C-SPAN’s Washington Journal (02/18/2026) dissects Trump-era immigration policies, with Perla Treviso detailing a 20,659-case surge in habeas petitions since January 2025—judges often rule in favor of detainees, but the Fifth Circuit upheld Trump’s enforcement-first approach. Callers clash over ICE raids (e.g., Nebraska’s fentanyl-linked cartel threats), healthcare affordability (Maryland’s school shootings, Arizona’s infrastructure), and partisan grievances, while Roger Zakheim critiques Iran’s stalled nuclear concessions post-Operation Midnight Hammer and defends Ukraine’s slow but steady gains. The episode underscores how enforcement, diplomacy, and domestic priorities remain deeply polarized under Trump’s second term. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
Participants
Main
m
mimi geerges
cspan37:45
Appearances
a
al sharpton
msnow01:28
h
hillary clinton
d01:37
j
jd vance
admin02:02
k
kim reynolds
01:58
Clips
d
donald j trump
admin00:11
m
martha maccallum
fox00:06
|
Speaker
Time
Text
Welcome To Today's Washington Journal00:05:09
unidentified
Along with your calls and comments live, we'll talk about the 18,000-plus claims filed in federal court from immigrants challenging detention under the Trump administration with reporter Perla Treviso of the ProPublica Texas Tribune Investigative Unit.
And Roger Zakheim, director of the Ronald Reagan Institute, discusses foreign policy in the Trump administration, including talks between the U.S., Iran, and Ukraine, and the state of European relations.
Across the country, governors are laying out their priorities for the year in state-of-the-state addresses.
We'll play you portions of some of those.
The issues they're highlighting include housing and affordability, immigration enforcement, public safety, education, taxes, and energy.
This morning, we want to hear from you.
What's the top issue facing your state, the one you're feeling most in your community?
Here are the numbers to call.
Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats, 202-748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
You can send a text to 202-748-8003, include your first name in your city-state.
And you can reach us on social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN, an ex at C-SPANWJ.
Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
Start with this article from multistate.us.
And it says this, the policy trends emerging from governor state-of-the-state addresses.
Now, this is dated February 4th, so there have been a few more, but what they did was they tracked how many mentions a governor mentioned a particular issue.
And what came up on top was immigration, all perspectives, and then followed closely by roads and bridges, so infrastructure issues, and then education, specifically higher education.
Well, here is Governor Jim Pillen.
He's a Republican of Nebraska.
He's talking about the issue of immigration.
unidentified
Our partnerships with President Trump and his cabinet are also keeping Nebraskans and families around our country safe.
Because of our shared commitment to border security and immigration enforcement, Nebraska became one of the first states in the nation to establish an ICE detention facility to help get criminal, illegal aliens off of our streets.
We have a simple message.
Nebraska is proud to be doing our part to get the border secure, secure, and to protect America's kids from criminals, from trafficking people, from gang violence, and the drugs like fentanyl and meth.
The need for going after these criminal illegal aliens could not be more clear than today.
Right here in Nebraska, just a few weeks ago, we have seen several examples of the danger these individuals are creating and the cartel terrorists and the criminal organizations they support and the threats they pose to our country and our communities.
One recent incident in Omaha demonstrated not only their danger, but also showcased the great risks that our men and women in blue face every day, every time they put their uniform on.
And we are taking your calls this morning on your top issue facing your state.
What is it that you and your neighbors are talking about regarding state issues?
We've already got some comments here on Facebook.
Nicole says that her top issue is data centers ravaging our environment.
She says, boycott Amazon.
PJ says, Kathy Hochl's party approving, quote, all-electric building act, and then her appointed PSC approving rate hikes of over 20%.
That's Kathy Hochl in New York, and she is running for re-election this year.
Paula says, fear of ICE coming to my hometown.
I do not want automatic weapons pointed at me or my neighbors.
I do not want a concentration camp near me.
We have been blessed to live in peace here in Michigan, but Trump crazy fascist takeover is rushing toward us.
Project 2025 on steroids.
Why is Jared Kushner representing the U.S. in Gaza?
This is Rebecca on Facebook who says, my state still hasn't made a state budget.
Good job, North Carolina Republicans.
Jamie says, this is in Maryland, another school shooting in Rockville, another school shooting in Georgetown, another school shooting in Glen Burney, Maryland.
I'm glad our governor is more worried about his presidential campaign.
And Sandra, our Indiana governor, is 47 sycophant who weekly genuflects and does as ordered.
He has now invited ICE here against the wishes of the majority of citizens.
Several offices have recently opened in the Greater Indy area.
And we are, we'll take your calls shortly.
This is something that I wanted to bring up.
This is our C-SPAN page that we've got all of the state-of-the-art addresses that we have so far.
This is, you can just scroll down here and find your state.
We've got about 38 listed so far.
So you're most likely going to be able to find your state if you have not seen your governor, the state of the state speech.
You can find it there.
Here is Arizona's governor, Katie Hobbs.
She's a Democrat, and she talks about infrastructure.
unidentified
Look at what we accomplished in the town of Superior, where there is a rocky wash not far from Route 60.
Some days it's bone dry, and other days it's a vigorous torrent.
Superior Mayor Mila Bessich, who's here with us today, knows it well.
As someone who grew up in the town, she's dealt with the wash's unpredictability her entire life.
North of the creek are Main Street businesses.
South of the creek, schools, a community pool, and the fire department.
For years, the town of Superior could not safely cross the creek.
But when I reactivated the Greater Arizona Development Authority, we unlocked the opportunity for places like Superior to build infrastructure that rural communities need.
Today, the Panther Drive Bridge across that wash has brought peace of mind to the area's residents, to the parents who know their children can get to school safely, to the small business owners who want a reliable commute home from work, to the firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs who can respond to emergencies more quickly.
The Panther Drive Bridge is a powerful example of how investing in rural infrastructure saves lives.
It is a bridge to the Arizona promise, connecting Arizonans to security, opportunity, and freedom.
And speaking of Maryland, take a look at this article.
This is New York Times.
Trump says he will now invite Democrats to governors meeting, even as he reversed course on excluding Democrats.
Take a look at this.
So Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma told Democratic governors on Wednesday that President Trump had reversed course and would now invite them to an annual gathering of the nation's governors at the White House after the president had previously moved to exclude Democrats from the meeting.
Hours later, Mr. Trump repeatedly attacked Mr. Stitt, the chairman of the National Governors Association, as a, quote, rhino, Republican in name only, apparently blaming the governor for the episode after the New York Times last week that the president had spurned Democrats from what had traditionally been a bipartisan working meeting with the president and cabinet at the White House.
Mr. Stitt confirmed the reporting in a letter to governors on Friday and withdrew the NGA as the official organizers of the event, saying that it would not pay for transportation to the gathering and that the association sought to represent all governors.
In a social media post, Mr. Trump denied that he had ever tried to exclude Democrats from the meeting, though by Tuesday night, only Republican governors had received invitations for the meeting scheduled for Friday.
He did, however, confirm that he had personally blocked two Democrats, Governor Wesmore of Maryland and Governor Jared Polis of Colorado, from a separate black tie dinner that would take place after the meeting because he felt they were, quote, not worthy of being there.
And that's in the New York Times.
If you'd like to read it, let's talk to Jerry in Tennessee, Line for Democrats.
Good morning, Jerry.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I think there's, you know, probably very little doubt that affordability and health care is the major thing going around here in Tennessee, especially in a small town like I live in.
You know, the loss of people's substances is forced.
I know a lot of people now say they just don't have no health care.
You know, they can't afford it.
And the price of everything is going up around here.
Heck, that gone car battery is costing $300 now.
That, you know, just a few years ago, two or three years ago, was about $100, $105 battery.
People, just affordability, because we're a low-wage state or county.
And our biggest thing right there, of course, Epstein files, I don't know what they'll ever come up, you know, of, because if we just turn all these wealthy people lose, that's just turning them, you know, freedom for anybody to do their children what they want to if you got money.
Of course, that's the way that that works.
But definitely affordability of groceries, groceries.
You know, you see stakes bringing $25 a piece out of the grocery store.
Well, this little county can't afford that kind of stuff.
And like I said, health care, but I don't mean a lot of people lose their lives over that because they make a decision now whether they buy groceries or medicine.
And I guess that's what I got to say.
And we do appreciate you people letting us voice our opinion.
But I wish everybody called in would acknowledge what the price of everything is.
And Miguel is in New Mexico, so let's hear from New Mexico's governor.
That's Michelle Grisham.
Here she's talking about rising child care costs.
She's a Democrat.
unidentified
Because New Mexico, in fact, is the first state in America to make child care a right, not an aspiration, not a goal, a right, a right enshrined in our Constitution.
Permanent and protected, approved by this legislature, and affirmed by the people of the great state of New Mexico.
We didn't just talk the talk.
We made that right a reality.
And with new and expanded child care centers, training and support for educators and staff, and resources to meet families where they live, we've made New Mexico first in the nation for child care access, the best place in America to start a family and build a career, and the first state in the country to offer truly universal free child care.
Thank you. Thank you.
Affordable Health Care Solutions00:15:03
unidentified
It's a big damn deal.
Now, that's infant and toddler programs.
It's before school drop-offs and after-school support from the day your child is born until they are 12 years old.
New Mexico has you covered.
No other state can say that, not one.
And before anyone asks, yes, that includes the terrible twos.
And this is Joe calling from Cantonsville, Maryland, Independent Line.
Good morning, Joe.
unidentified
Hello.
We've talked about state issues still?
Yes.
Okay.
Well, you know, here in Maryland, the roads are certainly bad after a lot of the snow.
But, you know, they're building a, you know, an ice facility out in Harrisburg, not Harrisburg, well, out west.
And they're, you know, taking people out in Baltimore.
And I think that the biggest issue, not to be glib, is, you know, stuff like, you know, the Epstein files and the corruption of the federal government, where our resources are being put towards, you know, things that don't reflect our values at the state and federal level, like people being disappeared off the streets.
You know, it would be bad enough if they were just not citizens, but including citizens being disappeared off the streets by men in masks while at this to who knows where without a record available to the public, while at the same time, people in the highest positions of power, including the president of the United States, is covering up the distribution and release of files about trafficking.
And Joe, are you seeing ICE activity in your neighborhoods in Cantonsville, Maryland, or is it just happening in Baltimore?
unidentified
I haven't seen anything firsthand, but I talked to someone a couple neighborhoods over who said that they were up at people's houses and He had them knock on his door and wanting to come in.
And that has, I haven't seen any of that as my experience, but I've heard of people in different close-by locations that have.
But we're doing all this stuff, and all this giant money is being put towards this stuff instead of making sure the roads are working and that people are safe.
If I had not had adequate health insurance, where would I be?
I probably wouldn't be speaking to you on the phone today because I would not have received the health care that I need.
And yesterday, a group of citizens, I wasn't able to accompany them, went to speak to our state legislature about the affordable health care in Illinois.
We have a retiring senator and we have some open house seats.
And all of these things are important for me.
And those are the issues that I'm pressing those legislators to do and stop all of this bipartisan, not bipartisan, but this partisan bickering and address health care and the other issues that concern the people.
We're asking about your top issue facing your state.
So these are state issues.
Republicans are on 202748-8001.
If you're a Democrat, call us on 202-748-8000.
Independents can call us on 202-748-8002.
You can also text at 202-748-8003.
Let's go to Lake Placid, Florida.
Steve, Democrat, good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I think that Governor DeSantis and his gerrymandering is one of the most important issues in our state.
All he wants to do is put in Republicans in every area of our state, and that does not represent our whole state.
Also, the cost of living, the price of insurance.
I believe that the tariffs are hurting this country.
And you know, they talk about ICE issues in the northern states.
I believe that if ICE came to Florida, they would be rounding up not just thousands, but tens of thousands of illegal immigrants here in the state of Florida and also in the state of Texas.
I don't understand why they're just picking on the northern states.
I'm from New York, and I do not want to see troops in the streets of any U.S. state again.
And Cindy in Hampton, New Hampshire, Independent Line, good morning.
unidentified
Yeah, hi.
Good morning, Mimi.
Yeah, here in New Hampshire, we're having this back and forth between Kelly Aught and what's happening in Merrimack.
It started where the Merrimack commissioner had to step down because she evidently didn't inform the governor about what was that warehouse that was going to become an ICE facility.
And she stepped down and then Kelly Ayot wanted to know the numbers.
And when she proposed the numbers to the state in New Hampshire, she kind of copied what was happening in the state of Oklahoma and doing all the benefits that it might bring to the community.
And one of the things that she forgot to mention or what was mentioned but doesn't happen here is that it'll help your state income tax and your state sales tax, which here in New Hampshire we don't have.
So that was an oopsie on her part.
And now, I mean, then it went kind of quiet for a little while.
And now she's deciding whether it's going to be beneficial or not.
But I'm sure here in New Hampshire, we don't want one of those ICE facilities.
We're asking you for your top issue facing your state.
We'll take this question just for a few more minutes, and then we will go to open forum until the top of the hour.
So you can start calling in now for other issues you'd like to talk about, not just regarding your state.
The numbers are on your screen.
We've got a couple of a text here from Lou in Middlesex County, New Jersey, who says, good morning, Mimi.
Here in the state of New Jersey, taxes of all kinds, especially property taxes, the people with money saved from years of hard work haven't a choice but to leave.
And Lucky on X says, Florida is a food desert and Publix has a monopoly.
I am deeply shocked at the failing infrastructure, especially to protect against hurricanes, massive insurance, and property taxes that are making it so lifetime citizens, elderly, and new grads cannot afford housing.
Diane on Facebook, federal overreach trying to turn Alaska into a resource colony.
And Kristen, here in Maine, our constantly rising property taxes are making it nearly impossible for people to stay in their homes.
It is unconscionable that people, especially the elderly, have to sell their family homes.
What do you think, David, in Fort Mill, South Carolina?
Democrat, go ahead.
unidentified
Oh, well, I'm not in Fort Mill.
I'm actually on a road trip through the country with my three kids on school break.
So it's been interesting to see the various communities that we've driven through in red and blue states.
In particular, it's interesting to see how destitute some of the communities are in South and North Carolina and Virginia.
And then you get up to the East Coast where it seems like the tax policies are a little bit higher and they invest a little bit more, a lot more in their infrastructure and their communities and schools.
But you just have the governor from Iowa there talking about how she's cutting taxes.
They're a net credit state, so the federal government spends a tremendous amount of money in Iowa relative to what the Iowans pay in federal income taxes back to the federal government.
So she can brag about cutting taxes, but it's really being done on the backs of a lot of the communities that want to make those investments, like that gentleman from New Jersey.
He's obviously suffering higher property taxes than he probably wants to pay, but he probably has better schools, better infrastructure.
So it's really a fundamental understanding between the American people not appreciating the benefits of paying taxes when the money is spent wisely and leadership that's transparent about how it's done.
So I think we need to continue to have this debate.
But I will say having been to all 50 states, the communities that invest, Massachusetts, California, Washington State, versus the communities that don't reinvest and they just cut taxes, it's a slippery slope, but it's not going to end well for a lot of those communities.
Yeah, I'm in the Texas state of the Union, New York State.
Our budget from 2019, which was $80 billion less than it is today, indicates that we don't know how to spend our money.
In fact, on a local basis, three local managers in our town received $240,000 worth of sick time benefits when they retired.
And I got to question the board, which the board in the town that approved that.
So we've got a lot of problems up here: infrastructure, roads, taxes, senior citizens that are paying taxes on properties that have been elevated every two years based on what the selling prices of homes are.
They just keep raising taxes and raising taxes.
And I just recently did my taxes.
And the good news is the Trump Big Beautiful bill is actually going to give me my first refund in four years.
And on text, Timbo in Arkansas says that I'd say jobs for younger people, entry-level jobs, affordable housing, and food insecurity.
Those are the three biggies in Arkansas.
John on Facebook says, potholes and crappy roads, welcome to Texas.
Make sure you have a spare.
Grace on Facebook says, landlords are selling us all out to detention centers and data centers.
Teacher attrition due to the uncritical adoption of AI and Republican-regulated classrooms.
And William on Facebook says his biggest issue is election fraud in Fulton County, Georgia.
They admitted certifying fraudulent ballots.
How can we survive as a country with no integrity in our elections?
Joe in Long Island, New York, Independent Line.
unidentified
How are you doing?
I'm calling over here.
I live on Long Island since 1975.
I'm sorry, 85.
And I live in the middle-class part of Long Island, East Yalpine.
My taxes went up within the last four years.
They went up three times.
I'm now paying $10,000 a year to have my house sit over here on Long Island.
No sidewalks.
Like I said, it's a middle class.
And I just got the news yesterday, if everybody Googles it or whatever.
Our Mayor Mendani, he made a statement that he's going to go after the big people to go after their taxes and this and that to help with the thing.
But if he can't get it from the big people, he's going to have to go to us people, the people that live in, who's in charge he's in charge of.
Now, my thing is, how come in America, it's not the same America that we lived in, let's go, 10, 15 years, it's a totally different place now.
Why don't we have an oversight committee to a government or whatever that if they can't do a job, if they're hurting their people, why can't this oversight committee remove them?
And I just don't understand it, that they could just stay in, see what is it, six years they got, they could stay in power for six years and do the damage without nothing happening to them.
This man has got to be removed.
And the sad part about it is, I wish I could get out of the sanctuary city I'm in right now.
I can't because I got my grandkids, my kids, everybody's over here, and nobody can afford to just get up and move out.
But this is how it is in New York.
Civil Rights Legacy00:03:12
unidentified
And Hannity said something which got me a little annoyed.
He goes, oh, for all you people in New York that your taxes are going to get jacked up, you voted for him.
Not all sanctuary cities, the people in there vote for Democrat ways.
But this is what I'm saying is there's got to be an oversight somewhere in this country eventually.
He opened my eyes that we could make a difference, we could make change, that we could not be cynical.
So by him running, as never had been an elected official, with most black elected officials at that time not with him in 84, when he ran and did that, I believed that we could make a difference.
We could change laws, which is why I went from just being bitter to trying to be better and be able to help change the system by not just fighting the system, but fighting it inside and outside at the same time.
What he did for me personally, I was born and raised in Brooklyn.
My father left when I was 10.
Unlike many other ministers that I looked up to, I didn't come from a high pedigree, a nice family with my father and grandfather and great-grandfather preachers.
My father left.
Jesse was born out of wedlock.
He taught me his slogan was, I am somebody.
It's not how you're born, it's where you go with it.
So he made me believe even a kid on welfare in Brownsville, Brooklyn could be somebody because of Jesse Jackson taught me that.
Look what he did, one out of wedlock in Greenville, South Carolina.
If he could do it, I could do it.
It's easy for a preacher that's got PhD and his daddy was a big preaching granddaddy.
It's easy for him to do it.
It wasn't easy for Jesse.
And he taught me that it didn't have to be easy for me, but I can make it anyway.
Back to the phones now to Mary in Michigan, Independent Line.
You're on Open Forum, Mary.
unidentified
Good morning, Mimi.
It's great to speak with you from Snowy El Pena, Michigan.
I believe that we li I live in a purple state.
And when I hear our president talk red and blue, and then I've got elderly neighbors, relatives, whatever.
They are scared to death that our federal government is going to cut off federal funding for this, federal funding for that.
And I mean, these women are in their 80s and 90s, and I get calls every day they hear things on the news.
One of the big things that's come up in the last week is you can look it up, the Gordy Howe Bridge from Windsor, Ontario into Detroit, Michigan.
I mean, they've been working on this bridge for over 10 years, and all of a sudden, President Trump is going to get involved in it because he doesn't like the Canadians all of a sudden.
And we're not going to open this bridge, and it's vital to commerce going back and forth across the border.
I mean, there is an ambassador bridge, but that's privately owned, and it's very old.
And the other problem that we have is the federal government taking back money that's been appropriated for projects here in the state, you know, like the Siou Locks and stuff like that.
Just the threat of it.
And then the other problem, well, not problem, is we have a Senate seat and a governor's seat up for sale, or not for sale, but must be, you know, pretty much could be up for sale.
Okay, well, check in with us a little bit closer to the election and let us know what you think.
unidentified
I wanted to say to you, I'm a retired nurse, and I just went to a thing the other day, and they said 27% of our doctors in this country are immigrants.
Oh, well, then you'd probably know what I'm going to say.
But she made that comment to her about it in this age of anti-Semitism and that Balint.
She went, there used to be a word ballistic.
She went balent stick.
I call it baleenstick.
Do you really want to go there?
She kept saying.
You're talking to a lady that lost her grandfather and the Holocaust.
And I mean, that was pretty low, Bondi.
That whole thing, that was a shame.
She kept bringing up, oh, you never did this with Merrick Garland here.
Well, see, this thing runs back 20 years.
This thing's been going on for so long.
Why Merrick Garland?
Then I heard Obama give a speech the other night to somebody on one-on-one.
And wow, I was an Obama fan, or I was not an Obama fan, but to hear him speak, and then you hear, I refer to, I mean, it might cut me, I refer to our president whom I voted for for three times.
This guy's like Caligula or Caligula.
He's dangerous because now, before the Epstein thing comes back into play, we're going to be going into Iran.
Yep, and Russia, we're going to talk about Iran in a later segment.
But that Pam Bondi hearing is on our website.
If anybody missed it, you can watch the whole thing there.
And this is Fox News with this article.
How did Jeffrey Epstein get rich?
Meet Les Wexner, the ex-Victoria Secret CEO who once worked with him.
That's at Fox News.
If you want to see that, it says that he's an 88-year-old billionaire businessman, former Victoria Secret Chief, latest person to fall within the House Oversight Committee's investigative crosshairs in the Epstein case as he is scheduled to appear before the panel in Ohio on Wednesday morning.
This is Steve in Missouri, Line for Democrats.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you for letting me on here.
There are so many things I can't even bring them all up.
But I'd like to start with the fact that President Obama removed over 3 million people that shouldn't be here without creating a nightmare for the country.
He did it.
You don't tell people that you're going to go after that you're going after them.
You sneak up on them and you take the bad ones.
He's prosecuted 86% of the people that he's had arrested were innocent.
And of the 14% that did have a record, most of them were nonviolent.
He's destroying the media.
He's creating such a mess.
It's ridiculous.
He needs to be removed.
Trump needs to be removed.
And everybody that is kowtowed to him, Patel, Bondi, and all those people need to be removed and prosecuted for their crimes against the public.
And the fact that he's taken all our medical money to finance ICE is totally ridiculous.
This is the Washington Times with the headline, Late Night Host Slams Trump's FCC as CBS Pulls Democrats interview.
This is about Stephen Colbert's show.
The Trump administration's crackdown on political bias and broadcast television has spilled into the U.S. Senate race in Texas.
State Representative James Tallarico, who was running in the March 3rd Democratic primary for a chance to flip the seat currently held by Republican Senator John Cornyn, was pulled into the drama after late night host Stephen Colbert told his audience that CBS had blocked an interview with Mr. Tallarico from airing.
Quote, he was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network's lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.
That was Monday night.
Quote, then I was told in some uncertain terms that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on.
And because my network clearly doesn't want us to talk about this, let's talk about this.
So that is on the Washington Times about that article.
If you'd like to see it, Betty in California is a Republican.
Hi, Betty.
unidentified
Hello.
I just want to say I watch C-SPAN Washington Journal almost every day.
And you say that you guys are not biased, but like today, when I tried to call, I get a busy signal on the Republican line.
And there's no Republicans speaking.
And today, I counted 16 calls.
it's been two more since i counted so betty let me let me explain what wait a minute No, no, no, no.
I just want to say that I've been praying so hard for Nancy Guthrie and her family and what a tragedy this is.
And I'm just praying that the FBI will be checking out local pharmacies and doctors to see if there's been an unusual run on the kind of medications that she may need.
And if ever who has her, I hope they have access somehow to get medications for her so that she can be returned home safely.
Vance dismisses, quote, conflict with Rubio after Munich fuels 2028 chatter.
That was regarding Secretary of State Marco Rubio's speech at Munich.
It says the vice president dismissed the idea that there is a conflict brewing between him and Secretary Rubio amid speculation that both men are considering presidential runs in 2028.
Well, we have a portion of that interview that he did, the vice president did with Fox News yesterday talking about it.
This is a Politico with this news that DHS spokesperson to leave the Trump administration amid agency turmoil.
The move comes as public opinion has turned on the administration's hardline immigration policies.
This is referring to spokesperson, DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Tricia McLaughlin.
That is her picture there.
She is set to leave the DHS.
James in Akron, Ohio, Democrat, go ahead, James.
unidentified
Yes.
You know, Nancy Guthrie, it's embarrassing.
You know, we have problems, and it started when Trump got out of office.
The first thing he did this time, he got rid of the veteran FBI and the CIA people, Homeland Security.
He's got rid of all of these people, and now we need veterans that know how to go and find people.
We don't have them.
We don't have our leaders.
And he got rid of everybody that he considered anti-Trump.
But these were people that were doing the proper investigation.
They weren't concerned if you were Democrat or Republican.
And they always say about Obama investigating him.
Every president that we've had in the United States since J. Ergo Hoover was being investigated.
And they had to be investigated to know if they had any outside influences.
Just like Trump has had Russian outside influence.
And they said Russia, Russia, Russia.
But they convicted 21 people that were involved with Trump as Russian spies.
And we sit here and say, oh, they're lying on Trump.
People call in every day, all day long.
Right now, our news people are afraid to report the news because he gets them fired.
He got Julie Reid fired from several people from MSNBC that were telling the truth.
And this has been going on ever since he's been in office.
You can't get the proper news.
When he has news conferences, he only speaks to the people that he wants to talk to.
He called their name off, usually Fox News or one of those channels like that.
And then when he gets ready to get off and stop speaking, he'll get a so-called Democrat, and they'll ask him a question, and he'll go off to the left field with it.
I just want to know, Lino, but everything prices are so high right now.
And the thing was that, you know, all these Social Security and Medicare, I'm on Medicare and I got to pay out of a Pacanal $300 a month for my medications.
So I'd like to say, in the last 50 years, both Republicans and Democrats have helped to destroy my country.
And I'll say that the socialists, the communists within the Democratic Party are destroying the country today.
And the Republican globalists like Ronald Reagan in the first Bush, Herbert Bush, helped to destroy America and the middle class back in the 80s and 90s.
The America First Agenda, which is being promoted by Donald J. Trump, is the greatest thing that's come along in 50 years to save this country.
And we as Americans have better start thinking about the America First agenda, putting our country first and putting our people first.
Whether we're white, black, Hispanic, we're all Americans.
And we need to support the America First agenda, where our country comes before the Russians, the Chinese, the Europeans, and we create jobs in our country, good paying jobs for our people.
And that's what Donald J. Trump is trying to do.
And I think he's doing absolutely a fantastic job.
And later on the program, we'll talk to Ronald Reagan Institute Director Roger Zachheim.
He'll discuss next steps in dealing with Iran's nuclear program and other foreign policy topics.
But first, ProPublica, Texas Tribute Investigative Initiatives Perla Treviso on a new report looking at the historic rise in federal court challenges filed by immigrants claiming that their detention is illegal.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new MAGIT research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
C-SPAN is as unbiased as you can get.
You are so fair.
I don't know how anybody can say otherwise.
You guys do the most important work for everyone in this country.
I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
You bring these divergent viewpoints and you present both sides of an issue and you allow people to make up their own minds.
I absolutely love C-SPAN.
I love to hear both sides.
I've watched every morning and it is unbiased.
And you bring in factual information for the callers to understand where they are in their comments.
This is probably the only place that we can hear honest opinion of Americans across the country.
You guys at C-SPAN are doing such a wonderful job of allowing free exchange of ideas without a lot of interruptions.
So you and your team have been tracking a new wave of habeas petitions filed by immigrants.
Can you first tell us what that means?
What's a habeas petition?
unidentified
Yeah, so it's basically a court filing in federal court, either by the immigrant himself or their attorney, basically alleging that their detention is illegal, that it's unlawful, that either they're being detained too long or they shouldn't have been detained by immigration officers in the first place.
Now, if a person is here illegally, do they still have those protections of U.S. law?
unidentified
They do.
For instance, we've have cases where people have been detained more than six months, and there's usually around the limit.
Of course, there's exceptions, but generally about six months.
And they can allege, you know, I haven't even had a bond hearing.
Or there's a case, for instance, of an Afghani who had worked for a construction company that did contract work for the U.S. military and had been in the country, or people with temporary sort of status that is not legal permanent status that can file a habeas petition.
And so you have a ProPublica has a tracker of habeas cases.
It's since January of 2025, there's been 20,659 petitions filed, and then you've got a chart here comparing the different administrations going back to the Obama administration, including the first Trump administration.
There's a dramatic increase.
You can see it visually here.
Can you explain why that's happening?
unidentified
Yeah, and you know, just quickly based on the last question, habeas are not just used for immigration detention, and our numbers are focusing specifically related to immigration detention and people challenging those.
But habeas can also be used for people being detained in other settings.
But yes, the numbers basically you see that big spike because under the second Trump administration in particular, there's been moves from executive orders to, you know, what legal experts say are different interpretations of the law that basically call for the detention of everyone who entered the country unlawfully.
So before the way that it had been interpreted is that if you recently entered, you know, cross the border, were caught within a certain distance of the border within a certain timeframe, I think about two weeks, that you were subject to mandatory detention.
But let's say you had crossed five years ago and you were detained five years later somewhere in the interior in Chicago, that you were not considered an arriving alien, for instance, and therefore you were not subject to mandatory detention.
Under the new interpretation under the Trump administration, they're saying that anyone, regardless of how long they've been in the U.S., if you did not enter with a visa or some sort of lawful status, you are subject to mandatory detention.
So that has really led to contributed to the increase of habeas that we're seeing.
Are there cases that are looking at that, or is that going, or is that standing, that new policy?
unidentified
No, so we've seen the gamut, right?
So I think in individual judges across the country, overwhelmingly, the majority of them are siding with the immigrants in these cases and saying, either granting bond hearings or basically asking the immigration judge to grant them upon hearing or their release depending on the request.
We also have pending cases in different circuit courts.
And recently, just a couple of weeks ago or last Friday, the Fifth Circuit was the first one to issue a ruling.
And the Fifth Circuit, which is considered among the more conservative, actually sided with the administration on the bond hearing question, saying that basically it doesn't matter if you had already been in the U.S. for a period of time, you could be subject to mandatory detention.
So I think it would still be seen what the impact of that is.
We were told that it certainly limits, especially for people detained in states that fall under the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, where I am.
It definitely makes it harder, but it doesn't end it altogether.
And I think all of the legal experts we talked to think that this is probably going to end up at the Supreme Court.
And here's the headline of what you were talking about.
This is the Associated Press Appeals Court affirms Trump policy of jailing immigrants without bond.
Talk a little bit more about that as far as not having the possibility of bond.
I understand that that was typically reserved for violent criminals or for people with the fear of them fleeing, I guess, or not showing up.
Can you talk a little bit more about why that option was taken away?
unidentified
Yeah, so I think, you know, as you said, someone would go before an immigration judge and that judge would decide: is this person a security risk?
Is it a flight risk?
And if they felt that that person did not meet that criteria, they would issue a bond for them to continue their immigration case process outside.
I think the administration, especially since coming back into office, the emphasis has been that a lot of people have been, that should have been detained, were not detained.
So for instance, they're saying that they're ending the catch and release under the Biden administration, where people would tend to cross the border generally, would be given a notice to appear before immigration officials at a later point and continue their case.
They would say that a lot of them were not showing up to the court.
I think there are others who dispute that statement, but essentially, they're saying that people should be detained as they go through their process because if they do not qualify for some sort of relief, like asylum, they should then be deported back to their home countries.
And it's a lot easier to do so when someone is detained.
If you'd like to join our conversation about immigration detention, if you've got a question for our guest, you can start calling in now.
Republicans are on 202-748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
Perla, what can you tell us about the type of migrants that are being detained?
unidentified
So, you know, since again, apprehensions, which means arrests at the border, had started to decline in the last few months of President Biden as they had limited requesting asylum at the border.
And you continue to see a very steep decline under the Trump administration.
And so, as you see less detentions of people crossing the border because you have less people crossing, you're starting to see an increase of detentions of people from the interior of the country.
So, we're seeing people who have been in the U.S., generally speaking, for longer periods of time.
I've been in court where there's been people who have been in the U.S. 15, 20 years and have not been able to adjust their status.
Internal government data and independent analysis of publicly available data all show that you're seeing a decrease of people with convictions or violent crimes.
We've seen that in groups of people that we've analyzed as well, including those from the Chicago raid or those who were sent to the Sekot prison in El Salvador, the Venezuelans.
So, generally speaking, you're seeing either people with more ties in the U.S., people with fewer, you know, fewer people with violent crimes or convictions, more, you know, whose crime is basically immigration violations.
And this is CBS News that says less than 14% of those arrested by ICE in Trump's first year back in office had violent criminal records.
Documents show.
Is anybody that is detained by ICE end up in detention?
Anybody arrested by ICE end up in a detention facility, or how does that work?
Or are they deported immediately?
unidentified
Yeah, generally speaking, what we're seeing depends greatly by the nationality.
So if you're a Mexican national, for example, detained here in El Paso, the odds are that within hours or a couple of days, you might be sent back, walk back across the border.
If you come from countries such as Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, countries that have generally not taken their nationals back, which had been a challenge for previous administrations as well, there are different answers for that.
I think under the Trump administration, you have seen flights to some of these countries which you hadn't seen before, but it's still limited.
So you have what they're called third country removals, and that means agreements that the U.S. government is making with other countries to take people from other nationalities that they can't send back to their country.
For example, if you're Cuban, you might be sent to Mexico.
I know recently a Venezuelan who was ordered removed and he accepted his removal to Mexico because he couldn't immediately be sent to Venezuela.
You had immigrants who were sent to Panama, to Costa Rica.
There's agreements with South Sudan, with other African countries.
So we're seeing a combination.
We saw also immigrants being sent to Guantanamo Bay for the first time who were apprehended in the interior or on land borders, not at sea.
So we're seeing a combination of things.
But if they can't deport you, we are seeing people who have maybe been in detention five, six months or longer, either as they fight their case or as a U.S. tries to figure out a way to send them back.
And Perla, just to be clear, when they are sent to countries that are not their own country, like if they're sent to South Sudan, for instance, do they go straight to prison or are they released into the country?
unidentified
I think it varies, and that is one of the concerns that human rights and legal advocates have had, right?
In some cases, it's unknown what happens to the individual.
In some cases, they've remained detained.
For example, the group of innocents who was sent to El Salvador was specifically sent to this infamous prison called Secot in Panama and Costa Rica.
When we did our reporting, they were put in sort of detention holding centers, but in one case, it was very isolated and they could not leave the premises.
That has changed since then because a lot of time has passed.
So it varies in Mexico.
I think they're taken to different states in southern Mexico.
And for the most part, they're free to figure out kind of what's next.
And they're not necessarily being put in another detention center.
When he said that they should just be deported right away, when they are being held in a detention facility, what are they being held for?
unidentified
So there's different things, right?
I think there's the logistics part that I was explaining.
There's some countries that are not taking back their nationals, which has presented a challenge for administrations from both parties.
Then there's also the case that some people have Pending claims for relief, either whether that's asylum or, you know, I was talking to a young man from Florida yesterday whose wife is in detention and she's married to a U.S. citizen and they had a pending application to adjust her status through her husband and she's detained.
So there's reasons, right?
They're following a process.
I got to witness people who were showing up to immigration court in El Paso and had a pending case and the judge had given them, the immigration judge had given them a date to come back and then they were detained by ICE agents outside the courthouse and told that they could continue their case from detention.
So I think they're, you know, either the logistics because they're waiting to figure out how to deport them or because they actually have a process to go through and the government is just saying that they can go through that process, but they need to do it from detention.
Yes, I mean, as he said, right, it's been a highly political divisive issue.
You know, Reagan was the last one in the 80s who had the sort of amnesty and allowed a lot of thousands of people to adjust their status.
In the 90s, we had another big move on immigration under Clinton.
And in that case, it basically also, you know, actually instituted bars keeping people who had been in the country legally and had to return from being able to come back lawfully.
And since then, you had Obama, you had Bush, you had others who have tried to come up with, you continue to hear comprehensive immigration reform, but there's just no consensus.
And I think there's, you know, as he said, there is a labor demand that is acknowledged, but then there's a secure the border question and the question is like, what does a secure border look like?
Does it mean that absolutely no one comes through?
And some say, well, that is actually not possible.
And so, you know, it's a constant tug of work kind of thing where we want more border security, but we want labor.
And we didn't, you know, the idea that if you did not come in, quote unquote, the right way, why should we reward you with eventual path to citizenship?
You had under Obama with the DACA, right, the DREAMers, usually young people who were brought to the U.S. as kids, and that had until recently had some consensus.
So, yes, I think it's just been a constant, you know, highly politicized issue where Neither side has been able to come to a consensus.
Perla, I want to ask you about the children in detention facilities.
One of your colleagues at ProPublica wrote an article called The Children of Dilly.
This is in Texas.
It's a detention center in Texas.
Can you tell us a little bit about what their conditions are?
Can they continue their schooling?
What can you tell us about that?
unidentified
Yeah, so family detention has been, I would say, probably always fraught, right?
And it had been shut down precisely because of that.
You know, doctors, psychologists argue that there's no way to keep children in detention without causing harm just because of the environment.
In this case, they've been reopened.
Families are starting to be held there again.
And what they were telling my colleague and others have reported, right, that they would find worms in the food or food was spoiled.
In terms of education, they're supposed to have some type of education, but it's limited.
One of the kids was telling my colleague Micah that, you know, he can remember, I think he was a teenager and he felt that classes were too basic, but there was nothing else to do.
So he would just get in line and go to do schooling for younger kids.
There's limited recreation.
You're still in a jail-like or constrained setting, right?
Even if they are not necessarily in handcuffs or shackle, the government, I have to say that they say that kids have all the proper meals they need.
They have the medical care they need, they have the schooling, and they're following all the proper guidelines and dispute what families inside detention center and lawmakers are reporting.
And Perla, are the families being kept together and do they have privacy or are there like multiple families being kept together?
What's the situation as far as privacy goes?
unidentified
Yeah, my understanding is that, and speaking, so I, you know, I did not do this reporting, but in speaking with another family that was also detained at Daily and released, is that dad was separate from mom and daughter for the most part.
They could see each other, but they were not kept separate.
You do have multiple families in place.
I don't believe it's one room per family at all.
It's more like detention setting.
And there's another area where they have single women, females, but I believe that they're also kept separate from the families.
You know, I think we all want to have due process in the United States.
And my concern is when I look out on the internet and I go to a website that talks about the historical immigration court backlog, it looks like any individual that has a case for immigration before court has a wait time of over two years on average.
And I'm just wondering, you know, what is somebody supposed to do for two years while they're waiting for their day in court to be adjudicated?
And why is it that the Congress can't open up more courts and have more judges so that we don't have a two-year backlog?
To me, that just seems un-American if we're talking about new process.
Yeah, the court backlog is certainly a big issue, right?
You have, I can't remember the last, but millions of cases in the backlog.
And I think critics of what they say that it's happening right now under the current Trump administration say that instead of just focusing on enforcement and expanding detention, the government should put more resources in the court system.
We've seen a number of immigration judges having been fired in the last year.
They say that they're taking away resources.
The administration says that they're letting go some judges, but they were adding others.
But the backlog, it is a big problem, right?
And I think until now, the idea was that you could work and have some sort of permission to be here while your case went through the court system precisely because it was taking too long.
But what we've seen with the removal of people who either came from like the CBP1 app, which was a way that under the Biden administration, they were trying to the administration said they were trying to bring more order to the border.
So you would make an appointment to show up at the port of entry instead of crossing, wading through the river or crossing the desert.
And you were able to get a work permit while you went through the process.
Well, a lot of people have lost their work permits.
A lot of people have lost their social security numbers.
And so it does leave people more in a limbo while they go to the process, which, as the caller said, could take years, especially if you're outside, which is, it takes me back to one of our earlier discussions.
That is another argument from the administration, right?
That people were abusing the system.
They knew that if they filed an asylum claim, it could be years before it was decided before an immigration judge.
And therefore, it was time that they could live and work in the U.S.
And because it takes longer.
If you're in detention, cases tend to go much faster in a detained setting.
And so, you know, the arguments that if you have people instead inside a detention center, their cases could be resolved faster.
And therefore, if they do not have cause for relief, if they don't have a valid asylum claim, for instance, they could be sent back home.
Darren is calling us from Ocean Springs, Mississippi.
Republican, good morning.
unidentified
Yes, good morning, ma'am.
Thank you for taking my call.
I hope the spokesperson that are talking about these immigration laws will take this back to Congress and ask them to implement a date that we here in America set aside just for one day for all the immigrants who come over here on immigration rules and policies that they would be able to come in every state,
every state in America, have that one day.
That if you want to stay over here in America legally, just like we do taxes, we got a certain time to fill out our taxes and return them to the RS.
Well, that's the same thing about voting.
We got one day that we come out in America and vote.
We need to have a common sense approach to give these people a chance, one day out of a year, to say, come here and register to stay here.
And if they don't do it legally, whenever we catch them, we just remove them from the country.
That's a common sense approach.
And I hope she takes that back to Congress and try to get this done for me.
I mean, I think right now in the current environment, we're far from being able to see something like that.
I'm not an immigration expert, legal expert.
I'm not a lawmaker.
But I think in terms of what we consider the right way, one of the arguments that I continue to hear from people is that those who came under the Biden administration through parole programs, for instance, the Biden administration created a program for people from certain nationalities, Cubans, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, Hondurans, to be able to get a sponsor here and apply from their home country and be able to be what is called paroled in.
And so it was called the CMVH program, and it was a way to avoid people having to traverse the Darien jungle and all of Mexico and put themselves in danger.
There was what I referenced later, the CBP1 appointment.
And I remember back then talking to people who are like, I want to do it the right way.
I don't want to cross illegally.
I want to present myself at the port of entry.
And they would wait five, six months in Mexico, sometimes in dire conditions for a CBP1 appointment.
Well, now under the Trump administration, they're saying that those were not legitimate ways to come into the U.S. I'm hearing a lot from people that I did it the right way.
I did not want to come illegally.
I waited for an appointment or applied through this program, and yet they insist that I came here illegally, and I dispute that.
And so I think, you know, to the caller's point, if you have another administration, would they consider that legitimate, a legitimate way to come or the right way?
So I think that's why you need maybe something more permanent that cannot be as easily changed from one administration to the other, because I think at the end, you end up having leaving people in much more of a limbo state.
So Perla, the people that did come using the app during the Biden administration, the CPB1 app, they are now considered illegal.
Are they, is that being challenged in court or are they all being deported?
unidentified
So I mean, I think just to clarify, right, like coming in through the CBP1 did not mean that it gave people legal status.
I think sometimes there's a little confusion there.
It did not mean, including from the immigrants themselves, that they thought by doing this, they got legal status.
It was simply an opportunity to present yourself at a port of entry and allow you to later file an asylum claim or some sort of other form of relief if you wanted.
So I think when we talk about those who came in with a CBP1, you might have a wide range of people who fit that category.
Some of them file for asylum.
Some of them might file for something else.
Some of them might not have filed for anything.
And they could, you know, be, if there's a workside rate or something, or just apprehensions or arrest for mice in California or Chicago, they might be caught among those, but it's not considered to have legal status.
And if they had a work permit, some of those are being, I think by and large, they're being canceled.
On the line for Democrats in Omaha, Nebraska, Rafino, you're on the air.
unidentified
Good morning.
I'm a former immigration lawyer.
And I guess to answer that one guy's question, when the Constitution was made, most of the people realized they were immigrants.
So of course, all of our rights are applied to immigrants.
I think one of the problems is that because when I was a lawyer, they kept restricting all the ways for people to come legal.
And now there's so few options that compared to the European immigrants, it's basically almost impossible to come here legally.
You know, this is kind of a, it is a moral issue.
And of course, because the demographic changes, there's a lot of fear in the white community about culture or something.
But anyway, my question was, in these detention centers, because I live in Nebraska, farmers are using, from what I heard, I'm not in the loop anymore, but from what I've heard,
they're using these immigrants, or I call them indigenous immigrants because they're from this emission, but they're using them for free labor on the farms here in Nebraska, which actually amounts to slavery, which is also unconstitutional.
Yeah, I don't know about free labor, but I think there have been criticism that, you know, there's something called the H-2A visa, and it's a visa that farmers can use to bring in workers.
And some argue that sometimes it can lead to slave-like conditions because you're tied to that farm or the pay.
They're supposed to provide housing, but there's been numerous reports of very poor conditions in housing.
So I don't know necessarily of not getting paid at all.
You also have a large share of the undocumented population, you know, or a large share of the farm workforce who is undocumented, which I think, I don't know if y'all remember in the beginning of the Trump administration, there was a large raid at a farm in California, but we haven't seen, you know, there was a lot of pushback about that because, you know, you need the workers and we haven't seen at least public, like high-profile rates at farms anymore.
Joe in Bedford, Virginia, a Republican, you're on the air.
unidentified
Yes, good morning.
Yes, a lot of things I have problems with.
One, there's nothing humane about illegal immigration.
A lot of them girls and women are going to be raped, possibly murdered, human trafficked on the way over here.
And then this nonsense about, oh, you can't arrest somebody if they're at school or church or work.
I'm an American citizen, and if they want me, they're going to grab me wherever I am.
And if I have kids with me, they're going to separate me and the kids.
So that's just a bunch of nonsense.
And I believe the Constitution applies to America's people, not illegals.
And no country can stand the kind of invasion we've had.
We've always had a problem with illegals.
And now we have more illegals than most countries have population.
And it's downright dangerous.
If they come here legal, fine.
I'd welcome them.
But when they're illegal, you don't know.
You've got rapists, murderers, pedophiles, gangbangers, all kinds of bad people.
And here in Virginia, it's going to get a lot worse because we just went from the best governor, that absolute bottom of the barrel socialist woke card, who rolled out the welcome at for illegal, saying that oh, we're no longer going to cooperate with ICE or anything.
So that's rolling out the welcome at.
And Virginia is going to get a lot worse because of a careless governor, left-wing nut.
It's not inaccurate to say that a lot of women are sexually assaulted, abused on their way to the United States.
I've spoken to some.
It's, it's been reported, you know it is.
It is part.
It is a very dangerous Journey to migrate, they put themselves in a lot of danger.
I think in terms of the numbers, it is also known that there was an increase in the number of people coming to the U.S. under the Biden administration, and that's for a combination of reasons, right?
You were coming out of the pandemic, where had it basically had put sort of wait and you know, a lot of people were in wait and see mode.
A lot of economies were struggling.
So, you, in the case of the Venezuelans, for instance, you had thousands of Venezuelans who had left their country because of the situation to neighboring countries like Colombia or Chile.
And then those economies, you know, were not doing great because of the pandemic, and the U.S. was doing much better.
And to a previous caller's point, there were jobs, and that attracted a lot of people in combination with President Biden coming in saying that he was going to take a different approach from President Trump during his first administration.
And so, I think you did, because of all those reasons, you did end up having a lot more people coming in a much shorter period of time.
And perla, the caller did mention the governor saying that they're not going to cooperate with ICE.
I want to ask you about sanctuary states policies with regard to habeas petitions, because what ICE is asking for is: look, if you've got an illegal immigrant and they're in the court system and they're in detention, hold them until we get there and we can take them from there.
However, that would cause that person to be held longer than possibly longer than legally allowed.
Do you think that that would impact these petitions?
unidentified
So, I think it's a little bit different, right?
So, I think what the habeas petitions is more on people who are already in immigration detention.
So, I think there, whether a place is sanctuary or not, is separate because they're already under federal custody.
I think in terms of sanctuary or not and the cooperation with ICE, it's more, for example, if someone is in a county jail and based on the crime, you know, they process them, they're supposed to release them.
But ICE puts something that's called a detainer and tells the official, you know, when you're done with them, don't release them.
I'm going to come get them.
And there is a usually a, I can't remember exactly if it's 48 hours or not, but there's a time limitation that the local law enforcement official can hold someone legally for federal immigration officers.
And that sometimes, so that can be kind of more on the sanctuary, right?
Are local law enforcement hold, you know, holding people that they come across either because they arrested them or doing a traffic stop or whatever it is for immigration officers?
Do they call them directly or not?
Do they wait for them to arrive?
Do they hold them longer because they're waiting for ICE to pick them up?
And I think that's more where the sanctuary or the level of cooperation a local entity has with immigration with ICE comes into place much more so than the habeas.
Habeas at that point, you're already talking about a federal system, both the federal court criminal system where they're filing the petitions and the federal immigration detention centers, which are supposed to be a civil matter where the person is being held.
Good morning, C-San American people and your guests.
I want to get two points out real quick, Mimi.
I took the trip and spent a month in Florida.
We stopped in South Carolina, then we went on down to Florida.
And if ICE is looking for immigrants, they're definitely looking in the wrong states.
Everywhere I went in South Carolina and Florida, there were immigrants cleaning hotels, working in our restaurants, on the streets, doing construction.
So getting rid of immigrants to me is silly because they're paying taxes.
They're doing the jobs that white folks don't want to do.
And they are an asset to America.
And then as far as prisons, it is just nothing but a big, big scheme.
I've seen an article where they are getting billions of dollars to open prisons to keep these immigrants in and use them for free labor.
This is just a Trump scam.
Go back to racism.
And America is better than this.
And once these Republicans wake up, these Trump supporters wake up.
Pearla, is there any evidence that they're being used for labor?
unidentified
I think in some detention centers, the detainee, the immigrant, has a possibility to work either cleaning or cooking, and they get paid a dollar, I believe, an hour, I think, or a day.
Like, don't quote me on that, but a very, very, very small amount.
And some people have said that that could be, you know, they equate it to free labor because of how minimal it is.
And the detainees that I've talked to is like better than sitting around and not doing anything.
I think, as with any group of people, you know, I think when you talk about the immigrant population, you do have everything in there, right?
You do have, I think, as we, as we mentioned, in terms of percentages, immigrants tend to commit crimes at much lower levels than native-born citizens or U.S. residents.
But it doesn't mean that you haven't had examples of like the color mention of atrocious acts committed by people who also happen to be in the country without authorization.
I think to start with, you know, I'm a journalist.
Just to clarify for our callers and viewers that I am not an advocate.
I am not a lawyer.
I am a journalist just reporting what our investigations show and what we hear from those experts.
In terms of legal, illegal, there's always the, you hear about the line, right?
But there is really no such thing as a line.
Someone who was talking earlier, a lot of the migration that you have, the legal migration that you have in the U.S. is through family ties.
And depending on those family connections or the country you come from, those can take many, many years.
Another avenue for legal migration is employment visas.
And I mentioned the H-2A, there's the H-1B for professionals, but that is also being curtailed in some ways by the administration.
And there are some within the administration that feel that you have too many of those as well, that you have too many H-1B visas, or there's a lot of fraud in that.
You had another way of refugees under this current Trump administration.
They've really cut back on the number of refugees being admitted to a minimal amount.
And so that is another avenue that people could come into the U.S. legally that has also been diminished greatly.
So I think there is a difference between authorized and unauthorized migration.
I think we have been talking about people who were in the process by and large.
A lot of the habeas claims that we were talking about are people who had some sort of status or in the process or claims to get there.
And so they're in the middle of their process by and large.
And Pearlie, I did look up that it's for payment, it's a minimum of $1 per day for detainees.
Now, are these detention centers being run by the government or by private companies?
unidentified
Most of them, there's a range of detention centers and types of facilities.
A lot of them are run by private entities.
Some of them are run in sort of a combination, but their two major groups, GEO and CoreCivic, are the two largest companies that run the private immigration detention facilities.
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.
Iranian Standpoint on Negotiations00:15:19
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.
This 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.
So first, just tell us about the Ronald Reagan Institute, what your mission is, and what your approach is to foreign policy.
unidentified
Yeah, thanks.
So the Reagan Institute is the think-tang arm of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation Institute based out in Simi Valley, California, the home of the Reagan Library.
The Reagan Institute is based in D.C.
And what we do there is promote Reagan's principles and ideals in the heart of our national capital, seeking to advance individual liberty, economic opportunity, peace through strength.
And when it comes to foreign policy and national security, we do a lot to look to advance freedom of democracy as well as peace through strength.
So let's start with the negotiations, indirect negotiations going on now with Iran.
What are you expecting to come out of that?
Are you optimistic that there could be a nuclear deal?
unidentified
My own view is that the Iranians are looking to slowroll this thing by some time and try to push President Trump and the Trump administration off of the military pressure that they're under by trying to suggest, hey, we're going to make a deal on our nuclear weapons program.
Reality is that they don't have much of a nuclear weapons program to speak of.
And so it's not much of a concession to give the Trump administration.
But the Iranians are quite good at engaging in these negotiations.
They did it with previous administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and they're seeking to do the same thing here.
Question is whether President Trump will submit to that approach or seek something more substantial from the Iranian regime, which they're unlikely to give.
Wait, Roger, you said there's not much of a nuclear program happening in Iran?
unidentified
Well, I was referring to the June attacks, Operation Midnight Hammer.
In other words, the operation that the U.S. military carried out with the B-2 bombers following Israel's strikes on the Iranian nuclear weapon program.
It's been, you know, debate within the intelligence community how much it's been destroyed, you know, whether or not they will be able to get it back online.
That's not a matter of months.
That's a matter of years.
So from that standpoint, the Iranian regime don't have much to give up.
Then why are we even negotiating about this if this is so far off into the future?
Or do we actually not really know?
unidentified
Well, listen, there's always a question as to what's left.
I think the administration, as a Trump administration, want to extend negotiations beyond the parameters of a nuclear weapons program.
They would like the Ayatollahs in Tehran to give up their ballistic missile program, the support for terrorist organizations around the Middle East and around the world.
Those are things that the regime in Tehran has been unwilling to offer up in the past.
And I think it's unlikely they're willing to do it now.
It's the heart of the regime.
It's what they seek to do.
And I don't see much chance that they're going to submit to the Trump administration's request there.
And so what the president has been very clear with the Iranians, and actually I just talked to Steve Woodcoff and Jared Kushner this morning about some of their negotiations, is the United States has certain red lines.
Our primary interest here is we don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon.
We don't want nuclear proliferation.
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, there are a lot of other regimes, some friendly, some not so friendly, who would get nuclear weapons after them.
That would be a disaster for the American people because then you have these crazy regimes all over the world with the most dangerous weapons in the world.
And that's one of the things the president has said he's going to prevent.
Now, we would very much like, as the president has said, to resolve this through a conversation and a diplomatic negotiation, but the president has all options on the table.
And one thing about the negotiation I will say this morning is, you know, in some ways it went well.
They agreed to meet afterwards.
But in other ways, it was very clear that the president has set some red lines that the Iranians are not yet willing to actually acknowledge and work through.
So we're going to keep on working it.
But of course, the president reserves the ability to say when he thinks that diplomacy has reached its natural end.
I believe those red lines that Vice President Vance is referring to is not just the nuclear weapons program that the Iranian regime has been seeking for some time, but also the ballistic missile program through which they have attacked not just our allies, but U.S. four-deployed forces.
And particularly the short-range missiles are the ones that make our forces most vulnerable for deployed in the Persian Gulf.
So I think that is probably one of the sticking points that the vice president referring to, as well as the regime's support for terrorist organizations, whether it's the Houthis in Yemen, what we've seen from their support for Hezbollah or Hamas.
All of this is the heart of what the Iranian revolutionary regime seeks to do.
Through diplomacy, we're trying to stop that as a country.
I just don't think that there's much chance that the ITOLs will submit to those requests.
The USA Today reports that President Trump said that regime change, quote, would be the best thing in Iran.
Would you say that that's the Trump administration policy now towards Iran?
Is regime change and that a potential military strike, that would be the objective?
unidentified
I don't know what exactly is the objective.
I know that I think the Iranian people would be better off with the new regime.
As we saw in January of this year, January 8, 9, 10, you had the people of Iran in their streets pushing for their own freedom for the fall of that regime.
And the response was a death up to, I think, reports of 30,000 of those people protesting were killed.
So I think the Iranian people want a new regime.
And I think President Trump at times has said he would stand with those hopes of the Iranian people.
And we saw it at the Munich Security Conference and across the world, frankly, over this past weekend.
I was in Munich and there were a quarter million of Iranian expats in the streets calling for the end of the Iranian regime.
So there are people in Iran and outside of Iran, Iranians that want to see freedom.
They want to see this revolutionary regime come to an end and be replaced with something that allows the people of Iran to experience the freedom that they deserve.
If you've got a question for our guest about foreign policy, Roger Zakheim will be with us.
He is taking your calls.
You can start calling in now.
Republicans are on 2028-8001.
Democrats 202748-8000.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
The Vice President mentioned Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are leading the negotiations not just in Iran, but also in Ukraine.
What do you think of their role?
And is this kind of bypassing the traditional role of the State Department and the Secretary of State?
unidentified
Well, their role is essential.
And the President of the United States needs to have people negotiating on his behalf that he trusts and feels that will convey his policy priorities, what he cares about.
And it's quite clear that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are those people.
As I mentioned, I was in Munich over the weekend.
And I think from a State Department standpoint, Secretary of State Review is quite comfortable with his framework.
He seems to be completely sort of included in and driving, quite frankly, our diplomatic effort.
And it's important for those that Mr. Witkoff, Mr. Kushner negotiating with that they know that they speak for the president.
So I think actually this framework is one that's working for President Trump and probably puts the United States diplomatic effort in the most authoritative position.
What you don't want in this situation is where the U.S. is engaging in diplomacy, but it's perceived not to be something that the president is fully behind.
You really can't make that argument when it comes to what Mr. Wickoff and Mr. Kushner are doing.
But from a State Department standpoint, I think it's quite clear to everyone around the world that Secretary Rubio is a lead diplomat for the United States of America.
And as you know, that there's been a second carrier group moved into the region near Iran.
What do you make of that as far as the possibility of a military strike?
Because we saw this kind of buildup before the strike in Venezuela.
What percentage would you say is the possibility that the administration does carry out a kinetic attack on Iran?
unidentified
I can't really throw a percentage at it, but I do know that in terms of what a commander-in-chief needs to think about as he or she contemplates a military operation of this nature, with a second carrier coming in, the Ford, U.S. forces, Ford deployed, will be secure, will be optimizing their force protection in the event the President of the United States decides to carry out an operation.
I think it's also complementary to the diplomatic effort.
Iran knows that President Trump means business with the Lincoln and Ford there.
And Iran knows that its ability to, in any way, threaten our forces in a fashion to make us sort of dial down the pressure diplomatically is a fool's errand because we can cover our interests, take care of our people, our allies, and our partners, and at the same time, carry out a strike that would be lethal against the targets we're seeking to take out.
So I think it puts the president in the best position possible, both on the diplomatic front and, of course, militarily.
And that really is what the president's been waiting for.
I mean, we've been at this for a month, and we'll see if it yields anything at the table diplomatically.
On the Republican line, here's Kevin in Tampa, Florida.
You're on with Roger Zakheim.
unidentified
Thank you very much for taking my call.
I've called many times on this issue.
I do not understand why President Trump is siding with Russia and putting pressure on Ukraine for a ceasefire or for an end to this war.
Ukraine, I believe, is actually winning this war very slowly and very costly.
This makes no sense if President Trump feels that Russia will be a reliable trading partner and somehow be a partner in this war against China.
Ronald Reagan was right, and he did the right thing.
The Soviet Union was an evil empire.
Russia is still an evil empire.
Putin is a pathological liar and a psychopath.
He doesn't want the Donbass.
He wants all of Ukraine.
He wants the Soviet Union back.
Lavrov has said the same thing.
This must stop.
Support Ukraine.
Ukraine can be a very reliable trading partner, much more European, as with respect to Secretary Rubio's speech.
Europe is our common whatever ally.
Russia will never be an ally.
I do not understand why President Trump doesn't put more pressure on Russia to end this war, to leave Ukraine, and then maybe the sanctions will come off.
But more sanctions against Russia and providing more weapons and support for Ukraine.
And I truly feel that this war could come to an end sooner.
Well, I agree with many of the sentiments articulated by the caller.
The American people, not just the caller, overwhelmingly recognize that Russia is an adversary, that this is a war of naked aggression against the free people of Ukraine, and Americans want to see Ukraine win.
And I think the caller is also correct.
We saw a recent report by the Institute of Study of War that Ukraine, for the first time in some time, has been retaking territory that the Russians had previously taken.
It's, you know, inches, not feet, but it still reflects that Ukraine is winning.
As far as the president, you know, he obviously wants to realize a negotiated diplomatic outcome.
President Zelensky has made quite clear that any outcome was one that would need to be supported by the Ukrainian people and that giving up the Donbass and contested territory or territory that's been taken by Russia is something that he is unwilling to do, certainly, if it means that it would be de jure recognition.
I think there is a general frame look of what we're talking about.
And Secretary Rubio spoke to this in Munich, where they're down to the hardest issues.
And those issues really are about territory and whether or not they'll be able to come to agreement along the current lines of contact.
But going ahead and rewarding Russia for its naked aggression against Ukraine by giving it territory it currently does not hold is something that will be unacceptable to President Zelensky, the people of Ukraine, and frankly, by the people of the United States.
We've done polling on this.
I've been on this show in the past.
And it's clear the American people don't believe we should reward Vladimir Putin for his aggression.
How do you think President Reagan would have dealt with this differently from President Trump?
What would he have done differently?
unidentified
Well, that's sort of impossible to say, but we know as a matter of principle, President Reagan was quite clear that there was a place for morality and foreign policy, and he did not hesitate to say which side was good and which side was evil, which side was right and which side was wrong.
And we've seen the American people consistently do the same today.
It is not sort of a 50-50 split.
Nearly 80% of those that we survey, and this is consistent, view Russia as an adversary, as an enemy.
And roughly 74, 75% of those we survey show that Ukraine is ally and a friend.
And so I think that would have been front and center in terms of any foreign policymaking by President Reagan.
U.S. Values and European Allies00:12:40
unidentified
And I think ultimately that's where the Trump administration is going to land.
I mean, the caller referenced Secretary Rubio's speech at Munich, and it was one that clearly was driven by U.S. values and recognizing that the United States and Europe will always be together.
They've been together in the past.
The United States comes from European civilization.
And that recognition means that we'll have to be together standing for liberty and freedom.
So, Roger, I want to read you a portion of an editorial from the Wall Street Journal.
And they said this.
Quote, Mr. Rubio is drawing directly from Ronald Reagan's playbook of conservative internationalism, unapologetic about U.S. leadership and the superiority of freedom, anchored by threats to the American people and their interests, wary that diplomacy and commerce by themselves can resolve the world's differences.
This worldview still represents the best formula for dealing with the accumulating threats to the U.S., namely an axis among China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.
Mr. Trump wants America to be the big player in every region, but his greatest failure as president is that he won't or can't articulate his larger principles.
What do you think of that?
unidentified
Well, I thought Secretary Rubio did a fantastic job of articulating the administration's principles.
So, you know, in that respect, the administration, I think, has taken a very important step forward talking to our European allies.
Of course, President Zelensky was in the room.
And I do think this administration is doing a good job of articulating the principles of conservative internationalism, which is, of course, advancing freedom, advancing free markets, and peace through strength, recognizing that supranational organizations are not going to solve these problems, that the bureaucracies are slow to impact major events around the world.
And the U.S. needs to be leading in the world.
It's not some sort of nameless rules-based international order.
It's an American-led order.
And that's what you heard from Secretary Rubio.
And we'll see if the diplomatic effort will yield the outcome that the American people want.
And certainly the Ukrainian people want and our European allies will want.
We're sort of in this space between we're making some progress on the 20-point plan.
As Secretary Rubio said, the hardest issues are the ones that are being negotiated.
We've seen some rationing up in terms of sanctions against Russia, and we'll certainly need to see that increase.
And then on the European side, they are the ones buying U.S. weapons and delivering to Ukraine.
So Europe is doing what I think the Trump administration has always wanted, which is to stand up and lead, certainly when it comes to providing firepower and conventional force to the Ukrainians.
So as long as the Ukrainians are getting their support on the security front, on the diplomatic front, we can have this land in a place that works for European security, U.S. security, and the freedom of the Ukrainian people.
Jack in Baltimore, Maryland, Democrat, you're on the air.
unidentified
Hey, good morning, guys.
I just want to quickly point out that, I mean, your guest is kind of talking from both ends of his mouth.
Donald Trump has continued to try to ingratiate himself to Putin.
And if you just juxtapose the welcome that Vladimir Putin received with a little red carpet welcoming and compare that to how Zelensky was treated with his first White House visit in the second Trump term, being publicly chastised for the world to see.
So that's in a nutshell how what President Trump thinks of the Russian-Ukraine conflict.
He's clearly pro-Russia.
He ingratiates himself to people like Victor Orban.
You can just see how he treats our closest allies and how he's treated Canada.
The veiled threats easy to physically taking over Greenland.
He has completely perverted the traditional conservative stance on what our allies and who our enemies are.
We don't know.
There's no clear line to who our friends are and who our enemies are.
If you just listen to what Trump says and how he's treating our allies versus how he's treating our enemies.
And it doesn't reconcile with traditional conservative principles, especially with Ronald Reagan and what peace through strength meant.
Well, listen, President Trump has, without question, as it relates to our European allies and partners, applied sticks as much as he applied carrots.
Although we've seen as it relates to NATO that his push for NATO taking more responsibility for its own security has yielded good results, results, excuse me, particularly as it relates to their commitments to their own defense with a 5% commitment, 3.5% direct, the balance indirect.
This has, I think, yielded a very important outcome for European security.
And then we're seeing this evolve in a way that there's a lot more constructive conversation between European allies and the United States.
And I think that was a hallmark of Secretary Rubio's speech, the editorial that you were referencing before, focused on those elements.
Listen, I think in the end of the day, we'll need to judge whether President Trump has been on the right side of history by the outcome in Ukraine.
Will the Ukrainian people be free?
Will Russia be punished or rewarded for its aggression?
It's quite clear what is at stake here and how we measure whether this diplomacy and negotiation is going to yield something that advances U.S. interests and, of course, the interests of the Ukrainian people.
That is not resolved yet.
It's ongoing.
It's quite clear that also the American people want to see Ukraine win, excuse me, and Russia ultimately not be rewarded for its aggression.
I guess I'd like to point out that Pat Buchanan said years ago that the Israelis were trying to draw us, the United States, into a backdoor war with Iran.
Now, it's looking closer and closer.
And we must consider this, the cost in the war and blood and treasure.
Anything can happen once you get into a fight.
The Iranians, clearly, the underdog.
But I remind you, there was an underdog, and the British fleet faced the Armada, was supposed to have been invincible, sent them back with their tail between their legs.
And I would say this, too.
Don't let our nation be dragged into that war.
We need to take an example from the Honorable George H.W. Bush.
He would not back down from Israeli pressure, stood up and made them realize the United States is the superpower, but not to be used flagrantly, to be used only when needed.
Guess I'd like your comments on that.
Please, thank you.
Yeah, I don't really think any decision President Trump is making here as it relates to a possible strike on Iran is tied to Israel or Israel advocacy.
President Trump is his own person.
This administration has made decisions that advance the U.S. national interests.
Sometimes those decisions are complementary to our ally Israel, and sometimes they are not.
What happened in June of 2025 clearly advantaged the United States?
Iran, of course, has consistently, since this regime came in in 1979, viewed the United States as an adversary, as an enemy.
And it has been responsible for not only holding our diplomats for 444 days as hostages, but the years since that revolution consistently attacked the United States, its interests, killed Americans in Iraq, in Syria, and elsewhere.
So I think what we're seeing from the Trump administration is trying to finally address in a decisive fashion this regime's constant attack and meddling against U.S. interests.
Now, whether or not that's resolved diplomatically with another strike, that is something that we will see play out, but it's for sure something directed to what America needs and America should expect from its kind of interests and diplomacy.
My own view is that the Trump administration, both through Operation Midnight Hammer and absolute resolve of the removal of Maduro, has made quite clear that our military can engage in effective operations with precision and not result in an endless sort of war where we have life lost and treasure wasted.
That, to me, is some sort of like red herring that has been used to prevent presidents before President Trump taking decisive action.
And I expect if President Trump decides to take action in Iran again, he will do so in a fashion with precision, and it will not lead to the sort of results that the caller raised.
Hey, give me a second to just get three points out: one on BRICS, one on the files, and one on the Europe versus Russia thing.
Let's start with Russia and Europe.
We have distanced ourselves with many of the organizations with Russia, I mean, with Europe.
So, actually, Europe, and as a man, I'm going to speak for myself.
You said several times, sir, that you're speaking for the American people.
I'm a man.
I'll speak for myself.
And I think Donald Trump is doing a great job.
And he's distancing ourselves from a dependence on Europe, and Europe owes us more.
So he's asked for more in tariffs and other policies.
And we removed ourselves from WHO and WEF and the integration of Europe.
Okay, now the BRICS.
BRICS as a whole is standing itself up.
But if we work with Russia and/or China and/or India, we can run the financial system completely.
And so we should make friends with Russia because we cannot avoid BRICS as a whole.
But we will be the dominant force in America and the world for finances.
And lastly, sir, the lists do matter.
When you say that he's not addressing the things the American people want, people want to have three lists addressed, okay?
One is Epstein, one is Wiki, one is the guy Warner Wiener, and the other one is Biden's son.
Those four drives of data will have a significant portion of data that will affect our relationship with the people of America's understanding with Ukraine.
If Ukraine is anyhow involved with that or those lists, we do not want to be affiliated with that.
We do not want our people to co-sign with any type of trafficking organizations.
Okay, I'm done, and thank you very much for letting me speak.
Well, I don't think that Russia or China have our interests in mind.
And I don't think they are a country that is interested in partnering with us.
We've tried that in the past, particularly as it relates to China.
It hasn't worked.
They are actively working against our interests, both militarily, security realm, and also the economic realm.
I think President Trump understands that.
And just because they are doing so, we still look for areas of common cooperation at the same time, building up our own defenses to make sure that we are in no way made vulnerable by what Russia and China are doing.
And of course, one of the best ways we can do that is continue to strengthen and work with our allies.
And we need strong allies to do that effectively.
And that, I think, is the message we heard from Secretary of State Rubio over in Munich this past weekend.
That will be better.
That will result in a better state of affairs for both our European allies and for the United States.
Coming up next, we will finish the program with open forum.
Whatever's on your mind related to politics or public policy, you can share that with us.
Republicans can call on 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series, Sunday, with our guest author, former Reagan administration official, and a Library of Congress living legend, Linda Chavez.
She has written a number of books, including Out of the Barrio, An Unlikely Conservative, and The Silver Candlesticks, a novel of the Spanish Inquisition.
She joins our host, renowned author and civic leader, David Rubinstein.
How long did it take you to write the novel?
It took me almost 10 years.
10 years.
10 years, yes, to write the novel.
I mean, Leo Tolstoy wrote War and Peace in seven years.
So.
I know.
Well, what can I do?
It's 400 pages, David.
It's not a short book.
All right, well, man.
And actually, it was longer.
It was longer.
I had to cut it.
Yes.
Watch America's Book Club with Linda Chavez.
Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific.
Only on C-SPAN. Democracy.
It isn't just an idea.
It's a process.
A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
Democracy in real time.
This is your government at work.
This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
We're in open forum until the end of the program at 10 Eastern, and we'll start with Susan in Clarksville, Tennessee.
Democrat, go ahead, Susan.
unidentified
Hi, good morning.
Good morning.
I wanted to talk to the last guest, the immigration newspaper lady, but I'm wondering if you could pull up how many immigrants Greg Abbott bust up north.
I voted for Trump the first time, and then I voted for Biden because after Trump tried to make out that the election was fake and all of that, that was just ridiculous.
I mean, we have faith elections.
So being a patriot, I could not vote for someone who would undermine the election process like that.
And all of these people who call themselves patriots and voted for him the second time, I'm not sure what they're thinking.
I'm just highly concerned about the way they're doing things.
They've always told us stuff, especially when it comes to black history, that we should follow the way we, you know, the way we even worship God.
We was giving it to, they were giving us to us through slavery, and at the same time, they treated us so bad.
You've got, they need to retest the whole judicial system as far as Trump has got 34 felonies, but he ran for president, but you got some guys who only got one felony, can't even get a federal job.
So they need to retest the whole DLD and everything because it's just not fair that one group of people is always being pushed to the side.
Just like January 6th, they stormed the Capitol.
But if we have a riot about somebody police killing a young black person or something, they want to say it's the same thing.
That is not the same thing.
I'm so tired of our nation that's just not following our people that are born and bred in America.
And we fight for America every time, whether it's military, whether it's inventing something, whether it's keeping America going.
The black people have always been for America, but we get no credit for it.
They won't even put black history in school.
They won't do anything for us.
But yet, we're supposed to worship the way they want to worship.
And I don't get why black people are following a group of people that has nothing to do for them.
And this is CBS News with the headline: Hillary Clinton alleges Epstein files cover-up by Trump administration ahead of House deposition.
She did have an interview with the BBC.
We have a portion of that for you here.
unidentified
You say you never met Jeffrey Epstein.
Clearly, your husband did know him.
The former president says he knew him before his crimes came to light.
But there are also associations with Gheline Maxwell, including in 2013 when she was a guest at a Clinton Global Initiative event, years after allegations had emerged against her.
What I want to know is, do you regret the links that there have been between Epstein Maxwell and the Clinton family?
We have a very clear record that we've been willing to talk about, which my husband has said he took some rides on the airplane for his charitable work.
Larry in Tennessee, Independent Line, you're on the air.
unidentified
Hello.
A couple of things I'd like to point out is that, one, the left, the Democrats, are now what I would refer to as the hagfish party.
The hagfish defends itself and uses it for attacking by using slime.
That's all the Democrats left is good for anymore, is to slime people.
Trump is a, this Epstein business is a perfect example where they find absolutely nothing, but they continue with their slime because people are weak enough to not only fall for the slime, but to actually participate in the sliming.
The other thing I wanted to point out is that the vast majority of these people that fall in on the Democrat line do nothing but repeat, regurgitate what they hear on MS Now and CNN.
First, I want to say, Mimi, I just love seeing the sunrises in Washington, D.C. every morning.
It's so nice.
You know, I got a million things I could talk about, of course, but basically, I have a really hard time with our president tearing down Washington, D.C. I'm real interested to know who's going to have title to all of these buildings.
And I'm real curious, once he's got his name on everything, he wants to license his name and make money on all the things he wants his name on.
And I hope that doesn't happen.
We had enough of him for a while.
But anyway, I just am concerned about all of the what seems to be like little militias that are being set up in the Democrat states.
I really have a hard time with him coming right out and saying that he hates Democrats.
I think Democrats are wonderful people.
We love a lot of things.
We don't hate a lot of things.
And I just, I could go on and on, but I just appreciate getting on, and I love your show.
It could be 24 hours a day as far as I'm concerned.
This is Eugene in North Carolina, Independent Line.
Good morning, Eugene.
unidentified
Yes, good morning.
I'd just like to first explain myself.
I'm a soldier that fought in Vietnam.
My father fought in World War II, and my son fought in Iraq.
And I just want to say to the public, I don't understand why Trump wants to get so much into the war.
You know, it's crazy when people have to sacrifice their life and put it on the line to fight.
And this Epstein thing is deeper than I think really people understand.
I'd like to have someone explain to me what is the Mossad and what they had to do with our government and how did Epstein get associated with the Mossad.
If you had someone on to explain really what the Mossad is about and how they've supposedly gotten into our government and, you know, and made we make decisions based on their kind of mindset, what they want to do.
Who is the Mossad and what are they about?
If you could have someone on to explain that, I'd really appreciate it.
So I can tell you, Eugene, that Fox News has put this out saying Israeli intelligence, which is the Mossad, sources, so Israeli intelligence sources reject claims Jeffrey Epstein was Mossad operative following document releases.
That is what they are, that's what Israeli intelligence is telling Fox News.
So I don't think, so they wouldn't know about, they might not know about that in, I don't know if that's actually, is that Virginia or that's actually in Washington, D.C., Vince?
Obviously, I know where the Potomac is, but where the spill is.
So yeah, it looks like it's in the Maryland side.
So this is USA Today.
It says the Potomac sewer spill turned into a political fight.
It says one of the largest sewage spills in U.S. history.
It says it's a sewage line recently collapsed in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, spilling at least 200 million gallons of raw sewage into the Potomac River, a key waterway surrounding the nation's capital.
Spill has called widespread public health concerns as E. coli bacteria is a dangerous part, is at dangerous levels in parts of the Potomac and underscored the risk posed by aging sewer infrastructure.
So that's USA Today about that spill.
Here's John in Newark, New Jersey.
Democrat, go ahead, John.
unidentified
Yes, good morning.
I'd like to make a statement with Mr. Trump, the president.
He is not doing nothing more than creating a war with Iraq.
People Cut, Media Silence00:11:08
unidentified
And he is going to put all of these things people he put in charge of every aspect of the people who are in charge of policing the situation, the ICE and he's going to throw all of them on the bus because all about Trump.
And he's going to throw all of them because he doesn't know anything they are doing.
Because when people ask him what is happening, he said he doesn't know.
And he's the president.
And he should have known what is going on, but he doesn't know.
And he's going to throw all of them on the bus when this thing is over.
I've been watching Washington Journal for just about every day for over 40 years.
And I've called in quite a few times over the period.
But I watched that Munich conference yesterday.
And on the bottom of your screen, y'all had Alexander Caso Cortez, the governor of Mexican, I can't think of her name offhand, and the others.
The other was the United States Ambassador Matthew Whitaker to NATO.
And I'd like to know why, and I've noticed this well over 10 years now, why y'all are turned so biased against conservatives and Republicans.
The last time I spoke to you, you hung up on me for asking a simple question.
It's October of 2024 when I made the statement that Democrats and the liberal media has called every Republican candidate for president except for Eisenhower a fascist or a Nazi or Hitler-like.
And you can look up 1948 interview, October 28th, 1948 interview, New York Times interview with Harry Truban, where he called Thomas Dewey Hitler-like.
And it's been like that, but y'all, y'all have gotten so biased, it isn't even funny.
Talk to Randy next, Republican, O'Fallon, Missouri.
Go ahead, Randy.
unidentified
Thanks.
I really enjoy your show.
I just want to point out that under the Obama administration, they deported 6 million illegals without a protest, without any mention of how cruel or inhumane this is.
Hennepin County, which encompasses downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota, their police department had an office for ICE, and they worked with ICE, and this was reported on CNN.
So it's just so this is not being reported.
Trump has deported approximately 600,000 and had 2 million go voluntarily by offering them $1,000 to $2,000.
So I just wish the media would cover this a little bit.
These protests and these deaths, these two deaths were terrible in Minneapolis.
They didn't have to happen.
You cannot have municipal laws override federal laws.
The federal ICE and law enforcement have to have jurisdiction.
And this is Lydia in Aurora, Illinois, Independent Line.
Good morning.
unidentified
Yes.
Our problem is the person at the top.
The sooner we get rid of them, the better.
The situation in Minneapolis, Minnesota was contrived just to make him look tough and to try to institute a police-controlled state for the whole country.
And in the first place, why do we hate these immigrants?
They're the ones doing most of the work in this country and have been for the last 50 or 60 years.
We used to welcome them and be happy to have them.
Something has happened to the psychology of the country that's gone haywire.
I wanted to change the mood a bit and say that Jesse Jackson, when he was running, or when I forget when it happened, but he did a racial slur that came out about New York.
And a few weeks later, I guess it was the next week, Eddie Murphy did a skit on Saturday Night Live that was like one of the best skits ever.
And I probably anybody who wanted to watch something funny can go to YouTube and watch that.
So I just remember that certain things happen for a reason and certain things can certain things that may be ugly at first can be turned into something funny later on.
So Gary, you asked about when he ran for president, 1984 and 1988 were the two times that Jesse Jackson ran for president.
And I'll just let you know that right after this program, in about 12 minutes or so, we will have a news conference that is being held with Jesse Jackson's family.
And we will give you, we'll show you that live right after this program.
And once that gets underway.
Summer in Tennessee.
Democrat, good morning, summer.
unidentified
Good morning, Amy.
That color looks beautiful on you.
Okay, so I just want to say a couple of things.
One is there's been a lot of stuff about voting on C-SPAN lately.
And I just want to say I work the polls.
There is no undocumented immigrants voting in those elections.
Everything is done by the point.
It's very professional.
And anybody that says that illegals are voting at the polls, they're not.
Undocumented immigrants are not voting at the polls.
And I don't think C-SPAN's biased at all.
I mean, I think that people get cut off when it's time.
And I think people get cut off when they talk nonsense.
Missy is a Republican in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
I'd just like to share with you an observation.
It appears, more recently and ongoing, that the hosts and those calling in on open forum, the first hour of C-SPAN, have made this hour more like a gossip bashing hour rather than an informative or educational hour,
and God only knows.
Most of those calling in need to be more informed and I'm sorry to report that, but it apparently seems to be more and more every day.
I was on one side the street and he was on the other side.
His school was called Sterling HIGH School.
My school was called FULL AND Normal school.
It was ran by my daughter, my grandmother's church, but anyway he I'm sure he kind of knew what he wanted to be and at his young age and I'm I'm really sorry about him but I'll give my to his family and I want to say God Bless,
I had a question with the appointment of the Attorney General.
I understand he's supposed to be approved by Congress, and the Attorney General has either stepped down and the president's allowed to put an interim person without Congress's approval.
Carl, Republican in New Mexico, you're on the air.
unidentified
Thank you.
The gentleman that just called, I'm in New Mexico, and they tell us out here we have the highest insurance.
So somebody, some of these insurance companies must not be telling the truth.
And the other thing was that what I really called for was we're never going to correct that lawyer problem or anything because if you look in Congress and the Senate, they're all lawyers, doctors.
And the other thing is, is we have an age limit for people or an age for people to run for Congress, senators, and president.
Why don't they have a date that you get after a certain date, you can't run for those offices being so important?
And Perry, Democrat, Montgomery, Alabama, you're on the air.
unidentified
Good morning, Mimi.
You know, this country called Mother the King of Commons.
But I have this question there that people be talking about these illegal aliens.
Why did Trump use that 1700 law to get these people out of the country instead of using that law that Ronald Reagan had passed to get these people, how they process them when they come to this country, and then how you get them to exit this country?
So why we had them, why we got to go back to 1700 to get a law.
And Rudy in Georgia, line for Democrats, you're on the air.
unidentified
Yes, I was a student at Bethune-Cookman in 1970 when Jesse Jackson came to give the commencement address.
I think in the concert corral, and he stood up and he said that we had all of the board of directors on the stage who would come during graduation.
I think in the concert choir, so we were there every year.
He stood up and he told the graduates, he said, these boards of directors will give Bethune-Cookman College $100,000 and y'all give them a seat on the stage, and they will send $10 million to Harvard, and Harvard would only give them, send them a thank you letter.
He said, these board of directors have no right to sit up here no more than they're giving the college.
And the president of the college told us that half of the board of directors resigned after Jesse Jackson made that statement.
But he said Jesse Jackson was telling the absolute truth.
So he's going to try to recruit new boards of directors who would treat Bethune-Cookman College financially the way they treat other individuals.
And for kids that came from the projects of Jerkeyville in Jacksonville, Florida, I was so inspired and I followed him from that day on.
I'm 74.
He spoke the truth to power and that's a powerful thing.
And what came up on top was immigration, all perspectives, and then followed closely by roads and bridges, so infrastructure issues, and then education, specifically higher education.
Well, here is Governor Jim Pillen.
He's a Republican of Nebraska.
He's talking about the issue of immigration.
unidentified
Our partnerships with President Trump and his cabinet are also keeping Nebraskans and families around our country safe.
Because of our shared commitment to border security and immigration enforcement, Nebraska became one of the first states in the nation to establish an ICE detention facility to help get criminal, illegal aliens off of our streets.
We have a simple message.
Nebraska is proud to be doing our part to get the border secure, secure, and to protect America's kids from criminals, from trafficking people, from gang violence, and the drugs like fentanyl and meth.
The need for going after these criminal, illegal aliens could not be more clear than today.
Right here in Nebraska, just a few weeks ago, we have seen several examples of the danger these individuals are creating and the cartel terrorists and the criminal organizations they support and the threats they pose to our country and our communities.
One recent incident in Omaha demonstrated not only their danger, but also showcased the great risks that our men and women in blue face every day, every time they put their uniform on.
And we are taking your calls this morning on your top issue facing your state.
What is it that you and your neighbors are talking about regarding state issues?
We've already got some comments here on Facebook.
Nicole says that her top issue is data centers ravaging our environment.
She says, boycott Amazon.
The PJ says Kathy Hochl's party approving, quote, all-electric building act and then her appointed PSC approving rate hikes of over 20%.
That's Kathy Hochl in New York and she is running for re-election this year.
Paula says, fear of ICE coming to my hometown.
I do not want automatic weapons pointed at me or my neighbors.
I do not want a concentration camp near me.
We have been blessed to live in peace here in Michigan, but Trump crazy fascist takeover is rushing toward us.
Project 2025 on steroids.
Why is Jared Kushner representing the U.S. in Gaza?
This is Rebecca on Facebook who says, my state still hasn't made a state budget.
Good job, North Carolina Republicans.
Jamie says, this is in Maryland, another school shooting in Rockville, another school shooting in Georgetown, another school shooting in Glen Burney, Maryland.
I'm glad our governor is more worried about his presidential campaign.
And Sandra, our Indiana governor, is 47 sycophant who weekly genuflects and does as ordered.
He has now invited ICE here against the wishes of the majority of citizens.
Several offices have recently opened in the Greater Indy area.
And we are, we'll take your calls shortly.
This is something that I wanted to bring up.
This is our C-SPAN page that we've got all of the state-of-the-art addresses that we have so far.
This is, you can just scroll down here and find your state.
We've got about 38 listed so far.
So you're most likely going to be able to find your state if you have not seen your governor, the state of the state speech.
You can find it there.
Here is Arizona's governor, Katie Hobbs.
She's a Democrat, and she talks about infrastructure.
unidentified
Look at what we accomplished in the town of Superior, where there's a rocky wash not far from Route 60.
Some days it's bone dry, and other days it's a vigorous torrent.
Superior Mayor Mila Bessich, who's here with us today, knows it well.
As someone who grew up in the town, she's dealt with the wash's unpredictability her entire life.
North of the creek are Main Street businesses.
South of the creek, schools, a community pool, and the fire department.
For years, the town of Superior could not safely cross the creek.
But when I reactivated the Greater Arizona Development Authority, we unlocked the opportunity for places like Superior to build infrastructure that rural communities need.
Today, the Panther Drive Bridge across that wash has brought peace of mind to the area's residents, to the parents who know their children can get to school safely, to the small business owners who want a reliable commute home from work, to the firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs who can respond to emergencies more quickly.
The Panther Drive Bridge is a powerful example of how investing in rural infrastructure saves lives.
It is a bridge to the Arizona promise, connecting Arizonans to security, opportunity, and freedom.
And speaking of Maryland, take a look at this article.
This is New York Times.
Trump says he will now invite Democrats to governors' meeting, even as he reversed course on excluding Democrats.
Take a look at this.
So Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma told Democratic governors on Wednesday that President Trump had reversed course and would now invite them to an annual gathering of the nation's governors at the White House after the president had previously moved to exclude Democrats from the meeting.
Hours later, Mr. Trump repeatedly attacked Mr. Stitt, the chairman of the National Governors Association, as a quote rhino, Republican in name only, apparently blaming the governor for the episode after the New York Times last week that the president had spurned Democrats from what had traditionally been a bipartisan working meeting with the president and cabinet at the White House.
Mr. Stitt confirmed the reporting in a letter to governors on Friday and withdrew the NGA as the official organizers of the event, saying that it would not pay for transportation to the gathering and that the association sought to represent all governors.
In a social media post, Mr. Trump denied that he had ever tried to exclude Democrats from the meeting, though by Tuesday night, only Republican governors had received invitations for the meeting scheduled for Friday.
He did, however, confirm that he had personally blocked two Democrats, Governor Westmore of Maryland and Governor Jared Polis of Colorado, from a separate black tie dinner that would take place after the meeting because he felt they were, quote, not worthy of being there.
If you'd like to read it, let's talk to Jerry in Tennessee, Line for Democrats.
Good morning, Jerry.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I think there's probably very little doubt that affordability and health care is the major thing going around here in Tennessee, especially in a small town like I live in.
You know, the loss of people's substances is forced.
I know a lot of people now say they just don't have no health care.
You know, they can't afford it.
And the price of everything is going up around here.
Heck, that gone car battery is costing $300 now.
That, you know, just a few years ago, two or three years ago, was about $100, $105 battery.
People, just affordability, because we're a low-wage.
We'll leave this here for a press conference with the family of the late Reverend Jesse Jackson after his death yesterday morning at the age of 84.