Washington Journal on April 20, 2026, examines escalating U.S.-Iran tensions as negotiations in Pakistan face uncertainty following the seizure of the cargo ship Tusca and Iranian attacks on commercial vessels. President Trump claims military dominance while economic indicators like the Dow hitting 50,000 surge, yet congressional war powers resolutions stall amidst debates over $1 trillion defense funding and FISA renewal failures. Experts like Danielle Pletka argue that closing the Strait of Hormuz is vital to deter a nuclear-armed Iran, despite concerns over civilian infrastructure threats and regional instability involving China, Russia, and Israel's nuclear arsenal. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
Time
Text
Regime Takes Over Country00:14:58
members and Washington influencers.
You can watch Washington Journal live every morning at 7 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN now or online at c-SPAN.org.
Join C-SPANS this Saturday at 7 p.m. Eastern for Washington's premier black tie event, the White House Correspondents Dinner.
Watch live coverage from the Washington Hilton featuring red carpet arrivals of top journalists, political leaders, and celebrities.
This year's featured entertainer is renowned mentalist Bose Perlman, and President Donald Trump is expected to make his first appearance as president.
The White House Correspondents Dinner, live this Saturday at 7 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
Coming up on Washington Journal this morning, along with your calls and comments live, Punchbowl News congressional reporter Max Cohen previews the week ahead in Congress.
And then Sophia Tsai, Politico White House reporter, discusses the week ahead at the White House.
And later, the American Enterprise Institute's Danielle Pletka on the state of U.S.-Iran negotiations and the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
Join the conversation.
Good morning.
It's Monday, April 20th.
A second round of U.S.-Iran negotiations was set to begin tonight in Pakistan.
The U.S. is still sending Vice President Vance and Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner.
However, it's not clear if Iran is sending a delegation.
The current ceasefire expires Wednesday.
Tensions escalated over the weekend.
U.S. officials say Iranian forces fired on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
And yesterday, President Trump said a U.S. Navy-guided missile destroyer fired on and seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship after the crew refused to comply with warnings over a six-hour period.
According to maritime tracking data, no tankers crossed the strait yesterday.
The president has said the U.S. is prepared to strike power plants and bridges in Iran if no deal is reached.
We want to hear from you.
What's your reaction to the latest developments in the Iran war?
And what do you make of the possibility of negotiations with Iran?
Here's how to reach us.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can also text us at 202-748-8003.
Send us your first name in your city-state.
And we're on social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
Here is the latest from CNBC.
Iran rebuffs Trump's plan for a new round of peace talks, according to state media.
It says this.
It says that Iran said that it denied it would participate in new peace talks with the U.S. President Donald Trump has said U.S. negotiators would head to Pakistan for the next round of peace talks with Iran on Monday.
And Iran's parliament speaker reiterated Iran's intention to restrict shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Well, here is President Trump on Fox News's Sunday Morning Futures talking about the Iran war and the U.S. economy.
Are you happy with the reaction since you put this blockade in place in the Strait of Hormuz?
Well, it's been pretty amazing, actually.
I thought that was going to happen.
They reacted to this even, I think, you know, we've obliterated them.
And this almost seems to be more of a reaction than we had before.
So we'll see.
I mean, look, it only matters the end result.
And we're doing very well.
We started off with Venezuela.
We showed everybody how good I built the military.
I rebuilt and built the military in my first term.
I didn't know I was going to be using it this much.
But we have the greatest military in the world, not even a contest.
And think of it.
They have no Navy.
They have no Air Force.
Everything's been wiped out.
They have no anti-aircraft equipment.
They have no radar.
They have no leaders.
The leaders they have are now, it's a new regime, okay?
And we find them pretty reasonable, to be honest with you.
By comparison, pretty reasonable.
It really is a new regime.
And I think we're doing very well, but it only matters what the end result is, and maybe it'll happen fairly soon.
Who knows?
Did you get any pushback from the Chinese or the Saudis about blocking the straight of Hormuz?
No, I had none.
I had none.
Let me move on to domestic issues, sir.
What are your top priorities now for the economy for the rest of the year?
To be honest, we are doing so well.
You look at this.
I hit the 50,000 Dow mark, which everyone said couldn't happen in four years.
I did it in one year.
I hit the 7,000 SP mark in less than one year, which was a number, as you know, but you reported it.
They said, if at the end of four years you hit those numbers, I did it at the end of a year.
And I said, now we have to do a little bit of a turn, a detour, to a place called Iran, and we have to stop them from ever having a nuclear weapon.
And if you told me that in the midst of it, we would have a stock market that's almost as good as it was two months ago, just about, very close, and that we'd have oil, that we'd be selling oil, that oil would be at 92 or whatever it is right now, instead of 200, because a lot of people said, oh, it'll be 200.
This is in the midst of everything.
No, I think we're doing very well, and maybe people assume we're going to win this thing pretty soon.
Now, here is what President Trump posted on Truth Social.
This is at 3.23 p.m. yesterday.
He said, Today, an Iranian-flagged cargo ship named Tusca, nearly 900 feet long and weighing almost as much as an aircraft carrier, tried to get past our naval blockade, and it did not go well for them.
The U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer USS Spruance intercepted the Tusca in the Gulf of Oman and gave them fair warning to stop.
The Iranian crew refused to listen, so our Navy ships stopped them right in their tracks by blowing a hole in the engine room.
Right now, U.S. Marines have custody of the vessel.
The Tusca is under U.S. Treasury sanctions because of their prior history of illegal activity.
We have full custody of the ship and are seeing what's on board.
Now, the Iranian state news posted this on X.
They said this.
Under these conditions, the outlook for constructive talks remains bleak.
The news published by the U.S. is part of their propaganda campaign and a, quote, blame game aimed at pressuring Iran.
And we'll go to your calls now.
We'll start with Virginia in Waldorf, Maryland.
Republican, good morning, Virginia.
Good morning.
My take on the war is that he needs to start concentrating on the economy.
I mean, he's boasting about the markets and how well SP is doing and stock market.
And what he's not facing is the Iranian war.
I just paid $5 for a gallon of gas.
I mean, he needs to start focusing on us.
All right, Virginia.
Let's talk to Douglas next, who's in New Hampshire Independent Line.
Good morning.
Yeah, the President basically betrayed the country for Israel.
There's only one terrorist nation in the Middle East, and that's Israel.
They kill babies and children on purpose.
They kill reporters on purpose.
They're the ones who want nonstop war.
Then they're basically blackmailing the president to do this.
And Douglas, do you worry at all about Iran getting a nuclear weapon?
No.
If they use it, they'd be eliminated.
Nobody uses nuclear weapons.
And what do you think would happen if they did get a nuclear weapon and used it for deterrence?
There'd be peace.
We'd be back to $2 for gas.
I want that.
All right.
And let's hear from Edward in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Democrat, you're on the air, Edward.
Yes, I just wanted to comment on how unpopular the war is amongst.
I'm guessing these people are mostly younger.
They're extremely angry about Gaza and the Israeli attacks, and I guess you could call it genocide in Gaza.
And they do not like the pro-Israel stance of our military.
In other words, we may have followed Israel in.
I don't know the planning of the war.
It seems, of course, because it's Trump, it's haphazard and it's chaotic.
And I don't think a lot of this, the military strategy went through the Pentagon.
But I can tell you, we just had a convention, a party convention in Michigan, and it was an all-time record attendance.
Like, I think it was 8,000 or 9,000 delegates showed up.
And I would call the anti-Israel, and they're anti-APAC.
There's this lobbying, pro-Israel lobbying group called APAC.
And there's a group, or there's an online source called APAC Tracker, and they've been tracking all the, or supposedly, I don't know if these numbers are good, but APAC Tracker has the numbers of the donations to all of our Democratic incumbents.
And the whole Gaza thing is very unpopular.
And so, I mean, Gaza happened before the last election, Edward, right?
So what do you think has changed since then with this Iran war?
Do you think that it's changed at all?
I mean, because this was, I mean, how Israel conducted the war in Gaza had already happened before the 2024 election.
Well, I can tell you, I just, reading the comments of Democrats, I'm following Democrats on Facebook, they think that it's appalling.
We just had a vote.
Most of the Democrats in the Senate voted against continuing aid to Israel.
It's not just Gaza.
It's whole Middle East policy, Middle East policy, which is relentlessly pro-Israel and pro-war.
And nobody is going to tell, apparently nobody in the Trump administration is going to tell Netanyahu, stop bombing Lebanon, stop bombing Gaza, come to an agreement.
You know, I mean, the thing about Trump is that he is chaotic.
He's sloppy.
He doesn't read.
He doesn't listen to advisors.
And so I don't believe anything that he talks about when he talks about our strategy in Hormuz.
For example, he didn't know that Iran was going to close Hormuz.
And the analysts would have said that's one of their options is to close the Straits of Hormuz.
And we were completely unprepared for that.
Now we're so...
You know what, Edward?
That's something I'm going to ask Danielle Plutka about later in the program.
We'll have her on from AEI to talk about that and ask about the planning that went in for the closure of the state.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think it was sloppy and haphazard, but that's typical Trump.
All right.
Well, let's hear from Congressman Roe Khanna.
He is a Democrat of California.
He was on ABC yesterday talking about the war.
Well, they said they want to escalate to de-escalate.
They've escalated to devastation.
I mean, you have the Pope lecturing America about possible war crimes.
You have the president, as you pointed out, threatening to destroy all power plants.
I didn't think we would ever get to that point.
You have the Strait of Hormuz that is now blocked.
This never happened before the war.
What have we achieved?
Gas is up from $2.30 to $4.
You have now Iran having a more hardline regime, as we just heard, and all our allies like UAE being hit.
I mean, we've created devastation and we're being lectured by the Pope.
But let me ask you: you've called the war, I think I have this correct, the biggest blunder in American foreign policy in the 21st century.
If this gets to a resolution, I mean, if they actually, and I know that's a big if, but if they actually get to a resolution where Iran has given up its nuclear program and there is a peace deal, maybe even a peace deal with Lebanon, are you prepared to revise that and say that they actually got something out of it and it wasn't a blunder?
If we actually achieve something, but the enriched uranium is still there, we have a more hardline regime there.
Khamenei Jr. actually wants to develop nuclear weapons.
Does anyone believe that we actually have more leverage of the Strait of Hormuz?
We have less.
China has more influence in Iran, and we've lost our entire moral credibility.
We have a president of the United States threatening to wipe out Iranian civilization, and people think it's normal.
And then you have a situation where our troops are at risk, where a president who campaigned on peace is spending now $400 billion to spend more money on these wars.
Why aren't we spending that on health care here, jobs here, child care here?
Why aren't we addressing the needs of the American people?
I'm Team America.
He seems to be more obsessed with the Middle East.
Congressman Rokana, and this is Howard in Ohio, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Yeah, I think Trump should go all the way.
I mean, the reason why all these people want to keep coming to America, some decent ones, you know, it's because they want a good life.
But none of them want to fight for their own country.
So they all pour in here and then they take our resources.
We were already underhoused, didn't have enough housing to begin with.
Wait, Howard, you're talking about Iranians?
No, I'm talking about country people, period.
Okay, no, so we're just talking about Iran.
Yeah, go ahead.
Okay.
Iranians, right?
They have let a regime take over their country.
Well, stand up and take your country back.
Trump should go all the way.
He should.
Every time we stand up.
They tried that, Howard.
They tried that, and they got machine gunned in the streets.
Pardon?
They tried to rise up and take their country, and they got machine gunned in the streets.
What does that tell you about those people?
Mixed Up Priorities00:15:46
They are a bully.
They've been bullies for 50 years that we know of.
I mean, I'm in my late 60s.
And all they do is they cost us money all these years.
They've cost us lives.
They've cost us everything.
Be done with the bully.
Go all the way, make it into a stone age, take out their electric and stuff, and the people will uprise and take care of it like they're supposed to.
We can't be the policemen of the world.
It's nice, but you can't do it.
All right, Howard.
Let's talk to Mike next.
Independent, Beatlesfield, Arkansas.
Good morning.
Battlesfield, yes.
Oh, Battlesfield.
See, they put an E.
It wasn't me, Mike.
Oh, no, no, that's correct.
Bettles, like a kettle.
Bettle.
Oh, like a kettle.
Bettlesfield.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay.
The new road to Nome is possibly going through here.
But good morning.
Wait, you're in Alaska, not Arkansas.
Sorry.
I'm just getting this completely wrong, Mike.
Okay.
Well, that's okay.
Call screeners have so much to do that they kind of confuse things once in a while, but that's okay.
It's up in the Arctic, Alaska.
But I'm disgusted with the man I voted for, Mimi.
And I'm not going to vote again until they get rid of the e-machines and mail imbalance.
But there's no justice in America for the terrible crimes happening across our great country now.
And now all our treasure is being wasted on a dead-end policy of endless war and money laundering.
President Trump has burned all his patriotic bridges.
I mean, people that are so good, like Marjorie Taylor Greene and I think Tillis and Alex Jones.
And we love our president, but he's, we don't know if it's the vax that is changing his thinking or what.
But I mean, our country, there's violence in our street.
There's no justice for Maorcas.
He let all the illegals in.
Where's Majorkas at?
Where is Fauci?
Fauci has murdered millions of people across this country.
And here we're in another war again.
Our priorities are so mixed up.
We can get abortion by mail now.
Yeah, yeah.
So, Mike, let me ask you about when you say we're in another war.
Had you been in favor of the Venezuela operation?
I was.
In fact, I think it was overdue because of the horrific street murder by bulldozers that Noriega, but Hugo Chavez was committing.
And it was no more, no zoo animals left.
They were depending on zoo animals and their pets to live.
No, Maduro.
Yeah.
Chavez is gone.
I'm sorry.
Not Hugo.
So, Mike, if that kind of operation had happened in Iran, if that had played out the same way, would you have been in favor of that?
Where it was just, we got the supreme leader, now we got somebody else that's willing to work with us, we're good, we're done.
Well, there's different countries and continents in play here.
China's actually pulling the strings of Iran, as they also are behind the scenes pulling the strings of our president.
And so is Israel.
Israel's disgusting what they're doing.
I mean, I love Israel, but right now I can't stand the Jews on the violence that they're committing in the street.
They just are bashing crosses of Jesus on live streaming, and then they're denying it, and then they're persecuting you if you report on it.
I'm disgusted with our whole country the way we're going.
Demi, we're going the wrong direction.
We're supposed to put in 100,000 electrical recharging stations for a billion dollars.
What happened to that money?
What happened to the trillion dollars?
So, Mike, you said initially that you are not going to vote anymore.
Does that mean you're not voting in the midterm elections?
Nope.
I'm not voting ever again because it's being used against us as a weapon, and President Trump's not doing anything about it.
It dropped the ball on the priorities of America.
Let's go back over to the Middle East.
We are battle-weary.
We're not spending, we don't want to spend one more damn dime or one more precious body lost over for those camel jockeys that hate us on both sides.
They hate us.
What are we doing there?
All right, we got your point, Mike.
Let's talk to Pat, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Independent.
Go ahead, Pat.
Good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
I'll be brief.
My biggest problem with Trump is all of the misinformation, disinformation he spreads.
And I'll just focus on one that was highlighted in page six of the Wall Street Journal this morning.
And basically, it's this.
In his interview with Fox, he was saying how the new regime in Iran is so much easier to work with, just like Venezuela, and completely false because he doesn't even know what that regime is.
That article specifically pointed out that while we're talking to one diplomat, another group, the Iranian guard, is saying, no, that guy's an idiot.
Don't pay attention to him.
So we don't even know who we should be talking to, which just tells you more about the truthfulness and honesty and a little bit of the ineptness going on.
Thank you very much.
Let's talk to Renee, West Palm Beach, Florida, Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I would like to address your comment when you said about Gaza being something that happened unrelated or before the Trump presidency.
No, no, no.
Before the election.
So because he was talking about it's very that it turned people against Israel or that it made people disappointed with Israel.
And I said that that had already been happening even before the election.
So, yeah.
So just to clarify, but go ahead, Renee.
And it was.
And so Trump was the one, though, that came in with the peace plan.
And Israel never ever, it just went from one conflict to another to another.
There's a through line from Gaza to Lebanon to now Iran.
In terms of planning, I don't know who your guest is, but I just want to emphasize that Netanyahu visited the White House seven times in one year, had also met in the situation room with the president on February 11th.
They also, there's also, it's also been public information that they had already decided to go to war with Iran, even in the midst of peace talks.
It's not the first time Netanyahu has undermined every single peace plan proposal, every single ceasefire plan since Gaza, one after the other.
Israel bombed Lebanon last night on a bridge north or that connects the Latani River, and it's just non-stop.
It's non-stop since Gaza.
Thank you so much for letting me speak this morning.
Okay, Renee, let's hear from Ambassador Mike Waltz.
He's U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
He was on CBS's Face the Nation yesterday about negotiations.
Here he is.
Okay, so, but back to the point of who's in charge.
President Trump says he hopes they take the deal.
That was the post this morning.
But on Friday afternoon, he spoke to my colleague Weizha Zhang, and he gave this incredibly optimistic read.
He said Iran had, quote, agreed to everything, including to stop enriching uranium forever and to stop backing all proxy groups like Hezbollah.
He made it sound like it's all been sorted out.
So which is it?
Was there an agreement with certain parts of the Iranian government, but now there are others in charge?
Or was he just, you know, I don't know, speculating about something he hopes comes true?
Margaret, anybody who has dealt with the Iranians will tell you it is often two steps forward, three steps back.
They're incredibly slippery.
They can't be trusted.
They've cheated over the years, which is one of the reasons that President Trump withdrew us from the JCPOA.
They were hiding sites.
They were hiding capabilities.
And this is why he made the bold decision last year in Operation Midnight Hammer to just end it once and for all.
And again, we have to take the perspective that we're not waiting, we're not trusting.
We are reducing their capabilities.
Their military is in shambles.
Their missile program is in shambles.
And now, hopefully, diplomatically, they will do it the easy way rather than the hard way of finally giving up on this illegal ambition.
And we've got a couple of things here on text.
Here's Mike in Woodbury, Minnesota, who says Trump's 60-day window will be up near the end of the month.
While we can extend it 30 days, it's time for Congress to reel him in.
We will be asking our guest, our next guest, Max Cohen, about that from Punch Bowl News.
Here's Johnny B. who says, our president is bending over backwards to solve this peacefully.
Looks like a regime that kills its own citizens doesn't want peace.
That was on X.
And here is Sam in Bakersfield, California on text.
The Iranians are not dealing with Trump, period.
They won't back down.
They own the strait.
Our economy is going to collapse, just like the first time he was in office.
Jerry, Broadway, Virginia, Republican line, you're on the air.
Yeah, good morning.
Morning.
I'd like to say something about these people saying that Trump and the administrator had no plans for this, no plans that Iran would close the strait.
I beg to differ.
He started planning this in 2016.
What did he do?
He started ramping up U.S. oil production.
He started rebuilding our military.
And Venezuela, same thing.
It was all part of this plan.
Say he'd been planning this a long, long time.
He knows what he's doing.
And how long do you expect gas prices to be elevated, Jerry?
Probably not near as high as they were when the Democrats were in charge.
It was over $5 a gallon, both during Biden administration and Obama's administration, wasn't it?
No, not during Obama administration, but yes, it got to 502, the national average, during the Biden administration.
That was in 2022 after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
Pretty high during the Obama administration, too.
All right, Jerry.
Let's take a look at this is Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia.
He was on Fox News Sunday yesterday talking about his expectations for the war in Iran.
By the way, we are taking your calls this hour on that topic on the possibility of negotiations with Iran, what you think about how it's going so far.
You can go ahead and call in now.
Republicans are on 202748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents 202748-8002.
Here is Senator Tim Kaine.
Yeah, and I wish the State Department hadn't sacked all their experts on the region.
Using Witcoff and Kushner doesn't really make sense.
Vance or Rubio or Walls is a different matter.
They are the kinds of folks who should be doing this.
Well, here's what I think needs to happen.
You need to get Iran back to the place that they agreed to in 2015-16, that they would never seek to acquire developed nuclear weapons.
They agreed to that.
Donald Trump tore that up.
You need to get them back to that.
And then you need to get the straits of Hormuz open.
They were open before this war started on February 28.
But I think they have to be open to all.
And so what happened is we announced the ceasefire.
That needs to be extended and that the straits would be open.
And they were open briefly, but President Trump continued to blockade Iranian ports.
And so Iran reclosed the Straits.
If they're going to be open, I think they have to be open to all.
And it's my hope that in the negotiations, we would first agree to extend the ceasefire.
Then we would talk about this nuclear issue.
And look, I think the U.S. has other issues on the table, too, about ballistic missiles or support for terrorism in the region.
And I think Iran is going to say, you've assassinated our leaders, you've bombed civilian infrastructure, bridges, and schools.
We want help in rebuilding what you have helped destroy.
But it's much easier to have that discussion if there's a ceasefire and the straits are open.
So that's my hope.
Here is the latest from the Associated Press.
It says U.S. seizure of Iranian ship near the Strait of Hormuz cast doubt on fresh ceasefire talks.
It says the U.S. attacked and seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship, it said had tried to evade its naval blockade near the Strait of Hormuz Monday.
It was the first interception since the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports began last week.
Iran's joint military command vowed to respond, throwing a fragile ceasefire into question days before it expires on Wednesday.
Tom in Rochester, New York, Democrat, you're on the air.
Yes.
I think Trump and his pound car should stop messing with the Near East, especially Iran.
Iran, those people in the Near East, they really don't care too much about life or death.
So what he's threatening is just a game that they've been playing BC and they're playing it AD and they're playing it right now.
So you might as well forget about it and pack up his ships, his army, and go play war somewhere else.
Thank you.
James, Lyles, Tennessee, Independent, good morning.
Yes, my name is James Baston.
I live in Lyles, Tennessee.
I'm a United States Navy submarine veteran.
I served on the USS Georgia SSBN 729, the same sub that took out Iran's nuclear Soviets.
This should have been done back in 1979 under Carter.
And all the other presidents didn't have the guts to do it, but Trump did.
Trump knows the threat.
All these whiners on here crying about gas prices.
Think about the men and women over there serving and giving and putting their lives online for these Caribs at home.
You know.
And James, do you believe that the military is the best way to take care of the regime in Iran?
Ma'am, we've been negotiating with them since 1979.
If Carter had done what he was supposed to and took our people back from the embassy and still leaving them, the Marines wouldn't have got killed in Beirut.
If he had snuffed this out and cut the head of a snake off then, this would not be happening now.
Dangerous Negotiations00:15:05
You cannot negotiate with terrorists.
These people, the Koran says all infidels must be put to death.
If you don't believe in Oman Mohammed under these radical Sunni Muslims, if you don't believe like they do, we're infideles.
This means all of the United States.
It doesn't matter whether you're a Democrat.
It doesn't matter whether you're a Republican.
It doesn't matter whether you're Independent or what.
You cannot reason with these people because they're unreasonable.
So you're against any negotiations.
You would end the ceasefire and go back in militarily.
If they don't sign the agreement, yes.
President Trump's trying to save the world.
But you said negotiations would not work with Iran in any case.
Even if you got to an agreement, they wouldn't.
Well, yeah, if they get to agreements, but I don't think they will.
They're stalling.
That's what they're famous for.
Stalin.
Ma'am, I served on submarines for 18 years.
I was all over the United States.
I served on the Los Angeles class last attack, the USA Chicago, too.
And we were out there in the middle of the ocean.
That's why Russia has not attacked the United States because of our nuclear capabilities.
And we're using our capabilities for peace.
They want to use their nuclear capabilities for war.
All right.
Let's hear from the Energy Secretary.
This is Chris Wright.
He was on CNN's State of the Union yesterday talking about gas prices.
When you were on the show March 8th, I asked you when gas prices would go under $3 a gallon for regular unleaded.
You said, quote, in the worst case, this is a weeks.
This is not a month's thing.
That was six weeks ago, so we're still within the weeks realm, but we're two weeks away from the month's thing.
When do you think it's realistic for Americans to expect that gas will go back to under $3 a gallon?
I don't know.
That could happen later this year.
That might not happen until next year.
But prices have likely peaked and they'll start going down.
Certainly with the resolution of this conflict, you'll see prices go down.
Prices across the board on energy prices will go down.
But it might not be under $3 a gallon until 2027.
Under $3 a gallon is pretty tremendous in inflation-adjusted terms.
We had that in the Trump administration, but we hadn't seen that in inflation-adjusted terms for quite a long time.
We'll get back there for sure.
And that was the Energy Secretary.
This is David in Flint, Michigan.
Democrat, good morning, David.
Good morning, C-SPAN.
I think he should have never taken us into this war with Iran.
And I can't pronounce his name good, the Israeli President Netanyahu.
Netanyahu?
Yeah, thank you.
Yeah, he came over here and he convinced the president to start this big war.
And he's put us in a quagmire.
We're stuck over there fighting.
We've lost 13 young people's lives.
And people got to realize when people die, you know, when you die, you're done forever.
And it wasn't worth it.
We had no business over there.
And I hear the Republicans calling in, oh, we're the big United, our nation, the big, strong United States, we can just blow those people and they'll scare down and do what we say.
Some people don't care about life and death.
They don't care.
They're going to fight for what they believe in.
And we shouldn't have been over there.
We shouldn't have went into Venezuela.
We had no business over there kidnapping those people's president, trying to run their country.
He can't even run the United States.
So, David, now that we are in Iran, what do you think should happen?
What should the president do?
I hope they can get a ceasefire and open up the waterways over there by Iran and try to do something to stop the war and stop Israel from starting all these problems over there and try to get it so we can open up and get the oil back flowing.
They need agreement with them.
They don't need to be trying to bulldoze those people and be tough.
They need a peace agreement.
All right, David.
This is what AZ Tech says on X. Do we see Iran chanting death to America or paying for terrorism?
Can we promote less oppression for women and children in Iran?
Jorge Martinez on Facebook says, keep the pressure.
Iran violated the ceasefire agreement when they fired at two different tankers and tried to run through the blockade.
And that is what we're getting on that.
And let's go to Mark, Somerville, South Carolina, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Hey, all this stuff about anti-Trump and everything.
We had nuclear weapons being built over there in Iran for a long time now.
And we tried negotiations and diplomacy.
And you could even see what just happened recently, just now about Iran opening it up and then they're closing it up.
Now we're back and opening it up and then we're closing it.
This is the problem.
You can't diplomacy and negotiations with people that ain't going to hold firm for what they say.
That 10-year sunset clause on that nuclear deal of President Obama, that's what, you know, that was going to happen.
They were going to make nuclear weapons 10 years after that anyway.
So that deal wasn't worth a crap plus.
You didn't have inspections like we should have had.
So the bottom line is, these people kill their own people.
What do you think they're going to do when they chant Tech America when they have the opportunity?
Now, everybody says that 10 or 12 nuclear warheads capabilities might not have been true.
Well, maybe we ought to find out if that's true or not.
But the bottom line of this big picture is these people in charge of Iran, Iran wants to be westernized, the regular people.
They had it before 1979.
They don't, you know, when we have these people killing their own people and killing and wanting to kill us in Israel, that's why we had to do what we had.
We keep saying he should never have done this.
They were even making the drones and those missiles.
If we didn't get it done now, how bad a shape would we be able to get into when we had to go over there and do what we have to do right now?
Because I lived under USSR days when we got under our desks at the elementary schools and all that.
And it was a thing.
It was a big joke.
If you get hit by nuclear weapons, especially the ones these days, it goes a lot further than the atom bombs of Japan.
These people are dangerous.
And the Iranians want to have to be a country of prosperity and not be known as a terrorist country.
And the best thing is to save more lives in the future is to do what we did now.
And all this blockade and stuff, you can see what they're about.
This is dangerous, what's going on, and Trump had to do what he had to do for future generations and for us Americans for our national security.
When they want this thing about the War Powers Act, when you couldn't get 535 trying to be commander-in-chiefs, when they came and fund the Homeland Security to this day, like they ought to, for this national security and the safety of us Americans, this is why we got Trump.
That's why we love Trump.
He follows through what he says he's going to do.
He got our country secured for that border that we said we'd have to get new laws.
We didn't need new laws.
They'd just be enforced.
That's all we need.
There's laws in the books now for everything.
It all comes down to enforcement.
And thank God for President Trump to have the guts to do what he needs to do for future generations.
Because that's what it comes down to.
You can't mess around nuclear weapons with a terrorist nation.
Bottom line.
Thank you.
All right, Mark.
Gordon is on the line for Democrats, Cleveland, Ohio.
Hi, Gordon.
Hello.
Good morning.
And how are you folks doing today?
Good.
It's good to hear.
Go ahead, Gordon.
I want to say that I think President Trump has opened up Pandora's marks and can't possibly close it now.
And this war is, though I do understand and have somewhat uh, sympathy for the uh, the people of Iran.
I think they deserve democracy, just like anybody everybody does.
Unfortunately, Trump has gotten us into this, to this war and um, he can't possibly get us out.
He can't just walk away because he can't lose anything.
And if he just walks away, we've lost how many lives and how many billions of dollars.
And the money doesn't really matter anymore.
It's the lives that count.
Putting our servicemen in harm's way.
And I'm a veteran myself.
And I feel so horribly bad for these families that are having to go through all of this because they'll live with us for the rest of their lives.
The loss of their loved ones.
And why?
Because President Trump can't do anything without being led.
And he followed Israel right into this thing and allowed them to take us into hell's doorway.
All right, Gordon.
And Senator Rick Scott was on Fox News, and he posted this on X.
He says, Democrats will oppose anything President Trump does to protect Americans.
First, they wanted open borders.
Now they want to hand Iran a nuclear weapon.
They don't care about the American people.
Fortunately, we finally have a president who has stopped appeasing the Iranian regime.
And this is Senator Cortez Masto, who posted this on X.
She posted the AP headline, Spiking Gas Prices Tied to Iran War Are Set to Eat Up Tax Refunds, touted by Trump.
And then she said, but don't worry, President Trump said gas prices are, quote, not very high.
Here's Yvonne in Florida, line for Republicans.
Good morning, Yvonne.
Good morning.
I listened to a lot of these comments, and I am so outraged at the ignorance and the stupidity of so many of these Democrat callers.
First of all, I'd like to know these same callers who are calling in talking about that we need to pull out of Iran are the same people who were like, we need to send more money to Ukraine.
We need to send more money to Ukraine.
If we don't take care of Ukraine, Russia will come over here.
What the hell do you think Iran was going to do?
They call us the big Satan.
They call Israel the Little Satan.
And you people are so hellbound against anything Trump does because the mainstream media has been very good at brainwashing people hating Trump.
Anything he does.
I mean, if that man found a cure for cancer, you would find a way to make it negative.
It just doesn't matter what the hell the man does.
And when Obama gave them billions of dollars.
They wouldn't allow our people to go in and check to see what they were doing in the nuclear thing when we had checkpoints.
I don't know what you call them, but they were able to come in and make sure everything was taken care of in the right way according to agreements.
They turned them away.
Obama did nothing.
There was no recourse.
There was no anything.
They just did what they wanted.
People could say Korea has a nuclear bomb and all these other.
Do you know the mindset of the Iranian regime?
My God, do you people know who you're dealing with?
And my last comment I want to make is for all of you people who are hating on Israel and the Jewish people, and you call yourself Christians, you better read your Bible because God's word says, I will bless those who bless Israel, and I will curse those who curse Israel.
You Democrats better wake up because.
Okay, got that.
Shannon, Independent Line, Cortland Manor, New York.
Good morning.
Hi, good morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
It's interesting.
I was actually calling to say that I think it's extremely gracious the way you're able to listen to some of the ignorance that comes from some of these callers.
And then the woman who came on before me basically said that and then proceeded to spew a bunch of inaccurate facts regarding us helping Ukraine and making a false comparison to us helping Ukraine, comparing that to us invading Iran.
At the end of the day, this is not a healthy war for anybody.
We have a lot of problems here at home.
And I think it's really, really ridiculous that so many people have made this into such a partisan issue.
It really is not about left or right or middle.
It's about what's best for the home front.
And I think we need to get back to focusing in on that.
Also, the woman who called before me said something about Israel and Jews.
Israel is a place.
Jew is a whole different religion.
We can't make them the same thing.
People can disagree with some of the things that are happening in Israel and not be against Jewish people.
Ridiculous War Crime Narrative00:09:54
We have to stop doing that also.
Again, during the campaign, the president said he really appreciated the uneducated, and it's showing that more than ever.
Thank you.
Here's Brent in Cedral Woolley, Washington, Line for Democrats.
Good morning.
Hi.
Thank you for taking my call.
Good men, Republicans are at it today.
One, you know, Republicans are always talking about how the Iranians say death to America, death to America.
Well, that's just a stupid chat.
It's no different than let's go Brandon.
And everybody knows let's go Brandon was a derogatory statement for something else, which none of us are going to go out and actually do the deed with Joe Biden.
But that's what it meant.
But anyway, Virgil from talking earlier, you always say we've got to give the president more time, more time, more time.
Well, how much time does he need?
He has ruined our economy.
He has ruined our reputation in the world.
He has lied every day of his life.
And he has buffooned all of you into thinking he's something great.
And, you know, and then we talked about the money that President Obama sent him for making a deal.
It was their money.
Their money, not ours, their money.
Iran is not the problem.
Israel and the United States are the problem.
All right, and let's hear from Ambassador Mike Waltz.
He was on NBC's Meet the Press talking about the potential for extending the ceasefire.
Ambassador Walsh, let me talk to you about the ceasefire, the ceasefire between the United States in Iran, as you know, set to expire on Wednesday.
President Trump warned in his post this morning, if there's no deal, the U.S. will, quote, knock out every single power plant and every single bridge in Iran.
No more, Mr. Nice Guy.
If there is no deal by Wednesday, will the president extend the ceasefire agreement?
Well, that's ultimately a decision for the president.
I'm certainly not going to negotiate on national.
Is it on the table?
Is that possibility?
Well, everything's on everything, absolutely everything's on the table, and the president's made it very clear he is prepared to escalate to de-escalate this conflict, as he should be.
But I just want to get ahead of this other ridiculous and frankly irresponsible narrative that this would somehow constitute a, quote, war crime that we've heard from Democratic politicians, the media, and others in the international community.
That is wrong.
It's irresponsible.
And we have a long history of taking down bridges, power plants, and other infrastructure that is powering Iran's military.
And they have a long history of conflating civilian and military assets, including hiding weapons, caches, rockets, and military hardware in schools, hospitals, and other civilian neighborhoods, which is a war crime on Iran's part.
So I just want, that is, we just need to knock that down and stop that irresponsible rhetoric.
And we are taking your calls for about another 10 minutes on this topic of Iran.
I want to show you the latest news from the Associated Press.
It says that Iranian authorities have expressed willingness to send a delegation for a second round of talks in Islamabad this week, according to two Pakistani officials.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media, said there is cautious optimism that delegations from both Iran and the U.S. could travel to Islamabad.
They added that Pakistan will not share details about either side's travel plans due to security considerations.
They also urged media outlets to avoid speculation about the timing of the talks, saying the process remains fluid.
So we will certainly keep an eye on that fluid situation.
I agree with the other lady that called earlier, a few minutes ago, and she said the Democrats are a bunch of dumb-dums.
I agree with her 100% everything she said.
I was in Iran in 1976, and I don't agree with what Trump's doing right now, but they did say death to America and death to Israel.
And that is very ungodly.
You were there in 1976, so during the Shah's regime.
What were you doing there, if you don't mind me asking?
Just backpacking.
Okay, and then they were chanting death to America during the Shah's?
No, no.
Oh, I see.
No, that was before.
That was when it was very safe.
Okay.
And so you said you agreed with what the president's doing or disagreed?
I don't agree 100% with what he's doing, but I think that I think that America should stand up against it, Ron.
What do you think the president should do right now, Arlene?
That's a good question.
I wish I was a politician.
I looked into it.
All right.
We'll talk to Jessica next.
St. Paul, Minnesota.
Democrat, you're on the air, Jessica.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I just wanted to comment on the fact that I think this administration is wholly unprepared for any kind of diplomacy.
And to refer to Democrats as dum-dums is also just kind of ridiculous and inflammatory.
But I think my main point is that you've got Jared Kushner and Steve Witcoff over there attempting to make diplomatic headway, and they don't seem to know what they're doing.
I don't think that they've managed to eliminate anybody that seems to have any information or any way of knowing what's going on over there.
There was in the final days of the Geneva talks, Iran offered a moratorium, and they didn't take it because they don't think that they completely understood what that meant.
So I guess my, I don't agree with them being in Iran.
I don't agree with most of what this administration does.
And I think that we've lost valuable international diplomatic resources in this administration.
And who do you think should go if you don't like Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff?
Who should negotiate on behalf of the United States?
Well, perhaps people that have some information.
They've eliminated everybody that was knowledgeable about diplomacy, knowledgeable about Iran.
I think that we're just spinning our wheels and trying to look big and macho on the world stage.
And we're opening up China.
We're opening up Russia to come in and take over the world generally.
I mean, I think we're just making ourselves weaker.
All right.
And here's another call from St. Paul, Minnesota, Democrat.
Diane, good morning.
Good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
What I'm calling about, I have five young men who are Navy sailors and also Navy officers, two of them.
And I have three of them folks in the Middle East right now.
And one is on the JFK warship or whatever it's called.
And it was my understanding from listening to other news besides ours that that warship was bombed by Iran and 600 soldiers had to be rescued.
And I'm concerned about my other two nephews who are on, I can't think of the ship's name now because I'm 76 years old, but they ain't getting enough to eat.
They're not being fed.
You don't see that nowhere in the paper where they talked about that, the newspaper, that they don't get enough to eat.
They are hungry.
Now, how can you send our people, my people in particular?
I'm really concerned about them.
Hold on, Diane.
Where are you getting this?
Are they writing back to you saying that we're hungry and we're not getting enough to eat?
Or are you seeing it in a message about that on the ship that they're on that, yeah, they wasn't getting enough to eat from them personally?
Or you're seeing this on social media?
No, this was yesterday.
But it is out there on social media where they were talking about it.
I think it was on C and Ann where they were talking about the soldiers weren't getting enough to eat.
Lawmakers Catch Up00:14:54
That's over there.
And I'm talking about because they wanted them, there are two of them 50,000 that we got over there.
And I am concerned.
I just want you to send my boys home.
And I want to send my boys home alive.
That's all I want.
And we hope that as well, Diane, and this is another update from the AP.
Lebanon's president says his country will negotiate on its own.
He says the president hinted that Beirut will not accept that Iran negotiates on its behalf as part of U.S.-Iran talks.
And that's it for this segment.
Coming up a little later, American Enterprise Institute's Danielle Pletka weighs in on the latest developments on the U.S.-Iran war.
But first, it's Punch Bowl News congressional reporter Max Cohen.
He'll break down the week ahead on Capitol Hill.
We'll be right back.
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new MAGA research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
C-SPAN is as unbiased as you can get.
You are so fair.
I don't know how anybody can say otherwise.
You guys do the most important work for everyone in this country.
I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
You bring these divergent viewpoints and you present both sides of an issue and you allow people to make up their own minds.
I absolutely love C-SPAN.
I love to hear both sides.
I've watched C-SPAN every morning and it is unbiased.
And you bring in factual information for the callers to understand where they are in their comments.
It's probably the only place that we can hear honest opinion of Americans across the country.
You guys at C-SPAN are doing such a wonderful job of allowing free exchange of ideas without a lot of interruptions.
Thank you, C-SPAN, for being a light in the dark.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We're joined now by Max Cohen.
He's congressional reporter for Punch Bowl News.
Max, welcome to the program.
Thank you.
Always great to be on.
So let's talk about the Iran war.
What's going on in Congress as far as any war powers votes?
What has happened?
What do you expect to happen?
So last week, two war powers resolutions were defeated in the House and the Senate.
There are no other ones currently scheduled this week, but we can expect Democrats to start offering up more war powers resolutions in the coming weeks.
Has there been any shift in the people voting for or against it, or has it been stable?
There was a slight shift.
Democrats more or less coalesced around the House war powers resolution and lessened their defections.
But if people are expecting a big wave of Republicans to suddenly start voting with Democrats, you will be mistaken.
It's mainly party line votes happening in both chambers.
Now, Senators Collins and Tillis have said that they will, if the war reaches the two-month mark, which would be at the end of this month, they would vote in favor of a war powers bill.
What are you hearing about that?
Yeah, I think, you know, Collins and Tillis are two of the more moderate members of the Republican Conference, and they are signaling that they're not comfortable with this going past the 60-day mark.
We also have Senator Lisa Murkowski, who says she wants there to be an authorization of use of military force, AUMF, to actually formally give the president power here after the two-month mark.
So we're seeing some opposition from some more center-right Senate Republicans, but by and large, I think the parties are falling in line here.
And last week, a White House budget director, Russ Vogt, was on the Hill.
He told lawmakers he couldn't really ballpark how much the war in Iran is costing.
The White House is expected to ask for a supplemental.
So what's going on with that?
How much?
When would they ask for it?
Yeah, so during the DOD budget request that came out earlier this month, they said they want, I think, over $1 trillion for the year and then also said a supplemental request of around $350 billion.
Now that's not just for the war in Iran, but the DOD leaders were saying they'd like a supplemental included in a potential reconciliation package.
So we haven't seen a direct number anywhere for the Iran war.
But with regards to reconciliation, it's looking quite likely that the current package that Republican leaders are pursuing will only focus on ICE and border patrol.
So not sure where there's going to be an avenue to pass a supplemental.
Max Cohen is our guest.
He's in the studio and he's going to take your questions on anything related to Congress.
So you can go ahead and start calling in now if you've got a question.
Republicans are on 202748-8001.
Democrats on 202748-8000.
And Independents 202748-8002.
So the president has requested $1.5 trillion for the Defense Department for fiscal year 2027.
What's been the reaction on the Hill to that number?
I mean, it's a large number, and I think a lot of Republicans are in favor of plusing up the defense budget.
This has been a big priority of Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, for instance.
And predictably, Democrats are pretty wary of giving such a large number to a department they view is acting erratically and not being transparent enough.
One big thing I do want to flag among lawmakers is that there have been no public hearings yet on the war in Iran.
And that's frustrating both Republicans and Democrats.
A lot of these lawmakers are saying, if we're going to give you this large number for the department, you have to be transparent and come in front of Congress and explain what's going to happen here.
I want to ask you about FISA.
A totally different question, but this is the ability to surveil what are considered enemies of the United States.
So explain what's going on with that and what happened last week.
So Section 702 of FISA is what you just described, right, and that is up for renewal.
And currently there's a short-term renewal under effect that expires at the end of the month on April 30th.
Lawmakers in both chambers are trying to get a longer extension, 18 months or even five years.
But in the House of Representatives, a longer extension fell apart because of concerns over privacy from both right-wing lawmakers and liberal lawmakers.
So Mike Johnson and his leadership team tried a number of reforms.
They all failed on the House floor.
It wasn't good enough for these lawmakers.
So now we're entering a pretty crucial stretch in negotiations where lawmakers will try to see what they can come up with in a bipartisan way.
So far, there's not been a clear sense of where we're going to end up at the end of the month.
Okay, but President Trump is in favor of an 18-month extension, as is.
Yes.
So how did all these Republicans vote against that?
It's a great question.
We don't normally see Republicans going against the White House, right?
But what the Republicans, mainly in the House Freedom Caucus, said is the extension as is is not acceptable.
They think it still puts Americans' privacy at risk, and they want a warrant requirement for the surveillance, which would require more steps for the government to actually surveil when foreign actors involved with Americans.
And that's kind of what's at risk here.
I think most people are okay with surveilling foreign nationals.
It's when American citizens get ensnared in these spying, as some of the right-wing lawmakers would call it, is what they don't feel comfortable with.
And what about Democrats?
Are they all on board?
Most Democrats are opposed to the clean extension.
They view it as why would we give an administration who we don't trust more power to surveil Americans potentially.
I will flag there are some bipartisan talks happening behind the scenes with the leaders, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that's Jim Himes, and some more center-right pro-national security lawmakers like Brian Fitzpatrick and Darren LaHood.
So if this were to lapse, does that mean the United States could not surveil foreign nationals living in the United States?
Yeah, I mean, it would be a huge concern, and this is what is at risk here, right?
Is that the national security apparatus would be extremely weakened.
And when we saw Trump administration officials come to the Hill and lobby for this, they'd say, we're at a time when we're under increased risk of attack given the war in Iran, other terrorist threats.
We cannot afford to go dark here.
Kevin Warsh has been nominated to be the Fed chair, and his confirmation hearing is supposed to be this week.
What's happening with that?
Correct.
Yeah.
So Kevin Worsh is nominated to replace Jerome Powell.
This confirmation fight, however, is really less about Worsh himself, who I think most senators would approve of.
He's not necessarily controversial in his own right, and he's expected to get votes to be confirmed in a vacuum.
But the current investigation into Jerome Powell and the Fed's construction renovation, which the Trump administration is pursuing, is angering Senator Tom Tillis specifically.
And he's saying, as long as this investigation is happening, I cannot vote to advance Worshi out of committee.
So if that happens, it'll be a 12 to 12 deadlocked vote, and Worsch could not advance.
But would he still have his hearings, his confirmation hearing?
The hearing is still scheduled, and senators will ask him questions this week.
And Tillis actually said, who sits on the banking committee, said, during my five minutes of questioning, I will not direct any questions at Worsch.
I will just describe how frustrated I am that the D.C. district attorney is investigating Jerome Powell and this construction.
But that investigation is ongoing.
They have not stopped that.
That is correct.
And Tillis is saying, if this is still ongoing, you cannot count him by vote.
All right, let's talk to callers.
We'll start with Jack Lincoln, Montana, Republican.
Good morning, Jack.
Yes.
Hello.
I'm Jack Strickland.
Mr. Cohen, I'd like to get your opinion on a matter involving a political action committee with ties to several congressmen.
The group is known as National Institute guaranteeing greater equal rights.
They were in the news recently after holding a controversial rally at the N-Tower Coliseum in Broken Buck, Michigan.
The keynote speaker was an activist who simply calls himself Howling Mutant.
This man authored the children's book, Uncle Tim and the Big Yellow Truck.
But his most famous piece is a manual titled How to Kill the Entire Cast of Euphoria.
It's actually a riveting read, especially the part where he describes the very graphic rape and murder of Zendaya.
I would like to know if you feel that people like this should be given a voice in our society.
Let's go to Jimbo in Bakersfield, California, Independent Line.
Good morning, Jimbo.
To Brian Lamb and all my heroes at C-SPAN Washington Journal for your daily contribution to our democracy.
Max, you rock.
Every time you talk, I see you.
I stop what I'm doing and listen to what you say because you know what?
You're going to educate an old fool like me, and I am so appreciative of it.
Max, two questions here.
There has been an observable and an obvious cognitive decline in our president.
He speaks gibberish that's unintelligible, and when he writes, it's incoherent.
And it terrifies me that everyone seems to be ignoring this.
That's one comment.
And then on a completely separate issue, I was just wondering why no one ever takes into consideration the over 200 nuclear weapons that Israel has.
I keep on wondering if Iran were to send like a drone swarm attack on Tehran, what level of death and destruction will Israel tolerate before it unleashes a nuclear holocaust on Iran.
So these are just a couple of questions.
Max, you do a great job.
I'm so grateful.
And to all my friends at C-SPAN, thank you.
Thank you.
And I want to ask you about those votes on selling weapons to Iran.
Tell us about what happened there.
Well, to Israel.
To Israel, sorry.
What we saw was 40 Senate Democrats, the highest number we have ever seen, vote to block weapon sales to Israel.
There were two votes.
The 40 mark I noted was the high water mark among Democrats.
And this shows that the Democratic Party is undergoing a real change with how it views support for Israel.
A lot of Senate Democrats said that even though they had opposed similar votes in the past, what they're seeing from the Netanyahu government does not give them confidence that Israel will use these weapons in a responsible manner.
And it shows that the Democratic base, I think, is really influencing the lawmakers because I think we've seen for a long time in public opinion polling, increasingly Democrats say they're not comfortable with the Israeli government.
They oppose the Israeli government's war in Gaza and Lebanon, et cetera.
And now I think we're seeing lawmakers catch up.
And if I could quickly just address one of the first notes that the recent caller brought up, which was the president's fitness, I can tell you lawmakers on Capitol Hill are paying attention to this.
And I would note that Democrat Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, recently sent a letter to the president's physician requesting a cognitive fitness test and asking for a briefing from the president's doctor on Donald Trump's fitness.
Now, we don't expect this request to be granted given it comes from the minority in the House caucus, but it's important to note that Democrats are increasingly talking about Trump's fitness in a similar way that Republicans did about Joe Biden.
And regarding sales of weapons to Israel, is there any shift on the Republican side?
In the vote total, no.
So this was zero Republicans supported this, and it shows that Republicans by and large are standing by Israel.
However, I would also note there are some pockets of the Republican base which are increasingly oppositional towards Israel.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, for instance, folks like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, these are all people Donald Trump himself attacked in a recent Truth Social post.
But I'd say if you look at the far right, the Republican Party, support for Israel is no longer guaranteed.
Senate Movement on Weapons00:15:19
Two members of the House have resigned due to misconduct allegations.
So get us caught up on that and what further fallout that there might be.
Yeah, so Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzalez both resigned from the House last week.
They were going to face expulsion resolutions, and both of those likely would have passed.
So instead of being expelled, Swalwell and Gonzalez said, you know, I'm going to leave.
The Swalwell story is remarkable given that two weeks ago, he was the frontrunner to be the next governor of California.
According to the polls, multiple women then came forward and said he sexually assaulted them.
And after those allegations were published in the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN, Multiple Democratic lawmakers said, Eric Swalwell, you have to go.
He, we should note, has denied these allegations, but dropped out of the governor's race and is now out of the house.
And quickly, Tony Gonzalez admitted to an affair with a staffer, which is against House rules.
And he ended his reelection bid a couple a month ago or so and then resigned last week.
And he resigned within the hour of Swalwell's announcement.
So it would seem that there was a push at that point since we've got a one-for-one and everything remains the same as far as the numbers on the Democrats and the Republican side.
Correct.
So Ana Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida, has made some accusations as well against other lawmakers.
What's going on with that?
She is saying that she's heard about Senator Ruben Gallego engaging in improper acts while in office.
Now she has heard, but not against her.
No, no, not against her.
Yes.
So again, I would say there's been no news reporting on these allegations, so I would definitely separate them from what happened with Swalwell and Gonzalez.
These simply seem to be hearsay rumors until we see more.
Leader John Thewin has said these will be investigated if it's true.
But I definitely separate what happened with Luna and Jesus and Gallego of doing things in office with Swalo and Gonzalez.
And there's also Representatives Corey Mills and Churfilis Representative.
What's going on with that?
What's the latest on that?
Yeah, so this week is actually a really crucial stretch for Sheila Trifilis-McCormick, the Democrat from Florida, who is under federal indictment for allegedly diverting millions of dollars of COVID FEMA disaster release money to improper uses, including her political campaign.
She's pleading not guilty.
She's denies allegations.
But the House Ethics Committee has found her guilty on over 20 counts of wrongdoing.
And this week, tomorrow actually on Tuesday, the Ethics Committee will hand down its official sanction on what charges to recommend against her internally.
And this could lead to expulsion, given a bipartisan committee just the other week said she was guilty of over 20 counts.
And Corey Mills?
And Corey Mills.
So people are floating, you know, if Trufilis McCormick gets expelled, then Democrats will move to expel Corey Mills, Republican from Florida.
So he was accused of sexual or domestic violence.
The police paid a visit to his residence in D.C.
He has denied allegations, but Democrats are very concerned about his conduct and say that he should be out of office as well.
In addition, I shall note, a number of female GOP lawmakers are also saying what Corey Mills is alleged to have done is not proper and he should be expelled.
What do you make of all these expulsions and threats of expulsions when this really doesn't happen in Congress?
The last one was George Santos.
Exactly.
And before George Santos, you have to go back a pretty far, far distance to get the other one.
I think this is a sense of the public is really frustrated with what they see in Capitol Hill.
They see a lot of wrongdoing.
I mean, people already have a low view of Congress when they're polled about it.
And I think the public pressure is catching up to the institution.
And I would also note that, you know, with regards to Swalwell, Gonzalez, et cetera, I mean, this kind of sexual assault, I think many people in this country say, you know, we can no longer tolerate these allegations.
Of course, people have, they've denied wrongdoing, but with Swalwell, I mean, there was no ethics committee charge.
He's not been charged by any law enforcement office.
And I think in a previous era, people might have said, hey, let's let due process play out.
But in this current moment in American politics, I think people are saying I'm fed up and they're not willing to wait for this long legal process to play out.
They're saying these members have to go right away.
I mean, is this Me Too finally getting to Congress now, years later?
I think some people have speculated that, you know, this is like the belated Me Too movement in Congress.
We would still note, though, I mean, we hear still tons of stories in the halls of the Capitol about wrongdoing and members abusing their power.
And what I would note is it's unique to the specific nature of working on Capitol Hill.
There's no human resources department for these offices.
Basically, each lawmaker's office functions as its own workplace.
And I think this can lead to a lot of abuses.
And people are waking up to this and saying things have to change.
So if a woman is abused by a Congress person, where, or I should say a man or a woman is abused, where are they supposed to go?
Like, what's the process?
Yeah, I can't say I know exactly the details.
I want to be clear.
But what we hear from people is that the person they would probably first turn to is the chief of staff in an office or maybe even the lawmaker themselves.
But of course, in these individual offices, that's not going to work because they can feel fear of retribution and being punished for this.
Kaz is calling from Honolulu, Independent.
Good morning.
Kaz, are you there?
Yeah.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, go ahead.
Yes, you know, I'm a third generation Japanese.
My dad fought in a row too, and I'm very upset with Congress regarding the Social Security.
I read the USA news article that in 2032, we're going to run out of money.
And Congress, I call Congressman Takuda's office and others to find out what's going on with my representatives.
They said they're working on it, but this is going to be, what, less than six years, maybe?
What is your opinion?
I'm fit out with Congress.
We're not doing anything about this on privacy.
What is your opinion about Social Security?
I think it's a very good point, and it's something that, frankly, is not on the agenda right now in Capitol Hill.
We're talking about all these things we're tracking this week, and Social Security and insolvency, just frankly, is members are not talking about this.
It's going to be a big issue.
It affects every American, basically.
But apart from, I'd say, the fiscal hawks and the members who are really concerned about these big spending programs and the national debt, it's pretty absent from everyday conversation on Capitol Hill.
And I think that stands in stark contrast to how everyday Americans interact with the government.
Social Security is one of the top ways people interact with federal government.
And yeah, Democrats, Republicans, I'm on Capitol Hill.
You know, every day, this is not something that people are talking about.
And what about cuts to social programs to pay for, for instance, the plus-up, the $1.5 trillion for defense?
What's going on with that?
Yeah, I think that is the trade-off that is being proposed, right?
We spend less on social and more on defense.
This is something, again, Democrats really don't agree with.
Republicans say we need a strong national security, a strong Defense Department to protect the homeland, or else what's the point of having any social programs.
And going back to DHS funding, is there really any push to get that done given that everybody's getting paid now?
Because that's usually the pain point, right?
Is people are working, they're being forced to work, and they're not getting paid.
Well, now everybody's getting paid.
So is anything going to happen?
So the White House is now saying that the everyone getting paid actually cannot last very much longer.
They're saying towards the end of the month is probably the last time they can continue to.
The end of this month.
Yes, the end of April, yeah.
And they're putting a lot of pressure on lawmakers in the House and Senate to pass the DHS bill because, of course, it is still under a government shutdown.
So there is movement right now in the Senate.
They're working on their reconciliation package to fund ICE and CBP.
And that is the first vote on that is going to be this week.
Will there be with reforms or without reforms?
Yeah, so this is no reforms.
It's simply Republican-only vote, no reforms that Democrats are asking for.
Now that's crucial because in the House, the hardliners are saying we will not vote to open DHS unless we get this funding for CBP and ICE.
So Republicans in the Senate are hopeful the House Republicans can unlock the DHS funding after they see they're making progress on ICE and CDP.
All right, we've got MLB who sent you this on X.
He wants to know, what are you watching in Congress that we're not watching right now?
What should we be watching?
Great question.
I'm going to talk about Virginia.
If anyone is in the DC media market, you've probably been inundated with ads for the redistricting referendum.
That vote is tomorrow.
And if it passes, Democrats in Virginia stand to benefit from a 10-to-1 redistricting gerrymander.
And that would really benefit House Democrats' chances of taking back the House.
Democrats in Virginia say this is in response to what happened in Texas, where Republicans added five seats.
But this is a crucial sense of where that battle for the House in November is going to go.
If this referendum passes, Democrats can feel better about taking back the majority.
All right, so what's the scorecard, if you will, so far on gerrymandering, right?
Starting with Texas.
And I know it goes way back before Texas.
But if we were to start with Texas, where are we with Republican and Democratic seats?
I think if we look at this from the bird's eye view, it is fairly even, which is not where it appeared at the beginning.
Beginning, it seemed like Republicans were out on front, right?
They started this cycle with Texas, but then California happened, right?
And then we've seen other chances for Republicans to gain more seats.
For instance, in Indiana, that failed.
Democrats also tried in Maryland, that failed.
And there's also going to be a Florida redistricting push happening in the coming weeks.
So I think it's still hard to know because there's still a lot of pieces in the puzzle yet to be filled out.
But I'd say overall, no party has a clear advantage.
And I think for Democrats, they enjoy that.
Mark is in Illinois, line for Democrats.
Mark, you're on with Max Cohen of Punch Bowl News.
I just comment that immigrants that are in the United States, they're paying Social Security if they have a legitimate job, and they have no benefit from it.
By getting rid of these honest immigrants, they're hurting Social Security more.
Was anybody ask about that?
Immigration, Social Security, I mean, these are top issues for Americans.
I'd say a lot of Republicans in Capitol Hill want fewer benefits for undocumented immigrants, whether that's Social Security or Medicare, et cetera.
That's been a big push of House Republicans, Senate Republicans saying these benefits should go to people who are here legally.
We've got this from Annette on X.
She says, how can we expect Congress to vote for the people of the United States when they have been paid by APEC to vote for Israel?
They want health care, food, and housing, security, education, or any other good quality of life.
Sorry, they spent it all on Israel.
I think if you look at the percentage of American aid to Israel versus the overall federal budget, you would see that this time of close being comparable, that what we spend in Israel is a tiny fraction.
But this is something you hear a lot from Democrats and also Republicans.
People are very angry about any U.S. support to Israel.
And as we just mentioned, the arms sales vote to Israel that happened in the Senate.
I think we're quickly approaching an era when any support for Israel at all is going to become politically controversial and for frankly, people in either party.
And we're really seeing a generational divide where younger people are opposed to supporting Israel.
Older people want to continue American support for Israel.
Correct.
I think that's a good point.
I think if you look at the role Israel played in the global stage when people of an older generation were growing up versus the current generation, Israel, you know, 50 or so years ago was seen as a scrappy upstart, the underdog perhaps, alone in a world with a lot of forces around them trying to invade them and destroy them.
And I think that led to a lot of support.
We also have to recognize that Israel is created after the Holocaust, the attempted extermination of the Jewish people, and that led, I think, to more support for Israel.
Nowadays, people growing up, they don't see Israel as an underdog.
They see Israel as the regional superpower.
And in many ways, what Israel has done with taking out Hezbollah in Lebanon and attacking Iran in addition to the military campaign in Gaza, Israel is seen as a powerful entity and no longer one that people feel like needs to be help of the U.S.
That is what the younger generation, I think, by and large feels.
John in Charleston, South Carolina, Democrat, you're on the air.
Hi, yeah, this is John.
I wanted to know why there has not been more of a request to look at removing the chief executive of the United States for his crimes that have been prosecuted in the courts already, but we're moving on congressmen.
So I think that's a reference to impeachment of Donald Trump.
And this is a story I actually reported quite heavily on with regards to House Democrats.
And I asked them, do you think Donald Trump should be impeached?
And a number of lawmakers said there's really no point in moving forward with impeachment given the Republican Senate.
And also, you know, Donald Trump has already been impeached twice, and it's not had any impact on his political future or his current role in office.
And some would say made him more popular.
Exactly, right?
That's probably one of the reasons Donald Trump was so successful in the 2024 Republican presidential primary was that he could say, look at how the Democrats are going after me.
And it actually forced all of the other Republicans in the field to kind of coalesce around him in addition to the legal challenges he faced.
On the Republican line in Greenfield, Indiana, Eric, good morning.
Good morning.
Go ahead, you're on the air.
Okay, my question is, there's been a lot of information about Omar and from Minnesota about the fraud of her marrying her brother to get citizenship naturalization.
And I was just wondering where it's going.
So I can tell you that the House Oversight Committee led by James Comer is investigating Ilhan Omar's partner.
This is not her brother.
This is her current husband, who allegedly Republicans are saying there is some funny business with his businesses and thus Ilhan Omar's personal wealth in addition.
The investigation hasn't gone any further than an initial letter which was released to the press a couple of weeks ago.
But it is accurate to say that Republicans in Congress are investigating Ilhan Omar and her family.
But we've seen nothing else come out on this.
Speaking of personal wealth, what's happening with banning stock trading for members of Congress?
It's really fallen off the front burner, honestly, I would say.
It's back in the back burner in Capitol Hill.
There have been a number of efforts that got close, but I think there's always the devil is in the details, right?
And members were quibbling over, okay, well, if you ban stock trading for a lawmaker, does that also extend to their spouse?
Term Limits Debate00:07:57
Does that also extend to their dependents, like children, et cetera?
And I think that's when it got really murky.
And also the question was, what do you do with blind trust?
How aggressively is that pursued?
What if your stockbroker is making claims for you?
So I think at the end of the day, if you ask any American, should members of Congress be changed stocks?
Most of them will say, no, that doesn't feel right.
Of course, policy is much more complicated than just right or wrong.
And I think in the details is where Congress got tripped up.
So nothing has passed yet.
Bob in New Jersey, aligned for Democrats.
Good morning.
Good morning.
You know, I just wanted to say that we got to get all these old bags out of Congress.
We need the younger generation in here now that will fight for our needs for today, not for years and years and years ago.
These idiots in Congress, they're too old to understand anything that's going on with the world today.
And they just believe in that communist Trump.
And it's not doing us any good.
So you're talking about term limits, Bob?
Yes, definitely.
So how long do you think it should be set at?
How long should somebody be able to serve?
At the most, maybe eight years, at the very most.
What do you think, Max?
I think, you know, the public will probably agree with that statement that you look at members of Congress who have been here decades, and that just doesn't sit right with the American people.
We're seeing this play out in primaries all over the country right now, especially in the Democratic Party, when you have lawmakers who have been here for multiple, multiple terms getting challenged by younger, oftentimes more progressive lawmakers who say, similar to what the caller said, saying, you've been in Congress all this time, things have gotten worse, you're out of touch, et cetera.
And we're seeing many primary challenges happen with that same thing.
The number one that jumps out to me off the top of my head, and there are many, but this is one, is in Tennessee, where Representative Steve Cohen is facing a challenge from Justin Pearson, and that's a big generational divide there in Memphis, Tennessee.
Speaking of the midterm elections, a lot of people are saying that the House could go back to the Democrats.
What are you seeing as far as the margins there?
And then what do you think is going to happen in the Senate?
It's really hard to say about margins right now, but I think if you were sitting here right now, I would say Democrats are the favorites to win back the House, given the national political environment.
We just saw a poll had Trump's approval rating at 37%, which is really low for an incumbent president, even at this stage.
And I think if people are largely unhappy with the economy and unhappy with Trump, that's going to benefit Democrats.
We are in the era, though, of a smaller House battleground, so I don't think we're going to see a huge majority.
So I'd guess Democrats might be in the majority anywhere from 5 to 10 to 15 seats.
But if it's truly a wave, it could be a little bigger.
Quickly in the Senate, I'd say Republicans are favorites to hold control simply because they have a commanding 53, 47 advantage right now.
But again, the environment does not look good for Republicans, and there are a number of states which seemed safe red, which might be in play.
So we might see the Republican majority slim down to maybe one or two, but I don't think it's enough for Democrats with 51 seats.
They have to flip a lot.
If the Democrats take the House, does that make Hakeem Jeffries the Speaker of the House?
Would that be a done deal?
Nothing's a done deal nowadays, but speaking to members of the Democratic caucus, people feel very happy with how Hakeem Jeffries has led, and I don't see any other alternative right now.
And there certainly isn't the kind of opposition that Pelosi faced at some points from upstarts.
So I think Jeffries would be the heavy favorite, yes, to be Speaker, if Democrats win.
Doug in Mississippi, Republican, you're next.
Yes, ma'am.
I like to ask Mr. Max the Omar question he had a couple of people ago.
He was the guy was asking about the brother, why they talking about the, oh, Lord, the, oh, Jesus.
It's okay.
Do you have anything to add on the brother?
Yeah.
I have no information on the brothers.
This is not something I'm an expert on.
The only thing I can really talk about in this is I can tell you the House Oversight Committee, again, led by Comer, is investigating Omar's current partner, who is not her brother.
I don't know anything about the brother.
No investigation about the past.
No, that's not anything I'm aware of.
Nicholas, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Democrat, you're on the air.
Yes, thank you for taking my call.
I'd like to make a brief comment and then listen to Mr. Cohen's answer.
In my opinion, nothing will ever change in this country until we have term limits in Congress.
Thank you for taking my call.
You addressed that already.
Yeah, I need something to add.
So here's what I'd say about term limits, right?
I think it would definitely stop members from being here their entire lives.
And I think there's definitely evidence that people in Congress, once you get the power, you come to love it and you almost come to depend on it.
I want to quickly note Diane Feinstein, right?
She died in office.
I think most Americans would say, why would I ever want to die in my job?
The majority of Americans, they want to retire and enjoy their retirement.
But for members of Congress, they're consistently in their 70s, 80s, even 90s.
Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is in his 90s as well.
And he's a very powerful role.
Most people hear that.
They think, why is someone still working at that age?
So I think term limits would benefit from that.
However, I think the opponents of term limits would say, and we should note this, if you add term limits, that means people are filtering in and out of office a lot.
Do you lose institutional knowledge?
Do you have lawmakers who can no longer build a specialty?
And there would be some, I think, unintended consequences of term limits that maybe people don't think about.
And the relationships that you might not have in that case.
Yeah.
And for instance, look at Susan Collins.
She's the chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has been in the Senate a long time.
I think it's approaching two decades.
The people of Maine, and she would say, I deliver the people of Maine so much because of my seniority, and I bring back federal funding to my state.
And if you have term limits, it would be difficult, I think, for individual senators or lawmakers to advocate as much for their state without seniority.
Although she may lose her seat.
And she may lose her seat, yes.
And that is one of the most closely tracked Senate races of the cycle.
It depends who she's up against.
It's looking like she's going to face Graham Plattner, a progressive oysterman from Maine who's never run for political office, who's running as a Bernie Sanders type against the governor Janet Mills, a more establishment in the Democratic primary.
Maine is a Democratic state.
It voted for Kamala Harris by a wide margin.
But Susan Collins consistently overperforms National Republicans, and she says she has a unique brand.
We'll see if that can still last in this partisan era.
All right, that's Max Cohen, Congressional Reporter for Punch Bowl News.
You can find his work at Punchbowl.news.
Thanks so much for being on the show.
Thank you.
Later on the program, American Enterprise Institute's Danielle Pletkel weighs in on the latest developments on the U.S.-Iran war.
But coming up next, more of your calls in open forum.
Start calling in now.
We'll also hear from White House reporter and Politico's West Wing playbook author Sophia Kai.
She'll preview the week ahead for President Trump.
We'll be right back.
Campaign 2026 Stakes High00:03:27
Democracy Unfiltered.
C-SPAN brings you democracy unfiltered in real time.
Democracy doesn't take sides.
Neither does C-SPAN.
In a world full of opinions, C-SPAN gives you direct access to the people and institutions that shape our nation.
Unfiltered coverage of Congress as laws are debated and decided.
Live proceedings from the United States Supreme Court.
Presidential speeches, briefings, and historic moments as they happen.
No commentary, no spin, no agenda.
Just the democratic process presented in full without interruption so you can watch the debates, hear every word, and make up your own mind.
C-SPAN's respected nonprofit service has offered Americans unfiltered gavel-to-gavel coverage of their government in action.
C-SPAN, bringing your democracy unfiltered.
C-SPAN is brought to you by the cable, satellite, and streaming companies that provide C-SPAN as a public service.
C-SPAN invites you on a powerful journey through the stories that define a nation.
From the halls of our nation's most iconic libraries and institutions comes America's Book Club, a bold, original series where ideas, history, and democracy meet.
Hosted by renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein, each week features in-depth conversations with the thinkers shaping our national story.
Among this season's remarkable guests, John Grisham, master storyteller of the American justice system, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, exploring the Constitution, the court, and the role of law in American life.
Famed chef and global relief entrepreneur Jose Andres, reimagining food.
Brita Dove, Hulitzer Prize winner and former U.S. Poet Laureate.
The books, the voices, the places that preserve our past and spark the ideas that will shape our future.
America's Book Club, Sundays at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
Campaign 2026 is underway, and the stakes couldn't be higher.
Every seat in the United States House of Representatives is up for grabs, along with 33 U.S. Senate races, and the outcome of both could reshape the balance of power in Washington.
Voters will also decide 36 gubernatorial contests.
From the campaign trail to election night, follow Campaign 2026 on the C-SPAN networks.
C-SPAN, bringing you democracy unfiltered.
Join C-SPAN's this Saturday at 7 p.m. Eastern for Washington's premier black tie event, the White House Gorrespondents Dinner.
Watch live coverage from the Washington Hilton featuring red carpet arrivals of top journalists, political leaders, and celebrities.
This year's featured entertainer is renowned mentalist Bose Perlman, and President Donald Trump is expected to make his first appearance as president.
The White House Gorrespondents Dinner, live this Saturday at 7 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
COVID Origin Conspiracy00:03:02
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We're an open forum.
Whatever you would like to talk about, as long as it's related to politics or public policy or foreign policy, we'll go straight to Joseph, Cleveland, Ohio, Line for Democrats.
Good morning.
Hey, I just want to say North Korea, China, and Russia only presents some intimate threat.
I think this war is ridiculous.
But Rock had a policy, a peace treaty with other countries involved to monitor the Iranian regime nuclear program.
And Donald Trump tore it up immediately.
Not because it wasn't a good policy, it's because he just didn't like the former president.
And now he got a slight award that Congress didn't even approve of to the tune of, what, $300 billion after, what, 35 days of bombing?
A country that he who didn't even attempt to attack us.
So I just think it's, I mean, it's this war, Nana Kwagmaier.
And every day he goes on television and just tell lie after lie after lie, nights, talking about wiping out civilization and all this madness.
I mean, how much more can the American people take?
We are suffering while him and his family have just made millions and billions of dollars off the back of his presidency.
They keep asking us to suffer and wait a little longer and all this.
It is total ridiculous.
And here's Billy in Indiana, Republican.
Good morning, Billy.
Good morning.
I'd like to talk a little bit about our debt, our national debt that we have, and how COVID put a chokehold on us, and we may never recover from it.
And we know it was the Democratic Party that started COVID at the Wuhan lab.
Wait, wait, the Democratic Party started COVID in the Wuhan lab?
How do you come to that?
Well, Fauci and the Democrats gave them, sent them over $800,000 to fund it.
The COVID.
It's obvious.
Yeah.
Okay, Billy.
John in Massachusetts, Line for Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Go ahead, John.
We're listening.
I'm calling about.
I'm calling and trying to follow up on something that was on the previous segment.
Nuclear War Danger00:03:22
One of your callers said, asked your congressional correspondent what he asked that he asked them about the he expressed a concern about the possibility about the 200, at least 200 nuclear weapons that Israel has.
And he was concerned about the possibility that in desperation, Prime Minister Netanyahu might use those, use a nuclear weapon against Iran.
And my memory is that you just deflected that.
And neither the host or the congressional correspondent responded to that concern at all.
And what do you think about that, John?
I think that there's a great danger of nuclear war in general now in response to Ukraine, the situation in Ukraine.
And I think there's a great all-too-real danger that what your previous caller referred to is a high probability of happening.
And the history of the development of nuclear weapons by Israel is very well documented.
So this is the Arms Control Association.
This is at armscontrol.org.
Under Israel, if you look it up, it says Israel is estimated to have 90 nuclear warheads with fissile material stockpiles for about 200 weapons.
So it's believed that it has 90 currently and has the potential to create about 200.
It says Israel does not admit or deny having nuclear weapons and states that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
Nevertheless, Israel is universally believed to possess nuclear arms stored in a partially disassembled state, although it's unclear exactly how many.
Did you have to?
Israel, like the United States of America, has never pledged that it will never be the first to use nuclear weapons.
Israel also is not a signature non-proliferation treaty.
No, I was going to just say that this does said that Israel states that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons.
Yeah, so maybe you read that differently.
That wording is crucial, ma'am.
Not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons.
What does that mean?
Israel already possesses nuclear weapons, and your figure says a minimum of at least 90.
Yeah.
Okay.
Political Malaise Risks00:15:49
It's quite ironic that that's seldom said, even on C-SPAN, which is supposed to be such a non-partisan venue.
And it's almost totally blacked out in the major corporate media.
All right, John.
This is Virginia, California, Independent Line.
You're on the air.
Yes.
I hope I'm incorrect in what I heard in an earlier segment.
I thought someone stated that Venezuelans are eating the animals from the zoos.
Is that correct?
Yeah, I'm not sure about that allegation.
I have no idea.
Oh, I thought that you agreed that, yes, it was that it had.
No, I didn't agree to anything.
Thank you.
Here's Doug, Falls Church, Virginia, Republican.
Go ahead, Doug.
Hey, good morning.
I wanted to call about two issues.
One is just the amendment that we have on the referendum tomorrow.
The wording of the thing is very, very intentionally, I believe, misleading.
It talks about restoring fair elections, which if you vote yes for is a pro-gerrymandering vote, whereas a no is against gerrymandering.
To me, this is just a very clear power grab, and it's particularly disappointing in a state like Virginia, where six years ago we did the right thing and we implemented a redistricting commission, which basically puts fair, by design, fair districts in place.
Like right now, I think it's five Democrat districts roughly, and then or sorry, six Democrat districts, and then five Republican, which is roughly in line with the composition of the state.
Walking that back would just be such a horrible, horrible step backwards.
And then the second thing I just want to talk about, we really need to pursue bipartisan congressional immigration reform in terms of asylum, legal immigration as a whole, and just immigration enforcement.
This issue is just permeating in all different areas of our country at this point.
I think we really just need to have Congress step up, make tough decisions so we could all move forward.
And, Doug, have you already voted on that Virginia referendum?
I have not, but I'm a definite no vote.
I'm going to do that in person tomorrow.
And I think gerrymandering is bad, whether it's started by Republicans or Democrats.
No one has clean hands, but we should stop the practice.
All right.
And let's hear from Eric Holder.
He is chairing the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.
He spoke about this on Face the Nation.
Look at all the headwinds the president's party is facing right now.
We've been talking about the war and the energy costs that go along with it.
Historically, the president's party doesn't usually do well in the midterm races.
So why do Democrats need to do this?
I mean, it sounds like it's acknowledging that the Democratic Party can't win on its own, that it has to go through these measures.
The Democrats can certainly win if it's a fair fight.
And the question I have.
It wasn't going to be a fair fight in Virginia?
No, it wasn't going to be a fair fight nationally if you try to steal seats in Texas, in North Carolina, and in Missouri.
And so the question I have for people who are critical of that, which we're doing, is what were we supposed to do?
Nothing.
Just allow them to try to stack the deck, to try to steal seats.
And all we're trying to do is meet them and try to make the system as fair as it possibly can be.
And that's all that this is about.
And it's temporary, and it is also something that the citizens have the ability to say yes or no to.
Well, I don't have to explain to you the negative parts of gerrymandering because you have talked about it for years and years.
I mean, we looked back at some of your quotes.
You said it puts in place governments that don't reflect the policy desires of the American people.
In 2019, you said it leads to gridlock.
It leads to lack of compromise because it caters to the extremes of the party.
You said, I don't stand for gerrymanding for Democrats.
So practically speaking, aren't you endorsing all these things now?
I mean, how does the situation get better?
How do people lead to compromise now?
Well, we have to deal with this crisis that is in front of us and that the Republicans put before the nation.
Once we get past this crisis, we can get back to that which I've been fighting for since 2017, which is fairness.
But we have to, if we want to get to that fairness fight, we have to save our democracy now.
And I'm not being hyperbolic or alarmist.
If we don't respond to that which they are trying to do, we could lose our democracy and not have the ability to get back to that fairness fight.
That was yesterday on Face the Nation, and this is Max in San Antonio, Democrat.
Hi, Max.
I mean, it's an honor to speak to two quick points, one minor, one major.
So Max Cohen was on just a while ago, he got the question, well, how is America supposed to expect Congress to support them and their issues when they're spending so much money on Israel?
And he answered, well, the amount of money we're spending on Israel is so minuscule that it hardly amounts to anything in the budget.
But I think the point he was missing was the person is criticizing the amount of money we're spending on defense, you know, this $1.5 trillion defense proposal.
So I think that's what's missed.
If we spend so much on defense, what will be left over for the U.S. people?
Second thing is people talk generally about one thing solving a lot of problems like a panacea.
Like, for instance, we need to have term limits, but what they're not considering is if you do have term limits, then everybody who's in Congress is a novice.
And they're in this sea of people from K-Street and staffers who have been there and they know the system and they know how to manipulate the system as well as people in the system.
So I think that risks them being manipulated versus running the show as an elected representative.
So those two issues.
Thank you.
So, Max, you would be against term limits then?
Yes, I would be against term limits.
I think it's a kind of panacea.
It's like a one billion idea that solves all our problems.
And I think that's part of the larger political malaise we're experiencing.
And the problem with our electorate is we hear one thing that's going to just solve the problem, and we don't really interrogate it and think about it critically.
And so, I think if we did that more often, we'd be better off.
How are you feeling about that while I have you, that Senate race in Texas there between Tallerico and, of course, there's a runoff on the Republican side?
Tell us about what's going on on the ground there in Texas.
Well, I'm feeling generally positive about this as a Democrat in Texas.
And, of course, I'm in Texas 23, so Tony Gonzalez is no longer in Congress.
I don't have representation there.
But I think people are feeling generally like there might be a sliver of a chance, but I don't think people are really convinced except for, you know, maybe the people who are really hoping for a miracle.
But I think the fact that Tall Rico prevailed over his opponent maybe gives us a little bit of a chance.
I think if his opponent had won, it would be a very slim chance.
But the kind of religious fervor that Tall Rico shows maybe appeals to some on the right, and so may strip some votes and may give him a better chance there.
All right, Max.
Let's talk to John next.
Republican Springfield, Ohio.
Good morning.
Yes, I was just calling.
Actually, one thing on my list was term limits in the last caller mentioned.
I think they ought to just be able to have two terms.
You know, you get Schumer and these other people in here.
And it seems like the Democrats hate the country.
My next thing was the FACE Act, the ID.
I mean, I can't buy a pack of cigarettes or a six-pack of beer or anything else unless I have an ID.
And we were supposed to, I think, get the star on our driver's license.
Yeah, real ID.
It's called.
Yes.
And then the Iran nuclear.
Can you imagine if Iran gets a nuclear weapon and what would happen?
And these other countries, they've already proved they can reach England and such.
And they need to be stopped.
And I would have kept bombing Iran until they just kept going.
Another thing, everybody's like, oh, fuel's up.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Keep going bombing Iran until what?
Until they make a deal.
And would you trust them with a deal?
Well, the thing is, did we trust them with Obama?
I remember.
Well, that's the idea that President Trump didn't trust them, and that's why he pulled out of the deal.
Exactly.
Because they wouldn't let him.
I'm 76.
They wouldn't let them go and inspect for weeks and months at a time and then give them time to move stuff around.
And why do you think it would be different now?
I think that, what is it, the AEIE or whatever that goes in and checks for nuclear material, they would have to go in there and check the whole country out to make sure.
I remember when they said back in Iraq, I was opposed to going into Iraq.
And I think, you know, get it on the table where people's going to be able to go in there and inspect.
And let's get this thing over with.
Everybody's like, fuel.
Fuel's cheaper in Ohio now than it was when Biden was in.
And then here's another thing that really gets me.
Illegal immigrants are allowed to vote in like, say, New York City.
I'm retired out of New York City.
Okay, they're not allowed to vote in federal elections, John.
Chuck, South Carolina, Independent Line, you're on the air.
Yes, ma'am.
I'm here as a senior and I'm here worried about our country and disappointed in the voting that they did.
And hearing this rumor, I hope, that if this war continues for the next four years, there'll be no vote.
So we continue with the same president, which has been the worst that I've been.
And I'm 86 years old, looking at 87.
And I hope that's a false rumor.
Yeah, that's a rumor that has not been announced, Chuck.
But that is a fear that some people have.
Yes, ma'am.
I'm sure do have one.
And I'm a little disappointed in our country that went that way after the first term that President Trump had.
And all the laws he's broke.
We'll bring him back.
That's all I got to say.
All right.
Here's Kevin in Texas, Democrat.
Go ahead, Kevin.
Yes, good morning.
Back to the last call.
I'm concerned about Trump's aid.
I mean, to me, this guy is clearly incoherent.
You know, this guy's starting wars, spending money like crazy, tearing down the White House.
If he was not a politician, I think he would be an old folks home.
You know, and it just, to me, that him being a politician and the people that are making money off of him is a sign of the times is what we got going on.
So hopefully all American people understand that the election's coming up.
Get out and vote.
And we just saw this on X.
This is Julia Manchester.
She is White House correspondent for The Hill who says this.
President Trump just told me over the phone that he disagrees with Energy Secretary Chris Wright's assessment that gas prices may not drop until next year.
You remember we played you that clip in the last earlier in the program.
Quote, no, I think he's wrong on that.
Totally wrong.
According to that's Julia Manchester quoting President Trump, who she spoke to on the phone.
Well, if you want to get in on open forum, you can keep calling.
The lines are open for you.
Just hold on the line if you are there.
We are going to speak to Sophia Kai.
She is at Politico, and she's White House reporter, and she's also the West Wing playbook co-author.
Sophia Kai, welcome to the program.
Thank you.
If we could start with Iran, yesterday President Trump said that he is sending a delegation that they are heading to Pakistan for another round of negotiations.
However, we heard from Iran that that might not happen, that they might not send a delegation.
Can you tell us what's the latest on that?
Yeah, absolutely.
So this past weekend, the U.S. seized an Iranian oil tinker.
And that was an act that Iran considers a violation of the ceasefire.
And so they've promised to retaliate.
And as of yet last night, we know that Iran is not planning to send anyone to the negotiations.
So the U.S. team may not have someone on the other side of the table to talk to.
And the current ceasefire does expire Wednesday night.
What has the White House said about possibly extending that?
Do you know anything about that?
It's a little bit too early to tell, but when President Trump was asked about this a few days ago, he said, look, while I may not extend it, I think they're going to be looking for real progress in the talks to consider another extension.
Now, remember, the reason why President Trump authorized those first strikes against Iran that killed dozens of Iranian leaders is because he ran out of patience with the negotiations.
Now, if something like that happens again, he may choose to escalate, but the Iranians and the U.S. side, neither side wants that to happen.
And President Trump announced a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon that, of course, they were fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon.
We're hearing reports that Israel was taken off guard by that and that they were not notified of this ceasefire.
What can you tell us?
Look, they may have been caught off guard and they've signaled that, but it looks like this 10-day ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel so far is holding.
And that ceasefire holding is crucial to a broader peace deal between the U.S.-Iran.
And what is the Trump administration's role in that ceasefire, in that ceasefire negotiations between those two parties?
Ceasefire Holding Crucial00:03:11
President Trump is playing the role of primary mediator.
He announced the initial ceasefire of 10 days.
And he says that he plans to bring the leaders of the two countries to the White House in the coming days for further talks.
I think the president takes great pride in his role as mediator and is counting it as one of the 10 or so conflicts that he's helped solve.
Now remember, it's not an end deal yet, and I don't think he can take a victory lap.
On a different subject, the Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to hear the confirmation hearings for Kevin Worsh.
He is nominated to be the next Fed chair.
However, Senator Tillis has said he will not, he will block that and not vote for him unless the investigation into Jerome Powell is dropped.
What has been the White House reaction to that?
Look, I think this is a real problem for the White House because Tom Tillis is retiring and he's announced that he's retiring.
And so the White House doesn't have a lot of leverage.
It's one thing for a sitting Republican senator to buck the White House.
That person's life can be made very challenging if he wants to run for re-election.
The White House, Trump's political apparatus will pour a lot of money into, for instance, supporting a challenger, but that's not the case for Tom Tillis.
And so this is someone who has doubled down and said, look, if DOJ does not end this investigation into Jerome Powell, he will not be voting for Kevin Worsh.
And so, of course, one obvious option for the White House is to have DOJ end that investigation.
And what is on the president's travel schedule?
So the president will be in Washington and he will, you know, he, again, he may host those talks between Lebanon and Israel.
And then we'll have to see what else ends up holding.
It looks like if the president has said that VP Vice President Vance may not go to Islamabad, now Vice President does.
We know that the president also likes to take wins, so if there is progress in those talks with Iran, there is a possibility that he may go.
And Sophia, you had an article last week say with this headline in Politico: Trump to release reading of scripture days after angering many Christians.
The president has prepared an Old Testament reading for an event at the Museum of the Bible.
Tell us about that.
So this is coming just days after he angered a lot of Christians by posting a photo of himself depicting him as Jesus Christ.
Now, this reading is going to be played as a virtual reading.
It's a public reading of the Bible that will take place over seven or eight days.
And the president is reading Two Chronicles, which is a verse about repentance.
And he's already recorded it in the Oval Office.
That verse will be played over two and a half minutes on Tuesday this week.
Blind Loyalty to Trump00:04:24
All right.
That's Sophia Kai, Politico's White House reporter and West Wing playbook co-author.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you.
We're in Open Forum, and we are taking your calls on anything you'd like to weigh in on public policy-wise, foreign policy, politics in Washington, D.C. We'll go to Caleb now in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Independent.
All right.
Good morning.
I haven't called in about a month, month and a half, and a lot has happened within that timeline.
One of the couple of points I want to make is the thing with Iran.
You know, we, I believe, wholeheartedly should not have been involved in this whole bombing.
I think there's so many issues here at home that we need to fix.
I mean, over the past year, Trump started the ICE issue, immigration issue with the Supreme Court, you know, that case going to the Supreme Court and so many things.
And now from last year to this year, we're increasing our military spending by $500 billion.
But yet we can't afford to cover the cost of health care and cover kids for daycares, right?
This is just, this country is really, really going crazy.
Like, what are we doing?
We're infighting.
We can't even get along as Americans, right?
It's now become a country of party rather than a country that loves each other, that supports everybody around the world.
We've just become a bully by using our military and are just very empathetic, empathetic, sorry, about what's happening with our own people, our own countrymen, right?
Like, in about five to ten years, like you're not going to recognize this country anymore.
Like, what are we doing, people?
Just think about your kids.
Like, I just don't know what else to say.
Like, I'm just dumbfounded by the things that's happening.
And some people are just blind loyalty.
Come on.
We need to wake up and smell the roses.
And this midterm needs to shake up the country to the point that it gets this administration under some type of a line that they know, oh, we can't just do whatever the hell we want.
You know, the people are watching.
The people are listening.
It needs to.
You're done.
Todd, Port St. Lucie, Florida, Republican.
Good morning, Todd.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Yes.
My family members, they do worship Donald Trump.
They do believe he is Jesus Christ.
So when he shows that image of himself as the Christ, that's how they see him.
My family doesn't pray for Donald Trump.
They pray to him.
They worship him.
You understand?
This is a cult.
And they believe, my father believes Donald Trump was born without sin, that he is God in human flesh, that my father said Trump never lies.
Do you understand me?
And that he was sent by himself to save the world from the Mexicans.
This is a religion of racism.
The Christians ran out of Jews to kill, the Catholics in Nazi Germany.
And so they moved on to immigrants and Mexicans and gays.
MAGAs hate the same people the Nazis hated.
And the MAGAs have the same archetype.
Wait, wait, wait, Todd, let's back up.
You're a Republican?
Yes, I'm a Lincoln Republican.
I believe in freeing the slaves.
Yep.
And did you ever vote for...
Did you ever vote for President Trump?
Why would I?
He's a pedophile.
And when you say your family member is your father, do you still have a relationship with them?
MAGA Archetype Hate00:15:50
No, I don't.
Well, no, we don't anymore.
We don't anymore.
I don't break bread with the enemy.
I don't dine with Nazis and mass murderers like Bill Weldon from Johnson ⁇ Johnson.
Okay?
You've got these upper-level Nazis in the cult of Baal.
They're all pedophiles, and you know it, running Hollywood and Washington, D.C. as Sodom and Gomorrah.
They're all on the same team.
You want to talk about Democrats and Republicans?
That's all theater.
This is a moral issue.
It's about good versus evil.
You see?
Here's Bill, Satellite Beach, Florida.
Democrat, you're on the air.
Hi, good morning, Greta.
I hope all is well with everybody out there.
And the last call I was just a little bit confused there from what I heard.
But I want to talk about the Epstein files here.
It's kind of taking a back seat.
And I want to focus exactly on Senator Ashley Moody, for she became Flora's Attorney General in 2019, right after Pam Bondi left office.
And I want someone out there to focus on her because she knows a lot.
And I believe the Epstein files here in Florida, some of them have never seen the light of day.
And I would like someone in the Democratic Party at least to call her out and let her know what does she know about the Epstein files?
Because I think it would be interesting because she was handed the whole boatload of everything there from Pam Bondi.
So I'm putting that out there.
I hope everybody's listening because it's a link in the chain in the whole Epstein fiasco.
What do you think?
All right, Bill.
Well, there is this Atlantic article has been getting some news lately.
So I want to show it to you about FBI Director Kash Patel.
The headline is, the FBI director is MIA.
Kash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.
This is how the article starts.
It says, on Friday, April 10th, as FBI Director Patel was preparing to leave work for the weekend, he struggled to log on to an internal computer system.
He quickly became convinced that he had been locked out and he panicked, frantically calling aides and allies to announce that he had been fired by the White House, according to nine people familiar with his outreach.
Two of these people described his behavior as a, quote, freak out.
Patel oversees an agency that employs roughly 38,000 people, including many who are trained to investigate and verify information that can be presented under oath in a court of law.
News of his emotional outburst ricocheted throughout the Bureau, prompting chatter among officials and in some quarters of the building, expressions of relief.
The White House fielded calls from the Bureau and members of Congress asking who was now in charge of the FBI.
Turned out that the answer was still Patel.
He had not been fired.
The access problem to people said appears to have been a technical error and was resolved.
And it says, according to multiple officials as well as former officials who have stayed close to him, Patel is deeply concerned that his job is in jeopardy.
He has good reasons to think so, including some having to do with what witnesses described to me as bouts of excessive drinking.
It continues, but Director Patel had responded to those allegations from the Atlantic article on Fox News.
Here he is yesterday.
The Atlantic magazine director is alleging that you have a drinking problem, that it is getting in the way of your work running the FBI.
What is your response this morning to this article?
Look, Maria, you and I have been at this together for a long time, whether I was leading the investigation on Russia Gate back in the House or my time in the Trump admin one and now, and the results, I say, speak for themselves.
If the fake news mafia isn't hitting you personally with baseless information in Washington, D.C., then you're not doing your job.
And it's louder than ever because this FBI, under President Trump's brilliant leadership in backing the blue and backing law enforcement, this FBI has the most prolific year in crime reduction in United States history.
A 20-point percent reduction in the homicide rate, a 20-point drop in opiate overdose deaths.
We have found and identified 6,300 child victims.
6,300 kids get to come home to their kids.
That's a 30% increase.
Seizing enough fentanyl to kill 180 million Americans, that's a 31% increase.
Our deal with China, where we stopped the flow of fentanyl precursors, or historic engagement thanks to President Trump in Busan.
And our work continues.
We've captured eight of the top 10 most wanted fugitives in the world, to include rapists, murderers, terrorists, and narco-traffickers.
That's twice as many as Joe Biden did in four years.
President Trump and this FBI got done in 14 months.
So if I'm not doing my job, if I'm not working, then how is it that the FBI delivered the safest America under President Trump's leadership in the history of our country?
And so, you know what?
They can beat their drums and stand next to toxic waste all they want, but that doesn't make it toxic waste.
And Maria, I'm happy to announce on your show that we are not going to take this laying down.
You want to attack my character?
Come at me.
Bring it on.
I'll see you in court.
So you're going to sue them?
Absolutely.
It's coming tomorrow.
That was FBI Director Kash Patel.
Charles, Pensacola, Florida, Independent Line.
Good morning, Charles.
Hey, good morning.
I just did my taxes last week, like everybody else did.
And I just want to let everybody know that the one big beautiful deal failed to uphold the promise that no tax on military retirement.
I'm a military retiree, did 23 years, 10 months, 28 days, serving Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan, led soldiers there.
And just want to let you know that I had to pay taxes, and I do pay taxes every month on my military retirement.
And it's considered a 401k recurring withdrawal penalty tax by the IRS.
And if anybody's listening, in Democratic or Republican or Independent Party out there, I would greatly appreciate their support in passing something that doesn't penalize us for serving our country.
Thank you.
And so this says it's called the Tax Cuts for Veterans Act of 2025.
In the context of the One Big Beautiful bill, proposes to exclude all federal income tax on military retirement, retainer pay, and related disability survivor benefits, aims to make such payments completely tax-free at the federal level.
So Charles, there is saying that that is not happening for him.
Let's hear from Jim, who's also in Pensacola, Florida.
Independent line.
Hi, Jim.
You're on the air.
Yes.
Hello.
I just wanted to, I was hoping maybe C-SPAN could discuss something I think our country is having.
The trouble we're having is a definition of freedom and who should enjoy freedom and who shouldn't.
Because I'll give you an example.
There was a woman on EWTN who was converted to the Catholic faith from Islam in Pakistan, and she was persecuted.
Her family was killed.
And she said they were teaching what the Quran actually teaches over there.
And she says, you shouldn't be fooled in thinking that the Quran doesn't teach this stuff.
And I'm thinking the Muslims come over here and they want to enjoy freedom for themselves, but they seem to want to teach something that takes freedom away from everybody else.
And same thing with the communists.
And it seems like when we have to deal with these kind of situations, the extreme liberals on the left, the judges and the lawyers, will protect these people's rights.
And like, I don't know if I said this already.
In Italy, if a spiritual leader, a Muslim, starts teaching this way, this type of violence, which is actually what the Quran talks about, they will kidnap him and take him back to his own country or take him back to a Muslim country.
In other words, if you don't enjoy our freedoms or our way of life, why don't you go back to your own country and just live there?
Now, they don't kill him or imprison him.
They don't bother doing that.
They just kidnap him and take him back to their own country.
And I'm thinking, how should we deal with these kind of real problems to this country?
And I think that's what people are arguing about.
That's the big problem we're having about how to protect our freedom.
Like Benjamin Franklin said, you have a Democratic Republic if you can keep it.
How do we, we need to have a forum where we can discuss this and how we can deal with it.
Anyway, thank you.
All right, Jim.
And New York City Mayor Zorhan Mamdani was on NBC News, and he was talking about potential candidates for 2028.
Here it is.
Let's talk about the Democratic Party and the future of the Democratic Party.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris said just last week she is thinking about running for president again.
Would you like to see former Vice President Kamala Harris run for president again?
I have to be honest, I haven't thought about the candidacies for president this time.
My focus is 2026.
You're the only Democrat who hasn't thought about that.
And I'm proud to say that I am not and will never be running for president.
And here in 2026, I want to be delivering for New Yorkers.
And when it comes to the national level, I want to make sure that we win these midterms and actually have a vision that we're fighting for, not just one that we're fighting against.
And we are just a few more minutes in open forum.
So if you still want to get in, you can call now.
A couple of things for your schedule for later today.
So at 12 noon, we've got businessman and author David Rubenstein.
He interviews Wells Fargo CEO Charlie Scharf about his leadership of the bank since 2019.
That's hosted by the Economic Club of Washington, D.C. It'll be live on C-SPAN 2 at noon Eastern.
And then at 3.30 p.m., Interior Secretary Doug Bergham is on Capitol Hill to testify on his agency's budget for the upcoming year.
He's expected to talk about the White House's proposal to cut the Interior Department's budget by 13%.
That's the House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing.
We'll have it live at 3:30 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3.
All those programs can be seen on our app, C-SPANNOW and online at c-span.org.
Jeff in Washington, D.C., Democrat, good morning.
Good morning.
Thanks very much for taking my call.
I was going to say something about the SAVE Act, and that is that most Democrats actually are in favor of the SAVE Act, just not under the administration that tried to overturn the last election.
We don't trust, if you will, that the Trump administration would administer that law fairly.
I'd also say that you imagine the chaos that would happen if they passed that law and implemented it for the midterms in six months.
I mean, it would be, I can just imagine the confusion.
I mean, married women have to have to show documentation of their name change, et cetera, et cetera.
So just wanted to say that about the SAVE Act.
Thank you for taking my call.
And here's Frank in Andover, New Jersey, Republican.
Hi, Frank.
Yeah, I've been listening to this show a long time, and it's the first time I called.
I kind of consider myself a conservative.
And what I'm worried about is the debt.
It's the highest it's ever been, yet they're cutting taxes on everybody.
I mean, who's paying for running the government?
I mean, when I worked, I did Medicaid, and it's a total lie that people were getting away with anything.
I mean, they always had to pay if they broke the law with Medicaid and food stamps and all those programs.
I mean, as far as I can tell, it's all lies.
And I'm worried about future generations.
This is huge debt that the country is getting.
I mean, so what do you think should be done about it, Frank?
Well, all these tax cuts, I mean, somebody has to pay.
I mean, honestly, I don't know.
We're in such a hole that it isn't funny.
It's like me constantly borrowing and adding to my credit card and never having the means to pay it off.
That's how our government is headed.
I mean, a lot of these issues that you have on now, like even that SAVE Act, the last caller, you're going to make it so hard for people to vote.
I'm from New Jersey, and they check when you go to vote in person.
I'm a senior, so I get I mail in now.
I mean, there's very little fraud in that place.
I just, but I'm more concerned about the debt and future generations.
That's all I got to say.
It's how are they going to pay off all this debt?
All right, let's hear from Tom, a Democrat in Wartsboro, New York.
Good morning.
Hello.
I'd just like to say that if Laura or any other country had to present a justification to have a nuclear weapon, it's just been handed to them on a golden platter.
Thank you very much.
Well, up next, we'll talk to American Enterprise Institute's Danielle Pletka on the latest in the U.S.-Iran war.
That's coming up right after the break.
Stay with us.
Best ideas and best practices can be found anywhere.
We have to listen so we can govern better.
Democracy depends on heavy doses of civility.
You can fight and still be friendly.
Bridging the divide in American politics.
You know, you may not agree with the Dark Crown in everything, but you can find areas where you do agree.
He's a pretty likable guy as well.
Chris Koons and I are actually friends.
He votes wrong all the time, but we're actually friends.
A horrible secret that Scott and I have is that we actually respect each other.
We all don't hate each other.
You two actually kind of like each other.
These are the kinds of secrets we'd like to expose.
It's nice to be with a member who knows what they're talking about.
Liz did agree to the civility, all right?
He owes my son $10 from a bed.
And he's uncertain.
That's fighting words right there.
I'm glad I'm not in charge.
I'm thrilled to be on the show with him.
There are not shows like this, right?
Incentivizing that relationship.
Ceasefire Friday nights on C-SPAN.
Who's your representative?
Who sits on which committee?
Where do you even start?
C-SPAN's official congressional directory.
Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
The congressional directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's nonprofit operations.
Get your congressional directory by scanning the QR code or at c-spanshop.org.
Stay informed.
Stay engaged.
Strategic Exigencies Explained00:16:00
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We are joined now by Danielle Pletka, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Danielle, welcome.
Morning.
What's your assessment of where the U.S.-Iran war is right now?
That is an excellent question that is not that easy to answer because there's an enormous amount of uncertainty around almost everything that relates to the war, the ceasefire, the Strait of Hormuz, negotiations in Pakistan, and who's in charge in Iran.
And so making an assessment about where things are is, let's say, let's cheat and say it's a very fluid situation.
Well, in your substack last week, you said that you do support the war in Iran.
With a second round of talks possible in Islamabad, what would a negotiated agreement look like that you would be happy with?
So I think goal number one is that we need the fissile material, several hundred pounds kilograms of highly enriched uranium removed from Iran.
Not downblended as some have suggested, not limited as some have suggested, but much as we did in Libya at the turn of the century when George W. Bush was president, it needs to be removed from Iran.
Then there need to be verifiable limitations on Iran's missiles.
And when I say verifiable, this is always the challenge, right?
Because it's not a question of the kind of missiles and the kind of range they had.
It is that we don't actually know what they're working on.
So there need to be verifiable limitations.
And then we need verifiable limitations, an end, not the limitations, an end to Iranian support for groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and others.
And finally, the human rights question.
We need the Iranian people to be safe and secure.
More than 40,000 of them were murdered by the regime in days in January.
That can't happen again.
So that, to me, is what looks like a good outcome.
Is there any sign from the Iranians that they would accept any of those?
There are lots of signs from the Iranians that they would accept some of that.
The problem is twofold.
Number one, is it verifiable?
Number two, what's the nature of the concession that the Iranians are willing to make?
And number three, and this really is the most important question, at least right now, who speaks for the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Because it's not entirely clear that the guys who were in Islamabad a couple weeks ago and are planning on returning are actually capable of speaking authoritatively for this very fractured regime.
Now, the U.S. administration has always said that this war is not about regime change.
They feel that the regime has changed.
However, does that mean that it'll be easier to make an agreement, come to a negotiated settlement with them, or harder, do you think?
I think that's the risk that we always face.
You know, there have been people who have suggested for many years that anything would be better than the regime that we saw under Ayatollah Ali Khamedeh or under Khomeini at the outset.
And the answer to that was never as sure as some suggested.
You can end up with a regime that is better, a democratically elected regime that is better, or you can end up with something worse.
And there is some risk right now that what we are looking at in terms of what the president called a changed regime could actually be more hardline, more extreme, less sophisticated in terms of what the exigencies of the international community are.
And that's a risk for all of us.
If you'd like to talk to Danielle Platka of the American Enterprise Institute, you can do so.
We're talking about Iran, so start calling in now.
Republicans are on 20248-8001.
Democrats 202748-8000.
Independents 202748-8002.
The lines are open for you.
Danielle, you were on Washington Journal last in February, just two days before the war started, and we were discussing the possibility of military action against Iran.
So now that we're seven weeks into this conflict, how does the reality of what's going on now compare to what you anticipated back then?
So I think in terms of the performance of our military and what we've seen and from our allies in Israel, it has come out largely as I expected.
You know, military operations are not the great mystery.
It's unfortunately the politics that are always much more mysterious.
You know, you launch a missile, you drop a bomb out of an airplane, it tends to respond to gravity or to targeting.
And that's pretty straightforward.
Human beings are a much harder read.
I do think that this has been a hard target in the sense that the Iranians have, I think, produced more drones, more missiles than perhaps were expected, although there's been an enormous attrition in their ability to deliver those weapons and the explosives on them to their neighbors, to Israel and elsewhere.
The other problem for us is that the Iranians have been resupplying.
And so we've seen that both the Russians and the Chinese, particularly the Chinese, have been supplying rocket fuel to their friends in Tehran and attempting to enable them to claw back some of their ability to threaten the region.
And so all of those things are a problem that should be dealt with, that needs to be dealt with, but that frankly have not been dealt with decisively.
Has Iran been acting in the way that you anticipated, Danielle, with the retaliation against Gulf states, with the closing of the Strait of Hormuz?
So the Strait of Hormuz is an excellent question.
The Iranians have for decades, this regime has been in power for 47 years now.
They have been threatening for ever, frankly, in their existence, to close the Strait of Hormuz.
That was very rarely considered a credible threat because 90% of their oil exports go out through the Strait.
And that means that if they close it, in theory, that their own exports can't get out either.
Now, that wasn't the case in the initial stages of the war.
That is very much the case now that we have closed their shipping.
But I think that there were a lot of people who were surprised that the Iranians followed through with that.
And the reason we shouldn't have been is because the regime is at risk.
At the end of the day, we can talk about the goals of the Islamic Republic, right?
What are their foreign policy goals?
Is it domination of the region?
Is it managing Iraq?
Is it Hezbollah?
Is it Hamas, the Palestinians?
And the answer is no.
Their number one immutable goal is regime survival.
And that's what they thought was at risk, and that's why they closed the strait.
But Danielle, going back to your point, a lot of criticism of the U.S. administration is that they were kind of taken by surprise that Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz.
As you said, they have been threatening that for a very long time.
And they were letting their ships through, just nobody else, or just certain people, a select few, correct?
So do you think that the Trump administration planned properly for that, what ended up happening in the Strait?
Yes, 100%.
So I do think that that reporting on the fact that the closure was a quote-unquote surprise is really not correct.
In an earlier sub-tech, I wrote about our central command, right?
This is the part of our military, the combatant command that covers the Middle East.
Those leaders, those planners, those strategists, Admiral Cooper, who is the combatant commander of CENTCOM, they have, the way I phrased it was, they have ears, right?
The idea that the Iranians have been saying this for decades and that they completely wrote it off does not withstand scrutiny.
They did absolutely.
The challenge for us always was limiting Iran's ability to retaliate against us and our allies, should they have chosen to join us and our allies in the strait?
Because you are, you know, you are, for those who don't know, you know, the topography here, we are looking at a very, very constrained waterway.
And so what the military had to do was to limit the ability of the Iranians to shoot at our forces in the water because they would otherwise have been sitting ducks.
That was the time lag that we saw.
Not a, oh my God, they meant that, which is what the papers were reporting and I thought wasn't credible at all.
So even if a deal is reached, would I mean, how do you prevent Iran from just closing the strait at will whenever they want?
You ask Mimi the exact question that I have been asking of the administration, which is now having done that, absolutely this is devastating to the Iranian economy.
The Iranians are from the closure losing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every single day.
Their ability to store oil and gas on their territory is limited to about less, a little less than two weeks.
So for them, this is what we had an outstanding guest on our podcast, my podcast with Mark Teessen last week, Miyad Maliki from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and he said, no, no, for Iran, this is the nuclear option, right?
This is them thinking all is going to be lost.
So there's no question, yes, in extremists, they could do this, but it is truly, truly damaging to them.
People talk about our gas prices.
No, no, no.
The Iranians are devastated.
So Danielle, you would have recommended this be done essentially on day one instead of waiting so far into the into the war.
Do you agree with that?
No, because again, I think that the strategic exigencies are such that had we done this on day one, the Iranians would have been able to direct their drone fire and their missile fire at our destroyers, at our carriers.
We don't want that to happen.
And so we needed to establish a secure area in which we could do this.
I think that the president made a decision to go ahead and do this because the Iranians brought the strait into play.
Had they not done that, we probably would not have done it either.
And President Trump has threatened to destroy the bridges and power plants in Iran.
Do you think that that helps negotiations or hinders them?
I think that the way that the president articulates this threat, and he's articulated it several times, is completely unhelpful.
And the reason I say that is because there are legitimate strategic targets that include bridges, that include power plants, that include those sort of dual-use things that supply at once the Iran, innocent Iranian civilians and the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Artesh, the military and the Basij, their paramilitary police.
So there are legitimate targets.
The problem is the president doesn't differentiate when he talks about it.
And so it sounds like he's targeting civilians in Iran.
And that is, A, not what we're doing, B, not what our military is going to do.
And C, not what is strategically called for.
And so his sort of generic threat in this area is really not helpful.
All right, let's talk to callers.
We'll start with Joseph in Buena Vista, Pennsylvania.
Republican, you're on with Danielle Pletka.
Joseph, are you there?
Yeah, go ahead, Joseph.
This is Joe.
I was a former Democrat.
Now I'm a Republican.
And in regards to the Iran shutdown, does anybody think the world would be safer if Iran had a nuclear weapon with missile to shoot?
Okay, Danielle, regarding Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
This is the challenge.
You know, we understand that the Iranians have enough fissile material to very quickly create up to 10 nuclear weapons.
And no, the world would not be a safer place.
One of the things we've really come to understand in recent decades is that the nature of the regime that has these weapons matters a great deal.
We have not seen information about, for example, India proliferating nuclear technology.
Pakistan?
Yep.
India?
No.
North Korea?
Yes.
Israel?
No.
And this regime is not only extraordinarily dangerous, it is an ideological regime.
These guys are not just, you know, run-of-the-mill enemies.
These are ideological enemies, enemies of not just the United States, enemies of our Gulf allies, enemies of our European allies.
And for them to have a nuclear weapon or the ability to produce one on demand is truly, well, it should be inconceivable.
And is that because you believe that they would use it, Danielle, or just use it for deterrence?
And having a nuclear weapon for deterrence would be inconceivable.
So the problem with deterrence is that deterrence is only credible if there's some risk you might use it.
And I think what we've seen over the last 47 years is a regime that not simply wishes to dominate its own country.
It wishes to dominate the Middle East.
It wishes to overthrow regimes that oppose it.
And it seeks to control things far beyond its own regional interests.
Fissile Material Removal00:13:12
And for us, that is not a tolerable threat.
You pair that with missiles that we now know can reach Diego Garcia, for example.
That is a very substantial range.
And it's only a matter of time before they have missiles that can reach beyond Southern Europe into Northern Europe and even to the United States.
How can we explain that to the American people that the President of the United States, no matter who he or she is, allowed that to happen?
Dave and Pontiac, Michigan, Democrat, you're on the air.
Go ahead.
Yes.
First of all, this lady is a very wicked, evil liar.
We don't call our guests that, Dave.
You can disagree with her, but you don't need to call names.
I'm sorry about that, but I'm very emotional.
People got to look back to history to the early 50s when the United States and its so-called allies assassinated a democratically elected leader.
That's one hit.
Okay, far as the nuclear thing, the war criminal BB is on video for decades saying Iran is going to get a nuclear bomb.
It's a bunch of lies.
And the problem with American politics, you have to get these Zionists out of our politics, AIPAC, all those people that support them.
This is wrong.
The reason why we are in this trillion-dollar debt is because of these wars that our American military are dying for the state of Israel.
Danielle?
Well, I appreciate the caller's perspective.
Let's start with Mossadegh, who was the elected leader in Iran in the 1950s, and who the United States opposed, and who was actually overthrown by the Iranian people, not by the United States.
It's important to get history right.
And there's been a lot of, I would say, perversion of that history over the years, aided and abetted by the narrative and the propaganda of this regime.
As to why we're in debt, well, you know, that's a much bigger question than the question of Iran, I'm afraid.
And it's a much bigger question than the question of our defense budget and the wars that we've fought.
Our profligate spending is unfortunately much more on entitlements than it is on war.
And any serious grown-up economist will tell you that.
You can oppose wars, and we are a free country, and that's one of the things I love about us.
But the idea that this is a source of our national debt is not factually correct.
And, you know, as far as the Iranian nuclear program, we can only go by what the International Atomic Energy Agency says.
We can only go by what the United Nations Security Council has said.
We can only go by what Barack Obama, who I'm assuming the caller supports more than this current president, said.
They had a nuclear weapons program.
Simple as that.
Danielle, I want to go back to China.
We've got reporting from Reuters that the China's president Xi, in a call with Saudi Crown Prince, calls for the Strait of Hormuz to remain open.
Can you discuss China's strategic interest in Iran in the port and also if they would welcome the extension of the ceasefire, whether they are in favor of this war?
What do you think of what they're thinking strategically?
Oh, well, China is certainly not in favor of this war.
But China tends to sit on the sidelines of things like this and help its allies in what Iran calls the axis of resistance, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran.
But for Iran, I think the most important factor here is that they buy an enormous amount of oil from Iran.
A lot of it sold at cut rate prices because of sanctions on Iran, because of its nuclear weapons program, its missile program, its support for terrorism, its murdering of its own people, and things like that.
And so for China, most importantly, this is less about: are my friends still in power in Tehran, and more, am I going to be getting my cheap energy supplies that I need, much of which travels through the Strait of Hormuz?
So for them, that's the interest.
And, you know, it has been interesting to watch President Trump try to manage this.
He's supposed to be traveling to Beijing to meet with Xi Jinping in a couple of weeks.
I think he was hoping this would all be behind him and we could talk about tariffs and trade and things like that.
That's not very looking very likely right now.
And it has been interesting to see that the Chinese have been willing to continue to resupply the IRGC and the Iranian military with the means to continue to make the missiles and drones that it uses to, quote-unquote, defend itself and attack its neighbors.
Let's talk to Paul in Port Chester, New York, Independent.
Good morning.
You're on with Danielle Plebka.
Good morning.
Regarding the nuclear program, what about dirty bombs?
If you recall, the U.S. dropped that bunker busting bomb right before that.
There were a bunch of trucks lined up at that site.
And what's the possibility that they got the nuclear material out of there?
And number two, you know, how easy is it to make a dirty bomb out of that?
And if the regime's back is up against the wall, what's the possibility that they might use that?
All great questions.
So first of all, for your listeners, Mimi, who are interested in what Iran has been doing around the nuclear sites, and there are several.
Even after the strikes of last summer in the 12-day war, we still see that the Iranians have activities going on, although some of their nuclear material is definitely buried.
But I really recommend to everybody the Institute for Science and International Security.
The head of that is a man named David Albright.
He's a physicist and an outstanding analyst.
They've got a number of really good people.
They have lots of well-diagrammed satellite pictures that people can look at to gain a better understanding of exactly what the state of play is.
So there's no doubt in the minds of, I think, American, European, and other Allied regional intelligence that after last summer's war, the Iranians were moving very quickly, not just to reconstitute their missile program, but to reconstitute their nuclear program.
And we saw lots and lots and lots of the kind of activity the caller described.
Trucks moving things around, tunnels being built.
The conclusion that they came to after that war last summer was we need a diversified supply.
We need things all over the country as opposed to in one or two or three key spots.
We need this deep inside mountains that are impenetrable to bunker buster bombs so that we can continue to pursue this nuclear program with security and immune from airstrikes.
And so that's what we've seen doing, them doing.
In terms of a dirty bomb, look, this is a last ditch sort of an effort.
And I don't want to paint myself as an expert here on how to make a dirty bomb, although I suspect the internet will tell you.
But really, if you release fissile material anywhere, the dangers of radiation are probably localized, but they are enormously frightening.
And this remains an option for the Iranians.
This is why, as I said at the outset, when Mimi asked, the number one goal is to get that fissile material, that highly enriched uranium, out of Iran for once and for all, verifiably, so that we can see it being taken out.
Well, so Danielle, to your earlier point about the buried stuff, so this is on the front page of today's New York Times.
Nuclear Fears Rise for Sight Deep in Iranian Mountain.
Trump is urged to move on a facility thought to be beyond the reach of bombs.
It's talking about this facility called Pickaxe Mountain.
It says it's so deep that it may lie beyond the reach of America's most powerful bunker buster bombs.
There are some, it says Iran hawks have pressed them to consider special forces on a ground mission to destroy the facility.
Other experts who favor dialogue call those ideas far-fetched and say that Pickaxe Mountain illustrates the impossibility of relying on force alone to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
What do you think of that?
So, Pickaxe Mountain is absolutely a challenge, and that's really the kind of challenge that I described that the Iranians are investing in in order to make their nuclear weapons program immune to outside interference, to outside weaponry.
So, a couple of interesting factors here.
If you bury something deep in the mountain, that could indeed be immune to the kind of conventional weapons that we use, including our very heavy daisy cutters, our bunker busters.
However, if you have that there, Iranians need to be able to get in and out, right?
And that is a vulnerability for sites like that, because obviously it doesn't have lots of entrances and exits because it's deep inside a mountain.
And so, our ability to close that off with bombing is quite clear.
The problem for us is that they can dig it out.
And this is what we don't want to do.
We don't want to do what in the region is often called mowing the lawn, right?
It's going back again and again and again in order to deal with a challenge as it rears its head again.
What we want to do, and people who suggest this are right, what we want to do is we want to find a negotiated answer to this in which they give that up to us in a verifiable fashion because the military answer is complex, it's dangerous, and it is fraught with risk for whoever does it.
Well, Danielle, you've used the term verifiable several times, and I want to ask you: how can we really know?
One of the issues that critics bring up with the JCPOA of the Obama administration is, well, we couldn't really verify what was actually going on in Iran.
What makes you think that we can actually verify this time if they do come to an agreement?
So, the problem with the JCPOA is that we weren't doing the verifying.
It was the International Atomic Energy Agency.
And while I have an enormous amount of respect for their leadership and for their technical abilities, the bottom line is that at any moment of its choosing, Iran can basically tell inspectors, you can't go there, and did that on a repeated basis.
They can tell inspectors to get out of the country.
They've done that on a repeated basis.
And that is the challenge.
That's why the model that we had with Libya is one that is so desirable.
And that is where we went in.
We, the United States, our officials, we took out their centrifuges.
We took out their fissile material.
We took out the means of developing further nuclear materiel and the means of delivering it.
And we brought it to Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in the United States.
That's the way you do it verifiably.
You go, you see, you take, you scrub, you visit every site you need to visit without opposition from the regime or anybody else, and then you can be assured that nothing is there.
Hezbollah Terror Status00:06:46
Valdez in Mapleton, Illinois, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Yes, hi, good morning.
Say, I've been watching Ms. Klutka for a long time on C-SPAN.
And if she notices, I've been reading a lot about the international community, including Jose Andres, who is just about as innocuous as anybody could be.
You're losing a lot of friends there in Israel.
In fact, they are being considered one of the most terrorist nations in the world.
So, somebody's got it right, or unless everybody's wrong and we're the only ones who are right.
And additionally, who is actually the aggressor?
You're talking about Iranians killing their own people.
Yes, I'm glad I don't live there.
However, we've also been seeing people being just obliterated in Gaza and the West Bank, and there's not a word spoken.
And the last thing, Ms. Plutka, I'll ask you: do you condemn what Minister Gallant said during the beginning of the war when he said that he was gloating that he had cut off the food, the electricity?
He wanted the Palestinians to suffer and die.
Those are his words.
And he also said that there were no innocent Palestinians.
So I have always said, conversely, if that's going to be the case, or that's the logic we're going to use as human beings, then there are no innocent Israelis either.
And if we go down that road, who are we as people, as a human race?
So I'd like you to address at least some condemnation of Bibi Netanyahu, who's been wanting to fight everybody forever and not losing our soldiers as a former soldier who enlisted, not drafted.
Please answer that question for me.
Thank you.
Well, thank you for your service.
It's not my job to defend Israeli government ministers, and I'm not going to do it.
I would only point out to you that on October 6th, 2023, there was nothing going on in Gaza except Hamas rule.
And October 7th, 2023 was a decision on the part of Hamas and its sponsors in Iran to change that calculus.
Everything that has happened in Gaza flows from that.
That is the original sin here.
And unfortunately, war, I believe someone once said, is hell.
It's been hell for the Israeli people and it's been hell for the Palestinians.
And what I would like to see is Hamas disappear.
And that is one of the reasons why Iran is such an important question to resolve.
Because it is Iran that has been at the heart of support for these kinds of groups that have destroyed a future for the Palestinian people, destroyed it.
That is what Hamas did.
Hezbollah has, for the last four decades, been trying to destroy the country of Lebanon, acting as if it is the elected leadership of the country and not the actual elected leadership.
Iran has been destroying countries, half a million people murdered in Syria.
I don't see any demonstrations about that, but I wrote a lot about that.
I cared a lot about that because the Syrian people didn't deserve that at the hands of the Russians, Hezbollah, and the Iranians.
This is the challenge.
If we deal with the regime in Iran, we solve a lot of problems.
We don't solve the question of a homeland for the Palestinian people, but we do solve the problem of sponsorship, of radicalism, and Islamist extremism in the region that is absolutely a scourge for Jews and for Muslims and for Christians, all of the people of the Middle East.
Well, Danielle, let's talk about Hezbollah because there is currently a ceasefire between them and Israel.
Where does this go?
Because it is in Israel's interest to completely destroy Hezbollah, like they attempted with Hamas.
So what, I mean, is there going to be a negotiation between Israel and Hezbollah?
What actually happens?
I mean, you're asking a very interesting question.
You know, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.
Yes, it has what amounts to an actual army, the largest terrorist army in the world, although ISIS and Al-Qaeda are working at coming back very assiduously.
But Hezbollah has no status.
If we want to pretend that they have some political status, it is as a political party in Lebanon that is not in the leadership, that is not the president, that is not the prime minister.
It is the government of Lebanon that needs to seize back its country.
And I was truly proud of my Lebanese friends when I saw the meeting between the Lebanese ambassador and the Israeli ambassador under the auspices of Marco Rubio that began the first direct dialogue we've seen between them in decades.
Israel doesn't need to be negotiating with Hezbollah.
The Lebanese government needs to take back its country.
And it is very, very difficult for as long as Iran continues to arm and fund and support Hezbollah.
That needs to end.
All of that needs to end because peace between Lebanon and Israel is eminently possible.
Lebanon is the most wonderful, beautiful country that has been destroyed by these people.
Tony in Silver Spring, Maryland, Independent Line, go ahead.
Yes, if nuclear bombs is a problem, why not make all the people who own bombs in the Middle East disarm?
And why won't Israel stay established as border?
It started with 242, and the thing is, Israel has no borders.
It expands its borders to Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and everywhere else.
Danielle, disarming of Israel's nuclear weapons.
Regional Disarmament Context00:04:32
I think that a conversation about regional nuclear disarmament has to happen in the context of the illicit nuclear weapons program in Iran.
If Iran is disarmed, then all of a sudden there is some reason to talk to the Israelis about their as yet undeclared, but we all assume existing nuclear weapons program.
The problem for us is, again, not who has it, but the nature of the regime and the risk of proliferation.
Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran was.
Israel is like India and Pakistan.
None of them signed up to the strictures of the NPT.
Iran did.
So first we need to make sure that that threat is dealt with because Iran is a known proliferator.
Iran is a known threat.
Iran has attacked its neighbors and supported terrorist organizations that have attacked and killed, frankly, far too many Americans.
And we have tolerated that.
So that needs to be the beginning.
Once that happens, that conversation can be opened up and the questions can be asked.
All right.
That is Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute's Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Senior Fellow.
Her work is at AEI.org as well as her substack.
Danielle, thanks so much for being with us.
Thank you for having me.
And that is today's Washington Journal.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
Thanks to those that called in.
We're back again tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Eastern.
And thanks for watching.
Democracy Unfiltered.
Start your day with Washington Journal, your window into the nation's capital.
The only nationally televised forum for discussing the latest issues in Washington and across the country.
It gives the people an opportunity to speak for themselves on the issues that they actually care about.
This is a great forum, and you get to talk to real Americans and look forward to the callers.
I've always enjoyed doing the program.
And I would be remiss.
This is my first time ever on C-SPAN if I didn't say that I think, and all your callers, our country would be a better place if every American just watched one hour a week.
They could pick one, two, or three.
Join us for a live three-hour conversation with a variety of congressional members and Washington influencers.
You can watch Washington Journal live every morning at 7 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, or online at c-SPAN.org.
Well, coming up shortly here on C-SPAN, we're going to take you to London, where British Prime Minister Kier Starmer is expected to speak about former UK Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson, who was fired after confirmation of his connection to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The Prime Minister plans to discuss the security vetting process before he appointed Mr. Mandelson to the post, as he's facing accusations that Peter Mandelson was appointed despite security concerns.
That's set to begin at 10:30 a.m. Eastern.
When it happens, be sure to follow our live coverage here on C-SPAN on our free C-SPAN Now mobile app and online at c-SPAN.org.
Join C-SPAN this Saturday at 7 p.m. Eastern for Washington's premier black tie event, the White House Correspondents Dinner.
Watch live coverage from the Washington Hilton featuring red carpet arrivals of top journalists, political leaders, and celebrities.
This year's featured entertainer is renowned mentalist Bose Perlman, and And President Donald Trump is expected to make his first appearance as president.
The White House Correspondents Dinner, live this Saturday at 7 p.m. Eastern, on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
Independence Day Themes00:00:22
This year, as we mark the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, C-SPAN's Student Cam documentary competition invited students to create short films exploring themes from American history, the rights and freedoms Rooted in this founding document and pressing issues of today: from the economy and immigration to criminal justice, education.