Retired Major General Stephen Leper and J.D. Hayworth anchor a C-SPAN Washington Journal episode covering the April 11, 2026, Iran peace talks in Islamabad, where Vice President JD Vance negotiates over the Strait of Hormuz while President Trump declares military victory. The broadcast also addresses Artemis II's splashdown amid conspiracy claims, Melania Trump's Epstein denial, and sexual assault allegations against Eric Swalwell. Leper analyzes free speech rights under the UCMJ regarding six lawmakers urging refusal of unlawful orders, while Hayworth critiques Big Pharma pricing strategies and advocates for Most Favored Nation status to lower drug costs, highlighting bipartisan legislative efforts. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
Peace Talks Upended00:07:29
And peace talks taking place in Islamabad, Pakistan.
And then retired Major General Stephen Leper on the right to free speech among current and former military and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
And J.D. Hayworth of the Pharmaceutical Reform Alliance will talk about a new report on U.S. drug pricing and the Trump administration's efforts to reduce costs.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
Join the conversation.
Today is Saturday, April 11th.
Welcome to Washington Journal.
Across the globe in Pakistan, high-stakes negotiations between the U.S., Iran, and intermediaries are set to begin as all parties seek a diplomatic solution to the war in Iran.
Vice President JD Vance, leading the U.S. delegation, landed just a few hours ago.
Back here at home, NASA's Artemis II splashed down safely last night, just after 8 p.m. in the Pacific Ocean.
It marked the historic end to four astronauts' record-setting journey around the world.
Those are just some of the stories we're covering this morning, but we want to hear from you.
What were your top news stories this week?
Here's how you joined the conversation.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line, 202-748-8000.
And Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
You can also reach us by text message at 202-748-8003.
Include your first name, city, and state.
And you can also find us on social media.
Our Facebook is facebook.com forward slash C-SPAN or on X with the handle at C-SPANWJ.
We start this morning in Islamabad as a fragile ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran seems to be taking hold.
Negotiators there seek to make progress on ending the six-week war.
Two points of contention is opening the Strait of Cormuz and Iran's uranium stockpile.
Yesterday leaving the U.S., Vice President JD Vance said the president had given clear guidelines when it comes to negotiations and issued a warning to Iran.
Take a listen.
Hey guys, good morning.
Thanks for coming.
Look, we're looking forward to the negotiation.
I think it's going to be positive.
We'll of course see.
As the President of the United States said, if the Iranians are willing to negotiate in good faith, we're certainly willing to extend the open hand.
If they're going to try to play us, then they're going to find that the negotiating team is not that receptive.
So we're going to try to have a positive negotiation.
The president has given us some pretty clear guidelines, and we're going to see.
So I hope you guys have a safe flight.
We'll certainly take some questions later on.
But for now, let's get on the plane and hit the road.
That was Vice President JD Vance leaving the U.S. yesterday at JBA.
We haven't yet seen him today, though we know that he's made it to his hotel at the beginning of those talks.
Just a little bit more on his role, though.
I turn to a New York Times article.
The headline here is Vance faces a high-profile test of his negotiating skills with Iran talks.
It starts with the fact that JD Vance privately warned President Trump of the cost of a full-scale U.S. war with Iran.
He is now leading the charge weeks later to negotiate an end to the biggest foreign policy crisis that the president has faced during his time in office.
The stakes here, the New York Times goes on to write, are enormous for Mr. Trump and for Mr. Vance, whose high-profile assignments from Trump have involved domestic politics most recently as the president's frauds are.
Before the war began, The Vice President was planning to be heavily focused on traveling the country ahead of the midterm elections, counteracting widespread concerns over the cost of living and affordability by attacking Democrats as out of touch and politically extreme.
The war has upended that message.
An Iranian blockade around the Strait of Hermuz, a key oil route, has sent energy prices soaring.
So that was the New York Times article previewing the Vice President's role in Islamabad today.
Take a listen to President Trump last night when he was asked about negotiations.
What did you tell Katie Vance before he left her?
Well, I wish him luck.
He's got a big thing.
We'll find out what's going on.
They're militarily defeated, and now we're going to open up the Gulf with or without them.
But that'll be open.
We're going to be, or the straight as they call it.
And I think it's going to go pretty quickly.
And if it doesn't, we'll be able to finish it off one way or the other.
It's going well.
The Navy's gone.
The Air Force is gone.
All anti-aircraft is gone.
The leaders are gone.
The whole place is gone.
So we'll see how it turns out.
So it's JD and Steve and Jared.
You have a good team, and they meet tomorrow.
We'll see how it all works out.
You're not going to let them hold the straight, are you?
I mean, it's international.
No, we're not going to let that.
It's international order.
If they're doing that, nobody knows if they're doing that, but if they're doing that, we're not going to let that happen.
What would a good deal look like for you?
No nuclear weapon, number one.
You know, I think it's already been regime change, but we never had that as a criteria.
No nuclear weapon.
That's 99% of us.
Yeah, but that'll open up automatically.
Yeah, the answer is yes, but the strait will open up.
If we just left, the straight's going to open, otherwise they make no money.
So the strait's going to open.
But what we have is no nuclear weapon, but we'll open the strait anyway.
Don't forget, we don't use the straight.
Other countries use the straight.
So we do have other countries coming up and they'll help out, but we don't use it.
It won't be easy.
It won't be.
I would say this: we will have that open fairly soon.
What's your backup plan?
What's your backup plan?
It's the just our deal with this.
You don't need a backup plan.
We have the military is defeated.
Their military is gone.
They have, you know, we've degraded just about everything.
They have very few missiles.
They have very little manufacturing capability.
We've hit them hard.
Our military is amazing, the job they've done.
Is this a one-and-done talk, or are you open to more talks after this, depending on the state?
I don't know.
I can't tell you.
I have to see what happens tomorrow.
They've been talking for 47 years with other presidents, and we're not doing much talking.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
That was President Trump talking to reporters when leaving from Joint Base Andrews yesterday before a quick trip to Charlottesville, Virginia.
And he obviously is back in D.C. this morning.
Before we go to your top news stories of the week, I want to invite more of our callers to join in on the conversation.
Here are your lines, Republicans.
Your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line, 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line, 202-748-8002.
Start calling in now with your top news story of the week.
Taking our first call here, David from Gloversville, New York, a Republican.
Artemis II Splashdown Details00:03:37
Good morning, David.
Good morning.
I think the best story of the week is the art of this mission.
It kind of shows you that by working together what we can accomplish.
And meanwhile, back on Earth, the other side of the aisle continues with Hillary's resist and obstruct strategy.
And that's not working out so good.
Each and every day, sabotaging United States.
Now, I don't think we were the United States until after the Civil War, but they repeat these false statements to their minions.
I call them minions because they can or won't think for themselves.
They proved that when each and everyone couldn't say that their first priority was to those who elected them, unless you mean the illegals.
To me, they are equivalent to the Tories and the Benedict Arnolds of the Revolutionary War.
David, I want to play a shot from Artemis II since you mentioned it, but I just want to get in one quick question.
What was your favorite part of the mission?
Was it the fly around the moon?
Was it the splashdown?
Was it takeoff?
What did you like the most?
Well, to tell you the truth, I was like in grade school, and they had brought a TV in so we could watch the landing on the moon the first time.
And, I mean, it was great.
You know, it was just, you know, I think we were in third grade at the time or something like that.
And, you know, we watched the whole mission.
And, you know, each step along the way of the Apollo and Gemini's and the, I mean, and then to see that, you know, I love the shuttles, except that they were dangerous.
And this here seems they've actually gone back to almost the Apollos again, you know, the trapezoid or whatever it's called and the way it comes down with the parachutes and it's nice soft landing and the heat shields held up, but they're going to be better heat shields next time.
So yeah, everything they did was great.
All right, David, let me actually go now to NASA officials who spoke after that splash landing last night.
Take a listen here.
Yesterday, Flight Director Jeff Radigan said we had less than a degree of an angle to hit after a quarter of a million miles to the moon.
And their team hit it.
That is not luck.
That is a thousand people doing their jobs.
You all heard the crew's words during the mission.
They were incredibly inspirational.
They carried the torch from Apollo through station and around the far side of the moon.
Their words belong to them.
We'll get to hear from them as soon as they're back here.
But tonight belongs to the team that built the machine that they wrote.
We talk a lot about what gets in our way.
The impediment to action is where we find the way to get to action.
What stands in the way becomes the way.
This program faced every obstacle an institution could face.
The team met each one with work, and tonight is the proof that that work needs to continue.
The path to the lunar surface is open, but the work ahead is greater than the work behind us.
It always will be.
53 years ago, humanity left the moon.
This time we returned to stay.
Let us finish what they started.
Let us focus on what was left undone.
Let us not go to plant flags and leave, but to stay.
With firmness in our purpose, with gratitude for the hands who built the machines, and with love for the ones that we carry with us.
Welcome home, Integrity.
All right, that was NASA officials talking to reporters in a press conference after the splashdown.
Melania Trump Epstein Statement00:07:26
I just want to read you a couple more cool details from this AP article.
The headline here is Artemis II record-breaking journey around the moon ends with dramatic splashdown.
It says the Orion capsule dubbed Integrity made the entire plunge on automatic pilot.
The lunar crews hit the atmosphere traveling Mach 33 or 33 times the speed of sound, a blistering blur not seen since the 1960s and 1970s Apollo.
The tension in mission control mounted as the capsule began, became engulfed in red-hot plasma during peak heat and entered the planned communication blackout.
All eyes were on the capsule's life-protecting heat shield that had to withstand thousands of degrees during re-entry.
So, that's just some of the details about the splashdown that happened last night for Artemis II.
Lester from Alabama, a Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning, Jasmine.
How are you?
I'm doing well.
How are you, Lester?
What's your top news story of the week?
The top news story of the week is when Melanie Trump came on TV Wednesday.
I don't know what was her role, but she often currently Trump is always coming on national TV each and every day, especially Trump.
And every word come out of his mouth, lying to the American people.
We're not stupid.
We see exactly what he is trying to do.
This war that he started, that war was all a distraction to keep us off the Epstein file.
And we know that as long as this war goes on, the people in the United States are going to be paying high prices at the pump, at the grocery store, and every place else.
Anytime the oil to keep our gasoline prices up, this means everything we buy is up.
So he's not playing us.
We know exactly what he's doing.
And thank you very much.
All right, I'm looking for an article that I read last night in the New York Times about why Melania Trump gave that statement on the Epstein files.
But while I'm looking, why don't you take a listen to exactly what she had to say when delivering her statement on Thursday that came as a surprise, certainly, to the reporters and the press poll.
Take a listen: The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.
The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect.
I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.
I never been friends with Epstein.
Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.
To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, Maxwell.
My email reply to Maxwell cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence.
My polite reply to her email doesn't amount to anything more than a trivial note.
I am not Epstein's victim.
Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump.
I met my husband by chance at the New York City party in 1998.
This initial encounter with my husband is documented in a detail in my book, Melania.
The first time I crossed paths with Epstein was in the year 2000 at an event Donald and I attended together.
At the time, I had never met Epstein and had no knowledge of his criminal undertakings.
I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors.
Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress with the power of sworn testimony.
Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public if she wishes.
And then her testimony should be permanently entered into the congressional record.
Then and only then we will have the truth.
That was Melania Trump and her surprise statement about Jeffrey Epstein at the White House on Thursday.
I turn now to two articles.
The first from CNN, which reports, if we can show the headline in a second, Melania Trump's Epstein statement stunned White House aides but was in keeping with the First Lady who does her own thing.
CNN reports that Trump's extraordinary remarks on Thursday, distancing herself from the late sex offender, were driven by her months-long fixation on press coverage and internet speculation about her ties to Epstein.
Two people familiar with the matter told CNN.
The First Lady's dismay over the issue prompted her seemingly abrupt decision to publicly address it, despite little apparent need to do so and with minimal advance notice given to her husband.
It says the White House announced on Wednesday morning that Trump would be making a statement without specifying the topic.
And then a New York Times article, the headline there is, First Lady says she has a right.
Trump says First Lady had a right to talk about Epstein.
It said President Trump said Friday that he had known his wife wanted to speak about Jeffrey Epstein at one point and that he quote thought she had a right to talk about it even if she had not known, even if he had not known what exactly she planned to say.
It doesn't bother me, Mr. Trump said in a brief telephone interview with the New York Times.
I didn't know what the statement was, but I knew she was going to make a statement.
If you bear with me while I scroll just a little bit to the end, it again repeats that the First Lady's comments came certainly as a surprise to many other people in the White House.
Mr. President went on to say, or the President went on to say, excuse me, quote, she finds it very insulting, Mr. Trump said of the rumors.
And I said, if you want to do that, you can do that.
I said, if she wants to do it, I didn't recommend it, but I said, I let it be her.
I said, if you want to do it.
She didn't meet me through Jeffrey Epstein, and I could understand her feelings, but I said, if you want to do it, do it.
The president then went on to say, you just bear with me a little bit while I scroll to the end.
Would I have done it that way?
The president mused.
Perhaps not.
Confusion Over Epstein Files00:15:21
Perhaps, I don't know.
That's by Sean McCreesh.
So those were some articles on the First Lady's surprise statement on Jeffrey Epstein, one of the top news stories this week.
John from Princeton, New Jersey, an Independent.
Good morning, John.
Hi.
Hi, good morning.
My top story is the Iran war and another story which isn't in the news but should be, which is homeland security.
We've done a lot of damage to Iran.
We've got homeland security, which was, I think, invented after 9-11.
And they're running around collecting dishwashers and pickup job construction workers when Iran could well be planning a 9-11 or worse kind of attack on the U.S. coming in under the radar and beneath anybody's attention.
That's my worry.
And those two stories together ought to be a big story.
Only one of them is.
That was John from Princeton.
Anna from South Windsor, Connecticut, a Democrat.
Good morning, Anna.
What's your top news story of the week?
My topical story of the week is concerning Artemis.
If I pronounced it correctly, Artemis.
And I was wondering, are there any teachable moments for all of us from an educational standpoint for the trip that was given us from the moon?
And on the environment and all those gases that are shot down when they go up and come down from the spaceship, the gases are, you may give me the correct name.
I don't know what's been shot down.
This fire, the smoke, and all of that.
On the environment, what changes would come about when that happens?
And all of the spaceships that have gone up and down look like they're shooting out a lot of stuff, how it affects the environment, and how it affects the weather change.
And also, I'd like to think it should be expounded a little more, how the whole world worked together, different countries.
Someone gave the engine, and different parts of the spaceship was very, very united and humbling.
Thank you.
That was Anna from Connecticut.
I believe at minimum, carbon dioxide is released from the spaceships, but don't quote me on that.
Paul from Idaho, a Republican.
Good morning, Paul.
What's your top news story of the week?
It just kind of changed, but I want to stick with two of them, and I'll be quick with both.
The one I want to talk about is the hopeful activities that are going on in the ceasefire.
I'd like to see that come through to fruition, but that takes a long time.
I can recall what happened many, many years ago when the Vietnam War was going on.
It just kept going on and on and on as far as the ceasefires.
And the other one that I would like to see is maybe Melania not being grilled as if he's John Dillinger's sister.
I believe it's a little below us to do that to the First Lady.
And that's kind of how I feel.
And if you go back a few years to Rosalind Carter getting her picture taken with a guy that happened to be the world's prolific serial killer at the time and nobody knowing it, that was quite an embarrassment many years for her, many years after the fact.
And so it's kind of like you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, but did you want to be there for that specific purpose?
Was it just an accidental meeting?
And so that's what I have.
Thank you.
Paul from Idaho, Republican.
James from Carthage, New York, an Independent.
Good morning, James.
What's your top news story of the week?
Good morning.
I'd just like to say a little bit about The Epstein files, just real quick, is that I'm really confused why anybody who says they had concern over the victims didn't bang on Joe Biden's door for the four years that he was in office.
They could have got that with no problem.
So anybody who says anything about Epstein files after Joe Biden is a complete disingenuous.
All right, that was James from New York.
Since we had two folks mention the Epstein files and Melania Trump, I point now to an NPR article that says that Epstein survivors have mixed feelings on Melania Trump's call for hearing in Congress.
Obviously, one of the things that she mentioned in her statement on Thursday, bear with me while I just scroll a little bit here.
And it says, after a surprise public statement from the First Lady denying that she had meaningful ties to Jeffrey Epstein and calling for a congressional hearing, survivors of the late sex offender's abuse have voiced mixed opinions on the statement.
It goes into more of Melania's statement, including she said, quote, I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors.
Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress.
Bear with me while I just scroll a little bit more.
Later on Thursday, a group of 15 survivors of Epstein's abuse released a statement saying that the First Lady is now, quote, shifting the burden onto survivors to protect people with power, including the Department of Justice, law enforcement prosecutors, and the Trump administration.
Quote, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have already shown extraordinary courage by coming forward, filing reports, and giving testimony, the statement read.
Asking more of them now is a deflection of responsibility, not justice.
The White House did not immediately respond to NPR's questions on whether they had a response to some survivors' criticisms or why the First Lady was speaking out now.
Among the survivors who signed the statement was Marina Lacerda, who was identified in a 2019 indictment against Epstein as minor victim one.
She also posted a video on Instagram shortly after the First Lady's press conference questioning whether a hearing would produce anything meaningful.
Quote, you want to re-traumatize us and ask us to go in front of Congress and tell them our story, which we have told some of them already, La Sera said, and then do absolutely nothing.
So that was just some of the response from Epstein's victims responding to Melania Trump calling for Congress to have a hearing featuring specifically them.
Joe from Iowa, a Democrat.
Good morning, Joe.
What is your top news story of the week?
Joe, are you on the line?
I'm going to give you one more chance, Joe.
All right.
Kenny from Kentucky, a Republican.
Good morning, Kenny.
Kenny, are you on the line?
I'm here.
Okay.
Hi, Kenny.
Hey.
All right, what's your top news story of the week?
Well, just to touch on what you read there, honey, about the victims.
Now, didn't the Democrats bring them in behind Pam Bondi when she was in front of the Congress?
And yes, you're talking about that photo where she wouldn't look at the Epstein victims when she was testifying in Congress.
Yeah.
What's the difference in our first lighting asking them to come in and under oath and swear their testimony?
But the Democrats can bring them in and sit behind all the people, you know, trying to make a fool out of the people that are in higher office.
But what's the difference?
Can you tell me that?
Well, to your point there, Kenny, a woman in this NPR article that I was also reading, if I just scrolled down, Alicia Arden, who says Epstein assaulted her in her hotel room when she was a young model, told NPR she wants to testify.
She also said that she thought it was brave of Melania Trump to make a statement.
Quote, I'm willing to testify before Congress about what Jeffrey Epstein did to me and how I was attacked in the room.
Arden said, I think the point of this article, Kenny, is to show the differing opinions among Epstein survivors reacting to the Melania Trump statement.
Getting that, honey.
I mean, I know there's victims out there, but what I'm getting at, the Democrat uses the victims as their pawns.
That's why I'm saying they're using the people as pawns just to go against Trump.
And I thank you.
All right, Kenny from Kentucky.
Daniel from Louisiana, an independent.
Good morning, Daniel.
What's your top news story of the week?
Oh, I have a few Artemis.
I don't know if you're.
Tell me what I think about Artemis.
You want to know what I think?
Go ahead.
You're on the line.
You know what NASA stands for?
What if I told you they got bases on the other side of the dark side of the moon?
Wonder how come they won't get honest about that.
I don't even believe.
I think the whole thing is fake.
I think the whole thing is staged.
Just like the moon mission 50 years ago, I don't think they went to the moon.
Daniel, may I ask if you watched any of the coverage?
Yeah, I watched it.
It's fake.
To me, it's fake.
You watched it and you thought that was fake.
Yeah, I believe it's fake.
And I'm not the only one that thinks it's fake.
What about the video?
It looked fake to you, if I could ask.
And let's talk about Iran.
What if I told you there's a Stargate at Babydon, a Babdon, the 10th Stargate is sitting in Iran?
And what if I told you this whole war is about that Stargate?
Where is that information coming from, if I could ask?
It's coming from the real Ishmael.
It's a channel on YouTube.
And I highly recommend you check it out.
Because Real Ismail, he's talking about the Galactic Alliance is involved in this.
We're talking, we're talking disclosure, okay?
And the disclosure is coming.
And the Epstein files is going to be what brings all this disclosure.
Because we've been lied to our whole life.
I'm 63 years old.
And I've been, you know, what about the chemtrails?
They're spraying in the skies.
What about Operation Artichoke?
The CIA has been poisoning people since the 1950s with vaccines, the food, the water.
How about Operation Artichoke?
All right, Daniel, I think we take your point there.
This is Daniel from Louisiana, who believes that the latest trip around the moon by Artemis II was fake.
Catherine from New Jersey, a Democrat?
Yes.
Good morning, Catherine.
Good morning, gentlemen.
Welcome to C-SPAN's family.
Thank you.
My largest story of the week has to be the return of the spaceship from the moon from around the world.
Catherine, let me ask you, did you think that was fake?
No, absolutely not.
And Jasmine, I have to give the kudos to the Navy and their spectacular recovery of the astronauts.
That was made for TV.
So anyway, and welcome again.
Yeah, I thought that the landing, the splashdown, was very aesthetically pleasing.
It was spectacular.
And our Navy, I mean, out there on the ocean.
Oh, beautiful sight.
Thank you, Jasmine.
And welcome again.
All right.
Catherine from New Jersey, a Democrat.
John from Massachusetts, a Republican.
Good morning, John.
What's your top news story of the week?
Oh, it's all a crocker crap.
Look, your space landing, let's see what the pictures are going to look like when we see the real pictures, okay?
Because we've never seen the pictures of the 60s.
And they're all masons, right?
Are they free masons?
You mean a picture of here's a picture of the splashdown.
You mean a picture of the moon?
Finish.
All right, about the Epstein.
Okay, so Rothschild was there.
So J.P. Morgan, Rothschild, the Rockefellers, isn't the implement they're implementing their deals right now.
So this is all these elites that are all hanging together, right?
And also, wasn't Hollywood full of Masons too?
So this is what we have.
We got a bunch of elites playing games with the taxpayers' money, creating wars with friends that all they're going to do is talk behind closed doors during the Bilderberg group and the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.
This is where our money goes.
The money never stays here.
It goes to the elite and we lose money.
This is what we do, right?
All right, John.
So your top news stories are the moonland, I mean, excuse me, the splashdown, fly around the moon, and the Epstein files.
Charles from upstate New York, an independent.
Good morning, Charles.
What's your top news story of the week?
Good morning.
Two, really.
One is the kind of incompetence of Trump's staff.
Having Hegsteph equate the rescue of the pilot to Jesus' resurrection, I thought was just beyond the pale and shows a lack of respect for that particular religion, in my opinion.
AI Rollout Problems Ahead00:05:37
I thought JD Vance going and praising Victor Orban in Hungary was very disgraceful.
It's hard to believe that this is the United States administration praising dictators, not only Orban, but Trump's deference to Putin.
It's just very embarrassing.
And on a side topic, if I could, Trump had a press conference maybe two weeks ago, and I saw that you were in the audience, and you had your hand up, and he pointed in your direction.
You started to ask a question, and he cut you off with a very dismissive remark, something like, I don't talk to you, something like that.
And I felt so embarrassed for you that the President of the United States would speak to anybody like that during a press conference.
All right, Charles from upstate New York, an independent.
Since you mentioned Hag Seth in one of your top news stories of the week, let's take a listen to his press conference from earlier this week when he talked about President Trump's comments that troops would be hanging around in the Middle East as these negotiations continue.
Yeah, we'll be hanging around.
We're not going anywhere.
We're going to make sure Iran complies with this ceasefire and then ultimately comes to the table and makes a deal.
So we'll stay put, stay ready, stay vigilant, as the chairman laid out.
Our troops are prepared to defend, prepared to go on offense, prepared to restart at a moment's notice with whatever target package would be needed in order to ensure that Iran complies.
As far as the strait, you saw the initial agreement that was struck, which is Iran's letting ships go through.
So that will be happening.
They will be sailing.
And ultimately, as the president, we've done an incredible job militarily inside the strait of Hormuz.
What Admiral Cooper, I failed to mention Admiral Cooper's name.
He's done a phenomenal job, along with everybody at AFSENT, NAVSENT, and RCENT, and all the components down there, laying the groundwork for Iran.
Iran doesn't have the same ability to defend it the way they did before.
And so, as the president has pointed out to the rest of the world, we barely get any of our energy out of the strait, just a tiny fraction.
It's time for the rest of the world to step up and ensure that that stays open after President Trump and the War Department brought Iran to the place where they are voluntarily opening it right now, as was announced last night.
That was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth talking about where troops will be during these negotiations as they continue in Pakistan.
Angela from Maryland, a Democrat.
Good morning, Angela.
What's your top news story of the week?
My top news story: it's a CNBC article.
It's called Pal Besant discussed anthropics mythos: AI cyber threat with major U.S. banks.
I guess they rolled out some powerful new model that makes it easy for hackers, and they ran all the bank CEOs to warn them about it.
And it's sad, you know, that Congress does nothing with regulating this stuff.
I see some major problems ahead with these AI rollouts.
And when it comes to the banks, I mean, that's pretty scary.
First of all, they found that AI, sometimes it gives the wrong information.
Sometimes it doesn't do what the operator tells it to do.
It goes off and does its own thing.
And, you know, all this stuff now is getting into our military.
It's going to be in our banks.
I don't trust AI, and it's bad enough that it's raised by electricity bills.
And now it's threatening the banks.
So I really worry about that.
Were you able to find the article?
Yep.
If you give me a second here, Angela, I will read it.
The headline here on the screen is: Powell Bessett discussed Anthropics Mythos AI cyber threat with major U.S. banks.
If you give me just a second to scroll here, it says that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett met with major U.S. bank CEOs this week to discuss the possible cyber risk raised by Anthropic's Mythos model.
CNBC confirmed Friday.
The bank heads were already in Washington, D.C. for a Financial Services Forum board meeting when a special gathering was called on Tuesday to discuss mythos, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named in order to share information about a confidential matter.
I'm just going to scroll a little bit here.
It mentions some of the folks who were there.
JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon was the only major banking CEO who could not attend the meeting.
Instead, there was Bank of America's Brian Moyhan, Citigroup's Jane Frazier, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, Morgan Stanley's Ted Pick, and Wells Fargo CEO Charlie Scharf were all in attendance.
And it says that the surprise meeting between the banks and the two most powerful federal monetary regulators was a signal that advanced capabilities of AI are a top concern in the Trump administration and could threaten the foundation of the U.S. financial system.
Earlier this week, Anthropic rolled out a new artificial intelligence model, Claude Mythos Preview, in a limited capacity due to concerns that hackers could exploit its capabilities.
Banking giant J.P. Morgan Chase was among the initial launch partners for the cybersecurity initiative known as Project Glasswing.
Other partners include Apple, Google, Microsoft, and NVIDIA.
So there is that CNBC article that Angela mentioned that you can Google if you want to read the rest.
Selective Service Registration Change00:06:14
That was her top news story of the week.
Rebecca from Fort Smith, Arkansas, a Republican.
Good morning, Rebecca.
What's your top news story of the week?
Good morning.
It was the SPICE launch.
I am so glad and so grateful they got back safely.
And the guy that said it was a fake is it sounds like kind of a wackadoo.
The spice, I thought it was great.
I'm so proud they came back.
What was your favorite part of the whole 10-day process?
I mean, 10 days kind of seemed like it went by kind of quick, right?
It did.
It really did.
But the launch itself was amazing.
The landing was just great.
I was so proud of them.
I was so proud of our country.
You know, I was just fascinated by the whole thing.
That's all I had to say.
Thank you.
All right, Rebecca from Arkansas Republican.
Her top news story of the week was the Artemis splashdown and launch.
Ed from Ocean City, New Jersey, an independent.
Good morning, Ed.
What's your top news story?
Yes, Ed O'Donnell, top news story, the horror of war.
And Costa Rica and 20 other nations have done away with their militaries completely.
And the social problems in those nations is much better.
Absolute pacifism is the only way to go.
All right, that was Ed in Ocean City, New Jersey.
Mary from Philadelphia, a Democrat.
Good morning, Mary.
What's your top news story of the week?
Yes, good morning, C-SPAN.
My top news story is the major change that the United States will register all men from the ages of 18 to 25 for selective service, our military.
And they changed the mandatory age from 35 to 42.
When we have other countries that have eliminated their military stance, and with Israel, they had a protest stating that because of their religious belief, over 50% of their men stated that they would remove Minister Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu,
from his position if they made them register for the military in Israel.
So it looks like we're going to be the only boots on the ground protecting what other people's wealth throughout the country.
So we have to look at this.
I mean, for our men and women to be registered, primarily our men, to fight wars, look like for profit, we need to start looking at who do we have in the position of making these major changes in the United States and for what reason.
I mean, we went to based on false information with Yellow Cake with Colin Powell.
Now we're looking at eliminating the uranium from Iran.
No, we have a selective satellite system in place.
We know if there are any major digs in Iran based on our top security system, we could be there or we can monitor exactly what are they extracting out of that area and for what purpose.
This could be done based on just common sense.
You know, and what we're doing, we're making sure that other people have bombs in this country, but yet they're using it for their own benefit.
I want to thank you and you have a good day.
All right, there's Mary from Philadelphia.
She mentioned about the draft.
Let me read that article from the New York Times.
It says, U.S. government moves toward automatic registration for military draft.
For decades, draft eligible men ages 18 to 25 have been required to register with the selective service system.
Most states offer a registration option on driver's license applications.
Bear with me, while I'll just scroll a little bit here.
And it says the government agency that keeps a list of draft eligible men will begin automatically registering names later this year, abandoning a decades-old requirement that they register themselves.
That branch I mentioned, Selective Service System, an executive branch that is separate from the Defense Department, has required men ages 18 to 25 who are eligible to be drafted to register with the government since 1980.
Failure to do so is a felony, which carries various penalties that include a maximum of five years in prison and being unable to receive certain federal benefits on government loans.
But government officials, bracing for what experts say are potential confrontations with China or Russia while military recruiting has slumped, plan to comb other federal databases to bolster the list.
Excuse me while I scroll for a second.
The change is drawing renewed attention as the U.S. war with Iran unfolds and slows questions about what, about, if it might be a prelude to a draft.
What prompted the change?
The selective service system had been pushing Congress for several years to revamp how the federal government builds a list of men who are eligible to be drafted.
The agency noted in its 2024 annual report that registration rates have declined in recent years despite spending on outreach programs telling the public about its obligations.
Military experts and historians said the changes have been in the works both during the Biden and Trump administrations, reflecting the unease of planners about the size of the U.S. military.
Some believe, quote, that the select service system was very outdated, said Lindsay B. Cohn, a national security's affairs professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island in Newport, Rhode Island.
What Winning Looks Like Now00:03:06
So there's that article.
If you want to learn more about one of the top news stories of the week, including the automatic registering for the draft.
Everett from Colorado, a Republican?
Good morning, Everett.
What's your top news story of the week?
Good morning.
First, the Artemis II launch and recovery when they came back.
That is real.
That's not put on.
People that believe in some of these ghost stories, I think.
I don't know.
I think sometimes I think the name of the show needs to change.
I had a friend that believed in chemtrails and you could not convince him any way or shape that that was real.
And if people think that this project, Artemis II, is fake, remember Ed White, who was burnt up in the capsule on the launch pad as a practice.
They were practicing it.
It killed three astronauts just because they didn't have an escape hatch left on the capsule.
That's about all I've got to say.
I hope everybody has a great day.
Think about stuff.
I'm sorry.
All right.
Ever from Colorado.
John from Mount Laurel, New Jersey, an independent.
Good morning.
John, what's your top news story of the week?
Hey, Jasmine, you've had some definitely some interesting callers this morning, but I gotta say it's been a little entertaining.
But I guess I'm just calling in to talk about the Iran conflict.
It just kind of reminds me of this documentary by Ben Anderson called Is This What Winning Looks Like?
It's a little documentary about the status of the Afghan-Iraq war back in the early 2010s.
But I got to ask everybody: is this what winning looks like?
Trump's kind of scrambling now to get this war over because of the havoc it's going to rain down on our economy.
Now we're negotiating to get things back that didn't even exist in the first place.
You know, who controls the straight of Hormuz now?
Who controlled it before the war?
Did Iran have the opportunity to get $98 billion a year if they just decide to start tolling before this war?
What happened if they decide they want to toll at any given point?
It's going to just lead to boosts on the ground.
I just got to ask, is this what winning looks like?
Yeah, Trump's saying that no nuclear weapons is the objective now.
How does he even prove or quantify that?
You know, this whole policy is nonsense.
They can say anything they want, and the folks on Fox News and their brainwashed watchers will just repeat it into the ether.
These folks act like they're some sort of heroes for doing something they can't even quantify, costing us billions and billions of dollars, probably trillions in the end.
And they're acting like they're doing something for our future generations.
It's really just the easy way to cop out of accomplishing something because it's all just based on feeling like what they're doing is going to lead to something good and they can't actually prove it.
So I just got to ask folks, is this what winning looks like?
Soaring Gasoline Prices Impact00:02:44
Thanks.
All right.
So while John was speaking there, we got another Trump Truth Social this morning.
It says, massive numbers of completely empty oil tankers, some of the largest anywhere in the world, are heading right now to the United States to load up with the best and quote sweetest oil and gas anywhere in the world.
We have more oil than the next two largest oil economies combined and higher quality.
We are waiting for you.
Quick turnaround, President DJT, obviously over the week, excuse me, over the week, we got on Friday, we got some new CPI numbers, some new inflation numbers.
I want to read those to you from a Wall Street Journal article here.
It says inflation soared to 3.3% in March, driven by higher gasoline costs.
The reading, the first major inflation report since the war began, came in at its hottest level in two years.
There is a graph you can see, and if you scroll down, excuse me a little bit, it says consumer prices soared in March, pushed higher by skyrocketing gasoline prices.
The numbers, consumer prices were up 3.3% in March from a year earlier.
The Labor Department said Friday, much harder than February's gain of 2.4%.
That is in line with the 3.3% rise expected by economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal.
Prices exclude food and energy categories.
The so-called core measure economists watch in an effort to better capture inflation's underlying trend rose 2.6%, slightly below forecast for a 2.7% increase.
We focus here on gasoline prices.
It says energy prices jumped 12.5% from a year earlier, a significant acceleration from 0.5% in February.
Gasoline prices jumped 18.9%, and fuel oil surged by 44.2%.
The cost of transportation services, which is affected by fuel costs, rose 4.1% from a year earlier in March, a much faster increase than in February.
Friday's report offers the first snapshot of how the Iran war affected U.S. inflation.
The cost of the closure of the Strait of Hermuz snarled shipping and sent the prices of crude oil and gasoline surging last month.
So there was the latest CPI inflation rates released yesterday that showed a major spike because of the price of gasoline.
And then, of course, just before that, I read the President's Truth Social in which he said empty oil tankers are heading to the U.S. to fill up on oil.
Clearly, a reaction to some of these prices I just talked about.
Inflation Snapshot from Iran War00:02:56
Charles from Washington, D.C., a Democrat.
You're next.
Good morning, Charles.
Yeah, thank you, C-SPAN.
You can learn a lot on C-SPAN, a lot of good information and a lot of conspiracy theories and just some Kuku stuff as well.
And now a lot of nihilism, I've heard.
What I'd like to speak about is Melania Trump, and a couple of people came on protecting what she did as a first lady.
And I just thought about Michelle Obama.
Did they say that about her or how Donald Trump portrayed them as chimpanzees or apes?
No, none of that.
So I'm just saying, if you're going to talk about being a first lady and having respect and don't do that, do we have two separate standards here or classism or caste system?
Of course we do.
But what makes America great is being able to mitigate those class systems as much as possible so everybody gets a shot.
That's why everybody from around the world comes to America because they can get a shot in bringing each other up.
That's what immigrants do, not aliens, but immigrants.
Denigrating people by calling them aliens is just really classless.
And I'll say that a lot of personality and no principles or morals in this administration under Trump.
And I'll just say one other thing: Trump at the pump is costing America a lot of money.
Charles from Washington, D.C., Mark from Floral Park, New York, an independent.
You're next.
Good morning.
Mark, what's your top news story of the week?
Good morning, C-SPAN.
Two quick things about Pete.
Heck said, if he was so incompetent, how did we do what we did to Iran?
And secondly, there's nothing wrong with praying.
We're a Judeo-Christian nation for what he did.
Secondly, about Iran, I want to talk about this attack on Iran that the United States did was to prove one thing.
Iran had the capability and is the strongest nation in that part of the world.
And they would have run over Israel in two days if they ever attacked them.
They were getting ready to do it.
Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year.
But what we did, we showed the world what they had, and they're still calling the shots.
So I think we have to be in there.
We had to help a country as small as Israel to sustain themselves because they would never survive Iran.
Thanks, Jasmine.
You're doing a great job.
Thank you very much, Mark.
Swalwell Sexual Allegations Surface00:11:08
Thanks for calling in.
And another top news story that we want to talk about this morning, but before that, I want you guys to start calling in to join in on the conversation.
Republicans, your line, 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line, 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line, 202-748-8002.
We're talking about your top news story of this week.
Another top news story involves Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California who's currently running for governor.
The headline I'm reading from the Washington Post says, Allies gang support for Swalwell's California governor run after sexual assault allegations.
Bear with me while I just scroll a little bit here.
It says, in stunning political reversal, prominent supporters of Representative Eric Swalwell's campaign for a California governor withdrew their support Friday after the congressman denied allegations that he sexually assaulted a woman twice, including when she worked for him.
Swalwell did not immediately heed those calls, saying on social media that he would spend the weekend with his family.
I'm going to show you that clip in a little bit, but let me scroll down a little bit just for some more context.
Swalwell was among the leading Democrats in the race to replace outgoing Governor Gavin Noosa, but in just hours, he saw his most prominent supporters, including U.S. Senator Adam Schiff and powerful labor unions, drop their endorsements and call for his exit for the race.
Excuse me, I'm scrolling down a little bit more.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who hasn't endorsed a race, said, quote, the serious allegations must be investigated and that she spoke with Swalwell and suggested that that be done outside of a gubernatorial campaign.
The allegations surface at a critical time.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported Friday that a woman said Swalwell sexually assaulted her in 2019 and 2024.
The newspaper reviewed text messages about the alleged 2024 assault and spoke to people whom she had told about it.
She told the newspaper she did not go to the police because she was afraid that she would not be believed.
The woman worked for Swalwell in 2019 when the first alleged assault occurred and the 2024 assault allegedly occurred after a charity gala, the newspaper reported.
She said in both cases she was too intoxicated to consent toxicated to consent to sex.
Let's take a listen to Eric Swalwell who posted his denial of these allegations last night on social media.
A lot has been said about me today through anonymous allegations and I thought it was important that you see and hear from me directly.
These allegations of sexual assault are flat false.
They are absolutely false.
They did not happen.
They have never happened and I will fight them with everything that I have.
They also come on the eve of an election where I have been the frontrunner candidate for governor in California.
I do not suggest to you in any way that I'm perfect or that I'm a saint.
I have certainly made mistakes in judgment in my past.
But those mistakes are between me and my wife.
And to her, I apologize deeply for putting her in this position.
I also apologize to you if in any way you have doubted your support for me.
But I think you know who I am.
For over 20 years, I have served the public as a city councilman, as a member of Congress, and as a prosecutor who went to court on behalf of victims, particularly on behalf of sexual assault victims.
That's who I am and have always been.
This weekend, I'm going to spend time with my family and friends.
And I appreciate those who have reached out to me to show support.
And I look forward to updating you very soon.
That was Congressman Eric Swalwell of California denying sexual assault allegations that erupted over the internet last night.
He's obviously running for governor of California.
And then another development in that story, Swalwell campaign imploding after new sexual assault allegations from Politico.
It says multiple people resigned in advance of a report that an ex-staffer accused him of sexual assault.
So that is that article from Politico if you want to look at more.
John from Houston, Texas, a Democrat.
Good morning, John.
What's your top news story of the week?
Good morning.
It's amazing how the Republicans can trust Donald Trump.
He has been planning wars for a long time.
When he lost the war, when he lost the election, he said that if he'd been president, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine.
Two years in Biden's administration, Russia invaded Ukraine behind the relationship between Putin and Trump.
Trump was part of that.
Trump set up here and set up the invasion of Iran a long time ago.
Then you have somebody like Pete Hetshit who turns around, gets the position, and the first thing he does is change the name to Department of War.
Now, that's not very not telling you what he's really got on his mind.
And to sit up here and his son-in-law negotiate when his son-in-law is over here getting $2 billion, $5 billion from these countries does not make sense.
Donald Trump is a menace.
It says that...
All right, John, I think we take your point there.
To be clear, there's no evidence that Trump and Putin planned the invasion into Ukraine.
I do turn to an article, though, from 2022, Politico, again here.
It says, Trump calls Putin genius and savvy for Ukraine invasion.
The former president praised Putin.
The former president's praise for Putin comes at a perilous geopolitical moment in Europe.
That was in February 2023, 2022.
So there's that article if you want to read it.
Kaz from Cleveland, Ohio, and Independent.
Good morning, Kaz.
Yeah, hi, everybody.
I just first want to say on that breaking story about Swalwell that he said he's a front runner.
He was never a frontrunner.
He was only pulling like five or six percent in California.
The front runner was Steve Hilton.
And about the person that called earlier about getting a lot of theories off of Fox News, obviously he watches Fox News.
And you know what?
Fox News does tell the truth a lot about stuff.
But if you look at all your CNN and all your different users, you always get different stories.
And, you know, I got to say one thing in the Democrats' favor, how all the Democrats voted and want Swalwell to pull out of the race.
Because, see, obviously, Swalwell's had multiple problems with sexual problems.
If you go back as far as Fang Fang, the spy from China, you know, if you want to speak about China.
And then here we go.
If we're talking about the war, you guys, listen about the war.
I mean, we had to do this.
This is a part.
Oil runs the world.
There's a movie from years ago with Orson Welles and Asher Dhammas called The End of the World.
And this is oil does that.
And now the United States is selling oil and everything.
We don't need to even talk about to open up the hormone straits because the routes are going to open up automatically because that's where China and Russia get their oil from too.
And, you know, with Trump, when anybody's selling oil to Russia and then letting the boats come through to China just recently for oil, for China to get oil, is for friendliness.
That's all he's trying to do.
And Trump's the best president we ever had.
And a lot of people know that.
Even the Democrats, too.
That's why the Democrats never wanted him to become president anyway.
And they used all that.
All right, Kaz, I think we take your point there.
So, your top news story, Iran, and some other things that you mentioned.
Steve from New Jersey, a Democrat.
Good morning, Steve.
What's your top news story of the week?
Good morning.
What my subject is this morning is Milani are coming out and talking about these girls, these young victims, testifying again.
They have testified over and over and over under oath of the whole situation with Epstein.
But now it's time to bring the pedophiles in to testify.
These people have gotten away with these things over the years, and it's just embarrassing for these young ladies to come in and testify again.
Let's bring in the pedophiles and have see what they have to say.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
All right, Steve from New Jersey.
Tim from New York, an independent.
Good morning, Tim.
What's your top news story of the week?
Good morning.
I wanted to talk about the negotiations going on in Islamabad, and I just wanted to say the Iranians showed up with a fleet of limousines and an army of diplomats.
The people in the Islamabad.
Islamabad was there to meet them with a whole gang of diplomats.
And we're sending two real estate agents from Manhattan and basically an incompetent vice president to greet them.
I mean, it's ridiculous looking.
And he was supporting Orban just yesterday with the upcoming of his election.
So Trump should have been impeached.
And any of the Republicans that stuck by him, they should all be kicked out as well.
All right, Tim from New York there.
Later in the show, Major, retired Major General Stephen Lepper discusses the right to free speech among current and former military members.
But next, Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace joins us to discuss the U.S.-Iran peace talks happening today in Pakistan.
Narrow Transactional Accord Plan00:15:24
Next week, Congress returns after a two-week holiday break.
Lawmakers plan to take up key bills in both the House and Senate.
Expect House members to consider legislation to extend FISA Section 702 Warrantless Surveillance Authority for 18 months.
If approved by the House, the Senate must pass it before the Friday, April 17th deadline.
Senate Democrats intend to force a vote for a fourth time on an Iran war powers resolution to limit unauthorized U.S. military action against Iran.
Three other attempts were blocked, mainly along Senate party lines.
Follow the process when Congress returns next week on the C-SPAN Networks and C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
Also, get the full schedule online at c-span.org.
C-SPAN, bringing you democracy unfiltered.
Watch our special edition of America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series.
Sunday, as journalist Evan Smith interviews America's book club host, David Rubinstein, about the presidency, Congress, and the state of the economy from the New Orleans Book Festival at Tulane University.
There's a lot of talk these days, David, that these necessary components of a functioning democracy are faltering and are failing us.
And that is why some people are concerned larger than the presidency about the state of things today.
I believe that the government of the United States has functioned reasonably well.
Think about this.
When this country was created in 1776, when really 1789 under the Constitution, we were a tiny little country and no one in the world thought we'd be a power.
And because of many things, natural resources, talented people, immigration, entrepreneurial spirit, a whole variety of things, this country became the most powerful country and most envied country in the world.
Watch our special edition of America's Book Club with an interview of our host, David Rubinstein, Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAM.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
Joining us now to talk about the negotiations happening in Pakistan is Aaron David Miller, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Aaron, thanks so much for being with us this morning.
Jasmine, thanks for having me.
All right, let's dive right in.
First, I want to talk about President Trump.
At the 11th hour on Tuesday, President Trump walked back his threat to destroy Iran in exchange for a two-week ceasefire put in place.
Now, we know that the Vice President, JD Vance, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushnar are in Pakistan today with hopes of solidifying or at least making progress towards a diplomatic solution to end the six-week war in Iran.
Vance yesterday leaving the U.S., he said that the president gave him clear guidelines on how to negotiate, and he warned Iran not to play around.
What do you make of all this?
Look, I think President Trump was faced with an unpalatable choice.
That insane, extraordinary, I worked for Republicans and Democrats, voted for Republicans and Democrats.
No American president has ever used language like that in a social media post.
He was caught between that extraordinary social media post threatening to destroy civilization in a matter of hours on one hand by ramping up military action or alternatively backing down.
And I think neither choice was palatable to him.
And as a consequence, the Pakistanis, with a lot of help from the United States, threw him a lifeline.
And that lifeline became a very fraught, ill-defined quid pro quo, which took the form of the sort of negotiations that you're seeing.
On the face of it, it's opened the straits, which I might remind your listeners and viewers, were not closed at all.
They were open to international traffic without tolls, without regulation, without management on February 28, the day the war began, opening up the straits in exchange for a cessation of hostilities.
That bargain, that quid pro quo, is not going to work.
I think the Iranians are going to play for time on the assumption that the longer these talks go on, the less possible it's going to be on the part of the administration to return to the kind of war we watched waged over the course of the last six weeks.
Whether or not they can reach an agreement on some of these core issues in two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, I think it's highly unlikely.
The best you can hope for, and I am hoping for it, is in fact a narrower deal, which essentially does create a sustainable ceasefire and does, in fact, begin to restore international traffic to one of the several most important choke points on the planet.
Yeah, I mean, I think that before the war, there were anywhere from 160 to 180 boats traversing the strait at any time.
In the last few days, it's been about two, three, and four.
Now, we just heard from reporters in Pakistan that those negotiations between Vance and the Iranians started around 8.06.
But I want to point to a tweet sent by the Speaker of Iran's parliament Friday, yesterday morning.
It says, two measures of mutually agreed upon, two of the measures mutually agreed upon between the parties have yet to be implemented.
A ceasefire in Lebanon and the release of Iran's blocked assets prior to the commencement of negotiations.
These two matters must be fulfilled before negotiations begin.
Now, this morning, the White House said that they had not agreed to release Iran's blocked assets prior to the commencement of negotiations.
But I wonder where do they go from here?
Where can the conversation at least begin today?
Well, the question is whether the conversation is going to begin at all.
I mean, 806, who met with whom?
I know that there have been bilaterals between the vice president and his delegation and the Iranian delegation with the Pakistanis, but have they actually sat in the same room, the two sides?
Are we talking about negotiations through intermediaries, which has been a part of previous Iranian-U.S. negotiations?
Or are we talking direct negotiations?
Look, you can't do this stuff on the back of a cocktail napkin.
You can't do it with a cell phone.
You can't do it through intermediaries.
There are going to have to be face-to-face discussions.
And the real question, I don't know the answer, Jasmine.
Have those negotiations actually started?
If they have, then the Speaker of the Parliament's threat to make them conditional on releasing Iranian frozen assets and ending Israeli military activities in Lebanon, that's an idle threat.
I suspect maybe they haven't begun and some measure of relief is going to be required on those two issues.
And I think it reflects the fact that the Iranians believe, I don't think they're delusional on this, that they're winning.
And that reflects a very strong hand.
I've been around negotiations for most of my professional life, almost 25 years, working for a half a dozen secretaries of state.
The worst thing you can do in a negotiation, almost the worst thing, is to send to your negotiating partner a strong signal that you are more in a hurry to reach a deal than they are.
And I'm afraid that that's precisely the signal that the Trump administration has said.
So the Iranians are going to toughen and maximize demands that are already, frankly, I think, not going to be accepted, not only by this administration, I suspect by any U.S. administration.
Let's actually turn to those demands because Iran put out a 10-point plan.
The source here is the Embassy of Islamic Republic of Iran in India.
This is a plan that the White House has basically said is not what they agreed to in terms of starting these negotiations, but I want our audience to see it.
The first one is non-aggression.
The second one is continuation of Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Third one is acceptment of enrichment.
The fourth one is lifting all primary sections.
The fifth, lifting all secondary sanctions.
Sixth, termination of all UN Security Council resolutions.
Seventh is termination of all IAEA, which is that nuclear energy board of governor resolutions.
Eight is payment of compensation to Iran.
Nine is withdrawal of the U.S. combat forces from the region.
Ten is cessation of war on all fronts, including against the heroic Islamic resistance of Lebanon.
Now, this is a very, very steep list.
You just said that you don't think it would fly in this administration.
And the next administration, whichever administration comes, then, but if that list doesn't fly, what can be agreed upon?
That would be both in the U.S.'s interest and also in Iran's.
Look, as I mentioned before, Jesse, I think a narrow deal is possible.
It's going to involve some new arrangement for the straits of Hormuz.
That's what, 20% of the planet's daily need for oil in exchange for a cessation of hostilities.
But the Iranians are not going to let that go.
The fact that they now have created a new regime, a toll booth, if you will, they've deployed geography in a way that has worked to their advantage.
And they have basically, I think it was Ben Franklin who said that proximity breeds contempt and children.
The reality is that they have played on the fact that the Gulf states are fundamentally vulnerable and have created an unsustainable future for these states, given Iran's residual capacity to rocket and drone at will.
And second, you know, they have a 400-mile coastline leading up to the Straits of Hormuz.
They, if they wanted to, they could literally control that area.
And they're going to, and for abandoning that control or lessening it, they're going to require concessions from the United States.
What the United States is prepared to give, I think releasing Iranian frozen assets may be possible.
Sanctions relief may be possible.
But some of the demands in that 10-point plan are what my former boss, James Baker, described as deal breakers.
That 10-point plan is dead on arrival.
We're talking about a much narrower agreement if, if that can be achieved, and it's going to require the one thing that the Iranians believe they have, which is time, and the one thing the Trump administration, I suspect, doesn't believe it has, which is time.
Every day that goes by, and you don't open up the straits, we're not just talking about oil.
We're talking about liquid natural gas, LNG.
25% of the world's supply comes from Qatar.
You can't pipeline that stuff from where they are.
You've got to export it.
Gas is, natural gas is critically important for producing ammonia and urea, which are key ingredients of fertilizer.
It's planting season here, and the costs of fertilizer have already gone up.
Then you're talking about helium, which is critically important in small parts for all sorts of mechanical equipment.
So the Iranians feel they have more cards than the Trump administration.
And frankly, objectively looking at this situation, I think they're probably right.
Now, before we turn to some phone calls, I want to ask you one more question.
But before that, I want to invite more of our viewers who join in on the conversation.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line, 202-748-8000.
And Independence, your line is 202-748-8002.
You know, you're talking about a narrow deal.
Obviously, we don't know what the outcome of these initial negotiations are going to be.
Folks expect them to last perhaps a couple of days.
But I wonder, in terms of what you're talking about, how does that compare?
Because we've seen some comparisons being made over the course of the few days.
How does that compare to the deal that President Obama put in place in 2015, that joint comprehensive plan of action?
I mean, there really is no comparison.
The JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, preceded by the Joint Plan of Action 2013 and then 2015, was a very flawed deal, but it was functional.
And I think that's the problem with any of these deals with Iran.
There are no good deals with the Islamic Republic.
As Henry Kissinger described, Iran, it's a revolution.
It's not a nation.
And while that is somewhat of an overstatement, because the Iranians behave at times very pragmatically, pursuing their own national interests, it's apples and oranges.
It's, I don't know, it's one is Mars, one is Venus.
That joint comprehensive plan of action, as flawed as it was, bought time.
And frankly, unless the regime changed and you eliminated and you found a regime that didn't want to acquire or become a nuclear weapons threshold state, which essentially means you have all the ingredients of making a deliverable nuclear weapon, but you haven't made a decision to do so, unless you found another regime that wasn't interested in that or pursuing proxies in four or five Arab capitals.
And according to CIA, leading global sponsor of terrorism, all you can do with this regime is transaction.
You can do deals that buy time, that mitigate conflict, that somehow contravenes economic warfare.
You can't reach the kind of deal or peace agreement that reflects a balance of interests between the United States and the Islamic Republic until you have a different regime.
Avoiding Global Recession Conflict00:14:47
And frankly, I think you needed the Iranian people want a different regime.
We can't produce it, and neither can the Israelis.
And that is why we find ourselves once again dealing with the Iranians, not on some transformational accord that's going to make everything better, but on a narrow transactional arrangement to avoid conflict and in this case, to basically avoid a global recession by restoring pre-war or afflicted.
So you don't agree with the president and Pete Hegseth and Caroline Levitt, who say that there is now a new regime in Iran?
Yeah, oh no, I think they want to spin this to a degree that I think undermines their own credibility.
A new regime, the most significant thing that has happened in the last six weeks is the killing of Ali Khamenei, who ruled Iran and who was responsible by and large for guiding the Islamic Republic's strategies.
The fact that he's gone, whatever happens in Iran will not be the same Iran.
But what has happened, someone said we've moved from divine power, that is to say the supremacy of the clerical establishment, to what they described as hard power.
The emergence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as hardline militaristic efforts.
Every Iranian expert I talk to, and I do not play one on television or on C-SPAN, says the same thing.
You're going to end up with a military dictatorship without much of the influence of a clerical establishment.
And frankly, that's what you're seeing.
If that's regime change, what can I say?
All right, let's start with some phone calls.
Rob from New York, a Democrat.
Good morning, Rob.
Good morning.
From my seat, I'm looking at this war that this decision to go into war happened because Trump wanted to protect his family's interests by the Board of Peace.
Ultimately, that was $25 billion given by all the neighboring countries around the Middle East, as well as Hungary and other countries, and $14 billion from the United States.
This is an international property, an international corporation headed by Donald J. Trump.
He's protecting that particular situation.
This is going to rebuild Gaza.
And he has his board members, Gerard and Steve, to negotiate for the United States a peace deal.
This is to make sure that Iran does not send ballistic missiles to Gaza so they could invest money into Gaza so they could build it up.
If they knew that they could if Iran.
All right, Rob, I'm going to jump in here.
Do you have a specific question for Aaron or do you want him just to respond to what you've my question is simple?
How does the United States have these real estate maggots to negotiate for the United States a peace deal when it's all for the benefit for the president's family?
Aaron?
Yeah, look, I'll say it again for the third time, and I'll say it probably three or four more times.
I worked and voted for Republicans and Democrats.
The amount of corruption and self-dealing that this administration has engaged in is head exploding.
No American president has ever turned the White House into an ATM machine.
No American president has ever, to the degree that we've watched, empowered, again, one of his best friends and his son-in-law to negotiate in a part of the world where, in effect, they have business interests.
But this war had nothing to do with money.
It had nothing to do with Jared Kushner or Steve Witkoff.
This war reflected Donald Trump's view that he would emerge as a historic president.
The Israelis gave him an opportunity in that contact two days before the war began.
They knew where Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, was going to be.
They had intelligence.
Trump responded to that.
But for the last two months, beginning with the protests in Iran, Trump had said things.
Help is on the way.
Seize your institutions.
We're going to hit them hard.
He laid a rhetorical basis.
And then for the next two months, he deployed the largest array of naval and missile assets that the United States has deployed since the 2003 Second Iraq War.
So, by the time Kushner and Witkoff got to Rome and negotiating with the Iranians, whether they fully understood the issues, I doubt if that negotiation had any chance of success.
But by late February, Donald Trump, believing that the experts were wrong, they told him not to get out of the JCPOA because the world would come to end, and it didn't.
Then they told him not to kill Qasem Suleimani because the head of the AIRGC Qutz committee, because there'd be a regional war.
It never happened.
Then they said, don't strike Iran's nuclear sites.
He did.
There was no regional war.
Donald Trump, high on Venezuela and enamored with the power of the U.S. military, created a situation where he believed somehow that a demonstration of a terrifying power of the American military.
Let me be very clear.
The American military believed, behaved with an operational capacity that is extraordinary, remarkable.
But what you've seen over the six weeks, I'll say it again, worked for Democrats, voted, and Republicans voted for Democrats and Republicans.
What you've seen on the part of the architects of this war, in my judgment, is strategic malpractice, tactical brilliance on the part of the U.S. military.
They did what they were asked to do.
Strategic malpractice on the part of the folks who gave us this war.
Because six weeks in, a war of choice has led to a situation where, yes, we've hollowed out Iran's military infrastructure, its drone production facilities, much of its ballistic missile inventory and its productions, its command and control, its air defenses.
But the strategic gains are missing.
The regime survives, controls the Straits, controls highly enriched uranium, and it has demonstrated that it can make life miserable for key American partners in the Gulf.
Tom from San Antonio, Texas, a Republican.
You're next.
Good morning, Tom.
Yes, good morning.
How are you guys?
Doing well.
Thank you.
Okay, hey, Aaron, you are so mistaken.
You're wrong about your conclusions you've drawn from the war are absolutely pure propaganda.
Aaron, we cannot allow the Islamists to not only kill their own people, but to continue to kill Americans.
Also, Aaron, you said you voted for Republicans.
I'd like to know which ones you voted for.
And then your criticism of Jared Kushner was way off base.
He set up the Abraham Accords, who you just lambasted for not doing for, I don't know, I didn't understand exactly what you were trying to explain there.
But when President Trump took over his second term here, he handed the ball off to Biden prior to that, concerning the Abraham Accords.
10-7, the attack came down on 10-7 because Iran wanted to blow up or dissuade Saudi from joining the Abraham Accords, which we're on the verge of doing.
So your hypothesis, hypothesizing, is inaccurate.
Also...
Hey, Tom, you've given us a lot here, so unless you have something quick to add, I'd like Aaron to get in and answer.
I mean, I don't know how to respond.
I made it clear that you're dealing with a brutal, repressive, authoritarian regime.
The reality is, how do you change that regime?
And you seem to be implying that a caller from, I think, from Texas, that somehow the Trump administration is well on its way to achieving that goal.
I don't agree with you.
And the vast majority of Americans don't agree with you either.
This is a war of choice.
And six weeks in, maybe it'll change.
Maybe somehow the regime will fracture.
Maybe the negotiations will break down and the administration will go back to military conflict.
I'm giving you an analytical assessment here.
And I think that analytical assessment after six weeks is borne out.
Part of the problem is we have lost sight, I think, of what the national interests of the United States is all about.
We've allowed partisan and political loyalties and personalization of politics to erode that.
Again, I've worked in administrations from Jimmy Carter to Bush 43.
None of that was perfect, including Bush 43's decision in the wake of 9-11 to invade Iraq, the two longest wars in American history, where the standard for victory was never could we win, but when could we leave and what would we leave behind?
The Middle East is a broken, angry, and dysfunctional part of the world.
And America is stuck there.
We have to be smart.
We have to do our best to guard our national interests and also to avoid overreach, to believe that somehow American military power is capable of transforming the region.
It is not.
The Abraham Accords, and Krishner deserves credit for this.
There's no question about it.
That has nothing to do with the point I'm making about World Liberty Financial, the crypto enterprise, the Affinity Partners, which the Saudis have bankrolled for $2 billion.
It's hard to imagine remaining objective and fundamentally following the national interest of the United States when, in fact, you have subsidiary business interests.
And no American president has ever behaved this way.
So again, I understand your frustration and maybe your anger, but none of that is going to get the U.S. to a better place now when it comes to trying to figure out what to do about Iran and how to figure out a way, a rational way, out of this war.
Tom from Nashville, Tennessee, an independent.
You're next.
Good morning, Tom.
Good morning.
Dr. Miller, you're fresh air there.
You've said a lot today, and everybody, I'm an old conscript that's still got to pay a lot of money in income taxes as a crowd 80 years old later on this week.
And, you know, I just look at this situation a little bit like World War II.
I said, we got an all-volunteer army.
You know, they wanted the military wants to go into Iran.
They're all volunteers.
They're no draftees like the Vietnamese war.
You know, and I think the Iranians will continue to do what they've done with their proxies and everything for a long time.
You know, it's kind of like if you look at Germany and Japan, absolutely the United States killed all the males and that they killed them all.
And then everything's been fine ever since then.
I don't know too much about that geopolitical industrial complex that you've been talking about.
But I got the feeling this all-volunteer army could do a good job of regime change in Iran if we let them do it.
Now, I know that no conscripts involved.
All these people are volunteers, so they can go into Iran and do what they want to do.
My question to you is: why do you think you made a comment earlier about the 400 miles of coastline in the Strait of Hormuz?
I'm sure that could be occupied and taken over.
I'm sure a regime change will come.
And I'm pretty sure that this negotiation deal is just another ploy.
But thanks for all the good information about the money side of the deal with the White House.
It's funny about the White House presidents, how they all never had real jobs, but they all turn out to be very, very wealthy.
Trump went in very, very wealthy, and he's still very wealthy.
But I really appreciate this morning.
You made a lot of sense, I guarantee you.
Thanks, Budge.
Thanks to the caller.
Look, you want a regime change in Iran?
Yeah.
Deploy a quarter of a million American ground forces, volunteers all, volunteer military, deploy a quarter of a million American combat forces, occupy the country, as we did in Iraq in 2003, and depose the Iranian regime, set up trials, hang all of its leaders,
try to stand up an Iranian, a new Iranian government.
I just think that President Trump is not interested in doing that.
Forever War Without Regime Change00:10:34
I think, frankly, we'd find ourselves in a forever war.
I think there would probably be far more casualties for American troops.
And in the end, without turning Iran into a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States, which frankly is impossible to do, there's no precedent.
Iraq is a cautionary tale, in my judgment, because it demonstrates the two sorts of transgressions that great powers somehow commit.
One is the transgression of omnipotence.
They think they can do everything.
And the other is the transgression of omniscience.
They think they know everything.
And frankly, I find it eerie that some of the same mistakes, same misjudgments that Bush 43 made in Iraq are now being made with respect to Trump administration's view of Iran.
I don't make predictions here, but it strikes me that the war we've watched over the last six weeks is probably coming to an end.
There may be additional military activity.
I just don't think that this administration, given approaching midterms, given the fact that gas has increased by 50%, in California, it's $5 a gallon, given the fact that inflation is on the rise, that this administration wants to make that kind of commitment to fundamentally alter the Iranian regime.
And just a quick update on talks from CBS News.
It says a discussion in Islamabad has begun.
Two U.S. officials told CBS News.
It's unclear what time the Starks stop.
Excuse me.
It's unclear what time the talk started or if they are direct.
Vance's spokesperson declined to comment.
So there is just a brief update with not a lot of information, but they say that the discussions are underway.
Sam from Rome, Georgia, a Democrat.
Good morning, Sam.
Good morning, and thank you for C-SPAN.
My question, Mr. Miller, to you, and thank you, Mr. Miller.
You've been very enlightening so far.
My premise is about the blocked assets from the Iranian side of the people.
If I'm not mistaken, back in during the Shah's regime, when the Shah was fled or ousted from the Iranian government, he came to America.
And when he came to America, he took with him a lot of the country's assets and brought them here.
And help me understand this.
I could be wrong, but I'm asking.
At the time, Jimmy Carter froze the assets of the Iranian people, which was from their treasury, if I'm not mistaken.
Now, when we talk about blocked assets, are we talking about those assets or the sanctions on their assets?
Are we still talking about those?
And if that being the case, how much money did the Shah bring with him?
How much interest?
Or how much is the value of those assets when they were brought here and we froze their assets?
Or are we talking about new sanctions on new assets that the country might have accumulated during the years?
And one more question is: when Obama gave them billions of dollars of cash during the JPO, that agreement, was that part of the assets that the Shah brought here and the assets that we blocked here?
I've been curious about this question since I've seen this Iranian war.
All right, let's have we're running out of time here, so let's have Aaron answer that question.
Yeah, thanks for the question.
This is a very complicated issue.
It's complicated because the money is not all in one place, and it's not all under direct U.S. control.
Some are actually held in the United States.
Most of the Iranian money is trapped in foreign banks because of our sanctions.
It breaks down into three categories.
You've got about $2 billion in the U.S., those were assets that we seized through court rulings.
That is to say, Iranian terror attacks against American citizens.
And the government enabled them to sue.
A second group are foreign bank accounts, which were blocked by U.S. sanctions.
That's the majority of the assets, almost close to $100 billion.
Most of that money is Iranian money.
It comes either from oil exports, gas sales, trade payments, and it's held up in foreign banks.
I suspect there was a report this morning in Reuters that the U.S. had agreed to unblock certain Iranian assets, and it was quickly denied by the administration, understandably.
But I suspect that's one area where, in fact, there might be some leeway and flexibility.
It is Iran's money, and obviously, the constraint on returning it is money's fungible.
They use this money to develop their ballistic missiles, fund their proxies, and fuel their putative nuclear weapons designs, or at least having all the elements in place should they make a decision to actually weaponize and create a deliverable nuclear weapon.
So this is not the first nor the last we're going to be hearing about frozen assets.
And thank you very much for your question.
Doug from Wisconsin, a Republican.
Good morning, Doug.
Hi.
I'm just curious why we don't pull our oil resources and energy resources off of the world market.
We could be able to sustain a consistent gas price in an economy here and not be in these wars over oil.
And I'll listen to your response online.
I mean, oil trades in a single market, right?
We're not energy independent.
There's Mexico, there's Canada, there's now Venezuela.
Trades in a single market.
So an obstruction source of oil or a blockage in place X leads to a consequence in Y and ultimately redounds and gets back to place Z, which is the United States.
I mean, half the price of a gallon of gas is set by the price of crude oil.
The rest of it is gas or excise taxes and refining costs.
And not all the oil we produce is compatible with our own refineries.
So whether we like it or not, we're part of a global oil picture.
And even if we weren't, the real question is, unless you want to become Fortress America, which I think the Trump administration, frankly, has undermined its own talking points with respect to America first.
You have a president who is more active in foreign policy in many ways than many of his predecessors.
Energy security is really, really important.
This is not a production problem that we face.
It's not that there's a shortage of oil.
It's just with the blockage of the Straits of Hormuz, you can't move the oil through.
And again, it's not just oil.
It's natural gas.
It's planting season.
The cost of fertilizer, which is natural gas provides a critical component to making fertilizer, fertilizer prices are going up.
So we can't escape the inflationary prices or the inflationary problems that will occur if, in fact, 20% of what the world needs on a daily basis comes through those straits.
My last question for you.
They need to be opened.
My last question for you here, Aaron, very quickly is how does Lebanon factor into all of this?
Obviously, Iranians want to see a ceasefire in Lebanon.
Talks are supposed to happen between embassy officials next week in the U.S. Where is that?
Look, Hezbollah, which is the preeminent political and military actor in Lebanon, is Iran's billion-dollar proxy.
The Israelis hollowed it out in fall of 2024.
Hezbollah got back into the conflict when the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed.
The Israelis have taken advantage of that, I think, to try, and they've tried for decades without success, to secure their northern border and eliminate Hezbollah.
The cruel reality is they can't do it.
The Lebanese government is too weak to do it.
And the Iranians have now injected Lebanon into the negotiations.
I suspect that if the negotiations do progress and if they're serious and if the Iranians continue to demand that the Israelis stand down in Lebanon, the president of the United States, who wants a pathway out of this war for any number of reasons, will pick up the phone, call his good friend, Benjamin Netanyahu, and basically tell him to stand down.
And the Prime Minister of Israel, who's up for re-elections, either in October when the government comes to term or sooner, cannot cross President Trump.
He needs him as an active campaigner in Netanyahu's re-election.
So if it comes to that, the Israelis will do what the president asked them to do.
All right.
Aaron David Miller, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Thank you so much for being with us this morning.
Jesus, thank you.
It was a great honor and a pleasure.
Coming up shortly, former Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth joins us to talk about the Trump administration efforts to lower prescription drug costs.
Free Speech Among Military Leaders00:02:11
But after the break, retired Major General Stephen Leper discusses free speech in the military, plus Secretary of Defense personal changes.
Stay with us.
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Coming up this weekend, at 9 a.m. Eastern, New Jersey, Democratic Senator Corey Booker with his book, Stand, where he details shared ideas that make America and talks about his record-setting 25-hour-long speech in the Senate that began March 31st, 2025.
Then, at 5:15 p.m. Eastern, neurosurgeon and CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta talks about his book, It Doesn't Have to Hurt, which details the strategies for managing pain and promoting wellness.
And at 10 p.m. Eastern, former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein on his rise through the ranks of one of the world's largest investment banks from his book, Streetwise.
Insightful stories, influential voices.
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.
Get C-SPAN wherever you are with C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
Catch the latest episodes of Washington Journal.
Find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
The C-SPAN Now app is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
Download it for free today.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
Washington Journal continues.
Uniform Code of Military Justice Applies00:15:32
Joining us now to talk about free speech among current and foreign military leaders is retired Major General Stephen Leper, a former U.S. Air Force Deputy Judge Advocate General.
Good morning.
Good morning.
All right.
So I gave a little bit of a preview, but tell us about your background in the military.
You served for your term as a U.S. Air Force Deputy Judge Advocate General known as a JAG.
Exactly, what does that entail?
Well, as a judge advocate, I served as a military lawyer.
I went to law school just like every other lawyer.
And for 35 years, I served in uniform.
My roles varied depending on the assignments I had.
I served in multiple capacities.
Most of the time, I served as an advisor to commanders who were responsible for conducting military operations.
I've served as a prosecutor in military courts martial.
I've served as a military judge in military courts martial.
And during my service, I served as deputy legal counsel to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Generals Colin Powell and John Shalikashvili.
And then ultimately, as you pointed out, in my last four years in the Air Force, I served as the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, responsible for the leadership of the men and women who comprise the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the Air Force.
Now, I want to start where a lot of people believe this issue began, which is last November when six Democrats, six Democratic lawmakers who had either served in the military or in the intelligence community posted a short video online where they urged troops to uphold the Constitution and not to follow unlawful military directives from the Trump administration.
Let's take a listen to this video.
I'm Senator Alyssa Slaughtin.
Senator Mark Kelly.
Representative Chris DeLuzio.
Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander.
Representative Chrissy Houlihan.
Congressman Jason Crowe.
That was a captain in the United States Navy.
Former CIA officer.
Former Navy.
Former paratrooper and Army Ranger.
Former intelligence officer.
Former Air Force.
We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe.
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.
Americans trust their military.
But that trust is at risk.
This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.
Like us, you all swore an oath.
To protect and defend this Constitution.
Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.
Our laws are clear.
You can refuse illegal orders.
You can refuse illegal orders.
You must refuse illegal orders.
No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant.
But whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army, or Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.
And know that we have your back.
Because now, more than ever, the American people need you.
We need you to stand up for our laws.
Our Constitution and who we are as Americans.
Don't give up.
Don't give up the ship.
Now, a lot has happened since that video.
The president immediately after accused those six lawmakers of seditious behavior, punishable by death.
He said federal prosecutors sought and failed to secure indictments against the six.
Later, a federal judge temporarily blocked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from punishing Senator Kelly for participating in that video.
We know that Senator Kelly is both a retired Navy captain and a former astronaut.
You actually contributed and signed that amicus brief in support of Kelly.
But just walk us through all of the issues at play here, like first amendment rights.
What exactly do these judges, when they get these court cases, have to think about?
Well, let me start with the proposition that Senator Kelly in particular faced, which is that as a retired officer, he is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So even in retirement, he can be charged and prosecuted for having violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
He is unique among the six in that he is retired.
The other members of Congress who participated in that video served in the military but did not retire.
So they were subject to different forums to adjudicate whatever crimes the administration wanted to bring against them.
What Senator Kelly was accused of doing is basically counseling military members to engage in a mutiny, basically wholesale disobeyal of unlawful orders.
What Senator Kelly and his colleagues asked military members to do, however, did not violate the law.
He and his colleagues simply pointed out what the law says.
And the law says that unlawful orders may not be obeyed.
No one can be prosecuted for failing to obey unlawful orders.
Now, there is a principle that is at play here that everyone needs to understand, and that is that there's a presumption that military orders are lawful.
And that presumption is necessary in order to maintain a disciplined, ready force.
If military members assumed that just the opposite, that orders should be questioned or disobeyed, you would have chaos in the ranks.
So there's an important presumption there that needs to be the core of whatever we talk about when we talk about unlawful orders.
The second principle is that no one can be ordered to commit a crime, and that's essentially what an unlawful order is.
So under the circumstances that we find ourselves in today, with us being in Iran, the question becomes: are the acts that our military members are performing, do they comply with the laws of war?
Do they comply with our own U.S. domestic law?
And if they do, they are certainly orders that need to be followed.
If they aren't, then the question arises: should they disobey?
Now, in the case with Senator Kelly, he was not prosecuted on the UCMJ.
He was rather dealt with as an administrative matter.
The Secretary of Defense sought to demote him, essentially, do a grade determination against him, is what it's called, to reduce him in rank and therefore in his retired pay.
Judge Leon of the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C., decided that the First Amendment prevented the Secretary of Defense from doing that.
And so, what we have here in the case against Senator Kelly is a clash between the idea that the Secretary of Defense could subject him to administrative action versus the First Amendment, which protects speech in many cases.
I want to ask you some more questions about the First Amendment and more on this topic.
But first, I want to invite more of our viewers to join in on the conversation.
Here are your lines.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
And we have a special line for this conversation.
It's 202-748-8003, and that is for active and former military.
So start calling in now.
I want to continue on this note about the First Amendment.
Do military members and intel officers share the same First Amendment rights as civilians?
Well, yes and no.
I mean, the First Amendment applies to all Americans, but there are provisions of the UCMJ that do curtail the exercise of First Amendment rights.
There are provisions of the UCMJ, for example, that limit the ability of military members to engage in certain speech that would cause disruption in the ranks, cause disobedience in the ranks.
There are DOD regulations that constrain the political speech of military members.
And it's important to point out something that hasn't been pointed out thus far in the context of Senator Kelly's case, which is those DOD regulations that curtail the political speech of military members distinguish active duty members from retired members and acknowledge that retired members do have a much more fulsome right to engage in speech than active duty military members do.
And something that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled is that the military is a specialized, quote, separate society or specialized community governed by its own laws, primarily something you just referenced, the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Can you just give us a brief explanation about what that uniform code of military justice is and who exactly does it apply to?
Certainly.
Well, the Uniform Code of Military Justice is essentially the criminal code that governs the military.
It's like the U.S. Criminal Code, which is found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, in that it sets out certain behaviors that are criminal.
Murder, larceny, assaults, those sorts of things appear in both the U.S. federal criminal code as well as in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The key distinction between the two is that the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies worldwide to military members stationed anywhere in the world.
So it is essentially a criminal code of universal jurisdiction.
It applies to active duty members.
It applies to Reserve and National Guard who are in federal status.
And importantly, especially in the case of Senator Kelly, and quite frankly, in my own case, because I share the same characteristics that Senator Kelly does in that I am a retired military officer, the UCMJ applies to us as well.
My last question here before we turn to some phone calls is, you know, I want to take a look a little bit deeper at that Uniform Code of Military Justice.
We have some of the articles here.
First is Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Justice.
It says, any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a Military Department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court martial may direct.
Now, the second one I want to bring up is Article 133, and that says that any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Were these, just according to these articles, were these an issue in the federal charges against the six members?
Well, no.
I mean, the only person subject to the UCMJ is Senator Kelly.
So the other five were not even subject to the UCMJ, so those provisions didn't come into play at all.
What Senator Kelly may have faced had the Secretary of Defense decided to prosecute him under the UCMJ are precisely those articles that you mentioned.
He might have regarded the comments that Senator Kelly made in that video to constitute contempt against officials, which is Article 88.
I don't believe that any charge leveled against Senator Kelly would have been sustained by a court-martial because I don't think the facts supported prosecution under that article.
The harder one is Article 133, which is sort of a catch-all criminal provision.
And it basically criminalizes any act that is unbecoming an officer.
The threshold for violating that particular provision of the UCMJ can be relatively low.
And so it's almost in the eye of the beholder to determine what kinds of acts constitute conduct unbecoming an officer.
So he might have been charged under that provision had the Secretary of Defense elected to go the UCMJ route.
All right, let's turn to some phone calls now.
Craig from Iowa, an independent.
Good morning, Craig.
Hi.
Good morning.
And thank you so much for this platform.
I truly appreciate what Washington Journal has done here.
My question is: if Kelly becomes a U.S. Senator, does that resolve him from any of his connections to these laws?
And an example that I'd like to throw out is if a sitting president was former military and becomes president, is he subject to those same laws?
Good questions.
Really two questions there.
Let me take them in order.
Senator Kelly is not immune from application to the UCMJ just because he's a senator.
Now, there are some laws, particularly the Constitution Speech and Debate Clause that applies to Senator Kelly, which allows him to engage in certain speech as a senator.
But as far as all of the other provisions of the UCMJ are concerned, as a retired officer, he is still subject to the UCMJ and remains so as a senator.
If a military retiree becomes president, that becomes a little bit more difficult.
You may remember that in 2024, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Trump versus United States, which essentially said that any sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution for acts that are undertaken within the core constitutional responsibilities of the president.
Disobeying Unlawful Orders Explained00:02:18
So that particular immunity would also, I believe, apply to any prosecutions that might be contemplated under the UCMJ.
Rudy from Sun City, California, Democrat.
Your next.
Good morning, Rudy.
Good morning, Jasmine.
Good morning, General.
I'd like to find out if not following illegal orders, does that have to rise to the level of Lieutenant Calley of May Lai?
Just thinking about that question.
Thank you.
That's a great question.
And when we think about disobeying unlawful orders, we tend to think about the Millai case because, quite frankly, that's one of the cases that we as military judge advocates use when we teach the laws of armed conflict to our troops.
But we are not confined to that particular example when we talk about the obligation to obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders.
There can be, there really is an infinite number of possibilities when you talk about either lawful orders or unlawful orders.
The key here is that no one can be ordered to commit a crime.
And an unlawful order is essentially an order to commit a crime.
If you follow an unlawful order, you can be prosecuted for the underlying crime that you committed.
So in the Millai case, it was killing civilians.
In the case at Abu Ghraib, it was abusing prisoners.
You know, you can look at what we're doing in Iran right now and question whether any of the orders that are given to bomb certain facilities, to engage in certain acts of warfare, are lawful or unlawful.
So every order that's given is basically subjected to that question.
What penalties does an active member of the military face if they violate military laws of disobedience, if that order is in fact lawful?
Do they go to trial?
What is the penalty put on them?
Personnel Decisions and Legal Constraints00:12:32
Well, you're right.
There is an article, Article 90 of the UCMJ, which is disobedience of an order.
And in time of war, the punishments range up to and including capital punishment.
All right.
Jane from Lacey, Washington, a Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
It is my opinion that the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules should stand, and that I think that this is a sad political ploy by Democrats to undermine President Trump.
That's my opinion.
Thank you.
I don't hear a question there, so.
All right, let's go to Anthony, New Jersey, an independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I see it as strictly political, choreographed.
None of them put the whole thing in front of us as a speech or something they truly thought.
It's terrible.
I think it's.
Anthony, I wonder if you have a question for the general.
Yeah, I wonder if he agrees.
And I'm no attorney, but it was scripted and broken up.
None of them said the whole thing.
Like they were worried about.
You mean in the video?
Yes.
It was totally choreographed and scripted.
I think they're to protect themselves or something.
I don't know.
It's ridiculous.
It's political, that's for sure, I think.
And I'm wondering maybe if he would answer to that.
Well, let me say to your comments, sir, that the substance of what those six members of Congress said in that video was factual, it was correct, and it was quite frankly the same message that the Secretary of Defense had given an audience prior to his becoming Secretary of Defense.
So when you look at the substance of the video and its messages, there really is nothing unlawful or, in my view, otherwise objectionable about what they said.
Jan from Oregon, a Democrat.
Good morning.
Hello, sir.
Yeah, I served in the Navy a long time ago and I was told not to reveal classified information and I didn't.
Now the President has gone against that.
Earlier in his first term and in his second term he did a lot of command structure rearrangement and I'm really not.
I'm really concerned about all this activity that that you might have some kind of thing to say about.
So could you please address this issue?
Thank you, I'm sorry you're talking about classified information.
I believe you're talking about the president restructuring the military.
Oh so the personnel decisions that have been made sure, okay.
Well, as a as a former judge advocate the, the only personnel decisions that I have publicly opposed are the ones that involve the firing of the judge advocates general of the ARMY and the AIR Force back in February of 2025.
The reason that I and a number of my colleagues who are former judge advocates were so concerned about that particular personnel decision is because it was accompanied by a message that essentially said, we don't want the law to constrain military operations.
And if that is indeed the reason why those two officers were relieved of their positions, then we're concerned that.
going forward, the message that may be heard is that the law no longer matters to military operations which, of course, is not the case.
The law is an important constraint on military operations, and in fact, we, as judge advocates, teach the idea that the law actually makes military operations more effective and more efficient because it focuses military power on targets that are going to give the military an advantage and avoid the kinds of targets that will unnecessarily injure the
civilian power.
population.
So the law is an important guardrail and to the extent that personnel decisions communicate a message otherwise we judge advocates are concerned.
I mean I wonder if you have a response to Secretary Hagseth firing say the Army general, other top leaders within the DOD as well.
Well I really with Dan Driscoll that's been reported on.
I really don't have enough facts to comment authoritatively on those particular decisions.
I've read a lot of the press accounts.
I've read a lot about the rationale that a lot of people have speculated about.
I'm not really in a position to add my speculation to that.
All right.
Deja from Marion, South Carolina and Independent.
Go ahead.
Good morning, Jessica, and good morning, General.
Good morning.
Good morning.
My comments about this whole situation is from the independent perspective, both sides of the aisle really confused about the freedom of speech and the freedom of consequences.
Because about this whole situation, these senators, Democratic senators, just told other people to refuse illegal orders, and President Trump was so angry.
Meanwhile, if you really look deeper into that, that's called freedom of speech.
And the problem with both sides of the aisle is they believe in freedom of speech until it does not fit their worldview.
For example, Democrats believe in freedom of speech too.
The Republicans believe in freedom of speech too.
But the problem is, the problem with the Democrats is they believe in freedom of speech, meanwhile, they themselves are the ones who mock Charlie Kirk, the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
And then Democrats and the other sides believe in their Second Amendment rights.
But if somebody criticizes them, somebody criticizes them, they're going to get angry.
But even though that's just freedom of speech.
All right.
Let's have him respond to this because we're running out of time here.
General.
Well, ma'am, I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but I will say that freedom of speech, as guaranteed by our Constitution, is an important principle in our laws.
And so anything that runs counter to the freedom of speech, anything that unnecessarily or unlawfully constrains freedom of speech is something that we all need to be concerned about.
In the particular case that we were talking about, Senator Kelly's participation in that video, Judge Leon, who heard his request for an injunction against Senator Hagseth from proceeding with disciplinary action, essentially said that freedom of speech protected Senator Kelly in his participation in that video.
And I believe the judge is correct, and we'll see whether or not the appeals court agrees.
Ann from Wisconsin, a Democrat?
Hi.
Good morning.
I was wondering, let's say somebody is found guilty of following illegal orders.
What happens to the person who gives those illegal orders?
That's a great question.
That's a great question.
You know, ideally, both the person who gives and the person who obeys unlawful orders should be held accountable.
And in the Cali case, that certainly was the case, the case that the gentleman earlier spoke about.
We haven't had any real recent examples of that, but under normal circumstances, that's what happens, is both the person who gives the orders and the person who receives the orders are held accountable.
I want to ask you, because CBS News reported an article this week about Army survivors of a deadly attack in Kuwait dispute the Pentagon's account, say unit was, quote, unprepared to defend itself.
It said the members CBS News spoke to disputed the description of events from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who described the drone as squirter and that it squirted, it skirted, excuse me, skirted through the defenses of a fortified unit inside Kuwait.
It said, painting a picture that one squeak through is a falsehood, one of the injured soldiers told CBS News, I want people to know the unit was unprepared to provide any defense for itself.
It was not a fortified position.
Obviously, they say that their unit was left dangerously exposed when six service members were killed and more than 20 wounded in that specific attack.
Do they have the right to publicly contradict Secretary Hagseth's version of events?
Well, I mean, the facts are the facts, and I don't know what the facts are.
There are obviously two versions of those facts in this particular case.
But I would say that if there are two versions of facts in any particular case, what that should do automatically is trigger an investigation.
An investigation hopefully will get to the bottom of the dispute between the Secretary and the troops who feel he was not correct in his statement of what happened.
And we can all get to the bottom of the, we can all get to the truth of the matter.
Andrea from Texas, an independent.
You're next.
Good morning, Andrea.
Andrea, are you on the line?
One more time, Andrea, are you on the line?
Yes, can you hear me?
Yep, can hear you.
I almost cut you off, Andrea.
Go ahead.
So I have a question about earlier, you said that there's some situations where the military code will come into play should they, you know, for behavior situations if something is declared war.
My question is: what about, what if that declaring of war is ambiguous?
International Armed Conflict in Iran00:03:47
Today we have something that's called a war, but Congress didn't declare it, and Trump and has said, you know, they get whiplashed if it's a war or not.
Well, that's a good question.
And the fact that Congress didn't declare the war does not change the fact that we are engaged in what the international community and international law call an international armed conflict.
The facts of the situation in Iran lead to the conclusion that we are in an international armed conflict.
Now, under domestic law, you know, we may not call that a war because Congress didn't authorize it, but it still remains a fact that the laws of war apply.
Both are domestic laws that constrain military operations as well as international laws that constrain military operations apply, regardless of what we call it.
So, for all intents and purposes, we are at war with Iran.
I want to turn to a message we received on social media.
Alverm from District Heights, Maryland says: if the president would have followed through with the threat to wipe out Iran's civilization, would that be considered an unlawful order and one military members could refuse to follow?
That would have been an unlawful order.
It's probably the clearest example of an unlawful order that we've seen since the Iran conflict started.
What the president suggested was essentially that the U.S. military should engage in what the international community calls a crime against humanity.
Genocide is another way of describing it.
And after World War II, the United States joined with its allies to constitute war crimes tribunals in Nuremberg and in Tokyo that were specifically convened to consider,
among other things, the fact that the leadership in both Germany and Japan engaged in a war of aggression, a crime against peace.
And included in the Nuremberg Charter was a description of crimes against humanity, which the Germans committed by trying to exterminate certain groups of their society.
What the president essentially counseled, what the president essentially suggested in his social media post was the same sort of behavior, the extinction, the extermination of an entire society, an entire civilization.
And that clearly is a violation of international law.
Any act to carry out that expression of intent would have been an unlawful order, would have been a war crime.
So in those circumstances, I think all of us were shocked to see the president make a statement like that.
But as a retired judge advocate, my thoughts turned immediately to the burdens that that kind of rhetoric places on our troops.
Clash Between Rights and Duties00:10:23
Our troops are having a hard enough time fighting a war.
They truly do not need the additional burden of having to worry about being given orders to exterminate an entire civilization.
If the active duty military members reached the same conclusion you did that that would be an illegal order, how would they proceed?
Well, my hope is that any senior officer who is asked to carry out such an order would say, no, sir, I refuse.
That would certainly be what I, as a judge advocate, would counsel if any commander given such an order came to me for legal advice.
All right, Robert from San Antonio, Texas, a Democrat.
Good morning, Robert.
All right.
Good morning.
Go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Yep, we can.
Go ahead.
All right.
Sir, I just have a question about which takes precedent, the Constitution or UCEMJ.
Now, the Constitution says you have inelible rights, rights given to you from God Almighty, but the UCMJs said I guess UCMJs takes way some rights, if I'm not mistaken.
Freedom of speech.
That's a very good question.
That's a very good question, sir.
The Constitution takes precedence over all other laws in the United States.
In fact, every military member, when they join the military, takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
And so the Constitution is definitely the document, the set of principles that take precedence.
However, the Supreme Court has said in a number of situations that the military can constrain the exercise of some of the rights that are included in the Constitution.
And it did so in order to conform those rights to the needs of the military, which should and is today a force that is well disciplined and that is very effective.
And sometimes when you have a clash between a fundamental right and your duties as a military member, some adjustments have to be made.
And the UCMJ makes those adjustments.
Robert from Bridgeport, Connecticut, an independent.
Good morning, Robert.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Ask the general, if this were 1777, sir, and there was Washington and Jefferson and all the guys down there in those days, and these people in our government said what they said, don't you think they would have been shot for treason?
And especially by Jefferson?
Sir, I really can't put myself in the shoes of the founders.
I take your point, but I'm in no position to either agree or disagree with your proposition.
Carl from Columbia, Maryland, a Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning, Carl.
I am curious about the practice of Islamic cognitive warfare and how that would affect troops in countries that practice Islam.
Would they come under the Sharia law?
Would they have to practice that?
Well, that's an excellent question, sir.
I don't know.
I don't know.
But that would be a question of their own domestic law.
I can tell you that everyone involved in this conflict, anyone involved in any conflict, is subject to international law.
And so whether they're subject to Sharia law or not is irrelevant to the question whether they are constrained by the laws of war in the way that they fight.
Susan from Melrose, Massachusetts, an independent.
You're next.
Good morning, Susan.
Hi.
Hi, Major General Leper.
First of all, I agree with your perspective wholeheartedly.
And I have such great respect for people who serve in the U.S. military as lawyers, JAG Corps, across all the branches of service.
You know, because infractions and issues that are encountered in the military are really a mirror of many of the constitutional questions and personal struggles that put you in the sphere of having to meet a lawyer, are the same in the military in many ways.
And I guess I do romanticize the JAG Corps in a way because I love the movie A Few Good Men so much.
In that film, it did touch on the abuses of war and abuses of power, mainly what occurred in that film, but also during the Iraq period, you know, at Guantanamo.
It's a detention facility that I more and more think is unnecessary and very goes against our values and our Constitution.
And I guess I just wanted to thank you for your service because I wish more people would, I come from a private sector legal background.
I've had many lawyers in my family, and I've worked in law firms, particularly for Stratch in D.C.
And I think it's a great career, and I would like to hear your pitch for why choose a military legal career instead of the private sector.
And what do you feel it gives you as far as life fulfillment and also career advancement?
So those are my thoughts, and thank you for your service.
Well, thank you very much.
And thanks for the recruiting pitch for the JAGCORS of all the military services.
We appreciate it.
Lynn from Oregon, a Republican?
You're next.
Good morning.
Hi.
I'm just wondering whether this general actually does not understand that President Trump speaks in hyperbole.
And when he spoke about on the social media post about taking them back and getting rid of an entire civilization, he was speaking of the setbacks it would be if he had to carry out the bombing of the bridges and the power plants and et cetera, and what that would do to them.
And instead of going into a long explanation about what happened after World War II and the different courts that prosecuted the war criminals, then he should have spoken to that explanation and not taken it as an actual fact that the president would order bombing to entire civilizations.
Does he actually believe that to be true?
Ma'am, all I can tell you is what I read.
And my understanding is that the president has not walked back anything that he has said.
So we remain with what he said as a statement of his intent.
Whether you believe him or not, whether you consider it hyperbole or not, he is the president of the United States, and the members of our military heard and read what he said.
I stand by my thought that that places an extraordinary burden on the men and women who have agreed to serve our country.
Freddie from Indianapolis, Indiana, a Democrat.
Good morning, Freddie.
Good morning, General.
General, I spent eight years in the Marine Corps living out of the UCMJ.
I was discharged in 1977 after serving the tour of Vietnam.
And there's one thing I don't understand, and that is how is it possible for those who have come up through the ranks and well, especially on the officer corps side, made general or made admiral, and now are being terminated under some program known as DEI.
How is that possible?
Well, sir, it's possible because the Secretary of Defense has the authority to fire them.
That's about all I can say.
You know, you obviously disagree with that.
I talked about my disagreement over his firing of the Judge Advocates General of the Army and the Air Force.
I certainly see your point, but, you know, ultimately, the Secretary of Defense has that authority, and it remains a political matter to determine whether this particular Secretary should continue to exercise his authority in that way.
Big Pharma Profiteering Ends Now00:17:35
All right, that's all the time we have for this.
Retired Major General Stephen Leppard, thanks so much for being with us this morning.
Thank you so much.
And up next, former Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth explains the Trump administration's efforts to lower the cost of prescription drugs.
Stay here.
Next week, Congress returns after a two-week holiday break.
Lawmakers plan to take up key bills in both the House and Senate.
Expect House members to consider legislation to extend FISA Section 702 Warrantless Surveillance Authority for 18 months.
If approved by the House, the Senate must pass it before the Friday, April 17th deadline.
Senate Democrats intend to force a vote for a fourth time on an Iran war powers resolution to limit unauthorized U.S. military action against Iran.
Three other attempts were blocked, mainly along Senate party lines.
Follow the process when Congress returns next week on the C-SPAN Networks and C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
Also, get the full schedule online at c-span.org.
C-SPAN, bringing you democracy unfiltered.
Watch our special edition of America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series.
Sunday, as journalist Evan Smith interviews America's Book Club host, David Rubinstein, about the presidency, Congress, and the state of the economy from the New Orleans Book Festival at Tulane University.
There's a lot of talk these days, David, that these necessary components of a functioning democracy are faltering and are failing us.
And that is why some people are concerned larger than the presidency about the state of things today.
I believe that the government of the United States has functioned reasonably well.
Think about this.
When this country was created in 1776, when really 1789 under the Constitution, we were a tiny little country and no one in the world thought we'd be a power.
And because of many things, natural resources, talented people, immigration, entrepreneurial spirit, a whole variety of things, this country became the most powerful country and most envied country in the world.
Watch our special edition of America's Book Club with an interview of our host, David Rubinstein, Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
Joining us now to talk about the Trump administration's efforts to reduce prices on prescription drugs is J.D. Hayworth, former congressman and spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Reform Alliance.
Congressman, thanks so much for being with us this morning.
Jasmine, good morning.
It's great to be back with you on Washington Journal.
Love to hear it.
All right.
Tell us about Pharmaceutical Reform Alliance.
What's its mission and what's its funding?
Well, the Pharmaceutical Reform Alliance is a nonpartisan group.
You know, we can talk bipartisan, but really the issue of high prescription drug prices is not Republican, Democrat, it's American.
And so a group of individuals and groups from across the political spectrum has joined with stating the obvious.
With Americans paying on average at least, what, three times what the rest of the developed world is paying for prescription drugs, there needs to be an American solution.
And to find out more about those who are involved in this and also to find out more about the issue, I would invite everyone watching or listening to us to go to our website, pharmareformalliance.com.
We actually have that pulled up on the screen right here, the report that was released in March about the pharmaceuticals industry's tactics, increasing costs for consumers.
What did you guys find were the most troubling practices?
Well, and again, I've got the report right here, and we talk about an affordability crisis.
Maybe you can see the word unaffordable with so many Americans still struggling, making decisions.
And according to our polling, over half respondents say they know someone who is going without food, modifying their own prescription on their own, doing without medicine some days.
When you have that in the United States, look, nobody's opposed to profits, least of all President Trump, but we're opposed to profiteering.
And what we see is that in stark contrast to the prevailing theme of putting America and Americans first, big pharma puts Americans last.
And this is an issue where my colleagues on the Hill need to listen to the folks at home because in stark contrast, Jasmine, to what we've seen with the so-called polarization across the political spectrum, the fact is that this issue resonates with well over 80% of Republicans, over 80% of Democrats, and close to 80% of Independents.
So again, it's a major problem, primarily in terms of the fact that since the start of the new year, despite some attention on a few major drugs, big pharma has raised the prices on close to 1,000 prescription drugs.
So prices keep going up.
And it is time for my former colleagues on Capitol Hill to codify, to put into law what President Trump put in his executive order last year.
And it's classic.
Donald Trump, he flipped the script.
You may remember when I was serving on the Ways and Means Committee and we talked about MFN, most favored nation status, we were talking about conferring it on foreign nations.
What the president has said is, hey, let's put America and Americans first and make sure since Americans have traditionally paid such high prices, let's bring the prices in line with what the rest of the world is paying.
Let's quit having Americans subsidize the rest of the developed world in terms of prescription drugs.
So that's the big issue.
And the American people are saying they want to see that change.
And that's why on our same website, pharma reformalliance.com, you will see a place at the top of the page where those who join us there can sign the MFN petition.
The president gets it.
The White House gets it.
Secretary Kennedy gets it.
And my former colleagues on Capitol Hill, a growing number of bipartisan people are coming together on this with an election in November.
What was that Ronald Reagan said?
When they feel the heat, they see the light.
And that's what we're about right now.
I want to talk a little bit more about what President Trump is doing.
First, though, I want to invite our viewers to join in on the conversation.
We're talking about prescription drugs, something that I hear a lot of callers talk about, actually.
Your lines of Republicans are 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line.
202-748-8002.
Before we get into more of the politics of the moment, I want to talk about patent protections, something that you guys talk about in your report here.
How do companies that use patent protections make it harder for competitors to actually even enter the market?
And then how does that transfer cost onto Americans?
Well, what do you have, Jasmine?
And this rhymes, but it's not exactly poetic.
You have pay for delay, where you have a situation where big pharma goes to the smaller innovative companies.
And we've heard for years since I was back in Congress, generics.
Generics will take down prices.
Well, according to one study, if we just had standard patent practices in place for the intellectual property that makes up pharmaceutical drugs, one study suggests we could have savings of almost 80 to 85 percent.
But you have a pay for delay.
You have another program called packet, pardon me, called patent thickening, where you have slight changes in the formulary, a couple of changes.
It would be like me going to the tailor and having alterations on my slacks and the tailor saying, you owe me for a new pair of pants.
And then the third thing that happens in the world of big pharma, mergers and acquisitions where, hey, you know, we just bought this.
We need to delay the expiration of the patent.
So those three techniques and a variety of others, because lawyers are always looking, no offense to my friends in the legal profession, but there are creative ways that continue to force Americans to part with more of their own money when it comes to prescription drugs.
Earlier this month, the president signed a 100% tariff on brand name pharmaceuticals, basically threatening import taxes on drug companies to get them to lower their prices and bring drug production to the U.S. What do you think of this approach?
Well, I think the president understands, you know, you cannot spell Trump without TR.
And in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, Donald Trump is a very active chief executive.
There is energy in the executive, and he is trying to use what leverage he has to inspire, should I say, civic responsibility and end the profiteering that big pharma has basically forced Americans to endure for so very long.
Indeed, Mr. Trump may be familiar with the line.
I believe it was Benjamin Disraeli when he was the prime minister of Great Britain.
I must follow the people.
After all, am I not their leader?
And that is what we see.
Again, this is not Republican.
This is not Democrat.
This is an American issue.
The good news is bipartisan groups on Capitol Hill are moving or have formulated bills to codify most favored nation status.
We need it to bring prices down and quite frankly will allow the president to use the White House as TR did as a bully pulpit, persuading, cajoling, and yes, using all the tools in his toolbox to bring about change that is advantageous for American consumers.
My last question before we turn to some callers is that there has been pushback to that tariff threat by the pharmaceutical company.
Pharma statement that was released after this news came out.
It says the innovative biopharmaco sector has a robust U.S. manufacturing footprint.
In fact, two-thirds of the medicines that are consumed in the U.S. are made in America.
For decades, the United States has led the word and innovation, biopharmaceutical innovation, delivering $1.7 trillion in economic impact, supporting 5 million American jobs and providing patients with the best access to new medicines anywhere in the world.
At a time when Americans' global leadership in biopharmaceutical innovation is being challenged and Americans are struggling to afford their insurance premiums, we need smart policies to ensure that the U.S. remains the best place in the world to discover and manufacture affordable life-saving medicines.
Tariffs will undermine this important goal.
I wonder what your response is to this.
Well, the outgoing chief executive officer of Big Pharma's trade group is championing that he has taken his industry and gone on offense.
And I think we need to stop.
And Big Pharma needs to take a look at its own house, arbitrarily raising prices, engaging in a situation with the White House where many of the companies have gone in one by one and said to the administration, oh yeah, we're happy to work with you for about three years under the executive order.
Indeed, the White House has cast a broad net trying to get stakeholders together to come up with the right kind of legislative language, but any number of CEOs from big pharma have refused to be involved.
So what does that tell you?
It tells you they believe that big pharma can use divide and conquer to delay bringing prices down for Americans.
And that is especially troubling when you have that situation.
That's why, again, at our website, pharma reformalliance.com, a viewer should go in and sign that most favored nation petition because on the legislative side, again, I know that we have the line separated by Republicans and Democrats for callers and independents, but you take a look, Jasmine, at what we are seeing right now.
It is a groundswell of opinion on the part of Americans.
They get it.
Prescription drug prices are too high.
And again, for those currently serving on Capitol Hill and those who aspire to serve, understand what our findings show.
86% of American voters say they are more favorably inclined for a candidate perceived as standing up to big pharma.
The White House has done it.
They've tried to bring everybody in, but now Big Pharma is saying we'll do the big stunts, but when it comes to really having lasting change, we want to wait this White House out.
All right, let's go to some phone calls.
Maureen from Great Mills, Maryland, a Democrat.
Good morning, Maureen.
Hi.
Good morning.
Good morning, John.
Yes, I'm a retired Air Force veteran.
My husband and I served 22 years in the Air Force.
And, you know, now that we're older, now we actually really need our benefits, like our health benefits.
And the price of prescriptions have like gone off the roof, you know, like even though we, you know, I can go to the base to get my prescriptions, but a lot of times the base doesn't have like the medicine that we need.
So, you know, we had to go off base.
And it's just concerning that, you know, off Capitol Hill.
It just concerns, like on Capitol Hill, like if they spend 10 years in Congress, then they get a life, like, you know, lifelong medical.
You know, for us, we have to spend 20 years.
We can't just spend 10 years in the military.
You have to spend 20 years to get your benefits.
And then by the time, you know, you hit your 50s, 60s, that's when you really need, really, you need your benefits.
You need your medicine.
And then, you know, and I just feel like I just don't feel like we're appreciated as veterans.
And it's just very concerning.
It hurts.
And now I can understand why a lot of young people don't want to join the military, you know, because I just don't feel like that we're appreciated, you know.
And all right, let me have JD respond to this, Maureen.
Well, thanks.
Marie, first of all, thank you for your service.
And I'm sorry you're experiencing trouble finding on base your prescription drugs.
I know that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is working very hard to reform health care, update, make things more responsive.
Marie, let me suggest to you, I don't know in whose congressional district you live, but if you're having problems with your benefits, especially in regard to prescription drugs, please call your member of Congress.
And one friendly amendment, as congressional pensions go and as healthcare goes, for members of Congress who leave there to enjoy the benefits of health care that members do in terms of the federal employees plan, they have to be over 65.
They have to be on Medicare.
I left Congress well before turning 65, but now that I've reached that age, I'm on Medicare.
I understand what veterans and non-veterans alike feel about the squeeze.
And certainly, Marie, you're not alone, not only among veterans, but throughout the general public.
And when you see where over close to 80% of Americans say the prices are too high, it is time for Congress to act.
Drug Prices and Tax Dollars00:10:08
Joe from Bowling Green, Ohio, an Independent.
You are next.
Good morning, Joe.
Good morning.
When you were introduced, the hostess asked you who your funders were, and I didn't quite catch that answer.
Could you just tell us who the biggest three funders are for your organization?
You know, Joe, I don't have that information top of mind, but I'd encourage you to go to our website, farmerreformalliance.com, and you will see the stakeholders who are involved in the project.
Let me put your mind at ease.
I understand the cynicism that comes with service in Washington, but let me give you an example on the real action item on the table, having Congress come along at the behest of the American people and through what President Trump has already done with most favored nation status to make the United States the most favored nation.
Listen to one bill, and we're not taking a position advocating at this point any specific legislation, but a bill with the core principles as expressed in the executive order.
Legislative language has been introduced, the Global Fairness and Drug Pricing Act.
And listen to the co-sponsors.
RoCana, Democrat of California, Anna Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida, Marcy Kaptur, one of my colleagues for many years, Democrat from Ohio, and from my home state of Arizona, Republican Andy Biggs.
So this is emblematic of people wanting to move forward, listening to their constituents and trying to move forward to lower prescription drug prices through codifying, putting into law the action that the president has advocated to flip the script, if you will, and make America for a change the most favored nation and put Americans first when it comes to the cost of prescription drugs.
Julia from Brooklyn, New York, a Democrat.
Good morning, Julia.
Hi.
Hi.
I'm 72 and I'm practically a shut-in at this point.
My television is on 24-7, and I am really dismayed at the amount of advertising big pharma does.
I think it is making us sicker.
I see no value to it.
It's just constant.
And I think it's detrimental to our health, really.
And sometimes I look at the reading of the side effects and my jaw drops.
I mean, it's just, I think there should be a law against it, really.
Well, you know, there are only two nations, and I appreciate your observation.
First of all, in what is called a DTC, direct to consumer advertising and marketing on the part of Big Pharma, Pharma, last year, over $9 billion was spent.
And only two nations in the world allow it, the United States and New Zealand.
As one Washington-wise man, and yes, they do exist.
A Washington wise man once told me, free speech ain't free when you and I are paying for it.
And the fact is that Americans are paying out of both their pockets, both the prices for the drugs, but also in terms of their tax dollars to subsidize a fair amount of research.
Earlier in the conversation, we talked about research and development.
On average, only about 17% of the profits of Big Pharma are devoted to research and development.
So certainly, despite that statement we heard earlier that Jasmine read from Big Pharma, it is not this quest where all the money goes to research and development.
And as the caller just mentioned, the concern about overall health, what we're seeing is that patients are coming in based on what they're seeing on television, the disclaimers, Saudi Voche may in some instances cause death.
Despite all those disclaimers, they're coming in actually commanding their physicians saying, I want this drug.
And yet some studies have shown us that those particular drugs that are being advertised and featured on our television screens may not be the best in terms of therapeutic value for patients.
So it is important to reassess this.
There is legislation on Capitol Hill to take away the tax deductibility of such ads.
And certainly that would put a crimp in it.
But as Marty McCary, again, one of the physicians turned officials in the Trump administration pointed out a few months ago, imagine if that $9 billion or that high spending on TV ads went to actually lowering prices for American consumers.
It's a real issue.
And again, Congress would be wise to take it up because free speech ain't free when you and I are paying for it the way we are, given the current financing out of pockets, literally out of pockets.
One side, the high price of drugs, the other side, our tax dollars.
Talking about prices, in February, the administration launched a new website, TrumpRX.
I have it up here on the screen, to help Americans buy lower-priced prescription drugs.
The idea is to enable direct-to-consumer sales of drugs.
This is not the first one.
Obviously, I'm thinking of GoodRX, but certainly it's the first one run by the government here.
How does this lower prescription drug, how does it lower prescription drug costs?
And can you compare it to what people are paying under insurance?
Well, I think it's important.
What the administration does has done with this is add another tool to the toolkit.
What was the wistful movie about baseball field of dreams?
If you build it, they will come.
And so what we're seeing is the administration is offering the informational infrastructure to get this done.
Again, it involves bringing big pharma to the table and helping to lower prices, which is again why the action item needs to be Congress codifying the executive order to bring about most favored nation status.
When that passes, you'll see a variety of these different informational tools, including Trump RX, being utilized to a greater extent than following this initial launch.
But again, the president deserves high marks because he's listening to the people.
And now it's time for Congress to do the same.
Chris from Venice, Florida, a Republican?
Yes, good morning.
Thank you for taking.
Good morning, Chris.
We're coming close to time, so I'm going to ask you to ask your question quickly.
Yes, I saw that, the clock.
I've got 33 years in the business of dealing with pharmacies.
I do over 8,000 pharmacies.
The problem is not necessarily the pharmaceutical company.
The problem is the politicians are in bed with the insurance companies called the PBMs, pharmacy business managers.
I learned that by watching your show.
And people can Google or go back to your show when you have the on your show where you have the pricing of lowering prescriptions.
And you show the PBMs and you show the pharmaceutical companies.
The PBMs such as United, they get $750 billion in 10 years.
So they take the drug, they have these rebates, and then they don't give them out.
So who's really making all the money is the insurance companies, which are then funding the politicians' campaigns.
That's where the problem needs to be addressed.
Thank you.
Well, I appreciate what Chris has to say.
If we're talking about funding campaigns, Big Pharma set a record this past year, $37.9 million to political candidates and causes and lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill.
Again, this is an issue, and I appreciate the perspective that Chris brings to this, but I would suggest everyone go to pharmareformalliance.com.
Not only can you see our report on affordability or the lack thereof, but you will see meticulously researched facts.
And at the end of the day, Jasmine, it's important to have a fact-based conversation.
I can understand big pharma wanting to cast blame elsewhere, but the American people get it.
The problem begins and ends with the arbitrary price hikes of Big Pharma.
All right, Congressman, I'm going to ask you to answer this for me in 30 seconds.
How would you rate the way that Congress is handling the issue of prescription drugs and trying to lower prices for Americans?
Well, candidly, and I've been in many meetings where the phrase is, hey, now keep your powder dry.
Let's hear from all the stakeholders.
At the end of the day, it's not a matter of hanging back and waiting on this.
This is obvious.
You have to move in a constructive manner to enhance competition.
to end big pharma's stranglehold on this.
And the way you do it is by codifying most favored nation status.
So again, as we're approaching November, politics and policy are joined.
And I would invite my friends serving and those who aspire to serve on Capitol Hill to get behind this reform, codifying most favored nation status.
That can make the difference.
And in the final analysis, when you see this is an American issue, this is one that benefits all Americans, not one particular political part.