CSPAN - Washington Journal Lisa Gilbert

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 28, 2025 12:27-13:05 - CSPAN

37:55

Washington Journal Lisa Gilbert

Participants

Main

pedro echevarria

cspan 06:10

Appearances

pete sessions

rep/r 00:52

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		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 point of interest.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including WOW.
		The world has changed.
		Today, a fast, reliable internet connection is something no one can live without.
		So WOW is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice.
		Now more than ever, it all starts with great internet.
		Wow.
		WOW supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our first guest of the morning, Lisa Gilbert.
		She is the co-president of the group known as Public Citizen, here to talk about the agenda of the Trump administration.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How do you describe your group to other people?
unidentified		Public Citizen is a consumer watchdog.
		Our focus is taking on corporate power on behalf of regular Americans.
		And we do that in many different areas, protecting the environment, fighting to improve democracy, working to improve health care, and so much more.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to funding, how are you funded?
unidentified		Very diversely, but primarily by regular people.
		So, you know, individual members across the country who give us $15, $20 to support also grant funding, occasional SciPray awards, that kind of thing.
		But certainly we depend heavily on regular supporters across the country.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You said you fight against corporate power.
		If you go to your website, a lot listed targeted right at the Trump administration.
		What's the goal of Public Citizen in this new Trump administration overall?
unidentified		Well, unfortunately, our mission has never been more important.
		You know, this is an administration that is coming in full of people who got rich at the heads of corporations.
		And so corporate power is taking center stage in terms of what their goals are.
		And unfortunately, that is often the opposite of what regular people need when we think about fewer regulatory protections on the books.
		That means less clean air, less clean water, a less safe financial system.
		Those are things that if you're the CEO of a company, it makes sense.
		You don't want to be regulated and have to do things and have guardrails in place.
		But if you're a regular American citizen, that's exactly what you need, and that's what government should do for you.
		So we're in a much more adversarial posture than we've been in a while.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Specifically, how?
unidentified		Well, looking at some of the folks who are coming in, for example, Elon Musk, coming in as literally the wealthiest person in the world.
		He is being tasked through Doge, this external entity, to give recommendations to government.
		So those recommendations are going to be things like slashing programs and policies and agencies that people depend on, which may benefit him, may benefit other corporate cronies.
		But the one thing we're sure of is it won't help you and me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Is it fundamentally wrong?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The idea of cutting or at least decreasing the amount of government, is that a fundamentally wrong approach in your mind, or is there some value to it?
unidentified		I think it depends how you talk about it.
		So certainly most regulations, the goal of them is to help people.
		They're the endgame of legislation.
		If you're passing a bill, it then goes to an agency and they implement it.
		They put rules in place.
		And those rules are how government goes out into the world and protects us.
		So generally, we think that's a really good thing.
		It's not to say there's no waste, there's no fraud, there's no inefficiencies in government.
		There certainly are.
		We think there are a lot of ways we could save money and streamline processes if we wanted to, but it's not the same sorts of policies that Musk and his folks are putting forward.
		We think maybe we could cut the Pentagon budget.
		There's a huge amount of waste in defense spending.
		We could save millions of dollars really quickly that we could funnel back to help regular Americans.
		That's not the type of suggestion we're expecting from Doge.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This administration has more billionaires within its cabinet if they all get appointed than others previous.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fundamentally, what's wrong with that?
unidentified		You're right.
		So 13 billionaires chosen to be part of the cabinet.
		That's unprecedented.
		Someone was telling up the wealth.
		It's more than the GDP of 172 individual countries.
		So it's a serious amount of money we're talking about.
		It's not that there's something inherently wrong with being rich or wealth.
		It's what it changes about your incentives.
		So, you know, if you're thinking about government and thinking about the role of government from the posture of someone who hasn't had to, you know, buy eggs and see how much they cost right now, then you have different incentives and different ways of thinking about what the role as you hellman agency should actually be.
		And so that's what we're concerned about.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our guest with us, if you want to ask her questions about their group's efforts, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		And you can always text us at 202-748-8003.
		When it comes to that Doge effort, public citizens are making an effort to have a seat at the table, so to speak.
		What's the ambition there?
unidentified		That's right.
		So myself and my co-president, Robert Weissman, we sent a letter to the Trump transition, so before they were inaugurated, saying that we thought that we should have a seat at the table as a part of Doge.
		We believe that Doge is a federal advisory committee.
		The way it's constituted, the way it's been reported, that means there are certain rules that apply to it.
		One of them is that there should be balanced representation.
		People who are on both sides of the aisle, people who are thinking about rulemaking from different perspectives.
		As we were just talking about, we have the perspective that rules are very important for the American people, so we should be a part of this effort.
		We don't think that the sole perspective of tech titans and crypto bros is what we need as we're thinking about what regulations and budget line items we have.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What response did you get?
unidentified		We've not gotten a response yet.
		We expect to be denied, but certainly we think we should be seated.
		We have a lot to say on this topic.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What would be the fundamental guidance you would give to those on that board going forward, whatever recommendations they have to make and whatever Congress decides to approve?
unidentified		I mean, we would say that, as we were just discussing, there are ways to make government more efficient, but it's not cutting programs like SNAP, like Meals on Wheels, like the funding that goes to support our national parks and teachers.
		Instead, it's the things like fossil fuel subsidies, things that are helping massive corporations, but not really helping regular Americans or the environment.
		It's things like cutting back on privatized Medicare so that more Americans get the care they need.
		There are a lot of things we could do to improve our government, and it's not really what we've heard they're thinking about.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You spoke about rules.
		One of the issues concerning rules that has come up in the last couple of days was this idea of the inspector generals that were recently let go by the Trump administration and the rules they had to follow.
		They should have followed leading up to that.
		Fundamentally, what did you think of the action itself?
unidentified		Just incredibly problematic.
		I mean, the idea that in the dark of night they would let go inspectors general across government, it actually flies right in the face of what they claim to be doing with Doge.
		Inspectors General came into being after Watergate.
		It's a bipartisan reform, still is bipartisanly supported, to think about fraud and waste of taxpayer dollars and efficiency.
		And so the idea that we would let these people go, it proves that Doge is not what it's intended to be.
		It kind of pulls back the curtain on what the goals of the administration actually are.
		And it's scary because we need those folks in place as the watchdogs inside government.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The AIGs will stay placed at Homeland Security and Justice.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Does the president ultimately have the right to do the action to remove them, even if he broke the 30-day rule, so to speak?
unidentified		It's an open question.
		I think one of the things that we are thinking about is what you just said, that there is new legislation that came into place in 2022 that says you had to notify Congress if you were going to remove Inspectors General.
		You know, in some agencies, he can remove for cause, some without.
		We are worried that rules were broken here, and we're figuring out what we can do legally and also just continuing to talk about the problem.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I want to play the response of Senator Lindsey Graham, who was on the Sunday shows, asked us directly a question about the Inspector General's being let go and get your response to his response.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Here's what he had to say.
unidentified		Yeah, I think, you know, yeah, he should have done that.
		But the question is, is it okay for him to put people in place that he thinks can carry out his agenda?
		Yeah, he won the election.
		What do you expect him to do?
		Just leave everybody in place in Washington before he got elected.
		This makes perfect sense to me.
		Get new people.
		He feels like the government hasn't worked very well for the American people.
		He's watched our votes did a pretty lousy job.
		He wants some new eyes on Washington.
		That makes sense to me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So there's the response.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's your response to that?
unidentified		I mean, it is not untrue that a new administration can bring in their own people.
		I think there's a real difference between a Friday night firing of 17 people without warning and illegally without informing Congress and changing pieces of government.
		So if there was some indication that one inspector general or two particularly needed to be replaced for a certain reason and there was a plan to put someone new into place quickly, which showed the importance of Inspectors General, I think we'd be in a different posture.
		But this is a huge number of folks who were removed and they play such an essential role in government.
		So I don't really buy what Lindsey Graham just said.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Lisa Gilbert joining us.
		She's with Public Citizens.
		She serves as their co-president.
		Our first call for you comes from Penny.
		Penny's in New York State on our Live for Democrats.
		You're on with our guest.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, good morning, Ms. Gilbert.
		I'd like to know what is the agenda for shutting down the SDIC Well, certainly, you know, we've heard from folks within the Trump administration as they start to come in that there are many people they don't like across the financial sector.
		That includes the FDIC, the SEC, Treasury.
		We are seeing new people come in.
		We don't know the timeline for many of these appointments and changes, but certainly we're nervous about that.
		It's a good question.
		I think one of the places we've watched in addition to the FDIC is the CFPB, the Consumer Financial Product Bureau, which absolutely matters to regular consumers.
		We've been surprised that the head of it, Rohit Chopra, has not been removed yet as he is one of our biggest consumer champions.
		I think we're watching all the agencies to pay attention to when and who folks leave.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We saw the decision by the Trump administration yesterday as federal aid is being frozen in some aspects.
		As far as the move itself, what do you think about it as they reevalue some things?
		What's the long-term, short-term damage, do you think?
unidentified		I mean, that's a pretty scary move.
		I think there's a lot of confusion this morning about the freezing of federal grants.
		You know, real people are going to be impacted.
		This is money that goes to universities.
		This is money that goes to nonprofits.
		These are the paychecks of regular Americans across the country that are suddenly uncertain.
		So we're incredibly concerned.
		I think, you know, if it moves forward, it'll be effectuated tonight at 5 o'clock and just throwing us all into turmoil.
		So, you know, certainly yet another instance like what you discussed with the Inspectors General where things are happening fast and in ways that feel very chaotic.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One of the things that your website or your organization has launched is a conflict of interest site.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What is it and what led to its launch?
unidentified		That's right.
		We have a new tracker on conflicts of interest.
		What led to its launch is what we were talking about earlier, the fact that there is such a concentration of wealth and potential conflicts from the folks who are coming into this administration.
		I mean, take Pam Bondi.
		She is nominated to be Attorney General.
		She worked as a K-Street lobbyist for Ballard Partners, representing 30 major corporations, many of whom have business in front of the DOJ.
		They're being investigated, you know, legal action against them.
		If she comes in and takes the helm of that agency, suddenly she has major conflicts with former clients.
		It's hard to believe that she won't take that into account when she's up there.
		And I think that's the kind of thing that we're seeing replicated over and over again with the choices they've made to helm these agencies and fill positions across government.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If it's potential clients, perhaps for her and others, then what's the legal strategy for your organization going forward and have you already started any legal proceedings?
unidentified		We are.
		So great question.
		We're watching very closely.
		We need to see where conflicts are happening.
		We need to see if they choose to recuse themselves from engaging in business with companies that they formerly were a part of or invested in or ran.
		And then potentially, if we see conflicts, if we see violations of their recusal agreements, there will be space for legal action.
		It's not the kind of thing we can usually game out in advance, but we are watching very closely.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Don.
		Don is in Pennsylvania Democrats line.
		Go ahead.
		You're next.
unidentified		So I'd like to know that when Trump breaks rules and laws and traditions, that you guys don't have an immediate reaction.
		You have to, oh, we got to see what we're going to do.
		You're not prepared for what goes wrong.
		And you know something is going to go wrong.
		And I just don't understand why you're not prepared for immediate reaction.
		I think we are.
		But it's a really great point.
		I mean, this is a moment which feels, as I was just saying, very chaotic.
		There's a lot every single day.
		It's kind of surprising to realize it's only been a week and a half, not even quite.
		And we've already seen this massive amount of executive orders and actions which have real consequences for you and me.
		And so we are prepared and ready to do everything we can to organize, to take legal action, to be out there talking to the media about what needs to happen.
		But it's not something where we can be ready in advance for literally everything.
		We're just doing all we can to prep.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to Doge, as far as what you're watching for specifically, you said Elon Musk at the head of it, but particularly if Congress ultimately has the power to decide or to take the advice of Doge or not, why not wait until Congress decides that rather than concentrate on the work itself of the organization itself?
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, there's a lot to be concerned about with Doge.
		As I mentioned, we're worried about it being an illegal federal advisory committee, so that's why we've moved forward with a suit, which I'm sure we'll talk about more.
		But also the fact that it is so easy to think about Musk enriching himself through recommendations that he will make.
		He has government contracts, a huge amount.
		We're looking at the possibility of SpaceX making $28 billion additional dollars.
		There's a huge amount of potential benefit if he makes calls that impact that.
		He is also being investigated by the DOJ and other entities across government.
		And so we didn't think we could wait.
		We thought there's too much potential for corruption.
		There are too many impacts for regular people.
		And we think it's an illegal entity.
		So too much to do.
		We needed to jump in.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So the focus of the suit is what?
unidentified		We believe that Doge is a federal advisory committee, meaning that they have outside persons who are advising inside government, in this case, making recommendations about cuts and regulatory changes.
		To us, that's a textbook federal advisory committee, and it's governed by a law, Federal Advisory Committee Act.
		That means they have to abide by open records law.
		They need to have balanced representation, open meetings.
		None of these things are they currently doing.
		And so our suit is about that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about the aspect that within Congress right now there are specific caucuses and committees set up to at least work alongside Doge as they go forward?
unidentified		It does worry us that in some ways that's a credentialing exercise.
		You know, it's members of Congress saying they think Doge is a legitimate entity that is going to be doing things that matter.
		On the other hand, you know, it is important that we're speaking out about the real ways to improve government and deal with fraud and waste.
		And so I think it kind of depends which member you're talking to, how we feel about it.
		But certainly we are worried about it sort of wholesale.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me show you the comments of Texas Republican Pete Sessions, who he's going to lead a subcommittee to work with the Doge Committee.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		He had these things to say about that, and Elon Musk, so I'll play you what he had to say, you'll get your response and get your response.
unidentified		That's good.
pete sessions ▲ ● ▼		Well, I have no doubt that Elon Musk is an expert among experts at understanding not just organizational efficiencies, but better ways in which services can be provided.
		He has invested billions of his own dollars and has millions of them or tens of thousands of employees, and he has made his organization spectacular.
		We believe that the federal government has an opportunity to help themselves.
		And I think that I have very few qualms with him advising, whispering in the ear perhaps of the president, but helping us to sell the inefficiencies.
		He takes a huge viewpoint of making sure we are challenged, and I think that's good.
unidentified		I have huge qualms, so I disagree.
		I think, you know, one of the biggest concerns is that he has no government experience.
		So it's not untrue to say he has run successful companies, but that doesn't necessarily translate to understanding how government works.
		And this particular task, running an entity that is intended to improve government without that experience, seems incredibly problematic.
		That's aside from the bigger worries we have, which I mentioned before, that he will be able to profit personally from choices he makes.
		He might be able to stop investigations, the 11 criminal and civil investigations into Musk companies happening right now across government.
		And that the things he wants to cut, the types of choices that we've heard rumored, they are all things that regular people really depend on.
		It's not the kind of choices you would be making if you were thinking about Americans on the street and how they interact with government.
		And so all of that just gives us huge pause, lots of qualms.
		I'm very worried.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Bruce.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Bruce is in Kentucky, Independent Line for our guest.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Yes, Ms. Gilbert, just because Mr. Musk doesn't have any, per se, experience in the government doesn't mean he can't come in and cut waste.
		And where were you during the last four years?
		Where were we?
		Thinking about these same issues.
		I mean, how much money did the Bidens rake in?
		Great questions.
		So first, to your first half of it, where were we?
		We were thinking about these exact same things.
		So, you know, public citizen worries about waste and efficiency, you know, no matter who's at the helm.
		I think our concerns when we think about the types of programs and policies that we have heard rumored are on the chopping block, we get really nervous.
		You know, you might have seen the Cato Institute gave recommendations to Doge.
		You know, what they suggested are cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
		That's not the kind of thing that we think regular people want.
		So we're really worried, and I think, you know, all people who are looking at what the possible cuts should be as well.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned your conflict of interest site previously.
		Did you have this similar setup for the Biden administration, the Obama administration, previous administrations?
		Did you treat them the same?
unidentified		We do, absolutely.
		So we look very closely at conflicts of interest across the board, filing complaints with the Office of Governmental Ethics, sending them into Congress, the Office of Congressional Ethics, when we see problems with members.
		We are not partisan in our attention to ethical concern.
		But I will say that the folks who are coming in now give us far greater pause for the reasons we talked about at the top.
		I mean, I think we have never seen an administration with this level of concentrated wealth, former corporate ties, and the ability to benefit personally from what they do, the choices they make.
		I mean, if you look at Trump himself, I mean, on Sunday, you know, just before his inauguration, he launched a meme coin.
		He was able to rake in billions just as he was coming in.
		People are able to directly influence politics by giving money to the president.
		That's nothing we've ever seen before when it comes to conflicts of interest and ethics.
		So we're worried.
		It's a different scope and scale now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you elaborate on how that specifically is a conflict of interest, the meme coin?
unidentified		Yeah, well, so usually presidents distance themselves from their assets and their businesses.
		President Trump actually did in some degree in some ways in his first term, but he is not this time around.
		There is no ethics executive order governing processes.
		And if there was, we're worried he wouldn't follow it.
		You know, the meme coin, you know, it's something that's being sold on the market and people can invest in it.
		And that's something that he can pay attention to and actually see how individuals, how potentially foreign nations, how other folks are investing in his new product at the same moment as he takes the helm of our country.
		So that's a conflict.
		That is a real ethical problem.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The website of the meme coin says this.
		Trump memes are intended to function as an expression of support for and engagement with the ideals and beliefs embodied by the symbol dollar sign Trump and the associated network, and they are not intended to be or subject of an investment opportunity, investment contract, or security of any type.
		That's the boilerplate.
		I suppose you have a reaction to that.
unidentified		Yeah.
		I mean, I actually think the first part of that sentence is the most important, where it's talking about a support of President Trump.
		So you are buying something and you are supporting President Trump while he is president, which is something he can see and make decisions based on.
		That is the perception of a conflict of interest and an actual conflict of interest.
		It's a problem for a nation being governed ethically.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		It's a technicality, but does it matter that it happened on Sunday, the day before he actually became president?
unidentified		I mean, in terms of when it launched, I mean, the conflict continues.
		It certainly became a business before he was president, but you can buy it today.
		So, no.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Lisa Gilbert, this is a public citizen joining us.
		Let's hear from Ron.
		Ron in Pennsylvania, Democrats line.
		Hi there.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro and your guest.
		This I got from the C-SPAN when you had the fellow from Moody Analytics on.
		We had the best economy under Biden and Harris in 35 years.
		They had the lowest crime rate since 2019.
		And the immigration, the lowest amount of immigrants coming to this country under Biden and Harris.
		So as far as that goes, they have low unemployment rate, high wages, and lower drug prices.
		That's all going to be gone under this guy that's in there now.
		What a disgrace, you know, pardoning all those people on January 6th.
		I'll tell you what, that's just really disgusting.
		That's all I got to say.
		Thank you.
		Thanks for that comment.
		We are unrelated to what we've been talking about today, but very unhappy with the pardons.
		Just the idea that violent offenders are back out on the street who attacked police officers.
		That's not something that feels like the rule of law.
		And I think particularly sad to see with an administration that's come in and has talked a lot about cracking down on crime and violent offense in particular.
		So certainly we don't think it speaks well to the pursuit of the rule of law.
		And glad you raised it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is from Karen.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Karen is in California, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yes, good morning.
		I just have a comment.
		I think that this nice young lady is regurgitating nearly every talking point of the very reasons of why us independents and former Democrats voted for Donald Trump, slamming people because they've accumulated great wealth.
		My goodness, that's what we're all trying to do, I hope.
		Trying to be good, be better, be our best.
		These are the people we would like running, not the parasites that are professional politicians.
		And that's really all I have to say.
		And God bless America, and thank you for C-SPAN.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		A viewer from California.
unidentified		Thanks for the comment.
		I mean, as I said earlier, we're not against wealth.
		The problem is not being rich.
		The problem is whether you continue to benefit from those connections and that wealth while you're coming into public service.
		And one of the things we're most concerned about is that there is no ethics executive order currently governing government.
		That's a change.
		We've had one for the last 30 years.
		Every administration, Republican or Democrat, we don't have one now.
		So it speaks to, in addition to the fact that these folks are more connected, they have no particular guardrails keeping them from profiting now off of you, off of taxpayers and off of the choices that they make.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is a viewer from South Carolina who texts us this morning saying that, saying to you that you're advocating increases in entitlements as a goal of improving efficiency.
		The third rail is the fact that entitlements are the main cause of our debt.
		Paying people not to work is killing the country.
		It's not about compassion or politics, but about what we can afford.
		Yes, there is waste that must be addressed, but we will not survive as a welfare state.
unidentified		Thanks for that comment.
		You know, I think what we're looking for are things that help regular people.
		So we may disagree on that front, sort of what the basic need for entitlements are.
		I think most people would agree that Social Security is a benefit that they care about and want and depend on.
		So certainly we don't want to see that cut.
		And I think there are many other things that people don't really realize they rely on.
		Not just sort of those poverty programs, but many other things that we need and depend on that I think people will be unhappy to see cut.
		I mean, one great example is what we saw last night, you know, this pause in grants.
		I mean, your neighbor who works at a university, the nonprofit that's next door, many, many institutions and people depend on federal grants around the country.
		Those are all suddenly paused and we're thrown into chaos.
		That's not something we think is okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The work of Doge not only looks at organizations, but it looks at the federal workforce overall.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about this idea of the amount of federal workers currently employed by the government?
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, I think it's a little bit of an arbitrary critique, the idea that there's some perfect number of federal workers or perfect number of regulations.
		I think it expands and decreases based on need.
		And so we think it's a little bit of like a red herring argument to start talking about some number that we need when instead we should be thinking about what the country desires, what rules we're trying to put in place, what laws we've passed and what we need to have in place to implement them.
		So I think it's kind of like a false and misleading narrative.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if it goes this deep, but the recent order by the president to return federal workers back to an office if they do so.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about that move specifically?
unidentified		You know, I don't have a strong position on in or out of office, but I mean, I think the reason for it, at least some would say the underlying reason for it, is that people don't all want to go back to the office or have figured out ways to work that are different than before the pandemic.
		And so this is intended to cull workers, you know, to make people leave agencies and their positions they've held for a long time.
		If that's the goal, I think we're worried about it.
		I think when it comes to in or out of office, I'm agnostic.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Jay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jay is from Florida, Republican line for Lisa Gilbert, the co-president of Public Citizen.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello.
		Good morning.
		Good morning to both of you.
		The more I listen, the more questions I have for this person.
		To begin with, Lisa Gilbert, do you receive government funding at all in any way, shape, or form from any type of a grant that got cut off?
		The other thing is, is your title says challenging the Trump administration agenda.
		So it sounds to me like what you're, it's just another resistance program.
		And anything that he does, you're not going to like.
		What is the main function of our federal government?
		Isn't it just to keep people safe and to make sure that things are being handled properly in this country?
		But they're not there to bail out everybody.
		Our country was based on competition.
		Competition.
		That's what our country was based on.
		Got handouts, and everybody needs to be equal.
		I'm not equal to you.
		I don't make what you make, but you don't hear me complaining about it to anybody.
		Okay.
		Have a good day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Jack.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Yeah, thanks, Jack.
		I mean, a couple different things.
		So first, no, public citizen does not take money from the government or any corporation.
		We do everything we can and have a firm red line about not taking those funds so we can remain independent.
		So wanted to address that directly.
		You know, in terms of some of what you were saying, I mean, I think we actually agree.
		You know, it is very important that government function to protect regular people.
		That's exactly what we think as well.
		That is the role of government.
		And so certainly, you know, we're doing everything we can to try to make sure that it does that.
		And we are incredibly supportive of competition.
		You know, that is something we work on on antitrust policy.
		We think it's really pivotal that there not be sort of corporate concentration, that everyone, every small business, everyone who wants to compete is able to.
		And we think that regulations and guardrails make that possible.
		So maybe that's the one place where we disagree, but I couldn't agree more.
		Competition is the bedrock of American economy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And just to clarify, Caller, the graphic challenging the Trump administration agenda that comes from us.
		Barney is next.
		Barney, Democrats line, Florida.
		Go ahead.
		You're on with the guest.
unidentified		Yes.
		My question is, this Doge thing that they're coming up with, right?
		They said they wanted to cut down the size of government.
		This is nothing but a rip.
		They're going to try to rip the American people off.
		If you got a convicted felon running the government, don't you think he's a criminal that's going to change his ways?
		The man been stealing all his life.
		He done bought more people in there to steal.
		He comes up with all this crazy behind mess about immigration.
		That ain't nothing but a smokescreen.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Barney.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Thanks.
unidentified		Thanks for that.
		You know, I mean, I think we are worried about some of the things that you just raised, the idea that what Doge is going to do is make recommendations that hurt us all.
		You know, when we're thinking about the importance of regulations, what they do, again, is set up the guardrails that protect our air and water, that encourage competition, that make our financial system safe, our health care system work.
		It's drug labels that tell us when there are safety violations.
		It's making sure that if food has an outbreak, it's recalled.
		It's just the things we interact with day in and day out.
		And so we're very worried that changes will impact us all.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You talked about nominees.
		I want to ask a few things.
		This is from yesterday, the Senate confirming Scott Besson to become the next Treasury Secretary.
unidentified		Yeah.
		So I think we're, again, worried that he is one of the billionaires we've talked about who has potential conflicts of interest that is coming into the cabinet.
		That he will have postures that are not best for regular Americans.
		The Treasury plays a huge role in the stability of our economy, of course, and also in dealing with systemic risk.
		The idea that there could be a crash like back in 2008.
		Treasury is monitoring what's happening across our economy.
		And I think we want to make sure the incentives are correct.
		And so we are worried about what kind of positions he will take at the Helms Treasury.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Is it specifically positions that he would take that benefits him?
unidentified		It's possible.
		I think we can't prejudge.
		Obviously, we'll see what recusals he puts into place and how he divests from his companies.
		I'm hopeful that he'll do the right thing when it comes to that front, but it's something we're watching closely.
		And then beyond that, I think it's just policy perspectives.
		We're not very aligned when it comes to how we think about the economy.
		So it is possible that he'll take postures we disagree with.
		Different than, of course, ethical conflicts, just differences of opinion.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		People post a post on X during the show.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If you were asked, you specifically, which of the former president's agenda or nominees did public citizen push back on?
unidentified		I mean, me specifically, I got a chance to testify about Pam Bondi just last week.
		As we've been doing our conflicts of interest tracker, we've been uncovering particular conflicts and places where we are worried people will not be able to remain unbiased in their new roles.
		So I had an opportunity to talk about her specifically and just the legion of interconnected conflicts, in particular things like her work she's done on behalf of private prisons, where we see lots of damages and human rights abuses.
		Her work on behalf of Amazon, which of course has been investigated and sued by the DOJ, things like that make us really worried.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Apologies, let me clarify.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		They're asked specifically which of former President Biden's agenda or nominees that you pushed back on.
unidentified		Got it.
		So apologies.
		Thinking about President Biden, I think we were worried about a number of things.
		I mean, so one thing that comes to mind quickly, because it was at the very end of the administration, we were unhappy with an executive order that they put forth calling for increased data centers across the country with lessened guardrails.
		The data centers were intended to create more energy, ostensibly for artificial intelligence purposes.
		Worried that they wanted to do so with lessened environmental standards and with an expedited process for permitting.
		So we were loud and out there with a letter in the very final days of the Biden administration saying that that was a problem.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We've heard this president talk a lot about AI over the next couple of past couple of days.
		We've seen a lot of tech people like Mark Zuckerberg and Berg and the like being present at the inauguration.
		What do you think about this idea of technology in the next administration?
		What are your concerns there?
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, we certainly think that innovation and technology is important.
		We're not against tech.
		But I think the concerns we have are much more about conflicts and the people who are coming in having the ability to influence the benefits their companies receive.
		So as we think about the concentrated power in certain companies in Meta, in Amazon, there's a big four, there's Google, like these companies have different power and potential than small companies that are coming to the marketplace.
		And the ability to have even more power, even more contracts with our government, that's what's on the line.
		And it's one of the reasons that they, as you say, gave huge donations to the inauguration, are pandering in a lot of ways that make us nervous, like taking down missing disinformation requests and guardrails that they've had in place for years.
		All of that is intended to get in good with the administration and potentially get some of those benefits.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from John.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		John is in Seattle, Washington, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi, good morning, Pedro.
		Longtime listener, first time caller.
		I just have a couple comments and then I have a question if that's okay.
		I just wanted to point out that I have been a long, lifelong Democrat.
		I don't even know if I'm going to change to independent.
		I might go Republican when I go into town to re-register this week.
		I can't believe what I hear and see anymore.
		So I'll quickly get on to my comments, sir.
		This lady saying she's independent or her group is is very suspicious and questionable.
		I don't believe I ever seen her or her group talk about Joe and Kamala and their reckless policies and spending the last four years.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, Carla, you're on with her, so if you have a comment directly to her or a question, go ahead.
unidentified		Okay, great.
		Thank you, Pedro.
		I do have one question for her.
		Big news in this area is there was a video put out about a Medicare immigrant that left their receipt at one of our local grocery stores.
		And the EBT card that they used, the receipt that came out that was left, said over $1,400 in benefits, plus up to, I think it said, almost $800 in cash benefits.
		So if people really want to know where their Medicare or their Medicaid and their state money goes, that's just one person.
		And I just.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Jay.
		That's a viewer there.
		Goes back to what he thinks is the waste, fraud, and abuse of programs.
		Your comments.
unidentified		Yeah.
		I mean, as I said at the top, and it's a helpful thing to raise.
		We don't think that there's no waste or fraud across government.
		And there are bad actors and individuals who abuse any system that's set up.
		I think our concern is much more high-level that, you know, for every person like that that you raised, and obviously I don't know the instances of that particular situation, there are many, many others, your friends, your neighbors, who depend on those same types of programs and policies.
		And so a wholesale cut of something like, say, the Department of Education is very different than, you know, thinking about individual waste, fraud, and abuse.
		And I think one of the things to go back to an earlier discussion we had that really worries about us about this firing of inspectors general across government is that that is their job to look at and find individual instances of waste fraud and abuse and deal with it.
		So we need them in place.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jamie is in Pennsylvania, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		Very nice to speak to you.
		First time caller, long time watcher.
		I have a comment for this guest.
		Lisa, you're a citizen of the United States, as is all of us, correct?
		Correct.
		Okay.
		And I understand you have a group and it's supposed to be independent.
		True independence means that you don't look at Democrat or Republican.
		Okay.
		Trump has said repeatedly, including yesterday and today, he is not going to cut Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security.

▲