CSPAN - Washington Journal 02/28/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 28, 2025 07:00-10:01 - CSPAN

03:00:45

Washington Journal 02/28/2025

Participants

Main

greta brawner

cspan 48:28

Appearances

bernie sanders

sen/d 01:13

donald j trump

admin 01:58

gavin newsom

d 00:37

hakeem jeffries

rep/d 01:23

ken martin

d 00:32

Clips

charlotte iserbyt

00:06

keir starmer

gbr 00:05

larry nichols

00:11

Callers

bob in new york

callers 00:04

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Coming up on Washington Journal this morning, your calls and comments live.
		And then Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandy will talk about how U.S. economic growth increasingly depends on spending by high-income earners.
		And Maya McGinnis, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, talks about House and Senate plans for the 2025 budget, how much it will cost, and what it does to the nation's debt.
		Also, Gracelyn Baskern of the Center for Astronic and International Studies talks about key aspects of the proposed minerals deal between the United States and Ukraine.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
		Join the conversation.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, everyone.
		Welcome to the Washington Journal.
		It's Friday, February 28th, happening in Washington today.
		President Trump will welcome the Ukrainian leader to the White House, a mineral deal in the works between the United States and Ukraine.
		We'll learn more about it from the two leaders when they hold a joint news conference at 1 p.m. Eastern today.
		Tune in to C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free video mobile app or online at c-span.org.
		We'll cover more about this deal with Mr. Zelensky and President Trump on the Washington Journal.
		But first, in our first hour, we want to talk to Democrats only.
		Your view of President Trump, should your party find common ground or oppose.
		Democrats living in the eastern central part of the country, dial in at 202-748-8000.
		Democrats in the Mountain Pacific area, 202-748-8001.
		You can also text us at 202-748-8003.
		Post on facebook.com slash C-SPAN or on X with the handle at C-SPANWJ.
		Good morning, everyone.
		Democrats only this morning, and we will start with a headline from the Washington Post.
		The anti-Trump resistance begins to wake in earnest.
		After an initial period of stunned confusion, protesters are packing meetings, states are suing, and Democrats are preparing for a budget showdown.
		We are asking Democrats only this morning, should you find common ground with the president or oppose him?
		From the article in the Washington Post, they note this, that rowdy crowds are showing up at town hall meetings.
		And to protest President Donald Trump's actions, some people are launching into chants, such as no king or shouting down Republican House members.
		Senator Bernie Sanders, independent from Vermont, is drawing overflow crowds at his own town hall meetings as he seeks to mobilize voters against Trump's budget cuts.
		There's the video on your screen.
		More from the Washington Post article.
		When Sanders recently visited Nebraska and Iowa to pressure Republican lawmakers there, his crowd spilled outside the scheduled venues.
		In Omaha, organizers were expecting a crowd of up to 1,000, but they had to switch to a bigger location and ultimately said 3,500 to 4,000 people showed up.
		Here from that Omaha visit and Senator Bernie Sanders.
bernie sanders ▲ ● ▼		I'm here in Omaha because the time to act.
		The time to fight back is now.
		And let me give you some good news and bad news.
		The bad news is that in my view, and I have some knowledge and experience in this as a U.S. Senator, Trumpism will not be defeated by politicians inside the DC Beltway.
		That is not going to happen.
		It will be defeated by millions of Americans in Nebraska, in Iowa, in Vermont, and all over this country.
		Who come together at the grassroots level like we are doing tonight in a movement which says no to oligarchy.
		No to authoritarianism.
		No to kleptocracy.
		No to massive cuts in programs that the working class desperately needs.
		And no to huge tax breaks for the billionaires and the 1%.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Senator Bernie Sanders holding rallies in Iowa and Oklahoma recently to rally Democrats in opposition to President Trump.
		We're talking with Democrats only this morning.
		Do you think your party should find common ground?
		And if so, where?
		Or do you think your party should oppose?
		Here's a headline out of Michigan from Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
		I want to find common ground with Donald Trump is what she had to say recently from the article.
		They said some liberals have expressed disappointment.
		Whitmer hasn't been more vocal, criticizing Trump's flurry of executive actions during his first month back in the White House.
		She was at the White House over the weekend, and she said that she spoke to the president.
		She didn't talk to President Trump about any one project per se.
		Both the Detroit News and Free Press quoted the governor as saying they discussed economic development in one township in Michigan and where state officials have approved $250 million to prepare a mega site for advanced manufacturing.
		Let's listen to a little bit of what the governor had to say in her state of the state address this week.
unidentified		I took an oath of office to serve the people of Michigan, and that means all the people of Michigan.
		That's my commitment to you, no matter who is in the White House or who's on the other side of the aisle in Lansing.
		Yes, I do hope to find common ground with President Trump and work with the Democratic-led Senate and Republican-led House on our shared priorities.
		Now, I'm not looking for fights, but I won't back down from them either.
		In Michigan, we have an opportunity and an obligation to lead by example.
		Our state represents America in every way, economically, geographically, politically, and socially.
		People from every walk of life call Michigan home.
		We don't always agree, but we move forward together.
		That is the source of our strength.
		Let's show the rest of the country how to get things done.
		Right now, I know that politics, especially national politics, can be exhausting.
		I feel it too.
		At a high level, we're facing two big challenges.
		Economic uncertainty and political division.
		First, economics.
		It's hard to buy a house or car because of high interest rates.
		It's still hard to pay the bills.
		Just this month, just this month, inflation jumped back up to 3%.
		Businesses are facing uncertainty too.
		Industry leaders and top economic minds on both sides of the aisle are warning us about the havoc that 25% tariffs would wreak on Michigan's auto industry, while also raising expenses, everyday expenses for our families.
		And as for politics, there's no sugarcoating it.
		We seem very divided today.
		Partisanship has infected every aspect of our lives, driven by opportunistic politicians and media figures who live by a philosophy: I win if you lose.
		Their divisive rhetoric is amplified by algorithms designed to make us angry and keep us scrolling.
		We're all being manipulated by the largest and most powerful companies in the world who profit more when we start to believe that we have nothing in common.
		But that's just not true.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Michigan governor there from her state of the state address this week.
		Two different tones from two different Democrats, Senator Bernie Sanders and the Michigan governor.
		You're Democrats only this morning.
		How do you want your party to respond to President Trump and his agenda?
		Find common ground or oppose.
		Michelle is in Chicago.
		Good morning to you.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I think that we definitely should find common ground.
		I do agree with Governor Whitmer as far as what she said about the financial impact of the financial aspect of finding common ground, but I think it's also tied to the national security aspect.
		I think that we should sort of look at border strengthening measures and understand that those also impact our unions, our work unions, and just try to work with the Republicans on that because I think that we are looking at national security and economy as two totally different areas when they're really linked.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so Michelle, it sounds like you would like Democrats to work with the Republicans on border security.
unidentified		Absolutely.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		And did you vote for President Trump as a Democrat?
unidentified		I didn't, but, you know, now that I see him in office and it's been such a whirlwind 30-plus days, I just think that I can understand now that our economy is linked to the border.
		And when I looked at how many people, I think a lot of people voted for Trump for the border reason.
		And it's because I think the economy sort of ties into that.
		So I think we should just find common ground.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		All right, Michelle there in Chicago saying Democrats should work with the president Republicans on the border.
		Christine in West Bridgewater, Massachusetts.
		Hi, Christine.
		Good morning to you.
unidentified		Hi, how are you?
unidentified		I don't think we have a choice as Democrats but to oppose him.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Why do you say that?
unidentified		I say that because I see a president that demonizes everything that doesn't agree with him.
		I don't think he's capable of helping people that are less than what he thinks he is.
		He just has to go against the grain with everything, with the Democrats, with the United States, with Canada, with everything.
		I just don't think he I don't think he's capable of understanding anybody else but himself.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		So, Christine, when you say oppose him and the Democrats have no other choice, how do you want to see that opposition play out?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What do Democrats do?
unidentified		I'm fearful that he's just trying to break all the laws and is going to get away with it.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Some more lawsuits?
unidentified		They didn't never get out of presidency, period.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Some more lawsuits from attorneys general on the state level?
unidentified		That's all I can see us doing by now.
		And the American people waking up.
		I mean, he's not helping.
		He's helping half the country, not the other half.
		So as a president, you've got to unite your people.
		He can't just be doing what he's doing with slashing people's jobs.
		And they're kind of mocking the people that are losing their jobs on top of them losing their jobs.
		What kind of president does that?
		What kind of president allows that?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What do you think lawmakers, what do you think the lawmakers here in Washington, the Democratic lawmakers here in Washington should do?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that the party is being led in a good way by the minority leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, and the minority leader in the House, the Democratic leader in the House, Hakeem Jeffreys?
unidentified		I think they're doing the best they can.
		I don't think people ever expected in the United States for a president to go rogue like this.
		I think they always thought law would stop this from happening.
		And yeah, you got to go with the courts because you got to believe in the law in the United States and hope that people, you know, want to follow the law.
		I mean, if you don't have that, you have nothing, right?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Christine, you say oppose, but the White House is pointing to a new poll by Harvard Harris poll that shows in his first month as president, Trump enjoys majority approval at 52%.
		52%.
		Now, when you break that down, the total is 52% versus 43 that oppose.
		When you break it down by party, 18% of Democrats approve so far.
		78% disapprove.
		89% of Republicans approve, while only 9% disapprove.
		Here are the Independents pretty much split.
		45% of Independents say they approve.
		44% of Independents disapprove.
		So with a high approval number like that, 52%, do Democrats, do they face a challenge with opposing him?
unidentified		Oh, yeah, they're definitely going to face a challenge because, I mean, there's a lot of hate out there.
		They have been demonizing immigrants for the last how many years?
		And they want to blame immigrants for everything in the United States.
		Well, we all know that's really not the case.
		There's so much more going on.
		It's really easy to demonize people and make them a blame and make them targets.
		Now he demonized the government workers.
		Now they're all lazy bums that never worked to begin with.
		I mean, it's insane that he gets away with doing that.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Christina, I'm going to move on to Pete, another Democrat, Mercer, Pennsylvania.
		Pete, this first part of the Washington Journal, we're talking with Democrats.
		Only go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, no, they have to resist.
		There's no common ground.
		He is an evil, incompetent moron that doesn't care about anybody but himself.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Well, Pete, let's refrain from calling people's names.
		Instead, make your argument.
		Why should Democrats resist and oppose?
unidentified		Because he has nothing in his interest that he wants to do for anybody.
		He's incapable.
		I mean, he's going to meet Good Zelensky today and try to throw him under the bus.
		And then he's going to go down to Mar-a-Lago on taxpayer money and start playing golf again.
		So there's nothing that he cares about.
		This was strictly a power grab, and the people fell for it.
		Enough people.
		But I can tell you what, that Harvard Harris poll you just mentioned, that is a complete outlier.
		Now, why don't you mention the Gallup poll last week, Cornipiak, and some respectable polls?
		He's well underwater on the approval.
		So I don't know.
		You know, that poll is not statistically accurate.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Why do you think it's an outlier?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Just, I mean, anecdotally, what you're hearing, where you live, why do you think that?
unidentified		Yeah, where I live, where I, you know, I know about polls and the ones that have, you know, that have statistics that are based on real facts.
		And Harvard Harris was an outlier even during the election season.
		So I think maybe he has a 42 to 45 percent approval.
		And I think that's going to go down as the people see how he's, you know, dealing with this doge and, you know, his lack of negotiating skills and his lack of caring.
		I don't think the guy works at all, frankly.
		I think he spends most of the day watching Fox News and playing golf.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Pete, that Gallup poll that you mentioned put out February 19th, Trump's job approval rating at 45%, Congress's jumps to 29%.
		Less than one month into his second term in office, President Donald Trump's job approval rating is at 45%, similar to his first post-inauguration reading of 47% in January.
		Trump's ratings on several issues that his administration has targeted in the first weeks of his presidency are similar to his overall rating, including immigration, 46%, foreign affairs, 44%, foreign trade, 42%, and the economy, 42%.
		Meanwhile, slightly fewer Americans, 40% each, approve of the president's handling of the situation in Ukraine and in the Middle East between the Israelis and Palestinians, as fewer offer opinions of his performance on these two issues.
		So there are some numbers from Gallup to compare to that Harris-Harvard poll that the White House is pointing to.
		We're asking Democrats only this morning their view on President Trump and what your party should do, find common ground or oppose.
		James in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
		James, good morning to you.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you, C-SPAN.
		So my opinion is the only way for civilization to be saved is to come to a common ground that would serve every American in the United States.
		But unfortunately, we're going to have to strongly oppose because Mr. Donald Trump is trying to consolidate his power.
		Look at all of the appointees that he has.
		Okay.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so go on.
unidentified		And so the fact that he's trying to consolidate the power, this is and create chaos in our society to keep people confused.
		And eventually, one day, what's going to happen is that we're going to turn around and we're going to have the society just going to oppose him and what he's doing.
		And I just also want to say one thing.
		He's trying to isolate the country.
		Isolationism is not good for our country.
		Okay.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, James thoughts there.
		Democrat in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
		Rhonda.
		Rhonda in New Jersey.
		Let's hear from you next.
		Good morning.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning, C-SPAN and my beautiful country.
		I definitely feel that they have to oppose his agenda.
		I'm terrified, and everyone I know is.
		This man is now given Elon Musk total control of the checkbook.
		This is what's so dangerous about Donald Trump.
		This man, Elon Musk, gets $8 million a day from the Treasury.
		And now he is giving him additional money.
		He's giving him Verizon's contract to upgrade our systems here because the South is so far behind.
		This is incredible.
		The Congress has forfeited their branch of government, which is the power of the purse.
		They are the only ones who can decide where the money goes, and the Republicans have sold themselves out.
		And the worst part about all of this is he is now evicting legal immigrants who have the, what do you call that?
		They're allowed to be here.
		He revoked them and he's selling, he is selling oligarchs, the Kremlin, citizenship for $5 million a pop.
		Next thing you know, they're going to be sitting in the White House.
		Come on, America, wake up.
		He betrayed you, Mega.
		He lied to you.
		He took your jobs.
		These aren't black jobs.
		These are white jobs.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		All right, Caller, I'm going to leave it there on your point about the budget debate that's happening here in Washington, the House narrowly approving their budget reconciliation proposal that includes the president's plans for tax cuts and spending cuts, narrowly approved in the House this week.
		The Senate had already approved their two bills.
		Now the two sides have to come together.
		They need to negotiate one bill that can be approved by both chambers and signed by the president.
		The Wall Street Journal this morning looks into the challenge for Democrats in the House in trying to stop Republicans from moving forward.
		Party leaders, order lawmakers, make sure to show up.
		Almost all Democrats made it difficult, made it to Tuesday's budget votes, but that has been the exception.
		So take a look at this article.
		As GOP leaders worked to get the handful of holdouts in line, several Democrats in particular were seen as possible no-shows.
		Representative Raul Grijalva of Arizona, 77, who has been undergoing treatment for cancer, hadn't voted since January 3rd.
		Mullen, the 50-year-old California congressman, had missed votes after he was hospitalized for complications following a January knee injury.
		Florida Representative Frederica Wilson, 82, hadn't voted in nearly a month.
		Peterson of Colorado, 43, had just given birth.
		The push by Democrats to get them to show up seemed to work.
		Peterson arrived at the Capitol with her three-week-old son.
		Mullen used a walker to get to the House floor.
		Wilson, who hadn't voted since January 23rd, also showed up.
		She didn't respond to questions about her absences.
		Only Grijalva, who has been undergoing treatment for cancer, was unable to cast a vote.
		For a moment, it looked like the Democrats might have mastered enough opposition to defeat the measure.
		Republicans, who were uncertain about their headcount, skipped over the expected budget vote to another bill.
		But minutes later, they put the budget proposal on the floor and it was adopted.
		217 to 215.
		All Republicans were in attendance, and just one, Representative Thomas Massey of Kentucky, sided with Democrats in voting no.
		The voting pattern could continue to play out this year.
		While lawmakers regularly miss votes because of travel delays and one-off conflicts, more disruptive are long-term absences due to age, health issues, and other circumstances.
		Attendances will remain an issue as Republicans take the framework they adopted Tuesday and work to press President Trump's plans for border security, tax relief, and spending later this year.
		The journal did an analysis of House voting records showing how much weaker Democrats' attendance has been compared with Republicans.
		Democrats accounted for 17 of the 20 chronic vote missers defined as members who missed at least 20% of the votes cast from the session start on January 3rd through February 23rd.
		So with that narrow margin, Democrats are needed and their votes on the House floor.
		The Wall Street Journal says that could prove difficult due to issues.
		We're asking Democrats only this morning: how does your party respond to President Trump?
		Do you find common ground or do you oppose?
		Sarah in Brooklyn, let's go to you next.
		Good morning to you, Sarah.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Can you hear me?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We can, Sarah.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We're listening to you.
unidentified		All right.
unidentified		I would say oppose, oppose, oppose.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Okay?
unidentified		And not only oppose, resist.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		And how?
unidentified		Today's boycott, economic boycott, where people who want to oppose this regime are not buying anything.
		He likes money.
		That's his favorite thing.
		That's his God, money.
		So we are going to continue to resist and protest.
		Do you remember that old saying that popped up during World War II where they said they came for the Jewish people?
		I didn't speak up.
		They came for the artist.
		I didn't speak up.
		When they came for me, there was no one left to speak up.
		And that is the position we are in today.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Sarah in Brooklyn with her thoughts.
		We'll go to Sacramento, California.
		Good morning to you, caller there.
		What do you think your party should do here?
		Kinte in Sacramento, California.
unidentified		Yes, what's going on?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What do you want the Democrats to do?
unidentified		Well, I thought about what Trump could do.
		I oppose Trump.
		You know, that's what I, you know, I oppose what Trump is doing.
		He's prepping himself to be the leader of World War III, and he's setting it up just like Hitler did.
		So I oppose that.
		So, you know.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		So, what do you, what should your party do?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What should your party do?
unidentified		Like I just heard, the one that pointed his finger, Bernie Sanders.
		No.
		No, no, no.
		That's amazing.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Say no, say no at every turn, is what Kinte says the Democratic Party should do.
		Listen to the leader of the Democratic National Committee, newly appointed Ken Martin from Minnesota.
		Here's what he had to say about how the party should respond to President Trump.
unidentified		What we need to do right now, because Donald Trump is failing the American people, he's not delivering on any of the promises he made to help improve people's lives, is to remind them of that.
		Part of that is definitely getting out there and throwing a punch and making sure when he's failing the American people that we remind them of that.
		I don't know how in the hell, for instance, changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America helps people's lives, right?
		I don't know how these tariffs are going to help bring down costs for people who are struggling in this country right now, right?
ken martin ▲ ● ▼		And on inaugural day, I happen to be in Atlanta at Ebenezer Church celebrating Dr. M. O.K. Jr. Day.
ken martin ▲ ● ▼		And you know what was striking to me as I watched the video of his inauguration is right under the portrait of all of our founding fathers were four of the richest men in the world.
unidentified		Yeah.
unidentified		And their cabinet sitting behind them, the combined wealth of that cabinet, $460 billion.
ken martin ▲ ● ▼		Not the top 1%, but the top 100th of 1% now control our federal government.
unidentified		You think they give a damn about working people?
		You think they give a damn about helping actually improve people's lives?
		I mean, I know these tariffs aren't going to impact them.
		Yeah, right.
ken martin ▲ ● ▼		And so you now have this modern class of robber barons who are controlling our federal government, and basically they're there to help enrich themselves.
unidentified		I mean, this is what we're up against, right?
		And so when we talk about what we're fighting for, we need to remind Democrats, not just Democrats, we need to remind Americans all over this country what the stakes are right now.
		And so I just think we've got a real opportunity here as Democrats to get up off the mat and do something different here.
		All right.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		You heard from the Democratic National Committee Chair there, Ken Martin, about what the party needs to do.
		Now we're asking you, Democrats, only this morning, do you find common ground or do you oppose?
		Liz in Marlton, New Jersey.
		Hi, Liz.
unidentified		Good morning, and thanks for this opportunity to hear some Democratic points of view because normally we get a diatribe of rehash lies from the president.
		Tired of hearing the lies, tired of the scapegoating of immigrants and other people, tired of all the nonsense as he does not execute his oath of office to implement all parts of the U.S. Constitution.
		I think if you sit down with the devil, if you sit down with a man that wants to be dictator and does not wish to follow the U.S. Constitution, you're not going to find much that you can agree on because his agenda is not for the betterment of this nation.
		I have a long ancestry here from 10 to 12 generations, many fought in the Revolution.
		They didn't fight for this type of man to sit as President of the United States.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		So, Liz, what does your party do then?
unidentified		They need to oppose him.
		They need to try to win the special elections that are going to be held for a couple seats in Congress.
		See if you can win those back.
		But America, when you vote, there are consequences.
		And when you leave the power of a person who has criminal tendencies unchecked and think that that person is the best person in this whole United States of America to run the nation, you are not helping your country.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Liz.
		We shared with all of you earlier at the top of the Washington Journal this article by the Washington Post that anti-Trump resistance begins to wake in earnest.
		After an initial period of stunned confusion, protesters are packing meetings, states are suing, and Democrats are preparing for a budget showdown.
		From the Washington Post reporting, they say that at town hall meetings, they are citizens are showing up in larger than expected numbers.
		Bernie Sanders held rallies in Republican districts in Iowa and Oklahoma.
		More people showed up than they expected.
		From the Washington Times reporting this morning, they say, Republicans are saying they're shrugging off these protests by anti-Doge activists, acknowledge that change is hard, but they think this is all just from Democrats.
		The House Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team have thrown cold water on the pushback Republicans received last week and shrugged off the backlash as a divisive play from Democratic activists.
		The video you saw of the town halls were paid protesters in many of those places.
		These were Democrats who went to the events early and filled up their seats.
		Johnson told CNN during an appearance on Wednesday.
		It says that a handful of progressive activist groups, including Indivisible, MoveOn.org, and the Working Families Party, teed up protesters around the country to criticize Republicans' support of Mr. Musk and Doge.
		From the Washington Times, reporting on these protests that we've seen around the country at town hall meetings, Republicans shrugging them off as Democratic activists.
		We're talking with Democrats only.
		Timbo in Mountain Home, Arkansas.
		What do you say?
		What does your party do here?
unidentified		Good morning, America.
unidentified		In the infamous words of our dictator-loving psychopath in the White House, you better fight like hell or you're not going to have the country left.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, David in Mitchell, South Dakota.
		David's in Mitchell, South Dakota.
		What do you say?
		Good morning.
unidentified		I oppose everything this man has done.
		I have opposed him since 2016, 2015, whenever, when he made fun of people with disabilities, he's not fit to be our president.
		I believe we've got a democracy.
		And hundreds of thousands of men fought for this democracy and died.
		And he's against everything.
		He's against everything we've ever fought for in this country.
		He sides with Russia and everything.
		He just went, we just voted with you and everything we voted for was with Russia.
		He is a disgrace to the country.
		And so is his Doge guy.
		His Doge guy is nothing but, I don't know what you call him.
		I see him out there that change.
		So I don't think he's got all these marbles.
		Maybe he does.
		But I'm against everything he does.
		And you ask about opposing what we can do.
		I think we're doing all we can.
		I mean, he's shutting down every.
		I understand.
		I agree with the Republican Party on several different things in line, but this isn't a Republican Party that I knew back in.
		I didn't agree with everything Reagan did, but Reagan, I agreed with the Republican Party.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		This man, to me, so David, you don't see any common ground with this president and this Republican Party today.
unidentified		No, I don't.
		I think the Republican Congress are scared to death of him and Musk.
		They'll do anything.
		I'm South Dakota, and I've got John Toom, Dusty Johnson, and Mike Rounds.
		And I think they're, to me, they're traitors to my state.
		They're traitors to the country.
		I don't think they've got, they don't have the backbone to stand up to watch our democracy go into just like Russia.
		If you watch everything he's done since he's coming in, it boils right down to night in the 1940s with Hitler.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		I'm going to pick up on David's comments on Russia and the war with Ukraine, front page of the Washington Times.
		Their headline says that Zelensky gains support at home as he's set to talk with President Trump today.
		Next to that headline, front page, Trump insists on Ukraine deal quickly or not at all.
		British Prime Minister Kirst Starmer pressed President Trump for a more substantial U.S. commitment to protecting Ukraine if the war ends and warned his U.S. counterpart that to reward the Russian president in any peace deal.
		Mr. Trump brushed aside those pleas in the Oval Office talks and a press conference insisting that it was now or never to negotiate an end to the brutal war.
		Mr. Zelensky will be at the White House today.
		He arrives at 11 a.m.
		There will be meetings between the two leaders and then they will hold a joint news conference at 1 p.m. Eastern Time.
		We will have live coverage of that news conference on C-SPAN, c-span.org, as well as our free video mobile app, C-SPAN Now.
		Then we will also hear from Mr. Zelensky again at 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
		He's going to be at the Hudson Institute and we will have coverage of that on C-SPAN as well.
		C-SPAN Now, that free video mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
		The Wall Street Journal this morning in their opinion pages, a mineral deal Ukraine can't refuse is what they argue.
		The agreement gives the U.S. a stake in the country's peaceful future.
		They note this, that Mr. Trump continues to peddle falsehoods about how much aid the U.S. and Europe have provided Ukraine.
		He claims the U.S. is in for $350 billion in Ukraine.
		But through December, the real U.S. total was nearly $120 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian support.
		He says Europe has given much less than the U.S., but it has spent or promised $137 billion.
		By the way, Mr. Trump on Thursday walked back his claim last week that Mr. Zelensky is a dictator.
		Press question: Do you still think Zelensky is a dictator?
		Mr. Trump, did I say that?
		I can't believe I said that.
		Next question.
		That welcome, if head-spinning, reversal is more proof that what matters isn't what Mr. Trump says, but what he does.
		That is especially true as the war negotiations begin in earnest between the U.S. and Russia.
		French and British leaders traveled to Washington this week to lobby Mr. Trump to provide a U.S. backstop for any European troops that deploy to Ukraine after a deal is struck.
		If the mineral deal makes Mr. Trump more inclined to provide that guarantee, so much the better for Ukraine, Europe, and the U.S. We're going to dig into this potential mineral deal later in the Washington Journal.
		So stay with us this morning.
		Our first hour here, though, Democrats only.
		What should your party do in response to the president's agenda?
		Find common ground or oppose.
		Chris in Burtonsville, Maryland.
		Good morning to you, Chris.
unidentified		Hey, how are you?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Doing well.
		Go ahead.
		What do you think your party should do?
unidentified		I oppose Trump.
		He's trying to cut money, right?
		But he's also having his agencies fund pro-Trump campaign propaganda ads on local TVs around Washington, D.C. and other areas.
		Upwards of $400 million in one case, a couple $100 million in other cases around the country.
		These are like Fahrenheit 451 or Big Brother type ads that pop on when I tip my TV.
		He has social media.
		He gets all that out there in the world.
		Now he's trying to get into everybody's homes and in their faces all the time.
		It is oppressive.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		So what does the party do?
		What do you want the leaders of the party, lawmakers in Washington and around the country?
		What do you want them to do?
unidentified		Call out what he does.
		If he goes out and spends a fortune golfing or traveling around the country for no particular reason, that's not saving the country money, call it out.
		Call out everything he does, every agency he has that wastes money and spends money on pro-Trump shenanigans.
		You got to call it out.
		You got to look.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		So Chris, who do you, tell me some names of Democrats, high-profile Democrats that you think are in the best position to call him out?
unidentified		Democrats have to bring up younger generations.
		Everybody knows that.
		That's the standard thing.
		You have to get younger people involved.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Can you think of any?
unidentified		There has to be new blood in there.
		I love Bernie.
		He's a great guy, good ideas.
		All these Republicans who oppose Trump have good ideas.
		Trump will do the opposite of whatever they do because he's contrarian.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, let me jump in and ask you because you said we need younger people, younger Democrats to stand up to the president.
		Here's the Washington Times.
		Alyssa Slotkin, who is the new Democratic senator from Michigan, has been tapped by her party to give the rebuttal to President Trump's address to a joint session of Congress next week on Tuesday, March 4th.
		Democrats have looked to elevate more of their bench after former President Biden's age and signs of decline.
		At age 48, Ms. Slotkin is young for a senator and 30 years younger than 78-year-old president.
		Party leaders also announced that Representative Espayad of New York will deliver the Spanish language response to the address.
		So what do you think about Senator Slotkin giving the Democratic response to the president's joint address to Congress?
unidentified		Anybody who has good ideas and good thoughts and is intelligent should be in there.
		Trump has issues.
		Ever look up oppositional defiant disorder, ODD, on Google it.
		You'll see what it means.
		It's a condition where the person does not like authority.
		He has to rebel against all authority.
		So Trump has to pick his enemies.
		He has to have enemies in order to have his minions have something to focus on.
		All right.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Chris' thoughts there in Maryland.
		Darnell in Philadelphia.
		We'll hear from you next.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I think that Democrats should stop being anti-Republican.
		I think Democrats need to learn how to be pro-Democrat.
		I'm on so many forums where everybody says 1930s Germany, and not one person will mention 1930s Roosevelt.
		I think Democrats have lost sight of public infrastructure, public education, public health, civilization itself.
		A civilization that went back to Abraham Lincoln.
		Lincoln, who not too many Republicans mention.
		Matter of fact, I see many, many forums of Republicans, and nobody mentions Abraham Lincoln.
		I think.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Darnell, who in your party can do what you're talking about doing?
		Not being, don't be anti-Republican, be pro-Democratic Party.
		So who should deliver that message?
unidentified		The last person who I heard was on July 27th, 2004, and it caught me completely by surprise when I heard for this tall black guy with a strange name.
		And he said, not the red states, not the blue states, but the United States.
		And at that moment, I remember that Republicans, they love to say America, America, America.
		And I was waiting for a Democrat to say the United States.
		And finally, I heard Barack Obama say the United States.
		And he came out of the blue.
		He came out of the blue because even though what I understand, people who knew him in Chicago, they knew this speech 200%, okay?
		They were like mouthing the words while the rest of America was shocked.
		The people in Chicago were like mouthing the words of the speech.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, so you think, so you think right now the party needs somebody to come out of the blue?
unidentified		Yes, because everybody I see is talking anti-Republican.
		Nobody has a clue about pro-Democrat.
		They completely forgot Roosevelt while they forgot 1930s Roosevelt while they blabber endlessly about 1930s Germany.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Darnell, you might be interested then in Gavin Newsom, the California governor, not coming out of the blue, but he's announced a new podcast this week on X, looking to talk with those he politically disagrees with.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Here is the introduction video.
gavin newsom ▲ ● ▼		We need to change the conversation, and that's why I'm launching a new podcast.
		And this is going to be anything but the ordinary politician podcast.
		I'm going to be talking to people directly that I disagree with, as well as people I look up to.
		But more important than anything else, I'll be talking directly with you, the listener.
		Real conversations.
unidentified		What's going on with the cost of eggs?
gavin newsom ▲ ● ▼		What are the impacts, real impacts to you around tariffs?
unidentified		What power does an executive order really have?
unidentified		And what's really going on inside of Doge?
gavin newsom ▲ ● ▼		Look, there's an onslaught of information that we take in.
		So let's take it to the sources without the typical political mumbo jumble.
		In the first few weeks, we're going to be sitting down with some of the biggest leaders and architects in the mega movement.
unidentified		This is Gavin Newsom.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.
		That's his approach to responding to President Trump, sitting down with those that support him and that he disagrees with.
		Do you think that is a good approach?
		We're talking with Democrats only this morning about your party's response to President Trump and his agenda.
		From the national newspapers this morning, the Washington Post, Judge Block's mass firings.
		A San Francisco federal judge on Thursday ordered the Office of Personnel Management to rescind directives that initiated the mass firing of probationary workers across the government, ruling that the terminations were probably illegal as a group of labor unions argued in court.
		These firings included National Park Service, the Defense Department, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Science Foundation, and others identified in the lawsuit.
		From the judge, this is a quote.
		The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees at another agency.
		They can hire and fire their own employees.
		So that's the front page of the Washington Post this morning on that.
		Related to the firings of federal workers, here's the metro section of the Washington Post here.
		D.C. unemployment claims jump amid federal job cuts.
		The claims were up 25% increase from the previous week and up fourfold compared with the same week a year ago.
		That's the metro section of the Washington Post this morning on the federal cuts seen by are under this Trump administration.
		We're asking the Democrats only this morning, how do you respond to moves like this from President Trump and his administration?
		Another headline to share with you and to react to, this is on the front page of most national newspapers this morning.
		The tariffs will start on Tuesday.
		25% of levies are planned for Canada and Mexico, another 10% for China.
		We'll talk about that in the economy coming up here on the Washington Journal with economist Mark Zandi.
		Michael, though, in Suffolk, Virginia, a Democrat, what do you think your party should do?
unidentified		Good morning, Case Man.
		Our party has to vote.
		Nobody in our party at this time can do anything.
		I don't know why you keep asking that question.
		It's nothing that the Democrats in office can do.
		It has to go through the courts.
		Everybody knows the courts is on Donald Trump's side, so we have to vote.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		And you mean vote in the 2026 midterms?
unidentified		2026 and 2028.
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		So you don't think there's anything the party can do until then?
unidentified		What?
		No.
		Everybody knows they can't do anything.
		If they could, it would have already been done.
		All they can do is go through the courts.
		All they can do is talk about it.
		You can't do anything but talk and go to the courts and vote.
		That's it.
		So I don't understand why that's your main question this morning.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, we're seeing because we're seeing protests around the country.
		People are showing up at town hall meetings for lawmakers, Republicans, and Democrats.
		Bernie Sanders holding rallies in Republican districts in Iowa and Oklahoma.
		You heard the governor of Michigan say, We all try to find common ground.
		You heard Bernie Sanders say we have to say no, no, no.
		That's why we're asking the question this morning.
		You're hearing from national Democratic leaders and their different tones on how to respond to the president.
		Lupe in California, what do you say?
		Good morning to you.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		This is what I say.
		And please give me some time.
		Hebrews 1:1.
		In various ways, he says, lies or the law.
		If you love the law, you hate the lies.
		Everybody that's listening, just remember who's still sitting on the throne.
		It's not God right now in the earth.
		The prince of peace that's running the earth is Satan.
		He's starting all this up, and he's using Trump.
		So just remember one thing: have peace inside of you with the word of God, with his promises.
		The lies are running this world right now.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Jeffrey in Kent, Ohio.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Jeffrey, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'd like to just ask my fellow Democrats, everyone, please take a big deep breath.
		I'm 70 years old.
		I remember Bobby Kennedy, George McGovern.
		I remember the Vietnam War.
		And I remember what it's like for literally millions of people to die needlessly.
		And again, this is what's happening in the Ukraine.
		There are millions.
		There's just people lying dead everywhere over there.
		That has to stop.
		And if people want to understand really what has happened in regards to the Ukraine, they need to listen to a professor by the name of Jeffrey Sachs.
		And he talks about what's led up to that war.
		And I think a lot of people don't know that.
		They don't understand it.
		On the border, the American people right now have very limited resources to allow 12, 15 million people to come across the border that has to draw upon those resources.
		We've hurt our inner cities.
		We've hurt the people in this country who are good Democrats, who need help.
		And there has to be some governance.
		There has to be some understanding.
		And for anybody that's worked in the private sector, people get laid off when there's money problems.
		I've been laid off several times in my life.
		I hated it.
		I didn't like it.
		But I understood the company that I worked for was having money trouble.
		And I think it's very clear right now that we are having money trouble.
		And I don't understand why people feel like as if Democrat, Republican, whatever you are, that you are entitled to a lifetime job without being laid off.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		So, Jeffrey, you're a Democrat because we're talking to Democrats only.
		A lifelong Democrat.
		So you think your party just needs to relax, wait and see?
unidentified		No, I think we need to go back and remember what the people that ran our party 40 years ago and 50 years ago, what their thoughts and what their ideals were.
		We've lost that.
		And then we had a lot of great people.
		By the way, even our opponents, Barry Goldwater, the Democrats got along with Barry Goldwater, Tip O'Neill with Reagan.
		We have lost that ability to laugh together, put our arms around each other, and find a way forward.
		And I would like to remind my fellow Democrats that NAFTA was brought on board by a Democrat.
		The removal of the Glass-Steagall Act was brought on board by Democrats after Glass-Steagall was put in place so that the banks couldn't invest in the stock market and take our money.
		I want everybody, and listen, of all colors, of all backgrounds, please take a big, deep breath.
		I know this guy's got some flaws, and I understand that.
		But we have to start to get things in order.
		Thank you so much.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		That's Jeffrey in Kenton, Ohio, to his message to his party.
		We're talking with Democrats only this morning.
		As we showed you in the Washington Post, their headline about anti-Trump resistance beginning to wake in earnest is their headline.
		And they note that the Democrats are resisting the president and Republicans over their budget framework, where they want to include the president's tax cuts from 2017.
		They want to pay for them by cutting spending across the federal government.
		President Trump was asked about cuts to spending, and here's what he had to say about benefits under Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
unidentified		The spending bill that passed last night aims to cut $2 trillion.
unidentified		Can you guarantee that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security will not be touched?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, I have said it so many times you shouldn't be asking me that question.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Okay, this will not be read my lips.
unidentified		It won't be read my lips anymore.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We're not going to touch it.
		Now, we are going to look for fraud.
		I'm sure you're okay with that.
		Like people that shouldn't be on, people that are illegal aliens and others, criminals in many cases.
		And that's with Social Security.
		We have a lot of people.
		You see that immediately when you see people that are 200 years old that are being sent checks for Social Security.
		Some of them are actually being sent checks.
		So we're tracing that down.
		And I have a feeling that Pam is going to do a very good job with that.
		But you have a lot of fraud.
unidentified		But no, I'm not, we're not doing anything on this.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		President Trump saying those programs, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, would not be touched with their spending cuts proposed by Republicans as they try to come together on a budget framework.
		House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York responded to a question at his news conference this week about how Republicans are denying that they're looking at Medicaid cuts.
		Here's what he had to say.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Republicans are lying to the American people about Medicaid.
		The Republican budget authorizes up to $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid by directing the Energy and Commerce Committee to find those spending cuts.
		Everybody knows who has had any connection to the congressional budget that if you are directing the Energy and Commerce Committee to find up to $880 billion,
		if not more, in spending cuts, that means Medicaid that will hurt children, hurt families, hurt everyday Americans with disabilities, and hurt seniors.
		I can't say it any other way.
		Republicans are lying.
		Prove me wrong.
		There's nothing more that I would like better, that we as House Democrats would like better, than for Republicans to prove us wrong, that they are not planning to cut Medicaid.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		The leader of the Democratic Party in the House, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, responding to the Republicans' claims that they won't touch Medicaid benefits.
		They won't be cutting them for people that are on that program.
		A budget showdown looms between the two parties as Republicans in the House and Senate have to reconcile their different frameworks before sending a proposal to the president for his signature.
		We're asking Democrats only this morning, how should your party respond to the president and Republicans.
		Chris in Easton, Maryland, good morning to you, Chris.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I would say oppose.
		Opposed all the way.
		I was a little shocked when the election happened.
		I would have thought there would have been some questioning at that point, but I think they chose the side of civility for the betterment of our country because there's too many people on the other side that are not stable.
		We've seen that on January 6th.
		Having said that, I also think that what we need to do is we need some new voices.
		You know, I'm 50 years old.
		I hope to have a retirement someday.
		And I'm tired of some of the people.
		I'm tired of the Chuck Schumers, the Nancy Pelosi's.
		And the reason why is because they've been beaten down.
		Like, Trump has just, you know, there's no decorum anymore.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		So, Chris, who's standing?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Tell us a new voice.
unidentified		I liked, I heard last night for the first time he was a straight shooter, Ruda Khan, I believe his name is, from California.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Rokana.
unidentified		Yes.
		Again, first time I ever heard him, seen his face.
		But he was very direct.
		And one of the callers back there said that we need people to call out Trump.
		And we absolutely do.
		The Schumers and all them, they just don't have that fire anymore.
		I'm 50 years old and I don't want to stand behind that.
		I'm hoping somebody else jumps up.
		I like a different type of partner.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What about Gavin Newsom?
unidentified		No, no.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Why not?
unidentified		No.
		Because he's been too exposed.
		He should have fought back when Trump started saying all this crap about him.
		Because there's too many people that think negatively about him.
		Justifiers alone, majority of the people in this country are stupid and they don't know.
		They don't think for themselves.
		They hear a clip of a news article that it was Gavin Newsom's fault and they just run with it.
		There's so many people that are really not in tune with what's going on.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Chris, let me ask you about Gretchen Whitmer.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What about her?
unidentified		I don't know too much about her to comment, so I don't really, you know, again, maybe the Democrats could do what I'm saying is get some new voices here, push these people out, get them exposed.
		Bernie Sanders, take her along with you.
		Take this woman along with you.
		Have her get a face.
		The thing with Trump is, you know, he's like a bad stain.
		You can't get him out.
		He just smears himself everywhere.
		And that's what he's done.
		And that's why, because, you know, these people that are really not in tune with things, you know, they stay, they just hear, they see that he, you know, he, how can you forget about him?
		He's in your face every day.
		It's disgusting.
		I mean, but what I really want to know is who are these people, these agencies that gave all these contracts to Musk?
		Didn't anybody at one point higher up look at how much money they were shelling out to one company alone?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Chris, I have to leave it there.
		We're at the top of the hour here on the Washington Journal this morning.
		We're going to take a break when we come back.
		Turn our attention to the economy.
		We're going to talk with Mark Zandy of Moody's Analytics.
		We'll discuss a new research, new research by him on how dependent the U.S. economy is on wealthy earners.
		And then later, Maya McGinnis of the Center for Responsible Federal Budget will discuss the House and Senate's approach to passing the 2025 budget.
		Stay with us here in the Washington Journal.
		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.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Joining us this morning is Mark Zandy, chief economist for Moody's Analytics, here to talk about the U.S. economy's growing reliance on high-income earners.
		Mark Zandy, talk about your research.
		What did you find?
		What is the headline?
unidentified		Well, Greta, good to be with you.
		Thanks for the opportunity.
		Well, the American economy is very dependent on the spending of the well-to-do, the folks in the top part of the income and wealth distribution.
		I mean, just to give you a stat to make that concrete, the folks in the top 10% of the income distribution account for almost 50% of the personal outlays that we do as consumers.
		That gives you a sense of context.
		And I know it obviously goes to the strength of their finances.
		Got a job, wage growth is strong, but they've been enjoying record stock prices, record housing values.
		They have any debt at all.
		It's a 30-year fixed rate mortgage.
		They locked in when rates were low.
		So they're sitting in a very good financial spot.
		And folks in the bottom part of the income distribution, the less well-to-do, lower-income households, they're struggling.
		Obviously, they don't own stocks.
		They may not own a home.
		They have credit card debt, consumer finance loans that they took on to try to maintain their purchasing power when inflation was raging.
		They have a job.
		That's really important.
		That's key to keeping things moving forward.
		But other than that, they're struggling with their finances.
		So very large differences between the folks at the top part of the distribution and the folks at the bottom part of the distribution.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		More from your report.
		As you said, the top 10% of U.S. earners, that's people who make $250,000 plus in their households, count for 49.7% of all spending, a record going back to 1989.
		This accounts for about, this was accounted for about 36% three decades ago.
		So that's the change right there.
		Mark Zandy, can you talk about that change?
unidentified		Yeah, that's a very significant change over the decades.
		And it does go to the ongoing so-called skewing of the income distribution and wealth distribution.
		simply folks that are doing well are doing better and better and better and taking a bigger share of the economic pie.
		That doesn't mean that wages and incomes haven't been rising for everyone else for middle-income households, lower-income households.
		It has.
		It just means that the share of that income, of that wealth, and of that spending has increasingly accrued to the folks at the top part of the distribution.
		You know, Greta, it also, there's a lot of, you know, obvious concerns about equity, but there's also concerns about what this means for the economy in that if the economy is so dependent on such a small group of folks, and that group of folks is so dependent on things like stock prices and housing values, it does give you a sense that the economy is somewhat vulnerable here if things don't stick to script.
		So when you're looking at the stock market, if it starts to go down, that poses a broader, mortal threat to the broader economy because of the impact that has on the well-to-do and the fact that the well-to-do account for such a large share of what's going on.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		How vulnerable?
unidentified		I think it's vulnerable.
		I think it's a concern.
		That's been brought into clear relief in the last few days.
		I don't know if you follow the stock market like I do, but a lot of red on the screen over the last few days and a lot of concern about the stock market.
		I mean, the market is very highly valued, richly valued.
		Prices are very high to the underlying corporate earnings that support those prices.
		And even in the stock market, the gains there are very concentrated.
		If you look at the stock, the companies that are driving the stock market, it's the big tech companies, the so-called magnificent seven.
		So not only is spending very dependent on a small group that's dependent on the stock market, but the stock market itself is very dependent on a few companies that are kind of driving the train here.
		So in my mind, that is a key vulnerability to the broader economy.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Mark Zandi, do you see bubbles in the economy that could pop, that could burst?
unidentified		I don't know.
		I go so far as to say it's a bubble.
		A bubble implies speculation that people are just buying simply because the price rose yesterday, therefore it will rise tomorrow.
		Maybe there's some of that creeping in.
		When I see, like, for example, President Trump issued a crypto coin soon after his inauguration, that the value of that jumped significantly.
		It's come back down, but it's still worth, last I looked, three, four billion dollars.
		I mean, and there's just no value there.
		There's just nothing.
		So that gives you a sense that things are what I'd call frothy, speculative, maybe bubble-like.
		I don't want to extrapolate that too far because if you go into the stock market, back into the stock market again, those companies I just mentioned, the tech companies that are driving the gains, they're real companies.
		They're joggernauts.
		They add real value.
		They're very profitable, highly profitable.
		The prospects are very good.
		So that's not consistent with the idea the market is in a bubble.
		I think it's more likely, you could argue, it's just very highly valued, richly valued, overvalued, maybe bordering on frothy, but speculative probably in a bubble is probably too far.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We're talking with Mark Zandy this morning, chief economist with Moody's Analytics.
		He's here to talk about the U.S. economy and this new report on high income earners.
		Here's how we've divided the lines this morning.
		If you make under $100,000, dial in this morning at $202,748, $8,000.
		If you make between $100,000 and $250,000, your line this morning is $202,748, 8001.
		And if you make over $250,000, that 10%, call us at 202-748-8002.
		We welcome your comments and your questions this morning.
		Mark Zani, before we get to calls, let's take some headlines this morning from the papers.
		The Wall Street Journal, U.S. vows to raise tariffs on three countries, Mexico, Canada, China.
		The China move slated to take effect Tuesday, along with the Canada and Mexico actions, doubles up on the previous 10% additional tariff Trumps Trump placed on China's products this month.
		There's that headline in the Wall Street Journal.
		And then there's this in the business finance section of the Wall Street Journal this morning.
		Tariff threats hit SP and NASDAQ.
		Fresh tariff threats and a tech sell-off drag stocks lower with the SP 500 surrendering the last of its gains for the year.
		Are the two tied in your opinion?
		And if so, why?
unidentified		Yeah, indeed.
		I do think that the tariffs are starting to spook investors.
		It's taken a bit of time for that to happen, Greta.
		I think investors thought, well, the president, when he was talking about tariffs, he didn't really mean that he would raise tariffs, at least not to the degree he's talking about now, or to the extent that he's talking about them now.
		But it does appear with each passing day and each passing announcement that the president's serious about this.
		We're going to see broad-based tariffs on lots of different countries, lots of different products over an extended period of time.
		And that's just really bad for business, bad for the economy.
		You know, it hit is a tax on American consumers.
		So we're all going to be paying more for those things that come from other countries.
		Everything from the food products we get from Canada and Mexico to the appliances and game consoles we get from China.
		So we're going to be paying more for that, and that hurts our ability to buy other things.
		It also is hard on businesses that import product to help them do whatever they do, whatever they produce, machine tools and materials and supplies.
		I mean, think, say you're a home builder and you need to bring in lumber from Canada.
		Well, you're going to be paying a lot more for that.
		It makes it much more difficult for you to build a home at an affordable price point.
		Or all the electrical equipment and other tools and things that come from Mexico that go into building that home, or the building materials and appliances that come from China that fill the home.
		All those things are now going to be more expensive.
		And then obviously there's going to be retaliation.
		Not clear to what degree.
		Some countries will retaliate tit for tat like China, others not so much.
		Maybe Canada will be a little bit more circumspect.
		But retaliation means that they're going to be raising tariffs on our products, what we send to them.
		They're going to put trade restrictions and that costs American jobs.
		And then, LN, as you can tell, I can go on and on and on here, but the uncertainty that this creates is really very pernicious.
		It's a corrosive.
		I mean, you know, tariffs on which countries, you know, which products over what period of time?
		These are done under executive order.
		So the president can change his mind tomorrow and change them.
		And if you're a business person trying to make an investment decision or a hiring decision, you need some clarity around this.
		You need some certainty around it before you're going to make those decisions.
		So, you know, you add that all up.
		It's just bad for business.
		And if it's bad for business, it's bad for the stock market.
		And if it's bad for the stock market, you know, as we were just talking about, it could be bad for the broader economy.
		All right.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Let's get to calls and our viewers.
		Brian in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
		Good morning to you.
		Making over $250,000.
		Brian, your question or comment.
unidentified		I wanted to comment on two issues the other brought up yet.
		That would be immigration in our housing market.
		We need to solve the housing market because they're not making land anymore.
		So that's part of the problem.
		Where to put the new houses?
		And people can't afford them because there's such a high demand.
		And I also wanted to point at immigration.
		You know, with the combination of globalization, extremely high immigration, we've essentially devalued average working Americans in real terms.
		We're devaluing the hourly rate of a worker in America, and people can't make it anymore.
		So I like to hear why we do not control immigration.
		I know we need some immigration is healthy, but too much of it is a problem.
		But we never frame it that way.
		It's always all or nothing, all or nothing.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Brian, we'll take those two issues.
		Mark Sandy, before you answer Brian on housing, I just want to share this headline with you.
		Again, the Wall Street Journal.
		Pending U.S. home sales hit new low in January.
		So take what he said and also respond to this headline.
unidentified		Yeah, he makes good points.
		Clearly on housing, we have a very severe shortage of homes.
		This has been a problem that's long in the making, goes all the way back to the financial crisis and the housing collapse a generation ago.
		We just not put up enough homes to meet the demand from all the households that have formed and will continue to form.
		And there's lots of different things going on.
		Part of the problem is zoning and permitting.
		Many communities across the country are very reticent to allow development in their communities, particularly in densely populated parts of the country where there is a lot of demand.
		So we need to work on that.
		Unfortunately, I don't think I've seen any real policy response.
		And I can't glean that from kind of the conversations going on in Washington today.
		It's really not a priority for lawmakers, at least ostensibly, at least at this point.
		That I think has got to change.
		If it doesn't change, it took us a generation to get into this housing shortage.
		It'll take us at least a generation to get out unless we get some support from lawmakers and try to bring down the cost of home building.
		But one thing, just tying us back to tariffs, I would say on the housing front, let's do no harm.
		And tariffs clearly do harm.
		They raise the cost of building a home.
		Just talk to the National Association of Home Builders.
		They're the trade group that advocates for the homebuilding industry.
		They make a very clear case that tariffs are a real problem.
		They add to the cost of constructing homes.
		If you have to raise the cost, it means it's unaffordable for many Americans.
		People just can't afford to buy them.
		So I do think this is a very significant issue.
		On immigration, I agree.
		I think we need to have a much more rational immigration system and policy.
		I mean, I do think controlling our borders is critical.
		I think that goes beyond economics.
		That's a national security issue.
		I think we've made a lot of progress there, beginning back with President Biden's executive order last summer, putting restrictions on asylum seekers.
		And that had a big impact by the time President Trump took office.
		And obviously, President Trump is really clamping down further on that.
		But having said that, I do think we need a lot immigrants and we need lots of immigrants of all skills across the board from folks that work in the agriculture and food processing industry to the folks that work in the healthcare industry at hospitals as elder and child caregivers to very sophisticated, highly educated individuals.
		I mean, just take going back to those tech companies we were talking about earlier, go take a look at the senior management of those companies.
		Many of them are immigrants that come to this country.
		We need immigration, but we need a rational immigration policy that aligns the immigrants that come into the country that they have the skills that are needed to drive our economy going forward.
		So there was a good, I'll end by saying there was some good legislation that was making its way through Congress last summer.
		A lot of bipartisan support for it.
		Some very conservative Republican senators were on board with the immigration reform.
		It looked like it might get through, but obviously it got nailed by the election process and never got through.
		But hopefully lawmakers will come back around and address this again because we do need immigration reform.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's go to John in Santa Paula, California.
		John, good morning to you.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Such an honor to talk to Mr. Zani.
		I'd like to talk about three points.
		One is I view the stock market similar to the grocery stores.
		The prices in the stock market expanded because there's just too much money in the economy.
		My second point concerns the 49% that do pay taxes.
		And what I see with the Trump tax cuts is that we're creating more billionaires.
		There's more billionaires today and more millionaires today than ever before.
		So you can lower the corporate taxes by 6% because as they would be paying 21%.
		So you add more, you lose 6% and you gain 21.
		And that's why, if you go to the CBO and you look at the budget histories, that's why the Trump tax cuts hit $4 trillion for the first time in revenues.
		They actually created revenues because they added more people who were paying taxes in that 49% range.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		John, I'm going to take those two because we've got a lot of people waiting to talk to Mr. Zandy.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		So Mark Zandy, if you want to start with the stock market and grocery prices, he tied those two together and then move on to the corporate tax rate and the first round of Trump tax cuts actually increasing revenue.
unidentified		Yeah, there are a lot of reasons why stock prices are up.
		I mean, one obvious is that American companies are doing well.
		Their corporate profits are very high.
		They did a really good job navigating through the pandemic.
		Sales have been strong.
		Their margins wide.
		They were also benefiting from low interest rates.
		They locked in the previously low rates, and that's been very helpful.
		So lots of different reasons why the stock market is high as it is.
		It's just gotten a little ahead of itself, which is not uncommon.
		This happens.
		I mean, it is a market, and people do take chances and risks.
		And so I think stock prices have gotten ahead of themselves, ahead of those strong corporate earnings.
		But fundamentally, the reason why stock prices are up is because American companies are, certainly the companies that are being publicly traded are doing quite well.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		And on his second point about corporate tax rates being lowered under the first Trump administration tax spill and that increasing revenues to the Treasury Department.
unidentified		Yeah, here I'm not on board with that.
		I mean, I like tax cuts like anybody else.
		I have no problem with tax cuts.
		But I do think they need to be paid.
		If we're going to give tax cuts to businesses or to individuals, we need, certainly in the context of our large budget deficits and debt, we need to pay for them.
		And I don't think the corporate tax cuts that were put into place under President Trump in his first term, that they were paid for.
		The caller called out the Congressional Budget Office CBO, the folks, the partisan group that does the budgeting for the government.
		And if you go take a look at their work, it's not consistent with the idea that those tax cuts were paid for, just the opposite.
		So, you know, I think I'm all for lower tax rates.
		Think they're key, but I think we need to actually figure out ways to pay for them if we are going to provide those kind of tax cuts.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Jesse in Milwaukee, good morning to you, making under $100,000.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Your turn.
unidentified		Yeah, I just got one question, and it goes back to what he was talking about before, which is that the tech stocks are the stock that are really hot and they're making a lot of money.
		But it also sounds like he was going to say there's no diversity within this.
		Could you elaborate a little bit more on that?
		All right.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Mark Zandi.
unidentified		Yeah, you've heard the Magnificent Seven.
		So there's seven technology stocks.
		You know, everyone from like NVIDIA who's benefiting from selling all the chips related to the boom in artificial intelligence to Apple to Meta, those companies are kind of driving the stock market.
		You know, if you look at the increase in the value of stocks overall, a big chunk of that is those companies.
		Having said that, though, if you look at the rest of the stock market, everybody else and the hundreds of thousands of other companies with publicly traded stocks, they're also doing well.
		It's just not nearly as well as those juggernauts, those large companies, tech companies that have done fabulously well.
		So the market is top heavy.
		The Magnificent Seven driving the train, and that is a risk.
		That adds to the concerns that we were talking about earlier about concentration, relying too heavily on a few companies and the well-to-do.
		But the stock market has done well more broadly.
		If you look across the entire market, all companies, well, at least most companies that have publicly traded stocks have done quite well.
		Businesses has been good.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Mark Zandi, what do you make of headlines recently about Warren Buffett hoarding cash?
		And then there's this one.
		Is Warren Buffett selling before a stock market crash?
unidentified		Yeah, well, that goes back to my point about valuation, you know, overvalued, bordering on frothy.
		I suspect Warren Buffett's seen the same things.
		And historically, what he's done is when people are really optimistic and driving up stock prices and it looks like stock prices are getting overvalued and frothy and some signs of speculation creeping in.
		You mentioned the word bubble, people start talking about that.
		That's when he tends to pull back, right?
		And raises more cash and this just waits.
		And historically, he's been obviously rewarded by doing that, that patience.
		It's hard to do.
		It's really hard to do because you see the stock price rising every day and you go, you know, you get a FOMO.
		You worry about missing out.
		But he's very good at that, a very disciplined investor.
		And ultimately, the market goes down because if it gets overvalued by definition, it's too highly priced relative to the underlying value of the companies that support it.
		And the market goes down.
		And that's when he buys and he steps in.
		So it's really, as you can tell, many people are up to that ability to do that and have that patience and discipline and understanding and careful, how careful an investor he is.
		But that's what he's telling us.
		He's saying, look, the markets are highly, richly valued.
		And I'm going to step away like I've done in the past.
		And I expect I'll have an opportunity here in the not too distant future.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Andrew in Ormond Beach, Florida.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Good morning to you, Andrew.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I got a strange question, actually.
		Does the economy that is relying on high-income earners Benefit or detract from people like us, lower income earners.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, Andrew's calling in on the line for under $100,000.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Mark Zandy?
unidentified		Yeah, not an odd question at all.
		It's a great question.
		And I've got a great affinity for Ormond Beach.
		You know, my wife is from Ormond, so great, great, great place.
		Great beaches.
		Well, no, it's not detracting.
		And I'm speaking in aggregate, not for any specific individual or smaller group, but in aggregate.
		All of our incomes have been rising.
		And we got nailed back a couple, three years ago when inflation took off.
		Our purchasing power, many people's purchasing power, all of our purchasing powers declined.
		And it really is very hard on folks with lower incomes.
		But we made it back.
		We're still paying higher prices for things, but wage growth has been stronger than the rate of inflation over the past couple of years.
		So we're all starting to catch up.
		So everyone is benefiting and participating in the economy's success over the last couple of years, couple of three years, since we've kind of broken free from the pandemic and the ill effects of the Russian war in Ukraine.
		But the folks in the top part of the income distribution, the well-to-do, the folks with higher incomes and more wealth, they've benefited more.
		If you look at the totality of their financial situation, it's improved a lot more than anybody else's financial situation.
		So it's not like their success is diminishing everyone else's success, but they are just much more successful, if that makes sense.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Mark Zandy, your thoughts on the impact of federal employees losing their jobs and federal freezing of funds.
		This is a headline in the Metro section of the Washington Post.
		DC unemployment claims jump amid federal job cuts, up 25% increase from the previous week and up fourfold compared with the same week a year ago.
		Could this trigger a recession, these moves by the Trump administration, or if not nationally, local recessions?
unidentified		Yeah, it depends on how I'm nervous about what I'm observing.
		Look, I'm all for taking a good hard look at what government is doing to make sure that it's doing things well, efficiently, properly, just like every business in America does, you know, continually.
		You know, I'm a business person and I do that in my daily business life.
		I'm looking for ways to make sure that I'm operating as efficiently as possible and everyone's doing the kinds of things they should be doing when they should be doing it.
		And we're all executing.
		That's fair game and that's appropriate and that's what we should be doing in the federal government.
		But I do worry that what we're observing now is just quite haphazard.
		It's not surgical.
		It looks like it's when you pull out chainsaws, that doesn't give you the sense that there is careful thought as to what's going on and how things are being done.
		And it makes people nervous.
		The fact that things seem so capricious.
		And I don't think that's conducive to those folks or to the broader economy or to the regional economies in which these folks are living and working in.
		So I don't, I think it's a great thing that the lawmakers are taking a good hard look at the way we're operating the government.
		We should be doing that all the time.
		I just worry about the way it's being done.
		The other thing I worry about, and here I say this with less confidence, you know, some things I'm very confident in here, I'm less confident.
		But I do worry about, you know, that we cut jobs and funding for things that ultimately are going to be really impactful because we don't have the people that we need or we don't have the funding that's appropriate.
		You know, from air traffic control to food and drug to environmental issues and climate to just tracking the weather systems.
		I mean, these are things that, you know, government does, and we absolutely need them.
		And we've got to make sure that when we strive for efficiency, we don't undermine the ability of the government to provide the services that are necessary for a well-functioning economy.
		And also for the private sector and American businesses, they rely very heavily on good weather reports and making sure the transportation system is safe and works well and all this kinds of things.
		So that makes me nervous.
		I worry about that.
		And I'm not the only one.
		You can tell, you can see it in kind of sentiment out there.
		People are anxious about how this is unfolding.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Mark Zandi, the chief economist with Moody's Analytics.
		You can go to economy.com.
		You can follow him on X at MarkZandi.
		Learn more about his recent report on the U.S. economy's growing reliance on high-income earners.
		Mr. Zandi, thank you very much for the conversation as always this morning.
unidentified		Yeah, anytime, Brett, I love talking with the folks, so anytime.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, we appreciate the conversation as well.
		We're going to take a break when we come back.
		Committee for Responsible Federal Budget President Maya McGinnis will discuss the House and Senate plans for the 2025 budget and what it will mean for the fiscal outlook.
		And then later, President Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky will meet in Washington today, reportedly to sign a deal for Ukraine's minerals.
		We'll be back to talk about that later in the Washington Journal, digging into the minerals inside Ukraine.
		Stay with us.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		Tuesday night, 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, 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.
		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.
		Sunday on C-SPAN's Q&A.
		We'll talk with National Geographic Explorer Tara Roberts, who travels the world documenting underwater wrecks of some of the 12,000 slave ships that operated during the Atlantic slave trade.
		In her memoir, Written in the Waters, Roberts discusses the training and preparation required to undertake the diving missions and the work done by the nonprofit organization Diving with a Purpose, which is primarily composed of African-American divers.
		When I saw this picture in the museum, these women, and it turned out that they were a part of this group called Diving with a Purpose, and that they spent their time searching for and documenting slave shipwrecks around the world.
		I was like, oh my God.
		There are people who look like me who are living a life of adventure.
		Maybe this could be for me too.
		Tara Roberts with her book, Written in the Waters, Sunday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app.
		Washington Journal continues.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We want to welcome back to the Washington Journal Maya McGinnis.
		She's the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
		Maya McGuinness, let's begin with what was passed by House Republicans this week on a narrow vote by party lines with only one Republican voting in opposition.
		Their House budget resolution includes $4.5 million, trillion, excuse me, trillion in tax billions.
		That's important.
		$2 trillion in spending cuts, $100 billion in new spending on immigration enforcement and the military would raise the debt limit by $4 trillion and requires the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in cuts to federal programs, possibly from Medicaid.
		What will this do to our fiscal outlook, Maya McGinnis?
unidentified		Morning, it's nice to be with you and always happy to be talking about budgeting.
		So taking a step back, this process is going to be a multi-step process because you have the House working on one end and the Senate working on the other end.
		They were coming at this passing a budget in different approaches.
		And importantly, neither of them is focusing on the overall big picture budget.
		Both of them have focused on budgets that unlock the very powerful tool of reconciliation, which allows Congress to pass something with it will be just with Republicans.
		They won't need Democrats to help with the voting.
		So what we saw out of the House Budget Committee and then the full House, and it was a nail biter of a night.
		It did not look like this budget resolution was going to pass.
		And then at the very last minute, it did.
		Sounds like from with some arm twisting from the president.
		Overall, this is a budget that would cut taxes very significantly, like you said, by $4.5 trillion and would have spending cuts or offsets of one and a half or up to two trillion dollars.
		So what does that leave?
		That leaves a lot of borrowing because there's also a couple hundred billion in spending.
		That leaves about $2.8 trillion in new borrowing, in new debt that we would add.
		So from our perspective, and we are a nonpartisan group that is worried about the deficits and debt in this country, that doesn't make any sense at all.
		This is a moment when our debt is at near record levels.
		It's almost as large as a share of the economy as it was right after World War II.
		Our interest payments are the second largest item in the budget.
		They are larger than national defense, and they are the fastest growing item in the budget.
		And the point that I would make, particularly with the backdrop of inflation and strong economic growth, we should not be passing any bills whatsoever that add to the national debt.
		This is a moment where we should be taking steps to reduce the debt.
		So, anything that falls short of that is not fiscally responsible.
		$2.8 trillion, very, very far from fiscally responsible.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Explain how the debt impacts inflation.
unidentified		Yeah, and I'll also explain how it affects households, if that's okay, because it is one of those issues where it's like, okay, sounds like it's not a great thing, but why should I care about the national debt?
		And that's one of the big challenges of these issues: that it doesn't feel very personal.
		But when we're borrowing too much, and by all metrics and accounts, we are right now, that has negative effects on the economy.
		It is squeezing out private investment.
		It slows economic growth.
		It slows wages.
		It slows our standard of living.
		And if you put too much borrowing into the economy, it can lead to inflation because you're creating too much demand for too little supply.
		We had very, very high levels of inflation a few years ago.
		That was the result of three things: excessive borrowing that came right after COVID from the American Rescue Plan, supply chain problems from COVID, where we weren't able to get the inputs that we needed, and energy shocks.
		Those three things combined to have very high levels of inflation.
		Right now, inflation is still above where the target is for it to be.
		It hasn't come down to 2%.
		Looks like it could go back up again.
		And certainly, if we put more stimulus in the economy, every dollar that we borrow pushes prices up to some extent.
		Every dollar that we reduce deficits hopefully will help the Fed do the work of bringing inflation back down.
		It also has negative effects or positive effects.
		It also pushes up interest rates.
		So you have inflation.
		When you're fighting inflation, that pushes up interest rates.
		That means things that you are borrowing for, whether it's credit cards, mortgages, car loans, any of those things become more costly as well.
		We've seen that in the mortgage market and lots of other places that affect households.
		So it has lots of effects on the economy, even though it's not something that people see and understand the direct connection on a daily basis.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What about Republicans' efforts to cut spending, though, to help pay for these tax cuts?
unidentified		Yeah.
		So it's interesting because more so than ever, I think saying Republicans as though there's one point of view is not going to capture the nuance of what's going on.
		So in this budget battle from the House, there have been really two very adamant sides of the debate.
		One, I will call the fiscal conservatives, those who want to borrow less and those who want to spend less.
		And they were pushing for more spending cuts.
		They like tax cuts, but many of them are concerned that the tax cuts should be too large compared to the spending cuts.
		They wanted to push up more spending, both again to reduce borrowing and to bring the government spending down.
		Then there are, I will say, the moderates who are very concerned about the direction.
		So when you have a reconciliation bill, you're telling different committees they have to find a certain amount of savings.
		They've been very concerned about the levels of savings they are going to have to find, particularly in the areas of probably Medicaid, possibly Medicare.
		There's been deep concerns about that amount of spending cuts.
		I'll put the number in context.
		If we save, let's say $2 trillion, so they're required in the budget resolution to save $1.5 trillion.
		And then there was another add-on, which says, actually, we're going to bring that up to $2 trillion.
		So it's going to be one and a half and $2 trillion.
		Over the same time period, we will be spending $86 trillion.
		So, and I should just say, sort of my perspective, again, political independent, we're a bipartisan group.
		Where I sit, we shouldn't be doing a single thing before we're putting together a debt deal.
		So I would make the case we need to have a lot of spending cuts.
		They shouldn't just be in one area of the budget.
		We should be looking at every single area of the budget.
		We also need to be increasing taxes, not decreasing them.
		I know these are all the things that people don't like and politicians don't like, but that's how you fix huge budget deficits and debt.
		And so I would argue that the $2 trillion in spending cuts is really a tiny amount out of the $86 trillion that we will be spending over the same time period.
		We need to find much, much more in terms of savings.
		But I would use it to reduce deficits rather than cutting taxes with the goal of fiscal responsibility.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What you're talking about would take bipartisan support.
		Republicans and Democrats have been reluctant to look at the drivers of our nation's debt and deficits.
		What are they?
unidentified		Yeah, what I'm talking about would require bipartisan support and hard budget choices.
		We don't see much of that on anything.
		We see bipartisan support when we're borrowing.
		There's one exception, which is we did have the Fiscal Responsibility Act recently, which was the last time we had to increase the debt ceiling.
		They also attached something called the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which put in spending caps.
		And that saved one and a half to $2 trillion.
		Really, not enough to get us where we need to go, but a tremendous first step.
		Again, it was only one part of the budget.
		It was the discretionary portion of the budget, and that's not where the big growth is.
		We'll go to that.
		But that was something worth saying, okay, Congress did something difficult and they put in spending caps.
		Those caps will be coming to an end at the end of the year.
		And there was the suggestion that they increase them for another four years.
		I would suggest that they do that.
		It would make a lot of sense.
		It forces them looking in the discretionary area of the budget for where they might find savings.
		But is that the problem with the overall federal budget?
		It is not.
		If you look at the growth in the budget, you can just see that sort of the estimates and our projections, growth is absolutely concentrated in the other portion of our budget, which is called mandatory.
		And those are the areas that grow.
		They don't go through the appropriations process every year.
		They're on automatic pilot, meaning if people qualify for those programs, they will receive the benefits.
		The biggest drivers of our debt by far are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other health care programs, and interest on the debt.
		Again, interest is the single fastest growing of all of them.
		If we are going to get a handle on our out-of-control fiscal situation, and I would argue we need to not just for the economic reasons we discussed a minute ago, but it is a grave national security threat.
		And I could talk more about that.
		But right now, it is undermining our strength on the global stage, the fact that we are as indebted as we are and dependent on borrowing from elsewhere.
		If we are going to truly watch our leaders govern in a fiscally responsible way, we are going to have to fix Social Security, which is headed towards insolvency in about a decade.
		When that program hits insolvency and the trust funds don't have the money to pay full benefits, there will be automatic across the board cuts of 22% for all beneficiaries.
		That's crazy.
		That's crazy that there are people who depend on the program right now, where our politicians of all sides are saying, I promise not to touch Social Security, I promise not to fix it, when exactly what we should be doing is fixing it.
		And there are lots of ways to do that.
		We can certainly do it while protecting current beneficiaries.
		They don't need to be affected at all.
		But we need to make changes going forward, whether it's lifting the payroll tax cap, increasing the retirement age for young workers, changing the way we calculate benefits for the well-off.
		There's a variety of choices.
		There's no right or wrong answer, but we have to do something.
		Likewise, we have to make changes on Medicare.
		And just, you know, the political promises across the board are, I promise not to touch these programs.
		Anybody who cares about their well-being should be saying, don't promise not to touch them.
		Tell me how you're going to fix them.
		Because when those trust funds become insolvent for Social Security and Medicare, there will be across the board benefit cuts and provider cuts unless there are legal changes that are made.
		And I think every leader who is ignoring this issue is ignoring their fiduciary responsibility as someone who oversees these programs.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Let's get to calls.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Gina?
unidentified		Oh, I'm sorry.
		Can I make one other thing before some caller calls up and yells at me for saying you need to touch Social Security, Medicare?
		And they're definitely going to yell at me for that because my dad will probably call and yell at me.
		But it is the truth.
		We do need to make changes.
		We can protect people and make thoughtful changes.
		But at the same time, we cannot fix this program from spending alone.
		We are also going to have to raise taxes.
		We should probably look at the $20 trillion in tax breaks or lost revenue over the next budget window, 10-year period, where we could generate tons of savings.
		But to be very clear, you cannot fix this problem from spending cuts or tax increases alone.
		The problem is really large.
		It takes about $8 trillion in savings.
		And I know it's hard to identify with what a trillion is, but keep in mind the biggest budget deal we had recently, we had $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction.
		We need about $8 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years just to keep the debt as a share of GDP from growing overall past where it is at about 100% of GDP.
		And ultimately, we should get it much lower.
		That's only half of what you'd need to actually balance the budget.
		So we have a lot of savings that we need to be searching for.
		And again, we shouldn't be talking about tax cuts or spending increases.
		We should be talking about debt deals to get control of this, looking at every single part of the budget.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's go to Gina in Alabama, Republican.
		Hi, Gina.
unidentified		Hi, Greta.
		Hi, Maya.
		Maya, I'm not going to scream at you because you have some good points, exactly what I was going to say, raised the cap above $176,100 and the other solutions to Social Security.
		But my question is, why in the world back in the last CR or whatever they did, they passed $20 billion a year coming more out of Social Security, making people more eligible to get the WEP that Reagan had took out years ago.
		Now, that's ridiculous.
		And I looked at the vote count and it was overwhelming bipartisan.
		Now, they always say they can't touch Social Security.
		They can't do anything.
		They've already done it.
		That's going to cost us $200 billion over the next 10 years.
		But I do agree with everything you said, the means testing, leave the existing beneficiaries alone and everything.
		But thank you so much.
		I feel like I'm spitting in the wind.
		I call and say the same thing over and over and over, Greta.
		But y'all have a very blessed day.
		Thank you very much.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Gina, Maya McGinnis may relate to that last comment of spitting into the wind.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Maya McGinnis, you've been at this for a long time.
unidentified		I was going to say, I'm with you.
		I feel like that completely all the time.
		Thank you.
		Thank you for the call and clearly a very informed caller.
		And I was actually going to put a question out to any caller who wants to answer it, but I'll do that at the end.
		But yes, at the end of last year, so we have something on our website called the debt thermometer.
		And what we do is we follow every year how much Congress and the president have signed into law that would increase the overall debt and deficits.
		And most years, it's kind of astronomically high.
		It's very depressing.
		Again, around the Fiscal Responsibility Act, it actually showed improvements.
		That was great.
		Last year, we were on track to do really well until the end of this whirlwind spending deal where what happened was WebGPO, there was something in it that was going to give additional benefits to some Social Security beneficiaries who basically collect money from Social Security and private pensions.
		There is a lot of confusion about how this works, but a lot of state and local workers don't pay into Social Security at some points and pay into private pensions.
		This affects the way their benefit is calculated.
		For many people, it provides windfalls.
		So, there was an attempt to get rid of those windfalls in the past.
		It was imperfect.
		And then at the end of this year, there was a plan that would say, nope, we need to give everybody back those additional benefits, even if it ups the windfalls again.
		A lot of people in the House, they passed in the House.
		And frankly, I talked to a lot of members and I said, What are you doing?
		Why are you doing a quote-unquote fix that doesn't fix the problem that will cost $200 billion, which will add an incredible amount to the national debt and will make Social Security's insolvency hit us even sooner?
		So it will make those trust funds become insolvent even sooner because it's draining funds out of them.
		And a lot of members of Congress said, Don't worry, it's a messaging bill.
		This will not happen.
		Well, that's not true.
		It did happen.
		They ended up passing this.
		There were many mistakes around this.
		Many people didn't intend to because it's frankly very blunt policy and it doesn't get the job done.
		There were alternate bells that were out there that made much more sense.
		They should have been the ones that we adopted, and it was a big mistake.
		And the reason is the power of the seniors lobby, the power of the seniors lobby.
		If AARP says to a member, I'm going to phone bank, I am going to go against you just for saying that you want to fix this program or you're not going to give even more benefits, despite the fact that giving more benefits weakens the program.
		And I would have said the long run, but it's not that long now.
		AARP has a lot of power.
		And it is to the detriment of our overall budget.
		What we have right now is a regular willingness of Congress to act to give more in benefits in Social Security or Medicare without fixing the programs.
		We should be doing them all at once.
		There are places we should definitely think about shoring up the programs, but we should do it comprehensively.
		And the result is we have a federal budget where we spend $6 per senior on every one where we spend, we spend on people, kids under 18.
		And that is the power of certain lobbying groups in this country.
		And if I think if you asked anybody, is that the right way to divide resources in a country?
		Should we be making more investments in people over 65 or under 18?
		I don't think they would say the right ratio is six to one.
		And so I think we need to think about it.
		I think we need to look at how we allocate our budget.
		I think we need to look at the power of interest groups.
		And instead of saying, if I would think the ARP, if they're really protecting their members, should be out there saying, hey, these programs are about to go insolvent.
		When they do, there will be across the board benefit and provider cuts.
		We have to do something to protect our constituents, seniors.
		And I don't understand why they are unwilling to go out and push for the actual reforms that should be the top of the agenda these days.
		And the question I was going to ask: any caller who wants to, as I'm thinking about this budget resolution we were talking about, I'm really interested.
		Do callers think there's basically three choices with this?
		Should we not cut taxes or not cut them by as much?
		And to be clear, this is just a continuation of an existing tax cut.
		Many of these tax cuts are expiring because when they put the bill in place, they didn't want to have the cost be as high.
		So they said, oh, they will expire.
		Now the decision is whether to extend them or not.
		Do people want to extend and have more tax cuts, either $4.5 trillion or maybe a less amount?
		So do they want to have fewer tax cuts?
		Do they want to have more in spending?
		Or do they want to borrow?
		Do they want to add this to the debt?
		I'm really, I'm curious how people see the issue.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's pose it to them.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We'll go to Jeffrey in Plains, Ohio, Independent.
unidentified		Yes, I just have a quick question.
		Just as an ordinary citizen, rather layman, an economist, Stephanie Kelton, who wrote the book, The Deficit Myth.
		And she basically argues that deficit spending, federal deficit spending, is healthy for the economy, that it is not merely a matter of red ink that is accrued with deficit spending.
		It becomes black ink because it's the federal government, through its currency pumping, putting more money into the economy, enriching the economy uh, without relying on taxes to pay for it, so that deficit spending in a large part becomes healthy.
		It helps stabilize the economy.
		And she cites as one example, because she had a TED Talk that she did several years ago, that she points out the fact that the shortest recession in the history of the United States was as we came out of the pandemic,
		the COVID pandemic, and the extra money that the federal government put into the economy to help us get through the recession that we would have experienced as a result.
		of COVID.
		So I just wonder the degree to which deficit spending becomes a healthy activity for the stabilization of the United States economy.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right Jeffrey let's, let's pose that question.
unidentified		Yeah uh, wouldn't it be great if that were true?
		There are.
		There are so many budget myths out there that we would all love if they were true.
		This one is basically, don't worry, print money, because we borrow in our own currency.
		There's not going to be a problem.
		We won't default.
		It was a very short recovery from a deep recession, but it was one where we had inflation at 9.1 percent.
		Right, we overstimulate the economy.
		One of the problems of excess borrowing is that you cause inflation, and we saw that it's very, very painful for households.
		It's very painful for people whose money gets inflated away.
		People used to say oh, don't worry, you can kind of inflate deficits away.
		That's not the case at all.
		When our treasuries one-third of them are short-term and they would turn over in less than a year, that leads to higher and higher interest payments.
		That is part of why our interest payments are growing so quickly and squeezing out all other areas of the budget.
		There is no sensible way where you should say, don't worry, we can just keep printing money where this does not end in very high inflation.
		And it's just one of the many budget myths that people put out there because they want to justify not doing the hard work of budgeting.
		It's the same thing as people who make the case tax cuts pay for themselves.
		No, they don't.
		No, they don't even come close to paying for themselves.
		Tax cuts grow the economy and they create enough growth to pay for maybe 20 25 percent of the lost revenue from a tax cut, depending on on what the structure is, but they don't pay for themselves.
		And if we keep listening to these myths which are, don't worry, print money, it will pay for itself, you hear that on the spending side too, or oh, this program is so important, we shouldn't pay for it.
		That's how you end up with near record levels of debt at a time when uh, we haven't fought a world war like we did last time, at a time when it keeps our budget, and so if You do that, if you keep borrowing more money, your interest pays, your interest payments for the federal budget, which are almost $8 trillion right now, every year and growing, those push out other things.
		They're pushing out other things right now at an incredibly important moment.
		Our economy is changing massively because of technology and innovations and changes in the global front from first globalization, then deglobalization.
		You need the government to be able to help deal with the disruptions that are going to happen.
		Whether we like them or not, there are going to be massive structural changes in the economy.
		You need the federal government to have the fiscal flexibility to respond and to work with those changes to help ease people through them.
		Likewise, it's a much more dangerous place than we had understood at all in the world.
		Our adversaries are more aggressive.
		There are global hotspots.
		The U.S. needs to have the flexibility to determine our national security posture, not being constrained by growing interest payments on the debt.
		And so that's what we have because we borrowed trillions of dollars when people said, don't worry, be happy.
		It's great.
		It's a permission slip to politicians who say, oh, thank goodness, I don't have to pay for this.
		And there are arguments on both sides.
		If something sounds too good to be true, it is there's a basic premise of budgeting, and it does apply to the federal government, which has the ability to tax, but it is either you have to raise those taxes or you have to reduce the spending so that we're not borrowing so much every year that our interest payments are going to spiral and continue to grow and push out other parts of the budget.
		That's where we are now.
		It is unsafe.
		It leaves us vulnerable.
		It is hard work to fix it.
		And so a very polarized political class is not jumping in and making the changes we need.
		But no, there's no free lunch.
		I wish there were.
		There's absolutely not.
		And we'll do a lot of damage if we continue to fall for some of those kinds of arguments.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's hear from Jimmy in Buffalo, New York.
		Democratic caller.
		Hi, Jimmy.
unidentified		Hi, Maya.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Jimmy, go ahead with your question or comment, please.
unidentified		Yes.
		Just wanted to make a quick comment on this chainsaw balancing act of a budget.
		You mentioned a little while ago about Social Security.
		I receive Social Security disability.
		I'm 65 years old.
		What can the president do?
		What type of changes can he make?
		And what type of changes can he not make?
		Does he have to go through Congress?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Jimmy, let's take that question.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Maya McGinnis.
unidentified		Yeah, you are asking the very question that I wish I had all the answers to right now.
		We are certainly watching a moment where the president, the executive, is trying to do a lot of policy changes through that branch and that branch alone.
		And you need to talk more.
		We need to have legal experts who are explaining this more than I am able to.
		But there are many things.
		We saw this in the last administration too with pushing the limits that in that case, it was mainly focused on student debt forgiveness.
		But Congress needs to be a partner in any of these big ticket issues, particularly for programs that originated out of Congress.
		If something started as an executive action, you can make those changes from the White House.
		But if something came and originated from Congress, you cannot make changes to the program.
		You cannot redirect the funds or withhold the funds except in small, isolated examples.
		We are right now finding out where the courts are going to find those land, but it seems that the effort that we're seeing is definitely getting ahead of where Congress needs to be.
		Congress needs to re-engage and say, okay, if all of these savings are there, how are we going to do this?
		Is it through rescissions?
		Are we going to alter our discretionary caps and agree with those savings, not agree?
		But you cannot make major structural changes from the executive branch alone.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		A couple of headlines I want to share with our viewers as we end here, Maya McGinnis, because it's related to what we've been talking about.
		NBC, CNBC, with the headline about inflation, Fed's favorite core inflation measure hits 2.6 in January, as expected.
		This just came out, and the numbers are in line with Down Jones consensus estimates and likely will keep the central bank on hold for the time being regarding interest rates.
		And then a second headline I want to share with our viewers coming out of Capitol Hill this week: lawmakers start work on a year-long funding patch, a continuing resolution for the year, is what they are working on as the Republicans in the House and the Senate work out their 2025 budget plans.
		Maya McGinnis, we have to leave it there.
		We're all out of time, but we appreciate the conversation as always with you.
		Thank you for being with us.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		Thanks a lot.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		And we're going to take a break when we come back next.
		Gracelin Boscaron of the Center for Strategic and International Studies will discuss key aspects of the proposed minerals deal between the United States and Ukraine.
		stay with us.
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.
		Tuesday night, 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, 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.
		Washington Journal continues.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Joining us this morning is Gracelyn Baskarin.
		She is at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
		She's their program director that looks at critical minerals security here to talk about this proposed U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal.
		President Zelensky will be in Washington today.
		He'll arrive at the White House in a couple of hours, and then there will be negotiations that happen behind closed doors between President Trump and Mr. Zelensky over minerals in Ukraine.
		Big picture.
		What minerals are in the country of Ukraine and what is their status?
unidentified		Ukraine has a whole basket of minerals.
		It is a country that occupies about 0.4% of the world's land, but is estimated to have about 5% of the world's minerals.
		So we have everything from coal and uranium, which are more on the energy side, to rare earths, which we will probably talk about further, which are used for defensive technologies, advanced semiconductors, titanium, graphite, really has a basket of resources.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Aluminum as well.
		So what is their status, though, right now?
		The country has obviously, as we know, been in war for three years with Russia.
		So are these minerals able to be extracted right now?
unidentified		So it's a lot of untapped potential.
		And actually, the majority of minerals that were mapped in Ukraine were done so 30 to 60 years ago by the Soviet Union.
		And there's a couple of challenges this poses to the right now story.
		So first of all, before we can mine something, we need to know what's there.
		And that's actually going to depend on whether the private sector even wants to mine it.
		It's common here in the U.S. to have minerals, but maybe the ore grade isn't high enough.
		The deposit isn't big enough.
		It's too deep.
		So they end up not actually getting extracted.
		And we don't have a lot of data on number one, is it economically viable to mine them?
		Two, like, you know, how quickly can we do them?
		On average, globally, it takes 18 years to build a mine.
		That's a really long time.
		So we've got to map and then add the time it takes to develop a mine before we're going to get to a point where we're getting resources.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		And does Ukraine have the infrastructure to mine these minerals from their country?
unidentified		Mining is incredibly infrastructure intensive.
		I mean, we think about the fact that like 16% of the global or the world's electricity supply is used by the mining industry.
		And we know that most of that energy infrastructure has been wiped out during the course of the war.
		So there's a lot of rebuilding for the requisite infrastructure, energy, roads, the port that has to be rebuilt alongside the geological mapping before we get to a point of production.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		When you look at a map of Ukraine, and this is put together by Reuters, and they show the different minerals across the country of Ukraine.
		Here is titanium, we have graphite over here, rare earth minerals here, lithium, uranium, others across the country, iron, et cetera.
		Why is the United States interested in these minerals?
unidentified		So we'll start with rare earths because we've seen rare earths feature very prominently in the conversation about Ukraine, but also Greenland.
		It's been a broader concern.
		So we are really stressed out by China's dominance in rare earths.
		They process 90% of the world's rare earths, and they are very willing to weaponize them.
		We first saw this in 2010.
		There was a dispute with Japan about a fishing trawler, and China cut Japan off.
		Rare earths are not just, you know, a clean energy story.
		It's really a defense story.
		They are in warships, fighter jets, missiles, tanks, lasers, ICT technology.
		Pretty much the backbone that keeps our country safe is a rare earth story.
		So what we started doing five years ago in the U.S. through the Defense Production Act is we have spent $300 million to build that processing capability here at home in the U.S., in Texas, and in California, which is fantastic.
		Except we only have 1.3% of the world's rare earths.
		So what we're looking to do now is to strategically source rare earths from other places that can come back to the U.S., be processed, and then ultimately be manufactured into these various technologies.
		We've seen, for example, that the Development Finance Corporation, our government financing agency, is looking at financing a project in Brazil.
		Then you add the Greenland story in Ukraine, and you really see rare earths are a top focus.
		And then, of course, other commodities still remain very important that Ukraine has.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Define rare earths.
unidentified		Rare earths are actually a group of 17 minerals.
		So turbi, I always say it's like the spelling B hardship, right?
		Presodymium, you know, neodymium, dysprosium, scandium, they're hard words to say and spell.
		But some of these are really, really important.
		The other thing about rare earths is a bit of a misnomer because they're not actually rare.
		They're actually everywhere.
		Now, the difficulty is they're often found in small quantities and they're expensive to extract and process, which is why there's so few processing facilities globally.
		So the trick is where can we find them in as large quantities as possible?
		But they are a large group of minerals.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Is that in Ukraine?
		Is there a large quantity?
		We have to map it.
		So what does that entail?
		We have to map it, because it hasn't been done, as you said, in 30-some years, right?
unidentified		Yeah, it's very old mapping.
		The director of the Ukrainian Geological Survey has come out and said, the former director has come out and said there's no modern mapping of rare earths.
		Right.
		So we're kind of, you know, from the initial deal that was being discussed, whereby Ukraine was asked to repay $500 billion to the United States through mineral revenue for military aid that was paid.
		President Zelensky said, hold on, I'm not on board with that because there wasn't $500 billion of aid we receive.
		And really, we know that figure to be closer to $128 billion.
		But from that point to where we are now, Ukraine has gotten a much better deal, right?
		Now, you know, if there's no repayment of military aid, what Zelensky will certainly get with time from the world, not just from the U.S., is a mapping, because the mapping comes before the investment.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		So tell us about the deal.
		When you look at what we know so far, how does Ukraine benefit from this?
		How does the U.S. benefit from it?
unidentified		So Ukraine gets a few key, one really big thing.
		So, what this deal puts forward is a fund, a reconstruction fund, in essence.
		And it would take 50% of all future mineral revenue, not just minerals, oil and gas too, revenue, and put it into this fund.
		And this fund could then be used to turn around and invest in Ukraine.
		So, in a way, it also becomes an economic development tool for some of this infrastructure that we need to rebuild.
		What the deal doesn't include is it doesn't include the repayment that was originally discussed in quite tenuous.
		It also doesn't include any security guarantees, which President Zelensky really wanted.
		And President Trump said, you know, that's what Europe's job is for.
		I'm not here for that.
		Now, will this affect mineral investment?
		That's a real question.
		President Macron said, Well, you know, there's almost like an implicit security that comes with this cooperation.
		But it's to be determined whether the private sector thinks that's enough.
		And here's why.
		Land is very easy to expropriate in that region, as we've seen over the last 11 years.
		And in the last few days, President Putin has come out and said, Hey, I kind of want a minerals deal too.
		And I've got minerals not only on Russia, but also Russian-occupied land, which means he's willing to negotiate with minerals that are not on really what's his own land.
		And expropriation globally, history has told us over and over, we go conquer where minerals are.
		Go back to King Leopold's days, you know, in Africa.
		And so, there's a real risk, you know, that without an explicit security guarantee, given that mining is decades long, you know, we talk about 20 years to build a mine, the mine itself runs from 30 to 80 years, that another invasion or a further expansion of an occupation could potentially take some of these assets.
		Prior to the war, there were two lithium assets that companies were looking to develop.
		One of them now sits on occupied land and has had to be let go.
		You know, there's no guarantee that that won't happen again.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Let's get to calls.
		Jerome in California, Independent.
		Your questions or comment about this potential mineral deal between the United States and Ukraine.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you for letting me speak.
		This whole program that's being advocated by the president and his followers is basically an experiment or a demonstration of modern-day colonialism.
		And you can trace back in history how the lady who's speaking before was talking about Africa, and you can see how Africa is now regarding what took place in earlier colonialism.
		I'm not saying it's wrong.
		I mean, basically, the Chinese own a lot of the American ports.
		So, for countries to go into different areas, not necessarily invade them with their military, but invade them with their capitalistic enterprises to grab minerals or utilize their facilities to generate money for their own particular beliefs is a very complicated and difficult thing,
		and more than likely eventually will be a nightmare, as most colonial nations eventually have demonstrated throughout time, in essence.
		The Russian situation in the Ukraine, I mean, who really knows the bottom-line answer?
		I surely don't.
		I've spoken to people who are Ukrainian.
		I've spoken to people who are Russian.
		Surprisingly enough, the Ukrainian individual who's a physician of mine has no problems with it since the majority of people in that particular area that Russia now occupies is Russian-speaking, which is an interesting thought.
		And Ukraine over the years, centuries, has gone through tremendous problems as any country that doesn't have a sea as a boundary.
		All of Europe.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Jerome, I'll jump in at that point, have our guests respond.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Thanks so much for the question.
		I think you're absolutely right that there's an easy trap down here that's been happening for the better part of centuries on resource colonialism.
		I think President Zelensky has gone to great lengths to try and avoid that.
		And here's what I mean.
		In the initial deal, there was potential conversation about the U.S. owning the land or owning mineral rights of Ukraine.
		That's not the case anymore.
		And we see this actually quite recently, is in 2007, after the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, China went in and negotiated a deal whereby they gave the Congo $3 billion of infrastructure.
		And in exchange, they got access to $93 billion of copper and cobalt.
		Today, 15 of the 19 biggest mines in the DRC are owned by Chinese companies.
		Now, a couple of years ago, the Congo realized they got a really bad deal.
		They got the short end of the stick.
		And they declared that they were going to go back and review that deal.
		And there's a lot of lessons learned from that in terms of trying to avoid ownership, et cetera, where another country gets to make decisions and get excessively favorable terms to the detriment of their own development.
		And we've seen even interesting, just this last week, President Shiketi in the DRC has come back and said, I too would like a minerals deal because, you know, obviously there's the growing war with Rwanda.
		And President Trump is said to be thinking about it in the New York Times.
		So I think you're right.
		I think President Zelensky has been very strategic to avoid the pitfalls of having sovereign autonomy impinge, being forced to take a bad deal.
		And really where we've landed with this deal is, you know, I was thinking this morning, it's more of a cooperation agreement, right?
		It's more of a government-to-government cooperation agreement than an ownership deal of any sort.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		How dependent is this on private investment?
unidentified		100% dependent on private investment because the U.S. government, unlike Saudi Arabia or China or Russia, does not have a state-owned mining company.
		So if we want that 50% of revenue to go into this fund, the revenue is not generated by U.S. government mining.
		It's ultimately determined by private sector mining output and a revenue coming from that, which is why the best thing the government can do with this piece of paper to keep it from being just a piece of paper is to support infrastructure development, to support mapping, to support the things that make the private sector willing to go in and take that risk.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What companies, U.S. companies, would go in?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What are some names that people might recognize that would go in and do this type of work?
unidentified		So the private sector has been fairly quiet in this conversation so far for a couple of reasons.
		From the American side, part of the challenge is we don't have a lot of big American mining companies.
		The majority, if you look at the majors, eight of the 10, 9 of the 10 are actually foreign.
		If they're British, they're Australian, they're Canadian, they're Chinese, they're Saudi Arabian.
		Is we only have a couple of American mining companies, and the majors are only copper and gold.
		So one is that we do rely on companies and allied nations.
		The second thing is companies are hesitant given volatility to make a statement.
		Mining companies are also mysteriously quiet on tariffs given this.
		So they're kind of staying quiet right now to see how this unfolds.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We'll go to Mike and Michigan, Democratic caller.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Mike, your turn.
unidentified		Good morning.
		A couple years ago, I recall seeing an article that there's a vast store of these rare earth minerals on the seabed between California and Hawaii.
		Has Crittenden something or other?
		I can't remember the name of the area, but many, possibly as many as a dozen nations have state claims to these rare earth minerals that could be actually vacuumed up, I believe, even though it's so deep.
		We've got the capability of drilling for oil through a couple of miles of water before we hit the basin.
		And I was just wondering what you know about this store of rare earth minerals sitting there on the seabed.
		Thank you.
		Yeah, the Clipperton zone.
		So deep sea mining has become a very interesting, because it has a significant amount of minerals.
		The minerals that we generally look at with the deep sea are things like, for example, nickel, cobalt.
		These tend to sit in large quantities.
		There's a few challenges.
		The U.S. is one of the only major countries that hasn't ratified the UN kind of convention on deep sea mining.
		We've stayed very quiet.
		Some of the challenges that exist are that there can be, we don't know the environmental impact of deep sea mining.
		Could it devastate the underwaters?
		Potentially, we don't know.
		So, you know, part of what we're hoping is that, you know, Norway is actually leading the way on the R ⁇ D and the deep sea mining alongside Japan, is that we will learn from Norway and Japan on the environmental side of things.
		We can take lessons learned and we can apply them here.
		However, while deep sea mining is important, we're not going to meet all of our mineral security needs from the seas, which makes terrestrial land-based mining still very important.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We'll go to Israel in Crystal River, Florida.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Republican caller, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you.
		Thank you.
		I'm calling because there's a couple key points that are mentioned in regards to minerals.
		And I believe that that's what the Russian leader Putin has been trying to obtain this whole time.
		But he's done that in a war tactic, kind of like Hitler mentality.
		The thing is that from my understanding, from biblical aspects, Israel is a nation which the U.S. responds to, which backs up.
		But the Jews are also a Ukrainian nation and spread around the world.
		So if the United States backs up Israel and Ukrainium being an Israel-related nation, wouldn't it be the best interest for United States to back up Ukraine with military status and considering Putin is an anti-biblical figure as well as many other nations that are Muslim-related?
		I mean, a lot of them.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Do you have some thoughts on that?
unidentified		Just a quick thought.
		I think President Trump's foreign policy, which is featuring minerals, is far more transactional than maybe historically ideological.
		If you've seen a lot of his first kind of 30 days, he's looking at annexing resource rich Canada.
		He's looking at Greenland.
		He's looking at Ukraine.
		And it's been a mineral story.
		What we do see is a far more transactional foreign policy in this administration.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Looney's in Winnicott, Illinois, Independent.
		Your comment or question on this potential deal between the U.S. and Ukraine on minerals.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Wouldn't it be the best interest for?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Caller in Winnikin, Illinois.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		You are next, Caller.
unidentified		Yes, sir.
		My question is very simple.
		Would Putin allow this deal to go through as he's looking for victory rather than peace?
		And will this deal really secure our investments in Ukraine?
		Okay.
		That's a great question.
		Through this negotiation, Putin hasn't come out against it.
		Putin, in fact, in parallel, has tried to negotiate his own deal.
		People have asked, you know, why is Putin trying to negotiate his own critical minerals and potentially facilitate a deal?
		I think that Putin has been on the kind of global pariah list for several years now and is looking to potentially leverage mineral resources as a way to forge and get off of sanctions, get back into kind of the on the geopolitical stage.
		And minerals are speaking very loudly, not only to the U.S., but a number of other governments seeking to bolster their supply.
		So it'll be interesting, actually, I think, to see is that this, I mean, someone said to me yesterday, a minerals deal is basically ending the war, right?
		But what we have seen, too, is that Trump hasn't said, oh, Putin must give back the Donbass region.
		So there may just be a bit compromise in that way in terms of he gets certain things and then Zelensky gets certain things as a way to chart the way forward, but minerals will feature on both sides of that.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Doris is in Windard, Georgia, and Independent.
		Hi, Doris.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Good morning.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		My question is: how many of you are aware that that strip of land called Ukraine is part of the original Garden of Eden?
unidentified		It was placed there at the very beginning of creation.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		And Doris, your point is what?
unidentified		My point is they're tearing up the Garden of Eden just to get to those minerals.
		Those are godless men.
		They have no conscience and don't care the damage they do.
		So where do you think they're going to go from here?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Walter in Henderson, Nevada, Independent.
		Walter, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Doing well.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Question or comment?
unidentified		I'd like to know.
		We keep hearing from Donald Trump about how Ukraine has to give minerals, money to Europe, to the United States.
		What does Russia have to give for the destruction of the children, the families, the infrastructure, and the lives they took in Ukraine for an unprovoked attack on a democracy?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Graceland Basquerin.
unidentified		This agreement is focusing on minerals.
		I mean, kind of how we said earlier, it's become a very transactional environment.
		And ultimately, this agreement is a minerals investment kind of agreement.
		And really, it doesn't go beyond that.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Keith in New York, Republican.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Keith.
unidentified		Yeah, hi.
unidentified		Actually, I called in on the independent line.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Okay, go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Well, I just wanted to make a comment.
		So to me, it just appears, from what I can glean, that this whole mineral deal is just another dog and pony show by Trump to just to appease his supporters and they'll praise him up and down.
		And so it appears there's nothing to this at all.
		It's just to make Trump look good and in the end, he's just going to end up stabbing the Ukrainians in the back.
		And these callers who keep calling in with this religious context to everything, this is why everything is going south.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Keith have a minute.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		I'm just going to jump in and have our guests respond to there's nothing to this.
unidentified		This is a piece of paper that's a cooperation agreement, right?
		I think as we had aptly said, you know, whether investment comes in is to be determined by the private sector.
		There's all kinds of challenges, as we said, right?
		Energy infrastructure has been wiped out.
		We have mapping.
		We have a security risk.
		But whether the private sector goes in to decide if it's commercially viable is entirely a market dynamic.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Mary in Las Vegas, Democratic caller.
		Hi, Mary.
unidentified		Well, another big lie by Donald Trump is that we gave Ukraine $300 over $350 billion.
		It was more like $120 billion.
		He likes to inflate numbers to get people all riled up.
		We've already agreed to help Ukraine when they gave up their nuclear weapons.
		And we aren't holding to that agreement.
		Why would we hold to any agreement with Donald Trump?
		Okay, he's siding with in the UN, with Putin, with North Korea.
		What does that tell you?
		The alignment is changing in the United States.
		This should be scaring the bejesus out of people.
		I don't know why it isn't.
		Okay, so he talks fast and loose with numbers, but I think I agree with the last caller.
		I think he's going to stab Ukraine in the back.
		You know, on how much, if somebody came after the United States, which state would you be willing to give up?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Mary's comments there.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Your final thoughts?
unidentified		I think this is why, you know, the implicit security guarantee versus the explicit security guarantee is one of the current outstanding concerns to me.
		It's to say, you know, President Trump is here for four years, but a mining investment, and we said is, you know, 20 years to build, could be another 40 to 80 years.
		Is it so long term that changes, you know, even if Putin and Trump are like, you know, we're on the same page about respecting this, that doesn't mean, I mean, think about the development time of a mine.
		It's four more U.S. presidential electoral cycles before you would have a producing asset.
		That's a long time for something to change.
		And this is why, you know, we kind of keep saying, well, an explicit security guarantee could be better, because there's a little bit of a higher standard to holding to it than an implicit guarantee.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Chris Lynn Baskerani is the program director on critical minerals security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
		Thank you very much for the conversation this morning.
		We appreciate it.
unidentified		Thank you for having me.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We're going to continue with our conversation on Ukraine ahead of President Zelensky's visit to the White House.
		Up next, we're asking all of you your view of U.S. support for Ukraine.
		There are the phone numbers on your screen.
		Republicans, dial in at 202-748-8001.
		Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		Independents, your line next for this conversation is 202-748-8002.
		Your view of U.S. support for Ukraine.
		We're going to get to those calls in a minute, but first I want to show you what the President had to say yesterday about a potential deal to end the war in Ukraine and his relationship with both the Russian leader and Ukrainian President, Mr. Zelensky.
unidentified		Mr. President, what would you be willing to do if Vladimir Putin did not stick to the terms of any deal on Ukraine?
unidentified		He did not stick to the terms of any deal on Ukraine, because he's ignoring me of not sticking to his word when it comes to international people.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I think he'll keep his word.
		I think he's, I've spoken to him, I've known him for a long time now.
		I've loved him.
		We had to go through the Russian hoax together.
		That was not a good thing.
		It's not fair.
		That was a rigged deal and had nothing to do with Russia.
		It was a rigged deal with inside the country.
		And they had to put up with that too.
		They put up with a lot.
		It wasn't just us.
		They had to put up with it, with a phony story that was made up.
		I've known him for a long time now, and I think he will, I don't believe he's going to violate his word.
		I don't think he'll be back when we make a deal.
		I think the deal is going to hold.
unidentified		Is there anything you can say tomorrow to President Zelensky to reassure him that his country's war hasn't been in vain and its sovereignty is not going to be threatened by any deal with Russia?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, he's coming.
		Perhaps he's already on his way.
		And we're going to be signing the deal together, probably in front of the media.
		And we're going to be having a good conversation.
		No, we want to work with him, President Zelensky, as you said before.
		We want to work with him and we will work with him.
		I think the president and I actually have had a very good relationship.
		It maybe got a little bit testy because we wanted to have a little bit of what the European nation said.
		You know, they get their money back by giving money.
		We don't get the money back.
		Biden made a deal.
		He put in $350 billion.
		And I thought it was a very unfair situation.
unidentified		We're not getting all of ours.
keir starmer ▲ ● ▼		I mean, quite a bit of ours was gifted.
unidentified		It was given.
keir starmer ▲ ● ▼		There were some lens, but mainly it was gifted, actually.
unidentified		President, Mr. Zelensky is a bit tighter.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Did I say that?
		I can't believe I said that.
		Next question.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		President Trump at the White House yesterday talking about his relationship with both the Russian leader and the Ukrainian leader.
		Those remarks coming ahead of today's meeting with the Ukrainian president, President Trump, and President Zelensky meeting today at the White House.
		They are going to hold a joint news conference at 1 p.m. Eastern Time.
		We will have coverage of that live here on C-SPAN on our free video mobile app, C-SPANNOWER online at c-span.org.
		President Zelensky will arrive at the White House at 11 a.m. Eastern Time.
		The two leaders and their staffs go behind closed doors then to negotiate a possible mineral deal that we've been talking about here on the Washington Journal, as well as an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine.
		Your thoughts right now, at the end here of today's Washington Journal, on how the president is handling the situation in Ukraine.
		Your view of U.S. support for the country.
		There are the lines.
		Let's hear from Robert, who's in Rogers City, Michigan, Independent.
		Robert, what is your view of U.S. support for Ukraine?
unidentified		Well, we need to stay strong.
		We need to stay strong with the European Union and NATO.
		And Trump, like you keep saying, is transactional with this thing.
		He's just trying to extort money out of Zelensky and Ukraine for this mineral thing.
		And it sounds to me like Russia's occupying most of the area where these minerals are located.
		So Trump says he has a good relationship with Lezinski, but he's called the man a dictator and everything else.
		And Trump really, you know, whatever the money is, that's what Trump's about.
		You know, none of his money will ever come back to the taxpayers or this country.
		It's all about him.
		And everything's been like him yesterday.
		But the prime minister from Britain, you know, kind of put him in his place on this loan deal that they're going to pay things.
		He did the same thing two days in a row with Macrone from France.
		But as far as it goes, we need to stay strong, and Zelensky needs to stay strong.
		Trump made a statement that he really doesn't have a deal with Putin.
		And if they ain't all together at the table, it ain't ever going to happen.
		Not anything good, anyway.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Those are Robert's thoughts there in Rogers City, Michigan, an independent caller.
		New York Times this morning, they have a headline similar to what Roger was saying in Trump's foreign policy, alliances come with strings attached.
		George in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, a Democratic caller.
		George, what is your view of the U.S. supporting Ukraine?
unidentified		Yes, we need to continue to support the Ukraine.
		If you look at it, the Russians have lost almost 400,000 of wounded, killed, and their economic status in the world has completely dropped.
		We have them on the ropes without one U.S. soldier, one person in the United States being wounded or harmed.
		We have taken out a lot of what Russia has asked for and has used their paper tiger power for all these years.
		And now this man, Trump, is trying to give it all back to Putin.
		If you think about it, it really looks more like Putin has something on him.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, George, you and others may be interested in this article in the Wall Street Journal this morning.
		Ukraine rattled as the USI's 2022 plan.
		A suggestion by the Trump administration top negotiator that a Ukraine peace deal would be based on talks conducted in Istanbul nearly three years ago has buoyed Russian officials and spooked Ukraine and its backers.
		Russian President Vladimir Putin has demanded that any future peace talks be based on a return to the Istanbul parameters, which in Moscow's interpretation foresee a sharp cut in Ukraine's military, a ban on foreign weapons and troops, and a Russian veto on Western security assistance in case of renewed conflict.
		Ukraine refuses to return to that draft, which was never completed or approved by President Zelensky.
		That report by the Wall Street Journal, also part of this conversation this morning with all of you.
		Sylvia in Etland, Virginia Independent.
		Hi, Sylvia.
unidentified		Hello.
		Thank you for C-SPAN.
		Oh, I believe that we need to find out a way for them to have NATO protect them.
		I think the mineral thing is kind of low on the totem pole.
		I believe we need to.
		I know Peyton, I mean, Putin doesn't want us to let them have help from NATO, but we need to get them in that.
		Thank you so much.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Sylvia Benjamin in Michigan, Democratic caller.
unidentified		Benjamin, what do you say?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Excuse me, Rosemary in Bankston, Alabama, Democratic caller.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We'll go to you, Rosemary.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I feel like we should continue to support Ukraine from the bully that is in Russia, and there should be no strings attached.
		If you're going to support democracies around the world, you have to do that without attaching conditions on the country that you're helping.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, Rosemary, a mineral deal Ukraine can't refuse is their opinion in today's paper.
		Under the final deal, Ukraine will pay half of all revenue from developing these resources to an investment fund jointly owned by the U.S.
		The agreement says contributions will be invested to promote the safety, security, and prosperity of Ukraine.
		The details will be worked out between the economic ministries, and Ukraine's parliament will have to ratify it.
		The war has caused enormous destruction in Ukraine, which will need hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild.
		Foreign taxpayers can't be expected to cover this cost, and Ukraine will need private investment.
		Other investors might be more inclined to help Ukraine rebuild if the U.S. is involved.
		The deal won't apply to resources that have already been developed and contribute to Ukraine's budget.
		That's important because Ukraine uses domestic revenue to fund its military, including soldier pay and weapons.
		Russia wants a peace deal that limits Ukraine's military.
		The mineral deal includes no U.S. security guarantees, but says the U.S. supports Ukraine's efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace.
		It's hard to know what that unspecified promise means, but in Mr. Trump's mind, it probably means Europeans help first.
		Mr. Trump continues to peddle falsehoods about how much aid the U.S. and Europe have provided Ukraine.
		He claims the U.S. is in for $350 billion in Ukraine.
		But through December, the real U.S. total was nearly $120 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian support.
		He says Europe has given much less than the U.S., but it has spent or promised $137 billion, according to Europe's authoritative Heel Institute.
		The U.S. has provided more arms because it has more, but Europe has provided more aid overall.
		Jim in Michigan, Republican.
		Jim, good morning.
		Your view of U.S. support for Ukraine.
unidentified		Yeah, I just want to know that I'm all for President Trump.
		I'm old enough to know that he is the first president in my lifetime to try to come up with solutions to pay down the debt of this $30 trillion that we owe.
		And the Democrats, if you'll notice what they've done in their administrations, they just keep sending money after money after money to different countries, different organizations.
		And at least Donald Trump is trying to do something to pay down our debt of the United States.
		If we don't pay that debt down, the day's coming where we will be bankrupt, and your grandkids and your children will be speaking another language.
		And they'll take us over, and you better let Donald Trump or somebody try to pay down that debt.
		I could care less about Ukraine and Russia.
		I'm worried about our kids and our grandkids and the United States of America.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		And, Jim, to accomplish what you're talking about, do you think that you agree with the president?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		And do you think that there should be no more aid, military aid, money, arms, et cetera, for Ukraine?
unidentified		I didn't say that.
		I said it's no problem getting the money, but let's get something back for our money, no matter if it's Ukraine or if it's Iraq or like Afghanistan.
		We need to get some of that money back we have wasted in the Middle East.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Got it, Jim.
		Jim supporting what the president wants to do here with this mineral earth deal.
		This is from Pew Research, a poll that was conducted, and they found Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say the U.S. is providing too much support to Ukraine.
		Here's the percentage of those who say that when it comes to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. is providing not enough, about right, and too much support to Ukraine.
		About 30% overall said it was too much.
		When you break it down by party, it was Republicans who were more likely than Democrats to say that the support is too much.
		Well, Democrats, those that lean Democratic and Democrats say 35% said not enough.
		Edward in Burbank, California, and Independent.
		Hi, Edward.
unidentified		Hi, how are you today?
unidentified		Can you hear me okay?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we can.
unidentified		Yeah, so basically, you know, there's an expression that history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
		And as an independent, I've never been a member of either party and don't anticipate ever being a member of either party.
		But I see the current President Donald Trump as the modern-day version of Neville Chamberlain, who negotiated a deal with Hitler to take over the Sudetenland, which eventually resulted in Hitler taking all of Czechoslovakia.
		So I see this as the first step in capitulation on the part of this guy we call president, and it's going to lead to nothing good.
		And the other thing is that all that money that they talk about having provided by the United States of the Ukraine, I think I saw something where 90% of that money is actually spent in the United States to provide all the support.
		So it's not like we give them buckets of money and they spend it elsewhere.
		That money is actually spent here, or 90% of it is spent here in the United States providing jobs for Americans.
		Okay.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Edward's thoughts there in Burbank, California, and Independent.
		Ed in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Democratic caller.
		Ed, what do you say?
unidentified		Yeah, I'm 100% behind the Ukrainian president.
		And I think his problem was that he didn't go after Russia as soon as they took over that little premier area.
		He should have acted faster, and the United States and Europe should have got in faster and gave him back, backed him up 100%, and then Putin wouldn't be where he is now.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Ed, what do you want to hear from Mr. Zelensky when he's at the White House today?
unidentified		Well, I'd like peace in that country.
		I'd like peace in the world, but that's, you know, I think that the Ukrainian people are the ones that's going to decide whether he stays in office or not.
		And he's already said he's willing to give up his presidency.
		Unlike the one we got running this country of ours that I spent six years defending.
		But this guy, he's a circus man.
		And he sends this ridiculous musk out to with a chainsaw to cut the government.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, I'm going to leave it at that point.
		We will hear from Mr. Zelensky when he holds a news conference with President Trump at the White House today, 1 p.m. Eastern Time.
		You can watch it right here on C-SPAN or our free video mobile app, C-SPAN Now, if you're on the go or online at c-span.org.
		Then we will hear from Mr. Zelensky again at the Hudson Institute.
		He's going to be talking about securing peace in Ukraine three years after the Russian invasion into his country.
		And we will have live coverage of that also on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, that free video mobile app or online at c-span.org.
		And that is, again, 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
		And then just a reminder, the president likely to be talking about Russia and Ukraine next week.
		He's scheduled to address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday to lay out his priorities and vision for the country during his second term.
		We'll have live coverage beginning at 8 p.m. Eastern Time on C-SPAN with a preview of his remarks, followed by the President's speech at 9 and the Democratic response.
		We'll also take viewer calls and get reaction on social media.
		Again, that's live on C-SPAN, C-SPANNOW and online at c-span.org.
		By the way, the Democratic response will be given by Democratic Senator Elise Slutkin from Michigan.
		Pat in Huntsville, Texas, a Republican.
		Hi, Pat.
		Good morning to you.
		Your view on U.S. support for Ukraine.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I believe that we should continue to support Ukraine and President Zelensky, provided there's safeguards that the money's spent where it's supposed to be.
		If you read different books of NGO folks that have spent time on the ground there, they don't believe that all the money that's been spent has actually been getting to the troops and the equipment should be more than what they're seeing.
larry nichols ▲ ● ▼		Many of the people don't have good first aid kits and so forth.
unidentified		So, yes, I do with conditions.
unidentified		I mean, there's a lot of documentation.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		What kind of conditions would you put on the money?
unidentified		Well, you may not like Musk, but I'd like to see him audit where the money's going, or at least have some form of auditors, because right now there's no oversight.
		And I'm talking about from a financial standpoint, are you investing the money where it's supposed to go and not back in somebody's pocket?
		That's my thought.
		There's some other things I think Trump ought to ratchet up things with against Putin because there is evidence that they've committed significant war crimes and they've attacked the population, not soldiers in many cases.
		They've attacked bridges with people with cars in line and then come back and bomb the cars.
larry nichols ▲ ● ▼		And they know that those are civilians and they're doing it just for the shock and to push the envelope.
unidentified		They're doing crazy things, shutting down electricity and trying to freeze people out.
		A lot of things going on there.
		It's a terrible situation.
		It shouldn't have happened.
		But I think we're invested there.
		As far as Trump saying $300 billion versus the $125 or $30 trillion or whatever that number is, he knows what it is.
		He's playing a game and he's putting these guys back on their heels for them to prove him wrong.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		All right, Joseph and Kalamazoo, Michigan, Independent.
		Joseph, let's turn to you.
		Your view of U.S. support for Ukraine.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		My view of Ukraine's support, I could tell this, because, like they say, one time, one time, Ukraine succeeded from Russia, was a part of Russia.
		So why would we even get into the war?
		You know, it doesn't make much sense.
		I mean, you know, I think this helping them out spending all billions and billions of dollars was a waste.
		We just wasted a lot of money on that war.
		So to let Russia handle their Ukraine because Ukraine wants, but it's like us succeeding from Texas succeeding from the United States.
		It don't make no sense.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Joseph.
		We'll see if a reporter asks that of Mr. Zelensky when he appears with President Trump at that joint news conference.
		What is his response?
		If a reporter asks him, Americans, not all Americans, support continuing aid and they think that, as Joseph just said, that it was a waste.
		If he gets asked that question, we will have live coverage of the joint news conference here on C-SPAN and c-span.org online or our free video mobile app, C-SPAN now.
		That's at 1 p.m. Eastern Time.
		Sarah in Hubbard, Ohio, Democratic caller.
		Sarah, good morning to you.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning, dear.
		I don't support President Trump because I don't trust him.
		In 20, back in October 14th of 2019, he allowed Turkey to go in and slaughter the Kurds.
		He pulled our Trump troops out, left them go in there.
		The Kurds were keeping ISIS under control.
		And yet he just said, well, we'll just take our troops out, go home.
		That's the end of that.
charlotte iserbyt ▲ ● ▼		Not to mention how much money we wasted on that one when he was in office.
unidentified		And Andy, I'm 70 years old, and my country has never voted with the communist bloc in the United Nations against another country that we were considered allies with and in NATO with.
unidentified		Now, why would we vote in a communist bloc with them?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Sarah.
		Steve, Arizona Republican.
		Morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		We're listening to you, Steve.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I'm sorry.
		I had a beep.
		You know, I think it's interesting that President Trump, for all his faults, you know, people love to take what he says and make that the viewpoint.
		The reality is, he didn't start this war.
		This war was started by Joe Biden.
		And like everything else, he has not started any of it.
		He has to come in and clean it up.
		He was in office for four years.
		We've seen what he's done and what he's capable of doing.
		And the fact of the matter is, Vladimir Putin is a dictator.
		He is evil.
		He is very smart.
		And Trump is trying to combat that.
		And the fact that he has voted with Putin and some of the things that he has done is just him playing the game.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		So, Steve, let me ask you, why do you blame President Biden?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		You said he started this war when it was Putin and Russia that invaded Ukraine.
unidentified		Right.
		Well, Biden made many comments that allowed Putin to understand that Biden was okay with basically anything he wanted to do.
		He wasn't tough.
		He did not tell him not to do it.
		And I think that's been proven in the same thing with Israel.
		I think it's proven that Trump, when he says something, it matters or it holds weight.
		And the bottom line is the ultimate result that we want here is peace.
		We want to see the killings to stop.
		We want to see the war end.
		Now, when Trump ends this war, because he's going to one way or the other.
		And if he doesn't, what that means is we are going to be at war with Russia.
		And as soon as that happens, then what do people say?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Why would we be at war with Russia?
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Explain that.
unidentified		Because if this continues and we continue to fund it and Europe continues to sort of sit in the sidelines, although now that Trump is in office, they want to, you know, we didn't hear anything for the last three and a half years about Europe and how they were helping to stop this war.
		All of a sudden, Trump comes in office and everybody wants to get on board and everybody wants to help end this war.
		Who's doing that?
		That's Trump.
		Let's forget about what he says about 300 million or 100 million.
		He's just like every other politician.
		They fib, they lie, they expand things.
		Stop thinking about what he says and look at his actions at home and abroad.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Steve, I'll share two headlines with you and the others.
		Zelensky gains support at home as he's set to talk with President Trump.
		The Ukrainian president faces significant risks and an uncertain reception when he meets with President Trump on Friday today to discuss the war with Russia.
		The meeting's centerpiece is expected to be an economic development and mineral access deal that Mr. Trump is pitching to Kiev and Mr. Zelensky's efforts to nail down security guarantees from the U.S. in the war.
		That is one headline on the Washington Times front page.
		Next to that is, Trump insists on Ukraine deal quickly or not at all.
		The British prime minister pressed President Trump yesterday for a more substantial U.S. commitment to protecting Ukraine if the war ends and warned his U.S. counterpart not to reward the Russian president in any peace deal.
		Mr. Trump brushed aside those pleas in Oval Office talks and a press conference insisting that it was now or never to negotiate an end to the brutal war.
		Carol in Pittsburgh, Democratic caller.
		Good morning, Carol.
unidentified		Oh boy, that last call was hard to take.
		Do people make things up in their brain?
		I mean, what in the heck kind of story was that?
		He had a story.
		Oh, and his, that's the kind of election.
		Listen, Putin is a war criminal, none of which Trump has recognized.
		He treats Putin with all due respect and their friends, and he trusts them.
		It's the same old deal as the last.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Carol, I'm going to go to Carl, who's in St. George, Utah, Independent.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		Carl, share your thoughts with us.
unidentified		I've got too many things to say if I say them all and you don't have time.
		But with respect to Ukraine, we should not give Russia a chance to do anything.
		We should give them more firepower to push Russia out of the country all the way.
bob in new york ▲ ● ▼		Secondly, Trump distorts everything.
unidentified		He's got an opportunity to be a great president, but he keeps blowing it by lying, twisting, and cheating and extorting people.
		That's his point.
		Biden did not get tough enough with Russia, but he still tried.
		So, and Zelensky is a good guy, and he's being extorted to give away a lot of his stuff.
		I agree with Trump to some degree that we need to have a financial exchange to help return some of the money we've given him.
		But it should not be in an extorted way.
		It should be in a gentlemanly way with good commerce going back and forth.
		Take Russia out of there, and don't let Putin get to first base.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Carl's thoughts there in Utah.
		An independent caller Lewis is in Arizona, a Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Everybody has an opinion on what Trump thinks.
		Basically, nobody knows.
		He's a negotiator.
		And herefore, what he says is what people from Arizona said also.
		He'll throw things out.
		He'll look for the effect, so on and so forth.
		And why is he buddying up with Putin?
		You've got it.
		He's the biggest fish in the tank.
		You have to get him to the table.
		And the other thing, this economic deal for the mineral rights in Ukraine, that solidifies the protection of Ukraine by our government.
		Otherwise, we lose all of that.
greta brawner ▲ ● ▼		All right, Lewis, and we'll learn more at 1 p.m. Eastern Time when we hear from President Trump and President Zelensky.
		You can watch right here on C-SPAN, C-SPAN.org, or free video mobile app, C-SPANNow.
		That does it for today's Washington Journal.
		Thank you all for joining us and participating in the conversation.
		We'll be back tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Eastern Time.
unidentified		Coming up live today on C-SPAN at 11 a.m. Eastern, a conversation on trade relations between the U.S. and Canada amid looming tariffs and trade disputes between the countries.
		Also, today, President Trump will meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House.
		They're in talks on a mineral-sharing deal which President Trump is seeking from Ukraine.
		We plan to show you a few events, including an Oval Office meeting between the two leaders and a joint news conference.
		They'll speak to the press live at 1 p.m. Eastern.
		And later, the Ukrainian President will talk about securing peace three years after the Russian invasion of his country.
		That's hosted by the Hudson Institute at 4.
		You can watch all of these events live on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Cox.
		When connection is needed most, Cox is there to help.
		Bringing affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls clubs, and support to veterans.
		Whenever and wherever it matters most, we'll be there.

▲