'Fox News Sunday' on December 3, 2023

close

Video

Everyone should be ‘worried’ about a potential China-Taiwan war: Gen. Charles Q Brown Jr.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. joins ‘Fox News Sunday’ to discuss a new survey that revealed 74% of Americans are concerned about a war between the U.S. and China.  

This is a rush transcript of ‘Fox News Sunday’ on December 3, 2023. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. 

SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I'm Shannon Bream from the Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California.

A special hour on the state of defense, a report card on America's military readiness to meet the challenges of an increasingly dangerous world.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BREAM (voice-over): From the Middle East to Ukraine, the South China Sea to the Internet, America's armed forces must be ready to meet 21st-century challenges to our nation's security.

Israel's war with Hamas, the latest conflict to ignite instability, turbo- charging attacks on our forces in the region from Iranian proxies.

We'll get reaction from National Security Council Communications Coordinator John Kirby about the restart of the war and the headwinds the Biden White House faces from Democrats over conditioning future aid to Israel.

GENERAL C.Q. BROWN, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: We want to be so good at what we do that our adversaries go, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

BREAM: Then, the Joint Chiefs chairman on preparing our men and women in uniform for the wide range of security responsibilities across the globe. General C.Q. Brown joins me here at the Reagan Library.

And before serving in Congress, they served several tours of duty on the ground in two of America's longest wars. We sit down with Congressman Michael Waltz and Seth Moulton, veterans for both sides of the aisle, as the fight over defense spending is coming up against the stark deadline.

Plus --

JENNIFER GRIFFIN, FOX NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Is it cool to be patriotic now?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's always been cool to be contrarian and I think right now, it's -- it's been a little contrarian to be very patriotic.

BREAM: Our inside look at how cutting-edge technology is shaping the future of warfare and battlefields worldwide.

All, right now, on "FOX News Sunday".

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BREAM (on camera): Hello from the Reagan Library in Southern California.

Here are the top headlines making news today. Israel is widening its evacuation orders for Palestinians in southern Gaza, including in and around the cities of Khan Younis and Rafah, which both reported heavy bombardment overnight.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling for a total victory against Hamas and pushing back against White House calls to allow the Palestinian Authority to ultimately govern Gaza, claiming the group also calls for Israel's destruction.

Meanwhile, in Paris, French authorities are looking into whether terrorism was to blame for a knife and hammer attack on tourists near the Eiffel Tower, leaving a German man dead and two others injured. A 26-year-old French national has been arrested.

Let's turn now to Trey Yingst in southern Israel with the very latest on the war in Gaza.

Hello, Trey.

TREY YINGST, FOX NEWS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Shannon, good morning.

After a week-long ceasefire saw more than 100 hostages freed from Gaza, fighting has resumed for a third day. Israeli officials say the ground and air campaign in the second phase of this war against the strip could last for months. New airstrikes overnight targeted tunnel shafts and weapon storage facilities.

The Israelis also going after Hamas leadership, yesterday killing Wissam Farhat, the commander of Hamas' Shejaiya battalion. Farhat was responsible for the death of seven soldiers during the 2014 war and participated in planning the October 7th massacre.

New leaflets drops are being conducted across Gaza, urging civilians to evacuate areas around Gaza City and locations near the southern city of Khan Younis. With these drops comes new questions about where people will evacuate to. As for incoming fire, more than 250 rockets were launched toward Israel since Friday morning.

We heard explosions near Israel's second largest city of Tel Aviv yesterday and today, a direct impact at a synagogue in the south. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YINGST: You can see the direct impact at a synagogue in the southern town of Sderot, 58 days into this conflict. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have maintained their ability to fire from the northern part of Gaza. They are targeting not just communities here in the south but also across central Israel.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): It's hard. I barely sleep, maybe three hours. It's hard hearing the booms, the rockets. I didn't think it would fall on the synagogue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YINGST: Talks for re-implement the ceasefire over the weekend in Doha collapsed, though today, regional sources telling FOX News, negotiations could still continue -- Shannon.

BREAM: Trey Yingst in Israel, thank you so much, Trey.

This morning, I spoke with John Kirby, the National Security Council communications coordinator.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BREAM: So, Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke overnight about the situation in Israel.

And when he was asked about the role postwar of the Palestinian Authority, he said this, that the Palestinian Authority, quote, pays murderers and educates their children to hate Israel and to my sorrow, to murder Jews, and ultimately for the disappearance of the state of Israel. He added: We would be putting the same element -- utterly unreformed, utterly unchanged -- into Gaza.

Is that what the Biden administration expects Israel to do?

JOHN KIRBY, COORDINATOR FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS, NSC: Well, he hit it right on the head when he talked about a P.A. that's unreformed. One of the things that Secretary Blinken was talking to our Israeli counterparts about when he was there was the need to reform the Palestinian Authority, a revitalized Palestinian Authority that is much more -- much more able to meet the aspiration and the needs of the Palestinian people. We agree that that's not the case right now.

BREAM: What -- what is the plan, though? I mean, what would the U.S. role be? Who should be governing? I mean, Netanyahu has said they don't want to occupy it. They don't want to control it.

KIRBY: Right.

BREAM: So, what happens next?

KIRBY: Well, we agree with him on that, too. We don't want to see Israel reoccupy Gaza. We don't think that that's a long term strategic goal that's really achievable or wise for the Israeli people.

We believe that at the core, the future of governance in Gaza has got to be something that the Palestinian people have a vote in, a voice in, that they'd have -- that they have a governance that is truly representative of them and their aspirations.

Now, what exactly that looks like, Shannon, we don't know. But we are asking the same questions you're asking me of ourselves and of our partners, to see what we can do in the region, working again with both Israeli and Arab partners to see what a revitalized, reformed Palestinian Authority could look like and could that reformed Palestinian Authority actually be able to govern Gaza in a way that, again, meets those aspirations.

That -- those are the same questions we're asking ourselves. We don't have firm answers right now, but we don't believe it's too early to be looking hard at this.

BREAM: Yeah, there's a lot of probably heartbreak and destruction between here and there as conflict and fighting has resumed in the region. There's obviously coordinated messaging out from the administration this weekend about the current strategy underway in Israel.

Here's a little bit from the secretary of defense here at the Reagan Forum and also the vice president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LLOYD AUSTIN, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The center of gravity is the civilian population. And if you drive them into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat.

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No forcible displacement, no reoccupation, no siege or blockade.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: So the question is, is that a public message for Israel? Because I imagine you're having those same conversations privately or was that message for the more progressive wing of the president's own party who was saying things like this?

KIRBY: No, actually, Shannon, you hit -- you hit it again in the first part of your question. This is a -- this is a consistent message that we have been taking to our Israeli counterparts privately and, of course, obviously, we're talking publicly, too, about the same big goals.

And I would tell you, Shannon, that -- and Secretary Blinken talked about this before he left Israel, that Israelis have been receptive to those messages and just looking, you know, talk about civilian casualties -- yes, they are conducting some shaping operations for potential moving operations in the south, they've actually put up a map online that is identified for people of Gaza areas where they should not go and areas where they can go with a measure of safety.

Now, I don't know of too many modern militaries that actually take that extra step. So, they clearly are trying to make an effort to be more precise and more cautious here, and that's, of course, something we've been urging them to do literally from the beginning of the conflict.

BREAM: That's not something that a current sitting congresswoman believes is actually happening. Here's her take on what's happening and our role in it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): What we are witnessing is the gross violation of human rights in Gaza and that is being done with U.S. military assistance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: So, what is your message to her and others on the progressive left of the president's party who are saying these things publicly?

KIRBY: What's being done with U.S. military and security assistance is helping our friend and partner Israel go after a truly genocidal threat, a threat posed by Hamas, and I think it's just too easy as we get further and further away from the 7th of October to forget what happened on that day. Twelve hundred Israelis literally slaughtered, kids in front of their parents, parents in front of their kids.

And we've got to help Israel eliminate the threat to their -- to the Israeli nation and the Israeli people from that threat, from Hamas, and we're going to keep doing that, absolutely.

Now, look, at the same time, just like you and I have been talking now for a few minutes, we want them to do it in the most careful, cautious, deliberate way possible. How they do this matters, as Secretary Blinken has said. And we're continuing to work with them.

And, again, I would stress that the Israelis have been receptive to those messages and they have actually altered the way they've been conducting some of their operations.

Now, I also want to say, clearly, too many thousands of individual civilians have been killed, too many more thousands have been wounded. We have more than a million that have been internally displaced in Gaza. We're not blind to the humanitarian crisis, which is why we work so hard to get that pause in place for seven days so that we can get hostages out and get an accelerated amount of food, water, medicine and fuel into Gaza.

So, we're certainly working on the humanitarian plight here, but I think we've got stay core to what happened on the 7th of October, and remember the threat that the Israeli people are still facing from Hamas.

BREAM: Uh-huh. Yeah, and it's existential.

KIRBY: It is.

BREAM: But critics of the guidance or the conversation that we're having publicly and privately with Israel say that the Biden administration is making demands that Israel cannot actually fulfill.

Here's from "The Wall Street Journal" editorial board: If Israel must do more to protect civilians, but can't evacuate them and can't hit Hamas when it hides in key civilian infrastructure and safe zones, how is it to fight at all?

Israel deserves U.S. support as it topples Hamas, not a repeat of Mr. Biden's Ukraine treatment -- they say -- was rules, restrictions and hesitations that push a decisive victory further away.

How much of this counsel that you're having privately with Israel requires them to pass any decisions by us? Will they take them?

KIRBY: None. None.

I mean, this -- that agreement just isn't -- it doesn't comport with the facts that were laid -- that we're laying down restrictions or sort of red lines for Israel.

This -- Israel is a sovereign nation, attacked in a brutal way on the 7th of October. They have every right and responsibility to go after the terrorist group that perpetrated those attacks and planned it. And, oh, by the way, has made it clear they're going to do it again and do more.

They have every right and responsibility to go after them. We would do the same thing. Any nation would.

And what we have done is talked to them, share our perspective and our lessons learned about urban warfare, as Secretary Austin said, about not turning a tactical victory into a strategic defeat. Of course, we're going to share. That's what friends do.

But they're making these decisions. They're deciding the targets that they're going to hit. We, obviously, will continue to talk to them about being as careful and cautious as possible. We don't want to see any more innocent civilians killed. And I don't think "The Wall Street Journal" wants that either.

But we -- but we are not going to stop giving them the security assistance that they need to go after this, as you quite accurately put it, an existential threat to the Israel people.

BREAM: Quickly, I want to make sure that we ask, how many Americans do we think are still hostages? Why don't we have them back? When do we get them back?

KIRBY: Well, Shannon, we think the number, obviously, is somewhere in the neighborhood of eight to nine, probably more like nine. We're not -- we don't have perfect visibility on all of those Americans. So, that's why we're being a little bit careful with the -- with the specificity of the numbers. But that's kind of the population that we believe it is.

We know that there's at least one other American woman who's unaccounted for. We don't know much about her -- her condition, where she is.

And I would say the same thing, unfortunately, about the other Americans that are being held hostage. We just don't have perfect visibility.

Now, we're getting some information from the families who -- that -- who at least are helping us understand why they believe their loved ones were taken hostage. And the Israelis are also trying to flesh out some of our information. But we're working at this literally by the hour. We want to get that pause put back in place so that, again, most hostages can come out.

I'll say this, two things, if you'll allow me. One, Hamas is a reason that the -- that the pause ended because they refused to put on the list additional women and children that we know they -- that they are holding and they're refusing to let go. And, two, we are working it literally by the hour to see if we can get this back on track.

BREAM: John Kirby, we always appreciate your time. Thank you, sir.

KIRBY: Yes, ma'am. Good to be with you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BREAM: Up next, my conversation with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General C.Q. Brown Jr. with his assessment on the state of our military and increasing threats from China, Russia and Iran as we examine the state of defense here at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California.

Here's the 40th president of the United States back in 1983, giving an address to the nation on defense and national security.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT: The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: the United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintained our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression, to preserve freedom and peace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Of course, we can't be everywhere. Of course, we can't do everything. But where our interests and our values are at stake and where we can make a difference. America must leave. We must not the isolationist. We must not be the world's policeman. But we can and should be the world's very best peacemaker.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: President Bill Clinton during his 1996 State of the Union address on America's role in the world just a few years after the end of the Cold War. Well, this weekend, I had the honor of interviewing General C.Q. Brown Jr, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in front of a live audience here at the Reagan Library. I got his reaction to brand new Reagan National Defense survey results on a broad range of military and security issues. We started with the military threats from China.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BREAM: 51 percent of Americans now say that they see China as the greatest foreign threat. I thought it was -- it least surprising to me that 74% of them said they fear we could actually be in a war with China within five years. What would you say to the American people out there responding to the survey who now view China with increased worry and concern?

GEN. CHARLES Q. BROWN JR., JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF CHAIRMAN: Well, what first thing I tell them is they ought to be very proud of their military, that we're ready for whatever comes our way. But at the same time, we want to be so ready that we don't have a conflict. And, you know, as we hear and it says peace through strength, our strength that we demonstrate as a -- as a military will help bring that peace.

BREAM: So let's stay with China, because this issue of competition versus conflict, the President says we're going for the former not the latter. And there's a lot of information in the survey about how people think we're doing on that front. A majority of Americans think over the next 10 years, according to the numbers in the survey that China will outpace the U.S. on both military power and economic strength. What's your outlook on that?

BROWN: Well, my -- my -- my real role here and job is to actually make sure that that thing on the military side, that doesn't occur, which is why I'm so focused on accelerating change, which is why I'm focused on the collaboration we do, particularly having gone out here the past couple years, not only here to Reagan, but also out to Silicon Valley, and looking at how we work together on our national defense and how that helps us economically.

BREAM: And one of those ways that it's -- it's really on the stage, the world stage right now is this issue of China and Taiwan, which was also covered in the survey, 73% of people responded to this survey this year that they were somewhat worried about the possibility of China actually invading Taiwan. You said in the past, you don't think it will be an actual, you know, physical operation to take Taiwan, it's logistically very difficult to do that. But there are other ways that China will pressure Taiwan. So how do you see that playing out?

BROWN: Well, just think about what happened in Hong Kong. And the first thing I would say is we want to be -- and we all should be worrying whether it's going to happen or not. And part of the reason why deterrence is so important, so conflict does not occur. But if you look at what happened in Hong Kong and even some of the things that the PRC is doing today is, you know, putting pressure on Taiwan, putting pressure on countries in the Indo-Pacific. And whether it be economically or -- or somewhat militarily, that we've seen continued pressure to where, in this case, Taiwan down, or others down to -- to their own gain. And we've got to pay attention to it. Which is why, you know, I go back to the -- really over the course of five years, you know, I was the commander of Pacific Air Force before I became the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, watching how many of the nations in the region and out of the survey the American Club, we start to see the PRC as a challenge. And now we're able to hide those things together, which helps with deterrence.

BREAM: 70% in the survey also said that they have real concerns that conflict will spill over into a NATO country than directly forcing the U.S. into this battle. Any thoughts on where you see Putin going? Do you think that's more or less likely now, almost two years into this?

BROWN: Well, what I see right now is, you know, if you think about what Putin intended to do from the very start, and the territory gained and the territory lost in Ukraine, things have not gone according to his plan. One of the key areas that I think, because of what happened in Ukraine, NATO is stronger than it's ever been, and in fact, is larger now and with Finland and Sweden, soon to follow. And because of that strength in the dialogue with many of our NATO partners, we're all committed to ensure this does not expand into NATO and go broader.

BREAM: How worried are you about U.S. military aid to Ukraine, causing the U.S. to deplete its weapons stockpile, and now we're obviously assisting Israel and other areas as well, some 63% and they worry about the depletion of our assets, military assets, can you address that?

BROWN: Well, what we've gone through is we've supported both Ukraine and Israel. We go through our own analysis, we have our -- you know, what we require in order to execute our operational plans. And we go through that level of analysis as we make decisions of the -- the support we -- security assistance we provide for -- for both nations, it goes back into our defense industrial base, to build out capability not only for our allies and partners, but also for us. And that -- that to me is important because it helps us continue down the path of modernization, and to bring in capability and, you know, defense, industrial base supply chain. All those are important to our to our defense.

BREAM: So let's talk about artificial intelligence also shows up in the survey when we asked if the military, when Reagan asked if the military should integrate more use of AI, about half of Americans said that it's too soon, they don't want to comment on that or assess whether that would be a good match. But of those who did weigh in, more than half of them said in the survey, they think it's a bad idea for the military to be using AI. So how do you address those concerns?

BROWN: Well, the first thing I think about is, AI has -- has opportunities and capability. The way I think about using AI is, first of all, we have operational problems that we have to solve as a military. And AI is not the panacea that is going to solve all those problems, or you just can't sprinkle AI dust and everything and just going to make life better. What do have to do is look at where AI has a practical application based on what we're trying to achieve.

BREAM: So as we sit in the middle of all of these challenges here, there are some recruiting goals that have been missed by some of the branches. So the defense survey also asks, is a close friend or family member were considering joining the military? Would you encourage them or discourage them? 51% said, they would encourage people. What is your message to the next generation to being open to joining, to wearing the uniform, even more broadly, to be excited or encouraged about being part of this?

BROWN: Well, the first thing I highlight is just the great opportunity. And the fact that we as -- as a nation, talk about the value of service, whether it's in -- in uniform, or working as a civilian, whether you're in Department of Defense, or some part -- the part of our government, or parts of your community, how important it is. And then just I think about the opportunities, and the things that young people will have the opportunity to do if they were to join our military. We've got to talk about that. And partly the reason I say that is because I believe young people always aspire to be what they see or know about. If you don't know about the opportunity to serving in the military, you may never pursue that career field. And so, I'd say from my own personal experience, this whole thing was my dad's idea, supported by my mom, quote, "Four years in military will not hurt you."

BREAM: Several decades later.

BROWN: Yeah. And -- and so that's, you know, my degrees in engineering. I was going to be an Air Force engineer for four years and get out. I got a ride into T-37 while I was in college. One of our trainer aircraft, you know, had the helmet and the parachute and did acrobatics and I go that, that was -- that's kind of fun. They didn't want to do that.

And, you know, they became an F16 pilot, and I still get to fly today. And so it's those kinds of opportunities I think that you just don't know until you have a chance to experience it. And whether you stay for just a handful of years or you stand for, you know, a handful of decades. There are great opportunities serving in our military.

BREAM: And by the way, being a pilot, is it hard for you to sit there while someone else is flying the plane?

BROWN: Oh, yeah, it is. Because you can hear things you're always wondering what they're doing up there. It's like the blood riding in the backseat when they're -- your spouse is driving.

BREAM: Yeah.

BROWN: It was about to --

BREAM: What's going on up there?

BROWN: We've all been there. I can tell by the laughter.

BREAM: OK, I'd like to save my most controversial question for last because now you're warmed up. Next Saturday, Army or Navy? I mean, I feel like it's a neutral Air Force guy.

BROWN: Well, --

BREAM: Anyway in.

BROWN: Well, actually this year, we have had a chance to go to the Navy Air Force game, and both, and then the Air Force army game. And I got to ask the same question. And so next Saturday, I actually just look for a good game. I'm a huge football fan. So like an interesting game versus a blowout. I look forward to shaking hands with the midshipmen and cadets while we're out there watching the good game.

BREAM: So, warrior, patriot warfighter, and a diplomat too, Chairman General, thank you.

BROWN: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BREAM: Our thanks again to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Brown.

So two lawmakers with multiple tours of duty one in Iraq, the other in Afghanistan join us with their thoughts from opposite sides of the aisle.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE H. W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: We cannot repeat the mistakes made twice in this century, when armistice was followed by recklessness and defense was purged as if the world were permanently safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: President George H. W. Bush from his 1992 State of the Union address. This weekend here at the Reagan Library, I sat down with two current lawmakers, both military veterans, Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton from Massachusetts, a Marine Corps captain who served four tours of duty in Iraq, and Republican Congressman Michael Waltz from Florida, a combat decorated green beret who served multiple tours in Afghanistan.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BREAM: So we are here at the Reagan National Defense Forum. And we've got a lot of survey results. And I'm going to start with a tough one and let you guys speak to it. Folks were asked, do you have trust and confidence in Congress? Five said, a great deal, 21% said some. That leaves you with 71%, who said little or no trust and confidence in Congress? Why do you think that is?

REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): Because we're dysfunctional. I mean, for the first time in history, we didn't have a speaker for three weeks, that's never happened before. And that doesn't send a good message to our allies, to our adversaries around the globe. It doesn't send a good message to the American people. In fact, one of the most frequent questions I get from my friends, people who love me, Seth, why do you keep doing this? But actually, I think it's a really important time for all those reasons to keep doing this.

BREAM: Mm-hmm.

REP. MICHAEL WALTZ (R-FL): Well, look, I mean, a little bit of that I throw back on the media, you know, we'd love to cover the train wreck. And that gets covered a lot. But there's actually a lot of bipartisan work that does get done. Case in point, our defense bill came out of the committee that Seth and I serve on nearly unanimously the last 61 years.

So there's a lot of work that gets -- gets done. I don't think everybody's fully aware of it. But at the same time, I have a lot of folks that asked me, well, you know, what do you -- what do you guys do on up there? And my response is a small government conservative is, as little as possible, I want -- aside from defending the nation, I want D.C. out of your lives as much as possible. And I think a lot of things should be powered down to state and local. So I -- I get the numbers, but a lot of my job is to, one, oversee the administration. But then, two, is to keep -- keep D.C. out of your lives. I don't think one size fits all coming out -- coming out of Washington is necessarily the solution.

BREAM: Well, you all have very different perspectives on a number of big issues. But you do share that you've been veterans, who have served our country in uniform. And that's going to give you a unique perspective, obviously, on how you see things on the hill. You mentioned National Defense Authorization, that's among the many things you guys have got to get done. I mean, that's something that's really not optional. So you guys have served in uniform. What does it mean to the men and women in uniform, to go from CR to CR, to watch the NDAA possibly get stuck with a couple of folks who have real objections to very specific things?

MOULTON: The most important thing that our military needs to do right now is modernize as quickly as possible to meet a totally new generation of threats. And we can't do that. If we just copy last year's budget and make it this year's budget. That's what a CR does. So when we don't have a functional Congress that can't pass budgets, can't get the NDAA done, the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense budget bill that should be totally bipartisan. If we can't do that expeditiously, that sends the wrong message to our troops. We should be here to support our troops. And we're not doing a great job.

BREAM: But there are some measures that were tucked in primarily by conservatives in the House that Democrats aren't going to vote for. They don't like some of the provisions that have been included with respect to abortion or other cultural issues. How do you defend those when it comes to getting the money in place for the military?

WALTZ: Well, look, I mean, one of the provisions was -- was a ban on critical race theory. That was actually my provision. I think we have to fight hard to keep the military a meritocracy, race, religion, socio- economic background, your politics, that should be left at the door. We need the best of the best. I understand that's controversial to some. But, you know, some things we're going to -- we're going to push in there and then the vast majority we -- we do end up agreeing on because when it comes to the threats we face from China, Russia, Iran, the global threat of terrorism the reporting is clear that, one, we've never faced the threats like we face today. And then, two, our military is aging. It -- we are spending actually record low amounts on it in terms of percentage of GDP compared to the Cold War. And I think that's right, and that we have a solemn obligation. If we're going to send men and women out in those planes, tanks, and ships, they have to have the best equipment, the best training and the best resources. That is one of the reasons I think we're both passionate about getting more veterans into Congress and back into our political system.

BREAM: So you've also got to look at funding that goes outside the U.S. that does impact national security interests and our allies. You've got Israel, you got Ukraine, the White House wants a supplemental that puts everything together. I'm supposing that you two may have differences of opinion on whether you can get something done clean on Israel, standalone measure, yes or no?

MOULTON: Well, I think the problem is that, in my experience, a lot of Republicans support Ukraine behind the scenes and then aren't willing to vote for it in public. And that's why --

BREAM: I mean --

MOULTON: -- But you're right, but it -- it's so far, right? But the question, is that changing? You're seeing the number of Republicans voting against funding for Ukraine go up, I understand it's a tough political position for many Republicans back home. But actually, what we're trying to do by putting these things together is fundamentally make it easier for getting this funding passed, which we know is important to our allies around the globe, because it sends a message to Vladimir Putin, to Xi Jinping, to every autocrat that things are just going to bully us and our allies that you're not going to get away with it.

BREAM: At this moment, though, would you vote for staying alone for Israel? Standalone aid bill?

MOULTON: Not if it's imperiled funding for Ukraine, but I mean, look, if we pass funding for Ukraine, so we get over that hurdle, and then it means voting for a standalone for Israel? Sure.

BREAM: You do think it?

WALTZ: Well, I mean, on the Ukraine piece, I think we are past the point of blank checks, don't ask questions, just send -- you know, I'm Joe Biden, trust me, and send me tens of billions of dollars. And -- and it is astounding to me that he hasn't articulated to this day. What does the end state look like? What does success look like, is fully ejecting the Russians from Crimea, a critical national interest of the United States. How long is it going to take? How much money is it going to cost? What's the strategy to get there? And the frustration that I know a lot of Democrats share is that the President has essentially deterred us now into a stalemate by not giving them what they needed upfront, to win.

And so here we are, stuck, essentially, in a war of attrition and to say, hey, you Republicans go to your taxpayers, I'm not going to articulate what success looks like and tell them to dig deeper in their pockets.

Meanwhile, the Europeans, the Germans, in particular, just voted down their defense budget, their 2% commitment. Look, we have a lot of questions, and I think it should be dealt with separately. And the administration needs to answer these for the American people. How much longer is this going to go? Shannon?

MOULTON: Look, we have to go to our taxpayers too, right? It's not just Republican taxpayers that are -- that are funding this. And I think actually, the administration has been very careful along the way to make sure that we give the Ukrainians what they need without escalating to larger war with Russia. So there is -- there is debate about this point.

WALTZ: Yeah.

MOULTON: But I don't want to lose the bipartisanship here, because some of the questions that Mike is bringing up about, you know, what is the end game? I mean, this is a big question that I've been asking for Israel, Netanyahu, is the question we need to ask Ukraine as well. That's a fair question for us to have in Congress in a bipartisan way. It's a fair question for the American people to have.

BREAM: Well, we thank you both for serving in uniform, serving your country. But what you're doing now as well, the country is counting on you. So thanks for stopping in to discuss all the challenges ahead.

MOULTON: Thank you.

WALTZ: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BREAM: My thanks again to the congressmen for an insightful conversation this weekend.

Up next, the GOP gets ready for his fourth presidential primary debate this time at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. Up next our political panel joins us with predictions, as contenders are still fighting to actually make it to that stage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, (D) FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: I came to this office with a set of core convictions that have guided me as commander in chief. I believe that the United States military can achieve any mission that we are and must remain the strongest fighting force the world has ever known.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: President Barack Obama just a few weeks before leaving office in December of 2016. Let's bring in our panel to talk about that and more. Karl Rove, former Bush, White House Adviser and Fox News contributor, Roger Zakheim, the Ronald Reagan Institute Director, Marc Thiessen, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington Post Columnist and Fox News contributor.

Great to have all of you here with us on set this morning. Who brought the jet?

KARL ROVE, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: Roger did.

BREAM: Yes. Yes, you did. We'll take it back to D.C.

(CROSSTALK)

BREAM: A good looking option here. OK, so let's -- we're talking defense this weekend, Mark, you had a very interesting column out about Ukraine spending, because that is one of the fights they're still having in Washington, how you get that together, get it across the finish line, you say most of the spending is actually being invested in happening here in the U.S. We'll talk about your critics, but make your case.

MARC THIESSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. So I mean, it's one of the best kept secrets of -- in Washington is that is 90% of the military aid that we give to Ukraine doesn't go to Ukraine, it stays here in the United States, to produce weapons for Ukraine, or to replace weapons that we've sent to Ukraine from our stockpiles. And our -- and now we're building more modern versions for our -- for our military.

We tracked 117 production lines in 31 states and 71 cities that are producing that's creating jobs for America, but it's also enhancing our national security. A perfect example, we have not built a single stinger missile in the United States since 2005, almost two decades. Why is that? Because we were fighting terrorists who didn't have jet planes.

Well, China has jet fighters. And now because of Ukraine aid, we're spending $465 million to build Stinger missiles again. And this is happening across the spectrum on all sorts of weapons systems. We're giving them old equipment that's been sitting in our stockpiles for decades, building new modern stuff that's helping our national security, creating hot production lines for weapons that will need to pray in case of Taiwan for China and also to help Israel.

BREAM: And we are very backlogged to the billion, to the tune of billions when it comes to Taiwan. They're waiting on us on many of these things. So there are critics out there who say, though, we're doing things like we're subsidizing Ukrainian businesses, we're paying for every first responder in the country. And this is part of the concern as noted in CBS News, they say, some of the concerns over aid to Ukraine boil down to oversight. Ukraine is a young democracy with a history of corruption. According to the monitoring group, Transparency International, it's ranked the second most corrupt country in Europe only Russia scores better. Roger?

ROGER ZAKHEIM, THE RONALD REAGAN INSTITUTE DIRECTOR: The economic support certainly is an issue that requires the oversight that, that survey was talking about, and that we heard that from members of Congress over the weekend. But what the United States needs to do and we can make the biggest impact in Ukraine is allowed them to win militarily, and the work that Marc has done is to demonstrate that it only is it decisive on the battlefield but it has a decisive impact on the United States as relates to the United State continuing to be the arsenal of democracy.

So, if the Congress comes out of this debate where we decide the United States is going to provide the security assistance and we'll leave it to Europe or other partners and allies to take care of the economic support, so be it. But it would be a disaster if the Congress comes out of this and stops funding entirely. We would lose Ukraine and give Vladimir Putin a victory.

BREAM: Well, and all of this is tied up with the issue of border. There are negotiations on the Senate side because the Republicans say they want to extract real change, not just money for the border, because that's in that supplemental request the White House put together, but actual policy change when it comes to the border, that's one of the headache they have. This White House has also, as we talked about at the top of the show, they're - they're caught between criticism on left and the right when it comes to what's going on in the Middle East. Yesterday, interestingly enough, a group of national Muslim leaders from swing states got together in Michigan for something they called hashtag abandon Biden in 2024 conference. Not something the White House wants to be dealing with in a re-election campaign.

Karl.

ROVE: No, they don't. But on the other hand, Americans like to have a strong, resolute leader who stands for something. And if - and if Joe Biden and the Biden political machine decide that in order to appease a group of - pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli activists on the left wing of the Democratic Party, they're going to sell out one of our great allies and fail to give it the support necessary to win this war. Then they will be morally bankrupt and deserve to lose.

So, the president helps himself by being a strong, resolute leader and using his bully pulpit to explain to the America people what the issue is, not only in Israel but in Ukraine, and explain why America is going what it did.

Yesterday morning we began the first session with a brilliant explanation of why presidential leadership, in explaining what America is doing is an obligation of any president. I think Marc did a hell of a job in presenting that.

BREAM: Awe.

THIESSEN: Thank you, Karl.

BREAM: Kudos there for you Marc.

OK, so let's talk about the folks on the other side of the aisle who would like to be the commander in chief making these decisions. A big endorsement for Nikki Haley this week. Americans for Prosperity came out. And she's got a new ad out, by the way, new TV ad, and she's talking about leaving behind chaos and drama of the past. Not sure exactly what she's referencing there, but we can all make our assumptions.

But here's the idea of asking this question now about moving forward, how big of a blow was the endorsement for the DeSantis campaign? Of course, anyone in the field would have enjoyed getting the support. Millions in ad dollars, grassroots campaigning, that kind of thing.

The DeSantis spokesperson, Andrew Romeo, said this, "like clockwork, pro- open borders, pro-jail break bill establishment is lining up behind a moderate who has no mathematical pathway of defeating the former president."

Karl.

ROVE: Well, strong language from the DeSantis campaign. But as -- in August it was 16 points for DeSantis in Iowa and six points for Nikki Haley on the basis of one debate performance. She jumped up to 16 points in Iowa and it probably is today ahead of Ron DeSantis there. She's already ahead of him in New Hampshire, proving to be the, you know, counterpoint to the frontrunner, Donald Trump.

So, I'd be focused on advocating more for my candidate than trying to drag down the person with has got the momentum. The only way to recapture the momentum for Ron DeSantis is to do things that will cause people to say, you know what, I really ought to be for him, and that didn't help.

BREAM: Well, by the way, this morning he said that he's going to put out something that would be a replacement for Obamacare. He says the details are forthcoming. It sounds like a very ambitious proposal, but is that the kind of thing, Marc, that will help him?

THIESSEN: Well, I mean, I don't know what it is, so I can't tell you whether it's a good idea or not. But I can tell you that folks - he's -- that would be taking Karl's advice, which is to explain how you're going to lead. I think that's how people win presidential elections.

But I think what - also what we're having here is that we need to realize, this isn't a normal American -- Republican primary. There are really two Republican primaries happening. There is the primary to challenge Trump and then there's the primary against Trump for the Republican nomination. And that field is - now, the first primary has to - has to end conclusively before the second primary could happen or Trump wins over with the plurality.

And so I think that field is down to two candidates now. It's Nikki Haley versus Ron DeSantis for the right to challenge Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. And we need to have the -- and I hope they're the only two people on the debate stage because they're the only people who have a chance, and let them fight it out and let's see if somebody can emerge as the challenger to Trump and give Republicans a choice.

BREAM: So, Roger, that next debate happens this week. We're still waiting to see who - who is getting in.

ZAKHEIM: Yes.

BREAM: There is a fight to try to get to that stage. But what will you be watching for? Who has to really bring it home this week?

ZAKHEIM: I'm looking for the person that can speak to the American people and be authentic in doing so. And I really think the way Marc's framework outlined it here, that's going to be the one who's going to kind of win out to challenge Donald Trump.

I think Nikki Haley's been doing that quite well. She's not trying to play in both camps. She's true to herself. And I think that's why she's seeing the support. I love to hear them talk about national security and foreign policy, particularly through the lens of what the American people should care about.

Think about what's going on with Hamas right now. If I tell you, 444 days, you all know what I'm talking about. It's the days that you had hostages - U.S. hostages in Tehran. If I say 57 days, the American people don't realize, that's how many days we've had nine American citizens captive in Gaza.

THIESSEN: Wow.

AKHEIM: That's the sort of thing Nikki Haley can hit on. That's what appeals to the American people. And I think we'll hear something like that.

BREAM: I do think - and there is some daylight, I think, on the issues of foreign policy, which could be very interesting as we listen to them this week making their case to be the ones to take on -

THIESSEN: Lots of military factories building weapons in Florida. Governor DeSantis ought to support that.

BREAM: All right. We'll see. That comes this week.

Panel, thank you very much.

Up next, Fox Chief National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin joins us for an in depth look at all of the high-tech military hardware that is now transforming the 21st century battlefield.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BREAM: The Pentagon is enlisting some of the brightest minds from Silicon Valley to create new whole new generation of military technology to keep America's armed forces the best in the world.

Fox chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin joins us now with details.

Good to see you, Jen.

JENNIFER GRIFFIN, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Shannon, I've been coming to the Reagan National Defense Forum here at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, since is started in 2013. And the biggest change from my point of view is the shift in the perception of China. This year the annual Reagan National Defense survey found more than half of all Americans now view China as the country's greatest threat. The other big change took place in Silicon Valley. Ten years ago, those tech innovators wouldn't touch a contract with the Pentagon, It was mostly the prime contractors, like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and others who came to the forum. Now that's all changed. I talked to some of the nation's leading tech innovators about what is driving this cataclysmic shift.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PALMER LUCKEY, FOUNDER AND CEO, ANDURIL INDUSTRIES: It's effectively a drone that folds itself down to fit into this tube. And I can mount this tube on a helicopter, on a truck, on a boat or even just carry it around. I push a button and this drone is ejected out of the tube.

GRIFFIN (voice over): Palmer Luckey favors Hawaiian shirts over camouflage. The California college dropout made his first billion at age 21 designing virtual reality headsets for gamers. Now he makes weapons for the Pentagon.

I was 19 years old, living in a camper trailer and putting myself through school.

GRIFFIN (voice over): But it was his experience in China and getting fired by Facebook that made him shift gears and start building weapons to fend off China in the future.

GRIFFIN: We were burned by China?

LUCKEY: We were having our IP's stolen all of the time. We were being spied on all of the time.

GRIFFIN (voice over): Now, he and a small group of Silicon Valley defense start-ups are trying to revolutionize the way the Pentagon does business, saving the taxpayer money and confronting the world's autocrats.

LUCKEY: I wanted to get people out of working on, you know, augmented reality mustache emojis and put them to work on building autonomous weapons that would keep the United States safe and deter aggression from dictators around the world.

GRIFFIN (voice over): Three years before Russia's invasion, he met Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy in New York to tell him about his company, Anduril, and its century technology, which the U.S. government was already using to track illegal migrants coming across the southern border. He wonders if history would have been different if Ukraine had had his technology.

LUCKEY: We would have been able to potentially provide targeting information to long range precision fires that could have stopped Russia in their tracks before they got to any of these civilian populated areas.

GRIFFIN (voice over): Two weeks after Russia's invasion, Anduril ghost drones began operating in Ukraine.

LUCKEY: Without any tools I can take the rotors off, I can take the payloads off.

GRIFFIN: So, someone can put this in their backpack, carry it to the -

LUCKEY: You can literally mount it into a backpack. You can actually carry a couple of them in a backpack.

GRIFFIN (voice over): And now Ukraine is also using his counter drone technology.

It accelerates to speeds of up to 188 mile an hour and runs into the other drone, busting it into a whole bunch of tiny pieces of plastic. It costs a hundredth of the price, or less, of missiles that have been used to engage drones otherwise.

GRIFFIN (voice over): The Pentagon is taking note, learning how these high- tech autonomous systems are changing the battlefield, giving Ukraine the edge for pennies on the dollar.

LUCKEY: We will be able to spend less money countering Russia because of the money we have spent on Ukraine burning down the capacity that they've had since the days of the Soviet Union.

GRIFFIN (voice over): When he started Anduril in 2017, Silicon Valley engineers refused to work with the Pentagon. Thousands of Google employees signed a petition to halt Google's Project Maven, which would have helped the Pentagon analyze drone data.

LUCKEY: Imagine if during the Cold War if our most innovative technology companies had had to do whatever would keep Soviet Russia happy and, therefore, refuse to work on national security problems. We wouldn't have Silicon Valley. We wouldn't have a tech industry.

GRIFFIN (voice over): Luckey says Silicon Valley rebuffed the Pentagon for one simple reason.

LUCKEY: They needed to keep the Chinese Communist Party happy. They were dependent on them for manufacturing in China.

GRIFFIN (voice over): In 2016, former Defense Secretary Ash Carter began to woo Silicon Valley. Two years ago, Katherine Boyle joined other venture capitalists and Andreesen Horowitz. They committed $500 million earlier this year to new companies that support the national interest.

KATHERINE BOYLE, GENERAL PARTNER ANDREESEN HOROWITZ: You have the war in Ukraine. And for a lot of these founders, they weren't born in September 11, 2001. This was the first time they had really seen a land war in Europe. It was a wake-up call that defense is incredibly important and that we need to invest in it.

GRIFFIN (voice over): She dubbed the movement American Dyamism.

BOYLE: American Dynamism is a technology movement. It's companies that are being built in support of a national interest. If our greatest technologists at places like Google are not going to work on this problem, we have to create companies that will.

GRIFFIN (voice over): Anduril was one of her first investments.

LUCKEY: We can make a world where we have an unfair advantage, where the countries that believe in self-determination and democracy build technologies that accrue benefits to these Democratic self-governing nations.

GRIFFIN (voice over): While these tech engineers couldn't stop the Russian invasion, they hope to stop China from taking Taiwan.

BOYLE: A lot of firms made the wrong bet. They bet on the wrong country. And I think they're recognizing that now.

GRIFFIN: Is it cool to be patriotic now?

LUCKEY: Is it cool to be patriotic? I mean it's always cool to be contrarian. And I think right now it's - it's been a little contrarian to be very patriotic. Look at what's happened in Ukraine. Look at what's happened in Israel, look at what's brewing in Taiwan. If you want to stop Russia, China or anyone else from trampling on the rights of these democratic nations, if you want to stop them from murdering civilians, you have to get involved well ahead of the invasion.

Jennifer Griffin, Fox News.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BREAM: That is it for today. Thank you for joining us for our State of Defense special live here at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum. I'm Shannon Bream. Have a wonderful week and we'll see you next FOX NEWS SUNDAY.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2023 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2023 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.