C-SPAN’s Washington Journal (12/02/2025) dissects Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s controversial September 2nd strikes in Venezuela and the Caribbean, sparking war crime allegations after Admiral Frank Bradley sank a fishing boat killing survivors. Legal experts and lawmakers like Chuck Schumer and Senators Wicker/Reed condemn the actions, while callers debate oil motives, military overreach, and comparisons to Truman’s atomic bomb decisions. Larry Sabato highlights Democrats’ 14-point polling lead in 2026 amid redistricting tensions, while Ukraine’s leaked 19-point peace plan—criticized as pro-Russian—fuels skepticism about U.S. foreign policy priorities. Callers clash over drug wars, refugee policies, and constitutional concerns, underscoring deep divisions ahead of the midterms. [Automatically generated summary]
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
The flag replacement program got started by a good friend of mine, a Navy vet, who saw the flag at the office that needed to be replaced.
Said, wouldn't this be great if this is going to be something that we did for anyone?
Comcast has always been a community-driven company.
This is one of those great examples of the way we're getting out there.
Comcast supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Coming up this morning on Washington Journal, along with your calls and comments live, we'll talk about Campaign 2026 and political news of the day with University of Virginia Center for Politics Director Larry Sabato.
And then Elise Labbitt, global affairs journalist and Cosmopolitics Substack newsletter author on U.S. foreign policy and current global affairs, including the latest on peace talks between Russia and Ukraine and U.S. tensions with Venezuela.
In recent days, much attention is being directed towards Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, largely due to his approach to destroy boats in the Caribbean, accused of drug trafficking, and most recently, if his approach is legal, with questions about those strikes even coming from key Republican members of Congress.
The Secretary is still getting much support from President Trump and other Republicans over his tenure at the Defense Department.
And to start the program today, how much confidence do you have in Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth?
Here's how you can let us know your thoughts this morning.
202748-8001 for Republicans, 202748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents 202748-8002.
Former and active military, you can give your thoughts on the tenure of Pete Hegseth on the line 202748-8003.
You can use that same line to text us your thoughts if you wish.
And as always, you can post on Facebook and on X.
A follow-up story in the Washington Post this morning, which initially broke the story last week concerning that one strike in September in Venezuela.
Noah Robertson and Tara Kopp reporting this morning that officials in Congress and the Pentagon said Monday they are increasingly concerned that the Trump administration intends to scapegoat the military officer who directed U.S. forces to kill two survivors of a targeted strike on suspected drug smugglers in Latin America as lawmakers made initial moves to investigate whether the attack constituted a war crime.
The Post reporting on Friday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave spoken order to kill the entire crew of a vessel that thought to be ferrying narcotics in the Caribbean, see the first of nearly 20 strikes directed by the administration since early September.
When two survivors were detected, the military commander overseeing the operation, Admiral Frank Bradley, directed another strike to comply with the Defense Secretary's order that no one be left alive.
People with direct knowledge of the matter telling that post.
The Trump administration said 11 people were killed.
It also adds that Caroline Levitt, the White House press secretary, acknowledged Monday that Mr. Hegseth had authorized Bradley to conduct the strikes on September the 2nd.
You can see that full press conference on our main channel or on our website and our app.
But here is Caroline Levitt yesterday on the latest when it comes to those strikes in Venezuela and the Defense Secretary.
unidentified
The president said yesterday that Secretary Hegset had denied that that second strike, the reported second strike, on an alleged drug vote on September 2nd.
The Secretary said to the president that that didn't happen.
But to clarify, I just wanted you to clear this up.
In his social media post, Secretary Hegset didn't go into details about that strike.
He just said U.S. operations in the area were lawful, and he said that the story and media reports were fabricated.
So to be clear, does the administration deny that that second strike happened, or did it happen?
And the administration denies that Secretary Hegset gave the order.
The latter is true, Yabe, and I have a statement to read for you here.
President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war.
With respect to the strikes in question, on September 2nd, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes.
Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.
unidentified
And I would just add one more point to remind the American public why these lethal strikes are taking place, because this administration has designated these narco-terrorists as foreign terrorist organizations.
The president has a right to take them out if they are threatening the United States of America and if they are bringing illegal narcotics that are killing our citizens at a record rate, which is what they are doing.
More about those strikes and the Defense Secretary overall said on in and around Washington yesterday.
We'll show you that, but you can make your thoughts known as well as far as your confidence in the tenure of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Again, the lines 202748-8001 for Republicans, Democrats 202748-8000, Independents 202748-8002.
And those active and former militaries, if you want to give your thoughts, 202748-8003 is how you do that.
The New York Times reports this morning that, according to five U.S. officials they spoke with separately and on condition of anonymity, they said that Mr. Hegseth, as head of that September 2nd attack, ordered a strike that would kill people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs.
But each official said Mr. Hegseff's directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out to not fully accomplish all of those things.
And the official said his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived that first blast, saying that Admiral Bradley ordered the initial missile strike and then several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors sank the disabled boat.
And as that operation unfolded, they said Mr. Hegseth did not give any further orders to him.
That's reported.
Reporting from the New York Times this morning.
Again, for those who are active and former military, Steve in South Carolina saying that he's former military.
In West Virginia, Axios offers a listing of those strikes that have taken place over the last weeks and months.
You can find their story online saying that the attacks have killed dozens so far.
The strikes are part of a broader pressure campaign on Venezuela and its president, Nicholas Maduro.
Also adding that the Department of Defense didn't immediately respond to the Axios request for comment.
They divided in categories, pre-strikes with the boats heading to Venezuela.
This in mid-August, that was the U.S. sending warships, spy planes, fighter jets, and bombers to the waters of Venezuela.
The first strike, strike one, which is the one that's been in the news recently, saying it was a precision strike against a drug vessel operated by a designated narco-terrorist organization on September the 2nd that kicked off the president's campaign.
It was then that Mr. Trump posted a video of the attack saying that it killed an alleged 11 members of the Chundiagua, a cartel base in Venezuela.
And this adding the friction point, which is you've seen over the last two days, saying it was that initial Washington Post reporting that the initial strike lit the boat on fire, but two survivors clinging to the wreckage over that.
There's more there when it comes to the listing of strikes that have been ordered by the Defense Department in the larger, broader campaign for narcoterrorism in the Caribbean.
There's video there, courtesy of the Secretary of War.
That's his ex-title about those strikes.
Let's go for Bobby.
Let's hear from Bobby in Florida.
Democrats line.
Your confidence in Pete Hegseth.
Bobby, go ahead.
unidentified
Yes.
Yes, I have confidence in Hexas, but I'm a Democrat, and I think we've got him now.
I think this is a clear step over the line of acceptable behavior, and we're going to play this out forever.
One of those critics of the Defense Secretary's actions, Senator Mark Kelly, holding a press conference yesterday, amongst the things he did talk about was this criticism of the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and actions he's taken.
If what seems to happen actually happened, I'm really worried about our service members.
I was talking about this from the beginning of this operation, that the thing that I am most concerned about is the very difficult situations that this Secretary of Defense is going to put service members into.
unidentified
And it's because this guy is so unqualified for the job.
When it comes to Congress, the Hill reporting a couple days ago that Senators Roger Wicker and Jack Reed issued a statement Saturday vowing to conduct, quote, vigorous oversight on Caribbean strikes after that report surfaced that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the U.S. military to quote kill everybody aboard that alleged drug vessel.
Quote, the committee is aware of these recent news reports and the Department of Defense's initial response regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels in Southcom area responsibility.
The committee has directed inquiries to the department and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to the circumstances.
And then it adds that in the next paragraph about that post story last Friday, which started the recent news and attention towards Pete Hegseth.
That's the headline if you want to read that from a couple of days ago.
Let's hear from Tony.
unidentified
Tony in New Jersey, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Thank you for all you do.
I think Senator Kelly was right in the fact that the American people do not know what the mission is.
With everything going on and the cabal that seems to be running the country, it could be that they're putting pressure using our military forces on the cartels to get a percentage of their proceeds.
It's a $500 billion a year business.
20% of that is a lot of money shipped to some secret crypto account.
Well, I think how does that deal with the Defense Secretary specifically, then?
unidentified
Well, he's just taking orders from someone else, isn't he?
If it goes against the rule of law, I think our senators and Congress and whoever's in charge of the intelligence committees that oversee these things should know all the facts.
I just want to make a few remarks about Pete Hegseth.
I think he is a hero.
I actually do.
I'm 88 years old.
I spent 25 years in the Army from 1955 right out of high school to 1980.
And when I first went in the Army in 1955, it was the way it was supposed to be.
You did what you were told.
You didn't question.
The drill sergeant could smack you upside the head, call you every name in the world, and he had every right to do it.
It made a lot of men out of a lot of boys.
And Pete Hegseth is trying to get the military back to that level again where they will follow orders and do what they're told and got rid of all this woke business.
And as far as the high and mighty American folks go say he's killing innocent people.
Don't they realize what he is destroying of those boats has enough stuff on it to kill most of the United States?
And Harry Truman didn't have much regret by giving the order to drop two atomic bombs in Japan and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
So I think Hag Smith is fine.
He is a hero.
I hope he stays in there and does more of the same thing.
Oscar, let's go to Randy, Randy, Democrats line in Michigan.
unidentified
Hello.
Good morning, Pedro.
The reason why I ain't got much, I don't have any faith in our government right now because the President of the United States pardoned the biggest drug dealer from Honduras president.
He dealt more drugs than anybody that's in Central America.
Trump just pardoned him.
He also pardoned Silk Road, the biggest drug dealer that sold drugs during the cryptocurrency scam, funneling money right into Trump.
The whole thing about it here is here in Michigan, we had 8,817 accidents from alcohol, 2,251 from drugs, all drugs.
You know, we treated 29,000 drunks to 4,000 drug addicts.
Now, you tell me which is more dangerous, 29,000 drunks or 4,125 drug addicts.
That's why I have no faith in our government because it's a big scam.
We're selling the most dangerous drug in the world to the rest of the world and telling everybody else, you can't sell no drugs.
We sell alcohol, the most dangerous drug of any drug.
Okay, Randy, there in Michigan, here's the opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal this morning, their lead editorial, shooting the wounded on drug boats.
Question mark is the editorial saying.
Our view is that the commander-in-chief deserves legal latitude as part of his constitutional war powers, but that doesn't extend to shooting the wounded in violation of U.S. and international rules of war.
The Pentagon's own law of war manual prohibits, quote, hostilities on the basis that there will be no survivors, close quote.
Such excesses will also turn the public against allowing a president the power that he may someday need to defend the country's interests quickly.
The HEGSEF story has additional currency because the administration isn't explaining its aims in the Caribbean with either voters or Congress.
Senators Wicker and Reed of the Senate Armed Services Committee have been writing to the Pentagon asking for more details on the legal rationale for its drug boat strikes.
They seem to get mostly a stonewall.
And then this opinion piece says that's all the more reason for Congress to learn the truth about the HEGSF story, and some are ready to do so.
Goes on from there.
You can find it online, that lead editorial from the Wall Street Journal.
Give your thoughts on your level of confidence in the Defense Secretary, Rick in Ohio, Republican line.
Hello.
unidentified
Hello.
Yeah, about these votes.
They ain't blowing enough of them up.
You know, you people.
America, just look around your neighborhoods.
Just look around.
Look around you.
These Democrat heads have put you people in a position where you can't think for yourselves anymore.
In Pennsylvania, let's hear next from, I believe it's Brenda in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Democrats line.
unidentified
Hey, good morning, Pedro.
I do not have any faith in Pete Hegseth in here.
Is why?
If you remember when he called all the admirals and generals back to Washington to give them a dressing down, everybody in that room had more education, more training, more military experience than Pete Hegseth had.
Every one of those uniformed men and women.
So that tells me that picking Hegseth for Secretary of Defense, that made Hegseth the DEI hire, because everybody in that room had far more experience and far more qualification than Hegseth did.
So that made Pete Hegseth a DEI hire.
And second, has anybody even considered the possibility that these motorized robots are just decoys?
I saw a documentary on El Chapo, Javier Fuentes, and the Felix brothers, a documentary from the 1980s when these guys were the head honcho drug cartels.
40 years ago, they were using unmanned submersibles, miniature submarines, to transport tons of drugs into the ports of Florida and California.
And they showed the Coast Guard and the DEA agents capturing these unmanned submersibles and showing the tons of drugs that were loaded on there.
And you want me to believe that 40 years later, multi-billion dollar drug cartels are sending motorized rowboats loaded with drugs.
It was on Fox News yesterday that Republican Senator Tom Cotton defending the administration's ultimatum to Venezuela leader Nicolas Maduro, the overall Venezuela policy.
Well, Maduro is the illegitimate leader of Venezuela.
There was an election last year.
Maduro lost it once again.
He has not been recognized as the legitimate leader of Venezuela for years by both the first Trump term and the Biden administration and now President Trump once again.
There's a long history of transitions from dictatorship to electoral democracies in Latin America when the strongman does leave the country.
I would say Maduro needs to go for this country to be safe from the drug cartels that have infiltrated his illegitimate government and that are continuing to try to run drugs into our country.
Fortunately, not nearly as much anymore since the Trump administration is taking that threat seriously.
But as long as Nicholas Maduro is in power in Venezuela, you're going to continue to see the risk not only of violence in Latin America, but the drugs that I've heard so much about from Arkansas sheriffs and police chiefs that are threatening our communities and that are killing our kids.
Nicholas Maduro needs to go.
That's what President Trump has made clear.
I think that's probably what he told him last week on the phone.
I'm sure that the Cuban intelligence services in Venezuela and Russian generals are urging him to stay.
But if he knows what's good for him, like so many other Latin American strongmen over the years, I think that it's time for him to go.
Just to offer you a little bit of the Defense Secretary's bio, according to the War Department website, Pete Hegseth being sworn in on January the 25th of this year, the 29th Secretary of Defense.
He was commissioned as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army National Guard after graduating from Princeton University in 2003.
He participated in a number of active duty deployments during his time in service, that including operations in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
The bio also adding that his military awards include two bronze star medals, the Joint Commendation Medal, two Army Commendation Medals.
It goes on from there if you're interested.
That's the website that you can find the bio for Pete Hegseth.
Let's hear from Elroy, former military from Maryland.
unidentified
Hello.
Hello.
I have absolutely no confidence in Hedgehog at all.
Now, they are blowing up these ships.
So far, they had one person that they caught, but they let him go home.
And then two other people that he killed, where he could have asked, where are they getting the drugs from?
Where are they going?
Any type of interrogation, they just gave up that opportunity.
He is an absolute clown.
I don't know what is wrong with these American people that are calling in and going along with this ignorance.
That's all it is.
Maduro needs to go.
No, ain't no doubt about that.
But we're going about it the wrong way.
He just wants, Trump wants to drag these people into a war.
I definitely agree with a lot of your callers who are able to think for themselves and put two and two together and understand exactly what Trump is trying to do in his administration.
They are trying to start a war.
He wants to start a war for he can try to stay in office.
In addition, if they believe that these people are trafficking drugs in the water or whatever the case might be, they have the opportunity to stop those boats and inspect and arrest these individuals and find out exactly where they're taking it and where it's coming from.
And if you're going to capture one of the women individuals and let them go, what was there?
That is something fishy about this whole entire process, okay?
And who's to say what's on those boats?
We can't take their word for anything because Trump and his administration lie so much.
And we cannot believe anything that they say, anything that they present, because they don't present anything with evidence.
And if they were trying to save American people, you have pharmaceutical companies that's pushing drugs every day.
If you want to continue on with your thoughts on Pete Hegseth, his tenure as Defense Secretary, the lines, Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats 202748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
Many of you former military giving us a call on the line that we've set aside for former and active military.
202-748-8003.
You can use that same line to text us if you want.
And then, as always, you can post on our social media sites there.
Let's go to Phyllis.
Phyllis and Colorado Republican line.
unidentified
Hi.
Good morning.
I'd just like to point out that the people in charge of this project don't know what's illegal and not legal.
Doesn't that make it incompetent in the first place?
This is the Washington Post editorial this morning on Pete Hegseth in recent news.
This is the headline, Pete Hegseff's Caribbean lawlessness, saying that the revelation ought to prompt a recognition from the that these killings were rotten from the start.
It seems to at least be puncturing the complacency of several congressional Republicans who previously bit their tongues about the attacks.
The leaders of the Senate and Armed Services committees are promising inquiries.
This editorial also saying, What danger did the shipwrecked men pose?
Without a second strike, they probably would have drowned.
They plainly posed no immediate threat.
Such flagrantly immoral behavior helps explain why Britain, America's closest ally, suspended intelligence sharing for the boat strikes.
This also adding that beyond legality, Congress deserves to hear more about the strategic implications of this campaign.
The U.S. has limited resources and faces threats in many theaters.
How many missiles is the Pentagon using for target practice on speedboats that could be easily stopped by the Coast Guard?
Again, that's more from the editorial from the Washington Post this morning.
If you want to read it there, let's go to John.
John, former military.
He in Connecticut.
Hello.
unidentified
Good morning, sir.
Yeah, I have faith in Pete Hegseph.
Absolutely.
I think he's done a fine job so far.
And one thing I have issues with is one lady called a Democrat saying those are robots, motorized robots.
First of all, I've done a lot of fishing.
You don't put a thousand horsepower on a boat and run open like that in the middle of the ocean.
There was no fishing rods seen any fishing equipment on these boats.
So I don't understand where these people get off saying they're motorized robots.
But I do have faith in our government.
I have faith in President Trump.
So we've got to give this administration a chance, which I feel that you guys do not.
You read from the New York Times, the New York Washington Post, all leftist magazines.
Yeah, that John from Connecticut, he wasn't in no military.
You know, all these officers, they go to school at West Point and they're taught the law.
Okay.
And headset, he stripped the jack, all this jack officer.
He stripped it, so he don't have nobody's tongue.
No, you can't do that.
You can't, you know, none of that.
And those six congressmen that made the video, you don't have to do, you know, or you know, do unlawful orders.
Now everything makes sense.
Like Chris Murphy said last night at CNN, all the officers in the military very understand now, HESCEC does not have your back.
And if you do any unlawful orders, you're going to be accountable for it.
And that's everywhere.
The Social Security Administration, because the dogs going in, everybody very understands they're going to be accountable when Trump is out of office, you know, and they're very asked for parties.
One of those criticisms on the Senate floor yesterday delivered by the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, talking about the administration's actions in Venezuela, specifically the military strikes.
What on earth is Donald Trump planning in Venezuela?
Is Donald Trump nudging America into another war?
Is he seeking regime change for Maduro?
Will he put U.S. troops in harm's way?
Nobody knows.
All we have is a bunch of contradictory statements from Trump.
Donald Trump seems to be planning a war totally in secret, without congressional authorization, without any transparency, without any explanation for what his goals even are.
And all it takes, all it takes, is one mistake, one miscalculation, one lapse in judgment from either side, and suddenly our troops could find themselves in an armed conflict with Venezuela.
Lives could be lost.
American security could suffer.
So I want to be very, very clear.
If Donald Trump proceeds with his plan to conduct strikes against Venezuela, Senators Kane, Paul, and I will immediately file a war powers resolution to force congressional action to block the use of troops in Venezuela.
The power to declare war lies in the hands of Congress, and we intend to exert that authority should the need arise.
UPI reporting this morning that it was the president hosting a meeting last evening at the Oval Office with top national security officials to discuss Venezuela.
As the administration ramps up, pressure on the country and President Maduro, the White House also facing pressure from lawmakers to provide more of those details on a second strike targeting an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean.
Important cabinet and security team members join the meeting.
It was scheduled for 5 o'clock yesterday.
That included the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseff, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Kaine, General Dan Kaine, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, as well as the White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wils, and the Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller.
That meeting wrapped up Monday night.
No details on what were discussed.
Vic in New Jersey, Republican line, the confidence level you have in Pete Hegseff as Defense Secretary.
Vic, good morning.
unidentified
Oh, Pic.
How are you doing?
Listen, I got two points to make.
Number one, I am a Marine Corps veteran, and I love Pete Hegset and everything he's doing.
And my first point is this.
As far as Chuck Schumer goes, he's talking about Trump being a warmonger.
These are the people who sent billions of dollars to the Ukraine and got literally tens of thousands of people killed on both sides in a winless war against Russia.
And they also, by the way, never resolved to join NATO years ago when they should have.
And my second point is, as far as these ships getting bombed, first of all, they're small boats with twin mercs on them carrying hundreds of pounds of fentanyl.
And until one of these Democrats loses their children to fentanyl, as one of my daughters lost their boyfriend to fentanyl years ago because of all the crap that Biden let come into this country, Pete Hegseth has every right to defend the Constitution of the United States and its sovereign people that live here.
We do not want fentanyl dragged into this country anymore.
He's doing the best job that he can, and he's supporting the Constitution by destroying terrorists from their point of origin, bringing drugs into this country.
Enough said, keep Democrats off their rocker.
That's it.
Trump's straightening the country out.
And I'm all for the military with having men and women serving, not 56 genders.
Number one, he came into the office and he fired all the Jaguar officers.
Those are the people that would inform Pete Hexet what is right, what is wrong.
A lot of those boats that are leaving Venezuela and going over in the southern Caribbean are refugees looking for better life outside of Venezuela.
So when Donald Trump and Pete Hexett say that they're blowing up boats with narco-terrorists, a lot of those people on those boats are men, women, and children fleeing Venezuela looking for a better life.
Yes, there are narco-terrorists amongst them, but this is the job of the United States Coast Guard to interdict and detain these people and bring them to justice.
You do not go into anybody's territory and blow up boats.
We don't know what's on these boats because they blow them up.
Normally, narco-traffickers don't put 11 people on a boat.
They need that space for more drugs, right?
So logically, they're killing people who we don't know if they're innocent or not.
We don't know if they're being trafficked or not.
But apart from that, Pete Hegseth, I think he's been promoted way beyond his capabilities.
You know, I've been to the doctor, but that doesn't mean I'm qualified to be a heart surgeon, right?
Do you want me operating on your heart?
No, trust me, you don't.
The other part to this is I think we're just in the fog, and this is all going to clear soon enough.
And when I was in the military, it was driven into me.
You do not follow illegal orders.
That's full stop.
You do not follow illegal orders, or you can be prosecuted yourself.
And killing people who are wounded in battle or on a narco-trafficker trafficker boat, even if they're narco-traffic traffickers, that is an illegal act.
Okay?
In World War II, the Germans, they're in the foxholes.
They're holding up their hands, surrendering.
You don't shoot them.
You take them prisoner.
That's not what the United States is about.
But apparently it is now.
But I'm hoping that this fog will lift and we'll all come back to our sanity soon.
Yeah, you know, I think this is kind of like uh, and it will first with Pete Hegseth.
Um, I mean, I have as much confidence in him as I do any other uh secretary of defense.
Um, they all kind of get in there and they do the same thing, they follow the same tactics.
Um, right now, with this narco-terrorist business in Venezuela, I mean, they just labeled them as that to engineer consent with the American people.
They want to make everybody believe that you know these people are bad, label them as narco-terrorists, take over their oil reserves, replace Maduro with somebody who will do what America says.
It's like Iraq 2.0.
This is what they tried to do with Juan Guaido.
Nobody probably remembers him.
Trump's first term, Juan Guaido, was that they claimed that he won the election, you know, even though it was completely refuted by everybody in the country.
It was insane, and they're doing it again.
You know, this is just regime change for another country.
Okay, that's Michael in Maryland, one of the people still expressing confidence as of Sunday, and his defense secretary, President Trump himself on Air Force One, talking about the alleged kill order, his overall comments on Pete Hegseth.
I listened to what you have to say, and you obviously probably got red hats and a Trump watch and Trump crypto and all the stuff that he's selling on Fox, the Nazi station.
I'm a veteran, 7983.
German soldiers also loved Hitler, I will guarantee you, because he gave them high salaries in 1938.
There's a saying that's attributed to Maya Ashmill Rothcalf.
It says, give me control of a nation's money.
I care not who makes her laws.
I believe this is the premise from which Donald Trump is operating since his first day in office.
All this stuff about Pete Hegseth, he's a greatly unqualified man and position.
Donald Trump, they got rid of all of the qualified people out of the government so that he could put in these stooges that are just doing whatever they will.
I mean, from Pete Hegseth to the Department of Education, to the Department of Health, to, I mean, all these people in the Trump administration are greatly unqualified.
And as far as Pete Hegseth, my confidence in his defense secretary, I have absolutely no confidence in him.
He's going to get us in a war, but that's what Donald Trump wants.
Like a previous caller said, if we go to war, we can't have elections.
Mark in Woodbridge, Virginia, former member of the military.
unidentified
Hi.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning, C-SPAN.
I served in the U.S. Army.
I'm very pleased with Pete Hagseh.
And I'm not a MAGA person.
I'm not an independent.
I'm not a Donald Trump fan.
But I do agree with the name change.
I served in the military.
I despise serving in the military, seeing fat officers, DEI hires.
And I'm a minority.
So I'm really pleased that he's got rid of, changed the standards, raised the standards back.
As far as the people in the Venezuela and the Bof, yeah, triple strike.
I don't know why we're wasting whistles.
I don't know why we can't shoot them with bullets in the water.
Here's my understanding.
We have a declaration of war against drugs.
Multiple presidents have signed it.
I'm not familiar with each of the laws that are drugs against war, but this is war, and this is what war looks like.
And I don't agree with the UN and the UN doctrine.
I'm not certain that we as the Senate voted to adhere to the UN doctrine as far as war and whatnot, but we most certainly need to leave that doctrine, right?
We need to leave that doctrine.
And I think that the press and people are framing this wrong.
I think the change in the consciousness of our country is from being globalist and feminist to returning to a nationalist, centrist where we're not overly masculine and we're not overly feminine.
When it comes to the Secretary of War himself, this a couple of postings from his ex-account.
It was on November the 28th, last week, right after Thanksgiving, saying, as usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.
As we've said from the beginning and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically, and it goes on from there, but there's more there.
But in recent days, Pete Hagseff himself posting on his personal account a mock-up of Franklin the Turtle cover.
This was Franklin Target's narco-terrorist.
That's the cover.
That putting on the that putting out of the cover, the modified cover, prompted a response from the children's book manufacturer saying the publisher of the series Franklin for Turtle, the Franklin Turtle, hit out at unauthorized depictions of its main character after the defense secretary posted that mock cover of Franklin shooting at drug traffickers.
He shared that image Sunday of the children's book, Franklin Targets Narco-Terrorist, showing the eponymous turtle dressed in military gear.
And then it says the post was a reference to the Trump administration's deadly strikes on suspected drug smuggling vehicles in the Caribbean.
Quote, Franklin the Turtle is a beloved Canadian icon who has inspired generations of children and stands for kindness, empathy, and inclusivity.
That's the publisher, Kids Compress.
He wrote in a statement, they wrote in a statement on X. Let's go to Maxine.
Maxine and Maryland Democrats line.
Hello, you're next up.
unidentified
Good morning, Pedro.
I have a question.
I'm trying to figure out how did Pete Hegset know who was on the boat?
Who gave him the orders to do that?
And I just don't understand it.
You know, is he going to just shoot everything that comes up?
He just goes shoot it under the air on the water.
My thing is, how did he know those drug traffickers are whoever were in the water?
Mike joins us from North Carolina, our line for those formerly in the military.
Mike, hello.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
Good morning, America.
You know, I backed our current Secretary of War.
But I think, you know, to clear the air a little bit better, maybe if they would capture a few of these boats, bring some evidence, you know, forthwith to the American people and prove that, you know, these are, in fact, drug boats.
You know, I believe they are, but, you know, just blowing them out of the water like they are is a little barbaric.
You know, I think it might go over a little bit better if they were captured, brought to trial, and the evidence brought forth for the American people, then we could make a decision on our own.
The Associated Press offers discussions with legal experts about this boat strike and the law that's behind it.
The Associated Press story is saying that it doesn't matter whether the U.S. is, quote, in armed conflict with drug cartels, as the Trump administration asserts such a fatal attack, that second strike they're referring to, would have violated peacetime laws and those governing armed conflict, according to expert.
This quotes Michael Schmidt, former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the Naval War College, saying, I can't imagine anyone, no matter what the circumstance, believing it is appropriate to kill people who are clinging to a boat in the water.
This is clearly, that is clearly unlawful.
He goes on to say, sorry for that pop-up, saying that the White House saying, confirming Monday that a second strike was conducted against that vessel, accused of trafficking drugs off the coast of Venezuela.
They insisting it was, quote, done in self-defense and according with the laws of armed conflict.
And there's more there if you're interested in hearing about the legal backgrounds to what's going on in the Caribbean.
Eve up next in Michigan, Democrats line.
unidentified
Hi.
Yes, good morning, Pedro.
As far as I'm concerned, Donald Trump is Donald Trump, and he's the DEI.
And all of this is just a smokescreen as far as I'm concerned, what Donald Trump is doing, because he, you know, everybody was about to get down to the bottom of the fact of him being in that organization or whatever they were doing with Epstein.
People haven't forgotten about Epstein and Donald Trump.
Donald Trump was in that situation with him, and they were doing all of this stuff with those women standing up.
That's the reason why Marjorie had to go away because she was getting too close to the fact that Donald Trump was right to the nitty-gritty with the young lady that he was doing this sex trafficking with.
First of all, that's an allegation that you're making.
And second of all, how does this deal with Pete Hagseff specifically?
unidentified
Well, it just goes to show you.
Donald Trump himself is a DEI, and so is HESCEF.
And the thing about it is none of them are qualified to do the job that they're doing.
You know, really, to be honest, tell you the truth, the United States is the laughing stock of the whole world because for one thing, they got people unqualified for the first time running this country, and this does not make any sense.
And everybody knows that.
People know that.
Even the people coming on talking about what Hedgehog is doing is right or whatever.
They know that this is a lie.
It is all a lie.
Trump is doing this to hide his situation.
He don't want to be put out of office.
And the thing about it is he should be brought up on charges for all the things that he's done that's treasonous to this country.
That's Cheryl there in New York, finishing off this hour of calls.
Thanks to all of you who participated.
We'll continue on with this discussion and other matters of foreign affairs later on with the program with global affairs.
Journalist Elise Labbitt will give us an update on all these things.
You can ask her questions about it.
But first and foremost, in talking about politics, the University OF Virginia Center FOR Politics Director, Larry Sabado.
Taking a look ahead at 2026, issues that are motivating voters and other topics.
We'll have that conversation when Washington Journal continues.
Past president nominated.
Why are you doing this?
This is outrageous.
unidentified
This is a Kennaroot Court.
Fridays, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity.
Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
Politico Playbook chief correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns is host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue.
Ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides.
Fridays at 7 and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series.
This Sunday with our guest, best-selling author Jodi Pico, who has written 29 books about a wide range of controversial and moral issues.
Her books include The Storyteller, 19 Minutes, and Her Latest by Any Other Name.
She joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein.
What are important things to consider, even though it's still a ways away, what are things to consider right now when it comes to next year?
unidentified
You always want to look first and foremost at the presidential approval rate.
What is the job approval of the incumbent president?
And that is scoping in lots of things, such as the condition of the economy, whether people are happy or unhappy with living conditions domestically.
If there are any really major international operations that directly affect and involve American troops, these are things that have an impact on the vote, and you look at the trends over time.
Well, if that was the job approval on Election Day 2026, next November, then Democrats would almost certainly take over the House, regardless of what happens with redistricting in all of these states.
unidentified
And they'd actually have a shot at the Senate.
It would be difficult, but not impossible.
So obviously, Republicans have to hope that isn't the number then.
And of course, let's remember now, Gallup is a very good pollster, been around a long time, gold standard, but that is just one poll.
And the average of the polls that are considered nonpartisan right now has Trump at 40, 41, 42%.
That isn't good either, but it's a lot better than 36%.
So a lot can change, and you also have to remember to use polling averages.
If the election were held today, would you vote for a Democrat or Republican in your district or for the House of Representatives or your state for the U.S. Senate?
unidentified
That's generic ballot without using names and bringing in personalities.
Yes, that has been trending toward the Democrats.
They started very low, actually, at the beginning of Trump's term.
Republicans, if anything, were a little bit ahead.
If they implode or explode Section 2, which tends to favor Democrats and incumbent Democrats who are minorities, then Republicans could gain another 10 seats out of that.
unidentified
So I'm not saying this couldn't add up to determine the results.
On the whole, though, Democrats have had a fight back strategy that has minimized so far the Republican advantage in re-redistricting.
I would say Republicans have an advantage, but it's maybe three, four, five seats, whereas it could have been 10 plus seats so far.
Larry Sabado giving us his time, talk about politics.
You could ask him questions, 202-748-8001 for Republicans.
Democrats, 202-748-8,000 for Democrats and independents, 202-748-8002.
For independents, you can text us at 202-748-8003.
Mr. Sabado, how much weight do you put in those governor's elections in Virginia and New Jersey?
Democratic wins for both.
Some saying not so much.
Some saying maybe it's a sign.
How much weight do you put in them?
unidentified
It's certainly better to win than lose.
And it's even better to win in landslides.
And those landslides were not predicted.
The good polling, the nonpartisan polling, showed the Democrats winning, showed certainly Spanberger in Virginia winning by a very wide margin.
Less so for the Democrat in New Jersey, clearly ahead, but not ahead by as much as Spanberger.
Well, they both won in landslides, unpredicted by the polls, and they had coattails that were substantial.
In Virginia, for example, Democrats went from a bare majority of 51 seats in the lower house of the state legislature to 64 seats in the lower house of the state legislature.
They haven't been there since the late 1980s, back when Democrats used to run the state legislature easily.
But the second most important thing that often is as revealing or more revealing than who wins is what's the margin and how has the margin for the winner changed since the last presidential election just a year ago.
unidentified
Now, Trump won easily throughout Tennessee.
It was an overwhelming victory for Trump.
And in that particular district, Tennessee 7, he won by 22 percentage points.
So we're all going to be looking at the results.
I tend to think, I wouldn't put a lot of money on it, but I think the Republican will keep that seat.
But we're looking to see: is it 22 points or is it 11 points or is it five points?
I think C-SPAN probably should have a guy called Nathan Taylor from, I don't know if you're familiar with Election Truth Alliance, but he has been doing statistical research and models for countries that manipulate elections.
And it shows like for all the swing states he's been doing, like statistically, because he's like North Carolina, for instance, he said like 100% of all the counties had a higher turnout for Trump than anything else.
Is there something that should be looked into?
Because it seems like it seems that like who's also doing something about telling like voter like hand counts versus the regular computer manipulation, things like inconsistencies.
But if you look it up, if you're not familiar with him, it's Nathan Taylor from Election Truth Alliance.
Because, you know, states like North Carolina, like if you look, he was saying something about, like, if you look at the past elections, like 2016 and 2020, the difference between the governor and the final count from the governor and the presidential is like maybe 20 to 30,000 votes between 2016 to 2020.
And this last election was over 100 and some thousand difference less.
I have more confidence in the systems that we use, the machines we use, the methods of involving both parties or multiple parties, depending on the state or locality, in supervising the elections and counting the ballots and all the rest.
That's not to say that there is never any instance of fraud.
But on the whole, we have a very solid system that people can and should have confidence in.
unidentified
Now, as to your question here, it's always worth examining.
And I welcome, I think most people in this field welcome people examining the statistics of the election, the way they're conducted.
There are always improvements that can be made.
And you look over the course of American history, and we've had tremendous improvements.
There was once very substantial fraud in some areas of the United States.
You couldn't really trust the election results.
I don't think that's true anymore, at least in the vast majority of places.
So we need to have confidence in our system overall, even as we question parts that we think can be improved.
unidentified
Now, as to the specifics of that gentleman's suggestion, I'll look up the person he was referring to.
One thing that he did mention that I recognize is that people voting for governor versus people voting for president.
You have something called ballot drop-off, sometimes called ballot falloff, in which people come into the ballot place and maybe they only want to vote for president.
And you have a percent or two or three that just vote for president and they leave.
They don't vote for governor.
They don't vote for Congress.
They don't vote for Senate.
They don't vote for sheriff.
Probably sheriff's the most important thing you can vote for if you're interested in your own welfare.
And that is a consistent phenomenon.
We've seen this for decades and decades and decades.
I don't encourage that.
I want people to vote for everything on the ballot.
On the other hand, if they haven't studied the races and the candidates, in some cases, maybe it's better if they don't participate.
But do your homework in advance of voting.
And that way you can vote for every available office.
Mr. Sabado, we'll take her comments and you work through them.
But I also wanted you to talk about Prop 52, because that was one of the largest watch when it comes to redistricting.
And you brought it up.
So go ahead, please.
unidentified
Sure.
Well, the lady was certainly right that it passed overwhelmingly well over 60% of the vote.
And remember in the beginning, the early polls and commentary suggested that it might fail, that voters might not be convinced that this was necessary.
My personal view, just so you know, is I wish somehow we could ban all of these re-redistrictings in all states and both parties.
Once every 10 years is more than enough.
It causes so many problems, so much distress, so many bad feelings that last the whole decade.
And now potentially we're going to be re-redistricting every other year, every third year, and maybe in some places every year.
Sometimes it happens by court order, but in this case, it's voluntary to gain a partisan advantage.
Now, we all know where it started.
It started in the White House calling their friends in Texas saying, give us five additional seats.
And that's precisely what the Republican governor and the Republican legislature in Texas did, which then generated the counterproposal by Governor Newsom in California to take potentially five seats away from the Republicans to balance what the Republicans were doing in Texas.
And now it's in potentially 10 or 11 other states.
I don't think some of them will end up passing it, but it could be.
This is not healthy.
We all talk about the viciousness of partisanship today.
Do you think this helps it?
It makes it worse.
It makes it worse.
But you can't convince partisans not to take partisan advantage.
Thanks for the segue because I wanted to get your assessment, Mr. Sabado, of the change or the changing of Marjorie Taylor Greene.
unidentified
Yes, it was amazing.
It was actually more surprising than Elon Musk.
Everybody kind of expected Trump and Elon Musk to break up their partnership at some point because they're both volatile by nature.
And Marjorie Taylor Greene is volatile too, but she seems so personally committed to Donald Trump.
Now, there are all kinds of speculations about why she did it, some personal motives, some political motives.
I can't get inside her head.
I can't tell you precisely what her motives were.
But it's significant because it tells you that at least a slice, I don't know how big the slice is.
It certainly isn't a majority of MAGA, but it's a slice of MAGA, has become disillusioned with Trump for various reasons.
Some on the Epstein files, which I think explains some of what Marjorie Taylor Greene was upset about.
Some on other matters.
I've heard complaints from various quarters in MAGA about Trump's interest in foreign policy and potential interventions and actual interventions in other people's wars.
And MAGA thought they were getting away from that, that we wouldn't have the George W. Bush mentality in the future in the Republican Party.
So there are lots of reasons for it.
I would just suggest to you that Marjorie Taylor Greene has gotten a lot out of this.
She's gotten fame.
And that fame is going to be converted into, fill in the blank.
Is it a run for major statewide office or even a run for the presidency?
Or is it conversion to a big television show or radio show or books, whatever it may be?
I don't know where she's going to end up, but she's better off today than she was 10 years ago in terms of doing well financially, politically, and otherwise.
Yeah, I wanted to ask you about, you know, the caller called earlier about having confidence in an election.
And I agree with you that most all of our systems, you know, are pretty top-notch, and there's a lot of scrutiny and oversight from both sides.
So people should feel confident.
But at the same time, there's strange other things that happen that legislators can do in different states.
Like there was a fellow, he's a spokesperson and a well-known figure named Tom Hartman.
He was a guest on C-SPAN a little while back, and he was speaking, he made reference to in some states when legislatures can change, well,
Redistricting is a lot of, but when he that Tom Hartman was speaking of someone, some expert supposedly, that did a study and that there were potentially millions of legitimate U.S.
Citizen voters that were removed from the voter registration rolls in a lot of states where Republican legislators mandated that that was okay to Do, And then when people go to vote, their vote is challenged.
You don't exist on our voting registration roll.
Well, what do you mean I don't?
I'm registered, you know.
But these people, a lot of these people have been removed from the voter registration roles.
For sake of time, what would you like then, our guest to address specifically?
unidentified
Well, if Mr. Sabato, if he's aware of, and if your producers could look up some facts upon that, about what Mr. Hartman had said, that this other expert had stated that there were potentially millions of voters that were removed from the voter registration rolls in many Republican legislator-controlled states.
And when people went to vote, their vote was challenged.
Well, I'm guessing here, I didn't see Mr. Arbin's presentation, but I'm guessing that he's referring in part to the electoral purges, the voter roll purges that occur in virtually every state, in which people who have died or moved away and haven't voted in a certain number of years are taken off the rolls.
unidentified
I'm always wary of that process because we never, ever want a citizen to have his or her vote taken away from them.
There's nothing more discouraging to a citizen than that.
unidentified
On the other hand, you certainly want to remove those who have died or moved away because that would encourage voter fraud if you had all these people who could not vote and other people knew they weren't available to vote and therefore could manipulate in some fashion their votes.
But purging, even in Virginia, I think it was every four years, people who hadn't voted even once in four years were taken off.
Well, that's not really a very long period of time.
You never know what people are doing.
They may be living abroad.
It's more difficult to vote from abroad and so on.
And I agree with the gentleman that when people go to vote and their names are not on the rolls, there has to be a provisional vote.
And again, this now exists in almost all states, maybe all states, have provisional votes where even if you're not on the rolls, you can cast a ballot.
Now, the downside is you have a certain number of days.
It varies by state, to contact the registrar and prove you are who you said you are and you're a citizen and you registered and whatever they require.
And that is an additional burden.
It's enough to get people to send in an absentee or an early vote or to come to the polls on election day, then to add this additional layer where they have to prove they're who they say they are and that they really deserve to vote.
Susan in Massachusetts there, she mentioning that video that came out a couple of weeks ago with those legislators.
Mr. Sabado, factor that into our conversation.
unidentified
They have the right of speech and debate.
They have First Amendment rights.
They're allowed to say whatever they want.
In fact, if anything, they have stronger First Amendment rights than the rest of us because they're in public office and they're protected via the Constitution in doing that.
That doesn't mean they're right in what they say because they're responsible for what they say and they have to pay the consequences of what they say, whatever those consequences are.
I have no problems with people feeling very strongly and passionately about their partisan ID or about their favored candidates or their favored office holders, as this lady does about President Trump.
What you don't want is for people to take it too far.
Now, what do I mean by too far?
Because the First Amendment permits you to take it pretty far, at least in terms of speech.
You don't want to have speech turn into threats and violence.
And we have been seeing entirely too much of that all around the country, targeting people in both parties and some that are not affiliated with parties, but are active in public affairs.
Mr. Sabado, we talked about Marjorie Taylor Greene, but Axio says that for this cycle, when it comes to announcements of retirement, 26 Republicans say about their intention to retire versus 18 Democrats.
What do you think about that rate of retirement and which party gets most affected, at least at this stage?
unidentified
Well, the assumption has been that you would have a fair number of retirements announcing early in the new year.
So I don't know about the balance.
It's not that far apart right now between Democrats and Republicans.
I can tell you this, based on some conversations that I've had with public officials, to connect it to my prior answer.
They're factoring in, that is the incumbents in Congress and in other positions, are factoring in the threats to their personal safety and even worse, their families' personal safety.
The number of threats directed just at members of Congress, just take the House and the Senate together, has gone from about 2,000 a year in just a few years ago, and that's way too many, by the way, to 10,000 a year.
There are 535 members of Congress and 10,000 threats against them and their families, and then the threats against judges.
Look, this has got to stop.
And it only stops when all of us speak out against it and confront in a peaceful way those that are inclined to do this and explain that they can't do it.
And if they refuse to be convinced, turn it over to law enforcement.
Even this morning, political reporting that it was Senator Schumer saying his New York office is receiving threats, bomb threats.
There's a story headline.
Let's hear from Mary.
Mary joins us from Georgia, Independent Line with Larry Sabateau.
Go ahead.
unidentified
Good morning, Pedro.
I want to ask Mr. Sabato about what he thinks about the role of AI in these future elections.
And in particular, I wanted to talk about the fake video that came out in the OSSOF campaign, where John Osoff is running for reelection here in Georgia to the Senate.
And one of his Republican contestants came out with a video that showed Osoff supporting things that the real John Ossoff actually is against.
And he later said that this was made using AI.
So I wondered if Mr. Sabato could comment on the poor voter who is going to now have to distinguish between the real candidate and the fake candidate.
She has identified a real and growing problem in our politics that's only going to get worse and worse.
Now, we've always had squirrely, extremely negative and personal advertisements since the 1960s.
It really took off in the 1980s, but since the 1960s, we've had this for television.
It was easier to control when you only had a certain number of outlets.
And all these ads could be carefully examined, even by the individual stations.
And sometimes they would reject ads, not because they disagreed with the message, but because there was something in them that was a lie or completely deceptive or wrong.
Well, now with social media and with 400 channels of one variety or another, it's impossible to supervise all this.
And also, the AI is becoming so good that even the experts can't tell what's real and what's phony.
So all I can tell you is it's a major problem.
And I wish I had a one, two, three answer to it because I don't.
And I've talked to a lot of people about this.
And the other experts in the field don't seem to have an answer either.
We had better come up with one because it's getting worse and worse.
You put it out on Facebook or X or any of the other social media you can name.
And it's everywhere before you can shake a stick.
And then how do you reconvert the false ideas into the correct values or facts that actually exist?
Some of the people who've seen it never hear the other side.
Let's hear from Ted, who joins us from Hawaii, Democrats line.
unidentified
Hello, Pedro.
Good to see you again.
I haven't seen you in months.
But yeah, Larry is tapping on a very important thing.
You know, there's a lot of places where you try to get into a site, a computer site, and they have a, are you a robot?
It's the sort of a test that you can run.
And everybody's probably seen it.
But there's no reason why that system like that couldn't be developed to verify if that AI is AI or is it the real person?
And if they can or other businesses, and they're already doing it, they just need to adapt an already usable platform for that to check if it is an AI that you can ignore and identify it as such.
They do it to us when I want to go in different sites, even to go to Home Depot or whatever, just to go search for product.
And I'm in Hawaii where products are a long ways away.
So anyway, there's no reason, Mr. Sabato, that we couldn't alter an existing system to identify AI to crush its non-usability.
Does that make sense?
I'm sorry.
That's very optimistic.
And I hope that's true.
And I'm delighted to hear that somebody's working on these systems or that they already exist in some form for commercial products.
You know, most of the innovations come from the commercial side, and then they're adapted to politics for better or ill, and usually less efficiently or effectively than the commercial products have been able to do.
Mr. Sabato, we have the potential of some of those Obamacare era subsidies ending this year.
Could that be a swaying factor in next year's election, if that happens?
unidentified
Oh, absolutely.
And that's why many Republicans want to find a solution that they can support, because being the party in charge of the White House and the Senate and the House, even by small margins, means they will be held responsible for what happens with the Obamacare subsidies.
If they're not continued and people see their insurance bills climbing, I've seen estimates of 1,000% or 1,500% or whatever.
I've been reading accounts just this morning where the Republican leadership has become very pessimistic about finding something in time to rescue these subsidies.
But from a political perspective, they really ought to do that.
In regards to Marjorie Taylor Greene, you know, you thought that she's going to be just fine, but the country is not just fine because another politician has been crushed.
And she was crushed by Donald Trump.
He knows that if he calls her a traitor and everything else that he said about her, he knows what the reaction will be.
And this is why nobody is challenging Donald Trump is because fear.
He deals in fear.
And everyone knows that if they challenge him, that he will crush their political career.
What are your thoughts on that?
Well, she's certainly correct that the language of politics today and people on both sides go too far.
I would have to say President Trump goes too far daily, sometimes hourly and sometimes by the minute.
I think there were 400 posts by President Trump or retweets on X during the night or put on True Social and then they just transferred them to X.
I don't want to blame anybody in particular.
I don't think that's appropriate in this forum.
But if I ruled the world, I would definitely ban language like, you're a traitor.
That does encourage people who have strong political opinions to go too far, to think they're being a patriot by taking violent actions against a, quote, traitor.
No, we don't need that kind of language in politics.
To talk about foreign affairs and other related matters, joining us next, global affairs journalist Elise Labbitt on UIT to update us on U.S.-led efforts in Venezuela, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, and other rising tensions across the world.
Elyse Labatt joins us next on Washington Journal.
unidentified
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series.
This Sunday with our guest, best-selling author Jody Pico, who has written 29 books about a wide range of controversial and moral issues.
Her books include The Storyteller, 19 Minutes, and Her Latest by Any Other Name.
She joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubenstein.
And you can't always have a discussion with people.
Some people just aren't ready to hear it.
But there are a lot of minds that you can change one mind at a time.
unidentified
Watch America's Book Club with Jody Pico this Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
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.
C-SPAN, official media partner of America 250.
Today is Giving Tuesday.
Join us on this global day of generosity.
Every day, C-SPAN delivers access to the workings of democracy without spin and without commentary.
Your support makes that possible.
Help ensure government remains accessible to everyone.
Visit c-span.org slash donate and make your Giving Tuesday gift today.
We are joined now by Elise Labbitt, the subst founder of Cosmopolitics, a global affairs journalist, also a professor at the American University School of International Service.
Well, I mean, cosmopolitics is really about the intersection between politics and foreign policy.
So we look at international issues, global trends, and U.S. issues related to international affairs, but also the idea that, you know, it should, there's always this saying politics should stop at the water's edge, but often politics does get infused, let's say, to foreign policy, as we see with some of the issues we're talking about today.
So I try to examine it a little bit through that lens, but really keeping the substance on the foreign policy issues and just helping Americans and the audience really understand how to connect all these dots, you know, without the political talking points, without the spin, just talking about these issues and all the nuance involved.
Nuance sometimes is a bad word, but I think sometimes it really helps in terms of understanding.
So in terms of Venezuela and Caribbean, everybody knows the big story, but what are the nuances there?
unidentified
Well, the nuances is there's so many complex issues at play, right, Pedro?
And it's all conflated.
And at the same time, no one really knows what's going on.
So there's the idea of drugs and narco-trafficking.
Then there's the idea of President Maduro in Venezuela.
What's his role in these narco-trafficking and also in the region and stability in the region, democracy, things like that?
And then there's the whole issue of President Trump's migration policy and how this issue is infused with gangs, cartels that he claims are infecting the United States.
And at the same time, there's a lot of legal issues involved, which I'm sure we'll talk about, but no one really knows the legal justification for this new war, so to speak, that hasn't been authorized by Congress.
But apparently, the U.S. is at war with narco-trafficking.
So there's a legal, there's a political, there's a foreign policy, and then there's the drug issue.
This centers around the actual blowing up of ships or boats that we've been showing people all morning.
Several people have called and said, what is the legal basis right now, even in a broad sense?
What's the legal basis the U.S. is using to justify this?
unidentified
Well, no one really knows.
And that's why Congress is starting to get a little bit more concerned and start to ask for investigations, particularly in light of this one strike that we'll talk about.
But I think no one really knows the legal justification, but the administration has passed a number of orders saying that some of these Venezuelan drug cartels are terrorist organizations.
They're narco-traffickers.
And so they've notified Congress that the U.S. is at war with these narco-traffickers, which I'll say they're very deadly gangs.
And they're bringing drugs.
Primarily, the most of the drugs are not coming the United States.
We talk a lot about fentanyl, right?
A lot of the fentanyl, most of it, is coming from Mexico with Chinese precursors, and it's coming either by land through Mexico or it's coming around the Pacific, you know, up towards the Pacific, the West Coast.
And that's why the Coast Guard has been traditionally the agency that's dealt with these.
And so, you know, it is related to drugs, but at the same time, it kind of came out of nowhere, right?
All of a sudden, we're at war with these drug cartels.
But as we'll talk about, I think there's a larger issue of President Maduro and his role in all of this.
Several people calling about that as well, so let's go there.
What's the issue?
unidentified
Well, President Maduro has been a thorn in the U.S. side for a long time.
If you remember, President Trump, when he first came to office, was also thinking about should the U.S. get involved in getting rid of Maduro, going to war with Maduro.
But at the time, it wasn't really about the drug cartels.
It was more about his treatment of his people.
There was a fraudulent election.
The U.S. didn't consider him the legal, the legitimate president.
If you remember, Juan Guaido was seen as this, the legitimate president.
He never really took power.
And so I think President Trump kind of figured, you know, this isn't happening.
He lost interest.
It's not worth it.
We can't do it.
Moved on.
But Maduro has continued to crack down on his people with a very heavy hand.
But now the issue, I think, is drugs because this is a more immediate issue for the U.S. national interest.
And he thinks this is how to do it more.
And now, as we said, the Coast Guard has really been the agency involved in all of these drug interdictions.
But now the U.S. military is involved.
And now that's an act of war, if you will.
But if Congress is supposed to be the oversight body that authorizes war, and Congress has been a little sleepy, let's say, since President Trump took office.
But now I think they're perking up and saying we need to have more involvement in this.
I was going to ask how much of a situation is it where the Senate Armed Services Committee, both the Republican and the Democrat chair on that city, now say we need more answers on this issue.
unidentified
Isn't it amazing that we finally found something that the Republicans and the Democrats can agree on?
This is, you know, they're both concerned not only about the legal justification for this one strike and whether it was, you know, according to the laws of war, but justification for this whole war against Venezuela.
What is the legal basis?
And should Congress have more of a hand?
And if we are going to war, and, you know, again, Maduro is a bad guy.
There is a relationship between Maduro.
He does have a heavy role in this narco-trafficking.
So all those countries taking a keen eye to what's going on specifically.
unidentified
Very much so.
And also, Colombia, you'll remember from about a month ago, the Colombia president was, one of the Colombian nationals, a narco-trafficker, was killed.
And the Colombian president was saying, hey, what's going on here?
My citizen was killed.
A lot of those drugs that are going through Venezuela are coming from Colombia.
And so then President Trump launched sanctions against Colombia.
Colombia is really the biggest U.S. partner, security partner in the region.
And the U.S. has been very involved with Colombia over the last decade or more in planned Colombia and cracking down on the cocaine trade there.
And so to alienate Colombia at a time when they could be mediators because the president is very close to Maduro.
They could be helpful in terms of security, certainly using Colombian air space for strikes, is a little bit curious why he's alienating.
My concern is this: nobody has proved who's on those boats.
Okay?
So you just shoot out boats because you think they're drug traffickers.
I don't see drug traffickers on these small boats with no room for all these drugs.
And let's shoot them all without any proof, without the Coast Guard, without any American authority getting these boats surrounded, getting these people off those boats, and then putting them in jail or questioning them or doing anything legal.
I mean, Jesse, that's exactly what everyone's asking.
Why aren't they?
What would happen is usually the Coast Guard would interdict these boats and they would get the drugs, they would get the drug smugglers.
I mean, these are very low-level drug smugglers.
These aren't the drug lords, if you will, right?
The leaders of the Cortels.
These are, you know, small fish, if you will.
And the question is: why are we interdicting these boats, taking the drugs?
And that's what everybody's asking right now.
This is typically what would happen.
And this latest strike that everyone is talking about, this one strike in September, there were about 11 fishermen on board, drug smugglers on this fishing boat.
And the question is: two, most of them were killed.
Two seem to have been survived, according to the reporting.
And the question is: why weren't they picked up and brought to the United States?
Why weren't the rest of the drugs interdicted?
This is a very heavy-handed approach to dealing with drug trafficking that the United States has typically not done.
Now, again, we do have a drug epidemic in the United States.
Thousands of people are being killed a year by fentanyl.
But again, fentanyl is not coming from Venezuela.
It's coming from Mexico.
So it's kind of being conflated.
And it is curious why we're having, I must say, the amount of military might that the U.S. has in the Caribbean right now is certainly the largest in the hemisphere since maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 60s.
But according to military experts, this is the largest deployment we have right now in the world.
You have the USS Gerald Ford, which is this aircraft carrier.
You have so much military hardware and about 15,000 troops.
We're not really sure that the threat demands this kind of presence.
I've been fishing a bunch, you know, and I don't see any rods and reels.
I don't see any cash nets or dip nets.
I don't even see any rod holders on those boats.
So how can you say that they are fishing boats when they're not?
Hey, and plus, they don't know who's on them boats.
Our intelligence is so good.
We know who's on them boats, what the length of the boat is, what size motor it's got, where it's going.
All you see is drugs and extra fuel.
And plus, Trump is just squeezing Maduro.
Maduro is in bed with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.
He's just squeezing them.
That's all he's doing.
Thank you.
Right.
Hank makes a very good point.
First of all, they're fishing boats, but they're not, you know, they're not fishermen.
I said fishermen, but I said it in quotes.
They're not fishermen.
You're right, Hank.
These are drug smugglers, okay?
Again, we don't know that they're part of this big drug cartel, the Venezuelan drug cartel, Trenta Agua, which is really the main one, even though Maduro seems to be head of this other one, Carta de Solas, that the U.S. also designated as a terrorist organization.
Look, Hank, there are drugs on board.
But again, you know, Hank makes the connection.
You know, it's a small boat, as he said.
These are fishing boats.
They don't have huge quantities of drugs.
This is really about trying to get rid of Maduro.
And Hank, again, makes this connection between Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations that are involved in this very big drug trade that is moving its way towards Europe.
And so, yes, there is justification in some people's minds, but I think what Congress is saying is: okay, lay it out.
Make a case and take it to the Congress and let Congress vote because those connections are there.
The Hezbollah connection with this drug trade and the cartels, and there's a lot of money, and it's not just in drugs, it's in human trafficking, it's in money laundering.
You know, it is fueling a lot of bad stuff going on in the world.
This is something a lot of people are talking about now.
President Trump just really recently pardoned the former president of Honduras, Juan Hernandez.
He was convicted of orchestrating a massive decades-long drug trafficking conspiracy, about 500 tons of cocaine into the United States.
And I'm just going to read this quote from my notes.
He boasted that he would stuff the drugs up the gringos' noses and accepted a bribe from that notorious drug lord, El Chapo.
And he was convicted in the United States.
And President Trump is making the argument that this was President Biden's over-prosecution.
Honduras is more of a friendly towards the Republicans and towards the United States.
So, you know, and there's been a lot of questions about the pardoning, President Trump's pardoning.
It is curious that, you know, again, the pardoning, is this really in the interest of the United States?
If the administration says that it's so interested in cracking down on drugs, why would you want someone who wants to stuff the, you know, cocaine up our noses?
It's a good question.
The innocent until proven guilty, again, the administration is making this case that these narco-traffickers pose a threat to the United States.
We're at war with them.
And so the whole, you know, innocent until proven guilty doesn't really apply.
And that's why kind of the U.S. is using the military here instead of interdepending and then make the Coast Guard less about a military issue.
In the past 24 hours, the White House making a definite case that Secretary Hagset didn't call on that.
What does that suggest to you?
unidentified
Well, it's a little bit confusing because if you remember back in September, Secretary Hegset said, I was watching it the whole time.
I was monitoring on a feed.
So he was monitoring it, but at the same time, he didn't know about a second strike and he didn't order a second strike.
So, you know, it would belie what he's saying, A.
And B, look, this admiral that they're saying ordered the second strike, he was overseeing the command.
Admiral Bradley of SEAL Team 6 is a decorated longtime admiral and is one of the most experienced commanders.
He was one of the first in Afghanistan in 2001, and he knows the laws of war.
And so in the military manual, the war manual, it says that if you strike, there's an actual example in the code book, in the military handbook, that uses an example.
If you strike a boat at sea and there are combatants who are survivors, you can't kill them.
Because technically, if they're just lying there defenseless, holding onto a lifeboat or whatever, they're not posing a threat to the United States in that case.
They're helpless.
And so you don't kill them then.
So it would ask the question: why didn't the U.S. interdict them?
Now, what happened is when Secretary Hegseth gave the initial order, he said, kill them all.
And so they weren't all killed.
And so then Bradley launched a second strike.
And they say maybe this was to clean up the area and for navigation.
That sounds a little far-fetched.
And again, Admiral Bradley knows the laws of war.
So I think this investigation is very important to get to who gave the order, what did they say, when did they say it?
Because it does look like the military is trying to make Admiral Bradley a scapegoat.
Look, if he was the commander and he did this, according to the laws of war, and I'm not a military law expert, what members of Congress and military experts are saying and legal experts are saying it would be against the laws of war, whether it be a war crime or actual murder, extrajudicial killing, we don't know.
But it's very important to know who gave the order.
And then that, you know, we can talk about this larger issue of members of Congress even before this raising the issue in that video of, you know, don't now remind you, don't use illegal actions.
Personally, I thought that was unnecessary.
Why?
I mean, it's, you know, I think the reaction was a little bit dramatic, threatening military tribunals and all.
But, you know, commanders know the laws of war.
They don't need to be reminded that you can't follow an illegal order.
Which, again, if, and that's why I brought it up, because Admiral Bradley knows the laws of war.
So if he did order that, if he did order that second strike, there was a compelling reason why he did.
I mean, you're sure she doesn't need to be reminded.
Let's just say, remind the audience that remember weapons of mass destruction that were supposed to be in Iraq, and it just turned out that Iraq had the second largest reserves of oil.
And then Venezuela has the largest reserve of oil.
This isn't about drugs.
It's about oil.
And if it was a boot of people, then why are we putting up an embargo on all is all these, always the leftist nations.
Now, we've been involved in Latin America for generations, and we have right-wing death squads that were operating.
I mean, here in the Northeast Ohio area, there were some blessed nuns that were murdered in 1980 for helping the poor in El Salvador.
We've been involved down more about economics and the embargoes that we placed on the leftist regimes guaranteed their failure.
And we have a history of coups in Latin America.
Guatemala, 1950, the Dallas brothers were involved in the United Fruit Company, which had banana holdings down in Latin America.
So this is about money.
And I would respectfully say to the guests, please remember that you can't serve two masters, God and money.
And thank you for taking my call, David in Ohio.
Well, I agree.
You can't serve two masters.
But I think this administration, you know, you may not serve them both at the same time, but maybe you can serve one at one time and one at the other time.
But look, David makes a good point on the weapons of mass destruction.
I think at that time it was maybe less about oil and more about President Bush trying to vindicate his father.
And there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it turns out.
There are drugs in Venezuela.
Again, those aren't the drugs coming to the United States.
But he makes a good point about that the U.S. has, there are oil interests at play.
The U.S. Chevron has this joint projects with the Venezuelan oil companies.
That license was suspended.
Citco is a U.S.-based subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company.
So there's a big relationship there.
And I think the, you know, apparently Maduro offered early on earlier on kind of offered to open up the oil spigot of the reserves for the United States.
And that wasn't enough.
I'm not sure, David, if it's about oil or if it's about politics and what he says about, you know, this disaffection by the Republican by.
And don't forget the Florida connection.
Secretary Rubio has long wanted to get rid of Maduro, those exiles in Florida.
Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, is also from Florida.
And so there really is an interest.
And again, those dominoes falling in the region, David's right getting rid of those leftist leaders.
And I think that it's more, my personal opinion is it's more about that than it is about the drugs.
One more thing I want to talk about other than Venezuela, a meeting today set in Russia about the future of what happens with Ukraine.
Can you set the stage of what happens today?
unidentified
Right.
Well, Steve Witkoff, the U.S. envoy, President Trump's U.S. envoy, he does the Middle East sometimes.
He's the point person on Ukraine.
He's going to meet, he's in Moscow right now meeting with President Putin.
Now to back us up, and he's with Jared Kushner, President's son-in-law, married to Ivanka Trump, who also helped negotiate the Abraham Accords.
And he's recently in the Middle East.
And he's recently become more involved with Ukraine.
Now, to back everybody up, you remember there was this 28-point plan to end the war in Ukraine.
It was kind of like, can we do what we did in Gaza?
You know, the last time I was here, we were talking about the Gaza peace plan.
Can we get everybody to have a plan like Ukraine and end it?
And let's move on in a more comprehensive way.
Problem is, that plan was developed between Steve Witkoff.
The last time he was meeting with the Russians, he was meeting with the head of the Russian Sovereign Wealth Fund, Trump's economic partner, Dmitriev, who actually was the one meeting him at the airport today.
And When President Zelensky saw that plan, when the Europeans saw that plan, that plan would have basically been a surrender document for Ukraine, giving up not only territory that it's already lost in the war, but the entire kind of region, eastern region of what they call the Donbas, which some of the territory the Russians don't even have yet.
So it's basically a Russian wish list.
Ukraine could never join NATO.
It has to limit the size of its military.
The security guarantees would be very low.
And that would really be a surrender document.
Then you got Secretary Rubio who got more involved.
And I think that was a good thing.
He went and he met with the Ukrainians, with President Zelensky in Geneva, and they kind of tweaked the plan.
Now it's a 19-point plan, and it looks like it's a little bit more balanced, less of a surrender document to the Ukrainians, but it still does look like those territorial concessions are the big sticking point.
And, you know, Ukraine can't give up all of that territory.
And certainly, should you give it, you know, what the Europeans are saying, like, you're blaming the victim and rewarding the aggressor.
And again, that's not setting up Ukraine for kind of long-term sovereignty, which Secretary Rubio says that the U.S. is interested in.
The problem is you have this meeting with Putin, you have this call that leaked from an earlier call before President Trump met with Zelensky that suggests that Steve Witkoff is trying to tilt President Trump's ear more in favor of President Putin.
So people are a little bit worried that when Witkoff gets in a room with Putin, they're going to, you know, kind of, again, how can we make this more favorable towards the Russians?
David Goldstein was a socialist, and he said that socialism is something more than an economic movement, that it is a philosophy of life which is both anti-Christian and anti-American.
So couldn't the Democrats get on with the war on drugs?
I think the Democrats have acknowledged that drugs are a problem, David.
I just think it's really, really about the legal justification of these strikes.
Is the military the best way to fight the war on drugs?
You know, the Coast Guard hasn't been entirely effective, but they're very good at the law enforcement.
And are those drugs that we're going after in Venezuela, again, the ones that are threatening the United States, should we be having a more robust policy with Mexico?
Should we be having a more robust policy in the Pacific where those drugs are coming from?
This is John, John in Pennsylvania, Democrats Line.
Good morning.
You're on with our guest, Elise Labbitt.
unidentified
Yeah, good morning.
I was also going to talk about the pardoning of this guy from Honduras, but also, what do we have a Coast Guard for?
You know, there are supposed to be seizures of these drugs.
And by the way, if you had a drug runner, why would you have 11 guys on a boat?
Where would be the room for the cart for the cargo for your drugs?
There's no way we know that these guys were carrying, I don't know, you have an outboard motor, you know, with a little boat going from Venezuela to the United States.
Now, a Coast Guard could pick those up very easily without having to blow them up and kill them.
By the way, I think as far as pardoning goes, I think Trump's going to pardon that Maxwell woman.
So don't be too surprised when that happens if he can't pardon this criminal from Honduras.
That's my comment for today.
Yeah, I mean, look, I was just at the Council on Foreign Relations for the last year, John, and I worked very closely with the military fellows there.
And we took a trip to San Diego to one of the Coast Guard facilities, and we had briefings about the routes that the drug runners take and got a briefing about the Coast Guard interdictions there.
And they're very significant.
The Coast Guard does, and they work with other agencies too.
And there are maps and there are, you know, there's a lot of digital NASA-like screens.
And, you know, they, and I saw some of the, you know, planes and boats that they use, and it's very sophisticated.
They do a very good job.
And they were talking in terms of tonnage.
They do interject a lot of drugs.
So, again, why are we using the military?
I think this could also be more of a psychological threat for Maduro.
That if they, I think they think if they push hard enough that Maduro will leave.
Problem is, we can't leave the military in those numbers with that kind of hardware there, with those assets there for so long.
So, yeah, I mean, look, I think the families of the people that were killed said that they were moving some drugs, but they said that they weren't part of the cartel.
So, I mean, I think the no, the administration has not offered any proof that the drug that these, you know, who these individuals were, but I think the understanding is, yes, they were drug runners, but there weren't large quantities of drugs, I guess.
I could have many more, but we'll try to keep it short for you.
First of all, I think this administration is tarnishing the reputation of America around the world, and it's going to be work to get our reputation back.
My two points, when it comes to drugs, we always talk about supply, but we never seem to talk about demand.
If there weren't a lot of demand for the drugs, there would not need no supply.
So, you know, we always talk about all these drugs coming in.
Well, if people weren't using them, they wouldn't be coming in, would they?
Okay.
Point two, we're going over to Europe now.
I've asked this of my Republican representative, my Republican senator.
Nobody wants to answer.
Maybe nobody knows.
Why is Donald Trump subservient to Vladimir Putin?
We're throwing Ukraine under the bus.
Will Poland be next?
Why?
Why?
Why haven't we given them the tomahawks?
They need something to defend themselves better.
And we just, you know, this administration just bows down to Putin again and again.
Well, again, all the callers are making such great points, as they always do.
Look, I think on the demand, great point.
What can you say?
Again, those drugs, the belief is that the drugs from Venezuela are going to Europe.
You know, there's certainly a demand for cocaine in Europe.
And there's a demand for, you know, marijuana, cocaine, fentanyl here.
We do have to deal with that.
We haven't heard anything about that from this administration.
Previous administrations, remember the war on drugs?
Remember that commercial with the fried egg?
This is your brain.
This is your brain on drugs.
We don't hear a lot about that anymore.
So that's a great point.
Vladimir Putin, look, President Trump, since his very first term, and don't forget he did business in Russia as a businessman, has always had a proclivity for President Putin, thinks of him as a strong man, you know, very iron fist over his people, and he respects that.
I will say that President Trump over the last several months has gotten, I won't say he's gotten religion on President Putin, but he certainly is starting to see that he, I think he thought that he had a better relationship with President Putin than he did.
I mean, maybe it's a warm relationship, but that he's not able to move President Putin in the way that he wants.
And he said, you know, several times, I think maybe Putin's playing me.
Maybe, you know, again, I'll go back to what I was saying before about Steve Witkoff and that conversation about how do we get you in the last ear, the last person in President's ear before he meets with President Zelensky.
I think others, you know, the president seems to be coming around to the idea that Putin's unmovable and he's a problem.
But people like Witkoff keep coming back to him.
Oh, let's do one more call with Putin.
And as soon as Putin talks to him, then, you know, he's brainwashed again.
It's like he's got this magic fairy dust.
And President Trump all of a sudden, you know, goes back to feeling that, you know, he knows how to play him.
This is a former KGB agent who's able to work someone.
But I think President Trump is trying to find his independence from Vladimir Putin.
I don't think that Steve Witkoff is really helping that.
Bob and Arkansas Republican line, we're running a little short on time, Bob, so go ahead and jump on with a question or comment.
unidentified
Okay, my comment is the border, the fact that all them people came in, all the drugs are coming.
I think we should take any drug dealers out any way we can.
Trump's doing it.
I wish the people that lost a family member to drugs, illegal drugs, would call a Democrat and tell him that they should help Trump get rid of the people.
It's not a Democrat or a Republican problem.
It's an American problem.
My comment about the Ukraine is, if you ever heard about the Budapest memorandum, you know what happened.
You know what happened in 2014 with Obama.
And you know what happened with Biden.
That's why we're in Ukraine.
We can't trust Putin.
He's a crook.
He's never kept any of these deals.
And go back to the Putin thing in the Budapest memorandum.
That was Clinton.
That was a guy from England.
That was Russia.
And that was Ukraine.
The deal was that Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.
And the thing was that the nuclear weapons, Ukraine was the third largest nuclear weapon country in the world.
Before we let you go, and I hate to put it at the end, but stemming from the shooting of those two national guards because it was done by an Afghan national.
Now the president says that asylum decisions are going to be on pause for a long time.
What's the implications of that, actually?
unidentified
Well, the implications are huge.
I mean, you have over 100,000 Afghans who, you know, maybe not all of them are deserving to come here, but, you know, a lot of people who worked with the United States that are already here and in limbo or waiting to come.
You know, look, this gentleman, this person who, the shooter, this horrible, tragic shooting, seems to have come to this country.
He was vetted.
He was one of the most in the most elite units in Afghanistan working with the CIA going after terrorists, not just the Taliban, but ISIS, Al-Qaeda.
He was one of the, in the most elite units and was vetted as such.
And he was, again, vetted to come here.
It seems what has happened, according to people in the community where he lives, is he had a hard time assimilating here.
You know, here these guys are decorated military professionals.
They get good pay.
They're, you know, have these very coveted jobs.
And then they come here, they're unemployed.
They can't support their families.
He had many kids.
And he wasn't able to really assimilate here.
And there were some signs, apparently, that the refugee community was saying that there were problems.
And so, yes, we need to vet these people and make sure that they are coming to the United States, but we also need to work with refugee agencies and make sure that they have the support system here that once they come here, they're able to be productive members of society, I think.
We'll finish off with open forum and you can call on topics of politics.
202748-8001 for Republicans, 202748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents, 202748-8002.
We will take those calls when Washington Journal continues.
Why are you doing this?
This is outrageous.
unidentified
This is a kangaroo quarter.
Fridays, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity.
Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
Politico Playbook chief correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns is host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue.
Ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides.
Fridays at 7 and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
Today is Giving Tuesday.
Join us on this global day of generosity.
Every day, C-SPAN delivers access to the workings of democracy without spin and without commentary.
Your support makes that possible.
Help ensure government remains accessible to everyone.
Visit C-SPAN.org/slash donate and make your Giving Tuesday gift today.
C-SPAN is as unbiased as you can get.
You are so fair.
I don't know how anybody can say otherwise.
You guys do the most important work for everyone in this country.
I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
You bring these divergent viewpoints and you present both sides of an issue and you allow people to make up their own minds.
I absolutely love C-SPAN.
I love to hear both sides.
I've watched C-SPAN every morning and it is unbiased.
And you bring in factual information for the callers to understand where they are in their comments.
This is probably the only place that we can hear honest opinion of Americans across the country.
You guys at C-SPAN are doing such a wonderful job of allowing free exchange of ideas without a lot of interruptions.
And if you've called in the last 30 days, hold off from doing so today.
The Associated Press and others saying that a faith-based pregnancy center will come before the Supreme Court today to challenge an investigation into whether it misled people to discourage abortions.
The facilities known as, quote, crisis pregnancy centers have been on the rise in the U.S., especially since the Supreme Court's conservative majority overturned abortion as a nationwide right in 2022.
Most Republican-controlled states have since started enforcing bans or restrictions on abortion, and some have steered tax dollars to the centers.
They generally provide prenatal care and encourage women to carry pregnancies to term.
There's more there, but if you want to follow along on this court case, we are going to show it to you as it happens starting at 10 o'clock.
And there are several platforms that you can follow along.
C-SPAN 3 is how you can do that.
If you want to watch it, you can also watch on the app at C-SPAN now.
And as always, c-span.org is a place where you can follow along with that too.
Dave on this open forum, he's from Minnesota, Democrats line.
Okay, let's go to David in Minnesota, Independent Line.
unidentified
Hi.
Good morning, Pedro.
Yeah, if the U.S. really had a problem with death from substances, why aren't we actually drone-striking the Sacklers who kind of kick-started the opioid epidemic?
We simply gave them a fine for what they did.
Why aren't we drone-striking gun manufacturers because firearms are the leading cause of death of children in this country?
How many people die from alcohol?
Why aren't we drone-striking alcohol companies?
This whole thing is just a front for a coup in Venezuela, which we've already heard talk of CIA agents in Venezuela if you listen to sites like Dropsite News or The Intercept.
Also, if you have 11 people on a boat, That's really going to affect the amount you can carry because, you know, displacement's a thing, and you can't just put unlimited weight in these.
And with these tiny boats, you wouldn't be able to move the amount of drugs you need or navigate the open ocean between Venezuela and the U.S. I'm not sure if anyone's actually been on a boat in a large body of water, but the waves will capsize something that size.
The new regulations on SNAP and Medicare as they take off the regulations for utilities and insurance is a little shocking.
Also, could election interference be when the president tries a primary elected official?
Also, could election interference be where he has a company to move here with all their employees into one of these seven swing states that Americans now brainwash that it's okay for seven states to pick our presidents and by flying migrants and or what do they call them, amnesty seekers at the dead of night.
Could he be doing election interference with those three things?
That's one point.
And then the big one is Trump's Trojan horse, the ballroom.
I believe it's going to be basically a library for the president.
He's not going to leave that, but he will might leave the White House.
There's going to be living quarters in this new thing from someone who's been around construction for over 30 years.
That is not a one-story banquet hall.
Okay.
I think he's going to claim that hall similar like he did the plane.
The $40 million was basically a campaign contribution order for his library.
And I think the caller yesterday nailed it.
Well, we need to focus on campaign contributions where these politicians are retiring with all this money.
I feel we pay him $174,000.
Why not they leave with that and everything they make above that goes back to the state and let's go to Lowell in Fredericksburg, Virginia, Republican line.
Hi.
Hey, well, all you really need to do is go to a parent who's lost a child through fentanyl or someone selling their child or enticing their child into an arena where they're drugged and they die.
Until you've lost a child, you really don't know how to act.
You have a worm's eye view, not a bird's eye view on what is going on.
Trump knocking out these guys.
I've been all through Carter Hena, Bogota.
I've been all down through there.
And during the time in which cocaine was a thriving arena for Americans to go down, even putting it into condoms and swallowing it and bringing it back to the United States, nothing has really stopped.
There's nothing new on earth.
These people who are doing this, the only way to do it is just like you would any kind of pest that is totally objectionable and you can't deal with, eliminate them.
It just happens to be the way it works.
And so by knocking these people out with our military, that means your tax dollars are actually doing something versus, and guys, look, Biden, when he let in all of these people, I don't care what you say.
I'm a Republican.
I'm not a Trump guy.
I don't vote.
The reason I don't vote is I can't stomach all the stuff that's going on.
But let me say to you this: that until you eliminate the drugs in the United States, which is the reason they send it up here, we're going to be dead in the water.
In politics, a lot of attention being played to the state of Tennessee.
The U.S. House election in the 7th district features two candidates who are buying the takeover for Representative Mark Green, who stepped down earlier.
It is Republican Matt Van Epps, the Republican versus Afton Bin, the Democrat, a former social worker in that Bain, the Afton Bain in that race.
Because of that race, several key people in the world of politics going to support it.
One of them, Representative Mike Johnson, the House Speaker there at a rally for Matt Van Epps.
And he brought a special guest via phone, President Trump.
Here's a little of that from yesterday.
unidentified
I just want to thank everybody.
I love Tennessee, one of my all-time favorite places.
Tennessee, I guess, loves me because we've won by the biggest margins anybody's ever won by, so that's cool.
But if you can go, Matt Van Epps, he's a winner.
He's going to be great.
Don't let this tell you.
The Democrats are spending a fortune, and we don't want people that want to raise your taxes.
She wants to raise your taxes on top of everything else.
But she said two things above all else that bothered me.
Number one, she hates Christianity.
Number two, she hates country music.
How the hell can you elect a person like that?
I just want to give my total support, and he's had it right from the beginning, to Matt Van Epps.
He's going to be a fantastic congressman.
He's going to represent you so well, and we'll keep our agenda going.
The Democrat in that race, Afton Bain, also trying to get that House seat.
And as far as support for her, it was a virtual rally yesterday.
And one of the featured speakers at that rally, New York Democrat Alexandria Ocastio-Cortez, speaking at that virtual rally, here's a little bit of her support for candidate Bain.
unidentified
The very fact that we are here today and this race is so tremendously tight is a testament to how the American people are feeling in this moment.
And I genuinely believe that we are at a time where people are increasingly recognizing that our fights are not left and right, but they are top and bottom.
They're about all of us as working Americans and working class people that are standing up against the injustices and the greed of our health care system, of our low wages,
of our dirty air and water that are being polluted, and that we can all stand for the dignity of a working life so that we can afford to live in our homes and we can afford to buy our groceries and that we can have a chance at the American dream.
I'm so excited that we're here in this moment because as I said, it is a testament to where we are as a country.
Tennessee is ready to elect Afton.
The people of Tennessee are ready to be represented by Afton.
And I know that with all of the organizing that you all are doing on the ground, the very fact that this race is in play is showing that we are in a time where anything can happen.
WPLN out of Nashville cites that Republicans swept that 7th congressional district by 22 points last year.
But polling by Emerson College finds that only two points separate the Democrat and Republican in this race, with Van Epps leading 48% to Baines 46%.
So all that to say, this will play out today.
Watch out for results on this program tomorrow as people look at that race in Tennessee's 7th District.
Let's hear from Virginia, Virginia and California, Independent Line.
unidentified
Yes, hello.
My thoughts are: one, I feel we should impeach Trump.
Personally, I believe also that for him to dismantle the east wing of the White House, which is our house, not his, our house, I think that something should be done there as well to prevent this man from doing anything more damaging.
I just get tired of hearing the bloviating president tell things that are half-true.
Frankly, if this young lady in Tennessee were Republican and she's attractive, a blonde, he'd be all over her candidacy because that's his brain.
But I want to come back to something that was raised when you had your last guest who was phenomenal.
I hope you'll have her back frequently.
And it's about the murder on the high seas of the Venezuelans or whoever's operating these motorboats.
Number one, we don't even know where these boats were when they were interdicted and destroyed.
Nobody's shown us a map.
How far were they from the American coast?
How far were they from the South American coast?
That's number one.
Number two, I didn't realize until the other day that the Coast Guard is operated by Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense.
Homeland Security protects the homeland.
How far afield from our shores can they go to interdict and stop these boats?
Is it lawful for them to travel a thousand miles, 500 miles, whatever the distance is to interdict?
Hopefully, it would be.
But regardless, Trump is not using them, and the Homeland Security is not using them.
My gift for this Christmas holiday would be to learn that Admiral Brandt is going to be a court-martial for obeying an illegal order, that Hegset is removed by impeachment or otherwise, and that the House of Representatives finds that they've had enough of Mr. Trump and they have to.
Seems like the topic of discussion is fishing boats this morning.
I'd like to address something that the media is not addressing.
And every day there's some chaos, something gone awry again.
And my issue is with the Supreme Court who gave the president a carte blanc to do anything he wants to do.
And they can rescind that decision.
And what we need to do is to have people in front of the Supreme Court protesting and put pressure on them to change that decision, and then all this craziness will stop.
The other issue I have, which other people haven't brought up, is the electoral vote.
If my vote really counts, then why are a select number of states determining who becomes president?
I mean, no state should have more priority than any other.
So if they got rid of the Electoral College, your vote would really count.
The Washington Post reporting that the President and the White House were feeling issues when it comes to his MRI, or at least results when it comes to his MRI, saying that it was on Monday that the White House said that an advanced imaging scan of the president underwent in recent weeks that if you're questioned about his health found nothing abnormal characterizing the check of the 79-year-old's cardiovascular system and abdominal area as a routine procedure.
Sean Barbarella, the Navy captain and the president's physician, wrote in a memo released by the White House that Mr. Trump's results were, quote, perfectly normal, saying that the MRI administered to the president was, quote, standard for an executive physical at President Trump's age.
The president remains in excellent overall health, according to Mr. Barbarella, Dr. Barbarella.
But this also adds that Jonathan Reiner, longtime cardiologist for former President Dick Cheney, wrote in a text message that an MRI or CT scan, quote, is absolutely not part of a standard preventive imaging for men of Mr. Trump's age and noted that Mr. Trump did not appear to undergo similar scans when he received a presidential physical exam in April, according to White House statements at the time.
Mr. Reiner writing in his text, quote, these recent tests were performed off-cycle.
James is next.
James Republican line in Pennsylvania.
Go ahead.
unidentified
Yes, Pedro.
I'm calling to let folks know that we need to protect people's drivers licenses before early termination Because they get old or whatever.
It's horrible.
More than 37,000 people a year die from this kind of policy in the country.
And something has to be done.
Something has to be done to rein in these doctors who do stuff like this.
And I just don't know what to do.
I can't even go to the polls because I don't have a driver's license anymore and I can't go.
I don't have a car anymore because I had to give up my driver's license.
And I think our country needs to change this because too many people end up institutionalized a bit early in life because of these policies.
James in Pennsylvania, by the way, NPR and others reporting that when it comes to real or air travelers saying that air travelers in the United States without a real ID will be charged a $45 fee beginning in February, according to the Transportation Security Administration.
The updated ID has been required since May, but passengers have so far been allowed to clear security with additional screening and a warning.
The Department of Homeland Security says 94% of passengers are already compliant and that the new fee is intended to encourage travelers to obtain the ID.
Real ID is a federal compliant state issue license or identification card that meets enhanced requirements mandated in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Let's go to Billy.
Billy in Minneapolis, Democrats line.
unidentified
Good morning, Pedro.
Thanks for taking my call.
I'm a big fan of watching for years.
I'm running on the Democratic ticket for the U.S. Senate here in Minnesota.
My name is Billy Nord, and I'm really glad that everyone's talking about fentanyl and overdoses and how to combat that.
The idea of how to stop the flow is controversial and debatable.
And what Trump is doing is highly controversial.
One of my policy proposals is how to stop the fentanyl overdoses from the fentanyl that's already in the country.
What I want to do is I want to get naloxone, Narcan, into the homes, businesses, places of worship, and schools everywhere across the country free of charge using the USPS.
And I guarantee that would substantially stop overdose deaths probably by 50% within the first year and maybe by 75% after the second year.
The country has proven that we've been able to do this with COVID tests.
We were able to send COVID tests free of charge via the USPS.
And I'm sure that's helped drop the COVID cases.
So let's do the same thing with fentanyl overdoses.
Let's go to Carl Carl in Florida, Independent Line.
Hello.
unidentified
Good morning, Pedro.
I just want to remind everybody on our 250th anniversary coming up that we've always been the greatest country in the world because our forefounders knew that we are a nation of laws, not a nation based on passions, personal passions.
We need to respect that.
I ask all of my American friends to think critically, to think critically.
Read the Federalist Papers.
Read the U.S. Constitution.
It is based on human beings, not on just American citizens.
Killing human beings who are helpless in open water is un-American.
Our forefathers would be appalled.
And this needs to be stopped.
When you vote in 2026, remember, we are a nation of laws, not of passions.