The following is the transcript of the interview with Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on May 24, 2026.
NANCY CORDES: We turn now to Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen. Senator, thank you so much for being with me.
SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: It’s good to be with you, Nancy.
NANCY CORDES: So, I want to stress that all of this is still evolving. We’re getting slightly different takes on the terms of the deal from the Americans and the Iranians, but what do you think about what you’ve heard so far?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, Nancy, this war against Iran has been a big blunder from the very start. The president should have stuck to his campaign pledge of keeping us out of war and focused on bringing down prices. He’s done just the opposite. Prices are going up, interest rates are going up, and we’re mired in this war in Iran. And when you’re digging a hole, you should stop digging. That’s what this agreement sounds like. It sounds like we will go back to opening the Strait of Hormuz, which, of course, was open before the war started. I will say, however, it looks like Iran will retain more control over those straits. We also know Iran has an even more hardline regime in place now, and we’re talking about releasing some of Iran’s frozen assets. So, look, my view is, as I said, stop digging.
NANCY CORDES: I want to ask you about something that stirred up a lot of controversy on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill this week, the DOJ new anti-weaponization fund. Nearly $1.8 billion set aside for people who say they were treated unfairly by the federal government. You’ve been calling it a political slush fund. You are trying to force Republicans to take a vote on placing some guardrails around that fund. What kind of guardrails are you talking about?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, Nancy, first we should get rid of this political slush fund, $1.8 billion of taxpayer money. But I have been proposing amendments to prohibit, for example, people who rioted on January 6 and assaulted police officers from being eligible for the fund. People who have been convicted of child molestation, they should not be eligible for the fund. Members of Congress should not be eligible for the fund. And I would hope all Republicans, including Republican candidates, should come out strongly against this slush fund, which the President has set up for these purposes.
NANCY CORDES: You pushed the acting Attorney General this week on that question of whether people who attacked police officers would be eligible for the fund. I asked the President about that this week as well. He did not say that those people would be ineligible. Senate Republicans were very angry about this, and they really gave it to the attorney- acting Attorney General, behind closed doors this week. Do you think that there is an appetite for trying to get rid of this fund in Congress? And how would that even work?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, I hope so, Nancy. I think most Republicans are more upset about the fact that this interrupted their effort to pass this reconciliation bill with another $70 billion of taxpayer funds for ICE. I think that’s what upset them the most, and they decided to leave town because they didn’t want to have to vote on these amendments that I’ve proposed, and others have proposed, so we’ll see how this all turns out. We should get rid of this political slush fund altogether, and we will insist on having these votes when we get back.
NANCY CORDES: I’ve been told by a senior administration official that there are now some urgent efforts underway to address the concerns that Republicans have raised about this fund, but they continue to insist they’ve got the right to do this, and that in fact they already have the ability to make these payouts, and if anything, they’re making the process more transparent by coming up with rules, by appointing commissioners, and all the rest. What do you think of that argument?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, that’s absurd, and this was really corrupt from the start. I mean, this is essentially President Trump negotiating with President Trump through the acting Attorney General, who was Trump’s former personal lawyer. They set it up so they have complete control over the five members of this commission that can be selected, President Trump can fire any of them whenever he wants, and so this is completely under their control, a slush fund, and they’ve not committed, Nancy, to being completely transparent. The acting Attorney General refused to say that they would disclose the names of all the people who received these taxpayer funds. So let’s be clear, this is a corrupt deal, and in the process the president, of course, got a complete get out of free- get out of jail free card with respect to any taxes that he has due in owing, another corrupt part of this deal.
NANCY CORDES: I want to ask you about a case that you’ve been heavily involved in, and there was a big development this week. A judge threw out the federal human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia of your home state, Maryland. You visited him in El Salvador after he was wrongfully deported to that country, placed in the supermax prison CECOT. The judge said that DOJ’s prosecution of him was vindictive, and DOJ now says it plans to appeal. Have you spoken to him or his family? How are they feeling about this decision?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Nancy, I have spoken to him and his wife, Jennifer, and they’re of course pleased that the court system have applied the law. This was absolutely a vindictive prosecution. The judge called it essentially an abuse of power, because the Trump administration brought these new charges against him, because he decided to exercise his due process and process and constitutional rights. They had admitted that they had wrongfully disappeared him to El Salvador, and he contested that, and of course he is now back. They’re still trying to deport him, but he filed his claims under the Constitution. And so this case is not about Kilmar Abrego Garcia alone. This is really about the rights of each and every one of us, and when the Trump administration decided to vindictive- vindictively prosecute him for that, they were further threatening the rights of all of us.
NANCY CORDES: We’ve got about a minute left, but I want to ask you about this election autopsy that was finally released by the Democratic National Committee this week. Do you feel like you got any answers from that autopsy on why the Democrats lost in 2024? And do you believe that the head of the DNC should resign over this?
SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, Nancy, this is a very shoddy piece of work. It’s an incomplete piece of work, and I can understand why Ken Martin was reluctant to release it earlier, but as he has said, he owns this problem. He should have just ripped the band aid off earlier and put it out. No, we’re six months from a very important election, and we should not be changing horses at this time. I will say that the overall thrust of the report indicates that you know we should not just go back to the pre-Trump status quo, and I’ve said from the beginning it was a failure, obviously, for the Democratic Party to lose to someone like Donald Trump a second time. We need to be clear to the American people that we understand their- their financial and economic pain, and their daily struggles, and that we’re going to do something about it. We’re going to fight for them, and we’re going to fight against the special interests, very powerful special interests who try to stack the deck against them.
NANCY CORDES: Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. I appreciate it.