This is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work.
Enter your submissions today.
Scan the code or visit studentcam .org for all the details on how to enter.
The deadline is January 20th, 2025.
C -SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including WOW.
Giving you a front row seat to democracy.
C -SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
Join the conversation.
Good morning.
It's Monday, December 9th, 2024.
The House returns at noon Eastern today.
The Senate's back at 3 p .m. and we're with you for the next three hours on the Washington Journal.
We begin this morning on birthright citizenship.
The idea that if you were born in America, you are automatically a citizen of this country.
Yesterday, in his Meet the Press interview, President -elect Trump vowed once again to end birthright citizenship.
This morning, we're asking if you'd agree with that move.
Phone lines split as usual this morning.
Republicans 202 -748 -8001.
Democrats 202 -748 -8000.
Independents 202 -748 -8002.
And a special line this morning for immigrants of any status.
202 -748 -8003 is that number.
You can also send us a text.
If you do, please include your name and where you're from.
Otherwise, catch up with us on social media.
We're good to go.
I think?
You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one.
Is that still your plan?
Yeah, absolutely.
The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote, all persons born in the United States are citizens.
Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action?
Well, we're going to have to get a change.
We'll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it.
We're the only country that has it.
Through an executive action?
You know, we're the only country that has it.
You know, if somebody sets a foot, just a foot, one foot, you don't need to, on our land.
Congratulations, you are now a citizen of the United States of America.
Yes, we're going to end that because it's ridiculous.
Through executive action?
Well, if we can, through executive action.
I was going to do it through executive action, but then we had to fix COVID first, to be honest with you.
We have to end it.
It's ridiculous.
Do you know we're the only country in the world that has it?
Do you know that?
There's not one other country.
What about the inevitable legal challenges that'll come?
Do you know we have thousands of judges?
Somebody walks onto our land, and we have to now say, welcome to the United States.
They could be a criminal or not a criminal.
We release them into our country.
It's called catch and release.
We release them into our country.
Wait just one second.
And now, they get them lawyers.
And the lawyers are good lawyers.
And everybody has a lawyer.
And do you know how many judges we have?
Thousands.
Thousands.
Here's what other countries do.
They come into the land and they say, I'm sorry, you have to go.
And they take them out.
That was Donald Trump on Meet the Press yesterday.
One note on what he had to say in that interview.
He talked about the United States being the only country.
There's about three dozen countries provide automatic citizenship for people born on their soil.
That includes Canada and Mexico.
There's a chart from the law library at the Library of Congress showing the countries in pink.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're talking about birthright citizenship this morning.
It comes from the US Constitution, the 14th Amendment.
It was ratified after the Civil War.
This is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which states all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
That is the full first section of the 14th Amendment.
We're asking you your thoughts on ending birthright citizenship.
President Trump bringing that issue up.
It was a wide -ranging interview on Meet the Press yesterday.
We'll talk more about some of the other issues that the president -elect brought up in that interview.
But this morning, focusing in this first hour on birthright citizenship.
202 -748 -8001 for Republicans.
202 -748 -8000 for Democrats.
Independence.
202 -748 -8002.
And immigrants of any status.
Want to especially hear from you in this segment.
202...
I want to say as a veteran of this country and as an African American,
I'm thankful for my president that I voted for, Mr. Donald Trump, for addressing this issue.
Because not only have African Americans not given their proper due or their proper stake in this country, but we have denied them education.
We're expecting them to be the bedrock.
For all the other races to come here and build their societies off of.
It's been like that since day one.
I mean, come on now.
All the other races came to our community and exploited our community to build back home.
And along with the other races that were already here.
So, Blake, bring me to birthright citizenship.
I think that it should get rid of.
As the president says, no place in the world can you show up.
Like they're doing in China.
I'm careful they're doing it in China.
They're sending their people over here.
They're having a baby in a hotel room, and that baby is a U .S. citizen.
And that U .S., that baby is obligated to the same thing that you and I and everything.
Just because his mother came here off a plane or across the border or whatever and had a baby in a hotel room, they're equal to our soldiers, to our future.
Are you crazy?
I mean, immigrants can't even be with that.
A real immigrant really is not with them.
If you sit down and talk to them, nobody in their right mind would go for them.
Thank you, Mr. Trump.
I love you.
That's Blake in Mississippi.
That line for immigrants, it's here at the top in PG County, Maryland.
Good morning.
Good morning, sir.
I'm privileged and glad to listen to this program, and this is my stake.
I listened to Donald Trump, who was electronically rigged into winning, and he is from Germany.
His mother is from Scotland.
So he's not even from this country.
Now, for him to be talking about the amendment, so that even if you are born here...
By the way, let me tell you that...
I'm an African, proud African.
I don't want to be anything but African.
I have five children here, and I have over five grandchildren.
Or according to the argument of Donald Trump, who is a felony, and he's not even supposed to be the president of the United States, this gentleman had three felonies.
African -American, his right to vote was taken away.
This guy has 34, and yet we put him out there to be the president of the United States.
Isn't that ridiculous?
Now, the only person that can talk the way Donald Trump is talking is the Native Americans.
So we who are Africans do not belong here if Native Americans don't want us to be here.
Caucasians who came in and did the killings of the Native Americans to smash their land, they don't even have the mouth to say anything about who is supposed to be here.
When we acquired this arrogance of the Caucasians to be questioning people who are born...
Look at the people coming from the border.
Oh, they are not supposed to be coming here.
These are Native Americans flowing naturally through their own habitat.
That's a wrap atop the first Trump family member who came to the United States, according to the story in Newsweek.
1885, October of 1885, Friedrich Trump, a then 16 -year -old German barber, bought a one -way ticket to the United States, and the Trump family having been in the United States since then.
Olympia is in the Bronx, a Republican.
Good morning.
Hi, good morning to you.
Thanks for having me on this morning.
The Mississippi gentleman who called, I don't know, I guess he doesn't understand that the amendment to allow people birthright was created because slaves were not considered citizens.
And so here we go to remove that amendment or to threaten to remove the amendment.
I don't know if it's just for For publicity to get people up in arms about these things but to try to remove birthright citizenship is absolutely insane.
Immigration is the bedrock of the formation of our society to try to take away that right of people.
What would happen to the people who are citizens and who have children overseas?
How do you Olympia, to amend the Constitution requires a two -thirds vote in the House, two -thirds vote in the Senate,
and then it goes to the states and would need to be ratified by three -quarters of the states.
Do you think that is possible in as divided of an America as we've seen as almost evenly divided in this country?
Do you think something like that is possible today?
I don't think that vote would pass in Congress.
If we look at the demography of Congress now, it's not 100 % of anyone, you know, cultural demography.
It's a bit varied.
And even within that majority, there's some variations.
A lot of people's families weren't born in the United States.
I don't think you should try to cherry pick situations.
What if the idea is simply to have the child in the United States and then go back to the country that they were living in?
or if they stay here but it's usually in order to make sure that the child has a better opportunity whether it's for health reasons whether it's for safety reasons whether it's for economic reasons and you know it's it's not fair to say that if this person is going to be a great citizen of the united states and they return at any one point or another that should be a problem and if the person doesn't return then what's the problem with that That's Olympia in the Bronx.
This is the story from the Wall Street Journal today on President -elect Trump's comments, saying that his transition team is drafting several versions of his long -promised executive order to curtail automatic citizenship for anyone born in the United States.
That's according to several people familiar with the matter.
Though an executive order needs the, through an executive order, or perhaps through a rulemaking process by an agency, the story notes, President -elect Trump is also expected to take steps to deter that birth tourism,
and that also, some of the reporting today.
So two different issues, one on birthright citizenship as a whole, and one on birth tourism.
Ron is in Hunt Valley, Maryland, Independent.
Good morning.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning, everyone.
You know, I think it's very important that we differentiate legal versus illegal, okay?
A lot of your callers are going to call in and say, oh, well, you know, immigration is the fabric of our country.
We're talking about legal immigration, okay?
And I challenge your callers and your listeners to travel to Europe, any country in Europe.
They want to know if you're pregnant, how long you're staying.
They have laws.
They enforce their laws.
Why are we not enforcing our laws?
I mean, that's just what it boils down to.
When you look at the birth rate of our country, it's declining.
And I hate to say this, but game is over.
When you look at your illegal immigrants that are coming in, they're having three, four, five, six babies.
Most American, legal American women are not having as many children as they did in the past.
So game is over.
We're talking about legal immigration.
I challenge you all to travel to Europe, travel to those countries.
If you pull up that map again.
That's Ron in Hunt Valley, Maryland.
The map he's referring to is from the Law Library at the Library of Congress, just taking a look at citizenship statuses.
We're good to go.
I think?
Charles is in Florida.
Good morning.
Charles, you with us?
I can hear myself on the TV, Charles, so I assume you just put the phone down and walked away.
This is Volker in Minnesota on that line for immigrants.
Good morning.
Morning.
Yeah, that's an interesting thought, but I would connect it with the right to vote, meaning you have to go through whatever,
like us immigrants have to go through a series of questions, civic and so on and so on and so on.
So Volker, you think people shouldn't become citizens until they're old enough to take and pass a test on citizenship?
What do you mean that you have to pass a test to vote, Volker?
Is this when you became a citizen, Volker?
When you were becoming a United States citizen, you took a citizenship test.
Correct.
And that's what you think people should have to vote or to become a citizen in general?
In connection with the birthright, you know, because the reason I'm saying that, some people, they are born and so they think they are...
That's Volker.
And Volker, what country did you immigrate to the United States from?
As usual, phone lines split by political party.
202 -748 -8001 for Republicans.
We're good to go.
Children were born here.
That's my comment.
Oh, I was practicing.
Birthright citizenship.
Because it wasn't because of slavery, it was because that the children of freed slaves were being denied their citizenship rights.
So they came up with the 14th Amendment and then the early 70s, pregnant women would start crossing the border and then, when their their babies were born here, they became citizens.
So whoever said it was because of slavery was wrong, but I would change it to, if you came into the country illegally,
then you couldn't have birthright citizenship.
If the mother was illegal, then her baby couldn't be American.
That's Joe in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
The 14th Amendment passed in the wake of the Civil War and has been the law of this land since then.
After the war, the Reconstructionist Congress passed several civil rights laws, including the 14th Amendment, the most sweeping declaration of birthright citizenship in the U .S. history.
It defines citizenship as applying to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the...
I don't know.
We're good to go.
I think?
The story from the History Channel goes on to note when Wang was denied re -entry into the U .S. after visiting China, he was forced to wait in a ship in San Francisco Harbor for months as his attorney pursued his case for citizenship.
He was a test case that the Department of Justice selected in an attempt to prove that people of Chinese descent weren't citizens.
His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and then something unexpected happened.
They wrote, Wang won.
Good morning.
The part that I think that is being missed is the part that says under the jurisdiction thereof.
The way I understand it, and I guess this is one reason why we don't teach civics in our schools anymore, we keep getting different scenarios, it has to do with Indians, right?
They specifically did not want Indians who were born in this country to be full citizens.
That's why they had to be under our jurisdiction.
Indians were not completely under our jurisdiction.
But if people sneak into our country, they're not under our jurisdiction.
They just snuck in.
But now if we allow them in at the border and give them a court date, whether it's 10 years out or 10 days out, we have legally allowed them in, and they are now under our jurisdiction.
But James, illegal immigrants can be prosecuted.
Many times when they're prosecuted, they're deported.
They go to deportation proceedings, but they can be prosecuted for...
Right, but if an illegal immigrant is arrested for a crime,
they are subject...
Not when it comes to citizenship.
They're under our jurisdiction because they're criminals and they broke our laws in our country.
But we're talking about citizenship rights, not legal rights for criminals.
But illegal immigrants are still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
So wouldn't their children, if they're born in the United States, be citizens?
Or at least that's how the 14th Amendment reads?
I guess what we're talking about here specifically is what is an illegal immigrant.
I'm saying that if you come into our border, and even if you aren't really qualified for asylum rights, if you come into our border and you go through our system, and we say, yeah, you can come in.
Hang out for 10 years and then we'll have a court date.
We let them in.
So when we let them in, they're under our jurisdiction.
But if they go through the desert and we don't let them in, they're not under our jurisdiction.
So it's a little complicated, but the words are the words in the Constitution.
And that's what they say.
They have to be under our jurisdiction.
And it was specifically written, if you read the notes in the Library of Congress about what they were discussing at the time, was Indians.
Got your point, James.
That's James.
This is Emma.
In Chicago, a Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I just want to let you know how it is in Germany.
Both parents have to be born in Germany.
Otherwise, you'll never be a citizen.
And Emma, do you think that's a good system?
Yes, I think so.
Why?
I think that those people have the right.
You know, you're born in Germany.
So I think it's the best way to go.
That's Emma in Chicago.
This is Stan.
Good morning.
Yeah, I'm calling in reference to the birthright tourism.
I spent the winter in Florida and witnessed it with my own two eyes that everyone in the building was a pregnant Russian woman walking with a stroller with two or three kids in it.
And there were flyers that were sitting on the front desk.
Stan how did you find a place like that?
Did you talk to anybody that was there?
Was the intention to stay in the United States or to go back to Russia?
I'm not sure.
You know, 95 % of them did not speak any English.
My feeling was that they just wanted to grab that citizenship.
Whether or not what they were going to do with it, as far as, you know, whether they were going to stay, I didn't believe so.
It was kind of expensive to stay there for, you know, I'm not sure what they were going to do.
But they were definitely doing it.
It was written.
That's Stan in Staten Island.
This is William in Philpot, Kentucky.
Democrat, good morning.
Question, and perhaps a comment also.
Number one, I don't think people really understand what it means to open up the Constitution for amendment.
And that's what it would take to add this into the 14th Amendment, if I understand everything correctly.
Also, he wants to deport non -citizens and birthright citizenship.
What about our Americans that are serving overseas?
William, do you think it's...
You talk about how hard it is to repeal the 14th Amendment or pass a new amendment.
Two -thirds vote in the House, two -thirds vote in the Senate.
Then it goes to the states for ratification.
It needs three -quarters ratification.
It being as hard as it is, do you think this is just a distraction?
I absolutely do.
I think he's doing this just to keep everything stirred up.
Now, that's just my opinion.
But this thing could open up a Pandora's box that we really don't know what's going to happen because if they open up the Constitution for amendment, this won't be the only one that's proposed.
Do you think there's ways to regulate what the caller before you was talking about?
I don't agree with that, but I do agree if you were born in this country, you have a right to citizenship in this country.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
You said once back in 2017, they quote, shouldn't be very worried about being deported.
Should they be worried now?
What does that mean?
What are you going to do?
In many cases, they become successful.
They have great jobs.
In some cases, they have small businesses.
In some cases, they might have large businesses.
And we're going to have to do something with them.
You want them to be able to stay.
That's what you're saying?
I do.
I want to be able to work something out.
And it should have been able to be worked out over the last three or four years.
And it never got worked out.
President -elect Trump yesterday in that Meet the Press interview in today's Wall Street Journal, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, focused in on that part of their conversation, calling it the most interesting note of that wide -ranging interview.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board writing that it's great to hear if Mr. Trump is willing to deal on the Dreamers, Democrats should shift from their first -term opposition to any immigration deal, and the country would be better for it.
Good morning.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
I just wanted to jump in because I heard a discussion between a caller about due process.
So while all persons are entitled to a Fifth Amendment and Let's just say compulsory process of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.
You as an alien, or someone as an alien, does not have total, complete Fourteenth Amendment rights, because you are subject to the President of the United States and this is why we have elections, because the president of the United States is the executive.
In article two, of course, we went over this many times during Trump's first term, when all of the Democrats and all of the liberals and all of the Rhinos were running into court, running into the ninth circuit, all these other federal circuits and district courts, trying to stop Trump from implementing uh, his policy on immigration, on alien entry, on the border.
You're talking about how their parents entered the United States?
They were born in the United States.
Well, no.
I mean, it's going to come back.
Again, it's going to come back to how they were granted entry.
Did they have the proper documentation at the time of the childbirth?
All of that.
All that's going to come into play.
I'm just simply saying they do not have total, complete...
So, Christian...
Do you think it's a different issue of alien entry or even legal entry in order to have a child in the United States versus birthright citizenship, just the concept of if you're born here, you're a citizen?
It's all on the table.
Because, again, when people enter the country, many of them are entering the country because of, quote, asylum.
or or for some other economic reason but those reasons are you know everybody the whole world doesn't is not allowed to enter the united states we have laws we have the immigration nationality act we have the president of the united states who is the decision maker who and who has broad discretion on alien entry that was already settled by the u .s supreme court So these things will be hashed out.
And yes, we do want to open up this Pandora's box.
Yes, we do want to go into the U .S. Supreme Court and get all of this settled because it was supposed to be settled, but the Democrats were slowing it down.
Now we'll get to finally settle all these issues.
That's Christian out in the Grand Canyon State.
We will go to the old line state.
This is Walter in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
There's Walter in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Go ahead, Walter.
Hi there.
This is kind of an offshoot of the issue or a kind of a, well, a little bit of a play on the issue in a sense.
My parent, my father was born in Germany.
His parents and my father came to this country in the 30s.
They were survivors of the Holocaust.
And German law, and by the way, I'm the firstborn American.
My father became naturalized when he came over.
He actually fought in the U .S. Army.
He actually returned to Europe as part of the United States Army, landed in the third wave of D -Day.
But that's, you know, a different story.
But at any rate, I'm firstborn.
German law allows victims of the Holocaust who have immigrated to other countries and their descendants to acquire German citizenship.
The idea being these folks were kicked out of the country.
They were denied citizenship.
They were denied the benefits of German citizenship at the time and were persecuted.
And therefore, not only they, but their offspring, should have the right to citizenship, something that they were would have been entitled to, but for uh, the the horrible events of the 30s and 40s.
So I actually have the choice of becoming a dual citizen.
Dual citizen, I can acquire my German citizenship through this law And, by the way, it's a process.
It's somewhat rigorous.
You have to apply.
You have to show through documentary evidence, birth certificates, various other evidence show that you are a direct descendant of somebody who was actually persecuted and was kicked out of the country.
So here I am.
And as an aside, And Walter, explain how dual citizenship works.
The United States doesn't recognize dual citizenship, but another country may recognize dual citizenship.
So Germany can say, yes, you're a citizen of the United States and Germany, but that's not recognized by the United States, right?
But I do know that I am entitled in terms of the German citizenship.
I can acquire basically the rights that would have been, you know, enjoyed by my dad and would have been enjoyed by me had things not happened the way they did.
I'm first born American, by the way.
We have family members who actually, we actually have a cousin, I believe.
Walter, thanks for telling us about your family immigration story.
Did your father ever make it back to Germany during the war?
Did he go all the way to Germany?
How long did he stay in Germany after the war?
For several years.
I think he came back after three or four years.
This was after being in the Army.
He landed, actually.
He fought in the Pacific after D -Day.
And like I say, he wound up in an organization.
I forget exactly what the name of it, but it was a precursor.
It must have been a precursor of, I wouldn't say the CIA, but one of these organizations that, you know, protects United States citizens from overseas.
Walter, thanks for telling us about him.
What was his name?
Thanks for telling us about Fritz.
That's Walter in Gaithersburg, Maryland this morning.
A little bit more on Duell.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
The United States does not recognize it, but the US government acknowledges that such situations exist.
I'd just like to say that minute by minute, and week by week, The political ignorance and legal ignorance of Donald Trump will become more and more apparent to this country and to the world,
and I just hope to goodness that our country and our Constitution is able to survive what he has no idea about doing that is really legal and that really is for the country's benefit.
The things this guy is going to try to do to this country.
Thank you.
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
Robert Republican.
Good morning, you're next.
Your thoughts on birthright citizenship?
Yes, good morning.
There's many reasons for President Trump's action on ending birthright citizenship, but I'd like to comment on the baby tourism, which you seem skeptical about from the caller from Miami that this exists.
I'm a retired physician in Michigan, and I know from colleagues around the country in California, there's hotels that were housing Chinese nationals that were bringing in women nine months pregnant to have children.
They also witnessed mothers coming across the border nine months pregnant, waiting for the baby to crown in the parking lot of the hospital.
Delivering the child and getting citizenship.
But I would like to comment here in Michigan personally, a hospital I was on staff at, there was one physician of Middle Eastern descent, a female,
who delivered more babies than all the other physicians put together.
And the nurses finally exposed what was a, I would call it obviously an illegal fraudulent.
We're good to go.
The hospital enjoyed it.
The doctor enjoyed it.
She built a very large building and bought restaurants and was getting rich until the nurses turned her in and the FBI, I believe,
investigated and fined her substantially, but it was more like a slap on the wrist.
In my opinion, she should have been deported for this illegal activity.
Robert, where was the hospital where that was happening?
Is it a story that made the local news?
I was just trying to find a story about it.
She was reprimanded.
I'm not sure if she lost her license or not.
But this was going on for a substantial amount of time.
And it's just wrong.
It doesn't make any sense.
I mean, that somebody can just step foot on our land and become a citizen?
It's just a flaw in our laws.
I think it should be changed.
I think reasonable people should agree on this.
I didn't find that story, but I did find this story from September.
A Southern California man and woman convicted of running a birth tourism scheme.
A federal judge convicting a San Bernardino man and woman of that birth tourism scheme in which they took tens of thousands of dollars from Chinese clients to help travel to the United States under pretense to give birth.
Good morning, John.
I have an incident here.
As far as I know, for the longest time, Mexican women have been swimming across the road with their belly up in the air, and as soon as their toes touch American soil,
they drop that baby and it's an automatic citizen.
And then, what they do, their entire baby is entitled to social services.
So, Kathleen, we're talking about birthright citizenship.
Do you think it should be ended?
Do you think that should not be the law of the land of the United States, that if you're born in this country, you're a citizen?
I don't think in this situation, if you're bored, but just for the opportunity, that's what they're doing, because they know that if they can get to America and have that baby,
that baby is an automatic citizen entitled to all the rights of every citizen in America, which includes WIC and food stamps and Medicare, all of it.
But then...
I had a situation.
I'm an American citizen.
I worked for a minimum wage, which at that time was $5 and change.
We thought it was a big deal when it went up to $6 and change.
But yeah, I was in my 40s.
I had cataracts.
And I had needed Medicaid.
I was working for me.
So I needed Medicaid to go to the eye specialist.
I could not afford one checkup without that Medicaid.
I sat in the Social Services office from 8 o 'clock in the morning
Do you know that Do you know that she wasn't a citizen, Kathleen?
And here comes this woman while I'm sitting waiting and they took her straight back and put her immediately on social services because of those kids and that baby.
So I know years and years ago my grandfather told me immigrants came to Ellis Island unless they had a sponsor here that had a job or family waiting for them.
And they had to go to classes to learn the English language, learn the Constitution, and do everything.
And then they had a ceremony where they were inducted as American citizens, and they were very proud of it.
It was just recently that I saw a group of about 25 people all dressed up, standing in line, smiling, getting inducted as citizens and happy to do it.
Kathleen, got your point in Georgetown, Maryland.
You mentioned those naturalization ceremonies that happen across the country.
All the time.
One that we had covered on C -SPAN just about a year ago was December 15th of 2023.
A familiar face at that ceremony, it was Melania Trump, former First Lady, future First Lady, a naturalized citizen, spoke at a naturalization ceremony.
It took place in the National Archives, surrounded by the founding documents of this country.
Here's some of what Melania Trump had to say about a year ago.
Even if every time consuming, my dream of becoming a citizen pushed me to meticulously gather every last piece of information required, ensuring that no detail was overlooked.
My personal experience of traversing the challenges of the immigration process opened my eyes to the harsh realities people face, including you.
Who to try to become US citizens?
And then, of course, there are nuances of understanding the United States immigration laws and the complex legal language contained therein.
I was very devoted, but I certainly was not an attorney.
And eventually, it proved critical for me to retain counsel.
I was fortunate to do so.
That was Melania Trump last year at the National Archives.
If you want to watch that ceremony in its entirety, you can do so.
Hi, good morning.
I guess I called the wrong number.
I'm actually an immigrant of this country.
And I'm just calling to say I totally agree with President...
Iva, what was your immigration story?
What country did you come from?
Philippines.
And what was that process like for you?
When did you come to this country?
And can you explain a little bit of how long it was?
That is all and have a great day.
Thank you.
Donald Trump don't need to focus on birthrights.
He need to focus on the corruption in the police department and in the Justice Department.
My son was murdered in Conover, North Carolina.
I live in South Carolina.
They never notified me my son was murdered.
Then when we got to the jury trial, the judge never even acknowledged us.
He catered to the murderer.
It's a lot.
It's a lot.
But when he focused on...
Changing the justice system and getting people the proper justice and rights due to them.
This girl killed my son in front of my grandbabies.
CPS services swore up and down they didn't.
They gave the murderer's family my grandbabies.
They told them that I don't have a right to my grandchildren.
So what difference does it make if the US and birthrights
I'm very sorry for your loss.
Thanks for sharing your story.
This is Kim in Pennsylvania, a Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
The one question I have, or comment, I guess, I understand that with regards to immigration, there's, you know, the vacation, birthing, and what have you.
My concern is, with regards to being born in the U .S., could that extend to those of us who have been in the country for years?
Like, if my children have children, we've been in the U .S. for however many years, and are they going to Are their children going to have to be concerned about being deported or not having citizenship?
Thank you.
That's Kim in Meadville, Pennsylvania.
One other story to point you to on this, on the exact issue that the caller just brought up.
It was from the Iowa University of Illinois News Bureau, an interview with one of their law professors.
Michael LeRoy, an expert on immigration law, he talked about specifically this issue of whether citizenship can be repealed.
And let me scroll down a bit in this story in which he talks about that issue.
He talks about Donald Trump's call for denaturalizing some citizens and whether that can happen under some extremely limited conditions, he writes.
U .S. laws allow the denaturalization. of a citizen also called citizenship stripping these include situations in which somebody runs for political office in a foreign country Or enters into military service in a foreign country,
applying for citizenship in a foreign country with the intention of giving up their U .S. citizenship, committing an act of treason against the United States, or committing a very narrow set of crimes.
The conditions are set by laws enacted by Congress and not by unilateral actions of the president.
He notes, when a person is stripped of citizenship, they immediately become subject to deportation.
Good morning.
I don't agree with the liberal agenda.
Nor am I a Donald Trump fan.
But there are a lot of callers calling in and they're telling you stories about things that they heard from someone else.
There are stories in the papers About Trump allowing Russia to use his Miami hotel for birthright citizenship centers, and no one's calling and saying that.
How can he be against something when he profited off of it?
The Trump Miami hotel has been used for a birthright citizenship center.
I don't believe Donald Trump is talking about rescinding this from the Europeans.
I believe it's all based on Haitians, darkskins, Mexicans.
But it's not going after...
Melania Trump's family is here through chain migration.
There's our baron and her father being deported.
Thank you.
That's Stephen in New York.
This is Angela in Bakersfield, California, Independent.
Good morning.
Hi.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning.
We're talking about birthright citizenship.
You got it.
I believe yes, and the birthright citizenship.
If somebody is here and they are not a citizen, the automatic birthright should go to the birth to the birthright of the mother's citizenship.
So if she's here illegally, then she gives birth to a child.
That child's birth would go to whatever country she came from.
That's how you think it should work, Angela?
Yeah, because that would end the illegal migration because I guess they fly them in, I hate to say this, through China and they come through Mexico,
then they go ahead and they're paying to have their children here so they get the automatic birthright.
This would end that.
They would come, even if they're pregnant, just because the child's born here, they would still have the birthright of where the country that the mother came from.
That's Angela in California.
Our last caller in this first segment of the Washington Journal.
Stick around, there's plenty more to talk about this morning, including up next, we'll be joined by Mark Caputo, national political reporter for The Bulwark, to talk about his reporting on the Trump transition, and later,
a discussion on American attitudes about U .S. military abroad and its role in the world.
Stick around.
We'll be right back.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
A book called The Wise Men was first published in 1986.
Cover copy says, quote, it was about six friends and the world they made, unquote.
The names Harriman, Lovett, Atchison, McCloy, Kennan, and Bolin are only to be found in the history books today.
Co -authors Evan Thomas and Walter Isaacson were in their mid -30s.
In the updated 2012 introduction to the paperback, they wrote, In their time, the wise men operated largely behind the scenes, little known by the public.
But they achieved great things.
According to Thomas and Isaacson, those great things included the shaping of the world order today, the creation of international institutions,
the forging of lasting peace in a perilous time.
We ask Evan Thomas now, In his 70s, who are the wise men of today?
Evan Thomas with his book, The Wise Men, Six Friends and the World They Made, on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
Book Notes Plus is available on the C -SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Washington Journal continues.
A focus now on the Trump transition effort.
C -SPAN viewers are familiar with Mark Caputo, former Politico, current Bulwark.
National political reporter and Mark Caputo, before we get to transition, first your takeaway from President -elect Trump's Meet the Press interview yesterday.
What stood out to you?
Not a lot of surprises.
I think what stands out to me is a lot of surprise from the news media that he and the commentariat that he's planning to be serious about mass deportations and that, as the callers seem surprised now,
that that could include...
What reaction has struck you outside of the political media?
Has there been reaction from Congress that you've seen so far?
I haven't really paid attention to that, to be honest.
Congress right now has its own fiscal deadlines it has to meet, and it's tied up, at least on the Senate side, in what to do about Trump's nominations or his nominees to be in his cabinet.
And let's go to the nominees.
Pete Hegseth, what's the latest on his nomination?
The Trump team feels relatively good about his position, especially compared to how it was just a few days ago.
In their estimation, the last few days, last two or three days of the week, Hegseth closed strong.
No new allegations of wrongdoing, allegations which, by the way, is denied.
And they believe that the longer that the Hegseth nomination proceeds, and the longer Republican senators don't say no publicly,
the higher the chances are that Hegseth gets a favorable vote and becomes...
The next Secretary of Defense.
Who are the Republican senators who could still say no that you're watching?
Well, obviously, Joni Ernst is the one to really watch.
And then there's Lindsey Graham to a degree.
But the possibility that, or the likelihood that Lindsey Graham winds up bucking President Trump on the Secretary of Defense nomination is pretty small.
Ernst is under incredible pressure from the grassroots, the MAGA roots, the right wing, whatever you want to call it.
That's a state, Iowa, that he won by 13 points or something, so she's up for re -election this coming cycle.
The likelihood of her saying no, politically speaking, is pretty low, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
She hasn't said no.
She also hasn't said yes, and on Friday, she and Hegseth indicated they had a second and productive meeting.
If that sort of thaws, it's hard to see how he winds up with Without a majority of the Republican conference, it's not impossible to see.
It's expected right now that Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Senator Mitch McConnell, the former leader, are no votes.
That's what's expected at least.
That is enough if it's just three no votes against Hegseth to get confirmed.
So again, they feel relatively good about it.
The Trump transition team does.
That goes away starting December 20th.
And then sort of the new year starts.
In that span of time, again, if Hegseth is not polled, if he doesn't withdraw, and if there aren't four hell no votes in the Republican conference, then the chances, again, kind of increase.
And they increase closer and closer.
Just bottom line is that the Trump campaign, the Trump transition team, the Trump base believes he has a mandate.
If the Hegseth nomination falls apart for whatever reason, is Ron DeSantis the next man up?
One of the dangerous things is kind of predicting what Donald Trump is going to do.
It's what makes him a unique figure.
It is confirmed that Donald Trump did call Ron DeSantis when the peak or when the initial crush of bad headlines started to really tear away at Hegseth.
And in that conversation, Trump had mentioned to DeSantis the possibility of being Secretary of Defense.
Now this is a discussion they actually started having in June.
And it wasn't sort of real in June.
Trump obviously had not even been elected yet.
And so in this most recent conversation just a few days ago, Trump had dangled this possibility and DeSantis signaled that he was interested in it.
That doesn't mean that he's necessarily going to do it, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be offered.
There's a lot of things that have to happen in between.
But the main thing that has to happen in between is that Hegseth needs to withdraw one way or another.
And right now Hegseth is saying he's going to fight like hell.
Donald Trump has told other people he likes the fact that Pete Hegseth fights like hell.
He's starting to publicly push him more.
So things are looking, as we stand now, it's Monday morning, right?
Things are looking okay for Hegseth in the minds of the Trump transition team.
As we stand now, about 20 minutes left with Mark Caputo.
If you want to join the conversation, easy to do.
Phone lines split as usual.
Democrats, 202 -748 -8000.
Republicans, 202 -748 -8001.
Independents, 202 -748 -8001.
Those are the two, Gabbard and Kennedy, who were a feature of the Trump campaign.
They traveled the swing states, the two of them together.
They appeared in these joint events where they drew a thousand, two thousand people in places like Dearborn, Michigan and Las Vegas, Nevada.
And Trump featured them as being part of his new coalition, his new political coalition.
And now implicitly in that, his new governing coalition.
They're both former Democratic candidates for president, both of them, and they've both left the Democratic Party.
And so they're sort of representing kind of the axis of the canceled, so to speak.
But more to the point, they are these anti -establishment figures whom Trump wants to burnish his record with, his legacy with.
And there's certainly a lot of controversy over both of them from the health establishment.
What do you think?
Same with Matt Gaetz, the now withdrawn Attorney General.
To a smaller degree, Kash Patel, the FBI pick that Donald Trump wants to lead the agency.
Whereas Gabbard and Kennedy are more on policy grounds.
And that is something that the Trump team tells me that Trump intends to fight for.
But again, it's Trump.
Let's see what happens.
You mentioned Kash Patel.
What's the latest on him as the head of FBI?
Not a lot.
I think CNN just did a piece about how he grew to loathe the D .C. establishment.
That makes the Republican hearts at Mar -a -Lago go pitter -patter.
So I haven't heard what his whip count is yet.
While there are opponents of him, certainly on the left, in the media, among critics, and a few on the right, there's a feeling in Trump world that he's probably going to make it as well.
We're talking with Mark Caputo, taking your phone calls, and he's with us for about another 15 minutes, so go ahead and get those calls in.
This is Bruce out of Lexington, Kentucky, up first, Independent.
Good morning.
Hello.
Go ahead, Bruce.
Bruce, you're with us.
We've lost Bruce.
I heard him for a second there.
This is Donald, out of Hawaii this morning, up early, Independent.
Donald, you're on with Mark Caputo.
Hey, good morning, sir.
I would just... I would just like to ask you, I hear all these politics on TV and you hear first black president,
you hear this person, why isn't Kelsey Gabbard with her record not being pushed like every other thing that's going on in our country?
Why is that?
Well, I can't answer for why the rest of the mainstream media is not talking about how she'd be a historic first, a woman from Hawaii, a woman of color.
But my guess is what the caller is getting at is the perception, wisely held, and I'm not saying it's wrong, of media bias, where a lot of the mainstream media will spend time touting that someone is a historic first because of their race or gender,
and they're not doing it with Tulsi Gabbard.
I think it's a fair criticism.
I'm not saying it's accurate.
I'm not saying it's inaccurate.
But that's a good question for NBC, ABC, CBS, and New York Times, The Washington Post, Associated Press, and the like.
Another media question for you.
This is from Aztec on X, saying, Mark Caputo, are any of the nominees not qualified to fill their positions?
And why are so many in the media upset that the nominees are not members of The Swamp?
It appears that most of the U .S. does not feel that the U .S. government is working well, so why not stop the insanity and have a new type of nominee?
Well, comments well made, comments taken.
An interesting thing happened over the weekend.
There was the Harvard Kennedy School.
Its Institute of Politics had the heads.
Of the Trump campaign and the heads of the Biden -Harris campaign, or the Harris -Biden campaigns, depending on how you look at it, talk about the election.
And there was a very interesting comment from Rob Flaherty, who was the deputy campaign manager for both Biden and Harris' presidential campaigns, who had said that for the left, for Democrats,
their amplification systems are the mainstream media and Hollywood.
And kind of pivoting off of my comments from the last caller.
That's a clarion call for the rest of us in the mainstream media to start analyzing how we cover Republicans and cover these issues going forward.
Because in the eyes of Democrats, the mainstream media is part of its megaphone.
And while it's our job to report the news, there is a lot of risk there if we are continuing to be perceived as favoring one side.
What's the megaphone?
What's the amplification system?
For The Right?
In that conversation, they discussed that The Right has a bigger wealth of alternative media.
Elon Musk owns Twitter.
And there's all of these podcasts which are starting to eat up major amounts of market share from the mainstream media.
This is Samuel Next out of Colorado.
Independent, you're on with Mark Caputo.
Go ahead.
Yes.
Can you hear me?
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, I just wanted to say that, you know, most of the picks that Trump's picking are just these rich white guys.
There's maybe a woman or two, but people are going to have virus remorse when it comes to Donald Trump.
You just wait and see.
Also, I'd like to know if you voted for him.
Because a lot of you men get on now whining about Trump, but then...
I'm not whining about Trump, but I think you're accurate in saying that the voters might have buyer's remorse.
I think you see that frequently, regardless of who's in office.
We elect presidents and we elect congresses, and then the American people, at least as of late, wind up not happy with them.
If you just look at the polling, happened to Biden, happened to Trump.
What's the role of the Vice President?
What is J .D. Vance's role looking like?
As what they they call the sherpa in Congress for some of these more controversial nominees.
So he's Trump's eyes and ears in the Senate.
He's making the case because Jd Vance, as vice president -elect, is still an Ohio senator.
He's talking to his fellow senators, trying to get these nominees across the finish line.
In one case, with Matt Gates, obviously there just weren't the votes.
But with these other three more controversial ones, or four controversial ones, the question is still open, the jury's still out, so to speak, and Vance is working that hard.
In the advisory role capacity, is it just the Senate and the Sherpa, or are there issue areas in which J .D. Vance is advising Donald Trump, and if so, what are they?
I don't specifically know that, but the two have a very good relationship.
Trump, however, is well known for...
Taking advice from everyone and soliciting every possible opinion.
Bob Woodward's book, War, which was just released.
Incidentally, I wouldn't recommend reading it.
It's kind of, well, anyway.
There is a great anecdote in it in which he discusses how Trump was in a meeting with Keith Kellogg, one of his generals, while president.
And he solicited opinions from all of the officials in the room.
You know, there's a general and these...
Why wouldn't you recommend it?
You're a political reporter.
He's a political reporter.
It's supposed, well, it just basically read as if it was co -authored by Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor.
It just seemed, it paid short shrift.
It went out of its way to kind of praise Biden's foreign policy.
I'm not saying Biden's foreign policy was bad, and it did a good job explaining why his foreign policy with Ukraine was a success, but it spent precious little time On the failures of the withdrawal in Afghanistan, and this is supposedly a book about war,
and it didn't really delve enough into the total lack of vision by our intelligence services, and Jake Sullivan specifically, on the Middle East and 10 -7,
that is October 7th, eight days before October 7th, Jake Sullivan was boasting.
What's the best political book that you've read this year coming to the end of December?
Well, I'm reading, well, I have it on my desk.
I just read The Demon of Unrest by Eric Larson, which was about the lead -up to the Civil War.
And I'm reading another related Civil War book called Civil Wars, and it's the history of the United States from 1850 to 1878.
And what's interesting about that period of time for me, relative to our current...
I probably could...
Do a better job explaining this had I thought I was going to come on and talk about the books I was going to read, though.
That's all right.
If viewers want to watch their books rather than read them, C -SPAN's Book TV covered The Demon of Unrest a couple times, including at the National Book Festival.
Eric Larson speaking about his book.
You can watch it at BookTV .org.
Back to calls for you.
I know we only have a little bit of time.
This is David in Flemington, New Jersey.
Independent.
Good morning.
Thank you and your guests for making my call.
I do have a larger question about human beings and change, but if I may, I'd like to reference a comment by my wife's cousin, Gavin DeBecker, a friend of RFK Jr.,
and probably the most renowned security analyst in the country.
And a week ago, Sunday New York Times, he talked about how people change.
And Gavin himself, I know through the family,
Thank you.
Thank you.
Can they become stronger through the arduousness of their life and through very bad choices?
I think that's the question.
I would like to know what your guest thinks.
And I thank you both again for considering my comments.
You know, that's a very thoughtful question.
My answer would be yes, I think people can change and learn from them.
I would submit that I think I have.
I just don't know Pete Hegseth's character and the degree to which he's learned from his past mistakes.
He says he has.
And ultimately, that's going to be a question to be answered by the United States Senate.
Sorry to kind of duck that, but that's the best I can do.
John, Florence, Massachusetts, Independent.
Good morning.
Hello, yes, I was wondering if you could explain to me how when the Trump presidency was ending, all the legacy media speculated that Trump would pardon himself, his family, and all his cabinet members because they were criminals and how horrible that would be.
But now they're justifying it.
That's one.
Another question I have is, all the Democrats want to resist, resist, resist, resist.
And then at the end, they complain that nothing got done.
Shouldn't they be popping champagne and saying, yay, we did it.
We didn't get anything done.
We resisted everything Trump wanted to do that was good for the country.
And then another thing is, everybody says, well, you know, Biden's son shouldn't have never had that gun charge because there was no other crime committed with the gun.
Well, his brother's wife took the gun because she was scared because she was having sex with Hunter and they were both doing crack.
Yeah, I can't answer all of those.
I don't think the mainstream media in and of itself is celebrating Joe Biden pardoning his son, but this is a recurring theme in this discussion.
I do think the caller represents the great frustration of the way in which the media covers And amplified those voices on the left saying, oh my God, Donald Trump is so bad.
He's going to pardon himself when he leaves office.
That didn't happen.
And then there isn't as much coverage of just how norm busting it was that Joe Biden did this pardon with his son.
So that gets back to us in the mainstream media.
We might want to listen a little more to some of those voices.
I'm not saying they're always correct about everything, but there's a lot of criticism and concern out there and it would help to have ears to hear.
Just a couple minutes left.
We've talked about several of the nominations so far.
What's the most interesting one that we haven't talked about yet?
Oh, that's a great question.
I mean, I'm a Florida person.
I've covered Marco Rubio since 2003.
So almost 20 years, or more than 20 years.
Rubio is going to occupy a really unique position here in that he is the first Cuban -American Secretary of State, bilingual.
He was basically the de facto Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere, for this hemisphere under Trump.
As I said, de facto, when he was still in the Senate.
And how he executes the Trump policy regarding not only Latin America, but in the Middle East, with the fall of Assad, it's just going to be a fascinating thing to watch for guys like me who have just covered Rubio for a while.
And his nomination, by the way, should probably sail right through the Senate.
Is this the position that Marco Rubio wanted?
How long do you think he's thought about this post?
Yeah, well, he definitely wanted to be president in 2016.
That's why he ran, right?
But out of all of the positions in the Trump White House that Rubio would leave the Senate for, Secretary of State was up there.
I think he might have done ODNI and CIA director.
He's on the intelligence committees.
And that sort of cloak and dagger stuff, the intelligence world deeply fascinates him, and he has a very deep, thorough background and knowledge of.
Just about a minute and a half left, Mark Caputo.
What are you writing about this week at thebullwork .com if people go to Magaville?
That's a good question.
I'm sort of floating at the moment.
I think Hegseth, we might do another iteration of Hegseth, but with the...
With the situation in the Middle East, the question is, how is Trump going to handle this?
Syria poses just a very unique, complicated puzzle because of the roles of Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
And I'd like to know more about that.
By the way, the book that I'm reading now, I just want to point out, which I would recommend everyone buy, is Alan Taylor's American Civil Wars, A Continental History, 1850 to 1878.
So that was the title of the book I'm reading.
Always appreciate the recommendations and would recommend you go to thebullwork .com and sign up for Mark Caputo's Substack.
Magaville is what it's called.
Thanks for the time, as always, on The Washington Journal.
Oh, it was great being here.
Thank you.
Several programs ahead this morning, and we'll get to more of it, including a look at U .S. foreign policy and military role around the world.
That's coming up later this morning.
But up next, it's our open forum.
Any public policy issue, any political issue that you want to talk about, phone lines are yours to do so.
The numbers are on your screen.
Go ahead and start calling in now, and we will get to those calls right after the break.
We're good to go.
Attention middle and high school students across America.
It's time to make your voice heard.
C -SPAN's Student Cam Documentary Contest 2025 is here.
This is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact.
Your documentary should answer this year's question, your message to the president.
What issue is most important to you or your community?
Whether you're passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, Student Cam is your platform to share your message with the world.
With $100 ,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5 ,000, this is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work.
Enter your submissions today.
Scan the code or visit studentcam .org for all the details on how to enter.
The deadline is January 20, 2025.
C -SPAN shop .org is C -SPAN's online store.
Browse through our latest collection of C -SPAN products, apparel,
Here's where we are on Capitol Hill this morning.
The House is in at noon Eastern.
The Senate is in at 3 p .m. Eastern.
And a lot going on here in Washington that we're covering on the C -SPAN Networks today, including...
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
Yeah, I was calling regarding a lot of the issues regarding building a border wall.
It seems like most of the focus when we discuss immigration, etc., doesn't focus on the impacts of a border wall on major wildlife corridors along...
Some very wild places on the US Mexico border and it's kind of frightening to think about what drill baby drill means also from an environmental perspective and deregulating the energy industry.
It's a very scary thought and just wanted to see what people thought about that.
I mean the mainstream media doesn't cover this issue very well at all.
That's Todd in Colorado.
This is James in Bad Axe, Michigan.
Democrat, good morning.
John is in California, Republican.
It's our open forum.
What's on your mind, John?
When you deal with environmentalists, they claim that their interest is the environment and regulating certain machinery that puts off certain emissions.
But all that's really doing is taking away American jobs.
We have a port that is being built in Los Angeles.
Where it's basically autonomous.
It's manless and they're taking the jobs.
And what I think the Republicans need to do is regulate foreign companies from coming over and taking American union jobs.
The blue -jean working class, middle American working class man is now more leaning to the right, not to the left.
So...
The rank and file and all the unions across the nation that are listening to this, the upper brass, you need to pull your heads out of your ass and start voting with the rank and file and not your own self -interest.
Thank you very much.
That's John.
This is Yvette in Florida.
Line for Democrats.
Good morning.
Good morning.
One of your previous callers mentioned chain migration and that's how Melania Trump's parents became citizens.
Well, her father was a card -carrying communist, apparently, and I wondered, well, how does a card -carrying communist become an American citizen?
And when I looked that up, it said that if you have not been a card -carrying communist for 10 years, then it's okay.
You can become an American citizen.
So I thought that was kind of interesting.
Yvette, where did you look that up?
Where do you go for immigration information and citizenship information?
I googled it.
I googled it.
I wanted to know about her parents, I guess, is what I was doing.
And I found out that he was a card -carrying communist.
And then I looked a little further and found out what the situation is there.
I have never heard anybody talk about that before.
So I thought I'd call in and throw that out there.
That's Yvette in Florida.
Here's a story from back in 2018 when Melania Trump's parents became citizens of this country.
The NPR story on it from August the 10th, 2018.
First Lady's parents become U .S. citizens.
Thanks.
Yeah, good morning, John.
I wanted to address your birthright citizenship.
They're not going to change the Constitution.
There are not enough people in this country who want to change it.
And I do agree with President Trump that if you're a dreamer and you basically spent the majority of your life here, you should be given preference as far as citizenship is concerned.
But the only thing that they possibly can do are change the laws regarding chain migration.
Because I'm not sure of the exact figure, but I believe it is that every immigrant who comes in and becomes a citizen brings in about approximately 30 more people into the country through chain migration.
So that's one way they could change it and also, regarding children who are born here from illegal parents, they can change the law saying that if a child is is under the age of maturity, they don't lose their citizenship, but if their parents leave the country and Peter, another
one that there's at least some effort, executive order perhaps, perhaps another route, is to.
Titan rules about women coming to this country to have children, the birth tourism issue that several callers have brought up, that while not changing birthright citizenship, there's ways to prevent that from happening perhaps as much as it's happening now.
Yes, I agree, John.
If you are coming to the United States on a visa, a tourist visa, and you are pregnant...
Then they could say, no, you cannot come into the country under those circumstances until you give birth.
Now, I grant it, the left in this country will fight it in court, and they may win and they may not win, but that is another area where you can put restrictions.
Ambassadors, ambassadors who live in the United States.
Thanks for the call.
This is Amy down in Florida, Independent.
Good morning.
Hi, good morning.
I know this might be a little bit off topic, but I'm concerned about the large amounts of foreign buy -up in the United States because of like the steel mill in Pittsburgh.
Also, China is buying large swaths of land around military bases.
I'm very concerned about that as well.
You know, what is their strategic, why are they doing it type thing.
Also, you have Russia buying large swaths of property in coal mines and infrastructure in Kentucky.
Those are the things that I'm concerned about because when we go to conflict with these countries, they could cut us off from buying steel in Pennsylvania.
They're looking on our military bases to see what we're doing because now they own that property right next door.
You know, you start buying into where You know, Russia owns large -scale corporate operations.
Those are the things I'm concerned about.
On that topic, and you mentioned steel specifically, this story getting a lot of attention recently.
Japan's Nippon Steel is committed to a $15 billion acquisition of U .S. steel, and according to Reuters, is confident of completing that deal by the end of the year, despite strong U .S. opposition, including...
From President -elect Donald Trump, we will not give up on the deal.
There is no global strategy without the U .S., said Nippon Steel's vice chairman to Reuters after returning from an eighth visit to the United States.
With U .S. Steel, Nippon Steel aims to raise its global steel production capacity to 85 million metric tons per year from 65 million tons now.
Yes, I'm talking in reference to the media events that President -elect Trump creates.
This is the latest thing, verified citizenship.
Are you going to do this through executive order?
He said, yes, I'm going to try it through executive order.
Of course he knows that's not possible.
You cited the circumstances in terms of the Constitution being reformed.
It has had two -thirds of the Congress, House, and Senate, as well as the congressional buy -in in reference to that.
He creates media events that really have no substance.
And that's people eating their dogs and cats.
That's Michael in Florida.
About 30 minutes left in our open forum.
Any public policy issue that you want to talk about, the phone lines are yours to do so.
We can also talk foreign policy.
This is the lead story of U .S. USA Today and pretty much every major newspaper.
Assad flees to Russia.
Chemical weapons in Syria, a top -tier priority for the United States and the United Nations.
The rebel forces seizing the capital of Damascus in Syria.
And it was President Biden yesterday from the White House pledging support to Syria and its neighbors after the collapse of the Assad regime.
This is about a minute and a half of President Biden yesterday.
We now see new opportunities opening up for the people of Syria and for the entire region.
Looking ahead, the United States will do the following: First, will support Syria's neighbors, including Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Israel, should any threat arise from Syria during this period of transition.
I will speak with leaders of the region in the coming days.
I had long discussions with all of our people earlier this morning.
And I'll send senior officials from my administration to the region as well.
Second, we will help stability, ensure stability in eastern Syria, protecting any personnel, our personnel, against any threats, and remain our mission against ISIS will be maintained,
including security of detention facilities where ISIS fighters are being held as prisoners.
We're clear -eyed about the fact that ISIS will try to take advantage of any vacuum.
To reestablish its capabilities and to create a safe haven.
We will not let that happen.
In fact, just today, U .S. forces conducted a dozen of precision strikes, airstrikes within Syria, targeting ISIS camps and ISIS operatives.
Third, we will engage with all Syrian groups, including within the process led by the United Nations, to establish a transition away from the Assad regime toward independent...
That was President Biden from the White House yesterday.
On Saturday, it was President -elect Trump.
Good morning.
Are you there?
Yes, sir.
Beat the roads and get votes that way.
If you want to donate, make it to where you can donate $500 per household.
That way the corporates can't give all their employees money to donate to their candidate so they can run the country.
Get all the corporate crap out of the country and let the American people run.
The country.
Enough is enough.
A billion dollars Harris spent on her campaign, and she still owes a couple million?
How ridiculous is this?
And what does all that money go for?
Just ads?
It's stupid.
It's crazy.
And half the ads are lies.
You don't know what side to believe.
And that's the other thing.
The news needs to quit putting their opinion in and put the news.
Howard, on the lobbying aspect, Howard, when folks who work in the lobbying industry have come on this program and talk about what they do, they will say that what they do is protected by the First Amendment,
that it's in the First Amendment, that you have a right to petition your government for a redress of grievances, and that that's what lobbyists do.
They're petitioning members of the government for a redress of grievances.
What do you think of that?
That lobbying is a First Amendment right?
Petitioning something is different than buying them off.
Come on.
If we was all rich, we could buy off a lot of things.
It's crazy.
They are running the country.
And until us American citizens figure it out and stop it, they're going to keep on running this country.
Howard, one more.
One more question.
Reports on just how much money Elon Musk spent on campaign 2020 in efforts to support Donald Trump.
Over $250 million is the number that's being cited now?
I'm a Trumper.
I don't care.
It needs to stop all the way around.
It needs to stop it.
And as far as like your congressmen and all them, they vote their own selves in a race.
Come on, where have you ever worked at a job where you can vote your own raise in?
They haven't done that in a while, Howard, voting themselves a raise.
Oh, so how do they get the raises?
They haven't gotten a raise in a while.
Oh, well, at $177 ,000 a year plus all these expenses, what do they need one for?
What do they do?
Here, when Congress and them go in this session, half the time they walk in, they do their little stance with the little pole thingy, and then they say something, and then they have a prayer,
then they dismiss it for the day.
It's Howard in Ohio.
You can watch the House when it comes in today.
It's noon Eastern.
The Senate comes in at 3 p .m. Eastern.
That's over on C -SPAN 2, of course.
Nat is in Decatur, Georgia, independent.
Good morning.
Gee, the Congress won't be until noon.
I wonder why C -SPAN is not going to stay on until then.
But that's not why I called.
I called to ask you to please.
The way you do it sometimes is so impressive.
Instantaneously get on the screen the view of congresswoman from North Carolina telling the representative of the free press to shut up.
I want to introduce my topic by sharing with the audience that Aren't we all, don't we all listen to C -SPAN because we care deeply about important stuff?
Don't we agree that C -SPAN offers an opportunity for people to hear some really important stuff if you can get through on the line?
I didn't call to be a part of a discussion.
I called to make a statement.
If you callers would please follow the instructions of the screener and mute your television, then we have callers who have something worth hearing to say will not be.
That's insanely...
That's Nat in Georgia.
This is the Hill newspaper on that incident that Nat refers to.
House Republican tells reporter to shut up for asking Speaker Johnson about overturning the 2020 election, that happening back towards the end of the election cycle back in October.
You can watch it on C -SPAN .org.
That's a headline on it.
This is David in Idaho.
Democrat, good morning.
Morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
I wanted to touch on the 14th Amendment section.
More of a question.
I'd love to get a legal scholar's opinion on it.
But it reads, all persons born are naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
And my question is this.
If someone comes from a different country into the U .S., are they not still under the jurisdiction of their original country?
And we could just deport them if they do something wrong.
So I think there might be some legal play to make a change there.
Just throwing it out there.
Thanks.
That's David in Idaho.
This is Kelly in Denison, Ohio.
Republican, good morning.
Hey, John.
Hey, I'd like to bring up a couple things.
One is we can't forget our hostages over in Israel or with Hamas.
We've got to get those guys back.
And I want to go to the caller who was talking about China buying our farmland and putting it in places.
John, I don't know if you know about Xi Jinping, but the man, his person that he looks up to is Chairman Mao.
This man is totally dangerous, and he plays the long game.
Now, President Biden is not the smartest or the sharpest tool in his shed, John.
I'm telling you what, Xi Jinping knows how to play Biden.
I am totally worried about...
Whenever Clinton was being charged with his Monica Lewinsky, we let Osama bin Laden go.
I'm worried about the Chinese.
They play a good game, and Biden is in their pocket.
I'm really worried about this, John.
You got anything to say about that?
I was going to point you to a segment on the Washington Journal in which We discussed with the director of a new frontline documentary about Xi Jinping, the rise of Xi Jinping in China.
You can find that at cspan .org.
It was last week or the week before on the Washington Journal, but the director speaking about making that documentary about trying to dig into the life of Xi Jinping.
And there it is.
There it is there.
Martin Smith is his name.
He was on this program.
This is Dave.
In New Jersey, Independent, good morning.
Yeah, I was wondering if anybody's really curious about the drones flying over in the Chinese subs off our coast.
And don't forget the aliens, right?
They're coming too.
Do you know how to fight them?
Telepathically.
All right.
This is David in Illinois.
Democrat, good morning.
Good morning.
I'm trying not to get emotional.
We are really, really heading towards a civil war.
This is what Donald Trump's going to do, and people need to listen, especially African Americans and people of color.
Donald Trump is going to, one, pardon the January 6th committee, first thing.
This is all legal.
January 6th people get part.
Two, he's going to deputize them to make them his deputies.
So now they can do...
So they go into minority and also people of color communities and say they're deputized to do whatever they need to do because then Trump is going to give police immunity,
which he said everything he's getting ready to do within the first 100 days, he's going to do.
And January 6th committee, people pardon, complete police community immunity.
Alright, that's David in Illinois.
You mentioned January 6th.
This is the headline from the Washington Post.
About the January 6th committee, Donald Trump's comments about the members of that congressional committee in that NBC News Meet the Press interview yesterday, saying in part, everybody on that committee for what they did, honestly, yeah, they should go to jail, Trump said.
The committee, which shuttered when Republicans took back the House in January 2023, consisted of seven Democrats and two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois.
This is Edward in Jersey City, New Jersey.
Independent, good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you so much.
Mr. John, happy holidays to you.
The last time I called was before the presidential election.
I was telling you all that, you know, I'm assigned as a poll worker where I live.
I'm excited.
You know, I just want to do the best that I can do, you know, serving the people there and everything.
And then, like, it all happened.
You know, obviously I was shocked.
You know, and now where we are, just after your last segment with the birthright citizenship question, you just never know when to call in because you only have one chance every 30 days, but I'm like, I'll call in through an open forum.
So, it doesn't matter, like, I disagree with Trump, right, and his whole vision for our country and usually, like, the Republican Party, but...
Edward, it would likely have to be a constitutional amendment, the birthright citizenship stemming from the 14th Amendment.
And a constitutional amendment which takes three -fourths of both houses, right?
Like, in order for that to pass.
It doesn't matter.
Our history has proven to us that...
We failed.
Like, you know, generations have failed us in the past.
You know, like, this pendulum that swings, in my view, like, back and forth in our country.
You have in the 18th century, Black Lives Don't Matter.
19th century, you know.
It's...
This is ridiculous.
Like, I just...
We need to enshrine, like, our rights and, you know, into our Constitution once and for all.
And Akola called in and said that.
Like, I feel like our system, in a sense, is outdated, too.
Edward, are you going to be a poll worker again?
In two years?
Four years?
Oh, heck yeah.
I'm in New Jersey, and although this was the presidential election this year, just next year we have our primary in June for our state governor's race.
And then my local city, my township, we have our mayor's race as well.
So next year is important on a local level.
And although I'm independent, I caucus more with Democrats because Democrats are, in a sense, more progressive in a policy view.
But I'm telling you, like, the National Democrat Party, they...
That's Edward in New Jersey to the Show Me State.
This is Homer, Democrat.
Good morning.
Wow, John.
Good morning and good luck herding the cats.
Here's what I have to say to the last caller.
He's part of the problem.
I'm a blue dog.
A blue dog.
I'm a Jimmy Carville, Democrat.
And our hope is with Fetterman, I believe.
What does a blue dog believe for folks who may not be familiar?
Well, we're working class Democrats.
You know, we're not elitists.
We're union people.
You know, we got dirt under our fingernails.
And sadly, we've been diminished.
The campaign can be just like a...
What does "too much rainbow" mean,
Homer?
Well, it's, you know, men in girls' bathrooms, men competing in women's sports, you know, that kind of thing.
It just didn't fly here, man.
It just does not work.
And we've got to get back to the basics, man.
And it'll be a guy like Fetterman who has to bring it back.
And you know what, John?
I wish I had a dollar.
That's Homer in Missouri.
About 10 minutes left in open forum.
202 -748 -8001 for Republicans, 202 -748 -8000 for Democrats, and independents, it's 202 -748 -8002.
This is Brock in New Jersey.
Independent, good morning.
Yeah, good morning.
I just want to say protect our troops home and abroad.
Thank them for their service and whatnot.
We're coming to the end of a tumultuous year.
I've lost a lot.
I've learned a lot.
I've been blessed a lot.
I guess my biggest point is, you know, we all have a lot to say and a lot to add.
And I think that is very important that, again, we keep C -SPAN and productions like this to make sure all our voices are continuously heard.
What I feel like Is that with the money, interest, and you know, we're all on a time scale, like you never know where you're going to go.
So the best thing you want to do is, you know, depending on how you're brought up, you know, whether you care about more other people, or it can have like a based on a life experience where you just start caring more about yourself.
And that starts to be a concern.
But we have too many soft targets in this country, I believe.
And I mean, I think that that should be something that we all agree on.
And work on, as Americans, safeguarding the fact that the border wasn't as secure as it should have been and the fact that our immigration system has been abused over the years.
The fact that you know, again I just heard about in Hoboken there was a cyber attack.
You know, I heard in my city of North there was a cyber attack, one back back a couple years or whatever, and we had to pay the ransom.
And again, these are things that normal citizens don't know about, what's going on in their communities and as a an effect on the community, but it's almost like it doesn't get talked about so people really don't get to address those issues.
You have people in places of power that don't know when to relinquish power or when to get new ideas and because, for instance, like I understand, that we have to deal with the crime issue and so that precipitated while businesses didn't spend.
But you know, knowing that things are going to change and have that forward thinking, that forward view, having that insight from other points of view, You know, I have people think forward.
And so, you know, we can't be caught dropping the ball.
I think with Biden, what happened was the Afghanistan thing.
So even if he knew that he was going to have to get out, he should have had a plan to do it as soundly and securely.
But, you know, I hope Trump, I feel like Trump is under the gun right now, you know, metaphorically speaking.
And so he definitely, I feel like if we just make sure that he does the best job, make sure we have the best health care.
Good morning.
What I'm calling about, I'm a little concerned about this drill, baby drill.
They talk about drilling, you know, on public lands, federal lands.
And the easiest way to do that...
Bob, you're saying buy the land as opposed to lease the land out?
You think the idea is to give away federal land?
Or to sell off federal land, I should say?
Right now, they're talking about they have all the oil we need that they're drilling.
I'm just concerned.
That's what makes the West great.
We own this property.
All of us.
From New York to Los Angeles.
All this public land.
I'd hate to lose it.
America, please keep your eye on what's going on.
If something like this happens, No, Bob,
I'll take your point.
I was just looking up the numbers, Bob, from Utah in a state where roughly 68 % of the land is federally managed, some 37 .4 million acres of federal land.
Yeah, so there's exceptions to the 14th Amendment about born citizenship.
Diplomats, foreign soldiers serving.
I think it was Panama, David, right?
Wasn't it the Panama Zone?
So nobody covered that, but there's exceptions, so why can't they do other exceptions?
Like they were talking about the people being brought here for birth and then take off and get citizenship.
So they can be more exceptions.
Have a nice day.
That's David in West Virginia.
This is Janet in Ohio, Portsmouth, Ohio, Democrat.
Good morning.
You're talking about the Department of Government Efficiency, Janet?
That's what it stands for.
Vivek Ramaswamy, DOGE, Department of Government Efficiency, is what that stands for.
This is David in Spring Hill, Florida, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'm a frequent watcher.
I'm sitting here watching now like I do most mornings.
My comment is not that specific about an issue.
It's about the callers.
And it's easy for people to...
To find a problem and have something to say, I would really like to have the callers come in with suggestions that are workable.
They need to understand our government system and how our politics operates.
And my question is, are they involved in any of the government or any of the politics?
It's easy to criticize.
Let's have something positive from it.
Thank you.
Susan, Florida, Republican.
Good morning.
You're next.
Yes, this is Susan from Florida.
And yes, I do have anything to say.
I just want the people that are calling in, they need to know what they're talking about before they call.
Okay, this is John in Germantown, Maryland.
Democrat, good morning.
Yes, hi.
Well, I think the Democrat Party really did a disservice when we ran Joe Biden to begin with, quite frankly.
And then You know, I think he was corrupt from the beginning.
I think he had Alzheimer's.
And I think by picking the vice presidential candidate to be the president, which was a DEI hire to me,
was a disservice to the whole party.
And it's going to haunt us forever.
And then some, especially.
If we continue down this woke path of allowing the loudest, most obnoxious,
smallest part of the Democrat Party have a loud voice.
John, what makes you a Democrat?
What are the ideals of Democrats in your mind?
Well, I grew up in a Democrat household.
I was a union worker for 42 years.
I was a shop steward.
I ran for office.
I grew up in a political family who formed basically the Democrat machine in Maryland.
And John, are you going to stay a Democrat?
Absolutely.
We need to rebuild from within.
That's John in Germantown, Maryland.
Our last caller in this open forum, but stick around.
About 45 minutes left this morning.
In that time, a conversation with Roger Zekheim of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute.
We'll talk about the results of the group's recent survey on American attitudes about the U .S. military and its role in the world.
Stick around.
We'll be right back.
C -SPAN Now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in Washington.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
The C -SPAN Bookshelf Podcast Feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of C -SPAN's podcasts that feature non -fiction books in one place, so you can discover new authors and ideas.
Each week, we're making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events, and culture from our signature programs About Books, Afterwards, Book Notes Plus, and Q &A.
Listen to C -SPAN's Bookshelf Podcast Feed today.
You can find the C -SPAN Bookshelf Podcast Feed and all of our podcasts on the free C -SPAN Now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts.
And on our website, c -span .org slash podcasts.
The house will be in order.
This year, C -SPAN celebrates 45 years of covering Congress like no other.
Since 1979, we've been your primary source for Capitol Hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government.
Taking you to where the policies debated and decided, all with the support of America's cable companies.
C -SPAN, 45 years and counting.
Powered by cable.
A book called The Wise Men was first published in 1986.
Cover copy says, quote, it was about six friends and the world they made, unquote.
The names, Harriman, Lovett, Atchison, McCloy,
In their time, the wise men operated largely behind the scenes, little known by the public.
But they achieved great things, according to... Thomas and Isaacson, those great things included the shaping of the world order today, the creation of international institutions,
the forging of lasting peace in a perilous time.
We ask Evan Thomas now, in his 70s, who are the wise men of today?
Book Notes Plus is available on the C -SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Washington Journal continues.
A focus now on a new survey on Americans' views on military spending and international engagement.
Roger Zach Heim is our guest.
He's the Washington director of the Ronald Reagan Foundation, Presidential Foundation and Institute, a group whose mission is what?
To advance President Reagan's legacy.
How long has the foundation been around?
How are you funded?
And when and why did you decide to start surveying Americans about their views on international engagement and these defense issues that we're going to talk about?
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
So how many people did you survey when you were in the field on this?
Some questions were just over 1 ,500, but overall it was 2 ,500 respondents.
And some top line numbers from that survey, this year's survey that we're talking about.
50 % overall, including 61 % of Trump voters, prefer a, quote, engaged internationalist American leadership approach.
Well, the first one you mentioned was really the one that got our attention.
As you mentioned, 57 % of American...
We're good to go.
I think?
That's 61 % who want an engaged internationalist American leadership approach.
Is that at odds in your mind with...
A campaign slogan, a campaign platform that's America first?
Well, I think it's a question of how you have America first.
What is America first?
I think what this survey really bears out, both in terms of what American leadership is and then what President Trump often campaigned on, peace through strength, you can kind of stitch together how the American people are interpreting that.
So American leadership in the world needs to first and foremost be about America's national interests.
I think you will not hear the Trump...
We're good to go.
Security, American prosperity to be preserved.
It can't be done simply by Fortress America.
That to preserve those equities really requires America to lead in the world.
And I think that's the contribution of the survey, certainly on this question.
We're going to dive more into the survey.
Roger Zach Heim is our guest of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute.
Go ahead and start calling in.
Phone numbers are split this way.
Republicans 202 -748 -8001.
Democrats 202 -748 -8000.
Independence, 202 -748 -8002.
And then a special line for active and retired military, 202 -748 -8003.
Especially want to hear from you, especially in topics related to the second part of the survey.
Confidence in the U .S. military was one of the subjects that was polled on.
51 % of respondents have a great deal of confidence in the military, with another 31 % stating that they have at least some confidence that's up.
As you've pointed out in the results, from a historic low of 45 % who had a great deal, high confidence in the military after the withdrawal from Afghanistan late 2021.
Yeah, this is actually one of the more important discoveries we've had since we've done our survey.
We've had it as far back as 2018.
And when we started the survey in 2018, 70 % of those surveyed had trust and confidence in the military.
And we divide that up between somewhat or a great deal.
We're good to go.
So, what do you do with these numbers?
Confidence in the military, U .S. role in the world.
You take these to members of Congress, policymakers, and you say what?
California, where the Reagan Library resides.
There we have the Secretary of Defense.
The leaders of Congress who focus on national security, the armed services committees, the appropriations committees, industry leaders, they all gather about 700 people annually at the Reagan National Defense Forum, and the service is a big part of that conversation.
It drives the discussion because, again, we want to make sure that those who are advocating for an increased U .S. role in the world, who are pushing for U .S. presence in some of those critical regions such as the Indo -Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East,
So this confidence in U .S. military, do you see it as a measure of...
Well, it's a great question, and it's hard to parse the survey.
We've used other questions subsequent to the confidence question to try to get at that.
I think generally it's about the focus in terms of the leadership.
We have other questions to talk about.
The U .S. military's confidence, the U .S. military's ability to prevail in armed conflict, one of which, importantly, is a view of the American people in terms of whether the U .S. could prevail in a conflict with the People's Republic of China, with the People's Liberation Army.
Obviously, that is the focus of national defense policymakers, the peer competitor in the competition with the PRC.
There are just over half believe the U .S. could actually prevail in a conflict.
In that respect, it does kind of...
There's more numbers in the survey.
I want to get to them over the course of this segment.
Roger Zach Heim with us until the end of our program at 10 a .m. Eastern today, but want to get to your calls.
Howard's waiting in Chicago first.
Republican.
Howard, good morning.
Yeah, good morning.
Everyone's talking about the sense budget, but why is it they can't pass an audit?
Having done it in seven years, and most importantly no one is held accountable for failing their audits how do we address that great question on the audit and i think there's two ways to think about the audit first is what you bring up that hey This is an enterprise that is appropriated on an annual basis just about $900 billion and it should be able to have a clean audit.
We have certain pockets of the Department of Defense that actually do have that audit.
The Marine Corps stands out in terms of military services that can carry out an audit.
But overall, the Department of Defense has struggled to have a comprehensive audit.
The process of realizing an audit, and this does not bear out in our survey, It does actually connect, though, of course, to the support for increased defense spending.
The process of carrying out an audit, as I mentioned, does actually reveal a lot of information that helps the Department of Defense execute its responsibilities more efficiently.
So the process, the pursuit of an audit, is going on.
It's done with renewed purpose and focus really since the last Trump administration.
And I think that will continue in the coming Trump administration.
As to when the department will have a clean audit comprehensively, I think we're years out for that, and that's a problem, and Collar is right to highlight it.
Howard knows, obviously, because he brought it up, that the Pentagon failed to pass the seventh audit.
How big of a deal is this to the policymakers that you talk to?
How much do they care?
Yeah, policymakers care deeply about it.
There's, of course, a variety of players here.
So certain members of Congress who have prioritized this over the years.
Senator Grassley comes to mind in the U .S. Senate.
But it makes the department more efficient as they pursue this audit.
And I think I know in the...
Previous session, we were taking calls, a lot of focus and attention on DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, and I think the audit will be a big part of that.
You have to know what you have and where you have it.
I heard one story just the other day that because of the Marine Corps audit, for example, they found some spare parts that were necessary for the F -35, our fifth generation fighter that's critical for our Navy, Marine Corps, and of course our Air Force,
because of the audit.
And the result was that about 50 -plus F -35s that were grounded were able actually to be put in use.
That was the result of the process of the audit.
So it does have a material impact on the operations and the warfighting of the military.
Correct.
Use of U .S. weapons to allies from, again, this survey.
43 % support giving weapons to allies.
That's down 5 % from last year.
Within that group, 54 % support sending weapons to Israel.
Well, the big story on military support to Israel and military support to Ukraine is the deep partisan divides.
And notably, when it comes to Ukraine, Harris voters support that by 74%, whereas Trump voters support by 42%.
So the overall average is the majority of the American people, as I just noted, but the partisan divide really bears out.
And you almost have the flip side.
We're good to go.
I think?
U .S. security assistance to those countries, Israel and Ukraine.
But overall, the United States, through this survey we see, the American people have strong support for Israel and Ukraine.
75 % of those survey view Ukraine as an ally, as a partner.
74 % view Israel as a partner, as an ally.
And just to contextualize that, 73 % view Japan as a partner and ally.
So there's really strong support.
For those countries, the specific policies in terms of security assistance is where you see these partisan divides.
But the majority not supporting the idea of sending weapons to allies, right?
43 % support, 57 % don't, or there's some that didn't answer.
So for that...
Majority, what is the reason not to do arms transfers?
Is it weakening the United States' weapons supply?
We're not ready to fight our own battles if we're giving these weapons away.
Is it spending monies overseas?
What do they say?
Well, in terms of the overall point of view, we don't have the follow -up questions on that.
But we know a little bit about this in terms of the follow -up questions we have as it relates to Ukraine.
There's definite concern that it's just a mere cost.
You know, this idea that, hey, we have our priorities, our needs, our fiscal situation here.
It costs too much.
There's also concern beyond that in terms of whether or not the U .S. stockpiles are sufficiently supplied that we're able to deliver munitions and security assistance to other countries.
We need it for the U .S. military.
So I think that is contributing to concerns about security assistance, military assistance to Ukraine.
I'd say that if that's your concerns about Ukraine, that's for sure going to be their concerns with other countries.
More calls for you.
Jeff is in Port Angeles, Washington.
Independent.
Jeff, good morning.
There's no economic benefit for anybody.
China is, what, are they going to shut down the Molucca Straits and cut their own throats on trade?
Russia, how are they going to project for us?
They can't even beat Ukraine.
So I would like to see 10 % flashes in defense spending.
Roger, it's that time.
Caller has a point of view that we are wildly overspending on defense.
I think if you take a historical look, that's simply not the case.
Right now, we are hovering about 3 % of GDP dedicated to defense.
It's actually going to go lower to about 2 .5 % if you look out in the defense program, out to about 2030 or so.
And by historical standards, during the height of the Cold War, when President Reagan was in office, we were at 6 % during Korea.
It was about 12%.
World War II was about a third of what we were spending.
So what we have today in terms of defense spending as a percentage of GDP, gross domestic product, is actually what we were spending roughly at the end of the Cold War.
It's surprising to a lot of people.
That was a moment when truly there was no competitor.
We had defeated the Soviet Union.
We were taking a peace dividend.
And we're roughly about...
You have to go back to what the Soviet Union did after the Cuban Missile Crisis to see A military build -up that we're witnessing out of Beijing, and you have to ask yourselves, we all have to ask ourselves, what are they building up towards?
What are they seeking to do?
If you look at what our defense leaders and our security leaders are, and this is bipartisan, this was the view of the Trump administration, and it was the view of the Biden administration, what they're doing is actually attacking our interests, not just in the Pacific, which of course, as the caller notes,
we have significant trade interests, but globally, more and more, in the Western Hemisphere.
Actually, even in the continental United States, as we saw with the Bloomgate not too long ago.
And then you add to that what Russia is doing, and certainly they have been bogged down in Ukraine.
But that's a result of US security support.
So the Ukrainians have fought nobly in Ukraine, fending off Russian aggression.
But at the same time, they would not have been able to do that without the security assistance of the United States.
That's important, not just for Ukraine's sovereignty and the plight of freedom on the part of Ukrainians.
That's important for U .S. national security interests.
Vladimir Putin, as we know, is an aggressor.
If he would have been able to capture Ukraine, he would likely have gone on to weaker NATO allies, and that would have put the United States in a far more costly position.
We know his conduct.
2008, he invaded Georgia and South Osepia and Abkhazia.
In 2014, he annexed Crimea.
So I think...
The caller is perhaps too optimistic about the security situation globally, and I think it's U .S. defense spending, in my view, and the view of the American people, frankly, is underfunded.
Did Ronald Reagan ever face a defense funding cut from Congress?
President Reagan, when he was in office, ran on a platform, actually, going into office of Peace Through Strength and rebuilding our national defenses that had gone so bad during the tenure of President Jimmy Carter that...
He actually had an election mandate to build up, and there was bipartisan support in the Congress to do so.
And he did that from the time he entered office in January of 1981.
Pretty much throughout his time in office, when he left in 1989, by 1986 -87, members of Congress started pulling back a bit, but overall it was a net increase year over year.
As I mentioned, the height of which is just over 6 % of GDP was 7 -10 % real growth annually.
81, 82, 83.
That was a strength which really allowed for the peace that resulted by the time he left office in 1989.
Floyd is an Iowa line for Republicans.
Good morning.
He never appointed a second -in -command.
That's one of the first things you learn in the military.
If you're not going to be there, you get your second -in -command to get up to speed and get on to your mission.
But as I understand it, this Austin, he's still there.
He didn't get fired.
Is that true?
Floyd, Secretary of Defense Austin is still there.
In fact, he was speaking on Saturday.
He announced at a defense forum a new Ukraine security package.
Let me show you a minute and a half from Saturday.
And I'm proud to announce today the commitment of a new Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative package worth nearly $1 billion.
Now, that package will provide Ukraine with more drones, more rockets for its HIMARS systems, and more support for crucial maintenance and sustainment.
And that brings the total of U .S. security assistance committed to Ukraine since February 2022 to more than $62 billion.
The engine of our efforts has been the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which first met in April 2022 at Ramstein Air Base in Germany.
The contact group has helped ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself and to forge a future force to deter more Russian aggression.
And I have convened the contact group 24 times now.
Its other members have committed more than $57 billion in direct security assistance to Ukraine.
And as a percentage of DDP, more than a dozen contact group members now provide more security assistance to Ukraine than the United States does.
And together we have helped Ukraine survive an all -out assault by the largest military in Europe.
At a defense forum over the weekend.
In fact, your defense forum.
Not just any defense forum.
That is the Reagan National Defense Forum I referenced earlier.
We hold annually the first weekend in December.
And Secretary Austin has been with us each year he served as Secretary of Defense.
And of course, this was the fourth time he visited and made some news, as you note, in terms of what the Department of Defense is doing to support Ukraine in the final weeks of the Biden administration.
Did he?
Talk about the results of this survey, or did you get a chance to go through it with him?
Absolutely.
Secretary Austin referenced the survey in his speech, and my recollection is it was about national defense and military spending.
I noted that the American people support increasing the defense budget.
He made some arguments as to how the Biden administration has contributed to that.
My own view is that that has not been sufficient, as I referenced in the conversation with the call earlier.
What are your conversations like with the incoming Trump administration?
Are you having those?
Yeah, absolutely.
There are officials, as you know, are being named and announced.
Of course, those who require Senate confirmation, they're just designated, so they're not speaking for the Trump administration.
There are others like Mike Waltz, who has been announced to be his National Security Advisor.
Alex Wong is the Deputy National Security Advisor.
President Trump, as it relates to this issue and this survey...
I think?
We're good to go.
I think?
Of American support peace negotiations, even if Ukraine was required to give up or concede territory, and as far as Trump voters 63 percent support that and Harris voters is 55 percent as well, so you see there's pretty much consensus around doing that.
How they go about that is is quite important.
Brings in another element of the survey, and I'll wrap up with this that, as I mentioned before, 75 of those surveyed believe that Ukraine is an ally.
80 % believe that Russia is an adversary or enemy.
And so however President Trump is going to pursue those negotiations, he's famously said that he wanted the conflict to come to an end, that it will end by the time he's inaugurated.
The survey shows that the American people clearly know, whatever that negotiated outcome looks like, who the friend is and who the adversary is.
Greg's next.
In Wilmington, Connecticut, Democrat, you're on with Roger Zach Heim.
Greg, you're with us.
Good morning, John.
Go ahead, sir.
Hi, good morning.
I don't see a defense spending.
I see an offensive spending.
We have had so many conflicts.
Let's start with Vietnam, going to Afghanistan in the late 80s, early 90s, and then to Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan.
And Palestine, the slaughter has been non -stop, John.
Non -stop.
Now, I don't see any defense in slaughtering innocent Palestinian children and women, okay?
That's not defensive spending.
Now, you know, my criticism is mostly of C -SPAN and of the mainstream media, because the American public is poorly informed about what its government does.
Most Americans wouldn't know that we're in Syria right now.
Basically camping out, stealing oil from Syria to give it to other countries.
I mean, it's insane our military spending.
Insane.
We spend more money than the next ten nations that spend money on military.
Who has all the aircraft carriers?
We do.
So it is not defensive.
It's offensive.
And C's man has to do a better job.
That's all I'm saying.
Thank you.
U .S. forces there have been engaged to protect U .S. interests and do what they can to help with the humanitarian crisis caused by that butcher, Bashar al -Assad, who, again,
just as today's news bear out, is no longer in power.
I think the point the car makes about...
The U .S. outspending the rest of ten nations combined is actually overstated.
I'd encourage the caller to look at work by Mackenzie Eaglin of the American Enterprise Institute, who actually has done a deeper dive into what the PRC spends on defense, and it actually is increasingly coming closer to what the U .S. spends.
They're just approaching $800 billion, that is, China.
And of course, the way that they spend their funding, it's a command -and -control economy.
Civilian resources go to support the military.
The U .S. funding has interest globally not because it's looking to fight wars or it's offensive.
It's because it's protecting U .S. interests, our freedom, our security, and ultimately it leads to our prosperity.
That's why you see in this survey, for example, Big support.
62 % year -over -year support having U .S. forces deployed overseas.
Not because they're engaged in some sort of offensive attack, offensive posture, because they know that U .S. presence globally is what we rely upon to...
The caller brings up aircraft carriers.
This question always comes up.
The United States has 11 carriers in service right now.
China has 3.
Why do we need 8 more aircraft carriers than China?
Well, China would like to have 11 aircraft carriers and they're on their way to build up the carrier.
There is a critique out there that the aircraft carrier is not the most relevant.
We're good to go.
We're good.
Those trade patterns have to change and the cost of goods go up.
That's what the aircraft carriers give you.
But it's, I think, a mistake to think that because China only has three and the U .S. has 11, we have more than we need.
China very much.
Absolutely, yeah.
You go on, put in the Reagan National Defense Survey in your search tab.
Good morning.
You're asking for a 100 % increase in the budget for military spending.
My question is, where would that money come from?
Are you willing to take it from...
Roger Zachon?
Well, certainly the Reagan Institute.
And the survey itself was not advocating for 100 % increase in defense spending.
I think what I was giving historical context, that the level we're spending on national defense actually is the level we went to in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War when President Bill Clinton was seeking a peace dividend.
So I think the view that we're spending more than we have historically is actually not the case.
We're underspending, underinvesting our national defense.
I think as a general matter, Secretary of Defense of both parties, general officers, flag officers, I think when you look overall... Federal spending,
I think this is where the caller was getting to in terms of where it's going to come out of.
It shouldn't really impact anybody who is benefiting from Social Security.
People have worked their whole lives and are now taking from Social Security.
They've worked for it, they've paid for it, they should receive it.
I don't think anybody's advocating that.
There is a need for Social Security reform.
And there's a need for reform on overall mandatory spending.
I think people forget.
That when you look at overall defense spending as a share of federal spending, it's roughly about 13%.
We actually are spending more to service our national debt than we are on spending our national defense.
14 % on servicing the national debt, 13 % on national defense.
The issue, of course, is mandatory spending.
Social Security, Medicare.
So when you say 3 -5 %?
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, $45 billion to $55 billion, the idea is...
Well, the Congress has done that over the past two years, actually.
President Biden underfunded national defense, as I was referencing before, but the Congress recognized that...
These programs to continue to take care of the men and women in uniform, to modernize the force, to make investments in industrial base required an increase in defense spending.
We've spent trillions of dollars over the past few years on programs that are far less bound to what the Constitution calls for.
I mean, you come down to what government should be spending on, it's quite clear.
Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress responsibility to build the Army, to build the Navy.
That has been underfunded.
And given the global reach of our interests, the need for the economic security that ultimately all Americans prosper for, it requires robust investment in national defense.
My point is, it's actually historically low, and it's an increasingly smaller slice of what we spend on in terms of the total federal budget picture.
Tom in Maryland, Independent.
Good morning.
You are next.
Hey, good morning, John.
And as always, you do a great job as a host here.
For Mr. Zachheim, I guess it's a little disappointing just hearing the questions that you're getting, looking at the results of the last election, and then seeing this survey chevron up here saying Americans favor more military spending in international engagement.
And all we're getting are the talking points such as, you know, Russia the aggressor, etc., etc., and, you know, that we're not spending somehow enough.
And the real question here is, with the bloat that we've seen in admirals and generals and all this wasted spending and so many of these failures in foreign policy,
how are we to believe this question in the survey and the results?
Because those results, of course, naturally favor quite dramatically everything that this organization stands for.
Can you tell us a little bit about the survey, and was it really objective?
Absolutely.
Thanks for the question.
As I mentioned before, there were 2 ,510 respondents to the survey.
Estimated margin of error is plus or minus two percentage points.
Many of the questions went to about half the respondents, so just over 1 ,200.
There, the margin of error is about 2 .8 % plus or minus.
If you look at other surveys, this one actually has more respondents than the ones you'd read about in your favorite paper or feed you get when they're talking about a survey.
What we do, and we've done it year over year since we began this survey in 2018, is ask the questions of the American people about national security, defense, and foreign policy, and we'll see where the numbers go.
The reality is that year over year, the American people understand and support.
It's disappointing to me that only 52 % of Americans have trust and confidence in the military.
I pointed that out to our service chiefs and said hey, this is a problem.
When we started it was 70 % and that is a policy area that I believe the Department of Defense and the military needs to work on that comes out of the survey.
So we get the numbers.
Numbers don't lie and we report them out and that's why we like engaging with you on it.
Yesterday, from the White House, President Biden talked about steps the U .S. was taking in Syria after the fall of Assad, U .S. efforts there to support allies in the region, and he laid that out.
It was a clip we played for viewers earlier.
It was Saturday that President -elect Trump said the United States needs to stay out of Syria.
So it leads to this question from Mark in New York.
Can the guest explain what U .S. interests are in Syria?
Well, I think from a Syria standpoint, we don't want it to be an ungoverned space.
That we have the emergence of ISIS.
And I think that is something that President Biden wants, but it's also something that President Trump wants.
I mean, he was responsible in his first administration for ensuring that ISIS was taken out.
So we have experience since 9 /11 that we know which terrorist organizations threaten our national security interests that would look to develop a capability in an ungoverned space to attack the homeland.
ISIS fits that category.
That is the biggest risk profile for the United States coming out of an ungoverned Syria.
Beyond that, you don't want to have the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, attack U .S. interests in the region.
That could also happen in an ungoverned space, although I believe out of this development, Iran is weaker.
Certainly that's because of Israel and its policies as it's been applied against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Well, there was one element that stands out as it relates to Israel, and that is while there are strong partisan divides over U .S. security assistance to Israel as it defends itself post -October 7th, Hamas' massacre in Israel,
We're good to go.
I think it's about seven Americans still held hostage by Hamas.
That's absolutely the case, and the question does not go there in terms of direct action on the part of U .S. forces.
My sense, and certainly I think the impression that President Trump put out with his social media post, was that anybody
It's the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute.
Roger Zach Heim is the Washington director there.
Reaganfoundation .org is where you can go if you want to sift through this survey for yourself.
And we appreciate your time this morning on The Washington Journal.
Thanks for having me on.
That's going to do it for us this morning.
A reminder that the House comes in at noon Eastern here on C -SPAN.
The Senate is in at 3 p .m. Eastern on C -SPAN 2.
You can watch it all today and we'll see you back here tomorrow morning.
It's 7 a .m. Eastern, 4 a .m. Pacific.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
Democratic Senators -elect Andy Kim of New Jersey and Adam Schiff from California will both be sworn into the Senate following their resignations from the House.
Senators will continue to vote throughout the week on President Biden's remaining judicial nominations for U .S. district courts.
The first vote is today at 5 .30 p .m. Eastern for the confirmation of Tiffany Johnson to be a judge for Northern Georgia.
Watch live coverage of the House on C -SPAN.
See the Senate on C -SPAN, too.
Also, watch all of our congressional coverage with our free video app, C -SPAN Now, or our website, c -span .org.
Attention middle and high school students across America.
It's time to make your voice heard.
C -SPAN Student Cam Documentary Contest 2025 is here.
This is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact.
Your documentary should answer this year's question, your message to the president.
What issue is most important to you or your community?
Whether you're passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, Student Cam is your
The deadline is January 20th, 2025.
C -SPAN Shop .org is C -SPAN's online store.
Browse through our latest collection of C -SPAN products.