CSPAN - Washington Journal 03/18/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 18, 2025 07:00-10:08 - CSPAN

03:07:54

Washington Journal 03/18/2025

Participants

Main

john mcardle

cspan 41:56

Appearances

donald j trump

admin 00:34

karoline leavitt

admin 02:27

tom homan

02:07

Clips

kelly odonnell

nbc 00:19

patty murray

sen/d 00:04

richard c cook

00:18

tom barrett

rep/r 00:11

Callers

david in wyoming

callers 00:42

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Coming up this morning on Washington Journal, your calls and comments live.
		Then former Pennsylvania Republican Congressman James Greenwood of the Reformers Caucus and Nick Pennyman of Issue One discuss congressional limits on the power of the executive branch.
		And William Banks, founding director of Syracuse University's Institute for Security Policy and Law, discusses the Trump administration's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to carry out deportations.
		Washington Journal is next.
		Join the conversation.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Tuesday, March 18th, 2025.
		A federal judge yesterday ordered the U.S. Justice Department to provide information by noon today about how several plane loads of alleged Venezuelan gang members were deported despite his order to turn the planes around.
		The legal showdown has set up a high-stakes battle between the judicial and executive branch over President Trump's efforts to gain control of the U.S. border and battle drug cartels.
		So this morning, we're asking you whether you support or oppose the Trump administration's deportation policies.
unidentified		If you support the number to call 202-748-8000.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		If you oppose 202-748-8001, if you're unsure, that's okay.
		A number for you, too, 202-748-8002.
		You can also send us a text, that number, 202-748-8003.
		If you do, please include your name and where you're from.
		Otherwise, catch up with us on social media, on X, it's at C-SPANWJ, and on Facebook, it's facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
unidentified		And a very good Tuesday morning to you.
unidentified		You can go ahead and start calling in now.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Here's how the Washington Post describes the legal showdown that's happening here.
		Court conflict nears a boil is the lead story today.
		The hearing on deportation flights turns contentious.
		This is the front page of the Washington Times.
		They write, Trump clings to war powers, telling the courts to butt out of deportations, noting the 250 or so Venezuelans who were deported were purported to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
		And the Justice Department said that Mr. Trump had declared that gang as a terrorist organization and was acting under his powers as commander-in-chief.
		When he deported them, the flights and the fights go to the heart, they write, of Mr. Trump's biggest claims of his second term, including that his national security powers are virtually unfettered and that the country has seen a quote invasion of illegal immigrants.
		That's the Washington Times today.
		This is Donald Trump's border czar Tom Homan yesterday.
		He was at the White House speaking with reporters defending the administration's actions in this case.
		This is what he had to say.
tom homan ▲ ● ▼		The president, through proclamation, took his authority under Alien Enemies Act and imposed it, which he has a right to do.
		TDA has been designated terrorist organizations.
		TDA is an enemy of this country.
		We know TDA, based on a lot of evidence, are part of the Maduro regime through the military and law enforcement.
		They've infiltrated them.
		And look, they've invaded this country to unsettle this country through whether it's fentanyl killing thousands of Americans or through the violence they're perpetrated in our cities.
		President did the right thing.
		I stand by it.
		We removed in one day over 200 dangerous people, including MS-13.
		It was right 100 seats.
		I see the video that President Buchanan put out.
		It was a beautiful thing.
		These people are going to be held accountable.
unidentified		Is every one of those guys a member of the gang?
		How do you know it?
		And why can't they sort that out with a lawyer and had a hearing?
tom homan ▲ ● ▼		Look, we abided by the court's decision.
		His written order was on five illegal amazing London portion, and we abided by that.
		By the time the other order came, the plane was already over international waters with a plane full of terrorists and significant public safety threats.
		And, you know, to turn a plane around over international waters, we're going to refuel over international waters, come back, bring terrorists back to the United States.
		That's something this president promised the American people.
		What the president did was exactly the right thing.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Tom Homan at the White House yesterday, he mentioned there the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
		We're going to be talking more about that act later in our program today in our 9 a.m. Eastern hour.
		In this hour, we're simply asking you, do you support or oppose the Trump administration's deportation policies?
		202-748-8000.
		If you support 202-748-8001, if you oppose, and if you're unsure, 202-748-8002.
		Pushback from Democratic senators yesterday, a statement by several Democratic senators saying this.
		Let's be clear.
		We are not at war and immigrants are not invading our country.
		Furthermore, it's the courts that determine whether people have broken the law, not a president acting alone and not immigration agents picking and choosing who gets imprisoned or deported.
		It's what our Constitution demands, and it's the law.
		Trump is bound by no matter, bound by it, no matter how much he tries to mislead the American people.
		Otherwise, these protections are there to help ensure U.S. citizens aren't wrongfully deported or people who haven't committed a crime aren't wrongfully punished.
		A statement by a group of senators, Alex Fadilla, putting it out on his X page yesterday.
		We're asking you this morning your thoughts on the Trump administration's deportation policies.
		Alan is up first out of Brooklyn.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, and thank you.
		This brings to mind the War Powers Act controversy after the Vietnam War era, when so much blood and treasure was wasted in that battle.
		And the action was basically deemed a police action, where there was a Gulf of Tonkin resolution, but there was never an act of Congress actually declaring a war.
		So the control over Congress, by Congress over the power of a president to get us into a war was substantially weakened.
		Some of that was understandable given the rapidity of new weapon systems that gave too little time for Congress to act in advance to declare a war.
		So they would allow the president more flexibility to start one without their authority and then go back and put checks on the president's action by tightening the purse strings.
		But the result of that cannot be that we're so blurring the lines between declared wars and other kinds of conflicts with undefined enemies.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And Alan, you bring up declaring a war because I'm assuming the wording of the Alien Enemies Act, which goes to the heart of what's happening here.
		Let me just read a little bit of that act for viewers, and I'll let you finish your statement.
		The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 states, whenever there shall be a declared war or any invasion or predatory Incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the United States.
		All subjects of the hostile nation or government can be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.
		That's part of that longer 1798 act.
		Go ahead, Alan.
unidentified		Right, so that you put your finger right on it.
		We can't allow the liberalization of the president's power to initiate police actions when it's necessary in the modern age to bleed over into weakening the civil liberties of citizens and other legal aliens within our borders and make them subject to being treated as though they were the enemies defined in a declared war and oppose them with that kind of brutality or lack of respect for their rights.
		Thank you.
		And this is exactly what President Trump is trying to do.
		And actually, if he were going to follow that course, the very people he pardoned for attacking our capital, 1,500 people he departed on the day of his inauguration, would be deemed the first candidates for this kind of deportation for acting in a way that resembled a foreign enemy within our borders.
		And he would be one of the people who would be responsible for that and might be liable for deportation himself.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Alan, President Trump himself got questions yesterday, a Border Force One, about invoking the Alien Enemies Act, responding to some of exactly what you have to say there.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		This is President Trump from yesterday.
unidentified		Sir, there's been some criticism that the Alien Enemies Act has only been invoked three other times.
		They were all during times of war.
		Do you feel that you're using it appropriately right now?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Well, this is a time of war because Biden allowed millions of people, many of them criminals, many of them at the highest level.
		They emptied jails out.
		Other nations emptied their jails into the United States.
		It's an invasion.
		And these are criminals, many, many criminals.
		Murderers, drug dealers at the highest level, drug lords, people from mental institutions.
		That's an invasion.
		They invaded our country.
		So this isn't, in that sense, this is war.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		President Trump yesterday on Air Force One saying this is a time of war.
		It's an invasion.
		Rita is in Ohio.
		Good morning.
		You're next.
unidentified		Yes, I agree to support President Trump.
		We've had enough of everybody taken from us, and we got to sit back and keep paying the highest costs of some people.
		We're always afraid of going to the store and bank.
		When is it going to be robbed?
		When are we going to be killed?
		We're tired of it.
		Being scared all the time.
		President Trump is the best thing that's ever happened.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Rita in Ohio, Dwight, Omaha, Nebraska.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Morning.
		So I'll just present some facts, and then folks can make of them as they will.
		I watched September 11th happen on TV.
		I was 19 years old, and two years later, I found myself forward in Iraq.
		We've been at war since then, really, with the Patriot Act.
		But that's a whole other deal.
		As far as the deportations are concerned, I would encourage people to go on YouTube and watch videos with the content of CCOT.
		It's an acronym.
		These people are gang members because you can look at them and see their faces and their bodies tattooed, but they all have tattoos.
		And these people don't just get those tattoos that are not in a gang.
		And a gang wouldn't let people have those tattoos if they weren't in the gang.
		So I firmly support it.
		I'm glad the president has done something about it.
		And there's no mistake that these people were dangerous gang members.
		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Dwight, Nebraska.
		Elizabeth in Randallstown, Maryland.
		Good morning.
		You are next.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, good morning.
		I disagree.
		I don't like Trump's deportation policies because he wants to deport all the undocumented workers who are so needed in our economy.
		They came here for a job.
		They came here to have a better life.
		And this economy is dependent on undocumented workers to survive.
		It's dependent on undocumented workers in the service industry, especially in agriculture, California, and all over the country.
		He wants to deport everyone who's come over and not give them a lawyer or anything.
		And there's a Palestinian student from Colombia who has a green card, and ICE picked him up and sent him to Louisiana, wants to deport him.
		He has a green card.
		He's here legally.
		He's worked here legally.
		He just voiced his support of Palestine, and Trump is trying to deport him.
		Trump wants to deport all the people, even those who have green cards.
		So I disagree with this policy 100%.
		Thank you very much.
		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Elizabeth in Randallstown, Maryland, the student with the green card that you're talking about from Columbia.
		Mahmoud Khalil, of Palestinian descent, was one of the public faces of the Columbia University pro-Palestinian protests last year.
		A column by Sarah Pacino in USA Today talking specifically about his case saying you don't have to support what Khalil believes.
		You must, however, understand that his detention in Louisiana by the U.S. government for speaking out goes against the free speech values that the United States claims to care for.
		This is just another step, she writes, on the Trump administration's path to silencing us.
		Sarah Pequino in today's USA Today.
		This is Ryan in Maine.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Say, good morning.
		As a 100% service-connected disabled veteran, I 100% support what President Trump is doing.
		We have a lot of people in this country supporting terrorist terrorist groups, yelling out, kill America.
		Having been to some of these third world countries, I have seen firsthand some of the acts that these people commit, and I do not want that happening in this country.
		Secondly, I live in an area in northern Maine where we have a lot of agricultural workers that come from Mexico and other parts of the country, and they come here legally.
		I think that the statements that some people are making of the fact that we're going to lose a lot of our agricultural workers is false.
		And furthermore, if they are using workers that are not documented, they are paying them a lesser wage, and these people aren't getting a fair shot.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Ryan, what do you think about this powers issue, constitutional powers issue, of a federal judge ordering that these planes be turned around, these planes not turned around.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		We can go through the timeline about it, but now calls by some in the Trump administration to remove that judge from the bench.
unidentified		I don't know if we should remove them.
		I just think that some of these judges, maybe these liberal judges, are overstepping some of their bounds.
		I think the president is making the right decision.
		We don't know.
		You know, we sit back here and we watch TV and we look at the media and we read Facebook and people do all those things.
		We don't know exactly who's on that plane, including myself.
		But if you're undocumented and you're in this country, I 100% support him taking them out of here.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Ryan in Maine this morning.
		This is Philip Jargui in the Washington Times.
		I believe I'm pronouncing that correctly.
		Fake little presidents in black robes is his column.
		After getting shellacked in the November elections, losing the White House, Senate, and House, the left is back to its old playbook of judicial activism.
		He writes, only this time leftist judges are not legislating from the bench.
		They are playing fake president from the bench.
		That's the Washington Times this morning.
		It's a different take in the Wall Street Journal, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, writing this: Americans won't miss the Venezuelan and MS-13 gang members dispatched by the Trump administration to El Salvador over the weekend.
		Most of them were criminals who were in the U.S. illegally, but it's still troubling to see U.S. officials appear to disdain the law in the name of upholding it.
		Mr. Trump says we're at war with the gangs, so the law is appropriate, but there has been no declaration of war or resolution from Congress to that effect.
		They say Mr. Trump won the election on a promise to deport illegal migrants, especially criminals, including the gang, the Venezuelan gang here.
		His voters will be happy he's fulfilling that promise, but he has to do it within the bounds of American law or he will take the country down a dangerous road that echoes, they write, the way the Biden administration abused the justice system.
		Mr. Trump was elected to stop that, not to imitate it.
		Cheryl in Waterbury, Connecticut, good morning.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning.
		I can't believe some of the things that I'm hearing.
		A lot of laws were broken when he removed the people from a state where we are.
		And also, I can't believe that there's Americans actually agreeing with that.
		You know, the only time people get mad is when something affects them personally.
		This dude talked about he's a veteran and he supports the Uncle.
		Are you crazy?
		And then these other people still supporting him.
		And they're broke, sending their little money to him.
		And he's not going to do anything for them in return.
		He said what he's going to do when he gets into office, and that's what he's doing.
		He didn't say he was going to do anything to help the country.
		Oh, yes, he did.
		He's going to bring jobs back from Japan.
		The country will be in better state.
		Yada, yada, yada.
		He's gotten there.
		The only thing he's done is his own personal business, as usual.
		And for him to say that he admired Hitler, there's something wrong with him.
		I believe that he's possessed and the people.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Sherry, when did he say he admired Hitler?
unidentified		Yes, he did.
unidentified		He said, I admire he wants to be a dictator himself.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Cheryl in Connecticut.
		Kirvin, Nagodoches, Texas.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I always say when I call in, I let you know I love my Lord Jesus Christ, and I think and I feel the situation doing is wrong if he's deporting justice people.
		You know, people ain't did nothing right.
		I mean, nothing wrong.
		But if the people are, maybe.
		But he told people that he's going to deport anybody.
		That means American citizen.
		Y'all not understand what this man is telling you.
		American citizens.
		If you disagree with him, he's doing it with the news deal.
		He's trying to shut every news panel down that disagree.
		And the American people pushing it, saying it's okay.
		It's blowing my mind.
		So if you enjoy him doing the unlawful thing because you think it's another party, he's talking about you because you start disagreeing.
		You agree with him now.
		But if you disagree with him, you could be shipped out of this country.
		I ask everybody out there: who is a citizen?
		That's American, right?
		So how can illegals lose their citizenship?
		So if you disagree with him, he says you could lose your citizenship.
		If you are protesting, you could lose your citizenship.
		If you disagree with him, you could be locked up, lose your citizenship.
		Go back and listen to the words he's saying to you, which you're thinking he only comes to deliver credit.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Kervin in Texas.
		Steve, Indianapolis.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thanks for having me on.
		I just wanted to say I support everything that Trump's doing.
		And, you know, the thing of it is, is they keep talking about the migrants, the migrants, the migrants.
		Well, they're not migrants.
		They're illegal aliens.
		And that's what Trump is getting out.
		So what's up with that, you know?
		That's all I got to say.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		St. Paul, Minnesota.
unidentified		David, good morning.
		Good morning, John.
		I think what Trump is doing is clearly unconstitutional.
		It's a denial of due process, which extends to everyone on American soil, not just citizens.
		The raid on Muhammad Khalil and his detention with no crimes, no charges against him is clearly illegal and is an attack on free speech in this country.
		And I think people really have to remember the first they came poem from the Holocaust times.
		They don't just come for everyone at once.
		They will pick and pick at the resistance until there's no one left to oppose when you need help too.
		This is, like I said, the due process is an important thing in American justice system.
		And I think everyone should enjoy, everyone legally does have that right and their refusal to it and other American, the people I'm hearing calling in, the disabled veteran, I'm a disabled veteran too.
		And I didn't forget the new Colossus poem on the Statue of Liberty.
		Give me your poor, you're tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
		We, Trump, the Venezuelan problem in quotes, was actually caused by Trump putting sanctions on Venezuela in 2018 after Maduro won because he didn't like that.
		A left-leaning socialist candidate won because America can't let a socialist country win, because then the people here would know there's another way that doesn't have us all fighting for scraps and instead fighting for the top prize.
		Back in FDR's time, he put a 96% income tax on the top earners and they pay their taxes.
		Now we're all fighting for scraps at the bottom, while these top earners are just funding to pit us against each other and keep us distracted.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		David, do you think there should be upwards of 90% taxes on people today?
unidentified		Um, you know, when some people have 200 billion, maybe make a 12 million dollar maximum income where, like some people are out here living on two thousand dollars a month, you're telling me the richest people can't live on a million dollars a month, like that's just a preposterous thing.
		And about the deportations, why are we not charging the people employing these?
		Migrants commit immigrants, commit less crimes and people will say oh, what about the workers?
		They don't have protections, then go after their employers and find them out of business.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Some of some of the, the folks on on the other side of the phone lines would say, go after, this is what we elected Donald Trump to do, to go after gangs, go after uh, criminal cartels.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Uh, they're saying this is what they elected Donald Trump to do.
unidentified		Well, and I would say both of them are pretty Un-American with what they're doing.
		And I would say they have a really bad understanding of both the Bill of Rights and how our government's working.
		It's not supposed to be three co-equal branches.
		It's three branches with checks and balances.
		I don't see checks and balances, John.
		I don't know about you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		It's David in Minnesota.
		The White House yesterday putting out an ex-video on the deportations that have been happening set to music.
		Here's about 20 seconds of that video.
unidentified		Closing time.
		You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
		I know who everyone can take me home.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's from the White House feed yesterday, and White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt was asked about that video at yesterday's White House press briefing.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		This is what she had to say.
unidentified		I wanted to ask about this video that I saw this morning set to the tune of, I believe, closing time about deportations of illegal migrants.
		What's the strategy behind the White House's videos they've been putting out on this?
		And can you kind of talk us through the thinking on these videos?
		Sure.
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼		I think the White House and our entire government clearly is leaning into the message of this president.
		And we are unafraid to double down and to take responsibility and ownership of the serious decisions that are being made.
		The president was elected with an overwhelming mandate to launch the largest mass deportation campaign in American history.
		And that's exactly what he is doing.
		And to this very day, we are now, I think, 56 or seven days into the administration, by my count.
		The president still receives an overwhelming public support for the policies that he is enacting.
		So we are unafraid to message effectively what the president is doing on a daily basis to make our community safer.
		And the specific video you referenced, I think it sums up our immigration policy pretty well.
unidentified		You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Caroline Levitt yesterday in the White House press briefing asking you this morning your thoughts on the Trump administration's deportation policies.
		Do you support them?
		Do you oppose them?
		If you're unsure, that's okay too.
		We have a number for you as well.
		And Mark is on that line in Massachusetts.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Well, good morning, John.
		Thank you.
		First thing I want to say, John, I love how you do your job, how you interact with the callers, and you ask very intelligent and informed questions.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Kind of you, Mark.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What are your thoughts on this topic today?
unidentified		Well, I called on this number because, you know, first of all, if indeed these Venezuelans are really violent criminals and bringing in fentanyl, I think it's fantastic what they're doing.
		But, you know, I also don't disagree with the last caller from Connecticut who was talking about, you know, that we have different branches of government and we don't have, you know, everything isn't run from the White House in our democracy.
		The courts have a role.
		The Congress has a role and stuff.
		But, you know, we've all for years, for decades, heard of MS-13, that violent gang from South El Salvador.
		I think they live primarily like in the Los Angeles area and stuff.
		I think it's fantastic that he's doing that.
		But there has to be some watch, you know, watch guards.
		You know, somebody has to be, you know, keeping an eye to make sure.
		I'm just curious about these Venezuelans that we've all seen the videos of who they really are and are they really, you know, these gang members and stuff.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Mark, thank you.
unidentified		Hi, John.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Before you go, veteran Illinois Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, C-SPAN viewers know him well.
		The Trump administration, he said, is deporting immigrants without due process based solely on their nationality.
		It's courts that determine whether people have broken the law, not a president acting solo and not immigration agents cherry-picking who gets imprisoned or deported.
		What's your take on that?
david in wyoming ▲ ● ▼		Well, John, you put up the law from 1798, the alien law.
david in wyoming ▲ ● ▼		The way it was worded, it sounds like the president is well within his bounds within the law doing that.
unidentified		And so I put a call into my senator, one of my senators here, Senator Markey, here in Massachusetts.
unidentified		I left him a voicemail.
david in wyoming ▲ ● ▼		Right after you put up that statement, I called his office for the second time this morning and left another message saying we are at war, Senator Kennedy, Senator Markey.
unidentified		We are at war against fentanyl.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		How often do you call a senator or congressman's office?
unidentified		Well, I tell you, last summer, I was calling Senator Markey's office quite a bit when we were in that little period where we didn't know who the Democrats were going to run against Trump.
		And I told him in no uncertain terms that the Democrats, what I told him in my part of my message was the Democrats, thank you, Democrats, for destroying our democracy.
		You guys rigged the election in 2016.
		The Democrat Party rigged it to get Hillary in there.
		Bernie Sanders would have won the primary.
		I was supporting Bernie Sanders back in 2016.
david in wyoming ▲ ● ▼		He would have probably been the nominee, and he probably would have beat Trump, and we would have never had at least Trump back in the first period and stuff.
unidentified		And then this past year, again, they didn't want to have a primary.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And, Mark, I've got other folks waiting.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Do you describe yourself as a Democrat, Republican, Independent?
unidentified		What I tell people, I find the Democrats disgusting and the Republicans repulsive.
unidentified		Thanks, John.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Mark in Massachusetts.
		This is Paul in Cornwall, New York.
		Good morning.
		You are next.
unidentified		Hi, good morning, and thanks for taking my call.
		I fully support Donald Trump and what he is doing right now.
		Get rid of these illegal aliens out of the United States.
		We're spending millions in New York State, supporting them, putting them up in hotels, giving them debit cards.
		Meanwhile, our roads are complete garbage.
		Thanks for taking my call.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Paul.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		This is John in the land of Lincoln.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Hello, John.
		Good morning.
		I just wanted to say it's strongly oppose what Trump's doing, but I'm glad that all the Nazis do support it.
		And a lot of them are calling up this morning.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, John, John, if we could not insult other callers and call them Nazis, that would help the discussion.
unidentified		I don't know how else to describe people when they are blaming world's problems on people with zero power, and they're getting some kind of a glee off seeing these people illegally just rounded up, sent off to wherever, no due process.
		And then you see the video, you're showing it with them getting their head shaven.
		Which other group of people did that before?
		I'm not quite sure, but I think it was the Nazis.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Got your point.
		That's John in Illinois.
		It's 7.30 on the East Coast, and we're asking you this morning your thoughts on the Trump administration's deportation policies.
		Do you support them?
		Do you oppose them?
		Just two other stories on this front.
		This from the Wall Street Journal, Brown University is warning international students and staff members not to travel outside the country after one of its professors with a work visa was deported after a trip to Lebanon.
		In a campus-wide email sent Sunday and viewed by the Wall Street Journal, Brown said that out of an abundance of caution, it was asking those from outside the U.S., including those with visas or even green cards, to postpone or delay their personal travel abroad.
		That in the Wall Street Journal.
		And then this column from USA Today, here's the headline.
		Wisconsin man voted for Trump, but then ICE detained his wife.
		She's detained despite working on her citizenship.
		Bradley Bartel and Camilla Munos had a familiar small-town love story there, right, before they collided with immigration politics.
		They met through mutual friends, had a first date at a local steakhouse, married two years later, were saving to buy a house and have kids.
		Munos was already caring for Bartel's now 12-year-old son, but last month on the way home to Wisconsin, after honeymooning in Puerto Rico, an immigration agent pulled Munos aside at an airport, and she has since been detained.
		Noting that the Wisconsin man who voted for Donald Trump has been thinking a lot about that vote as they tried to go through the legal processes to get her back.
		This is Kevin in Hamilton, Mississippi.
		Good morning.
		Kevin, you're with us.
		Stick by your phone, Kevin.
		Jan, back in Illinois, it's Morton, Illinois.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, John.
		As far as the Venezuelans that are being deported, number one, that 1700s law has in it that war has to be declared.
		And I haven't heard Congress declare war.
		It was used in World War I.
		It was used in World War II.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So it says, whenever there shall be a declared war or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the United States.
		There's a couple clauses.
		I am not a law professor, Jan, though we're having one coming on today at 9 a.m. to talk more about this.
		But I would just point that out and go ahead.
unidentified		Well, and then on the other hand, I know the Venezuelans are noted for having cartels.
		I think that's why we had a lot of Venezuelans emigrating or trying to get into the United States.
		And then thirdly, I think that there has to be due process.
		I know that even my own Senator Durbin, who I don't always agree with, but he has worked on immigration policy for years.
		And it's the fact that they can't come together for a consolidated that both Republicans and Democrats can agree to.
		Because what's happening now is overreach.
		Those people that were deported yesterday are going to the most notorious prison in one of the Central American countries.
		And I don't think that that's following due process.
		Plus, the judge that tried to claw that back did it, unfortunately, when those planes were in the air.
		And he had, you know, he had, there was nothing that he could do.
		And I think the issue there was executives taking action and then judicial overview not being allowed.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So that's another timeline on Saturday, very much in question.
		Jan, that federal judge, James Boesberg is his name, has asked the Trump administration's Justice Department to file more information about what exactly happened here after his order on Saturday, expecting that information to the federal judge by noon Eastern today.
		Though, as we pointed out, that judge himself has come under a lot of scrutiny.
		This is Congressman Brandon Gill, Republican, saying I'll be filing articles of impeachment against activist Judge James Boesberg this week, tweeting that out over the weekend in the wake of this back and forth.
		This is Dorothy in Burlington, North Carolina.
		Good morning.
		You are next.
unidentified		Good morning.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Articles of impeachment against.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And Dorothy, the best thing to do is turn down your television and just speak to me through your phone.
unidentified		Okay, this is Dorothy from Burlington, North Carolina.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And what are your thoughts on this topic, Dorothy?
unidentified		No, I oppose because I oppose because of the way he's doing it.
		And then he, you know, made this song with it.
		He, you know, it's just not right.
		I don't think God likes this, the way he's doing it.
		We all human beings and God made all of us.
		You treat people like you want to be treated, you know.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Dorothy in North Carolina.
		This is Bonnie back in Massachusetts.
		It's Brockton.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I just wanted to say that I'm going to be 65 years old this year.
		And I'm not rich by no means, but I'm a strong supporter of President Trump.
		And I supported him for the last three elections.
		And I'm definitely for what he's doing with supporting the illegals, which is one of the main reasons why I voted for him.
		And that's really all I wanted to say.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Bonnie in Massachusetts.
		A minute ago, we were talking about the timeline here on those deportation flights on Saturday and the judge's orders.
		It was an issue that came up in the White House briefing room yesterday.
		Back to Carolyn Levitt there in the briefing room.
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼		All of the planes that were subject to the written order, the judge's written order, took off before the order was entered in the courtroom on Saturday.
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼		And the administration will, of course, be happily answering all of those questions that the judge poses in court later today.
kelly odonnell ▲ ● ▼		And for people who have due process questions about making certain that there wasn't anyone who was swept up who did not meet the criteria that you laid out, is there a way for the administration to provide more detail about how that was determined, who the individuals were that met this deportation order?
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I can assure the American people that Customs and Border Patrol and ICE and the Department of Homeland Security are sure about the identities of the individuals who were on these planes and the threat that they pose to our homeland.
		They take this incredibly seriously.
		They are putting their lives on the line to deport these designated terrorists from our country and they should be trusted to do that.
		And that's exactly what the American people elected this president to do.
unidentified		Thanks, Carolyn.
unidentified		Just to follow up on that, then so you're saying definitively that the administration can prove everyone that was put on those flights to El Salvador was either a member of Trentaragua, MS-13, or some other entity.
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼		We've already provided the breakdown in the effort of transparency about the 261 illegal aliens who were deported.
		137 of those were deported under the Alien Enemies Act.
		101 of those were Venezuelans removed via Title VIII, which, as you know, are just regular immigration proceedings.
		And 23 of them were MS-13 Salvadorian gang members.
		There were also two MS-13 ringleaders as part of that group of 23 who President Bukeley particularly expressed his gratitude for their return so he can demand justice in his home country.
unidentified		Jennifer.
unidentified		What criteria, though, other than, say, tattoos or maybe being in the wrong place at the wrong time, are they using to determine that someone is actually a member of one of these organizations?
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼		Intelligence and the men and women on the ground in the interior of our country who are finally being allowed to do their jobs.
		Their hands were tied under the previous administration.
		And as I said, they take their jobs very seriously.
		They should be trusted and respected by the American public with this operation.
		And of course, as I said to Kelly, the administration will provide all details to the questions that the court poses.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And again, the court imposing a deadline of noon today for a response to continued questions specifically on those aircraft on Saturday, those deportation flights.
		You heard Carolyn Levitt there laying out the timeline.
		Here's the timeline that is in the article about this in USA Today.
		Boesberg, the judge here, said in a hearing at roughly 6:45 p.m. on Saturday that any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or in the air needs to be returned to the United States, according to lawyers representing some of the Venezuelans here that were deported.
		At that point, two flights were in the air after taking off from Harlingen, Texas, according to filings by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Ford Foundation.
		One took off at 5.26 p.m. and landed in San Salvador at 7.36 p.m.
		The other took off at 5.45 p.m. and landed in Honduras at 8.02 p.m.
		The lawyers asked Boseberg to review whether the government complied with his order.
		If that is how the government proceeded, it was a blatant violation of the court order, according to the lawyers representing those Venezuelans and the ACLU in this case.
		This is Tom in Fresno, California.
		Good morning.
		You are next.
unidentified		Good morning, John.
		I have two comments.
		My first one is basically this.
		I called on the not sure because there are millions of Americans that have broken our laws and are incarcerated.
		Why does an illegal get a pass when we consider that breaking the law, coming here without being invited?
		And my second comment would be: what if?
		And this would be for the Democratic and the Republican listeners.
		Ronald Reagan came in and he basically stated he killed affirmative action.
		He said Americans won't do certain jobs.
		But black male Americans were overlooked.
		And what if we would have given those individuals the jobs that Americans wouldn't have done?
		What would our immigration policy look like today?
		Thank you, John, for listening to me and have a nice day.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Tom in the Golden State.
		This is Gregory in the Keystone State.
		Good morning in La Trobe.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I had a couple comments, but I'm going to try to keep it quick.
		First thing is, Biden was already doing a good job of getting rid of the criminal element of people that came here illegally.
		It's easy to find people that have kids that are in school, churches, and jobs, but does Trump really think that the hardened criminals are going to be at work or at church?
		No.
		He's just like the Queen of Hearts, chop off their heads.
		We'll figure out later who shouldn't have been shocked.
		Or the old saying, are you better off now than you were four years ago?
		How about, are you better off now than when Trump first entered the scene?
		No.
		Ever since he entered the scene, there's been nothing but turmoil and a lot of people tense.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Greg, In your estimation, when did he enter the scene?
unidentified		Back in 2015 when he started running.
		That's whenever the turmoil started.
		That's whenever name-calling, being ignorant towards each other, having no respect, that kind of thing, people made it like he's tough.
		No, that's not toughness.
		That's not being a warrior.
		A warrior stands up for people.
		A warrior doesn't put people down all the time and rely on fear and just denigrating people.
		And then the one caller, the last caller, talked about maybe we should have looked at the black people for the jobs that we didn't want to do.
		What the heck is he talking about?
		We are white and black in America.
		And to say something like that to hand over jobs that we don't want to do to the blacks is just, I'm glad you're putting on professionals.
		I'm glad, like you said, at nine o'clock, I believe, that you have a lawyer, a law professor coming in.
		And that's what we need.
		We need people to really know the law, not people calling in and saying that, oh, this is the way it is.
		No.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		At 9:15, William Banks, founding director of the Syracuse University Institute for Security Policy and Law, will have a discussion about the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
		And then coming up in just about 15 minutes, a discussion on, we've been talking a lot about judicial and executive power.
		This discussion will be on legislative and executive power.
		We'll be joined by James Greenwood, former U.S. Congressman Republican from Pennsylvania, and Nick Penneman of issue one, the founder and CEO there on their concerns about where the limits are between congressional and executive power.
		Jim, in New York, good morning.
		You are next.
		Thanks for waiting.
unidentified		Yeah, hi.
		I got some points that nobody's brought up in all the years retired and pilgrim to Feastband because I'm steeped in it over here with this illegal immigration.
		First of all, what are we doing with all the trash?
		Where is all the water coming from to do all the laundry around here on Long Island?
		And the houses are packed in the gills.
		I can tell you that I go to all the town hall meetings here in Central Iceland.
		And it took me over 10 years, 10 years to get the town to respond to 23 cars.
		This is just one block.
		It's like this everywhere.
		The cars are parked on the sidewalk and destroyed the sidewalk.
		The cars are parked on the lawns and they're all mud now, 10 cars.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Jim, Jim, bring me to this discussion that we're having today.
unidentified		Well, I don't know what you want me to say.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		I'm just telling you that, you know, how does what's happening in your town relate to this larger discussion we're having today?
unidentified		Well, I can't wait for Holman and company to get here.
unidentified		You know, it'll be like suit fishing about the place is overcrowded.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's Jim.
		This is Angela in North Carolina, Fayetteville.
		Good morning.
		You're next.
unidentified		Good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
		My concern, and the reason I called in on the unsure line is because in regards to the element of due process, I'm not at all sure, and I don't think anyone else is sure that these folks are all MS-3 or MS-13 gang members.
		And so it's questionable as to whether or not they should, in fact, even be on these planes and being deported.
		And then the other thing is, in regards to exactly who is being targeted in regards to the criminal element, I believe that there are gangs that stem from Russia, and there's never any discussion or consideration as to those folks being deported.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Angela, in your mind, and this discussion has come up before as well, it's a concern about a fear of deporting the innocent as opposed to allowing the guilty to still be in this country.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is that what you're saying?
unidentified		Exactly.
		And so, in that regard, who's to say who might be caught up in these deportations?
		And in addition to that, I find the music accompanying these videos to be disgusting.
		Angela, there's a lot of money being spent, millions of dollars is what I heard on television the other day, millions of dollars in the producing of these various videos that are soliciting folks that may be considered illegal immigrants to turn themselves in.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Angela, I guess my question is, what puts you in the unsure category?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's the line you called in on.
unidentified		The due process piece of it.
		I don't, I'm unsure because if they are a criminal element and have been properly vetted as so, then of course they should be deported.
		If not, then they should get their due process and that be determined in order to put them on these flights.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So you're not against deportations for guilty people?
unidentified		For guilty people, exactly.
unidentified		And these folks haven't been, to my understanding, properly vetted through the due process.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Angela in North Carolina.
		We go back out to California.
		It's Napa County.
		Is it Azalea?
		Azalea, you with us?
unidentified		Yes, John.
		Thank you.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I'm against this deportation.
		The way they're doing it is, to me, that's wrong.
		We are all human beings.
		And most of the people that come in here, they come because they love this country.
		And it breaks my heart how criminal we are.
		And discrimination is right there all over.
		And I don't wish this on anyone.
		And especially, I feel that one day this man is going to pay for it, including all the Democrats, all the Republicans.
		They are all at fault for all this.
		And if anybody thinks that because Fentany, if we didn't have all these druggies in this country, there would be no need for this situation to be happening.
		And it breaks my heart just to see what he's doing to our country, the country that my mom loves and I love.
		And it's just so hard to see that.
		So I'm opposed to these things because people that come in here, they come to work.
		They don't come to do these things.
		And, you know, pretty soon things are going to happen where people are going to be revolting and Doing things that they should be doing.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Azalea this morning.
		About 10 minutes left in this first segment of the Washington Journal.
		Just two other stories to keep you updated on, and we've been talking about them before.
		Here's the latest.
		President Donald Trump will hold a second phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin today in an accelerating push to end the war in Ukraine, a move the Washington Times writes that could represent a possible pivot point in the conflict and an opportunity for Mr. Trump to radically reorient U.S. foreign policy.
		Mr. Trump disclosed the upcoming conversation to reporters while flying from Florida to Washington on Air Force One on Sunday evening, and the Kremlin confirmed Mr. Putin's participation on Monday morning.
		So we'll look for news on that front.
		And then you probably saw this story.
		It's been very much all over social media and the cable channels this morning.
		President Donald Trump claiming the preemptive pardons that then President Joe Biden granted to the House Select Committee on January 6th is not valid because he said his presidential predecessor used an auto pen to sign them.
		Mr. Trump posting on Monday on True Social saying he hereby declared void, vacant, and of no further force of effect those pardons.
		This story, noting that auto pen signatures are created by machines rather than hand, many presidents dating back over half a century are believed to have used the modern auto pen.
		The White House on Monday did not offer a legal justification for Mr. Trump's assertion, but said that the president was asking an important question.
		Quote, the president was raising the point that did the president even know about those pardons?
		Was his legal signature used without his consent?
		Those questions being raised by Carolyn Levitt in that White House press briefing yesterday.
		Back to your calls.
		This is Kevin, Hamilton, Mississippi.
		Kevin, we're talking about deportation policies.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hello.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Kevin.
unidentified		Hey, I just wanted to call to say that I support Trump and what he's doing.
		And no matter what, we're not all Democrats or Republicans.
		We're Americans.
		But what due process are illegals do?
		I mean, they're not covered by the Constitution of the United States.
		We the people.
		They're not a citizen, so they're not guaranteed any due process as far as I'm concerned.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Kevin, there are laws that require due process for non-citizens who are arrested in this country.
		And we can talk more about that in our segment with our law professor coming up.
		But go ahead with finish your thoughts.
unidentified		Okay, but do they pay taxes and should they get benefits that taxpayers and citizens that the Constitution covers?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Kevin in Mississippi.
		This is John in California.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		I oppose Trump in the way that he's rounding people up and not giving them due process.
		A lot of people may be interested in knowing that if you are, if a human being is within the United States borders more than 100 miles, they are covered by all of the conventional aspects that citizens are.
		Just read the 14th and the Fifth Amendment.
		Read it.
		And these people that think that they can impeach judges and that type of thing, they need to read the Federalist Paper No. 51, which details that the three distinct branches of government are co-equal.
		It's that the executive branch does not have leverage over the other branches.
		That's why they are checks and balances.
		So maybe a lot of people before they call in should read a little bit or just ask your phone, does an illegal alien or undocumented alien have rights?
		Just ask your phone that and then read it.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's John in California, Rose, Queens, New York.
		Good morning.
		You are next.
unidentified		Hello.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Rose.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		I'm just going to say that I'm not sure because I do not know exactly what time those bills were taken off, right?
		But then I would also like to see that when Judge Cannon ruled against the Biden administration in the Jack Smith case, they abided by that.
		And I'm very confused how the administration is going about doing their business.
		And the other thing, one last thing I would like to say is that if you're illegal or you're an immigrant, you commit an offense, you have to go back.
		So what about those people, the Americans here, that kill kids?
		They go into school and they kill kids.
		And there's not much energy into that.
		Like the administration is not interested in gun violence.
		And the last thing, the January 6th people, they injured police here.
		So many of them.
		People died.
		Look what they did with that capital.
		And Trump pardoned all of them.
		And that's not a problem.
		And his supporters cannot see anything is wrong with this administration.
		And that is all I would have to say.
		And thank you, policemen.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Rose in New York.
		Just a couple minutes left here.
		The caller before Rose, I believe, brought up the Fifth Amendment.
		Anytime we can get a chance to read the Constitution, we will.
		This is the wording of the Fifth Amendment.
		No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment of an indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger.
		Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor, and this is the part that I believe the caller was referring to, should any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
		And it ends with saying, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
		Those are the protections in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
		Cindy Lafayette, Indiana, good morning.
		You are next.
unidentified		Hi.
		I wanted to say that God's word is never spoken as the law.
		And it is the law.
		God is the law.
		I had a vision from God, and this is what the vision says.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		I'll tell you what, Cindy, we'll hold off on your vision.
		And we'll go to Andrea in Austin, Texas.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm listening to everyone.
		And the vision, you know, I just see crab in a bucket mentality going on.
		There's a lot of hypocritical people calling in.
		You know, someone says, you know, you care about, you know, these people are criminals, yet we have Donald Trump who is a criminal.
		So that's hypocritical.
		Then you have to the people who get Social Security.
		We have to really, really get serious about educating people.
		Do you not understand people with Social Security?
		Your Social Security comes from people who pay in payroll today.
		If you get rid of these so-called criminals who are illegally getting jobs here, that's going to be less money going into the payroll today.
		So, again, you are fighting against your own interest.
		We have to get serious about educating people here.
		It's ridiculous.
		And then, due process is so that we don't determine by based on bias or prejudice that these people are criminals.
		That is what the purpose of due process is for.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Andrea in Texas, Steve, Massachusetts.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey, John.
		Hey, I just want to say, you know, you haven't talked about legal and illegal immigrants.
		This woman that was just talking about people putting taxes in, those are legal immigrants that do it.
		And I wrote to you and I said, you know, to name one city that is safer today since Biden has become president and they've all become disasters.
		And just because you changed something, not the law, but just the intent of the law, look at what happened in Springfield, Ohio with 20,000 people coming.
		And, you know, the professor that you talked about, you didn't read the whole thing about her from Brown University, was that she attended a Hezbollah ceremony to the leader that got killed.
		And she also had all Hezbollah information on her phone.
		So you didn't read the whole thing about her, John.
		So if you're illegal and you're doing things that are illegal, you need to leave.
		Thank you very much.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Steve in Massachusetts, our last caller in this segment of the Washington Journal.
		Stick around, plenty more to talk about today.
		Coming up next, it's former Republican Congressman Jim Greenwood and Nick Penneman of the group Issue One will discuss their push for Congress to assert constitutional authority.
		And later, we'll continue our conversation on the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
		William Banks of Syracuse University College of Law will join us for that discussion.
		Stick around.
		We'll be right back.
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 Assa 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 Curian of Olundangue 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.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		A roundtable conversation this Tuesday morning on executive and congressional powers.
		To do that, we are joined by former Republican Congressman James Greenwood and Nick Penneman, founder and CEO of Issue One.
		Mr. Penneman, start with you.
		What is Issue One and what is the Reformers Caucus initiative that you've started there?
unidentified		Issue One is a bipartisan organization that works on democracy-related issues.
		We've been around for about 10 years now, and the Reformers Caucus is a group of 200 former members of Congress.
		It's actually the largest association of members of Congress outside of the actual former members of Congress Association.
		We've got about, as I said, 200 and about 85 Republicans, and the rest are Democrats.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And Mr. Greenwood, why'd you get involved in this?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And what are the issues that the Reformers Caucus speaks to?
unidentified		Well, to me, the Reformers Caucus is not about specific policies, and we don't lean left and we don't lean right.
		We're about making sure that there is a continuous improvement in the way we perform our governance in this country, particularly the way that Congress does it.
		And the Constitution is a fragile thing, as we've been seeing.
		And to have a group of people who are experts, we have been there, done that, to be able to say, you guys can do this a little bit better, and we're going to hold you to it.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is Congress doing it right right now?
unidentified		Hell no.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Why?
unidentified		Because if you look at the Constitution, what the founders did is they put the Congress first because they expected them to be the representatives of the people in each of their very diverse districts.
		And they expected them to create the laws and decide how much money to spend on programs.
		And in my view, right now, the Congress, and particularly my party, because they have the majority, have relinquished their responsibility to actually decide what are the programs we're going to have, how are we going to fund them, and how are we going to reform them.
		They have given up that authority to Doge and to the executive branch.
		And that's a dangerous thing, and it's an abdication of their responsibility.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Mr. Penneman, what is the Reformers Caucus doing on this?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What is the actions that you're taking here or calling on Congress to do?
unidentified		Yeah, so the first thing we did is we took out a full page out in the Wall Street Journal just to announce the kind of concerns of the Reformers Caucus.
		And it had a picture of the founders at the top signing the Constitution, and it said, do your job, basically, Congress, do your job.
		Search your Article I powers and pull back the power of the purse, the power of spending, and do oversight of the executive branch.
		That was number one.
		Number two, we got a letter signed by 60 former members of Congress that went to every current member of Congress.
		And then we've launched a massive communications campaign around this, too.
		But our ask is for congressional oversight hearings at this point of Doge and of some of these executive branch functions that are pushing the limits of the Constitution.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And how has that asked been received on Capitol Hill?
unidentified		Well, you know, enthusiastically by some and blown off by others.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is it on a straight party line?
unidentified		So far, so far, party line, yeah.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Greenwood, what sort of responses are you getting from Republicans that you've reached out to, and you were a Republican member from Pennsylvania?
unidentified		Well, I can't frankly say that I have reached out to them.
		But I think, as we all know, there's a difference between how information is received and then whether it's acted upon.
		And I think there are many, many members of Congress who understand that what's happening now, the failure to utilize the checks and the balances that the founders intended is not happening.
		But they're scared to death.
		And they're scared to death of being primaried.
		And they're scared to death of the President of the United States choosing their primary opponent, supporting their primary opponent, and then to have Elon Musk fund that primary opponent.
		And we are in a dangerous place in our history when that's how Congress must, Congress functions primarily out of fear rather than doing the honorable and correct thing.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You were in Congress from 1993 to 2005.
unidentified		That's right.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		It was a time post 9-11 towards the end of your career on Capitol Hill where people were also worried about the creeping powers of the executive branch in the wake of the Patriot Act that Congress wasn't doing enough to protect its Article I powers back then.
		What were your thoughts about that at the time?
		Is that a fair comparison to what's happening today?
unidentified		It's a fair comparison in kind, but not in degree.
		We had a responsibility then, as Congress always had, to check the presidency.
		The president's responsibility is to take care to faithfully execute the law.
		That's the job.
		So if the Congress says we're going to have a United States Agency on International Development and we're going to fund this kind of money, then the responsibility of the President is to make sure that Congress can't go out and do all of the work to make it happen, right?
		It's the responsibility of the executive branch to make that happen.
		Now they have some authority to say how they're going to make it happen, but it has to be consistent with the law and consistent with the spirit of the law and the Constitution.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Pettiman, the members of the Trump administration have argued and they argued on the campaign trail in 2024 that it was a creeping executive during the Biden administration, that Joe Biden was reaching for more and more executive power.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Did you have concerns about executive and legislative branch powers in the four years of the Biden administration?
unidentified		Yeah, we did, and we voiced them.
		But these are apples and oranges.
		I mean, the things that we voiced concern about in the Biden administration with their tendency to try to interpret laws to their maximum benefit, so to speak, especially environmental laws, it was different than what we're seeing now, where we're seeing the Trump administration destroying entire federal agencies that were set up by Congress, grabbing the power of the purse and deciding to do whatever it wants with it, defying dozens of court orders.
		I mean, and blatantly so, and almost mockingly so.
		I was reading yesterday that Trump's border czar, when asked about the flights to Venezuela, said, quote, I don't care what judges think.
		Well, it's not caring about what judges think, right?
		That's not what's going on here.
		It's caring about, it's respecting the judicial branch itself.
		Judges make rulings as part of the judicial branch, but it's not just what they think.
		It's not just their simple opinion, like someone writing an op-ed, an editorial in a newspaper.
		So that's the kind of mentality that we're seeing, which is really concerning, because that is the kind of stuff that leads eventually to serious constitutional conflict.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		By the way, let me promote phone number for viewers to call in because these gentlemen are with us for about another 35, 40 minutes or so.
		So go ahead and get your calls in.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		As folks are calling in, let me follow up on that.
		So a reformers caucus of former members can write a letter and call on the members of today to reassert their legislative authority.
		You were just talking about the judicial branch and concerns about a creeping executive or ignoring a judicial branch.
		What can the judicial branch do to reassert their authority?
		Who speaks for them?
unidentified		Well, this is the kind of gap in the Constitution, right?
		I mean, the judges can make rulings, but they have no enforcement authority.
		That authority was given to the executive branch itself.
		I mean, they have marshals in the court who have weapons, but those are just to keep order inside of the courts, the courthouses.
		But otherwise, the assumption of the founders was that the executive branch would comply with the judicial branch's interpretation of the law.
		And if they didn't, then Congress was there to hold a spear at their backs and say, you've got to do it.
		In the case of the president, you can start talking about impeachment, but you can also just, to start, you can talk about oversight.
		And that's where we need to start at this point.
		We need to start with congressional oversight.
		Again, just reminding the viewers, Article I of the Constitution is Congress.
		Article II is the executive branch.
		Article III is the judicial branch.
		The reason why Article I is Article I and not Article II is because the founders thought that 535 brains were better than one, and that ultimately they would be much more of a balancing act than one runaway executive.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Greenwood, when you were a member of Congress, how much did you take advice from former members of Congress?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Did you appreciate advice coming from those who used to sit in your position?
unidentified		I did, but it was a whole different mood then.
		There was a sense of bipartisanship.
		We had groups of members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who met regularly to find out how to get beyond partisanship, how to find compromise.
		And it was a different tone.
		If you ask why is it that the borders are can say, I don't care what judges think, is because A, the President of the United States has set that as the tone.
		He has condemned judges before he was president, during his presidency.
		He went over to the Department of Justice and said horrible things about judges.
		And the Congress is not raising any sound about that.
		They're not responding in any way, at least the majority party, which has the responsibility to do this, to say, you can't do that, Mr. President.
		They haven't done that.
		And so the tone is set.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Donald Trump has run for president three times now, won two of them.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Did you support?
unidentified		That's not what he says.
unidentified		He says he won three.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Did you support him in any of those elections?
unidentified		No, I did not.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		And I will tell you, I supported every Republican president from Nixon to Romney.
		Okay?
		And when Donald Trump came along, I knew immediately this man is unfit to be the President of the United States.
		And so I did not support him.
		At the time, I was running a trade association, so I couldn't do much.
		I voted for Hillary Clinton.
		And I was out of the trade association.
		I raised $2 million for Joe Biden.
		And I co-chaired Pennsylvania Republicans for Biden and then for Harris because I am absolutely convinced, and the calls will come in, but President Trump is a malignant narcissist and a pathological liar, and he is terrifically unfit for this office.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Talking about calls that come in, one might ask, what makes you a Republican today?
unidentified		Skinning my teeth.
		I believe in maximizing individual freedom and individual accountability.
		I don't believe in confiscatory taxation.
		I believe in a strong defense.
		I believe in the free enterprise system.
		And those have been my positions throughout my 24 years in public office and beyond.
		And those are Republican virtues, or at least they used to be.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What are the virtues of today's Republican Party?
unidentified		I think they are about the cult of Trump.
		I think they are about putting aside the matters that pertain to due process in the judicial system.
		I think they're operating out of anger rather than reason.
		And I think that's dangerous.
		I mean, you look at what Doge is doing, okay?
		It is one thing to, and I chaired an oversight committee, the Oversight Committee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I would bring in agencies and we would do hearings and investigations on how they were spending money, whether they were doing their job ethically or not.
		We did it over and over again.
		And Congress has that power and that responsibility.
		They're not doing that.
		So take, for example, the FDA.
		The FDA needs scientists and they need statisticians who can make sure that when a drug application comes in, that the product is safe and effective.
		And they always have difficulty finding the kind of people that they need.
		So they may go on a nationwide search and finally, after six months, they find the perfect candidate.
		That candidate agrees to do the job.
		He or she leaves their job, maybe their spouse does.
		They move all the way out here to the Washington area.
		They put their kids in school.
		They do a spectacularly good job protecting the American people.
		And then Doge comes along and says, oh, you're a probationary.
		Go away.
		I mean, that is ridiculous.
		It's insane.
		And it's detrimental to the safety of the country.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		If Doge is, and I know it is one of your main concerns of this reformers caucus, what about Republicans who have been saying for years that government is too big, that government needs to be trimmed down, that there's waste in government, and those who then look to Donald Trump and Doge and say he's following through on what Republicans have been talking about for years?
unidentified		Well, government is too expensive.
		Now, you take the entire personnel, including 600,000 postal members, it's totaled 3 million people, and it's about 5% of the budget.
		You could eliminate all of them, and we'll still have a huge problem with debt and deficit, okay?
		So you really have to look where the money is.
		And for instance, you have to look at entitlements.
		You have to look at things like the Social Security system, and you have to look at Medicare.
		And there are savings that can be had there, and there are big savings that could be had there.
		But that's not what's going on, because we're not doing it in any kind of a systematic, thorough, and thoughtful way.
		Yeah, and the point that we make in the Wall Street Journal ad is that process matters.
		That's all you've got in a democracy, ultimately, is process and adherence to process.
		Congress has the power of the purse.
		Congress establishes agencies, Congress establishes funding, and as Jim said earlier, it's the job of the executive branch to follow through with the instructions that Congress lays down in law.
		So what we're seeing now, in fact, is the opposite of that, where you've got the executive branch just deciding to do whatever it wants.
		It's no longer not only not following instructions, it's defying instructions of Congress.
		So, you know, when that breaks, the Constitution begins to break.
		And that's all we've got in this country is a Constitution.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		I want to get to calls, and I don't mean to be cheeky about it, but why a Wall Street Journal ad?
		Would it be more effective these days to do an X campaign and a social media YouTube video?
		Oh, sure.
		You referred to the Wall Street Journal ad.
		I just wonder why is that important?
unidentified		Oh, no, we do all that too.
		We do all the digital stuff too.
		We wanted to get in front of the right audiences.
		We want businesses.
		We can still do that with the Wall Street Journal.
		And we want, yes, indeed.
		We also want Republicans to see it because the stuff that we've done has been 50% Republican, 50% Democrats all the way through.
		So, yeah, we still think it's a good vehicle.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Let me give you some calls.
		Jeff Up First, North Carolina, Republican line.
		Jeff, good morning to you.
unidentified		Good morning.
		The gentleman to your right, he said he's talking about our founding fathers.
		Well, what would our founding fathers think about 36 trillion in debt?
		And the gentleman to your left, he said it's apples and oranges what the Biden administration done.
		Do you call 20 plus million illegal aliens that were flew over here in the dead of night breaking the law?
		Do you call that apples and oranges?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Jeff in North Carolina.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You want to start on debt?
unidentified		Good, Jeff.
		So what the founding fathers would think of $36 trillion in debt is that it's horrific, and so do I.
		And when I was in Congress, I was recruited by Newt Gingrich.
		We worked madly when we finally got the majority in 1994 to fight for a balanced budget.
		And we cut the budget everywhere we could, but we did it as the United States Congress.
		And we fought with Bill Clinton ferociously to bring the budget to balance.
		And that still needs to be done, and it can be done.
		But the way it has to be done is not the way that Doge and Musk are doing it.
		They're accomplishing very little in terms of savings, precious little in terms of savings.
		And they're doing it in a way that is destructive to the way the government needs to function to protect the United States public.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And the question for you was on immigration.
unidentified		Oh, yeah, we've got a huge immigration problem in this country, and we've been trying to solve it in a bipartisan way for 20 years now.
		I think as many of the listeners know, there was a big bipartisan bill that was going through, led by the conservative senator Jim Langford from Oklahoma, that got killed in 2024 in part because Trump didn't want it to go through because he wanted to run on it.
		But so like, again, these problems need to be solved through legislation.
		That's the only way we're going to solve the immigration problem.
		That's the only way.
		So what you see now is in the absent of legislation, including legislation that Donald Trump killed in 2024, is executive branch action that is deciding to interpret laws in ways that the courts disagree with.
		And so again, you got to like, this is the Constitution.
		The courts interpret the laws.
		The executive branch has to comply with those interpretations.
		If it doesn't like them, it can appeal them up to Supreme Court.
		But ultimately, the courts have the ability to overrule the executive branch.
		That's the way the Constitution lays it out.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Medford, Oregon, this is Karen, Democrat up early on the West Coast.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Yeah, my question is, who enforces what the courts order?
		If Trump and his administration choose not to follow any court orders, what difference does it make?
		And that goes for the Supreme Court.
		If the Supreme Court says, yes, you will do this, who makes them do it?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And Mr. Petterman, you're making the point that it's Congress who has the power to make them do it via, you describe it as the spear of impeachment.
unidentified		That's what it comes down to, ultimately.
		And Jim can speak to that.
		But I mean, let's go back to Watergate, okay?
		Remember, Nixon didn't want to release the tapes.
		And the courts, the lower courts said, you have to release the tapes, you have to release the tapes.
		They knew, Congress knew that that decision was probably going to go up to the Supreme Court, and bipartisans in Congress rallied and said, if you don't comply with the court order, we will impeach you.
		So they held the spear of impeachment to Nixon.
		And then Nixon saw the writing on the wall and resigned because he knew that the Supreme Court would affirm the ruling on the tapes.
		He knew that Congress would impeach him otherwise.
		And it was a squeeze play and he had to resign.
		So that's all we have in terms of holding the executive branch to account is Congress.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Not to exhaust the analogy, but Mr. Greenwood, if the spear of impeachment has been held out twice in a previous administration in Donald Trump and did not work, is it still a weapon that can be wielded?
unidentified		I don't think the current Congress, I don't think you're not going to get the Republicans in the House to impeach the President.
		You're not going to get the Senate to convict the President, even if the House did impeach.
		But what I do think is that Congress has the power, has other powers.
		It can say to the President of the United States, if you do not obey the edicts of the courts, then we will not give you your agenda, your tax cuts, your policies, whatever you want to do, Mr. President, in the next three plus years that you have, we're not going to do it if you will not follow the order of the court.
		That's number one.
		Number two, I read, and I think it's true, that the courts not only have the marshals to enforce their, but if the marshals will not, they can appoint others.
		They can appoint other people, and they have the ability to arrest people.
		And if they have to arrest federal government executive branch individuals for failing to follow the orders of the court, then that's what they need to do.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is that what you're encouraging right now?
unidentified		Well, I'm not talking to the judges right now.
		I'm not talking to members of Congress that much right now.
		But I think that that is the question that the lady asked is what is possible?
		And I think those things are possible.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Are constitutionally possible.
unidentified		Yes.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		John, in Cummings, Georgia, Republican, good morning.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You are next.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I do have a question.
		First of all, Mr. Greenwood, I think you said that if someone moves across the country and then they're let go, you know, that shouldn't happen.
		But that happens every day in the private sector.
		Why should federal employees be treated any different than people in the private sector?
		I was let go or I was Dismissed after 22 years with a company, I was a 10% owner.
		And I was not a liked it.
		No, but it happens every day.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Got your point, John.
unidentified		Right.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Greenwood.
unidentified		So, sir, it's a fair question.
		And my point is not at all that federal employees should never be fired or let go or agencies should not be downsized and they'll lose their jobs.
		That's not it at all.
		My point is, sir, if you had 22 years ago, whenever you took that job, if you had been in a situation where you moved your family across the country and took a job because your employers said, we really need somebody like you, sir, to do this position, and you did it very, very well, and you got approval from your employer for doing it so well.
		And then somebody comes along and says, let's say, you've only been here for six months, go away.
		For no good reason.
		That's what's wrong.
		And not only that, imagine if somebody goes into Tesla and says, everyone whose birthday falls on an even-numbered month, you're out of here.
		Whether you're doing a good job, whether you're essential, whether you're not essential, that's the kind of thing that Doge is doing.
		And it's just nonsensical.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What did you think about the email to every federal employee twice now saying what are five things you did last week, justify your work last week?
		Because we got a very different response on that from callers.
		We did a question on that the Monday after it happened.
		And there were some folks who would call in and say, I have to do that every week with my boss.
		Why should federal employees be any different?
unidentified		I would say that in and of itself was not terribly shocking to me.
		I don't think that's the worst offense that Doge has committed.
		I think that there are positions that you have where you can't divulge that because there are issues of security and so forth.
		But the point of it is also, do we really think that if 3 million federal employees write a five-point email every week, that anybody's ever going to look at them?
		Nobody's going to look at them.
		And if they are, they're going to see if they can find one that they can hold up and say, oh, this guy didn't do anything.
		I think it's theatrics more than it is actually effective management.
		Yeah, and I just want to emphasize that Jim and I are not here to defend the size of the federal workforce or the size of federal spending.
		We both believe, as you said earlier, you're a fiscal hawk.
		Yeah.
		A hawk.
		So we're not here to defend that.
		But what we're here to defend is democracy and the Constitution.
		That's our point.
		There's a way to do things laid down by law, laid down by the founders, that's the right way to do things, and then there's the wrong way.
		And what we're doing right now is we're doing them the wrong way.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		When was Issue One founded?
		Why was it founded?
		And what did you do before?
unidentified		I was a journalist before that.
		I was publisher of the Washington Monthly.
		I was a bookwriter.
		I was a magazine writer and editor.
		And founded it 10 years ago with the explicit purpose of developing bipartisan support for democracy.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Was it so it was during the Obama administration is when you founded it?
unidentified		Yep, tail end.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What were some of the issues, the first issues at the time that you were working on?
unidentified		Campaign finance reform.
		Campaign finance reform.
		Jim just mentioned it.
		I mean, the super PACs that are being wielded today by the billionaires to manipulate the political process to scare the heck out of every member of Congress, it's just extraordinary.
		It's totally out of control.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Have we gotten any better on that in 10 years?
unidentified		No.
		The problem has only gotten much, much, much worse.
		And 90% of the public agrees with us on that.
		Money dominates politics.
		Billionaire donors dominate politics in America.
		It's not right.
		It's not what the founders wanted.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is there any issue that you were paying attention to 10 years ago when you started this that is better today than it was in 2015?
unidentified		Unfortunately not.
		And I'm not just trying to be like the sky is falling type person, right?
		But if you take money in politics, it's worse.
		If you take gerrymandering, it's worse.
		If you take voting, actually voting turnout has gotten better.
		Trust in our elections has plummeted because of the reputational attacks on the elections and the notion that Trump claims he won when he actually lost.
		So trust in elections has gone down.
		And the other huge piece, I look at all these newspapers spread out before you, is the information environment. in this country, which has now been taken over by social media.
		And so we've got a deranged, chaotic, angry, toxic information environment that now dominates most of the discussion in this town.
		When I was in Congress for 12 years, I never took a penny from a political action committee.
		And Newt Gingervich, who had put me on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said, you're not going to take any PAC money.
		Well, I could have given that deceit to somebody who would raise millions of dollars in there.
		And my answer was, all the money that I'm turning away from the special interest groups cannot buy me the trust that not taking it buys me, gives me.
		And that was because I wanted my constituents to believe I was making decisions based on what was good for them.
		When you have somebody who can give $270 million to a presidential candidate, who can believe that the system is now operating for the benefit of the American people?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		When people hear you say that, though, explain what you mean.
		You're not saying people, you're saying I turned away money.
		You're not saying people were walking up with bundles of cash knowing that you were the committee chair saying, here it is if you do this thing.
unidentified		Is that well, no, no.
		Let me say, in terms of trusting in the government, how does that work?
		So it's not quid pro que.
		That's against the law.
		You can't say, Mr. Greenwood, I'm from XYZ interest, and here's $5,000 if and only if you'll vote for this.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So how are you turning away cash by not accepting PAC money?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What does that mean?
unidentified		It means that I never solicited it.
		And when I received my campaign, received a PAC check, we sent it back.
		But let me be very clear, though.
		The last election cycle was a $20 billion election cycle, okay?
		When Jim was, what I know is $2,000 was $6 billion.
		So when you were elected, I'm not sure what it was, but it was probably about $3 billion in total.
		So now it's $20 billion, okay?
		And members of Congress have to spend an enormous amount of time collecting that money.
		They have lunch, breakfast, and dinner in Washington with lobbyists who are lobbying their committees to collect that money.
		They spend, if they're in competitive races, three to four hours a day on the phone raising money primarily from rich people.
		And then they've got the threat of super PACs out there.
		It's actually like if we, the American people, care about Congress and care about them representing us right, the best thing we can do is reform the campaign finance system and free them from this like awful fundraising treadmill that they're constantly on.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		About 15, 20 minutes left with you, gentlemen, and lots of callers for you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Milo in Louisville, Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, gentlemen.
		Mr. Greenwood, I wish you were still in Congress.
		I really do appreciate your insight.
		There are two members ⁇ I'm a Democrat, too.
		I just want to make that clear.
		But there's two members in Congress that I really, really appreciate their point of view.
		And I've even talked to one on this show, Don Bacon from Nebraska, literally begged him to run for president.
		I really, really, really appreciate that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Milo, I think I remember that phone call when he was on.
unidentified		Did you?
		Yeah, I talked to you a lot, John.
		And Tom Massey in Kentucky, who apparently these two guys do not fear being primary, because if you look at Tom Massey's numbers, I mean, these numbers are incredible.
		I wish I had that approval rating with my dog, because it's just amazing.
		And I want to get off the phone real quick, but Mr. Nick, I have to ask you, where did you come up with the name of your organization, the Issue One?
		Because I used to hear that phrase a lot on Friday nights from the McLaughlin group.
		And he would always start out with issue one.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So I can hear his voice saying it.
unidentified		That's kind of the idea, actually.
		No, we didn't plagiarize that.
		But that's the point: in America, democracy is issue one.
		It's the first issue.
		Yeah.
		So that's where we came up with it.
		But that's correct.
		I didn't know about that reference.
		And if I may just.
		Thank you for the compliment, sir.
		And while we're naming excellent members of Congress, Chris Coons, I think, is one of the finest members to ever serve in the United States Senate.
		Why?
		He's level-headed.
		He's not a rabid partisan.
		He does his homework.
		He's articulate.
		He's fair.
		He's in it for the right reasons.
		He's just exactly what a public servant should be.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Did you cross paths with him?
unidentified		Oh, yeah, many times in many ways, and we're good friends.
		And I think it's great that you've got a Democrat calling in, you know, and talking about how he has affection for some Republicans, and very conservative Republicans, by the way.
		That's the way it used to be.
		That's the way when you first started serving in Congress.
		It used to be.
		People would argue like hell on policy, which is exactly what the founders intended.
		But at the end of the day, they pat each other on the back and agree that we're all Americans, we're all friends, we're going to figure this out together.
		Not only that, when I wanted to pass a bill on the Energy and Commerce Committee, it was significant in legislation.
		I would go to a Democrat on the committee and say, hey, would you like to co-sponsor this with me?
		We would work to add co-sponsors.
		We'd work together to get it passed.
		We'd figure out how to compromise.
		And we've got good stuff done.
		And we're just not seeing that anymore.
		People, the compromise is a dirty word, at least to the far right and to the far left.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		We head to New York, Malta, New York Independent Line Bill.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for waiting.
unidentified		Yes.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I would like your speakers to respond to the following point of view: Trump and Trumpism is the consequence of decades of political failure, both by Democrats and Republicans.
		Decades of failure.
		We could talk about NAFTA.
		We could talk about a trillion-dollar war chasing weapons of mass destruction that were never found.
		We could talk about the debauchery of the Clinton years and on and on and on.
		Trump is the consequence of that.
		Both parties, including your representative on your panel, are accountable for that.
		You have gotten us to where we are.
		So that's my comment.
		I'd like to hear your response.
		Thank you.
		Well, I'm not going to be single-handedly implicated for all that's happened in the last dozens of years.
		But I think there's something else that's as important, sir, as what you've said, and that is the polarization of the media.
		We now live as a country in two parallel factual universes.
		And if you watch Fox all day, you have a whole set of facts in which you ardently believe to be true.
		And if you watch MSNBC all day, it's the opposite.
		And never the twain seem to meet.
		And that's true on the internet as well as it is on television.
		And so people, one of the reasons that people are so angry with one another is because this group of people thinks that, let's say, there's no such thing as climate change caused by humans, right?
		This group of people believes ardently that there is.
		And so when they intersect with each other, they hate each other because you're a liar.
		No, you're a liar.
		Trump won the election.
		No, Trump didn't win the election.
		And so we have to find ways for people to actually communicate without staying in their informational silos because we'll never get anywhere if that's the case.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		It's one of those ways.
unidentified		Well, I one time envisioned a television show, which was a reality show in which you put a Trump family and the anti-Trump family together with their kids in a house, and you have them make meals together and debate together, and then you'd have to have a kind of a factual referee in there.
		So when somebody says, well, you know, such and such is true, and such and such is not.
		But I was told, and I really tried to market this, I was told that if it doesn't have international appeal, the networks won't buy it, and the cable companies won't buy it.
		Who's a factual referee today?
		Well, that's a very good question.
		And I don't think there are many because everyone is suspect.
		So if someone's, I raise climate change.
		If someone says, well, here are some scientific realities about the fact that greenhouse gases caused by industrial age, et cetera, are causing this to happen.
		And they're dead right on the science.
		A whole group of people say, oh, you're a liar.
		You're paid off.
		You're just doing this to get grants or something.
		So it's hard to find factual referees.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Nick Penniman, who's a factual referee today?
unidentified		Well, you've got a lot of newspapers laid out before you.
		I mean, as you know well, if you're a reporter, one of these papers and you get it wrong three times, you're out.
		Three strikes, you're out.
		You know, if you get the facts wrong in your story, three strikes, you're out.
		So I think that too many Americans have lost faith in mainstream journalists, but we've got them.
		The courts are still factual referees.
		That's what they do, right?
		They balance whether it's a jury of our peers or whether it's a judge.
		They look at all kinds of information, they sort through it, and they come up with facts.
		And then we've got great institutions, scientific institutions and other types of institutions that also are committed to creating facts.
		It's just that there's been an assault on a lot of these institutions in the last 10 years, and they've declined.
		I've got to say, this show in C-SPAN is one of the few places left in America where you actually have left and right coming together to talk and argue.
		And you guys do a great service in that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Who gets to be a mainstream journalist?
unidentified		These days?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		It depends on what paper you're talking about.
		But, you know, here's what I think is where journalism has gone wrong.
		And my dad worked for a newspaper.
		He worked for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which was a great newspaper.
		It used to be that most of the folks producing newspapers in America were middle class.
		In fact, a lot of reporters at big newspapers in America back in the 60s and 70s sometimes didn't even have college degrees.
		They would start out being copy editors and then they'd do the morgue beat and then the cop beat and then City Hall and then State House and then eventually you could actually end up being in the Washington Bureau of a major newspaper in America.
		And you were going to bed at night back in a middle-class neighborhood and you saw yourself as the protector of the middle class, the fourth estate protecting the middle class, protecting Americans against power.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		When did that change?
unidentified		It started changing in the 90s.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And I'm not implying that you...
unidentified		No, I had nothing to do with it.
		But it started changing in the 90s when we started professionalizing journalism, Columbia Journalism School, all these journalism schools.
		So all of a sudden you've got kids who are going to these, getting graduate degrees in journalism.
		They want to come out and they want to make a lot of money and they've got to pay back their student loans.
		And all of a sudden, the people who are running these newspapers are very much kind of middle upper class, right?
		So as a great journalist once said to me, he said, the problem with America today is that the people running the country live on the upper east side of Manhattan and work in finance, and the people reporting on it live on the upper west side of Manhattan and work in media.
		But ultimately, they're part of the same class, which goes back to your previous caller.
		I don't want to brush over what he said, which is that there has been a consensus, political consensus in America for too long now, and I think in the media for too long that has ignored the middle class.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So given what you just said, do you understand the mistrust that some people have of the mainstream media that you were just pointing out could be arbiters of facts?
unidentified		They still are arbiters of facts.
		My problem is that I don't know that they are, that they, when they wake up and do their job every day, that they are thinking enough about working class and middle class Americans.
		You open up the New York Times and they've got travel reviews of the best place to eat in the south of France, right?
		They're not covering what's going on to the Rust Belt and workers in Ohio and places like Michigan, right?
		And they need to do more of that.
		It's also the case that if you look at the low-information voters who tend to be swing voters, they voted for Biden and then they voted for Trump and then they voted, they've gone back and forth.
		They're not reading these papers.
		They're not watching C-SPAN.
		Because I've watched focus groups where they ask them, where do you get your information?
		These are like Trump to Biden to Trump voters.
		And they watch the 6 o'clock news, which is fires and that kind of thing.
		They're not watching the national news.
		They're not reading newspapers.
		They're not reading news magazines.
		And so they are very subject to people who say, oh, it's fake news or make all kinds of crazy statements because they have no sense of what the truth is because they're not really, and I don't blame them.
		They may not have the opportunity in their daily lives to focus on these things.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Let me take you home to the Keystone State.
		This is Janet in Pennsylvania, Republican line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm just going to read a laundry list because there could be a discussion on every one of these.
		Biden defied the Supreme Court by giving out the student loans when they said he couldn't do it.
		So why is that okay?
		And Trump can't go against the judges.
		The bipartisan border bill.
		Nobody ever says enough about you could have 5,500 illegals come in every single day before they shut the door.
		Every day.
		Is that what this country wants?
		I don't think so.
		And Clinton, he took the bureaucracy, 243,000 people from the bureaucracy gave them $25,000 each, which is $55,000 today.
		Zuckerberg, you're talking about election money.
		He gave $436,000, mostly in Wisconsin, to affect the 20 election.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Janet, you bring up a lot of topics, and we're running short on time.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Greenwood, which one or all do you want to talk about?
unidentified		Well, generally speaking, I think what the woman from Pennsylvania is saying is that there are a lot of bad things that have happened in the past, right?
		And it takes us to the what about thing.
		You know, we say Trump's, well, what about Biden?
		We say Biden, well, what about Trump?
		And so a laundry list of things that have gone wrong is interesting, but it doesn't take us anywhere.
		So if you take any one of those things, talk about executive powers exercised by Biden and by Trump.
		If they're both wrong, or sometimes Biden was wrong, and sometimes Trump is wrong, that's still wrong.
		And you don't justify what Trump's doing because of what Biden did or vice versa.
		So I think we have to be seeing.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Did you feel the need in the four years of the Biden administration to get involved in an effort like what you are doing right now?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And if so, if not, why not?
unidentified		Well, probably because I was busy doing other things at the time.
		But there were times that we, you have to, Nick know better than I when we raised issues with regard to the Biden administration within the reformers.
		Yeah.
		No, we have consistently stood.
		This comes up all the time.
		Oh, didn't Obama defy the court on DACA?
		Right?
		Well, actually, they did defy the lower courts, but eventually the Supreme Court ruled on DACA and they complied with the Supreme Court.
		So there's always this sense of like, well, they did it wrong in the past, therefore it's okay that this guy's doing it wrong now.
		Our stance is no one should be doing it wrong.
		We have a Constitution.
		We have the rule of law.
		And we called it out with Biden, and we're going to continue to call that with this president and with future presidents.
		All we're asking for is compliance to the Constitution of the United States of America.
		And the fact that other presidents had pushed it in the past or pushed the edges in the past doesn't make it right today.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		I know we're pretty much out of time, but Prentice has been waiting a while in Florida.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Democrats, Prentice, go ahead.
unidentified		Hi, good morning, everyone.
		Hi.
		My comment is that the way that we're going now and division in the country, it seems like we're going back to all of these old laws that were prehistoric, as a matter of speaking, that's not effective to today's society that we're trying to reenact.
		And it seems like they're trying to divide America.
		And the main reason it seems like they're trying to eliminate the Justice Department or to downplay the power of the Justice Department here in our country.
		And that is the rule of law.
		It's what our country is built on.
		It seems like we're headed towards a dictatorship.
		It seems as though right now in this country, we're trying to undermine our judicial system so that we can create martial law, which is an old previous law, whereas now executive power will rule over the country.
		And then all of these mandates that Trump want to put in place that he can do it without any oversight.
		It's what seems like it's being in place right now.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Prentice, got your point, and short on time.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Let me give you each some final thoughts here, 30 seconds.
unidentified		Well, I do think what the gentleman is referring to is the fact that we're moving towards an authoritarian form of government.
		And that's very, very frightening.
		And it takes us back to the very beginning of this conversation.
		The Constitution was written to create checks and balances, and it meant for the Congress to check the executive when they thought that the executive was going wrong.
		And that's what's not happening now.
		And so if we want to prevent this kind of a drift towards an authoritarian form of government, the Congress has to step up and assert itself in the way that the founders of the Constitution intended them to.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Pennerman?
unidentified		That was well said.
		The only thing I'll add is that the first words of the Constitution are we, the people.
		And so to get Congress in a position where it's ready to provide that oversight, it needs to hear from the people right now.
		It needs to hear from people who are upset, who are concerned, Republicans and Democrats alike, who are upset, who believe in the Constitution and the rule of the law, and want Congress to do its job.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And then I would just note for viewers, if you want to learn more about issue one, it's issue1.org.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		More information on the Reformers Caucus there.
unidentified		Great.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Thank you both for your time this morning.
		It's Nick Penniman of issue one, James Greenwood, former U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania.
		Appreciate it.
		Come back again.
unidentified		You bet.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Coming up in about 30 minutes this morning, we are going to focus on the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a deep dive into that.
		We're going to be joined by William Banks of Syracuse University for that conversation.
		Until then, though, in these next 30 minutes, it's your phone calls, open forum, any public policy, any political issue that you want to talk about.
		The numbers are on your screen.
		Go ahead and start calling in, and we will get to those calls right after the break.
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 Michigan Republican Tom Barrett, who served for more than 20 years in the Army.
		His great-grandfather also served in Congress.
tom barrett ▲ ● ▼		My great-grandfather, a man named Louis Rabbo, served here in Congress, was first elected 90 years before I was, and was a Democrat represented part of Detroit and the Gross Point area of Michigan.
unidentified		And he's best remembered for adding the words, under God, to our Pledge of Allegiance.
		He sponsored that bill in the 1950s.
		It was signed into law by President Eisenhower on Flag Day in 1954.
		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.
		Democracy.
		It isn't just an idea.
		It's a process.
		A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
		It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
		Democracy in real time.
		This is your government at work.
		This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
		If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org.
		Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
		These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
		This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
		Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
		Journal continues.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		It's just about 8.50 a.m. on the East Coast, and it is time for our open forum.
		Any public policy issue, any political issue that you want to talk about, now is the time to call in.
		Democrats, it's 202-748-8000.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		As you're calling in, let you know what's going on here in Washington and around the region this morning on Capitol Hill.
		The House and Senate are on district work periods.
		There are brief pro forma sessions, though, scheduled in both the House and Senate today.
		Also today, 10 a.m. Eastern, a discussion on human rights and the humanitarian situation in the Middle East, including in Palestine.
		The UN Security Council will be discussing that live at 10 a.m. Eastern.
		You can watch it here on C-SPAN, C-SPAN.org, and the C-SPAN Now app.
		At 11.30 a.m. today, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker speaks at the Center for American Progress.
		We will be covering that discussion on their strategy to address the Trump administration agenda.
		1130 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2 is where you can watch that.
		And later this evening, 5 p.m. Eastern, a discussion on U.S. relations with Russia and Ukraine featuring intelligence officials and scholars.
		That is happening at the Institute for World Politics.
		Live coverage on C-SPAN 2 as well.
		May have an update on the ongoing effort to bring a ceasefire and eventual possible peace deal in Ukraine.
		We know via reporting and via the president himself telling reporters that he is scheduled to have a call today with Vladimir Putin, president of Russia.
		We will look for more information about that throughout the day.
		And it's time, though, for open forum, for you to lead this discussion.
		And Lou is up first in Tampa, Republican.
		Lou, thanks for waiting.
unidentified		Good morning, John.
		Good morning, America.
		Look, you know, these guys that you had on before, they were spot on.
		Congress hasn't been doing their job.
		And can you hear me?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		I can hear you, Lou.
unidentified		Yeah.
		And Congress hasn't been doing their job for a long time, and Trump has to shake it up because there is too much waste and too much fraud in everything that they're looking at, and it needs to be cut out.
		But I'm praying that things go well with this phone call this afternoon between Trump and Putin.
		And I hope cooler heads prevail, that they come to some type of agreement because it's just a killing field, killing field over there.
		And that's what I have to say this morning.
		And thank you so much, Kevin.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Alan, Princeton, West Virginia, Democrat, good morning.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You are next.
unidentified		Thank you for getting me on.
		A little bit scared first time.
		It seems to me that there's a selective application of principles and laws, and it comes out kind of hypocrisy and Epicureanism.
		Example, in the Constitution, a citizen, and those who have the rights of citizen, including life, are those born or naturalized.
		Yet, by conscience, I would think anyone with human DNA and a beating heart would be deserving the compassion of a human being.
		It is that these principles are being applied selectively.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Who's applying them selectively, Alan?
unidentified		Both Congress and the President.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		How do you fix that?
unidentified		Well, let me give you the examples.
		On the one side, the Constitution depends, as I just said, that means that applies one way to the question of abortion.
		Now, if you take, as I have been in the rescue squad, you apply life or the existence of life to someone that has human DNA and is in the room, then that is a person deserving of compassion.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Alan in West Virginia.
		Roberto is in Houston, Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Thank you, John.
		And I'll be very quick.
		I have three important points.
		The first one, the 25th Amendment should be invoked to remove President Trump.
		I think he's unfit.
		And the 25th should have been invoked for President Biden, but it was not.
		Second, I called President Schumer and left him a message, not President, I'm sorry, Senator Schumer, and thanked him for keeping the government open.
		And I gave him a task, and that is to help us on Social Security to have our benefits tax-free.
		And third and last, our leadership, moral leadership in the world is gone.
		Israel has again attacked the Palestinians, and again, I think it's going to get away with it because the United States, especially under Trump, is allowing it to happen.
		Thank you, John.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Roberto, don't hang up just yet.
		I think we lost Roberto.
		Speaking of Senator Schumer, this story from today's Wall Street Journal: several installments of a book tour for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were postponed due to security concerns after activists had planned to protest his events in the latest interparty tussle over how to stand up to President Trump.
		Schumer and top Senate Democrats have drawn their criticism for their vote last week in favor of allowing the Geopet P-led government funding bill to proceed.
		And that has echoed to some cancellations on his book tour, the book, Anti-Semitism in America, a warning.
		On Monday, he was scheduled to have an event in Baltimore with additional stops in New York and Washington, D.C., all three now, according to the Wall Street Journal, postponed.
		This is Linda in South Carolina, Republican.
		Morning, Linda.
unidentified		Good morning.
		How are you?
		Let me get my thoughts together.
		First of all, a lot of these people must not have been around MS-13 or TDA.
		I'm from Washington, D.C., born third generation.
		My family, my father was the captain, DC police force, and my late cousin was the Capitol Hill police.
		What I, I lived in, we moved to Montgomery County, Maryland, and we were not safe there with MS-13.
		We got inundated.
		And right, a park that I used to go to every day and walk my dogs.
		I've been going there since I was a child.
		We couldn't even go there anymore.
		MS-13, 10 of them, took a man in the woods there, stabbed him to death 100 times, cut his heart out, and cut his head off, and buried him in a shallow grave.
		And this is where all the kids go to play, little children.
		Parents take their park, take them to the park.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Linda, is some of that the reason why you currently live in South Carolina?
unidentified		Absolutely.
		I had the my parents bought property here in Pauley's Island in 1972, and then we moved here in 1976.
		I moved back to Maryland for work.
		I'm in the carpenter's union.
		I was in the carpenter's union at the DC Convention Center installing trade shows and conventions.
		I did Clinton, Bush, Obama twice, and Trump's inaugural balls.
		We set them up, install them, and take them back out.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Linda in South Carolina out to California.
		Modesto, it's Bill Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		Yeah, I just want to make some comments, if I could.
		I can't figure out what the heck's going on.
		I've been watching this politics for the last five years, and it seems to me that everybody's talking big about what to do about Trump being in office and this and that.
		Hey, he wants to change the Constitution.
		He doesn't want to go by the Constitution.
		He doesn't want to follow the law.
		What do you think they would have done when the forefathers started this experiment?
		What would they have done if somebody would have done what he's doing?
		And I mean, nobody could do anything about it.
		That doesn't make any sense.
		Everybody's just talking and talking, and he keeps doing and doing and doing, and nobody's stopping him.
		And I can't see why they can't.
		There's millions of people in the United States.
		There's one president.
		There's one House of Republicans.
		You know, what's going on?
		You know, we're going to get into wars.
		Things are starting.
		We have a president that's very prejudiced against anybody who's not white, which isn't right.
		I would hate to wake up in the morning and walk outside and go to the store or anything and just see just one nationality all over the place all the time.
		It's more interesting when you have different people around you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Bill.
		This is Dominic in Stanford, Connecticut, Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm calling the way they see the country going on.
		There's no morality anymore.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		There's no more reality, did you say, Dominic?
unidentified		Yes.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean by that?
unidentified		That's meaning, you know, there's no respect between everybody doing whatever they want.
		There is no respect, mutual respect.
		Look at the Senate, the legislative, the executive.
		They fighting each other.
		They have no common ground.
		They used to be common ground, respect each other.
		There are no more.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Dominic in Connecticut.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		This is Rick in Golden, Colorado, Republican.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yeah, I think your discussion on the news media and the question was why to, or what are we going to do to get the news media to be more respected?
		One of the reasons is they take sides and there's and don't really present both sides.
		And specifically, I like, you know, of course I'm Republican, but the Democrats, if you notice, they have a talking point that day, and all of the news media and the Democrats themselves, they all say the same thing.
		And, you know, that really kind of begs of, you know, manipulation and not really looking at facts.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Rick, what do you read?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What do you watch news-wise out in Golden?
unidentified		I pretty much do not read newspapers.
unidentified		I do look at, you know, I pretty much look at all of the networks and I do look at online.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Why don't you like newspapers?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You got a big newspaper out there, the Denver Post?
unidentified		Denver Post, yeah.
		I don't know.
		I just got off of them, you know, as a result of the internet, and I've never gone, I've never gone back.
		I guess it's the ease and that.
		So I don't know, I guess since I'm reading, I guess I shouldn't say, but I don't know that anybody does, really does investigative journalism anymore.
		And I think one of the big things why the news media in general has lost a lot of respect was what went on with the Biden administration and the fact that a lot of the, and this was necessarily the newspapers, but the general media covered up, you know, his inability really to perform as president.
		And they really should have been asking those questions.
		And it was obvious to everybody just by the, well, I shouldn't say everybody, it was obvious by the way he would perform in when he, the little bit he did do in news conferences and things of this nature that there was questions there.
		And really nobody really dug into that asking questions about whether his ability was there and so on and so forth.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And then well, Rick, got your point, Rick.
		Let me get Loretta in because we're running short on time.
		It's about 10 minutes left in open forum.
		This is Loretta Cleveland, Ohio, Democrat.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning, John.
		Good morning, America.
		John, I've been thinking lately about what's the cause of all the ruckus in America lately.
		And I did a deep dive into the history of Congress, the House, and the Senate.
		And what I found over the years is that this country is still ran by either the ancestors of slave masters or the relatives of slave masters.
		Over 1,700 have been elected into office over the past 200 years.
		And the point that I want to make is that we're about to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the country.
		But what about the first 250 years?
		Loretta, did you want to use the pressure?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Did you read that investigation by the Washington Post that looked into this exact topic when you say I did a deep dive?
		I remember there was a Washington Post database that they put together.
		More than 1,800 congressmen once enslaved black people.
		This is who they were and how they shaped the nation.
		It's still available on their website.
		Is that the one you're referring to?
unidentified		No, it's not the one I'm referring to.
		I've looked at a whole bunch of them.
		The latest one, and I've been harping on it, is the 2006 FBIGAO report, which said that KKK white supremacist infiltrated the police departments and law enforcement nationwide.
		Now, what do that mean?
		It means that now we know why black people coming up dead in the street.
		And I want to ask everybody, when the last time they seen a KKK march?
		If you saw the police this morning, you saw the KKK.
		People need to wake up and understand what's going on.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Loretta in Ohio.
		This is Mary Lou in Newington, Connecticut, Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm wondering why the press, the media, even C-SPAN does not care what happened in the last four years with Biden being president.
		This man was unable to be president of the United States.
		I cannot believe nobody.
		I mean, they find out now that he was signed, not he, but somebody was signing his pardons with an auto pen.
		Now, I guess that must have been somebody in his family doing that.
		Probably Hunter Biden or somebody like that was signing his papers.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mary Lou, does it make a difference to you that auto pens have been in use in the White House in decades?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		For literally decades?
unidentified		Well, no.
		No.
		If you need to, for some reason, have to be out of town or overseas or something and something has to be signed, then they could use an auto pen.
		That's not the auto pen is not why I'm calling.
		It is sort of.
		I wonder why nobody cares that this man was not able to carry out the duties of his office.
		Nobody in the press, not even C-SPAN, nobody on any of the channels.
		They mention it, they mention it, but they don't investigate.
		This is an incredible situation that for four years we were run by a man who didn't hardly know how to do his own name.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Got your point.
		That's Mary Lou.
		This is Susan Washington.
		Good morning.
		You're next.
unidentified		Hello.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Susan.
unidentified		Yes, hi.
unidentified		I'm glad to be able to talk with you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What's on your mind?
unidentified		I just wanted to mention that I can't remember the names of the two men that were with you this morning.
unidentified		It was the one with the white hair.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Greenwood.
unidentified		And yes.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Former congressman from Pennsylvania.
unidentified		I was wanting to come on when he was there because he was mentioning Newt Gingrich several times.
		And Newt Gingrich is totally a supporter of President Trump and Jonathan Turnley and different ones that I have heard.
		And I know with the Doge issue, I think that, you know, they came on so fast, but now Elon is not in charge.
		He is working with the people that he has there, and they're using artificial intelligence.
		I even think when they, you know, use artificial intelligence how they can maybe cure cancer because it could take care of the data so quickly.
		And now they're able to do that.
		They're able to go quickly through our government and work down to the inner parts and get it done.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And Susan, do you trust artificial intelligence?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		I only ask because there's a lot of people who don't trust artificial intelligence.
unidentified		I do.
		I trust it as long as there are guardrails.
		And I believe that Elon himself is one of the main ones that would know what those guardrails are.
		I mean, if he can bring a rocket down and land it on it on the place where it went off, he can do so many things, and he really cares.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Susan in Washington.
		Just about five minutes left in our open forum this morning, this March 18th, March 19th is C-SPAN's Founders Day.
		And I did want to let you know about some programming on that special day for us here at C-SPAN.
		You can learn more about our earliest days at C-SPAN.
		Our founder, Brian Lamb, sitting down alongside former co-CEO Susan Swain and current CEO Sam Feist to talk about their quest over the years to bring live gabble-to-gabble coverage of Congress to every American home stories about the people and work that went into bringing live coverage of the House and Senate and White House and Supreme Court and more to television sets around the country.
		They also reflect on the network's five decades of coverage here on C-SPAN.
		That's taking place tomorrow, Wednesday, March 19th, at 8 p.m. Eastern Time on C-SPAN.
		Hope you join that conversation.
		Hope you watch it tomorrow evening.
		Back to your phone calls.
		Just time for a couple more this morning.
		It's Benny in Florida, Democrat.
		Good morning.
		Benny, you're with us.
		You got to turn that television set down, sir.
unidentified		No, I'm not.
unidentified		I'm listening to you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		I know, but I'm listening to your television set in the background.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Can you turn it down?
unidentified		Sure.
		Yeah, I think it's a sad time in America.
		You have people here in America who have so much hatred in their heart till they can't even get information about what is happening.
		But the point that I wanted to really make is that, Benny?
		Is that they're sending all of these so-called gangs out of the country that's supposed to be killing people here.
		And you've had incidents happen in this country from people that call themselves white nationalists.
		It's just another name for Ku Klux Klan.
		And I'm just wondering when they get done sending all of the criminals out of here for killing people here in America.
		What are they going to do with the white nationals that are responsible for killings in the schools?
		You got your children going to school.
		They're afraid and they're being killed in the school.
		But you have people in this country that's so hatred, have so much hatred in their heart that they don't want to allow black people in this country to be able to live a comfortable life, even though they have put work into this country.
		They're sweat, their blood, they have died, they have done things in this country, as well as right along with the whites.
		And they don't, they people in this country still don't recognize us as a people in this country.
		And they call themselves the United States of America.
		God is going to open your eyes and you're going to see what you have done to yourself one of these days.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Benny in Florida.
		This is Gina in Mississippi.
		Republican, go ahead.
unidentified		Hi, John.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		And I am very upset by the last caller.
		He sounds like a very nice old man.
		But what I want to know is why do you let these people call in and talk about all this racist BS when we know damn good and well that the blacks are practically running the country now?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's Gina in Mississippi.
		Last caller in open forum.
		Coming up next, a conversation with William Banks of Syracuse University's College of Law.
		We'll talk about the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
		Stick around for that discussion.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, the House of Representatives opens its proceedings for the first time to televised coverage.
		Since March of 1979, C-SPAN has been your unfiltered window into American democracy, bringing you direct, no-spin coverage of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House.
		Is this Mr. Brian Lamb?
		Yes, it is.
		Would you hold one moment, please, for the president?
		It exists because of C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb's vision and the cable industry's support, not government funding.
		But this public service isn't guaranteed.
		All this month, in honor of Founders Day, your support is more important than ever.
		You can keep democracy unfiltered today and for future generations.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		To the American people, now is the time to tune in to C-SPAN.
unidentified		Your gift today preserves open access to government and ensures the public stays informed.
		Donate now at c-span.org/slash donate or scan the code on your screen.
		Every contribution matters.
		And thank you.
		Looking to contact your members of Congress?
		Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
		Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
		This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
		Contact information on congressional committees, the President's Cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.
		The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's non-profit operations.
		Scan the code on the right, or go to c-spanshop.org to pre-order your copy today.
		c-spanshop.org is C-SPAN's online store.
		Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our non-profit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at cspanshop.org.
		Democracy.
		It isn't just an idea.
		It's a process.
		A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
		It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
		Democracy in real time.
		This is your government at work.
		This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
		If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org.
		Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
		These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
		This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
		Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
		Washington Journal continues.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Syracuse University Law Professor Bill Banks joins us now for a conversation on a centuries-old law that's getting renewed attention today, Bill Banks.
		It's called the Alien Enemies Act.
		It dates back to 1798.
		Why did Congress pass it at the end of the 18th century and why is it getting renewed attention in the 21st century?
unidentified		It's a very interesting period in our history, John, and the act was part of a sequence of four pieces of legislation that Congress enacted at the time.
		We were a young nation, of course, 1790s, and we were insecure, I think, as a nation.
		And we were fearful at the time, our members of Congress were, many Americans were, that there might be subversives or others infiltrating the United States that might wish to wage war on the United States from within.
		And it was feared mostly that that might be the French.
		We'd earlier, of course, had French in the country assisting and then in war before the Revolutionary War.
		Many of those individuals stayed in the United States, of course.
		And it was feared that they might engage in some kind of sabotage or operation.
		So the Alien Enemy Act was enacted for that purpose.
		It was expressly a wartime measure.
		And the language of the act allows whenever there is an invasion, that's the key term, or what's called an incursion of hostiles attempting to tempting the territory of the United States, the President is authorized by the statute to remove those individuals from the United States.
		This is regardless of their citizenship or nationality, but they're part of an enemy force.
		So it was thought at this time that if the French wish to wage war on the United States, they may do so from within, and this statute would enable them to remove those individuals to remove the threat.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So fast forward 227 years, President Trump in using the Alien Enemies Act as the reasoning behind these deportations that we're talking about and using some of the words in this act to justify his use of it in 2025,
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		saying just yesterday, this is a time of war, talking about the illegal aliens that are here in the United States that he is trying to deport, saying it is an invasion.
unidentified		Yes.
		But it's a remarkable rhetorical turn for President Trump, if you will.
		He was using the invasion metaphor, the invasion descriptor, even during his presidential campaign.
		They had planned for this.
		And in his inaugural address, he made reference to the migrant invasion over and over again.
		And even on his first day in office on January the 20th, one of the 10 executive orders that he promulgated on that day makes direct reference to an incursion, a migrant invasion, and his plans to undertake the largest deportation operation in United States history on the basis of his authority of the Alien Enemy Act.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So jump back here to when this act was passed in 1798.
		Some definitions that are useful here.
		What is a predatory incursion?
		What is invasion?
		Who gets to define those terms as the criteria for invoking this act, be it in 1798 or 2025?
unidentified		I think it was widely understood at the time that an invasion was an act of war by an enemy of the United States, and that a predatory incursion was simply a lesser form of attack on the United States, if not a full-formed assault, than a lesser attack, you know, an incursion by sea or by land with perhaps a smaller group.
		But both of them are wartime terms.
		They were phrases that were well understood in the 1790s and around the Western world.
		So it's expressly, I think, framed as a wartime measure.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What did President John Adams at the time think of this legislation?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Did he say it was needed?
unidentified		Not so much.
		This was more an initiative of the Congress at the time than of the administration.
		It's not coincidental that one of the other four pieces, other three pieces of legislation enacted at the same time is called the Alien and Sedition Acts.
		And remarkably, that law forbade citizens from criticizing their government.
		It was a direct affront to the First Amendment to the Constitution, which had only recently been ratified.
		And it was soon repealed after President Jefferson said that he wouldn't enforce it because it just attacked the ability of our citizens to freely express themselves.
		So the most cautious and most reactionary force in our government at that time was the Congress of the United States, not the president.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Here's some of the wording of that legislation dating back to 1798.
		Whenever there shall be declared a war or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the U.S., all subjects of the hostile nation or government can be apprehended, restrained, and secured and removed as alien enemies.
		That's the act we're talking about this morning in this segment of the Washington Journal.
		William Banks is our guest, Syracuse University Law Professor.
		He's also taking your phone calls, your questions about this topic.
		Democrats, it's 202-748-8000.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Mr. Banks, as folks are calling in, how often has this act been invoked in U.S. history before now?
unidentified		Very seldom, and that's perhaps one of the most important questions.
		It's really an anachronism.
		It hasn't been utilized by the United States since World War II.
		That tells you something.
		The only time the act has been used throughout our history is in periods of grave national crisis, World War I, World War II, and the War of 1812.
		No other time, not even during the Civil War.
		And so in World War II, it's part of a very embarrassing and sad history of the United States that we used it to round up some number of German, Italian, and Japanese citizens who were in the United States after the outbreak of World War II.
		That, of course, alongside a more infamous program of interning Japanese Americans, citizens, most of them of the United States in wartime relocation camps through most of World War II.
		Hasn't been touched since World War II.
		And of course, we're not at war now.
		And we're in no way being faced by an invasion or war by migrants.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Considering that, as you describe it, infamous history during World War II, why is it still on the books?
unidentified		Well, we could ask that question and probably fail to answer it about hundreds, if not thousands, of laws on the books in the United States, John.
		Congress is pretty good at getting laws passed sometimes, but they don't do house cleaning very often.
		There have been very few occasions when we've repealed laws that are no longer relevant or necessary.
		Arguably, it could become relevant again if we're invaded, or excuse me, if we're at war with some sovereign nation.
		If we're at war with Mexico, for example, then it's appropriate to use the Alien Enemies Act to remove Mexicans.
		That's never going to happen, of course, because Mexico is an ally and a friend.
		Canada, same thing.
		It's never going to happen.
		But conceivably, there could be a war between the United States and another sovereign nation, and then that act would provide the authority to remove its nationals, perhaps send them back to where they came from.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You said Mexican Americans, if we were at war with Mexico, can you use this act to remove American citizens?
unidentified		American citizens?
		No.
		This would be of a foreign nation.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Just wanted to make that clear.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And then the other question I had was: how often has this law, again, considering what was happening during World War II and the infamous history, you say, how often has it been challenged in federal courts?
unidentified		Very few times.
		You know, their challenge is going ongoing at this moment, as we both know.
		But most of the few cases that have been brought in the history of the United States have failed because those individuals who were from one of the nations with which we were at war in World War I or II or during the British, the War of 1812, they were within the four corners of the authority for removal.
		So the attacks were attacked by those represented by lawyers at the time, but they failed.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		The numbers call in: 202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Mr. Banks, Professor Banks, several callers for you already.
		This is Steve in California, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Morning, Tom.
		Morning, John.
		Professor, they had the Hum Stubbs case in front of the Supreme Court, where they actually used that to restrict the freedom of speech.
		You know, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
		Now, that was the case to silence critics from Wilson about his war.
		I believe Eugene Stubbs, who was the only person who ran for president that was in jail, and I forget the Jewish woman that they actually did deport, which was an American citizen, and deported her to Russia.
		And there were several others.
		So, no, the Sedition Act was used to actually deport American citizens at that time.
		All right, that's it.
		Thank you, John.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Banks.
unidentified		Yeah, those laws-that's a good question or a good comment.
		The laws have been revised many times since that first quatrupt of laws in 1798.
		So, when we refer to seditious conspiracy, for example, today, or sedition, we're referring to laws that exist, but they've been enacted many years after those original laws in the 1790s.
		Indeed, today it's possible to engage in seditious conspiracy and to be penalized, even put in jail, prison for a lengthy period of time as a result of sedition.
		Some of those periods in our history are those that are not so favorably, don't show the United States in such a favorable light.
		Criticisms of Wilson, criticisms of involvement in the war, criticisms based of those based on religion or ethnicity or race, but they happen from time to time.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Boston, this is Paul Independent.
		Good morning.
		You're on with Professor Banks.
unidentified		Good morning.
		How are you doing?
		I'm calling from Boston.
		My question was about the deportees that were, I guess, verbally and then instructed by a judge to return back to the United States when they were on the plane.
		My question was: is the ACL, are they just, do they want information on four specific people?
		Is that what the controversy is about?
		Or is it the entire people that ICE have been sending back there?
		Yeah, that's a good question.
		And it's, of course, an ongoing situation and a fast-moving controversy about which we, the people, know relatively little.
		The problem for those who are representing the detainees who were removed by air the other day over the weekend is that they, the lawyers, don't know very much.
		They have the names, I think, of a handful, four or five individuals, but there are reported to be well over 100 that were removed on those air flights over the weekend.
		And they're thought to be Venezuelan nationals who allegedly are members of a particular criminal gang.
		And it's the members of the criminal gang who the administration wished to deport.
		They did so under the authority of this law.
		That's the claim of the government.
		And that's the lawsuit that's going on now, which raises a couple of important questions.
		One is, does the law apply?
		That is, does the Alien Enemy Act apply to a criminal gang from Venezuela?
		My view would be that it does not because we're not at war with Venezuela.
		And second, do these individuals, whoever they are and whatever their affiliation, do they have procedural rights in the courts of the United States before being removed by the United States?
		So they're two separate stages.
		And at this point, the argument is about procedure rather than about the merits of the law.
		Presumably, we'll get to both.
		And it's a precarious moment in the United States because the language from the Trump administration, from Secretary Rubio and from the President himself, suggests that the courts don't have the authority to intervene here.
		That's not true.
		Courts always have the final say on what the law is in the United States.
		That's been true, at least since the famous decision of Marbury and Madison in 1803.
		And presidents don't get the final word, nor do secretaries of state.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		William is a Republican in the Keystone State.
		Good morning.
		You're on with Professor Becks.
unidentified		Yes, I have two questions.
		One, do you think that this law shouldn't be used?
		And the second one, did you think the law that Joe Biden used against the January 6thers for a 150-year-old law that they used against them, is that okay to use?
		Or is it just one for one party and one for the other party?
		No, it should be one law for everyone.
		And I think the problem with using the Alien Enemy Act here is that we're not at war with Venezuela.
		If we were at war with some country, then it would be appropriate to use the act to remove citizens of that country.
		There are other ways, of course, to remove individuals from the United States and other ways to enforce the criminal laws.
		If the gang from Venezuela is an organized criminal gang, that's a very serious problem.
		And they should be investigated, apprehended, tried, convicted, and then imprisoned if they've violated the laws of the United States.
		Alternately, they could be removed from the United States through the immigration laws.
		President Biden, like President Trump and other presidents before him, have considerable discretion under the immigration laws to follow through with deportation proceedings, otherwise known as removals, following the procedures.
		And you're correct to imply in your question that those procedures have changed quite a lot from administration to administration, including in the Biden administration.
		I think the fault for the weakness in our immigration system is not so much the president, whether it's Trump, Biden, or anyone else, but it's the failure of Congress to have modernized our immigration system in about almost 30 years.
		There hasn't been a serious effort in immigration reform since the mid-1990s.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And then to his questions about the use of the seditious conspiracy convictions against the oath keepers and the proud boys that were found guilty in the January 6th cases.
unidentified		Well, those laws, it's true, they go back as far as your questioner suggests, but they've also been revised many times since that, even in the 2000s and recent years.
		And arguably their language is broad enough to fit a lot of different circumstances.
		And I think it's a question of fact whether the activities inside the Capitol, for example, on January 6th amounted to sedition.
		And it wouldn't be up to judges then.
		It would be up to juries to decide whether individuals engaged in conduct that met the definitions in the law.
		There have been many periods in our history when controversial, seditious conspiracy charges have been brought and proven, other occasions when they've been brought but failed.
		And I think that's a historic tension in our society between national security and freedom of expression.
		That's the tension that we all live with every day, removing us for a moment from the immediate controversies in front of us.
		It's just part of our system.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Bounce back to 1798 for me.
		You talked about John Adams and his views on these laws as they're coming out of Congress.
		How much debate were there at the time within Congress?
		Was this tough to pass at the time, the Alien Enemies Act, but also the Alien and Sedition Act as well?
unidentified		They were not really heavily debated at the time.
		It was a rush to judgment, I would say, on the part of Congress.
		It wasn't Congress's finest hour by any stretch.
		And most of the debate and commentary that occurred occurred after the fact.
		So the Alien and Sedition Act, as I said, was repealed not long after in the Jefferson administration, so it didn't last very long at all.
		Jefferson was heavily critical of that law.
		And when individuals were prosecuted for violating it, and there were some in the very early months and years of the following enactment of the law, Jefferson said, I won't enforce it.
		And he persuaded Congress to go back and redo its work and repeal the worst of those.
		We're not now talking about the Alien Enemy Act anymore.
		We're talking about something else.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Did Jefferson have anything to say about the Alien Enemies Act or Madison or one of those other presidents not long after this happened?
unidentified		It was really in the background at that time and very little mention at all.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Will, Atlanta, Independent, good morning.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You're next.
unidentified		Thank you, sir.
		I appreciate you taking my call.
		I don't think it can be overly emphasized just exactly who it was that founded the United States of America in 1776 and why they did and what they thought was their justification.
		Patrick Henry said, you know, give me literally, give me death, but he also said it cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ, Esclamation Mark.
		For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
		Anybody can look it up, but some of those other faiths include the proclamation that all Gentiles must be exterminated and enslaved and killed with impunity, quote unquote, liturgically.
		I became aware of this trying to figure out, I went in the Army back in 1968.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Will, bring me to your question for Professor Banks.
unidentified		Well, Thomas Jefferson has just recently been mentioned, and he identified the real Antichrist as who it was we expelled from the United States.
unidentified		And anybody who thinks that the real Antichrist stopped existing after we expelled them from the United States can go down to the brothels of Latin America and see precisely where their demonic ruling false EV rules and their marching orders anybody can get from the Library of Congress.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's Will in Atlanta.
		I'm not sure where he was going.
		Professor Banks, anything you wanted to follow up on?
unidentified		I think I'll pass on that one.
unidentified		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Illinois, this is Line for Democrats.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Guido, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Hi, John.
		Good morning, Professor Banks.
		I can't really follow up demonic brothels in Latin America, but regarding the term predatory incursion, you claim that it's widely understood.
		As an academic, could I challenge that and say that perhaps it would be up to a court in the day to assume, say, that guerrillas or non-uniformed forces, not during an act of war, could actually be considered a predatory incursion, and therefore, could we consider these gangs a predatory incursion?
		And then the second question, as a human, as a patriot, as we talk about procedure and we watch this regime just push through all the guardrails of American society jurisprudence, are we just whistling past the graveyard?
		Those are great questions.
		I think on your first question about the meaning of predatory incursion, you make a very strong point that it's a term that could be understood at the time and its meaning could evolve over time.
		And as I said in my opening remarks, it was thought to mean something less than an invasion, but still a very forceful measure by an enemy.
		I think the biggest problem with trying to apply something like predatory incursion to a contemporary gang is that they're not affiliated with a state.
		The Venezuelan gang is not Venezuela.
		The Venezuelan gang is not the government of Venezuela.
		The cartels in Mexico are not the government of Mexico or the army of Mexico.
		They're in it for profit.
		They're in it to make money, not in it to take territory or overthrow the government of the United States.
		So the problem with applying predatory incursion to these contemporary circumstances, I think, is that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So what would you say to Bill in Mobile, Alabama?
		He writes this on X, or this might have actually been a text message sent from Bill.
		The liberal media is touting the position that the president can't use the 1790s law to remove drug gangsters because it can only be invoked after a declaration of war.
		He writes, as we all know, President Nixon declared a war on drugs.
		It has not been rescinded.
		Therefore, since war was declared, Trump is legally permitted to proceed without any other legal requirement.
		That's Bill and Mobile.
unidentified		You know, it's a very unfortunate contemporary trend that we've had in the United States to use the war on something, you know, a metaphor for any number of things.
		I do certainly remember the war on drugs.
		Remember Nancy Reagan's war on literacy, illiteracy.
		It's a powerful metaphor, but legally it has no significance, none at all.
		There's, well, 250 years of history understanding what war means in the United States.
		As many of your listeners and viewers know, the United States has only been in a declared war eight times.
		We haven't been in a declared war since World War II, last declared against Romania in 1942.
		But yet we've hardly been at peace in all the years since World War II.
		So the meaning of war, of course, has changed over time, and it's been shaped by our conduct.
		And our ability to wage defensive war against terrorists is now well understood.
		9-11 was a terrorist attack, the worst attack in the history of the United States undertaken by al-Qaeda and its supporters.
		We could go to war with Al-Qaeda, even though it wasn't a state, because they had the means to wage war against us in a devastating terrorist attack.
		So if cartels or armed gangs from Venezuela or somewhere else suddenly turn capable of inflicting major damage, you know, kinetic damage on the United States, attacking a city, attacking a port, attacking a concert hall or a sports stadium, we'd be in a very different position.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Why is Congress so bipartisanly opposed to declaring war?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Why is it so hard to get Congress to declare war?
unidentified		You know, here's an answer that members of Congress won't like.
		I think it's because Congressmen and women haven't done their duty.
		They have been largely passive, content to allow the executive branch to take the lead.
		So President George W. Bush, of course, responded at the very first moment to the attacks of 9-11.
		Other presidents before and after George W. Bush have responded to terrorist attacks often very aggressively and with speed and deliberation.
		And they've done so on the basis of their constitutional power to defend the Constitution of the United States.
		And that's good and noble, but it would be better if Congress could step up to the plate and do its job.
		Many times they've failed to do so.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		If Congress was more inclined to exercise that power of declaring war, do you think that would result in the United States being involved in more or less military actions around the world?
unidentified		The problem with that rubric or the way of framing things, John, is that the world in which we live here in 2025 is so different from the war of the time of the Framers that today talking about declarations of war and the like is almost quaint.
		No nations declare war anymore.
		We protect our national security interests, and if necessary, we use force if we're attacked.
		Most nations don't reach out offensively.
		Arguably, the United States hasn't reached out offensively with the use of force since before the World War.
		So I think it's a system that needs some attention and some repair.
		And Congress and the President have gotten together many times to come up with framework legislation that would provide guidance for both the legislature and the executive branch on deciding the occasions in which force ought to be used.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		This is Josh waiting in Silver Spring, Maryland, line for Republicans.
		You're on with Syracuse.
		Professor Banks.
unidentified		Thank you so much, Professor.
		Good morning.
		Thank you for your comments.
		You know, you talked a little bit about the war on terror.
		I wanted to delve a little more deeply into that because I'm just trying to understand why that war that was declared by George W. Bush, and which is seemingly ongoing, even though it technically perhaps could have been considered ended in maybe August 2021, but obviously never officially ended.
		You know, these cartels, these gangs have caused more damage, more deaths in the United States than 9-11.
		And I think they can be and are declared by the current president as terrorist groups.
		And so I'm just trying to understand why the war on terror can't be used as a justification for the actions or the use of that 1798 law.
		I think that's a good question.
		And, you know, let me say something about the so-called war on terror.
		We don't use that phrase very much anymore.
		And you make a good, strong argument about the possible conclusion of it in 2021 with the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
		But as you know, if you follow the news, President Trump launched strikes against the Houthis in Yemen over the weekend.
		And it's an extension.
		The Houthis are an offshoot of al-Qaeda, and they're allied with the government of Iran.
		So I think we haven't extinguished the war on terror, and I don't know when we will.
		And when President Trump undertook those strikes over the weekend against the Houthis, I think he was on strong legal footing.
		And that legal footing is provided by the AUMF, the law that Congress enacted a few days after the 9-11 attacks in 2001 that gave the president the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force for those who were responsible for 9-11.
		That was al-Qaeda and their harborers, the Taliban, 25 years later almost.
		We are not entirely out of that bailiwick.
		And so I think that defensive war is ongoing.
		And the problem with extending it to criminal gangs, whether they be affiliated for drug smuggling or dealing purposes or something else, again, they're not part of a state, and their motive is profit.
		Their motive is money.
		Their motive is not to take territory or to inflict harm on the United States as a sovereign, but to make money.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned that 2001 AUMF authorization of use of military force.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Does that ever sunset?
unidentified		No.
		I teach about that in my classes quite often, and I ask my students when they read the AOMF, what are the weaknesses with the framework?
		And astute students will often say is that, how do we know when we've won or lost?
		How do we know when it's over?
		There's nothing in the law to indicate that, just as there's nothing in the law to identify an enemy.
		It just says those responsible for 9-11 are those who harbor those who were.
		So it's a very open textured law.
		It doesn't tell you where the battlefield is.
		It doesn't give you any kind of criteria or markers to suggest when victory will be achieved.
		And yet we're still working with it 24 years after the fact.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Should or has Congress tried to repeal it?
unidentified		Many times.
unidentified		There have been bills in Congress not only to repeal, but to repeal and replace with a framework that's a little more that requires more out of Congress in terms of monitoring and follow-up to insert Congress into the process.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Why haven't those efforts been successful?
unidentified		Politics.
		In a Democratic administration, the Democratic members of Congress don't want to tie the hands of the commander-in-chief.
		And in a Republican administration, a reciprocal resistance occurs.
		It's very unfortunate.
		We've become very close to enacting that kind of legislation several times in the last 24 years.
		There have been studies of it.
		And there's some very good models out there that would bring us back closer to what the framers actually had in mind, which was a bicameral consideration of the use of force and a sort of partnership between the legislative and executive branches of government to decide to commit us to major military operations.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Are there other outstanding, unending authorizations of use of military force that we should be aware of?
unidentified		One of the things that is relevant now, John, that I think is related at least to what you're asking about is something called the National Emergencies Act, which has been around.
		It was revised pretty significantly after the Nixon administration, but hasn't been revised in more than 50 years.
		And the National Emergencies Act was invoked by President Trump in his first day in office and has been since because it allows the president to declare a national emergency, which he did on January the 20th at our southern border.
		And when the national emergency is described and called for by the president, it in turn unleashes what are called backup authorities.
		In the case of immigration, the important component of these backup authorities and of the invoking the National Emergencies Act is it allows him to move money to fund the activities that he wants to undertake, say, in border enforcement without having to seek a new appropriation for Congress.
		As I'm sure your listeners and viewers know, the separation of powers was based in significant part on the authority of Congress to have the power of the purse, to call the shots about how money was spent.
		And they may do so, and they do so many times.
		And so the National Emergencies Act is in effect a workaround for any president, has been for such a long time.
		And presidents use that authority all the time to use sort of a shell game to move money from one part of government to another to undertake activities that they wish to undertake.
		That's what's happening now with respect to moving military, for example, to the southern border, constructing more portions of a border wall, using military equipment to monitor and surveil there and the like.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Less than 10 minutes left with Professor William Banks, law professor at Syracuse University.
		It's also the founding director of the Institute for Security, Policy, and Law.
		What is that organization at Syracuse, Mr. Banks?
unidentified		In 2003, I started something called the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism.
		So for now, more than 20 years, the Institute does have a different name now because I'm no longer the director.
		I'm in the sunshine out in Arizona, and my colleague Jamie Baker has taken over the directorship.
		But it's essentially an effort in the law school and the graduate school and the Maxville School at Syracuse to provide students an advanced education at a professional level to enter the workforce in the area of national security and counterterrorism, whether as lawyers or as policy people or social scientists.
		And we're quite proud of the legacy of having hundreds and hundreds of our graduates out there in the field.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And we have a few minutes left with Professor Banks.
		For those who decide to stick around after 10 a.m. here on C-SPAN, we'll be taking you to a discussion on human rights and the humanitarian situation in the Middle East, including the situation in Palestine.
		The UN Security Council is meeting.
		We'll have live coverage here on C-SPAN 10 a.m. Eastern, like I said, just a few minutes from now.
		Christopher in Maine, it's Kenny Bunkport, Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning, John.
unidentified		Good morning, Mr. Banks.
richard c cook ▲ ● ▼		You know, my wife and I stopped watching C-SPAN after many, many years of watching when Obama was elected because we erroneously thought we had survived the Bush administration's total travesty presence to presidency and practically destroying the whole world's economy.
unidentified		So here we are with the president who is actually committing a seditious conspiracy against our own government.
		What do we do?
		You know, I feel your frustration, and there can't be too many of you Democrats up in Kennebunkport, Maine.
		That's Bush country.
		But I appreciate your call.
		I think, you know, many of us are fearful of sort of running off the rails here.
		Our system is based on the rule of law.
		The reason I'm on this program this morning is that I care very deeply about the rule of law, and I fear that we are very close to a precipice here.
		You know, there's never been a situation where a president of the United States has openly defied the Supreme Court of the United States.
		We came close in the Nixon administration, but President Nixon, to his credit, when the Supreme Court ordered him to turn over the incriminating Watergate tapes, he huddled less than a day with his advisors on whether he should comply, and he quickly decided he must.
		And he resigned, as we all know.
		He resigned the presidency the next day in disgrace, but he did the right thing.
		The only other time in our history when there's been a moment where a president has openly defied a judge's decision was President Lincoln.
		Ironically, in the early weeks and months of the Civil War, there was a man named Merriman in Maryland who was a southern sympathizer.
		Maryland, of course, was a northern state, and Merriman was sort of a rabble-rouser.
		And the president had him jailed and held in military detention.
		Merriman was not going to shut up, so he sought a writ of habeas corpus, which, as you know, is protected by the Constitution of the United States.
		And at that time, there weren't a lot of lower federal court judges.
		So one of the Supreme Court justices had to travel to Maryland to sit in what was then called sitting in circuit in Maryland to decide the habeas corpus petition of this man named John Merriman.
		The Supreme Court justice was a man named Roger Taney, T-A-N-E-Y, who is one of the most famous justices in the history of the Supreme Court.
		He granted the habeas petition from Mr. Merriman.
		He thought that there was no reason he was simply exercising its free expression as a citizen of the United States in Maryland.
		When Lincoln found out about the decision of Justice Tanning, he refused to enforce it.
		He said that we're going to keep Merriman locked up.
		And this controversy went away because we were in the earliest weeks of the Civil War.
		The war was going badly.
		The North, the very survival of the Union, was very much an open question at the time.
		And so the controversy also went away very soon.
		No president since, and of course that wasn't the Supreme Court of the United States.
		No president since has come close as President Nixon did to define a judgment of the Supreme Court.
		I certainly hope we're not heading there now.
		I believe we are not heading there now.
		I believe the Trump administration has been looking for workarounds, ways to interpret the law and interpret what the judges are saying to allow them to abide by the judge's order, but be able to do what they want to do at the same time.
		The order we have so far in the Venezuelan group cases comes from a district court judge, Judge Boesberg in D.C. He's done a marvelous job of trying to grapple with a fast-moving situation.
		But this matter could end up before the Supreme Court and then we'll be put to the test, won't we?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		As we wait for this UN Security Council briefing to begin, what about a little bit more history here?
		You mentioned Roger Tawney is one of the most famous justices in Supreme Court history.
		Why?
unidentified		Well, Tawney issued some very famous opinions, some famous and some infamous.
		And he, along with several other 19th-century federal jurists on the Supreme Court, had an intellectual power to begin to set out principles and describe legal theories that would influence generations of judges and lawyers and citizens for many years thereafter.
		He was more ridiculed than honored, I'd say, in his passing because he wrote some very bad decisions as well, but he probably did the right thing with Mr. Merriman.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What was the Dred Scott decision that he was a part of?
unidentified		Yeah, the Dred Scott decision essentially stated, in his words, that Mr. Scott, a black man, was property more so than he was a living person, and he was the property of his slave owner, and the slave owner could use him as he wished to dispose or use his property.
unidentified		It's one of the most ridiculed and offensive judgments in the history of the United States Supreme Court.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Coming in 1857, just before the start of the Civil War, might have time here for one or two more phone calls.
		Let me try one from Rebecca and New York Independent.
		Can you make it quick, Rebecca?
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I guess my question is: of the, I believe, 241 Venezuelans that were deported, why can't the Trump administration be transparent and provide information as far as their names and their charges?
		And that may satisfy some of the people as far as why they were handled the way they were, regardless of the fact that they didn't follow law.
		But Trump doesn't follow the law, I guess.
		I think that's a very fair question and a very good one.
		And I think the administration would find itself in better stead with the American people had it done that.
		I think their answer would be that it's secret because there's sensitivity about the identities of these individuals.
		They're dangerous.
		We don't want their identities known.
		We don't want them to be able to further infiltrate the United States or spread the crimes that they've been spreading inside the United States.
		It's better to keep all their activities, even their identities, secret.
		I'm not sure that's persuasive.
		In fact, it seems like you think it maybe not.
		And I tend to agree with you, but I believe that's what's going on.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Professor William Banks, we're going to have to end it there.
		Again, if you want to learn more about the Institute for Security Policy and Law, the institution that Mr. Banks was the founding director of, it is securitypolicylaw.syr.edu.
		And we thank you, Mr. Banks, for the time, the history lesson this morning.
unidentified		It's a pleasure to have been with you, John.
unidentified		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And that's going to do it for us this morning on the Washington Journal.
		For viewers who stay here on C-SPAN, we're going to bring you over to the UN Security Council meeting that's happening today, a discussion on human rights and the humanitarian situation in the Middle East.
		And we'll, of course, be back here on the Washington Journal tomorrow.
		It's 7 a.m. Eastern, 4 a.m. Pacific.
unidentified		This morning, the U.N. Security Council is meeting to discuss the Israel-Hamas war and humanitarian efforts in Gaza.
		This as new Israeli airstrikes in Gaza have killed more than 400 Palestinians.
		Security Council members will hear this morning from Tom Fletcher, the UN Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs.
		Live coverage on C-SPAN.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Here's how the Washington Post describes the legal showdown that's happening here.
		Court conflict nears a boil is the lead story today.
		The hearing on deportation flights turns contentious.
		This is the front page of the Washington Times.
		They write, Trump clings to war powers, telling the courts to butt out of deportations, noting the 250 or so Venezuelans who were deported were purported to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
		And the Justice Department said that Mr. Trump had declared that gang as a terrorist organization and was acting under his powers as commander-in-chief.
		When he deported them, the flights and the fights go to the heart, they write, of Mr. Trump's biggest claims of his second term, including that his national security powers are virtually unfettered and that the country has seen a, quote, invasion of illegal immigrants.
		That's the Washington Times today.
		This is Donald Trump's border czar Tom Homan yesterday.
		He was at the White House speaking with reporters defending the administration's actions in this case.
		This is what he had to say.
tom homan ▲ ● ▼		The president, through proclamation, took his authority under Alien Enemies Act and imposed it, which he has a right to do.
		TDA has been designated terrorist organizations.
		TDA is an enemy of this country.
		We know TDA, based on a lot of evidence, are part of the Maduro regime through the military and law enforcement.
		They've infiltrated them.
		And look, they've invaded this country to unsettle this country, whether it's through fentanyl killing thousands of Americans or through the violence they're perpetrated in our cities.
		President did the right thing.
		I stand by it.
		We removed in one day over 200 dangerous people, including MS-13.
		I was right tenants.
		See the video that President Bukeley put out?
		It's a beautiful thing.
		These people are going to be held accountable.
unidentified		Everyone knows guys a member of the gang.
		How do you know it?
		And why can't they sort that out with a lawyer in a hearing?
tom homan ▲ ● ▼		Just how you should know.
		Look, we abided by the court's decision.
		His written order was on five illegal ailments, they didn't want to deport him, and we abided by that.

▲