Virginia voters approved a new map by 52 to 48 percent while King Charles III and Queen Camilla prepare for a state visit celebrating America's 250th birthday. The episode addresses a shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner where suspect Cole Thomas Allen was arrested, sparking debates on political violence driven by AI misinformation and harsh rhetoric. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch confirmed charges against Allen, while callers debated whether Trump's language or Democratic corruption incited the attack. Simultaneously, the DOJ ended its probe into Jerome Powell to facilitate Kevin Warsh's Fed confirmation, and experts analyzed how the royal visit might repair strained U.S.-UK ties despite tensions over Iran and trade disputes. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
King Charles Arrives In US00:02:42
The state's new congressional map that gives a 10-to-1 advantage to Democrats in the 2026 election.
Virginia voters approved the new map last week by a margin of 52 to 48 percent.
Watch live coverage beginning at 9 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2.
C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online at c-span.org.
King Charles and Queen Camilla are heading to the U.S. for a four-day state visit beginning today.
During their trip, the King will address a joint session of Congress.
And President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump will host the royal couple at a state dinner at the White House.
The visit also includes stops in New York and Virginia, where they'll take part in a block party celebrating America's 250th birthday.
Don't miss live coverage of the Royal State Visit beginning today on the C-SPAN networks.
Coming up this morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, along with your calls and comments live, C-SPAN Westminster correspondent Peter Knowles on King Charles III and Queen Camilla's four-day American tour.
And then Real Clear Politics Sean Trendy will talk about efforts by Republicans and Democrats to hold power in the House amid redistricting efforts.
Later at Newsweek, White House reporter Leonardo Feldman previews the week ahead at the White House.
And American University's Garrett Martin on King Charles III and Queen Camilla's four-day American tour.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
Join the conversation.
Good morning.
It's Monday, April 27th.
A shooting Saturday night at the White House Correspondents Dinner has renewed a national conversation about political violence.
Gunshots were fired near the main security screening area of the Washington Hilton.
President Trump, the First Lady, Vice President Vance, and many members of the cabinet were evacuated by the Secret Service.
One law enforcement officer was struck, saved by a bulletproof vest, and is recovering.
A suspect was taken into custody at the scene.
He is identified as Cole Thomas Allen, age 31 of Torrance, California.
He's expected to be charged in federal court today.
Our question this morning, what are your thoughts on political violence in America, and what do you think needs to be done about it?
Here's how to share your thoughts.
Republicans, call us on 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can text us at 202-748-8003.
Include your first name and your city-state.
Political Violence And Suspect Arrested00:04:22
And we're on social media, facebook.com slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
We will get to your calls shortly, but first take a look at what President Trump said he was interviewed on CBS's 60 Minutes.
This is what he said about political violence.
Also at the dinner last night was your Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
His sister, Carrie Kennedy, was there.
They've both witnessed their father and their uncle be assassinated.
Erica Kirk was there.
The House Majority Leader Steve Scalise was there.
Political violence has touched so many people in that room.
Is there something that you as president can do?
What can be done to change the trajectory?
You know, you go back 20 years, 40 years, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years.
It's always been there.
People are assassinated.
People are injured.
People are hurt.
And I'm not sure that it's any more now than there was.
I do think that the hate speech of the Democrats, much more so, is very dangerous.
I really think it's very dangerous to the country.
That was the president yesterday on 60 minutes, and we are taking your calls this morning.
Take a look at this poll from PRRI, and this is what it asked.
So it says this: that two-thirds of Americans, 67%, believe political leaders' failure to condemn violent rhetoric contributes a lot to violent actions in society.
So here are the top lines.
It says: majorities of Americans also believe that false or misleading information generated by AI at 64% and public displays of hate symbols at 61% contribute a lot to violent actions in society, while smaller majorities believe easy access to guns and harsh and violent political language are also drivers.
That's at 53%.
While 51% of Republicans believe public displays of hate symbols contribute a lot to violence, 76% of Democrats do.
Fewer than half of Republicans, that's at 46%, believe that harsh and violent political language contributes a lot to violence in society.
White evangelical Protestants are the only group of religious Americans in which a minority, 47%, share that view.
We'll look more at that poll this morning.
We'll take a call first from Timothy in Vermont.
Democrat, you're on the air.
Yes.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning.
Regarding political violence, I mean, from what I can ascertain, this administration has done whatever they can do to pretty much divide and conquer.
It's funny.
I remember, so I'm from Burlington, Vermont, and the man that preceded Bernie, and this is relevant, I'm not digressing.
And Bernie won that election in Burlington by 10 votes, 1980.
But anyway, a guy I went to high school with, his name is Doug Killery.
Ironically, that's the truth.
Mayor Gordon Pauquet was mayor of Burlington.
And Doug popped a few shots up at this bar called Nectars, where the mayor was having breakfast.
And Doug didn't like Mayor Gordon Pauquet for whatever reason.
But all I'm saying is that the divide and conquer concept is very much alive and well.
And the polarity is beyond polarizing.
Hate Groups Fueling National Division00:15:24
So, and what do you think needs to be done about it?
I try to have a normal discourse with my friends.
I mean, I'm a left-leaning Democrat.
My grandfather was mayor of St. Albans, which is north about 50 miles of.
I've always been a Democrat.
All right.
Always.
Well, Timothy, let's hear what other people think.
Here's David in Riverside, California, Republican.
Go ahead, David.
Good morning, Mimi, and good morning, America.
The guy at the correspondence dinner trying to kill Trump for his cabinet members is a good example that there are a lot of people in America who do not understand why we're at war with Iran.
We need more education.
Some people think President Trump is the enemy or the Jews.
No, my friend, you just don't understand what's at stake.
We dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.
That was 80 years ago.
And nobody really remembers it, but the same nuclear bombs that were dropped still exist, and much more powerful ones called thermonuclear bombs, which are 500 to 1,000 times stronger than the ones dropped on Japan.
President Trump is trying to protect us from that, but I don't think people understand the risk.
We've lost 15 men in the war against Iran.
One nuclear explosion, you lose 100,000 people.
And that's with regular nuclear bombs.
Iran will use them.
They want to kill large numbers of people.
And they're civilians.
They're not in the military, just random people dying for no good reason.
And you look at North Korea, they have nuclear weapons.
We can't defeat them on the battlefield.
So, getting back to political violence, what do you think needs to be done, David?
I just think people need to realize Trump is not the devil.
You look over at Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, who we just took out, and his son.
So the violence is not just against President Trump.
There's violence against Democrats as well.
Well, the studies have shown that most political violence, if you listen to polls, it's about four to one liberals, radical liberals over conservatives.
So this is really a liberal problem.
They tend to shoot before we do.
We'd rather have a discussion like Charlie Kirk did.
Susan, Council Bluffs, Iowa Independent Line, you're on the air, Susan.
Hi.
I would like to say that I believe political violence stems from the current president.
The way he talks every day or posts on social media, you know, it's constantly, you know, demeaning former presidents, constantly about Obama and Michelle Obama as ape or going after Joe Biden, Sleepy Joe.
Even though this man is going through stage four cancer treatment, it's constant demeaning.
He won't even put their picture up in the White House.
And he's always going after everybody.
It's retaliation against universities, libraries, anybody that he can sue because he's all about power, wealth, gold, retaliation.
And so then, Susan, what do you think needs to be done about it?
Well, I would like to see the 25th Amendment, but he needs to stop posting.
He needs to say it starts at the top, and also others in his administration.
They are constantly demeaning the former President Biden.
You know, with everything that he posts, just like 60 Minutes, who's to blame?
The Democrats.
He blamed the Democrats.
He needs to stop.
And everybody that calls up, they blame the Democrats for everything.
Well, I'm an independent, but you know, I'm just so tired of the division in this country and the hatred that exists.
But it starts at the top, like with any organization, even where I worked years ago, it starts at the top.
That person sets the tone.
And I don't consider him a patriot because a patriot would bring the country together, not constantly demean and sue anybody who doesn't agree with him.
All right, Susan.
And this is from Pew Research.
This is a poll.
As far as the source of this, it says 77% of Republicans say left-wing extremism is a major problem in the country.
Far fewer, 27%, say this about right-wing extremism.
On the other side, Democrats' views are nearly the reverse.
76% say right-wing extremism is a major problem, while 32% say left-wing extremism is a major problem.
About half of both Republicans, 49% and Democrats, 47%, say extremism from those without clear political views is a major problem.
This is pewresearch.org.
Well, Representative Roe Conna, Democrat of California, was on NBC's Meet the Press.
Here's what he had to say.
I do want to start by getting your reaction to the events that unfolded here overnight in Washington, and everyone's so grateful to the Secret Service for keeping us safe.
It was absolutely horrific.
I'm so relieved that the President, the First Lady, every administration official, and all the guests are safe.
I appreciate law enforcement and particularly the Secret Service agent who was shot and hope he makes a full recovery.
But as you know, Kristen, this is an event that is actually the symbol of an open, free society.
And to see journalists like you and others ducking under tables was just horrifying.
We need a bipartisan national commission for political violence in this country.
I heard Senator Tillis speak.
We should look at social media.
We should look at mental health issues.
We should look at language, but we need to do something to bring the temperature down.
Well, let me ask you about what happens next in terms of this investigation.
Do you have confidence in the Secret Service and the FBI as they carry out this investigation, Congressman?
On this issue, I do.
I heard Acting Attorney General Blanche, as you know, we've had disagreements on the Epstein files, but I do believe that he's going to do everything to have a thorough investigation.
I appreciate what law enforcement did to make sure that the breach was not more than a few feet.
We look at whether there needs to be even more security in the future.
I mean, I've gone to those events.
It's always struck me as a bit odd that the metal detectors are before the ballroom as opposed to before the hotel.
So maybe there will be some things that need to be fixed, but I do believe he will do a thorough job on this.
That was Representative RoCana.
We're taking your calls.
What do you think needs to be done about political violence in the U.S.?
John, a Republican in Scheiner, Texas, good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning.
The first thing we do, we all need to realize that we're all the same.
This is, the Constitution says we the people.
And it is we the people.
It's not we half of the people, not the other half.
It's all of us together.
And the reason we're divided is because the politicians, specifically, I'm a Republican, specifically the Democrats want to use it.
Alinsky has a model.
And Hillary Clinton did her thesis on Alinsky is basically seeking to divide the people.
Sorry, I'm walking this morning.
But the reality is that Obama started this with, you know, we hope we cleaned out guns and Bible.
Hillary said she can smell the people from Walmart.
And everything Trump does is bad.
Let me tell you what would happen if we had a nuclear bomb.
Before I say this, 60 Minutes confirmed that Iran had enough bomb, enough nuclear material to make 10 nuclear bombs.
What would happen before it goes up?
No, no, no.
We need to check that, John.
You said that CBS confirmed that they are able to create a bomb currently?
Yes, they have.
Well, they could do it within two months.
They have it.
It reached 60%.
This wasn't 60 minutes.
So, yes, we do know that they have nuclear material at 60%.
That's not enough for a bomb.
So you're saying that it would be in two months that they would have a weapon?
It would take two months to get it to 80%, which would make it mean not to make a nuclear bomb.
What would happen if you're not going to be able to do that?
We're not going to get off on Iran.
So let's go back to violence.
You said initially that it's we, as far as the people, need to understand that we're all the same.
But then you said it was the politicians.
So do you think it's a matter of us here, the common people, the citizens, just kind of coming together and understanding, as you said, that we're all the same, we're all in this together.
Or do you think it needs to come from politicians?
Well, I think politicians need to quit trying.
Politicians win.
All they care about is winning elections and how they win elections.
If everything was, if we were all hunky-dory, if we got along kumbaya, we wouldn't need politicians.
They wouldn't be able to, what would they run on?
What would they try to win on?
They can't say, okay, we're all happy together.
We're all one people.
We're all getting along.
Well, why would a politician win?
What would their campaign be?
They have to divide us to win, okay, you're the bad guy, you're the good guy.
You're the bad guy, you're the good guy.
And that's how they win.
And some of the stuff these people call in and say, it's absolutely, I mean, Trump is a pitiful.
He raped kids.
I see all the time on Facebook.
Trump raped kids.
No, he didn't.
But these people believe it.
And for some strange reason, I don't understand why, that I think that people had just lost sense of reality.
And the reason they hate Trump so much is because he showed the complete incompetence and corruption of the government, and he stopped the gravy train.
Remember, he said last night, it's true.
Every person has tried to change things has been assassinated.
Martin Luther King tried to change things, he was assassinated.
John F. Kennedy tried to change things, he was assassinated.
Abraham Lincoln was assassinated because of Civil War.
Everybody who tries to change the reality or the status quo gets attacked.
Okay?
All right.
And we need to understand that we are the people.
Yep, we've got that, John.
Thank you very much.
And Jeff, Indianapolis, Democrat, good morning to you.
Yes, and I believe a lot of this got started right when Trump decided he was going to run for president.
Now, a lot of people think that that decision was made in 2011 at the same White House cross fighters dinner when Obama made some jokes while Trump was sitting there.
And Trump is part of the reason why we have so much division in this country.
The MAGA influencers and the MAGA supporters of Trump can sit up here all day long and try to deny it.
But why is Trump up at 4 o'clock in the morning putting posts on True Social attacking Democrats in the media?
He constantly does this all the time.
He is in no way trying to bring this country together.
And if any MAGA person comes on here and tries to say that, they're lying.
Because we have the evidence.
He's not trying to bring this country together.
He is totally, constantly trying to keep us divided with all the rhetoric that he posts and he says every day.
So Jeff.
So Jeff, do you believe that there's a role for us as citizens in bringing the country together and ending the political violence?
Yeah, but a lot of these people are not trying to do it.
All you got to do is go on X and look at all the MAGA influencers and what they post about Obama.
He should be in prison.
He should be executed.
This is what they say.
They're not trying to do it.
No way.
Let's hear from Patrick in Reading, Massachusetts Independent Line.
Good morning, Patrick.
Good morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
I wanted to call to you talking about the rhetoric.
I was listening to your show back probably a couple of months ago.
It was the Sunday morning when the U.S. hockey men's hockey team won the gold.
And I saw, I listened to a caller that called in and said that Trump should be under the ground.
And I'm very surprised that you allowed that call to go across the airwaves.
Can you explain why you would allow that?
So, Patrick, I can tell you for sure I wasn't the host on that time because I've not hosted on Sunday morning.
So, I can't give you an answer.
We do always say we don't advocate, we don't allow for anybody to advocate for violence.
Your station allowed that to go through.
You have a time delay, and I just couldn't understand.
I mean, that right there showing that where some.
So, Patrick, sometimes we're not able to catch it, even with the delay.
And I'm sure you've heard you've heard the F-word go over the air.
We're sometimes not able to catch it fast enough.
But I'm being told, Patrick, hold on, hold on.
I'm being told that Pedro was hosting, that he ended the call after that.
But I guess your point is we should have tried to go back and delete it.
We didn't catch it in time, but the call was ended.
So, that's I hope that answers your question.
Terry, Canton, North Carolina, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
Number one, it looks like the SPLC has done their job very well to divide this country.
The Southern Poverty Law Center.
Exactly.
And why is that?
Well, they were paying hate groups to divide this country.
Actually, they're going on and profiting from what they just did.
Number two, we can go back to the Obama administration.
You can ask Ann Coulter what it was like to go on the college campus and give a speech there.
Her life was threatened multiple times under the Obama administration.
And under the Obama administration, Americans, white Americans, were targeted as white supremacists.
Joe Biden got up and made a speech saying that white people were the problem in this country.
White people generally or white supremacists?
Well, you tell me what's the difference.
How many white supremacists?
Oh, there's a big difference, Terry.
Compared to a Democrat out there calling me a Nazi, calling me a white supremacist, calling me a racist.
Terry, I've got a question for you.
Rhetoric Divides The Nation00:15:14
I got a question for you.
Can you answer this?
So this is on one of the polls.
And this is the question.
So tell me if you agree with this.
Quote, because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.
Do you agree or disagree with that?
That sounds exactly like a Democrat talking point right there.
No, no, no.
I'm asking you, this was a poll.
So on that poll, this is how it came out.
77% disagree.
20% agree with that.
I'm interested to see if you were asked that question, where would you be on that?
If you'd like to answer that question, clearly the caller did not want to answer that question.
Charles in Mississippi, Democrat, good morning to you.
Good morning.
How are you?
Good.
Look, on the issue of political violence in the U.S., I do have to agree with the previous caller, one of the previous scholars, and laid this at the foot of Donald Trump.
We have never seen such an Outline of an amount of political violence as we have in any other presidency, except his.
His toner, his choice of words, his condescending reactions to news people, you know, and his overall tone has contributed greatly to this violence.
But as for the incident on Saturday, if I might just comment on that, after viewing the tape of that incident, I'm kind of leaning more and more inclined to believe that this is a kind of a wag the dog moment.
You think it was fake?
Well, look, it's almost impossible for me to believe that you have the sitting president, vice president, and the speaker of the house, I think was present at the time, the three most powerful people in the United States, I mean, in the world, per se.
And here comes a lone gunman who has a weapon concealed, but visibly you could see that it's some sort of weapon.
Sprints past security, who should have had some sort of petition there to not allow someone to come in that easily.
Sprints past security and didn't get shot.
He was not shot.
He fires a shot that hits a person in the vest.
And, you know, it's just seemed, it may not have been staged, but it just seems funny.
Listen, your poll numbers are tanking.
You've got to change the narrative some kind of way.
So this is a golden opportunity to stop talking about Iran and the Epstein files and all of the other things that are dragging his numbers down.
Now, here's what will happen, in my opinion.
Trump will come out and sound more congenial.
He'll soften his rhetoric and he'll try to appear to be a more kinder, gentler president, and in hopes that it'll turn around those numbers that are dragging him and the Republican Party down.
So, Charles, going back to what needs to be done about the rhetoric, you lay this at President Trump's feet.
What about what the other callers said was that President Obama was very divisive and said things like, you know, these people cling to their God and their guns.
Well, he didn't lie in that respect.
President Obama, look, he was marked from day one, first of all, by being a black president.
He had folks not rioting, but protesting that.
I've worked with persons who were greatly offended by his having been elected.
These are white workers that were greatly offended by him being elected president.
So he was in a hot seat from day one.
I don't think that he could divide the country anymore.
I thought, from my perspective, that he did more to try to bring the country together.
His rhetoric was not one that would divide.
He often talked about us all being Americans.
All right, Charles.
Let's hear from the acting attorney general.
He was on ABC's this week, and he talked about political violence and efforts to keep federal officials safe.
Finally, you know, this is the third attempt on President Trump in the last two years.
We've seen members of Congress targeted.
We've seen other government officials targeted.
How would you describe the threat environment right now and what more needs to be done to keep us all safe?
It's a great question.
There have been threats against leadership for a very long time, years and years and years.
That's not new.
There is something unique about the threats against President Trump and his cabinet that is disgusting and it shouldn't be happening.
On the other hand, that's why we have great law enforcement.
That's why we have DHS and our intelligence community and the FBI and all of our other partners that are working every day to stop those threats before they happen.
And we've seen that exposed publicly a lot, like you just said.
But you also have a lot of times when we foil attempts at whether it's terrorists or whether it's domestic terrorists or Iran or other nation states that are threatening us.
And so it's a fight.
It's something that has kept all of us busy for a long time.
And we are at a crunch time right now with security and keeping all of us safe.
And we will continue to do that and to work hard and identify threats and stop them.
And the rhetoric that is out there on social media is one of the reasons for it.
And so we monitor that very carefully, as you would expect us to, and we'll keep doing that.
And we've got a couple of comments on Facebook.
Diane says, the United States is a violent country.
It seems to be part of our culture.
That means we need culture change, and that's not easy.
Bob says, people keep saying both sides need to refrain from the rhetoric, but it's only one side calling Trump Hitler and his supporters Nazis.
And Diane Patterson says, what needs to be done is actually jailing people, thugs, for violence they cause on someone else.
No more slapping the hand and telling them to behave, actually making them account for their crap.
And Jeannie says, violence has always been at the center of America.
The difference now is that instead of being inflicted on the people, the people are aiming at the lawmakers.
We're getting your thoughts this morning on what needs to be done about political violence in the U.S. on the Republican line, El Dorado, Arkansas.
Stanley, you're on the air.
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you for taking my call.
I listen to y'all a lot in the mornings while I'm drinking my coffee.
And it's some of the people on here are literally hilarious, the things they have to say.
And I notice a lot of them.
I'm not being racist.
A lot of them are mostly black or colored on the Democrat side.
If you'll just sit back and let this man do his job, you'll find out that everything he's going to stop these wars.
And he's not racist at all.
He's just a very concerned man that loves his country just like I do.
A lot of people do.
And if the Democrats get back into control, we will be under socialist rules.
That's what that's their goal: Bernie Sanders, AOC.
That's what they want.
They want one party rule.
They want it.
So, Stanley, when you say just sit back and let him do what he needs to do, I mean, did you feel that way under President Biden?
In other words, if you were wanting to say, look, this is wrong, I feel like the country's going in the wrong direction, and then Democrats said to you, Stanley, just let him do what he needs to do.
He's the president.
How would you have reacted?
I never did trust Biden.
I don't think he was legally elected.
I went to bed that night at 1 o'clock.
Trump had a little over 10 million vote lead.
I said, well, we got this.
I got up next morning at 5.30 or 6, turned on T V, and Joe Biden had won by 10, 11, 12 million.
I said, this is a big joke.
They had it on.
They had it on there for several hours.
People in Georgia, everywhere voting.
Geeky.
All right, Sanley.
Alexander in Brooklyn, New York, Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking the call.
The last call just makes the point of everything that is wrong with this country.
The talking points that he just said are literally what Trump said about the election, which is denying, creating hatred, creating a false sense that things are being stolen from you.
And then you get January 6th.
And even on this program, despite the fact that they saw it live on television, they will tell you that it didn't happen or that it wasn't as bad as it was.
The problem with this country isn't the politicians, it's us.
We are all losers in this country.
You cannot have a democracy when more than 50% of the people in this country read at a level that is below a sixth grade level.
You can't have a democracy when the obesity rate, when the diabetes rate is astronomically through the roof, when you have 1.5 guns per man, woman, and child in this country.
Okay, so Alexander, Alexander, tell me what you think is a solution.
Is it education?
Is that the issue?
Do you think, you know, you mentioned gun ownership?
It's everything.
Everything is.
This problem cannot be tackled by saying that it's simply politicians.
Trump is just an end result of the failures of everything that is wrong with this country.
You can't have a democracy if you don't have education.
The gun lobbyists are pouring billions of dollars into making more guns in this country.
You have people saying that we need the Second Amendment.
You have Congress people.
You have the President of the United States on Easter Sunday saying that we have to exterminate a whole people.
And on that very day, you had all of these politicians in his party saying that he can say what he wants, that he's a politician, that he's just playing hardball.
And when situations like this happens, then people will say we have to stop.
You'll have people on this program say, well, this president called Obama and put him as a monkey.
The person next to them, when they come on, they completely dismiss what was just said.
People are literally talking over the people that are talking behind them, and nobody is listening to what the other person has to say.
So you have to tackle this from so many angles that the reality is that we are just a morally, financially, spiritually corrupt nation.
So Alexander.
Do you know what it will take?
Alexander, let me ask you your honest opinion.
Do you think this program where we allow people from all over the country to come on and give their opinions and talk about things, do you think that that's helping?
I honestly don't because, I mean, I do.
Yesterday on Ceasefire, you had two people come on, and I'm sorry if I forget their names, but one of them said, you know, when Newt Ginrich came on, he said the only way Republicans can win is if they can create division.
Because if they keep agreeing with Democrats, they will never have control of the House.
Now you amplify that with the algorithm that we have across all of these social media platforms, and it's creating more division.
I understand that you have a broad base of people that call from the full spectrum.
But if you hear the talking points that everybody is saying, it is filtered through social media.
So, no matter how much information you throw at people to try to get them to come and see the other side, you think we can't because everybody is stuck in their own silos.
Well, Alexander.
Yeah, we appreciate you following the program carefully and watching our programs.
Here's Robert Marina Del Rey, California, Independent Line.
Good morning.
I want to make a point that seems not to be made on this show or anywhere else in the media.
Although widely discussed, realized acts of political violence in the United States are rare and constitute about 1% of all hate crimes.
That's something no one talks about.
No one defines what political violence is.
Are you telling me that the political violence of 1968 when Robert Kennedy was murdered and Martin Luther King is murdered and the violence in the streets and all the things and the riots that were going on in the cities compares to today?
The only reason why we're talking about this is because Donald Trump has been a target of three, now three assassination attempts.
The murder of Charles Kirk.
That's what's happening.
This is not a widespread issue that everyone's trying to make it out to be.
Secondly, as far as Trump's polling numbers, they don't matter.
He's a lame duck.
He can't run again.
He's constitutionally barred from running.
Nobody brings that point up.
And sometimes I just think you guys look for a topic that's controversial enough that will draw people to call the show or to just draw a controversy.
It's kind of like talk radio.
So what would you have rather we be talking about this morning?
Well, I'd rather must be talking about hard issues like affordability in the United States or how are we going to pay for Medicare and Medicaid or the future of Social Security.
Well, to be fair, Robert, we do talk a lot about that.
But you're interrupting me.
Let me finish.
You could say whatever you want and you can hang up on me.
The fact of the matter is that the hardcore issues in the United States aren't discussed because neither party has a solution and both of them have created the problems that we have.
Prioritizing Hard Economic Issues00:03:21
That's what you're not saying.
That's what C-SPAN should do as a non-partisan, objective third party.
Okay, Robert.
Thank you.
Here is Jamie Raskin.
He's a Democrat from Maryland.
He was on CBS's Face the Nation talking about this topic of political violence.
The president, I want to make sure that I recognize what he says because we don't hear him speak this way very often.
He said, I asked all Americans to recommit with their hearts to resolve our difference peacefully.
And he talked about being unified with members of the press.
Well, that certainly...
That's a new message from him.
That's great.
He had called the press, of course, the enemy of the people, and he's been engaged in a lot of lawsuits against your profession.
Well, yes.
We are going into this politically charged midterm season.
There's going to be campaigning around the country with lawmakers out there.
I mean, does something change?
He said this.
Does something change?
Does democratic language need to change as well?
We have said all along that we need every politician in the country, every leader in the country, every citizen in the country denouncing political violence across the board, regardless of where it's coming from.
So, you know, I find this a welcome change in rhetoric, but what happened last week?
They brought a lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose whole purpose is to investigate violent right-wing extremism in the country.
And now they're prosecuting them for having used undercover agents, which, of course, the FBI uses and the government uses all the time.
Well, understood.
And there is across party lines some political violence, way too much of it right now.
And actually, Speaker Amerita Pelosi on this program said to me recently that she thought the threat or the concern about violence or threats to your family is what is hurting recruitment of people to run for office, particularly mothers, particularly women.
Are you seeing that, that people are afraid to even join public life because of this?
Sure.
Anybody who's thinking about running for office undoubtedly thinks about that.
Anybody who's thinking about running for president undoubtedly thinks about that.
And those people have the most protection with the Secret Service, and other people don't have the same kind of protection.
So look, we've got to rediscover the great American tradition of nonviolence.
And Dr. King and the civilizing movements that have always opposed violence versus the violent groups that have used violence historically, beginning with the Ku Kux Klan, in order to terrorize other people.
So our topic this morning is what needs to be done about political violence in the U.S.
We will continue that topic.
So if you're on the line, please do stay on the line.
We will get to your call shortly.
We're just going to pause and speak to our C-SPAN Westminster correspondent because the four-day tour of the U.S. by King Charles and his wife, Queen Camilla, starts today.
Peter Knowles, welcome to the program.
Good morning.
Thank you.
Peter, we're just talking about, as you probably heard, political violence in the U.S. given the events of this weekend.
Rebuilding UK Relations With Visit00:05:24
And want to just ask you first about the decision to move forward with this royal visit and reaction from the UK.
I don't think there was any surprise that the visit was going to continue.
Presidents and kings are used their entire lives to facing a threat of violence.
It comes in different forms and different places.
But it would have been astonishing if the visit had been called off.
But sure, like everything else that happened in the States, the attempted assassination yesterday really is quite shocking and has made the headlines ever since.
So what would you say is the palace's goal for this visit?
What are they trying to accomplish by coming to the United States?
The calm goals of it, the ones that assume that politics carries on like it always has, would be to emphasize cultural and historical links, trade links, security and intelligence links.
But I think that doesn't really do justice to what's needed here so far as the UK is concerned, which is that after a few weeks of rapidly deteriorating relations, there's a keenly felt need to rebuild a relationship, a good relationship, and it's hoped that the King, who has a good and friendly relationship with President Trump, may be able to help.
But the differences between the two governments have been really acute and appear to be deepening almost by the day with the latest pronouncements from Washington.
Well, let me ask you about the role of King Charles as head of state, not head of government.
So how much interaction, how much coordination is there on this trip between the king and the prime minister, Kirst Armour?
A huge amount.
I mean, the trip goes ahead because Downing Street, the Prime Minister, has asked for it and the King is doing as the government wishes.
The government will be heavily involved in writing speeches, but then the King won't say anything that he doesn't want to say.
So this is a close working relationship.
And bear in mind that the King has a weekly audit private audience with the Prime Minister, which never gets written up.
Then there are close relations.
So they are harnessed together.
But the King's role as head of state, it isn't just titular.
There are some important implications.
For one thing, and this is worth bearing in mind, as President Trump and Pete Hegseth have been pretty rude about the UK's armed forces, bear in mind that the King is the Royal Navy.
It's the Royal Air Force.
The clue is in the title.
So this touches upon the King quite closely.
And how are the British people feeling about this visit?
Well, it's certainly captured the attention since the events at the correspondence dinner, for sure.
Before that, and a lot of interest in how the king will cope with the stresses of the relationship.
In terms of the 250th anniversary, which is what this is meant to be all about, well, that's not yet really captured the public imagination here in the UK.
The soccer World Cup is first and foremost in people's minds and the preparations and some of the difficulties in the preparations for that.
And finally, I want to ask you about Prince Harry.
He does live in the United States.
The king is not expected to visit his son while he's here in America.
What are your thoughts on that?
What do you think is behind that?
Well, I think everybody is aware.
Is there a family that doesn't have strained relationships?
There's probably not.
And there's a very long cultural, historical precedent for this.
If you go back to Shakespeare, then the difficulties that Henry IV had with his son, also called Harry, who became the king, became Henry V. Well, there is like strange cultural precedence for these difficulties.
But no, they're not expected to meet in what is quite a short visit.
But yes, that of course will get noticed.
Strained Royal Family Ties00:15:46
All right.
That's Peter Knowles, he's band Westminster correspondent.
Thanks so much for joining us today.
Thank you.
And you'll hear more about the royal visit later in our program, but we will get back to our topic this morning for the next 15, 20 minutes on political violence.
And what do you think needs to be done to solve that issue?
This is Brent in New Iberia, Louisiana.
Republican, good morning.
Morning.
I think all they have to do is just stop lying.
You know, mostly the media.
Like just two examples, like the congressman in Minnesota, Hortman.
She voted with the Republicans about adult immigrants, and a Democrat went and killed her.
The other one was Ferguson, Missouri, and hands up, don't shoot.
There was never a hands up, don't shoot, but the Congress came out and showed hands up, don't shoot.
The NFL came out and showed, so always I do it, just stop lying, tell the truth.
So that shooting was June 14th, 2025.
It was Minnesota lawmakers, the state house speaker, Melissa Hortman, and her husband were killed in their home.
State Senator John Hoffman and his wife were wounded.
And here is Ron in New Hampshire, Independent Line.
Good morning, Ron.
Yes, Mimi, thank you for taking my call.
The political violence that I'm most concerned about is, for example, the more than 100 girls who were killed in that school in Iran.
And all the rest of the people were killed in Iran.
And the people who were killed by American bombs in Palestine, Palestine, more than 10,000 people killed, innocent people.
So Ron, I understand your concern.
We're focused on political violence against political leaders and lawmakers and politicians here in this country.
Your thoughts on that?
Sure, sure.
Let's talk about that.
We're at war, okay?
Those bombs that killed those girls, that was illegal.
This war is illegal, okay?
Iran, under international law, has a right to attack the U.S. to defend themselves.
And the commander-in-chief and all the other commanders and anybody who takes their orders are all legitimate targets under international law.
So anybody, you know, anybody who thinks that, you know, oh my goodness, we're getting shot at.
Okay, but we're at war.
He started war with Iran.
Iran is more than capable.
But Ron, the people that are doing this are, by and large, American citizens.
So this is not a question of the victims of these wars coming and targeting our politicians.
No, they're doing it because of the war.
They're doing it because of the war.
And you feel that that's justified?
No, I don't want violence at all.
But like what I said last time I called up, and I got admonished for this for saying, you know, a silver lining of this whole war would be if all of these war-mongering dictators ended up assassinating each other, you know?
Jonathan, Grand Prairie, Texas, Democrat, you're on the air.
Good morning, Mimi, and thank you for taking my call.
Really appreciate it.
My comment is what needs to happen with the political violence is the man at the top of the ticket.
Donald Trump has been spewing violent rhetoric ever since he took the White House, even before.
And people are surprised as to why we're having all these issues with this political violence.
And fortunately, the gentleman who called from El Dorado, Arkansas, he made a correction.
We don't say colored anymore.
We say African American or black.
I'm African American.
My wife is Filipino.
We're college educated.
We've traveled the world and raised two kids successfully.
My point to that is a lot of times I think people, like the gentleman from New York said, it's about education, lack thereof.
You have a lot of people that call.
They attack C-SPAN.
You can tell that their mentality is very narrow because they haven't been anywhere.
They haven't experienced things outside of the United States.
We are in a very dark time in this country.
There is a lot of violence, gun violence, racist rhetoric.
And what you're seeing is this being outplayed.
Donald Trump is not the problem.
Just like the gentleman from New York said, the problem is people who vote for people like Donald Trump, they know that this man is corrupt.
The violence will continue as long as you have people spewing that and reinforcing that and making it and normalizing the violence.
Mimi, thank you for taking.
When you say normalizing the violence, what do you mean by that, Jonathan?
Well, I mean, they just brush it aside.
It's like it's no big deal.
You know, they're not passing comprehensive gun legislation, you know, to ban assault rifles and to ban these weapons and have background checks and laws to help keep that in check.
And also, the other thing that we're seeing is people are simply just not teaching their children right from wrong anymore and not being, you know, going out and just screaming at everybody.
You know, when I grew up, my parents said, hey, if there's a conflict, you talk it out.
You know, you don't use violence.
And that's the key.
And the bottom line is, once again, I still go back to a lot of the people that call on this show.
And I know for a fact that you folks who host this show hear all kind of crazy talk from crazy people.
That guy from Arkansas is completely wrong.
He doesn't understand where he's at, evidently.
But I just feel that right now we need to have leaders.
Yep.
Can I ask you how old you are?
I am 64 years old.
My wife was 66.
She retired at 55.
And like I said, we've done quite well in our careers.
Okay, so this is what I want to show you, though, Jonathan.
And that is about people under 30.
So we were talking about, you know, is there at any point that you think that violence could be justified?
And 20% said that that's possible.
But it says that for those over 30, it says, sorry, under 30, that that is a higher level.
And that those over a certain age, you know, I think it was 50 that was considered never an option.
So what do you make of that?
Well, I think social media, like the gentleman said, about the algorithms, that's how they track.
When you're scrolling through social media and you're looking at all these various stories, they human on who's looking at what.
So it's no wonder that the people under 30 feel that violence is, you know, it's justifiable.
I think that's a big part of it.
And also the part of it is also parenting as well.
All right.
And here it is.
It says, while very strong majorities of Americans over the age of 50 completely disagree that violent and harsh actions may justify political outcomes, such sentiments are less widely shared among younger Americans, especially those who are under 30.
And that's at PRRI.org.
And Ronald is next in North Carolina, Republican.
Hi, Ronald.
Hey, good morning.
I was calling in.
I heard that guy talking about Trump was corrupt and all that stuff, the Republican and all.
And we've got the most corrupt Democrat Party I've ever seen in my life, the way they've done our country.
Calling Trump Nazis and all that stuff.
That's where the trouble is beginning.
Is that all you wanted to say, Ronald?
Well, I kept my sound down.
I wasn't sure if anybody could hear me, but.
Yes, yes, we heard you.
You can keep going if there's anything.
I think our country would be better off if they could flush out all the Democrats out of the House and start over again.
That's what's wrong with our country.
Thank you.
Well, we do have an election every two years for the entire House.
And that is your time to vote.
This is more from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch from ABC's This Week Yesterday.
You know, you look at last night and you see the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the speaker of the house.
I'm not sure that the Senate President Pro Tem was there, but you've got the entire presidential line of succession right there, all in the same room.
Is it safe to have an event like that at a hotel like the Washington Hilton?
Well, listen, I have two responses to that, George.
One, the system worked.
Law enforcement and the Secret Service protected all of us.
The man barely got past the perimeter.
And so when you have a perimeter designed to keep people safe like President Trump, and it works, that's something that should be applauded.
Secondly, as President Trump said, we are not going to stop doing what we're doing.
We're not going to stop living.
We're not going to stop being out there.
President Trump is going to continue communicating with the American people in public.
And the fact that the vice president and other leadership were there last night in one room is why we had such a robust security surrounding the place, inside the place, and it's why we are all safe.
And so this was tragic.
It was a night that none of us will forget for a very long time.
But do not forget that the system worked.
The Secret Service kept us safe.
And that man was quickly apprehended and subdued minutes, seconds after he tried to breach the perimeter.
Everything in place for the visit of King Charles this week?
Sorry, can you repeat that, George?
Is everything in place for the visit of King Charles this week?
Yeah, so look, I think that we expect that the suspect will be charged tomorrow morning in federal court with two counts, assault of a federal officer and use of a firearm during a crime of violence.
We're going to continue to investigate, and it'll just be a complaint tomorrow, and indictment will be coming in the coming days or weeks and go from there.
And here is David Sherman, Texas, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Political violence is really a byproduct of the anger that we have in our country.
I've never seen it so divided as we are in our current situation.
It's sad because before we are Republicans and before we're Democrats, we're Americans.
And I believe that the problem is not the what, but it's the how.
I believe in a lot of things Donald Trump is wanting to aspire to accomplish.
But how he's going about it is what's causing the problems, and I believe it's what's causing the division in our country.
Okay, can you give me an example?
Well, let's use immigration.
His statement was he was going to take the violent.
And I emphasize violent criminals out.
But when you take people that have been here peacefully for 30 years and you run them through a process without questioning, without a formal process by which they can stay, or they can at least give a reason as to why they're here and just start moving them along, regardless of whether they're violent or not, that's the how that's the problem.
We all think immigration is an issue.
It has to be corrected.
Do you think that that's also the case with the war in Iran?
That a lot of people agree that they should not get a nuclear weapon, but do you disagree with the how of how the president's doing that?
Absolutely.
It would have been great if he would, and I'm not saying telegraph, I'm saying inform of what his plans are so that he could take everybody's input and come up with a collective decision as to what we're doing.
The support we have for what is going on isn't just in this country or lack of support.
It's worldwide.
If we'd have just let people know what is going on, what the end game is, and gather everyone's input, I think we would have had a much more unified effort on Iran, all of us.
All right.
Let's talk to Scott.
Hutchinson, Kansas Democrat, you're on the air, Scott.
Thank you, Mimi, for taking my call this morning.
On your topic, there's a lot of thought.
But first, there's a quote from Admiral Rickover from the U.S. Navy: that great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
And for years and years and years in our political system, we attack our opponents.
They don't talk about, here's what I'm running for, here's what I want to do, here's my ideas to fix whatever's wrong.
Instead, they tear down their opponent.
And so half the public thinks that the guy that got elected was terrible because that's what they've been hearing from the opponent for such a long time.
Negative advertisements, tearing down the opponent instead of building yourself up with the ideas of what they're running for.
And I think political violence stems from everybody who lost an election thinks the other person is terrible, and it's just accumulated.
And it's been going on for a long time.
Negative ads instead of positive ads.
Now, that's not the only reason that we have political violence, but some people just don't know.
They don't know that they don't know.
And it's hard to combat, you know, if you call somebody ignorant, they think they're being insulted when actually what you're saying is you just don't know.
And there's a lot of that going on in our society today.
And, you know, I understand how a Republican would be offended by being called a Nazi, but I also understand how a Democrat would be offended when they're called a libtard.
There's been so many.
Let's hear from Joe, Charlotte, North Carolina, Independent Line.
You're on the air.
Well, good morning.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
The topic that you have is an important one.
However, you know, it's kind of confusing when we see how it's covered in the mainstream media.
Political violence is very similar to other type of violence.
And unfortunately, when an incident occurs, the political violence is raised to the top when it occurs against our president.
The difficult thing is, if you look at the way the mainstream media has covered this event, if you look at what 60 Minutes did last evening, when President Trump was good enough to come on, they just lambasted him with reading to him the manifesto of the criminal that tried to kill people at the event.
Why would they do that when President of the United States went on to try to calm the American people about political violence?
Media Coverage Of Presidential Attacks00:15:24
Look at the way they're covering it on other medias.
C-SPAN is pretty balanced in terms of their coverage.
But even when you showed this morning with George Stephanophoulos criticizing the acting attorney general about what they did when law enforcement really reacted in a pretty spectacular fashion.
But unfortunately, they always focus on the negative of the situation versus trying to have been a little more balanced.
I was struck by a statistic which about a month ago they showed the mainstream media.
If you look at all of their comments about our administration and our president, 98% has been negative.
That's unbelievable.
98% has been negative, and only 2% positive.
Now, you would have think they'd at least be 75-25, 60%, 40%.
I mean, this administration has done some really good stuff.
So, Joe, I'm not sure about that.
I need to look into that statistic because I don't know how they're determining positive-negative.
You know what I mean?
Well, this I understand what you're saying.
This was done by a media outlet that was supposed to be bipartisan, and they said they looked at the mainstream media for the nightly news.
It wasn't the entire news of all the media.
But if you look at the nightly news of the three main networks, they're always negative about this president.
And that's unfortunate.
And Joe.
Yep.
And Joe, you did mention that manifesto.
That is printed in its entirety at the New York Post.
So if you would like to read that, just go to the New York Post.
They printed it there in full, and you could read what the alleged gunman said there.
Well, that's it for this segment.
More to come because later in the Washington Journal, we'll talk about the King and Queen of England's start of their U.S. tour.
That gets started today.
It's a four-day tour.
And we'll take a closer look at the tensions between the U.S. and Britain amid the ongoing war.
That conversation with Garrett Martin, co-director of the Transatlantic Policy Center at the American University.
But first, after the break, we'll be joined by Sean Trendy, senior election analyst for Real Clear Politics to talk about the upcoming midterm elections.
Stay with us.
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 interruption.
Thank you, C-Stamp, for being a light in the dark.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We're joined now by Sean Trendi.
He's senior elections analyst for Real Clear Politics.
Sean, welcome to the program.
Thanks for having me.
So just want to start with the events of Saturday night.
We were just talking about political violence on the program.
Do you think that this latest attack or attempted attack could have an impact on the midterm elections?
Boy, what a terrible moment for the country yet again.
You know, things that just seem like they're becoming day to day.
But for the midterm elections, there's a chance.
One of the things we've been seeing in special elections is that Republican turnout has been depressed and Democratic turnout's been through the roof.
So if there is an impact from this, it might do something like people think the Brett Kavanaugh hearings had in 2018, where it sort of wakes up and jars the Republican base.
But at the end of the day, this is an election where President Trump and the Republicans have some real fundamental problems walking into it.
I don't think it's going to be a game changer.
All right.
Well, let's talk about the vote in Virginia where voters narrowly approved that their congressional map would be changed in redistricting.
Can you talk about where that puts us and the court challenge to that?
Yeah, so that was kind of near and dear to my heart since I drew the, with Bernie Groffman at UC Irvine, drew the original Virginia map as a special master appointed by the state Supreme Court.
But I understand, you know, it went up to a vote of the people and the people had their say.
That's a map.
The map that was in place, Democrats had a very good shot at one of the existing districts, the second district in sort of the Hampton Roads area.
They also had an outside shot at the first district, which wrapped around into the Richmond suburbs.
So realistically, this new map probably delivers them, the Democrats, two to three new seats, depending how you thought the old map was going to perform.
I think one thing we haven't talked enough about, though, is that this is a map for the rest of the decade, and some of those districts are actually very close.
I'd be very surprised if it survives as a 10-1 map for the last two cycles of the decade.
So explain that.
So this is a temporary redistricting, of course, if the courts allow it to go through.
So how does that work?
Does that, at the end of the decade, does everything get redrawn again?
Yeah, every decade in America, you have to draw to conform with the decennial census.
And so this amendment says we'll go back to the old way of drawing our maps.
This is just a temporary response to Republican actions.
Now, as you notice, noted, the Supreme Court of Virginia is going to have their word on this.
Oral arguments are scheduled today for a challenge to it.
The Supreme Court of Virginia is a very strange court.
It's not really conservative or liberal the way we think of courts.
It tends to be very procedural, very nitpicky, but also tends to be deferential to the legislature.
So there's a real tension in their tendency to let the legislature have what it wants and it's genuine attention to detail on rules and process.
I think it's anyone's game how this thing's going to turn out.
And just so viewers know that those opening arguments in the Virginia Supreme Court case are set to start today at 9 a.m. Eastern Time, and we have full coverage of that over on C-SPAN 2 if you're interested in following that.
So were you saying, Sean, that you think that this whole redistricting exercise nationally that kind of started in Texas, is that a wash?
So there's still some states we haven't heard from.
If the Supreme Court's decision in Calais comes down soon, you might see some additional states in the South redistrict.
But I think that's more or less right.
Depending on how some of these maps end up working out, Texas could be three Republican seats.
It could be five.
I think we're more or less back where we started from.
Maybe one party has an advantage, one seat or the other.
But for this election, at least, it looks like a wash.
And what do you think happens in Florida?
So Florida, it's hard to say.
And that they're talking about moving forward.
There's been rumors that there's some internal concern about redistricting the state that might temper what they attempt there.
There is a fair districts amendment that the Supreme Court of Florida is going to have to interpret and have the final word on.
So I think Florida is very much a question mark.
You could theoretically draw as many as five seats that are tougher for Democrats than today.
Maybe they'll only do one or two.
It just depends.
We've got a question for our guest, Sean Trendy, about the midterm elections.
Now's your chance to start calling in.
Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
You can also text us at 202-748-8003 or post to social media.
Well, the Supreme Court is considering a case, Louisiana versus Calais.
I'm not sure how to pronounce that.
That's a redistricting case.
Can you tell us about that?
Yeah, so there have been challenges.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in certain circumstances, requires states to draw their congressional districts in such a way that it would elect the minority candidate of choice.
The 14th Amendment, on the other hand, says you can't do racial classifications.
And so those kind of two requirements are in tension with each other.
And the Supreme Court's been asked to say that in this day and age, you can no longer require race-based redistricting in any circumstances.
If that opinion comes down soon enough, some of these states like Alabama or Louisiana or Tennessee that have previously had some Democratic-leaning districts that elect black Democrats might be able to redistrict in time for the midterms, certainly in terms of before 2028.
And most analysts would say those new districts are probably going to favor Republicans.
So for the House, overall, Sean, what is it looking like?
Because most analysts would say that the Democrats are going to take control, but what are your thoughts on the number of seats and where it looks right now?
Yeah, so if you go back in history, the President's Party has gained seats in midterm elections in three years, 1934, 1998, and 2002.
All three of those were years where you had extraordinarily popular presidents.
So given that Republicans had a very narrow majority, it was always extremely unlikely that they were going to be able to control the House.
The average midterm loss for a president's party is around 30 seats.
So I think there's, especially with the president's job approval being in the 40s, there's probably going to be some substantial losses for Republicans.
The one big question, though, is, does the redistricting that we just had, where a lot of states took kind of safe redistrictings, they minimized the number of swing districts.
Does that redistricting limit the gains that Democrats can make?
Obviously, there are enough seats for them to take control of the House of Representatives, but can they go beyond, say, 15 or 20 seats?
I think that's really tough for them, and I think it's unlikely you're going to see something on the order of the 40-seat gain that we saw for Democrats in 2018.
Surely not the 63 seats for Republicans in 2010.
Let's talk about the Senate because the New York Times had a headline that said, why a Democratic Senate once unthinkable is a real possibility.
Do you think it's a real possibility?
I do.
I agree with both phrases of that.
At the beginning of the cycle, I thought it was an extreme stretch for Democrats to take the Senate.
And now it's looking more and more plausible.
As the president's job approval falls, the playing field has expanded.
There's two seats, North Carolina and Maine, that we always thought were going to be tough holds for the GOP, but now we're talking about competitive races in Alaska, in Texas, in Ohio, probably in Iowa.
And then Democrats have been making noises with some independent candidates that most people think would actually caucus with the Democrats in places like Montana, Nebraska, and Kansas.
You didn't mention Texas.
Tell us about what's going on there.
So Texas, Texas is a tough state.
I think people get it wrong.
They think of Tumbleweeds and Cowboys, and there is a lot of that, but no one really lives in those places.
Most of Texas lives in the giant metro areas, DFW, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio.
It's a giant suburb in a lot of ways.
And so Republicans have been having growing problems with suburbanites, which has caused that state to swing leftward pretty hard.
It's still a Republican state, but in an environment like this, Democrats start to have an opening.
They came three points away from unseating Ted Cruz in 2018.
This year, Republicans have a contested primary between Senator John Cornyn, sort of an old conservative establishment Republican, and Ken Paxton, the more populist MAGA Attorney General, who's got some ethical problems and some scandals in his past.
If he wins, he's going up against James Tallarico, who's very liberal, but very telegenic, very even-keeled.
The ingredients are there for an upset in Texas.
It's still a tough haul, especially for someone as liberal in Tallarico, but he knows how to sell it.
And I think, especially if Paxton's the nominee, it could be a really tough race.
Let's talk to callers, and we'll start on the independent line with Tom in Rio Rancho, New Mexico.
Good morning.
Yes, thank you for the call.
Gerrymandering And Voting Rights00:15:04
I believe our founding fathers, all they wanted was to make sure that we had some coherent geographic divisions here, making sure that we had count the population and have it all done equally and have it done fairly.
Unfortunately, we have a situation now where we do have a census every 10 years, and it makes sense that we have redistricting every 10 years.
I think there should be a new congressional law saying that that's the only way you're going to do it.
You can't allow states to change their districts during midterms going forward.
We need to have a law saying you do it once every 10 years and that is it.
And I think what we should also consider the possibility of drawing these lines is I think artificial intelligence might be the answer.
Let artificial intelligence be used to draw the lines and then make it equal.
And at the same time, if there needs to be some slight adjustments here and there, that's fine.
But I think have the album, I mean, okay.
Well, we got that.
Just have AI just do the whole thing.
All right, Tom.
Go ahead, Sean.
So there's two good points there.
I agree, at least in theory, with the idea of banning mid-decade redistrictings.
Now, if you talk to Republicans, what they'll say is that the problem with that is that a lot of states have elected judiciaries and they're partisan.
They run as Republicans or Democrats.
And so what you increasingly have are people using lawsuits to get a favorable judiciary to force redistrictings in the middle of the decade.
We've seen Republicans do it.
We've seen Democrats do it.
So that is kind of one little nuance to that.
And so I think to make that really work, you need some type of federal law also establishing standards for redistricting that would cabin the ability of judiciaries from either party to force these favorable or unfavorable mid-day decade redistrictings.
On the AI thing, it's a great idea, and we actually do have computer simulation programs that can draw districts from scratch.
They tend to look very good.
The problem with that, though, is that these districts ultimately are, or these AI tools, the computer simulations, ultimately reflect the inputs that you put into it.
If you crank up the compactness parameter in Utah, for example, and demand an extraordinarily compact district, you'll tend to get a very Democratic district in Salt Lake.
If you downplay the importance of compactness and allow the map to explore, if you allow a wider range of options, you end up with swing districts, moderate districts, and some very Democratic districts.
So at the end of the day, AI isn't a solution because, or it's only a partial solution, because AI reflects the decisions made by the person who writes the code for the AI.
George Ruther Glenn, Virginia, Independent Line, you're on with Sean Trendy.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Trendy.
My question is about the redistricting here in Virginia.
And it's whether or not if the Supreme Court here in Virginia does not void the election, if it could go on to the Supreme Court or to hire federal courts.
And the reason why I asked that is because I know what the Supreme Court had said about the redistricting in California and Texas, but that had to do with the legislatures.
Ours was done through a redistricting process where it was people in the Commonwealth who set up the districts.
And it was pretty fair.
It was six Democrats, five Republican districts.
We have 11 congressional districts.
And also, there's been a lot of concern about the wording on the ballot for the election.
And so I was just wondering if, because of that, could it go past our Supreme Court in Virginia and go on to say the federal courts?
Thank you.
Sean?
Well, thank you.
Yeah, thanks for the kind words.
You know, like I said, with Dr. Groffman out in California, I drew those congressional maps, and I think we did do a good job of them.
They were designed in such a way that they were 6'5 Democrat.
In a really good Democratic year, they'd be 7-4, and in a really good Republican year, they'd tend to be 6'5 Republican.
And I think that's how it should be in a state like Virginia.
But for the meat of the question, if the Supreme Court of Virginia passes, it probably doesn't go to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The reason the Supreme Court of the United States heard the cases in Texas and California was there were racial considerations, 14th Amendment federal considerations.
This lawsuit being brought against the ballot initiative is entirely about state law.
And the Supreme Court of the United States generally doesn't try to trump state Supreme Court interpretations of their own state laws.
So at the end of the day, the Supreme Court of Virginia is probably the end of the road for this lawsuit, unless there's some tweak or nuance, some federal hook I'm not aware of, that could get it to the Supreme Court of the United States.
And you can watch those opening arguments at 9 a.m. Eastern.
We have coverage of that over on C-SPAN 2, or you can stay with us here on Washington Journal.
Here's Mary in Ohio, Republican.
Hi, Mary.
Yes, I've been reading a book about where there's about 10,000 members, and it's about how they're weaponizing mass immigration into our country because they said most Democrats are moderate.
So they want to bring people in through mass migration because they'll be the ones that will vote for these Democrats.
And like Tennessee has always been a really conservative state, and they're moving a lot of these illegal immigrants into Tennessee, North Carolina, these more conservative states to manipulate their base.
And, you know, why are we not talking about this mass migration of these people coming in?
And then you have these little old ladies that work at the polling things.
And on your ID, I guess it's just like a little star that says if you're legal or illegal.
And they say a lot of these women are not even able to read that.
But just address how the Democratic Party is using mass migration, which was started by the guy down there in Cuba back in 1993 to take over this country.
China has 141 consulates, 41 places in California where they're doing surrogacy via Chinese babies being born here.
And you got a lot of these older Democratic people in this country.
They just cannot see how corrupt the Democratic Party is because, you know, they say it's a very important thing.
We got your question.
Go ahead, Sean.
Yeah, so people who are in the country illegally or even in the country legally but aren't citizens can't vote.
And I understand there are people who think that's naive.
There's been pretty thorough work that suggests that people do slip through the cracks, but as far as a massive effort in voter fraud, you don't see what you'd expect to see.
Places with high concentrations of people in the country illegally or migrant workers have lower turnout, which is what you'd expect because the residents of those districts generally can't vote.
The other thing that I think a lot of people kind of gloss over is one of the big Republican achievements of 2024 was actually that Hispanic voters split their votes.
There's this assumption that if you bring in Hispanic workers or Hispanic citizens, that they're going to be an overwhelming vote for Democrats.
And that's just not what we've seen.
These are voters who are up for grabs increasingly for the GOP.
The Democrats only won them by six points in 2024, so it was more or less a wash.
And I think at the end of the day, that kind of rhetoric and theorizing actually hurts the Republicans' chances of winning over a voting bloc that's increasingly open to GOP arguments on a lot of issues.
Michael Democrat in Goldsboro, North Carolina.
Good morning.
Morning.
I'm just trying to find out what's with this redistricting and they're gerrymandering.
Why are they?
Is it just their Republicans?
You know, they trying not to get black people or people of color not to vote.
They're trying to take away their voting rights.
Sean Trendy.
Yeah, the question of gerrymandering, it's interesting.
It actually goes back to the founding.
Virginia originally tried to district James Madison out of his district so that James Monroe, our eventual fifth president, would beat him.
So we've been having these for a long time.
The original gerrymander was in Massachusetts in the early 1800s.
And it's just sort of escalated.
It's really become prominent and just sort of an accepted feature of our day-to-day lives.
It's something that both parties, no one wants to hear both sides isn't, but both parties really have engaged in it.
Republicans wanted to ban it in the 1990s, and Democrats who then controlled redistricting didn't want to hear about it.
In 2010, the late 2010s, Democrats wanted to ban it, and Republicans who controlled redistricting really didn't want to hear about it.
I hope that things are getting out of control enough that people are starting to tune into it, and maybe they'll demand some type of compromise between the parties on gerrymandering.
Democrats did have a bill in 2020 that would have put limits on redistricting, but there were also, it was a gigantic bill that there were a lot of things Republicans just weren't going to vote for.
So I'm hoping that this gets increasing attention.
Well, Sean, to that point, Stephen in Michigan sent a text and he said, you said that both parties have done mid-decade redistricting.
Please tell me which Democratic state has done a mid-decade redistricting.
He says, I am pretty sure the number is zero.
Well, we just had mid-decade redistrictings in California.
But I don't think I said that because there's no doubt that what Texas did was a novel move.
What I did say is that what the parties have increasingly done is used state Supreme Courts to force it.
So for example, in New York, Democrats sued there to try to get what was a pretty fair map in 2022 thrown out.
The Supreme Court ordered a redistricting.
Democrats drew themselves two new districts.
Same thing happened in North Carolina.
Democrats had sued to try to get a 7-7 map out of North Carolina.
The Supreme Court changed composition.
It threw the old ruling out, and then Republicans got a fresh map there.
You have lawsuits being brought in places like Wisconsin to try to get a mid-decade redistricting order there right now.
So the idea that everyone just sort of sits on their hands and that there's good guys and bad guys in this, I think, is deeply misguided.
This is something that's been escalating for decades.
It really is getting out of control.
And it's something that I think the country has to do something about sooner rather than later.
But there aren't good guys and bad guys here.
On the Republican line in Rialto, California, John, you're on the air.
Thank you.
You said specifically that non-citizens cannot vote.
That's absolutely not true in California.
I don't know about other states, but you go into the DMV and check the box that says I want to register to vote.
By law, no state official can ask about a person's immigration status.
17% of the illegals in California believe they are registered to vote.
They do vote.
And I want to point something else out.
If the Democrats want free elections or fair elections, why are they so adamantly opposed to voter ID and all these things that would make our votes more secure and more honest?
I want everybody that's eligible to vote to be able to vote.
However, in California, if it weren't for the non-citizens, not all of whom are illegal, some of them merge here on student visas and like that.
If it weren't for the non-citizen vote in California, our politics would look a lot different than they do today.
So the idea that non-citizens are not voting is absolutely false.
All right, John.
Go ahead, Sean.
Well, again, we just don't see the type of evidence you would see if that's true.
Turnout is very low in Central Valley districts where you have large concentrations of non-citizens.
If non-citizens were voting the same as everyone else, you wouldn't get those types of turnout differentials.
And it's illegal to vote if you're not a citizen.
And no matter what exercise you run that we have to detect ballot fraud, it doesn't turn up these massive types of non-citizen voting.
And I return to, in 2024, Hispanic voters were a swing block.
They were 50-50.
It wouldn't have changed the politics at all.
What happened in California was actually in the 90s, white voters in places like Silicon Valley swung hard leftward because the Democrats ran to the center.
So the narrative of what happened in California and the narratives of massive non-citizen voting just don't hold up to scrutiny.
Finally, Sean, I want to ask you about the Senate race in Louisiana.
Senator Bill Cassidy is running for re-election.
Louisiana Senate Race Update00:02:04
He's facing a primary challenge from Republican Julia Lettloe, who has been endorsed by President Trump.
Can you tell us what's happening there?
Yeah, Senator Cassidy has generally been a pretty reliable conservative voice.
He is more moderate on the conservative spectrum, but he voted to remove Donald Trump in an impeachment proceeding.
And in a very conservative state like Louisiana with a very conservative Republican Party, that's just a hard stance to take.
You know, he's taken some tough votes for Republicans to try to ingratiate himself, win back the graces of the Republican electorate there.
But in an electorate that's just very pro-Trump and very conservative, he's going to have a tough time because of how his votes have positioned him.
All right, that's Sean Trendi, senior election analyst for Real Clear Politics.
They're at RealClearPolitics.com.
Sean, thanks so much for joining us today.
Thank you.
And coming up at about 9:20 Eastern Time, we'll have a conversation with Garrett Martin.
He is co-director of the Transatlantic Policy Center at the American University.
We'll talk about the King and Queen of England's visit.
Their U.S. tour starts today.
But first, after the break, more of your phone calls in open forum, whatever you'd like to talk about.
You can start calling in now, Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
You're watching C-SPAN.
Democracy Unfiltered.
C-SPAN brings you democracy unfiltered in real time.
Democracy doesn't take sides.
Royal Tour Begins Today00:03:24
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 non-profit service has offered Americans unfiltered gabble-to-gabble 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.
Get C-SPAN wherever you are with C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
Catch the latest episodes of Washington Journal.
Find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
The C-SPAN Now app is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
Download it for free today.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
On this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
Sir Anthony Bieber, an historian based in London, has authored 13 books, which have sold at least 8.5 million copies and been translated into 35 different languages.
In his latest book, he focuses on Ras Putin and the downfall of the Romanovs.
The country is Russia, and the timeframe is the early 1900s.
Sir Anthony Bieber, on his official website, sums up his findings this way.
Gregory Rasputin, a barely literate peasant from Siberia, is one of the most enigmatic and influential figures in modern history.
Anthony Bieber points out, quote, in a bizarre reverse of the great man theory of history, he had no official position and no mass following, unquote.
His book details Rasputin's relationship with the Tsar and Tsarina of Russia before their downfall.
A new interview with author Anthony Bieber about his book, Ras Putin and the Downfall of the Romanovs.
BookNotes Plus with our host Brian Lamb is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
King Charles and Queen Camilla are heading to the U.S. for a four-day state visit beginning today.
During their trip, the king will address a joint session of Congress.
And President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump will host the royal couple at a state dinner at the White House.
The visit also includes stops in New York and Virginia, where they'll take part in a block party celebrating America's 250th birthday.
Don't miss live coverage of the Royal State Visit beginning today on the C-SPAN networks.
Washington Post Dinner Attack Report00:02:13
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We're in open forum and looking forward to taking your calls.
I do want to show you real quick the article on the front page of the Washington Post about the attack at the dinner on Saturday.
The headline, dinner lacked highest security level.
This is a picture of Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, being rushed out by his security detail.
They've got him, as you can see by his jacket, and they're all running out of the ballroom.
Here's what the article says.
It says, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance were quickly evacuated to safety Saturday when a gunman charged the security perimeter and attempted to storm the ballroom at the Washington Hilton Hotel.
Others in attendance included Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
It says the concentration of high-ranking leaders in one ballroom left the nation unusually vulnerable as the would-be assassin raced past Secret Service before he was apprehended.
A worst-case scenario might have resulted in passing the power of the presidency to the senior most senator of the majority party, Scott Grassley, who was not at the event and is third in line to the presidency behind Vance and Johnson.
When so many officials gather in one place, the official functions such as an inauguration or state of the union, the Secretary of Homeland Security typically puts the Secret Service in charge of coordinating all security through a formal designation known as a quote, national security, national special security event.
There was no such designation on Saturday night at an event also attended by thousands of journalists and other government officials, according to local and federal officials.
So that's at the Washington Post if you'd like to see more of that.
Let's talk to Annie in Tampa, Florida.
Justice Department Ends Fed Probe00:05:09
Democrat, you're on Open Forum, Annie.
Good morning.
Yes, Trump's violence has been going on for 12 years, you know, blowing up votes and people.
And, you know, our young people watch that.
And, you know, when it comes to a 27-year-old, you know, shooting, that's, to me, that's a young person.
So 31-year-old.
Oh, 31.
They've been seeing this, you know, for 12 years, you know, the insurrection and so forth.
It's all been, you know, generated by Trump.
But I have a local cleaning service, and my customers, they will watch Fox News and all this information eight to 10 hours a day.
And I remember when we were growing up, we'd watch the news for maybe 30 minutes, you know, and then go to dinner or something else.
And these people, you know, you can't help them because they are so ingrained in this false information.
But for me, I would just watch Trump's mouth and not any media, definitely not social media.
Watch Trump's mouth and the ignorance that comes out of it every day.
And, you know, it's not media.
It's not social media.
It's, you know, and that's all we have to do.
Okay, thank you.
Larry in Chicago, Independent Line, you're on Open Forum.
Good morning.
I'm happy I got you on the line.
Clarence Thomas, Justice, already spelled it out.
We're still a divided nation.
So, Mimi, here's my solution.
When all the brokenhearted people living in the world agree, there will be an answer.
Let it be, let it be, Jesus.
A simple story for simple people.
Love you much.
Bye.
And let's take a look at some other news.
You remember that Senator Tom Tillis had said that he would not vote for the new Fed chair, the nominee, Kevin Warsh, until that federal investigation, criminal investigation into the current chairman, Jerome Powell, was dropped.
Here he is on Meet the Press yesterday.
Well, let me back up.
And the announcement on Friday was well received by me.
I think it's the first time that the Department of Justice in D.C., or I should say the D.C. prosecutors, have acknowledged that they're not going to carry this case forward.
The case is on appeal.
But after that statement, I've had a number of discussions with the Department of Justice.
They have made it very clear that the current investigation is completely and fully ended.
There may be some confusion because they're moving forward with the appeal, but I have been assured by the Department of Justice that that appeal is simply to challenge the basis for judging on the motion to quash the subpoenas.
It would not in any way constitute a basis for reopening the investigation.
And we heard from Acting Attorney General Blanche just a few minutes ago that the only thing that would trigger an investigation is criminal, potential criminal misconduct identified by the Inspector General Horowitz, who's one of the most respected inspector generals in Washington or in the whole of government.
I believe I have studied this and I believe that there will not be any wrongdoing.
Maybe we find a little stupid here in terms of somebody responsible for the project making a decision they shouldn't.
Maybe.
But it doesn't rise to a criminal prosecution.
That was my problem to begin with because I feel like there were prosecutors in D.C. that thought this was going to be a lever to have Mr. Powell leave early.
But now with this, I am prepared and with the assurances from the Department of Justice that the case is completely and fully settled, that the appeal would only be used to potentially abrogate or change the ruling for administrative purposes, not as a basis for reopening the investigation, and that the only way an investigation would be open would be a criminal referral from one of the most respected inspector generals there.
I am prepared to move on with the confirmation of Mr. Warsh.
I think he's going to be a great Fed chair.
I just want to put a fine point on it because what you're saying is significant, Senator.
You are now a yes to vote on the confirmation of Kevin Warsh That's right.
We'll be putting out a statement.
We worked a lot over the weekend to make sure that we were very clear that we had assurances from the DOJ that I need it to feel like they were not using the DOJ as a weapon to threaten the independence of the Fed.
So this will allow Mr. Warsh to move on with his confirmation on time.
Senator Tom Tillis, Republican, talking about this headline, the Wall Street Journal says the Justice Department will end the probe of Jerome Powell, opening the path for Kevin Warsh.
It says the wind down of the investigation of the Fed chair could end an impasse that threatened to delay a leadership transition.
We're in open forum.
Warsh Confirmation Path Opens00:15:34
You can start calling now if you'd like to talk about something.
Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
And on the line for Republicans in Las Vegas, Greg, you're on the air.
Good morning.
Yeah, I have a question.
Why are this show on the time that it is on?
Because it's 4 a.m. out here on the West, 7 a.m. back there.
It seems like, you know, you don't get as many West Coast callers because it's 4 a.m.
Yeah.
No, I know.
I appreciate that feedback.
But, you know, typically at 10 a.m., we start having things like the House, when they're in session, they'll come in.
So we carry them gavel to gavel.
There's all kinds of other stuff happening here in Washington.
But, you know, hopefully we'll have other programs like this where you can weigh in later in the day so that it's not so early for you.
But you're up, Greg.
Pardon me?
You're up.
You're up pretty early.
Yeah, I'm always up, but during the day, you also have some shows that I really don't want to say that aren't as good as this, but you could be on them in place of their time.
Okay.
We take that feedback.
Elton in Moulton, Alabama, Democrat, good morning.
Yes.
The things that are tonight, I think it was state.
That man had multiple knives, two handguns, and a shotgun.
He got through all that security and all them other things.
If it wasn't state, then the security, all of them, they fired and a new crew hired.
So, Elton, hold on.
I voted for Mr. Donald Trump three times.
I'm a very Democrat, and I can't believe the rhetoric coming out of his mouth and down into the Democrats like he does.
So, Elton, let me go back to what you said about getting through all that security.
So, here's the issue: is there wasn't all that security.
There was the magnetometers were set up.
So, metal detectors, he ran through those, and that's when he was stopped and tackled by Secret Service.
Before that, there is no other security.
If you're coming from the outside, you have to show a ticket, a physical ticket.
But he was a guest.
He actually went to the hotel and rented a room there.
So, there was no, you know, when you go to a hotel, they don't search your luggage for weapons.
So, yeah.
Larry, North Carolina, Independent Line, you're on the air.
Yeah.
You know, this was an earlier segment when you were talking about the rhetoric.
And what I don't understand is, and what drove me to become an independent was because both parties talk a bunch of stuff, but at the end of the day, they don't talk about real serious and factual issues.
For instance, we know that the major threat for about the last 20 years have been supremacists.
And they just dismiss this thing and they go completely, and the Democrats do absolutely nothing.
They have an opportunity to use certain platforms.
I wouldn't be surprised that this guy had some kind of ties to the Republican Party because most of that violence comes from them.
So I don't know why.
Well, let's hear from a Democrat.
This is a governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro.
Remember, he was a victim of political violence.
His house was set on fire a bit ago.
Let's hear what he had to say from earlier this month.
Part of the reason why tensions are so high, why we're seeing more political violence.
We've always had, sadly, political violence in our system, but why we're seeing more of it is because our leaders, in many cases, are failing us.
I think the central role for a leader is to keep people safe.
And one of the best ways to do that is to speak and act with moral clarity.
When you attack people based on what they look like or where they come from, who they love or who they pray to, everyone is less safe.
You know, folks will say to me all the time at Gov, you know, we're seeing a rise in anti-Semitism.
And yes, we are empirically.
You know, we're also seeing a rise in Islamophobia and racism and bigotry in all forms.
And attacking one person because of what they look like or how they pray makes everyone less safe.
The President of the United States has a responsibility to do better.
When you tweet like that, not you, but what you referenced the other day, attacking Muslims, making fun of Islam, a beautiful religion, a wonderful faith.
What you are really doing is saying those people are okay to attack.
You are giving a pass to that.
And when you give a pass to that, everyone is less safe.
There's more chaos.
There's more cruelty in our world.
We should have a president of the United States, even if we disagree on health care policy or tax policy or whatever.
We should at least at baseline have an honorable president of the United States.
We do not have that right now.
That was earlier this month.
That was Governor Shapiro.
His residence was attacked on April 13th, 2025.
This is Betty in Baltimore, Independent Line.
You're on Open Forum.
Oh, yeah.
I think that Governor Shapiro is right on talking.
But then again, about Trump, I think it was a setup.
And I'll just have three words.
Epstein, Epstein, Iran, and the wreck, that is the economy.
People are being laid off left and right.
Jobs are closing down.
People are losing their jobs.
How can this be a good economy?
It's not.
And I think it was a clever setup because nobody with all those knives and guns, you can't even get into a public school with a knife or a gun.
I think they knew he was crazy.
They knew he was coming.
And they opened the door for him to come to let them use it politically to give people something to think about besides the horrible mess we're in.
I mean, I can't even afford to pay for my medication and drive my car at the same time.
We're suffering, and Trump knows it.
And he wants to stay in there to get orders from his puppet master, Net Yahoo.
And this is the front page of the New York Times.
Gunman at Gala scorned Trump.
Authorities say it says the gunman who tried to storm a gala featuring President Trump had written angrily about the administration, the authorities said on Sunday as they examined his communications and cross-country movements in the day leading up to the attack.
The episode on Saturday night at the dinner at Washington Hilton raised new fears about a scourge of political violence afflicting the United States and about the safety of one of the most targeted presidents in history.
And here is Carol, Pinellas Park, Florida, Democrat.
Good morning, Carol.
Good morning.
Thank you, kindy, for taking my call.
Yes, there is only one person to blame for what happened Saturday night, and it is Trump.
The vile words and the rhetoric that he spores on those poor journalists and the media, the filthy words, mostly women.
And I say to myself, the media is doing their job.
He doesn't like it.
The things he calls them.
He just started again this morning or last night in an interview, starting all over again after what he said Saturday night.
The man is evil.
He is evil.
And things are not going to get better.
They aren't.
So, Carol, Carol makes that kind.
Yeah, before you get to your second point, the word evil, when you call the president evil, instead of just saying, for instance, I disagree with how he speaks to reporters, I think that he should say this instead of this, or I disagree with his policies.
What do you think of that?
I mean, how do you think that woman?
And I've seen so much in my life.
I've never seen anything like this ever.
This is getting out of hand.
It's getting worse.
It's not getting better.
This Iran war never should have been beginning with.
It was all his doings, as if we had nothing to say about it.
That's what I don't understand.
We have nothing to say about anything anymore as long as he's in office because he's the ruler.
He's the king.
He wants to be king, honey.
And Carol, about your second point, you said you wanted to say something else.
Yes.
I just like to make a comment.
I think there should be term limits for the Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court.
This is too long.
The Constitution, I don't care what the Constitution says, there should be term limits.
There's a term limit for president.
There should be term limits for all other political positions.
And I leave it at that.
I just am so disgusted at my age that we have to live through something like this.
Every day it's something.
It's something every day.
And a lot of it's to get us off the subject of what the everyday news is, like Epstein and the war and other things that come up.
All right, Carol.
We're paying so much for gas now.
I never thought we'd ever come to where there's so much hatred, so much hatred in this world.
Why can't we all get together?
That's not what Jesus wants.
That's not what Jesus wants.
He wants us all to get together.
But this will never happen until we all understand that.
All right.
They're kicking on each other.
And this is in the Wall Street Journal.
It says this.
The simple security flaws that expose Trump to another gunman.
Dinner guest said getting into the hotel was remarkably easy.
Quote, what the hell is the Secret Service doing?
The article starts this way.
It's the same hotel where then President Ronald Reagan was shot 45 years ago.
It was remarkably easy for a shooter to charge toward a ballroom where President Trump, along with his cabinet members and the reporters who cover his administration, were dining Saturday night.
This is in the Wall Street Journal if you'd like to read that.
Here's a quote from one of the attendees.
No, sorry.
Yes, one of the attendees, Carrie Lake, former Republican gubernatorial and Senate nominee in Arizona, said this.
Upon entering, nobody asked to visibly inspect my ticket nor asked for my photo identification.
All one had to do was flash what appeared to be a ticket, and they were fine with that.
This is Chris, now Republican in Georgia.
You're on Open Forum.
Okay.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
A couple things up.
First of all, it seems like the whole country is my team against your team.
And I really think that C-SPAN on the Democratic team, I tell you why, during the vote of the big, beautiful bill in the summertime, when we're waiting to see the outcome, everything that C-SPAN played on that was the Democrats say how terrible that bill was.
Clip after clip, and then they would check to vote, then go right back.
And then when they were finished with those clips, they would repeat them.
It was just beyond compare.
Just this morning, you pushed back on the Republican a couple times.
That lady came out, and the first lady who came out against everything saying 12 years of violence by President Trump.
Why didn't you ask her what she meant by that?
Whether he punched somebody, he shoot somebody.
All they're doing is they're listening to their side, and their side says he's king.
A king wouldn't let have no king protest.
Come on, sorry, Chris.
Kate in Michigan, Independent, you're on the air.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'm calling.
It's hard to get through, but I feel compelled to call and set the record straight about something.
Last week, Representative Tom McClintock was on your program, and he referred to Detroit as a socialist hellhole.
And I am just flabbergasted by that comment because they have done amazing things to rise from the ashes.
And they have wonderful, wonderful programs there for youth.
They have amazing free concert of colors.
They have done so, they have made that city so beautiful.
And for him to say that, I just had to set the record straight.
And I apologize to Detroit that he said that.
And that's part of the problem, that kind of an attitude.
Thank you.
Jerome in Denham Springs, Louisiana.
Democrat, you're on the air, Jerome.
Hey, good morning.
Yes, ma'am.
I consider myself a fairly competent political observer.
I'll be 70 years old in a couple of weeks.
And what really, really bothers me is how Republicans tend to soft pedal some of the really awful and cruel things that the president says.
I mean, they give it legitimacy, and it's just really hard to really comprehend how they could do that, particularly the things he said a couple of weeks ago about the annihilation of an entire civilization in Iran.
There's no way, period, full stop, you can softpedal something like that.
And it just needs to stop.
And have a nice day.
Thank you.
Tom Woodbridge, Virginia, Republican.
Hi, Tom.
Mimi.
I want to say your earlier segment when you were talking about the political violence, it was really clear that you were trying to get the audience to give you feedback on whether or not what C-SPAN is doing is hitting the mark, helpful, or harming what's going on.
Defamation Laws And Extremist Speech00:03:06
It's not C-SPAN that's the problem.
C-SPAN is a fantastic venue where you hear these divergent voices.
The real problem, there's two things, there's really multiple things that are a big problem.
And to just kind of lay out my bona fides on this, I was the senior intelligence collection strategist at the Office of Director of National Intelligence on Domestic Extremism.
I'm also a former U.S. Senate candidate.
And in addition to that, I've been an intelligence officer at the national level for since like over 20 years.
And I've worked specifically this issue.
And so this is not just a normal citizen giving you this information.
So here's the problem.
The problem is a lawsuit, New York Times v. Sullivan, back in like the 1970s that basically said that public officials could, for all intents and purposes, be defamed because it was in the public interest of the American people that you be able to talk openly and viscerally about our public officials and our public office holders.
So what that has given, what that was before social media, that was before the internet.
And so that case, which was intended to be for newspapers, has basically caused all of this vitriolic political rhetoric that is so divisive in our country because basically people can say anything they want without there being any consequences.
And that's where all of pedophile claims come from, the rapist claims, the neo-Nazi claims, all these things.
You wouldn't be able to say these things if people weren't public officials and we didn't have New York Times v. Sullivan.
That's number one.
The other thing is, very, very importantly, is our political, our political parties, the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, make money, and the political consultancies make money off of the most extremist speech they can get their candidate to say in order to win a primary, because that's really where the election takes place.
The election takes place in the primaries where the parties are determining who's going to be there, who's going to be their candidate.
And so the point I'm trying to make is between New York Times v. Sullivan and the divisive nature of our politics today, that is what has given rise to this huge division in our country.
And the only way it's going to come back together is we need the Supreme Court to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, because what that'll do is that'll tamp down on all the political rhetoric and all of the baseless accusations that are often made in these political situations that give rise then to the political violence because some people believe these things without any actual evidence or fact.
All right, Tom.
Got that.
And we're an open forum.
Supreme Court Must Revisit Sullivan00:09:41
We will continue to take your calls.
If you're on the line, stay on the line or you can continue to call in.
We're just going to get a quick update on what's happening at the White House from Leonardo Feldman, White House reporter for Newsweek.
Good morning.
Welcome to the show.
Thank you so much, Mimi.
Thank you for having me.
And could you give us an update on the latest on the White House correspondence dinner, the fallout from that, and any possible meetings happening today?
Yeah, well, we know that Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has said that they're going to be meeting early this week to discuss the protocols for any future event that the president is doing.
We also know that the president is currently backing the leadership of the Secret Service despite a lot of backlash from the public.
We also know that Cole Allen is expected to be arraigned today for several charges, including a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon.
In terms of what we know about this week, this is going to be a very, very big week here at the White House, given that the king and the queen are going to be.
Yeah, I do want to ask you about that royal visit.
But before we do, I know that you were at that White House correspondence dinner and there was a lot of criticism, as you said, about the level of security.
Can you talk about what you saw and what you know so far?
Yamimi, I mean, from the moment that I was starting to enter the building, I noticed that there were no screening machines right outside or right at the entrance, which was odd because I've covered a lot of different campaign events and events with the president.
And there's always a scanner, a magnetometer, either at the entrance or outside.
But I've heard from several journalists at the dinner, that this is how they do it.
And they've always had the magnetometers like near the ballroom.
So that's something that struck out to me.
So that's something that definitely a lot of people are discussing in terms of the security.
And, you know, these scanners were only just feet away from the ballroom.
And basically, a lot of the structure was completely unsecured up until that area.
The only thing, the only type of screening that we would get was like, do you have a ticket?
Are you coming here to the WHCA?
And that's it.
There were a few guards at the entrance, but that's it.
That was the only type of screening that you would get at the entrance.
And we will be covering that arraignment if and when it happens.
It's scheduled for today.
We're not quite sure when, but stay with the C-SPAN networks for that.
You did mention the state visit by King Charles and Queen Camilla.
What can you tell us about the plans for that visit?
So we know that they're arriving today and they are expected to do tea and also check out a beehive that First Lady Melania Trump just installed here on the White House grounds.
We also know that on Tuesday they're expected to have a dinner and then on Thursday that's when the farewell is.
Those are some of the latest updates that we have in terms of the royal visit.
And President Trump also canceled the trip by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to Pakistan for negotiations with Iran.
Update us on that.
That's right.
Right now we know that the nuclear negotiations, they're on pause.
The peace deal agreements, they're on pause at this moment.
We do know that there was apparently a draft that was sent by Iranian negotiators that would reopen the Strait of Hermuz if the blockade is lifted.
But so far we don't have indication in terms of what the White House is thinking about this new draft.
We do know that the Pakistani officials told Reuters that the draft will be negotiated only after a consensus is reached.
So again, that's the latest that we have on that front.
And anything else you're watching this week and any possible travel by the president?
Well, the president is reportedly expected to head to Florida later this week, but this is all we have right now.
And as soon as we get more information, we'll be sure to publish that.
I'm on Newsweek, so like if you follow Newsweek, we're going to be publishing that schedule as well.
All right, that's Newsweek.com.
And that is White House reporter Leonardo Feldman for Newsweek.
Thanks so much for joining us today.
Thank you so much.
It's Open Forum.
This is your chance to weigh in on anything you've been thinking about public policy-wise or related to politics or foreign policy.
You can certainly give us a call now on our lines by party.
On the independent line is Mooresville in Mooresville, North Carolina.
Dee, good morning.
Oh, thank God for Leonardo.
That was his name.
You cut off that Republican guy.
I'm not going to bother to read my resume.
That's not the topic.
And I did hear that he said he ran, he lost, so he's not working there anymore.
So I don't care about that.
Let's stick to the topic.
You've done a solid job, Miss.
I don't remember your name in the last 10 minutes.
But really, most of the time, you lean.
I'm an independent, obviously, this Republican guy was, oh my God, his resume, really?
Like, we care.
You lean towards the Democrats.
And don't act like you don't.
It's on tape.
And that lady who called, oh, my God, it's all Trump's fault.
You got to be kidding me.
He was standing up there.
I mean, what the hell?
Security is not good.
They better, they better.
I hope Charles brings his own security because, you know, we're lacking something.
And it's just ridiculous.
It's totally ridiculous.
My daughter lives in Denmark, and I grew up in New Jersey.
So, you know, I think Trump is rude and a jerk.
Okay, okay, he's rude.
Let's just leave it at that.
But you know what?
This is not his fault.
He didn't do the First Amendment.
He didn't do all these guns.
He's making a difference in this country.
And the whole Democratic Party needs to break up.
We need to be more like Denmark.
I'm sorry.
They have 14 or 15 parties.
The Republicans, they got lunatics too.
And then everyone bands together on certain issues and the 14 or 15.
And everyone, just be nice.
Don't threaten each other.
What the heck is going on?
My daughter won't even come here.
Bring my granddaughter from Denmark because she says, Mom, the United States is not safe.
And I have to agree.
That's ridiculous.
What do you have to say for yourself about the way you swing to the left?
I don't remember your name.
I'm sorry.
Terry, East Point, Michigan, line for Democrats.
Good morning.
Mimi, can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
Yeah, that's going to be a hard act to follow there, but she is a really great representative of the current MAGA Republican psyche.
I think that was, I'm glad that I could follow her.
So I heard a lot of calls yesterday, and it seems like it's going to swing the same way today.
So in response to why conservatives can't understand why Democrats and everyone who doesn't like Donald Trump or why they don't understand why Donald Trump is hated, Donald Trump is hated because he is saying such hateful things all the time.
He has said so many hateful things that it's impossible to count.
And I know we all can agree.
But you know what?
I want to draw everybody's attention to one of the most hateful things he's ever said.
And I know you will agree.
And everybody out there can agree.
It was just a few weeks ago.
When he said that he was glad or it was good that Moeller had died, I have never in my life, in my years, over 50 years, heard anybody say out loud, right, that they were glad that somebody died.
Now, I understand that you're in your own household, around your own folks, maybe, but to say it in public is unimaginable.
And I think everybody knows that.
A few months before that, remember Rob Reiner, the guy from, you know, the director from All in the Family?
He said that he died, that his son stabbed him as a result of karma for talking about Trump.
That is sort of evil.
So I don't know if he's evil or not, but it sure sounds evil.
So I want the Christian conservative mega Republican to please call in and explain to me in the world and America how that's not evil and hateful to say that you glad that somebody died.
None of us have ever heard of that.
None of us.
We all Americans.
We haven't heard that level of hate.
All right, here's Bonnie in Missouri, Republican.
Hi, Bonnie.
Hi, good morning.
How are you?
Good.
My, well, I have a question for the other guy.
Trump represents the American citizen.
He's talking about August Kerr or Other in the country who brought the hate speech with them.
But I don't want to address that.
I would like to address the 1950s law that SCODIS put in that made 535 representatives of our government, except for President Trump, above the law.
That's the layup.
Leaders Must Condemn Hate Speech00:13:01
That's the law.
SCODIS did them.
They gave them congressional immunity.
And they should also address that 1929 Herbert Hubert thing about not breeding imbeciles or the menstrually ill or the disabled in this country.
I would think, as an American, that you would put that law and expand it to habitual murderers, habitual rapists.
Funny, can you explain the congressional immunity for what?
Because there are members of Congress that have been criminally prosecuted.
Well, yes, but there are a whole lot that are not.
They simply say, we'll let you fill out your term.
You can keep your pensions, your Social Security, your stocks that you've got while on trading on the market, which they haven't stopped.
And that no trading on the market started in 2012.
So, see, Congress does not obey the laws they make.
They just sit up there, make a bunch of laws for the population to follow.
And they got the nerve to call President Trump an authoritarian.
We've been under a Democratic regime since the Civil War, with a few Republicans hit and miss.
But every time Democrats don't win an election, they get hateful.
They riot.
They protest because they lost.
And the politicians get vulgar.
Biden said he had missiles if American people were ever to threaten him.
So you're talking about the horror things that Trump said.
I find that pretty threatening from a president that you would bomb your own people if they dare to attack the Democratic Party.
Paul in Palm Harbor, Florida, Independent Line.
I was trying to call all day yesterday, but I'm sorry.
But they actually serve food at this dinner.
They call it a dinner, but when was the food served?
So, Paul, if you're wondering about the dinner, the salads were already on the table when the intention was.
What were they serving?
That's what I was worried.
I knew they tried to say, they can't kill this man.
This man is invincible.
They try to shoot him again.
So they were serving a dinner.
No, because anybody know, I was waiting.
I watched it for eight hours and nobody said, well, we're serving a meal.
I didn't care.
They can't kill this man.
But with a steak knives, that's what I was worried.
I thought they were killing him with a steak knife.
So I was looking for knives all over the place.
I didn't see nothing.
They ate the salad.
Who was eating the salad?
Because I said, the first thing I serve, and that ain't, I was in the loop, and I was watching CNN.
And then I see nobody eating.
So in this dinner, where's the food?
When are they serving the food?
When are they serving?
They never said.
I watched for eight hours.
Nobody told them what they said.
If they would, I said, they can't kill this man with a gun.
They already sat and shot half one of these ears.
I was looking for steak knives.
And I thought, if they're serving dinner, they're probably serving steak.
In the circumstances, I figure they'd kill him with a knife, a steak knife.
All right, Paul.
Let's hear from Lisa, Democrat, Flemington, New Jersey.
Good morning.
Good morning, Limi.
Thank you for taking my call.
I just wanted to speak to your topic earlier about political violence.
Not, you know, wanted to put blame on anybody, but we look to our leaders as an example.
And, you know, I'm going to actually, I am going to name names, Donald Trump.
You know, since 2015, again, we do look to our leaders.
He's had a record of extorting political violence, knock him out, wipe out a civilization, waterboarding, hanging, threaten of hanging six senators for speaking out, punch him in the face.
If I don't win, I'll be a bloodbath.
Threatening Liz Cheney, you know, with a rifle.
You know, and it has an effect on us.
The previous caller said something to the effect of wiping out Democrats.
We look to our leaders.
We look to, you know, a lot of us, I think, feel helpless.
And it's not an excuse, but we feel helpless.
And a lot of times, people will resort to violence because we see our leaders doing it.
We look to people as an example.
And we feel helpless.
And we resort to things that are just out of the question and unacceptable.
And, you know, I really feel for younger generations.
This is what we see in our politics.
I wish our leaders would really make an example, Democrat, Republican, whatever party, get together, show as an example, in good faith, speak to each other in public to their constituents about how this is wrong, including Mr. Trump, because I don't know anyone who can deny that he said these things in the past,
and it just foments political violence.
Thank you for taking my call, and I really hope this subsides.
I don't have much faith that it will, but I really do.
Thanks for taking my call.
I do appreciate it.
All right, Lisa.
And here's more from Senator Tom Tillis, Republican, on NBC's Meet the Press.
I want to ask you about political violence broadly.
You are no stranger to it.
Unfortunately, you've said you've been threatened so many times that it's like, quote, going to 7-Eleven and getting a gallon of milk.
You were, of course, there when violence broke out on January 6, 2021, something that you have continued to speak out about.
The president said last night that political violence is the cost of doing business now.
Do you agree with that sentiment?
And what can the country do about that, Senator?
Well, sadly, I agree with the president.
I think he's right.
I think the amplifier and the instigator of social media is able to really target vulnerable people.
In many cases, we're seeing people who are committing these horrible acts have behavioral health and other challenges, stability issues in their lives.
And now we have platforms that can focus on them.
State actors, terrorist organizations fomenting hate in this country.
What the American people need to do is take a breath, confirm their facts, talk to their elected officials, think a bit before they judge people.
They all have a role to play.
And we and elected offices do as well.
Our words matter.
The weight of our words matter.
And we need to be very measured in the way that we use them.
It's Open Forum.
Chantel in Florida on the Republican line.
You're next.
Oh, my Lord.
Where do we start?
Oh my God.
God bless America.
We have a birthday coming up.
We have our parent country, the king, the real king, coming to visit.
We want our services to be paid.
And hopefully ISIS will get tasers along with the cameras.
Hopefully these people who were with the dinner the other night was getting paid.
I really think we all need to take a breath because it's not the left.
It's not the right.
Our babies, our children, this young 31-year-old person, the other one.
What are we feeding them?
We used to have laws on MLA and APA when it comes to scripting and the media.
And it's not even the media's fault.
It's further than that.
We got secret cells and cartels all over the place.
Number two, the subliminal minds, mental, we enjoy our children having the technological abilities from the gaming, from Xbox and PlayStations.
We need to take detox.
We used to detox and deform when our military came from Afghanistan and they would have a deprogramming.
We need some type of program to detox from any subliminal mind programming.
Number two, our president is not a king.
You got all these people out there like they're from mental institution running around saying we have a king.
They don't want to keep.
They want a drag queen.
Okay.
RuPaul is on 24-7.
That's wrong.
When President Trump took down the rainbow flag, rainbows belong to everything, everyone.
It has nothing to do.
Rainbows have nothing to do with what is between your legs.
Okay?
That's legalized.
Bill in Greensboro, North Carolina, Independent Line, you're on the air.
Good morning.
I would just like to say that the people that do suffer from PDS need to sit down and really analyze themselves and get help on that.
The lady like Carol that called that was just besides herself, I agreed with her that we need term limits on everything, but the way she talked about Trump was just disgraceful.
We need to take the breath, as the other lady just said, and really analyze where our hate is coming from and how we got to this point.
The news media does not help.
We need to analyze what we hear and remember what our parents used to say, don't believe everything you hear and everything you read.
So I will say that I have felt that C-STAN has leaned more left in the last few months than they had before.
So I'd like you to analyze that yourselves at C-STAN and correct that.
And Bill, do you think that it's do you think that it's possible that you're leaning more to the right and that you would see everything as leaning more to the left?
Do you think it could be you and not us?
Well, no, I don't think that.
I try to analyze everything from a common sense viewpoint.
Got it.
Aaron, Alexandria, Virginia, Democrat, you're on the air.
Hi, and thank you so much for taking my call.
I just want to start off first by trying to bring back some modicum of sensibility and sanity to your job because the last few callers that I've listened to that came on, I feel like you're daycare, you know, babysitting people out of either a nursing home or a daycare.
Just want to say that first and foremost.
I specifically agree with the way that the view is, or the perspective of people who feel like it's leaning left.
The right has gone so far right.
And I don't want to say right because I do have friends and colleagues who are Republicans, but they're not this extreme.
We have a president who posted and he said he was responsible for his post that he was going to wipe out an entire civilization.
Okay.
We have a president who says the foulest things about other American citizens.
And while we're looking at someone who represents us on the world stage, we have leaders coming over to discuss things of serious matters or for photo ops.
And we have a president who's saying that an attempt on his life is some sort of badge of honor where he's being portrayed as Lincoln.
And only people who get assassination attempts are really important people.
So he's wearing that as a badge of honor.
We are in a very, very sick and demented time when that becomes a badge of honor.
And I would like people to sit back and think about how we got here.
And it has nothing to do with rainbow flags or religion.
It's because we idolize people and we put people of presumed power and influence into leadership.
Trump Wears Attacks As Honor00:15:14
Donald Trump is a criminal.
Point blank, period.
And if you don't realize that and you still support him, then you get what you pay for.
Thanks.
Good luck, Mimi.
I do not want your job at all, but I appreciate all the stuff that you.
Thank you.
And coming up next, we'll talk about the King and Queen's visit to the United States and a closer look at the tensions between the U.S. and Britain amid the ongoing Iran war.
Garrett Martin, co-director of the Transatlantic Policy Center at the American University, joins us right after this break.
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.
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-span shop.org.
Stay informed.
Stay engaged.
King Charles and Queen Camilla are heading to the U.S. for a four-day state visit beginning today.
During their trip, the King will address a joint session of Congress.
And President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump will host the royal couple at a state dinner at the White House.
The visit also includes stops in New York and Virginia, where they'll take part in a block party celebrating America's 250th birthday.
Don't miss live coverage of the Royal State Visit beginning today on the C-SPAN networks.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to the program.
Joining us now is Garrett Martin.
He is a senior professorial lecturer at American University and co-director at the Transatlantic Policy Center.
Garrett, welcome to the program.
Thank you for having me.
So the royals arrived today.
We are hearing that they are set to greet President Trump at 4.15 p.m. later this afternoon.
What's at stake in this visit?
It is definitely high stakes and high opportunities for the visit of the king.
Obviously, the context of relations between the United States and the United Kingdom are challenging.
They're difficult.
There are pressures both at home for the king as well as obviously difficult relations with the United States.
And this trip of four days will be heavily scrutinized.
And the Reuters is saying that the U.S.-UK relationship is at the lowest point it has been in 70 years over this Iran war.
Talk about the timing first of the King's visit.
Well, obviously, it's in a very important moment celebrating the 250th anniversary since the American independence.
It is also a major state visit for the king.
It's coming at a time, indeed, as you mentioned, where there have been a number of areas where the United States and the United Kingdom have been at odds.
Obviously, Iran is the most recent, but there have been differences over trade.
There have been frustration over Greenland.
There have been comments made by the President that have not been well received in the UK over the service of British soldiers in Afghanistan.
So there's really an accumulation of areas where the relationship is facing some challenges.
There is a history, but there are also some current challenges.
So is that why the king is here really to repair that relationship?
And how do we know will it be repaired?
Is it just kind of getting on President Trump's good side?
Yes, I think it's four days would not be enough in itself to try and address the more deep differences that are currently affecting London and Washington, but certainly it can help.
I think it can buy time, it can buy some goodwill, and that's certainly important.
It can also change the narrative so that we move away from the issues that divide both sides to focus also on kind of the common foundations that have kept the two countries together.
You know, President Trump has criticized Prime Minister Kier Starmer quite a bit, as you kind of alluded to.
King Charles really doesn't have any hard power.
What difference do you think that this visit, what difference do you think he can make personally?
No, it does not have hard power, but soft power has its importance.
I think symbols have their importance.
I think the royal family are like global celebrities.
They're very well known across the world.
They're well known in parts of the United States.
If you think about the show like The Crown, I mean, that still matters, the history, the tradition associated with the royal family.
The pomp and circumstance.
Which, I mean, you know, that matters.
That's fun.
That matters.
That matters.
If you'd like to join our conversation with Garrett Martin, if you've got a question or a comment about the royal visit to the United States starting today, that you can start calling us now.
Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents are on 202-748-8002.
As I mentioned earlier, schedule is at 4.15 p.m. Eastern Time.
The King and Queen will be arriving and be greeted by President Trump.
We will have that for you on the C-SPAN network, so stay with us for that.
The King is going to be addressing Congress.
Tell us what you're watching for that and what you expect to hear.
Well, first of all, it's a moment of history.
It's only the second time since a monarch from the United Kingdom is addressing a joint session.
The last time was in 1991 with Queen Elizabeth.
So in itself, that is a moment.
I think the second is we will be paying attention to what he says as well as what he doesn't mention.
We know that the king is a rather staunch supporter of the environment.
Is that a subject where there's obvious differences with the Trump administration?
Will that be mentioned?
The royal family in the UK has been connected to the Epstein scandal through Andrew Manbatten.
Well, I presume that will not be mentioned.
So there's a number of issues that will be important as what he says, but also crucially, what he does not.
I do want to ask you about that because it is his brother that was very closely tied to Epstein.
The king is not going to be meeting with any Epstein survivors.
Had there been discussion about that?
It had been mentioned.
I know that there had been requests made to the royal family to have even private meetings with survivors.
That is not going to happen.
I believe the Queen is going to meet with victims of domestic abuse.
So I think there's a nod to it.
But I think they are staying clear of a subject that is difficult, I would say, in the UK and obviously difficult for the Trump administration as well.
He's also not meeting his son, Prince Harry, who lives in the United States.
Talk about that and their relationship.
Do they see each other?
Does Prince Harry go back to England to visit his father?
My understanding is that there have not been many visits.
I believe he did go back to see his father after his initial diagnosis.
So certainly the relations are complicated.
They're difficult.
I mean, like it happens in a number of families.
But of course, that one has a lot more of a glare and a lot more of international attention.
But the fact that Prince Harry's not coming to Washington during this visit is quite telling in itself.
Talk about the king's diagnosis.
What's the latest on that?
I think my understanding is that he has been following treatment.
He's been living now with cancer for two years.
So I think the prognosis has been fairly good.
But of course, at his age of 77, living with cancer two years and in a heavy schedule, a packed schedule, I think there are obviously concerns about his health.
And how old is he now?
I believe he is 77 and will be 78 this year.
So very close in age, actually, to President Trump.
Yes, the same generation, which I think is sometimes helpful in terms of good relations.
It's been said that King Charles has a sense of humor.
Is that true?
Well, I think maybe more in private.
I think he certainly looked more of a slightly more wooden in official functions.
I have not had a chance to meet him privately, so I can't really comment on that.
And this is the first trip to the United States since being crowned as the king.
How are British people responding to this?
Are they going to be watching it closely or do they think that the king should not go to the United States?
Well, I think that speaks exactly to the challenges of this trip, because there are challenges in terms of managing the relationship with the United States, you know, in the context that we've already alluded to.
But there is strong opposition to even the king taking this visit.
50% of UK citizens were opposed and believed that the visit was not appropriate.
Only a small plurality supported keeping the trip.
So he also has to be mindful of how the trip will be perceived at home.
Garrett Martin is our guest until the end of the program, about 25 minutes from now.
So we will take your calls.
He will answer your questions about the royal visit.
King Charles and Queen Camilla are set to arrive in the United States and stay for four days.
The numbers are Republicans 202, 748, 8001.
Democrats 2027488000.
And Independents 2027488002.
What are some of the highlights of those four days?
What is he going to be doing?
Well, so the first part of the trip is obviously going to be mostly focused in Washington.
There's going to be an initial meeting with President Trump.
Tomorrow there'll be a more ceremonial garden party, I believe, with a sort of military procession, as well as, of course, the address, a joint address to Congress.
Then the king and queen head to New York to pay tribute to the victims of 9-11.
Obviously, we are in the 25th year since the horrific attacks.
There will be some visits also that are only by the Queen, including to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the creation of Winiza Pooh.
And then there will be a return to Washington as well as a visit or participation in a block party in Virginia to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States.
A block party?
I was as surprised.
It's a kind of a block party as the King and Queen of England.
I'm very surprised about what's going to happen, what's going to be served, but certainly I think it speaks to the fact that it is, of course, a meeting with the administration, but it's also a meeting with the American people.
I think that speaks to the idea that the messaging that they want the relationship to endure, to endure regardless of who is sitting in the White House.
All right, let's talk to callers.
We'll start with Terry Atlanta, Line for Democrats.
Good morning, Terry.
Hey, good morning.
How are you?
And thank you for taking my call.
I'm interested in why the king and queen are not going to have any, I guess, personal visits with their relatives.
I know that's probably something you can't say, but I'm wondering if there will be any talk about the war in Iran, if they have any comments about that.
And also, I just have to say that I am a forever fan of the People's Princess, Diana.
She will always be, you know, my queen.
So I respect that the king has taken a wife that obviously makes him very, very, very happy.
But my heart goes to Princess Diana.
So thank you.
And please give me thoughts about that.
Well, I think the fact that Terry still remembers Diana now about nearly 30 years since her death, I think is telling about the soft power that the royal family can have.
So I think that's very indicative.
What will the king say about Iran?
I think that's going to be an interesting, because it's obviously being a big bone of contention.
I think the king has been certainly was more vocal about the importance of supporting Ukraine during the state visit in September when President Trump went to London.
I think certainly I assume he may not speak about the conflict directly, but I think he will certainly speak about the long sort of military solidarity, the long military cooperation that both countries have shown since World War II and in many different instances.
Sam is a Republican in Florida.
You're on with Garrett Martin.
Good morning, Sam.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call and good morning to your guests.
This is more just like a comment.
As an American, I feel like there is no closer, more brethren nation than the United Kingdom to the United States.
I know that this might not be the popular thing right now with all the back and forth and what President Trump says.
And I'm a President Trump supporter.
I think brothers fight and we're democratic nations.
We're open nations.
So everything is, you know, nothing is hidden.
Everything is in the open.
So people will comment and there's the eyes of the world is always on us, on us meaning the US and UK.
But our ties goes back to bloodline, to shared history, shared heritage, and it's a special relationship for those reasons.
It's not just some kind of a short-term economic or geostrategic benefits or interests.
It's way deeper than that, and it will remain that.
So I just want to say I welcome the king's visit.
And this brotherhood will always remain there.
I just want to share that.
All right, Sam.
No, I think you're absolutely right.
I mean, if you look at the history of the special relationship, certainly conflict, disputes, and differences are as ingrained in the DNA as sort of all the elements of cooperation that I believe Sam was referring to.
I think if you think about it a little bit like an iceberg, you have the tip of the iceberg, which is sometimes the atmospherics between the leaders are sometimes difficult and fraught.
But there is still this sort of deep day-to-day cooperation that happens in the field of intelligence, insecurity, economic trade, people-to-people exchanges.
And I think that is still a strong foundation, even in moments like this when there are big political differences.
UK-US Relations Remain Strong00:12:53
Well, Annette disagrees with that.
She sent us on X.
She says, I don't think King Charles should visit now.
Trump will find some way to insult, ridicule, blame, or embarrass him.
I think that's certainly a possibility.
I mean, I think, you know, even a few days ago, I believe Reuters spoke about a leaked email from the Pentagon where there was, at least allegedly, there was talk about punishing the UK for its lack of support over the Iran conflict in the form of changing the position on the Falklands or Malvinas, depending if you are Argentinian.
So I think the concern, like even if it's not directly towards the king, will they be a remark?
Will they be a claim, a true social post that attacks Kair Starmer directly?
And of course, that would put the king in a rather difficult position if that was to happen.
Remind us about what's happening with the Falkland Islands.
Well, this was, again, a leaked email from the Pentagon that suggested that the administration was contemplating ways to punish countries, NATO members, that had not been viewed as cooperative.
The United States' position has been to recognize British sovereignty over the Falklands.
But there was claim that could that change?
Could there unilaterally be a shift to recognizing Argentinian sovereignty?
And would that be a big deal for the UK?
Absolutely.
I mean, you know, the UK fought a war with Argentina in 1982 over that small territory.
There's obviously been, you know, sacrificed, lost soldiers.
And so I think that coming after the comments about British soldiers in January, I think would be hard to swallow for the British public, which is not that endeared with President Trump as it is.
Let's talk to Ari Rose in Woodbridge, Virginia.
Democrat, good morning.
Good morning, Amy.
Thank you for all that you do.
I'm here with my 93-year-old grandmother.
We watch your show almost every morning.
And we just had a quick question.
Are the royals going to be staying in the White House area or where will they be while they're here, like primarily?
That is a good question.
I suspect there is a possibility that they might be housed at the beautiful residence of the UK ambassador, you know, near the naval observatory.
But I am not actually sure.
And probably you're not sure because of security.
One would hope so, yes.
And the issue of, of course, what happened on Saturday night and probably enhanced security for the royals.
Yes, I mean, I think obviously if it is the residence, it is a little bit more secure.
It is a little less open access to the public as opposed to a hotel, for instance.
Here's Kathy in Georgia, Republican.
Hi, Kathy.
Hi.
Yes, I wanted to say I don't think there is that much of a risk between the two countries because when President Trump went to Britain last time, they gave him an opulent reception, one that they don't normally give to leaders.
And they gave it to him.
And the mainstream media didn't even show it.
But that was a very nice gesture.
And so I don't think that there's that much of a riff.
And I just hope that the security is going to be tight and everyone is safe.
And oh, what else can I say?
All right.
We got that, Kathy.
Thank you.
Well, you know, you're absolutely right that there was, it was a big honor.
And I think there was a lot of time and resources put in welcoming President Trump to London in September.
But I think it depends what perspective you're taking.
I think the net unfavorability of President Trump in the United Kingdom as of now is minus 70.
That is significant.
So I think if you're thinking about how that also affects long-term attitudes amongst the UK public towards the United States, that is concerning.
Does that mean that that cannot be fixed or that that cannot be repaired over time?
No, but it's still, I think, a significant impediment because Kirstama himself is not exactly very popular.
So he has to be mindful of his own public when managing relations with the most important ally of the United Kingdom.
Talk a little bit about internal UK politics.
You mentioned 70% unfavorability for President Trump, but that leaves about 30% then favorable.
So talk about, I mean, is there a right-wing, is there a rightward swing to internal UK politics?
So let me, just to be precise, it's a minus 70.
So that's a differential between approval and disapproval.
So that's quite hefty.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's a little bit more.
So the people that do approve of President Trump, let's put it that way, even though they're in the minority, what are they thinking and what's that politics like?
I mean, there's certainly been on certain subjects, for instance, let's take the conflict in Iran, is broadly not popular amongst the UK public, but certain segments of the UK political spectrum have been critical of Stalma and argue that the United Kingdom should do more to help the United States.
That's obviously Nigel Farage of the Reform Party, some members of the Conservatives.
So there are on certain issues, on certain topics, you will have some parts of the British political class that are more in line with the views of the Trump administration.
There have also been more connections between, I would say, some of the MAGA intellectuals or MAGA funders with some members of the British political class.
So there are sort of political connections that have been built over time as well.
Let's hear from George in Elgin, Texas.
Democrat, you're next.
Good morning, C-SPAN, and morning to your guests.
Thank you for taking my call.
Before I start, Mimi, I just wanted to say thank you to C-SPAN for your coverage of the Artemis II mission.
It was really excellent.
And I think it was just great the way y'all carried everything alive as much as you could.
For your guest, I just wanted you to, in my opinion, our reporting and coverage of international affairs in the United States is very lacking.
It's very poor.
And I just wanted you, if you could, run down, say, the top three issues that y'all are dealing with in the UK.
Financial issues or problems that y'all have to deal with.
I know that y'all have had problems with racism and things like that.
But can you give us a little education, the American public, on the top three things that y'all have to deal with right now in current affairs in England?
And I thank you for taking my call and answering my questions.
Well, of course, you know, I'm, you know, being based in the United States, I'm not directly myself dealing with them.
I'm Irish for full disclosure, but I lived in London for many years.
So I think if you want to look at key, three maybe key issues that the United Kingdom is facing as of now, I think the most important and the most enduring has been the economy.
Since the financial crisis of 2008, 2009, the UK economy has simply not grown and kept up with its other G7 competitor or peer countries.
Wages, productivity have struggled, and so I think that's been a big issue that the UK has faced.
And so I think that was certainly what Kirst Armer claimed that he was going to be able to address when he got elected nearly two years ago.
I think the second is obviously the impact of inflation and the impact of high energy costs and the impact also of the housing crisis.
So these are very much pocketbook issues that have been enduring as well and that really affect UK citizens.
And I would say the third big challenge is what exactly is the role of the United Kingdom on the international stage now that it's no longer a member of the European Union?
I think it has tried historically to be a bridge between the United States and Europe, but it runs the risk of being on the periphery of both.
What about immigration?
Is that a big issue in the UK?
It is.
I mean, immigration is an issue that certainly has salience, I would say, in Europe, in the UK.
There have been a lot of illegal immigration networks starting from France and small boats taking immigrants to the United Kingdom.
I think certainly for parts of the population, I think it has created concerns about the abilities to maintain law and order, to protect borders.
Kirst Armer has promised to try and tackle that issue, but the number of, you know, the networks are adaptable, they're versatile, and they've been able to sort of avoid and to circumvent a lot of the measures.
So the number of those boat crossings have slightly increased in the past year.
Somebody with a handle seriously on X said, I am very happy to see the king and queen coming to America.
I greatly admire Charles and Camilla.
I hope Americans step up and show them what the best of America is all about.
Can you talk a little bit about the difference between King Charles and his mother, Queen Elizabeth, and if there's really any substantial difference between the two and how they're approaching the monarchy?
I think there's certainly more continuity than when we see sort of future King William.
I think there will be more of a generational shift.
I think there are some small differences.
I think maybe King Charles has been a bit more openly active on certain political subjects.
I think in particular over the environment.
I think I've already alluded to that.
I think maybe his mother was a little bit more inscrutable in terms of what her actual views were on a number of big political subjects.
So I think that's probably the big difference between the two is that he is a little bit more, I would say, politically active or at least politically clear on certain issues.
But I still think that there is the bigger generational shift will be what happens after him.
On the Republican line in Lebanon, Ohio.
Elizabeth, you're on with Garrett Martin.
Hi.
I am just curious if the King is aware of the No King movement in the United States.
If he has any comments about this movement.
You know, you have to know, you have to admit when you don't know.
And I have no idea whether the King knows this.
I think if he has a sense of humor, I mean, already the fact that the visit is happening a little over two months before the 250th anniversary, it is in itself quite historically ironic, but I don't know if the king is aware of the no-kings movement.
Rick in Oklahoma, Democrat, you're on the air.
Yes, I was just wondering how the people felt over there and all of our stuff when Donald Trump called all of our allies and stuff cowards for not helping over in Iran and everything.
And since they fought the wars and died side by side with us and stuff, to call them cowards, it made me feel sick at my stomach.
But just wondering how the people felt.
All right, Rick?
I mean, I think that was, you know, very badly, you know, very strong reaction, very negative reaction.
I think the UK has been a firm ally of the United States, a firm member of NATO, which has been often on the front lines of major conflicts.
And so, as I alluded to earlier, the remarks about denigrating the sacrifice of UK soldiers in Afghanistan really went down like a lead balloon.
And interestingly, across the political spectrum.
So even reform, the party, which is more on the far right, that might be more aligned with Trump and MAGA, even there, that remark was really very poorly received.
I asked you about immigration earlier.
Joe on X says, why don't you ask your guest about Charles's pandering to Islam and the trouble Muslim immigrants have been causing in Great Britain?
Immigration Narratives Clash In UK00:03:46
I mean, I think that sometimes can appear as a bit of a Rorschach test.
I do think there is some exaggeration about these issues over immigration in the United Kingdom.
I think we're talking about, you know, the Muslim population in the UK is relatively small compared to the overall population.
I think I have seen sometimes narratives about a Muslim invasion which seemed heavily detached from the day-to-day reality.
Now, are there integration sometimes challenges in a multicultural society?
Absolutely.
But I think sometimes the narratives seem, at least from the friends back that I still keep in touch with the UK, the picture of London or other important centers seem rather sort of separated from the lived realities of people on the ground.
Let's talk to Stephanie, Fairfax, California, Independent Line.
Hi, Stephanie.
Hello.
Hi, go right ahead.
You're on with Garrett Martin.
Oh, well, I was present for the last tour that they took when they came to the Bay Area and San Francisco area.
And it was really fun.
We kind of went around and saw them in Berkeley, and then they were in San Francisco at the ferry terminal.
And they were super fun.
It was really close.
We were like, you know, within inches of them.
And it was really fun.
And.
Wait, they let you get that close, Stephanie?
Pardon me?
They let you get that close?
I can't hear you very well.
I'm sorry.
I'm on a cell phone.
It's okay.
You go ahead with your comment.
Go ahead.
It was really fun.
And there was a little thing, the Ethiopian people were crying in Berkeley about their situation.
And they had signs and things like that.
So I said, I'll take a sign to the ferry terminal.
And when I took my sign and held it up, his people, Secret Service type people, came and took my sign.
I didn't really mind it.
I mean, I did mind it, but it was a little odd.
But he's a very wonderful guy in terms of his interest in organic farming.
He came out to Point Reyes.
And, you know, he just seems like a super nice person, sensitive guy.
I think he likes to do watercolors and things like that.
So overall, my experience was very good.
And I just wondered, does he know if they're coming back to the Bay Area at all?
I don't believe it's planned on this specific trip.
Now, will there be maybe other opportunities in the future?
But certainly the caller, Stephanie, is absolutely right about the king has been a proponent of organic farming for decades and certainly someone who was a little bit the vanguard on that subject.
Brenda in Massachusetts Independent Line, you're on the air.
Good morning.
All right.
Hello.
Go ahead, Brenda.
You're on.
Oh, I'm not getting me on there.
No, you just listen in your phone.
Don't watch your TV.
Okay.
But they're talking and they're not hearing me.
Just keep talking, Brenda.
You're on the air.
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
I just wanted to let the gentleman know.
I just want to let the gentleman know.
Hello.
Yes.
Go ahead, Brenda.
You wanted to let the gentleman know what?
I'm still here.
Welcome To Washington Journal00:04:02
Yes, I just want, I have a lot of.
I have a lot of respect for the King of England.
Okay.
Anything else you'd like to add?
No, they're not hearing me.
Somebody else is on.
Okay, Brenda.
We'll let you go.
There's actually Margie in Meadville, Pennsylvania, wants to know about protocols.
She says, one in another country, are curtsies and or bowing excluded?
Well, I haven't fully brushed up on my royal protocol, but I imagine.
Come on, Garrett.
The curtsies and the bowing, you got to know about that.
No, no, I know about them.
I was just saying about when, you know, do they have, is there extra territoriality?
I presume at least in the residence of the UK ambassador, yes, there will be that expectation.
But I would imagine probably not in the White House.
All right, that's Garrett Martin.
He is senior professorial lecturer at American University, co-director at the Transatlantic Policy Center.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And that's it for us today.
We will have another edition of Washington Journal starting tomorrow morning, 7 a.m. Eastern Time.
We hope you'll join us then.
In the meantime, have a great day.
Thanks for watching.
You're watching C-SPAN.
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.
King Charles and Queen Camilla are heading to the U.S. for a four-day state visit beginning today.
During their trip, the King will address a joint session of Congress.
And President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump will host the royal couple at a state dinner at the White House.
The visit also includes stops in New York and Virginia, where they'll take part in a block party celebrating America's 250th birthday.
Don't miss live coverage of the Royal State Visit beginning today on the C-SPAN networks.
The U.S. House returns later today at 2 p.m. Eastern.
Members will consider several tax-related bills, including legislation to extend tax relief for individuals impacted by federally declared disasters.
The bill is named after the late California Republican Congressman Doug Lamalfa, who died in January.
The House will also take up legislation to raise the retirement age for U.S. Capitol police officers to 65.
The Senate's also back today at 3 p.m. Eastern.
Lawmakers will vote later in the day to advance President Trump's nomination of Robert Zicata to be ATF director.
Watch live coverage of the House on C-SPAN, the Senate on C-SPAN 2.
And all of our congressional coverage is available on our free video app, C-SPAN Now, and our website, c-span.org.
Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
We will get to your calls shortly, but first take a look at what President Trump said.