CSPAN - Washington Journal 02/26/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 26, 2025 06:59-09:59 - CSPAN

02:59:54

Washington Journal 02/26/2025

Participants

Main

aaron mehta

16:36

mimi geerges

cspan 27:38

Appearances

jack reed

sen/d 01:00

jodey arrington

rep/r 02:35

karoline leavitt

admin 02:33

mike johnson

rep/r 02:15

mike rogers

rep/r 01:15

rosa delauro

rep/d 01:51

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

joe biden

d 00:03

justice neil gorsuch

scotus 00:10

pete hegseth

admin 00:12

ronald reagan

r 00:01

thomas massie

rep/r 00:10

Callers

1949 in april

callers 00:04

kurt in indiana

callers 00:08

rodney in arizona

callers 00:21

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		The argument will join a House Oversight Committee hearing on the Department of Government Efficiency and Foreign Aid.
		And later, we'll bring you a Senate Banking Subcommittee hearing on digital assets, which include cryptocurrencies.
		You can also watch live coverage of these events on the C-SPAN Now app or online at c-span.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including WOW.
		The world has changed.
		Today, a fast, reliable internet connection is something no one can live without.
		So WOW is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice.
		Now more than ever, it all starts with great internet.
		Wow.
		WOW supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Coming up on Washington Journal, we'll take your calls and comments live.
		Then, the editor-in-chief of Breaking Defense, Aaron Mehta, discusses President Trump firing Pentagon leaders, his nomination of retired Lieutenant General Dan Kaine to be the new chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and potential budget cuts at defense.
		Also, New Jersey Democratic Congresswoman Bonnie Watson-Coleman, a member of the budget and appropriations committees.
		She reviews recent actions by the Trump administration and the role of Democrats in the current Congress.
		And later, Florida Republican Congressman John Rutherford, a member of the Appropriations Committee, discusses the budget and House GOP strategy to advance President Trump's legislative agenda.
		Washington Journal starts now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Wednesday, February 26th.
		President Trump joined House Speaker Mike Johnson in working to gather enough votes to pass a budget resolution yesterday.
		The vote passed last night, 217 to 215, with all Democrats opposed.
		The budget blueprint includes $4.5 trillion in tax breaks and $2 trillion in spending cuts.
		This morning, we're getting your thoughts on the House budget proposal and the way forward.
		Here's how to reach us.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can text us at 202-748-8003.
		Include your first name in your city-state.
		We're on social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
		Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
		We're glad you're with us.
		We will start with hearing from Speaker Mike Johnson right after the vote he spoke to reporters.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		Thank you all for staying on a long night.
		We got it done.
		We had the requisite number of votes to move this process along.
		And now passing the budget resolution in the House that will go to the Senate.
		This is the first important step in opening up the reconciliation process.
		We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, but we are going to deliver the American First Agenda.
		We're going to deliver all of it, not just parts of it.
		And this was the first step in that process.
		So grateful to my colleagues who worked so hard to get us here and to all the leaders, the leaders of the chairs of the committees of jurisdiction, Chairman Arrington, who did a great job on the budget committee, and Chairman Smith on Ways and Means, and all of our colleagues who worked on this.
		So a lot of work yet to be done, but we're going to celebrate tonight and we'll roll up our sleeves and get right back at it in the morning.
		Thank you so much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And he mentioned getting back at it in the morning.
		We will go to the House right at 10 when they gavel in.
		Here's what's in that House budget resolution.
		So it includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, $2 trillion in spending cuts, $100 billion in new spending on immigration enforcement and the military.
		It would raise the debt limit by $4 trillion, and it requires the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in cuts to federal programs, possibly from Medicaid.
		And that comes from NBC News.
		Here's a roll call.
		It says, GOP adopted in GOP budget adopted in-House after late arm twisting.
		House Republicans had only one GOP vote to spare.
		Next stop, negotiations with the Senate.
		And I'll just read you a little bit of that article.
		House Republicans ram through their framework for a, quote, big, beautiful budget package Tuesday night after they initially couldn't muster the votes, only to pull a last-minute switcheroo and start the roll call as Democrats who'd already started leaving the Capitol cried foul.
		It was a major victory for Speaker Mike Johnson, who struggled to unite the conservative and centrist factions of his conference to rally around a budget reconciliation process that would deliver much of President Donald Trump's agenda without the risk of a Senate Democratic filibuster.
		That is on roll call if you would like to see that.
		And here is also the Washington Post.
		If you're wondering about how every member voted on the budget bill, it says, so the vote, again, 217 Republicans opposed 215 Democrats.
		So you can see here there was one Republican that opposed the bill.
		That's Thomas Massey of Kentucky.
		One Democrat did not vote, was not able to be at the vote.
		And I can get you his name.
		But let's hear from Representative Thomas Massey, Republican of Kentucky, about why he planned to vote against the bill.
		This is before the vote.
unidentified		I'm a no.
		Is there anything?
		Look, what?
		There are own numbers.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		If the Republican plan passes under the rosiest assumptions, which aren't even true, we're going to add $328 billion to the deficit this year.
unidentified		We're going to add $295 billion to the deficit the year after that.
		And $242 billion to the deficit after that under the rosiest assumptions.
		Why would I vote for that?
		Throw you solidly a no?
		Yeah, they convinced me.
		The only way they get to this magic thing where it's not going to kill our country is five years from now, they imagine that 2.5% growth accumulates.
		And that even right here, they say they're going to cap discretionary spending.
		You think we're going to cap discretionary spending and then spend at the rate of inflation after that?
		That has never happened.
		So their assumptions are wrong.
		But even if you take their assumptions at face value, they told us in there they're going to increase the deficit in 2025 by $328 billion.
		And I've been here long enough.
		I've been here 12 years.
		So I've seen a 10-year plan or two come all the way to 10 years.
		Under Boehner, we had these 10-year plans.
		Under Ryan, we had these 10-year plans.
		Anything past the third year never happens.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was Representative Massey of Kentucky, the only Republican to vote no on the budget resolution that did pass last night.
		We're getting your thoughts on that.
		And we'll go to Carl, Chicago, Democrat.
		Hi, Carl.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		How you doing, Mimi?
		Okay, yes.
		Now we can pass all the smoking screen that those was making and get to the crux of what they're trying to condition American people to believe is okay.
		This has always been about the money.
		The CBO, I think they reported and said that over the next 10 years is going to add another $20 something trillion dollars to the debt.
		Now, all these Republicans out there, all they do is scream about the debt, the debt, the debt.
		They're pulling it up a dope.
		Those ain't nothing but a smokescreen.
		It's not even accurate.
		They're just telling you stuff.
		It's all about always cutting into Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
		Americans need to understand this.
		So we can have tax cuts for wealthy people.
		This is what this has all been about, the money.
		Like Deep Joe said, follow the money, people.
		Don't get distracted by all this other nonsense that they've been throwing out here at you to make you feel good.
		We couldn't make you bend over and feel the pain.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Carl.
		Let's talk to Ralph in Manoa, New York.
		Democrat.
		Good morning, Ralph.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm a UAW worker from upstate New York, and I want to talk about the concept of living in the moment.
		The 215 Democrats that voted against this bill, in particular, no tax on Social Security, no taps on tips, and no taps on overtime.
		They did the right thing because workers, they live in the moment.
		And who supported this, they don't think about their long-term retirement.
		This will defund their own retirement, in particular, Social Security.
		And I thank you for your time.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Doug in Cocoa, Florida.
		Democrat.
		Hi, Doug.
unidentified		Hey, yeah, that sounds great.
		They're going to pass a tax cut.
		Anybody making under $100,000 ain't going to pay no more taxes?
		That's what I'm doing.
		Everybody, have a good day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle on that tax cut feature of the budget plan and who it could affect.
unidentified		This budget represents a Republican betrayal of the middle class, and I'm proud to rise and oppose it.
		Here's what's at stake.
		My friends on the other side of the aisle want to deliver $4.5 trillion of tax cuts, almost all of which go to the richest 1% of Americans.
		Now, how do they pay for it?
		How do they pay for that $4.5 trillion of tax cuts?
		First, at least $880 billion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.
		Those cuts from Medicaid, by the way, represent the largest cuts to Medicaid in American history.
		72 million Americans get their health care from Medicaid.
		We're mostly talking about seniors, children, and those with disabilities.
		Another 20 million Americans get their health care from the ACA.
		So combined, we are talking about 92 million Americans whose health care is at risk.
		And why?
		All to deliver tax cuts to billionaires.
		But now we have a math problem because even with those, the largest cuts to Medicaid in history, you don't get anywhere close to $4.5 trillion.
		So how do they finance the rest of it?
		Well, we have more cuts, hundreds of billions more in cuts to education programs like school lunches, Head Start, student loan repayment.
		We also have $230 billion of cuts to nutrition assistance at a time when grocery prices are at record highs.
		So all told, that gets you to at least $1.5 trillion.
		But remember, the size of the tax cuts are $4.5 trillion, and they want to add some more spending on top of that.
		So what do they do to make up the difference?
		Increase the national debt by $4 trillion.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We are taking your calls on that budget resolution that passed last night.
		This is what the Washington Post says.
		With the passage of the bill, a reconciliation process will start where House committees will cut or increase spending while trying to offset the trillions of dollars that tax cuts are predicted to add to the national debt.
		The process also restricts amendments and avoids a Senate filibuster from Democrats.
		Some moderate Republicans are particularly wary of cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which Trump recently promised would not face any cuts in spending.
		The party has also promised not to cut defense spending, making it nearly impossible to both cut taxes and spending.
		And here is Scott, Roseville, California.
		Democrat, good morning, Scott.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think?
unidentified		I think we're in bad shape.
		My household, my cousin, born in 62, just returned from the hospital tonight with tracheal cancer.
		And he's disabled, as am I.
		I had a brain anger, it's massive in 2009.
		And the landlord that keeps us in the household where housing is an issue, we both live in the same house that she had to reverse mortgage just to survive.
		She's 88.
		And as a result, I am preparing for the worst.
		I get my disability check, and my cousin is just trying to find his first primary just to survive the tracheal cancer.
		He's got the trach in his neck right now.
		He can barely talk.
		My mom can't take him to and from the doctor, so the hospital is providing the services for, you know, Medicaid, Medicare, is providing the services to get him to and from appointments so he can live one more day.
		So this household is upset and overturned.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Scott, I'm really sorry you're struggling with all that.
		Are you on Medicaid?
		Are you on Medicare?
unidentified		I'm on Medicare.
		I will not pick up the Medicaid, and I'm on disability.
		I'm just 54.
		My cousin is ready to take the retirement benefits.
		But, oh my God, when they go this way with all the cuts, I'm going to be homeless.
		My mother's going to die.
		My cousin is going to die.
		And I'm going to be homeless.
		And I know this is coming.
		So I would not trust, now that this new budget has been passed, one red cent because now they're taboo.
		We're not even going to make pennies anymore.
		But I would not trust one red penny, even though it's copper-covered nickel, to this U.S. government because they are completely out of hand.
		God help us all.
		Thank you, Megan.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Vincent in Gaithersburg, Maryland, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're next.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Scott and all the people who are listening and watching C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, et cetera, Fox, they are fearmongering.
		Scott, you do not have to worry.
		Trump said over and over, excuse me, President Trump said over, and they are not cutting Social Security.
		I'm a disabled veteran.
		They're not cutting my.
		I'm not even worried about it, okay?
		He is not, the only thing they are cutting out is the corruption.
		Anyway, that's the best I can do.
		You're going to, people are going to, and C-SPAN will make sure those people get on who are doubting it to spread more fear.
		People, you don't have to worry.
		One last time.
		Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, food for the children, all of that.
		They are not going to cut it.
		Thank you, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's James in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, James.
unidentified		Oh, what TV shout out that guy from Maryland's been watching, but they passed a bill last night by the skin of the teeth to cut out Medicaid.
1949 in april ▲ ● ▼		It can take a, to cut Medicaid and Medicare.
unidentified		And it's only passed Congress.
		It's got to go through the Senate before it can get to that dictator in the White House.
		So I'm giving you all the red state Republicans some advice.
		It's going to hurt you red states more than it's going to hurt us Democrats because y'all get more money from Medicare and Medicaid than the Democrat, Blue States do.
		So you better start getting in touch with you, Senator.
		And we need to start getting out there, raising cane.
		If we have to do a million-man march down there like Reverend Al Sharpen does to get this man's attention, that's what we're going to have to do.
		And I'm going to tell you another thing right now.
		This man, you think it's high prices now?
		The man wants to get rid of it into the Treasury now because the man is telling the truth.
		He's running it now.
		Says if he stays on this route that he's going now, inflation will be back up to 9 and 10%.
		And it sounded, you Republicans don't.
		What it is, is a tax break for Donald Trump's rich friends.
		That is a fact.
		That 4.5, that's all he wants.
		So he can say he did what he told him rich folks.
		He would do.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, James.
		Well, let's hear from Gregory Forrest Lake, Minnesota, Republican.
		Hi, Gregory.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		Yeah, well, I want to just call in to say that I thank God that President Trump has the fortitude to do what he's doing because it's just our country has gotten to the point where all we do is live on borrowed money.
		And I spent my entire working career as a mortgage lender.
		And whenever I worked with a farmer and we made a farm loan to that farmer for whatever reason, if they were borrowing money to buy land or expand their operation, you know, we made them to a budget.
		And they had to do a budget every year.
		They had to come in with their actual earnings.
		We always compared the actual earnings to the budget, and we made them plan ahead year by year.
		We had five-year plans, we had 10-year plans, and during the entire time we did all that, the farmers and anybody else that we made housing loans, I probably borrowed out, well, the most I borrowed out to any one person was about $400 million.
		Not one person, totally in my office.
		And I ran like a three-county three counties in Minnesota under our mortgage lending program.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Gregory, I want to ask you, because there's a headline in the Hill that says 71% of Trump voters oppose Medicaid cuts.
		So, I want to ask you, you're a Republican, so I'm assuming you voted for President Trump.
		Are you in favor of cutting Medicaid?
unidentified		No, and they're not planning to do that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, what would you cut?
unidentified		Because something longering that they want to.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But no, I understand, but I wanted to go back to what would you cut?
		You said you're against cutting Medicaid.
		What in the budget would you cut?
		Because to balance it.
unidentified		I'm not cutting a budget that they're trying to balance.
		They said I heard on the thing, on all the talking during all the house, that it ended up right now with all the cuts that they have planned, that we're within $300 million of balancing the budget.
		You know, I remember with.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		$300 million to balance the budget?
		There has to be $880 billion in cuts.
		So.
unidentified		But they've got all they said in there, somebody speaking there at the front of the after the budget, after the thing passed, that they said that they're close.
		When Ronald Reagan was president, I remember when the total national debt, I mean, I've lived long enough that I know, and I can remember, I don't forget anything.
		You know, it's all stored in your mind.
		We went to $1 trillion.
		And, you know, I remember the angst, you know, the anxiety, all the wringing of hands when our country went to $1 trillion in debt.
		And, you know, they showed a pie tape during all the years of all the different administrations, the different presidents, how much the total debt for our country.
		And during World War II, our country went way into debt.
		And we paid that off over time because we had a balanced budget for many years, and there was always a little left over.
		And that's what we always planned.
		That's what I expected all of my borrowers.
		I mean, I'm.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Gregory, I got to move on.
		This is Randy in Millington, Michigan, Democrat.
		Hi, Randy.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		I'd like to start by thanking you and all the other men and women it takes to bring us this great program.
		You're doing the nation a great service.
		I guess from what I've seen so far on this GOP budget, it seems to be all the cuts are going towards services to the American people and nothing on like, if we're pulling back from everything, why don't you put the Pentagon budget on the table or the military budget?
		And then to say you're saving money and yet the last line that you see is they want to raise the debt limit ceiling $4 trillion.
		Now, I guess being a high schooler that I need to go to college to learn that kind of math because you raise something $4 trillion and you want to only cut $880 billion, but it's all from the service program.
		That's what our government is, is for service to the American people.
		It's not a business.
		We can't run it like a business.
		Look at your own household budget.
		What would you do if every week you got a new individual that was put in there that had a different something that you had to cover?
		But you didn't get no more money.
		Now, don't break the budget, but you still got to feed those people, or you still got to educate them.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Randy, what do you suggest to do?
		Would you do away with the tax cuts?
		Is there something you would cut?
unidentified		Well, I don't know if I'd do away with them, but I would reduce them.
		You know, you still got to, this is still a divided country.
		Well, we have different opinions on that.
		So, you've got to give a little bit to everybody.
		I have no problem with that.
		I do have a problem with these budgets where they think of the American people lives don't seem to matter enough to take care of them.
		And they are, I mean, loaning money like the one guy was talking about to a farmer, that's got to be pretty darn easy because that's the one business in this country.
		We guarantee them a base rate on all their products from milk to soybeans.
		You're going to get so much for each one of them no matter what.
		So, if you live, if farmers live within their budget, they should never have a problem.
		You know, you can't live on overtime like they used to tell us in the shop.
		You got to budget your life on a 40-hour week.
		Well, if you get overtime, that's great.
		You can put a little money away, but you still got to base your life on 40 hours because overtime don't last forever.
		You know, that's, I guess I just don't understand how they're coming up with their math.
		Nothing wrong with going after waste.
		You know, I'm sure there's a whole lot of middle management you could eliminate that are really unnecessary.
		I've seen that in the shop, redundancy on management side, cut the workforce and add more engineers.
		I guess I don't understand that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, Randy, I want to show, since you mentioned the defense budget, I want to show Mike Rogers.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He's the House Armed Services Committee Chair, talking about supporting the bill for more defense spending.
mike rogers ▲ ● ▼		We've heard about all the ways the House budget resolution will deliver on President Trump's America First Agenda.
		That includes making a generational investment in national defense.
		The $100 billion in defense spending this resolution unlocks will enable us to begin restoring American deterrence, prioritizing lethality, and ensuring peace through strength.
		It will help defend the DOD's mission at the border because border security is national security.
		It will help improve the quality of life of our service members and their families.
		It will help us start to revitalize our defense industrial base and restore readiness accounts to ensure we can fight tonight.
		It will also help us start to expand U.S. shipbuilding capacity and enhance our missile deterrence.
		It will also help begin restocking our nation's arsenal of critical munitions.
		And it will help us position our military to out-compete and out-innovate China.
		Achieving the President's goal of peace through strength will ultimately require us to get defense spending back above 4% of GDP.
		But none of that can happen unless we pass this budget resolution today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that budget resolution did pass, and we're taking your calls on that, your reaction.
		Independent line, Hillsboro, New Jersey.
		John, good morning.
		Hi, John.
		Go ahead.
		Sorry, John, we cannot hear you.
		Try to call back on a better line.
		Here's Patrick in La Merida, California, Republican.
unidentified		Hello, good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
unidentified		Yeah, I think this is wonderful.
		You know, the Democrats spent a lot of money.
		I mean, the last administration.
		And I think as a Republican, I'm very thankful for Mike Johnson.
		Mike Johnson, he has the temper of Job.
		He's got a hard job, and he's able to pull this through.
		And I believe that we got to start somewhere.
		And Eon Muss and everybody else, I say this is a good deal.
		And hey, thank you very much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here is Mick in Demote, Indiana, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yes, I oppose this bill.
		It's not that I'm against tax cut.
		It's just not the right time.
		There's no reason to increase our national debt by $4.5 trillion.
		Was it $4.5 trillion?
		Or was that the tax cuts they wanted to give?
		But anyway, it was around $404 trillion.
		They want to increase the national debt.
		And you've got these people calling and complaining about the national debt, but they're all for this GOP-led bill.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So what would you reduce the debt, what would you cut, or would you just take away the tax cuts?
unidentified		I would happily continue paying the taxes I pay now.
		I, you know, just keep the programs.
		I don't want to see, you know, sick people taking off their health care, hungry school kids going without food.
		You know, Indiana's a pretty poor state to begin with.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hold on, you said you would continue to pay the taxes that you're paying now.
		But right now, we do have those 2017 Trump tax cuts.
		So did you see your taxes go down?
		Did you benefit from those tax cuts in 2017?
unidentified		They went barely.
		They might have been like $12 a month.
		So you'd be willing for those to go back up.
		Yeah, I wouldn't bother me at all.
		And I mean, as long as everybody's went back up, not the working people's go back up and then the billionaires, they'll come down some more.
		There's no reason for billionaires to get tax cuts.
		They can live off what they got forever.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And let's talk to Sonia in Staten Island, New York.
		Democrat.
		Hi, Sonia.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
unidentified		Wow, so many, so many issues.
		So, you know, I appreciate the callers that are really concerned.
		But I have, there's two big stuff going on.
		I'm going to quote actually two title films.
		There's one film that's going on right now, which is the film Idiocracy.
		Those are the people that are basically calling the shots right now beyond what they're doing is stupid.
		I mean, it's like, oh, let's just fire people that are doing the jobs, and we don't have anybody to fulfill it.
		And then there's another film, Dave.
		When Dave needs to find $650 million to fund homeless children, he calls his friend who has a firm.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He's an accountant.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I remember that movie.
unidentified		And yeah.
		And let's find, let's really look where the waste is, right?
		And they find it.
		They find the money.
		So it's not about, we don't, yeah, let's cut the waste.
		Let's find where there's stuff going on.
		But let's do it the right way, the smart way, not the idiocracy way.
		It's beyond ridiculous.
		And then you have, you know, the Biden administration left us with an amazing budget.
		We were doing really well.
		Why people decided to go with this guy that said he was going to go be a dictator on day one?
		He said it.
		He said it.
		It's like, why are you people complaining?
		But Biden left the economy in good condition.
		And this guy is taking it down.
		So, and everybody is wondering, like, oh, how are we going to go from here?
		Well, we were in a good place.
		Let's keep going to a good place.
		You voted for a guy that told you he was going to take it to not a good place.
		It's beyond ridiculous.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Sonia.
		And since you mentioned the cuts, this is news that happened just published yesterday from the AP.
		Federal technology staffers resign rather than help Musk and Doge.
		So it says more than 20 civil service employees resigned Tuesday from billionaire Trump advisor Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, saying they were refusing to use their technical expertise to, quote, dismantle critical public services.
		Here's in a letter that they wrote said this, quote, we swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations.
		However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments.
		It says that the employees warned that many of those enlisted by Musk to help him slash the size of the federal government were political ideologues who did not have the necessary skills or expertise for the task ahead of them.
		This was a mass resignation of engineers, data scientists, designers, and product managers.
		It's a temporary setback for Musk and the Republican president's tech-driven purge of the federal workforce.
		And it comes amid a flurry of court challenges that have sought to stall, stop, or unwind their efforts to fire or coerce thousands of government workers out of jobs.
		And this is Dale, a Republican in Hiddenite, North Carolina.
unidentified		Yeah, that caller last called her.
		I don't know what she's smoking, but I'd like to have some of it.
		She said he left us a good budget.
		The only thing Joe Biden administration left us is 20-plus million illegals running around here that come over here and broke the law.
		And another thing, is C-SPAN going to apologize to the Trump administration when they don't cut Medicaid or Social Security?
		You push the same narrative as CNN, MSNBC.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Dale, we're not pushing narratives.
		We're reading articles that are out there.
		And I'm sorry you feel that we are pushing narratives.
		Art in Steamwood, Illinois, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Art.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Nice to talk to you again.
		I used to be the manager of a school lunch program for Chicago.
		We fed thousands of children every day breakfast, lunch, and after school snacks.
		What they're doing right now is going to affect those kinds of programs.
		And I want to know who's going to pick up the plague to help these kids with their meals when the only meals they probably get in their lives is at school.
		How are these people to have a conscience to consider cutting these kinds of programs is unbelievable to me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Art, why do you think that those programs for school lunches are going to get cut?
unidentified		I see this guy with a giant saw cutting everything.
		And he has already said that they want to go to Medicare and Medicaid and even Social Security.
		All these programs that are needed to support people in this country who do not have the wherewithal to support themselves without these services.
		To me, the idea that they would even consider these things is unbelievably immoral.
		And I don't know how those people sleep every night.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Jeff, North Salem, New York, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Jeff.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		A couple of thoughts.
		You know, when people talk about tax cuts, and there's understandably a lot of concern when they hear those terms, but I think it's a misrepresentation because really we're not cutting taxes.
		We're extending the tax cuts that were already in place.
		And if we were not to do that, it would have represented a tax increase that I think would have disproportionately hurt a lot of middle-class Americans, number one.
		Number two, it's not clear to me how this budget will take into account things that could be very beneficial regarding the deficit.
		For example, we know that Trump wants to claw back some money from Ukraine.
		We know that there's a half a billion dollars being invested by Apple in new ventures that should grow the economy.
		We know there's already $500 billion being invested in the world of artificial intelligence by a consortium of investors.
		So there's a lot of things that you could argue, not to mention finding money from the Doge effort that will help to reallocate how we spend money.
		So I don't know that we're cutting programs.
		Maybe we're self-funding a smaller but more efficient program because we're getting rid of the waste and we're still going to give people what they need without having to take away any benefits.
		So I just worry that, you know, they always say, look at the fine print.
		I don't know that the fine print is out there yet, but I think there's a lot of narrative right now that is painting this in a very negative way when, in fact, it's really not hurting the middle class.
		And I think that there's a lot going on that's not represented in the budget details that eventually will hopefully grow the economy, which is a benefit to everybody.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And regarding those tax cuts, we'll hear from Budget Committee Chair Jody Arrington speaking yesterday on the House floor.
jodey arrington ▲ ● ▼		The Trump tax cuts lower tax rates for every American household at every income level while increasing the amount of taxes paid by the top 1%.
		According to the Washington Post, which, by the way, gave Democrats not one, not two, not three, four Pinocchios every time they made these misleading claims.
		They said three of every $4 in the Trump tax cuts didn't go to corporations, but they went to individuals, cutting taxes for the lowest income individuals by 10%, while cutting taxes for the top 1% of the income earners by less than one half of 1%.
		In addition, we saw a record 25-year wage increase for median household incomes.
		Real wages at the bottom 10% rose two times faster than the top 10%.
		Real wealth at the bottom half of households rose three times faster than that of the top half of our country.
		A record 6 million people were lifted out of poverty.
		Black, Hispanic, and Asian American citizens experienced historic high incomes and all-time low unemployment.
		Here's the reality, Mr. Chairman.
		Our Democrat colleagues oppose the American people's tax cuts back in 2017, and they oppose their tax cuts today.
		And if they were successful in this endeavor, here's what would happen.
		We'd have a 22% tax hike on every American citizen on average.
		They just suffered through a 21% tax hike from the inflation tax over the last four years and the worst cost of living crisis in modern history.
		Median income families would lose $1,700.
		26 million small businesses would pay at the highest marginal rate, lose the 20% deduction, putting them on a comparable level to the corporate tax rates.
		Child tax credits, families, 40 million families would have the tax credit for their children cut in half.
		And 91% of the American people that get the standard deduction would have that cut in half.
		Those are the results of the Democrats standing in the way of what would be, if they were successful, the highest tax hike in American history.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was the Budget Committee Chair, Jody Arrington.
		And we're taking your thoughts on the budget resolution that passed last night.
		Here's Michael, Hendersonville, North Carolina, Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		Yeah, you know, I've read, unlike a lot of these callers that call in, seems from the GOP, the Republican side, I've read the damn bill.
		It states about Medicaid in there being cut, that they want all this money from Medicaid and these social services.
		Explain to me why in the hell these billionaires need this money from the working man paying the taxes.
		These NBINAs don't pay taxes anyway.
		They've already got all this.
		Why do they need more?
		When you're going to take it from kids and education.
		The point is, Trump is raping the country.
		He's raping it.
		He's basically selling it to Russia.
		He's a Russian asset.
		We all know that.
		And it seems like the misinformation on the Republican side is just astonishing.
		They all call in and say the same damn thing.
		And unless we get rid of this propaganda, I don't see how we're ever going to survive.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Elvis in Washington, D.C., Republican, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I believe the only Republican who opposed the budget resolution was Thomas Massey from Kentucky.
		My family was from Kentucky, and so was my business partner.
		And while I lived there, I gave we paid our employees well.
		So one thing people don't know about Thomas Massey, I gave him a written job, and he gave me a written job.
		I use my tongue.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Ray in Quincy, Massachusetts, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, what's going on now is truly a disgrace.
		I mean, this is just a continuation.
		Every time Republicans get into office, all they do is focus on tax cuts for the 1%.
		Look at the Bush tax cuts.
		Look at the Trump tax cuts.
		We're in this position.
		Our deficit has blown up because of these tax cuts for the wealthy.
		And they don't need these tax cuts.
		The wealthy billionaires do not need tax cuts.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Ray, the argument is that these tax cuts are helping the middle class.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you not see it that way?
unidentified		No, no, no.
		No.
		I mean, the Trump tax cuts that are supposed to help the middle class, I didn't see anything.
		I didn't see any savings.
		In fact, if you look at everything else that goes up, I mean, when the federal government cuts taxes for the rich, all that spending gets pushed down to the state.
		I mean, states have to pick up where a federal government falls short.
		So, I mean, it's, I mean, and if you look at other things, other fees, you know, I mean, you know, going up, I mean, you know, it's just a sham.
		I mean, it's a total sham.
		And, you know, the poorly educated MAGA crowd, you know, I mean, they fall for it.
		I mean, that's what's sad.
		That's what's sad about this country.
		You know, it's this poorly educated MAGA crowd that, you know, that really don't understand how things work.
		I mean, they're just going to, I mean, you know, this is going to really affect them the most.
		And, you know, kids are going to starve.
		And for what?
		Just so a billionaire can get a tax cut that they don't need?
		It's just sad.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Ray, and this is Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLaura, a Democrat of New York, talking about those tax cuts and who benefits.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		After all their talk about lowering the cost of living, Republicans wasted no time in making their real priorities clear.
		For this majority, billionaires and the biggest corporations always come first.
		Elon Musk, President Trump are hard at work trying to gut Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, which helps nearly 100 million Americans afford health insurance, medications, life-saving care.
		Nationwide, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program provide medical coverage to nearly 4 in 10 children.
		Almost 40% of the children in the United States get their health care through Medicaid.
		These programs were designed, improved, and expanded over decades by both parties to help people deal with the high cost of health care.
		And they have delivered for so many families.
		In my district alone, there are 229,000 people on Medicaid, including 79,000 children, 33,000 seniors.
		Medicaid paid for 3,000 births last year, providing comprehensive prenatal delivery postpartum care to newborns and mothers.
		These are programs that help families and children.
		Medicaid works.
		Elon Musk is only interested in helping the richest among us.
		His dream is to fully extend more than $4.5 trillion worth of tax breaks to their billionaires and the wealthiest corporations in the world.
		How will they pay for these tax cuts?
		Pay for this massive giveaway.
		Republicans want to pay for this with cuts to Medicaid, $880 billion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, putting coverage at risk for millions of Americans and raising their premiums.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The phones to Sam in Independent and Somerville, Massachusetts.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I can't really.
		Okay, let me start here.
		I've been watching this discussion for 20 years.
		Solid.
		And it's the same thing.
		It's tax cuts for the rich under the auspice that it's going to help the country.
		And in 20 years, what I've seen is pretty much every opportunity for my adult generation dissolve into thin air while corporations make all-time profits, especially after the pandemic, all these billionaires, they're worth literally doubled or tripled.
		So I can't take anymore the argument of tax cuts for the wealthy class benefiting the middle class.
		It's actually a lie at this point.
		It's not effective.
		It doesn't work.
		And it's just so interesting to hear that guy, Dale, talk about those 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy, which were disproportionately for the wealthy.
		You know, and then a few years pass to today where he's on the phone telling us we can't go back because it would be effectively an increase.
		And, you know, I just, it's kind of interesting that people would fall for that.
		I can't imagine having the wool pulled over my eyes in that way.
		And I just don't understand how we can get, I really want to get out of this argument here because this has been going on since Reagan, where we're telling people, hey, just one more tax cut for the corporations.
		And meanwhile, look at our standard of living and how it's just kind of crumbled.
		And, you know, you got these Republicans talking about wages, wage increases.
		It doesn't matter, you know, if the minimum wage went up a few bucks when everything surrounding it tripled, and we're giving tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy.
		And, you know, the writing's on the wall.
		You don't even need the numbers.
		You don't need all this argument.
		You can see it for your own eyes.
		You can see what's happening.
		So trust your eyes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Sam.
		This is William in Tennessee, Republican line.
		Hi, William.
unidentified		Hi, how are you?
		I'm a lifelong Republican.
		I'm 72 years old, and this is the greatest disgrace that's ever happened in our country.
		To cave in on Medicare, which is a safety net which all Republicans should support, is ridiculous.
		I know that we need a trillion dollars to stand up to China, who now has the largest Navy in the world and is planning on attacking America.
		But I also know that we have to support our veterans that are on the street, homeless.
		This is ridiculous.
		This is not Republicans.
		This is another form of fascism by billionaires.
		26 of 27 of the candidates for the Democratic Party were supported by billionaires.
		We're now controlled by billionaires.
		We have to have a plunder tax like Dwight D. Eisenhower had on the evil, wicked maniacal millionaires of his time.
		We need to tax the richest people in the world higher than the poor.
		The poor now have nothing.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, William, did you call your representative and share those thoughts?
unidentified		Trust me, I'm going to write letters and I'm going to file lawsuits.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Lawsuits, how?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Based on what?
unidentified		Fascism.
unidentified		Fascism is another form that's just the same thing as communism.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Got it, William.
		Here's another Republican in Tulaire, California.
		James, good morning.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		I don't even know where to begin.
		And the Democrats were talking about all the misinformation.
		The last tax cut under Trump, the top 1% got much less than the bottom 20%.
		And that's factual.
		You can look that up.
		One of the big Rubicons that the country crossed just a few months ago, the interest on the national debt is now the biggest budget item that we have.
		Now, where do these people think the money for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, which the Republicans have not talked about cutting at all, by the way, and never would if the interest on the debt goes to 50%, 60%, 70%, it's the biggest budget item today.
		I don't know what the percentage is.
		I'll bet you could look it up in two minutes.
		We cannot tax our way out of this terrific, horrific debt.
		And where I would cut first would be like the $2 billion that went to the group that Stacey Abramson formed to get the money from the federal government.
		The fraud and the waste that has been uncovered by Elon Musk and Donald Trump and the Republicans, which is going to amount hopefully, hopefully to a trillion dollars, they'll be able to cut.
		Every time there has been a tax cut, income tax cut, the revenue to the federal government has increased.
		You cannot take 40%, as they do in California, if you count federal tax and state tax, from the upper 1% and balance the budget.
		And nobody has accounted for the increase in economic activity after these tax cuts.
		Nobody mentions that.
		The Democrats are really good at sloganeering.
		Tax cuts for the rich, a woman's right to choose.
		You know, the Republicans are the party of the rich.
		That's all a bunch of propaganda.
		And I do think C-SPAN has leaned much more to the left since Trump's been elected.
		And I do think that what you're talking about today are mostly Democrat talking points.
		This cut to Medicaid.
		Nobody's going to starve.
		No children are going to starve.
		Nobody's going to die in this country because they can't get medical care.
		It's not going to happen.
		We're still the wealthiest country in the world.
		But what will happen if we continue to add to this debt and the interest on that debt continues to be as big a percentage or a bigger percentage than it is now, we cannot sustain that.
		The economy will collapse.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We've got that point, James.
		And this is Punch Bowl News saying a turbulent vote brings Congress to the tricky part of reconciliation.
		It says that was a major win for Speaker Johnson.
		The House's dramatic passage of Republicans' multi-trillion dollar budget resolution Tuesday evening marked the biggest victory of Johnson's brief leadership career.
		It was the result of weeks of hard work and intense focus amid the chaos of President Donald Trump's Washington.
		It was also a victory against a GOP-run Senate that was in direct conflict with him.
		But make no mistake, Johnson couldn't have done this without Trump.
		And here is Stanley, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Democrat.
		Good morning, Stanley.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you doing, Mami?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good.
unidentified		May May, I oppose the tax cut.
		And I have a question that I'd like to ask the Republican.
		Namely, five things.
		Since Donald Trump and president before and now, that he has said good about America.
		He never say anything good about America.
		He always say negativity about America.
		And if he thinks them tax cut going to help the middle class, you're crazy.
		Anybody that have a 401k plan, you better keep your eyes on them.
		Thank you, Mimi.
		Have a nice day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is Alex in Hamburg, New York, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Just a couple real quick points before I get to my main point.
		People were talking about tax cuts, and the previous gentleman before this had talked about the national debt and how interest is accruing on this national debt and how nobody's going to touch Medicaid.
		Does anybody understand the concept that cutting taxes is taking away revenue from the Treasury and therefore it's increasing the national debt?
		I mean, does anybody see this except for me?
		Why are we cutting taxes if we're talking about the national debt in the same sentence?
		It just doesn't make any sense at all.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Alex, the argument is that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy, therefore growing the economy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that?
unidentified		Yeah, and that's why, yeah, and that's why people are knee-deep in credit card debt.
		People are overspending.
		I mean, we have to live within our means.
		So, forget about the tax cuts.
		I mean, that's not going to stimulate spending.
		Stimulates spending, people are going to spend no matter what.
		They're not going to spend more because actually they will spend more.
		They'll get deeper in debt themselves.
		I get the argument.
		But anyway, that was not my main point.
		My main point here was, oh, and just one other thing.
		Another caller before had said that C-SPAN is pushing left narratives.
		And you responded, we're not pushing a narrative.
		And you're exactly right.
		All you're doing is reading them.
		You're reading narratives just to let people know nobody's pushing any agenda here.
		You're just reading headlines just in your defense.
		Anyway, I'm a federal worker, and I've only worked for the federal government for 23 years.
		And three months ago, if I would have called this program, I would have been calling on the Republican line.
		But I'll tell you what, this president and his attacks on federal workers is pushing me to watch things I never would have watched before, CNN, MSNBC, because nobody's talking rationally about what the plight of the federal worker is here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What agency or department are you with?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Can you tell us?
unidentified		Yeah, so I'm one of those bad guys, one of those shiftless bureaucrats that works for the Department of Homeland Security that keeps people out of the country and deports them, deports illegal aliens.
		I'm one of those bad, shiftless bureaucrats.
		And the reason I say that, obviously it's sarcasm, is that I also received that email saying that I'm a worthless, low productivity worker.
		How terrible is it that every federal worker in the United States, no matter what your level of skill is, received that email saying that you should resign because you will have a higher productivity in the private sector.
		I mean, are we being serious here?
		Are you kidding me?
		So I reached out to my congressman, who, by the way, is, I'm going to call him up by name, Nick Langworth in the 23rd District here in New York.
		And again, there's an R on my voting card.
		So I'm on his side, or I was on his side, until he refused to talk to people who, like me, are deeply concerned about the plight of the federal workers.
		And one of the things we're talking about here in this big, beautiful bill, so-called, is reducing the benefit package that federal workers receive once they retire, their health care, their pension.
		And I never thought I'd say this 23 years ago when I entered the government.
		It's one of the reasons I took this job is because I saw what was happening at GM and other large industries.
		They were cutting people's pensions because they were going bankrupt.
		And I thought to myself, okay, well, I'm going to be a civil servant, work in law enforcement, and retire on a decent pension.
		I'm not going to play this game of the private sector.
		And here I am, now fearful of what's going to happen of my 20-plus years service, and it's going to be cut because people want to take an axe to, you know, my, these are things that I earned over my career.
		I earned these, this, this pension.
		I earned this thing.
		This is like the deferred payment for the future.
		And they're going to cut that.
		And this is just complete disrespect.
		Not a single Republican congressman is standing up to this guy.
		And again, Alex, we got to move on.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry to have to cut you off, but we're coming up next with Aaron Mehta.
		He's editor-in-chief of Breaking Defense.
		He'll discuss the Trump administration's recent shakeup of military leadership at the Pentagon and plans for budget shifts at the department.
		And later, we're joined by Representative Bonnie Watson-Coleman, a Democrat of New Jersey and a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committees.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		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.
		Saturdays, watch American History TV's 10-week series, First 100 Days.
		We explore the early months of presidential administrations with historians and authors and through the C-SPAN archives.
		We learn about accomplishments and setbacks and how events impacted presidential terms and the nation up to present day.
		Saturday, the first 100 days of Lyndon Johnson's presidency.
		He became president on November 22nd, 1963, after the assassination of President John Kennedy.
		President Lyndon Johnson kept Kennedy's cabinet in place and proceeded to push for legislation on taxes and on civil rights.
		Early in his term, he also declared a war on poverty in America.
		Watch our American History TV series First 100 Days Saturday at 7 p.m. Eastern on American History TV on C-SPAN 2.
		Democracy.
		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.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're joined now by Aaron Mehta.
		He's editor-in-chief of Breaking Defense.
		Erin, welcome.
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's start with the firing of General C.Q. Brown.
		He's the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
		Explain what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs does and why he was fired.
unidentified		Sure.
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		So the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is notionally the top uniformed officer in America.
		His main goal is to be the top military advisor to the president.
		He's not actually in the chain of command.
		He can't order forces to go anywhere.
		He's basically the president's uniformed guy to say, this is our best military advice.
		He was named Air Force Chief of Staff, which is the leader of the Air Force under President Trump in 2020, and then promoted by Biden to be the chairman several years later.
		The second black man to be nominated after Colin Powell to have that job.
		This is a four-year term.
		He got about a year and a half in the seat before he was fired on Friday.
		As to why he was removed, there haven't really been many statements from either President Trump or Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth about why they made this move.
		We know that very early on, you know, there were comments from Hegseth about, you know, he gave an interview right before he was nominated for Secretary of Defense, and he said specifically, the first thing you do when you get into the Pentagon is you fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs because he's too woke, too tied into DEI initiatives, which has been a big target for the Trump administration.
		Seemed like for a couple of weeks, Brown might have been safe, but ultimately Hegset seemed to have signaled that his plan was to get rid of him, and that seems to have happened.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Was he involved in DEI initiatives at the Pentagon?
		Or, I mean, what's behind that?
		I don't know.
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so certainly as chairman, he spoke at events that could be dubbed DEI, speaking out on statements about Black History Month or for pride issues.
		That's kind of part of the role of the chairman, is to speak for the military, all the military, which includes members of those groups.
		Brown had gained some prominence before he was nominated by Trump, actually, for chief of staff, during some of the situations that were going on in 2020 with racial instability in the country.
		He spoke about his background as a black man and his experiences there very eloquently and notably in a video that he put out.
		That had not been an issue.
		Again, Trump nominated him for the Air Force role after that video came out.
		So something, if that is the issue, something changed in the last four years.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Tell us about the individual that is nominated to replace him.
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, Dan Kane.
		And we're going to say Dan Kane, not General Dan Kane, because he's currently retired.
		He retired as an Air Force three-star in December.
		Not a very high-profile member of the military, not somebody a lot of people had in their radar.
		Had a very interesting path, actually at one point was seconded to the Department of Agriculture, did a lot of classified programs.
		His last big stop was as the military representative to the CIA.
		So not somebody with a very public profile.
		Probably the most public thing about him is how President Trump has talked about him in the past.
		He's actually appeared in a number of campaign speeches throughout the years, going back to when Trump met him, I believe in 2019, while he was downrange in the Middle East.
		The story Trump says is Kane said, hey, if you let me take the gloves off, I'll be ISIS in a week.
		And Trump has said that he also, Kane then put on a MAGA hat, which would be against certain rules for the military.
		People have said that last part didn't happen.
		John Bolton actually told the New York Times, I was there, that never happened.
		But clearly, Kane made an impression on Trump, and enough of an impression that Trump is reaching out to make him his top military advisor.
		Now, the fact that he is a three-star, has not had certain commands, and is retired creates some logistical things.
		There's going to need to be a waiver because he's not actually at the level that he should be to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You have to be a four-star?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		You have to be a four-star who's had certain commands, whether combatant command or some other top leadership role.
		There are waivers built into that, so that's possible to certainly do a waiver, but there's a process there.
		And we haven't seen this before where a retired person is brought on to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
		So there's going to be a bit of a process, and then of course you have to go through the Senate confirmation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What is the process for those waivers?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		So the president can bring somebody back on active duty.
		This has happened before, I think the last time most notably was 2003.
		The Bush administration brought back somebody who had been retired to be the Army Chief of Staff.
		You just have to kind of start the process.
		There's paperwork, obviously.
		Kane will have to divest of any private interests that he's built up over the last, you know, whatever it is, eight weeks since he retired.
		It can get done.
		It will get done.
		And I imagine that the confirmation hearings will probably be fine because the reality is that's happened for everyone that Trump has put forth.
		But it's going to be a very interesting process to see.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's what President Trump put on Truth Social about this.
		He says, during my first term, Reason was instrumental in the complete annihilation of the ISIS Caliphate.
		It was done in record-setting time, a matter of weeks.
		Many so-called military, quote, geniuses said it would take years to defeat ISIS.
		General Kane, on the other hand, said it could be done quickly and he delivered.
		What did he actually do?
		How was he involved in the fight against ISIS?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, he was a deputy commander down during the ISIS fight.
		I think certainly everyone knows that the fight was not won in weeks.
		This was a many years operation against ISIS that went on.
		You know, Kane, again, he's not a super well-known figure, even in military circles.
		Obviously, we've been reaching out and other outlets have been reaching out as well to try to find people.
		The feedback we've gotten on Kane is he's very smart.
		He's not going to make a big scene of himself.
		But this is still a very unusual and surprising pick.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you'd like to join our conversation with Erin Mehta about what's going on at the Pentagon and the Pentagon budget as well, you can give us a call.
		Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		We do have a line set aside for current and former military members.
		That number is 202-748-8003.
		And you can use that same number to text us if you'd like.
		Well, there are two other high-ranking leaders also removed on Friday.
		Is that a big deal?
		Or is this part of a normal kind of turnover with a new administration?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		It is a big deal.
		So the two people who were removed were Admiral Lisa Ferrinchetti, who is the chief naval officer.
		That's the top officer in the Navy.
		And then General James Slife, who is the Air Force number two officer, the Vice Chief of Staff there.
		You know, the president, two things can be true.
		The president absolutely has the right to hire and fire general officers as he feels they fit his needs or don't.
		It's also not something that has historically been done, in part because of fears about politicizing the uniformed officers.
		The last time I believe that a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was fired was 2009 when Bob Gates fired the Air Force Chief of Staff and Air Force Secretary.
		And the reason then was that a live nuclear weapon was flown over the continental United States by accident.
		We have not heard if there was anything like that with Franketti.
		There's certainly no signs of it.
		And frankly, we haven't gotten a lot of information from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth about why he made this move.
		So, you know, again, we're drawn back to comments that have been made in the run-up to the election as well as after the election about DEI hires.
		And it's notable that Franchetti was the first woman to be on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to play for you, Senator Jack Reed.
		He's a top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
		And he talked about the firings at the Pentagon as politicizing the military.
		And then I'll get your response.
unidentified		It was completely unjustified.
		These men and women were superb professionals.
		They were committed to their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		And apparently what Trump and Hex says are trying to do is to politicize the Department of Defense.
unidentified		And it's not surprising.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		They put Kash Patel as the FBI director, who is a partisan, who has no, I think, respect for the traditions of neutrality of the FBI.
		And now they've turned to DOD, and they want everyone in DOD to be holding to the president, not to the Constitution.
		They want everyone there to do what they're told, regardless of the law.
		What was also startling over the weekend was firing all the advocate generals of the military.
		If you're going to break the law, the first thing you do is you get rid of the lawyers.
		So we're looking at a very dangerous undermining of the values of our military, and the repercussions are being felt already.
		People questioning whether they should stay, talented leaders wondering if they should get out.
unidentified		It's the beginning of a very, very serious degradation of the military and politicization of the military.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		I think that those fears are something that we're hearing a lot both inside the building and outside the building, even from some people who are Trump supporters.
		Look, the military has, by design and by tradition, always tried to avoid becoming entangled in politics.
		There's always been kind of a red line that you don't cross in that regard.
		We know that President Trump in the past has often talked about my generals and talked about how he feels the generals should be more loyal to him.
		Certainly saw his feelings about General Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who he appointed and then felt like he betrayed him.
		And there are actually some legal actions that have been launched against Milley since Trump took office again.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And pulling his security details.
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Pulling his security detail, exactly.
		That's part of them.
		So I think there's a lot of people who are very concerned about this.
		Again, the president has the right to remove officers as he sees fit.
		That's absolutely legal.
		But traditionally, this has not been done, in part because these officers are supposed to be nonpartisan, non-political, and roll over from administration to administration.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk about the firing of the civilian workforce at the Defense Department.
		So probationary employees have been let go at DOD.
		Tell us about what's exactly going on there and what are we expecting.
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's a little unclear if they've actually been let go yet or they've just announced they're going to be let go.
		On Friday, it was announced, I believe it was 5,400 give or take employees, probationary employees would be let go this week.
		The status of that is kind of hard to ascertain.
		This is what we've seen elsewhere in the federal government with the Doge groups coming in and the first thing they do is they let go all the probationary employees because those are the easiest ones to go after.
		They've also said, the department said in a note that it was going to seek to fire 5 to 8% of its federal workforce.
		The GAO said there's about 700,000 people in the civilian defense workforce.
		So that equates to something like 36,000 to 50,000 people who are in line to lose their jobs.
		That's a significant potential impact in terms of defense operations.
		Yes, I'm sure there's absolutely some bloat in the bureaucracy.
		I think anybody who's been around the Pentagon knows this is true.
		But a lot of these people are also jobs that have to be done to support the military operations, to support the warfires, to make sure that people in uniform don't have to do some of these other tasks.
		Now, the Pentagon has said it will make sure it's not going to impact actual warfighting operations.
		We're going to have to see how that plays out.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Does this mean that the Pentagon just has to depend more on contractors to get certain functions done?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And will that cost more?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		That's going to have to be seen.
		Certainly, we know that Elon Musk, who's back in the Doge group, which is driving at least some of this, and Silicon Valley in particular, goes after this idea of kind of you break everything down and then you rehire for the jobs that you find you really need.
		That seems to be the attitude they're bringing to the federal workforce.
		I think that's very different when you're talking about building a widget as opposed to when you're trying to maintain constant government and military operations.
		What you don't want to do is find out, oh, the guys that we fired are actually vital.
		We saw actually with the NNSA at the Department of Energy, the people who do nuclear weapons maintenance and repair, 300 of them were let go and then they had to scramble to try to bring them back on because they realized, oh, wait, we need these people.
		So I think you're absolutely going to see some of that just naturally because there's a lot of people who do a lot of jobs that may not seem important on paper, but it turns out they're kind of part of the cogs to keep things going.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to callers and start with Jeff in Dearborn, Michigan, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Jeff.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		Hey, Aram, could you tell us why you think Hegseth and Trump fired all the JAG officers, the lawyers for the military?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		It's a great question.
		Unfortunately, we have not gotten a lot of information out of the Pentagon.
		Frankly, since the turnover of the administration, there haven't been great kind of clear lines of communication.
		So we haven't gotten a real statement from Secretary Hagseth about why he made this particular move.
		You certainly heard Senator Reed talking about it and saying he views it as a politicization and a push to be able to say our laws are the laws.
		And that's certainly, I think, the interpretation for a lot of people who are concerned about this.
		The flip side you'll hear is, again, the president has the right to hire and fire as a Secretary of Defense the people that he thinks are the best fit for the public for what they're trying to do in the Pentagon.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I just want to play for Jeff a quick portion of Secretary Hegseth being asked about General Cain's qualifications and the JAG.
unidentified		Why did you expect an underqualified, retired, lieutenant general to be the next chairman of the judge?
		I'm going to choose to reject your unqualified question.
		Who's next?
		How do the three JAGs that you say you're replacing present roadblocks, as you said, to what the president is wanting to do?
		It's not about roadblocks to an agenda.
		It's roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander-in-chief.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		So ultimately, I want the best possible lawyers in each service to provide the best possible recommendations no matter what to lawful orders that are given.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		And we didn't think those particular positions were well suited.
unidentified		And so we're looking for the best.
unidentified		We're opening it up to everybody to be able to be the top lawyer of those services.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What's your reaction to that?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		I think you heard right there that people are going to be concerned about what that means, saying these lawyers weren't willing to do what we believe to agree that what we believe are legal laws were legal laws.
		It's important to note that JAG set the rules for, hey, was this action legal?
		Is it legal to deploy forces here to use force here?
		So I think, you know, anybody who's concerned about the politicization of the military and how this administration might try to push its own ideas through is going to seize on that clip.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What about the Inspector General of the Department of Defense?
		Is he still there?
		Was he one of the ones fired?
		And who's in that position?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		A number of Inspector Generals were let go previous to Friday's kind of large-scale firings here.
		I believe the Department of Defense Inspector General was one of them.
		That's in line with what we're seeing across the federal government where a number were just kind of told, hey, you know, thank you.
		We're going to put our own people in.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Robert in Gadston, Alabama.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Member of the military, Robert?
unidentified		Well, retired.
		Okay.
		All right.
rodney in arizona ▲ ● ▼		I was a combat wounded veteran in Vietnam.
unidentified		So I've seen the military screw up many, many, many, many a time.
rodney in arizona ▲ ● ▼		And what gets me is if you wanted to have the worst possible withdrawal from Afghanistan, then you would do what Biden and his bunch did.
rodney in arizona ▲ ● ▼		And after all that disaster, no one was held accountable.
unidentified		No one was fired.
rodney in arizona ▲ ● ▼		All these generals, all they did was cover their ass.
unidentified		So I'm glad to see a lot of them go, and probably more of them need to go.
unidentified		So what do you think about that?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		I think anybody can reasonably say the Afghanistan withdrawal was handled incredibly poorly.
		I think some people would point back to the initial concept of we're going to set a deadline that we saw from first President Trump saying we're going to do this and then President Biden specifically saying it's going to be on this date.
		We're going to be gone.
		A lot of people who covered the Pentagon and were aware of military stuff wrote pretty quickly, this is going to end badly.
		And unfortunately and tragically, it did.
		I think questions of who should be held accountable for that are certainly fair.
		If that was the reason for these firings, I think I'd love to hear a statement and clear lines of communication about we looked at this, we feel that Brown or Franketti had a clear role in this process, although neither was on the Joint Chiefs at the time.
		And that's our reasoning.
		I think that's totally fair if they could explain that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Another retired military is Sean in Shackles Fords, Virginia.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just want to ask you a question about the pre-positioning of all the troops in the Army where we are in Europe.
		And what is going to happen with the cane of command, with all the combat brigades, with the people that are supporting them, including civilian workers.
		Thank you.
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, the forces across Europe and across the world and what that's going to look like is something that we're obviously going to be watching going forward.
		Obviously, there have been some comments from this administration and people in this administration about how we need to draw back from being out in the world as much.
		What that actually looks like, we're waiting to see.
		There have been no major force posture changes yet, no announcements of that.
		I would expect that nothing really changes, at least until we get a sense of what the next budget looks like.
		And that's going to be at least a couple of months.
		There's some reporting out there about some people who are now in the Pentagon and what they've suggested about potential cuts.
		But until we know more, that's just speculation about what that looks like.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So what about the Pentagon is looking to shift $50 billion in planned funding.
		How does that work?
		And where would that money be coming from?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so this is when a new administration comes in, it's pretty normal for them to say, okay, because the way the budget process works, the next budget, which in this case is fiscal 2026, is largely been built out.
		That's usually done really by December, and then there's just tinkering around the edges.
		So when a new administration comes in, they take a look at what that is, and then they start, they make some shifts.
		What Hegsteth's memo, which said we're going to take every agency and organization needs to find 8% of its budget and plan to cut that to then reinvest that in other areas that are more priorities for this administration, that's a much bigger step than we usually see in terms of tinkering with the budget.
		But ultimately, it is tinkering with the budget.
		It's taking what was built by the Biden team and saying, okay, we're going to shift to more of our priorities, but largely things are going to stay the same.
		They outline 17 areas that are priority areas to be protected.
		Those include things like munitions, nuclear weapons, small drones.
		To the previous caller's question, interestingly enough, it included the Pacific, NORTHCOM, which is the border, but does not include European Command, AFRICOM, or Southcom as areas to be protected.
		So you might see some force reductions there to invest elsewhere.
		You know, this is kind of a scramble drill.
		They said basically you have three weeks to figure this out.
		That's all a pretty big lift.
		We won't see really what happens with that until the budget rolls out, though I expect some leaks will begin about, oh, well, the Army's decided just to try to cancel this program with that program.
		Usually what happens in these cases is the services say, you know, this program, which had nothing to do with these protected areas, is now a key part of these protected areas and try to save it.
		I expect we'll see a lot of games like that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to Cheryl in a sitting in New York, Republican.
unidentified		So Trump fired the four-star general who he hired because he thought he was very good.
		He just wanted to stigmatize him and say, oh, this is the guy who's doing DEI.
		Trump doesn't care about, all he cares about is loyalty.
		And Hegseth says he wants the best.
		HegSeth is not even qualified.
		They don't care about qualifications.
		Trump said he wants total loyalty.
		He wants to be a dictator.
		And that's exactly what he's doing.
		And none of this is normal.
		To see Kash Patel retweet a picture of him taking a saw to Liz Cheney and he's going to be in charge of the DOJ, none of this is normal.
		The FBI.
		The dictatorship.
		Yep.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Certainly what we've seen at the Pentagon is being unusual.
		Again, it's rare to see officers fired.
		It's usually with great cause when you get to this level of leadership.
		And, you know, again, there may be cause there that we are not aware of, but to this point, there has been no explanation with Brown, Frank Hendy, and SLIFE that they did something so egregious they needed to be removed immediately.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Walter in Cleveland, Ohio.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		My question is, with the savings that President Trump and Musk when they made the cuts to these departments, what happens to that money?
		Where do it goes?
		Do it go back into the government?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's a great question, partly because there's been a lot of questions about how much savings have actually been found.
		For instance, the Doge group, Musk Group, put out a list of, hey, we've saved XYZ, and a lot of people quickly pointed out, actually, those are savings that were already there or don't actually exist.
		And then that list was deleted and updated.
		You know, where does it go?
		In theory, it goes back to reinvesting, or at least at the very least, you say, okay, well, now we've saved, you know, we've cut X number of overhead.
		We don't need to spend that money.
		So that means the next budget, the budget in theory, the top line could be less, which in theory means the government is spending less money and that can go towards paying off some of the debt or tax cuts to you're bringing, you don't need as much money.
		You can bring in less money in theory.
		We have to really see how much these savings are real, where they actually are, and then be able to kind of understand off of that information.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		John in Charleston, South Carolina, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm also retired military, but this is my line that I always call in on.
		But I just want to speak about the Air Force.
		And so a lot of people don't really understand what the military is all about.
		When I went in the military, you know, I was an enlisted guy and everything.
		And I quickly learned that, you know, enlisted guys are, and I'm a black guy, enlisted guys are kind of just like, you know, black people were in society and everything.
		Enlisted guy in the military.
		Basically, you don't know you're, you know, I mean, it's a good job and make your living and take the return, but you basically, you know, you're a second-class citizen.
		You do not associate with officers in the military.
		You don't marry officers in the military.
		That's where it used to be.
		I'm not sure how it is now.
		And Brown, being in the Air Force, you know, you got people enlisted, you got officers.
		And then it separates even an officer corps.
		Within officers, you got rated and non-rated.
		Brown was a rated officer.
		I mean, he was a pilot.
		And that's the top.
		That's the top in the Air Force that you can be as a fighter pilot.
		You fight a pilot in the Air Force.
		You like first-class citizen to go, even if you're a captain.
		But he's a four-star general and a black guy.
		You know how long he had hard, he had to fight to get in that position, to be like that?
		I mean, it's a tough thing, but hey, the president can do whatever he wants to do.
		And that's exactly what he did.
		And, you know, it's not hurting anybody that I know enlisted stealing.
		Because, you know, we didn't associate with.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, John.
		We got that.
		Any comments on that?
		And also about recruitment numbers.
		How are they doing for the services?
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so certainly Brown was well respected.
		Really somebody who you never heard bad things about.
		People had kind of tagged him early on as somebody who was going to rise through the ranks because of kind of his intelligence and his capabilities.
		In terms of recruiting, don't have any numbers on hand right now.
		Obviously, there's been a recruiting issue for the military writ large.
		The Air Force did fall behind its recruiting goals the last cycle.
		Part of the reason that Secretary Hegseth has talked about getting rid of DEI initiatives is to his mind, recruiting has been hurt by kind of this process and emphasis on going towards minority communities or less served communities instead of more traditional military communities.
		So the argument for going against DI from Hegseth and other folks has been this will actually help recruiting.
		The counter argument we've heard is, well, we're going after other communities because this basic community is not actually stepping up recruiting the way that we need it to.
		So we're going to see in the numbers if things change.
		Obviously, this will be a process that takes a couple of years.
		You don't get numbers right away.
		But it'll be kind of an interesting litmus test of those theories.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Aaron Maida, editor-in-chief of Breaking Defense, thanks so much for joining us.
aaron mehta ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And coming up, we'll talk about the House budget bill and Trump agenda with two members of Congress.
		First, we'll hear from Representative Bonnie Watson-Coleman, a Democrat of New Jersey and a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committees.
		And later, Republican Congressman John Rutherford of Florida, a member of the Appropriations Committee.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
		This weekend, at 2 p.m. Eastern on the Civil War, historian Kelly Hancock talks about the lives of Mary Todd Lincoln and Verena Davis, the wives of the Civil War leaders.
		And then at 6.30 p.m. Eastern, a visit to the College Park Aviation Museum in Maryland with collections curator Luke Perez to explore the history of the world's oldest continually operating airfield and artifacts within its museum.
		At 7 p.m. Eastern, watch American History TV series First 100 Days as we look at the start of presidential terms.
		This week, we focus on the early months of President Lyndon Johnson's term in 1963.
		Following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Johnson addressed Congress shortly after Kennedy's death and called on members to pass civil rights legislation.
		And at 8 p.m. Eastern on Lectures and History, University of Southern California sociology professor Brittany Friedman on the formation and evolution of American prison gangs in the 20th and 21st centuries.
		Exploring the American story.
		Watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
		Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		At 8 p.m. Eastern, Ross Dalfit, author of Believe, and Jonathan Rauch, author of Cross Purposes, examine the decline of religiosity in America and what it means for the health of American democracy.
		And then at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwards, Kevin Fagan, with his book, The Lost and the Found, a true story of homelessness, found family, and second chances, reports on the underlying issues of homelessness in America, tracing the experiences of two unhoused persons in San Francisco.
		He's interviewed by former Obama administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Sean Donovan.
		And at 11 p.m. Eastern, Pagan Kennedy, with her book, The Secret History of the Rape Kit, recounts the development of a forensic tool to collect evidence in crimes of sexual assault, now known as the Rape Kit.
		Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
		On Tuesday, March 4th, watch C-SPAN's live coverage of President Trump's address to Congress, the first address of his second term, and less than two months since taking office.
		C-SPAN's live coverage begins at 8 p.m. Eastern with a preview of the evening from Capitol Hill, followed by the President's speech, which begins at 9 p.m. Eastern, and then watch the Democratic response after the President's speech.
		We'll also take your calls and get your reaction on social media.
		Over on C-SPAN 2, you can also watch a simulcast of the evening's coverage, followed by reaction from lawmakers live from Capitol Hill.
		Watch President Trump's address to Congress live Tuesday, March 4th, beginning at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, our simulcast live on C-SPAN 2 or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
		Also online at C-SPAN.org.
		C-SPAN, bringing you your democracy unfiltered.
		Listening to programs on C-SPAN through C-SPAN Radio is easy.
		Tell your smart speaker, play C-SPAN Radio, and listen to Washington Journal daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Important public affairs events throughout the day.
		And weekdays, catch Washington Today.
		Listen to C-SPAN anytime.
		Just tell your smart speaker, play C-SPAN Radio.
		C-SPAN, created by cable.
		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.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're joined now by Representative Bonnie Watson-Coleman, a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committees and a Democrat of New Jersey.
		Congresswoman, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thank you for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So this dramatic vote last night, tell us about how it went down and why you voted against it, the resolution.
unidentified		So we thought that when they moved the lineup of the votes and that they weren't going to vote on this.
		So we thought we had two votes, suspension votes, and then people were clearing out.
		And then we were about on our way and got panic calls to come back immediately because Republicans, I guess they found the one or two votes that they needed in order to pass this awful budget.
		And, you know, it was just one of those sort of unnecessary things, dramatic things that they took us through.
		But we all got here.
		The budget bill was carried by two votes.
		Those were two hard votes to get because we spent an hour waiting in between the first and second vote and an hour trying to get this particular vote, which suggests to me that Republican colleagues, a lot of them didn't want to vote for this bill.
		And the reason they didn't really want to vote for this bill is because what is contained in it?
		This bill chooses to create a requirement of over $2 trillion in saving at the same time, which is spending cuts.
		Please understand that.
		At the same time, it's giving instructions to one of our committees, ways and means to raise up to $4 trillion in what would be new taxes.
		So what this is, is robbing the poor to pay the rich more than they deserve or need and could spend in 10 lifetimes.
		And so this budget cuts $880 billion out of energy and commerce.
		That's where you have Medicaid.
		That's where you have the Affordable Care Act and other kind of supplementals that help people stay healthy, get access to their prescriptions and things of that nature, at the same time increasing the probability of additional taxes, tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, Congresswoman, I mean, Republicans are saying that Democrats are fear-mongering and that the president has promised not to cut Social Security, not to cut Medicare or Medicaid.
unidentified		So the one thing we know about Donald Trump is that he is both a convicted felon and a liar.
		So you don't have to believe anything that he says, nor do you have to believe the things that Republican colleagues in both the House and the Senate are saying because they're scared the death of this dictator.
		And so rather than vote for their constituents to ensure that they have Medicaid coverage, to ensure that if they're in nursing homes, they have coverage.
		If they have insulin or other prescriptions, they can affordably get them.
		And so Republicans at this stage of the game will say anything Donald Trump tells them to say.
		And since Donald Trump is incapable of saying the truth every time he opens his mouth and breathes, then we shouldn't have any expectation that his minions, which represent the majority in the House and the majority in the Senate, can tell the truth either.
		Because at the end of the day, he'll tell them something and then he'll turn on them if it's to his advantage.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, I want to play you what Speaker Johnson said at a press conference yesterday about the GOP budget and cuts to Medicaid.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so look, let me clarify what we're talking about with Medicaid.
		Medicaid is hugely problematic because it has a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse.
		Everybody knows that.
		We all know it intuitively.
		No one in here would disagree.
		We had a hearing in budget just last week, or week before last, and they asked the experts.
		And the estimate is, I think it's $50 billion a year in fraud alone in Medicaid.
		Those are precious taxpayer dollars.
		Everybody is committed to preserving Medicare benefits for those who desperately need it and deserve it and qualify for it.
		What we're talking about is rooting out the fraud, waste, and abuse.
		Every taxpayer, it doesn't matter what party you're in, you should be for that because it saves your money and it preserves the programs so that it is available for the people who desperately need it.
		That's what we're about.
		And that's what you're going to see happen.
		We want to make sure that illegal aliens who do not qualify are not on the rolls.
		And we know that they are in many places.
		We can achieve a lot of savings with that.
		We can eliminate all these fraudulent payments and achieve a lot of savings.
		What you're doing with that is you're shoring up the program and you're making sure that the people who rely upon that have it and that it's a better program.
		That's what we're talking about.
		You've heard the president say that.
		You've heard members of the House Republican Conference say that.
		And no one else has said anything else except the Democrats who have ads out that are lying about the intention here.
		That's the fact.
		The leader just held up the resolution.
		Do a word search for yourself.
		It doesn't even mention Medicaid in the bill.
		So that's the important part.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Congresswoman, what do you make of that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He said there's $50 billion in fraud that could be saved and getting all the illegal aliens off the rolls.
unidentified		The one thing I can say about the Speaker and the whole Republican administration and the Republican majority in both the Senate and in the House of Representatives is that they don't care about accountability.
		They don't care about facts.
		They care about creating a perception in the minds of people, which is not accurate.
		So let me talk a bit about Medicaid in particular.
		Medicaid covers something like 700,000 New Jersey's alone.
		In my district, the 12th district, there's over 125,000 people who are on Medicaid, and about 15% of them or so are in real need for nursing home and other kinds of care.
		So I haven't seen this $50 billion that they're talking about.
		I don't know that any Democrat has seen this waste, fraud, and abuse.
		The waste, fraud, and abuse that we do see is Elon Musk trying to eliminate all kinds of regulatory oversight of those departments that have given him some problems with regard to the wares that he chooses to sell and the kind of welfare that he's gotten from the federal government to become the richest man in the world.
		So what I have to say about the Speaker is that he simply is a mimic of Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
		And he shows his deference to them in ways that is absolutely sickening as a leader of the House of Representatives elected to take care of the needs of their constituents.
		And let me say one other thing about constituents.
		When we were in the budget hearing, he's absolutely right that the instructions to these respective committees do not tell you exactly where to cut the money.
		But we know based upon their history and based upon the 2025 plan and based upon the things that they say, that Medicaid is one of the things that they're trying very hard to change.
		They will try to prioritize and they will try to diminish any kind of support, service, supplementation that goes to the neediest in our communities.
		And you know what that's for?
		That's so that they can put more money into their pockets and into their corporations.
		This is for billionaires.
		If billionaires simply paid their fair share, if corporations simply paid their fair share, we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether or not we have enough money to pay for education, public education versus private education.
		We wouldn't worry about paying Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security for those in greatest need.
		And we wouldn't be worried about making sure that our children have healthy food and that food stamps are available and any other supplementation to needy and working families.
		And we wouldn't be worried about people having to live in this richest country in the world with the richest men in the world living under a floor that is necessary for their well-being.
		No one in this country should live beneath a floor that doesn't meet their needs for food, health care, shelter, work, opportunity, and public education.
		Government has a responsibility here, and this administration and this Doge and this Elon Musk immigrant white supremacist is doing everything that they can to reduce the services that are so important to the well-being of this country by cutting significant programs and significant departments,
		eliminating even departments.
		It is the biggest betrayal that we have experienced from a candidate who lied his way through a campaign and then has come and done as quickly as possible, as quickly as possible, several EOs that are designed to dismantle, take away, and make more vulnerable the people in most need.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And our phone lines are open.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		Democrats 202748-8000.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		If you'd like to join our conversation, you can call in now with Representative Bonnie Watson-Coleman, a Democrat of New Jersey, and we'll get started right away with William in Burlington, North Carolina, Independent.
		Good morning, William.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Good morning, Madam Congresswoman.
		Good morning, William.
		I agree with everything you're saying, and I think there's a bigger issue that people are missing: that I don't think that Trump, I think Trump is an agent of the Republican Party.
		I think 2025, you know, that, oh, we got the quickest budget we've ever written up, blah, blah, blah.
		Of course you did.
		You just followed the blueprint of the 2025.
		That's what the Republicans did.
		Get rid of Medicaid.
		That's one of the first things they want to do.
		And these MAGA heads that keep calling in need to look at this and realize that the women are also a target in this Project 2025.
		Some of the books they want to ban, some of their viewpoints on what women's roles are in the world.
		So I think this whole DEI thing is silly in a large sense because you're looking at the Constitution itself is DEI.
		And I can't stand when they say alien, by the way, the Republicans.
		But I think you're right, Madam Congresswoman.
		And my question would be, what is it that I know that you both, that the Democrats right now don't have majorities?
		I understand that.
		And I know that executive orders really are just proclamations.
		I think he thinks he can make law.
		What is it you can do to prevent, it may be tough for the budget to get passed, but what is it you can do to really shore up some sort of good defense, strong defense, against the guy that has lied constantly?
		He's given us nothing but falsehoods from the moment he got elected.
		He isn't working on the economy at all.
		And I really do think that the oppressive part of all this is take away from all the people that can't afford to fight because you're too busy worried about everything else.
		And I think it's a larger pile, in my opinion anyway, his plan is larger than just hurting us short term.
		I think he really wants to oppress us and become more like a communist nation in the sense of like China.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, William.
		Let's go ahead and get a response for you.
		Go ahead, Congresswoman.
unidentified		Thank you, Amimi.
		Thank you, William.
		I don't disagree with the thing you said.
		First of all, we do have a dictator.
		He said he was going to be a dictator on the first day, and he has shown us that that is what he is trying to be.
		Now, the courts are trying to stop him a little bit, and clearly the members of Congress are trying to stop him as much as we can.
		But you know what?
		This government is of buying for the people.
		And so your disdain for what is happening has to be manifested in the things that you do.
		And you say to other folks, whether or not you do it on platforms, internet platforms, or you do it when a demonstration shows up.
		This is the time where this of buying for the people has to be manifested with people actually doing something.
		Thank God right now that the courts have like put a stop or a pause to a lot of the harmful things that he and Elon Musk has tried to do.
		You said that Donald Trump is an agent of the Republican Party.
		I say that he's an agent of the right-wing Heritage Foundation and other foundations.
		The Republican Party has a good history.
		There were times where they were doing the right thing.
		The Republican Party worked with the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party worked with the Republican Party on behalf of the people.
		We don't have that anymore.
		They may have this moniker over their heads that says Republican, but they're nothing like the Republican Party that helped to make this country great.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is John in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, John.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi and Representative.
		The other night I listened to the, or watched the budget show on television at the budget hearing, and there was a lady, a representative from New Mexico.
		I think her name was Fernandez.
		I'm not sure about that.
		But anyway, she brought the fact that Musk called the people on Medicaid parasites.
		And now, let me ask you, young mothers a parasite?
		Are the disabled a parasite?
		Are the elderly a parasite?
		Are nursing homes parasites?
		Our rural hospitals, parasites, which, by the way, are being closed because of the cutbacks.
		A snap program, a parasite, that was also mentioned in that budget hearing.
		And also, Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania brought the fact that most of the debt that we have today was created by Republican presidents, starting with Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.
		And so, I mean, that was also in that budget hearing.
		And by the way, the Republican Party reminds me of the saying in the Great Gatsby: they break things up and then hide in their money and let other people clean up their mess.
		That's what I think about the Republican Party and also the Heritage Society.
		As far as I'm concerned, it's a subversive organization, and it's really hurting this country.
		So, those are my comments for today.
		Thank you.
		Thank you for sharing your concerns with us.
		And you have rightfully and appropriately interpreted the impact of what they are proposing in this budget.
		And I ask you to share with others what your thoughts are and to stand up for us and to make sure that you are making your feelings and your understanding known to others.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Melissa in Bloomfield, Iowa, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi, thank you for taking my call.
		Hi, Representative Coleman.
		I guess my concern is, as you sit there and say that they're worried about Medicare and Medicaid, what they're doing is they're kicking illegal immigrants, people that do not belong in this country, off of those programs.
		So the people that do pay taxes and do belong here can actually receive benefits and services that they need for assistance to help them and their families.
		Number two, that don't act like you can't hear me.
		Number two, do you want to talk about that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's not a fair liar?
		Melissa, come on.
		What do you mean, don't act like you can't hear me?
unidentified		She was holding her ear like she couldn't hear me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		No, there's a delay, Melissa, so please just listen on your phone.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do not look at the screen.
unidentified		Okay, number two, you want to sit there and call Donald Trump a liar?
		I'm sorry, but the Democrats have been lying for the last six years.
		You guys sat there and said how Biden was this great person and how he was healthy and he don't, there's your smile, and knew what he was doing and everything.
		He had no clue what was going on, and Joe Biden was running his cabinet hearings.
		Thank you very much for your call in, and I would be careful of the Kool-Aid I am drinking if I were you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here is Hank in South Carolina, Republican line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Hank.
unidentified		Yes, can I ask the Congresslady a couple of questions?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
unidentified		Well, my first question is: why would you call anyone immigrant white supremacists when he's trying to help the country?
		I'm glad he's helping.
		Is that a standalone question?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead and answer that one, and then we'll hear.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hank, stay on the line.
unidentified		I think it's obvious that Donald Trump is a white supremacist, and Elon Musk is a white supremacist, and we have a whole bunch of white supremacists.
		And that is because of the way that they act, the way that they have no dignity, no respect, no humanity for anybody other than straight white men.
		And so if you're not one of those, you need to be worried.
		So that's why I call them white supremacists, because they are white supremacists.
		And not only is your president a white supremacist, he is a convicted felon and should not be in that office.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Hank, with your second question.
unidentified		Yeah, hey, lady, you need to look in the mirror when you get to calling people racist and white scramps.
		I'm glad Elon Musk is here.
		He was one that started PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla.
		All these other companies.
		He's a smart man.
		Why in the world?
		He could have gone to any country, but he chose the United States.
		Thank you.
		Well, actually, he chose Germany as well and tried to interfere in their elections.
		And Elon Musk has been so successful because he has successfully gotten so much of our federal money and support to support all of his projects.
		And that's what he's trying to protect now and to get more.
		And why he needs more is beyond me because neither any of those oligarchs, those billionaires, can spend their money in lifetimes, 10 lifetimes.
		So I'm going to stand up to him.
		I am going to call him what he is.
		And I am going to push back on your notion that there's anything that they've done that has been helpful to those whom they should be serving.
		And that is those who are in need in this country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Uriah in Houston, Texas.
		Democrat, good morning.
		Uriah, go ahead.
		Sorry, we cannot hear that.
		Velma is an Ashland, Kentucky Republican.
		Go ahead, Velma.
unidentified		Yes, hello.
		Your guest, my comment is to your guest.
		Ma'am, you like most Democrats, you're ignoring this long list of waste, fraud, theft.
		Ma'am, I'm sorry, I can't.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Velma, say it again, please.
unidentified		She, like most Democrats, is ignoring this long list of fraud and theft and abuse that's been exposed.
		And you start, the moment it's brought up, you express your personal dislike of Trump.
		And you've got this to distract people.
		I think you're all fixating on Musk.
		And I don't know if he's grabbed more money than he's got a right to or not, but most people in politics and the bureaucracy do.
		So, you know, I've yet to hear a single Democrat address all this long, long list of waste and theft of our money.
		I think the biggest problem is you all can't stand to think that the Republican Party, headed by Trump, would have any success or make any improvement for the country.
		And your Kool-Aid comment really was beneath Anglo-Representatives.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Congresswoman, did you hear her?
unidentified		Nope.
		I heard her.
		I could not understand her.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So she's asking you about the long list of fraud, what she calls theft and abuse of our taxpayer money and why Democrats aren't addressing that.
unidentified		Well, first of all, I think the one thing we need is facts.
		Republicans have been short on facts.
		They say that they're saving this, they're saving that.
		And my question really is, if you're going to save $50 billion, why are you going to give $4 trillion more in savings and tax breaks to those who don't need it?
		I don't know what she's talking about in terms of waste, fraud, and abuse.
		But let me tell you about bureaucracies.
		Bureaucracies have a tendency to have some redundancy.
		They certainly have a tendency to have a lot of paperwork and a lot of having to prove who you are when you're asking for services.
		In fact, if anything, I think that there should be less bureaucracy when it comes to people who need food stamps, when it comes to people who need their Medicare, Medicaid, from people who need to be able to purchase their prescriptions, particularly their insulin for $35 a month.
		All of those things this administration has attempted to get rid of in executive orders.
		It is wrong.
		It is probably illegal.
		and it is not helpful.
		And I hope that the woman on the line is in a position that she does not need those services that we tend to need when we get older and perhaps are not at the highest income.
		The one thing I think Republicans have been very good at, that is fooling people that they care about them when in fact they don't.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Peter is in Baltimore, Maryland, independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Peter.
unidentified		Yeah, thank you for taking my call.
		My question to your guests is I wanted to know what the Democrat Party is doing right now, internally to kind of, do I say, you know, represent themselves to the American voters with the intent to, in the near future, going down the line, you know, giving a better alternative to maybe the Republican Party or otherwise,
		because much of what I see now going on is, you know, the Democrat Party just trying to kind of react to what is going on, you know.
		And my assumption is that the way the American voters voted for Trump and the Republican Party, you know, was because of dissatisfaction with the Democrat Party.
		So I think that going forward, I mean, the American citizens should have, you know, strong, you know, political alternatives, you know, going forward.
		So I wanted to know what the Democrat Party is doing within to renew and reinvigorate themselves for the future.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Peter.
unidentified		I think I got part of that.
		If the question is, what are the Democrats trying to do to reinvigorate the people, those of whom made a decision to vote for Trump and particularly are sorry that they have because they understand that those initiatives that are being advanced by the Trump administration are harmful to their well-being.
		I say that we're doing a number of things.
		We believe that there are three main strategies to litigate, to legislate, and then to mobilize.
		So we're precluded in many respects from direct litigation because of the interpretation that the only person that can file litigation on behalf of the House of Representatives interests is the Speaker.
		And so we know that the Speaker is a wholly owned subsidiary and puppet of Donald Trump.
		So we're not going to probably be able to do any of that.
		But what we will do is align ourselves with allies who are filing these litigations against the various efforts that the Trump administration and the Ilana administration are trying to advance.
		Secondly, we do have legislation and resolutions that speak to the actual moment, that seek to stop the kind of cuts that they're talking about, that speak to the kind of protection, whether it's at the border, legitimacy of immigration, pushing back on the separation of families,
		as well as other things like stopping the closure of the Department of Education.
		I could go on and on and on because if you know 2025 plan, you know that they've like hit from soup to nuts, everything, and they have a plan to either privatize, reduce, or eliminate those services.
		And the other thing that we think is very important, sir, is to mobilize.
		That's kind of like the third leg on that stool.
		We're trying to do that by putting ourselves out there on every platform that will invite us.
		We are in communities.
		We're holding town halls.
		We are participating.
		I participated in a rally on behalf of the federal workers.
		And so we're very much trying to communicate to constituents and to citizens in this country, specifically in a way that they understand how these executive orders and these plans to dismantle government and to dismantle democracy, what that really means at your kitchen table, in your bathroom, in your bedroom, whether or not you're even going to have shelter.
		And so I thank you for asking that question.
		I ask that you kind of like pay attention to every show that talks about politics, even the shows that talk about politics from the other perspective, so that you know what they are saying, but fact check everything.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Congresswoman, it is Black History Month and I just wanted to ask you about the Black History Matters Act that you introduced.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Can you tell us briefly about that?
unidentified		Yeah, you know, black history is part of our history.
		I am sitting right now on a chair in a building that black slaves built.
		Black contribution to this country and the inventions from ironing boards to plasma to all kinds of important operations and things of that nature, they have been contributions from black people.
		It is important that we protect for our children our history so that they can understand and see who they are and they can value who they are because we as Americans value the diversity of this country, including black history.
		And so we want to ensure that where schools want to teach it, we want to support it.
		And where people are trying to shut it down, we want to make sure that children, white children, black children, Asian children, Latin children, children from all walks of life understand all of their history.
		In this particular situation, it is a dire importance for us to ensure that our communities understand black history.
		Because I think that unfortunately, because we are dealing with white supremacists so much, the first thing that they look at and have the greatest problem with is the blackness of people in our country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Representative Bonnie Watson-Coleman, a Democrat of New Jersey and member of the Budget and Appropriations Committees, also Democratic Deputy Whip for Policy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thanks so much, Congresswoman, for joining us.
unidentified		Oh, thank you for having me.
unidentified		Have a great day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Later in the program, we'll be joined by Republican Congressman John Rutherford of Florida, member of the Appropriations Committee.
		But first, it's Open Forum.
		You can start calling in now.
		Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000.
		and Independence, 202-748-8002.
unidentified		Nonfiction 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 QA.
		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 non-fiction 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.
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.
joe biden ▲ ● ▼		We are still at our core a democracy.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
unidentified		On Tuesday, March 4th, watch C-SPAN's live coverage of President Trump's address to Congress, the first address of his second term, and less than two months since taking office.
		C-SPAN's live coverage begins at 8 p.m. Eastern with a preview of the evening from Capitol Hill, followed by the President's speech, which begins at 9 p.m. Eastern.
		And then watch the Democratic response after the President's speech.
		We'll also take your calls and get your reaction on social media.
		Over on C-SPAN 2, you can also watch a simulcast of the evening's coverage, followed by reaction from lawmakers live from Capitol Hill.
		Watch President Trump's address to Congress live Tuesday, March 4th, beginning at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, our simulcast live on C-SPAN 2 or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
		Also online at C-SPAN.org.
		C-SPAN, bringing you your democracy unfiltered.
		If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-SPAN.org.
		Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
		These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
		This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
		Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		A couple of items for you.
		This is the Associated Press with this article saying a federal judge on Tuesday, that's yesterday, gave the Trump administration less than two days to release billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid, saying the administration had given no sign of complying with his nearly two-week old court order to ease its funding freeze.
		It says nonprofit groups and businesses that receive federal money for work abroad said the freeze breaks federal law and has had to shut down funding for even the most urgent life-saving programs abroad.
		The U.S. District Court judge on February 13th had ordered the administration at least temporarily to get funding flowing again, including to make good on its bills.
		But despite the order, USAID staffers and businesses and nonprofit groups say they know of no payments that have gotten through.
		And we'll go to your calls now to Jerry in Carrollton, Ohio.
		Republican, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, Baby.
		Excuse my voice.
		I just got out of the hospital, but I just want to say I've never in my life heard such untruthful people that can get on the TV and say what they say.
		And I'm not saying C-SPAN.
		It's some of the people you have on there, like this congressman or lady who was just on there.
		That lady, she is so racist.
		It's just a shame that nobody wants to look for this fraud and abuse that's going on.
		It has been going on for God only knows how long.
		And the biggest thing I find out about the Democrat Party is when they run for election, that's all they want to do, make the 1% pay for everything.
		The 1% are them.
		They ain't going to tax their selves.
		I've never seen them tax theirselves like that, the 1%.
		And it's just a shame that we can't come together and weed out all of this fraud and abuse and stuff's been going on for God only knows how long.
		And I just hope the Democrat Party's not involved in some of this, tell you the truth.
		And that's all I got to say.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Jerry.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is Steve in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Democrat.
unidentified		Hey, good morning, Mimi.
		When I call, I usually talk about perception and how your perception can be wrong.
		But today I would like to talk about the tax cuts, particularly if it does pertain to Medicare, which we will know.
		I live in Tennessee, and 19% of the population of Tennessee receives some kind of Medicaid.
		Okay?
		This is a totally red state.
		These people are going to find out if Medicaid has cut what they've done to themselves.
		This thing about giving waiters tax-free tips, there are thousands of waiters in this country that make over $500 a day in tips.
		They work in these very exclusive restaurants and make a killing.
		And most of them are in their 50s.
		So in 2017, Trump said, and I heard him say this, that the average family would get $2,000 in tax savings.
		Well, my neighbor, retired doctor for the past seven years, has got $10,000 a year in tax cuts.
		And I have received $320 a year in tax cuts.
		So the math isn't there.
		And the only way that the deficit is going to get under control is to raise taxes and cut spending.
		It's not going to do it by just cutting taxes.
		And finally, in 2025, Mr. Trump said that there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.
		So we will find out if that is a true statement or not.
		And thank you so much for taking my call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Steve.
		And for your schedule, later at 10 a.m., right after this program over on C-SPAN 3, we've got the Supreme Court.
		Here's oral arguments in Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services.
		The case deals with a heterosexual woman who alleges her employer discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation.
		Live coverage starts at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3, also on C-SPAN Now and online at C-SPAN.org.
		Then at 11 a.m., a federal judge gave the Trump administration a deadline to release billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid following the administration's funding freeze and staff cuts at USAID.
		Today, witnesses testify about foreign aid and spending priorities at a House Oversight Subcommittee hearing on delivering on government efficiency, or DOGE.
		That's live at 11 a.m. Eastern.
		It's on our app, C-SPANNOW, and it's online at c-span.org.
		Here's Erin.
		Oh, we lost Erin.
		So here is Gina, Piquetoun, Mississippi, Republican.
		Hi, Gina.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Hi, Mamie.
		I'd like to respond to some things that that prior guest said.
		Okay, first of all, I am sure that most people, even listening, know personally people who are committing Medicaid fraud and food stamp fraud.
		I'm ashamed to say that I have several members of my family who are committing Medicaid fraud.
		It's really sad.
		The people, it's just sad that people don't care about the budget of their own country they live in.
		Another thing about the taxes is yet again, I'm going to remind everybody that 50% of American people pay no federal tax.
		Why don't they have to start paying tax?
		And this earned income credit that most of these young girls who have had all these babies on Medicaid receive thousands and thousands of dollars a year.
		I have seen it with my own eyes in my workplace.
		So let's just not be stupid.
		And I'd also like to say to the nice lady that Americans are no longer stupid.
		We know who the liars are.
		It's the Democratic Party.
		They've been doing it for the last 10 years because they hate Donald Trump.
		These are just bare facts.
		And Democrats never have facts to back up their lies.
		I'm sick of it.
		And I thank God that the majority of the American people were smart enough to see through their lies.
		And also, the lady was 80 years old.
		And I hope and pray to God that they put term limits and age limits on our Congress and our House.
		Thank you, Mamie.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Gina.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Sherry in Muscatine, Iowa, Democrat.
unidentified		Oh, yes.
		I was just curious as to our money that we, when we worked hard all our lives, I'm 70.
		We paid Social Security out of our income tax or out of our paychecks.
		It was totally taken out.
		You're federal and your Social Security is taken out.
		And now they want to cut those programs.
		How are the older folks supposed to work?
		I mean, we didn't all become disabled because we chose to.
		And I do not get disability.
		My ex, my husband left after 32 years.
		So sometimes we're in a situation where we don't choose to be.
		And for him to be cutting all these programs, it's going to make it tough on the older folk.
		And I'm not going to cut down Republican or Democrat or liberal.
		I choose to see what's happening in the world today, and it kind of scares me.
		And that's basically what I had to say because I didn't know where our Social Security money went and our disability money went.
		Are these not taken out of our paychecks?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Sherry.
		And this is the New York Times with this article.
		White House moves to pick the pool reporters who cover Trump in announcing plans to hand-select the reporters who can ask the President questions at many events.
		The White House is breaking decades of precedent.
		And here is the White House Press Secretary, Caroline Levitt, yesterday announcing those changes to the White House press pool.
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼		We want to double down and give even greater access to the American people.
		We want more outlets and new outlets to have a chance to take part in the press pool to cover this administration's unprecedented achievements up close, front and center.
		As you all know, for decades, a group of DC-based journalists, the White House Correspondents Association, has long dictated which journalists get to ask questions of the President of the United States in these most intimate spaces.
		Not anymore.
		I am proud to announce that we are going to give the power back to the people who read your papers, who watch your television shows, and who listen to your radio stations.
		Moving forward, the White House press pool will be determined by the White House press team.
		Legacy outlets who have participated in the press pool for decades will still be allowed to join, fear not.
		But we will also be offering the privilege to well-deserving outlets who have never been allowed to share in this awesome responsibility.
		Just like we added a new media seat in this briefing room, legacy media outlets who have been here for years will still participate in the pool.
		But new voices are going to be welcomed in as well.
		As part of these changes, we will continue the rotation amongst the five major television networks to ensure the President's remarks are heard far and wide around this world.
		We will add additional streaming services which reach different audiences than traditional cable and broadcast.
		This is the ever-changing landscape of the media in the United States today.
		We will continue to rotate a print pooler who has the great responsibility of quickly transcribing the president's remarks and disseminating them to the rest of the world.
		And we will add outlets to the print pool rotation who have long been denied the privilege to partake in this experience but are committed to covering this White House beat.
		We will continue to rotate a radio pooler and add other radio hosts who have been denied access, especially local radio hosts who serve as the heartbeat of our country.
		And we will add additional outlets and reporters who are well suited to cover the news of the day and ask substantive questions of the President of the United States depending on the news he is making on that given day.
		This administration is shaking up Washington in more ways than one.
		That's what we were elected to do.
		As I have said since the first day behind this podium, it's beyond time that the White House press operation reflects the media habits of the American people in 2025, not 1925.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Back to the calls on Open Forum Stam in Gaithersburg, Maryland, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Can you hear me?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we can.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, I listened to CISPAM, and I like it in most cases.
		Now, I want to mention that your previous guest was wild, racist, and really low class.
		And you really need to tell your guests not to insult people that calling in.
		Her comment about Kool-Aid was completely out of place.
		And it shows you how people like her, you know, despise and kind of she's saying everything that, you know, about other people that she's doing herself.
		I think she's racist because even mentioning of the Skin color related to the qualification of person is really stupid in my opinion because, you know, I'm an immigrant myself and I don't really like when people, you know, devote so much time to race.
		I understand that the United States had a lot of problems in the past.
		Finding a country on Earth that didn't have the, you know, problems in the past.
		So it it it just really reflects very badly on CSPAN when you know when when you don't even comment on that or correct her and let her rumble about you know lies when she's lying through her teeth herself.
		And also I have to admit that you know C-SPAN is kind of complacent and dissemination humorous because as the listeners currently noted that in this bill that was passed yesterday, the cuts to Medicare or Medicaid were not even mentioned.
		So until it becomes facts, it's all rumors.
		And the way she was talking was very insulting.
		And again, I mean, we got that point.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Mary in Akron, Ohio, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Mary.
unidentified		Yes, I wanted to talk about some local news real fast.
		Yesterday on the front page of the Akron Beacon Journal, it said, I believe it was Akron City Council, is no longer purchasing Israel bonds.
		So all the Jewish people in Ohio and Akron, I hope you hear that.
		But what I'm calling about is the Democratic Party and the way they spend this immigration story, it is just so ridiculous.
		Okay.
		They try to make it out like the Republicans are being mean and we don't want immigrants in our country.
		I just want to put it out there.
		You know, Joe Biden let 20 million immigrants into our country.
		He did this with my Orcas as the head of Homeland Security.
		What he did was in 2021, when they had all those people gather underneath that bridge in Texas, the conservative Democrats went to my Orcus and said, you know, we can't have this pool of people underneath the bridge like this again because it looks really bad on us, you know, when we're going to go into the midterms.
		So then they just decided to start busting them all over the country all through the night, bring them into all these communities.
		300,000 children came in without parents because if you had kids seven and over, they wouldn't let you through.
		They're draining our entitlement programs, which I don't really consider them entitlement programs.
		But, you know, I have people in my own family who are living on $800,000, $900 a month, Social Security.
		They worked all their life, took care of their children.
		And we got people coming into this country who have never lived here, have no ties to this country, getting 25, 5,000.
		The problem is my Orcas got in front of Congress and said, I took care of the problem.
		What he did was he started shipping all the people through the night.
		Then he fired all the immigration judges and put people in there who only had been had like a five-week course, and they were told, you let these people in or else by the government.
		And I just don't know how anybody can believe anything that Democrats say or do when they try to make out like we hate immigrants.
		That is not true.
		And over before Joe Biden became president after Joe Biden became president, 90% of the people coming in were Mexican.
		Now it's only 45%.
		The rest of them are coming from 165 countries, and we don't even know where they're coming from.
		You people need to wake up.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Mary.
		Here's Janine in Frankfurt, Kentucky, Independent.
		Good morning, Janine.
unidentified		Hi, Amy.
		This is my first call in, and I do love your program.
		It is hard to hear both sides of the story because it seems like some people don't really hear what the truth is.
		But I loved hearing from Bonnie Coleman, the representative.
		She gave a lot of good points.
		The budget, I just feel like it really makes no sense to take from the poor to give to the rich.
		And I'm no genius, but to me, that it's not right.
		And the recent firing of the government workers, the way it was done, I myself was a government worker.
		I retired after 32 years with the VA.
		And most are very dedicated people who love our country and think of their job as serving our country.
		They're fired with disrespect and no decency.
		And having to answer to someone who is outside of the civil service and even outside of our country, I just grieve for the ones who have to face this.
		I'm glad I retired when I did in 2019.
		And also, the Associated Press article that talked about how it doesn't look like Trump is complying with the court orders.
		Of course, he's not.
		He never has.
		That's the whole problem.
		He thinks he doesn't have to do what the regular law-abiding citizens have to do.
		Did I say enough?
		Or I could go on about immigration if you want me to, but I think I've probably spoken many times.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Janine, I'll just remind you that we do have a hearing about USAID and that foreign funding freeze at 11 a.m. on our website.
		And this is Margo in Portland, Oregon, Independent.
		Go ahead, Margo.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
unidentified		I wanted to just add my experience to what is being called waste, fraud, and abuse.
unidentified		And just tell the American people that when my father died in 2021, April 1st, he was 95 years old, and I am taking care of my mom and dad.
justice neil gorsuch ▲ ● ▼		And the Social Security clawed back his check that was deposited in the previous months.
unidentified		And I was a little bit like, wow, that's harsh.
		Like, maybe they'll let him have, let my mom have that money.
		So just to hear, you know, as another sounding voice of reason, that I know that there's a lot of talk that 160-year-old people are getting social security checks.
		I can attest that that was not the case for my dad.
		And I just unveiled that there is fraud in the sense that our information is not being protected like it should.
		I kept getting these statements from Medicare that somebody was trying to bill from my dad's hospice visit from like five years ago.
		I finally got on the phone with someone and they said that they were not paying because there's a two-year stipulation for you know health care to bill them.
		So I called my health care provider when they were taking care of my dad and they weren't doing it either.
		So I know I've gotten several data breach notices and my dad has been dead for five years now.
		And so this is just showing that like waste crowd and abuse, yes, but we need to look at why this is happening.
		You know, we need to protect our information.
		And I don't think what's going on with Elon Musk and these people is going to do that.
		So I'm going to let you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
		And I wanted to share this from the New York Post.
		This is an article that says that Trump shares AI video of his vision for Gaza, featuring giant gold statue and him lounging poolside with Netanyahu.
		We will play that for you.
		Again, this is from President Trump's Truth Social account, and it is AI-generated.
unidentified		To set you free, bring the light for all to see.
		No more tunnels, no more fear.
		Trump, Gaza, is finally here.
		Trump, Gaza, shine and bright.
		Golden future, a brand new life.
		Taste and dance, the deal is done.
		Gaza, number one.
		Feast and dance, the deal is done.
		Trump Gaza, number one.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that was on President Trump's Truth Social account.
		And again, AI generated.
		Here is Andy in Kentucky, Republican.
		Hi, Andy.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		Oh, what propaganda you all spread.
		In 1990.
		Wait, wait, wait.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Propaganda we all spread?
unidentified		Yes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean by that, Andy?
unidentified		But let me give you some figures, though.
		In 1995, when Clinton was president, the federal employees was 1.9 million.
		Now, as of last year, our population has increased from 270 million at that time in 95 to now approximately 340 million.
		Now, federal employees today, the number are 4.5 million about?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Nope.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		2.2 million.
unidentified		2.2 million.
unidentified		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The number you have might be including active duty military.
unidentified		So we have a much greater military.
unidentified		I thought it was less as far as manpower than what it was in 95.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So the federal workforce is about just over 2 million.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		Okay.
		So from 70 million population increase, we have what percent is that on par with our economy?
		Is that like 24% of our economy?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Andy, I'm afraid I can't do those numbers in my head, but I think we get your point, and we are out of time for open forums, so I apologize.
		I'm going to have to let you go.
		Up next, we've got Florida Congressman John Rutherford, a member of the Appropriations Committee.
		He'll join us to talk about the House budget bill and GOP strategy to advance President Trump's legislative agenda.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
		This weekend, at 2 p.m. Eastern on the Civil War, historian Kelly Hancock talks about the lives of Mary Todd Lincoln and Verena Davis, the wives of the Civil War leaders.
		And then at 6.30 p.m. Eastern, a visit to the College Park Aviation Museum in Maryland with collections curator Luke Perez to explore the history of the world's oldest continually operating airfield and artifacts within its museum.
		At 7 p.m. Eastern, watch American History TV series First 100 Days as we look at the start of presidential terms.
		This week, we focus on the early months of President Lyndon Johnson's term in 1963 following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
		Johnson addressed Congress shortly after Kennedy's death and called on members to pass civil rights legislation.
		And at 8 p.m. Eastern on Lectures in History, University of Southern California sociology professor Brittany Friedman on the formation and evolution of American prison gangs in the 20th and 21st centuries, exploring the American story.
		Watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
		Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		At 8 p.m. Eastern, Ross Dalthick, author of Believe, and Jonathan Rauch, author of Cross Purposes, examine the decline of religiosity in America and what it means for the health of American democracy.
		And then at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwards, Kevin Fagan, with his book The Lost and the Found, a true story of homelessness, found family, and second chances, reports on the underlying issues of homelessness in America, tracing the experiences of two unhoused persons in San Francisco.
		He's interviewed by former Obama administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Sean Donovan.
		And at 11 p.m. Eastern, Pagan Kennedy, with her book, The Secret History of the Rape Kit, recounts the development of a forensic tool to collect evidence in crimes of sexual assault, now known as the Rape Kit.
		Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We're joined now by Representative John Rutherford, a Republican of Florida and a member of the Appropriations Committee.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Congressman, welcome back to the program.
unidentified		Great to be with you, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So let's start with that GOP budget resolution that did pass yesterday.
		You voted for it.
		Tell us why you voted for it.
unidentified		Yeah, because it really is the first step in reclaiming the kind of economic growth and vitality that America had back in President Trump's first term after we passed the Tax Cut Jobs Act.
		If you remember, Mimi, back then we were looking at 3.2, 3.5, I think one quarter we even had 4.2 GDP growth.
		And it's going to be very important if we're going to get out of this national debt that we're looking at.
		We have to not only cut, we're not going to cut our way to greatness, we have to grow as well.
		It takes both cutting and growing.
		And so this step last night, by passing this concurrent resolution bill, this budget resolution, what it will allow us to do now is it gives instructions to and sets the parameters for going forward with a reconciliation bill.
		It's kind of like instructions from the budget committee to all of the other committees to go Do their work to cut in the floor of the cuts that we're looking for is $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
		So all of those committees will now go out, they will develop their own bill, their own budget bill, each one individually for their area of authorization, and then they will present those to the budget office, and then the committee, then the budget committee will take all of those bills, roll them into one big, beautiful bill,
		as you hear probably.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Part of this budget resolution, though, is requiring the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in cuts.
		Now, part of that committee is Medicaid.
		So does that mean Medicaid is on the table for cuts?
unidentified		Not benefits.
		No one's benefits are going to be cut.
		Now, if there's waste, fraud, and abuse, we're going to go after that.
		And we do believe that there is some in there.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The estimate was $50 billion.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's a long way away from $880 billion.
unidentified		Well, the commitment has been: we're not going to change.
		No one's benefits are going to be impacted at all.
		And so every committee, and that's why passing this last night was so important to me, because now we get to go do that work in searching for those cuts in all 12 committees.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And there was, in addition to Medicaid, the children's health insurance program, it's called CHIP.
		Will that be cut?
		Will there be any cuts to those benefits?
unidentified		Don't know.
		We have to wait and see what the committee does.
		I can't talk about specific cuts because there haven't been any made yet.
		And so this resolution that we passed last night simply sets those parameters for the cuts that they need to go find, a top line, like the $1.5 trillion.
		And that's not really the top line, that's the floor.
		They can cut more than that if they can find more than that.
		And in addition to that, this bill will also address the border, energy independence, lowering taxes for everyone.
		There's $4.5 trillion that will be available in ways and means to cut and maintain, I should say, the tax cuts that we started back in President Trump's first term.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So what's the higher priority for you, Congressman?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is it to maintain those tax cuts at a cost of $4.5 trillion, or is it to cut the $2 trillion if you can only do one or the other, to maintain the tax cuts or anything?
unidentified		I mean, if you tie my hands and say you can only do one or the other, I'd rather do the tax cuts, you know.
		But we can do both, and we should do both, because we need to cut and we need to grow.
		And the tax cuts are going to help us grow.
		Just like we saw in Trump's first term, those GDP growth numbers were, I mean, nobody had ever seen numbers like that before.
		So that will also, the instructions in the resolution last night also provides an additional $100 billion for national defense, which President Trump is worried about.
		It also provides $200 billion to Homeland Security for securing the border and all the cost of getting folks out of the country who are here illegally.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And you can join our conversation with Representative John Rutherford, Republican of Florida on our lines.
		Republicans are on 202748-8001.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		And Independents 202748-8002.
		Some of your Republican colleagues have gone back to their districts and gotten feedback from their constituents, negative feedback about Doge and the impact it's having on them.
		What are you hearing from your constituents in Florida?
unidentified		Yeah, look, I have constituents that are concerned about the cuts as well.
		But I think part of what's going on is Doge is moving so fast that it's got people's heads spinning.
		In fact, I want more information about what's going to happen before it happens.
		They're moving so fast.
		And so people are concerned, but I think when you see what's being cut, and look, we have, I think, over 2 million federal workers.
		There's a lot of bloat in this federal government, particularly since the Biden administration added people just willy-nilly, it seemed like.
		And so the president, who is the executive of all of these executive branch agencies, has the duty and the power, the authority to do, whether it's a riff, a reduction in force, cuts, programmatic cuts, he has that responsibility.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Congressman, regarding the inspector generals that he fired about 14 or so inspector generals, there is a law protecting them saying that the president can fire them, but they have to let Congress know 30 days in advance and give a reason for their firing.
		That was not followed.
		Are you as a congressman, are you a Republican congressman going to hold the president accountable to those?
unidentified		I'm not sure how we would hold him accountable.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I guess we could say something.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We need to know what the reason is for these firings.
unidentified		Well, look, if I'm going to do a reduction in force, a firing is one thing.
		A reduction in force is something different.
		And so I think if I'm going to make a decision that I'm going to lay off a lot of people, then I'm not going to telegraph that because they can do that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Specifically, I was asking about the inspector generals.
unidentified		Yeah, okay.
		Yeah, but no, but that's a big group of individuals, and I'm going to lay off 14 of them.
		I don't think I'm going to tell anybody in advance I'm going to do that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But that is.
unidentified		When I'm doing a reduction in force.
		Well, I think if you're going to fire somebody, you have to tell them.
		I don't know if you do, if it's a reduction in force.
		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Maybe that's semantics.
unidentified		Yeah.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's talk to callers.
unidentified		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We've got Patty up first, a Democrat in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Patty.
unidentified		Oh, good morning.
		Thank you, Mimi.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		Rep Rutherford, yeah, I'm just looking up numbers here for the number of CHIP and Medicaid recipients in your district.
		Numbers haven't quite loaded yet, but I know it's fairly high.
		I know your district.
		I'd like you to know how you're going to justify to those folks how you're not terribly concerned about whether maybe or maybe not those children get health care going forward.
		I'd also like to know, because I'm still scraping my jaw up off the darn floor after that crazy AI-generated video that Trump shared that Mimi aired.
		I want to know how you feel about that.
		We're just going to, what are we going to do?
		Take our troops, no new wars, over, clear out Gaza and build Trump towers and gold Trump statues.
		Are you going to stand up against this craziness?
		That's what I want to know.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Patty, let's get a response for you.
unidentified		Yeah, I think some of those things you have to take for what they are.
		I don't think that's Trump's intention.
		I don't think he's going to build all that.
		I think it's, you know, a bit of humor.
		And Lord knows we can use some humor these days.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		She asked about the best.
unidentified		But also, she asked about the Medicaid.
		No benefits are going to be cut.
		And that's benefits are being protected.
		No American is going to be thrown off Medicaid.
		But there is plenty of waste, fraud, and abuse in that system that we think we can certainly do a much better job than previous administrations have done.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Pat in Keyport, New Jersey, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Pat.
unidentified		Hi.
		Congressman, can you please clarify what you mean when you talk about $1.5 trillion over 10 years?
		When I do the math on that, it comes out to maybe $150 billion a year, which is minimal.
		And when you're running multi-trillion dollar deficits, where's our debt going to go?
		But up?
		Thank you.
		Yeah, great point, Pat.
		When you look at it year over year, it's not as tragic as some people think.
		You know, $1.5 trillion.
		Well, that is over 10 years.
		And so, but they are substantial cuts because the projection on our national debt is well above that.
		And that's also why I say, Pat, it's not enough that we try to cut our way out of this.
		We also have to grow.
		And the growth that we saw, in fact, this was an interesting number when President Trump's, in President Trump's first term, one percentage point of GDP growth.
		The Congressional Budget Office scored that Tax Cut Jobs Act bill with a 1.9% GDP growth over the next 10 years.
		And I'm no economist, but I know if you allow people to keep $4.5 trillion more of their money, you allow businesses to keep more of their money, giving families child tax credits.
		I know they're going to spend that money.
		They're going to invest it, and the economy is going to grow.
		And it did.
		So we mentioned that it was growing at 3.2, 3.5, excuse me, 3.5, 4.2.
		Well, I asked Ways and Means, Chairman, at that time, Kevin Brady, I said, Kevin, have your people tell me what is one extra percentage point of growth worth?
		Instead of 1.9, what if we are consistent with 2.9?
		That number was $274 billion.
		Now, they had scored that bill as a $1.2 trillion deficit over 10 years.
		But it was not because they incorrectly projected the GDP growth based on the cuts that we were going to make.
		And so, you know, a lot of this, it does sound bigger when you talk about 10 years, but that's the way they do it up here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Jim in Cairo, Missouri, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hey, Jim.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Congressman, you have repeated the talking point that tax cuts bring in more money.
kurt in indiana ▲ ● ▼		My question would be, if the Trump tax cuts brought in more money, how did we increase the debt by $8 trillion?
unidentified		Where did that money go?
		Well, that money was in the ARA, the IRA.
		It was a lot of the programs that came after President Trump left office, the whole Green New Deal and those programs.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Phil in Marion, Virginia, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Phil.
unidentified		Hello.
		I've got a question.
		Do you believe businesses should repay any kind of bailouts that they get?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Should repay any kind of what, Phil?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I didn't catch that.
unidentified		Any kind of bailouts.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The bailouts for COVID or for the 2008?
unidentified		Or anything.
unidentified		Or anything like a bankruptcy or whatever.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Bailouts.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		For businesses.
unidentified		Oh.
		Bailouts for businesses?
		No.
		I don't think any business is too big to fail.
		I thought that was a mistake in 2008.
		I wasn't here, but I can tell you I would never vote for a bailout like that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here is Grant in Clarksville, Tennessee, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Grant.
unidentified		How are you?
		I've been trying to get in touch with y'all and thank y'all.
		I look at your program every morning.
		The thing that has me upset now is Donald Trump, Elon Musk, with this video over in Gaza.
		He's telling everyone what they want to do.
		You know, he said you're putting America first.
		How when you're ready to invest all this money to get you a statue?
		And I get sick of the Republicans bending over backwards.
		They used to be a strong, I'm independent.
		I'm an American, period, period.
		And that's what we need to start looking at.
		Donald Trump and Elon Musk has went too far.
		They said he's the president.
		Okay, you're supposed to be a shining light, an example.
		How are you an example when you keep breaking the law, but you keep talking about the law?
		There's no way.
		And then you got a press secretary.
		They want to decide who comes in so they can determine what questions the person asked, what they're supposed to report.
		That's not free speech.
		That's dictatorship.
		Misinformation.
		The Republicans.
		You don't work for Donald Trump.
		You work for the American people.
		They put you there, not Donald Trump.
		Now he can take you out.
		And I believe that's the biggest problem.
		They all fear Donald Trump.
		They have given him and Elon Musk too much power.
		Donald Trump talks about security.
		How is it secure when you have individuals going through personal information that has not been cleared?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Grant, I do want to ask about what he said about the fear of getting primaried.
		Elon Musk has been very clear.
		If you go against Trump's agenda, we will primary you and he's got the money to do it.
		Are you afraid of that, Congressman?
unidentified		No, because I don't think he's going to ask me to do anything that I wouldn't want to do.
		Number one.
		We have to remember, Grant, the American public put President Trump into office, and he is now doing exactly what he said he was going to do.
		In fact, his approval numbers are 53%.
		And 70% of folks polled said he's doing exactly, including Democrats, said he's doing exactly what he said he was going to do when he got elected.
		So I don't know how you get mad at that.
		Now, the video, Grant, take a breath.
		Everybody needs to just relax and enjoy some of the humor around you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Since you're a former law enforcement officer, I want to ask you about the FBI.
		There's NBC News article about the number two.
		So it says FBI agents express shock and dismay over naming of right-wing podcaster to the number two post.
		That's Dan Bongino.
		He had once called the FBI irredeemably corrupt, and he suggested on his podcast Monday that he was prepared to step out of his role as a MA warrior.
		What do you think is, were you shocked and dismayed?
unidentified		No, not really, because I think we need those kind of disruptors.
		I'm going to tell you, I went through the FBI National Academy in the 171st session.
		I was very proud of my affiliation with the FBI, the work that we did together, not only during my time growing up in the agency in Jacksonville, but also my time as sheriff.
		And I have to tell you, I was on judiciary my first term up here.
		I read those emails from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Annie McCabe.
		Mimi, it's scared.
		My blood ran cold.
		It was scary.
		And so, and then I look at the 702 violations.
		Thousands, tens and tens of thousands of 702 code violations.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Explain that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is the privacy.
unidentified		702 is where you collect data on foreign agents on foreign soil, but sometimes in the collection of that data, they may be talking to someone in America and an American.
		But all that information is captured, right?
		Well, you can query that to see if you have a predicate act.
		You can then query that.
		Let's say, you know, all of this information goes into the Solimani inbox, okay?
		You can't read it all as it's coming in.
		There's so much of it, so it goes in like, we'll call it an inbox.
		Well, what I do read, I see a happy birthday, Mimi, from Solimani, right?
		And now I'm like, Solimani and Mimi are talking?
		So now I can go to my inbox and say, I want to see all the conversations that I've already legally collected.
		I want to see all those and see what other correspondence you've got with him.
		Then, if I see, oh, Mimi, the bomb's on the way, then I know I have to go get a warrant to further investigate.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, you're saying any of those queries on an American is illegal.
unidentified		Is that a problem?
		No, that's the legal process I just said.
		What's illegal is when I have no Predicate Act, I just say, hmm, you know, I saw Mimi on C-SPAN.
		I think I'm going to run her in the Solomoni inbox.
		Or maybe I'm going to run her because she's in the Solomoni inbox, now I'm going to run her in the Maduro inbox.
		Can't do that.
		They did that thousands and thousands of times in violation.
		So, I am deeply concerned about what's going on at the FBI, deeply.
		Now, I have to say, though, I do believe the men and women at the field level, the ones that I worked with, they're great folks.
		They love the Constitution.
		But the cabal up here?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask you also about the bill that you reintroduced called the Protect and Serve Act.
unidentified		Yes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, first tell us what it does and what you expect will happen in the Senate.
unidentified		Well, Mimi, last year, police officers were targeted by ambush, just ambush, 61 times.
		79 officers were shot in those 61 ambushes.
		50 officers last year were killed by gunfire.
		And so it was, and it was even worse.
		I have to tell you, that's actually down some, which is good news to us.
		But when I drafted this bill, which flew through the House in 2018 because of all the anti-police rhetoric that was out there and the fact that ambushes were up significantly, now I tell folks: if you want to target the police, I'm going to target you.
		And we're going to come after you with a federal violation that's on top of whatever you may face within your state.
		But if you want to target the police and you harm a police officer, you're looking at a 10-year minimum mandatory.
		If you kidnap or kill one, it's life, or if he dies, he's murdered, then the death penalty.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's see if we can get a call from Patrick Naples, Florida, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Patrick.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Hey, Patrick.
		I come from a long line of Southern Democrats.
		I spent half my life being brainwashed, the other half making amends.
		I'm listening to the same thing over and over again.
		I want to know the difference between Hillary's emails and Trump stealing thousands of our pertinent documents, and then the difference between the swamp and all the stuff that the Republicans complained about being in Washington and now letting Elon and his little army take over our country.
		You're a disgrace, sir.
		I'm sorry.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		Well, listen, Patrick.

▲