C-SPAN’s Washington Journal (02/24/2026) dissects Trump’s divisive "Save the Union" State of the Union, where he’ll tout tax cuts, tariffs, and border policies amid 56% disapproval. Polls show partisan splits on inflation (61% disapprove), immigration (53%), and foreign policy (44% approve). Democrats boycott in protest, while Republicans invite guests like a Uyghur family member and hockey stars. Meanwhile, the Russia-Ukraine war’s four-year stalemate looms, with Iran talks adding tension—Trump’s envoys, lacking diplomatic expertise, may struggle to secure deals. The episode underscores how polarization risks institutional respect, even as Trump’s unorthodox approach challenges traditional norms. [Automatically generated summary]
Best ideas and best practices can be found anywhere.
But we have to listen so we can govern better.
Democracy depends on heavy doses of civility.
You can fight and still be friendly.
Bridging the divide in American politics.
You know, you may not agree with Le Democrat in everything, but you can find areas where you do agree.
He's a pretty likable guy as well.
Chris Kins and I are actually friends.
He votes wrong all the time, but we're actually friends.
A horrible secret that Scott and I have is that we actually respect each other.
We all don't hate each other.
You two actually kind of like each other.
These are the kinds of secrets we'd like to expose.
It's nice to be with a member who knows what they're talking about.
You guys did agree to the civility, all right?
He owes my son $10 from a bed for a year.
And he's never paid for it.
Fork it over.
That's fighting words right now.
I'm thrilled to be on the show with him.
There are not shows like this, right?
Incentivizing that relationship.
Ceasefire Friday nights on C-SPAN.
Coming up on Washington Journal, we preview President Trump's State of the Union Address with Wall Street Journal White House reporter Meredith McGraw, then Tevi Troy of the Ronald Reagan Institute on the history and importance of the State of the Union, plus other political news.
Also, former CIA Russia analyst George Beebe talks about the fourth anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war.
And later, more on the State of the Union address with the Hills Emily Brooks.
Washington Journal starts now.
We have a country that's now doing well.
We have the greatest economy we've ever had.
We have the most activity we've ever had.
I'm making a speech tomorrow night, and you'll be hearing me say that.
I mean, it's going to be a long speech because we have so much to talk about.
That was President Trump at an event at the White House yesterday, previewing his State of the Union speech later tonight.
Live coverage begins at 7 p.m. Eastern tonight, right here on C-SPAN.
But before the president speaks about how he thinks the country is doing, we want to hear from you.
What do you think the State of the Union is?
Here's how you can join in on the conversation.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
You can also send us a text message at 202-748-8003.
Include your first name, city, and state.
Or you can find us on social media.
Our Facebook is facebook.com forward slash C-SPAN, and our X handle is at C-SPANWJ.
We start this morning on the State of the Union, the first for the president since returning back into office last year.
A Wall Street Journal article published last night has some exclusive details on what he's expected to say.
The president, Trump, is to sell the economy during the State of the Union address, reads the headline.
If you scroll just a little bit down, it says that President Trump will use his State of the Union address to sell the public on the economy and unveil new measures meant to lower costs as Republicans try to address voters' concerns ahead of the midterm election this year.
The official theme of the speech, according to White House officials familiar with the draft, is America 250 Strong, Prosperous, and Respected, a reference to the 250th anniversary of the country's founding.
The address will emphasize the idea of American exceptionalism, and the president is planning to weave in stories of Americans who say they have benefited from his policies.
The address to a joint session of Congress will give the president a high-profile platform to tout his agenda.
He is expected to tick through prominent policies, including tax cuts passed by Republicans in Congress last year and an effort to lower prescription drug prices.
He is planning to call on Congress to pass a legislation codifying the health care framework he released earlier this year, which calls for redirecting federal subsidies from insurers to consumers.
While some Republicans praise the plan, they have so far shown little interest in taking it up during a midterm election.
Now, of course, the president will be addressing Congress at a particularly fraught moment in his presidency.
If we go to look at some polls, including some on the president's job approval, we see that overall, according to real clear politics average, that should be on your screen in a second, the president's disapproval stands at 56%.
His approval is at 43%.
There you can see on the screen.
If they break it down to the economy, his approval is still at 56%, approval at 41%.
On inflation, his disapproval is a little bit higher.
61%.
Approval, 36%.
On immigration, 53% who responded to the poll said that they disapprove of the job the president is doing.
44% say they approve on foreign policy.
54% say they disapprove of the job the president is doing.
39% say they approve.
Let's turn to some of your phone calls.
William from Tucson, Arizona, a Republican.
Concerns About Leadership00:04:10
Good morning.
Good morning, William.
What do you think?
Hey, this is exciting to be the very first one.
I've never been in this position.
Well, you're starting us off.
Thanks for calling in.
What do you believe the State of the Union is, William?
You bet.
I think the State of the Union is very, very strong.
I think it's getting better.
It's not, you know, it's not over the wall.
It's just we're having a good time out here.
I think some of the improvements are, matter of fact, just replacing the presidency, just replacing the person who's in charge.
I got to tell you, when Biden was in charge the last year, the last couple of years, I saw the state of his abilities, and I was concerned who was really running the country.
I mean, I seriously was.
I was concerned about who was in charge.
You know, the people behind him.
I know that they, on a day-to-day basis, a lot of them actually run the country, even for Trump, even for Obama.
You know, you got your people working for you.
You surround yourself with good people and you do the best you can.
But I was really concerned if we were going to get into some kind of conflict, it was just going to pop up, and who was going to be in charge?
Who was going to be calling the job?
There's no doubt in my mind who's running the country right now.
And I'm good with that.
I think the economy is on the way up.
I like the fact that the border is shut down.
We're getting the folks here who came here illegally, who came here without my permission, without the American people's permission to be here.
And you got to go.
So I'm good with the price of gas right now.
I'd like to see it come down a little bit better because I think some of the prices will come down.
I'm good paying what I am at the grocery store.
You know, I'm not a wealthy man, but the fact of the matter is that, you know, I spend and buy what I got to buy.
You know, I have bad times and good times in my life, but I think the state of America right now is in great shape.
All right.
Thanks for calling in, William.
Tyrone from New York, a Democrat.
You're next, Tyrone.
Good morning, Jasmine.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
That last caller, I'm pretty sure.
Well, I don't know if he's receiving Social Security, but I know that I'm supposed to get my first check this month for Social Security.
And my concern is that those, which Elon Musk said, that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
That's a legal department.
That's supposed to be a legal department that is being run for running our Social Security system.
And Donald Trump has said nothing about the fact that Social Security is supposed to be going in sovereign in six years, six years is no time.
So, Tyrone, I wonder if I can ask you, direct you just to our question of the morning, what you believe the state of the union is.
I understand that you have concerns about Social Security, but I wonder if you could just take a step back and say, I believe that we're in.
I believe that we're in it.
We are definitely going in shambles.
Did you see the stock market yesterday?
As they always say, the stock market is a barometer on what our economy is supposed to look like.
And the fact that we have these ICE agents running all over the place doing all this work.
You just had someone testify that the ICE agents is being poorly trained and that they've been unleashed upon our public with this carelessness about the laws and the constitution of our country.
And the fact that this man is surrounding himself with lackeys, no one that could say to him no, because if they say no, they're out.
State Of The Union Teasers00:06:54
And this is not the way our country is supposed to be run by a wannabe dictator.
I think that we are in a bad shape.
I think that we're going down the real road of self-destruction.
All right, Tyrone, there from New York.
I'm going to have to cut you off because we are turning now to our first interview of the morning with Meredith McGraw, White House reporter from Wall Street Journal.
Meredith, thanks so much for being with us this morning.
Thanks for having me.
Now, we just read a little bit about your wonderful piece from last night previewing the speech tonight.
I wonder, Meredith, what else can you tell us about the president's speech?
And do we know yet who will be attending as the guest of him and the First Lady?
Well, we know that the theme, the official theme from the White House of tonight's speech is America 250, strong, prosperous, and respected.
And we know that the White House is going to be touching on themes of the anniversary of the 250th year of founding for the U.S.
And so I think we can expect to hear the president include some historical references in his speech, but according to the White House, also talk a lot about everyday Americans and people they describe as brave heroes who have benefited from Trump's policies or are a part of his administration's efforts.
But the White House still hasn't shared who exactly those guests are.
I would expect that we find out a little bit later today who they're going to be bringing to the State of the Union, although we've already heard from many lawmakers on who their special guests plan to be at tonight's speech.
But the president overall is expected to tout the economy, to tick through some of his achievements from the past year, but also have some forward-looking policies that he presents as well.
I think we can expect some policies related to affordability.
There was one that the White House was able to preview, and that was a policy related to making tech companies help pay electricity rates in communities where there are these AI data centers.
So I think a lot on the theme of affordability, a lot talking about the legislative accomplishments from the last year, but there's still a lot that the American public wants to and needs to hear from the president, among them any information about his decision to move airstrike carriers to the Middle East, his thinking on the buildup there on the Iran negotiations and some of his foreign policy moves.
And then, of course, on DHS and ICE, where we've seen protests across the country for the president's policies there.
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what he calls on Congress to do, particularly at a moment where Congress has shown a willingness to be more resistant to some of his policies.
I wonder, though, specifically, Meredith, because you've covered the president for so long, what do you know about the way that he prepares for a speech like this?
This will not be his first by any means.
I wonder how he gets through the preparation of it and the crafting of the individual speech.
Well, the crafting of these speeches takes a long time, sometimes months.
And this year's speech was led, the crafting of it was led by Ross Worthington.
And he's a longtime speech writer for the president.
He worked for him back in the first Trump administration and is back in the White House now.
And the speech is drafted, and then a very small group of officials within the White House actually had eyes on the draft and were able to go over some of the themes and what's in it.
And we know the president himself, he's not a fan of this kind of traditional speech prep that a lot of presidents go through.
But over the weekend, I know that he was combing through the speech, making his own reviews and edits to the words on the page that then will be put into the teleprompter when he's up there on the dais for the State of the Union tonight.
But at the same time, we know that the president often speaks off the cuff.
He often veers off script.
And last year's joint address to Congress lasted well over 90 minutes.
So I can expect that tonight's speech will be very long.
And in fact, President Trump previewed as much when he was talking to reporters yesterday and said that he has a lot to talk about.
And so he expects it to be a long night.
Yeah, speaking of off the cuff, it'll be interesting to see how he addresses the Supreme Court justices who are expected to be seated in the front row of inside the Capitol.
I wonder, specifically today, though, before that speech, Meredith, the president is expected to host a traditional lunch with some members of the media.
Do we know yet who will be attending this anchor's lunch?
Well, this is an annual tradition at the White House where the president invites the anchors from major news networks to join him for lunch.
He talks about the speech, walks through some of his agenda, and gives these anchors the opportunity to ask him some questions.
I would expect that we would hear that some usual faces are there, people like ABC News' David Muir.
But at the same time, the White House has expanded the press pool that they've had there.
And so I would also imagine that we could see some leadership from perhaps some conservative outlets at the table as well.
My last question for you this morning, Meredith, is what else are you watching for tonight?
Any surprises or anything like that?
Well, I think one of the interesting things as a reporter to watch is the little interactions between the president and members of Congress as he's walking down the aisle to the podium, but also to pay attention to the reaction and responses from the lawmakers in the room who are watching him.
All eyes are going to be, of course, on the Democrats and how they respond.
But then, you know, the sort of drama that you referenced earlier of the Supreme Court justices who the president lashed out at in pretty personal terms after they overturned his tariffs, I think that will be really interesting to watch as well.
But I have my ears open for any new policy announcements, of course, and what we could expect to hear from him about what's ahead for the next year.
Grievance Speech Ahead00:15:14
Meredith Regra, who covers the White House for the Wall Street Journal, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
Thanks for having me.
And great reporting.
All right, let's turn back to some of your phone calls.
James from Tennessee, an independent.
You're next.
Good morning, James.
Interesting to watch as well.
Hi, James.
Can you hear me?
Open for any.
James, I'm going to give you one more try.
Can you hear me?
All right, Dwayne from New York, an independent.
You're next.
Good morning, Dwayne.
Good morning, Jasmine.
I believe this speech is going to be, once again, a grievance speech.
And for him to say it's going to be a long speech for me as an independent is going to just turn me completely off.
Just get to your points, get to your bullet points, and let America move on.
Because for you to say it's going to be a long speech, you're going to lose a lot of Americans because no one wants to hear grievance over and over and over.
It just gets tiring.
We don't want to hear it.
Just tell us what the state of the union is, how we're going to prosper, and that's it.
I don't need to hear any grievances.
It's tiring.
It's exhausted.
So I'm exhausted by even saying that.
But thank you for taking my call, Jasmine.
Dwayne from New York.
Roland from Detroit, an independent.
You're next.
Roland, what do you think the state of the union is?
I hope it recognizes black history and presence 24 hours, 65 days, a year.
It has, I know he won't do it, but for me, on my behalf, I would hope that he would recognize that there's been almost 10 black men found hung in trees in America.
And during Black History Month, so-called, that should be addressed.
That's my grievance that I hope he would share with the world because if it wasn't for the social media influencers, we wouldn't even have heard that Kyle Basinger was found hung in a tree in Georgia, a college student.
And he was found hung in a tree in Marietta, Georgia.
So that's my hope that Trump will, on my behalf, express my grievance that this kind of stuff is still happening.
Roland from Detroit.
Nikki from New York, an independent.
You're next.
Nikki, what do you think the State of the Union is?
Well, the State of the Union is what it is, not what someone tells me that it is.
This is the propaganda by any leader of any nation or any governor of any state is simply a propaganda statement.
Oh, wait, great, everything's going fine.
But the truth, the reality is when I walk down the street, When I see what's going on in the cities, when there's actually like 250 years ago, the reason we, the 13 colonies fought against the tyrant was tariffs, taxes.
I think that was the main issue also.
Stationing troops in the cities, in Boston, in New York.
That was a reason back then, 250 years ago, to break away from the yoke of a tyrant.
Now, 250 years later, I pray to God that we break away from this tyrant.
No matter what the speech says, no matter what he says, the venom, the cruelty, or the weary loathing that he has for everyone.
I hope and pray that people see that 250 years ago, we fought against this 13 colonies.
And now this is a cancer that has metastasized and taken over the body of America.
Thank you.
All right, that was Nikki from New York.
He mentioned in his comment, tariffs.
I want to point now to an NBC article that the headline is, Trump's global tariff takes effect at 10%, despite announcement of 15%.
The back and forth underscores the uncertainty of Trump's tariffs, which is once again causing confusion with markets, trading partners, and businesses, large and small.
If you just scroll down a little bit, it says that obviously President Trump will be giving his State of the Union in the wake now of this tariff decision from the Supreme Court.
On Friday, after the Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's tariff agenda, he announced that he would quickly implement a 10% flat tariff for all trading partners using a different trade law.
One day later, the president posted on Cho's Social that, quote, effective immediately, he would be raising the tariff.
He would be raising the 10% worldwide tariff to the fully allowed and legally tested 15% tariff.
Now they say that that 10% tariff is in place, not the 15% tariff.
But Democrats have sounded off against tariffs since that ruling came down.
Take a listen here to Senate minority leader, excuse me, Chuck Schumer, talk about whether or not Democrats would be on board with extending any type of tariffs in the future.
Americans are suffering because Donald Trump is raising tariffs.
People pay more for so many daily goods, so many groceries, for cars, for homes, for everything.
And the American people hate the tariffs because they know it's raising their costs.
And so, for a brief moment, there was a sigh of relief that you heard from one end of America to the other because the Supreme Court correctly said the president can't raise tariffs on emergency basis.
Only the Congress can.
But Donald Trump, who is in a bubble, has no understanding of what the American people need, feel, or want, reimposed the tariffs right away, and then he one-upped it, doubled down on it, and raised them again.
And now Americans are back in the same position they were before the court decision.
Higher prices, more inflation, Harder to afford things, harder to pay the bills.
And a good chunk of that increase, the difficulty in paying the bills is because of Trump's tariffs.
Democrats will not stand for it.
And in fact, the new tariff regime that Trump put in must expire in a few months and needs Congress's approval.
I am here to tell Donald Trump and the American people we will not extend those tariffs and they will expire in a few months.
That was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer registering Democrats thinking that they would block any legislative attempts to continue the tariffs when they expire under Section 122 over the summer.
Turning now back to some of your phone calls.
James from Tennessee, an independent.
You're next.
Good morning, James.
Good morning.
What do you believe the state of the union is?
Well, the state of the union is not good.
I go to the store, confident we're up to $20, and you tell me things are going down.
You know, they're not.
Trump wants to beat Kim Jong-un so bad and poo, he doesn't know what to do with himself.
He just cried, cried, cry.
He needs to bring him a bottle and a palp over to get to the state of the union tonight.
Thank you.
Mia from Virginia, a Democrat.
What is the State of the Union, Mia?
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'm glad I have the privilege to come on.
I believe that we need to stop the con artists from conning.
And I'm not going to have a lot to say because I think this whole thing is ridiculous.
And I just want to say that we need to stop this country as a whole acting like an abused husband or abused wife.
Obviously, a lot of folks in this country have been abused.
But right now, it's time to stop.
This has been going on for too long.
You have a good day.
Bye.
That was Mia from Alexandria, Terry from Canton, North Carolina, a Republican.
You're next.
Good morning, Terry.
Good morning.
Good morning, C-SPAN.
Good morning.
I've kind of got some contradictions to some of the earlier callers on tariffs and taxes.
Can I first ask you before you get into those contradictions, just a general answer to the question of what do you believe the state of the union is?
Yeah, well, I mean, this is going right to what should be said tonight.
Trump's being accused of raising taxes with tariffs, but all we've got to do is look at the new governor of Virginia or the mayor of New York City, which have the governor of Virginia has quadrupled energy prices.
Electricity bills have went from $200 to $600 and $800.
Mondani up there just right now said he's going to implement taxes on the working class of this country, which the working class of this country, the Democrats, have took their taxes and gave to somebody from another country for years.
That's why we're in the situation we're in right now.
As in for prices, look at beef prices.
Look at eggs.
The Biden administration tried to starve out the food population in this country.
They killed hundreds of thousands of chickens, and we're doing the same thing to the cattle industry.
I mean, you can look that up for sure.
Okay, anything else about the state of the union, Terry?
No, yeah, one more thing.
Okay.
Mr. President, we love you.
Keep going.
USA.
Daria from North Carolina.
Diana from Illinois and Independent.
You're next.
Diana, what is the state of the union?
Good morning.
Good morning.
The state of the union is dismal.
It's dismal because we were founded on three branches of government, and one is supposed to check the other.
And what's happening with our representatives, which I'm sad to say, is that they want to be reactionary instead of operating in the legislative branch and putting a check on the executive branch.
All they do is reaction.
And in fact, you know, even I'm not a fan of the president.
I would never call him by his first name because he was duly elected as the president.
He wasn't my choice, but he was duly elected.
So Senator Schumer was just on there saying, calling him by his first name.
You know, please, let's show some respect.
Even though you may disagree with the person, let's show some respect and let's put the into policy or into information, return to the check and balance system.
The legislature, they said legislation is supposed to check the executive, not have all this reactionary negativity.
And I'm really tired of it.
So my state of the union is, at the present time, it is dismal.
All right, Diana from Rockford, Illinois.
And I want to invite more of our viewers to join in on the conversation.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
Catherine from Boston and Independent.
You're next.
Good morning, Catherine.
Good morning.
How are you?
I'm doing well.
How are you?
Great to talk to you guys.
All right.
What's the state of the union for you, Catherine?
We don't have one.
We do not have one anymore.
It's been gone for over a year.
You know, this country, my understanding was we came here to be free, to practice our religion, to practice, you know, your own beliefs.
And now it's, you know, the Republicans are insane.
The Democrats are demonic.
And, you know, it's just, it's insanity.
I'm a human being just like a Republican or a Democrat.
I worry about my kids, my home.
It's freezing this winter.
We are struggling with heat.
I'd like to know where the cheap food is.
I no longer drive.
It's too expensive.
And quite frankly, the divisiveness of our country right now, you cannot possibly call it a union.
It's just the exact opposite of the word.
And I just don't know how to get out of this.
It's really depressing.
It's tiring day after day to hear these things on the news.
And in reality, people, if it's not in the Constitution, if it is against the law, it's against the law for the president as well.
And it's just, I was born in Boston on the 4th of July.
Greatest birthday to have.
And this past year, on my birthday, when I got up, there was no putting the flag outside.
And there won't be one again this year because the United States of America is no longer in existence.
Catherine from Boston.
Wesley from Georgia, a Republican.
You're next.
Good morning, Wesley.
What is the State of the Union for you?
For me, the State of the Union is good because I'm single and I do the same thing every day of my life.
So it's good to me.
State Of The Union Divides00:07:01
But the problem is when you let millions of people in our country and you give them free food, free hotels in New York, all this stuff, I mean, real estate goes out the roof.
There's no end inside of it.
No creation.
Donald Trump businessman is doing more for this country than anybody.
Thank you.
Wesley from Georgia.
Joe from North Carolina, an independent.
You're next.
Good morning, Joe.
What is the State of the Union to you?
Well, the State of the Union to me is just it's going to be a bunch of lies, and it ain't all about it's Democrat and Republican, and it's just ridiculous.
The two parties is just like two games.
Which game do you want to be a part of?
It's crazy.
To me, the state of the Union is going to be a bunch of lies, just a mess.
That's all I want to say, huh?
Joe from North Carolina.
Judy from Tennessee, a Republican.
Good morning, Judy.
What is the State of the Union?
Good morning.
Good morning.
Well, oddly, nobody seems to know what it really is, and it's kind of disheartening.
It's actually when the president talks to Congress to let him know what he plans on achieving for this year and to also talk about all of the other achievements.
And I'm glad this is an opportunity for America to see what has actually been done for America without any media output.
And that's what the State of the Union is.
Okay, so that was a speech.
I wonder if you have thoughts about how the country is doing.
The country is doing very good, and it depends on your state.
The reality is the government, federal government, can only do so much.
It is your state leaders that decide what is done to your state, and especially when it comes to energy.
And the Secretary of Energy did a really good job a couple weeks ago breaking it down that a lot of these states won't allow gas to be, you know, gas lines to be coming into their state.
They're all using solar or wind, and it doesn't work in the winter.
So I feel he's doing a very, very good job.
We've done a lot of things.
His cabinet is working all the time.
And again, they show it live, but not all the channels cover it.
So you have to be watching the right channel to see what his cabinet is even up to.
This is the most transparent presidency.
All right, Judy from Tennessee.
And just a programming note: that live coverage for tonight's State of the Union begins here on C-SPAN at 7 p.m.
And we hope that you tune in.
Michelle from Texas, a Democrat.
You're next.
What is the State of the Union to you?
Oh, my goodness.
The State of the Union itself is, It depends on who you are, what your economic status was a couple of years ago as to whether or not it's a great State of the Union or whether or not you're struggling to survive.
I find that disturbing.
The State of the Union is the leadership is increasingly less and less charitable.
Their decisions are less and less Christian if you're going by those principles, much less any other religion's principles.
And then just in general, from like a political foreign policy sort of point of view, my son's a third generation U.S. Army sergeant, and all of them did combat tours.
I'm having a real problem with a five-time draft Dodger, third-generation draft Dodger, making decisions about soldiers like they were cannon fodder and tools.
The priorities here are just completely upside down.
All right, Michelle from Texas.
Robert from Tennessee at Independent.
You are next.
Robert, good morning.
What is the State of the Union to you?
The State of the Union is pretty good only because of our founding fathers and the system that's been set up and the union of the states and the tradition of the local governments and the 250-year tradition of the American people.
However, the current regime has diverted from the greatness of America in the sense that once in power, there is an attempt to bring people together.
And this regime, followed by the Congress, is governing on fear and division.
And this is a divergence from the tradition in the United States.
So the State of the Union, in that sense, is this president fails because people sense this divisive tactic.
And also, the continued dehumanization in foreign policy of the other is driving our potential foreign policy decisions based on an illusion and not on reality.
So, you know, we really have to watch out for Bush II, the third.
H.W. Bush was a good president, but we have to watch out for this regime making terrible foreign policy decisions when something seems like a threat, but it's not a threat, and then we get into a swamp.
Robert from Tennessee, Deborah from New Hampshire, a Republican.
Good morning, Deborah.
What is the State of the Union to you?
Good morning.
The State of the Union is tremendous.
State Of The Union Is Tremendous00:03:23
I can't possibly be any more proud of this president than I am.
He has withstood so much negativity.
90-something percent negativity from the news medias.
I don't even call them news medias.
It's just the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
And people are not getting the message.
What I saw yesterday, he had a program yesterday for the children that have been killed by illegal family.
Angel families.
Yes, the angel family.
Thank you.
I was so impressed.
And anyone that cannot see the love and total respect for this country that this man has put on, it's just incredible.
It's incredible.
And go, Trump.
You know, I am 100% behind this man.
I would walk through hell with this man.
All right, Deborah, let me now turn to what you just referenced, the president with Lake and Riley's mother at the White House yesterday for that Angel Families event.
Take a listen.
I'm beyond blessed and thankful that you're honoring not just Lacan because she's one a ton of people that have suffered at the hands of illegal immigrants.
She's not the only one.
And so thank you for honoring all of them, not just Lacan.
And we're just beyond grateful.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
It's amazing, Alison.
You have to go through this.
Doesn't get that much easier, does it?
Right?
Even with time.
It's been a while now, and it doesn't get that much easier.
But I want to thank you for your incredible courage.
We're all courageous, in a sense.
Everybody in this room is courageous.
And we're willing to tell the story.
And I don't know why the news doesn't want to hear it.
The Democrats don't want to hear it.
The radical left, they don't want to hear it.
What's not to hear?
We want to stop murderers and criminals from coming into our country.
I watched the mayor of Minneapolis.
I watched these people saying, we want to protect murderers.
I don't get it.
Something's sick.
They're sick.
Can't have a country like that.
So we appreciate the bravery of everybody in this room, actually.
And Christy, I want to thank you, and I want to thank Tom in particular for we have a border that's 100% closed now.
That was President Trump yesterday after he signed a proclamation designating Monday National Angel Family Day, standing at the beginning of that clip with Lincoln Riley's mother.
Ernest from Savannah, Georgia, a Democrat.
You're next.
Good morning, Ernest.
What is the state of the Union to you?
Getting worse every day because we got a problem.
Border Crossings Discussed00:09:41
The right-wing Republicans and some of these fake independents, which are weak Democrats and weak Republicans that formed the independence, they control everything.
Look how many right-wing stations there are.
They control the radio.
They control the TV.
And all they do, it's a bunch of lies and the lies that tell them.
You know why we got an immigration problem?
Because the Republican Party was hiring these people and continue to hire these people.
Go look at the people that hired a man that killed Lincoln Riley.
They vote Republicans.
We can't even find a job because the last few years, these Republicans keep hiding these people.
And they skip and they lie.
And guess what?
The FCC need to be an independent organization so we can stop right-wing media, right-wing radio, and these ignorant people that come on T-Space.
This is ridiculous.
You can say how they sound.
That was Ernest from Savannah, Georgia.
Alicia from Maryland, an independent.
You're next.
Good morning, Alicia.
What is a state of the union to you?
Good morning, Jasmine.
It's Elisha, but that's a good question.
Elisha, okay.
Oh, I've never heard that name before.
Nice.
Elisha.
Yeah, it's a unique one.
Okay.
So divided is, is how I'd say it in one word.
Just like hearing this program, which I appreciate this because I'd rather hear what people think the state of the union is rather than really like the most dishonest president I think we've ever had.
There's like, you know, there's people that are really pro-Trump on here and really anti-Trump.
People think either somebody just said America is no longer here.
I think that's really dramatic.
And then people are like, oh, everything's great because they believe what President Trump is saying.
I think his state of the union is going to be a bunch of nonsense.
So, yeah, I appreciate this program y'all are doing.
Elisha from Maryland.
Now, let's turn to some messages that we've received on social media, text message from some folks who have already sent in some responses to our question, what is a state of the union.
Kelly Fountain on Facebook, she says better to be strong with Trump than to be weak with Joe Biden, true fact.
Kathy from Iowa says the state of the union is verging on authoritarianism.
We no longer have an independent DOJ.
We have a president who appears to be enriching himself on the backs of taxpayers, and we have a secret military funded and armed to the teeth, quote, policing our city streets.
Barbara, an independent in Massachusetts, says, I will not be watching.
How many times will he complain about the 2020 election?
How many times will he call the radical left are the enemy of the country, etc.?
It will only be a winer's fest without the cheese.
Calvin Cook says a house divided is not strong.
The demonizing of either side by the other is exhibit A. Celtic Tree Rodent says not perfect, but Trump is trying to move us in the right direction with his closing the border, shrinking government, and working to bring manufacturers back to the United States.
Maverick says the state of the union is weaker than it has been ever been in my lifetime.
No one believes the court system, and Trump is putting his thumb on the scale of the market and governing through court challenges is the worst time I've ever seen.
Just a couple more of these.
Clifton Moore says the union is strong.
Hopefully it will stay that way.
Deb Clock says it's terrible.
Tariff raising prices, the felon lying, hidden Epstein files, abducting people, lying about widespread voter fraud.
Tom Peterson says it's never been less unified.
There's no sense of shared direction or purpose.
People are at each other's throats.
Our allies have turned away from us.
Trump doesn't care as long as he's a center of attention.
Last one I'll read here is, hey, Jasmine, the state of the union is great in red states.
GDP has doubled.
IRAs and 401ks have gained 35%.
Mortgage rates are down by three points.
And inflation is down to 1.5% month over month.
And the BBB, I think referring to the president's one big beautiful bill that they signed in law last summer, hasn't even kicked in yet.
Guy in Oklahoma.
Clay from West Alexander, Pennsylvania, a Republican.
You are next.
Good morning, Clay.
Good morning.
What is the State of the Union to you, Clay?
I think it's pretty good, but I think I just believe that we should all be working together.
The government should be working for us.
Not all these other cultures and stuff.
I think they just need to charge themselves with America first.
And I think the Said Eat is going pretty good.
Thank you.
Clay from Pennsylvania.
Charles from Michigan, a Democrat.
You're next.
Good morning, Charles.
What is the State of the Union to you?
Good morning.
I think we are very divided right now because it depends on what you believe or whom you believe.
A lot of people are saying that Trump closed the border.
What has actually taken place is that right-wing radio, internet, and television have stopped broadcasting to the world that our southern border is open.
That brings people to the border.
And then when the Democrat in the White House responds to the humanitarian crisis caused by our media, when he responds to it, he gets fault by both sides will attack that Democratic president for his humanitarian response to the women and children at that border.
They haven't closed the border.
There's more crossings now than there were during Biden.
And Obama deported more people than Trump ever will.
Well, I don't actually think that that is true, according to various, that there are more crossings now than there were under Biden.
I think that if we go to, and this is a dated article, but I will have, hopefully my producers can find a more up-to-date one.
Illegal bording crossings hit decades low under Trump.
This Axios article from July 2025.
And that trend has continued since this was published.
And that illegal border crossings have been at decades low for months and months and months.
So crossings are not.
Please answer that.
Sure, go ahead.
That is because these people know that if they bring their children to this country, they'll be separated from them.
And what's going on in this country with children, nobody wants to risk having their children in the hands of Americans at this point.
It has a lot to do with what you believe.
And I don't believe that any of if anyone can dispute that right-wing radio and internet and television, call these people to our southern border.
I'd like to hear that.
Is there any articles to that effect?
Because there's nobody saying open borders, open borders.
They do it because it brings people to the border.
They cause that problem every time there's a Democrat in the White House.
Barack Obama was playing chess, and he was deporting those people so much so that the left was calling him the deporter-in-chief.
It all depends on what you believe.
The last caller was having a hard time breathing.
I've been talking to the NIH and the CDC and the WHO about how we hydrate.
There are hidden physiologic processes in the way we drink water.
When we drink from our hands, there's no scientific explanation or description of that process.
And that is how we protect our respiratory health and our digestive health.
Head-forward hydration is what you need to be into for healthy people.
This applies to everybody on this planet.
Head-forward hydration is the key.
And thank you very much for letting me get that out.
All right, Charles from Michigan.
I just want to point to some more recent statistics here from Pew Research that was published February 2nd, 2026.
This year.
The headline here is: Migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border are their lowest level in more than 50 years.
The U.S. Border Patrol encounters with migrants.
Migrants crossing into the United States from Mexico have fallen to their lowest levels in 50 years, according to Peer Research Center analysis of statistics.
And it says the Border Patrol recorded 200,037 encounters with migrants at the U.S. border in the 2025 fiscal year, which began in October 2024, ended in September 2025.
That was down from the more than 1.5 million encounters in fiscal year 2024, more than 2 million in fiscal year 2023, and a record more than 2.2 million in fiscal year 2022.
The 2025 total was the lowest in any fiscal year since 1970, according to historical data from the Border Patrol.
And of course, we know that the president, the current president, President Trump, took office in January of 2025 on the platform that he would close the border and reduce some of these illegal encounters.
Cyrus Critiques Government Spending00:03:30
Cyrus from Indiana, Independent.
You're next, Cyrus.
What's the September Union team?
Good morning, Jasmine.
Can you hear me all right?
I sure can.
Good morning, Cyrus.
Oh, good morning, everybody.
Good morning, Jasmine.
Thank you for taking my call today.
Treasure call in to cease then.
It's been a while.
I'm a little bit nervous, but I'm trying to get this out.
I think the state of the union is the worst I've known it in my lifetime.
I'm close to 60 years old, and I've never seen anything like what we have going on right now.
I don't hold the Democrats harmless in that.
I think they have a role to play.
But the Trump administration has been the worst thing for our country.
The president himself has said multiple times that he hates people that don't agree with him.
He hates his political opposition.
This is just part of American government that we have at least a two-party system.
And the thought of a one-party rule, that would be a calamity.
And we have a president now that is suing us for $10 billion because his tax records were disclosed to the people.
He's giving himself $10 billion to the Board of Peace.
He doesn't have the right to spend $10 billion.
Only the Congress, I think most of the callers are aware of that, or people listening to C-SPAN, know that the president doesn't have the right to give $10 billion to a Board of Peace that only he controls.
And then the money that was sold from the first oil tanker from Venezuela is sitting in an account in another country.
I'm sorry, it's escaping me right now.
I can't think of the country with that oil.
The money didn't go to the, you know, to hold in the United States.
Same account that he controls somewhere.
Well, you're talking about the 50 million barrels that Venezuela sold to the U.S.
Yeah, it's in an account in Qatar.
Now, the money from the sale of that oil tanker.
So we have no way Donald Trump's in control of that money from that oil sale.
And then, you know, just the hate that's continuously spewed out of these people, the racism.
I'm sorry to have to say that.
I know it's a charged word, but there's been so many things like taking slavery stuff down off of George Washington's home in Philadelphia.
Thank goodness he was allowed to put that up.
Putting flax stuff on the White House that degraded former presidents and say silly things.
State Of The Union Is Horrendous00:10:30
I mean, it's childish.
It's childlike.
The state of the union is horrendous.
And I hope and pray that we can get back to something that I, you know, that I remember from, you know, more than 10 years ago.
All right, Cyrus from Indiana.
Joe from Tampa, Florida, a Republican.
Good morning, Joe.
Good morning, Joe.
You're looking good as usual.
Listen.
The State of the Union is great.
The State of the Union is great.
Forget Democrat, forget Republican.
Get up one morning, just look yourself in the mirror and say, what's going on here?
Kit to people of both sides and say to yourself, what's the common sense beside this thing?
What are we looking at?
Why are all the problems we're having in the country?
Joe, can I ask you to do me a favor quickly, but I'll let you continue.
Can you mute your TV for me?
Joe from Tampa, Florida, a Republican.
How's that?
All right, go ahead.
That's perfect.
Why are all the problems we're having in the country with Democratic states?
All the problems with the Democratic.
This guy from New York, he's requiring five forms of identification to pay somebody for picking up the snow shovel and shovel snow.
Nobody was out there yesterday getting it.
And yet he votes against wanting ID cards to vote.
What in the world is wrong with this guy?
Joe, can I ask you to do me a favor quickly, then I'll let me continue.
All right.
So, sweetheart.
All right.
That was Joe from Tampa, Florida.
Karen from Maine, a Democrat.
You're next.
Good morning, Karen.
What's a State of the Union to you?
Good morning.
Good morning.
It's nice to talk to you.
I think the State of the Union is really going to be a mess.
I mean, Trump has put us into everything, and I'm afraid we're going to have another war, and we're going to end up in the toilet.
I think it's ridiculous that all these people are kissing him and doing everything he says, and there's no one that would stick up for us to tell him we should not be doing this.
I'm very disgusted, and I never watch a State of Reunion with him in it because he's just going to make it a big, big, lousy joke.
He's going to lie.
He's going to, you know, introduce different people.
And I think that's just terrible.
I do not like it.
I wish we would have a good president with a good mind and good sensibility to control the world.
And that's all I have to say.
Karen from Maine.
Rod from South Carolina, an independent.
Good morning, Rod.
What is your State of the Union?
Or what is a State of the Union to you?
Well, I can't believe so many people have elected a president of the United States who so clearly disregards the construction of the Constitution and the intention of the Constitution and believes that he is the supreme power In the government,
that he alone is responsible for the construction of policy and the organization of what the government's do.
Look at the people that his first acts were to take people out of prison who came at his call and beckoned call to, you know, keep him in power at the end of his last term.
And somehow people thought that was right and put him back in power, it boggles my mind.
He's disrupted and dismantled the entire government.
He's torn down half the one wing of the White House and without any kind of consultation.
And then he fired the people that told him that was a good place to start with renovating it.
Nobody asked him to renovate it.
He seems to think people wanted him to do it, but he didn't ask anybody.
This whole thing with ICE is monstrous.
Massed people coming to people's homes and taking them away is diabolical.
And yet, people think that it's right.
All right, last word here, Rod.
Anything else about the state of the union?
Well, what's he going to say to us about it?
He's going to tell it like we're doing him wrong.
You know, Miss Lorkin, it was a cruel thing that was done to her.
And I understand, you know, giving her honor.
But this whole thing about, you know, that nobody cares, that he claims that nobody cares, that Democrats don't care, is just a falsehood.
And it's the kind of falsehoods that he breathed his entire belief system in other people, tries to translate to other people, transmit to other people.
And he thinks that he controls people's thoughts with that.
Well, it's just not true.
All right, Rod from South Carolina.
Eric from Columbus, Georgia, a Republican.
Excuse me.
Eric, Bourney, what does it say of the union to you?
The state of the union is fine to me.
However, I don't think it's fair to ask people.
There are people that just hate the man.
They just hate the man.
He said, he could find a cure for AIDS.
They will still hate the man.
Okay.
These states that are, or these places that are fighting against ICE, have you noticed?
It's just those sanctuary cities.
There's other cities, this stuff's not going on.
I'm going to read this to you, okay, because I get so sick and tired.
So sick and tired of people bringing up January 6th.
The media has on purpose whitewashed, tried to whitewash the people's minds and make them forget about January 20, 2017.
Remember, that they attacked the White House.
They burned that church down.
Trump had to be put into a bunker.
They attacked, and he was democratically voted in.
They attacked, that was an attack on democracy.
Real policemen got hurt and people got killed.
They're making the people forget about that, you see.
The man has to rule now because of a weak president.
He has to rule with an iron hand.
A man said some time back on your show, oh, the people are still hoarding the border.
And you did right.
You corrected him.
He should have been corrected.
We're having issues.
And then, you know, for people, for law enforcement, to say that they're not going to hold these people price.
And the people that are picking up are the people that have done things in those communities.
And the politicians want to release those people right back into the communities.
That tells you right there who's really for America.
Okay.
The man's not racist.
He's trying to do what's right.
I guess, and you know, and I hate, and I hate that every time, I'm a black guy.
Every time a black guy has something to say about it, I'm either a coon or I am somehow brainwashed.
And I live here in America, and I don't live, I live in a Republican-run state.
It's fine and peaceful.
It's fine and peaceful.
Hey, thank you for your time.
Eric from Georgia.
Olympia from the Bronx and Independent.
Olympia, good morning.
What's the State of the Union to you?
Good morning to you.
Thank you for taking my call.
The State of the Union is not a union at this point.
I would say that between the Congress, especially the right wing and of our Congress, is relinquishing their power to this president to allow him to do whatever he wants to do.
The dismantling of all the governmental agencies that help the citizens of this country so that private equity can take over hurts the union.
I would say that this phony baloney show with the angel families he puts on also does a disservice to the morality of the country because we all know he was involved with the Epstein ring and the island and all the things that continue to happen to young people being trafficked and sexually abused and other things in this country and around the world.
So I think that our State of the Union is no longer a union and they're intentionally dissolving because he's creating his own agencies that allow him to have control of the finances.
And we know he's the face of bigger and more sinister things.
But I think that none of that does any good for the people of this country.
And so the state of the union is frankly a mess at this time.
Olympia from the Bronx, Donald from California and Independent.
Donald, you're our last caller for this section.
So I'll ask you to end it for us.
What do you believe the State of the Union is?
What is it to you?
To me, in my 65 years, well, actually, since Shakespeare's five years old.
But anyways, it's something for the people to listen to.
State Of The Union Mess00:15:45
And the numbers don't lie.
And we're doing pretty good on the dollars.
I've noticed a whole lot that he's doing with borders.
It's about time.
My great-grandpa did the outer ground, came U.S. by Jordan Armed Forces.
He did it.
I don't know why these people are getting upset of him cleaning up the illegals here.
They're killing our children with drugs and gangs and shootings.
And I don't understand.
You know, we spend a lot of money, and you can't put money on a child's life or anybody's life.
I just, I think it's, we're going in the right direction.
Hopefully we don't go back, you know, years ago when we didn't end up pulling the whole other country's money.
A little bit of pieces of advice.
By the way, I was a carpenter and I was with you then cutting our trees out shipping to other countries and making people buy them back.
All right, Donald, we're coming up on time here.
Thank you for calling in this morning.
Later, it's been four years since Russian forces invaded Ukraine.
Quincy Institute's George Beebe joins us later to give an assessment on the ongoing conflict.
But first, Ronald Reagan Institute's Tevi Troy discusses the historical and rhetorical importance of tonight's State of the Union speech.
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new MAGA 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.
Members of the United States Congress, thank you very much.
And to my fellow citizens, America is back.
Watch C-SPAN live today as President Donald Trump delivers the annual State of the Union Address before a joint session of Congress.
Our coverage begins at 7 p.m. Eastern with a preview of the evening from political reporters.
Then, at 9, the president's address, followed by the Democratic response given by Virginia Governor Abigail Spanbergson.
We'll also take your calls and bring you reaction from lawmakers.
Over on C-SPAN 2, experience the moments leading up to the speech and the address itself as if you're there, uninterrupted.
No commentary with unfiltered sights and sounds.
The State of the Union Address, live today, with coverage beginning at 7 p.m. Eastern on the C-SPAN Networks.
C-SPAN, bringing you democracy unfiltered.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to the program.
Joining us this morning to talk about the historical significance and rhetorical significance of tonight's State of the Union is Tevi Troy, presidential historian and senior fellow at the Ronald Reagan Institute.
Good morning.
Hi, thanks for having me.
Thanks for being here.
All right, let's dive right in.
I want to ask you first, what is the Ronald Reagan Institute and how is it funded?
Oh, it's a great question.
The Ronald Reagan Institute is a think tank.
It is part of the overall Ronald Reagan Foundation Library, which is in California.
But Ronald Reagan Institute has an office here right near the White House on 16th Street.
And it looks at the presidency of Ronald Reagan and has conferences, including the Reagan National Defense Forum, Reagan National Economic Forum, and they discuss how the legacy of Reagan is still relevant today.
They brought me on as a presidential historian who talks about all presidents, not just Reagan, but to highlight the importance of the presidency in our country and our system and today's polity.
Now, of course, you're a presidential historian, but I just want to give our viewers just some of kind of your rap sheet here.
You were Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services for George W. Bush in 2007.
You were deputy assistant and then acting assistant for the president for George W. Bush.
Again, policy director for Senator John Ashcroft.
So you are a perfect person to talk about the significance of what folks are expecting to see tonight as President Trump gives his first Day of the Union since going back to office.
Let's start with some of the semantics in the process.
Can you talk to us about what being a part of the process of writing a State of the Union is like?
What does it entail?
And what was your experience?
Sure.
Well, when I was at the White House, I worked on multiple states of the Union.
It is a very long process.
It starts in the fall and really gears up in December.
And when everybody else is going to Christmas parties, the White House aides are working harder than ever trying to prepare what's going to be in the State of the Union.
The agencies come in and brief on their ideas, and those ideas go through the kind of White House maw.
People say this is a good one, this is not a good one.
And then sometimes the president is also working on kind of a big kind of shoot to Mars type idea.
Those often come from within the White House, usually in a somewhat secretive group, not secretive in a negative way, but they're trying to maintain a surprise for what the idea is.
So it's a combination.
They often call the State of the Union a laundry list.
So it's a combination of some of the best ideas that the agencies are working on, plus some new ideas that are percolating out of the White House, and they present them all.
And the State of the Union, obviously, the speechwriters try and take this laundry list is what it's often called, and they try and make it something rhetorically coherent, which is a difficult thing to do.
And that's why people often criticize the rhetorical nature of the State of the Union address.
They say it kind of sounds listy, which it often is.
But that's what it is.
So it's a combination of policy input going through the White House speechwriting machine.
We spoke earlier with Wall Street Journal's Meredith McGraw, who said that the president has kind of eschewed more of a traditional speech prep process.
I wonder if you could walk us through President Bush's speech process.
How does he get prepared for a big speech like that?
That's an interesting question, because they did talk in that journal article about Trump's process, how he doesn't read the whole thing.
He doesn't like reading speeches out loud.
And he ad libs more than any other president that I can think of.
Look, George W. Bush was, I guess, a more traditional type in terms of he wanted the speech in advance.
He would read through the speech.
He would make significant notes on the speech and tell the speechwriters, hey, I want this different, I want that different.
But he would also practice the speech.
And I think that's the more traditional thing.
You know, it actually helped to practice these things.
Bill Clinton practiced one of his speeches.
And then when the teleprompter didn't load the correct speech, he knew the speech well enough that he could start until they fixed the teleprompter problem.
So he did it from memory.
That's fascinating.
Now, this will be President Trump's first State of the Union since his second term.
Technically, the speech that we saw last year was adjust to Congress because, say, the union happens a second year in office.
What do you believe that he has to accomplish tonight?
Yeah, it's a good question.
You know, the last time he gave a State of the Union, he said the best is yet to come.
And that was six years ago.
And think about what's happened in those six years.
I mean, we've had COVID, and we've had Ukraine, and we've had the Hamas War, and we've had the AI explosion.
The Dow was at something like 30,000 then, and now it's almost 50,000.
So, you know, it was ups and downs, goods and bads.
But a lot has happened in the six years.
It's like we packed a whole decade into six years, maybe more than a decade.
And so I think Trump is looking at three possible things.
Number one is the speech is supposed to be about America at 250.
The semi-sesquicentennial, the 250th anniversary, is a great opportunity to highlight America.
I remember the patriotic surge at the bicentennial back in 1976.
I was a small boy, but people were very excited about it.
And then there's also this looming conflict with Iran, and a lot of commentators have said he's not fully explaining what his goals are, what he's trying to accomplish.
of massive armada there.
What is the goal?
What are we trying to get out of this?
So that is something that has to happen.
And then also there is a setback in the Supreme Court on tariffs.
And presumably he's going to make some comments on that.
So it's a combination of the obvious every year you have to tell what you're up to and what your goals are for the year.
The celebration of America at 250.
He'll have the Olympic hockey team as part of that.
That's going to be exciting and different.
And then you also have these two other things of the potential Iran conflict and the Iran negotiations and then the Supreme Court tariff setback.
I wonder, because something that I talked about with Meredith is that the Supreme Court justices are likely to be in the crowd.
Obviously, they handed that major rebuke to the president on Friday over his use of emergency tariffs.
How unique is that?
Have there been moments in the past in which presidents have addressed the Supreme Court after a ruling that they didn't like?
Oh yeah, the most famous one I would say is 2010 when Obama was critical of the Supreme Court over Citizens United and described it in a way that was not actually accurate.
And he was actually rebuked by some journalists afterwards that he didn't explain it accurately.
But Sam Alito, Justice Alito, was in the audience at the time and he mouthed.
He didn't say it out loud.
He mouthed not true.
But the cameras picked it up and liberators figured out what he was saying.
And that became a huge kerfuffle.
And Alito has chosen not to go to the States of the Union since then.
You mentioned the Supreme Court justices will be there.
It'll be a subset of the Supreme Court justices because some of them just choose not to come.
Justice Scalia, when he was alive, he chose not to go to a state of union.
He didn't think it was the right thing to do.
But Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, for example, goes every year.
And as an institutionalist, that doesn't surprise me.
That's kind of the way he goes about things.
So some of the justices will be there.
But I think after the Alito moment, they all know to sit impassively, not to clap, not to stand up, not to boo, not to mouth anything, and they will just be sitting there while all the other spectacle happens around them.
Now, I want to turn to more questions in a second.
But I want to invite our viewers to join in on the conversation.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line?
202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
Start calling in to join the conversation.
Now, I want to ask, to what degree do you expect major new policy initiatives to be introduced during this speech?
Obviously, it has happened in past speeches, but the president is facing a pretty slim margin, at least on the House side, when it comes to Republicans being in power.
Look, there is no better opportunity for a president to lay out what he wants to do and have multiple millions of people.
So you're going to have probably 30-something million people listening to this speech.
It's not as many as the 60-odd million that used to listen to a Bill Clinton speech.
But it's an opportunity to sell new policies.
So every president sees this as an opportunity to put out their best policy ideas.
You'll never have a chance to highlight it to more people.
And then the White House often has a very complicated rollout plan for each one of the policies, even the ones that don't make the headlines in the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, where they're going to go to the different constituent groups and the interest groups and say, hey, this is what we're trying to do.
This got real estate.
This got mentioned in the State of the Union.
That's a big deal.
So there will be a whole bunch of new policies.
Some of them will be barely mentioned in the press tomorrow.
They'll be seen as throwaways.
But the fact that you got mentioned in the State of the Union is a big deal as a potential new policy.
Now, how often are those policies that are laid out in the State of the Union taken up seriously by Congress?
I mean, obviously, that is the hope of the president, that they can put something, a call to action for Congress, even though maybe many will say that their actual audience is the American people.
How often do these kind of list wishes become actual legislation?
Yeah, they're all pursued.
Not all of them make it.
I mean, I think George W. Bush talked a lot about his Social Security plan.
That didn't happen.
But he did talk about his PEPFAR plan, which was the emergency AIDS relief in Africa and other nations affected by the HIV AIDS crisis.
And that did happen.
So these things, you have a higher chance of becoming actual policy if you're mentioned in the State of the Union than if you're not.
That's how I'll put it that way.
Now, some Democrats plan to, as they have done for years and years, sit in the chamber and bring guests that show their opposition to the president's agenda.
Others now attend to, or plan to attend one of two protest events scheduled around the speech.
How typical is this type of protest for it to happen outside of Congress in a big moment like this?
Well, I don't understand the point of it because all the cameras are here in Congress.
So doing it outside, I don't know how much of an impact that has.
I mean, everything is lesser than.
So, for example, the response to the State Union is often seen as something that's lesser than, and a lot of the respondents have not done so well.
But in general, my thought is that the people who kind of do performative things in the chamber, it doesn't usually reflect well on them.
Joe Wilson, for example, when he yelled out, you lie at President Obama, it just wasn't a good moment, and he's sort of done penance ever since then.
So I think that the best thing to do is to be respectful.
But when you have your opportunity, you're obviously a member of Congress and you have a chance to go on TV shows or say stuff in the media, that's when you should make your disagreement known.
But making a spectacle in the chamber, I think, usually makes you look lesser rather than greater.
Yeah, obviously there was that moment last year at his address in which Representative Al Green got up in the middle of the aisle and showed his opposition, leading to this year, Democrats saying, you know, if you want to protest, do so outside, but we want to stay united.
What do you think that type of strategy is?
How does the opposition party inside of the chamber show seriously to the American people that they are in opposition?
Yeah, and I think Leader Jeffries on the Democratic side has been very smart to tell his members not to do this kind of performative spectacle.
Look, sometimes you see women legislators wearing the, you know, doing the ladies in white kind of thing to say, hey, we oppose or we're supportive of a certain thing.
People can wear something or stand at certain moments, but it really is the president's moment, right?
Whether you like the president or not, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, it's the president's moment.
It's kind of like if you go to a comedy club, nobody remembers the heckler.
People remember the comedian and what the comedian said to put down the heckler.
Joe Biden, for example, wasn't known for his rhetorical gifts, shall we say, but I thought he did pretty well pushing back against members who shouted at him.
It's just not the right moment for the audience people to stand up.
President's Moment Matters00:15:17
The president has the mic.
The president has the lights on him.
The president has the spotlight.
And it's really the president's moment to shine.
And anybody else who's trying to get in the way, again, usually looks worse as a result.
One more question before we take some phone calls.
But I turn to this union bulletin article.
The headline is, how will Trump use his State of the Union to address, a State of the Union address to sell skeptical midterm voters on his plans?
Obviously, the midterms will kind of loom over all of this as folks are set to start voting.
Actually, come March 3rd in some of these primaries, particularly the one in Texas.
I wonder how do you think this speech will attempt to send a message to some of those voters for the midterms?
Yeah, to win the midterms, President Trump, or at least to mitigate the losses in the midterms, because a president's party usually doesn't do well in the midterms, you have to really sell the economy, say that our program is working, highlight patriotism as we're going into the 250th year.
I think those are the things he's really trying to accomplish.
I think that Joe Biden learned it's hard to tell the American people, hey, the economy is doing great if people don't feel it themselves.
So you actually need the economy to be good in addition to selling the economy.
And I think that's a hard thing to do.
All right, let's turn to some phone calls.
God will from California, a Republican.
You're next.
Good morning.
Tell me if I pronounce your name correctly.
Thanks for taking my call, Jasmine.
Mr. Troy, could you tell us when the first State of the Union address was given, please, for a historical context?
And is it right to say that the State of the Union is sort of like a report card as the administration sees it as to how they've performed and sort of a plan for the coming year?
I'm interested in especially the historical context for the State of the Union address.
Thanks for taking my call.
Thank you.
All right, thank you, Godwell.
That's a good question.
So the State of the Union idea, the concept is in the Constitution where it says that the President shall provide updates to Congress.
Those were originally written updates for a long time.
President Woodrow Wilson started to go to Congress to make them an actual speech to Congress.
Starting 1923 was the first time when we had this speech become a radio address.
That was under Calvin Coolidge.
Then President Truman had it televised, but it was during the day.
And in 1965, sorry, 1965, this is the big innovation.
Lyndon Johnson made it a nighttime televised address.
And so from 1965 to today, 2026, we have had this regular thing where the president comes on at a certain night in the late winter and gives a speech to the American people.
And I call this kind of the golden age of the State of the Union, this 60-year period where the president goes on TV, talks about his plans.
It is, as Godwell says, it's kind of a report card, how things are going.
The president usually says something, the State of the Union is blank, usually hopefully good.
Trump will probably use a more expressive adjective, great, fantastic, whatever.
Sometimes there's been a not good, like when Gerald Ford said the State of the Union is not good in the mid-70s and we were having a rough time.
So it is a report card, but it's also an opportunity for the president to give his plans going forward.
And I mean, typically, the State of the Union, at least in modern times, has been one of the most high-profile moments for a president to actually address Americans.
It has been the most viewed speech of the year for a lot of presidents.
Obviously, that has changed because of the way that we use social media and the way that people actually get their news.
But I wonder what opportunity does it give a president to kind of dispel negative polling?
We have this poll from Real Clear Politics Average.
Overall, the disapproval, 56% of the job that the president is doing, approval is 43%.
Economy, 56%, approval, 41%.
It kind of goes on and on.
So how does a president combat that type of polling in some of these speeches?
Yeah, the State of the Union is a great opportunity to push back.
I mean, you're not going to completely flip those polls overnight with one speech, but it is a chance for the president to have a good night, to say what's going on, to present his take on how the economy is doing, how the country is doing.
And he definitely has some good things to say.
I mean, we had positive growth the first couple of quarters.
The last quarter was not as good, in large part because of the government shutdown.
And so there have been some positive jobs numbers.
So he has good things to say, but there are also challenges.
I mean, a lot of people don't like the tariffs, for example.
There's uncertainty about Iran.
So there's ups and downs.
And I think the president wants to focus on the ups.
And this opportunity, where there's going to be tens of millions of people watching, even if it's not as many as the 60 million they used to watch, this is one of the best opportunities to do that.
Jessica from Indiana, a Democrat.
You're next.
Good morning, Jessica.
Hi, thanks for taking my call.
So I'm a member of the DSA, and I'm pretty fed up with how lackluster the Democratic Party has been since around Joe Biden came into office.
They don't fight back and kind of act like a sucky opposition party at this point.
Y'all touched on this briefly already, but they've had a history of protesting during the State of the Union with stuff like signs or dressing in all white, for example.
I've heard some people talk about the possibility of them walking out.
I know how you said that them protesting is typically not all that great in the media landscape, but would them all leaving and not being a part of the State of the Union crowd be a strong message with a bunch of empty seats?
Yeah, I'm not a fan, as I've said, of that performative kind of spectacle, whether it's Democrat or Republican.
I just don't think it's a good idea.
I think the State of the Union is a moment to show unity, to show that our institutions work, that our institutions matter.
And there's all kinds of opportunities to protest the president if you don't like what the president's doing.
I'm not sure I agree with Jessica that the anti-Trump attacks are lackluster.
I mean, the Democrats, I think many of them are staunchly in opposition to President Trump, and that's their constitutional right.
And so I don't think being more oppositional necessarily helps.
I think you've got to do the hard work of rolling up your sleeves and winning the votes and winning the midterms and then trying to win back the White House in 2028 if that's what you want to do.
But all walking out of the State of the Union, I think it just sends a message of disunity that disheartens Americans, but also encourages our opponents around the world.
People like Xi in China who say, look, you know, what kind of a system is this?
They all walk out on them that's disrespectful.
Putin smiles when he sees stuff like that.
So I don't think it's necessarily helpful.
And I want to invite more of our viewers to join in on the conversation as we continue.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
You can also reach us by text message at 202-748-8003.
We talked about it a little bit, but this year's speech comes on the heels of that Supreme Court ruling against his tariffs.
I wonder if you could put yourself in this position, how quickly would you have gone back to start rewriting the portion on tariffs of the speech that you had been working on in fall?
And how do you think it will factor into President Trump's speech?
Yeah, I think you make a really good point about the rewriting, because this speech, as I said, is something that's worked on for months.
The text is usually set a while back.
Obviously, they have to make real-time adjustments, but let's say it's a 75 to 90-minute speech.
Assume that 72 to 87 of the minutes are going to stay the same as they were before this.
It was just going to be a small portion that is reworked, but it will definitely.
I would be shocked if he doesn't mention something about the tariffs, given Trump's tendencies.
He might even add Libbett.
But I think there will be some mention of it.
And I think the White House has been kind of defiant about the tariff thing, saying, well, if you're not going to let us do it this way, which is the, I guess, the easiest way to do tariffs, we're going to do other ways.
Now, I happen to think that putting guardrails in front of a unilateral power to impose tariffs is probably a good thing.
And so the other ways that he's talking about have more guardrails.
But I'm almost certain that there will be a mention of the tariffs.
It will get in there.
We have one question from Jim Bo from Bakersfield, California, an independent voter.
He asked, does Teffy Troy think Ronald Reagan would view Donald Trump as a populist or a conservative in terms of his governing philosophy?
That is a terrific question from Jim Bo, and it's not fully clear.
I mean, I think there are certainly ways that Trump deviates from the Reaganite conservative approach to things.
But Reagan also appreciated a good showman.
So I think there's elements to it.
And one thing I often talk about is that there's a similarity between Trump and Reagan in that both of them were featured in the popular culture for decades before they ever became politicians or even president.
So you knew Reagan from his movies for decades before he runs for governor of California.
Americans today knew Trump from his many cameo appearances on a whole bunch of TV shows or movies, and then his own TV show in the 2000s and then also his books.
So Trump's been around in the American landscape for a long time.
So Americans kind of had their own independent relationship with him separate and apart from his entry into politics, just like Reagan did.
And I think Reagan might have appreciated that even if he didn't approve of Trump's deviations from the Reaganite conservative orthodoxy.
And Diane from Morristown, New Jersey, she says, Pelosi ripping up Trump's speech had to be the most disrespectful thing I've ever seen at a state of the union.
I wonder if you could put that moment in context for us.
Obviously, that wouldn't happen today because you are going to have JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson behind the president, so not somebody from the opposition.
But how does that rank in terms of flashpoint moments in some of these stately unions?
Yeah, I totally agree with the caller.
That it was a disrespectful moment.
But unfortunately, there have been a lot of disrespectful moments.
I mentioned the U Lie thing, the Al Green thing you mentioned.
Obviously, Pelosi ripping up the speech was nice.
I just don't think it's the right way to go about things in our democratic system.
I mean, we have ways to speak out.
Obviously, we have free speech rights.
We can write a letter to the editor.
We can write in our ed.
We can go on TV or radio.
I mean, there's all kinds of ways you can express your voice.
You can go to a protest.
At the same time, you can go to the ballot box and express your support or lack of support for a current set of policies.
But making a spectacle out of the State of the Union, I don't think is the best way to do it because, as I said, it disheartens Americans and heartens America's enemies.
Bill from Jacksonville, Florida, an independent.
You are next.
Good morning, Bill.
Hey, good morning.
Reason I call, like some other folks have a commentary.
To me, the most enjoyable State of the Union speech I ever saw or heard was when Biden gave his first speech in COVID and there was nobody in the chambers and yet we were able to enjoy his speech, no interruptions, and it was just a very good, straightforward, I thought the presentation enjoyable.
Thank you.
Yeah, I think Bill makes a really good point that having a speech without interruptions is a good thing.
But on the other hand, having the entire senior leadership of the United States government in the chamber at one time, having the Supreme Court justices and the members of the cabinet and the members of the Senate and the members of the House all there together in one room, when it happens without some of these spectacles, it's really a tremendous moment of unity and a tremendous surge, kind of kick of the patriotic adrenals.
And this idea that all these people have been either democratically elected or selected, gone through a congressional senatorial approval process, and this represents the leadership of our country and that our forefathers died in the revolution to set up this system.
We've defended it in multiple wars over the years.
We've refined and improved the system over many years.
And I think there's something really to be said about everyone gathering together in that room.
So while I appreciate what Bill said about the silence in that one particular state of the union, and I recognize the reasons why we had to do it that way, I think having everybody in the room, again, in a respectful way, is good for America and good for our system of government.
I want to ask, because last year's address from the president was about 100 minutes.
He says today it's going to be, he said yesterday that it will be a long speech tonight.
Part of that, though, is people being in the room, standing up and clapping.
Has it always been the case, or has it evolved more into more audience participation from members in the chambers and the guests that they bring?
Yeah, it's definitely more of a thing.
Look at the guest thing, for example, comes from, I think, 1982 when Ronald Reagan had Lenny Skutnik, the most famous employee of the Congressional Budget Office in history.
He was a guy who jumped into the water to save a woman who was drowning after a crash of an airplane in this area on a very cold night.
And so it was really a brave act by Lenny Skutnick and Reagan celebrated him.
And since then, multiple presidents have done the thing where they bring people into the First Lady's box and they celebrate the various people.
I remember one of the big moments was when Trump gave the Medal of Honor to Rush Limbaugh at the State of the Union, something that had never been done before.
I'm curious to see how they handle the Olympic team.
So, yeah, the speech as written is always shorter than the speech as given because of these various interruptions and these moments.
And sometimes they're great moments of unity.
Sometimes Democrats and Republicans stand together and clap, and that's nice.
And then sometimes when a Republican says something and the Democrats sit, well, the Republicans stand, that tells you something, and vice versa.
So I'm not opposed to the clapping.
Trump's State of the Union Moments00:04:25
But again, clapping is one way, but making an individual spectacle of yourself, I think, is less helpful.
Terrell from Maryland, a Democrat.
You're next.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I want to talk about, that was Joe Wilson that howled out you lie, okay?
And I didn't hear you say his name, but I heard you say Green's name.
But, you know, I want to talk about Donald Trump's accomplishments.
I don't think that he's accomplished anything.
I mean, he had the thing with the border, you know, but that was overridden by him, you know, taking some people out up there in Minnesota.
But Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan was a conservative.
Donald Trump is not a conservative.
Ronald Reagan would totally disagree with this tariff deal that Donald Trump is doing right now.
And you got guys like Steve Moore and Larry Kudlow.
They know that, but yet they still come on TV and they say that they love tariffs when they know that they don't.
You had Larry Cutlow that was in the Reagan administration and Steve Moore, you know.
And Steve Moore said that Steve Moore was on this show.
And I told Steve Moore that, you know, I wish Joe Biden had legalized all 13 or 20 million of the immigrants.
And he agreed with me.
You know, Terrell, can I ask you?
Can I jump in here?
Do you have a specific question for Mr. Troy?
Oh, yeah.
I just want to know to this gentleman.
What I'm saying, is it true?
Was Ronald Reagan, did Ronald Reagan like tariffs?
So I think Terrell raises some really good points.
Obviously, I did mention Joe Wilson's name, along with Al Green's name, as people who've kind of made a show of themselves at the State of the Union.
I think Ronald Reagan definitely had issues with tariffs, and Trump, without a doubt, is more pro-tariff than Ronald Reagan.
I think he is right to talk about Steve Moore and Larry Kudlow, both of whom I know, both of whom are big fans of Ronald Reagan or have been big fans of Ronald Reagan.
Kudlow did work in the Reagan administration.
And it's a little surprising that they're more appreciative of tariffs, I guess, now than they were previously in their careers.
I think that's true.
I think Terrell raised a good point.
Now, I want to bring up some statistics of former State of the Union since we have a historian here with us.
President Washington's first annual message was the shortest in words.
We have here about a thousand words.
President Reagan gave the shortest address in 1986 at approximately 31 minutes.
I can't imagine that compared to now.
President Clinton gave the longest in 2000 at just under one hour and 29 minutes.
I know we talked a little bit about Bush and how Trump annotates some speeches, but how have other presidents been involved in the speechwriting process?
Yeah, Nixon also gave a short one, also around a half hour.
And, you know, I think some presidents like the spotlight a little less.
I mean, Bill Clinton liked the spotlight, Trump likes the spotlight.
So I think that's, they want to milk every minute.
I think you can see that.
Nixon was maybe more uncomfortable with people.
It doesn't surprise me that he had a speech that was around a half hour.
So I think that Bush also, Bush was raised in a family where his mom famously didn't want people to use the word I too much.
President George H.W. Bush, his father, would frustrate his speechwriters because they didn't want the word I or me to be in the speech ever.
And it's hard to have a president saying what his accomplishments are without ever using the personal first pronoun.
So I think that just the personality shapes to some degree the type of address it is.
So it doesn't surprise me that Trump is up there with some of the longest speeches.
Nicole from Kansas and Independent, you're next to call.
Good morning.
I just wanted to say that I really think that this is a really good time for President Donald Trump, which I really respect to have the State of the Union to reassure the United States citizens that the United States and the cabinets,
Why We Should Respect This President00:03:19
they're doing their best to make sure that we are safe and that we need to also understand and know why tariffs are increasing, where our tax money is going, how the economic growth of the United States of America is doing better,
and where our country is going.
We want to feel protected, and I really feel that President Donald Trump is doing the best Doing the best that I've seen in the last four years.
And so I just wanted to say I think the American people should really watch the state of the union to see where we are in our country.
I think Nicole makes some really good points about this is what we want from the State of the Union.
It doesn't matter who's the president.
We want to know that the nation is safe, that things are going well, that if things are not going well, we have a plan to turn it around.
And that's what it's all about.
That, again, the leaders of the country have come together.
There is a sense of unity.
We all believe in the system.
And we're going to try our best to make it all work out.
I don't know if you noticed, but obviously the Capitol is kind of surrounded and scaffolding.
We're close by.
How has security changed over the years when it comes to big moments like this at the Capitol, like the State of the Union?
Yeah, I mean, that is one of the biggest changes in the years that I've been in Washington.
I mean, the White House is now an unapproachable fortress.
It used to be a long time ago.
You could walk on West Executive Boulevard between the White House and the old executive building.
I mean, you just can't even get close to the White House right now, and they're pushing it further back.
I mean, the last time I was there, you couldn't even get to Lafayette Park.
And I understand there are terrorist threats, and there's protests, and there's all kinds of things that make it more challenging.
And people, for some reason, feel more free to harass White House aides or cabinet members.
So I think there's reasons for some of these protective bubbles, but I don't necessarily like it.
And there's an immense amount of security around the Capitol.
I mean, I used to work in Congress in the 90s, and it was relatively easy to get into the Capitol.
And now, you know, there's very stern-looking people who, again, they're doing their job, and I appreciate what they do, but very stern-looking people who kind of drive you away unless you can specifically state what your business is there and who you're going to see and show your ID.
And it's just a very different town than it was.
Francesca from Alexandria, Virginia, Democrat?
Your Nax?
Good morning, Francesca.
Good morning.
I'd like to know why we should respect this president when every day he passes a policy by unlawfully passing Congress, that he disrespects the American people by lying to them every single day when he goes to war with, you know, in the Caribbean, killing people before even finding out if they were unlawfully transporting drugs.
Why Respect an Unlawful President?00:07:01
If we keep being nice to this president, he just takes advantage.
He just continues to do more and more unlawful acts.
And I think you have to have a way of showing him that you have to earn respect.
And he's not earning our respect.
So I think Francesca raises a really interesting point.
And I remember when I was a little boy, I said some negative things about the president at the time.
I think it was Ford, and things weren't going well in the country.
And my mom, my late mom, who actually died six years ago today, she said, you know, you always have to respect the presidency, even if you don't respect the president.
Even if you don't like the president, even if you don't vote for him, you have to respect the office of the presidency.
And I think that's an important distinction.
I don't think Francisco needs to like President Trump.
And I think, as I said earlier, there are many opportunities to express your disagreement.
But I think we have a system that is based on elections and a constitution and various offices.
And it's kind of been established over a long time.
And it's been sticking with us for a long time.
And it's served us well as a country.
And we have more freedoms, more liberties, more economic opportunities than people anywhere in the world.
And I think we have to respect that and respect the system, even if you don't like a particular person who is in office at the time.
Something that I think that people will be watching out to see how President Trump handles it is the subject of Iran.
Obviously, these airstrike carriers have moved more and more into the Middle East.
I wonder how have presidents in the past used this speech to argue in favor of armed conflict or perhaps against it?
Yeah, it's a good question.
And Howard Mortman from C-SPAN has that great podcast where he talks about it's called Extreme Mortman.
And he talks about various things that you can find in the C-SPAN archives.
One of them is the States of the Union.
He talks about how foreign policy has long been an important part of the State of the Union.
How when the president gets up there, this is their best opportunity to explain their foreign policy vision for the nation, what they're trying to do.
And if it includes going to war or if we're at war defending the war or explaining what's happening in the war.
And so I think tonight is an opportunity for President Trump to say why we have this armada in the Middle East.
What's going on with the negotiations with Iran?
Are we looking for a negotiated settlement with them?
Are we looking to topple the regime?
What is the goal of the United States in this conflict and how are we going to use or not use that armada that is sitting there?
Lauren from Long Beach, New York, a Republican?
You're next.
Good morning, Lauren.
Hi, good morning.
Yes, I want to elaborate on what the previous caller said.
I don't feel that this president respects the Constitution or the rule of law, and I don't think he should be shown any respect at the State of the Union.
I think the Democrats should all boycott it, but besides that, and I'm a registered Republican, but I will never vote Republican again.
And because this is a disgrace.
The whole administration is a criminal enterprise.
So I know he doesn't feel that we should have some, you know, some protests at the State of the Union, but I think the Democrats should protest.
And I, for one, am not going to watch the State of the Union.
I hope it's the lowest-rated program in the history of the State of the Union.
And, you know, have a good day.
Well, thank you.
I don't think I said I'm against protest.
I just said I'm against certain types of protests.
And I think obviously it's our constitutional right to protest.
Again, I think you respect the presidency even if you don't like the president at the time.
And, you know, I'm always wary of saying things like, I'll never vote for this party again.
I mean, I've been around long enough to see that the parties shift, the voters shift, the party bases shift, the policies shift.
I mean, the Democrats today are not where the Democrats were.
The Republicans today are not where the Republicans were.
So I don't know in 20 years if whatever policies this caller doesn't like might be represented by the other parties.
I just think there's a lot of fluidity in American politics.
Even if the two parties we have, the Democrat and the Republican name, stay the same, the actual issue mixes, the policies that each party represents, that changes over time.
Democrats have said, even though we don't know who the president's guests will be yet for tonight, Democrats have said that they're bringing folks like Epstein survivors, people who they say have been targeted by the president's immigration platform agenda, including people who have gotten into squirmishes with ICE and CPB.
I wonder, we talked a little bit about how the guests for the president have evolved, but how have the guests for members of Congress evolved, particularly those within the opposition?
Yeah, it seems to be a newer phenomenon, the opposition bringing the guests.
But I think that's, I mean, the last caller talked about how she wants to see, that's a legitimate form of protest to highlight people who they feel have been wronged by the president's policies.
And obviously, again, we have tens of millions of people watching.
It's a good moment, a good opportunity to do that sort of thing.
But yeah, American politics is kind of a back and forth.
I mean, one side comes up with an idea, and then the other side comes up with a response.
So we have President Reagan again, came up with this idea of having someone in the First Lady's box to celebrate their heroism.
And now the opposition says, okay, we're going to celebrate or highlight our own people.
And I think that's totally fair game.
And I think that's the way the system evolves.
The last question for you is, outside of everything else that we talked about, what else are you watching for tonight?
I'm watching for how much President Trump sticks to the script versus how much he deviates from the script.
And you can almost tell there's a slight change in the tone of his voice when he's reading and he's a little stiffer, and then when he's looser, when he's just kind of free-riffing.
And a speech that could go, I don't know, 30 minutes, like his convention speech in 2024, suddenly can go an hour and a half because he decides to ad-lib for that long.
And that's literally what happened in that speech.
So I'm watching for how long or how much he stays to the script versus how much he goes off it.
I actually was at an event once where I saw President Trump speak live, and there was a screen behind us, and you could see what the word, it was basically his teleprompter.
You could see what the words he was supposed to say were, and you could see when he deviated from what those words were.
And so I think that's a real interesting thing to watch whenever President Trump speaks.
Watching C-SPAN Washington Journal00:03:00
All right, historian and Ronald Reagan Institute Senior Fellow, Tevi Troy.
Thank you so much for being with us this morning.
Thanks for having me.
And up next, today marks the four-year anniversary of the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Joining us to give his assessment on where the conflict is going is Quincy Institute for Responsible State Crafts, George Beebe.
Have been watching C-SPAN Washington Journal for over 10 years now.
This is a great format that C-SPAN offers.
You're doing a great job.
I enjoy hearing everybody's opinion.
I'm a huge C-SPAN fan.
I listen every morning on the way to work.
I think C-SPAN should be required viewing for all three branches of government.
First of all, if you say hello, C-SPAN, and how you'll cover the hearings.
Thank you, everyone at C-SPAN, for allowing this interaction with everyday citizens.
It's an amazing show to get real opinions from real people.
Appreciate you guys' non-biased coverage.
I love politics, and I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
You and C-SPAN show the truth.
Back to the universe for C-SPAN.
one essential news network get c-span wherever you are with c-span now our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy live and on demand
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
Catch the latest episodes of Washington Journal.
Find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
The C-SPAN Now app is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
Download it for free today.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
Washington Journal continues.
Joining us this morning to talk about what is the status of the Russia-Ukraine war is George Beebe, former CIA Russia analyst, who is now at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Thanks so much for being with us this morning.
Thank you.
All right, first up, can you remind our audience about the work of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and your role there?
Well, the Quincy Institute is a foreign policy think tank.
Battle Lines and Guarantees00:16:14
Unlike many think tanks, we are not aligned with either the Democratic or Republican parties.
We have people who would claim to be on the left side of the spectrum and those on the conservative side.
We're all trying to advance a foreign policy that is not as intent on transforming the world as much of post-Cold War American foreign policy really focused on.
Trying to change other countries internally, make them look more like the United States, and resort to coercion and war frequently in order to advance that kind of agenda.
We're looking for a U.S. foreign policy that's focused first and foremost on making America safe, Americans more prosperous, looking at foreign policy as a shield of the Republic rather than a sword to advance change in the world.
And so we're entering the fifth year of the Russia-Ukraine war.
I wonder, just generally for our audience, how would you define the current state of the war and where are both sides?
Well, this war has long been a war of attrition, where neither side can really make rapid progress capturing territory.
And really, the moves between the line of contact between the two sides on either side of that confrontation really are incremental.
And I think the Russians have been focused on wearing down Ukraine's ability to put forces in the field and equip them adequately and hoping that over time Ukraine will see that it simply can't win the war and it will raise the white flag and sue for peace.
That hasn't happened.
I think the Ukrainians have demonstrated an ability to sustain this conflict for longer than the Russians expected.
And right now we're in a phase of the war where the battle lines probably aren't going to move very much and each side is focused on maximizing its leverage for a negotiated settlement.
And I want to turn to this BBC article I have pulled up here.
They have a fantastic map that looks at the areas of the Russian military control in Ukraine.
And it shows obviously control of Crimea and it shows some, I'm just going to zoom in here, limited Russia control along the border.
I mean obviously you're saying that the battle lines are not going to move very much from where we see them now.
But I wonder how does where the battle lines are break down into kind of these leverage negotiations because Russia is asking for territory that they haven't claimed militarily and Ukraine obviously is very resistant to that.
Right.
Well, I think each of the sides has a different set of incentives to try to find a compromise.
Neither one wants to give up its territorial claims.
But it's very clear right now that Russia can't achieve its big objective in this war, which was to change the regime in Kyiv, to bring about some sort of change in government that would bring a pro-Russian, or at least a much friendlier regime to power.
That became evident very early in this war that that wasn't achievable.
What I think the Russians can aspire to realistically and what they will insist on to end this war is that Ukraine be essentially neutral militarily, that it won't be part of an alliance with the United States or with NATO that the Russians would regard as threatening to their own interests.
Now, what the Ukrainians want to do is make sure that they remain an independent sovereign state, not a puppet regime of Russia, not a part of Russia's exclusive sphere of influence.
And it looks very much like they can achieve that, that that's realistic.
So we're probably headed toward a compromise settlement in which the Russians achieve that goal where the United States acknowledges we're not going to bring Ukraine into the NATO alliance.
We're not going to put NATO military infrastructure on Ukrainian territory.
But the Russians also can see that they won't block Ukraine's accession to the European Union.
In other words, we say no to military alliance with Ukraine, but Russia says yes to political and economic ties between Ukraine and the rest of Europe, which is an important concession.
What you're then left with is, what do you do about the disputed territory?
Because neither side is going to give up their claims to that disputed area of Ukraine.
And I think where we're headed here is a creative compromise where the sides move back on the battlefield.
Neither side gives up its legal claim to the territory.
But in fact, much of the disputed area becomes what is called a demilitarized zone or a free economic zone that each side has claims to, but administratively neither side has exclusive control over.
Now, President Trump met with Russia President Putin in Alaska last summer to talk about the ending of the war.
That was after months and months of back and forth talks between the President and President Putin.
No agreement was made, but has all of what you're describing in terms of potentials for compromises on the economy, on whether or not they can be admitted to NATO, on some of these land disputes, is that what has happened since that meeting in August?
Yeah, I think the Anchorage Summit was a real turning point.
For much of the first several months of President Trump's term in office, he was seeking an unconditional ceasefire.
He wanted both sides simply to say, hey, let's end the killing.
Let's just stop shooting at each other.
And then the hope was once they agreed to this ceasefire, then the negotiators could turn to the business of hammering out some sort of comprehensive peace deal.
And the Russians said no.
The Ukrainians were not opposed to that kind of an unconditional deal.
That was a relatively good thing for them because they were on the defensive on the battlefield.
They were under pressure and they needed a respite to regroup and rebuild their military.
But the Russians, because military momentum was on their side, essentially said no, we're not going to give up the pressure on Ukraine in return for a maybe.
We need actually some assurance that we're going to make progress on what they regard as the core issues underlying this conflict.
So the Russians wanted to address things like NATO military alliance with Ukraine, NATO infrastructure, treatment of ethnic minorities in Ukraine.
And they said, if you're not willing to talk about that, we're not going to have a ceasefire.
And the Trump administration pivoted and said, okay, let's talk about that.
And that, I think, led to progress that in turn was reflected in the Anchorage Summit.
Now, at Anchorage, there's still a lot we don't know about what actually got done, but reading between the lines of what American officials and Russian officials have said, it looks like there was a rough compromise that was discussed,
where the Russians would essentially settle for ending the fighting in two of the four regions inside Ukraine that the Russians claim but don't yet control, Kherson and Zaporizhia.
The Russians essentially said, we will stop fighting at the line of contact as it presently stands in those two regions in return for full control over two others, Lugansk and Donetsk.
And Donetsk is the most important of those because the Russians almost have captured all of Lugansk at this point.
But there's about 20% of Donetsk that they claim but don't yet have military control over.
And the Russians said, give us military control over the rest of Donetsk and we will settle for the line of contact in these other two regions.
And that has been the focus of a lot of the discussions ever.
Zelensky has said no.
But now we're in a period where we're saying, can we find a creative compromise that allows both sides to safe face and find some sort of pragmatic way forward over that disputed territory?
Well, let's take a listen to Zelensky, who was at the Munich Security Council earlier this month talking about these trilateral negotiations with Russia and the U.S.
We truly hope that the trilateral meetings next week will be serious, substantive, helpful for all of us.
But honestly, sometimes it feels like the sites are talking about completely different things.
The Russians often speak about some spirit of anchorage.
And we can only guess what they really mean.
The Americans often return to the topic of concessions.
And too often those concessions are discussed in the context only of Ukraine, not Russia.
Europe is practically not present at the table.
it's a big mistake to my mind and it is we i think we ukrainians we ukrainians who are trying to bring europe fully into the process so that europe's interests and voice are taken into account This is very important.
And Ukraine keeps returning to one simple point.
Peace can only be built on clear, clear security guarantees.
Where there is no clear security system, war always returns.
Ukraine will do everything, truly, everything, to make these negotiations successful.
We have invested in this process and we are in constant contact with Steve Vitkov, with Jared Kushner, and with everyone President Trump appoints.
Today, we are meeting with Secretary of State Mark Rudeu and Ukraine wants the result of all these efforts to be real security and real peace, real peace.
So there was Zelensky earlier this month at the Munich Security Council.
Obviously here, he's naming all of these U.S. officials.
And I want to ask you a little bit about Steve Wickoff and Kushner's role later on.
Obviously, the U.S. is having a massive role in this negotiations.
Europe doesn't seem to be like it's having very much substantial impact in these negotiations.
Can you talk about the parties that are involved and what, you know, outside of the compromises that Zelensky is saying perhaps make Ukraine concede too much and Russia too little, what else have they been able to compromise on in terms of U.S. and Ukraine guarantees and everything else?
Well, there are different aspects of these negotiations, and one of them is something that President Zelensky mentioned, security guarantees for Ukraine.
That's a very important part of this.
The Ukrainians obviously want assurances that should the Russians violate some sort of peace deal and re-invade, that Ukraine is not going to be left alone to fight against this much, much larger neighbor, that Ukraine will get support from the West.
And it wants that to be as specific and as extensive as possible.
Ideally, Ukraine would like a NATO Article 5 guarantee that all NATO members would regard an attack on Ukraine as an attack on themselves.
That's not something that Ukraine is going to get.
It can't get an Article 5 guarantee, in part because the United States has already indicated we're not going to go to war to fight Ukraine to fight for Ukraine.
We didn't in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and launched this all but overt separatist conflict in the Donetsk, in the Donbas.
And we haven't since 2022 when this full-scale invasion began.
So it's clear that the United States is not going to commit itself to fight Russia on Ukraine's behalf.
But there's a lot that we can do short of that.
And that has been a key focus of negotiations over the past several months.
And the Ukrainians have indicated that they're actually quite pleased with how far things have come on those security guarantees.
And it looks like what's happening is U.S. negotiators are crafting guarantees for Ukraine that give Ukraine enough assurance that we will help them defensively, while at the same time respecting Russia's red line, that some sort of formal membership in NATO or some kind of a direct military alliance between the United States and NATO will be respected at the same time.
Now, the more Ukraine feels assured that we will help them in the event of some sort of future invasion, the more flexible they can be on this question of territory.
So that's part of the bargaining that's going on.
Now, for the Russians, their big interest is to know that the United States is going to normalize its relationship with Russia, normalize it politically and diplomatically, normalize it economically, opening up new trade opportunities, easing sanctions over time, but also in the area of security, arms control, confidence-building measures.
The Russians realize that even if they capture all the territory in Ukraine that they claim, they still have a big problem with a NATO that is rearming, a NATO that has doubled in size since the end of the Cold War.
A U.S. nuclear arsenal that looks poised to modernize and include new technologies that the Russians could find quite problematic for their own security.
So the Russians want assurance that we're going to engage with them on all those areas.
And those are the incentives that the Russians have for showing flexibility over this territory.
So that is a very complex set of issues.
The United States is trying to signal to all sides that we understand what they're looking for.
We're trying to find an appropriate balance between all these issues that would allow this sweet spot between enough assurance to Ukraine that Ukraine feels comfortable with a deal and the kinds of assurances to Russia that would allow them to compromise pragmatically at the same time.
Now I want to turn to some of the negotiators before we get to some phone calls.
Folks listening in, we want you to call in and join the conversation.
I'll recite your lines for you.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
Dealing with Russia's Legacy00:14:59
The New York Times put out this great news article last week.
The headline is, Trump bets on diplomacy without diplomats.
It's a focus on the president's most trusted envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, obviously his son-in-law, who was a part of the administration officially last term, are at the center of Iran and Ukrainian negotiations.
If you just scroll down a little bit, it says on Tuesday, this was published on February 17th, on Tuesday the administration trial three tactics at once.
In Geneva, President Trump's most trusted envoys, his real estate friend Steve Witkoff, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner engaged the Iranians in the morning and then the Russians and Ukrainians in the afternoon.
Obviously, neither Witkoff or Jared Kushner have a history or a background in working in diplomacy.
We know that they were very involved in the deal that the administration managed to get in Israel-Gaza.
But I wonder what impact for the better or the worse really has it had having somebody like Witkoff and somebody like Jared Kushner involved in these really serious and kind of technocratic discussions.
Right.
Well, I think there are advantages and disadvantages, and I'll elaborate what each of them are.
One of the problems in dealing with Russia is that you've got a set of government bureaucrats, people in the permanent government, and a community of experts on Russia that have largely failed over the last 30 years in dealing with this problem.
Our policies toward Russia have been, I think, quite disastrous.
And they have culminated in this war over Ukraine that I think was avoidable had we adopted a little bit different approach with the Russians.
And so if you've got a community of experts that understand all the technical details, but have been for quite some time advocating policies that have resulted in, I think, disaster, you're not going to turn to those same people and say, help us out of the problem that you helped to create.
You're going to have to turn to a new team with a fresh approach.
And you need assurance of their loyalty.
One of the things that I think is evident is that President Trump feels badly burned by the media and the permanent government over RussiaGate during his first term.
So he's going to be very, very cautious about bringing people into the circle of trust working on this problem with Russia and Ukraine that he thinks might actually want to undermine his own government.
So that's part of what's going on here, part of why we have a very small circle of people that don't have that experience, but not having that experience is in some ways an advantage.
Now, what are the downsides of this?
The downsides of this really come in those technocratic details.
You do need people that understand all these complexities, or you could get yourself in trouble.
And it also comes once you've got a deal, once the negotiators get the size to say, okay, we're comfortable with all this, we're ready to sign a deal, you then have to implement it and you've got to sell it.
You've got to convince the rest of Washington, including that permanent bureaucracy, including a media which is largely anti-Trump on these things, that this is a fair deal, that it deserves support, that it should be implemented.
And if you've got a very small circle of negotiators that really aren't talking to the people that are going to have to implement this in the future in Congress, in the permanent bureaucracy, you're going to have a little bit of a challenge after you get a deal in convincing them to support all this.
So that's a downside to this.
Now, does President Trump really have a choice in how he's done this?
Is there an alternative that is viable under the circumstances we're facing?
I don't think so.
I think the way they're doing it is probably something they don't have much control over because if you open this up to the experts, the technocrats outside the circle of trust too soon, they're very likely to sabotage this to make sure you don't get a deal.
And that's a reality that I think we're just going to have to deal with.
Rhonda from Pennsylvania and Independent.
You are next.
Good morning, Rhonda.
Good morning.
Go ahead.
I was just calling in because, first of all, I want to make it clear that I know Russia invaded Ukraine.
I don't feel it was right for Europe and also Ukraine to push the NATO thing.
But I was thinking maybe if Zelensky lets re-elections go through, maybe someone else will take over and they can negotiate better.
So I was just wondering what your guests thought.
Well, President Zelensky is talking about holding presidential elections and new elections to the Ukrainian legislature.
Part of this is because his term of office has extended beyond the term that he was elected to, and that has to do with the ongoing war.
But as we get close to a compromise, I think he recognizes that he's going to have to start preparing for new elections.
And he wants to know that whatever compromises he might make on a peace deal have the support of the Ukrainian people, that he's not out there on a limb doing things that don't have a solid basis of support inside the country, and elections are a good way of doing that.
I doubt that we're going to be in a situation where we won't get some sort of compromise prior to a new election.
I think that Zelensky believes he's the person to be making these deals.
And I think he believes that he has a decent chance of being reelected once new elections are held.
But this notion that whatever deal gets struck has to be perceived as fair inside Ukraine also applies inside Russia and it applies here in the United States and in Europe.
If any one of these constituencies thinks that the deal that ultimately gets done is somehow coerced, has been force-fed on any of these parties, it's not going to be durable.
It will be temporary, a period of transition until hostilities resume.
And that's not something that's in anybody's interest, in my view.
So we're going to have to be crafting a deal that addresses all of the core issues that the parties have, compromises where they can afford to compromise, but ultimately is seen as in the interest of all the participants.
Jim from West Virginia, Democrat, you're next.
Good morning.
Thank you, Jasmine, and good morning, George.
I had a couple of quick little points and questions.
Now, bear in mind, I'm a Democrat in West Virginia, and I try to read and listen to a big variety of sources.
Just a little bit of historical things here.
Russia, even after the breakup of the Soviet Union, always had a big naval base, naval port, in Crimea.
And that was, they retained that.
I don't know if they leased it from Ukraine or whatever.
But in 2014, when the Ukrainian people got tired of the Russian puppet president that Putin had managed to install in Ukraine, they overthrew him in their little revolution.
That's when Putin sent in troops and took over all of Crimea.
That was 2014.
So, you know, a lot of people say, well, Obama didn't this or that or whatever.
Well, you know, 2016, how come Trump didn't push the Russians out of there?
Well, he gave them javelin missiles.
Well, I understand that some Republicans pushed him into that.
He was reluctant, and they kept him locked up far away from the actual fighting down there there.
But, you know, tremendous fighting hadn't broken out in those contested regions.
But also, too, people need to bear in mind, they call Ukraine Europe's breadbasket.
Like one-fourth, I've read or heard that one-fourth of like all of Europe and all of northern Africa's wheat and soybeans come from that fertile region of Ukraine.
There's a lot of iron ore deposits, coal.
There are nuclear power plants.
Putin expected to always externally control Ukraine.
And I feel like the Trump administration, you know, a lot of this like, oh, Russia, well, great.
There were a lot of connections that were established in the Mueller report.
That Trump seems to have a soft spot in his heart.
Putin helped elect him in 2016.
It's a fact.
You know, with a little propaganda and then a lot of effort.
And in fact, too, Joe Biden.
All right, Jim.
Jim, we're coming up on time, so I wonder if you have a direct question.
Hold on.
I was wondering if you have a direct question for him because we are coming up on time and I want to get to one more caller after you.
Okay, well, I just wondered if George could reiterate these facts that the Trump administration seems to have a soft spot where they will stand like Joe Biden did.
Joe Biden stood up NATO and was helping Crane.
What the Trump administration, there's no interest in it.
Well, I think part of this depends on your diagnosis of why we have the conflict that we have.
If you begin with the premise that Putin decided one day that he wanted to take land that was rightfully Russia's, in his view, much like Hitler decided he wanted to take over Poland, for example, and that the only way that you deal with a challenge like that is not to engage diplomatically, not to appease.
That only whets the appetite of the aggressor.
The only way you deal with a problem like that is through military force to show that the aggressor will not succeed.
And that was the diagnosis of the Biden administration.
And the problem with that is there's another way of understanding what happened: that this war erupted out of a set of dynamics like World War I, what theorists call the security dilemma, where when one side takes steps that it believes are defensive, aimed at enhancing its own security, those steps can be seen by a neighbor as threatening.
So you get into a cycle of action and reaction in which each side thinks it's essentially protecting its own security interests.
And if you're dealing with a problem like that, like the way World War I started, more military confrontation, more deterrence actually makes the problem worse, not better.
And I think that's the problem that we got into.
And I think the Trump administration has a different diagnosis of the problem in Ukraine.
It believes that you can't solve this problem simply by adding more and more military capability, getting closer and closer to direct conflict between the United States and Russia.
That kind of escalatory cycle can be very dangerous, especially when you're dealing with two countries that have over 90% of the world's nuclear weapons.
The Trump administration says, hey, we have an action-reaction problem here, a security dilemma problem that can't be solved unless you seek diplomatic compromise.
And that's what they're aiming at.
And I think that's actually an accurate diagnosis of the problem that we're dealing with.
That doesn't mean they're going to leave Ukraine defenseless.
In fact, making sure that Ukraine is not left defenseless is a critical part of this compromise.
But it does mean you have to find a deal that both sides believe is in their interests.
All right, Eric from Minnesota and Independent.
Eric, you're our last caller.
If I can ask you to keep it kind of short, go ahead.
Very simple question for this gentleman.
Do you believe that Putin's treatment of Ukraine, and this dates back generations, how the Muscovies regarded the Ukraines over time, is now playing out in how Trump regards the Democrats in the United States?
Boy, that's a very difficult question to answer.
And I would not make a comparison between Russian attitudes toward Ukrainians and American or Trump attitudes toward Democrats.
I think the Russian state grew out of Ukraine.
And that shared history is a very complex one.
It's viewed differently among Russians and Ukrainians.
But there's no question that there was a shared origin of the Ukrainian and Russian states that remains a controversial point among historians and among those peoples.
I don't think you can compare that to one administration's attitude toward a political party.
Normalization Controversy00:02:09
They're simply different apples and oranges.
All right, let me ask you one final quick question here is when do you see the Russia-Ukraine war ending?
Well, I think this year is going to be decisive in that.
We're either going to find a compromise that all the parties believe is just and fair, in which they each make important concessions to the other, or we're going to see an escalation.
I don't think we're going to see a continued stalemate because right now the Russians have not done some things on the battlefield that they're capable of doing.
They haven't engaged in a general military mobilization of their population.
That would prove politically controversial inside Ukraine.
I think inside Russia, Putin would prefer not to do that.
They haven't used their ability to bomb and attack Ukraine with missiles to the extent that they're capable of doing.
And of course, nuclear weapons are always looming out there as a possibility that the Russians certainly don't want to have to resort to, but could under extreme circumstances.
One of the incentives that the Russians have had for not going all out to win this war is the belief that some sort of normalization between the United States and Russia is possible.
That would help Putin deal with his security challenges posed from the West.
It would also make him less dependent on China, less beholden to decisions that are being made in Beijing, more autonomous, able to tack between East and West geopolitically in the world.
He wants to be able to achieve those things.
He doesn't want to close the door on normalization with the United States.
But if he concludes, for whatever reason, that normalization with the United States simply is not possible, that there can't be some sort of deal, then I think he's going to look at the possibility of escalation through different eyes.
Alternative Events Mentioned00:14:27
And I don't think that's the most likely course of action, but it's certainly one that we can't rule out.
All right, we'll leave it there.
George B.B., Director of Grand Strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Thanks so much for being with us this morning.
And up next, open forum.
You can talk about tonight's State of the Union or other political news during this time.
Start calling in now.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
independence.
Your line is 202-748-8002.
Members of the United States Congress, thank you very much.
And to my fellow citizens, America is back.
Watch C-SPAN live today as President Donald Trump delivers the annual State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress.
Our coverage begins at 7 p.m. Eastern with a preview of the evening from political reporters.
Then, at 9, the president's address, followed by the Democratic response given by Virginia Governor Abigail Spanbergson.
We'll also take your calls and bring you reaction from lawmakers.
Over on C-SPAN 2, experience the moments leading up to the speech and the address itself as if you're there, uninterrupted.
No commentary with unfiltered sights and sounds.
The State of the Union Address, live today, with coverage beginning at 7 p.m. Eastern on the C-SPAN Networks.
C-SPAN, bringing you Democracy Unfiltered.
If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-SPAN.org.
Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
This is Open Forum where you can talk about any public policy or political issue on your mind.
Start calling in now.
But while we wait for your calls, I want to introduce Emily Brooks, congressional reporter at The Hill, joining us this morning to talk about the congressional side of the State of the Union.
Emily, hi, thanks for joining us.
Thank you for having me.
All right, let's dive right in.
Members have been posting about whether or not they will be attending the State of the Union.
How many Democrats do you know are expected to skip or boycott this evening?
Well, we don't have an exact count yet, but the number is in the dozens.
You know, the House Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, had told his members either attend and sit in silent defiance or boycott and go do something else that's off campus.
What he does not want is a repeat of last year when Democrats were holding up signs, being a distraction from President Trump's address, and having a bit of backlash on them.
You know, that kind of visible protest during the State of the Union risks looking poorly on Democrats.
And so that's why he was telling his members to either attend and sit silently or don't attend and protest.
But there are a number of other off-campus events going on that some Democrats are attending.
One of them is called a People's State of the Union, and many members are attending that rather than attend the President Trump's address.
Emily, you've been on the Hill for some time.
You said dozens of members so far are expected to skip.
How unique is that for multiple members of the opposition party on either side to just not show up to the State of the Union?
You know, I think we've seen it in the past.
We'll see exactly what the chamber looks like.
I think that the absence of members being in person at the State of the Union and not being in there at all, maybe having a lot of empty seats on the floor and showing how many Democrats are just refusing to listen at all would be a pretty big statement.
So we'll see if how much it's filled looks different than in previous years, but that could be a bigger message than any, you know, head shaking or silent defiance if members do show up.
So we'll see how big it ultimately ends up being.
You mentioned one of the Democratic alternative events that some of the members who are skipping the State of the Union will be attending.
How many official events are there that are going to be kind of alternate protest events to the State of the Union?
Well, we're tracking that one as the People's State of the Union.
It's on the National Mall.
There are a number of, you know, high-profile Democrats that are attending that, like Senators Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, Chris Murphy.
And there's also an event at the National Press Club called the State of the Swamp.
You know, some members are going to the State of the Union and also that event.
So it's sort of hard to tell, but Representatives Jason Crow and Seth Moulton are expected to be at that state of the swamp event.
And so there might be some other alternative events.
I know that Don Beyer, a Democratic congressman for Northern Virginia area, said that he's meeting with constituents this evening rather than attending the State of the Union.
And so even if they're not at one of these official alternative events, Democrats could be doing their protests by not attending in some other ways.
Now let's talk about the guests that folks are bringing.
We still don't know exactly who the White House will be bringing, but members have been posting for days now about who they expect to bring to the chamber with them, those that are going.
Who are Democrats bringing?
Who have Republicans invited?
And what is the significance of the guests that members bring to the State of the Union?
Yeah, well, anytime that a member brings a guest to the State of the Union, it is a statement of not only maybe a constituent that they want to highlight.
That's often a guest that a member brings or a certain kind of industry or principle, but also, you know, these are political statements as well.
And we have seen a number of Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia, say that they are inviting some high-profile accusers of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein,
who, of course, the Epstein files disclosures and investigations into his activities and all of the people surrounding him have been a major point for Democrats that they want to highlight and that they have been continually tying to President Trump and his administration's handling of releasing these files pursuant to the law that he signed last year and their complaints about the delay in that.
And so that is a major statement for Democrats there.
And, you know, on the Republican side, we reported about Speaker Mike Johnson.
He's bringing a number of guests.
One of them that he's bringing is the daughter of a Uyghur doctor who has been detained in China for over seven years now.
And so that is a statement of Republican priorities and concern about China's influence and their human rights abuses and activities in the world.
And so we can expect to see a lot of guests along those lines.
Including the men's U.S. hockey team who the president invited in that phone call.
And I know people are excited for.
I wonder after the president speaks tonight, there obviously will be a Democratic response.
It doesn't seem that there'll just be one, there'll be multiple.
But who will be giving the official response and just how many are there?
You know, there's going to be a number of Democratic responses.
The name of it is escaping me of exactly who's giving the address tonight.
But, you know, these Democratic responses are a very big deal.
Yeah, I think it's Abigail Spanberger.
That's right.
That's Abigail Spanberger.
I couldn't remember if she was giving the official response.
I think she might be giving the official, but don't quote us.
But I think I was like, I think it's Abigail Spanberger.
But she is, you know, of course, former member of Congress, a new Democratic governor.
She could have a very high profile on the national stage, and especially, you know, as the female governor giving the response to the Democratics, to giving the Democratic response to the State of the Union.
So that is, you know, it's always sort of a tough position for the response to be in.
There have been criticisms of how speeches to the response to the state of the union have gone in the past, and it can be a little bit of a trap, but it could also be a speech that really highlights an up-and-coming, up-and-coming politician or official and maybe set them on the stage to a higher national profile.
And so it's a pretty big opportunity, but also a risk for whoever gives that.
Right.
I remember Senator Katie Britt's response a few years ago that obviously didn't fare very well for her afterwards.
So in addition to Abigail Spanberger, just for folks listening, Senator Alex Padilla will give the Democratic response in Spanish and Representative Summer Lee will give the working families response.
So there are certainly quite a few that people can expect.
My last question for you here is: what will you be watching for tonight?
Well, I will be in the chamber tonight watching the State of the Union, and I won't have a view of the president, but I'll have a view of the floor and the members of Congress and looking for their reaction, maybe some interactions or reactions.
Hopefully, maybe some, if anybody says something that maybe a camera can't pick up on audio, but maybe we can hear in the chamber, that's what I'm going to be looking out for.
All right.
Emily Brooks, a congressional reporter with The Hill, thanks so much for joining us this morning.
Thank you.
And now to open forum, Josh from Portland, an independent.
You are first up.
Good morning, Josh.
Once I click your button.
Good morning, Josh.
Good morning.
So, first of all, you know, I'm listening to this lady talk about all of these congressmen and senators not going to see this speech.
And I think they should all go because this is no different from Republicans not going to town hall meetings.
They need to go there with some sort of purpose.
And I have a challenge for them.
I've never done this.
I've never, I know people who do drinking games.
I've never done a drinking game.
I'll drink, but I've never done a drinking game.
For instance, I knew this, I knew a guy at Technicolor.
I worked with him.
Can I say his name?
If you wish, I suppose.
Sure.
Mark Lovelace.
Good worker, but super conservative.
Didn't agree with him.
He'd watch the Healhauser show.
Healhauser would say, wait, are you telling me that they take a drink?
So I guarantee you that people around the world are doing a Trump drinking game.
Like, he's going to say something and they're going to drink.
And I think that the Congress and whoever else is in there, I don't know about the Senate.
The Senator's Congress at least.
Yeah, but I don't really trust them much.
And the Congress is more representative of us.
And maybe Bernie, a couple of those, maybe even a few Republicans.
And they should play a Trump buzzword or phrase, drinking game.
But instead of drinking, they should applause.
And like Al Green, last year, he was the only guy who stood up for Medicaid.
And when he got walked out, those people were singing, We Shell Overcoming.
That was sad when they were singing that.
And by the way, when Martin Luther King got shot, he's the guy who got shot.
They did not shoot Jesse Jackson, they shot Martin Luther King.
And we never recovered from that.
All right.
Josh from Portland, Steve from Indianapolis, a Republican.
Steve, it's open forum.
You can talk about anything.
Yeah, I just, I'm not really a Republican, a Democrat, an independent.
I'm just an average Joe out here on the street that sees all this crap going down.
And I just don't understand why the Democrats don't at least try to help the country.
The only thing they do is just stand in the way and say, Orange man, bad, Republicans, bad.
And I don't understand it.
I just really just don't understand why they don't help the country.
And one more thing: Hillary Clinton will never ever be president of the United States.
That's all I got.
All right, Steve from Indianapolis.
Political Points & Suggestions00:05:37
A programming note for you guys tonight.
President Trump will deliver the annual Save the Union address to a joint session of Congress.
Our live coverage here on C-SPAN begins at 7 p.m. Eastern with a preview here on C-SPAN, followed by the President's speech at 9 p.m.
That's live tonight.
And also, we will be bringing you the State of the Union protest, where Democratic elected officials, celebrities, and political activists will be part of an event protesting President Trump's State of the Union address and the administration policies from the National Press Club that's live at 7 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3.
You can also see these events on our free mobile app, our free mobile video app, C-SPAN Now, and online at c-span.org, just so you know our programming for tonight.
Alan from Arkansas Independent, you're next.
Good morning, Alan.
It's open forum.
Wow, good morning.
This is my second call since you have been on.
I looked this morning to see if you would be on, and I thought, oh, no, I can't call.
It'll just seem too awkward.
So what was it awkward?
Well, you've been doing a great job.
Let me just say that.
I know you're interning, I think I heard you say once, and so you're doing a great job on it.
No, I'm not interned, but go ahead.
Oh, okay.
Even better.
Good.
I'm glad to clear that up.
I'm really.
Speak the facts.
Sure.
I'm a conservative independent.
I think we should identify ourselves one way or the other on being independent.
But I wanted to make a quick.
Oh, you said I was.
No, no, no.
I thought you said I was an intern.
Sorry.
Go ahead.
Yes.
That's kind of what I was saying.
But anyway, all the best to you.
I wanted to make a quick political point, and then I wanted to make a suggestion for C-SPAN, if I may, real quick on my point, which is I've been pushing for this for years, and I've mentioned it a couple of times calling in.
By the way, I've been calling in since you guys came on the air for 40 years.
I was actually a talk show host 50 years ago.
Okay, yes, I remember talking to you before.
Okay, go ahead.
Yeah, so but anyway, the idea is to we absolutely, President Trump, which I have the highest respect for because he is a pro-life voting president.
I'm real big on being pro-life.
But we should return this neighborhood.
It's really just a neighborhood outside D.C. on the other side of the Potomac back to Maryland.
That absolutely is the most grifting trouble for our country generally.
So we should return the neighborhood of D.C. back to Maryland.
Huge accomplishment, President Trump, if you would accomplish that.
And then, so my suggestion for C-SPAN is, in the context of this talk show host that I did for years, and I had a number one rated show one time at a pretty large city a long time ago.
All my listeners, I don't think there's any more still living, but anyway, is for C-SPAN to, you know, you say you're unbiased.
You run these commercials all the time about how unbiased we are, which is not accurate.
So to prove this accuracy, you're using George Washington's name.
And I had a history teaching career, and George Washington I tried to bring up once a day.
But his insistence was that we not be divided politically.
In fact, imagine this.
If we would continue to follow his example, the first two or three elections were most votes elects the president, next most votes elects the vice president.
And just imagine it would have been President Trump and Mrs. Clinton, president, vice president.
And just think of the different races here in the last few years that would have brought our country together.
It would have been wild.
But that was George Washington's and our founding father's plan was that we not have divided elections where we rival each other.
All right, that was Alan calling in.
Bill from Vienna, Virginia, a Democrat.
Yornaks.
Good morning, Bill.
It's open for him.
Okay, I just wanted to go back, if I could, to the, I won't tax you, but I'll go back to the previous segment you had about Ukraine.
Okay.
And I, you know, it's been a year now since Trump was re-elected.
And I've, you know, I've thought about a lot about what would be an episode on C-SPAN calling that would best crystallize how much it's failing at stepping up to the challenge that Trumpism 2.0 is presenting.
And I think that last segment really was the winner.
C-SPAN's Institutional Challenge00:02:40
And the reason I say that is, you know, again, democracy, the premise of C-SPAN is fine.
And it's made C-SPAN an institution.
That is that we're a Democratic country.
And as a Democratic country, you have the back and forth and the to-and-fro of differing viewpoints.
However, what is most important, Well, the most important part of undergirding that is that the viewpoints are based on facts and that we don't, most of most importantly, we don't accept lies as truth.
And the gentleman you just had, the guy you just had on is so emblematic of completely distorting the entire Ukrainian issue around basically what is a big Trump lie that carries over from his first term to his second.
He was impeached basically for trying to shake down Zelensky his first term.
The only reason the impeachment process, no one could have watched that impeachment process and not felt that the facts were compelling.
And there really wasn't any argument about what he did.
He didn't argue about it.
And yet here you have a guy who comes on and literally looks the interviewer in the face and says that expertise doesn't matter at all and expertise is actually a shortcoming and that Jared Kushner of all people is someone who brings that the skill set of Jared Kushner,
which is nothing other than, and these are the facts, nothing other than corrupt and craven opportunism from the first term to the second term, that the fact that he just simply that Trump can quote unquote count on his loyalty supersedes anything else, any of the downsides that he could bring to the table.
And again, the way you allow this, what it does, and this is the most important point, what it does is C-SPAN has spent 40 years creating a brand that its listeners can trust, a brand that does support and does promote truth in media.
Gonzalez Resigns Over Alleged Affair00:07:54
And what you had just an hour ago was the full normalization of one of Trump's, there's three huge lies that we now suffer from.
Of course.
Okay, I'm going to end that to move on to some other callers, but I would just say that, Bill, I think that the greatness of this program is that folks like you can call in and register your opposition with what a interviewee said in a respectful manner,
as you did, and also call in while they're on and register that to them, like one of the callers did when he asked more about the Russia collusion investigation to the guest here.
So I think that that is one of the great parts of this wonderful C-SPAN program.
Ken from Tampa, Florida, an Independent.
You're on?
Yeah, good morning.
How are you?
Good morning.
Yeah.
My only thing is when it comes to the state of the union, it's like I noticed by me being an independent, I noticed that all the Republicans will call in and say how great Trump is.
All the Democrats will call in and say how horrible he is, which he is a horrible individual.
I would like to know, I know tomorrow, if you do, if you guys do open phone, it will be about the state of the union.
But I hope you all will be able to act these callers, like the one woman who said she would go through hell for Trump, but then on Sunday, she'll go to church probably and say she wouldn't be like Jesus.
But how do Trump view Clarence Thomas, Tim Scott, and Brian McDonald when he would post a picture of showing black people, even though it was Obama, as monkeys?
I will ask, and another thing about C-SPAN that I don't understand, Trump can call people garbage and nasty and all that.
But when people call in and say something about him, C-SPAN wants to cut off the phone and say, oh, we need to stay civil when this guy is the leader of the country.
And last thing is, why do C-SPAN allow them or allow people to call in and call people aliens?
Like, I know these are illegal immigrants, and I know a lot of them that listen to this show don't view people of color as humans.
But why does C-SPAN allow them to do that instead of cutting them off right then and there?
Thank you.
I think you do a great job and have a good day.
Thanks for calling in, Ken.
Keith from Pennsylvania, Republican.
You're next.
Yeah.
Hey, good morning.
I'm a registered Republican, but as far as the eye can see, I don't see a Republican that I will vote for probably for the rest of my life because they sit around and privately talk about how corrupt,
inept, disgraceful, and despicable this president is, but will not do a thing to stand up and fight back for our democracy, for justice, for the values that we really cherish.
And I don't get it.
This is a lame duck president who doesn't know what he's doing, and they are so, continue to be, so scared of him.
So what I remember, Mitt Romney, when his book came out, he talked about literally talking to colleagues who are like afraid that their families will be threatened.
And so that's one of the reasons.
I don't know how big a reason.
Might be a big reason.
I don't know.
One of the reasons why they don't stand up.
But here's the problem I have with that.
Congress have to make decisions about sending people to war.
They'll send people into harm's way, but they themselves are chicken when it comes to standing up against this nut.
All right.
Keith from Pennsylvania.
Scott from Pennsylvania Independent.
You're next.
That's open forum.
You can talk about anything, Scott.
Hello, good morning.
Good morning.
You have a couple great callers.
I'm a conservative independent.
I want to touch on a couple of your guests you had in the last few weeks.
When actually one was over a month ago that cut me off.
I didn't even get a chance to speak.
I no more started halfway through my sentence and he cut me off.
But let me finish that and I'll get right straight back to the point.
I was cut off when I was told by somebody from RAN, Iranian guy you had on there.
I said, well, why should we stand up for them when all we hear from their people is death to America?
And then boom, he cut me right off.
And then we want to stand up for their people that are riding over there, killing their cops, blowing their buildings, their cop buildings up.
And we're killing our Americans that ain't even really protesting.
They're not even really protesting like they were over there.
Back to the gun part.
You had a guy on there for guns.
I'm a conservative American, but I don't believe Americans should have machine guns so we can overthrow the government in case they overthrow their power.
That's what voting is about.
Now, some people are criminals and deserve to die.
Some people are criminals in their eyes that deserve to die.
Nobody deserves to die.
And I'm a conservative, but I'll never vote for another Republican until they get away from the tactics that Russia, China, and North Korea do.
They try to brainwash people.
They lie, and they're covering for Donald Trump constantly.
And we have to forget about everything that he does.
I don't forget about everything he does.
And I hope you don't either, because recently he put something on there about black people.
Now, I'm a conservative.
I was against diversity stuff there talking about with women and blacks.
But what's going on now is worse.
Now only people that are loyal to him can follow him.
Now we've got a bunch of people that are not really up to the job that they have.
And it's obvious all of his people in cabinet are just for him and not the people.
But I really feel bad for America.
I'll never vote for another Republican.
And I always voted for Republicans because I do not want to be lied to and brainwashed.
And my brother, who was a politician in Ohio, used to be.
All right, Scott, I'm going to stop you there because we have some breaking news this morning.
As GOP members call on Tony Gonzalez to resign over an alleged fair, I turn to a Hill article once I restart my iPad here that came out last night.
GOP members call on Tony Gonzalez to resign over the alleged affair.
Several GOP members are urging Representative Tony Gonzalez, a Republican from Texas, to resign or end his reelection campaign over allegations that he had a fair with one of his congressional staffers.
It includes a tweet from Lauren Boebert, a Republican from Colorado, who says resign.
Representative Nancy Mace, Republican from South Carolina, echoed that sentiment.
Quote, Tony Gonzalez should resign immediately and be held fully accountable for what he's done.
She and her family deserve better, and Texans deserve a congressman who does not prey on women.
China's Non-Involvement00:03:02
May said a statement.
Gonzalez has been under increasing scrutiny since last week when the San Antonio Express News reported that the now deceased aide, Regina Ann Santos Avias, wrote to another staffer in April, and in April 2025, I had an affair with our boss and I'm fine.
Santos Avia died last year after setting herself on fire.
So obviously another dynamic on the hill there as President Trump is expected to give the seat of the union later on tonight.
Lee from California, a Republican, you're next.
It's open forum.
I think if the whining Democrats don't want to show up for the president's speech, they ought to take the hockey team and put in their seats and show these Democrats what real Americans are.
Thank you.
Good morning.
When the lawyer-in-chief, yeah, when the lawyer-in-chief convicted Fellon, five-time draft document, when he speaks tonight, count how many times he says the word I.
I guarantee you it will be in double digit.
And I disagree with the Democrats shutting down the government.
That's not the route to go.
Thank you.
Goodbye.
David from Vancouver, Washington, Independent.
David, you are on the line.
Good morning.
It's open forum.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I don't see our adversary.
Talking about the segment about Ukraine previously, I don't see China spending a dime or sending their kids to wars.
Everything I see is made in China, not United States.
And that I'm disappointing toward that.
And I remember also, I'll make it very quick.
I also remember Mike Johnson celebrating passing a bill spending $9 some billion dollars on Ukraine and spending $38 billion on Israel.
I don't see China spending their money on wars like we do.
We should push for peace all the time and we should keep our kids from going to wars and our grandkids from going to wars and keep our money in this country.
We are $39 trillion in debt.
We cannot journal will be back tomorrow at 7 a.m. Eastern.
Now we take you live to the House of Representatives.
The House will be in order.
The Chair lays before the House a communication from the Speaker.