C-SPAN’s Washington Journal (02/14/2026) dissects the DHS shutdown—triggered by ICE reform stalls after Alex Preddy’s death—where TSA, FEMA, and Secret Service face unpaid furloughs despite ICE’s emergency funding. Callers clash over Preddy’s killing, Trump’s alleged corruption, and ICE’s role, with Democrats demanding transparency (body cameras, ID rules) and Republicans defending enforcement. DHS warns of disaster response failures while Fed economist Thomas Hoenig links $38T debt to spending vs. revenue gaps, praising steady 3.5% rates amid 2.4% inflation but criticizing fiat currency excesses. FDA’s Dr. McCary reveals plans to close the "GRASS" loophole for carcinogenic additives like BHA, tied to rising childhood chronic diseases, while debating Moderna’s flu vaccine ethics and measles misinformation. The episode exposes partisan divides over immigration, healthcare, and economic policy amid eroding public trust in institutions. [Automatically generated summary]
This is Washington Journal for Valentine's Day, February 14th.
A partial shutdown of several agencies within the Department of Homeland Security has begun.
Negotiations are at a stalemate between Senate Democrats and the White House on reforms to immigration enforcement.
And with no deal, funding lapsed as of midnight last night.
So this morning, we want to hear what you think.
Are Democrats right in withholding funding for the Homeland Security Department until their demands for ICE reforms are met?
Or do you agree with the White House and Republicans that Democrats are overplaying their hand by forcing the shutdown?
Here's how you join in on the conversation.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
You can also reach us by text message at 202-748-8003.
You can reach us on Facebook at facebook.com forward slash C-SPAN or on X with the handle at C-SPANWJ.
So we start this morning on the politics of the partial shutdown that is now underway.
I turned to a Washington Post article that headline is, as much of DHS runs out of money after ICE negotiations falter.
If you go a little bit further down in the article, it says, the shutdown impacts about 13% of the federal civilian workforce, although most of the affected DHS employees are required to keep working even if they are not being paid.
Democrats demanded new restrictions on federal immigration agents in exchange for voting to fund DHS after Alex Predi was killed last month in Minneapolis.
But the shutdown does not halt immigration and customs enforcement or customs and border protection operations because of Republicans in Congress, because Republicans in Congress sent those agencies tens of millions of dollars in extra funding last year.
Instead, it says the brunt of the impacts will fall on other agencies within DHS, a sprawling department that includes the Transportation Security Administration, which provides airport security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Coast Guard.
Yesterday at the White House, before heading to Palm Beach, the president was asked if he knows what Democrats want.
unidentified
TAKE A LISTEN.
We've taken out hundreds of thousands of criminals out of our country.
That's, of course, after the White House sent Democrats a counterproposal to their initial proposal, including legislative texts outlining what they would be comfortable with in these negotiations.
Now, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries yesterday spoke about Democrats' strategy in this partial shutdown.
Because Donald Trump and Republicans have decided that they have zero interest in getting ICE under control.
The American people know ICE is out of control and that they need to be reined in.
And Democrats are working hard to do just that.
We believe that taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable for everyday Americans, not brutalize or kill them, which is what we've seen in Minneapolis with the cold-blooded killing of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Preddy.
In this country, immigration enforcement should be fair, it should be just, and it should be humane.
That's not what's taking place right now in the United States of America, where law-abiding immigrant families are being violently targeted and American communities are being brutalized.
Dramatic changes are needed at the Department of Homeland Security in terms of ICE and CBP.
Absent that, Republicans have decided to shut down parts of the federal government once again.
Harold, let me ask you, since you're on the line here, because, you know, though there is a partial shutdown for DHS, ICE Nor Customs or Border Patrol, CPP, which are actually the agency that carried out that shooting in Minneapolis, that they are not closed because of funding that they received last summer.
Instead, the agencies that are affected are the U.S. Coast Guard, SISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Transportation Security Administration, TSA.
Obviously, those are the folks who are manning the airports and are expected to still have to continue to work.
So you believe that this shutdown to make reforms to ICE and CPB is worth it, even if those folks will be going unpaid for an unknown amount of time.
unidentified
Well, I'm sorry that the other agencies are included in the actions of one agency, but I believe that the action that's taken in regards to getting things straight, I'm sorry, they just have to suffer.
Some people do have to suffer.
The scriptures say that it rains on the just as well as the unjust.
So I think out of all things that has happened up until now, it would be worth it if we can stick it out And I think it'll be all right.
George, I mean, excuse me, Charles from Georgia, a Republican.
You're next.
Good morning, Charles.
unidentified
Yes.
You know, we wouldn't be in this mess to start with if show and the Democrats done what they did at the border, but they wanted to pass it off like it's Republicans' fault.
And I don't see how they can be more interested in the criminals than they are protected everyday citizens.
One thing that he noted was a statistic about how many people who are getting arrested for deportation efforts actually have criminal records.
Turn to a CBS article from earlier this week.
The headline is: Less than 14% of those arrested by ICE in Trump's first year back in office had violent criminal records.
Document shows.
It says that less than nearly 14% of 400,000 immigrants arrested by ICE in the president's first year back in the White House had charges or convictions for violent criminal offenses, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security document obtained by CBS.
Now, the White House has pushed back on this, noting the figure that if you go a little bit further down, it says that nearly 60% of ICE arrestees over the past year had criminal charges or convictions, the document indicates.
But among that population, the majority of those criminal charges or convictions are for nonviolent crimes.
The White House has said that those nonviolent crimes include things like DUIs and other crimes that would be nonviolent but are still crimes.
Stan from Florida, an independent, you're next.
unidentified
This is not only about immigration, they want the voter rolls.
That's what they want.
If you don't turn over your voter rolls, they're going to keep coming.
They're looking for, and measles are spreading all over the place.
And to your point, Sherry, we will actually have on a former federal governor to talk all about the economy and some of those numbers that came out yesterday, I think, that you're referencing, and about around 8.05 this morning.
So we are talking about it all, but right now we're talking about the shutdown because, of course, that happened at midnight.
unidentified
Oh, yeah.
And I don't understand why Democrats want to keep lawbreakers because crossing the border illegally is a crime.
And I don't understand why they want to keep them here.
Steve from Pennsylvania, an independent, you're next.
unidentified
A couple things.
This whole thing would never have happened if all these people that came across the borders would have stayed where they were or didn't legally come into this country.
They came in illegally.
They broke the law.
As for the shutdown, I think it's ridiculous.
It's a political ploy because this year is also an election year.
Now, the gentleman that was killed, actually was killed a couple weeks ago.
A week before, I saw this on National Desk on the 29th of last month.
A week before that, he spit on one of their cars, he kicked it, and in his, on his back, in his belt, he had a revolver.
He didn't grab it, grab it, and pull it out.
But why would a person who wanted to be a peaceful protest want to carry a gun?
That's one thing.
And as for the lady, I also saw that too.
She got on social media saying she wanted people to follow her.
She was going to follow the ICE people all day and cause trouble.
Now, when this incident occurred, I also saw it on television.
The officers that were around the car, the one guy got the hold of the car by the door, of course, she was the driver, to tell her to get out.
She wouldn't.
She kept moving the car back and forth.
Now, this is why she was shot.
She didn't get out of the car because over the period of the last year, when you start seeing ice air, ice, ice, the amount of police officers, I'll call them police officers, were hurt because of moving vehicles that these people were in.
Yes, they should have body cameras, definitely that.
But this whole mess would never occur if people would come in legally, not illegally.
Steve, can I ask you, since you're on the line here, I want to just tick through a couple of the Democrats' demands when it comes to ICE reform, because you said that you are in favor of body cameras, something that the DHS and the White House seems in favor of after Department of Homeland Security's Secretary Noam's announcement that body cameras would be given to the agents in Minneapolis.
Of course, now we know that they're kind of removing all the federal agents there.
But would you be in favor of agents being required to wear ID?
I don't know what regular state and local police do, but that might be a good idea.
That might be because, you know, any ICE, or how you want it, any lawyers, doctors, you know, there are some bad in every, there's bad apples in every bomb.
Okay?
You can't put them all in one container and say they're all bad.
You always have some bad apples.
And I think what they need to do is they need to go and check out on these people more and more their background and everything like that.
They should have masks because if somebody is not in favor of them being required to not wear masks because that is a Democratic demand.
unidentified
I think they should wear masks because in the past, sometimes I see in the news and the newspapers, if you still got newspapers yet, families have been, their families have been threatened.
Because they're scared of that, because the simple fact is, if they see their faces and they can find out who they are, they can go to their families and hurt their families.
Because Democrats' position, I just want to clarify for folks who are listening real quick, because Democrats' position has been that it would be an extra burden or cumbersome to implement the SAVE Act because a SAVE Act requires you to prove citizenship.
So you would bring a passport or you'd bring a birth certificate.
And one of the positions that a Democrat has said, for folks listening, is that it would create an extra burden, perhaps, for a newly married woman because her last name wouldn't match her birth certificate.
Let me ask you, Charles, since you said that you think that the shutdown is a good idea, I'll play a clip in a second, kind of going into more detail.
But agencies affected by the shutdown aren't actually ICE or CPB because those have been funded last summer in that OBBB bill, but agencies affected are the U.S. Coast Guard, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, TSA, the Transportation Agency, Secret Service, FEMA.
We know that they have been responding to those winter storms.
Those are the folks who are going to be affected and still expected mostly to come to work and not get paid.
Do you think that that is a fair trade?
unidentified
It's not fair trade, but we got to.
Trump is fighting a war against America, so we've got to fight back.
Collateral damage is going to happen.
I'm sorry, I feel bad for them.
I'm a veteran, so I definitely feel bad for the Coast Guard, but we got to do something.
Take a listen to some DHS agency heads testify earlier this week on Capitol Hill about the potential ramifications if the government were to have a partial shutdown, which we know is ongoing.
Under lapse in appropriations, FEMA will not be able to continue carrying out any missions other than life-saving and supporting disaster response efforts.
FEMA's disaster relief fund has sufficient balances to continue emergency response activities for the foreseeable future, and life-saving and life-sustaining activities are an accepted activity under DHS's lapse plan.
That said, if a catastrophic disaster occurred, the DRF would be seriously strained.
A government shutdown would severely disrupt FEMA's ability to reimburse states for disaster relief costs and to support our recovery from disasters.
unidentified
I want to be clear.
When the government shuts down, cyber threats do not.
And our adversaries work 24-7.
Even a brief lapse can have lasting consequences on small businesses, federal networks, and American taxpayers.
And the adverse effects of shutdown are not just felt by our agency alone, but extend to the communities we serve, as delays or disruptions may impact our collective ability to protect and support the national infrastructure security.
Funding for CISA is essential to safeguarding the nation's critical infrastructure.
During the recent 43-day shutdown, TSA personnel continued to report to work without pay and kept our operations running smoothly, ensuring millions of passengers arrived at their destinations safely and securely.
While average wait times across the country remained within our established standards, TSA saw increased rates of unscheduled absences and localized spikes in wait times as the shutdown dragged on and the cost of coming to work became more and more untenable for our frontline workforce.
We heard reports of officers sleeping in their cars at airports to save money on gas, selling their blood and plasma and taking on second jobs to make ends meet.
Many were subject to late fees from missed bill payments, eviction notices, loss of child care, and more, all the while expected to serve their country and perform at the highest level when in uniform.
12 weeks later, some are just recovering from the financial impact of the 43-day shutdown.
Many are still reeling from it.
We cannot put them through another such experience.
That was a number of DHS agency heads talking earlier this week on Capitol Hill about the ramifications if the government were to have a partial shutdown, which of course we are now in.
Mick from Kansas, an independent, you're next.
We're talking shutdown.
What are your thoughts?
unidentified
Hello, Jasmine.
Hello.
Call.
I'm calling to say that I looked it up and apparently there have been 13 government shutdowns while a Democrat was Speaker and 10 while a Republican was speaker.
And I say it's the Speaker's fault in every single case because the Speaker wasn't able to get enough of his members to vote his way and needed the other party to join in.
Let me ask you this, because the current negotiations on ICE reform, on CPV reform, are happening actually between the White House and Senate Democrats.
So how does your theory of the Speaker's fault kind of factor into that?
unidentified
Because the White House tells the Speaker what to do, presumably, the Speaker, even if the Speaker wasn't obliged to do what the White House said to do, it's a Speaker's obligation to get enough votes of his members to bring it over the line because he has the majority.
And also, I heard someone talk about you need an ID for all I've heard him say for a pack of cigarettes or to get on a plane or they can list 800 things if they wanted to.
None of those things, none of those instances are a constitutional right.
Because Democrats are not talking about defunding ICE.
They are talking about reforming ICE.
And in their demands, don't exist a cutoff of funds for ICE.
So I wonder how that.
unidentified
We don't need to completely defund ICE.
We just need to get them under control.
This is ridiculous, what they're going around to these cities doing.
Listen, you have to feel safe in this country.
I don't care who you are.
Even if you're an illegal, you're here.
More than likely, if you're here illegally, it's because you're escaping a very bad situation from wherever you're coming from.
And after World War II, we said that we would never turn away asylum seekers and stuff like that.
We wrote that into law ever again.
But I've got to tell you that it's just getting completely ridiculous.
I mean, our different states, the police in our different states don't agree with what ICE is doing.
They don't back ICE.
ICE is just going there and creating havoc and hell in all of these states.
And they haven't really arrested anybody.
You know, like what they say, 14 under 14% of the people who they have arrested have violent criminal records.
If you're going to do that with violent criminal people, start with Donald Trump.
He's a pedophile, in my opinion.
He's a three-time convicted felon.
He's a three-time impeached president and needs to be or needs to be a three-time.
He's a two-time impeached president and work your way down.
We've got to get rid of the corruption.
I agree with that.
The corruption at the top on both sides, Democrat and Republican.
And when you want to talk about hypocrites, maybe we can start talking about the Republican Christian hypocrites who put this federal offense masterpiece as our leader, Donald Trump.
You know, he doesn't even make for a good Christian, let alone a good human.
I believe that they are deporting people who they say have come into the country illegally, overstayed their visas, have additional criminal charges, convictions.
Although people who don't have any criminal convictions outside of staying in the country illegally or coming into the country illegally have also been caught up in the immigration immigration sweeps.
But I don't believe anybody who has been born in this country has been deported.
unidentified
On our news in Syracuse, it shows that we're deporting birthright citizens.
And I want to know if we're deporting birthright citizens.
Isn't Mr. Trump's son a birthright citizen?
And I also want to know if we're raiding all these places.
Florida and Texas has five times the illegal immigrants that the rest of these states have.
And they said right in the news that Mr. Trump's towers and Mar-Largo both are heavily, what do you call it, covered with illegal immigrants for the service quarters and service staff.
And so the lack of compassion by the Democrats, they keep pushing.
And I think that one gentleman who called in and said he heard on the news all kinds of fake information, just like Hakeem Jeffrey saying that the ICE is violently after, you know, hunting down citizens.
I mean, he's just pushing this violence, and it's the media is just promoting this constant conflict.
If the Democrat, the majority of the Democrats were actually compassionate, they'd keep the government open and fund FEMA.
They're actually compassionate, they would be elated over ICE finding these child sex traffickers and shutting those organizations down.
If they were compassionate, they would care that in New York State, there's free legal services, very responsive legal services, free medical care, free everything for people who are here illegally and perhaps committed other crimes, while hardworking Americans are getting that money stolen from them.
They can't go to a doctor because there's not enough care, and they have to pay for it.
They can't afford it.
They would also, if they were compassionate, they would care about the rapes and the murders and the drug trafficking and the foreign monies that are paying these protesters to violently attack our law enforcement.
If they were compassionate, they would do something about changing what they don't like, compromise with the other side, and use some common sense.
Promoting violence is not the answer, and shutting down the government is not the answer, in my opinion.
To be clear, the president hasn't been charged for any of those crimes that that gentleman just said.
Jeff from Seattle, Washington, and Independent, you're next.
unidentified
Yes.
Thank you for having me on.
You know, I've listened to all of this, but I think it's appropriate that the DHS has been, the government is shut down because the thing is, is that if we can find funding for places like Argentina, if we can give so many millions or billions or whatever to a country that has nothing to do with America, then we should find a way to, number one, rein in the ICE, you know,
the ICE officers.
And also, another thing that should happen is they should be demased because when I watched Pam Bundy on that hearing she had, one of the things that astounded me is one of the Congress people said to her about someone she hired.
It was one of the 1,600 from January 6th that was pardoned.
And when she was asked about it, she tried to evade the question.
But once he nailed her feet to the ground and she actually answered it, then she said yes.
And her whole statement was that he was pardoned by President Trump.
Well, these people were very violent people.
They were passionate about whatever they were pouting, but they've used their passion in a violent manner in terms of how they feel about America.
These people should not be in any type of judicial or you understand.
I get it that they were pardoned, so their record was wiped clean.
But the bottom line is that we should know who these people are because the thing is, I can guarantee you that if you look at, if you unmask these people, you will find that a number of them will have come from that catch of people that are on ice right now because they reduced their standards so low that anybody can damn near get in except for a black man like me.
And so that's just, it's ridiculous.
But the thing is, all of the, you know, the whole thing is, I wish the government would still shut down over even the health care thing because these people don't want to help Americans.
Government Inaction On American Trauma00:15:40
unidentified
This government is not doing anything towards really that benefits American people.
I don't care what your democratic displacement is, religion, color, creed, or whatever.
When we lived in America, it's a nation founded on immigration.
The best speech on immigration that you will ever hear, and I can't believe I'm saying this, was from Ronald Reagan.
He talked about the value of what immigrants give to America.
And these people that talk about, well, what are they doing for us?
If you actually look at the numbers in America, you will find that immigrants create hundreds of billions of dollars.
Now, I'm not talking about trillions.
I'm not talking about millions.
I'm talking about billions per annum.
And they pay their taxes.
And they get no benefit.
They don't get Medicare.
People who think that they get Medicare and all of this, if they're illegal, the only thing they can get is emergency care.
So, you know, these people who don't understand the true bearing of what immigrants offer to America, you know, if you get rid of every immigrant in America, you'll find that who's going to contribute that tax money?
The wealthy aren't going to get it.
They got a tax break.
They keep putting the burden on the regular people.
Or at least ICE is not technically already funded, but they have a $75 billion emergency fund that they can tap into to cover anything that happens during the shutdown.
Mr. President, I just want to reiterate that we got the language last night.
We've been in a two-week continuity resolution, and last night we got the first offer of legislation from the White House.
We're not in charge.
The Senate Democrats aren't in charge.
We don't run the House.
We don't run the White House.
We waited for a week for there to be some process to be convened.
We got no signal as to what that negotiation would look like, so we finally put our proposals, our text on the table, and didn't get an offer back until last night.
My wish is for my Republican colleagues to be just as upset As they are about what is going to happen next week at TSA or at FEMA, as for the children that are being traumatized right now in this country, who are being thrown in what's called the baby jail outside of San Antonio,
the lives that are fundamentally changed by an immigration policy that is out of control, to have concerns for the American citizens who have been killed simply exercising their First Amendment rights, to care about the 4 million Americans who are losing their insurance as we speak, because this administration has chosen to put money into a lawless immigration enforcement operation instead of protecting people's health care.
That's what's happening in America today.
4 million people are losing their health care insurance.
20 million people are having their rates go through the roof because the priority is flooding Minneapolis with ICE agents chasing down kids at school buses, at school bus stops, as they were doing just two days ago in Minneapolis instead of protecting people's health care.
People are losing health care in this country, so as to fund this runaway Department of Homeland Security.
And so we all have outrage about what is happening in this country today.
And I don't know why it took the White House until last night to send any semblance of specifics on what they were willing to work for.
We have an obligation as members of Congress to fund a government that obeys the law.
This Department of Homeland Security is not obeying the law.
So that was debate on the Senate floor on Thursday when Republicans tried to pass that two-week stopgap DHS funding bill and the conversations around it.
Donna from Pennsylvania, a Democrat, you're next.
unidentified
Good morning.
Good morning.
I have my comment about DHS, and then I have just something to say.
It's unfortunate that the government is shut down because, like previous callers said, they're already funded through the big beautiful bill, ICES.
Yep.
So, but on the same token, the demands for reform for these ICE agents, they're not unreasonable, really.
Why are you wearing masks?
Why?
Body cameras, they've gotten those.
And why are they treating these people so inhumane?
That's my whole gripe with this whole ICE and this whole deportation mess.
This country is in a mess right now.
And do you know why?
Because this country is still racist.
It's 2026, and this country is still racist.
We're about to celebrate 250 years, and it's still racist.
Why do you hate these people that want a new way of life?
Every single person that's in this country, every single person that calls this line ancestors are immigrants.
We're immigrants.
And what did they do?
They came to America for a new way of life because that's what was told to them that this was the land of the free and the home of the brave.
But it's not.
It's still racist.
Why do you hate these people so much?
It's unbelievable.
We are so divided as a country.
It has never been united.
Why are we called the United States of America?
It's never been united.
This country from its founding, all it do is steal, bully, kill.
We're not perfect.
People think, oh, America is so.
No, we're not.
We have never lived up to what the Constitution said.
Just like Martin Luther King said, just do what you say on paper.
We've never done that.
They killed two people in Minneapolis.
And guess what?
Nobody is being held responsible.
They don't even want to investigate Renee Good.
What is that about?
This whole country is in a mess.
This administration, oh my God, the outrage.
It's selective outrage.
They are like the immigrants that come over here, Mexicans or brown people, Latino.
So you said that the demands aren't that bad of what Democrats are asking for.
Would you want to see them go further than the list we have?
Targeted enforcement, no masks, requiring ID, protecting sensitive locations, stopping racial profiling, upholding the use of force standards, ensuring state and local coordination and oversight, building safeguards into the system, body cameras for accountability, not tracking, no paramilitary police force.
Do you want to see Democrats go further than this list, or is this list adequate?
unidentified
Fine.
That list is fine.
When Obama was in office, do you know how many people he deported?
A lot.
I don't know the number, but it was a lot.
But it was done in a humane way, not inhumane.
They treat these people like they're subhuman.
They call them aliens.
They're just undocumented.
They might be here illegally, but they're undocumented.
They're not aliens, like they're from a different planet.
I can't stand it.
I can't stand it.
The root to this problem is racism.
And until you get rid of that, you're not going to get rid of any of the problems.
And the selective outrage, they're more outraged about this than they are with what's going on in the White House with the.
I have no issue with us wearing body cams, having a name tag.
We expect that of our local and state law enforcement.
So I have no issue with that.
I do believe that a lot of these issues with the mask or let them wear a mask.
I don't care if I have a mask on or not because I think the rhetoric from both sides are fueling a lot of hate and common people and dividing our country even more.
And I do believe those people fear for their safety and the safety of their families.
And I think that that's unfortunate that the rhetoric from both sides of the aisle can't just stop.
As far as people saying, I'm all about legal immigration, I appreciate those that come over here and contribute to our country.
And let's not take away anything from that, right?
Those that come over here and they contribute their money and they pay taxes.
I'm all for that.
However, I'm also aware of all those that have come over here and killed many women and children that I'm all for those guys being deported as well.
But I think a very important thing for us to realize is those being hurt by all of this.
None of them go up there to Washington and get to cast a vote.
The common people are here getting hurt by shutdowns.
And that's what's unfortunate.
I also think it's unfortunate that we live in a country that is so divided by hate and it's fueled by all of the rhetoric from both sides of the aisle.
All of those actions have basically made Trump and his cronies think they're untouchable.
These are pedophiles.
These are the ones we should be going after.
The ultimate thing is they're inhumane.
Like the lady before me said, they're racist as heck, just going after people because they speak a certain way and look a certain way.
And they're not all the criminals.
They have hyped up this whole thing thinking the boogeyman is going to come get you because they're brown people about to steal your kids and steal your women.
And all these people are scared because they're inherently have been racist, like she said, for the 250 years we've been here.
And so ultimately, DHS needs to be shut down.
They need to redo everything that they're talking about.
They need to take off the mask.
And how do the Republicans who always been, oh, states rights, states' rights, don't tread on government, don't come over here.
And now they're enforcing the federal government to go into the states.
The hypocrisy is awful.
It needs to change.
Burn this whole thing down.
Get them out of here.
They're illegal.
They're going against the Constitution.
Have no respect for it.
It needs to be done.
Whatever it needs to take.
As they're sacrificing people on the streets, it's unfortunately some people are not going to get paid for a moment.
But ultimately, this is not the government we signed up for.
This is not a government.
This is fascism at its core.
They are stealing the money, the billionaires.
Y'all, and people over here talking about some illiterate, y'all sound illiterate.
How you all talk.
So how are you talking about people who are illiterate?
And then finally, we have to get back to the core of what this is.
Are we all created equally?
Okay.
The ultimate thing is they are inhumane.
They shot that man dead and tried to tell everybody he was a terrorist.
Later, we'll be joined by Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Martin McCary on recent decisions made by the FBA.
But next, Ricardo Sinner's Thomas Hoenig, who served as the former president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, discusses the state of the U.S. economy and affordability.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 2:45 p.m. Eastern, former Newsday reporter Bill Blyer looks at how calling New York City home shaped the political legacies of the Roosevelts and the Roosevelts in New York City.
Followed by University of Georgia professor George Selgin on his book, False Dawn: The New Deal and the Promise of Recovery, 1933 to 1947, criticizing FDR's New Deal programs.
Then at 4:45 p.m. Eastern, military historian and presidential biographer Nigel Hamilton discusses the military face-off between two American presidents during the Civil War in his book, Lincoln v. Davis, The War of the Presidents.
At 8 p.m. Eastern in The Case for American Power, Washington Post columnist Shadi Hamin argues that American power and influence in the world is a good thing despite its flaws.
After that, at 9:15 p.m. Eastern, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel describes how individuals can lead healthier lives in Eat Your Ice Cream: Six Simple Rules for a Long and Healthy Life.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
This week, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the House Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing on the Department of Justice.
Their inquiry produced some heated moments between Ms. Bondi and House members.
If you had any decency, you would resign right after this hearing.
Watch the re-air of the House Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN and online at c-span.org.
Joining us now to talk about the U.S. economy and the Federal Reserve is Thomas Hoenig, former president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
And he's here to discuss the state of the U.S. economy.
Thomas, thank you so much for being here this morning.
The headline is: U.S. payrolls rose by $130,000 in January, more than expected.
Unemployment is down to 4.3%.
Thomas, can you put those numbers into context for us?
What are the factors behind this growth?
unidentified
Well, I think it was primarily due to a pretty big job increases in health care, which seems to be the primary driver of employment these days.
There was a modest increase in manufacturing.
And those are the kinds of things that are driving the economy right now.
I should say the healthcare is a primary one at this point.
And other areas, more modest.
Like I say, manufacturing, more modest.
And the construction area, that's been fairly modest given some of the slowdown in some areas.
But except for AI and that sort of job growth in the construction of these centers across the country, those are the big winners in the job market area.
Now, it also noted that unemployment is down to 4.3%.
I wonder what does that tell us about the current state of the economy, especially when we know that there were some significant revisions when it comes to the year outlook for 2025 and things like that.
So what is it telling us?
unidentified
Well, it's telling us the economy is stronger than people thought it would be.
2025 actually looks like it will be a pretty strong growth year.
I think that's very important.
A couple things.
The unemployment rate is 4.3.
There's a lot of factors in that right now.
Number one, we have seen the job market not lay off a lot of people.
The initial employment claims are fairly modest compared to history, and they're right in line with a stable economy.
That's, I think, important.
The second thing is immigration has changed the supply dynamics in the market, and therefore the number of people searching for jobs is more stable than it has been in the past.
Now, there is a slowdown in hiring.
That's why you're not seeing the employment numbers come down to, say, back to 4% and so forth.
But it's not massive layoffs either.
So all these factors come into play.
And we're seeing that the unemployment rate is stable.
The job market is, relatively speaking, stable.
We're seeing some shifts.
There is structural shifts going on in the employment market as you see things like the healthcare industry grow, things like the AI industry and its support mechanism grow.
And even though we're trying to onshore manufacturing, that's going to be a very slow process as demonstrated by the past year.
But depending on how that proceeds, we might see some modest improvement in manufacturing.
But we are under major change in this country as far as our employment conditions are.
Another number that we got this week, Thomas, showed that consumer prices rose 2.4% annually in January, less than expected.
I wonder why is that economic indicator significant and what are the current factors influencing that number?
unidentified
Well, the consumer price index is a hugely important part that we use to measure the cost of living, for example.
And the thing about it is it's good that the CPI came in at 2.5 and the so-called core CPI, which excludes food and energy, came in only modestly higher, 2.5, because that indicates that the economy seems to be absorbing the effects of those tariffs that we had this past year, which really were passed on to the consumer.
So we're seeing some moderation in that area.
Now, the issue in America seems to me, as I listen, that everyone does realize, though, that since 2020, the price index itself, over those six years or five and so years, has increased more than 25%.
So the cost of living to America is higher than anyone wants.
The wage gains have moderated and it's slowly catching up to that, but Americans are still having to deal with these higher prices overall.
The worst part of that part, the worst part of that is that there seems to be a difference.
The lower 50% of Americans' wage increases have not kept up with this higher price level or this inflation, whereas the top 50%, depending on where you are in that top 50%, has been able to stay more in line.
The more concerning part of that is that some of that in the top 50%, where consumption has stayed stronger, have been reissued, as you might say, using the equity in their homes once again to support their purchasing power.
So that's kind of a long-term trend that we're watching and being careful of.
But the main point is prices are much higher than they were in 2020.
That has continued to accelerate, it has continued to increase, but at a slower pace, and that's the good news.
I wonder if the good news in these numbers, obviously the jobs numbers beating expectations, unemployment being down, the CPI rising less than expected.
Is this a reflection of the policies that President Trump has put in place?
Obviously, the White House has continued to argue that this year would be a real boon for Americans, that they would see a lot, not just in their tax returns, but they would see a lot paying out because of the policies that President Trump put in place last January.
unidentified
Well, that's a fair statement in the following sense.
In 2025, early on, the so-called One Big Beautiful bill had a lot of stimulants in it.
You know, exemptions for paying taxes on tips, improvements for individuals over 65, tax credits or tax breaks, I should say, for certain kinds of investments and returns on those investments.
Those are all fiscal stimulants.
The second thing is that in the budget right now, the United States is spending something more than $6 trillion and taking in revenues of something over $4 trillion.
That means we have a $2 trillion deficit.
That's the government's spending.
Much of it is transfer payments into the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so forth, which supports that the middle class and lower middle class, I would say.
And those are stimulants to the economy.
The other part of this is that despite all the criticism, I guess, of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, it has lowered rates pretty significantly over that period, over the last year, three quarters of the point, and then the previous year.
But more importantly, too, they have begun to print money again.
So of this $2 trillion of new debt, the Federal Reserve is buying at a rate of $40 billion of that new debt a year.
That puts a lot of liquidity into the market.
And that's why you're seeing the stock market continue to perform much better than you would otherwise have expected.
And that's why you see Wall Street celebrating that.
So yes, it has been very stimulative for the economy in the short run.
Whether it will be in the long run depends on a lot of factors going forward, how much growth there is in this economy, whether or not we are able to increase the revenues relative to the spending that the government's doing.
Those will all define the future in the longer run.
So very important topics for people to be aware of and to think about.
I want to ask you a little bit about the Federal Reserve, and then we will turn to some phone calls for folks wanting to join in on this conversation.
I'll say your lines.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
Now, Thomas, you mentioned the Federal Reserve.
You said that they have cut a lot, which they have, but just a few weeks ago, they announced that they would be holding interest rates steady instead of continuing those cuts since they had last summer.
I wonder, do you agree with that decision?
unidentified
Yes, I do.
If you think about it, one of the things that matters in the economy is what real interest rates are.
And right now, the inflation rate is about, as we just saw reported, 2.4%.
The policy rate that the Fed has said is 3.5%.
It's effectively around just over 3.5%.
So your real interest rates are in the 1% range.
That's a pretty low interest rate historically for the economy.
And it's what some economists like to think of as equilibrium or close to equilibrium, where you don't have inflationary pressures growing, and we saw that in the numbers.
And you don't have unemployment growing, which we saw that in the numbers.
So in that sense, you are in a pretty good spot with that interest rate.
Now, mortgage rates are still around 6%, a little more than 6%.
But historically, mortgage rates, people are used to mortgage rates of 3.5%.
That's the anomaly.
That's the part that's come from massive printing of money, pushing interest rates down artificially.
The longer term rate is around 6%.
Now, remember, on the other side of this, shall we say, non-zero interest rate environment are the savers.
And this brings you into more equilibrium between borrowers and savers.
So in my analysis, that's a fairly good outcome for now, a good place to be, a stable place to be.
And that's what we should be, I think, thinking about and then able to think about the longer term elements of our economic policy.
Staying with the Federal Reserve here, President Trump announced that Kevin Worsh would be his pick to replace the current Fed chair, Jerome Powell.
I wonder what you think of his choice.
unidentified
Well, Kevin Worsch is to be his policy actually historically has aligned pretty much with my policy, and that is he does not want the Fed to have a huge balance sheet because that makes it much more intrusive into the market, into how it functions.
It is, I think, kind of more engaged than it should be in the market at that level.
So he and I agree that the balance sheet should not be as large.
Now, I don't not suggesting that he or I would want to bring that market, that balance sheet down very quickly because it would be disruptive, but it should grow much more slowly than it has.
So I'm in agreement with him on that.
He thinks by doing that, we could have a better economy.
But part of that has to be that the Congress of the United States, cooperating with the administration, has to bring our national debt deficits down.
You cannot spend $6 trillion and only take in $4 trillion of revenue indefinitely without having very serious adverse consequences.
And I think Mr. Walsh is very aware of that and therefore has to take that into, will take that into consideration if he should be confirmed by the Senate and take over the role as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Speaking of if he should be confirmed, Republican Senator Tom Tillis has basically vowed not to block Warsh's nomination until the federal investigation into current Fed chair Jerome Powell is dropped.
I wonder what you make of this investigation and what it says for the independence of the Fed.
unidentified
Well, I don't, you know, I don't know the justification for the investigation.
I know the charge, and that is that he lied to Congress, but I don't know.
And the first part of that is, if it were a concern to Congress, Congress is the body who could have hearings, have one of their committees do an investigation itself if that were the case.
So I think, but since the administration has chosen this way, that it is in everyone's interest to get the thing resolved quickly.
That's the most important thing that has to be done right now.
And now, since the gold prices has gone way up, what would that is that going to help our deficit?
Well, I've been trying to find out how much gold we have in Fort Knox, but I can't seem to get no answers from nobody.
Yeah, well, it's a hard question to answer, but we know it's a lot.
We know gold prices have gone up.
Payment and Debt Challenges00:14:50
unidentified
And you could sell, I mean, the U.S. could sell an asset, but it would not solve.
It's a one-time shift, and there's not enough to eliminate significantly the debt.
For example, the debt today is about the gross debt today is about $38 trillion.
That gold isn't going to solve that problem.
So, yes, it's there.
It could be a one-time, but it's not really going to solve the problem.
The problem is we're spending more than we take in.
And until we get that under control, it's going to continue to get worse.
So that's what you have to keep in mind there.
Now, remember, in 1971, before 1971, the United States was on what was called a gold exchange standard.
And what that said was when you ship your dollars overseas, those countries can bring those dollars home and claim rights to the gold that the United States held.
Gold was leaving the country, and that's why they severed the relationship of the dollar to gold.
So now it's purely a fiat currency, and that's why it has been able to grow to the side.
That is why the Fed's balance sheet has been able to grow its size.
That's why the Congress has been able to spend far more than it takes in because the dollar is an international reserve currency and gives it certain advantages that also require responsibilities, and that is not to print excess dollars.
Al from Washington, D.C., a Democrat, you're next.
unidentified
It's nice to see the economy sort of chugging along, if you will, after all of the stuff we've been through with, you know, this balance of payments.
Clinton was going to balance the budget and get us off of the debt process we've had.
Is there a way we can do that and go back to, you know, not the gold standard, but at least have us generating income?
It's a very good question.
And the answer is yes.
Let's first, let me describe for the audience.
It was in the middle of the 90s, 1994, 95.
The Speaker of the House then was Newt Gingrich and the president Bill Clinton and two different parties.
But they realized that we needed to address the national debt back then.
And so they came to an agreement.
And the agreement involved both some spending cuts.
Some of it was in the welfare system, some others and discretionary spending, and they did have some modest tax increases.
And then over the next four to four years or so, the amount of spending, relatively speaking, decreased and the amount of revenues increased.
And we actually did have a surplus by the end of the 90s.
And it was, I remember people talking about, well, where are they going to get new treasury and so forth?
That was done by cooperation in the Congress, cooperation in the presidency, the White House, and we came to that solution.
Can you do that again?
Yes.
If I can, just one other example.
Even after World War II, the United States had a debt to GDP ratio as large as it is today.
And Congress and the Fed and the administration came to an agreement.
And over the next 10 years, the deficit was reduced.
The annual deficit, that is new debt, was increased to less than, well, about 2% of our national income, not 6% of our national income or better, where it is today, but it was brought down to two.
So those are models we can use.
And we brought the debt to GDP down over a decade to 55%, which is an amazing improvement.
So the answer to your question is yes.
If Congress and the administration were able to get together and we looked at our spending, and it would be very difficult because there is a lot, two-thirds of our government now is in entitlement spending.
Then you raise, you add another onto that trillion dollars of interest, and then our defense spending is going to be very difficult.
So you'd have to be what I call shared sacrifice.
Everyone would have to take somewhat less.
And that is a very difficult debate to have in a Congress that's divided, but it could be done.
And then, and how much do you need to increase taxes?
Because when you increase taxes, you tend to slow the economy.
So you have to make those hard choices.
But if you make those hard choices, you can, in time, slowly reduce the growth of the debt to something far less than 6% of GDP, break it down to 2.5%, and have your economy grow real terms, 3% to 4%, which it did in those years, and you grow out of the debt.
But it takes thought, it takes planning, it takes cooperation, and you can accomplish those goals.
And that's up to the Congress, the leadership, and to the administration and to the Fed.
And that will be one of the big challenges for all three in the years ahead.
I've got an argument against what you were just proposing.
Okay.
We can do it.
Okay.
But at what cost and to whom?
Okay.
The middle class and the lower class?
And what do you define as entitlement spending?
And does that involve cutting Social Security?
Well, first of all, I don't agree with you because number one, in both instances that I described to you, that after World War II through the 50s and in the middle of the 90s, 2000, the real growth in our economy wasn't 2.2%.
It wasn't 2.5%.
It averaged closer to 4%.
That's real wealth.
That's real increases in productivity and real increases to the broad population.
So that's what you want as an outcome.
Now, as far as entitlements, if you're going to slow the spending, you have to slow some elements.
Now, when they did it in the middle of the 90s, they didn't cut everything out.
They were very careful, very surgical.
And yes, for example, let's take Social Security.
And I'm on Social Security, so don't get me wrong here.
I understand it.
I put into it all my career, everything like that.
I know all the arguments.
But the fact of the matter is, Social Security has been expanded over the decades, much more broadly.
That's number one.
Number two, when Social Security was passed in the 1930s, the expected life of a U.S. citizen was about 64 years old, 64, 65 years old.
Guess what?
The expected life today is closer to, is higher than 75 years of age.
So you don't necessarily have to cut it in the sense of absolute numbers, but you also have to consider: should you extend, you know, as it's been talked about many times, should you expand the age of eligibility when you start getting the return back?
Those are all issues, or should you make it, should you privatize it?
It was meant to be a supplemental savings burn.
But the main thing is, no, you don't end it.
You don't cut it dramatically, but you slow the growth.
Now, let me tell you, if as we're on the take Social Security, the path we're on right now, Social Security is it will be underfunded, unable to meet all the demands by the early 2030s.
And under the law, that means it has to be cut dramatically, or as I suspect will happen, the Congress will have to pass legislation that borrows more money to pay the Social Security.
Now, you're going to get into a generational thing here.
Young people are going to be sacrificing so that they, when the government borrows, to pay this increasing obligation for that older generation.
So we better be thinking about that now and how we can deal with it fairly, responsibly, or we can wait till the crisis comes and deal with it in a panic.
Joe from Tampa, Florida, an independent, you're next.
unidentified
Good morning, everyone.
A great conversation.
I was hoping to ask a question relating to what you mentioned, sir: the U.S. dollar becoming a fiat currency.
To what extent is the Federal Reserve banking system impact not only the money supply, but the move towards digital currency, particularly at a time when the great countries are really trying to like standardize the payment systems?
Are we possibly going to see ourselves going back to the gold standard?
If not, how will companies like institutions like the DTCC help accelerate that?
Because I think that's where opportunities abound for actually changing the old way of doing business, if that makes sense.
Thank you.
Good question.
First of all, let's make sure we understand central bank digital currency has many different meanings to people.
But let's take the most extreme example.
Centralized digital currency is that we'd all have bank accounts with the Federal Reserve and our payments would be, you know, like our checking accounts would go through them or through a bank, but it would be immediately flowed to the central bank.
I don't think many people in the United States really want that.
The other thing about that is it would change the nature of the banking system in the United States.
Some people may like that, but it would be very significant.
Now, the other part of this is it would not solve the problem of the value of the dollar domestically or internationally, because that depends on how much of this currency we create.
And you can create every bit as much through digital currency as you do through current open market operations that go through the banking system.
So I think it's a matter of the real issue is how do you want, well, let me back up.
Today, most Americans use through credit cards, through their bank account, it is a digital entry in your bank somewhere.
So we have really a lot of digital money today.
This would merely extend it to who holds that money.
So that's important.
But it would not change the ability of the central bank to print more of it.
And therein lies the crux of the matter.
If you print more money than goods being produced, you get inflation.
And that's what we've seen for the last two decades, at least, if not more, and why we're seeing inflation reach 9% in 2022, come down very slowly, and why prices are higher.
It's how much you print, not necessarily how you hold it.
The only thing the gold standard did is it disciplined the government.
It disciplined Congress and it disciplined the central bank from printing too much money because if it did, people would want their gold back and you run out of gold.
So that's the discipline that's missing with this system that we have now.
Now, you indicated, yes, you indicated that our spending is at $4 million, $4 trillion, whatever.
Rand Paul's Highlight Report00:08:25
unidentified
Six more than $6 trillion.
Sorry, The spending is at $6 million and the income, the revenue, is only $4 million.
In a regular normal household, if our income doesn't cover our bills, we'll get a second job.
Why are we constantly cutting taxes on the rich in wanting to cut the spending for the Social Security, Medicaid, and those that need that?
Also, Mr. Holnick, Trump keeps wanting Chairman Powell to reduce the interest rate.
How would that affect the economy, the overall finances of the U.S. if Mr. Powell adhered to that request?
Also, the one that Trump has nominated, Mr. Walsh, I believe they're saying that he's in the Epstein files.
Well, I don't know anything about who's in there.
Watch.
I mean, I read the newspaper too, but that's a topic that I think someone else will cover.
I'm not an expert on that.
But let me answer your questions.
First of all, you're right.
You can't spend $6 trillion and take in $4 trillion as a household or whatever the number is.
You can't spend more than you take in indefinitely.
Now, a nation like ours who has enormous economic wealth can do it for a long period, especially given that the United States is thought of as the dollar is thought of as an international currency and people want that dollar and they're willing to lend to us as a means of doing that.
So we can do it.
But even the United States cannot do it indefinitely, cannot do it forever, because eventually the value of your currency, what's called debasing the currency by printing so much to cover that big deficit becomes, starts to hurt the value of the dollar.
And that's what you've seen over the last, say, six years from 2020.
You've seen the price of goods go up on average 25 to 26 percent.
Some people say more.
You looked at groceries.
And that's very harmful to the American people.
So I agree with you.
You cannot continue this.
We need to find a solution, as I talked about earlier.
Now, as far as taxes go, first of all, the top percent of the nation's income group, the top 1%, top 10%, they are the wealthy.
They have the greatest amount of assets in that, but they also pay the greatest, proportionately the greatest share of taxes.
So we have a progressive income tax.
They're paying more than people who make less.
Now, whether you think that's enough, that's an argument for Congress to have, but they are paying more.
The bottom 50% pay very little income taxes.
So they are not burdened with that.
Now, the next question comes, how do you support your entitlements programs, your Social Security?
Well, we do it through Social Security taxes, Medicare, we pay taxes, but we don't pay enough to cover all the growing costs.
And that's an issue that you have to solve in Congress.
Now, do you do that by raising taxes or do you do that by out of the general revenue?
Those are issues Congress has to have.
However, that does have to be addressed.
You're right.
Someone has to pay for it if we're going to continue on this track, or we have to reduce the degree of the services.
That's a simple economic, simple.
It's a complicated economic question that has a very political driven but important solution that has to be found because we cannot continue to spend $6 trillion and take in $4 trillion forever.
And that's the challenge that our Congress has.
That's a challenge that the administration has.
And that's a challenge that the American people have as they look at this going forward.
Now, for your second question on Fed reducing interest rates, if they reduce interest rates, they will stimulate the economy.
They will have to buy more of the nation's debt.
They will have to push interest rates down.
That means that the saver subsidizes the borrower because that would be artificially stimulative.
And you also risk, when you do that, raising the inflation rate over time, which we've seen happen here in the last half decade.
And it's a risk that we would run, say, a half decade from now if we continued that over time.
So that's why the Federal Reserve has to be very careful in how much money it prints.
The Congress needs to become more conscious of how much money they're spending relative to the revenues they're taking in, because those kinds of actions over a long period of time undermine your economy, and everyone loses in that case.
You would have a growth rate that's well under the 4% that I talked about earlier, maybe well under the 3% that we talk about today.
Those are the risks that we have to take when we don't do things systematically over time.
All right, Susan from Hampton, Virginia, Republican.
Susan, we've got about 45 seconds left.
So if you've got a quick question for Thomas, I'd get it in now.
unidentified
Carl, thank you so much.
I waited all this time for 45 seconds.
All right.
Rand Paul.
Rand Paul has a highlight report.
He has said that $1.6 trillion he's found in wasteful spending.
That and the social programs that we found fraud in in California and Minnesota.
So I think Congress needs to tighten up the purse.
What I've read is that the tariffs have caused no price increases in our goods.
Employment was up.
It's going to take a while for Trump to turn the ship around.
Oh, and I also read that we took in 8% of Nicaragua's population during the open borders, 6% of Venezuela's total population.
on the open borders.
So if we would just tighten up, we would do okay.
Thank you.
Well, that's a statement, and there's much to it.
So I don't know which parts you want to talk about, but I mean, obviously, it does take a long time to turn a ship around.
But you have to begin to turn it around.
And part of that is in terms of your national debt and your monetary policy.
And I understand, you know, immigration is an issue.
Apparently, we're addressing that.
People disagree on it, but I think it's one of those areas that, yes, we need to come to some kind of agreement on immigration because we need new workers, that's for sure.
And there are systematic ways to do it, the right way to do it.
Illegal immigration is not the right way to do it.
People know that.
So those are all things that this Congress of ours and this administration of ours and the American people have to come to grips with.
And later, FDC Commissioner Dr. Martin McCary on recent actions by the agencies, including a decision to review a food additive used in processing foods.
But first, it's open forum.
You can start calling in now.
Here are your lines.
United States and Europe: One Civilization00:06:05
Russian Evgeny Progozhin, leader of the Wagner group, marched toward Moscow starting on June 23rd, 2023.
His forces were advancing north on M4 highway after seizing Rosto-On Don.
The rebellion against his longtime colleague, Vladimir Putin, was halted the next day.
Literally, two months later, at a little past 6 p.m., Rogoshin and nine others boarded his Embraer 600 jet in Moscow.
Several minutes later, at 6.20 over Tver, Russia, 100 miles north of Moscow, the plane exploded.
All 10 passengers perished, including two pilots and the flight attendant.
Writer and intelligence expert Candice Rondo gives us the rest of the story in her book, Putin's Sledgehammer.
unidentified
A new interview with writer and intelligence expert Candice Rondo about her book, Putin's Sledgehammer, The Wagner Group and Russia's Collapse into Mercenary Chaos.
BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb, is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
And we are going to renew unlimited promise of the American dream.
Every single day, we will stand up and we will fight, fight, fight for the country our citizens believe in.
unidentified
Watch the C-SPAN Networks live Tuesday, February 24th, as President Donald Trump delivers the annual State of the Union Address before a joint session of Congress.
The speech will mark President Trump's first State of the Union of his second term.
The State of the Union Address.
Live Tuesday, February 24th.
Our coverage starts at 7 p.m. Eastern on the C-SPAN networks.
This is Open Forum, your chance to talk about any political, politics, or public policy issue on your mind this morning.
Let's start with some news from across the globe.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in Munich at the Munich Security Council where he reaffirmed the intertwined relationship between the U.S. and European allies.
I point to a CNBC article here.
It says, U.S. and European interests are intertwined, Secretary of State Rubio says.
He underscored, it says, the common heritage and goals with Europe.
He said, we care deeply about your future and ours.
Take a listen to the Secretary of State this morning.
The United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization's past.
And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe.
For the United States and Europe, we belong together.
America was founded 250 years ago, but the roots began here on this continent long before.
The men who settled and built the nation of my birth arrived on our shores carrying the memories and the traditions and the Christian faith of their ancestors as a sacred inheritance, an unbreakable link between the old world and the new.
We are part of one civilization, Western civilization.
We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir.
And so this is why we Americans may sometimes come off as a little direct and urgent in our council.
This is why President Trump demands seriousness and reciprocity from our friends here in Europe.
The reason why, my friends, is because we care deeply.
We care deeply about your future and ours.
And if at times we disagree, our disagreements come from our profound sense of concern about a Europe with which we are connected, not just economically, not just militarily.
We are connected spiritually and we are connected culturally.
We want Europe to be strong.
We believe that Europe must survive.
Because the two great wars of the last century serve for us as history's constant reminder that ultimately our destiny is and will always be intertwined with yours.
Because we know That the fate of Europe will never be irrelevant to our own.
That was Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, talking at the Munich Security Council earlier today about how the U.S. and European interests are intertwined.
This is Open Forum where you can talk about any public policy or political issue on your mind.
Mandy from Wyoming and Independent, you'll start us off.
So I just wanted to know how does it benefit me as part of the economy paying less than $5,000 a year on my house when I'm paying 83% interest, you know, 83% interest every year.
So I want to know how it is good for the economy that my interest rate is at 6% on that.
And anyway, going, you know, as well as, you know, groceries, like I spend hundreds of dollars a week for weeks, you know.
I'm calling because I've heard many people call in and say that people who protest and march against the policies that President Trump has used on immigration are paid.
I'm 85 years old, and I've been marching since the 60s.
I marched for civil rights.
I marched for the release of Nelson Mandela.
And I marched for my grandchildren now and my great-grandchildren because I don't want them growing up in America under these horrible, horrible conditions of Trump.
He has actually disgraced our country.
And we must demand that justice is done for those people that were killed in Minneapolis.
We must demand that the Justice Department have a thorough probe and an honest probe.
And we must have those people who committed acts of assault on people they went to pick up.
We need to have them brought to justice.
America is a country that everyone looks up to for decency and honesty in the justice system.
And I watched the Pam Bondi hearing.
That was a disgrace.
She did not answer questions.
She insulted lawmakers.
She was called to testify, like many people are called who are in the government.
And America must demand that we hold our lawmakers and people in high positions responsible for their actions.
I understand they're calling Hillary and Bill Clinton to testify before Congress about the Epstein files.
If you recall, Trump campaigned against Hillary, accusing her of running a child pedophile ring.
I believe it was called Pizzagate, where he said there were little young children being held in the basement of a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C.
And a man drove across country with a gun to go kill the owner of the pizza shop.
This was all a hoax.
There are many, many things that he has said, which have wound up with people being injured or killed when he railed against Mexicans being murderers and rapists coming into the country.
And the man drove to Texas, especially to El Paso, and killed some 35 people, leaving a small baby as an orphan when he killed the parents who were inside that Walmart.
His rhetoric is very dangerous for America.
Omar Illian, I believe is her name in Minneapolis.
I may have gotten it wrong.
But a man just sprayed her recently with, thank God, something harmless, which was, I believe, vinegar and a syringe while she was holding a town hall.
It could have been worse.
He could have had a gun or some other seriously dangerous chemical he sprayed her with.
But Trump has maligned her so badly.
He maligned Nancy Pelosi, and they went after her, but instead they injured her husband.
How long with this term are we going to put up with such dangerous rhetoric?
Just, you know, I was going to go on and on about the Democratic politicians, but just listen to that woman that was just on there from New York.
You know, she can protest all she wants.
And no one, and no one, even the president, is criticizing these people for protesting.
But you don't get involved in immigration or police action against criminals.
And these people got involved and they got killed.
It was their own damn fault.
It's ridiculous that, you know, as American, Donald Trump has done a great job in this country.
He has corrected, in one year, he's corrected a lot of problems for the last four years that Biden and the Democrat caused.
Open borders.
Let 10, 15 million people in here, illegals.
You don't know who they are, what they are, what their intentions are.
The other thing, all these Democrats that don't realize, and I hope I get through to some of them because the Democratic humor and the rest of them, it's ridiculous.
ICE is funded and border patrol is funded till 2029, 2029.
And you're just looking, the only thing they're hurting now is the Coast Guard, you know, TSS, Secret Service.
That's what's not being funded.
And if we have a terrorist attack in this country, all the blood is on these demon rat Democrat politicians.
And she was talking about Trump's rhetoric.
The Democrats, that was a joke.
I watched that Pan Bombi thing the other day.
They're here at so-called hearing.
All they did is bitch for five minutes and not ask any questions.
And then she couldn't even answer all their ridiculous.
It was the theater.
And all it was was a theater.
And they were trying to get their things on the internet pumped up and all this other nonsense.
It's ridiculous.
And I want every illegal alien taken out of this country that brought in in the last four years.
You're going to wait till they kill a friend or relative of yours before you pick them up and send them to hell out of the country.
This is ridiculous.
And I'm just tired of it.
These Democrats, politicians, and what have they done?
The guy talks about grocery prices.
Well, Biden's inflation was 9%.
Trump's getting it under control.
But the prices, some of them will never come down because of Biden's inflation of 9.5%.
It's ridiculous.
And I can't believe people can't see it.
I mean, they're blinded by this partisan politics.
Open your eyes.
Look at where we are today versus two years ago.
It's night and day.
The country is stronger, more secure, and the economy is improving.
It's not perfect.
And Trump's even said that.
We need to do a lot more, but it's improving.
And if you have a 401k, you know, we just hit 50,000 on the Dow.
I mean, these things are great things for the country, all Americans.
And I can't, and he's trying to get the interest rates down, but you got a political hack.
It's a Fed leader, pal, who won't, who just is being political and won't do what needs to be done.
It's just ridiculous.
I think, and anybody that can't see that is blind or just closes their eyes and is a Democrat or whatever, a stupid Democrat.
Now, I call them demon rats because that's what they are.
Most of them don't.
John Fennerman is the only one, and he had a massive stroke a few years ago, and he's the only one with common sense in that whole party.
The rest of them are over in Davos or Munich, Germany, wherever the hell they are, criticizing Trump and the country.
This is ridiculous.
You don't criticize the president when you're out of the country.
And these Gavin Newsen and AOC and the rest of them, you know, they're all political.
And the last thing he noted there was Some of the Democrats being in Munich Security Council, excuse me, Munich Security Conference talking about the U.S. Take a listen here to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Munich yesterday, her first time there as a Democrat.
The United States right now is experiencing a political pendulum.
And depending, really, the party that is seen most as betraying the working class tends to be the governing party in this moment right now.
That happens to be the Republican majority.
But really, what we are seeing over the last eight years, I think, has been a growing recognition that of those past errors that go back, that include military interventionism in the Iraq war, that include a recognition of NAFTA as a failed policy for many rural and working class communities.
And now I think we are moving in this direction of increased recognition that we have to have a working class-centered politics if we are going to succeed and also if we are going to stave off the scourges of authoritarianism,
which also provides political sirens, political siren calls to allure people into finding scapegoats to blame for rising economic inequality, both domestically and globally.
She said that, quote, we are ready for the next chapter.
She was on a panel there.
And if you scroll down just a little bit, she called for leaders around the world to champion the working class and knock the Trump administration's foreign policy moves, bringing her progressive vision to the global stage at the annual Munich Security Conference as chatter builds about her political future.
She took part in a panel on populism as the multi-day event kicked off, calling for leaders to champion the working class.
unidentified
So that was a little bit more about what we just saw from AOC in Germany.
All right, give us a 30-minute version, not 30-minute, 30-second version.
Go ahead, Claude.
unidentified
Okay.
It's the return of the robber barons.
We're getting ready to go into a digital currency.
They're going to take us out of the paper currency.
And your guest that came on the show, he wasn't telling exactly all the truth there.
He was giving you some things.
For instance, the new guy that Trump wants in, he's going to lower the interest rate.
That's going to create QE, quantitative.
Anyway, the bottom line is this.
It's going to raise inflation to the point where it kills the dollar.
And when they kill the dollar, they're going to go to a digital currency.
And because of right now, America, between Nixon and Reagan, they destroyed the middle-class economic base.
And Trump is just finishing it off.
The oligarchs are the ones that are going to make they're making out as bandits right now.
For instance, your guess, if he would have just said, okay, to save Social Security, all you have to do is remove the cap off the wealthy Social Security cap.
You got to go back to Roosevelt taxation on the wealthy, which they're going to argue and say, oh, that's going to drive all the wealthy people out.
No, because they're going to use this, they're going to use this one excuse that you can't tax the wealth.
No, you can tax the profit that the wealth has and what they make.
And he was also lying about the wealthy pay the highest tax in America.
No, they don't.
They do little tricks because I use them.
Trump uses them.
And here it is, they pay less than the middle class because they get paid in stock options and so forth and so on.
This is why guys like Elon Musk is almost going into a trillionaire right now because you can't tax their wealth.
You tax their profit on their wealth.
That's how you do it.
And that's pretty much all I have to say for right now.
But we are woefully ignorant, America.
You know, we have a five-grade reading level in America.
And that guy who last came on, he proved it, every single bit of it.
Well, the president has said that some of the tariff money would be going to the debt.
But let me have my producers in the back find a good link, and I'll come back later on in open forum with some things that they find.
Daniel from Montana, a Republican, you're next.
unidentified
Yeah, I was calling.
Well, I just heard something there I wanted to bring out about taxing the rich.
Well, obviously, Warren Buffett told you that he pays less tax than his secretary, which is true.
But you can tax, do an equity tax.
They'll stay here, but they won't gobble out here in Montana.
They're gobbling up everything.
Home Depot is buying large ranches and doing charity groups and paying their tax.
But the equity tax would slow that down and start to get, they're just, they earn it all.
Bill Gates has 285,000 acres of the best farm ground in Illinois and Iowa.
But at the same time, it's equity.
A lot of the young farmers that come out here that want to farm, we're hearing No complaint about how they're coming in, the billionaires are coming in, buying everything up.
These kids don't have a chance to buy farmland and farmlands.
Prices are crazy.
So it would slow all the equity tax to get these billionaires from they're buying everything up just to help the younger guys.
So that was one point.
And the other one is E15, the ethanol that they want to put in the gas.
That's more of a scam because that causes it takes two and a half gallons of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol.
So it takes a lot of pollution to make a gallon of ethanol.
But they're using that to try to keep the land prices up so the farmers can have somewhere to go with their corn.
But each year they keep producing more and it's just flooding the market.
And then our taxpayers, we think we just spent $12 billion to fund that.
And so one of our last callers asked whether or not the tariff revenue is going to be paying the debt.
I turned to now a marketplace article from November 14th.
The headline is: Can tariff revenue be used to lower national debt?
The national debt now stands at $38 trillion.
The tariff revenue we rake in is just a drop in the bucket compared to that amount authored there by Janet Nugent.
And it says the government raised about $195 billion in total tariff revenue for the 2025 fiscal year, with about $120 billion of that money coming from Donald Trump's new tariff policies, which include tariff rates of 10 to 50 percent on countries like Brazil, India, and the UK.
The administration has proposed using tariff revenue to pay off the federal deficit or national debt.
And President Trump recently took to, of course, in November, took to social to denounce people who are critical of tariffs, calling them fools.
He said that it would be used to pay down the debt.
The national debt stands at about $38 trillion with the capital T, while government deficits sit at about $1.8 trillion.
A country's deficit is the annual difference between the amount of a government spends and the amount of revenue it pulls in.
The debt is the overall amount of money that the U.S. government owes or the sum of all pest deficits.
Now there is a wide gulf between our existing debt and tariff revenue, but the Trump administration's other policies may be undercutting the money that's been raised.
So I would point you to that article and some others who talk about how much tariff revenue the U.S. has raised and whether or not it can go to paying down the debt as that man has who called in asked.
Up next, it is FDA Commissioner Dr. Martin McCary talking to us about the recent actions by the agencies, including a decision to review a food additive use in processed foods.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
Sunday night on C-SPAN's Q&A, White House Historical Association President Stuart McLaurin, author of The People's House Miscellany, on the history of the White House and White House-related trivia.
He'll also talk about the changes that presidents and first ladies have made to the White House's interior and exterior going back to President Thomas Jefferson.
The president never and his family never had a place to go outside and enjoy like we have a deck or a patio.
And so Truman broke up that colonnade of the South Portico and right in the middle put a balcony off the residence level of the White House so the family could go out there and enjoy fresh air.
Truman said, I'll find the money and do it anyway.
And he built it.
And in this book, there are quotes by a number of presidents who said, thank you, Harry Truman.
unidentified
White House Historical Association President Stuart McLaurin.
Sunday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q ⁇ A and all our podcasts wherever you get your podcast or on our free C-SPAN Now app.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series.
Sunday, best-selling biographer Walter Isaacson, who chronicles history's most remarkable lives.
His books include Benjamin Franklin, Steve Jobs, and Einstein.
He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubenstein.
Joining us now to Talk All Things FDA is FDA Commissioner Dr. Martin McCary here to discuss in part the review of BHA, a food additive used in processed foods.
Well, first of all, earlier last year, we took action to remove all nine petroleum-based food dyes from the U.S. food supply.
And that was tremendously successful.
We got great positive feedback.
They'd been talking about removing one food dye for 35 years at the FDA before we got there.
We took action to remove all nine, and so that's going very well.
The commitments are in place, and we're seeing that.
But removing artificial dyes from the food of children is not a silver bullet to fix the problem of our chronic disease epidemic.
So we're going to the next level and taking a look.
So the FDA issued an RFI, which is a request for information, where we have a conversation with experts, scientists, the industry, the manufacturers who use BHA to try to learn more about it.
Now, BHA is a chemical that's found in glue, in plastics, and it is also found in food.
It's found in over 4,000 common foods.
There have been health concerns.
The National Toxicology Center has said in the past that they believe that it is likely to be carcinogenic.
Animal studies have suggested that.
Now, because something causes cancer in animals doesn't mean it causes cancer in humans.
This is the sort of dialogue we want to have.
And then we're going to move on to BHT and also azodicarbonamide.
It's a long-sounding molecule that is found in yoga mats.
It allows the sort of little bubbles in yoga mats to make it soft.
It's found in sneakers to make the cushion in sneakers.
And it's also found in breads and cereals and doughs.
If you look at your cereal, you will likely see BHT on the label.
There have been many health concerns.
Many countries have banned it.
We're not talking about a ban at this point.
We are requesting information.
We're planning to do that soon.
And we're going to ask, why do you get fined $140,000 plus dollars in other countries for having BHT in food?
And in the U.S., it's ubiquitous and nobody really talks about it.
So we're actually doing a review of all the common chemicals in the U.S. food supply where there have been health concerns.
Now there's like a thousand chemicals that appear in the U.S. food supply that do not appear in the food supply in many countries in Europe.
And that's because of a rule that has been in place called GRASS, which stands for generally recognized as safe.
It's a principle that has allowed companies to sort of self-declare chemicals as safe, arguing that they are grass, generally recognized as safe, and then just put them in the food supply.
In other countries, you have to prove safety first.
And so we've announced our intention to close this grass loophole that allows so many chemicals to appear in the U.S. food supply.
It's actually ironic.
Cereal companies in the United States, and by the way, the cereal companies have been great to work with with our artificial food dye ban.
They raised their hand and said, yes, we see the writing on the wall.
We see consumer demand.
And they have been the perfect partners, Kellogg, all these companies, General Mills.
But in the past, these companies have made two versions of their cereal, one for kids in Canada and Europe, and one for American kids with more chemicals in the artificial dyes.
And so we're simply asking, can U.S. manufacturers make the healthier version of the cereal that they already make for American kids?
So if you guys are basically closing the grass loophole that allows these companies to determine for themselves what is safe, what is the structure that the FDA itself will then use to evaluate safety?
So the FDA typically does not take a chemical and do its own comprehensive basic science experiments.
We do some of that and we do some at the National Texacology Center.
We test food dyes right here in Washington, D.C.
But typically the companies do their own experiments and submit those results to the FDA.
So right now we are engaging in a conversation with industry to say what types of criteria would be reasonable for you to establish safety before the FDA allows it in the food supply.
Well, look, a lot of people are already concerned.
You've seen a mass health movement in the United States say, we don't want these chemicals.
We've seen this sort of very healthy consumer demand increase.
We didn't talk about this when we were kids, Jasmine.
You know, when we were kids, you stay whatever is put in front of you.
Now people are reading the food labels and you're seeing influencers, be it doctors on social media or wherever else, educate people about many of these chemicals like azodicarbonamide.
I had no idea it was used in yoga mats just to make bubbles and also used in bread and There was that huge subway scandal a few years ago where I think people first learned about it.
But what happens if, say, BHT or BHA or other chemicals that you guys are reviewing are determined to be unsafe by the metrics that the FDA lands on or by the information received by these companies?
Yeah, so there's several different things that can be done.
And I'm not saying we're going to do these, but these are options.
One is to suggest that there's a safe level, another, you know, that appears in the food.
Another option would be to require better labeling.
Another option would be to simply create more public information to educate people.
And another would be to ban.
Now, no one's talking about a ban at this point.
We're doing this in a stepwise fashion.
But when we educate the public, powerful things happen.
You saw it with low sugar.
People started to say, hey, no one talks about how much sugar you should be consuming.
Food nutrition labels literally did not have any recommended daily allowance for sugar.
It was ironic.
It was like a black spot on the label where there was no information.
Now we know the high sugar levels increase inflammation and drive up your insulin, move fat into the liver where you get fatty liver, literally, and that can cause liver cancer and other problems, all from high sugar concentrated sugar repeatedly over time.
What happened?
Well, you started to see foods advertised as we're lower in sugar and we have no added sugar.
And that became a natural market force where consumer demand drove that kind of education.
So we're doing a comprehensive review of all the common chemicals that are found in the U.S. food supply that are not found in the food supply of other countries and the food chemicals where concerns have been raised by scientists.
So we have petitions that we get from consumer groups and other organizations.
We've got one right now on ultra-processed foods whereby we are taking a hard look at that area.
We've actually put an RFI out on ultra-processed foods and we've said we've never talked about ultra-processed foods, never appeared in the food pyramid.
And now we want a definition.
Tell us what you think should be the criteria to define ultra-processed foods.
Definition is not going to be perfect, but 60 to 70% of the calories of kids in America today are from ultra-processed foods.
That is likely contributing, and studies support this, the chronic disease epidemic in kids, whereby 40% of America's kids now have a chronic disease.
So our kids are sick, they're not doing well.
The solution is not medicating them at scale.
The solution is taking a look at what is the root cause of our chronic disease epidemic.
And it may be a number of things.
Kids are not exercising when they're glued to their screens.
We have to recognize...
unidentified
But doesn't this also break down to economic inequality, right?
Kids who are growing up in food deserts, kids who are growing up more impoverished areas are the ones that are facing more chronic conditions.
I mean, how do you, if you're removing some of these additives or chemicals from these foods that everybody is ingesting, how do you make sure that it is applied equally to those who have versus to those who don't have?
Yeah, this is the challenge ahead of us because the fact is real food is less expensive than the ultra-processed and pre-prepared foods.
You could have breakfast with two eggs and a piece of bacon for $2.30, whereas if you get a meal outside at a fast food restaurant, that's going to be availability, right?
unidentified
Stocking in places that don't have or don't have access to a traditional grocery.
Look, I spent most of my career in inner-city Baltimore where food deserts were abundant, and you see the food that people buy.
It's ultra-processed foods.
You just don't have the availability of real food.
And so that's why we put out an entirely new food pyramid, literally an upside-down food pyramid, where we are now talking about the importance of healthy foods, including things with natural fats.
We were told to avoid natural fats growing up.
Remember, everything, low fat was better than regular milk.
Where's the evidence to support that?
Not true.
Kids don't need to tiptoe around saturated fat.
Eggs, steak, beef, poultry, seafood, nuts, if they have natural fats in it, you don't need to make that the boogeyman of the diet.
We have emphasized protein in the new diet and the new food pyramid.
And if you don't get protein, guess what?
You fill it with refined carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods.
That was the old food pyramid.
Didn't matter how you got your calories.
Could have been ultra-processed or carbohydrates.
It was just calories in equals calories out.
If you have a Snickers bar, you just need to go on the treadmill for a certain period of time.
We are now saying the type of food matters, and we're calling out the importance of real food and protein.
I'm sure you're going to get some more questions on that food pyramid once we turn to our callers, but I want to move now to something else that the FDA did this week, which is approve the removal of certain warnings on labels for six menopausal hormone replacement therapy HRT products.
We have a Wall Street Journal article here that kind of outlines what you guys have done.
And it says, now labeling doesn't include risks related to cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, and probable dementia.
unidentified
Explain why you took these actions and why they're significant.
Well, first of all, it's a nuanced message what the risks are, because if a woman starts hormone replacement therapy within 10 years of the onset of menopause, and that's the critical window that a woman has to start hormone replacement therapy, then there are profound long-term health benefits to the heart.
It can reduce heart attacks by 25 to 50%.
I mean, that's incredible.
That's the number one cause of death in women is heart attacks.
So there's this profound public health benefit that was getting ignored because of these scary labels that were really from a study that where women started it after that 10-year window.
So the fear machine tragically has scared off 50 million women since 2002 when the fear machine ramped up on the misinterpretation of a study.
The FDA at the time piled on and put a scary black box warning on these products.
And many women were talked out of hormone replacement therapy, never offered it, or they inquired and they were told no because of these risks, not understanding that the risks were very nuanced.
And the vast majority of women are great candidates to start it if they start within 10 years of the onset of menopause.
Alleviating night sweats, hot flashes, weight gain, mood swings, the 50 plus different symptoms of perimenopause.
And every woman experiences menopause differently.
On average, women experience these symptoms for eight years.
And for many women, they're severe.
I was taught in medical school, oh, women need to just tough it up.
The symptoms are minor and they just last a couple years.
Not true.
Symptoms last on average eight years.
For many women, the symptoms are severe.
Some women are prescribed an antidepressant before they're prescribed estrogen, and they've just been told you can't start hormone therapy because of these risks.
We have to understand the nuance of the difference, so that's why we have corrected the labels so that women know the truth.
The letter to the company said that there were concerns about the study design because the FDA investigator, the FDA scientists, had told the company when you do a study of, say, a new potential vaccine, you should be using the standard of care flu shot as the control group to make a fair comparison.
The scientists believed that the company did something unethical.
They used a worse-than-standard of care vaccine in the control group in people to test their vaccine in people over age 65.
And now, that's something that we see from time to time with studies that come to the FDA, sort of using a worse-than-standard of care control group in a certain subpopulation to make their potential product look better.
The FDA made a clear recommendation to have that control group be the latest higher-strength flu shot for seniors.
That was not used in seniors.
FDA wanted to send a strong message.
The scientific team said, Look, this is a problem.
The company typically, in these situations, will come back with a dialogue, and there is very much a path for approval of this new product.
But the FDA did wanted the community to know that they do take issue when the guidance is not followed in designing the control group.
So, you're saying that if Moderna redoes some of their studies with a higher standard flu vaccine to test against, then they could have this vaccine reviewed?
Well, typically, without doing any additional studies, they can cut the data that they already have a little differently and present it in a way typically, now I'm not referring to this one product, and then have a conversation with the agency, and then the application is reviewed.
So, that is a process that is entirely feasible, and that is kind of the normal conversation or dialogue that goes on between the agency scientists and the companies that do the studies.
I just want to put a quote up here from the New York Times article that came out on the 10th.
It said that Moderna said it had received what is known as a refused-to-file letter from the agency, meaning that the company tried to submit on application for approval but was dismissed.
Such cursory rejections are unusual.
The agency tends to complete a thorough review before denying approval.
Moderna said the agency's letter did not cite specific concerns about the product's safety and effectiveness.
The letter sounds scary, but the letter, as I understand it, and I was not involved in writing that letter, but the scientists had concerns about the ethics of giving people over 65 a worse than standard of care flu shot in order to make the novel intervention flu shot look better, exposing seniors over 65 to a higher risk of influenza complications or including hospitalization potentially.
So they can continue to file.
They can submit their application.
It will be reviewed if they submit their application.
But that letter is part of the dialogue that goes on between the scientific team and the companies.
And my last thing for you is measles outbreak continues in South Carolina and other states.
People who are in DC know that they've got a long list of places in which there were measles or perhaps you could have gotten the measles somewhere in the city over the last two weeks.
I wonder, has the administration done enough to encourage people to get the measles vaccine?
Why do you think uptake is so low, though, in the U.S.?
Particularly, I mean, I know you're saying that one person or one party should not be to blame, but there are folks within HHS that have doubted the efficacy of vaccines for years now.
I wonder why you believe that the uptake is so low and whether or not some not universal but continued doubting of efficacy of vaccines in general has added to it.
So we basically, well, we've not said we're only recommending 38 doses.
What we've said is they're all recommended.
But if you are questioning whether or not the kid needs 72 doses, we don't want you to react and have the kid get zero.
We want to let you know there's a hierarchy of importance of vaccines, and here are the core essential vaccines that are common to all the developed countries in the world, all the OECD countries.
So we did that to try to encourage vaccination rate.
But to your question, Jasmine, about why vaccination rates have gone down over the four years before we came to office, I think it was because of COVID.
And it was the dogma of the COVID policies.
And it damaged the authority and reputation of my great profession, the healthcare profession, forcing two-year-old kids to wear a cloth mask for three years, insisting that somebody get a COVID booster at age 18 or they get fired or get kicked out of university, which was the policy at my university, at Johns Hopkins University.
Insisting schools stay closed for a year and eight months, even though the data in mid-2020 came out from Europe showing that there was no increased risk of COVID death in healthy kids if they went to school versus stayed home.
You can't put them in a bubble for four years.
And so all of the data didn't coincide with the absolutism of the recommendations coming out.
And people saw through that and lost trust in the medical profession, ignoring natural immunity.
Over a million Americans were fired from their job.
Many already had circulating antibodies from natural immunity, but they were antibodies the government did not recognize.
The studies caught up, and a review in the Lancet showed that natural immunity is as effective, if not more effective, than vaccinated immunity that tends to be transient.
Look, when you push COVID boosters in young, healthy children with such absolutism to the point where they get kicked out of great schools like Johns Hopkins, if they don't get them, people saw through that dogma and they lost trust in some of these absolutism public health recommendations.
And that has had a ripple effect and done damage.
The policies in the prior administration have caused tremendous damage.
We walked into a mess when we started in our public trust in public health went from 71% of the public trusting the medical profession in 2019 to 40% the year before we came into office in 2024, 2023, 2024.
That's a 31-point drop in trust in the medical profession in the four years before we came into office.
I really appreciate C-SPAN for giving me this opportunity.
I want to switch back to food in the FDA.
I want to switch back to canola oils and soybean oils.
Why is there such a big market subsidization for this oil?
We already know that it causes cancer, reproductive harm, yet most fast food chains are using it.
I mean, you could even try and go home and cook something with canola oil, and the grease that splashes off is like this industrial grease.
If you use beef tallow, you can wash it away with just soap of water.
So if you could give me any input, what is the FDA trying to do to further on research that has supported the cancerous and reproductive forms of canola oil?
Because there is research that goes both ways.
There is research that says that canola oil is great and that we need to keep using it.
And like you mentioned, with natural beef fats back in the 60s and how we completely said don't use beef tallow.
And we completely switched the whole USDA, USA to oils, refined oils.
So they're better for powering cars, in my opinion.
And in the new food pyramid, which people can look up at realfood.gov, you will see we talk about the healthy oils for cooking, for using dressings on food, avocado oil, coconut oil, olive oil.
And there's increased demand now because people are seeing that these are healthy fats.
They are not highly processed.
And the data on seed oils, which is the sort of highly processed side of things, is a little immature.
That data said is immature.
We'd love to see more data on the types of oils.
But one thing that's clear is the sort of the denaturing point of some of these oils can be high enough that it makes it great for cooking.
And you're seeing now potato chips at the Super Bowl.
We bought potato chips that were made with avocado oil, nachos with avocado oil.
Well, I can tell you, we are serious about getting things done.
They were talking about things at the FDA for decades, and when we came into office, we said, why haven't we done this?
And we're going to move fast and we're going to get things done.
They were talking about making the FDA rejection letters public, but it never happened.
If the FDA rejects a drug or product, the public deserves to know why, in my opinion.
And so within months of taking office, we made those public.
They were talking about AI for years.
When we got there, we launched the first AI tool for our scientific reviewers, and we were the first agency to roll out agentic AI for all of our reviewers.
We changed the guidance on AI products and on wearables.
We have taken action on everything from the opioid labeling, which was still incorrect from the days of the corrupt approval of OxyContin with Purdue Pharma, to hormone replacement therapy, still having the scary labels scaring off millions of women.
So we have been serious about getting things done, be it artificial food dyes being removed from the food supply or looking at the next tier of chemicals.
The grass loophole has been a massive problem, in my opinion, in the United States in terms of a regulatory failure that has enabled so many chemicals to come into the U.S. food supply.
We're taking a hard look at grass.
You're going to be hearing a lot more about grass in the next few days.
The reason why I say that is because if you've ever been to Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Sprouts, any of those grocery outlets, they're significantly more expensive than your regular retail grocery stores.
In addition, processed foods are cheaper because they're engineered for low-cost production.
They have a longer shelf life.
And in many of the low-cost gallery, you know, in any of the low-cost areas, processed foods are more accessible than fresh, nutritious options.
So I just wanted to correct the record.
Evidently, like I say, I don't get to do shopping by yourself.
But we don't go to some of the grocery stores that you mentioned.
And I know there are some high-priced items.
We go to our local farmer's market and we go to another local grocery store that is local to this area.
And look, we love to buy eggs and we love to buy fruits and vegetables.
And we get them at a great price point.
And I come from a previous career where I worked in inner city Baltimore and it was ultra-processed food everywhere you went.
And during the lunchtime at the hospital, you'd have people go to fast food chains and it was much more expensive than the home meals that my wife would cook and pack and bring to work.
So I love to grocery shop, and I do believe, and we have on our realfood.gov website a link to where people can see the affordability of real food.
If they cook using real food, it turns out to be cheaper than the fast food meals and some of the ultra-processed foods.
So that's an important topic because affordability is a massive priority in this administration.
So we want people to know that real food is more affordable.
unidentified
Randy from Michigan, you're next.
Hi, Mr. Markey.
Thanks for coming on and talking to the people today.
Mr. Markey, here in the state of Michigan, we keep track.
Since 2018, we've kept track of every accident on our road, how much it cost, what drug it is that they're getting an accident for.
I've got some information here for you that I want you to explain to the American people why this is.
In 2022, we had 9,340 accidents from alcohol, 2,242 from all drugs combined.
We're averaging 980 illegal drug accidents, 1,271 legal drug accidents, and 9,003 accidents on the road for alcohol.
We treated 29,000 alcoholics in the state of Michigan last year.
We treated 4,000 drug addicts in the state of Michigan.
It cost us $264 million a year.
51% of all the money we're paying our cops to do on Michigan highways is dealing with 40% of domestic violence is alcohol related and driving accidents on our roads.
Those two things, 51% of all the money we're paying.
We got 91% of all the accidents on Michigan highways is between midnight and 4.30 in the morning.
Please explain to me how the drug that it's legal here, we have 990 smoke shops.
We had 87 and 83 in the last two years accidents on Michigan highways from all pot.
83 and 87.
Now explain to me how at the very same time we had over 17,000 from alcohol alone.
How that's not the most dangerous drug in the world.
So people need to know that there are risks with alcohol.
Alcohol has also benefits.
It's a social lubricant, as my colleague Mehmet Oz has said.
And so we're not looking to ban alcohol, but we need to let people know the truth.
And that is that for any possible benefits to the heart from alcohol, those benefits are eclipsed by the damage to the liver.
And moderate alcohol consumption does not cause chronic cirrhosis or liver failure, but alcohol abuse over a long period of time does.
And we're not afraid of this topic, and so we're calling it out.
unidentified
Jeff from New York, you're next.
Hello, Dr. Macro.
Excuse me.
First, I'd like to point out a fact in the peer-reviewed evidence from the Journal of Global Health and Yale School of Public Health.
And there's a study that shows that mRNA vaccination during COVID saved 3.2 million deaths averted and 18 million hospitalizations.
Without the program, the U.S. would have experienced 4.1 times more deaths from COVID.
Now, I just say this as a backdrop.
One of the first things you did as FDA Commissioner was to oversee the removal of Dr. Marks, the chief scientist that oversaw that warp speed messenger RNA development.
Now, you were instrumental in recommending and agreeing with the cuts of $495 million for a pre-pandemic H5N1 messenger RNA vaccine that already had undergone successful phase one and phase two trials by Moderna.
And the phase three is now no longer able to occur.
They can't get private funding for it.
They just mentioned that last week in a release.
And the government is not willing to stock and create a pre-pandemic vaccine for H5N1 just in case it were to become transmissible between people, which is a very serious concern among epidemiologists and public health officials around the world.
And that sort of pre-pandemic vaccine, of course, would save millions of lives.
First of all, John Ioannides out of Stanford has done a reanalysis of the number of lives saved by the COVID vaccination and came up with a number that was less than one-fifth of the estimate from the report that the individual there had cited, which had a lot of assumptions in that report.
Look, I do believe in mRNA technology.
I just don't think the government should be subsidizing the R ⁇ D research of a giant area of research where the industry has made over $50 billion.
The makers of the mRNA COVID vaccine have made over $50 billion during the COVID pandemic.
I just don't think taxpayers should be footing the bill for their next research project.
I think they should be doing it themselves, and the government should be funding research on new technologies for renal failure and cancer and PTSD and ALS and neurodegenerative diseases that don't get the research funding that it deserves.
So that's my own opinion.
It's not that we don't think that mRNA technology is not promising or doesn't deserve research.
We just think the companies can fund it themselves.
And Moderna's stock yesterday, that stock went up.
They described numbers that Wall Street liked, and the stock went up in value.
The mRNA technology has been controversial because some believe that injuries from the mRNA shot or COVID shot in general have been undermeasured, underappreciated.
And there are some individuals with what's been described as long COVID symptoms where some of those perceive that they are really long-term vaccine injuries.
So we just need more research in this space.
But we really should not be picking a horse in a scientific race.
We should be objectively evaluating everything and doing it without sort of cheering on one lane or another lane in this in this sort of medical scientific sprint.
unidentified
Lynn from California, you're next.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning.
I am just so happy to talk to you.
Wow.
I just want to say how much I love your work.
I love what the FDA is doing.
I love what Bobby Kennedy is doing.
And that's really what I want to say.
I've been a health trainer for almost 40 years.
And I've written lots of articles about obesity and the problems for decades.
And so to have the government finally talking about it.
And as far as the vaccine trust issue goes, because there was so much misinformation, There's a huge group of moms that are not going to vaccinate, and it's because of what's in the vaccines, besides the vaccine itself.
So you're encouraging a lot of moms to get the measles shot, but they don't want the other things that are included.
So is there a way they can get just a measles shot without the rubellia and MMR?
What was the other one stand for?
That's one thing.
And the government has a long way to restore trust in medical.
And it's really unfortunate for the physicians because I think that, you know, we go to the doctor and it's like, yeah, you've been to school for 12 years, and I'm sorry, but we don't trust you because of how bad our information is.
So keep up the good work and food first.
I promote good food.
I wish we can ban every package of junk food in the store.
And I really am trying to teach moms how to feed their kids because everybody is so busy.
And with some simple meal planning and some real simple changes, it's really not that difficult.
Well, first of all, we're seeing a groundswell in America of people, Republican, Democrat, Independent, rally around this healthy food agenda of President Trump and Secretary Kennedy.
And for those who may have different political views, one thing we commonly hear is, but you know, I really love what they're doing on food.
We've got to talk about school lunches, not just putting six-year-olds on Ozempic.
We, for the first time, have over 15 states now that are involved in the SNAP program waivers so that the taxpayer dollars are not...
This is the first administration where we've had SNAP waivers.
Now, look, I think we've all been rowing in the same direction.
We've wanted to do this, but it's been an open secret that the food pyramid has been corrupt for 50 years.
It promoted false research that the demon of the U.S. food supply was saturated fat, and you just had to avoid that.
And that's how you stayed healthy.
Just avoid fat.
Now we know it's much more complicated.
We have to talk about ultra-processed foods and refined carbohydrates that strip the fiber from whole foods, chop it up, and it has a high glycemic index in the body.
General body inflammation and insulin resistance are behind most chronic diseases.
We never talked about that.
It was just avoid fat.
So we're changing the conversation.
People, regardless of their politics, are saying we like this.
And so we're trying to get things done.
We're the first administration to have SNAP waivers for the SNAP program at States.
So taxpayer dollars don't go to get back to vaccine.
unidentified
She said that a lot of moms don't want to give their children vaccines at all.
And she asked you if there was a way to get the benefits of a measles vaccine without actually getting the vaccine.