On March 19, 2026, Washington Journal dissected the debate over reauthorizing Section 702 of FISA amid a war with Iran, where intelligence officials clashed with lawmakers regarding an "imminent nuclear threat" despite claims that enrichment programs were obliterated. The broadcast detailed potential troop deployments to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the contentious confirmation of Markwayne Mullin as DHS head following his insult to Rand Paul, and calls for warrants before purchasing commercial location data. With Congresswoman Betty McCollum criticizing the $200 billion Pentagon budget request and unilateral actions lacking a clear endgame, the episode concludes that the administration's aggressive stance risks escalating conflict without securing Iranian nuclear materials or restoring congressional oversight. [Automatically generated summary]
Washington Journal this morning, along with your calls and comments live.
George Mason University's Jamil Jaffer will talk about the debate over reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and national security threats.
And then Minnesota Democratic Congresswoman Betty McCollum on U.S.-Israeli combat operations against Iran, the impasse over Department of Homeland Security funding, and other congressional news of the day.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
Join the conversation.
Good morning and welcome to The Washington Journal on this Thursday, March 19th.
A busy day on Capitol Hill yesterday with President Trump's top intelligence officials testifying on the war with Iran.
The president's pick to serve as the top of the DHS, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, testifying at a confirmation hearing as well.
C-SPAN cameras were there for every contentious minute.
This morning, after hours of testimony by the president's team, we want to know this morning your confidence level in the president's national security team.
Democrats, dial in at 202-748-8000.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can text if you don't want to call at 202-748-8003.
Post on facebook.com slash C-SPAN or on X with a handle at C-SPANWJ.
We'll get to your calls here in just a minute.
Your confidence level in the President's national security team.
But first, an update on the war with Iran.
Reuters, in an exclusive report this morning, U.S. Ways Military Reinforcements as Iran war enters possible new phase.
And what Reuters is reporting here is that the President is considering deploying thousands of U.S. troops to the Middle East region.
This could include the use of U.S. ground troops on the Iranian shoreline, a key Iranian oil transfer facility, to order the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Punch Bowl News reporting this morning.
However, the use of ground combat forces inside Iran in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz would be a red line for many lawmakers in both parties.
Trump may be forced by necessity to come to Congress to authorize such an expedition.
GOP lawmakers privately are telling us that this would be an uphill fight, although they want to see if Trump actually makes the request first.
Secretary Rubio said, no, we're not planning on boots on the ground, said Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska.
If that has changed, she said, if that has shifted, whether it's the Marine Expeditionary Unit or these others that may be coming their way, if they know it, we got a pretty decent-sized skiff.
She's referring to the area on Capitol Hill where they can get intelligence briefings.
They need to be talking to us about it.
Senator Lisa Murkowski on this war with Iran.
Now, you remember, there were attempts in the U.S. Senate and in the House on a war resolution dealing with Iran.
Those attempts have failed.
They could come back up as well.
The Associated Press with this live update, the president threatens to strike the South Pars gas field if Iran attacks Qatar again.
This is following up on the Israeli attack on the South Pars gas field last night.
The president putting out on a Truth Social post this morning, no more attacks will be made by Israel pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars field unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case, Qatar.
So Israel attacking this gas field, which caused gas prices to skyrocket overnight, and Iran responded with their attack on Qatar on the oil fields there.
Hearing today at Capitol Hill, the same folks that were on Capitol Hill yesterday testifying about threats to the U.S. amid the Iran war will be back up on Capitol Hill today,
8.30 a.m. Eastern Time, and we will have coverage of that on C-SPAN 3, C-SPAN Now, our free video mobile app, and C-SPAN.org are online on demand there where you can watch day two of the President's top intelligence officials testifying.
Happening this morning at 8 a.m. Eastern Time, right here on C-SPAN, we're going to bring you live coverage of the Pentagon briefing.
The Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Dan Kaine, will be giving a briefing to America on the Iran war, and we'll have coverage right here on C-SPAN, but you'll also be able to watch it in its entirety on C-SPAN 2, C-SPANNOW, our free video mobile app, and online c-span.org.
We are 33 days into a partial government shutdown for the Homeland Security Department.
We are 20 days into this war with Iran.
And this morning, we want to know your confidence level in the Trump administration's national security team.
Let's go to the testimony on Capitol Hill yesterday from the Washington Post this morning.
On the Hill, scrutiny of Iran grows.
Gabbard told the senators that the regime of Iran is battered but intact.
The Washington Post notes that as strikingly in her opening statement, she departed from prepared remarks published ahead of Wednesday's hearing outlining the intelligence community's assessment of Iran's nuclear capability.
As she spoke to lawmakers, Gabbard said that after the U.S. military bombed Iran's nuclear sites over the summer, Tehran was trying to recover from the severe damage caused by the operation.
According to her written statement, Gabbard was expected to say that the Iranians had made no efforts since the U.S. bombing of their nuclear facilities to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.
Senator John Ossoff asked Secretary, excuse me, DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard about her prepared remarks versus what she delivered before the committee.
Here's that exchange.
Now, Director Gabbard, I'd like to reground this in your core responsibilities.
Under the law, you are responsible for providing national intelligence to the president, correct?
Yes.
And to the heads of executive branch departments and agencies, yes?
Yes.
And to the chairman of the joint chiefs and senior military commanders?
Across the IC, yes.
And to the Senate and the House and relevant committees, correct?
Yes.
And the law states that the national intelligence you provide to Congress, quote, should be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations, correct?
Yes.
And you noted in your opening statement you're here fulfilling a statutory responsibility and that your testimony, quote, represents the IC's assessment of threats.
Is that correct?
That opening statement, as submitted to the committee in advance of this hearing, stated that as a result of last summer's airstrikes, quote, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated, end quote, correct?
That's right.
And is that in fact the assessment of the intelligence community?
Yes.
So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes.
Yes.
And the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night also stated, quote, there has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability, end quote, correct?
That's right.
And that's the assessment of the intelligence community.
Yes.
The White House stated on March 1st of this year that this war was launched and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, end quote.
That's a statement from the White House.
Quote, the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.
Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment capability.
Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
Yes or no?
Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.
False.
This is the worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.
You've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated and that, quote, there had been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.
Was it the intelligence community's assessment that nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a quote imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
Yes or no?
It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.
That is up to you.
Here's the problem.
It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States.
This is the worldwide threats hearing, where, as you noted in your opening testimony, quote, you represent the IC's assessment of threats.
You are here to represent the IC's assessment of threats.
That's a quote from your own opening statement.
And so my question is, as you're here to present the IC's assessment of threats, was it the assessment of the intelligence community that as the White House claimed on March 1st, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
Yes or no?
Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment.
You won't answer the question.
The nature of the imminent threat that the president has to make that determination based on a collection and volume is the intelligence that he is provided with.
You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.
Exactly what I'm doing.
No, you're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House.
The Director of National Intelligence and in Exchange with Senator John Ossaw from yesterday's hearing.
The New York Times frames it this way.
This morning, who decides what's an imminent threat?
Trump.
Gabbard says.
Ed in Philadelphia, Republican.
Let's turn to you first.
Your confidence in the President's national security team.
Well, thank you so much for taking my call this morning.
And I appreciate that lead in from the testimony yesterday because it ultimately illustrates the point that I'd like to make, which is that I have very little faith in the intelligence community and the foreign policy team, if you want to call that, that the president currently has.
I mean, if you look at, for example, just the man Joe Kent, who quit this week, is saying a lot of crazy stuff.
There's people who are working during the shutdown for DHS are responding to people using Nazi lingo on Twitter.
And at the same time, we seem to have the president tweeting from the Go toilet about the South Pars gas field, which is probably changed the field of play for the energy reserves for the entire planet for the next decade.
Approximately 50% of the liquid natural gas for India comes from South Pars.
And at this point, I don't really know that I have any faith whatsoever.
And Ed, add to that your reaction to reports this morning that the administration is considering ground troops in order to open up the Strait of Hormuz.
Well, listen, they're going to have to get that boat through the strait past the mines in order to take that island.
And listen, the Bay of Pigs was ugly for a lot of reasons.
And this seems to be a repeat of them, in my opinion.
I mean, let's call this what it is.
The amount of people who have quit working in the interiority of our government, not just because of the Doge cuts, but and the war of attrition on subject matter experts that have been going on for the last decade and beyond.
But listen, Foggy Bottom's got a lot of desks with a lot of empty phones that are ringing, and nobody's picking them up.
All right.
Ed, I got to leave it there.
New York Times this morning on the attack on that gas field.
Oil and gas prices jump as wave of strikes hits energy facilities in Iran.
And they report that after the strikes, oil and natural gas prices spiked with the global benchmark for crude oil soaring to more than $109 a barrel as investors worried that Iran would retaliate by striking oil and gas sites in the region, putting further pressure on crude supplies, which they did attacking Qatar.
Gasoline prices in the United States have been rising since the start of the war, reaching $3.84 a gallon.
And on Wednesday, the Trump administration, in an effort to lower prices, said on Wednesday that it would temporarily relax a law that restricts the way oil is shipped within the United States.
That's the Jones Act.
That's the front page of the New York Times.
It's also reported by the Associated Press and others.
This is the Wall Street Journal.
Strikes on Gulf Energy escalate.
The attacks by Israel.
Iran put oil, gas supplies in the crosshairs of this growing conflict.
Israel struck at the crown jewel of Iran's energy industry on Wednesday, the giant South Pars field that Iran shares with Qatar and is by far the largest in the world.
Iran quickly retaliated with an attack on a major gas hub in Qatar, just across the Gulf, and a missile barrage fired at the Saudi capital of Rihad, which with debris landing near a refinery.
Trump Administration Jones Act Shift00:15:19
So that's the latest on the back and forth, the tit-and-tat between Israel and Iran.
John in Eastern Pennsylvania, Democratic caller, your confidence in the Trump administration's national security team.
I don't have any confidence in it because when Trump came into power in his second term, he fired all those generals that were smart and experienced in the field of military activity and security and all that stuff.
And then he hired all these pretty young girls.
I got no problem with a young, pretty girl doing a job, but they barely look like they're out of eight, they barely look like they're older than 18, and they're running these major departments in his administration.
They're not cut out to do that.
Okay, Ken, Florida, Independent.
Your thoughts?
Yes, good morning, Greta.
My thoughts are this total incompetence of this president and going into Iran, being led by Benjamin Nassau Nahu, who don't even care about Israel.
This president, that's why we see so many other presidents never attack Iran.
Iran is 90 million people.
And this guy goes in Iran and says his biggest thing: we didn't expect this to happen.
If I go into your house and do things, don't you know that you're going to do all kinds of things to prevent me from coming into your house?
The people who call in and support this president, I don't understand.
Benjamin Nassanahu don't even care about Israel.
The president of the United States got to look out for the whole world.
The whole world.
Now, Israel is out of control, blowing up this thing in Iran, which controls that portion of the world oil supply.
Now, Iran is blowing up everything in Dubai and everywhere that controls the Western part of the world, all because Trump and his selfish way of thinking do not understand his position as the president of the United States.
And you have all these people going to call in and support this incompetent man who got all these DI hired people around him that don't even know what their job is.
All right, Ken, I'll leave it there.
The president considering ground troops, according to reports this morning, although the White House is dismissing those reports.
And as we said, Punch Bowl News reporting, lawmakers may be clamoring for the president to come to Congress for approval if that is the next phase in this Iran war.
The president's intelligence team up on Capitol Hill yesterday testifying for hours about the Iran conflict.
C-SPAN cameras were there, and they asked about intelligence and the briefings to the president on what Iran's reaction would be if he were to start this conflict.
If you missed any of those moments, you can find them online on demand at c-span.org.
Callers have also brought up Joe Kent, who resigned from his top post as an aide to Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, this week.
The Wall Street Journal editorial, Tulsi Gabbard's resistance shop.
And they note that on Monday, Joe Kent tendered his resignation as counterterrorism chief under Ms. Gabbard.
The same day, news broke that Ms. Gabbard hired Dan Caldwell as an advisor to senior intelligence officials.
Mr. Kent excoriated Mr. Trump's Iran policy Tuesday, blaming it and most everything else abroad on the Jewish lobby.
He'll now go on Tucker Carlson's podcast to lobby against Mr. Trump's policy from the outside since he failed to stay to stop it from the inside.
Mr. Caldwell, his replacement, did his exit interview with Mr. Carlson in April after he was pushed out of the Pentagon in a leak investigation.
He has spent the months since opposing Mr. Trump's Iran policy, including a second time on Mr. Carlson's show amid the 12-day war in June.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board goes on to write this.
Ms. Gabbard was cagey in a Wednesday hearing on the threat from Iran, preferring to hide behind Mr. Trump's assessment, which most assume she doesn't share.
Ms. Gabbard has a history of ferocious opposition to Mr. Trump on Iran, and her hires suggest that she hasn't changed.
She made Will Roger, Will Rugger, Mr. Caldwell's ideological comrade, a deputy director.
She tried and failed to hire their colleague, Daniel Davis.
And then there's the departed Mr. Kemp.
All our opponents of the president's policy gathered around Ms. Gabbard's intelligence shop.
To add Mr. Caldwell in wartime is certainly brazen.
Similar types can be found in the Pentagon, Leakey Pentagon.
And they go on to write: the administration's middle ranks include many ideological antagonists ushered in by former personnel director Sergio Gore.
It isn't clear what influence they or Ms. Gabbard have with the president.
And on Iran, it appears not too much.
But it isn't healthy at a time of war to have what essentially is a resistance movement inside the administration.
Now, Joe Kent did appear on Tucker Carlson's podcast on Wednesday.
Listen to what he had to say.
You're saying that there was no intelligence that you saw with the highest level clearance, obviously, involved in this conversation, that showed an imminent threat from Iran to the United States.
No.
No.
Unless we took certain actions, unless we came after them in a way that they thought threatened the regime, then we basically knew what they were going to do.
Well, that's what they're doing.
Right, of course.
But like any country.
So if you attack any country, we know that they're going to have a reaction.
We face an imminent threat once we attack you.
Yeah, exactly.
But there was no intelligence that said, hey, on whatever day it was, March 1st, the Iranians are going to launch this big sneak attack.
They're going to do some kind of a 9-11 at Pearl Harbor, et cetera.
They're going to attack one of our bases.
There was none of that intelligence.
Again, back to what we know about the Iranians.
They're very, very deliberate with the escalation ladder.
And again, they're only deliberate under President Trump's leadership because they knew and they took President Trump very, very seriously.
Joe Kent, who resigned earlier this week from the Director of National Intelligence Offices on Tucker Carlson's podcast yesterday, his name came up at the hearing with the president's intelligence team on Capitol Hill yesterday.
Here's Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, asking the CIA Director John Ratcliffe about Joe Kent and his resignation.
I want to ask you, Director Ratcliffe, yesterday, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center resigned saying that Iran did not represent an imminent threat to the United States.
Is there anything to indicate that Iran had ceased in its nuclear ambitions or in its desire to continue to build ballistic missiles capable of threatening American troops and allies in the Middle East?
Senator, no, in fact, the intelligence reflects the contrary.
So you disagree with Mr. Kent?
I do.
I would think any fair-minded assessment of the situation, even based on open sources, would reflect the danger Iran regime poses to the United States.
Isn't it true they've basically been at war with the West since 1979 during the Iranian Revolution and have American blood on their hands?
That's absolutely correct.
I think Iran has been a constant threat to the United States for an extended period of time and posed an immediate threat at this time.
The CIA Director John Ratcliffe in testimony yesterday, again, C-SPAN cameras were there, and this morning we're asking you after hearing from the president's national security team, what's your confidence level in them?
Nate in Franklin, Indiana.
There we go.
Republican.
Hi, Nate.
Good morning.
Good morning.
You know, intelligence is only good if someone listens.
And how many times have we heard the president say he doesn't need advice?
Now, the way I understand is that General Kane warned the president about the Strait of Hormuz.
And also, a few days ago, the President was asked what the worst case situation would be in this war.
And his answer was: is if we get someone in charge that's worse than the previous man.
Well, isn't that what we have now?
Because the new man in charge, he's lost his dad.
He's lost his mother.
He's lost his wife.
He lost his sibling.
I understand it, even lost a child.
So the president often says it takes two to tangle.
In this case, we have three: us, Israel, and we have Iran.
Well, in this case, it takes three to untangle.
If it takes three to tangle, it takes three to untangle.
All right.
Nate, I'm going to pick up on your point on the Strait of Hormuz because that is reporting from the Washington Post this morning.
Gabbard and Ratcliffe said the U.S. intelligence community, or IC, anticipated Iran's move on the strait.
Quote, there has long been an assessment of the IC that Iran would likely hold the Strait of Hormuz as leverage, Gabbard said.
But she and the CIA chief declined to discuss what specific briefings Trump received.
Mike in California and Independent, let's turn to you, Mike.
Your confidence level in the president's national security team.
Oh boy, that's a complicated question and almost a loaded question, Greta.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Mike and Lake here.
I would like to further your topic on the LNG crisis.
We have information we received here in China Lake that the Alaska National Gas Corporation has been sold to China for 51%.
So has the Keystone XL pipeline has been sold to China for 51% along with the Yukon.
China has an operating tenant line going into Canada off the mainline.
No one knows about that.
We have just been informed of.
China has 250 trucks in Alaska.
They have already built seven compressor stations from Prudhoe Bay to Aldiz.
And Click Bishop, Dan Sullivan, Mike Dunlevey, even Sarah Palin know about this.
They keep saying the pipeline's going to start.
We're going to employ everybody.
They want to know now why.
All right, so Mike, tie this back to the president's national security team.
National Security Team, well, they're blowing up the LNG on one end of the world.
They're giving away Alaska gas to China.
It's a disgrace.
Okay.
Mike in California.
Vinny, Rockville, Maryland, Democratic caller.
We'll go to you next.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'm just curious to see why everybody is against the president attacking Iran.
You know, with the national intelligence and the advice they're giving the president, that's between them and the president.
And as Iran has been a menace and the imminent threat idea, as the gentleman who just resigned, saying, oh, it's going to be an attack on March 1st or this date, that date, it doesn't have to be a specific date.
Iran has been an imminent threat to the United States for 47 years.
They do have the blood of Americans on their hands.
They killed more than 30,000 of their own people just so they could stay in power in a two-week span time.
That's more than Hitler ever killed the Jews in two weeks' time.
So it's a shame that we're trying to go against what the president is trying to do is to free a country where it's not going to be a state-sponsored terrorist money spreading to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis.
And the world is going to have a better place with Iran being part of the world versus it being a state terrorism country.
Okay.
Vinny in Rockville, Maryland, on our line for Democrats with his thoughts.
Take a listen to this moment from Capitol Hill yesterday.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe responding to a question about Iran's capability for an intercontinental missile that could threaten the United States.
Director Ratcliffe, I want to address one specific threat from Iran, the threat of an intercontinental missile, which is really just the combination of two technologies, one thrust to get something into space and a reentry vehicle to get it back to Earth.
Iran has always had a space launch program, which is flimsy cover for the first part of that intercontinental missile program.
I haven't seen any Iranian astronauts in space lately.
And second, they have medium-range ballistic missiles, which already have a reentry vehicle.
So if you crudely married those two technologies together, I've heard some analysts say that Iran could have had a functioning intercontinental missile to threaten the United States in as few as six months.
Would you agree with that assessment?
Well, you're right to be concerned about Iran's development of longer-range ballistic missiles, Senator.
If Iran were allowed to develop at the IRBM ranges, which is 3,000 kilometers, it would threaten most of Europe.
And yes, as you mentioned, we know that Iran is gaining experience in these larger, more powerful booster technologies through its so-called space launch vehicle program.
If left unimpeded, yes, Senator, they would have the ability to range missiles to the continental U.S.
It's one of the reasons why degrading Iran's missile production capabilities that is taking place right now in Operation Epic Fury is so important to our national security.
The CIA director on Capitol Hill yesterday talking about the rationale for this conflict with Iran and the imminent threat of an intercontinental missile.
Senate Hearing on Iranian Threats00:04:26
We're getting your confidence level in the president's national security team this morning after those folks testified for hours on Capitol Hill yesterday.
They're back again this morning, 8.30 a.m. Eastern Time.
The DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard, along with the CIA Director John Ratcliffe, the FBI Director Kash Patel, and others, they'll all be on Capitol Hill again today for a hearing on global security threats.
8.30 a.m. Eastern Time.
Watch it live on C-SPAN 3, C-SPAN Now, and online on demand at c-span.org.
Also happening on Capitol Hill yesterday was Senator Mark Wayne Mullen in the hot seat for his confirmation hearing to head up the Homeland Security Department after the president fired Christy Noam.
He appeared before the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
The Washington Times headline, Mullen's disposition at the forefront of the hearing.
Senators on Wednesday questioned whether one of their colleagues, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, has the temperament to help the Homeland Security Department with Senator Ram Paul, a fellow Republican, calling the nominee a man with anger issues.
Mr. Paul, chairman of the committee that oversees the nomination, has emerged as a major hurdle from Mr. Mullen, lambasting the nominee for calling Mr. Paul a freaking snake and for sympathizing with an attacker who left Mr. Paul with six broken ribs and years of pain and recovery.
Mr. Paul also threatened to scuttle a vote planned for today in the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee to advance Mr. Mullen's nomination unless he provided more clarity to the panel on what he described as a secret training program he did in 2015 and 2016 while a House lawmaker.
Take a look at this exchange at the top of the hearing yesterday.
Senator Ram Paul and his personal grievances with the nominee.
You told the media that I was a freaking snake and that you completely understood why I had been assaulted.
I was shocked that you would justify and celebrate this violent assault that caused me so much pain and my family so much pain.
I just wonder if someone who applauds violence against their political opponents is the right person to lead an agency that has struggled to accept limits to the proper use of force.
You might argue you were mad and upset about being confronted by your constituents.
Senator Mullen, your constituents are justifiably upset with you.
By now, most of America knows that the Somali welfare fraud in Minnesota stole over $9 billion.
But instead of defending your vote, you took to continue the vote to continue these refugee welfare programs.
You chose to lash out at me.
You went on to brag that you had already told me to my face that you completely understood and approved of the assault.
Well, that's a lie.
You got a chance today.
You can either continue to lie or you can correct the record.
You have never had the courage to look me in the eye and tell me that the assault was justified.
So today you'll have your chance.
Today I'll give you that chance to clear the record.
Tell it to my face.
If that's what you believe, tell it to me today.
Tell the world why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken and a damaged lung.
Tell me to my face why you think I deserved it.
And while you're at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and Border Patrol agents.
Explain to the American public how a man who has no regrets about brawling in a Senate committee can set a proper example for over 250,000 men and women who work at the Department of Homeland Security.
Sir, I think there's everybody in this room knows that I'm very blunt and direct to the point.
And if I have something to say, I'll say it directly to your face.
If you recall, back in my House days, we actually did have this conversation because of remarks that I made.
You were in a room.
I simply addressed that I said I could understand because of the behavior you were having that I could understand why your neighbor, why the neighbor did what he did.
As far as my terms, the snake in the grass, sir, I work around this room to try to fix problems.
I've worked with many people in this room.
Section 702 Data Collection Debate00:15:41
Seems like you fight Republicans more than you work with us.
I did address those remarks.
I did explain your gimmicks by the amendment you put forth.
And as far as me saying that I invoke violence, I don't.
I don't think anybody should be hit by surprise.
I don't like that.
But if I do have something to say, everybody in this room knows I'll come straight to you.
I'll say it publicly and I'll say it privately, but I'll never say it behind your back.
So for you to say, I'm a liar, sir, that's not accurate.
And I got proof to say that because you have spent millions of dollars in my campaigns against me because we just don't get along.
However, sir, that doesn't keep me at all from doing my job.
I can have difference opinions with everybody in this room, but as Secretary of Homeland, I will be protecting everybody, including Kentucky, as much as I will my own backyard in Oklahoma.
It's bigger than the partisan bickering that we have.
It's bigger than the political differences we have.
The truth is, I have a job to do, and I don't like to fail at anything at all.
So I can set it aside if you're willing to set it aside.
Let me earn your respect.
Let me earn the job.
I won't fail you.
I won't back down from a challenge.
And I'll also admit when I'm wrong.
I'm not perfect.
I don't claim to be perfect.
I make mistakes just like anybody else.
But mistakes, if you own them, you can learn from them and you can move ahead.
And I'll make that commitment to you.
Senator Mark Wayne Mullen at his confirmation hearing to head the Homeland Security Department.
After that exchange, you won't be surprised to learn that Senator Ram Paul is a no vote on his nomination.
The committee will gather today, 9.30 a.m. Eastern Time.
Watch live to see what the chair, Senator Ram Paul, does on this vote.
He said he'll vote no.
And Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, has said he'll vote yes.
However, he said he's also not fully decided.
So those two folks are the ones to watch on C-SPAN 2, 9.30 a.m. Eastern Time, when the Senate Homeland Security Committee takes the vote on the nomination of Mark Wayne Mullen to serve as DHS Secretary.
He's expected to get through the committee, and if he does, the vote on his nomination could come to the full Senate next week.
We are in day 33 of a partial government shutdown of the Homeland Security Department.
Democrats on the House side said they have a discharge petition in the works to try to open up parts of the Homeland Security Department, like the TSA, where you're seeing long lines at the airports because TSA workers are not on the job.
Some have quit because they have to work without pay.
At the nomination hearing, at the confirmation hearing yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reports that in his opening statement, Mr. Mullen said he planned to take a lower profile approach than his predecessor.
My goal is in six months is that we're not the lead story in every day, every day.
My goal is that for people to understand we're out there, we're protecting them, and we're working with them.
During questioning from Senator Andy Kim, Mullen appeared to say he would end a rule imposed by Nome, which required her personal sign-off on any new contracts above $100,000.
The rule resulted in weeks-long backlog of contracts.
He also said that he would do away with administrative warrants and instead go back to judicial warrants for ICE to enter into people's homes.
Again, 9.30 a.m. Eastern Time on C-SPAN 2 coverage of the committee vote on Senator Mark Wayne Mullen's nomination to serve as Homeland Security Secretary.
Justin and Akron, Ohio, Republican, we've been getting your thoughts on the President's national security team.
Go ahead.
Good morning to you.
Morning.
I think that national security team is doing an awesome job.
The biggest problem in our country is we just got a polarized system that is relentless every day.
You know, a month ago, we were listening to everybody talking about how we're going to fail in Venezuela.
That's ancient history already.
There was no war in Venezuela.
We're three weeks into this thing in Iran, and I see a bunch of Americans in panic mode every day.
It's sort of embarrassing to watch.
But three weeks into this thing with Iran, and we've got mostly Democrats running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
I mean, what in the world?
Does our country not have any more fortitude than what we're displaying right now?
It's really quite embarrassing to watch.
I wish our leadership was better.
Even listening to that Rand Paul and Mark Wayne Mullen conversation is embarrassing.
The political class in this country is desperately bad.
I don't know what we can do to change it on both sides of the aisle, but just the way these people conduct themselves in Washington, D.C. is infuriating.
It's infuriating for me because I'm a political junkie.
I love watching it and every day I'm disgusted by it.
I wish we had people that had more class, more intelligence, more real behavior instead of this phony nonsense I see day after day after day out of Washington, D.C.
It's really quite despicable.
And if I could ask, and if I could ask you one quick question, I watch a lot of C-SPAN.
I hear a lot of politicians and people answering questions.
I can never hear the question.
Is there some reason we can't get everybody mic'd up to hear the question?
Oh, you're talking about briefings.
Briefings, everything.
There's so many things that go on where you can't hear the question being asked.
Yeah, yeah, it's a technical thing with how it's covered.
Audio is on two different channels.
So sometimes you, because of that, you don't hear the questions from reporters.
I hear you, though.
That's frustrating because you want to hear the question.
Justin Ackrin, Ohio.
Republican caller.
Daniel in Louisiana, Independent.
Daniel.
How you doing?
Morning, Daniel.
Your confidence in President's National Security Team.
I'm pretty happy with them pretty much overall.
There's a couple of them I could question.
But as far as listening to Rand Paul, from what I've been hearing, he's kind of went to the other side and kind of become a traitor.
And I think you might find out he's committing.
I think Rand Paul has turned into a bad egg.
And as far as a couple people talking, one guy called about China talking about some stuff that I've never heard about.
And I think people need to wake up what's going on with China because no one's talking about 200 Americans dead every day from fentanyl.
China.
All right, Daniel, we're going to stick to the President's National Security Team, the conflict with Iran.
More of your calls coming up.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
Continue to call in here in our first hour this morning.
Your thoughts on the President's National Security Team and this conflict in Iran.
Also happening on Capitol Hill yesterday behind closed doors was a classified briefing for lawmakers.
Democratic Representative Jim Himes, a top Democrat on the Intel Committee, spoke to reporters after that classified briefing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as FISA, that is set to expire on April 20th.
Here he explained why he supports reauthorizing that program.
Oh, no, look, I support an extension.
If I were in the majority, I would do round two of reforms.
The reforms that were implemented two years ago in RISA actually have been enormously successful.
The number of U.S. person queries has dropped dramatically, literally orders of magnitude.
Compliance is in the 99% area.
But look, this is fiddly stuff, right?
U.S. person data gets incidentally collected.
And so, you know, we should always be looking for ways to add to those protections.
The majority has decided on an 18-month clean extension.
I'm going to support that because it is, you know, FISA cannot expire.
But, you know, it's going to be a little bit of a little bit of a heavy lift.
Excuse Hallis.
Were you impassive or kind of disappointed by what you heard from the briefers in there?
Yeah, I'm not going to characterize it.
I mean, people are all over the place on this.
So, again, we do have a significant trust problem, right?
When ICE agents, and ICE has nothing to do with 702, but when they are exploding into Americans' homes without judicial warrants, a lot of members of Congress say, now, wait a minute, if there's that sort of disdain being shown for the Constitution there, what about 702?
Are you going to be, are you trying to convince any of your Democratic colleagues to support a clean extension as well, or do you think it's going to be left up to Deep Trevor as a voting career?
Yeah, no, look, I'm making the case that this is an essential authority.
Episodes of terrorism are rising around the country, no surprise, as a result of this war.
This would be one of the worst times imaginable to allow this critical authority to expire.
So I'm supportive of it.
I'm going to be advocating for it, even though, you know, again, the administration has not been a huge help here.
Pam Bondi showing up with binders full of members of Congress and the queries that they made of the Epstein database, that alone is going to lose me 20 votes.
And so, you know, it is a heavy lift.
On Capitol Hill, yesterday, a classified briefing on FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and we're going to dig into that now.
Joining us at our table this morning is Jameel Jaffer.
He is at George Mason University's Law School, the National Security Institute founder, here to talk about the conflict with Iran, but also this FISA debate that's happening up on Capitol Hill.
Why does it need to, what is it, and why does it need to be reauthorized?
What we're talking about is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
This gives the United States government the authority to collect against foreigners, non-Americans, located outside the United States.
So nobody in the United States, no Americans.
And what it allows us to do is to collect that intelligence here in the United States from American telecommunications providers.
Because as it turns out, a lot of those communications that take place overseas pass through U.S. telecommunications providers.
So that's essentially what the authority is.
It doesn't involve any Americans, doesn't authorize the collection against Americans, targeting Americans, and nor does it allow the collection of any Americans, whether they're in the U.S. or overseas.
Only foreigners outside the U.S.
So only foreigners, and why does it need to be reauthorized?
It is the single most productive collection that the U.S. government has of intelligence.
It contributes to about 60% of the president's daily brief, that critical intelligence product the president gets every morning, 60% of that comes from NSA collection under Section 702.
What is your previous roles with Section 702 in FISA?
Well, I was working in the Justice Department's National Security Division when we actually came up with the idea of Section 702, helped write the legislation that created it, and then have been involved in the reauthorization of it first at the House Intelligence Committee, and then since I've been working on the outside at the Scalia Law at George Mason University.
How does this tie to the conflict in Iran?
Well, obviously, given its productive capability for the president's daily brief and the amount of intelligence we collect from it for our national security purposes, it's central to our ability to prosecute this war and effectively counter threats to the homeland, identify terrorist threats, identify foreign intelligence threats, and collect on all these individuals who mean the U.S. harm.
And when is Congress expected to take up this debate and sign off on this reauthorization?
Because we heard the top Democrat, Jim Himes, he supports it, but not all Democrats do.
And some Republicans have reservations as well.
No, that's exactly right.
Well, when Congress repassed the law, reauthorized the law in 2024, they only put a two-year clock on it.
That means on April 20th, 2026, if Congress does nothing, if the House and Senate don't act and the president doesn't sign the legislation, that authority will expire and we will go dark on our ability to collect on all those terrorist and foreign intelligence targets overseas.
We're talking about 300,000 targets that are critical to American national security.
If this goes dark, 60% of the president's daily beef goes away overnight.
Yesterday at this hearing with Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI Director Kash Patel and the CIA Director, they were testifying on global threats, as we've been talking about here on the Washington Journal all morning.
I want to show Democratic Senator Ron Wyden asking the FBI Director Kash Patel if the agency is buying information that tracks people's location history and gets you to respond on the other side.
Director Patel, a question for you.
In 2023, your predecessor testified that, and I quote, to my knowledge, we do not currently purchase commercial database information that includes location data derived from internet advertising.
Is that the case still?
And if so, can you commit this morning to not buying Americans' location data?
Thank you.
The FBI uses all tools, Senator.
Thank you for the question to do our mission.
We do purchase commercially available information that's consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
And it has led to some valuable intelligence for us to be utilized with our private and partner sectors.
So you're saying that the agency will buy Americans' location data.
I believe that that's what you've said in kind of intelligence lingo.
And I just want to say, as we start this debate, doing that without a warrant is an outrageous end run around the Fourth Amendment.
It's particularly dangerous given the use of artificial intelligence to comb through massive amounts of private information.
This is exhibit A for why Congress needs to pass our bipartisan, bicameral bill, the Government Surveillance Reform Act.
Jamil Jaffer, he said, Americans.
Americans information.
So this isn't about Section 702, right?
This is something different.
Something different, right?
The question is, can or should the FBI purchase or other agencies purchase commercially available data, data that you and I could buy, data that all the big tech companies buy, data that Amazon or Macy's buys about where you shop, where you might be, right?
All the data that we leave on the internet, right?
A lot of that data is collected by commercial data brokers and is sold at public and anyone can purchase it.
The question is, should the government be allowed to purchase that data and use it for its own purposes?
This is a debate.
Senator Wyden has been talking about this for years.
He's had legislation to take away the government's ability or at least require a warrant to go buy that.
But I guess the big question for the American people is, do we think something that you or I could buy or that a company could buy, the government should have to go get a warrant for it?
It's a fair debate, has nothing to do with Section 702, an important debate, and actually, interestingly, a debate that Anthropic raised in its fight with the Department of War over whether the Department of War could use its AI capabilities for this purpose.
Now, there's no evidence to suggest Department of War is doing that or might do it.
Anthropic has raised this claim, but it's a totally different debate.
And the question is, does Congress want to pass a law?
National Security Team Confidence Crisis00:07:59
They could.
Pass a law saying you have to get a warrant.
Senator Wyden's bill has not gotten enough support to get out of committee, much less to the floor, much less to a vote and a signature by the president, but he's arguing for it, and it's a fair debate.
All right, Jamil Jaffer here with us to take your questions and your comments about this debate over reauthorizing Section 02 of FISA, as well as the conflict with Iran.
We're about 10 minutes out from the top of the hour where we will get a Pentagon briefing by the Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs Chair, Dan Kaine.
We will bring you live coverage here on C-SPAN of that briefing, as well as in its entirety over on C-SPAN 2.
Until then, Dee, Reno, Nevada, Democratic Caller, you're up first.
Hi, good morning.
Love C-SPAN.
Yeah, I listened to the briefing yesterday.
Out of the three directors, Radcliffe seems like he knows what he's doing.
The other two, I don't know.
Gabbard never wants to answer.
But I find it interesting.
They always keep saying war with, you know, Iran for 47 years wants to annihilate us.
It's interesting that this war broke out with this Trump 47th president.
I think that's going to make a mark for him.
I just, I don't know.
I find that interesting.
All right, Dee, I'm going to pick up on your point of Iran being a threat, because this was brought up in the hearing yesterday, and the CIA director reinforcing that point, that Iran has been a threat to the United States and others in the Middle East for decades.
Well, look, a lot of people are asking the question, what was imminent about this threat?
Why was it, why did the president need to act now?
And there's a lot of people who've said, well, you know, nothing has changed about Iran fundamentally in the last six months, last year.
Why is it an imminent threat?
And here's the real truth about it.
Iran has been an imminent threat for a long time.
For years, Iran, recent years, Iran has killed hundreds of Americans directly through proxies.
They've targeted U.S. facilities in the Middle East for attacks, ballistic missiles, and the like.
And Iran has plotted against killing American officials here in the United States for the better part of a decade.
Named individuals in the United States, including former members of the Trump administration and members of the Biden administration.
So Iran, now the fact is, we haven't done anything substantively about it, right?
President Obama, President Biden, President Trump, although President Trump did kill Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Goods Force, we haven't done anything about it.
But just because somebody, if a bully keeps punching your kid on the playground day in, day out, day in, day out, the next day, that bully is still an imminent threat to your child, right?
It doesn't mean anything your child hasn't fought back.
If on one day your child does fight back and wins, guess what?
That bully's not going to bother him anymore, and neither are the rest of the bullies.
And so that's an important part of this conversation.
Imminence doesn't mean something has to have changed.
It means, is there a threat to us right now that's real?
And I would say with Iran, there is a very real threat from Iran.
Why?
Because they've been killing Americans for years.
They continue to want to plot to kill Americans in the United States and abroad.
They're funding terrorist proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
And they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon, right?
The reality is Iran today has over 600 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, about 440 kilograms of that, 60% enriched, which is 90% of the way to building a nuclear weapon.
Why then does the DNI director and others say their nuclear capabilities have been obliterated?
What I think we've done is we have done a good job of taking out some of their centrifuge capability, the ability to make more highly enriched uranium.
Now, the real truth is, not only do they have this supply of highly enriched uranium, they could use it to build a weapon.
Beyond that, my guess is, and there's no intelligent reporting yet to demonstrate this, but my guess is if they've buried that deep enough, they know how capable our bombs are.
If they bury that HEU deep enough to keep that safe, I would bet you thousands of dollars that they have centrifuges down there as well that could be used to enrich more uranium.
We don't have proof of that, but unless the Iranians are crazy, they know what our capabilities are.
They've buried more centrifuges deep down, and they've always had covert programs.
We've always found out about them later.
All right, well, let's go to Stephen in Connecticut, Independent.
Stephen, question or comment?
I'm just going to narrow it down to Karg Island.
And that was a great.
You did a great job there, Professor.
I really, I'm going to take the opposite side.
Ukraine, if we land Marines on Carg Island, we're going to have an example of what FTV drones can do to an unprepared force.
Ukraine took out 1,700 people, supposedly, just yesterday.
80% with FPV drones.
Expanding this war in Iran is going to be an economic disaster.
I can see gas prices.
And they think about the November election.
All right, Stephen, I'm going to jump in because what he's referring to is the latest on this conflict, and that is Israel striking the PAR gas field, Iran retaliating against Qatar, gas prices soaring overnight.
Look, it's an important point.
I think Stephen is right to raise this question of what happens if we deploy these Marines from the 30th Marine Expeditionary Unit that are coming over from Okinawa.
We'll be in theater in about a week.
And there's some discussions.
We don't know what the administration is going to do with that, with that, with that Marine Expeditionary Unit.
There are suggestions that it might go to Karg Island to take that really important oil export terminal that they have there that Iranians have there to prevent them from exporting oil.
The challenge, of course, is, to Stephen's point, is that those Marines are then exposed and they're vulnerable, right?
And they may be attacked by these FPV, these first-person drones that might actually attack them.
Now, of course, there's significant oil infrastructure there as well.
Iran doesn't want to blow that up, right?
So if our Marines are co-located with that, they might not do that.
Now, again, we don't know.
Those Marines might be there to simply guard U.S. facilities.
They might be there to go after.
Yeah, let me read a little bit from the Wall Street Journal's reporting on what they're expected to be doing.
The U.S. could use the unit to seize one or more of the islands off the southern coast of Iran to use as leverage or as a base to counter Iranian attacks on shipping, former and current U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal.
It goes on to say U.S. forces are attempting to reopen the strait by targeting Tehran's ability to threaten the choke point, its launch sites, production capability, and warehouses of missiles, drones, and sea mines.
On Tuesday, the U.S. military dropped multiple 5,000-pound munitions on Iranian sites along the coastline that are used to house anti-ship cruise missiles, according to the U.S. Central Command.
That's exactly right, Greta.
On Carg Island are two really important things.
There's an oil depot where Iran exports most of its oil through.
And then there are military facilities where they stored a lot of those mines that are used to mine the Gulf, mine the Straits of Hormuz.
So the Marines might go there, take that facility.
They might take Bandur Abbas on the mainland of Iran that guards that choke point to the Straits of Hormuz.
They might simply remain embarked on the Miu on the Aphabus Ready Group and conduct literal operations in the waters around the Straits of Hormuz to allow shipping to get through and to go after Iranian small gunboats.
We're not sure what the Marines are there to do.
Let's be clear, though.
If we do put them on Bandur Abbas or Karg Island, that's boots on the ground, right?
No question.
Now, the president might say, look, we put boots on the ground in Venezuela as well, short-term targeted incursion.
But if you stay there for a while, that gets more challenging politically for the president because we're coming up to a set of elections.
This war is raising challenges, raising oil prices.
The president's going to feel the pressure, particularly if boots end up on the ground in Iran in some way and those Marines are exposed.
If we see casualties, obviously a real challenging situation, both politically and as a national security matter for our country.
And pressure from lawmakers who say, you need to come to us.
If you're going to put boots on the ground, you're going to need to come to Capitol Hill and get authorization.
That's right.
Or at least make the case.
At least make the case.
So that debate has happened, but it has failed so far to stop the administration from this conflict in Iran without congressional approval, likely to come back up again.
Escalating Gulf Energy Conflicts00:06:55
And more than likely, the questions that we're talking about get asked in just minutes to the Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair.
That's exactly right.
Let's go to Paul in Democratic Caller in Indiana.
Good morning.
Good morning to you.
Morning.
Paul, go ahead.
Question or comment.
Well, my comment is I have absolutely no confidence in this national security team and all these conflicts that we've sent troops to, and I'm talking about going all the way back to President Johnson up to now, have been based on absolute lies.
And I don't want to see a bunch of 19, 20 year old kids going there.
That was my biggest fear in high school was going to Vietnam.
And, you know, the Iraq war was based on weapons of mass destruction, which never happened.
And I think we should avoid wars unless we are attacked.
Okay.
Are we in a similar situation to the conflict with Iraq?
Well, look, I think Paul raises an important question, a question that a lot of Americans have.
And frankly, a question that President Trump campaigned on both in 2016, in 2020, and now.
He said, I'm going to end endless wars.
I'm not going to get in these overseas conflicts.
I'm going to focus on home.
I'm going to make America great again.
And at some level, President Trump has done that.
He's focused here at home.
He talked about the border.
You look at the Director of National Intelligence Threat Assessment.
The first thing threat assessment is homeland security.
It's about drugs.
It's about cartels.
It's about the Western Hemisphere.
And yet, President Trump has gone to war or gotten into a conflict in Venezuela.
He's gotten into a conflict now in Iran.
And so the president has been flexible about what he thinks he can and should do to protect America's national security.
Now, look, I think Paul makes an important point about when we get into war, why we get into war.
Let's be clear.
After 9-11, we had no choice.
That was not a war that we chose.
It was a war that was brought to our shores.
Over 3,000 Americans killed on that day.
We went to war in Afghanistan.
We fought a war around the globe chasing down al-Qaeda.
The director of national intelligence report issued yesterday, the 2026 Worldwide Threat Assessment, says that Al-Qaeda has nearly 30,000 members worldwide.
ISIS has another 18,000 worldwide.
That is 50,000 committed fighters who want to kill Americans wherever they are.
That doesn't even account for Iranian supported terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestine, Islamic Jihad.
These are very real threats to the American homeland, to American people, and to our interests globally.
There is a real threat.
We need to address it.
And while Paul is right, we want to be careful about getting into conflicts, protracted conflicts, particularly abroad.
We can't avoid the fact that we live in a very dangerous world.
And Telsi Gabbard, the DNI director, the CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Cash Vatel, they're back up on Capitol Hill this morning in just 30 minutes.
They're going to be asked about the threat assessment, the conflict with Iran, once again for hours.
And C-SPAN cameras will be there.
Watch live on C-SPAN 3, C-SPAN Now, our free video mobile app and online at c-span.org.
We are waiting for a Pentagon briefing to start live here.
We're going to bring you live coverage here on C-SPAN, and you can watch it in its entirety over on C-SPAN 2.
It looks like the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair, General Dan Kane, are about to come out here momentarily.
We'll go back to your calls after we hear from these two gentlemen.
They will be taking reporters' questions, and clearly the questions will be about the latest, the strike against the gas fields in Iran, the Iranian retaliation against Qatar, and the President Truth Social Post last night saying that Iran will not, Israel will not attack again unless Iran work to continue with its retaliation against Qatar.
If you were in the room, Jamil Jeffer, what would you ask?
What's the first question?
What's the plan for ending the war?
What does victory look like?
Is it regime change like the president called on the Iranian people to do on the first day of this conflict?
Is it eliminating their ability to build nuclear weapons?
Because then the question is, how are you going to get that highly enriched uranium without boots on the ground or without Israeli or American special forces?
Is the goal to prevent their terror proxies from being able to operate?
If so, how do you destroy the Iranian Revolutionary Guards force?
Is it the naval issue the president's talked about?
We destroyed a lot of naval vessels.
We might have success there.
Is it ballistic missiles?
They still have about 2,000 ballistic missiles.
We have degraded 70% of their launch capabilities.
That's pretty good.
Is that a permanent victory?
How do we sustain that?
What does the end look like?
And when do we expect that end to come?
Is it a week out?
Is it three weeks out?
The president just last week said we've won, just not enough.
Not sure what that exactly means.
These are real questions the American people have.
And with gas prices rising, the American people want to know how long are we going to be in this conflict?
For where I sit, the truth of the matter is you don't eliminate threat from Iran until that regime is removed and the Iranian people get what they've wanted for 40 years, which is a regime that doesn't oppress them, that doesn't oppress women, that gives them the right of freedom of speech.
You know, the Iranian people, they care about freedom.
They like rock music, right?
It's a young population.
They like wearing blue jeans.
They don't want to wear hijabs.
And yet they're run by a theocratic regime that doesn't reflect their aspirations.
We're not going to go in and change that regime.
The Iranian people might have the opportunity to.
For them to do that, however, we've got to do a significant degradation of their security services.
Remember, 190,000 IRGC, 300,000 regular army, 600,000 Basij, that militia, the ones who beat women on the streets for wearing the wrong kind of clothing.
You've got to downgrade that before the Iranian people can rise up.
That's a tall order.
It's not going to take two weeks of airstrikes.
We've been told to stand by for this Pentagon briefing real quickly, though.
The regime is still intact.
Well, that's what the DNI said.
Still intact, but severely degraded.
Is that enough to get the Iranian people to rise up?
Probably not yet.
We probably need a lot more damage to the regime.
Probably take out a few more supreme leaders.
We've got one in Ali Khomeini, a lot of senior national security leaders.
Majabah Khomeini's son is now in power.
A son, apparently, that the Supreme Leader didn't want to take power.
He's now in charge.
If he goes and the next one or two after him go, that might be enough to get the Iranian people the confidence they need.
If you're also degrading those militia forces, that they might very well rise up.
Remember, 93 million Iranians, 1 million people under arms for the government.
Jamil Jaffer, thank you.
Let's go live to the Pentagon.
Well, good morning.
Yesterday at Dover Air Force Base, President Trump, the chairman, and I stood in solemn silence as heroes came home.
Flag-draped caskets.
Honoring Military Sacrifices Today00:02:44
We honored them.
We grieved with their families, and we listened.
What I heard through tears, through hugs, through strength, and through unbreakable resolve was the same from family after family.
They said, finish this.
Honor their sacrifice.
Do not waver.
Do not stop until the job is done.
My response, along with that of the president, was simple.
Of course, we will finish this.
We will honor their sacrifice.
Their sacrifice only steals our commitment.
I wear this bracelet.
Staff Sergeant Jorge Oliveira, he was one of my sergeants or one of my specialists in Guantanamo Bay.
He deployed later to Afghanistan, where he was killed on 19 October 2011.
Killed 10 years after 9-11, 15 years ago.
He was one of the 1%, the best of America.
Not just a guardsman, but a law enforcement officer back home and a family man.
I remember him every day, just like so many other men and women of our generation and previous generations who wear bracelets like this.
just as we will always remember those lost in this conflict.
Their names are now etched into our mission and into the soul of a grateful nation.
I stand here today speaking to you, the American people, not through filters, not through reporters, not through cable news spin.
A dishonest and anti-Trump press will stop at nothing.
We know this at this point.
To downplay progress, amplify every cost, and call into question every step.
Sadly, TDS is in their DNA.
They want President Trump to fail.
But you, the American people, know better.
Yes, there are reporters in front of me, but they are not our audience today.
It's you, the good, decent, patriotic American people.
You, the hardworking, taxpaying, God-fearing American patriots.
The media here, not all of it, but much of it, wants you to think, just 19 days into this conflict that we're somehow spinning toward an endless abyss or a forever war or a quagmire.
Methodical Hunt for Iranian Regime00:04:43
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Hear it from me, one of hundreds of thousands who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, who watched previous foolish politicians like Bush, Obama, and Biden squander American credibility.
This is not those wars.
President Trump knows better.
Epic Fury is different.
It's laser-focused.
It's decisive.
Our objectives, given directly from our America first president, remain exactly what they were on day one.
These are not the media's objectives, not Iran's objectives, not new objectives.
Our objectives, unchanged, on target, and on plan.
Destroy missiles, launchers, and Iran's defense industrial base so they cannot rebuild.
Destroy their Navy, and Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.
Our objectives from day one.
To the patriotic members of the press, nobody can deliver perfection in wartime.
This building knows that more than anyone.
But report the reality.
We're winning decisively and on our terms.
Iran is a vast country, and just like Hamas and their tunnels, they've poured any aid, any economic development, humanitarian aid into tunnels and rockets.
That's what they did with Hamas.
Iran has funneled decades of state resources not to their people, but into missiles and drones and proxies and buried facilities.
But we are hunting them down methodically, ruthlessly, and overwhelmingly, like no other military in the world can do, and the results speak for themselves.
To date, we've struck over 7,000 targets across Iran and its military infrastructure.
That is not incremental.
That is overwhelming force applied with precision.
And again, today will be the largest strike package yet, just like yesterday was.
As I've said from day one, our capabilities continue to build.
Iran's continue to degrade.
We're hunting and striking death and destruction from above.
Iran's air defenses flattened.
Iran's defense industrial base, the factories, the production lines that feed their missile and drone programs being overwhelmingly destroyed.
We've hit hundreds of their defense industrial bases directly.
Their ability to manufacture new ballistic missiles has probably taken the hardest hit of all.
Ballistic missile attacks against our forces, down 90% since the start of the conflict.
Same with one-way attack UAVs, think kamikaze drones, down 90%.
Now, the Iranians will still shoot, we know that, but they would shoot a lot more if they could, but they can't.
The last job anyone in the world wants right now?
Senior leader for the IRGC or Besiege.
Temp jobs, all of them.
And to borrow a page from Admiral Ernest King in World War II, we've decided to share the ocean with Iran.
We've given them the bottom half.
We've damaged or sunk over 120 of their Navy ships with battle damage assessments pending for many more.
See, oftentimes we have to wait a few days on battle damage assessment to get the real number.
Their surface fleet is no longer a factor.
Their submarines, they once had 11, are gone.
Their military ports are crippled.
Iran has terrorized the United States and our interests for 47 years.
Their core industries, not steel or agriculture, tourism.
Their core industries are state-sponsored terrorism, proxy militias, underground networks, ballistic missiles, and a violent, messianic Islamist ideology chasing some sort of apocalyptic endgame.
A regime like that refusing to abandon its nuclear ambitions is not just a regional problem.
It's a direct threat to America, to freedom, and to civilization.
The world, the Middle East, our ungrateful allies in Europe, even segments of our own press, should be saying one thing to President Trump.
Tanker Crews as True Heroes00:03:42
Thank you.
Thank you for the courage to stop this terror state from holding the world hostage with missiles while building or attempting to build a nuclear bomb.
Thank you for doing the work of the free world.
Yesterday's ceremony reminded us why we fight.
Not for nation building or democracy promotion, but to crush direct threats to America, Americans, and our interests.
We fight to win, and we are winning on our terms, following our objectives.
My 13-year-old son popped into my office last night while I was editing these remarks.
He asked about the war and the families I met at Dover.
And I looked at him and I said, they died for you, son, so that your generation doesn't have to deal with a nuclear Iran.
It's the truth.
And they did.
So to the families who said, finish this, we will.
And I say the same to every American who wants peace through strength.
May Almighty God continue to bless our troops in this fight.
And again, to the American people, please pray for them every day on bended knee with your family, in your schools, in your churches, in the name of Jesus Christ.
To the troops, keep going and Godspeed.
Over to you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning, and thank you all for being here.
I also had the honor yesterday, as the Secretary said, of traveling up to Dover with the President to welcome home our six fallen.
It was an honor and a privilege for me to be there and to say thank you to their families.
And I want to mention their names this morning.
From the 6th Aerial Refueling Wing out of MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, but stationed as part of an active associate unit at Birmingham, Alabama, Major Alex Klinner, John Alex Klinner, Major Ariana Savino.
She was posthumously promoted from captain to major, and Technical Sergeant Ashley Pruitt, the boom operator on that crew.
From the 121st Aerofueling Ring, Ohio Air National Guard out of Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base in Columbus, Ohio, Captain Seth Koval, Captain Curtis Angt, and now Master Sergeant Tyler Simmons, who was also promoted and the boom operator on that crew.
To a person and every family member I spoke with yesterday, they all shared that their family members loved serving.
They loved being part of a great team and a crew, and they loved airplanes and aviation.
Our nation's tanker crews really are Aung Sung heroes, incredible warriors who put their lives on the line so we can continue to take the fight to an enemy.
I've personally witnessed their courage and tenacity many times, from the morning of September 11th, where they answered my call for some help, to the skies over foreign countries where they've come forward out of their safe tanker track to give me gas when I simply could not leave a ground force that was engaged in a firefight.
They've answered the call and come forward time and time and time again.
I'm filled with incredible pride and gratitude for all that the tanker crews do, our pilots, our boom operators, and the maintainers.
Deepening Strikes on Iranian Soil00:02:50
And to the families of our six fallen, know that we share your grief.
Our nation will never forget their sacrifice and we will never forget their names.
Our entire joint force mourns with you today and will continue to remember their incredible gift of a great example for all of us.
Now, let me turn to an operations update.
U.S. CENTCOM remains on plan to achieve our military objectives and remain unrelenting in our pursuit of Iranian missile capabilities, UAV capabilities, and their Navy, and as the Secretary said, their industrial base.
Each day we continue to attack deeper into Iranian territory.
As reported by U.S. Central Command yesterday, the U.S. military dropped 5,000-pound penetrator weapons into underground storage facilities, storing coastal defense cruise missiles and other support equipment.
These weapons are bespokely designed to get through concrete and/or rocks and function after penetrating those barriers.
We continue to hunt and kill mine storage facilities and naval ammunition depots.
We continue to hunt and kill afloat assets, including more than 120 vessels and 44 mine layers, and the pressure will continue.
We're flying further to the east now and penetrating deeper into Iranian airspace to hunt and kill one-way attack garrisons, destroying Iran's ability to project power outside of its borders.
The A-10 Warthog is now in the fight across the southern flank and is hunting and killing fast-attack watercraft in the Straits of Hormuz.
In addition, AH-64 Apaches have joined the fight on the southern flank and they continue to work on the southern side.
And that includes some of our allies who are using Apaches to handle one-way attack drones.
In Iraq, AH-64s have been striking against Iranian aligned militia groups to make sure that we suppress any threat in Iraq against U.S. forces or U.S. interests.
And we remain focused on pursuit of any platform that Iran could field to harm Americans or our partners.
Last Friday, Admiral Cooper and the CENCOM team conducted precision strikes against more than 90 targets on Karg Island, which included all of their military-only infrastructure, which included air defenses, naval base, mine storage, and deployment facilities.
And as the Secretary mentioned, we continue to strike against Iran's defense industrial base and will continue to do so.
Today, I want to continue my theme of talking about members of our incredible joint force.
Exceptional Airmen in Epic Fury00:05:15
Today, I want to talk about some exceptional airmen who are engaged in the fight daily.
United States Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard crews within our bomber force, the B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s, and the airmen on the ground who maintain and load these weapon systems.
They are the backbone of America's long-range strike capability, and their contributions to Epic Fury have been decisive.
Assigned to STRATCOM under Admiral Rich Carell and supported by Transcom, the tanker force that we've talked about under the command of General Randall Reed, every mission is designed to achieve overwhelming outcomes on behalf of the United States and our allies.
Last weekend, I had the chance to go out and see some of our deployed bomber forces, the B-1 and B-52 crews, and I had a chance to sit down with some young aviators and maintainers and ask them, how do you feel?
Tell me about your typical day.
And these are crews comprised of between two and five airmen.
Two on the B-2s, five on the B-52s, and four in the B-1s out there.
Some of these Americans are in their early or mid-20s, and we give them the gift of this incredible responsibility, hundreds of thousands of pounds of aircraft, and they take off and go do our work as required.
Their mission actually begins the day prior when they're given a target or a bunch of targets, and they begin to study those targets, look at what are the effects required, what are the weapons required to get there, how will we program these weapons, what is the weather, what is the tanker flow.
It's an incredibly complex problem that we give each and every one of these crews, and they work it over the period of 24 hours prior, get some rest, and then step out the door to go fly.
The last thing they do is they check all of their equipment, their oxygen masks, survival gear, load pistols, and get ready to go.
They crank the jets about an hour prior to takeoff and then launch into the daylight, doing their pre-flight checks, and as the kids say, lock in and prepare to go to war, sometimes on a long and stressful journey.
During the flight, they're surrounded by technology and capabilities, and they'll do multiple aerial refueling efforts across tankers on the way to the AOR area of responsibility, either coming from the states or coming from a forward-deployed basing.
And I will tell you, as a fighter pilot, getting gas is a lot easier in an F-16 than it is in a B-1, B-2, or a B-52 where you are handling this airplane.
It is a physical thing, unlike a fighter that's a lot easier.
And they stay on that boom for sometimes up to 30 minutes, taking hundreds of thousands of pounds of gas.
It is a physical demanding thing to take gas, and they do it multiple times on the way there, and they do it multiple times on the way home.
As they enter the operating area, they bring the entirety of America's joint force together to go do the things that we've tasked them to do to put bombs on time on target with the proper effects.
And I know they're feeling a range of emotions, but the thing the American people should take away from it is they're filled with a focus that is incredibly impressive.
And they have fear, of course, but their bigger fear is, dear God, please don't let me screw this up, the warrior's prayer that we all have in our souls.
In the days of Epic Fury, they were shooting, as we've talked about in this room, a lot of standoff weapons.
Now we've switched and rolled, as I mentioned last week, to stand-in weapons.
And behind each and every one of them are incredible maintainers and weapons builders who go out there and make sure these aircraft and their weapon systems are ready to go.
These airplanes are so big that they're not in hangars.
They're out in the cold, out in the snow, out in the rain.
The bombs are being built outside for protection and to make sure that it's safe.
And they do it 24-7, 365.
It's not comfortable work, but when you go spend just a minute with these incredibly young Americans who are so motivated, you cannot come away from that exchange not being hopeful for America's future.
It is simply awesome.
And we hand these Americans, young Americans, incredible and weighty responsibility, and they deliver every single time, quietly, with professionalism and humility, doing the things that we ask them to do.
In conclusion, we will continue major combat operations.
As the Secretary said, we continue to get busier.
I know the Secretary and I share that we're incredibly proud of 2.8 million members of our joint force.
I am personally, and we are personally grateful for the tenacity and professionalism of the brave men and women who serve inside Stratcom, CENTCOM, Spacecom, CyberCom, Transcom, and the rest of the joint force.
Protecting Civilians from Missile Attacks00:15:53
And I'll close where I started.
I ask today that we remember those six fallen that came home.
They represent the best of our nation.
For those families that are feeling the pain, know that we are with you and will remain with you.
May we always prove worthy of their sacrifice.
And I'll turn it back over to you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll take a couple questions.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Given the updated degradation and strike target numbers you laid out, how close would you say we are towards achieving the President's objectives?
And what is the end game of the operation without divulging any sensitive battle plans?
Well, we wouldn't want to set a definitive timeframe on that, but as we've said, we're on plan.
So we're looking at those metrics very closely, relaying that to the President and the National Security team.
But feel confident that as, again, we're more stand-in means we're over the top, even further in, and we have even more of an exact sense of what we're striking and why, and even more dynamically, meaning because the intelligence improved, we're able to more quickly identify targets when they, let's say, they come out of an underground facility where they've been hiding and able to strike it before it strikes or right after it shoots.
But we are very much on plan, and that's why I want to speak to the American people here.
You hear a lot of noise about widening or new missions or speculation about what we should or should not be doing.
This is a clear set of objectives.
The President has given us every capability we need to accomplish that.
We've got the best in the world in uniform executing it on the ground.
They believe in and are invested in this mission.
And it will be at the president's choosing, ultimately, where we say, hey, we've achieved what we need to on behalf of the American people to ensure our security.
So no time set on that, but we're very much on track.
Absolutely.
Yes, right here.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
David Zayer, Real America's Voice News.
What countries have been the most cooperative with us, including the Gulf states as Europe hedges?
And I also wanted to ask you the internet blackouts by the regime.
It's been shut down for weeks.
Is the U.S. military playing a role in fighting against the regime blocking VPN networks and satellites and other things?
Is there a role for the U.S. military there?
Obviously, on the allies and partners side, Israel from day one has been an incredible and capable partner, willing and able.
There's nothing like capabilities and partners that are able to use them.
The Gulf states have stepped up incredibly.
In fact, Iran's sort of reckless attempt to strike civilian infrastructure and other things has brought countries who maybe would have not been as all-in as they are today squarely into our orbit.
And we're proud to be defending with them, standing with them, you name it.
UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and others who have been right there.
And we're grateful for that kind of support.
As far as the internet, we're watching the regime try to tighten its grip as much as possible.
And we're obviously taking countermeasures, many of which we can't talk about here, to ensure that messaging is delivered, not just to the Iranian people writ large, but to the right audiences, certain audiences that need to hear certain things about what their fate might look like or what their choices are.
So even though that regime is trying really hard to ensure the world can't see, right, they want to put out fake AI-generated images, which by the way, sometimes our press happens to fall for, like the Abraham Lincoln on fire and turning around.
These AI-generated images are meant to make it look like something's happening when the exact opposite is.
So they make up fake reports and fake images to lie to their own people to try to make it.
But even then, their own people can barely receive a lot of those messages and communicate because of the blackout that they've imposed upon them.
But we work around that, for sure.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
General, overnight, Iran launched missiles across the Gulf.
They managed to hit the Saudi oil refinery on the Red Sea.
What does it mean that they have that capability now, three weeks into the war?
And Mr. Secretary, you mentioned civilian infrastructure.
Iran seems to be treating U.S. diplomatic outposts, embassies, consulates like they are legitimate hard targets in the region now.
What is the Pentagon doing to, I guess, secure those assets, stop those attacks?
Absolutely.
Thanks for the question on the missile strikes.
You know, as we said and have always said clearly, they came into this fight with a lot of weapons.
This is why we continue to be as aggressive and assertive as we can against their ballistic missile capability, both their medium-range ballistic missile capability and their short-range missile capability.
So we are continuing to hunt and find them and kill them, and we will continue to do so.
So they still retain some capability.
And we have.
The Pentagon briefing will continue live over on C-SPAN 2, where you'll be able to watch it in its entirety.
We're going to break away now.
Joining us from Capitol Hill is Congresswoman Betty McCollum.
She's a Democrat from Minnesota and the ranking Democrat, the top Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
Congresswoman, I want to begin with the Pentagon briefing.
The Defense Secretary said we're winning.
He said that the ballistic missile capabilities of Iran is down 90%, as well as their drone capabilities.
120 Navy ships have been destroyed.
He said the U.S. is winning, they are on track, and that it'll be the president who decides when this is over.
Your reaction.
Well, unfortunately, it was the president who decided on his own without consulting Congress and even having serious discussions with our allies in the region and around the world about going into this unplanned war in Iran and has now put the world's economy as well as life health and safety of our servicemen and women and civilians in grave danger.
So I don't know that they had a well-thought-out plan.
If they did, they kept it a secret from everyone, including the American people, by not coming and asking for American support in this war.
It sounds like the administration will be coming to Congress appropriators soon.
Here's a headline from the Washington Post.
The Pentagon seeks more than $200 billion in a budget request for the Iran war.
That number would far surpass the cost of the administration's massive airstrike campaign to date and instead seek to urgently increase production of critical weaponry expended as U.S. and Israel forces have struck thousands of targets over the past three weeks.
What do you think Congress will do with this request?
I'm very skeptical about flat out supporting it.
I'll tell you why.
We still haven't gotten a full spend plan on how the Pentagon is planning on spending the money that they have, billions of dollars, in the big, beautiful bill, as they called it.
I call it a rather ugly bill as far as I'm concerned.
We haven't been fully briefed on how that's going to work.
There was money that was moved around from research and development during the shutdown.
I need to see that replaced.
And as I said, the president chose on his own to go to war with Iran and spend very expensive munitions and then turns around and says to Congress, oh, here's the bill.
That's not how it works.
There's going to have to be a lot of hearings, a lot of explanation, and I'm very skeptical that Congress is going to be, you know, right away ready to say, yes, Mr. Trump, whatever you want, because this is costing us a lot, both here at home and abroad, not only in treasure, dollars.
American lives have been lost, as well as our reputation of being a person, a country, with a president who's a person who reaches out to people ahead of time and asks for their help and explains what he's going to do and not do.
We still don't know the reason why the president decided to go to war in Iran.
It's changed day to day.
You've been reporting on it, and we have no idea what the end game is.
I want to get your reaction to the latest on the conflict, Reuters, and an exclusive reporting that the White House is considering ground troops in an effort to open up the Strait of Hermuz.
Punjab News reported that this would be a dramatic escalation of the American military campaign against Iran, risking more U.S. casualties while adding greatly to the price tag for the operation.
Your reaction?
I want to be clear on one thing first.
I'm going to a funeral of Nicole Amar, Master Sergeant, from White Bear Lake, Minnesota, on Friday.
I honor their service.
This is not about our servicemen and women.
This is about their commander-in-chief having put them in harm's way without coming to Congress, without coming to the American people.
To talk about putting more boots on the ground to an area in which all the support that comes in has to be airlifted.
It's dangerous in the skies there.
I'm just not certain that the president's going to have much support from the American people unless he comes to Congress and he comes and see the American people and explains what his plan is, how he's going to stop this from escalating any farther.
And I just don't, this is not going to be a blank check for the President of the United States.
What is the status of a debate over a war powers resolution in the House?
Well, as you know, I'm in the minority.
We'd love to have one.
We have some Republicans who would like to join us.
I think with talking about the escalation, not only in the money that they're going to be asking for this, but the escalation of putting more American troops at risk, I think that the appetite for having another robust discussion on this will happen.
But we should be doing it in the committees.
I was here during both Afghan and the Iraq war.
We had hearings in committees, defense committees, the authorizing committees, the appropriations committees, the foreign, the committees that dealt with foreign affairs.
We had lots of time.
We debated that on the floor of the House for two days.
Now, I voted against going in because I thought the intelligence was not accurate, just like it's not accurate this time.
This president has gone alone, and it's time for my Republican allies to stand up and join us to ask the hard questions and to find out how we're going to bring a resolution to what he has started all by himself in the Gulf.
Let's get our viewers involved this morning in our conversation with the Congresswoman Lee in North Carolina, Democratic caller.
Hi, Lee.
Hello, and thank you for C-Span.
Mine is mostly a comment for Trump.
He did not go through Congress for this war.
There's no need to continue this war.
We have done extreme damage.
We need to end this.
No troops on the ground.
11 U.S. soldiers' deaths are 11 too many.
And children at a school in Iran are too many.
I have full confidence in our troops and our military.
In this day and age, with advanced technology, we're just one button away to send a nuke to Iran, just like we did in Japan.
Time to end this war.
There's no need for this.
It is costing American people a lot of money.
It's just ridiculous in this day and age.
Why don't we just, you know, say to Iran, listen, I could nuke your capital right now.
Okay.
Congresswoman, let's get your reaction to what you heard from the caller.
Well, I appreciate the caller's sentiments about honoring our troops that are serving us.
There is something though that the president has started that I have not heard a plan for in what he's doing.
And it does deal with nuclear, but it deals with the nuclear materials that Iran had.
And unless those are secured and we know where they are, we have control of them and work with the other democracies in the UN on that, we will not have a mission accomplished.
We will only, in my opinion, create a greater threat.
So the fact that the nuclear, remember he declared earlier this year, or excuse me, it was June or July, that he had decimated their nuclear facility only to find out that they had not.
There's nuclear material all over Iran and it's not secure.
And we heard yesterday from the Director of National Intelligence and others on their testimony on Capitol Hill on the Senate side that they had obliterated their nuclear capabilities in that campaign last year in the summer.
Those same Intel folks are up on Capitol Hill right now.
And we have live coverage this morning over on C-SPAN 3 this morning.
The DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard, FBI Director Kash Patel, and the CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
Michael in North Carolina, you are next for the Congresswoman Independent Caller.
Go ahead.
Hey, good morning, Congresswoman.
And after watching that, I just watched that little episode.
It's amazing to me how Pete Hedgepet will hold up a bracelet.
How about for the women who died over there protecting this country, so-called protecting this country?
How about we were, you know, when there was a piece about, you know, an extended war, how about 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq, all for the president at that time to turn it all back over to the Taliban?
How, and then blame it on the other president that came in afterwards after they had to get everybody out of there.
How about in your state, ma'am, American citizens being assassinated and, you know, we're dogging Iran about, you know, people's rights.
And how about this?
Okay, Michael, yeah, we'll take your point.
Congresswoman.
So what the Department of Homeland Security has done with the divisions of ICE and Customs and Border Patrol, not only in Minnesota, but in Chicago, Illinois, and other areas around the United States of America, is unacceptable.
Using warrants that have not been signed by a judge to go into homes.
And by the way, they went into homes and arrested people and took them out in the bitter cold, barely dressed, and then found out they had the wrong person.
They had a United States citizen.
The citizens that I've been involved with in monitoring their health care who have had serious brain injuries.
There was just a report this morning on National Public Radio about how people just observing ICE agents and Customs and Border Patrol not following the same rules and regulations our police department's been doing and harassing and injuring people, now taking their DNA, people who have not been arrested.
Going up to the fact that, as the gentleman pointed out, we have two Minnesotans, two U.S. citizens who were killed.
Human Rights Concerns and Oversight00:15:42
And needlessly so.
So I'm very, very concerned about the TSA agents who now have gone without a check.
The Coast Guard is going without a check, who is looking forward to an 8% raise, money for FEMA.
But until we have the Department of Homeland Security under control, following the law that regular law enforcement does, I'm not inclined to here again, give them a wide open check.
It is unconscionable what's happened in Minnesota and other places around the world.
And we stand up for their human rights.
We need to stand up for the human rights, the dignity, and the respect for citizens here in the United States and for anybody in the United States when they're here legally.
We are in day 33 of this partial shutdown for the Homeland Security Department.
According to news reports, the White House has sent a counteroffer to Democrats to reopen these parts of the Homeland Security Department by agreeing to somewhat of the demands from Democrats on ICE enforcement tactics.
From Politico's reporting, Congresswoman, the White House's offer includes expansion of the use of body cameras for federal immigration agents, limit of enforcement in certain sensitive locations, including hospitals and schools, greater oversight of the DHS detention facilities, enforcement of a visible officer identification, and adherence to existing law prohibiting the deportation or detention of U.S. citizens.
Can you accept this offer?
Well, I haven't read the offer.
Thank you for pointing out that the White House is now starting to have conversations with us.
That's great, but the devil will be in the details.
And let me just say something about body cameras.
The House Appropriations Committee and then the Senate, through what we did, signed into law back before this all started, the use of body cameras.
And when President Trump became the President of the United States this last term, he did an executive order and told them they didn't have to wear them.
So I need guarantees that there'll be no, you know, we're not saying, okay, today and there's another executive order tomorrow.
I need real guarantees on this.
But we do need to talk about it.
The American people deserve to know that their law enforcement, whether it's federal, sheriff, local, FBI, whoever is coming to their door, coming in sometimes to protect them, sometimes coming to make an arrest, are going to follow the law and the spirit of the law.
We'll go to Philadelphia.
Doug is watching there on our line for Republicans.
You're talking with Congresswoman Betty McCollum, Democrat of Minnesota.
Go ahead.
Cool.
Thank you for taking my call.
I find Ms. Brett McCollum being on here right now.
I want to encourage her to continue to hold the line on the shutdown in regards to DHS.
I think that the guest earlier, Mr. Jaffer, is a great example of the kind of convoluted issues that we are facing right now as a society.
For example, Mr. Jaffer was one of the people who pushed walking away from Obama's Iran deal and actually made most of his money off of Section 702 and Democratic, I'm sorry, domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens.
He started as a feature, not a bug.
And the reason why I say that is because we're in a situation right now where the Secretary of War, if we want to call him that, and Dan Campbell staff, just had their press briefing that we watched a bit of here, and they had no plan.
Secretary Hagseth said that he plans to give no quarter.
He ordered our troops to give no quarter, which is a violation of the Geneva Protocol.
I think that we are in a situation right now where, as the member of the Appropriations Committee, I think that Representative McComb is doing a great job, and I think I would urge Democrats not to give up the shutdown right now because the amount of money that is being spent on the American people's behalf without respect to the House of Representatives or the Senate.
You've been a complete ENVRA around Congress and it should not be allowed to persist.
All right, Congresswoman.
Well, I was very disappointed in some of the words that Secretary Hagseth has used about no quarter.
Of course, when a service member is faced with immediate threat and immediate danger, they need to protect themselves.
They need to do everything possible.
But for the Secretary of Defense to tell the world that we're going to show no mercy is something that our military has taken great pride in, doing their jobs, doing it effectively, and doing it in a way which the United States of America still continues to be a defender of human rights and show people that There is a way to conduct hostilities,
but there's a way to do it in which you limit civilian casualties.
And when people want to surrender or change their behavior, we trust that they're going to do it, but then we verify it with protocols that we put in place.
And the Secretary has not been talking about that.
And that's very disappointing.
We'll go next to Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Bill, on our line for independence.
Welcome to the conversation.
Hi, and thanks for taking my call.
I just wanted to enlighten some people on the stuff that this stuff in Iran actually has been going on since in the 60s and 70s.
We installed a Shah, Reza Pavlavi, to take over Iran's government that they had at that time.
Iran's one of the biggest suppliers of oil, and that's what we were after.
The people got angry, and they started revolting against the Shah.
He took off.
He left.
He came to America.
And President Jimmy Carter gave him a place to stay and sort of protected them.
And the people in Iran, the Islamist people there, got really angry.
And they took 52 of our hostages and held them for 440 more days.
And Bill, your point.
Part of that.
Bill, your point.
Well, the anger by the Islamic people in Iran, the anger against us started then when we let the Shah go in there and understood.
Bill, do you see Iran as a threat?
And do you agree with the administration that they needed to eliminate the threat?
No, not at all.
They've got short-range missiles.
Maybe Kuwait and Qatar and places like that that they could get them with the missiles, but not America.
There's no way they can send a missile from there to the United States.
That's all.
Congresswoman, do you see Iran as a threat to the United States?
Iran is a threat to the United States.
The question is, was it an immediate threat to the United States?
The United States has had Iran attack our soldiers.
They've threatened to do harm to nations in the Middle East.
They're an exporter of terrorism.
Of course they were a threat.
But we were at an opportunity here, I think, after what happened this summer when we did put some damage to their nuclear weapons program to sit down at the table with the international community and force them to not only surrender their ability to produce nuclear weapons,
but also sit at the table and tell them the ballistic missiles and being an importer of terrorism in regions around the Middle East, whether it be Yemen, whether it be Lebanon, needs to come to an end.
We didn't do that.
And instead, we found ourselves with a president who said there was an immediate threat when there wasn't one.
We didn't have a plan for securing the nuclear materials that are now in Iran.
And who do you even negotiate with in Iran right now to get that secured?
And what we're seeing happen to the world economy.
I want to make one point.
I'm very concerned about what is happening with all the bombing at not only for the price of oil that everybody's talking about, but we need to talk about all the pollution that young children and people who were already victims of this government are living with on a day-to-day basis.
We need to make sure that desalinization plants aren't targeted by Iran.
We need to get to the table.
We need to end this now.
And I encourage the President to do so.
And We need to be better than we are right now in communicating to the American people what the president is going to do to bring an end to this conflict, do it immediately and stop the harm to our economy, the loss of life to our soldiers, and the reputation of the United States of America.
Congresswoman, before we let you go real quickly on this $200 billion budget request from the Pentagon for the Iran war, how will it work in Congress?
Explain that to our viewers.
It's got to go through, well, it has to go through the Appropriations Committee, and then there's an appropriations bill that's brought to the floor.
I hope that we have robust debate about it.
I hope it's not all done behind closed doors.
I know some things need to be discussed as a member of the committee that it needs to be discussed in secured environments, but not all of it needs to.
And then I think for once and for all, we should do what the House of Representatives did when we made the decision to go to war in Iraq.
This will be the first chance that we'll have to really have a robust discussion in the House of Representatives and lay out the whole case, our questions, our concerns, what we think needs to be done, what we expect from the President of the United States.
It can't be an hour debate.
I'm done with our debates on things that are costing our servicemen and women their lives, costing the lives of young girls in school and countries, and parents all over the Middle East, who, when they tuck their children into bed, don't know when the next air raid siren's going off.
This needs to stop, needs to stop now.
We're a strong enough nation to say enough and to stop it.
It's a busy day on Capitol Hill.
The House is going to gavel in early this morning.
The Congresswoman needs to run to prepare for the legislative day.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you.
The House will gavel in at 9 a.m. Eastern this morning.
Until then, we're going to continue with your thoughts this morning on the conflict with Iran.
Lauren in Minnesota, Republican, go ahead.
Yeah, Iran is a dangerous country.
They always have been.
And they had a chance to work with the United States.
They could have avoided this.
Congress is a bunch of deadbeats.
Let the president do what he wants.
And ICE needs to come back into Minnesota as soon as they left.
Now we got all kinds of shootings in Minneapolis in the same fall.
All right, thanks.
Gary in Allen, Texas, an independent.
Gary, good morning to you.
Hello, thank you for taking my call.
I did want to talk to Representative McCollum, but I'd like to ask you, didn't the Republicans in Congress last year in the Big Beautiful Bill give DHS $75 billion specifically for ICE?
Correct, according to news reports.
Correct.
Okay, now they're saying that we shouldn't be giving each agency in a department funding to operate, but they were willing to give ICE $75 billion.
They wanted their way and nobody else's way.
Don't you think that $75 billion should be going towards funding all of the agencies in this department?
All right, Gary's thoughts in Allen, Texas.
Donna in Illinois, Democratic caller, let's hear from you.
Yes, I would like to suggest that the real question is, are we going to follow Israel into every time they want to do an attack?
Because I believe that's what's really happened because Marco Rubio said so.
He said that they got pulled into fighting because Israel called the president and told him he was going to attack Iran.
And the president decided, well, then he knew Iran would attack our bases.
And so to cause less losses on our side, he decided to take the initiative.
Okay.
And so, to me, that's the real question.
Are we really going to follow Israel on their every attack?
All right.
Donna's thoughts there.
On our line for Democrats in Illinois.
Moments ago, the Pentagon briefed with the Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Dan Kaine with Elias on the conflict with Iran.
Listen to what the Defense Secretary had to say about requesting more money from Congress for this war.
As far as $200 billion, I think that number could move, obviously.
It takes money to kill bad guys.
So we're going back to Congress and folks there to ensure that we're properly funded for what's been done, for what we may have to do in the future, ensure that our ammunition is, everything's refilled, and not just refilled, but above and beyond.
I mean, President Trump, as he said, rebuilt the military in his first term.
Didn't think he'd use it as dynamically in his second, but he had.
So thank goodness he did that.
And an investment like this is meant to say, hey, we'll replace anything that was spent.
And now that we're reviving our defense industrial base and rebuilding the Arsenal of Freedom and cutting deals like our great deputy secretary is here is doing, long lead times on exquisite munitions.
We're going to be refilled faster than anyone imagined.
And I think, you know, we're also still dealing with the environment that Joe Biden created, which was depleting those stockholds and not sending them to our own military, but to Ukraine.
Which is when you, every time we reach back and look at any sort of a challenge we have, it goes back to, well, send it to Ukraine.
Ultimately, we think this should be these munitions are better spent in our own interests at this point.
And this kind of funding bill is going to ensure that we're properly funded going forward.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moments ago on a budget request of $200 billion to Congress for the Iran war.
Happening now, live coverage on C-SPAN 3.
The FBI Director Caspatel, the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, there on your screen, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe are testifying again for the second day on threats facing the United States as strikes against Iran continue.
We are live over on C-SPAN 3, as well as C-SPAN now, our free video mobile app, and online on demand at c-span.org.
Live Coverage of Shutdown Debate00:03:39
John in Maryland, Independent, let's hear from you.
Good morning.
Good morning, C-SPAN listeners.
That's right.
I'm an independent, and it feels good because I can look at both sides of the spectrum and come up with an idea of what's really going on.
I don't have to listen to all the smoke from the Democratic side, the Republican side.
I can be right down the middle.
So I don't agree with Donald Trump on a lot of things, his attitude, the way he approached situations, but I have to say that this situation, I think it was time for it.
Because, you know, when you're a kid in the playground and a bully's hitting you upside the head with his fist every day, what are you going to wait for?
A bigger fist?
You know, we need to go in there and take care of that because they are a threat.
They are a threat.
They've been an imminent threat for 74 years.
So when do we handle that?
Because we're going to wait for them to get a bomb, a nuclear bomb, and then we say, oh, yeah, now they're an imminent threat.
You know, we need to handle that.
I hate violence.
I'm not a pro-violence person, but I know sometimes you have to stand up to a dictator.
Thank you so much for C-SPAN.
You guys do a fantastic job.
All right.
All right, John and Maryland, Nancy in Pennsylvania, on our line for Democrats.
Hi, good morning.
I appreciate you taking my call.
I just had a question for your congresswoman, but I see she's left.
But I want to know why we can't have her just simply put in for changing the funding source for TSA.
So when we go through these political situations, you know, instead of shutting them down, why couldn't they be under the Department of Transportation or the Department of Interior so we don't hurt the people that do these jobs?
That's my question.
And I know you've heard this before, but once they changed the Department of Defense to the Department of War, I don't know what we expected.
But I feel like we have a lot of incompetence, unfortunately.
And we are going to need a golden dome now, unfortunately, to protect us because I think we've really opened up a can of worms in the Mideast.
Okay, so.
Nancy's thoughts on day 33 of this partial government shutdown of the Homeland Security Department.
Yesterday on Capitol Hill, the president's pick to lead the department after fire and Christy Noome.
Senator Mark Wayne Mullen testified at his confirmation hearing.
C-SPAN cameras were there for its entirety.
And today on Capitol Hill, the Homeland Security Committee in the Senate will gather again to vote on the nomination of Senator Mark Wayne Mullen to lead that agency.
And that is going to happen at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.
And you can watch live on C-SPAN 2, C-SPANNOW or C-SPAN.org.
The chair of the committee, Ram Paul, Republican, has said he is voting no.
He doesn't think that Mark Wayne Mullen has the disposition to be the Homeland Security Secretary.
Contentious moments that occurred on the Hill yesterday between the chairman, Ram Paul, and the nominee.
If you missed it, you can find it on our website at c-span.org.
You're also going to want to watch Senator John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania, to see how he votes.
He has indicated he is in support of the nominee.
If it clears the committee, it is expected to come to the full floor early next week.
Thank you for watching today here on C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
We're going to be back tomorrow morning, 7 a.m. Eastern Time.
We're going to bring you now live to the House as they gavel in early for legislative