CSPAN - Washington Journal 03/30/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 30, 2025 07:00-10:03 - CSPAN

03:02:55

Washington Journal 03/30/2025

Participants

Main

kimberly adams

cspan 43:54

Appearances

bernie sanders

sen/d 01:31

brian lamb

cspan 00:43

donald j trump

admin 01:01

elon musk

02:00

hakeem jeffries

rep/d 02:07

mike johnson

rep/r 02:11

pam bondi

admin 00:39

robert garcia

rep/d 02:54

Clips

bret baier

fox 00:10

gerald jack mclamb

00:07

jim marrs

00:03

patty murray

sen/d 00:04

roger stone

r 00:16

willie nelson

00:07

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Report C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.
		Coming up on Washington Journal this morning, we'll take your calls and comments live.
		And then Republican pollster B.J. Martino and Democratic pollster Nancy Zedunkowitz talk about the Trump presidency, Democratic opposition and political news of the day.
		Also, Martha Miller of George Mason University Law School's National Security Institute on the leaked Signal group chat with senior intelligence officials on U.S. military action in Yemen.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal starts now.
		Join the conversation.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Sunday, March 30th, 2025.
		We're just over two months into the second Trump administration, with the White House and the Republican Congress already making inroads on the president's agenda across multiple policy areas, including immigration, trade, and downsizing the federal workforce, in addition to some surprise areas of focus for the administration, like the push to take over Greenland.
		This morning, we want to hear from you.
		Are President Trump and the GOP focusing about the issues you care about?
		What issues do you think are getting too much attention or not enough?
		Our phone lines.
		For Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		If you'd like to text us, that number is 202-748-8003.
		Please be sure to include your name and where you're writing in from.
		And on social media, we're at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
		Now, to get started, let's check in on President Trump's overall approval ratings.
		Here's a look at the numbers from Real Clear Politics, the average there, showing that President Trump's overall approval rating is at 48%, with his disapproval rating at 49%.
		When it comes to Congress, the disapproval rate is much higher.
		62% of Americans overall disapprove of Congress's performance on the job compared to just 27 who approve.
		Now, if we break that down by party, there's an economist YouGov poll looking at exactly that, the net favorable views of congressional Democrats versus congressional Republicans showing a decline for both since the election,
		with Republicans in Congress showing a 12-point drop since actually since inauguration since January of 2025, and Democrats in Congress showing a 27-point drop, taking their overall rating for congressional Republicans unfavorable, 51%, favorable just 38% in terms of their performance, and congressional Democrats have an unfavorability rating of 58% compared to a favorability rating of 32%,
		and that's according to that economist YouGov poll.
		Now, earlier last week, Speaker Mike Johnson was speaking with reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday, stressing that the House and the Senate Republicans are united in passing President Trump's legislative agenda.
unidentified		Let's listen.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to say this, and I've been saying this consistently, and I believe it.
		There's no daylight between House and Senate Republicans.
		We are one team.
		I speak with Leader Thune about this constantly and with individual members of the Senate over there.
		We're all united on the mission.
		And there's been different ideas about how to complete the mission, but I think it's all coming together now.
		This week will be pivotal.
		We have a big meeting at the White House later today with the leaders in both chambers, Republican leaders, to unite and get this thing done.
		I don't fault the Senate.
		They've had a lot on their plates.
		They had to get all the confirmations done for the administration.
		It takes a lot of floor time.
		Leader Thun's kept them in five days a week, just working around the clock, getting their job done.
		But we began in the House.
		We have a bit of an advantage over the Senate because we began this a long time ago.
		In fact, it was a year ago in March that we first got the committee chairs together and said, start working on your reconciliation bill priorities.
		We knew that we would come to unified government.
		We were convinced that President Trump would win and we would have the Senate and the House, and we wanted to be prepared to lead.
		We put together the playbook, as you've all heard me talk about so many times.
		And we did all that work.
		It took a lot of time, many, many months, to get us to where we are.
		The Senate is a little bit behind pace, not because they weren't working hard, but because they were just engaging in other things.
		And so what we're trying to do now is fast-forward their process so they can get the cliff notes of basically what we did for the last year and skip through some of those steps because we'll all get to the same point.
		And I think that's very important.
		I have been pressing very hard, very aggressively, to get the reconciliation bill done by late spring.
		You've all heard me say that.
		I mean, I'm trying to get this to the president's desk for signature at least by Memorial Day.
		I think it's very important.
		I think the timing is very important because we have to bring stability to the markets.
		We've got to make sure everybody's tax rates are locked in and they know that so people can make decisions about expanding their businesses and jobs and other things.
		We've got to, it'll settle the bond markets.
		It will secure the border.
		It will help us to restore and maintain peace through strength.
		And of course, it'll prevent the largest tax increase in U.S. history.
		All those things are very important to get done quickly so that the American people can feel the results of it.
		This is going to be a great, great piece of legislation, historic, and we're anxious to get it done.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		House Speaker Mike Johnson there.
		Our question this morning is President Trump, as well as the Republicans in Congress, are they focusing on the issues that you care about?
		Let's start with Sip in Houston, Texas, on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Sip.
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
unidentified		Are you there?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we are here.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		I just have a few statements.
		Trump, it should be obvious to everybody that he doesn't know what he's doing, and everybody he put in those cabinets are jokes.
		I said to myself when they put Hessep over the five-star generals.
		I mean, think about that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So I'm guessing that you're saying that the president, as well as the Republicans in Congress, are not focusing on issues that you care about.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What would you rather them focus on?
unidentified		Absolutely not.
		It's obvious.
		They ain't all that stuff they campaign on, nothing.
		They're talking about Greenland taking the Tuskegee airlines off of the trying to provoke racial stuff.
		I mean, it's a joke.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And what do you think about the performance of Democrats in Congress?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Do you think they've done enough?
unidentified		I think they should do just like Jane Carville said: do nothing.
		Just stand back and let these Republicans and Trump screw it all the way up.
		I think they should do that.
		Kamala Harris run a perfect campaign.
		Honestly, I think some kind of way, somebody rigged it, stole it.
		It was too many people for her.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Have you seen any evidence that the election was compromised in any way?
unidentified		Nope, haven't seen any.
		I just don't believe that all the momentum that we had, that she lost like that.
		I don't think.
		I don't think that's.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Omar in Brooklyn, New York on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Omar.
unidentified		Hi, Grandwise and Kim Lee.
		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		Most importantly, I want to say good morning to Foundation of Black America.
		The topic is pretty broad, but I just want to say something that I want to focus on right and wrong.
		You know, there's a lot of things happening in our country and the world, but I think we kind of get off the topic of what's right and what's wrong.
		We know what's wrong, but what's right?
		Everybody's doing the wrong thing.
		The GOP is doing the wrong thing.
		The Democrats are doing the wrong thing.
		The president is doing the wrong thing.
		The Speaker of the House is doing the wrong thing.
		Everybody's doing the wrong thing.
		And who are they doing it against?
		Mostly they're doing it against black Americans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, what would the right things be?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What would you like them to focus on?
unidentified		The only thing that the GOP and the Democrats need to focus on is right and the wrong of this country that they've done to our people, foundational black Americans in this country.
		They've already given the natives reparations.
		They've given everybody who they've done wrong to, they've given them everything back.
		And what's wrong is that they're trying to make us look at everything else other than ourselves.
		They're doing that right.
		They're doing that very well.
		And then people are going to get on and say, oh, well, black people are doing this wrong.
		And you know what black people are doing wrong?
		Not focusing on ourselves.
		We're looking at everybody else.
		That's what they always want us to do.
		They want us to worry about everybody else, the immigrants, everybody else except us.
		Like, as soon as we start worrying about us, we got to worry about us, y'all.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's hear from Patrick in La Miranda, California on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Patrick.
unidentified		Hello, thank you.
		Yes, I think that the president and the GOP is doing a wonderful job.
		They're moving at a very fast pace because we know that, you know, in November of 2026, he'll be here before you know it.
		But yeah, as far as immigration, as far as trying to stop the war over in Ukraine and also in Israel, I think they're doing a wonderful job.
		And, you know, you got to drain the swamp.
		I don't think the Democrats have a clue.
		I think they're lost.
		And thank you very much.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's hear from Bobby in Houston, Texas, on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Bobby.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		There's not much this president and the administration, as far as I'm concerned, that they're addressing the American people's needs or desires or wants.
		Number one, they focused during the election, they talked about the economy.
		I haven't heard much about that lately.
		Eggs and gas is still very high.
		Matter of fact, gas has gone up in the last two weeks in my area in Houston by 20 cents per gallon.
		So they're not doing much other than dramatic coach wars, having us fight against each other.
		That's their ideal plan.
		Trump has, if you look at Trump and look at his history, he's never accomplished anything.
		Everything that he's in charge of, it always fails, just like everything he's doing right now is failing.
		You know, I think he, for some reason, he's more concerned about taking care of Putin and Russia than the United States.
		That's just my concern.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Bobby mentioned the economy there as well.
		Going back to that economist YouGov poll, they also did some polling on how Americans are viewing the state of the economy and the role of our politicians in shaping it.
		Only 25% of Americans describe the current state of the economy as excellent or good, while 38% describe it as fair and 35% say it is poor.
		More say the economy is getting worse than say it is getting better, with the majorities of Americans say that they're feeling personally a lot of impact from inflation and increasing grocery prices.
		Fewer Americans, just 21 percent, say they're feeling a lot of impact from declines in the stock market, though 64 percent say they are feeling at least a little impact.
		Looking at inflation and increasing grocery prices in particular, you can see that that seems to be felt more or less equally a lot across all political demographics: Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, as well as increasing grocery prices being felt pretty much by everyone.
		House Minority Leader Jeffries last week spoke out against President Trump as well as the House GOP's legislative agenda.
		Let's listen to some of those comments.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		House Republicans and the Trump administration are trying to take a chainsaw to everything that matters to the American people, like ending Social Security and Medicaid as we know it.
		Seniors on Social Security receive an average of $65 per month.
		They rely on Social Security and earn benefit to put food on the table, clothing on their back, and to make sure that they can pay their rent or pay their mortgage.
		It's extraordinary to us that Donald Trump, the administration, and Republicans are trying to detonate Social Security in real time, including by dismantling the Social Security Administration, which will impact the ability of older Americans to receive benefits.
		The Republicans believe that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
		Project 2025 is the Ponzi scheme.
		Republicans are defrauding the American people.
		Last year, Republicans promised that they would drive down the high cost of living and ignored Project 2025, lied to the American people as if it didn't exist.
		This year, Donald Trump, the administration, and Republicans in the Congress have done nothing to drive down the high cost of living.
		Costs aren't going down, they are going up.
		Inflation is going up.
		America is becoming more expensive and less affordable under complete Republican control of government.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Going back again to that economist YouGov poll in terms of how Americans are viewing the performance of the parties in Congress.
		Congressional Republicans have a favorability rating of about 38 percent, but congressional Democrats only have a favorability rating of 32 percent, with the unfavorability rating of 58 percent.
		There's a Washington Post article digging into this.
		A populist uprising stirs among Democrats furious at their leaders.
		In dozens of interviews at recent Democratic events, voters said their party leaders need to show a much greater sense of urgency and develop a plan to stop Trump and Musk.
		Democrats are turning up by the thousands at rallies across the country, showing the stirrings of a populist uprising against President Donald Trump's drastic cuts to government agencies and demanding that their leaders fight harder to save programs that benefit the middle class.
		The question now facing the party, which has been in the grips of an identity crisis since November, is whether it can harness that pulsating energy to slow Trump's agenda at a time when they have so little power.
		There is no clear Democratic leader.
		The party's popularity has crashed to historic lows in recent polls, and there's no consensus on how to win back working-class voters and younger voters who were crucial to Trump's victory last year.
		Again, our question this segment are, do you feel like President Trump and the GOP are focusing on the issues that you care about?
		Let's look at a comment we received from Facebook.
		Brad Ralph says there needs to be more attentions to reactions in the Jeffrey Epstein file.
		There's not enough at all.
		Back to your calls.
		Lucretia is in Billings, Montana on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Lucretia.
unidentified		Good morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		I guess I've hello.
		I'm coming about a lot of things.
		Well, I'm trying to touch on it briefly.
		Please bear with me.
		I do have ADHD pretty bad, which affects my communicating at times.
		But number one, my problem is with Trump is that he's going way too fast.
		I mean, there's not enough time for anybody to catch up.
		I mean, he's signing this, this, this, this.
		And then you've got that Elon Musk.
		I didn't know your buddies could come in there and do all that stuff with the GO stuff.
		Not only that, but children, I mean, one of them, I mean, I've read, not exactly sure, but one of them seems like he's been in trouble before with leaking things data.
		And then it's all saving all this money.
		I want mine back, you know.
		But not only that, I read with the food banks, they've cut the food for them.
		And I'm on a fixed income.
		I used to teach school, but I have, like I say, a pretty bad disability that affects that.
		And I will try to get off that.
		I'm 60, so it's getting late in the game.
		And then, let's see what else.
		Oh, yeah.
		And then the Greenland thing.
		I mean, that is just crazy.
		I want Greenland.
		Well, grow up, you know, so does a lot of people, I'm sure, but leave them alone.
		The way I look at it is, you know, don't start nothing, it won't be nothing.
		You know, it's common sense to me.
		But, you know, I'm independent.
		I don't like either one of them the way they do.
		For a long time, I have it.
		But, you know, then this is the Department of Education.
		As I used to teach school, and I can't believe how flippantly Trump said, I'll just give it to the states.
		Excuse me, but I know some states does not need the state to take over because they won't use the money like they're supposed to.
		And I guess that's all I have to say.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		She mentioned Elon Musk.
		And back again to that economist YouGov poll.
		Many more Americans continue to say that Elon Musk is having a lot of influence on Trump's administration than say they want him to, 65% versus 15%.
		Views on Musk's influence have been mostly stable in recent weeks.
		And so this is a polling of the perceived influence of Musk versus the desired influence of Musk.
		And 65% say he has a lot of influence, but just 15% desire him to have a lot of influence.
		47% desire to him, desire him to have no influence at all.
		That's especially strong among Democrats, 80% of whom want him to have no influence at all, but Republicans, only 15%, want him to have no influence.
		30% say they want him to have a lot of influence.
		Let's go to David on our line for Republicans in Hobesound, Florida.
		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you very much for C-SPAN.
		First of all, the prior caller said that everything Trump did turns to nothing.
		Well, Operation Warp Speed certainly turned to a lot.
		A lot of people are alive today because those vaccines were rushed to market and were effective.
		I particularly got COVID and I'm alive today because of Operation Warp Speed.
		I would have had a lot worse case of it were it not for the vaccines that I've got.
		So I'm particularly happy about that.
		Now, as far as today's what's going on today, one of the things that I completely agree with is the end to the Department of Education at the federal level.
		You have no business having a Department of Education at the federal level.
		And I say that as the husband and brother of two New York City teachers.
		The Department of Education is a zero as far as education is concerned.
		And the decent functions of that department can be transferred to the Treasury Department for the loans and the civil rights division of the Justice Department for all the anti-Semitism that's going on on our university campuses and which the Democrats at the Education Department did nothing about.
		So I completely agree with what's going on on that score, and I hope that the Department of Education goes the way of the stony silence of distant dust, as Lister Hill once, the senator from Alabama once says a phrase that he used once.
		That's where it belongs.
		And again, thank you very much for C-SPAN.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So David mentioned the efforts to close down the Department of Education.
		The Economist YouGov poll also looked at that issue and which agencies and departments Americans think should be expanded, reduced, or eliminated.
		When it comes to the Department of Education, 39% of those polled say that they think the department should be expanded.
		27% say they think it should be kept the same.
		6% say they're not sure.
		13% would like to see it reduced.
		17% would like to see it eliminated.
		Rhonda is in Brooklyn, New York on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Rhonda.
		Good morning, Rhonda.
		Go ahead, but make sure you turn down the volume on your TV.
		All right, we're going to come back to you, Rhonda.
		Let's go to Lita in Randallstown, Maryland, on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Lita.
unidentified		Good morning.
		All I want to say is I think Trump is running a big con game.
		I'm independent.
		I voted for him.
		My daughter has lost her job, and now she has to come back and live with me with all those children.
		Was she working for one of the federal agencies that Trump is pulling a con game on the public?
		And he is bought and paid for by anybody who has money.
		I don't believe there was no assassination attempt.
		I believe it was staged by Elon Musk.
		And he is, I don't even believe he's in charge anymore.
		He is being told what to do, except he probably don't know what to end this up at his age.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Literally, there hasn't been any evidence that the assassination attempt was staged.
unidentified		How do you know it was not?
		I never heard of anybody lifting their arm and saying, Secret Service don't let anybody's head get out after they've been gunshot.
		But he is messing up a messing up people's lives.
		He is and making things inconvenient for people who have voted for him.
		I voted for him.
		And now I'm in a fix.
		And he wanted to tax the rich and give a fair time and the budget or whatever it is would go down.
		He is destroying this country.
		And the people are so stupid, they don't even realize he's removing every safety net of Social Security, Medicare.
		They are so dumb they're being con.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So Lita, that you voted for Trump.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Next time, next election, or even in the midterms, how do you plan to change your vote, or if at all?
unidentified		I'm not voting for any Republican.
		I'm a poor woman.
		I'm working.
		I'm on Social Security.
		He's disrupting families.
		He is causing all kinds of inconvenience.
		Trump, I don't even believe he's in charge anymore.
		There are people behind him who have a plan, smart people.
		And he's out on the stage performing like a puppet.
		And Elon Musk has bought and paid for him.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Lita, let's actually hear a bit from Elon Musk on Fox News Thursday night.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		He was speaking about the goals of Doge as well as the group's achievements so far.
elon musk ▲ ● ▼		Our goal is to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars.
		So from a nominal deficit of $2 trillion to try to cut the deficit in half to $1 trillion, or looked at it in total federal spending to drop the federal spending from $7 trillion to $6 trillion.
		We want to reduce the spending by eliminating waste and fraud, reduce the spending by 15%, which seems really quite achievable.
		The government is not efficient, and there's a lot of waste and fraud.
		So we feel confident that a 15% reduction can be done without affecting any of the critical government services.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to talk to all of you.
elon musk ▲ ● ▼		It's about making it better.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		And talk to all the guys here about the specifics.
bret baier ▲ ● ▼		But for you, what's the most astonishing thing you've found out in this process?
elon musk ▲ ● ▼		The sheer amount of waste and fraud in the government.
		It is astonishing.
		It's mind-blowing.
		Just we routinely encounter wastes of a billion dollars or more, casually.
		You know, for example, like the simple survey that was literally a 10-question survey that you could do with SurveyMonkey cost you about $10,000 was the government was being charged almost $1 billion for that.
		For just the survey.
		A billion dollars for a simple online survey.
		Do you like the national park?
		And then there appeared to be no feedback loop for what would be done with that survey.
		So the survey would just go into nothing.
unidentified		It was like a good thing.
bret baier ▲ ● ▼		You technically are a special government employee, and you're supposed to be 130 days.
unidentified		Are you going to continue past that?
unidentified		Or do you think that's what you're going to do?
elon musk ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think we will have accomplished most of the work required to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars within that timeframe.
unidentified		So we're in that timeframe, 130 days.
unidentified		And the process is a report at some point, 100 days?
elon musk ▲ ● ▼		Not really a report.
unidentified		We are cutting the waste and fraud in real time.
unidentified		So every day that passes.
elon musk ▲ ● ▼		Our goal is to reduce the waste and fraud by $4 billion a day, every day, seven days a week.
unidentified		And so far we are succeeding.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Back to your calls on whether you think that President Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress are focusing on the issues that you care about.
		Let's hear from Ricky in Marshall, North Carolina on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Ricky.
unidentified		My opinion is: I thought we had 432 congressmen, 102 senators, and all the judicial system to regulate our country, not one person.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, and I'm guessing you're referring to President Trump as the one person?
unidentified		It looks like it on the news.
unidentified		Nobody else makes a decision except for Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Is this what you expected from President Trump?
unidentified		Nope.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What did you expect and what would you rather them be focusing on or doing?
unidentified		I expect him to go through Congress and Senate for anything that he does.
jim marrs ▲ ● ▼		One man should not have the power to do what he wants to do.
gerald jack mclamb ▲ ● ▼		If we're going to have that system, we're going to have a dictatorship instead of a democracy.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So what would you like to see Republicans as well as the Democrats in Congress doing in response to President Trump and how he's choosing to govern?
unidentified		I would like to see the Democrats and Republicans take hold of the reins and do their job instead of let somebody else tell them what to do.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Next up is Sherry in Michigan on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Sherry.
unidentified		I am actually, I'm totally disappointed in the whole system from the president down.
		And it's downright embarrassing for us to be so divided when we supposed to be as one.
		The whole country looking at what you're saying.
		Strong, standing, but of course we all know divided.
		That's where we fall.
		The world is watching us and it's humiliating.
		It's embarrassing for us to be so weak and so against one another.
		I never thought I'd see the day where I feel like Congress is bought and paid for.
		They're not standing up.
		You can say Democratic or Republican.
		Our president is supposed to be used to be for the Democrat.
		He's the president of the United States, not just one party.
		The Supreme Court allowing things to have proceed, just like in King of Beatles.
		Once you pay your bill, you're overdue.
		They don't give you credit for all these things that's being allowed.
		Everybody's sitting back.
		It almost feels like other countries are controlling us according to what they want.
		Their lives are sitting back laughing at us, so divided.
		We used to be strong in everything from the military, you know, everybody, chaos.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Sherry, since you're speaking about division in the country, I want to play a clip from earlier this month where Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez held a rally in Denver, and they were speaking against the actions of the Trump administration, and they issued a call to unite.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's listen.
bernie sanders ▲ ● ▼		So the point that Alexandria made a few minutes ago is exactly the right point.
		And that is what the right wing wants us to do is to turn on each other.
		They want to divide us up by the color of our skin or where we were born or what our religion is or what our sexual orientation is.
		That's how they win.
		They divide us up.
		Now, I'm not a mathematician, but I do know that 99% is a hell of a bigger number than 1%.
		And I do know that if we stand together, we are the vast majority of people, we can defeat Trumpism.
		We can create a political movement so that we have a government and economy that works for all of us, not just the 1%.
		So, brothers and sisters, this is a difficult moment in American history, but it's not the first difficult moment we have had.
		We've gone through some rough periods in the past as well.
		But what I believe from the bottom of my heart, if we stand together, if we don't let them to divide us up, if we are smart, if we're willing to go outside of our comfort zones, there is nothing, nothing that can stop us.
		Let us go forward together.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's go now to Philippe in Reading, Pennsylvania on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Philippe.
unidentified		Well, once again, it's Philippe A, and we are in Winning PA.
		And thank you for the words and sharing of the great Bernie Sanders.
		No, our government under current administration and standard is not doing what is necessary for the American people and society.
		They're focusing on all the wrong things.
		Infrastructure is in disarray.
		Our national security is obviously not where it should be.
		But the biggest thing is, as Senator Sanders saying, is they're dividing us more and more.
		I don't like to use the word winning, but I like to reduce ourselves down to humans versus this party A or party B or party C. Until we get to the point that we see each other as human beings and not as one group or one other group, we're going to continue to fail.
		And we are failing.
		And then when you bring in these, we're subject to the influence of people like Elon Musk, who tries to simplify everything, saying that everything that they don't agree with is somehow fraud, waste, and abuse.
		But it's not.
		Just because you don't agree with the program doesn't make it fraudulent.
		Just because you don't agree with the program doesn't mean it's waste.
		That is a position.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to puzzle there.
		I think you called in last week, if I'm not mistaken.
		And I'll just remind folks that we ask people to wait 30 days before calling in again.
		So let's go to Scott in Roseville, California on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Scott.
unidentified		Yes, been 30 days for me, at least.
		Thank you.
		Still beautiful.
		Still beautiful, as always.
		And how long did you have to sit for those sprays?
		That's awesome with the earrings.
		You did well.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of how the Trump administration and the GOP-controlled Congress are focusing their priorities right now?
unidentified		Interact with me.
		You remember the Flintstones cartoon when you were young?
		Maybe my age in my junior years, like late 70s, when the Flintstones was out?
		And you had Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble and Bam Bam.
		What Trump is doing is just like Bam Bam, where everybody was like, oh, it's okay that the baby took his father and bashed him on the ground and destroyed things.
		And everyone was like, oh, what a cute baby.
		What a dumb baby, but a smart baby.
		No.
		The baby carried a big stick.
		But like Truman said, carry a big stick, but speak softly.
		Trump is Bam Bam.
		And he's just ruining things.
		So in 2016, when he came around and tried for office, he was willing to take either party.
		He was willing to go Democrat or Republican as long as he could get in.
		And then all of his criminal behavior came down.
		And then he said, stop the steal.
		This election was stolen from me.
		And he's going to do it a third time at the end of four years.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Victor in Oxnard, Canada, I believe, and is on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Victor.
unidentified		Hi, it's Oxstar, California.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Oh, California, excuse me.
unidentified		Personally, a first time caller, by the way.
		Personally, I never thought that Trump and the GOP would be focusing on the issues I care about from the very beginning.
		What I do find sad or most troublesome now is that he's doing irrepressible, irrevocable, I can't think of the word, irrehensible harm to the country that we'll never be able to recover from.
		These are things that they're doing that will never, ever get back.
		They'll be gone forever.
		And that to me is some of the most troubling things I care about.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What would you like to see them focusing on instead?
unidentified		Well, it's such GOP.
unidentified		It's not going to happen.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, then what would you like to see the Democrats doing?
unidentified		Climate change.
		Climate change, you know, the bees are dying at an alarming rate.
		That's a lot of food for the human population.
		So climate change to me is a really huge deal.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Do you feel like the Democrats have done enough to push those priorities?
unidentified		Well, the Democrats are in a tough situation.
		They're not in control of the House or the Senate.
		So, you know, it would be nice to see Americans getting more in tune with how laws are made and their own political savviness.
		Okay.
		So that this wouldn't be in the situation, but it is what it is.
		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Dave in South Carolina on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Dave.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning, and good morning to everyone watching this show.
		My thunder was kind of stole by the fellow from Pennsylvania and the guy from Oxnard.
		I'm not surprised that the Republicans are doing what they're doing.
		But what troubles me is how afraid of being primaried they all are, that they're willing to disregard decades of proper behavior between the parties.
		Now, there's always waste and there's always corruption with human beings.
		It's going to happen, okay?
		But the insider trading that's done, both in the Senate and the Congress, to me, that is a paramount issue.
		The military-industrial complex and reining it in.
		Nothing has, look at how much has been taken from education and other benefits to the majority, but how little has been taken from the military-industrial complex.
		It's like it's taboo.
		They won't touch it.
		They're scared to death.
		And the Department of Education was started because the states were not doing their job.
		They were not educating their people.
		And that is unacceptable.
		And the inequities that are continuing to purvey to benefit the upper pile of us is incredible.
		I'm afraid that it's not going to stop until violence happens.
		And I don't want to see that.
		And I don't think anybody in their right mind wants to see that.
		But I thank you for giving me your time.
		And my best to everyone in the country, regardless of your political standing.
		We're still Americans, whether you like it or not.
		Thank you very much.
		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Also in South Carolina, in Columbia, South Carolina, we have Carlos on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Carlos.
unidentified		Good morning.
		You're doing a great job.
		And I'm a little nervous, so bear with me.
		I do, I was a registered Democrat up until 2020.
		And people, I just want people to realize that Trump was originally a Democrat, and we traded Musk, RFK, and Gabbard for Liz Cheney.
		That's a good trade.
		They were all Democrats.
		We have $36 trillion in debt.
		If we take responsibility for that, it's $105,000 per American, including babies.
		And that's not even including the $1 trillion we just pay in interest.
		Another thing that people are saying that the Republicans are doing it for money.
		Well, Elon Musk's wealth has gone down $120 billion roughly since President Trump took over.
		And the top 10% own 90% of the stock market, which has gone down.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Carlos, since you were mentioning the markets and the economy, I want to point to this CNBC article highlighting that consumer confidence in where the economy is headed has hit a 12-year low.
		This is the conference board's measure for future expectations, tumbled 9.6 points to 65.2, which is the lowest reading in 12 years.
		What do you think is behind this negative consumer outlook?
		Oh, well, I guess we've lost Carlos, but thank you for calling in for the first time.
		One of the things factoring into consumer confidence is our inflation concerns ahead of the tariff announcements.
		Core inflation actually rose ahead of Trump's tariff announcement.
		This is an article in thehill.com.
		The Federal Reserve's preferred inflation gauge held steady at a 2.5% annual increase, while core prices, which exclude food and energy, jumped up to a 2.8% annual increase.
		The advance in the headline personal consumption expenditures price index was in line with analyst expectations, but the increase in the core came in slightly hotter than expected, adding to inflation concerns.
		Let's hear from Perry in Warren, Michigan on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Perry.
unidentified		Good morning.
		How are you this morning?
		And thank God for C-SPAN.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		I'm fine.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes.
		I'm just loving proof of what this country is going through and what our great president is putting us through.
		I'm a Medicare patient because I'm a dialysis patient.
		And they have cut my Medicare by almost $100 per month.
		But yet they say they're not going to fool with Medicare or Social Security.
		Can you hear me?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I can hear you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Continue.
unidentified		Okay.
		I just think that's a tragedy.
		And, you know, that's about all I have to say.
		And may God bless us.
		Have a nice day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jeff is in New York on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jeff.
unidentified		Thank you, Kimberly.
		I wanted to comment on the state of the United States public health decline since the Trump administration has taken over.
		It's no secret that we have cut all of the necessary public health defenses against infectious disease, including even measles, where there's a current outbreak, and of course the looming possibility of an H5N1 outbreak, which people only tangentially think about because of the price of eggs.
		And that's because we have to call millions of chickens because they're infected.
		But what is underlying that economic news about the price of eggs is the politicians aren't talking about what it is that is the potential danger from the H5N1 virus that's infecting these poultry, cows, and about a dozen other mammals.
		This is a problem of zoonosis.
		It's almost as if people have a collective amnesia after COVID.
		They don't want to believe that it's possible again so soon.
		Nobody can say for certain it's going to come today or tomorrow or next year.
		But all the evidence in the scientific community has people alarmed at the fact that we are completely disarmed ourselves from biomedical research, from therapeutics, from vaccine production.
		We are not prepared in case there is an outbreak.
		And when an outbreak occurs, just like it had in COVID, the CDC before COVID had maintained that the risk to the public was low, and that was correct.
		But the problem is it doesn't go from low to medium to high.
		As soon as there's human-to-human transmission of the virus, it goes from low to on fire.
		And that's what happened in COVID, and that's what could happen with H5N1.
		And what we need to do is bring attention to this.
		I would appreciate it if C-SPAN could have people, for example, like Dr. Paul Offitt or Francis Collins or other members, high-profile members of the community, of the bioresearch community, to speak on C-SPAN and explain the danger to them in terms that will make it clear.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jeff, because you were mentioning the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that was also in that YouGov Economist polling looking at how Americans view the need to expand or reduce the size of government.
		The question was which agencies and departments do Americans think should be expanded, reduced, or eliminated.
		And when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 40% of Americans think it should be expanded, 32% think it should be reduced, excuse me, kept the same.
		Just 17% think it should be reduced, and only 5% think it should be eliminated.
		Now then, when it comes to the Democrats, at a town hall on Friday, Representative Robert Garcia, a Democrat from California, said that Democrats need to be, have been focused for too long on respectability politics and that they need to do a better job of meeting the moment to fight back against Republicans.
robert garcia ▲ ● ▼		I think we have to recognize that right now the Democratic Party, in many ways, is broken.
		We have to recognize that us as a party, I include myself, the party, was not ready and not prepared for the moment.
		And that we, particularly the party, the party mechanism, Has been unwilling, I think, to take the fight in a way necessary that people want to see.
		I think most of you know, like, I've always been a supporter.
		I mean, I'm a supporter of the party.
		I've worked hard to uplift candidates, but I've never been more disappointed.
		I've never been more hurt or disappointed by our own party than I am right now.
		Never have been.
		Never have been.
		And it's not that I don't believe in the principles of the party that I represent.
		It's not that I don't believe in the mission of what the Democratic Party believes in.
		But what I understand very clearly is that we did not meet the moment.
		We're not meeting the moment.
		And so what we, and that's the truth.
		And so what I think, one of the faults of what I think is happening, I think some things are changing.
		We have for too long focused on respectability politics.
		Too long.
		For too long, we've always tried to do the right thing.
		To be the kindest.
		To say, well, these people are crazy.
		We're not going to be like that.
		Or, oh, we're going to be the ones that are going to tell you like it is and go in and debate.
		We're going to promote bipartisanship.
		We're going to be the first to reach over to the aisle and bring folks in.
		Guys, those days are over.
		Those days are over.
		And I hope what comes after this moment that we can get to a place where that can happen.
		We all wish we can get to a place where this country can come back together.
		But what I've learned right now is that we have to match and meet what the Republicans are doing.
		We have to match and meet the energy.
		And so what I think, what I hope you're seeing, what I hope you're seeing from me and others is that we're now choosing to play politics the way they're playing politics.
		We have to be as aggressive.
		We have to stop.
		Of course, I'm not going to try not to use too many metaphors because obviously I get in trouble.
		They try to arrest me.
		But we honestly have to match.
		We've been bringing, as we all know, they've been bringing guns to the bar fight and we've been walking with spoons.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's get back to your calls.
		Doug is in Delaware on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Doug.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		You know, the prompt today, I'm a Republican prompt today, is whether or not the president and his administration are working on issues that concern me.
		I did not vote for the president this election because I was afraid that he would follow through on doing exactly what he said he might.
		You know, the things that this administration is concerned with, the actions that they're undertaking, portray an agenda that is quite the opposite of what I think most Americans who voted for the president are looking for and definitely contrary to their well-being.
		You know, my concern moving forward as I age is trying to leave a better world behind for future generations.
		And I'm well aware that someone could destroy a lot of hard work in a short amount of time.
		And it seems that that's what we're up against right now.
		You know, in the president's prior career, he was a practitioner of a technique in finance called Green Mail, where a hostile buyer, financed by an outside interest, Assert its control over a private company and then basically intends to take it over, destroy it, pull the copper out of the wall.
		And generally, you know, they buy you out, get you to go away just for having asked.
		You know, it's sort of a heads-up, tails-you-lose thing.
		And I think that that's what this president embodies, and just what he embodies, but what a lot of his followers have begun to subscribe to.
		You know, democracy and statehood isn't, you know, and diplomacy is not a world is not a zero-sum game.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Doug, what would you like to see then Republicans in Congress doing?
unidentified		Well, I would like to see some of these congressmen and congresswomen who have spent so many years complaining.
		You know, I'm old enough to remember that during the Obama era, when he had a supermajority, that they, you know, they adopted this sort of obstinence technique that was spearheaded by Boehner and Mitch McConnell, if everybody recalls the grand bargain.
		You know what I mean?
		Like, Boehner wouldn't budge on revenue.
		You know, and Obama offered cuts to entitlements, you know, and he got hell for it.
		But the only reason why it didn't happen is because Boehner and McConnell wouldn't move.
		You know, in this case, you know, I'm seeing a lot of people who they know better, you know, and the things that they say that they believe they should demonstrate.
		You know, as we speak of right now, these people are standing by as we deport people, not to their country of origin, but to a private concentration tramp being run by private interests in El Salvador.
		And I haven't heard a word from anybody in Congress about who might have paid for that or for the publicity videos of it or for any of the things that ICE is doing right now that are clearly illegal.
		You know, our Secretary of State is Cuban himself.
		And I'm reading stories in the paper from the Miami Herald about a man who isn't, his wife's a naturalized citizen, but he has a work permit.
		He's been here forever.
		He went to take his trash up and they pulled him into a van and they have no idea where he is.
		You know, where are these people?
		Where are their morals?
		So much for law and order.
		I saw footage of Victoria Sparks Town Hall in Indiana the other day, just yesterday.
		And she's talking about how if people come here illegally, then they don't get due process.
		They're saying if you say something they don't like.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Doug, I want to go back to a bit of the polling on this issue that you've raised about the deportations.
		63% of Americans, including 67% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans, have heard about the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrest of activist Mahmoud Khalil.
		20% have a favorable view of him, and 28% have an unfavorable view.
		And so in this Economist YouGov poll, they asked the question: under what circumstances do Americans think the U.S. should be allowed to deport immigrants?
		About half of Americans think that the U.S. should be allowed to deport undocumented immigrants for any reason.
		An additional 35% think deportation of undocumented immigrants should only be allowed if they have committed a crime.
		Support for allowing the deportation of non-criminal visa holders, green card holders, birthright citizens, and naturalized citizens is far lower than support for the deportation of undocumented immigrants who haven't committed a crime.
		Support for the U.S. being able to deport people in each of these groups who have not committed crimes is below 15%.
		That's that Economist YouGov poll.
		Now then, let's go to Christine in West Bridgewater, Massachusetts, on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Christine.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I totally agree with the previous caller on everything he said.
		Yeah, I don't know what Trump's doing in office.
		He'll do something good.
		And then he just turns around and makes it all bad.
		He's just like a wreck and ball that comes in there, and he makes one step forward and five steps backwards.
		All I ever hear is him destroying things, but I never hear a plan as to how he's going to implement health care, how he's going to take care of.
		I mean, nothing's being built yet.
		All this money that's coming into the country, well, how long is it going to take before manufacturing starts?
		And what's going to happen to the people in the meantime who doesn't have work right now and is going to be losing Medicaid or Medicare and all the other benefits?
		It's scary for people out there right now.
		And they need to find a way to stop him from breaking the law.
		Like I called him once before.
		If you don't have law, you've got nothing.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from James in Newark, New Jersey on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, James.
unidentified		Yeah, how y'all doing?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good thing.
unidentified		Thanks to take my call.
		I've been heaven in politics going back to 1956.
		I was three years old.
		It was Eisenhower, Khustoff, and Bice.
		And the name Pet since one hand election did for the people.
		I thought for people.
		Jennifer Kendi, his second term, welcome to people.
		Rob Kendi, if he would have got denected, he did get the delegate, by the way.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, what do you think of how the GOP-controlled Congress as well as the president are adjusting their priorities in this administration?
unidentified		Well, I'm the model it.
		Maybe heavenly model it.
		Now, if we don't do it, people, the porn continues happening.
		Neighbours Johnson did for the porn.
		I now did for the porn.
		John Kendi, his second come, welcome to the porn.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's hear from Joel in Mountain Home, Arkansas on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Joel.
unidentified		Yes, good morning, ma'am.
		Good morning, world.
		Now, I've only got about four things.
		We have, and I don't think the people understand this, $37 trillion debt.
		That's one thing we have.
		Number two, when the Democrats took charge last year, the first thing they did was stop the oil production.
		I don't understand that today.
		Oil runs this country.
		That transportation, everything.
		Drivers had their job.
		They lost their jobs.
		Now, when you stop all, I don't understand that to this day.
		And this administration is trying to get this back working again.
		Number three, we need term limit.
		The same people, they stay there for 40 years.
		50 years, my God.
		They're seen out.
		And number four, just remember, I think this is number four.
		This is just the devil's playground.
		This big glob of dirt on this earth.
		It's just the devil's playground.
		And all of you are playing into their game.
		God sent devil down here to control us.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Joel, the first thing on Joel's list was the national debt.
		And this is one of the reasons that President Trump has said Elon Musk is using the activities of Doge in order to reduce the size of the federal government.
		And as reported here in The Hill, Musk's influence will face its first big test in Wisconsin.
		The Wisconsin Supreme Court race on Tuesday will put Elon Musk's political and financial influence to the test after he poured millions of dollars in the race to support a conservative candidate.
		Musk has spent $12 million through his America PAC to support Brad Schimmel over a liberal candidate Susan Crawford in a race that will determine the partisan tilt on the state Supreme Court.
		Building America's Future, a group that has previously received funding from Musk, has added $4.7 million to the race.
		On top of that, he will speak in Wisconsin on Sunday night, days before voters are set to head to the polls.
		Now, we are going to be carrying that speech tonight in Wisconsin.
		It's going to air at 7:30 p.m. Eastern, and that's when you're going to see Elon Musk, a presidential advisor and head of Doge, speak ahead of that election.
		And then that will be live at 7:30 p.m. Eastern here on C-SPAN on c-span.org and on C-SPAN now, our mobile video app.
		Now then, let's get one more call in before we have to end our segment.
		Jay is in Tennessee on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Jay.
unidentified		You there?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I'm there.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Can you just turn down the volume on your TV a bit and then go ahead?
unidentified		Yes, that guy called in a minute ago, the Republican, $37 million, trillion dollars.
		Well, people don't understand that every 100 days, we got to pay a trillion dollars.
		So you're looking at $3.5 trillion a year, less than a year.
		I mean, what do these people think?
		It's money cash from.
		You got to work.
		You got to pay for these.
		You got to pay your taxes.
		And they're trying to get a billionaire now to keep the tax rate down.
		That's a good thing.
		Because when I was working, when Trump went in first time, within six months, I was bringing home $70 more every two weeks on my pay.
		That's $140 a month.
		Now, that's extra money for me.
		But I'm on disability now, so I'm on fixed skin count.
		And these Democrats, I'm a Democrat, but these Democrats ain't got no common sense.
		I don't know where they went.
		They ain't got no common sense.
		The policies they come up with is out of the world.
		They ain't got no policy.
		They ain't got nothing good for each American that's in here.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So we're going to get a couple of comments in from social media before we end this segment.
		The question again was whether or not the Trump administration and the GOP are focusing on the issues that you care about.
		One person on X said, absolutely not.
		The third promise on Trump's list of promises was to make America affordable again.
		So far, it's only becoming less affordable for most people.
		And then another person on X said, yes.
		Trump is focusing on his campaign promises.
		That is what I voted for.
		Now then, coming up next, we're going to have a roundtable discussion with Republican pollster BJ Martino and Democratic pollster Nancy Zadankowitz.
		They're going to discuss the Trump presidency, the Democratic opposition, and the political news of the day.
		Then later, Martha Miller of George Mason University's Law School, Law School's National Security Institute will join us to discuss the leaked signal group chat with senior intelligence officials on U.S. military action in Yemen.
		be right back.
unidentified		This week on the C-SPAN Networks, the House and Senate are in session.
		The House will vote on legislation to end nationwide injunctions in response to federal judges blocking President Trump's policies.
		They'll also vote on a bill requiring in-person proof of citizenship to register to vote.
		The Senate will vote on legislation from Democrats to end the national emergency declared by President Trump on February 1st to impose tariffs on Canadian goods.
		On Tuesday, retired Lieutenant General John Kaine, nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
		Also on Tuesday, authors, historians, and scholars testify before the House Oversight Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets Subcommittee about records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
		On Wednesday, the President and CEO of Boeing, Kelly Orberg, testifies before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, examining steps Boeing has taken to address production deficiencies and safety issues identified after a door plug blew out on an Alaska Airlines flight.
		Boeing has been subjected to additional safety audits and enhanced FAA oversight since the incident.
		Also on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of Medina versus Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, in which South Carolina Health and Human Services removed Planned Parenthood as a qualified health provider from its Medicaid enrollment.
		Watch live this week on the C-SPAN networks and on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
		Also, head over to C-SPAN.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
		c-span 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.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to c-SPAN.org/slash radio on SiriusXM radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN Radio.
		Hear our live call-in program Washington Journal daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day, catch Washington today, weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back now for our roundtable discussion to discuss the Trump presidency as well as other political news that's going on here in Washington.
		I'm joined now by BJ Martino, who is a Republican pollster and strategist, president and CEO of the Terrence Group.
		Welcome to Washington Journal.
unidentified		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And also we have joining us from Austin, Texas, Nancy Zdankiewicz, who is the founder of Z to A Research and also a Democratic pollster and strategist.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for joining us this morning.
unidentified		Good to be here.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Nancy, I want to start with you and the story that's been getting so much attention: the signal chat controversy that really embroiled the Trump White House and Washington over the past week.
		Senate Republican Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker has requested an expedited Inspector General investigation into the leak of this sensitive signal group chat.
		What are you looking for in terms of Congress's taking action on this and your overall reaction to the story?
unidentified		It is a crazy story.
		And I think that when the Trump administration has done things in this administration or in the past that actually cross the line when it comes to people's idea about security, that's when things get a little bit more traction with the public.
		Otherwise, it's really easy to dismiss them as just politics.
		And in particular, when Republicans on the Hill give credence to concerns that people have about security and actions that the administration is taking, it allows things to become more of a political problem.
		It's very easy for the administration to dismiss a lot of things as just politics or the media or Democrats complaining.
		But when it's Republican lawmakers and people's security on the line, it has a different flavor with the public.
		It's harder to push it aside.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		BJ, do you think that there are real national security concerns here, and what do you think of the administration's response to this so far?
unidentified		Well, I think in terms of the response, the issue the administration has is one of this becoming a large distraction from their other goals.
		When you look at it through the lens of polling, which is what I look through everything through the lens of how is the public viewing this, 53% in a recent poll said this is a very serious problem.
		So there is a majority of voters who, when asked about it, say it's very serious.
		That said, there are a number of other issues for voters that are even higher on their list of concerns, particularly still when it comes to cost of living and economic concerns.
		And so the problem for the administration starts to come is when this issue begins to take more oxygen out of the room and become larger and larger in terms of discussion here in Washington that prevents them from continuing to act and work on their own agenda.
		So that's right now, I think, the significant problem.
		Many voters, oftentimes, when it comes to these issues in Washington, when it comes to indictments, when it comes to elections for Speaker that we went through several years ago, they pay attention to it on a very superficial level.
		They're more concerned about the issues that concern them.
		And that's, again, where the problem comes in.
		Is this becoming a significant distraction from the administration and Congress's ability to actually act on behalf of the American people?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Staying with you, BJ, speaking of the administration's agenda, a big part of that has been downsizing the federal workforce and the cuts that Doge has made.
		And there have been, there's a big partisan divide in the polling that you pay so much attention to in terms of the response to that.
		Looking back at this Economist YouGov poll, nearly half of Americans believe that the Trump administration's efforts to reduce the budgets and staff of federal agencies have gone too far.
		Just 25% say that the efforts have been about right, 17% saying that they have not gone far enough.
		But obviously, a huge political divide there with Democrats overwhelmingly thinking they've gone too far.
		A little bit less so on Republicans, more of them saying that they have been about right.
unidentified		Do you think the public has actually started to see the effects of these cuts?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And what do you make of this polling?
unidentified		I think they've begun to see some of the stories about it.
		I don't think that they've necessarily begun to see some of the effects about it.
		What you see, and then that same economist poll, they asked questions about whether Democrats join or oppose efforts to reduce government expenditures.
		Overall, 66% say Democrats should join those efforts.
		Is the federal government debt sustainable or unsustainable?
		Two-thirds say that it's unsustainable.
		So voters can hold two different thoughts in their head at the same time.
		And what this suggests in the data in that many ways this is a messaging problem on the part of the administration to be able to explain the ultimate goal of these cuts and also manage some of the stories that start to come out about the negative consequences, but also talk about the positive consequences.
		So voters have a split mind right now.
		They're a little concerned to hear stories about problems caused by these cuts, but they're not necessarily feeling any negative consequences themselves for the most part.
		But they also really want to deal with the size of the government, the size of the debt.
		They think that that is something that even Democrats should join in that effort.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's actually listen to Elon Musk on Fox News on Thursday night responding to criticisms that the Doge cuts are being too disruptive.
unidentified		I do agree that we actually want to be careful in the cuts.
elon musk ▲ ● ▼		So we want to measure twice, if not thrice, and cut once.
		And actually, that is our approach.
		They may characterize it as shooting from the hip, but it is anything but that, which is not to say that we don't make mistakes.
		If we were to approach this with the standard of making no mistakes at all, that would be like saying someone baseball's got about 1,000.
		That's impossible.
		So when we do make mistakes, we correct them quickly and we move on.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Nancy, your response to Musk's comments there and overall what the polling is telling us about these cuts.
unidentified		Well, BJ is right.
		Americans really do want to address things like waste and fraud and abuse.
		And they do think that government can be more efficient.
		But they do not believe that the approach that Musk is taking is a smart one.
		They think that he's really using a blunt instrument, really, to do things.
		And they see, as BJ mentioned, all of the stories that are coming out that really make it evident that this is not somebody who's using a scalpel approach.
		And so all of the polling that we see confirms that people do like the idea of this, but they think that we're being pretty reckless and that people are going to get hurt.
		Large majorities in polling are saying that they think that people are going to get hurt as a result of these cuts because of the way in which they're being done.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And but when we look at polling in particular, the Democrats are not doing particularly well in polling either.
		Nancy, I'm looking here at a Politico article.
		We dug into the polls.
		Democrats in Congress should be very afraid, pointing out here, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer knows better than anyone, the Democratic base is pissed off and not just a little.
		The intensity of the anger roiling the party is at a historic level, suggesting a breach between Congressional Democrats and the party grassroots so severe that it could reshape the 2026 primary season.
		You know, there are just 40% of Democrats approve of the job that the Democrats are doing.
		49% disapprove in a recent Quinnipiac poll.
		What's going on there?
unidentified		Yeah, I'm seeing this in my own polling as well.
		This kind of reminds me of the Tea Party moment after Obama was first elected.
		And there was a period where the sort of grassroots and core of the Democratic Party was saying, I don't think that you congressional leaders, sort of the old establishment of the Republican Party, really get it.
		And I think that the Democratic Party is having its own moment where we're saying this is not how we want to respond.
		And a lot of people would like for there to be more effective pushback against the Trump administration.
		And in part, I think that really it's incumbent on Democratic leaders to listen to the Democratic Party and the people that they want to lead and that they need to become activated and mobilized and that our job is really to support those efforts.
		But in an atmosphere where so many people say that they're scared, we asked a lot of people who didn't like what the administration was doing how they were feeling about why they hadn't or had engaged in certain activities in reaction to the Trump administration.
		And the biggest thing that they cited was fear.
		And so having other leaders in the Democratic Party that can come out and can themselves show that they are trying to fight back is really important when so many people are scared.
		If the most powerful people aren't going to stand up and vocally push back, then what should everybody else be, what's the message that everyone else is getting, right?
		And so I think that that's why a lot of Democrats are pulling back.
		They also are very clear in the polling about what they really want us to do.
		They want us to focus a lot more on the sort of policies that are going to help the middle class.
		They want to make sure that we're getting money out of politics and that we're being brave and we're saying we're going to raise taxes on the rich and we're going to raise taxes on corporations and we are going to rein in the money in politics.
		And they also want a new generation, new blood of leadership.
		They want folks that are going to have fresh ideas, new approaches to take on this moment because it's become clear to many people that the idea of defending norms and institutions isn't enough and that we have to offer a different path forward to actually fix some of the core problems that have allowed this Trump and Musk situation to happen in the first place.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, BJ Republicans aren't exactly having an easy time of it with their voters either.
		Republican officials nationwide are running into real hostility at some of their town halls around the country.
		We have an example from Wyoming where Representative Harriet Higman from the very Republican Wyoming has actually announced that she's not going to be doing any in-person town halls, opting for virtual events, citing safety concerns.
		Other Republican officials have been advised by GOP leadership around the country not to do town halls.
		What do you think is happening with the GOP base?
unidentified		Well, the same thing that's happening with the Democrats, meaning that there's a core of Democratic grassroots voters who are incredibly engaged right now.
		And I think Nancy's example of the Tea Party is a very astute one.
		What's happening with these town halls right now, and I think there was some reporting from the New York Times the other day that went through and talked to a crowd at one of these.
		They couldn't find a Republican in the crowd.
		They found almost all Democratic voters and a couple Independents.
		So what this is happening in these teletown halls, these town halls, the in-person ones, is that the energized Democratic base is showing up at these, and it's not a representative sample.
		I think the important thing to see between the parties right now, and it's fascinating, is that the Democratic Party doesn't have a leader, one at least recognized by their own voters right now.
		Yeah, they asked in that economist poll, who do you think is the leader of the Democratic Party right now?
		And there was far from any sort of consensus.
		And the closest thing they have is Chuck Schumer, who right now nationally has a 26% favorable, 57% unfavorable rating, which is far worse than Elon Musk, which is worse than Donald Trump.
		So there's a real problem on that side.
		But certainly with the town halls, it's been a wise move to move to those teletown halls, continue to communicate with the voters of their actual districts, no one who's bust in, and make sure that we're actually talking to the breadth of the electorate.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Nancy, I saw you nodding.
unidentified		Oh, gosh, well, we see the same things in surveys, and that's the cool thing about being a pollster.
		You can't really be detached from reality.
		So Chuck Schumer is incredibly unpopular.
		And in part, that's because Democrats are pulling back from him right now.
		They are very angry about the vote to allow the spending package on the Republican side to go through.
		Felt like this was an opportunity to stand up to Trump and Republicans.
		And so I think that that's why he's getting a lot of attention.
		And we see that drop off in support.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Democrat House Majority Forward is launching new ads in 23 congressional districts around the country and trying to point out how House Republicans, they argue, are threatening health care in particular for nearly 80 million people.
		And these ads urging Americans to call in their representatives to stand up for us, not billionaires.
		Here's one ad targeting Colorado Representative Gabe Evans.
unidentified		Gabe Evans was sent to Washington to cut costs.
		Instead, Evans just cast the deciding vote to set up cut threatening health care for nearly 80 million Americans.
		To cut another big check to billionaires.
		Cutting Medicaid and making health care more expensive so billionaires can pay less.
		Threatening health care for 37 million kids and kicking seniors out of nursing homes just to make billionaires like Elon Musk even richer.
		It's time to send Gabe Evans a message.
		Stand up for us, not billionaires.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		There are a couple of moments coming up in terms of special elections as well as this race for the Supreme Court in Wisconsin that a lot of folks are looking to as sort of litmus test for the GOP.
		In particular, that Supreme Court race in Wisconsin.
		Musk is going to be there today.
		What is your take on these races and these special elections in Florida and these moments for the GOP, BJ?
unidentified		Sure.
		Well, let me briefly talk about this ad that just aired that the HMP had billboards in many of these districts too that had to be pulled for their falsehoods.
		Now they're coming up with ads using these scare tactics.
		But what we're seeing in, I think, some of these specials goes back to this idea of the change in the electorate that's occurred over the past several years.
		David Schorer, a very smart Democratic analyst this week, started to talk about the nature of our changing electorate and he posted some things online.
		And what it's clear is that Republicans now do better in high turnout elections.
		It's just by the nature of the electorate.
		So when we go and look at special elections in particular, where the electorate is much smaller, it's going to be shifting to the left for certain.
		There is no doubt that just natural forces suggest that those special elections aren't going to be as strong for Republicans.
		Right now, looking at the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, and full disclosure, I'm polling for Brad Schimmel in the Supreme Court race.
		What we're seeing in that race in the last few days in terms of the early voting suggests a much larger turnout than we've seen in Supreme Court races in the past.
		We're seeing turnout in the early vote occurring in some of the key Republican strongholds that's even higher, which suggests, again, that high turnout, the high level of attention paid to that race is ultimately a good thing.
		I think it's going to be a very competitive race.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Nancy, what are your thoughts on that race and these special elections coming up as well?
unidentified		In the first place, I want to touch on that ad because it's an incredibly effective ad.
		People are very concerned that Republicans are going to cut Medicare and Social Security and health care.
		And if you just look back to 2018, there was a wave in support of the Democrats because Republicans went after the Affordable Care Act and they were going to take away people's access to health care and go after pre-existing conditions.
		And we saw the result of that.
		And so we're seeing the same thing play out, except we're on a bigger scale now because we know that these entitlements are on the chopping block at the same time that they're talking about doing a massive tax cut for the richest people in the world.
		And people are really upset about that.
		And they're seeing this contrast between what it was that they thought that they were going to vote for, which is somebody who was just going to make it a little bit cheaper for them, and somebody who wants to take away the things that they rely on and the things that they've paid into for years, their Medicare, their Social Security, their access to health care.
		So this is a really, I think, effective ad.
		And I don't think it's scare tactics because if you actually ask people if they believe certain things about the Republican Party, they are more likely to believe more than almost anything that the Republican Party wants to cut taxes for the rich and corporations, that they want to cut Medicare and Social Security, and that they're less trusted on health care.
		So these are all things that are believable to voters.
		When it comes to these races, BJ is right, these are a different electorate.
		And so they're increasingly college-educated, people who are more tuned into politics.
		And those are people that are tending to support Democrats increasingly.
		So one of the things that we've seen is in midterm electorates, for example, in special elections, these are more college-educated voters.
		They're more likely to be tuned in.
		They're following politics.
		One of the biggest drivers of Trump's vote or Harris's vote was how much attention you've paid to politics.
		And so we'll see what happens.
		I'm sure these are going to be very closely contested races.
		They're also becoming nationalized in a way that's different from how these races may have been in the past where you could run a little bit of your own race.
		They're definitely connected now to the national political environment, especially with Musk so heavily involved.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We're already getting lots of questions and callers for you too.
		So let's start with a question we received via text from Steve in Massachusetts.
		Could your guests tell us if there is a clear policy on how signal is to be used?
		This is going back to that conversation from the story in The Atlantic.
		Also, what the viable options other than this app are?
		I was told other apps are difficult to do group texts.
		BJ, do you want to take this one?
unidentified		I'm far from a technologist when it comes to these issues.
		I think there are lots of ways the federal government has created to allow classified discussions and for leaders to have discussions.
		I'm not an expert in Signal in any way, shape, or form.
		But again, I think when you talk about this issue with voters, it comes down to how much of a distraction does it become?
		Do voters begin to think that it becreates a threat or questions the competence of the administration?
		go back to the Joe Biden administration, the worst, single worst day that that administration had was in the pullout from Afghanistan, thinking it wasn't done in a competent way.
		It fundamentally changed how voters started thinking about Joe Biden's presidency.
		So the distraction, all of this creates the possibility of that, which is why I think the Trump White House is so keen on addressing it and getting past it, frankly.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, and I should say that we will be having Martha Miller on next to talk more about the national security concerns around that incident.
		Nancy, if I could go to you for a question from Sue B. in Whiting, New Jersey.
		Do voters only get energized when something directly concerns or affects them?
		Are too many people complacent as long as their rights or entitlement programs are being challenged?
unidentified		I certainly think that that allows an argument to reach more people if they feel it in their pocketbooks or they see it in their communities.
		But I don't think that's always the case.
		I mean, there's a lot of people who are voting to express their values, even if they don't feel like this is something that they're immediately going to see.
		So there's a lot of people, for example, who are trying to stand up for their rights or the rights of other people.
		You know, I'm a Democrat, and I think there's a lot of other Democrats who are supportive of the idea that other people should be able to have basic human rights.
		And so that's something that maybe we feel a bit more secure in, personally.
		But we also want to make sure that that's secure for everybody.
		I think that's one of the biggest tensions within the Democratic Party right now: this idea of how much do we talk about those concerns and then how much do we also stand up for those rights of other communities.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		One more question via text before we get to some callers.
		I'll give this one to you, BJ.
		What good is, this is back to the signal conversation and the investigation that's being called for.
		What good is an expedited inspector general investigation when the acting inspector general knows they will be fired if they find anything adverse to Trump, Frank, in Aberdeen, Maryland?
unidentified		Well, I think that question presupposes a lot of things walking into it.
		I think it's a good thing that we have Republican members of Congress who want to get to the bottom of this.
		We want to make sure that our national security conversations are secure and that our enemies don't see them, certainly.
		But I want to talk a little bit about what Nancy said in that previous question as well, which is voters do have real lives.
		And they certainly act and vote on values, maybe if things don't directly impact them as well.
		But at the same time, many voters are dealing with their own personal economics and their own families.
		And so unless or until some of those things begin to impact them, they don't necessarily think that that issue is having an impact on their lives.
		And the economic concerns are the biggest way that this plays out.
		When you look at, for instance, last year when the inflation rates started to come down and the Biden administration was touting some good economic statistics, you didn't see it actually impacting families yet.
		And I always say statistics don't pay the bills.
		And that is true for a lot of these economic numbers.
		When things get bad or worse, when we look at numbers that are coming out in statistics, we really have to go back and ask voters, how is this impacting your life?
		How are you reacting to these things?
		Because they don't pay attention to necessarily the statistics that are out there.
		They don't pay as close of attention to what the intrigue is going on in Washington.
		They certainly see oftentimes dysfunction, and they know that they feel that Washington is broken in many ways, but they don't pay as close of attention as we do, or the viewers perhaps of C-SPAN do, to some of these issues.
		They're just trying to live their lives.
		And so until it bursts that bubble and it begins to impact them, some of these issues have less of an impact.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Just following up on Frank's question about the inspector generals, I understand that you said that it presupposes something, but there have been several inspector generals fired by the Trump administration already.
		There's a story here in Fox News that on Thursday, several of them appeared in court where a judge told government watchdogs fired by Trump that there's not much she could do for them.
		And this was eight inspector generals abruptly fired by President Donald Trump at the start of his second term were in court on Thursday to challenge their dismissals.
		That U.S. District Judge Anna Reyes acknowledged on Thursday that it would be difficult for the court to reinstate the eight ousted inspector generals who are part of a broader group of 17 government watchdogs abruptly terminated by Trump in January, just four days into his second White House term.
		So going back to Frank's question, do you believe that an inspector general actually will be able to do an efficient job looking into this issue in this context?
unidentified		I do.
unidentified		I think the inspector general that's there will do their job and will get to the bottom of this and provide the administration and ultimately the public with some clarity on what needs to be done going forward to make sure that these communications are secure.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's get to Dorothy in Baltimore on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Dorothy.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I want to talk to the Democratic strategy.
		Y'all's message has got to improve.
		Really?
		Think about it.
		You all mentioned things, but you never explained the outcome that would happen to somebody when Trump put them out firing people, for instance.
		How are they going to live?
		How are they going to pay their bills?
		How are they going to, he just fired them willy-nilly.
		But that's not the question I was really going.
		Why haven't you all talked about those children that were denied to play with the Marines because Trump said that people of color, minorities, and they weren't all black, could not play with the Marines and they were excellent.
		Y'all don't even mention it.
		That was terrible.
		That was horrible.
		That was cruel.
		You never mentioned about him removing blacks from the cemetery or women.
		That was cruel.
		You all don't even talk about it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I think let's let Nancy respond to some of these points that you raised.
unidentified		So what I heard was frustration with the amount of attention that's being paid to the fact that the Trump administration is trying to downplay the contributions of people of color and women and other groups and their service to America.
		Is that right?
		Yeah, I think that there's been so much that has happened in the past couple weeks of, or the first, I guess, gosh, how long has it been now that he's been president?
		It feels like three years.
		And I think that's the point, is that there's been so much that's happened that it's hard to know where to look sometimes.
		And so I think that that's kind of what people are looking to the Democratic Party for leadership on: is this idea of what are we supposed to put up a fight on and what are we supposed to draw attention to when they are really flooding the zone?
		Whether it's removing pages from websites that speak to the contributions of different communities or cutting the federal workforce or closing social security offices, whatever it might be, there's so much to point to that it's hard to know really where to begin.
		And I think that that allows them to insulate themselves in a certain way.
		So if we're talking about five different things instead of the one thing that people are most likely to be upset about, then that allows them to get that one thing that would otherwise be much more politically damaging through.
		So I feel the frustration, but unfortunately, that's sort of the catch-22 that we're in.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Armand is in Lakeland, Florida, on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Armand.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you, Seuss.
		I'd like to address both of these panelists that you have.
		I'm calling because I'm calling about the waste code and abuse that Elon's looking for.
		And what I'm looking at is, for decades now, NAFTA has taken all the factories and taken all those jobs and cut out a lot of revenue that this country could have been making with the American people working those jobs.
		And then we got our whole system diluted with 25 million illegal immigrants fighting for the resources of the United States.
		Now, Elon Musk is going into the into with Doge and he's finding waste and he's finding abuse, but nobody's being prosecuted for fraud because all the fraud is in the private sector with all the companies that are hiring these millions of illegal immigrants and not paying into the social security system and the Medicare and the Medicaid.
		So now we're sitting here.
		We're going to lose our benefits because we have a revenue problem.
		We don't have a spending problem.
		And nobody sees this.
		And I'm hoping that the people that are listening right now are listening to what I'm saying because this is what happened.
		We've got them raping the system and nobody's doing anything about it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Armand, what is your question for the panelists?
unidentified		Question is, why isn't Elon Musk finding the fraud?
unidentified		Nobody's being prosecuted for fraud because the fraud is in the private sector.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well, let's let our panelists each respond to that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		BJ, do you want to respond first?
unidentified		Well, I think that the efforts from Elon Musk and Doge right now are really only focused.
		They can look only in their purview, which is the government.
		Certainly, all these dollars that have flowed into these different organizations and groups, those investigations, I think, are just beginning to happen and will continue to happen.
		But I think just stepping back and listening to Armand, I think about the anger that has been out there for many years.
		This is really the driving force of the new populist movement that's energizing both ends of the parties.
		It was the driving force for the original Trump victory in 2016 and his election in 2024.
		It is speaking to the anger and frustration of working class voters who moved to Donald Trump in large numbers over the last couple elections and that the Democratic Party is trying to figure out through some of these messages that we ran the ads on, trying to figure out how they can begin to re-engage and talk to them and tap into some of that anger.
		And the nature of the populist anger is that it's not directed towards anyone in particular.
		It's both anger towards big government.
		It's anger towards big corporations as well.
		There's enough anger out there in the populist movement for both of those entities.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Nancy.
unidentified		Yeah, so I think that these are really interesting points.
		First, when it comes to actually addressing fraud, I do think that a lot of people see that corporate America is actually much worse and not a great example for the federal government.
		In fact, you know, everyone might agree that, okay, we can do things a little bit better in the federal government, but guess who's liked even less?
		Big corporations.
		And their leaders are liked even less than our leaders.
		So I think that's a really interesting dynamic.
		And then when it comes to actually addressing some of these things, there's a lot that the administration is doing that is actually specifically supposed to roll back the ability for us to rein in that sort of fraud.
		So sort of attacking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, which is basically supposed to make sure that we get a fair deal from these financial institutions and they can't take our money.
		There's been reductions in staffing in parts of the Justice Department that are specifically supposed to go after corporate abuse.
		And so there's a big contradiction here in terms of what people think we ought to be doing when we say things like going after waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, and what the administration is actually doing.
		And finally, I'm joining you from Texas right now.
		And so when we talk about immigration, I think it's really important for us to kind of understand the contributions of immigrants, especially in a state like mine, and both to powering our economy, but also to our tax system.
		And there's a big misconception out there that immigrants are a drain on our system when in fact immigrants, they want to come here when they work.
		They pay into our social security system and they do not get to take anything out.
		And so actually they are allowing us to continue our entitlements and not the other way around.
		I think that that's a really important argument to make because we're so focused on what it is that immigrants might be taking but not what they're giving to Americans.
		So I hope that that is an educational moment for our caller who I understand is quite concerned about his own Social Security.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's hear from Kurt in Anaheim, California on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Kurt.
		Hi there, Kurt.
		Do you have a question?
		I don't think we can hear you very well, Kurt.
		Let's see if we can get you on a better line.
		But in the meantime, let's hear from Art in Streamwood, Illinois on our line for independence.
		Go ahead, Art.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I think I might have a plan to help alleviate some of the fears and the uncertainty that's going on in this country right now, including the chaos.
		I believe that if every Social Security recipient was to donate just $6 a month, we could help alleviate this issue.
		The $6 would go, $1 would go to an administration legal fund, and the $5 would go into a campaign fund.
		Has nothing to do with politics, just supporting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans.
		And how it would be done is this way.
		The dollar would go into a legal administration fund, which would be about $73 million a month.
		The $5 a month would add up to almost $400 a month.
		Nothing to do with politics.
		Just reaching out to people who are running for offices and offering them to donate to their farm.
		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's let our guests weigh in on that idea.
		You want to start, BJ?
unidentified		Yeah, I think it would be a challenging thing to convince those who are receiving Social Security to give up any of it.
		Many of them are living on those fixed incomes and trying to do their best with what they're receiving.
		But I think the point about messaging and talking to your legislators about what your priorities are is very important.
		And there are lots of different advocacy groups out there on both sides and on all sides that if you feel strongly about a particular issue, you can reach out to that organization.
		You can volunteer to contribute to their cause.
		And they're the ones who are on the front lines delivering messages to members of Congress and the state legislators talking about the issues and arguing the points on which way they should vote.
		So there's a lot of avenues for you to get involved in whatever your position is.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Nancy, your thoughts on the caller's ID?
unidentified		Gosh, I think asking somebody to pay more in taxes into a system that they've already paid into and are earning the benefits that they've been earning their entire life by working is not going to be a popular one.
		Again, people have earned these benefits.
		They've paid into this system their entire life.
		It's not incumbent on them to pay more.
		It's incumbent on the ultra-wealthy and the corporations who are paying less in taxes than ever before to pay their fair share of taxes so that we don't have to even discuss the idea of cutting Medicare and Social Security.
		In fact, we don't need to cut Medicare and Social Security unless you are trying to pay for these massive tax cuts.
		And so that's what is currently on the table right now in Washington is in order to pass this $10 trillion tax cut for the richest people in the world and these massive corporations that are making billions and billions of dollars but are not paying any taxes, for them to get paid even less is how you get to a place where you would have to start asking people to cut their Medicare and Social Security.
		I think that it's one of the things that people are the most concerned about right now in all of our polling, whether you're a Democrat, whether you're a Republican, whether you're an Independent.
		Large, overwhelming majorities are saying that they're really concerned about this.
		And so I don't think the answer is to tax the middle class more.
		It's to stop pushing for more tax cuts for the richest people in the world.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		BJ, a question for you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jeff in Dearborn, Michigan asks, can Mr. Martino explain why we need Greenland for our security if Putin and Trump are besties and why we'd need their minerals if we have oil?
unidentified		Well, minerals and oil, again, I'm not a geologist and don't work in the oil and gas or mining industries.
		But certainly, we are dealing not just on controlling oil and gas in a geopolitical give and take with other countries.
		There are those they call rare earth minerals, and there are certain other resources that are critical for our ability to create the chips, to create the electronic components, to increase our technological advantage.
		Now, when it comes to Greenland, that's far above my pay grade.
		But what I do know is that our country not only has to deal with energy, but has to deal with the other mineral resources that are absolutely critical for our ability to remain competitive on the global stage.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Mark in Sandusky, Ohio on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Mark.
		Mark, can you hear us?
unidentified		Yes.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Go ahead.
unidentified		Okay, my question is: what is going to happen when all this turmoil and chaos gets going and people start uprising in the street?
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		And I think Donald Trump is going to declare martial law before the next election.
unidentified		What do you think about that?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Nancy, your thoughts first?
unidentified		Oh, gosh, let's hope not.
		Yeah, I don't know.
		I think people are very scared.
		I think a lot of Democrats are very scared of how President Trump uses power and the respect that he has for rights and due process.
		And I think we're seeing some of that right now.
		And a lot of people are really hoping that our courts are going to be able to hold the line to protect people from any sort of overreach from the Trump administration.
		And let's just hope that that does not happen.
		First of all, I think the real concern for someone in Sandusky is making sure that Cedar Point gets that new roller coaster up and running before the season starts.
		So I hope, Mark, that you're focused and making sure that they're getting that done.
		I don't see a threat to American citizens' civil liberties as being any greater or less than it was in the last administration right now.
		I don't foresee any scenario in which there's a declaration of martial law.
		I do agree that there is anger out there, and we have seen anger among the American electorate now for many years on different sides of the aisle.
		It is certainly, you can see the energy coming from those Democratic voters showing up at the town halls.
		You can see the anger that's coming from the left now, but it has been there from the right as well.
		It again is the reason why Donald Trump was elected in the first place for these working-class voters who felt like they weren't being paid attention to.
		So there is certainly that level of anger out there, but I don't see it reaching to the point where we reach that sort of crisis.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Kurt is in Anaheim, California on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Kurt.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you doing?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good, thanks.
unidentified		Hey, I just want to tell y'all you're doing a great job, and we all just need to relax a little bit and just get to work, do our stuff, be respectful to each other.
		That's all I got to say.
		Let's just all do a good job.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Let's hear from Jeff in Hoboken, New Jersey on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Jeff.
unidentified		Hi, yeah.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I'm just curious, like, it seems a little disingenuous that they're taking money from like social, you know, Social Security, Medicaid, and stuff like that, but they're not taking any, they're not cutting into the Pentagon.
		They're not cutting into like the defense.
		And it seems to me that the problem really is special interests and donors that the Republicans and Democrats, it's really just a charade.
		So, I think that the biggest problem is Citizens United and getting the big donors out of our politics.
		You know, if you look at what Trump is doing, Trump is just doing the bidding of his donors, right?
		Why are we bombing the Hooties?
		Who does that benefit?
		Why are we going into Greenland?
		Who does that benefit?
		Why do we want mineral deal with Ukraine?
		Who does that benefit?
		So, I mean, American people need to really dig a little bit deeper and realize, and what's happening now is people are starting to realize the truth, and now we're starting to see little force, little things of force, right?
		We're starting to censor people, we're starting to pick people up off the street, and little by little, because when people see the truth, the only thing left is force.
		And that we're seeing.
		So, my question is: how come they're not taking money out of the Pentagon and defense and things like that?
		And how do we get Citizens United overturned?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Bijay, do you want to go first?
unidentified		Well, we haven't taken money out of anything yet because we haven't gotten to budget reconciliation.
		So, there actually hasn't been any cuts to Social Security.
		Everything that the Democrats' messages have been on initial votes about goals in order to cut spending, there hasn't actually been any cuts.
		That actual process hasn't happened yet.
		So, when you hear those messages coming from the left, it is not about anything that has really happened yet.
		I think you're right when you look at the overall budget, there are a lot of different places that we can look at.
		I mean, the largest portions of our budget right now are defense and entitlements and debt servicing right now.
		And it has to get a grip on all of those things and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in all of these aspects to make sure that we can get our federal debt down and get back to a place where we're not putting the burden not only on taxpayers now, but on future generations.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Nancy?
unidentified		I greatly appreciated the caller's clarity about the situation.
		Certainly, it does seem like, and I will say this: not just Republicans, but definitely, or not just Republicans and Trump, but definitely, especially Republicans and Trump, are in the service of the people that give them money.
		And so, you know, corporate PACs are a huge problem.
		Billionaires being able to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections is an incredible problem.
		It means that even though things are really popular, that they never get done in Washington, things that a lot of people would benefit from never happen.
		And yet, somehow we always find a way to make things work for a very small group of people.
		And I think a lot of people talked a lot about democracy in the past election, but they forgot that for most voters, what they really mean when they talk about fixing our democracy is getting the money out of the politics.
		Because unless we do that, we can't really trust our leaders to actually do things that are brave, to push back on special interests and be sure that they're working on our behalf.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jeff is in Polk, Nebraska, on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jeff.
unidentified		Yeah, this question is for Nancy.
		She said that the illegals are paying into Social Security.
		I guess I'd like to have her explain how someone can pay into Social Security when they don't have a Social Security card or Social Security number, anything like that, and how that works when you don't have that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, Nancy, I'll let you respond to that, and then I'll also bring up an article that explains it after you respond.
unidentified		Okay, great.
		Yes, I'm not an immigration policy or work visa expert, but yeah, so people are able to come here.
		They're able to get the opportunity to work here legally.
		In fact, I think that's one of the things that people most want is for people to come here to work, be a good contributing part of their community, and to pay taxes, to follow our laws, to try to learn English.
		Those are the things that people really want when they talk about somebody who's coming into their community.
		And so that's what they do.
		A lot of people, they get work permits.
		They are contributing with their payroll taxes into the Social Security system, but they do not get Social Security benefits.
		In the same way that right now I don't get Social Security benefits, right?
		And I'm an American citizen, but I'm paying into a system.
		They just never get to access it on the back end.
		Another thing I will say is I live in, again, Texas.
		We have a sales tax.
		Every single time that somebody is spending money at a grocery store or buying clothing, they are paying a tax.
		Property taxes are the exact same way.
		And so those are all, in many cases, programs that are funded by those taxes actually do not end up going back into the pockets of immigrants too.
		So we find that actually they're net contributors to our tax system and not the other way around.
		I would just say that in terms of public opinion, there's a vast difference between the views of legal immigration and those who came to our country legally and those who came illegally either across the border or through some other means.
		And I think what the gentleman is talking about and the differential here is those who came legally and went through a process and found employment and are paying into the system versus those who came here illegally.
		And last year, what voters saw and a lot of the anger that we saw in voters came from the fact that these people came here to make a better lives for themselves.
		But when they came here, they were being given benefits that many struggling voters, American citizens, felt like they needed.
		They were being given housing and health care and education and all these things that many voters and struggling families who are citizens say, how can we be helping those who broke our laws and came here illegally when I myself and my family are struggling?
		We're the ones who need help.
		So I definitely think when we talk about this issue, we have to, in the minds of American voters, have to draw a line between views of those who came here through a legal process and those who did not.
		I want to jump in here because this is actually something we hear every time I do a focus group and we ask about immigrants.
		People say, well, legal or illegal.
		And so that is a very good point.
		We also find in our polling that people really want us to reform the legal system and they think that a lot of the issues that we have are that we've made it too hard for people to come here legally.
		And so, you know, people want people to follow this certain path, right?
		But we also need to let them take that path.
		We've made it so hard for people to come here legally so that they can do it the right way.
		And that really does matter to voters.
		And so it's not that they don't want immigrants to come here.
		It's that they want them to be able to have the opportunity to do it the right way.
		This is something that the administration has still not proposed anything to fix.
		Their entire solution is deportation, not offering people who are hardworking, tax paying, good, law-abiding parts of their community, giving them the opportunity to become part of the system and giving them a legal pathway.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		To Jeff's question about Social Security specifically, there is some data on this.
		This is a story from the New York Times.
		The Social Security Administration receives billions in free money each year from an unexpected source, undocumented immigrants.
		This group paid an estimated $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes in 2022, according to a recent analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning tax research group.
		Since unauthorized workers cannot collect retirement and other Social Security benefits without a change to their immigration status, the billions they pour into the program effectively act as a subsidy for American beneficiaries.
		Now, let's hear just we have a little bit of time left from Liz in Marlton, New Jersey on our line for Democrats.
unidentified		Go ahead, Liz.
		Yes, I just wanted to talk to the Democratic pollster.
		I think too often as Democrats, we try to explain policies and get people to support for it.
		The Trump MAGA group, short on explanations, all they did was gin up hatred of immigrants for one thing, and they've done that now for eight years.
		They didn't explain how they would improve it.
		They blamed every Democrat for it.
		So they don't waste their time with their explanations.
		Secondly, I think the main point people should think about regarding Social Security is that only social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Meals on Leels, free lunches for kids in school.
		These are all Democratic initiatives.
		The Republican Party has never come up with one program that would benefit them or their family if they're working or middle class.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So Liz, we're just about out of time.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I want to let Nancy respond to your points and also get some input from BJ before we have to let them go.
unidentified		I think our caller might be a strategist because I think BJ and I would both advise our clients that if they are explaining, then they're probably losing.
		And so it's hard to make complicated arguments when you only get a couple bites of the apple.
		It's really hard to get people's attention.
		And so an easier argument and something that's really going to go after the gut and that you can say in one sentence is generally, and this is not to disrespect the intelligence of the American people at all, but a lot of people are busy.
		And if you have to start making a complicated argument, then that can be really hard to rally folks around.
		And so I appreciate that she acknowledged that, and that is true.
		I think that's a good rule to follow when you're in the business of politics.
		At the same time, there are opportunities when you have really lost trust on an issue where just making the most politically expedient argument has led you to have such a dearth of trust from the American people that it's incumbent on you to start making the harder argument.
		And so I think that that's what a lot of Democrats need to start doing right now is making the harder argument and not the one that we think is going to be the best poll-tested argument.
		One thing I will give Republicans is they often figure out what they want to say and then they use the polling and to figure out how do we sell it instead of letting the thing that tests best be the thing that or is the least offensive or most broadly appealing to the most people be the thing that we decide that we're going to say.
		So I'll hand it over to BJ to weigh in now.
		I would just say two things quickly.
		One, Republicans did pass the prescription drug benefit under Medicare, so let's not lose.
		She said Republicans haven't done anything.
		That's just the first thing that comes to mind.
		Secondary, I go back to Kurt, the caller, who just said we should have more civility in politics, and I absolutely agree that our capacity to have conversations like this in settings like this and others are critically important to getting us where we want to be as a country going forward.
		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you so much.
		BJ Martinez or Martino is a Republican pollster and strategist.
		Thank you so much.
unidentified		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And Nancy Zdankowicz is a Democratic pollster and strategist.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Thank you again for joining us this morning.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So coming up next, we're going to hear from Martha Miller of George Mason University Law School's National Security Institute, who will join us to discuss the leaked signal group chat with senior intelligence officials on the U.S. military action in Yemen.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We will be right back.
unidentified		C-SPAN student camp competition challenged middle and high school students nationwide to create documentaries with messages to the new president.
		Our panel of judges evaluated over 1,700 thought-provoking student films on their use of multiple perspectives.
		C-SPAN awarded $100,000 in total cash prizes, and our grand prize of $5,000 goes to Dermot Foley, a 10th grader from Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, Maryland.
		Congratulations to all our winners.
		The top 21 winning entries will air on C-SPAN starting April 1st.
		You can also watch all the award-winning documentaries anytime at studentcam.org.
		C-SPAN, bringing you democracy unfiltered.
		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.
		This week, on the C-SPAN networks, the House and Senate are in session.
		The House will vote on legislation to end nationwide injunctions in response to federal judges blocking President Trump's policies.
		They'll also vote on a bill requiring in-person proof of citizenship to register to vote.
		The Senate will vote on legislation from Democrats to end the national emergency declared by President Trump on February 1st to impose tariffs on Canadian goods.
		On Tuesday, retired Lieutenant General John Kaine, nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
		Also on Tuesday, authors, historians, and scholars testify before the House Oversight Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets Subcommittee about records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
		On Wednesday, the President and CEO of Boeing, Kelly Ortberg, testifies before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, examining steps Boeing has taken to address production deficiencies and safety issues.
		Identified after a door plug blew out on an Alaska Airlines flight.
		Boeing has been subjected to additional safety audits and enhanced FAA oversight since the incident.
		Also on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of Medina versus Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, in which South Carolina Health and Human Services removed Planned Parenthood as a qualified health provider from its Medicaid enrollment.
		Watch live this week on the C-SPAN networks and on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
		Also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're joined now by Martha Miller, who is the National Security Institute Deputy Executive Director at George Mason University's Law School.
		Welcome to Washington Journal.
unidentified		Nice to see you.
unidentified		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So first, can you tell us about the National Security Institute, your funding, and any political point of view you all might have?
unidentified		So we're actually a nonpartisan or bipartisan organization.
		It was founded in 2017, and it was founded under the idea of meeting a group of policymakers, practitioners who believe that the United States should take a leading role in the world.
		And we are funded by private foundations.
		So we take no government money.
		And our point of view, like I said, is bipartisan.
		We have actually volunteer fellows.
		So our fellows are practitioners.
		We have both Republicans and Democrats.
		We have people who have worked for George Bush, for President Biden, for Trump, and Obama.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, speaking of former presidents, can you tell us a little bit about your own background?
		You worked in Bush 43's White House.
		Can you talk about the capacity you were working in and if your work involved classified information, which is a topic of discussion this morning?
unidentified		Sure.
		So actually, I worked in presidential personnel at the White House.
		I did have a security clearance.
		My work at the White House did not include classified information.
		However, I did work also at the United States Senate at the Foreign Relations Committee.
		And I did go into SCIF briefings in a secured facility to receive classified briefings.
		Also at the Political Military Bureau at the Department of State, I worked there for about a year and a half during the Bush administration, actually in the lead up to the Iraq War.
		And so I did have experience.
		I had both a classified and an unclassified computer.
		I had to put my classified hard drive in the safe every night before I went home.
		So I am familiar with having two different systems to work on.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so this is obviously in the news because of that signal chat that was written about in the Atlantic magazine.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		But before we get into the details of that exact chat, can you break down the legal definition of classified information and the different levels of it?
unidentified		So classified information, this is actually established by executive order.
		You know, previously, I think it was, you know, Roosevelt was the first time that we had classified information was established under Franklin Roosevelt.
		But most, you know, we have had in successive presidencies, it's been established by executive order.
		The most recent executive order was actually, you know, 13526.
		And, you know, essentially there are various levels of classified information.
		There is, first and foremost, there's unclassified but sensitive, then there is secret, then there is top secret, and then you get into compartmentalized information where you could have a colleague who doesn't know what you know and vice versa.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So then your thoughts on this last week's event, because obviously there's this revelation about the Signal group chat with senior intelligence officials on the U.S. military action in Yemen.
		And so for folks who may have missed the news, on the day of the attack, March 15th, Defense Secretary Hegseth shared operational details in this chat two hours before the strike.
		What is your take on that situation?
unidentified		So, you know, in reading the articles about it and the information that I've seen, it looked to me as though Mike Waltz had created the chat for coordinating, you know, ensuring that individuals in the group had seen emails that were sent on the high side, that is, classified emails,
		which is something that most of us do in our daily lives is we make sure people have received the information that we know they need to see.
		But it was not until Secretary Hegseth, you know, it was actually kind of logistical until actually the vice president started to talk about the policy.
		And then it was Secretary Hegseth who started sharing operational details to, you know, to your point, two hours prior to the strikes.
		And to me, you know, this is something that is, you know, we don't know.
		They say that it's not classified, but there is a process to declassify information and operational details.
		I think by and large, pretty much any national security professional you ask would say that that should be classified.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So can you discuss the use of the app Signal by these high-ranking officials?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		For folks who aren't familiar, what is this app and should they have been using it regardless of the content of the conversation?
unidentified		So Signal has been an authorized app for setting up meetings for logistical reasons.
		It is used also by political activists.
		It's used by journalists.
		It is used also by our allies, diplomatic corps, when they are coordinating, hey, we're going to meet at this date.
		Can you confirm that you're coming?
		That sort of thing.
		And so I think the way that aside from adding, erroneously adding a journalist to the chat, I think it would have been okay had it just been to say, hey, you have information you need to review on your classified computer.
		So I think, yeah, so it definitely is okay for certain things that are unclassified.
		I think what is concerning is put aside the fact that Signal is an encrypted app, and so people do trust it as a way to communicate for personal reasons and what I just described.
		But for, you know, the problem is that foreign adversaries, even if they don't know, even if they can't crack the encrypted code, they know how long, who's in the chat, and how long they're speaking, and at what time they're speaking.
		So then they can compare that to other pieces of intelligence they have.
		Let's say that they also were following the Israelis.
		And they put two and two together and say something big is happening.
		You know, they see that the vice president, that the national security advisor, that the sec death secretary of state, that they're all on this chat and actively talking during a certain period of time.
		That's going to, you know, that's something they'll know, and that will be a piece of information that they can use.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		There's been discussion as to whether this signal leak was a violation of the Espionage Act, which is the reference to the Espionage Act of 1917, which is criminalized, unauthorized retention and dissemination of sensitive information that could undermine U.S. national defense or aid a foreign nation.
unidentified		Do you think it was?
		You know, I think that this is definitely something that needs to be very seriously reviewed.
		And it will be, I know, by the Senate Armed Services Committee, they've also asked the Inspector General to launch an investigation.
		I think that is telling that the chairman, Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, has asked for that.
		Many Republicans have expressed grave concerns.
		And so, look, I think intent, number one, is actually relevant.
		A lot of times, if it's inadvertent, it's harder to prosecute.
		I think sharing operational details is probably another level of concern that rises, that goes a step beyond mistakenly adding someone.
		But that could be construed, however, as gross negligence, right?
		So we'll see.
		I mean, I think there will be numerous investigations.
		And certainly if the House changes in the next election, I think we could see some serious investigations on the House side.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We'll be taking your questions for Martha Miller about the signal leak and the national security implications of it.
		Our line for Democrats is 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202748-8002.
		Now, Martha, at a press conference on Thursday, Attorney General Pam Bondi was asked by a reporter if the Department of Justice would investigate the signal chat case.
		Here's what she had to say.
unidentified		In terms of the signals chat controversy that's going on, is DOJ involved at this point?
unidentified		If not, why not?
pam bondi ▲ ● ▼		Well, first, it was sensitive information, not classified, and inadvertently released.
		And what we should be talking about is it was a very successful mission.
		Our world is now safer because of that mission.
		We're not going to comment any further on that.
		If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was at Hillary Clinton's home that she was trying to bleach bit.
		Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden's garage that Hunter Biden had access to.
		This was not classified information.
		And we are very pleased with the results of that operation and that the entire world is safer because of it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of Attorney General Bondi's response there?
unidentified		You know, look, I think the Trump administration is disinclined to admit fault.
		You know, I think Mike Waltz certainly did step forward to say it was his fault for adding a journalist to it.
		But I think there will.
		It will require a lot more pressure from you know from frankly, from voters, to to make any shift here.
		I think it's highly likely that that there will be no prosecution.
		I don't think there will be actual action taken and I think you know ostensibly, even if that were to take place, I think then you have the presidential pardon, which is feasible, certainly within the realm of possibility as well.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What can we learn from the number and the positions of the people who were in this particular chat?
		Chief of staff Susie Wiles, Treasury Secretary Besant, joint chiefs of staff not involved.
		What do you think?
unidentified		You know, I think that they certainly, you know, folks who are on the chat and folks, you know, should raise their hand when they say, when they see something that shouldn't be, you know, hey, reminder, we're not on a classified system.
		And then, you know, others, you know, who may or may not have been in the chat, you know, look, this was not, this was a messy situation.
		Let's just put it that way.
		And, you know, someone should have checked to see who was in the chat.
		Someone should have raised their hand when they saw that, you know, hey, stop.
		Did you forget that you're on an unclassified system?
		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's get to some questions from our audience.
		Tom is in Eldon, Illinois on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Tom.
unidentified		Yeah, let me mute my TV a second.
		Yeah, I just want to say that Mike Waltz is on the Senate.
		He's on the House Select Intelligence Committee.
		He's on the Armed Services Personnel Committee.
		This just stinks like the Defense Department, the CIA.
		New Brindich said that the executive branch people that come in are just summer help.
		And these people that are running everything, this looks like a thing to make the Trump administration look inept.
		Mike Waltz looked like he's part of the deep Washington administration, and it just stinks to high heaven.
		Anyway, how could a guy that's doing all that, 12 years Congressman, part of all this intelligence, make this mistake?
		It was a mistake.
		They just, they're running things.
		They kill presidents.
		They make wars.
		And Trump is up against a huge wall of deep state administration.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Tom, before you go, I just want to make sure that we're clear on your point.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Are you saying that you think that this was intentionally done?
unidentified		How couldn't it be?
		This guy's part of the Select Intelligence Committee.
		How can he not know about how to run an intelligence chat?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Would you like to respond to that?
unidentified		You know, look, he, you know, look, we're all human.
		We all make mistakes.
		I take your point.
		You know, yes, how could someone, you know, make that kind of mistake?
		But mistakes do happen.
		I think, you know, this is actually, you know, case in point.
		You know, they are human beings just like we all are.
		And so, you know, my sense is it's highly embarrassing for him.
		He took responsibility for it in the sense that he admitted he shouldn't have done that, that it was reckless.
		So I guess I disagree.
		I don't think it was intentional.
		I think that he made a mistake that is quite embarrassing.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Rick is in Cottkill, New York on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Rick.
unidentified		Hi there.
		I'd just like to say I'm pretty sure that both China and Russia are sending folks over to our country to protect Trump's cabinet because if there was a problem and it broke out in the world, they would want the current administration in place to handle any issues.
		They would not want a competent group to maintain and handle any geopolitical problems.
		They would want the exact group in place maintaining their current positions and handling any issues that came up militarily.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Any response to that?
unidentified		You know, I don't really have a response to that.
unidentified		I'm not sure what to say.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well, let's move to Steve in Webster, Massachusetts on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Steve.
unidentified		Okay, thanks for taking my call.
		I worked, I did 20 years active duty, Army, Intel.
		I worked for the government, blah, blah, blah.
		I noticed none of the first thing glaring on Signal.
		None of this stuff was portion marked.
		The thing is, has Signal been used before by other entities, governmental entities?
		And with that, I mean, if this is ubiquitously used, we're going to need a deep dive to see how much stuff has actually been compromised.
		Now, there was, you know, mission accomplished, we can say.
		The Houthis were destroyed.
		Yes, it was a mistake.
		But I would say that this was just flap on the wrist is what it deserves.
		We have bleed all the time in the agencies.
		It just happens.
		And this is not worth the problem.
		Yeah, it was a bad thing.
		Goldberg, I'll give him credit.
		He did the right thing by keeping it close to his chest until after the operation.
		But it is what it is.
		And I'm just wondering, are we going to get a deep dive into this as to how often this happens?
		How long has Signal been used?
		How much classified information, non-portion marked, has actually gone over it?
		I actually think that's a great point.
		You know, this is actually a wake-up call on several levels.
		I think certainly this calls for a review of the use of Signal and other possible messaging apps.
		And maybe also just the fact that security procedures writ large need to be improved.
		And certainly our leadership should be following the appropriate security procedures.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Ron is in Barrien Springs, Michigan on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Ron.
unidentified		Good morning.
roger stone ▲ ● ▼		I think this was a setup by the Trump administration to try and take down Atlantic Magazine and the reporters, Mr. Goldberg in particular, because he has been a spur in their saddlebag.
unidentified		And they were going to take down the magazine, destroy it, take it over.
		But this is all planned by the, And it was also probably planned through Putin and his administration also, because you destroyed the coverage of this corrupt administration, this Russian Putin administration in D.C. right now.
		And when you no longer have any means to report on it, it's easier to install fascist imperialist martial law, plain and simple.
		You know, I think it can be tempting to come up with scenarios to try to explain things.
		I think oftentimes the simple answer is actually the truth.
		And I think this is a situation of human error and poor judgment.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think this incident will, or how do you think this incident will affect the willingness of U.S. allies to share sensitive information with the United States?
unidentified		Well, we've already heard from the Israelis, the British, and concerns among other allies about sharing intelligence.
		The Israelis were outraged, understandably, because we actually relied on their intelligence for this operation.
		Presumably, we were actually relying on human intelligence, which means that it could have put actual individuals in danger and probably obviously very valuable assets in danger, who I assume we would want to keep doing this work on the behalf of our national security interests.
		And the Europeans already, there's a bigger context at play.
		They are already very concerned about many of the statements and actions of the Trump administration.
		And so the contents of the chat were certainly very damaging to an already tense relationship with our European allies.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You're referring to some of the statements within the chat that were disparaging directly of our European allies.
unidentified		Correct, and statements about saying that we will bill the Europeans for this operation, also Egypt for this operation, and also an important ally in the Middle East.
		We rely on these allies for intelligence that we can't necessarily get ourselves.
		They have other means and other sources that we don't have.
		Hearing from the British especially is very concerning because we have a special relationship with the British.
		We have something called Five Eyes, and this is essentially the English-speaking countries of the world.
		And for the British to be doubting our reliability is a pretty serious concern.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Kent is in Muskegon, Michigan, on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Kent.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		And what I was taken aback by in the conversation is the childishness nature of the conversation.
		I mean, you think of this as being high school or maybe even middle school talk.
		I wish you could comment on that.
		Thank you.
		Well, certainly, you know, I think I would refer you to, there was a great editorial in the Wall Street Journal.
		Peggy Noonan wrote about this and actually expressed a similar concern.
		And I think it's a reminder to folks that anything you write could be shared.
		And I think A long time ago, back when it was just email, I remember a friend who had worked at the Department of Justice referring to email as evidence mail.
		Now I think it's beyond email.
		It's now we have these chat apps, and I think the same rule applies.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We have a couple of questions we receive via text and social media.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		James in Alexandria, Virginia says, I have over 22 years of U.S. Army air defense experience, and if we had sent a message of an active military engagement without it being classified or over an unclassified device applications, an officer could lose his commission and be put out of the Army immediately.
unidentified		That's exactly right.
		And, you know, I think this comes back to a question of leadership and morale within the Pentagon.
		You know, I think it's hard to ask people to follow rules that you are not following yourself.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Another question via text from Steve in Tampa, Florida.
		Jeffrey Goldberg did the wrong thing.
		If he was an American patriot, he would have contacted the Defense Department and the White House and said, I'm on a chat that I shouldn't be on, and I'm hearing things I shouldn't be hearing.
		I think you ought to check things out rather than publicizing it to promote the Democratic point of view to bring down President Trump.
unidentified		You know, this is a very interesting, this is a very interesting point of discussion.
		I mean, obviously, he has been highly criticized by the Trump administration for this very reason.
		You know, if I were in his shoes, I think, you know, I'm not sure which direction I would have gone in.
		You know, but, you know, I think the mistake that the administration made was to go after him right away, which, and then saying it's not classified information essentially kind of forced the Atlantic to publish the second story.
		And so, you know, I think that's certainly a very debatable question, but typically, you know, with the First Amendment and saying that it's unclassified information, I don't think that there will be legal action against the Atlantic.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Another text from Jeff in Dearborn, Michigan.
		Why was the February 2025 notification not to use Signal as it had been compromised by the Russians ignored?
		Why was Trump not included in the group chat?
unidentified		Like, why was President Trump not included?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		That's a great question.
		I mean, look, I think in every administration, the senior team, it looks to me like the senior team, first of all, the chat was created originally to coordinate.
		So you don't include a President of the United States in a chat that is intended to coordinate, making people aware of emails on their classified system.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And I'll just pause you for a moment to give some clarity about this notification.
		Information not to use Signal.
		Here's an article from CBS News that was published a couple of days ago, but the NSA warned of vulnerabilities in Signal app a month before the Houthi strike chat.
		The National Security Agency sent out an operational security special bulletin to its employees in February of 2025, warning them of vulnerabilities in using the encrypted messaging application Signal according to internal NSA documents obtained by CBS News.
		News of the NSA bulletin comes amid the continued fallout from an explosive article published Monday in The Atlantic.
		The publications editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg detailed how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth inadvertently disclosed war plans to him in an encrypted signal chat group.
		So this alert came out in February, and so this is what Jeff is asking about: why was that ignored?
unidentified		I think that's a question that will have to be reviewed in the forthcoming investigations into this matter.
		Certainly the warning, I also saw something even from Google about this in February of 2025.
		And the reason the Russians have been focused on Signal is that the Ukrainians have been using it.
		And so they've been working very hard to crack signal communications.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Dave is in Littleneck, New York, on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Dave.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		Thanks for having me on.
		I've called a few times, and I'm glad I got a chance to express my thoughts.
		I want to preface my conversation here with the fact that all of you have heard about the famous Anthony Blinken letter.
		51 national security experts, you know who they are, Panetta, et cetera, signed a letter saying that the famous Hunter laptop had all the inklings of Russian disinformation.
		That was proven untrue.
		I hope you guys can admit that and agree with that.
		You know, look, it was proven to be untrue, although at the same time, two things can be true at the same time.
		It did actually look like Russian disinformation at that time.
		So I don't fault people who viewed it that way or interpreted it that way.
		You know, I think, you know, all I have to say is that, you know, this came to light, which is important.
		And I think it's obviously important to be cautious with information that's out there.
		But I think, in fairness to the people who signed the letter, you know, I can understand why they may have thought that at the time.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		James is in Atlanta, Georgia, on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, James.
		James, go ahead.
		Okay, well, let's try Eric in Australia on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Eric.
		Or I guess it's probably not morning there.
unidentified		It's not nearly midnight.
		When I first heard about this, I thought, oh, okay.
		Mark has just exceededly added my name on his contact list, and it's just a mistake.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so how is this story playing out in Australia in terms of the national security implications or how the Australians are viewing their relationship with the United States?
unidentified		Well, I don't really think too many people here care about it.
		We used to in London, the MI6 leaking all sorts of information.
		We had a person who worked for Five Eyes left some secret information on a bus with his lunch when he was going home one day and forgot it.
		So I don't think it's that big a deal.
		But I find it interesting that you have this Mike Waltz, who's been in various positions for a long time, seems to know how to keep his mouth shut.
		And then you hear that there was a league.
		So you think he just accidentally added somebody from this control, but embarrassing, but it happens.
		But then you find out, well, hang on, he never even spoke to this person.
		How on earth would this person be in his contact list?
		And then you find out that this person Goldberg is under a different name.
		And then you find out that Mike didn't even set up the contact list or the phone and the contact list was given to him by somebody within the department.
		And then you start thinking, well, how far into the swamp do you go before you find the person who actually put this phone number?
		And not just some random person, some other bureaucrat or some other person in the cabinet happens to be a very anti-trump journalist, probably one of the biggest in the country.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Eric, there's a message that we received via Twitter that is along similar lines.
		We've heard a couple of callers reference whether or not there's some broader strategy behind this.
		JD Redding kind of counters that by saying, if a deep state wanted to conceal actions, why use a commercial app prone to human error, like adding a journalist, when classified systems like SIPRNet or JWICS are readily available to senior officials.
		Martha, maybe you could just respond broadly to the fact that we are hearing from so many people this morning about ideas that maybe there was a plan behind all of this.
unidentified		I firmly believe that this is human error.
		I think that, you know, I don't know how many people have made mistakes by, you know, you send a text to somebody and maybe you think it's your spouse and it's actually your colleague.
		And you're, you know, I think a lot of people have made this mistake in their daily lives.
		This is actually, in my opinion, more to the point of you shouldn't be using Signal, right?
		And, you know, I think that in situations like this, it's very, it's not unusual to, you know, for people to really ponder, you know, could there have been this or that?
		And I think that's a human instinct to explore, you know, various possibilities.
		But I still come back to the point that the simple answer is often the answer.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Peter is in Madison, Wisconsin on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Peter.
unidentified		Hello.
		Can you tell me if the CIA agent was compromised in the signal chat process here?
		So, no, my understanding is no.
		But I think, you know, the hard part with Signal is that it's encrypted until it arrives in someone's phone.
		And unless you know that your phone is not compromised, you just don't know.
		Because it's encrypted until it's in text on another device.
		That being said, this name was not included in the Atlantic article.
		And the CIA director did point out this person was not a covert intel officer.
		I think it's more that so people who are analysts, for example, don't hide the fact that they work there necessarily.
		But I think the, you know, I think we don't really know the details quite yet.
		And I think that'll be part of what's under review.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Kevin is in Erie, Pennsylvania, on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Kevin.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		This question, I guess, is for Martha.
		I don't really...
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		It's a little hard to hear you, Kevin.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Can you speak up a bit, please?
unidentified		I'm sorry.
unidentified		Is this any better?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, it's a bit better.
unidentified		Whose responsibility is it to make sure that their contacts are correct?
		Does each individual person's contacts for this signal app differ?
		Does each person need to verify who is in their contacts?
		How does that work?
		I think this is a very interesting question.
		And I think, you know, first and foremost, the person who creates a chat is largely responsible for ensuring that they have the correct people in the chat that they've created.
		You know, I think at the same time, prior to sharing views and information on a chat, it's, you know, really important to know who you are communicating with.
		So in a way, for anybody who chimed in in that discussion, you know, really just on a baseline responsibility level should have been checking to see who exactly was on the call or on the chat.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's all the time that we have for this segment.
		Thank you so much, Martha Miller, who is the National Security Institute Deputy Executive Director at George Mason University Law School, as well as a former special assistant to President George W. Bush.
		We appreciate your time this morning.
unidentified		Thank you for having me.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And for everyone else, you can start calling in for Open Forum.
		You can dial in to tell us what's on your mind.
		Our number for Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		We'll be right back.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		UCLA law professor Stuart Banner's book, The Most Powerful Court in the World, is a history of the United States Supreme Court from the founding era to the present.
		In his introduction, Stuart Banner writes that today critics on the left accuse the justices of deciding cases on political rather than legal grounds.
		This book shows, he continues, that the Supreme Court critics have always leveled criticism at decisions they did not like.
		These attacks have usually come from the left because the court has usually been a conservative institution, unquote.
		Author Banner has a law degree from Stanford and clerk for Sandra Dale Connor in 1991.
unidentified		Author Stuart Banner with his book, The Most Powerful Court in the World, a history of the Supreme Court of the United States, on this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available on the free C-SPAN Now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
		Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		At 2.30 p.m. Eastern, we'll feature this year's Savannah Book Festival.
		You'll hear from authors discussing scientist Marie Curie, the role of big tech in politics, FBI sting operations, and more.
		And at 8 p.m. Eastern, biology professor Neil Schubin shares his book, Ends of the Earth, which highlights the scientific discoveries made by exploring the North and South Poles.
		Then at 10 p.m. Eastern, on afterwards, writer Paul Bluestein makes the case for why he believes the dollar will remain the world's dominant currency in his book, King Dollar.
		He's interviewed by author and counsel on foreign relations senior fellow Zhongjuan Zoe Liu.
		Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
		The cherry blossoms are in season and we're marking the occasion with our cherry blossom sale starting Tuesday at cspanshop.org, our online store.
		Save up to 25% on our entire cherry blossom collection of t-shirts, sweatshirts, and drinkwear.
		Scan the code or visit c-spanshop.org during our cherry blossom sale.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're in open forum, ready to hear your thoughts on public policy issues that are important to you.
		Before we get to your calls, coming up in a couple of days, we are expecting new tariffs from the Trump administration.
		There's an article in NBC News.
		Trump says he couldn't care less if foreign automakers raise their prices due to tariffs.
		In a phone call with NBC News, President Donald Trump also said that he wouldn't fire anyone involved in the Signal group chat, which we were just discussing a moment ago.
		But President Trump told NBC News in an interview Saturday that he would not fire anyone involved in the Signal group chat where military attack plans were inadvertently divulged to a journalist and later added that he couldn't care less if automakers raise prices due to new tariffs.
		Now, speaking of those tariffs, President Trump last week was announcing those new tariffs on automobiles from the Oval Office.
		Let's listen to a clip of that announcement.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Beginning of Liberation Day in America.
		We're going to take back just some of the money that has been taken from us by people sitting behind this desk or another desk that's not quite as nice, but they have their choice of seven, as you know.
		And we're going to charge countries for doing business in our country and taking our jobs, taking our wealth, taking a lot of things that they've been taking over the years.
		They've taken so much out of our country, friend and foe, and frankly, friend has been oftentimes much worse than foe.
		And this is very modest.
		And what we're going to be doing is a 25% tariff on all cars that are not made in the United States.
		If they're made in the United States, there's absolutely no tariff.
		We start off with a 2.5% base, which is what we were at.
		And we go to 25%.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Back to that NBC News article about those tariffs.
		NBC reported that foreign auto parts would also be taxed at 25%, even if the vehicles they go into are assembled domestically.
		Companies that import vehicles under the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement will get special consideration until the government establishes a process for levying the 25% duties, according to the White House.
		Until that time, USMCA-compliant auto parts will remain tariff-free.
		The president also said in that interview with NBC News that the tariffs would be permanent.
		Let's get to your calls in open forum.
		Elizabeth is in Michigan on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Elizabeth.
unidentified		Oh, yes.
		Good morning.
		I'm enjoying your show always, and you're doing a great job.
		Donald Trump is destroying our country within.
		It's really sad.
		I don't know what it takes to stop this man, but he's destroying our country within.
		He thinks he's on his show that he was, you're fired on that show on the TV.
		But something's got to stop him because he is just too much.
		He's not for the people.
		He's all chaos.
		It just keeps up turmoil.
		And all the people that he has chosen, some are not qualified.
		And for that mistake to be made about a bombing someplace, that's just awful.
		Just awful.
		I've never, I'm 83 and I've never seen anything like it.
		And I follow politics.
		Never seen anything like this.
		He's reckless.
		He's reckless.
		And all the people he's chosen are not qualified.
		And that, what's his name?
		I can't think of his name.
		His co-partner.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		He's Mike Pence, his vice president.
unidentified		No, no.
		He's no, not Mike Pance.
		Trump's this guy that's working with him.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Elon Musk?
unidentified		Musk.
		Yeah, they call him the Muskrat, but he's not qualified to lead anybody.
		They're just destroying people's lives.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's hear from Joe in West Plains, Missouri on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Joe.
unidentified		Yeah, well, 25% is not a modest amount.
		That's quite a bit.
		But the reason I called interfering the tariffs, you mean?
		Yeah, that's a heck of a big amount.
		That's not a modest amount.
		25% is a very big amount, I think.
		But Nancy Zedankowicz, your guest, was asked a question by a caller.
		If they don't have a social security number, how can they contribute to Social Security?
		That's a great question.
		She sidestepped it, lied.
		If you don't have a Social Security number, you cannot contribute to FICA under your name.
		Okay.
		And then you read a statement from some left-leaning organization.
		Don't tell me you believe that.
		That they pay taxes.
		If they don't have a Social Security number, they can't contribute to Social Security.
		Don't tell me you actually believe that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So there have been other sources that have reported the payments that do go into the Social Security system from undocumented immigrants, sometimes using the Social Security numbers that don't belong to them, or also because employers have to pay into Social Security on behalf of the wages that they pay.
		Sometimes that's how those payments get in there.
		But in the meantime, Joe, I'll look for another source for you.
		Did you have another comment that you wanted to share?
		Oh, we've lost Joe.
		Let's hear from Michael in Stamford, Connecticut on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Michael.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		We've spent years hearing Trump saying that Biden wanted to destroy America.
		Well, look what's happening now.
		I mean, he's getting revoice agencies.
		He wants to go to Medicare, Medicaid, and get rid of Social Security.
		This is not destroying America.
		As far as that signal chat thing goes, first, he thought it was a bad signal.
		He doesn't even know what he's talking about.
		Second of all, I hope this goes on as long as Benghazi went on for two years.
		And when did he get to the bottom of that?
		Donald Trump, everything comes out of his mouth is a lie.
		He's not saying anything that's truthful.
		I don't know how anybody believes him, and he's terrorists.
		He obviously does not know math.
		Because if he knew math, he could add and subtract and maybe divide.
		That may be too much for him.
		But I don't, it's just preposterous that anybody believes anything this guy says.
		It's just insane.
		All right.
		Have a good day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		So following up on an earlier caller, here's another source on that information related to undocumented immigrants and their payments to Social Security.
		This one from the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center.
		Yes, undocumented immigrants pay taxes and receive few tax benefits.
		This is a story from 2024 or an article from 2024.
		An estimated 11 million immigrants live in the United States without authorization.
		Contrary to some claims, they pay a considerable amount in taxes.
		Some estimates suggest undocumented immigrants paid nearly $100 billion in federal, state, and local taxes.
		And this here references Social Security specifically.
		If you are a U.S. citizen, you can use your Social Security number to file your income taxes.
		Immigrants who do not have valid visa or other proof of legal status are not eligible for an SSN.
		Instead, these workers apply through the IRS for an individual taxpayer identification number to file their taxes.
		As of January 2021, there are an estimated 5.4 million active ITINs.
		And though undocumented immigrants pay taxes, they receive limited tax benefits.
		Undocumented immigrants who pay taxes are often not eligible for the same tax benefits as U.S. citizens.
		Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Social Security retirement benefits or health insurance, even though they contribute billions of dollars to federal payroll taxes that fund these benefits.
		All right, let's get back to your comments in open form.
		Joseph is in Upland, California on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Joseph.
unidentified		Oh, good morning, everybody.
		Thank you for this opportunity.
		I just wanted to bring up a point about the narrative that Trump and the Republicans always bringing up about Afghanistan.
		And the narrative is not fully described because it's all started with Trump, actually.
		He's the one who went and made a deal without the Afghanistan involved to release 5,000 Taliban terrorists who later attacked the airport that killed 13 of our American heroes.
		If Biden had not pulled out when he did, we would have lost a lot more.
		So Trump had stated that if the Taliban didn't follow through with their agreement and did attack parts of Afghanistan, which they did right after their agreement, he would do something, which he never did.
		And whatever came about with the Afghan leader, I believe his name was Ghani or something like that, Ashra Ghani.
		I mean, is it noted that Trump gave him a lot of money and he ran off with the money and didn't pay the soldiers?
		That's why when the Taliban attacked and took the equipment that Trump gave them, you know, the soldiers ran off because they didn't get paid.
		So did they ever get the money back from Ashra Ghani that he ran off with Trump's deal?
		And, you know, what about all the equipment Trump had given him to fight the Taliban with that they took over?
		It has to be noted that at the time they did that, the U.S. had drew down, drew down their troops to less than 1,500.
		When Biden took office, it was only, I think, just over double that 3,000 and had drawn down to less than 1,500.
		When Trump was there, it was 13,000, so that's drastic.
		And, you know, when you got less than 1,500 troops and Trump made a deal with the Taliban to release 5,000 terrorists, I mean, come on.
		Trump holds up.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We're going to move on because we only have a couple minutes left.
		Let's hear from Charles in Maryland on our line for independence.
		Go ahead, Charles.
unidentified		Hi, hi, good morning.
		Yes.
		There is a misconception about the debt.
		I mean, they look at the data, but they don't have the conclusion right.
		So half of the debt is owned by the government entities.
		So half of the interest goes back to the government, which pays for Social Security and for everything else.
		It's just incompetence from the economists that they don't put the apple pana together.
		So the problem is, after that, you have the bad conclusions that Musk and the president, you know, they have to down on the debt, but they are doing all those decisions based on the wrong conclusions.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Very quickly, a previous caller was talking about Ashraf Ghani, the former president of Afghanistan, and leaving the country with money.
		Here's a story from 2022 in Fox News that a U.S. report denied that Afghan President Ghani left with millions when the Taliban took over Kabul.
		This was a new report at the time in 2022 from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction indicated that there was a lack of evidence to support the claims that former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani stole millions of dollars when he fled the country last year.
		To the contrary, the report says this would have been extremely difficult from a logistical standpoint, given the conditions and the cargo capacity of the helicopters used during the escape from Afghanistan.
		At the same time, it does appear that a lesser amount of money was taken.
		Now then, let's go to Anthony in Ashland, Kentucky, on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Anthony.
unidentified		Yeah, my question was that sick.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Anthony, your line is breaking up and we're not able to hear you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Can you try it again?
unidentified		Yeah, I said that signal chat thing was already on the phone when they got it.
		It was approved by the Biden administration, if I'm not correct.
		But everybody, if you listen to C-SPAN anymore, you've got opinions that's so far out there, it's just not even funny.
		It's like they're brainwashed to start out with, and it's almost like if they want to Google something, go Google Operation Mockingbird.
		But the CIA is controlling just that gun here everything we hear on TV anymore.
		You're not the big story to me in Washington, D.C. should be who was running the country for four years while Joe Biden was in the White House?
		Because it sure wasn't him.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Well, thank you to everyone who called in for open forum and for our entire show today.
		Once again, Elon Musk is going to be in Wisconsin today as there is a very tight race for the Supreme Court seat there.
		And we are going to be carrying that live at 7.30 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
		It's also going to be on C-SPAN.org as well as C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
		That's all we have for Washington Journal today.
		We'll be back with another edition at 7 a.m. Eastern tomorrow.
		Hope everyone has a great day.
unidentified		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy.
		From Washington and across the country.
		Coming up Monday morning, Eris Foley, congressional reporter for The Hill, previews the week ahead in Congress, including the latest on Republicans' budget reconciliation efforts.
		Then Alex Gangetano, the Hill White House reporter, previews the week ahead in Washington.
		And Charles Blauhaus with George Mason University's Mercatus Center discusses the future of Social Security and potential changes to the program by the Trump administration.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
		Oh, you think this is just a community censor?
		No, it's way more than that.
		Comcast is partnering with a thousand community centers to create Wi-Fi-enabled lifts so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything.
		Comcast supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.
		Good morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		It's Sunday, March 30th, 2025.
		We're just over two months into the second Trump administration, with the White House and the Republican Congress already making inroads on the president's agenda across multiple policy areas, including immigration, trade, and downsizing the federal workforce, in addition to some surprise areas of focus for the administration, like the push to take over Greenland.
		This morning, we want to hear from you.
		Are President Trump and the GOP focusing about the issues you care about?
		What issues do you think are getting too much attention or not enough?
		Our phone lines, for Democrats, 202-748-8000, for Republicans, 202-748-8001, and for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		If you'd like to text us, that number is 202-748-8003.
		Please be sure to include your name and where you're writing in from.
		And on social media, we're at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
		Now, to get started, let's check in on President Trump's overall approval ratings.

▲