CSPAN - Washington Journal 03/09/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 9, 2025 07:00-10:04 - CSPAN

03:03:50

Washington Journal 03/09/2025

Participants

Main

ej antoni

16:10

kimberly adams

cspan 35:31

Appearances

brandon johnson

00:34

brian lamb

cspan 00:39

byron donalds

rep/r 01:21

doug collins

02:15

james comer

rep/r 00:40

mark kelly

sen/d 01:13

samuel r damewood

00:32

Clips

alina habba

00:05

dannion brinkley

00:25

eric adams

d 00:05

lin wood

00:09

patty murray

sen/d 00:04

tony tarantino

00:08

Callers

mike in alaska

callers 01:24

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Then Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation's E.J. Anthony discuss new U.S. levies on goods imported from Mexico, Canada, and China and the impact of President Trump's trade policy.
		Also, Military Times Deputy Editor Leo Shane on proposed Trump administration cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal starts now.
		Join the conversation.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Sunday, March 9th, 2025.
		As the Trump administration continues its effort to reduce the size of the federal government, what impact is it having on veterans?
		Veterans make up about 30% of the overall federal workforce, and the administration is now planning cuts to staffing levels at the VA.
		This morning, we want to know if you support or oppose cuts to the Veterans Affairs Department.
		We have special phone lines this morning.
		For veterans, please call in at 202-748-8000.
		For family members of veterans, 202-748-8001.
		Everyone else can call in at 202-748-8002.
		If you'd like to text us, that number is 202-748-8003.
		Please be sure to include your name, where you're writing in from, and if you are a veteran.
		And we're on social media at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
		Now, as I just mentioned, veterans do make up about 30% of the nation's federal workforce, including 643,000 veterans who worked for the federal government in 2024.
		Most of those veterans are employed by the Veterans Affairs Department, the Defense Department, branches of the military, or the Department of Homeland Security.
		The Associated Press reported earlier this week that the Trump, excuse me, last week, that the Trump administration plans to cut 80,000 employees from Veterans Affairs, according to an internal memo, going on to say that the Department of Veterans Affairs is planning a reorganization that includes cutting over 80,000 jobs from the sprawling agency that provides health care and other services for the millions of veterans,
		according to an internal memo obtained Wednesday by the Associated Press.
		The VA's chief of staff, Christopher Syrek, told top-level officials at the agency Tuesday that it had an objective to cut enough employees to return to 2019 staffing levels of just under 400,000.
		That would require terminating tens of thousands of employees after the VA expanded during the Biden administration, as well as to cover veterans impacted by burn pits under the 2022 PACT Act.
		Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins, in a video released on social media last week, addressed some of those proposed VA cuts.
doug collins ▲ ● ▼		Here's a portion: In response to President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency and Workforce Optimization Initiative, VA is conducting a department-wide review of its organization, operations, and structure.
		Central to these efforts is a pragmatic and disciplined approach to eliminating waste and bureaucracy, increasing efficiency, and improving health care, benefits, and services to veterans.
		This will be a thorough and thoughtful review based on input from career VA employees, senior executives, as well as the top VA leaders.
		Our goal is to reduce VA employment levels to 2,019 in strength numbers, roughly 398,000 employees, from our current level of approximately 470,000 employees.
		Now that's in a 15% decrease.
		We're going to accomplish this without making cuts to health care or benefits to veterans and VA beneficiaries.
		VA will always fulfill its duty to provide veterans, families, caregivers, and survivors the health care and benefits they have earned.
unidentified		That's a promise.
doug collins ▲ ● ▼		And while we conduct our review, VA will continue to hire from more than 300,000 mission-critical positions to ensure health care and benefits for VA beneficiaries are not impacted.
unidentified		There are many people complaining about the changes we're making at the VA.
		But what most of them are really saying is: let's just keep doing the same thing that the VA has always done.
		No, not going to happen.
doug collins ▲ ● ▼		The days of kicking the can down the road and measuring VA's progress by how much money it spends and how many people it employs rather than how many veterans it helps are over.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, veterans from around the country who work at the VA joined House Democrats at a news conference last week warning about further cuts.
		Here's a portion: a bit, but in the meantime, more of Secretary Collins' comments.
		He had an op-ed in the Hill saying, We owe America's veterans real solutions.
		The Department of Veterans Affairs has been a punching bag among veterans, Congress, and the media for decades.
		Things need to change.
		We owe America's veterans and hundreds of thousands of excellent VA employees solutions.
		For many years, veterans have been asking for a more efficient, accountable, and transparent VA.
		This administration is finally going to give veterans what they want.
		President Trump has a mandate to bring generational change to Washington, and that is exactly what we're going to deliver at VA.
		We are going to make the department work better for the veterans, families, caregivers, and survivors that we are charged with serving.
		Now, then, back to those comments that were made when some of the veterans from around the country who work at the VA were in a press conference last week with House Democrats.
		Here's a bit of Eric Rodriguez, a VA employee and Iraq veteran.
unidentified		I'm Eric Rodriguez.
		I'm a disabled Iraq war veteran, a VA worker, a proud SEIU unit steward representing Illinois.
		I proudly serve my country, and now I proudly serve my fellow veterans.
		But right now, the Trump administration is trying to cut the VA, throw away workers, and let billionaires steal our health care.
		Veterans, we're under attack.
		Last week, 1,400 workers got fired illegally.
		22 of them were my colleagues at VA's at Heinz VA Hospital.
		Some of them didn't even get a real notice.
		All they got was this, an email with X's where the date should be and no name.
		That's how little they think of people and our veterans in this country and that they serve our country.
		They're slashing staff, crushing unions, and selling out the VA for what?
		So billionaires can make more money while veterans sit on wait list.
		Worse, they'll get no treatment.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		There's an article in Stars and Stripes with the headline: Veterans Feel Scared and Disrespected by Mass Firings Throughout the Federal Government.
		That piece saying, Veterans Service organizations castigated the administration of President Donald Trump for sweeping cuts of federal jobs that are hitting veterans who represent nearly one-third of the civilian government workforce and receive their medical care at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
		The Trump administration's moves to freeze aid to nonprofits, axe hundreds of VA contracts with community nonprofits, and fire thousands of federal workers, jeopardize services to some of the most vulnerable veteran populations, including paralyzed veterans and homeless veterans, advocates said Tuesday at a joint hearing of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees.
		Let's get to your calls and whether you support or oppose the VA cuts.
		Thomas is in Orchard Park, New York, and is a veteran.
		Good morning, Thomas.
		Good morning, Thomas.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Good morning.
		Well, I oppose the cuts.
		I'm a disabled veteran.
		I rely very heavily on the VA, and they need more staffing, not less.
		And they need, you know, Donald Trump is a coward, and he doesn't understand veterans at all.
		He calls us weak, stupid people.
		And I'm sorry, but he shouldn't be a president.
		He doesn't even know how to act like one.
		I'm totally against all his cuts, especially with everything he's doing to this country.
		He's screwing it all up.
		And it was a good running machine.
		That's it.
		I'm done.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Kelvin is in Joppa, Maryland, and is also a veteran.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Kelvin.
unidentified		Hey, thank you so much for taking my call.
		And thank you for your service to C-SPAN.
		I'm a disabled veteran also.
		I served in the Persian Gulf One, and I oppose it.
		And here's the reason why.
		If you can keep funding the industrial combat machine called the secretary, it's called the Defense Department and not cut it, then how can you cut the Veterans Department where we need assistance, especially mental health services?
		You have like one psychiatrist dealing at the Curry Point VA in Cecil County, Maryland.
		You have one psychiatrist dealing with all the mental health services in that area.
		And that's just too much for one person to deal with.
		And now they're talking about cutting more.
		You got drug rehabilitation, you got physical therapy for veterans.
		And if you cut these programs, what you're doing is you're going to push veterans into the street where you will have more homelessness, more drugs, more alcoholism.
		Thank God that I had my psychiatrist who helped me when I was almost ready to harm myself.
		So I oppose this.
		And thank you, veterans, for calling in this morning.
		And thank you, also, C-SPAN.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, we're glad you're still here, Kelvin.
		Paul is in Nampa, Idaho, and is a military family member.
		Good morning, Paul.
unidentified		Yes, thanks for taking my call.
		I think I see the need for more service and PAs.
		If they're running short on the I'm sorry, Paul, what do you mean by PAs?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Physicians' assistants?
unidentified		Yes.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Yes.
		Yeah, I see the need for them as long as they're vetted properly and hired properly and paid properly to the point where it's not going to be so expensive to hire them and to utilize them that It's going to be detrimental, actually, to the payment cost.
		And my uncle served in World War II.
		He didn't have mental health issues per se, but he ended up passing away from Alzheimer's.
		Served his country well.
		I got to serve some time, spend some time with him, and he was beloved to the family.
		He was also worked, he worked in the VA here locally in Idaho, in downtown Boise.
		And he was responsible for getting the veterans their due in court.
		He was kind of like a, almost like a judge in a way to make sure that people that served got their, not their severance, but the housing.
		He was in the housing section.
		And we talked quite frequently before he passed.
		It took him a number of years to pass.
		And he served his country well.
		And I loved him very much.
		And I still love him in a lot of ways, but he's not with us physically, but still mentally.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Paul, it sounds like your uncle not only served with the VA, but also received quite a few services from the VA.
unidentified		I believe he probably did.
		At the end, he had TRICARE, which is an insurance, basically the best you can get on the planet.
		And I have a number of friends that I have that utilize the VA.
		And by that, I mean whatever services they need, they receive here.
		And I'm not saying it probably doesn't have problems here in Nampa or in Boise, Idaho, as far as that is concerned.
		But I hear it a lot, and I ask people that they're serving, I ask them if they served or are serving and how they would rate the care that they receive here in Nampa and Boise, Idaho.
		And they give it glowing terms.
		I don't know what the ratio is between patients and doctors, so I can't answer that one.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Just like your uncle, about one in five of the people who work for the federal government, about 483,000 federal workers were employed by the VA.
		And that's more than two times the number who work for the Department of Homeland Security, which is the next largest federal employer.
		And about two-thirds of VA employees are women.
		And then about 46% of the VA's employees are nurses, medical facility support staff, or medical officers.
		We had a caller saying there need to be more physicians assistants, for example.
		And the VA is the biggest agency employer for most states.
		And that's according to the Office of Personnel Management.
		Let's hear from Joe in Oklahoma City, who is a veteran.
		Good morning, Joe.
unidentified		Hi, good morning, and thank you for calling me.
		I have kind of a sobering kind of perspective on this.
		I voted for Trump in 2016 for the main reason that I thought he brought to the table his business across his business abilities.
		And I had reservations about voting for him in 2016 because I knew he had really basically dodged the draft.
		Got four college deferments and when he ran out of college deferments his dad pretty much paid off a doctor to get a bat that he had bone spurs in his feet which never seemed to affect his golfing, but I know people with money often don't serve their country, so I gave him a pass on that.
		Then I watched what him and some of the Republicans did when it came time to vote to protect veterans who had served in these war zones and got exposed to chemicals.
		And I thought, how could they say they want to thank you for your service over here and not support people that were getting cancer from serving their country?
		So that's when I said no more.
		And I really just started realizing that Trump is basically a deceiver.
		I think he's an atheist.
		I don't think he loves anything above money.
		And so that's why I don't support him since 2016 because I watched what he did in office.
		And the other thing this time, what really got me is these cuts at the VA are terrible for service, but people don't even know.
		Because I have a friend that really has problems with having flashbacks from having served.
		And they've turned off the suicide hotline for veterans.
		So if you're a veteran and you're on the edge and you need help, you can't call that number anymore.
		If people want to vote for someone who's a deceiver, then keep supporting this guy, or we all better wake up very soon.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I just want to be clear here.
		When you mean the suicide, so there is the number 988, 988, which is the suicide and crisis lifeline that's nationwide.
		That number is still functioning and available for people who do need help and are in distress.
		What number specifically are you talking about?
		Because 988 is still available for people who are in distress.
unidentified		Right.
		That number was turned off for a while.
		So it may be the case that, because what they've been doing is turning things off.
		And if the outcry gets loud enough, that number was not functional for a while.
		There's also other organizations that do that same kind of outreach, but they receive grants.
		Some of those have been turned off.
		So anyone who would do that, they're not doing things by thinking about them.
		And one of my friends who's still into Trump, I said, well, if George Soros had marched into the White House with Joe Biden and drug in a bunch of hackers and data miners and started stealing your banking information, would you have a problem with that?
		And then he had to think about it.
		You know, he had to go, gosh, you know, if George Soros, because that's kind of a right-wing boogeyman, so you have to kind of think about put yourself in a different perspective and then realize Trump is bad for veterans.
		He's never supported them.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So Joe, thank you for your call.
		I do want to emphasize, I haven't seen the reporting about the 988 line being unavailable.
		And I should say that right now it is functioning and available for people in distress.
		And the veterans crisis line in particular is to dial 988 and then press 1.
		And that does offer 24-7 confidential crisis support for people who are in need.
		Let's hear from Colton in Carson City, Nevada, on our line for others.
		Good morning, Colton.
unidentified		I believe that Trump policies have had detrimental impacts on our veterans and their families.
unidentified		One thing that infuriates me is niggers.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		In Toms River, New Jersey on our line for veterans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Mike.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I hope everyone out there is well.
		I'd like to know where the cuts are going to go.
		As far as I've noticed, the medical staff is very good and dedicated.
		The clerical staff, I believe, will shoot me in the garbage, is like a welfare organization.
		They ignore you and they're inept.
		And if we're talking Trump and Biden and everything, you have to be over 35 to run for election.
		You shouldn't be over 65 to run for election.
		And I thank you very largely.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear more from Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins in that social media video last week about some of the changes that are coming to the VA.
unidentified		Improving services to the veterans is exactly why the VA exists.
doug collins ▲ ● ▼		That is what everyone, Congress, the media, and VA employees should be focused on.
unidentified		There have been a lot of news coverage regarding recent layoffs at the VA.
unidentified		Now, we regret anyone who loses their job.
doug collins ▲ ● ▼		And it's extraordinarily difficult for me, especially as a VA leader and your secretary, to make these types of decisions.
unidentified		But the federal government does not exist to employ people.
		It exists to serve people.
		At the VA, we are focused on serving veterans better than ever before.
		And doing so requires changing and improving the organization.
		Look, the VA was never perfect, and it will never be perfect.
		But we can and will make it better.
		When we find problems, we will fix them.
		We will communicate what we are doing to the public.
		That's what I'm doing right now.
		But we'll be making major changes, so get used to it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Back to your calls on whether you support or oppose VA cuts.
		Billy is in Dunnellen, Florida, and is a veteran.
		Good morning, Billy.
unidentified		Yes, I support Donald J. Trump's cutting the fat from the VA.
samuel r damewood ▲ ● ▼		I know here in Florida, I know veterans that get great service, but I know the administration of all of these veterans groups, they're double dippers that are working.
unidentified		They want to cut the fat.
		The taxpayers of this country, and I'm a veteran of 20 years, over 20 years in the Army, and I see it.
		The Veterans Administration here in Florida is doing a great job.
		I have no complaints from my friends that go there.
		But if they're creating jobs for veterans just to create a job, then we need to cut the fat.
		So that's all I have to say.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, Billy, if you don't mind, I have a couple of follow-up questions, just because you're the first person who called in this morning in support of these cuts.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And I wonder if there are particular sectors where you think that the VA really could use some trimming down.
unidentified		I think the VA has turned into creating jobs.
samuel r damewood ▲ ● ▼		You go in there, you see people sitting around, but their service is good, but you see people are there that are not really doing anything.
unidentified		And if they can cut and streamline and keep the same service for these people, that would be great.
		But you can't blame Donald J. Trump.
		Our country is broke.
		We can't employ people just to make a job for them.
		And a lot of these VA people, they're retired and in their work and they're working again.
		Fine.
		But let's employ people that need a job that really needs a position that can do the work in that facility.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Alina Haba, who is the White House counselor, there's a story in The Hill saying that she suggests some of the veterans, including those working in the VA and those veterans working throughout the federal government, may not be fit for government jobs.
		White House counselor Alina Haba on Tuesday suggested some veterans are perhaps not fit for government jobs.
		Let's listen to that moment when she was outside the White House with reporters on Tuesday.
unidentified		Is the president starting to think about maybe some of those veterans who worked for the federal government and maybe what the administration can do to at least help salvage their lives?
		Well, as you know, we care about veterans tremendously.
		I mean, that's something the president has always cared about.
		Anybody in blue, anybody that serves this country.
		But at the same time, we have taxpayer dollars.
		We have a fiscal responsibility to use taxpayer dollars to pay people that actually work.
		That doesn't mean that we forget our veterans by any means.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		We are going to care for them in the right way, but perhaps they're not fit to have a job at this moment or not willing to come to work.
unidentified		And we can't, you know, I wouldn't take money from you and pay somebody and say, sorry, you know, they're not going to come to work.
unidentified		It's just not acceptable.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Back to the calls.
		All right.
		Tony is in Waterbury, Connecticut, and is a veteran.
		Good morning, Tony.
unidentified		Good morning, ma'am.
unidentified		How are you doing this morning?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good, thank you.
unidentified		I don't think no services from the VA should be cut because of the simple fact.
		When I was in the military and I got out in 1995, if it wasn't for the mental health department at the VA, I think I probably would have been dead because I would have committed suicide because I really wanted to be in the Navy for the 20 years, but I didn't get to go in there.
		And then a couple years later, I lost my kids.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I'm so sorry.
unidentified		And when I lost my kid, I didn't want to live.
		And it wasn't for a lady named Nancy Berkman at Rare Center where veterans go, who has PTSD like I have, who helped me get through this and helped me get back in touch with my kids and my family that make me want to live today.
		But I still have these moments where I feel abandoned by everybody, especially the VA.
		And right now, I'm really having anxiety about how he's cutting the VA and doing veterans wrong.
		Now, last time I was only 8 West, that's the psych ward, there was a young man who had just started as a peer specialist.
		And he didn't have his year in.
		I wanted to get fired.
		And he was an Army veteran.
		So all these people calling like the last young man who just called talking about you should cut the job at the VA.
		Don't cut no job at the VA because these are the people who get in the services now.
		And the people who are going to need the services in the future doesn't need a bureaucracy of a person who's in charge never served.
		He never served, but he's going to talk about we're going to cut it anyway.
		Well, you've been in Congress being a millionaire, getting richer by the day, stealing from all people who work.
		And all the ones you're hurting are the ones who have served the country when the country needed them the most.
		So we need you now and don't cut nothing.
		Because when you was running for office, you didn't say you was going to cut nothing.
		That's all I have to say.
		And y'all have a good day.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		James is in Virginia and is also a veteran.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, James.
unidentified		Good morning, ma'am, and thank you very much for your program.
		I'm a veteran.
		I served from 1968 to 1996, through two wars.
		Cutting the VA is always going to be a tough issue for those of us who serve.
		It's going to be emotional.
		We all left something behind wherever we serve.
		However, the medical staff are wonderful, but the support staff are so bloated.
		I visit and use the VA in Washington, D.C.
		And whenever I walk in the front door, the ladies are wonderful.
		But why do they need five of them behind the desk with two more sitting that are talking over the partition, having a chit-chat?
		As I'm walking around, there's all kinds of staff that aren't doing anything.
		There are folks out front smoking.
		There's just a lot of things that you don't see in a regular hospital.
		If you go to a regular hospital, there's a lot of efficiency.
		You don't see four or five people waiting to check in.
		They're supposed to be checking in patients, but maybe only one of them is there.
		The other ones are kind of walking around and I'm not sure what they're doing, but they don't seem very engaged in patient care.
		There needs to be some efficiency in delivering.
		And just a comparison between what happens in private industry and what happens in the VA.
		It's not a jobs program.
		It's not something it's there to provide services to people who have left something behind on the battlefield.
		And it's certainly emotional no matter where you're on the spectrum.
		But I want them to cut it.
		I want them to go through.
		But I don't want to just use a butcher knife and start whacking like crazy.
		They need to go through.
		And there certainly needs to be some input from VA, but there also needs to be some people come in.
		And just as they do with any private corporation, take a look and see where is the bloat, where is the waste.
		And there's a lot of it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, James, what do you think?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of the way that they've been moving about these cuts so far and the strategy behind it?
unidentified		Well, I think it's early.
		It's difficult.
		The challenge, I think, is that if I were working at the VA as a veteran, I wouldn't want to hear anybody talking about making cuts that may affect my family and myself.
		I think if I were a patient there, particularly our brothers and sisters who have life-threatening things like PTSD, and I've had my own challenges as well, we don't want to hear it.
		But there needs to be some adult in the room on this.
		And right now, I can tell you, just go to the DC, go to the front door today, walk in, and as you go around, you'll see there's a huge difference in what you may experience with the number of people that are in the line of the coffee shop.
		And it's just a constant, it's a constant, it looks like people go to work to socialize in many cases.
		However, the ladies at the audiology clinic are fantastic.
		They work so hard.
		And my primary care physician that I've seen is wonderful.
		I can't take anything away from it at all.
		But it's just in the support staff.
		It doesn't look good.
		And unfortunately, this is becoming an emotional issue for the public who only hears that we've got the suicide rates, which is very, very real.
		But it's necessary.
		We cannot afford to keep going.
		And it's not an employment agency.
		It's not a place where, in some cases, maybe the unemployable can get a job.
		I'll leave it at that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		James was talking about the spending.
		The Peter G. Peterson Foundation has some numbers on spending on veterans in the budget.
		Federal spending for veterans has increased sharply in the past two decades as scores of veterans returned home from extended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with many with significant needs resulting from their service.
		In 2023, spending for programs that support veterans totaled $302 billion, or about 5% of all federal spending.
		In addition, lawmakers enacted the PACT Act in August of 2022 to enhance health and disability benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances during active duty, which will boost spending significantly.
		And let's look a bit about how the Department of Veterans Affairs allocates its resources.
		About 50% goes to VA income security, 42% to VA hospital and medical care, which many folks have mentioned this morning, 4.2% to VA education, training, and rehabilitation, and then another 4% to VA benefits and services.
		Back to your calls on whether you support or oppose VA cuts.
		Let's hear from Kyle in Reno, Nevada, who is a veteran.
		Good morning, Kyle.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I do support the cuts.
		I agree with the previous three callers or two callers that say the problem is not the medical doctors.
		It has to do with the secretaries that make the appointments and answer the phones.
		They're rude.
		They're inconsiderate.
		They may or may not return your voicemail.
		And in my case, for example, I've had quite a few skin cancers removed in the past year.
		They literally would not even let me leave a message on the doctor's voicemail.
		So, where the cuts need to be made are for the people that aren't there to completely serve my experience as a patient.
		I actually go to the doctor in San Francisco when I live in Reno, so that means even if I get a dental cleaning, I'm driving 400 miles.
		That ought to tell you how badly I think the one in the Reno is.
		As far as the San Francisco doctors, they're all supremely educated, but their staff is extremely rude.
		Y'all have a great day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Mike is in Fairbanks, Alaska, on our line for others.
		Good morning, Mike.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Kimberly, and good morning to a new America just north of the Gulf of America.
unidentified		And also, congratulations to the return of the X-37 Space Force.
		Top secret mission there.
		And I think we need satellite care centers for our veterans.
		They've been dumped on for many, many years, especially since the fundamental change that this country went through back in 2008.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		But I think President Trump and Elon's drive to rid our country of corruption is 100% patriotic Americano.
unidentified		We have to do this.
unidentified		Every agency is corrupt, and it either needs to be eliminated or completely changed and reformed.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		I mean, we've heard of horror stories of veterans left on gurneys suffering because they can't get care and the abuse.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		And if you go to the Veterans Center down in, I think it's Santa Monica, Hollywood, there, off the 405 freeway, it's a nightmare.
unidentified		It's so depressing and dark.
		They need to level that place and get places closer to our veterans.
		And, you know, the goal should be an empty veterans hospital.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		You know, we need quality, we need volunteers, and quality care comes from quality haircut workers, health care workers that put emphasis on veteran care over their paycheck and their careers.
		How about just straight-up volunteers that love our veterans, our young and old, that have given up their lives.
		And don't paint our veterans that have no limbs.
		Don't make a hobby out of painting our veterans that are handicapped and disabled over this terrible illegal wars.
		You know, that's the goal: empty our veterans hospital out.
unidentified		And that's why I support three or four terms for President Trump.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		And we need to stop every war.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		That will empty out our veterans, our veterans center.
unidentified		But I've spoken up.
unidentified		Thank you, Kimberly.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Another veteran, Democratic Senator, Mark Kelly, was on the Senate floor on Tuesday, and he was criticizing the VA cuts, and in particular, the manner in which workers were fired.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Mr. President, we made a sacred promise to our veterans that after their service, they would get the care and support that they earned.
		That promise did not come with an expiration date.
		And as a combat veteran myself, I take this responsibility personally on behalf of Arizona's more than 500,000 veterans and veterans across the country.
		But with these mass firings of staff at the VA, President Trump and Elon Musk are breaking that promise.
		In the last month, thousands of VA employees, people who care for our nation's veterans, were fired with no warning, no phone call, no meeting, just an email telling them that they no longer had a job, that they were no longer wanted.
unidentified		And Mr. President, these aren't just nameless, faceless bureaucrats.
		These are Americans who signed up to serve our country by taking care of veterans.
		They deserve to be treated with respect.
		These are the people on the front lines of veterans' care and services.
		And they were fired without even a thought.
		We can all agree that the VA can do a better job, but aimlessly firing thousands of people will do nothing to help speed up veterans' health care.
		Nothing.
		It will just make accessing care more difficult.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Back to your calls on whether you support or oppose VA cuts.
		Let's hear from Donna in Detroit, Michigan, who's a veteran.
		Good morning, Donna.
unidentified		Hi, Ms. Kimberly.
		I am enraged at people calling up, and it's mostly white males, saying cut, cut, cut.
		I am a veteran from the Marine Corps.
		Ms. Kimberly, I need the VA.
		I go there now.
		They give me the best of care.
		They really care from the receptionists, from the scheduling to the doctors I see, to the departments I go to to have my exams.
		I can barely breathe sometimes.
		And they're always there for me.
		They're always there.
		I love the service.
		I love the camaraderie I see when I go to the VA hospital to get care John Dingle Center.
		Even the Canton one.
		Everybody sticks together.
		Everybody helps each other out.
		The place is packed all the time, Ms. Kimberly.
		People need those services.
		This cutting and thinking people are value is not right.
		It's not right.
		And it's mostly these white males calling up saying, cut, cut, cut.
		Something's wrong with them.
		Something is wrong with them.
		Miss Kimberly, they can't keep doing this to people.
		We served our country.
		They can't keep doing this to people saying you don't deserve.
		I would tell you, Ms. Kimberly, I would tell you if I just saw people just standing around and not doing anything.
		They're not.
		People deserve to take breaks.
		Just because they're standing around doesn't mean that they don't have jobs and they're not doing them well.
		They even give us free parking.
		Like I said, the place is packed there.
		People are, it's so many of them.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Donna, do you think there's any space or any areas in which there could be reductions in the idea that the administration is trying to reduce spending overall?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Is there any place that you could think of where there could be cuts in VA?
unidentified		It works like clockwork.
		I'm telling you, even from the schedule, when I called in to get scheduled, they returned my calls.
		I say within, I want to say within 24 hours to get an appointment.
		When I was going to private sector medical units, they don't do that.
		It takes a long time.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Let's go to Joy in Chicago, who is also a veteran.
		Good morning, Joy.
unidentified		My name is Joy, and I'm a Naval vet.
		My brother is a Naval vet.
		My father was in Air Force and fought in Korea.
		Here's my question.
		My mother worked for 11 years at Heinz V Hospital in Mayway.
		Here's my question.
		Why is it that Trump is always looking at services and people, the common heirs?
		Why aren't we ever focusing on cutting the ultra-rich, the billionaires?
		Why don't we ever take a fine-tuned comb and go through how many tax breaks they're getting?
		Why don't we ever put them on display?
		We're always cutting the bottom half, you know, but we're never focusing on what are the rich people getting?
		Why can't we put that under a microscope?
		That's all I, I mean, we need our vets.
		I mean, we got paraplegics.
		We got people.
		And all these, the guy called about people sitting around smoking cigarettes.
		You know, what is wrong with having people in working class taking a break?
		Why don't we ever focus?
		We always look at, you know, the negative aspects of everything.
		But the VA hospitals from Heinz, you know, to Great Lakes, these hospitals, you know, like the woman just previously called, they're safe havens for our veterans.
		And they create a middle class.
		Working, having mortgages.
		We're always focusing on one another.
		It's meant to turn us against each other.
		But I just want to see she stands for one.
		Talk about the tax cuts, you know, and the different tax cuts these people are getting.
		And let's shed light on that.
		God bless America.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Sean is in Milton, Florida, and is a veteran.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Sean.
unidentified		Yeah, I don't support the cuts that they're making to the VA.
		I'm a veteran as well.
		I've been lucky.
		I've never been seriously injured or wounded.
		I don't take advantage of a lot of the services that the VA provide, but I know they're there and I know they're doing a good service for a lot of people that are actually in rough shape.
		And I have in the past volunteered at the VA.
		So when these non-consequence understanding cuts are made, that puts people in a position where they're going to lose some things that are vital for their survival.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And do you think that there's any areas of the VA that could be trimmed down at all?
unidentified		Not necessarily.
		I mean, every area is different.
		Every person that goes in there is different.
		I don't see a lot of costs for things like transportation because all the drivers are volunteers.
		I don't see a lot of costs for other services outside of medical because most of those people are volunteers.
		I used to work with a counselor and we did an art therapy program and I paid for the whole thing out of my pocket.
		So I think people need to step in and take a look before they start slashing these programs.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Tony is in Claypool, Indiana, and is a military family member.
		Good morning, Tony.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		My dad was in the military.
		He didn't go overseas for Korea, but he was fortunate enough that he had good insurance, and he never really took advantage of what the VA had to offer.
		But when he passed away January 1st, the funeral home director said, hey, I want to make sure that he gets all of his everything he should get from the VA.
		And the Honor Guard and everyone, they came to his funeral grave site.
		And we were so proud to have them there and so fortunate to have them there.
		And I don't think they should be doing any cuts.
		And if they do have to do cuts, I think it should be someone that has an inner working knowledge of the VA, not Elon Musk, and definitely not Donald Trump, who has no concern, no care, no respect whatsoever for a veteran, never has, never will.
		I'm just thankful that my father passed away before he had to see all this and the way they are treating veterans because they don't deserve to be treated like this.
		They fought for our country.
		They stood up for our freedoms when others didn't and said they had bone spurs.
		I just don't think that the people they have doing these cuts are the people to do it.
		If it has to be done, it should be someone with a real working knowledge.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, I'm sorry for your loss, Tony.
		Let's look at some posts on social media related to the VA and the proposed cuts that the administration is making.
		But first, Edison Research did some polling and looked at how veterans voted.
		And this is from exit polling in the 2024 election showing that 65% of veterans voted for Trump, 34% voted for Harris.
		Moving on to some other, this is a response to the op-ed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that was in the Hill.
		Dr. Roger Marshall says, as a son and brother of veterans, the father of a soldier and a veteran myself, I know the sacrifices our veterans make.
		I appreciate Secretary Collins' commitment to rooting out needless bureaucracy and inefficiency in the VA.
		And then we have Senator Jerry Moran who gave a statement on potential workforce reductions saying, the Department of Veterans Affairs must provide veterans, their family members, and survivors the health care and benefits that they have earned.
		The VA is in need of reform, but current efforts to downsize the department and increase efficiency must be done in a more responsible manner.
		I expect the VA to work with Congress to right-size the VA workforce and allow us to legislate necessary changes.
		Representative Mike Thompson says, since Congress expanded veterans benefits through the PACT Act in 2022, 740,000 new veterans needing health care have enrolled in the VA.
		Now DOGE plans to fire 83,000 VA employees, slashing staff and increasing wait times for our veterans.
		Senator Pete Welch saying he has made fun of soldiers captured in war.
		He has said American service members who died are losers and suckers.
		And now President Trump is planning to fire 80,000 Veterans Affairs workers to help care for our veterans after their services finish.
		It's despicable.
		Tammy Duckworth, another veteran, VA Secretary Collins fired the veteran crisis line workers, then lied about it.
		The complete lack of transparency around these mass layoffs at the VA is outrageous.
		It's time Trump and Collins show us the receipts and reveal the true extent of the damage done to our veterans.
		Back to your calls on whether you support or oppose VA cuts.
		James is in Flores at Missouri and is a veteran.
		Good morning, James.
unidentified		Hello, yes.
		I'm calling, and I served in the military in the early 80s to the late 80s.
		I do not support a mass cut of jobs in the VA at all.
		I do support the fact that they need to look into VA for more being more sufficient in terms of the service that is offered.
		I do support that.
		But I do not think that anyone that has no vision or no experience in terms of understanding what the type of service VA is doing or what type of service is needed and what needs to be fixed.
		We already know a while back that, you know, and even up to today, that there's areas that we can improve in VA service to the veterans.
		So I just think that that's the method is to go through to determine how to look into how to work with the people that you have on staff and how to make it better in terms of the support and the service that everyone gets.
		There's long terms of time that Veterans get the service that they need, all the medical attention or whatever the case may be that they need.
		Make this just, you know, find out a way to streamline the services.
		And if that means cutting some areas, then I could go with that.
		But you need to do your analysis to determine what needs to be cut and what needs to be what needs more support.
		Because even though you're saying I need to cut this area, but maybe you need more support in another area where you need to increase, you know, the people that's working in those areas.
		So that's where I met with that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Eva is in Mississippi and is a military family member.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes.
		I would like to speak about the veteran, how they're being affected, even their medicine right now.
		You can't call.
		You cannot call VA and get a number.
		I have to call for transportation from my husband.
		My husband is three-time Vietnam veterans.
		He shouldn't, Trump should not tell him or anybody else what they can do or what they can't do.
		Now we can't call in.
		We can't get their medicine.
		And it's already an issue.
		I work for the VA, so did my daughter.
		So there's nothing they need to do but improve VA because you're going to have more soldiers coming out.
		And Trump and Musk is not the one to run VA.
		So I like to say that because we're having problems right now.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So what do you think would be the consequences if there are additional cuts?
unidentified		There should not be no cuts.
		They should be adding on to it.
		Because if it's healthy need fixing, I worked there for 20 years.
		My daughter's working it.
		They should be improving it because these soldiers should not be sitting down having to wait and then they can't even get their prosthetics if they need my husband need things right now.
		They're turning them down in prosthetics.
		Everybody's getting turned down.
		So this issue should be fixed.
		It's not by Musk or Trump.
		They didn't serve.
		So you know what he needs to do?
		He needs to go get the spurs out of his foot and everywhere else and leave VA alone.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Ted is in Warrington, Oregon, and is a veteran.
		Good morning, Ted.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		Anyway, I am an Air Force veteran from the 70s and 80s into the 90s.
		I went to my VA clinic and for my yearly physical, and I'm going to start out with saying VA health care is better, better than anything you'll get out of the civilian side.
		I used the Air Force to gain entrance into a school that had higher enrollment than any Ivy League college.
		I attended that school for five years, graduated, became what I became, used it for 25 years, and walked away the day I turned 57.
		Now, I'm very happy.
		I've been out of my job for 10 years.
		I went to the VA clinic on Friday, and I noticed that in the picture frames in my clinic, they were blank, both of the POTUS and the VA secretary.
		And I went to the receptionist and I said, Hey, I love those black picture frames.
		Thank you very much.
		Thank you, thank you, thank you.
		So I just think that they don't need to cut anything.
		They need to add to it.
		It's the best health care anywhere.
		All my veteran friends that I see, they're young, they're old, they're older than me, younger than me, and we all have a very good time.
		And Mr. Trump and Leon Musk need to go away.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Just some numbers on veterans in the United States.
		There are 15.8 million veterans in the United States as of 2023, which are the most recent statistics available from the census.
		And that represents about 6.1% of the total civilian population aged 18 and over.
		Jim is in Long Island, New York, and is a military family member.
		Good morning, Jim.
unidentified		Yes, I don't understand how any veteran can support Trump.
		It's a draft dodger, made fun of John McCain, called the veteran suckers and losers over and over.
		I don't understand how 65% of the veterans can support him.
		He has no care for them at all.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		During the campaign and during the election, did you talk to any of your fellow veterans about who they were supporting for president?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Or other members that, veterans that you may know?
unidentified		Yes, and some of them do support him.
		I don't understand how they can vote for this guy.
		You know, he's a liar.
		Every time he opens his mouth, he lies.
		And for some reason, they vote for him.
		I just don't understand how any veteran could support him.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Carl is in Augusta, Georgia, and is a veteran.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Carl.
unidentified		Good morning, Kimberly.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I'm a Vietnam-era veteran, and I'm just calling in to rebut those guys that were talking about people standing around and nobody's doing their job.
		Every time I go to the VA, there's people doing their job.
		There are volunteers at the desk when you come in.
		And yes, they do need to stand around up there at the desk.
		You know, they don't have just one person up there.
		They have several people in that area.
		And so my VA do a very good job here in Augusta, Georgia.
		I think they do an excellent job.
		And I believe that without all this nonsense about with Donald Trump and Elon Musk, I don't know what they want from the VA.
		They shouldn't be allowed to even be talking about the VA, especially Donald Trump.
		Thank you, Kimberly, and have a great day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Thomas is in Chesterfield, Virginia, and is also a veteran.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Thomas.
unidentified		Yes, Kimberly, please give me the time, please.
		First of all, I'm a Vietnam-era veteran, a draftee in the late 60s when Donald Trump was getting four or five deferments because of bone spurs.
		So now, Mr. Commander-in-Chief Bonespur is cutting VA benefits.
		I get excellent care at my VA Center here in Virginia, Richmond.
dannion brinkley ▲ ● ▼		Yes, they have staff there that sometimes are not always busy, but that's with any organization.
unidentified		Whenever I go there, I get great care.
dannion brinkley ▲ ● ▼		I get my appointments, but yet you have white males calling in complaining because most of the people that you see behind the counter are GS2s and threes, and they're normally a minority.
unidentified		That's why they're talking about people standing around doing nothing.
		That is a lie.
		I get excellent cure there.
		Also, you have two people, one from an apartheid country, Elon Musk.
		Donald Trump is white and rich.
		That's why he never served.
		Also, he talks about John McCain, which was a decorated hero, a man that spent five years in a POW camp.
		Donald Trump don't even know what a POW camp is because he's a coward.
		And one other thing, to my fellow veterans, how can 65% of you people vote for a coward like Donald Trump?
		My message to Donald Trump and Elon Musk, leave our veteran benefits alone.
		Thank you, Kenelly.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Kevin is in Lee, Massachusetts, and is also a veteran.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Kevin.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I would like to get it out to all the veterans that encourage your friends, even if they do not use the VA healthcare.
		If you're a veteran, take and register.
		That will get you in the numbers of the people that are served in your area.
		And I go through Northampton, Massachusetts.
		They treat me very well.
		There are clinics that they don't have that I get sent out into the community and get treated very well by them quickly and everything.
		At one point, I worked for the Albany VA Medical Center.
		They had a pilot program for radiation therapy to treat cancer.
		They did drop the program because it was a multi-million dollar center that treated six to eight patients a day.
		It wasn't worth the money.
		It was a great job.
		The pay didn't start out good, but if you did 20, 30 years there, the end results was much better than the private sector.
		But once again, tell all your buddies that aren't going to the VA, register.
		That will get them on the books.
		And have a great day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, that is all the time we have for this segment for now.
		I want to take a moment to point out that C-SPAN wants you, our viewers, to have a voice in the White House briefing room.
		So if you have a question for Press Secretary Caroline Levitt, please send us an email to wquestions at c-span.org.
		That's wquestions at c-span.org.
		Be sure to include your first name and your city and state, and you might hear your question asked at the next briefing.
		Now then, up next, we're going to do a deep dive into the Trump administration trade and tariff policies with Joshua Meltzer of the Brookings Institution and E.J. Antoni of the Heritage Foundation.
		Then later on, we're going to talk more about those proposed cuts to the VA with Military Times Deputy Editor Leo Shane.
		be right back.
unidentified		Tonight on C-SPAN's Q&A, Kentucky Republican Congressman James Comer, House Oversight Committee Chair and author of All the President's Money, talks about his committee's 15-month investigation into the business practices of then-President Joe Biden and members of President Biden's family.
unidentified		In this interview, Representative Comer argues that the Bidens have benefited financially from corrupt financial dealings involving Ukraine, China, and other countries.
james comer ▲ ● ▼		Six different banks had filed 175 suspicious activity reports against the Bidens, most of which were while Joe Biden was Vice President of the United States, and then they were subject to another 50 suspicious activity reports.
		So let me put that in perspective: no bank would file a suspicious activity report against the son of a prominent politician unless they were darn sure that a financial crime had been committed.
		Because when you file one of those, the bank examiners roll in your bank and it causes a lot of problems.
		So the banks knew that there was some bad things going on here.
		And that's when the investigation really took off.
unidentified		James Comer with his book, All the President's Money, tonight at 8 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.
		Nearly 3,500 students participated in this year's C-SPAN Student Camp Documentary Competition, where we ask students to craft a message to the new president, exploring issues important to them or their communities.
		This Wednesday, tune in to C-SPAN's Washington Journal at 8 a.m. Eastern, where we'll announce the grand prize winner of this year's competition.
		Weekends bring you Book TV, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		Reason Magazine senior editor Brian Dougherty talks about the modern libertarian movement led by thinkers like F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Barry Goldwater in his book, Modern Libertarianism.
		Pacific Research Institute president and CEO Sally Pipes, author of The World's Medicine Chest, talks about the rise of the American pharmaceutical industry and warns against enacting European-style prescription drug controls.
		Then on afterwards, journalist Omar L. Akkad questions if the U.S. is forsaking its core values after 20 years of covering wars around the globe and social unrest in his book, One Day Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This.
		He's interviewed by author and University of Oxford modern Middle Eastern history professor Eugene Rogan.
		Watch Book TV every weekend on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back for our roundtable discussion this morning.
		We're going to be discussing the Trump administration's policies on trade and tariffs.
		And for that, we're joined by Joshua Meltzer of the Brookings Institution, where he is a Global Economy and Development Program Senior Fellow.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And we also have here in studio E.J. Antonio who's a research fellow and public finance economist at the Heritage Foundation.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Kimberly.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, there have been so many movements in the timeline of what's been happening with trade and tariff policy.
		ABC News has an article sort of breaking down some of the dates and things that have happened recently.
		Let's tick through a few of them.
		On February 1st, President Trump announced tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada.
		Then on February 3rd, he delayed those tariffs on Mexico and Canada.
		Then on March the 4th, imposed a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada and Mexico, plus an additional 10% tariff on all imports from China, in addition to 10% that were already in place for China.
		On March the 5th, delayed the tariffs on cars from Mexico and Canada for a month.
		Then on March the 6th, delayed the tariffs on most goods from Mexico and Canada for a month.
		EJ, let's start with you.
		With this just month of on-again, off-again tariffs and reprieves, amid the uncertainty, what do you take away from the week in terms of what the president is thinking, what his trade policy is, and where it's headed?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Great questions, Kimberly.
		I think one of the things to remember is that amidst what looks like chaos is actually active negotiations.
		In other words, much of what the president is going to do on tariffs is dependent on what his counterparts in other nations decide to do.
		This is the whole point of reciprocity, for example.
		If we want to be able to export our products into other countries' markets, if we want their markets to be open to us, in other words, then we're going to have to see other nations essentially giving us the exact same grace.
		So if Canada, for example, wants to be able to send their products here to the United States, that's fine.
		But then their markets need to be open to us.
		In other words, our dairy farmers need to be able to send cheese to Canada.
		Our auto manufacturers need to be able to send car parts to Canada without the massive tariff and also non-tariff barriers that are in place.
		And so as these negotiations proceed and as President Trump and his counterparts negotiate what the tariff and non-tariff rates are going to be, we should expect to continue to see these different news headlines that look like they're going back and forth.
		But I think that's really just a reflection of what's happening behind closed doors.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Joshua, what's your take on the administration's policy strategy so far and what the risks of this kind of uncertainty are for businesses and investors?
unidentified		Yeah, great.
		Great to be here.
		So, look, I think uncertainty is certainly the key word at the moment.
		It'd be great to think about these actions sort of, I think, broadly as well as specifically with respect to Canada and Mexico.
		Obviously, that's been the focus of the president since he came into office.
		And the important thing, obviously, is that relationships, trade investment relationships with Canada and Mexico are governed by the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, which President Trump negotiated during his first term in office.
		So this agreement is really only four years old.
		It replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement.
		He was very proud of it justifiably.
		He described it as the most fair, balanced trade agreement ever when it was signed during his first term in office.
		And under that agreement, there are zero tariffs, right, essentially between all three countries.
		So Canada imposes zero tariffs on Mexico, on U.S. imports, on Mexican imports.
		The U.S. imposes zero tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports and so forth.
		So there's free trade and it's been like that really since NAFTA.
		So these tariffs on Mexico and Canada are, I think, particularly sort of confounding.
		Now, you know, it's not to say that there may not be a need for some tariffs in some areas because one of the issues I think has been that free trade agreements between countries generally have these things in them called rules of origin, right?
		So you want to make sure that goods coming in from Canada into the United States are actually sort of, you know, largely essentially made in Canada, right?
		Third countries aren't taking advantage and sort of importing into Canada in order to get to the United States market.
		And when you have zero tariffs, but if it becomes very costly not to use products from third countries, then you may just say, oh, we'll just export to the US and not comply with the USMCA.
		So there's technical issues there that need to be addressed potentially.
		But broadly speaking, there's free trade.
		So, you know, this has been a very confounding, I think, sort of outcome.
		And I think the back and forth that we've seen, you know, has kind of essentially, I think, reflected a couple of things.
		I mean, it may be ultimately a negotiating strategy with Canada and Mexico, but I think ultimately what we've seen is that the impact of these tariffs, this is really specifically, again, for Canada and Mexico, are going to be so costly for businesses and consumers that the president's ultimately, I think, heard that from industry and wound them back.
		And so I think this back and forth has sort of reflected that dynamic largely.
		There is this question now of reciprocity, which is being discussed here.
		And we can get into that because I think that's going to be an extremely sort of complicated process.
		And how Canada and Mexico fit into that is very unclear.
		But the net result is we're in very uncertain times.
		And one of the things we learned about uncertainty, because this sort of happened across North America during the first Trump administration when there was sort of the threat of the United States withdrawing from the then NAFTA agreement and then renegotiation and its outcome was also uncertain.
		And we saw business investment across the United States.
		Canada and Mexico dropped your responses.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Speaking of businesses in particular, because you mentioned sort of the response coming from the business sector, I want to read a statement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which said, American families and businesses are struggling with high costs.
		It's one of the top issues they want policymakers to address.
		The chamber supports the administration's efforts to advance pro-growth policies like fewer regulations and less taxation that will grow our economy and expand opportunity and to fix problems like our broken border and stopping the flow of fentanyl in this country.
		We also want to work together to keep costs down, but tariffs will only raise prices and increase the economic pain being felt by everyday Americans across the country.
		We urge reconsideration of this policy and a swift end to these tariffs.
		EJ, even though some of these tariffs are on hold, many new ones are scheduled to kick in in April.
		And what will this mean for consumers and the typical American households in terms of when people might start seeing the impact in their pocketbooks?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		That's a great question, Kimberly.
		One of the things we have to remember is that we're dealing with tariffs in the real world right now.
		So we're not in an academic setting where we're saying, okay, everything is already copacetic and now what happens if we impose tariffs, right?
		We have real world conditions into which we are imposing these tariffs.
		So that means, for example, that you're not dealing with free trade already.
		Let's correct the record here.
		There are plenty of American exports that don't go to nations like Canada or Mexico right now because those countries already impose very steep tariff or they have very strict non-tariff barriers that, again, prevent our exporters from being able to compete in those countries.
		We also have things like a border crisis, a fentanyl crisis, right?
		So there are a lot of other considerations at play here.
		And those are the real world conditions into which we are imposing these tariffs.
		I think that's really important to remember.
		Now, all that being said, another important consideration is the fact that tariffs are never passed entirely on to consumers, right?
		Some of that tariff is always eaten by the producer.
		Now, how much of that depends on a lot of different factors.
		You have different elasticities at play.
		You have to consider things like the changes in exchange rates that are going to happen.
		So again, a lot of different things at play here.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		But we've heard from some major retailers like the CEO of Target saying directly that consumers were going to be feeling the impact of these tariffs with prices going up.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		But we've heard that before.
		And the question, Kimberly, is just how much of these tariffs are actually going to be passed on to consumers.
		So, for example, in the first Trump administration, after tariffs were imposed, the price indexes that we used to measure the cost of imports coming into this country actually fell.
		They didn't rise.
		So, other factors overrode, or you could say, the magnitude of those other factors was greater than the increase in prices from the tariffs.
		So, it depends on a lot of different factors whether or not we'll actually see prices rise or fall.
		I do think one of the things that's interesting is a lot of the same outlets right now that are all of a sudden saying that tariffs are going to cause prices to go through the roof were completely silent for the last four years when the previous administration imposed tariffs.
		And where was the outcry then?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Joshua, you mentioned reciprocity or sometimes retaliation.
		There's reporting here, as we saw throughout.
		Bloomberg saying Canada delays most of the tariffs after Trump eases the trade war.
		The Washington Post reporting on Mexico's President Scheinbaum to hold a festival today as Trump pauses tariffs.
		What's your take on how these other countries are reacting and what that means for how this potential trade war is going to move forward?
unidentified		Yeah, look, I mean, there's a lot there.
		I mean, I think the point about not thinking about this purely academically is a good one and looking at real world effects.
		And I'll get to your question very, very quickly.
		I mean, I think it's a really important one.
		I just want to tie it together quickly because one of the things is that we, you know, we have a real-world example of the impact of tariffs during the first Trump administration.
		It's important to note a couple of things.
		Firstly, that the tariffs, you know, certainly that are being proposed at the moment, and if they do go ahead on Canada and Mexico, plus the additional 20% we're now seeing on China, you know, of a magnitude larger than anything we saw during the first Trump administration.
		We've also got a very different economy today than we did then, right?
		We've got like, we've had very high inflation.
		It's sort of coming down now a little.
		But, you know, it's a very different economy than before where we had very low inflation, more capacity in the economy.
		We've got high interest rates, low interest rates then, and so forth.
		So we also have to take that into account.
		But a lot of studies that looked at the actual impact of the tariffs from China on the U.S. economy, from the Federal Reserve and elsewhere, concluded that the tariffs essentially decreased manufacturing in the U.S. and raised prices.
		The point is that there are obviously other things going on in the economy we need to look at.
		And it's very kind of hard to speculate how the tax cuts might have an impact and what exchange rate adjustments matter and so forth.
		But if you just look at what tariffs do to prices and employment and jobs and manufacturing, we know that they decrease them and harm them.
		You may have offsetting policies, but certainly that's the impact.
		And given the size of these tariffs, they would be significantly more impactful on the U.S. economy this time around, particularly given the tighter economy and the higher inflation.
		It's interesting to look at what's been happening in Canada and Mexico in response.
		I think the Canadians in particular, I think, have been completely and utterly flawed.
		And that is to say, deeply saddened by the U.S. response.
		Canada is a very close ally of the United States.
		We share a culture.
		We share similar government systems, legal systems.
		There's been essentially open trade for decades and a deeply integrated economy.
		And the Canadians have been booing the United States at hockey games.
		They're boycotting U.S. products on shelves.
		They're deciding not to travel and visit the United States.
		I mean, a level of kind of anger in Canada is very real at the moment.
		I think that's just unfortunate in and of itself.
		You certainly don't want that with your close neighbors.
		And so there have been that impact.
		The Mexicans have been a lot calmer, I would say.
		And I think that probably reflects the fact that they're probably used to somewhat bigger punching bags in the United States at various points over many decades.
		And so their response has been a little bit more measured than the Canadians.
		But, you know, it's really underscored, I think, for both countries, the cost to them of being so dependent on the U.S. market.
		Now, they talk about diversifying and finding other export markets.
		I think that's a long-term strategy.
		For them, it's very hard to do that immediately.
		They've all made a bet on an integrated, open sort of trade-in investment relationship, which has sort of been in place for 30, 40 years now.
		And hopefully we return to something like that.
		Ultimately, I think the removal of essentially the tariffs on Mexico and Canada for goods that are compliant with USMTA suggests we may have a deal.
		And I think the economic costs of not doing that are going to be high enough that we probably will get there.
		But I think it's been a real kind of blow, in particularly to Canada, to its collective sense of America being a reliable, sort of friendly ally.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's get to some questions from our audience.
		Democrats can call in at 202-748-8000.
		Republicans at 202-748-8001.
		Independents at 202-748-8002.
		And again, you can text us at 202-748-8003.
		Just be sure to include your name and where you're writing in from.
		But let's start with a question we received on X from JD Redding, who asks, Mr. Antoni, do you believe the potential revenue justifies the risk to economic growth amidst retaliatory measures?
		And then a follow-up question, which I'll repeat later.
		Mr. Meltzer, how are global supply chains reshaping, especially with allies already moving toward alternative trade blocks?
		So, EJ, let's start with you.
		Do you believe the potential revenue justifies the risk to economic growth?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		I would say that is one of many considerations that are in the mix right now.
		And I frankly do think it's really good to see our nation moving away from income tax revenue and to tariff revenue.
		We forget because we're so used to having an income tax that for most of our nation's history, it didn't even exist.
		In fact, it had been ruled unconstitutional.
		We had to change the Constitution in 1913 in order to actually have a federal income tax.
		So, before that period, when we actually had our longest period of sustained highest levels of economic growth, we got almost all federal revenue from tariffs, not from the income tax.
		And so, I really like to see a reduction on reliance in the federal income tax and more of a reliance on taxing international trade.
		I think that's actually a good thing, especially when it is our Navy, for example, policing the world's sea lanes.
		I think it's good to have some of the revenue collected from the rest of the world who is benefiting from how that revenue is being used.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, the risk is worth the risk to economic growth from the retaliation of the tariffs is worth it.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Well, I would say that is just one of many different benefits that we stand to see from these tariffs being put into place.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Then, Joshua, how are global supply chains reshaping, especially with allies already moving toward alternative trade blocks?
unidentified		Can I just make one very quick comment on the revenue piece?
		I do think it's worth noting that there's no feasible scenario where tariff revenue replaces income tax.
		The base for income tax is 20 trillion or something.
		No comparable revenue stream from tariffs.
		It's also important to just remember that tariffs are deeply regressive.
		So what that means is that they hit poorer households much more city of England than they hit wealthier households.
		So the poor households that spend more on consumption essentially spend more of their income on products like clothing and food get hit much higher by tariffs where those prices go up.
		So whereas income taxes can be progressive where you have lower taxes for poorer and then higher taxes as incomes go up, you know, tariffs are doing exactly the opposite.
		Look, on the trade block piece, it's really important to factor in this kind of geopolitical environment, Reed.
		I think one of the surprises has been that it's absolutely clear, and I think we agree on this, is that the biggest threat to the United States is China, right?
		It's an economic threat, it's a national security threat.
		This is clearly what Trump was focused on in his first term.
		It's what Biden was very focused on in his term.
		And part of responding to that threat has been this imperative to essentially reshape global supply chain so that they're more secure, more resilient, less dependent on critical inputs from China.
		And that is going to require greater, deeper cooperation with friends and allies like Canada, like Mexico, so you can actually bring production and development of other products closer to home to more reliable sources of supply.
		And so this sort of flies in the face of that because ultimately tariffs on Canada and Mexico, you know, blowing up sort of diplomatic and other relations with your kind of allies makes it really harder to do the cooperation, reduce prices to actually make that reshoring plausible.
		So this sort of, I think, has, I think, been confusing because it seems to fly in the face of what seemed to be the United States' genuine sort of geopolitical concerns.
		And it underscores kind of your broader point that the world is really moving towards a regional lies focus on trade.
		A lot of Asia, Southeast Asia is very dependent on China and will continue to be so.
		Europe is its own sort of trading space and has been for a long time.
		And the North American market is one of the most sort of innovative, competitive regions in the world because of the trade agreement that underpins that.
		And we are sort of, if we do go ahead with tariffs, we're actively undoing that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to some calls.
		Luis is in North Carolina on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Louise.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you doing?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good, thank you.
unidentified		I have a comment and a question.
		President Trump was the one that got into the contract during his first term with U.S. USMCA.
		And now he wants to put it, he made like it was such a great deal, but now he wants to put a tariff and have a tariff war, and it doesn't make sense.
		It seems more like greed.
		And that's just going to run our prices at the grocery stores and everywhere else up.
		I mean, if you have a contract, why are you breaking your contract?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		EJ, perhaps you could respond to that question?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		I'd be happy to.
		There's a couple different components at play.
		One is the fact that the USMCA was an improvement over what we had.
		So it was a step in the right direction.
		I think that was great.
		However, and one of the things my co-panelists touched on earlier is that there were plenty of abuses to the USMCA.
		Those things are still going on, especially with regards to those country of origin provisions.
		And so as a result of that, Trump wants nations like Canada to really crack down on China dumping goods into Canada that are essentially just repackaged and then shipped into the United States under the guise of the USMCA.
		So he wants better compliance with the things that are already on the books.
		If a nation like Canada refuses to comply with the rules, again, that are already on the books, then that's why Trump is threatening these tariffs.
		I should say it's one of the many reasons why Trump is threatening these tariffs.
		So it's a good question.
		Again, the USMCA was a step in the right direction, but I think the President wants to go even further.
		Again, there are a lot of tariff and non-tariff barriers that Canada currently has in place, despite the USMCA.
		And I think it'd be good to remove all of those barriers to trade.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's hear from Jim in Newburgh, Indiana, on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jim.
unidentified		Good morning, everybody.
		I have a comment and a question.
		I agree that there was a time when our government was run without income taxes and we were able to make it without problems.
		However, since the income tax is now the main revenue source for us, what I don't hear is the current tariffs, what percentage of our revenue does it currently provide us?
		And then what is the reduction in taxes if we were to keep these tariffs on?
		So people should be able to look, common everyday people like me, I'm not the smartest guy in the world, tell me how much my taxes are, how much the tariffs are going to generate, and how much my taxes are going to be lowered.
		Let's consider a $100,000 income person.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so I'm looking up that number right now, but in the meantime, Joshua, do you want to respond to any of those points that he raised?
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, I actually don't have the specific data.
		I mean, essentially about 50% of revenue that the U.S. collects comes from income taxes each year.
		So the U.S., so you can never replace essentially income taxes with tariff revenues.
		I think it's just we need to be very clear about that, right?
		The import base is small into the United States, the U.S. at the end of the day, does not import all that much.
		And as we were discussing before, as you raise tariffs, you basically reduce imports, right?
		Like that's kind of the point of tariffs.
		So your tax base sort of falls down to zero once your tariff rate gets high enough.
		So there's no replacing it in any meaningful way.
		So that's the first thing.
		The second thing, which I made before, but I think it's worth just underscoring, is that essentially tariffs are regressive.
		So they hit lower income people first and hardest rather than higher income people.
		Low-income people spend more of their income on consumption goods, on clothing, on food, on these types of products whose prices are impacted most by tariffs.
		They save less rather than higher income people, whereas income taxes are generally progressive, so that there's lower tax rates on lower-income folk and higher tax rates on higher income folks.
		So you kind of reverse that entirely to the extent that you do try to replace them.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So I was able to find that number.
		This is an article from the Congressional Research Service in January of this year, which does acknowledge that historically we generated quite a bit of revenue from tariffs, but over the past 70 years, tariffs have never accounted for much more than 2% of federal revenue.
		In FY 2024, for example, CPB, Customs and Border Protection, collected $77 billion in tariffs, accounting for approximately 1.57% of total federal revenue.
		Instead, the United States has generally used its tariff policy to encourage global trade liberalization and pursue broader foreign policy goals.
		Since 1934, the United States has reduced or eliminated many tariffs as part of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.
		And that is from the Congressional Research Service.
		Did you have any points to make on that before we move on to the next question?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Sure, a couple of things.
		One is this idea that we can never use tariffs to get enough revenue to fund the government.
		That makes a few assumptions, not the least of which is that we're going to continue to have government spending at these currently very elevated levels.
		Historically, we have never had budget deficits like this outside of a national emergency.
		So that would be something like a severe recession or a war or even COVID, you could say, right?
		So the other thing is there are a lot of dynamic effects to consider here.
		So as you put these tariffs in place, you may get some temporary changes in the economy.
		But what ends up happening is you will have more domestic production.
		And so more and more of the goods that previously were subject to these tariffs that might be hitting low-income folks, let's say, are increasingly going to be made here in the United States.
		And at that point, they're no longer subject to these tariffs anyway.
unidentified		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Ben in Atlanta on our line for Democrats.
unidentified		Good morning, Ben.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Ben, are you there?
		Okay, let's go to Cliff in Easton, Maryland on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Cliff.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I'd like to ask the speakers if they their opinion of how long it will take the Trump tariff effect on our allies to dissipate if and when Trump leaves office.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Joshua, why don't you take that first?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Assuming that the tariffs as proposed go into effect, how long would it take, I guess, them to dissipate, as our caller asked?
unidentified		So I guess maybe a couple of observations.
		You know, one of the concepts, if the U.S. does go ahead with, you know, certainly 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, we're seeing China retaliate if we have tariffs on more tariffs on Europe, that the net effect is the U.S. is going to certainly see a lot of retaliation, right?
		There'll be higher tariffs on U.S. exports.
		And so there's going to be that impact on, you know, often the United States' most innovative manufacturing firms are exporters.
		So we're going to see that.
		Now, in terms of the longer term impact, I think a couple of things are worth observing here.
		One is that I think that, you know, this is not purely a Trump phenomenon, but I think that the question was asked earlier about sort of the speed with which Trump, who negotiated this trade agreement, declared it to be a great agreement and kind of in the process of now putting 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico is in effect sort of ripping up that agreement.
		I mean, these are deeply inconsistent with the agreement that he negotiated, has, I think, really sent a signal globally that you can't kind of bank on the agreements that the United States signs.
		The speed at which he's been prepared to sort of like go against the agreement that he himself negotiated, I think, has been said a really troubling signal globally about U.S. reliability and the value of U.S. commitments over time.
		I think the other piece here is that there's broader sort of geopolitical issues at play.
		We'll see how they sort of turn out over the next four years.
		But the U.S. has been, quote, the leader of the free world, really underscored security globally.
		Allies have sort of counted on U.S. steadfastness and commitment to that.
		And I think all of that comes up into question as the U.S. sort of backs away from these types of commitments.
		So I think the longer-term impacts, I think, are going to continue well past the Trump administration because when you're designing a policy for a government in terms of what's our economy going to look like, where do we want to reorientate our economic links?
		How do we think about reliability of the U.S. in terms of its alliance commitments?
		You really need a lot of certainty because you can't turn on a dime.
		Mexico and Canada have said we're going to diversify our exports as they sort of begin to realize how this agreement that they negotiated with the United States is actually no longer almost worth the paper that it was written on a mere four years later.
		They can't pivot quickly.
		You can't pivot an economy overnight towards exports to Asia or Europe.
		This is going to take them many, many years.
		But I think they're going to have to continue down that pathway even once Trump leaves office because they just don't know what future administrations are going to look like.
		They can't make that bet anymore that it's going to be the sort of consistency and reliability that has really characterized the U.S. for many decades prior to that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What about you, AJ?
		What are your take?
		What's your assessment of sort of the longer term effect and whether or not there will be a lasting consequence of these tariffs if they go into effect?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		I think we would see lasting effects, especially, again, when we consider this in the broader context.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		So that means you're also talking about likely cuts to taxes and cuts to regulation.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Domestically, you mean?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Yes, yes.
		So you're looking at, I think, a carrot and stick approach here.
		In other words, tariffs are obviously the stick, telling countries or telling companies rather, if you don't produce here, you're going to have to pay a tariff to import your products here.
		But then the carrot end of it is, look, we're going to create the most business-friendly environment here in the United States for you.
		So that's your incentive to produce here, right?
		You will face a lower regulatory burden.
		You will face a lower tax burden.
		So you have both the incentive not to produce abroad and the incentive to produce here.
		That means you'll see more factories, more capital investment here in the United States, more employment here in the United States.
		And all of those things I think are going to have very long tails, meaning their effects are going to stick around for a very long time.
		It takes time to have that capital investment to build that plant and equipment here in the United States.
		And likewise, they're not going to simply evaporate overnight.
		The Rust Belt did not become the Rust Belt simply by someone snapping their fingers.
		That took decades for that area of the country to be hollowed out.
		And so again, once you have that kind of investment here in the United States, I think you'll have the effects of that for quite some time.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned the Rust Belt being hollowed out.
		The United Auto Workers Union issued a statement related to the ongoing back and forth on trade saying, for 40 years, we've seen the devastating effects of so-called free trade on the working class.
		Corporations have been driving a nonstop race to the bottom by killing good blue-collar jobs in America to go exploit some poor worker in another country by paying poverty wages.
		Tariffs are a powerful tool in the toolbox for undoing the injustice of anti-worker trade deals.
		We are glad to see an American president take aggressive action on ending the free trade disaster that has dropped like a bomb on the working class.
		That was a statement from the United Autoworkers on March the 4th.
		Let's get back to your calls.
		Jay is in Edgewater, Florida on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Jay.
unidentified		Good morning, everybody.
		I would like to discuss or hear more of a discussion about how our country was originally based on tariffs.
		That's how we made our money.
		We didn't have a federal income tax.
		We didn't tax our people like that.
		We taxed goods, but we didn't tax the people.
		So trying to go back to that in this day and age of economy is disruptive and very difficult to do.
		It has to be done.
		There's no other way for the United States of America to survive while all the other countries outside of the United States are able to pull all of its businesses away for manufacturing, which interrupts the supply chain.
		So now we're dependent upon everybody else for everything that we need.
		And that didn't make any sense to me at all.
		And we did this over the last 35 years.
lin wood ▲ ● ▼		Now, I understand that other countries have a lower income level than we do and have a lower ability to make more income.
unidentified		And so we want to subsidize that.
		That's got to end.
		The handout's got to end.
		You see how Europe is?
		Europe is freaking out right now because we're getting ready to cut them off.
		And the funny thing is, is all of a sudden now they have all this money for military.
		What have they been doing all this time?
		I don't understand what these other countries have been doing other than taking our business and our profits.
		I'd like to hear a little bit more about that discussion.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Josh, would you like to get us going, please?
unidentified		Yeah, it's a great question.
		I mean, I think, you know, there's a few things there.
		Look, I think that the look, the U.S. government, you go back to 1800, it certainly had a different way of collecting taxes, but was also spending a lot less.
		There wasn't Social Security, there wasn't Medicare, there wasn't Medicaid, there was basically almost a non-existent national defense budget.
		So, you know, if you've got to sort of compare apples to apples, right?
		I mean, if you don't want spending on Social Security, if you don't want Medicare, if you don't want Medicaid, then yeah, I mean, we can stop, we can drastically reduce income taxes, right?
		So income, that's what basically the tax base goes to pay for, essentially, right?
		There's these sort of programs that have been committed by the federal government over many, many decades.
		So I think we just need to be clear about what we need to be trading off with.
		We do want to significantly, you know, lower the tax rate.
		I think that, you know, it's also, obviously, we're not in the economy of the 1800s or the 1850s.
		The United States essentially is the world's wealthiest, most innovative, productive economy globally.
		I mean, I think we need to be clear that the U.S. is an absolute success story globally.
		You know, the global kind of economy that we see was largely created by the United States after World War II.
		The open trading system, the reciprocity in tariffs, the open investment regime and so forth.
		And it has largely led to the benefit to the United States.
		It's led to the creation of the world's most productive and innovative global companies that are dominant around the world.
		And it's not to say that it is not without flaws and can't be improved.
		I think the impact on blue-collar rust belt workers, in part from competition, particularly from China, but there's a big story about just the speed at which technology has sort of essentially led to declines in employment as well has been real and requires real policy responses.
		And the final thing I just think is really worth focusing on is China.
		You know, China has upended the global trading system, there's no doubt about it, and requires a genuine, tough, focused response.
		And we saw that beginning with Trump.
		We saw that continued with Biden.
		And we need to see that continued with Trump again.
		And I think it sort of means that this disruption being caused between Canada and Mexico, I think, is ultimately unfortunate for many reasons.
		But one is that it really takes the eye off the ball, which is the challenge of the United States, which is China.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		EJ, before you talk more about sort of the historical aspect of when we relied on tariffs, I want to go back to that Congressional Research Service article I pulled up earlier with a couple of key dates in U.S. tariff history.
		In 1913, the Underwood Tariff Act reimposed the federal income tax and lowered the tariff rates from roughly 40% to 25%.
		Federal revenue now comes primarily from income taxes.
		That was in 1913.
		And then Joshua mentioned that it was after World War II that we kind of got the modern trading system.
		That was when the United States in 1947, the United States and 23 other countries entered the GATT to lower tariffs and other trade barriers.
		So just a couple of dates there.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		One of the things I think that's really important to note in terms of lowering those trade barriers, that was not reciprocal.
		In other words, other nations, particularly ones that had been absolutely devastated during World War II, imposed very stiff tariffs on American exports, goods that were coming from the United States and going to their countries.
		And the reason for that was to try to protect their own industries that they literally had to rebuild from scratch because they had been completely flattened during the war.
		We still have some of those provisions in place today.
		It makes absolutely no sense that now in 2025, we are disadvantaging so many American producers, like our car manufacturers, for instance, so that they can no longer be competitive with the rest of the world.
		That may have made sense in the 1940s and the 1950s, again, trying to reconstruct essentially the rest of the world after all of that post-war destruction, or excuse me, from the destruction during the war, that post-war period.
		But whatever the case, a lot of those provisions just don't make any sense today.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Joe is in Byron, Minnesota on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Joe.
unidentified		Hey, yeah, I wanted to ask Mr. Antonio a question.
		So what is the long-term goal or result that you're going for here?
		He said the tariffs will raise prices until manufacturers make things here.
		But then what?
		Do you think that other countries will buy our goods from us?
		We have the highest cost of labor in the world.
		We have the highest living standards in the world as well.
		And I'd say the globalist World Trade Order has benefited the U.S. the most over the last 80 years.
		All you have to do is look at GDP growth.
		The car unions just negotiated large rate freezes recently, and you can look at the labels on your clothes to see where cheap labor in the world is coming from.
		If we make everything here, costs will go way up, and no one will be buying things made in the U.S. when it's the most expensive place to produce goods.
		So we will have a closed economy, and the rest of the world will benefit from the global trade.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So your question for EJ is what?
unidentified		What's the plan long term to make everything here and just buy from ourselves?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Good question.
		And I assume when you say, you know, my plan, I assume you're not actually talking about me since I'm not proposing any of these policies.
		I assume we're talking about the White House.
		But whatever the case may be, look, again, there are a lot of dynamics at play here.
		In other words, we have to look at dynamic effects, not just simply static effects.
		And we're not simply talking about tariffs.
		We're talking about tariffs at the same time we're talking about reducing tax rates, reducing burdensome regulation, getting rid of all that bureaucratic red tape.
		And so again, this is a carrot-end a stick approach.
		So at the same time, you are telling companies you are going to face steep tariffs if you produce things overseas and ship them here to the United States.
		At the same time, you're also telling them, look, we're giving you tremendous incentives to make things here.
		We're going to reduce your costs for making things here, and those are cost savings that you can then ultimately pass on to the consumer.
		We forget that while a typical manufacturing worker, let's say, makes $50,000 or $60,000 a year, it's very common for the manufacturer to face a regulatory burden of another $50,000 or $60,000 per year.
		Those are just regulatory costs.
		That's not compensation that the employee actually receives.
		And then, on top of that, the employer is also paying, let's say, another $50,000 or $60,000 for the benefits package that goes to that employee.
		So, if you just look at things like salary for an employer, you're not looking at the total cost.
		It could very easily be three times that, what the employer or the manufacturer actually has to pay.
		And so, again, getting those regulatory costs down, reducing the tax burden for companies that make things here, provides a tremendous incentive for them to move here because it reduces their costs.
		And those are cost savings, again, that can be passed on ultimately to the consumer.
		So, you don't want to look at things simply statically and say all of the costs currently imposed are going to be reflected eventually down the road.
		In fact, there are a lot of moving parts, and there are a lot of things that we need to consider here.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Henry is in Fort Gratchett, Maryland, on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Henry.
unidentified		Mr. E.J. Antoni, just two quick questions, and then one for Joshua.
		If the MCA was such a great deal, then why did Donald Trump and one of his pressers say that it was a very dumb deal, and who would sign such a deal?
		Why would he act as though he was not the author of it?
		Number two, are you a Project 2025 advocate and supporter?
		And did you misspeak, or would you like to try to correct your assertion that President Biden raised tariffs when actually all he did was leave Donald Trump's in place?
		Joshua, our economy has gone from a positive 2% to 3% GDP growth, and now we're at negative 2.4% GDP growth.
		What do you think the effect with hollowing out our government's CDC and other disease control areas and the impending bird flu and the measles epidemics that might come?
		How would that adversely affect our economy with these tariff wars going on with our closest trading partners?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Henry, that's a lot.
		All right.
		Let's start with you, EJ.
		He gave you three different questions.
		Why did Trump say that the USMCA was a dumb deal, if he's the one who signed it?
		What involvement, if any, do you have in Project 2025?
		Are you an advocate or a supporter?
		And then can you give more clarity when you said that President Biden raised tariffs?
		And Henry was saying that President Biden only extended Trump's tariffs.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Well, the fact of the matter is that Biden not only left all of Trump's tariffs in place after he had railed against them on the campaign trail, but for whatever reason he decided to keep them in place.
		But then he did also impose additional tariffs on China.
		I mean, that's just a matter for the historical record.
		Anybody can look that up.
		Also, a matter of the historical record, I have never seen or heard of President Trump saying the USMCA was a terrible or a stupid trade deal.
		I believe he was referring to NAFTA when he made comments like that.
		As far as Project 2025 goes, one of the interesting things about that is you can't support the entire thing because the entire thing actually Does not impose a single policy prescription.
		In other words, it is not a the entire thing is not simply a playbook with only one idea in it.
		There are several chapters in the book, for example, that propose multiple possible solutions for different problems that it identifies.
		So the idea that anybody could simply support literally anything and everything in there, I mean, that'd be kind of difficult to do when literally multiple options are presented in some of the chapters.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Did you participate in the project at all in the development or contribute in any way?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		I believe some of the statistics that I produced in my research were used in the project, absolutely.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, and then the other, okay, those were all three of those questions.
		Let's go to Joshua.
		Henry asked, given the move from positive to negative GDP growth, how do you think things like the CDC layoffs and other cuts to federal workers in health care, given the rise of the bird flu and the measles outbreak, what kind of economic consequences might that have?
unidentified		Yeah, great.
		And just to add a data point to what President Biden did.
		So on tariffs, he absolutely correctly kept in Trump tariffs.
		He raised tariffs on some very targeted additional Chinese imports worth about $18 billion on EVs and a couple of other things.
		So there was a very small targeted increase unbundled, but largely the status quo from the Trump years.
		Look, I mean, this is an important question.
		It's also probably getting a little away from discussion about trade.
		I mean, the bottom line is, I don't know.
		I mean, I think when you cut, when you slash and burn a lot of expertise across government agencies, you're going to see impacts.
		And so, you know, how the government is able to respond, whether it is to another pandemic or other challenges, you know, once you've sort of guarded the expertise in the civil service, I think has got to like undermine that capacity.
		But it's hard to sort of say in the abstract until we actually run into a problem or a challenge and we see how the government does respond.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Tim is in Detroit, Michigan on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Tim.
unidentified		Thanks for taking my call.
		I didn't know we were at a negative GDP.
		He said a negative two-something.
		But, anyways, tariffs, I mean, at one point in our history, because of tariffs, we were the wealthiest at that time.
		I'm not sure the years, but tariffs made this country very wealthy.
		We are a generous country.
		We brought millions and millions of people out of poverty, especially in China.
		The tariffs we allowed was to help countries build themselves up economically.
		I believe the world is doing pretty well.
		And I think, like your guest said, a lot of these policies are so outdated.
		And I think Trump's, the whole purpose of these tariffs is to get free trade.
		Everybody drop the tariffs and let's compete in a free open market.
		You want to bring a lot of people out of poverty?
		That would be the way to do it.
		But I just believe what Trump is doing is to drop all these tariffs.
		What do your guests think about that?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So just very quickly before we get the guest response, I was wondering about that GDP number as well.
		And I just a moment ago had an article about it.
		Here we go.
		In the Hill, this is from February 28th.
		The Atlanta Fed predicts a negative 1.5% GDP growth in the first quarter.
		The Atlanta Federal Reserve is projecting a contraction of the nation's gross domestic product of 1.5% in the first quarter, flashing a warning sign for the U.S. economy.
		The projection is a significant shift for the Atlanta Fed over the last few weeks that comes a little more than a month after President Trump took office.
		The Atlanta Fed was predicting a 2.3 percent positive growth for the first quarter.
		A month ago, it was registering 3.9 percent growth.
		The Atlanta Fed's GDP now measure is not an official forecast, but rather a running estimate of real GDP growth based on the data as it comes in.
		And then EJ, did you want to start by responding to our guest?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Sure, sure.
		I'd like to address, if I could real quick, the reason why we saw that huge reduction in the Atlanta Fed's now cast, what they call the GDP now cast.
		And it all had to do with the change in international trade.
		So because of the way we calculate GDP, exports add to GDP, but imports subtract.
		And we saw a huge increase in imports during the first quarter, at least the first month of the first quarter.
		And the result of that was a big subtraction to GDP.
		It accounts for something like three and a half percentage points taken off the total, which is pushing it into the negative.
		And a big portion of that has to do with a tremendous amount of gold that has been flowing into the United States.
		So again, as that gold is imported, it's reducing the total figure for GDP.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And then, Tim, can you repeat your question, please?
unidentified		Do you believe that the reason Trump is putting these tariffs on is to basically eliminate them around the world so we have a free, open, fair, just fair?
		He just wants fair trade.
		That's it.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		It's certainly one of several different goals that the president has here.
		That's why he is saying to a lot of these countries, look, if you're willing to stop subsidizing your different domestic industries, if you're willing to stop taxing American imports that are coming to your country, then yes, we will reduce our tariffs as well.
		But so long as those tariff and non-tariff barriers are in place on American goods, then it's impossible essentially for the American worker to compete on the world stage.
		So that is certainly one of the goals that the president is looking at.
		He's also looking at other things, right?
		He's trying to stop the flow of fentanyl into the country that's become the number one killer of young people.
		He's trying to raise additional revenue.
		Again, he's trying to get that level playing field for the American worker.
		So there are lots of different things that the president is looking at right now and goals which he's trying to achieve.
		But that is certainly one of them that, again, he's trying to get other nations to reduce their barriers to trade that are blocking American exports from those markets.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Joshua, what's your assessment?
unidentified		Look, I think the bottom line is we don't know ultimately what President Trump's trying to do here because there's a lot of goals and they're kind of in tension with each other.
		If you want tariffs ultimately to raise revenue, then the tariffs remain in place.
		And so if you want to do that, then you're in a high tariff environment where the U.S. has tariffs.
		Other countries are going to have tariffs on U.S. exports.
		And we're heading to that world where there are going to be costs to import and U.S. businesses are going to face costs to export.
		If you want to ultimately have more globalized fair trade, that's been the goal really of U.S. administrations since 1947, post-World War II.
		There's been multiple, you do this through trade negotiation, and this has kind of been a goal, again, for many, many decades.
		And then you basically ultimately do agree to lower your tariffs in return from other countries doing the same thing.
		We haven't really, except, you know, we had USMCA, which really continued the NAFTA and the zero tariffs.
		But whether we get sort of ultimately a deal where Trump agrees to lower tariffs in return for other countries lowering their tariffs, I think really remains to be seen.
		But then you're not going to be raising revenues from those tariffs.
		So it's very unclear, I think, ultimately what the end state here is for President Trump.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Timbo in Mountain Home, Arkansas asked a question via text.
		Here's the bottom line.
		I'm just the average American on an average income.
		Put them tariffs into place, into practice, and I stop spending.
		That's it.
		That's what you get.
		That's where the rubber meets the road.
		EJ, your response to Timbo.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		I would love to know if he stopped spending over the last eight years when both President Trump and Biden put different tariffs in place.
		I mean, look, we've seen this throughout history.
		Both economic theory and economic history are very, very clear, that you don't have consumers simply stop spending any time tariffs are imposed.
		Now, that's not to say tariffs are always and everywhere good.
		They're not, right?
		Tariffs have been done very well in American history, and there are other times when they've been done very poorly in American history.
		Perhaps the best example of when they were done poorly was when President Hoover signed the bipartisan Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the early 1930s, and that exacerbated the downturn that we now know as the Great Depression.
		So tariffs can be done right.
		They can certainly be done wrong.
		There's a right way and a wrong way.
		There's a right time and a wrong time.
		But this idea that simply anytime any tariff anywhere is put into place, that it's going to devastate consumers or that consumers will simply stop spending, again, neither economic history nor economic theory says that that's the case.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Clara is in Charlottesville, Virginia on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Clara.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes.
		Okay, I would like to ask just three things, or two things.
		One is, first of all, we're breaking our word.
		We've already negotiated these trade agreements with our closest friends.
		And two, Trump says that we're having these tariffs because of fentanyl, which Canada really doesn't bring over at all.
		Border crossings, which are now down, and trade deficits.
		And at least the one with Canada is mostly energy.
		And with Mexico, frequently they're supplying us with goods that we then resell.
		And finally, these tariffs last week wiped out over 3.7 trillion of market value.
		And I just want to ask, why didn't we have some more forethought?
		Why haven't we set up the infrastructure for manufacturing to succeed?
		Why didn't we give U.S. corporations and car corporations the opportunity to create their architecture for billions of dollars of factories, recreating our infrastructure for manufacturing rather than just harem scare him announcing it quickly before anyone has a chance to calculate their costs or how to do business going forward?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Claire, before I let them respond to your question, President Trump did indicate on the campaign trail throughout the campaign that he had planned to implement tariffs.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Was that not enough warning for businesses?
unidentified		I don't know how long it takes to build a factory for car parts.
		And they didn't know if he was going to actually win the election.
		And they certainly didn't know if he was going to be implementing them immediately.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Joshua, you want to start out with a response?
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, I think tariffs on Mexico and Canada, frankly, are a terrible idea.
		I think for all the reasons that the caller outlined.
		Super costly, reduced competitiveness.
		You've got to remember that 65-70% of what the U.S. imports from Canada is actually intermediate products that basically go into other products that the U.S. use to then kind of manufacture a lot of its energy.
		It's a very complementary energy trade.
		The U.S. imports essentially what's called heavy crude from Canada, which goes into these older refineries in the Midwest.
		Domestically, we produce lighter crude, so it's very complementary.
		It means we can use less light crude in the U.S., which means we have more to export.
		We don't reduce reliance on other producers of light crude like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
		So it's a very complimentary relationship.
		Yet the president is proposing 10% tariffs on that energy trade.
		If you take the auto market in North America, it's the second largest auto market globally based upon these extremely complex, just-in-time, super-efficient supply chains that have been built out across North America.
		It's also a very saturated auto market in the sense that it's very well served.
		Toyota, just to take one example, invests heavily across North America and they export from the U.S. Toyota cars to 40 other countries, right?
		So the U.S. is a key manufacturing base for autos, but also in part because it relies on access to other markets in order to actually generate and justify the level of manufacturing that occurs here.
		So if you raise tariffs on Canada and Mexico, you make that auto sector costly, uncompetitive, and you lead to retaliation, which reduces market access in third countries.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So I actually want to stop you there because I want to give EJ a chance to respond before we have to wind down our segment.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		So there were a lot of different questions there at the caller asked, and I think a lot of different assumptions that were made as part of those questions.
		But I just want to address a couple issues with Canada, one of which is the fentanyl coming across the border.
		And while it may not seem like it's a lot in terms of volume, I heard someone an analyst on TV the other day saying all the fentanyl that comes across the Canadian border in a year can fit into a carry-on suitcase.
		That's enough to kill millions of Americans.
		I mean, you've seen pictures where they show a tiny dime, right, and a tiny grain of fentanyl much smaller than that dime, and that's enough to kill a person.
		So the idea that just because it's not a huge volume, that it's not a big issue, that's just not the case.
		And again, like we mentioned earlier, China is allowing, excuse me, Canada is allowing China to abuse various portions within the USMCA and essentially allow China a backdoor to get around tariffs by dumping things into Canada that are then repackaged or whatever the case may be and brought here into the United States.
		So part of what we're seeing right now is an attempt to get Canada to abide by the rules that they've agreed to play by.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, well, that's all the time that we have for this segment for this morning.
		Thank you so much to Joshua Meltzer, who is the Global Economy and Development Program Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and also E.J. Antonio, who's a research fellow and public finance economist at the Heritage Foundation.
		Thank you both so much for coming in this morning.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Up next, Military Times Deputy Editor Leo Shane is going to join us to discuss what he learned from his interview with VA Secretary Doug Collins about those cuts coming to that cabinet agency and the potential impact it could have on veterans care.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We'll be right back.
unidentified		Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, the House of Representatives opens its proceedings for the first time to televised coverage.
		Since March of 1979, C-SPAN has been your unfiltered window into American democracy, bringing you direct, no-spin coverage of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House.
		Is this Mr. Brian Lamb?
		Yes, it is.
		Would you hold one moment, please, for the president?
		It exists because of C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb's vision and the cable industry's support, not government funding.
		But this public service isn't guaranteed.
		All this month, in honor of Founders Day, your support is more important than ever.
		You can keep democracy unfiltered today and for future generations.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		To the American people, now is the time to tune in to C-SPAN.
unidentified		Your gift today preserves open access to government and ensures the public stays informed.
		Donate now at c-span.org slash donate or scan the code on your screen.
		Every contribution matters.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		In the years right before World War II started, in 1939, Winston Churchill had been out of government.
		However, even though he was far from power, his country home, Chartwell, became Churchill's headquarters of his campaign against Nazi Germany.
		Catherine Carter is a curator and historian who has managed the house and collections at Chartwell.
		Her new book is called Churchill's Citadel, Chartwell and the Gatherings Before the Storm.
		Catherine Carter reveals how Churchill used Chartwell, which is 35 miles from London, as his base during the pre-war years to collect key intelligence about Germany's preparations for war.
unidentified		Author Catherine Carter with her book, Churchill's Citadel, Chartwell and the Gatherings Before the Storm, on this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		Book Notes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're joined now by Leo Shane, who is the deputy editor of Military Times, here to discuss those proposed cuts to the VA.
		Welcome to the program.
unidentified		Well, thanks for the invite.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, you had an interview with VA Secretary Doug Collins late last week on those proposed cuts and to his department.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's first listen to a portion of that interview.
unidentified		There's a leaked memo out.
		There's a report out now that there could be up to 80,000 cuts and a really fundamental reorganization coming in in the next few months.
		Is that the plan here?
		Are we looking at cuts of that size and a real complete rethinking of how VA is organized in terms of its workforce?
		We are looking at it from a top-down perspective.
		Also, we're responding to what the administration has stated that we're going to do a total-wide government reduction in force.
		We're looking at that.
doug collins ▲ ● ▼		And VA, of course, has a large footprint to go there.
		So if you look at the numbers in which we're looking at now, that was back to 2019, 2020 levels of staffing.
		The question that's going to come is, though, is, and I've shared this with some of the VSOs and other people as well, is if the answer was money and people, then we should have solved our problems a long time ago.
unidentified		The problem is not really at this point.
doug collins ▲ ● ▼		The question is, are we utilizing that function the best way we possibly can?
doug collins ▲ ● ▼		You've been covering it here for a long time, and I thought we talked about that, but both of us are a little bit long in the tooth on the heel here.
unidentified		But the question is, it's not sometimes, are we just putting money?
unidentified		There's a game being played here in Pemple, and it's been here for years.
doug collins ▲ ● ▼		And it's called, let's give money and stuff to the VA, and then let's beat up on the VA when they're not doing what they think they're supposed to be doing.
unidentified		That's just going to stop here.
unidentified		We're not going to do that anymore.
doug collins ▲ ● ▼		We're going to work together with the funds and resources we have to make a better, quote, product with some of the best employees around who want to take care of veterans.
unidentified		I'm putting the veteran back first.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What did you make of his answer?
unidentified		Yeah, it was really interesting.
		I mean, this was just a day after that memo had leaked.
		So this was confirmation that they are looking to go under 400,000 employees at some point this year.
		Now, this isn't immediate cuts like we've seen in the last few weeks with the Trump administration.
		This is more developing a plan to scale back what the VA footprint is going to be.
		They're saying over the next few months, by August, they want to have some real concrete plans.
		This is going to be a mix of some folks that they don't rehire, some folks that just naturally move on, but then possibly some dismissals as well.
		Look, this is a real fundamental change to what the VA footprint is and what VA has done over the last few years.
		During the Biden administration, there was a real push to keep hiring to get more people in to react to what is an increase in services in VA.
		Secretary Collins is saying that he doesn't want to decrease services, but he thinks they can do it a lot more efficiently.
		That's what we'll see here.
		It's also very interesting to hear him talk.
		There is a view within this administration, a view within his leadership, that VA is broken, that VA is doing things not right, that they could be more efficient, that they could be handling wait times better, they could be handling benefits better.
		You know, when we saw the Biden administration leave, we saw Secretary McDonough leave, it really was a feeling that they were on the right path.
		They had been processing more benefits than ever before.
		The VA trust scores, this is the amount of folks who believed that they had confidence in getting medical care at VA.
		That was up to 92%.
		So they left office with a real sense that VA was on the right track.
		It wasn't perfect, but it was headed in the right direction.
		This is an administration that's coming in saying VA's headed in the wrong direction.
		It has too many resources if it is a broken institution.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You were talking about the VA's footprint, and let's take a step back and remind viewers just how big the Department of Veterans Affairs is and how many people it employs.
unidentified		Yeah, it's about 480,000 right now.
		That's up pretty significantly over the last 10 years.
		And it's a $350 billion agency in terms of not just the programs it provides, but the benefits and the health care and everything else.
		So second largest by some measures in expenditures and in the number of folks employed.
		And this is, you know, these are not folks who are all located in Washington, D.C. We've got 160-some VA medical centers spread out all throughout the United States.
		We've got benefits offices that are mainly on the East Coast, but a few other places here.
		And a lot of this money goes to things like homeless services or suicide prevention programs that are spread out throughout the country.
		So these 80,000 cuts more than likely will not come mostly from D.C.
		These will be coming from communities all over the nation.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And let's get a few more numbers on the VA.
		One in five of the people who work for the government were employed by the VA, and that's more than two times the number working at the next largest employer, which is the Department of Homeland Security.
		Nearly two-thirds of VA's employees are women, and about 46% of those employees are nurses, medical facility support staff, or medical officers.
		And the VA is the biggest agency employer for most states.
		And many of the people working at the VA are also veterans, right?
unidentified		Yeah, about 30%.
		Some measures is even higher.
		And a lot of these contracts that the government is also talking about cutting in VA, there's about 500-some contracts they've already cut.
		A lot of these are service-disabled veterans, which VA has done a good job trying to work with those businesses to get services.
		So those aren't direct cuts that VA is making that are affecting veterans, but indirectly, a lot of veterans' business is getting hurt by that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Can you give us a sense of how many VA employees have actually been laid off so far and where those layoffs are happening?
unidentified		Right now it's only about 2,500.
		So there were two rounds of probationary employee layoffs, totaling about 2,400 individuals.
		Some of those have been clawed back a few.
		We've heard that a few support staff at the Veterans Crisis Line were initially let go and then brought back.
		These were not folks who were answering the phone but were providing some administrative assistance.
		So there's still some flux there.
		There's also some court orders that those might be caught up in.
		And then there was another 60 some employees that were involved in diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
		Those were dismissed in the very first few days of the Trump administration.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We're going to be taking your questions for our guest.
		Our number, we're going to have special phone lines for this.
		For veterans, you can call in at 202-748-8000.
		Veterans families can reach us at 202-748-8001.
		And everyone else can call in at 202-748-8002 with your questions for Leo Shane, who's the deputy editor of the Military Times.
		What are you hearing from veterans groups and even on Capitol Hill about all these changes?
unidentified		Yeah, so from veterans groups and veterans, it's panic right now.
		I mean, it's a lot of concern about just how deep these cuts will be, how well they're thought out.
		Now, in the last few days, we have seen some of the veterans groups pull back a little bit from their concerns.
		We heard from the administration and from Secretary Collins that they're going to do less of a chainsaw approach and more of a scalpel approach, trying to really look for redundant positions or wasteful positions, things that might not be needed.
		So we've heard some optimism from veterans groups that say, okay, if you're looking at making VA more efficient over the long term, of course we support that.
		What they're worried about is these Friday night 5,000, 6,000 people just laid off, just dismissed for questionable reasons without really any context of what they provide and what they're doing.
		On Capitol Hill, it's been interesting.
		Democrats have been very furious over this.
		They say that the administration is viscerating the department and it's crippling it for years to come.
		We're also starting to hear concerns from Republicans too, not so much over the plans and the moves, but how it's being communicated.
		There was a lot of concern about this memo, these 80,000 positions being cut, that it came, they heard about it first from the press, that they weren't briefed by Secretary Collins' administration.
		This didn't come from the VA chief of staff.
		This came from the media.
		So they gave an earful to Elon Musk and some administration and folks this week saying we need to be hearing about these ahead of time.
		We don't want to be seen as attacking veterans programs, cutting veterans' programs.
		So there needs to be better communication.
		And I think Secretary Collins in the last few days has tried to amp that up.
		Now, whether or not that'll mean the next time he actually communicates ahead of time, we'll see.
		This is an administration that tends to move fast and not give the proper communications with Capitol Hill, worry about cleaning up the mess later rather than informing them ahead of time.
		But at least now there seems to be a little bit more of Secretary Collins and some of the other cabinet secretaries trying to take charge and trying to seem like they're in the lead of this rather than the Department of Government Efficiency or somebody else at the White House.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to a call.
		Kelly is in Alexandria, Virginia, and is a veteran.
		Good morning, Kelly.
unidentified		Hi, yes.
		I just want to say that the VA asked the employee to respond.
		You know, you got to apply for the benefit and then turn around and then they'll tell you, oh, well, you didn't apply the right way.
		They know who the veterans are, what they qualify for, and why are they, well, we haven't to beg them to give us the benefits that we qualify for.
		It seems like the operation of the VA is just out of sync.
		And my husband died as a veteran waiting on benefits to be applied before he even received the benefits.
		So it's like, you know, it's like the operation is just backwards.
		You ask that you, the veteran, call them.
		After you serve, you call, you write and apply, and then they turn around and deny your application.
		And then they tell you, oh, well, this wasn't a qualified vote for a benefit.
		Well, they know who's qualified for benefits from the very beginning because they see your civil service, your military service, and everything that happens.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about these proposed cuts that the Trump administration is proposing?
unidentified		It's overdue.
		They got to cut it in order to fix it because right now all the VA has is attorneys that sit back and say, oh, deny, deny, deny.
		And how many veterans are sleeping on the streets that qualify for benefits that they can't get because they don't even want to deal with the VA?
		So we have to reach out to those veterans and consider them instead of the employees that are only paid to deny you benefits.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Secretary Collins in your interview and in the video that he posted on social media referenced the VA being a punching bag for politicians and the media.
		Then you also have these experiences like what Kelly describes.
		You've been covering the VA for a long time.
		How does Kelly's experience track with what you've seen and what you've heard from other veterans?
unidentified		Yeah, look, this is a very common complaint and a very common frustration.
		The benefits process is a very complicated process.
		One of the things that Kelly mentioned in the call there is that they know what we deserve.
		That's actually not true, and this has been an ongoing problem.
		The communication between the Defense Department and VA has been fractured for a long time.
		They don't have a common medical record.
		They are trying to get on that now, but VA doesn't have all of your military records.
		VA doesn't know what you went through, what you might have been exposed to.
		The Defense Department might, and there's some issues with some of their record keeping as well.
		But that's something that the VA has been trying to fix for the last 20 years and really with their new electronic medical record, been trying to fix for the last eight years or so and try and fix that.
		But there are a lot of folks who wish that this would be a more automated process, that you could just come in, you can drop in your information, and then automatically you'll get your payment, you'll get C. There's a lot of complications with that.
		There's a lot of medical issues that will show up later in life that until VA is informed about them, they might not know that you have asthma that develop now.
		You may not have other problems.
		And until those problems develop, you don't get the benefits.
		But also, VA in recent years has been trying to do a better job with that outreach, been trying to find ways that they can simplify the process.
		And simplifying the process does not mean fewer people for the most part.
		It means more people looking through it.
		It means more people, more checks and balances to make sure that folks aren't falling through the cracks and more outreach, especially with the PACT Act that passed in 2022.
		This was a major expansion of the veterans' toxic exposure benefits and health care options there.
		One of the contracts that has come up recently as a cut is an indirect contract because it does not provide direct benefits to veterans, but it was paying for a group of employees who were trying to ease that process.
		We're trying to work with veterans to make it a simpler process and go through.
		Now that money is gone, now those employees are gone.
		So it's a complicated process.
		There are certainly some places that Republicans and some Democrats see as waste in VA and inefficiencies in VA that have to be improved.
		But there's not a lot of veteran service groups that feel like you're going to get better service and more benefits out there if you have fewer people to process to look at these things to move these cases along.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Celeste is in Sharon, Pennsylvania on our line for others.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Celeste.
unidentified		Yes, thank you.
		I was just wondering, who's going to sign up to support our country?
		Who's going to join our armed services with this type of thing going on?
		Like they said, we have all these veterans on the street with mental illnesses.
		We just, I can't believe that we are in those situations we're in today.
		Yet, who's going to sign up?
		We're a selective service.
		There's no draft.
		Who's going to protect us?
		What is going on?
		That's it.
		Thank you.
		Yeah, so a few things there.
		One, we actually have, so the issue of military recruiting is a really, really important one.
		It's one that folks have struggled with in the Defense Department for the last few years, and it's one the Defense Department is struggling with right now, trying to figure out ways.
		We've seen some improvements in recent years, but there is a lot of concern that how we treat veterans affects who wants to sign up for the next generation of that fighting force.
		So mentioned the homeless veterans.
		Number of homeless veterans has actually come down significantly over the last 20 years.
		It's still at about 40,000, still a number that everyone says is too high.
		But we've seen improvements in that, even as we've seen some of the homeless numbers in the general population tick back up.
		So a lot of those outreach programs have gotten better.
		And I do feel like it's important to note, you know, I feel like we in the media, we do focus on some of the problems, some of the challenges that we've seen with veterans.
		But for the most part, veterans are not struggling with mental health.
		Veterans are not coming back broken.
		There are quite a few veterans who have served honorably, go on, have you know, have great careers, have great second lives after that.
		It's the ones that do struggle, the ones that do need mental health, do need health care, that we want to make sure are being taken care of.
		And I think that's what the general public for the most part wants to do too.
		So I think VA in recent years has really worked on that narrative of, hey, we are trying to help the folks who do need help and we are improving at that.
		But also, our veterans aren't fundamentally broken, fundamentally damaged.
		This is an important part of the backbone of America.
		And if you would like to join, you could be part of that important backbone in the future too.
		So it's a complicated mix.
		It's certainly a tough balance to make sure that you are highlighting the needs and highlighting those shortfalls while at the same time finding ways to tell the good stories of veterans in the community as well.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Devin is in West Virginia and is a military family member.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Devin.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just had a question for Leo.
		I wondered if you guys had, if anyone has posed the idea, there's a lot of homeless veterans and there's also a lot of unemployed veterans.
		My father's a veteran and there's a lot in my family.
		If the two-thirds or the whatever that they're keeping of the Veterans Administration, if it's not running efficiently, why don't we hire veterans to run the Veterans Administration and take care of their fellow soldiers?
		They'd be employed and they'd probably do a more efficient job.
		What do you think about that, Leo?
		So veterans are, the VA has done a very good job of hiring veterans.
		Like I said, about 30%, about a third of the VA is made up of veterans right now, and they have made it a conscious decision to give veterans preference a real high priority and bring folks in.
		Unfortunately, there's a lot of jobs within VA that do require more than just dedication and veteran service, especially when you look at the medical care jobs.
		And that's one of the biggest employers.
		Veterans Health Administration is the biggest single section within VA.
		So if you're talking about nursing skills, you're talking about doctors, you're talking about mental health specialists, those are folks that do need to go to get significant schooling, significant training before they take over those jobs.
		So it's not just as simple as taking those 40,000 veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and sliding them into jobs.
		There are going to be places that they can do.
		But as we look at reducing the number of positions within VA, one of the concerns is, are we going to see a spike in that veterans unemployment number?
		Right now, I think last Friday it came out, it was 4.1%, which was right around the same level as the general population.
		It has been at the same level or lower than the general population for the last 10 years or so, with the exception of a month or two here and there.
		So generally, programs to help with veterans unemployment have been fairly effective.
		That doesn't mean everyone gets a job, but they've at least seen some success there.
		A lot of lawmakers have talked about improving those or adding to those even more to make sure that we help that group.
		That again would require some more hiring, some more folks within VA or within the Department of Labor to make sure they can do that.
		And at a time where the administration is cutting back on positions, it's not clear that there'll be the appetite to add those on.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Dennis is in White City, Oregon, and is a veteran.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Dennis.
unidentified		Yes.
		I'd like to ask Leo if he could ask the military.
		We have a uniform code of military justice that applies to everybody from the commander-in-chief down to the lowest, newest privates.
		And if the military has not stepped up when Trump has committed many crimes, why hasn't here's my question to Leo.
		Can you ask and find out why the military hasn't arrested him, put him on trial, and see what the outcome is?
		We already know he's a criminal, but he's unbecoming of an officer, and he signed the oath just as much as I did and everybody else.
		Leo, can you find out?
		I asked the American Legion.
		The American Legion won't step up.
		They're supposed to be helpless.
		The cuts are unlawful and shameful.
		The staff of the veteran facilities are understaffed and underpaid and have been for a long time.
		It took me 35 years to get my pension address for my injuries.
		Can you ask?
tony tarantino ▲ ● ▼		Can you please ask and get an answer and give it to the American people in public on all newspapers and stations?
unidentified		Thank you for your time.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Dennis, before I let Leo respond, I want to point out that C-SPAN actually has options for you as our viewers to submit questions that can be asked in the White House briefing.
		You can, if you have a question like that that you want to be asked to Press Secretary Caroline Levitt, you can send us an email to wquestions at c-span.org.
		That's whquestions at c-span.org.
		Include your name in your city and state.
		And we're collecting questions for consideration to ask in the White House press briefing.
unidentified		But now I'll let Leo respond as well.
unidentified		I did text.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you got to send an email for that one, but go ahead.
unidentified		Look, I understand the frustration.
		I'm sorry that it took so long to get your pension sorted out.
		And these are the kind of things that even when we get reports that things are generally going well at VA or DOD, there's always exceptions.
		And you don't like to hear that it takes 30 years, 35 years for someone to get something like that that should be settled.
		In terms of the military stepping in and acting as the judicial system, that's something they're not going to do.
		That's essentially a military coup if they step in and do that.
		There's a lot of frustration, but the military is run by civilians.
		It has civilian leadership and respects that civilian leadership even in tumultuous times like this.
		So I think those concerns about what Trump is doing are being handled by congressional Democrats to the extent they can, being outside groups and some of the federal unions are challenging these cuts.
		You know, there are a lot of legal and ethical questions in all of this that are getting wound up.
		But I don't really hear anyone saying that the solution is for the military to step in and to try and take over civilian leaders.
		That's just an area that we have not seen our military do.
		We have seen it in other countries where it ends disastrously.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Vicki is in Waukegan, Illinois, and is a veteran.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Vicki.
unidentified		Good morning.
		How are you doing?
		Good, thanks.
		First of all, I would like to say thank you to all veterans for their service.
		I guess from my perspective, being a veteran, being the spouse of a disabled veteran, and working at a VA, I think there can be more efficiencies in some areas.
		Just from our experience, you've seen where there has been some excess and a lot of nepotism.
		I think there should be more common sense about benefits.
		So, for example, I was in the Army, and what you find out is, like, culturally, you didn't tend to go to sick call.
		So, a lot of times, when it comes to benefits, the VA will say, well, we don't have a record of a particular because you didn't have something in your record.
		So, if you're in the Army, there used to be a commercial.
		We do more before 9 than most people do all day.
		You running and you're doing that.
		But then, as you get older and you apply for the benefit, it's denied.
		So, if your knees are hurting, if your feet are hurting.
		So, that's frustrating.
		But the military, I would say, it's like society at large.
		Whereas, you know, you have different people.
		Everybody doesn't have the same work ethic.
		So, whether they are a veteran or not, and so I guess that's just my take on it.
		But should it be more compassionate about the way it's being done with cuts?
		Yes, absolutely, it should.
		But I don't know if throwing the bodies in it.
		And the main thing is give the benefit to the veteran.
		Someone called earlier, and she was saying how that she struggled.
		And that's what I see from my perspective.
		One last point with regards to the PACT Act, where you're supposed to be able to get things for presumptive conditions.
		My mentor, her husband, never in life got any benefit.
		He didn't apply.
		But what he did try to do was to go and get care.
		And she has like five letters of the same thing where they're saying he's not in the system.
		He's not in the system.
		And he was 80 at the time he passed.
		So again, when we're talking about computer and database, how many Vietnam veterans are there in their 80s, folks who aren't using computers?
		And now when I try to work with her on his DD 214, which is our discharge paper, it says overseas.
		So we're being told that because it does not say Vietnam, even though the time period is Vietnam, that he can't get service.
		So it's those type of things that they should do a better job of.
		Thank you for listening to me.
		Look, that's, you know, I appreciate the call.
		There's a lot of frustration there, and we, you know, we hear that from a lot of folks, especially on things that should be easier, the transition from paper records to electronic records.
		Again, the hope is that at some point in the near future, those kind of things will be in the system.
		It'll be obvious where a gentleman like that served, and they won't have to, you won't have to go back and prove that it's not just overseas, but it was in Vietnam, which he's in Vietnam.
		There are certain service-connected issues with Agent Orange, certain presumptions that would make both him and the family more eligible for that.
		Look, I think when you're hearing from folks on Capitol Hill, both Republicans and Democrats, when you're hearing the veteran service organizations talk, none of them are saying that VA is perfect and can't do a better job with being compassionate, especially on the benefits side.
		A lot of the veteran service groups for years have been saying, hey, you need to give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran, that there needs to be a fundamental, more compassionate rethinking that is less adversarial, less, you have to prove that you deserve this and more, we have to show why you might not qualify for this.
		But the concern now is if the approach of the Trump administration is to make quick, massive cuts, if they take 80,000 off in the next few months, will that have a cascading effect where that's even less compassionate, where you have folks who are more interested in just making sure that they're okay with their own jobs, where they have fewer resources, where they have less contact with the Defense Department, and they just can't get that work done.
		But what we've heard from a lot of folks is, again, a lot of politicians and a lot of advocacy groups, yeah, we're not opposed to finding ways to make VA more efficient.
		We're not opposed to even cutting back on the amount of growth in VA.
		VA went up about 15% in terms of employees during the Biden administration, went up about 11% during the first Trump administration.
		So we've seen just a dramatic growth in the number of federal workers in VA.
		The question isn't whether or not some of that can be pulled back.
		The question is, how quickly do you pull all that back?
		And can you make a 15% cut in just six months and not damage what VA services are there?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Linda is in Corning, New York, and is also a veteran.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Linda.
unidentified		Well, this, yeah, my husband, my husband is a Vietnam vet, and he has been getting a small comp compensation from the VA for Agent Orange from being in Vietnam.
		And he's been getting that, I don't know, maybe 20, 20, 25 years.
		Is this proposed cut going to eliminate that?
		So it shouldn't.
		You know, if he's receiving benefits, it should still be okay.
		They're not talking about cutting back on any direct benefits or direct care.
		So the checks that are going out now, the medical care that is available and folks are eligible for.
		Doug Collins, Secretary Collins, and the White House have not talked about trimming back on any of that.
		The question becomes: if your husband were to apply for additional benefits, if there were another complication he felt that he was owed some more, would the new benefits claim that he put in, how long would it take the process?
		Would it end up in a backlog?
		Would it be more complicated?
		And then if he does use VA for medical care, they're promising they're going to try and keep those levels up.
		But if we start to see these cuts, will there be as many nurses there?
		Will there be as many schedulers there?
		Will you be able to get into that?
		Those are the concerns.
		When I brought these up with Secretary Collins, he said there are a lot of hypotheticals.
		There's a lot of fear-mongering at Capitol Hill.
		They're going to do this carefully.
		They're going to find efficiencies.
		So if you want to take him at his word on that, they're hoping that they can save money with these cuts without hurting any of that.
		The concern from Democratic lawmakers is: you know, these are all folks who are working hard.
		If you cut them back, of course, there's going to be cascading effects.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And I'll point out: if you want to hear more of Leo's interview with Secretary Collins, it's at militarytimes.com.
		And so now let's get back to more calls.
		Rose is in Tennessee and is a military family member.
		Good morning, Rose.
unidentified		Yes, my husband's a former Marine, and he was a police officer, and he was at Camp Lezoon during that terrible time of water contamination.
		And you know, that case has been going on from 1953 to 1985.
		And Halliburton got paid handsomely, didn't they?
		So why aren't the vets getting paid for their suffering?
		Five cancers he's had removed from his body, all over his body.
		Morgan and Morgan has had the files for two and a half years.
		Why should anyone join the military at this point, given that you care so little for veterans impacted?
		And are you really waiting for them to all die out before you have to finally pay out?
		Everyone was there that bathed and drank that water deserves to have compensation for the fact that they may now have problems or may have problems in the future.
		And we are tired of waiting.
		So the issue of the Camp Lejeune water contamination, as you summarized, has been a really frustrating one for decades now.
		And it is one that lawmakers in Capitol Hill have said they're frustrated with too.
		They want to get compensation to these families.
		That was included in the PACT Act.
		There were some provisions in there to get more money to families to get them more medical care.
		But some of those issues have been tied up in some court cases.
		There's been a couple of pieces of legislation to move that quicker.
		I believe that Senator Tillis or Senator Sullivan introduced something in the last few weeks to try and move that along faster.
		Look, it's been a point of frustration, and these are the stories.
		Most of the folks who come out of the military have positive experiences or feel like that it contributed to their future, to their future careers, to their life.
		There are a lot of folks, too, who get injuries from this.
		The folks who serve there have serious long-term health situations that the country has a responsibility to take care of now.
		And the question is, what is the way forward?
		Again, is it a new administration coming in and declaring that this is something that has to be addressed more forcefully, more directly, more quickly?
		Or is it something where we've got to let the courts play out and frustrate more families who have already been waiting for a long time?
		Wish we had a solution for that one that was quicker.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jim is in Texas and is a veteran.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jim.
unidentified		Yes.
		I just want to say a few things about the lack of efficiency.
		It's very surprising, maybe not surprising, that it's taken decades for electronic records to be able to communicate between DOD.
		I mean, even the VA electronic records, it's just taking decades to get this rolled out.
		And they're actually not very well organized.
		They're not easy for the doctors to review or for patients to review.
		Another thing, when doctors have a treatment that they recognize is needed, it has to go through multiple levels to get approval.
		It's hard for patients to understand why their primary care providers can't simply, they're qualified doctors, if they see the need for something, it's difficult to understand why it needs to be approved through multiple levels.
		Maybe this is an attempt to make sure there's a standard care.
		And then lastly, it's impossible to communicate with administrative staff.
		They no longer have suggestion boxes.
		You can't communicate with them electronically.
		With the clinical staff, they have secured messaging, but you cannot, there's no way to email or you have to either call or go in directly and speak with anybody, the administrative staff.
		Those are the things I would mention.
		So on the first point, the electronic health records, you're not the only one who's surprised and frustrated with this.
		I remember 15 years ago, we were talking about a billion dollars being spent on a project to try and get DOD and VA on the same system.
		It fell apart and it was a major failure, a major scandal.
		Now we're in year six, year seven of a $10 billion project that has already gone up to a $16 billion project that has only put a new electronic health record system in six VA sites, one joint DOD and VA site and five VA sites alone.
		Secretary Collins in our interview said that he wants to accelerate this process.
		The last administration said they thought they would be ready for a few new deployments in 2026.
		He said he wants to have 13 new ones next year, that we've got to get moving on this.
		We've got to get coordinated.
		But it has been a real problem.
		And part of that is DOD and VA have very different medical needs.
		They have very different medical populations.
		With DOD, you are talking about generally young, healthy individuals.
		VA is dealing with a lot of Vietnam veterans who might have Asian arms exposure.
		Older veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wards have burn pit exposure.
		Folks who are just dealing with geriatric care.
		I mean, there's a lot of different needs.
		So there's a lot of different pharmacy needs.
		There's a lot of different, you know, just logistical needs in terms of the tests they have to take and the things they have to review.
		So it isn't as simple as just saying you guys get on the same software system and move ahead.
		There are complications, but gosh, there's a lot of folks on Capitol Hill who've been saying the same thing as our caller.
		Like, how is this still 20 years later?
		How have you not gotten on any system?
		And how is this so frustrating?
		Just one other point on the doctor approval thing that the caller brought up.
		You know, that's a common thing that we hear within VA.
		A lot of folks frustrate it.
		Well, also, it's a common thing that we hear in the medical system throughout the country right now.
		These are not issues that are unique to VA.
		This is a point of frustration with the American health care system.
		Same thing with shortages.
		VA doesn't have enough mental health care professionals because the country does not have enough mental health care professionals right now for the demand.
		So some of those issues, VA could do a better job, but they really won't be fundamentally fixed until there's fixes throughout all of the country.
		If we don't get more mental health professionals, we're not going to get more in VA.
		We're not going to get enough in VA.
		If we don't get enough nurses in the country, there won't be enough nurses in the VA healthcare system.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		That is all the time we have for this segment.
		Thank you so much, Leo Shane, who is the deputy editor of Military Times and did that interview with the VA secretary last week, which you can find on militarytimes.com.
		Coming up next, we're going to be in open forum ready for more of your phone calls.
		You can start calling in now.
		Our number is 202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		Nearly 3,500 students participated in this year's C-SPAN Student Camp Documentary Competition, where we asked students to craft a message to the new president, exploring issues important to them or their communities.
unidentified		This Wednesday, tune in to C-SPAN's Washington Journal at 8 a.m. Eastern, where we'll announce the grand prize winner of this year's competition.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		How much has the city of Chicago spent on illegal immigration?
brandon johnson ▲ ● ▼		If you refer into the 2022 up to 2024 of the buses coming from Texas, roughly the same percentage of the state of Texas, about 1% of our overall budget.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		What is that?
		Because I don't have the city's budget in front of me.
		Numbers.
brandon johnson ▲ ● ▼		It's 1%.
brandon johnson ▲ ● ▼		And if you want the actual calculation, we can make sure someone- You're the mayor.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		You don't have the math in front of you?
brandon johnson ▲ ● ▼		1% of the overall budget over the last year.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		That's why you're failing to get a business.
		Which is the same number that the city of New York actually spent about illegal immigration.
		Mayor Johnson, I already asked you, you don't have a hard number.
		And if you don't have a hard number, you're not running your city well.
		Mayor Adams, how much did the city of New York actually spend on illegal immigration?
eric adams ▲ ● ▼		$6.9 billion of taxpayers.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		$6.9 billion of taxpayer money on a problem that was fostered on the American people.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		Mayor Wu, in the city of Boston, how much did you spend?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We don't ask about immigration status and delivering citizens.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		You don't ask about how much money the city of Boston has spent on illegal immigration.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Are you out of your mind?
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		Do you manage your budget or not, Mayor Wu?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		That is how we keep it.
unidentified		Mayor Wu, do you manage numbers to prove it?
		The Democratic mayors of New York City, Boston, Chicago, and Denver recently testified on sanctuary city policies and their impact on cooperation with immigration authorities.
		Watch the full hearing from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later today, starting at 2.30 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
		Also available on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're in an open forum, ready to hear your thoughts and comments about public affairs news that you've been watching.
		We'll start with Dave in Boyertown, Pennsylvania on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Dave.
unidentified		Hey, how are you?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I'm good, thank you.
unidentified		Yeah, I called from last segment, so I'm very pro the VA.
		As General Mattis would say in one of his leadership principles, you can always do some pruning, you know, if there's some redundancy, but the VA is a great institution.
		I'm a 20-plus-year vet.
		Me and all my buddies who are all combat vets, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Somalia, we all, almost all of us, either use the VA for medical care and/or get some compensation.
		So it's a great organization, way better than my dad's era, World War II, and the Vietnam era.
		So there's always problems that have to be sorted through and resolved, but they do a pretty good job at taking care of us.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Another comment from our previous segment.
		Lance in Fort Lauderdale said via text: the main problem with the VA, as with all government agencies, is that there is no penalty for poor work and no reward for good work.
		I've dealt with this as a disabled man, and it's frustrating.
		That's what this administration is trying to remedy.
		Kevin is in Bayville, New York, on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning.
		Kevin, you're an open forum.
		Yes, go ahead, Kevin.
unidentified		Yeah, hi.
		Yeah, I'm a Vietnam vet.
		I go to the VA for all my medical needs.
		I love the VA, although it's shorthanded already, so I don't know what these cutbacks are going to be like.
		And I just feel that Trump is once again attacking veterans.
		And I think that he doesn't like veterans because he was, you know, with bone spurs.
		You know, I had bone spurs too.
		I've got asthma.
		I've got flat feet.
		I had all that stuff.
		You know what they told me?
		Get in line.
		You're next.
		I pulled a 63 out of the lottery in 1971.
		I was gone literally the next day.
		So, you know, it's just, I think another lady said in the previous segment that who's going to show up for the next war?
		Nobody.
		I was dragged off the streets at 19 years old and sent halfway across the world to serve my country.
		And now this is what we get.
		It's a disgrace.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Kathy is in Waynesboro, Georgia, on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Kathy.
unidentified		Yes, hi.
		I think that, Mr. Shane, the recruitment is up for people to serve our country right now.
		They want to serve under President Trump.
		And President Trump is for our veterans.
		He's for all of America.
		He loves America.
		He wouldn't be, he took a bullet, for goodness gracious.
		He took a bullet for this country.
		When are you people going to wake up about that?
		And Biden was checking his watch when the 13 servicemen came back in coffins from the Abigail in Afghanistan.
		Hillary Clinton let Ambassador Stevens die.
		She said, stand down.
		And I want to urge everyone to watch tonight on C-SPAN at 8 o'clock Representative Comer's report on how the Biden family is corrupt with all their money from overseas and all that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I urge everyone to I'm not sure which program you're talking about this evening at 8.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What exactly what on C-SPAN?
unidentified		I think it's on book TV or on.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I see.
		It's a QA on book TV.
		Got it.
		Kathy, what do you think of these proposed cuts to the VA that the Trump administration is talking about?
unidentified		They're just talking about it.
		They haven't made them yet.
		I don't think they would do anything that's going to harm our veterans.
		I mean, it's only common sense.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Dennis is in Janesville, Wisconsin on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Dennis.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
		My father was a first lieutenant in Korea and got a bronze star.
		80% of the attrition in Korea was from starvation and exposure.
		And he brought back a significant number of his men back alive, for which he received a bronze star.
		I was eight years old when Kennedy was shot.
		And my father was home already and had the TV on when I got home 20 minutes later, sent home from a Catholic school.
		And I walked in the door to see Johnson tanks office.
		And the words that came out of my mouth caused my father for probably the first and only time to threaten to strike me, saying I couldn't say these things about our president.
		Healthcare.
		Mike Moore's movie documentary Sickle should have changed this world.
		Look at what England does with their health care.
		You know, the VA, we got people here have to go make an appointment, find somebody to drive them 40 miles away to go to a VA hospital.
		National Single Payer Healthcare.
		We are the only country in the world that allows private paid health care insurance.
		Anywhere else in the world, they go to try and pull this 38 other industrial nations.
		They'd be arrested and imprisoned for extortion.
		Our health care system needs and needs single-payer yesterday.
		And, you know, in Madison, when they did the Scott Walker, pulled the Act 10 thing.
		100,000 people are supposed to be educating my children didn't know enough to put their feet down, start screaming single-payer because all they were negotiating were their own private health care insurances.
		We need health care in this country.
		We need to quit doctors like Mike Witcock, you know, wakeupwell.org, Doc Mike Wittork.
		There are people out there who know how to cure things.
		And then we've got a disingenuous system that is nothing but fraud involving every insurance company in this country.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		A previous caller referenced Representative James Comer on the Biden family business.
		That is going to be, as she mentioned, airing on C-SPAN at 8 p.m. Eastern tonight.
		House Oversight Committee Chairman Representatives James Comer, a Republican of Kentucky, who's author of All the President's Money, talks about his committee's 15-month investigation into the business practices of then President Joe Biden and members of President Biden's family.
		This was originally a QA that aired on February the 24th, and it is going to be re-airing tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern.
		You can find that on c-span.org.
		Next up, John is in Syracuse, New York on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Yes.
		Well, you have to remember, as far as the veterans issues are concerned, Trump was a draft dodger.
		And it's been brought up before.
		He's, remember the comments he made about John McCain, a hero, a true hero.
		I just don't understand how this guy has any support from veterans.
		But he does.
		Veterans kind of like him.
		But I don't know if they're going to continue to like him after these cuts.
		These cuts are going to be very harmful for people trying to get information, make phone calls.
		You try to make a phone call now, nobody answers it.
		So it's, you know, human beings need to work.
		I don't know why he's cutting these jobs, especially veterans that have served our country.
		But again, it comes from somebody who dodged the draft and didn't even respect John McCain's service to this country.
		What do you expect?
		That's all.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Nick is in Deer Park, New York on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Nick.
unidentified		Hi, how are you doing?
		My name is Nick, and I'm a veteran.
		I just recently retired from a Veterans Administration hospital as an employee.
		And I just wanted to say that I'm glad that they're getting rid of the waste fraud and abuse.
		Hopefully, they'll focus on this veterans administration, especially the one in New York, Long Island.
		I was just very unhappy with all the management there.
		I feel like they really didn't care.
		And I felt like they were only in it for themselves.
		There was no cooperation between management and the employees.
		And I'm just glad that they're looking into all this stuff because they have to remember these people that they're hiring, they're not veterans.
		And they have to remember that they're working for us.
		We don't work for them.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Doreen is in Danvers, Massachusetts on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Doreen.
unidentified		Hi, I'm Doreen.
		I'm not a veteran, but I want to know.
		I have an information technology background.
		And one of the things that I'm, what I'm wondering is if I don't know all the details behind how the veteran administration works in terms of health care, but what I will say is I'm wondering if there would be a possibility, for instance, with private insurance.
		I know my insurance basically has a special hotline for routine kinds of issues with health care that can be taken care of over the phone.
		Prescriptions can be provided, things like that.
		I'm wondering if the VA could actually take advantage of a situation where, you know, for routine kinds of things, they would actually let veterans go directly to private or public hospitals and kind of offload some of the effort in the event that they do cut some of the medical staff and things like that and be able to take care of a hotline that would be able to address it.
		Obviously, if there are issues associated with specific things associated like Agent Orange or things like that, maybe they do have to go to the VA.
		But maybe we can kind of help that because from the standpoint of all the hospitals, there are hospitals that are shutting down because they're not getting any services because of some of the issues that they're running into with other things.
		And this could actually help to support the hospitals and kind of supplement what we're doing for the VA.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So Doreen, I believe what you're referencing is telehealth.
		And the VA does have a telehealth program that is this is noted in a November 11th of last year press release that the VA was planning at the time to eliminate co-pays for telehealth and expand access to telehealth for rural veterans and this was part of an ongoing effort to lower cost and expand access to care for all those who serve.
		And so the VA does, at least at the moment, have a telehealth program that was in the process of being expanded towards the end of the last administration.
		Let's hear from Darren in Mississippi on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Darren.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I like to thank every veteran who served this great nation in times of needs and risk their health based on their service.
		But I was just listening to the gentleman, Mr. Leo from Military Times, and I wanted to try to get in and speak with him regarding all the laws and all the VA regulations that our congressmen and senators passed, like the 38 U.S.C. 5107, the benefit of doubt rules in favor of the veterans.
		You got the 38 CFR 3.303 that deals with new and material medical evidence that's relevant and reveal the veteran in-service medical records.
		And a lot of us, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, we have to realize that you hear all the time when you go to the VA or to the Board of Veteran Appeals that these people in positions considered to be veterans, that is a conflict of interest because they're the ones who are denying you of your veteran benefits.
		That is what President Trump is trying to eliminate.
		President Trump is doing a great job.
		And I want to say, on a professional level, when you have veterans in positions who are not helping other veterans who work for the Department of Veteran Affairs, the motto is veterans helping veterans.
		That's the motto.
		And I'm a 1991 Gulf War veteran.
		I'm 100% disabled.
		But I have had many, many problems from Senator Trent Lott's office when he was in office to Roger Wilker, who was now present as a senator.
		I'm an independent voter.
		And my problem with the system is that it's a lot of red tape.
		And we need to do better as veterans when it comes to helping other veterans.
		The VA is a broken system, and I appreciate what President Trump is trying to do to fix it.
		That's all I have to say.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		William is in West Point, Mississippi on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, William.
unidentified		Yes, I would like to say, first of all, thank you for giving me a chance to speak.
		I don't have no problem with the VA.
		And everything that you go through ain't nothing perfect.
		And you're going to have some good, you're going to have some bad.
		But overall, I feel that the VA is doing an excellent job.
		Now, I am a Republican, and I must say that I am highly disappointed in President Trump, especially when he talked about John McCain.
		And what I am appalled about is that 53% of the veterans voted for Donald Trump.
		Now, since he's trying to cut different benefits and different things, and when I said billion, we're talking about service.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Actually, it was 65% of veterans who voted for Trump.
unidentified		Right.
		65.
		Thank you for correcting me.
		65% of them voted for Donald Trump.
		Now, they heard him when he disjohn McCain.
		They see how they're doing with the brickadier generals.
		They see all this.
		Now they're complaining and talking, but it's too late.
		This is what you voted for.
		I seen it coming down the pipe.
		But I would like to say this.
		My hat goes off to the BA, and the reason that they are so hard on making sure because they got to make sure that your service is connected.
		I myself get 100%, but I had to prove I served in two wars.
		I did 28 years.
		Operation Iraqi Freedom and Delta Storm, 1990, Delta Storm, 2003, Operation Act of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and that's when I hung up my boots.
		But my hat goes off to the BA.
		I don't have no problem with them.
		The problem is 65 or 63% of the veterans voted this man in.
		Now he's taking federal jobs.
		Now he's messing with the BA.
		Thank you so much.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's all the time we have for calls today and for Washington Journal.
		But we are going to be back with another edition of Washington Journal tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		We hope you'll join us, and have a great rest of your day.
unidentified		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy.
		From Washington and across the country.
		Coming up Monday morning, we'll look at efforts to avoid a government shutdown this coming Friday as another deadline to fund the government looms with Eric Wasson, congressional reporter at Bloomberg News.
		Then Reuters White House correspondent Nandita Bose previews the week ahead at the White House.
		And Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, joins us to discuss President Trump's use of executive authority.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN now or online at c-span.org.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		How much has the city of Chicago spent on illegal immigration?
brandon johnson ▲ ● ▼		If you're referring to the 2022 up to 2024 of the buses coming from Texas, roughly the same percentage of the state of Texas, about 1% of our overall budget.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		What is that?
		Because we don't have the city's budget in front of me.
		Numbers.
brandon johnson ▲ ● ▼		It's 1%.
brandon johnson ▲ ● ▼		And if you want the actual calculation, we can make sure someone.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		You don't have the math in front of you?
brandon johnson ▲ ● ▼		1% of the overall budget over the last year.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		years, which is the same number that was sent from the state of Texas.
		Mayor Johnson, I already asked you, you don't have a hard number.
		And if you don't have a hard number, you're not running your city well.
		Mayor Adams, how much did the city of New York actually spend on illegal immigration?
eric adams ▲ ● ▼		$6.9 billion of taxpayers.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		$6.9 billion of taxpayer money on a problem that was fostered on the American people.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		Mayor Wu, in the city of Boston, how much did you spend?
unidentified		We don't ask about immigration status and delivering cities.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		You don't ask about how much money the city of Boston has spent on illegal immigration out of your money.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		Do you manage your budget or not, Mayor Wu?
unidentified		That is how we keep it.
unidentified		Mayor Wu, do you manage numbers to prove it?

▲