Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
Participants
Main
j
john mcardle
cspan35:12
k
keith self
rep/r05:29
Appearances
chris murphy
sen/d01:00
chuck schumer
sen/d01:05
donald j trump
admin01:32
Clips
a
adam goodman
r00:04
j
john fugelsang
00:06
karoline leavitt
admin00:17
tom cotton
sen/r00:29
Callers
tim in michigan
callers00:25
?
Voice
Speaker
Time
Text
Planned Parenthood Funding Decision00:15:08
unidentified
The Freedom Caucus and the Foreign Affairs Committee discusses U.S. military action against Iran and votes soon on the President's One Big Beautiful Bill.
And Hawaii Democratic Congresswoman Jill Takuda, a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Progressive Caucus, will also talk about U.S. military action against Iran and her opposition to the President's tax and spending legislation.
And we're with you for the next two hours on the Washington Journal.
We began at the Supreme Court, where the majority of justices yesterday sided with South Carolina in its effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding.
The move serves as a financial blow to the network of women's health care clinics that is a major provider of abortion services in the United States.
This morning, we're getting your reaction on phone line split as usual by political party.
Republicans, it's 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can also send us a text, that number, 202-748-8003.
If you do, please include your name and where you're from.
Otherwise, catch up with us on social media, on X, it's at C-SPANWJ.
On Facebook, it's facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
And a very good Friday morning to you.
You can go ahead and start calling in now.
This is the lead graph of the story about this case from today's USA Today.
An ideologically divided Supreme Court, they write, sided with South Carolina in its effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding, a decision that is likely to prompt other Republican-led states to take similar action against a health care organization under attack for providing abortion services.
It was a 6-3 ruling yesterday over the dissent of the three liberal justices on the court.
The case stemmed from a 2018 order from South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster.
He went to X yesterday in the wake of that ruling to post his thoughts on the case.
He said, The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed our right to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars seven years ago.
We took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values.
And today we are finally victorious.
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster also on the floor of the United States Senate yesterday.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the floor to give his thoughts on the case.
Three years ago after Dobbs, the MAGA Supreme Court has once again doubled down on its war on women.
The court handed down a decision that immediately endangers funding for Planned Parenthood, one of the biggest organizations for affordable women's health care across the whole country.
And it's not just about reproductive care.
It endangers women's health care altogether.
Clinics will close.
Women will lose access to cancer screenings, contraceptives, physical exams for common illnesses, and so much more.
For many women, Planned Parenthood is their only resource to get health care services at an affordable rate.
Make no mistake, Senate Republicans own the consequences of this loathsome decision.
They packed our court with extremists.
They're the chief architects of the dismal state of women's health care in America.
Senate Democrats will never, never relent in our efforts to ensure all women in America have high quality health care.
Access to health care is a basic right, no matter what the radicals on the MAGA court may think.
That was Chuck Schumer on the floor of the United States Senate today.
The Senate is back in at 3 p.m. today.
The House is in at 9 a.m. Eastern, which is why we're with you for two hours on the Washington Journal.
We're also expecting around 10 a.m. Eastern a final day of decisions from the Supreme Court.
Six cases left to decide, and we're expected to hear all of them today in that 10 o'clock hour.
And they include cases about birthrights, citizenship, minorities, children, and access to pornography online, and plenty of other issues before the Supreme Court.
And we'll be talking about that tomorrow on this program.
Today, we are talking about the Supreme Court decision yesterday, and that case when it comes to funding Planned Parenthood, it concerned Medicaid funding, and we're asking you to weigh in on phone lines split as usual by political party.
Republicans, 202-748-8001, Democrats, 202-748-8000, and Independents, it's 202-748-8002.
It was also a topic of conversation at the White House briefing room yesterday.
Caroline Levitt spoke with reporters in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision.
This is what she had to say.
unidentified
Thanks, Caroline.
The Supreme Court ruled this morning that South Carolina is allowed to deem Planned Parenthood as not a qualified health care provider, and that will block it from receiving Medicaid funds.
Does the White House have a statement on that ruling?
And would the President support a standalone bill from Congress to defund Planned Parenthood at a federal level rather than letting each state determine it?
I'll let the President speak on that legislative priority.
But as for the Supreme Court ruling, the President has always maintained that Americans should not be forced to violate their conscience and their religious liberty by having their tax dollars fund abortions.
And we're glad the Supreme Court ruled on that side today.
Here's some of the technical side of this case from the Washington Post story on it.
At issue in the case for the justices was whether a provision of the Federal Medicaid Act allows individual Medicaid patients to sue to obtain care from their provider of choice.
The federal statute says a state that participates in Medicaid must ensure that any individual insured through Medicaid may obtain care from any qualified and willing provider.
Several justices during oral arguments in the case seemed eager to provide clarity to help lower courts determine when a statute simply confirms a benefit to an individual and when it goes further, empowering those individuals to sue to enforce that benefit or right.
The Supreme Court has typically set a high bar for allowing lawsuits against the government.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the question of whether individuals can sue to enforce certain rights poses a delicate question of public policy.
New rights for some mean new duties for others, and private enforcement actions, meritorious or not, can force government to direct money away from public services and spend it instead on litigation.
The case surrounding whether individuals could sue to have their Medicaid dollars go to Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood providing more than just abortion services and what Medicaid pays for when it comes to Planned Parenthood includes things like birth control, cancer screenings, physical exam testing, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.
And it was that funding from Medicaid to Planned Parenthood that those who originally brought this case were concerned about, that allowing that money to go to Planned Parenthood would free up other money that Planned Parenthood could use for abortion services.
That was the issue at the heart of this case.
The outcome means that Planned Parenthood may be getting a lot less federal dollars in the future in the form of Medicaid funding.
This is Bernard out of New York.
Good morning, Republican line.
unidentified
Yes, good morning, C-SPAN.
Yes, I want to make a couple of comments here.
First of all, I'm glad the Supreme Court made this ruling.
I am hearing you, and you're probably seeing a shot of the Supreme Court this morning.
It's a foggy day here on Capitol Hill.
unidentified
Yes, I think they made a wise decision.
I hope it goes back to the states.
I haven't got much faith in New York, though, and I'll tell you why.
We have a very left-wing liberal system here.
They're very confused people.
This is a horror abortion.
And yet we have Cardinal Dolan, who doesn't take a stand against the, oh, he'll say if you ask them the reporter, which they never do, but if they say, Cardinal, oh, I'm against the boy, and that's all he'll say.
Now, he went to the gay rights march.
That was fine.
He went there.
The church is supposed to be against that.
But he doesn't care what the church says.
He thinks like a left-winger is one.
And top of that, not only did he march in the gay parade to make marriage legal within the Catholic Church, but he refused to march in the pro-life parade.
So we don't really have any Catholicism here in New York.
There's no real leadership.
It's all on the left.
And I just, I say a prayer every day to these children who are being aborted.
And then the other sin that we're committing in this country as far as I'm concerned, well, I won't call it a sin because that's not up to me to make that judgment.
This is the 10th anniversary of the Obergerfell decision out of the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage story in the New York Times today, about 10 years since that decision.
It's another decision day at the Supreme Court today.
We're expecting the last of this term's cases to be handed down.
The decisions will come right around 10 a.m. Eastern.
It was a big decision yesterday, though, concerning Planned Parenthood and the funding for Planned Parenthood.
That's what we're talking about in this first half hour of the Washington Journal.
This is Prada out of New York, Democratic line.
Good morning.
unidentified
Yes.
Good morning.
Go ahead.
I just want to say, God bless America.
And until men are impregnated and have the option of abortion, they'll never know what a woman goes through.
And, you know, still, we got to deal with abortion taking, you know, eliminating a baby.
I am glad that the Supreme Court decided against Planned Parenthood.
I think that's the way it should be.
And maybe this is sounding too old-fashioned, but I'm a person that did not, I was did not mess around.
And so when I was 22, I got married and I was a virgin.
And there's something to be said about the relationship and not having to have that in it just yet.
I think it would help with keeping the families, making families together because if you don't do it until you get married, and so that would eliminate Planned Parenthood completely because there would be no need for it, you know, if the focus was on the relationship and not on I'm against Planned Parenthood no matter what.
This case surrounding Medicaid funding and whether it could go to Planned Parenthood.
A 1976 federal law prohibits using Medicaid funding for abortion services.
This would be funding for other services at Planned Parenthood, things like birth control and cancer screenings.
NPR reports in their story by Nina Totenberg that at least 34 clinics since last year Have been closed by Planned Parenthood.
And of course, there is in Congress pending federal legislation that, if passed, would eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
This case, very much about continued efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.
The NPR story noting that of the 2.4 million people treated at Planned Parenthood each year, almost half use Medicaid to pay for their treatments.
Planned Parenthood, as the Washington Times notes today, represents some 40% of abortions performed in the United States.
It is one of the major abortion providers in the United States.
This case about Medicaid funding, this case very much the focus being Planned Parenthood, and we're asking you about it in this first half hour of the Washington Journal.
This is Gilbert, Toledo, Ohio Independent.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
First of all, I have to say is that if you make a deal with the devil, you get the consequences of that deal.
First of all, Scalia, when he was alive, decided to do this in the first place.
And he got Planned Parenthood the target because they had abortion in their medical care.
It's not the main care of Planned Parenthood.
I'm sorry.
I've been to Planned Parenthood.
I know what's going on.
My ex-wife went to Planned Parenthood.
She knows what's going on.
Her mother was a nurse at Planned Parenthood.
So when Scalia had this idea of putting Planned Parenthood on the target and making abortion the main thrust, evangelicals and Catholics put in all kinds of money to overturn Planned Parenthood.
And this was found, this was a documentary and it was in HBO.
Anyone wants to look at Planned Parenthood in the Supreme Court and how many billions of dollars are going to the Supreme Court?
Look at it.
You judge, not me, you.
You judge what's going on.
The Catholics and evangelicals poured billions of dollars into this.
What's your view on this decision yesterday, Evie?
unidentified
Well, all I can really put together to see that the Democrats have let America Trying to control our family.
It's parents that control their family.
They're going to legalize lust and murder in the womb and let everybody come in and do whatever they want, and we're going to pay for it.
I think the parents should pay if their children want to have children or teach them instead of Medicaid and everybody else, teaching them how to erase it.
It's not erased.
And we got millions coming in to take advantage of our children from the time they get out of puberty.
They don't even know now, even if they're a male or a female.
You're seeing a live shot of the Supreme Court today.
We're expecting a lot more people to gather on the steps of the Supreme Court right around the 10 a.m. Eastern hour.
It's expected to be a big final day of the term at the Supreme Court.
The final six cases being dropped in, as the USA Today describes it, one big final swoop.
The final day of the Supreme Court is going to be a big one.
They write six major rulings related to President Donald Trump and birthright citizenship, LGBTQ school books, online pornography, and others will be released in one final decision drop today, June the 27th.
Most anticipated is whether the court will allow Donald Trump to enforce his changes to birthright citizenship while his new policy is being litigated.
The ruling could make it harder for judges to block any of the president's policies.
Other decisions will determine if health insurers have to cover certain medicines and services like HIV, preventative medication, and cholesterol-lowering drugs, and whether a federal program that subsidizes phones and internet services through carrier fees is constitutional.
USA Today, in their write-up of what will be happening in just a few hours from now outside the Supreme Court.
Sophia in New York City, Independent, good morning.
You are next.
unidentified
Good morning, John.
John, I am a Christian Jew.
It's got nothing to do with religion.
It's because if you are not married, you are not supposed to get pregnant.
If you abhor the child, it's always been a secret, which I never been pregnant and abhorred.
But anyways, the first caller have said it perfectly.
Now, I don't have a grandchild.
I have a son.
I have a daughter.
I'm going to be 75 years old in six months.
Whatever the woman does to her body, it has nothing to do.
Mr. Trump has abhorred the child here in Manhattan by his maid that he paid $30,000 to bail man.
Sophia, where did you read that?
Thank you for asking me.
You see, we New Yorker, we knew what's going on about Mr. Trump.
This was the issue at the heart of the case of whether Medicaid dollars could be used for those services, whether certain states could say that they're not allowed to be used for those services because federal dollars can't be used for abortion services now.
The argument for some of the states that are against the governors of these states that are against abortion say that allowing Medicaid funding to go for those kind of services frees up money for Planned Parenthood to use for abortion services.
unidentified
So basically what it is, is they want to cut off all funding to Medicaid plain and simple the states.
That's what the Supreme Court ruled.
And that includes everything that I mentioned before.
Those services are also not going to be provided anymore to Medicaid because that's where the funding went to.
So, I mean, unless you want to say 13% or 14% of the funding for Medicaid should be minus, because that's a percentage of abortions that they do per year in the clinic, then you could do that.
But to cut it all off, you're hurting other people, and that's why that's wrong.
The Supreme Court, what they are ruling on, was whether individuals had a right to sue for access to Planned Parenthood, to sue to be able to use Medicaid dollars at Planned Parenthood if a state said no.
And what the Supreme Court decided yesterday is that they don't have that right.
That if this is an issue that Congress wants to fix, they can go in and fix it themselves.
But individuals can't sue for access to that care if the state decides they want to cut it off.
unidentified
Well, yes, I mean, that would make sense in a way because the state is cutting it off.
However, they can still sue if they want to or not, regardless, because they have a right to sue.
If the court doesn't find their reasons for suing and just, then they'll throw it out.
Otherwise, they have a right to sue regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
I mean, if they want to say it's an appeal to the decision, but basically, they usually start with fresh cases, so it probably starts there.
This case stemmed from an individual in South Carolina taking the state to court because of a 2018 order from Governor McMaster in South Carolina trying to block these funds, and it's made it all the way up to this level.
And the Supreme Court decided yesterday that individuals can't sue to demand access to Planned Parenthood.
It's a very technical case, the end result meaning that Planned Parenthood is going to have less access to Medicaid funding.
And that's what we've been talking about this morning in the wake of that decision.
Six more cases expected today.
So, expect to hear a lot more about the Supreme Court over the next 24 hours.
Carol in Arkansas, Republican.
Good morning.
Your reaction?
unidentified
Yes.
Lord, this is blowing my mind from a lot of these women.
One thing is how to solve this problem, I guess, but they all weren't raised by my parents.
One is girls are never to have sex until married.
I don't know how you understand that, but it's just as easy as pie.
But one thing is I myself have never heard of Planned Parenthood.
Where I live, we have DHS, and that is for the poor and for the working poor.
And you go in there, and they do everything that needs to be done for women.
And then we have WIC.
You go in there.
They have that.
And it's not Planned Parenthood, but you go in there and they help you.
It's not Planned Parenthood.
So you don't got to worry about this other group.
And for another thing, I don't understand where these people are getting off saying this Planned Parenthood is Medicaid.
This is Michael, Howard City, Michigan Independent.
Good morning.
Michael, you with us?
Got to stick by your phone, Michael.
This is Lori in Cleveland, Ohio, Democrat.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning, John.
First of all, I want to say, you know, they're talking about all this waste, fraud, and abuse.
Right now, the things that are going on in California, the money they are spending for nothing with these ICE maniacs arresting people who aren't even criminals.
We need to be taking care of our health care, and women need it more than ever.
Family planning is something that we should have a right to.
Government Waste and Abortion Rights00:01:25
unidentified
You have a child that you don't want, you're going to be put further into poverty.
This is supposed to be the land of the free.
I just think the government should not be involved.
They should help women do what they want.
You know, if they decide to have an abortion, whether it's medical reasons, whatever.
I just don't think anybody in the government should tell us what to do.
So much money is being wasted.
For example, on Donald Trump's birthday parade, which was a flop.
I am planning on going to the next No Kings rally because what he is doing to this country, he's going to kill all of us, period.
That's about all I have to say.
He's disgusting.
The whole Congress just kisses his ass and it's sickening.
Lines for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
As usual, go ahead and start calling in, and we will get to your calls right after the break.
unidentified
This weekend, at 4 p.m. Eastern, Daniel Stone, author of American Poison, A Deadly Invention, and the Woman Who Battled for Environmental Justice, chronicles Harvard professor Alice Hamilton's attempts to expose the dangers of leaded gasoline in the early 20th century.
Then, at 5 p.m. Eastern, historian and Vietnam War veteran Mark Leapson on his book, The Unlikely War Hero on the Life of Navy Seaman Doug Hegdalf and his experience as a prisoner of war inside the notorious Hanoi Hilton Prison in North Vietnam in the late 1960s.
And at 9.30 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, filmmaker and screenwriter Rod Lurie on how the American president is depicted on film and TV and how it affects our understanding of the office.
Exploring the American story.
Watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
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.
And the Washington Journal continues with open forum now.
Any public policy, any political issue that you want to talk about, phone lines are yours to do so.
It is a very busy day on Capitol Hill with action both in the House and Senate expected and across the street from the Capitol at the United States Supreme Court.
I guess I would just like to say I wish Trump would start get back to, I mean, I live in a little small town of Sandwich, Illinois.
The gas is still like $3 almost $3.30 a gallon.
The food's still the same price.
I wish Trump would get back to what he promised on that deal.
And for that abortion, why aren't the women that want an abortion, why aren't the people in charge helping a woman with having a baby and putting up her adoption?
Butch, on the first part of your comment, how much do you think if it does pass, the One Big Beautiful bill will address the issues that you're talking about, the things that Donald Trump promised?
unidentified
I don't know.
I hope so because I'm 68.
I live on Souls Carey and a small pension.
And I live in a 55 and older community, and they just raised my lot rent, $48 a month.
And all I got for a cost of living raise on the first of the year was $56.
So it's just gotten to where it's just so hard to live anymore.
I mean, you know, we got to get these prices down, you know, and we need some regulations on these people that are buying up these mobile home places.
I mean, I got a really beautiful house that I've got all fixed up, and I don't want to move, but I mean, they're taking my cost of living raise, all of ours, every July 1st.
And it's just so hard for everybody that lives here.
Their seniors, most of them are all 65, 75, you know, like that.
And something's got to be done because, you know, us people, you know, it's just hard to live.
And, you know, Donald Trump seems like all he cares about is making peace, which that's fine, but the vice president or somebody should start doing something about bringing these prices down.
So, you know, living just month to month is just terrible.
That's Butch in Sandwich, Illinois on the status of the big, one big, beautiful bill.
Here's the headline from the Washington Times.
Republicans are rewriting Medicaid overhaul part of that bill to get the bill passed.
Rules referees, that would be the parliamentarian in the Senate that gets to decide since the Senate is using the budget reconciliation process what can and can't be in that bill.
The reconciliation bill has to have a distinct impact on the federal budget for them to be included, for items to be included in the bill.
And that process is taking place right now, and plenty of consternation in the Senate and the House among Republicans of what's being rolled in and out of that bill.
It was yesterday at a White House event that President Donald Trump urged Americans to contact their senators, their congressperson to get the bill passed.
Here's about a minute and a half of the president from the White House yesterday.
Look, this is the largest tax cut in the history of our country.
They want to give you, the Democrats want to give you the biggest tax increase in the history of our country.
They have things, whether it's border or economic development or no tax on tips and social security and no tax on overtime and all these different things.
There are hundreds of things here.
It's so good.
And we're going to also cut costs.
We're cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill, and you're not going to feel any of it.
And your Medicaid is left alone.
It's left the same.
Your Medicare and your Social Security are strengthened.
We're not cutting.
The Democrats are going to destroy all three of them because it's not sustainable.
They'll end up cutting your Medicare, Medicaid in half.
So we're going to do a real job.
It's so important.
So if you can, call your senators, call your congressmen.
We have to get the vote.
I want to thank you.
You have been unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.
You have worked round the clock for months, for months.
And you know, I shouldn't say this, but we don't want to have grandstanders where one or two people raise their vote.
We are, we ought no, and they do it to grandstand.
That's all.
Not good people.
They know who I'm talking about.
I call them out.
But we don't need grandstanders.
We have to get our country back and bring it back strong.
And our country is going to be stronger, bigger, better than ever before.
We're going to make it better than ever before.
And that's despite the bad hand that we were dealt six months ago.
President Trump yesterday from the White House, again, the Senate and the House are back in today, and we're expecting a potential Senate session this weekend.
The Senate expected to be off ahead of the 4th of July holiday next week.
Now expected to be working at least at some point this weekend.
We'll find out more on scheduling today after they do come in.
Bill, can I ask you, when you say let each state do what they want to do and let women do what they want to do, what happens when what the governor of a state wants to do or those in charge of the House and Senate on the state level, what if what they want to do is different from what a woman wants to do?
unidentified
Well, you know, that's the issue right there.
And we all know that that can happen.
But you know what?
There are states that still have abortion rights.
If someone's in a state that they can't have an abortion, they feel like they can't live there, then move.
It's pretty simple to me.
But, you know, the abortion issue has gone on my entire life.
First, it's no good, then it's okay.
Now it's no good again.
Let's make up our minds and move on.
But here's my big issues: we got bigger, bigger things to worry about than Planned Parenthood.
We've got a lawless president who does anything he wants to do.
When it comes to bombing Iran, more discussion on that.
Perhaps in the Senate today, Senator Tim Kaine expected to pass or to introduce his war powers resolution, and it could get a very quick vote in the Senate.
It's listed in the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal by the editorial board as a Senate war power stunt, is how they describe it.
This is the editorial board today.
The 12-day war between Iran and Israel may be over, but some in the U.S. Senate can't help themselves from making a futile anti-war gesture to wit.
They'll vote as soon as Friday for Tim Kaine's war power resolution to hamsting string President Trump if he needs to use force.
Once again, they end their piece by saying if Democrats want to cut off funding for military action against Iran, they have the power to do so.
But that would require taking a position on more than just a procedure.
The threat posed by a nuclear Iran whose leaders shout death to America more than justifies a presidential use of force under Article 2 of the United States Constitution.
You know, Ronald, I know there's some exterior improvements that they're doing, but I don't know exactly.
That's been up for a little while on Capitol Hill.
If you walk past it, you've been seeing it.
I know it's particularly noticeable because we're all so familiar with the usual facade.
But I could probably find you a story on it.
Sorry, I don't have that on the tip of my fingers for you.
unidentified
Okay.
Now, my suggestion to you and to others on C-SPAN, take the opportunity, the unique opportunity that you have when you speak with people from Congress on the show.
Ask, for example, my congressman is Tom Swazzi.
And if you have him, for example, on the show, and I know he wants to speak with the president at the present time, ask Tom Swazi, can you tell me something that you think that President Trump has been good at?
You have something positive to say about President Trump.
Or alternatively, with a Republican congressman, take the opportunity to say, well, what about this Democratic colleague, for example?
I tell you, Ronald, you might be interested in this series that C-SPAN is starting in the fall called Ceasefire, where two members, two, they don't necessarily have to be members, but two people on opposite sides of the political aisle will sit down, and the idea is to find some common ground and talk about an issue that they're working on together.
It's a series that we're launching this fall on C-SPAN.
unidentified
Right, that's very good.
But on a day-to-day basis, it would be so refreshing if you use the opportunity that you have to really get these people to say something decent about the other side.
I think it would do a lot to help the situation, because if they don't ever say anything decent about the other party, then we're really in such bad shape, and that's one reason why.
I'm wondering, the Democrats, that lady that just called in talking about abortion, does she know that our abortion rights line up with North Korea, Russia, and China?
Is that the axis of evil she wants to be in?
Because the rest of the world has a 10 to 16 week ban on abortion, except for health.
So I guess, you know, we should line up with Russia, China, and North Korea.
And I'm wondering, they keep complaining that President Trump's sending in ICE and more agents into the blue states.
Well, that's because they're sanctuary cities and they're hiding away.
They're illegals like my state, Massachusetts, that doesn't want to turn in pedophiles, rapists, and murderers.
I mean, what's going on?
Why are we doing that?
What makes Democrats think that we want that in the state here?
I'm just laughing myself silly at all the different people like complaining about these town halls.
Don't you keep playing AOC, mocking her people with a Spanish accent when they tried to talk to her in New York.
I mean, you give half a story all the time on the TV as told through the Democrats' eyes.
We never see anything bad about the Democrats.
It's always the Republicans hate the air, the earth, the water, women, men, animals, space, I mean, everything.
And the Democrats love everything.
Well, let me tell you, everything's not perfect with the Democrats.
Some people have regrets about transgender surgery.
A lot of women and some men have regrets about when the women get abortions.
And we get half a story like it's a utopia.
We've murdered 70 million babies since 1970, and we don't need to be letting in illegal aliens.
We just need to let our birth rate go and start convincing women.
There's absolutely nothing else in Massachusetts that you could vote for.
We get a one-party rule, and they keep making everything a sanctuary city and doing nothing for Americans or a veteran like me who's not even a mile away from the VA.
And they're giving everything to illegals.
They're giving them houses to stay in.
And I see homeless Americans on the street under the bridge in downtown Northampton and all along all the exits.
That's the part that says that no court in the country can hold the government responsible for, or they can't punish them for any contempt or failing to adhere to like restraining orders and like that.
It's basically a kingmaker.
And I think that's really dangerous because that's just going to totally erase democracy in this country.
The federal government cannot be held in contempt.
Basically, the court can say, okay, you cannot do this and they'll do it.
Daryl, in California, here's more news out of the Hill newspaper when it comes to the one big, beautiful bill.
The Senate parliamentarian, as we've said, has been going through this legislation and has apparently rejected a Republican attempt to exempt a small number of religious schools, including Hillsdale College, where many graduates go on to careers in conservative politics, from an income tax on college endowments.
The GOP bill would substantially raise the tax on the returns of wealthy college endowments, but it exempted Hillsdale.
The story noted, the parliamentarian, her name is Elizabeth McDonough, has also ruled against a section of the bill that removes regulations pertaining to gun silencers and easily concealable firearms under the National Firearms Act.
That provision was tucked into the bill.
The loosening of restrictions on gun silencers or suppressors, as they're known, is one of the top priority of the gun industry and many firearms enthusiasts.
This is the story out of the hill.
Today, we're finding out more about what's in and what's out of the One Big Beautiful bill.
This is Gordon in Kansas City, Kansas, Republican.
I've listened since 2015, and you can tell who the people are that don't pay taxes in this country because they call and they say it's a big, ugly bill.
When I filed my taxes in 2017, or the first year of the tax cut and jobs at my, I always overpaid because I always thought it was kind of patriotic or something.
I don't know.
Let the government use my money and me get nothing out of it.
I know you've been watching closely the work of the Senate parliamentarian as she decides what's in and what's out of the One Big Beautiful bill and what the Senate will give back to the House eventually.
What's your assessment of the work that she has done so far in this process?
Well, it's hard to believe that what she's doing is not intentionally.
She is basically deconstructing all of the Republican priorities, all of the conservative priorities in the Big Beautiful bill.
So as I say, I can't believe this is simply not intentional.
It's hard to keep up with what she's throwing out of it.
She's throwing out massive amounts of the spending cuts.
And look, the tax cuts are certainly the crown jewel of this bill, but the spending cuts are what are going to keep us from just blowing out the deficit from $37 trillion now to well over $50 trillion in 10 years.
So this bill could be in trouble.
You noticed that the Speaker just made a comment on it.
The leader, Leader Scalise, made a comment on it.
This bill has got to have some changes before I think it's going to get through both the Senate and the House.
Here's some of the things that Senate parliamentarian that we know so far in this process she's taken out.
They include a provision that would crack down on strategies that would make states that many states have to develop to obtain more federal Medicaid funds and another that would limit repayment options for student loan borrowers.
We're finding out this morning the Senate parliamentarian rejected a religious college tax carve-out, gun silencer deregulation.
The question is, if she takes these provisions out because this is the reconciliation process, is it as easy for you and your colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to simply pass this through the regular process in the form of another bill?
And anyone who's followed you on social media knows that one issues that you've been tracking when it comes to this bill is the clean energy tax breaks.
I want to shift topics to your work on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
We are hearing that there may be that war powers resolution that might be introduced in the Senate today.
What is your understanding, what is your assessment of Congress's role here when it comes to Iran and President Trump and what you should be consulted about when it comes to war powers?
Well, frankly, we've used the AUMF for two decades now plus to allow the President to conduct Article II authority to defend the United States.
Look, our two oceans no longer protect us from immediate attack.
Missiles cross the oceans in a matter of seconds.
The president must have Article II authority to defend the United States.
The war powers resolution that I understand the Senate's going to be taking up, I don't think it has much of a chance of passing.
But we do need to write a new AUMF, authorization for the use of military force.
Because if we're not going to declare war, and Congress, it's not in Congress's DNA to declare war, we need to have an AUMF that lines out those priorities of the Congress for what the President might be able to do.
But this war powers resolution is not going to go anywhere.
I want to hear just how precise those weapons were.
When you talk about a tomahawk, when you talk about one of the big bombs, you can choose which window to put them in.
So I'm excited to hear that I understand maybe five of those big bombs went in the same hole.
That's the kind of precision that our military has today.
And frankly, given the vibration sensitivity of centrifuges, I expect to hear, if we've done the entire bomb damage assessment yet, I expect to hear a very good report on the attack on Iran.
This was a monumental enterprise across power projection across the globe.
What did you think of the White House yesterday saying they might need to limit some intelligence sharing when it comes to members of Congress and these sort of classified briefings?
Actually, I think there are members of Congress that should never hear anything classified because you know when they get it, it's going into social media, it's going to the front page of the New York Times, it's going on the front page of the Washington Post.
I think there are members that absolutely, I would not give them a single classified piece of information.
Well, hearing the classified briefing and then trying to discern what the Senate's doing because we're trying to figure out what our timing is.
I think the Rules Committee is coming back on Monday, so it's going to move fairly fast, perhaps.
And that's the key, perhaps.
If the big, beautiful bill doesn't meet the House framework and we don't take care of the Green New scam, the diversity of House members that are against what the Senate is doing is wide.
I mean, it's hard to articulate the number of members that are against what the Senate is doing.
I'm not going to prognosticate what's going to happen in the House.
Does that make you less optimistic that this bill could be passed by July 4th, the original deadline that President Trump had laid out and that Congress I'm not going to deal in a hypothetical, but I will tell you that people are concerned about what the Senate is doing.
Congressman Keith Self, Republican of Texas, member of the Foreign Affairs and Veteran Affairs Committee, we always appreciate your time on the Washington Journal.
What do you make of his efforts to have a poor agenda?
unidentified
Yes, he's advocating, but the people with the power, President's Congress, they need to act upon that.
You know, he's an activist.
But you had a member of Congress on the other day talking about, he's a Republican, talking about, oh, people stand in line.
You see them with the food stamps and really EBT cards and, you know, fraud, waste, and abuse.
No, government contractors, the biggest welfare queens, are the defense contractors.
And I want them to have a work requirement.
To get taxpayer dollars, they need to go to work instead of being on their yacht and then having workers not have any health care, not have pension, not have paid sick leave, not have child care.
They have gutted everything that Americans need to survive.
And then they want to complain that Americans need help.
It's ridiculous.
And this bill, I do taxes.
This bill is disgusting.
It's going to just erode more of the middle class.
It's going to keep people in poverty.
And it's going to enrich the rich, and they don't need it.
I was thinking that the United States itself is a very powerful entity.
We have the largest treasury.
We have one of the best militaries in the world.
We're a very powerful country, but we just happen to have a person there now that is incapable of being a president.
President Trump, he needs to be separated from what is the great United States.
It was great when he became the president.
And as far as Iran, they have been trying to take over Iran for a couple of hundred years.
They want the resources over there, and they're creating these wars so they can go into the resources, claiming that we are protecting American interests.
These countries have a right to exist on their own without the colonialism of America.
As far as the tax breaks that the Republicans are pushing, that money would be going to the United States government, but now they're trying to figure out a way to make it go into the private entities, which is not going to help the American people at all.
They're going to have more money coming from Americans into the private sector instead of the government.
That's why they're trying to get these tax breaks going, because that's going to make a lot of very wealthy Americans very rich when these poor people are not paying the taxes and putting it back into the private sector.
And as we noted, the House is set to have an intelligence briefing today, a classified briefing for members only at 9 a.m. Eastern.
The Senate had their classified briefing yesterday.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegset was at that briefing, and members of the Senate came out afterward to talk to reporters about their reactions, their concerns.
This is Democratic Senator Chris Murphy and his concerns.
This briefing should have happened immediately after these strikes.
There's a real question as to why the director of national intelligence is not allowed to be in these briefings.
That's a question that we should get answered.
Listen, to me, it still appears that we have only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a handful of months.
There's no doubt there was damage done to the program.
But the allegations that we have obliterated their program just don't seem to stand up to reason.
So I obviously can't share any of the details from this briefing, but I just do not think the president was telling the truth when he said this program was obliterated.
There's certainly damaged under the program, but there is significant, there's still significant remaining capability for you.
So without any classified information whatsoever, I think it's safe to say that we have struck a major blow alongside our friends in Israel against Iran's nuclear program that is going to make America safer, our friends in the region safer, and protect the world from the risk of an Iranian nuclear weapon for years.
Obviously, it was leaked by someone who was trying to put our pilots and their crews and the president and his national security team in the worst light.
unidentified
I don't know if it was from Congress.
I don't know if it was from someone inside the administration opposed the president's policy.
But as I said, that report was preliminary.
It was done with low confidence.
It said it had numerous intelligence staffs.
It assumed the worst case scenario with perfect conditions in Iran.
I believe that this mission was a tremendous success and that we have effectively destroyed Iran's nuclear program today.
I understand your concern, Johnny, and we will find out here perhaps in the next week or so what's in and what's out of this bill.
That process is still not over.
The Senate parliamentarians still going through this bill, line by line, arguments being made by Democratic and Republican members and staffers about what's in and what's out of the bill.
To the Pine Tree State, this is Keith in Bangor, Maine, Republican.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning, and good morning to the United States.
I was calling because I listened to the woman from Asheville.
And I'm hearing all these and all these Trump-hating people with points only taken from mainstream media.
I last fall went to Asheville and worked my butt off for a week trying to help those people surviving from the floods.
And what I witnessed there was people coming together.
And I don't think I've ever felt God's presence like I did when I was there.
And I can't believe how inappreciative that that woman could be when it was Biden's administration who had FEMA parked hours away from that situation and had no effect on anybody's well-being at that time.
And I just can't believe how ignorant you all are still hating Trump when all he's doing is trying to help you.
There's just a few minutes left in our open forum.
It's any public policy, any political issue that you want to talk about.
Phone lines are open for you to do so.
One story I did want to point you to today.
It's an obituary on the front page of today's Washington Post.
Bill Moyers, who served as chief White House spokesman for President Lyndon Johnson, and then for more than 40 years as a broadcast journalist known for bringing ideas, both timely and timeless, to television, died on June 26th at a hospital in Manhattan.
He was 91 years old.
Long before he became a grandee of public television, the Texas Rays, Mr. Moyers, was a top aide and by many accounts, a surrogate son to President Johnson.
The Washington Post writes, the powerful Texas Democrat had given Mr. Moyers a summer job in his U.S. Senate office in 1954 when Mr. Moyers was in college.
The obituary goes on to read that after he left the administration, Mr. Moyers began a television career that would bring him more than 30 Emmy Awards, including one for lifetime achievement.
He was mainly associated with PBS, which he joined in 1971, but he detoured to CBS from 1976 to 1986.
It's a lengthy obituary, if you want to read it.
Bill Moyers, 1934 to 2025.
This is Robert, Naples, Florida, Independent.
Good morning.
unidentified
Yeah, Mario.
How are you doing?
I want to talk about medical savings accounts.
So many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.
How are we supposed to put $5,000, $10,000, even if it's pre-tax, into account specifically designed to pay doctors?
As a matter of fact, I read every single major bill that has been proposed since 2020 because I learned that what they're saying doesn't make any sense.
Reading The Big Beautiful Bill00:04:25
unidentified
When you read the bills, I read the infrastructure bill.
That's Lisa out of Ohio, our last caller in this open forum.
Stick around, about 30 minutes left this morning.
In that time, we'll be joined by Democratic Congresswoman Jill Takuda.
We'll talk about the One Big Beautiful bill.
We'll also talk about her work on the Armed Services Committee in the aftermath of U.S. strikes on Iran.
Stick around.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 5 p.m. Eastern, author Martin Reeves with his book, Like, The Button That Changed the World.
He explores the origins of the like button and how the thumbs up symbol changed the internet.
At 7.15 at a book event in Washington, D.C., Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski talks about her book, Far From Home, her Alaska Roots, Election History, and her more than two decades in the Senate.
Then at 8.30 p.m. Eastern, retired United States Army General Stanley McChrystal discusses his book on character, choices that define a life.
He talks about personal qualities and the hallmarks of American citizenship.
And at 9.30 p.m. Eastern, authors Jacqueline Schneider and Julia McDonald share their book, The Hand Behind Unmanned, discussing America's automated arsenal, including torpedoes, drones, and other remotely controlled technologies.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
This show, MC-SPAN, is one of the few places left in America where you actually have left and right coming together to talk and argue.
And you guys do a great service in that.
I love C-SPAN too.
That's why I'm here today.
Answer questions all day, every day.
Sometimes I get to do fun things like go on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN is, I think, one of the very few places that Americans can still go.
unidentified
C-SPAN has such a distinguished and honorable and important mandate and mission in this country.
I love this show.
This is my favorite show to do of all shows because I actually get to hear what the American people care about.
American people have access to their government in ways that they did not before the cable industry provided C-SPAN access.
That's why I like to come on C-SPAN is because this is one of the last places where people are actually having conversations, even people who disagree.
Shows that you can have a television network that can try to be objective.
Thank C-SPAN for all you do.
It's one of the reasons why this program is so valuable because it does bring people together where dissenting voices are heard, where hard questions are asked, and where people have to answer to them.
C-SPAN shop.org is C-SPAN's online store.
Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
I know you've been closely watching the path of this legislation.
When the House eventually gets back, whatever the Senate does on this legislation, how different do you expect it to be from the bill that you voted on back in May?
unidentified
Well, I voted against the big, ugly bill, and let's just hope when it comes back to the House that this big, dirty bill, as we know and we've been fighting against, hopefully gets a proper bath and a cleaning, and it looks very different from what we saw when we voted on it here in the House.
Unfortunately, we know that Senate Republicans are doing their darndest to try to continue the dirty work of the Trump administration and literally trying to find ways to fund billionaire tax credits on the backs of everyday working Americans who need health care, who need food money, who need to be able to support their farms and small businesses.
And that's just not happening in the bill that we see right now.
What can House Democrats do when this bill comes back to the House?
What's the strategy here, especially as Republicans look to move this legislation as quickly as possible?
They originally thought July 4th, but that may not happen.
unidentified
Absolutely.
We have to, first of all, demand a proper debate, demand that we have the time to be able to produce amendments, to be able to debate them, to fight for them.
The American public deserves transparency and discussion.
They did not vote for a mandate that would be rammed down their throat as a 4th of July present to Trump and his friends.
Absolutely not.
If you want to do something right, don't set arbitrary dates and times before you first know the full facts and you're committed to doing something right.
And so I think Democrats here in the House, we're going to be demanding a full debate on this and the ability to be able to tease out every single change that was made by the Senate and ask the fundamental question, is this good for America?
How optimistic are you that you'll get that kind of debate in the House again?
unidentified
You know, If anything we've seen this year, we know we're going to have a fight on our hands.
But it's a fight we're willing to step up to, quite frankly.
We have to.
That was our mandate when people elected us, to demand that we come and do the work of Congress, which is not to rubber stamp what the Trump administration wants.
It's to ask tough questions.
It's to propose real changes that are going to benefit our constituencies.
I want to come to, you mentioned war powers, the potential war powers vote in the Senate today.
Senator Tim Kaine expected to introduce that resolution this evening.
What are you expecting in the Senate for that?
Is that something that's going to eventually make it to the House?
unidentified
You know, I would hope no matter what side of the aisle you sit on, you understand that the public deserves a full debate on this particular issue.
To say that there was no overstepping on behalf of the president is truly not upholding your constitutional oath that you took as a member of Congress.
And so, you know, I would expect the ability for us to debate fully, to air all sides, to have proper votes where everyone's vote will be documented so your constituencies know what you think, where you stand on the issues of war power authorities, which impacts every single American, every service member in this country.
And so I would hope that we'll see a full debate, a vote that people can hold us accountable to, and pass it to the House, where we can then also have that full and informed discussion.
Some viewers may be asking why that debate needs to happen when it comes to Iran when President Trump has announced the ceasefire and trying to move Iran back to the negotiating table.
Why is it still needed now?
unidentified
If you're asking that question, then you're questioning the entire separation of powers of the United States, the basis of our Constitution, three branches of government.
We have a president who's operating as if he is a monarch of one right here.
Whether it's war powers, authority, trade and tariff, the power of the person, impoundment.
Last I checked, the American people, democracy relies on that separation of powers, and we have severe encroachments stepping over the line by this president.
That is why this absolute debate is necessary.
And by the way, when we talk about true, lasting, sustainable ceasefires, when we even talk about obliterated versus severely damaged versus you can come back in a few weeks or months and continue operations in Iran, there are still many questions, many things that, while the president may say it, does not make it necessarily so.
James is up first out of Philly line for Democrats.
Good morning.
unidentified
Hi, thanks for taking my call.
So I'm a Democrat and I'm a Trump-hating Democrat, and I'll admittedly.
However, when the president took this military action, I found myself leaning towards, well, he did the right thing.
And I actually was a little bit more convinced by two of your guests that you had on previously.
I think it was this week, but it might have been, it was recent.
And they were taking opposite points of view on whether or not he should have done this.
The one point they both agreed on was that Iran has never shown that they're enriching uranium for the purpose of energy or, I think, or a medical reason.
And what they both agreed on, basically that means that Iran is enriching uranium for a bomb, and why would they want a bomb?
It's for a deterrent.
A deterrent implies that someone's not going to use it.
I mean, it's used as, well, to say, don't do it to us or we'll do it back to you.
And I just don't come to trust the Iranian message over the years, how they're always saying death to Israel, death to America.
You know, I think we need to remember that in 2015, we had a joint agreement.
We had the ability to have that oversight over Iran and their uranium enrichment program.
When Trump came in, one of the very first things he did in office was he walked away from that agreement.
He ripped it apart because he thought no one could do it better than him.
And let's be real.
He ended his first term with no agreement in place.
We are here in this moment today because of what Trump did during his first term.
And let's ask ourselves, is walking out on diplomacy, which is what you do when you say, let's give it two weeks and see what the negotiation table does, and then literally two days later you bomb the country.
While that may seem like forceful, decisive action, you're backing your adversaries into a corner.
You're allowing for so much miscommunication and misinformation to go out, them not understanding where America is coming from.
You actually endanger America more.
You put the peace process in danger more than you ever did before.
And so I respectfully disagree with you.
I think we had the ability to have proper oversight over their programs and to ask and monitor them.
We walked away with that, away from that during Trump won, which is why we are here today.
Our best option is diplomacy.
That's negotiation.
That's being able to sit with trust at a table.
And trust only comes when they believe what you say.
And based on Trump's action over the last two weeks, why would anyone, our allies and our adversary, really know what they can trust when it comes to American foreign policy?
It's a distraction and it's dangerous because back home where I live and across this country, people are struggling right now just to keep a roof over their head, food on the table, keep their farms and their small businesses doors open right now.
And everything that we're seeing, every threat to Medicaid, every cut to snap, every time we rein in on contracts that farmers were going to use to put seeds in the ground and give them the chance to pass on their farm to the next generation, when we create unnecessary trade wars with both allies and adversaries, this is not helping people survive in this country.
We cannot have dangerous distractions that only make life harder for Americans.
And I'm here to do the work where we actually lift that burden from people's shoulders and help them have a chance at the real American dream in this country.
Jamestown, South Carolina, Danny, Republican, good morning.
unidentified
Yes, ma'am, Ms. Takudo.
Myself, I hear a bunch of Trump haters this morning, but I'm not too much worried about Iran right now.
I think Trump took care of that problem pretty quickly.
I just want to ask you two questions.
I hope you answer them.
The first question is, did you vote for the Inflation Reduction Act?
And second of all, did you read it?
And did it help the country?
That was three questions.
I apologize.
And I'll take your answers off the air.
Thank you very much for those questions.
I came into Congress in 2022.
So I was not here to vote on the Inflation Reduction Act.
I did read through that working back home in Hawaii and understanding the positive impacts that it had on our local economy, whether it was accessing affordable health care and things like insulin, to making sure we had energy and conservation projects that really actually help people deal with extreme weather conditions and other climate conditions that we are facing right now.
So I hope I answered your question.
I was not here.
I did read the bill, and that is something that we have to do with everything that comes before us.
What did you do before you became a member of Congress, and why did you want this job?
unidentified
I served in the Hawaii State Senate for 12 years, doing everything from running the Education Committee to the Ways and Means Committee, which manages the entire budget and every tax provision for the state.
I did lose a statewide election, spent four years back in the private sector where I ran a small business doing consulting and other kind of public relations communications work as well.
And I will tell you the loss that I had going back into the private sector, especially during COVID and being able to use my skills formerly in government to be able to navigate how we got people through this crisis utilizing both the resources from the federal government, private sector dollars, really was eye-opening.
It was one of the best things that could have happened to me.
I know that's crazy seeing a loss as being the best thing, but I think it best prepared me to now be in Congress to know exactly what we have to fight for and quite frankly, how everything hits the grounds for people on the other side of the table when we make decisions here in Congress.
So sometimes while it hurts, it is good for us to step back and go back to the real world where we understand how laws, policy decisions, and budgets can either make a difference or break people back at home.
Less than 15 minutes before the House comes in, Congresswoman Takuda with us for about the next 10 minutes or so.
And we are expecting the Supreme Court to have its final day of decisions at 10 a.m. Eastern, a half dozen of decisions set to be handed down.
Which one are you watching most closely, Congresswoman?
unidentified
There are so many.
It's like noodles on a wall right now.
I think I'm still spiraling and trying to get over the Planned Parenthood decision yesterday.
You know, I co-lead and co-founded the Bipartisan Rural Health Caucus in Congress.
There's over 70 members of us, Democrats and Republicans.
What we know as our reality is we live in health care deserts in our community.
And when you strip away the ability for Planned Parenthood to be able to serve, to provide non-abortion care, we're talking about primary care services, whether it's vaccinations, mental health, mental health services, whether it's taking a look at even being able to get birth control, screenings, cancer screenings, these basic things, you're going to rob people of their futures in rural and remote America.
Supreme Court Tragedy00:05:17
unidentified
And so I see this as an absolute tragedy.
Again, I'm still reeling from that decision because I know that no doubt there will be lives lost from the inability to get the health care, basic screenings that they need, the primary care services that Planned Parenthood provides every single day across our country.
And I think it's going to be really sad when Americans realize what they've lost at the hands of a 6-3 decision at the Supreme Court.
And that decision coming yesterday and another half dozen decisions set to be handed down today.
See a live shot there just a second ago of the Supreme Court.
There's going to be more people gathering there over the course of the next hour.
Our C-SPAN cameras will be out there.
And we're with you for about the next 15 minutes on the Washington Journal.
This is Billy in Crockett, Texas.
Democrat, good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
I would just like to say that we as America, we are a nation of God.
And even though we are president at times, we do crazy stuff.
He doesn't represent all of Americans.
America is the world's leader because if we wasn't in the world's leader, the world would be upside down because we got a lot of people that are doing things for money.
And if we can stay a nation of God, we will continue to be the world's leader.
And I know, and being a son of God, I know that we will be a nation of God, even though we have times where people come out of cookie people, come out and do cookie things, but they would never dominate America.
America was made great by God, and we will continue again.
Let me go to Joe in Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey.
Republican, good morning.
unidentified
Hey, good morning.
How are you?
Doing well.
I just want to make three points.
The hypocrisy of Democrats never ceases to amaze me.
I don't know if she was in Congress, but 10 years ago, President Obama bombed countries from drones and never asked congressional approval.
Nobody said nothing about nothing.
And President Trump may have not had to take these actions if we didn't have a senior president that had open borders where 700 Iranian nationals are walking around our country.
A country that says they want to kill us.
They want to kill us.
And you just said before about being honest, and President Trump on, he's the most honest president I think I've ever seen.
He says what's on his mind sometimes.
Sometimes it annoys me because he says what he says, he does all the time.
What did you say when President Biden, you know, was a senior president?
And I appreciate the passion from all directions in which it's come.
I was not in Congress when, 10 years ago when Obama made that decision, but let me say this very clearly.
Past presidents have always followed that protocol that if they are going to utilize their ability to make decisions unilaterally, they will inform Congress.
Not just the Congress members from their party, like this president apparently may have done, but actually go to all corners and tell them that this is my plan.
This is my reasoning.
This is my truth as to why I am making that decision.
And so let's talk about you.
We can have honesty.
We can share everything that comes out of our mind.
But what the American people deserve is not just honesty.
They deserve the truth.
And I will tell you that is significantly in question right now, especially when we have a president who does not follow the words, the advice, the information, the recommendations of his own intelligence community.
We rely on that intelligence community to keep us safe so we can make those best decisions.
But when you have unilateral, unauthorized, unconstitutional actions like what you saw from the president when he took it in his hands to bomb Iran, that does not keep Americans safe.
And even now, there is a discrepancy as to what actually came out of reports from intelligence.
Was it obliterated, severely damaged?
You know, was it only set back a few weeks to a few months?
I actually am even more profoundly disturbed to see the intelligence community trying to walk back to meet Trump where he is at.
It is not about pleasing the master.
It's about doing what's right for America and telling the truth.
That's what we're going to have to be demanding and keeping on every agency, the White House and members of Congress in the next weeks, months, and clearly years to come because that's what America really does deserve.
Less than 10 minutes here left in our program, taking your phone calls for the rest of our program today.
Here's the schedule, by the way, on a very busy Friday here in Washington.
The House is set to come in at 9 a.m. Eastern.
The Senate is in at 3 p.m. Eastern.
We're expecting a half dozen decisions out of the Supreme Court at about 10 a.m. Eastern.
And also, by the way, the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference continues here in Washington today.
Their annual Road to the Majority Conference is happening.
The Veterans Affairs Secretary, Doug Collins, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, HUD Secretary Scott Turner, all scheduled to speak today.
That's getting ready to start at 9 a.m. Eastern, and we're going to air that live on C-SPAN too.
You can also watch at c-span.org and the free C-SPAN Now video app.
And by the way, this weekend is expected to be busy as well.
A Senate session that could be happening this weekend.
We'll know more on exact timing after the Senate comes in this afternoon.
Also, tomorrow, the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference convenes in Charlotte, North Carolina to consider administrative and policy issues affecting the federal court system.
The conference kicks off with a discussion on how current events in the national news may influence law practice as well as developments in federal funding, issues regarding the separation of powers, freedom of press, and others.
So that's all live at 10:15 a.m. Eastern, and we're going to be airing that tomorrow here on C-SPAN.
And then 11:15 a.m. Eastern tomorrow, a conversation between Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Albert Diaz.
You can watch that live coverage on C-SPAN Now and on C-SPAN This Network and also on the free C-SPAN video app at 11:15 a.m. Eastern.
We'll have all of the decisions from the Supreme Court from this term by that point.
And these are usually interesting discussions the day after the final day of the term.
All happening on the C-SPAN networks today and tomorrow and throughout the weekend.
You're seeing a live picture right now of the Supreme Court on this final day of this term.
This is Art in Streamwood, Illinois, Independent.
Good morning.
Taking your calls until the House comes in.
unidentified
Yes, I want to make a comment about the bill and how it's going to affect probably millions of seniors.
Social Security benefits are the single core income for many, many seniors.
They most of them are near the poverty level, even with their benefits.
And this cut to Medicaid is going to affect him dramatically because it's going to dissolve many of the subsidies that would have helped these people live.
You Were Tricked00:04:48
unidentified
And I only see one thing coming from this particular cut, the Medicaid cuts, is they're signing a death sentence for millions of seniors.
Say, I'd like to make two comments as to Trump's making the action in Iran.
I mean, we really think we can wait for Congress to issue a deal on a ruling on whether or not a war should be entered into.
They can't do a budget for, what, five, ten years?
We'd all be dead by the time they decided.
Secondly, I do think Washington Journal does give what is in effect a suicide prevention line for liberals.
I mean, they call on here.
They need the venting, and it should be appreciated for that.
But you listen, it's like your last guest, the representative.
Do you really, can you listen to the zealotry coming out of her mouth and the emotion and believe for one minute that woman has any ability to negotiate anything?
It's, you know, she yells at the other side, which has the same type people, and says, you know, well, they're all wrong.
I'm all right.
And how are you going to come to a compromise on anything?
So the fact is we have elections.
One side gets the majority.
They vote.
That's what happens.
We voted for Trump for this.
I did.
I think he's doing a great job.
You know, all the talks on tariffs, I mean, we've had on multiple news channels saying, oh, it's going to be a recession.