| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
unidentified
|
And AP White House correspondent Zeke Miller discusses White House news of the day. | |
| C-SPAN's Washington Journal. | ||
| Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Wednesday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, or online at c-SPAN.org. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | |
| 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. | ||
| 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 SciPrey awards, that kind of thing. | ||
| But certainly we depend heavily on regular supporters across the country. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Is it fundamentally wrong? | ||
| 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. | ||
| This administration has more billionaires within its cabinet if they all get appointed than others previous. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Our guest with us, if you want to ask her questions about their group's efforts, 202748-8000 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| The IGs will stay placed at Homeland Security and Justice. | ||
| 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. | ||
| I want to play the response of Senator Lindsey Graham, who was on the Sunday shows, asked us directly a question about the Inspector Generals being let go and get your response to his response. | ||
| 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. | ||
| So there's the response. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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 certainly yet another instance like what you discussed with the Inspectors General where things are happening fast and in ways that feel very chaotic. | ||
| One of the things that your website or your organization has launched is a conflict of interest site. | ||
| 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, 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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
|
Sounds good. | |
| 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 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. | ||
| Let's hear from Bruce. | ||
| Bruce is in Kentucky, Independent Line for our guests. | ||
|
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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington and across the country. | ||
| Coming up Wednesday morning, Interfaith Alliance President and CEO Reverend Paul Brandeis Rauschenbush talks about the role of faith leaders in opposing aspects of President Trump's agenda. | ||
| Then Article 3 Project Founder and President Mike Davis on how the Justice Department is poised to change under President Trump. | ||
| And AP White House correspondent Zeke Miller discusses White House news of the day. | ||
| C-SPAN's Washington Journal. | ||
| Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Wednesday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, or online at c-SPAN.org. | ||
| President Trump has said he wants the U.S. to regain ownership of the Panama Canal. | ||
| Earlier today, his Senate hearing investigated the strategic importance of the canal and its impact on U.S. trade and national security. | ||
| Watch the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing in its entirety tonight at 9 Eastern on C-SPAN. |