back to first principles.
(14:33):
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the Congress
the authority to levy taxes and what they called excises or
tariffs. And we go back to our grade
school history classes and we remember that taxation without
representation had something to do with the American Revolution
that we just celebrated. I hope they're still teaching
(14:55):
that. It's in those taxes, Margaret,
were tariffs that were imposed unilaterally by the king of
England on the colonies and theyso they threw the tea into
Boston Harbor and said we're done.
And when they fashioned that government, which took a while
to do that summer of 1787 was got the constitution written.
(15:20):
They put in the Constitution that the Congress, the
legislature, the elected body ofthe American people would be the
source of taxes or tariffs. And I, I think that's an
important principle to reclaim. I, I think the time has come for
Congress to take back some of the authority that they have in
(15:40):
fact divested to the executive branch over the last 100 years.
And the reality is that if the president from whether it's
Liberation Day or whether it's August 1st, the president's
actually proposing what would bethe largest peacetime tax hike
in American history. I mean that these tariffs being
(16:01):
imposed on friend and foe alike will ultimately be passed along
to American businesses and to American consumers.
And so we we've continued to oppose that.
My view always is free trade with free nations that we ought
to be. What we did during the Trump
Pence years was we used we used tough tariffs on China along
(16:25):
with our allies to try and end decades of of trade abuses,
intellectual property theft. But whether it be with South
Korea, we renegotiate a trade deal, the US, MCA with Canada
and Mexico, or how we had begun trade negotiations when I was
vice president with Japan, with the UK, even the EU, that was
(16:46):
always about lowering barriers to expand trade.
Understanding the trade means jobs.
So a 50% tariff on Brazil, a nation in which we have a trade
surplus, in order to persuade ofthe government to drop a
prosecution of an internal political matter, is that an
appropriate use of of tariff policy by the President?
(17:09):
Well, I just think the having the president have unilateral
authority to impose tariffs for any reason is inconsistent with
the founders intent. And it's also, you know, the
president is using a statue called IEPA, which the Supreme
Court is reviewing. Declare an emergency and then
(17:31):
you can impose tariffs on countries around the world.
That's not what we did in the Trump Pence years.
We use section three O 1 to impose tariffs on countries.
The the the requirement of that is that you have to demonstrate
the actual need for it, whereas the the new Trump administration
(17:52):
is is using a different theory. Why has it been so difficult for
Republicans in Congress to step in and reclaim their
constitutional authority? Well, I, I, I understand the
president's popularity. I also understand his popularity
within the Republican Party. But look.
(18:13):
Is that unprecedented? I I don't think it's entirely
unprecedented. I think a careful study of
American history shows there have been presidents that have
held great sway over their congresses.
If I may, Mr. Vice President, I recall a time when you
represented A Congressional District in Indiana and kept
(18:34):
you're President of the United States up until 3:00 in the
morning because you refused to vote for a Medicaid Part D bill
because it was going to expand the debt.
And here you are. You went on to have a robust
career in the Congress and went on to become Vice President of
the United States. If a person were to do that
today, they would have a future not unlike John Bacon's or Tom
(18:57):
Tillis. Is there something different
about the Republicans ability tohave an independent view from
the president, this president? Well, I I think but, but I heard
the same things 15 years ago when I was taking that stand and
(19:18):
other stands against the president.
But. I, I always held the view that I
had been elected to represent the people of Indiana and not to
represent the president's views on any particular issue.
And so I, and I would also say, I would say to my friends in
Congress, it's, you know, as, asyou said, I, I like to say I
(19:42):
know President Trump better thanhis most ardent defenders.
I've I've never seen him really begrudge people taking a
principled stand on an issue as long as it's not.
Personal. If he doesn't interpret it as a
personal, he doesn't interpret. It as a personal affront or
someone playing politics. I've seen him be very respectful
(20:03):
where people where people differand yet Senator.
Tillis will not be running againbecause they had a principled
policy difference that became personal.
So I don't know if there's any way to untangle the two as an
observer of the president. But you know him better than I
do. Well, I just.
I honestly think that there's plenty of room for Congress to
bring their expertise into the conversation.
(20:26):
And, and I I also believe that Senator Roger Wicker, who chairs
the Armed Services Committee today, has been willing to speak
out and call out the president'sbudget on on defense spending.
And that's exactly the kind of input that I think is a value to
the American people and I think ultimately a value to the
(20:48):
success of the president and hisadministration.
You celebrated the passage of President Trump's One Big
Beautiful Bill Act as a huge win.
Now I know from your perspectivethat was an extension of the Tax
Cuts and JOBS Act and having notpassed, it would have amounted
to a massive tax increase on on millions of Americans.
(21:10):
Polls have found that Americans are skeptical of the legislation
at Fox News polls says more thanless than half of Republicans
expect that it will help their families.
And there is this question of its impact on the debt.
Freedom Caucus member Representative Massey says that
(21:31):
the big beautiful bill is a debtbomb ticking.
Yuval Levin, conservative from American Enterprise Institute,
referred and characterized the bill as almost unthinkably
irresponsible. These are people who really care
about the fiscal health of the country and of course would want
the tax cuts, but regret that itas a full big beautiful bill,
(21:52):
actually ended up having not so beautiful elements that are not
consistent with perhaps conservative fiscal
responsibility. How do you square the 2?
For me, there was no more important economic priority for
the administration then ensuringthat the Trump Pence tax cuts
(22:13):
were made permanent. Regardless of what else had to
go into it. I, I, I just think making sure
that the working families did not face a $2000 tax increase on
January 1st, 2026 was an enormously important
accomplishment. I also, I I really commend the
(22:36):
Congress. At the tail end of our
administration, we were introducing work requirements
into Medicaid for able bodied adults without dependent
children. And, and I think that was
historic. I think defunding Planned
Parenthood, which I, I actually filed the first bill to defund
Planned Parenthood 20 years ago,Margaret, and literally to, to
(22:58):
see a president sign into law, the first measure that ever
denied public funding to the largest abortion provider in
America was deeply meaningful tome.
And so I, I thought on balance, it was a very important bill and
a very important success. I, I, I would have rather they
didn't give away the debt ceiling increase in that bill.
(23:21):
Had I been in the Congress, had I been in the White House, I
probably would have said, hold on to that.
We generally have used debt ceiling negotiations to fight
for spending reductions as an opportunity.
For meaningful spending reductions, but at the end.
Of the day. I thought it was a great
accomplishment. Now you talk about the polling
around this one big beautiful bill, I said.
(23:44):
I've said they're they're not. There wasn't a touchdown.
They're at the 50 yard line. In what way?
They delivered a great. Victory for the American people
in staving off a tax increase, in increasing our defense
spending, in reforming Medicaid and the other measures in the
bill. But the next 50 yards is selling
(24:05):
the bill. You'll remember back in my time
in Congress, I was the 3rd ranking Republican.
I was the conference chairman, which is the person that
organizes the messaging. And you know, my encouragement
to my successor as conference chairman there would simply be
to encourage her and every member of Congress go tell the
(24:26):
story in this bill and and make the case to the American people
about about what a great victoryit was for them, the
predominant. Narrative about the bill right
now is about the reforms and thecuts to Medicaid.
And even Republican Senator Tillis from North Carolina has
said that this could be President Trump's Obamacare, not
(24:48):
in the sense that he would be expanding healthcare, but it
would be his political Achilles heel for the second term.
Now, I know you disagree with that, but you know, if, if, if a
leading Republican who's not going to win re election in
North Carolina chooses not to run again because he believes
this is such a dire issue, Is itis it more than messaging or are
(25:11):
there material cuts to Medicaid that that will really hurt?
Well. I, I, I think the reforms to
Medicaid were historic and important for two reasons.
Number one is I think, I think the American people, once they
understand that what the Republicans did was essentially
say we're, we're going to focus Medicaid's resources on on
(25:32):
vulnerable populations, people with with with disabilities with
who are struggling to raise children in, in poverty.
That that. And we're going to we're going
to make sure those funds don't go to illegal immigrants.
We're going to make sure they don't go to able bodied men who
ought to be out of the workplaceat least 20 hours a week.
(25:56):
So I think that's a case that can be made.
But the other piece that was encouraging to me is to the
point of all the conservative commentators you reflected on,
by essentially approving an increase in the debt ceiling in
this bill, we saw the national debt go up by $400 billion in 2
(26:19):
days. We're nearly at $37 trillion in
a national debt. And now with the trajectory for
that to continue to rise at dramatic levels.
And I think we've got to produceleadership in this country.
And I hope to be a voice from outside for that that levels
(26:39):
with the American people about the debt crisis that we're
facing and that we're piling on our children and grandchildren
and rolls your sleeves up. And not just Medicaid, but looks
at Medicare, Social Security andsays we we have to modernize and
reform these programs so that they're there for people in the
future and they're secure for Americans today.
(27:03):
In your book So Help Me God, youtell the story what you often
tell about how Ronald Reagan brought you into the
Conservative government and the Reagan revolution and when he
left office, Reagan appeared on the original Firing Line with
William F Buckley Junior in 1990to discuss his memoir, and they
discussed the debt that leaves us.
Facing the deficit, yes, in in the book you, you bemoan your
(27:28):
own inability to do something substantial about it.
And when you consider running, whether you will run for the
second term, you say, well, at least if I do, it'll give me,
among other things, a chance to tame the deficit.
So even after four years, you thought you could do something
about it, but you failed. Conservatives and Republicans
(27:50):
have been lamenting the debt for40 years now.
I mean, you say you believe the American people are ready for
leadership on this really difficult issue.
What is the evidence that Republicans are going to be able
to do that or that anybody has the appetite to do it?
(28:10):
If here we are like a broken record 40 years later, still
lamenting the increased debt, except for now it's $37
trillion, right? Well, First off is it's just a
perfect clip and I've it humblesme to think that I'm continuing
in that vein A tradition for oneof my heroes on this story
broadcast. But I, I, I would suggest you
(28:34):
and remind you that Ronald Reagan reformed Social Security.
He worked with the Democrats at the time with tip O'Neill, and
it really extended the life of Social Security by more than 20
years. It's going to take that kind of
leadership now with a nearly $37trillion national debt that goes
to the American people and said,look, and this is the way I've
(28:57):
put it. So my confidence comes from all
the travels I've done around thecountry over the last four years
because I, I stipulate too, thatour, our administration did not
do a good enough job controllingspending.
And I mean, I know you're talking.
Pre COVID I I would say. Pre COVID, the the trillions of
(29:17):
dollars that were spent in COVIDfor families, for businesses to
get the nation through that pandemic or, or what government
is for when an emergency strikes.
But frankly, before that, we could have done a better job and
working with Republican. Congresses.
I mean if. If if we're Democrats aren't
going to do it, and if we're the, we're the party that's
(29:40):
going to do it and we can't. Well, I, I, I think ultimately
it takes leadership and leadership that goes not to the
political class, but goes to theAmerican people with a very
simple message. I just saw an article the other
day, but you remember George W Bush attempted to reform Social
Security in 2005. I was one of a handful of
(30:01):
members of Congress that supported him introducing
personal savings accounts into Social Security.
I just read a fascinating piece that said that what those
accounts would be worth for Americans today if we'd have
actually done that. But the I think the the country
knows that we're on an unsustainable path that really
threatens the vitality of our nation.
(30:23):
It was two years ago, Margaret, for the first time, the United
States of America spent more money on interest, on the
national debt, than we did on our National Defense.
And throughout history, nations that have been overwhelmed by
debt and unable to provide for their own defense have not
(30:45):
prevailed. It is the.
Beginning of decline as as is stated by Ferguson's law.
Not Neil Ferguson, but I believeit an.
Economy. Yeah.
And so I think. Going to the American people
with those facts and saying, look, we need to take these New
Deal programs and make it a better deal.
And, and I, I can tell you when I was running for president in
2023 and Iowa and New Hampshire,I'd stand in front of town hall
(31:07):
meetings and I'd lay out the idea of saying, look, if, if, if
you are going to retire in the next 25 years, you can listen to
these things, but it won't have any effect on you whatsoever.
But if, but if you're under the age of 40, we want to give you a
better deal. We want to reform these
programs, allow you to invest a portion of of your payroll taxes
into a personal savings account.If you'll allow us to reform
(31:31):
these programs, then we'll we'llmake sure that anyone that's
going to retire in the next two decades is fine.
I have to tell you that I think there was Nikki Haley and I were
the only two candidates for president willing to talk about
entitlement reform and Chris Christie.
Did when he first ran, but everywhere.
We did. Everywhere I did, people would
(31:52):
stop me afterwards and say thankyou.
Yeah, Nope. I've never heard it put.
That way I'm prepared to supportthat.
Let me know how I can help as I just sent.
Enough Herbert Hoover, I think you're framing of transcending
the new deal for a better deal, better deal is is right on.
And and it seems that that's that's the kind of marketing
that Donald Trump could get behind, right?
He's a deal maker. He could cut deals, he could
make the new deal a better deal.And yet he has been very clear
(32:18):
that Doge and Elon Musk's efforts needed to keep their
hands off of these entitlement programs, which really are, as
you've pointed out, the continuing and perpetual driver
of our national debt. Again, where is the evidence
that there's leadership to do this?
Well, it's there's, there's not a lot of evidence right now.
(32:38):
I know the president during our four years had had little
interest in reforming entitlements.
Sometimes when the topic would come up in the Oval Office, he
would he would turn to me at thechair.
I always sat at his right hand. People would say, what are we
going to do about reform and entitlements?
(32:59):
And he'd say that's going to be Mike's problem, because you were
going. To be president someday.
Someday. Maybe that was the thought.
But look, I, I, I agree with you.
I don't, I don't know that therewould be anyone better
positioned or better able to speak to seniors in this
country, to speak to Americans for every background in this
(33:21):
country about what the threat ofour mounting national debt means
to our national security, means to our nation's prosperity than
Donald Trump. And I I hope he'll take it to
heart. And and I hope he'll take up
that cause before this term is out.
Yeah. I just remember that he he
called himself the king of debt and that he loves debt.
(33:42):
It's just that you can't file for bankruptcy if you're the
United States of America. So I don't know if his business
acumen and experience translate directly to our national
deficit. Let me move on.
Last month, President Trump delayed enforcement of a ban on
TikTok for the third time. He claims a deal to sell TikTok
(34:03):
to US investors is close. But this is a law that was
passed overwhelmingly by the Congress.
It was signed by the president. It has been upheld by the
Supreme Court. You have described the Trump
administration's actions in thisregard with regarding TikTok as,
quote, inconsistent with the statute.
(34:25):
Republicans in Congress have basically shrugged off the
president refusing to implement the law that they passed.
If the president isn't obeying the laws passed by the Congress
and upheld by the Supreme Court,what are we to do?
TikTok is a. National security threat to the
(34:47):
United States of America, and itneeds to either be sold to an
American company or banned outright.
It's important to remember that the algorithm that TikTok uses
in this country is prohibited inChina.
The Chinese Communist Party willnot allow this current addictive
(35:10):
portions of this TikTok program to be used in their own country.
We've called it digital. Fentanyl.
I've called it digital fentanyl.I believe it is.
And I, I think that we need to educate the American people
about the way that not only our security, but their privacy is
being compromised each and everyday through TikTok.
(35:32):
Now, that being said, I think it's important to note as well
that at the close of the Trump Pence administration, we issued
an executive order based on the unanimous recommendation of our
intelligence community to ban TikTok were to force a sale as a
candidate. President Trump changed his view
(35:54):
of that. He has delayed implementation
beyond this the the precise language of the statute, and I I
hold the view that the. The one difference?
In the oath the president takes from the oath that virtually all
the rest of us take, is that thepresident pledges to see that
(36:14):
the laws are faithfully execute.And I, I think, I think the
president and his team need to move and move swiftly to either
identify an American buyer and, and have China divest from
TikTok or implement the ban. And, and, and to do though do
that with, with great expeditionand haste.
(36:37):
Is he failing? To faithfully ensure that laws
are executed, I I'm. Very concerned that that the
current administration is not acting in a manner consistent
with the law that that forced the sale or banned TikTok.
So what? Are what are we to do?
Well, I, I, I, I, I think we've got to speak out and I think, I
(37:01):
think we've got to be, we've gotto, we've got to go to the
country and explain to the country just what the stakes
are. Look, China is the greatest
economic and strategic threat facing the United States of
America. I saw just in the last week a
worthy initiative to identify farmland that China has
(37:24):
purchased around strategic assets and air bases across this
country if it's a worthy effort.But if we're if we're concerned
about China owning land in the United States, we ought to be
doubly concerned about China owning information and
compromising the privacy of the.American people in.
(37:46):
TikTok, I mean. This is, in your view, one of
the most urgent national security threats before us.
And if the president is not faithfully executing the law
that has been passed by the Congress and upheld by the
Supreme Court, are we stuck? No, we're not stuck.
OK, so then. How I just I I fail to see how
this is going to be resolved. Well, I, I think calling on the
(38:09):
Congress, calling on the administration to implement the
law to act outlaw. Now, the president has said that
there would be an announcement in a matter of weeks.
I remain hopeful that will be the case.
But failing that, I think that the Congress should be prepared
to take action to redouble theirefforts.
(38:32):
Again, as you said, this was a broad bipartisan accomplishment,
a forged together by some of thebest minds on China in the
Congress of the United States. And for the interests of our
nation's security and the privacy of the American people,
we have to either ban or take TikTok out of the hands of the
(38:53):
Chinese Communist Party, the Senate.
Is nearing a deadline to vote onPresident Trump's request to
rescind $9 billion of funds thathave been already appropriated
to fiscal the next fiscal year. And this includes a billion
dollars of funding for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. When you were governor of
(39:15):
Indiana, you supported public broadcasting and you even
received a champion of public broadcasting award in 2014.
At the time, you said that funding public broadcasting was,
quote, an easy call and quote, public television plays a vital
role in educating all of the public, but most especially our
(39:36):
children. Your organization supported the
House's rescission bill, which is now has 8 more days to be
voted on by the Senate. Do you support cutting funding
to public broadcasting? First, let me congratulate
Firing Line for being completelyprivately supported, giving
(40:00):
evidence of the fact that the programs on this network can be
self-sustaining. And also say I'm very proud of
of the fact the state of Indianasupported public television in
our state because I saw it as part of an education mission.
That. What I learned as governor was
how many underprivileged families will use public
(40:26):
television children's programs to help give their children a
foundation for education and reading and learning.
We all, we all grew up loving Sesame Street and the like.
And so I thought it was an appropriate expenditure by the
state of Indiana for education. But I think it's a worthy debate
(40:47):
at a time when we have nearly $37 trillion in national debt to
ask whether or not American taxpayers should be broadly
supporting a public broadcastingnow.
But if, if states see it as we did in Indiana as a priority and
an and an element of education, I think education's a state and
local function. And I'm pleased the
(41:09):
administration's announced plansto, to literally shut down the
federal Department of Education.But I, I would support a, a very
worthy reconsideration, Margaret, we, we are, we are
literally on a, on a speed trainto A, to a debt crisis in this
country. And I think the American people
(41:30):
expect Congress to think throughevery expenditure and, and where
where broadcasts can be self-sustaining like firing Line
is privately supported, then I Ithink that'd be a good challenge
to offer of the. Less than $1 billion that would
go to Corporate Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
More than 70% go to affiliates that are in rural areas that
(41:54):
served not just an educational function for children and for
families, but also for emergencycommunications to rural areas.
Which is why many RedState senators like Senator Rounds and
Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski and Senator McConnell,
who have rural areas and recognize the emergency
broadcast capabilities of some of these, are looking at a an
(42:20):
amendment that would protect theCorporation for Public
Broadcasting but rescind National Public Radio because
they believe in some cases that NPR has more biased programming
than the Corporation for Public Broadcasting support for local
journalism in rural areas. Would you be willing to
(42:43):
entertain that argument that actually the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, it is such a drop in the bucket when you
look at the $37 trillion they were against and if it plays a
real function in terms of emergency communications for red
states, would you be willing to entertain that argument?
Yeah, well. Look, I I certainly would look
at it if I was still in the Congress or.
(43:06):
President of the Senate and casting a tie breaking vote.
Yeah. But I, I, but, you know, letting
the Congress work its will on this and recognizing that there
there can be no sacred cows. We, we have to be willing on in
the large ways we discussed before and in small ways to
(43:28):
restore fiscal sanity to Washington, DC.
And also to recognize that that these various initiatives also
can be supported by states, can also be supported by local
communities. And it's it's not always
necessary for the federal government to be the source of
(43:51):
resources. So you'd advise the?
You'd advise the Senate to go ahead and pass the rescission
package? Well, I I.
Would advise the Senate to take take steps necessary to pass a
rescission bill that becomes a down payment on fiscal
discipline. And I hope it's, I hope it's the
first of a series of rescission bills.
And I hope it begins to change the culture in Washington, DC
(44:15):
from a culture of spending to a court or a culture of fiscal
restraint. And we we simply have to put our
fiscal house in order. And my hope is that this risk
precision measure, the worthy efforts of of DOGE to identify
waste, fraud and abuse, or we'llstart the process of doing that.
(44:36):
I was encouraged at the Supreme Court just in the last week by
an 8 to one decision upheld the ability of the president of the
United States to reorganize the government and to hire and to
fire. That's that's what the American
people want to see. They're trimming their sales in
difficult times. They expect the federal
government do the same. It's just.
(44:57):
I take your point. On the other hand, it's hard to
see a Congress that just raised the debt ceiling, say, you know,
so that so that trillions more can be spent nitpick at, you
know, a billion dollar expenditure that has a real
impact on rural communities. You, you recently received the
John F Kennedy Foundation's Profile and Courage Award
because of your actions on January 6th.
And in early June, you wrote a letter to a woman named Pam
(45:20):
Hemfill, a January 6th rioter who was one of over 1000
individuals who participated in the riot on the Capitol on
January 6th, who was pardoned byPresident Trump on the first day
of office. She rejected President Trump's
pardon, saying that she did not want to, quote, be part of
(45:41):
Trump's narrative that the DOJ is weaponized.
You wrote. I am writing to express my
admiration for your decision to refuse a presidential pardon and
accept responsibility for your actions on January 6th.
January 6th was a tragic day, but I will always believe that I
did my duty on that day to see the peaceful transition of power
(46:02):
under the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Vice President, why was it important for you to write that
letter to Pam Hamphill? I I was deeply.
Moved by her integrity and her faith, where she accepted
responsibility for what she'd done.
(46:25):
And I thought it was important to send her a private letter in
the mail. I, I was moved that she made it
public and, and said that it hadtouched her heart.
And I hope it did. You know, as a Bible believing
Christian, I believe in grace, fresh starts, new beginnings.
(46:46):
But it begins with accepting responsibility for what you've
done. And to see someone who had
gained some notoriety in the wake of that tragic day in 2021,
I think they referred to her as the MAGA granny who was being
(47:06):
prosecuted. For her to be willing to stand
up as she has and, and take ridicule from others for
admitting that she'd done wrong that day was very moving to me.
And I think I think it's an example that would inspire lots
of Americans. Look, I I know there were a lot
(47:27):
of people caught up in that day who engaged in no vandalism and,
and no violence. And I had no problem with
President Trump pardoning hundreds and hundreds of people
that were, that were swept into the Capitol.
But I thought it was wrong to pardon individuals that
assaulted police officers that day.
(47:48):
And I said so many times and but, but she she said how much
my letter meant to her. I hope, I hope maybe she catches
a little glimpse of my countenance today to say I'm I'm
glad it was a blessing. And I know, I know that Pam has
(48:10):
inspired a lot of Americans by her integrity.
If we can quickly do a lightninground because I want to be
respectful of your time here in New York City.
The voters have elected a democratic socialist to be the
Democratic nominee to be mayor of New York.
What is your take on the fact that one of the largest cities
in America be governed by a democratic socialist?
(48:31):
I just. I would tell you, probably not
the first socialist to vie for mayor of New York, but probably
the. 1st To have a very good chance of becoming the mayor of
New York, yeah. Look, I, I, I think it speaks
volumes about where the Democratic Party is today in
this country. And I, I, I welcome voices in
(48:55):
the Democratic Party that are, that are speaking out against
the hard leftward turn of their party here in New York and
around the country. When?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White
House this week. He presented President Trump
with a nomination to receive theNobel Peace Prize.
Is Donald Trump worthy of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize?
(49:19):
I think there's no question the the president efforts to stand
with Israel, his willingness to confront Iran, his his ongoing
efforts to attempt to to bring the Russian invasion of Ukraine
to an end, a merit recognition by the Nobel.
(49:40):
Committee by the Nobel. Committee I look, I I was I
remember when Barack Obama got aNobel Prize for being elected
president and I think the fact that this president has largely
eliminated the Iran nuclear threat against Israel and the
wider world in and of itself deserves recognition by the
(50:04):
Nobel committee, the Trump. Administration has revoked
deportation protections for thousands of Afghan refugees who
served arm in arm with our members of the military and our
20 year engagement in that country, many as translators,
saving the lives of hundreds of Americans, maybe thousands of
servicemen. Is that a?
Mistake. I think any Afghan that stood
(50:27):
with American soldiers in Operation Enduring Freedom
deserves the loyalty and supportof the American people.
And not to be. Deported I.
I I was deeply disappointed to see the Trump administration
rescind the immigration status of of Afghan nationals that had
(50:49):
that aided our service members in the fight in Afghanistan.
I I hope they reconsider it. Since President Trump returned
office, his family launched a meme coin that has collected
more than $300 million in fees and signed new real estate deals
in Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, some of which could be
(51:09):
profitable personally for the president.
Now, you are very critical in the Biden administration of the
Biden's profiting off of the presidency.
Is it appropriate for any president, or anyone who holds
the office of the presidency to profit off of the trust that has
been placed in them by the American people?
(51:32):
Well, your great grandfather wasan enormously successful
business leader who became president.
And throughout our history, we certainly want to encourage
accomplished men and women to bewilling to step forward in a
national leadership. But there's also until recent
days been and guardrails around that.
(51:55):
Like, there's still profound questions about whether the
Biden family crossed those lines, whether or not the
president, the so-called big guyin the memos, actually received
direct funding as part of the deals that were being cut.
Is it appropriate? For any president to profit
personally from the office of the presidency well.
(52:18):
Not from the office of the presidency, but my, my hope is
knowing the Trump family as I do, that they are carefully
avoiding any impropriety. But I also would say that it's
not just about impropriety, it'sabout the appearance of
impropriety. And I think that that it's, it's
(52:44):
important to the American peoplethat they have confidence that
the president is focused on the presidency.
It's focused on their well-being.
And I, I would hope in, in the days going forward that they'll
continue to convey that message.Final question, in honor of the
4th of July, you wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times saying
(53:07):
quote, let us never forget that the ultimate source of American
greatness is not government, notpoliticians, not wealth or power
or fame, but faith. faith in God, faith in each other, faith
in the promise that is America. Mr. Vice President, there is
some evidence that for many Americans, faith in each other
(53:30):
and faith in the promise of America is dwindling.
There's plenty of statistics from Maris, from Gallup, from
Pew. How do you reconcile your
optimism with that data? Well.
My optimism does come from faith.
Margaret comes from my faith in God.
(53:53):
I put my trust in Jesus Christ when I was an 18 year old a long
time ago and still is the most important thing in my life, but
it also comes from faith in the American people.
When I was in the Congress of the United States, traveled the
nation in various capacities. When I was governor of Indiana,
(54:16):
when I was vice president, I gotto see the American people,
especially during difficult times.
You know what I what I learned is that when the wind blows and
beats against the House, when the floodwaters rise, wildfires
(54:36):
rage. The American people, whatever
their politics, drop whatever they're doing, load up their
cars with coolers full of water and food tools and they drive to
where they can help. I, I know that's happening in
(54:58):
Texas as we speak today. I know what's happening in New
Mexico and I've seen that so many different times.
It's convinced me of the goodness and really the
greatness of the American people.
And so with, with faith in the in the character of this nation
and faith in the one that's everguided on this great country, I
(55:20):
do believe our best days are ahead.
Mr. Vice President, thank you for turning the firing line.
It's been a pleasure. Great to be.
On Fire Line. Thank you, Margaret.
There are loud voices in and around this administration that
would have America pull back from the world stage, that would
embrace big government policies that would marginalized the
right to life. But I'm going to continue to be
a voice for that broad, mainstream conservative agenda.
That's Donald Trump's first vicepresident Mike Pence explaining
(00:21):
how he views his role on the outside of the second Trump
administration. I'm Margaret Hoover.
This is the Firing Line podcast.Joseph R Biden, Junior of the
state of Delaware has received 306 vote.
(00:42):
Donald J Trump of the state of Florida has received 232 votes.
Mike Pence's actions on January 6th made him a villain to MAGA,
but a hero to many others. Vice President Pence put his
life and career and that of his family on the line to execute
his constitutional responsibilities.
Although Pence declined to endorse Donald Trump in 2024, he
(01:03):
still defends much of the president's agenda.
For me, there was no more important economic priority for
the administration then ensuringthat the Trump Pence tax cuts
were made permanent. But Pence has also criticized
his former running mate for imposing steep tariffs allies
for refusing to enforce a ban onTikTok and for wavering in his
support of Ukraine. I'm very concerned that the
(01:24):
current administration is not acting in a manner consistent
with the law that forced the sale or banned TikTok.
And he has doubts about his own party's willingness to confront
the national debt. Where's the evidence that
there's leadership to do this? Well, there's, there's not a lot
of evidence right now. Vice President Mike Pence,
(01:45):
welcome back to FIRING LINE. Good to be back Margaret.
Thanks for having me on. I've been told by some of your
colleagues from the first Trump administration who have not
participated in the second Trumpadministration, as you haven't,
that your advice to them is, quote, stand firm and stand
(02:06):
aside. What does that mean to you?
Well, well, this the stand firm part means let's let's just
continue to stand up. Whatever the wherever the
political winds are blowing in the Republican Party.
We I think it's important, particularly those of us that
that served in the Trump Pence administration to make the case
(02:28):
for a record that I'll always beproud of.
You know, as we've talked before, Margaret, it didn't end
the way I wanted it to. And the president and I still
have some profound differences on those issues, but the record
itself. Or just January 6th or other
issues? The difference is over my duties
under the Constitution of the United States on that fateful
(02:48):
day. But the balance of that record,
where we rebuilt the military, revive the economy, we cut
taxes, rollback regulations, we we stood without apology with
with Israel and with our allies around the world.
We stood for the right to life. All of those policies, I think
they I think they set a stage for the extraordinary success of
(03:13):
the Trump Pence years. And, and in fairness, I, I'm
encouraged in recent days to seePresident Trump at home and
abroad hewing back to those principles, even while the winds
of populism are blowing pretty vigorously in the Republican
Party. I mean, with that, that's the
issue that I see today, that that that while I think the
(03:37):
majority of Republican voters still hew to that conservative
agenda, there are there are loudvoices in and around this
administration that would have America pull back from the world
stage that would embrace big government policies that would
marginalized the right to life. But I'm going to continue to be
a voice and encourage former colleagues to be a voice for
(03:59):
that broad, mainstream conservative agenda.
President Trump's posture seems to have changed with respect to
Vladimir Putin. In a cabinet meeting this week,
President Trump said this of Vladimir Putin.
We get a lot of votes thrown at us by Putin for you want to know
the truth. He's very nice all the time, but
it turns out to be meaningless. So over the last six months, you
(04:22):
have been urging the president and the administration to renew
and increase military support toUkraine.
This week, as Putin has escalated attacks on Kiev,
President Trump and Republicans seem to be warming to the idea
of doing just what you have advised, to imposing new
sanctions on Russia and to potentially increasing, not just
(04:45):
restarting the weapon shipments,but increasing support to
Ukraine, including considering potentially an additional
Patriot missile defense system. You have said that you are
somebody who knows President Trump more than his most ardent
defenders. How significant is this shift
(05:05):
vis A vis Putin and will it stick?
Well, I'm very encouraged by thepresident's recent statements.
Look, I, I think it's important to remember that our
administration was the it's the only administration in the 21st
century that Vladimir Putin didn't attempt to redraw
international lines by force. He rolled tanks into Georgia
under the Bush administration. He rolled tanks into Crimea
(05:29):
under the Obama administration. And of course, he crossed into
Ukraine during the Biden years after that disastrous withdrawal
from Afghanistan. And I think it was.
It was a function of the fact that that we provided lethal
support for Ukraine. We also stood with our allies,
stood up to our enemies in the region.
(05:50):
We fired cruise missiles into Syria, we unleashed our military
to take out the ISIS caliphate and even took out Qasem
Soleimani, the head of the Iran Revolutionary Guard.
I think all that sent a message of strength that that held Putin
at Bay. And my judgement is that the
only way to adjust and lasting peace in Ukraine is if the
(06:14):
United States sends an unambiguous message to Putin
that we will continue to providemilitary support until peace is
secured. And I'm encouraged then that
despite the stops and starts from the first of the year,
including that meeting in the Oval Office with President
Zelensky. And it appears to me that the
(06:37):
president is now moving toward not only continuing to provide
military support that he restarted after the Pentagon
pause of the last two weeks, butalso it's my hope also the
president will, will let the Senate know that he wants that
new sanctions bill on his desk and when the Senate reconvenes
(06:59):
next week. Now to your question, what's
changed? I I I honestly think that some
of the isolationist voices around this administration and
within the administration lost ground when they came out
against the use of US air power to take out the Iranian nuclear
(07:21):
weapons program. How did those voices around
President Trump lose stature in this most recent chapter with
Iran? Well, look, I, I, I think it's
because they, they literally came out and made it clear that
they'd be willing to compromise the long term security of the
state of Israel to embrace theirisolationist views.
(07:45):
You know, it seemed to me it wasone thing with a lot of
challenges at home, Americans have had different views about
our support for Ukraine. And I think, I think President
Biden did a terrible job explaining why it was important
for us to support Ukraine. My, my reason has always been
that I have no doubt that if Vladimir Putin is able to
overrun Ukraine, it's only a matter of time before he crosses
(08:08):
a border where our men and womenin uniform are going to have to
go and fight him. And so for me, it was always
about an updated version of the Reagan Doctrine, which was if
you're willing to fight the communists on your soil with
your troops, we'll give you the means to fight them there so we
don't have to fight them. And so, but there was a lot of
debate within the party still isto some extent about support for
(08:30):
Ukraine, but the American peoples, particularly
Republicans, stand with Israel. And when you saw the likes of
Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon actually talking about opposing
efforts to destroy or dismantle the Iran nuclear program, when
(08:53):
you actually had one commentatortalk about dumping Israel and
the threat of World War Three. My sense is knowing the
president as well as I do that that that was very eliminating
for him. Because look, I want to say this
very emphatically, the PresidentTrump I served with is not an
(09:18):
isolationist. His bias is for leadership.
He understands America's the leader of the free world.
He was a demanding leader of thefree world.
Call on our allies to do more for a common defense.
But this notion that that America has to choose between
solving our problems at home andleading the free world, I think
(09:41):
would, would, would go against his, his view of American
strength. Let me ask you about where we
are with Iran now. You supported, of course,
President Trump acting decisively with American air
strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities.
It is being reported now the administration officials are
actually considering easing sanctions against Iran, freeing
(10:06):
up Iranian assets and arranging for new investments in civilian
nuclear programs. If Iran gives up enriching,
enriching uranium now, you wrotein National Review this week
that, quote, we must demand an irreversible end to all uranium
enrichment, weapons grade or otherwise.
So how would you advise the president to proceed in this
(10:26):
moment? Well, I think the president's
got to make it clear that there will be no nuclear program of
any kind, no enrichment of any kind.
I mean, the the reality is the mullahs in Tehran have, have
been the principal source of, ofterrorism in the world for
(10:47):
nearly 50 years. And, and now that we have struck
their facilities. And I trust that with the
president's decisive leadership and the extraordinary
professionalism of our airmen, we greatly degraded their
capacity. But now the United States and
our allies need to make it clearto Iran that they are going to
(11:10):
have to forfeit entirely and publicly any ambition for any
type of a nuclear program, or the United States will have to
avail ourselves of of options inthe future.
What kind of options? Well, I, I, I think as, as the
president demonstrated, when, when it, when we said that Iran
(11:33):
would never be allowed to obtaina nuclear weapon, we meant it.
I think they believe us now. I think they believe us now, and
that's the great advantage. I I honestly think that to to
the President's credit, the greatest accomplishment of that
B2 strike in Iran was the restoration of American
(11:56):
deterrence. And not only, not only Iran, but
I would expect to some extent Putin and President Xi in the
Asia Pacific understand that theUnited States military and our
commander in chief have both thewill and the capacity to defend
our interests in the world and to take action when necessary.
(12:18):
If I could go back to one small piece about Ukraine, I want to
ask you about the 20,000 Ukrainian children who have been
deported forcibly from Ukrainianterritory, from the occupied
territories. And I know that you're familiar
with this issue because you visited when you've been in
(12:39):
Ukraine, with organizations who are advocating on behalf of
these children. In April, more than 30 Christian
organizations sent a letter to the president and to Secretary
Rubio demanding that Ukraine's abducted children return home as
a precondition to any peace negotiations with Russia.
Do you agree? I strongly agree.
(13:00):
In 2023, when I visited Kiev, I went to the relief agency.
I met with families whose children had literally been
absconded by Russian soldiers, vanished into Russia.
And I think that's where when wetalk about peace, we need to
talk about a a just and lasting peace.
(13:22):
And part of the way it is a justpeace is by restoring those
children to their families. And the United States and our
allies should take no other view.
This week, the president has sent letters to at least 20
countries threatening them with tariffs and new tariff rates as
high as 50%, at least in the case of Brazil.
(13:45):
In the case of Brazil, he threatened a 50% tariff with the
lieu. Government doesn't stop
prosecuting former President Bolsonaro, but we'll put that
aside. The The courts are reviewing
whether President Trump and the administration even have the
legal authority to impose these tariffs.
And your organization, AdvancingAmerican Freedom, has filed an
(14:09):
amicus brief just this week arguing that under the
Constitution, no administration has the authority to impose
tariffs in the way they are being imposed.
Are these tariffs legal? Well, I think that's question
for the Supreme Court of the United States, But in my
judgement, it's important to go back to first principles.
(14:33):
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the Congress
the authority to levy taxes and what they called excises or
tariffs. And we go back to our grade
school history classes and we remember that taxation without
representation had something to do with the American Revolution
that we just celebrated. I hope they're still teaching
(14:55):
that. It's in those taxes, Margaret,
were tariffs that were imposed unilaterally by the king of
England on the colonies and theyso they threw the tea into
Boston Harbor and said we're done.
And when they fashioned that government, which took a while
to do that summer of 1787 was got the constitution written.
(15:20):
They put in the Constitution that the Congress, the
legislature, the elected body ofthe American people would be the
source of taxes or tariffs. And I, I think that's an
important principle to reclaim. I, I think the time has come for
Congress to take back some of the authority that they have in
(15:40):
fact divested to the executive branch over the last 100 years.
And the reality is that if the president from whether it's
Liberation Day or whether it's August 1st, the president's
actually proposing what would bethe largest peacetime tax hike
in American history. I mean that these tariffs being
(16:01):
imposed on friend and foe alike will ultimately be passed along
to American businesses and to American consumers.
And so we we've continued to oppose that.
My view always is free trade with free nations that we ought
to be. What we did during the Trump
Pence years was we used we used tough tariffs on China along
(16:25):
with our allies to try and end decades of of trade abuses,
intellectual property theft. But whether it be with South
Korea, we renegotiate a trade deal, the US, MCA with Canada
and Mexico, or how we had begun trade negotiations when I was
vice president with Japan, with the UK, even the EU, that was
(16:46):
always about lowering barriers to expand trade.
Understanding the trade means jobs.
So a 50% tariff on Brazil, a nation in which we have a trade
surplus, in order to persuade ofthe government to drop a
prosecution of an internal political matter, is that an
appropriate use of of tariff policy by the President?
(17:09):
Well, I just think the having the president have unilateral
authority to impose tariffs for any reason is inconsistent with
the founders intent. And it's also, you know, the
president is using a statue called IEPA, which the Supreme
Court is reviewing. Declare an emergency and then
(17:31):
you can impose tariffs on countries around the world.
That's not what we did in the Trump Pence years.
We use section three O 1 to impose tariffs on countries.
The the the requirement of that is that you have to demonstrate
the actual need for it, whereas the the new Trump administration
(17:52):
is is using a different theory. Why has it been so difficult for
Republicans in Congress to step in and reclaim their
constitutional authority? Well, I, I, I understand the
president's popularity. I also understand his popularity
within the Republican Party. But look.
(18:13):
Is that unprecedented? I I don't think it's entirely
unprecedented. I think a careful study of
American history shows there have been presidents that have
held great sway over their congresses.
If I may, Mr. Vice President, I recall a time when you
represented A Congressional District in Indiana and kept
(18:34):
you're President of the United States up until 3:00 in the
morning because you refused to vote for a Medicaid Part D bill
because it was going to expand the debt.
And here you are. You went on to have a robust
career in the Congress and went on to become Vice President of
the United States. If a person were to do that
today, they would have a future not unlike John Bacon's or Tom
(18:57):
Tillis. Is there something different
about the Republicans ability tohave an independent view from
the president, this president? Well, I I think but, but I heard
the same things 15 years ago when I was taking that stand and
(19:18):
other stands against the president.
But. I, I always held the view that I
had been elected to represent the people of Indiana and not to
represent the president's views on any particular issue.
And so I, and I would also say, I would say to my friends in
Congress, it's, you know, as, asyou said, I, I like to say I
(19:42):
know President Trump better thanhis most ardent defenders.
I've I've never seen him really begrudge people taking a
principled stand on an issue as long as it's not.
Personal. If he doesn't interpret it as a
personal, he doesn't interpret. It as a personal affront or
someone playing politics. I've seen him be very respectful
(20:03):
where people where people differand yet Senator.
Tillis will not be running againbecause they had a principled
policy difference that became personal.
So I don't know if there's any way to untangle the two as an
observer of the president. But you know him better than I
do. Well, I just.
I honestly think that there's plenty of room for Congress to
bring their expertise into the conversation.
(20:26):
And, and I I also believe that Senator Roger Wicker, who chairs
the Armed Services Committee today, has been willing to speak
out and call out the president'sbudget on on defense spending.
And that's exactly the kind of input that I think is a value to
the American people and I think ultimately a value to the
(20:48):
success of the president and hisadministration.
You celebrated the passage of President Trump's One Big
Beautiful Bill Act as a huge win.
Now I know from your perspectivethat was an extension of the Tax
Cuts and JOBS Act and having notpassed, it would have amounted
to a massive tax increase on on millions of Americans.
(21:10):
Polls have found that Americans are skeptical of the legislation
at Fox News polls says more thanless than half of Republicans
expect that it will help their families.
And there is this question of its impact on the debt.
Freedom Caucus member Representative Massey says that
(21:31):
the big beautiful bill is a debtbomb ticking.
Yuval Levin, conservative from American Enterprise Institute,
referred and characterized the bill as almost unthinkably
irresponsible. These are people who really care
about the fiscal health of the country and of course would want
the tax cuts, but regret that itas a full big beautiful bill,
(21:52):
actually ended up having not so beautiful elements that are not
consistent with perhaps conservative fiscal
responsibility. How do you square the 2?
For me, there was no more important economic priority for
the administration then ensuringthat the Trump Pence tax cuts
(22:13):
were made permanent. Regardless of what else had to
go into it. I, I, I just think making sure
that the working families did not face a $2000 tax increase on
January 1st, 2026 was an enormously important
accomplishment. I also, I I really commend the
(22:36):
Congress. At the tail end of our
administration, we were introducing work requirements
into Medicaid for able bodied adults without dependent
children. And, and I think that was
historic. I think defunding Planned
Parenthood, which I, I actually filed the first bill to defund
Planned Parenthood 20 years ago,Margaret, and literally to, to
(22:58):
see a president sign into law, the first measure that ever
denied public funding to the largest abortion provider in
America was deeply meaningful tome.
And so I, I thought on balance, it was a very important bill and
a very important success. I, I, I would have rather they
didn't give away the debt ceiling increase in that bill.
(23:21):
Had I been in the Congress, had I been in the White House, I
probably would have said, hold on to that.
We generally have used debt ceiling negotiations to fight
for spending reductions as an opportunity.
For meaningful spending reductions, but at the end.
Of the day. I thought it was a great
accomplishment. Now you talk about the polling
around this one big beautiful bill, I said.
(23:44):
I've said they're they're not. There wasn't a touchdown.
They're at the 50 yard line. In what way?
They delivered a great. Victory for the American people
in staving off a tax increase, in increasing our defense
spending, in reforming Medicaid and the other measures in the
bill. But the next 50 yards is selling
(24:05):
the bill. You'll remember back in my time
in Congress, I was the 3rd ranking Republican.
I was the conference chairman, which is the person that
organizes the messaging. And you know, my encouragement
to my successor as conference chairman there would simply be
to encourage her and every member of Congress go tell the
(24:26):
story in this bill and and make the case to the American people
about about what a great victoryit was for them, the
predominant. Narrative about the bill right
now is about the reforms and thecuts to Medicaid.
And even Republican Senator Tillis from North Carolina has
said that this could be President Trump's Obamacare, not
(24:48):
in the sense that he would be expanding healthcare, but it
would be his political Achilles heel for the second term.
Now, I know you disagree with that, but you know, if, if, if a
leading Republican who's not going to win re election in
North Carolina chooses not to run again because he believes
this is such a dire issue, Is itis it more than messaging or are
(25:11):
there material cuts to Medicaid that that will really hurt?
Well. I, I, I think the reforms to
Medicaid were historic and important for two reasons.
Number one is I think, I think the American people, once they
understand that what the Republicans did was essentially
say we're, we're going to focus Medicaid's resources on on
(25:32):
vulnerable populations, people with with with disabilities with
who are struggling to raise children in, in poverty.
That that. And we're going to we're going
to make sure those funds don't go to illegal immigrants.
We're going to make sure they don't go to able bodied men who
ought to be out of the workplaceat least 20 hours a week.
(25:56):
So I think that's a case that can be made.
But the other piece that was encouraging to me is to the
point of all the conservative commentators you reflected on,
by essentially approving an increase in the debt ceiling in
this bill, we saw the national debt go up by $400 billion in 2
(26:19):
days. We're nearly at $37 trillion in
a national debt. And now with the trajectory for
that to continue to rise at dramatic levels.
And I think we've got to produceleadership in this country.
And I hope to be a voice from outside for that that levels
(26:39):
with the American people about the debt crisis that we're
facing and that we're piling on our children and grandchildren
and rolls your sleeves up. And not just Medicaid, but looks
at Medicare, Social Security andsays we we have to modernize and
reform these programs so that they're there for people in the
future and they're secure for Americans today.
(27:03):
In your book So Help Me God, youtell the story what you often
tell about how Ronald Reagan brought you into the
Conservative government and the Reagan revolution and when he
left office, Reagan appeared on the original Firing Line with
William F Buckley Junior in 1990to discuss his memoir, and they
discussed the debt that leaves us.
Facing the deficit, yes, in in the book you, you bemoan your
(27:28):
own inability to do something substantial about it.
And when you consider running, whether you will run for the
second term, you say, well, at least if I do, it'll give me,
among other things, a chance to tame the deficit.
So even after four years, you thought you could do something
about it, but you failed. Conservatives and Republicans
(27:50):
have been lamenting the debt for40 years now.
I mean, you say you believe the American people are ready for
leadership on this really difficult issue.
What is the evidence that Republicans are going to be able
to do that or that anybody has the appetite to do it?
(28:10):
If here we are like a broken record 40 years later, still
lamenting the increased debt, except for now it's $37
trillion, right? Well, First off is it's just a
perfect clip and I've it humblesme to think that I'm continuing
in that vein A tradition for oneof my heroes on this story
broadcast. But I, I, I would suggest you
(28:34):
and remind you that Ronald Reagan reformed Social Security.
He worked with the Democrats at the time with tip O'Neill, and
it really extended the life of Social Security by more than 20
years. It's going to take that kind of
leadership now with a nearly $37trillion national debt that goes
to the American people and said,look, and this is the way I've
(28:57):
put it. So my confidence comes from all
the travels I've done around thecountry over the last four years
because I, I stipulate too, thatour, our administration did not
do a good enough job controllingspending.
And I mean, I know you're talking.
Pre COVID I I would say. Pre COVID, the the trillions of
(29:17):
dollars that were spent in COVIDfor families, for businesses to
get the nation through that pandemic or, or what government
is for when an emergency strikes.
But frankly, before that, we could have done a better job and
working with Republican. Congresses.
I mean if. If if we're Democrats aren't
going to do it, and if we're the, we're the party that's
(29:40):
going to do it and we can't. Well, I, I, I think ultimately
it takes leadership and leadership that goes not to the
political class, but goes to theAmerican people with a very
simple message. I just saw an article the other
day, but you remember George W Bush attempted to reform Social
Security in 2005. I was one of a handful of
(30:01):
members of Congress that supported him introducing
personal savings accounts into Social Security.
I just read a fascinating piece that said that what those
accounts would be worth for Americans today if we'd have
actually done that. But the I think the the country
knows that we're on an unsustainable path that really
threatens the vitality of our nation.
(30:23):
It was two years ago, Margaret, for the first time, the United
States of America spent more money on interest, on the
national debt, than we did on our National Defense.
And throughout history, nations that have been overwhelmed by
debt and unable to provide for their own defense have not
(30:45):
prevailed. It is the.
Beginning of decline as as is stated by Ferguson's law.
Not Neil Ferguson, but I believeit an.
Economy. Yeah.
And so I think. Going to the American people
with those facts and saying, look, we need to take these New
Deal programs and make it a better deal.
And, and I, I can tell you when I was running for president in
2023 and Iowa and New Hampshire,I'd stand in front of town hall
(31:07):
meetings and I'd lay out the idea of saying, look, if, if, if
you are going to retire in the next 25 years, you can listen to
these things, but it won't have any effect on you whatsoever.
But if, but if you're under the age of 40, we want to give you a
better deal. We want to reform these
programs, allow you to invest a portion of of your payroll taxes
into a personal savings account.If you'll allow us to reform
(31:31):
these programs, then we'll we'llmake sure that anyone that's
going to retire in the next two decades is fine.
I have to tell you that I think there was Nikki Haley and I were
the only two candidates for president willing to talk about
entitlement reform and Chris Christie.
Did when he first ran, but everywhere.
We did. Everywhere I did, people would
(31:52):
stop me afterwards and say thankyou.
Yeah, Nope. I've never heard it put.
That way I'm prepared to supportthat.
Let me know how I can help as I just sent.
Enough Herbert Hoover, I think you're framing of transcending
the new deal for a better deal, better deal is is right on.
And and it seems that that's that's the kind of marketing
that Donald Trump could get behind, right?
He's a deal maker. He could cut deals, he could
make the new deal a better deal.And yet he has been very clear
(32:18):
that Doge and Elon Musk's efforts needed to keep their
hands off of these entitlement programs, which really are, as
you've pointed out, the continuing and perpetual driver
of our national debt. Again, where is the evidence
that there's leadership to do this?
Well, it's there's, there's not a lot of evidence right now.
(32:38):
I know the president during our four years had had little
interest in reforming entitlements.
Sometimes when the topic would come up in the Oval Office, he
would he would turn to me at thechair.
I always sat at his right hand. People would say, what are we
going to do about reform and entitlements?
(32:59):
And he'd say that's going to be Mike's problem, because you were
going. To be president someday.
Someday. Maybe that was the thought.
But look, I, I, I agree with you.
I don't, I don't know that therewould be anyone better
positioned or better able to speak to seniors in this
country, to speak to Americans for every background in this
(33:21):
country about what the threat ofour mounting national debt means
to our national security, means to our nation's prosperity than
Donald Trump. And I I hope he'll take it to
heart. And and I hope he'll take up
that cause before this term is out.
Yeah. I just remember that he he
called himself the king of debt and that he loves debt.
(33:42):
It's just that you can't file for bankruptcy if you're the
United States of America. So I don't know if his business
acumen and experience translate directly to our national
deficit. Let me move on.
Last month, President Trump delayed enforcement of a ban on
TikTok for the third time. He claims a deal to sell TikTok
(34:03):
to US investors is close. But this is a law that was
passed overwhelmingly by the Congress.
It was signed by the president. It has been upheld by the
Supreme Court. You have described the Trump
administration's actions in thisregard with regarding TikTok as,
quote, inconsistent with the statute.
(34:25):
Republicans in Congress have basically shrugged off the
president refusing to implement the law that they passed.
If the president isn't obeying the laws passed by the Congress
and upheld by the Supreme Court,what are we to do?
TikTok is a. National security threat to the
(34:47):
United States of America, and itneeds to either be sold to an
American company or banned outright.
It's important to remember that the algorithm that TikTok uses
in this country is prohibited inChina.
The Chinese Communist Party willnot allow this current addictive
(35:10):
portions of this TikTok program to be used in their own country.
We've called it digital. Fentanyl.
I've called it digital fentanyl.I believe it is.
And I, I think that we need to educate the American people
about the way that not only our security, but their privacy is
being compromised each and everyday through TikTok.
(35:32):
Now, that being said, I think it's important to note as well
that at the close of the Trump Pence administration, we issued
an executive order based on the unanimous recommendation of our
intelligence community to ban TikTok were to force a sale as a
candidate. President Trump changed his view
(35:54):
of that. He has delayed implementation
beyond this the the precise language of the statute, and I I
hold the view that the. The one difference?
In the oath the president takes from the oath that virtually all
the rest of us take, is that thepresident pledges to see that
(36:14):
the laws are faithfully execute.And I, I think, I think the
president and his team need to move and move swiftly to either
identify an American buyer and, and have China divest from
TikTok or implement the ban. And, and, and to do though do
that with, with great expeditionand haste.
(36:37):
Is he failing? To faithfully ensure that laws
are executed, I I'm. Very concerned that that the
current administration is not acting in a manner consistent
with the law that that forced the sale or banned TikTok.
So what? Are what are we to do?
Well, I, I, I, I, I think we've got to speak out and I think, I
(37:01):
think we've got to be, we've gotto, we've got to go to the
country and explain to the country just what the stakes
are. Look, China is the greatest
economic and strategic threat facing the United States of
America. I saw just in the last week a
worthy initiative to identify farmland that China has
(37:24):
purchased around strategic assets and air bases across this
country if it's a worthy effort.But if we're if we're concerned
about China owning land in the United States, we ought to be
doubly concerned about China owning information and
compromising the privacy of the.American people in.
(37:46):
TikTok, I mean. This is, in your view, one of
the most urgent national security threats before us.
And if the president is not faithfully executing the law
that has been passed by the Congress and upheld by the
Supreme Court, are we stuck? No, we're not stuck.
OK, so then. How I just I I fail to see how
this is going to be resolved. Well, I, I think calling on the
(38:09):
Congress, calling on the administration to implement the
law to act outlaw. Now, the president has said that
there would be an announcement in a matter of weeks.
I remain hopeful that will be the case.
But failing that, I think that the Congress should be prepared
to take action to redouble theirefforts.
(38:32):
Again, as you said, this was a broad bipartisan accomplishment,
a forged together by some of thebest minds on China in the
Congress of the United States. And for the interests of our
nation's security and the privacy of the American people,
we have to either ban or take TikTok out of the hands of the
(38:53):
Chinese Communist Party, the Senate.
Is nearing a deadline to vote onPresident Trump's request to
rescind $9 billion of funds thathave been already appropriated
to fiscal the next fiscal year. And this includes a billion
dollars of funding for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. When you were governor of
(39:15):
Indiana, you supported public broadcasting and you even
received a champion of public broadcasting award in 2014.
At the time, you said that funding public broadcasting was,
quote, an easy call and quote, public television plays a vital
role in educating all of the public, but most especially our
(39:36):
children. Your organization supported the
House's rescission bill, which is now has 8 more days to be
voted on by the Senate. Do you support cutting funding
to public broadcasting? First, let me congratulate
Firing Line for being completelyprivately supported, giving
(40:00):
evidence of the fact that the programs on this network can be
self-sustaining. And also say I'm very proud of
of the fact the state of Indianasupported public television in
our state because I saw it as part of an education mission.
That. What I learned as governor was
how many underprivileged families will use public
(40:26):
television children's programs to help give their children a
foundation for education and reading and learning.
We all, we all grew up loving Sesame Street and the like.
And so I thought it was an appropriate expenditure by the
state of Indiana for education. But I think it's a worthy debate
(40:47):
at a time when we have nearly $37 trillion in national debt to
ask whether or not American taxpayers should be broadly
supporting a public broadcastingnow.
But if, if states see it as we did in Indiana as a priority and
an and an element of education, I think education's a state and
local function. And I'm pleased the
(41:09):
administration's announced plansto, to literally shut down the
federal Department of Education.But I, I would support a, a very
worthy reconsideration, Margaret, we, we are, we are
literally on a, on a speed trainto A, to a debt crisis in this
country. And I think the American people
(41:30):
expect Congress to think throughevery expenditure and, and where
where broadcasts can be self-sustaining like firing Line
is privately supported, then I Ithink that'd be a good challenge
to offer of the. Less than $1 billion that would
go to Corporate Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
More than 70% go to affiliates that are in rural areas that
(41:54):
served not just an educational function for children and for
families, but also for emergencycommunications to rural areas.
Which is why many RedState senators like Senator Rounds and
Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski and Senator McConnell,
who have rural areas and recognize the emergency
broadcast capabilities of some of these, are looking at a an
(42:20):
amendment that would protect theCorporation for Public
Broadcasting but rescind National Public Radio because
they believe in some cases that NPR has more biased programming
than the Corporation for Public Broadcasting support for local
journalism in rural areas. Would you be willing to
(42:43):
entertain that argument that actually the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, it is such a drop in the bucket when you
look at the $37 trillion they were against and if it plays a
real function in terms of emergency communications for red
states, would you be willing to entertain that argument?
Yeah, well. Look, I I certainly would look
at it if I was still in the Congress or.
(43:06):
President of the Senate and casting a tie breaking vote.
Yeah. But I, I, but, you know, letting
the Congress work its will on this and recognizing that there
there can be no sacred cows. We, we have to be willing on in
the large ways we discussed before and in small ways to
(43:28):
restore fiscal sanity to Washington, DC.
And also to recognize that that these various initiatives also
can be supported by states, can also be supported by local
communities. And it's it's not always
necessary for the federal government to be the source of
(43:51):
resources. So you'd advise the?
You'd advise the Senate to go ahead and pass the rescission
package? Well, I I.
Would advise the Senate to take take steps necessary to pass a
rescission bill that becomes a down payment on fiscal
discipline. And I hope it's, I hope it's the
first of a series of rescission bills.
And I hope it begins to change the culture in Washington, DC
(44:15):
from a culture of spending to a court or a culture of fiscal
restraint. And we we simply have to put our
fiscal house in order. And my hope is that this risk
precision measure, the worthy efforts of of DOGE to identify
waste, fraud and abuse, or we'llstart the process of doing that.
(44:36):
I was encouraged at the Supreme Court just in the last week by
an 8 to one decision upheld the ability of the president of the
United States to reorganize the government and to hire and to
fire. That's that's what the American
people want to see. They're trimming their sales in
difficult times. They expect the federal
government do the same. It's just.
(44:57):
I take your point. On the other hand, it's hard to
see a Congress that just raised the debt ceiling, say, you know,
so that so that trillions more can be spent nitpick at, you
know, a billion dollar expenditure that has a real
impact on rural communities. You, you recently received the
John F Kennedy Foundation's Profile and Courage Award
because of your actions on January 6th.
And in early June, you wrote a letter to a woman named Pam
(45:20):
Hemfill, a January 6th rioter who was one of over 1000
individuals who participated in the riot on the Capitol on
January 6th, who was pardoned byPresident Trump on the first day
of office. She rejected President Trump's
pardon, saying that she did not want to, quote, be part of
(45:41):
Trump's narrative that the DOJ is weaponized.
You wrote. I am writing to express my
admiration for your decision to refuse a presidential pardon and
accept responsibility for your actions on January 6th.
January 6th was a tragic day, but I will always believe that I
did my duty on that day to see the peaceful transition of power
(46:02):
under the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Vice President, why was it important for you to write that
letter to Pam Hamphill? I I was deeply.
Moved by her integrity and her faith, where she accepted
responsibility for what she'd done.
(46:25):
And I thought it was important to send her a private letter in
the mail. I, I was moved that she made it
public and, and said that it hadtouched her heart.
And I hope it did. You know, as a Bible believing
Christian, I believe in grace, fresh starts, new beginnings.
(46:46):
But it begins with accepting responsibility for what you've
done. And to see someone who had
gained some notoriety in the wake of that tragic day in 2021,
I think they referred to her as the MAGA granny who was being
(47:06):
prosecuted. For her to be willing to stand
up as she has and, and take ridicule from others for
admitting that she'd done wrong that day was very moving to me.
And I think I think it's an example that would inspire lots
of Americans. Look, I I know there were a lot
(47:27):
of people caught up in that day who engaged in no vandalism and,
and no violence. And I had no problem with
President Trump pardoning hundreds and hundreds of people
that were, that were swept into the Capitol.
But I thought it was wrong to pardon individuals that
assaulted police officers that day.
(47:48):
And I said so many times and but, but she she said how much
my letter meant to her. I hope, I hope maybe she catches
a little glimpse of my countenance today to say I'm I'm
glad it was a blessing. And I know, I know that Pam has
(48:10):
inspired a lot of Americans by her integrity.
If we can quickly do a lightninground because I want to be
respectful of your time here in New York City.
The voters have elected a democratic socialist to be the
Democratic nominee to be mayor of New York.
What is your take on the fact that one of the largest cities
in America be governed by a democratic socialist?
(48:31):
I just. I would tell you, probably not
the first socialist to vie for mayor of New York, but probably
the. 1st To have a very good chance of becoming the mayor of
New York, yeah. Look, I, I, I think it speaks
volumes about where the Democratic Party is today in
this country. And I, I, I welcome voices in
(48:55):
the Democratic Party that are, that are speaking out against
the hard leftward turn of their party here in New York and
around the country. When?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White
House this week. He presented President Trump
with a nomination to receive theNobel Peace Prize.
Is Donald Trump worthy of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize?
(49:19):
I think there's no question the the president efforts to stand
with Israel, his willingness to confront Iran, his his ongoing
efforts to attempt to to bring the Russian invasion of Ukraine
to an end, a merit recognition by the Nobel.
(49:40):
Committee by the Nobel. Committee I look, I I was I
remember when Barack Obama got aNobel Prize for being elected
president and I think the fact that this president has largely
eliminated the Iran nuclear threat against Israel and the
wider world in and of itself deserves recognition by the
(50:04):
Nobel committee, the Trump. Administration has revoked
deportation protections for thousands of Afghan refugees who
served arm in arm with our members of the military and our
20 year engagement in that country, many as translators,
saving the lives of hundreds of Americans, maybe thousands of
servicemen. Is that a?
Mistake. I think any Afghan that stood
(50:27):
with American soldiers in Operation Enduring Freedom
deserves the loyalty and supportof the American people.
And not to be. Deported I.
I I was deeply disappointed to see the Trump administration
rescind the immigration status of of Afghan nationals that had
(50:49):
that aided our service members in the fight in Afghanistan.
I I hope they reconsider it. Since President Trump returned
office, his family launched a meme coin that has collected
more than $300 million in fees and signed new real estate deals
in Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, some of which could be
(51:09):
profitable personally for the president.
Now, you are very critical in the Biden administration of the
Biden's profiting off of the presidency.
Is it appropriate for any president, or anyone who holds
the office of the presidency to profit off of the trust that has
been placed in them by the American people?
(51:32):
Well, your great grandfather wasan enormously successful
business leader who became president.
And throughout our history, we certainly want to encourage
accomplished men and women to bewilling to step forward in a
national leadership. But there's also until recent
days been and guardrails around that.
(51:55):
Like, there's still profound questions about whether the
Biden family crossed those lines, whether or not the
president, the so-called big guyin the memos, actually received
direct funding as part of the deals that were being cut.
Is it appropriate? For any president to profit
personally from the office of the presidency well.
(52:18):
Not from the office of the presidency, but my, my hope is
knowing the Trump family as I do, that they are carefully
avoiding any impropriety. But I also would say that it's
not just about impropriety, it'sabout the appearance of
impropriety. And I think that that it's, it's
(52:44):
important to the American peoplethat they have confidence that
the president is focused on the presidency.
It's focused on their well-being.
And I, I would hope in, in the days going forward that they'll
continue to convey that message.Final question, in honor of the
4th of July, you wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times saying
(53:07):
quote, let us never forget that the ultimate source of American
greatness is not government, notpoliticians, not wealth or power
or fame, but faith. faith in God, faith in each other, faith
in the promise that is America. Mr. Vice President, there is
some evidence that for many Americans, faith in each other
(53:30):
and faith in the promise of America is dwindling.
There's plenty of statistics from Maris, from Gallup, from
Pew. How do you reconcile your
optimism with that data? Well.
My optimism does come from faith.
Margaret comes from my faith in God.
(53:53):
I put my trust in Jesus Christ when I was an 18 year old a long
time ago and still is the most important thing in my life, but
it also comes from faith in the American people.
When I was in the Congress of the United States, traveled the
nation in various capacities. When I was governor of Indiana,
(54:16):
when I was vice president, I gotto see the American people,
especially during difficult times.
You know what I what I learned is that when the wind blows and
beats against the House, when the floodwaters rise, wildfires
(54:36):
rage. The American people, whatever
their politics, drop whatever they're doing, load up their
cars with coolers full of water and food tools and they drive to
where they can help. I, I know that's happening in
(54:58):
Texas as we speak today. I know what's happening in New
Mexico and I've seen that so many different times.
It's convinced me of the goodness and really the
greatness of the American people.
And so with, with faith in the in the character of this nation
and faith in the one that's everguided on this great country, I
(55:20):
do believe our best days are ahead.
Mr. Vice President, thank you for turning the firing line.
It's been a pleasure. Great to be.
On Fire Line. Thank you, Margaret.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.