President Trump dismisses Attorney General Pam Bondi amid DOJ tensions over the Epstein files, appointing Todd Blanch as acting AG while considering Lee Zeldin for the permanent role. The episode debates the lack of fraud indictments against Trump's allies and critiques the administration's unauthorized war in Iran, which isolates the U.S. strategically despite domestic unity. Economists clash over whether tariffs drive inflation or protect manufacturing, with Oren Cass arguing they foster resilience while opponents cite rising household costs. Ultimately, the discussion highlights deep fractures regarding executive power, military authorization, and economic strategy as the nation navigates global conflicts and internal policy shifts. [Automatically generated summary]
In a social media post yesterday, President Trump announced he has dismissed Attorney General Pam Bondi after just over a year in the Post.
The president called Bondi a great American patriot, but stated she will be transitioning to the private sector.
Her deputy, Todd Blanch, has been named acting attorney general.
The president is reportedly considering EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin for the permanent role.
The dismissal comes amid a period of tension between the White House and the DOJ over the pace of Politically sensitive investigations and the department's handling of the Epstein files.
Reaction on Capitol Hill has been swift.
We'll show you some of those shortly.
But we also want to hear from you.
What is your reaction to the firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi?
And what do you think her successor's top priorities should be?
Here are the numbers Republicans 202 748 8001, Democrats 202 748 8000, and Independents 202 748 8002.
You can text us on 202 748 8003.
Include your first name and your city state.
We're also on social media, Facebook.com slash C SPAN and X at C SPAN WJ.
Welcome to today's Washington Journal, a blessed Good Friday for those commemorating.
Let's start with President Trump's Truth Social post that he put out yesterday.
He says this Pam Bondi is a great American patriot and a loyal friend who faithfully served as my attorney general over the past year.
Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in crime across our country, with murders plummeting.
To their lowest level since 1900.
We love Pam, and she will be transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector to be announced at a date in the near future.
And our Deputy Attorney General and a very talented and respected legal mind, Todd Blanch, will step in to serve as Acting Attorney General.
That was on Truth Social.
This is what Pam Bondi put out on X.
She says this over the next month, I will be working tirelessly to transition the Office of Attorney General to the amazing Todd Blanch before moving to an important private sector role I am thrilled about and where I will continue fighting for President Trump and his administration.
Leading President Trump's historic and highly successful efforts to make America safer and more secure has been the honor of a lifetime and easily the most consequential first year of the Department of Justice in American history.
Since February 2025, We have secured the lowest murder rate in 125 years, secured first ever terrorism convictions against members of Antifa, shattered domestic and transnational gangs across the country, taken custody of more than 90 key cartel figures, and won 24 favorable rulings at the Supreme Court.
I remain eternally grateful for the trust that President Trump placed in me to make America safe again.
Let's hear from Todd Blanch, who is now going to be taking.
And I don't, first of all, I have never heard President Trump say that the Attorney General was, that anything that happened to her had anything to do with the Epstein files.
And so, look, the Epstein files has been a saga that's lasted for the entire, for the past year.
And what happened when the President signed the Transparency Act is the Department of Justice has now released all the files.
With respect to the Epstein saga.
And the Attorney General Bondi and I appeared in front of Congress voluntarily a couple weeks ago to answer any questions they had.
We have made every single congressman, senator available to come and see any document, redacted, unredacted, that they want.
And so I think that to the extent that the Epstein files was a part of the past year of this Justice Department, it should not be a part of anything going forward.
Cindy is up first on the line for Republicans, Norwalk, Connecticut.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
I just find the timing interesting.
I was disappointed how the Epstein saga played out.
They really botched it.
I think she did a fair job, but I really think, you know, the timing of this, I feel like, is to take the heat off of the colossal mistake, President Trump, if you're listening, that you made.
Getting involved and going into Iran.
Now, people are going to die of thirst and hunger around the world.
This is a colossal mistake.
And you have some false prophets in your ear.
I'll name one, Paula White.
This is Good Friday.
I suggest you learn the word and learn the teachings of Jesus.
You can watch the whole thing on cspan.org if you missed that in February.
These are the front pages of the national newspapers.
The Washington Times says Bondi fired after missteps.
Epstein fallout.
Second secretary ousted in Trump's second term.
Blanche will take over.
This is USA Today.
AG Bondi ousted after criticism over Epstein files.
This is the Wall Street Journal.
President fires Bondi amid DOJ tumult.
It says, Tenure marked by failed prosecutions.
Epstein controversy.
Zeldin eyed for post.
And New York Times Trump fires Bondi after bumpy tenure.
And here is the Washington Post Trump ousts Bondi as attorney general.
Deputy Blanche given job in acting role.
It says president vexed by her struggles to prosecute his foes.
Those are the newspapers.
Back to the calls to Joe in Georgia, Republican.
Hi, Joe, you're on the air.
unidentified
Mimi, y'all, the Sixth Fan does an incredible job.
Y'all are a super network.
I've been watching you for 30 years and calling in for 30 years.
I just want to say, I think, in my judgment, Trump's the best president in history, and he has the right to fire Pam Bondi or anyone else.
I think Pam Bondi is a nice person, but Trump needs to put in, has the right as president, to put in anybody he wants, and I think he'll make a very wise choice.
And in my judgment, he's by far the best leader in world history.
And I'm a stock market guy, and the stock market continues to hit new highs.
Hey, good morning, and thank you for C SPAN, and you're really wonderful.
So, thank you.
You know, I'm not going to lie, I've been fired from a couple of jobs in my day, but never, not once, was it ever brought about with such positive spin.
You know, so the whole idea that this is just, you know, roses and flowers coming up out of the ground is nonsense.
You know, be that as it may, this administration, our president, I don't think that they're capable of the truth.
They're incapable of truthfulness.
And, you know, I don't mind some of the decisions that this president has made.
I'm not a, you know, one way, you know, completely like what are the derangement syndrome.
I don't have that.
There have been some.
decisions that I agree with.
I've called C-SPAN a lot, as you may know or not know.
I used to call 20 years ago about putting up a wall on the southern border, and I'm a Democrat.
Why?
Because I originated that idea, I think, on C-SPAN.
I don't know if anybody ever heard me from the Republican side, but I'm just an average worker.
And I knew years ago when I was a kid that I was challenged at the jobs that I'm able to access.
You know, as a black person, I'm tickled to death.
And this is not a hit against my white friends.
But now you guys see who the real, in your term, when you say DEI, white folks use the terms as if the folks that are DEI are not qualified.
Now you see who the real DEIs are.
Everyone that.
Donald Trump hired from Pam Bundy to everyone in his cabinet are really true DEIs because none of them are qualified.
So, in your definition, when they say DEI white folks, they're throwing out this little old hit like, oh, these people are being hired because of a certain color, or they're not qualified.
Now you see the real DEIs.
Cabinet from Pam Bundy are really the true DEI.
No one had any qualification for those positions that were hired by Donald Trump.
He wanted a group of flunkies, and now the flunkies are falling apart.
Well, Claude, we're staying with the Pam Bondi ouster for now.
And this is what the Wall Street Journal says I think it's time.
The inside story of Pam Bondi's ouster it says the attorney general was always on the ropes, but thought she was finally on safer footing.
She wasn't.
Wednesday morning, Attorney General Pam Bondi descended the sunsplashed steps of the White House with President Trump, smiling at him just before entering the presidential limousine for a two mile ride to the Supreme Court.
It was on that short ride in The Beast when Bondi learned she was being removed from her job.
During the drive, Trump told her, I think it's time.
She would later tell an associate the ensuing hours were as awkward and chaotic as Bondi's 14 month tenure as the nation's top law enforcement official.
Trump and Bondi briefly sat near each other during the Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship, but the president soon switched chairs.
Later, Bondi would ask Trump if she could keep her job until the summer.
The president declined.
That's the Wall Street Journal.
Let's talk to Charles in Tennessee, line for Democrats.
Good morning.
unidentified
Yes, ma'am.
As far as her being qualified, she probably is.
They keep nobody doing the job under Donald Trump.
He just wants a headhunter to go out and prosecute people that are against him.
And here, you know, kind of here we go again.
Trump, this is doing just what he wants.
Everybody's talking about foreign pound bonding this morning and not all the other trouble.
He does something like this every time he gets in trouble with something.
The Epstein files, it's getting big trouble.
He goes, well, it starts a war.
It's just one right after another one.
But that, Pound Bundy is more qualified than a lot of people he's got in there, like Pete Hedgecliffe, Kelsey Gabbard, Kennedy up there over that.
Here we are, we're cutting cancer development for children and this.
But first, Pound Bundy, I don't think she's a good one, but she's just doing what she was told.
She couldn't do her job.
You remember what he goes through three in the first term, two or three?
And they couldn't do their job to suit him and do their job too, because what he Having him to do is basically illegal to prosecute everybody that says anything against him.
He's not a successful president.
He's not capable of doing a job.
The only one that's underqualified to do the job, really, is Donald Trump.
But as far as the other stuff, he's doing, he's getting us what he wants.
We're talking about this this morning and not the thing of the war over there, the price of fuel and the price of food and our health care system.
But this is what Donald Trump wanted from this.
He'd Speech the other night didn't make any sense, but this is he's getting what he wants.
And so, Betty, I just wanted to show this from the Atlantic that says Trump's purge may be just the beginning.
It says, here's what it says.
After Pam Bondi's ouster, which followed Secretary Nome's firing last month, cabinet secretaries and other senior administration officials were anxiously eyeing their phones, wondering whether they'd be next.
One top official didn't have to wait long.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth removed the chief of staff of the Army, General Randy George.
Several people familiar with the White House's plans told us there are active discussions about others leaving the administration, including FBI Director Kash Patel, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez Deremer.
The people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive personnel matters said that the timing is uncertain and that President Trump has not yet made up his mind.
But what was once an unofficial motto of the second term, quote, no scalps, no longer applies.
Russell, Cooperstown, New York, line for Democrats.
Good morning, Russell.
unidentified
Yes, good morning.
Calling from Chile, Cooperstown.
Listening to our furnace run here last night again at $5 and something a gallon fuel.
Thank you very much.
This is a mess.
Pam Bondi was not qualified for this job.
She's taken on way too much.
And this president is horrible.
I cannot believe that we're living through.
This time, I'm 73 years old.
I'm a retired plumber, a retired caseworker, and we're struggling up here in upstate New York.
Maybe not me as much as some others, but I mean, we're back.
He's already pounded us back to the Stone Age.
Thank you very much.
We're back to burning wood up here again, and the state doesn't want us to do it because they think we're polluting the world.
And meanwhile, we're watching useless rockets go up.
We're watching this show again with Trump.
Now, I was born in the same hospital as him, only some of us.
Came from the normal world with a father who was a World War II veteran that did not want war.
My foster brother was killed in Vietnam, and this is what we're coming to?
This is by choice that we did this.
He has messed up our economy so bad and has made us most hated in this world.
Ham Bondi resignation, not resignation, being fired is nothing new.
This president blames everything on everybody else, and I'm so tired of hearing it.
I was in business.
I never came close to a bankruptcy.
I never screwed people and always did what was honest and right.
All right, Russell, let's hear from lawmakers who are reacting to the news.
Here is Senator Chuck Schumer.
He says, Good riddance.
Pam Bondi was the wrong choice from the start.
But the rot at the Department of Justice begins and ends with Donald Trump.
As long as his focus is on using DOJ as a tool for revenge, And not law enforcement, the cover up of the Epstein files, along with the countless other problems at DOJ, will continue.
And this is what Congressman Robert Garcia says Pam Bondi and Donald Trump may think her firing gets her out of testifying to the Oversight Committee.
They are wrong.
And we look forward to hearing from her under oath.
That's set to happen in about two weeks.
Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Republican, says if the reports that Lee Zeldin will be replacing Pam Bondi as Attorney General are true, I welcome it.
Bondi handled the Epstein files in a terrible manner and made the situation far worse than it had to be for President Trump.
I look forward to a new attorney general.
And Representative Tom Massey of Kentucky, Republican, says, I support Trump firing Pam Bondi.
Do you?
I hope the next AG will release all the Epstein files according to the law and follow up with investigations, prosecutions, and arrests.
Let's hear from you on our topic, which is the firing of Pam Bondi as attorney general on the independent line.
In Palmyra, Pennsylvania.
Debbie, good morning.
unidentified
Good morning, Mimi.
How are you?
Good.
I had been listening to the news all day yesterday and last night, including people that actually know Pam Bondi and Trump.
And the ones that know him said that it was for several reasons that she was fired.
And it was because she doesn't have the experience of being a federal attorney, that she only has state experience, and that also it was because of the Jeffrey Epstein case that she mishandled the case.
And it was also because she wasn't going after his opponents hard enough or quick enough.
And also, somebody from within the Republican Party reported that she had leaked information to Eric Solwell.
And I'm sure it had to do with them.
They've just been opening up, reopening up the FBI case against Eric Solwell from whenever he had his girlfriend that was, they said, a Chinese spy.
It was in the Daily Mail under the headline Pam Bondi begged Trump not to fire her during dramatic White House showdown as Insider reveals his final straw.
But what you were talking about with about Representative Eric Swalwell, it says this Trump's reasoning for the sudden dismissal comes in part because the president believes Bondi tipped off Eric Swalwell about the FBI's efforts to release investigative documents.
Related to his relationship with an alleged Chinese spy.
And we have actually Eric Swalwell responding to that.
And we're just going to pause our calls on the topic, which is the firing of Pam Bondi as Attorney General, and talk a little bit about Iran and get an update from Elise Labatt, Global Affairs Journalist.
Well, you know, you heard President Trump the other night say that the U.S. is going to leave opening the Strait of Hormuz to the countries that he feels needs the oil more, whether that's Europe, whether that's Asia.
It is true.
Those countries take a lot more oil, a lot more natural gas.
And so the United Kingdom held a meeting of some 35, I think, nations to talk about could they get a coalition together to patrol the Strait and help escort some ships in.
To get through some of those tankers.
The problem is, first of all, any country that wants to put a ship through, even the prospect of putting a ship through without some deal with Iran to stand down.
Iran is mining the strait.
They have speedboats, they have drones.
Those ships, even the prospect of an attack, is going to make ships very skeptical about putting through.
Right now, they have what they're calling a toll booth.
People are calling a toll booth, which is they're letting ships that are not the United States, that are not Israel or any of these Gulf nations, they're letting them through at a steep price.
And so the idea is can these 30 nations work together to get some of these ships through without the.
But the problem is, and I was going to say, without the buy in of Iran, without some diplomatic solution, it doesn't matter how many military ships are there because Iran would attack him.
So you're going to need some kind of diplomatic solution.
And that's why things are going on at the UN Security Council.
Bahrain is the president of the month long rotating presidency.
Bahrain wants It calls for an end to the war, calls for a diplomatic solution, but also is looking for what you call any means necessary to get shipping going again to open up the Strait of Hormuz.
Now, what does any means necessary mean?
That, by the Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, means including the use of force.
And the Chinese, who are a permanent member of the Security Council and have veto over any Security Council resolution, they're saying they don't want force.
In this resolution, they want a diplomatic solution.
And so again, you're going to need, there's only two ways to open the strait.
There's only two ways to end this conflict.
You can end it militarily if you continue and someone remains victorious, or you can have a deal with Iran.
And it looks like all things are pointing to there's going to have to be some kind of diplomatic solution with Iran.
And that's what Pakistan and China are trying to work out.
And before we talk about Pakistan and China, the president said at his speech that the strait would open naturally at the end of the war.
Can you explain how that would happen, if that's possible, and what impact that could have on the United States if the war ends without the strait being open?
Well, in President Trump's mind, Iran closed the strait because of the war.
And so when the U.S. and Israel leave, Iran will stand down.
The problem is.
Iran is not letting any ship pass except ones that it lets pass.
There's no reason for it to not continue.
Now that it controls the Strait, and when you saw the president had this 15 point plan to end the war, Iran came back with this five point plan and said, oh, yeah, under this plan, we control the Strait now.
We say what happens.
So now that Iran controls the Strait, it'll remain open to anybody that Iran wants it to remain open for.
I expect him to come with some kind of plan for NATO to help with reopening the strait, not necessarily under NATO auspices, but as part of this coalition.
You heard President Trump the other day threaten to withdraw from NATO.
He can't do that without the Senate authorizing a withdrawal from the NATO treaty.
That's very unlikely.
But at the same time, there is a lot of tension between the Trump administration and NATO, which is likely to continue.
This definitely affects the war in Ukraine.
And, you know, the NATO allies are upset that they weren't consulted by the Trump administration for, you know, before the U.S. went into the war with Israel.
And when President Trump looked for help, they were saying, look, this is not our war.
But the NATO alliance is much more than the war in Iran.
And I think Secretary General Ruta is really coming to smooth things over.
We've seen several months of real tension between the U.S. and NATO, not just on Iran.
But also on the whole Greenland issue.
So, this is to kind of put things back on a smoother track.
And I do think, despite the rhetoric from President Trump, despite the rhetoric from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, I think after this meeting, there'll be some kind of meeting of the minds.
They're not going to kiss and make up, if you will, but there'll be a plan for moving forward.
Well, President Trump and the Israelis say they've hit maybe 90% of their targets.
The intelligence, it's a difference of intelligence and reading the intelligence.
These sources are saying that the missile launchers are really what's important, because even if you have the missiles, It doesn't matter if you can't launch them.
So, first they went after the missile launching production facilities.
Then they were going after the missiles.
They still have two weeks and they still are going after some of these targets.
But what military and intelligence analysts say is it's not really necessarily the only key issue here.
Yes, those missile launchers are important.
Yes, those missile capabilities are important.
And President Trump does want to say he.
Finish the job before he leaves.
So there are a few weeks to go after those stockpiles.
But back to what you were saying earlier, the strategic problem right now for the global economy is the Strait of Hormuz.
And so the Iranians think they're winning solely on this economic choke point that they have.
So the missiles are important, but Iran's kind of holding the hostage of the global community is also important.
There's also, Mimi, the nuclear issue.
President Trump.
Laid out a lot of things in his speech the other day the Navy, the Air Force, the missile capability.
He also said, when we leave, the nuclear threat will be eliminated.
If he wants to credibly say that the nuclear threat is eliminated, you're going to have to go after that stockpile of 1,000 pounds of enriched uranium, which is fissile material for making a nuclear bomb.
But if he is going to take that uranium out and say that he's eliminated the nuclear threat, and this is what he said to one of the main reasons that he went to war, there are some mixed messages going on right now.
Secretary Rubio was talking about the conventional threat.
Conventional means missiles.
Drones, kind of weapons systems.
But the nuclear threat is different than a conventional threat.
And to go after the nuclear threat, that's not just facilities, which they have hit, but that's also the fissile material.
And if President Trump wants to go after that, that will take more than two weeks.
And that will put U.S. troops on the ground and they will be in danger.
And that could escalate the war.
So even if in President Trump's mind he has two weeks, Anything could happen between now and then to escalate the situation, and that could extend the war.
And so, and Jesse, going back to the attorney general, when you say she was a mouthpiece for the president and that she essentially just did what he told her to do, do you think that a new attorney general would be better, or what are you looking for in a new attorney general?
unidentified
I don't think until the change of the Republicans are out of the House or out of the government.
That we are going to have a better or a more fair attorney general.
I mean, it's going to be very hard because I don't believe they're really vetted.
They're just vetted to agree with what Donald Trump says and have loyalty to what he says.
So, anyway, it talks about Lee Zeldin here as a possible replacement.
The Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch has also been mentioned as a possible candidate, but Zeldin's name is understood to have come up the most often in discussions of candidates for the role.
And let's talk to Ted in Boston, Massachusetts.
Independent line, good morning.
unidentified
Hey, good morning.
Happy spring.
It sounds like the average caller and the average American are finally.
Catching on to this pattern of behavior that Trump's exhibited for pretty much most of his life, treating our country like he's a mob boss.
And the last caller just stated how that is.
And it's just obvious.
And I guess there are so many things to say, but it's just so crazy how all of this has been normalized.
So, talk specifically about Pam Bondi and what you think has been normalized.
unidentified
But what's been normalized is this behavior and this total disrespect for all of our lives and all of the basic fundamentals of American democracy, you know, whether it's making fun of veterans or firing Pam Bondi because he doesn't, you know, it's hard to say because you can't get in Trump's head, but all the evidence shows that, you know, this is a pattern.
This is expected.
It could be because of the Epstein files he wants to put in someone to replace her to squash that because she was about to be deposed, you know, by Congress.
So it is hard to, you know, we can only speculate based on the evidence, you know, in front of us, but it's a clear pattern.
And this is, you know, it's related to how Trump has treated people throughout the 80s with his private businesses.
He just smears you.
And if you don't agree with him, you're out.
And that really shouldn't be how anyone conducts their life, their values, let alone the country.
And it just, this guy has such utter disrespect for all of our lives, no matter what.
Side of the political spectrum, you're on.
And it's just so disappointing to see even the globe ruined by this guy who clearly, you know, you could argue he doesn't even respect himself.
He only respects, you know, his drives, which, again, based on the evidence, would be enriching his family, you know, which goes to the Iran war.
And this is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse posted this on X. MAGA Attorney General Pam Bondi cashed in her integrity to keep her job and now leaves with neither.
It's a lesson for people who fall for Trump.
This is Vincent, Republican, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Good morning, Vincent.
unidentified
Good morning, Mimi.
What I want to talk about is I want to go down on the list.
I don't think he can do it anyways, but I'd go down on the list.
I mean, somebody's doing something wrong, but I'd go down on the list and get rid of Schumer.
I mean, Pam Bondi has been orchestrating this White House cover up.
She's been completely incompetent, the most corrupt AG in the history of the United States.
She has doxed survivors, released their information, and has meddled in U.S. elections.
And so I'm glad to see her go.
At the same time, she's set to appear before our committee in two weeks.
And I want to remind the public and the president that the subpoena that we put in place, where all Democrats and some Republicans joined us, that subpoena doesn't say or specify whether she needs to be in her position currently to testify.
It says, we want to speak to Pam Bondi, whether she's the attorney general or not.
We've already checked with the lawyers, we've checked with the committee.
She is set to be in front of the oversight committee in two weeks, and now she has an opportunity.
To come clean, tell the truth.
Her boss isn't going to be Donald Trump anymore.
And it's time to get to the bottom of why there's been this massive cover up and why the other half of the files have yet to be released.
Congresswoman Nancy Mace is singing from your same songbook, but I'm curious whether or not you believe that Chairman Comer, there's going to be any effort to revisit the issuance of this subpoena.
Look, actually, Chairman Comer, days after Pam Bondi had her fake hearing in front of Oversight, where she tried to set this strange hearing and briefing a couple of weeks ago, a few days after Comer made it clear the subpoena still stands.
He realizes that a subpoena that has already been issued can only be retracted by another vote of the Oversight Committee.
He can't, on his own or with just Republicans, somehow retract that subpoena.
And so it is in place.
He would have to come before the full Oversight Committee made up of Democrats.
And Republicans, the same Republicans that voted for the subpoena, and asked for a repeal.
It's Representative Garcia, and let's talk to Jackie, Independent, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Good morning, Jackie.
You're on the air.
unidentified
Thanks.
Good morning.
Listen, I'd like to ask a question really is you know, I can understand people being disturbed and upset and clutching their pearls about firing Pam Bondi, but I seem to remember in the Obama administration, he moved around or fired 14 cabinet members.
And he fired or got rid of 197 high ranking military officials and generals.
And I don't remember the big bubble oo on the TV about that when that happened.
I didn't like her answers when she was in that hearing.
I just, you know, I wanted her to answer the question.
I didn't want to hear all the background noise.
I mean, I think it's a good thing she's gone, but, you know, cabinet members getting fired, this goes on with all presidents, you know, but yeah, that was a good move getting rid of her.
Ted, Democrat, Mooresville, North Carolina, you're on the air.
unidentified
Yeah, good morning, Mimi and C-SPAN.
I was recently watching the CPAC conference that you folks had on your thing, C-SPAN 2, and Todd Blanche was the speaker with Matt Schlapp, who were discussing the Trump administration, and little did I know that he would be replacing Pam Bondi.
But I honestly feel that Todd Blanche is possibly worse than Bondi.
He's basically been, I would think, coaching Bondi through this, and she didn't seem to have the ability to even answer questions in the interrogation at the Congress.
But he's going to be taken over, and I think we're going to see.
Pretty much the same stonewalling and the same problems we had, possibly worse than we had with Ms. Bondi, but wish her well and her interrogation coming up.
I think Pam Bondi did a pretty good job while she was there.
I mean, we lived in Florida for eight years.
She did a very good job while she was Attorney General down there in the state of Florida.
Another problem I have is that you keep on.
Showing all these Democratic congresspeople.
Okay.
And that to me is where a lot of your problem lies.
It's just like a couple of your other previous callers say anything Donald Trump tries to do, everybody in the Democratic Party wants to complain about it.
But yet, though, when Obama was in, Biden was in, they were for it.
Okay.
I mean, I told the lady on the phone that.
I wish you'd quit showing these clowns.
If they want to get on, why don't you bring them on your show?
And not for 15 minutes, not for 20 minutes.
Bring them on for an hour and let them have to answer calls.
So, Tim, we're just a little bit off the topic, but we just want to let you know that we do invite all lawmakers to come on the program and answer questions from viewers like yourself.
Not all of them accept our invitation, as you can imagine.
She did great at the hearing, also, and didn't take crap from silly Democrats.
And it's the president's prerogative to change if that's what he wants.
Good luck to Pam in her new job.
And this is what Duane said on X Pam Bondi wasn't fired for failing.
The main reasons she is moving from AG Trump needs a distraction from his low approval rating, war with Iran, and failed domestic policies.
Plus, Bondi was fired after the job Trump wanted was done, and that included protecting the elite.
And here is Cynthia in Virginia, line for independence.
unidentified
Good morning.
Yes, in regards to Ms. Bonday, I feel that her firing was because, like in most any jobs that you have, any job descriptions that you have, you are to follow policy.
It appears to me that in Congress here, Congress is not having a say so in regards to what the Attorney General's job is responsible for or any other politician that's in office.
I think we have, as a country, have gotten away from following actually the policies that have been implemented.
So I think, unfortunately for Ms. Bonday, I believe that she was following actually what maybe Trump may have wanted her to follow in regards to his rules and policies instead of Congress.
So I do believe that may have been her biggest problem.
If you'd like to read it, it's in the New Yorker Tom Homan and the Case of the Missing 50,000.
It's from October of last year.
You can find out there.
Later on the program, we'll have new jobs numbers, and they come out in about Half an hour, and we'll discuss that and the state of President Trump's plans for tariffs with Oren Cass of American Compass.
But first, Independent Veterans of America's Paul Rykoff, a former Iraq War veteran, discusses the current operations in Iran.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
Best ideas and best practices can be found anywhere.
It's nice to be with a member who knows what they're talking about.
unidentified
You guys did agree to the civility, all right?
He owes my son $10 from a bet.
He has never paid for it.
Fork it over.
That's fighting words right there.
Glad I'm not in charge.
I'm thrilled to be on the show with him.
They're not shows like this, right?
Incentivizing that relationship.
Ceasefire, Friday nights on C SPAN.
Sunday night on C SPAN's QA, the Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space Museum's Jennifer Levasser discusses the history of the 135 mission space shuttle program and takes us on a tour of the space shuttle orbiter.
There are well over 20,000 tiles on this vehicle, and about 80% of them are original to Discovery's very first flight in 1984.
So that some of this evidence goes all the way back to 1984, and it's really and it's one of the funniest things about being the curator.
Sometimes people will look and say, Well, it looks really dirty.
Why don't you clean it?
That's not dirt.
That's the evidence of all the hard work that happened.
unidentified
The Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space Museum's Jennifer Levasser, Sunday night at 8 Eastern on C SPAN's QA.
You can listen to QA and all of our podcasts on our free C SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series, Sunday, with our guest bestselling author, Arthur Brooks, who has written 13 books about finding purpose, connection, and cultivating lasting joy.
His books include Love Your Enemies, Build the Life You Want, with co-author Oprah Winfrey, and his latest, The Happiness Files.
He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader, David Rubenstein.
Well, we are fielding a group of leaders to try to meet this moment of turbulence and crisis in America.
Independent Veterans of America recruits, unites, supports, and elects a new generation of independent veterans.
For public office, from U.S. Senate all the way down to school board.
This fall, we're shooting to have 100 men and women all across this country who are not Democrats, who are not Republicans, but are unaffiliated and independent and see this as a time where they need to continue their service, step up and serve their communities, their states, and their country in political office.
A lot of them are deeply concerned about the direction of this country, but also about the broken political system and the dysfunction of the two parties.
And we think they provide the hope and leadership that this country needs.
We take funding from all across the country, small donations.
A lot of veterans have supported us.
We don't have big pack money, billionaire money, or the funding of the two parties.
We think that these folks represent a source of hope and inspiration at a time when America's looking for fighters.
Americans are looking for leaders and looking for folks with integrity that they can trust.
And we're trying to find them all across this country.
So if any are watching and want to run for public office all the way down to school board, your country needs you.
It doesn't look like it to the people in Iran, and it doesn't look like it to people in the region.
I mean, we've replaced the Ayatollah with a younger, more energetic version of the Ayatollah.
So it seems like the regime is still very much in place.
The Iranian people are not free to move around.
Missiles and drones continue to fly around the region.
So I think the Iranian people are going to be in the best position to tell us when the regime is gone.
But the Iranian people are also in a really tough situation.
I mean, they've got a regime that lies to them and has been killing them, and now they've got an American president.
That seems to be lying to them and also killing them and waging destruction on their land.
So they're in a really, really tough spot here.
But I think, you know, the falling popularity of this war is not just a political problem for Trump.
I mean, it's a strategic problem for our military because this has the potential, and I think it's already starting to become kind of a sucking chest wound that pulls in so many of our resources and also puts our troops in danger, especially as Trump continues to attack NATO and attack our allies.
We have less friends.
We're in a bar fight right now, essentially, in the Middle East, and we need every friend that we can get.
But we've never been more isolated, and now we've got threats at the homeland.
So I ask everybody watching, you know, even those who support this, do you feel safer?
Because I don't feel safer here in New York City.
I don't feel safer when I'm moving around this country.
Our troops are definitely not safer, and I think the world feels less safe.
And that's ultimately the objective of the president as a commander in chief is to ensure that the American public is safe.
Well, Paul, you did mention that you served in the Iraq War, and I wonder what you think are any mistakes that the United States is making that we made back then.
I think we're making many of the same mistakes, and to some extent, we're making them more.
I mean, the most important thing that I talk about a lot, Mimi, that I think folks need to understand, is that the amount of control and free reign that the president has is really unprecedented in American history.
Uh, you know, in the Iraq War, you know, you may not have supported it, but at least George Bush made the case.
At least there was a vote in Congress.
At least he made an attempt to create an international unity around a coalition of the willing.
Uh, Trump is in a position where I think the most important story in the world is that he can do anything he wants with the most powerful military the world has ever seen.
And nothing is stopping him.
There are no speed bumps.
There are no guardrails.
The congressional votes are just pushed off in the side.
He gives him a stiff arm and just keeps going.
So I think the really troubling part about Iran is it's not just Iran.
I mean, he said now he wants to hit Cuba.
He's floated the idea of Colombia.
Along the way, he's hit multiple countries, including Venezuela and even Ecuador.
Some folks watching may not even know we had military operations.
In Ecuador.
So we're in a position where we have forever war.
And that's what we had in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But this is much more extensive.
It has the potential to be much longer, and it's much less popular.
I think that's the stunning part of this this is less popular than any recent war in American history.
And I go back to that point.
You have to commit the country first and then commit the troops.
When you don't have the country committed, our troops are in a situation where they're fighting an unpopular war.
And here's a big mistake we didn't learn, Mimi.
When we went to war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, they kept asking for defense budget requests, they kept asking for billions of dollars.
They never asked for money for VA funding to take care of all of us when we came home.
So, for over a decade, I came on your show and so many others to fight for increased funding at the VA, to fight for more resources for everything from traumatic brain injury to burn pits.
Right now, the President and Hegstep have asked the country and the Congress for an additional $200 billion to fund this war.
That's just for the Department of Defense.
They've made no request whatsoever for the Department of Veterans Affairs to care for all these men and women when they come home.
And I think that's one really clear example of a lesson we have to finally learn in America.
If a president presents a cost of war, He has to present the full cost, and that includes funding the VA and ensuring we can take care of all these men and women who, even if he pulls the plug tomorrow, they're going to be facing health issues for the rest of their life.
Paul Rykoff is with us, and you can ask him a question.
You can call us on our lines by party.
So Republicans are on 202 748 8001, Democrats are on 202 748 8000, and Independents 202 748 8002.
We also have a line for active and former military members.
You can call us on 202 748 8003.
That's the same number you can text us if you're not able to call us.
Well, Paul, the administration is making the argument that Americans are going to be safer after this because the Iranians will no longer be able to threaten us with the possibility of nuclear weapons.
And they say that this has essentially been, Iran's essentially been at war with us for the last 47 years since the Islamic Republic took over that country.
Iran, you know, put proxies and weapons into Iraq to kill the people that I serve with.
You know, that is true.
Iran is definitely a threat to the region.
You know, a nuke threat is always a threat to the world.
I think there's a difference between intent and outcomes.
You know, those things can be true, but the question is have we made the world safer?
Because if their intent is to remove the nuke threat, well, that's not done yet to our knowledge.
Even the president won't admit that.
If they can actually do it, that may be.
An admirable objective.
But does most of the American public support that?
Do they agree with that threat?
Have they made a case for that threat?
I don't think they have.
And then the bigger question becomes what's the overflow factor?
There's an old saying that when you upset the hornet's nest, the hornets decide when it's over.
Trump has unleashed something in the Middle East now that's beyond his control.
Even if he decided to pull out tomorrow, there'd still be instability in the region.
The Gulf states might still be getting hit.
Israel would still be engaged in Lebanon.
So there was kind of a lid on Iran for decades.
Now that lid has been blown off, and I don't think that.
Most Americans feel the president has a plan, not just to deal with what's happening now, but what happens next.
The big question we have to ask the president is okay, if you do annihilate the military, if you do remove the regime, if you do get rid of the nukes, who's going to handle security?
Who's going to handle the boots on the ground?
Who's going to ensure the Iranian people are safe?
At first, they said it might be the Kurds.
Is it going to be some kind of an allied force with NATO?
I don't think NATO is going to support it.
Is it going to be Israeli and American soldiers?
I don't think anybody wants that.
Is it some kind of new free Iran army?
Whatever it is, he has to communicate that because one parallel we do see from Iraq, especially, is it was easy, relatively speaking and militarily, to take Baghdad.
The hard part was what happened afterward.
After Saddam was gone, securing the safety of the Iraqi people is something that now, right now, still is not done.
So security has always got to be the number one question because if you remove the nukes and you get rid of the regime, what happens then?
We could see something that is even more dangerous, including, I think, an underreported part of this increased threats here at home.
We've already seen.
Affiliated attacks here on U.S. soil.
We continue to see drones as a threat to the region and to our forces, and now here to U.S. bases at home.
And I think that's an underreported part of this story.
What are we doing to keep Americans safer here at home, especially from new threats like drones?
We'll start with Stephen in Florida, line for Republicans.
Stephen, you're on with Paul Rykoff.
unidentified
Go ahead.
Thank you for taking my call.
Happy Easter and Passover.
I like Mr. Paul's hairstyle.
I have the same thing.
And I just wanted to ask him, what does he think about the.
I was watching Cuomo the other night, and Mr. Cuomo pointed out about the single sleeper cells that possibly could be allegedly the Royal Guard here, the damage that they could do in the local communities.
I question is, what are we doing about what he addressed?
I mean, what is he doing right now to protect us from sleeper cells?
How high is that threat?
I think the FBI knows how high that threat is.
I think our Department of Defense knows how high that threat is.
And you hear, for example, a scramble from the Department of Defense to increase our production of drones, but also our production of defenses against drones.
I mean, we have a military base here in Barksdale that had drones over it for hours.
And that military base did not even have the defensive capabilities to shoot them down or to get rid of them.
I mean, that underscores how vulnerable we are.
So I think there's a parallel to 9 11 where we don't know what the threats are.
We're aware of generally what the looming threats could be, but we're not here on a defensive war footing in the way we need to be given the scope of the threat and the potential increase for threat.
I mean, you see what things look like right now in Kyiv with the drone threat in particular from Russia.
You see now across the Middle East in places like Israel, drone threats in particular.
This is a new kind of warfare where death can come from above.
From a drone that costs just a couple of tens of thousands of dollars.
I think that is our number one threat.
That is the suicide bomber of this time.
That is the terrorist attack of this time.
And the question for the president is what are you doing to protect our military bases and soft targets?
I mean, you've got opening day happening here in New York at Yankee Stadium.
We have the World Cup here coming in the U.S. All those are extremely vulnerable sites to any kind of, not just a sleeper cell, but someone who's sympathetic with the Iranian cause like we've seen before.
This is a very, very important question.
And the president's talking a lot about the billions of dollars he wants to spend in Iran.
What is he going to do to spend it here at home to keep us safe?
Even, again, if this stopped tomorrow, the world is ticked off at us.
The proxies have been activated, and that is unleashed.
So, what is he going to do right now to keep us all safer here at home?
And I think the president did nothing to appease anyone's concerns.
I mean, there was real concern from me and others that he might be announcing an escalation of boots on the ground because we've got 50,000 of America's sons and daughters in the region.
We've got now thousands from the 82nd Airborne, from the Marine Corps, and from Special Operations Unit that have been at the ready.
And that's still a very real threat that he could pull the trigger on that and put boots on the ground at any moment.
So I don't think anybody left that speech feeling better.
Whether you're a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent, like 45% of the country now and rising.
I think his energy was very low.
I think he looked old.
He looked weak.
The good part about it was it was only 20 minutes.
So by Trump standards, it was pretty short.
And we got a little bit of our evening back.
But I think it was also troubling because his objective was clear.
It was a political one.
It was to try to grab the microphone and force the American people to again listen to his rationale.
And he was kind of jamming it down our throats, saying the same kind of stuff all over again with no new announcement.
I would actually challenge the TV networks and say, is that something we should be carrying?
If he has no announcement, If he has no news, if he's not really giving the American people anything new, can you platform him and give him the opportunity to continue to push what, in my view, is a lot of propaganda?
The point that I would also underscore is everybody loves and respects our military, and they are absolutely exceptional.
What's really uniting people is their respect for the military, but also their outrage for this president waging this war, the way he's waging the war by not asking for congressional approval and kind of throwing his middle finger up at the checks and balances and continuing to go forward.
And what I've really been struck by is I think if you hear from Republican callers, Democrat callers, And independent callers, most of them, I would say 80% or more, don't want this war and definitely don't want boots on the ground.
So, Trump has done something really spectacular here in a time of tremendous division and toxicity.
He's uniting the American public against this war.
And I think it comes on the back of something else that's very important ice, which was very unpopular across all political backgrounds.
The tariffs are very unpopular across all political backgrounds.
Gas prices were now hitting five bucks a gallon, and diesel and fertilizer is up.
So, he's done something really exciting.
Extraordinary here.
He's uniting the entire country on these issues, and more and more so, if I can't mean against him.
So you're hearing from folks like Sean Ryan, the right wing podcaster.
You're hearing from Alex Jones.
You're hearing from Marjorie Taylor Greene.
And then you're hearing from the folks on MSNBC and AOC and others, and lots of folks in between.
So I think it's a real moment for the American people to push back because the real failure, too, is Congress.
The Democrats and the Republicans, I think, have both failed here.
And that's why I'm so focused on trying to provide new leadership, especially from veterans that are unaffiliated and independent.
And if we're going to fight someone, we fight them hard.
We fight within the rules of war.
We honor the Geneva Convention.
And at the end of it, we don't ask for oil.
We don't ask for plunder.
The only thing the American public has ever asked for after standing up for freedom is a place to bury our dead.
And that's the only thing we should be asking for now.
Our military is not mercenaries.
We should not be plundering in Iran or in Venezuela or anywhere else.
And that's part of what's really isolated us and continued to drive down the popularity of the American public.
And it's not just Trump.
Our troops are less popular.
So every time he ticks off the world, he's making a Marine standing on an outpost in Europe or at an embassy less popular.
Our military around the world is less trusted because of him.
And that's ultimately one of the most nefarious and dangerous parts of especially the last year of his presidency the popularity of the American military is dropping.
Colin is an independent in Washington, D.C. Good morning, Colin.
unidentified
Good morning, and thank you for C SPAN.
I had two questions, and well, not really questions, but I just wanted to know your thoughts, sir.
I just wanted to know your thoughts on President Trump's preparations.
Actually, today, as reported in Bloomberg, that he will be releasing his proposal for the budget of 2027, you know, kind of his pitch for 2026, in which he wants to grow the military budget from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion at the expense of social programs.
Which social programs are yet to have been established?
So I just wanted to get your immediate thoughts on that.
And then my second question to follow up on your point about war crimes and everything like that, I just wanted to know your thoughts on any sort of talks of ceasefire or diplomacy somewhat being sabotaged by our proxy state Israel assassinating diplomats, which is against the Geneva Conventions, as well as bombing infrastructure like civilian infrastructure, like bridges that we did yesterday.
The largest bridge and the highest bridge in the Middle East was bombed.
By the American military in a double tap strike, which is a war crime.
So, for those who don't know what double tap strikes are, it's when an initial strike is made, and then when rescue operations are being initiated, another strike is made to both kill the responding services like fire and ambulance services, as well as make future responses to attacks less desirable.
And Paul, before you answer, Colin, just mention the article that he mentioned in Bloomberg.
It says Trump budgets pit spending cuts against massive defense push.
It says discretionary non defense spending would be cut by 10 percent, about $73 billion, according to fact sheets circulated by the White House in advance of today's budget release.
When it comes to the budget request, which is now asking for an additional $500 billion on top of the $200 billion supplemental that they've already asked for, I say, hell no.
I'm not in Congress.
I'm not a senator.
I am independent.
I say no.
Uh, you can't continue to ask for more money for a war that the American public doesn't support and you haven't even had a formal congressional authorization for.
Congress is supposed to declare war.
Congress is supposed to fund war.
That's how it's supposed to work.
And because it hasn't worked that way, Since essentially World War II doesn't mean it shouldn't work that way now.
So I think the American people are very strongly pushing back on the $200 billion already.
They're just going to find out now about the additional request for a plus of $500 billion.
And look, you got to listen to what Trump says because he telegraphs his punches, whether it's hitting Iran and Venezuela or saying that he wants to cut social programs.
He said yesterday, I don't care about Medicare.
I don't care about Medicaid.
I don't care about daycare.
He said that out loud.
He says, hey, don't worry about gas prices.
They're going to come down.
The reality is, We know those things are important.
Everybody, especially working people, people like me with kids, know those things are important.
And if he has $200 billion for a war in Iran that most people don't support, but there's no money for Medicare and Medicaid, there's no money for daycare, and we haven't, again, even talked about the cost of war that's going to be required at the Department of Defense.
I think there's going to be overwhelming pushback.
This might be a time where Congress actually starts to work.
I've got no love for Congress on either side.
I think the Republicans have failed us.
And they have lost their integrity.
And the Democrats have been run over.
They are disjointed.
They don't have a strategy.
I think they're weak.
And the Democrats are not going to save us here.
So, this is why I continue to look for independent voices that can come together.
I look to, for example, Representative Roh Khanna, the Democrat, and Tom Massey, the Republican.
They have joined together in a bipartisan way on Epstein.
They've also done it on the wars.
They might be able to pull together a coalition that can push back on this funding and push back on Iran and maybe unite Congress, which is something.
I'm excited about it.
I had an extensive conversation yesterday with Ro Khanna on my podcast, and I challenged him on that.
And I think there might be space for it.
When it comes to the other piece, look, Americans should not engage in war crimes.
That is foundational to who we are.
We should not be doing double taps, whether it's in the Middle East or on Venezuelan drug boats.
And every time we do, we undermine the trust and integrity in our military.
In that 18 year old son or daughter who's standing on the line somewhere now in the Middle East or standing on a ship, that person's trust by the world drops every time Trump does something.
That is against the laws of war, or even says he's going to do something that's against the laws of war.
And when it comes to Israel, I think there's a bigger picture challenge here is that the world doesn't have to wait for Donald Trump anymore.
And much of the world doesn't trust Donald Trump anymore.
So we're in a new reality where America isn't calling the shots.
Our commander in chief isn't calling the shots.
So Israel can do what they want without running it by the United States.
The Gulf state regions, the Gulf region states are going to do what they need to do in their national security and in their interests.
Folks in NATO can't trust America anymore, so they're going to have to operate independently.
We know Ukraine can't trust America.
So that's a really, really important part of this moment.
The world doesn't trust us.
And when you're in a bar fight with more and more of the world by the day, you need all the friends you can get.
We've got to continue to hold the president accountable and demand that he abide by the rules that have guided our country for decades and for generations.
We don't need an American president that drives our popularity into the ground.
We need an American president who can be a quarterback and move us all forward.
For you to say that Donald Trump's actions were unprecedented is a little disingenuous.
Truman ran the Korean War without a declaration of war.
Johnson had the Vietnam War.
He did have the Guffertonkin Resolution, but that was after 16,000 troops were already committed.
The founders of the Constitution, the authors of the Constitution, deliberately divided the war powers between Congress and the president.
Because they feared a demagogue and they feared legislative paralysis.
So the president has the authority by being commander in chief.
You may not like it, but the Constitution is set up that way.
Additionally, I just saw an interview with Lindsey Graham.
He said that he was working with the Biden administration to help formalize relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
And that was the impetus behind the attack in October of 2023.
He said Iran would not let those relationships go through.
So you have a country, and by the way, he said that the Biden administration was getting ready to announce those relationships at the end of October.
So Iran is not going to let peace happen in the Middle East if they're going to attack a country, Israel, through proxies, if Israel's trying to formalize relations with an Arab nation.
He also said that Iran had 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to an 80% level.
It only takes two weeks to go from 60% to 90%, which is weapons grade.
Well, I wouldn't have launched an unpopular war without the support of Congress and without the American people.
If that's the case they wanted to make, they should have been focused on it.
They should have been clear on it.
They should have organized an international coalition.
They should have allocated the budget.
They should have built a non bipartisan coalition and make that case to the American people.
And if the American people aren't buying it, you're going to run into problems because are you happy with where we are right now?
Most of America is not happy where we are right now.
Most of America doesn't feel safe.
And let's underscore another point.
They haven't removed the nuke threat.
They tried to do that last time.
They told us it was done.
And now they say they have to go back in and try again.
And right now, does anybody know where the uranium is?
Does the president know where the uranium is?
Is it secure?
So, if that is our objective, which is not what they said, they've said a number of different things over the course of the last month or so, but that might ultimately be the most urgent threat if it is true.
And I'm not being disingenuous about the way this is supposed to work.
I think that there should be an authorization from Congress because if you're going to get, especially, into a difficult and protracted war, You can't do it without Congress.
You can't do it without the American people.
Or you run into what we had in Vietnam and you run into what we had in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where our troops continue to shoulder this burden and it goes on for decades, and the rest of America is living life uninterrupted.
This is backward, right?
And the president has gone all gas, no brakes.
He's trying to run as far and as fast as he can so he doesn't have accountability from Congress and the American people.
And this is a breaking point.
I mean, this is the point where Republicans, especially in his base, are saying, hell no.
They're saying, you lied to us.
They say, we don't want this.
So if he's going to make that case, He's failed to do it.
And the poll numbers reflect that.
The lack of support from our allies reflect that.
And now we're in a situation where the rest of the world doesn't see that threat either.
Italy's said we can't have aviation assets going over their airspace.
Spain is saying our military can't use their airspace.
That makes things more dangerous.
That makes our job harder when we're trying to conduct military operations.
And it makes things much more dangerous for our troops on the ground.
So this entire thing is backwards.
It's a demonstration of how not to do a war.
And I think that's why you're seeing so many people all across this country of all backgrounds pushing back.
Yeah, I mean, that, that, that, you know, that, you know, we don't want to show our hand.
The enemy's not going to show their hand.
I mean, the reality is that modern warfare is exceptionally complex.
We've got no shortage of enemies abroad and here at home.
I mean, the domestic threat is something that shocks me how rarely it's addressed.
You talk about 9 11.
I'm talking to you right now from six blocks away from ground zero.
I was there on 9 11.
I am well aware of what the threat can look like and how American citizens can die.
But you've also got to ask the American public, If they want this and if they're behind this, because I think the greatest mistake that George Bush made after 9 11 was not to ask America to participate.
He sent people like me and over a million others to a war in the Middle East, and most Americans never saw their taxes go up, were never asked to put any skin in the game.
If you're going to engage the American military in a military objective, you have to get the American people behind them, because we're also careening toward a dangerous place where the American military is less trusted at home.
We've got National Guard in the streets.
He wants to put Federal troops in the streets.
He said this week he might put them in Chicago and in New York around the World Cup.
That is a very real possibility.
And if he says something like that, I think you should take him at his word.
But we're going into a place where the American military's popularity is coupled to his.
And that is a very, very dangerous place because the politicization of our military has never been more extreme.
And I can't say that without noting Hegseth fired a bunch of generals again last night.
The purge of generals who are not aligned with them politically continues.
He just fired the chief of staff of the army in the middle of a war.
We continue to be in combat operations.
Meanwhile, Hegseth is on a culture war inside the Pentagon, removing a swath of generals and senior leaders like we've never seen before.
So oftentimes, Hegseth is more focused on the culture war internally than he is on our enemies abroad.
And I think that's a very important part of this to highlight.
Let's talk to Phil, who is calling us from North Dakota on the Republican line.
Good morning, Phil.
unidentified
Hey, you know, I just had a couple quick questions.
You know, I hear everybody, you know, everybody says Donald Trump didn't go to Congress.
Well, for one thing, I don't honestly think if Iran was bombing our country, the Democrats would stand behind Donald Trump.
That's just a fact.
It doesn't matter whether he's right, wrong, indifferent.
You guys would be against him on anything he ever does.
So, I mean, what's he supposed to do?
Let the rest of the world blow us up?
You guys talk about, you know, we don't need to stop Iran.
So, what's going to stop Iran from the next 30 years tying up the oil so everybody has to pay through their nose for everything the rest of their lives?
Don't you think America has to stop?
And y'all talk about the UN.
The UN, to me, is like a bunch of kindergartners listening to their kindergarten teacher.
Okay?
They don't have any idea.
They wait for America to go first, and we call it the UN.
It's not the UN.
Okay?
So, You know, come on, guys.
America's got to stand up and put an end to this so America doesn't have to fight wars for the rest of eternity.
Yeah, we're not going to have a nice day because 50,000 troops are in the region right now, and it looks like we're not going to end anything quickly.
I would just challenge you on this.
Look, the threats are real, okay?
I understand the threats are real.
I've had friends die and get blown up.
I live in New York City, a couple blocks from grounds there.
I understand how real the threat is.
And I would just start by challenging you.
Don't indict Democrats or Republicans or anybody to say they wouldn't stand up for America if we were attacked.
I was standing there on 9 11.
I saw Americans of all backgrounds stand up when we were attacked.
And I think that's the kind of rhetoric that divides us.
And it's also, it has our enemies celebrating.
When the chips are down, Americans come together.
But they also depend on leadership bipartisan leadership, ideally, independent leadership, ideally, but also thoughtful leadership.
And if the threat in Iran is as real as they say, how about doing what Donald Trump often does and saying, hey, you guys handle it?
He's okay to throw the onus on NATO.
How about throwing it on the Gulf states?
How about throwing it on Israel?
This is not viewed as an imminent threat to most Americans.
Now, they can try to make that case, but how about starting with the countries in the region, many of which have still not dedicated military forces?
So he's okay to send men and women from the 82nd over there, but not folks from the Middle East?
I think you have to turn Trump's rationale back on him and say, if this is an issue that is a threat to the region, how about calling on the region first and foremost to address that threat?
On the line for Democrats in North Carolina, Joe, go ahead.
You're on the air.
unidentified
Oh, yes.
This whole thing doesn't make sense.
We've got the most educated country in the Muslim world that can produce some of the best drones that can penetrate Israeli airspace and bomb downtown Tel Aviv.
But we swear that for 20 years they've had all this uranium and they are almost two weeks out in producing a bomb.
That's been going on for.
20 years.
The reason why I'm skeptical of all that we're hearing from our White House is that this all has the hallmark of Benjamin Milikowski.
Benjamin Milikowski is Benjamin Netanyahu.
He was the guy who gave us weapons of mass destruction.
He drove that truck until we picked it up and went into war and killed people both in Iraq.
And American citizens.
He's now driving this new truck.
You know, that after 20 years with all of this uranium, they're only two weeks out from an atomic bomb.
People, there's another problem with Benjamin Milikowski Netanyahu.
There were 12% of the population in Palestine when Israel was started in 1948.
Population were Christians.
They now have them down to less than 2%, and we still have the Christian world cheering and giving blessings to Israel.
Boy, Mimi, every time I come on your show, I learn some interesting things.
And I don't know if there's a question in there.
But I will say this look, Israel is obviously a valuable partner to America, but Israel's popularity in America is not what it used to be either.
And the Israelis know that.
Netanyahu has his own challenges at home in the same way Trump has his challenges here.
And I think at the end of the day, Trump can't have it both ways.
We can't say, hey, we're going to not get into new wars, we're going to put America first, and at the same time continue to get dragged into wars around the world.
And that's central.
To all of this, I think most Americans don't want our men and women to die overseas for regime change wars, for forever wars.
And they care about what's happening here at home.
And they hear a president who's more focused on Israel's national security and more focused on Iran than he is on child care and gas prices back at home.
And most Americans don't want it.
So he has failed to make an effective case.
And wars don't get more popular as they go on.
I hope the casualties stop, but we still had 13 brave Americans killed in action.
We've had hundreds.
Wounded, and that is a miraculous testament to our military that it hasn't been more.
They are exceptional, but they are also not endless.
And we can't forget about threats like North Korea and China.
Right now, the Chinese are thrilled to have us sucked into this black hole in the Middle East yet again.
They can just sit back and continue to watch as we punch ourselves out in this place and Russia punches themselves out in Ukraine.
And the big winner here is not Israel, the big winner is not Iran, the big winner is China.
So I think we have to take a longer view to what's happening.
And underscore that if the president does want to do this for as long as he says, even right now, $200 billion more, he's going to need Congress for that.
Whether he likes it or not, if he wants $200 billion more, he's going to have to get that from Congress because he's not rich enough to pay for it himself.
So this is the crossing point.
This is the point where I think Republicans are standing up.
You're hearing that from moderates and even from the most conservative parts of his party.
The question for Trump is what are you going to do if they shut the wallet off?
What are you going to do if they say no more money?
How are you going to leave our troops stranded out there?
And how are you going to care for them and the other threats we have going forward?
Because most importantly, Mimi, He's broken the trust with the American people.
That's what this moment is.
The American public does not believe him.
And you hear that most of all from Republicans who are breaking ranks and are exceptionally concerned about the midterms happening in just a couple of months.
I do not want to be in a two year cycle of raising money, frankly, hell.
I've seen it, I've been around it.
And also, I'm a political independent, so I can't run for Congress and be viable right now.
That's part of why we're building this movement, because we want to be able to make it viable for independents and unaffiliated.
Congress is the toughest nut to crack of all of these.
We've got, I think, seven and counting independent veterans who are running for Senate.
There's a real opportunity for independent veterans.
To win in places like Montana.
Seth Bodner is running as an independent.
He's a Green Beret, an independent veteran who's running there in a seat that's competitive.
Todd Achilles is a veteran running in Idaho.
That's a place where an independent can win.
Brian Bangs in South Dakota.
Ty Pickens in Mississippi.
We've got others that are coming online, but I think the real opportunity for independents is for mayor and for governor.
There are a number of them this year running for mayor and for governor, but we need to disrupt the system so that there is an infrastructure on everything from open primaries so independents like me aren't blocked out of primaries.
In a way that disenfranchises them, and I would argue is unconstitutional to the money piece.
I mean, we don't have an independent billionaire.
You know, the left has George Soros and the right has the Koch brothers.
An independent billionaire hasn't jumped in yet to fund this movement, but we think there's an opportunity.
So I have no lane right now to run for office, but I do want to help other men and women who do have a lane and do have an opportunity this year, especially.
On this episode of Book Notes Plus, with our host Brian Lamb, author and editor Tom Wells opens his 600 page book titled The Kissinger Tapes this way Henry Kissinger is one of the most polarizing figures in recent American history.
He's hailed by many as a master in the art of diplomacy and realpolitik.
Tom Wells, who has a PhD in sociology from the University of California at Berkeley, writes this Many critics consider his diplomacy overhyped, and some condemn him.
U.S. payrolls rose by 178,000 in March, more than expected.
Unemployment is at 4.3%.
It said that the U.S. labor market bounced back in March with job creation much stronger than expected.
Though the broader picture of a slow growth labor market held intact.
And other piece of news from the Associated Press that says Iranian media show American aircraft over area where it said pilot ejected.
It said that Iran claimed to have shot down planes before.
This time may be different throughout the war.
Iran has made a series of claims about shooting down piloted enemy aircraft.
It turned out not to be true, but Friday, today, was the first time that Iran went on television urging the public to hunt a suspected downed pilot.
It says this that the Iranian state media soon shared images online of what appeared to be American aircraft flying over the area, including helicopters, planes, and drones.
Public request for help suggests the Iranian military, police, and security services maintain a small presence in the rural region.
It says the province is mainly home to Iran's Lur people, many of whom are farmers.
We will keep an eye on this story, but it would appear that Iranian state media is announcing that they have shot down an American jet, the pilot ejecting.
We do not have any more information on that, but we will keep an eye on that and share anything we hear.
John, Plainfield, New Jersey, line for Democrats.
You're on open forum.
Good morning.
unidentified
Hi.
I'm interested in a question that you have.
This is about, I just want to know what the question is.
I think you're talking about open forum in history.
I like what the guys, the last caller, talked about.
I agree with what he was saying to most things he was talking about with both sides.
And I think there's a lot of people who have problems with Trump because of all the things he has done right now as president, especially this war that we're in and other issues around it.
And I am a Democrat, but I have problems with my own party with some issues also.
But I think the thing that Most people are scared of how he has become this so called dictator.
And I think that comes from the way he has handled the policies in this nation.
And I think right now what we're dealing with this war is I think a lot of us feel that we're in this war out of a capricious reasoning.
Let's talk to Mike, South Dakota, aligned for independence.
Good morning.
unidentified
Yes, good morning.
Your previous guest, I sure wish I'd had a chance to ask him a few questions because, first of all, I'd like to kind of wipe that smug smile off his face.
If you want a poster child for TDS, there you go.
I'm old enough.
Of course, he was born when he was still in diapers when Iran started all this mess back in 79.
Okay, we're going to wait another 47 years.
Having them as a thorn that we have to worry about every single day.
What they did to Israel, what was he expecting?
Us to just leave Israel to get wiped out after October 7th?
I was raised to respect the office of the president.
I didn't always agree with the man in the office.
But what's going on right now, we have to show support.
We can hate him or you can hate him after it's all done.
But the world looked at us as wussies.
If we're seen as a bully right now, I'm fine with that.
America's Synchronized Block Party Celebration00:05:03
unidentified
Because let me say just one last thing.
If you're a kid in school, And every day on your way to class, there's a bully that picks on you.
Are you going to continue to go down that hallway to get picked on, or are you going to find a way around it?
And maybe, hopefully, eventually, grow up and take care of that bully yourself.
That last gentleman, your speaker, Hancock, or whatever his name was, I understand the term friendly fire.
America 250 is a national organization charged by Congress to plan the nation's 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
As Chair, I lead this 24-day program.
Member bipartisan commission.
We've been in place, this is my eighth year on this commission, almost four years as chair, and we have hit the ground running to provide the most comprehensive and inspiring celebration this country has ever seen.
So we announced America's Block Party, which is the first time our country is going to experience a synchronized, connective celebration of what's happening all around the country.
The night before, we are going to be in Times.
Square for the first ever ball drop outside of New Year's Eve.
And then the next day, we will anchor America's block party at the LA Coliseum.
Sea to shining sea, and this is our way of kind of bridging to the Olympics in 2028.
In addition, we've announced partnerships with other cities around the country.
For example, Milwaukee Summerfest, that is the world's largest music festival.
It is the official America 250 block party for Wisconsin.
And we are targeting all 56 parts of our country to make this, again, the first time we could ever feel like we're doing something together.
On this celebration, this very special milestone for the semi quincennial.
So, as always, the traditional 4th of July parade starts at 11 45.
Of course, the Capitol 4 fireworks display will happen at night.
In addition, our visitor center just opened at 1450 Pennsylvania Avenue.
We are having an open house.
We're working with other parts of the community to also kind of open their doors.
On July 4th, and make sure that everyone feels welcome.
In addition, Freedom 250 is hosting the Great American State Fair on the Mall, where again, all parts of our country will be represented.
But we want to make sure this is about the whole country.
And again, we are working very much hand in hand with all 56 parts of our state and territory commissions to make sure that people feel like this is their commemoration and celebration.
This is a college competition to spotlight the next generation of entrepreneurs and changemakers.
We just finished the first round of submissions.
We received so many, it's actually overwhelming.
This is the pilot program.
And the first weekend in May, we are literally taping the finalists.
Our goal is to identify 10 winners who each will receive $25,000 of non dilutive grant funding.
And we're doing it again in the fall.
We're going to go even Bigger.
America's Soundtrack.
This is our multi volume playlist of anthems and songs representing the American spirit.
It's being led by executive producer Emilio Estefan.
We've already released several tracks, including a song that Gloria and Emilio Estefan wrote called America.
We also released American Promise, an original composition by Karen Lafraque.
It's a symphonic composition, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing the battle hymn of the Republic, along with we're going to issue a remastered version of Celebration by Kool and the Gang.
Our goal is to make our programming free and accessible as much as possible.
You can find out more information on americot50.org.
We have a master calendar and interactive map.
Again, we are anchoring America's block party at the LA Coliseum with many more block parties that are going to be kind of organic and registered online.
You could even register your own block party.
So, again, our goal is to really connect 350 million Americans as part of the celebration.
If you remember anything, it's 350 for 250, and we are well on our way.
We're back to Open Forum, and we will take your calls.
Steve in Florence, Alabama, Independent Line.
You're on the air.
unidentified
Yes.
Good morning, Mimi.
Thank you for Washington Journal and for allowing me to give my opinion this morning.
I'm concerned that there may be a terrorist attack here in the United States or perhaps on one of our bases in the Mideast and that it will be used to motivate the American people to get all on board with boots on the ground in Iran.
Or all out war of some type.
And if there is a terrorist attack like that, a lot of Americans, including me, are not going to believe it.
We're going to believe it's a false flag operation carried out by basically the Israeli government in order to get us on board with the war, unless the attack itself is aimed at the people that the Iranians hate most.
They don't hate the American citizenry.
They hate Israel.
And if there's not a lot of Jewish people killed in a terrorist attack to motivate us to go to war, then the American people are not going to believe it.
Let's talk to Don in Grand Blanc, Michigan, Democrat.
unidentified
Good morning, Mimi.
How are you doing today?
Good morning to the American people.
After watching Trump take us into a war that he did not go to Congress to get permission to start, did not notify the American people, is just ridiculous.
And when I hear Republicans call in and say this is what they voted for, yeah, this is ridiculous.
And we need to enact the 25th Amendment and get rid of Trump.
And the whole.
Administration because they are a threat to America and they are a threat to the world.
The man was, to me, I listened to most of it, educated.
Well informed, acquainted with honesty, and as a young man, he picked up a weapon and stood a post.
And as to the people talking about the Constitution and the war, I would refer them to Article 1, Section 8, with 18 clauses delineating the powers of Congress.
And I refer them to clauses 11, 12, and 13.
And the other thing about these people calling in Defending the actions of the president in these wars.
Don't defend your client if you go into court and tell them about previous murders.
In other words, because somebody else broke the law, there's no defense for your client.
And what I'm going to say is I grew up during JFK, and the Democratic Party today is no party even similar to JFK.
And the Democratic Party, I'm going to make a prediction that the Democratic Party will never, ever, the way they are, elect another president.
And let me tell you why.
The Democratic Party today is made up of about five or six special interest groups.
You have the climate change that want higher gas prices.
You have black Americans that accuse America of being racist and want reparations.
You have the pro-choice that want abortion.
You have the LGBTQ that want medical procedures on young people and transgender sports.
And then overall, you want to raise taxes on everybody.
So you've got the next president is going to have to support higher gas prices, reparations, abortion, medical procedures on kids, transgender sports, raising taxes on the rich.
So they can't run on that.
What they can run is they can run on I hate Trump, which is whatever it is.
All right, John, let's hear from Andy next, Independent, St. Charles, Missouri.
Go ahead, Andy.
unidentified
Yeah, hi, Mimi.
We're asking all Americans to email their U.S. representative or their U.S. senators through their websites, sharing why they're proud to be an American or why they love America.
And this is an honor and celebration of the America 250, Rosie Ruiz, who you just had on.
This is a great patriotic activity for people across the country to participate in.
This is part of America 250 is to engage all Americans, all Americans in celebrating our country.
So we want all Americans to email their representative.
It's their representative's last name, house.gov, and their senator's last name, plus senate.gov.
And you can email them on their website and share why you're proud to be an American or why you love America.
All right, Andy, and a quick update for you on the DHS funding.
This is Punchbowl News, who says House Republicans are in open revolt.
GOP lawmakers held a nearly three hour call Thursday during which Speaker Mike Johnson pitched them on passing the Senate's DHS minus ICE and CPP funding bill.
That's the same bill that Johnson called a joke a week ago.
Johnson is now telling House Republicans they must accept this bill because the Senate doesn't have the votes for anything else.
That's proven to be a tough sell.
Another problem for House Republicans the Save America Act, which they've passed multiple times, is going to end up in reconciliation, leaving it at the mercy of Senate parliamentary rules.
It says House Republicans now may hold off on the DHS funding until the reconciliation process begins.
We'll see what the White House thinks about that.
This DHS bill doesn't have the votes right now or anywhere close.
That's at Punchbowl News with an update on that.
Here's Robert in North Carolina.
Democrat.
There, Robert.
unidentified
Good morning.
Good morning.
I wanted to call to give support to your last person, Mr. Wyckoff.
I've served 34 years in the military, and he is right on the money as far as I'm concerned in his analysis of everything that he says in reference to the war.
We're going into the war without congressional approval.
When we say we're going to war, that means all our resources are going to that.
It's not having butter and bullets at the same time.
And the other thing that I wanted to make mention of is Donald Trump's sons having served nothing but themselves, and they should be on the front line.
I've had soldiers on the front line that I've led that are 18 and 20.
I was able to take them down range and bring them back home.
And for a group of people, To sit in a daggone, you know, white towel on Pennsylvania Avenue and send other people's children to go to a war to give their lives up when none of them are going to give their lives up.
I find that to be pretty beat up.
So take care and I appreciate everything that you have.
And New York Times reporting that the White House seeks $1.5 trillion for defense in the new budget request.
It says the huge proposed increase would be offset in part by steep cuts to domestic programs.
Some of which the administration describes as wasteful.
That's the New York Times.
And coming up next, we will talk about the new jobs numbers and the current status of the president's plans for tariffs with American Compass's Oren Cass when Washington Journal continues.
unidentified
Best ideas and best practices can be found anywhere.
It's nice to be with a member who knows what they're talking about.
unidentified
You guys did agree to the civility, all right?
He owes my son $10 from a bet.
He has never paid for it.
Fork it over.
That's fighting words right there.
Glad I'm not in charge.
I'm thrilled to be on the show with him.
They're not shows like this, right?
Incentivizing that relationship.
Ceasefire, Friday nights on C SPAN.
TV, every Sunday on C SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest non fiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 4 30 p.m. Eastern, the Tucson Festival of Books with best selling authors including Jonathan Turley, Jacob Soboroff, and John Carl.
And then at 7 p.m. Eastern, it's America's Book Club.
Host David Rubenstein sits down with Yale University professor and J. Edgar Hoover biographer Beverly Gage to discuss her career and new release, This Land Is Your Land.
And later, 10 30 p.m. Eastern, as Christians around the world observe Easter Sunday, political scientist Charles Murray talks about his decades long conversion from happy agnostic to becoming a Christian in taking religion seriously.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at BookTV.org.
Celebrate Cherry Blossom season in Washington, D.C., with C SPAN.
Visit C SPAN Shop.org and explore our limited time Cherry Blossom collection, now 10% off.
From stylish apparel to mugs and unique accessories, there's something for everyone.
Every purchase supports C SPAN's nonprofit mission.
Scan the code or go to C SPAN Shop.org today and bring home the beauty of the season before it's gone.
We're a conservative think tank that was founded back in 2020, really focused on developing What is coming next on the right of center, moving beyond the kind of market fundamentalism and belief that tax cuts solve everything?
So, we do a lot of work on trade policy, on industrial policy.
So, we are right of center, but probably not your father's right of center.
I think it underscores the fact that the economy is in fairly good shape right now, that the major policy changes the administration has made, whether that's the very high tariffs to bring jobs back, whether that's the very strong immigration enforcement to try to tighten up the labor market for American workers, all these things that economists have said would be disasters have not been.
We're seeing a lot of resilience and a lot of opportunity for building from here.
And let's talk about manufacturing jobs because one of the major reasons behind the tariffs, according to the administration, was to bring manufacturing jobs back into the United States.
What have we seen, not just this past month, but over the past year?
Yeah, what we tried to do was think about, you know, how would we actually expect this to go if it was going well, right?
Because we've all heard the story from folks who say you can't do tariffs, you have to have free trade.
You know, if you do tariffs, you're going to get inflation going way up, you're going to get growth slowing, you're going to cripple the manufacturing industry, and so forth.
And so we sort of said, you know, well, what would the positive story be, and which path do we seem to be on?
And so the positive story, certainly in my mind, would be, you know, first of all, you would see some price effects.
The point of tariffs is to make it cheaper to buy things domestically than to import them, but that you wouldn't see some sort of dramatic inflation going off of the prior trend.
And indeed, that's exactly what we find.
Inflation is still a little bit elevated from the 2% target that the Federal Reserve has, but it has remained quite steady, probably even slowed a little bit since where it was at the start of last year.
If you then ask, okay, well, what do we want to see next?
It would be, well, we want to see more.
Orders for domestic manufacturing.
We want to see demand shifting to domestic production.
And again, that's something that we see.
We see orders up, especially for durable goods, for capital goods, for machinery, all of the things that we need to be making more of and people need to start buying more of if we are going to rebuild our industrial base in this country.
Then the next thing I think you'd look at is: okay, is output up?
And is productivity up?
Are we getting more out of our factories?
And there, I think we see really encouraging trends on both.
Those are two numbers that had actually been declining slowly for a long time as we sort of did globalization, as we gave up on our own industrial base.
We were actually seeing declines in our output.
We were seeing declines in productivity.
We were literally getting worse at making things.
And both of those have turned the other way.
Again, they haven't spiked all of a sudden, but after long periods of decline, both are now going up again, which is incredibly encouraging.
And then you look out at investment because that's ultimately what we need to get.
I think it's a little early in the first few quarters to actually see the shovels in the ground and stuff being built, but that's where you'd want to start to see increases.
I'd say they're frankly not as strong as we'd want to see.
I think a part of the problem is all of the uncertainty we've had around the tariffs has made it really hard for businesses to commit.
But that's what we're really watching now.
Does the investment really start to pick up?
Is the stuff getting built?
And then the next step after that, of course, would be okay, now are we creating a lot of good new jobs in the industry?
Do you think we have certainty around tariffs now, given the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the majority of those tariffs, which were the IEPA tariffs?
Do you think businesses have what they need now to invest and to have confidence in the future?
I think we've certainly gotten a lot more stability over the past six months.
If you think about the initial months after Trump took office, then after Liberation Day, it felt like there were tariffs going in different directions pretty constantly.
But a big part of that was the administration's goal of negotiating and getting deals done with our trading partners.
And since those have gotten done with virtually all our major trading partners the UK, the EU, Japan, Korea.
And so on and so forth.
We're actively renegotiating USMCA with Canada and Mexico now.
I think a pretty clear picture has emerged of, okay, what's the long term going to look like here?
And I think you saw that even when the Supreme Court struck down the IEPA tariffs, when the administration said, we're going to shift to what's called Section 122 instead in the short run.
They're now conducting a lot of what are called Section 232 and Section 301 investigations, which will also allow them to.
To make these tariffs more permanent.
As all that was happening, you didn't see real changes.
You didn't see countries saying, oh, well, we want a new deal now.
You didn't see the administration saying, oh, we're going to change our strategy now.
And so I think that's really starting to provide a better long term picture of how we can expect this to work.
The two big open questions where I certainly think we still need to make a lot more progress, where the administration needs to make a lot more progress, one is on China, and we could talk more about the continued.
What I would say is confusion there.
And then the other is just trying to move something through Congress.
Ultimately, if this is going to be the new baseline for our country, and if we want companies to treat it that way, we should put some of this stuff into law and make clear that it is going to be here for the long haul.
If you'd like to join our conversation, if you have a question for Oren Cass about the administration's economic policies, about tariffs, inflation, you can start giving us a call now.
The lines are by party, so Republicans are on 202 748 8001, Democrats 202 748 8000, and Independents 202 748 8002.
Oren, earlier this week on the program, this is from Wednesday, we had Center for American Progress's Michael Negron on the program, and he spelled out what he thought were the The drawbacks of President Trump's tariff policies.
I'll play it for you and then you can respond.
unidentified
But when I think about a year ago today, when the President was in the Rose Garden, he had the poster boards behind him with the country by country tariff rates, and I think of what he promised a golden age for the economy, a resurgence in manufacturing.
The data show the complete opposite.
What we've seen is a $1,700 increase in cost borne by households due to these tariffs.
We've seen small business importers.
See an increase in more than $300,000 in tariffs paid in 2025 through early 26 compared to the year prior.
That's a tripling of what they were paying.
We've seen the job market slow considerably.
We only saw the creation of 181,000 jobs in 2025.
That is the worst year for job creation outside of a recession year since 2003.
Manufacturing is down 100,000 jobs since the president came into office.
And so the data are telling a story of an economy that is not.
Doing well.
It's doing worse than expected when the president first took office.
And I think tariffs are a major culprit for that.
Why?
Why are the tariffs the culprit?
Well, tariffs are a tax.
And what the president has done is impose a sweeping set of universal taxes on incoming products on a theory, I don't know if you believed it, but on a theory that foreign governments were paying those taxes.
But in fact, American consumers and American companies were paying those taxes.
There's a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York that found this.
Goldman Sachs has done analysis that found.
That businesses pass about 70% of those tariffs to consumers and eat about 30% themselves.
It's a tax.
And when you tax things, you slow it down, you harm it.
And so that's been the impact.
It's not to say that you can't have targeted tariffs that are coupled.
I suspect this is a point that Jeff and I would agree on that when you have tariffs that are coupled with smart policies to promote industries that are suffering from that kind of cheap good competition, that's a good thing.
But that's not what this is.
This is an across the board set of universal tariffs.
The policies change frequently.
The president imposed a 130% tariff.
On Chinese products that was in place for a few months, and he flipped and lowered it, which is a good thing.
But that type of instability, that type of breadth, sends bad signals to consumers, to businesses, and that has contributed to this economic slowdown that I don't think people were anticipating when the president first took office.
Yeah, I guess I would say two things about his comments.
You know, one is that I think just as an economic matter, and we were talking about this at the start, his description is just not connected to reality, right?
We've in fact seen GDP growth was stronger after Liberation Day than it was in the last year of the Biden administration.
We've seen unemployment remain very low.
We just saw it at 4.3% today, basically unchanged throughout this period.
But the reason for that, and the Dallas Federal Reserve just put out a report on this, is that we are actually enforcing our immigration laws.
And because we are removing so many people who are in the country illegally, we are essentially reducing those jobs even as we add more other jobs.
And so that's exactly why you see lower numbers of total jobs, even as you see the unemployment rate remain low.
Americans who Who are looking for a job can find a job.
That's what the goal is.
And then, you know, even on this question of prices, you know, he and others have done these abstract studies that just make assumptions about who is paying the cost of the tariffs.
I certainly agree that a lot of the cost is paid here in this country.
As I said, the goal of tariffs is in part to make it more expensive to import things.
But again, if you look at the inflation, Inflation has not gone up.
So, to say that somehow tariffs have caused this extraordinary change in cost of living, first of all, isn't really borne out by the data.
And it's especially strange to hear it after what we had under the Biden administration, where we really did have out of control inflation.
And so, I guess that's the second big point I'd make is something that I find some combination of frustrating and puzzling.
Is that you now have progressive Democrats taking the position that all taxes are bad because they slow down the economy and you should never do that or regulate in a way that might create uncertainty for businesses?
I mean, that is literally the entire Democratic Party agenda, right?
The idea that there are things that you do want the government to do, that you do need to raise tax revenue, that you do want to see encouragement for certain kinds of economic activity.
Well, first of all, that's not the argument he made.
He was simply saying that when you tax something, and he was particularly objecting to it being such a broad tax, that that slows things down and explains a slower economy.
And so, again, first of all, that is not the position he would take in almost any other situation.
And secondly, as we've just been talking about, the economy has not slowed down.
So I understand why folks on the left of center feel like there's an imperative to just oppose and argue against.
Anything that Donald Trump does, it's just really important to point out that either they've completely changed their mind about everything in how they go about their own work, or a lot more likely, it's not really what they believe.
And I think the way that the Supreme Court chose to rule, both in its timing and in what it did and didn't say, has obviously made that harder.
But I'm sure that they will reach a conclusion.
If businesses do get some money back, obviously they'll be happy about that.
If, to the extent they don't, they're not any worse off than they already are.
I think one really interesting statistic that kind of underscores what's going on in the real economy is there's what's called purchasing managers' indices.
There are a couple of very good reports that come out every month surveying the purchase managers at manufacturers all across the country to get a sense of sentiment, to get a sense of are new orders coming in, are they hiring or not, is their output up or not.
And those surveys have consistently shown things improving.
As compared to 2024 after Liberation Day, to the point where they're currently at their highest level in a number of years.
And so, look, I certainly sympathize with the uncertainty and the frustration that comes with some of these policies.
But at the end of the day, if you ask people in the industry how business is going, the answer is the best that it's been in quite a while.
We'll start with Walter N. Butler, Indiana Republican.
Good morning, Walter.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you very much for taking my call, Mimi.
And good morning, Oren.
I'm absolutely amazed what the Republicans try to do.
And I don't know if it's in messaging or they're just speaking to ignorant people.
The idea of tariffs are really simple.
If I have a widget and I want to sell it to Europe, and Europe says, well, buy your widget, but we're going to charge $5 extra, that's a tariff.
And then what the Republicans are trying to do is say, well, then we want reciprocal tariffs of another $5.
And the bottom line is what Donald Trump is trying to do is just what the slogan on his hat says that is made in America, make America great again, where we have an industrial base where we can build icebreakers, where we have factories building American steel and American cars and American workers.
And if you ask people, if you said, if you're going to go to Walmart, which is full of all foreign garbage anyway from the 1960s when we went off the gold standard and on and on, we went down into decay, if you had a shirt that was made in America that cost a dollar more than a shirt made in wherever, Would you buy it?
And I'd much rather prefer to buy things that are made in America to employ American citizens.
And it's a shame that Donald Trump and all of the great ideas that the conservatives are trying to do are getting pushed back by the Democrats and the judges in the system.
But I think what you're trying to do is great bring people out and have a conversation.
And God bless you folks and happy Easter to everybody.
Well, I think he makes a really important point about what I would call reciprocity.
You know, a lot of the premise of free trade in the trading system was supposed to be it's actually balanced trade.
We have open markets, we can sell to each other, and everybody benefits.
And one of the huge mistakes that policymakers and economists made for a long time was to say, actually, we don't care about that.
It doesn't matter how other countries treat us.
We're just going to be an open market anyway, and we will just benefit from.
Cheap stuff.
And we did get a lot of cheap stuff, but it was very damaging to our industrial base, very damaging to our workers.
And I think one of the really important things that the Trump administration has done in the way it has approached negotiations with all of these trading partners is to say, you know, look, we want to have much more open and free trade.
We're not trying to shut down trade, but it has to be balanced.
It has to be fair and reciprocal in both directions.
Yeah, that's exactly what you've seen with the deals.
Some are already finalized, some are kind of in the statement of agreement has been made stage.
But with pretty much all of America's trading partners, and again, we're putting China to the side for a minute, Trump had those initial tariffs that were essentially threats that he announced on Liberation Day.
And then he very quickly said, we're not going to put these in.
Right away, but this is what's going to happen if we can't find a deal.
And then they did find deals.
And so, what you see in the structure of these deals, and we actually put out a wonderful piece at our magazine, Commonplace, called Liberation Day One Year Later, that actually goes through each of these.
So, if you go to commonplace.org, you'll see what did we actually agree to with the UK?
What did we actually agree to with the EU?
What did we agree to with Japan?
This is stuff nobody Nobody actually wants to talk about and pay attention to.
They're all so busy screaming at each other.
But what we agreed to is first of all, these other countries didn't retaliate.
They accepted that they needed to come to the table and reach a deal.
They agreed to reduce various barriers.
They agreed to buy more from us.
They agreed to invest in the United States so that some of their companies that currently are importing into the United States, they're going to come and build factories here and make stuff here.
And in return, We didn't get rid of the tariffs, but we lowered them.
Most of them are at the kind of 10 or 15 percent level.
And we said, let's see how it goes.
Let's see if these start to become much more balanced relationships.
And as I said at the beginning, you know, that takes time.
It takes time for companies to plan, for supply chains to move, to build new capacity.
I wanted to ask the guest how is the Trump administration policies, economic policies, helping college students when their unemployment rate is as high as 5.6 up to 5.8?
So if you can answer that question to me, that would be great.
Thank you so much for letting me ask this question.
And I think it really highlights a pretty fundamental problem that we have in our economy and that's been building up for a while, which is that I think it's safe to say the message from pretty much everybody on all sides was everybody should go to college.
All the good jobs are going to be for people who graduate from college.
Go to college, get a degree.
That's your ticket to the middle class, as Barack Obama loved to say.
And the reality is that that just wasn't true.
We found ourselves actually creating new college graduates at about twice the rate that the economy was actually creating the kinds of jobs that you would typically go work in as a college graduate.
And so we have this fundamental mismatch right now.
And I think what has to happen is a couple of things.
One, we need an economy that creates more good jobs.
And in a lot of cases, those good jobs, what we're seeing, aren't going to be in marketing, in sales.
In a lot of cases, they're going to be.
Building things.
We have an incredible amount of demand for very well paying jobs in not only the trades, the conventional ones, but in all sorts of different technical fields, increasingly in manufacturing.
As I mentioned, the job openings there are increasing.
Certainly, we need a lot more workers in various health related fields and so forth.
And so, what we really need to do is Create better alignment, create a way to connect young people to the kinds of jobs in which they can have successful careers.
Yeah, the problem is that for an awful lot of people, a college degree is not, unfortunately, a very good use of the time and money they spent on it.
You know, we've, we've, we've been talking about college.
Well, so, you know, the Federal Reserve actually tracks what they call underemployment.
So, what percentage of the people who are actually completing college, right?
Forget even about the huge share that start college and don't finish.
But even among people who complete college, you know, about 40% of them, so almost half, end up in a job that, that, Most people don't have a college degree.
And so, you know, to some extent, this is a matter of, you know, the kinds of degrees that you're getting.
Maybe it's in, you know, English or some field that, you know, it is interesting to learn about, but it doesn't map on to a particular productive job.
But we're even seeing things, you know, in fields like computer science.
There was just a good report looking at UMass's Graduate School of Computer Science and the very high unemployment rate for people coming out of there.
So, You know, we just have a fundamental mismatch that the government has made a lot worse.
We put, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars a year into supporting these universities, into supporting people in going to these universities without ever asking, is this actually working?
What is coming out of it?
And at the same time, you know, in a lot of other areas, immigration is increasingly proving to be a real problem where we have, you know, things like the H 1B visa, the OPT program, lots and lots of ways for.
Immigrants who, in many cases, are only here temporarily to be the preferred person to be hired, often paid a lower wage to do the same kinds of jobs that young college graduates would be doing.
And so I think we just need to think really broadly about how do we build an economy that's actually going to make sure we have good career paths for young people.
On the Republican line in Wisconsin, Mike, you're on with Oren Kass.
unidentified
Oh, good morning.
Hope everyone is well.
I just have three comments.
First, so I work in manufacturing, and an issue that we were seeing just through the Biden administration, and even now a little bit, is that people would apply for jobs, but the incentive to be on unemployment was so good that they would apply, schedule an interview, and then not show up to the interview.
That doesn't get talked about by any of these people that have these studies about what's going on in the job market.
Were they getting paid more to be on unemployment than the job that you were offering?
unidentified
Sure, that's why, yes.
And that was a well known thing that I'm sure you guys talked about that got brought up on your show yes, there was an increase because of COVID.
That's what was done, there was an increase, and it was too good to show up for interviews.
So, the job market, that was a big factor.
Now, my second comment is the number that the most important number to me in the job numbers is the amount of jobs that Trump has cut from the federal government that our tax dollars pay for.
And that you can obviously, there hasn't been a real big factor in the unemployment rate.
It didn't spike because these people weren't able to find jobs.
Obviously, those people went and found jobs in the private sector.
That needs to be talked about a lot more by this show as well.
Is that the federal government has been so bloated that we were paying for, and now we're not paying for those people, and they're contributing to the tax system, not taking from it.
Yeah, I think the point about the challenge in hiring in the manufacturing sector is a really important one.
You know, there are some cases where people face what's called benefit.
Which means it would literally cost you money to get a job.
But the other thing I think we've seen a lot of, and we just published a paper on this at American Compass on the kinds of pathways you really need to connect people to jobs in the manufacturing sector, is that there are a lot of young people, especially, who just aren't really very well prepared for a traditional job, for a job that requires showing up on time every day.
Collaborating and communicating with other people and so forth.
And so, what we find when we talk to manufacturers is that you'll hear people say there's a skills gap.
And people think, oh, a skills gap, that must mean people need to be better at programming robots.
And manufacturers will say, no, no, no, we can and we want to teach them how to do the job here.
The problem is that a lot of times, whether it's showing up for the interview, showing up for work, For some folks, there are a lot of problems with substance abuse and passing drug tests and so forth.
We've sort of hollowed out our workforce so much that it's going to take a lot of work to actually get people back into those kinds of jobs.
And so, you know, it's something we have to do.
It's something that more demand for workers will help with a lot.
They're saying that schools have to help with a lot more.
Well, you know, I think AI is certainly going to cause all sorts of disruptions and change a lot of things about the way people do their jobs, in some cases, the kinds of jobs we have.
I'm pretty skeptical that it's going to kind of destroy, you know, so many jobs and drive the unemployment rate way up.
Certainly, I don't think there's a lot of evidence that that has happened so far.
If you look at software engineering as an example, actually, you know, employment in that industry is still increasing.
It's not the case that.
Because of AI, all of a sudden, there aren't jobs for people who know how to do computer software development.
And so, you know, I think how we need to think about it is that we want to make sure, first of all, that as companies adopt AI, they're using it to actually create better jobs, to make it so that their workers can be more productive, can earn more, can serve customers better, can produce more stuff more quickly, instead of just using it as an excuse to lay people off.
And the second thing is, we also need to make sure that we have an economy where the technology is being used to build great new things.
You know, if you're telling me, well, one of the things about AI is you don't even need, you know, as many employees to develop your software, you don't, you know, you can use robots on the factory floor, that should mean there's an enormous opportunity to make so much more stuff.
And there are so many things that people would like more of.
And so I think we want to make sure that we get into that kind of virtuous cycle where we're using the technology to raise.
Everybody's level of prosperity and not using it to just cut costs, lay people off, and generate short term profits, even as it weakens the economy for the long run.
Let's talk to Carol in New Hampshire, Independent.
Go ahead, Carol.
unidentified
Oh, hi.
Thank you for taking my call.
I'm a second time caller in 10 years.
I've been watching your show for 10 years, and Mimi, you're my favorite.
I just want to say I feel like the tariffs are a disaster.
As soon as they went in, when Trump put them in about a year ago, or I don't know if it was a year ago, but my groceries have gone up about $40 a week, and now they're up to like $60 a week.
And I feel like it's a national sales tax.
And I mean, I'm doing okay, but I wonder how people are surviving week to week because it seems like the people that can least afford it.
Yeah, I think she's pointing to a very real issue, which is affordability.
You know, I think it is becoming a lot harder to afford, you know, the basics of middle class security over a long period of time now.
You know, we've done research looking at what it took to provide a middle class life to a family of four back in the 1980s and how it really has gotten a lot harder.
And I think, especially when we saw inflation go up so much in the Biden administration, people really started to focus on this.
You know, hey, why are things getting so expensive?
And so I think it's a huge problem that we have to be focused on solving.
At the same time, I think it's important to say that there is just no evidence that tariffs are the cause of the problem.
You know, I think grocery bills is a good example.
I think people are definitely facing challenges affording groceries, but there's no evidence that.
That tariffs are the reason for that.
And in fact, among the things we buy, you know, groceries are one that in a lot of cases tariffs would affect a lot less because we do make a lot of food here in the country, certainly.
And the second thing I want to say is I would suggest that you all go on a lot stronger offense in terms of selling the tariffs.
I think COVID and the disaster that that was underscored how terrible it is, the global connections that we've had.
I mean, you look at what came out, how the German intelligence agencies knew that COVID came out of the lab like right away, and somehow the U.S. population wasn't allowed to know this for years.
It's because of the interdependencies that we've developed.
And the media is never going to give you all a fair shake on these things because the media is owned by business and business loves those connections.
So please do more to go on offense.
Another thing, it's not even the Center for American Progress.
And the fact that you all quit there out there is actually where Hunter Biden met his Chinese handlers was at a Center for American Progress dinner.
Yeah, I really appreciate the point that Alex is making that the affirmative case here, the reason we're doing tariffs, the things that it's going to deliver ultimately that's going to be positive if we can bring back industry, it's hugely important.
It's hugely important to our national security, to our resilience in a crisis.
It's important to growth and innovation and developing new things.
It's important to communities and families.
And so I think at the end of the day, that's exactly right that that's the case.
And what you find when you really drill down in a lot of these debates is that a lot of the opposition to tariffs comes from people who just say those things don't matter, right?
They say it literally doesn't matter whether we make anything in this country, whether we do manufacturing, whether we have that kind of self sufficiency in a crisis.
And so, yeah, that.
That's right.
If you don't care about those things, then it's fair to say you don't understand why we're doing tariffs.
But if you do care about those things, you know, look, they're not free.
There are costs involved.
It's going to take time to build up.
But I think we should be very grateful that we've turned the corner on it and we've stopped making things worse and we are finally headed in the direction of making things better.
We are going to be back tomorrow morning, 7 a.m. Eastern, for another edition of Washington Journal.
the meantime, have a great day.
Oren Cass Thanks Hosts on Washington Journal00:00:56
unidentified
Today on C-SPAN Ceasefire, a bipartisan conversation on the Iran conflict with Mick Mulvaney, former Trump White House chief of staff and former South Carolina Republican congressman and Steve Ricchetti, former former counselor to President Joe Biden and chair of the Biden 2020 presidential campaign.
They'll join our host Dasha Burns to also discuss the ongoing partial homeland security shutdown and key issues facing the nation.
Watch Ceasefire today at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C SPAN.
Tonight on C-SPAN 2, we're offering encore episodes of C-SPAN's original series, starting with Q&A at 8 p.m. Eastern, where ABC News Chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Carle discusses his book, Retribution, a behind-the-scenes look at Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign.