CSPAN - Washington This Week

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 1, 2025 10:00-13:04 - CSPAN

03:03:52

Washington This Week

Participants

Main

kimberly adams

cspan 33:53

Appearances

brian lamb

cspan 01:03

donald j trump

admin 04:06

jamie raskin

rep/d 02:22

jason riley

00:57

jim wright

00:34

linda mcmahon

01:49

mike johnson

rep/r 01:40

tim walz

d 01:07

Clips

jake tapper

cnn 00:20

martin caidin

00:12

Callers

badass uncle sam in new orleans

callers 00:11

bob in new york

callers 00:07

denise in florida

callers 00:03

donna in west virginia

callers 00:20

louise in virginia

callers 00:12

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		About White House News of the Day and the week ahead.
		And American Compass founder Orin Cass will talk about his new book, The New Conservatives: Restoring America's Commitment to Family, Community, and Industry and President Trump's Tariffs Agenda.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at cspan.org.
		Tonight on C-SPAN's Q&A, Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Reilly, author of The Affirmative Action Myth, argues that the racial preference policies of the 1960s and 70s have had an overall negative impact on the success of black Americans.
		There are racial differences in America, in our society, cultural differences, ethnic differences.
		But when it comes to public policy and how the government treats us, treats the population.
jason riley ▲ ● ▼		No, it should not be picking winners and losers based on race or treating people differently based on race.
unidentified		It's been a disaster.
jason riley ▲ ● ▼		Whether the effort was under Jim Crow to elevate whites or the effort was under racial preferences to elevate non-whites, it's been a disaster.
unidentified		You know, people like to say that diversity is our strength in America, but I disagree.
jason riley ▲ ● ▼		Our real strength in this country has been to overcome our racial and ethnic differences and focus on what unites us as a country.
unidentified		That has been the strength of America.
		Jason Riley with his book, The Affirmative Action Myth.
		Tonight at 8 Eastern on C-SPAN's QA.
		You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app.
		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, June 1st, 2025.
		We're in the midst of graduation season with colleges and universities all over the country sending their new alums out into the workforce.
		But the political debate continues even after commencement over how America's institutions of higher education are funded, run, and who gets to attend.
		With the Trump administration pulling grants and fundings from certain schools, as well as limiting access for foreign students.
		This morning, we want to hear from you on this topic.
		Do you support President Trump taking on higher education?
		Our line for Republicans is 202-748-8001.
		For Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		If you'd like to text us, that number is 202-748-8003.
		Please be sure to include your name and where you're writing in from.
		We're also on social media at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
		Now, the AP had some polling early in May on this topic, finding that most Americans disapprove of Trump's treatment of colleges.
		That was an AP Nork poll, finding that a majority of U.S. adults disapprove of President Donald Trump's handling of issues related to colleges and universities, according to a new poll, as his administration ramps up threats to cut federal funding unless schools comply with his political agenda.
		More than half of Americans, 56 percent, disapprove of the Republican president's approach on higher education, the survey from the Associated Press Nork Center for Public Affairs Research finds, while about four in ten approve in line with his job approval.
		Since taking office in January, Trump has tried to force change at universities he says have become hotbeds of liberalism and anti-Semitism.
		The spotlight most recently has been on Harvard University, where Trump's administration has frozen more than $2.2 billion in federal grants, threatened to strip the school's tax-exempt status, and demanded broad policy changes.
		The Trump administration has also cut off money to other elite colleges, including Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Cornell University, over issues including the handling of pro-Palestinian activism and transgender athletes' participation in women's sports.
		Harvard has framed the government's demands as a threat to the autonomy that the Supreme Court has long granted American universities.
		Now, some additional polling on this topic over time has been done by Gallup, checking America's confidence in U.S. higher education.
		And this poll from last July found that 36% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in U.S. higher education, 32% having some confidence, and 32% having little or no confidence.
		Now, breaking that down further in the category of those who had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in U.S. higher education, that has declined over time, with 36% saying that they had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in 2024 versus 57% in 2015.
		And then breaking the current numbers down further by political party, Republicans, 20% have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence compared to 50% that had little or no confidence in U.S. higher education, compared to 56% for Democrats who had a great deal or quite a lot versus 12% who had little or no confidence.
		Among Independents, 35% had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence versus 31% having little or none.
		Now, going back to the topic of Harvard in particular, a federal judge on Thursday extended an order blocking Trump administration's ban on foreign students at Harvard.
		And a federal judge on Thursday extended the order blocking the Trump administration's attempt to bar Harvard University from enrolling foreign students.
		U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs extended the block she imposed last week with a temporary restraining order, which allows the Ivy League School to continue enrolling international students as a lawsuit proceeds.
		Harvard sued the federal government Friday after Department of Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noam revoked its ability to host foreign students at its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
		Harvard President Alan Garber was on NPR's morning edition last week to talk about Harvard's legal fight with the administration.
unidentified		Here's a portion: When people who have views that they think are unpopular, and the administration and others have said conservatives are too few on campus and their views are not welcome.
		Insofar as that's true, that's a problem we really need to address.
		Is it true?
		I think that we have heard from some people that they do feel that way.
		So we certainly need to address that.
		And that means changing views in the community, making diverse viewpoints more welcome.
		It includes skills in speaking as well as skills in listening.
		So the federal government has referred to some of these areas.
		And as I said, we agree that some of these problems we absolutely need to address.
		What is perplexing is the measures that they have taken to address these that don't even hit the same people that they believe are causing the problems.
		Why cut off research funding?
		Sure, it hurts Harvard, but it hurts the country.
		Because after all, the research funding is not a gift.
		The research funding is given to universities and other research institutions to carry out work that the research work that the federal government designates as high priority work.
		It is work that they want done.
		They are paying to have that work conducted.
		Shutting off that work does not help the country, even as it punishes Harvard.
		And it is hard to see the link between that and, say, anti-Semitism.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, President Trump defended his decision to stop international student enrollment at Harvard University last Friday.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Here's a portion of his comments.
unidentified		Are you considering stopping other universities besides Harvard from accepting foreign schools?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Well, we're taking a look at a lot of things.
		And as you know, billions of dollars has been paid to Harvard.
		How ridiculous is that?
		Billions.
		And they have $52 billion as an endowment.
		They have $52 billion.
		And this country is paying billions and billions of dollars and then gives student loans and they have to pay back the loans.
		So Harvard's going to have to change its ways.
		So are some others.
unidentified		On that note, a lot of CEOs in the United States, big companies, are foreign.
unidentified		What is that going to do?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I'm fine with that.
		I'm fine with that.
		We want to do that.
		We're actually going to be doing something in the near future that's going to make it possible for people to come into this country and come in and have a road toward citizenship.
		And I think it'll be very exciting, but it's too soon to speak about.
unidentified		Why do you not want the best and brightest from around the world to come to Harvard?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I do, but a lot of the people need remedial math.
		Did you see that?
		Where these students can't add two and two, and they go to Harvard.
		They want remedial math, and they're going to teach remedial math at Harvard.
		Now, wait a minute.
		So why would they get in?
		How can somebody that can't add or has very basic skills, how do they get into Harvard?
		Why are they there?
		And then you see those same people picketing and screaming at the United States and screaming at, you know, they're anti-Semitic or they're something.
		We don't want troublemakers here.
		But how do people that can't, when Harvard comes out with a statement that they're going to teach some of their students remedial math, that's basic math, that's not the deal.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Our question again this morning, do you support President Trump taking on higher education?
		Our phone line for Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		For Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Let's start with Flute in Washington, D.C. on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Flute.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		President Day, June 1st.
		Happy birthday, Jamal.
		Happy birthday, son.
		And I hope you enjoy your day.
		Listen, when it comes to Trump taking on the educational, you know, it's no way that all that money should be pumped into one university, Harvard.
		You know what I mean?
		Spread the money around.
		You know, put some money to the HBCUs, put some money to some of these state universities, and stop putting all these billions of dollars to these private universities.
		You know, like you say, the remedial math programs that are being funded at Harvard University, you know, that money could be spent other ways, and it could be spent better than building up foreign students that are coming here.
		And then, once they get their credentials and their degrees, they take that back overseas.
		You know, we need to build up the people right here in our country, and it should start at the undergraduate level.
		A lot of that research and that funding goes to the graduate level.
		But you have people right here at the undergraduate level, right here in the United States, that are seeking higher education and either they can't afford it or they don't see the benefit of going into debt.
		And then when they graduate, they have a degree they really can't market.
		And, you know, and the diversity needs to be more diverse.
		Like I said, it needs to spread the money around.
		There's no way that one Harvard University with as many presidents and vice presidents and political and financial resources that they've had in their past that they should be receiving that much money from the government.
		And, you know, like I say, we need to go back to concentrating on our own.
		And the university has always been a spot for political change.
		You know, even back to the 60s, I remember the Black Panthers at the colleges out in Los Angeles, and then the Kent State universities in Ohio, the massacre that happened here.
		So college has always been a testing pool and a micromanagement of the United States.
		You know, it reflects.
		But where we're going now, you're eliminating the Department of Education.
		I think he's doing a restructuring, and I think he's on the right path.
		Let it be state to state, and let's redo things and let's not always have things written in stone that Harvard's always going to get this money.
		Or some of the private institutions are always going to get these billions of dollars of grants and funds, and you're leaving everybody else behind.
		And that's what, man, let's just spread it around and let's see where he's going.
		But at least he's making some kind of change.
		And I don't think all that money should be going to foreign students.
		Let's concentrate on those right here on our homeland.
		And that's part of making America great again.
		And he's an economist.
		So I guess.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned the federal grants going to colleges and universities.
		USA Facts has some data that they gathered on how universities spend billions in government funds.
		In FY 2023, the federal government provided nearly $60 billion to support research and development efforts at universities.
		And aside from student financial aid, the federal government funds universities with grants and contracts.
		One major way universities use this funding is for research and development.
		And in FY 2023, federal dollars supported $59.6 billion of university research and development expenses.
		The fields that received the most funding in 2023 were life sciences and engineering.
		And let's look at what that breaks down to.
		So life sciences received more than half of federal research and development funding in 2023.
		After that is engineering, then physical sciences, geosciences, atmospheric sciences, and ocean sciences, computer and information sciences, and then other fields beyond that.
		Let's hear from Joel in Mountain Home, Arkansas on our line for Republic, excuse me, Arizona on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Joel.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		You know, I just got a couple of questions, and it just mind-boggling to me that these judges that were appointed by the Democrat Party can stop our president.
		Now, they didn't stop Joe Biden when he was in office, allowing millions of people coming into our country.
		Now, and another thing I just want to say right quick: we let these foreigners come here pregnant, have their child, and they become citizens automatically.
		But yet, when Jimmy Carter was in office, he wouldn't let the Cubans come here pregnant and have their child be called.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Joel, how do you feel about President Trump's actions related to colleges and universities and higher education?
unidentified		I really think I really feel that the colleges are just taking advantages of these people.
		You don't have to have a college education in this country.
		You can just go to trade school.
		Now, I went to trade school and everything.
		I'm retired.
		I'm 83, and I got a very good income.
		And Trump, I don't know why the man wants to take this pain and everything.
		He don't need the money.
		Now, I don't understand why everybody's beating up on him.
		And he's the only one that ever tried to stop this terrorist business.
		We've been paying Germany, Japan, all these countries re-rebuilt after World War II.
		Now, Germany, they were charging us, I believe I just read somewhere, they were charging us 40% of something for our Ford Chevrolet to be sold in their country.
		But when we bought a car from them, we were paying, I don't know, ungodly amount.
		And we are just gullible.
		American people are gullible.
		Now, I don't have but a few years, maybe, and everything, and I'm leaving this devil's playground.
		This earth is the devil's playground.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, who's an alum of Harvard Law School, spoke out against the president's actions targeting that college.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Here's a portion.
jamie raskin ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's definitely unconstitutional because it was in retaliation for Harvard rejecting the last round of unconstitutional attacks on its autonomy when Donald Trump essentially said that the federal government of the United States was going to take over their admissions process, take over their faculty hiring process, take over their curriculum.
		Harvard just said that's a bridge too far, no way.
		And they stood up, and that's something that was cheered by colleges and universities across the country to have the oldest and the wealthiest universities saying that they were going to use their resources to reject that.
		But then in return, Donald Trump is trying to exact vengeance and retaliation again by taking it out on 7,000 students from other countries, forcing them to completely change their plans, turning their lives upside down, and stripping Harvard of a quarter of its students.
		So I was not surprised at all that a federal district court in Boston entered a temporary restraining order on the way to the argument about a preliminary injunction.
		But this is a completely lawless situation.
		The administration doesn't get to control higher education in America and tell colleges and universities what to do.
		They don't get to control newspaper entities and TV networks the way Donald Trump has been trying to do.
		And they don't get to control law firms or any other private entity.
		But they're trying to move us into an authoritarian situation so he can continue to embark upon his corruption tour of the world.
		I mean, the guy has made more than a billion dollars a month since this started.
		And incidentally, last night had all of these people who are participating in his new crypto scam.
		They each gave more than a million dollars to get to go to dinner with the president and to rub elbows with the power brokers in Washington.
		And a lot of those people were neo-Nazis and anti-Semites who bought their way in too.
		So obviously, invoking anti-Semitism is purely a distraction and a pretext for his desire to take over higher education in the country.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		The response from the White House was reported in theHill.com with the White House slammed Raskin on Saturday, stating Harvard is facing consequences for its actions.
		Jamie Raskin has zero credibility left after he's unsuccessfully launched one liberal hoax after another against President Trump, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told The Hill.
		Harvard has turned into a hotbed for anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators that put American students at risk, she continued.
		They've repeatedly failed to address the serious issues plaguing their campus despite warnings, and now they're facing the consequences.
		Now, some responses that we've received to our question from you all on via text: Timbo in Mountain Home, Arkansas says, Blackmailing and strong arming are not higher education policies.
		It's akin to a protection racket, so I do not support President Trump's higher education policy at all.
		And then John in Ventura, California says, colleges raise their prices because of student loans.
		Colleges are failing to educate.
		Enrolling anti-Semitic foreign students is not diversity, especially when they threaten Jews.
		Trump is correct.
		And then Grant Convey says on X, I don't like Trump, but yes, I wish the focus was on ending the student loan program.
		It's a debt trap for teenagers, has caused tremendous administrative bloat, and skyrocketed tuition prices to an egregious level.
		Back to your calls.
		Linda is in Mississippi on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Linda.
		Linda, go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes.
		Good morning.
		I do not agree with Trump.
		He needs to take a course at Harvard himself.
		He is just trying to bully education.
		He's trying to tap down the federal courts.
		By the way, people, there are three branches, equal co-branches of government: executive, judicial, and legislature.
		Judges have equal branches equal to the executive.
		And Trump is just on his vindictive retribution tour.
		He hates for someone who pushes back on him.
		He's just a bully.
		And when you push back, he pushes harder.
		He's drunk with power.
		And when he takes those grants from Harvard, any other university, not just Harvard, any other university, it handicaps America.
		Those people that are calling in, agreeing with it, research the science for cancer, research for our timers, and cut it, Medicaid, those people that got grandmothers or mothers in nursing homes, get ready to make room for them because nursing homes to buy off of Medicaid and Medicare.
		Trump is wrong, and everyone knows it.
		And MAGA folks, if you can't believe anything but what Trump tells you, wake up.
		You're in a cut.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		She mentioned some of the grants that have been cut for funding for various things.
		Here's a story from ABC News.
		At least 350 Harvard medical grants were terminated by the Trump administration.
		Here are some of them.
		Amid the Trump administration's battle with Harvard University, hundreds of grants worth millions of dollars for medical research have been canceled.
		And if you scroll down, it says at least 350 grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and elsewhere have been canceled at Harvard Medical School, excluding the School of Public Health and the School of Engineering, a Harvard University faculty source told ABC News.
		Harvard has said the loss of research funding interrupts work on topics including tuberculosis, chemotherapy, pandemic preparedness, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease.
		The school has also said the Trump administration's threats have endangered its education, educational mission.
		The Trump administration did not immediately reply to ABC News' request for comment.
		This includes research for studying antibiotic resistance, identifying the earliest precursors of breast cancer, breaking barriers to deliver effective drugs for Alzheimer's disease, studying microbial evolution, and researching cures for ALS.
		Scientists at Harvard say the cancellations of their research grants are collateral damage in the battle with the Trump administration and worry some scientific breakthroughs will never be discovered.
		Bob is in Kingman, Arizona on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Bob.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I was, I've the first time he ran for president, I voted for him.
		But the second time I didn't, I became more of an independent.
		But I call him the wannabe little dictator.
		And what he's doing now, especially with the grants, he's upset because the university, remember his university, he had Trump University.
		What a disaster.
		So he's a bully in many ways, like some of the other people have spoken or said about it.
		And he's doing the same thing again.
		But the other thing in reference to deportations, he's totally off base on that.
		I've been around quite a while.
		Matter of fact, I used to call you guys quite a while when I lived in Laughlin, Nevada.
		But he's going in the wrong direction.
		And the problem is that the Republicans are afraid of his group are afraid of it.
		And then I feel if they had a vote right now from the people to impeach him, he would be impeached by the people, not by the Republicans or Democrats, but by the people.
		He's totally out of line.
		And I feel that it's an insult to America what he's doing, especially with the tariffs and what he's doing with the United States of America.
		Because we're elected.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You've got your idea, Bob.
		Let's hear from Kent in Erie, Illinois on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Kent.
unidentified		Good morning.
		For so many years, this has been a terrible problem in America that these colleges have become just a hotbed for anti-American activities and anti-Semitism.
		And the idea that somehow people like us that have looked at this for the last 50 years and said, why in the world are our colleges overrun with Chinese students?
		And then people out there east wrapping their heads in towels and stuff so we can't see them and then taking over college campuses.
		Thank God for Donald Trump.
		People say we're in a cult.
		I'm a Vietnam veteran three times.
		I drive through the to get to Iowa City, and there's all these Chinese, Vietnamese, every kind of student out there, and we're allowing them to take this education back to countries that don't like us.
		Why are we not revoking these visas for kids that are breaking our laws?
		And the idea that somehow the people that support Trump are an occult.
		Lady, how can you be so stupid?
		A cult would be like supporting the Democrats blindly where they let millions and millions of people come into this country and change the paradigm.
		And the Democrats are too scared and too dumb to say this is wrong.
		A Democrat will support eating dirt if the rest of the Democrat Party said this is what we should do.
		That's what a cult is, lady.
		The millions and millions of people that voted for Donald Trump and the God Almighty that saved him when he took a bullet in the head for this country.
		And then you people start calling in with your stupidity about the money.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So can you mention the foreign students at American universities?
		And here's a story in the Independent, which is a British newspaper, that Japan has joined China in trying to lure foreign students from the U.S. after Trump's visa crackdown.
		A growing number of Asian universities are offering students transfer opportunities after the U.S. moved to restrict enrollment.
		Japan has asked its universities to consider accepting international students affected by the Donald Trump administration's decision to block Harvard from enrolling foreigners.
		Toshiko Abe, the education minister, has asked universities nationwide to report within a week possible support measures for both Japanese and international students affected by the Trump administration's move to restrict foreign enrollment at Harvard.
		And a few days ago, China extended unconditional offers to foreign students at Harvard after the U.S. government revoked the university certification to enroll international students, effectively forcing thousands of them to transfer to other colleges or face losing legal status in the U.S. There is an ongoing legal challenge to that case, of course.
		John is in New Jersey on our line for independence.
		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Good morning.
		A couple of your callers have already made some of the points that I wanted to make.
		I can only add to that to what's already been said by pointing out that although Harvard is a fantastic school, it does great research.
		Those points have been made.
		That's where the money goes to.
		You can go to lots of, there are a lot of universities that are staffed with faculties who are graduates of Harvard.
		So you can go to a much less expensive university and get taught by Harvard grads.
		And one more point about Harvard or any other university being a hotbed of liberalism.
		I found the opposite.
		I found that there's nothing that a faculty member at universities I attended likes more than to prove his colleague in the same department as wrong about something.
		They're in competition for money, typically.
		So I think there's just a picture of college faculties and what they teach that's completely out of line with what I've seen at the university I was educated in and The university at which I was a faculty member.
		That's it.
		Thanks.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Barbara is in Georgia on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Barbara.
unidentified		What I want to say is we do have freedom of speech.
		And I think that we're going down a dark road when we stop people from having freedom of speech.
		And I also think that Trump raised Kane about the deficit and about the people being over here from these other countries.
		These people pay taxes when they do come over here and work.
		And also, Trump hasn't said anything at all about the deficit.
		And then the parade.
		I think that is just strictly like a dictatorship.
		I think he's running it like a dictatorship.
		I voted for him the first time, but I did not vote for him again.
		This man is mentally sick.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Eric is in Las Vegas on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Eric.
unidentified		Good morning.
		First, you're an unbelievable moderator and with unbelievable patience.
		Maybe if I could just start by saying I might not be clear-eyed in the way I see it as a college graduate.
		I don't see how the executive branch, and let me say this too.
		I love a lot of the things that Donald Trump has done, a lot of the things he's done.
		But then there are things that he's done that really make me cringe, like the executive branch or exhibiting pressure, or bringing pressure on the university system of the United States, such that federal funds are going to be withheld if you go against my agenda.
		I mean, how can you even say that as Americans?
		I mean, we have to, I believe, in my opinion, I believe that we have to call balls and strike.
		There are things that he's done that are great.
		There are things that he's done that essentially he's wet to bed, in my opinion.
		And anyone who comes on, and I've heard a lot of the speakers, it seems like he's, you know, a messiah and he can't do no wrong.
		And I believe that you should look at yourself and say, really, has everything he's done been 100%?
		That's all I have to say.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Education Secretary Linda McMahon was on Capitol Hill at a recent hearing, and she was asked about the administration's crackdown on anti-Semitism at elite universities and colleges.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Here's a portion of her answer.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		We've seen it, religious, we've seen it across our college campuses, some of the most elite in the country.
		And we took very strong and very decisive action against those universities who clearly were not protecting Jewish students against anti-Semitism, against some, yeah, anti-Semitism, when they were anti-Semitic, those that were attacking them.
		When you've seen students barricaded in the library and others pounding on the glass, going, death to Jews, death to Israel, death to the United States, that is unacceptable in our college campuses.
		And we reacted.
		We reacted to Columbia.
		First did not, that happened, this incident happened at Columbia.
		And I met with the President of Columbia.
		I've had two conversations now with the current President of Columbia.
		We've talked about things that we need to do at those universities.
		We want to be able to be supportive.
		But those universities, albeit they're private, do receive federal funding.
		We have leverage to withhold some of that federal funding or to cancel some of the grants.
		And we will do that unless it can be proven that these colleges and universities are going to respect all rights and set their policy in place and enforce them.
		And I was complimentary to the acting president now at Columbia, Claire Shipman, when I talked to her last week.
		And I said, you reacted just as you said you would to the recent uprising on campus.
		You were looking at whether or not you've expended students, suspended students, are you going to expel them?
		And that's still what she's looking at.
		So we've seen that that kind of action can deliver results.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Columbia University's acting president was booed when noting the absence of activist Mahmoud Khalil in the commencement speech at that university.
		The Columbia graduate student was supposed to attend the graduation celebration, and instead he's in immigration detention, caught up in Trump's crackdown on foreign students, as reported by NBC News.
		And here is a moment in that commencement.
unidentified		Welcome to Columbia on this momentous occasion, this celebration of our 271st academic year.
		And let me also say that we firmly believe that our international students have the same rights to freedom of speech as everyone else, and they should not be targeted by the government for exercising that right.
		And let me also say that I know many in our community today are mourning the absence of our graduate, Mahmoud Khalil.
		You have closed the books for now, and humanity beckons.
		Thank you and congratulations, class of 2025.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Back to your calls.
		Do you support President Trump taking on higher education?
		Next up, we have Jean in Dublin, Virginia, on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Jean.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I would like to mention a couple things.
		I've been watching this saga for the last two weeks with Harvard.
		And as someone who has worked in a research, an academic university research unit, I think you're going to find that the majority of people don't really understand how universities and how these research units actually operate.
		First thing, you need to stop thinking of these universities as these noble institutions of learning.
		They are businesses, non-for-profit, but if you're a dean making over a million dollars a year, you bet it's for profit.
		What are known as R1s, research one institutions, which are considered top research units.
		If you are a researcher there or even a professor, you better bring in the research money and the university takes up to 68% of every grant you bring in.
		In other words, so while you're hearing the Harvard administration getting all upset, claiming, you know, our research is going to be starved off, everybody's going to die of cancer, what they're not telling you is the administration is upset because the gravy train that basically is helping pay that million dollars to the dean is being cut off.
		We need to stop.
		That's one of the reasons also why we see much more foreign students because why?
		They pay double the tuition.
		Universities are businesses, and I think we need to start looking at that a little closer and understand better how they work.
		I know this is a bit of a wet blanket, but that's actually how they work.
		I mean, you would be amazed at how much research money comes into a university that's paid for by a private sector.
		And you're actually told this is the results we want.
		And of course, the administration, we had one that actually wanted at the research unit I was associated with, we did some groundbreaking study looking at texting while driving.
		It changed policy across the country.
		But a year later, we had the cell phone industry organization come to us and want us to do another research study, actually counteracting what we are the original findings.
		And they had 1.1 million reasons for the administration who wanted us to do it.
		I don't want to go on and on here, but I think it's something we really need to understand just what these universities really are and how the finances really work.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Tony is in Illinois on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Tony.
unidentified		Good morning.
		May, I do not support Donald Trump going after a higher education.
		Most of the people that are talking or informed about his situation, anti-Semite or whatever, are people that are going after, or uneducated people that are supporters of Donald Trump that are going after the people and are going after the anti-Semites, I should say,
		that are, he's not going after the conservative colleges that are participating in the anti-Semitic situations at all either.
		That's all I have to say.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Rich is in Ohio on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Rich.
unidentified		Yeah, really a lot of interesting points.
		Some of the problem is that we are educating criminals, and all we do is get an educated criminal coming out of there.
		And some examples.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I want to let you finish your point, but could you turn down the volume on your TV, please?
unidentified		Yeah.
		And they just have educated criminals.
		One is 9-11.
		They learned how to do civil engineering and blow down a building where it was weak.
		The other thing is we want to help other countries, and we do to get them up to speed.
		We let China be a developing country, and they're far from that and get a lot of advantages over us.
		And we try to help other countries up, but then they figure ways to blow us up.
		It's really a hard way to do it, to try to be nice to them and to give them leads.
		The one problem we do have is U.S. is forgetting all the things that they did right, and these other countries are picking up on it.
		But there's no reason to educate a criminal just to have a bigger educated criminal.
		I'll hang up listen to your answer.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Anton is in Sarasota, Florida, on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Anton.
unidentified		Oh, good morning.
		First I'll start with the Education Secretary who was discussing how the students barricaded themselves in the libraries and that wasn't going to be allowed on campuses.
		Does everybody forget January 6th where everybody was chanting hang Mike Pence?
		That's my first point.
		Number two, when you look at the Columbia University supporting free speech, which takes me back all the way to the 60s with Mario Sabio on the Berkeley campus for this freedom of speech amendment.
		How many years ago was that?
		And when you deal with this higher education pertaining to religion, I believe the evangelists were the ones that supported Donald Trump in his first election.
		And they're supposed, anybody, any religious group that supports politics should be losing their tax-exempt status.
		Isn't anybody paying attention to this reality?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Carol is in Massachusetts on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Carol.
unidentified		Good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
unidentified		I agree with President Trump to put some...
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Carol, can I ask you to turn down the volume on your TV, and then please continue.
unidentified		Oh, certainly.
		I'm sorry.
		I thought I did.
		I agree with President Trump about limiting the amount of money we're giving to these colleges.
		First of all, I'm going to kind of repeat some of the things the other people have said.
		A lot of our colleges, including Harvard, they're bloated with money.
		They have lots and lots of money.
		And also the professors in the colleges themselves have a lot of money to spend on themselves and their retirement and their pleasure and their benefits that they get.
		They are also teaching courses that are not really good basic courses that people need to know, just as we talk about in elementary and high school and other colleges.
		The foreign students come over here, learn our way of life, and then use it against us.
		As far as freedom of speech is concerned, if the people went to Russia or China and bandmashed the president or their way of life or their government, they would be punished.
		They would be censored and not allowed in that country.
		We have too much freedom of speech.
		We're actually too limited.
		And if they do not like this country and our way of life, then please don't come here.
		But I think that they're coming to use our, get the benefit of what our knowledge, our knowledge base is, and then come back and then use it in a way that benefits themselves and their own country and not us.
		So I and I agree with President Trump giving more money to these trade schools and people we know.
		We're bloated with PhDs.
		We're bloated with that group of people at that educational level.
		They're actually some of them having a hard time getting a job.
		But we need lots of money in trade schools.
		So I agree with President Trump on what he's trying to do.
		Thank you very much.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Barbara is in Nazareth, Kentucky on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Barbara.
		Barbara?
		We can't hear you very well, but go ahead with your point.
unidentified		Okay, can you hear me better now?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I can hear you better now.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that?
unidentified		We have been reception here for some reason.
		Yes, as a former person just said, I agree with President Trump about getting into this information and find out what's going on with the colleges, the high-class colleges.
		Why should we bring all these people from these foreign countries, bring them over here, educate them with our taxpayers' money when some of our taxpayers, their own children, do not have the money or can't afford to go to college or have to run up a big bill to be able to get a better education?
		And you're sitting there doling out all this money to foreigners that don't contribute anything back to this country after they use our money from the hardworking people out here that have children.
		I mean, this is ridiculous.
		And they keep letting them come in and come in and come in.
		They need to stop it.
		It needs to stop right now.
		There's enough foreigners in this country for the next 50 years.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		There's a group that tracks international students and their economic contribution or their economic value called NAFSA.
		And they've done multiple studies looking at the economic impact of foreign students in the United States.
		And their latest analysis finds that international students studying at U.S. colleges and universities contributed $43.8 billion and supported 378,175 jobs to the U.S. economy during the 2023-2024 academic year.
		And the NAFSA partners with JV International could conduct the annual state-by-state and congressional district analysis of the economic contributions of international students and their families to the U.S. economy.
		The economic contributions of international students are in addition to the immeasurable academic and cultural value these students bring to our campuses and local communities.
		And this is a chart looking at their estimate of the economic contributions of these students over time from 2013 all the way up to 2023, with the number of jobs being represented here on the blue line going up, dipping a bit around the pandemic, but going back up and similar to the number of students and the economic benefit according to their analysis.
		Next up is Audrey in Richmond, Virginia on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Audrey.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Hi, good morning.
		I have, this is my first time really trying to call in, but I am just so upset with what Trump is doing.
		With the colleges, we have the best and the brightest in those universities that have did a lot of research which have healed a lot of people.
		And I know what Trump is really doing.
		He's trying to destroy the democracy.
		And he has started from the beginning.
		When he first got in office, even the first time, he had the idea of what he was going to do.
		And now he is attacking the colleges with the best and the brightest students.
		And this is what I really, really needed to call in to express my opinion.
		The Democratic Party has done great things, but he has got now the whole Republican Party backing him with all of this stuff that he's doing to try to tear down America and the independents.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Chris is in Annapolis, Maryland, on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Chris.
unidentified		Oh, yes.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Hi there, Chris.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, Chris, it's interesting viewpoints I've been listening to.
		And it's never called in, but I thought this would be interesting because I am highly educated.
		I have a master's in history and theology, so I've studied really well versed in studies.
		And being in college, you know, most of the degrees that people go into, they don't even complete, so they end up being broke because colleges are such, it's about money for the colleges.
		And the factor, when does free speech impede on people's right to education?
		You know, I'm completely against the anti-Semitic Semitism that Harvard has been preaching, and all I believe because they're elitist.
		And being from California, I know I've seen all how terrible Democrats have screwed everything up.
		You know, they've made everything, and people forget that liberals have taken over colleges since the 80s.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So Chris mentioned being from California, and there's a story here in the Hill that the University of California system is now a Trump administration target with the articles saying that Leo Terrell, senior counsel at the Department of Justice and head of its anti-Semitism task force, singled out the University of California system Tuesday as the next target of the Trump administration,
		saying there will be massive lawsuits against the UC system and other colleges on the East Coast, on the West Coast, in the Midwest, Terrell said in an interview on Fox News's The Faulkner Focus.
		Expect hate crime charges filed by the federal government, expect Title VII lawsuits, excuse me, and then the Title 12 lawsuits.
		Excuse me.
		The Hill has reached out to UC for comment.
		It's the first indication of where the Trump administration may move next in its higher education fight after escalating its battle with Harvard University to extreme heights.
		President Trump has taken almost $3 billion in funding from Harvard, threatening $3 billion more, wants to take away the university's ability to have foreign students on campus and has threatened its tax-exempt status.
		David is in San Francisco on our line for independence.
		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Oh, yeah, Morton.
		When you start looking at the idea that Doge was pretending that they were dealing with cost-effectiveness, with efficiency, and one of the first things they did was to take away telephones from Social Security.
		I'm calling you from 3,000 miles away, and 150 years ago, the telephone was embedded.
		And it's pretty efficient to me to be sitting here without my shoes on and talking to the rest of the world.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		David, do you have thoughts on President Trump's taking on higher education?
unidentified		Yes.
		And what I'm trying to say is ignorance is expensive.
		And when you look at the idea that these phonies are going to claim that destroying an education system is an act of efficiency, they're lying phonies.
		Donald Trump has organized crime.
		He's been organized crime for 50 years, and he can't afford to have the evidence against him be portrayed, be stored up and put into universities and disseminate.
		And the idea that destroying the evidence of pollution, he has to destroy the EPA.
		He has to destroy the banking system so that his bank frauds can't be exposed.
		No, this is an act of trying to destroy evidence of organized crime, and the universities have been gathering evidence against him and his cadre forever.
		So this is, it doesn't need to be too complicated.
		He's going after aspects of America that have stored up evidence against criminals.
		Okay.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Another David, this time in Morganville, New Jersey on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Hi, yeah.
		So I'm taking some of this in, and I try not to talk in extreme terms because I know it never works for either side.
		But I do want to talk to someone who also has a background in science, actually runs a company that develops innovative technologies to furnish research labs.
		And I think what concerns me is this extremism and two sidesism.
		And a lot of it is in both, I do a lot in both academia as well as industry, as well as in the U.S. and Canada.
		And what concerns me is this extreme sensationalism of big education, liberalism.
		In the U.S., we pay out of pocket.
		Higher education is not given to all Americans.
		When I travel to Canada, Canadian students do get fully funded education.
		And whether I go through their research departments that are educating them in neuroscience or metabolic disorders, here in the U.S. or in Canada, there's no difference.
		These students, postdocs, graduates, professors, they're not talking about politics.
		Politics is not integrated into the lab where we're pipetting, where we're doing immune assays.
		It's not a part of it.
		And I think what's really sad here is that all of this is a production, and it's about extremism and taking on what we believe is an affront.
		And unfortunately, it's sensationalized.
		And what concerns me is when I hear good Americans calling this show supporting something that's actually going to have a detrimental effect.
		And there seems to be a lack of understanding of how we fund science in America.
		Of course, institutions have to remain viable, but to call them for-profits or that they're stealing, they're giving back.
		So every dollar that is spent in science, you get $2.59 out in economic output.
		And I just want to say, as someone who's part of a company innovating tools to advance science, this attack on academic universities is an attack on all companies developing technologies.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I want to get to a couple four.
		We're out of time for this segment.
		Let's hear from Mike in Peoria, Illinois.
		Good morning, Mike.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		If you follow the money, the money is not being used the way it's supposed to be used.
jim wright ▲ ● ▼		And if you look at all those higher education, you look at how much money they get from China and how they're stealing all our intellectual property, you realize that all those in California and the Big East and whatever, they're taking money from the Chinese because they're pocketing that money.
unidentified		So follow the money.
jim wright ▲ ● ▼		This idea that he's trying to shut down on free speech, you always have free speech, but you don't get to take money from the government or the government doesn't owe you money for one of your freedoms.
unidentified		You don't get it for religion.
		You don't get it for all the other stuff.
		Would you have the government buy everyone guns?
		Because we have a second amendment?
bob in new york ▲ ● ▼		No, these people claim that Donald Trump's trying to stop free speech, but all they're worried about is the money.
unidentified		And you always, they always have free speech.
		They just can't expect or demand that the government give them money for it.
		It's just ridiculous.
		But that's where it's all down.
		It all comes down to the money.
		Follow the money.
		Follow those studies that these people are talking about.
		And you're talking about where the money comes from.
		Thanks.
		Bye.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Darren is in Lynchburg, Virginia on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Darren.
unidentified		Hey, thank you.
		I'll be quick, C-SPAN.
		If you want to know why Donald Trump was elected, listen to the two previous Davids.
		I've never heard two more elitists in my life who've tried to speak on behalf of the education system and doesn't even know what they're talking about.
		First and foremost, Harvard has one of the wealthiest board of trustees and the wealthiest endowment base.
		Harvard basically gives free education, has the ability to give free education to college students.
		You can look at it, they have a program in place.
		So the fact that everyone is sitting here crying about Harvard losing money is baffling to me.
		Harvard has probably one of the wealthiest alumni associations out there.
		Harvard lost $3 billion because Harvard allowed anti-Semitic actions being taken place on its college campuses without apology.
		Everybody keeps forgetting the real reason that Harvard lost their funding.
		It was because people's free speech was being interrupted.
		You couldn't be a Jewish person going on their campus and speaking freely in support of Israel.
		You can't be a black conservative on their campus freely talking about pro-life.
		That's the reason why Harvard lost their money.
		And I'm sorry, I'm more worried about Howard than Harvard.
		So that's my take.
		And we focus way too much on Harvard.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I can pause you for a moment.
		Since you mentioned Howard University, which is in HBCU, there's a story here in NewsNation that HBCUs will not be subjected to federal spending cut.
		Trump says Trump recently signed an order enhancing HBCU capacities.
		And quote, I took care of the black colleges and HBCUs.
		And this was from an interview that they were doing with him.
		President Donald Trump told NewsNation on Wednesday, this was back in April, that historically black colleges and universities should not be concerned about federal funding cuts to their budgets.
		In 2019, during his first term in office, President Trump signed a bipartisan bill that permanently provides more than $250 million a year to the nation's historically black colleges and universities.
		Trump said, I took care of the black colleges and HBCUs.
		You should know that better than anybody.
unidentified		So first and foremost, I do think he is a boisterous jerk sometimes in how he speaks and the rhetoric he uses.
		But then aside from the rhetoric he uses, the bottom line is he has supported the HBCUs better than Biden, better than Obama.
		And you can statistically look that up, and you guys know y'all can.
		That's a good thing because no other race has ever had their education interrupted more than those who are black in the United States of America.
		So I think that's a good thing.
		But at the same time, more needs to be done with those Board of Trustees.
		And at the end of the day, Howard and Hampton matters more to me than freaking Harvard.
		So thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Sheila is in Youngstown, Ohio on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Sheila.
unidentified		Yes, I'm a strong supporter of Israel.
		And I'd like to make a point.
		What is often called anti-Semitism, I think, is really something else.
		The Palestinians and Gaza have not had food for three months.
		I can't even bear to watch that anymore.
		The people with their pots trying to get food because the Israeli president won't let food come in.
		I don't think it's anti-Semitic if an Israeli objects to Israeli foreign policy.
		President Carter wrote a book about Israel in which I believe he critiqued the foreign policy of Israel.
		And Trump has had Nazis at his house in Mar-a-Lago.
		The anti-Semitism is when Elon Musk dramatically made the Nazi sign.
		The people who were at January 6th had shirts that were talking about Jews, not enough were killed.
		But I know there were problems with the students, how the students were treated at the university, but the president acknowledged that.
		The president of the university acknowledged it and he said we're working on it.
		And I don't think that would be right if kids weren't able to get to class or they were being harassed.
		I don't agree with that, but I think anti-Semitism, I mean, I think if you could show some of the pictures of the children and people who are starving in Israel, I would appreciate that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's all of the time that we have for this segment today.
		But coming up later on Washington Journal, we're going to hear from radio host and commentator Eric Erickson to discuss the Trump presidency and the future of conservatism.
		But next, we're going to hear from Matt Bennett, co-founder and executive vice president for the center left group Third Way, here to talk about the future of the Democratic Party.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		C-SPAN's all-day marathon of 2025 commencement speeches continues with leaders in politics, sports, journalism, and entertainment sharing inspiring messages, personal reflections, and hard-earned wisdom for graduates.
		The overall umbrella of what I'm going to say today is that all things are possible because I am living proof.
		Speakers include award-winning journalist and anchor Scott Pelley, actor and activist Jane Fonda, Vice President JD Vance, Homeland Security Secretary Christy No, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, singer and musician Usher, rapper, producer, and entrepreneur Snoop Doc, Baseball Hall of Famer Derek Jeter, and WNBA star John Quell Jones.
		The commencement speech marathon now through 7 a.m. Eastern this morning on C-SPAN or watch anytime online at c-span.org tonight on C-SPAN's QA.
		Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley, author of The Affirmative Action Myth, argues that the racial preference policies of the 1960s and 70s have had an overall negative impact on the success of black Americans.
		There are racial differences in America, in our society, cultural differences, ethnic differences.
jason riley ▲ ● ▼		But when it comes to public policy and how the government treats us, treats the population, no, it should not be picking winners and losers based on race or treating people differently based on race.
unidentified		It's been a disaster.
jason riley ▲ ● ▼		Whether the effort was under Jim Crow to elevate whites or the effort was under racial preferences to elevate non-whites, it's been a disaster.
unidentified		You know, people like to say that diversity is our strength in America, but I disagree.
jason riley ▲ ● ▼		Our real strength in this country has been to overcome our racial and ethnic differences and focus on what unites us as a country.
unidentified		That has been the strength of America.
		Jason Riley with his book, The Affirmative Action Myth.
		Tonight at 8 Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back for a conversation about the Democratic Party and its future.
		We're joined now by Matt Bennett, who is the co-founder and executive vice president for public affairs for Third Way.
		Welcome to Washington Journal.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		Good to be here.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, can you first describe a bit what is Third Way?
		And your website describes you, says that you're ideologically center-left.
		What does that mean?
unidentified		Well, first of all, Third Way is usually described as a think tank, but that's kind of an exact term.
		Think tanks run the gamut from places like the Brookings Institution, which is basically a university without students, scholars doing scholarly work, all the way over to groups like ours and the Heritage Foundation and the Center for American Progress, which are much more easily identified along an ideological spectrum.
		Heritage is now kind of MAGA right.
		Center for American Progress is more kind of progressive, and we are center-left.
		What we mean by that is essentially we are moderate, we are aligned with moderate Democrats, not the kind of Democratic socialists of America types like Bernie Sanders, more along the lines of Bill Clinton, who used the term third way to describe his politics back in the 90s.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And then who funds you and do you all endorse candidates?
unidentified		So we are funded by a mix of donors.
		Most of our funding comes from foundations, places like the Hewlett Foundation and the Gates Foundation.
		That supports most of our programmatic work.
		We also have some donors, kind of high-net worth individuals.
		For the most part, think tanks like ours are not funded by small donors who have now come to fund a lot of what goes on in politics.
		Those folks just don't give $35 a month or whatever to think tanks.
		It's mostly foundations and wealthy individuals.
		We do not formally endorse candidates because our IRS status doesn't allow that, but we do work very closely with candidates because we are organized as a 501c4, which means that we are permitted to do political work.
		And we do.
		We work with center-left candidates running mostly for Congress.
		And then in the presidential years, we've worked with the nominees as well.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Earlier this year, Third Way launched an 18-month signal project, including some polling, to identify the Trump administration act Trump administration actions that are, quote, most relevant to key voters and how best to frame those issues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Can you explain a bit more about that project?
unidentified		Sure.
		We were concerned in the beginning of the second Trump term because he was doing so many things all at once.
		You know, when Musk was running Doge and they were cutting giant pieces out of the government, kind of vandalizing the government in what seemed to be arbitrary ways, the problem for Democrats was they didn't know where to direct their fire.
		There were people, you know, Democratic-elected officials protesting outside the Department of Education.
		We saw the protest at Trump's joint session speech before Congress with the paddles and shouting.
		That didn't seem very effective to us.
		And we named it the Signal Project because the idea was to help Democrats separate the signal, which is to say the things that voters really care about, from the noise, which is the rest of the Trump and Doge and Musk actions that we consider important, but that donors don't pay much attention to.
		Sorry, not donors.
		Voters do not pay most attention to.
		And when we did the poll, our first poll on Signal, it became very clear what voters care about the most.
		No one voted for Trump to come into office and begin to cut things like the people that clean the bathrooms in national parks or the people helping veterans in crisis or people doing cancer research.
		Voters really didn't like that stuff.
		And when you focus them on the things that Trump was doing that they don't like, they react.
		If you focus on things that they either support or don't care much about, like dismantling the Department of Education, that is less effective.
		So our intent was to help Democrats be more effective in responding to Trump.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, John Cowan, who's the president of Third Way, just penned a piece called The Debate Over Transgender Rights is a liability for Democrats.
		Here's how to neutralize it.
		That even the headline got quite a bit of pushback online.
		And then I wonder if you can talk about this issue and how it's affecting the Democratic Party.
unidentified		Sure.
		That piece which appears in Political Magazine is still available online.
		We didn't write the headline, but as you say, it did get a lot of notice.
		Fundamentally, John's point was that we need to approach the transgender issue in ways that resonate with the public.
		And we can do that because you can do that without in any way sacrificing our principles or our values, because for the most part, the public believes that transgender people deserve to live the lives that they choose and should live in dignity.
		And they believe that the things that the Trump administration are doing are cruel and arbitrary and have no place in our government or in our society, like banning transgender adults from serving in the military, forcing them to use the bathrooms assigned to them at birth when they are a completely different gender.
		Those things nobody supports.
		But as we saw in 2024, the way that Democrats were approaching the issue last year, and to some extent that continues, also really doesn't work for a lot of voters.
		I think the thing that really aggravates the people the most are three things.
		First of all, they don't like the language police.
		They don't like to be told that if they don't use precisely the right terms and precisely the right order, that they're somehow bigoted.
		And we've seen that come up over and over.
		Second, they're very concerned about children and parental control.
		And while it's true that in no state is it legal for medical care, either surgery or even puberty blockers or hormones to be administered to people under 18 without parental consent, Republicans have used that issue in ways that make it seem like schools or doctors are doing things behind the backs of parents.
		And Democrats need to make clear, first of all, that that's not happening.
		Second of all, that that wouldn't be good if it was happening.
		And then finally, there's the issue of sports.
		And there's been an enormous amount of discussion around that.
		And our view is that at the high school level and above, so high school, college, etc., if issues of safety or fairness are involved, then local sports councils, the NCAA, or local sports officials, should be able to make the rules.
		Those rules shouldn't be made by Congress.
		But we need to acknowledge that there could really be issues of both fairness and safety that need to be addressed.
		So it was a fairly, we think, sensible way of approaching an issue in ways that we think could really resonate with a broader swath of the electorate.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We'll be taking questions and comments from our callers.
		Republicans can call in at 202-748-8001.
		Democrats at 202-748-8000.
		And Independents at 202-748-8002 for questions for Matt Bennett.
		Now, Matt, next week, Republicans are going to be taking up the GOP's reconciliation bill.
		The National Republican Congressional Committee announced a digital ad campaign last week targeting 25 vulnerable House Democrats for voting against the bill is called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
		Here's one ad targeting Representative Adam Gray, a freshman from California's 13th district.
		Let's watch and I'll get your response.
unidentified		You're working harder than ever.
		So why is Adam Gray voting for the largest U.S. tax hike in generations?
		While illegal immigrants get taxpayer-funded meals, housing, and benefits, Adam Gray would punish American families, making them pay thousands of dollars more.
		Illegals get freebies, you get the bill.
		Tell Adam Gray, help Americans, not illegal immigrants.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So there will be more of these ads as this debate continues over the reconciliation package.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What's your thought on that messaging?
unidentified		Well, it depends on which families you're talking about.
		It is true that very wealthy families would see a tax hike if this bill doesn't pass because the way that Trump and his allies designed his tax cuts the first time he was president was that they expire.
		And the reason that they did that was they used the same device they're using now to avoid a filibuster in the Senate and allow them to pass it without any Democratic votes.
		To do that, the Senate rules require that it doesn't technically increase the deficit.
		And the trick they used to get around that was that the tax cuts would go away after 10 years.
		And so it was just a device to get around this rule.
		It was always going to increase the deficit.
		And that's why if they do nothing, taxes will go up.
		But they will go up almost not entirely, but largely on very, very wealthy people and not on average families.
		In fact, if you look at the totality of what's in this gigantic bill, it will do two things.
		It will raise the national debt by $4 trillion or more.
		It could be more, but it's at least $4 trillion by giving these enormous tax breaks, extending these tax breaks for very wealthy people.
		And it will take away health care from 8.5 million people on Medicaid.
		8 million people, more than 8 million people, will lose health care.
		Rich people will get a gigantic tax break.
		And this is how they're selling this bill.
		I think voters will see through that, and Democrats will certainly make sure that they know the facts.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Another issue that's come up in the Democratic Party quite a bit is how they're responding to Trump's crackdown on immigration.
		Now, there are reports that Leader Jeffries wants to stop member trips to El Salvador.
		There's a story here in the bulwark about this: that Jeffries wants Dems to put an end to the El Salvador trips.
		Corey Booker and the Hispanic caucus were planning on going.
		The Democratic leadership seems to want the El Salvador trips to stop for a while.
		These are visits to go advocate for the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
		What do you think of where the Democrats have been on this issue and where they should go?
unidentified		Well, it's pretty clear in 2024 that we were in the wrong place on this issue.
		All the polling shows that it was a major issue and a major reason that Trump was able to win.
		I think the leadership is right, and this is kind of a key part of the signal campaign that we were talking about earlier.
		Look, Mr. Garcia should not have been deported.
		There is no question.
		And his due process rights obviously were violated.
		And the place that they're sending these deportees in El Salvador is barbaric.
		So we understand the instinct to try to fight against this.
		And I think on balance, we certainly agree Garcia shouldn't be there and basically nobody should be there.
		But that is not how the public sees it.
		And that is not the place that we should be waging the fight against Trump because it just is not a winner for Democrats.
		Mr. Garcia himself is accused credibly of domestic violence.
		This is just not a great test case for us.
		I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of people being deported.
		There are far more sympathetic cases that we can point to.
		And this isn't a place where Democrats should be putting most of their energies.
		Instead, what we should be saying to the public is: look, we believe the border must be defended.
		We cannot have open borders.
		We cannot have chaos at the border.
		And by the way, by the end of the administration, the Biden team was doing that through an executive order that had basically shut down the chaos at the border.
		And we believe in due process, and we believe in a path to citizenship for people like the DREAMers who were brought here as children.
		Those are things that the public does support.
		Those are the places where Democrats should be focusing.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Governor Tim Walz's Democratic governor of Minnesota called on Democrats to be meaner at the South Carolina Democratic State Party convention last night.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I want to play a bit of that as well.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		I'm getting called out on this because I called Donald Trump a wannabe dictator.
jamie raskin ▲ ● ▼		It's because he is.
jamie raskin ▲ ● ▼		It's because he is.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		Oh, the governor's being mean and the governor's speaking out on that.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		Well, maybe it's time for us to be a little meaner.
unidentified		Maybe it's time for us to be a little more fierce.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		Because we have to ferociously push back on this.
		And again, I'll speak to my teacher colleagues in here.
		The thing that bothers a teacher more than anything is to watch a bully, to watch this bully, and to stop it.
		And when it's a child, you talk to them and you tell them why bullying's wrong.
		But when it's an adult like Donald Trump, you bully the shit out of him back.
unidentified		You push back.
jamie raskin ▲ ● ▼		You make sure they know it's not there.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		Because at heart, at heart, this is a weak, cruel man that takes it out and punches down on people.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		What they don't want to do is stand toe-to-toe and punch back with someone who's calling them out for what they do, who's being there.
jamie raskin ▲ ● ▼		And for Democrats, here's what we need to know.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		You need to embrace this.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		We win hearts and minds.
jamie raskin ▲ ● ▼		We win the issues.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		If you go ask people if they want children to eat, they'll say yes.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		If you go ask people if they want smart things to make sure our children aren't shot in schools, they'll say yes.
unidentified		If they say, do you want us to pay our public servants a decent wage?
jamie raskin ▲ ● ▼		They will say yes.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		We win the hearts and minds.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		They win power.
tim walz ▲ ● ▼		And when they take power, they move with it and exercise it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of this idea from the former vice presidential nominee for the Democrats that Democrats just need to be meaner?
unidentified		I actually don't really understand what he's talking about.
		I certainly agree that Trump is a bully and a terrible person who punches down.
		I'm with the governor on that 100%.
		What I don't understand is what he wants Democrats to do exactly.
		I think it's very easy if you're outside of Washington, if you're not kind of in a position to fight with the president directly, at least on national issues, to say that, to say that Democrats need to be tougher, they need to do things differently.
		But frankly, it's hard to figure out what he wants Democrats to do.
		The problem in our system is that when we're out of power, as Democrats are now, when they control all the levers of government, the executive and both houses of Congress, and for the most part, the judiciary, we just don't have the means by which to punch back.
		Democrats have been saying that Trump is acting like a dictator loudly and persistently since January 20th when he was sworn in.
		I don't think there's any shortage of that.
		I just don't understand what Governor Walls wants Democrats to do to try to stop him or to stand toe-to-toe with him.
		Trump loves a fight, and he likes to be mixing up with Democrats.
		And I don't think yelling at him louder is the solution here.
		I think making sure that people understand precisely what he's doing to them is going to help us in the long run.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to your calls for Matt.
		If you, Matt, Bennett, of Third Way, if you want to call in, our line for Republicans is 202-748-8001.
		For Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		We'll start with Tom in Hyde Park, New York on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Tom.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just want to ask your guests, what are the Democrats' plans for dealing with our budget deficit and the massive amounts of government debt that we've acquired?
		All I ever hear from a Democrat is, oh, the Trump plan is horrible.
		Oh, they're looking to throw your grandmother off a cliff or hurl your babies downstairs.
		I mean, it's always this apocalyptic sort of presentation of Trump's budget ideas.
		But I haven't to date heard anything from a Democrat about how they are going to handle what is arguably the worst fiscal problem this country is facing.
		Thank you.
		Well, Tom asked a very fair question.
		And I think we have to first establish the fact that the Trump budget that he has proposed, the reconciliation bill, the big, beautiful bill that he loves so much, would add $4 trillion, at least, maybe $6 trillion, depending on how the economy goes, to the national debt.
		And the reason there's a difference there is because the bond markets are reacting already to the idea of adding this much debt and increasing interest rates.
		And right now, America spends more to service our debt by paying interest on the debt that we have than we do on the military.
		And that could get even worse.
		So let's just be clear that what the Republicans are proposing to do here, as they've done many times before under President George W. Bush, under the first President Trump, is massively increase the debt by giving gigantic tax cuts, mostly to the wealthy and to corporations, which I agree with Tom is very dangerous and very bad.
		Having $26 trillion in debt right now is destabilizing and very important thing for us to deal with.
		I think Tom also makes a perfectly fair case that Democrats haven't done a good job of talking about what we would do to restore some fiscal balance.
		But I think, and I think some Democrats are guilty of constantly wanting to increase spending in ways that are not sustainable.
		But I think what we'll see when we get into the kind of presidential cycle as we approach 2028 is a bunch of Democrats running for president with proposals to try to handle the economy in ways that are responsible.
		Some will be proposing a lot of spending.
		Some will be proposing much less and much more fiscal responsibility.
		But the final point I'd make is spending increases the deficit, but so do tax cuts.
		Those are called tax expenditures.
		When you cut the taxes of people, particularly the people who don't need them, who should be paying a lot more, you're adding to the deficit.
		And we need to make sure that that debate is kind of balanced in that way.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Maxwell's in Culpeper, Virginia, on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Maxwell.
unidentified		Hey, how are you doing?
		Good to see you.
		My thing is, is being a long life Democrat, my whole family being Democrat, man, y'all have like y'all scared of this guy.
		Y'all act like y'all scared to go ahead and one-on-one.
		You act like you can't just call him out for what he do.
		A jet?
		Really?
		A jet?
		No president in the United States of America has ever accepted anything from foreigners overseas while in office.
		A coin, but you sitting there saying that it's okay?
		Crazy.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So I want to get you to respond to Maxwell's point, but I also wanted to flag, Maxwell referred to a coin, and this has caused quite a bit of controversy.
		As this is story here in Politico, Trump's week of crypto embrace continues despite ethics red flags.
		Members of Trump's inner circle headlined a crypto conference in Vegas while the Trump family maintains personal crypto ties.
		There's obviously this meme coin related to the Trump administration.
		Can you talk a bit about these things?
unidentified		Well, first of all, let me tell you, I couldn't agree more with Maxwell.
		It is absolutely insane.
		This guy is not only the most corrupt American president of all time, he is doing it by orders of magnitude, billions of dollars, or at least perhaps a billion dollars of corruption just in the last month or so.
		But I do disagree about what Democrats, the way we've been reacting.
		We've been screaming from the rafters that this is corruption, this is bribery, the jet that they're getting from an Arab country is violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
		It is clearly illegal.
		It is incredibly unethical.
		And it is happening right out in the open.
		In fact, the White House press secretary has said, well, we're not hiding anything, so obviously this isn't corruption.
		That's not how corruption works.
		I mean, you can't announce that you're going to rob a bank and make it legal to rob the bank.
		So very much agree that what this president and his family are doing is obviously, blatantly, massively corrupt.
		But I don't agree Democrats have not responded.
		We have, but as I noted earlier, we just don't have the power at the moment at least to stop the acceptance of this jet or the crypto scams that are being run by the Trump organization, Trump family, or the club that his sons are opening that costs at least half a million dollars to attend, and they've promised cabinet secretaries will come.
		I mean, none of this is legal.
		None of this is moral.
		All of it is outrageous, and Democrats will continue to point all of that out.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Russ is in Pittman, New Jersey on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Russ.
unidentified		Hey, morning, guys.
		How's it going?
		Good.
		Yeah, so the thing with Trump is that he, I don't know what the answer is for Democrats.
		What they're doing is not working.
		But he lies directly to your face.
		He does illegal things in plain view.
		And the reason, well, one of the reasons that nothing's being done about it is because the people who voted for him don't care.
		I don't know what the answer is that Democrats need to do, but it needs to be something that Trump's base is going to double take and actually think about because they don't care about slipping billionaires, you know, huge tax breaks and the whole tax bill that wouldn't be a tax increase if the Republicans didn't limit the last one in the first place, and they're limiting this one too to increase the deficit.
		The question I have for you, though, is, because you were saying something right before I jumped on, and it was about that we don't have the power to do anything.
		Why do you think that is?
		Well, first of all, very much agree with your core point that Trump just does everything right out in public, and it does seem that his base voters don't care.
		I mean, he famously said he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and his supporters wouldn't care.
		That may be true.
		He's getting right up close to that level of criminality.
		And there doesn't seem to be any reaction from his base supporters.
		But let me make one point on that.
		I do think that voters generally, the majority of voters, will care when they begin to feel the downstream impacts of the things that he has begun to do.
		So for example, when you show up at a national park this summer and the bathrooms are locked because they've cut the staff, people are going to feel that.
		When Social Security offices are closed or the phone lines are not responsive, people will feel that when veterans are unable to get their care, when people in cancer research trials can't get their care.
		That will be things that people will feel and they will respond to.
		And then the biggest thing, of course, is the trade war.
		People will feel the impact of the tariffs when they go to buy almost anything, certainly when they buy cars, but when they go to Walmart, when they go to the grocery store, the prices are going to go up and they're going up because Trump made a decision to engage in a trade war that we didn't need to fight.
		So he's done this to you on purpose for no reason.
		And I do think people will respond angrily to that.
		In terms of Democratic powerlessness, it's just the nature of our system and the way it has evolved.
		So, for example, in the Senate, the filibuster has been greatly watered down by some rules to get around the filibuster that make it impossible for the minority to stop things like this big, beautiful bill that the Trump people are trying to press through.
		And it made it impossible for us to stop cabinet appointees like Robert Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseff and Kash Patel, who were clearly not only unqualified, but dangerous to put in the jobs that they got.
		Now, to be clear, Democrats are responsible for some of that change.
		Democrats, led by Harry Reid, changed the rules in the Senate around nominations.
		So I'm not blaming Republicans for the rules changes, but I am saying that's why we're so powerless.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Richard is in Elgin, South Carolina on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Richard.
unidentified		Hello.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Hi there.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You're on with Matt Bennett.
unidentified		Okay, well, actually, I'm in North Carolina.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Oh, excuse me.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Sorry about that.
unidentified		That's all right.
		Okay, first thing is problem with the Democrat Party.
		They've spied on his campaign.
		They lied about Russia.
		They changed laws so they could bring charges against him.
		And you want to talk about corruption?
		There's $500,000 paintings by Hunter.
		You want to talk about corruption?
		You're sitting there lying to us straight to our face, and you want to talk about corruption.
		The people that back your think tank are the most corrupt people there are.
		You want to say anything about that?
		I have no idea what you're talking about.
		I do want to point out that the things that I was noting that Trump has done in the last few months that I believe to be corrupt, he has not been hiding.
		He's been bragging about it.
		He's taking a plane from a petro state that supports Hamas.
		He has made $350 million on a crypto scam that has cost his supporters who have invested in these crypto coins that have become worthless.
		His sons are opening a club where it's between $500,000 and $2 million to join to get access to the cabinet.
		Those things are obvious points of corruption, and he's not denying it.
		So I don't really know what you mean when we say that I'm lying about Trump's level of corruption, and I have no idea what you mean about our supporters.
		The things that you referenced go back to 2016, and those are things that Trump and his supporters in right-wing media have been harping on for the last 10 years.
		I understand that you're upset about it, but I think they, to the extent they are, they were improper or corrupt, they pale in comparison to the level of corruption we're witnessing right out in the open right now.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		As an example of what you're talking about of Trump's supporters bringing up some of the things about the Biden family, how Speaker Mike Johnson was on CNN on last Sunday and was asked about Trump and his family's dealings.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And let's watch that exchange.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼		You oversaw, as Speaker, a congressional investigation into President Biden's ties to his son Hunter's questionable business dealings to enrich him.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼		You seemed to think it was your responsibility to look into this sort of thing then.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, Jake, important distinction.
		The Biden crime family, as they were named, earned that title.
		Why?
		Because they used shell companies, fake LLCs, series of what appeared to be money laundering operations.
		And Hunter Biden, of course, with his difficult past and the corruption in his past, the family on the public dole or on the president's dole.
		You know, the president lied about his involvement in the business dealings, all of that.
		The evidence just piled up.
		And by the way, at the same time, the evidence of his diminished mental capacity, subject of your book, of course, I wish it had been published a year earlier, because everybody saw it.
		Everybody saw what was happening.
		He used the auto pen.
		And by the way, there's investigations right now going on in the House.
		Jamie Comer and the Oversight Committee will be investigating the use of the auto pin, when the president's mental capacity declined, and whether all those things are even legally valid now, given the obvious fact that he was not the one making the decisions.
		It's huge implications from all this.
		And so I think the American people had reason to doubt.
		And we had great reason and I think a responsibility to investigate those things.
		The difference, of course, is that President Trump does everything out in the open.
		He's not trying to hide anything.
		There's no shell companies or fake LLCs or fake family businesses.
		He's putting it out there so everybody can evaluate for themselves.
unidentified		On the book, I wish the more than 200 people that talked to me and Alex Thompson, my co-author, after election day, I sure wish that they had talked to us a year ago.
unidentified		I agree with you on that.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼		But on this matter with the crypto, shouldn't we at least just know who was at the dinner?
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼		Wouldn't you want to know that list of people?
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		I guess.
		I mean, again, I don't know anything about that dinner.
		I do know that President Trump is the most transparent president and the most transparent administration probably in history.
		He has nothing to hide, and he's out there trying to advance America's interests.
		That's what America First policies are all about.
		And that's what our big reconciliation bill will deliver for the people.
		We're really proud of the product.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Matt, your thoughts on that exchange?
unidentified		Where to begin?
		The speaker made the point I made earlier, which is Trump does his crimes right out in public, and therefore, somehow they're not crimes.
		That is just not how crime works.
		I mean, it is true that Trump is transparent.
		It is true that he and his family like to brag about the things they're doing that are massively corrupt.
		It's true we all knew that they had this dinner last week with these crypto billionaires who were paying him millions of dollars to be with him and get tours of the White House.
		It's true, he's selling access.
		He's selling pardons.
		I mean, he gave a pardon to a giant donor just last week.
		All of that's true.
		He's doing it in public, but it doesn't make it any less corrupt.
		It's also true that Hunter Biden was doing things that were not appropriate.
		It is not true that President Biden lied about his involvement with Hunter.
		And it is not true that it had any impact whatsoever on decisions made by the Biden White House.
		But the level of corruption in the Trump White House is so massive, so extraordinary, as to be, to say it's unprecedented massively understates the case.
		And the fact that the speaker won't even engage on any of this is proof as to how much control Trump has over his party and over the leaders in Congress.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Mike is in Tehunga, California on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Mike.
unidentified		Yes.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Mike, can you just turn down the volume on your TV, please, and then go ahead.
unidentified		Hold on.
		My name is Mike.
		Everybody knows who I am.
		I'm Second Coming of Christ.
		Some of them believe that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's go to Brian in Missouri on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Brian.
unidentified		Hello.
unidentified		Am I on?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, you are.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Okay.
		I kind of got a hypothetical and a question about the big, beautiful bill.
		I'll start with the big, beautiful bill.
		All the tax cuts that we got in 2017 sound like they're being just duplicated here in this one because our tax cuts are expiring and the billionaires aren't.
		So, you know, I guess I just don't understand what we're getting out of this.
		It's a good question.
		And the answer is that you're right.
		The tax cuts passed under Trump 1 would expire if this bill is not passed.
		And so to the extent you got a tax cut last time, those taxes would rise.
		But that is true for everybody across the income spectrum who got tax cuts in 2017.
		The overwhelming, overwhelming majority of those cuts went to the very, very top of the income scale.
		The people at the top got enormous cuts.
		The people in the middle got small cuts, and the people at the bottom got nothing.
		What this bill would do is extend all of that so the people at the bottom get nothing, the people at the top get a lot, but it would do a whole bunch of other things as well because to comply with Senate rules for bills that are passed on party-line votes, they've got to cut other places.
		And the place they're going to cut is support for the poor around SNAP, which is food stamps essentially, and Medicaid.
		Just to be clear, 62% of Americans in nursing homes are there on Medicaid.
		So a giant cut to Medicaid is going to affect lots and lots of American families, not just the poorest of us, but lots of people in the middle class as well.
		So that's what you get with this bill is extension of the cuts so you won't see any benefit going forward and enormous pain for people in the bottom few quintiles of the economy.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Brian, did you also have another question?
unidentified		Nope.
		But let's just hypothetically say Trump won in 2020.
		Are we talking about this today?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		One more time, Brian.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What was that question?
unidentified		Well, like I say, it's hypothetical.
		If Trump actually did win in 2020, which I believe he didn't, but if he did, are we talking about this big tax cut today?
		Do you see what I'm saying?
		We wouldn't be here talking about this if Trump had already served his time because he set that tax cut up for the poor people to run out in 10 years after what his second term would be.
		You see what I'm saying?
		Yeah, you're exactly right.
		That's why they structured it that way.
		Trump wanted it that way for two reasons.
		One, because he presumed he would be president for another four years and it would have ended prior to he would have been out of office by the time we were having to deal with this.
		And two, because they knew that it would balloon the deficit after 10 years and that would have violated the Senate rules.
		So that's why they wrote it that way.
		But you've got a good point that Trump wouldn't have had to worry about any of this if he had been elected two consecutive terms.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Maureen is in Philadelphia on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Maureen.
unidentified		Good morning, Mr. Bennett.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I just want to ask you, you're so perfect on your information regarding the Trump family.
		Let's talk about the Biden family.
		I am shocked that C-SPAN has Jake Tapper on on a segment regarding CNN and never talked about his book.
		I am shocked that Mr. Bennett is not discussing how the IRS employees receive free summer day camp money that they perfectly put in themselves.
		They did that.
louise in virginia ▲ ● ▼		I am tired of the public sector, Mr. Bennett, of us as taxpayers are not able to do, and they're not giving anything.
unidentified		I am tired of you, Mr. Bennett, not talking about the Biden corruption and how he had no brains in the last four years.
		That is corruption at its finest.
		Who was in charge in the last four years?
		Thank you.
		Okay.
		Well, leading aside the rhetoric, I do agree that there are questions about how the Biden team protected him.
		I was around the president a little bit when he, you know, in the last four years.
		I believed that he was capable of serving as president, but it's very clear that he was not capable of running for president or serving for another four years.
		And I do think that the Tapper book raises real questions about how the Biden team handled that and the culpability that they have for how the election played out.
		I don't think that decisions that the Biden White House made were impacted in any way by the president's declining health, but I do think that our politics were affected enormously.
		And I think that it contributed greatly to the reelection of Donald Trump, something I believe to be catastrophic for America.
		So I don't buy the idea that Biden was unable to do the duties of office when he was there, but I do think that he and others share some of the blame for the mess that we're in right now.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Sarah is in Ellicott City, Maryland on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Sarah.
unidentified		Oh, hi.
		I'm really enjoying this conversation.
		I want to learn more about this organization because I feel like I finally found an organization that is addressing the real problems we have as a Democratic Party.
		I voted for Larry Hogan, and I wish he had won in the Senate because I think he would be a strong voice for reason.
		And unfortunately, I don't think our two senators are helping the Democratic Party at all to make a good decision.
		Anyway, my point is I'm wondering how we are ever going to get some good candidates in the Democratic Party to speak for moderates like myself instead of going to these extremes and having a big back and forth and back and forth from extreme left to extreme right.
		I want some moderation right in the middle.
		Thank you.
		Well, thank you for that.
		And look, you are not alone.
		If you look at nonpartisan studies that have done very large ones, there's a group called More in Common that have done enormous studies of the American electorate.
		What they find is that about 40% of the electorate is either on the fairly far left or the fairly far right.
		And the vast majority, 60%, are in what they call the exhausted majority, in the exhausted middle.
		And you and I belong there.
		We are tired of the extremes that are pushing our country in one, you know, fairly radical direction or the other.
		And in my view, at least, is that extremes have completely taken over the Republican Party.
		The MAGA forces are very extreme, and they're entirely in control.
		There are almost no moderate Republicans left.
		I mean, they used to be like the buffalo.
		They roam to the plains in great numbers, but they've been hunted into near extinction.
		On our side, there are plenty of moderates left.
		There's the largest group in the House Democratic Conference is the New Democrats.
		And then there's the smaller group called the Blue Dogs.
		Those are all moderates.
		There's plenty in the Senate.
		And I think what you'll find when we begin the nomination process is there are plenty of people running for president in 2028 who are moderate.
		Every nominee that we've had since 1992, you could quibble over John Kerry, but for the most part have been moderates.
		I think we'll end up that way again because most Democratic voters are like you.
		They are looking for center-left voices for moderates and sensible solutions.
		So I'm hoping that you will have a little bit more faith as we move towards 2028 because I think you'll find the candidates more to your liking.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you so much, Matt Bennett, who is the co-founder and executive vice president for public affairs of Third Way.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We appreciate your time.
unidentified		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now coming up next, we're going to be joined by Eric Erickson, radio show host and commentator, and he's going to discuss the Trump presidency and the future of conservatism.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We'll be right back.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Rick Atkinson has just published the second volume of his American Revolution trilogy.
		The book is called The Fate of the Day and covers years 1777 through 1780 of the American Revolution.
		His initial 800-page volume focused on years 1775 to 1777.
		First volume was titled The British Are Coming.
		The first book in the trilogy was published in 2019.
		Mr. Atkinson won the George Washington Prize for this beginning look at the revolution.
		His second book in the trilogy covers the middle years.
		Stationed in Paris, Benjamin Franklin was wooing the French.
		In Pennsylvania, George Washington was pleading with Congress to deliver the money, men, and material he needed to continue the fight.
		This volume is time to coincide with the 250th anniversary of the beginning of the American Revolution.
unidentified		Author Rick Atkinson with his book, The Fate of the Day, The War for America, Fort Ticonderoga to Charleston, 1777 to 1780.
		On this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		Book Notes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to c-SPAN.org slash radio on SiriusXM Radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying, play C-SPAN Radio.
		Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day.
		Catch Washington today, weekdays of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio, anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're joined now by Eric Erickson, who is the host of the Eric Erickson Show, to discuss the Trump presidency and the future of conservatism.
		Welcome to the show.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Can you talk a bit about your background in politics and your radio show?
unidentified		Sure.
		So I actually, I grew up in Dubai, not in this country.
		I'm from Louisiana.
		Moved back to Louisiana, moved over to Georgia for college, got involved in the College of Republicans and became a lawyer, begrudgingly, really wanted to go to Washington.
		My wife wasn't a big fan of going to Washington, so I stayed, practiced law, and helped start RedState.com and then got hired by CNN as a contributor and then by Fox News.
		At some point when Herman Kaine decided to run for president, I was offered his job by WSB Radio in Atlanta, Georgia.
		And then ultimately, after my friend Rush Lindbaugh passed away, moved into his slot noon to three nationally.
		And now I'm on about 70 stations nationwide and do noon to three Eastern and get to talk about whatever I want to talk about, which often is politics, but sometimes culture, religion, whatever, just keeping it interesting for people.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And how would you describe your political or ideological bent?
unidentified		I'm an evangelical Christian and a conservative, even before I would say I'm a Republican.
unidentified		I was an elected Republican for a while on a city council, but I just, I kind of view it more in the mold of Ronald Reagan than anything.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		In a recent column, you expressed your opposition to the GOP budget bill known as the One Big Beautiful bill.
		The headline is the road to bankruptcy.
		Why do you think that this bill falls short?
unidentified		Because it uses budget estimates that everyone knows aren't real.
		We are going to see an exploding deficit.
		We can't get an agreement on real cuts from Republicans in Washington, and something's got to be cut.
		I mean, the bottom line is if we were to tax everybody in the country 100%, including the billionaires, we still wouldn't be able to close or make a dent in the national debt given our spending.
		So at some point, something's got to be cut in Washington.
		And frankly, the easiest thing to do is to reform entitlements, but the president and the Republicans took that off the board immediately.
		So unless we're going to fix entitlements, everything else doesn't really mean much.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So what do you think that the GOP-led Senate should be doing with this piece of legislation as they move forward?
unidentified		I think they are going to have to look at entitlements.
		More reform to Medicaid, more reform to Social Security as well.
		I interviewed Mitch McAuttle last August.
		I do an annual conference.
		And McCato at the point made the case that until the actual financial crisis for Congress arrives, no one's going to do anything because if the Republicans do something, Democrats will blame them.
		If Democrats do something, Republicans will.
		So until we actually hit the bankruptcy, no one's going to be willing to do anything, which is kind of scary, but honestly, I think he's probably right.
		It's not reassuring, though, for people like me with kids who are going to have to foot the bill.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Moving over to the executive branch, what are your views on President Trump and how his term has been going so far?
unidentified		Probably more complicated than people think.
		I supported President Trump in the election, and I criticize him frequently.
		It gets me lots of hate mail from Trump supporters.
		There are things I disagree with, like tariffs, but also I do actually think his heart is in the job to improve things.
		He certainly has got a, I think, a more grown-up, mature foreign policy than Joe Biden.
		And I do think that some of his domestic initiatives regarding immigration and the like are fine.
		I just, I think tariffs are a terrible policy.
		And I've got to remind myself occasionally that Trump's background is actually more that of a 1950s, 1960s Democrat than a Republican.
		He became a Republican over time, but his economic views haven't really changed.
		And I'm very much a believer in free markets.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		One of the criticisms you've recently leveled at him was over his accepting the plane from Qatar.
		Here's a headline in the New York Post.
		Conservative radio host Eric Erickson rips Trump over a $400 million Qatari plane purchased with the same money used to murder American citizens.
		Would you like to expand on that idea?
unidentified		Yes, I think it's a terrible idea.
		Look, I don't think that Donald Trump is taking a bribe from the Qataris, and that's how it's portrayed.
		I think he's smart enough to realize that the Qataris are trying to influence him by doing this, and there's enough press coverage that red flags would be raised if policies were changed.
		At the same time, my problem is that Qatar is a funder of terror around the world.
		They have been a great subsidizer of Hamas and other groups that are hostile to the United States.
		And I don't think the President of the United States should be accepting a plane and using it as Air Force One when the country that funds the murder of Americans around the world are the ones giving him the plane.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Switching over to foreign policy, late last month, President Trump said that Russian President Vladimir Putin has gone absolutely crazy for increased attacks on Ukraine and that Putin was playing with fire.
		And that prompted the former president, Medvedev, to raise the possibility of World War III.
		In the past, Trump has spoken favorably of Putin.
		I want to read what Medvedev said.
		He said, regarding Trump's words about Putin playing with fire and really bad things happening to Russia, I only know of one really bad thing, World War III.
		I hope Trump understands this.
		What do you think of the development of this relationship between Trump and Putin over time?
		What's changed?
unidentified		Well, first, I would note that Medvedev has multiple times referenced World War III in the last, not just year or so, but in the last decade.
		So he seems to go to that one pretty quickly.
		I have viewed this the entire time as the president trying to engage in a negotiation, saying nice things about Putin to signal to the Russians that he wasn't Joe Biden.
		He was willing to give them a fair hearing, unlike Joe Biden, and was willing to get them to the table.
		And the Russians have rebuffed the offer, and now Trump is changing his tune.
		And at the same time, we now have a mineral rights deal in Ukraine that if Donald Trump wants to actually, having spent the time to get it, wants to make use of it, he's going to need to ensure the security of the Ukrainians.
		If the Russians who are cooperating with Chinese and North Koreans are able to take over Ukraine, that deal isn't worth the paper it's written on.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to a caller, Joe, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Joe.
unidentified		Good morning, guys.
		Thanks for having me on.
		I was kind of hoping to get through to the guy from the third way, which was claiming to be left of center when they're actually right of center.
		For your guest, I think I want to come down to the granular level of some of the teachings in the Bible.
		And one of the things that's clear in the Bible that God hates, literally hates, it says this in Proverbs, is a lying tongue.
		And the Republican Party, though they take oaths on the Bible to come into office, they just lie constantly.
		Even Mike Johnson's the worst liar of them all.
		But here's my last question for the guest.
		When Jesus fed the hungry, when he turned, fed 5,000 people with fish and bread, did he have a work requirement?
		I'll take my answers offline.
		Thank you.
		Well, you know, first I would say that all politicians are liars, frankly.
		And so judging politicians by the standards of the Bible, probably not the best thing.
		They're all going to need to repent, Democrats as well.
		We just went through a four-year cover-up of Joe Biden's mental condition with Democrats saying he was fine when he wasn't.
		As far as Jesus, you know, Jesus did feed the poor.
		He did a lot of great things, but he didn't make the government do them.
		He said, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
		And I just think that both sides have to be careful co-opting the Bible to say the government should do something when it's our individual responsibility.
		And as a conservative, I personally think that we've abdicated too much responsibility to the government so that we ourselves don't have to get our hands dirty.
		And we would be better off and in a better fiscal position if you and I stepped up individually to do these things instead of making the government do it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		This was one of the goals of the Doge effort led by Elon Musk.
		And he's officially announced that he's leaving the government as a special government employee.
		What do you think of his work for the federal government and his lasting impact?
unidentified		You know, I think it was a good effort to begin with, but I know a lot of conservative groups, fiscal conservative groups, who are very frustrated that Doge seemed more interested in using the cuts to wage a culture war than actually rein in the federal government.
		And, you know, there have been lots and lots of research, whether from the Heritage Foundation or AEI or Cato or the R Institute and other great conservative groups on how to make substantive cuts to the federal bureaucracy.
		And a lot of those guys were ignored in favor of the culture war cuts.
		And while I support them, there was so much more they could have done in more constructive efforts to be able to fully cut the size and scope of the federal government had they paid attention to some of these long-standing conservative efforts to reform the bureaucracy.
		So we'll get maybe $175 billion out of the first claim $2 trillion, and that's a great start.
		$175 billion is good, but it could have been much higher, and I hope they'll continue.
		My hope now is with Russ Vogt, who's a friend of mine in charge of OMB, pretty committed to cutting the size and scope of government over time.
		So I'm hoping that this is the beginning of a longer-term effort to rein in the size and scope of government.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		For folks who have questions for Eric Erickson, you can call in Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		And of course, you can text us at 202-748-8003.
		Now, you mentioned earlier that you feel like the government should have less of a role in many sectors.
		And there's one area where the Trump administration has been pulling back and even cracking down, which is higher education.
		We discussed it earlier in the show.
		What do you think of the Trump administration's efforts regarding higher education, particularly the attempts to ban international students from enrolling at Harvard and his policies towards foreign students overall?
unidentified		You know, on one side, look, I think the Ivy League in particular has gotten out of control.
		We don't see the anti-Semitism on Ivy League campuses that we've seen since October 7th, 2023 in SEC schools or even ACC schools, a lot of state-run schools and smaller private colleges.
		It's just not there.
		It's a problem in the Ivy League.
		And I think to the extent that Donald Trump is forcing tough conversations among those institutions as to why it is that it's festering there, that's a good thing.
		I do think some of the heavy-handed targeting of Harvard, while part of me enjoys it, I don't actually think it's constitutional.
		And I do think you've set a bad precedent for the future.
		And at the same time, for Democrats who say this will happen to Republicans if you're not careful, a lot of Republicans think it already did with lawsuits against Hillsdale College by the Department of Justice in the past and other conservative institutions.
		I think both sides need to try to stop picking winners and losers.
		And I'm afraid the Republican Party has chosen a path right now of, well, they did it, so we're going to do it too, and give them a dose of their own medicine.
		The problem is the ratchet always tightens, and we're just going to have this tit-for-tat moving forward unless there's some level of de-escalation on both sides.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Bill is in Newfield, New Jersey on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Bill.
unidentified		Good morning.
		The reason I'm calling is the national debt.
		I want the national debt to be reduced.
		And the way I suggest the national debt be reduced is at the present time, Social Security is collected on earnings only up to $170 some thousand dollars.
		Everybody should pay Social Security.
		Like the big CEO for the health company that got killed in New York, he made $10 million.
		There isn't any reason why Social Security wasn't collected on that from him and from his employer.
		If they collected Social Security for everybody, the amount of money going into Social Security would probably triple or maybe even quadruple.
		And my suggestion is that for the next however many years it would take, the workers' part of Social Security would go directly into the Social Security Fund.
		The employers' part of Social Security would go directly into a fund to pay down the national debt.
		When a national debt gets down to a certain level, say $5 trillion, the bill should be passed.
		It can never go above that again unless it's a national emergency, like A war war were a natural disaster of some sort that would be catastrophic.
		That's my suggestion.
		And I feel that I suggested this once before when I had a Democratic Congresswoman on.
		She agreed with what I said, but nothing's done.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Eric, what do you think of those ideas?
unidentified		You know, we've got to reform it in some way.
		I, for the life of me, don't understand why Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and other billionaires actually need their Social Security money.
		I realize they paid into it, but it's more of a tax and not really an IOU system.
		There's got to be some reform to Social Security.
		If we're going to solve the national debt, we've got to lower the debt to GDP ratio by stimulating the economy much more to stimulate the economy.
		We do need a tax regulatory reform to simplify the system so that American small businesses can grow.
		With the growth of AI, frankly, I think we're going to see a trajectory where more Americans are working for small business anyway.
		We've got to spark small businesses.
		We've got to reform Social Security.
		Neither side wants to touch Social Security, really.
		They give great lip service to it, but until we're willing to fix it, raise the retirement age, alter the deductions, allow Social Security dollar for dollar all the way up regardless of earnings, we're not going to get any changes.
		No one in Washington seems real serious about it yet.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jack is in Framingham, Massachusetts on our line for independence.
unidentified		Good morning, Jack.
unidentified		Hello.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, go ahead.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You're on with Eric Erickson.
unidentified		Right.
		Well, this refers more to your previous guest, but I'm sure Eric could contribute something to it.
		My idea is basically this message that should be sent out to the world by the Democrats because they don't seem to have a strong message.
		When referring to Trump, I think they should use the term would-be dictator.
		What Bernie Sanders talks about the possibility for the next generations of leaders.
		He's talking about an oligarchy, which is a word that most Americans probably don't even know exists.
		So that's my main message.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Your thoughts, Eric?
unidentified		Yeah, you know, I would say that a majority of Americans, well, not a majority, but a plurality of Americans voted for Donald Trump.
		He won the popular vote.
		And the Democrats were saying.
		I mean, Joe Biden had that very famous speech in 2022 with the red lights and the Marines behind him in Independence Hall saying that Donald Trump was a threat to democracy, and the Republicans were.
		And the voters, actually, the exit polling in 2024 showed that the people who were most concerned about democracy voted for Donald Trump, not for the Democratic Party.
		And the Democrats have never wanted to assess that data and why voters distrusted them.
		The fact that the Democrats did continuously attack Donald Trump as a threat to democracy and a would-be authoritarian or a dictator, and voters still sided with him.
		There's never been that self-reflection of the Democrats.
		As a partisan Republican, one of the things I always say is that when Democrats lose, they always say it was the message, not the issues.
		And I think they're going to need to reassess their issues.
		Why did so many non-white men and even Hispanic women move towards the GOP and the exit polling?
		If they can't assess that issue accurately, they're going to keep losing.
		And I think that's one reason Republicans in Congress, to some degree, seem a little bit encouraged by the numbers right now that maybe the midterms, which historically go against the party in the White House, they might lose the House, but it might actually not be as bad as people think.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, one of the other ideas the caller mentioned was bringing up the idea of an oligarchy.
		And Trump threw a black tie gala for the top 220 buyers of his meme coin in May at the Virginia Golf Club that he owns.
		And he also flew in on a Marine One and spoke at Electern emblazoned with the presidential seal.
		Last week, Representative Jamie Raskin, who's the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to President Trump demanding the release of the invites, the people who attended this gala, honoring the top buyers of the meme coin.
		And in this letter, he said, I write today to demand that you release the names of all the attendees to this dinner and provide information about the source of the money they each use to buy the Trump coins so that we can prevent illegal foreign government emoluments from being pocketed without congressional consent.
		Publication of this list will also let the American people know who is putting tens of millions of dollars into our president's pocket so we can start to figure out what, beyond virtually worthless meme coins, they are getting exchange in exchange for all of this money.
		Two issues there.
		This idea that Democrats have complained about quite a bit of the people around President Trump, particularly the wealthier people from the tech industry, and also your thoughts on this dinner in general.
unidentified		You know, this is probably one of the better avenues for Democrats moving forward, but for what Joe Biden did leaving the White House with his pardons for family members.
		The corruption issue is one I think that Americans kind of on both sides don't like.
		And if the Democrats were, instead of using a word like oligarch that most people don't even know what it means, focus on tying Donald Trump's pardons to donors and making a scandal out of that, that would undermine the credibility of the White House.
		You know, I go back to the 2024 campaign.
		One of the most effective ads the Trump campaign ran against the Democrats ended with the tagline, it was on the transgender issue.
		People might remember that Kamala Harris is for they, them, Donald Trump is for you.
		If the Democrats were able to pivot and turn that on Trump with the pardons and the donors and tie those together, they might have an issue to undermine the credibility of Donald Trump being for the working class.
		It's certainly an issue that Donald Trump is vulnerable to.
		At the same time, with Joe Biden's pardons as he left the White House for his family members, the Republicans have an opportunity to deflect it.
		But it's Donald Trump of the White House now saying he wouldn't operate like Joe Biden and not Joe Biden.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Peter is in Wilmington, North Carolina on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Peter.
unidentified		Thank you for mentioning when Jesus said the 5,000.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Peter, your line is breaking up.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I just want to see if you can move it, maybe move someplace a little bit with better reception.
unidentified		I'll try.
unidentified		Is that better?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, that is better.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		All right.
		I was glad.
		First time I've been trying for years to call and say that when Jesus fed 5,000, he wasn't ordering Caesar to do it.
		Anybody can do it.
		But like keeping things that are Caesar's his and other things along with people.
		But the reason I'm calling, you mentioned something has to be done with entitlements.
		And I'm thinking about the types of entitlements and the sources of funding and things like Social Security, which is a central program that people work and move from states to make sense to be federal.
		But things like seems to be Peter, you're breaking up again.
		Whether or not to have a child would make more sense to be states that would be state programs.
		But I think the resistance to moving funding from federal to state is because a lot of the states have budgets and they can't borrow the way.
		It doesn't matter.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, your line is breaking up a bit, but I think we've got your idea.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I'll let Eric respond.
unidentified		Listen, I kind of agree with you that the state should be doing more of this.
		When the founders created the country, the federal government's a limited government.
		Article 8, Section 1, thus force covers the powers, or Article 1, Section 8 rather, covers the powers of Congress.
		They're very limited.
		Social safety welfare net was something envisioned by the states at the time.
		Now, we've expanded it over time in World War II with Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and his great society program expanded it further.
		But at this point, we're a nation where our population rate is going down.
		Our future success was premised on a growing population.
		Reminded of George W. Bush, who wanted to privatize Social Security in the early 2000s.
		And even Republicans resisted what was a very good plan.
		And if you look back now, the people hitting retirement age would be far better off with less strain on the federal government had we gone down that route.
		And at some point, we're going to have to do that while also recognizing that states and individuals are going to have to do more.
		One of my concerns, pet peeves, as an evangelical Christian and a conservative is that churches and individuals and charitable efforts have so much divested themselves to the federal government and said the feds are going to do this and we can be a part of it as opposed to, I mean, bearing their cross and doing it themselves.
		Jeremiah 29, one of my favorite verses of the Bible says, seek the welfare of the community in which you live and there you'll find your welfare.
		And instead, we're all looking to Washington, D.C. instead of our own backyard.
		And I think if every American started focusing locally instead of to Washington, all of us would wind up improving the country overall.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We have a question that we received from Barb in Long Grove, Illinois via text.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Does Mr. Erickson feel MAGA threatens the future of conservatism in the U.S.?
unidentified		You know, I go back and forth on this.
		That's a great question.
		To a degree, I think a lot of Republicans are moving towards populism, not really conservatism.
		And a lot of people who said they were conservative now still say they're conservative, but they've embraced a populism that's unmoored from historic ideas.
		My sense of things, though.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Eric, if I can pause you for a moment, can you explain what you mean by populism?
unidentified		Yeah, so populism is ideas that are popular, particularly with the working class now.
		There's not a coherency to the ideas.
		It's people like this thing, this thing, and this thing, let's do them.
		Without any sense of historic understanding, political philosophy.
		Now, that sounds very nerdy, but essentially conservatism understands that as Washington grows and as taxes grow and we pick winners and losers, the economy slows down, society regresses.
		And that's kind of where Donald Trump is.
		He's picking ideas that sound popular.
		Tariffs sound popular to a lot of people.
		But we know as conservatives historically they don't work.
		Now, populism historically, though, is tied to movements of individuals, charismatic figures.
		And when they go away, either at the state level or the national level, the movement kind of collapses.
		So I actually think what we're going to see happen is when Donald Trump, who is term limited and will step aside in a few years, goes away, there's going to be a fight over what MAGA means.
		And it's going to be MAGA that evolves more than the conservative movement.
		And historically, when that happens, you revert to the means.
		So you move back towards a more traditional conservatism.
		It's not going to be the same as it was, but it'll be more recognizable once Trump is gone than while he's here organizing a populist movement.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Stephen is in Wilmington, Illinois, on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Stephen.
badass uncle sam in new orleans ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I'd like to understand how evangelicals could support a covetous, fornicating adulterer Who bears false witness, but I do know it was just so they could get judges.
unidentified		And then, secondly, I haven't heard any Republicans call out Trump for saying he doesn't know if he has an obligation to the Constitution after taking the oath of office twice.
		First of all, I've actually written about the second one and said it is remarkable he said that, and he should recognize his obligation to the Constitution.
		And as to the first one, you know, in 2016, I didn't support Trump on the issue of character.
		It became pretty obvious to me by 2020 that we were going to have a Republican or a Democrat.
		And as much as you don't like Republicans and don't like Donald Trump and don't like his character, there are a lot of evangelicals who look at Democrats and look at Joe Biden or Barack Obama, who sued nuns to try to force them to pay for abortion or Joe Biden, who went after Christian colleges and went after Christian businesses in the country and trying to force them to adhere to a Democratic, progressive social agenda and said, I don't particularly like either side, but I got to go with this guy who's not out to get me and persecute me, my friends, and my businesses.
		And if the Democrats would have toned down, I think, some of their progressive social agenda, you might have seen more Christian conservatives be willing to say, I may set it out.
		But as long as you've got people try to put boys and girls' sports and sue Christian businesses to either bake certain cakes or perform abortions or pay for abortions, you're going to have evangelicals say, I can't sit this out.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Richard is in Advanced North Carolina on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Richard.
unidentified		Hey, good morning, ma'am, and good morning, sir.
		My question right now stems from a political opinion I have, which I personally see the Democratic Party as sinking right now, and that's an opportunity for Republicans.
		So how do Republicans, the Republican Party, be politically attractive to people who hate Trump but feel politically homeless?
		Thank you, guys.
		Oh, that, you know, I've spent a lot of time on this issue thinking about it.
		And I think one of the things Republicans have to do first is, one, don't sound crazy.
		Don't elevate voices like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert so much.
		And also sound reasonable, a willingness to attract people to the party.
		One of the advantages I actually think the Republican Party has right now is on these cultural issues, where there are a lot of people who have historically voted Democrat, but actually they're institutionally, philosophically, socially conservative.
		As the Democratic Party becomes increasingly a party of higher-income white voters, particularly white college-educated women, a lot of the working-class voters who have been voting for the Democratic Party are naturally going to move to the Republican Party.
		Don't be off-putting to them in how you talk about their issues.
		Try to relate to them, but also don't pander to them.
		Working-class voters in particular, I think, probably have a greater sense of discernment when people are trying to pander to them than upper-income voters.
		And they don't want to be lied to.
		They just want to be respected.
		If the Republican Party does that, as these cultural issues continue to fester on the Democratic side, I think the Republicans are probably in a better direction long term.
		For years, you know, we talked about demography was destiny, and because black Hispanic voters were Democrat, Republicans' days were numbered.
		And actually, what we're seeing is those voters are transitioning to the Republicans, and demography is only destiny if you demand that it be.
		And rarely is that the case.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Once again, our phone lines for questions for Eric Erickson.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		David is in St. Petersburg, Florida, on our line for independence.
		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Hey.
		Well, how are you doing today?
		Yeah, so I'm trying to understand.
		You know, obviously, we have a ton more people in this country.
		The population has grown drastically since the last time there was a Supreme Court justice and senators and Congress people added to the, you know, to why haven't there been, you know, we had increased the numbers because obviously the population in the United States has grown.
		Talk a little bit about how that works and how what it goes into getting more congressmen, statemen, senators, and Supreme Court justices.
		Oh, so this is probably one of the areas where my Republican and conservative friends get mad at me, but I actually think that the House of Representatives should have at least 1,000 members, maybe 2,000 members.
		The House is the one supposed to represent the people.
		The Senate represents the states, two senators per state.
		So without changing the Constitution drastically, we're not going to be able to improve that number.
		The Senate and the House together could expand the numbers of the Supreme Court.
		I don't know that we need more than nine justices.
		They handle the workload fine, although we could probably expand the number of circuit courts.
		Congress can do that by act.
		It'll be filibustered unless you find a way to get Republicans and Democrats to agree to ration the picks of Republicans and Democratic appointees to the circuits.
		But the House is the big one.
		The House should be much larger.
		When the country was started, I want to say the number was less than 100,000 people per member of Congress.
		Something like, I want to say it was 25 to 50,000, and now it's 750 or so thousand.
		To get it back to a reasonable area where people actually know their member of Congress, you've got to dramatically expand the people in the House of Representatives.
		And I actually think that would be a good moderating influence on the House to have people closer to those who represent them.
		Most Americans now don't know their member of Congress.
		Historically, prior to the early 1900s, most people actually had a connection to their member of Congress because of the ratio of people to congressman.
		We've got to expand the House of Representatives.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Robert is in Cape May, New Jersey on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Robert.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		As an independent, I find it disheartening when I talk to my friends in either side of the aisle, Republicans or Democrats, that don't want to necessarily include me in their movement or their party when I disagree with their foreign policy, whether it's Biden or Trump.
		And I just think that, you know, when Elon Musk calls Social Security Ponzi scheme, and the Democrats and Republicans supported $15 trillion diverted to military spending after the fake weapons of mass destruction narrative, as an independent, I'm looking for somebody that will bring home, bring that, repatriate that money home for social programs, for education, infrastructure, health care.
		And it just doesn't seem to be possible the way our primary process is run by the donor class.
		Would you comment, please?
		I think JD Vance is probably more aligned with you than you might realize.
		He's actually a pretty good proponent of returning most of our overseas military and the like to the U.S. for social programs behind Fortress America.
		I like JD Vance a great deal.
		He's much more isolationist than me.
		I do think the question, though, is the role of the United States, and both parties have typically aligned on the idea we are the leader of the free world, which means we have to deploy resources around the world.
		And until that changes, and it might be changing now with Donald Trump, there was a story in the New York Times last week that he's taking this great powers approach of three great powers dividing the world.
		You may see more repatriation of resources to the United States and the Western Hemisphere under Trump than most people realize.
		You know, this brings up the topic of foreign policy.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And last week, reporters at the White House did question President Trump about some of his recent comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to play this for you and get your response.
unidentified		Do you believe the Russians are being disrespectful when they say that your criticisms of Putin are simply an emotional response?
unidentified		And do you still believe that Putin actually wants to end the war?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks.
		Within two weeks, we're going to find out very soon.
		We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not.
		And if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently.
		But it'll take about a week and a half, two weeks.
		We have Mr. Witkoff is here, who's doing a phenomenal job, is dealing with them very strongly right now.
		They seem to want to do something, but until the document is signed, I can't tell you.
		Nobody can.
		I can say this.
		I can say this, that I'm very disappointed at what happened a couple of nights now where people were killed in the middle of what you would call a negotiation.
		I'm very disappointed by that.
		Please.
unidentified		What stopped you from imposing new sanctions on Russia?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Only the fact that if I think I'm close to getting a deal, I don't want to screw it up by doing that.
		Let me tell you, I'm a lot tougher than the people you're talking about, but you have to know when to use that.
		If I think it's going to hurt a deal, this isn't my war.
		This is Biden's war, Zelensky's war, and Putin's war.
		This isn't Trump's war.
		I'm only here for one thing to see if I can end it, to save 5,000 lives a week and a lot of money, the money being much less important.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Eric Erickson, what do you think of how President Trump is handling the situation between Russia and Ukraine?
unidentified		I'm very much in support of defending Ukraine and supporting Ukraine, and I appreciate the president wanting to rethink things.
		I mean, for example, historically, if you go back to his first term, many people had always said they wanted to move the embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
		He did it over protestation, and it worked.
		Lots of his foreign policy has been thinking differently from others in D.C.
		I do think, however, that he's committed to this notion a little bit too much that he can bring about peace and needs to reconsider that we probably do need to support the Ukrainians against the Russians in large part because the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans, they are building, maybe you don't want to say an axis of evil, but they are building this Eastern powers coalition against the Western world that is led by the United States.
		And if he can't get Vladimir Putin to come to peace, which I don't think he's going to be able to do, we probably do at least need to help the Ukrainians kill the Russians so we don't have to.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Steve is in Pittson, Pennsylvania on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Steve.
unidentified		Good morning.
		As I sit here with my wire-haired Liesla, I wonder if Democrats and Republicans really consider the fact that if Harris would have been in the White House as president, we would never have known about a cover-up.
		We would never have known what was going on.
		The best thing that happened when Trump won is that we now know what the Democratic Party is all about, and they've got to get their act together.
		The two most dangerous people, God forbid, they ever get to power, is Hakeem Jeffries and Mr. Schumer.
		Those are the two that have to be alleviated from our government.
		And I hope that that would eventually happen in the next elections.
		But you've got to thank Trump for saving our democracy by bringing out the truth of what happened in the Biden administration.
		One of my biggest frustrations over the last number of years is that you and I could see with our own eyes there were problems with Joe Biden.
		And it wasn't just the Democrats, but actually a lot of members of major media outlets as well who refused to acknowledge it, dismissed it, used the phrase cheap fakes.
		One of the most interesting things to me that's come out of this Jake Tapper Alec Thompson book is Alex Thompson has now said twice on two separate media outlets that even senior staff in the White House were amazed by how willing members of the media were to believe the excuses they came up with, like the phrase cheap fake when Republicans were showing videos of something wrong with Joe Biden.
		And I do think until there's greater accountability also for members of the press and how they handled the last four years, trust of the press isn't going to go back up.
		And also, I do think that the Democrats are going to have to come to terms with people's trust of them.
		I'm kind of in the vein of Chuck Todd and others that if you are a member of the Joe Biden cabinet looking to run for president in 2028, you might have a hard time given that people are going to tie you to this cover-up.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Annie is in Tampa, Florida on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Annie.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning, Eric.
		I just want to say the drama of the last caller was hysterical.
		I mean, to be so afraid of Hakeem Jeffries is like, but that's what Trump wants is to put fear.
		I'm just going to state the obvious and say that, you know, you don't have to be corrupt for Trump to go after you.
		Department of Education, judges, top generals, which are, you know, guilty of being Democratic.
		The pardons from Biden, they were not to hide a crime.
		They were to keep Trump from going after them with, you know, with lies and fake.
		Obviously, again, he can arrest anybody with absolutely zero crime.
		There's zero corruption.
		The only thing I want to ask Eric is why Trump takes all of our money.
		He takes all of Americans' money, but he won't talk about the money.
		He won't say where any money is going.
		And I'm just wondering if he can help me with that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Annie, what money are you referencing specifically?
unidentified		Every investment.
		He cut every program.
		So he's cutting, you know, as Elon did too, just cut billions in, you know, all the programs and, you know, U.S. aid.
		I mean, everything under the sun.
		Oh, also, JD Vance, it's not you fools.
		He was for the warrant.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Annie, I want to let Eric respond.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Your question is the money that's been cut from these programs, where is it going?
unidentified		Exactly, thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Yeah, you know, so the money is somewhat on pause right now as the president prepares a rescission package.
		So the money is there.
		The president doesn't want to spend it.
		He's sending a rescission package to Congress asking them to pull the money back to the Treasury.
		If they don't do it within 45 days of the rescission letter, the money's going to be spent.
		So it's in pause.
		It hasn't disappeared somewhere.
		The president's just not inclined to spend it.
		I would know, by the way, Annie, your point on JD Vance and the war, if you read his book, he did have an eye-opening experience in his time in Iraq, and it certainly changed his positions and his views of foreign engagement in the U.S.
		He was much more in favor of U.S. foreign policy and engagement around the world before he actually served in the military in Iraq and came home.
		And it was kind of an eye-opening experience for him.
		And he's now much more isolationist than I think you might give him credit for.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Patrick is in Canton, Georgia on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Patrick.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yeah, I just wanted to ask about, I heard you make the statement about we should support Ukraine and killing Russians so we don't have to.
		And what I would like to know is why do we have to?
		Why should we be the police of the world?
		Or like you said, why, you know, we're the leader of the free world.
		And why is that?
		We're an imperialistic country.
		And also, I would like to hear your thoughts about where you think the world would be at now if they took seriously the offer of Russia joining NATO.
		So thank you very much.
		So, you know, the Russians, I think it's always been naive in American foreign policy to think the Russians wanted to be part of the West.
		The Russians have always wanted their sphere of influence.
		Peter the Great, historically, if you go back to the czarist era, had flirted with being welcomed into the Western fold.
		But by the time of Catherine the Great, the conquering of Crimea, the Russians established themselves as their own sphere of influence.
		It's always been a pipe dream of Western intellectuals that somehow the Russians could be brought into a Western fold.
		We saw that with possibly bringing them into NATO, which was ill-advised, and we got rid of it.
		The reason the United States leads the free world, though, is because of World War II.
		After World War II, we were the only free power that wasn't in shambles given the war in Europe.
		And so Western powers, including led by Winston Churchill, de Gaulle, and others, kind of entrusted world-free leadership to the United States.
		And we've led fairly well for a very long time in that.
		And I think as we fade back from that, the world goes into more turmoil.
		The United States is going to have to decide: do we want to lead the world or not?
		And if we don't, there are consequences that we can't feel right now.
		For example, being the world's reserve currency, as long as we're leading, we get preferred exchange rates.
		We have better inflation rates than the rest of the world.
		We have better economic transaction rates than the rest of the world.
		That all goes away when we stop leading the world.
		And there are a lot of people who say it's too expensive for us to continue in our leadership of the free world.
		We've got to step back.
		And I would argue to them that it's actually going to be more expensive for us to step back.
		I mean, if you look at Great Britain, which used to have an empire that spanned the whole world, they no longer lead.
		And their inflation rate is higher than ours.
		Their unemployment rate is higher than ours.
		Their exchange rate is higher than ours.
		Their transaction cost is higher than ours.
		It's a massive financial penalty if we choose not to lead.
		Not only is it a massive financial penalty, it actually jeopardizes the United States more because the only others who could lead the world right now are the Chinese and the Russians, and they are diametrically opposed to our values.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		John is in Vicksburg, Michigan, and on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Generally, I watch C-SPAN quite often, and you have guests on.
		Generally, they were either right-leaning or left-leaning.
		Occasionally, you'll have an independent.
		But the common thread in all of these is that the whataboutism that goes on.
		It's what about Trump?
		What about Biden?
		What about the Democrats?
		What about the Republicans?
		What about Bush?
		What about Obama?
		And the conclusion that you can draw is that both sides are generally corrupt, and the only real way, real solution is to get rid of everything and restructure the entire government.
		Thank you.
		Yeah, a lot of people have your view, but it's probably not going to happen.
		The only thing that Democrats and Republicans hate more than each other is a third party.
		So ballot access laws in all 50 states are designed to restrict the access of third parties to make it difficult to get through.
		That's also one reason, though, why we have more stable governments than other powers.
		When you look at European powers who have maybe five to ten political parties and they jockey for position on ballots and they use various allocations to get into government, we have Democrats and Republicans.
		It provides a level of stability where neither side particularly likes each other and they love to call out the sins of the other side and ignore the sins of their own side.
		But at the same time, we know the next president's going to be a Democrat or Republican.
		The next Congress is going to be Democrat or Republican.
		And because of that, it requires those parties to not have niche ideas, but to try to broaden themselves.
		That's one of the problems I think the Democratic Party has had over the last few years: they became very niche on certain cultural issues, alienating a lot of Americans from broader cultural conversations.
		And they're going to have to probably moderate themselves to be able to get back into power because we don't do niche parties in this country.
		We have broad coalitions.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Joanne is in Rutland, Vermont, on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Joanne.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		I was just wondering why on election night, Trump was telling all his voters and making all these promises to them how he was going to change their lives and everything.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		And all he's done is taken from the poor, poorest people, and given to his wealthy friends paying their taxes and everything.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		He lied to every one of his voters and made their lives worse, not better, as he promised.
unidentified		You know, I would just say that Donald Trump's popularity has actually rebounded in the last month of the rural clear politics polling average.
		It's gone back up, and the working class actually feel like he is helping them.
		So your view may be that he's taking from the poor and giving to the wealthy, but when you look at the polling of the working class right now, they feel like he's on their side, and he actually is giving the business, so to speak, to wealthy Democratic donors.
		The Democrats have this very high ideal that the Republicans are somehow the party of the wealthy, but they certainly have Elon Musk, but most of the billionaires in America voted Democrat.
		They've got people like George and Alex Soros and others on their side.
		This idea that the Republicans are the party of the wealthy when the Democrats have Hollywood and these other billionaires, I think is great PR for the Democrats, but also not grounded in reality.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Kathy is in Michigan on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Kathy.
unidentified		Yes, hi.
		I'm a big supporter of President Trump.
		And I don't know who named the, well, the big, beautiful bill inside it is that tax supposed cut everyone's talking about.
		But I don't know who's called it a tax cut because it's not a tax cut.
		It's a tax increase.
		And everyone, that Democrat man who you had on the guests before, he is misinformed, but it's going to increase everyone's taxes because what it is, is the tax cut on 0.1 Trump, it's going to expire.
		So that's a tax increase.
denise in florida ▲ ● ▼		So everyone is going to get a tax increase, right?
unidentified		Or will it just nothing will happen?
		How would that work?
		The way that this bill works is President Trump's tax plan from his first administration was timed to expire January 1st of next year unless they renew it.
		So what this tax bill does is it extends the tax cuts again.
		So we will have a tax increase if they don't pass anything.
		If they do pass something, our taxes won't go up.
		And in some cases, some rates will go down.
		So if this gets passed, some people will see a tax cut.
		A lot of others won't see anything.
		But if nothing gets done, everyone will see a tax increase, including corporations.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, that is all the time we have.
		Thank you very much, Eric Erickson, who is the host of the Eric Erickson Show.
		We appreciate your time this morning.
unidentified		You.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And now we're ready to head into open forum after a short break.
		And so you can start calling in now.
		Republicans at 202-748-8001.
		Democrats at 202-748-8000.
		And Independents at 202-748-8002.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		In a nation divided, a rare moment of unity.
		This fall, C-SPAN presents Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins in a town where partisan fighting prevails.
		One table, two leaders, one goal, to find common ground.
		fall ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides only on c-span weekends bring you book tv featuring leading authors discussing their latest non-fiction books
		Vicki Nguyen of NBC News talks about her family's 1979 escape from Vietnam and their journey to become Americans in her book, Boat Baby.
		The New Yorker's Michael Luo, author of Strangers in the Land, traces the experience of the Chinese in America, chronicling their persistence amid anti-Asian violence.
		Journalists Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper talk about President Biden's decision to run for re-election in 2024 amid concerns that he was experiencing cognitive decline in their book, Original Sin.
		And then on afterwards.
		Republican Oklahoma Senator James Lankford shares his book, Turnaround, where he speaks about his faith, the challenges the country faces, and what he believes needs to happen to improve the country.
		He's interviewed by Wall Street Journal congressional reporter Siobhan Hughes.
		Watch Book TV every weekend on C-SPAN, too, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
		The Shop.org is C-SPAN's online store.
		Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at C-SPANShop.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're in an open forum, ready to hear your comments, our phone lines again for Republicans 202-748-8001.
		For Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		We'll start with Rudy in Sun City, California on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Rudy.
unidentified		Good morning, Kimberly.
		We had a president one time after he won his second term consecutive that he directed his administration and himself to go out and bind up the wounds of the nation.
		This is why Donald would never make that plateau of greatness and always be relegated to the five bottom rungs of the ladder.
		Okay, thank you, Kimberly.
		I appreciate you.
		Bye.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Mike is in Doylestown, Pennsylvania on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Mike.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello.
		Who am I speaking with on the air right now?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's me, Kimberly Adams, but we're an open forum, so you can give your own thoughts.
unidentified		Great, Kimberly.
		I have some thoughts about what's going on.
		First, I'm an independent myself right now.
		I left the Democratic Party after Joe Biden and Democrats gaslighted.
		I'm still trying to help the Democrats.
		Let's just not be honest with us after we all watch what he watched on television.
		And, you know, I've been currently voted there in 2024.
		We lost and trying to figure out, you know, what to do.
		What we can all do right now as independents, as Republicans, as Democrats, is read the legislation that our congressmen write.
		You know, there's been a lot of talk in the media about Medicare and bills that are important to you.
		Stuff like including work requirements for Medicare and work, you know, certain custody measures and how many people were not in health care.
		You know, there's these two provisions in the bill.
		I think it was section 103141.
		And then the follow-up.
		One was section one, one was section two.
		The third part actually, section four, talks about taking away work in artificial intelligence.
		The fact that I have a mother who is, you just can't stand Donald Trump.
		She's way less than my uncle's, my best friend, and he's far to the right.
		And I just hear them talk about it all the time.
		And I've just been a mediator my entire life.
		So I look at these things, though.
		And I don't want to just, I don't want to even have to be political by saying this, but just this big, beautiful bill that the Republicans passed in the House.
		I mean, that's something that none of you are going to talk about within there just because they're just going to raise.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate your idea.
		Let's hear from Edna in Illinois on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Edna.
unidentified		Good morning, Kimberly.
unidentified		How are you?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
unidentified		I can see how the company is going to the dogs.
		Why don't some of these senators, congressmen, whatever, bring up the 25th Amendment in the Constitution?
		There are a lot of people who are illiterate.
		These are the people that Trump say he recognizes.
		Explain what the 25th Amendment means.
		We know that JD has to invoke it, but why not bring it up and discuss it?
		Let people know what the 25th Amendment says.
		If you have a leader who is not governing, he can be kicked out of office.
		And Trump needs to be kicked out of office.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Next up is Willie in Sarasota, Florida on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Willie.
unidentified		Yes, how are you doing this afternoon?
		My call is today is to say that all the infighting and all the things that's going on right now, that's not the way America was.
		I'm an old soldier, and I actually went out and tried to serve this country.
		I'm proud of my country.
		I will stand for the flag.
		But what we need is a real leadership in this country who is not on TV every day.
		So thank you for my call.
		And by the way, I'm not a party affiliated.
		I'm just an American who wants to write leadership and not a dictatorship.
		Thank you very much.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Liz is in Marlton, New Jersey on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Liz.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I've been watching the beginning of this administration, and I did not vote for President Trump because I realized he was given the criminal tendencies and just incompetent as well.
		But I think too many Americans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Liz, I'm wondering if you can hold your phone still.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We're losing your signal a bit.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		You got me now?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yep, go ahead.
unidentified		So I think it'll take time, but I do think the courts will rein in some of the excesses of this current president.
		And I think we'll get back to more of a stable footing.
		We have to.
		We can't have four years of chaos.
		So that's all we've basically seen since he just inaugurated for a second time.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Ryan is in Louisville, Texas on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Ryan.
unidentified		Good morning, Ms. Adams.
unidentified		How are you today?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
unidentified		All right.
		So I hope this guy, the president.
		So I'm really impressed with how you're running the country, especially when it comes to the economy.
		Okay, everybody's making banks.
		So here's my advice on your next move.
		When it comes to your tariffs, kind of ease off on that a bit.
		You just got them to the table.
		We don't want to frighten them.
		That's number one.
		Number two, when it comes to China, I need the stresses to you again.
		Do not trust communist China.
		Don't forget how they did us on COVID.
		I don't want you forgetting that.
		Number three, and most importantly, we need to get those codifies.
		As far as I'm aware, each citizen just saved over $4,000.
		It's plans to give a five band.
		I don't know about you, but that's a last live change of money.
		But that's all I just want to say.
		Thank you for your time, Ms. Adams.
		Have a good day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Ryan mentioned the tariffs, and last week, Trump told U.S. steel workers that he would double tariffs on foreign steel to 50%.
		Here's a story about that from the Associated Press.
		President Donald Trump on Friday told Pennsylvania steel workers he's doubling the tariff on steel imports to 50% to protect their industry, a dramatic increase that could further push up prices for metal used to make housing, autos, and other goods.
		In a post later on his Truth Social platform, he added that aluminum tariffs would also be doubled to 50%.
		He said both tariff hikes would go into effect Wednesday.
		Here's a portion of President Trump giving those remarks during a discussion on the U.S. Steel's merger with Japan's Nippon Steel, and this is when he made that announcement.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		So soon after initially taking office, I imposed powerful 25% tariffs on all foreign steel and ended each and every one of the Biden exceptions and exclusions.
		And today I have a major announcement.
		And are you ready to hear this?
		This is on behalf of Scott, Secretary of Treasury, Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce, and all of the great geniuses and people we have working.
		And they are smart, but I don't think you'd be a good steel worker, Scott.
unidentified		I'm sorry.
unidentified		I'm going to have to put a little more muscle content into that guy.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		But he's great.
		He's great at what he does.
		We are going to be imposing a 25% increase.
		We're going to bring it from 25% to 50%, the tariffs on steel into the United States of America, which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States.
		Nobody's going to get around that.
unidentified		So we're bringing it up from 25%.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We're doubling it to 50%.
		And that's a loophole.
		And by the way, I have to tell you, I believe that this group of people that just made these investments right now are very happy because that means that nobody's going to be able to steal your industry.
		It's at 25%.
		They can sort of get over that fence.
unidentified		At 50%, they can no longer get over the fence.
unidentified		So congratulations to everybody and to you for making a great deal.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		You just made a better deal, right?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Back to your calls and open forum.
		Brenda is in Michigan on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Brenda.
unidentified		Good morning.
		The gentleman that was on in saying that people are changing to the Republican Party, I don't believe that's true.
		And when you compare what has not been proven by the Democrat and what is being proven before our eyes about Donald Trump, you can't even compare.
		Donald Trump has no integrity.
		He thinks he's doing his show that he used to do on the T V. And the man is something's wrong with his head.
		He is not good for the United States of America.
		He is ruining United States of America within.
		He's no integrity.
		He tells lies.
		He talks about other people in jail.
		He should be in jail.
		That's who should be in jail, Donald Trump.
		And he is not good for America.
		So you can't even compare anything that has not been proven by the Democrat.
		But we see before our eyes that Donald Trump is doing.
		He is destroying America within.
		All these jobs that he's taking away from people is just terrible.
		People are going to suffer.
		Children are going to suffer.
		It's just terrible.
		And I hope people wake up.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Tommy is in Kentucky on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Tommy.
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
martin caidin ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm wondering, every time they pass that big beautiful bill, he put the fear in Republicans.
unidentified		He made them vote.
		He puts fear in them.
		I question, what is the fear he's putting in them?
		Why does he even have if they got fear of him?
		They shouldn't be senseless and representatives.
		They ought to get out.
		If they've done something that he can blackmail them with, they ought to get out of the people ought to vote them out.
		Why in the world?
		You sit back and ask somebody.
		They put fear in them.
		But nobody asks us, what fear is he putting in them?
		Is he putting them further that he's going to cover them out of the money?
		Is he putting fear he's got something on them that they've done with children like Matt Getz?
		What is this?
		And then the Americans sit back and take all this bull.
		It's bull.
		That's all he does.
		And I don't understand why people of the world don't get together and have him impeached.
		He has done nothing for America and MAGA's done nothing for America.
		I'd like to know what MIGA has ever done for America.
		Veterans have fit the wars, not MIGA.
		They get back and sit back and get money out of him and all that.
		He gives little Elon Musk an office.
		How does he do that when he isn't even from this country?
martin caidin ▲ ● ▼		So people sit back and keep their eyes closed if they want.
unidentified		But it's ridiculous that he's putting fear in senators and representatives unless he has got something on him besides money because they all got the money.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		He's got your fear in Tommy.
		Let's hear from Fred in Spokane, Washington on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Fred.
unidentified		Hi, Kimberly.
		Thanks for taking the call.
		I'd like to address trans men competing in women's sports.
		Now, I don't have a problem with them competing with women, but I have a problem with them competing against women.
		So a possible solution to this, I don't know if it makes any sense or not, is to have a category just for the trans.
		So let's say there's a race, a one trans person is going to win that race, and they will stand on their state or their school's podium for winning that race.
		The women will, again, be on their women's portion when they're first, second, third.
		Now, that goes on with every school.
		Now, the trans will automatically promote from state to district to regional and then on to national.
		And with a small group of people who are trans who are competitive, all those will actually end up on the national level.
		And they compete against themselves at that point in time in their own category.
		So I don't know if that makes any sense or not, but to me, that's a possible solution to not invading on a women's right to compete against women.
		So I hope that makes sense.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Next up is Michael in Hartford, Connecticut on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Michael.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'd like to know how a convicted felon could run for president.
		The offense to president is an honor to represent all America, but a guy like him who got convicted on the courts and to still run for president, America is known for rule of law.
		How dare we could let him run for president?
		Other countries wouldn't tolerate that.
		Our president gets convicted and then still runs for the president of America.
		Now, what he's doing right now, corruption, getting a shutter, an airplane for a foreign country, making deals on the side.
		And we're sitting there watching that happen, and then the Congress, we don't have that.
		What's going on?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Next up is Ingrid in Garland, Texas on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Ingrid.
unidentified		Good morning, Kimberly.
		It's an honor to be able to get in to speak with you first.
		I have a couple of things.
		One thing is I'm thinking about this big, beautiful bill that they talk about.
		They are, it's tearing away from all the kids, from the older Americans and all that stuff.
		And I just wonder why they have such a short-term solution to a generational thing that's going to come down the pike.
		You're doing all this upheaval and all of this stuff to people.
		You don't listen to your constituents on either side.
		I don't think so.
		And it's like I watch the different town hall meetings and stuff, and I hope to attend one soon.
		And it's just like no one, the American voice is not being heard.
		Second thing, I wonder why all of these senators, and you know, you can see in their faces, they have no moral fortitude to know that half of this stuff is not right.
		And it's sickening to me that I live in a country that I've always thought it was like freedom, let freedom ring, and it's not ringing.
		And then the third thing that I wanted to mention is that why are we letting this president, a sitting president, play in our faces?
		And you're monetizing your office.
		You're selling merch.
		You're making money.
		All this stuff the Doge and all this stuff is doing, they're not looking from within.
		A lot of the fraud, waste, and abuse is coming from Donald Trump and accepting planes and making deals and stuff.
		I'm just, I don't understand.
		Can you enlighten me on this?
		Thank you for your time.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Next up is Robert in North Carolina on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Robert.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		Look here.
		Everybody fussing about Trump.
		Look at George Bush and his dad.
		We had eight years.
		We had 12 years, 8, 9, 10, 11.
		We had 12 years of the Bush administration with war, high gas prices, $5 a gallon.
		Everybody talking about Trump.
		Look at George Bush.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Hillgrove is in Johnston, Pennsylvania on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Hillgrove.
unidentified		Good morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Can you turn down the volume on your TV, please?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Then go ahead with your point.
unidentified		Sure.
		Yeah, my point is when a Democratic representative was on earlier, Mr. Bennett, he never mentioned the fact that Moody's Analytics said that the Biden administration had the best economy in 35 years.
		And I never hear too many Democrats say that when they're on your show, but that's a fact.
		And if that's how a person with dementia runs the government, I'd rather have a dementia than stupidity, like Trump.
		Trump inherited a great economy from Biden.
		He also inherited a great economy his first term from Obama.
		And these are the things that people, the Democrats tend to forget about.
		Not me.
		I'll keep bringing that up as far as I, you know, can call.
		So that's the only thing I want to say today.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, and that's all of the time that we have for today.
		Thanks to everybody who called in today for Washington Journal.
		We're going to be back with another edition of the show tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		We hope you'll join us.
		Have a great day.
unidentified		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
		Coming up Monday morning.
		Notice Senate reporter Ursula Perano will talk about the week ahead in Congress and upcoming Senate action on the GOP tax cut and spending bill.
		And then Spectrum News national political reporter Taylor Popolars talks about White House News of the Day and the week ahead.
		And American Compass founder Oren Cass will talk about his new book, The New Conservatives, Restoring America's Commitment to Family, Community, and Industry and President Trump's Tariffs Agenda.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
		Well, next, the reopening of the D.C. Capitol Jewish Museum, where two Israeli diplomatic staffers were killed recently.
		And then President Trump hosts a swearing-in ceremony for former Fox News host Janine Pirro to be the interim U.S. Attorney for D.C.
		And later, California Democratic Representative Latifah Simon speaks at a town hall gathering just outside of Oakland.
		Weekends bring you book TV featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Vicki Nguyen of NBC News talks about her family's 1979 escape from Vietnam and their journey to become Americans in her book, Boat Baby.
		The New Yorker's Michael Luo, author of Strangers in the Land, traces the experience of the Chinese in America, chronicling their persistence amid anti-Asian violence.
		Journalists Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper talk about President Biden's decision to run for re-election in 2024 amid concerns that he was experiencing cognitive decline in their book, Original Sin.
		And then on afterwards, Republican Oklahoma Senator James Lankford shares his book, Turnaround, where he speaks about his faith, the challenges the country faces, and what he believes needs to happen to improve the country.
		He's interviewed by Wall Street Journal congressional reporter Siobhan Hughes.
		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.

▲