Skip to main content

Transcript: New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on ‘Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,’ July 19, 2026

▶ Watch Video: Gov. Kathy Hochul says New York “has to lead” on 1-year, large-scale data center ban

The following is the transcript of an interview with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on July 19, 2026.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We go now to the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul. Good morning to you, Governor.

GOV. KATHY HOCHUL: Good morning.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve got a big day, World Cup finals in nearby New Jersey. I know you’ll be attending those. So will the President of the United States, the President of Mexico, the Canadian Prime Minister. Given the threat environment, are you confident in the security measures?

GOV. HOCHUL: Absolutely. We’ve worked so close with our federal, state, and local partners in law enforcement. We have been preparing for this for literally over a year, over 1,000 exercises, tabletopping all the scenarios. So, we’re with the best, and particularly with NYPD, the- the world’s greatest police force. I feel very confident in our security, and we’re so happy to welcome the eyes of the world. The entire planet is going to be watching what is happening right here in the New York City area. So, it’s exciting, very exciting time for us.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Truly, billions watching, and we will be too. Governor, I want to ask you about a decision that you made this past week that made very big headlines. You signed an executive order to ban large-scale data centers for a year. These are those big buildings that help to power artificial intelligence technology centers. It was just a few months ago you said data centers were a local decision for municipalities. What- what changed for you?

GOV. HOCHUL: I would say what changed was talking to the localities and realizing they don’t have the negotiating ability to- or have the clout to be able to demand that their communities benefit from this in a more dramatic way. They also don’t have the ability to insist that these companies bring their own power, or pay more for the grid. They don’t have an ability to say no to tax breaks, and so I decided that I could do much more, especially in- and especially flooding the zone is what’s happening now. We have over 30 applicants, so in a very short time, I changed my position, saying, “You know what? The state has to lead here, but it’s not about being the first. It’s about being the first to get it right.” And we will get it right over the course of this year and help those localities negotiate the right way, make sure we’re keeping track of how much water is being consumed, doing a study of that during this year, but also insisting that these companies, and they’re welcome with the conditions and the rules that we set forth, that they also contribute to the larger grid because this is a huge tax on our grid. And I want to make sure that the power is there- unlimited power is there for the large companies that are creating jobs, like the Micron that we recruited here with 50,000 jobs. So we’ll get the right balance. But I’ll tell you this, people want protection. New Yorkers want protection. There’s a lot of anxiety. Companies want certainty. We’ll give them both.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, governors from red states like Missouri, Montana, Wyoming- they signed this White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, which I guess has AI data centers sign on to- promising not to increase consumer prices, like companies AI- OpenAI, and Amazon say they’ll help cover the cost of infrastructure upgrades. Have you talked to companies, these companies, about doing the same in New York? Why isn’t a White House pledge like that sufficient?

GOV. HOCHUL: Asking these companies to keep their word on how much they’re going to consume- I’m more realistic than that. Perhaps I’m willing to say I will get it right in New York. We’ll work with the companies, but also- and we’re open to AI. Absolutely, this is a- a place for innovation is welcome and celebrated. But my view is, if you’re going to succeed in New York because of our talent and our resources and our people. I want to make sure that New Yorkers succeed as well. So it’s not a one-way street. I don’t want the companies coming in and telling us how to do things in our state.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

GOV. HOCHUL: But there can be- they can be welcome. When I lay out the rules of the war- world- of the road, which they will embrace. I mean, once they know how to play the game, how to do things in New York, they’ll want to come, but I need some breathing room. So my agencies, I’ve got seven agencies dedicated to different elements of this: the economic development benefits for communities, how we manage how much they’re going to be consuming in water–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

GOV. HOCHUL: –how we make sure that- I mean, just to say, make sure the ratepayers don’t pay more. How do you enforce that? I’m more realistic. I want to get things done and make it really be effective.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It sounds like you want evidence to help get you to yes. But in the meantime, you are hearing concerns from unions, for example, that this is going to turn away jobs and that it’ll send a signal that New York is not a place for companies to invest long term. How do you address that?

GOV. HOCHUL: Well, that’s not the right conclusion from what I’ve done, we’ve been very clear. And as someone who’s created more union jobs in this state than anybody in history, the largest private sector development in American history is going on right now with this Micron. That is 20 years of union jobs building this. We also have tens of thousands of union jobs over years of building the Gateway Tunnel, which was stymied, stuck, not happening until I- until I unstuck it. So I’ve got more jobs for union members. They don’t have to worry about my commitment to their jobs. But wouldn’t they be rather building jobs that there’s jobs that remain after the construction season is over? That the project is built, that we actually have people, their neighbors, communities, people actually working in those buildings with long-term good-paying jobs, and not just focused on construction, which is very important. So, I’m asking everybody to say- take a breath. This is not the end of the world. We’ll get through this, and New York always leads in a smart way, and that’s what I’m really proud of of what we’re doing here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about election security. We’re about 100 days out from election day. States administer the elections in this country, not the federal government. Are you getting the kind of election security resources your state has gotten in the last few years? Do you have what you need?

GOV. HOCHUL: No, the federal government has basically been dismantling all the protections that we’ve come to rely on to protect this core essence of our democracy. The knowledge that when you cast that vote, that- that citizens’ right, that obligation to determine who our leaders are, that it is uncompromised. It is not being challenged by the federal government, just because they’re so worried about the upcoming results, that is exactly what is happening. I want everyone to focus on that. Yes, we passed the John Rights Voting Act. We have the toughest protections in the country, and just recently, I signed a law, many, many protections against what ICE is doing, to say ICE agents cannot show up at polling places.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

GOV. HOCHUL: Can you see this scenario? Black and brown communities across our country and in New York, where they’re all of a sudden on election day to create that fear factor and intimidation factor that they’re so good at. I do not want to see that compromise the validity of our election. So, what Donald Trump is doing right now is throwing out the- the biggest red herring you’d ever see and questioning the- the actual results that are happening. So, we’re working hard on this here. I’ll make sure that we are protected, but I can’t count on–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But–

GOV. HOCHUL: –the federal government for any- anything these days because they’re compromised.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Under- under federal law, armed agents are not supposed to be at election centers. The attorney general nominee Todd Blanche said he’d follow the law, but it sounds like you are still concerned that that might happen. Have you–

GOV. HOCHUL: They don’t follow the law very much at all, Margaret. They don’t follow the law much at all. So again, trust but verify. I’m going to verify and ensure that New York State is doing it right. I don’t trust that they’re going to say this because what happens is, they say the day after, like, “Oh well, we didn’t mean to do it.” And, “Oh, sorry about that.” You know, these are people who go around killing individuals in our streets, so they have no credibility with me when they say anything.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We will speak to the White House about that topic shortly. Thank you very much, Governor. We’ll be right back.

Judge in Don Lemon indictment asks to see grand jury records, adding to growing scrutiny of Justice Department cases

By CNN
(CNN) — A federal judge in Minnesota will probe this week whether grounds exist to toss the Justice Department’s case against journalist Don Lemon. It’s the latest example of judges’ growing skepticism of whether the department is behaving ethically behind closed doors in grand jury proceedings.Judges across the country have signaled they are willing to give far less deference to federal prosecutors than in previous administrations and have raised concerns about DOJ’s apparent abandonment of regular practices.Federal judges in Wyoming, Illinois and Virginia have either thrown out charges or seriously admonished federal prosecutors for missteps in front of the grand jury. The botched grand jury presentments have prompted a historical review of cases in Chicago and, in some courts, new rules requiring defendants to be notified when a grand jury declines to indict.On August 18, Minnesota federal Judge Laura Provinzino issued a short but extraordinary order demanding the Justice Department provide her a wide swath of grand jury materials related to Lemon and his co-defendants, including presentations made by prosecutors and case agents, and the totality of communications prosecutors had with grand jurors resulting in their indictments.Provinzino set a Tuesday deadline to provide her with the presentation by federal prosecutors and case agents related to grand juries empaneled in January and February. Further, Provinzino told DOJ to provide any introduction, legal instructions, witness testimony, closing arguments, and answers to questions from grand jurors.Lemon’s team has aggressively pursued obtaining grand jury materials and had asked for either grand jury records to be provided to the defense or, at a minimum, reviewed by the judge privately, citing “irregularities” in the grand jury that resulted in his indictment.“There is substantial evidence of grand-jury irregularities in this case,” Lemon’s team wrote in a recent filing.“Multiple judges, including at the Eighth Circuit, found there was no probable cause to charge Lemon” and his co-defendant Georgia Fort, the filing said.Mark Wolf, a former Massachusetts District Court judge and federal prosecutor, said it is rare for defense attorneys to ask for grand jury transcripts in federal court. It is even more rare that judges grant the motions, he said.“There is a high bar to getting grand jury materials,” Wolf said. “You have to have some direct or circumstantial evidence that there has been some defect in the grand jury proceeding.”In her two-page order, Provinzino wrote that she weighed the necessity of maintaining grand jury secrecy against whether grounds may exist to dismiss the case due to a “matter that occurred before the grand jury.”She did not say she had already found evidence of any misconduct.The Justice Department’s initial attempt to charge Lemon in January for appearing alongside protestors who disrupted a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota, was rejected by a federal magistrate judge, which “enraged” then Attorney General Pam Bondi, according to a source who spoke to CNN at the time.Lemon, a former CNN anchor, was later indicted by a grand jury along with several other defendants, including independent journalist Georgia Fort. Lemon has been charged with conspiring to violate someone’s constitutional rights and violating the FACE Act, which prohibits the use of force or threats to intentionally interfere with someone expressing their First Amendment right to practice religion.Lemon has pleaded not guilty to both charges. His team has aggressively pursued obtaining grand jury materials throughout the case, and earlier this month filed a motion to dismiss the case altogether.Justice Department losing credibilityWolf told CNN he does not believe the Justice Department’s credibility remains intact.“For good reasons, the Department of Justice’s reputation with judges generally has been injured,” Wolf said.In Chicago, defense attorneys urged Judge April Perry to release grand jury transcripts in the highly publicized case against protestors at an ICE detention facility outside the city.After reviewing those transcripts, Perry found federal prosecutors engaged in inappropriate actions, such as interacting with grand jurors outside the proceeding, ordering some jurors to leave in another hearing, and “vouching” to the grand jurors.Vouching is a practice where prosecutors present their own reputation while delivering their case to a grand jury. It is forbidden in grand jury proceedings because the practice effectively asks jurors to trust the prosecutor personally rather than only on the merits of evidence.“I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts,” Judge Perry said during a May 21 hearing.US Attorney Andrew Boutros then dropped the case against the protestors. Later, after reviewing the prosecutor’s conduct, Boutros opted to drop at least two more criminal cases, ordered a historical review of more than 100 grand jury transcripts, and launched reforms such as more training on grand jury presentations.“If I was a federal public defender or a private defense attorney, every case I get that’s indicted, I’m going to file a motion that is asking the judge to review the transcripts,” said Mike Fox, a current Cato Institute fellow and former Colorado public defender.“In my view, at this point, it doesn’t matter in which court it is, doesn’t matter if I have binding case law,” Fox said. “Every single case, the defense attorney should be filing, and the judge should be inquiring.”In May, a panel of three federal judges in Wyoming dismissed felony drug and gun indictments against nine defendants after the judges found the acting Wyoming US Attorney referred to defendants as “bad guys,” and “murderers,” and handed out business cards to jurors outside of the proceeding.Prosecutors opted not to appeal the judges’ order. Later, Wyoming federal prosecutors empaneled a new grand jury which issued a new indictment. The case remains ongoing.Fox believes the remedy is a more engaged judiciary where judges routinely witness grand jury proceedings.The current law doesn’t require judges to listen to proceedings, but some courts are issuing new local rules to ensure greater oversight. This spring, the Northern District of Illinois, where Boutros is US Attorney, enacted a rule requiring grand juries to alert a magistrate judge when a grand jury fails to issue an indictment.A spokesperson for the Justice Department told CNN in an email the executive office of the US Attorney provides training for prosecutors which includes grand jury practice.“On rare occasions where there is an issue, as noted in our Chicago US Attorney’s office, we took immediate corrective action and provided renewed, in-depth instruction on ethics and grand jury practice,” the spokesperson wrote.“Our US Attorneys will always follow the law and prosecute cases without fear or favor. Nobody is above the law, regardless of political affiliation. Beyond that, we don’t comment on pending litigation.”Grand jury presentments in the spotlight last yearLast fall, in the most high-profile and politically charged example of a problematic grand jury presentment, then-interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, took a proposed indictment against former FBI Director James Comey through a grand jury on her own. A magistrate judge in Alexandria, Virginia, reviewed the transcript and found Halligan may have incorrectly presented the law to the grand jury. The judge called the debacle “profound investigative missteps … to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”Halligan later admitted to a judge the grand jury hadn’t supported the initial version of the proposed indictment of Comey, and the full grand jury hadn’t signed off on the final charging document. That Comey case was dismissed for a separate reason, when a federal district judge determined Halligan wasn’t serving as a legitimate prosecutor. The Justice Department is appealing.But the grand jury handling in the Comey case and other cases continues to hover over prosecutors.Comey’s defense team, for instance, is attempting to pry into grand jury records in the separate, newer case against him, out of Eastern North Carolina. He is charged there with threatening the president by posting on social media a photo of the numbers “8647” written in seashells on a beach.The phrase 86 is sometimes used to say nix or get rid of something. Trump is the 47th president. Comey has denied wrongdoing in the case.“The highly irregular procedures that led to the indictment create a significant risk that the government misrepresented key issues of fact and law to the grand jury,” Comey’s lawyers wrote in a recent court filing, citing federal searches of Comey that they question.If Comey’s defense cannot gain access to the grand jury transcript, they at least want a judge to look at it to check the Justice Department’s work.Wolf said he is deeply troubled by the Justice Department’s recent actions and told CNN he believes it shows the American people that the department will use the law for partisan purposes.“It sends a message that a Department of Justice that should institutionalize our ideal of equal justice under law is not doing that,” Wolf said. “And that means anybody is vulnerable.”The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story

Related Stories

Latest News
A medida que se acercan las elecciones, Netanyahu presenta a Turquía como el nuevo enemigo de Israel
1 hour ago

A medida que se acercan las elecciones, Netanyahu presenta a Turquía como el nuevo enemigo de Israel

¿Por qué el francés se ha convertido en un punto conflictivo en la disputa comercial entre Canadá y EE.UU.?

A Black man once sentenced to death for murder fights for freedom after discovering his attorney defended the Ku Klux Klan

Michael Jordan’s ‘Last Dance’ 1998 Finals jersey could sell for over $10 million

EE.UU. afirma que tomará medidas enérgicas contra los países que hacen negocios con Irán. ¿Quién compra petróleo iraní?