On this "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" broadcast, moderated by Margaret Brennan:
- Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan
- CBS News contributors Samantha Vinograd, a former top Homeland Security official in the Obama administration, and Christopher Krebs, the former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency,
- CBS News correspondents Major Garrett, Robert Costa, Jan Crawford, Jennifer Jacobs and Scott MacFarlane
Click here to browse full transcripts from 2025 of "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan."
MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington.
And this week on Face the Nation, as 2025 comes to an end, we will look ahead to 2026 and what's on the horizon for the economy, national security, and more.
2025 is almost behind us. It's been a year filled with change that's turned Washington norms upside down and a year filled with news of great tragedy, but also moments of true triumph. What's ahead for Americans in 2026 when it comes to the economy?
We will turn to Wall Street and the chairman and CEO of Bank of America, Brian Moynihan, for the industry's economic forecast. We will look at national security threats and challenges from the increasing use of artificial intelligence with CBS News contributors Samantha Vinograd and Chris Krebs.
And we will wrap up and look to the new year with our CBS News Washington correspondents in our annual roundtable.
It's all just ahead on Face the Nation.
Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation.
We begin again with the top issue this year for Americans, the economy.
Earlier this month, we spoke with the head of Bank of America, Brian Moynihan, about the state of the economy as we head in to 2026.
(Begin VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Our CBS polling is showing that the – most Americans asked this question say their holiday items are hard to afford.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN (CEO, Bank of America): Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They're pulling back because incomes are not keeping up with inflation. But it's a very different story when you look at the upper- income brackets.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I know you see data of actual transactions.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are people doing what they tell us they're doing?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: We not only see it in the aggregate. We also see it in pieces.
And so if you look in the aggregate, the amount spent through the Thanksgiving weekend on Black Friday and Cyber Monday through all the month of November and the first part of December, it's – it's up 4, 4.25, 4.5 percent versus last year's November. And so it's growing.
And then if you look by terciles, three buckets of income levels, it's clear the people in the bottom income level, at lower income levels are spending at a little faster growth rate, but still growing, and in the middle and upper faster.
So, you know, what they're telling you is what they feel. What they're actually seeing, is spending is reasonably solid – reasonably solid heading into the end of the year. And it's been kind of going along like that all of December.
Now, wages have grown, but inflation bothers people. Jobs are – you know, the unemployment rate's very low, but it's been rising. So there's a lot of discussion in there. At the end of day, people are spending. They have good credit quality. They are employed. And we can see wages growing in – as people's paychecks come in at a 3 percent clip. So it's a – it's pretty solid right now.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that still, though stilted towards the upper-income brackets? Is it that K-shaped economy some people talk about?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes, our team puts the – looks at this.
Yes, it – the growth rate difference is higher, but all of – all the third, a third, a third, all three thirds are growing. And so…
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you think that will continue?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes, and that's been continuous. And so that's the question. They grow at different rates, but they're all growing, which all means they're putting more money in the economy than they did this time last year.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why do you think people have sentiment that's low, but spending that's higher?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: It's – you hear about it. You've talked about it. It's this question of affordability and prices and trying to figure out how that – because we had a very – a very strange process from '20 through to now.
We had COVID lockdown. Then we had all the stimulus. Then we had high inflation. And then we had wages caught up to it. And if you draw a line and say, here's wages and here's spending and here's price growth, it's – they stay in sync across a long period of time, but they went at different times.
And so they saw the inflation in '20 – in, yes, '20 and '23 and '24 that that was on their minds, and they want to see it subsist. And it'll take a little while to subsist. But as you go into '26, having come through '25, the incremental hit of that would be lower. And even when the Fed looks at it, they think inflation keeps working its way down.
But it's – it's what people feel. And you can't discount that. And it's also, at certain job categories and stuff, there's been more dislocation, and that's due to some of the government downsizing and some of the other things going on.
But – but it's – it's not widespread. At 4 – you know, 4.6 percent unemployment is the last number they published. That's still in the – in - - our business careers, is actually a very low unemployment rate, frankly.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK, so, in the past year, trade and tariffs, there were a lot of shocks to the system.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It was a big concern. But Bank of America now projects President Trump's strategy is one of de-escalation, not escalation. Does that mean you see this trade war with China cooling off?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Well, I think, if you go back to where we were in April, there was a lot of lack of understanding about where this would end up, and that affected small businesses and medium-sized businesses.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There was shock. There was shock on liberation day.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: There was shock, the size, sheer size, at the volume, the dollars, across the board, et cetera.
What you have seen now, as time has moved on, it's sort of a 15 percent on one side, and then a higher number based on people who won't commit to purchase from the U.S. or won't commit to lowering their non-tariff barriers and things like that.
And so the question, when I talk to foreign governments and they ask you the question about what's this all mean or foreign CEOs, you say, look, you got a choice. You can be here or be here. You just have to make the choice. You're going to be – drive more towards America, and you will come down to 15 percent.
To go from a 10 percent across the board to 15 percent, for the broad base of countries, not a huge impact. And that's where our team says it's starting to – it's starting to de-escalate, in that you're starting to see the resolution of the discussions into 15 percent here, 17 – different numbers.
When you put China, China's a different question, because of the national security interests, the rare earth minerals, the magnets, batteries, just A.I., all that stuff. It's a very different case.
And I think also, between Mexico and China, the USMCA, which has to be redone, is also a different case. But broadly, in the world, you can see sort of the end point here, and now they've just got to – it's got to work through the system.
MARGARET BRENNAN: How much of a toll has that taken on small businesses? I understand B-of-A is the largest small business lender.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: So we're the largest small business lender.
And as you're – if we were sitting here in the second quarter of this year, it was a big toll. They were very – because rates had gone up, and that costs them more money because they borrow on revolving lines of credit. In other words, they borrow at floating rate, and then the tariffs came in and caused them, I'm not sure I can get the goods at what price and how can I commit?
But as you went through the year, rates came down a little bit. So they're more – their issue right now is, can I get the labor I need to do – to bid the contracts, to do the work I'm doing? Because the immigration policies haven't settled in yet, and that's causing people concern.
It's not that they agree with them or are disagree with them. They just need to have the answer, and that's what they're looking for. So, if you think across four policy regimes, tax, trade, tariff, immigration, and then ultimately, deregulation, you have seen a resolution of a lot of them, but I think the next one for small business, what they tell us is labor availability.
How they get there is, I need people to do this work, and I need to be dependable, they're here, so give me a set of rules and I will go play with them. But I need to be clarified of what the rules are.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The Fed says activity in the housing sector is weak. What do you see is behind that hesitation?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: There are two parts to it.
One is, the rate structure is higher, so it's just slowed down the activity. So, if people are going to sell a house to move up to a bigger house or something, the cost of debt is going to go up.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: So that's slowing down that activity.
The second is building. And there's housing volume shortages all over the country, some single-family – you could have single-family, multi – small multifloor units, things like that, or even more, bigger multifamily in major cities. But there's a universal housing shortage, because, for so many years, it's been hard to get housing permitted.
And so the advice I give to anybody is, you're probably not going to see the 10-year rates go down. Our teammates think the Fed funds rate gets the low of 3, and but the 10-year rate stays between 4 and 4.5, which means the mortgage rate won't be a lot different than it is today.
But if you increase supply, you'll keep prices flat, and wages will grow through it. And you're starting to see prices have flattened out in many places. So you got to build supply, and you got to get permitting done, and you got to do that. It's probably the solution.
Moving mortgage rates 50 basis points will not be a huge change. When you have a bunch of people with 3 percent mortgage rates, that's not going to be a change. And, by the way, for the American economy, we do not want to have an economy that has to have that low a rate structure again, because that means we're not growing, we're not successful, and we're probably offsetting a recession.
So we shouldn't be cheering for 3 percent mortgage rates. It was an anomaly that happened, and now we got to get back to normal.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you do hear the administration talk about rates coming down as a good thing.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes. Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You're just saying it's not a simple, quick fix.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Well, for the housing market.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Because there's 60 million – there's 130-odd million households in America. Half of them don't have a mortgage. This is – this whole lock-in question…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: … is not even a relevant question. They rent, and so you got to bring – rental affordability is a question, or they own outright, and that's a different question. They inherit a house, you know, third generation, or something like that.
So it's a very complex thing. But simplistic – simplistically, if mortgage rates come down, people can pay more. The reality is, if prices come down, people have more affordability on that side. So I think it works itself through.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So let me ask you about Fannie and Freddie.
Taxpayers took a stake during the financial crisis in these mortgage lenders. The treasury secretary said that they are expected to return to the public market in the next year, with the government selling a portion of that stake.
Does Bank of America have a role in that transaction? But – but, for consumers, is that actually going to push up the cost of owning a home?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes, I don't talk about client relationships.
But, look, it won't if they keep the guarantee. And – and the administration knows that and Secretary Bessent knows it. That guarantee helps keep that mortgage rate down, but also provides a 30-year mortgage, because now, when you make a mortgage loan without a government guarantee, for a borrower who may be on the qualification levels there are more advantageous to borrow.
You're making a decision for the next 30 years that the borrower is going to be OK, or a lot of years.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: So that guarantee is critical to the U.S. getting fixed- rate mortgages and having a lot of mortgage availability.
And then they've run the things pretty responsible since the financial crisis. Down payments have stayed substantial. So the credit quality of current portfolios is pretty good. And they can't lose that, because that was the reason – one of the reasons why we had the financial crisis was the low down payments and lots of mortgage loans with zero equity in them.
And as soon as rate – prices on houses came down, the whole thing exploded, and all America was affected. So I think they're very mindful of all that. And I think the – but they're critical of the U.S. housing system. They always have been.
They're a great company. They're an iconic company for the U.S., frankly, now to put them together and are running well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the president has announced that he wants all these sweeping changes to the Federal Reserve. Chair Powell is set to retire from the job in May.
How much does that job matter to the consumer? How do you explain that?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Well, it's one of the interesting things.
So the president's going to appoint a new chair of the Federal Reserve. He's got great candidates. He'll appoint somebody, and we'll help that candidate get the information to be successful, and so we'll see what he does. But that's his prerogative. You know, that's – he should do it.
There's – in my mind, there's too much fascination with the Fed. We're not – we're a country – we're a country that's driven by the private sector, by what people do, and the businesses and the companies, small companies and large companies, medium-sized companies, and entrepreneurs and doctors and lawyer – all these people drive our economy.
The idea that we are, like, hanging on the thread by the Fed moving rates 25 basis points, it seems to me we've gotten out of whack. And so we got to get – since the financial crisis, the Fed had a big role in stabilizing the economy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: That's what they're supposed to do. That went away a number of years ago. It came back a little bit in COVID.
They're a lender of last resort. They're there to stabilize markets and prices. But, other than that, you shouldn't know they exist, quite frankly.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you don't worry about all this, you know, hand- wringing of political interference with the Fed once that new position is filled?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: The market is a – will punish people if we don't have an independent Fed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: And everybody knows that.
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: CBS News and The Free Press have secured a partnership with Bank of America "For Things That Matter," a series of town halls and debates designed to revive conversation on topics that matter the most.
We will be back in one minute with more of our interview.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're back with more of our interview with the chairman and CEO of Bank of America, Brian Moynihan.
(Begin VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, back in August, when we spoke, you talked about these allegations of banks playing politics and discriminating against conservatives.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You pushed back pretty hard in that moment.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But, earlier this month, the Trump administration released preliminary findings about banks, including Bank of America. It's a six-page report.
There's reference to your environmental and sustainability-related decisions that were made during the Biden administration. Do you feel you have to undo these? Have you undone them?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: A lot of them have been – have been undone or made more precise because the interpretation wasn't actually what went on.
So, if you read the Web site, you could say, oh, they're doing this. And the reality was, that's not what was going – never was intended. And so we don't debank anybody for religious or political reasons. We made the policies clearer, so people could see it. We welcome all the input from the banking regulators and others.
And we'll – we'll look at anybody who feels we – believe me, they – people have thought they were closed for reasons that they couldn't understand. We've looked at that probably, you know, because customers can come to our company and say, you closed my account. Why? And we can tell them.
But I think people are forgetting, the reason why a lot of this went on was reputational risk was an assessment process that went on, and it was real. And they – and, believe me, you know, people would read the paper and said, you know, Jane Smith, John Smith, you're doing business with them. They did something wrong. You must be – fail as a company, and, therefore, we're going to write you up.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That was during the Biden administration, that kind of social pressure, you're saying?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Even 20 years ago.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Twenty years ago. OK.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: It's been going on for a long time. It just kept building up.
And the second thing is that – that, for AML and KYC issues, we had to close accounts. And so the level of a transaction was set in 1972 at $10,000. And you have two things. If it goes above that, you have to report on it and if it goes multiple ones close to that. That hasn't been changed since 1972.
That number would be $80,000 today. So what we thought was material then…
MARGARET BRENNAN: In terms of, like, suspicious transactions.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes, and so there's a lot of overwork here that we're trying to – if they get those regulations right, that will be very helpful.
So there's sort of the ESG side of it. Those things, I think a lot of us fixed to make sure they're based on risk and real facts and stuff, because this was going on far before the new administration came in, frankly, in states and other places. There is the question of getting the AML, KYC letter, and then the reputation risk, which, to the credit of the current federal bankers, they've taken that off the table.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because there really aren't that many points of agreement these days between Wall Street and the White House.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But this issue, the president himself really dug into. And he said that Bank of America declined to open new accounts for him and his family after his first term in office. Do you think you've patched things up? I mean, is – do you know what he's talking about?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: We – I wouldn't talk about client relationships with anybody, but we banked everybody.
MARGARET BRENNAN: He said it on television about you.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: I know that. I know that. People – if I had a nickel for everything everybody said about me on television, it – I would be rich. So, in the end of day, we bank everybody. We have 125,000 religious organizations. We have 70 million consumers.
We have tens of thousands – we are the biggest small business lender in the country, period, end, stop. You know, and so, you know, the idea that we toss people out, it's – it's just not true. So I won't get into an individual customer and their – and their points of view.
But, look, some of these policies, we were pushed to places that we've been able to bring back to the center, and America ought to feel good about that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you think the – things are copacetic now?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have put this behind you with the White House?
BRIAN MOYNIHAN: Yes.
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Our full interview is available on our YouTube channel, our Web site, and our podcast.
And we will be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: For a look ahead to the top national security threats in 2026, we're joined now by two CBS contributors.
Chris Krebs was director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency during the first Trump administration, and Sam Vinograd, a former counterterrorism official at the Department of Homeland Security during the Biden administration.
It's good to have you both here.
FORMER DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER KREBS: Good to be here.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We have heard so much in the past year about A.I., artificial intelligence, in virtually every sector of the business world and national security.
You have said A.I., it's not just an app on your phone. It's not just a computer chip. It's energy. It's data centers. There are some really complex challenging – challenges here. What are you looking at in the year ahead?
FORMER DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER KREBS: Well, starting exactly there, just the diversity of sectors that are impacted by A.I., it is an incredibly complex global value chain.
It's chips. We have heard a lot about the Nvidia H200 chips and then competing against Huawei in China. It is software.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Trying not to sell them to China and the debate over…
(CROSSTALK)
FORMER DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER KREBS: Right. Right. And there's a significant tension in the national security space on, should we give China chips or should we deprive them of chips?
And it seems for now that the side that wants to give China chips and then extract value and revenue from it, that team has won for now. But, broader than that, there's software. There's infrastructure. There's data centers. There's water. There's thermal management. There is training. There's work force.
So it is not just about the app that manifests on your phone. It's the entirety of the economy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because it's reshaping so many sectors of the economy.
(CROSSTALK)
FORMER DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER KREBS: It's reshaping the way virtually every business operates.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
FORMER DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER KREBS: If you go talk to CEOs, they're talking about how they can be an A.I.-first company. Are they happy with the results that they're seeing right now? Absolutely not. But they know, two years, we're going to face this equivalent of a Cambrian explosion of A.I. capabilities across the economy.
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: And, Margaret, if I can just add, it's not just reshaping how businesses operate. It's also reshaping how governments operate.
If you look at A.I., nothing is zero sum in national security. It's not a net positive or a net negative. A.I., and I have seen this firsthand, is changing the way that investigations are performed. It allows law enforcement officials to comb through so much data and to do investigations more efficiently.
It is allowing the U.S. military to use certain autonomous vehicles and weapons that can reduce civilian risk, if managed appropriately, and more effectively engage in war fighting. It's changing the way the intelligence community is able to both collect and review data.
At the same time, it is opening up a whole new host of threats. A.I. doesn't just level the playing field for certain actors. It actually brings new players onto the pitch, because individuals, non-state actors have access to relatively low-cost technology that makes different kinds of threats more credible and more effective.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You said something that was a little frightening to me. You said, as technology gets more advanced, the ability to anonymously hurt people exponentially increases.
What does that mean on the homeland security front?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: A.I. gives actors, not just in the homeland, but literally all around the world, to very credibly pretend to be somebody else. It is upending the whole notion of what identity is in today's day and age.
A.I. is allowing bad actors to very authentically and credibly pretend to be someone else, both with their voices, with their faces, and then to deliver threats in a way that actually resonates. So it's impersonating someone, but then also using A.I. to figure out where vulnerabilities are in a system and what a target audience or a target entity is going to respond to.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So I want both of you to weigh in on this, but, Chris, we heard just last month the first documented case of a fully automated cyberattack by a foreign government. This was the A.I. chatbot Claude.
They said the suspected Chinese hackers had used their A.I. to breach about 30 global organizations, just to do it really quickly and efficiently, as I understand it. So whose job is it to protect against it? Is it the government's job or is it a private corporation to figure out how to protect against all these risks you laid out?
FORMER DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER KREBS: Well, I think there are two things in play right now.
One is, what's the regulatory environment look like that requires the safe use of these platforms? And we have seen a pullback on the regulatory front from this administration. The Biden administration had an A.I. executive order that required certain notifications and safety testings. That's been pulled back.
Instead, we're in this innovation-first model. And so…
MARGARET BRENNAN: That was light touch. This is even – this is no touch, you're saying.
FORMER DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER KREBS: This is – yes, I – again, this is really putting the full weight of the government behind the U.S. technology industry winning the global A.I. race. That is the top priority.
And so what's happening in the meantime is, you would normally say, OK, the states are going to regulate, but now you have the White House weighing in saying states cannot regulate in the A.I. space. And, again, CEOs want some guidance. They want governance. So they have to do it themselves.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, switching gears for a moment here, we're looking at 2026, a huge number of mass gatherings in the United States. You have got FIFA, World Cup, the Super Bowl, the nation's 250th anniversary. Are you concerned about homeland security in the new year?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: There are always a lot of threats facing the homeland. What is materially different in the coming year, in 2026, is that there are structural issues that I fear make us more vulnerable to successful attack.
That includes the fact that the United States probably for the first time in our history is no longer viewed globally as the leader and poster child for rules-based international order. Other actors feel like they don't have to follow the rules if we're not going to. That could introduce new threats.
At the same time, there has been a degradation in the systems of government that do identify threats and then work to prevent them, not just today, but over the medium and longer term.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We're going to take a quick break here, come back on the other side of it. More – more things to worry about in the new year in just a minute.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Coming up in our next half-hour, more of our conversation on national security, plus our annual CBS News correspondents roundtable.
Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're back with Samantha Vinograd and Chris Krebs. Both are CBS contributors.
Sam, you worked in Homeland Security under the Biden administration. And we heard at that time that the administration was just hamstrung unless Congress did something on the immigration front. This administration took a completely different approach. I mean let's just look at what they did this year. Mass deportation campaign. Significant change to legal immigration. Border crossings are now at the lowest level in decades. Secured major funding for ICE and CBP. Half a million arrests conducted. They repealed protected status for many immigrants. And now there's a travel ban or restrictions on about 39 countries total.
What is the longer-term impact of these kind of really massive changes?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: Well, to be clear, the Biden administration did take action in July of 2024 to try to curtail unlawful immigration. December 2023 we saw almost 250,000 individuals unlawfully crossing our border. By January of 2025, that was down about 85 percent before Biden took office – left office as a result of his executive order.
We are seeing, and likely will continue to see, a systemic dismemberment of lawful immigration pathways to the United States. And the administration has shared a variety of reasons for that. Failure for refugees, for example, to assimilate into the United States. Security concerns and other matters.
But if you just look at the numbers, immigrants today account for over 15 percent of the U.S. labor force. Millions of people in this country are immigrants. And if we look at the economic impact of removing that talent, removing those people from this country, there will certainly be an economic impact, as well as, I do believe, a technological and innovative impact as we look at the individuals coming here on student visas, on H-1B visas, and more. They are direct contributors to innovation in this country. And I fear that we risk losing out on that and getting the balance wrong between security, economic growth, and innovation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But on that point, Chris, the administration says you can financially sort of arrange for more H-1B visas. These are the highly skilled workers. Are we losing a competitive edge because of the restrictions?
CHRIS KREBS: I think this has been in play for several years, in fact. Going back even several administrations. What the Chinese, for instance, have figured out is that if they put their own capital into their Silicon Valley equivalent, they can retain high Chinese talent that has typically gone to the U.S. Gone to university in the U.S. and then stayed here because our venture capital space is booming. The Chinese have figured it out.
And what we're seeing now, back to the risks piece, is that the Chinese are using their financial resources to pull highly advanced, highly capability engineers out of the U.S. and European workforce, bringing them back, and then copy much of the technology that's giving us the edge.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, there is a connection here, back to immigration policy changes, too?
CHRIS KREBS: Absolutely.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sam, I want to ask you about another big event that's coming, the midterm races. We have seen a lot of political violence or concern about political violence in months past. The assassination of Charlie Kirk, the murder of a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband. We saw Governor Shapiro's Pennsylvania residence burnt. These are just some of the high-profile things. There's more that's happened. What do you anticipate? Should we be fearful of a political environment and elections?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: Politically motivated violence is probably the threat that keeps me up the most at night, particularly as we look at the year ahead. Undoubtedly, the United States is viewed as one of the largest sources of conflict and homes of conflict in the world today, which is a seismic change if you think about it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: Heading into the midterms and, of course, looking ahead to the presidential, we have already seen terrorism becoming a tool of choice in the homeland to settle both personal grievances and political vendettas. The reasons for that are, of course, enhanced rhetoric, but also, frankly, enhanced access to like-minded individuals, enhanced access to tactics and techniques online. The ability to find out where your target is going to be and when, and more. The rhetoric needs to be calmed down.
But there also needs to be the right investments in critical infrastructure protection, and in, appropriately, identifying foreign influence to try to stoke up political violence and other threats.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And there have been actual cutbacks in the things you just laid out as necessary tools in terms of the FBI, their task force on foreign influence operations.
Chris, the agency you used to work for, CISA, it's seen, not just budget cuts, but just open jobs here.
CHRIS KREBS: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What is going on? Why not build up protection going into an environment like this?
CHRIS KREBS: It's just not a priority right now for this administration. I think they believe that there were missteps in the past on with the Biden administration, and even the first Trump administration did on identifying, encountering information operations, particularly as they relate to elections.
But we know that these threats are real. We know these risks are real. And we also know that they're multiplying. Sam talked earlier about the exponential explosion of capabilities in the hands of bad actors and the explosion of bad actors themselves because of tools like A.I.
When I think about the '26 midterms, we are going to be two to three generations beyond what the current A.I. model capabilities are. So, they're only going to be more sophisticated, more advanced, more capabilities in the hands of those foreign and domestic that want to disrupt our ability to choose who represents us in Congress.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you very much, both, for sharing your expertise with us.
CHRIS KREBS: Thank you.
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We'll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: What's ahead in 2026? It's time to check in with some of our exhausted Washington beat reporters, including chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett, who also hosts "The Takeout," on our 24/7 digital network, chief Washington analyst Robert Costa, justice correspondent Scott MacFarlane, chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford, and senior White House reporter Jennifer Jacobs.
It's great to have you all here.
MAJOR GARRETT: Exhausted but also energized. You know, we've got to keep the energy going.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, keep the coffee coming, Major. We're going to need it for the year ahead.
But we looked at the polling, Costa. I want to get your take on this. Because a majority of Americans disapprove of the president's signature policy issue, immigration. It came in at 54 percent. His approval of his handling of the economy, which is his other signature issue he was elected on, is now at 37 percent according to our latest CBS poll.
Is the president frustrated with the perception of his first year?
ROBERT COSTA: Margaret, the Democrats are looking at those numbers, and that's why they're making their whole argument to the country of affordability. They see real vulnerability for this administration on the economy. But inside the White House, I would say the phrase is not affordability, it's self-confidence.
This president, behind the scenes, is telling his advisers to stay steady, to not have alarm. There is frustration about press coverage. There's frustration about how Republicans in Congress seem to be so worried ahead of the midterm. Some headed for the exits with retirement.
The president, again and again in private conversations with his top officials, is insistent that the trade policy is working. He's not going to pull off – pull back on tariffs at all. He believes he can have a new start with a new Fed chairman coming in in 2026. And so, it's President Trump at the center, driving this conversation and staving off any concern.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Jennifer, what do your sources tell you about how the president's going to tackle specifically some of these economic issues?
JENNIFER JACOBS: Housing costs are really eating into wages. And the president has been shown polling that showed this is a really hot issue for both Democratic voters and Republican voters alike. The president has about a dozen proposals before him that have all sorts of ideas of how to lower mortgage costs, decrease rental costs. They're thinking about creating a new savings account that would be similar to the 529 college savings account, but this would be for first-time home buyers. They're talking about federal lands, opening up federal lands for new housing construction. He has scheduled meetings down in Florida while he's there for Christmas break to talk to his advisers about this. I'm told that the president wants the housing cost issue to be the very first big policy decision that he launches in the new year, sometime January or February.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Focusing in on that biggest contributor to inflation, shelter costs.
JENNIFER JACOBS: Exactly.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Jan, tariffs are at the very heart of the president's agenda. And we know the court is expected to decide soon on the legality on a certain set of the president's tariffs that he justified by citing fentanyl. Should the White Gouse be so confident that they're going to win?
JAN CRAWFORD: I certainly didn't get that impression from the argument. I mean the chief justice, Justice Gorsuch, solid conservatives were asking questions, really skeptical of the administration's arguments on tariffs. It was kind of a tale of two arguments, though, because as that case kind of progressed, then they started asking questions skeptical of the other side.
So, I mean, I think that anyone that comes out and like confidently predicts how the court's going to rule in this case is just wishful thinking. I mean it could be very close. I could see a 5-4 ruling, Trump losing. I could see a 6-3 decision, perhaps, Trump wins.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Scott, on the legal front, the president has gone after some perceived enemies in things like executive orders, announced, you know, stripping away of security clearances, even of people who don't even currently have one, but he's made his point. But his attempt to prosecute opponents hasn't been quite as simple. What are you seeing?
SCOTT MACFARLANE: He campaigned a year ago arguing he'd end the weaponization of the Department of Justice against political enemies. And what did we see in 2025? An awful lot of investigations and criminal cases against his political critics. We saw these flailing attempts to charge James Comey and Letitia James, the New York attorney general. Those cases were dismissed. And twice in the past few weeks grand juries have said no to efforts to try to resuscitate the case against Letitia James. Grand juries rarely say no to prosecutors. That was a profound thing.
And I think more fundamentally, Margaret, it's not just the cases or the investigations or the calls. It's the changes inside of the Department of Justice. They have purged out prosecutors who handled cases Trump doesn't like, bringing in potentially new voices that critics would say are poised to weaponize against critics.
MAJOR GARRETT: And a tacit administration from the White House chief of staff that there is a retribution campaign in the article written by "Vanity Fair" Chris Whipple. Susie Wiles said, yes, she was going to try to put a time limit on that, unsuccessfully, but acknowledging what Scott just said is a real thing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, on this question, though, of limits to authority, Major, we've seen some limits to congressional power, or at least willingness to exert its authority. Do you think it's going to change this year?
MAJOR GARRETT: The political contours of the Congress going into 2026 are going to really flow through how anxious are Republicans about their own ability to obtain re-election. And do they have to create some noticeable difference between themselves and the president and the Trump administration Through all 2025 the answer to that was, no, we're good, we're staying in with Trump. But if the atmosphere, which currently exists, leading to some retirements, continues to worsen, you will see more congressional pushback. Does it manifold in a way that stops Trump and the administration cold? No, but it complicates things. And if anyone leaves the cabinet, the idea of who the nominee is and what their Senate confirmation prospects are will be filtered through this.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Costa, on that point, do you see departures from the cabinet happening?
ROBERT COSTA: It's very possible, though President Trump is not one to just make a move immediately because there's a flurry of news, negative news, about one of his cabinet members. We see he often takes his time to make some of the decisions, and he doesn't like to be pressured to get rid of anybody.
But there are so many people in the so-called MAGA universe who wants these slots. And they are able to get access to this president. A lot of these cabinet officials I've spoken to privately, and their top aides, say they're going to try to make it through the midterm elections and then leave. But if the president is feeling pressure to make some kind of significant change ahead of the midterms, I wouldn't rule anything out based on my reporting.
JENNIFER JACOBS: I can tell you, Margaret, this is not cabinet members, but this – in the West Wing, that main pack of inner circle advisers is going to stay intact. And that includes Susie Wiles and Stephen Miller and Karoline Leavitt, on the way down, that core group of people. They're not going anywhere. I think we will see some senior advisers in the West Wing leave. Just keep in mind that there are some advisers that have young children. So, they might be leaving for family reasons.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Jan, there is a perception that the Supreme Court has shown limited resistance to the president's efforts to expand the powers of the executive. Do you think that's fair? And do you think on that big case that's coming with birthright citizenship, that they will find in his favor?
JAN CRAWFORD: I think there is the perception because of the way the court has handled some of these emergency requests from the Trump administration to step in to these cases and put lower court rulings on hold while the litigation plays out. So, that would let the policies take effect. And the Trump administration has had tremendous success, I mean well over 20 such requests have been granted to let some of these policies go into effect, whether it's on deportations, on immigration stops, mass firings. But those are temporary, interim orders. And the administration has been very strategic and only appealing these adverse rulings from courts below that it thinks it can win. Again, these are just interim orders. Once we do get to the merits, I don't think Trump's going to win all these cases. And I certainly don't think he's going to win the birthright citizenship case.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You don't?
JAN CRAWFORD: No, absolutely not. He may not win the tariff's case. Right now it's looking great for Trump in the Supreme Court, but it may look very different come June when we have kind of gotten through some of these big, landmark rulings.
MAJOR GARRETT: And, Jan's beat is going to be at the center of the 2026 politics, tariffs, Voting Rights Act, and birthright citizenship. All will have massive, political consequences.
JAN CRAWFORD: Oh, and so many social issue cases as well. Transgender participation in girl's sports. We've got two huge gun rights cases. This is a highly consequential term for the court.
And, you know, it's going to be in conflict, I think, with President Trump by the end of the term because he's not going to like all these rulings.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we'll be right back with more from our panel.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're back with our panel.
Predictions for 2026.
Robert Costa.
ROBERT COSTA: My motto as a reporter is assume nothing. And we're very early in the 2028 presidential cycle and discussion. Governor Newsom of California, Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Governor Pritzker of Illinois, the list goes on. But my prediction is, in 2026, we're going to see some names we're not discussing at all start to emerge as possible contenders for the Democrats in 2028. Some celebrities might come into the mix. And one name I would venture, based on some recent reporting, Stephen A. Smith, the sports personality, is talking to people in the Democratic Party about whether he has a future. Whether he runs or not, TBD. But something to watch, celebrity politics in the age of Trump on both sides.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Jan Crawford.
JAN CRAWFORD: I'm going to revisit a prediction I made last year when I kind of confidently said that Justice Alito was probably going to retire and give President Trump his fourth nomination to the Supreme Court. Sources close to Justice Alito say he has not made up his mind. He, in many ways, is too young to retire. He's 75 years old. But then there's the concern that he's too old not too, because if he cares about his legacy, and he is that intellectual leader of the conservative wing, if he cares about his legacy with a Republican in the White House or a Republican- controlled Senate, this year would be the best time for him to retire.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Scott.
SCOTT MACFARLANE: I think Americans will begin or increasingly feel the effects of DOGE. There's an awful lot of people that lost their jobs in the last 12 months. A lot of long-time career civil servants who were good at delivering products for the American citizens. In my world, the Department of Justice, there have been 5,000 people. That can't help but slow down prosecutions, investigations, and doing right by American people. And that's true across the board in Washington.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Jennifer.
JENNIFER JACOBS: Fraud investigations. I think you're going to see this administration really dig in deeper to try to find evidence that proves fraud in various government programs. People cheating the system, trying to fleece taxpayers.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Major.
MAJOR GARRETT: So, I'm going to be the glue for this process because we have predictions and underreported.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We get –
MAJOR GARRETT: Mine merge together.
So, prediction is, data centers and A.I. expansion will be an underappreciated but potent political issue in 2026. Eight executive ordered signed by President Trump related to artificial intelligence just behind tariffs and immigration. He has made himself the A.I. president. Yet, let me give you some names of state, Indiana, Arizona, Missouri, Texas, all in one way or another, on the Republican side, are up in arms about either A.I. regulation, lack thereof, or data centers and their implications. Sixty percent in our most recent poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans believe artificial intelligence will not increase jobs but take jobs away. And 44 percent in our most recent poll want more regulation of A.I. than less. This is a wedge issue that Democrats have identified because it is not cohered on the MAGA side. The president has already put down his chips on it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. Underreported . What did you want to report that you couldn't?
JENNIFER JACOBS: I love, to Scott's point, I'm going to build on it Elon Musk and the DOGE team.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
JENNIFER JACOBS: They promised to cut the federal workforce. We're at the end of the year. So, what is the tally for the year? It is 271,000 workers. That's according to the latest jobs report that showed how many workers the federal government shed. So, just to put that into perspective, that's roughly the population of Madison, Wisconsin. So, imagine if every single person in Madison, Wisconsin, were to lose their job, either ousted or they leave their job.
So, the bottom line on DOGE is that they did not succeed in cutting overall government spending, but they did fulfill their mission to trim the federal headcount by roughly about 10 percent. And I think it's going to be important to track those workers and to see where they end up, what their fates are, because they are not being scooped up in the private sector, at least not yet.
SCOTT MACFARLANE: There was some attention, but not the requisite attention to the thermonuclear use of pardons in 2025. Blanket pardons, family pardons, preemptive pardons. Is the next person going to bring it back to what we've enjoyed over the past couple centuries, the traditional controversies around pardons?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Jan, under reported?
JAN CRAWFORD: You know, there is a narrative that the Supreme Court is corrupt. I mean we saw that emerge in the wake of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe versus Wade. And now we see it, that they're in the tank for Trump. Not only is that narrative overreported, it is patently false, and it is dangerous for the institution and the public's faith and confidence in the rule of law. This is a conservative Supreme Court. It has been a conservative Supreme Court for 20 years. People can disagree and do disagree with their opinions, but it's profoundly wrong to call it – or say corruption where there, in fact, is none.
What's underreported is any understanding of what this court's been doing for the past 20 years. Its views of its role, vis-a-vis the other branches. How it sees the law. How it's trying, in its focus, to restore some kind of accountability and our constitutional structure.
Again, this is a court that is functional. It is consistent. They are nine justices. They don't necessarily see the Constitution the same way by any means or how to interpret federal law. There's a struggle over the proper way to interpret the Constitution. But that is as it should be. And I think as we approach our 250th anniversary of this country, it's important to think about the court and their rule of law as the justices are doing, especially if we hope to keep democracy intact.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That's a big statement, Jan, if we hope to keep democracy intact. My goodness.
JAN CRAWFORD: If we lost – if the public loses confidence in the rule of law, I don't know what that means for democracy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: And that's why I think some of the rhetoric about corruption is so, so profoundly irresponsible.
SCOTT MACFARLANE: And it causes threats.
JAN CRAWFORD: Oh, yes. Which, again, I mean the justices are under tremendous, and federal judges as well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it's all institutions, including for (ph) the state.
Bob Costa, your underreported?
ROBERT COSTA: Just briefly. One of the most striking stories of the year politically, Zohran Mamdani. Young –
MARGARET BRENNAN: He's underreported?
ROBERT COSTA: No, no. Let me – let me make my point. One of the most striking stories was Mamdani's victory. The big question a lot of people have is, well, how does this happen? How does this young, Democratic socialist win in New York City? In my view, the most underreported story of the year is how someone laid the foundation for Zohran Mamdani. Someone near 50 years older, Senator Bernie Sanders, independent, Democratic socialist of Vermont, had what's called a "Fight Oligarchy Tour" earlier in 2025, drawing thousands of people in red states and blue states. Sanders enabled Mamdani, and others like him, to start to gain traction for Democratic socialism inside of the Democratic construct in this country in 2025.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Interesting, indeed.
Thanks to all of you.
MAJOR GARRETT: Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And good luck to us all in 2026.
We'll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thanks for watching. We want to wish all our viewer a very Happy New Year. For "FACE THE NATION," I'm Margaret Brennan. We'll see you in 2026.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
