CSPAN - Washington Journal 06/10/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 10, 2025 07:00-09:42 - CSPAN

02:41:50

Washington Journal 06/10/2025

Participants

Main

donald j trump

admin 05:12

harriet hageman

06:24

john mcardle

cspan 33:59

muzaffar chishti

15:01

Appearances

gavin newsom

d 01:30

Clips

barack obama

d 00:05

bill clinton

d 00:05

george h w bush

r 00:04

george w bush

r 00:04

jim marrs

00:15

jimmy carter

d 00:06

patrice oneal

00:04

peter doocy

fox 00:29

ronald reagan

r 00:03

Callers

bob in new york

callers 00:48

concerned citizen in unknown

callers 00:07

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Administration's actions are impacting small businesses in the U.S. We'll also talk to Republican Wyoming Congresswoman Harriet Hageman, a member of the Judiciary and Natural Resources Committees, about the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republicans' efforts to advance President Trump's agenda.
		And later, Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Muzaffar Chishti discusses the new travel ban put in place by the Trump administration.
		Washington Journal starts now.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Tuesday, June 10th, 2025.
		The House and Senate both return at 10 a.m. Eastern, and we begin once again in Los Angeles, where Marine and additional National Guard troops are now being deployed to quell protests sparked by immigration raids in that city.
		And beyond what's happening in the streets, the war of words between President Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom escalated yesterday with the governor blaming the president for manufacturing a crisis and the president suggesting he'd arrest the governor.
		This morning, we're getting your reaction phone line split as usual by political party.
		Republicans, it's 202-748-8001.
		Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can also send us a text, that number, 202-748-8003.
		If you do, please include your name and where you're from.
		Otherwise, catch up with us on social media on X.
		It's at C-SPANWJ on Facebook.
		It's facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
		And a very good Tuesday morning to you.
		You can go ahead and start calling in now.
		We'll begin with some headlines first out of the Los Angeles Times.
		This is what they write: the breakdown between Trump and Newsom deepens as the LA crisis intensifies.
		Headlines back here from the East Coast, the Wall Street Journal, today.
		Marines sent into Los Angeles and blame is traded over the clashes in that city.
		The California leaders accuse Trump of incitement and file a lawsuit to stop the Guard order.
		This is the front page in the New York Times.
		Donald Trump leaps at the chance for the clash in California, driving his agenda and defying a rival is what they write.
		That's the lead news analysis spot of the New York Times.
		This was President Trump from yesterday defending his moves in California in Los Angeles.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		He's destroying one of our great states.
		And if I didn't get involved, if we didn't bring the guard in, and we would bring more in if we needed it, because we have to make sure there's going to be law and order.
		You had a disaster happening.
		And they now admit it was a disaster.
		I watched the chief yesterday, who's a good man, by the way.
		And he said, well, we're lucky we did this because they were overwhelmed.
		You saw what was happening.
		So we did the right thing.
		Everybody agrees to that.
		But you have a governor who let the city burn down, didn't want water to be sent down to him.
		You know, I sent billions of gallons of water.
		I wanted to do it in the first term.
		They wouldn't do it over, I don't know, they have environmental reasons, but there were no environmental reasons.
		I think it's just a political philosophy.
		But it's lucky for the people in Los Angeles and in California that we did what we did.
		We got it just in time.
		It's still simmering a little bit, but not very much.
		Yep, please.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That was President Trump from yesterday.
		This was Gavin Newsom on his ex-feed last night saying that U.S. Marines serve a valuable purpose for this country defending democracy.
		They are not political pawns.
		The Secretary of Defense is illegally deploying them onto American streets so Trump can have a talking point at his parade this weekend.
		It is a blatant abuse of power.
		That's from his ex-feed and Gavin Newsom doing plenty of interviews yesterday amid what was going on out in Los Angeles.
		This is one of those interviews that he had about a minute and a half from his ex-page.
unidentified		Governor, is there anyone in the Trump administration or the Secretary of Defense or the Defense Department or Department of Homeland Security who's coordinating or communicating any of this with you?
unidentified		Or are you mostly finding out by tweets and by posts and Trump's press conferences?
gavin newsom ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk about the great Christy Noam, who not that many months ago was on with one of the mousepieces, the PR machine for the Trump administration, Sean Hannity, not that many months ago as Governor Noam, condemning the Biden administration because there was some discussion, as she referred to it, as threat to freedom and state sovereignty,
		because there was a chance that her National Guard was going to be federalized.
		She condemned it.
		Hannity shook his head in disgust about the incompetency of the Biden administration.
		That incompetency and hypocrisy is on full display right now.
		No coordination, no capacity to engage in a rational deployment strategy.
		Currently, 1,700, if I haven't made that clear enough, of the first 2,000 cohort that have not been deployed and the threat of the U.S. Marines coming in to a city in the United States of America in 2025, which would require the Insurrection Act in this manufactured crisis that is going to create the conditions that we are desperately trying to mitigate.
		And this chaos, this chaos is manufactured, and it's my job as governor working with local law enforcement to clean up their mess.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Gavin Newsom, yesterday in an interview from California, taking your phone calls this morning from here in Washington, D.C., we're talking about the ongoing protests in Los Angeles, the president's reaction to those protests, troops, more troops being deployed, and waiting for you to call in on phone lines for Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		We'll begin with the Independent line.
		This is Joe in New Jersey.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi, how you doing?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Doing well, sir.
unidentified		I'm just calling because of this here stuff that's going on.
		These people are calling them, saying that they're American citizens.
		They're not citizens of the United States.
		They cause riots and all this here stuff.
		And they have no rights whatsoever.
		And then you got the governor saying, oh, this and the.
		He's just as bad as they are.
		And this is all Biden's fault.
		He let all these here people in.
		They should never have been in in the first place.
		But the Democrats are dumb.
		They don't know what's going on in this world.
		And what happens to them, bingo.
		They're all messed up now.
		They don't know who's going to be their next president or whatever.
		So I can't understand what this country's coming to.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Joe, where does this go?
unidentified		Do you think this continues to escalate?
		It's going to go probably for another week and then it'll calm down.
		And then something else arose up and they'll start doing everything all over again.
		It's just like what happened with the people in the Jewish people in the colleges.
		What do they do?
		They wreck the colleges and what do they stand by and let them do it.
		Now, what kind of sense is that?
		I can't understand this.
		The Democrats are going crazy.
		Let everybody do this and do that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Joe in New Jersey.
		This is Ruben in Philly, Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, John.
		Hey, I was just thinking the U.S. with Canada and Mexico is hosting a fight for World Cup next year.
		While at the same time, we had travel bans, deportations, and tariffs against other foreign nations, including Canada and Mexico.
		And our military is trying to occupy California at this time.
		I mean, Donald Trump won't send the military out against foreign adversaries such as Russia, but he wants to send the military out against our own citizens.
		And here we are now in California.
		He just wants to make Gavin Newsome look bad.
		He wants to make the blue states look bad.
		His policies are failing all over, and he's just doing this as a distraction because the police there can handle it themselves, but he wouldn't let them do it.
		He comes intervening before he was even needed to do so.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Ruben in Philadelphia.
		Bill, West Virginia, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking the call.
		Oh, crap.
		Bill, I'm listening.
		Okay.
		One thing we have to know is that Trump's where he receives his most of his money is from Saudi Arabia.
		And if you think back to 9-11, they were bring me to Los Angeles.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's where we are today.
unidentified		They were the ones who were funding the 9-11 attack, and Syria provided a lot of the funding.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Bill, bring do you want to talk about Los Angeles and what's happening there?
unidentified		I think he gave away the country for that.
unidentified		And he just announced recently that he's going to take that plane, which he's not allowed to by law.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, we'll stick on what's happening in Los Angeles because there's a lot of developments.
		You're seeing a lot of the pictures.
		And we're showing you the last couple of days.
		We've been taking your phone calls on the unrest in Los Angeles, the protests out there.
		They've been described by the president as riots.
		This is Eric in Port Tobacco, Maryland, Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		I'm extremely disappointed by, I would say, the response of the Democrats.
		Trump will beat them on immigration every day.
		We're not even talking about the big beautiful bill anymore.
		Why?
		Because immigration again has taken over.
		And that's one of the reasons I became independent, because I don't think that the Democrat Party really care about immigration, to be honest with you.
		And let me tell you why.
		There have been immigrants who have been in this country for more than 20 years.
		Biden was in charge for four years, but what he did was actually to allow people to come from the outside, and he pretty much gave them documentation.
		While those who have been here, who have worked hard, he could have done something for them.
		He didn't do anything.
		So the response that I'm seeing from the Democrat right now for me is just hypocrisy.
		Trump was elected on the promise that he will secure this country.
		At this time, I think that the Democrats should understand that it's a losing battle to always show that they're fighting for anything that is not legal, pretty much.
		Thank you very much.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Eric in Maryland, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal today, taking a look at Democrats' response, their lead editorial, Democrats Make Stephen Miller's Day as the headline.
		They write, all of this that's happening in Los Angeles will please Stephen Miller, the White House deportation czar, as they describe him, who is eager for such a confrontation with a sanctuary city.
		Now, Democrats are playing into his hands by soft-peddling the violence.
		Mr. Newsom and the city's Democratic leaders could have tried to douse the flames by denouncing the violence and stressing that lawbreakers will be arrested.
		Instead, they're blaming Mr. Trump for their own failure to maintain order.
		As Mr. Newsom tweeted, one, local law enforcement didn't need help.
		Two, Trump sent troops anyway to manufacture chaos and violence.
		Three, Trump succeeded.
		Four, now things are destabilizing and we need to send in more law enforcement just to clean up Trump's mess.
		The editorial board writing, that explanation may resound in Mr. Newsom's liberal echo chamber, but it won't sit well with most Americans who have little patience for disorder.
		And the editorial goes on from there if you want to read it in today's Wall Street Journal.
		This is Patty in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, John.
		Thank you so much for taking my call.
		Yeah, what do I think about what's happening in Los Angeles right now?
		It is a fabricated chaos.
		That's what he does.
		They create chaos.
		They distract people from the real issues.
		And this did not have to happen.
		Los Angeles has handled bigger protests than what was happening.
		It's basically, he just keeps pushing the envelope to see how far he can go, crossing the line.
		What will people accept?
		I mean, a perfect example of this is: like, remember when he ran before, we always talked about how they should, you know, shovel their taxes or remove themselves from their businesses.
		He's monetizing his presidency.
		He doesn't really care about all of this stuff.
		This is basically Project 2025 in place, in action.
		But it's drawn the line for a lot of folks I know, small community here, north central Pennsylvania.
		We will be holding, as will be happening across the country, almost 2,000 events this Saturday, No Kings event.
		And we will be taking to the streets and we will not stop taking to the streets.
		He will not intimidate us.
		Sending in the military, sending in the National Guard is an escalation.
		It's purposeful to make it look chaotic.
		The governor could certainly have handled, and the local police certainly could have handled it.
		So people need to see this for what it is.
		It is a test to see how far people are willing to let him go.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		It's Patty in Pennsylvania.
		This is the headline from the Washington Times today: Gavin Newsom suing the president over the escalation of chaos, saying that the president's move to nationalize the National Guard was unwarranted and needlessly heightened a city already on the edge over a wave of U.S. immigration and customs enforcement arrests.
		The president was asked about that lawsuit yesterday.
peter doocy ▲ ● ▼		Here was his response: The governor and the state attorney general said that they're going to sue you for sending the National Guard in.
		They're saying there's no invasion, there's no rebellion.
		The president is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends.
		Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the president's authority under law.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, it's interesting.
		You watched the same clips as I did.
		Cars burning all over the place, people riding.
		And by the way, we stopped it.
		We were able to make it much better, but it still looked pretty bad.
		And in watching clips last night, people were saying this is really a big problem.
		And until we went in, if we didn't do the job, that place would be burning down just like the houses burned down.
		They were in big trouble last night, Peter.
		You know it.
		And the night before, and the night before that.
		And I feel we had no choice.
		I don't want to see, I don't want to see happen what happened so many times in this country.
		I watched Minneapolis burn.
		I watched, look at what happened in so many different parts of California.
		You take a look at what happened in San Diego.
		There's so many different places where we let it burn.
		We want to be politically correct.
		We wanted to be nice.
		We wanted to be nice to the criminal.
		And what you're doing is destroying the fabric of our life in this country.
		No, we did the right thing.
		We've been given credit by people that I would least suspect.
		I would say that some of the people that came in and said, thank goodness, they said, some of them, thank God that Trump got involved.
		And I'm very happy I got involved.
		And I think Gavin, in his own way, is probably happy I got involved.
		Yeah, go ahead, Pitch.
peter doocy ▲ ● ▼		What do you make of the fact that he says you want a civil war on the streets of America?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		No, that's just the opposite.
		I don't want a civil war.
		Civil war would happen if you left it to people like him.
		And I like him.
		You know, I always got along with him.
		Never had a problem with him.
		But he's grossly incompetent.
		Okay.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		President Trump yesterday on the issue of federalizing the California National Guard.
		That was the topic taken up by the New York Times editorial board.
		This is what they write this morning.
		The National Guard is typically brought into American cities during emergencies such as natural disasters and civil disturbances or to provide support during a public health crisis when local authorities require additional resources or manpower.
		There was no indication that was needed or wanted this past weekend in Los Angeles, where local law enforcement had kept protests over federal immigration raids, for the most part, under control, they say.
		Guard members also almost always arrive at the request of state leaders, but in California, Governor Gavin Newsom called the deployment of troops, quote, purposefully inflammatory and likely to escalate the tensions.
		It had been more than 60 years since the president sent in the National Guard on his own volition, which made President Trump's order on Saturday to do so both ahistoric and based on false pretenses.
		It is already creating the very chaos it was purposefully designed to prevent.
		The last time they write this presidential authority was used over a governor's objections was when John F. Kennedy overruled the governor of Alabama and sent troops to desegregate, desegregate the University of Alabama in 1963.
		The editorial board of the New York Times today.
		This is Bruce in Maysville, Kentucky.
		Republican, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		You know, the escalation here is from the organized protesters on the Democratic side.
		Here's a data point for you.
		During the Obama administration, I was actually building with funds on my own property a park for our little town.
		At one point, to speed things up, my contractor brought in nine Hispanic-looking stonemasons.
		And on the very second day they were on site, ICE shows up in the middle of the country in Maysville, Kentucky.
		In other words, I was targeted.
		There was a tattletale.
		And here is an ICE group showing up, stopping all work, looking into the papers of all nine, basically from Mexico, but they all were citizens at this point or had green cards.
		None of them had a problem.
		But it stopped work for a day.
		There were no protests.
		Nobody came to my defense.
		I just tolerated it and dealt with it.
		So this is total hypocrisy.
		This was during the Obama administration.
		Here's ICE in the middle of the country because somebody basically wanted to stop me from doing good work for our community.
		Who knows why?
		But it's all politics.
		But this is at a larger scale out there in L.A., and it's due to Democratically led, perhaps Soros-funded protesters.
		That's my view.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Bruce in Kentucky.
		This is Andrew out on Staten Island Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		How are you?
		I hope you're doing well.
		That last caller, he's definitely a hypocrite, and he's a liar.
		Obama was known or was known for getting illegal immigrants who came over here illegally and deporting them.
		And that today would be considered a good thing.
		As far as Stephen Miller's concerned, who is this guy?
		Who is this guy?
		What I know about him is that he was a white supremacist.
		What I know about him is that he was part of an organization that was against minority.
		That's Stephen Miller.
		I'm African American.
		My parents were born, were brought over here illegally as slaves.
		No African American can say that they're an immigrant.
		No African American.
		Yet, all those individuals that's being arrested, they seem to have skin color, something like mine.
		What's really going on?
		Yes, there are organized individuals in those protests that are coming out there to start trouble.
		I know that for a fact because I see them here in New York.
		I'm going down to protest today.
		And when I see them, I'm going to take their mask off their face.
patrice oneal ▲ ● ▼		If you really want to protest, if you really got it, you do it like Gandhi did it.
unidentified		You do it like Martin Luther King did it.
unidentified		And he didn't do it like that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Andrew, where are you going to protest?
		And what will you be?
		Is there an organization that you're joining to do it?
		We lost Andrew, but Alan is in Wabasha, Minnesota.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Hey, John, this first time talking to you, talking to you, a longtime watcher, but I think they ought to put the alcohol tobacco firearms down in Appalachia to get all the moonshiners.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Alan, you want to talk about Los Angeles?
unidentified		Yeah.
		Well, you know, this is nothing more than as far as the putting in National Guard and the military, you know, more or less as for show and guard the federal buildings.
		But, you know, when we make change in this country, we got the right to protest.
		We got the right to speak freely, listen to JD Vance.
		They gaslight all the MAGAs all every day.
		Donald Trump is the biggest gaslighter.
		And first of all, when we make change, we got to get out in the streets so the Congress gets, notices this and push back on these crazy authoritarian policies of putting military against American citizens.
		That's about all I got today.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Alan, that's how you see protests in the streets as a way to get Congress to notice you?
unidentified		Yeah.
		I mean, they did it when for women's rights.
		They did it for women to vote.
		They did it for the black people to vote.
		They did it for abortion.
		They did it for all voting rights.
		You go down the list for the last 50, 60 years.
		All these people of Vietnam, We were out there every day protesting that war, and the National Guard come out there and shot four people in Ohio and killed them.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You're talking about Kent State.
unidentified		Kent State.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Alan, how old were you back in the late 60s and 70s?
unidentified		Well, I was about 12, I guess, somewhere around there.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Do you remember that time, though, Alan?
		And I asked because there's an op-ed in today's New York Times that says, a nation in turmoil, 1968 and 2025.
		Does this, as somebody who was alive then, and you say you're paying attention, does this feel like 1968?
unidentified		Yeah, I remember that.
		I remember Vietnam vets coming home with flag-draped caskets, and they used to show it every day on the news all day.
		And they don't do that no more.
		But Kent State is, I mean, Kent State, that was a tragedy, but the Vietnam, we protested that.
		Nixon was president, and you see how corrupt he was.
		And he ended up getting impeached and then pardoned.
		But I remember, you know, I saw Robert F. Kennedy when he was running for president.
		He came through our town.
		You know, the streets were lined up for him.
		His brother got shot.
		He got shot.
		Martin Luther King got shot.
		You know, there was a lot going on back then.
		This time, it's a little different because this 2.0 with Donald Trump is taking stuff from Victor Orban and his Hungary, Eastern Europe.
		Stephen Miller's from Eastern Europe, his family.
		And you just in there and you've got to fact check this stuff and see where these people are from, where they get their ideas.
		I'm going to stop ranting.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Alan in Minnesota.
		A few more minutes left here to focus specifically just on Los Angeles.
		We will turn to open forum at about 7.30 a.m. Eastern.
		There's a lot going on today.
		I want to give you a chance to talk about it.
		You can also continue to call in about Los Angeles as well in that time, but we wanted to open up the phones for you.
		There's, as we said, a lot going on.
		The House and Senate are both in at 10 a.m. Eastern today.
		You can watch, of course, here on C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2.
		There is a primary taking place for the gubernatorial race in New Jersey.
		We'll talk about that in a few minutes.
		And plenty going on on Capitol Hill, not the least of which is continued efforts to move the so-called One Big Beautiful bill through the Senate.
		Republicans trying to find a way to move that legislation.
		We'll talk about that as well today.
		So a lot going on, a few minutes left here just to focus on Los Angeles with you, our callers.
		This is Wade in Ohio, a Republican.
		Good morning.
		Wade, you with us?
unidentified		Yeah.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Oh, Wade, I thought you were there.
		Sorry about that.
		Give us a call back.
		This is Roland in Detroit, Independent.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, can you hear me?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Hi, you know, one of the founders of so-called founders of Los Angeles was a black man, Pio Pico.
		At one time, LA was a beautiful, very diverse city.
		Over time, I guess corporations and the government had this so-called Negro removal program where black residents were literally and systematically Taken out of their neighborhoods,
		sent to desert communities like Lancaster, Riverside, and the notorious Skid Row, which is made up of almost 90% black people.
		Now, so, Roland, bring me to 2025.
		Yeah, 25.
		I'm right there now.
		The so-called Latino Latinos were brought up in here to LA.
		I used to live there for free, you know, cheap labor.
		And the corporations did whatever they could to make sure they had housing and stuff like that.
		They took over communities like Compton and stuff like that.
		Now, I understand that they need rights to housing and food and stuff like that, but there's a bigger dynamic to the whole Los Angeles thing.
		And black people have suffered as a result of immigration into Los Angeles systematically by corporations.
		And to my Latino brothers and sisters, I feel your pain.
		The government should not be destroying your communities and stuff like that.
		You want to work and live.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Roland, to address the issues that you're bringing up for both the African-American community and the Latino community, who's right here?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Who is actually on the path of addressing those issues?
unidentified		What's that?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Who's right here?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Who do you support in this divergence of ideas on where the country should go on these issues?
unidentified		Who do I support?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's the question, Roland.
unidentified		Yeah.
		First of all, they need to rescue the black people down in Skid Row.
		Have you ever been down there?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		I have not, Roland.
unidentified		It is like a whole other world of people living on the streets, rats running all around, and a lot of black people who were displaced from communities like Compton and South Central had to move down there because they were poor.
unidentified		Or if you had a little money, they went over to Lancaster.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Roland, Donald Trump makes the argument that Democrats have run cities like Los Angeles for decades and that things aren't getting better in places like you're talking about.
		So, his argument was Republicans should be the ones to be in charge of these cities and that they will get them moving in the right direction.
		Do you agree with that?
unidentified		Well, if that can happen, hey, come on in, Republicans, and do that because black people have been displaced in Los Angeles, for example.
		And we need to do a story of Skid Row in Los Angeles.
		It is just remarkably horrific.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's good.
unidentified		And if Republicans can fix stuff, hey, fix it.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Roland in Michigan.
		It's 7:30 on the East Coast.
		We're going to move into open form.
		You can continue to call in about Los Angeles and the protests there, but any public policy as well that you want to talk about.
		Phone line's yours to do so.
		Republicans, it's 202-748-8001.
		Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		As you're calling in, we want to turn to the garden state of New Jersey gubernatorial primary taking place today.
		Joining us via Zoom to give us a lay of the land.
		It's David Wildstein.
		He's the editor of the political news site, the New Jersey Globe.
		And Mr. Wildstein first set the stage for viewers who may not have realized that there's a gubernatorial race in New Jersey until just now.
		For those outside the state of New Jersey, what is this race looking like and is it competitive?
unidentified		Sure.
		Well, this is the planned obsolescence of Governor Phil Murphy.
		He's a two-term governor with a term limit.
		So this is what you get every once in a while: an election where both parties are running without an incumbent.
		There are competitive primaries on both sides.
		Democratic race, especially, is very competitive.
		And Jersey has been sort of a bluestate.
		It narrows from time to time.
		But there's three quarters of a million more Democrats than Republicans.
		The thing is, New Jersey doesn't mind having a Republican governor.
		And no party has won a statewide governor's race three times in a row in 64 years.
		So what we're looking at is picking two nominees in a race that tomorrow looks to be a toss-up going into the fall.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So who are the names we should know about as the results start coming in tonight?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Who's winning in the polls right now before we actually go to the election itself today?
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, the conventional wisdom right now is that Mikey Sherrill, congresswoman from New Jersey, four terms, former Navy helicopter pilot and federal prosecutor, she has led in every single poll, whether it's a public poll or an internal poll.
		It's close, but she's been in first place and hasn't budged from there.
		You have a young progressive mayor of Jersey City, the second largest city in the state, Steve Phillip.
		He is really making a go of it.
		He's put together a pretty impressive grassroots operation.
		We have Raz Baraka, the mayor of Newark, the largest city, seeking to become the first black governor of New Jersey.
		He is mobilizing urban turnout.
		Congressman Josh Gottheimer, fifth term moderate Democrat, who's making affordability as his biggest issue.
		And then you've got two people that are veterans of the state house: Steve Sweeney, the former Senate president, and Sean Spiller, who has spent about $40 million.
		He's the president of the state's largest teachers union.
		You know, it's a crowded Democratic field.
		The big question is whether somebody wins this primary or not with more than 30% of the vote.
		And then on the Republican side, you've got Jack Chitterelli.
		This is his third run for governor.
		He came within three points of beating Phil Murphy four years ago.
		He has, and this is the move that sent shockwaves around Jersey Republican circles.
		He was a Trump critic in 2016 and 2020, and he received Donald Trump's endorsement over Bill Spadia, a conservative radio host that's been putting together his own grassroots group and is a pretty good candidate.
		And then the third guy in that race is John Brandick, moderate state senator, who has sort of made his recent career as a never-Trumper on the Republican side.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And then how do primaries work in New Jersey?
		What's the role of independents?
		Is there a runoff?
unidentified		Yeah, there's no runoff.
		I mean, remember years ago, Tom Kaine and Jim Florio won with about 30% of the vote.
		It's whoever gets the most votes advances.
		You have to, if you're an independent in New Jersey, you can show up at the polls today and declare your party and vote in whatever primary you want.
		But if you're a member of a party, you needed to have flipped your registration 55 days earlier.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And then as folks watch results tonight come in, where will they come in first in New Jersey?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		How should they read sort of the map as they're trying to figure out who's going to win tonight?
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, we're going to look for signs, you know, first of all, of what the urban turnout has been like.
		And Jersey's already had close to a half a million votes cast through vote by mail and through six days of in-person early voting.
		By the way, a process that both parties have embraced in recent years.
		So we'll be looking at sort of who you disqualify first before you see those numbers.
		I'm going to be looking at urban turnout to see how Baraka is doing.
		I'm going to be looking at Jersey City to see where Phillip is.
		It's supposed to rain a little bit in Jersey today.
		And we're going to look at some of the shore counties on the Republican side.
		That's where most of the Republican votes in New Jersey come from.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And the NewJerseyGlobe.com, a great place you can go to watch the results.
		I should also note that we will be simulcasting coverage of the New Jersey primary results live tonight, courtesy of On New Jersey.
		That begins at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN2 and also c-span.org.
		From starting tomorrow, what's your expectation about how national this race goes, these off-year elections, as they're called?
		Do they usually get a sitting president involved as they look ahead to the midterms?
unidentified		Yeah, you know, the way it's been in New Jersey is when a new president gets elected the next year, the other party wins the governorship.
		That's not always the case.
		You know, it was the case when Chris Christie came in the year after Barack Obama, when Phil Murphy came in the year after Donald Trump won.
		That's one of the traditions.
		Jersey's sort of Donald Trump's second home, and he has been involved in New Jersey politics since the 80s when he was doing casinos in Atlantic City.
		He's always taken a special interest in New Jersey.
		And I expect him to loom large in this race.
		But New Jersey's setup, it's only one of two states, as you know, that's got gubernatorial races this year.
		It's one of five in the country that does their governor's races in an off-year.
		The original intent of Jersey's, I call them modern day founding fathers in 1947 is they wanted governor's races to be won and lost on state issues, not on federal issues.
		That's gotten a little blurry, but I think you're going to be looking at Jersey really for lessons, lessons learned on how candidates for statewide office might proceed across the country in 2026.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And a good place for that analysis, the New Jersey Globe.
		You mentioned that Donald Trump has been involved in Jersey politics since the 80s.
		That's about as long as you've been involved in New Jersey politics.
		What should viewers know about the New Jersey Globe and how long it's been around?
unidentified		Yeah, I can tell you, first of all, I may be older than I look.
		This is my 52nd year in New Jersey politics.
		I started very, very young.
		I started at age 12, but 1973 was the first governor's race that I watched.
		And I've been working around politics for a long time.
		So, I guess I sort of pre-date Trump in terms of Jersey interests.
		But, you know, the Globe, the Globe, you know, is a site that focuses on local and state government and politics.
		And this is what we do.
		I said to somebody earlier this morning, this is our Super Bowl Day because this is, in addition to a governor's primary, and this is the most constitutionally the most powerful governorship in the country is in New Jersey.
		But we've also got 80 state assembly seats up, lots of primaries.
		As many as eight incumbents are looking at whether they're coming back or not.
		You've got a bunch of competitive districts where they're picking challengers.
		We've got tons and tons of local races.
		So, you know, we've got a lot ahead of us on our plate today.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And now would be a good time for viewers to bookmark newjerseyglobe.com and to follow at the NJ Globe.
		David Wildstein, your Super Bowl day.
		Thanks for kicking it off with us on the Washington Journal.
unidentified		Thank you for having me on.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		About 20 minutes left here.
		It's open forum.
		Any public policy, political issue that you want to talk about, phone lines are yours to do so.
		This is Mike in Muskegon, Michigan, Independent.
		Mike, thanks for waiting.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I haven't called in before, but I really am concerned about what's going on in California right now with the protesting and having the military respond to it.
		It reminds me almost like a situation that could get to be a Tiananmen Square right here in America because just say some stupid person like even a proud boy or something goes and does something to one of those soldiers, then they're going to start, they're going to trigger off a response that's going to be make Tiananmen Square look like a birthday party.
		And somebody said that the Republicans should be running all the big cities, I guess.
		And I guess we assume that the country is running in the right direction right now under Republican leadership.
		But I'm really concerned about the way the country is right now because the DEI and taking books out of libraries and things like that is more like America's become a white supremacist nation right now.
		And that's not making America great again, taking it back to the 50s or 40s or whatever, because I think that America needs to involve, include everybody and stop just focusing on brown people with the being the problem.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Mike in Michigan.
		LaKelle is a Republican in Jessup, Georgia.
		Good morning.
		Thanks for waiting.
unidentified		Hi, how are you doing?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Doing well.
unidentified		That's great.
		I would like to comment on a, I guess, a few items in the news.
		First of all, I would like to highlight Mr. Trump for his path for prosperity, which involves the youth of today.
		And he tried to emphasize the importance of education, being of the art of the deal is somewhat being of the Warthan School of Business Management, which upheld his credentials as being appropriated to make certain executive orders as he is doing such.
		In regards to the LA riots, I was seriously looking at the protests and the origin of the protests.
		There isn't significant causation for the protests.
		It just seems as if somebody just, it's like somebody dropped a soda in a subway or something and just says, You messed up my day or something, and then came out of the subway and just started a clash of commotion.
		There is no substantiated argument, it seems, of purport.
		In reference to the history of LA, L.A. is gone.
		L.A. is battered.
		L.A. is challenged with so many riots, with the Marquette Pry riot in 1965 and then in 1972, and then there was rioting that spilled out in 1982 to 92.
		And some people have to justify their causation based on the mere fact that I cannot support police brutality.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's LaKelle.
		Let's head to Los Angeles.
		This is Stephanie, Independent.
		Stephanie, whereabouts in Los Angeles, are you seeing what we are seeing on television screens over the weekend and in the past two days?
unidentified		Yes, I am.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Whereabouts in L.A. are you?
unidentified		I am closer to Inglewood.
unidentified		I'm about eight miles from downtown where all this is happening.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And what's your experience been?
unidentified		I just called to say the National Guard has not stopped anything.
		That's just another one of Trump's lies.
		There was more looting last night.
		The only thing the National Guard is doing is standing in front of federal buildings and protecting them.
		LATD is, and the sheriff and their police from Ventura County, Orange County, they're the ones on the front lines that are battling with the protesters.
		It is not the National Guard.
		They are not involved in any way.
		They're just standing there.
		They're just standing there.
		They're not doing anything.
		Half of them are downtown.
		Half of them are in West L.A. in front of that federal building where nothing's going on over there.
		And they're just standing there.
		So all that's not true.
		The National Guard didn't need to come here.
		He talks about all the cars burning.
		They burned five Waymo cars.
		Nothing else has been set on fire in Los Angeles at all.
		And they, it's not the protesters.
		There are troublemakers that come out after dark and they start the problems with the police.
		The people that are protesting during the day are gone.
		There are a bunch of youngsters.
		They come out.
		You see them on the news all day.
		They come out.
		There are people that are live down there broadcasting.
		They come out.
		They start breaking stuff.
		They start doing stuff like that.
		They're only stealing.
		They haven't, like I say, other than the other day when they burned the five Waymo cars, they haven't set anything else on fire.
		LA's not burning.
		LA is not being destroyed.
		Stephanie, do you think this people peacefully protested?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Do you think this is all being overblown in the news?
unidentified		What's your sense of how this is being covered?
		I mean, they have to cover it because it's happening.
		But when they're to hold the National Guard, if you look at the news, the National Guard are standing in front of the federal building.
		My cousin works down there.
		She's been off work the last two days because of this.
		And she, you know, she's getting paid days off.
		So she's not really complaining.
		But she's like, yeah, they said I can't come to work tomorrow either.
		So I just LAPD, I don't know where that guy from Georgia gets that we had riots in 72, 82.
		I've been living here since I was born.
		I'm 60 years old.
		We haven't had riots in 72, 82, none of that.
		We've had riots and the police have taken care of them because they are trained and know how to do that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Stephanie, let me get your thoughts on, let me get your thoughts into, we're talking about media coverage, the images coming out of LA.
		Here's one from the front page of the Washington Post.
		It's a Reuters picture, but the focus has been on the flags that the protesters are carrying, Mexican flags, flags of other nations, and not American flags.
		What's your thoughts on that?
unidentified		I think that they should carry American flags.
		I don't think they should carry other country flags because they're not in that country.
		So I do disagree with that.
		And I think if they wanted to make a better statement, if they showed, if they had American flags and tear grass was being shot at them with American flags, that would give it a whole different look and people would have a totally different attitude.
		So I don't think they should carry any flag other than American flag.
		are in america stephanie what's your all these people calling from georgia michigan all these places that don't live in california that think they know what's going on in california like the guy saying people were forced to move to lancaster No, they weren't.
		People moved there because they wanted to.
		Nobody's forced to move out of L.A. Stephanie, what's your plan for the day?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What's your ability to move around?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is any of your travel impacted by the protests out there?
unidentified		I could go where I want to go.
		I could go where I want to go.
		I'm off work today.
		I'll go pick up my granddaughter from school.
		When I go to work tomorrow, I'll go to work tomorrow.
		Nobody's going to stop it.
		I'm telling you, it's all concentrated downtown by the federal building.
		Everything is downtown.
		The rest of L.A. is fine.
		Stephanie, thanks for the view from L.A. People that live here really shouldn't speak on what's going on here because they don't know.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Stephanie, thanks for the call.
		This is Jill in Woodward, Iowa.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Hi.
		I'm glad you're talking about the media coverage because this is all designed to divide and distract, mostly to distract.
		And there's a video clip that you really, really, really need to find and play.
		And you should probably, really, to be fair, you should really play it more than once.
		He called the Marines in because when he was walking up the stairs to Air Force One the other day, he tripped and fell, just like Biden.
		It was really ugly, too.
		And he doesn't want that being shown on TV.
		So, you know, call in the Marines and nobody will ever see it.
		So please do find that videotape.
		I'm sure they're trying to make sure it never shows up anywhere, but it's got to be out there because there's always filming.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So Jill, you think this is all one big effort to change the news cycle?
unidentified		Yeah, actually, I do.
		It's also the fact that, you know, the big, beautiful bill, they can't even get it out of committee in the Senate.
		It's failing.
		This is panicking, trying to change, trying to guide the narrative, trying to create a problem in Los Angeles that is not bigger than a lot of problems they've had out there in the past.
		This is by far not the biggest protest to make it on TV.
		It's not even TV worthy, really.
		I agree with the person who lives out there.
		People who are out there know.
		This is to distract.
		Doesn't want you to see that video of the 79-year-old president falling on Air Force One stairs like he did the other day, just like Biden.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		It's Jill in Iowa.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Frank is in Georgia, Republican.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		Wow.
		I'm telling you, you know, California brought a lot of this on themselves.
		Not obeying federal law, seeming to think that they can have sanctuary cities, not assisting IC ICE in order to find these illegals that are there.
		A third of California's population are illegal aliens that don't have citizenship.
		Frank, where'd you get that number?
		I heard it on the news the other day.
		Now you know where?
		Something like third, I can't recall the news, but they said like 33% were illegals.
		But maybe that's not correct, but regardless, it doesn't matter.
		My thing is they're not assimilating.
		You can see that.
		The Mexican flags, Honduran flags.
		There are some places in this country that people have been in this country 17 years and don't speak a word of English.
		And the point is, you just can't open the door and let everybody come in here.
		We need to know who they are, what their intent is, and if they want to learn English and assimilate into the American culture.
		But that's not happening, and that is a problem.
		And another thing is we need the immigrants.
		We need them because we've had zero population growth.
		We've got an aging population here.
		And in 15 years, 50% of our population is going to be over the age of 65.
		50% is going to be working.
		25% will be working.
		The other 25% will be children.
		Only 25% of the population is going to support 75%.
		You people need to start thinking down the road and stop listening to this foreign-owned news media.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Frank in Georgia, the news media reporting on the latest move by the Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
		As the Washington Post notes, he has removed the entire membership of the, as they describe it, influential vaccine advisory panel that makes immunization recommendations for the United States, calling it an unprecedented move by Kennedy and an escalation of his overall, his overhaul of the federal vaccination policy.
		That advisory board, formerly known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, it's the story in the Washington Post.
		It goes along with a column from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. himself that's published in today's Wall Street Journal.
		Here's how he justifies that move.
		Under my direction, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is putting the restoration of public trust above any pro or anti-vaccine agenda.
		On Monday, we took a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.
		We are retiring the 17 current members of the committee, some of whom were last-minute appointees of the Biden administration.
		Without removing the current members, the current Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority of new members until 2028, he writes.
		The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine.
		It has never recommended against a vaccine, he says, even those later withdrawn for safety reasons, and it has failed to scrutinize vaccine products given to babies and pregnant women.
		The Secretary of Health and Human Services saying a clean sweep is needed to reestablish public confidence in vaccine science.
		His column today in the Wall Street Journal justifying that move, if you want to read it.
		Back to your phone calls.
		About five minutes left in open forum.
		This is Lawrence out of Miami, Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes.
		Good morning.
		I find that respect is a major problem to our people.
		If those that have taken the positions of running this country, being in the government, would pay attention to our country and not all its foreign involvement through the years.
		We wouldn't have a border problem.
		Our borders would have been protected.
		Our borders would be secure.
		But we're always going, or I should say, they're always going after the business deals and the political ideas to foreign countries, Vietnam, Afghanistan.
		Look at the billions of dollars have been spent on that.
		And look at our borders.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Lawrence is a wall.
		Do you believe that's happening?
		Lawrence, do you believe that that's happening now in this administration, which ran on a platform among other slogans, America first?
unidentified		No, no, no, no, that's wrong.
		This is through time.
		Looks, you have got a man in charge of the government, so to speak.
		We call it a president.
		The example is President Washington.
		Okay?
		He was the first.
		That's always an example.
		And this man has 34 felony charges.
		He can vote.
		He can apply to be president and become president.
		Where is the respect?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Lawrence in Florida.
		This is J.R., way out in Hawaii this morning, up very early.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, John.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I just have a couple observations.
		I believe that the American population wants immigrants who come in to do it legally.
		And I'm all for that.
		But I believe a lot of the Americans, American citizens, are also worried about the tactics and the methods that are used by ICE when they're doing their raids.
		I believe it's a lot easier if you have much more transparency and you follow the law that the American public would be much more attuned to.
		We have Tom Hooman, the borders are, stating that anybody who attacks our police officers or military will be brought to justice.
		And he didn't say anything about our president letting the insurrectionists or giving them pardons to let them out.
		I believe we need to really pay attention to the laws that are in place to help our government run better.
		And if we can be more transparent, it would make things a lot easier.
		J.R. Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		JR, keep on the line for just a second.
		You talk about transparency.
		It's going to take a minute to pop up on your screen, but I want to show this political cartoon from the Washington Times today and the writing under the cartoon, If You Have to Mask, dot, dot, dot.
		And it's a drawing of an Antifa member in a mask and an ICE agent in a mask.
		A lot of discussion about federal agents wearing masks as they do their jobs.
		What are your thoughts on that political cartoon and what message it's trying to get across?
unidentified		The comparison looks almost the same as far as being able to do your job and present law enforcement in a legal way by your methods and tactics that you use.
		We have laws in place that we have to follow.
		Law enforcement needs to follow.
		Our administration needs to follow.
		And if we're able to do that, we wouldn't be in a lot of trouble that we're in right now.
		I just believe we've ignored some of the safeguards that we have in place, which is legally put in place, like having our Congress members go to immigration facility and not being able to get in or to inspect areas like that.
		And by law, they have that right.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's JR in Hawaii.
		Tom is in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
		Republican.
		Tom, go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning.
		In watching this play out in Los Angeles, my prediction is when people, when the military, you know, accidentally or intentionally kills, starts to kill people or people get hurt or injured, that's when things will really, you know, turn around.
		And I say that because I'll be 76 years old.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And Tom, what do you mean by turnaround?
unidentified		Well, I was at Kent State the day that those students were shot.
		And then, and after I graduated, I got drafted.
		And then I spent eight years in the National Guard myself.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Tom, you were there in 1970?
unidentified		Yes, I was there.
		I saw the whole thing go down.
		I got tear gas.
		And I watched the whole thing play out over the weekend.
bob in new york ▲ ● ▼		And what I'm seeing now is, and Trump is, I totally agree with that woman in Iowa where he's, you know, everything that everything a guy has touched at this point hasn't been completed.
unidentified		Now we're looking at, you know, this bill, and it he's diverted the attention to this.
		And, you know, I just see this happening.
		It was tragic.
		I hit the ground as well when the National Guard started firing.
		But he is out of control.
		And, you know, I know I'm calling in on the Republican line, Democrat line.
		I don't know what line.
		I'm actually an independent at this point.
		I've been a Republican my whole life, but I can this administration is such a disgrace.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Tom, and I'm running short on time, but I want to ask, as somebody who was there at Kent State, what was the did America learn the lessons of Kent State?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What was the lesson of Kent State?
unidentified		I can only tell you that, you know, that was really the first time that that had happened on a campus.
		You know, yes, there's been shootings at campuses, you know, far worse than that, but the political atmosphere at that time, it was all related to Vietnam.
		And when we went into Cambodia, you know, that night all tech broke out.
		And I, you know, there were demonstrations and then they sent the National Guard in, and there were helicopters flying over the campus and it was on and on and on.
		And yes, that was the headline that night without a doubt.
		And then the whole town was put under martial law.
		We had sheriffs standing in the middle of the streets.
		It was chaos.
		And I'm not saying it was wrong at that time to bring the National Guard in, but the way it was handled was completely wrong.
		And that's what I see happening in L.A.
		And my prediction is just that.
bob in new york ▲ ● ▼		When people start getting killed by our own military, then we're going to see a real change.
concerned citizen in unknown ▲ ● ▼		But right now, I don't think people really understand how corrupt this administration is.
unidentified		So, yeah, I mean, you can ask me anything.
bob in new york ▲ ● ▼		I was there that day and I saw the whole thing and I saw it play out Friday night, then Saturday night, and then Sunday night.
unidentified		It was, you know, quiet and squelched, I should say.
bob in new york ▲ ● ▼		But yeah, it was like organized mass confusion for 20,000 students to have to get on a bus and vacate the town and not even know where they were going.
unidentified		We stayed to watch CV news and then headed back to Pennsylvania.
unidentified		But that's my prediction.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for sharing your memories from 55 years ago.
		It's Tom in Pennsylvania, our last caller in this first segment in the Washington Journal.
		Stick around, though.
		Plenty more to talk about.
		A little later on today, we will be joined by Wyoming Republican Harriet Hegeman, a member of the Judiciary Committee, discussion on the Big Beautiful bill and the Judiciary Committee's efforts.
		But up next, Jeff Brabant of the National Federation of Independent Businesses joins us to discuss how tariffs, inflation, and the Trump administration's actions are impacting small businesses across the country.
		Stick around for that discussion.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		And a count of two balls and one strike.
		And a swing of Bayeship Lapie.
		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 Bay Ship.
		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.
		Looking to contact your members of Congress?
		Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
		Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
		This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
		Contact information on congressional committees, the President's Cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.
		The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's non-profit operations.
		Scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to order your copy today.
jimmy carter ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is always an unfinished creation.
ronald reagan ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is worth dying for.
george h w bush ▲ ● ▼		Democracy belongs to us all.
bill clinton ▲ ● ▼		We are here in the sanctuary of democracy.
george w bush ▲ ● ▼		Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies.
barack obama ▲ ● ▼		American democracy is bigger than any one person.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected.
unidentified		We are still at our core a democracy.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
unidentified		Washington Journal continues.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		A conversation on small businesses in America now.
		Our guest is Jeff Brabant.
		He's vice president at the National Federation of Independent Business.
		And Mr. Brabant, first remind people how many small businesses NFIB represents and what your mission is.
unidentified		So NFIB is the voice of small business.
		We represent about 300,000 small business owners in every state in the country.
		And the mission behind NFIB was to have small business owners with a voice.
		So the whole idea is that we have a whole bunch of small business owners.
		When you have 300,000, you have a small due structure, and you have one member, one vote, and then they have the same voice as a large corporation.
		So the typical NFIB member has about seven to eight employees.
		So it's the real small mom and pop type of businesses.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And your website notes nonprofit, nonpartisan, if nonprofit.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		How are you funded?
unidentified		We're funded through member dues.
		So each member pays dues as low as less than $200 a year.
		That's how you get advocacy.
		That's how you get a research center and a whole host of activities to support small businesses in Washington, D.C. and all 50 state capitals.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And what are those small businesses advocating for when it comes to the One Big Beautiful bill?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Do they like it?
unidentified		Love it, actually.
		We got more from the small business community than we ever anticipated in the One Big Beautiful bill.
		The big issue that NFIB has been working on for years that we think brings most small businesses together is the 20% small business deduction.
		The official name is the Section 199 Cap A qualified business income deduction.
		That's quite a mouthful.
		So we have dubbed it the small business deduction because if you look at IRS statistics in 2021, actually there are 25.9 million small businesses that claim this deduction.
		So this is something that's huge for the small business sector.
		And one of the reasons it's so important in this bill that they're going to make this permanent and increase it from 20 to 23 percent is that's scheduled to expire at the end of the year.
		And if we go back in time for a moment to 2017, the corporate rate, which is about 20 percent of small employers, less than 10 percent of all small businesses, pay the corporate rate or organize the C Corps, was lowered from 35 to 21 percent by 14 points, which was good for some small businesses.
		However, they're only looking at lowering marginal rates, which most pass-through businesses pay.
		That's anyone other than a C Corp.
		That's a sole proprietorship, that's a partnership, that's an S corporation.
		They're paying regular income tax rates.
		They call them a pass-through because their income passes through to individual income taxes.
		So their rates are only going to go down a couple points.
		And we're looking at a top rate of 37% and a C-Corp rate of 21%, which is a pretty big gap when you're looking at lowering one rate by 14 points, another just by a couple.
		There's a parity question.
		So Congress created this 20% deduction, which gets the effective rate a lot lower for those pass-through businesses.
		It gets them well under 30% closer to that 21% mark, but it was scheduled to expire, which would have resulted in a significant tax hike on tens of millions of small business owners.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So your argument is that a special small business deduction is just fair when compared to major corporations?
unidentified		Yeah, absolutely.
		It doesn't even get them all the way down to 21% when we look at the effective rate.
		It just gets them a lot closer to that 21%.
		So it just keeps parity.
		It's so that Congress isn't picking winners and losers in terms of how you organize your business.
		Let's keep most businesses at around the same tax rate so that everyone's treated equally.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What is a small business expensing cap?
unidentified		Are we talking about section 1979 expensing?
		Yes.
		So the 179 expensing cap, that's if you're a small business and you buy a piece of equipment for your business, you can expense that in the first year.
		What that means is you can write it off or deduct it 100% of that expense in the first year.
		Another huge win for small businesses in this bill was that cap went from $1.25 million to $2.5 million.
		So if you're a small business, $2.5 million in equipment expenses you can expense annually.
		This one has a real substantial impact on small business owners.
		Let's say you're a farmer, you need to buy a new tractor.
		You can expense that.
		It gives small business owners a little more spending power in terms of wanting to expand their operations.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And is that about fairness as well?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Why do they need that additional spending power, that additional special rule for small businesses?
unidentified		So that kind of gets complicated in the gist of everything here.
		So one of the things the Congress is debating is the bonus depreciation issue.
		That's also an expensing issue.
		179 covers anything that isn't bonus depreciation.
		Currently, 179 is permanent.
		This expensing, we call it, I've dubbed it kind of small business expensing at one and a quarter.
		So if they double that to two and a half, you don't have to worry about this bonus depreciation provision expiring or being on the books or off the books because everything under that threshold is permanently expensible.
		Once you get over that threshold, you have to start looking at bonus depreciation, which right now we're looking at a five-year extension, not a permanent extension.
		So it's nice that the small business piece is permanent.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		With all these topics that we're talking about, I should note we do have a special line for small business owners in this segment and do especially want to hear from you and your thoughts not just on the one big beautiful bill as it's called but how your business is run and how Congress is impacting you.
		202748-8003 is that number.
		Otherwise, Republicans, 202748, 8001.
		Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		We'll put the numbers on the screen so you're not confused.
		And as folks are calling in, Mr. Brayband, the tariff policy from the Trump administration, how is that impacting small business owners?
		Is that something that you've been advocating on?
unidentified		It's not something we've been heavily advocating on.
		It's something because when you're a group like NFIB, you represent every single variety of small business in America from retail, manufacturing, restaurants, agriculture.
		The complicated thing is that tariffs don't affect everyone the same way.
		There's a lot of different tariffs out there.
		Some industries we've seen are very worried about it.
		Some are not as worried about it.
		The way our process works, we try to get a 70% consensus on big issues and tariffs just because it affects industries so differently has been complicated.
		The research we're doing, we actually had a new research out just about two hours ago, so you might not be privy to this, but it shows right now the number one issue.
		We've been doing a monthly tracking survey called the Small Business Economic Trends Survey.
		Going back to the 1970s, so we have a lot of historical data on this.
		As of this month, the number one issue is taxes.
		This is the first time taxes moved into that slot in several years, so this is a big deal.
		Inflation has moved down to a couple spots.
		Taxes 18% for business owners.
		Inflation is 14%.
		If you ask them what their top issue is.
		So I think that they're still paying attention to tariffs.
		It's just that I think with some of the deals, it hasn't tracked quite as highly as maybe it had previously.
		The other thing that this survey shows is that small business optimism is up.
		It shows that people are expecting better business conditions and people are expecting greater sales in future months.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Staying on tariffs for just one more minute.
		The argument for the Trump administration is that you won't get tariffed if you make things in the United States.
		Are the tariffs sparking a surge in new small businesses making things in the United States?
unidentified		That's unclear.
		We haven't necessarily heard that from our members, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
		We just don't have data on that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		We've got new data on the jobs numbers and unemployment numbers in the United States just last week on Friday.
		When you get those at the NFIB, what are you looking for?
		What did that tell you?
unidentified		Generally speaking, that tracks pretty closely with the monthly surveys we put out.
		We have seen optimism increase.
		We have seen the one of the interesting things we've seen in the last three or four months is that access to qualified labor is coming down a little.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What does that mean?
unidentified		That means one of the top issues business owners have had for years is a tight labor market.
		And when you say qualified labor, do you even have qualified people who you could fill a job with?
		And that has been the number one issue for quite some time in our monthly tracking survey.
		That's starting to track down.
		That's tending to go with inflation.
		One of the things we saw that kept inflation stubbornly high was labor.
		And the cost of labor was so expensive, so expensive, so expensive, that's starting to get a little less expensive, which is helping with the inflation problem and helping with small businesses find and pay qualified workers.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What about the argument that the crackdown on illegal immigration is making a labor shortage even more exasperated and that it's harder for small business and large businesses to find the people they need to do the jobs?
unidentified		We haven't seen that in our monthly tracking data yet.
		I understand the logic behind the argument.
		We just haven't seen the data on that yet.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Let me get some calls for you.
		Mr. Brabant is with us for just the next 15 minutes or so.
		It is 8:30 at the bottom of the hour when he has to leave.
		So get your calls in.
		202-748-8003 is the special line for small business owners.
		But we will start with Deanette in New Jersey.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm listening to your guest, and I'm concerned that all I'm hearing from small business owners is the fact that they are so confused and discombobulated by the tariff policies that are being enacted by this administration.
		I hear what he's saying about what's in the big beautiful bill, but if they don't even survive as a small business because they can't anticipate supplies and being able to hire, or are they going to have to lay off until things are more stable with the tariffs that are trying to be put in place?
		I can't understand how this tax that he's speaking about is even going to help if they're not even around.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Brabant.
unidentified		Sure.
		The thing about tariffs is they're not a monolith.
		They affect everyone very differently.
		Every industry is affected differently.
		Every country right now is looking at different tariff rates.
		So it's a complicated issue.
		The one thing our data is showing is that taxes are the number one issue for small businesses.
		And the one concern is that at the end of the year, if the one big beautiful bill does not get passed, we're going to see a tax hike on about 33 million small businesses at a time when we will not see a tax hike on large C corporations.
		That's a real issue of competitiveness, and that will do a lot to put small businesses out of business.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Are there things in the One Big Beautiful bill that you don't like?
unidentified		There aren't significant concerns for us at this point.
		There's a lot, and frankly, we were loud.
		If you remember, going back to 2017, NFIB took huge issue with the first draft of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
		So we're not shy when we see an issue with the bill, but on the whole, this is a really good bill for small business.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What were you loud about back then?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Was it the sunsetting of or the need to renew the taxing decrease?
unidentified		The first draft out of the House in 2017 didn't contain this 20% deduction.
		It only contained the 14% cut to the sea.
		Well, but every single Republican on this committee also voted no on that bill.
		And so to hear things like, suddenly now you're the champions of rural broadband, I think you guys call that fake news, right?
		We need to work together, and I think it's great.
		Look, if we would have sped up the program, y'all would have said there was fraud or waste.
		Since the program was, you felt too slow, now it needs to be more efficient.
		The reality is we had to go through maps.
		The states presented plans and we're moving forward.
		But I suppose it's better late than never, and we welcome the bipartisan help.
		The good news is that the states are ready.
		The plans have been approved.
		We're queued up to deliver for rural America.
		But now the Trump administration wants further reviews, further delays, and you're still talking about Biden.
		I got a great name for this hearing, stopping Trump's broadband plunder as an alternative, because we see delays, and then I'm worried.
		Is this going to go into billionaire tax cuts?
		Is it going to be moved to other areas?
		You know, this delay, 45 days in counting, is a big concern.
		Now, we work both with broadband, we work with satellite in our area.
		We know fiber is faster.
		It is costly in some areas.
		And so we had a balance.
		We saw the FCC adjust with the NTIA to allow for some satellite Internet to be part of this, $4.1 billion.
		It's even part of Florida's plan.
		But we know broadband is the foundation of this.
		And so, Ms. Morris, the states have submitted their plans.
		Do you feel like they're ready to go?
		It seems like you think they are.
		I absolutely think they're ready to go.
		They've invested years upon years of work into these plans, have worked with the providers in their state, have worked with other stakeholders in their state, and have worked with NTIA and are ready to get shovels in the ground, as we heard from Congressman Carter from Louisiana.
		Now, do you know why the funds are still frozen 45 days into the Trump administration?
		I don't have any insight to how the current administration or the current leadership at the Department of Commerce is overseeing these funds.
		Have you seen any public statements by the current NTIA officials about why the funds are frozen?
		Other than today, right before this hearing, a desire to take another look at the program and reevaluate.
		No.
		And what do you think this would mean as far as delays?
		Do we have any timetables as far as how long these delays could go?
		Have you seen them talk about that?
		I don't have any timetables.
		I will say that the scale at which, if the Wall Street Journal story yesterday is correct, the scale of that shift that is proposed in that article, it's hard to know exactly how that would play out, but could involve a pretty significant reset of the program and going back and asking states to redo their plans.
		Based upon your experience from working at NTIA, how long do you think that could set back if they have to reassess all these plans?
		Years.
		So you couldn't even tell us it would be uncertain amount of time that we could see delays for a program that today they're talking about how there are delays, and yet what is happening right now at this very moment with the Trump administration is causing uncertain delays.
		Mr. Chairman, you know, we want to work together.
		We want to get this done.
		You have rural areas.
		I have rural areas.
		A lot of my friends across the aisle have rural areas.
		We want to make sure this thing gets moving forward.
		And if we have to have states redo all these plans, I know North Carolina, I know New York, and I know Florida would be upset by that.
		So I'm committed to work with you and others to try to get this thing moving.
		And this is the challenge that faces our community today.
		I'm going to yield back.
		What I would say is that they're representing their constituents.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		They're doing what they think is in the best interest of their constituents.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		And also, many of us believe that we're overtaxed.
unidentified		So I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that you would have Republicans who would be advocating for reducing taxes.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		The difference here is, and the battle that we have, is should that be borne by all of us federally, or should that be borne by these states that are the high-tax states, Illinois, New York, California, Connecticut?
unidentified		Those are your high-tax states.
		Those are your blue states.
		And so, again, that's the debate that we're having.
		And the many benefits of this bill outweigh the things that I disagree with, and that's why I supported it.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Let me let you chat with some callers.
		This is Stephen Waiting in Connecticut, Independent.
		Stephen, good morning.
		You're on with Congresswoman Higgeman.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hey, good morning.
		I actually called to talk about the L.A. riots, but just on the tax thing, remember, for 250 years, Connecticut's been subsidizing the Red States.
		So, you know, we're the ones paying for the big, beautiful bill.
		And you are raising the deficit.
		But let's just skip to the L.A. riots.
		I've worked with Louis.
		So I would disagree with your premise.
		I don't think that you subsidize Wyoming.
		We're one of the largest energy-producing states in the nation.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		And as a result, we send massive amounts of money to the federal treasury through royalty payments with coal and oil and gas and uranium, tronamining, that sort of thing, cattle grazing.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		So I don't think that Connecticut subsidizes Wyoming in any way whatsoever.
unidentified		We subsidize other states while also providing very important resources for the country as a whole.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Stephen, did you want to finish the second part of your question?
unidentified		Yeah, let's table that.
		The LA riots, putting in troops is the fear of the absurd.
		It's just wrong.
		I've worked around large crowds all my life.
		They never do it that way.
		Doing it that way is the Roman legion way.
		It's going to end up in somebody's getting hurt.
		Somebody's going to get maybe even hurt to death.
		They always come in with small groups.
		They never do it with large groups with the classical Roman legion way.
		I mean, this is just the wrong way to do it.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Stephen got your point, Congresswoman.
unidentified		So I think that what you're saying is that we have to ask permission of the people who are rioting as to how we respond to the riots, which to me seems utterly and completely absurd.
		If you're breaking the law, if you're burning cars, if you're destroying property, I don't think that we ask the rioters how they want us to respond to that.
		And I think that that's what people are advocating here.
		I do apologize.
		There's a lot of noise in the rotunda today, so it's a bit difficult to hear.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		But I think that what you're suggesting is that we have to tiptoe around the idea that people are burning vehicles.
unidentified		They ordered the Waymo vehicles and set them on fire, creating a horrific, horrific environmental degradation in those areas because these are electric vehicles.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		So I guess that I am not going to buy into the idea that the rioters get to determine what our response is.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What is your understanding of the Insurrection Act, what it would allow in this situation, and when should the Insurrection Act be invoked?
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't think that the, I'm not sure that the Insurrection Act itself has actually been invoked other than calling out the National Guard.
		And what the National Guard does, and I'm paraphrasing, but what it does, is they are protecting the federal buildings and the federal activities that are going on, which the federal government has the absolute right to do.
		So when you see people throwing concrete blocks and frozen water bottles and rocks and different things at federal vehicles as they're hauling away illegal aliens, that's not the right reaction.
unidentified		That's illegal.
unidentified		What you're talking about is illegal.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		And whatever we need to do to quell those activities is perfectly appropriate.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		I'm never going to buy into the idea that it's okay to take cinder blocks and take a hammer, break them into smaller pieces, and throw them into the windshield of federal vehicles and then say that that's a First Amendment right and they shouldn't have responded with the National Guard.
unidentified		I'm just not going to buy into it.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		I think that we saw what happened when you don't respond forcefully to this kind of illegal activity.
unidentified		And they're going to have to address this.
		What I have seen with the L.A. riots, I don't have any sympathy for the people who are torching vehicles.
		I just don't.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		To Helen in Toledo, Ohio, Line for Democrats.
		Good morning.
		You're on with Congresswoman Hegeman.
unidentified		Thank you so much.
		My concern is the double standards that our government is using with the American people.
		Where were the National Guards on January the 6th?
		I'll tell you where the National Guard was.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		Donald Trump offered 10,000 National Guard to both Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of Washington, D.C., and they rejected it.
		He's not entitled to call out the National Guard in Washington, D.C. That's the one city he can't call out the National Guard.
		So when you say, where was the National Guard on January 6th?
unidentified		He offered it.
unidentified		He offered 10,000 troops.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		But the Speaker of the House and the Mayor of D.C. are the ones that are required to approve it.
unidentified		He couldn't unilaterally do that.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		He also had the military on standby, and he called soon after 2 o'clock in the afternoon and asked to have them deployed so that they could come to the Capitol.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		And the head of the military at that time told him to stand down until after 5 p.m.
unidentified		So you have an absolutely legitimate question.
unidentified		I agree with your question.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		The problem is that it wasn't the Republicans, it wasn't Donald Trump that failed to deploy the necessary assets that were needed at the U.S. Capitol.
unidentified		And again, we're not going to allow that to happen in Los Angeles.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		I think that you probably then must agree with the actions that he's taken in Los Angeles if you think that the National Guard should have been called out on January 6th.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		On January 6th, what was your feeling about pardoning those who had been convicted of crimes related to January 6th?
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		I think it was absolutely appropriate because under the Equal Protection Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendment, it's clear that they were being treated differently than other people.
unidentified		And again, I'm going to go back to the summer of the so-called summer of love of 2020, the people who were burning buildings, who were over $2 billion in damages.
unidentified		There's really no comparison as to what happened in 2020 and what happened on January 6th.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		Yet the people on January 6th were treated very, very differently.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		One of the absolute linchpins of our republic, of our constitutional foundation, is equal protection, which means that people who are similarly situated must be treated similarly.
unidentified		And that is not the circumstance of what happened with the people with January 6th.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		We also know that they were using a law that was never, ever intended to be used the way that it was.
		And in fact, the Supreme Court reduced many of the sentences of the people who their sentences were enhanced because of this so-called destruction of government property statute that was passed during the Enron era.
		And it was designed to go after accounting records, that if you started destroying accounting records, they could enhance your sentence for destruction of government property.
unidentified		And so they attempted to use that against the people on January 6th.
unidentified		The Supreme Court said that was never the intent of that law, and many people were immediately released from prison.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		So what happened is that the people who rioted and misbehaved and destroyed property on January 6th should have been prosecuted, but they should have been treated the same as anybody else would.
unidentified		I look at what happened in Portland during that era of 2020 where they were attempting to burn down a federal courthouse.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		We had days on end, nights on end, people using fireworks and projectiles and attacking our federal employees out there, and there were no prosecutions whatsoever.
unidentified		The fastest way to destroy our republic is to treat people differently when they're similarly situated.
		So I thought it was absolutely appropriate that everybody associated with January 6th was pardoned.
		It's the Democrats and the radical prosecutors and judges who put the president in that position.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		They're the ones that are to blame for that because they overcharged and they overprosecuted.
unidentified		And they persecuted people over that.
unidentified		And he ultimately pardoned them as a result of it.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		About 10 minutes left with Congresswoman Harriet Hegeman of Wyoming.
		Let me take you home to Wyoming to Cheyenne.
		This is Mark, Republican Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Just want to say I support the Big Beautiful bill and thank you, Congresswoman, for representing us, the people here in our great beautiful state.
		I just wanted to be sure that we're going to stop these ridiculous green energy subsidies because we see how it's negatively impacting not just here in Laramie County, but across the whole state of Wyoming.
		I agree with you, and that is part of what is in it.
		They are going to be phased out.
		There are some that end sooner than others.
		I would have liked to have seen all of them taken out immediately again with the IRA.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		We know that many of the projects that were being funded through the IRA are not feasible and they don't produce energy.
unidentified		That's one of the major problems with them.
		The green boo-doggle, as I guess what you would call it.
		So they are going to be phased out, and we're going to get back to producing affordable and reliable energy, which is what we should be focusing on.
		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Beyond the Big Beautiful, one big, beautiful bill.
		I want to ask you about a different piece of legislation moving through Congress.
		What is Connor's Law?
unidentified		I didn't hear you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What is Connor's Law?
unidentified		O'Connor's Law.
		Well, so what?
		O'Connor's Law.
		Well, so what has happened is that we've always had a regulation that required English language proficiency for our truck drivers.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		And under the Obama administration, through guidance documents, they reversed that and said that our truck drivers do not have to be English language proficient.
		Well, I come from the state of Wyoming, and Mark was just mentioning here in Laramie County.
		Between Laramie County and Albany County, you drive over 8,000 feet in elevation.
unidentified		That road is closed on a regular basis because of snow and ice and horrible weather.
unidentified		We can have very treacherous weather in Wyoming, and we have a lot of signs that are warning people of that.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		We've had a dramatic uptick in truck accidents after the Obama guidance document, making it so that our truckers do not have to be English language proficient.
unidentified		And so I wrote to the President of the United States.
		I pointed this out.
		I asked him to reinstate the requirement that there has to be English language proficiency.
		We have a lot of drivers from Russia, Kazakhstan, Romania.
		They can't read our signs.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		Now, it's one thing if you can read the stop sign, but another thing is we have digital signs across Wyoming, especially I-80, that give warnings about weather conditions and road conditions.
unidentified		And if people can't read those, it's a very dangerous circumstance.
		So he issued an executive order requiring English language proficiency.
		And Connor's Law is named after a young boy who was killed with a trucking accident in a trucking accident where the gentleman who was driving the truck could not speak English.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		And so I am a co-sponsor of that bill to make it a requirement that our truck drivers be English language proficient in order to get a CDL or a commercial driver's license.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Back to the phone calls.
		This is William in Rural Hall, North Carolina, Independent.
		Thanks for waiting.
unidentified		Yes.
		I heard the Congressman from Wyoming, which really stated some really unfounded thing.
		I'm a veteran.
		My family are many veterans.
		I've had family members that have passed away because of the war.
		I don't understand how you can justify January 6th.
		I didn't justify January 6th.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		I just said that if you're going to prosecute people, you need to prosecute them for the same crimes.
unidentified		So if you're going to prosecute them for trespass, go ahead and prosecute them for trespass.
		Go ahead and prosecute them for destroying property.
		But don't treat them.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		Don't try to send them to jail for 5, 10, 15, 20 years when you've got people in New York and California and Minnesota and Chicago and Washington, D.C. rioting and destroying property and doing the same thing, and you do nothing about it.
unidentified		All I said was you have to treat people equally.
		That's all I said.
		I didn't justify anything.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Schenectady, New York.
		This is Steve, Republican Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		First, can the congressman not fellow bucks that every caller who called in, she's taking over the conversation and the call.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Steve, I'm short on time.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What's your question?
unidentified		My question is, it's not really a question, it's a statement.
		This lady is a mouthpiece for the white conservative movement.
		There's nothing that they will do that she will disagree with, even if they brought the Dred Scott case back to the Supreme Court.
		Don't accuse me of being a racist.
		That is inappropriate and uncalled for.
		There is nothing that I have done that indicates that I'm a racist at all.
		That's unfair, and that's libelous.
		You don't get to accuse me of that.
		I disagree with that vehemently.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		New York, Erin, good morning.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You're next.
unidentified		Good morning.
		This is so interesting, this woman for Wyoming, the way she's speaking, first of all, there's different level of crime.
		And if you're not concerned about these people who invaded the Capitol building, so you cannot conflate the two.
		You mentioned New York, you mentioned other places.
		How can you conflate those different issues?
		Let me speak for it.
		Do not interrupt me.
		Let me speak.
		Have some respect.
		Let me speak.
		Let me speak.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Aaron, nobody's interrupting you, Erin.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What's your question?
unidentified		My question is, why is she defending January 6th?
		And she's saying that somehow the people in New York and other places, if you have no respect for the Capitol building and where you work, and you're going to conflate the two and say, well, because somebody did it somewhere else, then it's different.
		There's a different level of crime that these people committed when they...
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Erin, I think we got your point.
unidentified		I disagree with you.
		It's the same crime.
		If you're destroying property, if you are trespassing on property, that is a crime, whether it is in Los Angeles or it's Minnesota or it's Washington, D.C. Again, I'm not defending them.
		I am saying that the prosecutors over-prosecuted.
		The judges over-sentenced.
		They did not get fair trials.
		I'm not defending them.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		I'm saying that under the Equal Protection Clause, you treat similarly situated people the same.
unidentified		Why is the Capitol any different than the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon?
unidentified		They're both federal buildings.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		I don't understand why you're saying it is okay to firebomb the courthouse in Portland, Oregon, but it's not okay to walk through the Capitol in Washington, D.C. I'm not understanding why you're saying that one is different than the other.
unidentified		I'm just saying that you treat people the same, and that's why I supported the pardons.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Just a couple minutes left with Congresswoman Harriet Hegeman taking your questions on the phone lines and also via text and social media.
		This is a text that came in, Congresswoman.
		This is Kevin in Florida.
		Would like you to discuss the Wyoming Democratic Party.
		I'm not sure what aspect of, but what is your relationship with members of the Wyoming Democratic Party?
unidentified		Well, I know Democrats in Wyoming.
		Maybe he is referring to the fact that there are very few of them.
		I'm not quite sure what the question is.
		I represent everybody in Wyoming.
		I'm the only representative for the state.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		And the Democrat agenda is not very popular in Wyoming.
unidentified		Maybe I should put it that way.
		It's why we are such a Republican state.
		We only have five Democrats in the state House of Representatives and two Democrats in the state Senate.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		Democrats are just, and the agenda that they're pursuing nationally and statewise is just not very popular in Wyoming.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Do you know when the last time was a Democrat won statewide in Wyoming?
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		Sure, we've had our last governor, not our last governor, but Dave Friedenthal was the governor from 2003 to 2010.
unidentified		And he was a Democrat.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And what was it about his agenda do you think?
		Is he somebody that you worked with or could see yourself working with?
		What was it about his agenda that he was able to win statewide, do you think, as somebody in the party that right now dominates in Wyoming?
unidentified		So Dave Friedenthal was okay.
		I think that it was just, we will elect.
		Wyoming does elect governors.
		Mike Sullivan was a Democrat governor before him.
		We had Ed Herstler for three terms.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		Tino Roncalio was our last Democrat member of the House of Representatives.
unidentified		Obviously, Republicans felt that Dave Friedenthal could do an okay job.
		It happened to be at a time when Wyoming was booming.
		We had a lot of money coming in because of oil and gas and coal.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		And as a result, I think that Republicans voted for him because they thought he would do okay.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Time for one or two more calls.
		Republican line, Bruce, Rhode Island.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		God bless you, Harriet Hagerman.
		I volunteered for you four years ago making telephone calls, and you wouldn't let me do it two years ago when you ran.
		But I was calling to ask you to do some housekeeping on some of the bills that are on record now to get rid of some of the junk that's mucking up the system.
		Will you try to do that?
		Well, of course, Bruce, and thank you for your support.
		Very much appreciate it.
harriet hageman ▲ ● ▼		I'm constantly trying to streamline what's going on here and passing good legislation and trying to get bad legislation off the books and also trying to get rid of bad regulations.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Bruce, what do you think some of the junk is?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What would you recommend?
unidentified		Gosh, I don't know.
		It seems like there's always something coming up that's from 100 years ago that's just mucking up the system.
		You know, it's funny that you say that.
		We are going to be marking up a bill in judiciary today that's specifically looking at the over-criminalization of certain activities.
		And they are laws that have been on the books for a period of time that nobody even knows why they're there.
		And one of the things that we're going to be doing is we're going to be looking at those laws today in our Judiciary Committee.
		So it's interesting that you called in, Bruce.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And what time does that hearing start, Congressman?
unidentified		I think it starts at 10, but don't hold me to that.
unidentified		I'd have to look at my calendar.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Well, we will let you get ready for that hearing.
		Congresswoman Harriet Hegeman, Republican of Wyoming, appreciate your time.
		Thanks for taking the calls on the Washington Journal.
unidentified		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		About an hour left this morning.
		In that time, in about 30 minutes, we will focus on the new travel restrictions placed on 19 countries by the Trump administration.
		We'll be joined for that conversation by Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute.
		But until then, it's back to open form.
		Any public policy issue, any political issue that you want to talk about, phone lines are yours to do so.
		Numbers are on your screen.
		Go ahead and start calling in, and we will get to your calls right after the break.
unidentified		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 Tune-In 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.
		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.
		Non-fiction book lovers, C-SPAN has a number of podcasts for you.
		Listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the Afterwords podcast and on QA.
		Hear wide-ranging conversations with the non-fiction authors and others who are making things happen.
		And BookNotes Plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics.
		Find all of our podcasts by downloading the free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/slash podcasts.
		Washington Journal continues.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		It's time for our open forum.
		Any public policy issue, any political issue that you want to talk about.
		Now's your time to call in.
		We'll put the numbers on your screen as we let you know about the schedule on Capitol Hill today.
		The House and Senate are both in at 10 a.m. Eastern.
		You can watch on C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2, respectively.
		Also, plenty of other hearings taking place on Capitol Hill.
		Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chief of Staff Chair General Dan Kaine are set to testify about the President's 2026 Pentagon budget request.
		That's before a House Defense Subcommittee taking place at 9.30 a.m. Eastern time on C-SPAN 3.
		Just about half an hour from now is when that's set to get underway.
		You can also watch on c-span.org and the free C-SPANOW video app.
		This afternoon, President Trump will deliver remarks at Fort Bragg from Fayetteville, North Carolina, ahead of the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army's founding on Saturday.
		That is on C-SPAN 3.
		Again, at 4 p.m. Eastern, also C-SPAN.org and the free C-SPAN Now video app.
		And tonight, New Jersey voters head to the polls to decide which of the Republican and Democrat nominees will move on to compete in the November election for the state's open gubernatorial seat.
		Our live simulcast of coverage of the results is courtesy of On New Jersey.
		That's live at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2.
		You can also watch on c-span.org and the C-SPANNOW app.
		Plenty taking place all day long.
		We hope you stay with us on the C-SPAN networks.
		And now your phone calls in Open Forum.
		This is Mark out of San Antonio, San Antonio, Florida, I should say.
		Independent, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		My question's for the Congresswoman.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And the Congresswoman's not with us anymore, Mark.
unidentified		Excuse me?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		She left.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		She had to go get to her subcommittee hearing.
unidentified		Oh, okay.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		But what's your comment?
unidentified		It goes back to January 6th.
		He tried to justify the January 6th rioters with justifying that they let people go from other places in Portland and New York that had rioted.
		But January 6th was an insurrection, not just a riot.
		And I just wanted to make that clear to everybody.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Mark out of Florida.
		This is Gerald in Ohio, Canton, Ohio, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Independent, good morning.
		Yes.
		I've seen, I've been watching these riots in all that California.
		And Governor Newsom later on wants to run for President of the United States.
		Well, you think he will run President of the United States.
		He should stay in California.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's Gerald in Ohio.
		Make sure to turn your television down when you call in.
		It's easier to have a conversation that way.
		This is Tara in Wisconsin, Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just don't know how that Congress women could justify that those riots are the same in California as JSECs.
		On the film on TV, I saw policemen getting their heads smashed in the door and people shoved, officers were hurt.
		How can they justify that?
		And I also would like to make sure everybody votes her out at midterm.
		That's all I have to say.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Tara in Wisconsin, 202-748-8000 for Democrats to call in 2027-8001 for Republicans.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		This is Anthony in Port Washington, New York, Independent.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Yes.
		My question is: How can the Congress and Senate allow Trump to do to the Constitution what he's been doing?
		I mean, he's ignoring due process.
		I mean, the search and seizure for how ICE is going into homes, masked, the use of force.
		I mean, these are all things which are not legal per the Constitution.
		He's saying that he's going to run for another term, assessing taxes on American people through the use of tariffs.
		All these things are written in the Constitution that he does not have these powers, but totally ignores the Constitution.
		It's like it doesn't even exist.
		So, my question is: when is enough by Congress?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And what do you think the answer to that question is, Anthony?
unidentified		I think that the answer is that there has to be either an impeachment or Congress needs, like they tried to bring back the tariffs and say that he does not have the right, but they just lost in the Senate by a couple of votes.
		The majority said he does not have the right.
		And now he wants to swing the market again because, I mean, There's someone that's making a ton of money on the swings up and down on these things.
		I mean, to say on Truth Social, now is a great time to buy, that is just, people would be thrown in jail for a transaction like that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Anthony, let me ask you before you go.
		You mentioned masking.
		ICE agents being masked is what you said in your concerns about how law enforcement is acting here.
		Why do you think ICE agents being masked has become such a particular flashpoint in this particular set of protests that are going on in Los Angeles?
unidentified		Well, my concern is if they're refusing to show ID, coming in masked, and taking people and quite frankly disappearing them, what's stopping people that aren't even ICE throwing on masks, going into someone's home, taking people from their home, and maybe putting them in sex trafficking.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Anthony in New York, the Washington Times today focusing on this issue of masking as well.
		And again, the fact that it's become a particular flash point here.
		They note that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries seemed to say that ICE officers who were involved in confrontations with members of Congress would get unmasked.
		Quote, every single ICE agent who's engaged in this aggressive overreach and are trying to hide their identities from the American people will be unsuccessful in doing that.
		He said every single one of them, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes, will of course be identified.
		The Washington Times talking to Rosemary Janks, a lawyer and policy director at the Immigration Accountability Project, saying ICE officers and agents have plenty of reason to mask up.
		This was her quote to the Washington Times.
		They're being doxxed repeatedly by all these leftist loonies who are then threatening their family members.
		There's a bunch of cartels out there who would love to kill an ICE officer and their families.
		Publishing information about who they are, where they live, and who their families are is extremely dangerous to those officers.
		Her response as they look into this particular issue.
		This is Susan in Birmingham, Alabama, Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hello.
		Can you, this is like talking into an empty can.
		Can you hear me?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Yes, ma'am.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		I'm on the other side of that string, Susan.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		It is rather disconcerting.
		Anyway, I was trying to get through when Representative Dev Hagerman was online.
		Harriet Herman kept bringing up, what's her name?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Harriet Hegeman.
unidentified		Hagerman, okay.
unidentified		She's a Republican from Wyoming, and she took Liz Cheney's seat, right?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Yes, ma'am.
unidentified		Right.
		Okay.
		She kept bringing up Portland and Seattle, and she brought up the summer of 2020.
		And I'm just wondering to every Republican who's listening, every one of you, and I'm a Republican, I was until last summer a Republican.
		Do you even know who was president during the summer of 2020?
		I mean, you know, you're talking about those cities that were indeed burned, that were indeed campsites for protesters.
		But who was president?
		And who was Attorney General?
		Joe Biden was running his campaign from a basement somewhere over in Maryland?
		Do you remember?
		I want you to remember that every time you bring that up, you're not talking about a Democrat.
		You're talking about a Republican president who did, as far as I know, nothing.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Susan, why did you become an independent last summer?
unidentified		Well, I'm a never-Trumper, number one.
unidentified		And I was asked to leave the Republican Party here in Alabama because I wouldn't vote for Trump.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Who asked you to leave, Susan?
unidentified		Part of the we don't call names.
		We don't even call Gavin Newsome Gavin Newscum, but we don't call names.
		But the hierarchy of the Republican Party, my late husband was a big contributor to the Republican Party.
		And I have not been.
		But when I heard Trump say that never Trumpers, this was the first name we had.
		We were human scum, which, you know, I had to look that up.
		I mean, I know there are a lot of shames in this world, like a dirty shame, a rotten shame, and then expletive shames.
		But I've never heard of human scum.
		And that's what he calls never Trumpers the first time.
		And then he got this name, Rhino, which I guess a Democrat name only would be a dino.
		What do you think?
		Anyway.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Well, Susan, we'll take your comments.
		Plenty of folks waiting.
		This is Jennifer in Neptune, New Jersey, Republican.
		Jennifer, go ahead.
unidentified		Hey, John, how are you doing today?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		I'm doing well.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You're going to vote in the primaries today in New Jersey?
unidentified		Oh, I early voted, and it was Spadia all the way, and I hope everybody else does the same.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Why is it Spadia all the way for you?
unidentified		Because he is the common sense guy.
		He knows what Jersey needs.
		I've listened to him on the radio for many, many, many years and always hoped that he'd throw his hat in the ring.
		And finally, it happened.
		I voted for Chitterelli last time only because he was the lesser of two evils.
		I think a lot of people did.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And he's run several times in the United States.
unidentified		Yeah, he's a two-time loser, maybe three tonight.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And then what do you think happens in the general election?
unidentified		Well, that'll depend.
		You know, we have those northern counties that we have to contend with.
		You know, they're pretty much blue along the shore here.
		We're pretty much red.
		So I don't know.
		It'll be a good fight.
		We'll see.
		It came very close last time.
		Hopefully this time it turns a tide.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is that what you wanted to talk about calling in?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, I asked you the question at the beginning rather than let you talk.
unidentified		No, I was going to hold that at the end, so that was the last fleeting thought before I got off the phone.
		But to the lady that just called about the cities burning, if she remembers, those were blue-run cities.
		And in order for any type of, you know, authority to come in from the federal government, they'd have to accept it on state level.
		And they turned it down every time he offered it.
		So yeah, he was the president during 2020, but it really wasn't his fault of what was going on in those states.
		And then I heard somebody else call earlier, earlier, this morning who said that Trump tripping up the Air Force One steps was all political theater and that the riots in LA are staged so that we don't talk about him going up the steps.
		We also want to go up the steps and trip.
		Everybody did.
		It's not a big deal.
		What she doesn't know is that when Biden was doing it a lot, a lot, all the time, people were concerned and not laughing.
		Now she's on the other foot, they're laughing.
		That's a problem.
		And then for anybody that wants to talk about January 6th and still thinks that that was an insurrection, those are the people who still think that COVID didn't come from a lab in China, Wuhan.
		So those are my thoughts today from Jersey.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Jennifer, a Bill Spadia voter today in the Garden State primary.
		This is Aaron in South Hill, Virginia.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I'm very concerned about Donald Trump evading our Constitution and getting around our Constitution.
		Along with the Supreme Court, people of Abel always have came to America different ways and all that there.
		I know there's a lot of immigrants here that have been here.
		A lot of people depend on them.
		They have used them for years.
		Exporting them this kind of way seems cruel.
		I understand they should come legally.
		But I'm really concerned about our Constitution being evaded.
		Now they're going around state law where they don't have to go to the governor before they bring in troops.
		I can't see them putting boots on the ground inside the United States, especially calling in the Marines.
		This is something that was done in the 60s.
		Really a racial thing.
		And I think it's a shame that Trump would go around the Constitution any kind of way he can.
		And people are not standing up, and our Supreme Court is not holding them, and Congress is not holding them to what's in the Constitution.
		And that's my concern about how they're evading and trying to get around the Constitution.
		These guys are so smart.
		Cash, J-Vance, they have picked some people that really want to pick through the Constitution.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Aaron, got your point from Virginia to the Yellowhammer State.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		This is Robert, Republican.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes.
		Can you hear me all right?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		I'd like to ask a question concerning those that are coming into the country illegally.
		The Democrats want to hand out a lot of taxpayers' money to all these people, but I would like to know: can you answer and make an account?
		Where is the financial aid money going to these countries?
		We send millions of dollars to Latin America, South America, other countries where these people come from, and there's no accountability.
		And it seems to me, maybe the next time you have a Democrat or Republican on, that they could possibly answer that question.
		And that's my main question for today.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Robert, have you ever checked Inspector General's reports, particularly for the State Department, or I'm assuming USAID is what you're particularly concerned about?
unidentified		Well, actually, actually, you have, I will answer that question.
		I have checked, and you have Democrats, and you have those that are against Israel claiming that Israel receives an abundant amount of taxpayers' money, and that's not true.
		When you compare to how much money Egypt alone gets, Syria, and various other Islamic countries receive in financial aid money, that well tops what Israel may receive.
		And mainly, Israel may receive some military aid.
		And that's another question.
		We talk about, you know, the Democrats are like, well, why should we send military aid to Israel?
		Well, what about the other countries, the Islamic countries?
		Saudi Arabia received one of the biggest contracts through Obama on military aircraft.
		What about Russia, North Korea sending money to Islamic weapons to Islamic countries?
		So all that needs to be addressed.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Robert in Alabama.
		This is Kathy in Middleton, Connecticut, Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		My concern is a little bit different.
		I have two comments.
		I am so upset and heartbroken about the U.S. aid.
		All that wonderful food and medication is rotting, and they're going to trash it.
		Bill Gates went yesterday or the day before and spoke with Rubio, and Rubio refused to even sell it to him.
		So you have all those people.
		Even though you don't see them, they're dying.
		The children are dying.
		The mom and dads are dying through no fault of their own.
		And we, as a compassionate nation, we're helping them.
		And we no longer, I mean, to just, Bill Gates offered to take it off their hands and provide these nourishments that keep babies alive.
		I just don't understand the administration's view on not helping save lives.
		And number two, the congresswoman that spoke this morning that said that Trump offered 10,000 folks to help out at the Capitol.
		That's a stone-faced lie.
		Trump was in his office all by himself watching Fox News, and he was in euphoria.
		This was his quintessential moment to see all these people going and killing people so that he could become and stay in power.
		I just don't like when people lie.
		The truth is the truth, and she did not tell the truth.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Those who are at your point in Connecticut on the foreign assistance side of your comments and the previous callers as well, website to go to using aid from the State Department, using numbers from the State Department.
		Foreignassistance.gov looks into foreign aid around the world.
		You can sort it by specific country, by specific fiscal year, by type of aid or obligation.
		So that might be a good place for the previous caller who was asking for data on that.
		This is Jimmy in Missouri Independent.
		Good morning.
jim marrs ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I would like to know how many different countries of people that came into the United States.
jim marrs ▲ ● ▼		You know, every time I look on the television, the only one they're going after is Hispanic-looking people.
unidentified		You know, there were several, several other countries.
		You don't see them going after Haitians or Africans or the Chinese or anything.
		The last time Trump was here, it was jump on the Hispanics.
		I am an Indian, American Indian, Choctaw tribe.
		Some Caucasian woman came up to me and said, you weren't handicapped enough to park in the handicapped parking lot and called me a filthy Mexican.
		What are we going to do?
		Are we just going to pick on the Mexicans or the people that look Hispanic?
		Or are we going to go after the Chinese?
		Are we just going to let them go by?
		How about the Caucasian people that came into this country?
		Are we going to go after them also, or are we just going to go after the Hispanic and haul them off somewhere?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Jimmy in Missouri.
		This is Lita Albuquerque, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi, and thank you for taking my call.
		It's a process.
		Anyway, thank you for the wealth of information and the job you do for the American public.
		I wanted to say, which president was it that pardoned all the draft dodgers from the Vietnam War?
		I'm a 70, almost 76-year-old woman here in Albuquerque, which is a sanctuary city.
		For heaven's sake, anyhow, we are a welcoming nation.
		Thank God we are.
		I mean, we've welcomed people.
		The Indians were not the first one to the previous gentleman.
		No, they were not.
		The Hispanics, the Orientals, the blacks, the whites.
		Come on, people, quit looking at the colors.
		You're doing the same thing that you did in 1968, 69, every time.
		Anyhow, thank you, C-STAN, and God bless America.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Karen, Elkhart, Indiana, Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		What I wanted to talk about, a couple things.
		First of all, what's going on in LA?
		Trump called in the National Guard, but on January 6th, when there was a riot in the Capitol, he refused to call in the National Guard.
		And I'm not understanding what that is.
		And it seems like he doesn't understand that the presence of the National Guard in the city provokes or raises up a different attitude to where people want to commit violence.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Also, the other thing I want to say: Karen, why does the presence of the National Guard make people want to commit violence?
unidentified		Because it seems it makes people feel like they're being attacked.
		And if you're going to attack me, I'm going to attack you.
		The other thing that I'm not understanding is Trump says that he's deporting criminals and people who have been known to be violent.
		But he has to remember that his father, who came from Germany, was a criminal.
		So we didn't stop him from coming in.
		They didn't stop him from coming in.
		And he's not only targeting what he says are criminals, but he's taking people out of college campuses.
		He's going to their homes.
		He's having them follow him around so they can get them by themselves and attack them.
		And he's not doing this correctly.
		This country was built on the fact that people from other countries can come here and start a new life.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Karen in Indiana.
		This is Natasha, Potomac, Maryland Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi, thank you so much for taking my call.
		I just, I keep hearing people complaining about how undocumented immigrants don't pay taxes and are taking something from our system.
		I just, I look at California.
		California is the fourth largest economy in the world.
		They're the highest GDP contributors to the country.
		They pay the largest amount of tax dollars, and their economy has a lot of undocumented workers in agriculture, in manufacturing.
		They're paying taxes, people.
		So when they're sending people to break up, people who are looking for work at Home Depot and people who are legitimately out there not in gangs, it's just very angering.
		No one, those people are not taking from our country.
		They're contributing tax dollars and they're not receiving anything for it.
		So, I just want to set the record straight that a lot of illegal immigrants are paying taxes.
		They're not taking from the country.
		And I think if people knew that, they would look at this a lot differently.
		California pays so much taxes more than a lot of those red states that are criticizing them.
		And that's all I really want to say.
		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		To Florida, this is Ken Republican.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		First, I'd just like to say thank you to C-SPAN, the only channel that does allow common people to throw their two cents into this circus.
		Secondly, I'd just like to repeat what I mentioned when I called in at three weeks after Trump's inauguration: that we're already living in a totally fascist, racist dictatorship.
		He's abandoned all of our allies across the world, European, Canadian, Greenland, everything.
		These tariffs are just a bunch of fluff that is going to do nothing but cause inflation and possibly a recession.
		I think we're in real trouble here, and I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.
		Thank you to C-SPAN.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		It's Ken in Florida, and Dave is in the Silver State in Las Vegas, Independent.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		First of all, Donald Trump, when they tried to overthrow the United States government, nobody did anything.
		The news media gives him a break.
		They don't hold him accountable for anything.
		He can break the law.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		He can say things like, Dave, when did he try to overthrow the government, Dave?
unidentified		When they would during January 6th, he had all those people go up there and nobody did anything.
		He let them do it.
		And now the few.
		See, you're a Republican.
		You give him a break.
		You don't let people talk.
		I'm trying to talk.
		It's early here in California.
		You know, when they did that, when you try to overthrow the government and you get people killed and nobody does anything, and he pardons all the people that got police officers killed, nobody cares.
		This guy's out of his mind.
		There's a book called The Dangerous Donald Trump.
		He's mentally deranged.
		He's dividing this country.
		He's hurting people.
		He's taking jobs.
		Ever since 107 days, thousands of people have lost their jobs.
		He's taken away health care.
		He's taken away Medicare.
		He's not doing anything for the country.
		He's not doing anything for the average people.
		All he wants to do is give millionaires and trillionaires big tax breaks.
		We're in big trouble, people.
		This guy is a communist.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Dave in Las Vegas, our last caller in this open forum.
		Stick around.
		Just under 30 minutes left this morning.
		In that time, we'll be joined by the Migration Policy Institute's Muzaffar Chishti.
		We'll discuss the Trump administration's new travel ban that bans travelers from a dozen countries and partially restricts those from another seven.
		Stick around for that discussion.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		And a count of two balls in one strike.
		And a swing of face-to-face 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 Thrilled into Center Field of Base Hit.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Two runs are going to score.
unidentified		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 if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage you can find it anytime online at c-span.org Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
		These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
		This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
		Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to c-SPAN.org slash radio on SiriusXM Radio on channel 455, the Tune-In 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.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		And a count of two balls in one strike.
unidentified		And a swing of base hit land deal.
		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.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Two runs are going to score.
unidentified		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.
		Looking to contact your members of Congress?
		Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
		Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
		This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
		Contact information on congressional committees, the President's Cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.
		The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's non-profit operations.
		Scan the code on the right, or go to c-spanshop.org to order your copy today.
jimmy carter ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is always an unfinished creation.
ronald reagan ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is worth dying for.
george h w bush ▲ ● ▼		Democracy belongs to us all.
bill clinton ▲ ● ▼		We are here in the sanctuary of democracy.
unidentified		Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies.
barack obama ▲ ● ▼		American democracy is bigger than any one person.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected.
unidentified		We are still at our core, a democracy.
		is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
		Washington Journal continues.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		A conversation now on the Trump administration's new travel restrictions affecting individuals from 19 different countries.
		Muzaffar Chishti joins us for this conversation.
		He's a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, I think tank, here in Washington.
		Mr. Chishti, good morning to you, sir.
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		Good morning to you, too.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		The latest actions from the Trump administration, a so-called travel ban.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What's your 30,000-foot view of not just the ban itself, but the countries that are being targeted by the more complete ban and the restrictions as well?
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		Well, this is an iteration of the travel bans that the Trump administration introduced in the first term of that presidency, which was finally at the end upheld by our Supreme Court.
		So these are countries mostly in the Middle East and in Africa, with the few exceptions of Myanmar in Asia and Venezuela in the Western Hemisphere.
		It's clearly designed to overcome the objections that the Supreme Court had initially felt about the travel bans last time.
		So to me, this is a narrower ban and probably legally will pass the muster.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		I want to dive into what that means, what a narrow ban means.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		But first, about two minutes from Donald Trump last week announcing this latest round of restrictions and explaining why he thinks they're necessary.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas.
		We don't want them.
		In the 21st century, we've seen one terror attack after another carried out by foreign visa overstayers from dangerous places all over the world.
		And thanks to Biden's open-door policies, today there are millions and millions of these illegals who should not be in our country.
		In my first term, my powerful travel restrictions were one of our most successful policies, and they were a key part of preventing major foreign terror attacks on American soil.
		We will not let what happened in Europe happen to America.
		That's why on my first day back in office, I directed the Secretary of State to perform a security review of high-risk regions and make recommendations for where restrictions should be imposed.
		Among the national security threats, their analysis considered are the large-scale presence of terrorists, failure to cooperate on visa security, inability to verify travelers' identities, inadequate record-keeping of criminal histories, and persistently high rates of illegal visa overstays and other things.
		Very simply, we cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States.
		That is why today I am signing a new executive order placing travel restrictions on countries including Yemen, Somalia, Haiti, Libya, and numerous others.
		The strength of the restrictions we're applying depends on the severity of the threat posed.
		The list is subject to revision based on whether material improvements are made.
		And likewise, new countries can be added as threats emerge around the world.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That was the president from last Wednesday.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Chishti, what was your reaction to that justification for these actions?
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		I think the president was suggesting that unlike the travel bans of the first Trump administration, which were blanket travel bans, they applied to every nationals of those countries.
		Here it is factors that the administration believes would undermine the national security of the United States.
		Now, it's not just one factor, it is the sanctity of the documents issued by these countries.
		It is the assumption of security threats in these countries and the rate of people overstaying their visas in the United States.
		So it's a combination of factors.
		So in that regard, it is much more nuanced, I think, than the first travel ban.
		And there are a number of exceptions provided, even if you come under the travel ban for people who have stronger connections to the United States, either in terms of family or diplomats who would be coming to the United States from these countries, they're still exempted.
		So there are more factors that take into account before a country has been put on the ban list, and many exceptions that will allow some people still to come despite the ban, therefore more nuanced, more layered.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And is that what the courts were looking for?
		Something more nuanced, more layered?
		Is that what you mean when you say a narrower ban?
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		The courts, Supreme Court, this was, to be clear to our viewers, this is a five to four decision.
		And then the opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts himself.
		And he said, look, in admission of people, unlike deporting people from the country, the president has a lot of leeway.
		There's a lot of deference to be shown to the president as to who is allowed in.
		And as long as there is a connection, a rational connection to a national security or a public interest, it passes the test.
		And he also said, look, there are world conditions that change all the time, and the judiciary cannot second-guess the administration.
		So in that regard, as long as there is a rational justification provided, that would, to me, seem is what the Supreme Court was saying in the last travel ban case.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		When you say that Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, was saying it passed the test, is this a test that this Supreme Court had to come up with?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Had this issue been tested before by the Supreme Court in decades or centuries past?
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		The President's leeway on immigration policy with respect to missions has been upheld by the courts for a very long time.
		I think in this case, there was a different challenge brought, which was based on that the countries that were listed in that travel ban and first Trump administration were predominantly Muslim countries.
		So there was an argument that there was a religious animus in that.
		And it did not help the president that he had made strong statements against Muslim countries when he was campaigning.
		So putting the two together, the plaintiffs in that case had said that the underlying issue was a religious animus.
		And the Supreme Court, basically, I think by the time the third iteration of the travel ban came, it had diluted that and the justification that the administration was providing for the Chief Justice past the muster.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And then I want to talk about a little deeper into the difference between a travel ban and a visa restriction.
		The 12 countries that have been targeted by the ban and the seven by the restrictions.
		Let me just read the list of the countries.
		This is from the New York Times page: Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen on the travel ban, as it's been called, for visa restrictions, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.
		Can you explain the differences a little bit more there?
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		Well, for the fully banned countries, it covers the broad spectrum of people, except for the exceptions.
		For the partially banned, it covers only people who are coming on immigrant visas, a certain kind of temporary visa.
		So, those are sort of the distinctions.
		And I think one of the things to be noted is that one of the countries which it affects is Venezuela.
		And Venezuela has been sending one of the largest numbers of people on this list.
		So, in terms of numbers, it may look like it's covering a swath of countries, but in terms of actual nationals, probably smaller numbers are going to be affected than other countries.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Was there any country on either of those two lists that particularly surprised you that it was included?
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		I think the Myanmar coming on the Asian side, Turkmenistan coming on the Asian side, they look like odd choices.
		We haven't been able to figure out why that is.
		But one country on the other side of this equation, which was not included in the travel ban this time, but was included in the first Trump administration, was Syria.
		And here you have sort of the Supreme Court saying, well, will conditions change?
		And what has changed from Trump 1 to Trump 2 is that the Trump administration this time has established relationship with Syria and warmed up to Syria.
		So, in that regard, it's not only the conditions in those countries to solve the foreign policy considerations that come into play.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Muzaffar Chishti is our guest.
		He's with us until the House comes in, and that's in about 15 minutes.
		So, go ahead and get your phone calls in with your questions or comments.
		Phone lines, as usual in this segment, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, Democrats, 202-748-8000, Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Mr. Chishti, as folks are calling in, you're a senior fellow with the Migration Policy Institute.
		Can you explain what the mission of the Institute is, how long it's been around?
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		We are a think tank, which is basically a policy and research organization.
		We believe we are the only think tank that focuses exclusively on immigration refugee issues.
		It's a DC-based think tank.
		We have an office in Brussels where we follow European policy.
		So, following immigration writ lodge is what we try to do.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And what has been your reaction?
		We spent a lot of this program today talking about the protests in Los Angeles.
		Your reaction to the ICE raids that led to those protests and where this goes from here.
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's unfortunate that this is unfolding so quickly.
		In many ways, both the optics and the politics of the situation are tailor-made for President Trump.
		President Trump, for quite some time, has been saying that there's an invasion of the border and there's sort of a rebellion in the country.
		And the president will think that he has brought the invasion of the border under control.
		And now, on display, are sort of the unruly scenes in the streets of our country.
		I think it started with people doing lawful protests against what they thought were harsh activities of ICE, but it has soon obviously gotten a lot of unsavory and I think anti-sort of security interests involved.
		So the violence is now in full display.
		We hope it doesn't escalate any further.
		But it's something that the local co-ops should have been able to manage themselves to bring in the National Guard and the Marines now, I think creates a militaristic image that probably could have been avoided.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Do you think the border is under control today?
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		The border is hugely under control.
		Just to be clear, the high watermark of border arrivals was December of 2023 when close to 250,000 people arrived at the border.
		Last month, there were 7,000 people.
		So in that regard, there's a sea change.
		But we must also add that the border had been brought under considerable control by the Biden administration towards its end.
		So in many regards, the current administration is just building up on the successes of the Biden administration towards its end.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Let you take some phone calls.
		This is Greg up first out of Glen Allen, Virginia, Independent.
		Greg, you're on with Muzaffar Chishti.
unidentified		Yeah, I have a question about Haiti.
		That seems to be an odd choice.
		Haitians are not a threat to the United States.
		If anybody qualifies for asylum, it would be Haitians.
		I mean, the country is being taken over by gangs right now.
		It's violent.
		I don't understand why Haiti is on the list.
		It seems like to me, I know sometimes they overstay visas, but don't forget what the Statute of Liberty says.
		And we accepted people under those kinds of conditions back in 1905.
		I don't know why we can't accept people under those kind of conditions today.
		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Tishti.
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		Well, I have a lot of sympathy for people coming from Haiti.
		I think Haitians are fleeing violence, which has really gotten worse in the last couple of years.
		So this does not affect technically the asylum policies.
		That if a Haitian is in the United States and claims that they have fear of persecution upon their return, they could still apply for asylum.
		This is only with respect to people traveling to the United States.
		And, you know, I'm in no position to second guess the factors that the administration took into account.
		But it's not just the violence that's to be taken into account.
		It's sort of the sanctity of the documents issued by the Haitian government.
		It's how many Haitians percentage-wise overstay the visa.
		Given the combination, it's not just one factor, it's a combination.
		The administration is arguing that Haiti rises to the level of scrutiny that people coming from Haiti deserve just in terms of their admission.
		And it may be, I think it will be challenged, and we'll see whether the arguments that you're making will prevail in the courts or not.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		If you're a country on this list, is the United States saying to you with these new restrictions that we simply don't trust your government?
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		I think it's saying a number of things.
		It's saying we don't trust the wetting of the documents from your government.
		It's saying we don't trust the security constraints that are used to wet people inside those countries.
		And it's saying that we don't trust a number of your nationals who come and overstay here.
		So if we're issuing visas, there's a sanctity that you will come and leave.
		And the argument is that there's a strong preponderance of people who don't.
		So those are, it's not just one factor, as I keep on repeating.
		These are combinations of factors.
		But having said all this, we have to appreciate that this travel ban comes on the heels of so many other immigration policies that this administration has put into effect in the last four months, which signal to the world that the U.S. is no longer a welcoming place as it used to be.
		That, I think, is something for us to note in terms of our own standing in the world.
		And let me just say one quick thing on this.
		The fifth judge who gave the five to four vote in the last travel ban case to achieve justice was Justice Kennedy.
		And he issued a concurring opinion, which basically said an anxious world is watching.
		An anxious world is watching to see how welcoming or unwelcoming the country is.
		In that regard, Justice Kennedy was issuing an alert, which has somewhat proved to be much more precious today than it was then.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What are the countries with the largest numbers of visa overstays in recent years?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And do those countries match up with this list of countries that was released by the president last week?
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		No, they don't always.
		That I think is going to be one of the arguments for challenging it.
		Like Colombia is one of the strongest overstay rates in the country.
		That's not included.
		Brazil is higher than many.
		Even Spain is higher than many.
		So there is an argument to be made that, look, it's not just about overstaying.
		So that, I think, is in a lawsuit is going to be a reasonably important argument.
		But as I keep on saying, and even the executive order says, it's not just the overstaying.
		So the overstaying argument may not prevail with respect to other countries, but if you combine it with the sanctity of the documents and the presence of some national security threats, the government may say the combination or the combination that prevails.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Let me go to Roy in Morrisville, North Carolina, Independent.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hello, and good morning.
		Thank you for cease band, and also good morning to Mr. Chishti.
		I want to go ahead and bring up one of the specific travel bans that you've been discussing earlier, specifically the one in Iran.
		I find it quite interesting that Iran is the one that's currently being subjected to a travel ban and not Syria this time around.
		And that's no doubt linked to the recent change in regime that occurred last year.
		I have a feeling that the Trump administration is going to go ahead and use that as leverage in the nuclear negotiations.
		I've been reading a recent article on Axios about how the administration has been holding a recent strategy session regarding Iran and Gaza.
		So I have a feeling that the administration is going to use that travel ban as leverage when it comes to the ongoing nuclear negotiations.
		And another thing I've been reading about apparently regards an internal split in the administration about how to handle Iran, like whether or not to negotiate or to bomb.
		I know it's a bit off topic, but I have a feeling those two topics are connected because the travel ban, in my opinion, is going to be no doubt going to be used as political leverage in Iran negotiations.
		Right.
		Another thing I'm concerned about.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Let me take those issues because those are two big issues.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Chishti.
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so I think on the first point with respect to Syria, I think you're absolutely right.
		Syria was on the travel ban list last time and was taken off the list.
		And that clearly means that foreign policy considerations are an important factor when an administration makes decisions like this.
		I think just pointedly, the Chief Justice said that in the last opinion: that look, there are conditions in the world that change.
		They relate to foreign policy.
		And you cannot really second guess the administration, was the Chief Justice's argument.
		In this case, the change of circumstances with respect to Syria are pointing in that direction.
		With respect to Iran, I cannot confirm that, but I would definitely not be surprised if the travel ban is used as a negotiating tactic in negotiations with Iran.
		That's what governments do all the time.
		And the administration will definitely do that.
		And I think the Supreme Court will say, well, that's consistent with how foreign policy is conducted.
		And the courts cannot double, you know, cannot second guess the administration on the exercise of those foreign policy imperatives.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Just a couple minutes left before the House comes in.
		This is Sheku in Hyattsville, Maryland.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		How are you doing?
		I'm from Sierra Leone.
		I'm a concern about this signing legal country, Sierra Leone, just get out of a very brutal war in 2000, trying to be a democratic country.
		And I see no reason why Sierra Leone is listed as a restricted country.
		Well, most Sierra Leoneans in this country here are hard-working people trying to make pens meet.
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, if I heard the question right, it's talking about the general contribution of immigrants and why we're being hostile to immigrants.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And he's from Sierra Leone, and he was focusing on specifically why Sierra Leone would be on this list.
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, I think just in the latter part, surely I think most of us believe that immigrants are a huge net plus to our country.
		This is particularly about just issuing, admitting people into the country with either immigrant visas or non-immigrant visas.
		And I can't speak specifically to the situation of Sierra Leone, sir.
		I think the administration is saying that, look, there is something about the way Sierra Leone documents are being issued, which don't have enough sanctity, or there's security concerns in Sierra Leone, which makes it more important to screen people from those countries.
		So we can't second guess what those factors are and what led the administration to come to that conclusion.
		All I'm saying here is that the Supreme Court has given the administration a lot of leeway in deference in how they weigh those factors, and courts cannot second guess that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And as we wait for the House to come in here, what's your expectation on the timeframe for legal challenges?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Does this get back up to the Supreme Court and when we could hear a response?
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		I think some organizations have already stated they intend to bring a legal challenge.
		I'm absolutely sure there will be a legal challenge brought.
		Every immigration action of this administration has been challenged.
		I think this will return back to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court composition has changed since.
		So we don't know how it will rule.
		But my expectation just on the precedent is that this has a much better chance of survival of the Supreme Court than the first travel ban did.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is there a path for Congress in all of this?
muzaffar chishti ▲ ● ▼		Yes, Congress cannot determine what factors the administration should use in weighing individual cases or individual countries.
		But Congress can make it easier for people from some countries to come on basis of some visa factors that the Congress can.
		But Congress can decide how many people can come and what categories can come.

▲