CSPAN - Washington Journal 09/24/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 24, 2025 07:00-10:03 - CSPAN

03:02:56

Washington Journal 09/24/2025

Participants

Main

donald j trump

admin 07:46

mark montgomery

26:42

mimi geerges

cspan 32:17

Appearances

brendan carr

01:11

hakeem jeffries

rep/d 02:02

jerome powell

01:30

jimmy kimmel

01:44

Clips

barack obama

d 00:02

bernadine smith

00:14

bill clinton

d 00:02

george h w bush

r 00:02

george w bush

r 00:04

jimmy carter

d 00:03

kiron skinner

fox 00:13

rep jim guest

00:10

robert gaylon ross

00:11

ronald reagan

r 00:01

ted cruz

sen/r 00:23

willie nelson

00:11

Callers

gene in arkansas

callers 00:06

steven in florida

callers 00:19

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Coming up on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, we'll talk about President Trump's UN speech and the top national security challenges facing the U.S. with retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
		And former FCC Chair Tom Wheeler discusses the role of the Commission in deciding the content stations can broadcast amid threats from the Trump administration to revoke broadcasting licenses.
		Washington Journal starts now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Wednesday, September 24th.
		President Trump addressed the United Nations General Assembly yesterday in New York.
		He spoke for about an hour about migration, climate change, and foreign policy.
		This first half hour of the program, we'll play you portions of his speech, show reactions from various publications, and get your reaction.
		What did you think?
		What stood out for you?
		Here's how to reach us: Democrats, call us on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can send a text to 202-748-8003, include your first name in your city-state, and you can post your comments on social media: facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
		Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
		Let's take a look at the headlines from the major national papers.
		Here's the Washington Times: Trump slams UN U.S. allies in speech, mocks equipment at headquarters, calls the organization useless for peace.
		This is the Wall Street Journal that says President wraps migration, green energy at UN.
		Here's the Washington Post with this headline: airing protests large and small: Trump rakes UN, assails its climate, migration missions, escalator dismay, conflict resolution claim.speech.
		And finally, the New York Times.
		With this, Trump's UN talk lists grievances that span the globe, nations, quote, going to hell, questions bodies' role, calls climate change a quote con job.
		Well, let's take a look at a portion of his speech from yesterday.
		Here he is talking about essentially accusing world leaders of destroying their countries with open migration policies.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Proud nations must be allowed to protect their communities and prevent their societies from being overwhelmed by people they have never seen before with different customs, religions, with different everything.
		Where migrants have violated laws, lodged false asylum claims, or claimed refugee status for illegitimate reasons, they should, in many cases, be immediately sent home.
		And while we will always have a big heart for places and people that are struggling and truly compassionate, answers will be given.
		We have to solve the problem and we have to solve it in their countries, not create new problems in our countries.
		We are very helpful to a lot of countries that are just not able to send their people anymore.
		They used to send them to us in caravans of 25,000, 30,000 people each.
		These massive caravans of people pouring into our country totally unchecked and unvetted.
		But not anymore.
		According to the Council of Europe in 2024, almost 50% of inmates in German prisons were foreign nationals or migrants.
		In Austria, the number is 53% of the people in prisons were from places that weren't from where they are now.
		In Greece, the number was 54%.
		And in Switzerland, beautiful Switzerland, 72% of the people in prisons are from outside of Switzerland.
		When your prisons are filled with so-called asylum seekers who repay kindness, and that's what they did.
		They repaid kindness with crime.
		It's time to end the failed experiment of open borders.
		You have to end it now.
		I can tell you.
		I'm really good at this stuff.
		Your countries are going to hell.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was from yesterday.
		We have the full speech available on our website at c-span.org.
		If you missed it or would like to revisit portions of it, here's what the Washington Post says.
		It says that President Donald Trump Tuesday called for fellow leaders to halt global migration and end the fight against climate change, taking aim at two of the United Nations' core issues as he sought to elevate his domestic agenda into a playbook the whole world should follow.
		In an address from the biggest international stage, Trump took aim at the organization's priorities, but said it had, quote, tremendous potential.
		But the message he delivered in unusually stark terms at the annual gathering of world leaders rebuked the values of the organization that seeks to reduce suffering from global conflicts, famines, and persecution and address climate change by reducing emissions and the burning of fossil fuels.
		And we're getting your thoughts on the UN speech from yesterday.
		This is Cynthia in Florida, Independent Line.
		Hi, Cynthia.
unidentified		Hello, good morning.
		Look what showed up at the UN yesterday.
		The ugly American Trump.
		It was a show of up-close and absolutely total disgrace of racism and blatant stupidity before all of those nations.
		The volley of lies.
		The 35 million illegal immigrants crossed over our borders under Biden.
		Lies.
		Iran, the number one spots of terror.
		No, it's America and Israel.
kiron skinner ▲ ● ▼		The murders of folks on boats in international water.
unidentified		That's murder.
		So many more lies that I can't even go through.
		The UK London mayor implementing Sharia law there.
		Lies.
kiron skinner ▲ ● ▼		All I want to say, the last thing is, who is fact-checking this insane character leading our nation down the road to hell?
unidentified		Thank you for listening to me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So PolitiFact does have, was doing live fact-checking.
		If you'd like to take a look at that and look at what they have on their website, it's politifact.org.
		David in Polk City, Florida, Republican, good morning.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I watched the whole speech, and unlike Cynthia, I had a completely different perspective.
		I thought Trump really hit issues that are very important to most countries that care about their borders, their energy policy, their economic strength, and their own sovereignty.
		And I think he said something that needed to be said, just like he laid down things that needed to be said with NATO and created a thought change of people that have been so propagandized by these ideas.
		You know, so I think overall it was a great speech, and he really hit three key issues that should be very important to world leaders for their own country's safety and security and economic strength.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Roxanne, Main Line for Democrats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Roxanne.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Actually, I didn't see the whole speech, yet I saw a good majority of it.
		I agree with some things he said, but we're going to have immigrants that we're going to start islands like Haiti once again and dispose of people on islands like they did with the Haitians.
		And that's my concern, is to leave them starving like they did.
		And the other part is how he, you know, I have to say this, how he degrades other countries.
		He was saying all their countries are going to hell.
		And it's sad to for leadership in those countries to hear that from him.
		He's a dictator.
		He wants everything the way he wants.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Roxanne, you said that you agreed with some of the things that he said.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Tell me, what did you agree with?
unidentified		I agreed about border control.
		I agreed with immigration, but I also agree with, I agree with, yes, we need to strengthen our security.
		There's no question of that.
		I believe in that solely.
		One thing I need to really stress is gun violence, which he's doing nothing about with the Second Amendment.
		First Amendment, he's trying to squash everybody, you know, about speaking what they feel, you know, and, you know, it's pretty bad.
		We're not Russia.
		And he's turning us into another Russia.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Roxanne, this is Michael, Republican in Smithfield, North Carolina.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Michael.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How are you doing?
unidentified		Not bad at all.
		I was hoping we could talk about Tylenol, but I saw a lot of highlights of the speech, and I saw some of it live.
		It wasn't a great speech, but it did hit on some good points.
		And I know a lot of people are going to be upset with the tone and some of his opinions and some of his policy, you know, as far as just stepping on a lot of toes.
		And I wish we could get away from that, but it's just his style.
		He got the majority of the vote, and he believed he won the popular vote.
		He won the electoral vote.
		So we have to put up with it and deal with it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He did talk a lot about climate change, Michael.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you have thoughts on that?
unidentified		Yes.
		Yes, he did.
		I mean, I thought that in a way he told the truth.
		I can't remember which country it was that went all green.
		No, it was Germany, wasn't it?
		He said Germany was going down a terrible path.
		And they turned things around.
		There's another country that's going all green that wants to get away from the United States.
		And I guess buying our energy and all our stuff like that, our fossil fuels.
		And so it was very, he was very hardcore about it.
		I mean, he was just really slamming that country.
		And he said that, you know, they would wish that they were still doing business with us.
		One day they'll be broke, you know, like some others have found out the hard way when it comes to not doing business with the United States.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And previous caller mentioned President Trump's discussion of London's mayor, Siddique Khan.
		And CBS has this: it says, London Mayor Sadiq Khan rejects Trump's quote bigoted claims about Sharia law in England's capital.
		It says that this is President Trump, quote, I have to say, I look at London where you have a terrible mayor, terrible, terrible mayor, and it's been so changed, so changed.
		Now they want to go to Sharia law.
		Both their immigration and their suicidal energy ideas will be the death of Western Europe.
		It says, this is a spokesperson for London's mayor says this: quote, We are not going to dignify his appalling and bigoted comments with a response.
		London is the greatest city in the world, safer than major U.S. cities, and we're delighted to welcome the record number of U.S. citizens moving here.
		And here's Bruce in Florida, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Bruce.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I tried to watch his speech, but I guess after about three or four minutes into it, he had said everything that he could think of saying 10 or 12 times.
		And you can't degrade people and then expect them to work with you.
		His take on rebuilding the UN building, he brings up everything to make himself look like he's the second coming, and he's not.
		I can't imagine people following him wholeheartedly.
		It's just, it's way out of way out of the natural realm of things.
		And he can't move on to another subject without slamming somebody else.
		You know, he won the election.
		Leave Biden be.
		I'm not a Biden lover, but leave it be.
		It's all in the past.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Bruce.
unidentified		Move on with yourself.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, and let's take a look at another portion of his speech.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is where he talks about his efforts to end conflicts around the world.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		It's too bad that I had to do these things instead of the United Nations doing them.
		And sadly, in all cases, the United Nations did not even try to help in any of them.
		I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never even received a phone call from the United Nations offering to help in finalizing the deal.
		All I got from the United Nations was an escalator that, on the way up, stopped right in the middle.
		If the First Lady wasn't in great shape, she would have fallen.
		But she's in great shape.
		We're both in good shape.
		We both stood.
		And then a teleprompter that didn't work.
		These are the two things I got from the United Nations: a bad escalator and a bad teleprompter.
		Thank you very much.
		And by the way, it's working now.
		Just went on.
		Thank you.
		I think I should just do it the other way.
		It's easier.
		Thank you very much.
		I didn't think of it at the time because I was too busy working to save millions of lives.
		That is the saving and stopping of these wars.
		But later I realized that the United Nations wasn't there for us.
		They weren't there.
		I thought of it really after the fact, not during, not during these negotiations, which were not easy.
		That being the case, what is the purpose of the United Nations?
		The U.N. has such tremendous potential.
		I've always said it.
		It has such tremendous, tremendous potential.
		But it's not even coming close to living up to that potential.
		For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up.
		It's empty words, and empty words don't solve war.
		The only thing that solves war and wars is action.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And getting your reaction to the President's speech here is Mary in St. Paul, Minnesota, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Mary.
unidentified		And listening to everyone, and I certainly yesterday made myself listen to his entire speech, which really was a kind of a tirade toward the whole world, really.
		When he says the words United Nations, he always acts as though we are not part of those United Nations and that our country, at the end of the Second World War, even before when they had attempted to make the League of Nations, he acts as though we aren't part of the need of those who should be wishing we could have peace in this world.
		In his best to be named the person who was given a Nobel Peace Prize, which is really rather ludicrous if you think about it.
		And when he fodders himself with having stopped seven wars, and when they've been examined, we know that he did not stop seven wars.
		And he certainly didn't do it alone.
		No one, no one in this world is standing alone.
		And this man, the man who has 34 felonies that he's been charged and convicted of, proceeds to talk to the world as though America is the only country that matters and the only country that has power.
		I wish that we could all make ourselves remember with the death of that young man last week, who I totally disagree with, who certainly, in my opinion, since I happen to be an African American, he was very insulting in anything that he had to do or say with regard to people of color.
		But on the other hand, he had a right to say them.
		And I certainly did feel very, very badly for the fact that he has been lost through assassination.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And Mary, regarding the seven wars, the New York Times has an analysis of that.
		It says Trump claims again that he has ended seven wars.
		Here's a closer look.
		And this article will lay out each of the conflicts and go through kind of what was going on with those conflicts and the role the president may have played in ending those.
		So you can take a look at the New York Times if you're interested in that.
		Dana in Denver, our line for Republicans.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm going to try to stay on the speech here.
		I like to go with the fact of what he's done with the investment issue going to the 17 trillion from the enormous failure from Joe Biden and what he did over a four-year period, not to mention that he moved the interest rate up 111% under his tenure when he did nothing.
		Janet Yellen bore down on him numerous times, telling him that the Deficit, the national debt, rather, excuse me, was at a dangerous level, and she may have well been talking to the walls.
		And nobody thinks about these things when they look at this turnaround.
		They get into this, they get into their own minds, I think, and that they just don't want to analyze or be faced with the factorial content.
		I sat here and watched that entire speech, and I watched President Trump just drive the stake into the rear end.
		And that's literally what they deserve.
		He was just factorial content and truth-telling, and there's nothing wrong with that.
		And I think they really needed that, but they'll never go along with it.
		And maybe they'll find themselves another building somewhere else.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And just in other news for your awareness, NBC News reporting, Jimmy Kimmel Live returns after ABC suspension.
		It says that the late night host got a standing ovation when he took the stage.
		We will talk about, we will talk about that more later in the program with a former FCC chair who will be joining us to talk about that situation specifically.
		Here is James in Harvey, Louisiana, Independent Line.
		Hi, James.
unidentified		Morning.
		Thank you for giving me an opportunity.
		I want to go back to ancient history to the first time he spoke to the UN.
		And one of the most memorable things for me was when he started talking to them as he appeared to still do, like he's at a rally, and he said, Only I can do so-and-so.
		And they laughed in his face.
		I don't think he liked that kind of thing.
		The other thing about his speech to me was he doesn't seem to know his audience anymore.
		The audience at the UN is not his rally, it's not his people.
		These are elected and appointed and whatever.
		These are leaders of other countries that we need to work with.
		And he's lecturing to them about anything and everything that he feels bad about or disagrees with, such as the building and how it's operating and all of that trash.
		That may go over well with his rally, but not with world leaders.
		So he doesn't seem to be what he thinks he is because he says things like, I don't really want to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
		But he goes there, instead of, if he had done what he said he had done, there would be at least seven nations in there, or maybe 14 nations in there that would be rallying for him because he stopped their wars.
		It just doesn't make sense that he would go there, or it does make sense.
		He wasn't speaking to them.
		He was speaking to another audience that was not in that building.
		He was speaking to his supporters.
		And it's getting sad because one of his advantages used to be he was unpredictable.
		But I think people found out who he really is.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, James.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Betty, a Democrat in Swamp Scott, Massachusetts.
unidentified		Hi, thank you for taking my call.
		We have a mad king.
		Anybody that could listen to Donald Trump speak and think he's normal is not normal himself.
		He's mad.
		He should be hospitalized.
		His cabinet are all fools.
		They're incompetent.
		They're all criminals.
		People are watching the fall of Rome and applauding it.
		This is terrible.
		Yesterday was absolutely the worst.
		And he stands in front of the world and tells them they're all crazy and he's wonderful.
		I just can't get over it.
		I can't get over it.
		What's going on in this country is just making me sick to my stomach.
		I'm in my 80s.
		I have never seen anything like it.
		And at the very beginning, when he first started coming down the escalator, people say, oh, he, you know, they were after him.
		He'd spoke nothing but hate coming down the escalator.
		And everybody all knew him anyway.
		He was a racist.
		His father and him wouldn't rent to black people.
		He was a failed businessman.
		He was a crook.
		He didn't pay his.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We're going to stay with the speech and go to Jerry, a Republican in Washington State.
		Go ahead, Jerry.
		What did you think of the speech last night or yesterday?
unidentified		I think well, thank you.
		Take my call.
		I thought his speech was good.
		I think it was long overdue, actually.
		There's too many of these people sitting there and they never have been called out.
		Made to happen.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Let's take a look at another portion of the speech.
		This time it's about green energy and climate change.
		Here's what the president said.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		In 1982, the executive director of the United Nations Environmental Program predicted that by the year 2000, climate change would cause a global catastrophe.
		He said that it will be irreversible as any nuclear holocaust would be.
		This is what they said at the United Nations.
		What happened?
		Here we are.
		Another UN official stated in 1989 that within a decade, entire nations could be wiped off the map by global warming.
		Not happening.
		You know, it used to be global cooling.
		If you look back years ago in the 1920s and the 1930s, they said global cooling will kill the world.
		We have to do something.
		Then they said global warming will kill the world.
		But then it started getting cooler.
		So now they could just call it climate change because that way they can't miss climate change.
		Because if it goes higher or lower, whatever the hell happens, there's climate change.
		It's the greatest khanjob ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion.
		Climate change, no matter what happens, you're involved in that.
		No more global warming, no more global cooling.
		All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong.
		They were made by stupid people that have cost their country's fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success.
		If you don't get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.
		And I'm really good at predicting things, you know.
		They actually said during the campaign they had a hat, the best-selling hat.
		Trump was right about everything.
		And I don't say that in a braggadocious way, but it's true.
		I've been right about everything.
		And I'm telling you that if you don't get away from the green energy scam, your country is going to fail.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Also, for your awareness this morning, here's Fox News with the headline that Trump cancels the meeting with Schumer and Jeffries over, quote, ridiculous demands as funding deadline looms.
		That, of course, is the government funding deadline September 30th.
		That's six days away.
		And that was a meeting set that has now been canceled.
		This is Paul, New York City, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Paul.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you, Mimi, for taking my call.
		You played the clip that I thought was the most interesting, which was when he spoke about what the United Nations does is produce reports that then no one, you know, nothing happens.
		And then the rest of the afternoon, I actually watched the Security Council debate both the Israeli-Palestinian issue and then the Russian-Ukraine issue.
		And the fatal flaw of the United Nations, and everyone knows it, is the permanent members, of which the United States is one, because nothing will happen with the Ukraine-Russia situation because Russia vetoes everything that comes out.
		And, you know, that's he is right about that.
		It's all they do is write reports.
		They don't get anything done.
		So that's my comment.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Barbara in Whiting, Vermont, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Barbara.
unidentified		Hi.
		So I listened to the speech as well.
		And Donald Trump is honest.
		Donald Trump was not reading off a teleprompter because it broke.
		He speaks from the heart.
		And when he speaks about these other countries, he's being disappointed.
		He's being very diplomatic, even though it doesn't sound like it.
		They are going down the tubes.
		Like they're all turning into this green energy, you know, whatever, electricity and stuff.
		And as he said, they don't have air conditioners because electricity is too expensive.
		And I really think, C-SPAN, you do your audience a disservice by not talking about what he was saying, but he was saying it delicately.
		There's something called globalization that's taking place.
		The UN is a big part of it.
		So is the World Economic Forum.
		These are terms you never talk about on air, but open borders is part of it.
		If anybody in the audience looks at the news and knows anything about what's happening in Western Europe, they're being, I'll say, invaded by people from other countries who are taking over.
		They're desperate.
		London, England, you know, as one.
		London, you know, maybe the mayor thinks it's great, but the people don't.
		Their culture is gone.
		They can't speak openly about, they can't hold their flags anymore.
		So they're really being, we talk about authoritarianism, like they're really being squashed.
		They're being arrested.
		So Trump was trying to be very diplomatic, as he was trying to explain to the rest of, I guess, the world, who's ever listening.
		It's not going well for them.
		And I really think I thank him for being our president because we're not in the same boat, and we could be.
		So there's two terms, globalization and World Economic Forum.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it, Barbara.
		Aaron in Michigan, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Aaron.
unidentified		Good morning, Amy.
		Thanks for having me this morning.
		I was just calling for a few things, but for number one.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Uh-oh.
		Aaron, are you still there?
		Aaron?
		We lost him.
		David in Deerfield Beach, Florida, Independent Line.
		Go ahead, David.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I just want to say two things.
		The first thing is, we had President Biden.
		He couldn't even tie his shoes, let alone speak.
		You had Trump, and I don't agree with everything he's doing, but God bless the man.
		He's trying his best.
		In my lifetime, I'm 70 years of age.
		From Eisenhower up, nobody, nobody has split up in the United States and said, you know what?
		You guys, we're tired of this sickness.
		You cannot invade us.
		This is literally an invasion, and anybody who does not see it does not know history.
		They don't know about the Whiskey Rebellion.
		They don't know that George Washington's president himself led the troops over at that issue.
		It wasn't even humanity, but it was so important to the United States to continue.
		Nobody remembers that this is an experiment, an experiment for the first time in history where the people were supposed to govern, not the government being in charge of the people.
		No kings, no dictators.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, David, and that'll be it for this segment.
		But we'll talk about this topic a lot more and we'll also have an open forum later this morning on the Washington Journal.
		Former FCC chair Tom Wheeler discusses the Jimmy Kimmel controversy and the role that the FCC plays in what stations can broadcast.
		But first, after a quick break, we'll continue our conversation on the president's speech yesterday at the UN with retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		45, 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, we'll feature Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi addressing world leaders with a lengthy address criticizing the Security Council and then tore up the UN Charter in 2009.
		Then in 2011, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad questioned the Holocaust and 9-11 terrorist attacks.
		Some delegations walked out in protest.
		And in 2012, General Assembly remarks from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
		He sought to simplify the Iranian nuclear issue with a bomb diagram he brought to the podium.
		Watch the 80th anniversary of the United Nations all this week at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2.
		If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-SPAN.org.
		Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
		These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
		This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
		Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
jimmy carter ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is always an unfinished creation.
ronald reagan ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is worth dying for.
george h w bush ▲ ● ▼		Democracy belongs to us all.
bill clinton ▲ ● ▼		We are here in the sanctuary of democracy.
george w bush ▲ ● ▼		Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies.
barack obama ▲ ● ▼		American democracy is bigger than any one person.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected.
unidentified		We are still at our core a democracy.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
unidentified		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		We're joined now by retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery.
		He's a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
		Mark, welcome to the program.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for having me, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk about the speech yesterday at the UN and we'll drill down in details, but what was your overall impression?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		It was a mixed speech.
		I mean, he was really critical at points.
		I'm not sure if that's when the teleprompter wasn't working, but he kind of was very aggressive in criticizing some of the nations there, some of whom deserve it.
		I mean, this was not unexpected.
		He then went into a pretty long discussion of his peacekeeping efforts, which are not insignificant.
		You know, he has resolved a number of crises around the world, whether it's Cambodia, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rwanda.
		He has had an effect.
		But then he got into the neat stuff, and that was what's he going to do, what his take was on Russia and Ukraine, and really a significant change in how he's spoken about that in the past.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was definitely big news, but I want to just ask you about the effectiveness of the UN.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's a portion of what the President said yesterday about the UN and what effect it's had in world crises.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		What is the purpose of the United Nations?
		The UN has such tremendous potential.
		I've always said it.
		It has such tremendous, tremendous potential, but it's not even coming close to living up to that potential.
		For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up.
		It's empty words, and empty words don't solve war.
		The only thing that solves war and wars is action.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that?
		Is that really what the UN has been doing?
		Is just writing strongly worded letters?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		So they do more than that, but he's correct that they have not been effective in resolving significant crises around the world.
		And he's talking also about the various agencies within the UN that distribute food, water, world health, things like that.
		He's been frustrated with them.
		But very much here, he was talking about, I think, their military engagements to attempt to broker peace.
		And he's right.
		If you think of something like UNIFIL, the UN standing force in Lebanon, it did nothing to put Hezbollah back north of the Latani River as they're supposed to.
		The only thing that did it, as he averred to there, was Israeli action last year.
		So that was a 20-year failure by the UN.
		And there's other examples of that.
		It turns out they're not empowered to do the kind of work that is necessary.
		I'll give you one other good example.
		In Rwanda, when we dropped in international forces under a UN banner, they were unsuccessful.
		So broadly speaking, I would say the UN has struggled over the last 30 years.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you mean militarily they have not been effective?
		Because they do have a force not under their control.
		It's still under the control of the countries that supply those soldiers.
		They're called the blue helmets.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I'm talking about the peacekeeping forces that they put forward.
		Like into Lebanon, there's three or four countries that contribute to a UN headquartered force.
		And just generally speaking, the blue helmets do fine when the belligerents are peaceful.
		In other words, the blue helmets are able to monitor a peaceful, even if it's uncomfortable, existence.
		What they can't do is properly control an escalating situation because they just aren't given the right types of forces and the right rules of engagement to do that kind of work.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So would you advocate for a change in the rules of engagement to make them more effective?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		I mean, two choices here.
		One, you could do what we've done in the past, which is coalitions of the willing, like to remove Iraq from Kuwait, things like that.
		In 1991, or you can strengthen the UN.
		I don't think with the kind of consensual decision-making that has to go on at a UN Security Council where five countries have vetoes, you're going to get the kind of rules of engagement you need.
		So he's starting, he's saying out loud what a lot of us have known quietly for the last three or four decades.
		UN peacekeepers are not a way to end a war.
		They're a way to monitor a peace.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk about the big news that came out yesterday.
		This is the AP.
		Trump says he now believes Ukraine can take back all of its land after meeting with Zelensky.
		What was your reaction when you saw that?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.
		I'm still metered.
		You want to see action meet this rhetoric, and there's things that he'll need to direct to be done to kind of carry, you know, to ensure this happens.
		In other words, he very much talked about providing all the weapons NATO wants to buy to arm Ukraine properly.
		And he will gladly do that, he said.
		We'll see if that really happens, if the Department of Defense follows his lead on that.
		They have not followed him in everything he said over the last few months.
		So they've been more restrictive to Ukraine than the president has expressed publicly.
		So that's one thing.
		The second is he's right.
		He's right.
		Russia is a paper tiger.
		He's right.
		He called them a paper tiger.
		They have been unable in three and a half years to defeat a country, as he acknowledges, 10 times smaller than them.
		It's probably more like four to seven times smaller, depending how you measure things, but still significantly smaller than them, with a surprise attack.
		They were unable to achieve victory.
		And he's just acknowledging what a lot of us see on the ground, which is Ukraine is not going to lose.
		One thing that's a little confusing, he said, get back all their territory in the war.
		And then he said the war that started three and a half years ago, where there's two different types of territory here.
		There's the 3 or 4 percent of Ukraine that they've grabbed over the last three and a half years, or there's Crimea and the rest of eastern Ukraine that they grabbed in 2014 and in the years between 2014 and 2022.
		We'll have to get some clarity from him on what he thinks on that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here is the direct quote from the president as reported by the AP: quote, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and win all of Ukraine back in its original form.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe, and in particular NATO, the original borders from where this war started is very much an option.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that's a big statement.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		That's about offensive weapons.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Changes in President Trump's stance from blaming Ukraine for the war to saying I can end it in a day to rolling out the red carpet for Putin to saying he's a friend of mine.
		This is going to be the easiest war to solve.
		So it's a lot going on.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		So in his follow-on conversation, he had a bilateral discussion with Macron and with Zelensky.
		And during the press conferences associated with those, he said a few times how disappointed he is in Putin and how he thought he would be able to end the war and he was not able to.
		And he put that largely, correctly, largely on Vladimir Putin.
		The president, rightly or wrongly, attempted to get a peaceful settlement here and got Ukraine to give a lot of concessions.
		But in the end, Vladimir Putin was not willing to move off of anything.
		He took advantage of the president's time horizons, I'll give you two weeks, I'll give you four weeks, to conduct significant critical infrastructure, cruise missile and ballistic missile attacks on Ukraine's critical infrastructure, killing civilians.
		That really infuriated Trump.
		He repeatedly said, knock it off.
		He repeatedly said it's inappropriate for the civilian targeting.
		And Putin continued it and then doubled down on it a week ago with drones into Ukraine, MiG-31s into Estonia, drones into Romania.
		I think the president got tired of President Putin.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		President Zelensky has continually asked President Trump to impose more sanctions on Russia.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Where do those stand now?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		So it's two people, two units have to do this.
		The United States can do more and Europe can do more.
		And the President properly noted yesterday that Europe needs to cease buying fossil fuels from Russia.
		There are a few holdouts there still, Slovakia, Hungary, Turkey.
		The European Union says they're working with those countries.
		Some of them don't belong to the European Union.
		Turkey doesn't belong to the European Union.
		The President can put some pressure on Turkey, on Erdogan.
		He can certainly put pressure on Orban, the leader of Hungary, to do it.
		In addition, the President has already put 25% tariffs on India for buying it.
		He could speak with Modi or threaten to increase that number to get Modi, the Prime Minister of India, to cease purchasing Russian fossil fuel from the shadow fleet.
		And then, of course, there's China, the largest recipient after India, and India being number two, Turkey being number three.
		China, the largest recipient.
		The president could bring shadow fleet-specific tariffs onto China.
		I don't think that will alter China's behavior, but that would be a strong signal to Europe that I am taking this seriously.
		You need to cut off every ounce of Russian fossil fuel.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Mark Montgomery of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is our guest.
		If you'd like to talk to him, ask a question, make a comment, you can start calling in now.
		Our lines are biparty.
		Democrats are on 2028-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Let's talk about the war in Gaza.
		The President has criticized countries for recognizing a Palestinian state.
		Of course, he repeated the long-standing American policy of not recognizing a Palestinian state.
		But he said that that recognition rewards Hamas.
		Do you agree with that?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		Well, I am frustrated with these countries at this point in time recognizing the Palestinian state.
		You know, we've been, only about 10 countries have recognized the Palestinian state over the last 20 years, you know, while we've been working through the intifada and the various wars that Israel's had to fight against its neighbors.
		I think the proper thing now is to resolve the Hamas issue in Gaza, you know, the defeat Hamas, which is the natural, you know, if you're Israel after October 7th, I don't think there was a reasonable future in which Hamas could be left leading Gaza.
		And so I think it would have been better to allow that to resolve, begin the rebuilding of Gaza, and then make that kind of decision about what the future government looks like.
		I do appreciate that Prime Minister Starmer, when he's with the President four or five days ago, very explicitly said Hamas will have no leadership role in, will have no role in a future Gazan leadership of a Palestinian state or Gaza.
		And that's very important.
		I'm glad they make that qualification.
		But I think this was one of those issues that should have been held off till after the war was concluded.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Even if you say that Hamas will not have a leadership role, can't a new group with the same ideology, just with a new name, take over Gaza or other parts of the Palestinian territory?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		I mean, this is the challenge, right?
		This is the challenge Israel faces, why they're trying their hardest to actually eliminate the The Hamas fighters is because you're right, they could come back under another name in the future.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And do you think that Israel can be effective militarily in destroying the ideology that gives birth to all those fighters that they're trying to kill?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		I think that's unlikely.
		I think the IDF, quietly, the Israeli Defense Force thinks that too.
		And we know from leaks that they were uncomfortable with this offensive campaign because they don't believe they can achieve that final result.
		So we'll have to see.
		I mean, the question is: can you eliminate all of them or can you eliminate enough of them so that normal law enforcement and jurisprudence can take hold?
		That second issue, there's a potential for it.
		But if you recall, the way Hamas came to power was they won one election once.
		They then used that position of power to systematically destroy the other Palestinian groups, leadership groups in Gaza.
		And so, you know, do I think that's likely again?
		It's certainly possible.
		I think the IDF shares that concern.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to callers.
		We'll start with Mark, Hampstead, Maryland, Republican line.
		Hi, Mark.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		So I really had initially told her to make a comment about the UN, but I guess that is tied in with the Israel-Gaza situation.
		I'd like to point out that the UN is a globalist organization.
		Their mission is against countries having their nations having their own sovereignty.
		This is an organization that from 1972 to 1981 had an actual Nazi as their Secretary General, a man named Turk Waldheim, who later on wasn't even allowed into the United States.
		This is an organization that takes money from people.
		They're involved in groups like the WEF, the World Economic Forum, people like George Suras.
		The UN actually funded the invasion we had here in the United States over the last four years under Joe Biden, which, as far as I'm concerned, is treason.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's get a response.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Mark.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, so there's a few facts in there and a few non-facts.
		I'd say the facts, Kurt Waldheim, you know, did have a kind of a sordid World War II past, and he's appropriate to point that out.
		And it was probably 100% in hindsight the wrong choice to be UN Secretary General.
		But I don't think the United Nations funded an invasion of the United States.
		I think the world economic condition drove people who desire jobs from South and Central America into the United States.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Terry, a Democrat in Knoxville, Tennessee.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Terry.
unidentified		Hey, good morning, everyone.
		Good morning, Admiral.
		I'm a former U.S. Marine, and I've actually taken part in UN operations, and I've spent my entire adult life after the Marine Corps.
		I'm a former EOD technician, and so I've done a lot of landmine, ID, and UXO clearance around the world.
		And I do take issue with what the Admiral was saying about the blue helmets.
		You know, for one thing, the UN doesn't have a massive naval force or air armada.
		So when troops from Bangladesh or Kenya or Slovakia get in trouble in these post-inactive conflict zones, they can't call up a fleet of B-2s to fly over and bomb whoever's attacking them.
		We saw that in Mogadishu.
		The UN was not fully supported in Somalia, and the Somali clans murdered 30-something Pakistani peacekeepers.
		So it's very easy to say, like at the Latani River, and the Admiral, I know you know this, there is no fleet waiting off the coast in the Mediterranean or air armada circling around Lebanon to protect those Bangladeshi or Sublakian peacekeepers.
		Now, it might be said, oh, yeah, after they all get killed, then NATO or the U.S. will fly in and avenge them.
		But it's very easy to blame the U.N. for these issues, but you're talking about a force that couldn't conquer Sri Lanka.
		So it's not fair to say the U.N.'s peacekeeping forces are not putting in a great effort.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		Thanks.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		First, thank you.
		Thank you for your service.
		And I'll say I didn't say that they, what I said was they don't have the right rules of engagement, and part of that has to be they don't have the right offensive forces, which is exactly what he was referring to.
		So I think they're very effective at maintaining a peaceful condition.
		A good example is what he mentioned, which is UXO or unexploded ordinance removal.
		They're great at that.
		What they can't do is combat operations.
		In other words, impose a peace.
		And that's for the exact reasons he said and the exact reasons I said.
		So I don't think we're actually disagreeing.
		I think he's saying it in a different way that we can't, that the United Nations is not the kind of force that imposes peace.
		The only time the UN did that was in Korea in the 1950s when, and really, I think we all understand that was a U.S. force with UN support and the South Korean forces.
		Since then, there really has not been that kind of offensively equipped UN force to do those kind of operations.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Missouri City, Texas, Independent Line, Malik, you're on the air.
unidentified		You're doing.
		First, I'd like to say that Donald Trump's UN speech yesterday was sheer buffoonery, full of gibberish and non-communicative talk, non-communitive speech.
		What I mean by that, you couldn't understand what he was really saying because he was, I guess, doing the weave, as if these people on the right call it.
		When you're speaking with no intelligence, no real education on the matter.
		The UN speech is supposed to be about spreading democracy and talking about the true freedoms around the world.
		Yet he's talking about green energy.
		He doesn't even know what a fossil fuel is.
		People on the right don't know what a fossil fuel is.
		They think he just magically appears out of the ground and gets an infinite supply of oil.
		That is not true.
		The world needs an alternative to energy.
		Getting off being codependent on one source of energy is beautiful.
		Not a failure, as if Donald Trump would call it.
		He has no foreign policy.
		And there's no greater evidence of this than Donald Trump himself.
		All these conflicts he lies about that he claims he stopped.
		He can't even pronounce the names of the countries in which he has claimed to stop these conflicts.
		He can't name the leaders or the details of it.
		It's just something he repeats over and over again.
		And unintelligent people become his echo chamber.
		He is not intelligent at all.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk about the seven conflicts smart move.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		Thanks.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		So first, I will say it appeared that his teleprompter failed to work, and we definitely saw it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It did start working later.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, we did see a little bit of, I don't know what the weave is, but we saw a little bit of filibustering there as he spoke.
		Look, there is a reasonable, I think each of these conflicts he had a different role in.
		Some he had a minor role, like India-Pakistan.
		I think the U.S. made a couple phone calls, but a lot of other countries were working it.
		And the two countries did not want that.
		These are two nuclear-armed countries.
		They were not excited about that engagement working beyond an air-to-air engagement.
		Other ones like Armenia, Azerbaijan, that's a serious breakthrough.
		And the irony is it's predicated on an economic pipeline, you know, highway and pipeline that will benefit both countries.
		And I think, you know, that's an area where he's pretty good at negotiating.
		So he gets bigger credit.
		But there wasn't active fighting going on either.
		So again, that's a different one.
		And then, you know.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Egypt and Ethiopia.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		Egypt, Ethiopia, Thailand, Cambodia.
		Again, we are, in that case, making a lot of the phone calls.
		And I think that's important.
		And the Thailand-Cambodia one, I think we were important.
		And that thing was, for whatever reason, really causing a lot of civilian casualties.
		You know, the random kind of artillery.
		And then finally, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and the M20 and the rebel organization, M23.
		You know, he had a role to play.
		There he had a pretty big role to play.
		So it's inconsistent.
		I agree that it's not, he didn't solve every problem himself.
		He solved some of them, and he participated in other ones.
		I think the president has a history of kind of accumulating everything into one big credit line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Don, a Republican in Elk Grove Village, Illinois.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Don.
unidentified		Hi, thanks for having me.
		And I'd like to thank Karen Mark for his service.
		And my dad was in the Navy World War II as a pharmacist mate.
		And anyways, there's a lot I could talk about, but I'm going to keep it basic.
		The BRICS alliance.
		They're out to undermine America and their economic influence.
		But I think it's more than that.
		See, people don't realize India had war games with China and Russia a few years ago.
		And Modi told Biden two visits ago that India will never be America's front.
		Okay.
		And it's the BRICS is more like the Axis and the alias of World War II.
		I've been watching politics since 59.
		I was five years old when Khrushchev slammed his shoe onto the table.
		And I've been interested in all that.
		It's more of a, and also Clinton had Ukraine give up their weapons, which set the foundation for today.
		And Obama let Russia take Crimea.
		On the open mic, he says, if I get elected again, see what I can do for you.
		People don't understand what's going on.
		And Barry Goldwater, Jill Jansen was going against Bol Gold.
		They had the nuclear bomb going on saying, well, Color gets in.
		We're going to have a war.
		Well, no.
		Vietnam War was escalated by the Democrats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What would you like to respond to there?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		So thanks.
		Well, first, I want to separate another acronym, Crink, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea from BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.
		So the axis of authoritarians is China, Russia, Iran, North Korea.
		These are four countries that are working actively to harm democracies around the world.
		All four of those countries are at war with Ukraine.
		Russia is obviously in the big fight.
		North Korea provided troops and a lot, 6 million rounds of ammunition.
		Iran provided Shahid drones.
		And China backstopped the Russian economy and provided the microelectronics so that the Russians could build cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles that are slamming Kiev and Odessa and Kharkiv every night.
		So all four of those countries are fighting Ukraine.
		That's the axis of authoritarians.
		BRICS is more of an economic agreement between those countries.
		India and China are not allies.
		India and China have gone, have had little glacier battles with each other every decade.
		They do not get along.
		And we do need to work hard to wedge India economically away from China and Russia as well, because that's opportunity for the United States businesses.
		They're the largest country in the world.
		They're a growing economy.
		So to me, the crank, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, we should be opposed to them in every way possible.
		With the BRICS, we need to pull these countries apart, particularly work with India.
		I don't have time for South Africa, but Brazil is something we could work with.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that the current administration's policies towards India is furthering that goal of bringing them into our orbit as opposed to into China's?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		So I think the president thought with tariffs on India would be a quick solve and we'd get the relationship back in a good place quickly.
		India actually pushed back very heavily on the tariffs, and they've had the slowest development in negotiating.
		India doesn't like being pushed around by the United States.
		They have a longstanding from running the Group of 77 and other independent groups during the Cold War.
		They feel that they are somehow on par with the United States, which economically and militarily, diplomatically, they're not.
		And so I think that creates a friction in the relationship.
		But I think over time, Modi, Prime Minister Modi and President Trump are friends.
		They get along.
		And that's probably the most important aspect of this.
		I think they'll solve this, but it's going to take a little bit of time.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Derek, Democrat in Columbia, Maryland.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I'd like to say to C-SPAN that I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem to be a good choice of guests to speak of some of these subjects.
		Thank you for your service, sir.
		But all I hear is repeating some of the talking points we hear from legacy media.
		So we keep talking about what Russia has done, Russia's doing right now.
		But how about the guests talk about the NATO expansion to Russia's borders that we promised not to do?
		And albeit a verbal promise or whatever you want to call it, but we made some assurances at some point in the 90s.
		But we don't hear that.
		And I'd like the guests to comment on that.
		And I'll take my response off the air.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		You know, that's a point that's been made.
		And you're right.
		That's not talked about much in legacy media.
		But I'll also say there isn't a treaty on that.
		There is an agreement on that.
		Russia did not.
		Russia under Putin since 2000 has become extremely belligerent towards the former Soviet republics and former Warsaw Pact.
		And I think as NATO looked out and they saw, again, NATO doesn't believe that they made an agreement to not expand out.
		I understand Foreign Minister Lavrov constantly says that.
		And that's the advantage of an autocracy.
		You can have the same person running your foreign policy for 26 years.
		And so that is not a fact.
		What is a fact is Russian pressure on the Baltic states, former Yugoslavia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia.
		And when it was appropriate, i.e. when it was contiguous to their land borders, NATO reached out to the Warsaw Pact countries and to the former Soviet republics and worked with them to enter as democracies to enter the NATO alliance.
		And I don't think NATO should be criticized for that.
		I think the original sin in this is Vladimir Putin and his belief in restoring a greater Russia.
		And that's what's caused these democracies to turn to NATO.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Brian, Independent in Washington State.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hello, Brian.
unidentified		Good morning, Washington Journal.
		Mark, I'm really glad you're on the show this morning.
		I got three things that have been really bothering me.
		Number one is this Bagram airport take back that Trump's talking about.
		My understanding is that Putin put a reward up for our soldiers in the Middle East for a bounty on our soldiers put up by Putin.
		And the guys that collected the checks were the Taliban.
		So if you would comment on that, please.
		Also, the Admiral, or not the Admiral, but the guy that was running the ship during COVID over in the Pacific, he needed to get his healthy sailors off the ship and get them on land.
		And Trump fired him for making an issue of sick sailors on a ship and healthy ones and trying to do the smart thing.
		And the third thing is, oh my gosh, I'm going to carry away here, but bottom line is the Admiral that was fired by Trump, what's his current status?
		Did the Taliban collect checks from Putin for killing our soldiers in the battlefield?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		And I'm waiting.
		I'll take your answer off there.
		Okay.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		Thanks.
		Look, I think the Bagram airfield is a bit of a Hail Mary.
		I don't think that will happen.
		I think Trump 2025 needs to go back to Trump 2019 and tell his negotiator, Zahmei Khalaze, not to negotiate away, not to say that we would be leaving completely.
		At the first, I'd heard him say that his negotiated position was to stay.
		I actually think that was the right position.
		We should have held Bagram.
		I was our lead war planner in the Indo-Pacific.
		I'd like nothing better than to have a major airfield with USF-35s on the opposite side of China, from the Western Pacific.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		In the middle of Afghanistan.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		In the middle of Afghanistan.
		That would have been a wonderful pressure point.
		We negotiated away between President Trump and President Biden.
		We gave that away.
		And I think the departure from Bagram sealed the catastrophic collapse of Afghanistan in a way.
		I think the military officers warned President Biden about that.
		They did not get through.
		They didn't do the right thing, which is probably resign when the president wouldn't listen to them.
		As a result, we got the condition we're in, a horrific, chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and the loss of that airfield.
		It's not coming back.
		You know, as for the carrier captain in the COVID case, I think the caller's probably right that there was an overreaction to his emails where he was responsibly trying to take care of his family.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Can you just give us an idea of what was happening?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		So it was the captain of the aircraft carrier was trying, you know, he was trying to get assistance in moving members with COVID off the ship.
		I think it was in Guam, you know, to a facility, you know, to barracks so that COVID didn't spread throughout the ship.
		When he didn't get good support, he emailed up the chain of command.
		That email leaked.
		I think there's probably a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in the leaking of it, and he was fired.
		I think that was inappropriate.
		I think probably his frustration, he was doing what we want ship commanding officers to do, take care of their personnel, take care of the men and women under their command.
		And the third thing, the firing of the, I think he's about the firing of the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, by Pete Hegset about six months ago or five months ago, completely inappropriate.
		I know her personally.
		She's a fantastic kick-butt Navy officer in all ways possible and succeeded in the Navy.
		She was the chief of naval operations because she was the best three or four-star admiral to be chief of naval operations, not because she was a woman.
		I think Secretary Hegset, he's written pretty extensively on his feeling about women in combat, women in the military, and I think that colored his vision on this, and he fired her without any explanation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Al, Silver Spring, Maryland, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi, Al, you're on the air.
		I have a question about India and China.
		Why does Mark want them to be enemies?
		Because for the last 5,000 years before 1962, there has been no wars between India and China.
		If you compare the same time in Europe, there's almost a thousand wars going on.
		And these two countries have been at peace for a very long time, historically.
		In fact, in southern India, there is a place called Cochin, which is the sister city of China.
		So this is a Western made-up enmity that you're causing.
		Okay, so why can't they be friends?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		So I'm not asking them to be enemies.
		I was commenting on the fact that he, as he correctly put it out, they've been fighting over glacial territorial lines in a very high altitude for about 62 years since 1962.
		And the United States didn't cause that war.
		The United States tried to end it rapidly.
		And the United States wants to be friends with India.
		I will say the reason that India and China had a 5,000-year peace is there's a massive Himalayan mountain range between the two countries, which for most of time prevented the movement.
		What he's talked about with Cochin was the great Chinese admiral taking his fleet around in the 15th or 16th century coming to China.
		So, I mean, there is not the fact that they're at war is not some Western concoction.
		The fact they're at war is they can't get a proper territory aligned between the two of them, and they're both very aggressive states when it comes to their borders.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Kennesaw, Georgia, Line for Democrats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Caroline, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		And thank you, Admiral Montgomery.
		I hope I said that right.
		I just had a pretty simple question.
		Yesterday at the UN, I was embarrassed.
		Our leadership looked strange.
		And I wonder what other leaders are saying about us behind our back.
		I wonder if they are making plans behind our back because they don't think that we are stable.
		And I also wonder what this does to the morale of our troops when we look embarrassing on a national, you know, UN yesterday.
		It was just, come on.
		Okay.
		And I'll thank you.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		First, I'll take the last part first.
		And I'll say this carefully.
		As a, you know, in my 36 years in the Navy, I'm not sure I ever watched an UNGA speech.
		And I would say until I was a pretty senior, until I was an admiral, I don't think I knew a Dunga speech was happening.
		So I think the vast 99.7% of our U.S. troops are blissfully unaware that anything happened.
		So I think we're okay there.
		Now, on the more serious issue of what did the other countries think, I think the president was aggressive.
		I think he was aggressive in his attacks on UN performance, not just the blue helmets like we spoke earlier, but some of the, you know, and there have been failures.
		The WHO did not handle COVID well.
		There have been food distribution problems at a number of sites.
		UNRWA, the UN refugee organization in Palestine, has had significant issues.
		All of those things are true.
		I don't think you necessarily need to wrap them all up in a speech and yell it out at them.
		So I think that part was probably a little over the top.
		But I also think it's probably important for them to understand that he's unhappy.
		Now, the good part was the Russia part.
		And I think it's him acknowledging.
		I think he even has said, not in the speech, but in comments afterwards, that he had made a mistake with Putin, that he was wrong about Putin.
		Those are not words you hear from President Trump that often.
		I think that's an important thing.
		And it's important for international countries to see the United States recognize that when we get played as badly as we were by the Russians.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Elizabeth, a Republican in Lebanon, Ohio.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hello, Elizabeth.
unidentified		Hi.
		My question is: did the Biden administration help or hinder current U.S.-world relations?
		Please be specific.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		So it's a mixed bag, right?
		I mean, I worry our ability to deter people, you know, our adversaries from doing bad things was hurt a lot by the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.
		There's no doubt about that.
		I think Ukraine is more of a mixed bag, again, where our stepping in to provide financial support was key, but constantly limiting the effectiveness of the weapon systems, the speed with which we delivered them, it was almost like playing for a tie.
		I think international, I think the Europeans looked at us and didn't quite understand.
		So I think those were kind of in the mixed bag.
		I think other areas, the Biden administration worked hard to build our alliances and partnerships back up, and they deserve credit for that.
		I think what's called the AUKUS deal with Australia and the UK was important for countering China and Abbas.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's a submarine deal.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		That's a submarine deal plus emerging technologies.
		So there's AUKUS part one, and that's the big part.
		You're right, the submarine deal.
		And there's AUKUS Part 2, which is the future, which is emerging technologies, quantum AI, cyber tools, things like that, anti-submarine warfare.
		And in fact, in that area, we're hoping to bring in other countries like Japan and potentially Korea.
		That AUKUS deal was important.
		And so you have to give them credit for things.
		And like any administration, there's ups and downs.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And President Trump has said he will continue and abide by that AUKUS deal.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		This is one of those weird issues.
		He has.
		With Kier Starmer, he said that pretty clearly in Canada.
		And then his Under Secretary of Defense, like a mid-level appointee in the Department of Defense, announces, I'm going to do an AUKUS review.
		I checked with the president.
		I think he made a pretty clear ruling, but this is what our allies have to deal with right now.
		Are you going to listen to what the president said, admittedly not with a piece of paper, just verbally, but in front of the press?
		Or are you going to participate in a review about the long-term sustainability of a program with some mid-level bureaucrat?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, one more call.
		Ruben, Raleigh, North Carolina, Independent.
		Good morning, Ruben.
unidentified		I got a question for you about the situation down in Venezuela and Afghanistan.
		The United States, five years ago, the United States withdraw from Afghanistan.
		They left a lot of soldiers.
		I mean, they brought a lot of soldiers up out of there.
		And then a year later, they were ran out of there.
		And this president set that up.
		And now in Venezuela, fast forward five years later, they're down in Venezuela accusing these people of selling in traffic and in drugs when the drugs come from Colombia.
		And what's your objective in both of those theaters?
		Because you don't have one.
		You don't need to have.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		So I'm going to take that as what's President Trump's objective, not mine.
		But so I'd say for Afghanistan, I mentioned this earlier.
		Look, President Trump started the negotiations, but the chaotic, the final decision and the Caddock withdrawal 100% sits with President Biden.
		President Trump may way well have gotten the same briefings about Bagram and Kandahar and said, I'm not withdrawing.
		He had already done that two or three times.
		He had backed out of aggressive withdrawal maneuvers in Afghanistan.
		So in fairness to President Trump, I do not put the withdrawal from Afghanistan on him.
		That belongs to President Biden.
		Venezuela, I think that's a true point: that the biggest drug problems in South America and Central America are not coming from Venezuela.
		On the other hand, the biggest threats to democracy in South and Central America is Venezuela.
		I think the president, the president's team is slightly conflating those two issues to get support for operations that kind of punish Venezuela a little bit.
		I think they probably are taking out drug boats in these attacks.
		I certainly hope they are.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Are you comfortable with drug enforcement becoming moving from a policing operation to a military operation?
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		I don't think it should.
		And I'd say that as someone, I commanded a destroyer that did two drug enforcement deployments where I participated, I'd bring a Coast Guard detachment on board.
		We would get intelligence, find a bad guy boat that clearly had a false waterline, other things.
		We'd meet some law enforcement requirements, raise up a Coast Guard flag on the Navy ship.
		The Coast Guard would go board.
		We'd find the drugs, arrest the drug participants, and bring the drugs on board for further destruction.
		That's how you handle this issue.
		Not a laser, a precision strike munition against a boat.
		And the reason is, you don't know everyone who's on that boat.
		And you have to be careful with that.
		Sometimes people bring their families along on these things.
		I mean, not usually, but I don't know how you're sure of that, how they're not using human shields.
		I would do, we have a long tradition, decades-long tradition, of using Navy ships with Coast Guard law enforcement detachments and Coast Guard ships just doing it on their own, of doing this policing.
		There's nothing wrong with bringing extra forces in, like the president did.
		Absolutely.
		He's president.
		That's his decision.
		But I think the term, you know, using a kinetic weapon to resolve this, vice law enforcement, is inappropriate.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies there at FDD.org.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thanks, as always, for coming in.
mark montgomery ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for having me, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		In about 30 minutes here on the Washington Journal, we'll have former FCC chair Tom Wheeler discussing the Jimmy Kimmel controversy, the role the FCC plays, and what stations can broadcast.
		But first, after the break, it's open forum.
		You can start calling in now Democrats 202-748-8000, Republicans, 202-748-8001, and Independents 202-748-8002.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		At 7 p.m. Eastern, former independent West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin discusses his career, political polarization, and the importance of centrism.
		Then at 8 p.m. Eastern, Independent Institute senior fellow Philip Magnus presents his critique of the New York Times magazine's 1619 project, which told the story of the United States with a focus on slavery and its legacy.
		At 9 p.m. Eastern, a conversation about the influence of Karl Marx's work in America, a country Marx never visited with Illinois State University history professor Andrew Hartman.
		And at 10.15 p.m. Eastern, Stephen Grant on his memoir of his year working as a mailman for the U.S. Postal Service during the pandemic.
		Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to c-span.org slash radio on SiriusXM radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN radio.
		Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day, catch Washington today, weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		It is Open Forum.
		Whatever is on your mind regarding public policy, things happening in Washington.
		We will go to Mark, Independent Line, East Falmouth, Massachusetts.
		Good morning, Mark.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just wanted to ask the Admiral if he thinks Trump's strategy is like they say in the Navy or, you know, in the ocean, say, can't tie a knot, tie a lot with respect to his foreign policy and his domestic policy.
		I mean, this guy, he can't finish anything.
		He just keeps opening new problems for America.
		So that's it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Like what, Mark?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Tell me what you mean.
unidentified		Well, I mean, his speech yesterday, you know, off the cuff or not, but everything that's everything that comes out of this guy's mouth, he's alienating our country and he's terrible.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Joe, Columbus, Ohio, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Joe.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		How you doing?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I'm doing okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What's on your mind?
unidentified		Well, I sure disagree with that previous guy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, tell me why.
unidentified		I'll tell you the truth.
		I think a lot of people feel the same way as me.
		Although, of course, the problem is a lot of people don't.
		Also, they're the opposite.
		I think I've said in my lifetime that Reagan understood business better than any other president.
		And I thought he was the best president in my lifetime.
		I was only born in the 60s, not before.
		However, I know people are going to completely disagree.
		I now think Trump is even better.
		And the reason I say that, I know he's brash.
		I know a lot of people don't like his personality.
		And I understand that.
		And I didn't at first.
		But when I really got to understand him, one thing I'm surprised that he hasn't done is encourage people to read his books.
		He's written a couple books.
		And I think that way you sort of get inside his head.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And you've read his books, Joe?
unidentified		Yes, I am.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So when you say you understand him, give us an idea of what you mean by that.
unidentified		Well, I didn't understand him at first.
		I didn't even like him either, like a lot of people.
		And then I started hearing a lot about him, of course, like everybody, even before he was in politics.
		And then I went to my local library and I bought Art of the Deal for 50 cents.
		And I'm a business person, so I realized this guy's a business genius.
		But then I did think still he really can't handle politics.
		But then he wrote a book called Time to Get Tough.
		And I'm surprised that he didn't promote it.
		Although I can understand people would just accuse him of using the public forum to sell books.
		But of course, he doesn't really need the money.
		All right, Joe.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep, got your point.
		And Jimmy Kimmel was suspended by Disney ABC and was brought back.
		So yesterday was his first time back on the air after that suspension.
		Take a look.
		Here's part of his monologue.
jimmy kimmel ▲ ● ▼		Mike Benjapiro Clay Travis, Candace Owens, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, even my old pal Ted Cruz, who, believe it or not, said something very beautiful on my behalf.
ted cruz ▲ ● ▼		I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said.
ted cruz ▲ ● ▼		I am thrilled that he was fired.
jimmy kimmel ▲ ● ▼		Oh, wait, no, not that.
jimmy kimmel ▲ ● ▼		The other part.
ted cruz ▲ ● ▼		But let me tell you: if the government gets in the business of saying what you, the media, have said, we're going to ban you from the airwaves if you don't say what we like.
ted cruz ▲ ● ▼		That will end up bad for conservatives.
jimmy kimmel ▲ ● ▼		I don't think I've ever said this before, but Ted Cruz is right.
jimmy kimmel ▲ ● ▼		He's absolutely right.
unidentified		This affects all of us, including him.
jimmy kimmel ▲ ● ▼		I mean, think about it.
		If Ted Cruz can't speak freely, then he can't cast spells on the Smurfs.
		Even though I don't agree with many of those people on most subjects, some of the things they say even make me want to throw up.
		It takes courage for them to speak out against this administration, and they did, and they deserve credit for it.
		And thanks for telling their followers that our government cannot be allowed to control what we do and do not say on television and that we have to stand up to it.
		I've been hearing a lot about what I need to say and do tonight.
		And the truth is, I don't think what I have to say is going to make much of a difference.
		If you like me, you like me.
		If you don't, you don't.
		I have no illusions about changing anyone's mind.
		But I do want to make something clear because it's important to me as a human.
		And that is, you understand that it was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man.
		I don't think there's anything funny about it.
		I posted a message on Instagram on the day he was killed, sending love to his family and asking for compassion, and I meant it, and I still do.
		Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for the actions of what it was obviously a deeply disturbed individual.
		That was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make.
		But I understand that to some, that felt either ill-timed or unclear, or maybe both.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was on last night.
		And this is from Business Insider.
		TV station owner Nexstar joins Sinclair, says it will continue not to air Jimmy Kimmel.
		It says that Nexstar said it will continue not airing Jimmy Kimmel following Disney's announcement that the late night host will return.
		Last week, the gigantic local TV station owner said it wouldn't broadcast Kimmel's show before ABC suspended production.
		It says Nexstar needs the FCC to sign off on its $6.2 billion merger with rival Tenga.
		And it said another major TV company says it won't air the return of Jimmy Kimmel show on its more than two dozen ABC station.
		It said this.
		So this is from Nexstar.
		It says, quote, we made a decision last week to preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live following what ABC referred to as Mr. Kimmel's ill-timed and insensitive comments at a critical time in our national discourse.
		Next continues, we stand by that decision, pending assurance that all parties are committed to fostering an environment of respectful, constructive dialogue in the markets we serve.
		That's on Business Insider.
		And this is Teresa, Phoenix, Arizona.
		Democrat, you're on Open Forum.
unidentified		I wanted to talk to you about gerrymandering, but I'm watching you in the Jimmy Kimball thing.
		And Sinclair and these companies that censored Jimmy Kimmel, are they going to censor the United States president for standing up in front of that audience, which I saw, and I live in this state, and saying, I hate, I hate all of them.
		I'm sorry, I can't find forgiveness.
		I hate them.
		I hate them.
		My 15-year-old grandson was sitting here, and he said to me, oh, now I can hate the blank team we're going to play in a few hours because President Trump said so.
		That is not proper.
		And I am pissed.
		These companies are complaining about Jimmy Kimball.
		And the President of the United States is saying, I hate.
		That's a very bad message.
		And that was a Christian fellowship kind of thing for Charlie Kirk.
		I did not know Charlie Kirk.
		I feel badly for his wife because I am a widow myself.
		But the president now, what I was going to talk to you about and been trying to get to is gerrymandering.
		I want to know why these people, these senators and representatives, would even agree to gerrymander.
		They campaign on their program.
		We vote for them based on what they say they're going to accomplish.
		They represent us.
		What did President Trump says, oh, I can't afford to lose it.
		So disrespect your constituents.
		Vote for what I want and not the people.
		Well, I hate to tell you, the Republican Party sucks.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Teresa, and this is what President Trump posted on Truth Social.
		He says this, I can't believe ABC fake news gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back.
		The White House was told by ABC that his show was canceled.
		Something happened between then and now because his audience is gone and his, quote, talent was never there.
		Why would they want someone back who does so poorly, who's not funny, who puts the network in jeopardy by playing 99% positive Democrat garbage?
		Yet he is another arm of the DNC and to the best of my knowledge, that would be a major illegal campaign contribution.
		I think we're going to test ABC out on this.
		Let's see how we do.
		Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 million.
		This one sounds even more lucrative.
		A true bunch of losers.
		Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad ratings.
		And here is Brian, Salem, Massachusetts, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Brian.
		Brian, are you there?
		In Salem?
		Nicholas, Fairfax, Virginia, Republican Line.
		morning.
		Nicholas, are you there?
		In Fairfax.
		John in Norman, Oklahoma, Independent Line.
		Are you there?
unidentified		Hello.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Oh, good.
unidentified		I was thinking something was wrong with our phones.
		I got jumped ahead.
		I love it when Uber does that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, John.
unidentified		Well, I just, there's an article that I started in Wikipedia, and it was originally called Corrupt Bastard Club.
		Lisa Murkowski would know about it.
		I was in the courts asking for a grand jury investigation of a company called VCO that was bribing legislators.
		Bill Allen was the kingpin.
		And with the Trump administration, we now have, starting with Elon Musk, we have every Bill Allen in the world beating a path to the White House.
		And I have a problem with Elon Musk seeming to have so much joy in cutting off U.S. aid that's going to kill so many people around the world and hurt so many with disease and famine.
		And, you know, what's the war on food that Putin seems to be waging?
		Also, that's all I have to say for now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, John.
		And a couple of things for your schedule later today.
		So, in about an hour at 9:30 Eastern, the UN General Assembly convenes for a second day.
		We'll have Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky speaking at 9:30 along with other world leaders from Iran and Panama.
		You can watch live coverage of that starting at 9:30 Eastern over on C-SPAN 2.
		And then we have a couple of things happening at noon today that are both live.
		The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation holds its annual legislative conference.
		In the afternoon, Democratic Representative Wesley Bell will be part of a discussion on civil rights, looking at community-centered approaches that redefine the criminal legal system.
		That's on C-SPAN at noon.
		And then on C-SPAN 2 at noon is French President Emmanuel Macron.
		He'll talk about officially recognizing the state of Palestine and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
		He's also expected to take questions on other international issues, including the Russia-Ukraine war and Europe's relationship with President Trump.
		And that is on C-SPAN 2.
		All of our programming you can see.
		You can check out on our app, C-SPANNOW, and online c-span.org.
		Here is Marshall in Nashville, Tennessee.
		Republican, good morning, Marshall.
unidentified		Meaning, how are you?
		A lot has happened in the last 30 days, complete and total.
		And these communist Democrats are doing it in broad daylight.
		They're not even trying to hide.
		They did not try to hide their attacks on our Supreme Court on our law enforcement in the 2024 election.
		They used communist means to try to get Donald Trump thrown in prison.
		And I am really still upset about Charlie Kirk's execution.
		And I believe that if you look deeper, you're going to find the Democrat Party or George Soros funded that young man.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sheila in New Jersey, Line for Democrats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Sheila.
unidentified		Hi.
		Does anybody realize that we are going through a coup?
		They said we're just a small government.
		We're losing all our protections of our health.
		We're getting higher prices in energy, water, insurances, and for food.
		The Supreme Court said, oh, no, no one's above the law.
		And yet, Trump had done the insurrection, tried to get more votes, and had a free ride of sitting there having the documents and show-and-tail at Mar-a-Lago.
		Twice they had to go in and get it, and nothing was done.
		But now they say a president could have immunity.
		I don't want no president to have immunity.
		And the Republicans have no power.
		They're only allowed to vote for nominations and the budget.
		And if they don't, they get a whip over their head if they don't do what he says.
		He is a dictator, what he said he was, and yet the Supreme Court gave him immigration.
		And people, I don't understand.
		You're getting more money, the people that voted for him, you're going to have to sit there and pay more money for food, your health.
		And also, you're sitting here, you're so worried about the immigrants.
		These people, the ISIS, they're getting $50,000 just to sign on, and then they're chising in their kidnapped.
		They don't even care who they get as long as it's a body.
		And now, they're paying more billions of dollars for these people.
		And they didn't want to sit there and work.
		But I want to say one time, the Democrats and Republicans worked together under Clinton, and they had a surplus.
		Now, everything is a mess.
		So if you care about your family, because your future is going to be done, because he's a dictator, and you got Benjamin over there, Nahoo, and you got Putin, they don't care.
		All they care about is getting what they want, and they don't care who gets hurt and who gets killed.
		And that Charlie Kirk, he should have had better protection and never to even sit there talk there in the first place.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
		And the president also posted that he was canceling the meeting with congressional Democratic leadership.
		He said, in part, after reviewing the details of the unserious and ridiculous demands made by the minority radical left Democrats in return for their votes to keep our thriving country open, I have decided that no meeting with their congressional leaders could possibly be productive.
		Let's get a reaction.
		This is Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader in the House, reacting to that with reporters yesterday.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		About this moment and the need to fund the federal government that has anything to do with any issue other than the health of the American people, the safety of the American people, and the economic well-being of the American people, which includes trying to drive down the high cost of living because our country is too expensive.
		Donald Trump promised to lower the high cost of living in the United States of America on day one.
		But costs aren't going down, they're going up.
		Inflation is going up.
		Life has become more expensive in the United States of America because of failed Republican policies, including the Trump tariffs.
		Donald Trump is trying to hide all of that from the American people, which is why he does not want to sit down and have an open discussion with House and Senate Democrats that can be aired out in front of the American people.
		The statement that Donald Trump issued today was unhinged.
		And it related to issues that have nothing to do with the spending bill that is before the Congress and the need to try to avoid a government shutdown.
		Nothing to do with transgender issues or any of the other wild things from the standpoint of what actually is under discussion in the context of this meeting.
		Leader Schumann and I sent a letter that we publicly released on Saturday that made clear what the stakes are for the American people.
		And it related to the Republican health care crisis.
		The attack on Medicaid, the attack on Medicare, the attack on the Affordable Care Act, the attack on our hospitals, nursing homes, and community-based health clinics, and the attack on medical research.
		Period.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And back to the phones now for Open Forum.
		Roger in Florida, Independent Line.
		Hi, Roger.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Can you hear me all right?
		Thank you for taking my call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we can hear you.
unidentified		I'd like to comment on first on Joe, who said that Trump is a genius businessman.
		First of all, those books, they were ghostwritten.
		And the books talked about his businesses, most of them failures.
		People only decided, oh my God, I remember watching him from the Trump show where he fired people right and left.
		Yeah, that was entertainment.
		He was an entertainer at most.
		And he scammed his businesses with Weisberger and Cohen, who cooked the books and paid off people, did things under the table.
		And the person that says, I hate my opponents, I want them, my word, attacked by having the DOJ retaliate against people like Schiff or the Attorney General of New York.
		He hates his opponents.
		This is coming from the man who runs the most powerful country in the world.
		His hate-mongering is unbelievable.
		And our democracy has a big challenge ahead.
		Thank you for hearing me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Sam, a Republican in Finksburg, Maryland.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Sam.
unidentified		Huge fan of yours.
		I just wanted to weigh in on the Jimmy Kimmel thing.
		Sure.
		People seem to have such a short memory.
		Does nobody remember?
		I mean, you could keep calling Jimmy a liberal, but does nobody remember the man show with Adam Corell?
		Girls jumping on trampolines, chugging beers.
		They called women juggies.
		He did blackface Carl Malone.
		Like, I just don't understand what the Jimmy Kimmel thing is all about.
		People seem to go back in, I mean, I'm a conservative, but people seem to go back in time for anything to attack Republicans or conservatives about, but they so easily forget that Jimmy Kimmel was a monster culturally.
		Different time, sure, but also saying a different time isn't really an accepted saying anymore.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So you thought he should have been completely canceled and taken off the air?
unidentified		It's not canceled or allowed on the air.
		I just wanted to make a comment about the short-term memory that people have.
		Understood.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Tony in Redlands, California, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Tony.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I got too many things that I want to bring up.
		I want to agree with the guy who just called up and said that Joe was full of it.
		I'm sorry.
		I also want to say that the lady who said from Arizona who said that Trump is all about hate, that is, to me, the most important point because we are in a Qatar airliner headed straight toward a ballroom at the White House.
		Our country is headed in the wrong direction because our leader is full of hate.
		And that's the most important point that anybody can make calling this morning.
		We don't have leadership.
		We have hatred.
		We're being led by someone who hates, and that's awful.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Billy, Independent, in Cape Coral, Florida.
unidentified		You're on Open Forum.
		I don't know how it'd be because I'm watching the TV itself.
		I don't know if I'm online or not.
		I'm sitting here watching it.
		But all I got to say to folks and for the president, please, sir, look at the Old Testament and look what really says.
		And I pray for him and many others in this world, including Israel, the need to look at things very closely and seeing what this world's going to end up to.
		I don't want it to happen.
		I'm an accidental pet.
		And I'm tired of wars.
		We don't need it.
		I ask and beg that that man would get on his knees and really look at the Old Testament and see what's happening.
		And not only his life, but many other lives.
		That's all I got to say, man.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Ann, a Republican in Oregon.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Ann.
unidentified		Hi, Mimi.
unidentified		How are you?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good.
unidentified		I just have two points to make.
		You were reading part of what Donald Trump had said, but you should have read the whole thing when it said the Democrats want $1 trillion to pay for medical for the illegals.
		You didn't complete that.
		But anyway, something else.
		The Democrats call us.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So it's a really long post, Anne, but I would direct people to Truth Social to read the whole thing if they're able to, but it's actually not something it's quite long.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But anyway, yes, it is there if they would like to read it.
unidentified		Go ahead, Anne.
		My other point is: Democrats call us Nazis, fascists, but we're not the ones doing the killing.
		So they need to stop their hateful rhetoric and behave civilly.
		I mean, we don't go out and riot and burn things.
		Look at Charlie Kirk's murder.
		What did we do?
		We were peaceful.
		So they need to straighten up.
		This is terrible.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And after the break, we'll have a conversation with the former chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler.
		We'll be talking about the whole Jimmy Kimmel controversy and the role that the FCC plays in that.
		We'll be back right after a break.
unidentified		American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
		This weekend, as America celebrates its 250th anniversary in 2026, join American History TV for its new series, America 250, and discover the ideas and defining moments of our founding.
		This week at 11 a.m. Eastern, we'll explore the creation of the Continental Army in 1775 with Duquesne University professor and former U.S. Army officer Holly Mayer.
		And then historian and author Don Hagist examines the British Army before and during the Revolutionary War.
		Then at 3 p.m. Eastern, legal and constitutional scholars highlight landmark debates and Supreme Court cases in the evolution of the U.S. Constitution.
		Also at 2 p.m. Eastern on the Civil War, historians talk about Robert E. Lee as a complex figure whose legacy has evolved over time.
		And at 8 p.m. Eastern on lectures in history, when Kentucky became a state in 1792, it had a choice, keep slavery or abolish it.
		University of Kentucky professor Melanie Gohn teaches a class on the state's decision and its unique relationship with the institution of slavery until the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation.
		Exploring the American story.
		Watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
		This fall, C-SPAN invites you on a powerful journey through the stories that define a nation.
		From the halls of our nation's most iconic libraries comes America's Book Club, a bold, original series where ideas, history, and democracy meet.
		Hosted by renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein, each week features in-depth conversations with the thinkers shaping our national story.
		Among this season's remarkable guests, John Grisham, master storyteller of the American justice system.
		Justice Amy Coney Barrett, exploring the Constitution, the court, and the role of law in American life.
		Famed chef and global relief entrepreneur Jose Andres, reimagining food.
		Henry Louis Gates, chronicler of race, identity, and the American experience.
		The books, the voices, the places that preserve our past and spark the ideas that will shape our future.
		America's Book Club, premiering this fall, Sundays at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		and past president why Why are you doing this?
		This is outrageous.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		This is a kangaroo chorus.
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 c-span shop.org is c-span's online store Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at cspanshop.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		We're joined by Tom Wheeler.
		He was the FCC chair during the Obama administration.
		He's currently a visiting fellow at Brookings Institution's Center for Technology Innovation.
		Tom, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Hello, Amy.
unidentified		Great to be here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, your reaction to the suspension and now reinstatement of Jimmy Kimmel.
unidentified		Well, the tragedy, that's the only word you can use.
		The tragedy of it is the way in which the chairman of the FCC used his coercive powers to intimidate ABC into dropping Jimmy Kimmel.
		And that's a clear violation of the First Amendment.
		It's a clear violation of the statute that authorizes the FCC.
		And if he's not sure of that, it's even in the FCC policy manual where it says, because of the First Amendment, because of Section 326, you cannot engage in censorship.
		And the, you know, I think that it's interesting to watch how he's been walking that back, saying, oh, I really wasn't doing that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He's saying it's about the ratings.
unidentified		Well, last night, Jimmy Kimmel sure didn't have any difficult ratings except here in Washington where it was kept off the air by Sinclair Broadcasting.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So you have said that his actions were unusual, unprecedented, and other things.
		Is there a way to hold him accountable?
		Is that Congress's job?
		Like, when he does go over the line, as you have said, he has gone over.
		What are the repercussions to that?
unidentified		Well, Congress has oversight of the FCC.
		Ted Cruz is the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee with jurisdiction over the FCC.
		He clearly expressed himself about what Chairman Carr did and how he didn't like it.
		And Congress is the body to call the chairman, say, let's have an inquiry into what you're doing.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, since we're talking about Chairman Carr, let's hear from him what he said last week where he mentions the ratings, and then I'll have you respond.
brendan carr ▲ ● ▼		Jimmy Kimmel is 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.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, it was so close to the settlement that was done.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		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.
		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.
unidentified		And that's what we're seeing.
		That's not for me to judge.
		That's for the ratings and the audience to judge, what he just said, right?
		But he did judge.
		He begins by saying, this is a business decision.
		And then he interjected himself into that business decision using the power of the FCC.
		Remember what he said on that podcast?
		That this is what Ted Cruz called sounding like a mob boss.
		We can do it the easy way.
		We can do it the hard way.
		These companies are going to have to step up or we're going to have work to do with the FCC.
		That doesn't sound to me like he's engaged in a business decision.
		And now, as he's walking back his actions, he's getting involved in business decisions which also aren't his purview.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Does the FCC have any role in regulating content that is on the public airwaves?
unidentified		The Supreme Court has had specific carve-outs for where the First Amendment, you know, it's the classic fire in a crowded theater.
		You don't have First Amendment protections for that.
		But you don't have the right as the chairman of the agency that grants the licenses for broadcasters to use spectrum in their local market to step up and say, this is what I think you ought to be saying.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This concept of serving the public interest, though, isn't that, can't that be defined very broadly?
unidentified		It is by design.
		The statute that governs the FCC says that the agency shall make decisions in the, quote, public interest, convenience, and necessity.
		And it goes no further in terms of defining what that public interest is.
		Chairman Carr and Donald Trump have now gone and said, well, we're going to define the public interest in terms of people who agree with us are acting in the public interest.
		And if you don't, you're not.
		President Trump flying back from England, you know, that had that gaggle on Air Force One where he said, they don't agree with me.
		They say bad things about me, and we ought to look at whether they should keep their licenses.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's play that, Tom, so that the audience knows what you're talking about.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here he is.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		You know, when a late-night host is on network television, there is a licensing.
		I'll give you an example.
		I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me.
		I get 97% negative.
		And yet I won easily.
		I won all seven swings, states popular, but won everything.
		And if they're 97% against, they give me holy bad publicity or oppress.
		I mean, they're getting a license.
		I would think maybe their license should be taken away.
		It would be up to Brendan Carr.
		I think Brendan Carr is outstanding.
		He's a patriot.
		He loves our country.
		And he's a tough guy.
		When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump.
		That's all they do.
		If you go back, I guess they haven't had a conservative on in years or something, somebody said.
		But when you go back and take a look, all they do is hit Trump.
		They're licensed.
		They're not allowed to do that.
		They're an arm of the Democrat Party.
		Thank you, everybody.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of him saying that he's getting, I'm not sure where the number came from, but 97% negative coverage and that they're an arm of the Democratic Party.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		They shouldn't be allowed to do that.
unidentified		Well, I don't know where he's getting those statistics either.
		I do know that the President of the United States should not be picking and choosing what the American people hear by coercing networks into saying what he wants them to say.
		And that's what I heard in that.
		If you don't say nice things, we're going to take your license.
		This is, you know, Mimi.
		This is an issue where the President of the United States and the chairman of the FCC, using their rather substantial powers, are saying to broadcasters, you've got a choice.
		That choice is the profit that you can generate for your shareholders or the First Amendment.
		And the broadcasters are having to decide, where do I stand in that choice?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what do you make of ABC and Disney's choice?
unidentified		Well, clearly they came back.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Why do you think that is?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think it's because their audience demanded it?
unidentified		Well, clearly they did.
		I mean, I couldn't watch the Jimmy Kimmel show last night because it's been blacked out in Washington by Sinclair, the local ABC affiliate.
		But I did watch it online, fortunately.
		And I thought one of the funny lines was Kimmel saying that the president had been talking about him having bad ratings.
		Well, it's certainly not have bad ratings tonight.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me ask you about Sinclair and Nexstar, who have decided not to bring it back.
		And Business Insider says that Nexstar needs the FCC to sign off on its $6.2 billion merger with its rival.
		Can you explain how that works and why the FCC would be involved in merger talks?
unidentified		Great question, Amy.
		As things stand today, it is an illegal merger that Nexstar and a company called Tenga have agreed to merge for Nexstar paying Tenga $6.2 billion.
		That merger is a violation of the law today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How?
unidentified		Because, and Brendan Carr says, I will change the rules to make it legal.
		There is a limit in the rules of the FCC as stipulated by the Congress of the United States that in order to promote the diversity of voices so that American people can hear distinct and disputive ideas,
		only one entity should only be allowed to own access to 39% of the households in America.
		If this deal goes through, they'll have access to about 80% of the households in America.
		That's why right now it's illegal.
		But Brendan Carr has indicated he wants to make it legal by changing the rules to eliminate that cap or to change that cap.
		And the fascinating thing is that it's the Congress who said to the FCC when they had a 45% cap, no, we think you ought to do it like up to 39%.
		And now the chairman of the FCC is going to come in and say, no, we can change that.
		We'll change that because we want these two companies to merge.
		And this is the invidiousness, Amy, of what's going on.
		Allowing broadcasters to consolidate, and particularly allowing favored broadcasters to consolidate, makes it easier to control the message that they send out.
		And so once again, you're affecting what the American people hear by controlling what broadcasters say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you'd like to join our conversation with Tom Wheeler, former chair of the FCC, if you've got a question about how the FCC works or their influence on broadcasters, you can go ahead and start calling in now.
		Lines are by party.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		What influence, if any, does the FCC have on cable?
unidentified		Very little.
		Cable is not covered in the statute.
		The ABC network is not covered in the statute.
		Only the broadcasters who use the public's airwaves to distribute the ABC network.
		And so that's why the pressure that the president and Chairman Carr have been exerting is on those local broadcasters to turn around and get them to pressure the networks.
		We're sitting in a situation today where Jimmy Kimmel may have gone back on last night, but 22% of Americans couldn't see him because they're in areas that are served by Nexstar or Sinclair who have said, no, we're going to agree with what Chairman Carr wants, and we're not going to show Jimmy Kimmel.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So this is something that Jimmy Kimmel said yesterday during his program, as reported by the AAP, and he was essentially giving kind of an extreme example.
		And he said this, should the government be allowed to regulate which podcasts the cell phone companies and Wi-Fi providers are allowed to let you download to make sure they serve the public interest.
		What are your thoughts on that?
unidentified		No.
		Do you think that that, I mean, is that, is that in the realm of possibility?
		The, the.
		Well, who knows with this administration in terms of their extension of authoritarian concepts?
		But here's the point.
		I want to just read something to you.
		That Brendan Carr, Chairman Carr, in a couple of years ago said, quote, censorship is an authoritarian's dream.
		Now, here's the question, Mimi.
		Is that standing up for free speech, which is what I thought it was at first when I first heard it a couple years ago?
		Or is that a roadmap saying that censorship is a tool that authoritarians can use?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He was probably talking about censoring conservative content.
unidentified		At the time, I'm sure he was.
unidentified		But the point of the matter is that it goes both ways here, that authoritarians can get control and maintain control through censorship of what the people hear.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to callers.
		Ron is an Illinois Republican line.
		You're on the air, Ron.
unidentified		Yeah, you know, you talk about the FCC.
		He did not take him off the air.
		Just now, there's three people shot at the ICE Facility down in Dallas.
		You want to talk about free speech, an attack on free speech?
		I hate to say it, but your side of the aisle doesn't like anybody.
		I mean, they deal with people that they don't disagree with in the wrong way.
		I mean, when Charlie Kirk was shot, we held fair vigils.
		When George Floyd was murdered, to the ground, rioting, parts of cities taken over, federal buildings taken over.
		That's an insurrection.
		That's the left.
		I think the rhetoric in calling us, calling people on the right Nazis and all that other stuff, they're complicit in what's going on in the United States right now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Your comment?
unidentified		I agree with his right to exercise free speech.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Rick in Boston, line for Democrats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Rick.
unidentified		Hi, I just want to make a couple of comments.
		Like, for example, he talked about Trump talking about trying to step up and people talk to me.
		His problem is that he only wants to talk.
		He doesn't want nobody else to say nothing up.
		And then for him, tell him, you know, like, like I said, the United Nations, in the way it wasn't listening to what he was saying, the guy was just talking about himself.
		He comes on TV all the time.
		He shows Putin up, talking about, oh, I'm going to do this to put in front of all these.
		I'm basically talking about white people here.
		I ain't trying to sound racist enough.
		I'm talking about white people.
		They sit here and listen to this garbage coming out of his mouth talking about, oh, we're going to get tough on Ukraine, on Russia.
		It don't get tough on nobody.
		He's running his mouth.
		As soon as he jumps in the limousine, we don't know what the guy's talking about.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Tom, does the FCC have an obligation to make sure that broadcasters are factually accurate and that they're fair?
unidentified		Well, you know, it's interesting.
		We used to have a thing called the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Doctrine at the FCC, which said you had to be fair, you had to provide the opportunity for the other side.
		And during the Gingrich and Reagan revolution, the chairman of the FCC and the vote of the FCC, the Republican-dominated FCC, removed both of those.
		So we don't have those kind of protections anymore.
		Yes, the FCC has a responsibility.
		We got thousands of complaints about what people thought was obscene use of the airwaves, which we investigated and actually took some action if there was obviously.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So tell us about those.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Give us an example.
unidentified		Well, let's see.
		How do I tell this?
		The one that stands out in my mind was a TV station in Virginia who that ran a story on a local firefighter, a new female firefighter whose previous occupation had been as a porn star and showed excerpts from her previous work.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Actually on the air?
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
		Yes, ma'am.
		Oh.
		We thought that that was probably obscene, and we fined the broadcaster.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		About how much of a fine are we talking about?
		Like, what's within the FCC's power to fine?
		How much?
unidentified		Oh, it's, you know, I mean, I think, I don't know what, I forget what we find.
unidentified		It was $50,000,000, something like that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Aaron in Franklin, Massachusetts, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi, I'm a business student, and it seems like every time I get to a new chapter in the book, I'm giving an example of everything that you're not supposed to do from the current administration.
		Seems like they're violating everything, especially with all these backdoor deals that seem to be very, very in the open, like such as the one that we're talking about with the FCC.
		So I was just wondering, like, if there, what's the precedent for this kind of thing, other than, you know, what we consider developing countries and like corrupt things like that, and just how illegal are these deals, and what would be the penalty should they be prosecuted, and how come they haven't been since they're so obvious.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you have an example, Aaron, of the deals that you're talking about?
unidentified		Well, I'm watching today, and we're talking about how they're talking about changing the rules to allow the deal.
unidentified		He's talking about changing the FCC rules to allow this deal to occur and to allow more, to allow essentially a monopoly in American homes or them to reach more American homes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it.
unidentified		And we have Jimmy Kimmel being taken off the air as a clear violation of the First Amendment.
		So given how obvious all this is, how come it's so hard to stop?
		That's a great question.
		I don't want to go down the policy wonk rabbit hole here too far.
		But it's very interesting that for years the conservatives have complained about the power of federal regulatory agencies and a 30-year-old decision by the FCC,
		which created what was called the Chevron deference doctrine, which meant that where there's a question, a judgment question of how to interpret a statute, the expert agency ought to get deference in making that decision.
		And they didn't like that.
		And the Supreme Court last year eliminated Chevron deference.
		So what's fascinating is that actually Chairman Carr has less power to make those kinds of decisions as a result of the Supreme Court revision.
		And that opens up the door to the kind of challenges that you're talking about.
		For instance, I am certain that when he acts on the changing of the rules to allow further consolidation and broadcasting, somebody will take him to court.
		And at that point in time, this new doctrine is going to be in effect and is going to say, excuse me, why, who gave you the authority to change what Congress has said should be at 39%?
		And so I think your question is a very good question.
		And as we've seen throughout the Trump administration, it's the courts that are the backstop on all of this.
		And so I think the courts would be the next stop on these issues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		On the Republican line in Brooksville, Florida, Rachel, good morning.
unidentified		Yes, hello.
		Yeah, I did have a question about whether the chairman can change the rules all by himself, or does Congress have anything to say about it?
		Because when he talked before, it sounded like the chairman could do it all by himself.
		And so if you could answer that question, and then also I have a comment.
		The admiral that you had on before, I believe in him.
		He was a truthsayer.
		He wasn't on one side or the other.
		He showed no bias.
		You, sir, show all kinds of bias.
		You're not a truthsayer.
		And I don't, if you're trying to win any hearts or moms.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Rachel, go ahead, Tom Wheeler.
unidentified		Well, let me answer your question truthfully, Rachel.
		And that is that the chairman of the FCC actually is an immensely powerful position because everybody who works at the agency works for him or her.
		Statute says he or she is the CEO.
		There are four other commissioners, but those commissioners don't get to see anything on an agenda for them to vote on unless the chairman puts it on the agenda.
		And if the chairman puts something on the agenda, he or she has approved every single word of it.
		It is a very powerful and controlling position.
		Now, what's unique about what Chairman Carr has been doing is that he has stopped short of having a formal commission vote on things such as trying to influence content because the law requires that you have to have a vote of the commission before you can appeal it.
		And so, what he's been doing is using this power to coercively intimidate the companies and to say that, you know, this really isn't an appealable decision yet, but I can make it a final decision.
		Why don't you just fall in line?
		It is a very artful way of avoiding what the previous caller was talking about.
		Is there any kind of judicial review?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here is Dennis in Cleveland, Ohio.
		Democrat.
		Hi, Dennis.
unidentified		Hello, James.
		I'm calling about Jimmy Kimmel's show last night.
		And I feel like Jimmy Kimmel, you've really seen his heart when he spoke about the man's wife that was killed and how she forgave how she forgave the man who had assassinated her husband.
		And you could see Jimmy Kimmel's heart.
		He's a good person.
		And the next thing I could see is that if you take all of these late night shows off, what do you have in replacement?
		Because you don't like what people are saying.
		So if you are someone that has authority or power, wouldn't you want someone to be on the show that more or less is talking in your favor?
		And there was an old singer.
		His name was Curtis Mayfield.
		And he had this song called Keep On Pushing.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Dennis.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Any comment there?
unidentified		I love Curtis Mayfield.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		We've got this from Dana in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey on text.
		Kimmel works for Disney.
		What he says on his show reflects on the company.
		A private company can fire anyone they feel isn't upholding that standard.
unidentified		True.
unidentified		The question is: should the federal government be coercing the company by threatening to take away or otherwise impinge on the core asset that allows ABC to exist, and that is the license of their affiliates.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask you about two other situations, and that is the Trump administration suing 60 Minutes over an editing decision, and then Stephen Colbert's firing by CBS ahead of that Paramount Skydance deal.
unidentified		Well, as you indicated, Donald Trump personally sued CBS for $20 billion over the editing of a Kamala Harris interview on 60 Minutes.
		I won't judge the merits of the case, although a lot of legal scholars a lot smarter than me found that it didn't have a basis.
		But Chairman Carr decided to hold up FCC approval of the sale of the CBS station assets to a new company, Skydance, until that lawsuit was settled.
		And CBS ended up buckling under and paying Donald Trump to the Trump Library, I guess, $23 million, I think it was.
		And then the FCC approved the acquisition of the CBS stations, but put terms on the deal.
		And one of the terms was that the new owners of CBS would hire and bring on an ombudsman to make sure that CBS News was behaving, quote, fairly.
		And they did that.
		And that was a requirement.
		Carr said, I will not approve this deal unless you agree to bring on this ombudsman.
		And they brought on a Trump loyalist to fill this role and determine what is appropriate.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Did that have any impact on the firing of or the canceling of Stephen Colbert's show?
unidentified		I don't know the answer to that.
		You know, Colbert was, I guess, the first of the, well, they don't make enough money.
		They get poor ratings.
		And I don't know what the thinking was inside of CBS.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's George, who's calling from Kentucky, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, George.
unidentified		Morning.
		Yes, I have a question.
		Jimmy Kimball was supposed to be on last night.
		Our local station took it off and put the news on.
		What can I do about it?
		Thank you.
		It's a great question, sir.
		You need to speak out to your affiliate, your local station.
		And you need to write the FCC, or you can, I'm not going to advocate, you can write the FCC and say, when it comes time to review this license, because all the licenses come up for renewal, please bear in mind that my right to hear what I want to hear was abridged by this station.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So Teresa on Little Rock, Arkansas wrote to us this, did Mr. Wheeler agree when Biden's FCC approved the sale of radio stations to Soros Group without State Department approval last summer?
		The waiver allowed Soros Group to take immediate ownership, which included conservative stations.
		I do not know if State Department ever reviewed the sale.
unidentified		I'm not so sure what the State Department references are.
unidentified		I'm sorry.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I don't either, but maybe we can find out.
		Here's Will, Woodstock, New York.
		Good morning, Will.
		Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I hope you're having a nice day.
		I think a lot of people would really appreciate seeing a debate between Mr. Carr and Mr. Wheeler on C-SPAN so we can make a better judgment as to what's going on with the FCC.
		Thank you very much.
		Take care.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good suggestion.
unidentified		If Mr. Carr is willing, we will put that on.
		So, I mean, the question is, there can always be fire.
		Is there light?
		Right?
		I've known Brendan Carr for a long time.
		I have a great deal of respect for Brendan and his brilliance, because he's a really bright guy.
		His legal training, his strategic thinking, boy, does he think strategically.
		My only complaint is, I mean, all those gifts sure, it seems to me, could be put to better use than trying to intimidate what the people here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Carmen in Florida, line for Democrats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Carmen.
unidentified		Hi, thank you for taking my call.
		I don't want to spend my time complimenting C-SPAN, but I think the station is great to hear this.
		I'm learning a lot from this guy, Tom Wheeler.
		You know, I'm not on my phone talking about my wife.
		I don't know a lot of things in politics.
		So it was good to hear them rules about the FCC this morning.
		So I have a freedom of speech talk.
		I know that when they created this country, I'm not sure if they looked at the fact that, okay, what if businessmen run the country?
		But wait a minute, what if the businessmen are corrupt?
		What do we do?
		And you mentioned Carr, and you wonder, I heard a clip from him from his previous speech, and the same with Trump also, of how they flip-flopped.
		And it just seems like everything's flip-flopping lately.
		But my question for Tom Wheeler today is, is there a way that we can create laws that will stop the lying when it comes to politics?
		In other words, when I'm sitting here watching these different clips when we're going to elect the president and you're hearing all these things, and then you find out that like 50% of them were all lies, and that was protected under freedom of speech.
		So isn't there a way to create a law that we can stop the lying when it comes to the presidential election?
		That's what I'm curious.
		Well, you know, it's interesting.
		Brendan Carr early in his term said he wanted to start a rulemaking at the FCC to define the public interest.
		What is this test that everybody's supposed to go through?
		And he hasn't because it is an amorphous kind of a concept.
		I have a friend by the name of E.J. Dione who wrote a piece in the New York Times the other day in which he talked about the joy of disagreement.
		That's where we need to be in this country.
		You know, I mean, the Thanksgiving dinner table where you and Uncle Chet are disagreeing is a joyful experience.
		Should be a joyful experience.
		And on a nationwide basis, we ought to be encouraging the joy of disagreement in a well-structured, well-behaved manner.
		And when those in power seek to put their thumb on the scale and say, this is how we want this discussion to go, that is an aberration of, I think, the holy concept that the founders established in the First Amendment, which is the government will not interfere with the right of free speech and a free press.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We got this on X from Johnny B, who's asking you your opinion of the state of the news.
		He says it's become opinion-driven.
		No more facts, just open-ended propaganda.
unidentified		Well, the interesting thing is that the news business has become, the news business hasn't changed that much.
		What has happened, you know, back when the founding of the country, I mean, my goodness, weren't there awful things that were said in the press about various politicians and other individuals.
		What we have now is the market for commercial news being divided and in an environment of 500 channels, how do you differentiate yourself?
		You differentiate yourself by the positions that you take.
		I'll tell you a quick story.
		A very dear friend of mine, now deceased, Ron Nesson, was President Ford's press secretary and before that was a noted journalist on NBC.
		And in the middle of the Vietnam War, he was hosting a weekly program that kind of highlighted, encapsulated what had been going on in the war that week.
		And it was the holidays, and the Pope had just called for a ceasefire.
		And Ron ended the program by looking into the camera and saying, peace, I'm sure we can all support that.
		And then signed off.
		He gets out of the studio.
		He told the story.
		We got out of the studio and he's confronted by the president of NBC News who says to him, Ron, nobody cares what you think.
		And in those days, the idea was that the news would be just the facts, ma'am, delivered directly.
		As the news environment expanded, what we saw was opinion starting to creep in because that was how you established your raison d'ette, your reason to exist, and established your slice of the market.
		So this is the marketplace at work under the First Amendment, and everybody has the right to have their opinion.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Danny, Jamestown, South Carolina, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Danny.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
steven in florida ▲ ● ▼		To Mr. Wheeler, I haven't heard you mention your former boss's secondhand man, Mr. Biden.
steven in florida ▲ ● ▼		Google, Facebook, Twitter, all the fake laptop ain't real, all the intel people saying this ain't real, that ain't real.
unidentified		When we found out it was all true, Mr. Trump was right.
		And it just, it's kind of shocking how you come on here.
		And the big story of the day is that night show, Jimmy Fallon, or whatever his name is, I'm glad he didn't air in South Carolina.
		I don't want to watch him.
		I never watched him anyway.
		And he wasn't funny.
		And Mr. Wheeler, he didn't apologize for what he said.
		And you laughed about it.
		And you said something about war just now.
		And you were laughing when you were talking about war.
		Sometimes you smart people, you smart people don't hear what you say and you don't hear who you bash and who you don't bash.
		But that's what it is.
		And I'm aware.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's get a response.
unidentified		I think Danny and I probably differ.
		But Danny has every right to have that opinion and express it.
		And C-SPAN has every right, and thank God for speech, C-SPAN, that it does give Danny that kind of platform.
		I disagree with what Danny said, but I will fight to the death his right to say it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		One more question for you from text from Melody in Kansas.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		At what point do these media conglomerates become monopolies?
unidentified		That is the great question.
		You know, when you have, we're going to end up with three to five people controlling the media in this country.
		The concept behind the Communications Act, which governs the FCC, is there should be a diversity of voices.
		It's hard to have a diversity of voices if you've got three to five CEOs running the shows.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's Tom Wheeler, former FCC Commission, former FCC chair under the Obama administration, currently a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution Center for Technology Innovation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thanks so much for joining us today.
unidentified		Thank you, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Coming up, more of your phone calls in open forum.
		We'll close out the show with your calls.
		Start dialing in now.
		It's 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and 202748-8002 for Independents.
unidentified		All in high school students join C-SPAN as we celebrate America's 250th anniversary during our 2026 C-SPAN Student Cam Video Documentary Competition.
		This year's theme is exploring the American story through the Declaration of Independence.
		We're asking students to create a five to six minute documentary that answers one of two questions.
		What's the Declaration's influence on a key moment from America's 250-year history?
		Or how have its values touched on a contemporary issue that's impacting you or your community?
		We encourage all students to participate, regardless of prior filmmaking experience.
		Consider interviewing topical experts and explore a variety of viewpoints around your chosen issue.
		Students should also include clips of related C-SPAN footage, which are easy to download on our website, studentcam.org.
		C-SPAN Student Cam Competition awards $100,000 in total cash prizes to students and teachers and $5,000 for the grand prize winner.
		Entries must be received before January 20th, 2026.
		For competition rules, tips, or just how to get started, visit our website at studentcab.org.
		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.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Open Forum.
		We are going to be taking your crawls very soon, but I want to make sure that you know about a NASA press conference that will be following right after this program at 10 a.m. Eastern.
		And that's the crew of NASA's Artemis II mission that will travel around the moon.
		They will be attending this news conference.
		That mission is scheduled for February of 2026.
		It aims to establish a long-term human presence on the moon and test deep space capabilities that would eventually be used to send astronauts to Mars.
		You can watch that press conference live 10 a.m. Eastern here on C-SPAN.
		It's also on our app, C-SPANNOW and online at c-span.org.
		Here's Ted Warrington, Oregon Democrat.
		Hi, Ted.
		You're on the air.
unidentified		Good morning.
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		I just was thinking, what is the toughest job in America?
rep jim guest ▲ ● ▼		Is it the law enforcement out protecting all of us?
unidentified		Is it the surgeon protecting lives?
unidentified		Is it the military around the world?
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		Well, I've come to the realization the toughest job in the world is being a host on C-SPAN.
unidentified		No matter what they're paying you, it is not enough for you to make a dime or more listening to the Hoy Polloy.
		And for the uneducated, that is the masses.
		I just think whatever they're paying you, it's not enough.
rep jim guest ▲ ● ▼		And I admire your tenacity, your iron, and I just hope you have a great day.
unidentified		Thank you very much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thanks, Ted.
		Appreciate that.
		Here's Carol, West Virginia Independent Line.
		Hi, Carol.
unidentified		Hello, good morning.
		Oh, I've got a lot of stuff.
		I'd like to know where all the, I call them the free speech screamers were when the conservatives were getting banned from YouTube, Facebook, and Google because Google just put out an article that they were censoring people under the last administration.
		But I guess that was okay.
		I was one of them that got banned.
		But I also want to know.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Wait, wait, Carol, what were you banned for from YouTube?
unidentified		Banned if I made a comment about COVID.
		I was banned on Facebook if I made a comment about COVID.
		I was thrown in, quote, Facebook jail for almost a year because I was just asking questions.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		About the COVID vaccine, you mean?
unidentified		About anything about COVID.
		It was if I didn't agree with what was being put out there, I just was asking questions like, why can't we find out more information about it?
		Why is this doctor saying this?
		This doctor saying this.
		Well, nope, that went against community standards, and I was banned.
		But that's okay.
		But anyways, I've got another issue.
		Is there any articles on the, I forget what they call it?
		It was like a communication network that they found up underneath the UN yesterday.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep, yep.
		I did see.
		I did see something about that.
		Let me look, Carol, because I did.
		Yeah.
		No, go ahead.
		You were going to say something?
unidentified		Yeah.
		And then there's, I just seen that there was another ICE incident where one of the facilities was attacked down in Texas, and there was an active shooter down there.
		But I just, you know, I just want basically, I can't figure it out.
		And I'm just, I just asked a lot of questions.
		I'm the person that asked a lot of questions.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We appreciate the questions.
		And I do want to make sure people know about this because this is breaking news.
		Here's the New York Post.
		Dallas ICE facility shooting kills at least three detainees and the sniper found dead on the roof, according to authorities.
		That's as reported by the New York Post, happening, just happened in Dallas at an ICE facility there.
		And regarding Carol's question about that network, so this is the Washington Times with the headline, Secret Service Dismantles Spy Network Near Summit.
		Hack plot threatened world leaders.
		It says that the Secret Service disabled a malicious telecommunications network in and around New York City that officials said posed a major threat to President Trump and other diplomats and leaders at the UN General Assembly meetings this week.
		Joint investigation involving Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, various law enforcement agencies uncovered 300 sim servers and 100,000 sim cards across five sites.
		Secret Service, that's according to the Secret Service, they said that it was the largest seizure of its kind in the agency's history.
		This is in the Washington Times if you'd like more information.
		Carol Lynn, Carol Lynn in Illinois, Republican, good morning.
unidentified		Hi.
		First off, I wanted to sign a text, but it didn't get through back when Jeffrey played that thing at Jeffrey talking about how bad the economy is.
		Well, I believe the economy is probably doing pretty good unless you live in a Democrat state like I do.
		You know, they're putting taxes on us and stuff.
		Anything that's coming down, you're not going to see it if you're in a Democrat state.
		Also, I'm wondering who's fact-checking this last guy you had on talking about the FCC.
		I understand he used to work there, but can you give me an example of something you wanted to fact-check, Carolyn?
		Everything he says is definitely a Democrat meaning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But I'm saying something that he's said as a fact that you want to check if it's true.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is there something that stands out for you?
unidentified		Not necessarily, just everybody takes his word.
unidentified		It's gospel, and who's to say it's true?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Mike in Rio, Wisconsin, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Mike.
unidentified		I just wanted to say, hooray, hooray, hooray, hooray for Jimmy Kimmel and the First Amendment.
		All this is about is corruption from the Trump administration.
		All of this is about is money.
		Back in 69, I'm 69 years old.
		Back in the early 70s, they tried to get rid of all the family on TV.
		They tried to get rid of the Smunder brothers, Nixon did.
		All this is, is a corruption by the Trump administration to prioritize and make money off corruption.
		Trump is corrupted.
		Goodbye.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we are in open forum for about 20 minutes until the end of the program.
		If you would like to share your ideas or thoughts with us, you can go ahead and call now.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		The Federal Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell, spoke to reporters yesterday talking about the job market for young workers.
		Take a look at what he said.
jerome powell ▲ ● ▼		We all see the data that it's just gotten tough for people just entering the labor force to be hired.
		But remember, the overall national aggregate hiring rate is at very, very low level.
		The layoff rate is also at a very, very low level.
		You're in a low-fire, low-hire economy.
		And it feels like companies are just, they've kind of stopped hiring or slowed down their hiring because they want to see how this all shakes out.
		We're having very important changes to economic policy in the United States, and companies and people are wondering how's that going to work out.
		So I think that's part of it.
		The other thing I would add, though, is there's a lot of good scholarship around technological innovation and inequality, if you will.
		And the sense of it is really that if schools and society give students graduating the skills and aptitudes they need to benefit from evolving technology, you can have declining inequality over time.
		And that's what the United States had for many, many years, up until about 1970, when U.S. educational attainment kind of plateaued and inequality takes off.
		So it's really down to having the skills.
		So kids who come out of school today with technological skills and can work with this new technology, they're probably going to be fine.
		They're going to be great.
		If you don't have those skills, though, you're increasingly left with less attractive employment options.
		So in a way, it's an educational issue.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It's Chairman Powell from yesterday.
		If you want to see that full event, you can go to our website at c-span.org.
		Here is Michael in Hollister, California, Independent Line.
		Michael, you're on open forum.
unidentified		Yes, I was calling in concern about our Kash Patel and the FBI situation.
		I find it quite disturbing, his defiant behavior, and how he spoke to our representation, our congressmen and our Senate and such.
		And so I find it quite that there is a pushback from Kash Patel that is disturbing in itself that there seems to be some type of cover-up.
		I mean, they are definitely not giving us all the information.
		And I wanted to say something in regards to what the Fed Commissioner had said in regards to jobs.
		Trump has changed a lot in this job market, and it is quite disturbing.
		I'm a contractor and everything is quite stagnant now.
		He had represented in the United Nations in his speech that the economy is great, everything is great, gas prices down, and that is not the case.
		So that is totally false.
		And so that's what I had to say about that.
		Thank you very much for your time.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Doug, New York Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Doug.
unidentified		Hi, how are you this morning?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I'm doing great.
unidentified		Okay.
		I wish Tom Wheeler was back on.
		I wanted to say this.
		Do you ever hear of the book The Medium is the Massage by Marshall McLuhan?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I have not, no.
unidentified		No.
		Well, you know, you know, people try to sell us a lot of things like Coke and cars and everything.
		And they use methods to do this, right?
		What is this standard that our government is supposed to use that limits manipulation?
		Think about it.
		We think about, I've asked a lot of people, what is the most important thing that happened yesterday?
		It comes from the news mostly, and it comes with the sland of the news that they intentionally put on it.
		And they do it in order to make money, too.
		But somebody said we used to just give the news.
		We don't anymore.
		And it's like a political campaign convincing you to think this way or religion.
		You could think this way.
		What's the law on the standard of manipulation?
		You know, like I'm a senior citizen, and like you get these calls and they try to get you to do things, right?
		You understand?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep, yep.
		No, I think I got your point.
		I got your point about.
unidentified		So, what's what are the rules?
		I don't think there's any rules.
		I think.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep, got that.
		And DHA Secretary Christine Noam has put out a posting on X.
		She says this: There was a shooting this morning at the Dallas ICE Field Office.
		Details are still emerging, but we can confirm there are multiple injuries and fatalities.
		Shooter is deceased by a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
		While we don't know motive yet, we know that our ICE law enforcement is facing unprecedented violence against them.
		It must stop.
		Please pray for the victims and their families.
		And here is Bill in Ohio, Republican.
		Hi, Bill.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I would like to, I don't know, say, you know, about the whole Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert thing.
		It's pretty crazy because, you know, they were, the Biden administration was, you know, censoring everybody on pressuring Facebook and all that.
		And, you know, and it's not so much, you know, that Trump bought them off.
		Their ratings are terrible.
		They're totally left-leaning shows anymore.
		It's all politics.
		You know, the late show used to be, you know, comedy.
		And, you know, I can't remember last time I watched maybe Johnny Carson, but I don't know.
		That's all I've got to say.
		Thanks.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Bill.
		And let's talk to Denine in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What's on your mind, Denine?
unidentified		Oh, I'm calling because I want to address some issues in regards to human traffic.
		I'm a human traffic victim, and the government is not doing enough to protect us as individuals, especially when the human traffic was taking place by law enforcement.
		And there needs to be enough laws and policies and procedures put in place to help individuals like myself, and there's not.
		We have been silenced, and we need to have a voice.
		And I don't know who is listening, but there needs to be policies and procedures.
		There needs to be a congressional hearing to hear our voices, to hear what is going on in our communities where we're facing so much targeting that it affects every aspect of our life.
		And that's all I have to do.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sunine, are you able to give us more details about how you were trafficked by law enforcement?
unidentified		Okay, I was incarcerated from 2006 to 2008.
		And when I was incarcerated at Purdy Prison in Washington State, I was trafficked during my incarceration.
		We were taken in and outside the prison.
		I was threatened inside the prison and was told to be quiet.
		And after I was told to be quiet, after I was told to be quiet and I left the prison, I got a call from the prison advising me that they had evidence that I was sexually assaulted.
		And it has been since then a massive amount of retaliation on my life, on my son's life.
		And nobody in Congress is listening.
		And it has affected every aspect of my life.
		I'm a certified welder.
		I've been denied employment.
		It's just my credit has been, it's just been a number of things that has happened.
		And I've been working with human traffic agencies that are trying to help me right now because I didn't know about this prior to all of this stuff happening to me.
		And Congress needs to hear us.
		They need to hear human traffic victims that have been going through this.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Denine, and thanks for sharing that with us.
		Here's Frank, San Francisco Line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Frank.
unidentified		Good morning.
		It was great to hear Tom Wheeler.
		And I had to remind myself, oh, Curtis Mayfield, my favorite too.
		I've been reading lately from the Jeffersonian Cyclopedia.
		It's hosted on the University of Virginia website, which he founded.
		And excerpts, it's alphabetically organized.
		It's a funk and Wagnalls publication excerpted from an unabridged collection of his writings published in 1909.
		For some reason, missing off the Wikipedia list of the Funkin' Wagnalls publications.
		It's also on Internet Archive.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So what have you been reading, Frank?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		Well, like excerpt from his second inaugural address, Human Nature and Error, he said, the weakness of human nature and the limits of my own understanding will produce errors in judgment, sometimes injurious to your interests.
		Can you imagine a modern president saying such a thing?
		Inheritance, equal, inheritance.
		If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the state, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree, and the better as this enforces a law of nature.
		Well, extra taxation violates it.
		Right-wingers like to quote Jefferson as not being in favor of progressive taxation, but he definitely was.
		He said, concentrated wealth is an evil.
		All right, Frank.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Lena Logan, Utah Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Lena.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
		A few weeks ago, a man was on your network saying that he got his news from the late night shows.
		And I thought, oh, wow, how sad.
		Because Colbert is just not funny.
		Jimmy Kimmel is just obnoxious and obscene.
		And poor Jimmy Fallon, well, he's just boring.
		And I thought, where is Johnny and Jay?
		I haven't really watched those guys at night since those guys left.
		And I get my news from CBS in the morning, Fox in the evening, and the National News Disk at night.
		And of course, from C-SPAN.
		I really appreciate your guys.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Lynn Lynn in Cincinnati, Ohio, Independent Lion.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Lynn.
unidentified		Hi, a couple of things.
		Regarding late night political satire, some of the late night shows, I hear some of the callers are calling right now, kind of with selective memory, and they're making it sound like only Trump is the target.
		No, anybody that's in a political position becomes the target of political satire.
		That's why they call it political satire.
		If people can recall, they talked about Biden like a dog most some of those nights based on sometimes his gaffs, his verbal gas that he would make.
		And I don't know if many of people go back and remember when he fell off the bike.
		I mean, when he fell down the steps of the coming off of the Air Force One.
		So right now, I just feel like people are just sort of camped out in their own little minds about where things are.
		Trump has not been a politician for 10, 20 years.
		These shows have been on for a long time.
		If you go back and look, you will see that every president, every person that has been in a large political position, they go after them and they do make political satire.
		And that's something we have to remember.
		But Trump does the Trump thing.
		He always victimizes himself.
		Oh, see, it's me they're picking on.
		See, they don't want you to hear what I have to say.
		People need to understand they're going after the FCC and all of this because they want to control your thinking and only want you to hear what they have to say.
		Last thing, what I want to say about these shooters, people keep calling in.
		The mass shooters of this country are white males.
		So when I hear people talk about rioting in the street and who it's coming from, maybe we need to look at these mass shooters who go in these schools and do the shooting up.
		It is a white male profile.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Donald Jeanette, Pennsylvania, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Donald.
unidentified		Hello.
		I have two quick things to bring up.
		First of all, I wish the callers would quit saying, thank you for taking my call.
		I'd like to know when they call their pharmacist or their grocery store or their plumber, do they say to them, thank you for taking my car?
		Of course not.
		That was my number one issue.
		Number two is people that say all the time, mainly new supporters of Donald Trump.
		He is the best president ever.
		Well, how do you know that?
		Let me give you an analogy.
		If you're asked to judge at a county fair, the pie baking contest, and there's six pies on the table, and you take a slice out of the first one and you say, this is the best one out of all six.
		How do you know you never took anything from the other pies?
		So these people that want to say all the time, Donald Trump is the best president, they say that because they know nothing about any other presidents.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's in Paletka, Florida, line for Republicans.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Richard, you're on the air.
unidentified		Thank you, dear.
		I'd like to make a comment about the killing on the Charlotte Train with that black guy that stabbed Irena Zaruka in the neck.
		You know, that is really, it worked on me worse than it did seeing Charlie Kirk get shot and killed.
		It just worked on me so awful because I was looking at it And I haven't heard no more about it.
robert gaylon ross ▲ ● ▼		They haven't mentioned anything that I found in the on the T V to see if they're getting anything done about the killer.
gene in arkansas ▲ ● ▼		I know they said they were going to ask for the death penalty, but I've heard no more about it.
unidentified		It just made me, it made me cry when I saw that.
		It's just awful.
		But anyway, to her family that she has.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Richard.
		And in other news from Fox News, Trump golf club gunman found guilty after assassination attempt tries to stab self in court.
		That's in Fox News.
		If you remember the incident at the golf club a while back, he has been found guilty.
		And when that verdict was read, it seemed that he tried to stab himself in the neck with a pen.
		That's at Fox News.
		And this is Cindy Williamsburg, Kansas Democrat.
		Good morning, Cindy.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
unidentified		I'm calling about RFK's recent news about Tylenol or acetaminophen and autism.
bernadine smith ▲ ● ▼		And I just want to make sure everybody knows I'm, I mean, I want to make sure the public knows that it's so important for you to listen to your health care officials, your doctors, your nurses.
unidentified		They are the ones that know what's important for you and your family and your children.
		It's so important that you listen to them about vaccines and use of acetaminophen.
		This drug has been out here for 70 years and it's been proven to be effective.
		Many, many women, it's the only medication that they can take while they're pregnant.
		And I just think it's such a disservice to our country to have somebody like this trying to give orders to our people.
		It's very important that you talk to your doctor.
		Do not listen to RFK Jr. or President Trump about what you should take and put into your body.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So here is Yale School of Public Health with this.
		It says what the research says about autism and acetaminophen use during pregnancy.
		This is a paper on the Yale School of Public Health.
		It's ysph.yale.edu.
		If you'd like to read that and find out more information.
		Joan, Cleveland, Ohio, Republican.
		Hi, Joan.
unidentified		Hi.
		I called in, and mine is more or less a complaint with Citibank.
		I go to pay my bills.
		I think a lot of us do over the phone.
		And we wind up in the Philippines.
		I wound up in South Africa.
		And one day I asked the customer service girl, well, I can't understand them.
		And they might understand me to pay my bill.
		But even if I ask, how do you spell your name, I can't understand how to spell their name.
		So how is it that Citibank is allowed to ship our jobs over to different, I'll say, countries.
		And here we're looking for jobs here in the USA.
		And every customer service lady that I've talked to that sent me back to the USA, I tell her, what is going on?
		It's wasting my time and probably embarrassing them in their country that they speak a different language.
		So I don't know who's handling this, but when they say nobody's applying for jobs, well, if you're shipping them overseas, I call it.
		How could you apply for a job?
		Because they know they pay them less.
		And that's what the problem is.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Joan.
		And here's Elaine in Florida, Independent Line.
		Hi, Elaine.
unidentified		Hi.
		I want to say a few things.
		I'm really upset with Jimmy Kimball, Whoopi Goldberg, Free Speech TV in Miami.
		She had a shirt on that said F. Trump.
		I don't think that's appropriate for what's going on in this country.
		They're stirring the pot.
		They're supposed to be comics.
		I don't think that's very funny.
		I sit with a lot of foreigners that think that they're the most disgusting people they've ever seen on TV.
		We've got to get back to where a comic is a comic.
		If you want to make a remark about a president, you know what?
		Don't hit below the belt.
		I mean, he drags the family into it, this Kimmel, and that's not fair.
		That's my opinion of what's going on at night.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Darlene in Florida, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Darlene.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		I'm calling in regards to your previous gentleman that was on with you all.
		I was hoping to talk with him.
		As far as the FCC, if they allow this merger with Nexstar and Tigna, I think it is, I mean, won't that be a very large group?
		And are there any other TV groups, you know, companies?
		And if not, then this is basically, since they are ultra-right wing, this is basically like a government censorship.

▲