Imagine the world on the edge of its seat, with families clinging to hope as a historic hostage release looms just hours away—yet amidst the anticipation, a bold peace deal in the Middle East hangs in the balance, and at home, a government shutdown threatens to disrupt lives. Vice President JD Vance sat down with Margaret Brennan on 'Face the Nation' to shed light on these unfolding events, offering insights that could redefine American foreign policy and domestic stability. But here's where it gets controversial: Is this non-traditional approach to diplomacy a genius move or a risky gamble that could backfire? Let's dive into the conversation, unpacking the details step by step, so even newcomers to these topics can follow along easily.
Transcript: Vice President JD Vance Appears on 'Face the Nation' with Margaret Brennan, October 12, 2025
Updated on: October 12, 2025 / 9:42 AM EDT / CBS News
What follows is a fully rephrased account of the dialogue between Vice President JD Vance and host Margaret Brennan, broadcast live on 'Face the Nation' on that pivotal October morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning, everyone, and welcome back to Face the Nation. We're kicking things off today with Vice President JD Vance, connecting to us live from Cincinnati. Good morning, Mr. Vice President.
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: Good morning, Margaret. I appreciate you inviting me on the show.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We're mere hours away from that crucial 72-hour window for the hostage release, and it feels like the entire globe is holding its breath. Can you share if the administration is detecting any positive signals that Hamas and Israel are aligning with the requirements to make this happen?
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: Absolutely, Margaret—and fingers crossed—but we're feeling quite optimistic that the hostages will indeed be freed. On top of that, the President is likely heading to the Middle East later today to personally welcome them back. This is not just a victory for their loved ones; it's a monumental occasion for humanity as a whole. The President assembled a special diplomatic team, including figures like Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, with a clear mission: secure an agreement to halt the conflict in Gaza, kickstart its reconstruction for a peaceful and prosperous future, eradicate the terrorist risks facing Israel—something that's absolutely vital—and most importantly, ensure those hostages return home safely. It was an enormous challenge. He opted for unconventional diplomacy, drawing in individuals without decades of traditional embassy experience but who brought innovative viewpoints. Naturally, both the President and his team faced plenty of criticism for this fresh strategy. Yet, by charting a new course instead of following the old paths, we've reached the verge of a genuine, enduring peace in the Middle East. This could be a transformative moment for everyone involved.
And this is the part most people miss: How did a team of outsiders manage to bridge such deep divides? It's a reminder that sometimes, shaking up the status quo leads to breakthroughs others thought impossible.
MARGARET BRENNAN: These are incredibly ambitious goals, especially in the second phase of the agreement. Let's get into the specifics. The administration has committed around 200 U.S. troops from Central Command to assist with execution—though they're not deploying directly into Gaza. How long might their involvement last? And on a larger scale, is the Trump administration fully dedicated to maintaining that ongoing pressure? After all, dismantling Hamas and fostering a secure Gaza won't happen in an instant.
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: You're spot on, Margaret. Achieving this will demand unwavering commitment and steady influence from the President all the way down. I can assure you, he's deeply invested in that effort. Regarding those 200 troops from Central Command—Central Command, for those just learning, is a key U.S. military headquarters overseeing operations in the Middle East and parts of Asia—they're already stationed there, having been based at that location for years. Their role will be to oversee and facilitate the peace process, helping to mediate inevitable disagreements. For instance, there might be clashes between Gaza residents and Israel, or between Israelis and Gulf Arab nations, and we'll act as neutral mediators to keep everyone focused on building a lasting harmony. One aspect that's often overlooked in coverage, Margaret, is how the President persuaded the broader Islamic world—from Gulf states to even Indonesia in Southeast Asia—to contribute ground forces to secure Gaza safely. This enables rebuilding efforts, dismantles terrorist groups, and paves the way for that coveted permanent peace we all desire. So, Muslim-majority nations are stepping up significantly with boots on the ground, while we continue our mediating duties. This setup has proven effective so far, and we're committed to sustaining that success every step of the way.
But here's where it gets controversial: By involving global partners in this way, is the U.S. outsourcing security responsibilities, or is it a smart way to share the burden for a more inclusive peace? What do you think—could this approach prevent future conflicts, or does it risk complicating things further?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Zooming out to the bigger picture of U.S. security, you mentioned back in July witnessing distressing images of children in Gaza suffering from starvation, and you urged Israel to allow more aid in. Do you worry that, even if this conflict ends favorably, America's safety might be compromised by the perception that we've stood by Israel despite actions you and the President disagreed with?
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: Let's put things in perspective, as the President has emphasized: this war erupted from a savage terrorist assault on Israel, and our focus has been twofold—eliminating threats to Israelis while guaranteeing essential humanitarian help reaches innocent civilians in Gaza. Striking that equilibrium is tough, but look at the evidence: celebrations in Gaza streets, enthusiastic support from Gulf Arab states and the wider Muslim world, and even Israelis rallying with cheers at the sound of President Trump's name just yesterday. This peace initiative unites Muslims, Jews, and Christians in seeing it as a win for the planet and for humankind, all thanks to the President's visionary guidance. In my view, this agreement will actually enhance our security. Sure, lingering resentments from the past years of warfare are unavoidable, but establishing a solid peace, Margaret, will absolutely make Americans safer in the long run.
This is the part most people miss: In a region rife with historical tensions, how did a U.S. leader foster such widespread unity? It challenges the notion that peace is always elusive—perhaps it's about bold, unconventional leadership.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Shifting gears to domestic matters, or rather, the lack thereof in terms of talks to end the government shutdown. Over 4,000 reduction-in-force notices, known as RIFs, were issued last Friday to employees in seven agencies, including Treasury and Health and Human Services. Let's replay what the President had to say about it.
[SOT]
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We're trimming some programs favored by Democrats that Republicans don't support, as a fair turnabout. They pushed for their priorities, so now they're getting a dose of their own medicine.
[END SOT]
MARGARET BRENNAN: How are you determining who gets let go?
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: Primarily, Margaret, our priority is keeping vital services operational. With a shutdown in place, funding is scarce because appropriations for government operations haven't been approved—that's on Chuck Schumer and the Democrats. We're doing our utmost to protect services for low-income women and children, like food assistance, ensure our military gets paid for national security reasons, and guarantee workers receive their salaries. Regrettably, this means some federal employees will lose their positions. It's not a choice we relish; we'd prefer the government to reopen fully. But Chuck Schumer and the Democrats triggered this shutdown, so we're managing the fallout in the administration accordingly.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But these are permanent job losses, not just temporary furloughs, which makes this situation distinct. Focusing on the health sector, CBS verified over the weekend that the Trump administration reversed layoffs for hundreds of CDC scientists initially dismissed on Friday, only to clarify on Saturday that some errors occurred. A number of these experts were key in responding to measles outbreaks and Ebola threats. How did such a blunder take place? Did the White House consult with the CDC beforehand?
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: I have two main points here, Margaret. First, let me reassure everyone that frontline health workers—those tracking diseases like measles, Ebola, and others—are still active and striving to get compensated. We want them content and equipped to perform their duties effectively. Second, shutdowns inherently create disorder as we redistribute funds from one area to another. This turmoil stems from Chuck Schumer and the far-left Democrats forcing the shutdown. Keep in mind, most Republicans, plus several moderate Democrats, have consistently backed reopening efforts. When Chuck Schumer and his allies persist in keeping the government closed, it breeds this kind of confusion. So, to answer your question directly: the error arose because of the shutdown imposed by Chuck Schumer, and we're working hard to keep critical services running despite it.
And this is the part most people miss: In the heat of a shutdown, how do you prioritize who's essential? It's a stark illustration of how political standoffs can ripple into real-world impacts on public health.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yet, this was a decision from the White House to terminate these jobs, as echoed in the President's remarks. It wasn't Chuck Schumer's call. I get your overarching argument about the broader talks, but the dismissals originated from the President and his team.
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: My key point, Margaret, is that layoffs are necessary to allocate resources for the government's most pressing tasks, and in that process, some disarray is inevitable. We're dismissing individuals the White House would rather retain; reopening the government would allow us to maintain all essential functions. But with restricted finances during a shutdown, we must shift priorities, leading to some unpredictability. We're playing the hand dealt by Chuck Schumer and the Democrats, committed to serving the public faithfully. That's our pledge, but expect some turbulence—that's precisely why we urge the Democrats to agree to reopen the government.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you certain these cuts comply with the law, especially given concerns from unions that they breach the Anti-Deficiency Act by reducing forces during a shutdown?
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: We are confident, Margaret. We adhere strictly to legal standards and judicial precedents, believing we have the authority to proceed. Lawsuits might follow, and courts will adjudicate them. But let's not forget the root cause: Why are we here? Debates over temporary versus permanent layoffs arise from the messy reality created by Chuck Schumer and a handful of far-left Democrats shutting down the government. If they aligned with moderate Democrats and the majority of Republicans, we could reopen everything, rendering these discussions obsolete.
But here's where it gets controversial: Is framing layoffs as a necessary evil during a shutdown fair, or does it unfairly target federal workers in a political power play? Does this approach uphold accountability, or does it risk setting dangerous precedents for future administrations?
MARGARET BRENNAN: When I questioned Senate Leader Schumer on this show last Sunday about restarting the government, he insisted it requires bringing everyone together with the President—specifically, just the five key players, including the President himself, to resolve it. Why isn't the President demanding that lawmakers return to Washington for face-to-face discussions?
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: As Schumer noted, it's not about all lawmakers—it's the Senate leadership prolonging this. The House has already approved a reopening bill; it's the Senate, particularly a far-left faction of Democrats, blocking it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The President positions himself as a master dealmaker. So, why not compel a resolution? Why not instruct Republican leaders like the Speaker to round up their members, come to his office, and negotiate intensely?
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: That's a valid inquiry, Margaret. The issue isn't about negotiating a deal; it's about hostage-taking. Schumer hasn't outlined specific needs—he's declared that unless we concede to his demands, he'll keep the government closed. That's fundamentally different. If Schumer wants to meet in the Oval Office or elsewhere, he's welcome to discuss improving healthcare for Americans. We're eager to reduce insurance costs and curb the rising healthcare expenses from the Biden era—that's a worthwhile dialogue. But entering negotiations where someone threatens to shut down the government unless they get their way, denying food aid to low-income families and withholding military pay, is unacceptable. We won't engage in talks with someone holding the entire federal government ransom over a healthcare policy disagreement. This echoes what Barack Obama told Ted Cruz and others: discuss healthcare, but don't shut down the government. That's exactly what President Trump is conveying to Schumer and the far-left Democrats—we won't bargain over reopening. We'll talk policy afterward, once they fulfill their duty to unlock the government's doors for the people.
MARGARET BRENNAN: To wrap up quickly, what's your outlook for healthcare policy? Are you considering phasing out those tax credits gradually, extending them before phasing out, or perhaps making them indefinite?
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: Tax credits help some deserving individuals, but many end up fueling waste and fraud in the insurance sector. We aim to direct them precisely to those who truly need support. Additionally, Obamacare imposed burdensome rules on insurers that, if relaxed, could deliver superior healthcare at reduced prices. That's our focus. Ironically, Margaret, there's broad consensus here—moderate Democrats and the White House are open to compromise and discussion. But if far-left Democrats under Schumer's lead keep the government shuttered and demand total capitulation, that's not negotiation; it's extortion, and we won't incentivize such tactics in Washington.
This is the part most people miss: Amid all the gridlock, why does healthcare reform seem so negotiable on paper yet so divisive in practice? It highlights how ideology can turn solvable problems into standoffs.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you for joining us, Mr. Vice President. Face the Nation will return shortly. Please stay tuned.
There you have it—a candid exchange touching on international hopes and domestic hurdles. But here's where it gets truly controversial: Does Vice President Vance's defense of the administration's strategies hold up, or is it a deflection from deeper issues? Are unconventional diplomatic picks a stroke of brilliance, or do they undermine established expertise? And on the shutdown, is this a fair response to political brinkmanship, or an overreach that harms essential workers? We'd love to hear your take—do you agree with the administration's approach, or disagree? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and let's spark a meaningful conversation!
