Congressman James Walkinshaw and Congressman Don Bacon confront Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over a $1.5 trillion budget, firing top Pentagon officials, and unspent Ukraine funds while debating Iran's nuclear threat. The broadcast covers former FBI Director James Comey's indictment for threatening President Trump via an "8647" Instagram post and King Charles III's address urging democratic values despite missing Epstein survivors. Callers debate pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell, Virginia redistricting referendums, and FISA Section 702 privacy safeguards, highlighting deep partisan divides on national security and judicial integrity. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
Time
Text
Comey's Deleted Seashell Photo00:03:19
Coming up on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Nebraska Republican Congressman Don Bacon will talk about the latest on the Iran war, the Farm Bill, and other congressional news of the week.
Then Virginia Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw discusses the Epstein investigation, updates on the Iran war, and other news and issues from Congress.
Washington Journal starts now.
Today is Wednesday, April 22nd.
Welcome to Washington Journal.
A busy week so far in Washington.
Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted again on Tuesday and charged with threatening the president in a since-deleted social media post.
King Charles III, during his big day in Washington, urged the U.S. to maintain its special ties to Britain and defend shared Democratic values in an address to Congress.
Those are just some of the stories we're covering this morning, but we want to hear from you.
What are your top news stories so far this week?
Here's how you join in on the conversation.
Republicans, your line, 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
And you can also reach us by text message at 202-748-8003.
Include your first name, city, and state.
And you can also post on Facebook at facebook.com forward slash C-SPAN or on X with the handle at C-SPANWJ.
We start this morning with the Justice Department, which secured an indictment, their second one, against former FBI director and Trump foe James Comey.
Now I turn to a Wall Street Journal article published on that indictment.
And the headline here is: Comey, long in Trump sites, is indicted over an online post.
It says that this is the Trump administration's second attempt to prosecute Comey, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and a prominent Trump critic.
He was charged in September with lying to Congress, but a judge dismissed that case.
The latest indictment charges Comey with making a threat against Trump and transmitting an interstate communication threatening to kill him.
It centers on a May 2025 Instagram post in which Comey wrote, quote, cool shell formation on my beach walk and under the photo of seashells arranged to form the number 8647.
Trump officials said at the time that it was a threat to encourage Trump as 86 is an old-time slang for quote get rid of and Trump is the 47th president.
The three-page indictment said a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret these messages 8647 as a serious expression of intent to do harm to President Trump.
It was filed in North Carolina where the beach photo was taken.
Now yesterday James Comey posted on his substact responding to these new charges.
Threats Against Trump Explained00:15:39
Take a listen here.
Well they're back.
This time about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago.
And this won't be the end of it.
But nothing has changed with me.
I'm still innocent.
I'm still not afraid.
And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.
So let's go.
But it's really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country.
This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be.
And the good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values.
Keep the faith.
That was James Comey yesterday responding to these new charges that he was threatening to kill the president in a social media post.
Now, another story that we're following this morning is, of course, King Charles III having a full day in Washington yesterday.
I turn to a New York Times article.
The headline here is: Beneath King Charles' jokes and decorum, some subtle rebuttals to Trump, King Charles III gently pushed back against President Trump's attacks on Britain and NATO, and he spoke of the importance of checks and balances.
Excuse me, bear with me while I scroll a little bit because it says: Charles spoke on Tuesday of the value of the transatlantic alliance, the importance of checks and balances, and his passion for the environment.
He even spoke of his time in the Royal Navy after Mr. Trump belittled British naval capabilities in recent weeks.
The king tucked his rejoiners into a mostly lighthearted speech to Congress on Tuesday afternoon and during evening remarks at a formal banquet at the White House.
Quote: Please rest assured I am not here as a part of the cunning rear guard action, the king told lawmakers in the afternoon, only the second time a British monarch had addressed Congress.
Take a listen now to some of the King's speech addressing the Congress.
Our Declaration of Rights of 1689 was not only the foundation of our constitutional monarchy, but also provided the source of so many of the principles reiterated, often verbatim, in the American Bill of Rights of 1791.
And those roots go even further back in history.
The U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta is cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.
So there was King Charles III getting a full round of applause from members of Congress yesterday when he addressed them talking about the importance of checks and balances in a democracy.
Let's turn to some phone calls.
John from Michigan and Independent.
Good morning, John.
Good morning.
Yeah, my top story is what I ended up hearing this morning is in a reference to the ballroom, and evidently now it looks like potentially the Congress and that are looking at having the taxpayers pay for the ballroom.
According to Lindsey Graham, I guess they're going to try to push something through Congress, another $400 million to finance the ballroom.
And I think that's a bunch of stuff, but anyway, that there's just my own opinion.
I thought before it was going to be financed by donors, but I don't know what they're going to do.
To me personally, being an independent, that's a black eye to the Americans.
But anyway, you have a wonderful day.
Thanks for calling in, John.
Now, to the story that he was referencing over the weekend as a response to the shooting at the White House correspondents dinner that Trump officials say was intended to target the president.
Republicans have made a push to support a number of bills supporting the commissioning of that ballroom.
Here's an article from The Hill.
Here it says: Senate Republicans push a bill to authorize $400 million for White House ballroom.
There is an end.
One second.
So as I scroll down, excuse me, guys.
So it says a group of Senate Republicans led by Lindsey Graham are pushing a bill to fund the construction of a secure 90,000 square foot ballroom at the White House and say the project is essential for national security after a gunman tried to storm the White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday.
Graham and his allies say the cost of the project would be offset by national park user fees and custom fees, and that bill would authorize the construction of national security-related infrastructure below the ballroom, including an annex for the Secret Service.
I'm going to scroll one more time here.
Excuse me, if it moves.
In a quote, Graham said, It's very difficult to have a bunch of important people in the same place unless it's really, really secure.
The times in which we live are unusual.
I've been up here for now.
I've never felt a sense of threats to threats that exist today, said Graham, who was first elected in the House in 1994.
Now, of course, when President Trump first ruled out the plans for the ballroom, he said that it would be paid by individual donors, that the cost of it would be paid not by taxpayers but by individual donors.
This bill and some other similar ones circulating the House, or excuse me, the Congress would have taxpayers pay for it.
Now, there are other dueling bills by other lawmakers, other Republican lawmakers, that would just not have taxpayers pay for it, but would continue to commission that ballroom being done.
Robert from Michigan, an independent you're next.
Good morning, Robert.
Good morning.
This is Robert from the fascist town of Caspian, Michigan, which is next to Iron River, Michigan.
Real quick, though, the people that call in complain about other people, you guys are wasting your own time.
You only get like a minute or a half a minute to talk to you guys.
Don't put it towards, you know, complaining about other callers.
Okay, get back to my top news story.
Violence is way out of control.
Right here, even in this little small town of a fascist town of Caspian, 800 people, there's, I ain't going to get into the violence.
The main violence I've seen is a woman that got out.
I don't know how the judge let her out again, and she started, she had a butcher knife and she started hacking a little child that was caught in one of those shopping carts.
He couldn't move, he couldn't run.
I don't know where the mother was at, but the officer had it on video and he ended up shooting this woman, which, yeah, I would say so.
I mean, after he took a couple swipes at this little child, you know, I mean, with a big butcher knife, and wow, I don't know why she did that, but it happened.
You know, the violence is way out of control, and I don't know, I don't have the answer to none of that neither, but it just is.
And it just, you know, just heads up and stays alert.
And I mean, and it's just that way.
You know, I mean, there's always the country always has been a violent country.
I mean, if you look at the history about it, but it's just getting more populated and more population, more of everything.
And there's really nothing to do about it but just beware in your surroundings wherever you go and be careful.
All right, Robert.
Thanks for calling in.
Noel from New Hampshire, Democrat.
Good morning, Noel.
What's your top news story of the week so far?
The 8647 deal.
Going after James Comey for the Seashell deal.
And I think the Democrats need to learn to play some hardball.
They could put together a montage of Film clips of Trump inciting violence, extreme violence, from the podium.
In 2016, when he's running against Hillary and it didn't look like he had a chance, he suggested some Second Amendment solutions might be in order from the podium.
Also, it was take him out back.
I'll pay your legal fees.
Punch him right in the F face when he was told about Yeshu Pelosi's husband get beat with a hammer.
He laughed about it.
Well, that's the way it goes, you know.
You want to talk about a cancer in the White House?
This guy incites violence January 6th.
He sat on his butt and watched for hours before he made a call after 6 p.m.
He watched that mess.
You want to talk about promoting violence?
And I'm wondering how many of the ICE and DHS agents were in prison for the January 6th uprising and how many of them are now in control with immunity and a gun.
So thank you, and y'all have a good day.
Thank you.
Julie from North Dakota, a Republican.
You are next.
Good morning, Julie.
Wow, it's ironic to follow that spewing.
Whoop-be-doo.
Say, I'm focused on the good.
Thank goodness for C-SPAN showing King Charles speaking in Congress yesterday.
Oh, my gosh, was that fantastic?
And looking at the special relationship that goes all the way back to FDR and Churchill, we're looking at Ronald Reagan riding his horses with Queen Elizabeth.
I mean, the relationship we've had with England has been spectacular.
And with you yourself, you know, being there with the shooting on Saturday.
Oh, my gosh, that was so horrible.
And I think there was a reporter from NBC following the late-night briefing.
He asked the question: is this just the price of doing business?
And President Trump, to his credit, is strong and defiant.
And he says, we cannot let this stop us from being able to do on what you know, the business that we need to take care of.
And King Charles still came here.
That didn't deter King Charles.
I know there were people in England questioning whether it was going to be safe for him or should he be here, but he did.
And that's diplomacy and action.
That is the strength of England and the U.S.
And coming from North Dakota with Doug Bergham being there to represent my state, with the Secretary of Interior being there every day, he has been by the side and standing up for our nation and the wealth of our nation.
And the people is also supporting our president despite the vile comments that I hear on C-SPAN.
Oh my gosh, we've just got to grow up and be strong citizens and stop this nonsense and stand by our country.
We already had an election.
That was democracy.
Let's stand up.
And if you don't like it, you campaign next time.
But right now, we're standing for our country.
And, you know, it's like act like grown-ups and stop behaving like naughty children with all this nasty stuff that I hear on C-SPAN.
Thank you.
All right, Julie from North Dakota, Republican.
Robert from Texas, a Democrat.
Yes.
I can't understand how people can steal back, at least white America, back down President Trump, because you can't hang up on them.
I was just wondering what your top news story of the week is, Robert.
I'm just one of the white Americans.
It's not a racism.
You say it.
You can see it back President Trump when he's cutting Medicare, Medicaid, who is just cutting different wick and said post-security run out in about six more years, but he's going to spend $400 million on a ballroom with him because he's got a safe spot in it, something like that.
And they still back this man anyway.
And how can you spend $400 million for a ballroom when you're supposed to be coming out of there in two or three more years?
This man did have no plan of coming out of that White House.
That's why you try to insulate his FWA even don't have to, because you already got an insurrection.
He's already hired in the ICE, the one to do wear masks, not the one you put at the airports so you can see their faces.
The one that's wearing the masks is still working hard for him.
And you're paying him $60,000 a year and $50,000 signing voting.
He got his benefit already ready.
Whenever time comes again, this time he's going to figure out how to do it.
All right, Robert, I take your point there.
Arthur from Washington, D.C., an independent.
I just wanted to ask if there were any correlations on record about Al Bonner, who I read that founded the Muslim Brotherhood, and I'm just wondering if there's a clear distinction that you can share with the public about the Muslim Brotherhood, and which, you know, we don't want to prejudice against anyone for religion.
I'm just asking for some clarity on this subject.
Arthur, right now we're talking about the top news story of the week.
We'll have open forum a little bit later in the day.
So I wonder if you want to stick to what we're talking about now.
Do you have a top news story of the week?
No, just the war on your own.
That's what I was asking about.
Okay, the war in Iran.
Anything particular outside of the initial question, since I think it'll take our producers a little bit of time to research that.
Okay, I'll call back in the open forum.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Alan from Fort Pierce, Florida, Republican.
Good morning, Alan.
Good morning.
What's your top news story of the week?
Well, it has to do with the correspondence dinner and the shooting that happened, as well as the response from Senator Lindsey Graham, which I think was most inappropriate.
He basically ripped into having the event at a place like the Hilton, which I think was totally inappropriate for him to rip into that.
That has always been a perfect venue for the correspondence dinner.
In my opinion, the problem was that the Secret Service and other security detail didn't know what was going on at that hotel.
They didn't know where the other guests were.
They didn't know where other people were at the time.
Even when I was watching on C-SPAN, you had in the studio on one side of the screen an interview with a couple of people, and then you had the correspondence dinner showing on the other side of the screen.
Security Breaches at Dinner00:11:03
And one of your guests said that she thought it was odd that some of the protesters even entered onto the red carpet during the start of the correspondence dinner with protest signs against TEGSAP.
And that should not have happened.
There were breaches somewhere in the process of security that should not have happened.
So to just react and say we have to build this billion-dollar or whatever it is ballroom is an overreach for one thing.
And I just think that there's too much reaction to what happens, besides the fact that when people do say things that are inappropriate, nobody calls them out.
And that includes the inappropriate comments that the president makes.
Nobody calls him out on it and says, don't do that.
Don't say that.
All right.
Alan from Fort Pierce, Florida.
Lisa from Lawrence, Massachusetts, a Democrat.
Good morning, Lisa.
Hi.
What's your top news story of the week?
The king, he was very impressive.
He's very respectful.
And I wish we could have a president like that.
This guy, this king, I believe, should take the place of Trump.
He should move here, pump Trump, and put him in.
He would make a great president.
And that's why he's such a good king.
And he's very respectful, no foul language, no nothing.
He knows how to talk.
He knows how to talk slowly so people can understand what he's saying.
I mean, oh my God, if I was younger, I would move to London to have someone like that running the country because Trump needs to go.
He needs to go.
It's really ridiculous.
He's very foul.
He's ugly.
He's rowdy.
He's a horrible, horrible, little old man.
All right, Lisa.
Let's turn back to some of King Charles III's remarks in front of Congress yesterday since you mentioned them.
Taylor, I am mindful that we are still in the season of Easter, the season that most strengthens my hope.
It is why I believe with all my heart that the essence of our two nations is a generosity of spirit and a duty to foster compassion, to promote peace, to deepen mutual understanding, and to value all people of all faiths and of none.
Alliance that our two nations have built over the centuries and for which we are profoundly grateful to the American people is truly unique.
And that alliance is part of what Henry Kissinger described as Kennedy's soaring vision of an Atlantic partnership based on twin pillars, Europe and America.
That partnership, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is more important today than it has ever been.
That was King Charles III yesterday, a part of his remarks to Congress, talking about the special relationship and special ties that have endured for 250 years between the UK and the U.S. Scott from New York, an independent.
Good morning, Scott.
What's your top news story of the week so far?
Yes, good morning.
I am sick of how they keep on manipulating the truth.
The spokeswoman the other day said that Donald Trump was like one of the only leaders who have had three assassination attempts on him.
So I looked it up and there's been many, many, many people who have had more than three assassination attempts.
Lincoln had five.
If we could have kept it to four, he would have made it through his presidency.
Putin had had quite a few.
And as they keep on saying, well, gosh, maybe Trump is protected by God.
I don't buy that because one that had the most assassination attempts was Hitler.
He had over 42 assassination attempts.
So if we believe that God is protecting these people, then was God protecting Adolf Hitler?
A queen has got more than three assassination attempts.
A Pope has got more than three assassination attempts.
So our government needs to quit, especially the Republicans, lying and misproducing the truth out there.
They're dummying everybody down.
God bless the humans in the world.
And we'll talk to you another 30 days.
I have a lot of answers for you people, but we only get on once a month for us people who aren't lying to you.
Thank you.
Have a great, great month.
Sean from Columbia, Maryland, a Republican.
Good morning, Sean.
Thank you for taking my call.
I'm just applauding the fact that Comey was indicted.
I don't think that there was any assassination attempts against Biden.
This guy's been in trouble since Trump was first elected, trying to dissolve his presidency.
And anybody that was the top cop or the head of the FBI should know better than put something like that on his Instagram page.
That's insane.
It's insane his explanation.
And I hope that justice is served.
I know he's not going to go to jail, but I sure as heck hope that he has to spend a lot of money like a lot of other people do with all of the lawsuits he's put on people.
Thank you very much, C-SPAN.
That was Sean.
Let's turn now to some more of the Comey information.
I'm looking now at a CNN article that broke the news.
Exclusive former FBI director James Comey indicted over the alleged quote threat against Trump.
I just want to show you guys, since I don't think we've seen it so far, the actual social media post in which he is indicted for, of course, there it is on the screen.
It's a little not so little zoomed in, but that was the post that Comey posted and then deleted.
Of course, his explanation was that he was just walking on the beach, he said, and saw those numbers.
And let's take a listen to what Justice Department's officials said yesterday in the briefing announcing this secured indictment.
Today, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned an indictment against James Comey on two counts.
The first count is that on or about May 15th of last year, he knowingly and willfully making a threat to take the life of and to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States.
Count two, same day, May 15th, 2025, that the defendant, James Comey, knowingly and willfully transmitting in interstate commerce, a communication that contained a threat to kill the president of the United States.
Both of these counts carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
So I think it's fair to say that threatening the life of anybody is dangerous and potentially a crime.
Threatening the life of the President of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice.
Over the past year, this department has charged dozens of cases involving threats against all sorts of individuals.
We take these seriously, every single one of them.
For example, just today in the Northern District of Florida, there was a guilty plea from an individual who threatened multiple political leaders, including President Trump.
In the Eastern District of North Carolina, where this case was indicted earlier today, there are multiple threats cases very similar to this one, including one where the defendant pled guilty recently to threatening former President Biden, another one that's scheduled to go to trial this summer, another one indicted, an individual was indicted for threatening Tom Homan.
I say that to say that while this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute.
Go ahead.
Yes.
Sir, how will you prove intent when, as the director had acknowledged, Mr. Comey said he did not associate 86 with doing harm and he took it down promptly, said it was political speech, not an intent to harm the president.
Well, it's not, it's not, this case was indicted today.
This conduct occurred about a year ago, May 15th of last year.
There's been a tremendous amount of investigation.
And how do you prove intent in any case?
You prove intent with witnesses, with documents, with the defendant himself to the extent it's appropriate.
And that's how we'll improve intent in this case.
And so I think that talking about what Mr. Comey will or will not do if there's a trial, when there's a trial, it's very premature for me to do that today.
That was Acting Attorney General Todd Blands answering reporters' questions yesterday at a press conference after announcing new charges on James Comey, former FBI director, over a social media post.
Carol from Kingsport, Tennessee, a Democrat.
Good morning, Carol.
Morning.
What's your top news story of the week?
Yeah, I was like, I was going to say something about Comey.
How can Trump, you know, he's retaliating, he's getting revenge on Comey.
So how can he say what he did when Trump does the same thing himself?
And I want to say this.
I agree with those, maybe four or five callers.
I agree with everyone, what they say.
I agree with them.
I will say the same thing.
So Trump needs to clean up his own back door before he starts harping on anybody else.
Education Problems in North Carolina00:02:59
Because he's the worst president I've ever seen.
I've never seen a president act like that.
Out of all the presidents, I've never seen any one of them act like him.
All right, Carol from Tennessee.
Kelly from Clemens, North Carolina, Republican.
Good morning, Kelly.
What's your top news story of the week?
I wanted to speak about Iran and then just one quick snippet about the king.
I just wanted to inform some people because it sounds like people are confused about Iran and the people there.
There's 93 million and 80 million do not care for their government and are Persians.
And 13 million are Islamist.
And they are the government and the military and other people that follow Islam.
And the 80 million do not want the government they have.
They are on our side.
And we are, in addition to everything else we're doing, we are trying to help them get a new regime, whether we say it or not.
And we have not bombed any of the regular people.
And there's not been any schools since the war started.
So how did we kill 100 girls?
Well, that school was bombed.
The school for little girls was bombed.
And multiple reports said that it was a U.S.-made munition that did it.
Keep going.
What's your next top news story?
There were the other people, the military, has been going into all the schools and churches and all of that in hiding.
But I wanted to say real quick about the king.
He's a wonderful man, and he gave great speeches and everything.
But I hate to disappoint the lady that wanted him over here wanted to go to London.
He has no control in the government over in England.
That's for the prime minister and the parliament and the house of lords.
He has no control over there whatsoever.
And if I'm correct, I do believe that the Democrats have been screaming, no kings.
Hmm.
Sounds kind of strange, doesn't it?
And y'all have a wonderful day.
Kelly from North Carolina, thanks for calling in.
Caleb from Durham, North Carolina, an independent.
UAE Leaves OPEC Cartel00:03:31
What's your top news story of the week?
Yeah, no problem.
Thank you, C-SPAN.
So to kind of get away from some of the federal stuff, in North Carolina, we kind of have an education problem.
Just public schools are understaffed.
I have a couple of friends and family members in public school, and it's not looking so good.
And they constantly, you know, complain about how short-staffed it is and how the special needs classes aren't getting what they need for the support, you know, in terms of just hands-on deck to help with them.
And there's a teachers' march, I believe, happening somewhere in North Carolina, I believe, Raleigh, coming up soon.
And I just hope that the officials can hear.
I want Josh Stein and Valerie Ferici to hear this and see that we need some help on the public school side.
That's about it.
All right, Caleb from Durham, North Carolina.
Randy from Michigan, a Democrat.
Good morning, Randy.
What's your top news story of the week?
I'd like to start by thanking you and all the other men and women it takes to bring us this great program.
You're doing a great service for the nation.
My top story is UAE leaving OPEC.
The first crack in that in a lot of years.
And I'm curious to see if other countries, oil-producing countries, follow suit with UAE after so they can put more oil out on the market, being restricted now being part of OPEC.
So that may end up being a positive force in the long run.
I'm hoping so, but we'll see.
But that was mine, and I thank you very much for letting me call in and speak.
You have a great day.
Thanks for calling in, Randy.
The story that he was referencing, I'm looking at a Wall Street Journal article now, and it says, UAE to leave OPEC shikink cartel.
The sudden departure threatens a bloc as Iran war rising U.S. output raised pressure.
It says the United Arab Emirates said it would leave OPEC, dealing a heavy blow to the oil cartel as a war in Iran shakes up alliances and investment priorities among the world's top producers.
The sudden departure of the organization of the petrol exporting countries, third biggest producer, further weakens a block that, despite producing up to four out of every 10 barrels of oil pumped worldwide, has been hobbled by internal disunity and the rise of U.S. oil output.
The war in Iran has piled on more pressure by exasperating rifts among the Arab countries at the core of the group and by closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which the group's biggest producers export most of their oil, making it impossible for the group to influence the market during its biggest supply shock.
The UAE is in a relatively privileged position with the ability to circumvent the blockage in the strait by routing more than half of its oil exports across the country.
Withdrawing from OPEC will give it more freedom to make investments to expand its output and adjust to the uncertain future of the waterway.
So that is a story on the UAE deciding yesterday morning that they would leave OPEC.
Aaron from New York, a Democrat.
You're next.
Good morning, Aaron.
King Charles Speech Review00:09:16
What's your top news story?
Good morning.
How are you?
Good morning.
Thanks so much.
I appreciated so much the king speech yesterday.
And obviously, he was speaking to those commoners in Congress.
We don't need a king in this country, but we certainly his philosophy and the way he speaks so elegantly, I think we can use that right about now.
And this whole narrative about Trump derangement syndrome, I would like to know somebody who's brilliant mine who's been calling in on the right, who kept saying Trump derangement syndrome.
I would like to know where does one get the syndrome from?
Is it from China?
Is it from Africa?
And can we get some kind of a vaccine to cure that syndrome?
I would like to know somebody who's accusing all these people about the Trump derangement syndrome.
Where did that syndrome come from?
Where does one catch it?
And please let us know because we're waiting in the wings to hear your brilliant recommendation.
Thank you.
Aaron from New York.
Darryl from Columbus, Georgia, a Democrat.
Good morning, Daryl.
What's your top news story of the week?
Yes, actually, I got a couple of things, Jasmine.
First of all, I want to congratulate you on the job that you did on Saturday, but you did not get any praise for it.
Pedro worked on Sunday, and all day Sunday morning, he was praising Greta, he was praising John, he was praising Peter, but he would not mention Jasmine.
It took a caller to mention your name, and we all knew that you were there covering the story.
You did a great job, but that's not what I wanted to talk about.
But thank you for doing what you do.
I heard a clip a little bit ago.
Brooke Rollins, the Secretary of Agriculture, was on Fox News just giving herself a big relapse about cutting 4.2 million people off SNAP and food stamps.
Certain poor people away from getting food.
And she was happy about that.
So, all you poor people out there that voted for these people, I hope you're happy about that.
So, if you can get a chance, you guys can pull that story up.
These folks do not care about the poor, don't care about the elderly, they don't care about veterans, they just want to make themselves rich.
And they, like I said, they give themselves victory laps about that type of thing.
My last thing is that just kind of local stuff.
May 19th, voting in Columbus, Georgia.
Our next mayor is going to be Isaiah Hughley.
Our next governor for this state is going to be Keys and Lance Bottoms.
Folks, get out there and vote.
Do your thing.
Let's get some of these maggles out of these offices so we can get this country back to normal.
Thank you, Jasmine.
And you did a great job, Sarah.
Appreciate the girl.
Thank you very much, Daryl.
Thanks for calling in.
Kristen from Michigan, a Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning, Jasmine.
Did I pronounce your name right, Kristen?
Well, it's Christine.
Christine, okay.
All right.
Christine, what's your top news story of the week?
It is about the king and his speech.
And I have been praying for our country, and I just feel like the Lord sent him to show us what Christ is like, because he is a follower of Christ, and he just has such a lovely appearance and way of handling himself, and showing us how we should treat each other.
And that God loves everyone, even those that don't believe in him.
And it was just such a blessing.
And I hope that people will take the message that our Lord is trying to send us: that this is what I'm like.
I love everyone, and I want you to love one another because that's the greatest commandment.
And the whole law is fulfilled in this, that you love one another.
Thank you, Jasmine.
Have a wonderful day.
That was Christine, a Republican, calling in.
Jane from Indiana, an Independent.
Good morning, Jane.
Hello.
Good morning, sweetheart.
Good morning.
What's your top news story?
I want to preface my remarks and tell you, I am an old lady sitting here in her flag shirt with her cross around her neck.
And I'm an American, and I don't take kindly to people saying I have to bow or curtsy to a king.
I thought that war 250 years ago took care of that for me.
And I just feel like we were very gracious, and I think the President of the United States and our First Lady of the United States did a very proper job in what they had to do.
We were very glad to receive the king and his wife.
But I don't take kindly to him going to the seats of power and telling me as a taxpayer that I have to go back and pay for more of the Ukraine and take care of NATO.
We've been taking care of NATO since World War II.
I was one of those little kids in World War II that walked all around and carried, got our war in my little red wagon, and we collected metal for the war effort.
We sent warm clothes to the children in London.
We were very concerned about them.
But we didn't want to go to yet another European war.
And I really, I'm an American.
And I think Americans ought to stand up for themselves and let him go back.
I'm sure he's got enough problems in his own country.
Okay.
Anyway, hon, thank you for listening to me.
Okay, bye-bye.
Thanks for calling in, Jane.
Since you mentioned the president's remarks and his reception of King Charles III, let's take a listen to what he had to say yesterday at the White House.
What a beautiful British day this is.
And it really is.
Your Majesty's members of the British delegation, friends, service members, and distinguished guests, welcome to the beautiful White House.
Great honor to have you.
Melanie and I will never forget the spectacular honor your Majesties showed us during our extraordinary visit to Windsor Castle last September.
Now it is our tremendous privilege to host you, and you're going to have a wonderful short stay, but stay nevertheless.
Then you're going over to Congress and you're going to make a speech that's going to make everybody very envious of that beautiful accent of yours.
Very elegant.
He's a very elegant man.
Here in the shadows of monuments to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, honoring the British king, might seem an ironic beginning to our celebration of 250 years of American independence.
But in fact, no tribute could be more appropriate.
Long before Americans had a nation or a constitution, we first had a culture, a character, and a creed.
Before we ever proclaimed our independence, Americans carried within us the rarest of gifts, moral courage, and it came from a small but mighty kingdom from across the sea.
For nearly two centuries before the revolution, this land was settled and forged by men, women who bore in their souls the blood and noble spirit of the British.
Here on a wild and untamed continent, they set loose the ancient English love of liberty and the great Britons' distinctive sense of glory, destiny, and pride.
And that's what it is.
Glory, destiny, and pride.
That was President Trump yesterday at the White House welcoming King Charles and Queen Camilla to the White House before their very busy day yesterday in Washington.
Dion from Chesterfield, Virginia, Democrat.
Hi, good morning.
Hi, good morning.
Can you hear me?
Hi, Shaquid.
What's your top news story of the week?
Okay, I just have two real quick.
FCC Inquiry Into Disney00:03:26
First, I just saw that the FCC is going to be investigating Disney over the Jimmy Kimmel joke.
I mean, and at the end of the day, it was a joke, right?
And the fact that remember Trump tweeted about Mueller and about he's glad he's dead.
So I feel like that's way more harsher, you know, than Jimmy Kimmel making a joke about Melania about being a widow, which, you know, because a lot of times she does look miserable.
So I just was upset to hear about the FCC thing.
And then the second quick comment, it was, oh no, it just left my head.
I'm sorry.
No, I totally forgot.
Okay, take five seconds.
Try to remember.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
There you go.
You got it.
Yes, I'm sorry.
Yes, it was a CNN interview that Trump did about after the White House correspondence dinner and how he was so nasty.
Oh, CBS, I'm sorry.
He was so nasty to that reporter, the lady that was giving him the interview.
And then he was upset because she read the manifesto.
But like somebody like me, I hadn't read it or I hadn't heard it.
And I just feel like as a journalist, I think that's what you guys do.
So people like me that didn't know what was said in the manifesto, we read it.
So for the fact that he was just so disrespectful and so nasty to her, and it's like this is supposed to be our leader, those type of things just bother me.
So that's all I just wanted to say.
All right, Dion from Chesterfield, Virginia.
Thanks for calling in.
Something that she mentioned at the top of her comments was this FCC review.
I'm looking at a CNBC article right now.
The headline is: FCC launches review of Disney broadcast licenses years ahead of schedule.
It says that the FCC has called on Disney to file for its renewal of its ABC state broadcast station licenses early, citing concerns around DEI policies.
The FCC sent its initial inquiry to Disney for its DEI efforts in March 2025, but the move comes as ABC faces renewed backlash from President Donald Trump this week following comments made by comedian Jimmy Kimmel about First Lady Melania Trump.
I'm going to scroll here.
Bear with me for a second.
It says that those ABC stations were originally up for renewal between 2028 and 2023.
Disney confirmed on Tuesday that it received the FCC's order initiating an accelerated review of its license.
The FCC said in a letter that Disney now has 30 days or until May 22nd to file for the renewals.
Quote: ABC and its stations have a long record of operating in full compliance with FCC rules and serve in serving their local communities with trusted news, emergency information, and public trust program.
Disney said in a statement, We are confident that the record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment are prepared and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels, our focus remains, as always, on serving the viewers in local communities where our stations operate.
Critics of this move of what FCC do say that it is a retaliation after Disney did not heed the calls from First Lady Melania Trump and others within the administration to fire Jimmy Kimmel for the remark he made about Melania days before the shooting at the correspondence dinner.
SNAP Benefits Drop Sharply00:03:31
Paul from Winter Garden, Florida, a Republican.
Good morning, Paul.
Good morning.
Hey, I just want to make a comment.
The gentleman said that over 4 million people were taken off of SNAP benefits.
He left out the best part of the story.
In just one state, 14,000 individuals received SNAP benefits for driving luxury vehicles.
Three Bentleys, three Ferraris, 11 Lamborghinis, 59 Maseratis, 141 Porsches, 244 Alpha Romeeros, 306 Land Rovers, 2,098 Teslas, and that's just from one state.
So together, over 4.3 Americans have been taken off the SNAP.
I also want to remind viewers that if you come across, if you come into our country illegally or illegally, you're not supposed to be entitled to any federal benefits.
So yes, hopefully they'll take a lot more people off of the SNAP benefits that are cheating the government and taking away from the poor.
And that's what these scumbags are doing.
They're taking away from the poor people and they're filling their own pockets.
And that's disgusting.
And anybody who wants to say that that's a good thing, they need to go to jail with these people.
Have a good day.
All right, Paul from Winter Garden, Florida.
I turned to a newsweek article since we've got now two comments on that SNAP changes.
The headline here is: 4 million fewer on snap benefits after Trump ruled changes.
Bear with me while I scroll.
That was published on the 27th.
And it says, 4 million fewer Americans are collecting supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits in the first year of the Trump administration.
Data from the federal government shows, I'm just scrolling a little bit more here.
It says, U.S. Department of Agriculture USDA preliminary data released this month shows that the number of total beneficiaries nationwide has dropped by about 4.2 million between January 2025 and January 2026 from 42.8 million users to under 38.6 million.
SNAP benefits are issued to low and no-income American nations nationwide to help with the cost of groceries and is the largest food aid program in the United States.
The drop in recipients comes following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, OBBA, in July 2025, which made a host of changes to the program, including new restrictions on who qualifies and additional work requirements.
Bear with me while I just scroll one more time here.
Now it says the OB it says OBBA introduced major SNAP changes, including expanded work requirements for adults up to the age 64, stricter employment and training rules for ABAWD abled-bodied adults without dependents, and the removal of some exemptions previously available to veterans, homeless individuals, and former foster youth.
It also tightened restrictions for lawfully present immigrants, largely refugees, who in some cases could claim benefits.
For much of the first half of 2025, the decline in SNAP recipients was relatively gradual, with totals remaining above 42 million from January 2025 through July, though recipients did drop by more than just 800,000.
After July, however, the pace of decline became much steeper with enrollment falling by around 3.4 million between August 2025 and January 2026 alone.
Religious Views on National Issues00:02:56
So that's a Newsweek article if you want to read more.
Jean from Detroit, Michigan, and a Democrat.
Excuse me.
What's your top news story of the week, Gene?
My top news story is a lot of the problems that we have in this country are because of our disobedience to the Word of God.
I, you know, as people, we're given free will by God, and we can do what we want, and we do.
We do what we want, when we want to do it, and how we want to do it without regards.
You know, we claim to be a Christian nation wanting to put Ten Commandments in the classroom.
And I wonder why, because we, as a country, are not in obedience.
Our businesses, you know, department stores, grocery stores, gas stations, liquor stores are all open on Sunday.
And when I grew up, all of these businesses were closed.
So Sunday, which is the Christian Sabbath Day, which God commands that we do no work in it, became a day.
I mean, it was a day of rest, reflection, worship, and being with family.
And I think that we've lost that.
With all of these businesses being open, we're disconnected.
We don't go to church.
We don't associate within the family like we used to because everybody is doing their own thing.
And as I said, I think that we have lost a lot of human relationships, even.
You know, on Sundays, we went to church, we visited with family and friends.
And I think we have become more isolated from one another.
And to the point where...
All right, June, I think you take your point there.
Harry from Georgia and Independent.
You are next.
Good morning, Harry.
Good morning.
What's your top news story of the week?
Well, I just was calling in to answer a question that another caller asked.
And then Kudos to the woman who called just before me, by the way.
But what Trump derangement syndrome is, it's a disease, right?
It's a disease of people who are old enough to remember what a respectful, honest president is.
And there's not very many people around anymore, I guess, who remember that.
You know, a president who respects the fact that he is the servant of the people and also understands that he is supposed to keep his hands off the Justice Department.
War Powers Act Debate00:15:02
That's what I wanted to say today.
Thank you, Jasmine.
You all have a great day.
Harry from Georgia.
Debbie from Virginia, a Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning to you.
What's your top news story of the week?
It's about Trump.
People calling in and B-little to him and calling him everything under the sun.
But I feel he has the right to be to fight back, to be nasty, because look what they've done to him from the very, very beginning.
Saying all kinds of nasty things about him and stuff.
And I feel he has the right to fight back and do the same thing.
It's always Republican that they attack.
Whenever a Republican gets into office, like Reagan, shooting from the hip and all that stuff, I feel sorry for the man.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you very much.
Bye.
All right, that was Debbie from Virginia, Republican.
Now, after the break, Republican Don Bacon of Nebraska, a veteran and top member of the House Armed Services Committee, joins us.
Defense Secretary Pete Sekworth will be before that committee later on this morning.
We'll ask the congressman what questions he has for the Defense Secretary.
And Democrat James Wackenshaw of Virginia, who serves on the Homeland Security and Oversights Committees, will also join us the next hour.
We'll be back.
Best ideas and best practices can be found anywhere.
We have to listen so we can govern better.
Democracy depends on heavy doses of civility.
You can fight and still be friendly.
Bridging the divide in American politics.
You know, you may not agree with La Dot on everything, but you can find areas where you do agree.
He's a pretty likable guy as well.
Chris Kins and I are actually friends.
He votes wrong all the time, but we're actually friends.
A horrible secret that Scott and I have is that we actually respect each other.
We all don't hate each other.
You two actually kind of like each other.
These are the kinds of secrets we'd like to expose.
It's nice to be with a member who knows what they're talking about.
You guys did agree to the civility, all right?
He owes my son $10 from a bed for the family.
He's vice president.
He'll fork it over.
That's fighting words right there.
I'm glad I'm not in charge.
I'm thrilled to be on the show with him.
There are not shows like this, right?
Incentivizing that relationship.
Ceasefire Friday nights on C-SPAN.
Get C-SPAN wherever you are with C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
Catch the latest episodes of Washington Journal.
Find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
The C-SPAN Now app is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
Download it for free today.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
Washington Journal continues.
Joining us now to talk about all of the very many developments happening on Capitol Hill right now is Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska.
Congressman, thanks so much for being with us this morning.
Now, you, of course, are a veteran, but you're also a member on the Armed Services Committee and a subcommittee chair.
Later on this morning at 10 a.m., we know that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, General Dan Kane, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are set to testify before your committee.
We will also be running that on C-SPAN 3 at 10 a.m. just for folks watching.
But they're testifying on the new defense budget.
Obviously, Pete Hegseth has been under an increasing amount of criticism over his firing and removing of top Pentagon officials, particularly when we were at a moment of war, advocating for his own religious views of the role of the military and members of the military himself.
Back in December, in response to other incidents, you said, quote, I think we should have a new Secretary of Defense.
What are your views now?
He's done some things well, but there's other areas that a lot of us want to critique.
And so I'm not one of these guys who says you've got to agree with someone 100% or you've got to disagree with them 100% of the time.
I think you call balls and strikes.
Now, I said that after SignalGate when he put classified information on an unclassified application, sent it to people that were not cleared, and then sort of denied that he did anything wrong and blamed other people.
And as a retired general and someone who commanded five times in the Air Force, you take responsibility.
None of us are perfect, but you take responsibility and say, I made a mistake and I learned.
That's what bothered me at that time.
Now, he'll take some criticisms on the firings today, and I think what he's done is wrong.
He's got a constitutional right to fire who he wants, but this is not Pete Hegseth's Pentagon.
It is the America's Pentagon.
It belongs to the citizens.
We deserve to know why a chairman of the Joint Chiefs is fired, why four of the six service secretaries have been fired.
And I mean Army Chief of Staff, General Randy George.
Four of the six.
Navy Secretary, as there is a naval blockade happening.
And so I think he owes an explanation.
This isn't just his playground that he can do what he wants in.
And I think it's weak in the Pentagon when folks who served 35 years and they just get fired for no reason.
And it appears that the Army Chief was fired because there's a disagreement over four colonels that the Army wanted to promote to one star.
But even then, that's speculation.
We really don't know, and I think we deserve to know.
But he'll take some questions on Iran today, which I'm generally supportive on.
I think he'll take some questions on Venezuela, which I'm generally supportive on.
But the one area that concerns me on Pentagon, why do we replace one dictator with another dictator?
There needs to be a plan for how we're going to get this back to a more representative democracy government.
But I think it's going to be a lively time.
And I think there'll be some compliments, but there's going to be some criticisms.
I want to ask you a little bit more about what you plan to ask here specifically.
But just on that question, I think we should have a new Secretary of Defense.
Where are you now?
He would not be my choice if I was president.
And I would have not voted to confirm to be there, but he is the Secretary now.
And when he does something well, I'll compliment him.
And when I think he's doing something wrong, I'll criticize it.
I think that's part of my role.
I don't work for the president.
I don't work for the administration.
I work for the 2nd District of Nebraska.
I spent 30 years in the military, and I feel like what the voters want from me is honesty and just my My experience and to vocalize that and verbalize that and try to push the Pentagon in the right direction in areas that I think they're falling short on.
So, and you talked about that push.
What are some of the questions that you will have for Secretary Hexa today?
And do they include anything about the Military Housing Alliance program?
It will.
So I think my first question will be, why have we not spent $40 million towards Ukraine that we appropriated in the last year's budget?
And he needs to have a plan, and he needs to commit that he's going to spend that money that was passed by law.
And I want to know why it wasn't done, right?
Because Ukraine is the democracy.
They're fighting for their freedom.
There's individuals in the Pentagon that seem to be hostile to Ukraine.
I don't know why.
Russia is the enemy here.
They're the dictator.
So there seems to be some moral confusion in some places on that.
And then I'm going to talk about the $2.9 billion that we designated for housing allowance for people living in San Diego, Virginia, and high-cost areas, Washington, D.C.
And that money was spent on a cross-the-board bonus for all the military, but wasn't just targeted for those who are living in high-cost areas.
I chaired a panel, and we dug deep into this.
And there are areas in high-cost areas where the housing allowance does not match the rent.
And so now you have people on food stamps or SNAP getting welfare just to survive, and they're in the military.
We did this program to help them, and that money was shifted and not spent the way we want it.
So we want that replaced and spent the way Congress intended it.
Again, and it was law.
We put it in the budget.
It should be spent the way it was appropriated.
I'll also ask the Pentagon has the ability to stop this.
Right now they take 5% of the housing allowance.
I just take it.
They spend it towards weapons.
But if you're living in San Diego, now 5% of your housing allowance is taken away, and it's being spent on something else.
That exacerbates the problem.
We have given the Pentagon permission to not do that, to give the entire housing allowance to that military member.
But yet the Pentagon continues to take that 5%.
I will push them on that as well.
Let's talk a little bit more about the budget.
Last week, the Pentagon announced how they plan to spend that $1.5 trillion requested in next year's budget.
I want to take a look at a full screen that we have here for folks just to see how it all breaks down.
So that's $1.5 trillion, $1.15 trillion in discretionary, and $350 billion in mandatory reconciliation.
That's a 44% increase from last year.
Now, the plan to grow the total force by approximately 44,000 personnel, 5.8 targeted and military pay rises effective January 1st of next year, as folks can see on the screen here, $102 billion for aircraft procurement and research and development, $75 billion for drones and counter-drone technologies, $18 billion for the Golden Dome Missile Defense System,
$65 billion for 18 Navy warships and 16 support ships, which would be part of the Pentagon's Golden Fleet Initiative, $102 billion for aircraft procurement, including $85 F-35, $6 billion for B-201 bombers.
We know that those names are some of those things that have been used in Iran over the last eight or nine weeks.
Do you support this budget?
Overall, yes.
We are the world's superpower.
We are not acting like it right now with the budgets that we've had.
We're spending 3.2% of our economy on the military, which is historically very low.
This budget will take us to near 5%, which is historically normal.
So we're just trying to get us back to a normal budget per the size of our economy.
We've asked our NATO allies to spend 5%.
We're right now at 3.2%.
So this budget will get us to about 5%, and it will be doing what we're asking our allies to also do.
But we can't be the world's superpower at 3.2% spending on military and remodernize all of our nuclear triad, you know, the ICBMs, the submarines, the bombers, field sixth-generation fighters and field the fleet we want and take care of our servicemen and women.
You can't do it at 3.2%.
5% allows us to get the military that we need in a dangerous world, and it takes care of our men and women in uniform.
Now, there are some things I would nitpick on.
I think the Air Force is underfunded, and this overall budget, you know, pie, the way they divided it.
But I think it's a good overall outline.
Do you think that these numbers are a result of the Iran war?
I mean, obviously, this request came in, the president said that he was thinking about this last year.
But, you know, we have this $1.5 trillion.
There are rumors of an additional $100 billion Pentagon supplemental request to cover Iran.
How does the war fit into this request?
Particularly, I mean, obviously, there has been concern over the amount of munitions after being fired in Iran.
How does that all fit in here?
The Iran war reaffirms that we need to spend more on our military.
Right now, our weapons production, particularly Patriot missiles, the air-to-ground missiles that we put on our aircraft that we're targeting stuff in Iran, we are shooting in one day, but we're building in a month, you know, in many of these categories.
And we can't, the production of many of these weapons are woefully too low.
And if we want to help out Ukraine, if you want to get weapons to Taiwan to deter China, and do what we're doing right, we're not building enough.
So this budget will help us expand those production lines.
And it should have been done five or six years ago.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, that should have been a sign that this peacetime weapons production is inadequate.
More on the Iran war.
It is nearing 60 days.
I think May 1st is a 60-day mark for the war in Iran.
The House seems prepared to vote again to pass a war powers resolution.
That would be the third time it takes it up since the conflict began nearly two months ago.
You have opposed previous resolutions.
Why and would you support this one going forward?
I served in the Middle East four times.
I've served nearly 30 years in the Air Force, 29 years and like seven months in the Air Force.
Iran has been killing us.
The government of Iran has been targeting Americans since 1979.
In fact, it's estimated roughly 1,000 American servicemen and women have been murdered by the Iranian government.
I've had a friend that was killed in Kobar Towers in 1996.
They estimate 609 Americans were killed in Iraq from the proxy groups that Iran controls.
I think this is overdue.
I want to finish the job.
That's overall my goal.
Iran is a threat.
They're a threat to its neighbors.
And I think we've diminished them in this last two months.
But there'll be a threat again in four or five years because Russia and China will undoubtedly come in and help them rebuild.
So I want to empower the president to finish the job.
But he's got to do it within the law.
The War Powers Act says he's got 60 days and he's got to come and get authorization.
Now he's come back and said, well, the last two or three weeks we've not been conducting combat operations.
So there's a little bit of ambiguity how that fits in with the two months.
But I think it would be wise for him to make his case to Congress, request some kind of limited authorization, and we should give it.
I mean, you said you want him to finish the job.
Congressional Party Divisions00:10:38
What does that mean?
because the president has seemed rather hesitant, at least in public, to go back to a kinetic sort of strikes against Iran.
Instead, reports are saying that he's going to continue with this blockade until crippling Iran economically before they come to a deal.
So what exactly for you does finishing the job mean?
Well, right now, Iran is impeding flow through the Hormuz Straits.
So they've got to allow unimpeded traffic through there.
We've done a great job thus far.
I mean, they don't have an air force.
Their navy is about 10% of what it was.
Their air defenses are about 10%.
We've totally degraded their ability to produce new nuclear fuel, though they have some that they've already processed, and that remains to be a threat.
It's estimated they have enough fuel for about 10 nuclear weapons.
I don't think we're quite there yet.
Iran is still impeding that traffic in the straits.
And as long as they continue to provide or present a missile threat to UAE, Bahrain, and Israel, I think we take them on.
Right now, our foot is on their neck, particularly with the blockade.
The blockade is crippling Iran right now.
And at some point, they've got to come and say, we want peace.
Right now, they're acting like they're the victors in these negotiations.
They're not.
But they need to humble themselves and say, we lost, and we're ready to make the peace.
And they're not there yet.
Yeah, I mean, they seem that that's actively what they are not trying to do.
So, I mean, can you answer a question for Americans who are experiencing higher gas prices every day, higher prices bleeding into other places?
How long do you believe this conflict will last?
I believe this will last.
I believe it's temporary.
First of all, America is producing more energy in history.
We're the world's leading energy producer.
And so I think once we get ease or the relief at the Hormuz Straits, those energy prices are going to go down fairly steadily because the production is there.
The supply and demand, the supply will be high, and it will help meet the high demand.
And so I think it's a matter of time.
But with the straits closed, about a certain high percentage of our energy comes through those straits.
And I do believe it's temporary.
I would ask the American people to consider this.
Iran with a nuclear weapon is worse.
They threaten Israel.
And if they had a missile that could strike New York, they would have used it.
You just got to know it.
I want to turn to Faisal for a second, but just two more questions on this.
Is the amount of resources that we have in the Middle East right now for Iran, is it affecting our capabilities and deterrence efforts elsewhere?
China, the Indo-Pacific, Ukraine?
I mean, what impact is that having for the rest of the world?
It's having some impact.
I mean, we moved some surface air missiles from Korea to the Middle East.
But I talked to the four-star commander there.
He thinks he has enough resources to cover.
Obviously, we would be sending more weapons to the Baltics right now and Taiwan, but those weapons are being diverted for this fight.
So there is some impact.
And it gets back to your earlier question.
That's why we need a better budget.
We have to expand the weapons production.
And lastly, you talked about how Iran needs to say that they have lost and enter into negotiations.
Do you have faith in the Trump diplomatic efforts of Vice President JD Vance, of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, of Special Envoy Witkoff, to actually nail down some of these technical details to get a deal with Iran?
I'm a little bit mystified why we're not sending Rubio, who is the Secretary of State, and some of the experts who know this material inside and out.
And so I think many of us have a lot of confidence in Secretary Rubio in this area.
So I do question why selecting a businessman who's had very little experience dealing with the Iranians.
And by the way, Iran has played every president since Jimmy Carter.
And for some reason, every president has tried to negotiate.
If I can just find the right person in the Iranian government, and it has never worked.
Iran has never played honestly with us.
And that's why we're doing what we're doing now.
They need to lose this fight and realize they have lost.
A few more questions, Vittori, before we turn to some phone calls, but I want to ask you about FISA.
It seems that House Republicans internally are at a logger's head over reauthorizing the Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, a key spy tool.
That expires this week, just on Thursday.
Some conservatives, I want to show a full screen here.
Some conservatives, actually, I want to just kind of go through what it does for folks.
First of all, irritation that they're called conservatives.
Conservatives protect our country, and they authorize this.
It's one of the most valuable intelligence means that we have in our country, and they are putting roadblocks in front of it.
You can tell I'm bitter about it.
I'm angry about it because it's not right.
Okay, I'm going to come back to you in one second, but let's have folks who are listening understand what exactly we're talking about.
So that FISA Section 702, it allows intelligence agencies to conduct warrantless surveillance of non-citizens based outside the U.S. Some U.S. communications can appear in collections if Americans are talking with non-U.S. citizens overseas.
And data collected is stored for years in a searchable database that intelligence agencies can tap as part of other investigations.
So just a little bit about what FISA is.
So you said that you're angry.
You said that those folks who are standing in the way, including some of your own colleagues in the Republican caucus, are not conservative.
Also, some Democrats are against it.
And they insist that measures should include warrant requirement before accessing American communications.
Trump, of course, wants a clean extension of this.
Where are you?
Clean extension is the smart play here.
And why is that?
Two years ago, we did 30 added safeguards to FISA 702, that's what we call it, to protect the privacy of Americans.
It has worked, right?
So let's back up.
This capability provides us roughly 60% of our exquisite high-end intelligence.
This is how we collect on terrorists who want to attack us or foreign leaders who are not our friends.
And it's an invaluable capability.
But what happens when an American in America calls someone who is a threat to America that we're collecting on?
This is what we're talking about.
Now, if it appears that they're a problem, then you have to go in and do a warrant.
But you're not going to do a warrant on the thousand Americans who are calling people that are being collected on overseas if you're not doing an investigation or there's no threat.
But that's what these guys want.
They want to hobble our intelligence.
And we've already put safeguards in there to protect.
And this all stems from President Obama's administration when an American would call a threat and our intelligence was serum and it would get leaked into the media to somehow undermine that particular American.
That's why we put the 30 safeguards to protect the privacy of Americans on there.
I'm here to say it's working.
The safeguards we put on two years ago are working.
Let's not hurt our intelligence capabilities.
Going after foreign leaders, terrorists, you name it.
We have a lot of threats out there, and this program is invaluable.
I mean, the criticism here is that those 30 additions just a few years ago still aren't enough to convince enough Americans, including some that exist in Congress right now, that their privacy is, in fact, protected.
The numbers bear it out.
When you look at the numbers and the actual feedback from CIA and FBI, the law is being complied with.
Now, yes, there's people out there that they want to get a lot of clicks on social media saying, hey, our privacy is being... compromised, but it's not true.
The facts, when you look at the facts, the law is being complied with.
Americans are being protected.
And this program is working as designed.
We have people that want to get in the media.
They want to get in the headlights.
Now, here's my feedback to our leadership.
We have what, 200 to 210 Republicans that support this, right?
You're talking, it looks like 10 Republicans primarily who are resistant.
They want more safeguards and handcuffs put on the collection.
There's probably at least 40 or more Democrats who want to support the current bill with maybe minor tweaks.
We should be working across the aisle and getting 250, 260, maybe even 270 votes for reauthorization.
But when you continue catering to the 10 Republicans, I think that it's not smart.
You got 40 or 50 Democrats that are ready to work with us right now and pass the bill that at least 200 Republicans support.
So I just, the dysfunction here is very apparent to me.
I mean, this is just one of several issues.
I'm going to turn to calls in a second, but I want to ask you a little bit about the farm bill and a little bit.
But this is just one instance of multiple instances right now that House Republicans are struggling to find a consensus on.
Does House Speaker Mike Johnson have control of his caucus?
He does with 200 to 210, but he wants to get 218 on every issue.
And it's impossible.
We have 221, right?
And so you can only lose three on any given issue.
But it doesn't make sense to have this as your mindset.
I want 218 on every vote when you have only 221 Republicans.
And at the same time, you have 40, 50, or 60 Democrats, in some cases more, want to work with you.
And so the consensus is there.
When you have 200 Republicans that agree with the Speaker, you have broad consensus.
And then we have 40 or 50 Democrats.
I just think the mindset is mistaken here.
By the way, it's not just Speaker Johnson.
This happened with Speaker Pelosi, too, when she was the Speaker.
They're trying to do everything with 218 votes from their own party.
And I don't think our founders designed it this way.
They designed it to get 218 with multiple factions.
They didn't use the word party when James Madison wrote the Constitution, but it was intended to protect the minority.
And in this case, the minority has a large number there that agrees with most of the Republicans.
Iran Forgotten by Congress00:09:54
So we ought to work.
Our paradigm should shift.
Let's work across the aisle, pass bipartisan legislation that has broad support.
So that's my feedback to our team.
All right, let's hear some phone calls.
Mike from Maryland, a Republican.
Good morning, Mike.
Hi.
Hi, thanks for taking my call, Congressman.
I really appreciate your words of wisdom, and I think you're on the right path.
I'd like to say congratulations to the Navy and the U.S. military.
You're doing a great job securing Panama, securing the Strait of Hormuz, or at least having a resistance there.
And the Strait of Malacca over there in Indonesia, you're controlling the pirate of the, you're not a pirate of the seas, but the waters of the seas is being reorganized.
And since you're controlling it, it puts us in a great position to organize the world and the economic reformation that's going on.
Last thing I'd like to say is you might not have to agree with this for the public, but I will say it for you.
In my opinion, Iran and Ukraine are proxies for our disagreement or politically, almost to the point of arms against Great Britain or the UK.
And they are acting as proxies against us.
And so we're using them properly to resist what has been controlling America for many, many years.
Sir, keep up the good work.
And if you've got any questions for me, I'd be glad to.
But thank you.
First of all, thank you, Mike.
And our military deserves a lot of credit for what it's done.
If you asked the previous Central Command Commander, hey, after two months, we were able to accomplish this against Iran, would you have taken it?
He says, absolutely.
He said it was beyond his expectations as the previous four-star commander commanding that part of the Middle East and all of our forces there.
Now, concerning the UK, I may have misunderstood Mike's comments, but UK is our friend.
We have a very special relationship with them.
They've been our closest ally since really since World War I, but clearly since World War II.
And we should remember that.
We should protect and nurture that relationship.
Iran has been our enemy since 1979.
And I feel very strongly about Ukraine.
Ukraine is a democracy.
They elected Zelensky.
They want to be part of the West.
They want a free market and rule of law.
And they want to be part of us.
Russia is our adversary.
They hate us.
They want to undermine us at every step.
And they invaded Ukraine.
This is a fight of good versus evil.
And America better stand on the right side of this conflict.
And this administration has been very weak when it comes to Ukraine.
All right, John from New Jersey and Independent.
John, I'm going to ask you to keep it tight because we are running close to time here.
Okay, I'll try.
I just have a question about people, and then I guess a question about finances from the military.
You know, folks, Pete Hegseth has pretty much fired a lot of the top brass in the military.
I was wondering kind of what we can do to kind of get these folks, like, is there a way to replenish those kind of positions quickly?
Can we ask them to come back?
Then second off, with financing, you know, you sound like a reasonable guy, and I appreciate that.
Pretty much with this sort of budget, I guess I'd say, you know, you're handing off a lot of money to Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon, generally speaking.
They're really blowing through money quite a bit.
And I just kind of, I wonder how confident you feel in terms of their kind of controlling of the purse for our military.
I mean, I understand your rationale for some things, but it seems like quite a bit of waste is happening.
And finally, with Iran, I just don't understand how you think that you can control the Strait of Hormuz without, like, there's a disproportionate and asymmetric kind of economical war that's going on right now.
They can send out a $20,000 drone, and we have to spend $3 million every single time just to block it.
So I just don't, the financing doesn't really add up to me.
And especially with Pete Hegseth running things, I think he's sort of just blowing through money.
I mean, that's why I'm- All right, John, let me jump in here.
Let me jump in here and let the congressman answer those three questions.
That's why it's very important for Congress to be explicit on what we want to spend, and we put it in a law.
And then we've got to make sure that the Pentagon spends it the way it's in the budget.
That's why today I will raise to Secretary Hugsov about the $40 million that was in the last year's budget that was designated for Ukraine that has not been spent.
And also the $2.9 billion that was supposed to be for housing allowance that was spent on something else.
So Congress has a responsibility to be explicit and dictate the budget.
And once the president signs on to that budget, by law, he's got to enforce it.
And the Secretary has to enforce it.
So we will put the spotlight on some areas that are not being complied with.
But we've got to be explicit to the Pentagon what we think this money should be spent towards.
And that's why we do it, and to ensure that the Pentagon is spending this money wisely.
Thank you for a good question.
Gary from Winter Haven, Florida, Democrat.
Good morning, Gary.
I'm going to say the same thing to you if you can keep it tight.
We're running closer time.
Yes, thank you.
Good morning.
My question is: James Comey just got indicted for what's apparently an illegal number, and that poses the question: what other numbers are illegal?
And can they release a list of illegal numbers?
And if they did, wouldn't the list itself be illegal?
I have questions about this whole thing.
I think, Gary, you raise a good point.
You know, I think what Director Comey did was not wise.
Maybe I'd say it was foolish putting that on social media.
But to criminalize this and to charge over the crime is overreach.
And it gets back to the feeling, not just this administration, but the previous one, this use of lawfully against your adversaries and opponents, it weakens our democracy.
It weakens our Constitution, and it tears at the seams of our country.
And so I think this was a foolish indictment on Comey for putting out a number.
I mean, his post was foolish, and then the response from our Attorney General is also foolish.
So I would agree.
I think they're going to retract it.
I think the courts, if they don't, their courts are going to throw it out really rapidly.
Mark from Pennsylvania, a Republican.
Good morning, Mark.
You're getting the same guidance.
Can you keep your comment or question type for me?
You got it.
General, I have a question for you.
You're probably not expecting.
When I was in the Marine Corps, I was stationed at Camp Smith in Hawaii for SYNCPAC, two four-star admirals who were aviators in Vietnam and Korea.
My question for you is: I was looking at your military career.
Were you ever stationed in Hawaii, Hickam Air Force Base?
And if you were, did you enjoy your tour while you were in Hawaii?
And thank you for your service.
I never was stationed there.
I would have loved to have been stationed in Hawaii, but I was TDY there.
I flew RC-135s out of Hawaii for a couple of times.
And, you know, I love it there.
And I just took my 40th anniversary with my four kids and their spouses and eight grandkids.
We spent a week in Hawaii, and we loved it.
All right, Greg from Pennsylvania and Independent.
Greg, same guidance.
Keep it tight for me.
Yeah, yeah.
Good morning, Mr. Desmond.
Right?
You've done a good job.
You had minimal calls this morning, four calls and a half an hour.
I'd like C-SPAN to explain something.
I saw you on a CNN panel last week.
Have you explained to yourself?
Greg, we're here.
Greg, we're here with the congressman.
I wonder if you have a question for him.
And if not, we'll do open forum in a couple minutes.
Sound like you're still on that panel.
As to the congressman from Nebraska, I think you've made an excellent point on the 5%.
I think that's an excellent point.
If we want other states in NATO, countries in NATO to do that, then we should be able to do that.
C-SPAN should post the comment line 202-737-3220 when people call in and don't get in, as I did waiting more than 20 minutes.
All right, Greg, thank you for that call.
David from St. Paul, Minnesota and Independent.
You're next.
Good morning, David.
You'll be our last caller.
Good morning, sir.
I just had two quick questions.
One, can you look into why so few companies hold all the base housing for the U.S. military?
It seems kind of corrupt.
And two, whenever you mention Iran, I noticed you mentioned 1979, but you don't go back to 1953 when they nationalized their oil, so we couped them.
Can you expand on that a little bit?
And are we after their oil again?
Well, we shouldn't be.
I think the president sometimes sends out mixed signals.
And it happened particularly in Venezuela, you know, when he started dictating their oil sales and whatnot.
Now, this is about Iran committing terrorism and the world's largest exporter of terror and a thousand Americans killed since 1979.
You know, I don't defend what happened in 1953, though if you read about it, we had a more minor role than what most people say.
But it's not right to interfere in the domestic policies of other countries.
That said, I don't blame America for the Ayatollah.
And that's what's going on here.
Many people say it's our fault for the Ayatollah, what happened in 1979, and I just don't buy it.
America wasn't the one hanging people on the street corners.
America wasn't the one who just murdered 35,000 Iranians who are protesting against the regime here.
So we just got to, there's a lot of a blame America first mindset there, and I just don't buy into that.
Iran has been our threat.
I've lost friends from the Iranian government.
When I served a year in Iraq, Iran proxy groups were the biggest threat I faced in Baghdad.
Epstein Investigation Updates00:02:48
We were targeted every single day when I was in Baghdad by proxy groups that were working for Iran, and I've not forgotten.
All right, Congressman, thank you so much for spending your morning with us.
We really appreciate it.
Thanks.
More of your phone calls after the break in Open Forum, your chance to weigh in on any political story on your mind this morning.
Start calling in now.
Republicans, your line, 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line, 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line, 202-748-8002.
We'll also speak with Democrat James Walkinshaw, Virginia.
He serves on the Homeland Security and Oversight Committees.
Stay with us.
You're watching C-SPAN.
Democracy Unfiltered.
America celebrates 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to mark every moment from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future.
From famous speeches, Give me liberty or give me death to battle reenactments and visits to key historic sites across the country.
We bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, featuring key events from our past that make possible the unlimited opportunities of our future.
Celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
America 250, over a year of historic moments.
C-SPAN, official media partner of America 250.
C-SPAN is brought to you by the cable, satellite, and streaming companies that provide C-SPAN as a public service.
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new MAGA research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
Washington Journal continues.
Now joining us on the other side of the aisle to talk about the congressional news of the day is Congressman James Walkinshaw of Virginia.
Congressman, thanks so much for being with us this morning.
Good morning.
Journalists Dying in Lebanon00:15:18
Thanks for having me.
All right, you're on Oversight and Government Reform Committee as well as the Homeland Security Committee, but I want to start with the Pentagon.
In an interview last month, you said that you felt embarrassed on Pete Hegset, the Secretary of Defense behalf.
You described him as incompetent and claimed that he was unable to speak properly and needed scripting.
I wonder, first, do you expect Secretary Hegset to stay in his position for long?
You know, that remains to be seen.
Look, he's good on Fox News, and that's one of the president's main criteria for hiring and retaining folks in his cabinet.
But I think there's increasing frustration, obviously, around the war in Iran, the inability to make additional military progress there.
And I think as Secretary Hegset comes to the Hill today and will have to answer questions where he won't always be able to rely on the script that he has, I think he's going to struggle.
So it could be a tough day for him and might be the beginning of the end for his time as Secretary of Defense.
But I think his performance today will drive that.
What questions would you ask of him today if you could?
Well, I think he's going to have to.
And if I were on that committee, I would ask him to justify the massive increase in the defense spending through the president's budget request.
And look, I'm someone who supports robust defense spending, but the massive increase, a $1.5 trillion defense bill that they're asking for, is a huge increase at a time when we're facing record deficits and debt.
He's going to have to justify that.
I think he's going to be asked tough questions about the strike, which by all accounts was an American strike on the girls' school in Iran, leading to 150 deaths of innocent civilians, including children.
I think he'll be asked about that.
I think he'll be asked about our inability to fully obliterate, to use Donald Trump's words, the Iranian regime and the IRGC's drone capabilities, missile capabilities, ability to exercise control over the strait.
He's going to be asked tough questions on all those.
If Democrats were to retake the House in November, would you support an impeachment effort against the Secretary?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
I hope that he's gone by then.
And look, I don't imagine that I'd be thrilled with anyone.
Donald Trump chooses to serve as his Secretary of Defense, but I've been in classified briefings with Secretary Hegseth, and he's in over his head.
He's in way, way, way over his head.
I want to turn now to FISA Congressman.
You serve on the Homeland Security Committee, which analyzes and combats terror threats, focusing on information sharing and intelligence.
We just had Congressman Don Bacon on, who is for a clean VISA bill, but obviously Republicans feel a bit conflicted on that moment.
Some Democrats say that any measure should warrant a requirement before accessing Americans' communications.
Where are you on that?
I believe there should be a warrant before the government, any government agency, can access the communications of American citizens.
And I think here in the House, if you put a FISA reauthorization bill on the floor that had some kind of warrant requirement, even one with the exceptions that I think would be necessary for an imminent threat, you'd get 300 to 350 votes, probably including Congressman Bacon.
I don't know why that bill hasn't come to the floor.
If it did, it would pass overwhelmingly.
That's where we should be.
Look, this is a program that is absolutely necessary from a national security perspective.
There is no question it has prevented or helped to prevent terrorist attacks on American soil, but it's also been abused by successive administrations.
And I don't trust this administration especially to safeguard the civil liberties and the private communications of American citizens.
So for me, there has to be a warrant.
How long should a FISA bill last?
Well, look, I think based on the history of the program and we have seen it abused in different ways over time, it is really important that Congress have, as painful as this process is, regular check-ins.
So we had a bill a couple weeks ago for a five-year extension.
I feel like that was way too long.
Right now we're looking at three years.
If it has the strong enough protections, I might be comfortable with three years.
But for me, a shorter-term extension is better.
We've continually reevaluated the program and added in reforms that I think are important.
And we're going to have to continue to do that as technology evolves.
Now, on DHS funding, obviously that partial shutdown continues lasting for more than 70 days.
After the shooting at the correspondence dinner on Saturday, the White House says that this is of importance and has basically slammed Democrats for not getting it passed.
But it seems like House and Senate Republicans are divided on how to proceed.
What do Democrats want to achieve given this long delay?
Well, look, Democrats want to fund the Department of Homeland Security, fund FEMA and our cybersecurity agencies and civilians at the Coast Guard and all of those structures that really protect the American people.
But we don't want to give more money to ICE or CBP, which have more money than they know what to do with because of the $170 billion they got in the so-called big beautiful bill.
We don't want to give more money to them until there are real reforms in place to protect the American people.
But right now, the debate is between Senate Republicans and House Republicans, or rather Senate Republicans in the White House against House Republicans who continue to refuse to put on the floor here in the House a simple, clean bill that would fund all of DHS except for ICE and CBP.
It got unanimous support.
Not a single United States Senator objected.
OMB sent over a memo to House Republican leadership yesterday, I think, calling on them to put that bill on the floor.
We need to put it on the floor.
The only reason Speaker Johnson isn't is because he's concerned, like his predecessors, that he'll no longer be Speaker of the House.
There will be a motion to vacate the chair if he puts that bill on the floor.
Now, you are also a member on the oversight committee that's investigating the convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
Last week, Politico reported that oversight chair James Comer said that the panel was divided over whether the president should pardon Ghelaine Maxwell, Epstein's co-conspirator, in exchange for her cooperation in an investigation.
What was your response to that interview?
There aren't too many things that shocked me up here.
I was absolutely floored when I saw that.
The idea that there are members, and I know there are no Democrats, because I've talked to all my Democratic colleagues on the committee.
No Democrats believe Ghelaine Maxwell should be pardoned.
But the fact that there are some Republicans on the committee who think Delaine Maxwell, who's a convicted child predator, she was the enforcer of Epstein's child predation ring, manipulated and abused women and girls.
The idea that she would be pardoned is shocking.
And look, President Trump has refused to take that off the table.
He could end this conversation now and say, no way am I going to pardon Ghelaine Maxwell.
For some reason, he won't do that.
It seems that perhaps she has information that maybe President Trump and my Republican colleagues don't want the world to know.
I'm not quite sure.
But under no circumstances should she be pardoned.
It's outrageous.
Is there anything that Democrats could do if she were to be pardoned?
How would you respond?
Well, look, unfortunately, and I think we've learned this lesson the hard way, the president's pardon power under the Constitution is broad, at least with respect to federal crimes.
I certainly think you'd have some states looking at perhaps their ability to prosecute her for violation of state crimes if those statutes of limitation haven't run out.
But there's no question the president has the legal authority to pardon her.
I think it would be a huge, huge stain, yet another stain on his presidency connected to the pardon power.
Now, you had stated that King Charles III, who was at Congress yesterday, should have met with the Epstein survivors.
He made a softer nod towards Epstein survivors in his speech to Congress.
What did you think about it?
I think it was a missed opportunity.
I think it would have been very powerful both here in the United States and in the UK for the king to have met with a group of survivors who were interested in meeting with them just to hear them out.
And I think he would have expressed his support for their calls for transparency and accountability.
And look, there's a feeling that the survivors have and increasingly Americans have that the wealthy, the powerful, and the well-connected are playing by a different set of rules.
The Epstein saga, I think, typifies that.
And the king had a chance to break through that, and he chose not to.
I was disappointed in that, but I still hope that there will be full accountability and justice, both for those in the U.K. involved and those here in the United States.
My last question for you here, Congressman, is that you represent Virginia's first congressional district in a heavily Democratic part of Northern Virginia.
Yesterday, the Virginia Supreme Court denied a request from Democrats and the state to pause last week's ruling by a county judge, which blocked the state board of elections from certifying the results of that redistricting referendum that passed last week.
The state says it will appeal, but what's next here, do you believe?
Do you believe that this could go all the way to the Supreme Court?
And I actually represent the 11th District of Virginia, but you're right, a pretty Democratic district right now that would change under the redistricting referendum that voters approved last week.
The ruling yesterday was a preliminary ruling.
I think we'll see a final ruling from the Virginia Supreme Court in the coming days.
I'm very confident that the Virginia Supreme Court will allow the will of the voters, which was clearly expressed last Tuesday, to move forward.
It would be a shocking thing, unprecedented in at least the last 70 years in Virginia, for the Virginia Supreme Court or any court to overturn a referendum that voters have approved.
I doubt that they will do it, but we'll learn in the coming days.
All right, Congressman James Walkinshaw of the 11th District in Virginia.
Thanks so much for being with us this morning.
Thanks for having me.
And now we turn to Open Forum where you can talk about any political or public policy issue on your mind today.
Quickly, here are your lines.
Republicans.
Your phone number is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line, 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line, 202-748-8002.
And you can also reach us by text message at 202-748-8003.
Louise from North Carolina, Democrat.
You're next.
Good morning, Louise.
It's Open Forum.
Yes, good morning.
Two points I want to make.
First of all, this Representative Walkinshaw, the Virginia vote for the election, this is my, you know, this is off the cuff.
I think that should have been a landslide.
It wasn't that tight.
Was a very tight race, you know, for the election on that.
Yeah, I think it was like 51 to 48 percent control.
I think it should have to be, if it's going to be changed, I think it should have been a landslide.
Like it should be something like 75 percent or something before they do something so drastic, before they change all those districts.
But I was going to tell you, I'm so glad you're safe.
And I don't think that was, I don't think that was a false, I don't think it was a setup like a lot of people are saying.
I think our Democrat people are wrong about this.
It was truly there.
You were there, you know.
I heard it.
I heard it.
Yes, and I'm so glad you're safe.
And President Trump had a right.
I'm sorry to say this because I like Nora O'Donnell, but she did push the envelope too much about that, and he had a right to correct her.
And it was nice to have the king here.
I did enjoy that.
And he did not need to go before the Epstein people and speak for the survivors because a lot of those survivors are not really survivors.
Thank you, and you have a blessed day.
Thank you.
Joseph from New Jersey, Republican.
You're next.
Good morning, Joseph.
It's open forum.
Hey, how are you?
Good morning.
I'm doing well.
Thank you.
Do me a favor.
Next time a Democrat calls up and starts talking about the Epstein files, can you do me a favor?
I really mean this.
Can you ask them where were they from 2021 to 2025 when Trump got in?
And where were they when Obama was president?
I didn't hear one Democrat ask for the Epstein files.
Well, the only person that actually did something to him and put him in jail was President Trump.
And now these nut jobs are calling him a pedophile.
They're crazy.
But can you ask the next Democrat that calls up?
Can you ask them where were their anger about all these victims when Joe Biden was in the White House?
Because I didn't hear one.
Thank you very much, and I'm glad you're safe from the other day.
Thank you.
Thank you, Joseph.
Ted from Hawaii, a Democrat.
It's open for him.
Hello.
Hi.
Thank you for taking my call.
Yeah, when I got out of the Vietnam War, I was in the Air Force, and I moved out to Hawaii here 50 years ago.
And I watch you all the time, and I call as often as I can.
Anyway, yeah, I just wish very much, you know, I remember getting training when I was in the Air Force about, because I worked around B-52 bombers with atomic weapons.
They trained us how to be careful of who you talk to when you're off base.
Could be a communist infiltrator trying to get information.
And I was dumbfounded and amazed when I saw what our dear President Trump did with a lot of files that were in his bathroom.
And I'm going, how come I got trained as a two-striper Air Force person, and he didn't get any of that training as the President of the United States?
And I'm just shocked that how could I know more than he did about keeping our secrets safe?
And it just set me back.
I'm sorry.
I received weeks of training on how to not fall into that situation.
And then to hear it on the television, I just, wow.
Did he not get the training or pay attention or whatever?
Obama Unfroze Iranian Assets00:10:00
But anyway, it's sad.
You can kind of tell the ill where I come from.
And I think, honestly, I've been a farmer all my life.
I grew up on a cattle farm in Washington State.
And I've been a farmer for 40 years here in Hawaii, farming macadamia nuts and avocados, et cetera.
And in farming, the truth means more than probably anything else.
And so that's why when I don't hear the truth coming from the highest sources, it concerns me for our country.
And anyway, I hope that we get better at telling the truth in everybody's corner of the room.
It's very important in yours also.
But you do a really good job at what you do, and I want to say thank you for, you know, I hear accusations that you're leaning one side or the other for Republican or Democrat.
And you do an excellent job of being straight down the middle and a straight shooter.
And I just want to say thank you.
Thank you very much, Ted.
Well, since you mentioned the truth, I'm going to do some programming notes because we have some testifying today.
Today, Defense Secretary Hegset and Joint Chiefs Chair General Dan Kaine testified before the House Armed Services Committee on the Defense Department's 2027 budget requests.
This is their first public hearing on Capitol Hill since the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran began on February 28th.
Watch it live at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3.
And also at 10 a.m., we have some SCOTIS cases.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court hears two consolidated cases reviewing the Homeland Security Department's termination of TPS or temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian nationals.
TPS has been established for those who are foreign-born and are unable to return to their home country safely.
The program was terminated last year by then DHS Secretary Christy Noam.
Listen to oral argument live at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2.
And lastly, at 2.30 p.m., Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell gives an update on interest rates in the U.S. economy following the Fed's Open Market Committee meeting.
Watch the Fed chairs remarks live on C-SPAN 3.
You can also watch these events on C-SPAN Now and online on c-span.org.
Anthony from New York and Independent.
It's open forum, Anthony.
Good morning.
Good morning.
This is referring to Representative Bacon.
When he talks about Pfizer being necessary in a clean bill, does he talk about all the abuses being done by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and any other agency?
How can you put any trust in those agencies when they're actually spying on American citizens?
I do not understand why there's not someone on your forum to counter the points that are being made by whether it's a Democrat or Republican that wants to push the FISA bill.
That kind of secrecy is what happens in Russia.
Paul from Lafayette, Louisiana, a Republican.
Good morning, Paul.
It's open forum.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you for having me.
Key things I wanted to mention.
Number one, there was a time when they were allowing non-citizens to vote in Washington, D.C.
And they were a Republican congressional group didn't want that.
One Democratic congressman said that in 40 states, non-citizens can vote on local and state elections.
Are we equal to non-citizens?
That shouldn't be a talking point.
We shouldn't allow that at all.
And number two, I used to work for probation and parole.
And a person came to me asking for a case of condoms.
I said, who?
I don't know.
I was a receptionist.
I don't know anything about it.
So I called one of the counselors and they brought him and they gave them a whole case.
I'm hearing a closed agency that oversees all of these condoms, and it's a federal program allowing states to purchase condoms to give to anyone, especially parole and probation persons.
I don't think this is our responsibility, and I don't think our government should be putting money into something like that.
It's a private thing, and that we shouldn't be putting ourselves in that situation.
That's it.
Thank you.
Faye from Ithaca, New York, a Democrat.
Good morning, C-SPAN.
Good morning.
I was trying to call since last weekend.
I was looking forward to watching the correspondence dinner.
I love journalism.
I have the highest respect for journalism.
I wanted to be a photojournalist myself, but didn't come out to be that way.
But I wanted to say that I really have concerns in terms of how the security was, because when Butler happened, there were issues with the security and the Secret Service that they weren't doing enough to protect the president.
Okay.
So with that said, because like with Butler, that person that was the shooter was there the day before.
And to me, and I watch a lot of news.
I like to educate myself with the facts.
It seems to me with the correspondence dinner, there wasn't enough guardrails.
And I find that very curious because the president doesn't want to go to the correspondence dinners.
And from what the news said, he had an hour-long speech.
He doesn't want any humor, any criticism.
So they had the other person, the mentalist, come.
But, you know, for me, I was looking forward to the correspondence dinner because they were going to give an award to the journalist that broke the Epstein birthday card.
And I feel that maybe the president didn't want this to go through.
And by that sense, he could talk about the ballroom because he could say, well, you know, there's not enough security.
We need the ballroom.
But for me, the correspondence dinner was so important because of the journalists that was being awarded.
And also the journalists that are dying in these wars.
We have so many journalists dying in Lebanon and the recent Lebanon journalists and in Gaza and the West Bank.
And this correspondence dinner was highlighting, would have highlighted these problems, and we need to talk about them.
I feel very sad.
I don't know if it's going to be rescheduled because they said on the news.
I think that we take your point there, and it is under discussion about being scheduled.
That is correct.
Glenn from California, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
It's open forum.
Well, about five months into President Trump's first term, a comedian by the name of Kathy Griffin was posing with a bloody severed head of President Trump.
A rhetorical question is, how many nations on the planet would have had her arrested within 24 hours?
And I regret that President Trump didn't have her arrested immediately or people with the FBI.
Also, I want to mention something else that occurred shortly after Mr. Obama became the president.
He received the Nobel Peace Prize, which kind of shocked everybody because he had only been in office for a few weeks, but he got the Nobel Peace Prize, which brings up the idea of the international socialist movement giving out the Nobel Peace Prize and the concept of Manchurian candidates.
If the subject comes up as to why Mr. Obama unfroze Iranian assets, which were frozen by a previous administration based on experts in the administration, Obama unfroze those Iranian assets because he is actually being used as a Manchurian candidate by the international socialist community.
Also, it's also fair to wonder about both presidents who are lawyers.
Well, I think we take your point there, Glenn, but just as a quick correction, Obama unfroze those assets as a part of the negotiated settlement of the JCPOA that his team spent about 18 months, I believe, negotiating.
Roland from Oklahoma, a Republican.
Obama Unfroze Assets for JCPOA00:01:32
Good morning, Roland.
We're coming close to time.
If you want to keep it tight for me.
I'm sorry, tell me that again.
I said we're coming close to time.
We've got about a minute left in the show.
I'll try to do it quick.
All right.
The shooter, the guy that was supposed to be the shooter came into the ballroom the other day.
He's the one that done it.
It's his fault.
It ain't nobody else's fault.
It's his fault.
The reason the Democrats didn't release the Epstein files is because they were too busy doing drag queen shows.
It takes a lot of time to do that for our children.
All right, Johnny from Georgia, a Democrat.
We've got about 20 seconds left, Johnny.
It's open for him.
Yes, about Epstein stuff.
That's the high-level shot.
And also the shooter.
How many times there's got to be an attempt that don't want to have it happen, and we don't look into whether it's being set up or whatever.
I mean, this.
All right.
That's for our show.
Another edition of Washington Journal comes tomorrow.
Here's the House floor.
The House will be in order.
The Chair lays before the House a communication from the Speaker.
The Speaker's Rooms, Washington, D.C., April 29th, 2026.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Mike Herodopoulos to act as Speaker Pro Tempore on this day.