CSPAN - Washington Journal 02/02/2026

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 2, 2026 06:59-09:00 - CSPAN

02:00:57

Washington Journal 02/02/2026

Source

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Reforms on Capitol Hill 00:15:14
	Expected to take up the rule, if approved, and the funding legislation tomorrow.
	The Senate-approved deal, now before the House, was to pass five of the six remaining appropriations bills funding parts of the government, including HHS and the Defense and Labor Departments through September.
	The Homeland Security Department, which covers ICE and other immigration agencies, would have two weeks of temporary funding while negotiations continue regarding enforcement actions across the country.
	And before the government funding vote, House Speaker Johnson is expected to swear in a new member today.
	Democrat Christian Menafe won a special runoff election in Texas's 18th congressional district, which includes much of inner city Houston.
	Once he's sworn in, the Republicans will only hold a one-seat majority in the House 218 to 214.
	As always, you can watch live coverage of the House on C-SPAN and the Senate on C-SPAN too.
	Coming up on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Senaphor White House reporter Shelby Talcott on White House News of the Week, including the latest on ICE operations, government funding, and rising tensions with Iran.
	Then senior writer at Politico magazine and former federal prosecutor Ankush Kadori on the impact of ICE operations on the cooperation between local and federal law enforcement.
	Washington Journal starts now.
	Good morning.
	It's Monday, February 2nd, 2026, Groundhog Day, and the federal government is once again in shutdown mode.
	The current path to reopening the government involves a spending plan with just two weeks of funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
	Congress would then use that time to come up with new rules on federal immigration enforcement operations.
	With that potential opening plan in mind, we're asking on the Washington Journal this morning what your message would be to the Department of Homeland Security and on ICE operations.
	What changes would you want to see on immigration enforcement?
	Here's how you can call.
	Republicans, it's 202-748-8001.
	Democrats 202-748-8000.
	Independents 202-748-8002.
	You can also send us a text, that number 202-748-8003.
	If you do, please include your name and where you're from.
	Otherwise, catch up with us on social media.
	On X, it's at C-SPANWJ on Facebook.
	It's facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
	And a very good Monday morning to you.
	You can go ahead and start calling in.
	Here's where we are on Capitol Hill today.
	The House is in at 9 a.m. Eastern.
	The Senate is in at 3 p.m.
	The Senate has already signed off on that plan to reopen the government.
	A vote in the House won't take place until tomorrow at the earliest, and it's no sure thing.
	But if Congress does end up making changes to immigration enforcement operations, here are some of the reforms that Democrats are pushing for.
	Specifically, they want to end roving patrols by agents.
	They want to tighten the rules on the use of warrants, and they want to require ICE to coordinate with local authorities.
	They want to enforce more accountability, a uniform code of conduct, and they want to require agents to take off the masks, wear body cameras, and to carry ID.
	Yesterday on Meet the Press, it was Speaker Mike Johnson responding to some of those reforms that Democrats are proposing.
	This is what he had to say.
	These state and local officials respectfully didn't pull the triggers that left these two Americans dead.
	President Trump has even acknowledged that ICE has made mistakes.
	Do you think within that context any changes need to be made to ICE and the way it's operating on the state?
	Yes, look, I think President Trump was right to acknowledge that.
	I think he's operated in good faith.
	He said he wanted to turn the temperature down.
	He put Tom Holman in charge there.
	He was right to deputize him over that situation.
	He has 40 years experience in border patrol and in these issues.
	So I think that this is going to happen, but we need good faith on both sides.
	Some of these conditions and requests that they've made are obviously reasonable and should happen, but others are going to require a lot more negotiation.
	And you'll support some of those that you say are reasonable.
	Yes, in fact, I was in the Oval Office with the president a few days ago when he was on the phone with Leader Schumer, and they agreed.
	Tom Holman was on the other line, and they agreed to most of those conditions.
	But the mask, for example, the additional judicial requirement for a warrant would be a whole other layer of effectively bureaucracy.
	Remember, the immigration judges have already issued warrants, and that's what the ICE officials are acting upon.
	So there's a lot of details in this.
	We could get deep in the weeds, but we will do that over the next two weeks.
	And I hope that Democrats will be in good faith, as Republicans are, to try to bring some order to all this.
	Are there any proposed changes you wouldn't agree with?
	They're demanding also roving patrols and body cameras be worn by ICE officials.
	I think even Tom Holman has acknowledged both of those things are acceptable and what he was intending to do already.
	So I think we're on the path to get agreement, and I really hope that everybody will come to the table in good faith.
	Speaker Mike Johnson, that was yesterday on Meet the Press.
	This morning, we're asking for your message to Congress on immigration enforcement operations.
	Again, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats.
	Independents, 2027-8002.
	The House in at 9 a.m. Eastern today.
	We'll go there on C-SPAN when they do gavel in for gavel-to-gavel coverage.
	We showed you Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, also talked about the changes that Democrats are demanding being made at ICE and on immigration enforcement operations.
	This was on ABC's this week.
	What is clear is that the Department of Homeland Security needs to be dramatically reformed.
	We share that view, as does Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats, in a variety of different ways.
	Body cameras should be mandatory.
	Masks should come off.
	Judicial warrants should absolutely be required, consistent with the Constitution, in our view, before DHS agents or ICE agents are breaking into the homes of the American people or ripping people out of their cars.
	We need to make sure that there are complete and independent investigations so that when ICE or DHS agents break the law, they are held accountable, not by the Department of Justice, which has no interest in actually conducting a fair investigation, in our view, but by state and local authorities.
	And we need to reiterate that the detention and deportation of American citizens off the table and using taxpayer dollars to brutalize everyday Americans or violently target law-abiding immigrant families needs to be off the table.
	That's a list of serious reforms.
	Will you vote to keep funding Department of Homeland Security for the next two weeks as you negotiate those reforms?
	Well, we're going to have that conversation later on today and as we return to Washington.
	But the one thing that we've said publicly is that we need a robust path toward dramatic reform.
	The administration can't just talk the talk.
	They need to walk the walk.
	That should begin today, not in two weeks today.
	I was Hakeem Jeffries yesterday on ABC's This Week.
	Today, we are operating in a partial government shutdown, and the path to fully reopening the government is one that is no sure thing.
	And it begins today with a Senate or House Rules Committee vote taking place at 4 p.m. Eastern, and then an expected vote on the floor in a reopening package expected to come tomorrow.
	Taking your phone calls this morning, lines for Republicans, Democrats, Independents, as usual.
	We will go to McKenzie first out of Washington, line for Democrats.
	McKenzie, what's your message to Congress on immigration enforcement operations?
	Well, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this is both affecting the Latino and foreign language-speaking population of my church in this country on both sides, whether you're conservative or progressive.
	But my message would be to them: please find a way to bring peace and negoti.
	I mean, there is no progress without compromise, is what I have learned in something like this.
	And it is incredibly hurtful that this is happening.
	Not just my church, but any other church with a large Latino population, including Catholics and Protestants.
	Do you have a sense of what compromise looks like?
	I believe that MAGA and the Democrats could find some common ground.
	There is always common ground.
	Not everything is black and white as it might seem.
	That's McKenzie in Washington this morning.
	Jerry is in West Virginia, Wallace, West Virginia.
	Go ahead.
	Hello.
	Go ahead, Jerry.
	You're on the air.
	Yes, I'm 64 years old, and I have been registered Democrat since I was 18 years old.
	And I'm going to have to change my voter registration.
	The party has left the American people.
	They've become the party for illegal immigrants.
	This is the second time they have shut down the government to protect them.
	They want to defund the American people's security, but not once have they called to defund their security, which is the Capitol Police that murdered an unarmed woman on January the 6th.
	That woman was not threatening or attacking that officer.
	And she was murdered.
	That's Jerry in West Virginia.
	This is Lewis out of Colorado.
	Good morning.
	You're next.
	Good morning, John.
	Thank you for taking on a call.
	With regard to ICE, you know, every aspect of life should always be improved upon.
	So we all should have a continuous improvement program going on.
	You should focus a little bit more, I think, on the micro.
	I mean, how is it that Ilhan Omar has suddenly become a multi-multi-millionaire?
	Curious.
	And I understand there's at least one anchor, baby, in Congress.
	So with regards to immigration, I think immigration should be doing immigration jobs and, you know, the corruption.
	Washington is the problem.
	It is a cesspool of corruption.
	And everything in Washington is touched by it.
	Thank you.
	That's Lewis in Colorado.
	This is Gene in Leland, Mississippi, Line for Democrats.
	Good morning.
	Yes.
	I feel that everyone needs to be fired.
	ICE, all the way up the ladder, including Stephen Miller, needs to be fired because they are not for the people.
	And that's all I have to say.
	That's Gene in Mississippi taking your phone calls this morning, asking for your message to Congress on immigration enforcement operations, having this conversation amid a partial government shutdown.
	We call it a partial government shutdown because six of the 12 appropriations bills that fund the government for 2026, fiscal 2026, as they call it, have been passed already.
	Six have not, and it's the six that have not that is keeping us in a partial government shutdown.
	The deadline was midnight on Friday night.
	A deal worked out in the United States Senate passed five of those appropriations bills, pulled out the Department of Homeland Security funding for a two-week funding extension.
	The idea being that there would be a negotiation about new rules when it comes to immigration enforcement operations that could be worked out over two weeks.
	Whether that happens or not now depends on the House.
	The House would have to approve that plan that the Senate approved late on Friday, and we'll see if the House can do that.
	Some of the headlines on that in this morning's papers, this from the Washington Post: Johnson, confident in his funding votes.
	Although, if you head to the front page of the Wall Street Journal, they have a very different headline.
	The funding to end the shutdown runs into pushback.
	House Democrats call for immigration changes before they would support a deal.
	Again, it's no sure thing of whether the House approves this plan that would open the door to renegotiate immigration enforcement operations.
	In the meantime, we are in shutdown mode.
	Although, as Susan Page, longtime USA Today columnist, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today writes, another shutdown meh, say many in D.C., the one-time sign of crisis is now relatively common.
	She begins by saying, shutdown, what shutdown?
	There was a time when shutting down the federal government seemed like a big deal, but the partial shutdown that started at midnight on January 31st created less buzz over the weekend than the early and almost entirely negatively reviewed Netflix Melania.
	She goes on to say this: even though parts of the Pentagon and Health and Human Services Department and transportation departments left without regular funding were ordered to begin their orderly shutdown for at least a few days, we'll see how long this particular shutdown goes.
	Susan Page writing in the pages of USA Today.
	Maria in Connecticut, Democrat, what's your message to Congress on immigration enforcement operations?
	Be heard.
	Good morning.
	My message is the following: We are one United States of America, one with 50-plus individual states.
	And the trampling that is occurring by overstepping the boundaries, if you will, the boundaries of each state has gotten so out of control and so illegally out of control that,
Dictatorship's Shadow 00:11:18
	you know, looking at those pardons of criminals who were sentenced via our court system, and then our current president pardoned them, followed up with the military being deployed, the paramilitary via ICE, and so forth.
	I am an immigrant, sir, and I'm a proud immigrant.
	Been here since 1967.
	I came as a child from an environment of a dictatorship.
	I didn't understand it then.
	I do today.
	And we did not vote for a dictator want to be king of the world.
	That is not what the United States of America represents.
	We have our Constitution.
	Let's respect it.
	It is not being truly respected.
	And it's sad because now we're seeing what we're seeing.
	People getting killed, homes broken into, no warrants being used.
	What is this all about?
	It's not a dictatorship.
	We didn't vote for this.
	The American citizens did not vote for this.
	And Mr. President, if you can hear me, please step back, step away, and look at what you are doing to the American people.
	American law-abiding people, taxpayers of which I am one.
	Mr. President, please look in the mirror and what do you see when you look in the mirror?
	That's Maria in Connecticut this morning, line for Democrats.
	Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat, was on the Sunday shows yesterday.
	He was on Fox News Sunday, and he also talked about Democrats' demands when it comes to changes to immigration enforcement operations.
	We're still pretending that ICE is going after dangerous people.
	They aren't.
	Right now, 70% of the people that they are detaining have absolutely no criminal record.
	What is happening?
	The DHS says 70% of those that are arresting, and that's their number, do have some kind of criminal record.
	What is happening in Minnesota right now is a dystopia.
	ICE is tear gassing elementary schools.
	It is disappearing legal residents into cars.
	It is murdering American citizens.
	ICE is making this country less safe, not more safe today.
	That is an emergency.
	That's why today 60% of the American people vehemently disagree with what ICE is doing.
	And we have to address that emergency right now.
	The Constitution is being abandoned by this administration right now as we speak.
	And so our focus over the next two weeks has to be reining in a lawless and immoral immigration agency in this nation.
	That's work that we have to do in the next two weeks.
	Hopefully it's work that Republicans and Democrats will be able to agree on.
	Chris Murphy on the Sunday shows yesterday.
	We're taking your calls this morning on the Washington Journal, asking for your message to Congress on immigration enforcement operations, 202748-8001 748-8001 for Republicans.
	Democrats, 202-748-8000.
	Independents, 202-748-8002.
	You can call us once every 30 days on C-SPAN, and we are taking your calls throughout this morning.
	It's a shorter show this morning.
	It is going to go until 9 a.m. Eastern.
	That's when the House comes back in session, coming back in earlier this Monday morning ahead of a busy day as Congress attempts to reopen the government from this partial government shutdown.
	It was Mike Johnson on Meet the Press yesterday talking about whether he had the votes to reopen the government to go through this renegotiation of these appropriations bills that the House had already passed for fiscal 2026, changed by the Senate last week, and now have to be repassed by the House.
	This was the speaker yesterday on Meet the Press.
	And just bottom line, do you think you have enough Republican votes to reopen the government by Tuesday?
	Yeah, because Republicans are going to do the responsible thing and fund the government.
	You have a razor-fin margin.
	That's what I'm getting.
	I have one vote margin, yes, for the rest of 2026.
	But we're going to demonstrate once again that this is the party that takes governing seriously.
	The Democrats play games with this, and I think it's very unfortunate because what they're doing is they're jeopardizing services to the American people.
	When you're talking about the Department of Homeland Security, remember what's included in that.
	You have TSA agents for the airports.
	You have the Coast Guard.
	You have FEMA.
	We're in the middle of a winter storm disaster on the East Coast.
	We can't play games with this.
	Speaker Mike Johnson, yesterday on Meet the Press, your phone calls this morning on the Washington Journal.
	This is Max, an independent from Maryland.
	Good morning.
	Hey, good morning.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	A lot of this, and I know these are hard times in the country.
	I'm from the D.C. area.
	And last week on Friday, they held a vigil and started naming off people who are victims of police violence.
	They didn't include, of course, the Ashley Babbitt lady who was killed by the Capitol Police.
	She was unarmed as well.
	And that's what I mean.
	A lot of its manufacturers divide the country down the middle.
	I mean, think about it.
	You're singling out Customs and Border Patrol, immigration, customs enforcement.
	What about the U.S. Marshals?
	Is everybody cool with them?
	How about the FBI?
	Everybody cool with them.
	How about the CIA?
	Everybody cool with them.
	How about the Department, the entire executive branch of the government?
	You good with them?
	Oh, no, you're not.
	Well, those are the executive police officers, people.
	You don't like the government.
	And see, they're trying to divide everybody down the middle.
	The truth is, nobody likes the government anymore.
	Thanks.
	That's Max in Maryland.
	This is Sandy in Columbus, Ohio.
	Line for Democrats.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	I'm calling in from Columbus, Ohio.
	Yes, I think the Democrats only have the choice because they're not working with them to try to do immigration.
	What I think is that we need to do it in a fair and humane way.
	This is out of hand when you're snatching people out of their workplaces and so forth.
	And I would like to make the American people aware.
	We haven't got to just start filing our taxes for 2025, but in 2024, undocumented immigrants paid between $97 to $100 billion in federal, state, and local taxes.
	So if they pay that amount, they should be able to know who is not and in the process of becoming a citizen, even though we can't take everybody, but close the border off for any country if you're going to do it that way.
	And that's all we want, is a fair and humane system.
	Because what are you going to do with their money they paid in in 24?
	You're going to keep that.
	And you're going to tell us that we're cutting off other people.
	They paid into the system.
	Green card owners already work and they pay in.
	So I don't know if people are aware of that, but look it up.
	In 2024, they paid between $97 to $100 million in taxes, and they can never get Social Security, Medicare, or any assistance, and a lot of agencies won't help them.
	Thank you.
	Sandy in Columbus, Ohio to Columbia, Maryland.
	Carl, Republican.
	Good morning.
	I am very concerned about what the people are not talking about, which is the cognitive warfare that's being waged against our political parties to turn them one against the other instead of focusing on what problems really are.
	How cognitive warfare ever got control of people's brains, put screw worms into their minds, and made them just respond to groups of people just talking on TV to incite them is beyond my understanding.
	I don't know if they get some kind of a thrill out of it, really, and there's no benefit.
	And the only thing that happens is that people are hurt and broken up.
	You hear, for example, in Minnesota, which was a wonderful place when I lived there many, many years ago, that two people were killed.
	And because of that, the government, after the second one, the government just says, well, we're going to just close down.
	We're going to close down the whole nation.
	Hundreds of thousands of people go without purpose in their work.
	So what I would like to see is somehow cognitive warfare being recognized, being mentioned, being thought of, being brought to an end in one way or another, and have the folks get on with what should be.
	I recall that I was trained somewhat in religious background, and there was a group of men, 12 of them in fact, that were all eventually murdered for having good thoughts and good ideas.
	And this is what's going to happen here, regardless of their political backgrounds.
	Jesus and his disciples were just rubbed out.
	And this is what eventually happens to people who seem to be good.
	And I can't even know who the other group is doing this and why they are brought to the fore other than just personal greed.
	All right.
	That's Carl in Maryland taking your phone calls this morning as we operate in a government shutdown.
	It's a partial government shutdown.
Speaker's Confidence Wavers 00:02:10
	Speaker Mike Johnson saying over the weekend that he's confident he'll have the votes to reopen the government, though his margin in the House is getting slimmer today.
	Christian Menefe set to be sworn in today, the Democrat who won a special election in the 18th congressional district of Texas after Rep Sylvester Turner's death last year.
	It's going to tighten the margins in the House even more, making it tougher if Democrats don't join Republicans in this effort to reopen the government.
	The test vote will happen today at about 4 p.m.
	The House Rules Committee is set to meet to come up with a rule that will govern the floor action expected tomorrow on this plan to reopen the government.
	That's what's taking place today on Capitol Hill.
	Here's a few other events outside of government funding.
	At 9:15 a.m. Eastern time today, the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States and former Republican Senator Rob Portman will discuss the future of post-war Ukraine.
	That's set to air.
	9:15 a.m. on C-SPAN 2 is where we'll be showing you that.
	At 1 p.m. Eastern, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Mehmet Oz, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty McCary will join a bipartisan group of policy leaders and community and health care experts to announce Action for Progress, as they're calling it, a national initiative to confront mental health and addiction in America.
	Also on C-SPAN 2 today.
	4 p.m. today, that's when the House rules vote is going to happen.
	And we'll show that on C-SPAN 3.
	We're expecting the House to still be in at that time here on C-SPAN.
	So the Rules Committee vote taking place at 4 p.m.
	Also at 4 p.m., the Rules Committee will debate whether to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.
	So a busy day in the Rules Committee, a busy day on Capitol Hill, and you can watch it all here on the C-SPAN networks.
Stay Legal: 10 Years and Beyond 00:07:02
	Taking your calls in this first segment of the Washington Journal, about 15 more minutes here of your phone calls, your message to Congress on immigration enforcement operations.
	This is Jim waiting in Ohio, line for Democrats.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	I have to agree with my Democrat followers.
	Nobody is above the law.
	I wish they'd stop and think about that when they think about all the illegals that come into this country illegally.
	I hope the Democrats are listening to us.
	Thank you.
	It's Jim in Ohio.
	This is Joe in Queens.
	Good morning.
	Go ahead.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	I was just saying to myself, why don't we take outside the box and try something maybe a little different?
	For the illegals that have been here for 10 years or more, and they've been known to be here for 10 years, but they're still illegal.
	Why don't they come up with a plan for them to, I'm sure they accumulated some money to pay to come to stay in this country.
	In other words, if the government says, give us $50,000, you have a good record.
	You could stay in this country.
	You have to pay because you're using our schools, our hospitals, and you're not paying into the system, but just you're here illegally.
	That's about a month.
	So it's all about money.
	So if they're here 10 years and they accumulate some funds, I don't have the exact number.
	You want to go for $50,000 per person, and they have a good record.
	You work it out with this kind of system.
	They pay, and they've got legal documentation to stay in the country.
	It's about the bottom line.
	You got to give a little back.
	You've been in here, you're making money, and you want to stay, you're not doing anything wrong.
	Maybe there is an option.
	Joe, you're talking about a sort of a path to citizenship here.
	This is something we've debated for decades, 40 years in this country on immigration reform, trying to find some major way of reforming the system that everybody seems to say is broken.
	Why is this such a hard puzzle to solve if this is something that you feel like you can come up with a solution that everybody can agree on this morning on the Washington Journal?
	Well, you know, you say it's a hard puzzle, but you know what?
	If you look at the bottom line of this whole thing, it's not hard.
	Get some money, get money from the illegals that are here, a substantial amount that everybody could be happy with, and that both sides could agree with.
	He paid, he didn't commit any crimes.
	He's here over 10 years.
	I'm not saying anybody's here two, three years.
	That don't cut it right now because a lot of stuff they weren't vetted the last two, three years, four years, five years, and we don't know who they really are.
	And that's a scary thing.
	But if you're here 10 years as a gardener and you're documented here as a gardener, but you're illegal, there are simple ways.
	But the politicians want to make it complicated.
	They just distort.
	They like to distort things and make it all so hard.
	But the bottom line is pay, get some money from them.
	As long as they have a good record, and I don't know the number, again, it could be 50,000, 40,000.
	But on it being people who are here 10 years or longer, there will be people to say to your plan that it will just encourage people to try to sneak into this country illegally to start that clock ticking in the hopes that this will happen again in another 10 years, that they'll have another program like this, that this only encourages more rule breaking, as it were.
	I understand that, but where are we now?
	I mean, rule breaking is going to happen because what happened with the Biden administration?
	Trump now has this border locked down.
	So when you say more than that, I'm encouraging them to come because they've got a 10-year plan.
	Well, the border is a lot tougher now than it was under the Biden administration, let's say, for an example.
	So to come in that first step is a lot harder.
	So even though there's an incentive now to come and get that 10 years in, if you want to stop the madness that's going on a little bit and have some kind of a plan, it's look, it's something.
	It's something that it's a start that can work.
	Got your point.
	Say that we have nothing because there's incentive that you want to stay and they're going to try to sneak in.
	The border is more secure now than ever.
	So their idea, oh, I could try to sneak in and stay for 10 years, it's not going to be that easy because the border has changed because of Trump.
	Got your point.
	That's Joe.
	This is Aaron in Washington, D.C., Independent.
	Aaron, good morning.
	Good morning.
	I just want to say a big thanks to C-SPAN for providing this important service.
	My response is really to the previous caller who felt that people who are critical of the recent events hated the government.
	I just want to say, as a federal worker, former federal worker for 10 years, I had a great experience.
	I met great people, hard workers, doing really important work.
	My issue is, as a Christian, I just don't want my government doing things like facilitating genocide or having a torture program like we've had or breaking international law.
	I'd like our people to have to feel a moral responsibility to help the hungry and the homeless and for us to enact policies to do just that and to elect people who will enact those policies in a democratic way.
	So, Aaron, to this question we're asking today about immigration enforcement operations, what would be your answer?
	I understand your larger message on world issues and everything, but for this specific issue that we're facing as a country right now, what would be your message?
	What do you want to see changed?
	Sure.
	Again, as a Christian, compassion is the way.
	And I just don't see any compassion in the methods of the work that's going on right now.
	And I think that if compassion was centered, that government goals that are chosen by the people can be performed and enacted in a way that would be better.
	That's Aaron in D.C. to Anthony in Virginia, Independent Line.
	Anthony, go ahead.
	Yeah, I'd just like to say that every single Democrat that's calling in here rates are hypocrisy.
	Everybody forget about Obama.
	He used ICE to deport 3 million illegal immigrants.
	He also bombed seven nations.
	I mean, you can't say there's not some hypocrisy here, my friend.
	No?
	That's Anthony in Virginia.
Immigration Backlash Debate 00:04:58
	Fayetteville, North Carolina is next.
	Ann, Democrat.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	I'm against ICE being in the streets of the United States.
	But since it seemed to be the Republicans that want ICE in the cities, why don't they ask ICE to go to their red states and leave the blue states alone?
	When Germany citizens came to America, they were used to the customers and all that.
	America never have been used to the customers.
	When did the Germans became legal citizens since they were immigrants also?
	Thank you.
	That's Ann in Fayetteville, North Carolina, taking your phone calls here in this first segment of the Washington Journal.
	About another 10 minutes or so.
	Also wanted to show you a few other stories making headlines here in Washington, D.C. and around the country.
	From the president's social media feeds yesterday, this headline, President Trump said he will move to close Washington's Kennedy Center performing arts venue for two years, starting in July for construction.
	Mr. Trump's announcement on social media on Sunday night follows a wave of cancellations since Mr. Trump ousted the previous leadership of the Kennedy Center and added his own name to the building.
	Mr. Trump announced his plan days after the premiere of Melania, a documentary about the First Lady that was shown at the Kennedy Center.
	The proposal, he said, is subject to approval by the board of the Kennedy Center, which has been stocked by his handpicked allies.
	Mr. Trump himself chairs the center's board of trustees.
	He said, quote, this is an important decision based on input from many highly respected experts.
	We'll take a tired and broken, dilapidated center, one that has been in bad condition both financially and structurally, and for many years and turned it into a world-class bastion of arts, music, and entertainment.
	That's what he said on his social media post.
	And then one other story out of Texas this morning.
	A state-level Democratic win in a Texas region that voted for President Trump by 17 points threatened to diminish the Republicans' hopes for the midterm elections.
	In what one of the state's most powerful Republicans dubbed a wake-up call, Democrat Taylor Remett won a state Senate seat by 14 points in a solidly red district that includes part of Fort Worth.
	The 31-point swing leftwards from the result in 2024 was a surprise across the board.
	That special election coming this weekend, President Trump was asked about the results of that race, that swing.
	This was the president from yesterday.
	Mr. President of Texas, a Democrat won a special election in an area that you had won by 17 points.
	What is your reaction to that?
	I don't know.
	I didn't hear about it.
	Somebody ran where.
	In Texas, special election for legislators.
	The ninth state Senate seat.
	I'm not involved in that.
	That's a local Texas race.
	You mean I won by 17?
	You did.
	And this person lost.
	Things like that happen.
	Does it worry you about the state?
	Well, you don't know whether or not it's transferable.
	You know, I'm not on the balance, so you don't know whether or not it's transferable.
	That was President Trump on that state Senate race.
	This is the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal today taking time to note that race and that change.
	How does a Republican lose by 14 points in a safe, conservative Texas state Senate seat that President Trump carried by 17 points?
	Answer, they say, when there's a voter backlash against the Trump administration, notably in mass, its mass deportation debacle.
	They say immigration has overall been a winning issue for Republicans, but it works better as a reaction to Democratic border enforcement failures.
	Mr. Trump has already largely closed the border, but immigration enforcement that turns ugly in the streets is turning off the swing voters who will determine who wins the races for Congress this year.
	That's the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.
	We're talking about immigration enforcement operations.
	This potential path to reopening the federal government would include two-week funding of the Department of Homeland Security by enough time members hope to come up with some sort of changes to immigration enforcement operations, some sort of deal, legislative deal to make statutory changes to enforcement operations.
	We're asking what your message would be to Congress as they look to taking that route to reopen the federal government.
Pick Up The Criminal 00:06:10
	This is Tom in Buffalo, New York.
	Democrat, good morning.
	What's your message?
	Good morning.
	I just want people to know that Donald Trump, before he was president, had illegals working in his hotels and the golf course.
	And you can google this.
	It says that he had a rolling construction crew, too, that were all illegals.
	I just can't wait till we're rid of this man.
	He is driving our country crazy.
	And John, that's all I have to say.
	Thank you.
	Bye.
	Tom in Buffalo.
	This is David in Kennesaw, Georgia, Independent.
	Good morning.
	Hey, John, how are you doing this morning?
	Doing well.
	Go ahead.
	All right.
	Let me make a few points, please, and don't cut me off.
	Okay, they're not going after any Europeans.
	I don't understand that.
	There's illegal Europeans here, but they don't seem to go after them.
	And they don't arrest the people that are hiring these people.
	They just go after the workers.
	And that woman in Ohio made a good point.
	They're going after people who have jobs and things.
	So that way, like she said, that you don't get to spend their money.
	They take out their checks if they don't get a chance to use it.
	Yeah, they're not, this is about, this is a financial thing.
	These people are losing their houses.
	They're leaving their jobs behind.
	They're losing everything that caused all of that.
	And The U.S. government made a deal with the South Americans, the Central South Americans.
	I heard this about two or three times sometime back.
	What they did was they, this started in California.
	They said, well, we have an infestation problem here.
	And there were too many black mag gangs, whatever, how you want to say that.
	But anyway, after all that was said and done, Compton is 100% Hispanic now.
	There was an incident that happened where a woman moved into Compton and she was, what do you call that?
	Ran out of there.
	So if they're bringing these people in here, where are you on immigration in this country then?
	What's your view?
	But they're not going after the criminal people.
	That's what I'm trying to get you to understand.
	There's criminal elements coming from Europe.
	They don't go after them, but they seem to have a problem with Hispanic people.
	That's the point I was trying to make.
	Got your point, David.
	This is from the pages of today's New York Times.
	The author, Rhys Jones, of the book, Nobody Is Protected: How the Border Patrol Became the Most Dangerous Police Force in the United States.
	You might be interested in this piece.
	Rhys Jones writes in that piece, how the Border Patrol operates can be traced back to the agency's origins in Wild West frontier policing.
	The United States Border Patrol was established in May of 1924, days after the signing of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act, which set very small quotas for immigrants from most of the world except Northern Europe.
	According to the Times headline, at the time, the law was meant to, quote, preserve racial type as it exists here today.
	Founded to enforce a racist law, Rhys Jones writes, the Border Patrol has long held extraordinary powers to stop and interrogate citizens and immigrants alike in vast stretches of the country.
	The Border Patrol was not the creation of Gregory Bovino or Christy Noam or Stephen Miller, even Donald Trump.
	All the Trump administration has done is draw attention to what always existed.
	Once the Border Patrol operated primarily in the shadows of the borderlands, perhaps before it was possible to not really know what the Border Patrol was doing, but after watching neighbors tear gassed and pepper sprayed and beaten while exercising their right to observe police activity, it's impossible now to look away.
	Rhys Jones in the pages of today's New York Times.
	Back to your phone calls.
	Time for one or two more calls.
	This is Kurt in Ohio, Republican line.
	Kurt, go ahead.
	Yeah, Democrats are always talking about accountability.
	So let's make our sanctuary cities accountable.
	If they want to house these criminal immigrants, they need to register them in their city.
	And then if they break the law, they're held monetarily responsible.
	The city is for any crime they commit anywhere around the country after that.
	I mean, it's not hard.
	They want them here.
	They should pay to keep them here.
	Thank you.
	It's Kurt in the Buckeye State to San Antonio.
	Robert, last call here, Democratic line.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, how are you doing?
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, sir.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, you know, I think I just think they should be disarmed.
	I don't think they need a gun.
	And why do they need a gun?
	They are not arresting criminals.
	They're grabbing people that can cross the border illegally.
	They are not arrested rapists.
	Rapist is a criminal charge.
	They can call the police to go get a rapist.
	Robert, the regular police can pick them up, but I shouldn't have a gun.
	They should have to use their wit.
	They should use their what? Wit, intelligence to arrest people to get gang people.
	They should not be.
	Look, they are fiction.
	They were smoking at first Donald Trump said.
	He wanted to be able to pick up the criminal.
	But we don't need ICE to pick up the criminal.
	We get the regular police to pick up criminal.
	That's Robert in San Antonio, our last caller in this first segment of the Washington Journal.
	Stick around, plenty more to talk about.
	Today, in about 30 minutes, a conversation with Politico magazine writer Ankush Khadori will talk about how the ICE enforcement efforts in Minnesota are impacting law enforcement across the country.
Chuck Schumer's Agreement Controversy 00:17:40
	But first, after the break, Semaphore White House reporter Shelby Talcott joins us with a preview of the week ahead from the White House.
	We'll be right back on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
	Jonathan Horn's latest book is titled The Fate of the Generals, MacArthur, Wainwright and the Epic Battle for the Philippines.
	The publisher, Scribner, explains the premise of Horn's book.
	For the doomed stand American forces made in the Philippines at the start of World War II, two generals received the country's highest military award: the Medal of Honor.
	One was the charismatic Douglas MacArthur, whose orders forced him to leave his troops and go to Australia.
	The other was the gritty Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, who became a hero to the troops, whose fate he insisted on sharing.
	A new interview with author Jonathan Horne about his book, The Fate of the Generals: MacArthur, Wainwright, and the Epic Battle for the Philippines.
	Book Notes Plus with our host Brian Lamb is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
	In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
	According to a new MAGIT research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
	28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
	Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
	Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
	No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
	Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
	If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-SPAN.org.
	Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
	These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
	This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
	Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
	Washington Journal continues.
	On Mondays on the Washington Journal, we like to take a look at the week ahead at the White House.
	Joining us this week to do that is Shelby Talcott, White House correspondent for Semaphore.
	And Shelby Talcott start with this partial government shutdown that we are in.
	How involved is President Trump in this effort to reopen the government via a spending deal that includes just two weeks of funding for the Department of Homeland Security and a possible renegotiation of immigration enforcement operation rules and procedures?
	What's the president's role here?
	Yeah, I think this partial government shutdown is really interesting, especially when you compare it to the last government shutdown because the president's response to it has been so different.
	If you remember, the last government shutdown last year, the president was pretty staunch in his opinion that he was not going to negotiate with Democrats.
	And already you've seen this time around, President Trump is negotiating.
	He's negotiated this deal with Chuck Schumer.
	So that in and of itself is more involvement than I think he was involved in last time.
	But now it's up to the House.
	And House Democrats have said that they are not going to go along with the agreement struck by the president and Chuck Schumer.
	And so what the White House is essentially doing right now is trying to figure out a way to get this passed without House Democrats' support because they feel like they've already sort of made concessions and they're willing to negotiate on ICE regulations.
	I spoke to a senior White House official last week who also noted to me that they felt like the president sending Tom Homant to Minneapolis and effectively switching up the leadership in that state, plus his sort of muted response saying that they need to call for an investigation into Alex into Alex Predi's killing.
	Obviously, a few days later, the president had some stronger words regarding Alex Predi's killing, but they felt like those were concessions in and of itself and should be taken as evidence that they're willing to change, which I thought was really interesting because this administration has largely not sort of backed down or changed its stance on anything that they've done over the past year.
	How unusual is it for the president to strike a deal with Chuck Schumer?
	Something like half of Senate Democrats voted for this deal on Friday, but not do that with the minority leader in the House, with Hakeem Jeffries.
	Is it a sign that he has a better relationship with Chuck Schumer?
	Why be helpful on the one side, but not on the other side when Mike Johnson has a very narrow majority and it's going to narrow even further today in the House?
	Yeah, I do think he has a better relationship with Chuck Schumer.
	I reported last year with some of my colleagues over on Capitol Hill about how, you know, the White House doesn't really view Hakeem Jeffries as sort of legitimate.
	And so they're a little bit less willing, quite frankly, to negotiate with him.
	And the president has a much better relationship with Chuck Schumer than he does with Hakeem Jeffries.
	I also think that they believe that they can pass this in the House without Democrats' support, which is something that they really couldn't do in the Senate.
	And so that's another reason why I think the White House is negotiating less when it comes to House Democrats, because they believe that they can get this passed without their help.
	And why do they think that, especially with the pushback that this deal has gotten, specifically from the House Freedom Caucus, but others, other Republicans in the House as well, raising concerns?
	Yeah, so essentially, you know, Speaker Johnson has said that they'll be able to pass a procedural vote, which would bring this legislation forward.
	And then the bill has to survive sort of a rule vote, which is a procedural test that kind of falls along party lines, and then they'll be able to vote for final passage.
	And so through that, they believe that they can sort of strong-arm this in without having to rely too much on House Democrats.
	Because remember, I think the big issue that the White House has with working with House Democrats is they want nothing to do with Chuck Schumer's agreement with the White House, which means that they would have to then negotiate with House Democrats again, then go back to the Senate if this ends up being an entirely new negotiation, and it sort of just goes around and around and around.
	Shelby Talcott, our guest this morning, White House correspondent for SEMA 4, good person to ask your questions of if you have questions about the White House this week, what it's like being a White House reporter and the latest from inside the White House amid these immigration enforcement operations negotiations and this government shutdown, a lot going on.
	202-748-8001 for Republicans.
	Democrats 202-748, 748-8000 to call in and Independents 202-748-8002.
	Shelby Talcott, bring us to Minneapolis and the view from the White House on Tom Homan's job since taking over that operation.
	What are we going to see this week when it comes to that operation?
	Is there going to be more of a drawdown?
	Well, I think it depends on who you talk to, right?
	Because last week, Tom Homan held a press conference where he specifically used those terms.
	He said that there was going to be a drawdown.
	The president then said that there's not going to be a drawdown effectively.
	Now, I think part of this differing language is sort of the two, these two people explaining or expressing publicly what they want people to see.
	I do think that there's going to be somewhat of a drawdown, but Tom Homan also caveated that with the fact that there's going to be a drawdown if local and state officials cooperate.
	And so I think that's going to be a big focus this week.
	What is Tom Homan working with these local and state officials?
	Can they come to some sort of an agreement?
	But what I think is also really notable about all of this is the fact that, you know, I talked to a senior White House official last week and they noted essentially in regards to Minneapolis, but also tying it back to this partial government shutdown, that they felt like the White House would be willing to go further than what it has already done in Minnesota in terms of ICE and CBP operations,
	which I think to me that signals that the administration recognizes that this has gotten a little bit too messy for them and that they need to make some changes.
	Have you seen any reaction from the White House since the publication of that ProPublica story?
	That investigative journalism group, Popublica, over the weekend identified two of the CBP agents in the Alex Predi shooting.
	Has the White House responded to that at all?
	Yeah, we haven't seen a ton of response, but I would be shocked if there's not more response from the administration early this week, maybe later today, for example.
	But I think the big thing is anything that's coming out about this investigation, you've already seen it, is going to be taken in two very different ways depending on what party you're in.
	And so, for example, the White House is likely to say, to criticize the report, to say that this puts these agents in danger by publicizing their names.
	Democrats are going to say these people need to be held accountable.
	And so everything that comes out regarding this investigation and this shooting is going to be taken in drastically different ways.
	And you can kind of predict how the administration is going to react to a lot of this compared to how Democrats might react.
	Do you think Christy Noam is worried about her job today?
	I'm not sure.
	I think she is because last week after the shooting, she met with the president for two hours in the evening.
	There's been a lot of knives out for Christy Noam.
	And this is not necessarily the first time that there's been knives out.
	But at the same time, I think she's taking solace in the fact that the president very clearly does not want to fire her.
	And he has said publicly that he supports her.
	I have heard that privately there's been some frustrations.
	Some people in the White House say that that is not true.
	But I think at the end of the day, the thing that's saving her is the fact that there are so many people calling for her to be fired.
	And unlike the first Trump administration, this time around, the president has been really reluctant to lean into those calls because he feels like it's essentially giving in to what people want.
	And so that alone might be her saving grace.
	Now the question is, is it going to be her saving grace for the next three years?
	Shelby Talcott, taking your phone calls this morning, and there are plenty for you already.
	Let me go to Russell in Louisiana, Republican.
	Russell, good morning.
	Good morning, sir.
	Yeah, I've got a question for all these Democrats that wants to keep all these legal immigrants in our country, especially Mr. Hakeem, whatever his name is, Jeffries.
	Notice he's got a wedding ring on his hand.
	I wonder if these Democrats, especially him, if his wife or daughter got raped by an illegal immigrant from a sanctuary city that has been arrested for violent crimes and continuously left out on the streets, if one of his family members would get raped by one of these guys or killed, would they change their mind?
	Would they flip-flop?
	Would they go the other way?
	They have all the security in the world and all the money in the world and all the little preps that they get from being in our Congress.
	But all they do is spin their wheels and talk that bull.
	I want to know what their plan is.
	What you're going to do, Mr. Jeffries, if your wife or daughter or loved one in your family gets raped.
	Got your point, Russell.
	Shelby Talcott, to this question amidst these immigration enforcement efforts about who's being targeted, whether it's violent criminals or people just being pulled off the streets for no reason at all.
	Yeah, I think the interesting thing is the White House focuses a lot on the criminal individuals who are being arrested and deported.
	And there certainly are criminals who are being arrested and deported.
	They have a whole very long list of them.
	The issue comes, though, as the administration has also said, you know, that's who we're targeting, but that doesn't necessarily mean, you know, if you are in the country here illegally, you're still not safe, essentially.
	And so that's been sort of one of the criticisms of this administration is who are you focusing on?
	Is there actually a concerted focus on the criminals versus sort of just trying to get as many people as possible?
	And I think it's changed throughout the past year.
	There's been a lot of reporting over the past year about different initiatives and different directives that have been given by DHS depending on the time period we're in.
	This is Rob out of New York Independent.
	Rob, you're on with Shelby Talcott.
	What's your question about the White House this week?
	I really don't have a question, but as a student of American history and also constitutional law, I would just like to remind everybody that you can read the entire United States Constitution from top to bottom.
	And the one word you will not find in it is the word police.
	And if you also read the Federalist papers from top to bottom, you will not find the word police in it either.
	And I think the reason is because the founding fathers had enough of being policed.
	That's the point I would like to make.
	Shelby Talcott, anything you want to take from that?
	I mean, I will have to sit down and read it.
	I'll add it to my reading list in the evening in full.
	In terms of a reading list, Semaphore, your articles on Semaphore, a good reading list for what's happening at the White House, what are you watching for this week outside of this immigration discussion that we've had for about 15 minutes?
	What else should we be watching for this week?
	Yeah, obviously the immigration enforcement and the partial shutdown is going to take priority this week.
	But I'm also really interested.
	I cover a little bit about foreign policy.
	And so I'm obviously interested in any updates to Iran over the weekend.
	The president and the Iranian Supreme Leader exchanged indirectly some pretty strong language about what's going on.
	And I think what's really interesting about this situation in Iran is the White House is signaling that it wants a deal.
	And I think the question is: are they going to come to a deal?
	Because I do think that the president is signaling both with his words and what he is doing in the region with this military buildup that he is very willing to, just like in Venezuela, go into Iran and strike.
	What makes you think that he does want a deal?
	What are those signals that we should be looking for as we try to read the tea leaves of this international situation?
	Well, he told us over the weekend that he is talking, that the White House is talking to Iran, and he has made it clear he wants them to talk and he wants them to come to a deal.
	He said it multiple times over the weekend.
	And I think what's notable about this situation in Iran is: remember, there was a lot of reporting about a month ago or a month and a half ago suggesting that the president had virtually made up his mind to strike Iran.
	But the difference with Iran and Venezuela is that he was less convinced that he could strike Iran and have it be sort of quick, calculated, as successful as the strike in Venezuela was when they captured Nicolas Maduro.
	And so that sort of gave him pause.
	But at the same time, so I think that's part of the reason why he wants a deal, because it would be the easier solution for the administration.
	But at the same time, you're seeing him sending these boats and sending these military to the region, which is very similar, of course, to what we saw in the months before the U.S. went into Venezuela and captured Nicolas Maduro.
	You watched Marco Rubio testify on Capitol Hill last week.
	What were your takeaways from that testimony?
	I thought it was really interesting.
	His comments about the interim Venezuela president, Del Codriguez.
	He had issued a written statement to the committee before speaking, and part of his written statement that I reported on was him saying that he felt like her personal interests were aligned.
	But he also warned that if she effectively stops cooperating with the U.S., then the president is going to reserve the right to go in again.
Capitol Hill Insights 00:16:25
	And so I think that was really notable about the strikes.
	We learned a little bit more about sort of the White House's thinking as it comes to Venezuela.
	I had reported last month in January that a lot of the funds from the Venezuela oil revenue were being held in Qatar.
	We learned that eventually the U.S. plans to move that into the U.S., which is notable, of course, because from my understanding, part of the reason that they're being held in Qatar is because, of course, Venezuela owes so many people so much money that it is effectively able to, by keeping it in a foreign country, avoid the legalities that would ensue if they were to keep it in the U.S., where a lot of people would probably sue for that money.
	And then one other region that we haven't focused on too much lately, but that you've written about recently: the Trump administration's refining their Africa strategy.
	Explain what's going on there.
	Yeah, so in Africa, there's been a lot of criticism over this administration cutting U.S. aid to Africa.
	And what they did last year was essentially revamp their entire U.S. aid strategy to focus more on bilateral deals.
	And so what we reported on just this morning when it comes to Africa is the fact that one of the U.S.'s goals in Africa is to push out China.
	But they're not going to push out China on the entire continent.
	They're content with sort of focusing on priority things.
	So for example, if China wants to build roads throughout Africa, they're fine with that.
	But what they want to push China out on is things like critical minerals and sort of the priorities for the U.S.
	And they also defended their decision to change up the game when it comes to USAID.
	They argued that this is better long term for Africa to be able to sort of rely more on itself. than it does on other countries.
	And so it's really, there's some really interesting stuff going on in that area of the world when it comes to U.S. aid and also how the U.S. is viewing China influence.
	And you can read Shelby Talcott's article on that semaphore.com on all these topics we've been talking about.
	And you can dial in for about the next 10 minutes on phone lines for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
	This is Jerry Lynn out of Michigan Republican.
	Jerry Lynn, you're on with Shelby Talcott.
	Yes, thank you for taking my call.
	During the four years of the Biden administration, I watched millions and millions of individuals cross our border illegally.
	And then the Democrats stated over and over our border was secure.
	Specifically, Mallorcas and the Borders Are Kamala here.
	I find it very distressing today that the Democrats who allowed that illegal entry are now stating that the Republicans are breaking the law by removing the people the Democrats allowed to enter illegally.
	And the Democrats' solution to this problem that they created is to shut down the government.
	Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have introduced nor passed a law that when Congress fails to do their job, a shutdown occurs.
	It should be their salary that stops as they failed to do their job timely.
	It appears to be a one-way street.
	The criticism of the DOJ for missing their deadline on documents release was atrocious.
	However, when Congress does not get their job done in a timely manner, they just simply shut it down.
	This issue with immigration has been an issue for decades.
	I believe they don't want to fix it.
	By fixing it, companies would not be able to pay lower wages to these illegal individuals.
	Huge amounts of labor is needed in California agriculture and Alaska's fishing season.
	Illegals that obtain a Social Security number unlawfully claim the maximum amount of deductions, thereby not paying federal and state income tax.
	So one of your callers had stated before that they do pay federal and state income tax.
	And I feel that that is not true because of maximizing those deductions.
	Jerry Lynn, got your point and a lot there.
	Shelby Talcott, what do you want to focus on?
	Yeah, I think to one of your points, a lot of Americans are frustrated with how the government works.
	That's not, you know, a new complaint.
	I think it's a bipartisan complaint, particularly as it pertains to things like government shutdowns and getting paychecks.
	That's really frustrating for a lot of Americans.
	And on the immigration point, what I'll say is, you know, this was one of the reasons that Trump got elected was because he focused on two things.
	I covered him on the campaign trail.
	He focused on the economy.
	He focused on immigration.
	And so it's interesting now that there's still concerns about how the immigration system is here in the U.S.
	And perhaps it speaks to the point that both parties might need to change a little bit how they're viewing things to make things work.
	McCaller mentioned the Department of Justice.
	I just want to focus on the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche for a minute and how you see his role in this administration.
	Are we seeing more of him out on TV and before the podiums?
	Is that unusual for a Deputy Attorney General?
	And if so, why?
	Yeah, I do think we're seeing a little bit more of him.
	It is a little unusual, I think, depending on sort of what investigation is going on.
	I thought it was notable that he was talking about the Epstein files, for example.
	But remember, Pam Bondi has not always had the clearest track record on camera.
	I remember reporting on the Epstein files last year, and one of the big points of contention was that at the beginning of the year, she was on a, I believe it was a Fox News interview, and she made a comment about the list, the Epstein list, being on her desk.
	And I remember talking to sources who said, I have no idea what she's talking about, right?
	And so she sort of tried to clarify that after the fact, saying that she didn't mean that the physical Epstein list was on her desk, but there have been missteps, I think, that could have been prevented.
	And so you're seeing Todd Blanche take a little bit more of a forward-facing role because he's seen by some people in the administration as a little bit more careful about what he's saying.
	Back to your phone calls.
	This is Joe out of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
	Democrat, good morning.
	Yeah, good morning.
	Thank you, Suspam.
	Wanted to ask: what are the Freedom Caucus concerns with the current deal before them?
	Thanks so much.
	Bye-bye.
	Shelby Talcott.
	Well, I haven't reported specifically on the Freedom Caucus.
	I assume you're referring to the DHS deal and the partial government shutdown.
	But I think always the Freedom Caucus is going to be concerned about changes to immigration and also changes that involve, for example, 2A issues.
	That's been a really big concern in the wake of Alex Predi's killing.
	And so I would have to say, without having spoken to caucus members, that those are some of their concerns.
	And some of the reporting out there has their concerns.
	It's simply that why should we renegotiate these bills that we've already passed in the House, this package of six spending bills, it was passed in the House.
	Yes, the Senate went back and broke this up, but this gives Democrats more power when it comes to these shutdown threats that are.
	Which is a concern from the White House.
	When I talked to a senior White House official last week, they said, listen, it's just not feasible to change this up so late in the game, 48 hours before the government's going to be shut down.
	We've already come to agreements.
	And so that's certainly, I think, a concern across the Republican Party.
	Do you think people at the White House that you talk to think it's feasible to, in two weeks' time, come up with a negotiated list of changes to immigration enforcement operations, statutory changes that can then be passed by the House and Senate?
	That's the plan right now: a two-week extension for the Department of Homeland Security so that this package of something can be negotiated and voted on.
	I think their administration officials are hopeful, but they are not necessarily hanging their hats on the ability to get it done.
	I think that there are issues in which Democrats and the White House are very far away in terms of what the changes they want.
	And right now, my understanding is the White House is willing to talk to them for two weeks to get this government funded, but whether they're going to be able to come to an agreement, that's not a long period of time, particularly when there are so many sort of outstanding issues that remain.
	Is it a win for Democrats if after two weeks' time nothing comes together and the Department of Homeland Security is still not funded?
	Do some Democrats view that in itself as a potential win of a way of effectively defunding the Department of Homeland Security by putting it in shutdown mode?
	Yeah, I think some Democrats would view that as a win, even if they don't ultimately get an agreement to change ICE operations.
	Because remember, during the last government shutdown, they wanted a ton of demands, didn't really get any.
	But you saw some Democrats come out afterwards and say, well, we were able to shut down the government.
	We were able to sort of put this pressure on.
	And that's what we wanted to do all along was to take a stand.
	And so I think that they'll sort of take that messaging and adopt it this time around if that's what happens.
	Time for just one or two more phone calls.
	This is Rachel out of the Hoosier State Independent.
	Rachel, go ahead.
	You're on with Shelby Talcott.
	Good morning.
	I think I have a way to stop this.
	We all know that the Dems won't be illegals here to vote because they're going to say all residents should vote.
	And so what they're doing is using our tax dollars to support the illegal immigrants while they're here.
	And then they can get them all to vote.
	But what I think of the way to stop this, because we know a lot of the people that are rioting are not, they're on welfare.
	They're being paid by somebody.
	So my proposal is this.
	What we should do is tell the rioters if they break along, if they hit a cop, if they do something, spit on them, whatever, we should take away their welfare.
	Welfare is a contract.
	And if you break the rules of the contract, you're off of welfare.
	And so if we had like we have a no-fly list, we ought to have a no-welfare list.
	And I think the T-SN would really need to talk about the tactics of the rioters instead of constantly the tactics of ICE.
	Because the rioters have a certain way that they do things that cause annoyance.
	And if I followed you around with a wiggle blowing in your ear all day long, you'd be not happy with me either.
	But let's get a no welfare list.
	Gotcha.
	That's your point, Rachel.
	That's Rachel in Indiana.
	Let me try to get in.
	Mark in Herndon, Virginia, before the end of the segment.
	Independent, go ahead.
	Yes.
	Hello.
	Good morning, C-SAN.
	Longtime listener, first time caller.
	So I just want to ask the expert, so sorry, I forgot her name.
	Shelby Talcott.
	How is Trump, how effective is the Trump immigration policy?
	We're in a year now, and I'm pretty young.
	So online, you see a lot of this discourse about, you know, Trump actually isn't doing that much or Trump actually, he's supporting Left than Obama or Obama had more deportations.
	And I'm not sure how true that is.
	So I just want to, I guess, see some analysis.
	So what are the actual numbers like?
	Shelby Talcott, how effective has been the Trump immigration policies?
	Well, I think everybody, it is a sort of bipartisan that the president has cut down border crossings drastically.
	I think the question is, where are these numbers coming from that we're hearing from the White House and sort of what do they mean exactly?
	But I think there's no question that the president has cut down on things like border crossings.
	Now, a lot of his deportation stuff has been held up in court.
	So I think that's important to note.
	He has several, from my understanding, if I remember correctly, at the beginning of the administration was doing these sort of deportation flights, got sued over some of them.
	And so that's been affecting things.
	But I think the criticism of this administration that we've heard is sort of, are they going too far in their tactics?
	Their goal is, you heard the president on the campaign trail, to cut illegal immigration to zero.
	They're certainly not doing that.
	But I think there's no question that in terms of border crossings, that number is a lot lower than it was under the former president.
	For much more from the White House, you can go to semaphore.com.
	That's where you can find Shelby Talcott and her colleagues' work.
	Shelby Talcott, White House correspondent with Semaphore.
	Always appreciate your time.
	Thanks so much.
	Thanks.
	Stick around, about 45 minutes left in our program today.
	And in that time, we will be joined by Politico magazine writer Ankush Kadori.
	We'll talk about how ICE clashes in Minnesota are changing law enforcement operations around the country.
	We'll be right back.
	Best ideas and best practices can be found anywhere.
	We have to listen so we can govern better.
	Democracy depends on heavy doses of civility.
	You can fight and still be friendly.
	Bridging the divide in American politics.
	You know, you may not agree with Le Democrat on everything, but you can find areas where you do agree.
	He's a pretty likable guy as well.
	Chris Coons and I are actually friends.
	He votes wrong all the time, but we're actually friends.
	A horrible secret that Scott and I have is that we actually respect each other.
	We all don't hate each other.
	You two actually kind of like each other.
	These are the kinds of secrets we'd like to expose.
	It's nice to be with a member who knows what they're talking about.
	You guys did agree to the civility, all right?
	He owes my son $10 from a bed for the family.
	And he's the vice president.
	That's fighting words right now.
	I'm glad I'm not in charge of it.
	I'm thrilled to be on the show with him.
	There are not shows like this, right?
	Incentivizing that relationship.
	Ceasefire, Friday nights on C-SPAN.
	Democracy is always an unfinished creation.
	Democracy is worth dying for.
	Democracy belongs to us all.
	We are here in the sanctuary of democracy.
	Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies.
	American democracy is bigger than any one person.
	Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected.
	We are still at our core a democracy.
	This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
	We bring you into the chamber, onto the Senate floor, inside the hearing room, up to the mic and to the desk in the Oval Office.
	C-SPAN takes you where decisions are made.
	No spin, no commentary, no agenda.
	C-SPAN is your unfiltered connection to American democracy.
	Advance the mission.
	Donate today at c-span.org forward slash donate.
	Together, we keep democracy in view.
	Washington Journal continues.
	Ankush Kadori is back at our desk, a former federal prosecutor, current legal affairs columnist with Politico Magazine.
Rupture Between Federal, State Officials 00:14:38
	And in Politico Magazine, you recently explored the legal fallout in Minnesota, arguing that the deadly clashes with ICE and CBP are likely to impact law enforcement around the country.
	How so?
	You know, I think what we're seeing is a really, excuse me, remarkable sort of rupture between federal and state officials in Minnesota, right?
	The U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota is really reeling at this point.
	I mean, some of this has become public.
	Some of it is not quite so public, but there have been a lot of resignations.
	There's a lot of consternation.
	There might be more people leaving.
	And the aggressiveness with which federal officials have handled their presence has really rattled state officials clearly, upset them, upset people on the ground, the actual residents, Americans.
	And I think it's underrated.
	I sort of tried to explain in this piece how important it is actually for coordination between federal and state law enforcement officials sort of on a day-to-day basis, the trust that I think we take for granted.
	Because in any given jurisdiction, you're going to have a U.S. attorney's office, but you're also going to have state and local prosecutors.
	And there is a sort of rough division of labor between the federal prosecutors who tend to handle the more resource-intensive, complex cases, and the state prosecutors who handle all, they have no choices about the cases they get to choose.
	They're supposed to prosecute all of the crimes.
	So when you have a breakdown in that relationship, it's really a breakdown in law enforcement.
	And I think we're going to see a lot more distrust throughout the country between these.
	What does it tell us that the Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the Alex Predi killing?
	To be honest, it does not tell me anything.
	I mean, let's just take a step back here.
	I mean, when that man was killed on camera, the administration for days tried to lie to the American public, even though it was on camera.
	They then spent a week not quite lying, but coming up with a new, very misleading theory, which is that we got to take a step back from this man who was just killed on camera by federal officials as if we should do that.
	We got to take a step back and focus how the real perpetrators here are the Minnesota law enforcement who haven't done enough to help the federal government.
	So they tried to shift the blame for federal officials killing of Alex Predty onto local law enforcement, which is ridiculous.
	They're outnumbered, and it's not their job to enforce federal immigration law.
	So I think this administration has really fully, to me at least, fully depleted its credibility on this subject.
	If they cared about this, they would not have lied to the public and they would have immediately began this investigation.
	At the same time, even based on the reporting we have about the investigation, it's not really clear that they're looking at the officers slash shooters in earnest, right?
	They seem to have been dragged, kicking, and screaming to do this, much belatedly, and perhaps as a result of the political firestorm.
	But under the circumstances, I mean, this Justice Department has done nothing but make excuses for the administration.
	In terms of an investigation, what would the normal process look like in the wake of a shooting by a federal officer?
	How is this different from that?
	Yeah, yes.
	So this is not an area I specialize in, so I just want to be clear about that.
	But, you know, generally speaking, you would expect both state and federal law enforcement officials to be very looking very closely at it, right?
	And you might expect state officials to go forward with the sort of support and cooperation of the federal government.
	And the federal government tends to serve as a backstop in those sorts of cases, right?
	If the state can't pull it together, the state conviction maybe isn't achieved, you'll see federal officials maybe come in with a backup sort of civil rights use of force case.
	But that's generally how things work.
	This is not at all the norm where you have the federal government taking control of the crime scene immediately, not really explaining what they're doing, not making evidence available to local authorities, right?
	And already out of the gate.
	I mean, it's really amazing.
	It was only a little over a week ago.
	Already out of the gate, we had this administration claiming that Alex Predty was some sort of insurrectionist who was attacking and trying to kill as many law enforcement officers as he could.
	That was the initial claim, right?
	So, you know, under the circumstances, like, I think it would be ridiculous to assume that this is going to be an earnest, good faith investigation.
	The Civil Rights Division is led right now by Harmeet Dillon, who is, if you follow her on her Twitter account, is a political partisan and really not even fit for the job that she holds.
	is not going to be an earnest investigation into Alex Preddy's death.
	Kush Kadori is our guest.
	We're talking about ICE operations, the role of federal and local law enforcement, how it's been impacted.
	He wrote a column on it in Politico magazine.
	You can read it at their website, or you can call in to ask questions this way.
	Republicans, 202-748-8001.
	Democrats, 202-748-8000.
	Independents, 2027-8002.
	From the Predi killing to the larger question here about how law enforcement operations might change around the country.
	There was a meeting of the Conference of Mayors in DC last week, and one of the major discussions of that meeting was how various mayors are preparing for a Minnesota-like operation in their states and what they would do and what they're telling their local police.
	Did you cover that?
	What was kind of your takeaway from that?
	You know, it's funny.
	Actually, I did happen to speak to Mayor Todd Gloria, San Diego mayor, who is an incoming, he's the incoming head of that body, which was here last week, as you mentioned.
	And he was saying the same thing, actually.
	And he said in particular that in Minnesota, you know, all of the mayors, red and blue, to the extent mayors are politically coded, which mostly they aren't, but they do have partisan affiliations.
	He said all the mayors, red and blue, are scared in Minnesota that this is going to happen in their city.
	And he said that this is an issue more broadly that people are talking about sort of behind closed doors and worrying about behind closed doors.
	And I think it's easy to understand why.
	I mean, our mayors are sort of like the most front-facing government officials in our lives, right?
	We expect them to do things like, I don't know, plow the snow or get the gigantic blocks of snow up.
	It's still a problem.
	Yeah.
	Exactly, right?
	But so they actually have to deal with this stuff and deal with constituents on a day-to-day basis.
	And they are very anxious.
	I heard the same thing.
	What did there's mayors, you talked about the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota.
	And in the article, you talk about the amount of resignations that have happened there.
	What is the mayor's relationship with those federal offices?
	How much trust has been broken as a result of this?
	What's your read there?
	Yeah, so generally speaking, there is pretty close relationship, right?
	Because the U.S. Attorney's Office is also protecting and serving your constituents if you're the mayor, right?
	So obviously you want to know and be closely read into what it is that they're doing.
	So on a day-to-day basis, yes, you expect the mayor to have a very good idea of what the U.S. Attorney's Office is and some level of coordination between significant operations and developments, at least in major metropolitan jurisdictions like this one.
	What I see here on the part of Jacob Fry is I see a wholesale rupture, right?
	And I think he has conducted himself quite well in recent weeks, trying to, I think, channel the anger and anxiety and fear of his constituents while remaining assertive while also still trying to not get totally cross with the White Houses, which is very difficult because they're being irrational and misrepresenting a lot of facts on the ground.
	Can you explain what an immigration detainer is and whether they have to be complied with or they don't have to be complied with and when you get to choose?
	Okay, so an immigration detainer is when an undocumented immigrant or an immigrant who is illegally here is detained by law enforcement, whether it's a U.S. Attorney's Office or a local office.
	The ICE can place a detainer on them, which basically says, don't release this person, transfer them to our custody.
	They're supposed to comply.
	And I know there's been some dispute about compliance with ICE detainers, but I don't think there's been any evidence that there's a systematic refusal on the part of local officials to comply with ICE detainers.
	There are mistakes routinely, unfortunately.
	Even when I was a prosecutor, or even actually when I was a judicial law clerk, even before that, you would have these issues where even in federal people in federal custody would accidentally be released without an ICE detainer being complied with.
	So unfortunately, this is really actually an artifact of our system.
	These sorts of errors occur.
	And the claims that have come from the White House about sort of failures to apply with ICE is, first of all, heavily contested by local law officials and local politicians.
	But also, it just does happen.
	And it's not evidence of a nefarious effort to engage in an insurrection against the federal government or whatever.
	A headline in the piece and politico magazine, the legal fallout in Minnesota has only just begun.
	Ankush Kadori is the author of that piece with us this morning.
	Before we get to the phone calls, and there are plenty for you.
	A few months ago, we had you on this program to talk about what might happen if the Epstein files, the full Epstein files, were released.
	You had a column in Politico about that.
	Since this release of some 3 million documents, what is your read of the fallout and what more is to come?
	You know, so first of all, I think I own a place of meaningful caveat, right?
	There's a significant amount of documents that have been redacted, right?
	So we don't yet have the full picture into what it is the Justice Department actually purported to produce in this area, right?
	But lawmakers have been told that they will get access to that upon their request.
	Democratic lawmakers have put in a request, so we should expect some resolution to that.
	And I would expect some sort of report out, formal or informal, from members of Congress who are able to access that material about what's actually in there.
	All right, so let's just...
	That doesn't mean we're going to get to see what's reacted.
	Okay.
	We won't.
	So let's put that to the side.
	But I think, look, generally speaking, what I think we have seen from the files based on the credible reporting from knowledgeable media outlets with reporters who followed this is that the files generally reveal sort of embarrassing connections between powerful people and Jeffrey Epstein, particularly after his initial conviction.
	So there's still people attending parties and socializing.
	Now, we knew this already.
	So this is not actually news.
	And I think it is very important here to understand and to judge our lawmakers by their promises.
	When this law was pending, a bad idea, it was a bad idea from the start.
	The law to release the Epstein files.
	Yes, for the reasons we discussed at the time.
	Roe Khanna, the Democrat, was on Meet the Press a couple months ago saying, yo, when these files come out, we're going to reveal an Epstein class of criminals, well-connected, fancy, rich, famous, political figures who are criminals engaged in child sex trafficking and rape.
	He said this.
	Yesterday he goes on the same program.
	He can't identify any criminal misconduct.
	He says that the material released was, I think, shocks the conscience.
	He didn't tell us which parts of it shocked his conscience.
	What he did say was that he thought it reflected poorly upon people that they still socialized with Epstein after the conviction.
	We were promised criminals by these lawmakers.
	We were promised that this was going to happen and they were going to reveal all the criminals who the government had protected for the last decade over two different presidential administrations.
	That was the theory.
	And now there are zero criminals so far.
	As I said, this process is still underway.
	But that doesn't mean that a bunch of indictments are coming down.
	No indictments are coming.
	No indictments were ever coming.
	The thing that upsets me about this, as you can tell a little bit, is I think the survivors and victims here have been really, really mistreated by our politicians.
	If the Congress wanted to take this as seriously as they claimed, as seriously as RoCanna claimed, as seriously as Thomas Massey claimed, we would not have a document dump of millions of documents for everyone to rifle through for all of time to generate their own new conspiracy theories, a development that was obvious if you know anything about human nature, the internet, or the linear progression of time.
	Okay?
	So this was like not a very good idea to begin with.
	And that like is not, you know, I think we need to reckon with that.
	And there are a lot of costs here that I think have not really been properly aired out.
	This is going to compromise future investigations, particularly high-profile investigations.
	People are going to be wary of cooperating because their material might be released.
	And we had 500 prosecutors, according to the Justice Department, working on this over the last few months.
	Prosecutors from Maine Justice in Washington, D.C. and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan, one of our marquee offices.
	Okay, 500 spending most, if not all, of their days redacting these documents that aren't even particularly interesting, it seems, to the members of Congress who decided to pass this law, which is pretty much all of them.
	Some of those people, probably a lot of those people, could have been investigating ongoing child sex trafficking and ongoing sex crimes.
	Some of them probably were supposed to be doing those things, right?
	Where there are victims, people being victimized as we speak.
	So, you know, I think if this whole process, which imposed all of this difficulty and stress on the public, imposed all this time, 500 prosecutors pulled away from their jobs, just so RoCanna could go on television and say he's upset that people socialized with Epstein after his conviction, I think that is a preposterous trade-off.
	We talked about this the last couple times, you're on, but you mentioned your work as a federal prosecutor.
	What did you do as a federal prosecutor?
	How long were you a prosecutor, and how did you get into journalism?
	So I was a prosecutor from mid-2016 to early 2020.
	I was a prosecutor in the fraud section of Maine Justice and the criminal division.
	So my job was to focus on particularly financial fraud, large international investment frauds and financial frauds, those that, because it was Maine Justice, were sort of larger and more multi-jurisdictional.
	So like more difficult for a local prosecutor to pick up and focus on than the idea is that Washington prosecutors do those kinds of cases.
Low-Hanging Fruit in Immigration Enforcement 00:14:36
	So that is what I was focused on.
	For the first six months, or an initial six-month period, I spent time at U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Virginia here in Alexandria, the one that's been the subject of much separate news developments over recent months.
	And there, that was sort of to get my sort of training wheel, so to speak, right?
	Where you were really in there prosecuting the lowest level federal crimes, including traffic violations, literally, on federal property and things like illegal immigration, crimes of violence, that sort of thing.
	So there was that six-month period that I did that to.
	Ankush Kadori, our guest, and the phone lines are lit up for you.
	So we'll just get to the calls.
	The House is in at 9 a.m. Eastern.
	We'll, of course, go to the House when they do come in.
	But until then, your calls with Ankush Khadori.
	Jack is in Texas, Republican.
	Jack, good morning to you.
	Yes, hello, Mr. Kedori.
	It's a pleasure to speak with you.
	This is Jack Strickland.
	I would like to get your thoughts on a very specific example of political extremism related to events surrounding ICE activity.
	This actually involves a former attorney with Rhode Island law firm of Hyde Rochford and Carroll.
	His name is Will Stancil, and he's an overt white nationalist who is currently wanted by the FBI.
	Stancil has a very large following among the far right, and he recently released a pro-ICE manifesto titled, It Do In Fact Be Like That.
	Okay, okay.
	I'm not sure we can prosecute a case here.
	This is not true.
	This is not true.
	This guy is trying to embarrass and tarnish this guy named Will Stansel.
	We'll go to Don in Arizona Democrat.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	I agree with all these changes that Democrats are asking for.
	I don't think they're unreasonable at all.
	And, you know, Jesus said, if you do this to the least of these, you do it to me.
	And I think you Christians out there ought to think about that.
	And that's about all I had to say.
	Thank you.
	Uncommissioner Kidori, any thoughts on this effort working its way through Congress to reopen the government and in that time by two weeks for a negotiation over changes to immigration enforcement operations, whether that's possible, is there some low-hanging fruit here that there can get some agreement on?
	First of all, I share your caller's sentiment about this issue and on the moral issues underlying it.
	I don't know is the answer.
	Certainly there is low-hanging fruit, right?
	The lowest hanging fruit would be to unmask all the officers.
	None of these people should be masked.
	These are federal public officials exercising public power that we have given them through our elected legislators.
	That's a line, at least for now, that Tom Homan, that Speaker Mike Johnson has said that they're not willing to go.
	They're worried about these agents being doxed and their information getting out there.
	So, yes, I guess I call it low-hanging fruit, but even that's really not, it seems, going to happen.
	And you're right.
	They've said that their agents are being doxed.
	I don't know what even to say about that dispute, except I think that the concerns are being vastly overstated on the side of federal officials.
	I do not take it to face value their claims about how widespread this doxing or how aggressive this doxing is.
	And by the way, I think it's perfectly fine and appropriate for people to know who is exercising this public power, this extraordinary public power.
	And I think it's really kind of frightening that it's happening on our streets regularly and we have people with masks running around acting as if they can conduct themselves with impunity and seemingly being able to do so with this Justice Department.
	It seems like the low-hanging fruit might be body cameras.
	That seems like something Republicans are much more open to to making sure that these agents are wearing body cameras.
	Yeah.
	I mean, that's good too.
	But to me, like a much more consequential frontline thing would be the masks, because I think the masks have emboldened a lot of the more reckless agents, right?
	Because it just, you know, you wear a mask in public and you're doing things that you wouldn't probably wouldn't ordinarily do.
	It sort of liberates some of these people to engage in conduct that I think they would not otherwise engage in.
	And the body-warned cameras, yes, but that's sort of an after-the-fact thing.
	Those cameras only become useful after something bad has happened, right?
	I think my number one objective, if I were a legislator, would be to stop the bad things from happening as many as we can.
	Though after at least the two most high-profile incidents on the streets of Minnesota, the Renee Good shooting and the shooting of Mr. Predi, in both those cases, we now know the names of the agents involved pro publica over the weekend With a report on the names of the two officers involved in the Predi shooting.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So these things do come out, I guess, at least in some of the most high-profile cases, that the masks aren't enough to keep them hidden forever.
	Yes, that's true.
	But here's the problem I have, because the Renee Good and Alex Predi shootings, obviously extremely disturbing and very important politically, okay?
	Those killings happened on camera, right?
	And at least in the episode of Predi, we know that the administration tried to lie to us about what was on that video.
	I'm very concerned about what's happening in places where there is not video.
	And I don't mean body-worn cameras, because those are cameras in the possession of the government.
	I'm worried about the places where things haven't been recorded by bystanders or media, including in the detention centers, where the federal government has made a lot of claims about bad things that have happened in those facilities and said, oh, this person killed themselves, or this happened because the detainees did X, Y, or Z.
	And I don't think this is an administration whose word can take away.
	They're a lot of cameras and detention centers, though?
	Those cameras are within the control of the federal government, though, right?
	This is the thing.
	And this is a government that has demonstrated, right?
	I mean, this is no longer hypothetical, has demonstrated over the last few weeks since Renee Good's killing that they are prepared to cover up these sorts of incidents.
	Mark is in New York Independent.
	Mark, good morning.
	You're on with Ankosh Kedori.
	Good morning.
	I'm a Marine Corps veteran.
	I suffer from the poisoning of us Marines on Camp LeJeune.
	My main concern is you're being a Marine, and I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, just like every other member of the government.
	I feel these people that are in government, the mayors, the governors, and all the rest of these people, are pushing people for insurrection.
	Insurrection is a resistance to federal law.
	These people that go out here and impede the ICO officers are in the act of insurrection.
	Ankush Khadori, on the actions of the protesters.
	Yeah, so look, a lot of what the protesters have been doing, so far as I can tell, right, is observing, right?
	But observing in very close quarters, right?
	Not just, right, like sort of, and tracking and following some of these agents.
	Now, that's all legal.
	That is all legal.
	The mere observing, tracking, video, all that's legal.
	But the government has tried to claim that things like that are intimidating or efforts to kind of obstruct federal law enforcement.
	And I think some of that has fed into your caller's perception of events, which I think is based on a mischaracterization of some of what's been happening.
	Now, to the extent that there is actual people who are aggressively interceding and impeding.
	Spitting, bottle throwing.
	Yeah, those sorts of things.
	Well, spitting.
	Look, yes, you could try to charge someone with something over that, but also, this is the federal government.
	These are supposed to be adults.
	They're exercising extraordinary power here.
	Okay?
	So like, no, the government should not spend all of its time prosecuting people because they happen to have spit or allegedly spit on someone.
	I thought, according to them, they had much more important things to do.
	So, you know, in terms of like, but the relationship between the federal and local law enforcement officials, I think, but your collar's sentiment, I think, captures what we were talking about initially here, which is this sense that these sort of parts of our government, these two levels of our government, are sort of at loggerheads.
	And it is not good for that tension to be prevalent.
	But I do also think we need to be careful about saying that these local law politicians and law enforcement are encouraging resistance.
	I don't think that's really true.
	Not resistance that would rise to a level of criminal misconduct.
	Coming back to that original conversation about relationships between local and federal law enforcement, Tom Homan now taking over operations in Minnesota.
	This is just a minute or so of his remarks after his meeting with Jacob Fry and Tim Walz talking about seeking solutions, an attempt to sort of heal the divisions here.
	This is what he said last Thursday.
	In my meetings with folks so far, and most importantly, Governor and the AG, the Mayor Fry, we didn't agree on everything.
	I didn't expect to agree on anything.
	I've heard many people want to know why we're talking to people who they don't consider friends to administration.
	Bottom line is you can't fix problems if you don't have discussions.
	I didn't come to Minnesota for photo ops or headlines.
	You haven't seen me.
	I came here to seek solutions.
	And that's what we're going to do.
	And we've come a long way.
	And we got some good wins for the people of Minnesota, I think, and for the administration and for the safety security of this city.
	One thing we did agree on, though, everybody I talked to agreed on, was that community safety is paramount.
	One thing we all agreed on was U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement is a legitimate law enforcement agency that has a duty to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and keep this community safe.
	Ankush Khudori, how far do comments like that, the conciliatory tone, how far does that go to bridging some of the divides that you talk about in your article that have been struck here between federal and local law enforcement?
	Look, I can't speak for the people in Minnesota, the politicians, but me personally, I would put nothing into that.
	I mean, this is someone who is, remember, he was under investigation, criminal investigation for public corruption before he re-entered government.
	And I don't know who are the people he's talking to who are telling him not to talk to politicians who disagree with the Trump administration.
	That's what I'm curious about.
	He says, like, oh, I'm hearing from people who say we shouldn't talk to people who don't agree with us.
	Who are those people?
	You need a better class of friends and associates if those are the people who you have to deal with.
	But I think more importantly, look, things have not gotten better since Holman showed up.
	Last week, ICE's acting director issued a memo expanding the authority of ICE officers' ability on the ground, on the ground, to make warrantless arrests of alleged undocumented immigrants, even if they happen to, in part because they think that the immigrants won't be able to be detected again because they have a car.
	So this is now authority that the acting ICE director last week after that press conference gave to the officers, expanding their discretion.
	Why would you do that after we just had a week and change ago a man killed on camera by our federal officials?
	You would expand the discretion given to them.
	It's backwards.
	So I don't think that did much of anything.
	And look, the proof is going to have to be in facts.
	And thus far, nothing on the ground, so far as I can tell, has materially changed.
	15 minutes left with Ankush Kudori.
	That's when the House is expected to come in from the day.
	And we'll, of course, go there live for gabble-to-gabble coverage.
	Plenty of phone calls for you, but also text messages as well.
	This is Teresa in Little Rock, Arkansas.
	Please ask Mr. Kedori about all the AI videos and images online involving Alex Predi and the Minnesota ICE.
	How do these AI videos impact our view of events?
	MS Now did an AI image for a news coverage piece.
	The White House did an AI image of a church protester arrested crying.
	Both are wrong.
	Your view on how AI is shaping our view?
	I think that's a very, very important observation.
	Very important.
	Because that is happening in many different ways.
	And the White House alteration wasn't immediately obvious to people who were consuming that image.
	And that's our government misrepresenting facts, right?
	When you alter an image, particularly in the way that they altered it, to take someone who is sort of stoic and present them as crying and broken down, which I believe is the reference that the person is making to, you are misrepresenting facts.
	You are misleading the public, your constituents.
	And so I think that's true both.
	And I don't know about the specifics of those other incidents, but as a general matter, it is bad for AI to be infecting sort of political discourse.
	At a minimum, we should expect public officials and agencies and media outlets to disclose when they are aware that that is being done, right?
	So the White House, for instance.
	But I also think more generally, this is an issue that really does call out for some federal examination.
	Like if we had a Congress that actually did real things, then this would be a very good thing for them to look into.
	Like how do we regulate AI in a thoughtful way to ensure that the dissemination of information in our society is still accurate and well-grounded while also ensuring that this industry can innovate and grow in a way that our country should support.
	These are very difficult questions and complex questions.
	And right now, Congress is doing nothing about them.
	Today they'll be spending their time trying to reopen the government.
	We're in a partial shutdown this Groundhog Day.
	Six of the 12 federal spending bills have yet to be passed.
	And these are the spending bills for fiscal 2026, the fiscal year that we are in.
	And so that's what you can watch today on the House floor at 9 a.m. Eastern.
	The Senate comes in at 3 p.m. Eastern.
	There's a House Rules Committee at 4 p.m. Eastern where they're going to be debating the rule on the legislation that will be voted on expected Tuesday to possibly reopen the government.
	That's where we are on Capitol Hill today.
	David is in Massachusetts Republican.
	Good morning.
	You're on with Ankush Kodori.
	Hello.
	Go ahead, David.
Congressional Inaction Shutdown 00:10:40
	Okay.
	He mentioned that one of the earlier remarks made was that it was unusual for federal government to take over an incident scene from the locals and keep exclude local.
	That's not really true.
	I mean, the Mont Carmel massacre a third of a century ago, the FBI federal government took over the entire Mont Carmel community scene or what was left of it.
	Why was that somehow different?
	Why is this somehow different?
	On the federal government taking over investigation scenes.
	How long ago was the example he cited?
	I think he said a quarter century or something.
	I think that kind of answers the question, doesn't it?
	To Kirk in Oklahoma, Democrat, good morning.
	Morning.
	Just a clarification of ICE detainer.
	Have several against me in the past.
	How it works, regardless of your legal status, once you get in contact with the jails, if ICE is being shot for a crime, ICE will notify that a detainer is supposed to be issued.
	Depends on your outcome.
	So for example, detainers are issued every day once somebody and a green card holder, might be a legal visa, got arrested.
	Depends on the outcome, that's when ICE would have stepped in.
	So for example, if you get a conviction and it's deportable, that's when ICE, that's why they said, hold you till we know what's the outcome.
	They're not following not even those no more.
	They're just grabbing people and doing all type of things.
	But it's predicated because without a conviction, ICE really have no authority to remove you if you are illegal in the United States.
	So green card holder on a daily basis, if they get arrested, the prosecutor might dismiss the charge.
	They don't have sufficient evidence, the state, to prolong it.
	ICE don't have a case while you're legal.
	If you're illegal, that's when they will try to remove you and being in the country illegal.
	That's how a detainer works.
	Kirk, let me let Ankrish Khidori jump in here.
	Oh, I think that's generally correct.
	I think you made a couple points that are worth underscoring here.
	One is this is very complex administratively, right?
	It is not a simple matter, and this complexity spans federal and state law enforcement agencies.
	But second, I think the point he was trying to convey was that the mere placing of a detainer does not conclusively mean that you are here illegally, right?
	Because ICE may place a detainer, and they do while cases are still pending, right?
	Including a case that you may eventually prevail in because perhaps the government tried to prosecute you, but then you take the case to trial and you're acquitted.
	So every detainer does not equal illegal immigration?
	Yeah, I think that's the point he was trying to make, and that's a fair one.
	Marco out of Los Angeles Independent.
	Good morning.
	Yeah, I'm from California.
	And I wanted to ask the gentleman, is there a law that black people as a group can break that local and federal law enforcement would ignore, considering what Biden's border agents on horseback did in Texas rounding up all the black people?
	Not sure where Marco's going with that.
	Yeah, I'm not sure either.
	I don't mean to be like dismissive, but is there a law that I don't think I've seen?
	Is there any law that one racial group can break that another racial group is not allowed to break?
	Well, okay, so it is not supposed to be like equal justice.
	Correct, exactly.
	It is not supposed to be the case that the laws applied only to certain subsets of people and not others that are supposed to be illegal and unconstitutional.
	That's my understanding of the Constitution.
	This is Jason in Maryland, Republican.
	Good morning.
	Hi, good morning.
	Thank you for Mr. Godori for coming on and even promoting this dialogue.
	But I have a question.
	I'd like to hear your views on, I respect your standpoint from, you know, a lot of these enforcement agents are going too far and with the mass and whatnot.
	But this, down to the basis of it, these are still violations of law that immigrants are breaking if they're here illegally.
	What is your viewpoint on how we can actually uphold the standards of law in a peaceful way?
	And how do we get to a point to where everyone is sort of happy with this, even though that's kind of like a far-fetched idea?
	Thank you.
	You know, this is the million-dollar question, right?
	This is really the million-dollar question.
	And our politicians have been struggling with this for decades, right?
	There have been efforts over the years to push forward a sort of comprehensive immigration packages, and they failed, right?
	Most recently, if I recall correctly, because Trump opposed one during the last administration and it fell apart, a deal fell apart, that bipartisan deal.
	But, you know, the point that he makes is an important one, right?
	Because there are people who are here illegally violating our laws.
	And there are people who say, well, of course, we have to enforce that.
	But I think what we've seen is a major distinction among public sentiment between who we let in, right?
	So people are quite fine with the border being effectively being shut down in the southern border, right, under the Trump administration.
	But also how we handle interior enforcement, how we handle the people who are already here, right?
	And how humane we are about that or inhumane or how aggressive or lenient we are about that.
	And one of the sort of policy mechanisms people have proposed is sort of grandfathering in some of these people based on their work history or lack of criminal convictions or their family ties or things like that, creating some sort of system where effectively, you can call it amnesty, but creating sort of a path for legalization for some of these people while also recognizing that maybe there are other classes where their family ties or social or community ties are not as deep or significant.
	That is an extraordinarily complicated problem, right?
	It's so complicated.
	Congress has tried multiple times to solve it and failed.
	So, you know, I think we all have some version of your caller's question in our minds.
	As we wait for the House to come in, this is Patty in New Jersey Independent.
	You're on with Ankush Kedori.
	Hi, good morning.
	Thank you, C-SPAN, for what you do.
	I just wanted to say the tip first to the caller.
	I'm a little nervous talking on TV, so bear with me.
	I'm a great admirer of you, the way you speak out.
	I really appreciate the way you say things like, no, that's just bull or that's not true.
	You really are really smart and really standing up against what's going on.
	So I have three, a couple questions, and then I'm going to hang up.
	My first question is: what can people who are a victim of excessive force by these ice agents who really remind me of like Russia type protests?
	But what avenues do citizens have for civil or to get justice?
	Also, Trump, you're not allowed to sue a sitting president, but Trump is suing everyone.
	I don't understand how that could happen.
	And I don't understand how all these levers of power are being so abused and nothing seems to be happening.
	Can you help me with some of those answers?
	That's Patty in New Jersey.
	Where do you want to start?
	Well, first of all, Patty, thank you very much for your kind words.
	I really appreciate it.
	I think, particularly in a moment in American life where I think kindness is a little in short shrift.
	In terms of her questions, both very good.
	Okay.
	So the first question is: what can someone do if they are the victim of excessive force at the hands of a federal official?
	Now, we have a problem, a legal problem in this area.
	If you are the victim of a constitutional violation at the hands of state or local officials, you can sue them under a federal law known as Section 1983.
	And there is a law that allows you to do that.
	There is not a comparable law for federal officials.
	And there was a legal, there is a legal framework called the Bivens framework that is traditionally created that was supposed to impose comparable federal accountability for federal officials, same way Section 1983 does, but it's been very hollowed out by court decisions over the years.
	So it's basically, it's very, very difficult to do what your caller would like to do.
	In a situation like that, you know, it really, and that doesn't mean that we won't see civil cases.
	I don't mean to rule anything like that out.
	But the most potent form of deterrence is the criminal prosecution, if one is appropriate, or even just the criminal investigation can be a deterrent in the future.
	Now, that doesn't provide justice or compensation to the people whose lives have been changed, lost, and their families, but it is an element of the framework here.
	As we wait for the House to come in, they could come in in just a second or two here, but quickly, if viewers want to read more on your stories, the difference between Politico and Politico magazine and how they find your work.
	Oh, so you can find it at politico.com.
	The magazine is sort of a section of our site.
	It is where that houses sort of long-form, more ambitious enterprise pieces, as well as like analysis and commentary by me and some of the other columnists for the site.
	Ankush Khadori joining us.
	The House still yet to come in.
	So the other question the caller had was on being able, Donald Trump suing the IRS and not being able to sue Donald Trump.
	She is correct.
	I actually wrote a column on this subject last year once about how Donald Trump is going around suing people, but you can't really sue him because of the way that civil immunity works for presidents.
	You can't really sue him, but he's going around suing all these media outlets.
	The suit against the IRS, though, is another thing entirely, right?
	Because he's suing his own government, and the people who are going to have to make a decision about whether to litigate it or settle it report to him.
	So this is a really kind of bonkers situation, I think, where it's on its face, you know, seems quite corrupt because this is not how a situation like this should get resolved.
	How long can we expect that case to go, the IRS suit?
	I mean, is that something that's going to move quickly through the court system?

Chapters

00:00:00 Reforms on Capitol Hill
00:15:14 Dictatorship's Shadow
00:26:32 Speaker's Confidence Wavers
00:28:43 Stay Legal: 10 Years and Beyond
00:35:46 Immigration Backlash Debate
00:40:44 Pick Up The Criminal
00:46:54 Chuck Schumer's Agreement Controversy
01:04:35 Capitol Hill Insights
01:21:01 Rupture Between Federal, State Officials
01:35:40 Low-Hanging Fruit in Immigration Enforcement
01:50:16 Congressional Inaction Shutdown