CSPAN - Washington Journal 02/23/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 23, 2025 07:00-10:02 - CSPAN

03:01:53

Washington Journal 02/23/2025

Participants

Main

george beebe

32:15

pedro echevarria

cspan 33:06

Appearances

andy beshear

d 01:18

brian lamb

cspan 00:49

jd vance

admin 00:59

kevin hassett

admin 00:50

Clips

barack obama

d 00:02

bill clinton

d 00:02

donald j trump

admin 00:09

george h w bush

r 00:02

george w bush

r 00:04

jimmy carter

d 00:03

john goglia

00:20

ronald reagan

r 00:01

Callers

james in texas [2]

callers 00:09

jimmy in texas

callers 00:02

laureen in chicago

callers 00:14

tony in texas

callers 00:03

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		RoC to democracy.
		Well, coming up on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning, your calls and comments live.
		And then former CIA Russia analyst George Beattie will talk about efforts by the Trump administration to bring an end to the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
		Also, Washington Post Berlin reporter Kate Brady discusses parliamentary elections in Germany following the collapse of Chancellor Olaf Schulz's governing coalition.
		And Amanda Littman, co-founder and president of Run for Something, talks about her group's efforts to recruit, train, and support young progressives running for office.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
		Join the conversation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is The Washington Journal for February 23rd.
		During the campaign, President Trump promised efforts to improve the economy, especially after criticizing the Biden administration on issues like inflation.
		However, some recent polling of Americans showed some concerns over the Trump administration's especially in efforts to improve the economy and specifically on efforts to reduce inflation.
		To start the show this morning, tell us what you think about the efforts of the Trump administration and President Trump to reduce inflation in the United States.
		Is he doing enough to address that?
		202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		If you want to tell us by text about the Trump administration's efforts on reducing inflation, and if the Trump administration is doing enough, you can do that at 202-748-8003.
		As always, you can post on our social media sites.
		That's facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
		The issues of polling on inflation, particularly when it comes to that specific topic, a recent poll done by Reuters, taking a look at the efforts of the Trump administration, this is what it says in some of the information from that saying in the latest polling.
		It was only 32% of respondents approving of Mr. Trump's performance on inflation, a potential early sign of disappointment in the Republicans' performance on core economic issues after several years of rising prices weakened Mr. Biden ahead of last year's presidential election.
		A recent report from the Labor Department showed consumer prices rose by the most in nearly one and a half years in January, with Americans facing higher costs for a range of goods and services.
		Other economic data showed that U.S. households expect inflation to pick up during and following Mr. Trump's February 1st announcements for steep tariffs on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada.
		That's the latest polling when it comes to the Trump administration and efforts on inflation.
		This is from the information from the website bankrate.com.
		They take it from other sources, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
		When it comes to inflation as it currently stands, it shows that the Federal Reserve has a 2% goal of inflation, but prices in January drove inflation 3.
		Heating up from last month's 2.9 annual rate.
		Some of the prices that are rising the most, according to the statistics, eggs, 53% increase from January 2024 to 2025, almost 20% for video disc and other media, motor vehicle insurance, 11%.
		College textbooks, 10%.
		Even the category of condiments, 10%.
		And it goes from there with some of those specifics that are rising when it comes to that due to inflation.
		Again, we'll show you some of those statistics and information on specific inflation, but the Trump administration's efforts to reduce it.
		And what do you think of those efforts?
		202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats and Independents 202-748-8,000 too.
		Again, is the Trump administration doing enough to address the topic of inflation?
		Joe is in LAJ, Georgia.
		Republican line, you're up first.
unidentified		I think Trump is the best leader in world history.
		We down in Georgia.
		We love him.
		We think with Musk cutting waste, and Trump is president, we're in investor heaven.
		We're going to have the best stock market history, the best economy.
		I think Trump is by far the best leader in history.
		And with Musk helping him cut waste, we are now in investor heaven.
		I've never been so fired up.
		We down in Georgia, LSJ.
		We love Trump.
		We think he's the best leader in the world.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But what does that do specifically for me?
unidentified		I'm having a hard time sleeping because I'm so fired up about Donald John Trump.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But what specifically does it do for the topic of inflation, though, with the Trump administration's efforts?
unidentified		It's going to do great because what's going to happen?
		Musk is cutting all this spending.
		That will take money.
		That will cut the cost of doing business, and that will be a great thing for inflation.
		So, I mean, I tell you what, we're in investor heaven.
		Inflation is going to go way down, and the stock market's going to break every record in history.
		And so, happy days are truly here again, my friend.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Tom in Florida, Independent Line, the Trump administration's efforts on inflation.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		He's done a terrible job.
		He talks about what he was going to do.
		He's done nothing.
		He does anything that lives his own nest.
		He's put this guy in to eliminate waste, eliminate jobs.
		He's just taken a chainsaw is probably a good opportunity for him to do things because that's exactly what he's using.
		There's no rhyme or reason to what's going on.
		Trump just tries to make a splash.
		Everything he does is chase as a shiny object.
		Don't look here, look there.
		So that's his modus operandi.
		That's the way it's going to do.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But when it comes to inflation, you said he's doing a terrible job.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you measure that by?
unidentified		I measure that by when I go into the supermarket, the prices have gone up.
		They've gone up since he has taken office.
		I used to pay for a product that I used to pay $2.79 for.
		It's up to $4.19.
		Not even talking about the eggs, which are obviously a product of the bird flu, but everything is more expensive.
		Insurance in Florida has gone through the roof.
		People talk about what they're going to do.
		They've done nothing.
		They've done nothing.
		It's all about big business.
		It's all about people like Trump.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Tom, there in Florida.
		Again, these specific efforts by the administration on issues of inflation.
		Let's hear from our line for Democrats from Massachusetts.
		This is Betty.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hi, how are you doing?
		Fine, thank you.
		I think Trump is doing a terrible, terrible job.
		I feel like we're living in Robin Hood in reverse.
		They're stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, Elon Musk.
		And the prices in the supermarkets have not gone down one bit.
		They've gone up.
		And he doesn't care.
		He doesn't care.
		Trump is running the country like a mafia boss.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Now, when you look at prices of inflation, is it strictly supermarket prices you look at, or are there other things that you gauge that?
unidentified		Everything, car insurance, clothes, everything.
		Go to the beauty parlor to have your hair done.
		Everything.
		Everything is up.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Now, since the administration's been involved or at least in power for nearly a month or so, do you think that's too soon to gauge?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Or do you think there are other things there?
unidentified		Well, normally I would think that was too soon to gauge.
		But with him, with Musk running around doing what he's doing, I don't see any hope for the future.
		I don't think he could care less.
		And does he even mention it when he speaks?
		I'm talking about Trump when he speaks.
		He doesn't mention it.
		He could care less.
		He got in.
		He got in on this, and he could care less.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Betty.
		Scott, we got you, Betty.
		Betty in Massachusetts.
		It's his vice president that spoke specifically about the topics of inflation during the CPAC convention, which we've been showing you on C-SPAN.
		You can still see that on our app and our website.
		Here's JD Vance from last week talking about specifically those goals.
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		The fundamental goal of our immigration policy, of our border policy, of Doge saving taxpayer money, the fundamental goal is we want your children and grandchildren to be able to raise a family in security and comfort in the country that we all love.
unidentified		That is the whole goal of President Trump's agenda.
unidentified		Like safety and prosperity, right?
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		It's pretty common sense stuff, and we know that to do that, we have to, first of all, unleash American energy.
unidentified		Now, why is that so important?
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		Because look, if, you know, we all know grocery prices got too high under Joe Biden's leadership.
unidentified		Well, one of the main drivers of groceries is energy.
unidentified		Because if the farmers are paying more for energy, then we're all paying more for what the farmers grow.
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		And if the truck drivers who are delivering the groceries are paying more for fuel, then we're all paying more for what the truck drivers are delivering to the grocery store.
		If we unleash American energy, that will do more than anything to drive down the cost for the American people.
		The second thing, Mercedes, is we have got to stop spending the American people's money on garbage.
unidentified		Every dollar, every dollar that we take in and spend, you have to pay for, either through taxes or through inflation.
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		And if we spend the American people's money more wisely, if we stop taxing and spending the American people to death, that's also going to bring relief to all of the pricing pressures that are out there.
unidentified		We're going to make it affordable to live in this country again.
		That's our mandate.
		That's our goal.
		And you're right.
		There's a lot more that we can do, but I think we've got a pretty good start after 30 days.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You can see that on our website, our app.
		You can comment on efforts specifically of the administration on inflation.
		202748-8001 for Republicans.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats and Independents.
		202748-8000 to some of you posting on social media.
		This is Anthony Grady from X saying cutting government wasteful spending is a great start, but everything takes time.
		People just want everything now.
		Carl Turley says, yes, he's been in office one month.
		Energy cost and government overspending are two largest contributors to inflation.
		He has acted aggressively on both.
		And then Von Bradley saying, no idea.
		Time will tell.
		Rome wasn't built in a day.
		Again, if you want to post on our various sites, there they are.
		You can also text us at 202748-8003.
		The Trump administration is doing enough to address inflation.
		This is Chris in Alexandria, Virginia, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hey, good morning, everybody.
		I don't know if I can really give an opinion on what I think of his inflation so far because he hasn't.
		Doge hasn't made it quite yet to the Federal Reserve Bank to audit next.
		I mean, that's really where the center of all this inflation comes from.
		They print money, depending on what they want to do, buy sell bonds and manipulate our money supply.
		I mean, I think the United States is probably the greatest money manipulator.
		We get away with it because we're the world's reserve currency.
		I think we're watching unfold before our very eyes at the moment the death of the dollar.
		Can we attribute that to Trump?
		I think he kind of was the straw that walked the camel's back.
		I mean, the Fed has been doing this forever.
		1913, I believe, is when it started.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And they directly control interest rates as far as up and down and deciding how much they'll go up or down.
unidentified		Yeah, that's right.
		Well, to some extent, I mean, they do have that power, but the way the market works, by the time they have executed whatever their policy is in a given time or a given administration, they won't see the effects for a couple of cycles.
		I'm not talking years before.
		I mean, right now, this inflation, if I had to really answer that question, probably Trump, because he was the one when the COVID thing, he allowed these people to get into his head and just spend money like crazy.
		And the Fed was just, you know, a culpable partner, you know, spreading money all the time.
		So what is he doing?
		I support Trump.
		I think he's doing a great job.
		I'm actually in the Republican Party, but I've always been sympathetic towards the libertarians.
		And most Republicans talk like libertarians, but this guy, Trump, is actually doing libertarian things.
		You know, I don't even know what the libertarians are talking about.
		So I'm happy with him.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Chris and Alexandria, Virginia, there.
		Let's hear from our independent line, Greg, also in Virginia.
		Independent line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning, Pedro.
		I think Trump is doing the right thing.
		Everybody's already been saying it.
		But if you cut government spending and if they can stop printing money, it's going to contract the economy.
		And over time, and everybody's already been saying this, but over time, inflation is going to come down.
		My issue, though, is it's probably better to do it through the legislative branch because all these executive orders, you know, the next administration could come in and change everything.
		And so now we're back again to dealing with other issues.
		But anyway.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And you're talking about that Elon Musk effort.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Is that what you're referencing?
unidentified		Yeah, the Elon Musk effort, I think they're good in what they're doing, but it's probably more sustainable to do it through the legislative branch.
		But I understand why you can't.
		It's become very difficult to do anything through legislation now.
		But what I'm worried about is in another four years, we get a new president in there, and he changes everything.
		And we're back to dealing with all these issues again.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Greg Bear in Virginia, he mentioning Elon Musk, Elon Musk being back in the news as of yesterday.
		This is reporting from The Hill saying that Mr. Musk, a special advisor to the president, warned federal employees Saturday of a new policy requiring them to detail their work efforts via email in order to keep their jobs.
		Quote, consistent with the president's instructions, all federal employees will shortly receive an email requesting to understand what they got done last week, he said in a Saturday afternoon post.
		Failure to respond will be taken as resignation.
		The tech giant did not outline any details on the public platform.
		However, the Hill reviewed a copy of messages sent to federal employees.
		Quote, please reply to this email with approximately five bullet points of what you accomplished last week and CC your manager.
		Please do not send any classified information, links, or attachments.
		Deadline is Monday at 11.59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
		Colorado is where Jason is.
		He's on our line for Democrats, the Trump administration's efforts on inflation.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hello?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Okay.
		I guess I should start by saying while the president's actions and choices for the Federal Reserve Board can affect inflation, there are many other factors that must be weighed in when evaluating the root cause behind price increases.
		Inflation can have many causes, including increased production cost, higher demand from Americans, and monetary policy.
		Other things that get factored in are labor costs, raw materials, and market disruptions.
		So when we talk about Donald Trump doing enough to fight inflation, the president doesn't have complete control over a lot of things.
		Once again, when companies decide to start paying more so they can have productive workers, there's a cause of inflation.
		Trump wants people, Trump's hoping for the ridiculous 0% unemployment, which is ridiculous for any economic system.
		But once again, there's a lot of factors involved in this.
		Okay.
		I don't know what else to add.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jason in California there reflected a similar thought by David Rolf off of X saying that no president can control inflation.
		Just another one of President Trump's endless lies that misled voters from Delaware.
		We will hear next from Alex in Delaware, Republican line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		I know why Trump is always saying stupid people.
		He's only been in there for a month.
		He shouldn't even be talking about this.
		It's way too early to talk about inflation and all.
		He's only been there a month.
		They talk about the eggs going up like it's his fault.
		He ain't got nothing to do with that.
		That's from the bird flu.
		And you never tell anybody that when they sit there, Democrats complain about him about eggs.
		And he said that in a year, gasoline prices will be down in half and electric prices in half in a year.
		Now, why is all these people talking like this?
		It doesn't make any sense to me at all.
		People are stupid people.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So if he said that, if he promised that in a year, what makes you think he'll be able to achieve that?
unidentified		He just has been in there for a moment.
unidentified		Because he's going to let the energy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead and finish your thought.
		Alex there in Delaware.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		He told you what he's going to do.
		I don't understand.
		You think we think he could do this stuff in a month?
		It's just crazy.
		Even talk about this stuff.
		It's stupid.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Let's go to Todd.
		Todd in California, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning.
		How are you doing?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hi, thank you.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Okay.
		I don't think Trump is doing enough.
		I voted for him primarily because I agree what he's doing with immigration, but he needs to stop with all of the threatening tariff talk.
		Ideally, I would like to see China, Canada, and Mexico drop all tariffs against each other in an effort to bring the prices down on everything.
		If Trump hasn't done so yet, I'd like him to approve the Keystone Excel pipeline and to stop buying foreign oil because increased transportation costs are a major factor on inflation.
		And then I don't like subsidies, but I think I'm going to have to start subsidizing U.S. farmers because I just got eggs yesterday and they're like $8 for a dozen eggs.
		So that's what I think needs to happen.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So you talked about tariffs, and can you elaborate on your concerns over what tariffs might do when it comes to the economy, particularly inflation?
unidentified		Well, yeah, because when tariffs are slapped on a nation, it's the nation that's like doing the importing that has to pay the tariffs.
		So if Trump threads Canada with 25% tariff, which U.S. taxpayers have to pay, and then Canada threads the U.S. with 25% tariff.
		Prices keep rising in every nation we're doing business with, it's going to just be an unending cycle.
		The prices are never going to go down.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Todd, there in California, giving us his thoughts on inflationary, inflationary topics and the Trump administration's efforts.
		Let's hear from another resident of Delaware.
		This is from Jim.
		He's in Georgetown, Delaware.
		Line for Democrats.
unidentified		Hello.
		Good morning, Pedro.
		Thank you for taking my call, and thank you for C-SPAN.
		A couple of your earlier callers were very interesting.
		Joe from LA, I'm sure investors are happy.
		That's what Trump wants.
		And he is totally incapable of telling people the truth.
		And the reason people are upset that that war hasn't happened is that Trump said he would knock down inflation on day one and he would knock down prices.
		And he made a lot of ridiculous claims that intelligence knew were false.
		But all he does is lie.
		And he told, except when he talks to his billionaire buddies, like in last fall in Mar-a-Lago, when he told all those energy billionaires, if you guys give me a billion dollars, I'll give you whatever you want.
		And he would deregulate everything that he wanted to get rid of.
		And briefly on Elon Musk, why is it that when he set up this Department of Government Efficiency, he hired a bunch of computer hackers?
		Where are the auditors?
		Where are the economists?
		Where are the accountants to go through and dissect the budget to find out what's going on?
		It's all about retribution.
		All the people they fired initially were people who had he had a grudge against.
		Elon Musk, amongst his many faults, doesn't even have a college degree.
		He just waves around a bunch of papers and says how great he is and how smart he is.
		And when you take that many drugs, of course you think you're smart.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jim there in Delaware giving us his thoughts.
		The Reuters-Ipsos poll that came out recently took a look at attitudes of the economy overall when it comes to going into the year, saying to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
		People responded saying, after paying my bills, I do not have enough money left to spend on the things I want.
		42% saying that.
		The government should have an active role in keeping mortgage rates low.
		60% saying that.
		Home ownership is an important part of the American dream.
		76% saying that.
		The government should continue to set policies that reduce carbon emissions from fuel, 58%.
		And then also the topic of cryptocurrency, 18% saying that it was a safe investment, at least for those who were polled.
		Those are some categories.
		One of those other categories, which some of the viewers have brought up, is the price of eggs.
		That was the similar sentiment of Arizona's Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, criticizing the Trump administration overall on efforts on the economy, but also using eggs as an example.
		Here's Senator Kelly from last week.
unidentified		The Safeway down the road from my house in Tucson is now charging $9.49 a dozen for eggs.
		And I can't remember ever seeing it this high.
		Some grocery stores are rationing eggs, only allowing customers to buy one or two cartons at a time.
		And if you go to the Waffle House, you're paying a surcharge for each egg that you buy.
		Now, who has ever heard of such a thing?
		Now, what I want to know is where is Donald Trump and Elon Musk?
		Well, a few days ago, they accidentally fired a bunch of people at the Department of Agriculture whose job it is to stop this outbreak.
		The next question you may ask is why?
		Why would they do this?
		Why are Elon Musk and Donald Trump slashing and cutting so recklessly that they would fire the people working to stop bird flu?
		Well, Mr. President, it's because what's in front of us here in the Senate this week, they want to take the next steps towards a big tax giveaway for rich people.
		But they have to find some ways to pay for it.
		It's wrapped up in all this budget bureaucracy stuff.
		But here's the crux of it.
		Making health coverage and food more expensive for working families.
		That's what's going to happen.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That was from last week.
		The Hill reporting from a couple of days ago, specifically efforts by the administration on those egg prices.
		And when it comes to the AVM flu, saying as egg prices continue to rise and more cases are detected, state and local health officials say there's no clear plan of action from the administration.
		Dozens of people in the U.S. have contracted disease with the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention reporting the first human death of avian flu last month.
		When the president took office, his administration instituted an external communications blackout across health agencies.
		State and local health departments are only just beginning to hear from officials at the CDC.
		It quotes Adrian Cassalotti, the Chief of Government and Public Affairs for the National Association of County and City Health Officials, saying that they heard a short update from CVC on the avian flu, saying it's absolutely critical that local health departments and the federal government are in communication because both sides have something to add to the conversation to make sure we have the best evidence to move forward.
		Here's Robert in Delaware, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on, go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, I'd like to know about how they keep saying that we're a white racist country.
unidentified		You know, I'm a Democrat and I don't know no white race.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, caller, the topic is inflation and what the Trump administration is doing about it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about that?
unidentified		Well, I think that Trump's doing the best job he can.
		I'm a Democrat.
		Let me tell you, Trump is doing so much better than any Democrats ever did.
		That Joe Biden, you know, I don't live that far from him.
		That guy didn't know what the heck he was doing for the last four years.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And when it comes to the topic of inflation, what do you think the Trump administration is specifically doing about it?
unidentified		I think Drill Oil Drill is going to bring us out of all this.
		All that other stuff when China's building all these coal factories and all that, how are they helping us?
		I would like to know that.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Peter in Maryland, Independent Line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hello.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Okay, thank you very much.
		I think I really thank C-SPAN for all you're doing and trying to get Americans to talk to each other.
		And I request that you consider opening up another C-SPAN line for those Americans who want to see us work together, bipartisan, to help America get great.
		We all, Democrats and Republicans, want to have a safe environment for our kids.
		None of us want government waste.
		None of us want to see high inflation.
		We all want the same thing.
		And I request that we stop with all this hate, stop with all this condemnation, stop having Republicans call in on the Democrat line pretending to be a Democrat like the last caller.
		And let's be honest and real and truthful with each other.
		Let's find bipartisan solutions.
		Musk should have Democrats working with him to clean up government waste if he really wanted to clean up government waste.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's a bipartisan solution to inflation, do you think?
unidentified		Getting together and finding out the cause of inflation, realizing it is way beyond any one item here or there.
		It's world economy.
		It's working together around the world to find a mutual solution for all people.
		We are not the only nation facing inflation.
		This is not an only American problem.
		This is a world inflation crisis.
		And we need to work together to solve our problems.
		It is unfortunate that our current office leader of the presidency does not believe in working together.
		That is a huge problem for finding a solution that will work.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Peter there in Silver Spring, Maryland, giving us his thoughts.
		He talked about inflation being a worldwide issue.
		In fact, Ipsos, the poll, took polling of those who live in other countries besides the United States, asking residents of those, which three of the following topics do you find the most worrying in your country?
		Of those who responded from the various countries, inflation's still topping that list.
		32% of those saying that that was a top concern of theirs.
		That matched directly at 32% with the issue of crime and violence, only followed by poverty and social inequality at 28%.
		It goes down from there.
		I will continue on.
		Your thoughts on the Trump administration's efforts on inflation.
		Again, if you want to call us, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can text us your thoughts at 202-748-8003.
		Our social media sites available too.
		Facebook.com/slash C-SPAN is how you post there.
		And on X, that's at C-SPAN WJ. Republican Line, this is from Betty.
		She's in South Carolina.
		Good morning.
		Go ahead.
		You're next.
unidentified		Yes.
		Trump is doing a good job.
		What all these people has done to that man ever since he's been the first president, it was good when he was in.
		I know you're going to cut me off because you done already put your finger on the button.
		You let the Democrats talk and lie.
		Every one of them lies.
		They some good Democrats and they some bad.
		And just like Republicans, say some good ones and they some bad ones.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So, Betty, you're still with us when it comes to inflation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think the Trump administration has done specifically?
unidentified		Well, he ain't been in office no time, and he's done a lot.
		Can you not see?
		These people can't say the Democrats that should be, if they want to be, want to move to where Biden lives, Delaware, forever.
		Why don't they live where he is and see if he helps them?
		All he wanted is what they want, what power.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And so, Betty, you said the Trump administration's doing a lot when it comes to the issue.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Specifically, what, do you think?
unidentified		Yes, everything.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Such as what specifically.
unidentified		Well, the border, the crime, and everything, everything he's done since he's become president.
		And these people are lying and saying things about that man.
		And you know what?
		I've always heard what comes around goes around.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		He's a good man.
		He's a good Christian man.
		And his whole family is a good people.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Betty in South Carolina.
		Let's hear from our Democrats line in Ohio.
		This is Greg.
		Hello.
unidentified		This is why we are critical of President Trump.
		And I quote: I will lower prices and inflation on day one.
		He repeatedly said that.
		And Janet Jackson used to have a song, What Have You Done for Me Lately?
		He has done nothing to lower inflation in prices.
		An executive order will not lower prices.
		A president has no control over the free market.
		Thus far, the Republican Party has not put any legislation together to lower prices except the Lincoln-Riley bill.
		And how is that putting more money in your pocket?
		Doge is not putting more money in your pocket.
		Drilling for oil is not going to lower my mortgage.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But if the Republicans make the case that reducing spending overall will reduce inflation, what do you think of that argument?
unidentified		Those are two separate entities.
		The government always going to spend money.
		Each presidency is going to spend money.
		That's just the way it is.
		It is no correlation to lowering inflation.
		And he is upsetting a lot of people by laying them off and people who he voted for.
		And it's just giving us Democrats ammunition to win in 2026 and 2028.
		So I'll leave with the famous quote from Star Wars: Who is the worst?
		The fool or the fool who follows him?
		Have a nice day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Florida is next.
		That's where Jack is.
		Independent line, the president's efforts of reducing inflation or dealing with inflation.
		Jack in Florida, hello.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		Good morning, C-SPAN.
		Yes, inflation is going to be with us for a long, long time.
		The president wants to be an isolationist.
		That's going to hurt America very, very, it's just going to hurt the people in the United States of America and all these tariffs and everything.
		There was a gentleman on C-SPAN yesterday.
		His name was last name was Knowles, I believe it was.
		But anyway, he was talking about the same thing.
		They don't mention about the president wanting to be an isolationist.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You said that and started with that.
		How does that then relate to inflation specifically?
		Is it through the tariffs you mentioned, or are there other avenues?
unidentified		It'll be through the tariffs.
		And also, him and Musk get away with U.S. aid.
		That was a very vital part of showing how good the United States used to be.
		And we're going to have an Ebola breakout if it's not already happening.
		And that's going to hurt a lot of things too, and that will hurt inflation.
		And everybody in the world wants the same thing the United States have, and there's always so much to go around.
		And it just doesn't, it's just common sense that we're going to have inflation will never be solved, in my humble opinion.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats line's next in North Carolina.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Daniel, hello.
unidentified		Hi, thanks for taking my call.
		So I'm concerned on a couple of levels.
		I'm willing to kind of give the new guy a chance.
		I understand from both sides.
		People have made a comment.
		Economies take a while for leading indicators, and inflation is definitely one of those.
		But the two things I see are: one, the risk that he is in going about just in some of the policy and the way that he's going about doing things for inflation to have dramatic changes.
		Maybe it could be for the better, but if you look at history, as some of the callers have pointed out, these are worldwide problems.
		So one historical element, I know it's kind of flip-flopped that the Democrat is talking about remembering since we have the idea of the Republicans never forget, but the Smoot-Hartley Tariff Act.
		So that's something that can lead to backfiring with retaliatory tariffs.
		The second thing, though, is this whole Doge idea is premised on, I mean, the marketing of it has to do with cryptocurrency.
		And, you know, I've had crypto.
		I know what it is.
		I don't think it's the panacea that people think it is.
		But we are threatening the reserve currency status of America with some of the rash actions.
		And the impact from that could be drastic.
		And so that's my first concern is risk.
		And I really want to see some, I'm not an economist, economist.
		I can't even say the word.
		I know there's classical, there's Keynesian, there's Austrian, there's Marxist, there's supply side.
		We can debate that, but I don't really see a coherent strategy.
		And if you want to talk about it as a budget, how you handle a family budget, a Christian budget, the first 10% is tithing.
		It's what you give to the community, to those people who are less fortunate than you, and you get that back.
		I would say the wrath of God comes much more quickly than his good favor.
		And so that's one element we have to look at.
		And then the second thing is just paying yourself first.
		This doesn't make any sense to have the cuts in grants for a basic R D.
		And I think some of the long-term impacts from that, whether they manifest in inflation or other budgetary items, it's just something that's a lot of risk.
		And so that's the thing that makes me very concerned right now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Daniel there in North Carolina there, Claire in North Dakota, texting us this morning saying the polls were only a week into the president's term.
		He can't change things overnight.
		In my area, groceries have started going down.
		Eggs are $9, but that was caused by Biden killing all the chickens.
		It takes three to four months for a chicken to lay an egg to get to an egg-laying stage.
		If energy prices come down, it will make a big difference in the price of everything.
		Again, texting us, that's the number you can do that there, 202-748-8003.
		If you wish to communicate your thoughts that way, always post on our social media sites there, too.
		Bob is next.
		He's in Indiana, Republican line.
		Hi, Bob.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you, Pedro?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I am well, thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		All right.
		I just want to say a couple of things.
		And I think what people are saying that you cannot change the prices in a month is so true.
		However, we do know, and when people are talking about if you can reduce energy costs, it's going to be a big deal towards the cost of shipping things.
		Prices of gas in Indiana have dropped since the president was elected.
		And I think taking actions toward lowering energy costs is a big thing about being able to lower prices.
		And Doge is doing what Doge was supposed to do.
		That's what we knew during the campaigning that we were going to have Doge.
		And if they can reduce waste and reduce spending in the government, so be it.
		That's going to be a great thing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How much are you paying for gas there compared to when the president took office?
unidentified		Oh, yeah.
		We were, I can buy gas now for under $3.
		And on the election day, I think it was $3.29.
		So, I mean, at least that's what you find when you Google it.
		Okay.
		My last point is USDA is predicting that eggs will be back to normal prices of anywhere from $2.10 to $2.50 by the end of April.
		And definitely they will continue to decrease by the third quarter.
		That's the USDA predictions.
		So I don't know what the Democrats are going to say then if the eggs go back up.
		So that's my comments, and I thank you, and I love living in Indiana, a great red state.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Bob's there in Indiana.
		Let's hear from Ohio.
		Gerald is there, independent line.
		Good morning.
		You're next up.
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on, sir.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		To the first caller, to the first caller from Delaware saying Trump and everybody's stupid and this and that.
		Well, Trump's doing a good job.
		And first of all, Trump wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for Biden.
		Biden put us in this mess.
		He was the dumbest president ever.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And I want to say, well, what do you think about the efforts on inflation specifically and what the Trump administration is doing about it?
unidentified		Well, you can't do it.
		You can't do it overnight.
		And it takes a while, and it takes a while to do it.
tony in texas ▲ ● ▼		And to all these Democrats, they could do it just overnight.
jimmy in texas ▲ ● ▼		You can't do it overnight, and it takes time to do it.
unidentified		And it takes time to do it.
unidentified		And it takes a while.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, finish your thought, Gerald.
unidentified		He'll get it done.
		That's what the Republicans put him in the House for.
		Put him for president for.
		He'll get it done.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Gerald there in Ohio giving us his thoughts.
		It was Kevin Hassett, the White House Economic Council director, who paid a visit to the briefing room last week, specifically talking about efforts on inflation, directives from President Trump.
		Here's Kevin Hassett.
unidentified		And he had to do that because, as you know, President Biden let inflation get completely out of control.
		And he did it with policies that made no sense.
		They made no sense.
kevin hassett ▲ ● ▼		A lot of times people say to us, our friends at journalists, why are you doing that?
unidentified		But, you know, I like to think, why did they do that?
		Why did they spend so much money?
		And then why did the Fed print so much money so that we had inflation as high as we've ever seen since Shibby Carter?
		So why did they do that?
		So we're addressing inflation.
		We didn't have to address it in the first term because it was always in the ones, almost always.
		But we're going to get it back there.
		And how are we doing it?
kevin hassett ▲ ● ▼		Well, we're doing it with a plan that President Trump and I and others have talked about in the Oval that involves like every level of fighting inflation.
unidentified		First, the macroeconomic level.
		We're cutting spending.
		We're cutting spending in negotiations with people on the hill.
		We're cutting spending with the advice of our IT consultant, Elon Musk.
kevin hassett ▲ ● ▼		And then we're also looking into supply-side things, like restoring Trump's tax cuts, maybe even expensing new factories, so that there is an explosion of supply.
unidentified		If you have an explosion of supply and a reduction in government demand, then inflation goes way down.
unidentified		And then one of the things that you will want to say is, well, when are you going to see it?
kevin hassett ▲ ● ▼		Well, the first thing that you'll see when the markets believe that we're going to get inflation under control is that the 10-year Treasury rate goes down because that's how they think about future expected inflation.
kevin hassett ▲ ● ▼		And so we're still going to see some memory of Biden's inflation.
unidentified		It's not going to go away in a month.
kevin hassett ▲ ● ▼		But the 10-year Treasury, before the last consumer price index, had dropped about 40 basis points.
unidentified		40 basis points because markets were optimistic about our ability to fight inflation.
		40 basis points is kind of not a fun thing to say.
		I kind of talked that way.
		I apologize.
kevin hassett ▲ ● ▼		But the way to think about it is for a typical mortgage, if that affects the mortgage rate, then it's going to save a typical family buying a house about $1,000 a year.
unidentified		And that's just in our first month.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Here is Matt.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		He's in North Carolina, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hey, good morning.
		I think just a couple of things.
		Number one, I just want to just put out the one statement that I'm super concerned about, Elon Musk and Trump being together, because if they have a falling out and they're upset and Trump kicks them out of the White House, I am concerned that Elon with his unlimited wealth can just do some real harm to the presidency by just putting out a bunch of mass information that is false or not good for our president.
		I'm concerned about that.
		I am a Democrat, but he's still the president, so I've got to protect him before I'm going to protect a billionaire.
john goglia ▲ ● ▼		Concerning inflation, the problem with why we have inflation is because twofold.
unidentified		Number one, the United States is focused on profits.
		That's all we care about.
		There's two major stores, Albertson and Kroger.
		They were trying to combine.
		They own all the big grocery stores that everybody goes to in the entire United States.
		So they control the pricing.
		There's no motivation to lower prices and reduce profits because that's what America is all about.
		It's all about profits.
		And they're going to squeeze the American public as hard as they can.
john goglia ▲ ● ▼		Kamala, or the Biden administration, was attempting to prevent Albertson's and Kroger, I think it's Kroger, whoever, those two big companies from combining, you know what I mean?
unidentified		Because then they could set the price for whatever.
		What's their motivation to reduce pricing?
		And the only way that we can do that is to reduce monopolies.
		Everything that you, like the meat producers, there's only four meat producers in the United States that produce all the meat.
		You know, I mean, everything is profit-based.
		There is zero motivation for big companies to give us better pricing.
		Zero.
		Because at the end of the line, that goes to Wall Street and profits and people's Roth IRAs.
		They're in Wall Street.
		Then you reduce those numbers and then you don't have as much in your retirement.
		So it's a lot more than just Trump flicking his wrist or saying, hey, I'm going to reduce price.
		He can't do that.
		You know what I mean?
		There's no reason for fuel companies to produce less fuel or more fuel and reduce their profits and pricing.
		There's no motivation.
		And then if the American people are poor, it doesn't matter.
		They have got an algorithm going out that I truly believe that all they want to do is maximize profits and squeeze us as hard as they can, and there's no motivation for them to make it better on the American public.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Have a good day.
		Matt in North Carolina, we'll go next to Larry in Michigan, Republican line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, Pedro.
		Inflation is caused by too much money, chasing too few goods.
		Has this explained it perfectly?
		Printing all that money during the Biden administration and even during the Trump administration, spending $2 trillion more than they take in is what caused inflation.
		And Trump is addressing that right now with all these cuts.
		It's right before our eyes.
		He told us during the campaign it would take about a year to get the energy prices down and to get everything down.
		And he was going to start addressing it on day one.
		He's doing everything he said he was going to do.
		Inflation is going to get under control, but it'll just take a little time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And how much of that do you think is connected to this Doge effort that other people have brought up?
unidentified		I think the Doge is the center point of getting it done.
		We've got to stop the $2 trillion a year overspending and get it under control so we aren't printing so much money.
		And then, like the 10-year treasuries will come down.
		The Fed cannot reduce interest rates.
		The market will do it.
		And contrary to the person who just spoke before me, the markets do bring prices down.
		There is incentive to bring prices down.
		And it's free market capitalism that'll do it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Larry there in Michigan giving us his thoughts on the topic of inflation and the efforts by the Trump administration.
		Another perspective from Virginia.
		This is Alan on our independent line.
		Hello.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		My favorite host, the C-SPAN.
		Keep up the good work.
		Hey, I have a couple of points to make quickly, but I want to go back four years.
		We had four years under Donald Trump, which was pretty good years.
		We had four years under Biden, which was miserable.
		Trump is using an overall approach to fight inflation and do these things.
		And I'll give you an example.
		With what Elon Musk is doing, it's cutting billions and billions of Fed and waste and fraud out is a big step.
		Second thing is have these foreign countries to step up and pay their fair share for the U.S. is being paying it all.
		It's time for other countries to step up and pay their share as well as instead of the U.S. paying for everything that's going on.
		But I think President Trump is doing a good job.
		I think it's going to take some time.
		Things don't happen in 30 days.
		And again, if we just go back and compare him against, there's no comparison.
		You know, we've got the main thing I want to say is it's common sense that's being used now.
		We need common sense with some brains that we didn't have before.
		But hey, thank you.
		Have a nice day and keep up the good work.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Alan, there in Virginia, this is from the BankRate website about the contributors to inflation.
		And to put some perspective, saying currently the main contributors there are shelter, insurance, and services more broadly.
		Shelter accounted for nearly three-tenths or 26% of the month over month increases in prices in January and 53% of the increase in prices over the past 12 months.
		Car insurance accounted for 11% of both the monthly and annual inflation rates and services accounted for more than two-thirds, 64% of inflation over the past month and 90% of the 12-month increase in prices, excluding food, energy, and shelter prices, would have increased about 1.9% from a year ago below the Fed's preferred 2% goalpost.
		And this adding that the drivers of inflation changed dramatically since the initial post-pandemic price bursts.
		When price pressures peaked in June of 2022, shelter was driving just 20% of the annual increase in prices.
		But as consumers emerge from lockdowns with massive pent-up demand at the same time as global supply shortages, energy was driving about a third of inflation, while food prices driving about 15% of inflation.
		Roger in Kansas, Democrats line.
		Hello, you're next up.
unidentified		Yes.
		Yeah, this is Roger.
		I'm from Kansas.
		I'm also involved in agriculture.
		I'm kind of sick and tired of hearing about eggs.
		If you have a chicken after it's born, it's seven weeks before it becomes an adult.
		Seven weeks.
		And then it can start laying.
		And also, I would challenge anyone out there to buy 20 chickens and see if they can make enough money at $7 a dozen.
		They would not do it.
		Agriculture is a hard business to be in.
		This brings back the question, what came first, the chicken or the egg.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Roger there in Kansas from James, James and Texas, Republican line.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
unidentified		How are you doing?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Well, yes, I've been Republican all my life, but what I've observed very simply, and I'm glad you're having this, and we need to talk about inflation.
		But if you look at what the last four years money was just spent, we found out through Does that very simply he's finding out what we've been overspending.
		And because I've been in Maryland before, I'm also a writer.
		But the point is, until we figure out what the problem is through common sense, with U.S.AID, we found out that $47.5 billion, they don't know what went.
		Well, the Treasury takes our taxes in.
		That's fraud and misuse.
		So until we understand what the problem is, we can't solve it.
		Dysfunctional leadership within our nation has been rapid for many, many years.
		And the sad part is they work for the American people.
		The American people work for them.
		And so when I see individuals, Democrats complaining, Republicans complaining, we need to come together.
		I'll listen to this first time I've turned your show on, and I appreciate you doing this because we need to understand what we're doing and why we're doing it.
		Until common sense come in, President Trump ran into this with over just throwing money out through the Biden administration.
		Now they're finding out through doves where it's going.
		Those individuals over, those individuals over who've been elected have committed fraud on the taxpayer.
		I ran into a lady the other day, a grandmother.
		She didn't know that the tax money, $47.5 billion, have gone to other areas and other nations.
		Why?
		It is sad to me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		OK.
unidentified		We have.
		Go ahead and finish your thought, go ahead and finish your thought.
		Very simply, common sense and leadership, which is two areas, and I'll say this.
		Equal leadership, it takes humility plus integrity, equal leadership.
		Humility when you're wrong.
		Integrity to do the right thing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		We don't see that a lot in leadership.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		James in Texas there giving us a call.
		Somebody giving his thoughts as well was the Democratic governor of Kentucky, Andy Bashir.
		It was a recent discussion with governors on Politico's site.
		Specifically, he talked about the Trump administration's plans for tariffs and how it could affect states like his.
andy beshear ▲ ● ▼		Here's some of the We'll do everything we can, but it will hit us and it'll hit us hard, and it already is hitting the American people.
		So Kentucky has set export records, actually every economic record in the last several years.
		Our economy is booming, and this is the biggest threat I've seen to it, aside from the pandemic since I became governor.
		We've set export records in back-to-back years, but Canada is about 22, 23% of all of our exports, and we're not alone as a state in those numbers.
		I believe that Donald Trump ultimately became president because that last group of movable voters thought he would do more to bring down prices.
		Yet we see inflation going up.
		We see these threatened tariffs and the ones put in effect, raising the price of gas, raising the price of groceries.
		If this president continues to focus on the culture war issues and ignores what's happening in our economy, uses tariffs to try to get non-economic concessions, thus gambling, the price of everything, gambling on inflation, I think the American people will end up feeling betrayed because they believe that he was less distracted and would do more.
		But what we've seen thus far is he's doing everything but address prices.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Here is Gio in Ohio, Independent Line.
unidentified		Okay, how are you doing today?
		Thank you for having me at.
		First of all, I want to say to Governor Andy Bersher: how can you even make a statement about he's doing nothing to reduce prices on groceries and what have you when he's only been in office for a long?
		The other president was in office for four years and couldn't do one thing.
		And it seems like all the Democrats give him a pass.
		This guy's just started.
		He's just, he just, he's not even been in office long enough.
		And for as far as everybody worried about Elon Musk and what he's doing and all this, they have great advisors that are attorneys that are the best advisors you could ever imagine.
		Do you think they're going to do something that they shouldn't be doing?
		It's just common sense.
		Clean and simple.
		You got to put things in the right perspective.
		You just can't assume that they're doing the wrong thing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Gio in Ohio, this is Willie in Georgia, Democrats line.
unidentified		Yeah, thank you for taking my call.
		All this stuff that's going on with Elon Musk and Dodge and stuff, follow the money.
		He's doing something else on the other side while he's tricking the media.
		They're talking about this stuff that's going on about the treasury and all that.
		While he on his way to Saudi Arabia to pick up some more money, him, that Kushner boy went last month.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well, we're talking about the Trump administration's efforts on inflation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think specifically about that?
unidentified		Well, by his inflation, Biden had everything going pretty good.
		You know, he's not doing nothing because the little money that he's collecting or saving, laying off people, he's not doing nothing.
		You know, he's a liar and he's a criminal.
		And I mean, what do you expect?
		You know, just watch, follow the money.
		Okay.
		That's what he did.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Willie there in Georgia.
		One thing to watch off our networks today, this afternoon, about one o'clock this afternoon, it's the principals' first conference, and it will feature former National Security Advisor John Bolton, former Georgia Lieutenant Governor Jeff Duncan, and others will speak at that annual Principals' First Conference here in Washington, D.C.
		This event is the alternative to what is typically known as CPAC, which we've been showing you last week.
		We showed you last week, you can still find online.
		But if you're interested in this Principal's First Conference featuring these two speakers, one o'clock is the time.
		C-SPAN, our app, C-SPAN now, and our website at c-span.org is where you can watch it.
		Here is Bob, Bob in Pennsylvania, Republican line.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on, go ahead.
unidentified		There's finally promise in the world.
unidentified		This is the most exciting thing that has happened to the United States since the space race when I was eight years old.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, if you're talking about inflation, what do you mean specifically?
unidentified		They finally caught the Democrats with their hands in the shell.
unidentified		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Bob in Pennsylvania finishing off this hour of calls.
		Thanks to those of you who participated.
		Two guests joining us throughout the course of the morning to talk to you and answer questions.
		Former CIA Russia analyst George Beebe. talks about the efforts of the Trump administration to bring an end to the Ukraine-Russia war.
		He'll be up next.
		And then later on in the program, we will beat Run for Something's Amanda Lippmann.
		She'll discuss to talk about her group's efforts to recruit, train, and support young progressives running for office.
		Those conversations coming up on Washington Journal.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		100 years ago this past August was the beginning of what's often been called the Great War.
		World War I had military casualties of over 9 million and millions more of civilians.
		Professor Sean McMeekin of Bard College, located in New York State, has written nine books since 2003 on subjects that include German history, Russian history, the Ottoman Empire, communism, World War II, and one titled July 1914.
		This last book will be the focus of our conversation with Professor McMeekin.
		World War I was triggered in late June of 1914 by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, in Sarajevo, Bosnia.
		They were gunned down by a Serbian 19-year-old by the name of Gavrulo Princip.
unidentified		Author Sean McMeekin talks about his book, July 1914, Countdown to War, on this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
		Looking to contact your members of Congress?
		Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
		Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
		This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
		Contact information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.
		The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's non-profit operations.
		Scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to pre-order your copy today.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is George Beebe joining us with the Quincy the Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
		He's the director of grand strategy.
		Also, he served as a former special advisor to Vice President Cheney on Russia.
		Issues also a former CIA Russian analysis chief.
		A lot there.
		Welcome to the program.
		Welcome back.
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We'll remind people about the Quincy Institute, what position it takes generally when it comes to these issues of foreign policy, and then specifically towards Ukraine-Russia.
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, the Quincy Institute is what we call a transpartisan organization, meaning we're trying to bring the left and right sides of the political spectrum together around the notion that the United States needs to reinvigorate diplomacy in its approach to the world,
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		that we need to focus less on trying to transform other countries internally, less on wars of regime change, for example, and more on restraint and keeping American interests foremost in mind and using diplomacy as the first resort to try to manage conflict in the world.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How is your organization financially supported?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, we don't take any money from foreign entities.
		We don't take any money from defense contractors.
		So we do take money from foundations and from individuals.
		And we try to be very transparent about where we're getting our money.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		On the issue of Ukraine, we're approaching three years since Russia invaded Ukraine.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's your assessment of the last three years to date?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, this war has lasted longer than I think a lot of people thought it would.
		And it has been quite destructive, quite disruptive, and threatens, has threatened to turn into a direct conflict between the United States and Russia, which of course would likely go nuclear and be quite catastrophic.
		But right now, the momentum on the war is on the side of the Russians.
		They've turned this into a war of attrition, where their superior population, their superior military industry production is having an impact in wearing out the Ukrainians.
		They're slowly running out of men, and the West is running out of weapons to provide to Ukraine.
		So I think that creates a situation where this war does need to end fairly urgently in some sort of negotiated compromise.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Now that you see efforts by the Trump administration, we saw efforts in Riyadh last week talking at least among some of the party members.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the cautionary, what's the cautions for the Trump administration, specifically for the State Department moving forward in these negotiations?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think the challenge that the Trump administration has here is to find that sweet spot between Russian, American, European, and Ukrainian core interests, find out where they overlap, and manage that situation so that we can compromise in ways that respect everybody's red lines on all of this.
		That's not going to be an easy thing.
		We're seeing that already.
		There's a fair amount of controversy that is spilled out into the public domain on all of this.
		But I do think it is possible for them to pull this off.
		So far, I think they're taking the right steps.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How so?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, the biggest challenge that we face on the Russian side is Russia's skepticism that we're willing to talk about what for Moscow is the core issue at stake, which is the expansion of the NATO alliance eastward to incorporate Ukraine and other parts of the former Soviet Union in ways that Russia believes threatens Russia's core security interests.
		The Russians have been urging us to discuss that issue with them for decades, quite honestly.
		And the United States has said, no, that's not on the table.
		We're not willing to talk about whether Ukraine will be a member of NATO or not.
		That is something that will happen sooner or later, and Russia doesn't get a voice in all of that.
		And the Russians have said, well, no.
		We either have to compromise on that issue or Russia will use force to prevent that from happening.
		So the Trump administration has got to signal to the Russians that we are willing to talk about that.
		But they have to do so in a way that doesn't actually make a concession that Russia doesn't reciprocate.
		The Russians are going to have to make a compromise too.
		Now, the Europeans and the Ukrainians don't want us to talk about that issue.
		Their diagnosis of this war is that it is a war of imperialistic conquest, much like Nazi Germany undertook in World War II.
		And their belief is that you don't ever offer diplomacy to an imperialist aggressor state.
		That's appeasement.
		It only makes the problem worse.
		The Trump administration's diagnosis of this, which I happen to share, is that in fact we're in an escalatory spiral, where things that the West has done that made sense from our security point of view threaten Russia's security concerns.
		Russia in turn was very aggressive in countering that.
		And we got ourselves into an escalatory spiral that will continue unless there is diplomacy to end that spiral.
		And so we have to convince the Europeans and the Ukrainians that that's what's necessary in all of this.
		And that's part of why you're seeing the public arguing over this that you are.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The editors of the New York Times this morning in their paper talk about these efforts and they say this, the very act of discussing an end to the war without the presence of Ukraine or any other ally at the table violates the fundamental principle that the United States has proclaimed from the outset of its support for Ukraine, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.
		That alone is a huge victory for Mr. Putin who portrays his war as a struggle for spheres of influence among great powers rather than the brutal land grab that it is.
		What do you think?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well I think that actually incorporates very nicely these two schools of thought that are out there contending over how you understand why we got into the situation that we're in right now.
		I think the New York Times is saying, no, this is like World War II.
		This is an imperialist land grab and you don't actually negotiate with an aggressor state.
		It only whets the aggressor's appetite for more aggression.
		And I think the Trump administration says, well, no, that's a misdiagnosis of the problem.
		We're in a situation that actually requires diplomacy.
		It requires compromise.
		And you have to signal to the Russians and to our own side in this that that's the direction that we're going.
		So I think so far the Trump administration has done a very good job of signaling to the Russians that we're willing to talk about things that they think are necessary to talk about.
		We're not putting anything on paper yet in formal concessions.
		I think in order to get this codified in a treaty, the Russians are going to have to make some concessions too.
		But we are sending the right signal that we're willing to talk about this issue.
		And we're also telling the Europeans and Ukrainians, you're not going to have a veto over whether there are negotiations or not.
		At the right time, they are going to be a part of this process.
		I think that's absolutely clear.
		The Trump administration has said that they will have a role to play.
		But this is going to be a sequenced set of negotiations.
		And the first step is between Moscow and Washington to make clear that we are willing to talk about some of these issues that the Russians have concerns about.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		George Beebe is our guest.
		And if you want to ask him questions, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can also text us questions or comments, 202-748-8003.
		You said first steps.
		Why not have Ukraine as part of these first steps?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, for a couple of reasons.
		Number one, The Biden administration has conceived of this war as basically a bilateral conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
		The U.S. shouldn't be involved in that.
		And that it's up to the Ukrainians to decide if and when they're going to seek an end to the war.
		And that the source of our leverage in that kind of Ukraine-Russia negotiation is to maximize Ukraine's battlefield success and also to isolate Russia diplomatically and put the squeeze on its economy so that Russia has to say uncle, essentially, and capitulate to the Ukrainians.
		That didn't work.
		The Russians quite successfully found a way to cope with economic sanctions.
		The only place they're isolated in the world diplomatically is in the West, but the rest of the world, Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, the Russians have more or less normal diplomatic relations.
		And the momentum on the battlefield is really on Russia's side.
		They have successfully turned this into a war of attrition.
		So what I think we need to do is not at the start signal to the Russians that it's between Moscow and Kiev.
		We need to show the Russians we understand the broader geopolitical context that this war is taking place in, this broader tug of war over what the European security architecture is going to look like and whether Russia will have any role in that at all, and whether it will be entirely dominated by NATO, which the Russians object to.
		That's something that has to be a conversation between Moscow and Washington.
		Now, once that happens, once the Russians understand we're willing to look at a new relationship between the United States and Russia, then I think the Russians are actually incentivized to make some compromises with Ukraine to end this war,
		to allow Ukraine to embark on a path toward, for example, European Union membership, to contemplate economic reconstruction of Ukraine and settle what are essentially bilateral issues over how you deal with territory, how you deal with treatment of ethnic and linguistic minorities, exchange of prisoners of war, reparations, those sorts of things.
		But the bigger context has to be addressed first because that's an enabling function that will allow compromises on those bilateral issues that are so difficult.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		First call for you, George BB, comes from Samuel in Colorado Independent Line.
		You're on with our guests.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, sir.
unidentified		How are you doing this morning?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Very good, thank you.
unidentified		I just wanted to say a couple things.
		The whole thing with you right-wingers is you expect Ukraine to give up everything and Russia give up nothing.
		And it's just lopsided as can be.
		And I think, you know, Trump lied and said Ukraine started the war, which is a lie.
		The war was going on during the first Trump administration, which he lies and says it wasn't.
		And you've got to get your head screwed on straight, buddy.
		That's all there is to it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, we'll let our guests respond.
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, in terms of Russia giving up nothing and Ukraine giving up everything, I think if you look at this war as primarily a bilateral conflict between Russia and Ukraine, then that context makes sense.
		What you're saying looks like it fits the situation.
		Because Russia is not going to give up land that it currently occupies militarily.
		That's quite clear.
		Ukraine can't compel Russia to give up that land.
		They've tried to do that, particularly in 2023 with the counteroffensive that they launched at that time.
		It failed quite spectacularly.
		And the only way the United States can compel Russia to give up land that it now occupies in Ukraine is to go to war directly with Russia.
		And that would not end well.
		So the question then becomes, what kind of compromise is possible if it's not territorial compromise?
		And I think there, what Russia is going to have to concede, and what I think it ultimately will concede, is that Ukraine will be an independent and sovereign country.
		The Russians are not going to be raising the flag over the Ukrainian capital.
		And Russia is going to not occupy the vast majority of Ukrainian territory.
		And I think Russia will concede that Ukraine has a viable path toward membership in the European Union.
		That will allow Ukraine to be reconstructed economically.
		It will allow Ukraine to attract the migrants, the refugees that have fled Ukraine since the start of this invasion.
		And I think Ukraine can become a viable, prosperous state that is anchored economically in Europe.
		But it will be neutral militarily.
		It will not be a part of the NATO alliance.
		Those are significant concessions for the Russians to make.
		And I do think we're on a path toward that kind of compromise.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Republican line from Virginia, Michael, go ahead.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I would like to know if you have any insight as to why the media here in the United States isn't covering this conflict the way it does every other conflict, where daily we would see the death, we would see the destruction, we would hear stories, personal stories of people suffering because of the war, the way they did in Syria, Iraq, everywhere else.
		The point is, as far as ending the war, the way it is now, Russia has more blood to spill, and Ukraine doesn't.
		If the war doesn't come to some sort of end, it's going to escalate and more nations will be involved.
		So I would like to see peace and, you know, what you said earlier that Russia is not going to give up land that it already conquered.
		But yeah, you know, we could support Ukraine, have strategic partnerships with Ukraine, with minerals, the rare earth minerals that Ukraine has that's a strategic interest to the United States.
		And, you know, Russia, I think, will lose anyways because they're so much weaker now internationally than they were when this conflict started.
		And, you know, these European nations, they're still buying oil from natural gas from Russia.
		Even NATO allies are buying gas from Russia.
		It doesn't make any sense to me how they can say they're supporting Ukraine and arming them while at the same time they're buying oil from Russia.
		And, you know, the initiative is a lot of the same.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let me pause you there.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Only, Carla, you put a lot for our guests to consider, so go ahead.
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, yeah, I do think that the Ukrainians are in a difficult position overall.
		And that has been underplayed in Western media coverage.
		And this is a big topic of why the war is being covered the way it has been covered.
		I will simply say that I think there's been an information war, so to speak, that has been going on over how to understand why the war started, what's going on in the war itself, and what the way out of this situation is.
		And most Western mainstream media coverage has bought into that New York Times line that Pedro alluded to earlier, that this is a war of aggression by Russia, much like Nazi Germany in World War II.
		And the way out of a situation like that is not to seek a diplomatic compromise.
		That only makes the situation worse.
		And I think most Western mainstream coverage has fully bought into that.
		And you've seen, I think, from the very beginning of this invasion, Western mainstream media has used the word unprovoked to describe Russia's invasion.
		They've simply asserted that there was no possible reason why the Russians would feel provoked.
		The only way you can understand this is the Russians simply wanted to take over a country on their border.
		And I think what Trump has done and what a number of experts on this have argued, although they haven't had a lot of impact in mainstream media coverage, is that the war is actually more complex than that, that it started for reasons that were closer to the reasons why World War I started.
		You had a spiral of action and reaction in which both sides thought they were taking defensive steps and it has escalated over time.
		And the way you handle a problem like that is through diplomacy.
		And that's at the heart, I think, of the arguments that you're seeing right now in Western coverage of this war, in European and Ukrainian reactions to what Trump has started to do.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. The President spoke last night at CPAC and talked a little bit about what he saw as a timeline when it comes to possibly ending this war.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's your perception of how long these negotiations could take and ultimately some type of resolve or resolution be found?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, if you think of this war as a sequence, a series of negotiations where you start with that core issue of the U.S.-Russian relationship, you make some progress on that, and that enables you to make progress on the Russia-Ukraine part of this.
		I think this is going to take a little bit of time.
		It's not like the Russians are going to sit down and say, sure, we're willing to have a ceasefire, because continuing this war is their primary leverage in achieving their key goal, which is to prevent Ukraine to be part of NATO and to secure a commitment from the United States and from NATO that we're willing to say that's not going to happen.
		Then we're going to have to hammer out a lot of details on how you end the actual fighting.
		And the details are going to be difficult.
		It's going to require understanding where the lines of contact are, exchanges of prisoners, monitoring, perhaps some sort of peacekeeping force that might be put on the ground.
		Those details will take some time.
		Then you're going to have to get into things like the size of the Ukrainian military.
		The Russians want to keep this very, very small so it's not threatening to them.
		Ukraine and the West obviously have an interest in making sure Ukraine has the ability to defend itself.
		Those will take a long time to hammer out.
		And they also raise questions about the broader NATO force posture in Europe, which the Russians are very concerned about.
		And that's one of our primary sources of leverage in this.
		We can't make the Ukrainians win this war in Ukraine, but we have a lot of control over our force posture in Europe.
		And the Russians can't adjust that force posture simply by defeating the Ukrainian army.
		So that's a negotiation that is going to have to be a part of this.
		That's going to take a while.
		But what I will say is we could lock in some sort of armistice, an end to active fighting in Ukraine sometime this year, even if we don't have a fully developed, comprehensive peace treaty done by that time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is George Beebe joining us of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft from London, England.
		Independent Lion, Babak joins us.
		Go ahead, you're next.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
		My name is Bob Aank from London.
		I'd like to ask Mr. Beebe, in his opinion, why the West Europeans are being such obstructionists to achieving peace in Ukraine, while the West Europeans are offering no plan for either war or peace.
		Actually, what they're advocating is no plan is the best plan.
		And also another point I'd like to ask his opinion: they have this list of unrealistic demands that you've been mentioning.
		How would the Trump administration convince them that these list of unrealistic demands are not possible to achieve and are realistic in any negotiation?
		And the third one is the Europeans keep talking about the threat of Russia, Russia, Russia, yet the spending has never increased more than 2% of the GDP for the military.
		So there's an irony here also on the side of the West European.
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		Well, I think there are a couple of big reasons why the Europeans are doing what they're doing in all of this.
		One is that they genuinely believe that compromise with Russia makes the problem worse, not better, for all the reasons that I've laid out.
		But the second reason is that they don't want a fundamental change to the transatlantic relationship, to the way the NATO alliance works.
		They want the United States to continue in the role that it has been in for 50-some years, which is we bear the primary burden of European security through the U.S. military.
		And Europe is then freed up to focus on economic growth.
		They don't have to spend a lot of money on their own defense.
		They've outsourced that to the United States.
		And I think for many years, not just with the Trump administration, the United States has said, you know, you actually need to bear more of the burden to supply more of your own defense.
		And that pressure has grown acute under Trump.
		I think he has said rightly that the United States cannot afford to focus on what it regards as the primary geopolitical challenge in the world, which is the rise of China, and continue to be fully responsible for Europe's own defense.
		The United States needs to ask Europe to step up to play a role as a pole in this evolving multipolar world so that Russia can be a counterbalance, so that Europe can be a counterbalance to Russia, not just outsource its security to the United States.
		So the pushback that we're seeing from Europe is essentially rooted in their desire not to see this change happen, either in the way we deal with Ukraine, but I think even more importantly, in the broader transatlantic relationship.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The French president will be visiting this week with President Trump also a visit with the UK prime minister.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What message do you believe that the president or the administration will send to these European leaders about Ukraine?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think they're going to continue to send a very stark message.
		And there will be two aspects to it.
		Number one, they're going to tell the Europeans, you're not going to be able to put a stick in the spokes of the Ukraine peace process.
		You will have a role in this at the appropriate time, but that role will not be to prevent progress in peace negotiations.
		And the second message is going to be you're going to have to step up and provide for your own defense and be a real entity with real military capabilities and real diplomatic weight in this evolving multipolar world.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Minnesota Democrats line.
		If you were there, Pappy, hello.
		You're on.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning.
		First of all, I'm a proud union man from Minnesota.
		Pappy's my nickname.
		President negotiated November to the elected.
		He has no business in this situation.
		He should get out of it.
		He is nothing but a, he said it in the campaign.
		He wants to be a dictator.
		Period.
		So he's a Russian sympathist, and I want him out of this situation.
		Russia needs to pull back towards when they started this war and get out of Ukraine.
		Leave Ukraine alone.
		And I'm telling you right now, this country better realize that Donald Trump is taking us somewhere, and he has no right to no third term.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's our viewer there in Minnesota.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Patrick in Georgia, unless you want to respond to anything he said.
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, I would only say when it comes to Ukraine, a lot of people believe that Russia simply should withdraw from Ukrainian territory and end the war.
		That's been the thrust of American policy since this invasion began three years ago.
		The real problem is not whether that should happen.
		It's how do you make it happen?
		And the United States, I think, has done its best to make that happen.
		And we have very limited ability to force the Russians to withdraw from Ukraine.
		So we have to deal with the situation as it is, realistically.
		And I think that's what the Trump administration is trying to do.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		It was on Truth Social that President Trump characterized President Zelensky as a dictator without elections and also saying that if he wants to, Mr. Zelensky probably wants to keep the gravy train going when it comes to Ukraine.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How do these sentiments complicate these efforts between the United States and Russia and Ukraine ultimately?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think part of this is a reflection of the changes in media technology that have occurred over the decades.
		Back in the old days, these sorts of big diplomatic negotiations were largely conducted behind closed doors.
		And what came out in the press came out in press conferences and unauthorized leaks, which would occasionally happen.
		But you didn't have people on social media talking about what's been going on.
		And that has changed, obviously.
		Social media has changed how this is done.
		But I think the other problem that's going on here is Zelensky does not want to see a negotiated settlement.
		He does not want to see a compromise.
		I think he is fully bought into this notion that Russia simply needs to capitulate and that the United States should put maximum pressure on the Russians to do so.
		And he also wants a NATO-style security guarantee for Ukraine.
		If he can't be in the NATO alliance per se, he at least wants the United States to commit itself to go to war to defend Ukraine.
		And he's putting a lot of pressure on the United States through his public comments to agree to that.
		And I think the Trump administration is pushing back.
		It's saying, number one, there is going to be a negotiation and there's going to have to be a compromise.
		And part of that is going to be between Moscow and Washington.
		I don't think Trump has any intention of dealing away Ukrainian territory, getting involved in things that are Ukraine's sovereign decisions to make.
		But the broader question of U.S.-Russian relations, the broader question of the relationship between Russia and NATO, those are not decisions for Ukraine to make.
		And I think Trump is saying very clearly, you're not going to make those decisions.
		And this question of is Zelensky a dictator, should there be elections, part of this is sending a signal to Zelensky that he is not going to call the shots when it comes to these bigger geopolitical questions between the West and Russia.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From our Republican line in Georgia, Patrick, hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you, sir.
		I believe we finally have an adult in the room.
		I would like for you to, if you will, explain what happened in the Donbass region since the coup on Maidan up until February of 2022.
		And if you would give us some context on the Minsk agreements, Mins one and two.
		And also early on in the conflict when the Russian military had Kiev surrounded and was about to go into Kiev, Zelensky and Putin cut a deal for the Russian troops to withdraw.
		They basically, Putin, Russia calls this a special military operation.
		And for eight years, or nearly eight years, the Ukrainian military has attacked Donbass because they did not agree with the coup on Maidan.
		They did not believe that they had a legitimate government and they had no representation.
		Since the coup on Maidan, the people of Donbass had no voice in their government.
		They were not allowed to vote in their government.
		So after Russia took over Crimea, because that's where their naval fleet is, their only access to warm water, their navy has only access to warm waters, they could not allow for Crimea to be controlled by what I consider to be a fascist regime in Ukraine.
james in texas [2] ▲ ● ▼		I've been following this conflict since the coupon Maidan, and you're the first one that I've heard that actually speaks the truth.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well, Patrick, we'll let him respond to you.
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, this is an awfully big subject.
		We could talk about this broader topic for hours.
		Suffice it to say that I think this conflict is one that has multiple dimensions to it, one of which is an internal Ukrainian dimension, as you mentioned, between parts of the country in the east and south that are largely culturally Russian and linguistically Russian,
		who are uncomfortable with the central Ukrainian government pulling Ukraine away from Russia in economic, political, and military dimensions.
		And there has been this internal conflict which erupted into military conflict within Ukraine after the so-called Maidan Revolution in 2014.
		And the Russians intervened covertly, all but overtly in that conflict back in 2014.
		And that is one dimension of this war.
		And if there is going to be a settlement of this conflict, part of it has to be between Russia and the West.
		Part of it has to be between Russia and Ukraine.
		Part of it has to be between Ukrainians themselves to try to heal the rifts inside Ukrainian society that have been a part of this conflict.
		And those are all very difficult things to do.
		Even if you get a durable armistice that ends the active fighting, it's going to be a lot of work to rebuild this country.
		That's going to have to take place not just economically, but also socially.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Some of this stems to the United Nations story this morning saying the Trump administration calling on Ukraine to withdraw their annual resolution at the UN condemning Russia's war and instead wants to replace it with a UN-sponsored statement calling for an end to the conflict that contains no mention of Russian responsibility, according to officials and diplomats from other countries.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If that is the case, what do you think of that move when it comes to the international community at the UN?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, what this really comes down to is this division between schools of thought that I mentioned earlier.
		So what really caused this war and what prescription for ending it flows from that diagnosis.
		I think the Ukrainian draft resolution that you're referring to here that the Europeans helped draw up is firmly of the opinion that this is imperialist aggression and must be resisted by force.
		And the Trump administration has said, well, A, we don't agree with that diagnosis.
		We think this is more like a World War I-style problem where you have to have diplomacy.
		But B, I think they're also looking very clearly at what the ultimate goal ought to be.
		And I think that the Trump administration's goal is we need a compromise diplomatic solution here.
		Does the Ukrainian draft resolution increase the chances of getting that, or does it reduce the chances of getting that kind of outcome?
		And I think the Trump administration has said the wording that the Ukrainians have proposed actually makes a compromise solution more difficult than otherwise.
		So this is a very fundamental disagreement that we're seeing playing out here.
		It has profound implications.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		For George Beebe, this is Jeffrey, who joins us from New Jersey on our line for independence.
		Jeffrey, you're next.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi, yeah.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I'd like to ask your guest, what do you, well, first of all, I'd like to say I don't agree with a lot of what Trump does, but I definitely agree with the fact that he says this is a war that never had to happen.
		I'm interested in what he thinks about what's going to happen to Zelensky when they do end the war, because, you know, there's a lot of right-wing Ukrainians like the ALZOFs, that's a battalion that runs the military, that said they're going to fight till the death.
		And I think Zelensky has that pressure on him.
		So I'd like to know what your guest thinks about that.
		And definitely this is a war that never had to happen.
		You know, I don't think it ever had to happen.
		Anyway, thanks for taking my call.
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, this is a very interesting question of what's going to happen in Ukraine politically.
		Of course, Zelensky's elected term of office expired earlier this year.
		He is ruling under martial law, which President Trump has pointed out.
		Now, part of what has to happen, I think, if Ukraine is going to be a member of the European Union, which I hope is the path that we envision for Ukraine, it's going to have to have elections.
		It's going to have to bring Ukraine into conformity with EU membership requirements.
		I think that's a good thing for a couple of reasons.
		Number one, if we are going to have a durable end to this fighting, there has to be strong popular support in Ukraine.
		It can't be an agreement that a few people at the top of the Ukrainian government sign, but doesn't have substantial support within the Ukrainian population.
		One of the best ways of ensuring that it does is to hold elections to deliver the kind of legitimacy that is required in that sort of situation.
		This also, I think, might be an artful way of addressing Russian concerns about the leadership in Kiev, in the Zelensky government.
		The Russians can't push back on an elected Ukrainian government.
		They're going to have to deal with the outcome of that election.
		And I think that helps put firm roots in whatever treaty gets negotiated on all of this.
		So where Zelensky might fall if there's an election, I'm not sure anybody can say at this point.
		There are people on the far right in Ukraine, nationalists that strongly oppose him.
		There are people that are more on the left that also have concerns.
		Where the bulk of the Ukrainian people will come down is very hard to say.
		In a war situation, it's very hard to measure popular opinion in Ukraine right now.
		That's not unusual.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We have a viewer who was asking about the news of recent days about the president asking for mineral rights from Ukraine.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you make of that ask and how does it fit into the whole picture of what's going on?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, there's an awful lot of confusion and a lot of media spin and speculation that has attended this issue.
		What I think we can say from authoritative public statements by Trump administration officials, Secretary of State Rubio, Vice President Vance,
		Secretary of Treasury Besent, they are saying that this is not a naked asset grab or money grab on the part of the United States, that in fact what we're envisioning here is a joint exploration and exploitation of these minerals with Ukraine,
		in which the United States provides technology, allows the Ukrainians to take advantage of mineral wealth that they have, and accrues benefits both to Ukraine and to the United States, and I would add probably to Europe, in ways that cements economic cooperation between Ukraine and the West,
		helps ensure that Ukraine will be prosperous and can reconstruct itself after this fighting is over.
		I think that makes a lot of sense.
		And so cutting through the spin that is being applied to all this and this war that we're seeing of words over how to approach negotiations on this is not an easy thing to do.
		But in principle, I think the approach that the Trump people are taking to this issue has a lot of potential to be constructive if it's handled right.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats lying from South Carolina.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ronald, hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I don't think the world like Ukraine should trust the United States ever again.
		They had an agreement back after the Cold War was over.
		They gave up their nuclear weapons to Russia and turned for control and security of their country because the United States guaranteed security.
		Same way with Taiwan.
		We guarantee, I don't know why those people even trust us either or South Korea.
		So my plan is, let's go back to that day.
		Let's give them the nuclear weapons back.
		United States, give it to them.
		Let them end off.
		Let's don't longer negotiate and not commit to it.
		That's all I have to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ronald there in South Carolina.
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, a couple of things on this.
		He's referring to the so-called Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine relinquished any claim to the Soviet-era nuclear weapons that wound up on its territory after the Soviet Union's breakup in return for joint commitments on the part of all the signatories,
		which included Russia and the United States, to guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity, its sovereignty and independence, and self-determination.
		Now, in retrospect, I think there's been a lot of confusion over what exactly we all committed to.
		This was not a security guarantee in the sense of NATO's Article 5, where the United States would regard any attack on Ukraine as an attack on the United States.
		In other words, we did not commit ourselves to go to war to defend Ukraine if it was attacked.
		And the commitments to sovereignty and territorial integrity went both ways.
		The Russians interpreted this to mean that the United States was not going to meddle in Ukraine's internal affairs.
		That's what they interpreted sovereignty and independence to mean.
		And this gets back to what the previous caller had to say about the Maidan Revolution.
		I think the Russian perception was that the United States was heavily involved in that revolution and that that constituted interference in Ukraine's internal affairs and its sovereignty.
		And so this is a very complicated issue.
		Now, the final thing was Ukraine never actually had control physically over those Soviet-era nuclear weapons.
		The launch codes always remained in Moscow.
		So what they were giving up was not control over those Soviet-era nuclear weapons.
		They were giving up claims to controlling those nuclear weapons.
		So that's an important factor in all of this.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One more call.
		This is from Colette in Oregon.
		Democrats lying a little short on time.
		Colette, so go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, I was on the same issue.
		That was signed in 1994.
		Ukraine agreed to transfer weapons to Russia for dismantlement and exchange for their independence and sovereignty.
		And I think we told them we would protect them.
		And I think that we're giving up a lot by not honoring our word.
		I hate to see that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Colette there in Oregon.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And since you addressed him, what are the next steps you're watching for in this process?
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think after the discussions in Saudi Arabia between U.S. and Russian officials, which, as far as I can tell, did not actually get very deep into the question of a Ukraine peace settlement per se, other than saying that it was our intention to pursue a peace settlement there, but really focus more on the broader context of U.S.-Russian relations.
		How do we normalize things?
		How do we staff out our respective embassies, which have been quite severely cut over the years?
		How do we restore dialogue about bigger issues like Arctic cooperation, like strategic stability, nuclear arms control, those sorts of things?
		I think the next step, as I understand it, is to flesh out some working groups, people at the expert level, that can start to make progress on these different issues, one of which is going to be the peace negotiations in Ukraine.
		And I think that's the point when the Ukrainians and the Europeans start to play a more active role in all of this.
		So that's something we should keep our eye on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The Quincy Institute's website is quincyinst.org.
		George Beebe serves as the Director of Grant Strategy for the Institute.
		Thanks for your time.
george beebe ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		In a little while, we're going to hear from Amanda Littman.
		She's the president of a group called Run for Something, and she'll discuss her group's efforts to recruit, train, and support young progressives running for office.
		But first, it's open forum, and you can participate by calling 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202748-8000 for Democrats and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		We'll take those calls, and Washington Journal continues.
unidentified		Tonight, on C-SPAN's Q&A, former Mafia associate Luis Ferrante shares his book, Borgata, Clash of Titans, Volume 2 of his History of the American Mafia from 1960 to 1985.
		In part two of this interview, he explores further details of what he says was the mafia's involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy and discusses Robert Kennedy's battle with mobster Carlos Marcelo, boss of the New Orleans mafia from the late 1940s to the early 1980s.
		You know, a major reason why Marcelo feels that he has an arch enemy that will stop at nothing.
		And if you believe in Omerta and you're a mafia gon who has lived his life with the idea that I will stop at nothing to get where I need to go, and now I'm faced with someone else who stopped at nothing to destroy me, it's life and death.
		And that's when I think Marcelo made the decision.
		It's going to be me or the Kennedys.
		Louis Ferrante with his book, Borgata, Clash of Titans, tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q&A and all our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app.
		Weekends bring you Book TV featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		Luis Miranda Jr., with his book Relentless, talks about his life as a political activist and organizer in the Latino community.
		Then, Nicole Turner-Lee, with her book, Digitally Invisible: How the Internet is Creating the New Underclass, contends that lack of internet access is creating economic disparities in poor and rural communities.
		And on afterwards, Professor Eve L. Ewing, with her book, Original Sins: The Miseducation of Black and Native Children and the Construction of American Racism, argues that the United States education system reinforces racial inequality at the expense of black and native children.
		She's interviewed by associate press editor Aaliyah Wong.
		Watch book TV every weekend on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, it's open forum.
		The numbers are there.
		If you want to participate, let's hear from Patrick in Pittsburgh Republican Line.
		You start us off.
		Good morning.
unidentified		You know, it's stunning that C-SPAN had on an acolyte of Dick Cheney, who's literally the most infamous man who's ever lived in American history, who's responsible for the deaths of over 2 million people.
		And this man, he's on your show acting as if he has a geopolitical voice in the new administration, which he doesn't.
		The fundamentals of the damage and the people's lives that were destroyed because of Dick Cheney are almost beyond belief.
		People today are waking up with cancers as a direct result of the utilization of technologies like depleted uranium shells, microwave energy weapons, the highway of death.
		It is just so disgusting seeing this man who was directly connected to him.
		If I were sitting there with him, I'd say, how do you get up in the morning knowing that you had a direct relationship with a man who caused absolute chaos in the Mideast, who walked away with $300-plus million dollars in Halliburton profits as a direct result of multiple wars that had no legitimacy?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's hear from Jan.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jan in Washington State Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello.
		Hi, Pedro.
		Yeah, I was just kept calling.
		I hope that means that there's a lot of patriots in this country that are willing to stand up to a ruthless dictator.
		And we've always had just wars and attrition in the United States.
		And I've never agreed with them because this is very important.
		And at the same time that he's going in to trying to cause a peace settlement, he's actually taking out the joint chief.
		I mean, this is a really serious business here.
		And I was a veteran of the Cold War.
		And we need to kind of understand that that stuff should be happening now.
		If it ain't, I don't know what's going on.
		So that's all I have to say.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Independent Line from Chicago, Illinois.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Excuse me, go ahead.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I've been watching and reading and following geopolitics since I left Vietnam and the CIA and its nasty operations.
		We're $36 trillion in debt.
		We won't stop doing stupid.
		Here's the basic analogy.
		Russia or China were doing in Mexico what we pulled off in Ukraine, a coup and installing a hostile government hostile to the United States and invited to join a nuclear-powered nation in a mutual defense treaty.
		We were to be invading Mexico next week.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Tom there in Chicago.
		Again, you can continue participating in open forum on the phone lines: 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Today in Germany, elections take place.
		And to talk about not only the importance of those elections for the country itself, but what it means for geopolitics is Kate Brady of the Washington Post.
		She's there, for Berlin reporter joining us via Zoom.
		Ms. Brady, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning or afternoon as it is here by this point.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		They talk about these elections and they refer to them as snap elections, but can you expand exactly what takes place today?
unidentified		Yeah, it's a snap with a bit of a delay.
		So the Chancellor Olaf Schultz, his government, his centre-left government collapsed back in November.
		And this election that's taking place today, some 59 million people eligible to vote, they're all heading to the polls across the country in this early election that should have actually been taking place in September.
		And it was ultimately a budget issue, a spending issue for this coming for this year, 2025, that brought down that government.
		And so the election, the polling stations have been open for several hours now, since 8 a.m. this morning.
		That's local time.
		And we're expecting those early prognosis to already trickle in at around 6 p.m. this evening.
		Of course, as you mentioned, huge global geopolitical issues have been raised in this election as well.
		This election really does come at an extremely pivotal time for Germany, for Europe as well, and what Germany's future role might be in this shifting world order that we're seeing right now.
		But of course, domestic issues have also played a huge, huge part, and certainly they've been the most prominent topic of discussion during election campaigning, starting off with economic issues.
		And Germany's economy is still stagnating, hasn't really recovered since the pandemic.
		But it's migration that really has become the topic and call for a clampdown on asylum and migration policy during this election campaign.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You briefly mentioned it, but who are the key contenders to watch today and what determines if they win or not?
unidentified		So you have four main chancellor candidates, but it's worth pointing out maybe that voters today won't be voting for a chancellor per se, but for a party.
		It's a parliamentary system.
		And it will be the new parliament that later appoints that chancellor.
		But of course, each of the main parties, the strongest parties, do have a chancellor candidate.
		And at the moment, it looks like the next chancellor might well be a man called Friedrich Maertz.
		He's the leader of the Conservative Christian Democratic Union Party or CDU.
		They've been ahead in the polls for quite some months now, drifting between 28 and 30%.
		But of course, with Germany system, it is usual to form a coalition.
		So the question will be who with.
		And what we're also watching out for tonight is what's probably going to be a historic result for the far-right alternative for Germany party or AFD.
		They've been polling for about a year and a half now, if not longer, in second position.
		But because of what we call the firewall here, Brandmauer, against the far right in Germany, all of the parties, including Friedrich Matz and his conservatives, have ruled out forming a coalition with the AFD, which currently leaves a couple of other viable options if those opinion polls that we've been seeing in recent weeks are true.
		So that would mean either a coalition with the Social Democrats, that's the party of the current Chancellor, although he said that he wouldn't want to be taking on a ministerial position himself in that combination, or we could see the Conservatives teaming up with the Greens as well.
		But of course, it all ultimately comes down to the numbers.
		And what we're seeing right now is although the AFD don't look likely to have an election win right now, their strength in numbers is already starting and could potentially, depending on tonight's results, have an impact on coalition building.
		And we're seeing this increasingly fragmented political spectrum here in Germany, which is making a coalition building certainly more difficult.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You described AFD as far right.
unidentified		What makes them so?
		So the AFD began its life as a Eurosceptic party, but really jumped on the issue of migration, the backlash against Germany's open border policy and the migration crisis of 2015, and have really just gone on to break taboo after taboo.
		They are now under surveillance nationwide.
		The party at national level is classified as a suspected extremist case, and parts of the party are also designated by domestic intelligence as being an extremist group.
		And that comes down to they have been accused of kind of harbouring nativist, anti-migrant, far-right tendencies and also some sharing those views that we hear as well from far-right extremist groups.
		Maybe just worth noting, you know, there are some extremely polemic figures within the party as well.
		One of the arguments that the party always says is perhaps, you know, been out today speaking to some AFD voters myself, where they said, you know, yeah, we're not all extremists.
		There's some people among the party, and that's something you hear quite a lot from the AFD party base.
		But there have been concerns of those borders between the far-right AFD and known extremist groups overlapping.
		One of the most high-profile politicians in the party, a man called Björn Hoeke, he himself is classified as an extremist and has twice been convicted and fined for using a banned Nazi slogan.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We also talk about when it comes to the AFD, the support it has received, not only from Elon Musk, but the vice president, JD Vance.
unidentified		Exactly.
		So we saw this originally back in December, Elon Musk first sending out a post on X saying that the AFD was what he said was German, it was the only hope for Germany.
		And he has reiterated that several times, holding a live X speech with Alice Weidel, the co-party leader of the AFD and also the Chancellor candidate.
		He appeared live via video, an AFD rally as well.
		And even just within the past few hours, he has been posting some more support for them.
		We heard as well from the vice president JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference, leaving the political establishment here in the established parties in Germany in complete shock when he said that there is no firewall and encouraged political parties here to work with the far-right AFD, which is an absolute taboo here in Germany.
		And that is all part of, of course, Germany's history, part of its processing and atonement for the atrocities of the Holocaust and the crimes committed by the Nazi dictatorship.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What is turnout expected to be like for today?
unidentified		It's usually quite high.
		We can expect it to be in the 70% range.
		But what's interesting is, you know, a lot of voters have said that they're, I think it was about 20% even, up until the final days of the election campaign said that they were still undecided.
		And it seems that there has perhaps been a boost of voters among the youth as well, who have been a particularly difficult group to motivate in recent years.
		The question is, of course, who will they vote for?
		We've been also seeing a surge in the polls for the far-lefty linker, the left party.
		A lot of people want to vote for them, get them into, get them to stay in parliament.
		There is a threshold that you have to cross over to get into German parliament.
		That's 5% of the votes.
		And there's a hope among a lot of their voters that they will then be able to ensure that there is a voice in the German parliament that is more left than the current center-left parties, which are the Social Democrats and the Greens.
		But then it's also interesting as well that the AFD, the far-right AFD, also has a strong youth base, especially on TikTok.
		That's something that the AFD has really managed to tap into and gain a lot of younger voters through social media before a lot of the other older parties, the more centrist parties, managed to really get to grips with social media.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Kate Brady reports from Berlin for the Washington Post.
		You can find her work at WashingtonPost.com.
		You can follow her on X at Brady in Berlin.
		Kate Brady, thanks for your time.
unidentified		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We'll go back to your calls on Open Forum.
		Jan in Oregon, Democrats Live.
		Thanks for waiting.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hi.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I was really interested in the Grand Wazir of the Quincy Foundation.
		Sounds like a member of the Ku Klux Klan to me.
		And I'm just really curious.
		I'm probably a lot older than a lot of your callers.
		I grew up, as did my younger siblings, doing duck and cover out of fear from nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union.
		And I don't understand why we would ever trust a communist dictator to talk with us, talk with anyone about negotiating anything.
		I still remember Khrushchev taking his shoe off, pounding the desk, and saying, we will bury you.
		And I think there's a history there that we need to remember about the Russians.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Jan in Oregon.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		John in Michigan, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi, good morning, Pedro.
		I, Independent Line, I haven't voted Democrat or Republican in over 10 years, and I never will vote for a Democrat or a Republican.
		Actually, I think you should have more independent lines or take more calls because Americans more identify as independents.
		And, you know, so I think the two parties are horrible.
		But I'd like to see Washington Journal talk to independent media personalities like my favorites are Kim Iverson and Ryan Christian.
		Those are great people to talk to about current events.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, thanks.
		Let's go to Bob.
		Bob in Arkansas, Republican line.
		You're next up.
unidentified		Hello?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Bob in Arkansas.
		Hello.
		Yep.
unidentified		Yes.
		I just want to bring up the fact we go back to the Budapest Agreement and all that, and the fact that the Russians and Putin's, you know, a dictator and all that.
		But the thing is, the key to the whole thing is oil.
		The reason why I say this the price of oil right now is about $70 a barrel.
		If we flood the world market and the price comes down to 30 or 40, that's going to take money away from Russia.
		That's going to take money away from Iran.
		And when Trump's negotiating right now, he should use that as a tool.
		In other words, we can supply the Europeans with all the oil and all the gas that they need.
		That'll take the sales away from the Russians and give it to the United States.
		And the thing is, that is the key.
		Another thing, if Europe and us don't take care of the Ukraine situation and we get out and give Putin a victory there, is Europe going to support us if the Chinese attack Taiwan or attack us?
		That's another question.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		James from Houston, Texas, Democrats line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Thanks for taking my call, Pedro.
		A bunch of you people need to really get educated, man.
		I wish I could have talked to Ms. Brady, the lady that was covering Germany.
		I did two tours of them.
		I went to war up in Al-Raq.
		We always wait to Germany right afterwards, you know, coming back.
		And the extremism is getting bad, man.
		This was the 90s, like 91, 92.
		And the Hitler salute, you go to jail for that.
		The citizens in Germany will go to jail for that.
		And all these people talking about Elon Musk, people understand this.
		Elon Musk got rich off of government subsidies, our tax dollars.
		And now he's been paid $8 million a day and firing people that make $100,000 to $200,000 a year.
		And these people are happy about this.
		Come on, people.
		Y'all know how many companies close their doors since this man got in office.
		Y'all better wake up your box was going on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, James in Texas, finishing off this round of open forum.
		Thanks to all who participated.
		Next up, you're going to meet Amanda Lippmann.
		She's the president of the group known as Run for Something, talking about that group's efforts to recruit and train young progressives running for political office.
		Those conversations, or that conversation coming up when Washington Journal continues.
jimmy carter ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is always an unfinished creation.
ronald reagan ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		We are still at our core a democracy.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
unidentified		It isn't just an idea.
		It's a process.
		A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
		It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
		Democracy in real time.
		This is your government at work.
		This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
		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-spanshop.org.
		Non-fiction book lovers, C-SPAN has a number of podcasts for you.
		Listen to best-selling non-fiction 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.
		And BookNotes Plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics.
		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 Amanda Lippmann joining us.
		She is the co-founder and president of the organization Run for Something.
		She's also the author of the forthcoming book, When We're in Charge the Next Generation's Guide to Leadership.
		Amanda Lippmann, thanks for giving us your time today.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How do you describe your group to other people?
unidentified		Run for Something recruits and supports young diverse leaders running for local office all across the country.
		It's pretty straightforward.
		We ask people to run, and then when they say yes or maybe, we help them do it all the way through to Election Day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What made you come up with this organization as far as the need that you saw to recruit people into office?
unidentified		So I worked for Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign for two years.
		Right after Election Day, I started hearing from friends I'd gone to high school and college with.
		Hey, Amanda, I'm a public school teacher in Chicago.
		I'm thinking about running for office.
		What do I do?
		And at the time, November 2016, if you were young, if you were newly excited about politics and you wanted to do more than vote and more than volunteer, there was nowhere you could go to answer your call.
		So along with my co-founder, Ross Morales-Ricqueto, we wrote a plan, we built a website, and then we launched Run for Something on Trump's first inauguration day, thinking it would be really small because who wants to run for office?
		Instead, we had a thousand people sign up in the first week.
		And as of today, we're up to about 190,000 young people all across the country who've raised their hands to say they want to run.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So as when someone says they want to run, they get your interest.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What happens then as far as vetting them to see where if they go further?
unidentified		So it works a little bit like a marketing funnel.
		So you sign up on our website, runforwhat.net, where you can look up all the offices available to you at your address.
		You then start getting information and invites to calls like one we're doing this Tuesday, where we talk about all the first-time questions candidates have.
		How do I know what to run for?
		How do I raise money?
		How does any of this work?
		We also talk through Run for Something's offerings.
		You can then talk to one of our volunteers and you'll start getting emails and text messages from our team giving you resources, trainings, events that us and our partners are doing.
		This is all available to everyone of any age.
		Then we have an application once you've actually filed to get on the ballot where you can apply for Run for Something's endorsement.
		That's where we really winnow it down.
		We look at your application.
		We want to see your campaign plan, your budget, your win number.
		That's where we do a values screen.
		And our endorsements are limited to folks 40 and under to make sure we're really bringing in young leaders into the process.
		I was just going to say, once we're endorsed, we have a whole bunch more support for you one-on-one, depending on what your campaign needs.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And because you focus on younger people, particularly progressive people, what drives them in your mind to get into politics?
unidentified		Oh, it's a whole range of issues.
		It's one of the things I love most about our candidates.
		The only thing they all really have in common is a willingness to serve their communities and to really do something when they're in office.
		They're running for representation, for housing, for their families, for child care.
		They're running because the Republican incumbent in office hasn't been challenged for decades or because the Democrat incumbent hasn't been serving them the way that they want.
		They are all so committed to solve problems in a way that I think makes their campaigns really strong.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Because you use the term progressive, I guess, what does that mean in your mind?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And how does that say differ than a typical Democrat running for office?
unidentified		You know, we have a really expansive definition here because we work with candidates in all 50 states running for a range of offices.
		So a candidate running for a city council here in New York, where I live, needs to talk about the issues and show up for those issues in a little bit different way than maybe a school board candidate in Alaska or a city council candidate in Iowa.
		That being said, all of our candidates are pro-equity, pro-tolerance, pro-affordable housing and education, pro-healthcare for everyone, pro-climate change is real and we have to do something about it.
		They're all ready to tackle the issues of gun violence.
		They're pro-choice.
		They're pro-democracy and pro-facts.
		But we really ask folks, what does that look like in your campaign and how does it show up for you?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our guest is with us.
		And if you want to ask her questions about this effort of recruiting young progressives for political office, 202-748-80001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can also text us questions at 202-748-8003.
		There was an article in the New York Magazine last year featuring you.
		The headline says you've helped more than 1,000 young people get elected.
		I'm sure that number has changed.
		Elaborate on that and who are your standouts?
unidentified		So we've actually now helped about just under 1,500 people win elections in the last eight years.
		Nearly every state except for Idaho.
		And you might know some of our alumni.
		They include now Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett from Texas, Sarah McBride from Delaware, Yasimin Ansari from Arizona, Emily Randall from Washington, Suhasubrenyam from Virginia, who are now all members of Congress.
		On the state level, we've got Senator Mallory McMorrow from Michigan, Pennsylvania Representative Malcolm Kinata, Florida Representative Ana Escamani, down in Texas, a Harris County executive, Lena Hidalgo, State Senator Megan Hunt in Nebraska.
		I could go on and on and on.
		These are all amazing young leaders who really know how to show up for their communities and show up in places to really reach the voters we need to reach.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to Yasmin Crockett, you've probably seen the news over the last couple of weeks, her back and forth with North Carolina Republican Nancy Mace.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about those exchanges, her role, or at least the statements she's making when it comes to politics in Congress?
unidentified		You know, I think she's emblematic of a whole generation of leaders that Run for Something works with who know the Republican Party is not on the level and they're not ready to be good faith partners in governance and that this idea of civility or decorum is behind us when it comes to them.
unidentified		So she's ready to call them out like she sees it and to do so in a way that draws attention, which I think is really good, especially in this environment.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Pew Research says that the largest generation of now those belonging to Generation X are in Congress, 180 members.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about that number compared to what you've seen in years before when it comes to Congress?
unidentified		You know, this is, I believe, the third oldest Congress ever, and it keeps getting older.
		And I think we're seeing the byproduct of that in some of the images that we're getting out of the fight back against Trump right now.
		You know, you're seeing leaders who really don't understand how to wield attention in this economy.
		They don't really understand where their voters are because they're not hearing from their voters as much.
		We've seen, and I think it's really helpful to note that some of the leaders of the pushback have been some of these younger politicians and even slightly younger.
		The average age in Congress, I believe, in the House is, I think, 68 or something like that.
		And in this 63 in the House, 68 in the Senate, I believe.
		Young people are just left out of these spaces.
		And I'm glad that Gen X is making representative.
		And I think we're going to see even more millennials in Gen Z in the years to come.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do those members, those younger members of Congress, talk to you and your organization about how they're perceived by older members of Congress?
unidentified		You know, I've heard that over the years as I've gotten to know some of these younger members.
		And they'll talk about how sometimes their colleagues just like don't understand how they communicate.
		They talked about things like they don't understand why they use Instagram this way or, you know, it's their dress, their tone.
		They're really entering an institution that wasn't built for people like them.
		I think that often creates a sense of disconnect.
		I love that they're brave enough to do it anyway.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Michael.
		Michael is on our independent lines from Florida for our guest, Amanda Lippman, of Run for Something.
		Michael, go ahead.
		You're on with our guest.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		My understanding of progressives is that they believe in equality of outcomes.
		They do not believe in equality of opportunity.
		What is your position on that?
		An interesting question.
		I don't know if I agree with that assessment.
		I will say that the candidates that Run for Something has worked with over the years who generally do identify as progressive really see both sides of that equation.
		They want to make sure that their constituents and their community members have both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
		And they've looked at that through things like housing, education, public transportation, clean water, clean roads.
		It's a little bit of both.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Laura's next.
		Laura from Texas.
		You're on with our guests.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I have a, I'm a baby boomer, but I'm on the tail end of it.
		And I am a bit concerned with the younger generation believing that the older generations don't know what they're doing.
		And in some respects, I kind of agree with that.
		But I would hope that the younger generations understand that this is a collective effort.
laureen in chicago ▲ ● ▼		We cannot stand against tyranny and dictatorship and even acts of treason committed by the president unless we stand together and this nonsense about generational divide is put aside.
unidentified		So I'm interested in your thoughts on that.
		You know, I think we can agree we need all generations to come together.
		You know, the reason that Run for Something works exclusively with younger leaders is because historically, young people have been left out of this conversation of leadership.
		You know, as of a couple of years ago, fewer than 5% of state legislators were under the age of 35.
		The median mayor of a big city was 59.
		Median school board member, similarly, 59, 60.
		Even in Congress, they're just not reflective of where the American people are.
		The median American is 38, 39 as of the last census.
		So I agree with you.
		We need generations to come together, but young people have been entirely left out of that leadership conversation for so long.
		And we are just on the tipping point of starting to change that.
		So I think baby boomers, of which you're right, some really do understand how to communicate.
		Need to make sure they're making space for younger folks to come up to.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Somebody asked from, this is Mike from Wisconsin about your organization's funding and how that works.
unidentified		Oh, it's a mix of people giving $5, $500, $500,000, a whole range of folks.
		We've got, I think, about 40,000 individual givers at this point.
		We have a couple of different entities folks can give to, a PAC, a C4, a C3.
		And I am so grateful for every person who contributes because when we started this so long ago, so much of the advice that we got was like, great idea.
		No one's going to run a run and no one's going to want to give to that because it's just not sexy or exciting.
		I'm so glad that eight years in, we've proved that wrong, but we need to keep it going.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes then to political, do you get money from political parties?
unidentified		No, I do not think we've ever gotten money from one of the formal Democratic institutions.
unidentified		You know, we certainly work with them as appropriate, but I don't think we've ever gotten money from them.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Here's a viewer from someone on X asking, considering campaigning has changed a lot, can you explain how run for something turns a newbie into a viable candidate and what's the most critical skill they have to have first?
unidentified		Love this question.
		So we really help people figure out what is their reason for running and what is, how is the office they're going to run for give them an opportunity to solve this?
		What's the problem they care about solving?
		And three, why should voters want them to win, which is different than why you want to win?
		You want to win because winning is great and losing is terrible.
		Voters want you to win because you're going to do something specific and tangible and practical for them.
		So once we help candidates really figure out how to tell that story, the rest of the campaign is just logistics.
		It's hard logistics, but it's not complicated logistics.
		We'll help candidates figure out how to get access to the voter file, how to file to get on the ballot.
		And then we help work with them to make sure they're running really strong voter contact campaigns.
		Might look like knocking on doors, might look like phones, might look like print ads or radio, might look like text messaging.
		And we definitely encourage folks to think about social media in a way that is genuine and authentic to them.
		But we know that the way, again, you run a race in New York City is a little different than the way you might run one in rural Iowa.
		Neither of those are right or wrong.
		They just want to make sure we're running the right race for the right place.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Because you listed a lot of those that you got into Congress, can you describe a winning story as far as one of those candidates and what worked and why they got into Congress because of that story?
unidentified		You know, I actually want to talk about someone besides in Congress, if that's okay.
		That's fine.
		So in 2023, we recruited and then helped this incredible leader named Justin Douglas in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, around Harrisburg.
		Justin was a former pastor who'd been fired from his church for being too welcoming to LGBTQ congregants.
		He's a CrossFit judge.
		He'd worked with people who were homeless.
		And we recruited him to run specifically for the county commission position, which is a position that both oversees the county budget, oversees election administration, deals with the county jail system, and a whole bunch of other stuff that really affects quality of life and democracy.
		We got him to run against a Republican incumbent.
		And Justin ran this incredible campaign.
		He spent, I think, maybe $12,000 on his race, but he was out there knocking doors, talking to voters.
		He left this incredible campaign lit that was like the mayor in JAWS in JAWS 2.
		No, the mayor in JAWS 1 was still the mayor in JAWS 2.
		Vote in your local elections.
		Justin was ultimately able to beat a Republican incumbent by about 140 some odd votes on election day, ultimately flipping control of the commission for the first time in over 100 years.
		He immediately went forward to do stuff like make it easier for people to vote in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, and reform the way they were caring for inmates in the jail system.
		It's a really incredible example of the thousands of candidates we've worked with over the years who show up, who knock doors and who win in really long shot races.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Amanda Lippmann with us for with Run for Something.
		Let's hear from Gary.
		Gary is in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
		This is on our Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		I just wanted to salute her for what she's doing and mention something that could really complement her work.
		I'm with getcouragenow.org.
		And Gary at getcourageenow.org.
		And we're developing something called Adopt an Organizer because there's almost a million people working in coffee shops and other meaningless jobs.
		And if even 1% of those people, and I think there's quite a bit more, but if even 1% of those people wanted to become organizers and they don't have rich parents, their only option is GoFundMe.
		So we're developing something called Adopt an Organizer that'll make it much easier for people to quit those jobs and get what they need to become organizers.
		Because if you're going to run for something, you need a lot of organizers.
		If you're going to overthrow this fascist coup, you're going to need a helmet of organizing.
		And the engines of organizing are organizers.
		So we hope we can work together.
		And I hope she will contact us, Gary, at getcouragedenow.org, because we're going to make it much easier than GoFundMe.
		We're going to have people be able to, for example, donate free housing, which is already worth $700 or $800.
		We're going to have a pool of 2,000, 3,000 well-off people that can match with $1,000.
		Okay.
		Thanks, Gary.
		I love that.
		And thank you for what you're doing.
		We need every possible avenue of support, both for candidates and for staff and volunteers, because you're right.
		These institutions aren't meant for people who aren't independently wealthy, both on the candidate side and the volunteer and staff side.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Another viewer off of X asked you this question.
		She says that, or this is the viewer MLB saying, I don't think you're getting younger cat, getting younger candidates is your biggest problem.
		Getting younger voters to vote is the biggest challenge you and your candidates face.
unidentified		You know, I think it's a little bit of our solution is part of fixing that problem.
		Young voters are looking for candidates who can connect to them and who can show up in the media places they are, who can be on TikTok and Instagram and Snapchat and Reddit and Discords and who can be in the media spaces where they're already paying attention.
		You know, I think a lot about how many members of Congress couldn't go on a non-political space and talk like a real person.
		The run for something candidates absolutely can because they are just ordinary people who do this extraordinary thing of running for office.
		I think one of the ways we get more young voters to show up and to vote for Democrats is to give them better Democrats they can connect to to vote for.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to information about a candidate, is it social media that's going to be the primary driver?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And if that's the case, how do you get so much information about a candidate on the platform of your choice?
unidentified		So it's a little bit of social media, especially for these local races, and they're making sure they're in the platforms where their voters are.
		But it's also in-face relationship building.
		We have found that our candidates who knock doors and talk to voters, who show up at the farmers markets, PTA meetings, the pickup basketball games at the gym, and really get to know people.
		You know, it's very easy to hate the Democrat that you see on TV or see trash in your local paper or here on the radio.
		It's very hard to hate the candidate who came to your home, knock, knock, knock, and said, hi, I'm Amanda.
		I'm running for property for a county commissioner.
		I want to talk to you about your property taxes.
		And then you sit down and have a real conversation about it.
		So I think those face-to-face relationships can really help build that, that can circumvent any of the stuff you might see online.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Virginia from California joins us on our line for independence.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Hi.
		I have a question.
		I really admire all you kids doing this.
		I mean, you're young people, and I think it's fantastic.
		There was a David, I can't remember his last name, from the Parkland area in Florida that had the shooting.
		And he's been really, I've seen him in Washington in the past.
		Have you been able to back him in any way or support him?
		I know that he is a smart, brilliant kid.
		It's a shame that he had to go through this and that whole school or any of the schools.
		I'm just curious if you've had any contact with him.
		Yes, David Hogg, who started Leaders We Deserve, which is an organization that raises some money and does some outside work for the candidates.
		I think nearly every candidate that Leaders We Deserve has worked with has come through the Run for Something pipeline.
		I believe we've recommended almost all of them to David and his team to engage with.
		So they're one of our many, many partners across the country who work on behalf of our candidates.
		And I'm really proud Rum for Something has built such a collaborative model.
		We know that it's going to take a village to get many of these candidates elected.
		And we're really proud to be part of that village.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about David Hogg being the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee?
unidentified		You know, I think more powerful voices who know how to show up in different places in media is good.
		I'm also glad that Run for Something alum, Malcolm Kinada, is another one of the vice chairs of the DNC.
		Him and David and the others are really able to make the case in lots of different places, which is what we need more of.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Then as far as them able to influence the Democratic National Committee for these issues that young people care about, what do you think about their ability to do that?
unidentified		You know, I think it's worth making, being really clear about what the role of the DNC is.
		The DNC isn't really setting a policy platform necessarily for the Democratic Party, especially for Democrats all across the country.
		They're really there to provide back-end support, provide infrastructure and data and technology for these parties and campaigns, and to administer the presidential primary.
		So I'm really glad that all the members of DNC leadership were elected to really bring some fresh ideas to this process.
		But I think the real power doesn't come from the DNC.
		It comes from the candidates who are really out there talking about the issues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Missouri, Republican line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Galen.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yeah, good morning.
		I have a question for the young lady.
		I'm 75 years old, and I know because I learned in the last 10 years.
		I was just wondering, do you think we are a democracy or a republic?
		And do you know the difference?
		And that's my question.
		Thank you for that question.
		We are a Democratic Republic, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness here.
		And hopefully we'll be able to keep it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to your own political background, your bio says that it started by you skipping class and listening to Senator Barack Obama.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you expand on that?
unidentified		Yes, you know, I always knew I wanted to work in politics.
		I grew up in Northern Virginia, just outside D.C. over in Fairfax.
		I went to Robinson Secondary School, which some of your viewers might know if they're in the D.C. area.
		And I knew when I was little that politics, I thought, was a way to make a difference in the world.
		And it appealed to me and a little bit of art, a little bit of science.
		My junior year of high school, Senator Barack Obama, at the time was doing a Students for Obama tour just before he announced his presidential campaign.
		And he went and gave a speech at George Mason University, which is just across the street from where I was a junior.
		So I skipped school, which I never did.
		I was a very good kid.
		And I went and saw him speak.
		And I knew in that moment I wanted to work for someone like him.
		In fact, I wanted to work for him specifically.
		So I ultimately ended up going to Northwestern for college in part because I thought if I go, if I'm in Chicago or nearby, maybe I'll be able to work when he runs for reelection.
		And long-term planning worked out because I got a job on his campaign my senior year of college.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What did you do?
unidentified		Excuse me.
		I was doing online fundraising.
		I was on the email team.
		So if you ever got emails from Barack Obama saying, hey, or free to meet for dinner, that was me and my team.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What did you learn from your political experience, not with the senator, before working for Hillary Clinton and Charlie Chris as well?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What did you learn then that you apply to your job now?
unidentified		Such a good question.
		Excuse me.
		Candidate matters.
		The way that you campaign, the tactics that you use, the message that you use, the way that people respond to you are so dependent on who the candidate is.
		You know, I think a lot about traveling the state of Florida with then Governor Charlie Chris when he was running for governor again, and the way he would go up to people and have conversations with them and spend 20 minutes in a gas station in the middle of Florida having a conversation face to face with the guy behind the counter and at the end ask him for his vote in such a meaningful way.
		I think about the way when I worked for Secretary Clinton, how people and little girls would respond to her at the campaign rallies and how people would engage with us online and how it certainly mattered what they were saying, but it also was incredibly important to keep in mind who was the person saying it.
		And when I think now about the work Run for Something does and even this broader conversation around the Democratic Party, yes, message and the words that we say are super important, but messenger is what matters and what makes it breakthrough.
		Message does not exist in a vacuum distinct from who is doing the communicating.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And so with that in mind, as you'll look to 2028, eventually, where do you think the state of the party is in bringing someone with that message?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And does that person have to be younger per se?
unidentified		I do think that person needs to be younger.
		Now, in politics, younger is pretty relative, but I do think that person needs to be younger.
		And I think we're about to see a surge in new leadership.
		You know, I think a lot about how at this point in 2017, we didn't know who AOC was.
		We didn't know who Lauren Underwood was.
		We didn't know who so many of the people who are now mainstays of our public communication, even Jamie Raskin, had just entered Congress after 2016.
		The leaders who we look to now for guidance were not on our radar eight years ago.
		So I think the surge of people who've raised their hands, you know, just about 20,000 people have raised their hands to run for something just since the election a couple months ago, almost half of them just since inauguration.
		Those are the folks who in the years to come, probably, we're going to be looking to for leadership.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Were you surprised with the amount of young people who voted for President Trump the last election?
unidentified		You know, young people are mad.
		Young people are experiencing inflation in a really specific way.
		I think at some studies I've seen, young people experience inflation almost one point higher than folks who are a little bit older, especially when you think about issues like childcare or housing.
		Housing, I think, is a big one because your experience as a young person entering the housing market, you're likely a renter or a first-time buyer.
		And it is so hard and so expensive that, no, I'm not surprised that young people said, I want to, I'm mad at the quality of my economic life, and I want to punish the person who I feel is responsible for it.
		So I'm disappointed a little bit, but I also think those are folks who we can win back in years to come because I don't think what Trump's doing to the economy is going to make their life any easier.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our conversation with Amanda Littman with Run for Something up next.
		Rick in New York, Independent Line, you're on with the guests.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hi, thanks for taking my call.
		I joined a little late, so I hope that I'm not repeating myself, repeating someone.
		So I would just make a suggestion.
		I'm very hopeful that you guys focus on developing leaders and not just having young people join an organization, but they ought to be creating organizations individually once you get into your main organization.
		Focus on leadership in clean tech and civil rights and economic projects, startups.
		That is going to be something that Republicans can't overcome because they're generally followers.
		But you create every individual with the mindset of a leader and you will have a great ability to overcome anything that they put in front of you.
		Thanks.
		Love that.
		And I think so many of our alum we've worked with, more than 3,000 young people who we've endorsed over the years, the ones that go on to win serve really meaningful ways.
		But the ones that lose, leadership doesn't end after Election Day.
		We've seen them go on to, as you say, start nonprofits, start community groups, take over parties.
		They have been incredible advocates for their community and in a way that I think is really sustainable.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is from Becky.
		Becky in Massachusetts.
		Republican line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you.
		I'm one of those baby boomers too.
		But anyway, my convers, The reason that I called in is this young lady has a tremendous effect on the young people that are running.
		And what I would suggest is if she has influence on the young people that are running and especially for Congress, Washington, that it is time that we have a term limit because there are way too many old people in Congress.
		And I suggest that we that the young people that are coming, so they don't grow old in Congress, that they set approach the idea of 25 years maximum in Congress, whether it's your you do 10 years in the House and then you go on to the Senate.
		You're limited to 25 years.
		And you don't get a pension until you have been in there for six years.
		Because we don't need a bunch of young people coming into Congress, working two years and then leaving, and the rest of us paying taxes and everything else are paying your pensions to go on and get money from the government.
		It's time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Becky.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Becky there in Massachusetts.
unidentified		Becky, thank you for that.
		You know, I don't think members of Congress get pensions, but someone should correct me if I'm wrong.
		I'm sure someone will on the internet.
		I will say there's a lot of different structural changes we should make about Congress.
		I think things like campaign finance reform, paying members of Congress more, which I know is kind of a hot take, but if we want to make it so something working people can do, it needs to be more as high a paid job as it is and could be in the private sector.
		It needs to be something that people who aren't independently wealthy can do.
		We need to do that for all levels of office too, for what it's worth.
		So many of these local positions are unpaid or barely paid.
		I think some state legislators, they pay their members maybe 400 bucks a year, maybe.
		That is not how you get a reflective and representative group of people who can run.
		So term limits, certainly something worth considering.
		Age limits, also a thing worth considering.
		There's a whole range of issues.
		And I think we should be really expansive when hopefully we get through this fascist takeover and we come out on the other side.
		What are the ways we can make our institutions more welcoming to more people?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Amanda Lemon, you talk about the role of young progressives.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about the role of young moderates and their role at the Democratic Party?
unidentified		Oh, I think we need all kinds.
		And every primary is a chance to really decide what our party believes.
		It's why I think that in every circumstance, primaries are a good thing.
		You know, I get yelled at sometimes by state parties or leaders who will say, how can you be challenging that incumbent?
		How dare you?
		It's like, if they're an incumbent who's doing a good job, why should you be worried?
		And just as importantly, a primary is a chance for us as a party to decide what we believe.
		So young moderates, young progressives, young across the spectrum Democrats, really, as they engage in these primaries, will get a chance to make their voice heard and shift us one way or another as we go.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Billy in Texas, Crockett, Texas, Democrats line, you're on with our guests.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I'd first like to say that America is the world's leader because we are a true nation of God.
		And we have our leadership doing crazy things.
		It will not affect us because the history of America, I'm a black man and mighty seven were slaves.
		But we help make America great like it is.
		And because we're a nation of God, we're going to continue to do the progress that's needed.
		We can't understand why people like Trump do crazy things because we've always had crazy people.
		But we always been a nation of God.
		That's why the world is looking at us.
		And that's why we will sustain.
		That's why we will go forward.
		And I just want to praise C-Span because they've let me speak for the last 20 years.
		And we're a nation of God and they're a station of God.
		And we just want to know, we're not wearing here in America because God gives you the strength, the power, and the courage to go forward.
		And you're not afraid.
		They may list me as being old, but I'm young because I can do anything that God got me to do because his influence was supernatural.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Billy, thank you.
unidentified		Thank you for what you're doing, Billy.
unidentified		And I hope you're right.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is from CRS, by the way, just for our viewers about the Congress and getting a pension.
		There is some information there.
		If you want to see that CSR report when it talks about the pension benefits and retirement benefits for a member of Congress, you can check that out at the CRS website.
		To the larger issue of money, Amanda Lippmann, I know a lot of people call this program talking about what they would describe as the corrupt, the corrupting influence of money in politics.
		What's the view of that for you and those you support?
unidentified		Thank you for correcting me.
		I really appreciate that.
		You know, for us, the candidates we work with tend to often be outspent.
		Their opponents are really well-funded, but they are rarely outworked.
		I think, especially on the more local elections, the average school board, 75% of school board races at last research cost $1,000 or less.
		85% cost $5,000 or less.
		These are really small elections where a little bit of money goes a long way, which is why if you're thinking about what to support, support local.
		There are also elections where the candidate can really drive voter conversation by simply showing up and being present.
		You know, we have a lot to do with campaign finance reform, especially at the federal level, but at the local level, there is so much that you can do to outwork being outspent.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Lippin, are there older members of Congress or older politicians who are supporting your cause and giving you support directly?
unidentified		You know, we have had support over the years from nearly every major member of Congress.
		Senator Warren, Senator Sanders, even President Biden over the years has been supportive in some way, shape, or form, whether it's asking people to run for office or sending folks our way or meeting with our candidates and helping them out.
		And I think that's really powerful because there is a way in which we can do intergenerational leadership.
		It is really, I think, a good deed in many ways for the older folks to mentor and bring up and make space for younger leaders.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Joe is next in Florida, Republican line.
unidentified		Yes, just wanted to mention some thoughts.
		Really, I had a couple of points and then just one question at the end.
		I just want to start by asking Amanda how she basically feels about how the progressives have been subsumed into the Democratic Party and have really driven some of the most radical thoughts of their party.
		I think for most people in America that feel that the country is moving in a very hard direction, whether it be illegal actions across the border or whether it really is moving away from not just younger generation,
		but just ideas in general, away from family and away from overall overall what I would consider law and order policies.
		I think that scares a lot of Americans.
		And then my question is just really around the media and why she thinks the media is so head over heels.
		I'm watching ABC on another channel and their toll tack is simply just to attack everything that the new administration is doing, just hands-down attack at finding no good in anything.
		So just I have those are my thoughts and I just wondered about her thoughts around that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		All right, thanks.
unidentified		Thank you for the question.
		I think on the question of progressives and the ways in which they are disconnected from the American people, you know, on that I will really disagree.
		We see this in public polling over and over again on the issues.
		Democrats and progressives across the spectrum are really able to talk to the issues that people care about.
		You know, I think about this: I'm a mom of two little girls, a two-year-old and a five-month-old.
		When I think about the issues that really affect my life, housing, childcare, transportation, I don't see solutions for those coming out of the Republican Party.
		I see them coming from Democrats and progressives who are ready to advance a really expansive vision for how we can make America a place people and families and kids can thrive.
		Now, as for the question for media, I think telling the truth is not being on opposition, it's simply telling the truth.
		There's certainly a broad range of media outlets who are doing so in a really effective way, and I hope they will continue to do so.
		And we need more of them.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of the state of progressive media outlets specifically to speak about the issues that you and your those who work with you care about?
unidentified		We need more.
		We need more, And we need more outlets who are not necessarily political or explicitly progressive to be welcoming to conversations about politics.
		And I can't tell you how many times over the years run for something, which I think has a pretty expansive conversation to have and isn't always explicitly partisan, has been told no by a media company or a partner who just doesn't want to get into elections or the messiness of politics because they don't think that their audience is ready or capable of handling it.
		I vehemently disagree.
		We need to bring politics into non-political spaces, and we need to make our political spaces and the progressive media outlets that we have more interesting, more entertaining.
		We need to fund them.
		We need to fund them.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do you think, though, that during the campaign when the then-candidate the vice president appeared on the Call Me Daddy podcast and the stir it cause amongst particularly those who were not pleased with the podcast or herself, do you think that wears a lesson there as far as those non-political outlets?
unidentified		Oh, I think we should do more of that.
		You know, you're never going to please everyone, and those audiences are never going to be like a full alignment with your political values.
		But that's good.
		That's how you reach folks who maybe are outside of your echo chamber.
		We got to do more of it.
		We got to have more candidates who can show up in those places and have an interesting and engaging conversation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Here is Alex in Detroit, Independent Line.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I have a statement and then question.
		I live in Michigan and I helped Bernie Sanders' campaign in 2016 beat Hillary Clinton here in the state.
		Very proud of that fact.
		I'm a huge Bernie supporter.
		Also, I was an Obama supporter.
		And I believe the two things that those folks have as far as progressives-I mean, Obama wasn't a progressive, but is the Midwestern sensibility.
		And let me just tell you: I am a progressive economically.
		I think billionaires should be taxed out of existence as Bernie does in this country.
		Cannot have a democracy with billionaires.
		However, the progressive leadership and even the Democratic Party leadership, which is why I'm not a Democrat, is so coastally based.
		Hakeem Jeffries, Camilla Jayapal from Seattle, Schumer from New York, Jeffries from New York, and especially Pelosi and Gavin Newsom from California do not represent my social values as a Midwesterner.
		And another one that's new on the scene, I cannot stand, is that Jasmine Crockett.
		So I'd like to know: where is the Midwestern sensibility in progressive leadership?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Alex in Detroit, thank you.
unidentified		Thank you for what you do.
		Even if we weren't on the same side in that primary, I really appreciate the work that you put into it.
		You know, when I think about the progressive leadership across the country, I look to people like Senator Mallory McMorrow in Michigan, Iowa State Senator Zach Walls.
		She's an independent now, but Nebraska State Senator Megan Hunt, Montana Representative Zoe Zephyr, and there are so many others.
		You know, I think it's worth thinking about why some of the best, some of the, not maybe best, but why the Democratic leadership comes from these blue places.
		In part, it's because they can stake out positions that maybe wouldn't be necessarily what a swing candidate would need to take.
		They are not as afraid of their own personal reelection.
		Now, there are pros and cons to that.
		We can talk about that for hours, but it's worth thinking about how did they get to that position in the first place.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Dennis, Dennis in Arizona, Independent Line.
unidentified		Leadership across the country.
unidentified		Hello, people.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Dennison, Arizona.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Hello.
		Let me turn off my TV.
		Okay.
		My thought is the only way to make government work is to be upfront and show every penny spent.
		So not one penny can ever be spent without a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives and Senate and true meaning of what you're spending the money for.
		Without that, the Democrats and the Republicans will both put so much money in a bill when they pass it and nobody knows what it's for.
		So what is your thoughts on that?
		Plus, there needs to be 12-year term limits, and that's a combination of House and Senate.
		If you have four years as a House and six years or eight years, six years in the Senate, the only thing you can go for is two more years in the House.
		Totally combined.
		What is your thoughts?
		You know, I think a vigorous debate about our budget, you know, budget shows you your values as a country is a good thing.
		And I really hope that House Republicans who control the floor are willing to have a really open and honest conversation about what they are willing to cut and how scarily how much they're going to cut things like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security to fund the tax cuts they want to do.
		Because we're going to need to see that conversation to really understand who they are and who to fight against.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Amanda Limmond, what's your organization's plans for the midterms and the upcoming upcoming presidential in four years or so?
unidentified		So it's a good reminder, 2025, not an off year.
		There are about 100,000 elections just in 2025 alone.
		Run for Something is aggressively still recruiting candidates for them because it's not too late for many of these places to run for office.
		Now, we as an organization expect to endorse about 300 this year.
		We are also, again, aggressively recruiting for 2026.
		We hope to add about 50,000 people to the Run for Something pipeline this year and work with as many of them as possible because the folks that we elect in 2026 and the folks that Run for Something works with in 2026 will be key to helping gin up more voters to show up for those midterms where we need to flip the House and reduce our margins in the Senate and win especially critical governorships, flip state legislative chambers, and elect the local election administrators, county commissioners like I talked about earlier and others who actually will oversee the election in 2028.
		Because I do think we will still have elections moving forward and we want to make sure that they are as fair and as accessible as we possibly can.
		And that is determined by who we elect to these state and local offices.
		So the work that we do over the next two years is going to be critical both to winning power now and to making sure we can hold it in the years to come.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The upcoming book is called When We're in Charge the Next Generation Guides to Leadership.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's it about?
unidentified		Thank you for asking.
		We're about to announce it later this week.
		It is a guide on leadership for millennials in Gen Z.
		So many leadership books treat us as generations or employees to manage around or as nuisances.
		So I wanted to write the thing that I wish we had had almost a decade ago when I started Run for Something, a book for people like me who have been online my entire life, who are thinking about how to manage remote work environments, who believe that we should offer paid leave and as leaders, take the paid leave when we have families.
		I talk about all kinds of things from authenticity to social media to the four-day work week.
		It'll be come out May 13th.
		I'm really excited to keep talking about it in the months and years to come.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The website is runforsomething.net.
		Amanda Lippmann is the co-founder and president of Run for Something joining us for the first time on C-SPAN.
		Thanks for your time.
unidentified		Thank you for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Later on this today, at four o'clock this afternoon, specifically, C-SPAN is going to give you a live broadcast, a simulcast of the Canadian Broadcasting Company's program, taking a look at President Trump's push to make Canada the 51st state.
		The host will be taking calls from the U.S. and Canada.
		And the show is called Cross-Country Checkup and also On the Middle with Jeremy Hobson.
		That live coverage will be at 4 o'clock.
		You can see that on C-SPAN, C-SPAN now, and our free mobile app, that's our free mobile app, and then at c-span.org.
		Joining us to talk a little bit more about this program and its background is Ian Hanel-Mansing.
		He is with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
		He serves as their host.
		Thank you for giving us your time.
		Morning.
		Tell us about the genesis of these programs.
		What spurred this?
unidentified		Trump's comments about Canada, particularly the tariff threats that come and go, but also his constant comments about Canada being the 51st state and our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, being Governor Trudeau.
		That's gotten a lot of coverage and not just coverage in Canada, but it's provoked a lot of anger and anxiety.
		So I'm not sure if it's been a political issue at all in the United States, but trust me, in Canada, it has been a huge issue.
		So our weekly program, Cross-Country Checkup, taps into national conversations on key issues.
		And it was clear to us that this fit that bill.
		This is a key issue.
		And we want to have what's not just a national conversation, but a cross-border conversation about it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And it's a call-in program format.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Tell us how the program works.
unidentified		So we have three or four expert guests or guests that have a stake in a topic as we will today.
		And then normally on a normal week, I would be fielding questions from callers across the country.
		We do have call screeners.
		So it's not just a free-for-all, but what we try to get is diversity, geographic diversity, diversity of opinion, gender diversity.
		We try to get a collection of voices.
		And then the added element now is that Jeremy Hobson, as you said, from the public radio program, The Middle, is joining us.
		So he has managed to get more than 100 NPR stations on board in Los Angeles, in D.C., lots of Chicago, lots of communities across the United States.
		So he and I will be sitting together here in Vancouver, and we'll be fielding calls definitely from Canada.
		We get a lot of calls from the country.
		Our show is a well-established call-in show here, but we're hoping to get lots of calls from the United States as well.
		Because, I mean, I'm hoping that U.S. viewers and listeners will learn a little bit from hearing from Canadians.
		For sure, we in Canada are very eager to hear American voices as well.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You hinted at it, but you talked about the Canadian response to these threats from President Trump and the seriousness of which Canadians are taking it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you elaborate on that?
unidentified		Well, I need to go no further than my social media in the last 48 hours and my email at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
		You know, we've taken on controversial topics before.
		And, you know, I've received lots of reaction on social media.
		I got to tell you, nothing like what's happened over the last 48 hours.
		We have had hundreds, if not thousands, of replies, and there's been a unanimity in those replies.
		And like you probably, I'm pretty good at trying to figure out when there's a campaign behind a lot of communication.
		I don't think that's going on here.
		I think people are genuinely engaged in this conversation, but it goes beyond engagement.
		They're really angry.
		They're angry at us for even doing this show, for daring to use that phrase, 51st state.
		We're getting a lot of criticism from people saying, call it what it is.
		So in the words of those people who are complaining, they're saying it's not about musing about Canada being the 51st state.
		It's about a threat to our sovereignty.
		In fact, you know, people have been telling me, don't call it comments by President Trump.
		Call it threats.
		Don't call it talking about the 51st state.
		Talk of it, you know, explain that it's an attempt to take away our sovereignty.
		So people are taking this really seriously.
		There are some who have dismissed the president's comments as trolling, as an opening point in tariff negotiations.
		But there are other people that are taking it deadly seriously, so seriously, that on a call-in show like ours that takes on all kinds of topics, and we're kind of a thoughtful call-in show, and we don't have people yelling at each other, even on our program.
		Just the idea that we're allowing this topic to be discussed is causing a huge amount of outrage.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You talked about what the president had said, but also talk about, do you expect calls tonight because of these tariff, the potential tariffs that will be put upon your country?
unidentified		Yeah, absolutely.
		You know, like I look in my personal life, so, you know, an anecdotal example, but friends of mine who never talk about politics, not because they're trying to avoid politics, but because I think in their lives, they don't think of themselves as political people.
		Week after week after week, I have a group of guys I play sports with, for example, on Saturday mornings, and we rarely talk about news events.
		But for the last few weeks, they have been talking about how they're trying to boycott U.S. products because of the tariff threat, about how offended they are.
		So many people here have friends and relatives in the United States and enjoy traveling to the United States and how offended they've been by the tariff threat and the 51st state rhetoric.
		And so, yeah, the tariff thing is definitely part of it.
		People are feeling fragile.
		They're feeling angry.
		As you probably know, that hockey game in Boston a couple of days ago took on a much greater sort of importance for a lot of Canadians.
		It was more than just a hockey game.
		It reminded me of the Soviet Union games against Canada in the 70s and in the 80s, where it was as much about politics as it was about hockey.
		And that game against the United States had that feel to it, which honestly, six months ago, most of us would never have imagined.
		The rhetoric in Canada and the United States has been for years two close allies, friends, neighbors, longest undefended border.
		And then all of a sudden, particularly since President Trump was inaugurated, the rhetoric has changed, the feelings here have changed, and there is a sense of betrayal and anger on the part of a lot of people.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Even your prime minister after that hockey game put out on X, you can't take our country and you can't take our game.
		That's what he put.
		You talked about that just now.
		But as far as where you see relations going between our two countries, war fragile, ability to repair, where do you see it?
unidentified		Well, again, I mean, you're talking about long-standing ties between the two countries.
		You're talking about a lot of cultural similarities between the two countries.
		You're talking like where I am in Vancouver, we're about a 40-minute drive, depending on how long the wait is at the border from Bellingham, Washington.
		A lot of people here regularly go down to Bellingham to shop at Trader Joe's, which we don't have in Canada, or have cottages in Point Roberts that's not far from here, but it's in the United States.
		Friends of mine who regularly go from Vancouver to Palm Springs or to Hawaii or to California.
		So they're deep ties.
		There has been long-term affection on the part of a lot of people.
		But I don't think it's overstating this to use the family metaphor.
		And families have good times and bad times.
		And sometimes you cross a line in a family that you wonder, will you ever be able to come back from that?
		I'm not saying that's happened, but I'm saying that some of the rhetoric, some of the feelings, some of the anger makes me wonder if we're at that Thanksgiving dinner, for example, where some things have been said and some actions have been taken, but mainly things have been said that are going to be very, very difficult to forget about and to walk past, you know, back from that line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The call-in program sponsored by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, taking a look at issues between the United States and Canada will be simultaneous by C-SPAN starting at 4 o'clock.
		If you're interested in hearing what the Canadians have to say and possibly the members of the United States calling it as well, you can see that on our main platform, C-SPAN, our app, C-SPANNOW, and our website at c-span.org.
		Ian Hanelmansing joining us from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
		Thank you for your time.
		And before I let you go, how can people view in if people are if our audience is interested in getting into this?
		How can people if they have the ability to call it, what's the number they can call in or that kind of information?
unidentified		Yeah, so our number will be mentioned a lot on the air.
		I don't want to say it now because I'll probably get a digit wrong and create chaos.
		So once they're watching on your channel, the number will be prominent.
		And I can't overstress, we really do want to hear from U.S. callers.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, sir.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate your time.
unidentified		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's it for our program today.
		Another edition of Washington Journal comes your way at 7 o'clock tomorrow morning.
		We'll see you then.
unidentified		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington to across the country.

▲