CSPAN - Washington Journal Washington Journal

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 4, 2025 10:02-13:05 - CSPAN

03:02:58

Washington Journal Washington Journal

Participants

Main

jim townsend

23:16

kimberly adams

cspan 35:57

susan ferrechio

21:32

Appearances

brian lamb

cspan 00:45

chuck schumer

sen/d 01:40

donald j trump

admin 03:44

kathleen delaski

00:57

tom homan

01:13

Clips

patty murray

sen/d 00:04

rachel maddow

msnow 00:07

terry moran

00:20

Callers

mike in alaska

callers 01:00

vanessa in florida

callers 00:15

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Mediacom.
		Dear Future, we're on a mission to make small-town America bigger than anyone ever dreamed.
		That's why at MediaCom, we're always pushing the limits, increasing speeds, improving reliability, and we'll do whatever it takes to make it happen.
		Mediacom supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Sunday, May 4th, 2025.
		During his first 100 days in office, President Trump began action on many of the economic promises he made during the campaign, particularly on tariffs.
		But the rollout of the president's trade policy and other decisions has shaken markets and many U.S. consumers.
		Our question this morning, has economic uncertainty changed your spending habits?
		We're doing our phone lines based on income.
		If you make under $50,000 a year, call 202-748-8000.
		And if you make between $50,000 and $100,000 per year, 202-748-8001.
		And if your income is over $100,000 a year, that number is 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.
		We're also on social media at facebook.com slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
		Now for some economic indicators in terms of how the economy is doing right now, we got jobs numbers last week.
		Here's a story about it in the Wall Street Journal, with employers adding 177,000 jobs in April despite tariff uncertainty.
		The U.S. labor market steadily added jobs last month despite jolting tariff announcements that many economists expect will give way to a trade policy-induced slowdown later this year.
		The Labor Department reported Friday that the U.S. added 177,000 jobs in April, above the gain of 133,000 jobs that economists polled by the Wall Street Journal had expected to see.
		The employment rate, which is based on a separate survey from the jobs figures, held steady at 4.2%.
		The report revealed solid data, quote, that no one wants to trust, said Thomas Simons, chief U.S. economist at investment bank Jeffries.
		That is because the figures likely reflected staffing decisions made in February and March before President Trump's Liberation Day tariff announcements early in the month that induced significant market volatility.
		Another tariff-related issue that's likely to indicate some, as CNN reports here, chaos is the massive tariff on millions of Americans' purchases just went into effect.
		Now, this is referring to the de minimis exemption.
		Many Americans might not have felt the major effects from President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs until now.
		That's because a major shipping loophole expired at one minute past midnight on Friday.
		The de minimis exemption, as it's known, allowed shipments of goods worth $800 or less to come into the United States duty-free, often more or less skipping time-consuming inspections and paperwork.
		The loophole helped reshape the way countless Americans shop, allowing ultra-low-cost Chinese e-commerce sites like Xi'an, Timu, and AliExpress to pour everything from yarn to patio furniture, clothes to photography equipment, and more into U.S. homes.
		Its impending end has rung alarm bells across social media with a baseline tariff as high as 145 percent, depending on the carrier set to take effect on Chinese imports, potentially more than doubling the costs for all those cheap products deal-hungry Americans scooped up.
		Now, in terms of how most Americans are viewing the president's performance on the economy, Real Clear Politics has some polling on this, finding that 55 percent of Americans disapprove of President Trump's handling of the economy compared to 42 percent approving, and that's the real clear politics average.
		Now, President Trump was asked about his handling of the economy and tariffs in an interview with ABC News last week marking his 100th day in office.
unidentified		Here's a portion: I want to start with the economy, the number one issue for so many people, just about everybody.
unidentified		It's one of the main reasons that you're back in this office.
terry moran ▲ ● ▼		And now we have this trade war with China that Moody's and other analysts say is going to cost American families thousands of more dollars per year.
unidentified		And there is a lot of concern out there.
		People are worried.
		Even some people who voted for you saying, I didn't sign up for this.
		So, how do you answer those concerns?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Well, they did sign up for it, actually, and this is what I campaigned on.
		I said that we've been abused by other countries at levels that nobody's ever seen before.
		We were losing three to five billion dollars a day on trade.
		We were losing a trillion and a half to two trillion dollars a year, not sustainable.
		They were taking advantage of us like they've never.
		I could have left it that way, and at some point there would have been an implosion like nobody's ever seen.
		But I said, no, we have to fix it.
		I've wanted to do this for many years.
		You know, I had the best economy during my first term.
		We had a tremendous economy, tremendous success.
		And we did tremendous numbers of tariffs on, we took in a lot of money from tariffs, China in particular, hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs.
		We had no inflation, as you know.
		We had an incredible economy.
		We're given credit for a great economy.
		But I said, we have to fix this, otherwise, it's just not self-sustaining.
terry moran ▲ ● ▼		One of the things you ran on was you'd said you'd bring prices down on day one, and that would happen fast, and that it would happen fast.
unidentified		Most economists will tell you that tariffs will raise prices.
unidentified		So, don't your tariffs cut against that promise you made to bring prices down?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		No, because I had massive tariffs on China, if you remember, in my first term, and we had essentially no inflation, like around 1% inflation, which is like a perfect number.
		And then, when Biden took over, it went through the roof.
		It went to probably the worst inflation we've ever had.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke last week about the economy and Trump's handling of it related to President Trump's first hundred days.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's listen to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
chuck schumer ▲ ● ▼		Donald Trump's first 100 days can be defined by one big F word: failure: failure on the economy, failure on lowering costs, failure on tariffs, failure on foreign policy, failure on preserving democracy,
		failure on helping middle-class families.
		Today's new economic news showed that Donald Trump is running the American economy the way he ran his family business, into the ground.
		Into the ground On tariffs, what a failure.
		It's a policy that's in total chaos.
		One day says one thing, one day says another thing.
		Maybe this country has tariffs.
		Maybe this country won't.
		Even his policy advisors are at a loss to explain what he's doing.
		And as a result, instead of all of us in the world going after China, China is now has allies all over the world going after us.
		Tariffs, a failure.
		On costs.
		Donald Trump said on day one he'd lower costs of American families.
		They are up and up and up.
		And the tariffs are making it worse.
		Costs will go up for about $4,000 for the average American family.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Our question again this morning: Has economic uncertainty changed your spending habits?
		And once again, we have our phone lines based on income this morning.
		If you make under $50,000 a year, $202,748,800, between $50,000 and $100,000 a year, $202,748,800, and over $100,000, $202,748,800.
		Let's start with our under 50K line with Greg in Latrobe, Pennsylvania.
		Good morning, Greg.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I have a question, but the fact that we're paying a tax on tariffs, and we all know now that it's a tax, when you come time to pay your income tax, this is not a tax that you can put on your income taxes.
		It's a tax that I had to pay on items.
		Now, of course, you can put on your income tax that you had to pay a total for the item, but yet the tax is secreted in there.
		And it's a tax that the poor people are going to have to pay that we're not going to be able to get refunds for that we need more than those who are making more money than me.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Greg, but has all of this changed the way that you're spending your money?
unidentified		Oh, yes.
		I haven't bought anything.
		I don't buy anything but what I need.
		And I mean, what I need.
		I'm trying to save what money I have because the future does not look good because I hear that, yeah, we're going to have to suffer a little bit, but coming out of suffering takes a long time.
		It has in the past, and it's going to do it in the future again.
		Have a good day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		CNBC has a story about the consumer spending numbers.
		Consumer spending is up big in early April as people buy in anticipation of tariffs.
		This is a story that published on Wednesday.
		Consumer spending is rising at a faster clip this month, that was April, as everyday Americans rush to make purchases before President Donald Trump's full tariff plan takes effect.
		Data released Wednesday from JPMorgan shows.
		Spending through the first 15 days in April climbed about 3.8% from the same period a year ago, JPMorgan found.
		Spending in March increased about 2.7% from the comparable month a year ago.
		The pickup in spending shouldn't be construed as heralding faster economic growth, however.
		April data may reflect a pull forward of discretionary spending on big ticket items if consumers tried to lock in lower prices before tariffs went into effect.
		JP Morgan analysts led by Richard Shane wrote to clients in a note on Wednesday.
		Mike is in Alaska on our line for folks making over $100,000.
		Good morning, Mike.
unidentified		Oh, good morning, Kimberly.
		You're looking beautiful today, Kimberly, and thank you for taking my call.
		I have a split-level comment and answer to your question.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		Being a gold miner, our family mines gold up in Coldfoot, Alaska, and the new policies and regulation reduction is fantastic.
unidentified		A lot of the BLM up here, Bureau of Land Management, now start is working with us more now.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		In the past, there's a lot of good BLM agents and people in the Bureau, and we love them.
unidentified		But there's also a lot that are actually environmental lawyers.
unidentified		And the regulation, though, dropping the regulations and losing the litigation has really been a boon and a boom to Alaska.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		And because of it, we are buying more equipment for our mines now because of the price of gold is up now where it should be.
unidentified		It's not set yet.
unidentified		It should go higher.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		And because we're just now coming out of cost of operation, finally, after many, many years, we mined when gold was $2.68 an ounce.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Mike, it sounds like the economic conditions are changing the way that you're spending in your business.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What about in your personal life?
unidentified		Yeah, well, it's been tough.
		It's been tough.
		We have our whole family, and down below, our family's tough.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		Nobody buys, I mean, eggs were $10 a dozen in Montana where my family lives.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		That's ridiculous to be in the middle of the farmland to pay for eggs like that is outrageous.
unidentified		That's just a, to me, it's a planned, it's a planned, it's a planned detriment to our country.
unidentified		Just another phase of bringing our country down.
mike in alaska ▲ ● ▼		But yeah, but I'm not happy with President Trump on other ground on other areas.
		I'm happy with, yes, his policies on the border, which is a no-brainer.
		That's like, that was done in 24 hours.
unidentified		I mean, come on.
		Why the other presidents didn't do that?
		It's obvious.
		But anyway, I'm not happy with President Trump's pick of Bergham.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So I do want to keep it on the economic uncertainty question.
		Let's hear from David in Sacramento, California on our line for folks making between 50 and 100,000.
		Good morning, David.
		Hey there, David.
		Can you hear me?
		All right.
		Let's try Carmen in Florida, who's on our line for folks making under 50K.
		Good morning, Carmen.
unidentified		Hi, how are you doing?
		Thanks for answering my call.
		Well, first, I want to put it out there that I'm with my husband, and I put under $50,000 because I make under $50,000, but he also retired.
		We're both retirees.
		So I'm actually in the middle there somewhere.
		So my thought is this.
		As far as the economy, I'm really totally upset with my economic insecurity that I didn't have before I retired a year and a half, two years ago.
		It's off the charts.
		So I buy one, get one free when I go to the supermarket, or it doesn't go in my cart.
		The food, plastic, and items that we buy, we just went camping.
		I'm using the same plastic spoons and utensils because I washed them at the sink at the campground.
		So when we go back camping again for a weekend, I can use the same plastic utensils.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
		Okay.
		Felicia is in Woodbridge, Connecticut on our line for folks making over 100K.
		Good morning, Felicia.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Yeah, you know, I'm affected too.
		I think all of us are.
		It's not just your income level.
		It's you have to take into account what's going on in your life.
		My son just had to move back in with us, and that's an added burden onto our family with my other son here who's got special needs.
		And yeah, we've cut back as well.
		And I agree with the caller previously that this is a tax on what we're purchasing, but then we have to pay our social, our income taxes, and you've got to pay money there as well.
		So it's like we're getting doubly taxed.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So what kinds of things have you pulled back on in terms of your spending, Felicia?
unidentified		Just purchasing on food.
		We're going through a lot more food with a 31-year-old here and a 29-year-old two boys.
		Yeah, so I haven't purchased clothing, stuff like that, but you normally would just go in.
		Impulse buying, I guess you'd call it.
		I'm much more aware of impulse buying and just buying what I need in terms of like food.
		You've got a mortgage.
		We have the same constraints.
		I mean, I don't make a lot more over $100,000.
		It doesn't go as far as you think that it would with all of the other things that need to be purchased on a day-to-day basis.
		I'm still working, and I'm 70 years old.
		So it's, yeah, working full-time.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Brenda is in Broken Era, Oklahoma, on our line for folks making under 50K.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Brenda.
unidentified		Hi.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Has the economic uncertainty changed your spending habits at all?
unidentified		Most definitely.
		I've gone back to work part-time, not getting probably the stuff that we want to have, but just what we have to have.
		I think for me, if I could have more clarity about the tariffs, it's a little hard, I think, for a lot of people to understand.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So what sorts of things have you changed in your spending?
unidentified		I would say basically what we don't buy is things we want, especially when it comes to groceries.
		It's more what we have to have.
		I think it's just a little harder for us to understand.
		We're retired, recently gone back to work.
		I think trying to understand what's going on, an overall look at everything.
		It seems like I watch a variety of different things with you guys.
		And it feels like I could just a little more clarity as far as what both sides say.
		And it's hard to kind of weave through everything.
		So it's the uncertainty has definitely left us very pulled back on some things.
		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Next up is Aaron in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on our line for people making more than $100,000 a year.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Erin.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		My husband and I both work full-time.
		We're both blue-collar workers.
		He has a really good income, but we also have three teenagers, and our expenses are going up and up and up.
		Grocery bills are through the roof, our utilities are through the roof, you know, his taxes, his income taxes have gone up with all of his pay raises.
		And we're definitely cutting back everywhere we possibly can, shopping at lower cost, you know, grocery stores like Aldi and that sort of thing.
		My daughter's in high school, but she also goes to college full-time.
		We're paying her tuition, so that's an expense that we obviously can't skip on.
		And our car insurance has gone up.
		Everything has just gone up across the board.
		And on paper, you know, it's like we should have more money.
		We're making incomes that we've always considered to be really good, but it's just, it doesn't even matter anymore because no matter how much we cut back and save, it's just going right out the door to build utilities, et cetera.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Charles is in Lawton, Oklahoma, on our line for people making between 50 and 100K a year.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Charles.
unidentified		Good morning.
		This is a great program.
		Yes.
		Yeah, I've been saving up money.
		I've changed my spending habits, been saving up money.
		I'm worried that the administration is going to somehow be able to cut back on Social Security, Medicare, and we both get that.
		I'm military retired 20 years, and I have a military disability also.
		So we're doing okay, but I worry that the big prize for the administration is to eventually, with all this chaos that's going on, I call it the bull in the China shop type of administration.
		I worry that they're going to go after Social Security and Medicare here.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So you said that you're saving a lot more.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Are there certain things that you're not buying that you used to, or other spending habits that you've changed to help you save more?
unidentified		The biggest thing is my wife isn't going to the casino as much.
		So that's quite a savings right there.
		And we haven't bought any big ticket items recently.
		We don't see our cars are paid off.
		We don't see buying a car anytime soon.
		And we're just sitting back.
		We're waiting to see what's going to happen here.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Maxine is in Washington and our line for people making under $50,000 a year.
		Good morning, Maxine.
unidentified		Good morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		How has the economic uncertainty changed your spending habits?
unidentified		Oh, quite a bit.
		When I buy groceries, I have to order them online.
		I'm 82 and I like going and picking them up, but I can't walk that far anymore.
		So I order them online, but I only order what I absolutely have to have.
		I don't order any extras at all.
		That's hard.
		I don't go on long trips anymore.
		I don't go to see my friends because I can't afford the gas.
		I need new tires for my car.
		I can't buy those.
		I need to get new pipes for under my house.
		I've got to save for that.
		So I can't even afford to get a haircut.
		I tried to call my detician and say, how much would it be if I shampooed my own hair and came in and you just cut it and I leave and you don't style it or anything?
		Well, that's $50.
		So I can't afford $50 for a haircut.
		So now I'm having to cut my own hair.
		I'm getting better at it.
		But those are things that I wanted to do.
		You know, I also, I hate to admit this on an open airline, but I'm incontinent and I need pads to wear when I walk around.
		So those are very expensive.
		They're like $25 for a whole bag.
		And so in order to have those, I cut out food.
		And so there are some days that I only eat vegetables a few times a week, and I have protein once or twice a week then.
		And so it's that we don't have a good economy.
		We didn't have a good economy when he was president the first time, and it's just worse now.
		And I believe he's after our Social Security.
		And that's money I put in to live on in my elder years.
		And it's wrong for them to constantly scare us about taking it away.
		And I'm very upset that he let Elon Musk get our Social Security numbers and all that data on his servers.
		That is wrong.
		That's a breach of contract with the citizens of this United States.
		And this president is not watching out over the citizens of this state.
		He's just watching out for his friends and the rich people.
		And I think it's pitiful.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, Maxine, thank you for sharing that story.
		And very sorry to hear about your experience there.
		Let's go to Robert in Orlando, Florida on our line for folks making over $100,000.
		Good morning, Robert.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I'm good, thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		How are you?
unidentified		I'm well.
		Very, very well.
		THANK YOU.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		SO HOW IS THE ECONOMIC, GO AHEAD.
unidentified		Well, my spending habits haven't changed any, and they probably won't, because a long time ago, I realized that it's a lot harder to keep money than it is to make money.
		But if you learn that one adage, you can prepare for the future because you save more.
		But in this country, it's very hard to keep money because there's so much pressure to spend and spend and spend so that you're always living at the very, very, very limit, high limit of your income.
		But if you learn that it's harder to keep money than it is to make money, you can start saving and fight those forces that are constantly telling you to buy, buy, buy, so that when times like this come along, you have sufficient savings to get you through it.
		But in this country, there are so many forces working against you economically.
		And just one other point is that, you know, it's said that if you have $30 million, you will never have to work.
		Your children will never have to work.
		Your grandchildren never have to work.
		So having billions and billions and hundreds of billions of dollars for one individual, that's just disgusting.
		Absolutely disgusting.
		But there again, we're constantly told to praise these individuals that hoard so much of economic wealth.
		We're told that this is the way that people should live and this is what you should strive for.
		We should love these individuals.
		Buffet, you know, thousands of people are saying that, oh, he's such a great guy because he's amassed so much wealth.
		And we need to start learning that if you have over $30 million and you're not willing to be more social with your money, and I mean by sharing that, then there's something absolutely wrong.
		We have to start looking at the world a little bit differently.
		And that comes back to us.
		So it's really our own responsibility to save when we're doing well.
		Buy less right now.
		This country is 3% of the world's population.
		We consume about 27% of the world's resources.
		We're deaf, and then we're consuming so much, and then there's 7 million people a year that die of starvation.
		So I think we really need to reevaluate our attitude towards wealth and money to be more equitable and more giving.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Betty is in Blacksburg, South Carolina, on our line for folks making under 50K.
		Good morning, Betty.
unidentified		That's true.
		I only make under 50K.
		At least I can say when Trump was in the first time for bills and things, and he just done a good job the first time.
		Nobody didn't hear about this stuff going on now when he was in the office first.
		Why don't somebody say he was the worst president before because he wasn't.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Betty, have your spending habits changed given everything that's happening in the economy this time?
unidentified		Yeah, it sure has because I don't go nowhere, but about twice a week to get no grocery charlie, no meat.
		And plus, I went to got my handbag solden, a thief, at a church that I was with my grandbaby having a birthday.
		Now, you know, and I wish that Newsmax or Fox would get calling, people call in at Newsmax and Fox, because they are truthful.
		I know they tell the truth.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Let's look at some comments we were receiving on social media and on our text line to our question whether economic uncertainty has changed folks' spending habits.
		MLB says, I just don't feel like buying anything extra because I'm in preventative mode.
		I'm not sure what's coming down the road, so I'm preparing now to not buy in the future.
		I'm already making Christmas gifts for my children and friends.
		Cynthia Ann says, prices skyrocketed four years ago.
		I'm finally feeling hopeful and relieved now that Trump is back in office.
		Gas is down to $2.77 a gallon.
		Eggs are down.
		Interest rates are down.
		Sean Riley says, yes, I keep putting things back.
		I am retired on a military pension and Social Security, and those looming clouds of economic uncertainty are keeping me from relaxing as I shop for groceries or stop me from considering any major purchases.
		I keep telling myself that what I have is fine and I do not need the new thing until the stupidity storm passes.
		Wilma Jones says, there's no uncertainty now.
		That was Biden's downfall.
		Now, President Biden came up quite a bit this week during discussions of the GDP numbers that came out.
		Here's a story in MSNBC.
		There's a lesson today in the today's GDP report, and it has nothing to do with Biden.
		The Commerce Department's data showed a 0.3% GDP contraction, and Trump's trade war is a big reason why.
		Wednesday morning, we learned that the U.S. economy contracted slightly in the first quarter of 2025.
		Real gross domestic product was down 0.3%, a minor contraction, but a large step down from the prior quarter's GDP growth rate of 2.4%.
		And this is an opinion piece by Jared Bernstein, who's a former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors.
		And according to him, the negative impact of the tariffs in particular comes through clearly in the report.
		Ever since President Donald Trump launched his trade war and his attacks on Federal Reserve independence, all accompanied by chaotic lurching, surveys of consumers and businesses have shown sharp drop-offs in confidence and sharp increases in expectations of higher inflation.
		Now then, President Trump spoke to reporters about that GDP report, blaming his predecessor for the weak first quarter GDP numbers.
		Here's that exchange.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I don't view the stock market as the end of all.
		It's an indicator.
		But what the stock market really tells you, or what you when you look at the stock market in this case, is it says how bad a situation we inherited.
		I took place, this is a quarter that we looked at today, and we took all of us together.
		We came in on January 20th.
unidentified		So this is Biden.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		And you could even say the next quarter is sort of Biden because it doesn't just happen on a daily or an hourly basis.
		But we're turning it around.
		It's a big shift to turn around.
		And we're going to have the greatest country financially in the history of the world, I believe.
		I think we're going to do things that, and we had to do it.
		We reset the table.
		We were being ripped off by every single country with just about without exception.
		I'd have to really think hard for who hasn't taken advantage.
		And I don't even blame those countries.
		I blame the person that was sitting right here where I am for allowing it to happen where our country was ripped off on trade hundreds of billions of dollars.
		And now we're doing better than we've done in a long time.
		You know, we were losing four to five to even six billion dollars a day on trade with Biden.
		And now we have it down to a very manageable number.
		And the tariffs, for the most part, haven't even kicked in yet.
		So that's the way stock markets to me are an indication.
		But the big indication is what's happening, and the people around the table know what's happening.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Our question again: Has economic uncertainty changed your spending habits?
		Let's get a few more comments from text and social media before we get back to calls.
		Greg in Cleveland, Ohio says, I have always been frugal with my spending, regardless of who is president.
		I work hard for a living, and if I want to buy something, for example, a steak or a vacation, I do it.
		I refuse to waste money on luxury cars, boats, RVs, motorcycles, and sporting events.
		Then Audrey in Philly says, I make under $50K a year, and I have definitely cut spending as much as possible.
		Not planning a vacation, no new clothes, fewer eggs and meat.
		Note, the jobs report should include information on pay.
		Are these minimum wage, living wage, or well-paid jobs?
		And then Paul in Boylston, Massachusetts says, I've totally changed.
		Stopped buying from Amazon.
		Everybody should, as a protest.
		Stopped going to restaurants.
		Stopped impulsive buying.
		Not buying a new car anymore.
		I'm retired.
		We don't get wage increases.
		And Beth Lane says, I am saving significant amounts of money boycotting Amazon, Walmart, and Target.
		Alex is in Bayer, Delaware, on our line for folks making under $50,000 a year.
		Good morning, Alex.
unidentified		Yeah, this is nothing but fear mongering, Trump haters.
		All this stuff, prices and all are starting to come down.
		The stock market has been up nine days in a row.
		It got all the losses back already, and it's going to keep going up.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Alex, very quickly, I want you to finish your point about how your spending habits have changed.
		turn down the volume on your TV a bit?
		And then go ahead, Alex.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Yeah, my habits haven't changed it.
		It ain't that bad.
		Gasoline's way down.
		People are lying about all this stuff.
		This is terrible what's going on.
		They're all Trump haters.
		If Biden's the one that had the high prices, he caused it all.
		I don't understand what's going on in this country.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's hear from Michael in Tyrone, New York on our line for folks making between $50,000 and $100,000 a year.
		Good morning, Michael.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		It's a pleasure watching your show.
		I get to see both sides of the issue.
		And I want to give my side, okay?
		I've been watching politics for over 25 years now.
		I actually got into the political arena locally in our town budgets.
		And the big thing is about controlling spending.
		And I see our president is trying to control spending in a way that it saves billions of dollars.
		My question is, where's those savings going to go?
		Where's all that money that he's saving going to go?
		I'm going to tell you where it's going to go to the last guy that we just on and the other lady that says that Fox News and all that tells the truth.
		I'll tell you where it's going to go, guys.
		It's going to go right into the coffers of the billionaires in a huge.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Michael, our question is about how your spending habits have changed.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		How have your spending habits changed?
unidentified		My wife's and I's spending habits have changed in that she doesn't order online because they can't give you a definite date as to when the things are going to arrive now.
		I mean, all that stuff that's sitting out in water is not being able to be put on the land to be shipped to us.
		This is going to hurt the trucking industry.
		Everything that he's doing right now is killing this country.
		Okay.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Carrie is in Lafayette, Georgia, on our line for people making under $50,000 a year.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Carrie.
unidentified		Good morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And how have your spending habits changed, if at all?
unidentified		Mine hasn't really changed much.
		I still spend like I always have.
		I think Trump's doing a great job.
		If people just wait, it don't take things overnight to change on prices going down.
		It does take a while.
		Give it to the end of the year.
		Let's see how it does.
		Quick listen to the Democrats putting Trump down, saying he's taking money from people when he's not.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		There's some data reflecting what Carrie was just saying.
		Americans may be downbeat on the economy.
		They keep spending anyway.
		People are still buying things at a steady clip, keeping the economy humming for now.
		This is in the Wall Street Journal and finds that Americans are feeling gloomy about the economy after President Trump's market-rattling first few months in office.
		But overall, they are spending even more than before, which is keeping the economy humming for now.
		Retail sales surged 1.4% in March from a month earlier, the Commerce Department said recently.
		While car sales posted a big jump, sales were up at restaurants and clothing stores, too.
		Those figures are from before Trump's April 2nd announcement of widespread tariffs, though the administration later paused some of those levies.
		Other data shows that overall spending growth continued after the tariff announcement, even as consumers made some big changes to what they were buying.
		Spending on airlines was down more than 13% during the week ended April 19th compared to a year earlier, while online electronics sales were up 7.5% in analysis of Bank of America debit and credit card spending found.
		In all, total card spending at the bank rose 3.1%.
		Back to your calls.
		Marvin is in Michigan on our line for folks making over $100K a year.
		Good morning, Marvin.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		No, my spending habits haven't changed.
		I draw appearances from the international union.
		I have Social Security, and I still go out and buy clones with me and my wife.
		We go to restaurants and enjoy ourselves.
		I'm not going to let this economy change the way I'm living in my life.
		So the only person that can do that is God.
		So just I enjoy myself and spend, enjoy your life.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Alberto is in Maplewood, New Jersey on our line for people making between 50 and $100,000 per year.
		Good morning, Alberto.
unidentified		Yeah, good day.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Actually, I'm in the wrong category.
		It's 100 and over.
		I'm in.
		The question that you ask is kind of an interesting question, though I think it's worded incorrectly.
		I'm changing my spending habits because of the certainty that I find in the economy today.
		I'm finding things changing.
		I'm finding spending being controlled or in the government.
		I find that there's a lot of abuse that's being ratted out of our systems, and people have to kind of get their arms around the fact that we're getting into a better mood in a better way here.
		So go ahead.
		Yes, I'm just saying that I'm very concerned that the interpretation of the question is the uncertainty of it when, in fact, I'm very certain that things are getting much better.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And so as a result of your certainty of this, has that changed the way that you're spending?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And if so, how so?
unidentified		Well, I really haven't changed spending so much.
unidentified		I'm investing a lot more.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		All right.
		Well, thank you very much.
		Let's go to Mary in Grosse Point, Michigan on our line for folks making between 50 and 100K.
		Good morning, Mary.
unidentified		Good morning to you.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I completely agree with the man before me.
		It is an unusual way of wording.
		I drastically changed my spending habits throughout Biden's administration.
		Things were just horrible.
		And how I did that, I really had to stop buying a lot of meat.
		I can't believe what meat costs now.
		And in some ways, I'm in my 70s, so I guess I've been getting more vegetables and experimenting with vegetarian food and using like processed, not processed, but canned protein, like beans and chicken is canned.
		And that's the way I've done it.
		But, you know, people who are so worried about Social Security, which I am on, I am so tired about the media continuing to fear people.
		That is like a horrible thing to do to the elderly.
		Nothing's going to change with Social Security.
		Trump says that over and over again.
		And yet the media likes to say, oh, oh, this and this and this.
		The only thing that's changing with Social Security and Medicaid is they're eliminating the people that don't belong on it.
		There are many people there that are fraudulently getting services they don't belong.
		In fact, I don't know if it's true because you can't believe anything in the media, actually.
		But they're claiming that there were a lot of illegals that were given numbers in Social Security.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I don't know how that could have happened, but apparently your spending, your personal spending habits are adapting to the current environment.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What are your plans for the future in terms of how you plan to adjust your spending moving forward?
unidentified		That's a very interesting question because I'm actually downsizing my home and my income should rise dramatically next year.
		But it was funny, this period of time with Biden, I kind of like where I'm at with my spending and learning to do a lot less in buying things.
		And it's a good way to be, and I can leave more for my children.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Kurt is in Anaheim, California, on our line for folks making over $100K.
		Good morning, Kurt.
unidentified		Hello?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Kurt.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		How has the economic uncertainty changed your spending habits, if at all?
unidentified		It really hasn't changed any of my spending habits.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What's your assessment of how the economy is doing right now?
unidentified		I think the economy is doing well.
		I think there's plenty of work out there.
		You just have to get in the way of it.
		I've heard something a long time ago from a very good friend who said we're all broke at different levels.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Next up is Gary in Texas making between 50 and 100K.
		Good morning, Gary.
unidentified		I think that the one thing that people don't realize is the tax system is set up to redistribute wealth.
		And the way the tax system is set up now, the wealthy just keeps dashing more and more money away, and it doesn't get to recirculate in the system.
		So therefore, it doesn't generate the taxes needed to pay down the national debt.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Gary, have the current economic conditions changed the way that you're choosing to spend your own money?
unidentified		Yes, it has.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		How so?
unidentified		We have shut down on spending, period.
		These tariffs are going to destroy the economy.
		There's no two ways about it.
		They've done it before.
		They're going to do it again.
		And Trump's tariffs are just a way of taxing the lower-income and middle-income people.
		The tariffs are not going to touch the wealthy and the very wealthy in this country in any way whatsoever.
		But Donald Trump says, oh, well, people are going to just be able to are only going to be able to buy their children $2 for Christmas instead of $30 for Christmas.
		There are people in this country who can't afford to buy their children any dolls for Christmas.
		And it's a really cruel, cruel thing to say.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Gallup has some polling on how Americans view the tariff strategy of President Trump and his administration, finding that most Americans are skeptical about the benefits of tariffs.
		Americans are widely skeptical about the benefits of the recent tariffs the Trump administration has imposed on the United States trading partners, with majorities believing that they will ultimately cost the U.S. more money than they generate in the short term, 70%, as well as in the long run, 62%.
		Most U.S. adults, 89%, think the tariffs are likely to result in higher prices on the products they buy, while the public is evenly divided over the likelihood that the tariffs will bring more manufacturing jobs to the U.S. Americans have little appetite for long-term disruption to the U.S. economy before they see any economic benefits from the higher tariffs.
		Republicans are more likely than Democrats and Independents to say that the tariffs will bring in more money to the U.S. than they cost and will create manufacturing jobs at home.
		Back to your calls.
		Jason is in Meadville, Pennsylvania, on our line for folks making under 50K.
		Good morning, Jason.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		So how this has affected my spending is my wife and I, we are both in our 50s.
		We've just decided to put more into our savings for our retirement than what we spend for our leisure on everyday items.
		For example, we don't take a vacation now.
		We just put that money away for, like I said, our retirement.
		I don't really understand a lot about economics, but I do know that, you know, I was raised to prepare for the future and put away some money for our children, our grandchildren.
		And there's really not a need for frivolous spending, I guess, for my wife and I.
		But we are worried.
		We are concerned for the future, but we do our best to prepare and trust in God and not worry.
		Okay.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Christy is in Augress, Michigan on our line for folks making over 100K.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Christy.
unidentified		Morning.
		I've been definitely cutting back on my spending.
		Me and my husband, we're just buying necessities because we're raising small children still and putting money into our savings instead of buying things that we don't need day to day.
		And we are definitely worried because, you know, we feel like everything we buy right now is high, gas, food.
		And I don't see where gas prices have came down.
		We just paid $3.40 a gallon yesterday.
		So we're definitely cutting back on our spending.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Barbara is in Mount Holly, North Carolina, making between $50,000 and $100,000 a year.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Barbara.
unidentified		Oh, good morning.
		Good morning.
		Yes.
		The policies of the Trump administration are definitely affecting me already.
		I run a small business that I kicked up about five years ago.
		So the economy that we're seeing in March is basically a false economy because a lot of people that own their own businesses had to buy supplies to try to buffer through this process because those tariffs are coming in.
		And as an example, I don't know how long I can actually last because I've already been hit with the tariffs for products coming in from China because I get a lot of my products in from China because it's not, it made no sense for the president to bring jobs back.
		He should have built jobs here to buffer and maybe people could possibly get American-made products.
		He should have been pumping small businesses to account of take what China is already making.
		But to say you're going to bring them back, no, that's not working because it's going to affect everything from down everything from the stores to everything because we have nothing in play.
		We're going to be worse off than we were doing the COVID because we have nothing here to replace what China is pushing into this country.
		He should have built that up first.
		You don't burn your house down and build a house.
		That makes no sense whatsoever.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Sharon is in Bemidji, Minnesota on our line for folks making under 50K.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Sharon.
unidentified		Good morning, Kimberly.
		Thanks for having me on.
		Yes, I make like $13,000 a year, disability, legally blind.
		So, yep, pretty scared.
		I have been checking into them, participating since Trump's inauguration into the no buy 2025.
		We're not going to feed his economy.
		Not going to help his economy.
		So I went out.
		Well, I should say the person I live with went out and got us a decent car prior to Trump's election.
		So we weren't going to give him that money.
		We barely can afford groceries.
		I save for years.
		Every three years, I take a trip to Winnipeg to see my family.
		And also have a relative in Vegas.
		So I was planning on taking both of them trips.
		Now I'm not going to do the Vegas trip, but I am still going to do the Winnipeg trip.
		He's not going to stop me from going to see my relatives, not yet anyway, in Canada.
		So, yep, Kimberly, I'm scared to death, and I'm definitely just bought a dozen eggs yesterday.
		$4.89 for a dozen eggs.
		Absolutely ridiculous.
		And we're still paying $3.30 for gas.
		Crazy.
		No buy 2025.
		We want Donald Trump to fail, just like they wanted Barack Obama to fail.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jay is in Wheeling, West Virginia, on our line for folks making over 100K.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jay.
unidentified		Yeah, I echo what the woman who was just on said.
		Trump, you know, you can't trust him.
		I mean, bipartisan fact-checkers have determined since 2016 how many lies, you know, he generates.
		He changes his mind too a lot.
		Changing your mind is okay, but I mean, anyway, and he's using this project 2025, which he lied about.
		Of course, he said, you know, when that came out in the news, I'm not doing that.
		I have to know.
		He didn't say he wasn't doing it.
		He said, I never read that.
		I never did that.
		Of course not.
		His advisors told him all about it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jay, I'm wondering your spending habits.
unidentified		Have they changed because of answer your question about my income?
		Yeah, things are worse because of Trump by far.
		Yeah, the Democrats weren't, you know, weren't floating on the clouds when the Democrat was in power, but there was a lot more positives.
		And, you know, Trump doesn't care about disabled people.
		What do you say about his nephew?
		He wanted his nephew to die.
		He told his relative, let's just let him die.
		So he didn't care about disabled people.
		He doesn't care about people on Social Security.
		He's raking in the bucks.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Roland is in Detroit, Michigan, on our line for folks making under 50K.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Roland.
unidentified		Hi, Grant Rising.
		You know, I've always lived simply.
		You know, I never had an appetite for extra this, just the essentials.
		But now the essentials are becoming a problem for me to secure.
		You know, I go into grocery stores.
		Nobody's in the grocery stores.
		Places are closing all over the place.
		But you know what?
		I have seen an increase, not that I go often, it's the bars.
		People are going into bars drinking their blues away.
		And so I think America, Americans are now feeling what people may feel, or they head it that way, what people feel in Haiti and other places around the world.
		You know, they spend too much of their spoiled.
		And if Trump wants to get, you know, these people back into feeling good, he's going to have to do another stimulus check.
		But that's my comment.
		Have a great day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Roger is in Abilene, Kansas on our line for people making between $50,000 and $100,000 a year.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Roger.
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		Can you hear me?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I can.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		How has the economic conditions changed your spending habits?
unidentified		Well, it has not changed.
		I've always been very conservative.
		And my living account, I usually always keep a bonus in there.
		I do try to maintain about a $10,000 balance.
		Now, when it goes below $10,000, I try to slow down whatever I'm doing and change it.
		I'd like to see a program sometime on how many dollars the illegals were costing us coming over the border, but that's another program.
		Here's what I think people should do: start looking when they buy something at the sales tax.
		That's the money we don't get.
		That's the money the government takes from us, and the government keeps it, and they blow it like drunken sailors.
		That's the money we've got to stop.
		Quit looking at, you have property tax.
		The taxes I pay are extraordinary.
		And property tax, then you pay a tax on this.
		And then just every day, just grab your receipt when you buy just a hamburger.
		Look at how much you're spending on taxes, which is just air spending.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Alexis is in Detroit, Michigan, on our line for folks making over $100K.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Alexis.
unidentified		Yes, I'll answer your question first, and then I hope you give me a minute to make an additional comment.
		The economic uncertainty has not currently affected my spending habits.
		Let me just say this.
		I, since going back to the 90s, have always wanted to buy my spend my money in alignment with my values, which is employing my fellow American workers.
		And I can remember raising my son in Dearborn, Michigan, and searching high and low, and this is pre-internet shopping days, for a pair of tennis shoes from him for any of the major brands, I think even the Kmart, which existed back then brand, that were made in these United States and could not find it.
		And express this to my whatever he was, nine, ten-year-old son.
		This is wrong.
		This is wrong.
		I should be able to buy clothing and shoes for a child in America that is made in America.
		So let me say this.
		Yesterday, against my will, I'll say, I had to purchase a phone.
		The phone I have is over five years old.
		I do not like supporting Apple.
		That just happens to be the interface I'm most familiar with.
		And again, my son, who is now much older than 10 years old, I asked him, he's been telling me for months, you've got to get a new phone, mom.
		It's failing.
		Now, I don't know what I paid for my iPhone back five years ago.
		I would assume it was somewhere between $500 and $1,000.
		And let me tell you this: it didn't last five years.
		It's going bad.
		And so this is my whole issue.
		I, again, even five years ago, said, I want a cell phone, a smartphone, made in the United States or some portion of the components or the raw material, something that is being done by an American worker.
		And my son back then, as well as yesterday, they don't exist, mom.
		They don't exist.
		And that, Tim Cook, is wrong.
		Final comment.
		As I've told you before, I listen to marketplace.org every day.
		And I want to say this: American Public Media's Golden Boy, Ty Rizdahl, yesterday, or on Friday's show, made a comment which just infuriated me.
		He said, Americans don't want to make iPhones.
		They want to buy iPhones.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We're going to get to a couple more folks before we finish this segment.
		Terry is in Pompano Beach, Florida, on our line for folks making 50 to 100K.
		Good morning, Terry.
unidentified		Morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And can you turn down the volume on your TV, please, Terry?
unidentified		Okay.
		Yes, okay.
		And I'm not going to take it.
		It's kind of affected my spending a little bit.
		What we did was we just, instead of losing money on our 401k, we just paid the penalty, took the money out, and paid on the house.
		So that's what we kind of took care of that problem.
		And Trump's out there playing golf, and he's not losing any money.
		And he says he loved the uneducated when he first got in office.
		So that's what he ended up with, the uneducated.
		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Last comment for this segment comes from Lisa P. on X to the question of whether economic uncertainty has changed your spending habits.
		More like too busy making money to have time to spend it.
		Vacations will be good this year.
		Now then, thanks for everybody who called in this hour.
		Coming up, we're going to hear from Jim Townsend, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO policy.
		He'll join us to talk about the state of peace negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine war.
		But first, correspondents Susan Ferricio of the Washington Times and Andrew Prokop of Vox will join me to discuss President Trump's first 100 days in office.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		This week on the C-SPAN Networks, the House and Senate are in session.
		The House plans to vote on legislation by Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, codifying President Trump's executive order into law.
		The Senate will vote to confirm Frank Bizignano to serve as Social Security Commissioner.
		Also, for the first time since taking office, Trump cabinet members will testify before House and Senate committees on their respective departments and agencies.
		On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noam testifies before the House Appropriations Subcommittee conducting oversight on her department.
		And Treasury Secretary Scott Besant will appear before two committees on Tuesday before the House Appropriations Oversight Subcommittee on the Department of Treasury and on Wednesday before the House Financial Services Committee for his annual testimony on the state of the international financial system.
		Also Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell gives a press conference following the Federal Open Market Committee meeting.
		And Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will participate in a fireside chat to celebrate the 120th anniversary of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
		Watch live this week on the C-SPAN networks or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app.
		Also, head over to C-SPAN.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
		Mike said before I happened to listen to him, he was on C-SPAN 1.
		That's a big upgrade, right?
		But I've read about it in the history books.
		I've seen the C-SPAN footage.
		If it's a really good idea, present it in public view on C-SPAN.
rachel maddow ▲ ● ▼		Every single time I tuned in on TikTok or C-SPAN or YouTube or anything, there were tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people watching.
unidentified		I went home after the speech and I turned on C-SPAN.
unidentified		I was on C-SPAN just this week.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		To the American people, now is the time to tune in to C-SPAN.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		They had something $2.50 a gallon.
unidentified		I saw on television a little while ago in between my watching my great friends on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN is televising this right now live.
		So we are not just speaking to Los Angeles, we are speaking to the country.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back for our roundtable to discuss President Trump's first 100 days in his second term in office.
		I'm joined by Andrew Prokop, who's a senior politics correspondent for Vox.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		As well as Susan Ferriccio, who's a national politics correspondent at the Washington Times.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Susan.
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Susan, you've written about President Trump's visit to Michigan on Tuesday for a rally where he celebrated his first 100 days in office.
		And you covered several administrations, including this one.
		But I wonder what this 100-day mark means, in your opinion, for how we've come to understand the achievements of a presidency.
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		Well, certainly one of the most aggressive first 100 days I think any of us who've covered the White House has seen.
		We know that the president came pretty hot out of the gate, as we reported in the Washington Times, with dozens and dozens of these executive orders trying to keep the promises he made on the campaign trail and acting unilaterally.
		This has been executive orders have been building over one administration to the next.
		And now here we are with the Trump administration where he's just signed hundreds of them at this point.
		And they are aimed at trying to correct the problems he talked about on the campaign trail that he saw as problems, such as getting rid of diversity, equity, inclusion in the government and in education that's funded by government, securing the border, deporting dangerous illegal immigrants, trying to correct all the things that he's been complaining about as he campaigned for his second term.
		And then added to that were his tariff and trade policies that just threw a monkey wrench into the whole economic plan that they had come up with Democrats and President Trump.
		So at this point, there's a lot of uncertainty about tariffs and trade as the president tries to reset the economy and bring manufacturing back to the U.S. and get rid of some of these trade barriers and other unfair practices that have hurt our economy.
		That's caused a lot of uncertainty.
		I think we heard that in your callers just a few minutes ago.
		And there's some consternation by people who wanted him to just focus on the economy and bringing prices down.
		And while core inflation has come down, prices are going up in some areas and the prices aren't dropping the way the president had promised on the campaign trail.
		So in many ways, he's had this sort of phenomenal start in terms of trying to do things.
		But voter response has been mixed because of the tariffs and because of the very aggressive stance he's taken on it, cutting federal, the size and scope of federal government through layoffs, buyouts, reducing the size of these agencies, cutting back on spending, practically eliminating some of our foreign aid.
		All these things have had a mixed reaction from the public so far.
		His deep base, though, are excited about everything he's done.
		That's a smaller core of people, and they say promises made, promises kept.
		So in a nutshell, that's how he's been doing for his first 100 days.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Andrew, many of the things that the president has done in his first 100 days were things that he promised on the campaign trail.
		But you have a piece about the surprising things from Trump's first 100 days.
		What's at the top of your list in terms of some of the surprises we've seen from the White House?
unidentified		I would say that the way the Doge played out with Elon Musk was not expected by pretty much everyone in Washington.
		I think a lot of people thought, oh, we've seen these spending-cutting panels or commissions before, and they offer their recommendations, and nobody really listens to them.
		And it's not really such a big deal in the end.
		What he ended up doing, what Musk ended up doing, was really kind of experimenting with a new sort of model of running the federal government, an experiment that proved to be temporary in the end.
		But in those first four or six weeks or so, it really seemed like Musk was acting as a kind of CEO of the federal workforce, like determining who gets fired, who goes on leave, which contracts get cut.
		Just he and his people would just like kind of rule by decree and their word, whatever their word was, it got put into action.
		And what we learned eventually is that that didn't last.
		It turned out that there were, you know, the people who Donald Trump had confirmed to head his cabinet agencies actually did want to run those agencies.
		They did not want to be working for Elon Musk.
		And so there was gradual pushback, not necessarily against, you know, the broad contours of the Doge agenda, which I think is broadly shared by people in the Trump administration, but against the idea that Elon himself would be the decider, that he and his people could order all these things and the cabinet secretaries would just be like haplessly trying to catch up.
		So we saw this pushback gradually increase until there was a bit of a confrontation at a cabinet meeting in early March.
		And then after that, we saw Trump make a public statement that, you know, going forward, Doge was going to have to cut with a scalpel, not a hatchet.
		And we've seen a definite slowdown in activity.
		Again, a lot of this agenda is going to continue.
		The mass layoffs will continue.
		The attempts to cancel contracts will continue.
		But it's not going to be as freewheeling as dictated by Musk personally rather than the cabinet secretaries.
		They are getting more of a chance to actually run things down in a more deliberative way.
		And Musk himself is set to scale back his personal involvement to, he says, one or two days a week at first.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Susan, several polls out this past week have shown President Trump's approval rating is underwater.
		I'm looking at the real clear politics average showing just that 45% approval versus 51% disapproval.
		Where is the president losing support and why?
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		You know, it depends which poll you look at.
		You know, we have this discussion all the time about the accuracy of polling.
		And what you see with RealClaire, which is a great aggregate of polls, is a mix of surveys taken by different companies.
		So if you talk to the people who are on the side that the polls are under polling his supporters, they will say, if you look at the polls that most accurately predicted the past three presidential elections, they show the president is doing a little bit better in those polls.
		He's not always underwater.
		I think the Erasmus, which accurately predicted the presidential election over many others, shows that he's hovering around 50% approval ratings, so he's not quite that low.
		But if you delve into the polls that show him underwater, which many of us have done, of course, he's really hurting with independence that I see in terms of how he's handling the economy, trade, inflation.
		These are things that were, you know, people were really gunning for a big change when President Trump came in office.
		And I think that's where he's suffering the most.
		People approve for the most part of his border policy.
		He very quickly cleaned up the illegal immigration across the southern border.
		And his deportations have mostly been rounding up people with criminal histories.
		I know there's a big debate over some of the people he's deported.
		But overall, he's doing well in those numbers.
		It's the economy which still is showing strains of the inflation that started many years ago.
		Prices are still rising at a lower rate, though.
		People aren't feeling the benefits of lower prices.
		They're worried.
		And tariffs have caused his great uncertainty.
		We've saw the stock market roiled by these, you know, this whipsawed tariff policy that the president has.
		They're on one day, they're off one day.
		And it's definitely caused worry in the business community and with investors.
		And I think that's where you see people losing their patience with the president and worrying about what he's doing.
		So it's independence.
		It's definitely Democrats.
		And when you look at the Republican numbers in these polls that show him underwater, he's getting around 70-plus percent of support around Republicans.
		And that's, you know, that's a little bit soft for him.
		You know, he's getting 90% disapproval from Democrats and then in the 70% range of support from Republicans.
		And that's why you see him underwater at this point.
		And the president says he's not worried.
		He calls it all fake polls.
		And again, you have to look at the polls from different companies.
		The ones that have been more accurately predicting Trump's successes see him doing better than the polls that didn't do quite as well predicting.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You did mention that the economy is the area where he's really hurting with some of those groups where he's seeing a decline in support.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		President Trump was speaking at a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, and he talked about the trade war and the tariffs and the negotiations with China and what the costs were going to be for American consumers.
unidentified		Why don't you speak to President Xi of China?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I mean, look, right now, and I told you before, they're having tremendous difficulty because their factories are not doing business.
		They made a trillion dollars with Biden, a trillion dollars, even a trillion one with Biden selling this stuff.
		Much of it we don't need.
		You know, somebody said, oh, the shelves are going to be open.
		Well, maybe the children will have two dollars instead of $30, you know?
		And maybe the two dollars will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.
		But we're not talking about something that we have to go out of our way.
		They have ships that are loaded up with stuff, much of which, not all of it, but much of which we don't need.
		And we have to make a fair deal.
		We've been ripped off by every country in the world, but China, I would say, is the leading one.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Andrew, many Americans haven't necessarily felt the full effect of these tariffs yet, and we'll probably see more of this with the de minimis exemption expiring.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		But what do you see as the impact of this tariff policy on Trump's support moving forward?
unidentified		Well, I think, you know, shortly after the election, a lot of the commentary on why Trump won, won the popular vote for the first time in three elections, was that people were mad about Joe Biden's economy and specifically about the inflation and the higher prices that ensued under Joe Biden.
		And that was the most common interpretation.
		And we heard Trump say, I believe he said this on Inauguration Day after his speech, he said, a lot of people think I won because of inflation, but I don't think so.
		I think I won because of immigration.
		And I think that was an early sign that he doesn't really think that inflation is as big of a deal and as a priority as most political analysts think that swing voters believe it is, that the independent voters whose support he's losing, like they really do not like higher prices.
		But Trump has specifically chosen not to make this a real priority, to focus instead on waging trade wars in very erratic and chaotic ways that will only serve to push up prices.
		The goal of these policies is to raise prices of imports over the long term.
		And the idea is that, I guess, he thinks that some of these things will be made in America or perhaps the prices of American exports will benefit.
		But it's all an agenda that is not at all geared towards lowering prices for the independents and the swing voters and the American people generally, which is an interesting move for him to make.
		I mean, to say that your kids are going to have $2 instead of $30, I think that's a clip we're going to be hearing a lot over the next few years unless he figures out a way to wind down this trade war because he is taking credit for higher prices and he's saying, you know, get used to it.
		It's going to happen.
		This is the agenda I'm choosing.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You can call in with questions for Andrew and Susan.
		Our line for Democrats is 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Let's start with Greg in Glenn Allen, Virginia on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Greg.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		I just want to say once we get into these kind of conversations, we've got a problem with we don't seem to have the ability to think in long term when it comes to our economic policy.
		And we don't seem to be able to want to feel any pain.
		But if we're going to get things straightened out, we're going to have to feel some pain.
		In order to get the national debt straightened out, we're going to have to feel some pain.
		And so we got to start thinking in terms of what we want the economy to be 10, 15, 20 years down the road and not think everything in terms of short term.
		How does it affect us right now?
		I mean, what do we want later down the road?
		And that's the issue.
		We don't seem to have this ability.
		I think part of it's a cultural problem.
		We want everything to be straightened out right now instead of being able to think in terms of later on.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Susan, this is pretty much the argument that the president has been making that people need to be patient and that the change will come.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		How well do you think this is landing?
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		Greg, Greg needs to get onto the White House comm staff because he explained that about better than anyone I've heard in the White House so far.
		That is exactly what Trump says he's trying to do, which is a big economic reset.
		You know, he's this unique president because he's in his second term, but he's not really, he doesn't have that lame duck, you know, status of a normal second-term president, obviously, because of the way he, you know, he won the White House back after losing it.
		And he's going in with guns blazing on this economic reset.
		And the way, you know, if you listen to manufacturers and if you listen to the auto union workers, you know, they will tell you, you know, we've lost tens of thousands of entire factories that have shut down over the past decades because of these trade agreements.
		And it's been, you know, the lament of everybody, you know, in the Rust Belt.
		Democrats have clamored for bringing manufacturing back as loudly as Republicans, but then they throw up their hands and say there's no way to do it.
		Well, you know, the president has actually brought manufacturing back since entering office.
		And a lot of it is due to the tariffs or the tariff threats.
		So, and it is, it is painful.
		I think he's saying that.
		When he says you're only going to have two dolls, not 10, I don't think he's just saying I'm going to own up to higher prices and suck it up, America.
		He's saying we have to fix this because for national security reasons, we need to be making steel and aluminum here in America.
		We need to be making our pharmaceuticals here.
		We need to stop relying on China.
		That's robbing us blind and intellectual theft that is destroying companies in America.
		I've been listening to this for decades, and I've been hearing it in the halls of Congress.
		I've been hearing it from manufacturers.
		Everybody, you know, Trump is really trying to do like steer, turn the ship around.
		It is real tough.
		And I think it's an incredible political risk for the entire party.
		Nobody knows how it's going to turn out.
		I suspect he's going to be cutting deals before this reciprocal trade pause ends.
		They're talking about cutting deals.
		And then he'll have brought some money into the Treasury through these tariffs, but then he'll work out these better trade deals.
		I think the whole issue is about China and trying to corner China, who is the biggest offender of all.
		And everybody has been talking about how to fix a trade problem with China.
unidentified		So we have to talk to Warren Buffett yesterday.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We have a lot of folks with questions for you all.
		So let's go to Ray in Minnesota on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Ray.
unidentified		Good morning.
		See, my beef is with Andrew.
		Just like all the liberals, you say Doge, Elon Musk is actually cutting these departments.
		He's not cutting the departments.
		He's finding out where the waste is.
		He turns it over to the people that are in charge, and they make the decision on if they want to cut these people off.
		Pushing that he's the one cutting.
		That's why everybody's pissed off at him.
		He's doing a good job, and now he's backing away because of so much, so many people are on his back, and that I don't blame him.
		He's trying to do a service for his country.
		And you guys, guys like you, CNN, MSNBC, and that, you're all over his back.
		Does it matter who finds the waste just so it's found?
		And that's what's disturbing Democrats: all this waste, they're finding out where it's going and where it's going to come back to.
		And that's why they're upset.
		That's my comment.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Andrew?
unidentified		Well, I think Treasury Secretary Scott Bessend and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, they've all had pretty strong objections made in closed doors.
		And occasionally we get reports of this in public for the way Elon Musk has been going about ordering things inside their agencies.
		They have pretty clearly taken back the reins from him.
		I think, you know, in the mega sphere, they want to put out the narrative that, oh, you know, Elon is the hero and he's just doing all these great things and everyone supports him, but that's not at all true.
		He's a very controversial figure inside the Trump administration.
		There are many administration officials who are happy that he is taking a step back and heading to the exits because they believe he was just too chaotic and too sloppy.
		And that and that, again, they support his agenda.
		They support the ideas that spending needs to be cut back and that we need to make major changes to the federal workforce.
		But they just didn't like the way he was going about it and the way that he was, in their view, usurping control from cabinet secretaries and other Trump officials.
		So, you know, he flew a little too close to the sun.
		He got burned, and now he has to, he's going to be taking a step back.
		And neither he nor Donald Trump, you know, seem to be particularly, you know, pushing for him to stay on war and longer.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Steve is in Florida on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Steve.
unidentified		Hi.
		Whenever I call in, I have something that I want to say, and then I listen to the last comment that was made, and I just lay into that, but this time I'm going to stick.
		I want to talk about Project 2025.
		I heard, I watched Donald Trump say something on TV when the fires were burning in California, and these people had completely lost their homes.
		And he said, I need to go over the voter rolls to see who and who did not vote for me.
		People who didn't vote for me shouldn't get help with their burned down houses.
		And that's when I thought, wow, you know, and my wife did a lot of research into the Project 2025.
		It's basically a manual for turning a free state into a police state dictatorship.
		And when he said that, it erased all the doubts in my mind that that's the direction that we're going.
		And I guess I learned something in the Trump administration.
		Of all the times that they accused the right accuses people of being socialists and Marxists, you do not have to be a socialist or communist or any type of Marxist government.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Steve, I want to pause you here.
		Steve, I want to pause you here because what you said earlier about President Trump going back through voter rolls to approve aid for California's wildfires, I think you may be mistaken because what he had actually said was that he wanted California to institute a different type of voter law before receiving fire aid, was what he said.
		Not to sort of check everybody's votes before delivering aid.
		But Susan, did you want to respond to Steve's larger point?
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think this president, more than any I can remember, has really divided the country.
		I was listening to your callers earlier, and you just can hear the frustration and anger in the voices of people who didn't vote for him and really are opposed to what he's doing right now.
		And I think it's somehow, you know, it's kind of evolved into a fear and anxiety over, you know, this president talks differently than other presidents.
		He's not this sort of scripted on message guy.
		He just says what he wants, you know.
		And I think it can be easy to interpret some of the things he says in ways that he doesn't mean.
		Think that's sort of classic Trump, you know, interpreting him in a way that's just not really what he meant.
		And he asked, he brings it upon himself.
		You know, he goes out to LA during these fires and talks about what he calls voter integrity or cleaning up the voter rolls.
		You know, is that the right time to do that?
		And people say, no, it's not.
		Well, he sees it as a point of leverage because he really believes that we need to clean up the voter roll.
		So that's sort of classic listening to that caller talk about him, I think, is just sort of what you see happening in the country right now in terms of how people are responding to the president.
		And I know you hear that every day on C-SPAN.
		And that's just where we are right now as a country.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Patsy is in Boston, Massachusetts on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Patsy.
unidentified		Hi, dear.
		Good morning.
		I have one question.
		The first tax cut that Trump put in back in 2016, I think it was, is that still in effect?
vanessa in florida ▲ ● ▼		And if so, wouldn't taking that tax cut off and not adding a new one be better for the economy than cutting the kids' wick and bad start?
unidentified		I just think they're cutting in the wrong places.
		They're not caring about the people.
		And what I'd like to know is how much that tax cut was.
		And I'm a screaming liberal, but I lost faith in Biden even when he didn't resent the tax cut.
		See if I'm right.
		I can't think about it.
		I'm almost 80 and I have a hard time.
		So if they could just talk to me about the first tax cut, if you know what I'm talking about.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you're referencing the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the fact that President Biden, you know, I mean, it was law by the time Biden came into office, signed under.
unidentified		Oh, it was a full law.
		Okay.
		Yes.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So it was passed during the Trump administration and then was already law.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		But Andrew and then Susan, if you wanted to respond to Patsy's points.
unidentified		Yes.
		So these tax cuts are expiring at the end of the year.
		And the big action in Congress, really the only action right now, is that the Republicans are trying to come up with a plan to extend the tax cuts and also do a lot of other things they want, like spending more money on border security.
		And so they want to extend these tax cuts.
		They have very small margins in Congress, so this is going to be a difficult task for them to do this on just party lines.
		I think they fear that if the tax cuts were just allowed to expire, then that would effectively be a tax hike for the vast majority of Americans.
		And people would be even more angry at that than at letting them continue and adding more to the deficit and so on.
		But I do think that the fact that the major discussion in Congress is about how to extend this tax cut kind of shows the limits of the doge and spending cutting agenda because Musk's team has been overwhelmingly focused on what's known as discretionary spending, just certain government staffers or government agency expenses or government contracts.
		But everyone knows that the big money in government spending is in two categories, defense and entitlements, which means Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
		And those are the drivers of the long-term deficit.
		Those are the drivers of the rising national debt.
		And Trump does not have any real plan to address those or rein them in.
		In a sense, Doge has been kind of like a flashy distraction from his actual plan, which is to extend the tax cuts longer and make the deficit go up even more.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Susan, did you want to talk about the extension of the tax cuts?
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so I agree, though.
		tax cuts expiring and uh it's just on individuals so corporate taxes are cuts are permanent so the president is hoping to not only extend those income tax cuts that people are enjoying right now but but to add to that by maybe eliminating taxes on tipped wages overtime pay checks for senior citizens on Social Security, that they would escape federal taxes.
		So he's talking about all kinds of additional tax cuts.
		I think the caller was asking about whether these tax cuts add to the deficit.
		There's different philosophies about what drives it.
		And one is that spending is a big problem because our spending post-pandemic, pandemic, and post-pandemic has exploded.
		That's driven up inflation.
		And because of inflation, interest rates have gone up, sort of a double whammy.
		So the Republican argument is lower spending, lower the interest rates, lower inflation.
		That will give consumers relief.
		Prices will come down.
		It takes much longer to do that.
		So it's different governing philosophies.
		Democrats want to spend more, generally speaking, have higher taxes.
		But that was the Biden administration, essentially.
		And then that's really what drove inflation, which of course then required the higher interest rates as a correction.
		And you see the differences between the two parties on how they approach that.
		And we're under Republican control right now.
		So we're going for the tax cuts and the lowering of spending.
		And so we'll see how that works out.
		If it drives down inflation and then interest rates, then it will be a success.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We have a question about immigration from Agaca on X who says, please compare the number of deportations under Biden and Trump.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Before I let you all respond, I want to play a clip of White House Borders R Tom Homan on Monday saying that there's still an emergency at the southern border.
tom homan ▲ ● ▼		It's an emergency till we shut it down.
		Is it an emergency till the cartels are wiped off the face of this earth?
		President Trump's committed to saving every life.
		Now, I just mentioned gotaways 38 yesterday.
		Who are the gotaways?
		Where do they come from?
		We had over 2 million gotaways under Joe Biden's administration.
		Why did 2 million people pay more to get away?
		Or in the Biden administration, you pay a cartel this amount of money to cross the border.
		Cartel's job ends at the border.
		Just turn yourself in a green uniform.
		Get released in 24 hours.
		Get a free earning ticket to the city of your choice.
		Get a free hotel room.
		Get three meals a day.
		Get free medical care.
		Get work authorization in 920 days, which is the real reason they came here.
		Why did 2 million people pay more to get away?
		Because they didn't want to be vetted.
		They didn't want be fingerprinted.
		We wrestle over 400 people on the terrorist watch that's coming across the southern border in four years.
		How many of the two million came, how many of the two million came from a country sponsoring terror?
		I think it's zero.
unidentified		And you're ignorant.
tom homan ▲ ● ▼		This is the biggest national security failure this country's ever seen.
		This is a border emergency until we end it, end all of it.
		We're making good strides.
		Right now, it's still an emergency until we shut it down.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Andrew, our viewer's question is, please compare the number of deportations under Biden and Trump.
unidentified		Yeah, so I think you have to distinguish between two things here.
		One is the number of new border crossings, which Trump has been very successful at getting down.
		That had already decreased in the last year of Biden's administration, but he's driven it down further.
		The border is very quiet by all accounts.
		And then the second is deportations.
		And deportations, you know, Trump promised a regime of mass deportation.
		This is what Stephen Miller, his top immigration advisor, really wanted to plan and execute, which is just deporting people who are already here.
		And we have seen many very controversial, very headline-grabbing cases of people being deported to a prison in El Salvador, other people who were here legally on green cards, having their green cards revoked for certain things they said about Israel.
		But when it comes to the actual numbers of deportations, Trump isn't doing anything unusual just yet.
		And he's kind of basically comparable to where previous presidencies were on this.
		And that's because deportations, like overall numbers of deportations, is a very difficult logistical challenge if you're trying to increase them.
		You have to deal with limited resources, detention capacities, the planes that are available to you.
		And so like it's not easy for Trump or Stephen Miller to just press a button and then just go maximum deportations.
		Oh, and the other constraint is, of course, court rulings and process and the law.
		So that's why we've seen certain instances where they have been trying to, you know, fly certain people out to El Salvador before they expect an adverse judicial ruling, try to get some deportations done before a judge can stop them.
		And that has led to a lot of the showdown with the judiciary that we've been seeing.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Susan, how do you reconcile the low number of border crossings that we have right now under this administration with the emergency that Holman was referencing?
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think he described it well, Holman did.
		And what Andrew was saying, I completely agree with that.
		The incentives went away too.
		So first of all, as soon as the president was sworn in, they started to secure the southern border physically.
		They sent down the military to stand there on the border.
		I mean, they literally blocked people from coming in.
		They stopped the incentives.
		They stopped the money for people to live here for free and have benefits.
		They just eliminated everything that was drawing people to the United States, and then they physically blocked people from coming across the border.
		So those two things, I think, stopped the impetus for those mass migrations we saw.
		Speak, you know, caravans of people moving through South America into Mexico to try to get across the southern border, oftentimes from countries all over the world.
		So that's part of the reason why we're seeing that number drop so significantly right now.
		But just to respond to what Andrew was saying, which he made such excellent points.
		Let me add to that, though.
		During the campaign, you heard President Trump talk about these deportations.
		And if you listen carefully, he and Holman as well talked about going after the criminals and people that you, you know, the terrorists, terror watch list types, that they were who were going to be deported.
		And then when pressed further on these sort of mass deportations, you know, they kind of backed away a little from that.
		I don't think the president likes the image of, you know, ripping families apart, et cetera.
		And that has happened thus far.
		We've heard about that.
		I think that's why he's going after this low-hanging fruit here that the public will gladly get behind.
		That's what he's doing for now.
		I'm not sure if that's going to become more aggressive deportation policy.
		They do have that deportation app for people to self-deport, and they're trying to facilitate that, but rounding up people who are not necessarily a threat to this country, that's exactly right.
		We haven't seen that.
		And on the campaign trail, when pressed about that, they often went back to go, we're going to go after the criminals.
		That's going to be thousands and thousands of people.
		That's where we're at right now in this whole process.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Rich is in Marion, Ohio, on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Rich.
unidentified		Yeah, whoa.
		Great conversation is going on.
		Look at the border.
		Who paid money to get people in here?
		China paid $50,000, $100,000.
		Why did they want those people to come into our country?
		Was it to help us out?
		Right now, they're trying to throw a monkey wrench in this deal because they've gotten a lot of free things.
		They've done just about everything to us on the World Trade Organization.
		They agreed not to go by it.
		We let them get by with that.
		They are intentionally trying to screw up our negotiations.
		The negotiation would be only five minutes because the only thing we're saying to other countries, if this is so great to charge our country, guess what?
		It's coming back to you.
		And this negotiation would be if they weren't addicted to our free money, that it would be resolved.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Some of these countries, though, China, Rich, I'm just a little bit confused about your question.
		It seems like you're talking about both immigration here as well as the trade war.
		What's your question for Andrew or Susan?
unidentified		Well, it has to do with China.
		If you would put this air on China, you would be shot if you called in and said bad things about China.
		This is what we're dealing with.
		Right now, they're doing everything to screw up this deal.
		They do not want the deal to go through and make our president look good.
		And they will win the war because they're in our media.
		If we were over in their media, they would be shot.
		So they're figuring ways to throw the monkey wrench in this, make our president look bad.
		But the negotiation is very simple.
		You charge them back.
		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I think I understand.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Susan, did you want to respond to Rich's point about the trade war?
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		Well, China is part of our media.
		There's no question about that.
		They own a lot of our media, TikTok, other aspects of media in America.
		So China is the big target, I think, in this trade war, and they are holding out.
		They're saying, we're not cooperating.
		We've got 145% tariff on Chinese goods right now.
		And often we can't sell anything there because of their trade barriers.
		So right now it's an all-out trade war with China.
		I think the president has been talking about this for years.
		He's hoping to kind of corner them and force them to come to the table and make a cut-a-real deal with America to finally correct some of the stuff that has been plaguing the trade between U.S. and China for decades.
		And who knows whether it's a real standoff.
		And I don't think it's clear who's going to win here, if anybody.
		So I think that's what the caller was talking about, that China is going to hold fast.
		Now, you are hearing reports about, I think we had that in the clip of the president earlier, just talking about China having difficulties dealing, obviously, with this tariff policy that Trump has implemented upon them.
		You know, they're not able to sell their goods over in the United States.
		And it really, we're their biggest market.
		So it cripples them in some ways.
		And how long can they hold out?
		So it's real brinksmanship here on trade at this point.
		And I think that's what the caller is referencing.
		And we just really don't know what the outcome is going to be yet.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Andrew, I want to put to you a question we received via text message from Teresa in Little Rock, Arkansas, who says, I am concerned about our food products being safe with Doge closing four FDA labs that inspect food and manufacturing.
		Concerned about weather reporting with cuts to NOAA, even flying with cuts to FAA reduction.
		Am I the only one with these concerns?
unidentified		I think there's a lot of concerns that Musk and Doge were cutting quickly and asking questions later or not at all, and that we won't see or know or fully understand the effects of that for some time until things start breaking, until things start not working.
unidentified		And so, yes, I think that's a very legitimate concern to have.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Lou is in Highland Park, Illinois on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Lou.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'd like to talk about the deficit with China.
		What do Americans believe that we could sell to China to solve the trade deficit, which is like $300 billion a year?
		All we do is make vegetables and soybeans and things like that that they need.
		We can't sell that much to them.
		We don't make anything.
		We don't manufacture anything.
		So just how does Trump think we can solve this trade deficit?
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Susan, would you like to take that one?
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		So that's a great question.
		Some of the trade practices and economic practices in China make it easy for them to dump products in the U.S. so that U.S. products aren't purchased and Chinese products are what people buy.
		And that contributes to the trade deficit.
		And they use unfair economic practices in terms of how their currency, their labor laws that are not in lack thereof, the things that make it easier for China to produce cheap goods.
		That puts, it creates a sort of unlevel playing field with the U.S.
		And then, of course, we have the intellectual property theft, which is a whole nother issue.
		It's cost us billions and billions of dollars where they just rip off American ideas and products and then sell them back to the U.S. so that the people in America invented them lose out.
		So it's things like my sense with China is it's less about the actual trade of goods and more what they do to dump their products here in America that hurt our own manufacturing.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Greg is in Arlington, Texas on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Greg.
unidentified		Hey, good morning, and thank you for C-SPAN.
		Just a couple of questions.
		The first one around the budget and the deficit.
		So Republicans really like to rail against the debt and deficit and blame Democrats, but isn't the president's budget and what the Republicans are passing right now in Congress, isn't that going to dramatically increase the debt and deficit?
		And then the second question I have is really something I think is really kind of going unreported or not reported often or talked about is Trump and is he really kind of violating basic ethics and encouraging corruption with his he's got these mean coins and he has this cryptocurrency business as well.
		And I see some of that in the press, but not a lot.
		And it just seems like no other president has kind of done that.
		It seems like a lot of kind of dark money may be flowing through those businesses.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Buddha Rollo on X also asked a question about the crypto situation.
		When is anyone going to talk about his President Trump's crypto?
		Did you want to respond to these two points, Andrew, and then you, Susan?
unidentified		Yes, I mean, I think the point about Trump's budget increasing the deficit is completely correct and that Trump, you know, Trump and the Republicans don't really have a plan.
		They want to cut a bunch of spending, but they're not attacking the main drivers of spending, mostly because of Trump's own preferences.
		And so, yeah, we're still waiting to see the actual plan.
		And when certain members of the further right, members of the GOP, put forth a plan, it involves really severe spending cuts and others in the party kind of rebel against it.
		So we'll see if they can put something together on that, but I am skeptical.
		And then the crypto, yes, it's a glaring, big concern.
		I think it's been a bit boiling frog on this.
		You know, the story of the temperature going up as the frog's in the water and supposedly doesn't notice when it becomes dangerously boiling because it's gradually just increasing.
		This has been Trump's kind of approach to ethics laws and, you know, general concerns about him having his own business.
		And he kind of pushed aside those concerns in his first term and has really sort of reinvented the presidency as more of a kind of money-making, you know, brand building and money-making opportunity for him and his family.
		The conflicts in the underlying business are already serious.
		But then when it comes to, you know, starting these coins, having it doesn't seem that bad if you think, oh, it's just, you know, his fans buying it.
		But then when you think, oh, it may be very rich people or foreign powers trying to influence him by spending a big amount of money on the Trump meme coin, and then they'll tell him they did that and perhaps expect a favor in return, that looks like a pretty glaring concern.
		And because of the way crypto works, we have no transparency and no way to see what's actually happening here.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So before you respond, Susan, just a couple of details about this for folks maybe not familiar with the story.
		USA Today has a piece on this out actually today.
		Trump's 100 Days of Profit Crypto Coin rakes in millions, raises ethics alarms.
		Trump returned to the White House days after launching a cryptocurrency meme coin that analysts say is now worth a fortune.
		On April 23rd, the official website for the Trump meme coin announced an intimate private dinner with the president for the top 220 investors at his Washington area golf club.
		Trump and business entities connected to him have made more than $320 million in fees on the Trump meme coin.
		Analysts say a White House spokesperson said there is no conflict of interest in Trump's crypto venture or his other businesses.
		Susan?
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		One thing I think that is interesting about all this is what may happen in 2026.
		So if Democrats win back the House, you're going to see a litany of hearings and investigations and subpoenas and real probing of Trump's meme coins and other things he's advertising.
		I know some of the things you see him advertising for, like Trump pens and Bibles and things like watches are just through a licensing agreement.
		He's not really directly getting money from them, but he licenses his name.
		So he's probably getting a portion of whatever profits come in off that.
		And it's absolutely unique and unheard of in a presidency.
		And it's hard to even know how to respond to it because none of us have ever seen this before.
		And what the ethics are, it's hard to know.
		It's not like he's gotten rich off the presidency.
		Of the money he spent in legal bills and the hits that his business has taken since he rolled down the escalator stairs 10 years ago.
		So it's hard to make that hard to say, well, wow, look at looking at profiting.
		But Andrew was just pointing out the meme coin value that's gone up in that there are these dinners going on and he's sitting in the Oval Office talking about it, all raising questions about what are the ethics of the presidency in this atmosphere?
		Should this be banned?
		Should it be allowed?
		Should it be supervised, scrutinized?
		You're not seeing that from Republicans in the House right now.
		They're not looking at it.
		But if the Democrats regain control of the House, you're going to hear a lot about it.
		And so stay tuned.
		There might be a deeper look at this.
		And of course, when the campaign statements come out, you'll see a little bit more about money coming in and what he's making off this stuff.
		So it's an absolutely unique aspect of his presidency.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		John is in coming Georgia on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Andrea, and I'd have to say you're a bit disingenuous when you talk about the budget.
		If you look at the CBO websites, the problem with what we're doing now is mandatory spending.
		The last three years, 22, 23, and 24, have been the most prolific in terms of revenue collected by the government ever by a long shot.
		Mandatory spending represents 83.6% of what this government collects.
		The defense budget is only about 20%.
		And after you pay mandatory spending and interest on the debt, there is no more money.
		The Biden administration with the Democrats increased mandatory spending from $2.7 trillion in 2019, and I'm skipping over 20 and 21 because of COVID, to $4.1 trillion in 2022.
		There is no way to do anything with the budget if you have mandatory spending representing almost 84% of what this government collects.
		There's no way to balance the budget.
		You can't tax your way out of it.
		You can't reduce spending enough.
		It's simply a problem that too much money is being spent in mandatory spending, and there's nothing we can do about it unless you're going to change that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, John, I want to give Andrew a chance to respond to your points.
unidentified		Yes, so you are actually making the same point that I've been making, because mandatory spending is a category that the CBO defines in contrast to discretionary spending.
		Discretionary spending is the stuff that Elon has been cutting.
		It's what does the State Department spend?
		What does the Department of Energy spend?
		How many federal employees are employed in the Education Department?
		Mandatory spending is different.
		Mandatory spending is entitlements.
		They are encoded in the law.
		Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits are included in there as well, veterans' health.
		And you, you know, first of all, Elon kind of can't unilaterally cut them anyway.
		So he wouldn't be tasked with doing that.
		But the point is that that is the main driver, as you pointed out, of our rising debt and deficits.
		And, you know, to the extent that Trump and Republicans talk about getting the deficit under control and they don't talk about the entitlement spending that is actually responsible for the deficit, they are dodging the real hard question.
		And of course, both parties regularly dodge this question because cutting these entitlements spending will be very painful, both politically and substantively, for the people who benefit from those payments and the people who've, in some cases, paid into these programs over many years.
		But the reality is that if you are talking about wanting to cut the deficit, you have to talk about mandatory spending because discretionary spending, all the stuff that Doge has been doing, is a drop in the bucket in comparison.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Cal is in Oklahoma on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Cal.
unidentified		Good morning.
		It's a pleasure to be with you.
		My background was in the legislature for a long time, and the one rule was follow the money.
		My question is, it seems to me that Congress is just almost acquiesced at every point on spending to the administration.
		My own congressman is the appropriations chairman, a fine guy that's wanted that job for a long time, Tom Cole.
		I haven't heard a peep out of him about that topic.
		I wonder what your two wonderful guests think about that.
		Susan, would you like to go first?
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		Is the guest talking about the topic of cutting spending?
		Can I follow up?
		Is that what you're asking?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Cal, are you still there?
unidentified		I am.
		My question is about the activity related to writing a budget.
		The Doge group is at the edges of it.
		I'm talking about the big spending.
		There's just very little commentary out here in the wastelands of Middle America about the federal budget related to the responsibility of Congress.
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		Okay, right.
		That's a great question.
		They're just starting on a new spending bill for next year.
		And the president sent his overview of what the budget should look like.
		He sent that on Friday.
		And it did call for making some major cuts to domestic spending, hundreds of billions of dollars.
		It didn't touch mandatory spending, but it kept defense spending level, which is not making a lot of defense hawks on Capitol Hill happy.
		So this president's trying to tackle spending by saying our next spending bill for fiscal 2026 is going to make big cuts to domestic spending.
		Now, Congress doesn't always follow what the president sends over.
		In fact, they rarely do.
		This is a year where they might try to track it more closely because he's got a lot of leverage on Capitol Hill still right now.
		He's the president.
		They're all the same party.
		They're going to try to make big cuts.
		There's a real appetite on Capitol Hill for this.
		In fact, it may all, of course, be affecting whether they pass their big, beautiful bill that will cut taxes, that extend the 2017 tax cuts, because there are people who say, you know, they're not going to support any kind of bill unless they get back to what they call pre-pandemic spending levels, which is prior to COVID.
		Spending exploded during COVID, as one of the colleagues was saying.
		And it stayed up there.
		It hasn't gone back down.
		So we're really at this incredibly high level of spending that happened during COVID.
		And there's an appetite for getting it back down at pre-pandemic levels.
		And that's how you'll see Congress try to act on this.
		I will say, having observed this now for several decades, 30 plus years, it is almost impossible for Congress to cut the growth of spending.
		And it is literally impossible for them to actually cut spending.
		So what they do is they try to cut the growth.
		And there's very difficult for them to do this because programs are hurt in districts and people don't like it.
		The lawmakers don't like it.
		So it's just a tough thing for Congress to do to reduce spending in any form, either by its growth or actually reducing the size of the federal budget.
		So it's a great call by the caller, great question, and something I think we'll see some real interesting developments on this year.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Did you have anything to add?
		All right, then let's hear from Scott in Oline, New York on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Scott.
unidentified		Hey, good morning, all you humans in America.
		I got something to say, but first I'm going to say 100 days.
		I never said I was going to release all the hostages on day one or stop the war in Ukraine and Russia on day 10.
		I never said that.
		I never said that.
		Anyways, we're going to get to something I learned on C-SPAN a couple weeks ago.
		You had two opposing people on it on the air, so I know that it had to be true or the other one wanted to shut the guy up.
		The one gentleman said that over half of our debt, over half of our debt that all the Republicans are crying about, the debt, the debt, the debt is everybody worried about the debt causing all of the problems in our country.
		Well, more than half of the debt was caused by the Bush and Trump tax cut.
		How can we even talk as a fiscal responsible American to care about our country and the debt and talk about a tax cut on the same hand?
		Why doesn't Americans, I belong to the Human Party, everybody, we're all human out there.
		God bless the humans.
		We'll talk to you 30 days.
		Oh, and I called April 2nd.
		I think your announcers need to start asking these people the last time they called because we're getting weekly daily callers, and it's very hard to sit here and listen to them every day.
		Thank you.
		God bless you, humans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's let Susan take that one.
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		Well, so he's talking about the size of the deficit and the tax cuts.
		So that's the other big divide over, you know, if you have these big tax cuts, it contributes to the deficit.
		That's one side of the argument.
		But on the other side, people are keeping their money.
		And corporations now have to lower tax rates so they're able to grow and hire and expand.
		And it spurs economic growth.
		So if you look at 2017, they passed the tax cuts and the economy was doing really, really well, probably better than it has ever done in decades in terms of just growth and spending.
		Everything was coming along.
		Jobs, interest rates were low.
		Everything was great.
		Then COVID came and the whole thing blew up.
		So Republicans would argue, but when we passed the Tax Cut and Jobs Act in 2017, it had an enormously positive impact on the economy.
		And Democrats will say, but look, it contributed to the deficit.
		But Republicans will respond by saying, if we just let the economy grow, we bring more money into the Treasury.
		They're both a little right and a little wrong when you look at the analysis that's come out after the Tax Cut and Jobs Act in terms of the deficit and spending.
		So, you know, the caller is right in some sense, but if, say, you were to let those tax cuts expire on individuals, that would probably contract the economy and cause, you know, even more problems.
		So it's a real divide within the parties.
		Republicans say just cut the spending.
		Democrats say stop cutting taxes and bring more revenue into the Treasury.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's about all the time that we have for this segment.
		Thank you so much to Susan Ferricio, who is the National Politics Correspondent at the Washington Times.
		Thank you very much.
susan ferrechio ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And Andrew Prokop, who's a senior politics correspondent at Vox.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Thank you this morning.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, coming up, we're going to have a conversation about the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
		Jim Townsend, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO policy, will join us to discuss the state of peace talks and the implications of a new minerals deal the Trump administration signed with Ukraine this past week.
		We'll be right back.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		After a career in investment management and some time as a credit risk specialist at the U.S. Treasury Department, Jill Eicher has written her first book titled Mellon versus Churchill.
		The Untold Story of Treasury Titans at War.
		It's all about collection of war debts from World War I, which was fought between 1914 and 1918.
		Andrew Mellon, a wealthy industrialist, served as Secretary of the Treasury for Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.
		11 years total.
		Mellon took on Chancellor of the Exchequer, Winston Churchill.
		Jill Eicher tells a story that will be new to most readers.
unidentified		Author Jill Eicher with her book, Mellon vs. Churchill, The Untold Story of Treasury Titans at War.
		On this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
		Tonight on C-SPAN's Q&A, Education Design Lab founder Kathleen Delaski, author of Who Needs College Anymore?
		Questions if the U.S. higher education system, with its skyrocketing costs and declining enrollment, is currently suited to meet the needs of future generations of students.
kathleen delaski ▲ ● ▼		The four-year degree college model has been seen for the last hundred years at least as the surefire ticket to better jobs, to the corner office, being a doctor or a lawyer.
		And so that's been the aspiration, particularly in the last 50 years, right, for families for their children to be successful.
		And I think that's beginning to break down to the point where even the haves, if you think about the haves and the have-nots, even the haves are recognizing that the degree, the four-year degree is not necessarily achieving the American dream for them or their children.
		And it's becoming, you know, the affordability issue, has kind of reached a fever pitch.
		And we're kind of looking at how jobs are changing and how quickly skills become obsolete.
unidentified		Kathleen Delaski with her book, Who Needs College Anymore, tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q ⁇ A and all of our podcasts on the C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
unidentified		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're joined now by Jim Townsend, who's a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO policy during the Obama administration, now currently at the Center for a New American Security, where he's the adjunct senior fellow at the Transatlantic Security Program.
		Thanks so much for joining us this morning.
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		It's great to be here.
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So let's talk about the latest in terms of the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
		And the United States and Ukraine signed a deal on Wednesday about critical minerals after months of tense negotiations.
		Can you talk about this deal and what it says about U.S.-Ukraine relations right now?
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's certainly something that has finally come about.
		There's been so much talk about this, back and forth about this.
		It's caused great tension between the United States and Ukraine and also between the United States and our European allies.
		So this has been a bit of a breakthrough in terms of the relationship.
		And it is much better than that original agreement that was given to Zelensky a month or two ago by the Secretary of the Treasury who traveled to Kyiv.
		This is something that gives Ukraine control over their natural resources.
		And it's a much better agreement for Ukraine than that first one.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So let's go into a bit of what is actually in this deal.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Can you walk through why Zelensky was refusing to sign some of those earlier deals and what's different about this one?
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		Well, the earlier deals had a lot of provisions in there that did not make it through to this last one, which is good.
		One of them was that this was going to be repayment for what the U.S. had provided in terms of assistance to Ukraine.
		So this wasn't even future-looking.
		This was looking to the past and as if it was paying a bill.
		And so that is no longer part of this package.
		Secondly, it called for elections in Ukraine, which is a bit of a dog whistle for getting rid of Zelensky.
		And that didn't go over so well in Kyiv either.
		And so there was also much more control by the United States over the natural resources themselves and the kind of the rights that the U.S. industry would have in Ukraine.
		The new deal, it doesn't call for elections.
		It's talking about what the future income that would come in or profits that would come in from this deal.
		That would be part of this fund where both Ukraine and the U.S. would be equal partners.
		It wouldn't be something that would be controlled exclusively by the U.S.
		This is something that both countries would be running and would be focused on Ukraine providing 50% of this fund for reconstruction of Ukraine, and the U.S. would provide the other 50%.
		And so this is something too where in terms of control of the minerals themselves in the ground, that's going to remain with Ukraine.
		The U.S. doesn't get control of that.
		Ukraine also controls which minerals will be extracted and where that extraction would happen.
		So there's much stronger voice of Ukraine and control by Ukraine in this deal, which is much more of an equal partnership with the United States rather than something dictated by the U.S.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, let's look at a couple of highlights from this deal, as reported by the Associated Press and NBC News, that this deal establishes a joint reconstruction investment fund, that it be financed by new Ukrainian oil, gas, and critical minerals licenses, and that Ukraine, as you mentioned, would contribute 50% of all future profits into the reconstruction fund, and that the United States would contribute in the form of direct funds and equipment,
		and then the full ownership of the resources remain with Ukraine.
		Now, Treasury Secretary Scott Besant announced this deal with a tone of solidarity.
		How do you think Russia sees all of this?
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's interesting.
		I think they might be a little concerned that the daylight that they thought there was between the United States and Ukraine over the past couple of months, that maybe that daylight is beginning to narrow a bit, that the U.S. and Ukraine are beginning to develop a more unified approach to what the future should look like, Because now the United States has a stake in it.
		U.S. business is going to be given preferential treatment.
		It's going to take a while for the extraction to actually take place and for profits to be seen.
		But this is something where, if you're Russia, this is not going to be quite as easy to separate out the United States and Ukraine as they thought earlier on.
		The second point is that some of these, or at least 40% of these rare earths, are in parts of Ukraine that are currently occupied by Russia.
		So I'm sure the Russians are going to say, you know, well, we're going to make sure we're going to, whatever peace agreement comes about, we're going to keep control over what's in these occupied lands so that they're going to have to deal with us so that Russia is going to get some of this profit too.
		I'm sure they're not going to want to give that up in some type of peace agreement.
		And, you know, this is something where I think there's going to be a little bit more pressure on Russia, too, because suddenly it looks like Ukraine is able to conclude a deal, even though this doesn't have anything specifically to do with the peace agreement.
		The U.S. and Ukraine are able to at least put this together and to agree to this.
		And that begins to add some momentum to a future ceasefire agreement.
		So suddenly all eyes are on Putin saying, okay, the U.S. and Ukraine have done this deal.
		The next step is with you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, this does come as the White House is trying to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia.
		And they've said that White House officials have said this is going to be a critical week.
		Where do you see things standing in these peace talks?
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		Well, right now, they're pretty much at a standstill.
		The Russians extended an idea of a three-day ceasefire during their celebrations of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, the end of World War II in Europe.
		And of course, Ukraine said, no, no, no, we don't want a three-day just covering this parade that you're going to have.
		This is performance diplomacy, if you will.
		We want a peace ceasefire and something that's going to last longer than three days.
		So they rejected that.
		And so now Putin is able to turn to the international community and say, well, you see, Ukraine's not interested in peace.
		They've rejected this.
		So right now, we don't have in front of us any kind of ceasefire.
		There is something with the Baltics where there was some agreement about future talks about security in the Baltic Sea.
		There was also a ceasefire in terms of attacking Ukraine energy and Russian energy sources as well.
		And those have been violated, and those are really sweeteners more than anything else.
		It wasn't the complete ceasefire that certainly Ukraine was looking for.
		So really, in terms of teams meeting to discuss this, there seems to be now an emphasis on having Ukraine and Russia meet together themselves to work something out.
		I'm not sure how well that's going to go.
		But today, things seem like they're not moving along, certainly after Ukraine has told Russia that they weren't going to accept this three-day ceasefire during the parade.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Here's Ukrainian President Vlodymir Zelensky speaking through an interpreter on Tuesday and criticizing Russia's delay in agreeing to a ceasefire.
unidentified		Russia has consistently rejected everything and continues to manipulate the world, trying to deceive the United States.
		Now, yet again, another attempt at manipulation.
		For some reason, everyone is supposed to wait until May 8th before ceasing fire, just to provide Putin with silence for his parade.
		We value human lives, not parades.
		That's why we believe that there is no reason to wait until May 8th.
		The ceasefire should not be just for a few days, only to return to killing afterward.
		It must be immediate, full, and unconditional for at least 30 days to ensure it is secure and guaranteed.
		This is the foundation that could lead to real diplomacy.
		We reaffirm this proposal.
		The American proposal also remains on the table.
		Russia knows exactly what it needs to do and how to respond to genuinely ceasefire.
		And we believe that global pressure, pressure from the United States of America, can push Russia toward precisely the kind of response that is needed.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Russia's attacks on Ukraine have continued, even though President Trump has repeatedly complained about those attacks and asked them to stop.
		I'm looking at a post from Truth Social on April 24th saying, with President Trump saying, I am not happy with Russian strikes on Kyiv, not necessary, and very bad timing.
		Vladimir, stop.
		5,000 soldiers a week are dying.
		Let's get the peace deal done.
		Another Trump Truth Social post from April 26th, President Trump said there was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into civilian areas, cities, and towns over the last few days.
		It makes me think that maybe he doesn't want to stop the war.
		He's just tapping me along and has to be dealt with differently through banking or secondary sanctions.
		Too many people are dying.
		Now, President Trump said that he could end the conflict on day one, but now we're 100 days in.
		Do you think the president's opinions of the war and particularly how he sees Putin have changed?
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think they're in the middle of changing.
		I think you're absolutely right.
		He certainly has acknowledged that trying to arrive at a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine is more complex and more complicated than he thought.
		And also, we know that he's frustrated.
		We know Marco Rubio and others have expressed that the president is willing to walk away if they can't come to a quick agreement.
		So we know he's frustrated.
		But I think what you pointed out is very important, which is his view about Putin, that perhaps he's being tapped along, that this is something that to even admit publicly the way Trump has done, that kind of casts some aspersions on Trump himself.
		Like, how could you have allowed yourself to be tapped along?
		So, you know, Trump has a big ego part in this.
		He already said that he was going to do it in 24 hours.
		That hasn't proven itself.
		They've had a number of talks with the Russians, and that hasn't led to anything.
		I think he is beginning to see that Russia really isn't interested in peace, not right now.
		He's got plenty of fight in himself.
		They're on a war footing in Moscow in terms of the economy, in terms of defense industrial production, in terms of increasing the Russian army.
		So he's not really interested in a temporary ceasefire unless he can make good use of it.
		And he's certainly not interested in a peace agreement now when he's got some bigger goals that he hasn't even come close to achieving, like having U.S. remove troops from Europe.
		So he's not interested in that.
		And I think maybe Putin and his tactics right now, I think the president is beginning to understand that he's got to be a bit harsher on Putin than he's been in the past.
		And now he's talking like that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's get to some questions from our callers.
		You can call in with questions for our guest.
		Democrats at 202-748-8000.
		Republicans at 202-748-8001.
		Independents at 202-748-8002.
		Let's start with Ronald in Boca Raton, Florida on our line for Democrats.
		Ronald, you're on with Jim Townsend from the Center for a New American Security.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		My thought is that this is one of the great ideas that could bring a country together if it's done properly.
		If we can get the minerals we need and Ukraine could get the capital they need to restore their country, I would think that would be a Republican and a Democrat.
		That's the kind of things that would bring a country together.
		If I could make just one comment about your previous question, my friend is a principal out of high school.
		He has a budget.
		He came in 30% under budget.
		If he didn't spend that 30%, he would lose his budget for the next year.
		I'm sure that there are many departments in the country that have budgets.
		If you put qualified people in and they come in under budget and maybe get some kind of a small 10% compensation, I think that could help bring the deficit down without causing any problems.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We do want to keep it to the Ukraine topic.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jim, did you want to respond to the caller's earlier point?
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, I think he's absolutely right.
		I think, you know, when the original agreement that the Secretary of Treasury went to Kyiv and presented to Zelensky, when that original agreement was known, there was a lot of criticism, certainly among Democrats, but even among some Republicans, that that was just too one-sided.
		And I think the agreement now that has been agreed, I think your caller is right.
		This is something where I think Democrats and Republicans can agree that this is something that particularly Ukraine really needs.
		The recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine has always been a looming cloud out there that both in Europe and the United States we were wrestling with.
		How are we going to deal with Reconstruction, particularly if Russia is not going to pay the bill?
		Do we use some of their frozen, you know, they have frozen funds in Europe and in the United States too?
		Do we use that?
		How do we go about doing that?
		So this fund has been set up so that it's going to be for Reconstruction.
		And there's going to be at some point when they're able to really extract those elements, the minerals, this could be something that's going to really help Ukraine recover from this period of bombardment for years now.
		And so yes, I think Democrats and Republicans and the United States as a whole, I think we can get behind this and make sure that it works to the benefit, not just of the Ukrainians, but also to the American taxpayer, too.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, who you were just referencing in announcing that deal, said this agreement signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term.
		President Trump envisioned this partnership between the American people and the Ukrainian people to show both sides' commitment to lasting peace and prosperity in Ukraine.
		Let's hear now from Beth in Shalimar, Florida, on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Beth.
unidentified		I'll start out on a light note.
		Happy Star Wars Day, May the 4th.
		D with you.
		And as an homage to Star Trek, Scotty, beam us up.
		Scotty Bassant, beam us up in these pirafors.
		As to Ukraine and Russia, this is not a peace agreement that they're trying to reach except for Vladimir Zelensky.
		He's looking for a PEACE agreement.
		Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are looking for a PIECE.
		Putin wants part of Ukraine and Crimea and Donald Trump wants part of the rare earth.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Beth, before we have Jim respond to you, I want to point to the story in Axios about Trump's final offer for peace requires Ukraine to accept Russian occupation.
		This is a story from April 22nd that the U.S. expected Ukraine's response Wednesday to a peace framework that would have included U.S. recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and unofficial recognition of Russian control of nearly all the areas occupied since the 2022 invasion.
		And I wonder, you know, Jim, what you think of what our caller just said and also what kind of peace offers that the United States has put forward to Ukraine thus far.
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		Well, first, a happy Star Wars Day to you as well, caller.
		Thank you for reminding us of that.
		Well, you know, I think it's something that we know is going to have to be taken up in these peace talks that are not ceasefire talks.
		This is ceasefire was to have the gunfire stop, the bombing stop, at least for 30 days, to then begin to set up how we go about a peace talk that will address these issues that the caller has raised.
		I think in terms of the president, I think for sure he wanted to get a PIECE, a piece of the minerals and this type of thing.
		We know that, and he has said that up front.
		And that's one of the parts of his diplomacy, of course, is looking for a rare earth and things that benefit the United States.
		So we know that.
		But this idea about, okay, under a peace agreement, who gets what in terms of occupied lands and where the new boundary would go?
		You know, in talking about Crimea particularly, this is where the president has said, we will recognize Russian ownership, if you will, to use that term, of Crimea.
		The jure, we will say that this is something we agree with.
		But he has also said that Ukraine does not have to accept that fact.
		It can accept it de facto.
		And, you know, it's a fact of life right now.
		The Russians occupy it.
		But the Ukrainians don't have to recognize that as a legal thing.
		And I raise this point because, you know, Zelensky has a big problem in that ownership of Crimea being Ukrainian is in their constitution.
		It's something that is a major sticking point for Zelensky in terms of these peace agreements.
		So how do you talk about Crimea in the context of Zelensky and what Zelensky can say about who owns that peninsula?
		And then the United States trying to get the Russians to come along and say, okay, we'll recognize the legality of that.
		So they're trying to come up with ways to deal with exactly your point, which is ownership.
		And there's going to be a similar problem with the oblasts that are now not fully occupied by the Russians.
		The Ukrainians are holding on to significant parts of those oblasts.
		So where do you draw the new boundary?
		Is it the line of contact, as it's called, between those two forces?
		Is that the new boundary?
		Or do you just give over those complete oblasts to the Russians?
		And I don't think that Ukraine would be able to deal with that.
		Marco Rubio has talked about land swaps, that both sides are going to have to get used to having to do a land swap.
		I don't know how much land is occupied by Ukraine in terms of Russia.
unidentified		You know, they might still have a little bit of the Kursk area.
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		And my understanding also is that Russia has a little bit of the SUNY area there of Ukraine.
		So, there's other things besides what's occupied in the Donbass area.
		And these peace talks are going to have to deal with that and a number of other issues and problems.
		Children that have been kidnapped, war crimes.
		How to deal with this is going to be tough.
		And so, Collar, I think we're going to have to wait a long while before both sides are willing to sit down at a table and deal with these very thorny issues.
		I think right now, both Russia and Ukraine have a lot of fight in them still.
		And so, they're not anxious to sit down and talk until they're both exhausted by this war.
		And I don't see that happening anytime soon.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Paul is in Florida on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Paul.
unidentified		Good morning.
		What I'd like to know is why the American media does not inform us about the UN votes, how the UN, how the American ambassador to the UN has voted with Iran, North Korea, China, people who want to kill us, condemning Russia.
		And also, don't forget, Trump's name with the KGD is Krasnov.
		And there are 20,000 Ukrainian children who have been kidnapped, and we've had that removed.
		Trump has had that issue removed from any condemnation about Russia and Putin.
		And I think Putin has something on Trump.
		I think that he has definitely got Putin in his back pocket.
		And so, Paul, you've raised a bunch of points.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Jim Townsend.
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, you're raising some points that have earned Trump quite a bit of criticism early on in this process of dealing with Russia.
		A lot of what you pointed out about how the U.S. has sided with North Korea and Iran, at the UN, on things that we would never have done in the past about condemning what Russia has done with Ukraine.
		You know, there was that, there was in the G7.
		I think you also mentioned what was a G7 thing, a communique where we softened the language about condemning Russia.
		Early on, there were a lot of concessions made, frankly, to the Russians to try to sweeten them up, I believe.
		This was the tactic that the administration decided to use to try to bring Russia to a place where they can understand that the U.S. is going to understand their problems and understand their perspectives and try to be more of a partner than in the past.
		And so they were signaling that by doing these things that you pointed out.
		And of course, that outraged the Ukrainians and a lot of Americans as well that we would be company with a lot of countries that are not exactly good to partner with at this point in time in the UN or anyplace else.
		I think we're going to see a lot less of this.
		We talked a little bit earlier today about how Trump is looking on Putin a bit differently now.
		I'm not so sure Trump is going to want to be giving these concessions without anything to show for it to the Russians, whether it's going to be, you know, in the diplomatic world, like the UN or at the G7, something like that, or it's going to be providing gifts up front, like saying, you know, Ukraine will not be in NATO or whatever it might be.
		I think they're going to have a harder look at Putin and they're going to understand that if they don't want to be tapped along, as the president said, they're going to have to come down harder on Putin because he does not do anything for free.
		He's not going to come to the table to be a friend to the United States or to Trump.
		He's going to want something for it.
		And if we, so it might be putting more sanctions on him to get him to the table.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Kevin from Milton, Delaware asks the question: Does Mr. Townsend have a sense of how the war is playing with the Russian population?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We never hear of any dissent, even with the large number of casualties.
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's a great point.
		And we know that from recent Russian history, whether it was Afghanistan or Chechnya, when Russia went into both of those regions, that there were quite a large movement within Russia among the mothers.
		They call themselves the mothers of the fallen Russian soldiers.
		They marched in the streets.
		They did quite a good job of pressuring the Russian government at that time, in fact, to get out of Afghanistan.
		And also, Chechnya was conducted in a different way, understanding that this kind of rising up of the Russian people was something that they might have to contend with.
		Putin was part of the government, at least within the KGB, during those days.
		He saw how this can happen.
		So what he has been doing for the past, I'll give you 10 years, if not more, he has been cracking down on whether it's a free media or on civil society, like think tanks or NGOs or other representations of the people's voice.
		He's been cracking down on them so that there isn't a group that could organize itself to have protests, to try to pressure Putin into changing his tactics.
		And so there is not the ability of the Russian people to protest if that's what they want to do.
		And right now, we haven't seen a lot of discontent among the Russian people who seem to have bought in to what Putin is saying about Ukraine and the need to go in and denazify Ukraine and all these other things.
		They seem to understand that and they seem to have hunkered down in support of what Putin is doing.
		So we're going to have to wait and see.
		But I think you're right in the sense that the longer this goes on and the more Ukraine can hold on and cause these casualties among the Russians, there could be something that can break out.
		That maybe the total control that Putin has isn't total.
		But we're going to probably have to wait and see for that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jimbo in Bakersfield, California, who is an independent voter, asks, does Mr. Townsend know if it's true that 80% of all the deaths in this war are currently due to drones?
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think that's a really good point that you're making.
		You know, the impact of drone warfare that we are seeing in Ukraine and as both Ukraine and Russia, they develop increasingly sophisticated tactics as well as drones themselves.
		And they have proven to be such tank killers, if you will.
		They have really altered the battlefield.
		And it's something that in the United States and among allied nations and NATO, I would say all the militaries are watching this and realizing if they cannot incorporate drone warfare into their own planning, into their own arsenals, they will be absolutely flat-footed if they deal with an aggressor who is as well-versed in the use of drones as certainly the Russians and particularly the Ukrainians are.
		So that is something that has really, if you look at what a lot of defense industries are doing, a lot of studies are doing, research and development, how do you have counter-drones?
		You know, and it's not just on land, it's also on the sea as well.
		I just read something where a Ukrainian sea drone was able to use an air-to-air missile to shoot down some Russian planes.
		So these are things every week there's some new breakthrough in terms of drones.
		And the United States is racing to understand that and has been involved deeply with the Ukrainian military on how this is, how they use it, and what do those drones look like.
		So, you know, warfare brings advances in military technology.
		Every war has shown that.
		And I think in this particular case, the world has really been introduced to this new brand of warfare.
		And it is something that brings about a lot of casualties too if you can't handle those drones, if there's not a counter-drone capability.
		And I think as you point out, the casualties that the Russians particularly are having, a lot of it is due to the drone warfare.
		And what's interesting, too, is that's making these armies revert back to World War I tactics, which are trenches and dugouts and things that veterans of the war in Europe in 1914, 1918, they would recognize that because they're having to defend themselves from those drones by digging into the earth.
		And we have seen that happen in years past.
		But you're absolutely right.
		There is a heavy, heavy casualty count coming from the use of drones.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Ron is in Barrien Springs, Michigan, on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Ron.
unidentified		Good morning, folks.
		You know, this is tied in.
		This is the 50-year anniversary of us getting thrown out of Vietnam, which we never should have been in.
		And we never did.
		And the war crimes that Russia is perpetrating on Ukraine right now, what we did to Vietnam is a thousand times worse.
		And we never compensated for that or anything.
		And now that the administration wants to forget about it and wants to stop paying Vietnam veterans like me who are suffering from Agent Orange.
		But anybody who believes that the United States is going to defend Ukrainian mines in Russia has got to be out of their mind.
		You know, we tried sending Western soldiers in after World War I to try and subdue Russia and get its treasure chest opened up for us.
		And, you know, I'm not saying that Russia is right in invading Ukraine, but whoever pushed, and we did it, we did it.
		We pushed NATO to the very borders of Ukraine to break open the treasure chest.
		And you think it's worth it now, Mr. Townsend?
		And anybody who believes that the United States is going to look up to their agreements, first Ukraine, then Taiwan, is what the world is saying, especially with the trader pump in office.
		Thank you.
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think your points are still being debated in the international affairs community and at the Pentagon, too.
		Your point about Vietnam, a lot of lessons still being learned from that, a lot of work still being done to help heal a lot of the effects of that war in Vietnam.
		So that's something that's still, believe it or not, it's still very much in the minds of the military today and in the defense community as we deal with the legacy of not just Vietnam, but more since then too.
		It's something that bears, it's heavy on everyone's minds.
		But one point I want to extract from what you said that's important is in talking about security guarantees for Ukraine, the administration has said that the U.S. will not take part in that, but that what we would do is what we would do is provide this minerals contract.
		We would do these things that was felt in and of themselves would be a sort of security guarantee or at least a link with the United States that would help deter future Russian aggression against Ukraine.
		So your point's well taken is how credible, how believable is that?
		Would that stop Putin if he really wanted to make another foray into Ukraine because he wants to strengthen his control in Kyiv and other places if three years from now, 10 years from now, having U.S. businesses and U.S. workers working with Ukraine inside Ukraine, extracting these minerals, is that really a tripwire that would cause the Russians not to invade?
		And there is a lot of disagreement on whether that would work.
		And I side with you.
		I think that's not going to deter a determined Putin who wants to go at Ukraine one more time.
		That minerals agreement isn't going to really be what will keep him out.
		So we're going to have to see as we get into the long-term peace agreement, what does a security guarantee look like?
		We know what does it work.
		We had the Budapest Memorandum in the past where the nations, the larger nations of Europe, including Russia, guaranteed the security of Ukraine.
		And of course, that didn't work.
		The Europeans are talking about a reassurance force that they would put into Ukraine that's not there to fight the Russians, but it's almost like a peacekeeping force.
		It's probably a step up from that.
		But even that doesn't have a lot of credibility either.
		Do we really think that that would scare off the Russians from making another foray into Ukraine?
		So, frankly, one of those things I think that we're going to have to do for a security guarantee is to make sure that Ukraine is well armed, has its own domestic defense industry, which it does, and it is getting quite large, as you can imagine right now.
		But these are the things that will bring security, a semblance of a security guarantee to Ukraine, is that they're able to put up a stiff fight should the Russians come back, and that this credible force that Ukraine has.
		And so the Russians would think twice about trying to go at Ukraine one more time.
		It's not going to be that minerals agreement.
		You're absolutely right.
		It's going to be at least having a Ukraine military that is up to the task of having to handle another Russian invasion.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you so much.
		Jim Townsend is an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, working with the Transatlantic Security Program.
		Thank you so much for joining us this morning.
jim townsend ▲ ● ▼		You're welcome.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, coming up next, after our break, we're going to have Open Forum.
		You can start dialing in now.
		Our phone line for Democrats 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		Celebrate Mother's Day with our C-SPAN Shop sale going on right now at cspanshop.org, our online store.
		Save up to 20% on our Mother's Day collection of apparel, accessories, drinkware, mugs, and more.
		There's something for every C-SPAN mom and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Scan the code or visit cspanshop.org during our Mother's Day sale.
		Going on right now.
		Weekends bring you Book TV featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		Dylan Mulvaney, creator of the Days of Girlhood TikTok series, speaks about her life before and post-transition in her book, Paper Doll.
		British author and journalist Douglas Murray shares his book on democracies and death cults, where he argues that protecting Israel is fundamental to preserving Western civilization.
		And then on afterwards, journalist David Graham looks at how parts of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 document are being implemented by the Trump administration.
		In his book, The Project, he's interviewed by author and George Washington University professor Matthew Dalek.
		Watch Book TV every weekend on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
		Democracy.
		It isn't just an idea.
		It's a process.
		A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
		It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
		Democracy in real time.
		This is your government at work.
		This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're in an open forum ready for your calls.
		Mike is in Valley Center, California on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Mike.
unidentified		Hi.
		I just wanted to say that I think Trump's foreign policy is weak.
		He won't stand up to Putin.
		Putin knows Trump won't give Ukraine any more military aid, so he has no incentive to stop the war.
		The Russian economy is now a war economy, so I'm worried which country is going to be next.
		Trump says Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if he was president, which isn't true because Ukraine was already under attack from Russia at their borders during his first term.
		I think Putin's intention to invade Ukraine, if Trump was in office, I think Trump would have given Ukraine to Russia without a fight.
		Okay.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Charles is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Charles.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I just wanted to make a comment myself regarding the situation in Ukraine and throughout the world.
		What I find that's very distasteful is that we are losing our morales, our morals in this situation, and many situations, especially in regard to our UN votes.
		There are so many votes in the United Nations that are decided by one person, and that's Donald Trump.
		We seem to veto everything that's in favor of good common sense.
		And I'm wondering if, and I'm hoping that this call alone, with people listening to this, can make a decision where Congress may get involved and help to decide how we go along with motions that are presented before the UN and what we should do.
		Because there's so many unfair things happening, including Ukraine.
		We seem to stop everything that's going on.
		I think, as previous quarters have said, Putin must have something on Trump because he gave away right off the bat the land of Crimea, which was a terrible way to negotiate.
		And it's not even his land to give away.
		He seemed to think he's a king.
		So that's just about as much as I can say.
		But I'd love to see Congress get involved.
		And I don't think one man should be able to decide a UN vote.
		I think it should be taken up here with the Congress.
		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Next up is Ava in Columbia, Mississippi on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Ava.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I want to talk about these minerals they're talking about in Ukraine.
		If they're so valuable, how come Ukraine and the Russians haven't mined them?
		Is the mining so expensive and the refining of the products so expensive that they can't afford it?
		Will it be worthwhile to America to do all this?
		Once you get them refined or something, you've got to put them on the market and somebody's got to buy them.
		Is it going to be worth our trouble?
		What are these minerals?
		We've never known.
		So are we just throwing money away going after these minerals that nobody seems to know what they are if there's even a market for them?
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Just a bit of information from the Associated Press about the minerals included in that deal.
		The deal covers minerals, including rare earth elements, but also other valuable resources, including oil and natural gas, according to the text released by Ukraine's government.
		Let's see.
		And the text of the deal lists 55 minerals but says more can be agreed to.
		Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in Ukraine's rare earth elements, and some of them are included in the list, as are other critical minerals such as titanium, lithium, and uranium.
		What are rare earth elements?
		They are a group of 17 elements that are essential to many kinds of consumer technology, including cell phones, hard drives, and electric and hybrid vehicles.
		China is the world's largest producer of rare earth elements, and both the U.S. and Europe have sought to reduce their dependence on Beijing's Trump's chief geopolitical adversary.
		They include elements such as lanthium, cerium, and scandium, which are listed in the deal.
		Robert is in Dallas, Texas, on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Robert.
		Hi there, Robert.
		You're an open forum.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		I have friends from Kyiv.
		Putin and the war started because of our desire to have NATO in Ukraine.
		And the United States would not allow Russia to be or a foreign country to be in Cuba.
		So why should Putin allow NATO to be in Ukraine?
		That's what the whole fight is about.
		And we're wasting our money.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Next up is John in Michigan on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Yes, thank you for having me.
		Ukraine is in a position where they have no advantage if they give up these minerals.
		Trump knows it.
		Putin knows it.
		If they allow any type of draining of their precious minerals, which is in the trillions of dollars, Pretty much Europe would be in trouble, you know, because he would have a ring-sized feet right at their back door, and he would slowly pick away each and every country in order to reestablish the former Soviet Union.
		He knows what he's doing with Trump.
		Trump and him are together on it.
		That's why Trump was always, hey, I don't want to be with Ukraine.
		I don't want to have to give them no money.
		And he knows that we don't owe Ukraine.
		We gave him that money.
		We gave him those weapons, I mean, the money for weapons.
		He knows that, but he wants to make it like they owe us, and they don't owe us anything.
		That's all I have to say.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Marie is in California on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Marie.
unidentified		Hello.
		Well, actually, this is not on Ukraine or Russia.
		My thought is there's a lot of talk about men who transition to female and then setting records in female sports.
		And to highlight the unfairness of it, there has, to my knowledge, there have never been female athletes that have transitioned to be men who have set records or won any competition in male sports.
		I'd like just to throw that out there for all those who believe that it's okay to allow biological males to compete against biological females.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Teresa is in Guford, Indiana on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Teresa.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		This also doesn't pertain to Ukraine, but this has been on my mind since I watched the markup bill from the Judiciary Committee on the 30th.
		I watched all seven hours of it, and I've just been kind of fired up since.
		They proposed bills for vets not getting fired by the DOJ, not detaining and not deporting U.S. citizens, which is already against the Constitution.
		They propose children being allowed to have attorneys when detained by ICE, no ICE in elementary schools, giving grants back to Ohio to police and safety officers.
		Every single one of the GOP members voted no in the House Judiciary Committee.
		None of them stood up and debated the bills.
		Every single one of them kept silent.
		Jim Jordan's the chairman of this board and kept quiet.
		Even though one of the bills was to give grants back to one of his districts, and people don't realize what they're voting for, these vets getting fired for no cause just because the DOJ says so.
		Completely.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Teresa, I just want to be clear when you are mentioning the bills that were voted on.
		I think you're talking about amendments.
		Yes, so I'll just read a little bit and then let you finish your point.
		This is in Politico from April 30th if the House Judiciary approves proposals to boost immigration enforcement in Trump's mega bill.
		House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have advanced their portion of President Donald Trump's big beautiful bill, endorsing a suite of policies that would turbocharge the administration's immigration enforcement and deregulation efforts.
		The committee voted 2317 along party lines after rebuffing dozens of amendments from Democrats hammering the GOP for promoting an agenda that would make it significantly harder for immigrants to claim asylum and legally enter the United States.
unidentified		Right.
		And then on there, it's $46,000 for ICE members bonuses.
		$46,000 per ICE member to have bonuses.
		A waste, fraud, and abuse, but at $46,000 per ICE agent for a bonus.
		And Jared Moscow has said it all.
		You know, people in America, their average bonus is $2,500 when they're giving ICE individuals $46,000 as a bonus.
		That is ridiculous.
		The things that are going on in Oklahoma, there was a lady that moved there two weeks prior to that with three children.
		It was her and her three children, and they busted down the door because they had the wrong people detain them outside in the rain.
		There's been so many U.S. citizens that have been detained for no purpose, and they have a hard time getting out of these detention centers that are U.S. citizens.
		There's video.
		Obviously, she didn't want to show her face.
		She was terrified.
		She was born in the U.S. Her children were born in the U.S.
		They took her laptop.
		They took her phones.
		They took her cash.
		She doesn't even know how to get her stuff back.
		She was left no cards.
		They came in.
		They weren't even identified.
		They have no identifying information on that.
		It was another amendment that they tried to get passed that they would show their identification.
		And that amendment failed.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Teresa, I just do want to get to a couple of other folks, but I'll quickly read from an NVC article about the story in Oklahoma that you're talking about: that a U.S. citizen family was traumatized after ICE raided their Oklahoma home in search of someone else.
		A mother and her daughters had their phones, laptops, cash, and cash life savings confiscated as part of a search warrant issued for other people.
		Federal immigration agents search the home of a family in Oklahoma and seize their belongings when conducting a search warrant issued for someone else.
		Bob is in Tuckerman, Arkansas, excuse me, Arizona, on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Bob.
unidentified		Yes, I only have a comment.
		Putin's a dictator.
		The only way he can justify the deaths of his citizens is by winning.
		He'll win by attrition if he's not stopped.
		President Obama let it all start in 2014 when he let Russia take over Crimea.
		The solution is oil.
		It's a big thing.
		In other words, if we cut off the sales from Russia to Europe with our oil, that'll put a big dent in his income.
		But eventually, what he's got to do, he's got to justify to the Russian people the death of their sons in a place that they invaded.
		And they expected a real quick win.
		And the problem was it didn't fall like Poland to Adolf Hitler.
		And that's the difference.
		The people in Ukraine fought for their right to live.
		And they lost a bunch of people, and you know, they're sons, and they'll never forget that.
		Poland never forgot what Hitler did to them.
		And all the countries that border Russia, the ones that joined NATO recently, you know, they were afraid of an invasion.
		If he succeeds in the Ukraine, he'll just keep going.
		The thing is, Trump is buying for time right now.
		He's got to get his oil production up.
		He's got to bring the military back.
		If you look at the recent thing that they released on the Dark Star aircraft that we have that's hypersonic, they're going to keep going in with that and the drones and everything else.
		That's why he's proposing a trillion-dollar budget for the military.
		The thing is, the natural debt is $2 trillion in the hole every year.
		It's catching up with us.
		And, you know, that's what's going on.
		That's why they're trying to cut costs and everything else.
		He's trying to do this in a short period of time because he knows when that bullet went by his ear, you know.
		And I think he's trying to help the country and Musk is too.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's get to Robert in Far Rockaway, New York, on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Robert.
unidentified		Sambia, hello, good morning.
		Let's like it.
		I just have a question.
		Why don't you hear anything about Gaza anymore on the news?
		No matter what channel you turn to, nothing.
		You see absolutely nothing.
		And it's horrible over there.
		People are dying less than light.
		And I know you're probably going to direct me to an old article that you had that you guys did a story on, but we need it in the news right now.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Next up is Robert again, but this time in Lake Jackson, Texas on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Robert.
unidentified		Good morning, Miss Kimberly.
		C-SPAN hasn't covered this yet, and they really need to.
		There really needs to be a segment about it.
		To understand what I mean, I need you to open up three windows on your tablet: one for Curtis Yarvin, spelled Y-A-R-V-I-N.
		You might know him as Manchester Moldbug.
		Another for Peter Thiel, the CEO of Palantir Technologies, and another one for something called the Dark Enlightenment or Neo-Reaction.
		It's a philosophical movement by Yarvin himself.
		And you're going to want everything to be visible there.
		Yeah, Dr. Peter Thiel, the same Peter Thiel who co-funded, who funded JD Vanta's Senate campaign, who pressured Donald Trump to pick him as his running mate and who owns Palantir Technologies, which is used in pretty much every government agency from the CIA to DLD to the IRS.
		And yeah.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Robert, we're just about out of time for the show.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I just want to make sure you get a chance to finish your point.
unidentified		Okay, right.
		Donald Trump's not the one in charge.
		Peter Thiel is.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Last caller for today, Raul, is in Miami, Florida on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Raul.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I want to express, as a Republican, my disappointment with President Trump obsession with getting us into wars.
		Why do we have to be involved in a war between the Russians and the Ukrainians?
		Why do we have to be involved in a war between Taiwan, etc., etc.?
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, to close out the show, I'll read a comment that Chris in Birmingham, Alabama sent in.
		I watched the Kentucky Derby yesterday and was glad to see that sovereignty and journalism came in first and second.
		I was hoping that the horse that came in third was either Doge, MAGA, or Maha, LOL.
		Well, that's all the time that we have today for Washington Journal.
		Thank you to everyone who called in.
		We'll be back with another edition of the show tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		We hope you'll join us and have 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, Punch Bowl News Congressional Reporter Mika Solner discusses the latest in the House Republican budget reconciliation process.
		Then notice White House reporter Jasmine Wright previews the week ahead at the White House.
		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.
		Next, former U.S. Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott testifies on his nomination to serve as Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection.
		Then lawmakers, including Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Representatives Pramala Jayapal and Debbie Dingell, announced the introduction of Medicare for all legislation.
		And later, a conversation about covering President Trump's first 100 days in office with journalists from the Associated Press, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Free Beacon.
		This week, on the C-SPAN networks, the House and Senate are in session.
		The House plans to vote on legislation by Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, codifying President Trump's executive order into law.
		The Senate will vote to confirm Frank Bizignano to serve as Social Security Commissioner.
		Also, for the first time since taking office, Trump cabinet members will testify before House and Senate committees on their respective departments and agencies.
		On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noam testifies before the House Appropriations Subcommittee conducting oversight on her department.
		And Treasury Secretary Scott Besant will appear before two committees on Tuesday before the House Appropriations Oversight Subcommittee on the Department of Treasury and on Wednesday before the House Financial Services Committee for his annual testimony on the state of the international financial system.
		Also Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell gives a press conference following the Federal Open Market Committee meeting.
		And Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will participate in a fireside chat to celebrate the 120th anniversary of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.

▲