C-SPAN’s Washington Journal (12/13/2025) dives into ACA subsidies expiring amid calls for government-run healthcare, Trump’s economic and military policies sparking debates over Venezuela strikes and fentanyl origins, and the 2000 Bush-Gore election’s unresolved controversies. Immigration judge Jeremiah Johnson exposes DOJ firings of 100+ judges, citing political interference in asylum cases, while callers clash on border enforcement and legal reforms. FairPlay’s Josh Golan warns Congress’s 1999 child online safety law is obsolete, as AI-driven platforms fuel addiction and self-harm, leaving teens vulnerable without stricter oversight. The episode underscores systemic failures in healthcare, elections, immigration, and tech regulation—all tied to partisan gridlock and profit-driven policies. [Automatically generated summary]
Also, Josh Golan of Fairplay covers efforts in Congress to address threats to children on social media platforms and online gaming systems.
And then Judge Jeremiah Johnson from the National Association of Immigration Judges discusses the state of immigration courts in the U.S. amid the Trump administration's firing of several judges over the past month.
This is Washington Journal for today, Saturday, December 13th.
Affordable Care Act subsidies are set to expire in a matter of days after the Senate fails to advance competing health care bills.
President Trump defends his economic record at a rally in Pennsylvania.
And tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela ratchet up after the U.S. seizes an oil tanker off that country's coast.
Those are just some of the big stories in Washington this week.
This morning, we want to know what's your top news story of the week.
Here's how you can join the conversation.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
You can text us at 202-748-8003.
Include your first name, city, and state.
You can also post on facebook.com forward slash C-SPAN or on X with the handle at C-SPANWJ.
While we wait for your calls this morning, we start with healthcare.
Congress is currently searching for a solution on those rising premiums from the Affordable Care Act.
A KFF analysis says that premiums on average could rise 26% if Congress or the White House doesn't step in.
Now, that is, of course, because of those expiring ACA subsidies.
On what Congress is looking to do, a CNN article from yesterday says, House GOP unveils a narrow health care package with key deadline looming.
CNN reports that House Republicans unveiled a narrow health care package on Friday that does not extend soon-to-expire affordable health care subsidies, the latest sign that Congress is unlikely to avert skyrocketing insurance premiums for Americans in the new year.
Now, that new proposal from the House GOP, it does a couple different things, according to various news sources, including expands association health care plans, which allow employers to band together to purchase coverage, funds a cost-sharing reduction program meant to lower premiums for certain ACA enrollees, imposes new transparency requirements on pharmacy benefit managers and a bid to lower drug costs, and of course,
does not extend those soon-to-expire ACA subsidies.
The leaders are expected to allow a floor vote on an amendment related to those subsidies, a nod to the pressure that Republicans are facing to deal with this health care issue.
Yesterday in the Oval Office, President Trump was asked about the latest on health care, something that the White House says that he wants to see a solution done on.
Here's his answer.
Take a listen.
unidentified
What's your message to those 24 million Americans who will see their insurance premiums go up?
Joe from Maryland, an independent, what's your top news story of the week?
unidentified
Yeah, I mean, nominally, my top news story, I guess, is also the Venezuelan oil tanker that we seized.
But, you know, the larger picture there.
Last couple weeks, it was, oh, we're stopping drugs this week.
It's, oh, well, they are evading sanctions, our unilaterally imposed sanctions, so we have some kind of legal right to take their oil.
It seems to me like we're just trying to start a war of aggression against Venezuela, possibly because, like, you know, there's more documents coming out of the Epstein files with Trump and Clinton, I believe, like an Israeli prime minister who are all on, you know, Epstein Island and all that.
But, you know, you also, it seems like a distraction, so we'll just start a war or whatever.
But you also played that video of the president talking about health care.
And she was saying we pay insurance companies too much and all of that.
And it seems like the easiest thing to do would be to cut them out and to have an actual option.
It doesn't have to be the only option.
You can still buy health insurance if you want, but you could just buy your health insurance from the government and cut out the middleman of the 700% increased profit margins insurance company.
The government's good at being big, and that's all you need from an insurance company.
We could just have it amongst ourselves with an entity.
An entity that doesn't have a profit-directive profit motive who's instead supposed to go for the people.
And, you know, as far as paying taxes on something, just about the only thing in the world that I would love to pay taxes on, kind of philosophically, is to pay for health insurance, help my fellow citizens not die, as opposed to, you know, tax breaks for the rich or subsidies for oil or sending money to Argentina or kicking people out of the country or starting a war.
Two stories that he mentioned in his earlier comments was Venezuela.
I want to point to a CNBC article.
The headline is Trump willing to seize more oil tankers off Venezuela coast, White House official says.
Now, that article reads that the U.S. seized a tanker on Wednesday that had allegedly transported oil from Venezuela to Iran.
The action comes as Trump escalates pressure on President Nicolas Maduro.
A White House official told CNBC that the Trump administration is always looking to enforce the law.
Now, a second story that he mentioned was on the Epstein files and the newest discovery from the House.
I want to point you to a notice article said that the headline is: Photos of Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and Bill Clinton featured a new Epstein document dump.
That's where my colleagues, Daniela Diaz and Riley-Rogerson.
And it says the photos reviewed by notice feature President Donald Trump, separately, longtime Trump ally, Steve Bannon, former President Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Larry Summers, Richard Branson, Andrew Mountain Binzer, Mount Batten Benzer, Alan Dershowitz, and Woody Allen are also pictured, as well as sex paraphernalia, including a photo of a pile of Trump branded condoms for sale.
Tanya from North Carolina, a Democrat, what's your top news story of the week?
unidentified
Good morning.
I think it's about the health care.
President Trump is always talking about he don't want the insurance companies to make money, but he's making as much money as he can in the White House.
And also, I agree with the first two callers about the Venezuela stuff.
Look what he's doing.
He's doing like Putin did with Ukraine.
You know, and that's piracy, what he's doing to those oil tankers.
But I just said, I don't understand why people can't see what this man is doing.
But my main story that I've been paying attention to is the Aztec railroad that Mexico has just finished and the deep water ports that they're building in the Yucatan, which is going to be done by 2000 by next year.
unidentified
So that's going to make them the major trade importer in next quarter and hurting our trade exchange over like the port of Long Beach because they're just going to get billions of dollars to make trade more possible in Mexico.
The thing that I find interesting, and it only costs them, what is it, $72 billion or $52 billion to build this railroad to connect both oceans.
Mine is that the president of the United States has threatened Colombia, saying that he's nice.
I want everybody to really think about the president's actions and ask yourself if you have a country.
Our aggression against Venezuela is incredibly unpopular across the board.
What is he doing this for?
Why is the President of the United States, without any approval from Congress, threatening military aggression against other nations?
He's doing it right now in Venezuela.
You already noted the, I mean, we all know about the fishermen, the people on boats is all that we really know about them, that the Navy's been bombing.
Now, to Daniel's point, I pulled up a political article from this week.
The headline is, is he's going to be next.
Trump threatens Colombian president.
These were remarks that the president made at the White House earlier this week.
Colombia is producing a lot of drugs, Trump said, so he better wise up or he'll be next.
He'll be next soon.
I hope he's listening.
He's going to be next.
Trump's comments mark a sharp escalation of Trump's threats against the Colombian leader.
In a conversation with Political earlier this week, the U.S. president floated expanding his drug trafficking military operation, which has so far been focused on Venezuela to Mexico and Colombia.
Bob from Franklin, Indiana, a Republican, what's your top news story of the week?
unidentified
It would be the recent Epstein information that's come out.
And as a Republican, this is why I can't support the president.
I'm a lifelong Republican.
But what do we as a Republican Party stand for?
I thought we stood for traditional family values.
Yet, you know, a president is up to his ears in Epstein emails and pictures.
One email has him with one of these victims for hours, supposedly.
Well, out of their own words, they said it was one of these victims, and I don't think he was teaching her traditional family values.
And, you know, my Christian friends out there, I would encourage you, if you believe in the Bible, and also if you're a Jew, go to Psalms chapter 15 and ask yourself this question: Can I read this chapter and support a vile person and still dwell in the tabernacle and abide in his holy hill?
Yeah, my top news story would totally be that the comedians were kind of running out of material with Trump.
The news, the news bite that you showed earlier, where Trump was cowering, and while he was in conference, he was putting his left hand over his right so the media wouldn't see the infection of the cankles.
But my top news story is totally the Epstein pictures that were just released.
And Wolf Blitzer on CNN the other morning, I did not see the photo of it, and I tried to research it.
It's on YouTube.
But they had, you know, Woody Allen and Bill Clinton and whatnot.
But what I found the most hilarious as if the late-night comedians, like Colbert, being canceled in May and what they tried to do with Jimmy Kimmel, they have so much more material now because while Trump was with Epstein, he was doing the same grifting stuff that he does as president, like the Bitcoins and the Bibles that he was selling and the watches and, you know, all the side deals he does.
When he was in with Epstein, they got a picture of a box of novelty condoms while he was in with the Epstein girls, the poor victims, and the box was $4.50 a pop, and it had his picture on it.
Now, that was part of a new discovery or new disclosure from House Democrats yesterday.
Going back to this notice article, Oversight Democrats said in a statement that the latest photos are part of a 95,000 tranche that they are continuing to review and plan to release in the days ahead, days and weeks ahead.
The notice article goes on to say that there is no sexual misconduct depicted in any of the photos.
There are women redacted from the photos, but it's not clear whether they are underage.
There are no details provided by the committee on when or where each photo was taken.
The White House has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing by Trump in connection to Epstein.
Quote, once again, House Democrats are selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try to create a false narrative.
That is by, that is a quote from White House spokesperson Abigail Johnson to notice in a statement.
Sarah from Georgia, a Republican, you're next.
What's your top news story of the week?
unidentified
Well, I really wanted to talk about health care, but I was listening to you, listening to you about the Epstein.
You know, I've heard that dog beat to death.
I'm sick of that.
Why don't the Democrats, why didn't they do all of this when Biden was in there?
You never heard a word about Epstein.
But I don't want to really talk about that because it's nothing to it.
What I want to know about health care, health care, I know people that get Aetna, Humana, Blue Cross, all those companies, they don't pay anything every month.
One woman I know was in the hospital with AFib.
She said her whole bill for medicine and going to see the doctors was $400 a year.
I pulled up an Al Jazeera article where the headline is: Storm Byron passes, Misery remains in Gaza after 14 killed.
It says that the Israeli authorities continue to block the entry of basic shelter materials, fuel, and water infrastructure, leaving the people in Gaza, quote, exposed to entirely preventable harm after Storm Byron, Sams says Oxfam.
The storm swept across the Gaza Strip over the past few days, killing at least 14 people and injuring others as harsh winds, relentless rain, and collapsing structures crush families already displaced by Israel's devastating assaults on the enclave, according to Gaza's Ministry of Interior and National Security.
I want to invite our viewers to join in on the conversation.
We're talking about your top news stories of the day.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
Donald from Omaha, Nebraska, and Independent, what's your top news story of the day?
unidentified
Yes, ma'am.
I'm with that other gentleman.
Gaza is disgusting.
I don't know how the world can keep up with that and let Israel do that to those poor people and children.
That's the most disgusting part.
And my other story is Trump taking that boat.
We go to war.
I want to know: is Barron going to be in the front line?
I want to point you to a Wall Street Journal article on the front page today.
The headline is: U.S. sends in more firepower to turn up the heat on Venezuela.
After weeks of deadly boat strikes and the seizure of an oil tanker, the Pentagon is moving more assets into the region that would bolster its ability to conduct land strikes, disable Venezuela's defenses, and enforce an oil embargo.
The array of military forces poses a direct threat not only to Maduro, but also his neighboring allies, such as Cuba.
Brad from Texas, a Republican, you're next.
What's your top news story of the day or the week?
unidentified
It's the fraud in Minnesota.
And apparently, the same people are doing the same fraud and everywhere they're located, whether it's Maine or Ohio.
And really, the biggest story related to that is that legacy media warning cover it.
They're covering it up.
It's like, I don't know, I don't know why they're against Americans knowing what's going on with the immigrant population.
But wherever you find the Muslim population, they're ripping off the taxpayer through fraud.
See how Minnesota Fraudsters Spent Millions Intended for Hungry Kids.
The files document a spending spree in which defendants, many of Somali descent, took taxpayer money meant to feed hungry children and used it to buy cars, property, and jewelry.
Videos show them popping champagne at an opulent Maldives resort.
In a text message, one of the defendants boasts, you're going to be the richest 25-year-old, God willing.
The document features exhibits from a recent federal trial, many of which have been made public by CBS News for the first time.
Paul from California, a Democrat, you're next.
What's your top news story?
Good morning.
unidentified
I'd like to talk about health care.
You had a caller that wondered how her friend Insurance paid for her hospital bill.
And I'll tell you, you know, once I went on Medicare, Social Security and Medicare, and I have a supplemental insurance.
I don't pay anything when I go to the hospital.
They pay everything.
So the money comes from the insurance company.
I think the problem is the costs of what the hospitals charge.
They need to look at that.
And when you go to the hospital and you can't even bring your own medication to take your own pills that you know you take, they want to do it for you.
And the cost is so large.
Even like take aspirin, it's $80 for an aspirin.
Those are the costs they need to look at and try to curtail, I think.
Top news story is that Indiana State Senate voted to vote it down the Trump redistricting map here in Indiana.
Finally, some people had a spine and decided that they was not going to let themselves get bullied by Donald Trump.
He made all kinds of calls and threats to these people here in Indiana, and they still didn't go along with what he wanted them to go along with.
And somebody, it's about time some people in the Republican Party stood up to Donald Trump and showed that they had a spine and wasn't going to let themselves be bullied.
They did everything to these state senators here in Indiana to try to get them to go along with this.
They had swatting incidents.
They had costs in their houses.
Some of them even had bond threats.
And this is sickening the way some of these NAGA people act to act like this man has a second covenant, Jesus Christ, and he ain't here.
Jeff, may I ask you, since you are from Indiana, obviously where that failed redistricting vote took place, a lot of the lawmakers were saying that they could not vote for a new map because their constituents had been vocal about not wanting to give into pressure from President Trump, from his Republican allies in this redistricting fight.
Have you heard that when talking to your friends or other folks in your area?
unidentified
Well, I work with a lot of, there's a lot of people here in this state that didn't want the maps we drawn mid-cycle.
They were happy with the maps, the maps, the current maps.
But you have so many people who are so much under the spell of Donald Trump that they don't even think straight.
And you have a lot of them that live in this state, too, because remember, Trump won this state by almost 22, 22, 22.
That so many Republican senators, I mean, more Republican senators did not vote for that new map versus Republican senators that did state senators, at least.
unidentified
So were you surprised by that vote count?
No, they were told from day one that they did not have the votes.
But Mike Bryan tried to push all this because he's a NAGA too.
And so they kept telling them they didn't have the votes.
So looking at a New York Times article that speaks to this issue, Indiana lawmakers reject Trump's new political map.
It says the vote 19 to 31, the 19 to 31 vote was a highly public defeat for Mr. Trump, who has spent significant political capital pushing for redrawn maps in Republican-led states and who repeatedly threatened political consequences for Indiana Republicans who did not fall in line.
The defiance of Mr. Trump comes as he faces other signs of rifts within his own party.
Now, yesterday, Congressman Kevin Kiley, a Republican from California, he basically spoke to the idea that he wanted to end mid-decade redistricting battle between Democrats and Republicans nationwide.
Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to advocate for an end to the redistricting war that has been cascading across the country.
I've introduced legislation that would say we should not have mid-decade redistricting.
It should not be done in any state.
And I opposed what happened in Texas to re-gerrymander that state in the middle of the decade.
And I opposed what happened in California.
I oppose the efforts that are afoot as well in other states, and I applaud the decision by the Indiana State Senate to not move forward with a mid-decade gerrymander in a fairly overwhelming vote yesterday.
The fact is that gerrymandering is an affront to representative government and to democracy.
And what we're seeing right now runs against the desires of members of this body on both sides of the aisle and certainly runs contrary to what is in the interest of the country.
Now, I have called upon the leadership in the House for months to bring this bill to the floor or to otherwise reach an armistice in this redistricting war.
And I believe it was a failure of leadership, frankly, on both sides, to allow this to happen.
And as I warned months ago, the whole thing is basically turning out to be a wash.
If you look at the various election forecasters, they say, yeah, you're probably not going to see either side really gain much.
So all of this effort, all of this money, all of this political capital spent redrawing maps, upending the districts of dozens of our members on both sides of the aisle, and to what end?
Nothing good is coming for it.
Maybe if the Speaker, and I cannot let the minority leader off the hook either, because he's been actively involved in these efforts, had been more focused on, let's say, health care policy than trying to redraw district maps, we wouldn't be in a position where we're now three weeks away from Americans seeing a massive increase in health care costs.
I wonder, were these redistricting fights happening?
Was it a topic of conversation around people in Indianapolis?
Obviously, it's something that we talked about in the larger context here in the national conversation.
But I wonder: is this something that was a part of your day-to-day conversations with your friends or families or coworkers or what have you, your community?
unidentified
I had this conversation quite a few times with family members.
Yes, there's been a lot of talk about Venezuelan prisoners being released into the United States under Joe Biden.
And that may have happened, but I believe that there was reporting towards the end of Trump's first administration that they initiated that policy where they were, it was, we took prisoners in lieu as credit for our trade deficit, trade imbalance that we had with Venezuela.
So we were taking their prisoners as payment that we owed them for the trade deficit.
Well, I'll see if our producers in the back can find any information on that.
Philip from Ohio, a Republican, your line is open.
What is your top news story of the week?
unidentified
During the questioning of Bernie Thompson on Christy Noam, when he blurted out what he's really thinking, and he said there's two guardsmen in Washington, D.C. was accidentally shot.
How could he say something like that?
Does that mean he thinks that Martin Luther King was accidentally shot too?
And if not, then that shows me that maybe he might be a little bit racist.
So I want to turn to the question of affordability, something that has obviously been in the news for quite some time.
We heard President Trump in Pennsylvania talking about it earlier this week.
Let's take a listen to how a Democrat, Brian Shance, talked about it on the floor this week.
unidentified
President of the United States is very focused.
He is focused on building a $300 million ballroom in the White House, while the price of everything has gone up: food, housing, health care, electricity, clothes, you name it.
Costs are up, jobs are down, and wages are flat.
And the president is doing worse than nothing.
And I mean that.
Worse than nothing, because it would be one thing to not be focused enough on the question of prices.
It's another thing to actively raise the price of everything through federal policy.
It's not even that easy to find mechanisms to make prices go up, but he is doing that.
He's going out of his way to raise prices.
That is not a partisan accusation.
That's actually what's happening.
And so today I want to go over the five ways that Trump is screwing the average consumer with higher costs on purpose.
Number one, food.
Anyone who's been to a grocery store recently knows how expensive certain items have gotten.
Coffee is up 20%, 20%.
Beef is up 15%.
Orange juice is up 27%.
Bacon and bananas are up 5%.
And why is that?
It's because the president thought it would be a good idea to slap tariffs, which are a tax, on everything that comes into the country, everything that comes into the country, and you are paying for it.
I think the United States understands, unfortunately, that war is profitable, regardless of what position we take, and therefore to turn the economy, war is potentially a good idea for the president.
I think it's wrong.
Additionally, he's conflated cocaine, which does, I guess, come out of Venezuela, with fentanyl, which is not generally routed through Venezuela.
But America just knows drugs are bad and drugs are drugs.
And so, you know, they're willing to accept those arguments.
The government of Venezuela, although not to our liking, is something that we're attacking as we attack Vietnam, as we attack any government that have attacked other governments that aren't to our liking, all to negative effect.
Additionally, I think he feels that if we're in a war, that he will have some position to perhaps not run a third term, but maybe skip an election.
I don't think there's anything good coming out of his decision to be aggressive toward Venezuela.
And, you know, as an ending point, he's a megalomaniac.
If he was running a war, he would be the happiest person.
I know he's supposedly stopped eight other wars.
All of those, he might have put his imprimatur on some actions associated with those wars, but he hasn't really solved any wars.
The first part of her comment was about the census and whether people should be losing representatives because of that census.
I want to point you to a notice article.
The headline is, Democrats raise the stakes for their 2026 races by making it about 2023.
If you scroll the article by Krista Dutton, it says, census projections show reliably blue states losing population, making it all the more important for Democrats to show they can compete in swing states like North Carolina and Georgia, party operatives say.
For Democrats to be competitive, I'm reading a quote here, long term and be able to win presidential races in 32 and 36, and whatever the next 20 years looks like, we're going to have to consistently win states like North Carolina and Georgia that are gaining population.
So obviously this is something that at least the Democrats, according to this notice article, are thinking about.
Jack from Ohio, a Democrat, you're next.
What's your top news story of the week?
unidentified
Good morning.
I got to turn my, I'm turning my phone down right now.
Okay.
My top story is health care in this country.
What the American public doesn't realize is come the first of the year, with Satan running our country, we will be paying for the cheapest health care in the world.
I just had some artery surgery and came right out of the doctor's mouth.
And I have other sources from the insurance company.
We will be, they'll diagnose you, and they'll take the least, cheapest route to do your medical care.
Well, an article from the AP looks at what happened in Congress this week, and it said the Senate voted down dueling health care proposals.
Here's what's at stake for Americans.
It talks about how the Senate rejected both a Republican and Democratic plan.
Meanwhile, the stakes of rising premiums are looming as affordability concerns have emerged as a key issue for American voters.
Here's a look at the subsidies in limbo, the proposals to address a problem, and how Americans are feeling about the issue.
And so that is the AP article.
Guy from Oklahoma, an independent, your line is open.
What's your top news story of the week?
unidentified
Good morning, Jasmine.
I have a cold.
Yeah, I'm really stuffed up, so I'll try not to cough her sneeze.
But my top story is Argentina and Venezuela.
And we need to backtrack a little bit because under the Biden administration, we had the One China initiative.
And the Biden administration facilitated and expedited the takeover of the port authorities on either side of the Panama Canal.
They did the same thing in Brazil and ousted Balacero.
They did it to Colombia, Peru, and Chile.
So China now has control of two-thirds of South America.
Their next target was Argentina.
And the election that they had, the conservative versus the globalists, the globalists wanted to side with China and let them come in and do the Road to Belt initiative.
So luckily, Trump supported the conservative.
We gave them money to prop up their currency because it was collapsing.
And luckily, the conservative won.
So now he's siding with America.
And Venezuela, we're going to do a regime exchange, in my opinion, put the lady in that actually won.
And she also wants to side with America, where Maduro is with China and Russia.
Regarding Venezuela and Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, fact, Republican politicians and open farm cars praise Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth supposedly for supposedly stopping drugs from coming in to the United States from Venezuela and saving American lives with never any shred of proof.
Fact.
Fentanyl is the primary drug killing Americans, and it comes in from China via Mexico.
Fact.
Trump and Hegseth keep murdering people in speedboats claiming are for the United States with drugs when their maximum range in the boats, 200 miles.
Almost all Venezuelan drugs are directed toward Europe.
Fact.
Trump and Hegseth are happy to murder brown-skinned people in these boats.
There was President Trump yesterday in the Oval Office talking the latest about what his administration is doing in Venezuela and off the coast of Venezuela.
Christopher from Maryland and Independent, you're next.
What is your top news story of the week?
unidentified
Good morning.
First of all, I'd like to say you're doing a wonderful job dealing with all the ideology.
And I appreciate everybody that has spoken this morning.
I agree with a lot what everyone has said.
With all the money that the president is claiming that is coming in, the deficit should be lower.
Health care should be lower.
And he's talking about this is a great economy.
What I don't hear is what happened early in the year when Doge came in and gutted everything that was going on in terms of getting rid of a lot of jobs.
With all these jobs being lost, who knows if they ever got any, these people ever been employed again?
It's a lot of people that are losing jobs.
Some people are not rehiring.
They're laying people off.
I don't see how the economy is getting any better.
And also, you're talking about drugs.
What about guns?
You never hear him talk about attacking guns.
Guns is killing people as much as the drugs are.
And like the previous caller said, Fentanyl is manufactured in China.
And he's not going after China.
And he's trying to, to me, it looks like he wants to be like a big boy, like how Putin is attacking Ukraine.
And China got their eyes on that other little island.
And I don't know why we got all our military exposed over there in Venezuela.
If we was under attack now, I don't know what America would do because we got all our enemies is looking at where we are right now.
I just want to say thank you and have a wonderful day.
So we have two ex-messages or ex-posts on the issue of health care.
The first is, my top news story of the week is healthcare.
The Republican plan for HSAs is ridiculous.
Now, for context, folks, the president is seeming to favor HSAs.
He's talking about it, or at least a similar structure.
Back to the tweet, it says, when I fell off my roof in 2024, I had to be airlifted to the hospital.
The $2,000 the Republicans want people to use for health care wouldn't even cover the cost of the helicopter ride to the hospital.
Beverly from Georgia.
The second ex is from Barb of Long Grove, Illinois.
Top news story of the week was Senate and Congressional voting on extending ACA subsidies and the GOPHSA proposals, which were all unsuccessful at the time.
Clearly, healthcare is on the mind of a lot of folks, but this is your top news story of the week.
You can talk about any news story that is percolating in the national conversation.
Stephen from Connecticut, an independent, your line is open.
What is your top news story of the week?
unidentified
Also, on the ACA subsidies, I don't think people realize what it's going to do to the emergency rooms.
People can't afford insurance, but they'll be going to the emergency rooms.
And a lot of it will be a result of not being able to take drugs that keep them away from the emergency room.
I think it'll end up costing the country a lot more than this continues to subsidize.
John from Washington, D.C., a Republican, you're next.
What is your top news story of the week?
unidentified
Well, I just wanted to comment about the drug boats.
What most people probably don't realize is that the drug dealers, the drug gangs, the cartels that sell the fentanyl are the same ones that sell the cocaine, and they're mixing it.
They're putting small amounts of fentanyl into cocaine to make it more addictive and making everybody become fentanyl addicts.
Then somebody thinks they're going to do a bunch of cocaine and they find their cold dead body in the morning because it had fentanyl in it.
So it's this, they're using cocaine to get people hooked on fentanyl.
And fentanyl is not detectable in cocaine.
You've got to have an instrument to do it.
You can't put your finger in there and lick it and say, oh, yeah, it's coke, because it's got fentanyl in it.
So an NPR article headlined, will U.S. military strike slow drug overdose deaths from December 11th?
Experts say no.
Every boat that gets hit, we save 25,000 American lives.
And when you view it that way, you don't mind, the president said.
But the article goes on to say, but most experts on criminal cartels and deadly street drugs say military strikes on speedboats in the Caribbean and East Pacific will have little or no impact on overdose deaths in the United States.
According to an expert quoted here, the street drug fentanyl, which accounts for the vast majority of U.S. drug deaths, isn't produced in Venezuela or smuggled in boats being targeted.
Quote, whatever actions are taken in the Caribbean have no effect on fentanyl.
Cartels operating in the Caribbean are heavily involved in cocaine trafficking, the expert said, but much of the illegal product goes to countries other than the United States.
Freddie from South Carolina, a Democrat, you're next.
What is your top news story of the week?
unidentified
Yeah, my top news story of the week is: Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein is in the same boat.
Donald Trump's wife prostituted herself to become Donald Trump.
Well, kudos to the previous caller who slammed the Democratic Party.
A pox on both their houses.
We have representatives that are nothing more than obsequious corporate bootlegging dogs.
And what's happened to our health care system?
This is run by a bunch of lawyers.
Insurance companies are nothing but lawyers.
So healthcare dictated to by lawyers.
It's not going to end until we have single payer.
Anybody who hasn't seen Mike Moore's movie Sickle yet, shame on you.
And I ordered, I thought I was ordering a copy of 911, which I agree with everything behind, but it's 11.9.
And it was, I just watched it here over Thanksgiving.
I had to stop three different times.
It was more disturbing than Schengler's list, what we did to Flint, Michigan.
And that was done at the behest of, you know, they piped fresh water for Euron into GM when they complained about their parts coroning.
And they kept feeding poison to Flint, Michigan, because Flint, Michigan was the home of the union.
It was the first sit-down strike.
And everything that's been done in Flint, Michigan since 1983, I worked at Jaysville GM.
We whipped the first time in the history of the UAW, they whipsawed open a national agreement smack in the middle of April of 1983.
And we took concessions and gave up things and we took the work away from Flint.
And it started then.
What's been done to Flint since 1983 has been a corporate crime, but we've got an obsequious you, I'm sorry, you know better than we Donald Trump, a broken watch is right twice a day.
When Donald Trump first came out of the scene, his first comment was, the problem with this country was the media.
And you are.
Everything that's happened here, it's on you.
The fact that he got a first term, you handed him a first term on a silver platter.
You gave him a billion dollars worth of free advertising, and you made nothing but money.
And that's all you do is make money reporting on the travesties that you've caused.
And the thing about the, I'm sorry, I got to get my thoughts together.
Trump and Stephen Miller invented this term narco-terrorist so they could justify their murders in the Caribbean.
But if these people, I would say they're really business people because they're feeling a need with a product that people seem to want in this country.
And the other side of that, if they were actually wanting to kill American citizens, wouldn't they give their products away for free?
I was wondering whatever happened to the audit when there was supposed to be President Trump and Ron Paul was interested in auditing Fort Knox and the other two gold repositories for the federal government.
We're concerned about if we still have the gold or not?
Brian from Elizabethville, Pennsylvania, a Democrat.
You're next.
unidentified
Hi.
Thank you for taking my call today.
Real quickly, two topics.
I live in Pennsylvania, grocery price going up six, I think, and a half percent.
I went in a store two days ago to buy a pint of, well, I bought a pint of soda.
It was $2.79 a couple days ago.
When I went in yesterday, it was up to $299.
The prices are going up drastically.
And the other thing I wanted to say was: we have one bully and a whole bunch of cowards.
The seven Democrats who went along with the big ugly bill should be ashamed of themselves.
We got the biggest country on planet Earth, Russia, who has kidnapped children, murdered journalists, and his whole idea is just to take over land and occupy land for resources.
And we're seeing that from our own country right now.
Not one Venezuelan boat that was bombed was ever captured with evidence that these people were transporting fentanyl.
Nine fishermen were murdered by the cartel who refused to drive these boats.
They don't have a choice down there to do these things.
And the people of this country have been dummied down thanks to the Koch brothers decade.
Later on this morning on the Washington Journal, Josh Golan from the group Fairplay will talk about the renewed efforts in Congress to improve child online safety.
But first, after the break, it was 25 years ago today when Al Gore conceded the 2000 presidential race to George W. Bush in that wild 36-day overtime election.
We'll take a look back with author and expert John Fortier of the American Enterprise Institute.
unidentified
American History TV, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend, as the nation celebrates the 250th anniversary of its founding, join American History TV for our series, America 250, and discover the ideas and defining moments of the American story.
This week, historians discuss the inspirations for the American Revolution and the personalities of the founders, hosted by the Jack Miller Center and the American Revolution Institute.
On Lectures in History, we'll explore gun manufacturing in America and its impact on mass production.
On the presidency, Douglas Brinkley charts the evolution of executive orders.
Exploring the American story, watch American History TV every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold, original series, Sunday, with our guest best-selling author, Arthur Brooks, who has written 13 books about finding purpose, connection, and cultivating lasting joy.
His books include Love Your Enemies, Build the Life You Want with co-author Oprah Winfrey and his latest The Happiness Files.
He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein.
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.
It's 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.
Back at our table this morning is John Fortier, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, here to talk about the 25th anniversary of the Bush versus Gore overtime election.
Well, we had an incredible election, which was extremely close.
And, you know, our presidential elections are not just about the popular vote, they're also about the Electoral College.
So it was a close election, but one that came down to one state, Florida.
And that state was very closely divided.
Millions of votes have been cast, and it came down to a few hundred votes.
We ended up having a long and contested recount, really lasting five weeks until just about this time, 25 years ago, when the Supreme Court stepped in and, for a variety of reasons, said the counting we're doing is over, and the very narrow margin that George Bush had in Florida was the final result, ultimately leading to Bush becoming the president.
Well, for those who remember, it varied a little bit.
It went up and down because we had some different counts, but the final vote tally was just 500 votes or so out of 6 million cast in Florida and over 100 million cast in the United States.
So it was very, very close.
And all sorts of questions we had about how we count and what was going on could have affected that margin.
Now, I want to invite our viewers to join in on this conversation with any questions or comments you may have about that time.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
John, something that struck me in preparing for this conversation was kind of how after the Supreme Court decision came down, both candidates reacted to the decision.
I want you to take a listen to both how then Senator George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore talked about the results.
unidentified
I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside.
And may God bless his stewardship of this country.
Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road.
Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen.
Yet it came and now it has ended, resolved as it must be resolved through the honored institutions of our democracy.
Over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed the motto, not under man, but under God and law.
That's the ruling principle of American freedom, the source of our democratic liberties.
I've tried to make it my guide throughout this contest as it has guided America's deliberations of all the complex issues of the past five weeks.
Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken.
Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it.
I accept the finality of this outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College.
And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession hearts and hopes into our campaigns.
So there was Governor George W. Bush praising Al Gore, then Vice President, after that Supreme Court decision, after Al Gore's remarks.
I wonder if you can say, John, or whether you believe, just given the current state of politics, how divided and partisan politics is right now, whether that type of language, that type of concession speech could happen right now in these politics.
Well, the election result was close, and there were some calls for recounts in various counties.
And back then, we had different kinds of technology than we have today.
One of the good things we've done is to get rid of some of that technology.
We still have some issues with our current technology, but back then there was a system that you could use where you would actually have to take a pin and punch through a little piece of paper to get a lot.
Now, one of the problems with that was that sometimes people didn't punch all the way through, or the Chad was hanging there, or there was another term, a pregnant Chad, that Americans learned all about the very, you know, all the details of this election voting system.
And when we recounted and this close election where every vote counted, there were different standards perhaps in different counties.
How do we count this vote that wasn't completely cast?
And so much of the controversy had to do with, well, what is the actual count in some of these counties?
And ultimately, it's still a close win for President Bush.
But one of the things that we did after the fact was to get rid of that technology and try to move to better counting standards so that we don't have those problems today.
And the one thing that we got to remember is Bush was never behind.
Bush never trailed in that election.
Yeah, you're right.
The technology's come along, and that's great.
But you know what I don't understand is as Florida cleaned up its act, why do we got states that have problems with theirs, like Arizona and states like that?
So as far as we've come, we're still behind because there's still states that can't get the shit right, just can't get it right.
Well, it is true that George W. Bush was not behind.
Once the final vote came in, at least the initial final vote, he had a very small lead.
And that served him well.
He acted in some ways a little more like the president-elect than Vice President Gore.
But our counting, you know, our counting is better than it was.
There are a lot of things that have improved, but we still do have some issues.
I think we thought coming out of Bush v. Gore that the technology was every problem and we fixed some things.
But technology is not all of the issue.
And there are issues with registration.
There are issues with how one casts ballots and how one ultimately when one returns them.
And we still have a lot of controversies.
But on the pure voting technology side, I think through the course of 25 years, it didn't happen all at once.
We've moved to a system which at least is a little clearer.
Most people have some paper ballots that are backups to how they vote.
And we can argue about exactly how we should use them and whether some of the scanners that count them are perfect.
But we are in a much better place, I think, than we were in the 2000 when we had really some antiquated types of technology, not only the punch cards, but also others like the lever machines, which we now do not have.
Pat from Decatur, Illinois, Republican, you're next.
unidentified
Good morning.
I guess I wanted to comment on the beginning where you showed the reactions of the candidates.
And I mean, clearly that was meant to contrast it to what we see today.
But I think that's a little misleading when the real difference was the transparency of the process.
The reason they reacted the way they did was because the process in Florida was pretty transparent.
We had tons of news media down there.
We had explanations of hanging Chads and all of the different little nuances of the counting.
In 2020, we saw in Georgia, we saw construction paper pasted over or taped over the windows so people couldn't see.
We saw Republicans shut out of the counting process in certain places.
We saw a complete lie about plumbing breaking and we were going to have to stop counting for eight or 10 hours.
You know, there was just so much nefarious misleading comments made that it's ridiculous to say that people should have reacted the same way that they did in 2000 with Gore and Bush.
So I think those types of things need to be talked about.
You talked about the advances in technology, and while technologically it may be an advance, an advancement in an objective sense, their transparency is completely gone and people can't relate to the kinds of issues that there are now in counting.
And so I really think it's a little bit of an open question, a little bit ambiguous if it is really a better process or not when it removes the possibility of the voters from really having confidence in the process.
And I think in some cases we did make it a little more difficult to see what was going on, partly some COVID restrictions, partly we do have observers from both parties.
That's something that generally is true across the country.
When one opens absentee ballots, when one counts ballots, even in the process leading up to the election, both parties have some representation and get to see this.
I do see election officials now generally building centers with more windows, with more cameras that you can see.
You're right that the problem is not, we don't see everything, and I'm for more transparency.
But I think 2020 was a special case, and we can argue about some of the details about that.
But generally speaking, I think across the country, we have more transparency and more ability to see what's going on than we did in 2000.
Well, that's a very good question, and one we argued about, and some people still argue about today.
We have a lot of institutions that are potentially involved in a recount, especially a presidential election.
Of course, some of the debate went on because there were some initial recounts and Florida state courts stepped in to clarify the process, or some would say to extend or get rid of the deadlines.
And that was a controversy.
Republicans didn't think that the Florida state court should be getting involved in the way that they thought, and they took it to federal court.
So some people see it as a Supreme Court in the U.S. reining in state courts that were out of control.
So we had many institutions back and forth trying to figure out, you know, when do we have to stop the counting?
Why are we counting?
How are we counting?
And ultimately, the Supreme Court stepped in partly because we were really running up against the deadline of when the Electoral College was going to meet.
One thing about a presidential election is we have a lot less time to resolve it than a congressional election or another election because in December, those presidential electors, the ones we're really voting for, not technically for president, they have to meet.
And so the court stepped in at the time.
It was seen as a conservative leading court.
The decision is kind of a complicated decision.
In some ways, it was seven to two with some of the Democratically appointed judges seeing some of the problems with the Florida recount.
Five of them, justices, seeing that we really needed to stop the counting to prepare for the Electoral College.
And afterwards, I do think that many Democrats lost a little bit of confidence at the court.
The poll numbers for the court on the Democratic side went down.
But it was a battle of many institutions, and we really were up against a deadline.
which somebody needed to step in and say when this thing would end and the court stepped in 25 years ago.
In modern history, I mean, obviously, I know the Supreme Court has a pretty storied history in this country.
But in modern history, was the 2000 election and the decision from Supreme Court, was that really one of the first inflection moments for people, at least one side of the country, to really start to distrust the Supreme Court, kind of echoing the numbers that we see right now?
You saw the Warren Court in the 60s and 70s have a reaction of conservatives who said this is too activist a court, and you saw the numbers of people on the right, their confidence in the court go down.
I do think it was an inflection point in 2000 where there has been a little less confidence on the Democratic side, and that's built a bit more in recent years.
So we've had various inflection points, but that was certainly one for the Democrats.
And Florida was in some ways more transparent than many other states in that all the ballots were able to be looked at after the fact.
And there were some media consortiums who looked at all the ballots afterwards.
And certainly they did find, in most of the scenarios, George Bush would have been the winner.
And certainly in the scenario of just the types of recounts that have been requested in the early stages, there was one scenario at some point too that says under certain circumstances, counting statewide, maybe the ballots would have tipped slightly in Gore's favor.
I mean, I think it shows really how close it was.
If you make slightly different assumptions about what types of ballots to count and where to count them, you might move things just the needle one way.
But most of the scenarios did show that George W. Bush was a very, very narrow winner in this key state.
And if they hadn't stepped in, I think we were going to have the Electoral College.
So at some point, there had to be some answer where those electors were appointed.
But the Electoral College votes were going to be counted by Congress.
And while we had some controversy in 2020, certainly people know about, we also actually had a little bit of controversy in 2000 itself or 2001, just after this election, where there were a few people objecting to votes in the counting of the electoral votes.
It's actually very difficult, though, to really, really unravel those votes or to object to them and to have them thrown out.
And it wasn't possible in 2000 and really takes super majorities.
And I guess I would say also that we've done a little bit of reform to change the way in which we count those ballots.
We have a slightly better law in terms of counting electoral votes.
So as much as people might have tried to make a little trouble, I think still the mechanism for counting those electoral votes at the end of the day in January would likely lead to the outcome that we had.
So people might have tried to make a little more trouble, but I think we would have been in the same situation.
First of all, the Supreme Court stepped in because the Electoral College was leaning towards Gore.
They stepped in and cut that off.
The second thing is that this was about absentee ballots, mail-in ballots.
Now this isn't going to stop mail-in ballots because the Democrats have figured out how to use it.
The third thing is that I'm a retired military officer.
I've been a voting officer overseas.
Every ballot that's voted overseas comes into the Atlantic Fleet port or the Pacific Fleet port, and they are stamped.
They're postmarked.
Part of the battle was that they had a bunch of ballots that were not postmarked, and they wanted to count them because they came from service people, which was a good idea.
But my theory is that if you look at the Secretary, the then Secretary of State at that time, if you look at her travel, you will find that she visited each of the counties that had those ballots.
Well, look, we weren't able to get into all of the many controversies.
There were dozens and dozens of lawsuits, some of them successful and some of them not.
And one of the issues, the caller is correct, was about overseas military ballots.
Again, with such a small margin, everybody was criticizing or scrutinizing each type of balloting.
And yes, there are some issues with the way those ballots come in.
Are there postmarks?
At the end of the day, I think that issue did not end up being the most important.
Vice President Gore didn't really challenge those ballots as some thought he maybe should have, partly wanting to make sure that overseas voters, especially military voters, were not being disenfranchised.
So it is one of the issues.
And people pointed to the hanging chads, the way we counted the famous butterfly ballot, which some people thought made some voters confused as to how they vote.
All those things, though, we did litigate.
We went through a process.
And at the end of the day, you could argue how our voting system should have been.
But the way it was in place at the time, the way we litigated it, it ended up being just a very narrow margin for George W. Bush, which was enough to make him the president.
Yes, but also I lived at ground zero in 2000 and actually was an elected official from Palm Beach County.
The whole issue in Florida came down to Palm Beach County.
There's no two ways about it.
Buchanan got more votes in Palm Beach County than he did in almost the rest of the state combined because the people who were voting didn't understand the ballot and they messed it up.
But also remember, how Gore wins his home state, Florida is not an issue.
Our home state being Tennessee.
And he couldn't hit Kerry, Tennessee.
So it was interesting, but the final total results, when the newspapers, everybody got together to recount every vote in Florida, it still ended up with an unbelievably narrow majority of 530 in favor of Bush.
So it is what it is, and it didn't change anything at all, really.
But it was easy to comprehend because if you knew what happened in Palm Beach County, you could see a real problem because the way, and the head of elections in Palm Beach County at the time was Teresa Lapur, a good friend of mine.
It was really one of the key counties we were looking at.
And I think the callers especially referred to something people referred to at the time as the butterfly ballot.
To oversimplify, some people believe the way the ballot was designed made some voters confused.
And instead of perhaps voting for Vice President Gore, they might have actually cast a vote for third-party candidate Pat Buchanan.
There were some issues with ballot design.
It can cost people votes.
I think we do a better job of that today.
But there also isn't really much of a remedy for it.
To the extent that we could speculate whether it was true or not, there's no way after the fact to say, well, of course, this voter really meant to vote for Al Gore instead of voting for Pat Buchanan because the ballot was confusing.
So we had a number of issues, some of which may have been valid things to think about in the future, but there was no real remedy and no way of going back and remedying that.
So people raised the butterfly ballot, but it wasn't really an issue that both sides took on legally because there wasn't really much of a remedy, nothing to do about it after the fact.
And C-SPAN will be re-airing key moments from the Bush v. Gore overtime election, including speeches and the full Supreme Court hearing on the case later today at 1 p.m. here on C-SPAN.
You can also find more information by going on our website, c-span.org forward slash Bush-Gore.
Later on this morning on the Washington Journal, we'll take a deep dive into the immigration court system with Judge Jeremiah Johnson, Vice President of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
But first, after the break, Josh Golan from the group Fair Play talks about renewed efforts in Congress to improve child online safety.
unidentified
Get C-SPAN wherever you are with C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
Catch the latest episodes of Washington Journal.
Find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
The C-SPAN Now app is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
Download it for free today.
C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
Book TV.
Every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 features leading authors discussing their latest non-fiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At noon Eastern, Matthew Davis tells the history of Mount Rushmore, including economic and political forces that influenced the memorial's creation in 1925.
And then beginning at 2 p.m. Eastern, coverage of the annual Boston Book Festival.
Hear from authors discussing gambling, sports culture, Silicon Valley, and more.
And at 9:15 p.m. Eastern, British journalist Piers Morgan argues that there's been a global rejection of wokeism and discusses what he thinks a post-woke world would be like.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
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 watch 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.
Joining us now to talk about the efforts in Congress to bolster child online safety is Josh Golan, executive director of the group FairPlay.
Josh, thanks so much for joining us this morning.
I wonder if we could just start off.
Can you tell our viewers what exactly is FairPlay?
What's your mission?
And how are you funded?
unidentified
Sure.
FairPlay's mission is to eliminate the harmful business practices of big tech and marketers.
We advocate for policies that would make the internet less addictive and less harmful for children and it would help them get the offline time that they need to thrive.
And we are funded entirely by private donations and private foundations.
We have a strict policy about not taking any money from big tech or any other corporation.
Now, John, before we continue, I want to invite our viewers to join in on this conversation.
We're talking about child online safety.
Your numbers, your call-in numbers are sorted by regional areas this time.
So 202-748-8000.
That's your Eastern and Central regions.
202-748-8001.
That's your Mountain and Pacific regions.
And for parents and caregivers, your expertise line is 202-748-8002.
So go ahead and start calling in.
We want to hear from you on this important topic.
John, C-SPAN covered a Senate judiciary hearing this week examining online safety for kids.
I want to take a listen to it because it's pretty much talking about the current state of these conversations happening on the Hill right now.
Take a listen.
unidentified
Every time I speak of him, I smile because I am grateful God let me borrow his angel for 17 and a half years.
But every day I am angry.
A woman online befriended James on Instagram.
She created what every predator knows how to build, a safe space.
She made him feel comfortable, seen, liked.
She groomed him.
Then she asked if he wanted to see her unclothed and exposed herself.
She asked him to do the same.
And like any innocent 17-year-old boy who liked a girl and saw no danger, he did.
That moment she created became their weapon.
The attackers came, not one person, but what we believe at least four.
For nearly 20 hours, they attacked, threatened, terrorized, dismantled my child.
Every time he tried to fight back and asked, why are you doing this to me?
Please leave me alone.
They escalated, sending his image to friends and family, telling him he would be labeled a pedophile, telling him his future was over, telling him you should just kill yourself.
And in those last moments, my son, who had everything to live for, felt like he had no other choice.
A day that started with laughter, college friends, and joy ended with my husband finding our child unalive in our home in the middle of the day.
Now, that was a testimony from Tamia Woods from Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Hearing where she spoke about her 17-year-old son, James, who committed suicide after falling victim to online harassment and extortion.
It's just one of the many instances and experiences that we've heard about recently.
I wonder, what's your reaction to this?
And how would you describe evolving threats that children are facing while surfing online?
unidentified
Yeah.
I mean, first of all, that is so heartbreaking.
And there are far, far too many children who have died by suicide after being sextorted, including several that we work with in Fair Play and have become passionate advocates for online safety.
I think one thing that is really important for viewers to understand is that this is directly related to the way that these platforms are designed.
So these platforms want us to connect with and want our children to connect with as many people as possible because that creates more activity and more time on the platform, which then allows them to sell more advertising.
So internal documents from Meta have found that every day, 1.4 million inappropriate adults are recommended to children to follow.
So the recommendation algorithms are actually connecting these predators, these sextortionists, directly to children.
And Meta is very aware of this.
And the other platforms are very aware of this.
So I think it's really important to understand that it's these design choices that are there to make more money off of our children, to addict them to these platforms, are the very things that are putting them at danger.
And it's not just sextortion.
It's connecting kids to drug dealers.
It is sending kids pro-eating disorder and pro-suicide content, sending them down rabbit holes of really the most dangerous and concerning content there is.
And it's driving a mental health crisis when it comes to young people.
And all of this goes back to this business model of addict kids by any means possible.
But Josh, these are long-standing problems, something that lawmakers in Congress have long said that they would crack down on.
I wonder if you can just give us a brief overview of what the status of these efforts are on Congress in the Hill now.
unidentified
Yeah, great question.
I think the first thing we need to understand is that this problem is as much Congress's fault as it is these platforms that are exploiting our children.
Congress has not passed a new law to protect children online since 1999.
That's 26 years before the smartphone or social media even existed.
And that law only protects kids up to their 13th birthday.
So teens have no protections at all.
Thanks in part to An understanding of a mental health crisis that is being driven by social media and by whistleblower documents and by lawsuits, which have given us access to so many internal documents from these companies, Congress is finally waking up, and there are a number of proposals in Congress to keep kids safer.
The one that has the most support is the Kids Online Safety Act, which passed the Senate last year by a 91 to 3 incredible bipartisan vote, but then was unable to get a floor vote in the House.
Speaker Mike Johnson blocked it.
And this year has 72 sponsors in the Senate and was just introduced in the House.
But the House's version is much, much weaker than what we have in the Senate and will not be sufficient to protect kids.
So we're really focused on strengthening that House version and moving it across the finish line this year.
But there's no doubt that big tech, that Meta, and these other companies are doing everything they can to stop Congress from passing any strong laws.
I think it's really, and the caller raises a really important point.
It's not just social media where our kids are being infected.
And in fact, video games are increasingly more and more like social media, where part of the allure for the kids is the ability to chat with and interact with other players, strangers.
And we are seeing on these platforms, we're seeing a tremendous amount of grooming going on on games like Roblox and Fortnite, as well as just horrific cyberbullying takes place while these games are being played.
So I think this is one reason why something like the Kids Online Safety Act is so important.
It would cover, at least the Senate version, would cover video games as well as social media.
And it would say that these platforms have a duty to design their video games in a way that is safer for children.
So that would mean ensuring that adults are not connecting to children over these games and grooming them.
It would mean putting in measures to decrease cyberbullying so that we wouldn't see all of these ganging up on children that occurs.
And really a lot of bullying that occurs around whether kids are able to buy the extras for their characters or not.
So creating enormous financial pressures on kids to buy what are essentially worthless products that have no value in the real world in order not to be bullied.
So all of this goes back to the way that these platforms are designed for addiction and to extract our children's time, attention, and money.
And as long as they are unregulated, these problems will continue.
That's why we need things like the Kids Online Safety Act.
Do you have good visibility about other cultures that may or may not be similar in demographics or to America?
It seems like America, whether the issue is drugs, too much food, bad behavior on the internet, we just take it to the next level.
So are like kids in England, France, Palestine, are they spending too much time online and taking it out on each other?
Or is this peculiar to America?
It's not peculiar to America, the behavior of young people.
And that's because the same techniques are used by these social media companies like Meta and TikTok all over the world.
What is different is that much of the rest of the world has responded quicker and more forcefully.
So as many of your viewers probably saw, Australia this week banned children under 16 from accessing social media.
Many other countries in Europe and in the UK have put in restrictions on how you can collect data from children and use that data to target them and have put in measures that require these platforms to be safer for young people.
So this is a global problem and because of this business model that these companies have.
But frankly, America is lagging behind right now because we have seen legislation pass in many countries in Europe.
And as I said, the really dramatic measure that Australia took this week.
Incredible that, you know, we have a political system in other places around the world too, where there's ads and stuff and you don't know where they're from.
That they're fake, you know, we need to have controls on that.
You're talking about safety.
That's the most important thing.
So, yeah, these bills that are in Europe, we need to have those here.
But AI, generally, we need like Isaac Asimov's three law of robotics.
And then he has another thing that starts with the K, a law, where AI cannot cause harm to people directly or can't cause other humans to cause harm to people.
So, you know, we haven't done anything about that.
You know, AI can trigger a nuclear war accidentally, you know, just like humans can't.
So, I mean, that's an additional risk for nuclear conflicts.
So, anyway, we need to get our act together in the U.S. and globally about controlling AI.
And politically, we can't have these companies or individuals manipulating us, and we have no idea who it is.
Josh?
Yeah, I couldn't agree more with the caller.
You know, we are on the verge of making the same exact mistakes that we made with social media with AI, where we allow these companies to develop and target children with no restrictions, with no guardrails, and you let the horse out of the barn, and so many kids get harmed before we even start thinking about regulation.
With AI, we have already had a number of cases where AI chatbots have encouraged children to die by suicide, have encouraged children to harm themselves, have encouraged children to starve themselves, have encouraged children to harm others.
And meanwhile, we have these AI companies spending over $100 million to influence elections and target politicians so they won't be regulated.
And in fact, the president yesterday issued an executive order that would attempt to limit the ability of states to regulate AI.
So think about that for a moment.
The federal government isn't doing anything to protect children from AI, and they're trying to stop states from who are stepping up in order to offer children some protections.
So this is really serious right now.
This is a critical moment.
These companies are unleashing the most powerful persuasive technologies we've ever seen on children with absolutely no guardrails.
It's a race to the bottom for our children's attention.
And if we don't regulate it, we are going to see mental health problems and suicide and things like that on a scale that we've never seen before.
Josh, tell me, is AI and AI chatbots, is that a part of the Kids Online Safety Act?
And I know that you said that the House version compared to the Senate version is much weaker.
Can you explain exactly how and whether or not removing the duty care is a part of that?
unidentified
Yeah, so on the question of covering chatbots, it's a little complicated.
And based on the definitions that are in the bill, it would cover chatbots if they were on a social media platform.
So for instance, Instagram and Snap and TikTok all have chatbots that you can interact with on their platforms and those would be covered.
There's a little gray area about whether it would cover things like chat GPT and we may need additional laws to address things like that.
In terms of the differences between the Senate and House version, I think there are a couple of really critical differences that I want to focus on.
In the Senate, it requires platforms to have, it creates what's called the duty of care for platforms to ensure that the way that they are designed is not contributing to things like eating disorders, suicide, anxiety and depression, social media addiction, cyberbullying.
In the House, I mean, it only requires platforms to have policies and procedures to address certain harms.
And all of those harms are criminal acts, so it doesn't do anything about all the mental health harms or the addiction that kids face online.
And, you know, having policies and procedures is not nearly as strong as having a duty of care.
All those platforms already have policies and procedures.
We're not sure how this would actually change their behavior.
So that's the number one difference: not having that duty of care.
The second difference is that the Senate bill would allow states to continue to pass their own laws and enforce the laws that they have on the books.
The House version would preempt all state legislation and future regulation of these companies.
And that's really concerning because we have some great laws on the books in some of the states.
You know, states like Maryland and New York and California and Nebraska have all passed bills in the past couple of years to protect children online.
And those would no longer be valid if the House version of the Kids Online Safety Act passed.
So we want the strongest version to pass.
And we want to preserve states' rights to do even more to protect their children if that's what they want to do.
We have a question on X that says, I think this is another tragic example of why we need term or age limits.
Technology moves fast and it's difficult for quote older people to keep up with.
I feel younger minds who understand current technology would help immensely.
Your thoughts, Kristen from Portland, Maine.
unidentified
I think, you know, we absolutely need young people involved in these conversations.
And in fact, my organization advocates side by side with a couple of great youth-led organizations, Design It For Us and the Young People's Alliance.
And I think one of the things that's so heartening from the last couple of years is that we're seeing young people, even those who are, you know, so much enmeshed in social media, saying, this is not what we want.
You know, more than half of young people say they wish social media had never existed.
If you ask young people, do they want the younger brother or sister to go on these platforms?
It's almost always a resounding no.
And so what we're starting to see is those young people's voices saying, we deserve better.
We don't stop designing for addiction.
Stop creating these, you know, sending us down these rabbit holes and making us vulnerable to predators.
And so I think the young people have an enormously important role to play.
And it's those young people advocating side by side with parents that are creating the pressure in Washington to finally do something.
For several years, I have been telling my friends that AI is my greatest fear, not from aggressors from abroad, not from anyone within the United States.
unidentified
But my greatest fear is AI because it is smarter than we are and it does not seem to be friendly toward humans.
And I think one of the things that is so concerning right now is that our society is being remade by AI.
You know, more than one-third of children are confiding in AI chatbots.
AI is moving into the classrooms.
AI is, you know, they're building these enormous data centers that are using tremendous amounts of energy and water.
It is displacing workers.
And none of this is being done as part of a democratic conversation.
It is being rammed down our throats with practically zero discussion, and it's making a lot of money for a few people.
And the rest of us are really getting the short end of the stick, and children are potentially going to get the worst of it.
So I think this is a moment where we need people to rise up and to make their voices heard.
That, you know, we want to preserve humanity, that we want to preserve human relationships, that we don't want AI therapists and doctors and co-workers and teachers.
And, you know, so this is, you know, I think the next couple of years are really going to determine the course of where we're going.
And if we don't regulate AI, if we don't put some safeguards in place, if we don't limit AI interactions with our children, I really fear for how this next generation is going to develop.
Obviously, this is an issue that impacts real people, real families, but we are entering midterm season as we go into 2026.
I wonder how you believe or if you feel that this issue with COSA, obviously that Childs Online Safety Act legislation, or just the idea of should children have their phones in schools and other similar related issues percolating in a national conversation.
Do you think that this will have an impact on midterms come November?
unidentified
I do think this will have an impact.
I mean, I am in DC all the time with parents who have lost their children to things that have happened on social media.
And these parents have been sounding the alarm for years and are the reason why COSA has so much support.
But I'll tell you this.
We have done polling.
Other organizations have done polling that show this is an issue that has like 90% support among parents.
It is one of the most important issues to parents.
And it is just sitting there waiting for one of the parties to step up and be a strong leader in this.
And they will have so much support from parents.
But right now, both parties take too much money from big tech and they're not showing the leadership.
And really, this is just an issue that is waiting for one of the parties to say, you know what, we're not going to keep taking all this big tech money.
We are going to stand up for families.
And I guarantee whichever party does that first will have a significant advantage in the next election.
Now later on this morning on the Washington Journal, we'll take a deep dive into the immigration court system with Judge Jeremiah Johnson, Vice President of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
But first, it's open forum.
Your chance to call in on any political or public policy topic on your mind this morning, start calling in now.
Most of the names are familiar to those who follow politics and government.
Hunter Biden, Rudolph Giuliani, Tony Podesta, Paul Manafort, and many others.
Kenneth Vogel has written a book about these figures.
It's called Devil's Advocates, the hidden story of Rudy Giuliani, Hunter Biden, and Washington insiders on the payrolls of corrupt foreign interests.
In the publisher Morrow's liner notes on the book, they write: the foreign influence business comprised of shadowy operators who quietly shape U.S. foreign policy while producing massive paydays for themselves has existed for decades, often unnoticed by Americans.
Ken Vogel is a reporter for the New York Times, previously was with Politico.
unidentified
Author Kenneth Vogel with his book, Devil's Advocates: The Hidden Story of Rudy Giuliani, Hunter Biden, and the Washington Insiders on the payroll of corrupt foreign interests.
On this episode of BookNotes Plus, with our host, Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
C-SPAN Shop.org is C-SPAN's online store.
Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
It's Open Forum, your chance to call in on any public policy or politics issue that you want to talk about this Saturday morning.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
You can also text us at 202-748-8003.
Includes your first name, your city, and your state.
While we wait for your calls this morning, I want to get back into the latest headlines.
First up, we have from Politico a headline that says, Kamala Harris delivers reality check to bullish Democrats.
This is an article about her speech last night at the DNC in Los Angeles.
It says Kamala Harris warned fellow Democrats on Friday that the American dream is dying and that her party shares the blame, a bracing reality check for the party following a string of Democratic victories.
I want you to take a listen to some of the comments from the former vice president last night.
People are done with the status quo and they're ready to break things to force change.
And so real talk, right?
So in comes Donald Trump, casting himself as the change agent, but with empty promises to the American people.
Under his leadership, we all know prices are up, inflation is up, unemployment is up, health care costs for millions of Americans are about to double.
We all know that in the midst of all this, the truth and reality of the moment, that just a few days ago, he said the economy was, I had to count the pluses.
They're five.
A plus, That's what he said when asked, rate the economy.
Donald Trump is not the only source of our problems.
He and the rise of the MAGA movement, I believe, are a symptom of a failed system that is the result of years of outsourcing and offshoring financial deregulation,
growing income inequality, a broken campaign finance system, and endless partisan gridlock, all contributing to how we got here today.
So as we plan for what comes after this administration, we cannot afford to be nostalgic for what was in fact a flawed status quo and a system that failed so many.
Obviously, we just heard from John Fortier talking about the Bush v. Gore race, and he said, an expert on this issue, that there had been a lot of improvements on the technology of voting, and that included mail-in ballots.
unidentified
Yes, but it doesn't prove that the voter did the voting or that they even are alive.
Somebody else could have done the voting for them.
And it's broken the chain of custody.
The ballots need to be kept within the precinct and put into the tabulator at the precinct and then locked there.
Obviously, the president has talked in recent days and weeks about delivering a paycheck directly to the American people, potentially because of all the money he says that is coming in from tariffs.
But there has, well, I'll ask my producers for an update on that.
Pat from North Dakota, an independent.
You're next.
unidentified
Hello.
I just want to say that I think there's on the bureaucracy, it seems to me that the liberals have a monopoly on the bureaucracy because Laura Ingram said most of the people that work for the government are liberal.
And it seems to me there should be a 50-50 process of when they hire government workers.
Half of them should be conservative.
Because I don't think it's fair that our money goes out the door just because just some of the liberals say so.
And there should be a taxpayers' union checking the money before it goes out the door.
We always hear about all this fraud when it's already spent.
So I'm reading a CNN article from November 19th that says, four reasons you probably won't get a $2,000 check from Trump soon.
And one scary reason you might.
It says that President Trump has promised to deliver $2,000 tariff rebate checks next year, raising the hopes of a lifeline for millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet.
Although Trump has suggested these checks are essentially a done deal, the reality is there are major, perhaps insurmountable obstacles standing in the way.
Experts tell CNN it's improbable that federal government will send out $2,000 checks next year unless it looks like the economy needs to be rescued from an imminent recession.
So that was to the voter or to the caller's earlier question about whether or not there could be a similar check in the future.
Yeah, I just wanted to thank you for the forum that you provide for ordinary working common Americans.
And the vast majority of us fall into that category.
I think a lot of the callers are really talking about the same issue, which is the wealth inequality in the country, the concentration of wealth in the top, not just 1%, but the fraction of 1%.
And people are really struggling.
I think it's 60% of Americans don't have $1,000 in the bank for any kind of emergency.
People aren't eating best food because they can't afford it.
They don't have access to it.
They're getting sicker.
We're number 42 in terms of the life expectancy in the world.
We have the most chronic illnesses of any of the industrialized nations.
And that's all because of the economy that we have.
So I just encourage people to follow the money.
And look at how many billionaires are living very well and how many Americans aren't.
And then to highlight that even further, the farmers are getting, by the way, our family owns a small soybean farm in Iowa, and we don't get any of this bailout money because we're not a wealthy farmer.
Senator Grassley, in Trump's first term, asked and received almost a half a million dollars in farmer bailout money for his little soybean farm in Kansas.
unidentified
You can look that up.
Half a million dollars.
So here is a multi-millionaire.
He's been in politics for 50 years.
How did he get a half a million dollars of my taxpayer money?
And my son can't even get help with his health insurance.
So to Eileen's point about the announcement that President Trump made, I'm looking at a notice article that says Trump announces $12 billion in aid for farmers affected by tariffs.
Officials said the administration will allocate $11 billion first.
And the article goes on by Tyler Spence to say that Trump said at a roundtable meeting with administration officials and farmers that aid would help farmers lower food prices and fight inflation, blaming Democrats for those problems.
Still, the aid is an acknowledgement that Trump's trade battles are hurting U.S. farmers.
The administration is expected to draw from the Department of Agriculture's emergency fund out emergency fund to pay out the aid with farmers expected to receive payments by February 28th.
Trump said the money would be pulled from tariff revenue.
Adam from Florida and Independent, you're up next.
unidentified
Hi there.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I'm just calling because I wanted to make a comment on the clip that you showed about Camilla Harris.
I want to start saying that I voted actually for Camilla Harris.
However, I do believe that the inflation started from the Biden administration.
And I think that Camilla Harris, at that time, people had high hopes when she was running for the presidency that she might make a difference.
But unfortunately, I don't think nothing was done.
And I do believe that's what costed her the presidency.
But I do believe that she had the ability at that time to make a difference.
And I would, in my lifetime, which I don't think I got, I got as many tomorrows as I had yesterday, but I'd like to see why don't the women get together?
They're the biggest voting block.
Why don't they get together and get rid of them old white men?
I'm a contractor, and I'm also an employee of NOTIS.
I work for both, and I don't see it as a conflict of interest.
But your first question on the BLM fraud, I will have our producers go and look for an article on that because I'm not exactly familiar with what you are discussing.
Well, I will point you to a New York Times article from October.
The headline is, Most voters think America's divisions cannot be overcome.
Poll says, a News Times and Siena survey shows a significant shift among voters as their concerns about health care of the political system overtake other issues.
That, again, was from October 2025.
Edward from Pennsylvania, a Democrat, your line is open.
unidentified
Yes, thank you for taking my call.
I read some time ago that after World War II in the South Pacific, Japan, the country of Japan, was given free medical care.
And as a result, Japan, after they got free medical care, Japan was listed as the healthiest nation in the world.
Now, I can't see if we are concerned about our health care.
Let us have health care paid by the government and we can become the healthiest nation in the world.
And the second thing I'd like to talk about, and that is Trump's agenda.
The President Trump agenda seems to be similar to Hitler's agenda.
Hitler started off destroying all the education, the books, and so on, and so on.
Up next, we'll take a deep dive into the immigration system with Judge Jeremiah Johnson, Vice President of the National Association of Immigration Dentalists.
Not just the coverage, you know, that we get of both chambers on one and two, but programs like Washington Journal that allow policymakers, lawmakers, personalities to come on and have this question time during Washington Journal.
unidentified
So it's a huge benefit.
I hope that all these streaming services carry C-SPAN as well because it's an important service to the American people.
I'm actually thrilled that this time in Washington Journal, I'm getting a lot of really substantive questions from across the political aisle.
Our country would be a better place if every American just watched one hour a week.
They could pick one, two, or three.
Just one hour a week, and we'd all be a much better country.
So thank you for your service.
Get C-SPAN wherever you are with C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
Catch the latest episodes of Washington Journal.
Find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
The C-SPAN Now app is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
c-span democracy unfiltered most of the names are familiar to those who follow politics and government Hunter Biden, Rudolph Giuliani, Tony Podesta, Paul Manafort, and many others.
Kenneth Vogel has written a book about these figures.
It's called Devil's Advocates, The Hidden Story of Rudy Giuliani, Hunter Biden, and Washington Insiders on the Payrolls of Corrupt Foreign Interests.
In the publisher Morrow's liner notes on the book, they write, the foreign influence business comprised of shadowy operators who quietly shape U.S. foreign policy while producing massive paydays for themselves has existed for decades, often unnoticed by Americans.
Ken Vogel is a reporter for the New York Times, previously was with Politico.
unidentified
Author Kenneth Vogel with his book, Devil's Advocates, The Hidden Story of Rudy Giuliani, Hunter Biden, and the Washington Insiders on the payroll of corrupt foreign interests.
On this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold, original series.
Sunday, with our guest best-selling author, Arthur Brooks, who has written 13 books about finding purpose, connection, and cultivating lasting joy.
His books include Love Your Enemies, Build the Life You Want with co-author Oprah Winfrey and his latest The Happiness Files.
He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader, David Rubenstein.
Joining us from San Francisco to talk about how the immigration court system works is Judge Jeremiah Johnson, Vice President of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
Judge Johnson, thank you so much for joining us this morning.
If you could just remind our viewers what the role of an immigration is and how is it different than other judges.
unidentified
And thank you, Jasmine, for having me.
Would also just like to clarify I'm a former immigration judge.
I was fired two weeks ago on November 21st.
Immigration judges preside over removal proceedings, which are the lawful manner in which a person is removed from the United States.
To do that, the law requires them to be placed in front of an immigration judge.
We wear robes, we hear evidence, we just make decisions based on the law and based only on the evidence presented before us.
The parties before us are the respondent or the immigrant who's being subject to removal, as well as Department of Homeland Security attorneys.
So we preside over the lawful manner in which people are removed from the United States.
And I want to ask you about your last two weeks, but first, can you talk about what type of cases an immigration judge might hear?
Is that asylum?
Is that removals?
What exactly does a work entail?
unidentified
Yes.
Well, the work entails removal proceedings and then for relief from removal, basically people can apply for asylum.
They can apply for cancellation of removal, say they've been in the United States for a long period of time and that their family members would suffer a certain level of hardship.
They can apply for adjustment of status for green cards.
So judges have a broad and wide authority to grant many types of forms of relief from people to remain in the United States, including asylum, which the majority of the cases are.
But also then they have the authority to remove the person, to order the person removed.
And I want to continue this conversation, but I would like to invite our viewers in to join in.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
And you can also text us at 202-748-8003.
Jeremiah, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University basically compiles statistics about immigration.
Here is what they put together on the state of immigration, on the state of the immigration court just this year.
If you look at this full screen, it talks about how the total backlog of immigration cases is 3.4 million.
Of those, 2.2 million immigrants have filed for asylum and are awaiting hearings and decisions.
Immigration judges have issued overall involuntary departures in 55% of completed cases, totaling about 470,000 deportation orders, total of 506,000 new court cases in the fiscal year 2025.
That's, of course, according to TRAC, which is a data gathering and data research and distribution organization of Syracuse University.
Can you talk about how we got to this point where you have such an immense backlog of these immigration cases?
unidentified
Right, we've got to this point through years of neglect by the administrations and previous administrations, this one, as well, as far as investment in the immigration court system, the lack of independence for immigration judges to handle their own docket.
So you have docket shuffling, you have interference from the administration.
And then recently you have firings of immigration judges, unlawful firings, which doesn't seem to be consistent with addressing the backlog.
If you have such a heavy backlog and your goal is to remove people from the United States, it doesn't make sense to then unlawfully fire people to hear those cases.
So there needs to be more investment in immigration judges, additional hiring, but also there can be structural reforms from Congress to set up a strong and independent immigration court system outside of the Department of Justice or the executive branch of government.
Speaking of firings, you were, as you said, fired two weeks ago by the Trump administration.
Can you walk us through what happened?
What reason were you given?
unidentified
I was given no reason.
It was got an email with a letter attached indicating that pursuant to Article 2 of the Constitution, the Attorney General has decided to terminate my position, my role as an immigration judge.
Over 100 judges, 100 judges have received such termination letters throughout the country.
And that termination is unlawful.
No cause was given.
And that's, I think, should be the questions that are asked.
The executive, the Attorney General, and Congress, and the American people should be asking those questions as well.
How does the status of an immigration judge potentially, you know, I know you said that these were illegal, but is the status of an immigration judge, does that give some credence to the administration's ability to fire you guys basically at will with no notification and through an email?
unidentified
No, we are employees of the Department of Justice, so firing someone without cause or without any stated cause is just not right.
And firing an employee of the Department of Justice without a cause would be unlawful.
The law requires us to exercise our independent decision-making authority.
And so that is what immigration judges are doing every day.
And to have a firing without any stated reason is wrong.
And so that way we are proposing to remove the immigration courts from the executive branch and that political interference that you have just by the fact of being in the Department of Justice.
Before we turn to our callers, I want to point you to an ex post by the Department of Justice just a few days ago.
They say, quote, the last administration left us with an immigration crisis.
Help President Trump solve it, become a deportation judge today.
I wonder what your reaction is to seeing this, particularly after your last two weeks.
unidentified
I mean, that's just false advertisement.
We're not deportation judges.
We take our job very seriously.
We are immigration judges.
That's what the law states.
And also, I think it's kind of interesting to have such an advertisement and offer signing bonuses to particular cities when they're firing people from those cities, the experienced and experts in immigration law.
At the same time, they're watering down the standards for temporary immigration judges.
So that's another concern that sitting judges and the American people should have about this immigration crisis that we find ourselves in.
But Department of Homeland Security, my Orcas, fired a whole bunch of immigration judges and put in people from, I think it's USIC, gave them a five-week training, and they were told that they were supposed to let every illegal immigrant into the country not to pay attention to any of the asylum rules.
Yeah, to that point, that I don't know about the other additional firings, but I do know that there have been more firings under this administration than the past.
So, and certainly that would be shows that it's unlawful to immigration judges should exercise their independent discretion.
So, right now, there's a five-week, or you indicated a five-week training.
I had much more training than that.
I was appointed under the Trump administration.
Current temporary immigration judges and immigration judges are receiving less training than that right now.
No judge should be told to ignore the immigration law or asylum law.
So, I think that's a valid point that no immigration judge should be told that we should be able to exercise our independent authority to hear these cases.
And if people are to be removed from the United States, the law provides a process to do so, and that's through removal proceedings and presided over by immigration judges that should be exercising their independent decision-making authority based on the evidence solely provided in those proceedings.
Steve from Elk Grove Village, Illinois, an independent, you're next.
unidentified
Yeah, my comment would just be that I'd like to see a 10-year freeze on all immigration and then have the system repaired and then clean up whatever the mess has currently been left over from the Biden administration.
And I'd also like to see all the special interests and lobbyists who want to prepare for the new immigration law have no say in it and just the people of the United States.
So, immigration judges do not affect immigration policy as far as a pause of people entering the United States or not.
We follow the law as written.
So even a 10-year pause on immigration would still require immigration courts to work as far as handling cases, people applying for asylum or people in the United States without authorization.
They have to go through that removal process to have their case either heard or not heard.
So leaving people in a legal limbo would not necessarily be good for the immigration courts or the immigration people.
And I do agree that Congress needs to be fixing this through the law and not necessarily other interests.
Yes, I am a construction worker, and I want to know why you just don't enforce the simplest law.
It's illegal to work here in the United States, and if you work here without proper authorization, you're to be deported immediately without delay within 30 days.
And also, on a final note on this, I believe you probably lost your position and was fired because of your political views.
Yeah, so immigration judges do not hear cases about unlawful working in the United States.
That's a different enforcement mechanism.
So that's something that should be followed.
And a person is placed in removal proceedings and they're entitled to due process.
So simply putting a person in removal proceedings, then the judge hears that case.
They're entitled to certain protections and rights, but they also do have responsibilities.
So the judge should hear that case as expeditiously as possible.
But each person has a right to present a claim for relief.
And the Department of Homeland Security has that right to present evidence to remove the person.
It's a process to make sure that judges get it right and to add speed over speed over emphasizing speed over getting it right just simply is going to be more costly and less secure for the American people.
I just want to say, I came to this country, excuse me, in 1967.
My parents came here legally.
They worked, and after six years or so, they became citizens.
And back then, I'll never forget, my parents paid $25 for me and my sister because we were minors and we're proud American citizens.
I've raised three children.
They're both, they're all working.
Great family, husband, everything.
What I am just tired of is people always saying immigration, immigration.
I just like to point out to everybody, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, that you all are immigrants.
We all are immigrants.
Just because my children, yes, they were born here.
They're American citizens.
But their parents came from overseas.
Their great-grandparents came from overseas.
So I believe that everybody that calls in, somebody in your family, for you to be here today, had to come from overseas.
Unless you were a Native American Indian that you were born here, then I think that's what history says, that American citizens or Americans.
But everybody, you came from, you came from somebody.
I mean, you were born from your mother, of course.
Excuse me.
I'm nervous.
But what I'm trying to say is your great-grandparents, your great-grandparents, whatever, somebody in your family was an immigrant.
So stop bashing the immigrants.
Yes.
I wonder if your response to that, Jeremiah.
Just as an immigration judge, our process is to follow the law and to hear cases, each case individually.
So that's the bedrock of what the American Foundation is based on the rule of law.
And so I think that's what's the important thing is to remember is that every person that comes before an immigration judge in those immigration proceedings are entitled to respect, entitled to present their case, and entitled to a professional jurist to hear their claim.
Tony from Buffalo, New York, a Republican, you're next.
unidentified
Yes.
This is for Judge Johnson.
You know, I've spoken to Republicans, politicians, and Democrat politicians.
And what are your thoughts on having a show-me law?
In other words, show me, okay, say, for example, Joe Smith has been here for three years.
What have you done since the three years you've been here?
And you look up the and you look over their employee, employer, and they say, okay, I've worked for this factory for the last three years, okay, and I've never missed.
And you talk to the employer, he's been a contributing member of society, he's paid taxes, and he stayed out of trouble, kept his nose clean.
So now we give him a five-year probation.
And at the end of the five years, we extrapolate his citizenship.
Because, you know, the president wants, you know, he's talking about these golden, this golden generation and golden years and bringing all these factories back to the United States and all these, you know, you know, plants back to the United States.
Well, we're going to need people to work these plants.
And if we get rid of all the working, you know, all these immigrants, we are all immigrants.
And I think we should do a show-me law.
Show me what you've done.
Now, if you've been here for three years and you've done nothing, and you know what?
They're the ones we remove because they're not going to be contributing members of society and they haven't paid taxes like the U.S. citizens have for the last three years.
Jeremiah, I wonder if you have a response to that.
unidentified
I do.
I want to thank.
I think that shows the importance of having an immigration judge to hear that.
We don't, we interpret the law.
So if that were to be a law, I think you would want to see that you have a judge to actually hear that case, to hear what the caller is proposing.
And that's something that we do, not that there is that law, but we are responsible for giving the time to have someone come before us to hear the evidence that they present, to hear the Department of Homeland Security, the other side, to argument about why a person may be removed.
Sometimes there's an agreement that the person should remain in the United States.
Sometimes there's not.
But I think what you want is that independent adjudicator, that independent judge, free from political interference, to make that decision and also to give the person the time to do so.
You don't just bring them before a judge and say, you know, show me what you've proposed.
Give them time to find the evidence to present their case in a meaningful way.
So I think that's the importance of having an independent, a strong and independent immigration court system.
Tom from North Carolina and Independent, you're next.
unidentified
Yes, thank you.
You reported that there's a 3 million plus backlog of cases waiting to be heard, but we understand that there's probably up to 20 million people that have come into the country in the past many years.
What about the extra 17 million?
What's the status for them?
Are they ready for immediate deportation because they did not get their court date going?
Before you answer, Jeremiah, I just want to point to this Pew Research from last year, July 2020, July 22, 2024, what we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S.
And it says that the unauthorized immigration population in the United States grew to 11 million in 2022, according to new Pew Research Center estimates based on the 2022 American Community Survey, the most recent year available.
The increase from 10.5 in 2021 reversed a long-term downward trend from 2007 to 2019.
This is the first sustained increase in the unauthorized immigration population since the period of 2005 and 2007.
But I wonder what your thoughts are on the callers question.
unidentified
Well, the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for initiating removal proceedings.
So those persons who are in the United States without permission, unauthorized, if they were, they would not be subject to immediate removal.
They would be subject to the department initiating these removal proceedings and appearing before an immigration court to determine whether they may remain.
They may have eligibility for relief, like I indicated, cancellation of removal, which allows if a person's been in the United States for 10 years and has a requisite level of hardship and other requirements to meet that standard as well as discretion.
But so those people, you know, it would be the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security to bring them before the courts and then having a strong court to hear their claim to see whether they may remain or whether they should be removed from the United States.
So we do not attack our guests by the way that they sound, the way that they look on this program.
But I wonder if you can answer the first part of that question.
unidentified
Yes, it is illegal to cross the southern border unlawfully without inspection or missions.
There's many technicalities about way that a person can enter and not enter, and that's the role of the judge to determine based on the evidence presented in each case.
There's also criminal acts of entering the United States illegally or re-entering the United States illegally.
So there are many areas of the law that make it illegal to re-enter the United States.
Authorization is a separate factor that I use or talk about whether or not a person has status.
And those are very technical issues.
And so that was a way to just describe it in a way that I thought would be understandable.
Just like to say, I'm from an area up north where most of the people, their grandparents, came from different European countries here, late 1880s, early 1900s.
And they came here, wanted an opportunity, didn't speak language, didn't have any money, and they were welcome.
They took jobs that other people didn't want to do and worked hard, raised their families.
Most of their children fought in the world wars, and you know, they raised families.
I look a lot like the fellow that's on TV right now.
So nobody's going to pick me up off the street.
I'm 71 years old, and I just don't understand because I've known I don't know how many conservative businessmen in the course of my life that actually have employed people that have been here now for 40, 50 years that can be rounded up and thrown out and their families thrown out.
And that's just not the country I grew up in.
And I hope somehow they can fix this immigration policy.
It just doesn't make any sense that the people that were here for so long and raised their families just like my grandparents did and my parents did from Europe are not welcomed within.
I mean, I think I just want to return to that a person in the United States is entitled to due process before the immigration courts.
I think that we should treat all people with respect and civility.
And that I do think if anyone were to find themselves facing removal from the United States, that they would want a fair, an impartial, independent judge to hear their case.
Yes, I'm just curious how everybody says these immigrants would need them for work.
I'm sure they do a lot of work, but what I hear about the Democrats, and I am a true Democrat, is they say they're doing work that the Americans won't do, construction work and stuff.
Well, then why are we putting up with these people, Americans, that won't work, and we give them housing assistance, welfare, and all, because they won't do anything that's hard, you know, construction work and out in the sun if we're not going to deport the Mexicans and other immigrants that come in here illegally, and it is illegal.
Well, then get rid of Americans.
Say, hey, this person will do the work you want.
You're out of here.
Send them back to the country that the one that's working here.
But illegal is illegal.
And the Democrats know that, and they could care less about me, my family being American.
I wonder if you have a response to that, Jeremiah.
unidentified
Well, just also circling back, maybe perhaps about the illegal part of it.
Yes, it is illegal to enter the United States, the manner in which through the southern border without inspection.
But also there are people in the United States who entered on a ballot tourist visa or other type of visa ballot.
There's lawful permanent residents, people with green cards who are in the United States who have committed crimes.
They find themselves before an immigration judge to conduct removal proceedings.
There are people who present themselves at the border at a point of entry seeking to come into the United States that then may find themselves in front of an immigration judge.
So that's why that term illegal doesn't necessarily represent all manners of which a person may enter the United States, but their status then in the United States would be different.
So that just shows the technical complexities of immigration law.
And that's why I think you'd want to have experts in immigration law to preside over those proceedings.
And also immigration courts do not have jurisdiction over U.S. citizens.
Naomi from Silver Spring, Maryland, a Democrat, you're next.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
It sounds like you may have touched on my question in your previous response, but I wanted to speak or ask you to talk a little bit more about the legal process of seeking asylum on the border.
There was a previous caller who had mentioned that the only way to cross the border into the United States legally is as a citizen.
Of course, as I understand it, that's not true.
There are legal ways to seek asylum on the border.
Yeah, there are legal ways to present yourself at the border.
You go to a port of entry.
I understand that that process has been suspended and there are also backlogs.
And there was previous ways of metering.
So there's different ways to lawfully present yourself to seek asylum in the United States that have not, but with the influx of persons.
But that's the policy portion of the law.
That's not necessarily to determine by an immigration judge.
But the law does state that any person who is inside the United States has the ability to apply for asylum in the United States.
So that's something that an immigration judge would have to consider, whether the person entered the United States without what we call it without inspection or having been admitted or whether or not they did present themselves at a port of entry to then seek asylum in the United States.
So that's where it is something that is a factual issue and a legal issue that has to be determined by an independent immigration judge.
And that's why you have these cases in removal proceedings.
So the judges do not let people come into the country.
It's the Department of Homeland Security that then would place a person in removal proceedings by filing an initial document called a notice to appear.
So the judges don't have any authority to allow a person to just come into the country.
What the judge is deciding is whether or not the person may remain, whether they are to be removed from the United States or they have a claim to the United States.
And that would be based on any evidence that's presented by either the respondent who's the person who's being subject to removal or the Department of Homeland Security.
They have an opportunity to present evidence as well that the person would be a danger to the community or perhaps should be removed from the United States despite any equities that they may present or any other applications for relief.
So that's why you want that independent judge to sort out this mess as the caller had to indicate it.
So, I think that's where you want to have a strong and independent court system to make a fair decision.
Jeremiah Johnson, former immigration judge and vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, thank you so much for your time this morning.