CSPAN - Washington Journal 09/23/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 23, 2025 07:00-09:00 - CSPAN

01:59:57

Washington Journal 09/23/2025

Participants

Main

pedro echevarria

cspan 29:25

Appearances

brendan carr

01:13

donald j trump

admin 01:17

karoline leavitt

admin 01:02

Clips

al green

rep/d 00:04

jimmy carter

d 00:07

patty murray

sen/d 00:10

sean duffy

admin 00:04

Callers

doc in indiana

callers 00:08

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Trump speech before the Assembly with Foreign Policies Alex Tarquinio and former Indiana Democratic Congressman Tim Romer and former Louisiana Republican Congressman Charles Bustani, both with the nonprofit group Issue One, discuss efforts to reduce political polarization in the U.S. Washington Journal starts now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is the Washington Journal for September 23rd after being off the air for almost a week for comments made in association with the death of Charlie Kirk.
		ABC talk show host Jimmy Kimmel will return to the airwaves tonight.
		Disney and ABC saying the decision came after, quote, thoughtful discussions with the host.
		One large owner of many ABC stations says the program won't return just yet.
		Some Republicans panned the decision by Disney and ABC.
		Some supported it, along with many Democrats.
		Now we'll ask you to give your opinion about the decision by Disney and ABC to return Jimmy Kimmel to the airwaves.
		Here's how you can let us know your thoughts this morning.
		You can call us 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents 202-748-8002.
		If you want to express your thoughts via text, you can do that at 202-748-8003.
		And as always, you can post on our social media sites.
		That's facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
		And on X, that's C-SPANWJ.
		The decision came yesterday by the executives of Disney and ABC.
		And here's the statement they put out about the decision to return Jimmy Kimmel to the airwaves.
		They said yesterday, last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country.
		It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive.
		We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy.
		And after those conversations, we reached a decision to return the show today on Tuesday.
		Again, that was the decision by Disney and ABC.
		Two of the people or two of the companies listed as far as large ownership of television stations that air ABC programming, Sinclair and Nexstar.
		Sinclair putting out this statement yesterday after the decision was made by Disney.
		They wrote this on X, saying beginning Tuesday night, Sinclair will be preempting Jimmy Kimmel Live across our ABC affiliate stations and replacing it with news programming.
		Discussions with ABC are ongoing as we evaluate the show's potential return.
		Again, there was no comment as of this morning from Nexstar on their social media sites or their webpage.
		And one other voice expressing the opinion when it comes to the decision was Turning Point USA, the organization formerly headed by Charlie Kirk, their spokesman, taking to X yesterday about the decision, saying this.
		Disney and ABC caving and allowing Kimmel back on air is not surprising, but it's their mistake to make.
		Nextstar and Sinclair do not have to make the same choice.
		So those are some of the decisions stemming from this larger decision from Disney and ABC to return Jimmy Kimmel to the airwaves.
		You can give your thoughts as well on this decision.
		Again, the phone lines, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 2027-8002.
		And text us if you wish at 202-748-8003.
		Some of the people posting opinion pieces in reaction to this decision yesterday.
		This was Perry Bacon over at the New Republic saying this.
		So, the coalition of people who defended Kimmel and objected to ABC's decision was unusually large, powerful, and politically diverse.
		Even conservatives, such as Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, said bluntly that Carr, the Brendan Carr, the FCC chair of the Federal Communications Commission, had overreached.
		Famous actors and actresses rallied behind him with some threatening not to work with ABC in the future.
		Democratic politicians, usually wary of taking any kind of strong stand, almost universally embraced him.
		Perhaps most importantly, it appeared that thousands of Americans had canceled their subscriptions to Disney-owned streaming services Hulu and Disney Plus, threatening the company's bottom line.
		Kimmel, with such a strong support base, got his job back within a week, but the fact that he was removed in the first place remains alarming.
		Brendan Carr was willing to directly inject himself in television programming to silence a critic of conservatives, directly contradicting the First Amendment, and companies such as Disney, Nexstar, and Sinclair, that control the lives of so many writers, actors, and other creative types, showed they would distance themselves from one of the most famous television personalities in the country at the drop of the hat.
		Kimmel can't feel very comfortable about speaking his mind in the future, and I would say that the same for even centrist white men at other networks.
		Again, that's from Perry Bacon at The New Republic.
		Let's hear from you.
		Democrats line in California.
		Debbie starts us off about the return of Jimmy Kimmel.
		Back to the airwaves.
		Debbie, good morning.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Good morning.
		I want to say I'm glad they put Jimmy Kimmel back on the air.
		They should have never taken him off the air.
		It's just a freedom of speech thing.
		And I feel like the networks, many of them, are manipulated and coerced by Donald Trump.
		And he's very thin-skinned.
		And I think they should not buy into it.
		They're going to lose a lot of money.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		There is one, as you brought up, there is one narrative that says that this decision maybe was money in the background.
		The other saying it was efforts by the Trump administration.
		Where do you fall on that line?
unidentified		I think it was both.
		I think it was Trump who gave them a message.
		You better do what I want you to do.
		And I think they did it.
		And when they saw it wasn't going to work out for them financially, they flipped the switch on it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Michael is next.
		Michael is in Michigan.
		Independent line about the return of Jimmy Kimmel to the airwaves.
		Hello, Michael.
unidentified		Yes, Paige, I forgot to say that he has to donate money to Turning Point as well as an apology.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, but what do you think about the decision overall?
unidentified		I think he should just be done.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why is that?
		Oh, caller's gone.
		Let's hear from Trey.
		Trey in Maryland, Democrats line.
		Hi there.
unidentified		Sure.
		So first and foremost, to force someone to pay a political organization is in and of itself a violation of one's First Amendment amendment rights.
		Secondly, we need to kind of do a deep analysis of what Kimmel said.
		Kimmel did not say anything about the Kirk family that was offensive.
		He simply said what the mother of the assassin said.
		She said, we're all Trump supporters.
		We are all Republican.
		And even this young man donated to the Trump efforts to get elected.
		So he is a magic supporter.
		So what did Jimmy Kimmel say that was offensive and also non-factual?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That is Trey in Maryland Democrats line.
		The opinion writers of the Washington Times had this on their website this morning and also the publication, if you get it, in paper form, saying the public notices the slipping standard of conduct.
		In the 1970s, 70% of Americans trusted ABC, NBC, CBS when they held a monopoly on television news and Gallup survey last year.
		Only 31%, they said, quote, a fair amount of confidence. in big media's reporting, which means faith in their objectivity is at a 50-year low.
		The number would have been much worse, but for the credulous Democrats who require external validation of their delusions from corporate media conglomerates.
		Thanks to the rise of independent media alternatives, the rest of the public, including independents and Republicans, has caught on to the brazen lies and omissions.
		Americans can continue encouraging the public-spirited behavior in Hollywood and Manhattan by voting with their wallets.
		Liberalism no longer sells, which is why firing Mr. Kimmel is the right business move.
		We'll see how Mr. Kimmel addresses the matter during his show on Tuesday today or later on today.
		Let's go to Ed Wisconsin Independent Line.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hi.
		I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, but I am a Trump supporter.
		And I never liked Jimmy Kimmel, but I will say this.
		I would like to remind people of an old saying, I may not agree with what you say or what you think, but I will fight to the death for your right to say or think that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So you'll be watching tonight, perhaps?
doc in indiana ▲ ● ▼		I know you said you weren't much of a watcher, but I'm not a fan of his, but I think he has a right to say what he wants to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What did you think of the initial Disney decision?
unidentified		I don't agree, even though I don't agree with it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What did you think of the initial Disney decision to take him off the air?
unidentified		I think I don't know whether they took him off the air because of pressure or because of his ratings.
unidentified		That's their decision.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Ed there in Wisconsin.
		One of the Republicans commenting on these events yesterday was Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky posting this on his X feed.
		He cites his colleague, Ted Cruz, said it looked just like Goodfellows as a First Amendment guy myself.
		I think he's probably got it right.
		You don't have to like what somebody says on TV to agree, but the government shouldn't be getting involved here.
		Again, that's Mitch McConnell, several legislators giving comments.
		A group of Democrats gathering outside of the ABC television studios before the decision to return Jimmy Kimmel back to the air, making comments.
		And one of them, a California representative from the 28th District, I believe, Judy Chu, making these comments yesterday.
unidentified		Now, let's be perfectly clear here.
		First, Trump wrote more than two months ago that Jimmy Kimmel's show should be canceled.
		Then, last week, Trump's FCC chair said that companies should take action on Kimmel, even saying that they could either do it the easy way or the hard way.
		And the companies got the message.
		ABC's largest distributor, which needs the FCC's approval for a $6 billion merger, immediately followed his orders and preempted the show.
		And ABC took it off the air indefinitely.
		So this was not about comments that a comedian made about Charlie Kirk.
		This is about a president leveraging the power of the federal government to silence his critics, a plan he's been open about for months.
		And now he's saying that the FCC should go further and cancel the broadcasting licenses of networks that criticize him.
		Well, are we going to be bullied like that?
		No!
		Are we going to be silenced?
		No!
		This is the playbook of authoritarians, and every single one of us has a responsibility to stand up for our constitutional rights that are under attack.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That was yesterday, again, before the decision was made.
		Senator Mark Wayne Mullen also chiming in on his feet saying, how is this possible?
		We were told President Trump and the U.S. government fired Jimmy Kimmel.
		You're saying a private company made an employment decision.
		It wasn't an authoritarian takeover and the First Amendment is still here.
		Got it, he says on ex-Doug Perry.
		I'll posting on our Facebook page, and you can do the same if you wish, saying no thoughts much either way.
		Junk TV, in my opinion, strewn with partisan opinion programming.
		Leno was the last classy, decent late-night act.
		That's Doug's opinion.
		You can give yours on ABC's decision to return Jimmy Kimmel to the airways.
		There's the phone lines that you can give us your thoughts on.
		Let's hear from Jim, Jim in North Dakota, Republican line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hi, Pedro.
		Are you reading me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Yes, it's interesting to hear a lot of women defending Jimmy Kimmel.
		I was a huge fan of his about 25 years ago.
		I want to remind everybody that he came to our television sets on a show called The Man Show.
		Anybody remember The Man Show?
		Him and Adam Corolla, who was his partner.
		And Adam Corolla is a great conservative.
		He still has a podcast, and he still contributes to Fox News once in a while.
		He was a lot funnier than Kimmel.
		But Kimmel and him together were incredibly hilarious.
		But the man show was hated by women's rights groups.
		It had midget wrestling.
		It had women on trampolines.
		And Kimmel was back then before the Me Too movement, Kimmel, and all this racial stuff.
		He was the last guy to ever do blackface.
		He used to do an imitation of Carl Malone, where he would put on shoe polish on his face, an African wig, and he would pretend to be Carl Malone, the basketball player.
		That was his big, that was his big, that was, I don't, I never wanted him kicked off the air, and I still don't want him kicked off the air.
		He got a lot more liberal over the years, being in the Hollywood for too long, and he's not as funny as Corolla.
		But I don't want, he should not have been taken off the air.
		He didn't say anything that bad.
		He just said the truth in a way.
		The kid was a conservative.
		He grew up in a conservative home.
		He went deer hunting with his dad.
		He was a crack shot.
		But he became radicalized by the left, not by the right.
		So he was wrong.
		And I hope that today, when he comes on the air tonight, I hope that he at least doesn't have, he doesn't have to apologize.
		He could just say he may have been a little bit wrong about that.
		And the only thing else I want to say, Pedro, can I say one more thing?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me ask you first, do you plan to watch tonight?
unidentified		Oh, no, I don't.
		I go to bed at 9.30.
		I'm getting old.
		And I'm 60 years old now.
		I like to get in bed by 9.30.
		But anyway, one more thing, Pedro, can I say?
		Go ahead.
		You just had somebody say something.
		It was very interesting.
		If you look at the old retro stations and watch Johnny Carson or the old, Johnny Carson would make jokes about Reagan back in the 80s.
		And so did Jay Leno and David Letterman.
		They would make jokes about Jimmy Carter.
		But they were rather mild jokes.
		And nothing was ever nasty because as that person just said, they had class and they had the dignity in class.
		And they would never do that because they knew their audience encompassed both Democrats and Republicans.
		These late night guys are all of the left, and they seem to drive away guys like me and millions of other listeners if they would be more objective, like Johnny Carson, more fair, like Carson was.
		Okay.
		But Jimmy Kimmel, I was a huge fan of this.
		He also had a show called Crank Yankers, where it was kind of an X-rated puppet show about 20 years ago.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Jim there.
		Let's hear from Kevin, Kevin in Washington, D.C., Democrats line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hi, Pedro.
		I tried to call in yesterday when Jake Huger was on, and I used to listen to him at Burlington Community Television.
		It was a peg station where anybody could come in and make their own show.
		And he was one of the conservative hosts.
		And Jackie was a very liberal manager of the station.
		They let anybody on.
		He was a Reagan, Ronald Reagan fan.
		And then he changed after Bernie Sanders started getting popular and he helped start Justice Democrats.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, yeah, all that said, how does that relate to the topic at hand regarding Jimmy Kimmel?
unidentified		Well, Jimmy Kimmel, like the previous guests, the previous caller said he started out doing locker room humor.
		Jenk was like that.
		And then he sold.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, William.
		William in Maryland, Democrats line.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hey, I guess I'm going to say I'm going to talk about this like little kids.
		I'm a Democrat, but that doesn't mean I like all Democrats.
		It doesn't mean I hate all Republicans.
		And sometimes Republicans say stuff, and I actually agree and I listen.
		See, the problem with America today is they act like little children.
		When someone says one thing you don't like, you have a problem with it.
		And I don't think anyone's going to argue that Charlie Kirk was taken out because of something he said or something that he would have said.
		But on that note, if you disagree with him being taken out or killed because of something he said, then how can you agree with someone being taken off the air because of something that he said?
		It's the exact same thing.
		Whether you like this one or like that one, the voice needs to be heard.
		And once you start listening to other people's voices, sometimes you will agree, sometimes you won't.
		But just because you don't agree does not mean that you need to silence or take someone out or off the airways.
		Simply say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Did you care as far as agreement with what Jimmy Kimmel said?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How much did you agree with him and what he said?
unidentified		Whatever he said, I probably would have agreed with it because I do not like Charlie Kirk or what he stands for.
unidentified		Period.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, 202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Text us if you wish at 202-748-8003.
		Another representative on X yesterday, Brian Babbin, saying if a conservative host mocked the murder of a Democrat, they'd be off the airwaves for life.
		But because Kimmel parrots the radical left, he's rewarded Vicki Mayfield on our Facebook page saying, well, that kind of threw a wrench in the Democrats' latest verbal outlage.
		I don't really care because I don't watch late night TV.
		I don't have cable.
		I watch a variety of podcasts that she lists.
		Senator Elizabeth Warren saying this, saying, for everyone who spoke up and said Trump's censorship of Kimmel is wrong, your voice mattered.
		The fight isn't over.
		Trump won't stop corruptly pressuring media companies.
		CEOs must not bend the need to secure mergers and regulatory favors.
		The First Amendment is not for sale, she adds.
		That was on X yesterday.
		It was also yesterday that the current chair of the Federal Communications Commission was appearing at an event in New York, and the topic of Jimmy Kimmel came up.
		This is the New York Post this morning or yesterday saying it was the chair, Brendan Carr. rejecting accusations that the government forced Disney to sideline Jimmy Kimmel, insisting the late night's host suspension instead stemmed from week late ratings.
		The story adding that Carr had faced bipartisan backlash since last week when he told podcaster Betty Johnson, we can do this the easy way or the hard way.
		These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
		And then that prompted a response by Senator Rand Paul telling Meet the Press the comments were absolutely inappropriate.
		When it comes to Brendan Carr himself, that event that was sponsored yesterday, here's some of the comments on Jimmy Kimmel that the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, made.
brendan carr ▲ ● ▼		Jimmy Kimmel was in the situation that he's in because of his ratings, not because of anything that's happened at the federal government level.
		And again, we're at this point in time where you can look at Colbert as well, right?
		Colbert is sort of ending due to the reporting being costing over $50 million to run that show.
unidentified		Tough timing, though.
		I mean, it was so close to the settlement that was done.
		And so you can probably appreciate the perception.
brendan carr ▲ ● ▼		Well, the perception is always going to be there, I guess, but all we can do is sort of lay out the facts.
		And the facts are very clear.
		You look at all the reporting on this.
		These are business decisions that they've reached.
		And again, I think some of this goes back to the idea that for a long time, these legacy media outlets got to have a monopoly on the narrative, on the messaging, and that has fractured.
		And so if you're having a late night show nowadays, it's not getting the same ratings that it did a long time ago.
		I think part of that is a lot of late night programs went from going for laugh lines to going for applause lines.
		They went from being court gestures that made fun of everybody.
		And people should.
		That's what comedy is about, right?
		Make fun of Republicans, make fun of Democrats.
		But instead of doing the court gesture role, they became court clerics where they were enforcing a very narrow, sort of partisan view.
		And that's not for me ultimately to judge.
		That's for the ratings and the audience to judge.
		And that's what we're seeing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The Los Angeles Times, in writing about the events of yesterday into today, saying this all happened to Commiss TV station operators have significant business before the federal government.
		They are desperate to consolidate in order to survive in the streaming era.
		And they need the FCC's approval to merge.
		They need the agency to lift station ownership caps, which makes it so no one entity can reach more than 39% of U.S. households.
		Nextstar is trying to close a $6.2 billion deal to acquire the rival station group Tegna, which would require the FCC's green light.
		This gives Brendan Carr massive leverage.
		This piece in the Los Angeles Times says his unsettled threat to use it to criticize by free speech advocates and even some Republicans, including Ted Cruz.
		After Disney pulled Kimmel's show, Brendan Carr is sending a celebratory gift to CNN's Brian Stelter.
		It goes on from there.
		It's in the Los Angeles Times.
		If you want Los Angeles Times this morning, if you want to read some of those thoughts, let's hear from Vincent in Maryland, Republican line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Los Angeles Times, a radical left-leaning Democrat.
		Anyway, and most of the quotes you were quoting from left-leaning Democrats, legacy media.
		But anyway.
		I thought C-SPAN would.
		The first thing that would be on C-SPAN, the very first thing instead of Jimmy, was autism.
		You know, that's a big autism children.
		And as far as President Trump goes, I mean, you trash him.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, hold on, hold on.
		You called in for this topic, so we'll talk to you about this topic.
		What do you think about this decision about Jimmy Kimmel?
unidentified		You have a good day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Randy, Randy in New York, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Good morning, and thank you for letting me talk.
		I think that, you know, we have to be fair on both sides.
		You know, one of the things that you want to be able to do is communicate.
		One of the things we don't do very well in Congress is we don't talk to each other and decide to make things together as decisions.
		I hope when Jimmy Kimmel comes on, he actually talks about the trillion-dollar tax break for billionaires and the sequestration that's going to fall out of that for people that are on Social Security.
		$50, $50, what is it, $50 or $500 billion is going to go out of the budget, and that's going to be really tough on all seniors.
		And this should be a big topic for CNN, but maybe it's a topic now for Jimmy Kimmel to talk about.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why do you think he would engage in something like that?
unidentified		I think to show that, hey, you know, we have to talk the truth to everyone.
		You know, and no one wants to talk the truth.
		You know, the Republicans are hoping that they can squeeze this off after the election and no one will have any issue with that occurring if no one ever talks about it.
		But the sequestration is going to take place.
		It's going to be an automatic fallout of the budget deficit.
		And everyone knows it, but no one wants to talk about it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Crystal, Democrats line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're next up in Pennsylvania.
unidentified		Yes.
		Good morning, everybody.
		I just want to say, first of all, I am so excited that Jimmy Kimmel is coming back on.
		Okay.
		And I want to say I was watching the show when Jimmy Kimball made that statement about Trump and what he did when the reporter asked him.
		He didn't say anything about Charlie Kirk.
		He said that Charlie Kirk was a mega man, which is true.
		That's what his family said at that time.
		Okay.
		He was raised by a mega mother, a mega father.
		And then he said what the reporter asked, he did.
		He showed what the reporter asked Trump, and Trump went on to talk about his construction.
		Trump got offended because he pointed out that Trump really doesn't care about anything.
		All of this is just BS for Trump.
		Okay.
		So I am happy that Jimmy's back on.
		I'm a black woman who didn't like Charlie Kirk because he didn't like me.
		So I could care less about Charlie Kirk and what happened to him.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, Crystal, let me ask you this.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Before the story came up with Jimmy Kimmel, did you ever watch him or really engage with what he had to say?
unidentified		With Jimmy Kimmel?
		Yes.
		Oh, every night.
		Every night.
		He was the only reason I would watch ABC sometimes.
		I never told Jordan Dagg on channel.
		There was nothing to watch on their channel any longer, but him.
		So I enjoyed him every single night.
		Okay.
		And if people didn't like him, so what?
		Don't watch him.
		That's the choice we have.
		If you didn't like Charlie Kirk, don't listen to him.
		I personally didn't like Charlie Kirk.
		I thought he was a racist, so I didn't listen to him.
		Okay?
		That's just the way it is.
		That's just the way it is.
		Thank you, Jimmy, for coming back on and continue to be who you are.
		Have a good day, everybody.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Crystal there in Pennsylvania talking about the return of Jimmy Kimmel, the decision by Disney and ABC to return him to the airwaves.
		If you want to continue on that conversation and you want to give your thoughts on that or other matters of politics, you can do so as we turn over to Open Forum.
		And how you do that is pick a line that best represents you.
		You can do that.
		If you're a Democrat, 202748-8003 or 8,000.
		Republicans, 202748-8001.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		If you want to, a couple of rules, if you would, if you've called within the last 30 days, hold off from doing so today.
		And that way you can let other people into the conversation.
		Also, we ask you to pick the line that best represents you to make sure that people get through on the line that they're assigned.
		So there they are.
		They're the lines.
		If you want to give us a call and do so, and then we'll do open forum to the top of the hour.
		Several things going on in Washington and particularly in New York today.
		If you are paying attention to the work of the United Nations, we'll talk about it in a little while.
		But President Trump expected to address the UN General Assembly later on this afternoon or this morning.
		Our coverage starting at 9 o'clock as we watch the president talking about the state of world affairs in front of the UN General Assembly.
		If you're interested in seeing that, you can do that.
		Watch it on C-SPAN too.
		You can see it on our app, C-SPANNow, and c-span.org as well.
		Several things related to the United Nations today that you can keep an eye on during the course of the day.
		Let's hear from California in this open forum Democrats line.
		This is Nina.
		Nina, hello.
		Thanks for calling.
unidentified		Oh, hi.
		Wow, what a trip.
		I've never called in before.
		This is great.
		The reason I'm calling is that I just really jazzed about that woman that called from Pennsylvania.
		I agree.
		If you don't like what it's on, don't watch it.
		You know, turn it to some other channel.
		It just we shouldn't only have things on that are, you know, that there should be something for everybody.
		And if you don't like it, don't watch it.
		That's all.
		I didn't watch Jimmy Kimmel all that much.
		Sometimes I would watch it if there was something, someone coming on that I was interested in.
		Otherwise, I didn't watch it very often.
		I don't normally watch the monologue, so I didn't really hear what he said.
		And I agree with that other caller is that I was a Johnny Carson fan, so I watched Johnny Carson.
		So that's about all I had to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Thanks.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jill in New York, Republican line.
		Good morning.
		You're next.
unidentified		Yes.
		Good morning, June from New York.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Let's get the facts straight.
		Jimmy Fallon was taken off not because of President Trump.
		He was taken off because he lost millions and his ratings went down.
		And with all this rhetoric about Charlie and President Trump, let's not forget the day he walked down those escalator, everybody came at him.
		So who threw the first stone?
		That's all I could say.
		And God bless America.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Jimmy Kim.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Kimmel, just to clarify, not Jimmy Fallon, let's go to Don in New Orleans, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		How you doing?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
		You're on.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah.
		You know, we talk about this Christian beliefs.
		One of the Christian beliefs is you hate the sin and not the sinner.
		I think there's too much sinner hating going on.
		The law say you come to fulfill the law, not to do away with it.
		So our approach to Christianity amongst many beliefs has to be that we walk the fate and not talk to fate in a way that it's inflammatory.
		There's a lot of things that you disagree with.
		We can disagree with in society, but that should not be hate.
		There's a level.
		It's not just hate.
		It's not just hate.
		You don't hate the hate the sin, not the center.
		But there's a very high level of disdain.
		Now, disdain, you very well know, Pedro, is the definition is that you just don't like, dislike something, but you have it in a level of contempt or scorn.
		You disdain.
		You find it unworthy or you're superior to any person, though you're not perfect.
		We are imperfect humans, but you see your position as that of superiority, and other people are unworthy of any type of humane treatment or even benefits or participation in the general world or even in your society.
		You have a disdain.
		So it's too much disdain Christians.
		And the word speaks against, the word of God speaks against God's dislike of disdainfulness.
		And so we have to rid it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, okay.
		We'll go to Conrad.
		Conrad in Florida, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Yeah, how are you doing?
		I'd just like to make a comment.
		The host got pulled off the air for some things that he said.
		But listen, I'm a styleheart reflective.
		But all the stuff our presidents say, grab him by the crotch, horse face, racist hatred.
		He should be one to pull off the air.
		This guy ain't say nothing compared to what Donald Trump has been saying since he's been the president.
		Now, we're all human beings.
		We all have the right to say.
		Now they want to tell us what to eat, tell us what to look at, tell us that I just don't understand it.
		This guy is the president is getting away.
		If this was, I just can't wait.
		The Republicans are going to get their turn if they get a Democrat president.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, Republicans like yourself?
unidentified		Yeah, my Republicans.
		Listen, listen, we all humans.
		You want to pull a guy off because he made a comment, but the president of the United States call us ugly.
		Would you have sexual grab him by the crotch?
		And I just don't understand it.
		Is this the real Republican Party I used to know?
		What happened to the don't spend?
		Who I think is going on?
		He got the Republicans, Democrats by the nuts because neither one of them parties is saying anything about what he's saying.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Conrad there calling in.
		You can continue to do the same.
		We'll take those calls till 10 o'clock.
		One of the things that came up yesterday was when it comes to the topic of Tylenol and pregnant women.
		This is the Wall Street Journal's take yesterday about that event at the White House that you may have saw on our networks or online saying the Trump administration saying Monday that Tylenol used during pregnancy is a possible cause of autism and that pregnant women should stop taking it unless absolutely necessary.
		Doctors and medical societies say acetametophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, remains the best option for treating fever and pain during pregnancy.
		You can watch that whole event featuring President Trump and many of his members of the medical profession and community talking about this issue.
		But here's the president himself about this announcement yesterday.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		So I just want to say acetametophen is basically Tylenol, essentially, because I noticed that term is used throughout this conference.
		So it's essentially Tylenol.
		And I just recommend strongly that you don't use Tylenol unless it's absolutely necessary.
		I understand it's maybe 10% of the women that are pregnant are, you know, would perhaps be forced to use it.
		And that would mean you just can't tough it out.
		No matter what you do, you can't tough it out.
		So that's up to you and your doctor.
		But there's a very strong recommendation.
		Maybe stronger from me than from the group because they're waiting for certain studies.
		I just want to say, I want to say it like it is.
		Don't take Tylenol.
		Don't take it.
		If you just can't, I mean, it's fight like hell not to take it.
		There may be a point where you have to, and that you'll you have to work out with yourself.
		So don't take Tyler No.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That was yesterday.
		This story in the Wall Street Journal follows up with this saying, studies looking at the link between acetametophen and autism are inconclusive.
		Some show a link between its use during pregnancy and autism risk, while others don't.
		A 2019 study published in the Journal of American Medical Association Psychiatry said or found that higher concentrations of acetametophen in unumbilical cord blood samples taken at birth were linked to a greater risk of autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
		Another in JAMA, as it's known, in 2024 of nearly 2.5 million children in Sweden found no increased risk in children when mothers took acetametophen during their pregnancy compared with their siblings who weren't exposed to the medication in the womb.
		More there about the scientific back and forth about this announcement yesterday from the White House at the Wall Street Journal, other publications carrying it that as well.
		You can talk about it in this open forum if you wish.
		Let's go to Roderick in Arizona, Democrats line.
		Hi there.
unidentified		How are you doing?
		Just to be real brief, just want to talk about this gentleman, CK, and this is from a person's perspective who started Bible preschool three days before I turned age two for all the Christians on the line.
		I grew up in Sacramento being ran off the road by the Ku Klux Klan and watching cross burnings to watch Christians or people who call themselves Christians act like it's no big deal to worship this white supremac, right?
		Those type of messages and those actions I grew up with before I was even preschool to see that and to live that.
		And so now everyone see everyone whitewash and sugarcoat this man who spewed this hate, right?
		That had me as a four or five year old worrying about the Ku Klux Klan running me off the road.
		If you think that's okay, you're part of the problem.
		If you think whitewashing his message is okay, you're part of the problem.
		And you know what?
		You need to take a good look in the mirror.
		Because if you're okay with a four-year-old getting round thrown by a Ku Klux Klan and you're okay with what Charlie Kirk said, you are part of the problem.
		Get off your Christian soapbox and start looking in the mirror.
		Goodbye.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Steve in Maryland, Republican line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Here, good morning.
		That was an interesting last call.
		Let me ask a question.
		If ABC gave me a comedy show at night and me and my writers get together, we decide, let's do a KKK rally on TV tonight.
		How long do you think I would have my show?
		I mean, it's free speech, right?
		I should be allowed to do that.
		Would I have a show?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That sounds like a rhetorical question.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So how would you answer it?
unidentified		Well, no, I wouldn't have a show.
		I'd be taken off the air and people would be rioting in the streets.
		There's no way that I'll be allowed to do that on TV.
		But it's free speech.
		So I should be allowed to do it.
		So what's the difference?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm assuming you're relating this to Jimmy Kimmel.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How does it relate?
unidentified		It relates because if free speech means you can say anything you want on TV no matter what, then you have to let me have my show on TV and I can say anything I want and they can't fire me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Steve there in Maryland.
		We will hear from Gary.
		Gary is in Ohio Democrats line.
unidentified		Oh, good morning.
		I wanted to, I don't know if anybody brought this up, but I was I got a long memory of back a few years when Don Imus was fired for what he said on the air, but that had nothing to do with the government firing him.
		That was what he said.
		He was disparaging Rutgers University basketball team, women's basketball team.
		And then it was like cringeworthy what he said.
		And then he and his producer were fired.
		And then within seven or ten months or 11 months, he was back on the air again.
		So, I mean, like I said, this had nothing to do with the government getting involved.
		This is all private sector stuff.
		But, yeah, I wish someone would do the comparison.
		I don't think it's comparable now because Jimmy Kimmel's back on the air now.
		But yeah, yeah, Don Imos and how he was, and he even went to the university to apologize to the basketball team.
		So, yeah, see how anybody brings that back up then.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Christy, up next in Michigan, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		I think pushback works.
		I watched Jimmy Kimmel.
		I watched that episode.
		Nothing he said went against the contract he had.
		And the people spoke.
		I mean, you need to know where to get your facts.
		You know, the one lady from New York, I can sit and debunk Republicans all day long.
		I'm not saying Democrats don't lie to.
		But for the most part, the hateful and violent rhetoric politically comes from our own president.
		I mean, and people would deny that.
		Every American sees it every single day.
		And people don't even know how to go online and find something that's actually fact-based.
		That's where we're failing.
		Because people are defending stuff that are literal lies, just like Stephen Colbert.
		They said the same thing when he got exited out of TV.
		Oh, his ratings were bad.
		No, I actually watched him on the Grammy Awards 1-0 award.
		His ratings weren't bad, just like Jimmy Kimmel's ratings aren't bad.
		That's why he's back on the air.
		He didn't do anything against his contract.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When you say he didn't do anything against this contract, exactly what you mean considering that Disney and ABC took him off the air for almost a week.
unidentified		Yeah, and then he threatened to sue him for $1 billion because his contract stated that he could say anything he wanted politic-wise.
		He just couldn't say the seven bad words of whatever that meant TV.
		I didn't understand that part, didn't research that part.
		And anything that he, the comment he made on the Kirk and the comment he made on the president, and I do truly believe it was from the comment he made on the president about his reaction to the death of Kirk.
		That's why he got taken off TV.
		He didn't violate his contract with the, you know, Disney or whoever gives him the contract.
		I know there's a couple people involved there.
		And he was threatened to sue him for a billion dollars.
		That's why he's back on the air.
		And plus, the people pushed back.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So I may ask, where did you read that they threatened to sue him for a billion dollars?
unidentified		It would have been on Yahoo somewhere.
unidentified		Yahoo search thing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		I bought let's hear from Yvonne.
		Yvonne in Florida, Republican line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning.
		The first thing I want to say is I am so sick of the misrepresentation and just flat out lies about Charlie Cook.
		I'm an African-American woman.
		I have been listening to him.
		And the boy was not a racist.
		There was not anything about Charlie Cook that was a racist.
		He had a young African-American man on there he was debating with from one of the historical black colleges that I listened to.
		And people are taking out of context what he said when he had said, I would want to make sure that if there was a black person or African-American that was a flight instruct, what do you call them?
		The ones who, oh my God, that helped the flights direct them.
		Anyway, Keith was saying that because of DEI, I would question it because they hire so many people based on race and not necessarily on their abilities.
		The young African-American brother who was up there debating with him agreed.
		He agreed.
		So I really wish that people would listen to the full comments of what Charlie Kirk said.
		And as far as Kimmel is concerned, the people are sitting up here taking it way, I mean, they are so wrong about the young man who killed Charlie Kirk.
		He was not MAGA.
		His family flat out said that he became radically left.
		He went all the way to the left.
		And that is why him and his father had a falling out.
		They were not even necessarily speaking because they said the last conversation he had was when he was stating how he hated Charlie Kirk.
		He was not a MAGA.
		He was not a Republican.
		His family, yes, he was not.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, okay, okay.
		Okay, Rivon from Florida, thanks.
		Thank you for the call.
		A couple of, we told you about the president addressing the UN General Assembly later on today.
		A couple other things, too, to keep an eye on when it comes to the events in New York.
		The Security Council of the United Nations meets today.
		The topic at hand, the Middle East conflict, Palestinian statehood, several countries recognizing the state of Palestine, even as of yesterday at the United Nations.
		If you want to see that debate take place in front of the Security Council, that will be at 1 o'clock.
		C-SPAN 2 is where you can see it and the app and the .org.
		Also, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, addressing the Security Council when it comes to topics related to Ukraine.
		C-SPAN 2 is also the place where you can watch it at 4 o'clock this afternoon and the app and the .org if you're interested to see the events that take place at the United Nations.
		We'll talk about that in about 15 minutes.
		Richard is in California.
		Democrats line.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hey, Pedro, thanks for taking my call.
		Boy, this is a hot topic.
		So I wanted to say a few things about what's going on with Jimmy Kimmel.
		It's very good that he got put back on.
		And one of the previous callers who said there are disdainful Christians who hate the center and not the sin, man, did that guy hit the nail on the head.
		I want to quote to you something, an MSN article that I read Sunday, the 21st, about the current status of the Republican Party.
		I won't read the whole article, but it claims that in a special election, Democrat James Walkinshire emerged victorious in Virginia's 11th congressional district, filling a seatless vanquished by the late Republican Gerald Connelly.
		And the win narrows the Republican House majority.
		The Republican Party is not what it used to be.
		Now it's the party of Trump.
		It is disgraceful.
		It should not be the party of Trump.
		It's supposed to be the Republican Party.
		And the political situation in this country has now become a political armageddon.
		We have here in California now a measure called ballot 50 coming up to match up with the guys from Texas.
		The current California governor has some real chutzpah, and I hope he won't.
		Jimmy Kimple is being taken off the air.
		Man, this country was built on free speech.
		We have to have free speech.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Richard there in California in Florida, Republican line.
		This is Lily.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes.
		Good morning.
		Concerning all these hate speeches that are being given on here, it's Charlie Kirk.
		Really, he was a Christian man that was trying to get us all to revive and see the Christian life and how it can actually be lived and still be political.
		Our Constitution was one nation under God.
		What happened to that?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Lily in Cal sorry, Florida.
		And again, part of Open Forum, up until 8 o'clock, 202748, 8,000 for Democrats, 202748, 8,000 one for Republicans, and 202748, 8,000 two for Independents.
		One of the things that came out of yesterday's press conference at the White House, back and forth with the White House press secretary about the Trump administration's borders are, as he's known, Tom Homan.
		This is from USA Today, saying the White House denying the administration's borders are Mr. Homan accepted $50,000 in cash bribes as alleged in a Justice Department investigation that was shut down after President Trump took office.
		Homan was recorded by the FBI.
		The story in USA Today says in September of 2024, accepting a bag with $50,000 in it as a part of an undercover FBI operation, according to multiple news reports, the New York Times is cited in this piece saying, and citing people familiar with the case, reported that Mr. Holman was recorded on FBI audio tape appearing to accept the money in exchange for agreeing to secure future government contracts related to border security for the agents who were posing as businessmen.
		MSNBC reported multiple hitting cameras capturing Mr. Homan accepting the money as detailed by a summary of the case saying, and this story saying that although Mr. Homan's encounter with the FBI agents led to him being investigated for bribery and other crimes, the New York Times reported prosecutors closed the case after doubting there was enough evidence to prove to a jury that Homan agreed to specific actions in exchange for the payment.
		All that coming to the front yesterday after a question about it from the press poll at the White House.
		Here's the response from White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt.
unidentified		Can you just speak to the president to ask the Justice Department to close the case?
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼		And does Holman have to return the $50,000?
		Well, Mr. Homan never took the $50,000 that you're referring to, so you should get your facts straight number one.
		Number two, this was another example of the weaponization of the Biden Department of Justice against one of President Trump's strongest and most vocal supporters in the midst of a presidential campaign.
		You had FBI agents going undercover to try and entrap one of the president's top allies and supporters, someone who they knew very well would be taking a government position months later.
		Mr. Homan did absolutely nothing wrong and even the president's Department of Justice, even Kash Patel's FBI, looked into this just to make sure they had a number of different prosecutors and FBI agents who looked into this.
		They found zero evidence of illegal activity or criminal wrongdoing in the White House and the president stand by Tom Homan 100% because he did absolutely nothing wrong and he is a brave public servant who has done a phenomenal job in helping the president shut down the border.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That complete press conference available online if you want to see it there.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Daniel in New York, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello.
		I was just wondering, what about the Fox TV host, Brian there, what he said?
		Could you play that on the air?
		And why aren't they going after them?
		I mean, you know, Trump in the 90s admitted he worked with the, you know, the Russian mob.
		I mean, is he still part of it?
		I just want to know.
		Can you play that Fox thing, though?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One of the things that's been coming, has come up, and one of the things that has come up alongside of that is that the FCC deals with public broadcast airwaves, which affects things like the Jimmy Kimmel show versus cable, which affects things like Fox News.
unidentified		And why doesn't cable have the same thing?
		I think you should play that from Fox.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Goodbye.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		California's next Republican line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Steve, hello.
unidentified		Hello, Pedro.
		Looks like you opened up a can of worms today.
		I'd like to talk to the funding of weapons to Palestine because I was watching the UN yesterday on all the countries that are trying to make Palestine a state, which we've got 90% of the countries, and we're still holding back supporting Israel and the genocide that's going on over there.
		What a horror show.
		And at the same time, we were refusing to send the food or peanut butter paste to Africa, and people are dying, and we're paying $10,000 a day to store this stuff that's supposed to be sent over to Africa.
		Gates Foundation and a few others offered to buy the stuff so they could distribute it, and yet we're still not sending the food over there, which is kind of a question to me: why?
		Okay, Pedro, that's all I got right now.
		Thank you very much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Like I said, we'll talk more about issues with the UN, but here's the headline from events of yesterday when it comes to recognition of a Palestinian state, the French president making a speech before the UN General Assembly on that front, including several Saudi officials also expressing support.
		That's one of the things that played out yesterday.
		We'll talk about that in a few minutes.
		Andy is in California, Independent Line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I just wanted to speak a little bit.
		The last several days, there's been a lot of talk about civil war and things of this nature.
		And, you know, the rhetoric has come from the top.
		I think it's pretty obvious.
		The man has been, they attempt to assassinate the man twice.
		You know, he stated that he was going to, you know, change.
		He didn't.
		He likes this decisive, this divisiveness.
		And I think it really hit home in the free speech topic several weeks ago to me when at a major league baseball game of all places where you go to enjoy yourself.
		And one of the fans outside or in the outfield, excuse me, was heckling the outfielder.
		And anybody who's been in sports, there's heckling that goes on.
		But the outfielder heckled excuse me.
		The person in the stands heckled the outfielder about his mother who just died.
		I think that pretty much sums it up.
		I mean, when you go to a ball game, you shouldn't have someone beside you heckling an outfielder about his mother who had just died.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Andy there.
		Andy there expressing that sentiments when it comes to the debate and political back and forth that's been going on over the last couple of weeks.
		Let's hear from Gerald.
		Gerald in California, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		Good morning, Pedro.
		Thanks for the opportunity.
		I just stumbled across this open forum, and it's a good thing.
		It's freedom of speech in America, which is what we all subscribe to as Americans.
		And this forum absolutely proves that the most unpredictable thing on God's green earth and God's creation is the human brain, the human mind.
		All of the ideas and all of the things that are being expressed, it's what makes America America.
		Now, to speak about Jimmy Kimmel, absolutely free speech should reign for everybody.
		What is the, or what should be the debate is how Fox News versus CNN versus MSNBC, the freedom of speech right now, it only is being afforded to one side.
		And that's part of the problem, both the right side of the aisle, the left side of the aisle, and even those who are in the middle who don't really count because they're not taking a position.
		Freedom of speech should be allowed or afforded to all of us.
		And once we lose that freedom of speech, then we've lost America.
		And that's all I want to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When you say that freedom of speech is from correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying that people like you don't have a voice when it comes to normal issues of free speech versus those politicians in Washington, D.C.?
		Gerald, are you there?
		Okay, we'll go on.
		Let's hear from Willie.
		Willie in Little Rock, Arkansas.
		Willie, hello.
unidentified		Why is it that the president never say he's innocent of any charges?
		Only that they are prompt up for the audience right now as to question our letters.
		All the points to the one.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Willie, sorry about cutting you short there, only because, like I've asked others as they're waiting online, if you would mute your television and or turn it down, one of those two things.
		That gives people the opportunity to hear you versus the interference in the background.
		But thanks for calling.
		Let's go to Sandy in Ohio, Republican line.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		The liberals and the Democrats call the Republicans Nazi fascist Hitler.
		And yet they are the ones on the college campuses and the ones rioting because they want the Jews exterminated from the river to the sea.
		And by the way, it's the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which they don't seem to know.
		But that actually makes them the Jew-hating Nazi fascist.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, hold on.
		That's broad characterizations.
		Where do you base that on?
unidentified		You say that this is damn unfiltered.
unidentified		And so I expect to just make my quick points.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no, no, you made the point.
		I'm just asking you where you base that from.
		That's all.
		Those characterizations.
unidentified		Well, they're the ones that want the Jews exterminated from the river to the sea.
		They want them gone.
		That means they want to exterminate the Jews.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, hold on.
		Who is the day?
		Who is the they in this case?
unidentified		The they are the liberals and Democrats that are rioting and calling us the Nazis, fascists, and Jews, and yet they are the ones that want the Jews exterminated.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, okay.
		Uh, let's go to Ralph.
		Ralph in Maine, Republican line.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I noticed on Fox News website that they're saying Sinclair will preempt Jimmy Kimmel's show despite Disney ending its suspension.
		I answered late, so maybe you already talked about that.
		So it sounds like there's still a debate on whether it will be shown.
		Also, I was wondering if anyone has brought up the fact that a local ABC affiliate in California was shot up by a Trump hater and was arrested.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Ralph in Maine, last call on this topic.
		And those participating this morning in this open forum.
		A couple of conversations coming your way on this show.
		Later on, we will talk about political polarization in the United States with two former members of Congress joining us: U.S. Democrat Tim Romer, Republican Charles Bustani of the group Issue One, joining us to talk about political polarization and other topics.
		But up next, President Trump addresses the United Nations General Assembly later today.
		Joining us to talk about that and other related issues to the UN is Arlix Tarquinio of the publication Foreign Policy.
unidentified		That when Washington Journal continues in 1945, the United Nations was founded in the aftermath of World War II.
		This week, C-SPAN marks the 80th anniversary of the UN.
		We'll dig into the C-SPAN archives for historic speeches from U.S. presidents and world leaders delivered at the annual United Nations General Assembly in New York.
		Tonight, at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2, we'll feature George W. Bush, who laid out the case against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction in 2002.
		And then a 2006 speech by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez criticizing the United States, calling President George W. Bush the devil.
		And President Barack Obama in 2009 speaking to the body as the first African American to ever hold the office of U.S. President.
		He called for a new chapter of international cooperation amid the war on terror.
		Watch the 80th anniversary of the United Nations all this week at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2.
		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, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		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 networks.
		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 non-profit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		President Trump, a little while from now, will address the UN General Assembly and here to talk about that and other related issues.
		Alex Tarquinio of the publication Foreign Policy.
		She serves as the United Nations Resident Correspondent.
		Ms. Tarquinio, good morning.
		Thanks for giving us your time.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for having me.
		It's an honor.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What does the president face this time around in his first term versus issues that he faced the last time around he was a president?
unidentified		Well, it's considerably more complicated this time, and I think I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the diplomats here are really waiting with bated breath to see what he says in his speech in just a few hours.
		He, you know, the first time around, Trump was obviously an unknown quantity.
		You know, he hasn't spent his life in politics.
		He was a businessman.
		So, and I think he was also learning his way around the United Nations.
		Now, it is also fair to say that on the other hand, he is a New Yorker, and so he was very familiar with the United Nations and that every September the city almost shuts down this final week of September with all the world leaders coming in.
		So I think he does, on a personal level, perhaps enjoy, you know, as the kid who grew up in Queens, being the leader that came in.
		By the way, I just happened to be, I was leaving the UN late last night, and I just happened to be stopped for quite a while on the pavement while we waited for his motorcade to pass when he flew in last night.
		He waved a little bit to the people at the UN as he went by.
		So I think he is looking forward to it on the one hand, but on the other hand, people here are waiting.
		They're very curious because since he took office, he has not paid the mandatory dues, and he has made it very clear that he does want to see cutbacks and some efficiencies at the UN.
		There's been a talk, I don't know if you remember when Waltz had his initial hearing with the Senate, with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
		He talked about bringing MAGA to the UN.
		So trepidation might be too strong a word, but there's a lot of wonder.
		No one really quite knows.
		His speech could go either way.
		So in that sense, he's being the showman and making us wait for the speech to find out what his message is and what his vision is for the future of the United Nations.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And to that vision part of it, I imagine that specific topics will have to come up, such as what's going on in Gaza, such as what's going on in Ukraine.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the expectation from the body there and yourself about how the president will address those issues?
unidentified		Oh my goodness.
		Yes.
		Yesterday, the day before the traditional start of the UN, what we call the high-level week when the leaders all come, the day before, until this year, has usually been concerned with things like socially development goals, sustainable sustainability, issues of fairness, poverty relief.
		Yesterday was much more intense than any other preview day that I have seen before the high-level week.
		In the morning, it started with a Security Council meeting, an emergency meeting about Russian incursions into NATO airspace in Estonia, Poland, and Romania.
		That was very fierce, a lot of back and forth, a lot of really, I would say almost warnings from European leaders to the Russian delegation there.
		And don't forget, Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council.
		It wields the veto in the Security Council.
		So that was how the day started.
		And then late in the day from 3 to 6 p.m., there was the conference about the recognition of Palestine and the two-state solution, as it's called here.
		And that's a process that, well, it's been essentially been ongoing since almost the beginning of the UN 80 years ago.
		But its latest iteration, it started in July.
		There was a big conference led by France and Saudi Arabia where they came up with what they called the New York Declaration to encourage countries that had not recognized the state of Palestine to do so.
		And of course, many have, not just France, but the UK, Australia, Canada.
		It's interesting, and I'm sure in this meeting we'll talk about what exactly that term means, the recognition of a state that hasn't yet come into being fully.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		All right, Alex Tarquinio here for our conversation about the events at the United Nations, including the president speaking a little later from now.
		202748-8000 for Democrats, 202748-8001 for Republicans, and 202748-8002 for independents.
		If you want to give us a call and ask our guests questions about it, you can also text us too.
		That's at 202-748-8003.
		Ms. Tarquinio, according to facts, the United States is the biggest contributor to the budget of the United Nations.
		As the president walks in on this speech today, how much sway does that give him to, if not so much dictate policy, strongly express what he'd like to see?
unidentified		It's a lot.
		And one thing I'll make clear in the budget, I've studied the budget a lot and I do not want to bore your readers with budgetary matters.
		The U.S. is the largest contributor to what are called assessed contributions, which are, you know, just like any large body, they pass a budget each year, which is forward-looking.
		And then the contributions are assessed based on the size of the economy and what's deemed the ability to pay.
		So in that regard, the U.S. pays 22%.
		The next would be China as the second economy, and so on down the line.
		There are other ways that the U.S. contributes.
		There are things, for example, voluntary contributions to organizations and programs like the World Food Program, for example.
		And the U.S. said those are voluntary, but the U.S. has often been the largest contributors to those as well, for obvious reasons.
		This year, Trump has decided to withhold that.
		And in a way, it's a little similar to the strategy he has used with tariffs.
		It does give him a lot of bargaining power.
		Nobody thinks that this will continue indefinitely.
		In fact, any country, this is part of the UN Charter, any country that doesn't pay its dues for two years would lose its vote in the General Assembly.
		Now, it would still be a member.
		The U.S. would still be a member and on the Security Council, but I don't think anyone is really expecting it to go that far.
		But he does come with, as he would say, some cards to negotiate based on the fact that the U.S. has some dues, and he is sitting down with the Secretary General of the United Nations in a little bit after they both give their speeches opening the high-level week.
		And I'm quite certain that will be an issue that's very high on the agenda.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And even as you say that, if you go to the foreign policy website, your piece that you can find there saying that when it comes to money at the UN, there's a budget crisis going on.
unidentified		Absolutely.
		And by the way, the budget, I do want to make it clear, the budget crisis pre-existed the Trump administration.
		Obviously, it's been kicked into high gear by his decision to use this leverage, if you can put it that way.
		But it was already pre-existing.
		And also, to be fair, many countries and many delegates here do believe that there is room for, shall we say, efficiencies.
		The United Nations has existed for, you know, this is the 80th session of the General Assembly.
		And obviously, over the years, countries have voted to create new agencies, programs, what are called mandates, where they, for example, mandate sending in peacekeepers to a country.
		There aren't always sunset clauses.
		There's been some duplication over the years with agencies or programs that have similar objectives.
		So there is, in addition to the immediate assessment of the budget, and they are looking at revisions and, well, frankly, layoffs of staff.
		They're looking at around 18%.
		But that's the immediate budget.
		Beyond that, they're actually looking at longer term, perhaps combining some programs, you know, or agencies.
		Well, I don't know if they'll combine agencies.
		That's a big question.
		We have yet to see.
		But there's a process going on looking into this.
		And that process is called UN 80, which is a nod to the fact that the UN was established 80 years ago.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Tracy.
		Tracy in Illinois Democrats line your on with foreign policies.
		Arlex Tiquinio talking about topics related to the United Nations, including the president speaking later today.
		Tracy, hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm a new caller, and I'm very new to this, Pedro.
		But just what I have seen, I mean, I think the UN needs to take some action, not violence, of course, but it all, in my opinion, begins with left, right, conservative, black.
		I mean, why can't we all get together, agree to disagree without the violence, and come together as a nation like we were decades ago and learn to live together?
		You know, they talk about separation of church and state.
		Yesterday, Charlie's Kirk Memorial was nothing but a Republican National Convention religious.
		I would have been upset if I was his family to see such a thing.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And Tracy there in Illinois.
		Alex Terquinio, let me take the thought of the UN being that body to talk about the issues, to settle disagreements.
		How would you characterize how well that's going on?
unidentified		It's interesting, the caller.
		Hi, Tracy.
		But the caller raises an interesting point about social polarization, which on the face of it, you'd think, well, that's farther removed from the UN's work on peacekeeping and feeding the world's poor and such.
		But in fact, particularly the current Secretary General Antonio Guterres has really been focused on things like digital regulation.
		He's been looking at things such as artificial intelligence disinformation.
		And some of that is intertwined with this social polarization.
		Now, I'm not going to say that all social polarization is because of online disinformation, but it is a factor.
		And often they look at the polarization that is there because of honest differences of opinion and will then use technological tools to amplify that.
		So that actually is something they're looking at.
		And in fact, there's a two-day meeting of the Security Council this week looking at artificial intelligence, AI.
		And they are looking at having some kind of an advisory panel here to look at AI.
		So I'm not saying that will be a magic potion to solve the problems of polarization, but it is something that the UN is looking into.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		In Canada, joining us, this is Roderick.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Thanks for having me on.
		My comments mainly relate to President Trump's efforts at the United Nations.
		I'm speaking as an citizen and an observer to the turmoil and tumult that has been going on, unfortunately, for many years that the UN was established many years ago to deal with.
		President Trump's upcoming meeting with more than a dozen Arab and Muslim countries, that is today, I understand this afternoon, I'm sure would be more likely to be successful if he had, similar to Yalta, the meeting in Yalta in 1945, the leaders of the other two most powerful countries on earth, Russia and China, by his side,
		and they were speaking collaboratively and with a joint set of objectives.
		Unfortunately, for all of us here on planet Earth, your country, sadly, has been going out of its way in the last 10 years or more to poke China in the eye and Russia in the eye, and at the same time saying they want to get along with everybody.
		And unfortunately, without collaboration from China and Russia, the major conflicts globally that are currently broiling away, Middle East, Ukraine, potentially enormous problems in North Korea, Iran.
		None of these are going to be solvable unless there's collaboration with other large players.
		How do we get to that from here?
		I'd be interested, very much interested to hear your guests' views.
		Thank you very much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Roderick from Canada.
unidentified		Thank you.
		It's interesting, you, Robert, that you single out Russia and China because they are, of course, both permanent members of the Security Council.
		And for our viewers, we should remind them that the United States, Russia, China, UK, and France are all permanent members of the Council.
		And that means that they do have a veto.
		As we've seen, that does give them a diplomatic channel, even in some of the most difficult periods when the Oval Office has not been speaking with the Kremlin, for example.
		They still speak to each other on the Security Council and in sort of back-channel negotiations on the sidelines of the Security Council.
		So in fact, that conversation does go on, and even in the most difficult periods, particularly in the Cold War and also in the immediate aftermath of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, that was the one place where they really do speak to each other here, is here at the United Nations.
		So that being said, we do also have to recognize the fact that Russia is invading NATO airspace at the moment.
		So there will be hard conversations on the Security Council about actions that Russia is taking that are counter to peace cooperation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The subhead to your story this morning is talking about what happens on the sidelines of this week versus what we'll see in the General Assembly as a history of covering this.
		Talk about that sideline action.
		Why is it there that things get done?
unidentified		And then that really is where the action is.
		It's important to realize there are 150 heads of state and government coming here.
		That's presidents, prime ministers.
		You know, they will be in the hallways.
		And it's really almost magical, like the week or two before the high-level week to see the transformation.
		They set up all these little breakout spaces all over the UID building here in New York.
		I mean, there are literally going to be hundreds and hundreds of sideline meetings.
		I mean, I mentioned the one, for example, between the President and the Secretary General of the United Nations, but they will be happening at all levels, and including countries that perhaps don't talk to each other very much the rest of the year.
		So that gets to the previous caller's question about why don't they talk to each other more.
		This is where they do that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Alicia.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Alicia in Florida, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hi, good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		Pleasure.
		I just want to say my father worked for the United Nations for 15 years, so I'm constantly paying attention to what the United Nations is doing.
		And I applaud what they did yesterday there relating to the Israeli and Palestinian conflict.
		And then today, I just want to say that I applaud the fact that the United States is still part and a member of the United Nations.
		A lot of people don't understand here in the United States what the United Nations does.
		There's a lot of ignorance surrounding it.
		And that might be by design.
		I'm not sure.
		But I hope that President Trump can step up to the plate and behave in such a manner that supports the unity of the world and of the world countries.
		And it's always exciting.
		I definitely applaud you.
		Do you have any comments relating to the perception that the citizens of the U.S. see the UN as?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Alicia, there in Florida.
unidentified		Thanks.
		Yes, excellent.
		And regarding Trump's speech, very shortly, I think, as I said before, everyone is waiting to exhale.
		And I think all of the diplomats from around the world would agree with her comments there.
		Regarding the perceptions of the United States, it's very interesting.
		I agree with the previous caller that, you know, it's poorly understood.
		We don't get a lot of coverage of it on the nightly news and in other news venues.
		First of all, people speak of the United Nations as if it were one thing.
		It's not one thing.
		First of all, there's this grand building in New York where I'm sitting now and speaking to you from.
		They do have other stations around the world, in Geneva, Vienna, Nairobi, where they actually do the work, organize the work on the ground.
		So on one level, it is the big meeting like this and meetings throughout the year, particularly emergency sessions, where world leaders, foreign ministers, high-level diplomats come together and have sometimes very difficult discussions about problems in the world.
		That is one level.
		Around this building, there are a lot of missions to the United Nations from the countries.
		In a way, that is a part of the UN.
		They don't actually work for the United Nations.
		They work for their countries.
		They're career diplomats for their countries.
		But they are based here and they go in and out of the building and they have meetings here.
		So the delegates are a part of the United Nations.
		On another level, there's all the services that the UN performs all over the world through various agencies and programs that I mentioned earlier, the World Food Program, UNESCO, the Human Rights Commission.
		There are organizations that work with refugees, for example.
		So they provide services on the ground.
		And those employees usually, as I said, are based in Geneva or Nairobi, closer to where the services are delivered.
		And then there are special programs and councils that are set up to look.
		For example, I mentioned AI earlier.
		They're establishing a group of experts.
		Look into that.
		There are panels of experts on nuclear issues, nuclear non-proliferation, for example.
		So that's yet another level, and many of those are experts in their fields who are tapped to work on their panels.
		They're not directly employees of the United Nations.
		So actually, all of those various levels or threads go into making up the UN system as a whole.
		That's difficult to explain in a classroom or in, say, a six-minute segment of the nightly news or a Sunday morning news program.
		So I think that's part of the reason why it's not well understood by a lot of American citizens.
		But it is something that I think could be better explained in schools and perhaps in more extended news programs, and as we're doing this morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The caller asked about perception.
		You listed off a series of programs that the United States have, or the United Nations has, the United States pulling out of many of those programs.
		What's then the perception of the General Assembly to those decisions by this administration to pull out of key programs at the United Nations?
unidentified		Well, and this is where politics does come into it.
		Obviously, we know the Trump administration takes a dimmer view, for example, than the Biden administration of programs dealing with climate change.
		That's a big deal.
		And that is political.
		And this is something we were all saying a few months ago after the election.
		Elections have consequences.
		I think everyone understands that this administration is not going to participate, for example, in the climate change programs and may even work against some of those goals.
		And that is part of being in a democracy as well.
		And in another administration, they may come back to those programs.
		I think that's understandable.
		It is clear, however, that the U.S. being the world's largest economy and thus the biggest contributor to these programs, it does make it difficult if every four years or every eight years the U.S. is in or the U.S. is out because this is a multilateral institution and other countries are relying on those programs too.
		So that is one of the difficulties that we encounter.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Alex Tarquinio covers the United Nations for Foreign Policy magazine, the website now.
		Bradley in Texas, Independent Line.
		Hi.
unidentified		Good morning, C-SPAN.
		I'm calling in regards to the Israeli issue and the European issue with Russia and Ukraine war and the Palestinian issue with Israel.
		The United Nations, United Nations, they always vote against Israel on every issue that there is.
		As far as Russia goes, Russia shouldn't even have a permanent seat at the United Nations.
		But they're not going to vote them out.
		They're not going to get rid of them.
		But they'll turn right around and criticize the Western world, the United States of America, and Israel every single time.
		That body there at the United Nations is made up of a bunch of thugs from nations with dictators that could care less about the Western world.
		They have hatred for the Western world.
		We do a lot for them, but yet, in return, we get nothing except hate.
		That's my view on this.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Alex Tarquinio.
unidentified		Yeah, the caller raises an interesting point.
		There are 193 member states of the United Nations.
		So often when we talk about what the UN does, there are votes that are made here or speeches that are made here by the member states, as opposed to, for example, the bureaucracy that runs the UN.
		So what he's talking about there, well, particularly the meeting yesterday, I assume he saw the coverage of the press conference on Palestine, for example, the two-state solution, as it's referred to here.
		On the other hand, we have the Security Council where Russia is a permanent member and in that case can veto any resolution that is proposed, for example, calling for an end of Russia's own invasion of Ukraine.
		And that's something many diplomats and foreign ministers have said here, that there should be a reform to make it impossible for a permanent member to veto something in a situation where the permanent member themselves is the aggressor.
		Now, there's a very interesting additional point your caller made, which was that Russia shouldn't be a permanent member.
		And that is something that the Ukraine delegation often raises because in the original charter of the United Nations, it refers to the Soviet Union.
		And it does spell out the permanent members, the five permanent members, including the Soviet Union.
		And it still does.
		What happened is with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a decision was made on the Security Council for Moscow to continue in that seat.
		And this is something that Ukraine often raises, and they will, when they make remarks to the Security Council, because it's not just the permanent members, any member state can request to speak to the Security Council.
		They will say, we recognize all of the members of the Security Council, including the member of the Russian Federation sitting in the seat of the Soviet Union.
		So it's a controversial point here.
		It's difficult to see how it could be reversed at this point because of the power of the veto process.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to the Palestinian state, we saw the French president endorse that yesterday, special meetings at the UN about that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do you ever remember a time where this topic became so overt at the United Nations?
unidentified		You know, and here again, your caller is correct that it is a constant.
		Even, dare I say, that even before the horrific events that happened on October 7th, two years ago, when three years ago, for example, when we were meeting, the focus was all on Russia's war in Ukraine.
		But, you know, it was always there beneath the surface, even in the period before October 7th.
		But it has magnified tremendously, of course, because of the events over the last two years.
		And here again, the one comment I would make about saying that the UN has done something, it was the President of France that made the decision to speak to the General Assembly and make his statement on the recognition of Palestine, not the UN.
		There are obviously countries with other positions.
		There are many countries that have said, for example, that they're not opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, but this is not the time to issue a recognition.
		So each country comes here with their own commentary.
		It's not necessarily a statement from this monolith that is the United Nations, but they get much more press when they stand up at the podium with the green marble behind them in this iconic venue and make that statement.
		It magnifies, I think, the impact of it online.
		But it is still one country's leader standing at the podium making a statement, not the entire UN.
		I mean, having said that, you know, obviously there have been many votes in the General Assembly which have gotten, you know, say recently 142 votes in favor of the two-state solution.
		So you can definitely say it's the majority of the countries who are member states.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		President Trump is expected to address the body sometime in the 9 o'clock hour later on in the afternoon.
		You'll hear from the French president, other leaders expected to address the body as well.
		You can stay close to C-SPAN, our app, and the .org if you want to follow along with today's activities.
		Let's hear from New York, Independent Line.
		Pat, go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
		I'm just a caller.
		I'm not a politician, so I'm not going to speak with any kind of political finesse.
		I'm going to be very practical in what I'm saying.
		Our priorities, as far as the UN priorities, it was assembled for a purpose.
		There's no question at this time that there's a genocide going on.
		Every report that's coming out that's allowed to come out is showing what is going on there.
		If you study it, you'll go back into history.
		You'll see that these people have been oppressed for a great deal of time since the time they were pushed out of their original regions into Gaza, et cetera, et cetera.
		What I was listening to yesterday was an official from the UN who was speaking about the nations that are now recognizing Gaza, and they are Palestine, excuse me, and they were talking about a four-point plan.
		I can't speak verbatim for what the plan actually laid out, but they were talking about an official stop to the violence, to the war, an official recognition,
		something about a new government that would be formed for Palestine, for their state, and also intervention, if necessary, at this point, because of the violence that is happening as we speak and that needs to be stopped somehow in some way.
		And the UN was designed for this purpose.
		We have 150 nations who are voting against us, against sometimes they claim four nations, sometimes ten.
		But if the UN was to get together and put one ship, all of these people who want Palestine, the Palestinians to be protected, one ship from any of those, all those nations, 150, to be sent into the Mediterranean as a show of force.
		I think even the United States would have to recognize it because the United States is pretty much on its own and they have to realize that there's a reason for that.
		There's a reason for why we have this overwhelming opinion against us.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you got a lot out there, caller, for our guests to digest.
		We'll let her respond to it.
		Thank you.
unidentified		Okay.
		Well, as I said, there was a vote with 142 member states in favor of what is called the New York Declaration, which is about the Palestinian state.
		I would say the United Nations is a forum for many different opinions.
		Also, yesterday, the Israeli ambassador came out and spoke at the delegates' entrance and said that this was a reward for Hamas.
		But the people who voted for it say it's not a reward for Hamas because one, your colour mentioned that there were sort of requirements for this to be implemented.
		And one of those is actually the disarmament of Hamas.
		Now, it's unclear how exactly that would be accomplished.
		And this is something that I have actually been asking people a lot in my reporting this week.
		Has this been discussed?
		How would that disarmament and the creation of a new government absent Hamas, which is presently in control of the Gaza Strip?
		How would that be accomplished?
		And I'm not certain they've really gotten to that stage of discussions on what would be involved.
		Your colleague was talking about a show of force.
		I'm not certain that we've actually gotten to the level of discussing how this would be implemented.
		It's more of a statement of principles.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Alex Tarquinio, the United States has a new ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What does he face as he comes to the job?
unidentified		He faces a lot.
		I mean, he has a lot of experience behind him as a former congressman and former special forces officer.
		So I'm sure he's used to some big challenges, but he will face a lot coming in the door.
		He is a political appointee, which is not uncommon for the U.S. to have a political appointee.
		The last ambassador was a career diplomat.
		Although I do think the skill set is somewhat similar for a congressperson and a high-level diplomat.
		However, he's immediately going to face questions, as we spoke about considerably already, that the budget and the U.S. support, not only for the regular, the mandatory fees to keep their vote in the General Assembly, but also the voluntary fees, which programs or agencies that the U.S. will pull out of under the Trump administration and which they are going to fund.
		And at this point, also back dues.
		So there will be questions about that.
		The Trump administration's position on the Palestinian question is obviously clear.
		So, you know, he will face a preponderance of member states on the other side there that he will have to negotiate on that.
		On the other hand, he made his, well, he was confirmed by the Senate on Friday, presented his credentials, which means he was officially in the post here on Sunday and actually spoke at his first meeting yesterday.
		And that was on the Russian incursions and gave a very forceful statement there.
		He is known as being perhaps somewhat more hawkish even than the preponderance of the Trump cabinet on Russia.
		So that should also be interesting with him and his Russian counterpart.
		He will have to face a lot there.
		I mean, all that we've been talking about, the Russian veto and some of the gridlock that that creates in the Security Council.
		And also just, well, you know, anyone coming into a big job, you know, where they will have to interact with, in this case, 192 other member states and all of the other people, the staff, the NGOs who all have reps here, he's going to be facing a lot as he's just walked in the door two days ago.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Republican line from Florida.
		We will hear from Ken next.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Yes, I am a Republican, but I guess you can probably call me a rhino.
		But in any case, what I see going on with our foreign policy right now is lunacy.
		And what I see going on with our UN positions and even our domestic policy is lunacy.
		What's going on in Ukraine is lunacy.
		And we seem to be encouraging it.
		When I used to travel around the world, I was very proud to be an American.
		Now I would almost feel ashamed because nobody trusts us.
		I think we've abandoned NATO.
		And I don't believe that any of our allies trust us to follow up on Article 5.
jimmy carter ▲ ● ▼		What's going on in Gaza is an absolute atrocity, total lunacy.
unidentified		And we are complicit.
		United States is being complicit in genocide.
		That is so disgusting to me as an American.
		But, you know, shooting, murdering political activists, whether it's in Utah or whether it's in Minnesota or anywhere, is lunacy.
		Blowing boats out of the water in the open seas in the Caribbean is lunacy.
		I can't imagine who in our military gave the order to blow those boats out of the water.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, but caller, is there a specific question you'd like our guests to address, please?
unidentified		No, but maybe she would like to comment on the lunacy going on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Ken in Florida, Alex Terquinio.
unidentified		Well, I concur that there are many stories that are startling.
		And I think many of the diplomats here from really all over the world are still struggling to figure out what the vision here is for U.S. foreign policy eight months into the administration.
		And perhaps now that we actually have a permanent representative, we hope that we will hear more from Ambassador Waltz.
		And I should comment, the U.S. did have, and this is not a diss on, there was a small cadre of professional career diplomats who've been here representing the United States for the past eight months.
		And that is in no way a diss on them.
		They worked very hard and were understaffed and on a very short leash.
		I don't think they were really allowed to say much because, of course, there was no permanent ambassador here.
		Mike Waltz, I think, does have the ear of the president.
		So we're hoping to hear a little more and get some guidance there.
		But I think there's a lot of concern about what is the vision for foreign policy here.
		I mean, it can't just be budget cutting and gradually shutting down parts of the UN.
		The other thing your caller did mention is NATO.
		NATO is obviously based in Brussels.
		This is the United Nations.
		However, in events such as the High Level Week, we have the heads of state, we have the presidents and prime ministers and foreign ministers of most, if not all, of our NATO allies will actually be here.
		I do suspect, you know, some of them will be talking.
		We'll have the ear of the president and his delegation who are here.
		And as I said, Mike Waltz did speak yesterday in that session on Russia's incursions into NATO airspace.
		So it is a venue, even though we're not at the NATO headquarters in Brussels, it is a venue for them to talk about NATO's concerns and the security concerns in Europe, particularly in the Baltic and the Eastern Front.
		And hopefully they will get a chance, an opportunity to discuss those concerns this week.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mark in Florida, Democrats line.
		Go ahead.
		You're on.
		Mark in Florida.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hi, Mark.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Is this Mark?
		Okay, let's go to Dennis.
		Dennis in Wisconsin.
		Dennis in Wisconsin on our independent line.
		Go ahead.
		You're on.
unidentified		Yeah, a previous caller, the commentator, cut him off as to how the world sees us.
		You know, I'd like to go all the way to South America.
		And, you know, I didn't hear it.
		I only heard about the public radio show that cost George Bush the election when they ran the story on 13 Catholic priests that got beheaded while our CIA taped it all after they instigated it to begin with.
		And basically public radio to Congress came back after them and the payback was public radio in this country pretty much died right after that.
		We have a station in Wisconsin, WRT.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well before we go down the road a little bit, this is about the United Nations.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What would you like to ask about that?
unidentified		Well, it's going to be a nice show.
		With you controlling the media the way you just have again, it's all going to be fall around Balderdash.
		You people are worthless.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's go to Doug.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Doug joins us from St. Paul, Minnesota, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello.
		How are you, Pedro and Alex?
		I am a supporter of a local human rights organization called World Without Genocide.
		World Without Genocide has special consultative status at the UN.
		They were denied that for many years, blocked by China because of the status of the Uyghur population in northwest China.
		What I'd like to ask also is if you would comment on special consultative status and if you would talk about the relationship of the UN to the ICC and the ICJ.
		I hope to visit those two places.
		My last trip out of the country was to Iran, unusually for an American citizen.
		And before that, many trips to Ethiopia.
		I felt welcomed in many places as American then.
		I don't expect to be welcomed now, but just wondered what you'd think about tourism going to those two places.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Doug.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Doug in Minnesota, thanks.
unidentified		You raised a lot of interesting things.
		I think we've only got a couple minutes.
		I should just say for viewers, ICC is the International Criminal Court.
		ICJ is the International Court of Justice, which is actually for disputes between two countries.
		NGOs with consultative status is very interesting.
		There are many of the I mentioned NGOs earlier.
		We didn't have much time on that.
		And I also mentioned China shutting down some NGOs.
		And I should have mentioned, we've mentioned Russia several times, but Beijing also has a veto on the Security Council and also is not the original government to occupy that seat as well, because, of course, the revolution was after the establishment in Beijing was after the establishment of the UN.
		And they also use their veto power in a way to repress viewpoints they don't like.
		And of course, the U.S. has been criticized for using their veto for Israel.
		So, you know, countries will always come to the UN to represent what they perceive as their government's interest, their citizens' interest.
		And those will always be clashing.
		That is really the purpose of the UN is to bring these different viewpoints together.
		And the NGOs also perform a very valid function, and I speak to many of them in my reporting as well.
		And I'm glad that the one that the caller is involved in or supports does have consultative status.
		That's very, very important, and it allows them to get their voice into the conversation as well at the UN along with the representatives of these member states.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's squeeze in one more call.
		This is Mark in Florida, Democrats line.
		We just have a few minutes.
		Mark, go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you, Pedro, and thank you, Alex, for being there for the United States and for the world.
		I'm a former Marine.
		I'm a Desert Storm veteran.
		My father was in the Korean War as a young Marine.
		I was working at the American Emission Argentina and was taking a tour and walking to one of the government libraries.
		And I happened to find a book written by David M. Shoup, S-H-O-U-P.
		And he was a commandant, and he was John F. Kennedy's lead military advisor.
		He was a big supporter of the United Nations.
		And in the book, he mentions that the United Nations is the only place in the world where people can go to voice their opinion against the military-industrial complex of the United States.
		He basically said the United States would be at war 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, if it weren't for the United Nations.
		And I would say, General Shoup, former Commandant for all the Marines that might still be listening, is a Medal of Honor winner from World War II.
		So they don't give those away.
		It's not a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
		It's an actual congressional approved medal.
		So that's all I got.
		And thanks for being there.
		And thanks.
		Let's just keep pushing for peace.
		It's all we can do, is fight for peace.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mark in Florida there.
		We've talked about a lot of varying topics, Alex Turquinio.
		What are you watching for aside from the things we've talked about?
		What else are you watching for this week?
unidentified		Well, first, I did want to say the previous scholar, thank you for your service and thank you for your father's service.
		And as I'm sure the previous caller is very well aware, the United Nations did have a lot to do in the Korean War with the attempt to resolve that.
		So there is a connection there, and I'll have to look into that book that he mentioned.
		So final thoughts.
		Well, if anyone is truly interested, first of all, you can learn about it in the preview.
		This is where I guess I get to do my plug.
		I did do an article in foreign policy, which is a bit of a preview of what to expect this week, who will be speaking, what to watch for.
		I also have a separate independent podcast called The Delegates Lounge on Apple Podcast and YouTube.
		Well, I will be interviewing many of the delegates, foreign ministers, about some of the key issues here.
		So I do expect, you know, every year there's always some surprises.
		Well, the big, big, big question is we, in just very shortly, we will be hearing from Trump.
		And we're all curious what the president has to say, the vision that he lays out.
		That is the biggest.
		We're also curious what will happen when Netanyahu speaks later in the week, his response to all that's happened yesterday.
		And he could also have, he could also make news, let's say.
		Those are the two, I'd say, biggest speeches that people are looking for.
		The other thing is that the Secretary General, I should mention, he's heading into the last year of essentially a 10-year term.
		So he also wants to make some news.
		He wants to iron out some of the issues here before he goes.
		So there will be a lot of chatter about the focus and direction of the UN.
		And of course, what's going to happen with the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, how he's going to fit in and how he's going to implement these ideas that are laid out in Trump's remarks in a few hours when the president speaks.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Alex Tarquinio, covering it all for foreign policy, foreignpolicy.com, the website.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Tarquinio, thank you for your time.
unidentified		Thank you so much for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We will go to open forum for about a half hour.
		And if you want to participate, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8000-1 for Republicans, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		We'll take those calls in open forum when Washington Journal continues.
unidentified		And past president, why are you doing this?
unidentified		This is outrageous.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		This is a kangaroo clause.
unidentified		This fall, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity, Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
		Join Political Playbook Chief Correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns as host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue to find common ground.
		Ceasefire, this fall, on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I saw you interviewed the other night.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I watched it about 2 o'clock in the morning.
unidentified		There was a little thing called C-SPAN, which I don't know how many people were watching.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Don't worry, you were in prime time too, but they happened to have a little rerun.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		Do you really think that we don't remember what just happened last week?
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		Thank goodness for C-SPAN, and we all should review the tape.
unidentified		Everyone wonders when they're watching C-SPAN what the conversations are on the floor.
al green ▲ ● ▼		I'm about to read to you something that was published by C-SPAN.
sean duffy ▲ ● ▼		There's a lot of things that Congress fights about that they disagree on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We can all watch that on C-SPAN.
unidentified		Millions of people across the country tuned into C-SPAN.
		Speaking!
		That was a major C-SPAN moment.
		If you watch on C-SPAN, you're going to see me physically across the aisle every day, just trying to build relationships and try to understand their perspective and find common ground.
		And welcome forward to everybody watching at home.
		We know C-SPAN covers this live as well.
		We appreciate that.
		And one can only hope that he's able to watch C-SPAN on a black and white television set in his prison cell.
		This is being carried live by C-SPAN.
		It is being watched not only in this country, but it's being watched around the world right now.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Mike said before, I happened to listen to him.
		He was on C-SPAN 1.
		That's a big upgrade, right?
unidentified		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The House is going to come in for a pro forma session at 9 o'clock.
		They will do some perfunctory things and then gavel in and gavel out.
		We will take that when it happens in just a few minutes from now, but we will continue on with open forums.
		So if you're calling in, please continue to do so.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		And then we will go for about a half hour until 9-15 until our next guest join us.
		Let's hear from Marilyn.
		Marilyn joins us from Columbus, Ohio.
		Democrats line on this open forum.
		Good morning.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, this morning I want to talk about radical left.
		We have the most radical president that we've ever had.
		Judges and their families' lives have been.
		Am I still on?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Oh, okay.
		Judges and their families' lives, jurors, attorney generals, lawyers, congressmen, senators, all their lives have been put in danger because of this president.
		He comes out on the stump and talk about a judge.
		He's scum and all of that.
		He had nine, what you call those gaps where he wasn't allowed to talk.
		Some of his meganoid friends have ran their cars into people, into crowds.
		They've gone in department stores, malls, and killed people.
		So who's radical?
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mike in Baltimore, Maryland, Republican line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hi there.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I don't understand why politicians are not listening to their constituents.
		A lot of blacks in most of these major cities, urban areas, they want the National Guard to come in because the cities are underfunded because they defund the police.
		So the criminals are like running rampant, especially in Baltimore.
		So, you know, it's the political stuff that they're doing.
		There was a person that was killed in a little girl that was shot up in Park Heights, Baltimore.
		But the governor and the mayor did a photo op up there and didn't even contact their family to make sure they're okay.
		So look at what's going on in Memphis and Washington, D.C.
		These people, the citizens want, they want protection.
		And you're trying to make it a race thing.
		You know, he doesn't want, I mean, what, I mean, he's trying to save black people, trying to help out people and fight through major cities of these mayors and not do anything about it.
		So I think Trump's doing a good job of what he wants to do.
		And he's doing a good job and trying to help Americans out.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Noel in New Hampshire, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Yeah, hey.
		It's been a while since I've called in.
		And a quick refresher, of course, on inciting violence, specifically, not just hate speech, but specifically inviting and inciting violence.
		Trump in 2016, when everybody was sure that Hillary was going to be him, he did mention a couple times from the pulpit or the podium that the Second Amendment, there might be some Second Amendment people out there who could do something about this.
		This guy is soliciting the murder of his political opponents.
		Also in 2010, the Tea Party, there was Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.
		We're both calling for Second Amendment solutions.
		And of course, we have the, you know, punch him right in the effing face, take him out back.
		I'll pay you legal fees.
		I mean, this is inciting out-and-out violence because somebody disagrees politically.
		This is the most un-American thing I could think of.
		And nobody's mentioning it, not that I'm aware of.
		The Sunday morning talk shows, nobody's mentioning these specific incidents calls for Second Amendment solutions, extreme violence.
		Okay, thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		William in, I believe, Mount Arlington.
		I don't know if it's Virginia, Republican line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		It's New Jersey.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		It's New Jersey.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Several quick comments.
		I'd like to remind the President and the Secretary of War that Teddy Roosevelt said walk softly, but carry a big stick.
		Telling the world that we now have a Department of War instead of the Defense Department speaks to anarchy and speaks to his present state of mind in terms of thinking that he can obliterate everybody with impunity.
		That's number one.
		Number two, I think sinking the ships, no matter what they're carrying on the high sea, is not correct.
		They should have captured those ships, brought them into port in our waters, and then shown everybody what they're carrying with the fentanyl and other drugs and imprisoned those people and put them on trial and let the world see what's really happening.
		And then the last thing I thought was disgusting was Trump's overcalling the peace effort at the Kirk, at the Charlie Kirk Memorial the other day.
		I thought that was just awful.
		Thank you very much for the time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Carl is next in West Virginia, Republican line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, this is Carl from West Virginia.
		The question somebody asked a couple of phone calls ago to answer to why we keep getting into all these wars.
		Here's the problem, the dirty little secret.
		We build rockets, ammunition, and stuff like that.
		Most of the politicians make investments in these companies.
		So they get rich.
		They go in there, making about 180, they come out millionaires.
		Both parties are guilty of insider trading.
		So that's why we stay in wars.
		We'll continue as long as they can become millionaires, investing in these companies that make all these rockets, ammunition, and so forth and so on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Angela in California, Independent Line, about a minute until the House comes in for its pro forma session.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hi, thank you for taking my call.
		I wish I had a guy in.
		My girlfriend used to work for the White House.
		She just retired under foreign appropriation.
		I understand that we have a delegation going to the UN from California, Maxine Warder, going to help ask for help.
		And is this the first time that the United States is going to the UN to help ask for help because of what's going on in the United States with the violation of our constitutional rights?
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, Angela is in California joining us on this open forum.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Like I said before, the House, even though they're out of session, they come in for something called pro forma sessions, typically conduct some business, do the Pledge of Allegiance, that type of thing.

▲