I’m Margaret Brennan in Washington. This week on Face the Nation we focused on three intertwined stories: the administration’s tariff threats, an escalation in immigration enforcement, and the broader foreign-policy fallout those moves have triggered.
Tariff threats as leverage
The White House’s public threats of tariffs rattled allies and financial markets alike. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the administration’s approach, saying tariffs are intended as leverage to pressure Canada and Mexico to do more to curb fentanyl flows, tighten migration controls, and improve information sharing so U.S. authorities can identify people and packages crossing the border. Noem said Washington has held “very specific conversations” with Canadian and Mexican officials about steps that could avert tariffs, and she suggested tariff timing could hinge on demonstrated progress against fentanyl.
Noem framed tougher enforcement — including renewed family detention, an expanded ICE enforcement unit, increased arrests and deportations, and prosecution of internal leakers who jeopardize operations — as part of a return to stricter immigration policy meant to protect U.S. communities. She pointed to indicators of progress at the southern border, such as lower encounter numbers and higher removal rates for people the administration labels gang members or terrorists, and defended the temporary use of military personnel at ports of entry until officials consider the border “completely secure.” On family detention, she said facilities exist for families and urged migrants to use a government portal to self-deport and avoid enforcement actions.
Allied pushback
Canadian officials pushed back on the premise that tariffs are primarily about fentanyl. Canada’s ambassador to Washington, Kirsten Hillman, described talks with U.S. officials as constructive and stressed that Ottawa has expanded law-enforcement powers and resources targeting fentanyl precursors and organized crime. She noted that less than 1% of fentanyl seized in the United States originates in Canada, while conceding every seizure matters. Hillman called for fact-based trade discussions, pointed to Canadian dairy protections, and highlighted that U.S. dairy exports to Canada outstrip Canadian sales to the U.S. She also said Canada’s incoming leader, selected after Justin Trudeau announced his planned resignation, will prioritize a productive relationship with the United States amid tariff threats on dairy, lumber and electricity.
From Beijing, reporters detailed an assertive Chinese response: retaliatory duties, lists of targeted companies, and warnings that China is prepared for a prolonged trade fight and rejects efforts to be contained.
Congressional brinkmanship and governance
We also examined the looming risk of a government shutdown and bipartisan efforts to avert it. The co-chairs of the Problem Solvers Caucus, Republican Brian Fitzpatrick and Democrat Tom Suozzi, discussed a short-term continuing resolution that House Republicans planned to advance and the broader dysfunction in budgeting. Both urged two-party deals, warning that shutdowns and single-party spending measures are harmful. Suozzi said Democrats could be forced into negotiations if Republican bills require Democratic votes in the Senate and argued that immigration and asylum reform should be a priority when bipartisan openings arise. Fitzpatrick, a former FBI agent, cautioned against politicizing federal law enforcement and said he will press the FBI director about recent turnover and reported political pressure on the Bureau.
Ukraine and intelligence sharing
Fitzpatrick and Suozzi also weighed in on U.S. support for Ukraine. They warned that withholding certain intelligence and military capabilities risks emboldening Russia and could have wider strategic consequences. Fitzpatrick suggested some restrictions might aim to spur negotiations, but he cautioned that rewarding aggression would encourage other bad actors and undermine alliances.
Russia expert Fiona Hill explained the concrete military consequences of any U.S. pause in sharing lethal targeting intelligence and satellite imagery with Ukraine. She emphasized that while partners like the U.K. share intelligence, no ally has the same satellite access as the United States; limits therefore degrade Ukraine’s operational capabilities and could encourage Russia to press attacks. Hill described such a freeze as a unilateral disruption with damaging knock-on effects for trust among Five Eyes partners, and she warned European allies that U.S. reliability matters both for deterrence and for questions about nuclear umbrellas and collective defense. She also pushed back against singling out Ukrainian leaders for diplomatic missteps, urging clearer communication, use of interpreters, and durable security commitments that transcend administrations.
Political implications and closing observations
Throughout the broadcast we tracked the political maneuvering: the White House casting tariffs as a tool not only for trade disputes but to press partners on immigration and narcotics flows; allies viewing the threats as disproportionate and cautioning about retaliatory measures; and congressional leaders warning about the domestic consequences of shutdowns and the difficulty of passing single-party funding bills.
That’s our roundup for the week on Face the Nation.