Michael Glennon and Anthony Cangelosi dissect the Iran conflict's 60-day War Powers Act expiration, the Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Calais ruling dismantling racial quotas in redistricting, and a record-breaking government shutdown. They analyze the assassination attempt on President Trump, where Secret Service agent Cangelosi defends the agency's performance despite security gaps at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. The episode concludes with Alexandra Hudson defining true civility as reverence for life, urging citizens to prioritize local integrity over partisan dehumanization amidst national crises. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
Time
Text
Redistricting and Civil Rights00:14:51
Considering heated political rhetoric.
And then constitutional and international law scholar Michael Glennon on presidential war powers as the Iran conflict reaches day 60.
And former U.S. Secret Service agent Anthony Cangelosi will talk about the recent assassination attempt against President Trump and the White House's call for a security overhaul.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
Join the conversation.
Good morning.
It's Friday, May 1st.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Wednesday in Louisiana v. Calais, referencing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Court's conservative majority found that states cannot be required to create, quote, majority minority districts if the use of race is the predominant factor, even when it's intended to comply with the 1965 law.
The reaction has been immediate from Louisiana to Alabama and Georgia.
States are signaling they may redraw their maps just months before the 2026 midterms.
And some states see the court's decision as a green light to redistrict again ahead of 2028.
Our question this morning: Are you concerned about the impact of redistricting on the upcoming midterms and the 2028 election?
Phone lines are open.
Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
Republicans 202-748-8001.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
You can send a text to 202-748-8003, include your first name in your city-state.
And you can post to social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN, an ex at C-SPANWJ.
Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
Let's start with a portion of the decision itself.
So here is Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority opinion.
He says this: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not authorize a district court to ignore traditional districting principles in favor of a racial quota.
To prevail, a plaintiff must show that the state's chosen map is unexplainable on grounds other than race.
Where a state asserts a legitimate partisan or geographic justification, the burden remains on the challenger to prove that discriminatory intent rather than mere political strategy was the predominant factor.
Now, this is what Justice Elena Kagan said in her dissenting opinion.
She says, quote, the majority's decision today is a complete abandonment of the Voting Right Act's core promise.
By requiring plaintiffs to prove discriminatory intent while allowing partisan gain as a valid excuse, the court has provided a roadmap for the systematic dilution of minority voting power.
Under this new standard, the more a state legislature discriminates for political advantage, the more it is insulated from legal challenge.
The era of the Voting Rights Act as a meaningful check on the abuse of power is over.
And this is what Louisiana Governor Governor Landry, Republican, said in response to the SCOTUS ruling.
I think that the three-judge panel basically is saying that, listen, there's been a reset.
Over the last couple of decades, parties have used Section 2 to basically legally entangle states in the redrawing of congressional districts.
This no longer does that.
This says, hey, listen, if you're going to bring these issues, it's going to be an equal protection claim.
And then that would draw it to a three-judge panel, which then sends it directly to the United States Supreme Court.
Let me make it clear, as Attorney General and then the current Attorney General, we defended the old map again and again, took it to the Supreme Court twice, took it to the Fifth Circuit.
And again, the courts seem to have been entangled, okay, in Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Today, the Supreme Court, I am hoping as I get an opportunity to go through the opinion, but what a cursory review of it seems as though the court has finally untangled itself and given clarity to the issue.
That was the governor of Louisiana, and this is Axios's headlines: Louisiana halts House Elections After Supreme Court map ruling.
It says that Louisiana is suspending its House elections just days before voting was set to begin.
Governor Jeff Landry said on Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state's congressional map, says Landry says, quote, an electoral emergency exists, which gives him authority to suspend or delay elections.
It says the governor issued an executive order Thursday afternoon that suspends the closed party primaries on May 16th and June 27th for the U.S. House races.
It says other races and ballot measures will continue as planned.
Getting your opinion on that, but first let's take a look at what Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Monday, criticizing Florida's redistricting efforts.
The so-called map, which is a DeSantis dummy mander, actually is blatantly unconstitutional.
The Florida Constitution is pretty clear as a result of the Fair District's amendments that were enacted back in 2010.
It explicitly prohibits partisan gerrymandering.
And so, what is the reason that in the middle of the decade, Ron DeSantis has come forward with a map that is designed by his own description to add four additional Republican-leaning seats?
It is blatantly unconstitutional.
If Ron DeSantis wants a different map, he should do what Democrats did in California and Virginia.
Take it to the voters, Ron.
And this is what Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries was responding to.
This is ABC News with this headline: Florida legislature approves a new congressional map that could give Republicans four more seats.
It says it's a key win for Governor Ron DeSantis, but is likely to face legal challenges.
To the phone lines now to Doug in Ohio on the independent line.
Hi, Doug.
Hi.
Good morning.
How are you today?
Good.
Well, I'm just talking about a person from Ohio, being in a state that's been gerrymandered bad for years and years and years.
I mean, we used to be in with one area that was really great.
It was District 5 in Ohio.
All of a sudden, when the Republicans took over, they put a long line up there all the way from all the way from Marietta all the way just south of Canton, and they put all the different people, messed up all the things.
I mean, we're 48% of the votes in this state.
Democrats are an independent.
And the Republicans control 75% of the seat.
I mean, you can't gerrymander a state any worse than Ohio.
And the rest of the states, I don't want to see them being gerrymandered like that.
Just put it up to the vote in every state in America how we want our maps drawn, and we'll get a pretty good deal in this country, I think.
So tell me about your district.
Are you currently represented by a Democrat or a Republican?
Oh, we're represented by a Republican.
We're represented by a sycophant.
And how is that looking for the midterms?
Is there a Democratic challenger, or does it look like it's going to stay in Republican hands?
Oh, it's going to stay in Republican hands, I bet, because the way they got it gerrymandered, they go up into different areas that are nothing but Republicans in this area.
But we used to, like I said, we used to go all the way up around the Canton area, and it was beautiful.
I mean, everybody had a chance, and it was back and forth, back and forth.
I mean, as soon as they took over about 25, 30 years ago in this state, the House votes were 17 Republicans and 16 Democrats.
And they put the screws to the Democrats.
I'm an independent, and I'd vote for who I feel was right.
But getting ready to Sherry Brown for no show Marino was the worst thing they ever did in this state.
And the representatives are the same way.
They all take their marching orders from another idiot, Jim Jordan, and, you know, and JD Vance.
And they're the three stooges.
All right, Doug.
Let's talk to Michael in Florida.
Democrat, good morning, Michael.
Yes, this is an opportunity to regain racism.
We're not using the prerogative, the pejorative names and anything.
And they're showing right now, you only have one or two congresspeople, and that's it, who happened to be black or minority.
That's that you don't have a majority.
They don't want them.
They want the entire thing to be all white.
Letting you know they don't want you involved in any way that has any kind of decision-making responsibility.
All the people they want on the college campuses are the athletes.
And the people who are really trying to make decisions, being part of the society, just unity for all.
They're not interested.
As long as you know your place, that's what they're involved in.
All right, Michael.
Here's Philip, Brooklyn, New York, Independent.
You're on the air.
All right, good morning.
I think they're doing this because there's so many new minorities coming into the country now that they're going to outnumber the Republicans.
And I think African Americans just really and other minorities should stop joining the military and start representing this country in the Olympics because it's ignoring your history in school and everything.
So what's the census representing this country?
Thank you.
John is next in Wisconsin, Independent Line.
Hi, John.
Hey, Maureen.
Take a look at Wisconsin.
If you could type Wisconsin in there, Mimi, quick, and see what Governor Evers, he says last week that we need to redraw our district maps in the state of Wisconsin.
The funny thing about it is the last time when we had the census and we did the maps, the legislature couldn't come to an agreement.
So he was the person that made the districts and drew the map.
So now he wants to change what he did.
So if that is a nonpartisan, I don't know what is as far as it comes to the other thing in like Louisiana and whatnot.
You know, I mean, it's, I agree, the Voting Rights Act in 65 needed to be done.
But like many people have said before recently, that there's a lot of people that, you know, it's not, it doesn't need to be racially gerrymandered anymore.
It shouldn't be gerrymandered at all.
I've said this before on this program.
I think every single district should resemble some type of geometric shape rather than a snake that traverses from the southeast side of state to the northeast side of the state just so Democrats or Republicans can get their way.
I mean, look at Massachusetts.
They have 40% Republicans and zero representation.
But like I said, the thing in Wisconsin is what irks me.
The governor drew the maps, and now he says we need to change them.
Well, talk about hypocrisy.
That is the height of it.
Thanks a lot for taking my call.
All right, John.
And here is the latest from Wisconsin on that topic.
This is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporting this.
A group seeks to fast-track redistricting case to Wisconsin Supreme Court.
It says lawyers seeking to redraw Wisconsin's congressional districts are asking the state's highest court to consider the matter on an expedited schedule in an effort to put new maps in place by the 2028 election.
This is William Durham, North Carolina, Democrat.
Hello, William.
Hi, Mimi.
I'm so glad to be talking to you.
Yeah, I don't, I haven't been following this case very closely, but I don't know how you can throw out the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but say that they can draw the maps partisanly.
I don't, there's nothing in the Constitution about parties and drawing maps for Democrats and Republicans.
I mean, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson explicitly didn't want political parties.
So it doesn't make any sense at all.
And so tell us about what's happening in North Carolina.
Anything that you want to talk about?
Well, yeah, one thing, I don't know if North Carolina does this, but I know a lot of states do.
They put prisons, they build prisons in rural areas so they can count that population in determining how to draw the maps.
And that's not fair because those people aren't really permanent residents there.
And that shouldn't be allowed in states either.
And as far as this year being the 250th anniversary of our country, I have to admit with what's going on right now, I don't feel like celebrating it at all.
And I have three other points I'd like to mention that don't very quickly, that don't have anything to do with this particular issue.
Can I mention those?
If it's really quick, William.
Well, I think if we doubled the minimum wage to say to like 25 or raised the minimum wage to $25, that would go a long way in helping solve the Social Security problem.
And my next point is: you can't have common sense unless you have common knowledge.
Common knowledge becomes before common sense.
And the other thing I'd like to mention that I heard last week on the news, immigrants have saved us $23 trillion off our national debt with their contributions to our country.
All right, William, got that.
Minimum Wage and Common Sense00:14:34
And we are talking about redistricting.
So here is Governor Ron DeSantis.
He's a Republican of Florida talking at a press conference yesterday defending the redistricting efforts in his state.
Don't act like this is what is like Virginia.
It's not even close.
This is something that we've been fighting for a number of years, and the fact that we've had so much population growth and that the districts are really not representative of where Florida is today versus four years ago.
And so we had justification.
And then look at Virginia's map, how grotesque it is.
And then look at the Florida map that the legislator passed.
It's a beautiful, compact map.
Very nice map.
And they're not the same.
And just put them side by side and look at them and then see, you know, one, obviously, we know what they were doing, but just look at it and take a look at that.
Bit of news for you this morning.
This is Greg Bluestein, a reporter for the Atlantic Journal Constitution, saying this: Justin, Governor Kemp won't cancel Georgia's May 19th primary or rush to impose new political maps for this year's elections.
But Kemp also signaled to the AJC that he could still call lawmakers back to Atlanta this year to redraw boundaries for 2028.
And that's what we're getting your comments on.
Are you concerned about the redistricting impact on either the midterms happening this year in November or the election in 2028?
Let's hear from Andy, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Hey, good morning, Mimi.
Thank you so much for your service.
I watch you pretty frequently.
I am really distraught with the recent ruling and how it's not fair when the Democrats do it, but it's okay when the Republicans do it.
And it's just, if I'm being honest, it's like watching people, it's like watching a bunch of toddlers fight about, you know, what's not fair when they're both doing the same thing.
Now, the Dems are pushing back because they have no choice.
Like, they can't just sit there and let them beat them up to death.
And I agree with AOC.
They've been trying to push for legislation for the last decade to get rid of gerrymandering.
But the Republicans don't want to because when they know they're bad and down in the polls and they're going to lose, they got to gerrymander to get their win.
So it's really a travesty.
And I cannot believe Alito is just straight up going against what he should have learned in law school.
All right, Andy, let's hear from Bruce next.
Edinburgh, Texas, Democrat, you're on the air.
Good morning.
Can you hear me, ma'am?
Yes, we can.
Go ahead, Bruce.
Well, I just want to put my two cents into this game.
The only reason why they're doing it is, you know, to stack the deck.
Look what happened to Texas.
Okay.
Everybody goes to bed at night.
Meanwhile, up the state legislature, they're up there behind closed doors in the middle of the night.
And then they changed the map in Texas without even putting to the vote of the voters.
So that's, you know, good luck.
You know.
So, Bruce, let's talk about Texas.
You've got a Senate race going on there.
How are you feeling about that?
Well, man.
Well, I hope that we make some changes in Texas, okay?
I mean, this ain't a Democrat or Republican issue, okay?
What's good for my neighbors, good for me.
You know, I know it's gotten really crazy down here.
People fight over the smallest of things, including at Walmart.
So, you know, I just stay away from all that.
You know, that's too weird.
All right.
We've got another 10 minutes on this topic.
We will open it up for open forum in case there's other things that you want to talk about this morning at that time.
But first, here is President Trump on Wednesday reacting to the Supreme Court's ruling on this Voting Rights Act.
That's not ready.
Sorry.
We'll get to that.
Meantime, we'll hear from Ron in Round Lake, Illinois, Republican.
Good morning.
Yeah.
Yeah, how are you doing?
Good morning.
I'm just calling.
It's amazing how the Democrats are getting upset about something that they've been doing for years.
I live in the state of Illinois.
It looks like a spaghetti ball.
Take a look at the map in Illinois.
There's no chance as a Republican to ever have any say in the state because of the way they've done that.
It's about time the Republicans catch up and the ignorance of your Democratic callers that think that, oh, this is a Republican thing.
Been doing it for years.
Look at California, look at Illinois.
Prime examples.
Thank you.
All right.
And here is President Trump talking on this issue Wednesday.
Mr. President, I want to go back to the Supreme Court ruling on that Voting Rights Act.
I know you said you haven't seen it.
When did it come out just now?
No, it came out this morning, but basically very much narrows the Voting Rights Act.
Would you consider a win for Republicans?
I love it.
But my question, because it's a very good weekend.
I want to read it.
My question to you, Mr. President, is that some Republican governors have not responded in terms of what they're going to do.
I guess early voting, for example, and Louisiana.
What about it?
Early voting begins Saturday there, for instance.
Should they redraw the map in the next couple of years?
I would.
I mean, it depends.
I mean, some states don't need to redraw, and some do.
I mean, I know what the concept of the ruling is, I just haven't seen the result.
Yeah, I would say generally, I would think that they would want to do it.
Some are greatly helped, and some, you know, it didn't make much difference.
Yeah, I would say they would do that.
They have time to do it.
Yep.
And that was the president on Wednesday in the Oval Office, and this is Doreen in Massachusetts, Independent.
Hi, Doreen.
Hi, how are you?
The reason I'm calling is I want to make a recommendation.
I think that it's completely illegal, frankly, for anyone to redistrict anything.
And I think we should put the power to the people.
And the way to solve the problem is to create an automated generated, computer-generated calculation of electoral college votes apportioned according to zip code and the population within the zip code.
And then ultimately let the electoral college votes decide who the people are, how they vote, and put the power of the people in their voice in place.
That would mean that California being probably one of the biggest portions of our population would get more electoral college votes and therefore you would see more people turning out at the polls.
They'd think that their vote would make a difference and it wouldn't be slanted whether Democrat or Republican.
You'd be basically making your own decision on how you would like to vote, put everything all on one ballot so you don't have to declare whether you're the Republican or Democrat.
It'll end all the leveraging and it will automate the computer, the solution, and basically end all the political footballs around it.
So, Doreen, do you think that this redistricting has caused people to not vote, like has lowered the percentage of people even going to the polls?
Because they feel like, you know, if they're with the party that is not in power, that it's just not going to make a difference anyway.
Yes, I do.
I think the way that things are districted right now, you know, I don't think that California feels like their voice counts because they don't get enough pull in the say in the election, although they're the biggest, I mean, they are the biggest portion of GDP in the country, you know.
And ultimately, you know, what we need to really be able to do is put the power to the people, stop trying to restrict people from voting by mail or however they choose to vote or how they can vote based on disability or anything like that.
Basically, all you do is automatically register all voting age people and do it automatically, and you don't have to worry about it.
And ultimately, everyone comes to the polls and they know that their vote counts for a change.
All right, here's Scott in Charlotte, North Carolina, Republican.
Hi, Scott.
Hi.
I just wanted to say I do agree with the last caller about a couple of things.
However, this whole redistricting to what the Supreme Court came down with about, you know, having in Louisiana like a minority, you know, section sectioned off.
The Constitution clearly states that you can't divide by race.
That's like if people did that, then they'd be like, oh, we're just going to put all the white people here, all the Hispanic people here, all the Asian people here.
And it would just be the whole, that would contradict the whole idea of what America has been about for 250 years.
About we've gotten past the whole, you know, we had, you know, an African-American president.
We have 50 people in Congress that are black, women.
All the rights are all there.
And it's just, it's past time for people to just realize that our ancestors, great ancestors, you know, none of us have been living when our great grandmothers were slaves.
So, I mean, it's just, I think that the redistricting battle is also bad.
Anyway, you put a Democrat, Republican.
And just look at Illinois.
He went on, he went on, Pritzer went on to a TV show after it, which late night.
And he even said it looks like a five-year-old drew the districting map.
So it's been going on for a long time.
Texas is just the newest one that started a new fight.
All right, Scott.
Well, let's hear from members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
They held a press conference on Wednesday to respond to this.
Here is part of Representative Yvette Clark's comments.
This is an outright power grab.
It's about silencing black voices, dismantling majority black districts, and rigging the map so that politicians can choose their voters instead of the other way around.
We have seen this before.
We know exactly what this leads to.
And we will not go back.
For years, we've sounded the alarm on the Voting Rights Act as the Voting Rights Act was chipped away piece by piece.
Today, the consequences are here and they are dangerous.
Let me say this clearly.
The legitimacy of this court is in crisis.
This is not the court of Third Good Marshall.
This is not the court that delivered Brown v. Board of Education.
This is not the court that expanded freedom and moved this nation closer to its ideals.
This is a court that is turning back its back on that legacy and on the people it is supposed to serve.
But we're not powerless and we're not backing down.
The Congressional Black Caucus is prepared to take any measure necessary to protect black voters in this country.
We are demanding an immediate vote on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and we will not accept delay, obstruction, or excuses.
We got this on text from Dorf in Skippers, Virginia.
Gerrymandering is favorable to career politicians of both these horrible parties to keep their jobs and do nothing for constituents.
It's time to have term limits, as with the president's office, and that we all love.
Country would be better off if every district was a swing district.
Russell, Democrat in South Carolina, you're on the air.
Yes, thanks for taking my call.
One thing that people keep saying is that this is not in the Constitution, but the census does ask the Constitution, I mean, just does ask that communities of like concerns allowed to have representation.
And the reason, the way that they're doing it, those communities are being torn apart.
The entire South is gerrymandered.
So for all of the Republicans in states where they're gerrymandered, the entire South from Florida all the way through to every state in the South is gerrymandered heavily.
And when we fought to have a gerrymandered map in South Carolina against Nancy Mace, we won and racially gerrymandered in the district courts.
But when it got to the Supreme Court, they claimed it was partisan.
And that's something I noticed about the Supreme Court.
They will call racial gerrymandering anything that helps the black community or the Hispanic community or the Asian community get a voice.
But when it comes to the white community doing the same thing, they call it partisan gerrymander.
And they say, oh, we have to allow this because it's partisan.
So what it is, is it appears to be another great example of American white privilege.
Partisan Gerrymandering Debate00:14:16
Okay, and this is one more call on this topic, and then it will be open forum.
This is Rob in Port Crane, New York, Independent Line.
Go ahead, Rob.
Good morning.
I have two examples from here in New York State.
About 20 years ago, I had a friend who was a Republican assemblyman here.
His name was Pete Lopez from Schoharie County.
His district was over 400 miles from one end to the other.
That was back in early 2000s.
Recently, like 2020, they redrew the map again, and we had Claudia Teddy here in Broome County.
And after they redrew the map, now we have a Democrat, Josh Riley, who CNN even did a story with.
He voted with the Democrats 428 consecutive times and not once with the Republicans.
So this is what New York State has, the Democrats have done in New York State, and they've done it in other states.
And this whole white-black thing, like that last caller said, that's just total nonsense.
It's not about race.
This is about power and control.
And these people that are redrawing the lines, they could care less what we think.
They're just going to go ahead.
They're going to do what they do.
They're going to take money from the people they take money from.
And nothing's going to change.
So that's my thought.
Thank you.
And this is Sandy in Bloomington, Indiana on text.
The Republicans are already taking steps to rig the midterm elections by using the Supreme Court decision.
The Voting Rights Act is effectively erased.
Well, we are going to go ahead and go into open forum, and there's other things to talk about, including this.
This is CBS News.
Trump signs bill funding DHS ending record-breaking 76-day shutdown.
It says the longest shutdown of a federal department in U.S. history came to an end yesterday, Thursday, when President Trump signed a bill to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security following a breakthrough on Capitol Hill.
Says the House unanimously approved a Senate-passed bill to fund most of DHS earlier in the day, with the exception of the department's immigration enforcement agencies, which have been largely unaffected by the shutdown.
The chamber passed legislation through voice vote with little fanfare, a sign that lawmakers were finally ready to put the impasse behind them.
And this is House Speaker Mike Johnson speaking to reporters after the House voted to end that shutdown of DHS.
He was asked why he reversed course after initially opposing that Senate bill.
You heard me trash the bill when it came over the first time because it literally was drafted in the middle of the night.
It was about 2 o'clock in the morning when they came up with the final language and it was haphazardly drafted.
And what it would do is, of course, orphan and leave out immigration enforcement and border patrol.
If you might remember, in 2024, the number one issue in the election was securing that border.
House Republicans did it.
The Trump administration, the president did that.
And Democrats are upset about it.
So they wanted to leave that out.
They wanted to orphan these two critical agencies that are under the umbrella of Homeland Security.
I remind everybody on the Hill all the time: the Department of Homeland Security is the third largest department of the federal government.
It has critical responsibilities.
FEMA and the Secret Service and TSA and all these other agencies.
But the Democrats said we'll do some of that, but we're not going to fund border security and we're not going to fund immigration enforcement.
That's absurd.
And we threw a fit and we had to.
We held the Homeland Bill, the underlying funding bill, because we had to ensure that they could not isolate and eliminate those two critical agencies.
We are getting those done now.
We passed the resolution first that was critically important for us to do to ensure that we're going to protect the homeland, even though Democrats are unwilling to do it.
So now that that box is checked, we are allowed then to proceed and go through with the rest of it.
This will relieve pressure from the Department of Homeland Security.
Secretary Mullen, who I've spoken to in the last couple of hours, will be greatly relieved.
The president will, the administration will.
We were not going to have lines at TSA.
Everybody will get their paychecks now.
We'll get moving forward.
And then we will finish the work and finally get, again, for three years with no crazy Democrat reforms.
We will fund Border Patrol and immigration enforcement as soon as we return for the work session.
That was the Speaker of the House.
This is open forum.
Whatever is on your mind.
Michael in New York, line for Democrats.
You're on the air.
Hi.
Good morning.
One of my big concerns, other than gerrymandering, is the Electoral College.
Now, let's look at every individual election in this country, whether it's for a trustee at a village government, a state senator, assemblyman, they all get elected by the vote only.
If they win by one vote, they won by one vote.
This Electoral College has to stop.
We don't need that kind of system.
We know how to vote, and I don't think that somebody should be able to steal an election because of the way that the look what happened with Vice President, Vice President under Clinton.
I'm sorry, I can't think of his name.
Al Gore.
Al Gore.
Thank you.
Yeah, Al Gore.
He had that election stolen from him.
And because of this Electoral College, let's face it, one, if you're voting for somebody, you should be able to have the right to say that the majority of those votes by everybody in that district, state, or whatever has chosen that individual, not somebody at an electoral college somewhere else.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
And on the Republican line in Spring Hill, Florida, Drew, good morning.
Good morning.
Thanks for listening to me.
It seems like a lot of people are just binning when they call.
But I'd like to the idea if we did not have a Republican Party or a Democratic Party and we each voter was the American party, because right now the lobbyists, they know who to go to to get their what their little favors done.
And the people are it's like two tribes, them and us, and it's going to be that way from now on until we get down to equality.
And the only way we're going to have equality is to do away with the names Republican and Democrat.
And everybody gets a tag that says I'm an American voter.
And that's just my belief on it.
I think we've got too many divisions in the country because everything's a division.
The lobbyists know who to go to.
If you want something done, if you're a Democrat and you're in a Republican county, you're in trouble and vice versa.
It just causes too much division.
And that's just my opinion.
All right.
Drew, let's talk to Rob in New York, Democrat.
You're on the air.
Hey, good morning.
Thank you so much for C-SPAN and the work that you do.
You know, I agree with that last caller.
You know, I'm no expert on lobbyists, but boy oh boy, do they know the system and get paid for it?
And I guess I probably am thinking that two or three quick things.
The billionaire class has divided us and conquered us.
Talk about campaign contributions and I'm no expert.
They bought the Congress is bought and paid for.
You know, and I'm wondering why are so many people all these years, especially on the right, against more advanced systems of energy and how our entertainer-in-chief, and he's a great entertainer.
Oh, my God.
I think that's why he was elected.
Makes the noises of the windmill ram.
And solar panels are no good.
Yet, from what I understand, Europe, Asia, they are moving electric cars, forget about it, in China, BYD, Geely, I think is the name of another one.
They are so advanced that I'm almost thinking that our system, where now we're cemented in as enemies, the one Republicans against the Democrats were so cemented in.
I remember there was Solyndra company under Obama.
The Republicans had to destroy it.
It was subsidized solar.
But look at what China is doing.
Look at what the rest of the world is doing with advanced technologies.
And I think that as far as I always thought that we were the country that was going to be like the savior of humanity going forward with better technology and systems that could help people and feed people.
And here we are.
I think the United States may not be that country to take us into the future, to take us into the future centuries.
It may be some other systems of government that are more effective at feeding and housing and transporting large numbers of people.
I think other systems of government may be more equipped to actually save us from ourselves in the future.
So Mimi, thank you so much.
All right, Robin.
Thank you.
Lou in Tampa, Florida, Republican.
You're next.
Go ahead, Lou.
Hi, Mimi.
Hi.
Nice to see you again.
Look, I don't know if I'm going to get in, but I'm going to be 70 in June.
And I'm grateful for all the work that you guys do.
I watched the White House correspondence dinner.
And, you know, I watched the King Charles visit.
And I watched the hearings.
And the people that watch C-SPAN on a regular basis, they're into it.
You know, they're connected.
And I think more people should be connected.
Anyway, you know, there's over 35,000 lobbyists in Washington.
And, you know, they're telling these congress people what to write and what to do.
And also, all these companies sold at tech, right?
So when the Democrats are saying that we're selling out around the world, it was Clinton that produced the NAFTA deal and bad trade deals for the United States.
Also, China and Russia are laughing at us because they foment this social media nonsense, you know, this division.
They're behind all this, I think.
And we sold them to tech, you know, all this tech and everything.
But that's about it for today.
And I'm very grateful that I got through to talk to you.
All right.
Nice to talk to you, Lou.
Sabrina in Thomasville, Virginia, Independent Line.
What's on your mind this morning, Sabrina?
Well, good morning.
I'm calling in this morning to talk about the great divide in the good old boys club in this country.
Now, Mr. Trump wants immunity from the Jay Carroll lawsuit where she was sexually assaulted.
Hope they don't carry that into the Epstein files cases.
And allegedly, we had HEG theft assault many women in the military, and nothing was done about that.
So I guess if you're a politician, you have different, there are different laws for politicians than there are for citizens in this country.
And so this has to stop.
All right, Sabrina.
And this is some other news for you this morning from CNN.
Trump pulls controversial Surgeon General pick and makes third nomination for the role.
President Trump has pulled his embattled Surgeon General nominee, Dr. Casey Means, amid questions over her vaccine views and announced his third pick for the role is Dr. Nicole Safier.
This is what he wrote on Truth Social.
Nicole is a star physician who has spent her career guiding women facing breast cancer through their diagnosis and treatment while tirelessly advocating to increase early cancer detection and prevention while at the same time working with men and women on all forms of cancer diagnoses and treatments.
This is a picture of her from 2024.
That is the new Surgeon General pick for the United States.
And here is Joe in Georgia, Republican.
Hi, Joe.
Hey, Mimi, I love C-SPAN.
Been calling your great network for 30 years.
I think Donald Trump is the best leader in world history.
We've hit 50,000 on the stock market.
I predict that will double in the next four years before Trump leaves office.
I think we're an investor hellvent.
I've never felt better about the future of America or the future of my three children and seven grandchildren.
It's just wonderful.
Thank God for Donald John Trump.
I'm happy.
Thank God for C-SPAN.
Y'all do an incredible job.
Keep up the good work.
We love you down in LA J, Georgia.
All right, Joe.
And this is the front page of the business and finance section of Wall Street Journal, Stocks Post best month since 2020.
It says Alphabet and Caterpillar lead market through tailwinds of Iran war and a divided Fed.
There's the graph of the Dow.
If you'd like to see that, it's at the Washington, sorry, the Wall Street Journal.
Ted, New Hampshire Democrat, you're on the air.
Yes.
I'm calling in to notice like a chess game.
Autism Awareness and Global Conflict00:03:41
I'm seeing one of the leaders from Iran talking to Putin.
And with our missile depletion, that almost seems like a setup.
You know, if any country gets at a point where it's weak enough, that's also a time for attack.
And I hope the generals and all that and the ones in chat see a lot of this and do actually do something about it.
You say you think that the United States is vulnerable to attack right now?
Yes, because it's been on news that we've used so many missiles in Iran and Ukraine.
We got the stockpiles so low that we don't have a reserve enough to actually protect ourselves from invasion unless it was nuked.
And here is Jesse, Phoenix, Arizona, Republican line.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you so much.
Mimi, so I am really, really happy.
I will tell you.
I'm a teacher, and I, you know, was really glad to hear that guy from Georgia talking about how happy he is about the future moving forward.
And I am thinking about that also.
And the kids of America, I will tell you, I'm going to teach today.
And so I just want to break down some awesome stuff.
So this last month was April.
It was Autism Awareness.
We're losing you, Jesse.
Sorry, sorry.
My phone's horrible.
So it was Autism Awareness Month, April.
It was awesome.
I was teaching, subbing at all these different schools.
And I was a vendor at an event, a parent event on Saturday, 418.
And that was my 39th birthday.
And it was really awesome.
Just like that was like a really great thing to help me feel good about what I'm doing, you know.
And Jesse, what do you teach?
What grades do you teach?
And, you know, well, I'm just in subbing right now because I have a business also.
And I'll tell you, so my, I had an autism awareness color grip penset, five colors.
I had a Pinterest ad, and I'm looking at it right now for April.
It got 325,000 views.
I got 94 sales.
So pretty cool.
And I'm just, it's helping other people, you know, and people are buying this for other people.
And like, that's what I just love is I'm helping people think selflessly and about others.
And so I'm just thinking like really big time, like the guys who created America.
You know, I teach social studies.
I love the Constitution.
And the summer's coming up.
You know, May has Mother's Day, Memorial Day, Father's Day in June, July 4th, USA 250.
We got the 26-27 school year coming up.
And Mimi, have you ever played Uno?
Yes, I have.
Right.
So I love Uno.
I used to have an Uno club.
And have you heard about this whole 6'7 thing the kids are talking about?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I have.
Right.
So I'll just tell you, I came up with a official original 6'7 card game, and I made a logo I've been showing the kids, and I've already got it.
All right, Steve.
Jesse, I got to go because I'm going to move to Steve in Lincoln, Nebraska, Independent Line.
Go ahead, Steve.
Thank you.
Good morning, meaning.
Uno Games and Legal Questions00:06:41
I was just curious how often they give the President of the United States a reconnaissance test.
If you knew.
No, I don't.
A cognitive test.
Is that what you said?
Yeah, you know, for smarts.
I don't think he's.
I don't think they do that, Steve.
I have not heard.
They do that.
Wow.
It's too bad they should do that every six months.
All right.
And we have gotten to the two-month mark.
So 60 days since the start of the Iran war, since actually the president notified Congress.
So there's an exchange with Secretary of Defense Heg Seth in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee about that deadline.
Take a look.
The War Powers Resolution specifies that a war initiated by a president without congressional approval must be concluded within 60 days.
It can be extended by an additional 30 days if, quote, the president determines and certifies to Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the U.S. Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
We're right at the 60-day deadline.
Is the president intending to either seek congressional authorization for the war in Iran or send us the legally required certification that he needs an additional 30 days to remove U.S. forces from the war?
Just briefly on the previous question, we do know that these are designated terrorist organizations, so we treat them like the al-Qaeda of our hemisphere, just as a note.
But that was not the question I asked.
I know there's more to that question.
I just think it's important for the public to understand that.
There's no willy-nilly targeting of drug boats.
We know exactly who these people are affiliated with.
I was asking about what's on the boats on Iran.
Ultimately, I would defer to the White House and White House Council on that.
However, we are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.
So you're not in.
It's our understanding, just so you know.
Okay, well, I do not believe the statute would support that.
I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow, and it's going to pose a really important legal question for the administration.
We have serious constitutional concerns, and we don't want to layer those with additional statutory concerns.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
And if you missed any of that hearing, you can definitely see that on our website, c-span.org.
Here is Ed, Ohio, Republican.
Good morning, Ed.
Good morning.
I'm a 30-year vet.
I got out right before a COVID mandate.
I have 17 vets that were all court-martialed.
They were still in.
I hired them.
They worked for me.
I worked for them.
We work in the country now.
Now, I don't want to go on and on about that.
The COVID's coming out.
The Democrat, right now, I'm listening to your callers.
I call once a month.
And when I hear the Democrats call, and some of these Republicans, I don't know how they're Republicans, not even conservative.
I'm more of a conservative than a Republican.
I'm not a ridal either.
More of our party votes with their party than theirs.
The only one that's a moderate, Federman from Pennsylvania, they're already in a primary.
That guy wouldn't mind.
And if they do and beat him, knock him out, or he stays.
I hope he comes to the Republican Party because that party is all they are from Trump won from day one this four years from 16 or 10 years ago.
The Democrats have no policies, everything they're on the wrong side on.
They complain, complain, like your last guy just had a congressman.
He wants to hand tough our military right now from day one.
Their Speaker of the House on their side said we lost the war already.
Or one's going to be wrapped up in a week or two.
Come on.
It's the most success.
I don't know about every success he's had.
This is fighting the media.
Oh, by the way, Russia and China are crippled right now.
Like one of your callers, the ones that don't know much information.
It was a Democrat, I believe, Callery heard.
He said, China are happy in Russia.
We have their oil locked up.
China's on their knees.
Their economy is collapsing.
They have to deal with us.
They're our enemy.
Russia and our nuclear subs.
Half my career, I was commander of the Trident Sub.
By the way, he said we're depleted.
Our military is being built up again more than it's ever been in my lifetime, almost since Reagan.
Okay.
And Ed, you're not worried about the caller, mentioned the munitions being depleted.
Are you not worried about that given how long it takes to replenish and how long it takes to build those types of munitions?
By the way, why don't you fact check?
Trump took multiple cognitive tests and he aced every one.
Biden never took one of them, my ex-commander-in-chief.
So Ed mentioned COVID, and this is an opinion.
This is an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.
Today's Wall Street Journal.
It says, it will take years for public officials to regain the trust they squandered during the pandemic.
Charges unveiled by the Justice Department this week against a former advisor to Anthony Fauci for obstructing investigations into the virus's origins show why.
Press is portraying indictment of a former NIH official, David Morenz, as political retaliation.
That's hard to square with the facts in the indictment, which say he intentionally sought to obfuscate the NIH role in funding the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, which may have contributed to the virus leaking from a Chinese lab.
That is an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal if you would like to read that, if you're interested in that.
Here's Ed, a Republican, Lawrenceville.
Yes, Lawrenceville, Georgia.
Good morning.
Good morning.
You know, when I was born into a very, very large family, I had like 15 uncles and 17 aunts and quite a large family.
And I tried to stay as close as I could to all my relatives, but it turns out that I was the only person that was a Republican.
Every one of my other in my family was a Democrat.
I'm the only one that became successful.
I tried to help my relatives, and, you know, just because I said I was a Republican, I was rejected.
Large Families and Political Divides00:03:29
It's crazy.
I'm happy that I ended up in a good position.
I have a neighborhood that I live in that has over 100 homes in it, and I'm friends with all my neighbors.
I don't have any enemies.
I'm a quite happy person.
And, Ed, when you say you were rejected by your family because you're a Republican, can you tell us a little bit more about how they rejected you?
Was there certain views that you held that made them not want to deal with you?
Yeah.
You know, not all Republicans are the same.
I don't know how Democrats think that, you know, but all Democrats appear to be the same.
And, You know, they're wrong a lot of times.
And I hate to see what they're saying.
Wait, but do you think that's fair when you say not all Republicans are the same, but all Democrats are the same?
Pretty much all the same because whenever somebody comes up with a Democrat idea, everybody jumps on board on it without even discussing it.
It's already guaranteed, oh, that's a great idea.
It's not a great idea.
Some ideas are not great.
Well, you know, our next segment's going to be about civility and we'll talk about family relationships.
So definitely stay with us for that.
Later on the Washington Journal, we'll be joined by former Secret Service agent Anthony Cangelosi on security challenges his former colleagues are facing in this time of rising political violence.
But first after the break, we'll talk about what public officials and you at home can do to lower the temperature in this heated political environment.
That conversation with Alexandra Hudson, author of the book, Soul of Civility, Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves.
That's right after the break.
C-SPAN is as unbiased as you can get.
You are so fair.
I don't know how anybody can say otherwise.
You guys do the most important work for everyone in this country.
I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
You bring these divergent viewpoints and you present both sides of an issue and you allow people to make up their own minds.
I absolutely love C-SPAN.
I love to hear both sides.
I've watched C-SPAN every morning and it is unbiased and you bring in factual information for the callers to understand where they are in their comments.
This is probably the only place that we can hear honest opinion of Americans across the country.
You guys at C-SPAN are doing such a wonderful job of allowing free exchange of ideas without a lot of interruptions.
Thank you, C-SPAN, for being a light in the dark.
Today, on C-SPAN Ceasefire, a bipartisan conversation on the latest assassination attempt on President Trump with Republican strategist and former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer and Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha, senior advisor to Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign.
They'll also discuss how best to combat the rise in political violence.
Watch Ceasefire today at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We're joined now by Alexandra Hudson.
The Crisis of Dehumanization00:12:35
She is the author of the book called The Soul of Civility, Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves.
Alexi, welcome to the program.
Thanks for having me.
A pleasure to be with you, Mimi.
Your work centers around civility.
Tell us what got you involved in this topic.
It was kind of always in the water growing up.
My mother is called, and I'm not joking, Judy the Manners Lady.
Imagine being raised by the Manners Lady.
Actually, while writing this book, I realized that there are no fewer than four women who are international experts on manners and etiquette named Judy.
I think Judy Garland was kind of an icon at this time as there's a whole generation of Judies and a few of them decided to go into the manners business.
So Judy the Manners Lady is my favorite of these Judiths in the etiquette industry.
And she always taught me, you know, the ways and means of politeness and etiquette and also true civility, just respecting the dignity and humanity and others.
And Mimi, I always, always questioned the rules and proprieties that my mother asked me to comply with.
Always skeptical.
I was like, why do we do things the way we do them?
Other cultures eat with chopsticks, not forks.
You know, I wanted a moral philosophical justification, never got it.
She would just say, this is just the way we do it.
So do it.
So I did it.
And she promised these modes of politeness would work well for me in work and school and life.
And she was right until I got to federal government.
Oh, okay.
Well, we'll get to that.
But you did mention politeness.
So I just wanted to ask you the difference between politeness and civility, or is it the same thing?
That's what I learned firsthand when I served in federal government.
I was there in a very divided time, 2017, 2018.
And my experience in Washington was kind of a microcosm of the deep divisions in our world more broadly right now.
I realized that we are kind of stuck between these two equally dehumanizing extremes of vicious hostility and toxic politeness.
When I got to government, I saw on one hand, there were people who were hostile.
They were vicious.
These were people who would step on anyone to get ahead.
And on the other hand, there were people who are polished, poised, polite, but ruthless and cruel.
And I realize that these two extremes seem like polar opposites.
There's two sides of the same coin.
They both see people in terms of what they can do for them instead of seeing other people as ends in themselves, worthy of respect.
And I realized we needed a better way.
So I conceived and defined civility grounded in human dignity that resists these two excesses that define our moment of hostility and politeness.
Civility is the art of human flourishing.
It's the bare minimum of respect that we are owed and owe to others by virtue of our shared human dignity.
It's more than just politeness.
It's not just doing, it's not just the technique and etiquette and manners.
It's seeing other human beings clearly as they truly are, beings with dignity, worth, worthy of respect, which sometimes requires being impolite, telling a hard truth, engaging in robust debate.
And that's, we've lost sight of this mandate for human flourishing, that flourishing together requires honest conversations.
And that's what I'm trying to recover with this work now.
And if you've got a question or a comment about civility in American politics, now's your chance to call in and talk to our guest, Alexandra Hudson.
Call us on our lines by party.
So Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
Republicans 202-748-8001.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
Well, Lexi, we saw the third assassination attempt on the president.
Both political parties are blaming the other side for heated rhetoric.
Where do we go from here?
How do we bring down the temperature on the national level among political leaders?
The theorist of war, Klaus Witz, said that war is politics by other means.
The premise of democracy and the political process is to take violence off the table.
And unfortunately, that's not something we can count on anymore.
This latest assassination attempt is the latest expression of our crisis, not of division, not of difference, because those things will always be with us.
That is a premise of democracy and of life together with others that we're going to disagree.
That's a feature of democracy, not a bug.
It's an expression of our crisis of dehumanization, where we insufficiently appreciate the gift of being human in ourselves and in others, especially those that we differ from and we disagree with.
And that is a large reason why I wrote my book.
I call it a humanistic manifesto, helping us to appreciate just the high value of every human life.
Civility is not just about how we treat those that we like, those with whom we agree, those who can return the favor, those people that we see all the time.
It's how we treat the other, the person we don't like, the person we disagree with, the person who can never return a favor, the person that we may never see again.
That's the test of true civility, and that's what we have to recover now in this moment amid a crisis of dehumanization.
I want to play something for you and get your reaction to it.
So the first thing I'm going to show you is Press Secretary Caroline Levitt talking about Democratic rhetoric and then the House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries responding to that.
And here it is, and then you can talk about it.
It is the entire Democrat Party has made their pitch to voters across the country that Donald Trump poses an existential threat to democracy, that he is a fascist and that they compare him to Hitler.
I mean, these are despicable statements that the American people have been consuming for years.
And so many mentally perturbed individuals are led to believe these words are truth and then are inspired to act on it.
I have a whole host of examples that we can share with you after.
It is pages and pages of major Democrat Party elected officials saying, such as Rep Hakeem Jeffries, just this April, this month, said, we are in an era of maximum warfare everywhere, all the time.
Governor Josh Shapiro said heads need to roll within the administration.
Senator Alex Padilla said people are, quote, dying because of fear and terror caused by the Trump administration.
The so-called White House press secretary, who's a disgrace, he's a stone-cold liar, had the nerve to stand up there and read talking points being critical of statements all taken out of context that Democrats have made and didn't have a word to say about anything that mega extremists have said or done,
including providing aid and comfort to violent insurrectionists here at this Capitol on January 6th who brutally beat police officers.
The president then pardoned those violent rioters.
Lexi, what stood out for to you in those two clips?
There is no question we live in a moment of heated rhetoric and high-stakes politics.
That is absolutely certain.
What I do argue in my book, and I remind people in my work, that it's not just one party.
And in fact, this is not an America crisis.
It's not a democracy crisis.
This is not a Donald Trump crisis.
This is this question of how do we flourish across difference?
That is the question I explore in my book.
This is a timeless human problem.
As long as we've been around as a species, we've been trying to do this fickle but beautiful thing called life together with others.
And as long as we've been around as a species, it's been really hard.
We are defined by two competing forces, love of others.
We know we become fully human.
We're most likely to thrive if we live in cooperative, collaborative relationships with others.
But as long as we've been around as a species, we have morally and biologically been driven to meet our own needs before others.
And these two facets of what it means to be human have always been intention.
And I share this because it's not productive and helpful to try and pinpoint one person, one thing, one entity, one party.
We hear a lot of explanations today, whether it's social media companies, whether it's this political party or that political person.
If we misdiagnose the problem, we're going to miss important solutions.
And most importantly, we're going to miss our own culpability, our own responsibility, our own mandate to be part of the solution of De-escalating our crisis of dehumanization because the reality is that every single one of us has way more power to either be part of the solution or to be part of the problem than we realize.
We're going to start taking calls, Alexi, but I first want to ask you about the personal, even down to the familial relationships.
You know, we've heard from callers who are one party and the rest of their family is another and they feel completely rejected, or in some cases, they reject the rest of their family.
What do you recommend to those people?
That to me is the true cost of our high stakes totalizing.
What did the person say that you shared a moment ago?
He called it warfare politics or something like that.
And that is the tragic number of friendships, family relationships that have been strained or outright severed over political difference.
And that's not the good life.
That's not how it should be.
I like to think of our family dinner tables and kind of our, you know, these gatherings as kind of sanctuaries from these divisive politics, political issues.
You know, I have people like this in my life.
Winston Churchill said, a fanatic is someone who won't change their mind and can't change their mind and won't change the subject.
And there are people like that in my life that I've had to say, please, like, let's just, you know, draw a bright red line around this topic or this set of topics and literally talk about anything and everything else in life to kind of reestablish that basis of trust.
So, you know, for people that have felt that strain in their personal lives and whether it's lifelong friends or family members, it's okay to lower your swords at the door when it comes to family, family dinners, family relationships, and say there are more important things in life.
And in fact, friendships and family relationships are more important than some of these important but controversial issues.
But we don't have to talk about them constantly.
We're not sellouts if we take a break for a while and remember that these relationships matter more.
Let's talk to callers and start with John in Arlington, Virginia, Independent.
You're on with Alexandra Hudson.
Hey, good morning.
I like the guest's life story.
I'd just like to say that I called shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk and I was disappointed that congressmen were trying to pass legislation to increase their own security.
I felt like they were building a wall behind which they would be safe.
I have been pleased.
I think the rhetoric sort of eased a little bit, but I don't think it really, I think sort of the president still has a lot of protection and is sort of free to ramp up the rhetoric.
And I've been disappointed there that nobody's held sort of the president accountable for that.
I'm just wondering what your guest thinks.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Lexi.
The Charlie Kirk assassination this past September was the latest in a summer of political violence.
And again, that to me is an expression of our crisis of dehumanization.
We're not seeing each other clearly.
Federalization of Public Life00:13:11
We're not seeing our fellow human beings in the fullness of who they are, which is a human being with irreducible worth, worthy of a bare minimum of respect, just by virtue of our shared moral status as members of the human community.
And instead, we are seeing others, whether it's our public leaders, whether it's political pundits, whether it's our neighbors, our family members, through a lens, a cheapened simplicity, where we know one thing about them, their view on Trump, on COVID, on whatever it is, fill-in-the-blank issue.
And therefore, we know everything we need to know about them.
And that is inimical to respecting the dignity and humanity and personhood of others.
Just this past weekend, one thing that gives me hope right now, my husband and I hosted at our home, we have a lovely Italian Renaissance style home that embodies the world we're trying to build of conversation, curiosity, flourishing across difference.
We hosted the Civic Renaissance Retreat.
We gathered 50 leaders across politics, geography, and vocation.
And we gathered to embody the world of flourishing across difference that we want to build.
And we left commissioned to build it.
We had Daryl Davis, who I know is a friend and frequent guest on this program, who, again, he's a story I love to tell, African-American jazz musician who actively seeks out and befriends members of hate groups.
And he says he sees the humanity, the fullness and humanity of the people who he seeks out.
He says, I'm not going to reduce you to your racist views that I disagree with.
And I'm not going to patronize you either and tell you that that's okay, but I'm going to see you in the fullness of who you are.
I'm going to lead with curiosity and humanity.
And to date, he's converted 200 plus members of these hate groups, these KKK neo-Nazi groups, through friendship and curiosity.
His work shows that it's possible.
And if he can do it, we can too.
So Lexi, when you say converted them to friendship, does that mean that their views have changed?
It's a great question.
And in many cases, yes.
At in my living room last Friday night, Daryl brought KKK hoods and Confederate flags that some of these members had given him as a symbol, a gesture of how they had surrendered these views.
Because Daryl's whole premise of his work is, how can these people hate me if they don't even know me?
And often that's the case.
These people who hold hateful views towards Daryl and people like him have never met an African-American person before.
And so once they meet, they have a conversation, they realize that they have more in common than not, then it's kind of forces this cognitive dissonance where they say, I can't hold these views anymore.
And therefore, why am I members of these hate groups?
So it's a great point that sometimes, yes, they do leave these groups, leave this lifestyle, this totalizing, hateful lifestyle entirely.
But then there are other instances where they don't.
They still maintain membership in these groups and they are still friends.
And it's really interesting, but Daryl's whole point is that I'm still going to be friends with you, even if we don't perfectly agree.
My mission here is not to convert you.
I'm going to still see the humanity and dignity of others, even if I don't persuade you.
And I'm still going to love you and respect you in the fullness of who you are.
And that's provocative.
That's countercultural.
That's powerful because it's really easy to have that sort of mindset.
I hear this all the time in this bridging, depolarization space where people say, if we're just charming enough and so sweet and kind of persuasive enough, people will see the light and they're surely going to agree with us.
And I just laugh and say, no, we are going to vehemently disagree on very important things.
And the question is, what then?
How are we going to treat each other through that disagreement and in light of that disagreement?
And in fact, how can those disagreements be sources of joy and our shared flourishing?
That is the premise of democracy.
We are going to disagree, but how can we do it without dehumanizing one another?
And how can our disagreements actually be sources of progress and growth and mutual benefit?
On the line for Democrats in Maryland, Guy, you're on the air.
How are you doing, Alexi?
Hi.
I listen to different callers, and I just shake my head because we're supposed to be the United States of America.
United means we're together.
Doesn't mean that we're going to have the same opinions.
But at the end of the day, we all have the same goal.
I want my children to have a good life.
Like, I don't know what your party affiliation is, but I guarantee you, you want your children to have a good future too.
I guarantee you, you want your children to be able to afford a home too.
So do I.
So the Republicans and the Democrats, we all want the same things for our family.
That's point-blank simple.
What gets in the way is that we sent politicians to the Hill to represent the people.
And that's to come up with the best idea that's going to do the best for all the people.
That's it.
But when your idea is, I'm going to say your idea is dumb or your idea ain't going to work because it didn't come from my side of the party, that's a problem.
And as long as we stay divided like this, where are we going?
What is the problem if we all seem to want the same things?
Go ahead, Lexi.
It's a great question.
I think you make a good point about the sort of federalization of politics and public life where we are paying a lot of attention to what's happening nationally.
And part of my message and my work is saying, actually, you know, double down and focus on your garden, what is before you.
And I have the privilege of working with leaders across politics, geography, and vocation right now, whether it's mayors or city councilors or state representatives or school teachers who are doubling down and saying, I can't control what's happening in Washington.
I can't even control, you know, what's happening down the street from my house at City Hall, let alone the latest crisis across the world.
But I can control myself and I'm going to double down and make my community better and stronger and more beautiful.
And I'll share a story of what's happening in Texas right now.
I had the privilege of speaking at a conservative think tank in Texas last year as part of Book Tour.
A Democratic state representative came to my talk at this very conservative think tank.
She took my book home, read it, reached back out to me and said, I love your book, but now, but, but, and I would like to invite my colleagues in the legislature to read it with me.
And I said, okay, great.
How can I help?
So we had our first meeting back in February.
And remarkably, it was bipartisan and bicameral.
We had both Senate House, Republicans, Democrats present.
And I said, thank you for being here.
This is not the goal.
The goal is not a one-off meeting where you hear a nice author talk once and take home a book and maybe read it.
The goal is to use this work as a jumping off point to build a culture where you and your peers are free to bring your deeply held opinions to the fore and not have your life threatened or lose friendships.
So Flexi, but the caller mentioned that we all want the same thing and we want to believe that everybody loves this country and everybody wants the best for this country.
But there are people that believe that don't believe that.
So what do you do in the case when there's people that believe like those people hate America?
Those people are trying to destroy America.
Then what do you do?
How do you find common ground then?
Well, this is the whole theory.
It's like a living experiment.
The states are often called the laboratories of democracy.
And it's fun for me to be able to have a hand in many of these experiments of local ownership over this work across localities across the country.
And the whole theory of social change is that I'm not trying to convert people who are very hardened and extreme.
Just a few committed people who say, I'm going to rehumanize my institution, starting with myself.
That is the goal.
That is the work.
That we don't need all, for example, we don't need all 180 members of the Texas state legislature, Senate, and House to all of a sudden overnight become passionate about this work to make a cultural change.
That it can happen with just a few committed people saying, I'm going to double down and focus on how I show up in my relationships.
That when someone comes at me on the floor on social media, I'm going to try and take it offline and not respond in kind, but sit face to face and say, tell me more about that.
Where are we really disagreeing here?
That it's possible to hold very passionate, conservative, or left of center views and not lose friendships over it.
But instead, we are allowing these views and the rhetoric to take precedent over things like civic friendship.
And it's taking a toll on our personal lives and the health of our democratic institutions.
This work is about rebuilding the substrate of democracy, seeing our citizens clearly so our institutions can function.
Sam in Thousand Oaks, California, Independent, you're on the air.
Yes, good morning.
Thank you for taking my call, Alexis.
So your comment about dinner table civility actually reminded me of a similar experience.
I can empathize with that.
Several years ago during Thanksgiving, we would have heated discussions over what should be a meal to bring people together.
And so I developed what I call a magic rule.
Would you like to hear it?
Yes, we would, Sam.
Okay.
It's very simple.
It's a three-part rule, but really simple.
Avoid discussing religion and politics before you eat because it can ruin your appetite.
Similarly, avoid discussing religion and politics while eating because it can ruin the taste.
And most importantly, avoid discussing religion and politics after eating because it wreaks havoc with one's digestion.
That has worked for us for the past couple of decades.
Thanksgivings are lovely.
It turns out there's a lot of other things you can talk about and you can agree upon and have a good time.
So I just avoid discussing it entirely.
So thank you for taking my call.
And Lexi, I want to add to that.
You know, it's a cliche.
Don't talk about religion and politics.
But that's really at, you know, at our core of what we believe and who we are as human beings.
So avoiding those discussions, doesn't that make our relationships more shallow?
Both are really thoughtful observations and questions.
I would say not all contexts are equal.
A family Thanksgiving dinner table is not the same place as the house floor in a state legislature or a university classroom, where in theory, those latter two environments are dedicated to the zealous pursuit of truth.
That's their purpose, their expressed aim.
Whereas a dinner table has different aims, where it's more about the bonds, about the relationships, about the history, the context, the beauty of these relationships.
And we have allowed politics to invade all aspects of our lives.
And it is bad for democracy and bad for our souls.
So, I actually wrote a monograph once called The Surprising Power of Not Talking Politics.
Anyone is welcome to email me, happy to share that with you.
But it's about reclaiming mental territory in our lives.
Like, all of a sudden, this is one thing, as I mentioned earlier in the show, there's a lot about this problem and its root causes that haven't changed because the human condition hasn't changed.
It's the same today as it was the dawn of time.
We've been grappling with this question of how to flourish across differences as long as we've been around as a species.
But there are things that have changed.
One of them is our media culture and social media.
And that means that all of a sudden we are inundated with and saturated.
Our lives are saturated by these controversy, the drama, the headline, the scandal constantly.
And that is not good for our souls, not good for democracy.
And we're overdoing democracy.
We're overdoing politics.
Politics is, again, taking up too much mental territory.
And we need to do non-political things, not democracy at some times, in order to show up for these conversations, important conversations well.
Integrity in a Saturated Media World00:03:08
So the fact that this caller has, you know, he's drawn a bright red boundary, look, a line around his sacrosanct family dinner saying we're not going to talk about these things here.
That doesn't mean that you're never going to talk about them.
It's just that you've chosen, they have collectively chosen.
There are more important things in that evening, in that environment, than politics then and there.
And that's not selling out.
That's not conceding to have shallow relationships.
That's saying we are going to choose a better way.
We're going to choose our family and the health of these relationships over dying on this hill, you know, an XYZ issue in all circumstances.
And I appreciate that.
I think more people should choose for themselves what those boundaries should be and then and then hold them.
On the Republican line, Sioux Center, Iowa.
Bonnie, good morning.
Bonnie, you're on the air, Bonnie.
You there?
Come on, Bonnie.
Bonnie, we want to hear from Iowa.
Lee is a Democrat in Wilmington, Delaware.
A Democrat?
No, I think you're on the Republican line, right?
That was the line I got through on.
Okay, but you got to call on the correct line, Lee.
I know, but I know.
Okay.
All right.
So, so call us back, okay?
On the correct line.
Here's Doug in Hot Springs, Arkansas, Independent Line.
Go ahead, Doug.
Yeah, good morning, Chief Ben.
My deal on civility is: you know, when Republicans, we're conservative.
My deal is like the national debt.
Whenever they election season, it seems like Republicans will pound the national debt on you.
But when they come into power, they forget all about it.
And these things kind of divide people when they think people don't observe these kinds of things.
So I don't know.
I had a lot more to say, but I just kind of get flustered.
So thank you.
It's okay, Doug.
So Doug was talking about Alexi, he was saying that when Republicans are in office, they don't care about the national debt.
When they are out of office, they do care about the national debt.
What are your thoughts, if you have any thoughts on that?
I mean, this is something we hear a lot of in regards to both parties, you know, promises, rhetoric, and then when you, but actions speak louder than words at the end of the day.
And I do, I do have a chapter on integrity in my book.
And I talk about how integrity, it comes to the Latin integris, you know, like structural integrity, like all parts of the self, inner and outer, what we say and how we act and how we feel, all making sense together.
And I argue that in this spectacular society, this society that rewards show, it rewards appearance, rewards spectacle over the real, what can we do in a world that rewards what appears to be rather than what is?
Unbundling People for Better Understanding00:04:30
What can we do?
We can choose and resolve to have more integrity ourselves.
I mean, whenever a question or a conversation tries to go to what public national leaders are doing of any stripe in any part of the world, I always revert that.
I double down and bring it back to the hyper-local, hyper-individual level and say, what can you, kind sir or kind Madame, do right now, right after this call, you know, right after this conversation, to make our world a more gentle and less savage place for future generations to grow up in.
That's my why for everything I do.
I have three children.
My Percival James is six.
Sophia Marco is four.
Sebastian John is one.
And it is a savage and cruel place to live in our world right now.
And I hope that this work and my book and this message makes it a little bit more of a beautiful place for them to grow up in.
And we can.
It starts with us choosing to not focus on blaming what XYZ leader is doing at City Hall across the world or in Washington and saying, what can I do?
Where can I begin?
How do we start an era, a renaissance right now, starting with ourselves?
On the Republican line, Dallas, Texas, Tom, you're on with Alexandra Hudson.
Well, good morning.
I'm getting ready to go to my class reunion in deep MA territory here in Texas this coming Saturday.
I am a Republican.
I'm a John Cornyn Republican.
But the rhetoric against the Islamophobia is driving me nuts.
I just can't believe people even say that kind of stuff.
But Judith Martin's book, Common Courtesy, is one of my favorite little books.
If I can find used copies, I buy them and give them as gifts.
And I just wish, you know, I'm scared.
I'm scared because literally the host of this party lives close to this huge development that is proposed called Epic City, but they've changed the name of it, that the East Plano Islamic Council is developing as a community.
And these people, I know some of these people are those folks that stand there with megaphones across from mosques these days and yell and scream.
And I just, you know, I've always learned how to keep my mouth shut, but I'm just going to have to control myself because Carl Jung basically says, you know, to be kind.
Human kindness is the basic necessity in every dealing that we do.
And, you know, even in the lines at the grocery store, I just, you know.
Well, thanks, Tom.
What a recommendation do you have for Tom on his reunion?
So you're going into an environment where you might feel uncomfortable.
You're surrounded by people who feel a little extreme that you disagree with.
You know, what would it look like to, I have a few mental tools I'll share with you.
These are from my book, The Soul of Civility.
One is unbundling people.
What will it look like for you to say, okay, how do I see the part of this person?
Maybe it's the Islamophobic sentiment or the XYZ issue that they're talking about.
How do I see the part of them, the thing they have done I don't like, the thing they believe that I disagree with, in light of the whole of them, the irreducible dignity and worth that they possess as members of the human community.
Again, we live in this era of strange perfectionism and litmus tests where we expect everyone to, you know, have never changed their mind or made a mistake, never having done or said anything to hurt anyone else.
But Alexander Pope, the English poet, said, to err is to be human, to forgive is divine.
And so I love this idea of unbundling people, as a mental framework to see the part of someone in light of the whole of them.
And so see the humanity first, see the most important part of them first, and the things that you disagree with as simply parts of that.
And I hope it goes well.
Lexi, we got this text from Ben in Arlington, Virginia.
How does any of this matter when the president would never, ever do anything this guest says?
No amount of civility under him by citizens will ever change his mind.
Mellifluous Echoes Across Time00:03:04
This is all useless with someone like that as the head of a party and the country.
Ben, Ben, don't be so disempowered.
Don't take that narrative lying down that nothing matters.
The whole premise of democracy is that the citizen is prior to the regime.
The citizen is prior to its leaders.
And at the end of the day, leaders do what citizens want, what they reward.
And so enough of us choosing to be different matters.
It matters more than you realize, Ben.
I have this idea in my book.
I was inspired by my grandmother, Margaret.
It's called The Mallefluous Echo of the Magnanimous Soul.
I know that sounds like a mouthful, but bear with me.
You know, we know these stories of vicious cycles.
One person's bad decisions, their selfishness can hurt people across time and place.
But the opposite, the inverse is also true.
One person's grace and kindness, empathy, civility, humanity, humaneness can help and create a mellifluous echo across time and place.
Aristotle gave us this idea of the magnanimous soul, the person that is just so self-composed that they are utterly self-forgetful when they go out into the anonymous marketplace of life.
And my grandmother was like that.
She was a Mary Kay saleswoman.
If scientists were to create from scratch a Mary Kay saleswoman, they would have invented my grandmother.
She's just this blonde, bubbly, beautiful woman.
There was a fleet of pink Cadillacs in my grandmother's driveway growing up because all my mom and her three sisters all were Mary Kay saleswomans women as well.
And she never met a stranger.
She was that person who put her makeup on in the morning and then forgot about herself the rest of the day and really sold makeup as just an excuse to talk and love people.
She was just a zealous extrovert, maximize every human interaction.
And she'd raised her four daughters and son to be that way, who then in turn raised all of us to be that way.
And when she passed away February of 2020, it was right before the world shut down during the pandemic.
We had five, 600 people come to her funeral.
And that was just a fraction of the people that she knew and who loved her and who she blessed.
Like, we will never know this side of eternity, how all those seeds of joy and love and kindness that she planted will germinate.
We won't know.
But she believed in maximizing every human interaction and seeing the stranger fully, whether it was her taxi driver or clerk at the grocery store.
That is the mellifluous echo of the magnanimous soul.
That one person with how they live their life with grace and kindness and charity, it creates a mellifluous echo, a ripple effect, a gift that keeps on giving across time and across place.
And every one of us has that power to either initiate a vicious cycle, you know, our callousness hurts people in many ways, or to create a mellifluous echo.
Creating Ripple Effects of Kindness00:03:45
We can do that, Ben.
That is possible.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Line for Democrats, Milton.
Good morning.
Okay.
And thank you for taking my call.
I have a quick question for the guests, and then I'm going to make my statement.
One, when do you think the civility really broke down in our country?
You know, I remember a time that Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill didn't agree on anything politically, but they were real close friends.
I think President Reagan entertained House Speaker Tip O'Neill at the White House.
They had more personal gatherings than he did with Vice President George Bush.
Now we have a president in there that's a divider in chief.
Look at the comments he made about Rob Reiner's funeral and about Robert Mueller.
I don't know when our civility got so bad, but it is a shame that the parties are so far apart.
And I'd just like to get your take on when the civility really broke down.
Okay.
It's a great question.
Again, I'll go back to an answer I shared earlier that this is actually not an America problem with incivility.
It's not a social media problem.
It's not a Donald Trump problem, not a Republican, a Democrat problem.
There's no question that all of these things contribute to this felt need, this felt crisis of incivility right now.
But no single one of those things is the sole problem because this is a problem of the human condition.
As Blaise Pascal, one of my favorite polymath philosophers, he said, the human condition is defined by greatness and wretchedness.
We are capable of creating beauty and innovation and ingenuity.
We're also capable of great harm, of great brutality and monstrosity.
We always have been.
We always will.
And again, this is a problem of the human condition.
This crisis of incivility emerges from a part of the human personality that we all share.
And it's important to remember that because blaming is easy.
It's seductive.
It exonerates us from responsibility if we say, okay, it's that social media magnet, that platform, that person, that party.
You know, if that just went away, all would be well.
But I like to invert that proposition and say, what if we didn't blame that, you know, anything else?
And in fact, looked inward and say, what is my role in being part of the solution?
How am I going to embody a world of flourishing across difference and how I interact with my family, with my neighbors, with my, you know, my kids' school teachers?
That again, every single one of us has way more power to be a part of the problem or to be a part of the solution than we realize.
And I don't, I'm not satisfied with that answer.
You know, how is anything possible?
How will this do any good as long as this person is in the White House or as long as this social media company still exists?
I'm not content with that.
It starts with us and we have more power than we realize.
To California on the independent line, Angela, good morning.
Good morning.
Hello, America.
I have a question for your guests.
I was born in 1960, and I remember watching Kennedy being killed on national TV.
And I was about four years old when Martin Luther King was killed.
Then Malcolm X was killed.
Now, I grew up with that.
Now I'm 66 years old.
And here's my question to you.
I'm from Louisiana.
In 1939, my grandfather moved his family off the plantation.
Flourishing Across Political Differences00:07:28
America tells us to work and, like you say, give materialistic things paying to the government.
And we do that.
But there's have and there's have not.
And I realize something.
When you die, someone has to dispose of your body for you.
You take nothing with you.
No Cadillacs, no houses.
And I'm starting to notice there's no food in Sam's Club, in the markets.
The shelves are getting Kaiser's running out of medication.
Are we working for humanity and for humans?
Where are we going?
Where are we going?
The king said in his speech, 1776, the war was because taxation without representation.
That's what that war was all about.
Where has, where we lost humanity in this thing.
Okay, thank you.
I love that question.
Where are we going?
What's the goal here?
I love that.
The goal is not just to not disagree and to kind of grit our teeth and tolerate difference.
The goal is to flourish across difference.
How can our disagreements be catalysts for progress, for shared enlightenment, for our shared good and flourishing?
That's the world I'm trying to build.
An era of multi-dimensional human flourishing where our differences aren't bringing out the worst in us, but are bringing out the best in us.
I'm trying to build a renaissance.
And that's what we did at the Civic Renaissance retreat last weekend.
We say, what's it going to take to build a renaissance in our moment?
Again, not just not disagreeing, but actually flourishing, taking it one step further.
And where are we going to begin?
We live in this age where we are more educated, literate, more access to information, more technological advances, more leisure time, more wealth than any time in human history.
What would it look like to use those opportunities to its fullest, to fully self-actualize and cultivate, to have this mass unlocking of human potential and a proliferation of beauty and innovation, ingenuity and art, architecture, statecraft, literature, all of it.
I love studying golden eras from across human history.
And one thing we learn, whether it's the Athenian Golden Age, whether it's the Italian Renaissance, the Harlem Renaissance, one is a high view of humanity.
One ingredient of these renaissances is a high view of human potential.
And that is, again, why I wrote my book to be a humanistic manifesto.
We have to combat first this crisis of dehumanization, reappreciate the gift of being human in ourselves and others, and not just grit our teeth and endure difference, but have that be the moral, intellectual, philosophical foundation to actually build an era of shared flourishing across difference, a renaissance in our world.
That's where I'd like to go.
And if you'd like to come with me, come.
And Lexi, we got Bonnie back from Super Center Iowa Republican.
Bonnie, go ahead.
Good morning.
Am I here now?
Yes, you are.
Good morning.
I appreciate your work, and I agree with you that we are striving for shared flourishing.
And I agree strongly with you that we currently have a crisis of dehumanization.
Unfortunately, that huge crisis is driven by this difference in perspective on what does it mean to be human and who is worthy of being protected as human.
And the largest difference comes between those who say, and it is scientific fact, that from the moment of conception, a unique human being exists.
And we know it's a human being because it has human DNA.
And we know that it's not part of the woman's body because that DNA is distinct from the mother's.
I would just want to ask, is that part of your agreement that we need to work hard to keep 1 million unborn babies a year in America from being butchered through abortion?
Lexi, a comment on that?
Bonnie, I hear what you're saying, and I'm so glad we got you back on the show.
And I would love to get you, give you some action items immediately.
There's a renaissance happening in Iowa just last, and I'd love to plug you in.
Just last week, two beautiful things happened independent of one another entirely.
One was the town of Urbondale, Iowa, the mayor there chose my book, The Soul of Civility, to be the community reads.
So now Urbandale is going to the next several months be in little community book clubs sitting on their front porches, which is a metaphor in my book of we can't change others, we can only change ourselves, reading the book only as a canvas to say what is a renaissance going to look like here in Urbondale.
And then independent in St. Ambrose University, also in Iowa, a professor there reached out to me and said, I want to recover the basis of a shared intellectual life here at my university.
Can you help us?
Can we use your book?
And we launched the Civic Renaissance Tour at St. Ambrose as well.
This happened back to back last week.
I will be back in both places this coming September.
So go knock on the door at St. Ambrose.
Go knock on the door of the mayor's office at Urban Dale, Iowa, and say, how can I help?
How can I get involved?
That is always my, and then what can we do in your community?
I forget what community you're in in Iowa, but there's a renaissance afoot there.
And it's beautiful.
It's inspiring.
It's people, it's citizens saying, I can't control others.
I can't control, you know, snap my fingers and control our media culture, change the tenor of our public discourse, but I can control myself.
And I'm going to double down.
I'm going to rehumanize every single person that I encounter.
And I'm going to make my community better and more beautiful right where I am.
And that's my commendation to you as well.
Get plugged in and the renaissance afoot in Iowa right now, Bonnie.
We'd love to have you join us.
We're going to take one more call for you, Alexi, on the Democrats line.
This is Victor in Memphis, Tennessee.
Go ahead, Victor.
Hey, I called in a couple of months ago with what I called the C-SPAN, Lady Gaga theory.
C-SPAN because of the Republican, Democrat, and Independent Lines and Lady Gaga, her song, Born This Way.
I think God made us, one-third of us Republicans, one-third Democrat, and one-third independents.
And if we can accept that, we can see the dignity in others and show more civility and see the good in others and not see them as stupid or evil.
And what's your thought on that?
And can you champion that theory for me?
Thank you.
True vs. Faux Civilization00:02:32
There is a beautiful book and think art whose story I tell in The Soul of Civility in my book.
His name is Albert Schweitzer.
He was a doctor during World War I in Alsace in Germany.
And he was a vocal critic of colonialism in an era where it was very much in vogue for powers to have colonies all across Africa and other parts of the world.
He said, how can we say we are so civilized in the West when we are treating these indigenous peoples with such barbarity and inhumanity in the name of quote-unquote civilizing them?
And he wrote this powerful book called A Theory of Civilization.
And he has this definition.
He says there's a difference between faux civilization and true civilization.
He says, in faux civilization, that's a civilization that defines civilization by its technological sophistication, by its advancements, by its beautiful buildings, by how educated society is, by all of these markers of health and wellness.
And he said, that's actually not what comprises a civilization, a true civilization.
He said, a true civilization is founded not on technological advancements, but on a fundamental, what he called, reverence for life.
And he believed strongly that human life, plant, and animal life as well, that had to be the moral and philosophical basis of a true civilization.
Samuel Johnson, who wrote the first English dictionary, said something similarly that preempted this idea: that the test of a true civilization is how it treats the poor and in its community, the most vulnerable.
And why I bring this up now is because it's important to remember that today we live in this era of sophistication, of again, many opportunities, technological advancements, education.
But if we are missing humanity, if we're missing a fundamental reverence for life, as Albert Schweitzer called it, then we are a faux civilization.
And I love what Albert Schweitzer actually did.
He picked up, left Germany, and built a hospital in Africa.
And he said, I can't snap my fingers and end systemic injustice and colonialism, but I am a doctor and I can help bring the medical practice to these people in Africa.
And they would travel for hundreds of miles to come be treated by him.
It was called Lambernae.
And he said, that's all I can control is my Lambernet.
And he said, everyone must have their own Lambernet.
What is going to be your garden, your porch?
Building Hospitals and Reverence for Life00:06:16
Where are you going to pick a line and double down and be part of the solution?
That is the invitation.
That is the work for us.
I want to ask you before I let you go.
You know, you've been on this program before.
You're familiar with the program.
And you know that we get calls that can be very heated.
And so I wonder what your advice is to us here at C-SPAN as to how this program can better heal America.
I love C-SPAN.
I'm grateful you have me on.
I love, Sam's wonderful.
He's doing a great job.
I love how he really cares and he's leading the institution with an eye to heal.
I think it's helpful.
This program is really beautiful because it does bring a cross-section of voices to the fore.
And yes, I've been on this program where someone has said to me, I love everything you're saying, but before I take it seriously, I want to know, who did you vote for?
It just is very funny.
I think people really like airing, having the chance to air their views in a public forum.
I think that's valuable.
I think that's important.
And I think, you know, thank you for inviting me and many of the other voices out there that are trying to shed more and promote more, build more, more light than heat.
You're right.
It's a very heated time.
Emotions and tensions run high.
I also love that this is long format, that I can actually have a conversation and don't just think in 30-second talking points.
I think the way that we do media today is inimical to actual, you know, the collective pursuit of truth that is that the democracy is premised on.
So thank you for even letting this be more of a dialogue.
And Alexandra Hudson, thank you.
She's the author of the book called The Soul of Civility: Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves.
You can find her online at alexandraohudson.com.
Thanks again.
Pleasure.
Thanks for having me, Mimi.
Coming up on the Washington Journal in about 45 minutes, we'll be joined by former Secret Service agent Anthony Cangelosi on security challenges his former colleagues are facing in this time of rising political violence.
But first, after the break, more of your phone calls and open forum.
Start calling in now.
Democrats are on 202748-8000, Republicans 202-748-8001, and Independents 202748-8002.
We'll be right back.
You're watching C-SPAN.
Democracy Unfiltered.
C-SPAN brings you democracy unfiltered in real time.
Democracy doesn't take sides, neither does C-SPAN.
In a world full of opinions, C-SPAN gives you direct access to the people and institutions that shape our nation.
Unfiltered coverage of Congress as laws are debated and decided.
Live proceedings from the United States Supreme Court.
Presidential speeches, briefings, and historic moments as they happen.
No commentary, no spin, no agenda.
Just the democratic process presented in full without interruption so you can watch the debates, hear every word, and make up your own mind.
C-SPAN's respected nonprofit service has offered Americans unfiltered gabble-to-gavel coverage of their government in action.
C-SPAN, bringing your democracy unfiltered.
C-SPAN is brought to you by the cable, satellite, and streaming companies that provide C-SPAN as a public service.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series.
Sunday with our guest, presidential historian and author Douglas Brinkley.
He's the professor of history at Rice University and a trustee for the Madison Council at the Library of Congress, the National Archives Foundation, the Bruce Springsteen Archives and Center for American Music, and the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library.
He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein.
As American historian, what would you say is the single most impressive thing that happened in this 250 years, or the single thing that's the most surprising to you that happened in these 250 years?
I have to say what happened in Philadelphia and Independence Hall.
But the lore of all of that and what happened in Philadelphia and how out of that experience we've been able to be 250 years later.
So you never go wrong telling young people to read the Declaration of Independence and we just need more civics classes and government classes so people understand this remarkable 250-year journey.
Watch America's Book Club with Douglas Brinkley Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific.
Only on C-SPAN.
We bring you into the chamber, onto the Senate floor, inside the hearing room, up to the mic, and to the desk in the Oval Office.
C-SPAN takes you where decisions are made.
No spin, no commentary, no agenda.
C-SPAN is your unfiltered connection to American democracy.
Advance the mission.
Donate today at c-span.org forward slash donate.
Together, we keep democracy in view.
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new MAGIT 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.
War Powers and Hostilities Debate00:14:29
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We're an open forum.
A lot's happening, so we would love to hear what is on your mind and what you've been thinking about.
Politics-wise, we'll start on the line for Democrats in Nebraska.
Vicki, good morning.
Good morning.
I just wanted to let you know that I enjoy the show very much, but sometimes when people call in about attacking the hosts, the hosts are doing us a service by letting us voice our opinions.
And it hurts me when they call and they attack because they don't call out people for what they say.
The reason they don't call out is because this is nonpartisan.
This is for us to voice how we feel.
They are there to listen to us.
God bless them.
They are doing a very hard job.
Please don't call in and attack the hosts.
Be grateful that we have these wonderful hosts that let us speak our peace.
My second real quick thing, because I don't want to get cut off, I love Jimmy Kimmel.
Thank you, Jimmy Kimmel.
Keep him on air.
Freedom of speech.
Sadly, the jokes are funny, but they're getting close to being the truth, which is the scary part.
And thirdly, I love immigrants and I love minorities.
Personally, what I pray for daily and evening, I would like to see the minorities be the majority.
They would be kinder and more loving to us than what we have been to the minorities, which is very sad.
And I'm ashamed of it as a white person.
So please, quit the racism.
Be kind to these people.
God made these people.
Thank you.
And Nimi, you're still my favorite.
You're so intelligent.
Thank you, Vicki.
And this is Sharon, Republican, Port Charlotte, Florida.
Good morning, Sharon.
Good morning.
Yes, I would like to say all the money that is being spent on the war, that's not counting the money that we are spending to house all these poor immigrants that we're putting in basically shelters.
And then the money being spent on, he wants to do the reflecting gun.
He wants to build an ark.
He wants to have fighting on the front lawn.
He wants to have races on the streets.
He wants to have a state fair.
He's putting his name on passports.
He's putting his name on gold coins.
He's putting his name on money.
He's naming buildings after himself.
We are all paying for this.
All the money that he's putting in this could naturally go to feeding and helping with the insurance problems in our own country.
Tell him to get off his butt and do what he was put there to do.
Take care of us.
I will never vote Republican again.
Thank you for your time.
All right, Sharon.
And regarding the cost of the war, this is CBS News with this headline, Iran war's true cost closer to $50 billion, not $25 billion, according to U.S. officials.
This says that in testimony on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Pentagon official placed the cost of Epic Fury at about $25 billion, a figure that did not fully account for damaged or destroyed equipment or U.S. military installations damage.
That's on CBS News if you'd like to read the rest of that.
And those hearings, of course, were on C-SPAN, so you can watch them in their entirety at c-span.org.
Dana Flint, Michigan, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Yes, thanks for taking my call.
I want to put forth a quick theory of a question.
Now, there was a singer named John Lennon who had this song out called Imagine.
And I want to ask the white world to imagine this.
Imagine if you woke up black.
Would you want to stay that way?
I guarantee you people would be committing suicide in droves.
Dana, and regarding the Iran war hitting the 60-day mark, here's California Democrat Adam Schiff.
He was on the floor of the Senate on Thursday to attempt to pass a war powers resolution.
Now, some might argue that because we're not currently bombing Iran, because there is a tentative ceasefire in place, that somehow the War Powers Act no longer applies.
That somehow the war powers clock stops ticking, but this is simply not true.
The U.S. Navy is still being used to interdict Iranian ships or ships embarking from Iranian ports.
We are still using our Navy to blockade Iran.
Our service members are still at risk.
And there is no provision in the War Powers Act to suspend the clock when military force is used in one respect, but not another.
For the law says, quote, the President shall terminate any use of the United States Armed Forces, unquote.
There is no exception made for the Navy or the use of naval forces.
Now, the law allows for a 30-day period for a safe withdrawal if the administration seeks it, but the president has not requested one.
And it is important to note that the purpose for an extension is explicit in the law.
It exists, quote, if the president determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
The president has made no such certification.
And so I say to my colleagues, this is the moment you have pointed to and waited for.
This is the moment what Congress must assert itself.
This is the moment when we must recognize that the founders gave Congress alone the power to authorize war.
The moment of reflection and action that you have identified, and I respect you for doing so, is here, and we must take action.
California Democrat Adam Schiff, and we are in open forum.
We're just going to pause the phone calls for a few minutes so that we can speak to Michael Glennon, who is a professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.
We're talking about this Iran war hitting that 60-day mark.
Welcome to the program, Professor.
Thanks for having me.
So can you explain again, just review for us what the War Powers Act of 1973 stipulates and the significance of us reaching 60 days?
Sure.
The War Powers Resolution, as it's called, is a law that was enacted in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto by a two-thirds vote of each House of the Congress.
It's a binding law that is legally in force today.
It requires that the President submit a report in writing to Congress when the armed forces are introduced into hostilities or imminent hostilities.
President Trump submitted that report on February 27th, and it provides that 60 days thereafter, the president's required to withdraw the armed forces from hostilities unless Congress has declared war or extended the 60-day time period or enacted a specific statutory authorization.
None of those events has occurred, nor has the president extended the period for 30 days, which he has the discretion to do in the event of unavoidable military necessity concerning the safety of the troops.
Therefore, the 60-day time period expired yesterday, and as of today, the war is unlawful.
It's illegal for the United States to participate in the hostilities.
So, Professor, where does that leave us?
What are the options?
Where do we go from here?
Well, I think the President obviously has several options, and it's hard to understand why he hasn't availed himself of a couple of those options, since the Republican Party controls both houses of the Congress, and they've won half a dozen different votes on war powers challenges over the last two months.
He has the option of asking Congress to extend the 60-day period.
He has the option of getting Congress to approve it.
He has the option of declaring war, asking Congress to declare war.
And of course, he has the option, again, of unilaterally extending the 30-day period.
So those are the president's options.
So the 30 days, that is for troop withdrawal, or he can continue the war during those 30 days.
Well, he obviously may find it necessary to continue the armed forces in hostilities while they're being withdrawn, but the requirement is that they be withdrawn essentially for the purpose of ensuring their safety as a matter of unavoidable military necessity, in the words of the resolution.
So the idea, in effect, is not to authorize a continuation of the war.
The war powers resolution doesn't authorize anything.
It simply provides that the president has the option of safely withdrawing the troops if that's necessary in his judgment.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was on Capitol Hill this week and in an exchange with Senator Tim Kaine, he said this, quote, we are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.
Is that true, Professor?
Well, it's hard to understand, based on the facts that the Pentagon has reported, how this is a suspension, let alone a cessation of hostilities.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Kaine, at the outset of the blockade, said, if you do not comply with the blockade, we will use force, unquote.
That's exactly what they've been doing.
On April 19th, an American destroyer, the Spruance, fired on an Iranian ship.
It was then boarded by the United States Marine Corps.
And so the blockade has been enforced and is being enforced as we speak through the use of armed force.
It's hard to see why that would be a ceasefire, let alone a suspension of hostilities that would stop the clock of the war powers resolution.
I think that argument doesn't work.
In the sense that if there was a complete cessation of hostilities, would that stop the clock?
Yes, I think so.
If the war is over, if the war is ended, if the troops are being withdrawn, I think it would.
But Secretary Hekpeth has said that we're locked and loaded, ready to strike Iran's remaining power generation facilities and energy sector instantly if the circumstances requiring that should arise.
So this clearly is not a cessation of hostilities.
The war is continuing, and the president has regularly made threats to reintroduce the armed forces into hostilities of that sort.
But they are involved in hostilities and enforcing this blockade.
It's a question of fact, and they've answered the question.
The hostilities are continuing.
And Time magazine had a headline that said this, Democrats explore suing Trump if he ignores Congress on Iran war.
Has that ever been done before?
Can you sue a president for this kind of thing?
You can sue him, but you probably won't win.
It's been done about eight times over the course of the last 50 years.
Members of Congress at various times have alleged violations of the war powers resolution by presidents, and every one of those cases has been dismissed, mostly on grounds of the political question doctrine or standing.
It's probable, I think, that a case in these facts would not be dismissed as a political question, but it's very, very difficult for a member of Congress to get standing.
So I doubt that the courts would reach the merits on the congressional claim that the war is now unlawful.
So essentially, Professor, if Congress can't agree, and it's a very divided Congress, does that mean the President has the latitude to do what he would want to do in the Iran conflict?
Probably, but Congress does have a couple of additional options.
Number one, it could adopt a concurrent resolution requiring the removal of the forces from hostilities.
That's probably unconstitutional.
There's a provision in the War Powers Resolution that allows that.
The second option, of course, would be to vote against funds for the continuation of the war.
I understand that the administration is going to ask for a supplemental appropriation, and this is how members of Congress opposed the continuation of the Vietnam War by voting against money for it.
The president has to come back to Congress at some point for money to prosecute the war.
Unconstitutional War Funding Questions00:17:25
All right.
Michael Glennon, he is professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you.
We'll go back to open forum now and hear from you.
This is Earl Democrat, Nashville, Georgia.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning, everybody.
How y'all doing?
Good.
Ma'am, I hope that you just give me just a little minute to speak on what I just heard about this later book.
Okay, please do it.
First of all, yes, there's a lot of hate in this world amongst white, black, and whosoever.
But the Bible say, how can you say you love God and you hate your brother and sister you see every day?
You're a liar.
And the truth is not in you.
We have to understand that God is the one that put love that create our mind to love our brothers and sister.
You are my sister in Christ.
Every one of y'all.
So now we must go back to the place of repentance of all of our sins.
Hate.
We must ask God to teach us to love those that despise us.
Those that come up against us.
We don't have the power.
God has the power.
Man, he can start writing a book, buying a book, and start going back to the Holy Bible and understanding what God is speaking.
Oh, love.
How can I say I love God and I hate you I never seen before?
I'm lying.
All right, Mike.
Sorry, Mike in Tampa, Florida, Independent Line.
You're next.
Oh, hi, Mimi.
Yes.
You're a very charming host.
First, I want to say that.
You remind me of a girl that was a singer and a piano player at nightclubs in New York that I used to go out with.
Then I want to talk about, thank you.
Thank you.
And also, in New York, you know, Shakespeare.
Miss Hudson talks about the human condition.
Okay, well, Shakespeare, I know something about Shakespeare, being in a few of those plays in New York and L.A. What I'm concerned about America with all this rhetoric, all this heat, all this anger, all this violence, is right out of Shakespeare, people start living for vendettas, like a vendetta brought from other countries here where they live for vendetta.
And I don't want to see that happening to the United States.
I mean, I was born in Washington, D.C.
I don't want to see these vendettas continually be played out, and I hope that they'll stop.
Okay.
Is that it, Mike?
Yeah, I mean, that's, you know, because that is the human condition.
And I've heard, you know, generals from other countries that we're involved with talk about kind of rhetoric like we're going to settle scores.
Well, if you start living that way and you start bringing all that to this country and, you know, there's no end to it if you start adopting kind of a thinking like that.
And you got that.
Let's go to Walter Butler, Indiana, Republican.
Hey, Walter.
Hey, Mimi, good morning.
How are you doing today?
Good.
Good.
Well, I got the Canadian geese in the backyard in the pond.
I got a nice hot cup of coffee.
I'm listening to the TV here, and I'm above ground, so I'm three for three.
And life is funny.
I just, I love life.
I love getting up every day and listening and laughing and joking, laughing at myself, laughing at others.
And with politics and everything else, it's been going on this way.
Politicians get a great job.
And then when they get in there, they say, how can I keep my job?
Well, one thing what we can do is we can start talking to our side, whatever that is.
And they start talking to their side and they rabble around.
And then after they're all done and put on a show, then they go to the country clubs and they have their cocktails and they laugh and they joke and the rest of us deal with life.
And the thing that I do is I say, well, okay, the only thing I can do is I can go vote.
And once I vote and I pull the trigger and I vote for Donald Trump or whoever it is, I go on with my life.
And if you had an opportunity to review your life in a movie and realized all of the time and effort we waste on things we can't control, we would say, boy, I wish I had that time back.
If you don't like a politician the way they speak, don't speak that way.
If you don't like a neighbor the way they act, don't act that way.
Every day we have an opportunity to be better than the day before.
Every opportunity that we have gives us a challenge.
Do I want to be kind and nice or do I want to act like an idiot?
And in the end of the day, when you're laying on your bed and you're taking your last few breaths of life, did you say to yourself, did I pass out a little bit more love and laughter and kindness in this world and just let it go?
And Walter, do you do that with people that you disagree with politically?
Yeah, because it doesn't matter.
Like, I don't have the internet.
I don't have a computer.
I don't have a smartphone.
I got a little landline phone here.
I go on about my business.
I go to the cigar lounge.
I smoke a cigar.
I enjoy.
And well, here's one thing.
I go to this one buffet and I have my Donald Trump Make America Great hat on.
Some guy comes up to me one day and he's looking at, no, I'm alive.
I have my veteran's hat on.
The guy comes up and he goes, oh, you're in the military?
I say, yes, sir, 20 years combat medic.
He goes, oh, thank you for your service.
Ah, yeah, that's all right.
And I have a particular tattoo on my head that says, Memento Mauri, which means remember your death.
And then on the other side, I have Caught Bay DM, she is the day.
He goes, oh, those are very interesting tattoos.
Yeah, okay, thank you very much.
So I go about my business.
So about a month later, I got my Trump hat on.
And here comes the guy and he's looking at me.
You can see he has fire in his eyes.
And I look at him and I smile.
He goes, I can't believe you have that hat on.
Are you a Nazi?
I said, I don't think so, Jack.
He goes, how do you remember my name?
I said, I'm the same guy that you shook my hand and thanked me for with my veteran's hat.
And he was stupefied.
So instead of getting into being a fool, I went like this.
Well, listen, God bless you and your family and have a great day.
And as I went to walk away, I turned around and he was befuddled with this look, like, come on.
Just love.
That's the kick that he is.
Vote and love and be kind.
Be the person you want to be.
Thanks for sharing that with us.
Walter Allen, Winterport, Maine, Independent Line.
You're on the air.
Yes.
Hi.
Thank you so much for C-SPAN and for the civil discourse that you encounter.
I don't have cable TV, but I'm listening to you on XM radio.
And so I missed some things if you're showing videos.
But I really enjoyed the talk of that woman about civility, but I came in late.
But I feel that the tone stepped from the president for the first term he was in, for the first time he came down the golden escalator and declared his candidacy and calling people rapists and murderers from Mexico.
The tone of civility has been lost from the White House.
And I think the caller that called in and talked about Tip O'Neill and Reagan having whiskey together at night after arguing during the daytime about policy.
And the thing that I think is really interesting about all these billionaires, including Trump, is that they have no connection with the real reality.
They don't know what the price of gas is.
They don't fill their gas.
Their chauffeur fills the gas up.
They have no Trump just goes to Mar-a-Lago or his club in New Jersey.
He very rarely, he never goes out into Washington like Obama did or the other presidents.
He has no connection with the struggles of real people.
He says inflation isn't true and prices are coming down.
Well, the gas is $4.28 this morning at my station out here in rural Maine.
I'm sure it's higher in the urban areas where the price of land is higher and they have to charge more for the gas.
But I think the whole civility thing has to start from the top.
Otherwise, there's people who, whether you're wearing a MAGA hat or not, If you are hearing insults aimed at minorities, I mean, everyone in this country, unless they're Native American, came from somewhere else.
And I'd love to encourage you to have Ark Pollen on, who's the editor of a paper in Storm Lake, Iowa, and has written a book, a couple of books, I think.
And he has talked about how minorities have enriched that town.
They came in for the meatpacking plants and they've enriched the town spiritually with soccer, tremendous soccer coaching people from Central America.
The food has improved and there's all kinds of options now.
They cherish their immigrants because they're really leading to a great diversity and strengthening of the community.
The community was dying and they brought these people in and now it's growing.
All right, Alan.
And this is Chuck in Arkansas.
Democrat, you're on the air.
Yeah, I just want to start with we shouldn't even have done this to this war.
Look what happened when they hit us with 9-11.
We all gathered up and went got an army or whatever.
There was no sense in it.
It's costing us fortune.
He gave $40 million to Argentina.
Every time he goes to court, we're paying for it.
We're paying for the ballroom now.
We're paying for everything.
He's just getting richer.
His cronies are getting richer.
They don't know what they're doing.
They've lost their minds.
They've thrown the Constitution right out the window.
So that's the only thing it makes is Americans.
Now they're gerrymandering the South to make minorities where they can't even vote.
It's just ridiculous.
We have a sign in town that says make lying wrong again.
When was it ever right?
That's all I got to say, Mimi.
Thank you.
On the independent line in Florida, Dean, you're next.
Hello, Mimi.
Good morning to you.
Thanks for having me on the call.
I just wanted to voice my opinion about this Iran war.
You know, we really had no problem.
We really had no reason to be over there.
You know, we didn't have to strike the school and the way everything happened.
You know, yesterday, I think it was yesterday, no, the day before yesterday, Pete Heggs even said in this testimony, when he was asked a question, like, did Trump, did Trump, did Trump initiate the strike?
And Pete Heggs has said yes.
So that shows us right there that we started the war.
And then, you know, Trump don't want to call it the war, but it is a war.
He doesn't want to call it a war because he knows illegal and it is a war.
And right now, even though Trump don't want nobody to know, but in truly reality, Iran has other channels that they can go through to run their oil.
It's not the best channels, but it can get their oil out.
And they still can make a little bit of money and rebuild their stuff.
But see, we want to blockade the Strait of Hormuz because we're thinking that we have the power.
But the longer we keep blocking the Strait of Hormuz, we're facing a global economic crisis.
And I don't think Trump has an out.
I think he's just holding on to that blockage as long as he can and hoping, wishing, praying, coming on TV saying, yeah, we're getting a deal done.
But a deal is not getting done because Iran is saying, hey, no matter how long it takes, we want all the smoke.
We want anything that you're going to bring us.
Yeah, Trump tried to make a deal, or they went to the table and tried to talk, but Iran is stuck and they're going to stay firm on their decision.
And I don't think Trump has an out.
Thank you for having me, Mimi.
And Reuters has this.
This is the latest that says Iran sends proposal for negotiations with U.S. mediator Pakistan.
This is at Reuters.
It says Iran sends latest talks proposal to Pakistani mediators.
Says, UAE official cautions against trusting Iran on Hormuz.
President Trump faces a formal deadline to end the war, and Iran activates air defenses as Trump weighs options.
And Joe is calling us from Arkansas on the Republican line.
You're on open forum, Joe.
Yes, I would like to know why did they leave the lady, supposed to have been the vice president's wife.
Why did they leave her behind?
That's what I just want you to explain that to me, if you can.
Hold on.
Explain what you're talking about, Joe.
Are you talking about the correspondence dinner?
Yes, correct the demo that they had.
Okay, and are you talking about RFK Jr.'s wife?
Because the vice president.
The vice president's wife wasn't there at the dinner.
Oh, she wasn't.
I'm sorry then.
But you might be thinking about.
I'm not going to tell you what they left up under the tape.
I thought maybe that was the vice president.
Okay, yes, that's the one I'm speaking of.
Okay, and we're going to have a former Secret Service agent join us in the next segment.
So stick around for that, Joe, if you're interested.
Don in New York, line for Democrats.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you, Mimi, and thank you to C-SPAN because you do such important work.
There's a lot to unpack.
Thanks to C-SPAN, I was able to watch without interruption the two days of hearings with Secretary Hegseth and General Kane and also the gentleman who handles the budget.
I think his name is Hirst or Hirsch.
There's a lot that happens in war.
They call it the fog of war.
And now to hear that when they testify that it's been $25 billion and it's really twice that, according to reports, that's very, very disturbing.
The other thing I found very disturbing was a pattern that I seemed to see that Secretary Hegset was exhibiting, which reminded me very, very much of former Attorney General Pam Bondi, which is speaking over the questioners.
It's kind of a known fact that he or she who speaks least usually is the most powerful, or at least Trump's what the other has to say.
When people just talk over, just to try to get their point across, it crosses a line when it's just so that the truth can't actually come out.
And that's very, very disturbing.
Your former guest, Mr. Glennon, was very eye-opening.
We are a nation of laws.
We do have a war powers resolution which was made into law for a reason.
It hasn't been followed, which goes along with a lot of the laws that aren't followed by this current administration.
And it's very, very disturbing.
I hope that law prevails.
I hope that sense prevails.
And I also agree with the people who say you really don't achieve anything just by denigrating people you don't agree with.
One of our founding fathers said, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
And I think that's something to keep in mind.
We had some pretty smart people who founded this country.
Thank you, and thank you to C-SPAN and the whole team there.
You do very, very important work.
Thank you, Don.
And this is a headline from today's USA Today.
Sorry, yesterday's USA Today.
It says, Trump signals Iran blockade could last months as costs of war surge.
Albuquerque, New Mexico, Republican.
Is it Lita?
Correct.
Good morning.
Hi.
Good morning.
Thank you so much.
Hard to believe it's less than what six days since that broadcast thing that was interrupted and you guys were all ducking under the tables.
I don't know if you were, but I guess you're your co-some of your co-hosts or yes, I was there actually, Lita.
I was.
I saw Greta being interviewed, and my goodness.
Anyway, thank you so much, and love your show.
Love you, love the opportunity that you present for American citizens to voice their opinions.
And it's a very British day.
Great Britain Day here in northwestern Albuquerque, New Mexico.
I'm a native New Mexican.
I spent most of my life in California.
My late husband would say, when you point one finger, you've got four pointing back at you.
Secret Service Background Revealed00:04:02
So you guys, be careful.
If you're pointing fingers, four more are pointing back at you.
Thank you so much for your show.
And you guys do an awesome job.
Thank you, Lita.
Let's talk to Anthony in Baltimore, Maryland, Independent.
You're on the air, Anthony.
Good morning, and thank you.
I agree with those who talk about the great work of C-SPAN.
Surely appreciate it.
My concern is with the heartbeat of the country and how we seem to become so complacent and allowing the president to just do whatever he likes to do and not even consider age and his state of mind, which they tore up a Biden or age.
But when it comes to this president, no one seems to be concerned about his age and mental well-being.
So my concern is there and how we're turning a blind eye to his actions.
All right, Anthony, and that does it for today's open forum.
Coming up next, after a short break, we'll talk to Anthony Canjalosi.
He is a former Secret Service agent.
He's a full-time lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
He'll join us to talk about the rise in political violence and keeping the president and other elected officials safe.
We'll be right back.
Staying informed is essential.
The C-SPAN shop has the apparel to match your civic energy.
Premium t-shirts, hats, and drinkwear.
Everyday favorites for those passionate about politics through C-SPAN.
There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
Shop now or anytime online at C-SPANShop.org.
Gear up for engagement.
Campaign 2026 is underway and the stakes couldn't be higher.
Every seat in the United States House of Representatives is up for grabs, along with 33 U.S. Senate races.
And the outcome of both could reshape the balance of power in Washington.
Voters will also decide 36 gubernatorial contests.
From the campaign trail to election night, follow campaign 2026 on the C-SPAN networks, C-SPAN, bringing you democracy unfiltered today on C-SPAN Ceasefire, a bipartisan conversation on the latest assassination attempt on President Trump with Republican strategist and former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer and Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha, senior advisor to Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign.
They'll also discuss how best to combat the rise in political violence.
Watch Ceasefire today at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
Washington Journal continues.
Joining us now to talk about security concerns and the attack at the White House correspondents dinner is Anthony Cangelosi.
He's a former U.S. Secret Service agent.
Also, he is current lecturer at the John Jay College for Criminal Justice.
Anthony, welcome to the program.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mimi.
Thank you for inviting me on the show.
Can you just tell us what you did as a Secret Service agent and your background?
Yes, I was a Secret Service agent assigned to the New York Field Office from 2000 to 2004.
And the duties as an agent is you're working protection, various dignitaries, former presidents.
You also work in criminal investigations as the United States Secret Service.
And New York is a very busy office simply because of our location and the number of foreign dignitaries we attract, not only at the UN, but around the calendar.
Presidential Succession Details00:14:48
And from a security point of view, what was your take on the attack on the White House correspondents dinner?
Yeah, that's a great question.
You know, one of the things I've been grappling with over the last several days, and requests come in for comment from journalists and the media almost immediately.
The first message request I got was overnight.
I didn't even know what had happened because I tend to go to bed early.
And so I'm really glad that we're sitting here having this conversation six days after the event, six or seven days after the event, where my investigative instincts kick in.
And what I mean by that is we got to get a lot of information that we don't have just a few hours after the incident occurred.
So over this week, through interviewing with various journals and reading articles and seeing videos, I've been able to get a better grasp of the situation.
And one of the things I want to say to that is I kind of think we've had this narrative in mainstream media today, or most of the media, that something really went wrong.
And to some extent, yes, something went wrong.
There was an individual who decided he was going to try to kill a lot of people, the president, cabinet members, and he plotted this.
He is an educated individual.
He has the ability to think things through, and that's what he did.
The venue was a very difficult venue to secure simply because this is a large hotel with 1,100 rooms and a lot of occupants.
So, and the Secret Service is aware of that.
I want to step back from the narrative that they failed.
Not saying that everything was done perfectly, but actually they were quite successful in securing that venue.
So, Anthony, that's the question.
You know, we saw how quickly they reacted.
We saw how quickly they got the president, the vice president out of the room and to safety and other cabinet officials.
The question is the preparation for that event and the security of those approaching.
You know, that there was that people just had to show a physical ticket.
They just had to wave it to get waved through.
And then there was on that floor above the ballroom, magnetometers, and then they would open up purses and things like that.
Do you think that that was enough for the venue and for the people that were in attendance?
Sue, let me step back and say, I'm not saying everything was done perfectly, but for this venue, 1,100 rooms, the normal flow of business on a Saturday night, people coming from dinner, people going to dinner, people coming and going, right?
And you don't have the perfect situation is you choose a venue where you don't have that, where the only people that are allowed into the venue are those that are the attendees.
They've been checked, they have their tickets, those are the only people allowed at the venue.
We have a drastically different situation here, because again, we have a hotel.
So the Secret Service has to put the proper personnel in place and come up with the security plan.
So, yes, the advance is more important than the actual reaction.
In an ideal situation, you don't have to react.
This event that took place doesn't occur.
That's the ideal situation.
So, Anthony, in that case, if you were head of the president's security, would you have nixed the idea of holding it at the Hilton?
Or, you know, from now on, the president does not go to these hotels unless all those rooms are cleared, which I'm sure the hotel would not appreciate.
Right.
So, this event has been held there for years and probably decades now.
It's not really the call, the ultimate call of the head of the detail to say, we're not going there.
We can make suggestions.
Hey, Mr. President, I don't know that this venue at this particular time in this climate is ideal, right?
But we don't make the ultimate call.
You can, again, you can make suggestions, but at the end of the day, okay, and I've encountered this doing sites during the 2004 campaign.
The president or the candidate and his team say what we're going to do, and it's the Secret Service's job then to come up with as tight of a security plan as they possibly can.
If you'd like to join our conversation about security and the correspondence dinner or other events, you can certainly start calling us now.
The lines are by party.
So, Democrats are on 202-748-8000, Republicans 202-748-8001, and Independents 202-748-8002.
Anthony, I want to ask you about an article in the Washington Post about the level of security.
It says this correspondence dinner lacked highest security level despite the presence of top officials.
It says the White House correspondence dinner attended by the president and several cabinet members was not given top security status that would have unlocked the full weight of federal resources.
Can you explain that?
I don't know the substance behind it.
I don't know the particulars.
To me, it's just a rhetorical flourish.
I don't, you have to give me particulars of what they mean by that.
So, for example, I don't know all the assets that were in place.
What goes into the security of these events is there's the multi-layers, there's the magnetometers to keep people with weapons from getting into the ballroom.
I saw canines there.
Obviously, there was a lot of uniform personnel along with Secret Service personnel.
So, exactly what specific asset was missing from this event, I would need to know the particular and if it was even possible to have done it under the circumstances.
So, Anthony, let me clarify just from this Washington Post article.
It says: when so many officials gather in one place for official functions, such as the inauguration or state of the union, Secretary of Homeland Security typically puts the Secret Service in charge of coordinating all security through a formal designation known as National Special Security Event.
And there was no such designation on Saturday night.
Yeah, that helps put this into a little bit more context.
You know, there are national security events.
I mean, I took place, I participated in one in 2002.
It was the Olympics in Salt Lake City.
What happens in those circumstances, they're ultimately, they're the big umbrella, but they utilize resources and personnel from other law enforcement agencies, federal law enforcement agencies, local law enforcement agencies.
So whether they didn't designate this a national security event, given that it's a few hours, at something that takes place on an annual basis, I completely understand why the Secretary wouldn't designate it that.
It didn't require, this event didn't require that.
Do you think that in the future it would require this, or you think that they're going to continue to not designate it?
You know, I think there's going to be a review because remember, I didn't say they did everything perfectly.
Okay.
I don't know because I don't have a visual of the site security plan and all of the relevant information to really assess that.
But what I want to say is they did do a good job.
They did not fail that day, given the complexities of the venue and the reality of it.
But what the review will show, and I hope it's a vibrant review, that they try to find how they can make things better.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that at any given time in America, we're all vulnerable.
People that decide they want to harm others, they're out there.
Okay, I don't know that they're out there more so now than ever, but they're out there.
And when they plot and they're under the radar, Mr. Cole, I don't think he had any criminal history or anything like that.
They can inflict harm on others.
You know, think about a security venue you've went to.
Maybe it's a stadium or an arena and you have to get checked before you go in.
Well, everybody in that atrium before they go through the magnetometers are sitting ducks.
So let's not lose sight of the fact that there is violence in America, that there seems to be an increase in political violence over the last couple of years.
And this is something we have to start looking at.
I don't know that we're going to fix, and I don't think there's any one reason for it.
We need to start talking about that.
All right.
Well, there's callers that want to talk to you about it.
And we'll start with Dale in Ohio, Independent Line.
Dale, you're on with Anthony Cangelosi.
Hi, Anthony.
I just got a question about your oath of office.
You take the oath of office to protect against foreign and domestic.
The president could be a domestic.
Is there any chance that sometime the Secret Service was his state of mind that you may have to eliminate him?
Good morning, Dale.
Thanks for your question.
I'm not sure I quite understand.
Are you insinuating that the president is or maybe a domestic threat to the United States?
That's what he was suggesting, yes, Anthony.
So I see no evidence of the president of the United States, President Trump being a domestic threat to the United States.
I'm a professor now at John Jay College.
My focus is on criminal justice education.
Well, let's move on to Mike in Boston, Massachusetts, Independent Line.
Go ahead, Mike.
Good morning.
Two points.
One, I noticed one of the shooters shot directly towards the other security members.
You can see the muzzle flash, and I thought that was kind of funny, and it suggests a certain level of unprofessional training.
The other one is kind of going off the other caller here, it's very obvious, you know, to see explicit threats of death of opposing political party members coming from the president.
And I thought I'd mention that to help out the guests because the guest doesn't seem willing to acknowledge the effects of that with respect to violence that trickles down into the rest of society.
So and Anthony, I'm sure you've seen the video of the alleged shooter running through the magnetometer and the fire shots by the agents.
Your thoughts?
Maybe that's the only part of the question I'll address.
And I'll say, yeah, you know, we in law enforcement are very well aware of the fact that sometimes we have friendly fire incidents and trying to eliminate them.
I only recently saw that video.
I think it was just this morning where I saw the muzzle flash and I would just assume that the bullet went in the direction of other law enforcement offices.
And this is a real danger that we face sometimes, particularly in that situation.
So it's not ideal.
It's something that we try to minimize or eliminate, but it doesn't always happen the way we'd like it to.
Can you talk about training, Anthony, that Secret Service agents get?
The understanding is that there were about five to six shots fired.
The alleged shooter was not hit at all.
Yeah.
It just, the firearms training is top-notch for Secret Service agents.
I'm assuming a lot of law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and local police departments.
No, it's one thing to shoot on a range without any pressure, with your heart rate pretty steady.
And it's another thing to shoot under pressure when your heart rate is elevated.
Again, we can Monday morning quarterback this forever.
They took shots at the assailant.
They missed.
And whether or not that's indicative of training or stress under the situation, I couldn't tell you.
On the independent line in New Haven, Connecticut.
Julian, you're on the air.
Yes, good morning.
My question is concerning the line of succession to the presidency.
Everybody that was in line to succeed the president should an emergency occur, the president was there, the vice president was there, the speaker of the house was there.
I mean, that's a total lack of preparedness in the line of succession.
I remember during the George W. Bush administration, Cheney was always at an undisclosed location.
I mean, who ignored the line of succession?
And that's my question.
Thank you for your question.
Unfortunately, I don't have that sort of information available to me to be able to give you an answer.
I could speculate, but I don't think you want my speculation.
That would set a bad precedent.
And also, that's a question that the president and the rest of the administration will have to discuss.
And just to remind everybody what the line of presidential order of succession is, it goes to vice president, who was there, Speaker of the House, who was also there, president pro tem of the Senate, which I don't believe was there, and then it goes to cabinet secretaries with Secretary of State, Treasury, Defense, Attorney General, Interior, all those were at the dinner at that time.
Here is Guy, a Republican in St. Augustine, Florida.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Appreciate taking the call.
My question to your individual there with your show.
Security Venues and Speculation Limits00:14:00
I don't understand.
I have a pump action shotgun, not exactly like he had.
But all the mass shootings that we've had, whether they've been in Vegas or other places, are using multiple action AK-47s.
And I can't imagine going in with knives, taking pictures of myself before with a pump action shotgun, thinking that I'm going to take more than one or two rounds, fire more than one or two rounds before I'm taking town.
It just doesn't, this guy was not stupid.
I don't understand the thinking behind the attack.
Any comment there, Anthony?
Yeah, I mean, I would agree with you.
I don't understand what he was thinking.
From what I'm reading, he almost prostrates himself at some point, almost abandoning it, which suggests he realizes that he wasn't going to succeed.
But it is, from what I read, you know, what he wrote to friends and family, you know, he actually thought he was doing something righteous by trying to kill the president, cabinet members, and he was even willing to take out innocent, what he views as innocent people.
But at some point, he realizes, oh, this isn't going to work, and he abandons the attack, which is probably why he's still alive.
Fred, Independent Line, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, you're on the air.
Good morning.
Yeah, good morning, sir.
Yes, I just have a question of when the Secret Service was changed from under Department of Treasury to Department of Homeland Security, and also talking about the successing and all.
My dad had went to Laura Marion the same time General Alexander Haig was there when Reagan got shot and he was down in Congress and said he was in charge.
So that was just my question here.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
So the question is about when it went, when Secret Service transferred from the Treasury Department to the Department of Homeland Security, and it looks like that was March 1st of 2003.
Yes, that's correct.
That part I did understand.
Yeah, following the 9-11 attacks, the government decided to realign.
The United States Secret Service was part of the, and I was with the Secret Service at that time.
They were moved to the Department of Homeland Security, which was just created.
So, and various agencies were moved.
Some agencies were moved from the Department of Justice to Homeland Security.
It was just in a realignment that occurred back then.
It was an act of Congress.
There was, of course, Anthony, the shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, where there was actually a killing of an innocent bystander.
Can you tell me what changes were instituted after that attack to protect the president better?
Yes.
Well, yes and no.
So let's say, just to show you that I'm assessing each situation differently.
This last one, I think the Secret Service performed very well and admirably.
Butler was a catastrophe.
What went wrong?
And I still don't know.
I'm still not satisfied with the answers that we're getting in terms of that security plan.
It was immediately obvious to anybody with experience that that rooftop needed to be covered with an armed law enforcement officer.
Any alternative to that may have worked, but it was inferior.
Okay, the call about farm equipment, maybe drones could have helped.
But if there was an armed law enforcement officer on that roof, which should have been done in the site security plan, that incident doesn't happen.
If he tries to get on the roof, he's encountered.
If he's not encountered by the person on the roof, then you have to count a sniper across the field.
So there's that.
Obviously, they've done their reviews.
Hopefully they found out what went wrong, where the communication went wrong, and they've made changes.
But that was a real catastrophe.
And I still don't understand what went wrong.
That's not the case with last Saturday night.
So can you explain in a venue like the Hilton, what kind of preparations would go, would be involved?
I mean, if you could share those kinds of details with us before the president or other dignitaries would arrive?
Well, I can't share all the details with you, but this is a site that's probably been done many, many times and probably for the same event.
That doesn't mean the template from last year is the template for this year.
It just means that there is a basic plan that's already been implemented.
And if it needs to be revised, it will be revised.
So it starts usually weeks in advance, right?
That's another thing about this event.
It was very public.
It was well advertised at the White House correspondence that it was going to be held and that the president was going to attend.
And it was the first time he was attending since 2011, right?
I heard this story so many times over.
So that's what gives a potential attacker the time to also figure out how he or she's going to do what this gentleman, Mr. Cole, did on Saturday night.
But I would say, Anthony, that the previous presidents have all attended, and that was also very well known.
It wasn't just in this case.
The thing that was, I guess, different in this case is this is the first time President Trump attends as president.
Absolutely correctly.
And that's what I'm saying is on any other given year, if we have somebody out there that wants to assassinate the president, whether it's the president who's going to take office next, whether it would have been President George Bush or President Obama, it just takes that one person who wants to kill the president, do harm to others that's under the radar, unknown to Secret Service, unknown to law enforcement, to plot.
You know, we saw this.
I read one quote or one journalist gave me a quote about someone saying the Secret Service prepared for an army when it turned out all you needed was a room key.
Well, in actuality, the Secret Service planned for someone with a room key.
And that's why they were able to thwart this attack.
So we have to acknowledge that the potential for assassins and violence exists.
It exists in our society.
And we're seeing it more and more.
This is, what, the third or fourth assassination attempt on President Trump.
We had Charlie Kirk assassinated nine months ago.
We had citizens, I believe, leaving the Holocaust Museum who were killed.
So we're seeing more and more of that.
And what the factors are that leaded to it is open to discussion.
Let's talk to Crystal in Maryland.
Democrat, you're on the air, Crystal.
Yes.
My comment is I believe that the security was adequate because the shooter was not able to breach the ballroom.
It wasn't able to even breach the floor that the event was handled on.
And also, I'm kind of concerned about the angle of the firing.
The Secret Serviceman was behind the shooter, and the shooter's back was to him.
So it looks like it may have been friendly fire.
And I don't know, I'm not a Secret Service agent.
I don't know how that could have been prevented, but I kind of think that it was pretty secure since he was not able to get near the president.
Okay.
And Anthony, I wanted to ask you about those magnetometers being taken down.
You can see that in the video as well.
Is that standard practice that during the event, the magnetometers are taken away?
Yeah, I just saw that video myself this morning.
And what looks like is happening is that there's two magnetometers and one's being taken down.
And you can see they're not looking in the direction of where the attacker comes from.
I would think they were going to keep that one other magnetometer upside.
There's two, there's multiple teams manning the magnetometers to get the majority of the attendees through, right?
And I'm sure most of them were in.
And therefore, they're like, let's break down, but we've got to leave this one magnetometer up for anybody who continues to come late.
That's what I think was happening in that particular video.
Again, what you see there is also no one's looking out from where he runs in.
And, you know, that allowed him to get through that magnetometer.
And I think the first shot I saw fired came from one of the officers that was off to the side.
See, multiple bullets flying in that direction.
So breaking down a magnetometer when the majority of the attendees are already through is common.
I would be surprised if they would take the other one down when somebody might want to come in late.
But I didn't see anything unusual there.
Just want to share some news.
This is a tweet from reporter Julia Manchester.
She's with The Hill, who says this.
DHS Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen tells Fox News, if the White House correspondence dinner is rescheduled, it would, quote, probably not be held at the Washington Hilton.
If you have any comment on that, Anthony.
Yeah, look, we're in a time of increased political violence.
It seems to me like we're seeing this too regularly at this point.
And if you go back to what I said earlier in the show, the ideal venue is always one where there's no other people in other than the ones that are going to be attendees to the event.
That's the ideal venue because what happens in that case, the venue is completely sterile.
Everyone's out that hasn't been checked already.
The venue is swept for any type of threat that may already exist inside.
Once that's clear, then you can start letting the attendees in that are swept for weapons and stuff like that.
So that's the ideal situation.
There's flexibility.
Like they chose this venue and they went with it.
So there are better venues to hold this event for security purposes.
Let's talk to Jolie in Ohio, line for Democrats.
You're on with Anthony Cangelosi.
Jolie?
Are you there?
Not there.
I think we've got Brian in Wisconsin, Independent Line.
Are you there, Brian?
Hello.
Hi, good morning.
You're on the air.
Oh, okay, good.
I like to ask that guy, what physical proof does he have that the shooter was after Trump and not anybody else in that other room?
That is my question.
Thank you for your question.
I only have what everybody else in the public has at this point, what he stated To his friends, to his family, the implication that he wanted to kill him because he's a pedophile, a rapist, and a traitor.
That's all it was all directed at the president.
I don't believe there's any substance to it, but again, we have to have civil discourse in this country where we disagree with one another and don't think that violence is the solution.
Okay, this isn't about our differences.
It's we're allowed to have differences, we're not allowed to kill one another.
All right, and I think we can fit one.
No, we cannot fit one more call in.
That's it.
Anthony Cangelosi, a former Secret Service agent and lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Thanks so much for joining us today.
Thank you, Mimi.
Have a great day.
And that does it for our show today.
We will see you again tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Eastern.
Have a great day, everybody.
Thanks for watching.
Democracy Unfiltered.
Start your day with Washington Journal, your window into the nation's capital.
The only nationally televised forum for discussing the latest issues in Washington and across the country.
It gives the people an opportunity to speak for themselves on the issues that they actually care about.
This is a great forum, and you get to talk to real Americans and look forward to the callers.
I've always enjoyed doing the program.
And I would be remiss this is my first time ever on C-SPAN if I didn't say that I think, and all you callers, our country would be a better place if every American just watched one hour a week.
They could pick one, two, or three.
Live Conversations on Democracy00:02:03
Join us for a live three-hour conversation with a variety of congressional members and Washington influencers.
You can watch Washington Journal live every morning at 7 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN now or online at c-span.org.
Today, on C-SPAN Ceasefire, a bipartisan conversation on the latest assassination attempt on President Trump with Republican strategist and former Trump Press Secretary Sean Spicer and Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha, senior advisor to Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign.
They'll also discuss how best to combat the rise in political violence.
Watch Ceasefire today at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
At 8 a.m. Eastern, with a Kentucky Derby set for Sunday, watch a tour of the Kentucky Derby Museum in Louisville.
Also at 9 a.m. Eastern, the author of an Advanced Placement U.S. History Test Guide offers tips and advice to high school students for the nationwide exam.
And at 4:45 p.m., on the 15th anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death, scholars discuss President Barack Obama's decision to launch the May 2nd, 2011 Special Forces raid, exploring the American story.
Watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/slash history.
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton held a press conference on the Illinois Accountability Commission investigation into federal immigration enforcement in the state.
The report from that group, which was sent to several law enforcement agencies in Illinois, recommends investigations into specific ICE and Border Patrol agents over their conduct.