Yesterday evening, President Trump attended opening night of Les Miserable at the Kennedy Center, joined by Vice President Vance and the First and Second Ladies.
This follows his firing of the center's president and several board members in February and installing himself as the chairman of the board.
The president has also terminated federal contracts, federal grants for museums, theaters, and community arts programs nationwide.
We're asking you for this first half hour of the program, your thoughts on President Trump and the arts.
Do you support or oppose his actions?
Here are the numbers.
Republicans, 202748, 8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can send us a text to 202-748-8003, include your first name in your city-state.
And you can post your comments on social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
First, just to make sure that you're aware of some breaking news, CNN's reporting, an Air India flight to London has crashed with 242 people on board.
That is, it's the passenger plane, which was a Boeing, crashed shortly after takeoff from the airport in the Indian city of Ahmedabad.
Well, we've got a lot to talk about today in today's program.
Later, we'll have guests discussing the protests in LA and across the country.
We'll talk about trade and tariff negotiations and cuts to the health and human services budget.
That's later.
But this first half hour, we are focused on the arts.
And this is USA Today with the headline, Trump and First Lady booed and cheered at the Kennedy Center while attending Les Miserable.
It says that the mixed reception for Trump and his wife Melania as they arrived in the presidential box reflected the heightened emotions that have been unleashed by his overhaul of the Cultural Center.
This was his first time attending a show at the famed location where he installed himself as chairman in February after firing many members of the board.
Let's take a look at video of his arrival and the reaction.
That was courtesy of video from Megan Messerly, a reporter with Politico.
Well, here he was at the red carpet, him and Melania, and he spoke to reporters very briefly.
Take a look.
unidentified
We want to bring it back and bring it back better than ever.
As you know, it needs a little help from the standpoint of age and fitness, but it's going to be fantastic.
Well, we're going to save the Kennedy Center.
We're going to make it incredible.
We have all the funding.
We raised it a lot tonight.
We'll put in a lot of money to bring it back to the IS level, higher than it was ever before.
That was last night at the Kennedy Center here in Washington, D.C. Reuters Ipsos did a poll in April asking the question, should President Trump control national museums and theaters?
So let's take a look at a portion of the executive order that he signed.
It's called restoring truth and sanity to American history.
It says this, it is the policy of my administration to restore federal sites dedicated to history, including parks and museums, to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect union and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity and human flourishing.
Museums in our nation's Capital should be places where individuals go to learn not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.
That is from the executive order that president Trump signed at the end of march.
Regarding the arts, and we're getting your opinion on that we'll go to Stewart, who's in New YORK Democrat hi Stewart hi, how are you?
unidentified
Um, i'm really.
I've been a lone Democrat for a long time, but also in the arts as well, and what i've seen if you look at the past years of the Kenny Center, but also Republicans Democrats, it's all been the same.
So it's not being liberal, it's really.
You know, the approach that Trump has taken is not the right way.
Uh, you know, you want to unite the country, you want to bring the country together.
We're in a very diverse and very divided time right now and I this is a time that he should be taking the mantle and saying we will come together.
But this is not about coming together.
This is about putting his footprints on every institution and make it his own, I think, label.
You know, because if you look back of it, of his history, of what he represents, he doesn't represent America.
Okay, you know.
I mean, that's what it comes down to.
If he wants to look at the America people, he has to look at the culture more.
You know, and I and personally I think this is, you know, a black eye, because he's been always kind of like the outcast of the media.
You know, because he always says fake news.
The bottom line is is that he's not looking at the big picture.
You know it's all about him and you know his mega base.
Let's talk to John in Rockville, Maryland, Republican.
Hi, John.
unidentified
Hi.
I wanted to say that I do support his efforts.
A lot of his work to restore classical architecture and then focus on the focus on art historically prior to, say, the past 100 years, beauty has been understood as something objective.
It's not just whatever I want.
And what's developed in modern American culture is a view of freedom where it's basically just whatever I want.
And beauty, the idea associated with beauty that there's not an objective standard.
And things are put forth that are grotesque, that are offensive, that are disgusting.
And people do that in the name of freedom.
And so him restoring sanity to the arts and things that are uplifting and things that you can take your five-year-old to see without having to cover their eyes, those are good things.
And a culture that upholds decency is a good culture.
Trump Tower Demolition00:03:06
unidentified
So I completely support what he's doing, and I'm thankful for it.
And here's Ken, Democrat in Jackson Heights, New York.
Good morning.
unidentified
Hi.
I do not support.
Donald Trump personally destroyed a major piece of American art.
If you Google Donald Trump, Bonwit Teller Building, Art Deco, and Destroy, you'll get an Art News news article entitled, When Donald Trump Raised the Bonwit Teller Building, He Promised the Met its Art Deco Freeze.
So what happened was Bonwood Teller Building, built in the 1920s, Donald Trump bought the building to tear it down and build up Trump Tower.
The building had been built in the 1920s.
It had this marvelous Art Deco artwork on the outside, and MoMA wanted that for itself.
And MoMA went to Trump and said, all we need you to do is bring it to the ground.
We will take it away.
We will put it in our museum.
We will credit you.
All we need you to do is to bring it from up high in the building to the ground.
Donald Trump agreed.
MoMA made preparations to move it.
And then it was gone.
And Trump said, I don't know what happened to it.
I told my people not to do anything to it.
But it was destroyed.
It was gone.
Donald Trump, he lied.
Because to do this, it would take a day or two away from the demolition of Bonwood Teller and then the building of Trump Tower.
It says by this point in 2024, the center had generated over $4 million in revenue from selling subscriptions to its theater, dance, classical, and other seasons of performance.
This year, it has generated 2.6 as of June 1st.
And that's internal data provided by the Washington Post.
And here's Ryan, Clearwater, Florida, Independent Line.
unidentified
Yeah, I've got a couple points to make, if you can bear with me.
The arts are being used as essentially an establishment of religion because they're pushing a universalist church mission statement.
And all the counties in this country are using arts and funding arts to basically push a religion that is human secularism.
And so I want to see the Kennedy Center tore down or rent it out.
We should not be funding that.
There's three standards we should be using to fund things.
Number one, is it constitutional?
Does the Constitution absolutely require the funding of it?
Number two, is it ethical?
If it's not ethical, we shouldn't be funding it.
Number three, is it absolutely, unequivocally necessary?
Those are the three standards Doge should be looking at.
Those are the standards that every single program should look at if they're going to be funded.
If they can't meet those three standards, then they should not be funded.
And arts is not something that is constitutionally mandated, just like education is not constitutionally mandated.
I guess, first off, in response to the prior caller, I think that he should probably take notice of the constitutional article and section regarding Congress and the funding of arts and sciences and that being a necessary function of the government.
That's why we have copyright office.
That's why we have the patent and trademark offices.
That's why contributions and donations to the arts have been a part of governmental functions since the establishment of our United States.
As far as Donald Trump's position as president and leader of the Kennedy Center, I would personally like to see his role be somewhat more ceremonial.
I don't believe that our president has the time or should be taking the time to specifically reach into and have such direct impact on things that are going on within the government.
That's a pretty small thing for him to be focusing his time and his energy on.
Now, I understand why it is that that is a part of his ideology.
I think that we can all agree, whether you're Republican or Democrat or liberal or conservative, that Donald Trump does want to see his name and his impact and his footprint essentially made on the United States.
And that's what every president should do.
Every president wants some large piece of legislation, some bill, some thing that they get to hang their hat on and say that, yes, I was responsible for doing this.
And that's what made my time as president so wonderful and made it change and have a positive effect on American society.
This was printed in U.S. News and World Report in February by Liesel Gerenholtz saying this: whether by silencing intellectuals and artists or destroying cultural sites, the goal of cultural erasure is clear, to control the narrative, suppress dissent, and restrict freedom.
Trump's focus on the Kennedy Center must be viewed through this lens.
It is a strategic move to harness the power of culture to shape public consciousness and, by extension, public political ideals.
Trump's desire to create a, quote, golden age of culture oversteps the proper role of government and is part of a broader and alarming trend.
When a state dictates culture, it undermines the freedoms that allow democracy to thrive.
Wonder what you think of that.
Do you agree with that?
Do you disagree with that?
We'll hear from Laura in Gaithersburg, Maryland, Independent.
Hi, Laura.
unidentified
Good morning.
Yeah, I guess I disagree with that.
I'm okay with President Trump getting involved.
I think the left has used art and movies, Hollywood, whatever.
They've used that to change the narrative.
And I think that it's time to change the narrative back.
And I think, John, your previous caller, about bringing back decency and morality to this country is essential.
We've just, you know, we've just lost our minds.
You know, people are just, you know, children.
These children are just killing one another with no regard for life.
It just shows you how the government has failed.
And I agree with the gentleman about the education system, that should not be controlled by the government either.
All the power needs to be relinquished back to the states, and then the federal government needs to be limited to the four things that are mandated in the Constitution.
I'm a constitutional libertarian, and I believe that we need to abide by our Constitution.
And I think whatever Trump does, it usually is good.
It ends up better than it was before.
And I think that'll happen here.
So I think the left is losing now, and they're trying to, you know, change.
Everything Trump does is wrong.
Well, that's not true.
The majority of things Trump has done is right and has been good for Americans.
This is Tom in Trenton, New Jersey, Republican line.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
Yeah, my opinion is: I think he wants to go back to all the old stuff where the Democrats changed the holidays, the Indian on the Redskins, and it's our history.
Whether it's good, bad, or ugly, we became the best country in the world.
So to change all that stuff that the Democrats did and all this stuff for all these institutions, I agree with going back the way everything was, not changing it for your narrative like the Democrats did.
I'm glad Donald Trump is doing all this stuff.
I just want to go back to, you know, I know there's some stuff that was bad that we've done it, and I disagree with it, but it is our history.
And that's how we changed and became the best country in the world.
It says the Smithsonian affirms independence after Trump says he fired head of National Portrait Gallery.
He says the president targeted museums and performing art centers for being, quote, partisan.
It says this: The Smithsonian tried to affirm its autonomy from outside influences in a statement on Monday after President Trump announced that he had fired National Portrait Gallery head Kim Sagitt for being a highly partisan person.
The institution is the world's largest museum, education, and research complex.
It sent the statement after a Monday Board of Regents meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, according to a document that ABC News obtained.
It says the Board of Regents meetings are held at least four times a year.
Vance and Roberts are both ex-officio members, meaning they act in advisory roles.
Here's a statement from Lonnie Bunch, the secretary.
He says this: All personnel decisions are made by and subject to the direction of the secretary with oversight by the board.
And so they are pushing back on that firing.
There's also other people on the panel.
This is there are several senators, including John Bozeman, Catherine Cortez-Masto, and others.
You can read that at ABC News.
And here's Jim Riva, Maryland, Democrat.
Good morning, Jim.
unidentified
Good morning.
I worked at the Kennedy Center for 35 years, and I remember when Bernstein's mass opened the Kennedy Center.
There was nudity, there was a lot of other things, all through productions throughout the Kennedy Center.
And for the most part, it was very tasteful.
It was an art form.
I've seen many, many different ballet companies come in and out of the Kennedy Center.
Some of them could be considered risque, but for the most part, it was art.
And for someone like the President of the United States to take over the Kennedy Center and to decide what people should watch and what they shouldn't watch is just another example of his arrogance and ignorance.
Here's Michael in New Kensington, Pennsylvania, Republican.
Good morning, Michael.
unidentified
Good morning, Mimi.
Thank you for taking my call and thanks for C-SPAN.
And I have to agree with Trump's take on the Kennedy Center and on so much of our arts, which has become, as one caller mentioned, very human, secularist, and not even close to what our founding fathers thought this country should be involved in.
What the Congress did early on was pass print and pass out Bibles to the people.
America the Miracle Movie00:04:43
unidentified
I'm not saying that we should become a theocracy.
The founding fathers did not want that either.
But they knew how important morality and ethics were to the foundations of this country.
And if this self-government was to survive, that was such an important piece.
I just saw a movie last night which was only shown for three days all over the country.
And it's called America the Miracle.
And I would suggest that everybody take a look at that movie because it was from a book that I read a long time ago by Michael Medved.
And basically, he calls it the American Miracle, where he talked about so many things that happened in our country's histories and how our founding fathers had true respect for providence and true respect for what God has given us and how we should try to live our lives.
All right, Michael, and that's the time for this segment.
But later on the Washington Journal, we'll have Wall Street Journal Trade and Economic Policy Reporter Gavin Bade.
He'll discuss the latest in U.S.-China trade talks and overall Trump administration tariff agenda.
But up next, we've got Nebraska Republican Representative Don Bacon, a member of the Armed Services Committee, to discuss ongoing protests in Los Angeles and around the country and the role of the U.S. military.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
Join C-SPAN for live coverage of the U.S. Army's 250th Anniversary Parade and Celebration, Saturday from Washington, D.C., commemorating June 14, 1775.
the historic date when the Continental Congress established the Continental Army and laid the foundation for America's national military force.
This June 14th, witness a tribute to the Army's evolution from the Revolutionary War to today.
With nearly 7,000 soldiers and period in modern uniforms marching along Constitution Avenue near the National Mall, the parade will showcase Army vehicles and equipment, aerial flyovers, and a timeline of U.S. Army history.
The celebration continues with a ceremonial enlistment and re-enlistment event featuring President Trump, dramatic parachute jumps by the Army's Golden Knights, a live concert, and a finale with fireworks.
Watch the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary parade and celebration Saturday, starting at 6 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 2:45 p.m. Eastern, British columnist Melanie Phillips shares her book, The Builder's Stone, which examines the contributions of Jews and Christians to the development of the West.
Then at 7 p.m. Eastern, Edward Tenner examines the unintended consequences of science and technological developments in his book, Why the Hindenburg Had a Smoking Lounge.
And at 8 p.m., author David Fisher and former talk show host Montel Williams, who served in the U.S. Navy and Marines for more than 20 years, share their book, The Sailing of the Intrepid, that looks back at the history of the World War II aircraft carrier.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
In a nation divided, a rare moment of unity.
This fall, C-SPAN presents Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins in a town where partisan fighting prevails.
One table, two leaders, one goal, to find common ground.
This fall, ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
But if the Marines are well trained and are very focused, maybe it's providing defense of federal facilities, things like that, if it's a very defined mission, I think we'll be fine.
But the Guard is, the State Guard is there for these purposes, and that should be the primary military branch or the military personnel to help out a state.
I want to ask you about a post, an article in the Washington Post with the headline, Immigration Authorities raided an Omaha meat production plant Tuesday morning and took dozens of workers away in buses, leaving company officials bewildered because they said they had followed the law.
Now, the head of that company had said, look, we used E-Verify, and the immigration officer said to him, The system's down, I guess, or E-Verify is not working.
And he's like, what am I supposed to do with that information?
And he wants essentially the old borders of the Soviet Union back.
And I want clarity from this administration and our Secretary of Defense that this is a problem.
And so we're going to push them on that.
I will also question the firing of the four-star generals.
You know, the President and the Secretary of Defense have every right to fire someone and hire who they want, but there's a thing called decency here that we let people know why you fire them.
And the American people deserve to know why did we fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs?
Why did we fire the Navy Chief of Staff?
Why did we fire the Commander of Cyber Command?
I worked with a lot of these people.
I was colonels with several of them, one stars with them.
These were people who gave their whole adult life to their country.
Do you feel confident that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense would be able to stand up to the president and say, you know, sir, that order is not lawful.
That order is not something that we can carry out as the U.S. military, which happened in the first term, right?
I mean, you remember President Trump in the first term said, you know, we should shoot the protesters in the knees.
He says, never been a big fan of goose-stepping soldiers and big tanks and missiles rolling down the street.
So if you asked me, I wouldn't have done it.
I'm not sure what the actual expense of it is, but I'm not really, he goes, we were always different than the images you saw of the Soviet Union and North Korea.
We were proud not to be that.
And I don't, I'm not proposing that that's the image people want to project, but I'm worried about the image, that it isn't necessarily the best image to show.
Representative Bacon, I've seen you before on C-Time, and I really respected you, but I have to disagree with something you said earlier because I saw an interview yesterday with the chief of police of that city in California.
And you said he asked for help, but he didn't actually say that.
The president said that he asked for help.
But I saw an interview with him yesterday where he said he did not ask for help.
He said he had everything under control.
And the president jumped the gun, and I think he did that because he hates the governor of California.
And I think in this case, they were mainly there to defend federal facilities, which if the police weren't there, maybe these federal facilities would be vandalized.
We've seen you on C-SPAN several times, and I really tip my hat to you because you come in and you speak and you speak your truth.
And, you know, I really appreciate that.
Representative Bacon, I'm a native California.
I'm here in California, and I've been here in California since 1952.
Civil, peaceful civil disruption is, you know, our guarantee right under the First Amendment.
But Representative Bacon, I've been living long enough to remember when J. Edgar Hoover was the director of the FBI and when he established a program called COINTELPRO, which the primary goal was to surveil, infiltrate, disrupt, and neutralize domestic political organizations.
They had that playbook since 1956.
They still have that playbook to this day, sir.
Volatile Middle East Diplomacy00:10:06
unidentified
And, sir, I've been there, I've done that, and you can't tell me that the government still does not use the playbook of ConIntel Pro.
And what you see may not really be what you see.
Those demonstrators, those fires that you see may have been infiltration by the government.
The government does this, sir.
So I'm not being a conspiracy theorist or anything like that.
I think there's no doubt that we have law enforcement to include the FBI.
They'll try to infiltrate terrorist organizations or organizations that want to create violence.
And we have lots of books written about those movies, but I don't think our FBI agents or other law enforcement individuals are there to cause these organizations to break the law or trying to lead them down the wrong path.
They're there to monitor and say, okay, we got a problem in this whatever organization, terrorist organization we're talking about.
So I think our FBI agents and other law enforcement agents, they're there to protect us.
If they infiltrate organizations, they're there to, okay, is this group a problem or not?
Congressman Bacon, I've got a question concerning terrorists concerning President Trump and Mike Pompeo in 2018.
They supposedly had the release of the second under command of Bin Laden, which gave him three years to put together the Taliban to run through Afghanistan.
And Trump was going to get him out of Afghanistan in May of 2021 if he was elected.
And what would he do with all the equipment from there?
And I'm tired of hearing that.
We lost Marines.
I'm a disabled American veteran from the Marine Corps.
And it upsets me very much that our country's going like this.
Another caller in Lincoln, Nebraska, this time a Republican.
Robert, you're on with Representative Don Bacon.
unidentified
Yes, sir.
I appreciate your service.
And the one thing about the firing of these generals is the withdrawal from Afghanistan, I thought it was a complete disaster with the loss of 13 soldiers.
And maybe those generals had something to do with that withdrawal.
They didn't have the guts to tell the president we are totally against what you're doing here.
General Milley was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time, not General Brown.
And General Milley subsequently retired before General Brown.
But General Milley was the chairman, and we had a different CENTCOM commander than we have now.
And I know for a fact that General Milley and the CENTCOM commander both told President Biden that they disagreed with the plan, that the plan was going to fail, and they got overruled.
And so they said it was a lawful order, so we did it, and we ended up with 13 servicemen and women murdered by a terrorist.
But our military leaders did tell the president that the plan was going to fail, and they got overruled.
But General Brown is now the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
He really had very little to do with Afghanistan, and he got fired.
The four-star admiral that was fired had nothing to do with Afghanistan, and General Hawk had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
And there's been a total of seven four-star generals, I believe, that were fired.
And I'm not aware that any one of them had anything to do with the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Most of those people had already retired and moved on.
Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon, despite what our Director of National Intelligence is saying in the last couple of days.
I think it's universally believed by most intelligence agencies that Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon.
So put yourself in the shoes of Israel.
Iran has said they're going to destroy Israel.
And if you're the prime minister or the defense establishment in Israel, you have a country close to getting a nuclear weapon, and they're saying their goal is to destroy you, you can't ignore it.
And so I think Israel is looking at targeting these sites.
Here is John, Dearborn, Michigan, Independent Line.
Hi, John.
unidentified
Hey, good morning.
I mean, the representative just said the next nuclear war.
There won't be a next one if we have nuclear war.
We're all going to die.
And he just said Israel has to take care of its own defense strategy.
No, actually, we, the U.S. taxpayer, are taking care of Israel's defense strategy.
But my question is, if Hamas killed about 1,200 people and that was bad, evil, reprehensible, what adjective would you use, Representative, to describe the amount of people Israel's killed since that day?
Israel has every right to go into Gaza to root out Hamas.
When Hamas comes in and murders 1,200 people, captures or held prisoners several hundred, now we're down to about 50, they still have these hostages.
Some are alive, some are dead.
And Israel has every right to go after Hamas and destroy him.
Now, if Hamas could have peace today, if they said, okay, here's the other 50 or so hostages, some are alive, some have been killed, they still got the bodies, maybe this war would stop.
But you can go after the current leadership, and you could probably take control of the tunnels, these vast tunnel networks where they're operating out of.
It's hard.
It's not easy.
And fighting in an urban environment is never easy.
But if you were Israel, what is the alternative?
These guys murdered 1,200 people.
They raped innocent women.
They murdered babies.
I talked to one guy who was there who pulled a baby out of an oven, that the Hamas put this baby in an oven and killed it that way.
What a terrible.
So if you're Israel, what recourse do you have?
Now, Hamas, if they were serious, they could say, hey, we've had enough war.
Let's return the hostages and let's have peace negotiations.
Here's James in Buffalo, New York, Independent Line.
Good morning, James.
unidentified
Good morning to all.
I just had a couple statements and then a question.
This entire problem with all these immigrants and or illegals, it's really because we gave Joe Biden the budget he wanted to.
So this is on the Republicans.
We've been in charge for a couple of years now, and you just shot it out the door.
So this leads into my next question.
I've been calling for years for the Major Richard Starr Act.
Veterans Funding Debate00:04:10
unidentified
And it appears that we're last in line because right before Biden left, you guys stuck in there and voted on for teachers to get their Social Security and to make a ton of money.
But the Major Richard Starr Act hasn't gone anywhere.
So are we going to do something for veterans this year or not?
And I have to go back and review all the specifics, but we're talking about disabled veterans and they're getting their full retirement.
I think that's what that bill is.
And I'm on that legislation.
But I'm one of 435 members of the House.
We've got 100 members in the Senate.
So I'm one vote.
But I support it.
I think it's right.
What happens is people serve their full 20, 30 years, whatever it may be, and then they have a disability, and their disability is subtracted from their pension.
And if you've earned disability, you should get that.
And if you've earned your pension, you should get that.
It shouldn't subtract from each other.
And so I support the collar in that regard.
But I always find it interesting when people blame us for President Biden's lack of border and letting in 11 million folks.
That was all on President Biden.
And for two years, it was totally Democrat-controlled government, too.
But when you have Republicans in the House, you've got a Democrat Senate, Democrat President, I don't think it's fair just to blame one party, or at least the Republicans, for the behavior of the president.
We try to do our best to stop them on it, but ultimately it's President Biden.
I think the president has to work with us and make this better.
So I am in opposition.
That said, I'm in current negotiations with the leadership on this as well.
But this is what troubles me: what we received from the White House and what we have in this legislation, it goes sort of like this: cut $400 million from this overall big program, cut a billion on this program, cut $200 million.
These numbers, and it's attached to an overarching program.
But when you ask them, what are you actually cutting?
You don't get answers.
And we control the purse.
I think I could support most of this if there were specifics.
So, PEPFAR, a very important program that fights AIDS in Africa, it has saved 27 million lives, it's believed.
7 million babies were born to moms who had AIDS.
And because of the care we provided, those babies don't have AIDS.
This is a noble program.
I think we should be proud of the work that we did.
It started with George Bush.
So they could cut $400 million.
And you ask, what are you actually cutting?
It appears it's AIDS prevention programs, but it's not very clear.
And so I could just, you look, you go up and down this thing.
We're wanting specifics.
And I think if the White House worked with us, and actually just negotiate with us a little bit, so you want to cut 100% of PBS.
There's a lot of us have a hard time with that.
Let's talk about it: 20%, 30%.
I think you could probably get this passed, but 100% defunding of PBS.
A lot of us struggle with that.
I have a great relationship with our local public TV and radio.
But I think my main concern is a lack of specifics.
I mean, you could say we're going to cut $400 million for PEPFAR.
What exactly?
And we're not getting good answers on that.
And so I just asked the White House, work with us.
We want to cut spending, but we also want to know what we're cutting.
And that's Don Bacon, Representative of Nebraska and a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Thanks so much as always for coming in.
Later on the program, former NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmas discusses the future of federally funded medical research amid spending cuts at that agency.
In several recent episodes of Book Notes Plus, we have featured books from the World War II era.
An important figure from that time has been mentioned, but not discussed during any of those interviews.
Her name is Elizabeth Bentley.
She was the first person to reveal to the FBI and the Congress the names of people living in the United States and spying for the Soviets, both Americans and foreign-born operatives.
In order to better understand this former communist spy turned informant, we asked Catherine Olmsted, author of Red Spy Queen, a biography of Elizabeth Bentley, to tell us the late spy story.
unidentified
Author Catherine Olmsted with her book Red Spy Queen on this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
As Mike said before, I happened to listen to him.
He was on C-SPAN 1.
That's a big upgrade, right?
But I've read about it in the history books.
I've seen the C-SPAN footage.
If it's a really good idea, present it in public view on C-SPAN.
He's a policy reporter for the Wall Street Journal in Trade and Economic Policy.
Welcome to the program, Gavin.
Thanks, Mimi.
Okay, so the U.S. and China held trade talks in London earlier this week.
President Trump says a U.S.-China deal is done.
Is it done?
unidentified
We have to take his word for it.
I mean, this is mostly a handshake deal to kind of relieve tensions that have been building up in the past month since the previous trade deal in Geneva.
And so basically what happens is this gets us back to where we were in early May with that Geneva deal.
That was when the U.S. and China came together.
They said we're going to mutually reduce tariffs for 90 days and set a negotiation schedule to talk about a litany of issues.
Well, since then, each side has accused the other of violating the deal.
The U.S. was saying that China was choking off export licenses for rare earth minerals.
These are the high heat resistant magnets that go into defense applications and importantly, go into automotive, the automotive sector as well.
The Chinese said, well, you're violating it by putting export controls on of your own.
So we were seeing some non-tariff activity outside of this deal that was kind of raising tensions and decreasing trust between the sides.
They got together in London this week and 48 hours of very intense negotiations.
They came to a handshake deal to say, we'll stop the export controls and we'll just kind of get back to talking about tariffs like we were.
All right, let's talk first about those rare earth metals.
Tell us a little bit more.
You wrote an article here in the Wall Street Journal, China's Lock on Rare Earths Dictated Path Toward Trade Truce.
unidentified
Yes, so these are rare earth minerals that go into these, again, high, like heat-resistant magnets that are needed for guided missile systems, but they're also needed for components of electric vehicles and modern, you know, modern electronics of every type, right?
And the problem from the U.S. perspective is that while these so-called rare earth minerals aren't all that rare, China has a lock on the processing of these minerals, taking them from the raw material to a usable sort of material for these magnets.
Well, we're trying to ramp that up, but the problem is we've ceded a lot of that ground to China.
It's a very dirty process and in some cases, difficult to be profitable in the U.S.
And so the Chinese have strategically subsidized this sector to do exactly this, to get a lock on this supply chain so they can have everyone else be kind of subservient to them in this industry, right?
And so they have a chokehold on this.
They were starting to review these licenses and really slow their approval down to a trickle.
And you saw these automakers coming to the U.S. government, coming to the White House over the last month and saying, if we don't start getting some more rare earth export licenses out of China, we may have to shut down production in Michigan and in other states.
Pandemic-style stoppages is what they were talking about.
I think that really got the White House's attention here that you would see not just difficulties for the defense sector, which of course they care about, but there were threats of reverberations throughout the consumer and industrial economy here.
That's really what brought the two sides to the table this week.
So one thing that the United States has said is we're not going to let Chinese students into the country to study here in higher education.
And that was agreed that Chinese students could come in this negotiation.
Why is that so important to China?
Can't they study anywhere else?
unidentified
Well, the U.S. says, you know, our university system really is the envy of the world.
And it's a highly competitive operation in China to get your child into an American university.
Those degrees are world-renowned.
They hold a lot of prestige, not just here, but back in China as well.
And so, you know, especially for striving families or families of party members, really love to get their kids into an American university for the same reason American families would as well.
Since I last testified before Congress in May, the President announced the historic U.S.-UK-UK trade deal.
This arrangement, which creates a $5 billion export opportunity for American ranchers, farmers, and manufacturers, is a preview of what's to come.
Dozens, dozens of countries have engaged the administration thus far with offers to improve their trade relations with the United States.
This includes China.
I have just returned in the middle of last night from successful negotiations in London with a Chinese delegation that will not only stabilize the economic relationship between our two economies, but make it more balanced.
China has a singular opportunity to stabilize its economy by shifting away from excess production towards greater consumption.
But the country needs to be a reliable partner in trade negotiations.
If China will course correct by upholding its end of the initial trade agreement we outlined in Geneva, and I believe after our talks in London they will, then the rebalancing of the world's largest, two largest economies is possible.
Well, I think that is what the administration would like, is that they are going to go out and do a litany of trade deals over a dozen.
We were promised at one point 90 deals in 90 days after they paused the reciprocal tariffs in early April.
I think they're having some trouble with that, right?
We also heard during that hearing, the Treasury Secretary say that they may extend the deadline for reimposing those emergency tariffs.
Those are the ones that were imposed on Liberation Day.
Then they were paused for negotiations.
We're coming up to that July 9th deadline when they are scheduled to go back into place for countries that don't do a deal with the U.S. Scott Besant yesterday also said we may extend that deadline for some nations because they're having some trouble doing this.
It's very difficult to get these trade deals together.
Usually a comprehensive trade agreement takes years to negotiate, not 90 days.
And although these are much more narrow in scope, what they're talking about, they're also trying to do over a dozen at the same time.
So, you know, while you're dealing with the Chinese, you're also, your staff's also dealing with the Japanese, the South Koreans.
Very, very difficult to square that circle, at least in the timeframe that we've said.
So I think this story is going to keep going on past that July 9th deadline.
Are there any, when it comes to the trade with China deal, is there any disagreements that still remain?
Is there anything that's still open for negotiation?
unidentified
Yeah, I mean, I think most things are still open for negotiation.
There are irritants all over this relationship, right?
So we haven't, we had a narrow handshake deal.
It's unclear how much is even on paper over this export control issue.
But there's still things that could bubble up to the surface.
The Trump administration is considering sectoral tariffs using its national security authority on a litany of products, right?
From copper to lumber, critical minerals, semiconductors.
When it comes out with those tariffs, which are kind of on a separate track here, that could reinflame tensions with China as well, because that will also hit their exports to the U.S.
So there are potholes in the road everywhere you look here.
And I think it's just kind of a matter of time before we see the kind of ship of state hit one of those.
And then we have another inflammation of tariff tensions here again.
If you've got a question for our guest, Gavin Bade of the Wall Street Journal, anything about trade and tariffs, you can give us a call.
The lines are Republicans 202748-8001, Democrats 202748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
Is there any role, Gavin, for Congress in approving these agreements?
unidentified
Well, the administration has said that these are going to be executive agreements, that they're not going to take these deals to Congress for approval.
Now, that has been the case with a lot of what Trump has wanted to do on trade.
He's not really sought congressional approval for any of his tariffs or any of his trade moves so far.
The fact is, is that trade is supposed to be an Article I congressional authority under the Constitution.
Now, over decades, Congress has given more and more power to the executive branch to do these trade deals.
We've seen some people in Congress, like your previous Don Bacon, say maybe Congress needs to think about retaking some of that authority.
But there's not that much appetite for challenging the president's authority on trade among congressional leadership on the Republican side right now.
So I think we're going to see Congress continue to take a back seat in these trade negotiations.
This is a chart of tit-for-tat tariffs between the U.S. and China.
Can you tell us kind of where we were and where we are?
You can kind of see that they kind of jumped up and then came back down.
So are we looking at a 10% tariff on American goods going into China and then a 30% on Chinese goods coming into the United States?
unidentified
So it's 30%.
Those are just the second term tariffs.
So that's the 10% baseline tariff, as the Trump administration calls it, added to 20% tariffs that they applied to penalize China for its role in the fentanyl trade.
You have to add that to the tariffs that Trump put on in his first term that still persist today.
Now, these are called so-called Section 301 tariffs.
They cover only specific products.
The Trump administration has done some rough math, and they say if you add those first-term tariffs to the second-term tariffs, you get to about 55%.
That's overshooting it a little bit.
Most economists would put the average tariff rate over all product classes around 34%, 35% right now.
That's a sizable impact on imported consumer goods.
I think we're going to see that continue rolling out throughout the consumer economy over the next few months.
Companies are really just getting to the end of their stockpiles that they were bringing in to kind of avoid the worst tariffs.
But that's still a, it's a big de-escalation from where we were just a few months ago when we had 145% tariffs on China.
That was basically a trade embargo.
So the tariff goes up, it comes down.
I think we're going to see that change a lot over the next few months and years as we continue talking with the Chinese.
So when do you think consumers will start to see a difference?
unidentified
I would suspect that we already are in some products.
I mean, we've heard, you know, we've heard we're running a big story on consumer impacts on tariffs either today or tomorrow, I understand.
And I think you're going to start to see it really roll out over the summer.
It's going to depend on product class here and how companies have stockpiled different types of goods.
But I think certainly as you start looking at toy prices this summer and things like that, consumer electronics coming in from China, you're going to see a bump in those prices.
The currency hasn't readjusted as much as I think the administration thought.
So there's not going to be as much of a cushion here as maybe some had hoped.
We've got Jim on the line for Democrats, Frederick Maryland.
Good morning, Jim.
unidentified
Good morning.
My question is: if our overall goal, or I should say the administration goal, is really to balance our trade with China and bring back jobs to the United States, it seems like this is sort of a desperate times call for desperate action.
In other words, we know these rare metal earths are essential to our industries and turning around and having to agree to let China purchase items that we may say are a bit troublesome because they may support parts of the Chinese economy.
We would rather not do so.
Is it possible that a combination of these selected agreements on items and tariffs is actually going to have an effect on bringing jobs back and balancing our trade?
That's my basic question.
Yeah, I think that's what the administration would hope is that putting these tariffs on will give an incentive for companies to come back to the U.S.
I think most companies would tell you, especially for consumer goods in China, a 35% average tariff is not going to be enough to reshore production.
The labor costs, the environmental costs, just so much higher than they are in China.
What may happen is you could see some supply chains move to other low-cost economies, perhaps in Southeast Asia, perhaps elsewhere, for some of these consumer goods.
There's been some disagreement in the administration about how much reshoring and which products you want to actually see come back to the U.S. You know, we saw Commerce Secretary Howard Luttnick a couple months ago talking about on television, well, we want Americans to be screwing in the little screws on iPhones.
And he was kind of roundly criticized for that because that's not exactly the type of reindustrialization a lot of people think about in the U.S. You think more like high-end value-added goods, you know, electric vehicles, high-end semiconductors, much more sophisticated manufacturing than that sort of very labor-intensive factory that you would think with an iPhone or something like that.
He quickly walked that back and then said, Oh, we're going to have automation take care of that.
And, you know, the people will just look after the robots in these factories.
Well, that's not exactly the kind of model of employment-heavy reindustrialization that many people would expect either.
So I think the administration is still kind of working this out.
And they're very much building this plane while flying it, right?
Like there's not a unified strategy of dealing with all of these nations right now.
And Mr. Gavin, thank you so much for covering this.
And I really enjoyed your article in the Wall Street Journal today.
And talking about that article you wrote, you know, it talked about the defense companies.
You know, they're expected to face the most serious challenges, you know, regarding, you know, they moved away from China getting these important magnets, but a few military-grade magnets are actually completely free of China rare earth minerals.
So they're basically getting, you know, China is the main supplier of these minerals from what I understand.
Shots on Rare Earth Magnets00:12:49
unidentified
And so my question is, like, what options would defense companies have to get these magnets if China doesn't come to an agreement to lift restrictions?
And how important are these magnets to our defense capabilities?
Yeah, it sounds like the caller has a good amount of technical knowledge, probably, you know, running up to my amount of knowledge about these magnets as well.
I think, you know, you can see from the level of concern that the administration had here that these magnets are extremely important and that there aren't at this point a lot of alternatives to the Chinese processing capabilities that they have here.
They've got over 80% of the processing capabilities of these materials from the last numbers I can remember here.
I think what you could see is, one, the defense sector looking to indigenize some of these technologies and support startups and companies that are trying to do rare earths processing with new technologies here.
There's a number of companies trying to get off the ground right now.
We probably want to see them get some more money, maybe get some defense contracts, maybe bring some of those supply chains back.
And then I think a nearer-term option is maybe going to some allies, right?
There are some allies.
Japan comes to mind.
Japan was stockpiling rare earth minerals, these components, after 2012 when China really squeezed their supply chains.
So maybe there's something that can be done to say that we have trade talks open with the Japanese right now.
I'm not sure exactly sure if that's on the table, but I think it's something that planners would be thinking about in the government right now.
So whether Mike is a big picture question is that it seems that a lot of Trump's negotiation tactics kind of go wherever the headwinds are going.
So what sort of guarantees do you think might be in place that when appetites sour change or negotiations hit a snag that, you know, I guess agreements will be honored or even negotiations would continue.
And I'll take my question off the air.
Thank you.
Yeah, I think this is the, you know, the pitfalls of this negotiating strategy is that, you know, when tensions flare up, these deals can fall apart very quickly, right?
And I think that it's just the bond markets and the economic climate in the United States that keeps him coming back to the table and keeps him from ratcheting up tensions even more.
But as I was saying earlier, I think especially thinking about the China relationship, there are pitfalls everywhere here.
You know, there's whether or not if we put on new tariffs, say, on copper or critical minerals coming out of China, that could, in their view, break the terms of the deal that we've just agreed to in London and the earlier deal in Geneva.
And so there's just a lot of moving parts here, and I think it just remains to be seen how the administration wants to play this out.
It's very difficult to look in your crystal ball.
We've seen they're kind of on both sides of these issues.
Besant was saying yesterday, maybe we'll extend the deadline on the reciprocal tariffs for some nations.
Then Trump at the Kennedy Center said, well, for some nations at that deadline, maybe we'll just send them a letter and tell them, you know, this is their new tariff rate.
So I use the metaphor building the plane while flying it a lot, just because we really are kind of doing this in real time.
Yeah, I think that they really want to do a deal with the Japanese.
We know that there are very intensive talks with Canada and Mexico.
Of course, there's a free trade deal that Trump himself crafted along with Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement.
That comes up for review next year, so that's going to be a big priority.
We know they're talking about steel tariffs.
You know, there's the G7 meeting in Canada this weekend and next week.
And I think there's a big appetite from some trading partners to try to get at least a deal to continue talking, at least something to announce with Trump at this meeting, right?
We know that the Japanese prime minister will be there.
He's looking for a bilateral with Trump.
Trump and Kearney have been talking, the Canadian prime minister, Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum, they've all been talking.
So if there could be kind of a meeting of the minds and the principals can get together and maybe say, you know, come to a broad strokes agreement that we're going to continue talking about this, I think there's a lot of appetite on all sides for this right now.
That won't actually, you know, solve any of the underlying trade irritants, but maybe they can come out and have a nice press conference and say cooler heads are prevailing for now.
Aren't the steel and aluminum tariffs already in place?
unidentified
Yes, absolutely.
And so the Mexicans, the Japanese, the Canadians really want to negotiate those away.
Now, the Trump administration, their starting position is those are not negotiable because those are so-called national security tariffs and they're separate from the reciprocal tariffs on Liberation Day.
However, in the UK deal, the U.S. gave the UK a little break on their auto tariffs.
They put in what's called a quota so that the UK can export a certain number of cars to the U.S. before they hit a tariff.
Well, you do that for one nation.
Now the Japanese, who export over a million cars to the U.S. every year, are saying, we need a quota on the auto tariffs as well.
And that's a, you know, they're driving a hard bargain with the Trump administration over that.
The Canadians, the Mexicans, they want a quota for their steel.
So once you give one trading partner something, everyone else sees that and they start to drive a harder bargain.
So that's the difficulty of doing all of these negotiations at the same time, I suppose.
We've seen some, we've seen some interest in Chinese companies, Chinese individuals coming in and especially buying up American farmland.
Now, I think the total acreage under Chinese ownership is relatively small from the latest estimates.
I don't have the numbers right in front of me.
It's not like the majority of the farmland are a big chunk.
But what some policymakers are really interested about is that the Chinese seem to be buying up some farmland near military bases in the United States.
And there's concern from some in the defense sector here in Washington that maybe they could be using that for basically spying purposes.
Now, the kind of the other side of that coin is, well, there's a lot of military bases around the United States, a lot of farmland surrounding them.
So, you know, you could say that there's only a matter of time until a foreign-owned farmland would abut a U.S. military base.
That is not to say that there's not concern about this, however, there certainly is.
So I think we've seen some talk in Congress about doing something about this.
There are certainly people in the Defense Department, in the national security sector here in Washington who are worried about it.
I would say it's definitely an issue to watch here.
Has China stopped the precursor chemicals coming into this country?
unidentified
Not yet.
And this is a point of consternation between the two nations, right?
So the Chinese would say, you know, the fentanyl precursors are also precursors for, well, first of all, fentanyl that's used legitimately in hospitals as anesthesia in surgeries and things like that.
And also for other drugs.
So what they would say is, okay, if we're going to stop sending these precursors, it's going to have impacts on medical supply chains, right?
It's not just like they're packaging up fentanyl and sending it here.
That used to be the case.
It's not the case anymore from what I hear.
There's not been a ton of back and forth between the sides on this.
I think from the Chinese perspective, they think that they have made offers on this.
They feel like they can't get a good point person to talk to them in the administration.
The administration, meanwhile, says, well, we don't really believe the offers that the Chinese are trying to give us kind of through back channels behind the scenes here.
And so they're not really taking it seriously.
I think that's a big open issue that still needs to be discussed.
And it's one of the things that could kind of blow up these trade negotiations as we go further.
I think we had to clear up some matters here with the trade between China and the U.S. and how this occurred and happened.
Now, I remember, if anybody could remember the full bet, when George H.W. Bush, when he was in China, now, this is why and how that the trade between China actually occurred.
And his son, Neil Bush, was the one that broke the deal between the U.S. and China.
Now, I talked with the engineer, AceVac engineer, back in, I think it was like 1992, 93.
And so he told me that Neil Bush was the host of an international conference of engineers.
And so engineers converged from all over the world to China.
This was around about 1991, 92, I think.
And so he was there.
And he said he did indeed speak with Neil Bush.
So that at that time, China was going to become what was called the global manufacturer, regardless of what we know and believe, but this is what he told me.
Now, another thing is that when the factories closed down, and I think we were wild about President George W. Bush now was leaving office, and many hundreds of thousands of jobs are being lost.
But companies at the same time are closing their doors and moving to China.
Yeah, I think the caller puts his finger on a very important issue here, which is, you know, going back to the 90s and the early 2000s, there was really bipartisan agreement about bringing China into the global economy.
You know, having this is not just George W. Bush and H.W. Bush, but Clinton and Obama as well.
There was a bipartisan consensus that the idea was: okay, we will bring China into the global economy, bring them into the World Trade Organization, liberalize their economy, and hopefully that would lead to political liberalization in China.
That has not happened.
We've seen China only really become more authoritarian and really lean into this sort of state-supported capitalist model that they feel like is a world beater here.
And now we've seen a bipartisan reassessment of trade with China.
You would see people on both sides of the aisle now thinking that maybe that was a mistake to let them into the WTO to regularize trade relations.
And I think, you know, you see the impacts of that in the heartland.
I mean, in my home state of Michigan, factories closing, going overseas, you know, the kind of impacts of that, of the China shock, so to speak, are reverberating through Washington in the past few years.
I think we see a reassessment, you know, starting with Trump's election, but Biden was no China dove, right?
He kept all of Trump's tariffs.
He put more tariffs on.
He started all these export controls on microchips and other things.
So we're working through a historic reassessment of trade between the world's two largest economies right now.
And I think it's important to step back and kind of recognize that that's where we're at, you know, as we go through these sporadic kind of trade negotiations here and there.
Later on the program, we will have former NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmus to discuss the role of federal medical research and the impact of spending cuts at the NIH.
But before that, we'll hear from New York Democratic Representative Tim Kennedy, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, on Trump administration deportation policies and the ongoing protests in Los Angeles.
That interview comes up in our open forum, so you can start calling in now with anything on your mind related to politics.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
Stay with us.
unidentified
Join C-SPAN for live coverage of the U.S. Army's 250th Anniversary Parade and Celebration, Saturday from Washington, D.C., commemorating June 14, 1775.
the historic date when the Continental Congress established the Continental Army and laid the foundation for America's national military force.
This June 14th, witness a tribute to the Army's evolution from the Revolutionary War to today.
With nearly 7,000 soldiers and period in modern uniforms marching along Constitution Avenue near the National Mall.
The parade will showcase Army vehicles and equipment, aerial flyovers, and a timeline of U.S. Army history.
The celebration continues with a ceremonial enlistment and re-enlistment event featuring President Trump, dramatic parachute jumps by the Army's Golden Knights, a live concert, and a finale with fireworks.
Watch the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary parade and celebration Saturday, starting at 6 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
In several recent episodes of Book Notes Plus, we have featured books from the World War II era.
An important figure from that time has been mentioned, but not discussed during any of those interviews.
Her name is Elizabeth Bentley.
She was the first person to reveal to the FBI and the Congress the names of people living in the United States and spying for the Soviets, both Americans and foreign-born operatives.
In order to better understand this former communist spy, turned informant, we asked Catherine Olmsted, author of Red Spy Queen, a biography of Elizabeth Bentley, to tell us the late spy story.
unidentified
Author Catherine Olmsted with her book Red Spy Queen on this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
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.
New York Mayoral Debate Insights00:15:42
unidentified
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
Looking to contact your members of Congress?
Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
Contact information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.
The congressional directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's non-profit operations.
Scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to order your copy today.
So there are 11 Democrats running to replace incumbent New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
He is also running, and he's running as an independent.
Talk about his decision to do that.
unidentified
Well, Mayor Eric Adams made the decision to run as an independent for his second term in office after really making his way through a pretty embattled last few months.
You may recall Mayor Eric Adams was under federal indictment and facing a very serious corruption charge.
Those charges were eventually dropped by the Trump Department of Justice.
And Mayor Eric Adams said with the timing of when these charges were dropped, he just didn't have enough time to prepare a full and robust campaign to fight for another term in office as a Democrat.
So he said instead he'll take some time and focus instead on November.
So he is running on an independent ballot line in November.
But in the meantime, he has certainly been weighing into the Democratic primary.
He has had a lot of criticism for several candidates in the race, but in particular for the Democratic frontrunner right now, which is former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Mimi.
And for the debate that's happening tonight, which we will be covering on C-SPAN, will all 11 candidates be on the stage?
unidentified
This is a leading contenders debate, so there will only be seven candidates on the stage.
And in order to qualify, the contenders had to meet polling or fundraising thresholds.
But these seven candidates, this is going to be a key and vital moment for them.
The real final pitch for them to reach voters before early voting starts and give an opportunity to share where they stand on some of the different issues.
Last week, we saw several issues brought up in a debate hosted on another network.
So it'll be interesting to see how the candidates continue to respond and also whether or not they will go after the frontrunner once again, Andrew Cuomo, or if they'll take a different strategy this evening.
And many viewers are familiar with Andrew Cuomo, but another contender is Zahran Mamdani.
Sorry if I'm not pronouncing that correctly.
What can you tell us about him?
unidentified
So Zorhan Mamdani is pretty young.
He's only 33 years old.
He is currently a state assemblyman.
And when he first started and first launched his campaign for New York City mayor, he had pretty much a zero name recognition.
In fact, I was speaking with a pollster from Emerson College and he called Zorhan Mamdani's rise in the polls in this Democratic primary pretty unprecedented.
But Zorhan Mamdani is really focused on his ground game.
His volunteers have knocked on hundreds of thousands of doors here in New York City.
They also have a very robust social media campaign.
And so they have been focused on reaching New Yorkers and also engaging New Yorkers who do not traditionally vote.
And we've seen the momentum that he has had in these polls.
He is now in second place, following closely behind Andrew Cuomo.
And it's unclear whether or not he might actually be able to close the gap leading up to primary day.
And what have been the major issues that have been talked about for this primary season?
unidentified
By far, affordability.
Right now, we hear so many stories here at New York One of longtime New Yorkers who feel like they're no longer able to afford to continue living in the city.
So many rising costs, especially on rent.
So there has been a big discussion as to whether or not there should be a rent freeze for the 1 million New Yorkers who live in rent-stabilized apartments.
And there's also been a large question on how or if and how the New York City mayor should be responding to policies set by President Donald Trump and in particular immigration enforcement policies.
In recent days, we have seen thousands of New Yorkers go out, protest on the streets of New York.
And so one of the main questions for the candidates has been, how would you handle this situation if you were in City Hall?
And ranked choice voting will be used for the first time in this primary.
Explain how that's going to work.
unidentified
This is actually the second time that New Yorkers have had an opportunity to vote using ranked choice voting.
So, when New Yorkers, if you're a Democrat and you're voting in the Democratic primary, you will have the opportunity to rank up to five candidates.
And in speaking with pollsters, many New Yorkers already know who they are going to rank number one.
But New Yorkers are still deciding who to rank two through five.
And so, that's part of the reason why moments like tonight's debate can be really crucial and critical for voters who are still trying to understand where each candidate may land on a particular issue and make up their minds and fully strategize and game out how they will vote on that ballot.
Aside from the top two, are there any other of the candidates that you think might have a chance?
unidentified
Well, Adrienne Adams, she is the city council speaker, and she has really made a name for herself over the last year or so, challenging Mayor Eric Adams, challenging his policies in court.
As she was a relatively late entrant into the race, she was encouraged to run by several people in elected office, including State Attorney General Letitia James.
So, Adrienne Adams, she's been slowly but steadily making her way up in the polls.
But there is a question because she entered so late, does she have time to catch up?
It's unclear.
So, I'll be looking to see if she perhaps has a breakout moment during tonight's debate that will help voters better know who she is and perhaps give her a little bit of a better chance ahead of the primary.
I feel like it gives people heart palpitations because they go so fast.
unidentified
And then my overall comment to all politicians: I'd really like to see us in America give money to veterans.
So tomorrow, if it was bad communication, I think it would have been an easy consensus if we gave the $45 million for the parade instead of to a parade.
All right, Diana, and this is Jay in Silver Spring, Maryland, Independent.
Hi, Jay.
unidentified
Hi, Jay.
I mean, sorry.
Hi, how are you doing?
Good.
I had a question.
I guess this is unrelated.
Just why are we not focusing on the Iran threat?
I mean, I just saw a tweet this morning that they wrote we are ready, and they've been saying we've been two weeks away from a nuclear bomb, and their top agenda is to bomb Israel and bomb America, Smithereens.
They really hate us, they hate everything we stand for.
Why is this not a top third?
I don't hear this talked about.
Is it because we're worried about the anti-Muslim sentiment?
I mean, like, this is scary.
They want to kill us, right?
They want America gone.
Why are we not talking about the fact that they have the capability for a nuclear bomb?
And also, why is Trump going to go ahead and make deals?
This is just Iran Deal 2.0.
We have to go ahead and take a strong stance, but we will not stand for this.
I really think we should make the public aware of this threat a little bit more.
And also, I really think we should take the vice of action and bomb them to smithereens, or at least let Israel go in there and take them out, you know?
In the president's comments yesterday, though, he just said protesters would be strongly dealt with.
In your list before, you referred to insurrectionists, rioters, and protesters together.
Obviously, they're quite different from your earlier answer.
I'm struck by the fact that the president has not at any point said the most important thing here is to protect the First Amendment rights of peaceful protesters.
So I'm wondering where in his hierarchy of interests does he place that?
Is the First Amendment protection the most important?
Is stopping violence most important?
Why is he not out saying all peaceful protesters will be protected?
I think two things can be important at the same time.
And the president, as I just answered, supports the right of Americans to peacefully protest.
He supports the First Amendment.
But that is not the majority of the behavior that we have seen taking place in Los Angeles.
We have seen mobs of violent rioters and agitators assaulting law enforcement officers, assaulting our federal immigration authorities.
And we have seen, as I said, this goes back to what this administration is trying to do and accomplish, and that's enforcing law and order in our nation's communities.
And it's removing public safety threats from communities in Los Angeles.
We've arrested nearly 400 illegal aliens alone, just illegal aliens who have been arrested in these riots since June 6th, since they began the streets.
Yeah, and we've had hundreds of people who have assaulted law enforcement officers.
Are you saying that that's appropriate behavior?
unidentified
Are you saying that the president takes away from the state?
The Democrat governor and the Democrat mayor of Los Angeles have failed their citizens.
And the majority of Americans, the majority of Californians, do not want to see law enforcement officers being assaulted in the streets.
And thankfully, the president took action and stepped in to protect our federal law enforcement agents, to protect federal buildings, to protect the federal mission of deporting illegal criminals off of our streets.
And that mission will continue every day as far as we're concerned.
It's the White House Press Secretary from yesterday.
And regarding the call about Iran, this is CBS News.
Israel is poised to launch Operation on Iran, according to multiple sources.
It says that the State Department has ordered non-emergency government officials to exit Iraq due to heightened regional tensions, and the Pentagon has authorized military family members to voluntarily leave locations throughout the Middle East.
It says that President Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, is still planning to meet with Iran for a sixth round of talks on the country's nuclear program in the coming days.
Here is John in Mechanicsville, New York.
Republican, good morning.
unidentified
Good morning, Amy.
Thanks for taking my call.
I'm a New Yorker.
I'm upstate.
And for years, I just watched the entire state be dominated by, well, mostly New York City politics.
And it just shocks me, the level of corruption, the level of incompetence.
Andrew Como, running for mayor of New York City now, when he was governor, was a disgrace.
I mean, it really bothered me to watch this guy.
And I mean, with the sexual assault allegations, the worst thing, of course, putting COVID-positive patients back in their nursing homes.
There's no way to quantify the number of people that died.
His constant berating of Trump.
You know, he's like in competition with Gavin Newsome to see who could one up in their criticism of Trump.
Yeah, what did Trump do?
Okay.
He got hospital ships for Como and Newsome.
He got the Jabbitt Center conditioned for taking COVID-positive patients.
He gave Andrew Cuomo ventilators when Cuomo had the money from Barack Obama and spent it on other things.
Yet they continue to demonize Trump.
Attacking Everyday Americans00:15:44
unidentified
And these people in New York City, in the city council, what they're doing is constantly putting these buffoons in positions of power.
De Blasio, is there any accounting for the billion dollars his wife had to spend?
I mean, it just, it's, you know, Letitia James will go after Cuomo, Bragg will let these people go, yet there's no accounting of these politicians in the city that are just wreaking havoc.
New York State is one-party rule.
In addition, they will allow, they will allow, okay, these mindless riots, you know, burning of property, looting of stores, attacks on the police.
They're all funded.
Who's funding them?
They don't seem to care.
So I don't know where it's going to end.
But one thing, if I may, and I'll end it with this: who's funding this?
You're watching these riots right now.
I don't think Trump has any choice.
He has to take their assets, okay, whether it be the Marines, the National Guard, all right, the police, or any other asset, to work together in unison to prevent property damage and loss of life.
You know, I'm really having a lot of anxiety here.
I'm 65 years old.
My mother was born on a plantation in Louisiana.
I came to California in 67, right after the riots.
The way you all are describing Los Angeles is not true.
You make us sound like we're Gaza.
I'm about to ask the governor, are we going to have to call the United Nations in here to have California?
He has militarized our National Guard, so we have no militia group.
We have brought in boots on the ground in Los Angeles.
Are you all setting us up to take our economy because the governor told the White House if you're going to withhold federal fundings from California and not help us, why should we pay into federal funding?
My second point is, I understand you all love property, but we're going to have another Kenned State on our hands with everybody flexing their power like this is a war game.
Where is Congress?
Where is the generals of the military?
The Marines is under Trump.
Why isn't the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force in there trying to talk sense into the White House?
And the press secretary, she needs to stop it.
The aliens has not taken over Los Angeles.
These are middle-class, poor people out there protesting.
We understand he wants immigration.
We understand and we agree.
But people here illegally have to go.
Not just Mexicans, Australians, Israel, Haiti.
Anybody here that's illegal, regardless of what the color of your skin is, need to leave if he wants to do it this way.
You all are picking.
Congress is picking and choosing who they're going to kick out of here.
And this is Floyd in Roanoke, Virginia, Independent Line.
Go ahead, Floyd.
unidentified
Yes, thank you for taking my call.
I just have two quick points.
One, with all of the talk about tariffs making it fair where America has been paying more than other countries, I would like to know when our congressmen and our president will be tackling the issue of outsourcing jobs.
I see some of my job duties being outsourced offshore daily.
To me, the fairness would be to tax the companies outsourcing jobs overseas, and maybe they would start retaining jobs here and keeping workers here.
And I think in turn, it would boost the economy because Americans are losing their jobs due to outsourcing.
Tariffs are causing us to pay more.
And I just want to know where they consider that to be fair.
When I contact my local congressmen to ask these questions, I can never get a straight answer.
And then just my other second point is: after listening to the clip that you played of Karen Karen, or Carol, excuse me, Carolyn Levitt, on January 6th, Donald Trump issued on video that he loved the insurrectionists.
He actually said, we love you, but we want you to go home.
Well, I don't understand now that the same man who loved the insurrectionists that were beating police officers in D.C. is now saying they're wanting to protect the police officers in Los Angeles.
I hope people will wake up and see this is clear retribution.
This is clearly a Democratic state, and he wants to make a stand.
Well, what President Trump has done and the congressional Republicans have allowed is a total disaster taking place across this country when it pertains to our broken immigration system.
The militarization of our cities by this president and the House Republicans and the Senate Republicans are rolling over play and dead and allowing this president to do whatever he wants unchecked.
Article 1 of the Constitution created Congress to prevent tyranny, to keep the executive in check.
And if these House Republicans and Senate Republicans aren't doing their job, that is the result.
tyrannical administration.
This president is running rough shot over the Constitution.
He's creating a chaos across this country in every regard.
The economy is tanking and in so many ways what they're actually trying to do, Mimi, is create distractions to what they're putting forward in the House and Senate budget,
which is cuts to Medicaid that will hurt Americans, cuts to Medicare that will hurt Americans, a gutting of the exchange for the Affordable Care Act that will put 16 million Americans off of health insurance,
a cut, a massive cut to the nutritional assistance programs that will cause our children and seniors and veterans to go hungry across this country and hurt our farmers.
And ultimately, they're doing this in the dark of night in so many ways, putting meetings forward, the Rules Committee meeting that started at 1 in the morning, and a marathon meeting that ended at 6 in the morning while Americans were sleeping.
And ultimately, what they're doing right now with this president is perpetrating a distraction, a massive distraction to the chaos of the economy and the chaos of the budget bill that they're ramming down Americans.
Yeah, look at what the President of the United States and his administration are doing is unprecedented.
They are superseding the local community, the state community.
They are heavy-handed going in to states across this country and they are militarizing our communities and they are inciting chaos and dysfunction and using that as a distraction to ram billions and billions of dollars of cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and health insurance to everyday Americans.
This is an attack on everyday Americans in the budget here in Washington, D.C. What they're doing is gutting Medicaid, hurting those that we depend upon, nursing homes and hospitals that will close across America, particularly in rural America.
People will go hungry, farmers will be hurt, cities will be hurt, urban, rural, suburban, all because this president has continued to deliver upon his complete and utter disorganized, chaotic administrative goals.
And it's all a distraction that is hurting everyday Americans.
The Wall Street Journal has this headline which says that Trump bets sending in the troops is a political winner and civil unrest allows the president to portray Democrats as weak on crime.
Do you, how would you respond to that?
That this does show Democrats that they're not able to handle criminal behavior.
You know we have called for peaceful protests across this country.
Our country's greatest moments in history have been led by peaceful protests.
You take the civil rights movement for instance and Martin Luther King and the late great John Lewis that marched for civil rights in this country in a peaceful way and rejected violence at all turns.
That's what we as a Democratic Party and as Americans are doing.
Exercise our right to free speech and do it peacefully.
At the same time, we need to challenge and be very vocal to the real concerns and the chaos and the dysfunction that this administration is perpetrating upon the American public.
And they're doing it in order, again, very clearly here, to distract the American people from their real goal.
and that is to gut Medicaid, gut Medicare, and kick people off of health insurance that has been given to them.
16 million people will be kicked off of health insurance.
That means increased wait times to the tune of 12 hours again, the bad old days at the emergency rooms.
That means insurance premiums going up and deductibles and co-pays for everyday Americans.
You know, they've done nothing to resolve the issues of immigration reform.
They've done nothing to find solutions for immigration reform.
You know, at the end of the day, the immigration system is broken.
That is something we can all agree upon.
This administration has done absolutely nothing to fix it.
And they promised they would fix it.
They haven't done it.
And what they have done instead is they are working to gut the services that American people depend upon.
Our children, working families, our seniors, our veterans that we're fighting for each and every day.
They're going to hurt those people.
So Congressman is doing it to give a tax break to the billionaires in this country.
Look at, we are the richest country in the history of the world.
And it's how we look at that spending and that budget.
And we have the resources to take care and provide for all Americans, especially working families and those that are trying to live the American dream and those that are trying to raise themselves up by their bootstraps.
And we've got to have a budget that reflects those priorities.
What this Republican budget does that's being contemplated by the U.S. Senate right now, the House Republicans sent to them two weeks ago, gives billionaires a tax break.
And it guts Medicaid to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars, over $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid.
Now the Congressional Budget Office is saying over half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare.
And while they're doing that, they're kicking 16 million people off of health insurance, the Affordable Care Act, the promise to America, one of the most popular programs in the history of America, at least since the creation of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid itself.
And while they're doing that, they're cutting SNAP benefits, nutritional assistance.
That means children and seniors and veterans go hungry and farmers that are feeding the hungry in this nation lose out as well.
So everyone loses in this country under this Republican majority plan except for the billionaires in this country.
This is the largest redistribution of wealth in American history where the rich get richer.
As a matter of fact, the richest in America get richer and the poorest in America get poorer.
That is not the American dream.
That is Trump's American nightmare and that is why we are rejecting the premise that that is good for America and we have to get away from the distractions that the Trump administration and the House and Senate Republicans are perpetrating on America.
Get back to the economy, get back to middle-class America, get back to the issues that are important in the pocketbooks of working families and ensure that the American dream is realized for those that seek to attain it.
Well, recall that the solution at the border that they are now claiming credit for began under the Biden administration.
And just recently, the Homeland Security Committee that I sit on went to the Mexican border.
We were at the San Diego-Tijuana border.
We met with the U.S. Border Patrol.
We met with the Customs and Border Protection.
And they said themselves over the last two years they have seen a significant decline, quite frankly, a historical decline in the amount of illegal crossings.
And so that began under the previous administration.
You know, everybody's going to take credit.
That's Washington politics.
But the bottom line is when you're talking about legal immigration and giving people an opportunity to come to this country, the promise of America is that people from across this world that want to seek a better life and seek the American dream and want to come here legally are able to do so, to seek refuge from oppression from war-torn nations.
Right now, this administration is deporting those people.
They're finding them, people with temporary protective status, people with green cards, even U.S. citizens and children.
You can't make this stuff up.
U.S. children, citizens with cancer that this administration is working to deport.
This is just extraordinarily difficult to hear and even think about, but it is Trump's America where he's hurting everyday citizens and he is ruining the promise of America in real time.
That is why we are seeing protests across this country.
People that are just so upset that they have to voice their opinion and they're going out and they're doing so.
And we call on those folks to do so peacefully.
It is the important part of the process so that we can all be heard and that we can have a real effective way of communicating the concerns to this administration and to those that currently hold the gavel.
And then you know what we need to do?
We need to take those gavels back next November.
We have to get people out to vote and exercise their right to vote and ensure that their voices are heard at the ballot box.
Let's hear from Joyce on the Republican line in Cynthiana, Kentucky.
unidentified
Okay.
My head's spinning right now from after listening to Representative Kennedy.
He needs to go back and listen to a speech Obama made in 2014 about deporting immigrants, illegal immigrants.
And if they're talking about all this peaceful protesting, I would really, really hate to see if it turned violence.
And then another thing about it was he's talking about all the cuts to Medicaid and Medicare and SNAP and all that.
A lot of that cuts that he wants to make is to get rid of fraud.
He wants to, and apparently there's a Democrat in the Oversight Committee, and he's not done a whole lot of overseeing to cut the fraud in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP.
Just the other day, they were talking about this person that works for supposed to be auditing for fraud and stuff had committed a $66 billion fraud, or her and a bunch of other people.
And there was a person in Houston that had committed like three or four million dollar fraud just in his little office alone.
And from what I understand, he's not going to get more than like five years in prison if they find him guilty of all this, which is ridiculous.
As we've said time and time again, this president is committed to peace in that conflict.
Ultimately, peace serves our national interests, and we think the interest of both parties, even if that outcome will not be preferable to many in this room and many in our country.
Well, as was stated by both of you, we obviously understand, unfortunately, under this administration and the policy, excuse me, under the previous administration and the policies they pursued, it has driven Russia and China closer together.
So there's no doubt that China would prefer that Vladimir Putin have a good outcome.
But it would also prefer a prolonged conflict that would keep us and other countries tied down and incapable of paying attention to the malign influence of China elsewhere.
One thing I'm sure we agree on, if you want, we don't want a headline at the end of this conflict.
It says Russia wins and America loses.
And given the fact that all of our adversaries are communicating with each other, that's extremely important if we're going to continue to play the role in the world that the vast majority of members of Congress think we should still play, particularly now that our adversaries are more significant than they have been since the Berlin Wall came down.
By the way, today at 10 o'clock, so in about 40 minutes, we'll have Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Capitol Hill again, along with the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Kaine.
They'll be testifying on the Pentagon's 2026 budget request and military priorities.
You can watch that House Armed Services Committee hearing live starting at 10 a.m. Eastern.
That's on C-SPAN 2.
And it's also on the app, C-SPANNOW and online at c-span.org.
Back to your calls to Deborah in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, Democrat.
Cry For Uncle00:02:19
unidentified
Hi, first-time caller.
Thank you for everything you do.
I heard something this morning at 5, and I didn't believe it, so I checked it out.
There's an ad on Craigslist under gigs for $1,000 for the day for crypto and Trump coins.
If you want to be in red, white, and blue and get a red hat and get a free lunch to be a seat filler.
So don't trust whatever big crowd you see.
I heard him.
It makes me want to cry.
One of my uncles strove for Eisenhower during World War II.
And I heard the West Point graduates wooing President Biden.
And I heard Trump calling the protesters animals.
People are people.
They're not animals.
We are not animals.
I don't feel cared for.
I'm a senior.
I don't feel protected by.
I feel like these are states.
We're not united states.
I feel like there's, I was a nurse.
I worked in nursing homes, Medicaid and Medicare.
My mom has Alzheimer's.
That's all taken care of with Medicaid and Medicare.
Where are these people going to go?
Who's going to take care of them?
Matthew Desmond wrote a book called Poverty.
For every dollar that is made in food stamps, there's a dollar and a half benefit.
But he said, for every dollar we invest in a child, we get $65 back.
And this is Jacqueline, Corryville, Pennsylvania, Independent Line.
Good morning, Jacqueline.
unidentified
Good morning, Mimi.
Thank you for having us on.
I just think that it is shameful, despicable, and evil that the Republican administration is allowing this big bill that they know will kill so many people in America and around the world.
And also bringing in the National Guard without consent from Governor Newsom's approval is really not right.
And I think that we should be helping Ukraine.
The administration stands by Putin right now from what the world is seeing.
And the parade shouldn't be there.
I think that could have helped all the people that they're trying to kick off with this big bill.
And it should the Kennedy Museum and all of the Kennedy Center and all the museums should not.
It just looks like he's playing house and he's a felon, a rapist, and a monster.
And we're allowing him to be here.
Just the Republican Party should be ashamed of themselves.
So C-SPAN's role is just to bring you whatever is happening in the government so that you can see it and you can make up your own mind.
But to your earlier point, Rob, about ICE impersonators, this is CNN.
It reports this.
Multiple ICE impersonation arrests made during nationwide immigration crackdown.
It says that authorities in at least three states have arrested individuals allegedly impersonating immigration and ICE customs enforcement officers at a time when real ICE agents have ramped up immigration enforcement efforts under the Trump administration, adding to existing fears of law enforcement among migrant communities.
It goes on to list some of the arrests that were made, but you can see that at CNN.com.
Here is Mary, Elwood City, Pennsylvania, Republican.
Good morning.
unidentified
Hi, good morning.
I just have to comment on Representative Kennedy's statement that the United States is so prosperous.
We have so much money that we should be able to take care of all Americans, medical needs, whatever they need.
If that's our Democrats' future outlook, help us, please help us.
And as far as the National Guard going to California, how unprecedented it is.
It's unprecedented that we had a president that opened the doors and let any single person, crazy person, into this country and rapists and God knows what other kind of people and Newsom let the whole city burn.
unidentified
Of course, we have to step in and help that state.
And as far as all the hate for Trump, you guys have to realize that over half the country knew him and voted for him.
Yes, I would just like to make a comment about how people call Donald Trump all of these names now.
In the history of the media, there has never been anything, any war, any virus, anything you can think of that gets the constant attention that Donald Trump gets for the last eight or nine years.
So now, what I'm saying is he knows how to play America.
He knows how to keep confusion going, and he knows how to keep things stirred up.
And just a last comment: many people feel that he's the greatest person since Jesus Christ, and others think he's the second coming of Hitler.
I've been watching C-SPAN for a long time, and I know that you let everyone just say whatever they want to say.
And like that, Representative Kennedy, no one fact-checks anymore.
All these news media outlets, they just let people say whatever they want to say.
And this stirs up craziness.
No news people now do any research.
There's no fact-checking at all.
Their fact-checking is YouTube or any kind of like, I mean, I'm just hearing craziness from everyone.
And then people think that because it's on television, that it's true.
And there's a lot of dumb people in the country that they only watch one media outlet, and Trump is this, and Trump is that, and Trump is this.
The country is doing great, and everything's going to be great if we all get together.
That's the problem.
If the Democrats would just get together with the Republicans, this country would be incredible.
But no, we're not going to get that.
We got people like George Soros that want to destroy the country, and they buy these representatives in Washington.
And that's what's happening in this country.
This country needs to wake up and fact check.
When you let a representative say stuff about this administration, that administration, and no one checks him, then half the country believes it because half the country is ignorant.
And here's Adriana, Sunnyvale, California, Independent Line.
Good morning.
unidentified
Yes, hello.
I just wanted to talk about a story that actually needs to be told, which is about what Governor Gavin Newsom and California is doing to injured workers, especially female construction hard worker.
I was injured, and they're covering up the fact that obviously there is criminal activity going on within lawyers.
They are changing emails with the insurance company and allowing them to work together in order to violate California labor and constitutional rights of Americans.
There's a technology that they're allowing to be used and allowing attorneys to use, even the ones that are representing the actual client and changing emails in the favor of the insurance companies, especially such as TriStar Risk Management.
And I want my story to be told.
I want justice.
The weaponization of the justice system is being done in California.
I've tried to speak with the governor and they clearly know about it and are covering it up as well.
C-SPAN's Sunday Span00:03:00
unidentified
So I am a whistleblower from California and I flew all the way to DC currently actually to try to speak with congressmen to try to get my story told here to the reporters so that this doesn't happen to anybody else.
No immigration people.
It's happening to everybody, American citizens and immigration people.
He's the former NIH director and he'll discuss the role of federal medical research and the impacts that the proposed cuts to NIH could be.
Stay with us.
unidentified
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 2.45 p.m. Eastern, British columnist Melanie Phillips shares her book, The Builder's Stone, which examines the contributions of Jews and Christians to the development of the West.
Then at 7 p.m. Eastern, Edward Tenner examines the unintended consequences of science and technological developments in his book, Why the Hindenburg Had a Smoking Lounge.
And at 8 p.m., author David Fisher and former talk show host Montel Williams, who served in the U.S. Navy and Marines for more than 20 years, share their book, The Sailing of the Intrepid, that looks back at the history of the World War II aircraft carrier.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
As Mike said before, I happened to listen to him.
He was on C-SPAN 1.
That's a big upgrade, right?
But I've read about it in the history books.
I've seen the C-SPAN footage.
If it's a really good idea, present it in public view on C-SPAN.
Well, I saw in your bio that you won the Nobel Prize in 1989 for your work in cancer research and that you had led the Sloan Kettering Hospital.
So I want to start actually with cancer research and what you think the impact might be of NIH cuts to that specifically.
unidentified
Well, right now, the major impact is that grants are being stopped or money is not being delivered.
And the looming concern is that the President's budget request for 2026 is a roughly 40% cut across the entire NIH, including the National Cancer Institute.
This is going to have detrimental effects on virtually every aspect of cancer research, from clinical trials back to basic research that allows us to understand how cancer works and develop new kinds of therapies.
So the result will be that things will happen slowly, much more slowly than would have happened, or will never happen, or will happen in other countries, not the U.S.
That will have a detrimental effect on our economy.
And we are reducing the chances of providing hope and improvement in prevention and care for people around the world who would like to see less cancer.
And that includes me and everybody else who knows of people suffering from this disease.
Well, the administration is saying that they're cutting out the fat, the waste that is happening at the NIH.
Can you describe for us what exactly would be cut and give us an example of, say, for instance, a cancer patient that's looking for treatment?
unidentified
Well, it's impossible for me to say exactly what's going to be cut, but in part because what the directives now, the budget plan indicates is cutting out money for individual institutes like the National Cancer Institute,
which conducts cancer research across a very broad enterprise, everything from basic science to understand how cancer works to clinical trials to development Of new therapies, understanding the immune response to cancers, which has been such a productive avenue of science in the last several years.
So, we can only talk in generalities here, but we can also point to things that have happened just in the last few months without budget proposals that have gone through Congress, situations in which the NIH has not been delivering money that was promised to investigators, situations in which grants have been rescinded,
and that has again affected science across a very broad spectrum of cancer research activities, but also research activities in many other areas of medical science and in many other areas of science, from environmental science to fundamental science conducted by the National Science Foundation, energy sciences, and even defense sciences.
So, it's been difficult to determine exactly what the criteria have been for making those difficult decisions.
But I know that from speaking with colleagues and reading news accounts of what's been terminated, that sometimes this is based on where the science is conducted, whether it happens to be an elite university that the administration isn't fond of,
or it may be research that has some reference to important issues like diversity and inclusion that the administration has also used as a kind of litmus test, false litmus test, in my view, for deciding what is valuable.
After all, all of this research has been supported as a consequence of very intensive peer review, in which investigators compete for federal funds against many other individuals.
And the selection process for these grants is rigorous and not perfect, nothing's ever perfect.
But the arbitrary and in some cases draconian reversal is affecting not just research done at the moment, but affecting the impression that people have of what the science enterprise in this country is like and what it's going to be like in the future.
That's turning away the students and young investigators from abroad who have over the last 50 or 60 years come to this country and enriched our scientific enterprise.
And it's affected young people in this country who might aspire to becoming scientists and improving our way of life.
Dr. Harold Varmus is the former director of the NIH.
If you've got a question for him, you can give us a call.
The lines are Republicans 202748-8001, Democrats 202748-8000, and Independents 202748-8002.
Dr. Varmus, can you explain how funding works at the NIH?
So how long does it take from somebody writing a grant to getting the grant to actually doing the research to finally getting benefits from that research?
unidentified
Yeah, that's a very good question.
And it really begins even before you file an application.
It begins when people decide to become scientists, undergo many years of training.
During that training process, they learn what they're good at and people develop opinions of them.
People then, if they're going to be academic scientists, dependent on funding from ENIH or other federal agencies, they go through a training process, hiring, setting up a lab, recruiting students and postdoctoral fellows, write grant applications that undergo review by high-ranking peers.
And then, over the course of from the time that you submit your application to the time the money begins to flow, a year may go by because the NIH, at least until recently, had a well-staffed, highly rigorous process for determining how much money should be devoted to a certain project, how the money would be delivered to the university.
And then research is not done overnight.
It's a multi-year process.
And indeed, one important feature of the NIH is that they promise the successful applicants for grants that they'll fund them for three, four, or five years, but deliver money one year at a time.
That means that at any one point, the NIH budget is largely devoted to fulfilling the expectations of investigators who won their grants in prior years.
That's creating a great deal of anxiety with the current proposal for cutting the NIH budget because it's going to be difficult for the government to satisfy the promises it's made to already successful grant applicants.
And it'll be very, very difficult to fund any new grants if those promises to existing investigators are upheld.
So it's a very complicated process.
One that is, it takes time.
Science takes time.
You don't solve these very difficult problems in human biology overnight.
I want to show you a portion of an exchange between Senator Tammy Baldwin and current NIH Director Bhattacharya on proposed spending cuts to his agency and to grant cancellations, and then I'll get your reaction.
Well, I, of course, viewed this when it happened on Tuesday morning, and this was not the director's best moment.
There's no doubt that the money that has been either withdrawn or not delivered to investigators, those decisions were made, I agree with him, by multiple people, but it comes from above.
And I think he's in the sorry position of having to take responsibility as the director of NIH.
I don't actually know exactly what his feelings are about those withdrawals, but I have to say that many of those withdrawals of funding or failures to deliver funding are based on an animosity towards elite institutions like Harvard and Columbia and other major research institutions.
And they're not based on the nature of the scientists or the work they're doing.
Unfortunately, the people who suffer from this are the potential beneficiaries of medical research.
Had remarkable advances in the last few decades in the treatment of infectious diseases cancer, and the idea that we're going to be doing something justifiable by stopping research because Mr. Trump and his colleagues have contempt for the intellectual elite and for major universities is a is
actually.
a deplorable feature of our country at the moment, and one that I'm very unhappy about.
I want to ask you about what's happening at the CDC.
As you know, Secretary RFK Jr. essentially fired the vaccine board and has replaced them.
This is the Washington Post headline, RFK Jr. picks new members of influential vaccine committee after purge.
This is his quote on X. All of these individuals, these are the new individuals that he's put on, are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold standard science, and common sense.
They have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations.
What do you think of that, Dr. Varmus?
unidentified
Well, you can say that, but the fact is that Mr. Kennedy, Secretary Kennedy, discharged a very highly reputable group of experts who've been doing a great job in trying to advise the country on which vaccine should be used and which should not and to determine vaccination strategies.
The CDC is in a very difficult position right now.
One of the good things that's happened recently is that Mr. Trump's recommendation for a new CDC director who was clearly opposed to many vaccine policies, a former member of Congress from Florida, that was withdrawn.
That's a good thing.
But it's not entirely clear how the leadership of CDC is being executed right now.
And Mr. Kennedy, as the secretary, is taking over chores that should be assigned to a much more knowledgeable and less prejudicial leader of public health.
So I'm unhappy, like many people, at both the discharge of arbitrary and sudden discharge of highly responsible members of this important committee and the appointment of people, some of whom I don't know and I can't really comment on, but others who have been in the past skeptical or denying of the virtues of vaccination, which is one of the ways we've protected ourselves as a country.
And the current attitude toward vaccines is so reprehensible at this point that I just heard yesterday about a colleague, about colleagues who are developing vaccines for treatment of cancer, and they're trying to figure out how to phrase their grant application to support this work by avoiding the use of the term vaccine.
Well, this is ridiculous.
And the country has gotten itself into a dilemma that is reflected, I'm sorry to say, by the turnover on the Committee on Vaccination Policy.
We've got Jeff in Bayville, New York on the line for independence.
Good morning, Jeff.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you, Mimi.
And thank you, Dr. Varmitz, for all of your work and fantastic research on oncogenes and cancer, being director of the National Cancer Institute.
And it's just amazing career.
So thank you so much for all of your contributions.
I have a question regarding the recent termination of Moderna's grant for its investigational avian influenza vaccine.
This $590 million grant was canceled after phase one and two trials showed it to be promising with excellent results.
And of course, now the phase three trials are not going to be funded, which of course is absolutely essential in order to have a pre-pandemic vaccine that can be quickly rolled out in the event that avian influenza, H5N1, becomes transmissible between humans.
So can you kindly just let us all know the importance and the consequences of this horrible decision by Kennedy?
And Kennedy has expressed his opinion in clinical trials, a journal, on June 4th.
And what he said was, is that he expressed his skepticism regarding RNA vaccine safety and efficacy.
Well, I can't answer all of the points you've raised, but I certainly strongly agree with you about the need to develop some, to make real progress in the development of vaccines against avian influenza.
That's one of the great threats.
Funding Cuts and Academic Shifts00:08:37
unidentified
So far, we haven't yet seen a virus that efficiently transmits from human to human.
Sorry, we haven't seen an influenza virus that transmits efficiently from human to human.
But these viruses are highly lethal.
They're much more lethal than routine seasonal influenza, and they present a tremendous threat to the human population.
We have seen in the past viruses acquire transmissibility from human to human.
Traditionally, we leave decisions about what should be funded to experts who sit on so-called study sections, review groups for grant applications, and to the officials who run the NIH.
And these abrupt terminations, because a political figure doesn't like vaccination, can be incredibly hazardous to the nation's future.
And I strongly oppose what has been done with this initiative.
But are you familiar with the book he wrote a couple years back?
No, not.
Anyway, he explains in there some of the issues with the NIH.
And this is what he said from the book, that funding sometimes can be not granted due to conflicting results that might come out that are conflicting with the people who are, you just mentioned, sitting on the board, who are on the board because of results they came up with in the past.
So I'd like your opinion.
Have you ever seen anything like that?
He gave specific examples of this in his book.
Let me describe the process.
So what happens is that people write grant applications, which are very extensive, detailed accounts of previous accomplishments and proposals for doing additional research.
And a group of about 20 people sit in a conference room over several days and look at a series of applications and evaluate the prior work and the proposal that has been submitted for funding.
Is this process perfect?
No.
Is it better than anything else?
Yes.
And do errors get made?
Possibly.
And is it possible that someone who's done similar work in the field is considered to be the expert who's most likely to render an argument that overturns the opinions of others?
Yes, that could happen.
After all, in the current situation at the NIH or the National Science Foundation, only a minority of grant applications, even though most are acceptable at one level, only a minority, 10, 20, 30%, depending on the field of study, are actually funded.
And so there are going to be very worthy applications that for one reason or another don't succeed in the competition process.
I think we all accept that.
It's an imperfect process, but it's the best that we have.
And it's a lot better than saying that we should leave to political appointees the right of choosing what they think might be the most interesting.
These are expert opinions and they are not going to be perfect.
And Dr. McCary was on this program, Washington Journal, talking about his book.
So if you'd like to see that, you can visit our website, cspan.org, do a search in the search bar, and you'll be able to watch that program.
This is Alejandro in Reidsville, North Carolina, Independent Line.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you for having me on this morning.
As an academic, my concern is mainly with that of how will the cuts impact education, especially at minority institutions.
How do you see that impacting?
And also, with now education cuts for NIH being proposed and being instated, isn't this going to make America's competition, China, and the rest of the global world more available to take in professors, students?
And will we be behind?
Because the main concern I have with these cuts is that not only will it create more inequality in the health system and health research, but it will also shift the American academia side to other competitors of ours.
So how do you see that playing out?
And how long, how big of an impact do you think this will have on academia?
Thank you.
Well, thank you for those comments.
The length of the impact of what's being done now is long term, and that's very worrisome.
It's possible to make dramatic changes in the way we support research and the kinds of research we provide and the kind of research we support over the short term, but it takes a long time to build up the kind of reputation and the kind of scientific environment that we have achieved in the U.S. There was a time not that long ago, just before World War II, when America was not the leading place.
It wasn't the place where very smart, inspired young people would come for their training from abroad.
But it is now, but very rapidly the changes are occurring.
I just returned from a trip to Europe and Africa where people are already perceiving that there's a dramatic change in the U.S. and that the talented people should go to either other English-speaking countries that do research or to Europe and to get their training and devote their scientific careers to those countries.
That will have consequences for America over a very, very long period of time.
It's hard to recover from a change in attitude that undermines what has, in fact, made America great over the last 50 years or so.
Our skill and leadership in science and technology that's spurred improvements in our lives and boosted the economy and made America a place of sterling reputation.
Dr. Balmos, with all due respect, your lamentation about the lack of foreign students or scientists who will be coming to work and academic research,
basically you're lamenting about the fact that there will be less foreigners from India, China, or whatever, who will be exploited like indentured servants by so-called private investigators, most of them who are angry men.
I mean, I find those assertions running counter to the fact that so many of people who come to the U.S. to be trained as graduate students and postdocs or even undergraduates stay in this country and have made remarkable contributions and have been rewarded.
Over one quarter of the National Academy of Science members were born in other countries.
So I can't exclude the possibility that some people in the long run feel they were exploited by our system.
But I know from personal experience with many students from abroad, because my laboratory has always hosted students from Europe and India and China, that they like it here.
And the opportunities are great.
The science is the highest caliber.
And they don't get paid any less than anybody else working at the next bench who might have been born in Indiana instead of Beijing.
I find it kind of interesting, all of the criticism of this administration, considering that we have in the past funded COVID that basically killed millions of people.
We funded it ourselves and the NIH actually funded it.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying we funded COVID.
The origins of the coronavirus that caused the pandemic is still a matter of dispute, but the evidence favors the idea that the virus came from animals who were for sale in food markets.
But we can't exclude some other possibilities, but to say that we funded it, especially to suggest we funded it knowingly, is certainly not consistent with the available facts.
Secondly, the investment that was made through the NIH in trying to understand the kinds of viruses we know as coronaviruses, the effort that was made to develop mRNA vaccine technology, the actual execution of the program to make vaccines that were effective, to produce drugs that help reduce symptoms during the disease, during the pandemic,
and the efforts that have been made to control the disease of the epidemic through epidemiological tools and through the CDC.
Those are all very valuable contributions to the pandemic.
To say that we caused the pandemic by doing medical research, I think, is completely unsupportable.