Face the Nation Adams Sadjadpour McKenzie

Welcome back to Face the Nation. We turn now to former US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, who joins us this morning from Indianapolis. Good morning to you, doctor. Thanks for having me, Margaret. And I'd like to start by saying that the most important thing for your viewers to understand is that America's most pressing health threat today isn't opioids or obesity, it's mistrust. 70% of Americans say they support childhood vaccines in school mandates. Yet slim majority say they do not trust health information from Robert Kennedy and say they would not trust Surgeon General nominee Casey Means. So failure to acknowledge this plummeting trust, or worse if we're seeing to accelerate it, is going to hurt Americans. And actually, Margaret, according to Republican pollster Fabrizio Word", it's going to hurt Republicans in November elections. well, that's not where was going with the question, but yes, I've seen some of that polling. and it says that the Maha health guidance resonates more with voters than the vaccine skepticism. So Republicans seem to be signaling what would be more resonant with the majority of voters, but in terms of the policy at this moment in time, you were President Trump's Surgeon General during his first term. there are now more than 1,500 confirmed measles cases in the US since January, according to the CDC. There is this spike out in Utah. Why can't the existing health infrastructure stop this? Well, that's great question, and you have to start off by understanding that almost 20,000 people have been cut from HHS. and so normally we have measles cases every year. We had about 250 in 2024. We had about 2,000 last year. As you mentioned, we're at 1,500 already this year. But normally, we're able to control those outbreaks because of the CDC, because of public health infrastructure and funding. All of that has been cut, and now instead of one case turning into two or three and being stopped, it's turning into 20 and 50 and 100 cases. And we're also seeing falling vaccination rates. broad group of states are falling below that 95% threshold for herd immunity from measles. Utah, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, all below that 95% threshold. And the further we get below that, the more these outbreaks explode. Well, you mentioned the memo. This was pollster who continues to consult for the president for Republicans, Tony Fabrizio. In the memo, he writes, "Policies related to vaccines and vaccine safety need to be addressed carefully and with nuance. That's because overall, slim majority of voters are not convinced there are negative health impacts from vaccines." He was speaking about how Maha and Maga need to continue to work together for the benefit of the Republican Party. But by saying there's slim majority who are unconvinced, he He's making it sound like it your party really is struggling with this, frankly. Well, well, well, they absolutely are. And understand why parents are frustrated with the health care system. It is not working for people. And and we've always as physicians been taught to respect patient autonomy. But the difference here is you're seeing health secretary and an infrastructure that is actively sowing distrust in vaccines and in the health care system. believe we can do both. believe we can respect patients' autonomy. We need to make sure we're facilitating those conversations between patients and their doctors or their pharmacists or nurses, while at the same time telling people what we know to be true. And that is that childhood vaccines like measles, mumps, rubella are safe, they're effective, and they're the most important public health achievement of our lifetimes. We're not going to make America healthier if we go backwards on vaccines. So the chair of the health committee, Senator Bill Cassidy, who's also physician, asked Casey Means. She is the doctor you referenced who is the choice of the Trump administration to be the next Surgeon General. He asked her whether she would recommend mother vaccinate her child against measles. Here's the part of the exchange from her confirmation hearing. As her nation's doctor, would you encourage her to have her child vaccinated? I'm not an individual's doctor, and every individual needs to talk to their doctor before putting medication in their body. I'm absolutely in supportive of of of the measles vaccine, and do believe vaccines save lives and are important part of the public health strategy. So the doctor did say she is supporter supportive of the measles vaccine. Why does that stop short of what you would want to hear from someone in that role? Well, number one, watched the the the hearing. This was after much pressing and equivocating, number one. And she said she's not an individual's doctor, that is correct. But but you're applying to be the nation's doctor. For me, this isn't personal or political. Number one, and I've talked to you about this, it's about her not having the basic qualifications to do the job. She does not have an active medical license and would be the first surgeon general ever to be in the role to not have an active medical license. But beyond that, to to the point you brought up, in the midst of massive measles outbreak, America needs surgeon general who can clearly stand behind vaccines. When came in, we had the opioid epidemic and an overdose crisis. Imagine if had said, "You know, as Surgeon General, it's not my place to tell people to take naloxone" on the opioid overdose reversal agent, "they should talk to their doctor about it." That would not be acceptable in that circumstance, and it's not acceptable to have surgeon general who equivocates on vaccines, much less one who can't actually practice medicine and meet the qualifications to be physician in the corps. Well, the doctor apparently has an inactive medical license that she says she voluntarily placed on inactive status. And want to talk about this because it it seems feature, not bug, right? Because the HHS secretary has described Dr. Means as as being perfect for this job. He says the Surgeon General is symbol of moral authority who stands against the financial and institutional gravities that corporatize medicine. He said she was great student and surgical resident, but she left traditional medicine because patients weren't getting better, and that's why she should be the disruptor in this moment. So when you say there's distrust, how do you respond to those who say disruption is the purpose of this selection? Well, well, again, number one, recent Axios poll came out, and that poll showed that 68% of people who were who were questioned said they would not trust health advice from surgeon general, Casey Means. So you're not going to restore trust if preemptively the public is telling you we're not trusting the person you're putting forward. And again, don't want to underplay this. Every physician, every nurse, every pharmacist, and the Public Health Service Corps has to maintain an active license. had to fire people for not having an active medical license. So this is is not about disruption. Casey Means can be part of this administration. She can advise the White House, she can advise Secretary Kennedy as her brother does. But that does not mean she's qualified to be Surgeon General of the United States after dropping out of residency and not having an active license. Yep. And just note, there is also no systemic confirmed CDC director currently amid the crisis. Let me ask you about social media as well, because there were these big cases this past week. New Mexico jury found that Meta platforms violated consumer protection laws by misleading users about the safety of Facebook, of Instagram, and WhatsApp. Out in California, there was another lawsuit linking Meta to young woman's depression. as doctor, are you convinced that social media has direct link to health? As doctor and as parent, I'm convinced of these facts. have three teenage kids. We know, based on Surgeon General Murthy's report, that there is increasing and very valid evidence out there showing links between social media use, particularly at younger age, and increasing anxiety, increasing depression, less sleep, which actually leads to mental health problems and also obesity. And so we need to, as society, understand the harms that are coming from social media, similarly to the harms that surgeon generals have pointed out before coming from cigarettes. We also need to, similar to cigarettes, point out the fact that these substances, meaning social media platforms, are incredibly addictive. And we're hearing again in these in these lawsuits that they were specifically designed to addict children, again, the way cigarette manufacturers tried to addict children back in the day. So I'm I'm I'm happy that we're having conversation about this. The policy is going to be hard, but Australia has already done it. They've banned social media for people under 16. You have 25 states, believe, that are that are to the point where they're discussing or have legislation keeping social media and phones out of schools. And we need to to really understand the harm that's occurring to our children because of this unfettered access to to screen time and social media. Before let you go, Secretary Kennedy spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday. He said he's worried about cell phones and recommends parents don't let their kids sleep with phones beside the bed. Would you agree with that recommendation? Yes, actually AAP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Health Department of California, all say that we should not allow cell phones in children's bedrooms. It keeps them up at night. It subjects them to to bullying constantly. And yes, it is good practice, and agree with the secretary on this. want to find common ground with the secretary. This is one place where we agree. We should not be exposing young people to cell phones and social media particularly in their bedrooms at night. all right, doctor, thank you for your insights today. We'll be right back. For more on the ongoing war in Iran, we're joined by Iran policy analyst Karim Sadjadpour, as well as former CENTCOM commander and CBS News contributor retired General Frank McKenzie who joins us this morning from Tampa. Good morning to you both. Karim, let me start with you. Today in Islamabad, you have Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, these self-proclaimed mediators gathered together to talk about how to de-escalate the war. Iran so far hasn't responded to the 15 points the Trump administration put forward. And Rubio said he's not even sure who they'd be negotiating with. So, what is the reality of who we're negotiating with and are we even negotiating? Well, Margaret, this is regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which came to power in 1979 taking American diplomats hostage and now they think they have the global economy hostage. And they're fighting war of survival. They're also fighting war of revenge against President Trump. So, at the moment they don't feel compelled to compromise, it seems, because the trend lines are oil prices are are going up, American public opinion about the war is is going down, and many of these leaders that we're hoping to negotiate with are right now living underground fighting for their lives. Well, to your point on that difference, that asymmetric difference in power, General, want to bring you in here because one of the things that Iran had been waiting to do was activate its militias or the militias that supports in Yemen, the Houthis. Over the weekend, they jumped into the fight and fired on Israel. Do you think that this is game-changer given that they could not just disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, but another passageway through the Red Sea? Margaret, don't think it'll be game-changer. their ability to attack Israel is quite limited. Yes, they will have the ability to further stop slow traffic through the Bab-el-Mandeb going up into the Suez Canal. We have the ability to go down there and prevent that. it will require additional resources, but we have those resources and we can certainly do it if that becomes necessary. Well, the president has made clear that he needs to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. His language has been contradictory on some of these points as to who's going to do it and when. What's the military reality of making it passable? We're on our way to doing that now, Margaret. This is part of plan that's been in existence for many years. What we're doing right now is we're reducing Iranian ability to target ships in the strait through their short-range missiles, their drones, and other activities. We do that by maintaining air superiority over southern Iran on 24/7 basis, looking for where these missiles are and striking them relentlessly. Once we reduce those to very low level, then you'll be able to go in if necessary, sweep for mines. I'm not certain they put mines in the water yet. predict eventually they will, it's their nature. but we have the ability to do this. we're on we're on plan. I'll be honest with you, Margaret, I've simulated this many years in many positions at Central Command. we're little further along than we would have expected to be at this point in all the simulations that I've seen. I'm going to guess in your sim- simulations you looked at what would happen to the Strait of Hormuz, even though the president said no one ever thought of it. You thought of it, didn't you? the US military thinks of lot of things. We certainly have thought of the Strait of Hormuz, thought of Kharg Island, think of all those islands on the southern littoral of of Iran. Karim, the president said the Israelis killed the second-tier pragmatist types that he had thought he might be able to go and negotiate with. In recent days, the name that has emerged is the parliament speaker Ghalibaf. What do we know about him? Is he someone you can make deal with? Ghalibaf is importantly former senior Revolutionary Guard commander and close adviser to Mojtaba Khamenei. Under different circumstances, he is someone who aspires to be Iran's modern strongman leader. I've actually met him in in the World Economic Forum in Davos. Just the fact that he shows up in Davos shows you little bit about his worldview. But under the current circumstances, no one in that Iranian system is capable of of changing the long-time ideology of anti- antipathy toward America and toward Israel, even if they wanted to. Explain that if you would, because what we hear from the White House and from Israel is that pressure will break them. You're saying they're unbreakable? At the moment, and this could change in the future, but we haven't seen any cracks in the regime's resolve. We haven't seen any crack- cracks in the cohesion of its security forces, and given the fact that so many of its top officials, including the supreme leader, have been killed, it's regime which is not prepared to compromise or change its ideology. They actually believe that antipathy towards America's is part of their identity, and if you capitulate on that, it actually doesn't prolong your shelf life, it actually could hasten your death. So, if there's not negotiated settlement, how does this end? don't see any possibility of resolution to this conflict. think the US and Iran are miles apart when it comes to their their goals here. Now, think we could see potential ceasefire that opens the Strait of Hormuz, which would shift this back from hot war back to cold war, but there's no possibility in my view so long as this regime is in power of US-Iran normalization. General, do you agree with that assessment? mean, it does seem that the Trump administration is acknowledging the regime will stay if they are at least offering to negotiate with the regime. So, it would allow for them to remain in power. the primary goal of Iranian statecraft, Margaret, is survival of the regime. Back in the late 1980s, they signed truce with Iraq when things were going very bad for Iran. In Iranian history, it's known as drinking from the poisoned chalice. believe that they will break. believe that they will come to terms, and it may be an imperfect solution, but think it would be one that would include opening the Strait of Hormuz, possibly some deal on the missiles on the missile systems. With the the nuclear program is certainly possibility, but believe eventually they'll make deal. But we need to keep the pressure up. We need to continue to press them very hard because that is in fact the only thing they will respond to. So, the president had posted he's postponed the deadline to open the Strait of Hormuz as result of the Iranian government asking for it. He says he's shifted that to April 6th at 8:00 p.m. we also hear from the Secretary of State that he's talking to the allies about post-conflict necessity of having other countries help to essentially police the strait. and he said that you will need tankers to have military escorts. So, this doesn't sound like this is short-term project. This sounds like even if combat ends, we're going to be talking about military presence in the region for some time. Am wrong? Margaret, you you could be right. let's see what happens. think negotiated There There are two ways the Strait of Hormuz can be opened. It can be opened if the Iranians negotiate with us to open it, and of course that's the desired solution. The other solution would be if they don't and they decide to fight. We can open the strait under that condition, too. The second condition is obviously lot more intensive in terms of ships and and and equipment they would have to bring into the region. And yes, help from our allies would certainly be would be very useful in that case. We have the ability to open the Strait of Hormuz under any condition that the Iranians choose to exist under. Does it appear to you that one of the contingencies that the White House is planning for, given that they're continuing to move troops into the region, and you have these Marines who are moving into the area as well, are they preparing for ground troop presence? And and what does that look like? Margaret, for many years we've considered options along the southern coast of Iran, seizing islands, seizing small bases. Typically raids, and raid is an operation with planned withdrawal. You're not going to stay. But some of those islands you could seize and hold. That would have couple effects. First of all, it would be profoundly humiliating for Iran, and would give us great weight in negotiations. The second, the example of Kharg Island, which everyone talks about, if you seize Kharg Island, you really can shut down the Iranian oil economy completely. And the beauty of seizing it is you're not destroying it, you're retaining it for further use by the global economy, and possibly for return to Iran under certain conditions. So, all of these things, this is not back of the These are not back of the envelope calculations. These are things we've been working on for many years, and think we're right to threaten the entire littoral, to hold all these options out there. And think the president's message is spot-on when he talks about all these alternatives. But can he achieve his goals without ground troops, which is what the Secretary of State says? And how does this end? How do you call this success? Sure, think success looks like the Strait of Hormuz is open. We get some kind of deal on the ballistic missile program, some kind of deal on the nuclear program. That's probably about as much as you could hope for, but think they're very discrete things that for me, at least from an operational military perspective, would be would look like victory. believe all of those things are actually within our grasp. We just need to continue. Iran will ultimately respond to the use of force. They know and understand it perhaps better than we have we have in the past. This administration is willing to use force. Other administrations have been thoroughly deterred by Iran. President Trump is not deterred by Iran. Yeah. Well, the president says he wants deal even though know you think that's going to be pretty hard to get to. And he said Vice President Vance is going to be directly involved here, Karim. what does that signal to you? Well, the Iranians actually want to negotiate with Vice President Vance for couple of reasons. Number one, they think he comes from the anti-war wing of the Republican Party. And number two, they think because of the fact that J.D. Vance wants to run for president, he's incentivized to want to wrap this war up pretty quickly. And agree with something General McKenzie said, which is we know over the last five decades that this regime has only compromised under really clear circumstances. When it faces existential pressure coupled with clear diplomatic exit. think it's feeling existential pressure. don't think it they've yet seen clear diplomatic exit. Well, gentlemen, thank you both for lending us your expertise for this conversation. We'll have to leave it there. We'll be back in moment. This week could mark the beginning of new era for human space flight. NASA's Artemis 2 mission is scheduled to launch on April 1st carrying four astronauts in loop around the moon before they return to Earth 10 days later. The crew, three Americans and one Canadian, includes the first woman, the first person of color, and the first Canadian expected to travel to the moon. It's the first crude lunar mission in more than 50 years. And if all goes according to plan, you can see full coverage here on CBS News and next Sunday on Face the Nation. That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week. For Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan.