'This Week' Transcript 11-30-25: Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Don Bacon

A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, November 30, 2025 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JONATHAN KARL, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR: President Trump is lashing out against immigrants in response to the brazen attack on National Guard troops right before Thanksgiving. "THIS WEEK" starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Their families' lives are all changed forever.

KARL: Terror strikes Washington. Two members of West Virginia's National Guard shot blocks from the White House. One killed, the other critically wounded. The suspect, an Afghan national who had worked for the CIA and was legally living in the United States. Trump threatens to further crack down on immigration, suspending all asylum applications and vowing to deport even more.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, we’re going to be getting them all out now.

KARL: Martha Raddatz this morning on the fallout.

Illegal order backlash.

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): We recited something in the uniform code of military justice.

KARL: The FBI investigates six Democratic lawmakers after Trump accuses them of treason for saying that troops should not follow illegal orders, as "The Washington Post" reports survivors of a military strike on a suspected drug boat were killed after the defense secretary issued an order to kill them all.

And a U.S. delegation heads to Moscow with the latest proposal to end Russia's war on Ukraine. We’ll cover it all this morning with our guests, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen and Republican Congressman Don Bacon.

And our roundtable on the high stakes House special election that has Republicans worried about the midterms.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: From ABC News it's "THIS WEEK." Here now, Jonathan Karl.

KARL: Good morning. Welcome to "THIS WEEK."

It has been a somber holiday week after the shooting of two West Virginia National Guard troops here in the nation's capital. Our thoughts are with the families of Air Force Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe, who remains in critical condition, and Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, who lost her life in the attack. We’ll get the latest on the investigation from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

We’re also tracking two major stories overseas. With the U.S. pushing forward on peace efforts in Ukraine, Trump envoy Steve Witkoff is preparing to head to Moscow this week following a meeting with Ukrainian officials in Florida today. All as Russia continues to launch deadly strikes on Ukraine’s capital.

And developments involving Venezuela. "The Washington Post" reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a verbal order in September for the military to kill everybody aboard a boat suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean. A commander reportedly followed that order after an initial strike left two survivors. A second missile was fired to kill those survivors as they were clinging to the wreckage of the boat. ABC News has not confirmed the details of that report, but it has now led to bipartisan calls for investigation.

The administration says its actions in the Caribbean are meant to target drug trafficking into the U.S., but this week President Trump announced he will be issuing a full pardon to former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who is currently serving a 45-year sentence in federal prison, convicted of being a central player in a scheme to smuggle hundreds of tons of cocaine into the United States.

We'll get to all of that in a moment. But we start with my "THIS WEEK" co-anchor Martha Raddatz on the fallout from the deadly shooting here in the nation's capital.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR (voice over): It was a shocking and horrific attack on two National Guard members just blocks from the White House, leaving 20-year-old Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom dead.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: She’s just passed away. She’s no longer with us.

RADDATZ (voice over): And Air Force Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe fighting for his life. The suspect in the shooting, 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national. The suspect's identity and background sparking renewed criticism over the Biden administration's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.

And the United States' effort to help Afghans who had assisted America's military during the 20-year conflict. Sources say Lakanwal was a highly trained member of an elite Afghan counterterrorism force known as the zero unit, or national strike units.

GEETA BAKSHI, FORMER CIA COUNTERTERRORISM OPS. OFFICER AND FAMIL FOUNDER:

The men and women of these units were going after the hardest terrorist threats.

RADDATZ (voice over): Geeta Bakshi was a CIA counterterrorism operations officer who worked side by side with those units in Afghanistan.

BAKSHI: Over the course of that 20-year war, they saved countless American lives, often at great personal risk.

RADDATZ (voice over): She now runs a non-profit helping those who made it to the United States establish new lives. Bakshi says she was horrified by the attack on the National Guard, as are those she has helped settle.

BAKSHI: We work with a part of this community that is responsible, that wants to be here, that believes in American values. I believe that Afghans who came here through Operation Allies Welcome and since that time need to be re-vetted.

RADDATZ (voice over): Many of those fighters were hailed as heroes and brought to the United States under a Biden-era program.

SAM ARONSON, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We had bullets flying over our heads.

RADDATZ (voice over): Sam Aronson, a former State Department official, heartbroken for the National Guard victims, spent ten days in Kabul at the height of the chaotic withdrawal conducting quick checks on Afghans before they were sent to third countries for further vetting.

ARONSON: These people spent anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of weeks, in some cases months, at these third country lily pad sites. That's where the extensive vetting took place.

RADDATZ (voice over): But with President Trump back in office and this horrific attack, Afghan nationals are facing renewed scrutiny.

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: We are going through the databases to make sure that no known or suspected terrorist enter this country to harm our nation.

RADDATZ (voice over): Sources tell ABC News that Lakanwal was formally granted asylum this April under the Trump administration.

HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY KRISTI NOEM: We have 8,000 individuals that have been granted asylum since President Trump has been in office.

RADDATZ (voice over): But he had an expired work permit and could no longer afford rent and food and support his wife and five children. While authorities work to determine a potential motive in the wake of Wednesday's shooting, President Trump saying his administration will conduct a full review of all Afghan nationals who entered the U.S. under President Biden.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KARL: And Martha joins us now.

So, Martha, how surprised are your military and intelligence sources that somebody who worked so closely with the CIA so long in Afghanistan and moved here with his entire family would do something like this?

RADDATZ: I think they are in complete shock and, obviously, horrified at what happened. But they are also concerned that the other Afghans here who are productive, who have jobs, who are doing the best they can will be targeted by the administration.

KARL: It sure looks like that's the plan.

And then I have to ask you about this report from "The Washington Post" about a second military strike on one of these suspected drug boats targeting two survivors who apparently, according to "The Post," were clinging to wreckage of their boat. This has already led to calls for investigations in the House and the Senate.

RADDATZ: It certainly has. And what happened, Jon, this was the first strike on what they say were suspected drug cartels or drug dealers or people ferrying drugs to the United States. There was a first strike, most of the people onboard that boat were killed. And then there was a second strike. The administration released the footage of that first strike but never, as "The Post" reported, that second strike. And it's that second strike, they say, that Secretary Pete Hegseth said a spoken directive to kill everybody.

Now, the special operations commander, according to "The Post," ordered that second strike based on direction from Pete Hegseth. But the questions are, did Pete Hegseth, in the moment, in real time, as they were watching, say go back and kill those survivors? Because when you look at it, is that an imminent threat, even if it's the legal justification the administration is talking about, did those two men clinging to the side of the boat pose an imminent threat? And that is the question. And did it go back up the chain of command? Did the special operations commander say, wait, we need -- we need the lawyers. We need somebody to look at that. Those are the questions that we’re --

KARL: Because the allegation here is that you -- it violates the rules of war to attack people that are not an imminent threat.

RADDATZ: Exactly. And they -- and they -- the protocol was later changed because we have since tried to rescue survivors. So, that’s another question they’ll be asking as well, Jon.

KARL: Yes. And it’s important to point out, the -- according to "The Post" story, Hegseth issued that order before the first strike, say kill everybody, and the -- and the commander --

RADDATZ: And that -- and that is why the question is, did he go back to Pete Hegseth.

KARL: Yes.

RADDATZ: Because, according to "The Post," they were all watching in real time.

KARL: Well, all right, Martha, thank you.

RADDATZ: You bet.

KARL: Let's turn to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Secretary Noem, thank you for joining us.

Have we learned any -- have you learned anything about the motivations of this shooter? Why did he do this? Why did he drive across the country and carry out this brazen attack in Washington?

KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY:  Well, the investigation is still ongoing and we're allowing our partnership with the FBI and DOJ to continue to reveal all of the sources of motivation.

But we do believe this individual when they came into the country, we know he was unvetted. He was brought into the country by the Biden administration through Operation Allies Welcome, and then maybe vetted after that but not done well based on what the guidelines were put forward by President Biden. And now since he's been here, we believe he could have been radicalized in his home community and in his home state.

So, as we continue to talk to his family and his contacts, more details will be revealed, and we'll release those when it's appropriate. But this is something that for these individuals when they're brought into our country, it's a dangerous situation.

If you don't know who they are, if they're coming from a country that's not stable and doesn't have a government that can help you vet them, that we shouldn't allow it. And that's why I'm so grateful that President Trump has taken the action that he's taken the last few days to stop all asylum, to stop all processes that bring people into this country until we ensure that we know who these people are.

KARL:  So -- so you're saying there was no vetting outside the country? Because we had been told that there had been vetting outside the country. You're saying that there was no vetting at all by the Biden administration?

NOEM:  If you remember during that operation when Afghanistan was abandoned, people were just put on aircraft and brought to the United States. And the administration said at that time that they would vet them when they got here. And so they did, but they didn't do a thorough investigation. What they did was check a few names and a few data points.

But what President Trump has put in place now for vetting is biometric information, checking social media platforms, communications, contacts, matching up dates of service.

That was never done under Joe Biden. He didn't do that. In fact, he brought people to this country and then just said, "Well, we'll vet them later."

KARL:  Okay.

NOEM:  And that's how things like this happen.

KARL:  I mean --

NOEM:  You remember this individual's application to be in this country started under the administration of Joe Biden. The information was gathered under the administration of Joe Biden and the consequences of this horrific shooting and death of Sarah lays directly on the shoulders of Joe Biden and his administration.

KARL:  I mean, I don't know what happened in this case. What the Biden administration has actually said is that they did vet these people in third party countries before coming to the United States.

But -- but you just said that he was radicalized here in the United States. So, was it our understanding that the issue, his intent happened here? This was not something he came to the United States with an intent to carry out attacks like this?

NOEM:  Well, we know that when Joe Biden left the White House, he left us with a 1.5 million case backlog in asylum claims. And individuals are required under a law and under policy to check in every single year when they have asylum in this country, and that wasn't being done. These individuals that were brought in were brought in and then vetted on information that was gathered by the Biden administration that wasn't thorough.

And so, now, we're completely changing that. Since President Trump has been in the White House and since I've been at DHS, we're using biometric information. And we're using those social media platforms and looking at what they're saying and doing, and making sure that we have a government when a -- when a country is sending us someone, we have a government that is stable in that country that can actually share information with us.

KARL:  So --

NOEM:  How do we vet someone that comes from Afghanistan or Somalia or Yemen if they don't have a government that we can communicate with that will share information with us?

So that is one of the prerogatives and the -- and one of the priorities that we're putting on these countries if they want to continue to send us people that want to claim asylum.

KARL:  And you said that he was radicalized here in the United States. He was admitted to this country by the Biden administration. That's 100 percent correct, 2021. But he was granted asylum by the Trump administration in April.

So, did you see any red flags?

NOEM:  Now, if you remember, Jon --

KARL:  Yeah. Did you see any red flags --

(CROSSTALK)

NOEM:  Remember, Jon, all the information that was gathered on that vetting process was gathered under the Biden administration. His asylum claim application started under the Biden administration. That information was provided by them, and the responsibility lies with them.

And we need to know that and speak the truth of how this entire process happened so that we can fix it.

KARL:  Are you saying --

NOEM:  And that's what President Trump has been doing and dedicated to is that when we look at people who deserve asylum, they have to be thoroughly vetted. They weren't under the last administration. That has completely changed under President Trump.

KARL:  So, so, but -- but again, he was granted asylum in April. So, President Trump had already been in office for several months. You had been in office.

Are you saying there was no vetting done by the Trump administration? You were simply relying on what had been done under the Biden administration? You did no vetting before

granting him asylum?

NOEM: The processes put in place were put in place using information that was gathered during the application process that happened under Joe Biden. And that has been completely fixed, and new metrics and new processes have been added under President Trump. He immediately went to work, and we put in place, under USCIS, the new data and new information that can be gathered, such as, you know, communicating with governments, getting information from them, and making sure that biometric information and dates of service match up.

Much of the information that was gathered and provided by the Biden administration wasn't thorough and wasn't done. And what kind of a crazy world is it when you have a president that allows millions of people to come into the country unvetted, not knowing who they are from countries that perpetuate terrorism upon the United States. And when we saw, during Operation Allies Welcome, was over close to 100,000 people that were allowed to come to the United States that Joe Biden said, you know what, we’ll vet them after they get here. We’ll let them into our country, and then we’ll vet them after they get here. And then they didn't do it. They didn't do a good job. And it wasn't complete and thorough. And that’s what is being fixed right now.

KARL: Again, what the Biden administration said actually is that the vetting was done before they came to the United States.

But let me ask you about another subject. When -- there’s -- there’s --

NOEM: Well, I think if you watched what happened unfold, it was incredible.

KARL: But I -- but you just said that that’s what Biden said.

NOEM: You -- you watched people pull --

KARL: I know, but --

NOEM: You watched people load onto those planes. It was mass chaos at that airport.

KARL: They didn’t come from those planes directly to the United States.

So -- but let me ask you about another question.

NOEM: It was during that period of time.

KARL: There’s a “Washington Post" report that one of those Venezuelan boats that was attacked by a U.S. missile, alleged drug boats, that a second missile was launched because there had been two survivors clinging to the wreckage of the boat. Do you -- I know this was obviously carried out by the Defense Department, but is the administration concerned here that that may have violated the laws of war? I mean was there an imminent threat posed by those people that were clinging to the wreckage of a boat that had already been struck?

NOEM: Oh, Jon, that entire story is based on anonymous sources. So, we see the press and we see that rag use nominee sources all the time to print things that aren’t true, that are lies that are completely not based in reality. So, I would not put any credibility to that story to what was said. I have full faith and trust in this president and in this government to do the right thing to keep the American people safe. And I'm so grateful at the amount of work that has been done to stop those deadly drugs from getting into our country.

Just in several offloads that we’ve been able to interdict and to stop and to blow up in the Caribbean Sea, it’s been enough to save over 45 million people. Forty-five million lethal doses were completely destroyed, that people will now be safer because of the work that the Department of War and this president have done.

KARL: This is now a subject of investigation by both the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee. But let me ask you, before you go, as you know, a U.S. district judge has now reopened a contempt inquiry into the decision to fly those planes of Venezuelan immigrants, alleged gang members, to El Salvador after he ordered the planes to be turned around. In a DOJ filing, the Department of Justice says that you were the one that made that order.

So, I have two questions on that. First of all, is that right? Does the -- does the buck effectively stop with you on this? Was this your responsibility? And had you known the judge had ordered those planes to be turned around when that order was issued?

NOEM: Yes, I made that decision. And that decision was under my complete authority and following the law and the Constitution and the leadership of this president, who is dedicated to getting dangerous criminal terrorists and gangs and cartels out of our country. And I'm so grateful that we get the opportunity every day to do that and to make decisions that will keep America safe.

KARL: Did you know about -- did you know about the judge's order when you issued your order for the planes to go (ph)?

NOEM: You know, this is an activist judge. And I understand, you know, we’re still in litigation with this against this activist judge who’s continuously tried to stop us from protecting the American people.

We continue to win. His ridiculous claims are not in good standing with the law or the Constitution. We’ll win this one as well. And we comply with all federal orders that are lawful and binding and we will continue to do that.

But I’m proud of the decision that I’ve made. Proud to work for this president each and every day to keep America safe.

KARL: All right, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, thank you for joining us.

NOEM: Thank you, Jon.

KARL: And I'm joined now by Democrat Senator Chris Van Hollen, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Let me start right with that interview. You heard her say over and over again, effectively, that this shooting was the fault of the Biden administration, even as it was the Trump administration that granted the shooter asylum. What do you make of this?

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Well, Jon, first, I join you in saluting the service and sacrifice of the National Guard members who were killed and all of them. This is a desperate attempt of the Trump administration to blame everybody else in the world and not accept any accountability. As you pointed out in your interview with the secretary, it was the Trump administration that was last in time when it came to vetting.

And I can tell you that they come before Capitol Hill, secretary of Homeland Security, FBI director, and they tell us how they have improved the vetting processes, and now they are trying to blame everything on the Biden administration. This is a president who refuses to take accountability for anything.

KARL: It was also interesting that she said that he was radicalized here in the United States. So how do you vet if the radicalization happens here, it didn't happen in Afghanistan?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, that's a very good point. And she talked about, you know, not talking with foreign governments. Of course, this is a person who worked with the CIA --

KARL: For years.

VAN HOLLEN: For years. So the reality is that we really don't know what motivated him to take this particular act. We should, of course, always review our vetting procedures, but it's not clear, you know, based on their own vetting that you could have picked something up in this case.

KARL: You were a big advocate, I mean, a lot of people were, both parties, for bringing the Afghan citizens who worked with the United States during the war on terror to the United States once the Taliban took over. Do you now have concerns that this might not have been a one-off, that there have been gaps in vetting and that there could be, you know, more problems?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, we should always review our vetting.

KARL: Yes.

VAN HOLLEN: But in this case, there's no evidence that there was something that escaped the vetting, as you just said, as the secretary indicated, he might have been radicalized here. If that's the case, again, the most recent in time vetting was by the Trump administration.

But, Jon, I do think it is outrageous and unfair to try to punish an entire class of people for the evil acts of one person. That is collective punishment. These are individuals who worked side by side with America in the fight against the Taliban. And if they were sent back now, the Taliban may likely kill them.

KARL: Might execute them.

VAN HOLLEN: So -- so --

KARL: And Maryland is among top 10 states in the country --

VAN HOLLEN: That's right. That's right.

KARL: With these Afghan citizens. I mean Afghan --

VAN HOLLEN: Yes. I think this is just a desperate attempt by the Trump administration to blame -- and I will say, Jon, I think it's important to remember that General John Kelly told us that President Trump told him that Trump had thought that members of our military were suckers and losers. And I see the president's mindset toward our National Guard and military, suggesting that they're political pawns of his and that they owe allegiance to him and not to the Constitution of the United States.

KARL: So let me ask you about that "Washington Post" report on the -- on the attack on that Venezuelan alleged drug boat. What do you make of what happened there? Do you think there was a war crime committed?

VAN HOLLEN: I think it's very possible there was a war crime committed. Of course, for it to be a war crime, you have to accept the Trump administration's whole construct here.

KARL: That we're at war.

VAN HOLLEN: Which is we're in armed conflict, at war with this particular -- with the drug gangs. Of course, they've never presented the public with the information they've got here. But it could be worse than that. Right? If that theory is wrong, then it's plain murder.

KARL: The first strike is murder in that case?

VAN HOLLEN: That's correct.

KARL: You're alleging.

VAN HOLLEN: That's correct. Well, I'm saying that it's either murder from the first strike, if their whole theory is wrong, and I think, you know, the weight of the legal opinion here is that they have concocted this ridiculous legal theory. But even if you accept their theory that it is a war crime, and so I do believe that the secretary of Defense should be held accountable for giving those kind of orders.

KARL: And this is happening, of course, as you have the secretary of Defense also saying that he wants to bring Senator Mark Kelly back to active duty, to put him before a court martial for telling members of the military they shouldn't follow illegal orders.

Let me ask you, if that happens, Senator Kelly is one of your colleagues, what -- how will the Senate respond?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, the Senate would be in uproar because this would be a blatantly illegal act, and another example of the president's abuse of power. You know, the six that the president are talking about are people who served our country unlike the president who

decided not to go --

KARL:  Uh-huh.

VAN HOLLEN:  -- based on a bone spur, apparently.

So we have here six real folks who have been dedicated to our country in the military who simply cited the law of the land which is that our men and women in the military should follow lawful orders which clearly has become more important than ever right now, now that we have this disclosure about Secretary Hegseth essentially saying, “Kill them all”.

KARL:  Yeah.

So -- so let me -- before you go, I want to also ask you about a “New York Times” story that I'm sure caught your attention about a group of Democratic senators who call themselves the “fight club” of the Senate who are pushing Chuck Schumer and others in leadership to fight harder against Donald Trump and his policy.

“The New York Times” writes, "The effort also amounts to an extraordinary preemptive challenge to Mr. Schumer at the earliest stages of the 2026 midterm races."

They -- they list your name first as a member of the -- of this fight club. What -- what is the -- what's the strategy here?

VAN HOLLEN:  Well, Jon, first let me just say, we are far more united as Democrats and Democratic senators than we are divided. I mean, we're all very focused on bringing down the health -- cost of healthcare --

KARL:  But you want Schumer -- you want Schumer to fight harder. I mean, that's -- that's true.

VAN HOLLEN:  This is not just about one person. It really is about the entire caucus and how the whole caucus --

KARL:  Yeah.

VAN HOLLEN:  -- engages.

You know, we haven't talked this morning about the rising costs of health care --

KARL:  Yeah.

VAN HOLLEN:  -- or other goods in the country. That's the way Donald Trump likes it.

But we are going to be very united in the fight coming up over the coming weeks to make sure that we don't allow those huge spikes in -- in healthcare costs. Republicans don't have a plan. So, we'll see how that plays out.

But look, it should not be surprising that there are differences of opinion as to the best way to approach a particular issue. But our overall goals are the same. Take on a lawless Trump administration and bring down costs.

KARL:  I've heard your name mentioned as a -- as a possible next Senate Democratic leader. We'll talk to you about that, maybe next time.

VAN HOLLEN:  That is -- that is not my focus. My focus is working with the caucus to make sure --

KARL:  Yeah.

VAN HOLLEN:  -- that we again achieve the objectives I just outlined.

KARL:  All right. Senator Van Hollen, thank you for joining us this morning.

VAN HOLLEN:  Thank you, Jon.

KARL:  Coming up, he's an Air Force veteran and a rare Republican congressman pushing back on the Trump administration's policies at home and abroad. Congressman Don Bacon joins me to discuss the latest on Venezuela, Ukraine, and more when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER:  There were a lot of Republicans who felt that the first plan, the 28-point plan was too favorable to Russia. Have you changed that?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Well, that was just a map. All that was is a map. That was not a plan. It was a concept.

REPORTER:  What kinds of concessions are the Russians going to have to make?

TRUMP:  Well, they’re making concessions. Their big concession is they stop fighting and they don't take any more land.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: President Trump this week, weighing in on the latest push for peace in Ukraine. Congressman Don Bacon, Republican of Nebraska, joins me now.

Congressman, let me start right there with the words we heard from the president. He says the Russian concessions would be they stop the war. I mean, what do you think is going on here?

REP. DON BACON, (R-NE):  Well, that should be the concession that Russia stops the war, but I've been -- you get mixed signals from the White House, and I wish they'd be more clear. The initial peace agreement from last week was Ukraine had to give up more land, had to reduce the size of its army, would have to not be allowed to join NATO. You couldn't allow foreign troops into Ukraine.

It really was a surrender document that would've left Ukraine weak and vulnerable to Russia for decades to come. I do think that agreement has shifted a little more back towards the middle. But I would like to see the president be a stronger advocate for the free country, the sovereign country of Ukraine that wants to be a democracy, wants to be allied with us, and have a little more clear-eyed view of who Putin is that Putin is the invader. He's the dictator. He has murdered all of his opponents.

But I just don't see that moral clarity coming from the White House. And we saw that Wall Street Journal article yesterday that many people around the president are hoping to make billions of dollars -- these are all billionaires in their own right -- from an agreement from Russia if they get a favorable agreement with Ukraine. That alarms me tremendously.

I want to see America be the leader of the free world, staying up for what's right, not for who can make a buck. I don't want to see a foreign policy based on greed. I want to see it based on doing the right thing. I want to be the city on the hill that Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln talked about, and not a country that's pursuing the big dollar.

KARL:  And Ronald Reagan too -- so, but -- but let me ask you, the -- Witkoff is going to Moscow and we heard this week from Vladimir Putin saying that it would be pointless. That was his word, at least that was the translation of his word. It would be pointless to make a peace agreement with Ukraine because Zelenskyy's government lacks legitimacy. I mean, what -- where could this go?

BACON:  We -- again, we need moral clarity dealing with Putin. He does not want a peace agreement with Ukraine that leaves Ukraine a sovereign country, that can be allied with the West, that can be part of the E.U. and free markets. He wants to control another third of Ukraine. He would like to make Ukraine a vassal state.

So, I don't know why the administration keeps pursuing the pointless here. But yet, we see The Wall Street Journal that there's evidence, it's all about trying to make agreements on rare earth minerals and natural gas pipelines and things like that, which Ukraine has no part of in this. And so, Putin does not want peace. The president should see it.

And therefore, we should be focused on giving high-end weapons, accurate weapons to Ukraine, long-range accurate weapons, and also air defenses that help protect their cities that are being bombed every single night. We need a little more Ronald Reagan here, as you mentioned his name, and he called the Soviet Union an evil empire. This president also needs to see the evil intentions of Putin, but he's -- he needs to call it out and see it for what he is.

KARL:  And let me ask you about the story we've been discussing this morning, the Venezuelan alleged drug boat that was struck one time, but then a second time as two survivors were clinging to the wreckage of the boat. Your committee, you're on the Armed Services Committee, is going to be investigating this according to your chairman. How concerned are you that this may have been a real violation of the way, even if we're -- I mean, there's a question of whether or not we're at war, but that this would violate the laws of warfare.

BACON:  Well, it is a big concern. Now, Secretary of Defense, Hegseth denies it. We should get to the truth. I don't think he would be foolish enough to make this decision to say, kill everybody, kill the survivors because that's a clear violation of the law of war. So, I'm very suspicious that he would've done something like that because it would go against common sense.

So let's get the facts, and if the facts go to where The Washington Post article takes it, well then, we'll have to go from there. But, if it was as if the article said, that is a violation of the law of war. When people want to surrender, you don't kill them, and they have to pose an imminent threat. It's hard to believe that two people on a raft, trying to survive, would pose an imminent threat.

So let's get the facts first. The Secretary Hegseth deserves his day to present his side of the story.

KARL:  And your committee we'll be investigating. Congressman Bacon, thank you very much for joining us.

Coming up --

BACON:  Thank you.

KARL:  -- why did Mike Johnson say in an interview that he's not really the Speaker of the House? The Roundtable discusses that and much more when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I get to serve the people I love, the country I love. I get to do something that I believe matters. That's not something everyone gets to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm the son of two Indian immigrants. And for me to be here on this stage in New York, to even go to the United States Military Academy, it reminds me of the American dream that my parents fought for.

Every day that I put on the uniform, every day that I see the American flag, that's what I'm thinking of. And I'm thinking about the opportunities that I have and the ability that I now have and maybe the responsibility that I have to offer that same ability, protection to other people who want the same dream.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: As we celebrate Thanksgiving weekend, we want to give our thanks to those West Point cadets reflecting on their military service at a recent event with pollster and West Point senior fellow Frank Luntz. He joins our roundtable when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL:  The roundtable's all here. We have former DNC chair Donna Brazile, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Democratic strategist Faiz Shakir, and communication analyst and pollster Frank Luntz.

So, Chris, let me start with what we just heard from Congressman Bacon about Ukraine. Those are some very harsh words towards the Trump administration, expressing concerns that there's like a profit motive behind this strategy on Ukraine and Russia.

CHRIS CHRISTIE, ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:  You know, Jon, the last book I wrote was entitled, "What Would Reagan Do?", kind of analysis of how would Ronald Reagan deal with these times.

If Ronald Reagan saw what's happening with Russia, Ukraine, the United States, he would get violently ill is what he would do because this violates every post-Cold War principle that we've had as a country that our allies have relied upon, that the rest of the world who are aspiring allies have relied upon, which is aggressive military conduct like Russia's engaged in will not be rewarded.

And yet that 28-point plan was nothing but a reward to Russia. And if -- if there turns out that there's a profit-making motive behind it, it would be both disgusting and not the least bit surprising.

KARL:  And, Frank, are Republicans on board with this? I mean, this -- this is a far cry from the party of Reagan.

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER & COMMUNICATION ANALYST:  They should be supporting accountability. That's always been the Republican message. And for the last 40 years, it's also been about peace with strength. And yet they seem to be taking a different point of view.

I've never seen a foreign policy issue change as quickly as Ukraine. When it started, 70 percent, 75 percent backed aggressive efforts. Today, it's down to 30 percent. Republicans have caved.

FAIZ SHAKIR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST:  But it's more than Ukraine. If you look at Trump's approach to foreign policy and domestic policy, there's such a class-based lens to it, Jon.

When you look at the 19 countries that he wants to restrict migration to, they're deemed to be poor countries. They are third world countries in his mind. They're lesser than human.

It's the same approach he takes in domestic policy. If you're on Medicaid, if you're on SNAP -- oh, sorry, you're lesser than human.

However, if you have wealth, I'll give you a pardon. You might engage in crypto scams. If you're Saudi Arabia, I'll bend the knee even to you. Russia, I'll -- I'll kiss your butt, too.

I mean, this view of treating wealth as if that's the virtue is degrading society all around us.

DONNA BRAZILE, ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:  You know, not that anyone should get in between me and my turkey carvings or my gumbo or my stuffed merlin tongs (ph). This got in the way.

I couldn't help but read J.D. Vance responding to Mitch McConnell -- Mitch McConnell who wrote, “A deal that rewards aggression wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.” And you know, the vice president tried to, you know, get the former leader of the Senate to shut up.

But there's something that Mitch McConnell said last week that really irked, I think, the Trump administration. That is, they're going around the regular national security personnel. They're going around even Mr. Rubio to try to come up with something that appease Putin.

He's the aggressor. We should not be a rewarding Russia for their aggression by giving them the entire eastern Donbas region. For what? For what purpose?

For Putin to come back and for Putin to say, "Oh, and I'm not going to let you get a NATO. I'm going to reduce the size of your military”? No way.

It's a bad deal for Ukraine. It's a bad deal for America. It's a bad deal for Europe.

KARL:  I want to get to the domestic side of -- Faiz, of what you were talking about. Those

ACA -- those Affordable Care Act subsidies are going to end at the end of the year, which means we are going to see skyrockets -- I mean, we are going to see premiums skyrocket for millions of Americans. What are Democrats going to do now?

FAIZ SHAKIR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST & BERNIE SANDERS 2020 CAMPAIGN MANAGER:  Well, first of all, obviously, there's a united front on fighting for the ACA subsidies. I do think that we have to come up with ideas of beyond just ACA subsidy. I'll throw a free one out there for anyone listening and watching.

Right now, if you -- if your ACA subsidies go through the roof, you have two options. You lose your healthcare or you pay through the nose.

KARL:  Right.

SHAKIR:  Why can't you buy into Medicare, Jon? Medicare is the most popular effective program out there. If I lose my healthcare, shouldn't I be able to pay a premium and just purchase Medicare? I hope that gets on the table.

KARL:  What are Republicans going to do on this, Chris? Because Trump seemed to be open towards a temporary extension of the subsidy. He's not going to be open for Medicare for all; I can promise you that.

SHAKIR:  Buying -- Medicare buying.

KARL:  What do you -- what do you think is they're going to do on this?

CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:  Look, I think part of the problem for my party is that we've never really had a plan on what we wanted to do. And we should come up with something, and the leaders should come up with something. And I think the president has always taken the position, he's had a concept. He's had a theory; he's going to have the greatest healthcare plan ever.

KARL:  And he couldn't negotiate while the government shutdown was on, on all this.

CHRISTIE:  Right. But I -- but look, I think this points to a bigger problem right now, for Republicans as we head into 2026, which is Donald Trump has been the master of being on the right side of the 80/20 issues. All across the 2024 campaign, he did it. He's now on the wrong side of what is becoming almost an 80/20 issue, which is the state of the economy and affordability. And he's on the wrong side of it. He wants to continue to tell people this is the greatest economy the world has ever seen.

KARL:  Prices are coming down.

CHRISTIE:  Right. All that stuff, and put aside whether it's true or not true, the truth of it doesn't matter anymore. What matters is that he has forced himself onto the wrong side of an issue. He has forced my party onto the wrong side of the issue. We saw the results of that in the 2025 elections in New Jersey and Virginia in particular, but also in places like Georgia.

And we're going to see even worse results for my party in 2026 if he continues to be unwilling to acknowledge there's work to be done on the economy, healthcare is part of that.

KARL:  So Frank, you got --

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER & COMMUNICATION ANALYST:  The Democrats have figured out that it's not inflation. For half a year, that's what you all talked about. No one talks about inflation. When they walk into a supermarket, I can't afford that. I can't afford the meat. I can't afford the vegetables.

CHRISTIE:  Affordability.

LUNTZ:  It's affordability. And it's also about results. This government shutdown is going to reverberate against Republicans more than Democrats because the public sees that Donald Trump is in charge. He's been successful as a messenger in saying that the buck stops with him. That he's running this. Well now, he's got to deal with food and fuel, housing and healthcare, and he's going to have a problem.

KARL:  I remember a quote from Donald Trump from the first time, the buck stops with everybody. So that was interesting. Let me play something from the Speaker of the House. Mike Johnson, an interview he just did with Katie Miller. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON, (R-LA) HOUSE SPEAKER:  We have this joke that I'm not really a Speaker of the House, I'm really like a mental health counselor. And so, when the pressure gets turned up really high and the stakes are so high and the votes are so tight, I just try to sit down and listen to everybody and figure out what their primary need is and how we can meet that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL:  So Mike Johnson just said there, I don't know if you -- let me just repeat it again. I am not really Speaker of the House. I'm a mental health counselor.

BRAZILE:  Mental health counselor. He's always in survival mode. He can't catch up with all his phone calls. It sounds like he is just underwater right now. He's stressed out. He doesn't like his job because he's just taking too much income and he's a firefighter putting out fires. Look, I would say, sorry Mr. Speaker, but you wanted this job and now you have to deliver.

CHRISTIE:  Jon, let me -- let me remind the Speaker of something, leadership is supposed to be both a burden and a privilege. It's never neither. There is always burdens that come with leadership. And when you accept that leadership, you understand that there're going to be burdens with it. But it's also an extraordinary privilege because you have the opportunity to affect the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans in a positive way if you lead in the right way.

I think most Americans who listen to that are saying two things, one, are you surprised that this job is hard? And second, shut up. We don't want to hear you complaining. We're out here dealing with the things that Frank just talked about. We're trying to buy meat. We're trying to buy medicine. We're trying to be able to put a roof over our children's heads. And you, who are flying around on private jets, are talking to me about the burden of your life? Spare me.

LUNTZ:  The problem is that most people actually don't see that because they're not watching. I'm watching the ratings. People are consuming less news right now because they can't handle it.

KARL:  Our ratings are up. Just to be clear.

(CROSSTALK)

LUNTZ:  Because this is a good show.

KARL:  Absolutely.

LUNTZ: And it's because of the guests that you have on the roundtable. But what matters at this point is that we're losing the ability to talk to each other. We're losing civility, we're losing respect. And the public is looking at this, and saying, to hell with all of it. I don't want to hear you yelling at each other. And he was trying to be accessible and understandable and relatable. And I would have told him don't do this because in the end you will be punished for trying to crack a joke, for trying to be funny. These are really serious times. Very significant. And we have to find way to start --

KARL: All right. We have to take a break. Stick around.

Next, we'll take a look at a House special election this week in Tennessee that is causing some Republicans to panic. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: All right. We're back with the Roundtable. And the race I want to talk about is a special election on Tuesday in Tennessee.

Donna, you're nodding your head. This is a special election for a congressional seat in a district that Donald Trump carried by 22 points last year. What's going on now?

BRAZILE: First of all, this is a ruby red district. I actually lived in this district when I worked for Al Gore so I'm familiar with it. Once again --

KARL: National?

BRAZILE: Yes, Nashville, really about 17 counties from southern Kentucky all the way to Alabama. I used to go grocery shopping on the weekend. It's affordability. Once again, affordability. We have a candidate, a Democratic candidate that is laser focused on talking about issues that the people care about. You saw early voting through the roof. Something that you haven't seen in a lot of these special elections.

This is going to be a nail-biter come Tuesday. A good candidate with a strong message and this is a sign that Democrats are ready for 2026 across the country.

SHAKIR: And that the public wants a check on Donald Trump. That's obviously at play here. You have MAGA folks and independents checking out to the extent that they're moving, they're towards the Democratic side. There is a lot of anger towards Donald Trump. This is a guy you don't trust with power, and engage in many illegal actions. We don't have to document them all right now. Also, he's not on the main highway. He's not thinking about me; he's thinking about Saudi King and rich people.

(CROSSTALK)

KARL:  That's actually (inaudible)?

SHAKIR:  I think that there's a decent chance, I wouldn't put it above 50, but there's a decent working chance.

KARL:  The fact that it's close.

SHAKIR:  Yeah.

KARL:  Yeah.

SHAKIR:  I mean that's the story. If you're Trump, sitting in the White House, you're like people are leaving me, that my politics is going down.

(CROSSTALK)

BRAZILE:  (Inaudible) over perform on Election Day because of the turnout, Democratic turnout during the early voting period.

LUNTZ:  That's a great line by the way.

KARL:  And Frank, but let me -- let me ask you about, there's a Gallup poll -- there's a new Gallup poll out this week that struck me that it's one many showing something similar. But Gallup has a 36 approval ready for Trump and a 60 percent disapproval. That's got to be, I mean, that's got to be a very big burden for Republicans going into the midterms.

LUNTZ:  It's certainly going to make them nervous. But you just gave a great line, I would edit it slightly. Don't give Donald Trump a blank check.

SHAKIR:  Yeah.

LUNTZ:  Because that's what Americans want. They don't want all one side. And that would be very -- it's too late now because the election is in two days. But I can see Democrats adopting that. In the end, I said affordability was the number one issue.

BRAZILE:  Yeah.

LUNTZ:  Results is number two. The Republicans are going to have to show how things have meaningfully, measurably changed between 2024 and now. And if they don't, they'll lose the House.

KARL:  Chris, Trump sees these polls.

CHRISTIE:  Yeah. Oh, he sees them all.

KARL:  You think he's gearing up for a shakeup? I keep hearing murmurings that there's going to be a shakeup of his team. I mean --

CHRISTIE:  I don't think so, Jon. I think this is a different Donald Trump that -- than we had in the first term.

KARL:  Yeah.

CHRISTIE:  Where shakeups was always the alternative that he went to. He understands that he's not going to get a more loyal group of people than he has got right now. All you have to do is watch a cabinet meeting. OK?

KARL:  Yeah.

CHRISTIE:  To see this is the most loyal group of people that any president has ever put together. And so --

KARL:  So, what's he going to do when he sees this?

CHRISTIE:  Now, look, I think he's got a very tough choice to make. He's got to get out there himself. He's got to get out there, not sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. He's got to get back out into the country and make the argument. He is always best when people see him out there up close. That's better for him.

KARL:  He doesn't --

CHRISTIE:  They feel the excitement. And by the way, the Republicans are going to win the Tennessee seat. Let's not go out of our minds here. OK? This is a plus 22 district. Yes, some of the polling looks like it's within a few points, but there has not been one poll that showed the Democrat ahead. And this is what I think about polls and I defer to --

(CROSSTALK)

KARL:  With all respect to Frank.

CHRISTIE:  By the way, they're never wrong all in the same way, Jon.

BRAZILE:  But you know, Chris, there is so much money.

(CROSSTALK)

KARL:  OK. All right. We've got to take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL:  That's all for us today. Thank you for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out "World News Tonight" and have a great day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)