CSPAN - Washington Journal 03/17/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 17, 2025 07:00-10:07 - CSPAN

03:06:49

Washington Journal 03/17/2025

Participants

Main

neera tanden

27:46

pedro echevarria

cspan 32:39

rich lowry

27:28

Appearances

brian lamb

cspan 00:55

cleo fields

rep/d 00:46

jake tapper

cnn 00:37

jasmine crockett

rep/d 01:49

jd vance

admin 00:40

maggie goodlander

rep/d 00:39

mike kennedy

rep/r 00:34

tim walz

d 00:59

Clips

chuck schumer

sen/d 00:05

kristen welker

nbc 00:13

patty murray

sen/d 00:05

Callers

mark in california [2]

callers 00:06

steven in florida

callers 00:08

tim in michigan

callers 00:07

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.
		Coming up on Washington Journal this morning, your calls and comments live.
		And then we'll talk with Center for American Progress President and former Biden Domestic Policy Council Director Neera Tanden about Democrats' response to the Trump administration and GOP agenda.
		Also, Taylor Popolars, Spectrum News national political reporter, reviews White House News of the Day, and editor-in-chief of the National Review, Rich Lowry, will join us.
		To discuss the Trump administration and Republican agenda, Washington Journal is next.
		Join the conversation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The Washington Journal for March 17th, recent polls are reflecting how Democrats feel about their own party.
		An NBC poll found overwhelming negative views of the party itself.
		A CNN poll showed Democrats saying their party is heading in the wrong direction.
		And Democrats on Capitol Hill are asking questions themselves after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer allowed the Republican-led short-term funding of the federal government bill to advance.
		To start the program today, Democrats only.
		What's your view of the direction of your party?
		For Democrats who want to answer the question on the phones, if you're under 30, 202-748-8000 is the number to call.
		202-748-8001 if you're between the ages of 31 and 60.
		And 202-748-8002 if you're over 60.
		If you want to make your views, Democrats, on the view of your party and you want to choose other means, you can text us at 202-748-8003.
		You can post on Facebook at facebook.com slash C-SPAN.
		And you can also post on X at C-SPANWJ.
		NBC came out with a poll taking a look at a variety of questions, but specifically ones tailored to the Democratic Party.
		This came out yesterday, one of those questions about overall viewers or overall people who participated in the poll.
		This shows that a record low share of how those viewers or voters view the Democratic Party.
		Only when it comes to negative views of the party, as of March of 2025, 55% of those sharing negative views of the party overall.
		When it comes to those positive views, all those people who participated in that poll, only 27% expressed a positive view of the party.
		Another chart from that NBC poll when it comes to Democrats and self-identified Democrats in April of 2017 to compare, it showed that 59% of those people back then of Democrats said that the Democratic Party should make compromises with President Trump to gain consensus on legislation.
		33% at the time of April 2017 said that the Democrats should stick to their positions even if it means not getting things done in Washington.
		That's almost flipped as of March of 2025.
		32% of Democrats saying that they should make compromises with the president to gain consensus on legislation.
		And 65% of those Democrats saying that they should stick to their positions even if it means not getting things done in Washington, D.C. Again, these are, that's the NBC poll.
		It was not too long before that that CNN came out with its own poll taking a look at Democratic views of their own party and found this.
		The first point saying that Democratic-aligned adults of those who participate in that poll, 52% to 48% said that the leadership of the Democratic Party is currently taking the party in the wrong direction.
		That's another shift from eight years ago when the views on this metric were largely positive.
		And then also amongst that poll, among overall the American public, the Democratic Party's favorability rating stands at just 29%, a record low.
		And CNN's polling dating back to 1992, that poll also showing that just 63% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents report a favorable view of their own party, a dip from 72% in January and 81% at the start of President Biden's administration.
		So those are the polling numbers, taking a look at Democrats and how they view their own party.
		You can give us your own sense, Democrats, of how you view your own party and the direction that your party is currently taking.
		Here's how you can call us and let us know.
		If you are under the age of 30, it's 202-748-8000.
		If you are between the ages of 31 and 60, you can call us at 202-748-8001.
		And if you're over the age of 50, 202-748-8002, you can also post on our social media sites as well.
		One of those people commenting on the state of the Democratic Party yesterday was on CNN.
		It's Texas Democrat Jasmine Crockett talking about the Senate Democrats' approach to the short-term funding the CR, so to speak, and also talked about the state of her party.
		Here's some of her comments from yesterday.
jasmine crockett ▲ ● ▼		I understand that the American people are frustrated.
		Please believe many of us did not sleep because we were calling and trying to impress upon the senators the importance of pushing back in this moment.
		And as you saw, we had all but one Democrat in the House that voted for this, so that's 212 Democrats in the House.
		And then you had the vast majority of senators vote for it or vote against it as well.
		And so the idea that Chuck Schumer is the only one that's got a brain in the room and the only one that can think through all of the pros and cons is absolutely ridiculous.
		And Jake, you and I both know that this administration could care less about whether or not they violate the law.
		We know that we've had to rely heavily upon the courts.
		And I want to say, as you're talking about the polling on my party, I want to say that it is the Democratic attorney generals and some governors that are standing up against this administration and bringing those lawsuits and winning every single time.
		They are losing in court.
		Could we do a better job of making it short making sure that the American people know that we are winning in the courts?
		We probably could.
		But at the end of the day, it's still Democrats that are winning for the American people.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼		Some progressive groups are calling for new leadership in the Senate for Democrats.
		Even House Democratic leader Jakeem Jeffries, your leader, he was asked if he supports Schumer as leader of the Senate, Democrats, and he said, next question.
		Do you think Senate Democrats should replace Chuck Schumer?
jasmine crockett ▲ ● ▼		I think Senate Democrats have to sit down and take a look and decide whether or not Chuck Schumer is the one to lead in this moment.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼		You're close with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
		Some of your fellow House Democrats say, and not just progressives, by the way, we've heard that moderates have said this too, that they're ready to support her to challenge Chuck Schumer in a Democratic primary.
		Would you get behind that?
jasmine crockett ▲ ● ▼		That's four years from now.
		If you were asking me, at least in two years, then I would have an absolute answer.
		But I can tell you that there are a lot of people that are watching his leadership in this moment.
		This is the moment.
		We don't even know what elections will look like in four years if we will have elections.
		And so I definitely think that younger, fresher leadership may be something that many of us, not just depending on what part of the spectrum you're on, but many Americans may be looking for, especially in the state of New York.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So again, that's Texas Democrat Jasmine Crockett giving her perspective on the Democratic Party.
		Democrats only, you can do the same.
		Again, the lines are a little bit different this time.
		They're divided by age.
		If you are under 30, it's 202-748-8000.
		If you're between 31 and 60, 202-748-8001.
		And if you're over 62, 202-748-8002.
		On our Over 60 line, this is Gwen in Detroit.
		Democrats only on the state of your party, the direction of your party.
		Gwen, good morning.
		What do you think?
unidentified		Hi, good morning, Pedro.
		Yeah, I'm over the age 60.
		I'm 74.
		But what the Democrats are doing, I agree with both sides because it's either this way or that way.
		Both ways are terrible.
		But I believe that with the view that Schumer took was to protect the courts.
		And that way, like right now, we're beating Trump in the courts.
		So if we had shut down the government, then it would have been, we would have been totally at loss.
		It would be up to the executive, Trump, to decide what is necessary, what is not.
		And he already thinks a whole lot of things are not necessary.
		But this way, I think the Democrats are in a stronger position.
		And another thing that I wanted to say is the Democrats, I hear a lot about House Democrats getting together, Senate Democrats, they both need to come together when they have to make big decisions like that and discuss it out behind closed doors.
		So I think that the Democrats are doing great with no power.
		They are doing great.
		They are winning in the courts.
		And so this is how we can fight back on Trump.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		You know, because he does a lot of things that are illegal, but it just goes to the court process.
		Now, when it ends up at the Supreme Court, you know, then that's another story.
		Okay.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Gwen there in Detroit giving her assessment.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is John in Pennsylvania on our line for those over 60.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hi, Pedro.
		I just turned 70, and I think the Democrats are doing an excellent job because Chuck Schumer is one of the best House representatives in the Senate, man, for the longest time.
		And member Nancy Peloski, she did things for the American people with the Health Care Act under the Obama administration.
		She was the best.
		And the reason everybody thinks the Democrats are not doing any good is because they're following what the Republicans wrote 250 years ago in the first Continental Congress.
		They said all men are created equal, but they didn't abolish slavery.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, in this case, they're following the efforts to keep the government funded, a Republican-led effort.
		A lot of criticism coming from Democrats about that.
		What do you think of that criticism?
unidentified		I wanted him, I wanted him to pass the bill and see how disaster it is for the Republicans when things start happening.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean by that?
unidentified		A lot of money.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean by that?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you elaborate on that?
unidentified		Well, the things they're going to be doing is crazy.
		They're going to raise the deficit with that bill.
		Okay?
		How?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're there.
		You're still on.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah, I know.
		How?
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But you're okay with Democrats allowing that to happen.
		Why?
		Yeah, John, because Senator Schumer allowed the bill to happen.
		You're okay with that approach then?
unidentified		Are you kidding?
		I was okay with it.
		I was happy.
		If you shut down the government, it costs quite as much to start it up again.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Jack is between the ages of 31 and 60.
		Jack in Philadelphia.
		Hello there, the state of the Democratic Party.
		What do you think?
unidentified		Hey, what's going on?
		Well, you know, I don't agree with what Schumer did.
		The Republicans have long enough to develop and pass their own budget and then had to drop five and punt and pass the CR for Joe Biden.
		No one else agreed with Schumer.
		I think it's time for, I mean, we have young, smart, aggressive representation in the Democratic Party.
		And I think it's time for them to take over, you know, and lead for these next four years.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Aside from the actual CR vote itself, why do you think the Democratic Party is in need of a change of leadership?
unidentified		I don't think the, and I don't want to be ageist, but I think they're not aggressive enough.
		I mean, the issues are clear-cut.
		And I think the younger representatives, when I watch C-SPAN, you know, have congressional hearings and everything, they're much more aggressive, much more succinct, and get their point across.
		And they make the Republicans look silly in these hearings and passing bills.
		Like, it's not even close.
		So I just think it's time for the younger generation to take over and represent our points.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jack is in Philadelphia.
		That's his thought.
		Again, he's calling me within that bracket of between the age of 31 and 60.
		That's 202-748-8001.
		If you fall within that, if you're over that, say over the age of 60, 2027 for 8-8,002.
		If you're under 30, 202748, 8003.
		Democrats only, again, the direction of your party.
		Where do you think it's going, especially as the call I brought up become the last week's vote on the keeping the government funded?
		You can use that as an example.
		You can use that as other examples as well.
		Carl and Houston are a line for those over the age of 60.
		Hello, you're next.
unidentified		Hey, how are you doing, Pedro?
		Listen, I think the Democrats is totally going in the wrong direction.
		And not just because of one vote, but for the last four or five years, people have been telling Democrats, hey, we don't want to go this way.
		Let's try this way.
		They refuse to listen.
		And because of that, look where we're at now.
		We're at a place where, to be quite honest, I don't think the Democrats can get us out of this situation because one, they've been reactive instead of proactive.
		And look, it just caused too much damage.
		I think they need a complete overhaul.
		They need a complete overhaul of their policies and everything else.
		Because to be quite honest, you can't just look at one vote of Chuck Schumer and say, hey, listen, this is the problem, this one vote.
		No, it's the policies that they've been passing for the last couple years.
		Half a trillion dollars here for illegals.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So where do you think the Democratic Party should have been more proactive in the way you express that?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Where do you think that should have taken place?
unidentified		I think I should have taken place when Democrats started telling them, hey, we're not truly agreeing with some of these policies you come out with.
		And I don't know who's passing, I don't know who's given the orders, the marching orders in the Democratic Party, but whoever's been given those marching orders, they've been told repeatedly by Democrats and the public in general that they're not feeling that and that they're not feeling these policies.
		And to be truthful, you can't just look at one place.
		You have to, you have to, it really needs to be totally rehab.
		But thanks, Pedro, for letting me call and taking this time.
		But really, everything they've done in the last five years has just been, just been terrible.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Vicki in Indiana, between the ages of 31 and 60, the direction of the Democratic Party, Democrats only this morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hello, Vicki.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I would just like to say I'm a registered Democrat.
		I haven't always voted Democrat.
		Sometimes I'll vote for an Independent, but I think the Democrat Party is messing up.
		They should have already had a plan ready.
		They should have already had a Project 2025 quote of our own.
		But I think it's time to rebrand.
		I think they need to change the name of the party, rebrand it.
		They've got to focus on issues that really matter to people.
		They've got to get a hold.
		They've got to sit down with Bernie.
		They need to sit down with Bernie, and they need to, I feel like they need to get their...
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me ask you two questions since you brought them up.
		The issues you said they need to focus on.
		What would be the top issue in your mind for the Democratic Party to focus on?
unidentified		100% is the tax loopholes.
		I look at it this way.
		If you had a candidate that had some kind of couth like Obama, I'm not saying you have to be the world's best speaker, but if you are somebody that wants to get a hold of American people, be the person that says we want money out of politics.
		We want the best education in our country so our people are smart.
		We can never let something like Trump happen again.
		And if you want to win the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, you need to rebrand.
		And you need to rebrand and say, you know, quit doing the same old, same old.
		Don't reach out to the Brown community, but then actually not help them.
		You've got to do, you need to have a candidate that's ready to rock and roll.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And let me ask you this then.
		Why do you think that the party should turn to, say, Senator Sanders for that kind of guidance?
		What does he bring that other leaders within the party are not bringing?
unidentified		I'm not saying yes.
		A lot of lies, a lot of lies, a lot of flair, a lot of confidence, a lot of appealing to hatred in a passive-aggressive way, sometimes just outright.
		I don't think that's what we need to do.
		I think we need to go back in this and say, hey, we are a compassionate people, but I think we need education.
		There are so many people that do not understand how our government works.
		And a lot of people didn't get that in high school.
		And they didn't pay attention and they weren't taught well.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Vicki there in Indiana giving her thoughts.
		Several people bringing up Senator Schumer.
		He did an interview with the New York Times, an audio interview that was released yesterday.
		And in part of the back and forth of questions, after the vote last week to allow the government to stay open, he was asked about that vote.
		Also asked if he thought that, or the reporter asked, if Senator Schumer is the right leader for the Democratic Party in the Senate at this time.
		Here's part of that exchange from yesterday.
unidentified		But with this vote, it seems you've lost the confidence of many of your players.
unidentified		I mean, it is from Nancy Pelosi to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who have expressed genuine fury at this.
chuck schumer ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me just say, look, in my caucus, for instance, I knew there would be divisions.
unidentified		There are.
		But we have respect for one another.
		We each respect that each of us has made the decision because we thought it was right.
		And we are all unified in going after Trump.
		What I mentioned to you in the earlier broadcast, making sure people know.
		But it's how you go after Trump out.
		Go ahead.
		Go ahead.
		The complaints are about precisely your leadership.
		I mean, there has been reporting that you were not in regular touch with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries leading up to your decision, that it took many in your caucus by surprise, that there didn't seem to be a plan.
		That is what, more than anything, seems to be the case that many in your caucus are making against how this was handled.
		Okay, for weeks and months, we had said a shutdown is awful.
		And by the way, every Democrat, no matter how they voted, wanted to make sure there was no shutdown.
		We thought there could be a bipartisan plan.
		And I talked to Hakeem regularly during this period.
		We didn't think that Johnson could get all his votes.
		He did.
		When he came to the Senate on Tuesday, our hope was that Patty Murray could negotiate with the Republican senators and get that 30-day CR, a bipartisan plan.
		She couldn't.
		So we were faced with two awful choices.
		The choice has been made, but I think the whole Democratic Party is united on what I mentioned in the earlier broadcast, showing how bad Trump is in every way.
		Organizing, we're organizing this week and next week in Republican districts.
		We're having rallies to not give tax breaks to millionaires, and we're succeeding.
		We're succeeding, Lulu.
		We're bringing his numbers down.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, more of that interview that took place and released yesterday, available at the New York Times website.
		This is Tim in Alabama over the age of 60, Democrats.
		Only the state and your view of the direction of your party.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes.
		Well, the direction of the party, they are confused about right now.
		But I'm glad there's only Democratic callers today, because I like to say to all of the callers to listen to Vigilante Incorporated.
		It tells you, and it shows you this by a freelance reporter named Greg LaPaz.
		No network has reported what he explains in his documentary about the mass suppression of votes that took place in this 2024 election.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I don't want to go too far from the topic because it is about the state of the party.
		You described the party as confused.
		What do you mean by that?
unidentified		Well, what I mean by that, too, is the vote by Senator Schumer.
		A shutdown, if the Democrats had voted to shut down the United States government, that would have thrown them quicker into a recession.
		Donald Trump is leading this country into a recession, and it'll be there by this summer, probably.
		So, but if the Democrats had voted to shut down the government, the recession would have came about, and everyone would have said the Democrats caused the recession when the Democrats did not, because the Republicans are in the president.
		They own the House, they own the Senate, and it's because of Trump's mismanagement, because of the tariffs, because of laying off of thousands of employees in the IRS and the Treasury Department.
		Some of those employees, you are going to need to understand and to work through these financial crises.
		And he's laid all of them off.
		The Republicans are headed this country into a recession, and Schumer voted not to close the government because that would have devastated this whole economy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's go to Freeman.
		Let's go to Holt.
		Holt, between the ages of 31 and 60.
		Holt, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about the direction of the Democratic Party?
unidentified		Actually, I think we're in a pretty good position.
		It's kind of like what the last caller was saying.
		If we allow Trump to show his hand, let him go ahead and do everything he could possibly do, he will end up burning down the bridges himself, and his own party will turn on him.
		But if we, in any way, put our fingerprints on it, he will just turn around and say we did it.
		Like for the last two months, he's been blaming Joe Biden for anything and everything that went wrong.
		Sooner or later, he's going to have to take accountability for himself.
		And I think our party should start working more with the grassroots people.
		They should go ahead and start talking to the people themselves and showing what they do here and kind of organizing the people to go out and do more protests to let them know that, hey, we stick with the government, we stick with the Democratic Party.
		We have our own values, and we're going to stick with those values.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So you talked about the vote then.
		Do you think the Democratic Party should take a position of letting Republicans do whatever as we go forward?
		Or is there a resistance, as you describe it, still needed within the party?
		How would you clarify that?
unidentified		What I mean is, no, go ahead and clarify your position.
		Let your position be known that you stand.
		Right now, there's not too much you can do as far as as long as they got the votes, they're going to be able to take control over the House and they got the control over the Senate.
		And they will always be unified.
		One of the problems with the Democratic Party that we do have is we do stick to the morals that we have.
		We have our own ethics that we believe in, and we stick to those ethics.
		But the Republicans will vote as a block each and every time.
		They might come out and say they don't agree with this, or they might say that this will cause a recession.
		But then Trump comes around and they will vote for Trump each and every time.
		Republicans have the tendency to stick together no matter what.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Holt there in Englewood, Ohio, another Ohioan.
		This is Freeman in Cincinnati on our line for those over 60.
		Go ahead.
		You're next.
unidentified		Yes.
		Let me make myself perfectly clear here for Democrats.
		We first have to understand that Democrats allowed Trump to win this election.
		We have to understand that Democrats knew that Kamala Harris could not win this election.
		We knew that Hispanics wouldn't vote for, a lot of African-American males wouldn't vote for, and especially Caucasian males.
		Now that Trump is in there performing the duties that Democrats are afraid to do publicly, all Trump is doing is what the president normally do, but he's doing it in the open.
		The problem with the Democrats is they're refusing to take care of this because they could have impeached him if they had to send Kent the subpoena with the impeachment, and he wouldn't have never ran again.
		And I'm a past chair of the Democratic Party here.
		So what we have to understand as Democrats is these old-time Democrats in my generation are bought and paid for and out of touch.
		We need younger Democrats to come in and truly practice the art of working for the betterment of the people.
		If Democrats had to put someone else in there besides Kamala Harris, Democrats would have won this presidential election.
		So let us not be confused.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So you said, so caller, you said younger Democrats, such as whom?
unidentified		The younger generation, anyone under our baby booms.
		I'm a baby boomer.
		My children's generation has been inoculated into understanding, especially African Americans.
		We vote 95, 98% Democrat, no matter who it is.
		And what we have to understand is if that Trump was a Democrat, they will vote for him just the same.
		So we got to stop allowing Republican and Democrats to guide us.
		And I say this, Bernie Sanders really did something that really took me down as an independent.
		He would have been the first independently elected as a president, and both parties talked him down.
		We as American citizens got to understand that we the people are the government.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Got you there.
		This is Isaac in Maryland between the ages of 31 and 60.
		Isaac, go ahead.
		What are your thoughts on the direction of the party?
unidentified		Hey, good morning, Patrick.
		Thank you very much for taking my call.
		I wanted to say that I was listening to the previous caller.
		I just want to let the previous caller know that Donald Trump was impeached twice by the House of Representatives.
		He was not removed from office by the Senate.
		In the direction of the party, I do believe that the Democratic Party is in transition right now.
		And I do agree with that there needs to be a change.
		There is definitely a split between the old guard Democrats, i.e. Chuck Schuman, Natsukelosi, and people like that, versus the new guard, the Jasmine Crockett, the AOC, the Rashid Talibs.
		And those two ideals are in conflict.
		But unfortunately, you have the younger generation winning out because I think what we're upset about is that we are the party of morality, and we're seeing where it's getting us.
		You know, I think it's time for us to get in the weeds.
		It's time for us to work on messaging because the only reason the Democratic Party lost was because of messaging, period.
		Point blank.
		That's the same reason George Bush won his second term is because of messaging.
		And that is why the Democratic Party lost this time because of messaging.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Isaac there in Maryland talking about, amongst other things, leadership and the need for younger leadership or at least take a look at that.
		For what it's worth, the Wall Street Journal this morning in their second editorial taking a look at the decision by Senator Schumer to allow that vote and what it says about the state of the party saying Mr. Schumer only had bad political options after the House GOP stayed united and passed the budget without having to beg House Democrats for votes.
		If Senate Democrats had filibustered the budget, much of the government would have shut down by their hand.
		This would have been a gift to President Trump, handing him a foil to change the subject from the dislocations caused by Elon Musk efforts to shrink the government.
		But that hasn't stopped House Democrats and the left from making Mr. Schumer public enemy number three after Mrs. Trump and Musk.
		Quote, there is a deep sense of outrage and betrayal, said Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
		Just to see Senate Democrats even considering acquiescing to Elon Musk, I think is a huge slap in the face.
		It was on NBC yesterday that Maine Democrat, Jared Goldman, he supported the House Republican effort on the CR, by the way.
		He had this to say about the state of his own party.
		Here's a portion of that interview on NBC yesterday.
kristen welker ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe that now, 50 days into President Trump's second term, your party, the Democratic Party, is any closer to finding a cohesive message and strategy for this moment?
unidentified		No, in fact, after the election, when a lot of people like yourself were asking me to come on shows and talk about how the party would find a new direction, a stronger message, I warned that I thought come inauguration day, a lot of people would move on, shift into full resistance, and stop focusing on what we're getting wrong.
		What do we have to offer the American people?
		And where do we go forward from here so that we're not in this situation after the next election?
		I think it's very important that Democrats not forget to focus in on ourselves, why the American people voted not just for President Trump, but for a Republican-led Congress in both the Senate and the House.
		And we better figure out how to make the case to the American people that they want us there after the 2026 election with a House majority to offer a check on that uncontrolled Republican power that we're seeing in action today.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats in the audience, we're asking you about the direction of your party and what you think it is.
		202748-8000 if you are under the age of 30, 202-748-8001 if you're between the ages of 31 and 60.
		And if you're over 60, 202-748-8002.
		Our social media sites are at Facebook and on X. Texting us is also available at 202-748-8003.
		In New York City, this is Lawrence over the age of 60.
		Hello, Lawrence.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hello.
		Thanks for having me.
		But I think the Democrats are spending way too much time running around putting out fires that Trump makes.
		He's running around making all these little fires, Democrats running behind them, putting them out.
		Meanwhile, all this other stuff is going on.
		So they have no long-term plans to remedy Trump's sanctions.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And what would you think a long-term plan would include?
unidentified		Something like, like say, for example, there would probably be no election next time because like right now he's probably already planning to go to the Supreme Court that he could continue on as king.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, as far as the party itself, how do you think the party currently stands to the Democratic Party of the past under Republican-led presidents?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's changed, do you think?
unidentified		Well, Trump did the same thing his first term.
		He was doing all these little things and we were chasing after him.
		It seems as though we should have learned from that, but we didn't.
		We're still doing the same thing.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Courtney is in Michigan between the ages of 31 and 60.
		Hello, Courtney.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hello.
		I am Courtney from Michigan.
		Just want to let you know that I believe that the messaging was clear.
		We were very clear between, especially in Michigan, about what we were trying to achieve.
		The problem I didn't think was that our representative really was she did to lead my representative, did not do what she needed to do.
		I feel like I agree that she is pro-Palestinian because she is a Palestinian American.
		I just believe that she should have looked for the benefit of the majority of the people in her party in her constituentship, not just that per certain percentage that she did from the Middle Eastern vote.
		I feel like that really did sway Michigan, in my opinion.
		But I could be incorrect.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But as far as the party on the larger issue, do you think you mentioned Representative Talib, but are there larger issues within the Democratic Party that you think that needs correcting?
unidentified		Definitely.
		We need to have our, we need to speak to people as a whole.
		We're not, we're kind of classes.
		We're kind of elite.
		We are.
		Our younger people like Jasmine Crockett on ALC.
		They do speak for people who are more younger and more, I'm sorry, younger.
		And can you hear me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you're on still.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Sorry, younger and more left.
		But we just need to have people who are younger.
		I think the age of 92 Pelosi needs to leave.
		But I appreciate their reign, but they need to go.
		And I'm going to leave it at that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Courtney Vera in Michigan giving us her thoughts this morning.
		One that she talked about, issues of messaging.
		This is the Washington Post this morning, a story on the Democratic strategy when it comes to new media to reach voters and confront the president.
		This is by Dylan Wells saying that in their efforts to double down on social media, Democratic members of Congress are going beyond what's typically been expected of legislators over the past decade.
		They're trying to become political influencers.
		In the House, the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee is providing members with the materials and direction they may need to create their own videos and hiring a first ever digital partnerships manager to work with the caucus.
		Last year, the committee provided lapel mics to every Democratic member and hand-delivered booklets to each office on the best digital strategies.
		And it's not just young members who are following their suggestions.
		82-year-old Representative Rosa DeLoro, the Democrat from Connecticut, is one of the latest lawmakers to join TikTok where she posted a direct-to-camera video discussing cuts to the education department while roaming the halls of a house office building, as well as multiple fan-style edits of herself.
		Others in the caucus are becoming podcasters.
		The most recent offering is a new Democrat coalition show launched last week titled The Fly-In, hosted by Representatives Greg Lansman of Ohio and Mark Vesey of Texas.
		From Janet in New York City, on our line for over 60, go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning.
		As far as Schumer stating that he wants to go out and he wants us to protest, I did my job.
		I went out and voted.
		They lost.
		So now he has to go out and do his job.
		I voted for them to come in and to fight.
		And he's not doing that.
		He should have let the, he should have let the TR go.
		If he wanted to fight for something, then he should have stood on ground and said, give DC back their money.
		He should have stood on ground and said, let everyone make in over a certain amount.
		Let everybody pay FIFA taxes.
		He should have stood his ground on something.
		The only thing they're worried about is being called a name.
		We haven't had no one fight for us since Kennedy passed.
		They swift voted us.
		They've done everything.
		Right now, students are being expelled, but yet right-wingers and skin heads can walk through black towns with guns to scare everybody, but they could keep their jobs and they could continue to go to school.
		So the Democratic Party is not fighting for anything.
		But I am going to sit out this one because I did my job.
		I mean, they need to go on, get off of MSNBC, get off of all of these programs where they're going to ask you the right questions and go out and fight for your point of view, fight for our point of view.
		And they're not doing that.
		So I don't agree with Schumer saying he's going to fight later.
		You're not the majority.
		So they're not going to let you.
		Had a chance to speak out and to do something, and you didn't do it.
		So, I'm sorry, I will not be out there protesting.
		Okay, that's what happened.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Janet, there in New York City, one more call on this topic.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Carol, New Jersey, 31 to 60 years old.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello.
		I wanted to bring my point.
		The Democrats don't have control over the Senate.
		If they had control over the Senate, we wouldn't be having a lot of these problems they're having now with the President.
		The Republicans are scared of the President.
		There's a lot of good Republicans out there, and that's against it, but they're afraid to say that they're against anything the president says.
		Now, look at the governors that went against the president.
		They were threatened.
		Their life was threatened.
		Their kids were threatened.
		So you can see what's happening in the Senate.
		So if the Democrats had control of the Senate, we wouldn't have these problems.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Carol in New Jersey, ages 31 to 60.
		Democrats only, we started the program on the direction of your party.
		Now we're going to open it up to open forum.
		So this is how it works.
		If you want to participate in open forum and talk about any topics of politics, Democrats, if you want to continue talking about the state of your party, Republicans, if you want to address other issues, now's the time to do that.
		Call in.
		The numbers 202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		And if you want to send us a text on thoughts, 202-748-8003.
		Again, you can do that.
		You can always, during the course of the program, post on our social media sites as well.
		But if you want to participate in open forum, again, call those numbers and we'll take those calls momentarily.
		This is from Greg.
		Greg on our line for independence from Texas.
		Hello.
unidentified		Yes, I hate it.
		I'm back.
		I said I want to call, but I sit back and I watch these people sit out here and they just blame the Democrats everything.
		You know what?
		Our Constitution never did combine, never combined us as people of color in this country.
		Now, listen to me.
		These people that the Republican Party got in on hatred.
		And Donald Trump is going to start a war because that's what he's about.
		He's trying to start a war so he can go in the history book.
		His kids can read about him.
		That's why he's going around the world always fighting and killing the poor people in this country.
		And the Democratic Party didn't do nothing wrong.
		President Biden didn't do nothing wrong.
		He just went by the rules and the regulations.
		You hear me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Okay, he didn't do nothing wrong.
		We went by the rules, went to school, went to lawyers and doctors, went to the schools and learned how to go by the books that were written and the rules of regulation was written in this country.
		The Democratic Party did nothing wrong.
		I don't know why they're sitting around here trying to research and see why the Democrats went wrong.
		We did it by the rules and regulations.
		The Republican Party don't care.
		They're all about themselves.
		The view.
		Now they're trying to get rid of the view.
		They're trying to get rid of C-SPAN.
		This is what they've been doing forever.
		Take over these shows and then want to just go to their view.
		These people don't have no good meaning for this country.
		The working people, the poor white people, and the poor black people, they see now.
		They're pulling together, man.
		You know what I'm saying?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's hear from April.
		April's in New York, Independent Line.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Yes, thank you for taking my call.
		I would just like to agree with the caller before the man from Texas when the lady said, we have fought and we have fought and we have fought.
		I fought.
		I'm over 73 years old.
		And there will never be any party that will be for the Democrats' majority have a lot of black people in them.
		So it will never, that will never ever be for us.
		And that's why Schumer went over to the Republicans because that is where the white men are.
		There's nobody over in the Democrats that's going to fight those white men over there.
		That's the way it will always be.
		So I'm sitting this one out, too.
		And the majority of a lot of Democrats are sitting it out because there's nothing for us to do.
		We did everything.
		They crossed out that Black Lives Matter.
		They crossed out Black holidays, everything.
		So we're being erased slowly by slowly.
		So we're just sitting out, and that's what we're doing.
		So good luck.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mark on our Republican line on this open forum.
		Mark's in Maryland.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I mean, I'm not sure.
		I didn't call about what the previous two callers were talking about, but everything goes back to race, and I just don't understand it.
		But I'm more concerned.
		Last week, you had, I mean, earlier this week, you had a lot of topics concerning the budget and the debt.
		I think most people just do not understand.
		There were $2 trillion over budget each year.
		We spend $6.5 trillion, and the tax revenues are only $4.5 trillion.
		And it's really very imperative that we start to solve this issue.
		And that's what Donald Trump is trying to do.
		And Republicans and Democrats for the last 10 to 20 years have allowed this to continue to happen, and no one has stepped up to try to solve it.
		And it's imperative because our suffering when this bubble deficit busts, it's going to take Social Security, your pensions, your stock portfolios.
		Everything will be down the drain because the dollar will be useless.
		We will be in a Great Depression.
		And overspending is just unbelievable, and it needs to stop.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One of those segments last week featured Richard Rubin of the Wall Street Journal talking about spending that the government does and the revenues it takes in.
		If you want to go back and watch that segment or other segments, taking a look at matters of what we spend or economic issues overall, we invite you to do that via our C-SPAN website.
		If you go to c-span.org, you can search our video library for segments recent and previous, taking a look at the issues of economics and congressional spending by the federal government.
		Democrats line in New Jersey.
		Teresa, hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I think that their messaging is off.
		I think they're working for the people, the Democrats, but they don't stick together.
		It just really infuriates me.
		Like when they, Al Green, they censured him and they couldn't stick together.
		Really, an old man shaking the stick.
		Oh, he's so horrible.
		In the meantime, you got a rape in office.
		And the Republicans stick with him no matter what he does.
		I really feel like he can rape some of their mamas on TV and everybody see it.
		And they would say, your eyes are lying.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		James is next.
		James is next in West Virginia, Independent Line.
		Hi.
unidentified		Yes.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Pedro, sir.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Yes.
		Can you hear me, sir?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, go ahead.
unidentified		The previous caller in Alabama has a good point of view, which Schumer had to do what he did.
		He is right in regards to the way Schumer voted.
		The issue we have here is that the Democrats would have been accused of causing our issues financially in our country.
		I think right now, Donald Trump is self-destructing.
		Give it a few more months, these summertime.
		I think that we'll see where our country's heading to people are changing attitude with these meetings that they have in these red state areas now.
		People are changing their attitude.
		They're coming across and realizing they made a bad decision last November.
		In the world of politics, you always, when one election is over, the next one starts.
		In May 26 is where we're headed.
		That's the game plan.
		That is the plan for the Democrats to do is change this around in May.
		And everyone in our country has got to get ready for the next May election.
		They can take over the House, fit the Senate, and that is the blocker.
		That is the game playing for us all.
		Republicans, Democrats, Independents got to look for next May.
		We can't change nothing now because the Republicans are in charge.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		James there in West Virginia.
		The New York Times takes a look a little further out than 26, as the caller talked about for Democrats 2028 under the headline, that race is quietly stirring, saying that Pete Buttigieg, the former transportation secretary, ruled out a run for statewide office in Michigan in 2026, made it clear that he was keeping his 2028 options open.
		Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois is heading to New Hampshire next month, visiting a traditional battleground in the presidential primary campaign years before any campaign is underway.
		And even if Iowa isn't still Iowa, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota found himself Friday in a state that once kicked off the presidential nominating contest, addressing a group of frustrated and furious Democrats.
		During that stop in Iowa, by the way, it was Governor Walls who gave an interview to the Des Moines Register talking and elaborating on the state of his party.
		Here's a portion of that interview.
unidentified		I'm here because I've got a platform to lift this up.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		So to be candid, I'm going to be doing more listening than I am talking.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		But I think we have to have a recognition that our policies improve the lives of middle-class people.
unidentified		Why are we not getting that across to them?
		How do we get out there and talk to them about it?
		How do we make the case that this will improve their lives?
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		And I think you talked about the resistances.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		I think the resistance kind of takes on a life of its own in that people are showing up at this because they're angry about these policies.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		There's not a guarantee that they will gravitate to the Democrats because I think they're wondering, and so many people did this, they didn't think that there was any difference, so they stayed home.
unidentified		They didn't think it made any difference.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		Those people are now in teacher talk.
unidentified		There's a preparatory set.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		They're listening.
		They're listening and they're talking.
		We need to be doing the same thing.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		So I hope to hear today, I think there'll be Democrats, Republicans, Independents out there of saying, look, I didn't vote for you guys, but I didn't vote for this stuff.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		What would you do differently?
		And that's what I hope to hear.
		You know, this isn't about bashing Donald Trump.
unidentified		It's about clearly laying out what you just did today did this, this, and this to Minnesotans.
unidentified		And when they hear that, the public says, all right, they're listening to us.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Be more forceful.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		Don't just roll over and allow this to happen.
unidentified		I do think Democrats, one of the things is we play by the rules.
unidentified		The institutions matter.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		We need to recognize that's not how these folks are playing.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		What Elon Musk is doing is simply against the law.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		The courts are saying that.
unidentified		And we need to be more forceful to say it's not going to happen.
unidentified		So I hear them.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		I don't think we have the answer to it yet, but I think if you're a Democratic elected official, you better be out listening to them because this is growing and it's growing amongst independents.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		And this gives us an opportunity to try and bring those folks in and tell them why it matters for them to vote.
unidentified		And they should vote with us because these are the policies you'll get.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Republican line, this is Dave from Texas.
		You're next up on this open forum.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
		I'd like to remind your Democrat viewers that Trump has taken all the popular arguments.
		Boys in girls locker rooms?
		I don't understand that kind of thinking.
		10 million illegal immigrants, criminals, possibly terrorists.
		All I hear from Democrats is the Democrat Party.
		I've yet to hear any of them say what's good for America.
		What's good for America is lower crime, cut the budget deficit, find the fraud, waste, and abuse.
		Obama promised that.
		He even appointed Joe Biden to lead the battle to reduce fraud and waste in the federal government.
		How did Joe Biden do?
		Well, not very well.
		I don't recall anyone complaining about 12,000 Keystone XL pipeline workers being fired.
		Yet they whine and moan and groan about a few probationary employees.
		Obama got rid of a quarter of a million federal employees.
		The largest employee employer over the last year has been the federal government, not the private sector.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Dave there in Texas, Democrats lying.
		Thomas, hello in Maryland.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I've had a problem.
		Did Da problem with the Trump administration where they're taking the names of black, Hispanic, and women off the website from Arlington Cemetery really bugs me in the wrong way.
		My brother retired as a lieutenant colonel from the Army after graduating from an all-black school, going to Morgan, going directly into the Army.
		He was retired as Lieutenant Colonel during the Vietnam War.
		He had a big write-up in the New York Times because of the way he handled a mass unit during a big battle in Vietnam.
		And after he retired from the Army, he went to work as Under Secretary of Defense for Facilities in the district.
		And I just find it hard to believe that someone can arbitrarily dismiss all black women and Hispanic people from the website of Arlington Cemetery for no reason whatsoever.
		It's all as if they want to make sure that the Army is all white, straight males.
		And that's all I have to say.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Thomas there in Maryland, WTOP, which is a local radio station here in the Washington, D.C. area, reflecting the story that he told saying new findings revealing that the Trump administration's rollback on diversity, equity, and inclusion guidelines extended their reach into educational materials offered by Arlington National Cemetery, saying that in recent weeks, the cemetery's website scrubbed various pages on grave sites and the classroom lesson plans that highlighted the work of black, Hispanic, and female service members at the grounds.
		Kevin Levin, a historian and educator based in Boston, first reported the discovery on a Substack newsletter March 8th.
		After being tipped off by a fellow educator in his own investigation, he found that pages focusing on African American history, women's history, the Reconstruction era, and the Civil War were completely removed from Arlington National Cemetery's educational section.
		More there on the WTOP website if you want to see that for yourself.
		Let's go to Paula, Paula in Illinois, Independent Line.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		I agree with what you just said.
		And yes, they eliminated even through the archives 100,000 photos of women, the Tuskegee airmen, all of black, of color, of women.
		It's terrible.
		But what I'm calling about is a couple other things.
		The Schumer thing.
		Look, I was angry too.
		I thought, what the heck? when I heard him vote no.
		And then I looked it up and I found to end the government shutdown, Congress needs to pass and the president must sign appropriations bills to fund the departments and agencies that have been shut down.
		Do you think if this government were to shut down that the Republicans and Trump would reopen it, refund it?
		No, that's why he did it.
		It was a yes, rock in a hard place.
		Okay.
		What I also want to say is that the Democrats are for the people.
		They've always been.
		Republicans are not.
		This happened in the 60s.
		Republicans used to be for the people.
		But then it changed with all the civil rights stuff, and Democrats took their place with Lyndon Johnson starting it.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Republican line, this is from Youssef, Washington, D.C. Hello.
unidentified		Yeah, hello.
		How are you doing today, Petro?
		Good.
		I have an issue as a Republican, the issue of immigration here, particularly immigration as it relates to Muslim immigrants.
		Because I'm a fourth-generation foundational black American Muslim, fourth generation in America.
		And we're going into our third and fourth generation of majority of Muslims in America, which are black American Muslims.
		And you need to have some guests on the show.
		I'll be glad to go on the show and talk about Islam 2.0 in America because it needs to be an issue and more information and knowledge on this issue in this country.
		Now, this representative Rashida Talip and Elon Omar, they are issues, they are dealing with issues of their host countries.
		These are foreign issues.
		We're an American and we're dealing with domestic American issues.
		So we need to, we have a huge reservoir of foundational black American Muslims in this country, which are the majority of Muslims in this country.
		And we need to be using them and tapping them as representatives in this country instead of these immigrant descendants of immigrant children.
		Because, frankly, the Arabs and the Black Foundational Black American Muslims, we do not get along in this country.
		And also, like I said, I'd be glad to come on your show and talk about this issue.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Yusuf there in your Washington.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Larry in Georgia Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yes.
		I just want to say that I want to say something about Donald Trump and I want to say something about Chuck Schumer.
		Now, first, about Donald Trump and all of the federal workers that he has let go.
		These people are going to have problems at the unemployment office.
		They're going to be losing homes.
		They're going to lose votes and houses.
		Within the next 12 days, you're going to see unemployment officers.
		You're going to see houses being lost by these people.
		And now, this is what is going on.
		Now, with Chuck Suma, I'm just only going to talk to the young black people at this time.
		And I want them to understand that what Chuck Chumba done for the American people was the right thing to do.
		Because what would happen was the federal government wouldn't have been paying the army.
		There would be places in your Social Security and stuff like that where people couldn't send out kicks.
		There are many other things that would happen where people wouldn't be able to go to work.
		once the government is shut down, it's no telling how long it's going to come to be able to come back up.
		And all those people that have had that was in a shutdown before and the people that lost their jobs, they need to call in and explain to you what it means to shut down the go list.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		That's Larry there.
		One more call.
		This is Bobby in Minnesota Independent Line.
unidentified		Thank you, Pedro, for taking my call.
		And I think the gentleman from Georgia took my thunder.
		I agree with him 100%.
		I'm not a Schumer fan, but he absolutely made the right decision.
		And I don't know if the AOCs of the world are posturing or what, but, you know, for her statement about betrayal, Jeffries, the minority leader in the House, wouldn't answer the question about Schumer.
		So I don't know if he didn't want to answer it or just throwing him under the bus.
		I'd ask this simple question, Pedro.
		If you're Senator Koons from Delaware or Keynes, and you had the deciding vote, your vote was going to shut down the U.S. government, you don't have to be noble.
		You don't have to be stand up and said, oh, yeah, I would have voted no.
		There's no way.
		Now, Bernie Sanders, I think, would have voted no.
		So I think what Schumer did was absolutely the right decisions.
		Thanks, Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Bobby Barry in Minnesota, finishing off our hour part, focusing on the Democratic Party part for your calls and open forum.
		To all of you, thanks for participating.
		Two guests joining us throughout the course of the morning.
		First up, we're going to hear from former Domestic Policy Council director under the Biden administration, Neera Tandon.
		She's currently the president of the Center for American Progress.
		She'll discuss the Democrats' response to the Trump administration and the Republican agenda and other topics.
		And then later on in the program, a conversation with Rich Lowry, editor-in-chief of the National Review, also talking about the Trump administration and the Republican agenda.
		Both of those coming up on Washington Journal.
unidentified		This week, C-SPAN continues our new Members of Congress series, where we speak with Republicans and Democrats about their early lives, previous careers, families, and why they ran for office.
		Tonight, at 9:30 p.m. Eastern, our interviews include Arizona Democrat Yasmin Ansari, the Democratic freshman class president.
		I am the proud daughter of two Iranian immigrants.
		So my parents came here in the 70s.
		My dad came to go study civil engineering at the University of Oregon, always with the intention of going back home.
		My mom has a little bit different of a story.
		When the revolution hit Iran in 1979, they had grown up in a monarchy in Iran, but with more freedoms.
		A theocratic regime, the Islamic Republic, took over, and my mom's family was at risk.
		Her father was imprisoned for supporting the prior government and being anti-the new regime.
		And so she fled Iran by herself and was able to come to the United States.
		Watch new members of Congress all this week, starting at 9.30 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
		And on Friday, starting at 8 a.m. Eastern, join us on C-SPAN 2 for a special 24-hour marathon featuring more than 60 of our exclusive interviews with the newest members of the 119th Congress.
		Looking to contact your members of Congress?
		Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
		Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
		This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
		Contact information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.
		The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's nonprofit operations.
		Scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to pre-order your copy today.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our first guest in the morning is nearest hand, and she's the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, also served in the Biden administration as the Domestic Policy Council director.
		She did that from 2023 to 2025.
		Welcome back to the program.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're just back to the center.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		I am.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What brought you back?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Well, I thought this was an incredibly important moment in history.
		You know, obviously, I have deep concerns about the Trump administration, but I also think it's really important for the broad center left to develop its own agenda.
		I think it's, I do think there's a competition of ideas between the parties.
		And, you know, once you've been through an administration, I think it's important to have to develop a new agenda on the economy, education, crime, immigration, you know, just the problems that people are experiencing in their own lives.
		And so I'm really excited for the work we'll be doing in the center at the center to address challenges people are facing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When you work in an administration like you did in the Biden administration, now you come to this new job.
		What do you bring with it?
		How does it help inform what you do going forward?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Well, I loved my job as chair of the Domestic Policy Council, and I really saw how government works in every creek and cranny.
		And, you know, I think there are a lot of ideas that we had that some we didn't roll out, some we did.
		And I think it was really a moment of deep reflection to see why some ideas, some strategies didn't resonate as much from the public.
		You know, I think the president had an agenda, for example, to reach out to working class people.
		You know, we have the Invest in America agenda, and most of those jobs created and through the Inflation Reduction Act, the Chips and Science Act, the Inflation, the Infrastructure Bill, those jobs, most of those jobs went to people without a college degree.
		Yet I think we didn't, those messages didn't really resonate.
		And I think it's an important moment for all of us, again, on the broad center left to really understand what did and did not work.
		And then also think through how we solve people's problems.
		Education, I'll take the example of education.
		Our public schools have not been improving.
		Many have been declining.
		And I think it's really incumbent upon us for those of us who believe in public schools and public education to have ideas about how we improve student performance, how our schools improve and compete in the 21st century, how we ensure that kids are reading on grade, how they learn math on grade.
		And I think those are just ways in which we have to actually answer the mail.
		Again, I think fundamentally, at a very large level, we can get into what Trump is doing every day.
		But he is offering ideas.
		I think they are destructive, but I think the best way to oppose him is not to just critique, but offer an alternative.
		People have to have two visions of change in front of them to choose from, not Trump's policies versus a status quo.
		And I think if we do that, if we just allow that change, you know, that decision between changing the status quo, then it really puts us in a bad place.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let me take your example then.
		The Trump administration says, say, at the Education Department, if you reduce the amount of staff, you give states more power over the control of day-to-day operation of the school.
		That's going to improve school overall.
		How would you answer the mail on that one?
		And what's the alternative idea that the Democratic Party should present then?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think this is a great example, right?
		The Department of Education does two things, right now does two things, really at a really disproportionate level when it comes to school.
		It funds education for kids with disabilities and it funds student loans and basically it's the backbone of the entire student loan system.
		I think it's important to make the case that it's vital that we protect those issues.
		But fundamentally, there is no evidence that if you just send everything to the states, the states will by themselves improve performance.
		Because right now, states are responsible for education and we are seeing declining performance.
		Now, I think the way to make the compelling case of why dismantling the Department of Education is a bad idea is by saying, here are the ways that we think it's important to improve school performance.
		Getting kids to read on grade, ensuring that kids are in school, dealing with learning loss instead of seeing the declining student enrollment that we've seen, absenteeism.
		And the Department of Education plays an important role in doing those things.
		It can work with states to do them, to ensure kids are reading on grade, giving them information about best practices.
		The Department of Education actually has a role on school performance.
		And I think, you know, we have to develop those ideas, but I actually think making it clear about why a Department of Education is part and parcel of improving school performance for all children is a reason you can give people to ensure that there is a Department of Education going forward and why it's important to them and their children and their children's schools that a Department of Education exists.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Callers, if you want to ask our guest questions, it's 202748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8000 for Republicans, and Independents 202-748-8000 to you can text us your questions or comments at 202-748-8003.
		It was the president's former education secretary, Betsy DeVos, who said this about education in light of what you were just saying, saying the Education Department is a misnomer.
		It educates no one.
		Instead, it functions as a bureaucratic middleman that adds cost and complexity as well as radical political agendas at every turn without adding value anywhere.
		The proof is in the outcomes.
		The department's stated purpose is to close the gap between high and low performing students.
		It spent $1 trillion since 1979, ostensibly in pursuit of that goal, but the results show that the gap is wider today than it was three decades ago.
		She goes on from there.
unidentified		Yeah.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And you kind of hinted at that, but how would you respond to that?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		I would say that Betsy DeVos has had an agenda for a very long time, which is the dismantling of public schools.
		That's why she has supported school choice programs, not just school choice, but basically the dismantling of public schools in Michigan.
		That was her calling card before she was Secretary of Education.
		But I would say we have had moments, we have had improved school performance over the last two decades.
		We've seen a decline in the last couple of years.
		There's been a big problem with learning loss.
		But what we really know about kids learning is that kids are not reading on grade by third grade.
		Their numeracy, math skills are, you know, really declining.
		And there are great public schools that are making, who are actually teaching low-income students and they're improving.
		And let's learn from those schools.
		And this is actually a good reason for a Department of Education when you have a best practice in one state, moving it, ensuring that all states can adopt it.
		And I think the idea that we're going to throw in the towel on education as a national priority is ridiculous.
		Education is more important to our competitiveness than ever.
		But I do think if we want to answer Betsy DeVos, the right way to do that is to say, here are the ways in which we want to improve.
		public education, education in the country.
		Here are strategies to do it.
		And it is important that we fight Donald Trump on taking away funding for low-income schools, which is a big function of the Department of Education, the support for low-income schools and IDEA and other initiatives.
		But that, the idea that we would just not have a national priority around Department of Education is absurd.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This other idea of answering the mail, so to speak, that you said, how would you say to Republicans who are very intent on reducing the size of government through Doge, through other means?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about the effort overall?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		I think the Doge effort has actually become massively counterproductive, just to say.
		You know, I think there are many ways to improve government efficiency.
		In fact, when I was in the White House my first year, I oversaw the U.S. Digital Service, which is now the home of Doge.
		And when we worked at the, what we did at the U.S. Digital Service was really trying to improve customer performance, basically consumer experience.
		We wanted to make programs work better so that the Social Security Administration or the IRS basically serve the customer, the American citizen, the American public better.
		And I think that is crucial.
		Obviously, there's a lot of friction points in government.
		They're very frustrating.
		We shouldn't make them improve.
		But the idea that you would cut staff of people who are looking after the nuclear arsenal, that you would cut staff, the people who are servicing seniors, is really not about government efficiency.
		It's about slashing services in order to pay for a gigantic tax cut for Elon Musk.
		And I think that is a perversion.
		I'm happy to talk to Elon Musk every day, any day, about how we can make this government work better for customers, for citizens.
		There are a million ideas to do that.
		But when you put someone in charge of firing people in charge of the nuclear arsenal and nuclear safety, and then they have to be rehired a week later, in the private sector, you would fire that person.
		If an HR person in a company did that, you would say, you know, you're fired.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Naratanda joining us.
		And our first call is from John.
		John on our Independent Line.
		John is in Massachusetts.
		You're on with our guests.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Go ahead.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		My home state.
unidentified		Yes.
		Hi, Niera.
		Yes, there's two sides to every coin.
		I'm just curious, all these negative narratives from the mainstream media aren't working.
		The sky isn't falling, chicken little.
		So I'm sick of the Washington Post and New York Times articles you guys keep talking about.
		And I'm just curious, when did John Kerry get confirmed for the Biden administration to spend all that money on the climate stuff as our climates are?
		And if those, you know, I don't remember us confirming him, and he spent all that money.
		He would not testify in front of the Congress or the Senate or answer any questions to what he was doing, spending our money.
		But you're worried about people cutting our money.
		And if these inspector generals were doing such a great job that got fired, why didn't they find all this waste fraud and abuse that we're finding now?
		So you can complain about Elon Musk all you want, but it is legal.
		And so like I say, it's not working.
		We're not believing all your lies anymore.
		You guys can't fool us with this.
		You lied about Biden's cognitive decline for years, and he went into dementia.
		It's absolutely ridiculous.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, John, thanks.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		So I'll just take a few of those issues in turn.
		First and foremost, I don't think people should be arguing with me about people being angry about what's going on.
		Honestly, the reality is that Americans are very concerned about our economic projection.
		Of course, we had a massive sell-off in the stock market.
		There's more consumer confidence is tanking.
		There are concerns about inflation and recession.
		You know, that's not me.
		That's the American public who's giving Donald Trump his lowest ratings on the economy ever, including in his first time, lower than ever in his first term as well.
		So I think that's the American people who are balking at what Donald Trump is doing, not just in Doge, although there are deep concerns about slashing government programs that really help people and services for the public when it comes to health and safety.
		But it's also concerned about his tariffs and his overall strategy with our alliances.
		You know, I believe in change, but a wrecking ball that basically makes people start talking about a recession for the first time in years strikes me as deeply concerning, not just to Democrats, but to the whole country.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats Lynn, this is Felix in North Carolina.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Mira Pedro in America, good morning.
unidentified		How are y'all on this beautiful day?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		I'm great.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		How are you?
unidentified		If it was any better, I'd have to call myself greedy, I believe.
		I've got a couple of suggestions for you.
		The Democrats' problems, I believe, is they need better marketing.
		They have a good product, but the Republicans are more business-minded and they know how to market stuff.
		Second of all, to my minority brothers and sisters who say that the Democrats aren't trying to do anything.
		You need to market up better that we're trying, but who's blocking us?
		And third thing is, I haven't seen any of this waste drawing abuse shit.
		I've heard them say it, but it's fluctuating.
		It's moving around.
		And last of all, maybe oversight's going to begin in 2023 because personally, I think government is working perfectly because the people who wanted to vote got it.
		Those 40% who said out who did not vote.
		So, see, that's the problem.
		And I look forward to a little more political movement here.
		Y'all have a great day and keep it up, America.
		God bless.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Felix, thanks.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		You know, I would agree that it's helpful for people to be focused on how we sell our ideas.
		But I also think we have to work on our ideas themselves and how responsive we're being to the public on a number of issues.
		You know, I guess my view of that is that it is important to confront what Trump is doing.
		He is doing a lot of damaging things to a lot of people.
		But as I said, the best way to do that is to offer an alternative.
		And I think when we talk about marketing and how we're trying and they're blocking progress, I think people do want to see us fighting a little harder for what we believe in.
		And that's also a message of how much you care.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Was that a move that was demonstrated in the CR vote and Senator Schumer allowing it to go forward?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that was a bad look?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, I don't think these things really should be judged by looks, but I think it is, you know, my concern about the CR is that we have been arguing that what Elon Musk and what Trump himself are doing is really hurting people in these sort of mass scale cuts.
		Just today, there's articles about how nurses are being fired, doctors are being fired, health experts are being fired, people in social security offices are being fired, and it's harder to get services.
		So I think when we talk about those issues and why that's important, I do think it's also important that we like really, if we think that those are existential issues, that our job is to protect people from Trump's attacks, then I do think it's incumbent to figure out strategies to stop what they're doing.
		And the CR was leveraged for that.
		Whether that means, you know, saying we're not going to vote for it unless you protect Social Security benefits or we're not going to vote for it unless you stop Doge.
		You know, these are things that are important.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When you hear Democrats like Alexandria Ocorcio-Cortes feeling a sense of betrayal from the Senate moving forward with it, particularly Senate Democrats, what's your reaction as far as what it says about the party itself?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, obviously, this was a deeply, this was a, you know, this was a deeply felt vote.
		The House had all voted one way.
		I think it is, you know, I've known Chuck Schumer a long time.
		I've seen him in a lot of fights.
		I've seen him really pull people together for a fight.
		And I think it is important for him to describe in detail how he plans to fight the Trump administration going forward.
		I think that would be helpful for Americans to hear, for others in the Democratic Party to hear.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		South Carolina is where Danny is.
		Danny is in our Republican line.
		Hi, Danny.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Good morning, Pedro.
		Good morning, Ms. Candon.
		Yes, ma'am.
		Yes, ma'am.
steven in florida ▲ ● ▼		You seem to not like Trump's agenda or Musk and Doge and all the waste, fraud, and abuse being cut.
unidentified		I don't, I ain't heard what you said you'd done in the last three or four years when you worked for Mr. Biden.
		You definitely didn't help the school the rate of the school being good or bad.
		So I don't know how you can't give Mr. Trump a chance to get his thing going and all this waste, fraud, and abuse.
tim in michigan ▲ ● ▼		It seems like a bunch of people in the Democrat Party are scared of the waste abuse or maybe it's just the fraud side.
unidentified		Maybe we'll get to see some people finally go to jail and be punished for fraud, unlike Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and his whole family.
		But we American working people are sitting out here watching this every day, every day, and listening to every Democrat and every Republican talk on TV.
		And I'm shocked that Democrats just feel like they were headed down the right road.
		But in my mind, no, it was the wrong road.
		Boys can't compete against girls.
		You're a lady, ma'am.
		You're a female.
		And I would not want a man to go on a court and whip you up.
		Okay.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to leave it there.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		I'm actually really proud to tell you what I worked on to save the government money.
		So for the first time ever past because of Democrats in Congress, Democrats, the HHS, Department of Health and Human Services, had the power to lower drug prices through drug negotiation.
		We've been asked, people have advocated for that for 25 years.
		Pharmaceutical companies have just the ability to charge almost any price to HHS and really to seniors.
		And so for the first time, and I was proud to work on this, the HHS was able to negotiate drug prices and bring those drug prices down for seniors between 50 and 80 percent for the top 10 drugs.
		This will be a big question of whether the Trump administration and Kennedy as HHS secretary will actually follow suit and try to drive those drug prices down.
		So I absolutely believe we can make the government work more effectively.
		And I think we just have a disagreement.
		If you think that cutting Social Security services is fraud or waste, I just think you're wrong because I actually think people are entitled to those services.
		They're entitled to Social Security.
		And let's have that debate.
		When you look at what Doge is cutting, right, it's not cutting the $1.9 trillion in tax expenditures.
		So just to say the place that the government spends the most money is in tax cuts, tax particular sweetheart deals in the tax code for special interests, often for special interests.
		And Trump is not looking at any of that.
		Musk is not looking at any of that.
		Why?
		Because Musk himself has benefited from sweetheart deals from the federal government for year after year after year.
		It has actually helped him build his wealth.
		So I just think it's ironic that Elon Musk has benefited from the federal government and tax expenditures and ways we've invested in as companies is now turning around and slashing benefits and services really for the most vulnerable.
		Again, at the end of the day, when you're cutting Head Start, you're cutting programs for children.
		When you're cutting Social Security services and benefits, you're hurting seniors.
		Those are the facts.
		If you want to find government waste, I'm all there with you.
		But what Doge is doing right now is essentially cutting services to people that are the most vulnerable at the hands of one of the richest people in the world.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Some of the Republicans are saying in the case of Medicaid and the debate over that, maybe it's better to use block grants to deliver those services on the statewide.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Are there a better way to deliver those services like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid without this idea of if you change the delivery, you can get some more efficiency from them?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		So I think this is a great example because during the ACA repeal debate in 2017, Republicans had offered a block grant and cut.
		And the fact of the matter is that just means cutting the number of people who will have Medicaid.
		And when you take a trillion, almost a trillion dollars out of Medicaid, what you are saying, there's no way to just deliver those services magically with much less money.
		You will be closing rural hospitals, lots of rural hospitals that overwhelmingly rely on Medicaid dollars, and you will be cutting services to working class people.
		Just as a reminder, the people on Medicaid are the majority of people on Medicaid are working, and those people don't get health care through their employer, and they will no longer have health care if you cut a trillion dollars out of the program.
		There are people who will not be able to get their cancer screenings.
		People will not be able to see a doctor for asthma, children who will lose coverage.
		The largest group of people on Medicaid are children.
		And so I just think it's absurd that in order to pay for tax cuts for Elon Musk and people at that income level in America, Republicans are offering tax, slashing a Medicaid program that is working to provide basic services, health services, to millions of people.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You say organizations like your want to offer better ideas, then what are the better ideas when it comes to those three programs to make them more fiscally stable?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so this is really important.
		So Medicare itself has actually, under the Biden administration, we extended the solvency of Medicare, partially from lowering drug prices.
		So we could, President Biden proposed expanding the number of drugs that you would have negotiations over, which would save hundreds of billions of dollars.
		So that is a great example of how you actually lower prices for seniors and make the program more solvent for the long term.
		Those are ideas I think we could all come around.
		Instead, what we're seeing is ideas, people who have always opposed Medicaid, always opposed Medicare, and have kind of also opposed Social Security, are basically putting, slashing those services so that we can pay for tax cuts for the super rich.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Nira Tanda joining us, the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, formerly served in the Domestic Policy Council Director in the Biden administration.
		Bonnie joins us from Arkansas, Independent Line.
		Hello, you're next.
unidentified		Hi, Bonnie.
		Hi.
		I've been sitting there watching for the last, ever since 1980.
		And I was a Democrat at that time because of President Jimmy Carter.
		But in 84, I changed to Republican.
		And the reason why I did that at that particular time, because of the policies that the country had on.
		But I watched the education system ever since 85 because my first child went to school back then.
		And as they entered the school system, the school system was on a pretty good role as far as educating kids because when you talk about reading, we were on the phonetic system.
		Now, my third question, like I told them, is if you had children.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Do I have children?
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		Yes.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		And my children went to public schools in D.C.
unidentified		And where?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		In Washington, D.C. Both of my children went to public schools all the way from pre-K through high school.
unidentified		Okay, okay.
		Now, the second thing is this: the policy that the Department of Education has backed over the last 40 years.
		And if anyone has been watching and you look at the test scores all across the nation, and it's in particular math and reading, our children have declined.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, call her, I'm going to leave it there.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And she goes back to test scores when it comes to the Department of Education, which seems to be a standard.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		And I think this is a really important issue, which is it should be our focus to improve the school performance, improve performance of schools.
		Test scores did rise, and then we had big challenges during COVID.
		And it's really important to remember during COVID, both schools that closed, states that had school closures, and states that had schools stay open, they have seen declining performance.
		So I do think it's incumbent upon us to improve that.
		But actually, just sending it back to the states will not answer the mail since the states have been mostly responsible.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hattie is in Texas.
		Democrats line.
		Go ahead.
		You're next.
unidentified		Yes, I have some ideas on how the Democrats can deal with the Trump administration agenda.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Great.
unidentified		Okay.
		It's a ten of a list, but I'll try to make it short.
		I heard a lot of people earlier this morning saying that they were going to sit this one out.
		Well, there might not be another one to fight.
		The fight continues and will always be there.
		My suggestion is to organize like we did for the last campaign, both for anyone who is not afraid to stand up to Trump, stop smiling, put on your game face, educate the public about the Constitution.
		We need an attack dog for each issue that Trump is trying to negate.
		That's my suggestion for the Democrats.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hattie, thank you.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think she, yeah, the caller is really speaking to, you know, there's a broad consensus in the Democratic Party, I think, that we need more fighters in this moment.
		I think there's a lot of concern that, you know, Trump is a steamroller on a lot of issues.
		The Constitution, as the caller spoke to our transatlantic allies that have been the source of American strength for 50, 60, 70 years.
		He's really taking a wrecking ball across the federal government and that it takes tough leaders to stand up to that.
		Now, I do think people kind of confuse this issue of ideology and approach.
		There's wide consensus on the Democratic Party, I think, to have a stronger stance against Trump.
		But actually, a plurality of people in the Democratic Party and aligned with the Democratic Party actually want more moderate policies.
		So it's not just like the left that's calling for a tougher stance against Donald Trump.
		It's really a broad spectrum of the party.
		Even many moderates are concerned that there's not enough effort to confront Trump.
		And I think this is a really important thing for our leadership.
		Hakeem Jeffries kept his entire caucus together on the Sierra vote.
		And I do think that Leader Schumer will, I hope, speak to this this week of how he has an agenda going forward to take on Trump.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You talk about moderates.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How much do you think they're embraced by the party these days?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		I think they are really embraced by the party.
		I mean, we're in opposition.
		The party is in opposition.
		We need voters across the spectrum.
		I think we should have some real reflection of why sometimes voters see the parties, both parties as extreme.
		That should be shocking to really anyone on the Democratic Party.
		So, you know, I think actually the party is embracing moderates independents and the left and the base of our party.
		And it's important for us to put out ideas that reflect that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We talked about in the first hour, by the way, I think that's where the caller was coming from, is the Democratic Party, where they think the direction of the party is today.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How would you answer that question?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		The future of the party?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The current direction of the Democratic Party?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think, look, the problem in opposition is that you have a lot of voices, right?
		We have leaders in the House and Senate.
		We have governors.
		In fact, I'm very proud of the fact that Governor J.B. Pritzker will be at CAP tomorrow, speaking at 11.30.
		I hope C-SPAN will cover it.
		And we're actually launching a speaker series on, he's the inaugural speaker in our speaker series on the path forward for the country and the broad center left.
		And we'll have governors and senators and a whole range of voices because this is a moment for us to really think through what the future is.
		I personally believe Donald Trump is leaving with his extreme policies.
		He's leaving a wider opening space for us to have ideas that attract both moderates and liberals and reach to the center as well as go to our base.
		And I think that's really the case on issues like tax policy, investments, education, other areas where he is actually speaking to really just his base instead of reaching out to the whole country.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How do you explain his victory in November?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		I think that there was a lot of concern about status quo in the country.
		And the Democrats did not offer enough of a vision of change.
		And I think obviously there were some concerns about President Biden.
		Now, I was honored to work for him.
		And there was a little bit of an overhang with that with Vice President Harris.
		But I think fundamentally we did not offer a sufficient vision of change.
		So people were choosing between Trump's change.
		And he put together a coalition of people who took him literally and people who took him figuratively.
		And so I do think there's a lot of surprise that while he talked a lot about tariffs, that it would actually raise prices and that eggs would shoot up and a whole range of prices would go up.
		I don't think people really reflected on the impact on inflation from his policies.
		But I think for the Democrats, again, as I said, you have to offer a different vision of change.
		Otherwise, it becomes a choice between the status quo and change.
		And we've had change elections for the last almost 20 years.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Here's Molly in Wisconsin, Republican line.
unidentified		Yes, this is Molly calling.
		I'm calling because I've noticed that Trump has been cutting federal employees radically.
		And the school systems, Medicare, and Social Security and Medicaid will be mixed.
		And it's the other departments, too.
		These cuts can only hurt the Americans who want to have some cutbacks, but this is ridiculous.
		He has never cut back in the federal prisons.
		Every prison has a staff of psychologists that start pay is $100,000, and they're in every federal prison across the United States.
		And these prisons have three to six or more psychologists.
		And this adds up to a great deal of cost, but nobody ever mentions this.
		Having these psychologists in prisons has not decreased the violence in the prisons, nor has it caused any prisoners to stop coming back and repeat over and over their crimes.
		I'm just wondering why if these doctors are not being helping anyone there, why are we spending money this way?
		And why doesn't Trump ever look at things like this?
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Got the point, Molly.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		I think the caller raises a great point that one can support efforts to look at waste or other things in the federal government.
		And as a reminder to the previous caller, the inspector generals actually do have found waste in the federal government, and it's odd to fire those people who are actually finding waste.
		But there is a lot of areas any one of us could look at.
		But what's happening right now is that services for people, you know, working class Americans, people who rely on government, are being drastically cut.
		And it's really just the beginning.
		But, you know, it's not just the National Park Service.
		But again, if you want Social Security, if you want to get your benefits now, you can't get them over the phone.
		It's really hard.
		They're going to ensure that you can't get them over the phone going forward.
		Or maybe they'll change that policy.
		You never know because basically they announce things and then sometimes they pull them back.
		And I think that, yeah, that does not strike me as excellent management of the federal government resources when you make an announcement and pull it back.
		So I think it's important to look at other areas and the caller raises an interesting one.
		But I think most fundamentally, what you're hearing, and this is also in the public, is concern that they might have signed up for greater efficiency, but they did not sign up for cuts to programs that are directly affecting people.
		And when veterans are basically being fired, and we're seeing homeless vets and veterans who are needing services, healthcare services, can't get them anymore because of the cuts to veterans.
		You know, that's just a good example of how this is really a betrayal, essentially, of our solemn promise to many parts of our country.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Independent Lyme from Washington, D.C. Ralph, hello.
unidentified		Oh, I just love the politician and their spend, spin, spend.
		I mean, we had Obama and we had Sanders saying waste, fraud, and abuse.
		We've got to stop it.
		Oh, my God, we got to jump in there and get it.
		Then we got, we just had recently a GAO report that came out after two years.
		This is actually before Trump that identified $650 billion in waste.
		$650 billion.
		This was in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
		So now we have this, quote, unelected guy.
		You know, well, I got news for you.
		All the bureaucrats are not elected.
		So we got this unelected guy.
		So you put him in this category.
		You say he's rich.
		And then you imply that he's going to steal grandma's Social Security.
		I'm sure a guy who's worth about a trillion dollars wants to go in and steal grandma's Social Security.
mark in california [2] ▲ ● ▼		I mean, if you really think people are that ignorant in this country, then we got USAID.
unidentified		Well, apparently these NGOs were getting money and they were spending 75 to 80 percent of the money managing these NGOs and they were giving money to another NGO.
		And then it turns out that that NGO money was being turned back and giving it funded politicians.
		So NGOs are not prohibited from funding politicians.
		And that's why the Democrats are running like hell and they're scared because a lot of these people got their hand in a cookie jar.
		They don't talk about that.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		I think it's really important to just really address these issues.
		It is just false.
		These NGOs that are paid by USAID were funding services to children in Africa to stay alive.
		Pregnant women who are going to hospitals.
		There's stories of people dying, kids dying because they can't get their health services because hospitals are shutting down because all these funds have been cut.
		And I appreciate that there is a fascinating meme machine that just creates alternative facts that are not true.
		The NGOs are not funding Democrats.
		That is just a thing people say in order to move away from the fact that these services were actually helping people.
		They are being pulled back.
		And as a result, the health and welfare of people in other countries, I appreciate they're not Americans, but in other countries, are in desperate, desperate straits.
		And I think the GAO reports are a good example of how you can effectively look at waste in government.
		And what the GAO reports talk about is, I'll give you a great example of what's in the GAO report, Medicare Advantage.
		Medicare Advantage is a program in Medicare which allows private insurance to offer Medicare services.
		People choose them.
		The big problem is that Medicare itself, the traditional fee-for-service program, is much cheaper.
		So the federal government spends a lot more money for the private version of this.
		And actually, good competition would have you pay them the same for both.
		But that's not what happens.
		We spend a lot of money on the Medicare Advantage program.
		There are benefits to Medicare Advantage for consumers, but it's very, very expensive to the federal government.
		That's an area where we could save money.
		But the big question is whether Robert Kennedy will look at that.
		That is a benefit to insurance companies, not necessarily a benefit to consumers.
		Happy to look at that.
		It's hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		By the way, callers and viewers, if you want to see that GAO report, we featured it on this program a couple of weeks ago with Gene Dodero, the head of GAO.
		And if you go to our website at cspan.org, you can still find that interview and talk about see some of the findings that the government accountability office has made when it comes to waste fraud and abuse.
		Derek in Michigan, Democrats line.
		Hi there.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you for letting me speak.
		I'd like to, first of all, thank the Biden administration and the young lady.
		How do you pronounce your name?
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Neera.
unidentified		Yeah, I'd like to thank you for your service in the Biden administration.
		I think the Biden administration did a wonderful job.
		I think that the only reason Trump won, and I want to ask you, I got two questions I want to ask.
		First question is that when Biden requested for Trump to turn over the papers, the security papers that he needed, and he didn't do that, why didn't Biden move sooner to get those security documents back and then charge Trump when he first asked for him back?
		Second question is then, why didn't they charge Trump when he had his followers and acolytes storm the Capitol?
		Why didn't they charge him immediately after he broke the law?
		And the third thing I wanted, I just wanted to make a statement was this.
		I think that the Democrats and the Republicans missed the whole thing with Trump.
		I think the Democrats have good ideas.
		I think the Republicans have good ideas.
		But I think with Trump, Trump picked Americans against Americans because he adapted a white nationalist philosophy.
		And if you read some of that literature, a lot of the things that Trump is doing from coming from 20 Project 2025 is white nationalist ideas.
		And I think that Trump adopted the white nationalist idea and ran on the Republican platform.
		This is why the Republicans can't get along.
		And it's gridlock up there because some of the ideas are so extreme that white nationalist ideas on them.
		And when he said in his last term, there were fine people on both sides.
		Clearly, he lets you know his line of thinking in terms of adopting white nationalist philosophy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		All right, Derek.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Derek, we'll leave it there.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Thanks.
		So I actually, the Department of Justice under the Biden administration was completely separate from the White House.
		So I can't speak to why Attorney General Garland didn't actually follow up earlier on January 6th, and it took a long time to get to the January 6th investigation, nor can I speak to the National Security Papers.
		You know, where I would agree with the caller is that I do think Donald Trump has a politics that pits Americans against each other.
		And you can see it in some of the callers this morning.
		The idea is that there is some group of people who are out to hurt you, and it really does become extremely divisive.
		And I've been in this town a long time.
		We've never had a president who so relished pitting Americans against each other.
		And I think it's a really unfortunate part of our politics.
		You know, I think we have to fight back against it.
		That creates division as well.
		But it's more important that we, you know, protect the Constitution and people who are vulnerable.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		AmericanProgress.org is the website for the Center for American Progress.
		Neera Tandon serves as the president and CEO.
		Thanks for coming on.
neera tanden ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		In about a half hour from now, we're going to hear from National Review Editor-in-Chief Rich Lowry as he discusses the Trump administration and the Republican agenda.
		But we will have open forum before that if you want to participate.
		202748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, Independents 202-748-8002.
		Make those calls now.
		We'll take those calls and open for them when Washington Journal continues.
unidentified		Marking the recent presidential election, C-SPAN's student camp video documentary competition challenged middle and high school students nationwide to create short videos with messages to the new president, exploring issues important to them or their communities.
		Child protective services is important to protect kids from danger.
		We are here to deliver a message to the president.
		Homelessness needs to be prioritized now.
		It is important for state and local governments to be given power and a voice to help support the communities they serve.
		Nearly 3,500 students across 42 states and Washington, D.C. produced insightful and thought-provoking films.
		Through in-depth research and interviews with experts, participants explored critical issues like the climate, education policies, health care, gun violence, and the economy.
		Our panel of judges evaluated each entry on its inclusion of diverse perspectives and overall storytelling.
		Now, we're thrilled to announce the top winners of Student Cam 2025.
		In our middle school division, first prize goes to Eva Ingra, Sophia Oh, and Eliana Way of Eastern Middle School in Silver Spring, Maryland for one-party, two-party, Red Party, Blue Party.
		But what about third parties?
		For nearly two centuries in the USA, Democrats and Republicans have been the top dominating parties.
		Our High School Eastern Division First Prize goes to Daniel Asa of Winslow Township High School in Atco, New Jersey for Saving Sudan, U.S. aiding in a forgotten crisis.
		Global solidarity is vital as Sudan's conflict is not isolated.
		In the High School Central Division, Benjamin Currion of Olintangi Liberty High School in Powell, Ohio won first prize for the road to Vision Zero, which explores AI-driven road safety solutions.
		Everyday, eight teenagers never make it home because of a car crash.
		The High School Western Division First Prize goes to three anonymous students from California for No Sanctuary, addressing transnational repression in the next four years, which sheds light on global human rights threats.
		This government needs to do better to make sure that the fundamental values of American democracy are not undermined.
		And Dermot Foley, a 10th grader from Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, Maryland, earns the grand prize of $5,000 for his documentary, Teens, Social Media, and the Fentanyl Overdose Crisis.
		His compelling documentary, which features interviews with parents who've lost children to fentanyl, has earned him the top award for the second time.
		A first in 21 years of the C-SPAN Student Cam competition.
		Yo, this year's C-SPAN Student Cam 2025 Grand Prize winner.
		Wow.
		Oh my gosh.
		Thank you so much.
		Thank you.
		I just want to say also I'm really grateful to the families who shared their stories.
		They were really brave to share their stories.
		I learned so much from them and I hope other teens can learn from them as well.
		C-SPAN would like to thank all of the educators, parents, and students who participated this year.
		Congratulations to all our winners.
		Watch each of the 150 award-winning Student Cam documentaries anytime at studentcam.org.
		And don't miss the top 21 winning entries airing this April on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN, bringing you democracy unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, you can call the lines on this open forum, pick the line that best represents you.
		If you've called in the last 30 days, if you wouldn't mind holding off, we do appreciate it.
		The Associated Press reporting and others that President Trump will speak to the Russian President Vladimir Putin Tuesday as efforts to continue to end to end the war in Ukraine, a move that could represent a possible pivot point in the conflict and an opportunity for the president to continue reorienting American foreign policy.
		Mr. Trump disclosed the upcoming conversation to reporters while flying from Florida to Washington on Sunday evening.
		Quote: We will see if we have something to announce.
		Maybe by Tuesday, I'll be speaking to President Putin on Tuesday.
		A lot of work's been done over the weekend.
		We want to see if we can bring that war to an end.
		That's from the Associated Press reporting on that that took place over the last couple of days.
		A story in the Wall Street Journal takes a look at the current efforts of Ukrainian soldiers against Russian soldiers.
		This is from the headline under the headline, Ukraine driven from nearly all of Kursk, saying the Russians use familiar tactics, relentless assaults with overwhelming numbers of troops, including elite units and North Korean soldiers.
		Glide bombs smashed buildings and bunkers where Ukrainian troops sheltered.
		And then in the past month, Russia deployed large numbers of drones controlled via fiber optic cables to strike armored vehicles on the main routes for supplying Ukrainian soldiers on a shrinking patch of land.
		Ukraine had hoped to cling to territory in Kursk as a bargaining chip and peace talks, but Ukrainian officials said it had to pull out to preserve lives.
		That's from the Wall Street Journal.
		To call an open forum in Massachusetts.
		Brenda in Massachusetts.
		Hello, you're first up.
unidentified		Oh, thank you.
unidentified		Does it matter what I talk about?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Open forums, anything political in nature, so go ahead.
unidentified		I'm 76 years old, and I've seen many, many presidents, but I have never ever seen a president like this one.
		And the way this man talks is unbelievable.
		I wouldn't teach my children to talk like he does.
		And when I see the man, what I look at is what kind of person they are: integrity, honesty, morals.
		I don't see this in this man at all.
		He wants to be a white supremacist man, and he's got an ego bigger than anything I've ever seen.
		And when he deals with Russia, and this is so important, people better understand that this world is small now.
		We have computers, we have everything in technology, and everybody knows everybody.
		Okay?
		But we stop going with people who are dictators.
		I mean, he mentioned three dictators the other day he gets along with.
		That ought to tell people something.
		And in this country, with all the layoffs of these people who one day have a job and the next day don't have a job, I mean, it's unbelievable what I'm seeing.
		Okay.
		It's unbelievable.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Suzanne in Ohio Republican line.
		Hi.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Even though I am a Republican, I am not a Trump supporter.
		I'm glad that during the World War II days, Roosevelt did not abandon Britain the way Trump is treating the people of Ukraine.
		That's my first point.
		What he did to President Zelensky of Ukraine in the White House, where it was a shouting match, was disgraceful.
		Also, I think it's a shame that because of his feelings about DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, he forbade the Marine Committee to play with some high school students who wanted to play with the band.
		And I was very proud of retired Marine Corps people, Army band members, Navy band members who played with those young people.
		Saw it on 60 Minutes and they were excellent.
		And finally um, I am shocked that one of the uh agencies that the light that the uh DOGE people Trump and Musk wants to eliminate is the Library Of Congress.
		The Library Of Congress was founded, I believe, by Jefferson.
		It is the.
		It's a national treasure trove of a lot of the history of our nation and for people who are blind or otherwise print disabled, it's often the only place where they can get uh something to read and I just think that's a disgrace.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Thank you ever so much Suzanne, there in Ohio.
		This is Kevin in Washington DC Independent LINE.
		Kevin in Washington hello hello, you're on, go ahead.
unidentified		I wanted to ask Near about uh trust, like trust in politics and trust in the media.
		Um, you guys covered uh the Semaphore three hours and they they didn't mention the steel dossier one time and uh Ben Smith, the founder of uh Semaphore, was the one who took the bait and was first one to publish the steel dossier by uh MI6 um guy and uh the in healthcare.
		I know Near is um passionate about Medicare and Medicaid, but Bernie Sanders is probably more um authentic or more enthusiastic about it.
		He got iced out by the uh in the Democratic primary.
		The Democratic UH National Committee Women's group had a candidate to form and they only invited one person, male or female, which is Joe Biden.
		And um there's, uh.
		There are other examples, like in Dc the progressive, Alyssa Silverman.
		She got iced out by an october surprise a few years ago by the UH Office OF Campaign Finance.
		Uh uh, bad ruling in october before the election.
		Um so, so the progressives are getting.
		I saw it and they might.
		They might have been able to win um, the presidential election if Bernie Sanders had been the candidate.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Kevin there in Washington Dc.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Lisa Republican Line from Asheville, North Carolina, i'm.
unidentified		My question is, um, somebody other than Strong knew about Musk.
		I want to know why the independents Democrats, somebody didn't get this information out to us.
		Everybody who voted about what Musk, how Musk was handling Trump?
		Because now we're in the midst of this.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm, other Republicans are supporting Elon Musk, why not you?
unidentified		I'm not a supporter, i'm okay, i'm a Democrat.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm gonna leave you right there again.
		Uh, if you would call in the proper line uh, we would appreciate it.
		202748 For Democrats, 202748-8001 for Republicans and Independents, 202748-8000 to the previous caller before.
		The last caller mentioned topics of the media.
		Once event took place last night to focusing on that, a political reporting on it.
		For the first time in 140 years' history of the Gridiron Club dinner, those gathered did not offer the traditional toast to the sitting U.S. president.
		Instead, leading members of the Washington Press Corps paid tribute to the First Amendment.
		The broken ritual, which came after President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance declined to attend, capped off a night of ominous signs about the state of the Washington media's fraught relationship with the Trump administration at the annual White Tie Off-Camera and Bipartisan Dinner, where the guidance for jokes is to, quote, singe, not burn.
		A coldness marked the moment.
		Instead, Gridiron members drew applause for stating their support for the Associated Press, currently barred from covering official White House events, and the Voice of America, which the White House Saturday said would be stripped back by executive order to ensure taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda.
		This also adding, meanwhile, the White House recently kicked the HuffPost out of the press pool of the event last night.
		The Newswires, Reuters, and Bloomberg have been forced to share a spot, and the White House Correspondents Association is reeling after the White House took control of the poll from it.
		That's from Politico.
		More reporting there.
		If you want to read it for yourself, Richard in Georgia, Democrats line.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		Last year, I got on the show and I told the public that this man is going to be a dictator.
		And he was putting people around him to be a dictator.
		And now things are coming to light along with Project 2025.
		Now, he is getting ready, and he also has a Democratic, not a Democratic, but a dictator Supreme Court who rules with him, just like the courts in Russia ruled with Putin.
		And what we need to do, people need to realize is, as far as inflation, corporate greed is what causes inflation.
		The president can only do wage and price controls, and that's never really done.
		Maybe one time in my lifetime, I've seen it done.
		But corporate greed.
		I saw a story a few years ago.
		The CEO for Kimley Clark, Kellogg, and another one was on MSNBC or CNN saying they're going to try to create inflation on Joe Biden, but it didn't happen.
		Okay.
		And people need to realize that Trump is never will be good for this country.
		He wants to be a dictator.
		And look who he praises.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Let's go to Aaron.
		Aaron and Maryland, Republican line.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hi there.
unidentified		Can you hear me, Pedro?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yep, you're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Okay.
		Well, here in the D.C. area, it was interesting to me that your previous commentator from the previous segment commented on how Trump is making it a very polar environment and making it so that we can't come together.
		And I have to say, I don't remember it being an environment in the last decade or so where this area at least felt like a welcoming area for conservatives.
		I certainly don't think it's a welcoming area for Democrats at the moment, but I would never say that it has been welcoming under any of the most recent presidents.
		I also would like to say this is in hopes that the efforts in Ukraine are in fact under Trump are in fact a way for us to come to the table and maybe put our arms down and also give, unfortunately, having to give Putin a sense of saving faith.
		This is in hopes that that is what is happening.
		Because if he doesn't save faith, he's not going to lay down arms.
		He's not going to come to the table.
		So my hope is that this bluster and this rhetoric is in fact sort of a smokescreen to allow both of these egotistical sides, you know, and also patriotic sides to come to the table and a little bit save faith in an attempt to just stop.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Aaron there in Maryland, part of Open Forum.
		Again, you can participate if you wish.
		2027 88000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents 202-748-8002.
		And you can always post on our social media sites if you wish as well.
		That's facebook.com slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
		We will pause for calls from Open Forum for just a few minutes as we talk on Mondays, usually from the White House with a White House reporter.
		Today, Taylor Populars of Spectrum News serves as their national political reporter.
		Mr. Popolars, good morning.
unidentified		Hey there, Pedro.
unidentified		Good to be with you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The news seemingly coming back from the president from Florida to Washington was this idea of talking with the president.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How does the White House plan to package this or sell this over the next couple of days?
unidentified		Well, you know, the White House is, you know, feeling confident about their messaging.
		We saw the president in Florida over the weekend, and while he was coming back up on Air Force One last night, he answered a ton of reporters' questions.
		And when it comes to everything from immigration to Doge to tariffs, they're kind of promoting the platform fully and also kind of shaking off all the criticisms that are coming.
		And you've seen a good amount of criticisms in the form of protests, in the form of courts stepping in and trying to block things.
		But the Trump White House is really shaking it all off and insisting that they're going to trudge ahead.
		That flood the zone approach that has kind of been a hallmark of the Trump political era over the last decade continues in full force.
		And it's something the administration is both proud of and insisting will continue to help them achieve their vision in multiple policy points.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You brought up the efforts of the courts.
		There was back and forth about the courts and interpretations of the U.S. removal of Venezuelans by the Trump administration and what the courts said they could or couldn't do.
		Can you give some highlights of this story and where this story goes from today?
unidentified		Yeah, this is a really fascinating story.
		Essentially, obviously, the president, when he was on the campaign trail, talked a lot about being tough on immigration and kicking out people that he viewed as criminals.
		What we saw over the weekend is he tried to invoke this Alien Enemies Act that hasn't been used since World War II to deport a couple of hundred alleged gang members, Venezuelan gang members that the White House says they've confirmed are gang members.
		They put them on planes.
		They sent them to El Salvador.
		But in the midst of all of that, there were court hearings taking place and a federal judge stepped in and basically told them to turn the planes around and that did not happen.
		The Trump White House is insisting that what they did was legal and was not defying the judge and this court order.
		But legal groups, especially Democratic-aligned ones, are raising the red flag and saying, whoa, whoa, whoa.
		They're ignoring a court order.
		So the Trump team is insisting that this is going to go forward.
		The president of El Salvador has become a big ally of Trump.
		He's even been posting on X that he is kind of celebrating the welcoming of these planes.
		He put out a very dramatic edited video of the arrival of these deported people.
		And he quoted a screenshot of a New York Post story about that judge order and said, oopsies too late.
		I'm literally quoting him.
		So when it comes to that, the Trump team, I go back to what I was saying about flooding the zone and trying to kind of push through even when the courts step in.
		That's how they're viewing this story.
		The big question moving forward is will other planes be sent from the U.S. and will other judges try to step in and will the Trump White House try to stop them or try to ignore it or will they move forward?
		There's a press briefing today, so I expect there to be a lot of questions about that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Popola is now that the government's been funded, the president's signing that legislation, what is the strategy of the White House going forward on the bigger issue of a bipartisan or a bill that would allow the policy issues that the Trump administration wants to put in the place?
unidentified		So we've heard the president time and time again talk about what he views as one big beautiful bill.
		That's talking about this reconciliation package that in layman's terms is essentially a grab bag for the party in power to stuff everything they want into it and pass it with a bit easier voting margins.
		And what the Trump team has made clear is they want a reconciliation package that includes an extension of the Trump tax cuts from his first term.
		They want funding for the border.
		They want defense spending, among other priorities.
		There's been an interesting debate in Congress over whether or not it makes sense to have the tax plan included in a bill that also funds the border and funds the military, or whether you should separate both of those.
		The president has made clear over and over again he wants one big bill.
		And now that the government is funded through the end of September, that gives Republicans both here at the White House and over on Capitol Hill time to negotiate and figure out a deal.
		But I wouldn't be surprised if in the next couple of months there's a big negotiation and potentially a vote on a large reconciliation package that includes everything I just mentioned, tax cuts as well as border funding, defense spending, and more.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Who are the key people from the White House that will be involved in these negotiations?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And are one of those people possibly the vice president himself, considering he came from the Senate?
unidentified		Yeah, Vice President JD Vance, even though he served in the Senate for just a couple of years, he's become a key conduit between the White House and the Republican-led Senate because while Republicans are in charge of the Senate, their margin is pretty thin.
		It's 53 to 47, so they can't lose that many Republican members.
		And Vance, even though he was a pretty junior senator, does have relationships with these lawmakers, so he's become a key person in these negotiations.
		A lot of it does run up to President Trump because he'll get on the phone with these lawmakers and he'll have a direct impact in negotiations.
		He also hasn't been afraid to tell members, hey, I will support a primary opponent against you if you don't help me out.
		And then there are some folks kind of behind the scenes, the more legislative aides, if you will.
		I think of somebody like James Blair or James Baird, who really spend a lot of time with these members of Congress and really try to sell the Trump legislative agenda.
		So far, they've had pretty good success, especially in getting the Trump cabinet members confirmed.
		There was belief that there would be rocky roads for some of them, but they've all managed to get through so far.
		So you expect those people to continue to play a key role for the administration.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Popolar is on your X feed.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		It says that later on this afternoon, if I'm reading it right, the president's expected to go to the Kennedy Center.
unidentified		That's right.
		A little bit of an unusual situation.
		But we know a couple of weeks ago, the president announced on Truth Social that he was pushing out most of the members of the Kennedy Center board.
		Of course, people in Washington know the Kennedy Center, but it's known nationally as this big performing arts venue.
		A lot of steeped history.
		The Kennedy Center awards are there.
		The Trump administration, though, has been very critical of the Kennedy Center, basically claiming that, in their words, it's gone woke and that they've brought in too many different gender issue related performances.
		They've honored controversial performers.
		And so the president himself has taken the unusual step of getting involved.
		He's named himself the chairman of the board, as well as one of his top political allies, Rick Grinnell, who served in a few different positions in his last administration.
		They've inserted a bunch of allies into the Kennedy Center board.
		And the president today is heading over there.
		He's going to spend a couple of hours there and allegedly get a tour as well as participate in a board meeting.
		I can't emphasize enough how unusual this is, especially for any president who has a whole lot going on.
		But, you know, the Trump White House has always leaned into culture issues.
		And this is kind of the face of culture in Washington, D.C.
		The president apparently wants to be more involved in what performances take place there, as well as who will get those famous Kennedy Center honorees each year.
		So it'll be interesting to see what he has to say amidst everything else that's going on both domestically and internationally.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned the White House press briefing today.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What else are we looking at, the key things of the White House this week?
unidentified		The biggest thing is what President Trump confirmed on Air Force One last night as he was coming back up from Florida.
		He's set on Tuesday to speak by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
		His special envoy, Steve Witkoff, a billionaire real estate developer who's really become, I would say, akin to a Secretary of State figure, was in Russia last week, met with Putin for a couple of hours as they're trying to reach a deal to end this war between Russia and Ukraine.
		Obviously, it goes without saying that Trump had a pretty explosive meeting here at the Oval Office a couple weeks ago with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
		Trump has continued to speak pretty warmly about Russian President Vladimir Putin, and now they're going to have another phone call as these negotiations continue.
		The president has made clear he wants this war to end, and he feels he's the only person who can accomplish that.
		The big question is: what will Russia or Ukraine have to give in in terms of a deal, and will they both agree to that?
		Ukrainian leaders are really skeptical of Putin because he has a pretty shady track record of agreeing to things like ceasefires.
		But Trump and Putin have continued a dialogue, and this will be the latest chapter of that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Taylor Popolars of Spectrum News, he serves as our national political reporter, and you can follow him at Taylor Popolars and at Spectrum News DC.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Popolars, thanks for your time.
unidentified		Thanks, Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, open forum if you want to participate.
		Let's hear from Kim in New York.
		Democrats line.
		Thank you for waiting.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		I can't even believe what I just heard from your.
		I'm sorry, I had a statement, but just listening to what your reporter just reported on proves exactly what this man's agenda has been all about from day one.
		His message has been completely clear what he wants to do.
		He's all about dismantling and he's all about hate.
		He's against the very marginalized people in this country.
		He wants to devastate and destroy the very movement and growth of this country.
		He wants to set us back to a time and a place where certain groups of people don't have a voice.
		Even the lies and the misinformation that has been given throughout this world and what is happening, the people that he's brought on that actually wants to continue the annihilation of just what this country is trying to live up to.
		You know, we've had a path that, of course, has not been right for others, but we're trying to move forward and hopefully to move forward to a better place for all people.
		He wants to separate this man.
		It's all about hate.
		I mean, just what we heard in the reporting.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's go to Michael.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Michael in Florida, in Orlando, Republican line.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		Hey, I'd like to talk about the war, the peace process with Ukraine versus Russia.
		Okay, first off, a lot of the Democrats don't understand that, well, Putin has you can't negotiate with him thinking that you're going to force him to do anything.
		So he's already gotten over his skis in Ukraine.
		And meaning he's told his people he's done so many things.
		So if we corner him, we're facing someone with some 6,000 nuclear weapons.
		And Ukraine doesn't have much to fight with.
		So are we going to continue to throw money, good money after bad, and some of it's not even being accounted for, in hopes that we're going to beat him somehow?
		That will never happen.
		So number one, we want to continue Putin and try to limit this, not make it worse.
		Okay?
		If Biden was truly going to go in there, he should have done it strong and done it first, but he was slow to the game.
		And then, you know, he just gave all this money away.
		And a lot of it, some $100 billion has not been accounted for.
		Now, so we're hopeful that Trump's not having rhetoric to inflame the situation, but try to make peace anyway, just so people stop dying and we stop pouring our money over there.
		So maybe this mineral deal will work out.
		This last caller, the caller before, okay, so he's going on.
		I heard today also from that reporter to the Kennedy to do that meeting there.
		It's not about celebrating all these other people that she was talking about.
		It's trying to make it so that, you know, it's not just these elites sitting around with the press, with the awards, where they're highlighting theirs, and the rest of America sits back and says, well, what about us?
		You know, okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Rick in Florida as well in Sebring, Florida, Democrats line.
unidentified		Good morning, America.
		This business about buying Greenland, Greenland is a nice sheet.
		All the medals are about a mile and a half underneath that ice sheet.
		There ain't no way that Greenland is going to get you anything but ice.
		Thank you for your time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jerry is in Ohio, Republican line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jerry, good morning.
unidentified		Yeah, hey, I'm finally I got through.
		You know, I've been listening all morning to the lady earlier, you know, who abated a lot of questions and was all Democrat speaking points and twisting and turning, you know, and, you know, and I listened to some of these other things from people.
		I just, you know, this is the first time in my life that I've had to listen to these things just get worse and worse.
		You know, you got to give him give President Trump a chance to actually get these things going.
		You know, I don't know how they get all this all this vitriol going.
		You know, and I hear one person after another just beat it down.
		And, you know, it's just sad.
		Well, thanks for letting me talk.
		I waited a long time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Jerry in Ohio, finishing off this round of open forum.
		Again, to those who participated, thanks for your time.
		Rich Lowry is the editor-in-chief of National Review, joining us next to talk about issues in the Trump administration and the Republican agenda.
		Rich Lowry on Washington Journal, up next.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		As a follow-up to our recent podcast regarding the life and times of Anne Frank, we asked author Alexandra Ritchie to tell us more about the horrors of World War II and Poland.
		Ritchie, a citizen of Canada, now lives in the city which is the title of her book, Warsaw.
		Her focus is on 1944 and what was called the Warsaw Uprising.
		In her introduction, she writes, Himmler and Hitler had decided that the entire population remaining in one of Europe's great capital cities was to be murdered in cold blood.
		Himmler referred to Warsaw as the great abscess, which was to be completely destroyed.
unidentified		Author Alexandra Ritchie, with her book, Warsaw 1944, Hitler, Himmler, and the Warsaw Uprising on this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
		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.
		And thank you.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Joining us is Rich Lowry.
		He's with National Review.
		He serves as their editor-in-chief.
		And joining us this morning, Mr. Lowry, thanks for your time, as always.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I was struck by the last caller of this program, the previous segment, when he came to the Trump administration.
		He said, and a lot of Republicans have repeated this over the last few weeks, is that we have to give the president a chance to put his policies in place before we criticize him.
		What do you think of that sentiment?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		I think it's basically correct.
		Look, there's been a lot of good stuff.
		The border has just been amazing.
		He basically ended a massive historic border crisis instantly.
		Now, the numbers will begin to tick up again if he doesn't have the resources and the policies in place to keep it under control for the long term.
		But that's just been an amazing achievement.
		I think the stuff ripping up DEI and the government and pushing against it in educational institutions is fantastic.
		The deregulation, great.
		Doge, I think directionally, absolutely what we need.
		A little rocky rollout and there'd be legal issues there.
		And then you get to the tariffs, which I think is what a lot of people are wondering about.
		There's a good case.
		China doesn't play fair, hostile to the United States.
		They are an adversary.
		Maybe tariff them.
		But Canada, Mexico, and going back every 30 days, creating this sense of crisis, has created uncertainty in the economy.
		And I think that's where even some Republicans are waiting to see where he settles out on that policy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Even in a recent piece of yours, it just says the headline, Canada is not the enemy.
unidentified		You can elaborate from there.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		I mean, this is the Canadians are the closest we have as Americans to brothers or at least cousins, longest undefended border in the world.
		This is not an adversary of the United States.
		It's not even like Mexico.
		There's not a border influx from Canada.
		There's a trickle of fentanyl, but nothing like what you're seeing from Mexico.
		And the rationales for threatening Mexico, for saying we're going to put on these sweeping 25% tariffs have been ever shifting.
		Initially, it was fentanyl and border.
		Then it was dairy, lumber, banking.
		These are legitimate issues with Canada.
		They've been discussed before.
		They've been discussed for decades.
		They were discussed prior to the USMCA that Trump himself negotiated, the free trade agreement between Canada, Mexico, and ourselves in his first term.
		That's up for renewal next year.
		You can just discuss them then.
		And then finally, Trump has settled, at least at times, for the idea that our border with Canada is somehow artificial and should be changed or Canada should be annexed.
		And that's never going to happen.
		And that we're talking about threatening the sovereignty potentially of a fellow NATO country is insane.
		So I think we just told the Canadians what we want.
		There's a good chance we get it, but they have been confused as many other observers have.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to there's a new prime minister coming into Canada, long-term relations, is that a concern in your mind considering the erratic nature of how tariffs are being applied?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		You know, I think the Canadians really want to get along with us, but we've kind of whipped them into an anti-U.S. fervor.
		The biggest issue in that campaign they have coming up will be how to deal with the United States and Donald Trump and stand up for us.
		But I think if we get to a better place, things would snap back.
		But at the moment, we have deranged Canadian public opinion.
		I mean, you have serious people in Canada saying Canada needs the benefit of a nuclear umbrella from Europe to protect itself from the United States.
		And that's crazy, but when you're talking about potentially absorbing them as a 51st state, you're going to get a nationalist reaction.
		So I think this is a problem with Trump.
		He's a nationalist.
		He understands national pride.
		He understands prestige.
		He understands being insulted easily.
		But that's true of other people as well.
		And a lot of them live in Canada.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I want to play you some of the defense that JD Vance had of president, or the vice president had, of criticisms of the economic policy writ large of the Trump administration and get your reaction to it.
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		And you see so many people attacking the president's economic programs and attacking the progress that we've made over the past seven weeks.
		You hear people saying, well, how dare Donald Trump impose tariffs on foreign countries that have been taking advantage of us for 40 years?
		And the answer is that unless you're willing to use American power to fight back against what those countries have been doing for a generation, you are never going to rebuild American manufacturing and you're never going to support the American workers.
		President Trump is done with leaders who talk, talk, talk.
		We are an administration that is going to do things for the American people and for American workers.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So Mr. Lowry, that's the rhetoric.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the reality in your mind?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Well, first of all, that's classic JD Vance.
		I mean, he always makes the best argument for whatever Trump or the administration is doing.
		Now, I don't think Canada has been taking advantage of us.
		Again, they signed on the dotted line in a free trade agreement negotiated by Donald Trump in his first term.
		But this is the larger case for the tariffs, that the manufacturing sector in the United States has been devastated by free trade, and we need to protect it and rebuild it.
		Now, it is true manufacturing employment has declined, but it's been a secular decline for a very long time.
		At the same time, we continue to make a lot of stuff.
		And I think the problem is the tariffs are, another problem with tariffs, it's kind of contradictory.
		If you want to build up manufacturing in the United States, the last thing you do is put tariffs on steel and aluminum, which are inputs for manufacturing.
		Now, those tariffs will help at the margins, the steel industry and the aluminum industry in the United States, but they'll hurt everyone else.
		So I think it's appropriate to have a focus on building things, but the best approach is to make our domestic environment here in the United States as competitive as possible.
		Good tax policy, rolling back regulations.
		And I think we will see an EO soon that I'll really welcome from Donald Trump about shipbuilding.
		The commercial shipbuilding industry in the United States has been reduced to basically nothing.
		At the same time, China has taken over about 50% of that market worldwide.
		And that's so important because if we get in a shooting war, God forbid, with China and the Indo-Pacific, ships are going to go down.
		They're going to need to be rebuilt.
		They're going to need to be repaired.
		And China has much bigger ability to do that than we do.
		So there are a number of sectors like this that it's appropriate to focus on.
		Think about do we need an element of government support for them.
		But I think the willy-nilly tariffs are a mistake.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is the topic of your piece this morning.
		We're showing the folks the headline.
		Trump is right to emphasize shipbuilding.
		If you want to ask questions of our guests, here's how you can do so.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and 202-748-8002 for independents.
		You can text us your questions or comments at 202-748-8003.
		Mr. Lowry, you see the president's current effort in his second term.
		You viewed him during his first term.
		What's changed, do you think?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's just more Trumpy than ever.
		So first time around, he did push NATO.
		He did push some terrorists, but there were more traditional Republicans there saying, yes, sir, maybe that's not such a good idea, and convincing him and conjoling him behind the scenes.
		Partly because of that experience, the Trump team prepared the second term to just have people who really on board this agenda and who weren't going to obstruct it, but who are going to accelerate it.
		So I think that in some ways has been very good.
		Again, DEI, they considered a big rollback of this LBJA executive order that got the ball rolling there.
		First term, but they're like, no, that's too politically radioactive.
		We can't touch it.
		And this time around, they're like, no, we're going to do it in the first couple days, which I think is a very good thing.
		And there's also the flood the zone approach, again, not to be obsessed with the DEI.
		But that would be our main, if that was like one of the just two or three things he'd done, that'd be the main, we'd be talking about it top of mind this morning, still, like a month and a half later.
		But because so much is happening on so many fronts, a lot of things that would be otherwise controversial or all-consuming aren't.
		So the bad side of the rush is you can make mistakes.
		The good side of the rush, it does keep your domestic opponents on their back feet.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And some international news.
		We heard from our reporter earlier this morning that later on this week, the president is expecting to talk with Vladimir Putin over issues of Ukraine.
		What are concerns as far as the White House approach at this stage?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think he's right to want a deal.
		I think we've established the last three years that Russia isn't going to win the war in the sense of sweeping the Kyiv and toppling the government and establishing a puppet government of its own.
		That's a very good thing.
		But we've also established, unfortunately, that Ukraine is not going to push the Russians all the way back to its sovereign borders and retake its territory.
		So it's time for this thing to end.
		I've been concerned, as many Ukraine hawks like myself have been, that all the public pressure has been on the Ukrainians.
		I think Zelensky mishandled that Oval Office meeting.
		It was really idiotic of him to think he can go in there and win a public argument over this stuff.
		And it's kind of inevitable that he got slapped down.
		But I didn't like seeing Trump and Vance berate him in public.
		I think they should have gone in private if they wanted to berate him and do it there, but not do it publicly.
		And then they cut off aid and cut off the intelligence sharing.
		Now that's being restored.
		And the Ukrainians have signed up to this ceasefire proposal.
		So I think the Ukrainians now are in a better place or the one that I would have thought would have been the place for them to go.
		Initially, stay on Trump's good side, establish that you're the one who wants peace and put the ball in Vladimir Putin's court.
		Now, the ball is in Putin's court.
		And since he's gaining, he may want to keep gaining, but he's got to be careful of pushing it too far against President Trump's wishes, because then he could engender a reaction that would be very unwelcome for him.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Rich Lowry of National Review joining us.
		He serves as the editor-in-chief.
		Our first call for you comes from Kentucky.
		This is Tim.
		He joins us on our line for Democrats.
		You're on with our guests.
		Go ahead with your question or comment, please.
unidentified		Yes, sir.
		I just was wondering what your opinion is of Trump's attacks on the First Amendment and the judiciary.
		All this threatening and talk of impeachment and denying constitutional orders.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so Trump will say things.
		You know, he has launched a suit against 60 minutes for how they edited a Kamal Harris interview that cut against the First Amendment and are wrong.
		They're not strict violations of it, but against the spirit of it.
		But at the same time, the people who work for him and support him are very strongly in favor of the First Amendment.
		So you've seen this loosening up in our culture.
		I would say Meta is the most prominent example of this, where they had a moderation policy that was in some respects coerced from the government.
		And after Trump's election, they said, basically, we're not going to do this anymore.
		We're going to adopt more of the Elon Musk Musk X model, where you have a more robust free speech template, which I think is the correct one.
		So that story is a little bit muddled, but I think in general, the Republican Party is more pro-free speech than the Democrats are now.
		And they've lawfully abided.
		There's a dispute over this latest order having to do with the deportation of these Venezuelan criminals.
		But the Trump administration has abided with these rulings, even if they hate them and has taken the tack appropriately that they're just going to fight him out in the court with appeals.
		You have seen talk of impeaching from Elon Musk and others.
		John Roberts hates that.
		He says that's an anti-judiciary move.
		As far as I'm concerned, Elon Musk can say whatever he wants.
		It's not a violation of our constitutional system, and no judges are actually going to get impeached.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Lowry, there's a viewer from texting us this morning following up on something you said, asking you to explain why you think DEI is bad for the country.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		I think it's a poisonous and race-obsessed ideology that puts people's race and sex above their status as individuals.
		And the fundamental American idea is that we should judge everyone on their merits and as individual people.
		So we've seen this in quotas, in college admissions.
		We've seen it in all these hideous dumb trainings that have taken over corporate America.
		So I think all that should be ripped up.
		It's wrong.
		I think a lot of it is illegal and violates our civil rights laws.
		And we should just treat people as they come as individuals.
		That's a fundamentally American idea.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		James from Virginia, Republican line.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I think this tariff is just a genius ideal of Trump because the first thing the politicians do is they say we don't want the product.
		And in order to reduce inflation, these are shelf-like products that's got to be moved.
		So in turn, it goes back to the American people, which reduces the prices.
		It's not price control, but at the end of the day, it accomplishes the same thing as price control without the legislation, without the red tape, because the grain that China says we don't want, it's got to go back.
		The fork that Canada says we don't want, it has to go back.
		I mean, this is just ingenious of how Trump has played these politicians because he knows what they're going to their reaction.
		Anybody knew what Canada's reaction was going to be.
		And a 30-day tariff, I think, is a good idea because at the end of the day, you can see, are you getting any results in those 30 days?
		If you don't, it's going to slap another 30 days on them.
		That's the aluminum and steel, the whole nine yards that it juices to the American economy to give it a chance.
		Because in the past four years, we have suffered horribly under the Biden administration.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, James of Virginia.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Mr. Slowry, go ahead.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so again, steel and aluminum are inputs, they're making it more expensive at the margins for people to make things, and I think that's a bad idea.
		The audio is a little muddy in my end, so I didn't quite follow the argument on inflation, but this is a political risk to the president.
		One of the main issues, if not the main issue he got elected on, was prices.
		So if you, one, seems as though he doesn't care very much about it, that's bad.
		Two, if he's doing things to increase prices, even if it isn't strictly inflationary, the supporters of the tariffs will point out this doesn't, you know, it doesn't increase the monetary supply and create this inflation that builds on itself as just a one-time price increase.
		But for the consumer, it doesn't really matter that much whether it's a one-time price increase or not.
		It's just that the prices are higher.
		So this is Achilles' heel potentially for the president, and you see it showing up as a vulnerability in the polls.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And you've mentioned the polls, but is the vulnerability just on the tariff front economically, or are there other economic concerns as far as policy that the Trump administration is going to make?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Ultimately, the peril is prices.
		People, they seem pretty divided on tariffs.
		But the key metric from Trump's first term economically was that real wages increased.
		Wages went up.
		Inflation was low.
		So people had more money in their pocket books and they could buy more.
		And the key metric in the Biden administration is that real wages were stagnant.
		So it's crucial for Trump to get that number back up.
		It's good for everyone in the country, so we should hope he's successful on that front.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Writing about economic issues, it's the New York Times Thomas Friedman recently writing this saying, Joe Biden got a lot of things wrong, but by the end of his term, with the help of a wise Federal Reserve, the buying economy was actually in pretty good shape and trending in the right direction.
		America certainly did not need a global tariff shock therapy.
		Corporate and household balance sheets relatively healthy.
		Oil prices were on the low side.
		Unemployment was around 4%.
		Consumer spending was rising.
		And GDP growth was around 2%.
		That's his assessment.
		What do you think?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, it was okay.
		It wasn't great.
		People didn't feel it again because of the real wages issue.
		But if we have a downturn, you know, the income president is always going to be blamed.
		But if you had a downturn early in the Trump administration, usually you could say, well, you know, I just got here.
		I haven't done anything yet.
		You know, my tax bill is still being considered by Congress.
		But here, he took ownership of the economy almost immediately with the tariffs.
		And they will be blamed if there's a downturn.
		I'm not saying there's a downturn.
		I'm not an economist.
		My economic forecasting is even worse than my political forecasting.
		But it is a huge risk for the president, no doubt.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Rich Lowry joining us for this conversation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Michael in Florida, Independent Line.
unidentified		Yes, I am hoping you'll join with Mrs. McMahon in explaining to the populace that anti-DEI, when it's applied to schools, is actually a good thing, because in schools, there should be equality between students.
		And what I mean by that is that if a student is physically able to accomplish an A in the work, how dare we not give that student and take it upon ourselves the responsibility to teach that child so that he earns an A, okay, deserves the A. Every child should get an A in a classroom if they're able to.
		And to not do that is to categorize them and put them into categories for the specific purpose.
		And this is where I think there can be a joining of the right and the left.
		It's decolonizing, decolonizing our schools where we're not separating and compartmentalizing kids into black, white, disadvantaged, poor, so that we can categorize them as to high value and low value.
		There is no low value student.
		No child is chaff.
		No separating of wheat from chaff.
		No child is chaff.
		And that's what our schools are doing now.
		So what Mrs. McMahon is proposing to do, by the way, is constitutional.
		No child is happy getting an S, a D, or a C. None.
		And in three of our states, it's in the state constitution.
		I think it's Wisconsin, Virginia, and Massachusetts.
		And in those states, any child, I mean, you're doing the child a disservice.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		We got your point.
		Thank you, Mr. Lowry.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Totally endorse that sentiment.
		We should have high expectations for every single child and teach them, right?
		And a lot of schools are just failing on this basic measure of success.
		At the same time, they're obsessed with all this nonsense and wasting their time with all this nonsense.
		So I think every state in the union would be well served to adopt Florida's education policy, which has created the best education system in the country.
		And it begins with having high expectations for every child and focusing on the basics.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to education overall, your thoughts on the thinning of the education department and the possible dismantling of it?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think it'd be great if it went away.
		I think if it went away, it might be a little less consequential than people think because the education department administers these enormous student loan programs and other funding programs that aren't going to vaporize if the education department goes away.
		But this goes to one of the key.
		This isn't necessarily a Doge initiative per se, but goes to the legal problem with Doge.
		You can cut people.
		You can maybe say we can achieve this goal that Congress has set out without spending quite so much money doing it, but you can't vaporize entire agencies and departments without Congress voting to do so.
		So if you really wanted to get rid of the Education Department, you need Congress to vote to do it.
		You'd need 60 votes in the Senate.
		That's not going to happen.
		So I think they may, it's going to be a smaller education department in terms of the workforce.
		Maybe some functions are transferred over to other departments, but it's not going to go away, unfortunately.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		To what degree do you think Congress is going to go along with Mr. Musk's suggestions for cuts?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think this would be, again, a really good idea.
		To the extent that there's any legal question, Congress should adopt the Doge policies and pass them.
		And under the Impoundment Act, that was passed in the 1970s.
		I believe this was a reaction to Richard Nixon's empoundment, which is a fancy word for just not spending money Congress had appropriated.
		Congress said, no, you can't do that anymore.
		But by the way, we can do rescissions.
		Come to us and we'll cut these things.
		And the filibuster isn't involved, so you don't need 60 votes.
		So I think everything the Doge wants to do, basically, should, at least when it comes to cutting things, should go to Congress and should be duly passed.
		And that eliminates all legal question.
		Now, the big question, though, is whether you actually have the votes to do this in Congress, and particularly in a House where we all know now you have about a two-vote margin for Speaker Mike Johnson.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Alabama, Democrats line, we'll hear from Perry.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning, C. San Audi.
		I have a question about these tasks.
		You know, for the last 40 years or so, the American government kind of encouraged our industries to move overseas.
		And so if American companies overseas and they ship those products back here, is that a defense for us?
		That does not count as far as when it comes to the GDP and all those things.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Lowry.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I didn't quite catch the last question.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Caller, can you repeat your last part of your question, please?
unidentified		Yes, we know we kind of encourage our businesses to go overseas for the last 40 years.
unidentified		And so when American companies are incentivized to go overseas and make their product, when they ship them back to this country, is that a deficit against the United States or does it go against a foreign country as it's a foreign product being shipped back to America, even though it's an American company?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so, right.
		So if, you know, Apple's making a lot of phones in China, I think is what the caller is getting at is, is that good for China or is it good for Apple, which is an American company?
		I think it depends.
		And I think there are critical supply chains that you don't want dominated by China.
		And we went way too far in that direction.
		But a lot of this stuff is not coming back to the United States, kind of the low-end manufacturing.
		So what you want is for it, and some of this has happened, to go to allied countries that don't hate us, you know, the Philippines, or come back to North America.
		And again, I don't want to seem totally obsessed with Canadian tariffs, but some of this stuff has been reshored to North America and has come to Canada and Mexico, and that's not necessarily a problem.
		So you're kind of punishing, you've encouraged these companies to come back to North America, and then you're turning around and saying, oh, it's terrible here in North America.
		It's terrible here in Canada.
		You've got to come back to the United States.
		And a lot of the stuff, for instance, for the automotive industry, you know, building a million square foot plant is not a quick project, right?
		You don't plan it in six months and build it in six months.
		It's like a 10-year project.
		So what they need is certainty.
		They need to know what the policy was.
		And what they were relying on, because they thought it was the policy, because it was a signed agreement, was the USMCA.
		So again, you got problems with Canada, you got problems with Mexico.
		Fine.
		Negotiate it in an orderly fashion next year when you're revising that free trade agreement.
		But the back and forth is just a killer.
		And it's a sign that it's a killer that even President Trump recognized as much when he was talking last time about imposing these tariffs because he exempted the auto industry because a lot of the stuff you have coming across borders multiple times.
		So you get these crazy numbers.
		I don't know whether they're right or not, but price of a certain kind of cars will go up $10,000.
		And that obviously would be bad for our economy and bad for the consumer.
		So I see the point the caller is making, and that's my take.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Richard is from California, Republican line.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Hi.
unidentified		Sorry, didn't push the button.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Richard, I'm sorry I didn't push the button right away.
		Go ahead with your question or comment, please.
		I'm sorry.
unidentified		Okay.
		Yeah, my question is, it's been 57 days since the election.
		The Democrats already want to get back into power again.
		So if we let him get back into power, does Mr. Lowry think that the Democrats would go ahead and cut that $2 trillion deficit spending down?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Oh, of course not.
		No.
		No.
		They are not interested in reducing the deficit.
		Unfortunately, neither party is truly interested in reducing the deficit.
		Republicans talk about it a lot more.
		I think Elon Musk is quite sincere about it, but unfortunately, Doge won't be able to do it on its own.
		And the Democrats are in a really terrible state.
		I think it was the NBC poll yesterday what had the approval rating of the Democrats at 27%, the lowest ever in that polling series.
		You have this contention over Chuck Schumer and talks of dumping Chuck Schumer because he didn't trigger a government shutdown last week.
		I think Schumer is absolutely right in that call.
		Party doesn't have any leadership.
		The direction is unclear.
		So they're in a terrible state, but usually what happens in American politics is you're out of power, you seem hopeless, you seem futile, and then things happen, and events save you, and presidencies get shaped by events and they're unforeseen crises.
		So I'd be shocked if Democrats don't take back the House next year because they don't need, you know, they just need a handful of pickups to do it.
		Not so sure about the Senate, but that would allow them at least to have something of a break on President Trump.
		And then you see what you come up with in terms of a presidential nominee in 28.
		I don't think there's anyone who's looking great on the Democratic side at the moment, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're not going to get a good and talented candidate.
		So people who, there are people a little over-enthusiastic on my side who are ready to put the Democrats six feet under, but that's not the case.
		That's not going to happen.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I was wondering, say, the CR vote that took place last week, what it said about the strength of the House and Senate Republicans and the strength of the party in Congress.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		I think Speaker Johnson, you just have to conclude.
		He's good at this.
		You know, this is another high wire act, and he stayed on the wire, only loses Thomas Massey.
		Now, it helps a lot to have President Trump backing him up because Trump's grip on the party is so strong.
		He can basically convince, I think, any Republican to jump off any ledge, with the exception of a Massey and maybe a Collins or Murkowski-McConnell in the Senate.
		But the key predicate of this victory, tactical victory for Republicans, was Johnson holding his caucus together.
		And if that doesn't happen, then he has to look for Democrats, then it gets really messy, then these votes are probably failing in the House, and Schumer's in the catbird seat.
		And Schumer was not in the catbird seat, thanks to the excellent work of Speaker Johnson.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Rich Lowry joining us for this conversation.
		This is James joining us from Louisiana, Independent Line.
		You're on with our guests.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, sir.
		I hope this doesn't take as long as I think it's going to take.
		But I don't understand your answer about why DEI is bad for the country when people like me that see in the Constitution.
		I'm going to see if I can get it real quick.
		In the Constitution, there was a three-fifths compromise.
		I don't call it a compromise.
		I call it an affirmation that they affirmed that a certain group of people were less than human.
		And then for hundreds of years, we had laws that said they were less than human.
		Then when we sent those same people to defend this country, when they came back, they said, okay, you certain people, you go right, those other white people go left.
		We still treated them differently.
		Now, with all of that type of history where only certain people were lynched in public with law enforcement watching, how do we correct that?
		Why would Republicans want to make policies and laws to do something that the people might want to do to ameliorate that type of situation?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think that's very well said, and I appreciate the sentiment and emotion behind it.
		I think the key thing is what would we do to rectify it?
		We'd treat everyone equal, right?
		Why do we want to turn around and say, because of that terrible history, that we want to disadvantage an immigrant child from Cambodia who's come here in terrible circumstances, talented, has worked hard, and deserves to get into, say, Harvard, but isn't because that they're Asian in our ridiculously overly broad and simplistic census categories.
		Why?
		Does that undo any wrongs that were done over 150 years in terms of African Americans?
		No, it's just another wrong.
		So equality of opportunity, treating people as individuals, that's where we want to get as America.
		So it would be perverse in my mind to look at all that history and say, we're not going to repeat it in the gruesome and hideous form that it took those 150 years, but we want to do at least a lower valiance, milder form of discrimination against certain classes of people.
		That's wrong.
		And again, even if you don't think it's wrong, it is definitely against the civil rights laws of the United States.
		So you have to go and change all these historic laws that we hold up as great exemplars of the American idea and say, no, actually, it's okay to discriminate against certain people based on their race.
		And that would be wrong.
		It's not going to happen.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Because of guidance from the Trump administration at colleges and universities, in some cases, money not being sent to colleges and universities, how do you think that changes what happens on the college campuses when it comes to DEI policy?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think every university in America, with a few exceptions, is dependent on federal funding.
		So they're going to take this very seriously.
		I think the effort on the part of a lot of them, and we saw this with the Supreme Court's affirmative action jurisprudence as well, is they'll change what they're doing in public or come up with new names of what the old practices are and hope they can kind of duck and cover and continue to get away with it.
		So I think that that's going to be a focus of the Trump administration, seeing that they get compliance.
		But it would just be a very good thing if everyone in America just took it as gospel that we should treat people equally regardless of race or other inherent characteristics.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We'll hear next from Joe, Joe in Florida, Independent Line.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
unidentified		How are you doing?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on with our guest.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Good.
		Okay, great to see Mr. Laurie on.
		I do have a couple of questions for him.
		One is he made a comment earlier about Zelensky should try to stay on Trump's good side.
		I'm not really sure what that means.
		Being on a president's good side for the good of his own country is that carry over to Americans too?
		Now we need to stay on Trump's good side so he doesn't come after us like he has suggested with a lot of his comments at the DOJ the other day.
		If you're not on his good side, then you're not someplace in the gray area.
		You're on his bad side.
		So and he's demonstrated that kind of stuff before with now he wants to silence people from being able to go and talk about things and maybe protest things that he doesn't agree with.
		So is that both international and national that we all need to stay on Trump's good side in order to ingratiate him and make him feel good about himself so he doesn't come after us or do what he did to Zelensky?
		Zelensky didn't stay on his good side, so he withdrew things for a couple weeks.
		Hey, I'm going to withdraw U.S. help.
		We're a country.
		We're not Trumpland.
		We're the United States.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Joe in Florida.
		I'm sorry.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so look, President Trump overly personalized things.
		There's no doubt about it.
		And that's not a good quality, but it's just there.
		And Zelensky's in a different position than anyone else in the United States.
		He's a leader of a foreign country that desperately needs United States support.
		So it's not unusual for foreign leaders to read other foreign leaders and do things to ingratiate themselves.
		Totally different example, but I'll just throw it out there.
		You know, Churchill knew he needed FDR support.
		He needed FDR's material support before the United States was in the war, and then he wanted to get the United States in the war eventually.
		So sharing, you know, FDR was a navalist, right?
		So sharing all the naval information that the British had early on, bringing nice champagne, you know, and cigars when he visited the United States.
		These are kind of typical things.
		With Trump, as with a lot of things with Trump, it's exaggerated.
		And I wish he didn't take things so personally.
		But if you're Zelensky and other leaders have figured this out, well, you wear a suit to the Oval Office.
		Should that matter?
		Maybe not, but it does.
		Don't argue in public.
		Should that matter?
		Maybe it shouldn't, but it does.
		So that was just a failure of diplomacy on his part.
		Again, I don't like the way he was treated by Trump in advance.
		But if you're the supplicant, if you need U.S. aid, perhaps for your national existence, just do these things to stay on the good side of the leader of the country that's so important to you.
		That's my only point.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		To your point of taking things personally, we have a viewer off of X asking the question, what's your opinion of different press outlets being banned from the White House press room?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think it's good to let in new kind of outlets.
		A lot of people snarked, come back to the Zelensky Oval Office meeting, that a reporter, I forget from what outlet he was with, but asked Zelensky, why aren't you wearing a suit, right?
		Now, that's a question that would never have been asked before unless you had alternate media sources there.
		But it's a question that 30%, 40%, 50% of the country might be wondering.
		So it's good that that question actually gets asked.
		But when it comes to excluding people or determining yourself what the pool is going to be, I think that goes a little too far.
		So I like openness.
		I like diversity, but you don't want to seem punitive.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do you think the rhetoric or vitriol against the media is the same this time around than we saw in the previous term?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		It's probably about the same, maybe a notch or two more intense, more actionable than it was first time around.
		Because again, like excluding the AP because they don't call the Gulf of America Gulf of Mexico, that's kind of thing you might have had brooded about the first term, but someone would have said, nah, let's not act on that.
		But now that they actually did.
		So it goes back to the theme we were discussing earlier, that this is more unrestrained, full maximal Trump than we saw the first time around.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Rich Lower, you recently wrote something for National Review.
		I just want to read you the headline.
		You can fill in the blanks, but the headline is, Does anyone know what a Nazi is?
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I just think it's so tiresome, these charges of fascism and Nazism.
		The occasion for that piece was lodged against Elon Musk.
		Elon Musk is a techno-libertarian.
		Elon Musk is trying to reduce the power and the scope and the size of the federal government.
		This is not a Nazi agenda item, right?
		He's into freedom.
		So just because people don't like him, though, they turn around and say, oh, you're a Nazi.
		They spray paint swastikas on his cars and all the rest of it.
		And it's just so childish.
		It's not remotely true.
		It's the opposite of the truth.
		But some people, they think Nazi is a synonym for bad.
		So if you want to say you disagree with someone a lot on the right, you don't just explain how you disagree with them, why you disagree with them, you call them a Nazi or a fascist.
		So I wish it would stop, but this has been going on for decades and it probably won't.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		A few more minutes with our guests.
		This is Butch and Merrill and Democrats line.
		Go ahead, you're next up.
unidentified		Yes.
		I want to piggyback on a call or two callers ago about DEI and woke.
		And I feel that they are discriminating because not all black people are from Africa.
		And there were Indians here, and there were a lot of black people here way before 1700.
		And now it seems like they're trying to erase the history of Americans, black Americans, and some black Americans.
		How can he distinguish the two between immigrants and black Americans?
		That's it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Butcher Marilyn, thank you.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		So I think what the caller is getting at is just the long lineage of a lot of African American families in this country here on average longer than Caucasian Americans.
		That's something to be aware of and to honor.
		You know, the Nicole Hannah Jones, who wrote the 1619 essay in that New York Times magazine project that became such a big deal and kicked off a lot of this debate, I thought one thing that was very moving in that essay, she described being in school, I think it was elementary school.
		I'm fuzzy on the details.
		Forgive me if I get some of them wrong, but I'll get the broad point correct.
		And the teacher said to the class, well, why don't you come up and point to the country where your family was from?
		And some kids would go up and point to Italy, some would point to Britain, some would point to Poland.
		And she and her fellow African-American classmate or classmates, they didn't know where to point because they're from America.
		They consider themselves fundamentally Americans.
		So I think it's a great history.
		We should be aware of it.
		And I take the caller's point.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One more call, and this will be from Nixon in Florida, Republican line.
unidentified		Good morning, Mr. Rich Larry.
		I want to know: does our policy basically suit whoever the president is at times, or we just follow the Constitution?
		And why was what was the guy's name?
		I forgot his name.
		He was on CNN with Jake Day Trapper.
		And once he spotted that we have an American policy and an Israeli policy, he was terminated.
		That's my question.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Color, I think you're going to have to elaborate a little.
unidentified		The guy that was on CNN, he basically stated Hamas, those guys were good guys.
		They weren't bad guys.
		And he was there to negotiate on behalf of America.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Oh, Adam Bowler.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Adam Bowler.
unidentified		Exactly.
unidentified		Exactly.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		The hostage envoy.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Exactly.
		After he made that statement, he was terminated.
		If we have an America that has a constitution that we don't ban one way or the other for any other countries, why is everybody terminated or canceled or reprimand if they go strictly America first?
		American policy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Gotcha, Paul.
unidentified		Thanks.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so obviously the Constitution is a fundamental law of the land.
		No president is above it.
		No one is above it.
		All office holders pledge to uphold it and should take that oath seriously.
		But what we're talking about with Adam Bowler, who is a very talented guy, is something different.
		This isn't a free speech issue.
		This isn't a random commentator on CNN.
		I'm not sure whether it was CNN interview.
		Maybe it was.
		I don't know.
		But some random commentator being punished by the government for what he said.
		He was a member or was going to be a member of the Trump administration.
		And when he said, I think it was, forgive me again if the details are fuzzy, that Hamas are nice guys.
		That puts you in a real awkward position if you're an envoy supposed to be negotiating and dealing with in good faith.
		And that's a hateful thing to say for the Israelis for understandable reasons.
		So you're just not going to get that job or not going to stay in that job.
		That's not a First Amendment issue.
		The president runs under the Constitution, the executive branch, and he has hiring and firing issues, certainly for these kinds of positions.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The work of our guests and others can be found at nationalreview.com, Rich Lowry, who serves as editor-in-chief.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Lowry, thanks for your time.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		Thanks so much for having me.
rich lowry ▲ ● ▼		I enjoyed it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's it for the program today.
		Another edition of Washington Journal comes your way at 7 o'clock tomorrow morning.
		We'll see you then.
unidentified		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Mediacom.
		Nearly 30 years ago, Mediacom was founded on a powerful idea.
		Bring cutting-edge broadband to underserved communities.
		From coast to coast, we connected 850,000 miles of fiber.
		Our team broke speed barriers, delivered one gig speeds to every customer, has led the way in developing a 10G platform, and now with Mediacom Mobile, is offering the fastest, most reliable network on the go.
		Mediacom, decades of dedication, decades of delivery, decades ahead.
		MediaCom supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		This week, tune in for C-SPAN's new members of Congress series, where we talk to both Republicans and Democrats about their early lives, their previous careers, their families, and why they decided to run for office.
		Watch New Members of Congress all week, beginning at 9:30 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
		Here's a preview: I am the proud daughter of two Iranian immigrants.
		So, my parents came here in the 70s.
		My dad came to go study civil engineering at the University of Oregon, always with the intention of going back home.
		My mom has a little bit different of a story when the revolution hit Iran in 1979.
		They had grown up in a monarchy in Iran, but with more freedoms.
		A theocratic regime, the Islamic Republic, took over, and my mom's family was at risk.
		Her father was imprisoned for supporting the prior government and being anti-the new regime.
		And so, she fled Iran by herself and was able to come to the United States and stayed with a family friend here.
		So, they met here in the United States, and of course, my dad later was unable to go back for the same reasons: safety and security.
		So, I grew up with that being a big part of my upbringing.
		My parents always emphasized how much we cannot take democracy for granted.
		And we always talked about politics at the dinner table simply because their lives have been uprooted because of politics.
		I am a proud son of an immigrant from Greece.
		My dad was born in Athens, Greece.
		And of course, he and my mom actually met in the FBI where they both served.
		And I grew up in New York and, of all places, Arkansas, where my dad was doing some deep undercover work on the ABSCAM cases, the famous case court dealing unfortunately with Capitol Hill.
		Eventually, I went off to college at Stetson University, which is an essential part of Florida, studied history and political science.
		And later, I earned a master's degree from history from the University of Arkansas.
		Back to the childhood and the parents in the FBI.
		What was that like growing up?
		Well, it's pretty wild.
		You know, I'm really proud to say that my parents were the only couple still together after working through a lot of these cases.
		Sadly, they're gone a lot.
		My dad was undercover.
		He'd be gone for two weeks, home for two weeks, but he was always there to watch my basketball games or football games, whatever it might be.
		And so it was just a great way to grow up.
		And in that time period, I learned a lot about politics.
		Unfortunately, my dad said, turn on the TV.
		I go, I'm going to be on TV.
		He was one of the undercover agents called Abscamp, Abdul Scam, that sadly arrested a bunch of congressmen and senators because of their, let's just say, illicit activities.
maggie goodlander ▲ ● ▼		I was born on Election Day in Nashua, New Hampshire.
		And my mom, Betty, at the time, she was serving in our state house.
		And New Hampshire has the fourth largest legislature in the English-speaking world, just after the United States Congress.
		My mom was serving in the legislature.
		She went into labor on Election Day and she went directly to our polling place at Broad Street Elementary School to vote before she went to St. Joe's Hospital where I was born.
		And that is very much the spirit in which I was raised.
		You know, I'm a fourth-generation Nashua girl, and New Hampshire really made me who I am today in every relevant respect.
mike kennedy ▲ ● ▼		I went to Arizona as a missionary, and people ask me with this political stuff: is it hard to do?
		And I'm like, well, I went on a mission for two years, paid for it myself to talk about Jesus on people's doorsteps.
		That was really challenging for two full years full time.
		And so it really had an opportunity to enhance my love for people and the opportunity to talk to them about religious issues and just important aspects of life.
		That was really formative for me as well.
		And I think it helped me prepare for additional things that I was going to do in the future, like serving the people as a, in this case, a congressman.
cleo fields ▲ ● ▼		Well, I was here 32 years ago.
		I left 28 years ago and now I've returned.
		I represented the old 4th congressional district, which ran from Monroe to Baton Rouge.
		And the district was challenged the whole while I was here.
		But I served four years, and now I'm back.
		I mean, actually, I got here because I was chairman of the committee that redraw lines because Louisiana has a high black population, over 33% of the population in Louisiana is African-American.
		And it just made sense.
		And I'm glad the legislature agreed with me, the governor, and now we're here.
		And now we got to make a difference for the people back home.

▲