CSPAN - Washington Journal Washington Journal

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 29, 2025 11:05-13:12 - CSPAN

02:06:53

Washington Journal Washington Journal

Participants

Main

tammy thueringer

cspan 19:07

Appearances

brian lamb

cspan 00:54

jonathan turley

00:55

Clips

chuck schumer

sen/d 00:24

donald j trump

admin 00:06

dr richard stallman

00:10

jerrod sessler

00:06

patty murray

sen/d 00:04

rachel maddow

msnow 00:07

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		And read a lot of the cuts.
unidentified		And I've got lots more to say, but I know I'm a short for time.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We're short on time.
		We're going to get one more call in here.
		But that was Jim in South Carolina.
		Let's hear from Shirley in Alabama, Line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Shirley.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		And thank you all so much for C-SPAN.
		I've listened to a lot about the deal, and I'm totally against it because I see where I am.
		The people that are suffering, it doesn't matter what color you are.
		They just don't have the means.
		They don't have medical.
		They don't have the co-pays.
		They don't have the doctors in these little small rural areas.
		And those are the people that is going to hurt the most.
		And one more thing I'm going to get off.
		Does anybody remember that Donald Trump was in there the first time?
		He has taken away money from FEMA, the military, every department that he could.
		He took money.
		And all he's doing is putting the money back that was taken away.
		He's putting part of it back to the different departments and so forth.
		But he's only doing, he goes out and do the wrong thing.
		And then he comes back and wants to be the hero.
		I'm saving the military.
		No, he took money from the military.
		And this is not going to help.
		Thank you so much.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Shirley in Alabama.
		Our last call for this first hour.
		But later this morning on Washington Journal, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Military and Security Studies Program Director Michael Eisenstadt will join us to discuss the latest on the Israel-Iran conflict.
		But after the break, Niall Standage, the White House columnist for The Hill, sits down with us to discuss President Trump's recent actions and other political news of the day.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		Tonight on C-SPAN's Q&A, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, author of The Indispensable Right, discusses the history of free speech in America and the people who advanced it.
unidentified		He argues that the First Amendment right is a basic human right that protects all the others and shares his concerns about current attempts by government, universities, and the private sector to limit free speech in the United States.
jonathan turley ▲ ● ▼		I have a colleague who has called for amending the First Amendment and says that it's aggressively individualistic.
		There are other law professors who are saying we should trash the Constitution.
		There are books out that say that free speech in the First Amendment, according to one Michigan law professor, is the Achilles heel of the United States.
		So there is this still ongoing debate over what is so revolutionary about that language.
unidentified		And the book tries to answer why.
		Jonathan Turley with his book, The Indispensable Right, tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app.
		America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment, from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future.
		We bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sites, and spirit that make up America.
		Beginning July 4th, join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments, only on the C-SPAN Network.
		Washington Journal continues.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Joining us now to discuss the latest on President Trump's actions and other political news of the day is Niall Standage.
		He is a White House columnist for The Hill.
		Niall, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
unidentified		Good to be with you, Tammy.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		A lot to talk about.
		We'll start with the latest, what we saw on Friday, and that was the Supreme Court.
		They handed down several major decisions, including one involving birthright citizenship and how it could change the Trump administration's actions.
		Tell us what the court decided.
unidentified		It decided, in essence, that district courts cannot issue what are known as universal injunctions.
		And what that means in laypersons' terms is a district court cannot injunct the president nationwide, that those actions preventing or stopping a presidential order apply to the parties before the court.
		They don't go broader than that.
		What this means in this particular case is that there are a number of Democratic states that sued where they declaring or upholding birthright citizenship.
		That stands, but the Trump administration can move forward elsewhere.
		The more profound effect is that it gives greater power to the president overall because his or her in the future requirements or orders can only be stopped in a more limited fashion.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And President Trump claimed the decision as a victory.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		How could it impact future actions that we see him take?
unidentified		So I think there are a number of different areas where district courts have paused Trump policies or Trump orders.
		That means that that will no longer apply in such a universal way.
		It is perhaps worth stressing, Tammy, that in the instance of birthright citizenship, the court did not decide that the president was correct in changing the definition of birthright citizenship.
		It decided that district courts couldn't stop him nationwide.
		So the likelihood perhaps is that that will ultimately still be decided itself by the Supreme Court.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And another decision was North Carolina's efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		What did the court decide and what are the larger implications for Planned Parenthood?
unidentified		Well, in that one, you're going to have to help me out a little bit because that was one of the ones that I'm less familiar with.
unidentified		What was the basic gist of that one?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		They decided to rescind Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.
unidentified		That's right.
		So in that instance, I think it is obviously more problematic to have, because effectively you're saying that the government cannot, or via Medicaid, cannot fund Planned Parenthood.
		And this, of course, is very much part of the whole abortion topic.
		And the argument from the right has been that in essence you are then allowing, in effect, Medicaid money, government money to be spent in sort of methods that assist or facilitate abortion.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And one more case, and that was the courts decided to act on the role parents have in deciding what types of books their children are exposed to.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		What happened in the case concerning Maryland parents in that case?
unidentified		So in that case, it was a victory for the parents who sued.
		This was about LGBT texts being taught in school.
		And the argument from parents was that the teaching of those texts in public schools abrogated or transgressed their rights to religious freedom because it cut against their religious beliefs.
		The lead plaintiff in this case, interestingly, wasn't a, it wasn't from a Christian perspective, it was a Muslim parent who were arguing that this was messing with their religious rights.
		The court upheld that.
		The court ruled on behalf of the parents against the Maryland school policy.
		The Maryland school policy did not allow parents to opt out or to opt their children out of these lessons.
		The Supreme Court said, no, you can't do that.
		Prohibiting opt-outs is an infringement of rights to religious freedom.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And wanted to ask you about your column that you had out just yesterday.
		The headline, SCOTUS, clears the way for Trump and his successors talking about some of these cases.
		What is the longer-term impact of some of these decisions?
unidentified		The longer-term impact, I think, is a shift from the judiciary as a check to it being able to provide or create less restraints on a president.
		So it shifts power from the judicial branch to the executive branch, in effect.
		Now, of course, the Supreme Court is still the ultimate arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not, but it shifts power by allowing a president greater leeway to have orders transcend rulings where a district court will rule against a president, but the president can still go on in a broader sense to have those orders go through.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Niall Stanage is our guest for the next 35 minutes or so.
		Our topic is recent actions by President Trump as well as other political news of the day.
		If you have a question or comment for Niall, Niall, you can start calling in now the lines.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Wanted to ask you about what we have been watching play out this morning on Net 2 on our second network, and that is the Senate.
		They are in session, a rare Sunday session, as they continue work on President Trump's one big, beautiful bill.
		Your thoughts on the process that we've seen play out in Congress so far to date and how members have reacted to various provisions.
unidentified		So overall, I think this is another reminder of the fact that the Republican Party is very loyal to President Trump.
		This is a different scenario from what we saw in his first term, where there were still more Republican dissenters.
		At this point, he has a very firm grip on the Republican Party.
		And so what we saw over approximately the past 24 hours were some people, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin being a particularly obvious example, who had at least implied that they were going to vote no on this and then they switched their vote.
		So the decision to proceed with the bill ultimately passed 5149.
		Vice President Vance did not need to break a tie as some people thought he would.
		That being said, there were still obviously two Republican holdouts, Rand Paul and Tom Tillis, arguing from very different perspectives.
		Rand Paul's objection is to a raising of the debt ceiling.
		Tom Tillis's objection is to how Medicaid changes could negatively impact his state.
		And so that's emblematic of a broader picture here where Republican leaders are trying to corral people at both ends of the ideological spectrum.
		Some people who are fiscally conservative and worried about the costs of this bill, and some people who are broadly more moderate and are worried that in terms of the cost-cutting process, things that provide real benefit to their constituents will be done away with.
		And that's the needle that Republican leaders have to thread.
		They did obviously thread it in recent hours by a narrow margin, but that's going to be the ongoing process.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We've seen several headlines this past week that the Senate parliamentarian has stripped out provisions saying that they cannot be included.
		Senator Thune, the majority leader, last week said that he won't overrule those decisions.
		Does that tell us anything?
unidentified		Well, it tells us that the Senate parliamentarian is still an important figure, even though it tends to get into rather arcane matters in terms of the parliamentarians' rulings.
		The short version of this is the Republicans are trying to pass this with a simple majority.
		That means that in order to do that, it needs to be matters that pertain to the budget.
		If the matters don't pertain to the budget, you would need a 60-vote supermajority, which they're not going to get because there's only 53 Republicans and all Democrats are expected to vote against.
		So in this instance, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that certain provisions pertaining to Medicaid, most famously and some other things, didn't pass muster under that framework that I've just laid out.
		That then does affect the ultimate financial balancing act in the bill.
		And the fact that Leader Thune decided he was not going to, as it were, protest these orders, I think, did ensure that the Senate parliamentarian will have a few more moments in the spotlight.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We have callers waiting to talk with you.
		We'll start with Rory in Palm Beach, Florida, line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Rory.
		Rory, are you there?
unidentified		Yes, I'm here.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Rory.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Yeah, I'm listening to Mr. Sinaj.
		I believe that's how you pronounce it.
		But anyway, good morning, D.C. My biggest question to him is: you know, due to people with my situation where I ended up receiving three injuries at work-related in my work-related history.
		And with all is going on with these illegals and what they're going to try to do with taking Medicaid away from people that shouldn't be getting it.
		I mean, I lost 15 years of my work history, and I was curious if he would have a good idea about whether or not I would be able to receive extra help because I lost so many years of my work history.
		I think I deserve Medicaid, which is very complicated to get in the state of Florida.
		I don't want to explain why because I don't want to go rogue on you guys.
		But anyway, that's basically about it.
		I'm concerned about it.
		And Palm Beach County, I believe I shall be coming here once that bill is passed about the middle of August, right around my birthday.
		But anyway, that's all I've got.
		Thank you very much.
		Thanks for that question.
		I wouldn't have the expertise to advise on, I don't know what your personal circumstances are, and therefore I wouldn't wish to give you bad advice as to whether you will or won't be eligible.
		You're right that one of the measures that is argued for from the Republican Party about this bill is to try to reduce costs in Medicaid by removing people who are ineligible.
		Now the fear is that some people will be caught in the net who shouldn't be and may therefore get booted out of Medicaid when they are entitled to it.
		But I just wouldn't have the expertise to comment on your own case.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Bernadette and in Richborough, Pennsylvania, Lying for Democrats.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Bernadette.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Yeah, I was being informed about the Medicaid, and I know a lot of people with disabilities rely on that for just health.
		And they were talking about they amended it about what hospitals that they were going to give a certain amount of money.
		I'm thinking, well, what's that going to do to our hospital system?
		You know, just to sweep across the board without explaining details.
		You know, I find that to be so abrupt and so irresponsible to the American public.
		And I just wanted to see what everybody else had to think about that.
		In that particular instance, there was a late change actually aimed at placating a Republican Senator, Josh Hawley of Missouri, in relation to the funding of rural hospitals.
		And, I mean, in basic terms, increasing or not cutting further the funding of rural hospitals.
		Now, in terms of how that affects whatever rural hospital you yourself are, you know, is in your area, I think those details are to be worked out.
		Still, in relation to Medicaid, there have been projections that over the next decade, which is the standard timeline that these things are calculated, several million people would lose health coverage.
		Again, as I said to the previous caller, that's not, I mean, I can't judge your particular instance, but the fear is that a large number of people would lose health coverage, and we'll have to see if this provision to shore up rural hospitals works or not.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Another one of your recent headlines, Trump fights to hold on to narrative of Iran when it's breaking down.
		It's your assessment reaction of success of the mission and what we saw play out last week.
		Do you believe U.S. actions were successful?
unidentified		Well, it depends how you define success, I suppose.
		They were successful in that they clearly damaged in a fairly significant way Iran's nuclear facilities.
		Now, President Trump made the comment about them being totally obliterated.
		That has become a much more contentious point because the reason that the United States was ostensibly called upon related to a specific Iranian site at Fordo, which is built into a mountain.
		And the argument was that it was only these bunker buster bombs that were capable of reaching that.
		Now, there have been conflicting reports about how much damage was caused to that particular plant at Fordo.
		In terms of the broader objective of putting back Iran's nuclear program, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others have cited a different plant in Isfahan, which would be needed to convert uranium to an actual weaponized substance, metallicized uranium, actually.
		That does appear to have been destroyed.
		The Israelis had already hit that plant, so there is a question about why the United States had to be called upon to do so again.
		But if the success is simply damaging Iran's nuclear program, that has obviously been a success.
		Obviously, there were no American servicemen or women hurt or worse, and that's a success.
		But the question, I think, pertains to if everything is destroyed or if, as the DIA assessment suggested, Iran's progress had only been put back a few months.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And something you mentioned earlier is President Trump's hold on the Republican Party.
		He had a lot of loyalists, or those who have typically been loyalists to him, who disagreed with his actions, the actions that he took.
		Will those have any long-term impact?
unidentified		I think it's a fascinating split because it is very different from the position even 20 years ago when I first came to the United States.
		George W. Bush was president and the Republican Party broadly was more hawkish, more likely to approve of intervention across the world.
		That has shifted in terms of President Trump's MAGA coalition, who tend to be, following his lead, Trump's lead, much more skeptical of those kind of interventions.
		And so we have seen in the past few weeks as the Iran situation has really heated up, people like Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene or Steve Bannon or Tucker Carlson arguing pretty forcefully against the U.S. getting involved for fear that the U.S. would get sucked into a wider war.
		Now, of course, you have more traditional hawkish Republicans, Senator Lindsay Graham would be a good example of this, who really favor a much more maximalist, aggressive approach.
		And look, there is a genuine policy difference there, and it's an interesting one to watch play out.
		I don't think that rift has been healed because I think those two factions just see things in a fundamentally different way.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		A question on X for you from JD.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Redine asks, having witnessed the escalation of the troubles in Northern Ireland, where political assassinations and sectarian violence fueled decades of conflict, how do you assess the risk of the American troubles?
unidentified		That's a great question.
		As someone who grew up in Belfast during a time of conflict, I'm very worried about the toxicity of the atmosphere here in the United States.
		Obviously, we had the terrible events in Minnesota very recently.
		Similarly, last year, there was a, you know, President Trump very narrowly escaped an assassination attempt.
		But I think the thing that I, the broader root cause that I worry about more is the propensity to see the other side as evil or as subversive or as not as an enemy rather than an opponent.
		And I think that is very dangerous because of the extent to which it can lead to political tribalism, political sectarianism.
		And the consequences of that I worry about quite a lot.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Laverne in Rockford, Illinois, Line for Democrats.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Laverne.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just have a couple of comments.
		The first time Trump became president, he took the money from the government, from the Army, from everything else to build that damn fence.
		Now, he hasn't said anything about that fence this time around because it's a joke.
		And one other thing is they want to lock up all the firstborn citizens.
		They're citizens of the United States.
		And if he locks them up, they can't vote.
		But they forget that Trump is also his parents were not citizens.
		to where they lock him up um so in relation to the border wall um there is money in the new bill for border security Now, how exactly that is apportioned, I would need to read the latest version of the legislation to find out.
		In relation to immigration and birthright citizenship and so forth, obviously President Trump's father was an American citizen by birth.
		If I'm recalling correctly, his mother was born in Scotland.
		But the birthright citizenship changes that President Trump wants wouldn't prohibit that because his father was an American-born U.S. citizen.
		So I hope I am remembering the details of his biography correctly, and Tammy will correct me if I've got it all wrong.
		But I think that is the case.
		Now, in relation to how President Trump deals with people who are unauthorized or illegal or whichever term you want to use, migrants, I mean, if the locking of them all up, we'll see if that actually happens.
		I mean, there isn't the capacity to lock up 11 or 12 million people, which is the general estimate of the unauthorized population.
		But I take the broader point, perhaps, that lots of us, not just people like me who came to this country having been born elsewhere, but lots of the population is descended from immigrants.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		You did have his parentage right.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		You have a good memory.
unidentified		Glad to hear it.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Scott in Ithaca, New York, Line for Democrats.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Scott.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
jerrod sessler ▲ ● ▼		I'm sort of a little bit of a reluctant Democrat, but I would say that it's amazing that the bill is actually being read.
unidentified		I think in a lot of other countries they don't even do that kind of thing.
		And that's really good.
		But I think the bill needs to have more time for Congress and the public to be exposed to it, not just crash course, pushing it through one way or the other.
		And I think there are some good things in the bill and some not so good things in the bill.
		And so for people painting it black and white, this is a good bill or a bad bill, I don't think that's the case.
		I think there's definitely elements.
		But I think a lot of the American public would agree, and you've heard this terminology before, where a lot of the things, the initiatives from this administration and just Congress in general, should be done with a scalpel and not with a chainsaw.
		And there are some good things to cut out in general because we can't keep going this, you know, with the deficits that we're doing.
		On the other hand, they need to be more careful because some of the NIH cuts that were made really cut out some really valid research and there's some garbage research out there too that needs to be cut out for sure.
		But there's also some valid stuff that goes on.
		So I think it just needs to be more scientifically done and people would, the general public would respect that more versus you have like Schumer saying, he just got the bill hours ago and now he's dead against the bill basically for many reasons and stuff.
		But it needs to be more objective and more scientifically done.
		So we need more time for the public and Congress to examine the bill.
		Yeah, Scott, you said as you were beginning that question that you're a reluctant Democrat, and I think that probably a lot of people across the board would agree with the point that you made.
		As a matter of fact, there's been a lot of focus, as you know, on the Senate for obvious reasons in the past 48 hours.
		In the House, the main, almost sole Republican holdout is Thomas Massey from Kentucky.
		And he makes an argument very similar to the one that you just made.
		Massey's argument is essentially that too much gets piled into these mega-bills, and therefore that basically jams politicians because they can't vote against something that they disagree with for fear that they will be painted as voting against some much more popular provision.
		Now, there is an argument against that, which is basically to do with the fact that horse trading is necessary to get anything done in Congress, which tends to move at a rather slow pace.
		But overall, I think the view that you put forward is one that a lot of people, regardless of political ideology, probably share.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Wanted to ask you about another event that happened this week, and that was the NATO summit in The Hague.
		It was seen as a victory for President Trump.
		This is a headline that Fox News had.
		NATO's Trump turnaround from threatening to pull U.S. out to daddy of alliance.
		That was, of course, based on a phrase, a comment that NATO Secretary General made.
		Your response.
unidentified		Well, the daddy thing, I don't know.
		My response is that more people should see psychotherapists than, but look, in relation to the overall summit, the point I think was that President Trump did elicit this commitment from NATO members to up their defense spending.
		They're basically providing their fair share.
		And I don't see any way to argue against the fact that that was a win for President Trump.
		This has been something he has demanded for a long time.
		There is some creative accounting in this 5% figure because things that are broader than defence get counted as defence spending.
		For example, cybersecurity measures get counted as defence spending.
		Spending to ensure that roads are strong enough to carry military vehicles can get counted as defence spending.
		It is not purely soldiers and munitions.
		But it is a big increase.
		One sort of final point to make on that is I think in Europe there has been a general increase in defence spending from nations that are concerned that the United States will not be quite such a reliable partner as it had been previously.
		Now, obviously, Ukraine is not a NATO member.
		That's a fairly contentious issue in itself.
		But I think President Trump's backing away from Ukraine has left some of the other nations in Europe more concerned and deciding that they need to up their own defense spending for their own reasons.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		In the long term, does that shift the U.S.'s role on the global stage for a long time?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		You've been seen as a leader.
unidentified		Potentially, yes.
		I mean, because potentially there is a movement away from the idea that the United States was the guarantor of peace in Europe.
		It had certainly played that role during the Cold War, you know, when the Eastern Bloc was looming large.
		It was the U.S. that Western Europe depended on.
		We can have a whole debate about whether it is fair or not for that role to continue, but it certainly seems like President Trump is fairly skeptical of that role and fairly skeptical of multilateral institutions generally.
		So I think that does change America's role to a degree.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Our guest, Niles Dantage, we have him for about another 15 minutes or so.
		If you have a question or comment for him, you can give us a call, the Lions, Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
		We have been hearing ongoing news about trade and tariff efforts.
		It was on Friday that President Trump announced that the U.S. was ending trade talks with Canada, largely over an issue about taxing, collecting taxes on tech companies.
		Overall, from what we've seen when Trump came into office and started these trade talks and imposing tariffs, what impact have they had or how impactful have they been on the overall U.S. economy?
unidentified		You know, some of the predictions about the effects that they'd have on the U.S. economy have come to seem slightly overdone.
		For example, in relation to inflation, which we have not really seen increase in an appreciable way.
		But then it is difficult in a way, Tammy, to extrapolate the consequences of the tariffs when the approach on tariffs has been so volatile.
		And we have seen in some instances there's been a tariff in place in the morning that hasn't been there in the afternoon.
		And so that makes the political and economic implications much more difficult to figure out.
		It is certainly the case that in terms of American financial markets, the S ⁇ P 500 just last week hitting another all-time high.
		The markets appear to have got over the initial shock that they suffered when tariffs were imposed.
		But of course, they've got over it partly because a lot of those tariffs have been taken away or have been reduced.
		And so the Canada situation that you mentioned is sort of another example of that volatility, where the U.S. and Canada believed that they were making progress toward a trade deal.
		The tax that the President is referring to was not brand new.
		Perhaps someone brought it to his attention, but it wasn't brand new, but it appears to have blown things up for now.
		So it is just always difficult to predict exactly where the tariff question is headed.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And beyond economics, when it comes to relationships with these countries, week before last, President Trump was briefly in Canada for the G7 summit, where he was going to be meeting with some of these leaders that he is having these trade and tariff talks with.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		What impact is it having on our relationship with countries across the world?
unidentified		So I think obviously if you take the Canadian example, that is one where these struggles very obviously had a, well, they introduced greater tension, let me put it quite diplomatically, between the U.S. and Canada.
		And we saw the impact of that in Canadian politics because the Liberal Party, which had seemed, frankly, dead and buried in the opinion polls, came back partly out of Canadian popular sentiment, shifting toward a more confrontational attitude toward President Trump because of what he had done on tariffs.
		So that, I think, does have an impact.
		We have seen the United Kingdom and the United States sign up to at least some sort of broad understanding on a few issues.
		But this idea that there were going to be sweeping agreements, I think 90 agreements in 90 days were once promised.
		There has been nothing close to that has emerged.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Joanne in Illinois, Line 4, Independence.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Joanne.
unidentified		Hi, thanks for taking my call.
		I would like your guest to comment on his opinion of why we are having this scrutiny on this particular bill.
		And I don't recall this type of discussion or transparency on any administration's bills previous to this.
		Only hearing, oh, it was passed in the dead of the night, or you have to pass the bill to understand what's in it, et cetera.
		And this seems to be, I mean, there was, you know, everybody and his uncle has an opinion.
		Thank you.
		It's an interesting point, Joanne.
		I'm trying to recall whether, I mean, certainly, for example, when President Biden was in office and making his push for massive infrastructure spending, or there was, you may remember, the Build Back Better bill.
		My recollection is that did, in fact, receive quite a lot of public debate.
		Now, in the case of the current bill, I mean, this is a massive piece of legislation encompassing things from tax changes to border security to Medicaid.
		So it hits on a lot of issues that are very important to a lot of people.
		Then, in addition to that, you have the question of its overall cost to, well, to the American government and by extension to the American taxpayer.
		It is forecast ultimately to add trillions of dollars to the deficit.
		And so I think that, frankly, is something that does merit scrutiny.
		I'm not sure with respect I'd go entirely along with your view that other similar pieces of major legislation have received less scrutiny.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Steve in Ohio Line for Independence.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Steve.
unidentified		Hello.
		I just wanted to talk a little bit about the strike on Iran and how we have poor leadership.
		Trump just blows off steam about how everything was totally obliterated instead of taking the time to see what exactly happened.
		Now he paints himself in a corner where if we take additional action, he loses face.
		So we look foolish and the people, the Iranian leadership's probably laughing at him, saying, you don't know what he's doing or what he's talking about.
		So I don't like the fact that we're in this position.
		He should have come on and said the strike was flawless.
		We'll see what the damage is.
		And if there's more to be done, there's more to be done.
		If there's not, there's not.
		Instead of being a real leader like that and taking a strong position of we're doing what we have to do, we'll be finished when we're finished.
		He made it seem like it was a total destruction when it clearly was not.
		So that's all I have to say is another example of weak leadership that just makes up stuff.
		And then when the facts come out, you see that it was probably more or less incorrect.
		So just another example of that kind of stuff.
		And look, I think that There is a tendency, obviously, on President Trump's part to engage in hyperbole at times.
		I mean, that just seems indisputable when you look at his record.
		Now, in this particular case, it is worth saying that there does appear to have been significant damage done to Iran's uranium enrichment program.
		In relation to the point that you raised, Steve, I take the point that if, for example, in some hypothetical six months or nine months down the line, the Iranian leadership comes out and says, look,
		we have reinstituted, we have repaired essentially our enrichment program, then that will look embarrassing, I think, for President Trump and will also pitch him back into the debate that we were talking about earlier among his own supporters between those more hawkish Republicans and the more isolationist MAGA Republicans.
		Also, I think, to your point, there is some danger here that the Iranians will take a completely different lesson from all of this than Trump or Netanyahu want them to, which is that Trump and Netanyahu want them to take the lesson that they were bombed because they had a uranium enrichment program, therefore they should end it forever.
		It is possible that the Iranians take the lesson that they were bombed because, unlike places like North Korea and Pakistan, they do not have a nuclear weapon, or Russia for that matter, and therefore they need to acquire one as fast as possible.
		And if their facilities have not been completely obliterated, that obviously becomes a more realistic goal.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Mike in Houston, Texas, line for Republicans.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Mike.
unidentified		Good morning.
		You know, one thing I remember back in 2009, it was the spring, President Obama's first 100 days.
		The one thing that I remember hearing almost daily was the Arab Spring.
		The Arab Spring.
		The media, the Leslie stalls, and so forth, it was all about the Arab Spring, that President Obama was going to fix the Middle East.
		And that's so long since lost about what the promises were.
		And Trump does, you know, he has hyperbole.
		We all get that.
		I have a grip on that, too.
		And I understand how many people call in and tell us to express their absolute hatred for him under all circumstances.
		So whatever he says about the bombing, they don't believe it.
		And they wouldn't even root for it, even if it was a success.
		I will tell you, though, shifting gears to the budget, I have to tell you, I have to say this.
		We are spending 63% more money right now than we were in 2019.
		And in 2000, the year 2000, we balanced the federal budget with $2.2 trillion.
		If anybody looks at the curve, the spike in spending on Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, especially Medicaid and Medicare, it's just stunning.
		It's 50% more, 50% more on Medicaid than it was in 2019.
		Someone has got to put the brakes on this stuff.
		And when they say cut Medicaid, the implication, the inference, I should say, is they're going to take it away from people who are just desperately just trying to get from their bedroom to their kitchen.
		And it just isn't so.
		It just isn't so.
		You have people.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Mike, we'll get a response from Nile.
unidentified		Yeah, sorry to cut across you, Mike.
		In relation to the Arab Spring, I think that you're quite correct in saying that much of the promise of that ended up being lost.
		And we have seen chaos or the return of repression in a number of those states where a spring appeared to be at hand.
		In relation to spending, I think that people, again, across the spectrum would largely agree with your diagnosis there, which is that spending has ramped up to a massive degree.
		The overall national debt is at massive levels, and there are some people who think, well, that can maybe continue because the debt will never be truly called in, so to speak.
		But there are a lot of people who are very concerned about that and about the consequences of that for everything, including interest rates that Americans will have to pay on their mortgages and car notes and all the rest of it.
		The problem is that curbing spending typically requires either tax increases or taking stuff away from people.
		And neither of those things are politically popular in the short term.
		And we do not have politicians of either party who are, generally speaking, very eager to cause themselves a short-term peril for longer-term good.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		You cover a variety of topics.
		We have only been able to touch on a few.
		What is something that you have covered that you think is notable that we haven't talked about?
		And what are you going to be watching in this coming week and the coming weeks ahead?
unidentified		Well, in terms of the second part of that question is easier to answer than the first.
		I mean, in terms of the coming week ahead, I think all eyes are going to be on this bill as Republicans push for final passage and Democrats try to either delay that process or deepen Republican schisms.
		We've talked a bit about the wider world in terms of Iran.
		Obviously, the situation in Gaza continues to be catastrophic just from the basic human point of view.
		There is some rather vague talk of trying to secure a ceasefire there, maybe.
		Obviously, like any person of any degree of compassion, I think that a ceasefire there would be welcome.
		And if President Trump can secure one, good for him.
		But that obviously continues to be a major issue on the world stage.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And President Trump, just this morning, may be up late watching the Senate, but he posted on Truth Social, make the deal in Gaza, get the hostages back, sign it at DJT.
		We have one last call for you.
		That is Miles in Burke, Virginia, Line for Independence.
		Good morning, Miles.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you.
		I want to turn your attention back to the reconciliation bill.
		And this is just an observation about, pardon me, how superficial the journalism coverage is at times.
		It's primarily a tax bill, or it's largely a tax bill from a fiscal point of view.
		And so we understand the numbers in the Republican proposal.
		My question is, what about the Democrats' alternative?
		Is there a Democratic alternative?
		And more to the point, the Democrats say that this is just tax cuts for billionaires and cuts to Medicaid.
		But it's not just tax cuts for billionaires.
		It's tax cuts for probably most taxpayers.
		It may be proportionately higher for millionaires and billionaires.
		And so it seems to me the journalistic enterprise is to nail down the Democrats on an issue that is fundamentally a kitchen table issue for every American.
		How much should you pay in taxes?
		And what do the Democrats say the alternative is to this tax bill?
		They're not in power, but they have a responsibility to present an alternative.
		Where do they draw the line?
		Because if two teachers making $140,000 combined are going to have their taxes lowered even slightly, that doesn't sound like tax cuts for billionaires to me.
		And so where's the journalistic inquiry to the Democrats or the commentary about this issue?
		Thank you, and I'll take your comments off on the air.
		Thank you.
		We've, I think, a fairly brief amount of time left.
		In terms of a Democratic alternative, I think they would argue that because they're not in power, they don't actually have a responsibility to draw up something like this bill, which is almost 1,000 pages long, which would essentially have no realistic possibility of passage at all.
		Now, in terms of the tax consequences of the bill, I mean, there's certainly work out there, both in the media and from organizations that specifically work to assess projections of tax proposals as to what the impacts of this bill would be.
		And if we have people watching who want to know what those effects would be for them, they can certainly find those online from reputable sources rather than having me guess exactly what the effect would be at a certain salary point.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Our guest, Niall Stanage, is a White House columnist for The Hill.
		You can find his work online at thehill.com.
		Niall, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
		Thank you.
		Later this morning on Washington Journal, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Military and Security Studies Program Director Michael Eisenstadt will join us to discuss the latest on the Israel-Iran conflict.
		But next, it's open form.
		You can start calling in now.
		The lines there on your screen, Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		In a nation divided, a rare moment of unity.
		This fall, C-SPAN presents Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins in a town where partisan fighting prevails.
		One table, two leaders, one goal, to find common ground.
		This fall, Ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
		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.
		Shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to C-SPAN.org slash radio on SiriusXM Radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN radio.
		Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day.
		That's Washington today, weekdays of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		For the next 25 minutes or so, we are in open form.
		You can start calling in now as we show you a live look at the Senate floor where the Senate clerks are working through reading 940 pages of the Senate's version of Trump's spending package.
		We will get your thoughts on that and more.
		We'll start our calls with Robert in Wells, Maine, line for Independence.
		Good morning, Robert.
		We lost Robert.
		We'll go to Tommy in Rochester, New York, line for Democrats.
		Good morning.
unidentified		My thought on spending bill that Mr. Trump is proposing.
		I think it's kind of ridiculous.
		Either way, and trillions of dollars and taken away stuff like Medicare, food, for children in school is kind of like communistic.
		That's my point, my point of view.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Tommy in New York.
		Matthew in North Carolina, line for independence.
		Good morning, Matthew.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, I have to agree with the previous gentleman.
		I just think this bill is completely ridiculous.
		It's clearly cut out for the top 1%.
		And this is why I voted for Tomlaw, because I kind of seen this coming.
		Trump 2.0 would be worse than the first Trump presidency.
		And I just, I don't know why people just, I don't know why they don't get it.
		This guy's out to run, tear down our democracy.
		And I just, I hope, I hope we can hold it together until the next presidential election.
		And that's all I got to say.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Matthew in North Carolina.
		Maria in Georgia, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Maria.
unidentified		Good morning, C-SPAN, C-SPAN family.
		I'm just calling.
		I want to give my opinion on the platform that you guys have.
		You come on seven days a week, three hours a day, and any topic or subject you have on this majority of Caucasians.
		I like to see African Americans sit in your guest seat much, much more often than you have because I get tired of listening to Caucasians' opinions, facts, and their lives.
		And you can do much better with the guests that you have on.
		Holly know African Americans.
		Thank you, and I hope you do do better.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Maria in Georgia.
		Let's hear from Carl in California, line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Carl.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I've been watching you guys since you started, and I can't understand why you changed your format.
		You used to show the when they had the bills or they were doing confirmation hearings, you would show the votes and who voted.
		Okay, now you show a split screen, and we don't know as citizens who's voting in what way for what bill.
		And the split screen usually shows something that we've already seen that could go back days or weeks.
		And I just think it's not fair, you know, for the American people to not know how their legislators are voting.
		I mean, we see the end vote and we know how the vote goes, but we don't know how the individual senators voted.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Carl, are you talking about the text that appears on the screen during votes?
unidentified		I'm talking about when, like, for instance, when they're voting on the bill right now, we don't see how each senator voted, you know, whether it be Democrat or Republican.
		All we see is the end of what the vote was, whether it passed or it didn't.
		So before you changed the format, you used to show the whole vote, how each senator voted.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Carl, I will let you know that the text that appears on your screen when you are watching the House or Senate vote, that is controlled by the chamber.
		That's not something that C-SPAN puts up.
		But if you ever do want to know how members voted, you can find it online.
		C-SPAN has a link to the congressional website that has all that information.
unidentified		Okay, so you guys didn't change that.
unidentified		That was something that was changed by the Senate?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
		By whatever chamber.
		We're taking their feed that those numbers are coming from them.
		That's not something that we put up.
unidentified		I mean, but the split screen, who's that you or them?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We're doing that, but we are not controlling the numbers to show you who voted which way.
unidentified		But if you didn't do the split screen, wouldn't you see the whole vote?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		No, those numbers are still going to, the text on the screen would still stay the same.
		And that was Carl in California.
		We'll hear from Minnie in Illinois, line for independence.
		Good morning, Minnie.
		Minnie, are you there?
unidentified		Yes.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Minnie.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		You know, I just thank God I've been praying to get on here.
		People are forgetting about who the creator of this universe is, and they need to get off of Trump.
		If God didn't intend for Trump to be there, he wouldn't be there.
		God is doing some dreadful things in these evil and last days.
		And I want everybody to know, get your mind on Jesus Christ.
		He is the creator of this universe.
		Leave Trump alone.
		Pray that he gets delivered.
		He and his family.
		And thank you very much, ma'am.
		I'm glad the Lord had me to get on.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Minnie in Illinois.
		Let's talk with Jeannie in York, Maine, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Jeannie.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just love C-SPAN, and I think it's one of the best shows on the air.
		And I do watch it, and I watch the Senate hearings.
		And what I'm most concerned about is the fact that they're passing the bills in the middle of the night.
		Nobody is reading the bills.
		I'm watching the Senate, when, you know, the Senate today, and they're talking to empty chairs.
		Everybody should be sitting in those chairs and being made to sign something that they're actually there and that they're reading, that they're listening to what is being read.
		It's just too fast.
		The whole process is too fast.
		And the other thing that I would like to mention is that the civility of everybody, including some of the newscasters and the president himself, is so obscene.
		The language that we are putting out there that we are okaying as citizens is destructive.
		And that's all I'd have to say.
		And I just hope we become more civil in this country.
		Thank you so much for a great show.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And that was Jeannie in Maine.
		This headline from Roll Call: Senate votes to take up Big Beautiful Revised Budget Bill.
		It says that Senate Republicans took a critical first step toward passing their sweeping budget reconciliation bill Saturday night by voting to bring the package to the floor, setting the stage for a heated floor fight and grueling series of amendment votes that will likely stretch past the weekend.
		The vote to proceed to the bill was held open for more than three hours as GOP leaders worked to convince holdouts to let the package move to the floor.
		Finally, senators voted to take up the measure on a 51 to 49 vote.
		Vice President JD Vance was on hand to break a tie, but that ended up being unnecessary.
		As expected, GOP Senators Tom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky, the latter played golf with President Trump earlier Saturday, voted against the motion to proceed.
		Trump prompted threats to back a challenger to Tillis, one of the most endangered incumbents next year.
		We have been showing you live video of the Senate floor where they are working their way through reading 940-page bill.
		Here is the moment that kicked off everything yesterday.
unidentified		Mr. President, I ask consent the reading be dispensed with.
chuck schumer ▲ ● ▼		Preserving the right to object.
		And I will object.
		Senate Republicans are scrambling to pass a radical bill released to the public in the dead of night, praying the American people don't realize what's in it.
		If Senate Republicans won't tell the American people what's in this bill, then Democrats are going to force this chamber to read it from start to finish.
		I object.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		The Senate Press Gallery has been posting updates on the status of where clerks are in reading that bill.
		It says reading of the substitution amendment to H.R. 1 began at 11.08 p.m. Saturday evening at 8.08 a.m.
		After nine hours, we are at page 505 of 940.
		About 15 minutes left in today's open form.
		Let's hear from Dee in Georgia, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Dee.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I was coming to say that I love C-SPAN.
		I don't understand sometimes when people call in and ask you grievous questions, you know.
		But anyway, I love it.
		You guys are doing a fantastic job.
		But also, I did want to say I don't qualify for Medicaid or any of that, but I do know people, and I feel bad for them.
		I'll say, you know, what aggravates me, and I do want to say this and get it out there, is, you know, the Senate, the Congress, and all the people there, they are getting paid from us.
		You know, we, the people, as you know, as we hear, but they are getting paid from us.
		But then they want to send good people out, you know, and take the immigration I'm talking about.
		But we need the people that are good to stay here and work and contribute.
		And it's not fair.
		It's like almost we're using them, you know, and that's not fair, you know, to say that much, but they help us.
		But they are making payments.
		If not, they have great insurance.
		They have a great income.
		Their families are fine, as is mine.
		And I'm blessed, you know.
		But my heart just goes out to people like that.
		And I've been wanting to say that.
		And I have said that.
		But C-SPAN, you guys are doing a good job.
		Kimmy, y'all do been Mamie.
		All you guys do good.
		No, Pedro, he's pretty much to the point.
		But you guys did really well.
		And have a blessed day.
		But I just wanted to get it out there.
		You know, we, the people, are paying their income, you know.
		And I just want to pick people out there.
		And, you know, I don't understand.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And, you know, that was Dee in Georgia.
		Let's hear from Chris in Naperville, Illinois, line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Chris.
unidentified		Good morning.
		You know, Democrats are obsessed with thinking that the government is a better steward of their hard-earned dollars than the American taxpayer is.
		Anything that lowers taxes for Americans is a great thing.
		Furthermore, Democrats are currently leaderless, idealist, solutionless, and clueless.
		Just look to the socialists they elected in the New York City mayor race.
		God bless Donald Trump.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Chris in Illinois.
		Roberto in Easton, Pennsylvania, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Roberto.
unidentified		Oh, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		So this actually works out nicely that the man who was just before me spoke after me because, well, the Democratic Party, I'm a Democrat, but the Democratic Party is not a homogeneous party.
		And, well, the people of New York can elect whoever they want.
		I live 100 miles away, so I really couldn't care less.
		And he does not speak for me at all.
		I am not a socialist in any way at all or capitalist, you know, Marxist-Leninist or any of that sort of thing.
		You know, I believe that everything that you work to earn is yours, which technically is a thing that Karl Marx said, but hey, whatever.
		Hey, you know, what's yours is yours.
		So I just very firmly believe in this notion of that everything that I have, I work to earn, and I don't is mine.
		And I mean, that I, excuse me, I hit my smoke.
		Everything that I work to earn is mine, and everything that I didn't is not mine.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Got your point, Roberto.
		That was Roberto in Pennsylvania.
		Scott in Illinois, line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Scott.
unidentified		Good morning, America.
		Thank you, C-SPAN.
		I have something very important to tell the country.
		I just returned from the honor flight.
		I think Tammy can explain what the honor flight is when I'm done.
		But the thing is, the main thing is I have to read, I just got published in our daily news.
		If you have any diet, I almost died.
		I'm a diabetic real bad, and I had a bad heart attack.
		And just getting old, I'm Vietnam veteran.
dr richard stallman ▲ ● ▼		Okay, if you have any dietary needs, not desires, no prime rib, please let your guardian or your application know because they serve fast food.
unidentified		Us old timers, we grew up on real food.
		I cannot eat fast food, and I didn't eat for 48 hours and didn't sleep for 48 hours.
		So please contact your spouse or your doctor for advice and guidance.
		Plenty of fluids are given.
		You don't have to worry about water and juices.
		And be prepared and take steps because I got really close.
		They were going to put me in a hospital.
		They took my keys away.
		And it was really bad because I can't eat.
		I won't say what the fast food was, but tell your people that you've got to have, you know, I would have been happy with peanut butter jelly sandwiches, carrot sticks, and a salad.
		I can't eat fast food.
		Please, any future veteran that wants to go on the honor flight, make sure they take care of you for 24 hours and tell them.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Scott, I think I spoke with you before you left for your flight.
		You were a Vietnam veteran, is that correct?
		Yes, ma'am.
		Other than the medical issues and the food offerings, how was your trip out here?
		What did you think of seeing the military?
unidentified		It was amazing seeing everything, especially the Aaron Space Museum with the Discovery and the Oligay and the SR-71.
		I had parade duty when President Nixon came to my base, and I had to stand on the tarmac, and the SR-71 came in, and now it's retired.
		But I went, holy moly, look at this jet that America has.
		So, and then I always said, if they advertise that, what do they really got?
		And we don't need to know.
		That's our military.
		So, other than that, and you hit like the Iwo Jima Memorial, I was walking up, I was going down every hour.
		There were 20 preschool kids in line with their teachers and chaperones.
		And I nodded.
		Is it okay?
		And I slapped all.
		I said, Slap me five.
		All the kids, slappy five.
		I turned around.
		Everybody was in joyful mood.
		The kids were all bored.
		It was a hot day in D.C.
		But they, you know, what's an old veteran talking to the kids?
		Because I got five great grandbabies.
		And kids love contact and storytelling.
		And, you know, get the phones away.
		You know, to me, that's what it was about.
		And where you go for the silent cemetery there, the unknown soldier, you have to be quiet.
		If you whisper, they'll eject you.
		Never in my mind, you could hear a pinch drop in that park.
		And what an honor to serve and to see these guys, you know.
		And other than that, there were other museums of World War II and this and that and the other thing.
		One thing I want to tell you about the World War II, it was like 500 kids and people there.
		I stopped and I talked to these kids and they said, my guy, why is an old veteran talking to us?
		There was four boys and I says, they had their classmates.
		I says, you want me, you know what I want you to do?
		And they went, what?
		And they were all dumbfounded.
		You know, why am I talking?
		I says, I want you to go home, crank the tunes, and play some rock and roll.
		Everybody, all the kids went nuts.
		I slapped fives and knuckled them.
		And as I walked away, they said, you're the greatest veteran ever.
		But the thing is, it was pride for my hundred guys that we were walking through.
		It's for all us.
		That's men, women, and the families.
		Don't forget the families of GIs.
		They're so important in our lives.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Well, Scott, we appreciate you giving us a call back and updating.
		We're glad you're safe.
		For those who may not know what an honor flight is, what Scott was able to do, it is conducted by nonprofit organizations.
		It's dedicated to transporting as many U.S. military veterans as possible to see the memorials of the respective wars they've fought in Washington, D.C. at no cost to them.
		Just a few minutes left in this open forum.
		Let's hear from Al in Gardner, Massachusetts, Line 4 Independence.
		Good morning, Al.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm also a veteran.
		And I actually felt the budget or the cuts or the executive orders, I would say, that our president put out there.
		I'm barely making it through life now.
		I'm 71 years old.
		And what they're doing out there is actually taking My housing.
		When you raise my wrist to the point where I cannot afford it simply because I'm directly affected by this.
		So I'd suggest to any and everyone to actually listen to these people.
		I'm on C-SPAN right now listening to these people.
		And a lot of these things that they're trying to vote on, Trump has already made executive orders for.
		Do we really want these things permanent?
		Let's think about this.
		It's not that everyone needs to listen to this project being read.
		All we have to do is look at President Trump and what he's doing and where he's going in this country.
		And anyone that ever cared about this country is not going to appreciate the fact that anyone is just disregarding everything that makes America America.
		And that's only our compassion.
		That is the only thing we have.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Al, Massachusetts, Jeff in Westchester, New York, line for Republicans.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jeff.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thanks for taking the call.
		Just a quick comment.
		You had a woman call earlier that seemed to have some issues with the complexion of the guests on C-SPAN.
		And I want to applaud C-SPAN because let's face it, the First Amendment protects the rights of speech.
		And it doesn't matter if that speech is racist or stupid.
		It just is important that people have a right to express themselves.
		And frankly, I'm concerned that this woman seemed to have not gotten the memo that DEI and locism is no longer the law of the land.
		So, you know, God bless C-SPAN for allowing freedom of expression.
		And God bless, obviously, the First Amendment.
		And most importantly, God bless our President Donald Trump.
		Thank you.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		This is a headline in The Hill.
		It says, Roberts rebuffs some criticism of Supreme Court decisions as venting.
		It says that Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday said some public criticism of the Supreme Court's work is, quote, not terribly helpful, dismissing it as venting that only focuses on the bottom line.
		He says it would be, quote, it would be good if people appreciated it's not the judge's fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that no, you don't get to do this.
		Roberts told a crowd of judges and lawyers gathered at a judicial conference in North Carolina.
		He went on to say, and it may be an incorrect interpretation, he continued, but it's if that's their criticism, then of course they can explain that and maybe the court appeals will take a different view.
		He went on to say, the article goes on to say that Roberts was not speaking to any decision, but his conversation with Albert Diaz, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Chief Judge, came one day after the Supreme Court handed down its final opinion, opinions of the term.
		C-SPAN covered that event with Chief Justice Roberts yesterday.
		If you'd like to watch it, you can find it online at our website at c-span.org.
		Just a few minutes left in this open forum.
		Let's hear from Bobby in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Bobby.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, I wanted to say some things about I'm 81 years old.
		I've never voted for a particular party.
		I tried to vote for what the person stand for that's going to help America, the working people.
		But I agree with a lot of things that President Trump is doing, especially.
		I know people that's on Medicaid and Medicare that has never worked in their lives.
		And we got people that have worked, elderly people that cannot pay for medicine and pay for their bills.
		I just had a procedure done with my heart.
		Cost me the bill was, I'm paying the bills myself out of my Social Security and my pension.
		But you got people that have never worked in getting these benefits.
		And I think it's wrong.
		They need to clean up Medicaid and Medicare from the people that will not work.
		And the next thing I would like to say, now I don't always agree with his attitude and the way he speaks and use profanity.
		I think a president and people, not only in the Congress, ought to use language that's right for the public to hear.
		And the only other thing I want to say is President Trump said that he think that this bombing where they went into Iran here and bombed these what's supposed to be her mass weapons of mass attack or uranium, whatever, so they could produce this bomb.
		Now, you cannot prove that that happened.
		The most significant thing that I think happened that you can prove in America is when they, I think it was President Obama, I'm not sure.
		When we've had soldiers dying in Vietnam and all over the world, American young men dying for what?
		I know that is protected United States.
		But the most significant to me thing that happened that you could prove is that when Solomon bin Laden came and when they bombed the work of Trade Center, now when they got Solomon bin Laden, you can prove that they came over here.
		And to me, that is one of the most significant things that happened.
		And I think they went in there that night with the neighbor seals and they took care of that.
		And I think we need to come together, all this argument and bickering.
		I never thought that I would live to see this type of thing going on in Congress from people that's supposed to be leading the nation, setting standards for our young people to follow.
		And that is what I want to say.
		But one thing, another thing I want to say, I don't care what happens and I care what happened, but whatever happened in the Middle East, what God has planned for the Middle East will happen.
		I don't care what man does, what they do now, what God has planned for the Middle East will happen.
		Thank you.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Bobby in Alabama.
		Our last call in this morning's open forum segment.
		Next on Washington Journal, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Military and Security Studies Program Director Michael Eisenstadt joins us to discuss the latest on the Israel-Iran conflict.
		We'll be right back.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		One October morning in 2018, journalist William Giroux says he was returning some books to his local Virginia Beach library when he noticed a new state historical marker planted in the ground near the front entrance.
		It said the library was built on the site of a World War II prisoner war camp.
		In Mr. Giroux's author's note in his latest book called The 15, he writes, quote, I was surprised and a little embarrassed, unquote, not to know that the U.S. had 700 POW camps spread throughout the United States in 46 different states, housing 371,683 German soldiers and 49,784 Italians.
		That's during World War II.
		His book is subtitled Murder, Retribution, and the Forgotten Story of Nazi POWs in America.
unidentified		Author William Jirau with his book The 15 on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host Brian Lamb.
unidentified		BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Mike said before I happened to listen to him.
unidentified		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.
rachel maddow ▲ ● ▼		Every single time I tuned in on TikTok or C-SPAN or YouTube or anything, there were tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people watching.
unidentified		I went home after the speech and I turned on C-SPAN.
unidentified		I was on C-SPAN just this week.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		To the American people, now is the time to tune in to C-SPAN.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		They had something $2.50 a gallon.
unidentified		I saw it on television a little while ago in between my watching my great friends on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN is televising this right now live.
		So we are not just speaking to Los Angeles, we are speaking to the country.
		Washington Journal continues.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Joining us now to discuss the latest on the Israel-Iran conflict is Michael Eisenstadt.
		He is Military and Security Studies Program Director at the Washington Institute.
		Michael, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
unidentified		Good morning, Tammy, and good morning to your viewers.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		I know you've been on our program before, but why don't we start by having you remind our audience about your organization, mission, who you work with, and how you're funded.
unidentified		Yeah, we are a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C., focused on the Middle East.
		We are committed to the proposition that the United States has a vital interest in the Middle East and that our interests require good relations with both Arabs and Israelis.
		And let's hope also in the future with Iran someday.
		We don't take foreign funds.
		All our funds are from American citizens.
		And I've been there for about 36 years now.
		I previously served in the U.S. government as a military analyst.
		I was an Army Reservist for 26 years, including tours in the region for Operation Provide Comfort, which is right after the Gulf War.
		I got mobilized in the 1991 Gulf War and deployed for Operation Provide Comfort.
		And I got mobilized after 9-11 as well and served in CENTCOM headquarters as well as various short tours in Iraq.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		You are joining us today to talk about the latest on the Israel-Iran conflict.
		As of now, the ceasefire seems to be holding.
		Where are we right now?
		What is the current state?
unidentified		Yeah, well, it's a tenuous ceasefire.
		And it was really pretty threadbare.
		If you look at ceasefires for other wars, very often they deal with some of the drivers of the conflict.
		This was simply just that this decides, as far as we know, that the two sides should cease military action.
		Now, of course, it leaves the driver of this particular conflict, Iran's nuclear program, unresolved.
		And hopefully the United States will be able to engage in diplomacy with Iran in order to deal with this problem and put the relations between the United States and Iran on a more stable footing going forward and remove this factor as a source of instability in the region.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned it, you mentioned something In that response, but what are the key factors in how long we could see this ceasefire, tentative ceasefire hold?
unidentified		Yeah, well, the Israelis made clear when ceasing fire that they would, if necessary, resume military activity if they saw Iran resuming its nuclear program.
		So, and we've seen with regard to the Israeli ceasefire, for instance, in Lebanon, in response to Hezbollah's efforts to kind of reconstitute its forces and reestablish a presence in southern Lebanon, that the Israelis have acted militarily.
		So, it's likely that the Israelis could resume military action or covert action if Iran were to resume its nuclear activities.
		President Trump has also said that the United States might use force again if Iran were to violate the terms of the ceasefire or resume military act, excuse me, nuclear activities.
		So, it is an unstable ceasefire.
		And again, that's why diplomacy is needed in order to put it on a firmer basis and diplomacy in the form of renewed nuclear negotiations.
		I'll just say: look, this is also a very important potential turning point in the history of the modern Middle East.
		We've seen in the last 25 years that Iran went from a strategically lonely country to a leader of the most cohesive bloc in the region, the so-called axis of resistance, which is for the most part no more.
		It went from a country that was encircled when the United States had the military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9-11 to a country that encircled its enemies with a ring of fire.
		And then I referred to the proxy forces that surrounded Israel, as well as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with the long-range fire systems, and much of that no longer exists.
		And Iran went from a nuclear pariah to a nuclear threshold state that was on the verge potentially of acquiring nuclear weapons until recently.
		And that is no longer the case.
		So this is an important potential turning point.
		But as we've learned from past conflicts, it's important to seize the opportunity created by the use of force through the use of diplomacy in order to consolidate the military gains of any conflict.
		So we're doing stuff with regard to Lebanon, Syria, hopefully in Gaza in order to consolidate the situation there, prevent outbreaks of future conflict.
		Of course, in Gaza, conflict is ongoing, and hopefully we will succeed in our efforts to get a ceasefire there.
		But again, there's a lot of unfinished business with Iran.
		Keep in mind, this is the culmination of 46 years of American-Iranian conflict, regrettably.
		We have no quarrel with the Iranian people.
		It's mainly with the regime which identifies the United States as its foremost enemy.
		So again, I don't see any resolution to that in the near future, but hopefully, again, we could achieve a nuclear accord with them that will at least eliminate this source of conflict going forward.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Michael Eisenstadt, Military and Security Studies Program Director for the Washington Institute, is with us for the next 35 minutes or so to discuss the latest on the Israel-Iran conflict.
		If you have a question or comment from him, you can start calling in now the lines: Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
		Michael, wanted to ask you about options that could possibly be on the table for the U.S. to respond if the ceasefire does at some point break down.
unidentified		Well, let me just say what I think The recent war showed this was, I think, kind of the ideal template that both restrainers and people who perhaps support a more assertive U.S. role in the world should embrace, where a very capable American ally acted largely on its own with American assistance to achieve its own goals, but thereby advance American interests.
		So I think it was, we've had, you know, ever since the Islamic Revolution in 79, we've had a great deal of problems with this regime, which has identified the United States as its foremost enemy.
		And we've, as the president has said, probably over a thousand Americans have been killed by Iran over the decades, whether it was the Marine Barracks bombing, which was by a group which was the predecessor for Hezbollah, but was assisted by the Iranians, or the killing of more than 600 American service members in Iraq by groups that were supported by Iran.
		So it was in our interest to see this group, to see Iran sit back, to see its nuclear program sit back.
		The Israelis did the heavy lifting, and we helped out at the end in an area where the Israelis could not do it themselves.
		So this is the ideal scenario, ideal template, likewise with the way that the Ukrainians are advancing American interests.
		I would also add that contrary to some of the predictions, it was done with no American losses, no cost in terms of geopolitical instability.
		So this is kind of in many ways the ideal scenario for the use of force.
		And let me just say, we should only resort to force when necessary.
		I think this met that bar because it's in nobody's interest for the Islamic Republic of Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
		And there were signs since last summer that Iran had resumed its nuclear weaponization efforts.
		They had been engaging in enrichment for decades now.
		And that was permitted under the nuclear accord that was signed and concluded in 2015 between the United States and Iran.
		But there were indications that they had resumed weaponization activities, that is, working on the design of components for weapons starting since last summer.
		And I would note that the office of the Director of National Intelligence published an estimate last July, if I remember correctly, saying that there were signs that Iran had engaged in activity that would facilitate the manufacture of a weapon should they decide to do so.
		So the difference, the argument is over whether they had taken the decision to actually build a weapon, but I think it's pretty clear that they were taking actions that would position themselves to do so if they haven't done so already in the event that they decide to move forward with a weapon, which was something they hadn't done for about 20 years, which I think provided the background to the Israeli strike and the sense of urgency for acting at this time.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Michael, we have callers waiting to talk with you.
		We'll start with Linda in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, Line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Linda.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you, C-SPAN.
		I watch C-SPAN often for my news.
		I'm calling to say that a couple things.
		One is, I think that the American news should be reporting that there are still hostages in the Gaza territory by Hamas.
		If that's any different, the guest could please let me know.
		I think that that would provide a little bit of sympathy or support.
		I think that fairness is super important.
		Agreement or the prospective agreement of a two-state solution has been gone back and forth with our various presidents for it seems like 20 years, and it hasn't worked out.
		I don't know why that is.
		I am a supporter of Israel in general myself, but I'm appalled every time I hear that either food or first aid has been blocked and that the people of the Gaza area are suffering because of Hamas's point of view and aggression.
		So, and last thing is: do you think that Trump pulling out of some agreements to reduce the nuclear proliferation in Iran?
		Do you think that Trump's previous position to cancel those agreements have had negative impact?
		Thank you again.
		I'll take your response offline.
		Thank you.
		Bye.
		Okay, thank you, Linda.
		I'll start with the last question.
		First of all, just to put things on the record, I thought the nuclear deal, though I think the Obama administration did a very good job at setting the table for diplomacy, I thought that the end result was deeply flawed and very problematic.
		But that said, once the U.S. agreed to it, I thought it was very important for the United States to adhere to it as long as it was in its interest to do so.
		And let me just say, I thought that in the long run, because the nuclear deal allowed Iran at the end, at the end of 15 years, to have a relatively unconstrained nuclear program where they could produce as much highly enriched uranium at whatever level of enrichment that they wanted to, and there was no sunset, that there was sunset clauses on the restrictions that had been put on Iran.
		I thought that made the deal deeply flawed and really just postponed the crisis.
		So I thought that in the end, it was quite likely that we'd have to pull out from the accord.
		If, of course, if the Iranian regime had evolved in a different direction and turned into a government that was not hostile to the United States, then that's maybe an outcome that we could have lived with because that they have the freedom to enrich to whatever level in whatever quantities they wanted because it was a government that was perhaps not hostile to its neighbors or to the United States.
		But I felt that as long as the government remained the same, the odds are we would have to pull out of it.
		But how you pull out of it and when you do it was absolutely crucial.
		And I thought, again, 2018 was not the time to pull out.
		This should have happened in the out years if the regime remained unchanged in terms of its goals, in terms of its hostility to the United States.
		So doing it when we did, I think, in a way, hastened the crisis that was inevitable.
		But I think generally, if you could buy time, you should try to get time because you never know what happens in the interim that perhaps changes the outcome.
		So I'm not hostile to the idea of withdrawing from the JCPOA inherently, but I think it was just the wrong, the timing when it was done, the way it was done, was a big mistake.
		And it kind of, you know, kind of in a way hastened an inevitable crisis with Iran.
		And if you can, generally, it's best to keep crises down the road.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Robin in Schenectady, New York, line for independence.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Robin.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I used to receive Jewish World Newspaper and it is the view, the general view of Israel.
		And I'm going to add the United States, that Israel is an outpost of Europe and America and that it's planning to expand.
		And in doing so, it's going to wipe out the indigenous population as much as Americans wiped out 90% of the Native American population.
		And I just don't think we should be funding them.
		I think either we're going to find ourselves to be the same as England.
		But in the meantime, if we're sending money to Israel to bomb in civilian populations, and I don't care what Israel says, then our news and our TV and our radio should be interrupted so that we have to watch what our money is funding and see the people being murdered and dying in the street.
		Okay, thank you, Caller.
		I'll just say that, first of all, Israel has repeatedly returned territory to its neighbors, such as the Sinai to Egypt.
		Territories that Jordan claimed as part of their peace agreement were returned.
		In fact, Israel allowed Jordan to lease certain areas in the border.
		The Palestinians is a different problem because you have two people claiming the same land.
		I don't see Israel in any way pursuing an eliminationist solution.
		In fact, the Palestinian population has only grown in recent decades.
		So I don't believe that that kind of interpretation of the conflict can be sustained by facts.
		I think it's a very painful and terrible conflict.
		And the most recent war, of course, was there's no way you could fight a war in Gaza, which is so heavily populated and where Hamas has placed military facilities under civilian installations.
		So without causing grievous harm to the civilian population.
		So I think it's a terrible situation that we're looking at in Gaza now.
		In the long run, the two people have to find a way to live with each other.
		I think that the Israeli public opinion has shown itself that when they have an interlocutor on the other side, they are flexible.
		After the October 7th attack in Gaza, it's a very hard ask for Israelis to countenance the possibility of a two-state solution at this time.
		And there are people, of course, there are elements in the Israeli government which are opposed at all costs to this two-state solution.
		On the other hand, you see among Palestinians and not just Hamas, you see there's a kind of a deep-seated rejectionism among Palestinians for Jewish claims to what Jews consider to be the land of Israel and their ancient claims in this part of the world.
		So there's a need for change on both sides in attitudes, in the way they frame the conflict.
		And unfortunately, the recent Hamas attack on October 7th, I think one of its intended goals, besides undermining the prospects for Israeli peace with Saudi Arabia, was to create such bloodshed and hatred on both sides that coexistence between the two peoples is rendered impossible.
		And I think they've achieved to some extent that goal.
		And I think the goal of diplomacy and more importantly, people-to-people contacts by people of goodwill on both sides is to rebuild a belief that there is the possibility for the two people to live together someday.
		It's just, it's just, it's right now, it seems a very distant aspirational goal.
		But the two people are not going anywhere.
		And they have to find a way to live together in peace.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Michael, I want to go back to our earlier caller, Linda, her question about the JCPOA.
		The Trump administration has been trying to negotiate a new deal with Iran.
		How does the U.S. actions, the bombing, how does that impact the potential for a new deal when it comes to Iran's future and their nuclear programs?
unidentified		You know, the Iranians repeatedly say that they don't negotiate under pressure, but experience shows that they do.
		They said at the end of the U.S. strike, the Iranian foreign minister said that diplomacy is off the table.
		And then just a few days ago, he said that they'd be willing to go back to the table to discuss a nuclear accord or a nuclear agreement with the United States.
		Now, they even talked about the possibility of removing Indrish uranium from Iran.
		So again, this is to be discussed and explored in the course of meetings.
		I'll also mention what's very interesting.
		Now, until recently, the Iranians have completely refused to meet with the United States directly, and most of our communication has been indirect through European or Middle Eastern partners and interlocutors.
		But apparently Steve Witkoff, the president's special representative and negotiator on these issues, was in direct contact with the Iranian foreign minister, or at least that was the way it was reported in the press.
		So in some ways, actually, the war has perhaps catalyzed diplomacy and enabled direct contacts to happen when they perhaps haven't happened in the past.
		Although, let me just say, you know, a lot of this stuff is kind of murky and we don't necessarily know all the facts at this point.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Michael in Connecticut, Line for Independence.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Michael.
unidentified		Good morning, C. Span.
		I'd like to ask you a question about your guests.
		Israel, America, how much money did we give Israel for the last 80 years?
		And how you could patrol 3.2 million people and Dazzle Strip.
		And you don't think they were a two-state solution.
		That's a solution I see.
		But the Abs and the whole world watching how we do double standard.
		Israel have the nuclear bomb for how many years?
		And nobody talk about that.
		And you don't want Iran to have a nuclear.
		We had an agreement in 2015 with President Obama.
		And Trump came in, whipped it up.
		How do you think Iran is going to trust us to make a deal?
		This is my question.
		Thank you, Michael.
		I appreciate it.
		First of all, let me just deal with the question of trust.
		Honestly, I actually have a contrarian take on this one, that diplomatic agreements are not based on trust.
		They are based on a hard-nosed calculation by the people concluding the deal that the deal advances their interests and there are sufficient incentives and phasing built into a deal to ensure that their interests can be achieved by that deal.
		So, you know, look, when I served in Iraq, I often ask myself, why do people deal with the United States when they look at the fact that we, you know, pull out of Iran after the Iranian Revolution and many of the people who were associated with the United States were burned and were imprisoned and persecuted?
		The same thing in Vietnam and the same thing in other parts of the world.
		Yet people make a decision in the moment based on what's their interest and they put their finger up to the wind and they see which way the wind's blowing.
		They see what they can get potentially out of dealing with the United States.
		So the 2015 deal, when it was struck, the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, said at the time he doesn't trust the United States and he doesn't believe the deal will yield what is expected to come out of it.
		But yet he concluded the deal because it was in his interest to do so.
		Likewise, I would argue that in the preface to the deal, it said the goal is to create a more stable regional environment.
		That was kind of in the prefaratory language for the JCPOA, the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.
		And in fact, about a week or a little bit more than a week after the United States concluded the agreement with Iran in July of 2015, Qasem Soleimani, who headed the Qutz force, flew to Moscow and convinced Russia to intervene with Iran.
		Iran was already intervening in the civil war in Syria, but to convince Russia to intervene with Iran in order to put down the rebellion there.
		Within two years, they had crushed the rebellion, and the Iranians then started trying to convert Syria into a springboard for military action against Israel.
		So in a way, the nuclear deal in 2015 created geopolitically conducive circumstances for Iran to increase its intervention in the region and ramp up its conflict with Israel.
		And the United States kind of, you know, was in the dilemma that we didn't want to do anything to undermine the deal, and therefore we didn't push back at Iranian activities that they engaged in, you know, by also ramping up support for the Uthis in Yemen at the same time.
		So in many ways, the Iranians took advantage of the deal to advance their interest and to create regional instability, which was contrary to the spirit of the deal at the very least.
		So there was things that both sides did, which you could say undermined trust.
		But in the end, Iran will conclude a deal if they feel that they can get sanctions relief, which they need it now more than ever.
		As a result of this war, they've had billions of dollars of investments in their nuclear program, in their security forces, in their missile forces destroyed.
		There's infrastructural damage that resulted from the war, and they're going to need sanctions relief more than ever, which is for them the main incentive for concluding a deal.
		And this strengthens our leverage for hopefully getting a better deal than we were capable of getting before the conflict.
		So let me just say, I think it remains to be seen whether the theory of the case will work out, but I think we're in a stronger position as a result of this war between Israel and Iran and our brief intervention at the end of this conflict in order to kind of disable Iran's nuclear program.
		I'd agree with the speaker with regard to the desire in the long run for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
		I just don't see any roadmap for getting there right now at this point, given the events of October 7th, the Hamas attack on Israel, massacre of over a thousand Israelis, and the fact that Hamas still is holding 20 live Israelis and 50 living and dead Israelis at this point.
		So we need to, it's important to arrive at the end of that conflict, though, with Hamas in a position where it can no longer govern in Gaza.
		And that's good for the Palestinians, too.
		Hamas being in a position to govern in Gaza is the worst possible outcome.
		It only ensures the perpetuation of the conflict.
		And then finally, with regard to nuclear weapons, Israel, where Iran has repeatedly stressed their desire to destroy the state of Israel, and hence that's Israel's reason for opposing Iran getting nuclear weapons.
		And by the way, Iran had a clock in Tehran, in what they call Palestine Square in downtown Tehran, which had a clock which counted down to the end of the state of Israel in the year, I think, 2040.
		They designated as the year where they believe the end of Israel will come.
		And the Israelis hit that clock in the course of their military campaign.
		So Iran is threatening to destroy Israel.
		Israel has never threatened to use its nuclear weapons against any of its neighbors.
		So I think Israel, even though it's not an ideal set of circumstances where countries around the world have nuclear weapons, Israel, I would argue, has been at least a responsible country in how it uses it or how it is quiet about its nuclear capability, does not brandish it, does not threaten the existence of other states.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Michael, you mentioned that.
unidentified		I hope that answers the question.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Michael, you mentioned the possible state of Iran's nuclear program.
		Barb in Long Grove, Illinois sent us this question.
		What are Mr. Eisenstadt's feeling regarding the possibility of Iran importing nuclear weapons if their nuclear program is disabled?
unidentified		That's always a possibility.
		And I would at least say that the North Koreans are a possible candidate for this.
		Now, it's not happened that whole weapons have been transferred.
		The Chinese did provide the Pakistanis with weapon designs as well as highly energy uranium to jumpstart their nuclear program several decades ago.
		And there has been a lot of help with technology, but never with a whole weapon.
		Now, the North Koreans might not provide a whole weapon.
		Maybe they'll provide components or maybe they'll provide highly energy uranium for a weapon.
		So this is something that we have to be concerned about.
		And the intelligence committee, I'm sure, is very seized on this matter and kind of focusing on this possibility.
		So it's something that we have to be just aware of.
		It's a good question.
		And let's just hope that it doesn't occur.
		It would be unprecedented if it does, but it's something that could possibly occur.
		But let me just say also, you know, if one or two or three weapons does not provide a, it provides only a limited capability.
		And the degree to which Iran's nuclear program has been shown to be penetrated by the Israelis and perhaps the United States provides us with a degree of, I think, confidence that if we didn't know about it beforehand, we'd know about it, perhaps as it's happening or afterwards.
		And the Israelis have shown they have the ability to operate in the country covertly in order to advance their interests.
		And let me just, on this point, people have said that one of the concerns about this recent war is that it would further motivate Iran to get nuclear weapons, which is possible.
		And that's one of my concerns that I share.
		On the other hand, the factors which have deterred and dissuaded Iran from getting the bomb until now have only been reinforced by this war.
		So first First of all, Iran in the past worried that if they tried to get the bomb, they would get caught.
		And if they get caught, if they got caught, the United States and Israel would act in order to thwart those efforts.
		And this war has only shown that that danger is even greater.
		Also, the war has shown that Israeli penetration of Iranian intelligence, Israel's ability to sabotage the nuclear program remains undiminished.
		Iran has to think, and Iran's leadership has to think that a country such as Iran that has not been able to protect its foremost nuclear scientists, that has not been able to protect its most important nuclear facilities, and that was not able to protect its nuclear archive from being stolen by the Israelis, should not want to acquire nuclear weapons because they might be diverted or used against it on its own territory.
		So I think these factors kind of are countervailing factors to perhaps increased motivation to acquire the bomb after this war.
		And it's not clear to me how it'll play out in the end.
		But there are things we could do to strengthen Iran's disincentives to getting the bomb and keep them hedging, as they have been for several decades now.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Sai in Plainview, New York, line for Republicans.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Sai.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I want to talk a little bit about the JCPOA.
		The Iranians did not allow inspectors into certain sites such as Pasha.
		They illegally built sites in Ford, which were not declared.
		They obstructed, and the inspectors couldn't just do immediate inspections.
		They had to wait, and then it was questioned.
		They would delay further up to about 60 days, which gave them time to move things around.
		So they're not really an honest player, despite the fact that the religious people run the country.
		Also, the Palace, so-called Palestinians, which there were never Palestinian people.
		One woman said that they were indigenous.
		Actually, the Jews have been there for thousands of years.
		They were the indigenous people.
		And the woman was concerned about Indians being displaced.
		Well, she lives in New York, which was purchased for wompomp, 20-something womp.
		So if that's the case, why doesn't she just leave New York?
		She's an occupier.
		And the Muslims, the PLO and the Hamas one-on-one state solution, the Charter does not recognize Israel's right to exist.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Sai, we'll get our response from Michael.
unidentified		Yeah, all I'll just say is this, is that the bottom line is there are two people there who are claiming the same land.
		I don't think there's anything to be gained.
		And I think as a matter of principle, I don't think it's appropriate for either people to question the claims of the others because they're both there.
		I think the Palestinians certainly have claims that go back very far.
		The Jewish people and the Israelis, Jewish-Israelis have claims that go back to biblical times and there was a presence, a Jewish presence in the ancient land of Israel going back to biblical times.
		And they have to find a way to live with each other.
		I think most in the future in two separate entities, two separate states side by side.
		So again, you know, there's nothing to be gained.
		You know, the Palestinians have, many Palestinians deny Jewish indigeneity.
		And again, I don't think there's anything to be gained from that because it flies in the face of the facts.
		And the bottom line is they have to deal with Israelis who are there.
		With regard to the JCPOA, you know, again, we've kind of covered a lot of this ground.
		It was a flawed agreement, but it did have certain advantages in terms of bought time.
		But I'm hoping now that maybe we can get a better agreement and move forward into a better place.
		And that's all I'll say, I guess on that.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Riley, or I'm sorry, Philip in Pennsylvania, line for Democrats.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Philip.
unidentified		Good morning.
		The more I listen here, the more it's apparent to me that Mr. Eisenstadt is a person who loves to put out Israeli talking points.
		And I only have a question for him.
		I've never heard him mention anything prior to October 7th.
		West Bank, there was over 500 Palestinians killed prior to October 7th that year.
		And also, I've never heard him mention the word genocide in Gaza, which the rest of the world has recognized that's what it is.
		And would he be willing to prosecute these identified war criminals and take them to the Hague where they belong, like Mr. Netanyahu?
		And by the way, one more question.
		I'm assuming you're Jewish.
		And I'd like to know, do you take money from AIPAC?
		That's what I would like to know.
		And do you hold dual citizenship in Israel just for transparency's sake till we know you're giving us the right information and not slanted?
		Have a good day.
		Thank you, Pauler.
		First of all, I am Jewish, and I'm an American citizen, and I have only American citizenship, and I served in the U.S. military proudly.
		So with regard to many of the things that he also said, I don't believe that a genocide is occurring.
		It's a horrible war that's going on in Gaza.
		And I think this is a narrative that certain people are pushing for political reasons, obviously.
		But people have suffered grievously on both sides.
		And it would be desirable for this war to come to an end.
		And I think it is time for it to come to an end.
		But beyond that, I really have nothing else to say to the caller.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We'll go on to Clyde in Queens, New York, line for independence.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Clyde.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I really find it real hard to believe anything that Israel says.
		And I'm still shocked that we're even giving Israel any kind of financial support.
		Ninyahu, whatever his name is, he's been, do you know, you can YouTube him, and they have him on YouTube professing how he's going to colonize the Middle East.
		They have him on tape.
		And they have him on tape also since the 90s saying that Iran has got this bomb, or they're two months, two weeks away from the bomb, like seven, eight times.
		How many times, how many more times?
		We got to sit there and listen to his mess.
		And we just keep falling for it.
		And also, he's on, you can YouTube this.
		He's telling people how easy it is to manipulate the American government.
		And all the money that's coming in from you guys' APAC and whatnot like that.
		Whoever even remotely says anything against you guys, it's like, yes, you know, you guys, you know, throw your money at the situation like Bowlman.
		He pointed it out and bam, you got him out.
		Anybody who's against your Zionist program, yeah, you immediately.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Clyde, we'll give our guest a chance to respond.
unidentified		Okay, sir.
		Thank you very much.
		I'll just say a few things.
		First of all, if you go back to the 1990s, if you look at the published estimates of the U.S. intelligence community, there were times when they also said that they had concerns that Iran was either five or six years away from the bomb, or generally was the eight or 10-year kind of estimate in the 1990s.
		I will say that there are in the public domain, and you can look it up on the internet, the International Atomic Energy Agency published two reports in 2011 and 2015 about Iran's nuclear program, which lay out all the activities that Iran was involved in with regard to enrichment, weaponization, development of a weapon for a missile.
		And then with regard, this baseline knowledge was enhanced in 2018 when the Israelis brought out the Iranian nuclear archive.
		And people like David Albright wrote a book based on those documents, which supplemented the information that the International Atomic Energy Agency had about Iran's nuclear program.
		So you don't have to believe Benjamin Netanyahu.
		All you have to do is look up online the information that the IAEA had, that David Albright has put out to make it clear that Iran had a nuclear program.
		So, you know, that much cannot be denied.
		And in terms of particular estimates, the U.S. intelligence community has occasionally been right on these things.
		It's often been wrong.
		And it's very hard to get these things right.
		But the bottom line is that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons is very clear.
		And that they had a crash program between 1999 or so and 2003 to produce half a dozen nuclear weapons is incontestable at this point.
		And their goal was to have nuclear weapons by 2003.
		So actually, those estimates in the mid-90s that saying that they would have had a bomb in five or six years or eight to 10 were actually pretty accurate, even though they probably were not based on the actual knowledge of what was going on at the time.
		They were kind of a bit of a kind of guesstimates, but they turned out to be right.
		And it's only that the Gulf War, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which caused Iran to stop its nuclear program because they thought they would be next, which put a halt to this activities, these activities.
		And then they've been pushed back for about 20 years as a result of nuclear diplomacy and Iranian fears of military action against its program.
		But the bottom line is that they had a program, a nuclear weapons program, that if they had not stopped, would have borne fruit in the early 2000s.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We only have a couple of minutes left, but we'll have one more quick call.
		That's Anthony in Greentown, Pennsylvania, Line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Anthony.
unidentified		Good morning, Tommy.
		Good morning, Ms. Eisenstadt.
		A couple of comments and a question.
		I just want to congratulate our military for their resounding success in taking out Fordo and the other two installations there.
		Nobody's congratulating them.
		They should be congratulated.
		It was an amazing feat.
		I want to congratulate the Israeli military for taking down all of their defense capabilities so we could do our job as well.
		The other comment I want to make is Congress and Democrats are spouting that we should have went to them for approval.
		Can you imagine Trump going to Congress and asking for them to declare war in Iran just for this strike and what the newspapers would have made out of that?
		Trump declares war on Iran, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
		It would have been totally unsuccessful then.
		My question is: Is there any kind of help to the Iranian people right now that we're giving covertly or overtly, or if the Saudis are doing anything to help them?
		I hear they're being executed en masse now.
		I'm not sure if anybody's trying to help these people out because, you know, the regime is a horrible regime.
		They're suppressing their own people, and people need to be able to take over that country.
		And I'm not sure if they can on their own.
		So I just want to get your opinion on that.
		Thank you, sir.
		Yeah, thank you.
		Yeah, as the caller said, there's been an increase in executions in this year by the Islamic Republic, and this predates the most recent conflict.
		There are things, I mean, you know, Elon Musk announced that his Starlink system has been activated for use in Iran.
		And my understanding it can be used without a satellite ground station.
		This would enable Iranians potentially to have access to the internet and information about what's going on in their countries without having a satellite receiver.
		I don't really know all the details about kind of how this could be implemented and if it's being implemented.
		In fact, a lot of U.S. efforts in the past have been devoted to increasing the ability of Iranians to communicate despite the efforts of the government there to shut down internet communications during times of tension.
		Unfortunately, other than providing moral support to the Iranian people, I'm not sure, and kind of maintaining the focus on the human rights abuses of the regime there, which is important because I think they are sometimes impacted by world opinion, maybe not the opinion of the United States, but other countries.
		There's not a lot we can do with regard to improving the human rights situation.
		That will have to, I think, unfortunately await to an evolution of the regime there or the replacement of the regime, which it's possible that this conflict might eventually catalyze in the future.
		I think in the short term, the conflict had a rally around the flag effect.
		But once the dust settles, I think it's possible that people within the system as well as people in the general population there will focus on kind of what they can do in order to produce a better situation in Iran through changing the government there or through an evolution of the government.
		That said, I'm not optimistic about a happy outcome.
		I think it's more likely we'll get a military government there than a theocracy in the future.
		But maybe it's changed and maybe that's something that we could work with in order to improve the situation of the Iranian people.
		But I thank you for expressing your concern for the people of Iran.
		That's a very important point that you raised.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Michael Eisenstadt is director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute.
		You can find out more about the organization and his work online at WashingtonInstitution.org.
		Michael, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
unidentified		Good day.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That does it for today's Washington Journal.
		We'll be back tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Eastern, 4 a.m. Pacific with another program.
		Until then, enjoy your day.
unidentified		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum, inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. and across the country.
		Coming out Monday morning, Punch Bowl News congressional reporter Max Cohen talks about the latest developments as Congress considers the president's big beautiful bill.
		And then Christian Science Monitor Washington Bureau Chief Linda Feldman on the White House News of the Day and a preview of the week ahead.
		Also, documentary writer, producer, and correspondent Martin Smith on the new PBS frontline film, Syria After Assad, C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
		Next, Attorney General Pam Bondi answers questions about politics and corruption in the Trump administration, as well as cuts to various Justice Department programs at a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing.
		And then Biden administration FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell and House Democrats discuss the impact the Trump administration FEMA cuts have had on emergency response and preparedness.
		Later, Vice President JD Vance meets with Ohio GOP leaders at a Republican Party dinner in Lima, Ohio.
		Tonight, on C-SPAN's Q&A, George Washington University law school professor Jonathan Turley, author of The Indispensable Right, discusses the history of free speech in America and the people who advanced it.
		He argues that the First Amendment right is a basic human right that protects all the others and shares his concerns about current attempts by government, universities, and the private sector to limit free speech in the United States.
jonathan turley ▲ ● ▼		I have a colleague who has called for amending the First Amendment and says that it's aggressively individualistic.
		There are other law professors who are saying we should trash the Constitution.
		There are books out that say that free speech in the First Amendment, according to one Michigan law professor, is the Achilles heel of the United States.
		So there is this still ongoing debate over what is so revolutionary about that language.
unidentified		And the book tries to answer why.
		Jonathan Turley with his book, The Indispensable Right, tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Sparklight.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		What is great internet?
unidentified		Is it strong?
		Is it fast?
		Is it reliable?

▲