Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Don Bacon critique Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s classified info leak on Signal before a Yemen operation, calling it elite impunity risking troop safety, and demand his testimony. They clash over Venezuela strikes—Bacon warns of unchecked authority without congressional approval, while Khanna cites Trump’s 2016 anti-regime-change stance. Bacon, exiting Congress after 10 years, praises bipartisan collaboration but contrasts fiscal conservatism with Khanna’s wealth taxation push for rural revitalization. Strategists Arshi Sadiki and T.W. Arighi dissect Tennessee’s tight Democratic loss, attributing it to GOP turnout gaps and shifting focus to affordability amid shutdown risks. Meanwhile, the Pentagon probes Kelly and veteran Democrats for urging service members to defy "illegal" orders, raising tensions over military-civilian accountability. Their debate underscores how national security and healthcare battles now define bipartisan fractures, with accountability and economic messaging as flashpoints in 2025’s political landscape. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
Participants
Main
d
dasha burns
politico15:01
d
don bacon
rep/r12:51
r
ro khanna
rep/d08:09
t
t w arrighi
r10:16
Appearances
d
debbie dingell
rep/d00:33
k
kimberly adams
cspan00:39
m
michael mccaul
rep/r00:37
Clips
d
donald j trump
admin00:17
p
pete hegseth
admin00:28
|
Speaker
Time
Text
Admiral's Authority Over Classification00:15:14
unidentified
Censored by the United States corporate media, the CIA, and the Pentagon that controls it.
And until we begin to realize that both the Democrats and the Republicans are controlled by that same mafia, Democratic-leaning media or Republican-leaning media on foreign policy, they are all committed.
That is all of the time that we have today for Washington Journal.
But please stay tuned because coming up after this program, if you stick around, you can catch Ceasefire.
C-SPAN sat down with Democratic Representative Roe Cana of California and Republican Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska to discuss some of the top issues facing the country, including rising U.S. tensions with Venezuela and the future of Affordable Care Act subsidies.
So you can watch Ceasefire coming up right after this program at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
And we're going to be back with another edition of Washington Journal right here tomorrow morning, starting at 7 a.m. Eastern.
Welcome to Ceasefire, where we seek to bridge the divide in American politics.
I'm Dasha Burns, Politico White House Bureau Chief, and joining me now on either side of the desk, two guests who have agreed to keep the conversation civil even when they disagree.
California Democratic Congressman Roe Conna and Nebraska Republican Congressman Don Bacon.
There's 20 committees in the House, and I think the Defense or the Armed Services Committee is the most bipartisan one, in my view, and I've had a chance to look at them all to some degree.
And we're on the cyber subcommittee, and it has been a great partnership.
There's really, I can't think of a thing that we've disagreed on on the cyber subcommittee.
There's not really a Republican or a Democrat view on cyber.
It's about protecting our country.
And so we've been, I think, a great team.
And I would say, you know, the Republicans and Democrats like on our subcommittee have been great.
I think there are a lot of issues that are coming up in this political moment that are less left or right and more just challenges that we're all facing as a nation.
I mean, our national security is obviously a huge deal.
And this week, the so-called SignalGate report came out detailing the Defense Secretary's sharing of information about a pending military attack in Yemen on the Signal chat.
Have you both read the report and what conclusions are you drawing from it?
Well, being a 30-year Air Force guy, it really bothered me when the reports initially came out.
And it was pretty clear to me that he had released information about two hours before the attack on Signal, which is unclassified application, you know, launch times, target times, and the report that came.
It was a definitely, we call it an operational security violation at a minimum.
But that information was clearly classified to me because it was attack plans before an attack.
And so, to me, it was pretty clear violation.
But I read the report yesterday, and I was very, I guess, frustrated because the Secretary of Defense's office said he was completely exonerated in the report.
Well, I got to tell you, it was not.
It was pretty clear to me.
In fact, there's a paragraph, and it's unclassified in this classified report, but the unclassified section, and I think it was been put out today in a public report.
It said that he released sensitive information that would have undermined the mission if Yemen would have got that.
And when you put something on an unclassified application like he did, Russia and China are definitely monitoring his personal phone.
You can take that to the bank.
So for him doing this stuff on his phone, it's being monitored by foreign intelligence.
And they could have, if they wanted, sent that information to Yemen and doesn't appear.
I mean, the missions are still successful, but he could have compromised the whole thing.
So the official response from the Pentagon Press Secretary Sean Parnell is that the Inspector General review is a total exoneration of Secretary Hagseth and proves what we knew all along.
No classified information was shared.
The matter is resolved and the case is closed.
They're saying that he has the authority to declassify.
Yeah, so let's take a step back on Venezuela because this is another story that has Hegseth in the headlines this week.
Both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees want answers on that second strike the Pentagon ordered on drug traffickers in the Caribbean in September.
The White House and Defense Secretary are disputing a Washington Post report indicating that Hegseth personally ordered the killing of survivors in the first strike.
So there was a first strike, some survivors, they ordered a second strike to, quote, kill them all, as the Washington Post report said.
Here is Hegseth earlier this week describing his involvement during the strikes in question.
I think this morning, the Chairman Rogers and the Ranking Member Smith, the Republican and Democrat leadership in the Armed Services Committee, met with the Admiral, the JSON commander.
I believe we want to get the facts.
I don't think it looks good, but I want to wait for him to make our judgment to get the facts.
And I know that Chairman Rogers is dedicated to getting the facts on this.
You know, the Washington Post article was, I considered damning.
It was very harsh.
New York Times came out with something a little less critical.
Well, we should, either way, we should get him in and have him explain why he resigned, because it was probably tied to this event, because he resigned after this incident.
That was, I was going to ask you, Congressman, do you think for the public, number one, the video that was presented to the ranking members, should the public be able to see the video of that second strike?
And number two, should there be public testimony on this?
More broadly, given your military experience, given what you've been seeing at the Pentagon, what do you think the administration should do in terms of that role of the Secretary of Defense?
What I really wanted to see was someone take responsibility, going up to a mistake, and then when he blamed the media or the journalist for the story, it ruined his credibility.
And he had some issues going into the hearings.
But once he got confirmed, I said, well, let's give him a fair chance.
But what I've seen is what I call just a poor decision-making.
So, for example, not taking responsibility in SignalGate, but his rules on the media, where now you have a bunch of second-rate journalists operating out of the Pentagon, but all the Fox and New York Times, Washington Post, they're all outside of the Pentagon.
And then we have rules that we have military bases in our districts.
They're not allowed to talk to us because of his orders to them not to talk to anybody in Congress unless the actual questions have been vetted through the Pentagon first.
So there's a series of decision-making here that really bothers me, but really the most critical on some of the decisions made about Ukraine and NATO.
Some of these things are just lack of judgment.
But their decisions that have been undermining our support of NATO, I think is the most troublesome because that, we have a 75-year history working with NATO.
It's been the pillar of our national security.
And I think some of the things that are being done by the Secretary through some permission with the White House, but most of it's coming out of the Under Secretary for Policy.
A lot of decisions are coming from there.
But it's going to cause damage to our country for years to come, way after they leave.
It's undermining our trust with our allies and this very important alliance.
One of the reasons that we're talking about Venezuela, these strikes are just part of a broader policy towards Venezuela.
The president this week said that he is considering land strikes in Venezuela.
They could be imminent.
There's this tension that we've seen play out throughout this first year of the administration of the executive branch versus legislative branch and who does what when it comes to tariffs, when it comes to war and peace.
I mean, the American people voted for Trump because he said he didn't want regime change or endless wars.
And so I support War Powers resolution to make sure that we don't start another war in Venezuela.
But on the question of the Secretary of Defense, look, I would support Representative Bacon to be the Secretary of Defense.
And it's not cumbaya.
We have a lot of disagreements.
I usually vote for a lower defense budget.
Representative Bacon votes for a higher defense budget.
We have differences on the Middle East.
But what I know about Representative Bacon is he would take the law seriously.
He understands the consequence of striking innocents in the Caribbean, that that gives license to Xi Jinping or Putin to say it doesn't matter what the rules of law are or what the rules of war are.
This is not the way America does business.
We are different.
We follow the rule.
This is the way Putin acts.
This may be the way that Gigi and Ping acts.
And I just want someone there who I can trust, even if I disagree with them, that they're going to follow the Constitution, the rule of law.
It was one thing when he sunk the first couple of boats, but now they've hit, I thought, approximately 20.
At some point, when you have continued hostilities, you have to get authorization from Congress, and they have not.
And they need to do a better job explaining why we're going after these boats, which they have to some degree.
But what we're really interested in, what is the intelligence showing that these boats actually have drugs on them?
So they haven't done a good job coming to Congress and making their case on votes, and they have done zero on any kind of potential invasion of Venezuela.
And if you're going to have war with Venezuela, you need to come to Congress or you need to go to the American people, make your case.
And I don't think they've done, made any case for this.
Maduro and Chavez before him, taken the richest country in South America and made it one of the poorest.
And they've taken away their democracy.
It's a totalitarian state.
Maduro's a bad guy.
I would love to see him change out.
I don't think it's our role to do that, though.
I think to Congressman Connor's point, President Ranon not doing these kinds of things.
And I don't think you can just do that without coming to Congress, making your case, go to the American people, make your case.
He's done zero of that right now.
And what we did for Desert Storm, what we did for Iraqi freedom and enduring freedom with Iraq and Afghanistan, the president came forward, said, why we need to do this?
And we had votes in Congress that wasn't declarations of war, but they were approvals.
But before we can get to Medicare for all, before we can get to a real solution, we need to make sure that people aren't being hurt.
I was talking to a son of a taxi driver who has cancer in Arizona.
His father's insurance is going to go up from $44 to $2,600, partly because of making a little more money, but partly because the credits aren't going to be extended.
That is absurd.
So while I am a supporter of Medicare for all, while I think private insurance companies are ripping off the American people, I am open to a compromise to get those tax credits extended.
I wanted them permanent, but you don't get exactly what you want in Congress.
And so I believe Representative Bacon's made a good faith effort.
We can get two years, and we have to have certain compromises and at least covering people up to $200.
Well, initially, they came out in support of our plan, and then leadership from the Congress called and said, hey, we don't have enough support back here.
So that's when he withdrew back.
But the fact that he initially said that he would want an extension with some guardrails and compromises, to me that was promising.
Go off for an economic vision that says, I understand the economic future, and it can't just be for tech billionaires.
And if you want to just keep going the way we're going now, my district may be worth not $18 trillion, but $30 trillion in 10 years.
But the place I grew up in, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, those kids, they may not have the American dream.
They may not have the job.
So what I'm saying is tax the wealth in my district so we can have a Marshall Plan for America, so we can have actually good paying jobs across this country so that we can build new economic opportunity in rural communities and factory towns.
And I have specific ideas.
We probably don't have the time for that of how we do that.
I think that has to be part of the conversation.
How are we going to build the economic future across this country?
Well, I think he has future public service in him.
I mean, he may run in 2028.
We'll see on his side.
And I think he could serve in a Republican administration.
I think he could serve in a Democratic administration in a role.
I mean, we've got to get to a point where we have people of goodwill who may disagree working together.
And look, I call myself an FDR Democrat.
I believe that the wealth inequality is the biggest challenge, that forgotten Americans are the biggest challenge that we need to make sure the economy isn't just working for tech billionaires, but is working for everyone.
And if Don Bacon is a Reagan Republican, that is the type of debate we're supposed to have in this country because neither of us have a monopoly on the truth.
And when we have an honest debate, it's going to make the country better.
But for some reason, we haven't been having that philosophical debate based on principle.
We've been insulting each other.
We've been catering to sort of extreme hateful rhetoric.
And what I'd like to get back to is a conversation of spirited debates and ideas.
Not kumbaya, he's never going to vote for me, but a sense that if we debate and argue in a thoughtful way, that's going to make the country better.
Well, thank you both, Congressman Don Dake and Congressman Rocana.
Thank you for joining Ceasefire.
Let's turn now to this week's C-SPAN Flashback, where we dig deep into the video archives.
This week, the 103rd National Christmas tree lighting took place Thursday here in the nation's capital with several musical artists on hand to add to the celebration.
But we want to take you back to the 1996 tree lighting.
R ⁇ B singer Patty LaBelle was one of the headlining performers for the event when she encountered multiple technical difficulties.
unidentified
Ladies and gentlemen, we are privileged to have as our special honored guest this evening, the dynamic Patty LaBelle.
Patty's recording and acting career has pushed her to the pinnacle of show business.
Hang on the mistletoe.
I'm going to get to know you better.
It's Christmas.
We're my background singers.
Woo!
Woo, baby, baby, and I'm going to wrong words on the cue cards.
I don't know the song.
This Christmas, I'm going to have them all I can.
Because I don't have a record and I have no background singers.
And it's been another busy week of politics here in Washington.
And joining us now to break it all down are two political pros from both sides of the aisle, Democratic strategist Arshi Sadiki and Republican strategist T.W. Arighi.
Thank you both so much for joining me.
I'm going to look to you both to not be your surrogate hats today, but your strategist hats, right, to try to explain to our viewers why each of your parties is doing what they're doing, how they're doing it.
I do want to start with the Tennessee special election this week.
There was a lot of talk about it.
There were some Democrats thinking that Afton Bain might be able to flip a deep red district.
That didn't happen, but it was a lot closer than Republicans would have liked.
I always take off-year elections with a grain of salt.
And I think it's also important to point out that Marcia Blackburn only won that district by a half a point.
So is it great that we only won by nine?
No.
Is it the end of the world?
No.
I think for the Democratic side, they have to look at how Afton won that race.
She took some positions that were deeply unpopular in that district.
She doesn't like country music.
That doesn't go well when you're outside of Nashville.
So there's a lot of takeaways, I think, for both parties.
For Republicans, I think we need to focus back on messaging and make sure that we are driving home the areas of affordability, the cost of living, and things like that.
But I don't think it was the end of the world, like many prognosticators would like to say.
Yeah, well, I mean, look, plus nine might sound like a lot to people, but Trump won that district by 22, right?
So it was closer than Republicans would have liked.
Arshi, do you think the Democrats learned some lessons here, too?
unidentified
Well, I think what's interesting, I mean, just going back to the point on our candidate, I think the candidate was positioned in that way because there were other moderates that didn't get into the race because it's a plus 22 district.
So I think when first Tennessee was brought up, I mean, I don't think anybody on the Democratic side was taking it seriously.
And then as time came, you know, as we saw her gain momentum, then we saw a lot of star power.
We saw Johnson go out there, Speaker Johnson.
We saw Trump engage twice, two telehaws, town halls.
And then we also saw a number of Truth Social posts.
So there was a big effort and millions of dollars.
So I think for Democrats, it was a big shot in the arm.
And I think it probably for going into November, there's some moderates who are more closely aligned to the district who may be taking another look.
Well, the thing is, the Republican candidate, Martin Van Epps, he, sorry, Matt Van Epps, he really had a pretty solid resume in terms of what voters there would like to see.
So I think that's another reason I'm hearing from various Republicans some concern, like he should have run away with it, and he didn't.
But again, I would go back to a larger fact that in these off-year elections, turnout's always tough.
And the energy right now is with the Democrats.
It's not with the Republicans.
So how do you turn them out to vote?
You are right.
Speaker Johnson went.
President Trump spoke a lot about it.
But still, to get a 22-point advantage, you need massive momentum on a national scale.
And that's hard to reproduce.
And my question really is, given what you were just saying about the moderate candidates not jumping in, it reminds me of 2010 with Republicans, when we got a lot of that far-right Tea Party movement jump into races, win primaries, and then lose winnable races.
I'm wondering if that gets duplicated this time around on the Democratic side.
Well, that goes to my next question for Democrats.
I mean, as you look towards 2026 and even further towards 2028, there's been momentum with the November special election, with this election, but the midterms in political years, you know, it's a long, long ways away.
How do you build on that?
unidentified
Absolutely.
I mean, I think you build on it.
I mean, midterms are very different than presidentials.
And we saw a model of success last cycle, even though it was a very tough year for Democrats.
You saw Democrats who focused on, hyper-focused on their districts and were really responding there.
They did well.
So you look like a Stephen Horsford or Yalissa Slotkin or a Pete Gallego.
All of those folks, they really focused and doubled down on where they were running.
So I think that is actually the template from going forward for Democrats.
And I think enthusiasm, you know, it's been a tough year for Democrats across the board.
So I think I agree with you that special elections in and of themselves are not dispositive.
But I think Democrats needed some of that momentum to kind of get everything going.
And I think we see some of that momentum really building now.
Well, but actually, I think that contrast is an interesting point, right?
unidentified
No, absolutely.
I mean, I think what I find most fascinating is that the Speaker, generally, when you are in a situation like that, first and foremost, it's protecting your vulnerable members, your marginal members.
We haven't seen that kick in yet because, you know, the Affordable Care Act subsidies, that's a great example.
You know, there was this mantra that reopen the government and we'll start negotiations.
There have not been any bipartisan negotiations at the leadership level.
All of those are going on on the rank and file member level.
So I think first and foremost, when I was in the Speaker's office, and that is where Speaker Pelosi also doubled down when we were in the majority or trying to get the majority, the seats that take to win, and the agenda needs to be driven by those moderates.
And I saw this back in 2018 when I worked for Mimi Walters in the Battleground District in Southern California.
She ends up losing in large part because of health care debate and the Republican alternative to Obamacare, which really was ill thought out.
You are absolutely correct.
The moderates do need to take a bigger role here, and that's why I thought it was important that originally Donald Trump, it was rumored to have said we wanted a two-year to kick this down the road so we don't have to talk about it during the election.
Look, everyone knows health care is broken.
The subsidies are propping up a broken system.
But we do not want the American people, especially not moderates who have to deal with this every day, paying for those mistakes of Washington.
And I can tell you, working with people in battleground districts across this country currently, they are hearing from their constituents.
They're getting letters in the mail from their insurance companies about increasing premiums.
We have solutions that, broadly speaking, people agree with, whether it's price transparency, which cuts across the eye, which is negotiating drug prices, the issues with the pharmaceutical industry, the issues with the hospital industry.
There are areas where we can come together, but it's going to take a whole of government effort and bring on Democrats as well to get that ball across the board.
Well, I'm not so certain that Mike Johnson is saying we're not going to do it at all.
And I haven't really heard many people say we're just going to let people's premiums expire.
I've heard every Republican almost say we need a new fix to it.
The question is, is timing.
And that's why I regret this shutdown being going on for so long and why I was so angry at times with Democrats for holding it down because we need that time to negotiate.
And I wish it was done sooner.
We all do.
But we're in this situation now.
We need to get moving forward.
And Speaker Johnson's trying to appease a party that right now is very split and on a razor's edge.
Well, I mean, I think what's interesting about this is that Speaker Johnson today could decide to put something on the floor and you'd have a bipartisan vote in the House and Senate, a bridge to have this discussion.
Because I think when you talk about the shutdown, even though the shutdown was happening, the shutdowns in the past, usually, you know, Democratic staff and members would complain that they had to work harder because you have to work to reopen the government.
So those discussions could have been happening all along.
They weren't.
There is an opportunity to have a bridge to give some more time for this discussion.
So I think that, first and foremost, is that can you create that bridge for another discussion?
Yes, and from that reporting, it appears there's a few different options of what that could look like.
So we'll just have to wait and see.
I'm sure there are tons of negotiations going on right now among the Republican Party.
What's palatable?
What can we do to not make this a political football that we have to deal with in 2026, but deliver for the American people so they're not carrying the weight on their backs?
So we'll have to wait and see on that.
I'm glad he's engaging and understands the need for it right now.
unidentified
But there could also, though, he could also engage with the members who are talking on a bipartisan basis right now.
It looks like it's a Republican-only proposal, which to me is more of a find your cover vote versus a I'm not so certain about that, especially on the Senate side.
Well, how much should he and how much does he are two different?
I think he should worry about it up until 26, but at the speed in which he is moving, like him or hate him, he will go down in history as one of the most consequential presidents ever.
Whether it's the executive orders, whether it's the peace deals and the peace talks that we're currently engaged in, whether it's the slew of domestic policy, immigration policy, et cetera, et cetera.
He's moving at breakneck speed.
And you can't do that unless you're prepared for the consequences that come with expending so much political capital in every direction all at once.
So I think it's impactful for 2026.
Do I think he's incredibly worried about it right now?
No, because I think he thinks I only have these four years.
We need to make sweeping changes in every aspect of American life, and we need to act fast.
Democrats have been looking for a message that can not only be sort of anti-Trump, right?
I think that's what a lot of voters have been asking for.
But what do Democrats stand for?
What do Democrats want to push for?
There was a bright spot with these elections, with the health care messaging.
Now there seems to be more of a turn towards affordability.
How do Democrats run with this?
unidentified
Yeah, I think it's exactly the affordability message.
It will be front and center.
I think on tariffs, you look at what that's doing to cost of living for American consumers.
That's real.
It's significant.
So I think tariffs will be one of the pieces that Democrats talk a lot about as we go into next year.
But it will be across the board on affordability, housing, all of it.
I think Democrats want to make sure that they have this affirmative vision that's very tailored to each of these districts.
And I think, you know, going back to that, I think we're also going to, with these low approval ratings, I think we're going to see more Democrats put their hat in the ring for running for some of these seats.
If the president doesn't care all that much right now about his approval ratings he wants to get a bunch of stuff done, but you do have vulnerable candidates in 2026.
There's always a debate about like how closely do you run to the guy in the Oval Office.
Well, I think it's going to be a district by district or state by state basis.
I mean, you look at, say, New Hampshire, if Johnny Sununu wins that primary, he's going to have a MAGA pass, right?
He's going to be able to run that race as he sees fit.
Susan Collins, the same thing.
So it's going to be a state-by-state, district-by-district thing.
But to your point, Archie, you're right.
It's always going to be the economy stupid.
Always has been, always will be.
You mentioned tariffs.
It is true that if prices, we see an upward trend due to those tariffs, that could be a problem.
President Trump's opinion is that with the changes he's making in energy, with the new markets being opened up in these new trade deals, with cheaper goods becoming, you're actually going to see downward pressure.
We'll see how that all works out.
But at the end of the day, if all these sweeping changes, which take time to marinate, end up helping in the economy, I think we're having a completely different conversation in six, seven, eight months.
Republicans did not talk about affordability enough.
The White House plan is to have the president talk about affordability more.
We've seen that.
However, he's mostly been saying that affordability is a Democratic scam.
How do you, as a Republican strategist, talking to members of Congress and potentially talking to folks at the White House, how would you advise Republicans to handle the affordability message right now when the guy at the top is not delivering it in the way that I think a lot of people would like?
Well, we'll see this coming year when campaign season heats up how his rhetoric is and what he does on the stump when he travels all over the country, which he said he's going to do, and go to these battleground districts if they want him, or go to some other states that are important.
We'll see how that messaging comes up.
Obviously, he's, like we just talked about, he's done a lot.
He's trying to accomplish a lot in a short period of time with the economy, with foreign policy.
And every president always feels like if they get something done, they want to get the credit and the adulation for it.
Takes some time for what he has gotten done to make its way into the economy and be felt by the people.
unidentified
I mean, I'm with Dasha on this in the sense that it's eerie how similar it is to the Biden messaging.
Like, we passed these bills, you should be feeling better, the stock market's great, et cetera, et cetera.
It is very similar.
And I think Democrats really paid a price for that in the election.
So now, I will say the president is a very skilled political force, and a year is a long time in politics.
I mean, we know right now one year made a lot of a difference, I think, for Democrats to find their footing, but there's a long way ahead.
And so I think for Democrats, it's going to be really so important to be focused on getting into next year.
And as you said, we'll see what the actual reality is.
What are gas prices?
What are electricity prices?
What's going on at the grocery store?
How are these tax cuts going to impact people?
That's all yet to really set in.
Speaking of money, though, government funding, there is a lot of concern that there's going to be another shutdown battle in January.
Arshi, where do you think Democrats are at?
unidentified
You know, I'm not actually, I'm not as pessimistic.
I do think one of the things that got lost in the shuffle is that the whole Democrats taking a stand did, I think, put pressure on some of these appropriations bills.
So we had the mini bus.
I think there is a bipartisan effort in the Senate to get something done.
So to take more of these appropriations bills off the table.
I do think that Democrats are going to continue to focus on the affordability issues.
What was so troubling about the shutdown for me is that there was a tried and true blueprint for years on these funding negotiations.
They're bipartisan, bicameral, and that was thrown out the window.
So I think that's where the threat comes from: is that when you don't have that tried and true blueprint, then it is very much one party trying to exert their will.
Would you advise Democrats to avoid another shutdown or to take a stand again?
unidentified
I think a lot depends on what happens with these subsidies.
The Democrats I'm talking to certainly are very, when you talk to the rank-and-file moderate members who are working with moderate Republicans, they feel like they have a path forward, but they're hitting a big roadblock, a brick wall.
So the question is, can they break through that?
And I think that'll determine quite a bit of how January plays out.
Yeah, I think a lot will be decided with these healthkeepers.
I think you're right on that.
And I, too, hope we get back to this appropriations process and we do this the right way.
We started off really strong, getting the bills out of committees, getting them to the floor, and then things slowed down.
And that's unacceptable.
I think the American people know that, even though they might not be familiar with the appropriations process.
In terms of the tried and true method of getting CRs through, I would quarrel with that characterization insofar as the bill that was up was one that had been voted on bipartisanly several times before.
It had come up 17 times.
Chuck Schumer and Man Spozer on record saying, you know, shut the government down for these political squabbles.
So they went outside of the mainstream.
And as I said before, I thought we wasted valuable time that we could have been using to discuss health care and other big issues.
And I agree with Mike Johnson that we shouldn't have done it under duress.
So we'll see where it goes when we get these health care bills.
I hope we can avoid a shutdown.
I think it was a disaster.
I do think it increased Democratic margins in the November elections.
But what difference does it make in New Jersey and Virginia?
I want to shift gears to a battle that's been playing out this week between the Pentagon and some Democrats.
Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, a former Navy captain, is responding after the Pentagon launched an investigation into him for participation in a video with some fellow Democrats, all veterans, telling service members to reject illegal orders.
Here's a portion of that video to remind you.
unidentified
We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community.
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.
I'm not a lawyer and trained in those things and what should be investigated and what shouldn't.
I'll stay out of that.
And the president's free to his opinion on the matter.
I don't question any of those individuals' patriotism, but I question their judgment.
I thought that video was dangerous for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, there's a broad implication that the president's giving out illegal orders willy-nilly, which I think is not accurate.
But two, you know, the people who would be refusing those orders are 18, 19-year-old soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who don't necessarily know the dividing line between what is an illegal order and what isn't.
And so if they get court-martialed, are they going to show up at the trial?
Are they going to defend the 18, 19-year-old kids that they just said to put politics in the military?
I have a real problem.
And that's what I keep hearing from people in the military and those rounded individuals.
Archie, what do you think about what TW is saying about the actual sort of impact on everyday service members?
unidentified
I would say just the way the infrastructure is built in the military, the strong preponderance is to follow orders.
So I think the question is, is that if you are in kind of that, you know it when you see it kind of situation, but otherwise the inclination will be you follow orders because that's the way the military is structured.
So I think the folks that I have talked to have said that it is pretty clear in the training.
I want to transition us before I let you both go to a segment we have called Not on My Bingo Card.
Our politics has gotten a little quirky, a little funky, a little weird at times.
And this week, there's a video of Pope Leo XIV revealing a bit of a secret.
The pontiff was remotely addressing a Catholic youth conference in Indiana when he jokingly answered about his strategy, playing a popular word game, and gave an honest answer.
unidentified
I gave you a pair of socks, and I feel like I have to let you know I'm still wearing some Pope socks, just, you know, so we're in solidarity.
We are thrilled to have you joining us.
There's 16,000 young people with burning questions and a lot of hope for this moment.
Selfishly, I'd love to know your opening word for Wordle, but we'll talk about it later.
We'll close this week's program with our Ceasefire Moment of the Week, highlighting what's possible when politicians come together as Americans, not just partisans.
This week, the House passed a bill to decrease the time it takes for children battling rare diseases and certain cancers to get access to therapies.
It's called the Michaela Nalen Give Kids a Chance Act.
It's named for a young cancer patient who traveled the country advocating for other children with cancer.
She passed away this year at 16 years old.
Michigan Democrat Debbie Dingell and Texas Republican Michael McCall discussed the importance of the measure on the House floor.
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.
Bipartisan Bill Expansion00:01:23
unidentified
The Senate returns Monday at 3 p.m. Eastern.
Senators face a major decision later in the week on whether to extend health care subsidies set to expire at the end of the year.
That vote is expected Thursday.
Lawmakers will also continue work on 97 of President Trump's executive and judicial nominations as a package, including former State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce to be Deputy U.S. Representative to the U.N. and former one-term New York GOP Congressman Anthony Desposito to serve as Labor Department Inspector General.
The House is back Tuesday at noon Eastern.
Later in the week, members will consider legislation to change the permitting process for energy and infrastructure projects under the Clean Water Act.
A vote is also expected on a bipartisan comprehensive package of bills to expand access to capital for small businesses and entrepreneurs.
Watch live coverage of the House on C-SPAN, the Senate on C-SPAN 2, and all of our congressional coverage on our free video app, C-SPAN Now, and our website at c-span.org.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.