CSPAN - Washington Journal 06/09/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 9, 2025 07:00-10:00 - CSPAN

02:59:43

Washington Journal 06/09/2025

Participants

Main

hugo gurdon

14:50

pedro echevarria

cspan 35:28

Appearances

brian lamb

cspan 00:43

karen bass

d 01:22

kristi noem

admin 00:36

Clips

adam goodman

r 00:04

donald j trump

admin 00:09

jacob soboroff

msnow 00:03

kristen welker

nbc 00:28

russ vought

00:05

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		And the Republican tax and spending cuts bill.
		That's followed by Joey Garrison of USA Today, who previews the week ahead at the White House.
		The Hills Emily Brooks examines the week ahead in Congress.
		And Hugo Gurdin of the Washington Examiner talks news of the day.
		Washington Journal starts now.
		Join the conversation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is The Washington Journal for June 9th.
		The first wave of National Guard troops arrived in Los Angeles, according to administration officials, to calm protests and to give immigrations and customs enforcement officials support in their activities.
		This is part of President Trump's promise to provide, quote, strong law and order amid the protest.
		California Governor Gavin Newsom says he plans to file suit against the administration because it did not coordinate the use of the guard with the state.
		And a letter from a lawyer to Defense Secretary Hegseff saying that there was no need for the Guardsmen.
		If you want to comment on these new developments stemming out of immigration enforcement efforts in Los Angeles, you can call us on the lines this morning, 2027-8001 for Republicans, 202748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		If you want to text us your thoughts this morning on these new developments, 202-748-8003.
		And if you want to post on our social media sites, it's facebook.com slash C-SPAN.
		You can also post on X at C-SPANWJ.
		As you're calling in, this is the headline from the Washington Times this morning talking about that first wave of National Guard troops arriving in Los Angeles.
		The headline, National Guard arrives to, quote, liberate LA.
		The sub-headline, the president responding to protesters' violence against federal officers, saying that the guard troops poured into Los Angeles Sunday, called out by President Trump to restore calm after a weekend of violent protests against the administration's attempt to increase deportations by targeting the country's largest pool of illegal immigrants.
		It was the president yesterday amid travel back and forth.
		He made comments about the use of the National Guard and the events in Los Angeles.
		Here's President Trump from Sunday.
unidentified		Let's see what happens.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		If we think there's a serious insurrection or less than that, we're going to have law and order.
unidentified		Very important.
unidentified		How would you define an insurrection?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		You really just have to look at the site.
unidentified		You have to see what's happening.
		Last night in Los Angeles, we watched it very closely.
		There was a lot of violence there.
		There was a lot of violence that it could have gotten much worse.
		And you have an incompetent governor.
		Just take a look at the train stations that he's building.
		Like 20 times over budget.
		Nobody's ever seen anything like it.
		So I did call him the other night.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I said, look, you got to take care of this.
unidentified		Otherwise, I'm sending in the troops.
		That's what we did.
		Thank you very much.
		You have a question for Marco.
		Question for Marco?
		California officials could stay federal targets that they stand in the way of the deportation.
		Something that Holman may have to get.
		They will face strikers.
		Thank you very much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That was President Trump from Sunday also making comments about the events in Los Angeles, including the use of the National Guard in Los Angeles.
		Was the governor of California, Gavin Newsom.
		Time magazine and other outlets reporting that his state plans to file a lawsuit early today against President Trump for mobilizing the National Guard over the weekend to quell those immigration-related protests in Los Angeles.
		The governor conducting a short interview on MSNBC, in part talking about the planned lawsuit.
		Here's Governor Newsom from yesterday.
jacob soboroff ▲ ● ▼		If you're going to sue the administration, tell me a little bit about it.
unidentified		Supreme Historical.
		Under his executive order, specifically notes and under what the DOD did is they had to coordinate with the governor of the state.
		They never coordinate with the governor of the state.
		I've worked with the National Guard.
		We've deployed the National Guard.
		We did 3 plus thousand folks and been doing logistics work and fire recovery work when they're fighting the fires, the rattlesnake teams.
		We did the same back in George Floyd.
		We have no problem working collaboratively on a mutual aid system with local law enforcement, but there's a protocol, there's a process.
		He didn't care about that.
		And the worst part, he completely lied.
		He said in a tweet that everything's now safe.
		Everything's fine.
		Is that the case, Mr. Trump?
		He said, because he deployed the National Guard.
		The Guard hadn't even been deployed when he said this.
		It's Orwellian.
		Simply lying to people.
		Unconstitutional, illegal act.
		His mess.
		We're trying to clean it up.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So that took place yesterday as well.
		You can comment on the new developments.
		You can comment on the overall situation in Los Angeles, 202-748-80001 for Republicans.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Arthur in Florida, Republican line.
		You start us off.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, sir.
		First, all this is a tragedy of what's going on on both sides.
		But we need to remember, we need to remember that our nation is just a loft rail in the ocean.
		If we overload that loft rail, the whole nation's going to sink.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And how does that specifically relate to events in California and Los Angeles specifically?
unidentified		Basically, what this relates to is, what this relates to is that we have to keep some type of control on how many people are allowed to come into the country.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Arthur, there in Florida, Arlene in Michigan, Independent Line, you're next up.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Oh, yeah, I am calling in because I've been watching all different stations about what is going on.
		And I cannot understand for the life of me why people in this country think it's okay for all these illegals to come in, commit all kinds of crimes, and nothing should be done to them.
		I mean, I feel that they need to be deported just for coming here illegally, let alone when they start murder, murdering, and transporting people around.
		I don't like that at all.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do you think the Trump administration is going about it the right way as far as removing those who aren't supposed to be in this country?
unidentified		Yes, and I also believe that it's a good idea that he called out the National Guard because the mayor wouldn't do anything, and the governor refused to do anything.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Arlene in St. Joseph's, Michigan, giving us a call on her thoughts.
		Roy is next.
		Roy joins us from Florida, Democrats' line.
unidentified		Well, this thing in LA that's going on, it was bound.
		People were bound to fight back because, number one, the situation that's going on, they're getting too carried away with this.
		Taking four-year-old girls, taking people that aren't criminals off the street, kidnapping them, not showing their face.
		This is Trump's America.
		This is why the Republicans just turn their back and not look at it.
		And as long as people keep supporting this kind of behavior, I support deporting criminals, but I don't support, I'll do it all day, but I don't support what taking four-year-old kids and people away from graduations.
		I mean, it's just totally ridiculous.
		And he keeps on upping the ante by saying he's going to send in the Marines.
		And I agree with Governor Newsome.
		This is the wrong way to do it.
		But I'm all for deporting criminals and people that have done crimes.
		But these are hardworking people that are in the farms, in landscaping companies, construction sites.
		How are we going to get the workers?
		Do you think an American down here in Florida where people make $600,000 working for NASA over here in Opodca?
		Do you think their kids are going to go out and work one of these construction jobs?
		Heck no, they don't know how to mop a floor.
		But, you know, so we're losing our labor, and you're going to soon see that.
		Trump has been a miserable failure of a president.
		He has sided with the rich the whole time that he's been in there.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, okay.
		Roy, got your point from the previous, in a letter from a lawyer from the state of California to Pete Hegseth.
		This is part of the letter that was written yesterday saying, at present, law enforcement authorities from the city and the county of Los Angeles are safeguarding public safety.
		And as demonstrated by the robust law enforcement response yesterday evening to protect federal facilities, local law enforcement resources are sufficient to maintain order.
		In dynamic and fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, state and local authorities are the most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and property.
		Instead, the decision to deploy the National Guard without appropriate training or orders was seriously escalating the situation, adding that there's currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles.
		And to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation while simultaneously depriving the state from deploying these personnel and resources when they are truly required.
		Again, that's a letter to Secretary Hegseth as part of the new events that are the most recent events when it comes to Los Angeles taking place yesterday in Bronx, New York.
		Independent Lying, Jamie.
		Hello.
		Jamie from the Bronx.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hi there, Pedro.
unidentified		Can you hear me all right?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yes, go ahead.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I just want to piggyback on what Roy just said about Trump being a miserable failure of a president.
		The fact that the National Guard has been deployed on our own soil for this matter is just, it's beyond astonishing, and it's a massive disappointment.
		Folks that join the National Guard, they don't join with DHS or ICE.
		They join for a whole other reason.
		And not to mention they're trained to shoot to kill.
		This is not an immigration issue.
		It's not what they're supposed to be worrying about.
		They're not supposed to be worrying about policing the streets of the United States.
		And my mind immediately, when I heard this news, went straight to the photograph from Kent State, the incident, the massacre that occurred at Kent State, Ohio in 1970, where National Guard members were, they shot and killed students.
		A number of students were injured.
		And they ultimately were not found guilty because they were doing what they were trained to do.
		They were doing their job, but they were put in the wrong place.
		And this is exactly what I'm afraid we're going to see again.
		So thank you, Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The Wall Street Journal, in their analysis this morning, is saying the White House, in a memo detailing its justification for deploying the National Guard troops, said the protests may amount to, quote, a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States if they inhabit the administration's inhibit, sorry, the administration's ability to carry out deportations.
		The Wall Street Journal also adding as part of a historical context saying the George H.W. Bush administration deployed U.S. Marines to help restore order after violent protests erupted in California in the wake of the 1992 acquittal of four police officers in the beating of Rodney King.
		That marked the last invocation of the Insurrection Act.
		And in that case, the troops were deployed at the request of California's governor.
		Afterwards, some of the troops involved said that he didn't want to do a similar mission again.
		That's from the Los Angeles Times.
		If you go to Reuters, it cites some of the legal justification that the Trump administration used in the calling out of the National Guard, saying that Mr. Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces in the June 7th order to call members of California's National Guard into federal service.
		A provision of Title 10 allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service.
		If the U.S. is invaded, there is, quote, a rebellion or danger of rebellion, close quote, where the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.
		That's from Reuters.
		If you want to comment on that or comment on these recent events in Los Angeles from Los Angeles, this is Richard on our line for independence.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yeah, you have to understand that the National Guard can be called out by the president for natural disasters as well as civil unrest.
		There were protesters today throwing Molotov cocktails at the police.
		They had to close down one of the major highways here, the 101, because of this situation.
		And I don't know how anyone can criticize the president when Gavin Newsom is using this as a political football.
		He's trying to stay politically relevant.
		He so desperately wants to run for president in 2028.
		And he finds every opportunity to try to challenge Trump or challenge the federal government when, in fact, he's a failure.
		You look at the homeless situation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, when you talk about the governor and you talk, the governor in his letter to Pete Hex have said that the current forces available to California were able to take care of the situation as he saw it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So you don't agree with that?
unidentified		No, I don't agree with it.
		That's his opinion.
		It's a political opinion.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But why don't you agree with it specifically?
unidentified		Gavin Newsom has no military experience, has no understanding of what the role of the National Guard is.
		And in this case, Donald Trump was trying to help the LAPD who were being overrun, which he fails to mention in these interviews that he gives.
		He's a politician first.
		He doesn't understand the situation at all.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		In New Jersey, this is Steve, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Hi, how are you doing?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		I agree 100% with the Wall Street Journal statements regarding the National Guard.
		I support Trump 100% because nobody wants another Minneapolis, another summer of George Floyd and BLM.
		I don't think anybody wants that.
		But when you say you agree with the Wall Street Journal, what do you mean?
		Well, regarding that, this may be when the police and ICE interfered, they're prevented from doing their job in enforcing the law.
		So that may be like a bit of an insurrection type of thing.
		Also, one thing I want to say is that the people who are being deported, they've gone through a due process.
		Okay, now, one thing I want to quote numbers, but I want to use C-SPAN for this.
		There was a hearing in Congress maybe last summer or last spring, CBP, ICE agents before a congressional committee.
		And 90% of the asylum seekers never show up for their hearing before a judge.
		And of the 10% that do show up, only 10% are granted asylum.
		So this whole asylum process is a farce.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Steve there in New Jersey, and he mentions a hearing of one of many that have taken place over immigration, border security, other aspects of immigration policy.
		As always, you can go to our website at cspan.org.
		And if you type in that search box there, anything immigration related, not only for this program, but hearings that we have taken over the years on the topic.
		Let's go to Rob.
		Rob's in Virginia, Live for Democrats.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hey, good morning, Pedro.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I think the whole situation is unfortunate.
		I think it's unfortunate that we are sending our own troops against our own citizens.
		I think it's unfortunate that Molotov's cocktails are being thrown, like that one gentleman said.
		And I also think it's unfortunate that every like 10 to 15 years or so, we have a period of focusing all of our attention on something that black, brown, and or indigenous people are or aren't doing.
		So at this rate, at this point in time, it's Hispanics and Latin Americans who are coming up from South America, which most of them are of Indigenous heritage.
		A couple years ago, it was Palestinians.
		It was Obama before that.
		It was immigration again.
		And it was before that.
		Before that, it was everybody was angry at Muslims because of what happened in 9-11.
		And it seems to be we keep getting caught up in this pattern where, yeah, there's these events that happen that are really tragic.
		But we allow ourselves to get distracted from more fundamental systemic problems in the United States, like these massive corporations buying up all the real estate.
		We have the worst health care, the worst education in a lot of those developed countries.
		We have poor education.
		And so about this event specifically, I don't know because I don't trust any mainstream media for giving like neutral coverage.
		And I just feel really sad that we as Americans keep fighting each other over stuff that fundamentally is not affecting us and the things that are affecting us.
		We're choosing not to talk about.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Rob in Virginia.
		Let's hear from another resident of Los Angeles, Republican Lyon.
		This is Helen.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello.
		Yeah, I've been living in this area, Los Angeles, Southern California area for decades.
		But I digress.
		2017, Governor Brown passed assembly bill in the California Assembly making California a sanctuary state.
		And when Karen Bass became mayor of Los Angeles during the Biden administration, she declared Los Angeles a sanctuary city.
		So now when Trump calls in the National Guard to restore peace and order to the streets of Los Angeles, Governor Newsom whines about, well, where is my state sovereignty?
		Where is the state sovereignty?
		I never authorized that.
		But the bigger question is, where is the United States sovereignty?
		Because California is still a state within the United States.
		And the laws, immigration laws, are national concern, federal concern, and they have to be enforced.
		Well, the state of California and the city of Los Angeles, the politicians in power, have violated repeatedly the federal government, our laws.
		I said, the United States laws, federal government laws.
		So, you know, it's a dilemma that's not easily resolved with Governor Newsom, who's very ineffective, not a very good governor, and Karen Bass.
		She's kind of like her response to the whole fires was mediocre.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		But here's their.
unidentified		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Helen there in Los Angeles.
		She mentions the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, former member of Congress.
		She gave a press conference on the events stemming out of Los Angeles yesterday.
		Here's a portion of it.
karen bass ▲ ● ▼		But we need to be real about this.
		This is about another agenda.
		It's not about public safety.
unidentified		There's clearly no plan, and there is clearly no policy.
karen bass ▲ ● ▼		I want the people of Los Angeles to know that we stand with all Angelenos, no matter where you were born.
		The First Amendment right gives you the ability, again, to protest peacefully, but it does not give you the right to be violent, to create chaos, or to vandalize property.
		And that will not be tolerated.
		So I call on all Angelinos to continue expressing your right, your anger, your outrage, but to do it peacefully.
		And I just have to say that all of you were there Friday.
		Everybody knows what happened Friday.
		A workplace, several workplaces were targeted and raids took place.
		Now, in the beginning, the administration said they were just looking for dangerous felons, violent people.
		It's hard to say that that's what they found at a workplace or in a Home Depot parking lot.
unidentified		When this happens, it terrifies people.
karen bass ▲ ● ▼		It sends a sense of fear and chaos in our city.
		And you well remember a few years ago in the last administration, the kids were afraid to go to school.
		Parents were afraid to go to work.
		This impacts all of our city.
		You can't terrify the workplace, workforce, and then expect for people to get the jobs done.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, that's the Los Angeles Mayor, Karen Bass, commenting on the events of the last couple of days in Los Angeles now that the National Guard is there, a lawsuit being threatened by the Newsom administration.
		Comment on all these things.
		202748-8001 for Republicans.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats and Independents.
		202748-8002.
		You can also text us at 202-748-8003.
		Let's hear from Julia.
		Julia in North Carolina Independent Line.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I would like to say that ICE agents do not have the authority to arbitrarily arrest and detain individuals.
		The Fourth Amendment requires that immigration-related arrests and detentions be based on probable cause.
		And that's all I have to say.
		Why do you think they're not acting in that manner?
		Because, well, these ICE agents are just, they're going out and they're arbitrarily detaining people.
		They don't have a warrant.
		The law requires that they have warrants.
		They can't just go and raid Home Depot parking lots and go into workplaces and take these people away and detain them without due process.
		That's against the law.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats line, Lisa is next in Georgia.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		I would just like to say I think that Donald Trump is all theater.
		Barack Obama, I had to do some research on this, reported more illegal immigrants than any president in history.
		Now, I know that some of you remember when Barack Obama first got elected, that the Republicans were running off how to campaign with the open border E.C.
		And it was, you know, they were just exploding all of that.
		But Barack Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any president in history, and there was no chaos.
		and there was no political theater.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So how does that relate to the events over the weekend and yesterday, specifically?
unidentified		Specifically, I say that the National Guard, the ICE that was deployed to Los Angeles was all about political theater.
		All of that does not has to happen.
		Donald Trump needs to follow the law.
		We are a nation of laws, and Donald Trump does not abide by any law.
		That's disgusting.
		It is.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Dusty, Dusty in South Carolina, Independent Line.
unidentified		Yes, this whole mess has been caused by Donald Trump and Jason Miller.
		Donald Trump got on Jason Miller's case because the numbers weren't going up about the illegals being sent back.
		So Jason Miller tells Rowland, I don't care who they are, what they are doing, or how long they've been here.
		Round them up, send them off, and we get the numbers up.
		Now, he's got this.
		Donald Trump is breaking all, of course.
		It's no surprise.
		Donald Trump is the most lawless president I've ever seen.
		I'm 75 years old.
		But he is completely behind this all the way.
		He has started this.
		These people, we got to have, we have got to have these people.
		And they work five, six, seven.
		I've worked with them.
		I worked 20 years with them.
		And all they want to do is work five, six, seven days a week.
		Everybody suffers around me.
		And I'm going to tell you, if he calls that army out on these people, it's going to be a sad day.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is a story from March 10th from NBC in relation to what the two callers previous had brought up saying that immigrations and customs enforcement agents deported fewer immigrants in February than they did under the Biden administration during the same month a year ago, according to ICE.
		According to that data, ICE deported around 11,000 migrants last month, the first full month Mr. Trump was in office compared to just 12,000 for February of 2024.
		One major reason for the higher numbers under the Biden administration was higher traffic from attempted border crossings, both legal and illegal, in 2024 compared to 2025.
		People who were first arrested by customs and border protection, which typically means those arrested at the border, accounted for most of the deportations in February of last year under Mr. Biden.
		It is easier to deport people detained near the border than to find them after they disperse across the United States.
		We've been showing you the news out of Los Angeles with the National Guard arriving and lawsuits being threatened by the Newsom administration.
		You can comment on those of the larger issues too there on the phone lines in Florida, Republican line.
		This is Alan joining us.
		Alan, go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I want to agree with several of the callers.
		I think it's just a matter of convenience when the Republican Party wants to save states' rights, and they do that when it's convenient.
		And now they're undermining states' rights by having Trump deploy the National Guard in California.
		But the other part I want to make is reference to the homily that the priest gave for Pentecost weekend.
		And it was about maintaining your faith through this period of division.
		And the line that stuck with me was, stop blaming the poor.
		People need to remember that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, caller, as a Republican, what do you think about deportation efforts overall by this administration?
unidentified		Well, I think they're done inhumanely, and I think there's a better way to do what is legal and to do it with proper due process.
unidentified		But to sit there and hang out in a Home Depot parking lot, like the last caller said, most of these people will work circles around the rest of us.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the better way?
unidentified		To do it with proper due process, according to the law.
unidentified		Like another caller said, we are a country of law and order.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Vicki joins us from California in San Jose, Democrats line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Hello.
		I'm calling today about trying to keep the focus on the actions by Governor Gavin Newsome.
		I'm out here in San Jose, and this is a Tinder box, much like the fires, real physical fires.
		This could explode all over the state and carry through the country.
		So we want to keep the focus.
		And his focus on his protest against the president is this, that the executive order gave the proper call to deploy the National Guard.
		But when it reached Hegseth, DOD, Hegset put in the order for the National Guard that he had collaborated and coordinated with the state.
		And Governor Newsom said no such thing was ever done, which would have been the proper protocol.
		The governor isn't questioning the National Guard being sent out under proper circumstances.
		He isn't questioning ICE apprehending anyone at this time, although those might be other grievances of his.
		But at this point, he's trying to focus on the actual executive order and Hegseth lying in his deployment of the National Guard, saying that the state was notified properly.
		Governor says that was never done.
		And then Governor goes on to say one more thing, that President Trump said, now everything is safe.
		It's all safe there now.
		And that was because he deployed the National Guard.
		However, when he said that, he had not yet deployed the National Guard.
		That's why the governor called him a liar.
		So just to keep the focus real tight on this, and of course, there are many other things that we think about every day since Trump caught in his second term and his first term.
		But one more thing I would like to bring out.
		We all watched as the undocumented people came through the southern border, Greg Abbott shipping them throughout the country on buses and planes.
		And now Trump would say, we've got to get them out, and we've got to get them out fast.
		Okay, Mickey Barry, in California, you can continue on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats and Independents, 202748-8002 about these events in California that played out over the last couple of days, new elements as of yesterday with the aspect of the National Guard, the lawsuit from Governor Newsom.
		Roll those into the conversation.
		If wish, you can also text us at 202-748-8003 if you wish to do that.
		In Nevada, this is from Angela and Reno, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hello, good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Morning, go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, I wanted to kind of politely suggest I'm a retired veteran, and this is not what the military and the National Guard is for.
		We are not trained to use rubber bullets or de-escalate or participate in crowd control.
		I'm a fourth-generation veteran.
		When we land, we're there for lethal force.
		What I also wanted to point out is that my father was a cop.
		The protocol for states, all the states existed before the federal government, not all of them, but we had state sovereignty before we had a federal government.
		That's why we're called the United States.
		So every state has its own personal police power that only the governor has the right to deploy.
		When the LAPD, if that chief of police had thought that he was overrun, he's supposed to call the Sheriff's Department.
		And then they call the other California counties to send in supportive troops.
		Then if the local California, which is very well funded, by the way, one of the largest police forces in the United States, if all of them got overrun by the problem, then the governor calls the White House and asks for the National Guard.
		And that's what the substance of police power is.
		So the governor has no choice but to do what he was or what he swore to do by upholding the Constitution and the sovereignty of California, or he's going to get heaphoeed out of there by the voters.
		So I just want to, again, I think that we need to, I agree with the other caller, we need to keep a tight rein on this.
		We don't need, I don't, I'm from North Dakota originally.
		I don't see anybody doing anything about all those Canadians running mess back and forth along our border, but that's because our governor doesn't consider it a problem.
		And I agree, it's not a big problem for us, but that's for a governor.
		That's a governor's function.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Got your point.
		Yep, yep, gotcha.
		Thank you, Angela.
		Let's hear from Andrew in Virginia, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Yeah, how are you doing?
		Good morning to you all.
		I just wanted to say that I think it's just really disgusting to watch all the people like burning our flag.
		First of all, I mean, you know, that is orders.
		I don't think so.
		So, you know, I think that they should have deployed the people, the National Guard there.
		That, you know, there's no order there.
		You know, let's get order.
		And that's what it's about, law and order.
		So that's the way I feel.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Andrew there in Virginia.
		It was yesterday.
		I've had Governor Newsome sent out this on X saying that the Secretary of Defense is now threatening to deploy active duty Marines on American soil against his own citizens.
		This is deranged behavior.
		It was on the Sunday shows where the Homeland Security Secretary, Christy Noam, in an interview on CBS, talked about what will be determined or what goes into determining if active duty forces become part of an enforcement situation.
		Here's part of that back and forth from yesterday.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		Well, my hope is always that we work with local leaders that would do their jobs.
		And that is what has failed in LA: is that the mayor has refused to recognize the dangerous situation that she's perpetuating, as well as the governor.
		When we ask for backup in a situation, LAPD has waited hours to respond.
		And they've waited until we have an officer in a dangerous situation until they come in and help us bring peace.
		Oftentimes, in these cities, you have good leaders that help give backup to other law enforcement officers, but you have politicians who won't give that kind of resource when it's needed.
unidentified		Unfortunately, waiting several hours for LAPD to show up or telling them, them telling us that they're not going to back us up until they have an officer in a dangerous situation is something that just isn't workable when you have violent protests going on.
unidentified		So the U.S. worked better with us, but that's one of the reasons that you've seen the National Guard come in and help us with those security operations.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		A story that the Hills reporting on that came out yesterday saying that Florida State Senator Ileana Garcia, a Republican, a co-founder of Latinas for Trump, issued a sharp rebuke of the president Sunday and his administration seeks to ramp up deportations.
		She took particular issue with reported tactics in southern Florida, where immigration courts and other immigration officials have allegedly been making arrests in immigration courts, taking other steps to target individuals otherwise in compliance with legal orders.
		Quote, this is not what we voted for.
		She posted on the social platform X. I've always supported President Trump, though, through thick and thin.
		However, this is unacceptable and inhumane.
		I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings, in many cases with credible fear of persecution claims, all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal, she continues, referring to the White House Homeland Security Advisor, Stephen Miller.
		She goes on to say this undermines the sense of fairness and justice the American people value.
		Let's go to Patrick.
		Patrick's on our line for Democrats.
		He's in Pittsburgh.
		You're next.
		Hello.
unidentified		You know, it's stunning how the media just continues to create this wizard of Oz reality when it comes to an invasion of our country.
		If you look at all of the flags, what are you seeing?
		You're not seeing American flags being flown.
		You're seeing Mexican flags being flown.
		Now, let me be very clear.
		I'm in complete support of the Hispanic community in this country.
		But what we're witnessing is a completely crafted, manipulated narrative of lies by a media system that has one objective, and that is to create as much mayhem as they possibly can.
		C-SPAN, which is underwritten with corporate dollars, has completely undermined the foundation of our country's ability to engage in a discourse based upon democracy, not some maligned, perverse, corporatized system.
		It's so dystopian on so many levels.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, Collar, you talked about dialogue specifically as far as the situation in California and the governor's actions there.
		Speak to that or speak to the Trump administration's action.
		It is your call.
		Speak to that.
unidentified		You want me to speak to that?
		You have a governor who's allowing our country to be invaded, who's supporting the foundation of foreign actors.
		Does anybody are you anybody stupid enough to think that the Mexican drug cartels are not completely doing are not completely behind the foundation of what we're witnessing?
		That they're not using our media-driven tsunami of lies.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, back to the point at hand, the Democratic governor says that things were under control before the National Guard came, and the Democratic mayor said, As a Democrat yourself, why do you disagree with that?
unidentified		How can you sit there behind the microphone and act as an advocate for the governor of California?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I am not acting as an advocate.
		I'm getting your opinion as a fellow Democrat to what they've said.
		So respond to that.
unidentified		The governor, there's a reason why Democrats are walking away from the Democratic Party.
		I'm one of them.
		And let me be very clear: the very foundation of why I'm walking, why I and millions of American Democrats are walking away from a Democratic Party is the very foundation of what we're witnessing today, what is unfolding today: the tsunami of lies, deceit, manipulation, and allowing foreign governments to invade our country and then act like they're the victims.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		You aren't.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, okay.
		Okay.
		Patrick in Pennsylvania.
		Thanks for the call.
		Let's hear from Chris in North Carolina, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Hi, how are you doing?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		My comment is: it goes without saying that Donald Trump is the absolute worst, most corrupt, criminal president in the history of the United States of America.
		But how was it that he was able to call the National Guard out in LA, but he wasn't able to call the National Guard out while the mega morons were attacking our Capitol?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, what do you think about him calling out the National Guard in Los Angeles specifically?
unidentified		It was unnecessary.
		Of course, it was unnecessary.
		It didn't escalate until he did what he did.
		Anybody sitting here watching this can see that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Wait, when you say continued Escott, you say that things were under control before the entrance of the National Guard?
unidentified		Well, there was no throwing of Molotov cocktails.
unidentified		There was no violence until he sent in the troops.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Chris there in North Carolina.
		We'll hear from Kathleen next from Los Angeles, joins us on our line for Republicans.
		Kathleen, hello.
unidentified		Oh, hi.
		Good morning.
		Yeah, I agree with the Pennsylvania caller.
		Illegal aliens have been a problem in Los Angeles since the 1990s.
		I've been calling in, talking about it.
		For 10 years, Trump haters, Democrat voters, have been calling in and hating Trump.
		Yet, the American people voted for Trump.
		These Trump haters voted for Kamala.
		That in and of itself lets you know they don't have good judgment.
		Okay?
		So, and the media stirs the pot for 10 years.
		The media is anti-Trump.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's stick to the topic at hand.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think then accounts for the last couple of days, what we've seen in your city, including yesterday?
unidentified		Well, this is the issue, okay?
		And this, and you guys always influpt Trump supporters because you want us to stick to a very narrow, narrow narrative, a narrative that you read, a narrative that has been established by the media.
		The media has been lying to the American people from day one.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Are you saying that the events that you're seeing reported aren't the events that are happening in your city where you live?
unidentified		What are you saying?
unidentified		What are you asking me exactly?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We'll tell you, it's in your city.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Give us your perspective of what's going on, particularly with the entrance of the National Guard.
unidentified		I said illegal aliens have been.
		Listen, I'm a black American.
		There are no black Americans in Los Angeles anymore, essentially, because this has been going on since the 1990s.
		I talk about it on my radio show.
		Black Americans, you know, one of the callers said, oh, black American men don't need construction jobs.
		They won't do the job.
		They're too lazy.
		So you're telling me American men won't do construction work?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Kathleen.
		Kathleen, there in Los Angeles.
		Thanks for calling.
		It was out of KTLA.
		They're reporting events of yesterday.
		A coalition of California lawmakers and immigration advocates were denied entry to the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Facility in Adalento, where many immigrants detained during recent raids in Los Angeles are being held.
		It was Representative Gilbert Ciceros traveled to the ICE Processing Center with Judy Chu and Derek Tran and members of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union Sunday morning there, but denied entries to that facility.
		It was Judy Chu in an interview on television, local television out of California, talking about that experience and what she plans to do about it once she comes back to work in Congress this week.
		Here's part of that interview.
unidentified		I know I intend to submit a letter that asks questions about why they would do this when the law says that we are able to do this.
		And we actually intend, well, of course, I want the answers, but we intend to go back.
		We intend to go back and see what has happened.
		Now, what was our reason for doing it?
		It's because we understood that the 44 who were arrested on Friday were first sent to the Metropolitan Detention Center, but then taken to Atalanto.
		But nobody knows where they are.
		Their relatives, their legal representatives, nobody knows it.
		And also, we have no idea of what their status is in terms of being taken care of, whether they have the medicines they need or the food.
		We also do not know whether they are legitimate detainees.
		These were massive raids.
		How do we know that there weren't U.S. citizens amongst them?
		There's no information whatsoever at this point.
		That's why we have to continue investigating.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		As always, as the situation plays out in California, I'll look for response here on Capitol Hill, especially as Congress continue work on other fronts.
		You can always follow along on our main website, our main channel, C-SPAN, for coverage of the House, the coverage of the Senate on C-SPAN 2, and our app at C-SPAN now.
		And as always, you can see what we are covering in and around Washington when you go to our website at c-span.org.
		You can continue on in your calls about the events in California, 202748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Rick, on our line for Democrats, Massachusetts, you're up next.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		I just want to mention a couple of things like Trump.
		This guy, I'm sick and tired of hearing the word criminals come the word criminal come out of his mouth because that's exactly what he is and whatnot.
		You know what I'm saying?
		He's running around calling all these people criminal.
		Then you got his attorney general running around talking about like this guy to come back mouth south or he did this and he did that.
		As the old saying goes, he's innocent until he's proven guilty.
		So what she's running out of mouth and how she got that job is beyond me and whatnot.
		You got people supposed to be in charge of the justice system, calling people guilty before they even get to go to trial.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Caller to the events in California, what do you think about that?
unidentified		Well, like I said, Trump is causing a lot of this stuff.
		The thing is that every time something happens, like for example, this blue bill that's come up, he's sending those national guards down here to take a track to distract from what's going on with that bill that he got down there.
		But they can sneak it through there and you're going to hear nothing about it until the next day, oh, they passed the bill now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, caller, again, again, back to the point, caller, you said that the president was causing this.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean?
unidentified		Like I say, he causes trouble.
		Like, for example, like, Is he sending ICE agents into his hotels that a lot of these people about here don't damn know nothing about?
		It was a lot of illegal agronom working at his hotel.
		Do you hear ICE going into this hotel, going into his businesses?
		No, you don't hear nothing going into business.
		All that information he had down in his, where he lived at in Florida, all that information from the government.
		He had all that.
		Did you see anybody going into that?
		No, nobody to nothing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Rick there in Massachusetts.
		I'd hear from Georgia on our Independent line.
		Deborah, hello.
unidentified		Hello.
		I'm glad to be able to speak with you for just a minute.
		I am a 64-year-old who has traveled the entire country.
		We have camped in 49 states, my husband and I, over the course of the last 10 years.
		And I suggest that more people who vote for Donald Trump need to do that same traveling.
		People are people everywhere we have been.
		And I am not the least bit surprised at what has happened in California.
		It's time that we take back our country from the radicals who, if you want to talk about a caller two or three times minutes ago, said something about the flags that were flying.
		On January 6th, I was still an independent.
		The flags that I saw flying at the nation's capital while we were under siege were Confederate flags.
		And I'm from Georgia.
		I grew up.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Caller, I don't mean to interrupt you, but to stick to the point, you said that your words, you were not surprised by the events of California specifically.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean by that?
unidentified		Right.
		I mean by that, enough is enough when Americans are being rounded up by people who are wearing masks and have clothing on that do not denote what arm of government they represent and huddled off into buses and hidden.
		It started when in, was it New Jersey when people couldn't go in and see what happened to people, elected officials couldn't go in to see what had happened to their people?
		Well, California is a whole different animal.
		They are not going to take it anymore.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		And I'm proud of them.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Deborah in Georgia, calling on our independent line, she brought up other instances across the United States where ICE activity is taking place.
		The New York Times gives you a timeline of sorts of events recent saying it was on May the 9th in Newark where federal officers arrested Ross Baraka, the Democratic mayor of Newark at an ICE detention center that he sought to visit along with three members of Congress.
		While protesters were gathering outside, Mr. Barack was charged with trespassing.
		He was released a few hours later in San Diego.
		When a large team of ICE agents appeared in tactical gear at a popular Italian restaurant to arrest three workers, a crowd quickly gathered outside to protest the action, and the situation grew heated.
		The agents threw flashbang grenades at the crowd as they exited the scene.
		The San Diego Union Tribune reported the incident prompted demonstrations and criticisms of ICE tactics.
		In Minneapolis, on June 3rd, activists saw dozens of federal agents from ICE and other agencies raiding a Mexican restaurant in South Minneapolis, and a crowd descended on the scene shouting shame and tussling with officers.
		The Minnesota Star Tribune reported that federal agents used tear gas at one point to disperse the crowd.
		A protester was arrested and charged with assaulting an officer, according to the newspaper.
		And then in Los Angeles, which brings us to recent events on June the 6th, it was dozens of federal agents in tactical gear who were conducting an immigration raid on a clothing wholesaler used flashbang grenades to disperse an angry crowd.
		Protesters jeered and threw eggs and other objects at agents' vehicles as they drove away.
		Hours later, a second clash broke out at the Federal Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles.
		It goes on from there.
		You can read more of that instance in the timeline in the New York Times this morning.
		This is Ed in New York State, Republican line.
unidentified		Go ahead.
unidentified		Oh, good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		I got a question or any other remark.
		I live in New York, and for the last three and a half years, they've been plying in these illegal immigrants.
		We are the government letting this happen from Westchester Airport to Stewart Airport to all these airports locally in this town and in New York State.
		And where are the people that I'm paying for this?
		We're paying for this.
		This is ridiculous.
		Our governor of New York is sitting up in Albany talking about she needs $2.5 billion to take care of our migrant citizens.
		They're not citizens.
		They haven't contributed.
		I've been paying taxes.
		I'm 70 years old, struggling to keep my home, struggling to pay the taxes, school taxes.
		Our local schools are full of immigrant children.
		Nothing against the children, but I'm paying for it.
		They haven't contributed nothing to this state or this country, and they're causing problems.
		And I got a really good solution for every person that has been harmed or a family member killed by one of these illegal gang members.
		You're allowed to sue the European.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		We'll leave it there.
		Rob in Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Good morning.
		I just wanted to let all the listeners know that all this is, in my opinion, is just political theater.
		And the reason why is that look at what ICE has been raiding, what Trump's been sending out to raid.
		It's been all Democratic cities, pretty much.
		It's been televised.
		Los Angeles, Chicago, Nashville, Tennessee.
		If they were serious about this, which I don't consider it a problem because the basis of I think the businesses should be punished for hiring illegal immigrants.
		And they're heavily donors to the Republican Party.
		And they don't really get affected by this because it's just smoking beers.
		If they were serious about it, then why aren't they showing the poultry farms in Texas, the slaughterhouses in Kentucky, the farms in Iowa in the Republican states?
		Why aren't they rounding them up there?
		Because it's all political theater.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're the second person who's the second who's expressed that political theater to what end then?
unidentified		Because it's just to deflect from what's been going on with Musk.
		He wants to pretend, they want to pretend like they're being tough on something when they're not.
		Because if he was serious about it, then they would be rounding them up everywhere.
		And to the part, the callers that don't think that it's migrants or legal or illegal don't contribute, then look at the local.
		And I have a lot of MAGA grass companies I've seen in my area that hire illegals or illegal immigrants.
		I mean, because if they didn't, they would have Americans working for them.
		But they can get out of paying taxes.
		They can get out of paying workers' comp, other things that Americans are entitled to.
		So what I think, I'm sorry.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead and finish your thought.
unidentified		So what I'm what I'm saying is it's all just it's this it's not a problem, but it's a problem when a Republican is not when a Republican is not.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Oh, apologies for that call.
		I'm sorry about that.
		Robert in Virginia, Independent Line.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Yeah, you know what?
		What Trump's doing up in California is just a prelude to what's going to happen.
		He's showing his force.
		And I'm going to tell you something.
		He said that he's not going to have to have nobody's going to have to see him in another election.
		We'll have to throw him out.
		And you better start now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Wait, how does all that relate to what's going on in California specifically?
unidentified		Because he's showing people that he can put the National Guard in there without nobody else's permission.
		He can threaten to put the Marines in that hedge path.
		These people need to be taken out locked up because they're communists.
		And if you don't believe it, just wait a little longer and you're going to see what's happening.
		So all you people in the armed forces start making up your mind now what side you're going to fight on.
		Have a good day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		In Richmond, Virginia, this is from George, George in Richmond.
		Hello.
		Oh, let's go to Rebecca.
		Rebecca in Massachusetts, line for Republican.
		Rebecca in Massachusetts.
		Hello.
		You're next.
unidentified		Great.
unidentified		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Oh, hi.
		Good morning.
		Calling about the things, events that just happened, and I don't think this is a publicity.
		It's not Republican and it's not a Democrat.
		These things in Los Angeles have been going on for a long time.
		We've been fighting with the Mexicans and the Spanish coming through the border for a very long time.
		The fact that it's escalating, that is now in the media view, I don't see anything other than DSPAND is now covering on, you know, doing things, asking the general public different questions.
		I find it more of people sending in videos on their phones, sending videos from everywhere.
		Yes, I think the governor could have put it a little more.
		The governor from different areas could have done better with policing.
		But as far as sending in the National Guard with other, it could have been a little more de-escalating that way, but I don't feel that making it worse was anything more escalated that needed to be done.
		But LA has had a very rough history of immigrants coming through that way, but also immigrants trying to survive coming in through the border.
		I don't think there's anything different other than what we're seeing now on the news as far as that aspect.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Rebecca, there in Massachusetts, we will hear from Jan.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jan in Iowa, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Good morning.
		This is what I feel.
		Our president wants to be known as the peaceful president.
		In my mind, a lot of these people who are calling in are right.
		He is not a peaceful person.
		He enjoys being in the public view and he enjoys chaos.
		He blames the killings on the immigrants.
		No, more people in our country is killed by Americans, not the immigrants.
		He needs to stop everything and do the work for the American people and not for his selfish self.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Chris in Minnesota, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Your last call.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		There was a previous caller that mentioned that Trump was taking American citizens off the street.
		Well, just because they snuck into our country doesn't make them a citizen.
		If I snuck into your house, does that mean that I'm allowed to live there?
		If I can get in there tonight, you know, like what he's doing is for the American people.
		If you cannot see that, you need to open your eyes.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When you say it's for the American people, specifically, how?
unidentified		Well, it's going to save us money.
		I'm disabled, but I still work.
		I don't collect disability because I was denied quite a few times.
		And I know there are people that are collecting disability that shouldn't be.
		And those kind of things like that, when I know that there is an illegal taking benefits that could maybe come to me, that snuck in here.
		Like I said, if I snuck into your house, does that welcome me to your milk?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Chris in Minnesota, last call on this topic.
		Thanks to all of you who participated in this hour.
		Coming up, we will engage in other topics with several guests later on in the program.
		We'll hear from the Washington Examiner's Hugo Gurden on News of the Day, recent writings of his.
		But first up, we'll talk about the efforts by the White House and Congress to cut federal spending, various bills.
		Center for American Progress is Bobby Kogan and National Taxpayer Union's Damian Brady.
		Join us for that conversation that's coming up in Washington.
unidentified		And a count of two balls and one strike.
		And a swing of a base hit left field.
		Tune in Wednesday to C-SPAN's live coverage of the Congressional Baseball Game coming to you from Nationals Park.
		Since 1909, this tradition has united Democrats and Republicans on the field for a spirited evening of camaraderie and competition.
		And this is Drilled into Center Field of Base Hit.
		Two runs are going to score.
		Don't miss the historic matchup.
		Live coverage starts Wednesday at 7 p.m. Eastern on the C-SPAN Networks.
		C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org.
		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.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		A discussion taking a look at administration and Congress's efforts to cut spending, what happens because of that effort, and two guests joining us for the discussion.
		Joining us in studio this morning, Damien Brady of the National Taxpayers Union.
		He serves as the Vice President for Research.
		Also joined on Zoom by Bobby Cogan at the Center for American Progress.
		He's their federal budget policy senior director, also a former advisor to the director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Biden administration.
		And to both of you gentlemen, thanks for giving us your time.
		Mr. Kogan, let's start with you.
		We're going to hear a lot about the One Big Beautiful bill and the rescissions package, all those technicalities, but to the bigger idea of this administration and Congress's effort to cut spending, what do you think of that effort overall?
unidentified		Sure, thanks, Pedro.
		So, you know, stepping back to the 10,000-foot view, this reconciliation bill would do the largest Medicaid cuts in history and the largest snap cuts in history, right?
		It would kick more than 10 million people off their health insurance.
		It would take food assistance away from more than 3 million people, including households with kids as young as seven.
		It would do that while enacting enormous tax cuts that go disproportionately to the rich.
		So, yes, incredibly large spending cuts that are partially offsetting incredibly large tax cuts, but only getting part of the way there.
		So, still kind of increasing the deficit by trillions of dollars.
		That's kind of what's at stake here, right?
		It would be something that would quite literally make the poorest Americans poorer while making the richest Americans richer.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Brady, same question to you: the effort to cut spending and what happens because of that.
unidentified		Yeah, so last week, President Trump offered a $9.4 billion rescissions package to Congress.
		And this is following up on a lot of the work that the Department of Government Efficiency has done and going through the federal government and trying to get rid of some wasteful programs.
		So, this is a rarely used budget tactic to try to reduce spending.
		I think the last one that was actually enacted was under President George or Herbert Walker Bush.
		So, this will be the third rescissions package that Trump has sent to Congress.
		During his first term, he sent one that passed the House and just fell short in the second in the Senate.
		And then he also introduced a rescissions package very late in the first administration.
		That was withdrawn when President Biden took over the White House.
		So, $9.4 billion might not sound like a whole lot in the grand scheme of the federal budget, but it's very important to move forward and try to reduce some of this wasteful spending.
		So, that way we can have a more prosperous America and fiscal sanity going down the road.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You talk about the residents package.
		You heard Mr. Cogan's analysis of the cuts and who it might affect as far as programs and things like that.
		When you hear those comparisons, what do you think?
unidentified		So, yeah, there's two different things going on.
		We have the rescissions package, which will go to the Senate and they all or the House and the Senate in law 45 days to work on it.
		And then, separately, the House has passed its version of the tax cuts bill, which includes a lot of reforms to Medicaid.
		You know, Medicaid has grown so much over the past few decades, and it's not serving the original people that it's supposed to.
		The poor people, pregnant people, and children, it's been expanded to include a lot of able-bodied Americans.
		And we need to find ways to trim a lot of the waste from that program so that can better serve the population that it's supposed to.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		As far as waste is concerned, writ large, what waste are there, or at least what would you say is a wasteful aspect within Medicaid?
unidentified		Well, one thing we've seen is that a lot of the states are basically doing a gimmick so that they can charge the federal government a lot of extra money.
		And then it's going to programs that don't serve health.
		It's providing things that ought to be covered by other programs.
		Providing for music lessons and meals and some rental assistance.
		Those are things that ought to be provided under other federal programs.
		So that way we can refocus Nedicaid and get it to work better for those people who truly need it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Kogan, what do you think about this idea about waste, fraud, and abuse, which some bring to the table when it comes to the needs for cuts or at least making it more efficient, as they would say?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about that effort overall?
unidentified		Sure, yeah.
		And really fast.
		I interpreted your first question to be about reconciliation.
		As Damien says, we have a reconciliation bill moving through.
		We have a rescissions bill moving through.
		Really fast to frame the rescissions bill.
		As Damien says, it's $9.5 billion.
		You put that in the backstop of a multi-trillion dollar deficit increase in the reconciliation bill.
		You can see it's not really about finding savings.
		It's about getting rid of the stuff that you hate to make room for the things that you love.
		But it's not even making room, right?
		It's doing giant tax cuts.
		So really fast on the waste part of it.
		Say, everyone agrees that we ought to find ways to be more efficient.
		What I would contend, though, is what they're going after really can't be construed as going after waste, right?
		A lot of it is just going for people who you don't want to be helping.
		So Damien said that there had been that Medicaid had moved away from its intended population.
		We might just disagree.
		I think it's right that someone making only 20 grand and working should be on Medicaid, right?
		They're too poor to afford kind of traditional health insurance to the market.
		Like those people should be getting Medicaid.
		Medicaid should be there to help people who are doing everything right.
		And so I just don't think that that's wasteful at all.
		I think that basically nothing, maybe a tiny bit, but basically nothing.
		There are a trillion dollars of health care cuts in this bill.
		Basically, none of it is going after what we might call waste.
		Sometimes it's going after populations you don't want right there.
		Sometimes it's, you know, there's a little bit there, but the bulk of it is basically just kicking people off the Medicaid when they're doing everything right.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our guest with us until 845.
		And if you want to ask them questions about these efforts to cut spending and the impact there, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can also text us your thoughts at 202748-8003.
		Mr. Kogan, you mentioned back to the rescissions package.
		The House is set to take it up this week in the Rules Committee in the next couple of days and on from there.
		If you wouldn't mind explaining what that is, and what they tell us is that within the package, almost $10 billion of cuts in that package, $8 billion plus in foreign aid programs, a little over a million for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting.
		Explain what it is and its process being used or its process being used to cut spending.
unidentified		Yeah, so as Damien says, this is a pretty uncommon process.
		He's right.
		You know, the last one that made it through was the George H.W. Bush rescissions package in 92.
		Used to be a pretty common thing.
		You saw it in the 70s and 80s, and it's kind of since largely died off.
		Rescissions, what's special about it now is that it is a filibuster-proof process.
		You can do it, therefore, in the Senate with only 50 votes instead of 60.
		But of course, that's why folks don't do it.
		We do bipartisan appropriations.
		So we used to do bipartisan appropriations, bipartisan rescions.
		Now we're in this weird scenario where we do bipartisan appropriations and we're flirting with the idea of doing partisan rescissions.
		And that really kind of would destroy the balance the way we have it.
		But going, you know, to answer the question, it's over in the House now.
		Assuming it passes, the House can break it apart.
		They can take only part of it.
		They can diminish it if they want to.
		Then it'll go on over to the Senate.
		And as I said, the special thing about this is that it is filibuster proof.
		So you could see this happen kind of even if all Democrats vote no.
		So that's what's up.
		As you say, it's $9.4 billion.
		It's primarily foreign aid stuff because I think Trump thought that that was the easiest target.
		Some of the stuff under the hood, I think when there's already been some skepticism because it would cut some funding for programs that deliver life-saving aid, it would cut some programs that go after child sexual trafficking, right?
		So there are some pretty nasty cuts inside of it.
		But anyway, so the House is going to take it up.
		And once it passes House, it goes to the Senate.
		And it's a very real thing for that reason because all Democrats could vote no and it could still go through.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Brady, your assessment of the package and those broad categories of foreign aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasts.
unidentified		Yeah, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, I think over $1 billion gets cut from that.
		That's a program that serves a primarily wealthier audience.
		So the people who want to see NPR and PBS continue, they could donate money out of their pockets.
		We have a $36 trillion federal debt.
		So we got to find any ways to cut.
		Bobby was talking about how we have this process sets up for partisan cuts.
		Democrats could use this power as well.
		It's been dormant for too long.
		And I really want to see agreement on both sides of the aisle to find ways to cut spending.
		And if some of the Senate senators don't like the cuts that are in this package, I hope they can follow up and find other cuts elsewhere that they can talk about and we can try to tackle our federal debt.
		Because what we're doing is just passing along interest rates and interest debt costs down to future generations.
		And we got to stop that as soon as we can and provide tax policies that have pro-growth as much as possible and limit spending as much as possible.
		And some of the foreign aid stuff that are being targeted here too, you can look through the bill.
		It provides, it's cutting $8,000 for promoting vegan food in Zambia, electric buses in another country.
		You know, a lot of this is not essential.
		This is not emergency funding.
		So it's good to find ways to cut this out of the federal budget.
		Pedro, can I respond to that really?
		Please do.
		Yes, go ahead.
		So I would just say this is kind of how the White House frames it.
		They say, oh, look at these tiny small items over here that add up to like 15, 10% of the total thing.
		And then they say, and therefore we want to cut this entire account.
		The White House already legally has the authority to stop doing the activities that they want, right?
		Within budget account, you can't switch money outside of budget accounts, except in specific instances.
		But within the budget account, you have broad authority.
		So when they say, oh, well, we hated this specific aid activity we were doing, they could just stop it and redirect the things that they wanted to do.
		But they aren't doing that.
		Instead, they're using that as a pretext to gut an entire account, right?
		So I give that example.
		So they don't like part of this budget account that's going to help Eastern Europe.
		They don't like some of what's going on inside of it.
		They could stop doing the activities that they hate and do more of the activities that they love, but instead they say, let's just get rid of the entire account.
		And inside of that account is combating human trafficking, right?
		Like that's sort of the example here of what's at stake.
		And then the other quick thing that I just want to frame is we owe it to the American people, obviously, to be much more efficient with our spending.
		We owe it to the American taxpayer to figure out that what we are doing kind of makes sense.
		But I don't think we can reasonably frame this as a deficit reduction package when at the same time, something that would increase deficits by literally trillions of dollars is moving through.
		And so therefore, I just think we should frame it as, well, they're doing it because they hate these activities.
		And it's fine to try to stop stuff that you hate.
		But that's why them kind of being indiscriminately say, oh, there's $8,000 of waste over here.
		So let's get rid of a billion dollars doesn't really, you know, that doesn't really follow.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Bobby Kogan of the Center for American Progress and Damian Brady of National Taxpayers Union joining us for this discussion.
		Matt joins us from Maryland, Independent Line.
		You're on with our guest, Matt.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		There are three main Trump constituencies.
		First is the cult, which is activated by performative cruelty and likes to see people of color, LGBTQ, immigrants, Democrats harmed because they feel that those losses by that group accrue to them falsely.
		Second, there's business and corporations who like to see tax cuts and deregulation and other things that benefit their businesses.
		And I'd say third are everyday Americans, the kind of guys that I met at my bus stop during the election who said, I'm fine with some mean tweets if I get cheaper groceries on day one and lower interest rates, and why 401k will go through the roof.
		I'd like to hear from both speakers how the proposed Trump tax bill, tax and spend bill, which will add trillions to our deficit, will affect those three key Trump constituencies.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Matt in Maryland.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Brady, you want to go first?
unidentified		Sure.
		So, you know, what's at stake here in the tax cut bill is if they don't do anything by the end of the year, Americans are going to see the highest tax hike in history, an average of over $3,000 per filer on our website.
		We have a study breaking this down by state showing it's going to impact taxpayers around the country.
		And also, you've got to remember, too, that a lot of small businesses file their taxes through the income tax code, the individual income tax code.
		So that's your neighborhood baker, local businesses, dog rumors.
		So a lot of those people are going to face higher taxes if we fail to do this.
		So the bulk of what's in there is making sure that we can protect people from a higher tax cut.
		There are things we can do to improve the tax bill, make it more pro-growth.
		It allows for full expensing for business costs, but only for a short period of time.
		If you were to extend what's in the bill, that would do a lot to improve it.
		And another thing you can do, there's been some complaints that it impacts the wealthy overwhelmingly, but you have to remember that it's the wealthy individuals that pay a high burden of the tax, the whole tax obligation.
		So another thing you can do is look back at the salt cap deduction that's in there, which basically provides benefits for the wealthiest towns and counties in the country.
		That's something that could be drawn back going forward to improve the bill.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Kogan, your assessment.
unidentified		Sure.
		Just thanks for the question, Matt.
		Just want to make sure that I'm getting all three, so I'll do my best.
		Really fast, though, to talk about kind of the tax cuts for who's getting what.
		So Damien, I think, was playing with mean versus median here.
		There's a big difference because there's so much kind of tilted up to the top.
		If you take people making under 100K, the average tax cut is $750 and lower as you get lower and lower and lower.
		Lots of folks actually see no tax benefit at all at the bottom because they're already paying so little in taxes or none in federal income taxes and it's an income tax cut.
		On the flip side, you have people at the very top on average getting almost a $300,000 tax cut.
		It's true that they pay more in taxes.
		That's part of what's going on.
		But even after you adjust for income, people at the top get a bigger after-tax change in their income than people at the bottom.
		It's just this is a bill that is disproportionately targeted towards the rich, right?
		That's just, that's how they wrote the bill.
		They didn't have to write it that way.
		Could have written something that on an after-tax income basis helps people and the poorest people more.
		They didn't write it that way.
		They were the one that helped the rich the most.
		In terms of what it does to people, so there are these kind of immediate tax cuts, pretty small for most folks and bigger for the rich.
		But over time, according not to me, but according to the Congressional Budget Office and not just the Congressional Budget Office, the Yale Budget Lab, and not just the Yale Budget Lab, also the Penn Wharton group, right?
		And Penn Wharton Group are, you know, center-right folks.
		According to them, this bill over time would increase interest rates and lower growth and so much that normal folks actually end up worse off, not better off.
		You kind of end up a little bit better off in the beginning, but eventually the lower growth and higher interest rates leave you kind of worse off.
		So that I think that I think that was one of the questions.
		And then the other one of the questions I think you're asking for business.
		Most of the corporate stuff was in the first round of the Trump tax cuts, right?
		The 21%.
		There's stuff under the hood for corporations here.
		So Damien mentioned full expensing.
		There's also some of the international provisions, which ironically created new tax incentive to build factories overseas.
		But there's most of this stuff is on the individual side.
		There is some corporate stuff.
		And so, you know, I think folks might disagree on kind of the efficacy of the expensing stuff, but I think that's kind of most of the business stuff going on.
		And the final group I think you were talking about was: is it going after his enemies?
		And I think for the most part, the answer is no.
		The only thing that I think you could put in that camp is the salt cap.
		But I think Damien and I were in agreement here that the SALT cap, I think, is probably an important kind of reform to the tax code.
		My one complaint, if I were looking for something, is you're doing a SALT cap to help pay for tax cuts for even richer people.
		So the SALT cap is maybe a good reform, but then it ends up creating extra room to do stuff for tax cuts for even richer people.
		And maybe that's a bad way of doing it.
		But I think that's the only one that really could be described as going after Trump's enemies.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And SALT tax state and local taxes, if I'm correct.
		Correct me if I'm wrong, gentlemen.
		Let's hear from Nathaniel.
		Let's hear from Nathaniel in Virginia, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hey, good morning.
		So it seems like that one of the best waste product abuse needs to be cut in the federal government because there is, I think everyone agrees there is a lot of waste fraud and abuse in the government.
		I think the disagreement obviously is what exactly are we going to cut and how we're going to do it.
		How long of a time period are we going to spend doing this?
		And should it be a long-term period, short-term?
		What is the priority?
		So I think that's the biggest disagreement.
		But I mean, you have to start somewhere.
		It seems like, I mean, if you don't start, you're not going to end up finishing it.
		And we have this massive problem, massive debt, massive deficit that we have to deal with.
		So I just feel like, I mean, if you're not going to cut what the Republicans are proposing, I mean, what would you prefer?
		What is the alternative?
		Like, if you're not willing to, you know, the Democrats are saying that they're not willing, you know, they're frustrated with what the Republicans want to cut and that they say what they're cutting is wrong and incorrect.
		But if you're not willing to cut those things, what is your exactly the alternative?
		I guess is the question, because unless you're willing to touch the, you know, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which is one of the biggest drivers of the deficit and the debt today in the United States, unless you're willing to touch that, which neither party is willing to do it because it's not very popular with the public.
		If you're not willing to do that, what exactly is, I guess, the alternative?
		And what are you offering to cut if you're not willing to cut what they're already planning on cutting today?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Nathaniel in Virginia, Mr. Kogan, you want to start?
unidentified		Sure.
		Thanks, Nathaniel.
		Appreciate the question.
		I'm going to do two responses.
		I'll try to keep it brief.
		The first is that we used to have a tax system where it's so you correctly identified, you said Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are increasing in kind of costs.
		And if you take the rest of the government, it's kind of shrinking as a percent of GDP.
		So why is our spending going up?
		It's because those things are getting more expensive.
		It's more expensive to do what we used to do.
		What we've been doing is more expensive to do that.
		We used to have a system where despite those getting more expensive, our tax code was set to keep pace with it.
		Then we cut a bunch of taxes and now it's no longer set to keep pace with it.
		So it's true those things are going up, but we used to have a tax code that naturally, through the United States getting richer and richer and richer, naturally would keep up with it.
		We no longer have that.
		So to me, it kind of seems bad to say, oh, well, we cut taxes disproportionately for the rich.
		Now we have a deficit problem.
		So I guess we're going to have to cut Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and SNAP.
		And to me, that doesn't really seem fair.
		To get to your question, though, right?
		So I think there are ways to do smart cuts and there are ways to do not smart cuts.
		These ones are benefit cuts, right?
		These are ones that would kick more than 10 million people off their health insurance that would take food, literally take food away from households with kids as young as seven.
		That's not, that's an indiscriminate way of doing it that would really kind of enhance human suffering.
		So you got to find ways to do it that don't enhance human suffering.
		There are ways to be more efficient with healthcare delivery.
		There's actually bipartisan ways to be more efficient with that.
		Donald Trump in his first term proposed a lot of really, really smart ways to make Medicare more efficient without actually cutting benefits.
		That's a great thing.
		There are bipartisan things there, right?
		Obama had some ways.
		Trump had some ways.
		Biden had some ways.
		Some of those were enacted, right?
		We do prescription drug negotiation now on some of the Medicare prescription drugs.
		That makes it cheaper without actually taking away benefits.
		So I think there are really smart things to be done there that don't literally rip health insurance away from some of the most vulnerable Americans.
		And I think to me, that's the real key.
		Like, yes, we should find ways to be more efficient.
		We should not be doing it in a way that's really harming folks.
		And then really fast, you framed it all with saying, well, we got to find a way to get our deficit under control.
		This bill would literally increase deficits by trillions of dollars.
		So it's not like we're in a posture where we're saying deficits out of control.
		We're all going to have to tighten our belts.
		Instead, it's saying deficit is existent.
		We're going to make the poorest Americans tighten their belts so that the richest Americans can loosen their belts.
		And that, to me, like kind of blows the whole thing up.
		You can't say you have to lose your food assistance so the rich people can get a tax cut.
		Like that, that doesn't work.
		We're still increasing the deficit by trillions.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Mr. Brady.
unidentified		All right.
		Thanks, Bobby.
		So one point to remember is that back in 1980, before Reagan passed through his tax cuts, the top marginal rate was 70%.
		And now we've got it down to 34%.
		And over the time, through the tax cuts from Reagan, Bush, and the Trump tax cuts, the biggest untold story is how it's made the tax code so much more progressive because it's every time you're doing a tax cut, there's benefits in there for lower income workers that remove them from a lot of income tax obligation.
		And over that time, we've seen that tax revenues are generally stable as a percentage of GDPs.
		Averages 16, 18%.
		You know, there's differences in some years where we run into a bad economy.
		So then unfortunately, though, the spending is a couple of percentage points higher than that.
		So that's why we're dealing with the deficit.
		So we need to provide a tax system that has opportunities for growth so that people can have more, earn more money, keep more of what they earn.
		And then, you know, go back to the rescissions package.
		What this is doing is codifying some of the work that Doge has already done, the Department of Government Efficiency, by going through.
		They noticed so many problems with USAID in terms of waste.
		And some accounts were being kicked back to people in Washington, D.C.
		So this is taking this to Congress saying it's time we're ending this program.
		Let's make it official.
		And they're supposed to follow up as well with additional residions packages.
		They've done a lot more work.
		There's about 400 think tanks in Washington, D.C., but two are line items in the federal budget: the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Institute for Peace.
		We fund about a third of the Woodrow Wilson Center's budget, and it's duplicative of a lot of activities that are already undertaken by the Department of State, by the Library of Congress.
		So I assume that that will be in a follow-up residence package.
		So strike this from federal authorizations.
		You know, a little cut here and a little cut there goes a long way for dealing with our long-term structural deficits.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If you're just joining us for this conversation, you've just heard from Damian Brady of the National Taxpayers Union.
		A little bit about that.
		What is that?
unidentified		Sure.
		The National Taxpayers Union is the oldest taxpayer organization in the country.
		It was founded in 1969, working on behalf of taxpayers for limited government, lower taxes, low regulations.
		I work primarily with our foundation and do a lot of the policy work that supports my colleagues' efforts who go to the Hill and work across the aisle for good government reforms, tax cuts.
		We have a long history in working on taxpayer rights and reforming the IRS, and that's been a big project over the last couple years as well.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Cogan's with the Center for American Progress, a little bit about that, sir.
unidentified		Sure.
		Center for American Progress is sort of an everything organization trying to, through a whole bunch of different methods, make sure the government actually works for people, right?
		It's trying to make sure that the government actually helps the American people.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Charlotte.
		Charlotte's in Pennsylvania, Democrats line.
		Hi, Charlotte.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Well, I've got two things I want to talk about.
		First is this thing about NPR and PBS.
		Does he not realize that a lot of rural areas depend on those services, and there aren't a lot of people there that can double-fund that program?
		They also have tons of educational programs on it, from building, cooking, children's programs.
		None of the networks, major networks, do anything for children.
		And I don't mean the cartoon network.
		I mean things that would help educate children, et cetera, and adults in things that they'd never think to do.
		And travel programs for people like me.
		I'm not going all over the world.
		You know, that's not in my affordability will.
		Never mind that.
		Let's go on to this tax thing.
		I am still waiting for the trickle-down effect of the tax cuts from Mr. Reagan in the 80s.
		And it hasn't happened.
		Once he did those tax cuts, all of a sudden, my mailbox was flooded with credit card offers and giving me free money.
		And I was young enough to think that, oh, my goodness, I must be really in good financial shape if everybody's giving me these credit cards.
		I was too young to be given three or four credit cards without me applying.
		You have to understand, I didn't apply for these cards.
		They just came in the mail.
		And I don't see the trickle-down effect.
		Oh, and Mr. Reagan got rid of canceling all credit card interest.
		All interest is not taken off your income tax.
		If everybody had to report how much they paid in interest on credit cards, et cetera, there wouldn't be 27% interest on credit cards.
		There wouldn't be 27% interest for a car loan for the poorest people.
		So please go back and look at some of the things that Mr. Reagan did.
		He did not help the little person.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Charlotte in Pennsylvania.
		Thank you.
		Mr. Brady, if you want to start.
unidentified		Sure.
		I understand her concern about people in rural America, but we have just so many options for getting access to information.
		There's internet, other programs, cable shows.
		I drive through rural America and you see a lot of people with satellites.
		So, you know, we don't have a taxpayer obligation to provide for entertainment and news travel shows.
		We need to find better ways to use our taxpayer dollars.
		And then going back to Reagan on the tax cuts and trickle down, let's talk about what happened after we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017.
		We were seeing wages were going up after that went into effect.
		Incomes were going up and the economy was growing.
		And Bobby was talking about CBO's projections of the deficit in the current bill.
		They also had deficit projections when the TCGA was enacted in 2017, but revenues were coming in subtly higher than CBO had expected.
		It's part of it is definitely attributable to the growth opportunities provided in the tax cut bill.
		And I also have to remember that it reduced, you know, taxes is much more than what you end up paying to the federal treasury on tax day.
		A lot of time goes into that, understanding tax laws, filling out your forms.
		So one big thing in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a doubling of the standard deduction, which saves a lot of people from income tax obligations and it saves millions of hours of Americans' time filing taxes.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Kogan.
unidentified		So I just wanted to respond to a couple.
		First, I'm going to respond to one thing, Charlotte, and then I wanted to respond to something that Damien said.
		So really fast on the PBS and other local station stuff, it's not that the main accounts, right?
		Like the big PBS account is probably able to make to the, I think the real loss of the corporations for public broadcasting is the local stations that will all go under.
		And so while it's true that people can Google stuff, a lot of the local reporting goes away and that's not something that's really replicable.
		So I think there's actually a real major loss.
		We already are seeing kind of the death of lots of local outlets.
		And I think it's really tough for people going, you know, for people trying to learn stuff.
		So I actually think that there's a real loss there.
		Really fast on the effect of TCJA.
		When Damien said, oh, well, revenues are coming in higher than projected, that's because there was inflation after the pandemic, right?
		So CBO in 2017 and 2018 didn't predict that there was going to be a once in a hundred generation pandemic and therefore didn't assume that inflation would go up and therefore their nominal levels are too low.
		But if you take CBO's projection that it made in 2018 and you adjust that for the inflation that actually did happen, revenues are coming in right in line with expectations.
		So it's just not true that this thing was like starting to pay for itself because revenues are coming in above.
		That's not true, literally false if you adjust for inflation.
		It's true, wages are, you know, are higher, but that wage pickup actually started in 2015.
		And it's true that growth was higher, but that growth actually also started earlier.
		So if you look at the growth trend and the wage trend, it basically just continued where it was in stuff that had predated TCJA.
		So I think TCJA probably did more than zero in terms of boost, but I think the best evidence of it is just not that much.
		And I would just say in terms of actually the growth stuff, a lot of that stuff is now already done and not part of this one.
		And that's why when independent groups have looked at this, they have found basically no growth effect and in some cases, negative, negative growth effects.
		So I just don't think that's what a careful reading of the evidence would show.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Brady wants to respond to you, sir, Mr. Brady.
unidentified		Hey, Bobby.
		So yeah, we were seeing, we do our study on who pays taxes and who doesn't pay taxes.
		Digging into that, we were seeing effects immediately in 2018 in terms of people having higher wages.
		And given all the things that have happened since then, a lot of people forget just how the economy really started a boom in 2018 and 2019.
		So I'm talking about revenues even before the pandemic and the inflation.
		The pandemic really changed everything, of course, because they have economic shutdown of businesses across the country.
		But we were really growing vibrantly until the pandemic hit.
		Now, there are certainly things we could do in the tax bill that's currently being considered to make it more pro-growth.
		And so I hope the Senate are going to make some changes in there to take it in a positive direction to address some of those concerns that Bobby talked about.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And Mr. Brady, if you wanted a quick response to that.
unidentified		Yeah, so if you look at CBO and actual revenue in 2018, 2019, the pre-pandemic years, they came in lower, not higher.
		So it just, you know, if you look at the 2018 estimate of TCJA, revenues came in like right at that.
		So it's just like it is.
		Anyway, I'm happy to share my spreadsheet after this, but it just literally didn't come.
		And then in terms of the wages, right, like you can look at the Atlanta Fed wage tracker, which can break up by groups and everything, right?
		And you can see that that growth literally start began in late 2015, right?
		Which makes sense, right?
		Like the economy was in really bad shape.
		You have to wait for it to kind of like employment to get high enough that wage growth can really take off.
		And that's exactly what we saw.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Patrick.
		And he joins us from Michigan, Independent Line.
		Hi, Patrick.
unidentified		Hi.
		First of all, thank you for having these two gentlemen on.
		They provide a lot of good information, a lot of detailed things to consider.
		My question is, when we get away from the details, go to a higher level, between the two gentlemen and their viewpoints and the viewpoints they represent, where's the room for compromise?
		On one hand, somebody's saying we can't go back to the previous tax rates.
		The other person is saying we've got to be able to stay where we're at and so on down the line.
		Could each of these gentlemen tell me where do they see the room for compromise with the other person's viewpoint?
		I'll hang up and listen to the response.
		Thank you very much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Kogan, you want to start?
unidentified		Sure.
		So, I mean, look, obviously, I think Damien and I have different ideas about the size and scope of government, but I do think there are plenty of places we agree.
		I think we both identified the salt cap as a good tax reform.
		And we could go beyond, right?
		Like what you don't want in a tax code is people who are making the same amount paying different levels of taxes, right?
		That is that that's called horizontal inequity.
		And that creates like bad perversions in the system.
		So I think we both agree that there are actually tons of expenditures we can clean up and everything to kind of make the tax code more efficient.
		Those all save money and are good things.
		Where we might disagree is I think Damien might take those savings and sink it back into the tax code to then lower the rates and broaden the base.
		Well, broadening the base, we agree with lowering the rates.
		I think he would do that.
		I might take it and sink it into something else.
		But that's like room for actual agreement.
		And I don't want to speak for Damien.
		So he should tell me if he disagrees.
		But I think we can actually agree on the like, my guess is we would agree on the places for being more efficient in terms of healthcare delivery and that sort of stuff.
		And then we also believe that we need a process that's open and transparent.
		Right.
		So like we like, we believe that like the neutral arbiters, CBO, JCT, those sorts of folks should be open with their models so they can be critiqued and everything.
		Like I think there's lots of like room for us to agree.
		I think just basically where we're going to end up disagreeing is, you know, if you're if you're stuck between two tough choices, which one of those is the less bad choice, right?
		So I looked at this bill and I said, well, there are some good things and some bad things inside of the bill, but I think the bad things way outweigh the good things.
		And so I'm against it.
		And I think Damien will probably say, oh, yeah, some good, some bad, but I think the good outweigh the bad.
		So anyway, I'll shut up now and give it to Damian.
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Brady.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah, Bobby's right.
		Definitely the state and local tax deduction cap is something that we agree on.
		And there's things we could do that the Senate can do to lower it even more so that way we're not just providing so many benefits to the wealthiest people who live in the wealthiest towns and countries.
		And you also have to remember when you're talking about the SALT cap is that The Federal taxes pay for federal services.
		State and local taxes are paying for local services.
		So I don't understand why we have a cap for that.
		And also, yeah, I think we would probably agree on there's lots of things we can do to clean up the tax code.
		But yeah, we would advocate pumping that back into the tax cuts to provide for more broad-based relief for as many Americans as possible.
		The Center for American Progress and National Taxpayers Union have worked together on broad principles of budget reform through a discussion that took place in 2017, helped feed into a lot of the budget reforms that were included in the bipartisan bill in the Senate from Senator Enzi and Senator Whitehouse.
		So those would provide for, as he talked about, strengthening the Congressional Budget Office, which was created by Congress to provide budget analysis data.
		So that way Congress didn't have to depend on the Office of Management and Budget from the White House.
		So there are things that CBO, Congress can do to improve CBO and give it the resources it needs to respond to lawmakers' requests and provide a fair and accurate analysis of proposals.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And I will see if both of you gentlemen on agree on this, especially when it comes to the Congressional Budget Office, because it's the Trump administration questioning their methods of analysis because they've come up with the idea that there's going to be deficits because of these efforts.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Here's what Russ Fog, the White House budget director, had to say about the analysis yesterday.
unidentified		All of the watchdogs use an artificial baseline that is part of the way that Washington, D.C. does business here, in which they assume that all spending is eternal, but tax relief in 2017 was to sunset.
		And as a result, when you just extend tax relief, you're in a situation where it looks like this major cost.
		And of course, that's not a cost if it would not to occur.
		It would be a major tax increase to the American people.
		And so when you adjust for that baseline, that big game, and this is putting aside the economic growth that we think that they also understate, when you adjust for that, it is $1.4 trillion in reduced deficits and debt.
russ vought ▲ ● ▼		That's why this is such a paramount fiscally responsible bill, notwithstanding the watchdogs here in town.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Cogan, yeah, because you used to work at the Office of Management and Budget, but go ahead.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		Yeah, not only did they work at LMB, I worked at the Senate Budget Committee, and my job at the Senate Budget Committee was to be the head of numbers and concepts and scoring and budget review.
		So my job was literally to understand how CBO scored and why it scored and what it scored this way and that way.
		I just want to say like Russ is completely wrong.
		So there are like four different things to respond to, but I'll go really fast.
		Number one, it is not true spending is assumed to continue forever and revenue isn't.
		A tiny bit of spending is assumed to continue.
		A tiny bit of revenue is assumed to continue, some of both, but not very much.
		3% of mandatory spending is assumed to continue.
		1% of revenues is assumed to continue.
		That's it, right?
		It is not true spending is assumed to continue and revenue isn't.
		We have a statutory definition of the baseline has been in statute since the 80s with scoring practices in it happening from way before.
		Russ is very aware of this.
		He's just unhappy that these temporary tax cuts were written to be temporary and scored on a temporary basis so that they could appear artificially small.
		And now they're not assumed to be free to continue.
		But there's no program.
		In that 3%, none of those programs work that way.
		There's no program in the federal budget, period, full stock, since the beginning of time that is temporary to go in, free to continue.
		There is no program that works that way.
		Number two, when Russ says, oh, but if you just account for my baseline, that my made-up baseline that nothing gets to do, that nothing works that way, then it actually saves money.
		That's actually false too, because inside of the bill, there are temporary things.
		But if we're using the Russ vote baseline where temporary things are assumed to go on for forever, then it doesn't pay for itself, right?
		Because on that baseline, it still costs more than it, then, you know, like the new stuff still ends up being a net cost relative to the cuts.
		So that is actually false.
		And then the final thing that I want to respond to is Russ says, oh, well, it should be free, and also we should get the macroeconomic benefit.
		My man, if you assume that the tax cuts were already going to be there, then you can't claim any economic benefits because that's already built in.
		So Russ is toggling the baseline on and off, on and off, on and off to get all the benefits that he wants.
		It's just ludicrous, right?
		Like it is actually a ludicrous thing that Russ is doing here.
		And he knows better because Russ is actually really, really, really smart.
		Russ is probably the smartest person in the Trump administration.
		So he's being very clever here and very deceitful.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I want to give Mr. Brady in before we take our last call, Mr. Brady.
unidentified		Yeah, sure.
		So CBO comes under a lot of attacks from all this, but you have to remember, you know, the baseline stuff that Bobby talked about, Congress tells CBO how to construct that baseline.
		And generally, they follow under a current law, assuming things are going to continue under current law.
		The tax cuts under current law are going to expire at the end of this year.
		There's going to be a deficit impact if you extend them.
		So you just can't wish that away.
		And another thing about the baseline: so CBO develops their spending projections over 10 years of spending and revenues, and that becomes the ruler for judging any policy proposal that Congress is working on.
		So you need to have, you know, if you want to change the baseline, you can't just change it for scoring one particular bill.
		It should be consistent.
		So that way we have a fair ruler.
		And if you don't like the baseline, I mean, we could have congressional hearings about it and find a better way to build a baseline that reflects reality more than the current baseline does.
		But let's just not kick CBO around.
		Congress tells CBO how to function.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let me roll in one more call.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Robert in North Carolina, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning, gentlemen.
		The question I have is that has anybody looked at the possibility of having a generated generated program of making income along with the taxes that we pay as taxpayers to have the government running?
		Because that's one area that seems to, you know, we keep going to it, the taxpayer and raising taxes to run the government.
		What ideas would you have saying along with taxpayers, they also have a generated income for investment in the country from our politicians?
		I stand by and listen to your answer.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Mr. Brady.
unidentified		I'm not sure that I totally understood what he was asking there.
		So I'm not sure I can.
		Go ahead, Bob.
		I think, yeah, I was going to say, I think we were talking about maybe stuff like Social Security, stuff like IRA account, right, for our 401k with tax preferential treatment, maybe stuff like baby bonds.
		That would be my guess where we were going.
		Do you want to take this one first, Damien, or should I?
		No, no, go ahead.
		Okay.
		So, yeah, so I was going to say, I think there's some of this in the tax, you know, in our tax and spending code.
		I think maybe we ought to think of Social Security this way.
		Many people get more out than they pay in if you kind of look at the net present value of it.
		And so that's something where we're paying taxes and we're receiving a benefit.
		You should, I think we ought to look at like our 401k system in the same way where we get a tax preferential treatment.
		We put some money in.
		Yes, it's through our company or whatever, but we put money in and we get a tax benefit from it.
		I think there are additional ways to do it, right?
		There's a savers credit.
		You could expand the savers credit.
		I think the savers credit, even I can't remember where it came from, but I was going to say, I thought it came from TCJA, but I wasn't actually 100% positive.
		There are like smart versions, there are dumb versions, but there are smart versions of baby bonds where theoretically you make a down payment on behalf of people.
		It's not, it means it's not, it's going to the people it ought to be, and it's not kind of a timing gimmick.
		So I think there are things to do that kind of would make sure that people are doing equity.
		I think one of the problems that we have here is that it's tough to get people to save if they don't want to save, right?
		And there are always costs that are necessary in homes.
		And so I think one of the smart things that we always need to be thinking of society is helping people generate savings.
		And so to that point, I think there are areas for growth there.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Two guests joining us for this discussion.
		You just heard from Bobby Kogan, the website for the Center for American Progress, AmericanProgress.org.
		Bobby Kogan serves as the Federal Budget Policy Senior Director.
		We've been joined by Damian Brady of the National Taxpayers Union, NTU.org.
		He's the vice president for research.
		To both of you gentlemen, thanks for the conversation today.
unidentified		Thanks for having me on, Pedro.
		Thanks, Pedro.
		Thanks, Damien.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We will, in about 45 minutes from now, talk with the Washington Examiners Hugo Gurdon.
		But before that, you can participate in Open Forum.
		Here's how you can do that: 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents 202-748-8002.
		Go ahead and make those calls.
		We will start with Open Forum when Washington Journal continues.
unidentified		This show, NC-SPAN, is one of the few places left in America where you actually have left and right coming together to talk and argue.
		And you guys do a great service in that.
		I love C-SPAN too.
		That's why I'm here today.
		Answer questions all day, every day.
		Sometimes I get to do fun things like go on C-SPAN.
adam goodman ▲ ● ▼		C-SPAN is, I think, one of the very few places that Americans can still go.
unidentified		C-SPAN has such a distinguished and honorable and important mandate and mission in this country.
		I love this show.
		This is my favorite show to do of all shows because I actually get to hear what the American people care about.
		American people have access to their government in ways that they did not before the cable industry provided C-SPAN access.
		That's why I like to come on C-SPAN is because this is one of the last places where people are actually having conversations, even people who disagree.
		Shows that you can have a television network that can try to be objective.
		Thank C-SPAN for all you do.
		It's one of the reasons why this program is so valuable, because it does bring people together, where dissenting voices are heard, where hard questions are asked, and where people have to answer to them.
		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.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		It's open forum.
		And again, if you want to call the phone lines and participate, if you've done so in the last 30 days, if you can hold off from doing that today, we appreciate it.
		Also, while you're waiting, if you can mute or turn down your television, we appreciate that as well.
		CNBC and others reporting that the president's top trade officials meeting with their Chinese counterparts and counterparts in London today for talks aimed at resolving an ongoing trade dispute between the two largest economies: the Treasury Secretary Scott Besson, Commerce Secretary Howard Luttnick, and Trade Representative Jameson Greer are representing the U.S.
		China's foreign ministry said on Saturday that the vice premier, Beijing's lead trade negotiator, will be in the United Kingdom between the 8th and the 13th of this month.
		And it was National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett saying today that the U.S. was seeking confirmation China would restore the flow of critical minerals.
		Something to watch out for today as it plays out in Washington and abroad.
		On first up on this open forum, DeLin in Oregon, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		You said this was open forum.
		I've been watching you now for about an hour and a half.
		There was a couple things I wanted to say.
		One was about the stuff going on in LA.
		My husband, his ancestry came from Spain with Father Sarah through Mexico and settled the missions all the way up.
		And they actually have a statue of one of his great-grandfathers in DeWarty, California.
		And if people think back, they merged with the Hispanic people from Mexico.
		They came over, they settled part of California.
		It used to be Mexico at one time.
		And so these people have been around for a long, long time.
		His ancestry goes way back.
		On my side of the family, it's Irish, German, English, American, Indian, and French-Canadian.
		We are a land of immigrants.
		And, you know, I don't agree with coming in illegally, but what's going on right now is going to start happening across the United States.
		Millions of people are going to end up in the streets when they get riled enough.
		And it's just the beginning because everybody's being treated so unfairly by the Trump administration.
		It's just really going to take something for everybody to stand up.
		I think the National Guard and having the Marines on hold, this is the beginning to make people too afraid to go out and protest because this is the beginning of millions of people across the United States protesting what Trump's doing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		De Lynn in Oregon.
		This is Kendra in Virginia, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi, good morning.
		Pedro, can you look up the article in the New York Post about the six illegal immigrants that killed the South Carolina woman in May?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, since you know about it, why don't you summarize for our audience?
unidentified		Sure.
		There were six illegal immigrants aged 13 through 21 charged in connection with a South Carolina mother.
		And they were finally arrested in June, but we didn't hear anything about it.
		Like the media didn't cover it at all.
		So I was just wondering if, you know, you could pull it up.
		It is on the New York Post has it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why do you think it's important for the audience to know?
unidentified		Because it seems like no one's mentioning it.
		I mean, this is an African-American lady.
		She was a mother and she was killed by illegal immigrants.
		And no one's saying anything about it.
		No one on the Democrat side is saying anything about it.
		Where's Black Lives Matter and all of that?
		I'm African American.
		I would like to know these kinds of things that are going on.
		Have a good day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Kendra, in Virginia, the website, the publication she mentions is the New York Post for that story.
		You can find it online.
		And just to show you the headline that she references there, if you want to look up for that story and read it for yourself at the New York Post, Gladys joins us from Los Angeles, Republican Line.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning, everyone.
		I'm calling from Los Angeles.
		I live in L.A.
		And I agree with Trump that he needs to get these people out of here.
		They get everything free.
		They grab for everything.
		They're in line.
		They take over.
		Hello, can you hear me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		No, you're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Okay.
		They disrespect our laws.
		They come in.
		And the lady that called last week about the black lady about they're not competing with people who have bachelor's, master's, and PhDs.
		No, they're competing with people who are lower class, who are uneducated, who are poor, whose jobs they're taking.
		So I'm 100% behind President Trump.
		I hope he gets these people out here.
		They disrespect our laws.
		I live here in L.A., I see how they do, how they double up, how they take all the welfare, they're on Medicaid, they're on Social Security.
		So I agree with him.
		Get them out of here.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Politico has a story taking a look at the travel ban instituted last week goes into effect today, saying that the president has banned citizens from 12 countries from entering the United States and restricted access for those from seven others.
		The ban that was announced Wednesday applied to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Etria, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
		The heightened restrictions apply to people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela who are outside the USA and don't hold a valid visa.
		That policy took place this morning at 12:08 a.m. and that does not have an end date.
		There's more about what happens now that the ban's in place.
		You can find that story in Politico if you want to look it up there.
		Charles is next.
		Pennsylvania Democrats line.
unidentified		Yeah, I have a little bit of question.
		Every country you mentioned here on the ban, and majority of everybody getting arrested, either brown or black.
		Nobody that are white.
		Nobody's saying about any of the white crime that's going on in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia.
		My concern is that Project 25, the book, Project 25, all that is, is a rewrite of my comp.
		The Republicans are running their country like the Germans ran the early days of 1939, 1940, 1941.
		They are using Hitler's version to write their book, 2025.
		All it is is a rewrite on my comp.
		I'm sorry, but you guys have a good day.
		Some days you do a good job with the station, some days you don't.
		But I'm glad you at least have it out here for us to talk.
		Thank you.
		Have a good day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Texas is next.
		Independent Line.
		We'll hear from Robert.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		Thank you for C-Spend and all you do.
		Last time I called in, it was the bottom of the hour, and I was a little bit rushed.
		So when I summarized Septimberli, what I was trying to say, actually, I sounded more like a conspiracy theorist.
		But I referenced things going on behind the scenes between Donald Trump, Peter Thiel, JV Vance, and Talent here.
		And I mentioned what up until a few months ago is mainly a fringe political theory called neo-reaction, the dark enlightenment.
		And I think it has profound implications for federal legitimacy and the United States in general, especially given recent developments regarding Polantier, the Golden Dome, the massive database.
		Would you please address this so that we know what's going on?
		Because I think it needs to be covered.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Robert there in Texas.
		This is John in California, Independent Line.
		John in California just hanged up, hung up.
		Let me tell you a lot of a couple of events in a little bit.
		I want to let you know about the events that are going on on our networks.
		As always, we have things in and around Washington that we invite you to view the House and the Senate, particularly when they are in active session.
		You can watch them on C-SPAN 1, C-SPAN 2 effectively.
		Some other things to look out for.
		At 12 o'clock today, there's a discussion taking a look at the topic of international investment.
		This is sponsored by the U.S. Global Leadership Forum and two guests joining us, a Congresswoman from California, Young Kim, former USAID Administrator Mark Green, and there will be others.
		You can see that on C-SPAN 2 and our app, C-SPANNOW, C-SPAN.org, if you want to look there.
		And then a discussion taking a look at the tech race between the United States and China.
		Two Chinese researchers that were recently charged with smuggling a biological pathogen into the U.S. Later today, we'll talk about that, that discussion of the biotechnology race between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party.
		Former Congressman Mike Gallagher and CEO of Ginkgo Bioworks, Dr. Jason Kelly, joining us.
		That will be from the Hudson Institute, 2 o'clock this afternoon on C-SPAN2, the app and the .org, if you want to watch it there.
		In Ohio, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Yeah.
		Hi.
		How you doing?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine.
		Thank you.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hey, this is why I don't vote.
		This is why I think that be with any two of the parties, you need your head examined because just take the border.
		In the last three years, fentanyl alone has killed more Americans, just fentanyl, than every war put together except for the Civil War.
		Okay?
		Now, going back two years ago, you got all these people coming over the border.
		It's just chaos.
		It's broken.
		If anybody can't see that, that the border needs to be fixed.
		It's something wrong with you.
		I'm not a Democrat or Republican.
		Okay?
		That's how I feel about the borders.
		It's been long, but they make money from drugs.
		Okay?
		This stuff is no accident.
		This has been happening for a long time.
		Okay.
		And I want to say about the big bill.
		How can you cut?
		How can you cut $29 billion a year for 10 years off of food stamps, snaps?
		I know Trump ain't, you won't see him at Kroger's, but that's kind of crazy.
		I mean, the way food is, and you cut $29 billion, I mean, the system is so broken.
		I'm telling you, both parties, all they do is lie bigger.
		I mean, if you really sit and look at it, you do critical thinking, it is messed up.
		All right.
		That's all I have to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Darryl in Ohio on our line for independence, as always on this open forum, 202748-8001 for Republicans, 202748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents, 202748-8002.
		We will take calls up until 9.30.
		Two small stops along the way to give you a sense of what's going on, not only in Congress later on, but in the White House right now.
		And joining us to give us the latest, Joey Garrison, who joins us from the White House.
		He's the White House reporter for USA Today.
		Mr. Garrison, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Garrison, what have we heard or what kind of follow-up has there been to the events in California and the White House's role and interest in its involvement in it?
unidentified		Well, as you know, President Trump sent 2,000 National Guard members of California, and he did that apparently without consultation with Governor Gavin Newsom, who was pushed back fiercely against Trump's action there.
		He said he had no communication, nor did he even mention it during a phone call that Newsom said he had with Trump late on Friday night.
		And Trump and other Trump officials have said, look, you know, we want law and order in LA.
		He's condemned the riots and he's pushed back strongly.
		This is something, you know, politically that they see as something that they can work to their advantage.
		You know, this is something that Trump has talked about for a long time.
		And so you have these protests that largely stemmed over ICE, but you also see pro-Palestinian flags, etc.
		And it's something the White House has jumped all over.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And you say that it worked to their advantage.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you elaborate on that?
unidentified		Well, look, this is something that they can seize on politically here.
		They think this is a winning issue.
		I mean, this is something that Trump has long campaigned on, this idea of lawlessness in Democratic cities.
		So you have Los Angeles, you have a Democratic governor also in Newsom, somebody who Trump has routinely butted heads with.
		There's quite a confrontation right now unfolding between Newsom, who's one of the, of course, leaders of the Democratic Party right now, and Trump on this matter.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Garrison, we see the president travel frequently to his home in Mar-a-Lago.
		He travels to Bedminster in New Jersey, but he made a stop at Camp David yesterday.
		What was that stop for?
unidentified		You know, that was a surprise that wasn't originally on the schedule and it got put on there.
		And reporters asked him yesterday on the what exactly are you doing there?
		He just said he was meeting the top military leaders.
		He was asked about possibly meeting with foreign leaders.
		He didn't respond to that or address whether he'd be talking to, communicating with other foreign leaders on this trip.
		So it remains a mystery.
		This is often the place, Camp David, where you do a lot of foreign policy.
		Of course, it happened in the middle of this situation in Los Angeles.
		So I think that raised speculation.
		Maybe he is trying to regroup with his military brass there to really kind of present this front of, hey, you know, we're going to war against these rioters, these protesters.
		But we still haven't gotten an answer.
		We're expecting President Trump to return from Camp David back to the White House here in a matter within the next hour.
		And so hopefully we'll get some better answers of what exactly was discussed there.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		On Saturday, it is the Army's 250th birthday.
		This is something that the White House has been touting.
		What more will we expect to hear about it as the week progresses?
unidentified		Well, you probably saw clips over the weekend of large military tanks and other equipment coming down to D.C. by a train.
		It's going to be quite a spectacle here.
		It's one that Trump has circled for a long time.
		You remember in his first term, he often talked about wanting some sort of military parade to show off the equipment the United States has, the biggest military, the best military in the world.
		He saw what French leader Emmanuel Macron had in France for Basile Day, that kind of parade, and he's long wanted that.
		So it's going to be, you know, what happens, you know, we've never quite seen this.
		I believe it's going to be taking place late in the day on Saturday.
		Washington, D.C. Mayher Mario Bowser has raised concerns about what the condition of the roads where the large equipment's going to be going down.
		What's that kind of impact is that going to have?
		It's going to have, we're going to have a lot of people here.
		It's going to attract a ton of protesters, I expect, as well.
		And, you know, it'll be quite a scene.
		And of course, as you know, this falls on President Trump's birthday in addition to the 250th anniversary of the Army.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What more can the White House or we expect from the White House with discussions taking place today in China over the topic of minerals and such and so forth?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But what more is the White House going to tell us today about that?
unidentified		Well, President Trump talked to President Xi of China last week on Thursday.
		It kind of got blown over a little bit in the media because quickly there was the back and forth with Elon Musk and Trump that kind of overshadowed a lot of those discussions.
		You know, tariffs, of course, Trump has accused them of not following through on some of the deals where they paused the tariffs with each other for 90 days.
		You know, that's going to be something to discuss.
		There was no clarity coming out of that last meeting.
		And you referenced the minerals and the trading on that.
		There's nothing that came out of that in terms of progress that the president can point to.
		And so that's still a topic of discussion in terms of as the White House continues talking with Chinese leaders here this week.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And thanks for the segue.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the status of the relationship between the president and Mr. Musk these days?
unidentified		Well, it was funny.
		I mean, as on Friday after Trump left the White House, reporters asked him about his relationship with Musk.
		And Trump this time, you know, really seemed to try to take a calmer tone, tried to look forward.
		He said he has no plans, for example, to ask Elon Musk to return the White House key that he gave him.
		When he asked about the red Tesla that he bought from Musk, he said, oh, I don't know what I'm going to do with that.
		So Trump, I mean, to his best, is trying to kind of move forward.
		But that's often historically been difficult for Trump when it comes to people who are criticizing him publicly.
		And so, you know, Musk, you know, for his part, seemed to cool the temperature a little bit over the weekend.
		He started on social media on X, started commenting more on the LA riots, protests, than he did on Trump.
		And so we'll see where it goes from here.
		It's still not one where they're talking.
		Trump said he had no plans to reach out to him.
		And so, you know, for now, again, Trump is trying to kind of cool the temperature, but I think it remains to be seen how long that'll last.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Aside of what we talked about, do we expect any other major events at the White House this week?
unidentified		Well, we're still waiting on a full week schedule to come out.
		And so, you know, I think between, I think today is going to be really dominated by what happens next with the National Guard.
		Again, Newsom is saying, hey, this is really unprecedented the way that President Trump has gone after this.
		He's threatened legal action.
		We'll see whether that comes from the state of California.
		Gavin Newsom also dared Tom Homan, basically, the border czar of the Trump administration, said, hey, if you want to arrest me, come arrest me, because that had been floated out there.
		And so I think what happens next on that story is going to be front and center today.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Joey Garrison, who reports for USA Today at the White House, USAToday.com, the website if you want to see his work.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And Mr. Garrison, as always, thanks for your time.
unidentified		Hey, thanks so much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We're back to Open Forum, and this is Anna in North Carolina Republican line.
		Thanks for waiting.
		Anna, go ahead.
unidentified		Hey, Pedro.
		Good morning.
		The thing, my concern is that, you know, ICE is doing their job, and we don't have the paperwork.
		We don't know where these people are located.
		They have to go through and get all their documentations and everything and say they know who they're looking for.
		And they're not just randomly going to places.
		But anyway, with that being said, I wish that we could just let them do their job.
		I don't like seeing the politicians inciting so much discourse and riling these people up.
		And in TIFA, they actually do, they had like an international Website or whatever you want to call it, and they call people to come into these cities.
		And a lot of them are paid to come in and create chaos and destruction.
		And that's what people really need to understand: that this is very well organized.
		And that's about all I had to say.
		Thanks, Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Caleb, Caleb is in California, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		I just wanted to say that you guys were saying all the people are citizens, or these are working class Americans that are writing.
		It's not those people.
		It's mainly people that are criminals and people that are, you know, not working class.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Caleb there in California.
		202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		202-748-8,000 for Democrats and Independents.
		202-748-8002.
		Our next guest joins us at 9:30.
		Open forum.
		If you want to participate, you can also make your thoughts via text, and you can always post on our social media sites.
		That's facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and also on X at C-SPAN WJ Variety reporting that ABC News suspended its senior national correspondent, Terry Moran, after he called the White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a quote, world-class hater in a since-deleted post on X. Quote, ABC News stands for objectivity and impartiality in its news coverage and does not condone subjective personal attacks on others.
		ABC said in a statement, the post does not reflect the views of ABC News and violated our standards.
		And as a result, Terry Moran has been suspended pending further evaluation.
		It was the post that went out just after midnight on Sunday.
		In it, Mr. Moran wrote that Miller is, quote, one of the people who conceptualizes the impulses of the Trumpist movement and translates them into policy and operates not on, quote, brains, but on bile, going on to say Miller is a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred.
		He's a world-class hater.
		You can see that just by looking at him because you can see his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment.
		He eats his hate.
		That's in Variety.
		Other sources reporting that as well.
		If you want to read that there, from New York City, Democrats line, Neil, hello.
unidentified		Hey, Pedro, how are you doing?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		All right.
		So, all right.
		So, Miller, scary guy.
		Let's move on.
		So, at the end of the day, I employ people, and I have people that have been waiting three, four years to become American citizens.
		Okay.
		So, even though I am center left or center right, depending on the topic, at the end of the day, when somebody comes to this country illegally, they're illegal.
		So, why do these people, okay, or why should these people get all of these rights that citizens have?
		They're just not citizens.
		So, the Republicans, in my opinion, happen to be right.
		Okay.
		They're here illegally.
		Okay.
		They deserve nothing when everything is taken away from our citizens.
		I've seen the news where they're in towns, where people have been begging for money for their school systems for years.
		They don't get it.
		But yet, all of a sudden, illegal immigrants are housed in their gyms.
		They're giving them hundreds of thousands of dollars.
		This is why people aren't feeling good about this.
		That's really what I have to say about the matter.
		It's not a good situation.
		It's not, especially when people have waited online for years to become citizens, and all of a sudden they see they rushed the one-yard line, they got in here, and bingo, they have all the rights that U.S. citizens have.
		It's not fair.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Oklahoma next.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We will hear from Kerry, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning.
		I just wanted to go back in reference to the gentleman that called earlier about the illegals coming across and the border being open.
		And it was good that they're going back.
		And also he referenced the food stamp system, I believe.
		And I would think that if the food stamps are being cut, it's from the monies that are fraud or illegal people that not illegals across the border, but fraudulent use of food stamps.
		So that's basically all I needed to touch on for this morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Michelle joins us next from Michigan and Dearborn Heights, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		I just want to know, where was the National Guard on January 6th when they were trying to just obliterate our democracy?
		And another thing, all this fraud, waste, and abuse.
		Let's cut some corporation subsidies.
		That's where we can cut the fraud, waste, and abuse at.
		And that's all I have to say.
		Thank you, Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Delaware is where Danielle is.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hello.
		I just want to say that I'm sorry that I need to call on an independent Democrat or Republican line because sometimes opinions are across the board and we all think the same way.
		The thing is that I just want to say that people, whether they're black, white, legally here, born here, immigrated, crime occurs all the time.
		And to pinpoint a particular group and scapegoated group as the people who commit crime and therefore should be riled up and put away, it's just a lie.
		Let's just be kinder to each other.
		We have enough resources to go across the board.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Michael's in New Jersey.
		Republican line.
		You're next.
unidentified		Yes, I'd like to know why we can't get these illegal guns off the street.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why do you think that is?
unidentified		You mean they're using them for all kinds of crimes.
unidentified		And why can't we stop it at the border, whatever they're bringing them in?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Michael in New Jersey there.
		Again, continue calling on the lines.
		One of the people that were talking about the events that we've been showing you throughout the course of the morning in Los Angeles, also with the recently case of Kilmar Obrego-Garcia brought back to the United States, was the senator from New Jersey, Corey Booker, making these comments on the Sunday shows.
unidentified		But remember, a lot of these peaceful protests are being generated because the President of the United States is sowing chaos and confusion by arresting people who are showing up for their immigration hearings, who are trying to abide by the law.
		He's arresting them.
		And you see this in communities that are Republican, Trump supporters, being outraged that he's raiding kitchens and arresting people, high schools and arresting people who are not what he said he would do, which is focus law enforcement resources on violent criminals and people that are a danger to other Americans.
		All right, Senator, let's move on to Kilmar Obrego Garcia returned to the United States to face human trafficking charges more than two months after being mistakenly sent to El Salvador.
kristen welker ▲ ● ▼		In my phone interview with President Trump on Saturday, he called Senator Chris Van Hollen, your Democratic colleague, who of course went to El Salvador to meet with Mr. Obrego Garcia, a quote, loser.
		And he signaled that he thinks Democrats' support of Obrego Garcia will cost the party electorally.
		What say you?
		Do you think the Democrats made a mistake by making Obrego Garcia the face of the fight for due process?
unidentified		Look, Chris Van Holland is a champion for the Constitution because a threat to due process rights of anyone is a threat to due process rights for everyone.
		The President of the United States has been violating a 9-0 court order from the Supreme Court of the United States of America, including three people he put there himself.
		There is a unanimity amongst legal scholars that everyone has a right to due process.
		And anyone who stands up for that, even for people who are not as, don't inspire necessarily public adoration, we understand that in our nation, when you come after our Constitution, you are doing the wrong thing.
		And here's the challenge.
		Obrego Garcia is back, but there are over 250 people that Donald Trump has sent there, 50 of whom who entered our country legally, who did not get a day in court, who we do not know the truth or the facts of their cases that have been sent not to a prison, but to a place that human rights activists have said is more of a gulag where people's human rights are being violated.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is from California, the Asala Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello.
		Good morning.
		Good morning, Pedro.
		It's really sad to see how the community is really not so wrong when they're judging all these Hispanics doing what they're doing in Los Angeles.
		They're standing up for you.
		They're standing up for the right of the law.
		And it's so sad how discriminating people are, black, white, whatever.
		You know, they're coming for you.
		And all these Hispanics, the Mexican ones, they're in their country.
		You guys are out of, you guys are the immigrants.
		You guys are not supposed to be here.
		You stole this property, the California property is ours.
		It's not yours.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Joe, who joins us from Florida, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hey, Pedro.
		Let me just mention two simple points here.
		I know you've had a lot of crackpots like the lady that just called in here.
		I hate to disparage people, but I think there's two points that the people in America better focus very carefully on, okay?
		And that is, number one point is that I don't know if people in this country think that we're a lot better than a country like Mexico.
		Maybe they think we're a lot smarter than the Mexican people or something like that, but that's not the case.
		People are people.
		In this country, if you take a look at the state of Mexico, which is a failed narco-state, I'm sure you know you like to go through all the papers in front of you and look at those facts.
		In their last election, 35 people were assassinated in running for government office there.
		That is a country controlled by the narco gangs completely.
		The politicians in that company for decades now have stopped trying to control the narco gangs.
		The narco gangs control the government.
		That's point one.
		If people think that can't happen in our country with all of this lawlessness, they better wake up.
		Go back and look at history of Al Capone controlling the government of the city of Chicago in the 20s.
		If they don't think that can happen again here, you are just wrong.
		Number two, the thing that has to be thought of here is in this country, we are a country of laws.
		And, you know, if you don't support that, then we're a lost cause.
		Journalism, unfortunately, as you saw exemplified by people in your profession yesterday, have not been the fair arbitrators of information.
		As you, I'm sure, well know, look at Terry Moran yesterday, suspended from ABC News for not being a journalist, but for violating their own standards and being totally and absolutely a partisan.
		That is a huge driver what's going on in this country.
		Instead of honest arbiters in the media, we have partisan individuals in your profession that skew themselves far to the left and try and drive a narrative instead of honestly reporting on that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Joe, got to leave it there.
		So thanks for calling in.
		Ethan in Georgia, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi, Pedro.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		The first thing that I wanted to mention: many callers have said there's this sort of widespread access to and corruption within aid agencies and welfare agencies in the country.
		My question to them is: if that's the case, why has there not been widespread prosecutions in relation to these?
		It would seem to me that if there is an aspect of criminality when it comes to this, that there would be actual prosecutions being made, not just arrests or detainments.
		And frankly, I think the reality is we haven't seen that.
		And that to me is concerning.
		The second thing is in relation to these protests in LA.
		I think many people understand the violence that's going on.
		Many people disagree with it, myself included, for the most part.
		One question that I have for people who are in support of the deployment of the National Guard is: how do we plan to delineate between violent and nonviolent protesters?
		Because it seems to me that there is not a distinction or delineation between groups of protesters.
		It seems like in mass, we've had these deployments and arrests.
		Thank you for your time, Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One more call.
		This is Felicia in Georgia, Democrats line.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I just don't understand that one of the callers said countries of law.
		Of course, we are countries of law.
		But you know who is exempt from abiding by the law?
		Trump.
		Trump was exempt from going to jail, even though he is a criminal.
		Also, the January 6th rioters, too, were exempt.
		They were given parties.
		Trump needs to be careful because he is playing with fire.
		Guess who hosts the Olympics?
		LA.
		LA hosts the 2028 Olympics.
		If you're going to continue to do all of this show plan and bring your National Guards to California, we're not going to have an Olympics.
		We're supposed to be the host of the country for the next Olympic and welcoming other countries to us, and they're not going to want to come.
		This is going to be the first time where we're not going to have an Olympic here in the United States and even the World Cup.
		So that's all I have to say.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Felicia in Georgia, calling in on this open forum and all of you who participated.
		Thanks for doing that.
		Just to give you a sense of, we heard earlier this week, earlier in this segment of what's going on at the White House, to give you a sense of what's going on in the week ahead in Congress.
		Joining us now from the Hill publication, Emily Brooks, who covers not only the House of Representatives, but leadership within the House.
		Emily Brooks, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Your story today says that we've heard about this one big beautiful bill, but apparently there could be follow-ups to it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you elaborate on that?
unidentified		Yes, this is something that we're hearing from Speaker Mike Johnson whenever he has been asked in recent interviews about, well, what about all of these Republicans who are worried that this one big beautiful bill does not do enough to cut spending or curb the growth of the national debt and deficit?
		And he's sort of saying, well, you know, this isn't the only shot that Congress has to push something through on this special party line reconciliation measure that gets around the threat of a Democratic filibuster.
		That there could be one or two more reconciliation bills.
		So that's something before the end of this Congress.
		So it's sort of surprising to hear him say that since there was a big debate at the beginning of the year about whether there should be one or two reconciliation bills in order to push through the president's agenda, but it looks like that this isn't going to be the only shot if it is successful.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One of the storylines that have been emerging is how House Republicans, or at least some House Republicans, are ready to respond should the Senate make significant changes to what the House already passed.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Where does that stand as of today?
unidentified		Well, we're still looking to see what exactly the Senate is going to change in this one big beautiful bill.
		But, you know, there are people who are fiscal hawks who are warning that if the Senate cuts back on some of the spending reductions or deficit reductions or things like rolling back green energy tax credits, that they will not vote for the bill.
		This is something that the House Freedom Caucus said in a statement that they put out last week.
		So on the one end, you have that.
		And then on the other hand, you have more moderate Republicans and districts that are really benefiting from those green energy tax credits that were originally passed under President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, who are hoping that the Senate slows down the rollback of those tax credits or even leaves some of them alone.
		So that's certainly going to be a point of division.
		And then there's a whole question about the state and local tax deduction, which is one of the biggest sticking points for some of those blue state Republicans, really warning to not roll back any part of that.
		On the other hand, Senate Republicans are not exactly crazy about increasing the state and local tax deduction.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Something called a rescissions package will start seeing some work this week.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you explain for the audience what it is and ultimately what it achieves if it passes?
unidentified		Yeah, so this is going to be one of the big legislative efforts.
		Actually, not that big compared to the big beautiful bill, but this would roll back and claw back $9.4 million, a billion dollars in previously appropriated funds to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds public radio and PBS, and also claws back funding that was appropriated to a lot of foreign aid programs, particularly in USAID.
		So this is essentially codifying those Doge cuts that Republicans, many of them, have been calling for codification of that, because this funding has already been approved and appropriated through the end of the fiscal year on September 30th for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
		Some of it has been approved for future years.
		And so this would essentially claw that back.
		And this is something that people like Speaker Mike Johnson are pointing to to say, hey, if you're upset about the one big, beautiful bill not doing enough to cut spending, this rescues package that the White House sent is going to be one of the ways to do that.
		And importantly, this is also going through another special process to where once the White House tells Congress what it wants to claw back, it can be approved with just a simple majority vote in both chambers of Congress.
		That means Republicans can do it without any help from Democrats.
		And so it would be a pretty big test for those Republicans who might be a little bit nervous about calling back some of that foreign aid money in particular to see if they will approve those Doge cuts.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Are Republicans a little bit nervous, to use your phrase, still of Elon Musk and impacts he might have if he doesn't like particular pieces of legislation, particularly what we saw play out last week?
unidentified		Yeah, you know, I talked to a lot of lawmakers and their offices as that Elon Musk, Donald Trump Fissure was happening last week.
		And really the general sense that they thought was that his dislike of this tax cut and spending bill, the one big beautiful bill, is not really going to impact its path towards passage in Congress.
		They're not necessarily getting a whole bunch of waves of calls because Elon Musk is opposed to this and worried about the deficit reductions.
		They're kind of brushing off his dislike of it as rooted in not liking some of the green energy tax credit rollbacks that impact his companies like Tesla.
		So, but there is also the big question about how this relationship and his relationship with Republican Party will impact the election cycle next year in the midterms.
		And, you know, Elon Musk spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars in 2024 to boost Republicans.
		And so they would certainly like him to not fund primary challengers, maybe even fund their own campaigns, certainly not fund Democrats.
		And so even though they are not necessarily like worried about his impact on this particular piece of legislation, they certainly don't want to get on his bad side so much that he would be inspired to work against them with all that money in the next election cycle.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Emily Brooks covers House leadership for The Hill, and you can see her work at thehill.com.
		Emily Brooks, thanks for your time.
		Thank you.
		Coming up, we're going to talk with Hugo Gurdon of the Washington Examiner.
		serves as their editor-in-chief and that conversation up next on Washington Journal continues.
unidentified		And a count of two balls and one strike.
		And a swing of a base hit landfill.
		Tune in Wednesday to C-SPAN's live coverage of the Congressional Baseball Game coming to you from Nationals Park.
		Since 1909, this tradition has united Democrats and Republicans on the field for a spirited evening of camaraderie and competition.
		And this is drilled into center field of base hit.
		Two runs are going to score.
		Don't miss the historic matchup.
		Live coverage starts Wednesday at 7 p.m. Eastern on the C-SPAN Networks.
		C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Kenneth Rogoff is Professor of Economics at Harvard University and former International Monetary Fund Chief Economist.
		In his most recent book, Our Dollar, Your Problem, he argues that America's currency might have reached today's lofty pinnacle without a certain amount of good luck.
		However, as Professor Rogoff nears the end of his 345-page book, he writes, quote, if rapidly rising debt is left unchecked and there seems to be little political appetite to rein in massive deficits, the United States and the entire world is in for a substantial period of global financial volatility, marked by higher average real interest rates and inflation, unquote.
unidentified		Harvard University professor of economics and former International Monetary Fund chief economist Kenneth Rogoff with his most recent book, Our Dollar Your Problem, on this episode of BookNotes Plus, with our host, Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
		C-SPANSHOP.org is C-SPAN's online store.
		Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan.
		And every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Hugo Gurdon joining us.
		He's with the Washington Examiner.
		He serves as their editor-in-chief here to talk about events of news in the day.
		Let's start with Los Angeles.
		What faces the White House going forward, particularly what we've seen up until last weekend and the actions of putting in the National Guard in the mix?
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		I think one of the things that people have to remember is that the violence was going on for two days before the National Guard was sent in.
		So suggestions that somehow or other Trump is escalating, President Trump is escalating this, seem to me very uncompelling arguments.
		It's absolutely necessary for the authority, which is to say the government, that is responsible for security, responsible for the safety of citizens, to prevent the kind of actions that we saw.
		Before the National Guard was sent in, protesters became rioters, cars were incinerated, federal buildings were attacked, their rocks were being dropped onto cars on the freeway police cars and wrecking them.
		It's an odd thing that over the course of the last several years, certainly 2020 riots relating to George Floyd, but really before that, that violence has become not necessarily accepted, but there are a lot of people who make excuses for it.
		Free expression is a good thing.
		Protest is allowed.
		But the point about free speech is that it should be speech.
		You cannot express yourself legitimately by throwing rocks, incinerating police cars, and that sort of thing.
		So what has to happen, and I think what will happen, is that President Trump and the administration will deploy forces as necessary to eradicate, to stamp out this kind of violence.
		Eventually, and I suspect it'll be very soon, some level of police will return to the streets of Los Angeles.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Governor Newsom has made the case saying that usually in the cases where the National Guard is brought in, there's consultation with the state before that happens.
		He says that hasn't happened in this case.
		Does he have a point?
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		There is often consultation, but it is perfectly within the legal rights of the president to do what he has done.
		There's no question about that.
		And I assume that he thought that Gavin Newsom would oppose this.
		And indeed, Gavin Newsom has opposed it not just because of the lack of consultation, but because he doesn't think it's a good idea.
		I think that President Trump wanted to move decisively and quickly to restore order.
		The point is, yes, it's true, lots of consultation has happened before, but it was probably not a good idea in this case because Gavin Newsom would have opposed the use of sufficient force to put down the restore order.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One of the things coming from not only the governor himself, but legislators in California, is that the events of the National Guard being brought in escalates the situation when de-escalation should be at the forefront.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that argument?
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		I think that a lot of times when people talk about de-escalation, what they mean is capitulation.
		What they mean is backing off until the violence has dissipated, giving people essentially a pass for what they have done.
		I don't think that that is a good idea at all.
		I think that this administration, frankly, it should have been the previous administration, the one before that, it is the duty of the administration to protect the Constitution, to protect order, to keep citizens safe.
		De-escalation is a kind of excuse or a kind of camouflage for capitulation to left-wing violence.
		I don't think that that's a legitimate form of protest, and I think that it's probably a good idea for people to realize that if they behave as badly as the people in Los Angeles in these particular areas have been behaving, they will be treated in a very tough way.
		They should not think that this is consequence-free.
		There need to be consequences.
		I hope that the consequences are fairly tough and that people who have been arrested and have committed crimes will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our conversation is with us.
		Our guest is Hugo Gurden.
		Our conversation continues till 10 o'clock, and you can ask him questions.
		202748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8002 for Independents.
		And if you want to text your comments or questions, you can do that at 202-748-8003.
		This goes to the larger issue of the administration's deportation policy being carried out.
		It started with what was happening in Los Angeles as the policy as a whole and the way the administration is approaching that.
		What do you think of that?
		And could there be modifications to prevent what we're seeing play out in the streets right now?
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		I think there's something that people entirely misunderstand.
		People use the phrase due process.
		They don't think a lot of in their, not everybody is a lawyer, they think that somehow or other, before people are deported, they are somehow entitled to a court hearing to decide whether or not they should or should not be deported.
		That is entirely false.
		The Supreme Court ruled many years ago that when it comes to immigration issues, not criminal issues, when it comes to immigration issues, that that is decided administratively.
		If people have outstayed their visa, if they had a visa in the first place, or if they don't have a visa, officials can make the determination that they're in the country illegal and they can be deported.
		You don't have to commit a crime other than entering the country illegally in order to be deported.
		So, yes, if somebody is accused of a crime, let's say smashing up a police vehicle, and they also happen to be an immigrant, they are entitled to due process for the crime.
		They're not entitled to the same due process for being an illegal immigrant.
		The phrase due process is a kind of odd one.
		It just means doing what is proper.
		Well, what is proper varies according to the circumstances you're dealing with.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And so if that's the case, then how does the treatment of one who's, to your mind, not entitled to that due process, what has to be done as far as their treatment is concerned, particularly if they're being picked up by ICE and the process of deportation?
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		They're picked up.
		They are arrested for being in the country illegally.
		They are held until they are deported, and then they are deported.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's it.
		This conversation or this idea of immigration goes along the same line as the House, their One Big Beautiful Bill.
		Part of it deals with immigration.
		Part of it deals with spending.
		Particularly, what do you think the administration has to do as far as improved spending for immigration matters in order to not only do what they have to do deportation-wise, but making sure that people are getting due process, that the border is still protected?
		Does it go far enough, I guess that's what I'm asking?
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		Yes, actually one of the things, the questions that has arisen for me about the Big Beautiful Bill and its security measures at the border is that the border has already been secured.
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		The rate of illegal immigration has fallen by something like 95%.
unidentified		There's hardly anybody coming in, or at least relatively hardly anybody coming in.
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		Now, I don't have a strong opinion that this means that the spending in the bill is unnecessary.
		I think probably it is necessary to reinforce the borders.
		But, you know, as President Trump said in his address to Congress a few months ago, it didn't take all sorts of new legislation from Congress, as Biden had said, nor indeed did it take massive new spending.
		All it took was a new president who was determined not to let in illegal immigrants.
		Of the 15 and a half million illegal immigrants in the country at the moment, about five and a half million of them were let in by President Biden.
		It's not actually...
		I don't think that there's anything more particularly or no great leap needs to be taken from where the administration is to some new point, either in terms of enforcement or in terms, I do think that there's too much spending in the bill and I hope that some spending is cut out.
		I think that, and the Washington Examiner has certainly supported changes in the Senate to the bill relating to, for example, the state and local tax deductions, which a handful of Republicans from blue states are insisting on.
		And we would like to see that reduced.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Senator Rand Paul made those similar comments when it comes to the immigration portion of the spending.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You think we're going to hear more of that from the senators, or is he the only one that's going to carry that standard?
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		I suspect that there will be some.
		Fiscal hawks will say, look, the job has been done extremely well by this president.
		We're not saying that he's failed in this.
		In fact, his success means we don't need to spend so much money.
		So I suspect that there will be others apart from Rand Paul, the fiscal hawks.
		I don't know that that will get in the way.
		I think that the Republicans on Capitol Hill know that if they vote against this bill, they are voting to allow taxes to go up by $4.5 trillion over the course of the next 10 years.
		Do they want to be going to the electorate in 26, in 28, et cetera, having prevented the current tax rates from continuing and having therefore voted for massive tax hike?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hugo Gurdon of the Washington Examiner joining us.
		He's their editor-in-chief.
		Our first call for you comes from Joanne.
		Joanne joins us from Florida, Independent Line.
		You're on with our guests.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hello.
		I'd like to ask the Speaker, now you gave a couple of examples about how rioters or protesting has turned into rioting.
		And I want to know what your opinion is of the January 6th insurrectionists and the fact that police officers were hurt, people were killed,
		they threatened to decapitate the vice president, and where and how should that situation have been handled, and why is it tolerated that those people can now get a pardon from the president who is against the violence that we all do not want to happen.
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		You make a very good point.
		The January 6th riot on Capitol Hill was an outrage.
		I believe that somewhere in the region of 600 people were prosecuted and convicted.
		So it isn't as though that they got away with it.
		They went through the criminal process, criminal system, and they were punished for it.
		The pardon of January 6th riot is highly controversial, and some people would say that it's an abuse of the pardon prerogative of the president.
		Nothing can be done about that.
		He has the right to pardon, just as every president did.
		And of course, there was controversy over the previous president's pardons, preemptive pardons for the Biden family.
		You know, it's really highly questionable that the pardon should be used in this way.
		The fact that there was a riot up on Capitol Hill on January 6th of 2021 doesn't excuse other violence.
		And I think that this actually goes back to the point that I originally made, and that is, it really has to, they're really, too violence has been too accepted, and it's up to the authorities to stamp it out and make sure people know that it cannot continue.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mike is next.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mike from California, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yes, I would like to follow up on that because I'm just not buying that.
		January 6th, pardons, and then LA, we have National Guards out here.
		This is ridiculous.
		Trump promoted that January 6th.
		He had the rally going.
		It looked like a tailgate party before that happened, and nothing.
		Nobody showed up.
		These people get pardoned.
		You've got to be kidding me.
		And we're a country of laws.
		This is ridiculous.
		A country of laws.
		And we have a president of the United States who ran out the clock so that he could be back in the White House.
		And then he's above the law.
		This is so ridiculous.
		And then we go and we round up people at work, at work.
		They're at the workplace.
		They're not smashing and grabbing.
		They're not raping and robbing.
		They're at work.
		That's how they know how to get them because they go to where they're at work, a workplace, not a criminal place, a workplace.
		Yet, how many National Guardsmen rode right by all of our homeless and all of our problems?
		That we can pick these people up and help them.
		Oh, no, we can't do that.
		We have to go get people at work.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you made those points.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mike, we'll let our guests respond.
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		You're right that people can be picked up, identified because they are at work.
		The fact that somebody is worked doesn't mean they're not an illegal immigrant.
		Illegal immigrants are not allowed in the country.
		They have broken the law by coming into the country.
		It's perfectly reasonable that they should be picked up by the federal authorities and deported.
		So I don't agree with that.
		The reason that the pardons were necessary, if one agrees with them, for January 6th, is because those people had been punished.
		When you say nothing was done, that's not true.
		Hundreds of people were prosecuted for their involvement in January 6th and jailed.
		So it isn't that nothing was done.
		As I said, the pardons are highly controversial.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to those being picked up, should there be a priority for those who are criminally broken the law versus just the people at work that he talks about?
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		Yes, yes.
		The people, we want to get rid of people from the country more if they are rapists and violence, if they are murderers, if they are in other ways criminals.
		Obviously, they are much less desirable than those who are simply here illegally.
		But there should not be a system which says, look, if you get into the country illegally, that is to say against our laws, that is to say in contravention of the decision of the people about what that is through their representatives in Congress, of the criteria that should be applied to get into the country.
		In other words, if you ignore what the people of America have said should be the laws about getting in here, you will be picked up.
		You shouldn't get a pass just because you don't come in here and commit violence.
		You should understand that there is a legal process for getting to this country.
		The American people have decided what that process is through their representatives and senators in Congress.
		And if you don't stick to that, you can't expect that you could get a pass and stay here.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		To what degree does the process of legal immigration need to be improved in the United States?
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		You can't improve legal immigration until you eradicate illegal immigration.
		It may well be that there needs to be a higher level of immigration.
		My own view is that it would be better to accentuate more capable and more qualified, higher level immigration.
		We want to attract the best and the brightest.
		Certainly it's the case that the United States is not Americans not reproducing at a rate that sustains the population.
		I don't think that the answer to that is simply immigration.
		I think that there need to be policies in Congress that promote family formation and the bringing up of children.
		Then people would be more confident to do that and there would not be a falling birth rate.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Here, let's hear from Jeff.
		Jeff joins us from Georgia.
		Republican line.
		Hi, Jeff.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, I think it's laughable that I want to chop hands on the left always leave out the word illegal.
		They'll say immigrant, but they don't intend to worry illegal.
		They say there's no such thing as an illegal immigrant.
		Well, according to a United States immigration law, if you catch the man and you have the house that can't entry, you may take an illegal immigrant.
		Well, let's leave it there only because your signal was a little buggy.
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		It was a little difficult to hear, but the main point is absolutely illegal.
		A lot of people on the left do not like the phrase illegal, and indeed one can go around various neighborhoods in the country and see signs saying no human being is illegal.
		This is a facile and superficial complaint.
		It's rather like people don't like using other words which they seem, like, for example, you can't, nowadays, people don't like to use the phrase homeless.
		What they like to use is people experiencing homelessness.
		It is thought to stigmatize people in an improper way.
		That's just a kind of, to me, that's one of the ways in which the left seems constantly to try and change our language so that you have already agreed with their suggestion on policy or the morality of the situation before you can even start debating it, because you're not allowed to use the terms that everybody understands and seem to me to make common sense.
		There's no reason why illegal immigrants, people who have come into this country by breaking the law, should not be called illegal immigrants.
		Some people shorten that to illegals.
		If the people who've entered the country illegally find that offensive, well, I think that's a minor thing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sandy is in California, line four Democrats, on with our guest, Hugo Gurdon of the Washington Examiner.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sandy, hi.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Mr. Gurdon, I suggest that you read the American Constitution.
		You seem to believe, or you seem to be sitting here gaslighting us and lying about what the laws of this country are so that you can promote and foster a certain narrative about what's going on in California.
		If the governor says he doesn't need the National Guard, then for Trump to nationalize our National Guard without the request of the governor seems to me to be an intentional escalation.
		Secondarily, the Constitution says every person, it does not differentiate between citizen and non-citizen.
		Every person under the sovereignty of the United States is entitled to due process.
		Therefore, picking up people off the street without a warrant in violation of the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution, okay, is a violation of people's rights.
		These people, whether you agree with how they got here or not, have human rights that are not negotiable by this fascist Trump White House.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Sandy, thanks.
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		Well, all I can say is that the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and it disagreed with you, and it was not a 6-3 conservative majority.
		Due process is a very vague phrase.
		It means the right process, what is actually due.
		And what is due is different in various circumstances.
		There is no right to a court hearing on immigration matters.
		If you're in the country illegally, that is to say, if you entered it without permission from the people, which threw a visa to do so, you do not get a court case.
		You should take it up with the Supreme Court.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Kimberly in Minnesota, Republican line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hi, go ahead.
unidentified		I have a couple comments.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		First of all, I just wanted to respond to, you know, I've traveled overseas.
		I was in Malaysia for about three months.
		And, you know, when you go over to other countries, you don't, you just expect you're there as a visitor.
		And, you know, you have to renew your visa.
		You have to have a certain type of visa to be in that country.
		And I ended up getting my passport stolen because American passports are very, you know, in high demand, unfortunately.
		So during that three months, I had to leave the country and get my visa renewed.
		And they only renewed it for two weeks.
		So I had to leave and go through a whole process.
		And people forget that.
		You can't expect to go to another country, including the United States, and just get the benefits that people get as illegals in our country.
		No other country would put up that that I know of.
		You know, I knew I could have gotten arrested if I didn't follow their laws there.
		And I think people just need to realize that the rest of the world is not like America.
		And so the other thing I want to make a comment on is my, you know, my husband and I both have master's degrees, and we can afford family insurance, health insurance.
		So it's hard to see these people coming in the country illegally and getting health insurance when we've worked hard our whole lives.
		And we didn't quote it anywhere from $1,800 to $2,600 a month just to have insurance.
		That's with a high-deductible plan.
		So we have to look out for the working class in America.
		I think we're all suffering, and I think that's where people are at.
		One more comment, if I can, I was part of the George Floy riots in Minneapolis, and that area had really been revived.
		There was a lot of business owners, especially African-American business owners.
		And when things started burning, they burnt the entire street down.
		I went right after the riots, after all the fires were put out.
		devastating.
		We lost a lot of African-American businesses.
		All my friends moved out of the city because of it when they were there to help the city.
		And when you look at people online waiting for food, unfortunately, you're hurting the African-American.
		They're all African-Americans, and they were in line for blocks to get food because their neighborhood was destroyed.
		And it was a very multicultural neighborhood, but it's unfortunate that these riots, I'm all for sending the National Guard because they went up burning down Minneapolis if the National Guard had not come in.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, thanks.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Kimberly.
unidentified		Yeah.
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		Several good points.
		Yes, it is the case.
		It seems to me.
		I think the evidence is pretty clear that the people who suffer most from lawlessness, violence, arson, and mayhem in these areas of the cities are racial minority people.
		There's been a huge rise in the death by homicide of black people since the anti-police sentiments were fostered.
		I think it is also true the point you make about going to other countries.
		You know, you go through an immigration process.
		You give over your passport.
		They check whether you have a visa.
		People have an idea that this country is different because it has had a lot of immigration.
		But it needs to be precisely the same in terms of making sure that when people come into this country, they are people who the American people have given permission to through visas.
		One of the points that President Trump has made, and because President Trump made it, a lot of people disagree with it, but it's perfectly valid.
		If you don't have a border, that is to say, if you don't control who can come in and out of your country, you don't have a country.
		And that is actually one of the reasons why a lot of people on the left prefer the open border, because they are anti-American, anti-patriotic, and they rather like the idea of the United States and all its founding ideas being dissolved in a sort of international goo.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our guest is the editor-in-chief of the Washington Examiner.
		You can find his work and his colleagues at Washingtonexaminer.com, Hugo Gurdon, joining us for this conversation.
		Thanks for your time.
hugo gurdon ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's it for our program today.
		Don't forget the House and the Senate back this week.
		Stay close and watch them on C-SPANS one and two.
		Another edition of Washington Journal comes your way at 7 o'clock tomorrow morning.

▲