CSPAN - Washington Journal 06/03/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 3, 2025 07:00-10:00 - CSPAN

02:59:56

Washington Journal 06/03/2025

Participants

Main

mimi geerges

cspan 36:22

Appearances

amy klobuchar

sen/d 02:38

chuck grassley

sen/r 00:57

chuck schumer

sen/d 02:21

donald j trump

admin 03:57

jamie dimon

00:57

karoline leavitt

admin 00:46

Clips

barack obama

d 00:02

bill clinton

d 00:02

evelyn farkas

00:29

george h w bush

r 00:02

george w bush

r 00:04

jimmy carter

d 00:04

margaret brennan

cbs 00:13

patty murray

sen/d 00:04

rachel maddow

msnow 00:07

ronald reagan

r 00:01

scott bessent

admin 00:27

steve scalise

rep/r 00:04

Callers

dominatrix in the matrix

callers 01:36

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Coming up on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, we'll take your calls and comments live.
		Then the CEO of the nonprofit Open the Books, John Hart, discusses the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency and federal spending cuts.
		And McCain Institute Executive Director Evelyn Farkas on the latest in efforts to forge a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine and the future of U.S. involvement.
		Washington Journal starts now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Tuesday, June 3rd.
		On Friday, President Trump accused China of violating the trade deal worked out in Geneva last month.
		China responded yesterday that it was the United States that had reneged on the deal and that it would take, quote, resolute and forceful measures in response.
		President Trump also announced last week that steel and aluminum tariffs would be doubled to 50%.
		This first half hour, we're asking about your confidence level in the Trump administration's tariffs and trade strategy.
		Here are the numbers: Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Democrats, 202-748-8000, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can also send a text to 202-748-8003.
		Include your first name in your city-state.
		And you can post your comments on social media: facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
		Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
		We'll start with Axios with this headline: China accuses the U.S. of violating trade truce, vows forceful measures.
		The article says this: It's the latest sign of deteriorating relations between the two nations since their Switzerland meeting last month led to a deal to lower tariffs on each other for 90 days while they negotiated on trade.
		President Trump accused Beijing on Friday of violating the agreement, one day after Treasury Secretary Scott Besant described negotiations as a bit stalled.
		And here is that Truth Social post where this is from last Friday that prompted this response by China.
		The president says this: Two weeks ago, China was in grave economic danger.
		The very high tariffs I set made it virtually impossible for China to trade into the United States marketplace, which is by far number one in the world.
		We went in effect cold turkey with China, and it was devastating for them.
		Many factories closed, and there was, to put it mildly, civil unrest.
		I saw what was happening and didn't like it for them, not for us.
		I made a fast deal with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation.
		I didn't want to see that happen because of this deal.
		Everything quickly stabilized, and China got back to business as usual.
		Everybody was happy.
		That is the good news.
		The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, all caps, has totally violated its agreement with us.
		So much for being Mr. Nice Guy.
		Well, Treasury Secretary Scott Besant was interviewed on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday, and this is what he said.
scott bessent ▲ ● ▼		I am confident that when President Trump and Party Chairman Xi have a call, that this will be ironed out.
		So, but the fact that they are withholding some of the products that they agreed to release during our agreement, maybe it's a glitch in the Chinese system, maybe it's intentional.
		We'll see after the president speaks with party chairman.
margaret brennan ▲ ● ▼		That's critical minerals, rare earths.
margaret brennan ▲ ● ▼		Is that what you're talking about?
unidentified		Yes.
margaret brennan ▲ ● ▼		So the president has said a few times that he was going to speak to President Xi, but he hasn't since before the inauguration.
		Beijing keeps denying that there was any contact.
		Do you have anything scheduled?
scott bessent ▲ ● ▼		I believe we'll see something very soon, Margaret.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was the Treasury Secretary from Sunday.
		We're talking about the administration's tariff strategy, the trade strategy.
		What are your thoughts on that?
		Are you confident that this is going to work out?
		Have you seen any impacts to yourself personally?
		Let's start with Joe, who's calling us from Forney, Texas.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		No, I don't have any confidence in our president.
		I think he's playing games with the American people and to have people worry a lot.
		He's not going to do anything with Xi.
		Because he's a dictator and that's what he wants to be.
		Now, I got to make one more comment.
		If you think Donald Trump is coming out of the White House and after his four years, you got another thing coming.
		He's in there for one reason.
		And he's probably bringing all the people that loyal to him into his cabinet.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it, Joe.
		And this is Jamie Diamond, who is the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, who was talking on Fox Business about China.
		Take a look.
jamie dimon ▲ ● ▼		What I mean by that, I'm not afraid of them, is that, Joe, China, first of all, they're not afraid of us either.
		And, you know, going over there, you get the distinct impression that they are doing their thing.
		They're putting a lot of money into AI, cars, robotics.
		They're going to be 30 or 40% of new pharmaceuticals, sometime shortly.
		They're going their way, you know, and but they have weaknesses.
		They still have a lot of poverty.
		They have a very tough neighborhood.
		You know, a lot of their neighbors are rearming.
		They have to deal with us.
		We're still the most prosperous economy on the planet.
		But my point, the thing I'm, I'm not afraid of them.
		I'm afraid that we don't get our own act together internally.
		If America just does our things right, deregulation, permitting, education, pro-business, grow the economy, help the lower-income folks by growing the economy, fixing immigration, allowing, eventually allowing good immigration in, we'll be in great shape.
		We'll be the preeminent military and economy 30 or 40 years from now.
unidentified		If we're not, the world would be a very different world than what we live in today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was on Fox Business, and this is CNBC about consumer confidence for May was much stronger than expected on optimism for trade deals.
		It says that consumer optimism got a much-needed boost in May on hopes for trade peace between the U.S. and China.
		According to a survey, the conference board's consumer confidence index leaped to 98.0, a 12.3 point increase from April, and much better than the Dow Jones consensus estimate of 86.0.
		That is CNBC.
		And here is Michael in Smithfield, North Carolina Republican.
unidentified		Michael, how are you doing?
		Hanging in here as usual.
		I mean, I've got a credit card or two, thank God.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So what do you think of the administration's tariff strategy?
unidentified		Well, that's one reason why I didn't want to go back to what we were doing eight years ago.
		But it has worked.
		And there has been some people that ride away as far as countries.
		What I mean by people is countries.
		There were several countries right away that publicly admitted that they wanted to talk to us and try to work things out to where there was not such a deficit in the trade.
		And so I don't know about China.
		China's never going to be honest to any press because they suffocate any liberty and freedom of the press.
		So if the White House is saying that China is working toward these goals that they're releasing to the media, that the White House is informing the media these things.
		And so one has to just have to take it with a grain of salt and at the same time just say, look, maybe it is true.
		Because China would never omit anything that they're going to work with a capitalist country.
		You know, it's all about respect and honor.
		And I think you have to give some of these people respect if you don't.
		And once again, people meaning countries.
		And when you're talking countries, that could be a president that's actually duly voted in, or it could be someone that is a communist country where they're more likely or a dictator.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Michael.
		Here's Mary in Las Vegas, a Democrat.
		Good morning, Mary.
unidentified		Yeah, that last caller, you know, you want to talk about media?
		Our White House is going after the media big time.
		PBS, NPR, Voice of America, trying to get law firms on their side to muzzle up the truth.
		The tariff plan is a disaster.
		It's going to wreck our economy.
		Prices are already going up.
		Tariff is a tax, and the corporations are going to pass the cost on to the American consumer, and those prices are not going to come back down.
		Listen to economists, not the ones in Trump's White House, because they don't have advanced degrees in economics.
		Just listen, watch the stock channel.
		It's a disaster.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Mary, you said that prices have already gone up.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What have you seen personally?
unidentified		Well, I watched paper towels go up 50 cents from a dollar.
		I've watched, I saw grapes the other day for $9.99 a pound.
		Eggs have come down a little, but not that much.
		Meat is outrageous.
		Ground meat on sale is $8 a pound.
		It is not cheap out there.
		That's where all my money's going.
		They say, economists say that it's going to cost the average taxpayer another $3,800 a year for this pain that we're supposed to be feeling.
		While the president's out there gaining him and his family making deals with golf courses in the Middle East and Trump towers and meme coins and selling crazy stuff like shoes, he's a good salesman.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Mary.
		And here is the New York Post with this article.
		It says, Walmart quietly jacks up prices despite Trump's demand for the retailer to, quote, eat the tariffs.
		It says that Walmart has quietly been hiking prices on items ranging from toys to office supplies, with some markups reportedly climbing more than 100% despite President Trump's demand for retailers to eat the tariffs.
		Photos circulating online, particularly on the Walmart subreddit, have documented the dramatic price hikes since the White House imposed a 145% tariff on imports from China in early April before lowering the levy to 30% last month.
		The price of toys, the bulk of which are made in China, were particularly impacted.
		And there's a picture here of a fishing reel on sale at Walmart for $83.26.
		That's what it says underneath here, the picture.
		And it talks about some of the prices.
		This is a Jurassic World T-Rex rose from $39 on April 27th to 55, an increase of nearly 38%.
		And a babyborn doll jumped from $34.97 in March to $49.97 in May, which is roughly 43% rise.
		That's at the New York Post if you'd like to see more on that.
		And here is Perry in South Dakota, Republican.
		Good morning, Perry.
unidentified		Good morning, and thank you for C-SPAN.
		It's probably the best media happening going out there.
		And with China and that, they have their hands full of a billion, 400 million people to take care of every day.
		And they've got to keep going.
		They got to produce or die.
		And dying wouldn't be any fun for China or the rest of the world, I don't think.
		And Trump is just trying to do the tariff thing just to, it's kind of like Greece in a gearbox, just trying to make the whole system work for everybody, not just us, but I think the whole world.
		We can get along well if we just understand each other and work at being peaceful and standing on our constitutional principles that we have in this country.
		If we stay proper, we'll be okay.
		No problem there.
		And that's the way I feel about Trump.
		He mentioned it many times about getting away from the last four years, just money for just about anything going, you know, that type of thing.
		And then you try to come get our country working again.
		It's not no easy task, I don't think.
		And I think Trump is doing quite a very good job with it.
		And so thank you very much for putting me on.
		And thank you for C-SPAN.
		It's great media happening.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Perry.
		This is Kendrick, Chicago, Illinois.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I was calling just the voicemail telling about the economy and everything with Donald Trump.
		I don't understand the way this going on.
		Like people want him in office when he's a felony.
		And I can't say the other word, but everybody knows what he is.
		But anyway, it's crazy how they thought that he was going to be for them when he's not for the country.
		Actually, he's for the terrorist people.
		And see all the pardons he's been giving all these crazy partings out like.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Kendrick, we're focused on trade strategy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that?
unidentified		I believe y'all talking.
		That's not really what needs to be talked about.
		What needs to be talked about is all this illegal stuff he's doing out here.
		Y'all keep talking about terrors and all that.
		Of course, we know they're bad, not working.
		Talk about all the other stuff he's doing.
		That's all I wanted to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And we'll have an open forum later on this morning.
		You can feel free to call during that time.
		Here's NBC News that says this: 10 times, Trump has threatened, then backtracked on tariffs as taco trade jab gains traction.
		It says Trump has ordered a number of sweeping tariffs, driving up costs of imports.
		But he has threatened far more tariffs than he has carried out, leading some to embrace taco theory.
		And that is That stands for Trump Always Chickens Out.
		It says Trump's tariffs were a defining promise of President Donald Trump's campaign, and they have been a defining feature of his second term in office.
		But just over five months in, many of his tariff proclamations haven't turned into reality.
		Well, let's take a look at that moment at the White House when he was asked about that moniker.
unidentified		Mr. President, Wall Street analysts have coined a new term called the taco trade.
		They're saying Trump always chickens out on the tariff threats, and that's why markets are higher this week.
		What's your response to that?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I kick out.
unidentified		Chicken out.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Oh, and then I chicken out.
unidentified		I've never heard that.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		You mean because I reduced China from 145% that I set down to 100 and then down to another number?
		And I said you have to open up your whole country.
		And because I gave the European Union a 50% tax tariff, and they called up and they said, please let's meet right now.
		Please, let's meet right now.
		And I said, okay, I'll give you till June 9th.
		I actually asked them, I said, what's the date?
		Because they weren't willing to meet.
		And after I did what I did, they said, we'll meet anytime you want.
		And we have an end date of July 9th.
		You call that chickening out?
		Because we have $14 trillion now invested, committed to investing when Biden didn't have practically anything.
		Biden, this country was dying.
		You know, we have the hottest country anywhere in the world.
		I went to Saudi Arabia.
		The king told me, he said, you got the hottest comp, we have the hottest country in the world right now.
		Six months ago, this country was stone-cold dead.
		We had a dead country.
		We had a country people didn't think it was going to survive.
		And you ask a nasty question like that.
		It's called negotiation.
		You set a number.
		And if you go down, you know, if I set a number at a ridiculous high number, and I go down a little bit, you know, a little bit, they want me to hold that number, 145% tariff.
		Even I said, man, that really got up.
		You know how it got?
		Because of fentanyl and many other things.
		And you added it up.
		I said, where are we now?
		We're at 145%.
		I said, whoa, that's high.
		That's high.
		They were doing no business whatsoever.
		And they were having a lot of problems.
		We were very nice to China.
		I don't know if they're going to be nice to us, but we were very nice to China.
		And in many ways, I think we really helped China tremendously because, you know, they were having great difficulty because we were basically going cold turkey with China.
		We were doing no business because of the tariff, because it was so high.
		But I knew that.
		But don't ever say what you said.
		That's a nasty question.
		Go ahead.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And our question this morning is: Are you confident in the Trump administration's tariff strategy?
		The numbers are on your screen.
		Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		You can also reach us on social media.
		This is Don on Facebook who says, a response to the question, hell no, there is no confidence in anything that Trump does, taco.
		And Lisa says yes, very much.
		She's confident in the administration's tariff strategy.
		She says, and as we see, other countries are ready to come to the negotiating table, which is a win for American businesses.
		Fair trade.
		Who would not want that?
		And this is Jack who says, concept only, strategy, doubtful.
		And Janet says, considering the deals made, it's a huge success.
		Here is Mark calling from Westwood, New Jersey, Independent Line.
		Mark, what do you think of the administration's tariff strategy?
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for C-SPAN.
		I have no confidence in Trump's tariff strategy.
		I don't even know if he knows what he's doing.
		It seems to me like he's raising tariffs and then probably telling his friends that he's going to take them off and that way they can invest in stocks accordingly.
		I mean, I grew up in New York and Trump has always been a scammer and I don't really see how he's doing anything different.
		And ask yourself, Americans, he's promised he would bring prices down.
		Have you seen any prices go down?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here is Mary, St. Petersburg, Florida, Democrat.
		Hi, Mary.
unidentified		Hi.
		I can tell you what's impacted me as far as prices.
		I was at Publix last week.
		This week I went there.
		Bananas were 59 a pound.
		They are now 75 cents a pound.
		So I had to walk around and think, how many am I going to get?
		So I particularly bought three.
		Aluminum has gone up.
		When you get aluminum pans to cook in, those have gone up.
		I mean, a lot of things have gone up, and I don't see where the tariffs are really helping us.
		And as they say, once they go up, they never come back down.
		So 75, and you know, they're saying they want things to be made in America.
		Bananas don't grow in America.
		They are out of the country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Mary, and this is more from that NBC News article.
		It says this on EU tariffs.
		In one of his latest tariff moves, Trump threatened last Friday to impose a 50% tariff on goods shipped to the United States from the European Union, saying the European countries weren't taking ongoing trade talks seriously enough.
		Trump said the tariff would go into effect on June 1st, but two days later, he delayed it until July 9th.
		After he said he had spoken with EU Commission President Ursula van der Leyen, Trump said she asked for a delay.
		And then wine tariffs, aside from the wider tariffs on the EU, Trump announced March 13th on social media that he would impose a 200% tariff on wine imported into the United States from the EU after the EU threatened a 50% tariff on American whiskey.
		That threat came in response to Trump's earlier tariffs on European steel and aluminum.
		It says the tit-for-tat over alcohol never came to fruition, with European officials saying a week later that they would delay the threatened whiskey tariff until mid-April, pending negotiations with the United States.
		There have been no tariffs on European wine sales aside from Trump's blanket 10% tariff on all imports.
		Here is Pete in Mississippi, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Pete.
unidentified		Yes, so we're going to have to deal with Trump tariffs just like we had to deal with Joe Biden's office term.
		So we're going to have to live with President Trump's ways of doing things.
		So let's get together and work together and hope for the best.
		That's all I have to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here's Jason in Oklahoma City.
		Democrat.
		Hi, Jason.
unidentified		I think that Trump's tariff policies are long for the country.
		And he needed to, somebody needs to stop him, do something because he's doing a terrible job.
		His whole administration is doing a terrible job.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So why do you think the tariffs are a bad thing?
unidentified		Because you go to the grocery stores, you can't barely afford it.
unidentified		You think you can conford it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And more on that article from NBC.
		This is about Canada and Mexico.
		It says, among Trump's first tariffs, first tariff targets were the United States neighbors, Canada and Mexico.
		Just weeks into office, he signed an executive order imposing a 25% tariff on goods imported from Canada and Mexico, saying they weren't doing enough to stem the flow of fentanyl across the border.
		In response, Canada and Mexico announced their own retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, and Canadians began to boycott American brands.
		It says that a day after the tariffs were set to be collected, Trump said he was pausing them for 30 days.
		He said he was making the pause more, he was making the pause because of actions Canada and Mexico said they were taking at their borders, though a number of those steps were already underway when Trump first announced his tariffs.
		And let's take a look at that.
		We'll just get an update on the reconciliation bill.
		We'll take a look at Senate Majority Leader John Thune yesterday on the budget reconciliation bill.
		We'll show you that when that is ready.
unidentified		Here is CBS with, let me try to get that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Here's what we've got for you.
		This is President Trump announcing a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum.
		Here he is.
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.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to have to put a little more muscle content into that guy.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		But he's great.
unidentified		He's great at what he does.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		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.
		So we're bringing it up from 25%.
		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.
		At 50%, they can no longer get over the fence.
		So congratulations to everybody and to you for making a great deal.
		You just made a better deal, right?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was the president.
		And this is Crown Knot on X, who posts this.
		The government says it has no control over corporations, yet it funds, regulates, and profits behind the scenes.
		Civilians are being exploited.
		AI replaces jobs.
		Debt rises, and justice is sold.
		This isn't protection, it's control.
		When profit comes first, humanity loses.
		And here is Seriously on X, who says, yes, we have been over the sofa arm for decades.
		All of the so-called free trade hawks are lying through their teeth.
		How can we participate in free trade when imports are duty-free while our exports are tariffed at high rates?
		Stop whining and complaining.
		Don't buy it.
		And Jersey Girl says, all of the questions we've had recently presume that there is a quote strategy.
		Clearly, the issue is that there isn't one.
		We just careened from one self-inflicted crisis to another, all based on the whims of an elderly, cognitively challenged man.
		No way to run a government.
		And Rob in Huntington, West Virginia, sent us a text.
		He's doing a lousy job of handling global trade issues.
		Instead of creating a group of trade allies to put pressure on China, he made enemies of virtually every other potential trading partner in the world.
		Let's hear from Dave, New Orleans, Republican.
		Good morning, Dave.
unidentified		Yes.
		This is what I'm concerned about with the tariffs.
		You just said enemies.
		When, like South America, South America, the Russians moved into South America and we had a problem.
		Could you imagine if Mexico and Canada became partners with Russia and they allowed Russia to come into their country?
		Now we're like a sandwich in between these people.
		When you put tariffs on, make enemies out of friends, you're creating a hostile environment where anything could happen.
		That's what he should be thinking about.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And James is in Boca Raton, Florida.
unidentified		Republican, good morning, James.
		Yes, good morning.
		My commentary is that I find it amazing that the so-called legislative media, and I do not include C-SPAN in that group, but media writ large have taken the side of the communist Chinese in this dispute regarding trade.
		The Chinese have been ripping off and exploiting the West and specifically the United States for at least four decades or more.
		They lie, they cheat, and they've been flooding the United States with cheap goods.
		Millions, millions of American jobs have gone overseas due to these trade policies.
		Additionally, since the end of World War II, trade policies favored Europe and Japan, which were devastated by the war.
		So the United States, which was 50% of the GDP of the world at the end of World War II, took it upon the created a policy to favor these countries and give them better trade, lower trade tariffs than they charged us.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So James, what do you think is the best way to handle that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What should the do you think that this the administration strategy is the right one to handle what you're saying is unfair in trade policy?
unidentified		It may not be exactly correct, but this is the first president in my lifetime, and I'm 72 years old.
		And I voted in every election that I was allowed to legally as a citizen and a fifth generation American, by the way, starting in 1972 was my first presidential election.
		People use the analogies a scalp versus a machete relative to this trade policy that Trump is.
		At least he's bringing it to the American people and introducing it to world trade policy as an issue.
		The American economy and the American people and American jobs have been lost and we've been exploited for, as I just indicated, at least four to plus decades by the Chinese.
		I've known to that history, if you like, started with Richard Nixon, you know, China policy.
		And then, and they also indicated the history of people that would study history, the Bretton Woods agreements and the agreements they were created after World War II to help Europe rebuild their industrial base and the Japanese.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		James, we appreciate that.
		And you might have heard that it was C-SPAN's anniversary yesterday, 39 years bringing you the Senate floor.
		We're going to show you the Senators Chuck Grassley and Amy Klobuchar.
		They put out a joint resolution congratulating C-SPAN and urging all television providers to carry it, including the streaming services.
		Here's a portion of their remarks.
chuck grassley ▲ ● ▼		So today, I wish C-SPAN2 a happy birthday and thanks those who are dedicated to its mission to bring the people's business to the people of our country.
chuck grassley ▲ ● ▼		C-SPAND does not receive one penny of taxpayer dollars, is funded primarily from satellite and cable providers.
unidentified		Senator Tobachar of Minnesota and I have introduced a bipartisan resolution to recognize C-SPAN2 and the public service it provides the American people through its live nonpartisan coverage.
		Our resolution calls for television providers, including streaming services, to make C-SPAN public affairs program available to all Americans in real time on all platforms.
		For tens of millions of Americans who have cut the cord and get their content from streaming services, they should not be cut off from the civic content made available by C-SPAN.
amy klobuchar ▲ ● ▼		C-SPAN2 has also documented nearly 24,000 roll call votes, providing the transparency and accountability our democracy needs to thrive.
		That's why on its 39th birthday, Senator Grassy and I wanted to highlight how important it is for all television providers, including major streaming services like YouTube TV owned by Google and Hulu Plus Live TV owned by Disney, to provide the American public with C-SPAN and the opportunity to see their government work on the Senate floor.
		If you look at these packages with these channels, you will see so many channels, as all of us know, so many offerings, but somehow omitted from those channels of YouTube, Google, and Hulu Plus Live TV is C-SPAN, which would allow the people of this country for no cost to be able to see the deliberations that go on in the House and the Senate.
		Access to this live coverage on all platforms, being able to see hearings, congressional hearings, being able to see what we say is so important for the American people.
		So we got used to this 39 years ago when only the House had it and the Senate thought it was too cool to do.
		No, no, this is our chamber.
		We're not going to let any TV cameras in.
		We let those TV cameras in.
		Well, now we're at a different stage in our history and a lot of people are seeing their news this way, so we need to expand it and make sure we're on all of those platforms as well as the ones we already are on.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we are moving to open forum for the last 25 minutes of this segment.
		So, anything that you'd like to talk about related to politics, to public policy, to things going on, you can give us a call and talk about that now.
		Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
		Democrats on 202-748-8000.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can start calling in now.
		Regarding our anniversary on C-SPAN2, here's Senator Grassley on X. Happy birthday, C-SPAN.
		Thank you for giving Americans a front row seat to live, nonpartisan political coverage.
		As a longtime advocate for transparency and civic engagement, Senator Grassley celebrates its mission to bring the people's business to the people.
		And this is Senator Amy Klobuchar.
		Today, well, yesterday marks 39 years of C-SPAN 2 in the Senate.
		Its live coverage is essential to keeping the American people informed and engaged in our democracy, and it is important that all TV platforms provide access to it.
		And you can find more information on our website if you just go to c-span.org.
		We've got a page set aside just for all the that first day on the Senate.
		You can go back and watch videos of that.
		Senate remarks through the years talking about it.
		There's a lot of videos there for you to watch on c-span.org.
unidentified		There's a special page set aside for that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's an update from Fox News on that attack in Colorado.
		It says Boulder terror attack suspects showed signs of growing lone wolf radicalization, says former FBI supervisor.
		The assailant alleged fire assault injuries, multiple people at rally calling to free Israeli hostages.
		It says this Egyptian-born illegal immigrant suspected of firebombing a pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado on Sunday afternoon, has the hallmark signs of a lone wolf terrorist, adding to a worrying trend of solo attacks.
		He's 45 years old, accused of using homemade incendiary devices to light eight people on fire as they gathered to advocate for the return of Israeli hostages in Hamas captivity in a daytime attack at Boulder's Pearl Street Mall.
		Videos depict a shirtless man, allegedly Solomon, standing menacingly and holding two more devices after the initial attack as bystanders filmed him.
		Authorities eventually swarmed the scene and he surrendered.
		Let's talk to Ron, who's calling from Westchesterfield, New Hampshire.
		Democrat, good morning, Ron.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning, C-SPAN.
		Yeah, C-SPAN rocks.
		Happy birthday to C-SPAN.
		Washington Journal, in particular, awesome show, gives a voice to the public, and you can't go wrong there.
		So listen, I'm going to pick up on the tariffs where we left off here.
		And so I've been a Democrat voter for my whole voting life.
		And I've got to tell you, I've known of Trump my whole life.
		As I was growing up, he was in the news every year, never anything good about him, always not paying his contractors or a casino going under bankruptcy or whatever.
		So I've never thought much about Donald Trump.
		I never thought very highly of him.
		But now that he's a president again, strangely enough, he's fixing a couple of things and he's breaking even more things.
		Immigration, I don't like the way he's going about it.
		He's just willy-nilly having ICE pick people up, basically profiling them.
		If they look Mexican or something like that, they're going to stop them and deport them to some third world country prison.
		I don't like that at all.
		The tariffs, Donald Trump just said if we don't do these tariffs now, that it's going to be like a 60% increase on American families.
		But it wouldn't have been that had he have left these tariffs alone or just put tariffs on people that actually deserve them, like China and whoever else actually deserved them, provenly, deserved them, that has provenly been ripping us off.
		But just to willy-nilly put tariffs on everybody, all of our friends, all of our allies, it's just crazy.
		It's nuts.
		So, in one respect, a few of the things that he's doing, I kind of like, but most of the other stuff is just crazy, stupid.
		He's losing all of our allies that we've spent, you know, 200 years trying to build up in this country.
		And the only time that NATO has ever been used has been other countries coming to help us with tariffs and stuff.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Ron.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Frank, South Lake Tahoe, California, Republican line.
unidentified		Hello, Ceaseman.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Regarding the tariffs, you know, I think it's something to try.
		I don't think it's going to hurt.
		You know, and I'm hearing a lot of things regarding like prices increase.
		You know, in the last administration, the inflation was at record-breaking them out.
		And nobody was complaining about that at all.
		But now that they're worried about a little inflation regarding tariffs, that actually could really help our country.
		I feel it's something we could try and see what kind of happens with it.
		And that's it.
		So thank you very much for taking my call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Frank.
		Here's James, Madison, Wisconsin, Independent Line.
		Hi, James.
unidentified		Hello there.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I guess, you know, rather than putting out what everybody thinks and what I think, if you just take a historical standpoint, the U.S. federal deficit has always been further in debt when a Republican president left office since Eisenhower.
		And that includes Trump, and it's going to be no different after this problem.
		So we'll be further in debt.
		So just go back and look at the list.
		Every Republican Republican left for a deficit more than what they started with.
		That's all I have to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And this is, let's take a look at Senate Majority Leader John Thune yesterday on talking about the budget bill that is now in the Senate's hands.
		Here he is.
unidentified		And finally, of course, Mr. President, this work period will be, we will focus, I should say, on taking up legislation to permanently extend tax relief for hardworking Americans, strengthen our border, energy, and national security.
		The tax relief that Republicans passed in 2017, tax relief that put more money in the pockets of working Americans, is set to expire at the end of this year.
		And if Congress doesn't act, Americans making less than $400,000 a year will see a $2.6 trillion tax hike in 2026.
		We are not going to let that happen.
		And our biggest focus this month will be completing this tax relief legislation with the goal of getting the final bill to the president before the 4th of July.
		And finally, of course, Mr. President, this work period will be, we will focus, I should say, on taking up legislation to permanently extend tax relief for hardworking Americans, strengthen our border, energy, and national security.
		The tax relief that Republicans passed in 2017, tax relief that put more money in the pockets of working Americans, is set to expire at the end of this year.
		And if Congress doesn't act, Americans making less than $400,000 a year will see a $2.6 trillion tax hike in 2026.
		We are not going to let that happen.
		And our biggest focus this month will be completing this tax relief legislation with the goal of getting the final bill to the President before the 4th of July.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was the Senate Majority Leader John Thune.
		And this is Jason in Oregon, Democrat.
		Hi, Jason.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
unidentified		I Googled yesterday.
		We talk about the debt so much, the national debt, and I was interested in it.
		So I Googled it yesterday, and I was like, who the hell do we owe $36 trillion to, actually?
		And it's funny, like when I Googled it, if this is true, then it's really not that big of a deal, I wouldn't say.
		It said 70% of our debt that is our national debt is owed to people who live.
		It's like ancestral debt.
		It's owed to people who live in this country in America.
		So it's not like we owe China all that money.
		It's like 30% of what we owe to other countries.
		So to make it seem like it's life or death, I think, is a little much.
		And to use that as a reason to just forget about the poor people in our own country, my family's been here for generations.
		And so I don't know.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Jason.
		Well, let's take a look at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer talking about that budget reconciliation bill.
		Here he is.
chuck schumer ▲ ● ▼		Now on reconciliation, what Senate Republicans will try to do this month is a travesty.
		They're picking up right where House Republicans left off, trying to ram through this chamber Donald Trump's so-called big, beautiful bill.
		As the Senate returns to session, we do not yet have a text for the Republicans' mega bill, but make no mistake, the fight against this bill is ramping up today.
		It starts with Senate Democrats showing the American people what the bill actually is.
		One ugly, ugly bill.
		One of the most reckless, odious, and self-serving pieces of legislation we've seen in a long time.
		Today, I want to share broadly how Senate Democrats will fight this bill with every fiber of our being.
		It's going to be a long and drawn-out fight, but the American people deserve to see precisely how cruel, how vindictive, how ugly this big bill truly is.
		Case in point, House Republicans tucked into their bill a nasty provision that will restrict the power of judges to hold government officials in contempt.
		It's very clear that what's going on, it's very clear what's going on here.
		Republicans want to codify into law Donald Trump's attack against our judicial system.
		They want to make our courts toothless by nullifying their contempt powers and make it easier for the Trump administration to ignore the courts.
		This is nothing less than a naked attack against the separation of powers.
		If Senate Republicans include this authoritarian provision in their bill, Democrats will fight it tooth and nail.
		Will not stand by while Republicans try to sabotage our courts.
		And I fervently believe this effort will, their effort, will not win the day.
		Now, yesterday, I also spoke with Leader Jeffries about how both chambers can work together to fight back against this bill.
		This Wednesday, Senator Klobuchar and I have also invited House Democratic ranking members to meet with our caucus and share firsthand insight from their fight in the House, including key Republican fault lines.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was Senator Schumer, and this is Marilyn in Winnebago, a Democrat.
unidentified		Good morning, Marilyn.
		I would like to know: Trump talks about bringing businesses home.
		Is he going to bring his own businesses home, or is he exempt from that like he is from the law?
		That's it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, and this is Candace in Nashville, Tennessee, Independent.
dominatrix in the matrix ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, it's at Quinnovid UC on Acts.
		And, ma'am, I'm lived in Tennessee my whole life.
		I've never had my human rights.
dominatrix in the matrix ▲ ● ▼		I'm under illegal surveillance by the government at the local, state, and federal levels.
		I can't get any kind of lawyer to help me.
		They said this is too much.
		And the cops know that their jobs are being transitioned to AI and robotics.
		Once that happens, we're not going to have any kind of way to pull back the reins on this because we can't socially pressure AI, and it's built on a bed of lies.
		And this is extremely important.
		And my fellow community members are apparently brainwashed into not trying to stand up for their own human rights.
		And this has been going on for I'm 43 years old.
		I've never had my human right to privacy, which all of the other rights are built on.
		My human rights are from God Almighty, not the government.
		The government is only there to protect my human rights.
		And these are rights I've never even had as an American citizen for 43 years.
		The fact that I can't get a lawyer to go through the judicial process of getting my human rights is very concerning, especially now that they're taking those kind of methods to fight back away from us.
		And once the AI takes over the judges' positions and the lawyers' positions, we're really in a lot of trouble, ma'am.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good night, Candace.
		Valerie in Florida, Republican line.
		Good morning, Valerie.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm going to ramble all four things.
		The first one is that I would like you to ask your Democratic callers what policies they would like that them to propose, if there are any.
		Secondly, if them are serious about caring about the American people instead of power, they should look at the potential candidates of potential candidates such as Jason Corridor.
		And three, I don't like the crazy, insane pardons that have been issued.
		And if Trump is considering pardoning Didi, he is admitting to something nefarious.
		And lastly, I'd like to know, does Washington Court take any money from any of the Soroses?
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The Soroses?
		Is that what you said, Valerie, at the end?
		Yeah, the money.
		We absolutely do not.
		But thanks for the question.
		Let's take a look at Carolyn Levitt.
		She's the White House press secretary, and she was with reporters outside the White House yesterday talking about the latest anti-Semitic attack that happened in Colorado.
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼		We have seen two horrific cases of anti-Semitic violence in our country in the last two weeks, and it is unacceptable to this president and this White House.
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼		And rest assured to all Jewish Americans across our great country, this president has your back, and he's not going to allow anyone to take part in violent terrorism, acts of terrorism in our country.
unidentified		And that's what this case in Boulder, Colorado is being investigated as.
unidentified		Kudos to our FBI director, Kash Patel, for immediately calling this a targeted terrorist attack.
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼		That's clearly what it was.
unidentified		But I'd also like to point out that this administration has done more than any administration to curb this violence and to curb illegal immigration.
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼		We secured our border in record time, but we're also tightening up our visa process and our legal immigration process.
		And we know that this individual, this terrorist, was allowed into this country by the previous administration, was foolishly given a tourism visa, and then was illegally allowed to stay.
		These individuals are going to be deported, and we're not going to tolerate such violence in our country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Robin Huntington, West Virginia, sent us this about tariffs.
		He's doing a lousy job of handling global trade issues.
		Instead of creating a group of trade allies to put pressure on China, he made enemies of virtually every other potential trading partner in the world.
		Here's Jay Ryerstown, Maryland, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Jay.
unidentified		Good morning.
		So one thing I just want to, so the original question is whether I have confidence in his trade policy.
		No.
		I do believe in balanced trade for America.
		However, I think the broad brush of him actually applying tariffs to all the countries is illogical.
		The other thing is I just want to preface two things.
		First of all, our president is considered an interim employee.
		Ultimately, in four years, we're going to re-elect, we're going to elect another person and they're going to come in and implement policies.
		So the question is, how do we balance our trade, trade policy, pass above these interim employees that are coming into and running our government, right?
		So I think personally that the trade should be trade tariffs should be implemented strategically to balance over maybe a number of years so that we can actually build up the manufacturing in our country so that ultimately we're not dependent on other countries when we have disasters or we have something occur as we saw during the COVID epidemic when we couldn't find N95 masks, right?
		We had to go out of the country to find them.
		So I think ultimately you can't implement a trade and drop all these astronomical percentages on people on countries when you haven't built a manufacturing in the country to sustain yourself, right?
		So that's all my comments.
		As inconsequential as it is, that's what I want to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Jay.
		And Henry and Chester, Vermont, Independent Line, you're on Open Forum.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I was just wondering if the president's ever going to drop prices on the food and the fuel, which is outrageous.
		And I'm retired.
		I'm 88 years old, and I just can't afford everything that he's doing, and it's just putting me back in the hole more and more.
		I'm sure it's putting a million people in the hole.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Henry, who did you vote for?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're an independent.
unidentified		Who did you vote for in the last election?
unidentified		Hosan.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I was saying, who did you vote for in the last election?
unidentified		I voted for the woman for Kamala Harris.
unidentified		Yes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And okay.
		And here's Michael, Dearborn, Michigan, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hello.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, go right ahead, Michael.
unidentified		All right.
		I'm just, I'm actually at, I can't believe what's going on with our country.
		It's just got me, I guess, perplexed.
		And I don't know if I'm using the right words.
		I'm just, I wake up every day and I don't know what to think.
		I'm 54 years old, and I'm scared for my grandkids.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		About what specifically, Michael, is bothering you?
unidentified		The way our government and the way that they're trying to even say everything, you know, I even believe the way the government, it's all theater, and they're saying everything's fake.
		And I know that some things on the news can be and this, that, or another, but not everything is fake and not everything's a conspiracy.
		And this is what I'm saying.
		In the end, I believe it's actually driving people more and more and separating people more and more.
		And it's causing more and more violence by them constantly saying everything is fake, constantly projecting this, I don't know, I don't know, image of everything is just negative.
		They're even going to say this conversation, I'm sure, is fake right now, and you're fake.
		But just like I seen him say to the woman that she was George Soros pays for C-SPAN, I've been watching C-SPAN since I was a young man, and I have to say that I give it to you guys.
		Like, you guys tell the truth because it just, I don't know, there's no filter.
		I wish more people would have enough sense to watch and actually listen to what other people are actually saying because sometimes some folks too, like it blows my mind at what they say.
		If they would just listen to their own selves, they're being hypocritical.
		I don't want to be a hypocrite myself.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Michael.
		This is Yvette in Florida, Line for Democrats.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Hi.
		Oh, I have a little story to tell you.
		I'm a member of a French club, and we have an exchange program with a city in France.
		And this has been going on for 30 years.
		And this year, we had planned that they were going to come here in October.
		We were going to go there next year in May.
		Well, they informed us that they're not coming this year in October.
		And we have been disinvited from going there in May.
		And I'm 81 years old.
		I was looking forward to this.
		I mean, how much time do I have left?
		And this is how his president Trump's policies are affecting just everyday people who are trying to live and enjoy their lives.
		And in my case, you know, time is running out.
		So, just a little story to see.
		And the one who was telling us this said, well, people are hating us everywhere.
		And that's about it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Yvette.
		Here's Edward, a Republican in Brighton, New York.
		Good morning, Edward.
unidentified		How are you?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I'm doing great.
unidentified		Fantastic.
		I just want to make a comment here.
		You know, I live in Brighton, New York, and one of our biggest employers was Kodak, a company called Kodak.
		And at its May Day, it used to hire about 75,000 people.
		But the Democrats in New York State said that Kodak was destroying the environment, the ecological system, the water, through the chemicals and stuff.
		So Kodak had to leave Rochester through the North American Free Trade Agreement.
		They left, they went to Mexico, and they went to China.
		And God knows if they're destroying the environment over there or not, but Democrats don't care.
		You know, it really bothers me a lot to listen to Democrats because I'm African-American.
		And, you know, I know people are tied to their own opinions, but they're not tired to their own facts.
		Food prices have gone down under President Trump.
		That's not according to me.
		That's according to any analysis.
		Everybody's talking about the high prices and inflations.
		Where were they just six months ago under Joe Biden?
		The highest inflation ever.
		And that's in my lifetime.
		And the other thing is, you know, we talk about presidential pardons, okay, and how disgusting Donald Trump is.
		It's beyond my reasonable thought that Joe Biden gave preemptive pardons.
		You know what a preemptive pardon is?
		If my son or my brother or my friends did anything at all, Dr. Fauci, if he done anything at all, we're going to give him a preemption pardon so it could be brought against him.
		Where's people talking about that?
		Every single thing that Democrats talk about, Trump, it's just negative.
		That's why you lost election.
		You lost a popular vote.
		You lost all seven swing states.
		And African Americans like me voted for Trump because we're tired of the nonsense that you guys portray on C-SPAN.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that's our last call for this segment.
		But later on this morning, we'll have a conversation with Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute, about the latest round of peace talks between Ukraine and Russia.
		And after, immediately after this break, we'll talk about the future of Doge and its record so far with John Hart.
		He's CEO of the Budget Watch Dog Group.
		Open the books.
		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.
		This fall, ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app, or go online to c-SPAN.org/slash radio on SiriusXM Radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN Radio.
		Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day.
		Catch Washington today, weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN radio.
		Anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
jimmy carter ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is always an unfinished creation.
ronald reagan ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is worth dying for.
george h w bush ▲ ● ▼		Democracy belongs to us all.
bill clinton ▲ ● ▼		We are here in the sanctuary of democracy.
george w bush ▲ ● ▼		Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies.
barack obama ▲ ● ▼		American democracy is bigger than any one person.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected.
unidentified		We are still at our core a democracy.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
unidentified		Mike said before, I happened to listen to him.
		He was on C-SPAN 1.
		That's a big upgrade, right?
		But I've read about it in the history books.
		I've seen the C-SPAN footage.
steve scalise ▲ ● ▼		If it's a really good idea, present it in public view on C-SPAN.
rachel maddow ▲ ● ▼		Every single time I tuned in on TikTok or C-SPAN or YouTube or anything, there were tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people watching.
unidentified		I went home after the speech and I turned on C-SPAN.
unidentified		I was on C-SPAN just this week.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		To the American people, now is the time to tune in to C-SPAN.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		They had something $2.50 a gallon.
unidentified		I saw television a little while ago in between my watching my great friends on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN is televising this right now live.
		So we are not just speaking to Los Angeles.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		We are speaking to the country.
unidentified		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		Joining us to talk about federal spending cuts and the future of Doge is John Hart.
		He is the CEO of Open the Books.
		John, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Mimi, thanks for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So tell us about Open Books and what your mission is.
unidentified		Yeah, Open the Books is a transparency organization.
		We've been around about 15 years, and it launched in part through legislation that I helped write when I was with Senator Tom Coburn.
		We teamed up with Barack Obama, who was then a senator back in 2006, and passed a bill called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act that put all federal spending online for the first time.
		So Open the Books took that data and then expanded it way beyond federal to state and local.
		So we have 10 billion lines of code.
		It's the biggest database of government spending in history.
		And it's the Spending Genome Project.
		And we're trying to advance the founders' vision of transparency.
		Transparency is a foundational principle of freedom, of democracy.
		We can't have truth without transparency.
		And transparency was written into the Constitution.
		It's a requirement that precedes the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment itself.
		So transparency is like oxygen in the public square.
		We can't speak if we can't breathe.
		So we're trying to provide that information to keep people free.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Does your organization have an ideological point of view?
unidentified		I think we believe in transparency is the answer.
		So we're trying to create a reality-based conversation.
		So our politics today is profoundly polarized, and there's a lack of information that people can trust.
		So I'm very transparent and open about what I believe about the size and scope of government.
		I think Thomas Jefferson was right when he said the natural order of things is for liberty to diminish and for government to gain ground.
		So I think the founders' vision is what we ought to restore.
		And the founders had a very clear vision of transparency.
		I believe they would have insisted on real-time transparency if they had access to today's technology.
		And again, it's about giving the American people the tools and power they need to hold government accountable.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You know, we're hearing a lot about waste, fraud, and abuse.
		Fraud obviously is against the law.
		It's breaking the law.
		But how would your organization determine what is waste and what's abuse?
		Because that seems very subjective.
unidentified		Sure.
		I think the standard is, I would go back to the social contract theory, okay?
		So the reason we have government is that we give up a little bit of our freedom to get more freedom in return.
		And when that contract is broken, that's what we're concerned about.
		So in other words, if you're spending $100 billion or a trillion dollars on defense, the expectation is you get more freedom in return.
		You get the safety, security, and knowledge that you can do commerce freely.
		You can pursue happiness on your terms.
		And that's really the measure, is that when government starts spending money that doesn't lead to a net gain of freedom, then we're concerned about it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Elon Musk ended his formal role in government just this last Friday.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What would you say was his impact on the federal government?
unidentified		Well, it remains to be seen.
		And maybe I come at this from the perspective of not just a person in a think tank or an outside group or an activist group, but I worked on the Hill for 15 years.
		And I worked for a senator who successfully cut spending by over a trillion dollars.
		So we didn't just talk about cutting spending, we did it.
		So during the Tea Party, I worked in the Senate for 2004 to 2014, but was in the House before that for a number of years.
		And what Coburn and the Tea Party era was able to accomplish was we cut spending for the first time year to year since the end of the Korean War in 2011 to 2012.
		We cut spending by about $150 billion.
		And this was when there was a Democrat in the White House, Barack Obama.
		We also got rid of earmarks for a decade.
		That's $140 billion.
		We required the Government Accountability Office to do an annual duplication report that, according to GAO, has saved $725 billion.
		So that's over a trillion dollars in savings.
		So I believe there is a lot of waste, or I would, again, spending that doesn't advance freedom within the federal government, and Elon and Doge have taken steps.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How do you really define spending that leads to freedom?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That seems very up to interpretation.
unidentified		Well, it's up to interpretation of every taxpayer.
		And we believe that if you give people information, they get to make that decision on their own.
		So we're not, I have a perspective.
		I'm not hiding my perspective.
		But I think we have to give people access to data and information so they can make that decision.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You said that it remains to be seen Elon Musk's impact.
		You're quoted as saying this, quote, Doge and Elon Musk have done the country an incredible service by identifying savings targets.
		What would you say were those savings targets?
unidentified		Well, a good example is Elon and Doge did a masterful job of going in and looking at computer systems that needed to be upgraded.
		So there's a mountain called Iron Mountain in Pennsylvania where they do retirement by hand, pen and paper.
		And we blew the whistle on that 15 years ago with Cobran's office.
		But this is where you had the advantage of someone with celebrity to draw attention to a problem that needed to get fixed 25 years ago.
		So I give Elon and Doge a lot of credit for identifying those areas, those antiquated systems that need to be upgraded.
		And that's one thing they've done that I think is going to be very, very effective.
		And Doge is going to continue that now that Elon has moved on to his other ventures.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's take a look at a very brief portion of Elon Musk promising to cut $2 trillion from the debt.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is before the election.
unidentified		Right.
		What a great group of people.
		All right, I've only got one question for you, and then I'm getting out of here because this is your stage.
		But we set up Doge.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		How much do you think we can rip out of this wasted $6.5 trillion Harris Biden budget?
		Well, I think we can do at least $2 trillion.
		Yeah!
		Yes, $2 trillion!
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Was that hubris from somebody outside the government having, because it essentially, he claims that it's $175 billion, which is a big difference from $2 trillion.
unidentified		Well, and it's not even $100.
		We'll get to whether it's really $175 billion, but maybe that number of $2 trillion, that really comes from President Reagan's Grace Commission.
		So 40 years ago, President Reagan put together a deficit commission.
		There was the Grace Commission in the 80s.
		There was the Simpson Bulls that I worked on, and now we have Doge.
		Those are the three big moments.
		The Grace Commission found that one out of every three tax dollars is wasted.
		That was their conclusion.
		If you extrapolate that to today's numbers, you get to more than $2 trillion.
		And I would argue that if you go back to the pre-COVID spending levels, it was about $4.5 trillion.
		It is not extreme at all to suggest that we ought to scale back the size and scope of government.
		So I wish Doge would go back to that $2 trillion plus number, which I think there's a basis for in previous studies of governments.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that's possible?
unidentified		I absolutely think it's possible.
		Yeah, not just that it's possible, is that if we want to continue as a country, we have to get rid of our debt and deficits that are strangling future growth and opportunity.
		So a nation that spends more on interest payments on the national debt than we do on defense, a nation that does that does not stay great for very long.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to talk about defense spending, but I'll just let people know that if you'd like to join our conversation with John Hart of Open the Books, you can do so.
		Our lines are Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
		We also have a line set aside for federal workers.
		So if you're currently working for the federal government or you have been recently laid off or took the package, you can call us on 202-748-8003.
		That's the same line for texting us as well.
		Let's talk about defense spending.
		Steve Moore was on our program recently.
		He was a former Trump economic advisor.
		And this is what he said about defense spending in Doge.
unidentified		The biggest agency of our budget is, of course, the Pentagon, our national security and our national defense.
		And you have to spend whatever you need to to keep your country safe.
		But my gosh, we're spending a trillion dollars a year on our military.
		And everyone knows that there's massive fraud and waste in the Pentagon.
		I wish that if I have one complaint about what Elon Musk did when he was running Doge, and I think he did a great job of exposing all the incredible waste in our budget.
		But they should have started at the Pentagon.
		I mean, the Republicans want to spend another $150 billion a year on the Pentagon.
		Why not take that out of the waste in front?
		You have agency, you have people in the Pentagon.
		Nobody even knows what they do anymore.
		It's the biggest bureaucracy in the world.
		So I would like to see Republicans be very fair-minded about this.
		Let's get rid of the waste in every single government agency so that people aren't being ripped off.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that?
unidentified		I agree with Steve wholeheartedly.
		I've known Steve for a long time, and I think he's absolutely right.
		And one of the problems in the Pentagon, too, is we have this crazy rule called use it or lose it, where agencies throw money out the door at the end of the year.
		And the Pentagon spent billions of dollars at the end of last year on things like ribeye steaks and lobster tail and new furniture within the Pentagon because they didn't want to create the perception that they weren't spending all the money they got.
		So Steve is absolutely right.
		I think there's a lot of areas where we could have started.
		The Pentagon is one because you have such a massive amount of spending.
		And when I work for Coburn, we did a lot of oversight on the Pentagon as well.
		We call it the Department of Everything, where the department is doing things that have nothing to do with the core mission of defending the American people.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, here is the Doge website saying an estimated savings of $175 billion.
		And then they divide that out per taxpayer as savings of a little bit over $1,000 per taxpayer.
		What do you think of that number?
		And how do we know that that is actually being saved in the government?
unidentified		The way I sort of measure what a quote real cut is, is it durable?
		It's not so much, is it true or false?
		It's is the cut durable.
		And durable means if you get it passed by the Congress, if you get it signed by the president, and the president is likely to not veto it, and if the courts will uphold it, then you could call it a durable cut.
		You know, back to the cuts I mentioned before, Coburn helped cut a trillion dollars.
		A big portion of that, what I would describe as durable cuts.
		They went through all three branches of government.
		Now, of that number that Doge has put out, you know, we did our own, we tried to kind of retrace their steps and found that about 42% of the contract savings seemed to be verifiable, 27% of the grants.
		So I think a generous take on Doge's cuts would be maybe $20 or $30 billion because most of it has not gone through the Congress or been approved by the legislature.
		So again, I think I hope I want to see them succeed.
		I want to see them go way beyond what they've described.
		And I think there's more than enough change to find within the federal government.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk about the cuts to the federal workforce.
		CNN estimates at about 121,000 federal workers laid off or targeted for layoffs in the first three months of the Trump term.
		And that doesn't account for the people that took buyouts and things like that.
		Do you think that those cuts were made sensibly?
unidentified		No, well, here's what I would have done is you have to look at the real problem.
		You have to fix the real problem.
		So we went through and looked at all federal agency spending over the past 25 years.
		We have 441 agencies.
		I would prefer we reduce that number by 98 to 99 percent.
		So we have four or five that are described in the Constitution: defense, treasury, state, justice, maybe interstate commerce.
		So I'm in favor of dramatically downsizing.
		But if you look at what the numbers actually tell us, is that personnel has been relatively flat over the past 25 years, but spending has gone like this.
		There's been a 300% increase overall.
		And in agencies like the Department of Education, we've had a 750% increase in spending.
		So they should have focused on the spending side and less on the personnel.
		And the way to be successful over the long term, to really downsize government, you have to pick your targets very, very wisely.
		You have to pick the right quote poster child, as we put it.
		That's why 20 years on, we're still talking about the bridge to nowhere.
		And that helped galvanize the movement that was successful 15, 20 years ago.
		We focused on things like Social Security disability fraud, where there was someone who role-played as an adult baby who was an able-bodied adult getting Social Security disability benefits.
		We chose those targets because we wanted to illustrate the broader point.
		So when you fire federal employees, even though I'm in favor of downsizing, you create a political problem that can derail future efforts to cut spending.
		So I think some of it was targeted well, a lot of it was not.
		You want to pull the weeds and not mow the flowerbed.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Has there been any transparency into the cost of Doge?
		In other words, when they lay off the wrong people and they have to bring them back, or when people take the package and they're being paid until September.
		Those kind of costs, is there any transparency into that?
unidentified		Yeah, there will be.
		I wish there was more.
		And this is the kind of question that I think we exist to help answer.
		So, yeah, I think it's hard to get at a lot of what they've done because Doge has gained, one of the great achievements of Doge is they've gained access to what's called the Treasury Payment System.
		That is the administrative state's holy of holies, where only the high priest of government can go and enter and see the exchange of funds.
		USA spending that we helped create with Obama, there's a delay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that's a website.
unidentified		That's a website.
		USASpending.gov was created through the legislation that enabled open the books and just a whole ecosystem of groups.
		That was the vision.
		We would crowdsource oversight.
		That succeeded.
		Does the capacity to work with Congress to create a much more real-time system of transparency?
		And I call that America's Checkbook.
		That just as you and I have the right to go on and look at our personal account, we should have the right to see what the government is doing because it's our money, it's not the government's money.
		And the technology exists to do that today.
		And there are ways to solve the problems of protecting national security data, personal data.
		So Congress and the administration, it's in their interest, especially anyone that believes in downsizing government.
		And frankly, it's shocking to me that Democrats have not picked up on this idea.
		They did.
		Obviously, Coburn and Obama did it together.
		But today's Democrats are so blinded by animosity towards Musk, they're not working with Republicans on obvious ways to improve transparency.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to callers, and we'll start with Dale in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Republican, good morning.
unidentified		Hello, thank you for taking my call.
		I have a question for your guest there, John Hart.
		How do you determine what is fraud in the federal government?
		And I'm speaking about, especially with the military.
		You know, our military isn't just for defense nowadays.
		We use them for weather emergencies, any kind of emergency that comes up.
		We use the military.
		Is that factored into this?
		What is fraud?
		Do they consider that fraud or do they even consider that part of national defense?
		I'd just like to know what you consider fraud, especially after the last Doge meeting was that Social Security is being paid out to people that are over 140 years old.
		I think that's an outright lie.
		And millions of people, I think Social Security is doing the best job they can.
		And I agree with you.
		Cutting staff is not the answer to eliminating fraud.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Dale.
		Let's get a response.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Well, I think I would go back to what I said earlier, is that it's really, I'm more interested in giving the caller the information he needs to decide what he thinks is fraud.
		And that's why transparency is so vital.
		So I would just, you know, I think fraud is where there is no public benefit or the public benefit does not justify the expense and the loss of freedom that comes from giving tax money to that.
		So there's mission creep in the military.
		Obviously, that's a question of who's going to deal with disasters, whether it's FEMA, whether it's the National Guard, whether it's the military.
		But when you have the Pentagon spending millions of dollars on ribeye steaks and lobster tail, I think that's clear fraud.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		For who?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		For their own staff?
unidentified		For parties, yeah, just for end-of-the-year parties to spend money that's in their budget.
unidentified		Yeah.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Here's Tim, Rockville, Maryland, Democrat.
		Hi, Tim.
unidentified		Hey, good morning, and thank you for what you do, Mr. Hart.
		I worked for Senator Benson and was around a lot of the Texas Democrats in the old days, and they were conservatives.
		I think you would have a lot more credibility if you came out strong on defense cuts, come out with a top 20, you know, top 20 list of cuts you would make and why.
		So I'll leave it with that.
		Okay.
		Well, thank you.
		I'll take you up on the challenge.
		We'll do a report on that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Samantha, who is in New York on the line for independence.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		So I have a complicated question.
		So we're talking about fraud and abuse.
		How come we're not talking about where the money's going sideways to pay for the super funds that big pharma and the corporations have left?
		That's number one.
		Number two, I'd like to know why nobody's talking about the Harris Biden bill that was made on March 24th, March 18th, 2024, banning crystallite, which is taking a really big chunk on our whole product line.
		And how come we're not the people in the federal government, the state governments, are not being transparent about how much money is going sideways to pay for the litigation and to repair the super funds, because we're just going to cap it in that, the super funds, the big problem that the menzothemothelioma cases are creating.
		But Doge isn't talking about that.
		Mr. Musk.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Samantha, what was your first question?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I didn't catch the first question.
unidentified		Well, the question is, how come they're not being transparent where all the money is going sideways to pay for these bailouts for pharma and corporations to the super funds that they're making?
unidentified		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We'll get your response.
unidentified		Well, I'm not quite sure I follow the question or understand what fund she's referring to.
		But I think, again, there's room, as I've described, for much more transparency than what we have currently.
		And I'm convinced that if our founders who wrote transparency into the Constitution had access to today's technology, they would insist on what we're calling for, which is a real-time transparency so the caller can see funds going to those entities that she's concerned about, and she could then make an informed decision as a voter as to whether to support more or less of that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We've got a text for you from Shelly in Ambler, Pennsylvania, who says this.
		You say Musk has done a great job and it's all about transparency and freedom.
		How is scraping all of our data, including IRS, religious affiliations, social media footprint, et cetera, in the biggest data scrape in history, making us free?
		How is making the U.S. a surveillance state against its own people considered freedom?
		Please address the Doge data scrape and palantir.
unidentified		Yeah, well, I don't, I believe that we are in an information arms race between the forces of authoritarianism and freedom.
		So I think there's a lot that Doge is doing and has done to help computer systems communicate with each other.
		And that has been unfairly described as authoritarian.
		Now, what I do think is that there is very good reason to be concerned that when the government has a higher level of access to transparency than we do, that's something that you should be concerned about.
		And the founders' vision of transparency is that it is not a two-way street.
		We have the right to inspect the government's checkbook.
		The government does not have the right to inspect our checkbook.
		So I am trying to work with anyone of good faith who wants to create more transparency so that the problem that this person described never happens, so that the individuals and free people always have the upper hand.
		And that takes a lot of work and vigilance to make sure that the center of gravity and authority in a free society remains with the electorate.
		And this is what Shelly was talking about with Palantir.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is the Economic Times saying MAGABASE erupts as Trump administration's Palantir-powered national citizen database sparks outrage and distrust.
		You can find that at the Economic Times if you'd like to find out more about that.
		Well, this Sunday on CBS, Elon Musk was expressing concerns about that one big, beautiful bill that's going through Congress right now.
		Here's what he said.
unidentified		So, you know, I was like disappointed to see the massive spending bow, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, if not just decrease it.
		And that reminds the work that the Doge team is doing.
		I actually thought that when this big, beautiful bill came along.
		I mean, like, everything he's done on Doge gets wiped out in the first year.
		I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful.
		I don't know if it could be both.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is that budget reconciliation bill undermining the work of Doge?
unidentified		Well, I think it remains to be seen.
		I think there is absolutely, in my view, a need to make sure we extend the tax cuts.
		That not passing that bill, I'm sympathetic to the argument that not passing it would effectively mean a tax increase.
		And when you raise taxes, that you're taking money out of people's pockets and making inflation worse, a lot of other economic problems worse.
		And this is not the only sort of bite at the apple, so to speak.
		And it takes a long time to win these budget battles.
		You know, back in the Tea Party era, it took us 12 years to get the earmark moratorium done.
		So what I would like to see is not just one rescissions package, but multiple or even better, an agency reorganization effort where you take a really careful, thoughtful approach and downsize the administrative state.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And explain rescissions and how that would work and how it would get through Congress.
unidentified		Yeah, a rescissions, and there's going to be a bill sent to Congress.
		A rescissions package means you're essentially the administration is sending a list of cuts that they want Congress to codify and enact.
		And the package that's going to be sent is dealing mostly with USAID and foreign aid.
		And there's not enough in the budget to really deal with the deficit by tackling that issue.
		But I think we need to reform it, but I would do it in a different way.
		But I think we ought to sequence it and have other items that have more of a budget deficit impact down the road.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Susan in Revere, Massachusetts, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Susan.
unidentified		Yeah, hi.
		Well, thank you for being on today.
		I appreciate your organization's work, like the Peterson Foundation and many others in the past.
		I want to just add to the chorus of people that are just so disgusted by the fact that the Pentagon and the Bass military industrial complex has never undergone a full audit.
		I think it's disgraceful that your organization and others will not pressure the Congress to end the use or lose spending, end of year spending.
		Also, I think because I do come from a military family, I know that there are many programs that are perpetuated way past their viability, technology-wise, security relevance-wise.
		It's just, it's a boondoggle.
		And their procurement system is so backward, so unsophisticated.
		And it never, there's just no emphasis on cost savings.
		I actually get apoplectic when I talk about the Pentagon.
		So I really hope that that becomes a major focus of your organization.
		I think in the big beautiful bill, they're getting, what, over $300 billion or maybe even $700 billion?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		$150 billion extra.
unidentified		$150 billion, sorry.
		And then they recently sent an extraordinary amount to Israel.
		And of course, we know that they're using that, many of us believe, for pretty nefarious purposes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Susan.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, go ahead, John.
unidentified		No, I mean, I think we've led the way.
		We've been talking about user-to-loser for years.
		And so there's a lot of, the Pentagon is a target-rich environment for budget savings.
		And so I take the caller's point.
		I think there are some things we're doing with our allies that I think are critical for national security.
		So it's not all waste and fraud.
		But again, our mission is to give people the information to let them know.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about entitlement reform?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Because entitlements, I'm talking about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, are a big part of the budget.
unidentified		Right.
		That is the big question.
		And I think there is a bipartisan collusion to avoid that topic.
		And if you really want to get at $2 trillion and more of savings, you have to deal with this question of safety net programs.
		And if you want to have an intellectually honest look at it, when you go back to Social Security, Social Security was set up to be a universal entitlement.
		And the argument at the founding of it in the 1930s was a program for poor people will be a poor program.
		And I don't know that that's true anymore.
		I think you have, if you think of the two words, social and security, you have very little security in the system now, but you still have the socialized component.
		And I think we need to shift it more for security and provide income security for people who are low income.
		But you can't do that unless you're willing to be flexible on this ideological vision of universal entitlement.
		And that's really, that's the conversation that I think people of good faith on all sides are ready to have.
		And that politicians in Washington are terrified of it because they're going to be demagogued by the other side.
		And so I would really challenge people on my friends on the left that if you really care about the future of freedom and the future of security for low-income people, be honest that our entitlement programs are going bankrupt and stop demagoguing people who are calling for good faith reform.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Richard in Sparta, New Jersey has a question about U.S. aid, foreign aid.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He says, are you going to include the approximately 300,000 people who have died since USAID has been suspended in your transparency reports?
unidentified		Yeah, so I think that quote, there was a fascinating interview or discussion with Joe Rogan and Bono.
		And just some context is my boss, Tom Coburn, who was the most effective budget cutter, I would argue, in the modern era, he supported PEPFAR, which is the president's emergency relief for AIDS in Africa.
		And it saved 26 million lives, prevented, I think, 8 million kids from having HIV transmitted.
		And Coburn started with that problem in the U.S. of parent-to-child HIV transmission.
		So I think there is a role for that in the federal government.
		And I would question that number, but I would add the caveat that if Bono is 99% wrong, that's a 9-11-scale loss of life.
		If Bill Gates is 99% wrong, he guessed the number was 2 million.
		That's a 9-11 every day for a week.
		So it is incumbent upon, I think, Secretary Rubio to make sure that as we reform foreign aid, we make sure we do not create a bigger crisis for ourselves by not providing vital humanitarian assistance.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So I was just going to go back to our original conversation about waste being defined as something that doesn't advance freedom for Americans.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So how does foreign aid advance freedom for Americans?
unidentified		Well, I think it doesn't always.
		It can.
		So a good example is the Marshall Plan.
		My great uncle flew in something called the Berlin Airlift.
		And back after World War II, we made a decision as a country, and the public largely supported it, that we didn't want to see World War II happen again.
		So we made sure that the countries that had been defeated had an opportunity to be viable, vibrant countries.
		And we actually made a decision to reduce our relative power in the world to gain more freedom in the long term.
		And that was a magnificent achievement of foreign engagement and foreign policy.
		And that's the vision behind PEPFAR.
		And that's a conversation that people can disagree on, whether we should do any of that at all.
		We don't want to spend too much doing that, but to say that we're not going to have any soft power projection can be more expensive than not doing that, than not doing any of it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Henry Bethesda, Maryland, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Henry.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'd like to know what the speaker thinks about raising the cap on Social Security income above $174,000 so it can be collected no matter how much income you make for your life.
		And then I'd also like to know why we don't have tiered taxes higher for people making income over, say, $400,000, up to millions of dollars a year as in our celebrities, our CEOs averaging $17 million.
		I think we have two sides of a budget, one side of revenue that is not being addressed because they're afraid to tax.
		Yeah, I think generally I would say there's a couple of parts of that question.
		I think I'm skeptical of the notion that we're going to solve our budget deficit by taxing rich people more and that making rich people poorer generally does not make poor people richer.
		But if you look at the issue that I referenced earlier on entitlements, is that the reason entitlements are not secure is that we have allowed ourselves to operate within a 1930s framework that they must be universal.
		There must be universal entitlement.
		And so part of the solution there is to do things like means testing.
		And we actually made progress on this with Coburn and Joe Lieberman, who is Al Gore's running mate.
		Joe Lieberman said, we cannot keep Medicare as we know it.
		We can only keep Medicare as we know it if we change it.
		So there are people in Congress that know that we cannot continue on the course we're on and that we have to have an honest conversation with the public about changing the structure of how we do entitlements.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Jennifer in Oak Hill, Ohio, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jennifer.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I have a couple of questions.
		One is I don't understand why there were several years back that the Pentagon donated $50,000 to Pelosi's campaign.
		I don't think these agencies should be donating, and I think if they are, then they have too much money.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Where did you hear, Jennifer, that the Pentagon was giving money to a political campaign?
unidentified		It's been several years ago when Pelosi was running that the Pentagon donated $50,000 to her campaign.
unidentified		I'm happy to look at that, but I have not seen that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, we haven't seen that, Jennifer.
		I wanted to show you a poll that was done recently.
		This would have been in April, third week of April, about Elon Musk's job approval.
		So we'll put it up on the screen.
		This is a Washington Post, ABC poll, and 57% disapprove of his, sorry, not that one, the other one, if we can put that on the screen.
		57% disapprove, 35% approve of the job that Elon Musk did.
		There it is on the screen for you.
		Why such a big difference?
unidentified		Well, I would go back and look at polls that were done when Doge was starting.
		And polls consistently show that there's a lot of support for a Doge-style type effort, 75% of the country.
		And that, again, that was true.
		We proved that back in the Tea Party eras.
		We won elections by focusing on these issues.
		And so obviously it shows that there was a gap in more people like the concept of Doge than like the way he managed Doge.
		And so there are lessons to be taken from that that we ought to absorb and listen to.
		If it was up to me, I would have put someone like Mike Rowe in charge of the effort who does the dirty jobs.
		Because to be really effective at cutting spending, you have to have a dirty jobs mentality and be willing to do very tedious, difficult, painstaking work to get a result.
		And I think of it as like as like, again, pulling the weeds, not mowing the flowerbed.
		Or think of it as power washing.
		You can take a hose and just spray a hose at a problem, and you don't have much impact.
		But if you take the time to really focus and do a painstaking power wash, then you could have a lot of impact.
		And so I think that's more about the way it was done than him personally.
		And again, I'm happy that Elon Musk gave of his time and talent, and there's a lot that's going to be gained from his insights.
		And I think it's unfair to hold him responsible when he was part of an administration in a much bigger effort to tackle this problem.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, part of, you know, this is a kind of a Silicon Valley concept, which is move fast and break things.
unidentified		Right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It didn't seem like that worked very well for the U.S. government.
		I mean, maybe it works very well in Silicon Valley for a startup or for a technology company.
		But when things break in the U.S. government, sometimes they can't be put back together.
unidentified		Well, yeah, right.
		Look, I agree with that.
		And I think, particularly when you look at the issue of foreign aid and PEPFAR, is that you can't turn a child back on if they've lost access to their drugs that were keeping them alive.
		That's a huge problem.
		That's the poster child you do not want to create if you want to have long-term budget savings.
		And so I think that approach did not translate well within the federal government.
		And I think the approach we used was much more effective.
		And that's an approach that anyone in the future can look at and learn from and apply.
		You have to make smart cuts that gain political capital and that have an economic benefit that's good for the country.
		There are agencies like the EPA and Department of Energy.
		Chris Wright is a phenomenal human being.
		He's the Secretary of Energy.
		They can do a lot at energy to make energy more affordable.
		And when you make energy more affordable, you lower inflation, you make the cost of everything go down.
		So there's a lot to really pivot.
		This is not the end of the Doge story.
		This is one chapter.
		There's going to be a second act.
		Politics is full of second acts and third acts and fourth acts.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And just for completion, here is the rest of that poll.
		Ask the question: how concerned are you that Trump or Doge will reduce government too much?
		And very and somewhat concerned was at 59%.
		Not so concerned or not concerned was at 51%.
		Take another call for you.
		And Al, Silver Spring, Maryland, Republican.
		Good morning, Al.
unidentified		Hi.
		I want to follow up on the raising the Social Security for across the income line.
		You really didn't answer that question.
		Okay.
		Why are you opposed to that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Raising the cap on Social Security from $174,000, the income cap.
unidentified		No, I think that's one of the things that should be on the table.
		Absolutely.
		Yeah, I thought I did answer that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Anything else, Al?
unidentified		Yeah, I also wanted to, one of the things that we don't address as a social problem is our incarceration rate.
		You know, we incarcerate more people than even China.
		Currently, there are about 2.2 million people incarcerated.
		And, you know, especially for black people, the incarceration rate is more than what Stalin used to incarcerate people.
		You know?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It's, yeah, Al, that's not really our topic, unless it relates to the United States.
unidentified		No, I think, yeah, well, the incarceration rate does have a budget impact.
unidentified		And I would President Trump actually did a good job in his first term on criminal justice reform to get at the very problem that the caller's asking about not overly incarcerating people for profenses.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Ron Bradenton, Florida, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Ron.
unidentified		Yes, sir.
		If you spent 10 years looking at waste, fraud, and abuse when you were in aid, why did we need Elon Musk to take and start Doge?
		And my other question is: I can see so much waste, fraud, and abuse just with our Congress.
		When I work, I work a 40-hour week all the time.
		I don't get these holidays and time off.
		You know, I'd like to see them work all the time.
		They waste more money with their little luncheons and meetings and going here and raising money there on my dime.
		They're working for me.
		If you want to talk about my waste, fraud, and abuse, I see it every day when I watch C-SPAN and watch my money go down the drain.
		They can't even sit there in their committees and do their jobs.
		They walk away and don't even listen to the people on the panels.
		And you were there, so explain to me how it is that my money's going down the drain with these congressmen and these senators.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Ron.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Well, yeah, I would defend my late boss that he was one that worked far more than 40 hours, I can assure you.
		He would come back from, he delivered, he actually maintained his medical practice, would deliver babies on the weekend, would come back with annotated spending bills and had read bills that even the committee staffers who supposedly wrote the bill hadn't read.
		But I think to his point is there is a concern that I have is that the biggest problem in Washington is not executive overreach, it's legislative underreach, is that Congress has not been jealous about its authority and has not asserted itself as aggressively as the founders wanted it to.
		And so, and look, we already have, you know, there's all this talk about Doge and commissions.
		We already have a deficit commission.
		It's called Congress.
		We have members who have the constitutional authority today to do an agency reorganization to solve all of these problems.
		And we ought to have, you know, 535 different versions of a solution and then have a very rigorous open debate about whose idea is the best and let that idea prevail.
		And so I take the caller's point and I agree with it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It's John Hart.
		He is CEO of Open the Books.
		You can find out more at openthebooks.com.
		Thanks so much for joining us today.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		Appreciate it, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Coming up after the break, a conversation with Evelyn Farkas of the McCain Institute on the ceasefire efforts between Russia and Ukraine.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We'll be right back.
unidentified		Mr. President, no doubt about it, This is today's historic in many ways.
		The proceedings of the United States Senate are being broadcast to the nation on television for the first time.
		This week, we mark the 39th anniversary of the U.S. Senate's first live television broadcast on C-SPAN 2.
		Join us as senators take to the floor to reflect on this landmark moment in American democracy.
chuck grassley ▲ ● ▼		Thanks to C-SPAN 2, this public service allows our constituents to see the swearing in of newly elected members, watching all-night sessions during votoramas, and tune in to history being made.
amy klobuchar ▲ ● ▼		That's why on its 39th birthday, Senator Grassy and I wanted to highlight how important it is for all television providers, including major streaming services like YouTube TV owned by Google and Hulu Plus Live TV owned by Disney, to provide the American public with C-SPAN and the opportunity to see their government work on the Senate floor.
chuck grassley ▲ ● ▼		C-SPAN does not receive one penny of taxpayer dollars.
chuck grassley ▲ ● ▼		It's funded primarily from satellite and cable providers.
amy klobuchar ▲ ● ▼		We're at a different stage in our history and a lot of people are seeing their news this way, so we need to expand it and make sure we're on all of those platforms as well as the ones we already are on.
		So thank you again to Senator Grassley for working with me to highlight C-SPAN's critical role and thanks to everyone who has had a hand in C-SPAN's success.
		Happy birthday.
unidentified		C-SPAN 2, 39 years of bringing the U.S. Senate live into homes across the country.
		Thanks to the support of our cable partners.
		Together, we bring you democracy unfiltered.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to c-SPAN.org slash radio on SiriusXM radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN radio.
		Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day, catch Washington today, weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		c-span democracy unfiltered 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.
		This fall, ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We are joined now by Evelyn Farkas, Executive Director of the McCain Institute, talking about the Ukraine-Russia ceasefire efforts.
		Evelyn, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thank you for having me, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So diplomats met yesterday in Turkey.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What happened?
unidentified		Well, they agreed on some prisoner exchanges, but there was no real progress made in terms of getting to a durable peace between Russia and Ukraine.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so a couple of things have happened that we want to talk about.
		So first is this drone attack.
		This is the front page of the Washington Times.
		Ukraine assault shifts war's momentum.
		Quote, Russian Pearl Harbor puts pressure on Putin to take peace talk seriously.
unidentified		So what was this Russian Pearl Harbor?
		Well, first, it wasn't really a Pearl Harbor because remember, Russia attacked Ukraine starting in 2014 and then full frontal assault in 2022 where they attacked the civilian population of Ukraine.
		So this wasn't an attack out of the blue.
		However, it was a surprise shock attack that had strategic impact.
		It had strategic impact psychologically and according to the various estimates, up to as many as a third of Russia's carrier strike capability.
		So the cruise missile strike capability was knocked out.
		So about 10, the New York Times is estimating about 10 bombers.
		This is significant, not just in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, Mimi.
		It's significant in terms of Russia being the number one adversary of the United States and our European allies threatening not just Ukraine, but other countries in the region.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that's a video that you just saw on your screen of that drone attack.
		So apparently some spies snuck the drones in and then remote controls did the attack all at once.
		And these are some pretty far away areas that they were able to strike.
unidentified		Right.
		I mean, what it demonstrates is, first of all, a high level of sophistication in terms of intelligence capability, in terms of military operations, and then also sophisticated strategy.
		The Ukrainians started planning this.
		I'm not sure whether it was over a year ago, but certainly months ago, they smuggled these drones into Russia proper and very far into Russia proper.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		And so they clearly had help.
unidentified		I would imagine they had some help inside, but the Ukrainians are saying all the operatives were exfiltrated.
		I can't believe that that's true, and I'm sure the Russians don't believe that that's true.
		Nevertheless, they then launched a simultaneous attack remotely.
		The drones took off from these boxes.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		They opened up.
unidentified		The boxes were launched on trucks.
		The boxes opened up, again, remotely, simultaneously, and attacked these airfields, multiple airfields, three or four, I believe.
		And I think our intelligence community is probably doing the estimates as well in terms of the damage.
		But it's undeniable that there's been severe damage, and I'm sure the Kremlin is assessing their options now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		There's also this on CNN.
		Ukraine says it has struck bridge connecting Russia to Crimea with underwater explosives.
		And you can see, it's kind of hard to see, but you can see that explosion right here on your screen, if you can see that.
		That's on CNN.
		Has the momentum shifted in this war because of these two attacks?
unidentified		I mean, has everything changed?
		I wouldn't call it a game changer, but I think in retrospect, this will be a turning point.
		The attack on the bridge connecting Crimea with the Russian mainland, the Kerch, so called Kerch Bridge, this was the third time the bridge was attacked.
		Maybe this one will be the one that really damages the bridge so much so that the Kremlin gives up on having that bridge there.
		I doubt it.
		I think for Putin, this is really a point of pride when he put that bridge up.
		He was there to christen it.
		Having said that, this is important also psychologically coming after the militarily and psychologically significant drone attack.
		This is a psychological attack much more than a military one, although they do use that bridge for a resupply and for civilian transport.
		The reality is that I think the Kremlin is going to have to stop and assess because they are now, they've been damaged significantly in their ability to hit Ukraine.
		And Ukraine is showing that they have cards up their sleeve, so to speak, that they have more surprise.
		Maybe there are more surprises coming.
		We don't know.
		But they're being very proactive and they're taking the initiative.
		So if I were the Russians, I would hurry to the negotiating table.
		The other thing, Mimi, is, and maybe you're going to get to this, other things that the United States can threaten, sanctions, increased military aid to UK.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I do definitely want to get to sanctions, but what do you make of reports that the United States was not notified of this drone attack before it happened?
unidentified		I think that's normal.
		You know, the Ukrainians haven't been notifying America, as far as we know, when they've taken proactive military operations like this in the past.
		So for example, when they launched an effort into the Russian territory and seized the territory, the Russian territory of Kerch, which they recently lost, but that was over a year ago.
		When they did that, they also didn't check with us to our knowledge, or at least at least what was reported in the media.
		You know, the Ukrainians, in order for this to be successful, they have to maintain operational security.
		And I think there's a lot of understanding on the Ukrainian side now that they're kind of on their own.
		And so they are taking whatever independent action they can very quietly.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you've got a question for our guest, Evelyn Farkas, she'll be with us for the next 30 minutes.
		You can give us a call about the Russia-Ukraine war.
		That is Republicans are on 202748-8001.
		Democrats are on 202748-8000.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Sanctions.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Russia is currently under sanctions.
unidentified		That's correct.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Have they worked so far?
unidentified		Well, they've put strain on the Russian economy.
		So the Russian interest rate is at 21% or so.
		Inflation's at 10%.
		They are clearly stressed.
		They're using their foreign reserves.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		They are reliant heavily.
unidentified		I think about 70% of their energy sales are going to China and India combined.
		If these new sanctions that Senator Graham very helpfully drafted up and got Senator Blumenthal to co-sponsor, got 82 senators to sign on, if these new sanctions go into effect, they would have a significant impact on Russia's economic situation because they would include sanctions on any countries buying that fuel from Russia.
		So oil and gas.
		China and India primarily.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But also Europe, right?
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Also Europe.
unidentified		And so the Europeans have said we're ready to also join the United States in these secondary sanctions and we're ready to also, frankly, inflict or take more pain in their economy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do we know about Russia's conditions for ending this war?
unidentified		They're maximalist.
		They haven't changed since the beginning.
		Vladimir Putin wants to control Ukraine, doesn't want Ukraine to be a sovereign state and certainly not a democratic state on his border.
		He has a neo-imperial vision.
		He wants to recreate the Russian Empire, starting with Ukraine.
		Frankly, you know, Moldova and Georgia, all the former Soviet states are targets in his writings and in his statements.
		And Europe isn't safe either in terms of his desire to weaken our allies and the United States itself.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But is he coming to the table with give me the entire country and then I'm going to take other parts of Europe?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, he's not saying that publicly.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		He's talking about root causes.
unidentified		And to him, root causes are that Ukraine wants to be independent, that Ukraine doesn't recognize that Ukraine should be part of the Russian Federation.
		And also that Ukraine should have its ability to defend itself against Russian attacks.
		So Russia does not want Ukraine to join any kind of military alliance.
		NATO, Russia does not want Ukraine to have a guarantee from the United States that's bilateral that would prevent Russia again from using its military against Ukraine.
		So these are and I'm sorry, territory.
		I mean the Russian government has indicated, given no indication of wanting to compromise and give up any territory to Ukraine.
		In fact, they've asked for more, more than they control on the ground militarily.
		So we have not seen any movement in terms of Putin's criteria for coming to an agreement.
		The Ukrainians, I think they're open to compromise.
		This is not something they're talking about publicly, but I would imagine that they are discussing this with the Trump administration.
		And so they are willing to compromise on certain things.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The Russians are asking for elections in Ukraine in the next 100 days.
		So within 100 days, they want a new leader.
		Why is that?
unidentified		Well, they want Vladimir.
		They don't want Zelensky.
		So Vladimir Zelensky is an adversary, a very clever adept, as we just saw from the latest attack, adversary of the Kremlin.
		And Putin wants to do everything he can to discredit him.
		And so calling for new elections also discredits the current leader.
		You cannot hold elections right now.
		Even the people who don't like President Zelensky inside Ukraine, the opposition forces, opposition parties, they insist.
		And I was just in Ukraine several months ago.
		They insisted that we cannot hold elections in Ukraine today, they said, because of the war, because of the lack of infrastructure.
		It would take a lot more than 100 days to be able to organize a credible, valid election in Ukraine.
		Having said that, I think President Zelensky, his party, all of the Ukrainians believe the minute the war ends, that would be the next step.
		But you need to put planning into place to make sure that that can be done credibly.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, the Trump administration has threatened to essentially walk away from peace efforts if there's no progress.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What impact do you think that that would have?
unidentified		Well, it would lengthen the duration of the war.
		It would mean that more people would die on both sides, so it would be regrettable.
		I think that the President Trump has a real opportunity right now.
		I mean, it's been handed to him in large part by the Ukrainians with these operations, but also by Senator Graham.
		He should take that opportunity and really push Putin, push the Kremlin.
		I'm sure that right now, President Putin is under incredible pressure internally, and President Trump can take advantage of that and try to force him to compromise.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What are those levers?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is it just additional sanctions?
unidentified		Additional sanctions, showing commitment to Ukraine, additional arms to Ukraine, more diplomatic isolation for Russia.
		They should be isolated.
		They are attacking people, civilians.
		You see what Ukraine's doing.
		They're hitting valid military targets, not the Russian people.
		And I think that's an important distinction that we should continue to make.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to callers, and we'll start with John in Denellen, Florida, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yeah, I'd like to ask the guests a couple of questions.
		She first said that Russia started the war.
		We know that's not true.
		Her boss, well, rest in peace, John McCain, actually went over there with Lindsey Graham and a couple others, and they did the maiden coupe and started this whole hula.
		The other question I wanted to ask her is: you know, we keep talking about Ukraine having some kind of upper hander position.
		They have no air power.
		I called in three and a half years ago when the war started.
		I said, Ukraine cannot win this war.
		They don't have any air power.
		I was in the military.
		You can't win a war without air power.
		It's just impossible.
		So they'll never win this war, and they really don't have a position of strength.
		And the last thing and the third thing I'd like to say is you said Ukraine's hitting valid military targets.
		Well, you talked about the one bridge that got blown up, but you didn't talk about the other bridge that got blown up where they blew it up with the train on and killed 28 people.
		So I'd like you to answer that if you can, please.
		Thanks.
		So first of all, I think what we see here is that air power, use of air power is changing.
		And the Ukrainians have an advantage here.
		They're the smaller party.
		It's true.
		They don't have all those long-range bombers that the Russians have.
		But they just demonstrated that asymmetric use of drones, strategic use of drones, can take out that advantage that Russia has.
		So that's not to say that Russia still doesn't have significant air power.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		It does.
unidentified		It's not to say that over time Russia couldn't perhaps win over Ukraine.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		But I think it's a toss-up.
unidentified		I would not bet against Ukraine.
		And the reason is because it's existential for the Ukrainian people, whereas it's not existential for the Russian people.
		I think that's important to understand.
		Putin cannot, he cannot call up a mass mobilization of the Russian people without some risk to him politically.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		That's why he's been calling in the North Koreans.
unidentified		That's why there are Chinese conscripts.
		I mean, that's why he's paying the Russians to go in and fight.
		So I would not bet against Ukraine here.
		I do think that both sides have their weaknesses, and over time it becomes harder for both sides.
		But this puts some time on the scale for Ukraine.
		The other question now I'm going to forget about the bridge, look, I'm sure that the Ukrainians tried hard to avoid civilian casualties because they very clearly today when they talked about the Kerch bridge being exploded, they made the point that there were no civilian casualties.
		The Ukrainians have tried very hard, whereas the Russians have deliberately, starting in Chechnya, in Syria, and in Ukraine, deliberately attacked maternity awards, UN convoys, civilian apartment buildings.
		So there's just no comparison.
		And then the first question was about creating the war.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Who started the war.
unidentified		So, the Ukrainian people, essentially, in 2014, when they saw that the Russia-friendly government was pulling Ukraine out of the European Union, where Ukraine was making moves to join the European Union.
		And last minute, Yanukovych, who was President Yanukovych, who was close to Putin, said, Okay, we're not going to go for the EU right now.
		The people went to the streets and demonstrated.
		That's a normal thing to do in a democracy.
		They demonstrated.
		But eventually, the demonstrations got so big that Yanukovych used force, used military force.
		And then the backlash was such that the political leaders in Ukraine decided that they needed a change and they brokered a compromise, which would allow Yanukovych to stay in the country, but they would hold new elections and they would determine what they would do with regard to whether they would join the EU, whether they would join NATO, the future of the country.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		So it was brokered by the West and Russia.
unidentified		Russia had an ombudsman there.
		But Yanukovych got nervous and he fled.
		So it wasn't a coup.
		It was actually something that was decided upon by the political leadership in Ukraine with Russia, the European Union, and the United States negotiating with them to create a bridge towards elections.
		They held those elections.
		President Poroshenko was the winner, if you remember.
		And then Russia invaded because Russia decided they didn't want this to be negotiated through the will of the Ukrainian people.
		They were going to force Ukraine to stay in the Russian orbit.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Carol in Elgin, Texas.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, and thank you, guest Ms. Parkas, for being on.
		And I wanted to ask about and get her opinions on the support you have amongst Republicans for Putin, and particularly amongst the Republican broadcast networks like Fox and other persons who used to work for Fox that openly support Vladimir Putin in this.
		And I mean, even when the second term of Donald Trump began, he incorrectly got up and stated, I think the previous caller followed this line, got up and stated that, oh no, Ukraine attacked Russia and all this stuff.
		And then there was the open breakdown in the Oval Office and the rant and rave that went on because of the vice president about Donald Trump was ranting and raving, you're going to start World War III and all this other stuff.
		And I just wonder, it appears things have changed, but do you think things have changed enough that we will become more subtly on the side of Ukraine and the United States?
		We know, we know, and by all appearances, NATO, the rest of NATO, is carrying on with their support of Ukraine.
		It appears that the United States balked at first at the beginning of Trump's term.
		And I wanted to get your comments on that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Carol.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Yeah, no, I think it's a really good question, and he made a lot of good points in there.
		The support for Putin for the support for Ukraine in the U.S. Senate and even in the House is still majority strong.
		It's strong.
		82 people, 82 members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, evenly split, are in support of Senator Graham and Senator Blumenthal's bipartisan bill to lobby sanctions, to levy sanctions on Russia.
		So that is indisputable.
		There are, however, yes, members of the Congress and certainly TV personalities who will repeat soundbites, talking points that come really straight from Kremlin television.
		And that is deeply regrettable.
		It's frankly borderline.
		I mean, it runs counter to U.S. interests, and it does make things more difficult.
		I will say, however, that the caller is correct, that there was a lot of alarm initially with regard to President Trump's comments initially and the White House meeting, the public meeting with President Zelensky.
		What we now see is that President Trump does seem to understand that Russia is the problem here, that Russia's not cooperating with his plan to bring peace as soon as possible and in a durable fashion, right?
		So I am optimistic that President Trump will understand, and President Graham knows this, President Graham, Senator Graham knows this very well, and he is somebody who I think President Trump listens to and trusts, and that's important as well.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Eric in Palm Beach, Florida, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Eric.
unidentified		Thank you.
		First of all, let me say I really respect today's guest, Ms. Farkas.
		I'm happy that you're on.
		Listen, I know you're the expert.
		I've done some reading on this.
		And I think part of the case that you talk about is being overstated, and part of it is being understated and hardly stated at all.
		And that's why I'm calling.
		I've done some extensive reading, and I've gone back into the archives, the National Security Archives housed at Washington University, where there's documentation dating back to January of 1991 of multinational negotiations between Germany,
		Britain, France, Russia, and the United States, where there was, at the time, unification of Germany, conditionally about the expansion of NATO and the limitation that NATO would not expand very far eastward if at all beyond Germany.
		This is a point of contention.
		Some people deny that that ever happened.
		In the archives, it shows that there's evidence.
		German newspapers have investigated it.
		There was an ongoing guarantee, and I think this is the understated part: that Russia's motivation in this is that they don't want a situation like the Cuban Missile Crisis where NATO weaponry is installed right on their border.
		And I think that's really at the crux of this.
		They don't want NATO in there in any way, shape, or form.
		They want a buffer zone.
		I don't think there really is evidence that Russia is out to go on the march taking over Ukraine.
		They just want it neutral like it's been for a long time since 2014.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Eric, let's take that up.
unidentified		Okay, so first of all, with regard to whether there was a guarantee made or not, I just take James Baker's word for it, Secretary Baker.
		He was involved in those negotiations in his interviews that he's given his authorized biographers.
		He has said that there was no guarantee made.
		Many other Bush administration officials have made the same point.
		I have to believe them.
		Even so, even if we had made some kind of guarantee that we wouldn't put forces in the eastern part of NATO, it doesn't excuse Russia using military force to alter the borders of its neighbors, starting with Georgia in 2008, which it invaded.
		Russia still occupies 20% of Georgia.
		And then 2014, the invasion and annexation, first time since World War II, using military force of Crimea in Ukraine.
		And of course, starting the war, which is still ongoing in Donbass.
		So it doesn't excuse anything Russia did.
		If they were feeling threatened, and they did express this, they had every ability, and I was part of these conversations to discuss confidence-building mechanisms.
		We had all kinds of arms control agreements.
		We invited Russia to consultations regularly.
		But Putin actually does want to take over Ukraine, does not want Ukraine to be a sovereign democratic state on its borders.
		Putin has been very clear in what he said.
		He became even more enamored with this idea of recreating the Russian Empire during COVID, according to most sources.
		And so I think it's indisputable that his vision right now runs counter to our vision.
		Frankly, at the end of the day, we're probably going to need a more pragmatic leadership in the Kremlin to make a deal, to make a compromise, to allow this, you know, to allow stability in Europe to persist or to be reinstituted.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, absent of regime change in Moscow, do you see this war ending anytime soon?
unidentified		It's possible, but again, it would be something close to regime change because the military and the security forces, the people around Putin, would have to say to him, listen, boss, we can't do this anymore.
		Let's make a compromise.
		And he could then stay in power if he's willing to be pragmatic.
		Now, I will say on the flip side, Ukrainians would have a hard time trusting Vladimir Putin.
		That's why it's more likely if they pick someone else to make the deal that it might stick also on the Ukrainian side.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And so do you think that this is just going to keep going on and on and on indefinitely as long as the Ukrainians are still able to fight?
unidentified		Yes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's David, Louisville, Kentucky, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Good morning.
		And I want to compliment your guest today.
		She's been a great representative of the United States for peace in Eastern Europe.
		My question concerns the recent election in Poland.
		What does your guest think about the outcome there?
		Well, I think there it demonstrates that, you know, there's still a fight on for the, you know, for democracy.
		And in Poland, there are still, just like, frankly, in the United States and elsewhere, there are still people who want a silver bullet, who want the strong, more autocratic executive to rescue them from their day-to-day problems and, frankly, everything that's going on globally.
		So, you know, I think it is a struggle internally in Poland, just like it is elsewhere.
		So it remains to be seen how it will shake out.
		But clearly, the government of Poland wants to demonstrate that they still have the confidence of the people in calling for elections.
		And then everything will have to play out politically.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Roseanne in Nashville, Tennessee.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Republican, good morning, Roseanne.
unidentified		Good morning.
		You know, to me, Putin is the hero in this scenario.
		He's routing out Azov Nazis, led by our own wicked CIA.
		And for 75 years, Ukraine was used for money laundering, child trafficking, and organ culling for adrenochrome, using young blood for longevity drugs, and those patents exist.
		There's no point in arguing it.
		We can continue to kill off Russian leaders who expose that truth in videos of children that have been cut to pieces and support the UN World Economic Forum and NIH who put biolabs in Putin's backyard.
		Or I pray Putin takes over Ukraine and makes it into a Christian nation, devoid of LGBQTI perversion.
		I feel he will do a far better job at that than the USA ever could or would.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, we'll get a response.
unidentified		Well, I don't think, I mean, there's so much there.
		First of all, the caller was repeating a lot of conspiracy theories.
		With regard to children, if you want to talk about children, we know that the Russians abducted hundreds of Ukrainian children and brought them against their will into Russia and they're still holding them there.
		The International Criminal Court put out an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin on that basis.
		The Russian government is running, I mean, it's an onslaught against human rights, the way that they're waging the war.
		And frankly, you know, I just don't even know what to say to all the conspiracy theories.
		But clearly, the idea that Vladimir Putin would rescue children or save people is, you know, I mean, it's...
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Has there been any progress on getting back those abducted Ukrainian children?
unidentified		So...
		So in the last round of negotiations in Istanbul yesterday, it sounds like that was discussed, that the Ukrainians raised it as a stipulation, as something they would like to see addressed in the near future.
		So it's clearly being raised, but there's been no progress.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Timothy Waldorf, Maryland, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Timothy.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'd like to thank our guests.
		I would just like to say the real reason why Zelensky didn't kill Trump what the plane was about the drone attack is because Trump would have killed Putin because they're so close in line.
		And I'd like a response from your guests about that, how Zelensky is doing all these texts about the United States knowledge.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		About why Zelensky didn't tell Trump about the drone attack because he doesn't trust him.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's what the caller is saying.
unidentified		I mean, I think the Ukrainians don't trust anyone right now.
		And the fact of the matter is, why should they?
		They shouldn't trust anyone with their security.
		You know, in 1991, speaking of what happened in 1991, the Ukrainians basically disarmed.
		They forfeited their nuclear weapons in exchange for a security guarantee, which we, Canada, and Russia, and I believe France, gave them.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		And we broke it.
unidentified		When Russia invaded, subsequently in 2014, we didn't come to Ukraine's aid.
		Yet the agreement when they gave up the nuclear weapons was if you get invaded by someone, we, the United States, Canada, and Russia will come to your aid.
		So, you know, the Ukrainians have no reason to trust any of us, frankly.
		And of course, yes, there is a difficult relationship, it seems, between President Trump and President Zelensky, but they're leaders.
		They have the interests of their countries in their minds, and that's what they have to work based upon.
		So I don't expect President Zielinski to be reading President Trump or the U.S. government into everything that he's planning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Nelson in Florida wants to know why Western Europe doesn't help Ukraine more.
unidentified		Well, I think Western Europe has been slow to adjust to the reality, frankly.
		They are now trying to do more.
		I believe that they still need a greater sense of urgency.
		Certainly, and I'm making a distinction now between Western Europe and Eastern Europe, because Eastern Europe is, you know, hair on fire.
		I mean, the Poles have been arming like nobody's business.
		They are spending more as a percentage of their GDP than the United States on their defense.
		They understand that they could be next.
		But in Western Europe, they're still struggling with getting their population to understand that Russia is an existential threat, that if Russia gets its way in Ukraine, that Vladimir Putin won't stop, that Vladimir Putin will take Moldova, that he'll take Georgia, that he'll threaten the Baltic states.
		And ultimately, that will be a danger, that will pose a danger to France and Germany and the other Western European states, because Russia will try either through military means or other means, asymmetric means.
		We know they're on their cyber networks, on their critical infrastructure.
		They've been practicing these bombing, these sabotage missions to intimidate the Western Europeans.
		So Russia wants Western Europe to be its ally in this sphere of influence and this attempt to create an empire.
		And so I think the Europeans are starting to understand, certainly at the political level, that this is urgent, but they have to bring their people along, and it costs money.
		And as we know, we're in a difficult time economically, so the adjustments are not coming as quickly as we would like.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		On the independent line in Eagle Point, Oregon, Dan, you're next.
unidentified		Yes, thank you.
		I think that Ukraine might have to do what Finland did back in 1940 because there's no way that they're going to win against Russia.
		Russia is too powerful.
		And the Finns finally had to decide whether they wanted to get completely wiped out or make some kind of an agreement with them.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Who, Dan?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You said the Finns?
unidentified		The Finns.
		Oh.
		In Finland in 1940.
		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it.
unidentified		When they had the winter war with Russia, they had to concede finally because they were just getting too overwhelmed.
		I just don't think that Ukraine's going to be able to hold out against Russia.
		Russia's, I mean, they have nuclear weapons, too, that they could use.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that?
unidentified		Well, I think the caller is right that Russia is still stronger militarily and economically than Ukraine, unless, of course, we ramp up our support to Ukraine.
		And then, frankly, you know, U.S. and European economies are, you know, will completely dwarf the Russian economy and we could help Ukraine significantly more.
		Having said that, you know, on the nuclear front, I mean, Russia, you know, that would be a whole nother world if they use nuclear weapons.
		And I do believe there are a lot of reasons why they wouldn't.
		With regard to the neutralization, I think that's off the table.
		The Finns themselves have taken it off the table.
		The Finns have said, even though now we have 800, you know, miles of common border that we have to defend with Russia, we will do it because we recognize that neutrality is not going to save us.
		We want to be part of NATO.
		And they joined NATO.
		And I was just in Austria a couple weeks ago, and the Austrians are now questioning their neutrality because they thought it was a great idea also at the end of World War II when the strategic situation, when the political situation was very different.
		So I think neutrality, unfortunately, is not an option for anyone right now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Are there weapons that you think Ukraine needs that the United States is not sending or has not sent?
unidentified		More air defense, yes.
		That would protect the civilians and give the Ukrainians the ability to move undiverted or undistracted against the Russian targets that are striking them.
		So I think protecting the civilians is critical.
		I also think it would allow Ukraine to open their airports and get their economy going in a more robust fashion.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And are these air defense weapons on the table in Congress at all?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Has there been talk about sending more weapons?
unidentified		I'm sure that behind the scenes there are conversations in Congress for those who support Ukraine.
		The problem, of course, is capacity, and that has to do with the U.S. industrial base.
		That has to do with the number of patriot systems, the number of the amount of ammunition available to feed those patriot systems.
		So it's a little more complicated than just sheer political will.
		Having said that, I think with political will and on a wartime footing, we could do more to help Ukraine on that front.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Carl, Louisville, Kentucky.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat, good morning, Carl.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Longtime fan of Evelyn.
		A few months ago, I got a chance to talk to Marvin Cowell on the show, another expert on Russia.
		So enough with the fanboy stuff.
		My question was about the intelligence, the intelligence over there, because this operation that Ukraine pulled was something out of mission impossible.
		It was just amazing with these trucks and the sliding roof and the drones coming out.
		It was just absolutely incredible.
		But it seems like is there a breakdown in intelligence over there for and we didn't know about it?
		It was just an amazing operation.
		And do you, and you know there's going to be a response, but do you have any feelings on that?
		I appreciate you.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		So first, we don't know whether we knew about it, right?
unidentified		Our intelligence community is not going to get on television and say we knew about it.
		So maybe we did, even though, again, the Pentagon officials have said that they weren't notified in advance.
		That doesn't mean we didn't pick up some intelligence about it.
		It's possible.
		Having said that, I think the Ukrainians are incredibly skilled, and I think it goes to show also the vulnerability in Russia, because the Ukrainians were able to do this on Russian territory.
		You know, I have a hard time believing they didn't have help.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Now, the Ukrainians have said that the truck drivers weren't aware.
unidentified		I'm sure they're trying to protect people as well.
		Or maybe they really weren't aware.
		I mean, the Ukrainians nevertheless have demonstrated incredible intelligence and military intelligence operational capability with this effort.
		And again, it's not just that it's significant in terms of operationally, it's also strategically significant because of the military impact, because of the psychological impact.
		I do believe that Putin's got to be thinking through his options a little differently today because of it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that this drone attack has sent alarm bells in the United States as far as if Ukraine can do this against Russia, a much more capable and stronger foe, who could do it against the United States?
unidentified		Yes, I'm sure I've already seen people being quoted saying, what about our bases in places like Africa where we don't have a lot of security, but there are terrorist adversaries who could use drones.
		Now, they don't have that sophisticated capability that the Ukrainians have.
		The other thing is, I'm sure China is watching.
		And this is why it's also significant, this attack that the Ukrainians launched beyond the Russia-Ukraine battlefield.
		Because the Chinese are watching and the Taiwanese are watching.
		And if you're Taiwanese, you're happy today because you're thinking, good, I want Xi to worry about our drone capability because the Taiwanese also have been building a drone capability.
		They've been talking to the Ukrainians.
		The Ukrainians and Taiwanese have been very clear that they understand that they are kind of allied, if you will, in this fight because Russia and China are working together against them.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What has been China's role in this and are they playing a role in potential ceasefire talks?
unidentified		It would be great if they were playing a role in potential ceasefire talks.
		I don't, to my knowledge, I haven't seen indications of that and obviously I'm not in government, so I wouldn't know.
		Having said that, they could.
		They like the fact that Russia is waging this war and weakening and distracting the United States and our allies and partners, not just in Europe, but in East Asia.
		So they now will be looking at this with some concern because again, it has implications for their freedom of operation and what a small force can do against a much larger nuclear capable military.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Heather in Idaho on the Republican line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Heather, you're on with Evelyn Farkas.
unidentified		Oh, thank you so much.
		And I just want to commend this lady.
		I've never heard of this Institute before, but I do remember a long time ago, Senator McCain, he was singing bomb, bomb bomb bomb, bomb horror.
		I think he was right back then.
		And I think this Institute has the right ideas and attitude.
		I remember back in Afghanistan when we helped the Afghan people drive Russia out of Afghanistan.
		Unfortunately, that did not end well for us eventually in Afghanistan.
		But anyway, I just want to command her, keep up the good work.
		We're praying.
		And Idaho, we've been praying for Hussein.
		In our church, our bishop asked us to pray for Hussein because the Orthodox, they want to kick out anybody else.
		They want total Orthodox over there.
		And I'm just concerned about the Calcutta.
		If Russia takes over, they're going to be persecuted.
		So keep up your good work.
		All right, Heather.
		I will say she makes an important point because most people don't understand that Russia is actually not a place where there's freedom of religion.
		The Kremlin, the Russian government, persecutes Mormons and others who are not of the Orthodox faith.
		They give leeway, obviously, to some, they have a lot of secular Jews or Jews in their population, other religions.
		But there are certain religions that they do persecute, like religions that are more interested in proselytizing and changing people's faith.
		And that is a real distinction that doesn't go discussed much in our world.
		The other thing I would just say is: please, we also have to pray for those Afghans who helped us, who are now stranded in places like Pakistan, in the Middle East, or in the United States without a clear sense of the future.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		Those people fought with us.
unidentified		And even though at the moment it looks like Afghanistan's clearly not a flourishing democracy, we owe it to them to take care of them, to let them stay here in the United States where they've been living and working, some of them for many, many years.
		One more call for you, Akron, Ohio, Democrat James, you're on.
		Yes, I'm trying to get the truth out of this.
		I've heard several times that Germany and France and several other countries are no longer sharing total information with the American government due to the Afghan war and the Ukrainian, not Afghanistan, excuse me, Ukraine, and the Israel situation.
		And I'm wondering, is that accurate or exactly what is going on?
		I know there's a distrust of Donald Trump, and I don't know if that's the reasoning behind it or what, but why aren't they sharing the Secret Service information with us?
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Intelligence sharing?
unidentified		I haven't seen any reports that the British or the Germans are slowing their intelligence sharing.
		There are clearly reports about concern because, as we know, in the first Trump administration, President Trump did reveal Israeli sensitive Israeli information to the Russians in the Oval Office.
		And so there's some fear, perhaps, that the United States might not keep as close control over our allies' intelligence, perhaps.
		But I haven't seen any public assessment of whether they're holding it back, nor have I seen any statements to that effect.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		That's Evelyn Farkas, Executive Director of the McCain Institute.
		You can find her work at mccaininstitute.org.
		Thanks so much for joining us.
unidentified		Thank you, Maby.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we'll have more of your phone calls after a break in Open Forum.
		You can start calling in now with anything on your mind related to public policy.
		Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8000 and 2.
		Stay with us.
unidentified		Get C-SPAN wherever you are with C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on demand.
		Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
		Catch the latest episodes of Washington Journal.
		Find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
		The C-SPAN Now app is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
		Download it for free today.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Looking to contact your members of Congress?
		Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
		Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
		This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
		Contact information on congressional committees, the President's Cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.
		The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's non-profit operations.
		Scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to order your copy today.
		If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org.
		Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
		These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
		This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
		Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we are back with Open Forum.
		We'll get to your calls in just a moment.
		Just as a follow-up to what we were just talking about, the Ukraine war, this is The Guardian with the headline, Trump still open to meeting Putin and Zelensky.
		Russia rejects unconditional ceasefire as it happened.
		That's at The Guardian.
		And a couple of things for your schedule for later today.
		Education Secretary Linda McMahon testifies on the President's 2026 budget requests for her department.
		She's also expected to answer questions on ongoing efforts to dismantle her agency.
		That is going to be at the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee.
		That hearing is live.
		It starts at 10 a.m. Eastern right here on C-SPAN.
		We will take you there right after this program, so stay with us for that.
		You can also watch it on the app and online.
		Then at 2.30, the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, Paul Atkins, testifies in front of a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the President's 2026 budget request for the SEC.
		The proposal calls for a flat budget of $2.15 billion and aims to reduce nearly 10% of full-time positions.
		You can watch that hearing live.
		Again, that's 2.30, but that's on C-SPAN 3.
		Both of those items will be on our app, C-SPANNOW and onlinec-SPAN.org.
		Let's go to your calls now to Wayne, Olympia, Washington, Republican.
		Good morning, Wayne.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I was waiting to speak with your lady, your guest, but she's gone.
		So I would like to correct one thing that she said as far as in Russia, she said there's no Mormons and LDS.
		And fortunately, there is.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		No, she didn't say there are not any.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		She said that they are persecuted.
unidentified		Oh, no, they're not.
unidentified		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Tell us about what you know.
unidentified		Well, there's a temple, a very big one, and a lot of Mormons in Russia.
unidentified		So, but that was just one thing.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And are you a Mormon, Wayne?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How do you know about that?
unidentified		Yes, I am.
		I'm Mormon.
		Okay.
		And I've been there.
		I was married to a Russian.
		But yeah.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		I called.
		I was going to talk to her about Ukraine.
		But Ukraine is so corrupt that, and it has been.
		That war has been going on for over 20 years.
		So it's basically like Afghanistan.
		So good luck, folks.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Here's Paul, Glendora, California, Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you today?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good.
unidentified		Good.
		First time caller.
		I watch you guys all the time, and I just, I've tried to call in before, and I never got through.
		But I just wanted to say about the news channels that are showing news.
		I think, you know, I stream them all.
		I go to Fox.
		I do CNN, ABC, News Nation.
		And of all the channels, I think Fox is so pro-Trump.
		It's all fake news.
		And I think the best news that you can watch is between CNN and News Nation because they seem to tell both sides.
		And they're just not one-sided.
		And unless something's in it for Trump, he's not going to give any peace to Ukraine and Russia if he's not going to make a dollar about it.
		So that's all I wanted to say.
		I appreciate your show.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Emmanuel in Corpus Christi, Texas, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, and thank you for having me.
		This is my first time calling.
		And thanks for all you do.
		I just wanted to call, and I was trying to get the lady, but she's not there anymore.
		So anyways, I wanted her to maybe talk to the public about the differences between Zionist, Zionism, and anti-Semitism.
		Because there is a big difference.
		Everybody puts the anti-Semitism with Israel, but that's more like languages kind of thing.
		And so I think I really think that the media needs to do more to hold Israel accountable for what they're doing.
		And, you know, they're basically wiping out the Palestinians.
		And nobody's doing anything about it.
		Nobody talks against it.
		Nothing.
		Only the people are starting to rise up.
		Because why?
		There's innocent babies, innocent people getting slaughtered.
		So I just wanted to say that.
		And thank you for all you do.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Emmanuel, this is in today's New York Times.
		Israeli soldiers opened fire near Gaza aid site.
		Gaza officials say 27 are killed.
		It was the second such shooting by Israeli forces in three days near the same aid site in southern Gaza, which is part of a contentious new Israeli and American-backed initiative.
		That's the New York Times.
		And this is Elizabeth in New York, Democrat.
		Good morning, Elizabeth.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Yes, I just wanted to comment and say, yes, the last man who spoke, he's so right.
		I watch all the panels too.
		I watch CNN, Fox, and other channels for news.
		And I can understand some of the problems that I never see anyone on Fox ever admit that Trump may have made a mistake or done something that could cause problems for our country.
		And I recently saw a report where when these raids are taking place by the Homeland Security and people in the ICE organizations,
		they're complaining that they have to wear masks because when they're doing the raids, people are taking pictures of them when they're raiding establishments.
		And the Republicans said that they have to wear masks because they're afraid their families will be targeted.
		And so I can't understand why do the Republicans cry out and scream when something that takes place and it harms other people or Democratic people and Democratic cities.
		You don't hear them complain.
		When they had the rhetoric from Trump when he was on trial in New York and he threatened the judge in the trial, and then he went after the judge's daughter and they leaked out her address.
		And the Republicans never cry out.
		So many people have been caught up in his harmful rhetoric when he went against the Mexican people and the man drove all the way down to Texas and killed so many Mexicans because he said that's where he knew they'd be a large amount of Mexicans in El Paso.
		He left families grieving to this day because they lost loved ones in that massacre.
		When the man went to Buffalo and killed black people at the supermarket, families are grieving still to this day.
		But Republicans don't cry out and say, you know, this has to stop.
		When children are massacred in schools, they don't cry out.
		So I want to know why.
		Why don't they have the same concern for people living in whether it's a Democratic city or people who are protesting and they come under fire or are assaulted at these protests?
		Why don't they ever say anything?
		Why don't they condemn that rhetoric?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I've got to move on to Paul in Independent and Boca Raton, Florida.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Paul.
unidentified		This is Paul.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes, it's Paul.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go right ahead.
unidentified		Okay.
		I'm 77 years old.
		I live in Crystal River, Florida.
		And I'm 77, like I said, 77 years old.
		I've been voting since I was 18.
		And I'm an independent.
		And I am quite dismayed about not so much dose as I am about how it was trying to be implemented.
		They seem to take a ready-fire aim approach to things rather than looking down deeper into what are the repercussions of their decisions.
		So, you know, I think they could take a little better approach than a ready-fire aim to come from military families.
		So, you know, like I said, it becomes obvious.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Cole.
unidentified		Here's in New Jersey, a Republican David.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're on the air.
unidentified		Good morning to you, ma'am.
		First, I want to say thank you for CNN.
		I know people give you a hard time, but I think you do the best you can at being neutral and really showing both sides of the coin.
		And I really deeply appreciate that.
		Thank you.
		One to remark to was the erroneous reports about these shootings in Gaza and shooting the Gazans with the A-trucks.
		You know, they're receiving aid, rather.
		None of it's been verified independently, and I really would question the sources.
		The Americans denied it.
		The IDF denies it.
		And no one's been able to verify what they've been saying.
		And I question the legitimacy of those claims.
		You know, war is hell.
		It's never appropriate for civilians to die.
		This is one time that it's totally fabricated from everything I've been able to read outside of the Times.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, David.
		Here's Walter Highland, California, Democrat.
		Good morning, Walter.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I like to talk about the genocide in Israel and how it is definitely, definitely a white supremacist thing.
		You've got to connect the docs.
		Israel is killing Palestinians every day.
		There is no war going on.
		Where's the army of Hamas?
		Where's the tanks at?
		Where's the planes at?
		Why are they going through there slaughtering these people like that?
		And then when you say something about it, you're anti-Semitic.
		But in this country, the president is stopping people from speaking out.
		So you cannot talk about this genocide without being anti-Semitic.
		This is an abomination of humanity.
		And then the Christian right is sitting around not saying a word about it.
		It's all Calamis, Brown, Arabs, black, anybody but white people can be slaughtered like this, and no one would care in this country.
		And no Jewish person around the world will be safe unless this stops.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is Jack in Utah, Independent Line.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Hello.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Jack.
unidentified		I was just wanting to say, why are so many people calling in and worrying so much about other countries when there are so many problems in America?
		Like we have such a high deficit and there are people like actually homeless people and other people starving.
		Why do people in America worry so much about wars, foreign wars, when we have problems in our own country that need to be fixed?
		Like America should be a country, not we shouldn't be The world.
		That's all I wanted to say.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Bill in Pennsylvania, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Bill.
unidentified		Good morning.
		The problem of all our maybe previous callers that mentioned about the white supremacy thing in Israel.
		Well, what brought that on?
		October 7th?
		Did he forget about that?
		Just want to touch base about that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Bill.
		Here's Sandra, Brooklyn, New York, Democrat.
		Good morning, Sandra.
unidentified		Good morning.
		First of all, I'd like to say something about the caller from Utah talking about America taking on things.
		That's what made us so great.
		That's why we got this statue.
		That's number one.
		The next thing I want to talk about, Zelensky.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes, go ahead, Sandra.
unidentified		Yes.
		Sorry.
		Okay.
		And also now, talking about Zelensky, I am so proud of him that he did what he did as far as Russia is concerned.
		Because NATO has been talking about bringing Ukraine in.
		They never did it.
		Never.
		Biden, as far as I could recall, left money to be given to aid to Ukraine.
		I don't think that Trump ever released that money.
		But what Velensky did was, because he wasn't getting the help that he needed from these other governing countries, he went out and he struck on his own.
		And I've been telling people, this is what they needed to do.
		They needed to make a difference.
		Oh, it's very true now that they're going to pay for what they did, but they did it, nevertheless.
		So I'm proud of them for what they did, where the NATO gets behind them and give them the opportunity to bring them in.
		So I thank you very much for allowing me to speak.
		Have a pleasure.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Julian in Georgia, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Julian.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, ma'am.
		I'm calling because I think a lot of people have forgotten that many years ago, I remember when Russia put missiles in Cuba, America went absolutely ballistic that there was missiles 90 miles off our coast.
		Then NATO kept intrusion and intruding closer and closer to Russia.
		They said they wouldn't go any further.
		Putin gave them a red line.
		They kept pushing and pushing and pushing.
		Zelensky keeps going around the world saying that he wants peace, yet begging for weapons.
		At the same time, just like Japan, when they were in Washington making a peace deal, they attacked Pearl Harbor.
		Zelensky really did the same thing, having a peace talk and attacking at the same time.
		They don't want peace.
		If he wanted peace, he wouldn't be attacking Russia and all the other countries would be backing off and letting Russia have what they want.
		But everybody wants a war with Russia.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Beth in Shenectady, New York, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Beth.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Excuse me, Mike.
		I'm trying to clear my throat.
		So I just, again, what's happening in Gaza is absolutely horrible.
		I wanted to also mention that a lot of your callers in a lot of the country don't realize that it's very common practice in this country.
		It's not quite as bad as what's happening in other parts of the world, but we carry out involuntary experiments on our senior citizens in nursing homes with medications and in our jails and in our psychiatric wards.
		And it's absolutely brutal and it's unforgivable, and I'm not making that up.
		And it's something that should be stopped.
		Those are easy populations that can't really give consent.
		And so things are, drugs are tested on them.
		And even Harvard carries this out.
		It's a very common practice.
		And it shouldn't be happening because, like I said, they can't give consent and they're easy prey.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Judy, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Democrat.
		Good morning.
		Yes.
unidentified		I'm calling concerning Gaza.
		I don't know if most people know this, but the head of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has resigned because somehow or other, an unnamed U.S. group has partnered with Israel to distribute aid to Gaza.
		However, it's widely believed that it's being done with and in cooperation with Israel to displace the people, seize the land, and perhaps even gather the people when they're picking up food to bomb them.
		I just don't understand why the United States government is so complicit in this genocide, and no one will answer that question.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're talking about Judy.
		This is the Washington Post.
		U.S. consulting firm quits Gaza humanitarian aid effort amid criticism.
unidentified		The God's authoritarian foundation CEO resigned because somehow or other some unnamed U.S. branch, even though we don't have USAID any longer, is partnering with Israel to distribute the...
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, yeah, I have it here.
		So this is CNN, head of controversial U.S.-backed Gaza aid group, resigned, citing concerns over independence and impartiality.
		This resigned Sunday after weeks of controversy.
		On Monday, the group said it had began operations in Gaza.
		However, it is not yet clear whether the aid has reached civilians.
		It's the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, GHF.
unidentified		The reason is because it is widely believed that this is to collect the Gaza people wherever they want them to be, seize the land that they move them from, and potentially even bomb them.
unidentified		Israel has, from 1900 on, their sole aim has been to displace the total population of what they refer to as Arabs living in Palestine and have the whole country to themselves.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here's Marty, Westwood, Massachusetts, Republican.
		Good morning, Marty.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Just a quick update on the state of religious freedom in Russia.
		We were talking about the Mormons, and turns out about a year ago, Putin passed a law, probably kind of paranoidal, that the only church that could openly perform any missionary work was the Russian Orthodox Church.
		So that excludes everybody else, including the Mormons.
		And the other just point that I wanted to bring out that Russia has begun earnestly dismantling the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the Crimean.
		So that's about it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Secretary McMahon, Education Secretary, is set to testify in about five minutes in front of a Senate subcommittee appropriations.
		We're going to take you there.
		You can see the room.
		The Secretary has arrived in the room.
		We'll continue to take your calls until that gets underway.
		It should be in about five minutes.
		Here's John, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Independent.
		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just want to know how come the United Nations hasn't dispatched UN forces to help distribute the humanitarian to the personnel there.
		And also, how come the UN or any other country hasn't asked the leadership of Palestine about Hamas' actions about what they did when he invaded Israel?
		That's all I want to know.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's another John in Beaverton, Oregon.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat, good morning, John.
unidentified		Hi there.
		I just want to end on a positive note.
		Last weekend, I was part of a forum talking about involvement in local government.
		And one of the things that came out of it, or I kind of paraphrased it, is the reason for laws are how we can interact with businesses, government, and each other in a community.
		And that's what our country needs to remember: interact in a community.
		And it changes your whole focus.
		And even some of our elected representatives said, oh, I go, who are Democrats, go over to the Republican side, and they say, part of the state.
		And they go, did you know that most of the time we get a lot of stuff done in the state government?
		I'm not sure if that happened at the federal level.
		And then in terms of Gaza and Israel, my concern is that the actions that are being taken, I condemn what Hamas did, but then Israel is putting up roadblocks by their actions to a true two-state solution.
		And I am a Catholic Christian, and the number of Arab Christians in the West Bank at one time was 25%.
		It's now down to less than 1%.
		And they have to go through 300 checkpoints.
		So it's not Muslim versus Jew.
		It's much more complicated than that.
		But as I said, hey, last weekend, people were just, how do we get involved?
		And that's what we have to remember.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, John.

▲