Trump 1.0 versus Trump 2.0, an insider's take.

This week on "Firing Line."

>> There are loud voices in and around this administration that would have America pull back from the world stage.

I want to say this very emphatically.

The President Trump I serve with is not an isolationist.

>> As Trump's running mate in 2016, Mike Pence appealed to traditional conservatives wary of Donald Trump.

As vice president, he was fiercely loyal.

>> I think President Donald Trump is the most accomplished president of my lifetime and I think already one of the most successful presidents in American history.

>> Then came January 6th, 2021.

>> Joseph R. Biden Jr. of the state of Delaware has received 306 votes.

Donald J. Trump of the state of Florida has received 232 votes.

>> Pence's actions on January 6th made him a villain to MAGA.

>> Hang Mike Pence!

Hang Mike Pence!

>> But a hero to many others.

>> His act of courage saved our government and warned us about what could happen.

>> As we approach the six-month mark of President Trump's second term, what does former vice president Mike Pence say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... Robert Granieri The Tepper Foundation Vanessa and Henry Cornell The Fairweather Foundation and by...

The Pritzker Military Foundation >> Vice President Mike Pence, welcome back to "Firing Line."

>> Good to be back, Margaret.

Thanks for having me on.

>> As the former vice president to the current president of the United States, how exactly do you see your role right now?

>> Well, I hope my role is going to continue to be what it was long before I was Vice President, and that was I wanted to be a consistent voice for conservative values around the country.

So, for me, nothing's ever really changed.

And my ambition today is to, you know, honestly commend the new Trump administration when they're hewing to our roots of conservatism, but it's also to be prepared to call them out when they depart from an agenda, which really is what we governed on, Margaret.

I mean, during those Trump-Pence years, we governed on that broad mainstream conservative agenda that's defined the Republican Party for much of the last 50 years.

So that's my hope, is that we'll continue to be a voice for those values that really drew me to the Republican Party as a young man, and they still animate my efforts in the public square.

>> I've been told by some of your colleagues from the first Trump administration, who have not participated in the second Trump administration, as you haven't, that your advice to them is, "Stand firm and stand aside."

>> Mm.

>> What does that mean to you?

>> Well, the "stand firm" part means let's just continue to stand up.

Wherever the political winds are blowing in the Republican Party, I think it's important, particularly those of us that served in the Trump-Pence administration, to make the case for a record that I'll always be proud of.

And in fairness, I'm encouraged in recent days to see President Trump at home and abroad hewing back to those principles, even while the winds of populism are blowing pretty vigorously in the Republican Party.

I mean, that's the issue that I see today, that while I think the majority of Republican voters still hew to that conservative agenda, there are loud voices in and around this administration that would have America pull back from the world stage, that would embrace big-government policies, that would marginalize the right to life.

But I'm gonna continue to be a voice and encourage former colleagues to be a voice for that broad, mainstream, conservative agenda.

>> So, over the last six months, you have been urging the president and the administration to renew and increase military support to Ukraine.

This week, as Putin has escalated attacks on Kiev, President Trump and Republicans seem to be warming to the idea of doing just what you have advised, to imposing new sanctions on Russia and to not just restarting the weapons shipments but increasing support to Ukraine, including considering potentially an additional Patriot missile defense system.

>> Right.

>> You have said that you are somebody who knows President Trump more than his most ardent defenders.

How significant is this shift vis-a-vis Putin, and will it stick?

>> Well, I'm very encouraged by the president's recent statements.

Look, my judgment is that the only way to adjust in lasting peace in Ukraine is if the United States sends an unambiguous message to Putin that we will continue to provide military support until peace is secured.

Now, to your question, what's changed, I honestly think that some of the isolationist voices around this administration and within the administration lost ground when they came out against the use of U.S. air power to take out the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

>> How did those voices around President Trump lose stature in this most recent chapter with Iran?

>> Well, look, I think it's because they literally came out and made it clear that they'd be willing to compromise the long-term security of the state of Israel to embrace their isolationist views.

The American people, particularly Republicans, stand with Israel.

And when you saw the likes of Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon actually talking about opposing efforts to -- >> Eliminate Iran's nuclear program.

>> -- destroy or dismantle the Iran nuclear program, my sense is, knowing the president as well as I do, that that was very eliminating for him.

>> Interesting.

>> Because, look, I want to say this very emphatically.

The President Trump I serve with is not an isolationist.

His bias is for leadership.

He understands America's the leader of the free world.

He was a demanding leader of the free world, called on our allies to do more for our common defense.

But this notion that America has to choose between solving our problems at home and leading the free world I think would go against his view of American strength.

I honestly think that to the President's credit, the greatest accomplishment of that B-2 strike in Iran was the restoration of American deterrence.

And not only Iran, but I would expect to some extent Putin and President Xi in the Asia Pacific understand that the United States military and our commander-in-chief have both the will and the capacity to defend our interests in the world and to take action when necessary.

>> This week, the President has sent letters to at least 20 countries, threatening them with tariffs and new tariff rates as high as 50%, at least in the case of Brazil.

The courts are reviewing.

Whether President Trump and the administration even have the legal authority to impose these tariffs.

And your organization, advancing American freedom, has filed an amicus brief just this week arguing that under the Constitution, no administration has the authority to impose tariffs in the way they are being imposed.

Are these tariffs legal?

>> Well, I think that's a question for the Supreme Court of the United States.

But in my judgment, it's important to go back to first principles.

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to levy taxes and what they called excises or tariffs.

And I think the time has come for Congress to take back some of the authority that they have, in fact, divested to the executive branch over the last hundred years.

And the reality is that the President's actually proposing what would be the largest peacetime tax hike in American history.

I mean, that these tariffs being imposed on friend and foe alike will ultimately be passed along to American businesses and to American consumers.

>> Why has it been so difficult for Republicans in Congress to step in and reclaim their constitutional authority?

>> Well, I understand the President's popularity.

I also understand his popularity within the Republican Party.

But, look -- >> Is that unprecedented?

>> I don't think it's entirely unprecedented.

I think a careful study of American history shows there have been Presidents that have held great sway over their Congresses.

>> If I may, Mr. Vice President I recall a time when you represented a congressional district in Indiana.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And kept the President of the United States up until 3 in the morning because you refused to vote for a Medicaid Part D bill because it was going to expand the debt.

And here you are.

You went on to have a robust career in the Congress and went on to become Vice President of the United States.

If a person were to do that today, they would have a future not unlike Don Bacon's or Tom Tillis's.

Is there something different about the Republicans' ability to have an independent view from the President, this President?

>> You know, as you said, I'd like to say I know President Trump better than his most ardent defenders.

I've never seen him really begrudge people taking a principled stand on an issue.

>> As long as it's not personal, if he doesn't interpret it as a personal affront.

>> If he doesn't interpret it as a personal affront or someone playing politics, I've seen him be very respectful where people differ.

>> And yet Senator Tillis will not be running again because they had a principled policy difference that became personal.

So I don't know if there's any way to untangle the two.

>> Well, I honestly think that there's plenty of room for Congress to bring their expertise into the conversation.

>> You celebrated the passage of President Trump's one big, beautiful bill act.

That's a huge win.

Now, I know from your perspective, that was an extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and having not passed it would have amounted to a massive tax increase on millions of Americans.

Polls have found that Americans are skeptical of the legislation.

A Fox News poll says less than half of Republicans expect that it will help their families.

And there is this question of its impact on the debt.

Freedom Caucus member Representative Massie says that the big, beautiful bill is a "debt bomb ticking."

You've all have been conservative from the American Enterprise Institute and characterized the bill as "almost unthinkably irresponsible."

These are people who really care about the fiscal health of the country and, of course, would want the tax cuts but regret that it, as a full, Big, Beautiful Bill, actually ended up having not-so-beautiful elements.

How do you square the two?

>> For me, there was no more important economic priority for the administration than ensuring that the Trump-Pence tax cuts were made permanent.

>> Regardless of what else had to go into it.

>> I just think making sure that working families did not face a $2,000 tax increase on January 1st, 2026, was an enormously important accomplishment.

>> The predominant narrative about the bill right now is about the reforms and the cuts to Medicaid.

And even Republican Senator Tillis from North Carolina has said that this could be President Trump's Obamacare.

Not in the sense that he would be expanding health care, but it would be his political Achilles heel for the second term.

Now, I know you disagree with that.

But if a leading Republican who is not going to win re-elections in North Carolina chooses not to run again because he believes this is such a dire issue, is it more than messaging?

Or are there material cuts to Medicaid that will really hurt?

>> Well, I think the reforms to Medicaid were historic and important.

I think the American people, once they understand that what the Republicans did was essentially say, we're going to focus Medicaid's resources on vulnerable populations, people with disabilities, who are struggling to raise children in poverty, and we're going to make sure those funds don't go to illegal immigrants, we're going to make sure they don't go to able-bodied men who ought to be out in the workplace at least 20 hours a week.

So I think that's a case that we've made, that we're nearly at $37 trillion in national debt.

And now with a trajectory for that to continue to rise at dramatic levels.

And I think we've got to produce leadership in this country, and I hope to be a voice from outside for that, that levels with the American people about the debt crisis that we're facing, that we're piling on our children and grandchildren, and and rolls your sleeves up and not just Medicaid, but looks at Medicare, Social Security and says we have to modernize and reform these programs so that they're there for people in the future and they're secure for Americans today.

In your book, "So Help Me God," you tell the story which you often tell, about how Ronald Reagan brought you into the conservative movement and the Reagan revolution.

And when he left office, Reagan appeared on the original "Firing Line" with William F. Buckley Jr. in 1990 to discuss his memoir, and they discussed the debt.

That leaves us facing deficit.

Yes.

In the book, you bemoan your own inability to do something substantial about it.

And when you consider running, whether you will run for the second term, you say, well, at least if I do, it will give me, among other things, a chance to tame the deficit.

So even after four years, you thought you could do something about it, but you failed.

Conservatives and Republicans have been lamenting the debt for 40 years now.

You say you believe the American people are ready for leadership on this really difficult issue.

What is the evidence that Republicans are going to be able to do that or that anybody has the appetite to do it if here we are, like a broken record, 40 years later, still lamenting the increased debt, except for now it's $37 trillion?

All right.

Well, the first off is, it's just a perfect clip.

And it humbles me to think that I'm continuing in that vein, that tradition for one of my heroes on this storied broadcast.

But I would suggest to you and remind you that Ronald Reagan reformed Social Security.

He worked with the Democrats at the time, with Tip O'Neill, and it really extended the life of Social Security by more than 20 years.

It's going to take that kind of leadership now with a nearly $37 trillion national debt, because I stipulate too that our administration did not do a good enough job controlling spending.

We could have done a better job.

And working with the Republican Congresses.

Why is it so hard?

Well, I think ultimately it takes leadership.

I think the country knows that we're on an unsustainable path that really threatens the vitality of our nation.

And so I think going to the American people with those facts and saying, look, we need to take these New Deal programs and make it a better deal.

And I can tell you, when I was running for president in 2023, Nikki Haley and I were the only two candidates for president willing to talk about entitlement reform.

And Chris Christie did when he first ran.

But everywhere we did, everywhere I did, people would stop me afterwards and say, thank you.

As a descendant of Herbert Hoover, I think your framing of transcending the New Deal for a better deal...

Better deal.

...is right on.

And it seems that that's the kind of marketing that Donald Trump could get behind, right?

He's a deal maker.

He could cut deals.

He could make the New Deal a better deal.

And yet he has been very clear that Doge and Elon Musk's efforts needed to keep their hands off of these entitlement programs, which really are, as you pointed out, the continuing and perpetual driver of our national debt.

Again, where's the evidence that there's leadership to do this?

Well, it's -- there's not a lot of evidence right now.

I know the president during our four years had little interest in reforming entitlements.

Sometimes when the topic would come up in the Oval Office, people would say, what are we going to do about reforming entitlements?

And he'd say, that's going to be Mike's problem.

Because you were going to be president someday?

Someday, maybe.

That was the thought.

Last month, President Trump delayed enforcement of a ban on TikTok for the third time.

He claims a deal to sell TikTok to U.S. investors is close.

But this is a law that was passed overwhelmingly by the Congress.

It was signed by the president.

It has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

You have described the Trump administration's actions in this regard, regarding TikTok as -- quote -- "inconsistent with the statute."

Republicans in Congress have basically shrugged off the president refusing to implement the law that they passed.

If the president isn't obeying the laws passed by the Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, what are we to do?

>>> TikTok is a national security threat to the United States of America.

And it needs to either be sold to an American company or banned outright.

And I hold the view that the one difference in the oath the President takes from the oath that virtually all the rest of us take is that the President pledges to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

And I think the President and his team need to move and move swiftly to either identify an American buyer and have China divest from TikTok or implement the ban, and to do that with great expedition and haste.

>>> Is he failing to faithfully ensure that laws are executed?

>>> I'm very concerned that the current administration is not acting in a manner consistent with the law.

This is, in your view, one of the most urgent national security threats before us.

>>> I think it is.

And if the president is not faithfully executing the law, are we stuck?

>>> No, we're not stuck.

This is...

I just -- I fail to see how this is going to be resolved.

>>> Well, I think calling on the Congress, calling on the administration to implement the law, to act out the law.

Now, the President has said that there would be an announcement in a matter of weeks.

I remain hopeful that will be the case.

But failing that, I think that the Congress should be prepared to take action.

You recently received the John F. Kennedy Foundation's Profile in Courage Award because of your actions on January 6.

And in early June, you wrote a letter to a woman named Pam Hemphill, a January 6 rioter.

She rejected President Trump's pardon, saying that she didn't want to -- quote -- "be part of Trump's narrative that the DOJ is weaponized."

You wrote, "I am writing to express my admiration for your decision to refuse a presidential pardon and accept responsibility for your actions on January 6."

Mr. Vice President, why was it important for you to write that letter to Pam Hemphill?

>>> I was deeply moved by her integrity and her faith, where she accepted responsibility for what she had done.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I believe in grace, fresh starts, new beginnings.

But it begins with accepting responsibility for what you have done.

And I think it's an example that would inspire lots of Americans.

>>> If we can quickly do a lightning round, because I want to be respectful of your time.

The Trump administration has revoked deportation protections for thousands of Afghan refugees who served arm-in-arm with armed members of the military in our 20-year engagement in that country, many as translators, saving the lives of hundreds of Americans, maybe thousands of servicemen.

Is that a mistake?

>>> I was deeply disappointed to see the Trump administration rescind the immigration status of Afghan nationals that had -- that aided our service members in the fight in Afghanistan.

And I hope they reconsider it.

>>> Since President Trump returned to office, his family launched a meme coin that has collected more than $300 million in fees and signed new real estate deals in Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, some of which could be profitable personally for the President.

Now, you were very critical in the Biden administration of the Bidens profiting off of the presidency.

Is it appropriate for any president or anyone who holds the office of the presidency to profit off of the trust that has been placed in them by the American people?

>>> Well, not from the office of the presidency.

But my hope is, knowing the Trump family, as I do, that they are carefully avoiding any impropriety.

But I also would say that it's not just about impropriety.

It's about the appearance of impropriety.

And I think that it's important to the American people that they have confidence that the president is focused on the presidency, is focused on their well-being.

>>> Final question.

In honor of the Fourth of July, you wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times saying -- quote -- "Let us never forget that the ultimate source of American greatness is not government, not politicians, not wealth or power or fame, but faith, faith in God, faith in each other, faith in the promise that is America."

Mr. Vice President, there is some evidence that, for many Americans, faith in each other and faith in the promise of America is dwindling.

There's plenty of statistics from Marist, from Gallup, from Pew.

How do you reconcile your optimism with that data?

Well, my optimism does come from faith, Margaret.

It comes from my faith in God.

But it also comes from faith in the American people, especially during difficult times.

What I learned is that, when the wind blows and beats against the house, when the flood waters rise, wildfires rage, the American people, whatever their politics, drop whatever they're doing, load up their cars with coolers full of water and food, tools, and they drive to where they can help.

I know that's happening in Texas as we speak today.

I know it's happening in New Mexico.

I have seen that so many different times.

It's convinced me of the goodness and really the greatness of the American people.

And so, with faith in the character of this nation and faith in the one that's ever guided this great country, I do believe our best days are ahead.

Mr. Vice President, thank you for returning to "Firing Line."

It's been a pleasure.

Great to be on the "Firing Line."

Thank you, Margaret.

>> "Firing Line" with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by... Robert Granieri The Tepper Foundation Vanessa and Henry Cornell, the Fairweather Foundation, and by... ...the Pritzker Military Foundation.

♪♪ ♪♪ You're watching PBS.

(guitar strum)