CSPAN - Washington Journal 01/14/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 14, 2025 07:00-09:30 - CSPAN

02:29:56

Washington Journal 01/14/2025

Participants

Main

pedro echevarria

cspan 38:46

Appearances

hakeem jeffries

rep/d 01:03

joe biden

d 01:46

pete hegseth

admin 01:27

tammy duckworth

sen/d 01:14

Clips

barack obama

d 00:07

bill clinton

d 00:02

charlie daniels

00:05

donald j trump

admin 00:09

george h w bush

r 00:02

george w bush

r 00:12

margaret brennan

cbs 00:09

willie nelson

00:12

Callers

ron in vermont

callers 00:32

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Coming up on Washington Journal, your calls and comments live.
		Then we'll preview today's confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth, President-elect Trump's nominee to head the Defense Department.
		We'll speak with Leo Shane, deputy editor of the Military Times.
		And Massachusetts Democratic Congresswoman Lori Trahan joins us to discuss today's vote on legislation barring transgender athletes from participating in women's sports.
		Also, the Executive Vice President of Heritage Action, Ryan Walker, discusses his organization's efforts to get President-elect Trump's cabinet picks confirmed and future work with the incoming administration.
		Washington Journal is next.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is the Washington Journal for January 14th in the early morning hours of today.
		Former special counsel Jack Smith's report on his investigation into former President Trump's activities on January 6th was released.
		In that report, Jack Smith claimed: should the case have been allowed to continue, the former president would have been convicted.
		Later on today, around 10 o'clock, the president-elect's nominee for the Defense Department, Pete Hegset, will undergo his confirmation hearing before the Senate.
		And you can see that on C-SPAN, C-SPAN 3, and our multitude of platforms.
		If you want to comment about either the events of today, here's how you can do so: 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents 202-748-8002.
		If you want to comment on the Jack Smith report or Pete Hegset's testimony today, 202-748-8003 is how you can do that.
		You can also post on Facebook and on X.
		It was about one o'clock this morning when the special counsel's report was released.
		You can find it online, and you can also, if you go to our website at c-span.org, we've highlighted a special section where you can read the report and its findings.
		Here's some of the findings from the special counsel.
		When it comes to the topic of conspiracy to defraud the United States, Jack Smith's report says this: The core of Mr. Trump's obstructive scheme was a false narrative outcome, determinative voter fraud, in which he and his surrogates frequently repeated and widely disseminated over the course of two months.
		Crucially, not only was Mr. Trump's voter fraud narrative objectively false, he knew that it was false.
		Mr. Trump's false claims were repeatedly debunked, often directly by him, by the very people best positioned to ascertain their truth.
		Campaign personnel told Mr. Trump his claims were unfounded.
		So did state officials, a White House official who engaged with Mr. Trump in his capacity as candidate, and even his own running mate.
		Again, this was from the Jack Smith reports released earlier today.
		There is also a section in that report, by the way.
		It's highlighted under the topic of threats and harassment of witnesses, in which Jack Smith says this: Mr. Trump's resort to intimidation and harassment during the investigation was not new, as demonstrated by his actions during the charge conspiracies.
		A fundamental component of Mr. Trump's conduct underlying the charges in the election case was his pattern of using social media, at the time, Twitter, to publicly attack and seek the influenced state and federal officials, judges, and election workers who refused to support false claims that the election had been stolen or who otherwise resisted complicity in Mr. Trump's scheme.
		After Mr. Trump publicly assailed these individuals, threats and harassment from his followers inevitably followed.
		In the context of the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, Mr. Trump acknowledged that his supporters, quote, listened to him like no one else.
		Again, that's some of the findings of the report.
		It was released in the early morning hours.
		You can find it online, and specifically, if you go to our website at C-SPAN, you can find it there, a special section there.
		You can also comment on Pete Hegseth, the President-elect's nominee to head the Defense Department.
		He before the Senate Armed Services later on today in his confirmation hearing, Axios, if you go to their website, has a portion of some of that opening statement that you'll hear later today from Pete Hegseth saying this.
		But as President Trump also told me, we repeatedly place people atop the Pentagon with supposedly, quote, the right credentials, whether they are retired generals, academics, and defense contractor executives, and where has it gotten us?
		Somewhere that opening testimony will read as such.
		He believes, and I humbly agree, that it's time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm, a change agent, someone with no vested interest in certain companies or specific programs or approved narratives.
		Hegsef says he'll say in his testimony, quote, his only special interest is the war fighter.
		Again, you'll hear more of that today.
		Our coverage on C-SPAN, this channel, will start at 9.30.
		That will be until 10 o'clock when the House comes in.
		And when that happens, the coverage of the hearing, live and unfiltered, will be at 10 o'clock on C-SPAN 3.
		Also, you can follow along on a multitude of platforms, C-SPAN Now, our app, and also C-SPAN.org.
		If you want to comment on the release of the special counsel's report, or if you want to comment on today's hearing later on featuring Pete Hegseth, again, the numbers, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can also text us your thoughts at 202-748-8003.
		We'll hear a little bit directly from Pete Hegseth.
		He was with reporters on Capitol Hill as he was making the rounds meeting with senators, talked about, amongst other things, the conversations that he had with senators concerning his alcohol use.
		Here's a portion of that back and forth with reporters.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		I've had great conversations about who I am and what I believe.
		And frankly, the man I am today because of my faith in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and my incredible wife, Jenny, right here.
		I'm a different man than I was years ago.
		And that's a redemption story that I think a lot of Americans appreciate.
		And I know from fellow vets that I've spent time with, they resonate with that as well.
		You fight, you go do tough things in tough places on behalf of your country, and sometimes that changes you a little bit.
		And by the grace of God and my Lord and Savior, I had an opportunity to come on up out of it and do great things with great veterans organizations that fought for vets, that fought for reform at the VA and for warfighters, and at the Fox News Channel to advocate for those very same causes.
		And I'm proud of what I fought for.
		I'm not going to back down from them one bit.
		I will answer all of these senators' questions, but this will not be a process tried in the media.
		I don't answer to anyone in this group.
		None of you.
		Not to that camera at all.
		I answer to President Trump, who received 76 million votes on behalf and a mandate for change.
		I answer to the 50, the 100 senators who are part of this process and those in the committee.
		And I answer to my Lord and Savior and my wife and my family.
		I'm proud to be here.
		And as long as Donald Trump wants me in this fight, I'm going to be standing right here in this fight, fighting to bring our Pentagon back to what it needs to be.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, that was last month.
		You'll hear more later on today at 10 o'clock when that hearing takes place.
		Again, you can watch it live on a variety of platforms on C-SPAN.
		You can comment on that or the release of the Jack Smith Report.
		Mike in Ohio Independent Line, you are first up.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		So let me get this straight.
		Mr. Smith releases this report at 1 a.m. in the morning.
		That report that would have put and showed that President Trump defrauded the government.
		Let's talk about a defrauding the government.
		We had Biden and the newscast and everybody hiding his incompetence and delusional.
		I mean, you talk about defrauding.
		Let's talk about January 6th, destroying evidence, knowing that Trump is going to come in and reopen the investigation.
		So who is defrauding who?
		Trump was elected because we're finally tired of the Democrats, their lies, and deceit.
		And Pam Bondi gets in there.
		She's going to set things straight.
		Talk about lawfare.
		We're going to do legal law fair.
		They spent $200 million trying to get rid of this man.
		When's enough enough?
		We, the American people, have had enough.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mike in Ohio there.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Fran in New Hampshire, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Anyone who has read Jane Mayer's article in the New Yorker magazine about Mr. Hegseth would understand that he is totally unqualified for the position.
		He is a chronic alcoholic.
		He is a danger to this country because it's possible that the enemy within us and around us might take advantage of his alcoholism to corrupt what he is thinking about.
		Or he might just simply not be awake when there's a national emergency.
		In a quote that Jane Mayer had, he talked to two former secretaries of defense who said they never slept through the night.
		And one of them said he never took his day clothes off because he was so worried about a national emergency occurring in the middle of the night.
		This man is totally unqualified for the position.
		Amen.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Fran in New Hampshire.
		Again, talking about the Pete Hegseth and his nomination hearing later on today.
		Again, the previous caller talking about the Jack Smith report.
		Let's hear from Connecticut.
		This is Julian, Republican line.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
joe biden ▲ ● ▼		How are you?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm well, thank you.
joe biden ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Do you realize that you're becoming MSNBC with just Trump bashing daily?
unidentified		Do you realize that, Pedro?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You can comment on either one of the things that we've listed.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So what would you like to say?
unidentified		What do you want me to comment?
unidentified		What is my comment going to do?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You made the call, so go ahead and comment.
unidentified		I just told you what I think.
		You're becoming MSNBC.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Jeff.
		Jeff is in Little Rock, Arkansas, Democrats line.
		Hello, you're next up.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
unidentified		How are you doing today?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
joe biden ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Well, you really kicked the can today, didn't you?
		You got him out the bed early.
		Anyway, I want to, I'm a 20-year Air Force veteran, and I basically want to say that the person that they are trying to select to be the Secretary of Defense is a fraud, and I'm not behind it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why not?
unidentified		He's not qualified, even though they say he served in the military and everything else.
unidentified		Again, I don't like his attitude or his background.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, and you say specifically he's not qualified and you talk about his background.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean?
unidentified		Well, I mean, they try to promote, I've been to Afghanistan and overseas in war situations, but not everyone that goes to the war, so-called, is in the war.
		You know, there's a lot of people like JAG officers and everything else that never even see combat or combat-related incidents, you know.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jeff there in Arkansas.
		Again, he commenting about Pete Hegseth.
		We'll have his confirmation hearing later on this morning.
		Again, you could see it on C-SPAN initially at 9.30 at 10 o'clock.
		That moves over to C-SPAN 3.
		You can always watch it on our app, C-SPANNOW, and the website is c-span.org.
		The Washington Times and its opinion section offers this by Kurt Lofquist, a Republican political operative and combat veteran.
		It's described.
		It's about Pete Hegseth.
		Under the headline, Combat Veterans Choice for the Pentagon.
		He writes this, saying, having worked alongside Mr. Hegseth, I have seen firsthand the caliber of leadership he brings to any challenge.
		His ability to rally individuals toward a common goal, his focus on operational excellence, and his unwavering commitment to service make him uniquely qualified for this role.
		With years of military experience, a deep understanding of the challenges facing our veterans, and a bold vision for the future of the armed forces, Mr. Hegseth has the potential to lead the Department of Defense with clarity, purpose, and resilience.
		This op-ed going on to say that his passion for veterans is not just a political stance, it's a core part of his identity.
		Mr. Hegseth's extensive work with veterans organizations demonstrates his commitment to those who have served.
		As Secretary of Defense, this commitment would translate into a genuine and unwavering focus on improving the welfare of our military personnel, veterans, and their families.
		Again, Kurt Lofquist writing on the pages of the Washington Times.
		If you want to see about his thoughts on Pete Hegseth becoming the next Secretary of Defense, the confirmation hearing from the Senate takes place today, and you can share your thoughts on that or either the release of Jack Smith's report, which we showed you earlier.
		202748-8000 for Democrats, 202748-8001 for Republicans.
		Independents, 202748-8002.
		George's next Republican line, he's in Ohio.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hello, Pedra.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		You know, Pete Hegseth hadn't even taken an oath in office, but look at all the Democrats have taken an oath of office.
		Read the oath and see what it says.
		These people should be prosecuted for nothing more than treason.
		I mean, you look at President Biden for one thing.
		I mean, it's been treason ever since he was elected.
		In fact, the January 6th committee didn't even look at all the evidence.
		They destroyed evidence.
		The Democratic Party is nothing but their agenda is to destroy the nation.
		There's no, I mean, just look at all the proof the last four years and four years before that.
		I mean, and look what they've done.
		Look what they've done to our nation.
		They should be considered a terrorist organization.
		That's all I've got to say.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Steve in Missouri, Independent Line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I don't know a lot about Pete Hegseth.
		I've heard about the drinking allegations.
		Yeah, that could be something that the Senate has to dwell into.
		But, you know, I never heard some woman called in a few minutes ago and said he was an alcoholic.
		You know, these people are off the, you know, I've read a lot of stuff, but I've never read he was an alcoholic.
		Number two, I am a combat infantryman from Vietnam.
		And the guy with the 20 years of Air Force downplaying Pete's service in the military, never do that, sir.
		If you have a combat infantry badge, then you can talk.
		Pete's got one.
		You don't.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Steve there, Missouri.
		Again, one of two topics, if you want to comment on that.
		Many of you talking about that hearing later today for Pete Hegseff.
		Some of you talking about that Jack Smith report, again, released in the early morning hours of today when it comes to the case he was making against the former President Trump and January 6th.
		He writes in the report this section, too, when it comes to this idea of insurrection and the legal journey that The counselors considered saying this: quote: The office recognized why courts describe the attack on the Capitol as a quote insurrection, but was also aware of the litigation risks that would be presented by employing this long-dormant statute.
		As to the first element under section 2383, proving an insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, the cases of the office reviewed provided no guidance on what proof would be required to establish an insurrection or to distinguish an insurrection from a riot.
		Again, that's from the Central Council's report.
		If you're interested in reading some of the summary, a letter that was put out by the former special counsel, the report itself, the Department of Justice making it available, also available on our website.
		When you go to cspan.org, you'll notice that when you head to the front page and look over to the right there, there's a box there about that report.
		You can click on it and read some of the findings for yourself when it comes there.
		You also see, as you can see on the website there, Pete Hegsteth talking about that hearing for today as he becomes, he attempts to become the next defense secretary in the incoming Trump administration.
		Oliver in Falls Church, Virginia, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello, Pedro.
		Can you hear me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yes, you're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Okay, buddy.
		Listen, I want you to pat you on the back for being able to take some of the abuse from that MAGA crowd that is trying to take this country back 50 years.
		Donald Trump is a criminal.
		He's a con man.
		He's a liar.
		He's an adulteress.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, Carla, let me focus you on one of the two topics we're focusing on today: either that special counsel report or Pete Hegseth.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you have to say about that?
unidentified		Okay, Pedro, the special counsel report will let you know if people have the sense to get their hands on it and read it.
		I haven't yet, but I will.
		Like the Mueller report, it shows that Donald Trump is a criminal who has no business in the White House.
		Thank you very much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Oliver there.
		He's calling from Virginia.
		Let's hear from Russell.
		Russell calling us from Missouri, Republican line.
		Russell, go ahead.
unidentified		Hello.
		I'd like to ask if Jack Smith an Iranian?
		Did he come here from Iran?
		I really don't think he should be anywhere near President Trump.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you want that in the context of the report?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What does one have to do with the other?
unidentified		Excuse me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What does one have to do with the other when it comes to the report?
unidentified		Well, he's the one that wrote the report.
unidentified		Is he from Iran?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I don't understand the basis of the question.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why are you asking those questions in relation to the report?
unidentified		Because he wrote the report.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Russell there in Missouri.
		There's another opinion piece today in the pages of the Washington Post when it comes to Pete Hegseth.
		This is the headline.
		This is Max Boot writing, a regular columnist for the Washington Post.
		The U.S. is unprepared for a major war.
		Can Pete Hegseth fix that?
		Some of Max Boot's findings from this morning saying, quote, it goes on to say, the problem isn't that the U.S. military has gone, quote, woke as MAGA partisans such as Hegseth allege.
		The problem is that America became complacent after the Cold War when it downsized its armed forces and its defense industrial base.
		Since then, the United States has prepared a military suitable for fighting insurgents in Afghanistan or Iraq, but utterly inadequate for an extended fight against the major power.
		That's from the post, but also Max Boot adding this to his column this morning saying, now it'll be up to senators to decide if Heg Seth, who was dogged by accusations of mismanagement and misconduct at the two nonprofits he ran, is the right person to rebuild America's atrophy defense capabilities.
		The committee members should grill him not only about his past, but also about his plans to address this massive challenge.
		His record doesn't inspire confidence that he can rise to a task that would severely test far more experienced executives.
		Again, that's from Max Boot.
		And today, if you want to read it there, the Washington Post, this is Connie up next in Ohio, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Hi.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		I just wanted to say I'm all for Pete Hegseth.
		He, to me, is the ultimate, the true American.
		I think Trump did a great job of picking his cabinet.
		I think he's one of the best.
		I mean, I just, I can't understand some of the people talking about even Trump after what has happened these last four years.
		But he has put the people in that needs to be put in to get us back on the road where we're supposed to be.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Connie, if I may ask, what makes Pete Hegseth the best in your mind?
unidentified		Well, I just think he's a true American.
		Watching him, I'm not even sure of what they're saying about him.
		I've read things, and I don't see where he's the bad guy of the whole thing.
		He's an adulterist or whatever it is.
		I just feel that to me, he is the ultimate soldier.
		They stabbed him in the back and he withdrew from the military because he wasn't what they wanted to protect the president.
		He wasn't a Democrat.
		So that's just my opinion.
		And I just think, like I said, I think he's got a really good cabinet coming in.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Connie there in Cincinnati, Ohio, giving us her thoughts.
		Some of you posting on our various social media sites are texting us.
		This is Doug Perry from Facebook.
		When it comes to the confirmation process, he writing, pretty amazing to me how bitterly contested, contentious, and political even the cabinet confirmation process has become.
		Another one from Facebook saying that when it comes to Pete Hegseth, I believe, looks like a good pick.
		I'm just hoping he'll do discourse for one and all.
		And then this is from X, a viewer there saying, I don't know if Hegseth is qualified for the position or not, but I would hope that he is being properly vetted.
		Again, that's just some of the comments you can make on X.
		It's at C-SPANWJ.
		Facebook, it's facebook.com slash C-SPAN.
		If you want to text us your thoughts too, it's 202-748-8003.
		And you can always call us on the main lines there.
		If you want to talk about Mr. Hegseth's testimony later today, his hearing, his confirmation hearing, and then also either the release of the Jack Smith report from earlier in the morning hours of today in Louisiana.
		Slide L, I believe it's in Independent Line.
		This is Anthony.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I'd just like to comment on this Pete Hegseth guy.
		I just can't understand how with all the talent and people that's in a position to control just a massive amount of spending.
		And not just because he fought wars, I congratulate him for doing that.
charlie daniels ▲ ● ▼		Now, look, I just can't admire him very much for fighting for our country.
unidentified		But to take over a department the size of the Department of Defense without no knowledge of the background of how that works is just absolutely absurd to me.
		I mean, it seemed like if you don't work for Fox, or if you don't, if you're not a famous athlete, you're not a Trump nomination.
		Anyway, that's how I feel.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Anthony there in Louisiana.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from James, James in Kansas, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello, everyone.
		It seems to me that the entire cabinet of Philip 47 is unqualified.
		And they pretty much followed the same comedian.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		James there in Kansas, one of the people who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee was Democrat Tammy Duckworth.
		She herself a military veteran, talking about previous comments that Pete Hegseth had made about the women in combat, topics that most likely will appear later on today when he appears before the full Senate Armed Services Committee.
		Here's Senator Duckworth from last month.
tammy duckworth ▲ ● ▼		And so he's been out there saying that, you know, women are not as strong.
		The ones who are in those roles have met the same standards as the men and have passed the very rigorous testing.
		And so he's just flat out wrong.
		Our military could not go to war without the women who wear this uniform.
		And frankly, America's daughters are just as capable of defending liberty and freedom as her sons.
margaret brennan ▲ ● ▼		Having served in combat yourself, what do you think of the idea that women make fighting more complicated?
margaret brennan ▲ ● ▼		That was specifically what he focused on.
tammy duckworth ▲ ● ▼		Well, it just shows his lack of understanding of where our military is.
		You know, he was a pretty low-ranking guy in the military, and he never had a command position.
		He was a platoon leader, I think, once or twice, but he never even commanded a company.
		And so this is a man who is inordinately unqualified for the position.
		Remember that the Pentagon is 3 million servicemen and women and civilians.
		It is an over $900 billion budget.
		He's never run anything anywhere near to that size.
		And frankly, women actually make our military more effective.
		And I've personally found that I brought many insights to my job when I was a company commander, when I was a logistics officer that came from my own personal background that made things better.
		I took better care of my men, for example, in my unit.
		I was often the only woman in an all-male unit, and my gender didn't have a, you know, wasn't a problem.
		I just adapted, and we continue to perform the mission.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Senator Duckworth from last month, the Wall Street Journal, highlights another person that Mr. Hegseth will hear from Senator Joni Ernst, she herself, a combat veteran.
		This is from the Wall Street Journal saying, Mr. Hegseth's performance will be closely watched and what expected to be a contentious confirmation hearing today, but also in the spotlight.
		Senator Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, whose support the Trump transition team views as critical.
		Ernst, a former Army National Guard commander, endured a torrent of criticism from prominent Trump supporters late last year after publicly raising specific issues she wanted Hegseph to address, the role of women in the military, sexual assault prevention, and auditing the Pentagon for waste and abuse.
		Her questions and eventual votes could be the key to Hegseph's future as well as her own.
		Senate Armed Services Committee will be hearing will force Ernst to balance loyalty to President-elect Donald Trump with her long-running effort to combat sexual assault and support women serving in the military.
		She's up for reelection in 2026, has been measured in her comments about Hegseth, who Mr. Trump has continued to back amid allegations regarding sexual assault and drinking that raised doubts last month about whether he could be confirmed.
		Again, there's more there from the Wall Street Journal, more of what you'll see play out later on today.
		Again, 9.30 is when we'll start showing you what's happening in the room when it comes to that Senate Armed Services hearing.
		Come 10 o'clock, the House will come in.
		That hearing will move over to C-SPAN 3, and you can watch it there in its entirety, also on our other platforms as well.
		But that's a little bit of a bio board there of Mr. Hegseth, his background.
		You can comment on that.
		Again, if you wish, you can comment on the report from Special Counsel Jack Smith, now former Special Counsel Jack Smith from earlier today.
		Republican line in Pennsylvania.
		This is Mark.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hi, Pedro.
		Good morning.
		I'll comment on the report.
		First of all, I don't think anybody's aware of how corrupt this man truly is.
		I want you to help me out a little here.
		Pull up page 27 of the documents case, the indictment, and you'll see how corrupt this man is.
		C-SPAN and all the other stations contributed to this dishonesty.
		There was two pictures that were constantly put up during that case that was being discussed for days and weeks and months and years.
		And the two were of the ballroom and the bathroom.
		I bet you most of the callers and people that watch this don't realize that those pictures, when they were released, and I don't know where you guys got them from, but they indicated that Trump stored classified documents in the bathroom and the ballroom.
		At least to me, they did.
		And I'm certain that most people had the same opinion.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Color, that's the documents case.
		Tell me how that relates then to.
		Hold on, hold on.
		Tell me how that relates to the January 6th case specifically.
unidentified		Because in the thing that you just put up on your website, it mentions the document case.
		So this is why I'm bringing it up.
		It's in the first line of the paragraph.
		I started to read it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		And that's why I'm just talking about the dishonesty of Jack Smith.
		So if you want to trust him, you're going to trust it at your own peril.
		So again, would you please bring that up and show it to the people?
		There wasn't a single document found in the bathroom or the ballroom that was classified.
		That was sent out there as misinformation to the American people deliberately to indicate something that wasn't true.
		Secondly, the documents that were pictured in his office were a plant.
		Okay, okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Look, because we're talking about the report, you bring up the documents case.
		We can let people go to the documents case if they wish.
		Let's hear from Stafford, Virginia, Independent Line.
		This is Charles.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Oh, hi.
		So my opinions on Hagseth are pretty straightforward.
		I've known for a while about his allegations of sexual assault and alcoholism.
		But I think that as far as a cabinet member, he's just uniquely unqualified.
		I don't need to know about his qualifications as soon as I've heard about the level and degree of sexual assault and perhaps rape and the statements he's made on his relations with women in the past.
		He very famously called that stated that he did not believe women who were unconscious could be raped because rape requires women to be under duress.
		And I don't think that we can have any kind of person with those kinds of opinions leading such a massive military or having so much power.
		And those are my opinions on access.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Charles there in Virginia.
		We'll continue on.
		Again, you can comment on either Charles, as Charles commented on when it comes to Pete Hegseth's and his confirmation hearing today.
		And then also, if you wish, the Jack Smith report released earlier this morning, 202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Independents, 202748-8002.
		Let's go to TJ, TJ in Florida, Democrats line.
		Hello.
unidentified		I just want to say that I'm actually calling for the Republicans because I couldn't get into the.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		OK, well, I'm going to I'm going to stop you right there and I'm going to invite you to call back on the line that best represents you.
		So if you want to go ahead and make that call, please go ahead and do so.
		And if you get through, we'll put you back on Republican line.
		Ken in Louisa, Virginia, Republican line, you're next up.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Regarding the HECSEF thing here, I mean, with all the personal issues and character issues aside, personally, I was an auto mechanic back in the 80s.
		So fast forward to now, that would be similar to letting me run the corporation of General Motors.
		How do you think that would turn out?
		You know, you've got to think about it realistically.
		The personal behaviors, it's not good, but we shouldn't even be worried about that.
		Just the basic qualifications.
		That would be like taking an auto mechanic and letting him run General Motors.
		That's all I wanted to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Ken there in Virginia.
		Just to keep you on track of some of those other confirmation hearings that you can see on C-SPAN and to follow along for the rest of the week for Wednesday.
		Here's the current slate.
		Christy Noam and her hearing or attempt to become the next Homeland Security Secretary.
		Marco Rubio to be Secretary of State.
		Pam Bondi to be the Attorney General.
		Chris Wright to be the Energy Secretary.
		John Ratliff to be the CIA Director.
		Those are slated for Wednesday.
		When it comes to hearings slated for also Sean Duffy to be Transportation Secretary and Russ Vogt to be head of the Office of Management and Budget Director.
		Those are Wednesday.
		When it comes to Thursday and what you can expect there, Eric Scott Turter to be the next Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
		Lee Zeldon, former New York Republican, to be the EPA Administrator.
		Scott Besson to be the Treasury Secretary.
		Doug Bergham to be the Interior Secretary.
		Doug Bergham's hearing was supposed to be today.
		That got pushed down to Thursday because of paperwork issues also pending.
		A couple of them, including Doug Collins, who was supposed to have his hearing today to become the head of the next Veterans Affairs, the next Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
		Again, you can always keep track of that on the website too.
		Let's hear from Nakia in Las Vegas, Independent Line.
		You are up next.
		Good morning.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hi, Mary.
		So I think that any president should be allowed to have any person that they want in their cabinet.
		I understand the confirmation process, but it seems to me like there's always issues between more so the Democrats than the Republicans.
		And all these people keep calling in talking about Pete Higset and his assault on women, but no one ever mentions Biden or his assault on Tara Reed and how she had to run off to Russia or his son.
		So it's just crazy to me.
		I think that everybody deserves to be given a chance.
		And no one can say how qualified he is or not because he's not in the position yet.
		So that's it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Max joins us.
		Max from San Antonio, Democrats line.
		Max, go ahead.
		You're next.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		He's definitely not qualified to be the Secretary of Defense as a 30-year Army veteran retiree.
		I can tell you that for sure.
		And it's for three main reasons.
		Number one, he is not an elder statesman.
		He doesn't know enough people to staff the Pentagon and the upper echelons of the Office of Secretary of Defense.
		He doesn't know enough people and enough quality people.
		He doesn't appeal to people across the aisle.
		He's not a trusted elder statesman.
		That's number one.
		Number two, he's never led an organization as large as he would be leading in the Pentagon.
		In the Pentagon, he's not leading just a hundred-person staff or 30 people.
		Ken made a good point about an auto mechanic trying to run GM.
		It's the same scale there.
		Number three, he isn't a good decision maker.
		He jumps to conclusions.
		He makes accusations without sufficient proof.
		And when you're the Secretary of Defense, you're making the most dire decisions.
		Every day, you're making decisions, and you have to be able to gather information.
		You have to be a master of induction and deduction and judgment.
		And he's not that.
		He's a talking head.
		And so he's not qualified.
		That's what I have to say, Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Next, there in San Antonio, the New York Times highlights the confirmation process, the several steps of the confirmation process, I should say.
		When it comes to the section under Senate staff and hearings, it says that only in the middle of the 20th century did Senate committees begin requiring nominees to meet with them in person.
		Candidates are vetted by committees that oversee the agencies they hope to lead.
		Ms. Bondi, the president-elect's pick for attorney general, is being evaluated by the Senate Judiciary Committee, for example.
		Early on, committees may ask candidates to provide disclosure for staff members to review or ask them to meet in person with staff members.
		Candidates may be questioned about their policy positions as they might be during official confirmation hearings.
		John Ratcliffe, who Mr. Trump selected to run, the CIA, provided background documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee staff ahead of his hearing this week, and also saying that a candidate's interactions with committees culminate in hearings, the most dramatic and visible part of the confirmation process.
		In a public hearing, nominees first take an oath to speak truthfully, then deliver opening statements to the committee that usually summarize their priorities and experience related to the jobs they hope to take.
		Members of the committee from both parties have time-limited slots to ask nominees questions.
		So that's a little bit set to table what to expect later on today.
		We read your earlier little bit from Pete Hegseff's planned opening statement.
		You can find that at the Axios website.
		Again, you can comment that on that or the Jack Smith report.
		Connecticut up next, Republican line.
		This is Michael.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hello.
unidentified		How are you?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm well, thank you.
unidentified		As far as the report from Smith, I believe there's a rule of law where the fruits of an illegal act are illegal.
unidentified		He was illegally appointed, so anything he came up with is illegal and shouldn't be published.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I believe.
unidentified		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Michael there in Connecticut, the president-elect sharing some of his thoughts on the release of the report on his Truth Social website.
		President-elect Trump writing this, saying two posts saying, the first one saying, to show you how desperate deranged Jack Smith is, he released his fake findings at 1 a.m. in the morning.
		Did he say that the unselect committee illegally destroyed and deleted all of the evidence?
		That's the first post.
		On the second post to follow up on that, the president-elect saying this, deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the political opponent of his, quote, boss, crooked Joe Biden.
		So he ends up writing yet another, quote, report based on the information that the unselect committee of political hacks and thugs illegally destroyed and deleted because it showed how totally innocent I was and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi and others were.
		Jack is a lame-brained prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the election, which I won in a landslide.
		The voters have spoken.
		That's in all caps, by the way.
		You can see more at the Truth Social site there for the president-elect.
		Jimmy, he joins us from Maine, Independent Line.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		I have to give you credit.
		You deal with some of the sleaziest people of the Washington, D.C. crowd on both parties.
		I'm definitely an independent.
		I voted for Trump the first time.
		I voted for Biden the second time.
		I voted for Trump this last time.
		And my opinion is, you know, everybody gets all bent out of shape, but let them pick whoever they want to pick.
		You know, like Joe Biden picked, you know, Millie and the fellow that was missing for a week, and he picked the guy with the lipstick to run.
		I think it was the nuclear, they had to steal all the luggage everywhere.
		You know, the guy was head of the nuclear program.
		So let, you know, we Biden was very liberal and he went the liberal way, and the results weren't that great.
		Trump is going to be able to pick whoever he wants to pick as long as they're not treasonous and open the borders and let 10,000 people in there, terrorists, muggers, and rapists.
		I have no problem with it.
		Let them go whatever they want to do.
		If they're successful, we'll vote them back in power again.
		It's really not that hard.
		You can't take, don't get personal with these people.
		We're dealing with Washington, D.C.
		These people sell out our country with $35 trillion in debt, both parties.
		So, America, wake up.
		Don't get upset at one party or the other party.
		They're all involved.
		Let the man have a shot and see if we get going in the right direction because, God help us.
		We need all the help we can get.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Peter, like I said, you're a gentleman.
unidentified		Thank you for putting up with all this stuff.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jimmy and Maine there.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We'll hear from Janine in Dallas, Texas, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		I was just thinking, you know, I see Pete.
		I can't say his last name very well.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hag Seth.
unidentified		Yeah.
		You know, all his, he's young and all his personal life and everything.
		I don't think that's as important as what he did if he had any financial discrepancies.
		I think that's probably more important than his personal life.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Will you be watching the hearing later today?
unidentified		Oh, yeah.
unidentified		I'm waiting for it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What are you interested in?
		What are you interested in?
		What are you most interested in seeing from it?
unidentified		Mostly how they treat the government affairs, not really their personal affairs.
		Because remember, Kennedy, I grew up in the Kennedy era where we didn't know anything about the government, the people who ran the government's personal affairs.
		We hardly knew anything about it.
		Now we know everything about it.
		And I think what's more, which is kind of fogging up what they're doing with their government affairs, you know, how they're treating the government finances and things like that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Janine Mayer.
		That's Janine Mayer in Texas, Dallas, Texas, joining us.
		Let's hear from Larry.
		Larry in Illinois, Republican line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Several of the comments I've heard about Mr. Hedgehog's alcoholic problem, those people don't know Jack, you know what, when they're talking.
		When you have sobriety, you go through the steps and you ask forgiveness from God and you admit your problems and sins to other individuals to be forgiven.
		Now, if he went through that or even if he didn't go through that, some other program, I don't believe it should be brought up because these people don't know what they're talking about.
		And you want to talk about alcoholisms.
		I don't know a whole lot of the stories, but I hear that the Congress seem to drink an awful lot at night together.
		So I think we ought to give Pete a chance.
		And as far as him not knowing anyone, I'm Fox Newswatcher.
		And he's interviewed and talked to an awful lot of people in the military.
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		And I believe that he has 20 to 50 Navy SEALs going to be there for him because they know him personally.
unidentified		Now, if you're calling him a bum, then you're calling the Navy SEALs a bum.
unidentified		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Larry, there.
		Thank you, Larry.
		Let's hear from Patrick.
		He's in Ohio, independent line.
		Patrick in Ohio.
		One more time for Patrick.
		Okay, we'll try Rhonda.
		Rhonda in Illinois, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hi.
		You know, it is amazing to me that even when this guy's mother came out, and said what she said, the abuse of women, that he puts his power over women.
		It isn't surprising me that Donald Trump likes him because of what he's done to women.
		I mean, even you take Trump's last name, his father, his grandfather, and his grandmother, who all lived under Adolf Hitler in Bavaria.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, again, how does this specifically apply to Pete Hegseth?
unidentified		I just think people ought to know what the FBI did not finish that report because Trump told him not to.
		And that, I mean, he, I mean, if you're, you've got to interview these women.
		Let them tell you who he is.
		And by the way, Trump's last name, that is about as bony as a $3 bill.
		His real last name is Duff, and I think you spell it D-U-N-F-T.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Oscar in North Carolina, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning, Pedro.
		I'm just fully in support of Pete Hegseth, and I really don't understand these people, especially veterans, calling in.
		Like a few calls back, you had this guy said he'd been in service 20 years, and Pete Hegseth, therefore, was not eligible to be what he's put up to be.
		Well, I was in service after I'm an 88-year-old veteran.
		I was in service for 25 years from 1955 to 1980.
		And, you know, I think he's fully qualified.
		And I've done a lot of tours overseas.
		And somebody a few weeks back said that if you just did an overseas tour or a combat tour, that you got a bronze star.
		Not true.
		Not a whole lot of soldiers get a bronze star.
		You have to be extra courageous for that.
		It calls for a lot of valor.
		And he has two of them.
		And we need some fresh people in there.
		And I don't think anybody can beat Higseth at that job.
		Okay.
		Thank you very much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Oscar there in North Carolina in today's New York Times on its website.
		They have a story saying that Senate Democrats Monday said that an FBI background check on Pete Hegseth, the president elects a pick to lead the Pentagon, omitted key details on major allegations against him in part because it didn't include witness interviews with critical witnesses.
		One missed opportunity came when the Bureau did not interview one of Mr. Hagseth's ex-wives before its findings were presented to senators last week, according to people familiar with the Bureau's investigation.
		The clamor comes on the eve of the confirmation hearing and days after officials from the Trump transition team briefed Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the panel's top Republican, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, its top Democrat on the FBI background check.
		Quote, there are significant gaps and inadequacies in the report, including the failure to interview some of the key potential witnesses with personal knowledge of improprieties or abuse, close quote.
		That coming from Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat from Connecticut and a member of the committee.
		Again, you'll see some of these people that we're mentioning this morning question Mr. Hegseff directly when that hearing starts convenes at 10 o'clock.
		C-SPAN 3 is where you can watch it, unfiltered and uninterrupted.
		We'll start showing you pictures from the room in the lead up around 9:30.
		At 10 o'clock, when the House comes in, we'll continue on with coverage of the House, but then you can go over to C-SPAN 3 to watch the hearing.
		You can watch it on our app, C-SPAN Now, and our website available too at c-span.org.
		If you're interested in seeing what questions will be asked of Mr. Hegseff today.
		And South Carolina, we will hear from Todd.
		He's in Spartanburg, Independent Line.
unidentified		Question.
unidentified		Hello.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Hello.
		You know, when Trump won, the first thing that came to my mind was, get ready for the chaos.
		And, well, that's exactly what's going to happen.
		And I won't be surprised if all the fools that none of the Republicans went into office.
		We shall see what happens.
		But I won't be able to watch any news for the next four years every time Trump opens his mouth.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, how does that specifically relate to either the special counsel report or the confirmation hearing, which we've been talking about?
unidentified		Oh, geez.
		Oh, geez.
		What?
		We're not supposed to delve into the man's background.
		Of course we are.
		Nobody that Trump wants should be given the keys to Washington, for instance.
		Anyway, Kudu Walk.
		I talk of the chaos.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Rick is next.
		Rick in Missouri, Democrats line.
		Hello.
unidentified		I just wanted to say that as the new administration comes in and Congress comes in, I spent a lot of time in LA looking at the fires, looking at the devastation, just reminding me of this regular citizen of the world.
		Yep, and just reminding me of all the citizens in Gaza, people over in Ukraine.
		We see devastation.
		I'm not talking about politics.
		I'm just talking about regular humans and the world.
		It's just really difficult to do.
		Well, call her again those people who might be living too.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Rick there.
		Let's go to Heather.
		Heather in Michigan, Republican line.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		I grew up a Democrat.
		You know, I voted Republican this time because of all the chaos right now going on in the world.
		Trump, I didn't like him, but he is a strong man.
		You can see it.
		I don't understand why these people are just like don't really realize what the people voted for Trump.
		We voted for him.
		And Pete Hegseth is one of Trump's picks.
		As much as I don't care for Trump, I think we need to go with Trump's cabinet, his own picks.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, if you don't care for the president-elect, why not care for the people he appoints to positions?
unidentified		Because I do care about the president-elect.
		I don't like the way he's so hard on things, but we need that.
		And Pete Hegseth is a very good pick, I believe, for his position.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why is that?
unidentified		I guess it would be because I've seen the weaponization of the DOJ and all of that, what they did to Trump.
unidentified		And actually, that's what turned me from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Heather there in Michigan.
		One of the people interested, by the way, in this special counsel's report is highlighted in the Washington Times this morning.
		This is the Attorney General of Arizona.
		And a story by Tom Howell there in the Times saying that her name is Chris Mays.
		She told the Justice Department Monday she wants special counsel reports to support her prosecution of President-elect Trump's allies for trying to overturn the 2020 election.
		Ms. Mays, in a letter to the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, said that while Mr. Smith's cases against Mr. Trump were Mr. Trump were dismissed and the special counsel resigned from his post, she is moving full steam ahead with an election subversion case against 18 defendants, including 11 so-called fake electors.
		Quote, today my office has one of the only remaining cases that includes charges against national actors, she wrote.
		I have held steadfast to prosecuting the grand jury's indictment because those who tried to subvert democracy in 2020 must be held accountable.
		Again, that's the comments from the Attorney General, Arizona's Attorney General, concerning the special counsel's report.
		When it comes to Pete Hegseff, this is a guy texting us.
		He's in Oklahoma.
		Pete is a great pick, a dedicated and twice decorated warrior.
		It's well known that most generals and high-ranking officers have political ambitions and usually war hawks.
		He is a Princeton graduate and will be loyal to Trump in America.
		And to the viewers said he was not an Elder Statesman's.
		That's why he should get the job.
		Again, texting us is available to you too if you want to do that 202748-8003.
		Let's go to Ernie.
		Ernie in Nevada, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hello.
		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		Thank you for your job, for your service.
		I'd like to thank all vets.
		And I can see that people in politics, the most of them, can't tell the truth to save their ass.
		But I voted straight Republican.
		I'm tired of what the Democrats have done to this country.
		I can't take it anymore.
		I've been here 59 years.
		I came from Cuba and just to clarify, you are a Democrat.
		I am a Democrat.
		I voted straight Republican because I'm tired of being lied to.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If that's the case, how does that apply to either the Hagseth confirmation or the special counsel report?
unidentified		Special counsel, because they can't tell the truth.
unidentified		Pete Hegseth will help because I could see that what Trump is doing is trying to help this country.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Ernie there in Nevada giving us his thoughts.
		One of the stories actually that we're not talking about, at least we've not mentioned this morning, but at least could have some impact over the next 24 to 48 hours.
		This coming out of Qatar, this is Reuters reporting that negotiators were meeting there today, hoping to finalize deals of a plan to end the war in Gaza after U.S. President Joe Biden indicated a ceasefire and hostage deal was imminent.
		Cutter's foreign ministry spokesperson told a news conference that talks and the final details were underway.
		And this was the closest point to a deal reached over the past months.
		Again, he highlighted those, the president highlighted as he talked about his foreign policy accomplishments during his term in office, talking about efforts in the Middle East as well.
		Here's a portion from that speech yesterday.
joe biden ▲ ● ▼		Look, folks, the United States should take full advantage of our diplomatic and geopolitical opportunities we've created to keep bringing countries together to deal with challenges posed by China.
		To make sure Putin's war ends in a just and lasting peace for Ukraine and to capitalize on a new moment for a more stable, integrated Middle East.
		To do that, the next administration must make sure the fall of Assad does not lead to the resurgence of ISIS in Syria across the region.
		It must carry forward the commitment that America will never, never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.
		On the war between Israel and Hamas, we're on the brink of a proposal that I laid out in detail months ago finally coming to fruition.
		I have learned in many years of public service to never, never, never ever give up.
		So I spoke to Prime Minister Visual yesterday.
		I spoke to Amir Qatar today.
		I look forward to speaking with President Sisi soon.
		We're pressing hard to close this.
		The deal we have a structure would free the hostages, halt the fighting, provide security to Israel, and allow us to significantly surge humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians who suffered terribly in this war that Hamas started.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The president spoke about other foreign policy highlights during his four years in office.
		You can see that speech on C-SPAN.
		Let's hear from Leo in Delaware, our independent line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, good morning, and thank you for Cease Hub.
		Following up on an earlier caller talking about how C-SPAN kind of reveals its left lean, it's leaning to the left.
		I hear him.
		And here's a topic maybe you could cover in the last week of the president's term.
		David Weiss released his report, I believe, yesterday.
		That's a blockbuster.
		I think we ought to devote an hour just to that report.
		Thank you very much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Brian.
		Brian in Florida, Republican line.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hi.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Okay.
		I just wanted to say a few things about the history of our country.
		We did not get where we just got with the ideas that are being generated these past four years.
		This is a country that was founded on conservative principles that God and country are primary and all this other liberal stuff is fine, but don't put it in the military because the military is becoming weak.
		They're infested with DEI and wokeism.
		And the military has to stay tough to protect our country.
		And if the special forces are on Texas's side, that's all I need to know because we need a strong military, and we don't need people that are not ready for war because these are tough times.
		And that's all I have to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Walter up next in California Democrats line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Walter.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		Thank you for my call.
		I just want to say about Trump's all his confirmation, all his people for confirmation.
		These are all good old boy, good old girl, white, white ring appointees.
		No minority in this country with those backgrounds will have any chance of being confirmed.
		It just doesn't make any sense at all.
		And therefore, these people to call in and just excuse it, like it's okay.
		Like, you know, this is the way things.
		No, it's not.
		This is not how America is supposed to be operating right now.
		You can put some people that are in charge, knowledgeable, know what they're talking about, and have the country and the flag at, you know, forefront.
		All this good old boy good old stuff is obvious, and it's not going to help this country at all.
		And people should wake up to that and acknowledge that.
		Everybody needs to be involved.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One more call.
		This is from John, also in California, Independent Line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning.
		The United States Constitution stakes out three discrete branches of government.
		Trump is the executive.
		He is not supreme ruler.
		The executive acts as a manager, an executive.
		And so for Trump to think, or Americans to think that senators who have a job, advise and consent, have to do exactly what the supreme ruler, and that's what Trump thinks he is, is wrong.
		It's just not designed like that.
		It's designed that each one of the branches of government have their own discrete function.
		Trump is supposed to function as a manager, not a supreme ruler.
		His choices are ludicrous.
		They're absurd.
		Trump thinks like a third grader.
		That's all I need to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		John in California, finishing off this hour of calls.
		For those of you who participated, thank you again.
		At 9.30 is when we start our coverage, our coverage ending a little early to show you a little bit of the room as it fills out in the Senate Armed Services Committee.
		When it comes to 10 o'clock and that hearing started, starting, you'll go to C-SPAN 3 to watch it.
		You can watch it on our app, C-SPANNOW, and also on our website at c-span.org.
		Pete Hegseth is the center of attention for today.
		Joining us next to talk about what he faces in that confirmation hearing is Leo Shane with Military Times.
		We'll talk about some of the questions that will be asked by senators and a little bit of the background of Mr. Hegseth as well.
		Later on in the program, the House set to debate legislation focusing on transgender athletes.
		We'll talk about that with Massachusetts Democrat Laurie Trajan.
		Put your hand later in the program.
		All those coming up on Washington Journal.
unidentified		Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
		Hi, Harry F. Kirland.
		You solemnly swear.
		I will faithfully execute, I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.
		The office of President of the United States.
		And will to the best of my ability.
		And will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend.
		Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
		The Constitution of the United States.
joe biden ▲ ● ▼		So help me God.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Congratulations, Mr. President.
unidentified		Watch C-SPAN's all-day inauguration coverage on Monday, January 20th, including the historic swearing-in as Donald Trump takes office as the 47th President of the United States.
unidentified		c-span democracy unfiltered democracy is always an unfinished creation Democracy is worth dying for.
george h w bush ▲ ● ▼		Democracy belongs to us all.
bill clinton ▲ ● ▼		We are here in the sanctuary of democracy.
george w bush ▲ ● ▼		Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies.
barack obama ▲ ● ▼		American democracy is bigger than any one person.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected.
joe biden ▲ ● ▼		We are still at our core a democracy.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
unidentified		The C-SPAN Bookshelf Podcast Feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of C-SPAN's podcasts that feature nonfiction 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, booknotes plus, and QA.
		Listen to C-SPAN's bookshelf podcast feed today.
		You can find that 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.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Leo Shane.
		He's deputy editor at Military Times here to talk about the confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseph today.
		Good morning.
		Thanks for joining us.
unidentified		Oh, no problem.
		Going to be a busy day.
		What's the focus?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think senators are going to be most interested in today?
unidentified		Well, it's going to be interesting.
		I think there's going to be two different hearings going on this morning.
		One is going to be the Democrats really attacking Pete Hegseth and the Trump administration to a certain extent.
		But we've heard from Democrats over the last few days just saying that Hagseth is woefully unqualified.
		They think that he doesn't have the leadership experience.
		There's too many controversies in the background.
		So I think when the Democrats are questioning, we're going to see a real concerted effort to attack his resume, to attack his background, to question why he was even nominated in the first place.
		The Republican side is more of a wildcard.
		Most of the Republicans on the Southern Armed Services Committee have come out and said that they support the Hag Seth pick and that they like him as a candidate here, as a nominee here.
		So I'm not sure how much they're going to get into his background, probably more just general questions related to President Trump's plans, a lot of the anti-woke and anti-DEI conversations there, and just his promises to get into lethality.
		I don't know how specific they'll get with those policies or if it'll just be the sort of general approach we'll see.
		And then the real wildcard in all of this is Senator Journey Ernst.
		I mean, she seems to be the swing vote in all this.
		If Pete Hegseth can't get her support, he can't even advance out of committee, and it seems like his nomination is sunk.
		So all eyes are going to be on her watching.
		What does she ask for?
		What are her concerns?
		She's met with him a few times, but does she start to bring up questions about women in combat?
		Does she start to bring up questions about his ability to lead an organization this big?
		We'll see in a few hours.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You cover the Pentagon when it comes to this management question.
		Mr. Hagseff is qualified.
		If he gets the position, what does he face management-wise, and what does his experience bring to the table?
unidentified		Yeah, look, this is a huge organization.
		We're talking 800,000-plus civilian employees on top of the 2 million service members that he'll be overseeing.
		It's a $850 billion organization, and he just doesn't have anything in his background that's like this.
		He's run a few veterans nonprofits.
		He has managed small units within the National Guard and his military experience.
		So he's not completely without any leadership experience.
		But in the past, we've seen individuals who are nominated for this who have run a major organization, who have run part of the Department of Defense, maybe Secretary of the Army or some sort of background in that way.
		So this is, you know, this is what we're going to hear from Democrats.
		This is an overwhelming job for someone who hasn't managed more than a few dozen people and really doesn't have any of that large-scale federal background in managing departments.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That was one of the highlights of the statement from Jack Reed, the ranking member of the committee.
		He said this today's meeting, this is the meeting he had with Mr. Hagseth, did not relieve my concerns about his lack of qualifications and raise more questions than answers.
		As with any nominee for this critical position, Mr. Hagseth must undergo the same high level of scrutiny as prior Secretary of Defense nominees.
		To that end, how does Mr. Hagseth compare to some of those other nominees when it comes to experience and background?
unidentified		Well, look, I mean, President Trump has said that he wants outsiders.
		He wants a different kind of candidate for a different kind of nominee for all of all these positions.
		So you're not going to find folks.
		I mean, I think if you go through a lot of his nominees, they don't compare the same way as we've seen traditional folks who would serve in a presidential cabinet.
		You know, this is someone who is best known for his role as a Fox News commentator, who has written several books that have talked about the importance of refocusing the military, getting it back to lethality, getting it away from the social issues and the social side of things.
		That appeals to Trump and a lot of Trump supporters who have said that Washington is broken and needs to be shaken up.
		But, you know, what you're going to hear from the Democrats today and what you're hearing from critics is there's just a level of basic management, of understanding how to get out there with policies, how to develop some of these long-term ideas.
		Frankly, how to work with allies, how to go overseas and have meeting with the leader of Ukraine or the leader of the Chinese military forces and have some interactions with them.
		So it really is a completely different resume.
		Depending on where you're coming from, that's either a plus or a minus.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Leo Shane joining us here to talk about this hearing and Pete Hegseth at the center.
		If you want to ask him questions about the hearing and the candidate, 202748-8000 for Democrats, 202748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202748-8002.
		If you want to text us your questions, you can do that at 202-748-8003.
		Mr. Shane, this is what Roger Wicker had to say about Pete Hegseth, saying, I will continue to be supportive of the president-elect's nominees.
		Mr. Hagseth and I also discussed how deterring the, quote, axes of aggressors will require making important improvements at the Pentagon.
		Specifically, we talked about the need to increase our investments and simultaneously change the Pentagon's acquisition bureaucracy amongst many other policies.
		It seems like a total different tack of interest, at least when it comes to Mr. Wicker.
unidentified		Yeah, and it's interesting because that, I mean, he mentions a couple things there that really Hegseth does not have any experience with.
		Again, the Pentagon acquisition process, this has been a major issue for years, just how the money is spent, how much waste, fraud, and abuse is in there.
		It's something that's completely foreign to any of the background that Pete Hegseth has.
		But again, President Trump and some of his allies have said we need people who are going to come in and shake things up.
		And Hagseth has said we need to make the Pentagon more efficient.
		We need to focus on the things we need to focus on.
		So at least from a rhetoric side, it makes sense for Chairman Wicker to be saying, hey, if he's talking about looking at our adversaries and making sure the military is stronger, that's exactly what I want too.
		And frankly, you know, a lot of this is President Trump looking for someone who's going to enact his policies, who's going to be his surrogate there, not just somebody who can be the manager while he's paying, but really just echo exactly what he wants.
		So somebody coming in with a blank slate from his perspective is more appealing because he's going to have to follow what President Trump says.
		He's going to have to execute his policies and his plans.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do we know about the people that will be nominated alongside Mr. Hagseth, who may be helping him quite a bit in this role, should he get the position?
unidentified		Yeah, again, it's a lot of folks who don't have much experience with the Pentagon, with the Defense Department, a few folks who have done defense contracting jobs, but a lot of folks who are coming in with business experience rather than military experience.
		So again, we'd be looking at some sort of level of shake-up in terms of what are they going to be focused on?
		Are they going to understand some of the traditions and norms of how the military has been run?
		Or is it going to be this idea of running the Pentagon more like a business, which is always interesting when you're talking about issues of national security and just the scope and the scale of what happens there?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, I forgot to mention that active and former military.
		If you want to give your comments too, 202-748-8003 is the number you can call and make those comments known.
		Let's hear from Matt on this hearing today featuring Pete Hegseth for Leo Shane.
		Matt's in Virginia, Democrats lying.
		You're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		So I guess my question for the guest is, you know, looking back in the previous administration of Donald Trump, what was the Secretary of Defense doing to protect us from Donald Trump's excesses?
		He stopped him from using the military to go into cities.
		He stopped them from firing on protesters.
		He stopped them from pulling out of Afghanistan randomly without really any kind of plan.
		I think, are we looking at loyalists who will do what he says without thinking, or are we looking at people who actually will stop the president from making really horrible decisions and unconstitutional ones at that?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Matt there in Virginia.
unidentified		Yeah, look, I don't think that Pete Hegseth is going to be that independent of an operator here.
		We saw that with General Mattis when he was Secretary of Defense.
		We saw that.
		I mean, Trump churned through his defense secretaries during the first term here, in part because they weren't following exactly what he wanted.
		So I think that's part of the appeal of Pete Hegseth.
		He has been a big supporter of President Trump.
		He has said that he will be following what he says.
		And I wouldn't expect him to be as much of a check.
		Now, we'll hear today.
		I'm sure some of these issues are going to come up.
		They're going to be brought up.
		Does this mean that Pete Hegseth is going to blindly obey everything that Donald Trump says?
		That remains to be seen exactly how he executes this.
		But we're looking at someone who is much more, in the caller's words, of a loyalist than someone who is an independent voice coming in to bring new ideas to the Trump administration.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Debbie is in Maryland and joins us on our live for Republicans.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Debbie.
unidentified		Hello.
		I was wondering, I think Pete should be, I think Pete would be a good pick.
		Look at Lloyd Austin.
		He disappeared for, what, three days?
		No one knew where he was at.
		Now, what did he do to get that job?
		Did they vet him?
		So Secretary Austin, who was the Defense Secretary for the full four years here of the Biden administration, he has extensive military background, has the very traditional resume that you'd expect in all of that.
		But look, he's been a target of Republicans here, too.
		The caller mentioned the three days.
		This was the health issue that he had, didn't inform folks.
		That raised issues.
		It really is a pretty stark contrast between what you'd expect from a nominee, someone who'd served in high-level Pentagon positions, someone who has a lot of knowledge of the institution, someone who worked their way up and has a full life there, as opposed to Hagseth, who did serve in the National Guard.
		Don't want to denigrate his military service in any way, but it's just not the same level of Defense Department bureaucracy and administration, and not the same level of high-level management of large groups of troops that we've seen from those other nominees and secretaries in the past.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Hagseth has spoken quite a bit about wokeness in the military.
		What does he mean by that?
		And how does that express itself in the military?
unidentified		Yeah, he has said that the military has lost its way in terms of not focusing just on lethality and just focusing on shooting guns and getting rid of bad guys here.
		And there's a lot of controversy, not just with him, but between conservatives and Democrats on Capitol Hill in this.
		But specifically, he has criticized the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law.
		He's criticized the decision to allow women into combat roles.
		He's criticized a lot of these diversity programs that have been put in place in the last four years and beyond that, and said that all of these are making the military weaker.
		Military leaders have come out and said, all of these have made us stronger.
		They've helped with recruiting.
		They've helped give us a more diverse group of people who are working.
		That gives us better perspective, gives us better ideas.
		So now, Mr. Hagseth has walked back some of his comments in recent days.
		I think if you go back and read his books, it's very inflammatory language.
		He has suggested, at least to some senators, that he's not looking to repeal the ability for women to serve in combat roles.
		He's not looking to kick people out of the military initially, but he's going to get questions on that today.
		What do you mean by woke is a great question for some of the Democrats because they're going to say you're talking about getting rid of half of our recruiting classes.
		You're talking about ways that we're less like America and more of a white male traditional stereotypical military that maybe isn't appealing anymore in a world where there's a lot of different security and challenges out there.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When there's a transition are there?
		Do key people usually leave for the exit doors just because they disagree with the person coming in charge?
		And, if that's the case, could that happen this time around?
unidentified		There's there's a certain number of political positions, especially within dod, that will.
		Those folks will all leave it, especially from the last uh time that president Trump came in um it's.
		It's just not typical for a lot of those positions to stay in place, although secretary of Defense has stayed in place in past administrations um, from time to time, I think, in the transition from Bush to to Obama, with uh, with secretary Gates there so um, but I think your question more points to the, those career staff, those folks who who aren't supposed, you know, aren't required to be, you know, submitting their resignations and be considered um, and we we don't typically see a lot of turnover there.
		Again, there's normal turnover.
		Sometimes, as administrations come, people will will review and say hey it's, you know, maybe it's time for me, maybe I don't like this person as much.
		But Trump has really redefined this and um.
		You know, I don't think we saw as much of it the last time uh, he was inaugurated.
		This time there's all these rumors about, will he require civil servants to to sign loyalty pledges?
		What will it mean to be part of this?
		Um, will there be the checks and balances there?
		I think a lot of folks last time Trump became president felt a lot of confidence serving under defense secretary Mattis.
		Um, I don't know if they'll have that same confidence serving under a defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, only because he doesn't have the same gravitas, doesn't have that same traditional and and by design, isn't supposed to have that same traditional resume.
		Transitional bridge.
		There it's, you know he's, he's a pick designed to shake things up.
		So that could that could scare some folks away and say hey, do I want to do?
		I want to do four more years of this, or is it time for me to time for me to take my retirement and go figure out something else?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Leo Shang, joining us, by the way, with the Military Times here to talk about that hearing that you'll see later today on C-span.
		10 o'clock is when it's set to start our coverage starting at 930 here at C-span.
		Let's go to John John's in Connecticut, Independent LINE.
unidentified		Yes, good morning sir.
		Uh mr, mr Shane, did you ever wear the uniform?
		I did not, so how are you so critical of Pete and others when you never wore the uniform, like I did?
		Give the man a chance.
		I don't think i'm ready.
		Sorry, go ahead sir, let him finish.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, go ahead sir, finish your thought.
unidentified		My thought is, give Pete Hegseth a chance, like they gave loyal uh Lloyd Austin.
		When you say loyalty, everybody that was under Trump's administration, Biden's administration, was a loyalist.
		Why not?
		What's wrong with that happening?
		For for Trump, we want people that are going to defend our country, sir.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's John there in Connecticut.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Yeah, and I don't think I'm being overly critical of Pete Hegseth here.
		I think I'm trying to lay out that he is a very different kind of nominee than what we've seen in the past.
		But obviously, there are a lot of values, a lot of things that he brings that President Trump values here, and that ability to be a strong face, strong voice.
		I mean, we've seen this with other Trump nominees.
		He definitely likes the TV performance side of this.
		I don't mean that in a denigrating way.
		He sees that as an important way to get his message out and get that communicated.
		So, and to the loyalist point, again, that was the caller's word there, but the earlier caller's word, you know, I believe I'm trying to say here, I don't think he's going to be independent from President Trump here.
		We have seen some level of independence.
		Again, for whatever criticisms you have of Secretary Austin, we know that there was some distance between him and President Biden when he didn't report his health issues and when he didn't, you know, had some conflict there.
		So I don't think you'll see that sort of thing with Pete Hegseth.
		But I also don't think you're going to see a big pushback if President Trump comes in and says, hey, should we talk about invading Mexico?
		Should we talk about invading Greenland?
		I think you're going to find a Secretary Hagseth who's trying to find solutions for that rather than offering counterbalanced arguments against it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We will hear next from Cynthia.
		Cynthia in Cleveland, Ohio, Democrats line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, I would like to ask the guest one question.
		If you disagreed strongly with Trump on any issue, would you be comfortable saying that right now?
		Would you be comfortable disagreeing with him on a public forum?
		Do you mean as a candidate like Pete Hegseth or as a reporter?
		I mean as you, in your position that you hold right now.
		I mean, so I would say that as a reporter, I'm trying to call it down the middle either way.
		It's not really my opinion.
		I'm trying to let folks know just what's going on here and what's happening.
		There have been plenty of times that we've pointed out where President Trump has violated, has gone against the norms of what happened here.
		But look, I mean, it's, I think in this case, with this candidate, it's a very unusual candidate, but this isn't the kind of thing where reporters, you and I, should be saying he's good or he's bad.
		We're trying to put out here just the differences between him and what we've traditionally seen.
		And, you know, we know that President Trump is a non-traditional presidential candidate.
		He's someone who's been convicted of a felony.
		He's got a very different background than most presidents have come in here.
		But we know that part of the appeal to the American public is that he is shaking things up.
		He is looking at things in a completely different way.
		So if not Pete Hegseth, I would not expect him to go back and pick a very traditional candidate.
		He may go with a sender.
		He may go with someone, we heard Ron DeSantis' name.
		Again, that would be a non-traditional pick, somebody with a little bit more experience, somebody who's managed an entire state, who's managed, but still a very different pick than what we've seen from other past administrations.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Walk us through the process of what we'll see today when it comes to the actual hearing itself.
unidentified		So typically these hearings can be a little sleepy for folks like I who cover them.
		I assume this one will not be.
		This is going to be a pretty high-profile and pretty crowded hearing room over there.
		What we usually get are opening statements from the chairman, from the ranking member, so we get both sides, and then a statement from the candidate, usually an introduction from someone who gives a brief overview of his resume.
		And then that nominee statement is a chance for him to sort of go through what he wants to be talking about, what he thinks the priorities are going to be.
		And then each member of the committee will get seven minutes to question Mr. Hagseth on whatever they would like.
		It could be on relevant topics.
		We've heard that the Democrats are trying to coordinate their questions because there are so many things they want to bring up.
		They want to make sure they're not repeating and getting stuck on too many, getting stuck on too many issues.
		The Republicans could be bringing up, you know, just, you know, in some cases, especially ones that aren't this high profile, we've had supporters of the candidate just say, look, I think you're great.
		You know, congratulations.
		I'm going to, you got my vote.
		And then that's pretty much it.
		Since this is so high profile, since this is the first confirmation, and since there are so many issues with the Defense Department and National Security, I would expect everyone to be using their full seven minutes.
		Whether or not we'll get a second round, I don't know.
		I would assume that Chairman Wicker is going to want to limit how much time Democrats have to question and to grill Pete Hegseth.
		So we'll see.
		And then it's sort of up in the air when the committee will vote for that.
		We've heard that there may be a vote scheduled for Inauguration Day in terms of seeing if he can advance out of the committee.
		President Trump has been pushing for quick action on this, see how quickly they can get his SECTF in place.
		I think we should have an idea by the end of the week whether or not he survives this nomination.
		It really may hinge on just a couple of Republicans in the Senate here.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If it goes to the full Senate, then do the numbers there work in his favor automatically when it comes to his ability to gain the position?
unidentified		You would think so, especially if Joni Ernst, who seems to be the swing vote, has already gone in favor of him.
		We've heard that there may be as many as six or seven Republican senators who have concerns, but if they start to see folks like Joni Ernst or Susan Collins fall in line and say, no, my concerns have been calmed and I feel better about this, I have a feeling the others will also go.
		By the same token, if Joni Ernst comes out, it would not surprise me if there are a few other Republicans who say, yeah, okay, like, you know, I don't have those questions answered.
		There's also the third possibility here, which is that this just drags on for a little bit.
		You know, we've sort of thought that because President-elect Trump is pushing for a quick vote, because everyone's been focused on this, we will see a quick vote.
		It's quite possible that Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Reed come back and say, actually, we need to have some more conversations.
		We need to talk about some of these FBI reports that everyone hasn't reviewed.
		We need a few more weeks here to talk about this, and we don't get any clear decision before Inauguration Day, maybe even the middle of next week.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you elaborate on that FBI report?
		What eyeballs have been on it?
		Who's actually seen it?
unidentified		Yeah, as of right now, it's just those two, I believe, Chairman Wicker and the Ranking Member Reed, Jack Reid.
		And in past tradition, they have been the ones to review these FBI reports.
		Democrats have argued because of some of the high-profile nature of some of the controversies here, because of the importance of the position that Pete HiggsF is nominated for, that it should be a little wider distributed here, that all the members of the committee should see it, or at least some others who request can see parts of it.
		And there is precedent for seeing parts of it or it being shared on some level, but the Trump transition team has really pushed back, said, look, this is, you know, let's follow the norms here.
		The norms are the chairman and the ranking member review this, then make sure there's no gigantic red flags, and then you move on, and we don't have to share every bit of background detail and every little scandal that we try and tease out with anybody who wants it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Otis.
		Otis is in South Carolina on our line for independence.
		Good morning.
		You're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Good morning to you.
		I would just like to know how many secretaries of defense did Trump have in his first administration.
		And I would like to know why they did they resign or did they were they fired by Trump?
		Because Trump wants nothing but yes men.
		And I think that's what's going to happen with Hedgekid or whatever his last name is.
		Yeah, could you tell me how many Secretary of Defense Trump had in his first administration?
		Yeah, I'm trying to remember now.
		I should have looked this up right before I came on because it is a little harder to keep count.
		So I believe it was four confirmed, and then he had a couple of acting in there as well.
		Secretary Mattis was his first one.
		He was probably the highest profile of the group in there.
		And he did resign over conflicts he had with the Trump administration, with President Trump himself, and just feeling that he wasn't acting properly.
		He wasn't listening to the advice here.
		And that is going to be one of Democrats' big concerns: can Pete Hegseth be the one that says, hey, there are certain ways that U.S. troops can be used.
		They're not used on, this is one of the high-profile issues with General Milley when he was chairman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff was the idea of using U.S. military folks against protesters on domestic soil.
		That's a big no-no.
		That's against military rules, but Trump was pushing for it, and there were folks who were pushing back against him.
		Will those folks pushing back against him be in the room this time, or will Pete Hegseth be a, as the caller said, not me, a yes man, somebody who is a loyalist, somebody who's responding to him?
		And, you know, is that also what part of the country wants too?
		I mean, there was a lot of turmoil in the first Trump administration over this because it felt like he was taking some traditional picks.
		Again, General Mattis, James Mattis, very highly respected, you know, long military career.
		At first, people loved him, but then when he was pushing back on Trump, you had a lot of folks who turned on him and said, hey, you know, he's not executing what the president's asked for.
		We voted for the president.
		We didn't vote for the Secretary of Defense.
		So I think there's a large portion of the country who says, yeah, Pete Hegseth may be somebody who's just going to tell Trump, here's what, you know, I'm going to do what you want to do.
		But that's what I want from the president's cabinet picks.
		On the other side, critics are saying, no, there's got to be somebody in the room who, if there's a terrible idea, who's got to be a counterbalance, you've got to have all the views and understand the ramifications of what might happen if you go against these norms.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Catherine.
		Catherine in Vermont, Democrats line.
		Go ahead, your last call.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning.
		Thank you, Leo, for your time this morning.
		John from Connecticut called in and made a comment about giving Hegseth a chance like we did Lloyd Austin.
		And there's a thing called acumen that Lloyd Austin possesses more in his pinky fingernail than Heg Seth.
		And that is something that I want in the Secretary of Defense.
		So giving him a chance and making that comparison to Lloyd Austin, who has more gravitas, who has more military experience and particularly acumen in the military is who I, or someone like him, is who I would prefer.
		And that is, I don't see that in Hegseth.
		So yeah, John in Connecticut, just understand that there's a stark difference here.
		And thank you, Leo, for making that stark difference explicit here.
		Thank you.
		Have a great day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Catherine in Vermont.
unidentified		Yeah, and look, I think that really is, you know, that summarizes where we're at with this.
		This is a non-traditional pick.
		This is somebody who does not have the Pentagon resume that you would expect in here.
		But, you know, to the earlier caller's point, it's also somebody who maybe comes in with fresh ideas, who maybe can shake things up.
		That can be good.
		That can be scary.
		You know, if you want to renovate your house, you can paint it or you can burn it down.
		Both of those have a very different house at the end.
		So which are you going to get here?
		You're going to get somebody who comes in with new ideas and can help with the acquisition process and can help with the recruiting issues that the military has dealt with.
		Or you're going to get somebody who comes in and has rhetoric that scares people away and actually makes the military weaker because we've got a smaller force.
		It's harder to recruit and it's harder to have that public faith in it.
		We'll see.
		And I think that's the core of what we're really going to hear today is those two levels of questions, assuming that we get to the policy side and we don't just get waylaid into some of the controversies and some of his past indiscretions.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Before we let you go, we were supposed to have another hearing today featuring Doug Collins to become the head of Veterans Affairs.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the status of that?
unidentified		That's going to be held next Tuesday, thankfully, so I don't have to be in two places at once and lose my mind trying to cover both.
		But it's expected to be a much less controversial hearing than today, but because of some delays in FBI paperwork, they could not have that hearing today.
		Senator Jerry Moran, who's the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, made it clear that this is not any sort of indictment or attack on Doug Collins.
		This is all a problem with the FBI.
		And we've heard this with several of the nominees now.
		Paperwork's not in.
		They don't want to move ahead without it.
		So Doug Collins next Tuesday and come back in.
		We can talk about that then.
		Be a nice big hearing talking about his past experience with veterans communities.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You can see our guest work at militarytimes.com, Leo Shane, the deputy editor of the Military Times.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for your time.
unidentified		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We will come up and next and hear from Massachusetts Democrat Laurie Trahan.
		She's going to talk about legislation that's expected on the floor, taking a look at the topic of transgendered athletes.
		That's up next.
		Later on in the program, Heritage Action's Ryan Walker on their efforts to ensure that President-elect Trump's nominees for the cabinet get approved.
		Those coming up on Washington Journal.
unidentified		With a presidential inauguration set for January 20th, watch the conclusion of the American History TV series, Historic Inaugural Speeches.
		Listen to inaugural speeches from Franklin Roosevelt through Barack Obama.
		On Saturday, hear inaugural speeches by President Bill Clinton in 1993.
		There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.
		President George W. Bush in 2001.
george w bush ▲ ● ▼		And this is my solemn pledge.
george w bush ▲ ● ▼		I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity.
unidentified		And President Barack Obama in 2009.
barack obama ▲ ● ▼		The challenges we face are real.
barack obama ▲ ● ▼		They are serious and they are many.
unidentified		They will not be met easily or in a short span of time.
		But know this, America, they will be met.
		Watch historic inaugural speeches Saturday at 7 p.m. Eastern on American History TV on C-SPAN 2.
		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, StudentCam 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 20th, 2025.
		Be up to date in the latest in publishing with Book TV's podcast about books.
		With current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists, as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews.
		You can find About Books on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Representative Lori Trahan joining us, Democrat from Massachusetts.
		She's the co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.
		She's also a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
		First time joining us on this program.
		Thanks for joining us.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're looking at legislation later today, specifically looking at an aspect of the athlete world.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What is that legislation?
unidentified		Well, it's titled Protecting Girls and Women in Sports.
		But, you know, there's, I wish what we were talking about are the issues that so many folks in my district want me to work on, which is reducing their out-of-pocket costs, making sure that they can afford to buy a home.
		You know, this is an issue that Republicans have really latched on to and put real money behind in order to make an issue.
		And the instances of transgender athletes playing in sports is just so rare.
		So the fact that in their second week of power, House Republicans are choosing to prioritize this issue, I think, is something that I can't really explain to folks at home.
		Is there a credible concern of transgender athletes playing in some elite sports or competitive sports?
		Yes, but we have sports governing agencies who govern fairness and safety and ensure that.
		We saw that this past summer in the Paris Olympic Games where sports organizations have updated their rules in swimming and boxing and track and field and so many other sports.
		So this is, I think what I'm really concerned about is the consequences of this legislation because it's essentially a federal takeover of all sports at all levels.
		And the consequences are dangerous for my young daughters, right, who play sports because if any creep wanted to question whether they were in fact a female, my daughters would be subject to an invasive line of questioning or worse, you know, an inspection by a stranger, an adult.
		This is alarming.
		And so, you know, we'll have a debate this afternoon on the legislation, which I intend to be a part of.
		You know, I'm the only woman who played Division I sports in college.
		And so I think that, you know, it's important that we don't overreach as a federal government.
		I don't think Washington politicians should be deciding who in our country gets to play sports and who doesn't.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Just offer the act, if it were to go into law, it would amend Title IX.
		That's the federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools and education.
		It would prohibit schools from allowing transgender female athletes to participate in an athletic program or activity, quote, that is designated for women or girls.
		And then it would also define sex as, quotes, based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth.
		What's wrong with those approaches specifically?
unidentified		Well, I think in large part, there's no distinction between any level of sport.
		So basically what they're doing is they're treating a college athlete, which mind you, there are 10 transgender college athletes out of the 510,000 who participate in intercollegiate athlete athletics today.
		So this is just a, you know, this is a just a very narrow issue to focus on in your second week of Congress.
		But it would treat those athletes the same as it would a 10-year-old girl who wants to play soccer on the weekends with her friends.
		You know, surely we can do better.
		I don't think that there's, I don't think that this is a place where Washington politicians, some of whom have never played competitive sports, and they're really using it for attention-grabbing headlines and creating fear versus the sports governing agencies, which we have on the state level, which we have on our national level, certainly international governance as well.
		So, I mean, this is just one of those issues where Congress should not interfere with these agencies, these governing agencies, which, by the way, are comprised of experts.
		You know, some of these rules that have been updated have been done by people who have played these sports themselves in conjunction with scientists, with athletic federations, and with human rights organizations, because they have to get it right.
		And so, I think that is the path we want to continue down, not this one where we cause more damage and more harm to all girls.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our guest with us until 9 o'clock.
		And if you want to ask her questions, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		If you want to text us, you can do that at 202-748-8003.
		You mentioned this, your background in college as an athlete.
		Elaborate on that.
unidentified		So I played Division I volleyball at Georgetown.
		I was so fortunate to have that opportunity to play.
		It sort of changed the trajectory of my life.
		You know, I grew up in a family that lived paycheck to paycheck, and college was always a tense conversation.
		But, you know, I love sports, worked hard.
		You know, I grew in my high school years, which also helped.
		And I was able to play the sport that I love for four years at a highly competitive level.
		And I talk about sports at all a lot because we know the benefits of sports.
		People learn teamwork.
		You build confidence.
		You learn resilience.
		You develop lifelong friendships.
		And so it's such an important aspect of our culture.
		And it's one that I think really long and hard about, especially when it comes to fairness and safety.
		I would much prefer Congress to be talking about Title IX and how we close some of the loopholes that prevent women from participating in college athletics.
		I'd love for us to be talking about how women's sports has really taken off in the last 10 years.
		And we've seen women starting to get compensated through their name, image, and likeness and have really nurtured an incredible following and a fan base.
		That is something that has changed dramatically over my lifetime.
		And it's something that my daughters get great pleasure in watching women play sports on their TV.
		So I think that's the exciting part of women's sports, and that's what we should be celebrating.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Then the background, how does it inform them the arguments that you've probably heard that a male who identifies as a female shouldn't be playing in a female sport?
unidentified		Well, look, I am not going to invalidate the concerns of the few and the rare instances where a transgender athlete playing in college maybe transitioned after puberty, maybe has some physical advantages.
		That is a debate that we can have.
		That is something that I know these sports governing agencies are looking at.
		And they're really mindful of how to update their rules and regulations to ensure safety and fairness above all else.
		What's being swept up with all of that is that this would ban all transgender athletes at all ages.
		And so it is treating that college athlete the same as it would a 10-year-old who wants to play soccer with her friends on the weekends.
		And I will just tell you, the more dangerous aspect of this is how they're going to implement it.
		I mean, look, I have to leave my family every week and come to Washington, talk to them on FaceTime, talk to them on the phone.
		Sometimes they're, you know, sort of describing to me their fears around doing these Alice drills in school in case there's a mass shooting.
		I can't imagine also now having to talk to my daughter about somebody who needs to check to make sure they're in fact a girl.
		Think about what we're opening ourselves up to for all parents, for all young girls to have to prove.
		Anybody could lodge a complaint, an allegation.
		Any creep could say, I don't believe you.
		And now my 10-year-old has to endure an invasive line of questioning or worse, an inspection.
		I mean, this just doesn't make sense, which is why Congress shouldn't be making decisions on this very topic.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Representative Laurie Trahan joining us for this conversation.
		Let's start in Massachusetts.
		This is Janet on our line for Democrats for our guests.
		Janet, good morning.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		Yes, I would like to point out a couple of things.
		Number one is that when someone transgenders, it's the sexual component.
		Of course, there's the hormonal, all of that, but they still have the bones of a man and a woman.
		They still have the muscle mass.
		I would love to see, this may be the solution, transgender leagues.
		Let them play amongst themselves.
		It's not fair for the women.
		It's not fair for the men.
		That's my take.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Janet of Massachusetts, thanks.
unidentified		Well, thank you, Janet.
		You know, look, I think the reason why we don't hear more about this and that people aren't coming up to me in the grocery store about acting on this issue with urgency is because it is so rare and most people don't even have an interaction or an experience, you know, with this.
		And so, you know, one thing that we did see just this past summer was so many of these international sports agencies update their rules and regulation to ensure safety or to ensure, you know, fairness.
		We saw that with the Paris Olympic Games.
		So I do think that the work is already being done.
		That's going to continue.
		My argument is just let's entrust those decisions with the governing bodies that are set up and comprised of experts to continue that work, not give it to the hand, put it in the hands of politicians.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You hinted at this as a viewer off of X who asked the question, what laws already exist to protect athletes?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do any of these laws differ between public school and other private organizations?
unidentified		Absolutely.
		So there are governing sports agencies that run from your local sports, Youth Sports League to your state inter scholastic sports agencies.
		I know in Massachusetts we have the MIAA, there's the NCAA, and then there's these international organizations that govern specific sports like swimming and bicycling and track and field.
		And they have updated their laws or their rules, as many others are continuing and in the process of doing.
		So certainly there's at every level a sports governing agency that will make those decisions based on the level of sport.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Akiva, who is in New Jersey, Republican line, you're next up.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		Good morning, Representative Trehan.
		My question is: I'm a Republican, and is the Republican Party overreacting when they say that boys are competing in women's sports or that a boy could end up defeating a biological male in sports.
		That happened with Riley Gaines, and it might happen with other women.
		But as you said, it's minuscule.
		It's not that high.
		And so my question is: are they pursuing a not that popular thing?
		And what is the agenda, or excuse me, what is the alternative?
		Because if you don't have an alternative, it's really hard to come back strong and come off as more popular.
		Yeah, so thank you for the question and the comment.
		I mean, I think you're right.
		This is not, I mean, I go to my local supermarket every weekend and I do my grocery shopping.
		And the things that I get stopped in the aisle to talk about is, you know, the increased price of the grocery bill or the fact that one of my constituents' children can't afford to rent or buy a home.
		So these are the issues.
		And I think we saw that in the 2024 election.
		These are the issues that the American public wants us to work on and prioritize.
		You're right.
		This is definitely an overreach, an overreaction.
		There are 10 transgender athletes playing college sports today out of 510,000.
		Surely the NCAA and the sports governing agencies that already exist are equipped with the people and the expertise to make these decisions and to update these laws.
		This is an issue that has been pretty much fabricated by House Republicans to instill fear in parents and communities.
		And I'm not going to sit here and say that there isn't a credible concern for some competitive teams and athletes.
		I get it.
		I played Division I volleyball.
		There is validity in arguing that a transgender woman post puberty Puberty who transitions may have an advantage.
		But those laws and those rules are already being updated to deal with fairness and safety in all of the sports that we watch.
		And so I think to make it so broad to just have an all-out ban is really going to not just hurt communities and divide them in a place where sports instills joy and participation and friendships,
		but it's also going to set up really dangerous consequences for all young girls who just want to play sports and now are faced with having to prove that they are in fact a girl.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Representative South Carolina Representative Nancy Mason made news last year about legislation that would restrict where transgendered people can go as far as using facilities.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the status of that and what's the expected pushback from Democrats on that?
unidentified		Look, if I spent all my time reacting to representatives like Nancy Mace, I would lose complete sight of the reason why the people of my district in Massachusetts sent me to Congress.
		I don't get distracted by the hateful rhetoric that is just used for headline grabbing and attention seeking.
		I am focused on making sure that the people in my district can afford to pay their bills, to get ahead, to give their children a better life than they have.
		And that's what, you know, when I use the sort of the example, I grew up in a family that lived paycheck to paycheck.
		And we really did not pick our heads up to focus on what Washington was maybe debating because we couldn't.
		We didn't have the luxury.
		We were working on making sure that we could keep a roof over our head and food on our table.
		And that is the plight of most Americans in our country.
		They do not want to hear a debate around hate and things that aren't really affecting them.
		They want us to focus on the issues that matter most to them.
		And so, you know, I think it's going to be a challenge in this Congress for sure.
		But I think Democrats are really focused on what people care most about, and that's improving their economic situation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's, for Representative Laurie Trahan, who joins us, let's hear from Valerie.
		She's in New York.
		Democrats line.
		Good morning.
		Thanks for calling.
		Go ahead.
		You're on.
unidentified		Hi, Representative.
		I'm asking because I was a college athlete and my daughter is hoping to play in college as well.
		And I know that just with all of the controversies with the pen swimmer, Leah Thomas, we had Castor Semenya, the runner from South Africa.
		I have concerns about the differences.
		And I was in the military.
		I was a helicopter pilot in the military.
		I know what it's like to be, you know, a male versus a female in the military and the differences and having to prove yourself as well.
		But what are your concerns with the fact that Leah Thomas, when she transitioned, was winning every single race, just like Castor Semenya?
		And there's concerns.
		I wouldn't want my daughter to compete with women who have transitioned because there's a difference in the male body and the female body and the hormones, especially when you've gotten to that level, you don't transition to a high school.
		And I am very pro-trans.
		I know people with trans kids.
		I don't want there to be a differentiation, but there is a difference when it comes to competition.
		I guess, what are your feelings on that?
		Because I want to be inclusive.
		Yeah.
		But there's so many things we have to consider.
		Yeah, and Valerie, like you, I talk to a lot of parents who they approach this from a very rational standpoint.
		It doesn't come from a place of hate.
		They're not anti-trans.
		But there is a credible concern when there is a physical advantage that's presented in competitive sports, especially as you get older.
		And so, look, I think the international governing agencies that cover swimming already and track and field and the others that I've mentioned are updating their rules so that they can ensure safe and fair competition.
		I mean, look, there are athletes like your daughter, I'm sure, like you, who train really hard.
		And they want to be assured that on game day that the competition is going to be fair and safe.
		And I agree with you, and I've been a proponent of ensuring that that continues.
		That is a decision for our expert governing sports bodies, which we have many.
		We have international organizations that have already started that process, and it was on full display with the Paris Olympics this past summer, with the NCAA and your state of New Jersey, my state of Massachusetts.
		They are going to update these laws as necessary.
		What I'm worried about is that if you have a blanket ban, you're basically telling 10-year-old girls, trans girls, who want nothing but to play, you know, maybe weekend soccer with their friends that they can't play and that they can't have the same opportunities of playing sports at a young age with all of those attributes that you just described that our young girls have always had the ability to do.
		I don't think that that is the right call in this, you know, in this moment, and I don't think Washington politicians should take away the ability for sports governing bodies to continue their work.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This viewer, this is Dan from California or Michigan, I believe, asking, saying Washington should be making rules about local sports.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why is there a Title IX at all?
unidentified		Look, Title IX is such an important piece of legislation.
		You know, if not for Title IX, I wouldn't have been able to get a scholarship and play volleyball in college.
		Title IX has opened the door for so many women to play the sport that they love and frankly, to really keep raising the standard for sports across the board.
		I mean, if you just look at the last couple of years where the women's softball tournament, the basketball tournament, the volleyball tournament, they have really attracted enormous amount of fans, in some cases more than men's sports.
		And I think when you talk about college sports, women's sports is where we're going to see the growth.
		What paved the way for that is Title IX.
		And so it is such an important aspect of incenting women, making sure women have access to those same opportunities.
		And if anything, we need to be strengthening Title IX to ensure that those opportunities exist for women.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You talk about access to opportunities.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		College athletes have always been the question of they should be paid for their services or not.
unidentified		What do you stand on that?
		Yeah, so look, I think that NIL has been a really exciting development.
		You know, I've written legislation with Senator Chris Murphy in the Senate to ensure that as we proceed, that players have that right to earn off their name, image, and likeness.
		It has been very exciting for sports.
		I think some of the things, some of the developments that we've seen in the last couple of years are women who have gotten really lucrative deals.
		And so, you know, it's great to see that, you know, I always use the example.
		We've come such a long way.
		There's no such thing as amateur sports anymore in college.
		You know, when I was a volleyball player in college, I mean, I couldn't coach a volleyball camp because it would have jeopardized my amateur status.
		And, you know, for someone who was living paycheck to paycheck, that would have been a nice way for me to have made money and also nurture a future generation of volleyball players.
		So think of how far we've come now where not only are our women, you know, attracting more young women to their sport and just being incredible role models, but they're also getting compensated for that.
		So I think that is a great development.
		You know, there are going to be issues that come up that the NCAA and sports governing agencies are going to have to deal with in terms of how we make sure maybe Title IX applies to collectives, how we maybe rein in some of the things that we've seen in the last couple of years.
		But do I think sports is better off today than it was when I played or even yesterday?
		Absolutely.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You think Republicans can get on board with what you just said?
unidentified		You know, I hope so.
		There's been a lot of bipartisan communication around sports and the future of sports.
		You know, all you have to do is talk for a few minutes to my colleagues.
		And people are so passionate about this.
		Everybody watches college sports with their kids.
		They follow the tournaments.
		And so I think there is an opportunity, and I'm always hopeful that we're going to find common ground.
		I'll tell you, the position that I take is I just want that legislation to be pro-player.
		They're the ones who work so hard.
		They give up so much in order to play the sport that they love.
		And they're the ones who should be at the center of that debate.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One more call.
		This would be from Bonnie.
		Bonnie is an Iowa Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning.
		I'd like to address your provision that allowing males in female sports is what provides opportunity.
		There's already opportunity for everyone who wants to play sports.
		And that opportunity lies in two paths.
		If you're male, you participate on the male team.
		If you're female, you participate on a female team.
		And that's the whole premise of Title IX.
		If there were no Title IX and there weren't women's teams, you know that very few, if any, women would have the opportunity to participate in athletics at the highest level.
		It is not fair to women to say your feelings don't matter.
		The feelings of the 6'4 biological male with intact genitalia who is naked next to you in the female locker room, those feelings matter.
		Women's feelings, women's experiences matter.
		What matters most is reality.
		When you keep saying your daughters could be subject to invasive exams, you know that all it takes is a birth certificate or a cheek swab to determine sex.
		Sex is binary.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Bonnie, I apologize.
		We're running close short on time.
		Major point, we'll let our guests respond.
unidentified		So thank you, Bonnie.
		I mean, look, I think what I'd want you to take away from this conversation is that this is not an area where Congress or politicians in Washington should be deciding, you know, who gets to play sports at what level.
		And because we have governing bodies to update, and they are.
		They're working diligently on this.
		And, you know, they're experts.
		These are folks who have dedicated their lives to their sport.
		They care deeply about fairness and safety and the integrity of the sport that they oversee.
		And so those, I think the thing that gets missed in this debate is that those rules are being updated.
		This is an active conversation intranationally, nationally.
		And I think those governing existing governing structures are the ones to make these calls, not politicians in Washington.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Representative Laurie Trahan.
		She is the co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.
		Democrat from Massachusetts serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee first time on this program.
unidentified		Yes.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hope you come back.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		I hope to Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One more segment to go.
		Again, that Pete Hegseth hearing starts in about a half hour coverage on C-SPAN before it moves over at 10 o'clock to C-SPAN 3.
		Joining us next, Heritage Actions Ryan Walker on their efforts to ensure that President-elect Trump's cabinets nominated get approved.
		We'll have that conversation when the Washington Journal continues.
		I hope you had a good time.
unidentified		Experience history as it unfolds with C-SPAN's live coverage this month as Republicans take control of both chambers of Congress.
		And a new chapter begins with the swearing in of the 47th President of the United States on Monday, January 20th.
		Tune in for our live all-day coverage of the presidential inauguration as Donald Trump takes the oath of office, becoming President of the United States.
		Stay with C-SPAN this month for comprehensive live unfiltered coverage of the 119th Congress and the presidential inauguration, C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org.
		Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
		These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
		This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
		Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
		C-SPANshop.org is C-SPAN's online store.
		Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org.
		Non-fiction book lovers, C-SPAN has a number of podcasts for you.
		Listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the Afterwords podcast and on Q ⁇ A. Hear wide-ranging conversations with the non-fiction authors and others who are making things happen.
		BookNotes Plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics.
		And the About Books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews, industry updates, and bestsellers lists.
		Find all of our podcasts by downloading the free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org slash podcasts.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Ryan Walker.
		He is with Heritage Action.
		He serves as their executive vice president here to talk about the incoming Trump administration and particularly the nominees that the president-elect has chosen.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How does Heritage Action differ from the Heritage Foundation?
unidentified		It's a great question.
		Heritage Action is a C4 nonprofit organization.
		So we're a grassroots advocacy organization at our core.
		And so we recruit and activate folks around the country to advocate for conservative policy solutions in Washington, D.C.
		And that's much different than the Heritage Foundation, which is a C3 educational nonprofit.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That advocacy of your organization has turned to the nominees of President Trump, particularly making sure that they get, and what's the effort you're making?
unidentified		Yeah, it's a great question.
		So we started in December talking about the nominees and really about the timing of the cabinet confirmation process and needing to get his cabinet officials into their offices as soon as possible.
		So we have been advocating across the country in a number of states for the Senate to quickly consider these folks and to get them into these seats.
		We believe at Heritage Action that President Trump has about 18 months to accomplish a substantial portion of his agenda and show the American people that he is able to govern and that he can get the Congress behind him and put forward the policy solutions that he advocated for on the campaign trail.
		So it's got to get done very quickly.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We're going to see Pete Hegseth in the hot seat today, so to speak, with the Senate Armed Services Committee.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's your level of confidence in him being approved?
unidentified		I think he will be approved.
		I think that the confirmation hearing today will see the Democrats raise a number of the points that we've seen and heard in the media over the past six to eight weeks.
		But I think ultimately he will get confirmed.
		He is a warrior, a war fighter.
		He has been deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gitmo.
		He has a bronze star, a combat infantry badge.
		I mean, you know, his record is phenomenal, and I think ultimately he will get confirmed.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You talked about the Democrats and their concerns.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Are they not worthy of consideration in your mind when you hear about some of the issues that Mr. Hagseth has faced?
unidentified		Well, listen, I think that Hegseth in particular is a disruptor.
		That's how I would describe him.
		And when you come to Washington, much like Trump did in 2016, I think the knives come out for folks like that.
		And so I think we'll hear questions to Mr. Hegseth in the hearing, and he'll be able to answer those questions for the American people and for the senators who will ultimately consider him.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Some of the people that you're focusing on, it's an ag campaign, taking a look at the nominees, but you're focusing on states such as South Dakota, where Senator the majority leader John Thune is, Susan Collins in Maine, Tom Tillis in North Carolina.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Talk about these people and why you're focusing on them particularly.
unidentified		Yeah, we looked at who had come out in support or opposition or who had not made statements related to these nominees as of December in December.
		And so we decided on those states to, again, a soft appeal to those Republicans, encouraging them and showing them that there is support from their constituencies, their voters in those states.
		In fact, the campaign that we started in December was a petition.
		And we simply garnered signatures and we got over 100,000 people to sign that petition and we'll deliver that to the Senate.
		Again, a soft appeal, less so on the hard dollars and threats.
		It's just an appeal for them to do their job.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Senator Thun, who now is the majority leader, you're focused on Senator McConnell, the former majority or former minority leader, and then Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the soft appeals.
		I'm interested.
		Why John Thune?
unidentified		Well, he's the majority leader of the Senate, obviously, and we want him to be aware of our advocacy and desire for the timeline to be truncated to the smallest amount of time possible to get these folks into their seats.
		Historically, the timeline for nominees to get through this process has exploded.
		It's doubled since the Reagan era in the 1980s for the Senate to consider these.
		And we're very pleased, quite honestly, with John Thune's schedule for the Senate.
		They're going to work 180 days this year, which is more historically than the Senate has worked in quite some time.
		He is threatening to work on Fridays, which the Senate historically doesn't do.
		And so we're very encouraged, but we want to remind him that this is the top priority or should be the top priority of the Senate.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Susan Collins of Maine being one of those, but one of the persons to probably be a focus today is Joni Ernst, the Republican from Iowa.
unidentified		Correct.
		And in December, she had a number of meetings with Pete Hegseth in particular.
		In the second meeting, she came out and subsequently issued a statement of general support for Mr. Hegseth.
		And so we're continuing to remind her and these other senators, as you have mentioned, again, that time is of the essence.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Are you concerned that there are going to be that much pushback against the president's nominees?
unidentified		I don't think so.
		Again, the responses that we've seen from senators on all of the nominees, I think across the board, has been welcomed.
		And we've been very pleased with the response.
		But again, time is of the essence.
		We can't have a nominee sitting in the Senate for weeks or months on end waiting to be confirmed.
		Again, we've got to get the work started and we have to have agency heads in place to be able to do it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ryan Walker joining us for this conversation of Heritage Action.
		If you want to ask him questions, the phone lines are available.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		If you want to text us your thoughts or questions, 202-748-8003.
		In these first 100 days, so to speak.
		Is there a wish list from your organization of what you want to see the Trump administration do?
unidentified		Yeah, there's a whole host of executive actions that the president will take that we're highly encouraging of, namely on the border and overturning some of the Biden-era rules or reinstituting some of the rules from the first Trump administration and working on that question.
		I think first and foremost, that's our top priority to address the flow of illegal immigrants across the southern border.
		The economy needs to be addressed, of course, but I think that will come with reconciliation and continuation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was passed under the first Trump administration, and a reduction in federal spending, which is needed and sorely needed to be able to do all of that.
		But those are the things that come to mind most immediately.
		There's a lot of regulatory activity that can be taken by the executive branch to reduce the size, scope, and frequency of how corporate America small businesses and entrepreneurs have to deal with the federal government and their regulations.
		So those are some of the things that they can do immediately, and then Congress will obviously have to get its act together and start passing legislation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One of the pieces of legislation, or at least one of the things they face, and I think you brought it up, was the idea of funding.
		They passed a CR last in December, and they're faced again with now in March.
		What's the best approach that you would like to see from Congress?
		And do you think you're going to see that approach?
unidentified		Yeah, well, our advocacy at Heritage Action is for a reduction in federal spending.
		So we would like to see that discretionary lines, those discretionary lines, come down.
		And so that means cutting the bloat, cutting things like earmarks and that whole process within the Congress.
		You know, I don't know how that will inevitably play out in March.
		That's the funding deadline, the CR, the continuing resolution that we're now under, expires in March.
		They may come back to that question with another CR, depending on the gravity and the heft of the legislative activity that surrounds government funding.
		So they may push that question to later in the year, or they may have a series of what we call minibuses that direct some of the agencies.
		But I don't know that they'll be able to complete all of that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We saw a question of spending come up in December over this that eventually was dropped before the CR was passed.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do you think Congress has a will to reduce spending at this stage?
unidentified		I think they do.
		I think that members will be looking at multiple avenues to do that, though.
		Reconciliation has been a very big topic.
		There are multiple strategies that have been laid out by both the House and the Senate, one bill versus two bill strategy.
		Government spending and cutting and reducing federal outlays, that is the topic of conversation within reconciliation.
		So I think members are looking at both government funding, which historically we have not been very successful in reducing spending through that venue, and reconciliation.
		I think they'll have more of a chance in reconciliation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Ryan Walker again joining us from Heritage Action.
		Our first call for you comes from Jordan.
		Jordan is in Florida.
		Democrats line, you're on with our guests.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Good morning.
		Thank you guys for letting me on here.
		One of the first things that I really want to bring up is the fact that it's been years since Pete Hegseth was actually part of the military.
		So is there any way you can actually reassure the American people that this pick for Defense Secretary of the United States is actually going to be a right pick considering it's been years since this man was even in service and he's been on Fox News for years.
		I'm not sure if this is going to be the best course of action for the Trump administration, but is there any way you can reassure the American people that Pete Hegseth is even a good pick for Defense Secretary, considering his history with sexual assault?
		Yeah, listen, I think that the warrior mentality that Pete Hegseth will bring to the Department of Defense is sorely needed.
		I think the United States needs to reestablish deterrence, a strategic deterrence, which is something that Pete will talk about in his opening statement in committee, which is coming up very soon.
		Again, he has been deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay.
		He has a bronze star.
		He has been in the world of veterans affairs and warfighting since his time as an infantryman.
		And I think that he will bring that mentality back to the Department of Defense, something that we believe at Heritage and Heritage Action that the department has gotten too far away from.
		So yes, I absolutely think that he'll bring that mentality back.
		He will focus on the warfighter.
		He will focus on lethality.
		He will focus on weapon systems and procurement base of the United States.
		The defense industrial base needs to be bolstered here in the United States.
		We need to have innovation.
		We need to have new actors come into that space beyond the big three.
		He has all of these great ideas, and I think he's going to bring them to the Department of Defense.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		About 15 minutes until that hearing starts at the Senate Armed Services Committee.
		That room already starting to fill up, where you'll be able to see some of the action play out concerning Pete Hegseth later on today or later on this morning.
		Ron is up next.
		Republican line, he's in Vermont.
		Hello.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
ron in vermont ▲ ● ▼		I'd just like to say that there have been certainly more than a couple presidents.
		I can think of John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, who had questionable indiscretions sexually or whatever.
		And I really liked what they did for the country.
		So I don't believe anything like that should really enter into qualifications for the job.
unidentified		Listen, I think that he'll be able to respond to those questions in committee today.
		I know that the Democrats will be asking those questions.
		They have made statements to the press talking about that issue, and he'll be able to address them.
		He'll be able to address them for the American people and for those senators who will ultimately vote to either confirm or deny his post.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		There was an op-ed by the Newsmax host, Greg Kelly, about Pete Hegseff, concerns that he had.
		Mr. Kelly's a former military guy, too.
		He said this, national security regulations have been clear for decades.
		Individuals susceptible to coercion cannot hold sensitive positions.
		Hegseff's admission aligns directly with these disqualifiers.
		He's already demonstrated a willing to pay off his accuser, allegedly to protect his personal and professional life.
		As Secretary of Defense, his responsibilities would be infinitely more critical and his adversaries exponently more dangerous.
		What do you think about that assessment?
unidentified		Well, listen, we don't know what we don't know.
		We don't know all of the details behind these claims.
		The person in question in this story signed an NDA.
		And so we just don't know all of those details.
		And I assume that Democrats will get into these questions.
		I think they'll bring up quotes exactly like that.
		And they'll ask him pointedly in committee what his response to those allegations are.
		And so we'll hear that today.
		And we'll hear his side of the story when we've, in the media, it has been sort of a trial by media up to this point.
		And Pete has not been able to give his articulation of his version of the story.
		And so we'll hear that today.
		And I'm encouraged to hear it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Danny.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Danny is from South Carolina, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi, good morning.
		How are you?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thanks.
		You're on with our guests.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes.
		So I have a couple of questions.
		So I'm actually a service-connected disabled veteran.
		Obviously, I'm also a woman.
		I guess first, I would like to know the difference between a soft touch that the Heritage does compared to a hard touch.
		I think that would be number one.
		Number two, you said you're pleased with the schedule.
		Do you really think that 30 minutes in schedule hearings is appropriate to properly vet candidates?
		And number three, what do you say to the women like myself who experience military sexual trauma?
		It is one of the most significant things that women in the military actually undergo.
		And Pete Smith, I had a security clearance of Type Cigarette CSI.
		He would not get that clearance if he were in the military today.
		So why do you think he deserves to command 2.6 million employees with a $840 billion budget when he can't manage $15,000 from his pack?
		Well, I'll address the first couple of points.
		So a soft appeal is advocacy that the Senate and in particular Senate Republicans need to get working.
		They need to have these hearings.
		They need to have the votes.
		They need to discharge these nominees from committee and ultimately have them voted on on the floor in a timely manner.
		Again, the timeline for confirmation of nominees has doubled since the Ronald Reagan era.
		We need to truncate that timeline back to 30 days or less, right?
		A hard appeal from Heritage Action would be spending money in those states to oppose or to find a new candidate to run for those Senate seats, which is not something that we're doing right now.
		We're trying to appeal to those sitting senators without advocating for someone else to come in or an opponent to file.
		On the questions on Pete, I think that, listen, the committee structures the hearings, the way that they structure them.
		There have been significant amount of meetings between Pete Hegseth and individual senators, and all of these questions have been addressed.
		I know that Joni Ernst in particular, Senator Ernst, has asked Pete Hegseth pointedly questions around sexual assault in the military, and she is going to make sure that whomever the Department of Defense Secretary is addresses this issue.
		It is one of the most one of the top priorities for Senator Ernst.
		She has been talking about this issue for many, many years, and I have no doubt that she will hold the Secretary of DOD to account on that issue.
		And so I think that she'll be working with Pete Hegseth and the team that's coming in to be able to do that.
		Again, on the background checks of the FBI and questions related to his background, I think he'll be able to answer those questions today.
		And I do think that he has the capability to run the Department of Defense and focus again on the warfighter rather than the bureaucracy of the department.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Catherine.
		Catherine in Michigan, hi there.
		You're next up.
unidentified		Hello.
		And so I have not so much a question, but a statement.
		I am, as a woman with three daughters, I am very excited about the nomination of Pete Hegseth.
		I think getting some of this bureaucracy out of our Department of Defense is the only option we have with war burning everywhere across this country.
		And now Ray's statement saying that we have Chinese supercells here in the United States is, I mean, just tells you that our government has not been operating in a defensive posture of the people.
		We have been failed on every level.
		As far as sexual assault claims, I mean, look at, we've had a president for four years whose son was prostitution and human trafficking.
		And for God knows, Biden can't stop sniffing little girls.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, leave it there.
unidentified		Yeah, listen, I think that the Department of Defense has gotten away from lethality, deterrence, and warfighting.
		We need to have innovation.
		To the caller's point, there is war and conflict breaking out across the globe, whether it be in the Middle East, China is threatening to invade Taiwan.
		We have Iran acting dangerously.
		So there is a lot.
		Ukraine and Russia obviously is a big concern for the Department of Defense.
		We have seen drawdown authority be given to the President of the United States who has sent munitions and arms over to conflict zones across the world without building up and bolstering our own domestic industrial base.
		We simply don't have the ability or capacity to develop and build and make the, for example, the artillery rounds that are being shipped over to Ukraine.
		So we need someone to come in and focus on the warfighting, the lethality, the ability of the Department of Defense to respond to any and all situations that may arise, certainly over the next four years, but over the next couple of decades, we need to be thinking far out into the future, more innovation, more small players in the industrial base.
		And I think Pete Hegseth will bring all of that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		It was not too long ago that the House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies and other Democrats talked about the November elections, talked about this idea of Republicans having a mandate now with the election of the president-elect.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I want to play a little bit of his comments, get your reaction to that.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		In this narrow Congress, and despite the claims of some of my Republican colleagues who have spent a lot of time over the last two weeks talking about some big, massive mandate, I'm looking for it.
		That doesn't mean that we don't have to make adjustments to make sure that we can get beyond fighting House Republicans with a national wave on top of us to a draw.
		But the question about this notion of some mandate to make massive far-right extreme policy changes, it doesn't exist.
		It doesn't exist.
		And so in the new Congress, for anything to happen, particularly as it relates to an enlightened spending agreement or ensuring that America does not default on our debt and crash the economy and hurt everyday Americans for the first time in our nation's history, it's clear House Republicans cannot do it on their own.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That was back from November, but Mr. Walker, your thoughts?
unidentified		Yeah, listen, Kamala Harris and the Democrats, they had the lowest turnout in Manhattan since 1988.
		Republicans won a majority of the popular vote for the first time since 2004.
		This is a clear mandate from the people.
		We have seen that response from Democrats.
		There is not a resistance movement against Trump.
		We have seen, I just saw this morning that the Metro here in D.C. is going to offer inaugural Metro passes with Donald Trump's image on them to goers to the inaugural ceremonies.
		And that is a stark change from years past.
		And I think that Democrats, despite what they're saying at the podium, understand that the American people are against their agenda and the left bend that the Democrats have taken over the past 10 years.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Given the narrow numbers in the House between Republicans and Democrats, what's your concern about Republicans reaching out to Democrats to get legislative things done?
unidentified		Well, I think there will be some of that, certainly.
		There will be a margin of one or two, give or take, depending on the time timing of some of these departures in the House.
		So I think that, listen, Congress gets a lot done in a bipartisan manner.
		There will be a lot of that.
		And the House in particular this year will be a lot like the Senate has been for a number of years with each individual member of the House able to make their own decisions and claims and advocacy and appeals for what policies they want seen on the floor.
		So it'll be quite the time to watch the House.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Robert in San Francisco, Democrats line for our guest, Ryan Walker of Heritage Action.
unidentified		Yes, good morning to both of you.
		I was calling to ask Mr. Walker whether since Matt Gates is the bar for all the nominations, I want to know whether or not he would have voted for Matt Gates.
		I'm not sure I follow.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you clarify that, caller, please?
unidentified		I said that Matt Gates is the bar in terms of all the nominations.
		And I'm wondering whether or not Mr. Walker would have voted for Matt Gates as Attorney General.
		I appreciate the sentiment.
		I'm not a duly elected senator.
		I don't have that authority.
		I think that Pam Bondi is an excellent nominee to be Attorney General.
		I think that question on Matt Gates has sort of ended.
		He has taken himself out of running.
		He is now a news host on Newsmax.
		And so I think that question has been solved by now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Susan.
		Susan joins us from Florida.
		Republican line.
		Hi there.
unidentified		Hi there.
unidentified		How are you?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Okay.
		I just wanted to say a couple of things.
		The people have spoken.
		They put in Trump because we need to save our country.
		Number two, Pete's head set is wonderful.
		Okay.
		I don't think that they would bring up the sexual content about what was going on, which was ridiculous anyway, because then we're going to have to bring up Bill Clinton, and we don't want to do that.
		So let's just put him in, get him going, and get rid of Butch in there and get rid of the woke.
		And I thank you.
		Thank you for those comments.
		I totally agree.
		We're very excited for the confirmation hearing to kick off today and hope to see quick confirmation the week of the inauguration for particularly these national security nominees that need to get in place.
		As I mentioned earlier, conflict is breaking out all across the globe.
		The United States has been a leader across the international stage for decades.
		We need to reestablish our authority there, our leadership for the international community, and show these nations who are acting dangerously that they need to get back in line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, the hearing set to start off in just a few minutes.
		You're seeing the room fill up there.
		We will let you watch that play out until the hearing starts.
		Again, we'll start it here, and then at 10 o'clock, the House of Representatives comes in.
		You can switch over to C3 to continue on watching the Senate Armed Services confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseph.
		Alex is in Philadelphia, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		My question is, if your concern is that we need Pete Hegsef as SECDAF to enforce a warfighting culture or remove certain woke elements from the military, why is he not able to come back on board as a consultant or have President Trump enforce this culture from the top down and have someone actually qualified to manage the 3 million people in the DOD and the billions of dollars of assets?
		Why is Pete Hagsef supposed to be in charge of that as a Fox News host?
		Again, I will go back to his record as a warfighter and his multiple deployments.
		He is not just a Fox News host.
		He has also run multiple nonprofit organizations and has quite the storied resume.
		So I think that he is the right person to go into the Department of Defense.

▲